Mary, God's Mother or Surrogate Mother?

[Vernon]

The virgin birth assumes that only the sperm was missing. If no egg from Mary's ovaries was involved, it would also have been a virgin birth. Jesus would still have been born of a virgin.

If one of Mary's eggs had been used, then the Son of God would have been full of mutations in his earthly body. And a mutation is a defect! God's Son would have been full of defects in his genes. The Messiah, promised by God for centuries, would have come into the world in defective human nature.

True, none or few of these defective genes need have shown themselves in the function of Christ's body whilst he was living on earth. But they might have done!

And the mere presence of even just a few defective genes would have resulted in a less than perfect Jesus Christ. A less than perfect Jesus Christ is unacceptable and unthinkable for Christians!

Furthermore, Christ was perfect before the fertilized egg of his human body was implanted into Mary's womb. Why take the perfect Son of God and make him into imperfect human nature?

We are told in the New Testament that as he was about to come into the world, Christ said to God the Father, "You have made a perfect body for me" {1}. Therefore, the fertilized egg must have been without mutations if the body, to which it would give rise, was to be perfect.

Since Christ knew that the body his Father was going to give him was, indeed, perfect, then he also knew that he could not possibly derive any of his genes from Mary's ovaries, let alone half of them.

So, we can justifiably re-phrase the above quotation from the New Testament to read, "You have made for me a perfect fertilized egg, from which my perfect body will develop".

God the Father made, created, a perfect fertilized egg. And in the body arising from it, God the Son would live whilst on earth and whilst in heaven after his resurrection.






However, a fertilized egg needs a womb in order to develop. It is the human way that a human being has to be born from a womb, and so it was with Jesus Christ.

Consequently, a womb was required. It would have to be a womb not belonging in any personal way to the Parent of the fertilized egg, namely God the Father. So a surrogate womb and a surrogate mother were needed.

The Angel Gabriel was sent by God to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin who was engaged to a man called Joseph, who belonged to the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. Coming up to her, he said, "Rejoice! You have been highly favoured! The Lord is with you!" Then the angel said to her, "You will take into yourself, and you will give birth to a son, and you shall call him Jesus. The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. As a result, that which is implanted in you will be called the Son of God" {2}.

Now, some will notice that the English word conceived is not used. The Greek word sul-lambano means primarily to take to one's self.

Furthermore, it would have been unreasonable for the angel to expect Mary, especially in these emotional circumstances, to have understood the difference between, on the one hand, conceiving one of her own eggs and, on the other hand, taking into herself an egg, which was not hers, for implantation into her womb.

Anyhow, Mary realised the abnormality of the situation and said to the angel, "How will this be since I cannot know a man?" The angel does not say in reply that a man will be provided for her to get around this problem. No, he says, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you". And the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High would provide not only what Mary knew was missing, namely the sperm, but also what she may not have been aware of as missing, namely an egg as well.

It is suggested, therefore, that Mary was a surrogate mother. She had, in fact, loaned out her womb to God the Father and, of course, she had loaned it out willingly and freely.

The sperm and egg, which God the Father had created for the body of Jesus, was most definitely human nature with, to be technical, DNA molecules wound into chromosomes, including an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, all tucked into the nucleus of each and every cell of Christ's body. The difference, however, was that the fertilized egg, which was then implanted into Mary's surrogate womb, was newly created by God and not conceived via the ovary of a female human being.

In this way, the perfection of the Son of God during the infinity of years prior to being born as a human being, was maintained in the perfection of the Son of Man.






Mary as a surrogate mother calls into question the motherhood of God.

Usually surrogate mothers give up the baby they have borne to the parents, for whom the child was conceived. Mary did not do this, but already the process she was undergoing was most abnormal in that, as far as she and Joseph were concerned, no man was involved in her pregnancy.

Therefore, if the "conception" and birth to a virgin were abnormal, it is reasonable to expect that everything afterwards, in the care of the infant, would be unusual.

Mary was Jesus' surrogate "mother"; she was his wet-nurse; she was his nanny, even though his infant body had passed through her birth canal; she was his care-giver through the later years of childhood and of his adolescence.

The tissue, the human nature, of the divine infant was not hers nor had it been derived from her body. She was not Christ's biological mother otherwise, as we have seen earlier, Christ would have been full of her mutations and, therefore, defective and not the perfect Son of God any longer.

But then, we are told in the New Testament that Christ did not have a father or a mother. "Firstly, his name means 'king of righteousness', then also 'king of peace'. Without father, without mother, without a line of ancestors, having no beginning to his days or end to his life" {3}.

Of course, the Son of God does not have a father or a mother. Since the Son of God has no beginning to his days because he is the Eternal One, then, logically, he does not need a father or a mother in order to begin to exist. Consequently, Mary was not the Son of God's mother because he was already in existence long before Mary herself was conceived.






Consistent with being without a line of ancestors, Jesus denies that he was descended from David. He actually denies that he was a son of King David.

The Jews had asked Jesus for his thoughts on the Messiah and, in particular, whose son the Messiah was. He replies, "How is it, then, that David in spirit calls the Messiah 'Lord' when he said, 'The Lord spoke to my 'Lord'....'? So if David calls the Messiah 'Lord', how can the Messiah be his son?" {4}.

And if Jesus was not David's son because Jesus, the Messiah, is David's Lord, then Jesus was not Mary's son because Jesus, the Messiah, was and still is, Mary's Lord. He was the Son of God, not the son of Mary. The only possible way Mary could have been the Messiah's "mother" was as his surrogate mother, his wet-nurse, his nanny, his care-giver. But she wasn't biologically related to him!






In the space between the folds of the lining of Mary's womb, suddenly, there appeared into existence an egg already fertilized. In the privacy and in the darkness, something had come into being without having been there before.

No egg had previously travelled down one of Mary's fallopian tubes to be in her uterus. It just, suddenly, out of nowhere and out of nothing came to be there, as the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her.

This unique fertilized egg, a direct and immediate creation of the Holy Spirit of God, settled on the blood red lining, planting itself there to grow and develop until the infant body of Jesus Christ needed to be born to the outside world.







The Catholic church was fighting for the acceptance of the deity of Jesus Christ during the second, third and fourth centuries AD.

Because some people said that Jesus Christ was just a man, the Catholic church came to call Mary "the mother of God". This was a perfectly reasonable figure of speech, in my opinion, to illustrate that what she had brought to birth was God and Man combined and not just a man.

However, we, in Christianity, are no longer fighting that battle anymore for the deity of Christ. We don't need to use the sound-bite phrase "Mother of God" any longer because any opposition to the deity of Christ is clearly not part of Christianity.

So! Let us cease venerating Mary as God's mother! Let us think of Christ even more gloriously than we have done ever before, on the grounds that his body contained no mutations whatever. His DNA was not derived from a biologically imperfect young woman's ovaries.

Let us stop attributing divine powers to Mary, whereby she can intercede with the Son of God on anyone's behalf. Let us do this on the grounds that she was not related to Christ, because she was only a surrogate "mother" and care-giver to him.

Let us go directly to the Son of God himself and ask him to intercede with God the Father on our behalf, on the basis of his death on the cross.


1 Hebrews 10:5
2 Luke 1:26-28, 30-31, 35
3 Hebrews 7:2-3
4 Matthew 22:41-45

[G. Adams]

Don't let this point derail this thread, but you have provoked another interesting thought in me; Jesus Christ, as God incarnate, had no need of birth or childhood, so wouldn't it make more sense for God to just appear from thin air, instead of spending all that time growing up? Not to mention making poor old mary give birth for no reason, as easy as it could be, if she's a virgin theres one thing thats gonna give, and it can't be fun having baby to be the one to bust it.

Apologies if that all seemed a little blasphemous, but the point is still valid, why did Jesus need to be born at all?

[asterix404]

Better yet... who knows if he was actuilly born and more to the point it doesn't matter. The real jesus could have been someone of little or no imporance however the biblical jesus is gods son. Just as another interesting observation... I am rather new to this particular fourm... is it normal for people here to go and on and on about a single few sentences in the bible? Was jesus born... maby... if he was born and god was the father... I highly doubt that any of marys geans were defective... I mean god is all powerful... why would he bother to even think about creating a woman to house his child if she wasn't perfect herself? And joseph... he just lucked out...

[Paul]

Vernon: > ["His DNA was not derived from a biologically imperfect young woman's ovaries."]

Wow! What can I say!? No paternity test was do. If there was DNA testing at that time, it would clear up a lot of speculation about the DNA of Jesus. From the DNA of (?) plus the DNA of Mary came the birth of Jesus who was born of flesh, and also of the Holy Spirit.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"

May the Spirit of Truth and Love be within you and your deeds be accordingly

Peace be with you, Paul

[Lilith]

Applause, Vernon, for a well articulated rant against the Catholic Chruch(that's what it was? wasen't it? Since Catholics are the only ones that I know of that really place any emphasis on Mary being the mother of God) And points for originality. There are times when I am arrogant enough to believe that I have read it all....but then I get deliciously surprised. tee-hee.

So may I ask the whole point of this post? *grins*....As I go back a reread parts of it, I can't help but grin with devilish delight. Kudos for originality, kudos. *giggle*

You know in my study of the history of Christianity, yes the exalted religion does have a history (and one that might make some cringe...tee-hee).....I have come to detrimine on my own from texts that I have read(and I have read some god awful, herectical, blasphemous stuff! Vernon, you might faint from shock...*grins*) That in a nutshell the Virgin Birth is bullshit. Christianity is nothing but Paganism dressed up. But you dear, Protestants are hell bent on forgetting that fact (the human capacity for self delusion is amazing) and hell bent on mutating Chrisitianity into, oh hell, I don't know, whatever! So go ahead keep blaming the Catholics and deluding yourselves into belieiving that your belief of Jesus is the better one. I get much amusement out of watching the battle rage.

So please, Vernon, don't go a rant against me. I know I can come off as awful at times and if I have misunderstood your post (which I'm sure you will say that I have), please forgive. I'm just one of life's Misfits who will never fit in anywhere or with anyone, really. So I don't try too. I will say this in closing, I really believe that Mary and Joseph were Jesus's parents, it was just a good ol' roll in the hay, and she was pregnant.

[G. Adams]

Hey don't drag pagans into the pit with the Christians, we're the most religiously tolerant bunch of people you could ever meet, nor do we have any rules that we thrust upon the rest of society.

An' if it harm none, do what thou wilt.

[Lilith]

I wasen't trying to down *Pagans*...I was trying to make a point to Vernon. Most Chrisitians like to set Chrisitianity up on a pedestal and tend to forget that alot of the stories in Chrisitianity were borrowed from older, *pagan* religions. The Virgin birth for example....By Chrisitian standards, I guess I would be deemed Pagan although I'm not sure what one has to do to be Pagan.

[asterix404]

HERE HERE YAY pagans... did ya know that almost every pagan god was born of a higher god, killed by people in horrable brutal ways, such as having your liver eating out by vultures every day for eternity... but most of them were reborn and resurected... I really do like your post though don't get me wrong... I may have souded a bit harsh but it was truly just an hoenst question...

[Vernon]

G Adams

Thanks for your reply. You say, "Jesus Christ, as God incarnate, had no need of birth or childhood". There is a problem here! The word "incarnate" comes from the Latin word meaning "flesh", which we can call "human nature" or flesh and blood or flesh and bone.

"In-carnate" comes from in-caro, in-carn- in Latin, and caro means flesh.

Sorry about this being a bit technical! Need it to respond to your post though.

So, we can re-phrase your statement, "Jesus Christ, as God in flesh, as God in human nature, as God in flesh and blood, had no need of birth or childhood".

However, the only way, in which human nature can come into existence as a human being, is by being conceived from an egg and a sperm, growing for nine months in a womb, and then being born through a human birth canal.

Now, you could say that God can do anything. He could have made Jesus "just appear from thin air instead of all that growing up". Yes, I think you're right!

However, it would not be human nature, not flesh and blood like we are, because human nature does not come into existence by suddenly appearing from thin air without all that growing up. It is the human way to be conceived, to be born and to have to grow up.

So the person, who just appears out of thin air, is not a human being. We would have to think of some other word for such a person, such as humanoid, or human-like.









Why is it so important for Jesus Christ to be truly and unarguably human? Why did Christ, the Messiah, just have to have real human nature, bone fide flesh and blood?

And this links in with your last question, "Why did Jesus need to be born at all?" He needed to be born in order to have human flesh, human nature, to be a genuine human being.

Why? Why did Jesus need to be a genuine, real human being? Why did Jesus need to be born at all?

In the New Testament, we read, "Since the sons and daughters possess flesh and blood, he himself (ie Jesus Christ) also shared in these...{1}

Also, "For Jesus, who is making holy, and those, who are being made holy, belong to one family. For this reason, Jesus is not embarrassed about calling them his brothers and sisters" {2}

So, because God's children possess human nature, it was necessary for Jesus to share the same nature as them in order they could all be one family, brothers and sisters of each other.









"Jesus owes it to his brothers and sisters to become like them where possible..." {3}. Why? "...so that he might be a merciful and trustworthy Priest in matters relating to God..." {3}. What matters relating to God? "...in atoning for the sins of the people, and reconciling them to God" {3}.

So Christ was a Priest, the Priest!

What does a Priest do? A priest relates to God on behalf of other human beings. A priest relates to God for human beings, in order to stop God from being angry with them on account of their offending God.

Almost all forms of religion, including paganism, have set up professional men to stand between, on the one hand, people who are fearing that God might be angry with them, and, on the other hand, God whom they might have made angry.

Judaism, before Christ came, had such professional men, whose lives were dedicated to offering sacrifices to God and pleading with God to be merciful to the people.

Christ was the Ultimate Priest! All other priests fade into insignificance in comparison to this Priest, who happened to be God and human by nature.

Because Christ, the Priest, had been born of a woman and, therefore, was fully and genuinely human in nature, he was able to represent the human side before God.

If he had simply appeared out of thin air, he would not have been able to speak to God on behalf of human beings fearful of God being angry with them, because he would have been a counterfeit human, a humanoid, just human-like.









As they come between God and human beings, priests have offered sacrifices and, in particular, they have presented blood to God as part of their professional task of appeasing God. In some tribes, priests have used blood taken from human sacrifices. In Judaism, it was the blood of bulls and goats, that is the blood of animals.

Now, for Christ to be the Priest, the Ultimate Priest, he had to behave like a priest and to present to God, blood.

Being the Priest of all priests, he did not present animal blood, he did not present the blood of murdered human beings in order to appease God. No, he presented his own blood.

To present to God his own blood, as we saw in Mel Gibson's film of the crucifixion with blood everywhere, Jesus Christ had to be a real human being, with genuine human nature, and with the blood of a human being flowing in his veins. For this to be possible, he had to be born in the human way through a woman. And, in being born through a woman, there would necessarily be "all that growing up" afterwards.

This was why Jesus Christ had to be born as opposed to "just appearing from thin air".

So that he could be the Priest that ends all priests; so that he could come between human beings and God; so that, by bleeding to death, he could present his blood to God to appease God for the sins of the people.

That is why the angel told Joseph what Christ's first name was going to be. "You shall call him Jesus because he will save his people from all their sins" {4}.


1 Hebrews 2:14
2 Hebrews 2:11
3 Hebrews 2:17
4 Matthew 1:21