Reply by Ya'acov:

THE complete pre-fertilized SEED (Yahushua) was given (from above-- via El Elyon and the Rauch HaQodesh) to Miriam the surrogate who was Chawa's proxy. The original genetics of Yahushua were from above,while the placenta within Miriam provided the biological material, but Yahushua's genetic code gathered and organized that biological material and made it His Own. Therefore being 100% Elohim from above and being the practical seed of the woman are not mutually exclusive. I fail to see how this understandng contradicts any scripture.

Secondary issue:
When a woman has her period, the blood is the cleansing agent of the discarded "seed"/egg-- isn't the seed the thing which makes her unclean and the blood is merely the visible proof that the purging is taking place? When a man has an ejaculation or a nocturnal emission, isn't his body cleansing itself of the buildup of sperm/seed while the accompanying fluid is merely the vehicle for the purging?

My reply:

Seed can be the male gamete in the sperm, not always the feritilised zygote, and the whole may be referred to by the male factor. For example:

Gen 38:9
9 And Onan knew that the seed (zera) should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it (the seed/zera) on the ground, lest that he should give seed (seed/zera) to his brother.
KJV

Here the "it" refers back to zera making them one and the same. And whilst it is perfectly correct that seed refers to complete zygotic-derived offspring too, it is identified by the father's seed since in Torah descendency is patrilinear (unlike the Egyptian one which Yisrael left). The seed determines the birthright. This is understood from the Greek (from which we get our English word) since seed is sperma.

Thus when "seed" is spoken of it does not necessarily mean the whole person and can also refer to the male gamete. Consequently the Divine Seed may equally apply just to the male sperm prepared in heaven and not to the whole zygote.

_________


SEED

sed (Old Testament always for zera`, Aramaic (Dan 2:43) zera`, except in Joel 1:17 for perudhoth (plural, the Revised Version (British and American) "seeds," the King James Version "seed"), and Lev 19:19 (the King James Version "mingled seed") and Dt 22:9 (the King James Version "divers seeds") for kil'ayim, literally, "two kinds," the Revised Version (British and American) "two kinds of seed." Invariably in Greek Apocrypha and usually in the New Testament for sperma, but Mk 4:26,27; Lk 8:5,11; 2 Cor 9:10 for sporos, and 1 Pet 1:23 for spora): (1) For "seed" in its literal sense see AGRICULTURE. Of interest is the method of measuring land by means of the amount of seed that could be sown on it (Lev 27:16). The prohibition against using two kinds of seed in the same field (Lev 19:19; Dt 22:9) undoubtedly rests on the fact that the practice had some connection with Canaanitish worship, making the whole crop "consecrated" (taboo). Jer 31:27 uses "seed of man" and "seed of beast" as a figure for the means by which God will increase the prosperity of Israel (i.e. "seed yielding men"). (2) For the transferred physiological application of the word to human beings (Lev 15:16, etc.) see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS. The conception of Christians as "born" or "begotten" of God (see REGENERATION) gave rise to the figure in 1 Pet 1:23; 1 Jn 3:9. If the imagery is to be stressed, the Holy Spirit is meant. In I Jn 3:9 a doctrine of certain Gnostics is opposed. They taught that by learning certain formulas and by submitting to certain rites, union with God and salvation could be attained without holiness of life. John's reply is that union with a righteous God is meaningless without righteousness as an ideal, even though shortcomings exist in practice (1 Jn 1:8). (3) From the physiological use of "seed" the transition to the sense of "offspring" was easy, and the word may mean "children" (Lev 18:21, etc.) or even a single child (Gen 4:25; 1 Sam 1:11 the Revised Version margin). Usually, however, it means the whole posterity (Gen 3:15, etc.); compare "seed royal" (2 Ki 11:1, etc.), and "Abraham's seed" (2 Ch 20:7, etc.) or "the holy seed" (Ezr 9:2; Isa 6:13; 1 Esdras 8:70; compare Jer 2:21) as designations of Israel. So "to show one's seed" (Ezr 2:59;, Neh 7:61) is to display one's genealogy, and "one's seed" may be simply one's nation, conceived of as a single family (Est 10:3). From this general sense there developed a still looser use of "seed" as meaning simply "men" (Mal 2:15; Isa 1:4; 57:4; The Wisdom of Solomon 10:15; 12:11, etc.).
In Gal 3:16 Paul draws a distinction between "seeds" and "seed" that has for its purpose a proof that the promises to Abraham were realized in Christ and not in Israel. The distinction, however, overstresses the language of the Old Testament, which never pluralizes zera` when meaning "descendants" (plural only in 1 Sam 8:15; compare Rom 4:18; 9:7). But in an argument against rabbinical adversaries Paul was obliged to use rabbinical methods (compare Gal 4:25). For modern purposes it is probably best to treat such an exegetical method as belonging simply to the (now superseded) science of the times.
Burton Scott Easton
Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Definition for 'SEED'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". bible-history.com - ISBE; 1915.

Reply by Mac (in this group):

This is pretty simple for me, aside from the style of delivery of this asserted revelation, the issue is this;
Is there real evidence for a parralell creation account in the person of Y'shua? I don't buy the need for a divine substitute for male plasma at all. What is being proposed is nothing less than a separate periodic chart where the elements used for the "cursed creation" are redeemed by those composing Y'shua's physicality. We are being asked to believe that the fleeting and specific metaphors used as "scriptural" support for what is proposed as raw revelation that is not in need of or in the end supported by scripture. This familiar tactic of claiming scriptural support but then agreeing it isn't persuasive but it doesn't have to be because it is a prophetic revelation is very problematic, but IMHO the latter stance is the only valid one. The question is then what to do with all the poor unwashed who don't "recieve" this special revelation (pg 32 PAR 2). The psychology behind these kinds of paradoxical issues in religion is well established and needs no further comment here(PG 32 PARA 5). For me the most problematic aspect is the creation of a false dialectic in assuming the only alternative to this "non theory" that uses false logic while simultaneously appealing to spiritual submissiveness.Many errors are thrown in casually like the supposed impossiblity of 40 day fasts, they are in fact quite common with hydration. It is in fact special revelation that begs special and private interpretation. There is no existing conflict in non-duality messianics views that are easily resolved by what is admitted in Yati to be a "male" issued blood dilema. The fact that no male blood is operative resolves all supposed conflicts, yet this is ignored in WW. After prayer my sense is that most of the unction behind WW is well intentioned and some aspects no doubt were supported by Ruach Hakodesh, but as a whole it is refined by men, not whole wheat at all. I can find no support in scripture for a parallel creation involving a set-apart periodic table of elements at work, nor does WW provide any substantive evidence for this, only dismissal of the cursed "dust" of the earth. Examples of born again believers and Moshe being recipiants of this special creation "flesh" undermine the very basis we are supposed to accept for this doctrine(pg 60) that is, of a compelling necessity for Y'shua to have this quality.