A. Jesus was not the only one called the seed of the woman.

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Dr. M.R. DeHaan:

ONLY Jesus is called the Seed of the woman, because He was born of a woman and thus His blood was without the sin of Adam.⁽⁶¹⁾

Apart from Genesis 3:15, where God rather indirectly calls Jesus the seed of a woman, Jesus is never again called the seed of the woman in any of the remaining 275 occurrences of the word "seed," so far as the author has determined. A similar phrase is in Galatians 4:4 (" ...God sent forth his Son, made of a woman..."), but Jesus is never again referred to as the seed of a woman. However, the Bible frequently uses the term "seed of a woman," or its equivalent, after Genesis 3:15 to refer to humanity. That term, along with "born of a woman," simply indicates human generation. A good example of this is 1 Samuel 2:20, 21:

And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home. {21} And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters.

Notice that the Scriptures actually skip forward in time (by at least nine months) to show that the LORD gave Elkanah "seed of this woman." The seed of this woman was not Jesus, but three sons and two daughters. See also Genesis 4:25; 16:10; 24:60, Leviticus 12:2, Numbers 5:28, Ruth 4:12, Job 14:1, 15:14, 25:4, Isaiah 57:3, Matthew 11:11, Hebrews 11:11 and Revelation 12:17 for other places where ordinary (or even diabolical) men are said to be the seed of women or born of women. Jesus was not the only person called "the seed of the woman."

It is very important to realize that Jesus is also said to be born of man's seed. Acts 13:23 says,

Of this man's seed hath God according to <his> promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus...

and Romans 1:3 adds,

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...

Jesus is also said to be born of a man's seed in John 7:42, 2 Timothy 2:8 and Hebrews 2:16.

That upsets the entire argument and goal of the Blood Indoctrinators. The Blood Doctrine cannot exist in its modern form if Jesus was born of a man's seed, for all of those born of man's seed are supposed to be sinners. That was supposed to be the reason for the virgin birth, according to the Blood Doctrine. Remember the group of "Baptists" who could not understand how Jesus could be sinless if He "took flesh" of His mother. The author does not mean, of course, that Jesus wasn't virgin-born. However the belief challenged here, that having a body of normal matter would make Jesus a sinner, is wrong, and the Blood Indoctrinators have made an obvious error in espousing their belief. As indicated in the introduction, the Blood Indoctrinators are very imaginative, and they rely more on that imagination than on facts. Hebrews 2:14 conclusively states that Jesus did not have a supernatural body, but a body just like any other Jew! There is no record in Scripture of any body formed by God that was divine; was Adam's body divine? Of course not. We should not think, then, that Christ's body, which was fashioned to make Him in the form of a servant, was divine.

Consider the following quotation (author's emphasis in the following):

Probably the earliest allusion to Mary in Christian literature is the phrase "born of a woman" in the Letter of Paul to the Galatians (4:4) ... As parallels such as the Old Testament Book of Job (14:1) and the Gospel account of Matthew (11:11) suggest, the phrase is a Hebraic way of speaking about the essential humanity of a person. When applied to Jesus, therefore, "born of woman" was intended to assert that he was a real man, in opposition to the attempt--later seen in various systems of Gnosticism, a 2nd-Century dualistic religion--to deny that he had a completely human life; he was said by some Gnostics to have passed through the body of Mary as light passes through a window. It seems unwarranted to read anything further into the phrase, as though "born of woman" necessarily implied "but not of a man and a woman." Thus, the phrase made Mary the sign or the guarantee that the Son of God had truly been born as a man.⁽⁶²⁾

This claim by the Blood Indoctrinators is one of the most baseless statements they make. All of the other claims could have been mistakes, but it seems unimaginable that anyone could make this kind of mistake, especially a preacher. It clearly contradicts Scripture. Even a quick examination of any concordance would show that many people besides Jesus were called the seed of a woman. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet, because it is overwhelming, the Blood Indoctrinator, instead of admitting that an essential point of their Doctrine is in error, will sulk and pout and try to find fault with some minor point mentioned by the author. The author has already seen this.

The Blood Indoctrinators' error was made because they need to show that sin passes ONLY through the male. Jesus had to be born of a woman, not of a man. The Blood Indoctrinators are wrong because sin is not a substance; it is an action. Sin is not passed through blood, for it's what you do, not what you have, that makes you a sinner. Sin does not come from only the male, and it does not come through the body at all. See the section below on Romans 5:12.

_____________________________________________