|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Science and Incarnation
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Although there are interminable (Dead Horse) discussions about evolution and creation, we have no such disputes about the incarnation.
The traditional view of begetting was that a man put his seed into a woman where it grew, rather like a farmer sowing seeds into furrows.
In the Incarnation God provided the seed by the power of the HS and Mary remained a virgin, rather than Joseph providing the seed.
Now we have no fundamentalists insisting that Biblical faithfulness requires that we discard the 'theories' that children are formed from male and female gametes or that both parents provide DNA to the offspring; and that Jesus did not have any of Mary's DNA.
Why is this?
Is it because it is harder to understand genetics, or easier to demonstrate them?
Or is it just that Jesus can be seen to be a special miracle case where conventional genetics do not apply?
Or is there some other reason why the science of genetics is not seen to be a problem for faith?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
I don't see anything in the Biblical account that teaches anything that contradicts any known scientific facts about genetics. It doesn't teach the "traditional view of begetting", as far as I can see, and the Virgin Birth doesn't depend on this understanding. Even if it did, the older view of begetting is more of an incomplete understanding than a totally wrong one.
The Bible doesn't tell us anything about the mechanics of the Virgin Birth, simply that May became pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Presumably on a scientific level God created the necessary male genetic material, but the Bible doesn't give us that kind of information. But the claim that God on one occasion supernaturally brought about a virgin birth doesn't contradict anything that genetics has to say about how natural conceptions occur.
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Possibly - possibly not. We really don't know, and given the ability of science to challenge the conclusions drawn by the church on such issues in the past, we're probably better off refusing to speculate.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Possibly - possibly not. We really don't know, and given the ability of science to challenge the conclusions drawn by the church on such issues in the past, we're probably better off refusing to speculate.
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Yes.
Not sure what "divine genes" are though. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
The Revolutionist quote:
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.
The Revolutionist, what about the sinful nature of Mary?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
God doesn't have genes (except in the sense that he can create them). To have genes requires having a body of the sort we have on this planet (not guessing about other planets here.) So divine genes is silly IMHO.
We don't know anything about the mechanics of the conception, which is fine by me (like God would care if it weren't!) but I feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea some have put forth that God was deliberately trying to get rid of the male contribution as somehow more sinful. Mary comes of the sinful human race just as much as Joseph or any male, and I don't think that will fly. Rather, the virgin birth seems to me to be a case of God saying, "Look, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?" In pretty much the most obvious way possible, he shows that he is injecting new life into the human race, life that comes from outside it and is sourced in God. Which on a physical level is a nice "rhyme" with what he does to all believers through faith in Christ given by the Holy Spirit, described in John 1:12-13:
quote:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
This lets out any nonsense about "we're getting better and brighter every day" and "look at what the human race is capable of producing!"--either with regards to Jesus himself or with regards to the new spiritual birth of believers.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Yes.
Not sure what "divine genes" are though.
A really, really well designed and fitted pair of denims?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
God doesn't have genes, but genes created by God, yes. But I highly doubt you'd find anything different between them and those of an average Jewish male of the time if you could put them under a microscope.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The Revolutionist quote:
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.
The Revolutionist, what about the sinful nature of Mary?
It's not that men are more sinful, but that Adam was the federal head of the old covenant, and by the virgin birth, God is showing that Jesus is not part of that covenant, but the new Adam, the head of the new covenant and new representative of humanity. Paul develops this idea of in Romans 5, I think.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I've always had serious problems with the virgin birth, but I'm much more open to its liklihood than I once was, because I'm trying to live a life of Christian faith. It isn't that I can't accept that God, when wanting to incarnate among us, could have created a bit of genetic information to make a complete human. This is nothing to He who created the universe ex-nihilo. It's about why He would do it that way, when there was already abundant genetic material among His chosen people, chosen among other things, to bring forth the Incarnation.
I doubt very much that, if modern science had had the chance to examine the DNA of Jesus, they would find Him to be much different from His fellow Jews of the time. And Mary was as much a part of the human race as any man of the time. The virgin birth is such an important part of Christian teaching since the very beginning, that I must remain open to its possibility, but it isn't essential to me. Mary's perpetual virginity could just as easily be a metaphor for her eternal openness to the Holy Spirit, and her "be it unto me according to thy word." What is inmportant is that God took human flesh and tabernacled among us.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The Revolutionist quote:
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.
The Revolutionist, what about the sinful nature of Mary?
If you are RC this is taken care of by the Immaculate Conception.
But I disagree that the theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless.
Rather, the point of the virgin birth is that Jesus is the Son of God. Sinlessness isn't the point.
I agree with Kwesi. In fact, as I understand it, Christ needed to inherit Mary's sinful nature in order to fight against it and overcome it. In so doing He fought against the collected power of hell itself, putting it back in its place and releasing humanity from its grasp.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
In the Olden Days, AIUI, at least some Masters of Physick used to believe that semen was actually seed (hence the name), i.e. it contained the whole person, and the woman just provided nutrients (like a ploughed field).
Presumably those same Masters of Physick would have had to believe that God created the entire homunculus? IOW, ISTM that modern genetics increases Mary's role in the Incarnation rather than otherwise.
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
But mythology is a separate sphere, like literature , folk-lore, painting or poetry. You don't apply science to any of these, do you ?
It would be a category confusion and a bit crazy.
These beautiful Christmas stories are mythological and poetic. Is nt that why they move us -sometimes to tears ?
Also when combined with wonderful music and interlaced with early experince, memory, desire and love.
Surely there is nothing to compare ?
'In the bleak mid-winter frosty wind made moan'
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?
Only 'could be'?! 'Are being' and 'will be' are my choices! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 20. December 2012, 14:46: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
Exactly. The desire to turn the incarnation into something clinical is truly pathological. The incarnation is the well-spring of our faith. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.
However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.
However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.
This has always been the teaching of the Orthodox Church. On his mother's side without a father, on his Father's side without a mother. He drew all of his divinity from God and all of his humanity from Mary.
As for impossible -- well duh. That's why it's called a miracle. Hello.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.
I think that it is true that science can't reveal the secrets of the Incarnation to us.
But the ability to conceive of how something could have taken place, or to understand what happened, is an important aspect of accepting something as true.
I absolutely believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and that God is His Father.
Therefore I believe that God miraculously provided what is normally provided by a human father to enable conception to occur.
I don't see the science of genetics as a problem for faith because Mary would have provided what mothers always provide, however we understand that.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'll elaborate.
Orthodox Christology holds that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Why would it be necessary to maintain Mary contributed no DNA? Virginity of Mary implies only that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit instead of through sexual intercourse. Technical definitions of virginity are beside the point. In any event, the Creed states Jesus is of one substance with the Father. Philosophically, substance is beyond the scope of science.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
But mythology is a separate sphere, like literature , folk-lore, painting or poetry. You don't apply science to any of these, do you ?
Actually one can apply science to literature and poetry. Dante, for example, filled his poem with the best natural philosophy of his day.
Literature and poetry are not separate spheres. If there are different spheres, they overlap. In fact, I'd say they blend into each other. That being the case, I don't at all agree with the idea that theology, mythology et al can be separated out from science or philosophy or even history.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.
However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.
This has always been the teaching of the Orthodox Church. On his mother's side without a father, on his Father's side without a mother. He drew all of his divinity from God and all of his humanity from Mary.
As for impossible -- well duh. That's why it's called a miracle. Hello.
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.
I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
God doesn't have genes (except in the sense that he can create them). To have genes requires having a body of the sort we have on this planet (not guessing about other planets here.) So divine genes is silly IMHO.
Everything Lamb Chopped says in her post. Especially the bit I've quoted. God is not Jesus' biological father.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.
I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.
You need to learn what "logically contradictory" means. Mary could have been XXY, so it is certainly not LOGICALLY impossible (or even biologically impossible).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Which would have made her male. I do know what Klinefelter syndrome is, yes.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.
I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.
You need to learn what "logically contradictory" means. Mary could have been XXY, so it is certainly not LOGICALLY impossible (or even biologically impossible).
The silliness is accelerating, at this point, but I felt obligated to check, and it appears that people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) are male, not female.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Fair enough. But anyway if it is biologically impossible, it's a biological and not logical impossibility.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fair enough. But anyway if it is biologically impossible, it's a biological and not logical impossibility.
My point is that the biological impossibility entails the logical impossibility.
Either Jesus' genetic material came entirely from Mary or it did not. Biology eliminates option 1. But if your theology eliminates option 2 as well, then there isn't an option 3, because of the law of the excluded middle.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.
However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.
This has always been the teaching of the Orthodox Church. On his mother's side without a father, on his Father's side without a mother. He drew all of his divinity from God and all of his humanity from Mary.
As for impossible -- well duh. That's why it's called a miracle. Hello.
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.
I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.
Surely miracles allow for anything? If God can raise people from the dead then God can allow Jesus to inherit all His humanity from Mary and still be male. It seems like quite a small miracle in terms of God's portfolio.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
God cannot do the logically impossible. But God CAN do the biologically impossible. Hence, your syllogism fails.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God cannot do the logically impossible. But God CAN do the biologically impossible. Hence, your syllogism fails.
My point (which wasn't a syllogism anyway) is that God can't do the biologically impossible without violating the condition that all the human substance has to come from Mary. When you start saying that God miraculously did stuff to change what Jesus' biological nature would otherwise have been, that implies that that part of Jesus' biological nature came directly from God. I quite clearly distinguished between biological and logical impossibilities without the help of capital letters in my previous post. I am trying to say that you can't miraculously do things naturally.
Having said that I suppose there are a few ways it could work. God could have made Mary XY and then miraculously swapped round her sex organs. Or he could have made Jesus XX ditto.
FWIW my personal feeling is that a.) human substance isn't a very well defined concept, and b.) there is no theological reason why God couldn't have created a special Y-chromosome.
[ 20. December 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God cannot do the logically impossible. But God CAN do the biologically impossible. Hence, your syllogism fails.
My point is that God can't do the biologically impossible without violating the condition that all the human substance has to come from Mary.
Why? Again, it's biologically impossible, not logically impossible. God could mash up Mary's DNA anyway He wanted to. It's a miracle, as I have pointed out before. It's not SUPPOSED to be possible.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Try addressing the second sentence of my post. (To be fair I added it in an edit so you might have missed it.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
There are two issues that are often conflated - the "incarnation" in general, and the "virgin birth".
I think that the gospels and Paul agree in the incarnation in principle, but I don't think they all agree in the virgin birth. I don't think the VB concept appears anywhere in the NT outside of the first 2 chapters of Matthew and Luke.
Paul appears to put forward the belief that Jesus, "born of a woman", was a "descendant of David according to the flesh".
Mark appears to argue that the incarnation involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an otherwise human Jesus, that began at the baptism and ended at the crucifixion.
John asserts the pre-existence of Jesus outside of the narrative and combines it with the testimony of John the Baptist on the Baptism (that appears to depend on Mark's account). He also notes the controversy of the Messiah possibly being born in Bethlehem.
All in all, I'm content to believe in the general notion of the incarnation while leaving the virgin birth itself as an open question over which the NT writers themselves could not definitively agree.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Try addressing the second sentence of my post. (To be fair I added it in an edit so you might have missed it.)
So basically you agree with me. Thus ends that argument.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
All in all, I'm content to believe in the general notion of the incarnation while leaving the virgin birth itself as an open question over which the NT writers themselves could not definitively agree.
You seem to argue from silence here. Just because Mark or John don't address the virgin birth doesn't mean they disbelieved it. Yet you set them against Matt and Luke. Looks like handwaving to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to argue from silence here. Just because Mark or John don't address the virgin birth doesn't mean they disbelieved it. Yet you set them against Matt and Luke. Looks like handwaving to me.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. What I read BW to be saying is that the different NT writers have expressed different things. While it is true that Paul and Mark didn't say, "The virgin birth is bunk," there are some things that they did say, and that was what he was recounting.
ISTM that the real argument from silence is the notion that, since Paul and Mark didn't express disbelief in statements that were made after they wrote their books of the NT, they must be in agreement with what would be said by NT writers in the future.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to argue from silence here. Just because Mark or John don't address the virgin birth doesn't mean they disbelieved it. Yet you set them against Matt and Luke. Looks like handwaving to me.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. What I read BW to be saying is that the different NT writers have expressed different things. While it is true that Paul and Mark didn't say, "The virgin birth is bunk," there are some things that they did say, and that was what he was recounting.
ISTM that the real argument from silence is the notion that, since Paul and Mark didn't express disbelief in statements that were made after they wrote their books of the NT, they must be in agreement with what would be said by NT writers in the future.
--Tom Clune
But that's nto the argument. The argument is, they didn't say anything about it one way or the other, so they don't get a vote one way or the other. Only two people mention it at all, and they agree.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that the real argument from silence is the notion that, since Paul and Mark didn't express disbelief in statements that were made after they wrote their books of the NT, they must be in agreement with what would be said by NT writers in the future.
Or they didn't think it was important one way or the other.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's nto the argument. The argument is, they didn't say anything about it one way or the other, so they don't get a vote one way or the other. Only two people mention it at all, and they agree.
Just to be clear. It is not 2 people who get a vote or agree. It is writings attributed to them. Those who left it out, it was one or more of: it was not part of the oral stories they'd heard, which emphasized other things instead, they forgot about it, this part of the narrative was editted out of their story, or they didn't think it was important to emphasize.
There are lots of gaps in the stories as we know them, and also inconsistencies. I take the discrepancies and emphases as interesting, but not determinative of anything really important. The key issues are those of faith, particularly what it means about Jesus as a man, a god or both. I've always liked the historic answer: both and both in different ways, and it's a mystery.
Science on the other hand wants the nicely pinned down answer that it can't have, it asks the wrong questions in this case. The answer is that if we somehow got a DNA sample of Jesus, it would of course look human. He had a height, an eye colour, skin tone, shoe (sandal?) size etc. These are all DNA determined. So he had DNA. The story is that Jesus became a man. That means human. How that could possibly that speak to the spiritual side? It doesn't and it can't.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
Growth of "tradition" after the fact is a problem that needs to be addressed. It can't be assumed that the "fullest account always wins" (i.e. Luke's lengthy gospel) and the shorter, older accounts (i.e. Mark's gospel) can be set aside for their "incompleteness".
We can't randomly claim, for example, that Jesus was a 9 foot tall giant with orange hair and assert that it's true just because the gospel writers never contradict it.
If Paul and Mark were written before Matthew and Luke, then what did they believe about Jesus' origins? If they believed in a virgin birth, they surely would have mentioned it?
The fact that they do give cursory statements justifying the "uniqueness" of Jesus (descendant of David for Paul, descent of the Spirit for Mark) is evidence that they did not believe in a virgin birth, and that it is probably later tradition imposed upon Jesus following a particular reading of Isaiah.
Was Jesus actually born of a virgin? Maybe he was, maybe not. It's certainly more likely that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, because all sources agree on that point. Hence, I'm more open to believe that the virgin birth was a literary device making a theological point about the life and ministry of the adult Jesus than to believe the same about the crucifixion.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There are lots of gaps in the stories as we know them, and also inconsistencies.
Absolutely. My point here is that concerning the virgin birth, there are no inconsistencies. Concerning the date of the last supper, there is an inconsistency between the Synoptics and John. The former say one thing, the latter another. There is no NT source that denies the virgin birth, ergo no inconsistency. That was my only point here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
Jesus couldn’t have derived his human nature from Mary because he was male, and natural parthenogenesis can only produce female offspring* – the mother cannot pass on a Y chromosome to make the baby develop as a male, as has been mentioned in previous posts. And I don’t think that the idea that Mary passed on the X chromosome (and 22 others) and God created the Y chromosome (and 22 more) is tenable, as that would mean that Jesus was half human and half divine, not fully human and fully divine.
So the only possibility that makes scientific and theological sense to me is that Jesus’s human nature (and full genetic complement) came into being as an act of special creation by God, ex nihilo, and combined with Jesus’s eternal pre-existing divine spiritual nature. Thus, Mary does not need to be sinless, and the doctrine of the immaculate conception can be consigned to the dustbin for unbiblical theology where it belongs. I think that this formulation is consistent with the text of the Bible (but I would be interested in evidence that it isn’t**), with Jesus being born of woman but not biologically derived from Mary***. Ironically this would fit with the ancient (but biologically incorrect) view of the father planting ‘seed’ in the fertile soil of the mother’s body.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Possibly - possibly not. We really don't know, and given the ability of science to challenge the conclusions drawn by the church on such issues in the past, we're probably better off refusing to speculate.
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?
I can’t speak for ES but I’d suggest that on matters where the church has no information because God hasn’t revealed any, it is better to remain silent, because producing a speculation that is vulnerable to refutation does not enhance credibility.
Angus
*This is a slight simplification – see Wikipedia for an extensive discussion.
**For example the quotation posted by BWSmith “descendant of David according to the flesh” – where does that come from? Mind you, then you’d need to take account of Paul’s technical use of ‘flesh’ which may or may not mean ‘biological nature’, and probably doesn’t.
***My mind heads off on the tangent of Macbeth in which a major plot twist relies on the inverse applying.
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Having said that I suppose there are a few ways it could work. God could have made Mary XY and then miraculously swapped round her sex organs.
Like in testicular feminisation?
Also it depends how basically one regards substance. X and Y chromosomes are made of DNA. If one is going to get into miracles, there's no reason why one can't rearrange the DNA of an X chromosome into a Y chromosome. The chances of it happening by chance are pretty much non-existent, but since we're talking miracles...
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
A Pilgrim quote:
I think that this formulation is consistent with the text of the Bible (but I would be interested in evidence that it isn’t**), with Jesus being born of woman but not biologically derived from Mary***.
A Pilgirm, I find your thesis (last post) quite ingenious, though I'm not convinced that is what took place.
In terms of scripture the problem of the non-participation of Joseph in the conception of Jesus is that the Messianic credentials of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke are traced through the lineage of Joseph back to David, which surely causes problems for their narratives. It also causes problems for you as well because your explanation denies biological parentage to both Joseph and Mary.
What I find most intriguing about Luke's account is a genealogy dating back through Joseph to Adam, who is described as "the son of God". What does that tell us about human nature? And about the nature of Jesus as distinct from other human beings?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
X and Y chromosomes are made of DNA. If one is going to get into miracles, there's no reason why one can't rearrange the DNA of an X chromosome into a Y chromosome. The chances of it happening by chance are pretty much non-existent, but since we're talking miracles...
Thank you.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In terms of scripture the problem of the non-participation of Joseph in the conception of Jesus is that the Messianic credentials of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke are traced through the lineage of Joseph back to David, which surely causes problems for their narratives.
Luke says that Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.
The lineage as Luke traced it covered legal fatherhood, which, in the case of either adoption or of levirite marriage, would be different from biological fatherhood. Matthew gives the begats, which covers biological fatherhood.
Julius Africanus, a third century writer, investigated the difference in the genealogies, and learned from the relatives of Jesus who were still living at that time that Joseph was the child of a levirite marriage. Jesus therefore is descended from David both according to the flesh and according to the law.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
A lot has been posted since I went to bed last night.
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.
I can understand the mythic viewpoints, but there are many historical literalists out there.
From my scan of the posts the 'well, it is a miracle' is one way to transfer the problem to a different plane.
Personally, it is not at all necessary for the creation to be literally described to find theological meaning. On the other hand, Christianity and the work of Jesus Christ is meant to be at least rooted in history, though perhaps my understanding of 'rooted in history' needs refinement.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If Jesus had biological DNA that could be shown to be Joseph's, would it actually matter? For it doesn't. On the one hand, once we're talking miracles, that would be possible. On the other, its entirely possible to have children and be a virgin. If there's a third hand, I'd say that God would not allow the miracle to be accepted on anything but faith, thus, it would have to appear explainable via some other means even if the truth was something else.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh my freakin' nevermind.
Whoever it is that is saying that all Jesus' DNA has to derive directly from Mary (and not partly special creation) else it's not fair,
all right, I'll give you a stupid explanation. Suppose Mary is a chimera, and one of the ... constituents ... of the chimera being happened to be male. That would provide you with item, one living breathing female virgin, who nevertheless possessed male DNA in at least some cells of her (their?) body.
We can call it "mosaic boy syndrome."
This is getting silly.
[ 20. December 2012, 22:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
