Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[no1tovote4]

Ok, Ok, I'm willing to learn. Who was Christ's father? Doesn't in vitro fertilization mean an egg fertilized with a sperm? If so, I agree that isn't a clone. Dolly the sheep was a clone because sperm wasn't used. I think the issue is whether there are two sets of chromosomes not if a turkey baster was substituted for the traditional applicator.

If Jesus did not have a human father did he get his xy chromosomes from the Holy Ghost?

That seems to be the logical assumption, and far far better than saying He was a clone of Mary which He clearly could not be.

To be cloned you must be a copy of the parent which in this case was a woman, unless you are saying that Mary somehow had both a secondary x with a y that was recessive to the prominent secondary X then somebody scientifically took away the prominent secondary x so that the Y would gain prominence. There seems to be fundamental holes in the theory that Christ was a clone at all, it is more likely that the Holy Spirit would supply the necessary genes and fertilize an egg than it is that he would make a physical clone of a spiritual being.

To me this argument is moot, but Christ clearly could not be a clone of the one human parent that He had.

Which parent was Christ a copy of? Certainly not of Mary or He would be a woman, which He clearly wasn't. A Clone of God? Are you saying that God doesn't have any Chromosomes in your post above?

What truly is your point, and why would it matter at all?

 

[mrsx]

Christian doctrine teaches the the Holy Spirit came over Mary, and she became pregnant with Jesus. This carries the assumption that the single cell that started the pregnancy had unique DNA that was from neither Mary nor Joseph (obviously, since Mary was still a virgin).

Ok - I am with you so far. The problem for me is that "came over Mary" is quite poetic (unless you are blasphemously crude) and doesn't get past the issue of an interface between human biology and a non-corporeal spirit. Single cells don't start a pregnancy under normal conditions. When they are caused to do so by external intervention, whether by an MD or the Holy Spirit, we call that cloning. So doesn't that mean that Jesus was a clone?
I think you may be incorrect that religious tradition states Jesus had no DNA from either Mary or Joseph. Christians have always believed (at least since the rejection of the Docetist heresy) that Jesus was fully and normally human and that his humanity came from his Mother. The way you tell it, Jesus would have been a unique human being like Adam with no ancestors. Of course, in that case the claim that he was of the House of David is nonsense (shaky enough already if Joseph was not his father). Such a geneology would make it impossible for Jews to accept him as the Messiah. As I remember, Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for the census because Joseph was of the House of David. If Joseph was merely "the beard," then something is very wrong somewhere. Please enlighten me.

 

[5stringJeff]

Ok - I am with you so far. The problem for me is that "came over Mary" is quite poetic (unless you are blasphemously crude) and doesn't get past the issue of an interface between human biology and a non-corporeal spirit. Single cells don't start a pregnancy under normal conditions. When they are caused to do so by external intervention, whether by an MD or the Holy Spirit, we call that cloning. So doesn't that mean that Jesus was a clone?

Again, as has been stated, a clone is an exact DNA replicate of its parent. Jesus' DNA was unique; therefore, Jesus was not a clone.

I think you may be incorrect that religious tradition states Jesus had no DNA from either Mary or Joseph. Christians have always believed (at least since the rejection of the Docetist heresy) that Jesus was fully and normally human and that his humanity came from his Mother. The way you tell it, Jesus would have been a unique human being like Adam with no ancestors. Of course, in that case the claim that he was of the House of David is nonsense (shaky enough already if Joseph was not his father). Such a geneology would make it impossible for Jews to accept him as the Messiah. As I remember, Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for the census because Joseph was of the House of David. If Joseph was merely "the beard," then something is very wrong somewhere. Please enlighten me.

I'm not really sure where you are going here. Certainly, Jesus was fully human (though simultaneously fully divine). But at least 50% of His DNA was created by God; I don't find it a stretch of faith to believe that God created 100% of Jesus' DNA.

As to being part of the house of David, both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. So, having been humanly born into Joseph's or Mary's family would make Him a part of the "House of David."

 

[Nienna]

We are waaaaaayyyy off subject here!

In the Jewish culture of the time, an adopted child was given fully all the priveleges of a natural child. He was adopted by Joseph, and therefore, would have been considered to have belonged to Joseph's house.

As for Mary, I think that carrying a child in your womb and giving birth (with no painkiller, and after riding a donkey for how many days while 8-9 months pregnant! :shocked: ) is surely enough to grant her parental rights. She was also of the House of David. Jesus grew and lived with this family. He was a part of this house.

 

[mrsx]

We are waaaaaayyyy off subject here!

In the Jewish culture of the time, an adopted child was given fully all the priveleges of a natural child. He was adopted by Joseph, and therefore, would have been considered to have belonged to Joseph's house.

As for Mary, I think that carrying a child in your womb and giving birth (with no painkiller, and after riding a donkey for how many days while 8-9 months pregnant! :shocked: ) is surely enough to grant her parental rights. She was also of the House of David. Jesus grew and lived with this family. He was a part of this house.

These are very helpful points. Thank you. Did Joseph formally adopt Jesus or just raise him as his own and let people think everything was normal? Of course, if our other distinguished colleague is correct and Jesus had no DNA from either Mary or Joseph, then he wasn't a descendant of David and couldn't be the Messiah. Just being of the house won't cut it. A slave or concubine belonging to the family would be of the house but not of the bloodline. Where did you learn about the adoption? This is a really interesting idea that I haven't come across before. Pharoh adopted Benjamin and Saul adopted David so I think you make a strong point here. What I am wondering about is where in the Gospels we find that people accepted Jesus as a publicly adopted son of the House of David. Mark in particular seems to make a fuss about blood, i.e. biological inheritance.

We seem to agree that Jesus had at most one human parent. The idea that God created some special DNA is interesting but would, of course, be incomprehensible to anyone before 1950 or so. In New Testament times and for quite a while before and after people believed that babies grew from a seed which the father planted in the womb of the mother. From this came their patrilineal social structure. Mary's ancestry would be socially important but not geneologically decisive. I think the problem for us moderns is that the first Christians under the leadership of James in Jerusalem appear not to have believed in the virgin birth. The mystery of the virgin birth is part of the hellenization of Jesus into Christ started by Paul and prosecuted vigorously by the Early Fathers. But perhaps you know better and can clear this up for me.

 

[no1tovote4]

Ok - I am with you so far. The problem for me is that "came over Mary" is quite poetic (unless you are blasphemously crude) and doesn't get past the issue of an interface between human biology and a non-corporeal spirit. Single cells don't start a pregnancy under normal conditions. When they are caused to do so by external intervention, whether by an MD or the Holy Spirit, we call that cloning. So doesn't that mean that Jesus was a clone?

Only in the way Adam would be a clone as the first Human. What is so fundamentally difficult to understand that an all powerful being that could create all humans could also create a shell in which his divine self could reside?

I find myself in an odd position. I am not a Christian, but this whole "clone" business seems laughable. If Christ was a "clone" of God, why would it matter to you at all?

I think you may be incorrect that religious tradition states Jesus had no DNA from either Mary or Joseph. Christians have always believed (at least since the rejection of the Docetist heresy) that Jesus was fully and normally human and that his humanity came from his Mother. The way you tell it, Jesus would have been a unique human being like Adam with no ancestors. Of course, in that case the claim that he was of the House of David is nonsense (shaky enough already if Joseph was not his father). Such a geneology would make it impossible for Jews to accept him as the Messiah. As I remember, Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for the census because Joseph was of the House of David. If Joseph was merely "the beard," then something is very wrong somewhere. Please enlighten me.

Why would it be so difficult to understand that God could create the necessary chromosomes to complete a zygote on the spot as He created another human in past?

I find this fascinating....

Why would it be important to you at all if Christ was a "clone" anyway?

 

[mrsx]

Only in the way Adam would be a clone as the first Human. What is so fundamentally difficult to understand that an all powerful being that could create all humans could also create a shell in which his divine self could reside?

I find myself in an odd position. I am not a Christian, but this whole "clone" business seems laughable. If Christ was a "clone" of God, why would it matter to you at all?



Why would it be so difficult to understand that God could create the necessary chromosomes to complete a zygote on the spot as He created another human in past?

I find this fascinating....

Why would it be important to you at all if Christ was a "clone" anyway?

It matters because just any old conceptualization won't do. *That* Jesus was isn't enough; the core of Christianity is *Who* He was. Christians have wrestled with this central mystery long before biological science as we know it today existed.

The idea that Christ was a "shell" within which his Divine being resided, that He was God and in human appearance merely appealed to many particularly in the Eastern Church from the very first church councils. That possibility was rejected because of the purpose of the death of Jesus. Only if He were truly a human man could His sacrifice (quite literally a human sacrifice) atone for the sin of Adam and re-open the gates of paradise. If He were purely God in human guise, there would have been no real sacrifice.

Obviously, God could create a zygote or indeed anything else. The issue here is different from the christological issue of Christ's human and divine natures (two natures in one person is the traditional teaching about the nature of Christ); it has to do with Jesus' place in Hebrew history. Jesus does not come out of hellenistic mythology where god-men (a Greek hero usually has one human and one divine parent) labor or sacrifice for the salvation of their clan. Prometheus and Hercules are heroes of this type.

Jesus comes from the Hebrew Bible and claimed, or at least permitted his disciples to claim, that he was the Messiah of prophecy. That claim posed a number of requirements, most of importantly that He be of the tribe and House of David. Hebrew tradition has no example of a man-god; the very idea would be the height of blasphemy and the prophets never made such a statement. Jewish belief was (and I think still is) that the Messiah would be a purely human man, although a very holy one, a great warrior and a great king who would restore sovereignty and land to the Jewish people.

I can't say why all this is interesting to other Christians but it is interesting to me because in our time the growth of human knowlege has, perhaps paradoxically, made Divine knowlege harder to understand. In biblical times it was a miracle that a virgin should conceive and bring forth a Son. I don't think anyone worried about exactly how that would be carried out because, after all, no one had any real idea of how normal conception worked. Until a few centuries ago, no one had any problem with the six day Creation in Genesis because no one had any conflicting and more plausible explanation.

With the development of science, alternative or at least parallel explanations for biblical events now exist. There are a couple of easy ways out of this difficulty. One can reject science and continue to accept the Bible solely and literally. Or, one can reject the Bible and rely exclusively on scientific knowlege. There are a lot of Christians for whom neither of these options is satisfactory. Somehow, science and the Bible must both be true. In most cases, this isn't much of a problem. I don't see any conflict between the Sermon on the Mount and periodic table, for example. In a few, key places like creation and the nature of Jesus Christ, there are ragged edges that human reason must make smooth. That is why I am interested.

 

[5stringJeff]

I think the problem for us moderns is that the first Christians under the leadership of James in Jerusalem appear not to have believed in the virgin birth. The mystery of the virgin birth is part of the hellenization of Jesus into Christ started by Paul and prosecuted vigorously by the Early Fathers. But perhaps you know better and can clear this up for me.

I'd love to know how you came up with that hypothesis.

 

[mrsx]

I'd love to know how you came up with that hypothesis.

The conflict between the Jerusalem Apostles under James and Paul is referenced in both Epistles and Acts and has been a subject of great interest for centuries. For a good example of modern scolarship, I'd recommend "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman (Penguin Books, pub. Putnam, New York 1997)

 

[archangel]

Would someone please clue in mrsx that -309 and counting is not a good thing...I truly believe this person thinks minus is a good score as he or she believes it relates to the opposite opinion...that being liberal vs conservative.

So this person has the delusion he or she is winning...after all "hypothesis" is a educated guess...this person seems to lack the education to understand this concept....!

 

[5stringJeff]

The conflict between the Jerusalem Apostles under James and Paul is referenced in both Epistles and Acts and has been a subject of great interest for centuries. For a good example of modern scolarship, I'd recommend "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman (Penguin Books, pub. Putnam, New York 1997)

I'm well aware of the Biblical references to the disagreements between Peter (James was killed very early in church history) and Paul. But nowhere have I ever read that Peter or the Jerusalem church didn't believe in the virgin birth.

 

[Nienna]

The conflict between the Jerusalem Apostles under James and Paul is referenced in both Epistles and Acts and has been a subject of great interest for centuries. For a good example of modern scolarship, I'd recommend "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman (Penguin Books, pub. Putnam, New York 1997)

Ummm... Epistles is not a book in the Bible, at least not the mainstream Christian or Catholic Bibles.

To what, exactly, are you referring?

 

[5stringJeff]

Ummm... Epistles is not a book in the Bible, at least not the mainstream Christian or Catholic Bibles.

To what, exactly, are you referring?

I think she means The Espistles, i.e. from Romans through Jude.

 

[mrsx]

Would someone please clue in mrsx that -309 and counting is not a good thing...I truly believe this person thinks minus is a good score as he or she believes it relates to the opposite opinion...that being liberal vs conservative.

So this person has the delusion he or she is winning...after all "hypothesis" is a educated guess...this person seems to lack the education to understand this concept....!

You might be interested to know that the -309 score is bogus and was part of a childish prank by one of the moderators who has been reprimanded for his actions by the owner of this board. As your personal attack, in addition to being based on inadequate information, adds nothing to the substance of the thread, I will not be responding to you further.

 

[dmp]

As your personal attack, in addition to being based on inadequate information, adds nothing to the substance of the thread, I will not be responding to you further.

Don't be a big baby...

 

[archangel]

You might be interested to know that the -309 score is bogus and was part of a childish prank by one of the moderators who has been reprimanded for his actions by the owner of this board. As your personal attack, in addition to being based on inadequate information, adds nothing to the substance of the thread, I will not be responding to you further.

Just trying to help you...no personal attack intended...now I will avoid your posts as irrelevant!

 

[mrsx]

I think she means The Espistles, i.e. from Romans through Jude.

Thank you for helping our confused friend. It is black fly season here in Maine. You can't go out doors to enjoy the beautiful day, visit a neighbor or do yard work without the little blood suckers getting in your ears and mouth. It seems to always be black fly season here on usmessageboard.com. As soon as an issue is defined and a discussion of ideas begins, these irritating little critters come swarming out. They contribute nothing to the content and seem to have no purpose other than provoking anger or sowing confusion. Jesus cast out devils like these, I can't. Going back indoors now.

 

[5stringJeff]

Thank you for helping our confused friend. It is black fly season here in Maine. You can't go out doors to enjoy the beautiful day, visit a neighbor or do yard work without the little blood suckers getting in your ears and mouth. It seems to always be black fly season here on usmessageboard.com. As soon as an issue is defined and a discussion of ideas begins, these irritating little critters come swarming out. They contribute nothing to the content and seem to have no purpose other than provoking anger or sowing confusion. Jesus cast out devils like these, I can't. Going back indoors now.

I suggest you stick around a little longer than a month before you start passing judgment on the other members of this board, and their contributions therein. Even the best of us get confused.

 

[Trinity]

Thank you for helping our confused friend. It is black fly season here in Maine. You can't go out doors to enjoy the beautiful day, visit a neighbor or do yard work without the little blood suckers getting in your ears and mouth. It seems to always be black fly season here on usmessageboard.com. As soon as an issue is defined and a discussion of ideas begins, these irritating little critters come swarming out. They contribute nothing to the content and seem to have no purpose other than provoking anger or sowing confusion. Jesus cast out devils like these, I can't. Going back indoors now.

Well with that kind of attitude, what do you expect!

 

[Nienna]

Was he calling me a black fly?
Thanks for sticking up for me Jeff, Trinity!