Divine Cloning?

This question was resurrected in sonship's short response thread, but I think it's an interesting question that may deserve its own thread. Originally posed in this forum by a great thinker, Pawnokeyhole, but that was several years ago. Sonship said he doesn't know the answer but would lean toward "no" (for reasons yet undisclosed). I would be interested to know if others have an opinion on it.

Pawnokeyhole's question:

If Jesus's body were physically duplicated in every particular, would the mind, and possibly spirit, attached to the body of the duplicate Jesus be divine also?

(The question, of course, presupposes that Jesus is divine, which many may dispute.)

Originally posted by LemonJello
This question was resurrected in sonship's short response thread, but I think it's an interesting question that may deserve its own thread. Originally posed in this forum by a great thinker, Pawnokeyhole, but that was several years ago. Sonship said he doesn't know the answer but would lean toward "no" (for reasons yet undisclosed). I would be interest ]

(The question, of course, presupposes that Jesus is divine, which many may dispute.)

For what it's worth, my take on this one (supposing, charitably for the sake of discussion, that Jesus is divine), given that I hold that the mind is what manifests from some configuration of material "particles" and their respective velocities/acceleration/etc, reactions/interactions with other "particles" etc... at any particular time, if you can exactly reproduce this arrangement then you also reproduce exactly the mind. Note that I hold it is insufficient that we find only the right combination of materials that constitute the body and arrange them into some static form.

It could be argued of course that the very act of accomplishing such a difficult feat (correct at any level of magnification) would require knowledge that is beyond the grasp of those who are not divine, and that for some body constructed within a vanishingly small error threshold of correctness would need to be "divine" if it we are to be sure that no part of it will trespass over any equilibrium point and fall apart as we move forwards in time (in such way that the resulting system is no longer an accurate construction of Jesus at some future time) - or in other words: "held together by magic!".

Indeed, to finish my train of thought on this one for now - I say that such a reconstruction is beyond the means of humans at any point in the future (given the sheer amount of data and cognitive/mechanical effort required to pull it off); and so to bring such a thing about would necessarily involve some sort of divinity.

Originally posted by LemonJello
This question was resurrected in sonship's short response thread, but I think it's an interesting question that may deserve its own thread. Originally posed in this forum by a great thinker, Pawnokeyhole, but that was several years ago. Sonship said he doesn't know the answer but would lean toward "no" (for reasons yet undisclosed). I would be interest ...[text shortened]... ]

(The question, of course, presupposes that Jesus is divine, which many may dispute.)

This is silly, it is akin to "can God make a rock he cannot lift.?"

Originally posted by checkbaiter
This is silly, it is akin to "can God make a rock he cannot lift.?"

Uh, no it's not. We suppose that an exact physical duplicate of Jesus has come into existence (it is utterly irrelevant and therefore unspecified in the hypothetical how this came to be, perhaps some atoms just self-assembled into an exact physical duplicate, who cares); now, the question involves this exact physical duplicate. That's nothing like the rock question.

Originally posted by Agerg
For what it's worth, my take on this one (supposing, charitably for the sake of discussion, that Jesus is divine), given that I hold that the mind is what manifests from some configuration of material "particles" and their respective velocities/acceleration/etc, reactions/interactions with other "particles" etc... at any particular time, if you can exactly rep f); and so to bring such a thing about would necessarily involve some sort of divinity.

Thanks for your comments.

I suppose, though, one could agree that in producing an exact physical duplicate (or "arrangement" in a stronger sense as you clarified) you also duplicate the mind; and yet still deny that the duplicate is "divine" (even given that the original is divine). That sounds like a strange position to me, though.

EDIT: By "physically duplicated in every particular" I take it that Pawnokeyhole meant to imply that the "arrangement" is duplicated as you clarified, not simply the right combination of materials in static form as you say. But it might be better to make this more explicit in the hypothetical.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Uh, no it's not. We suppose that an exact physical duplicate of Jesus has come into existence (it is utterly irrelevant and therefore unspecified in the hypothetical how this came to be, perhaps some atoms just self-assembled into an exact physical duplicate, who cares); now, the question involves this exact physical duplicate. That's nothing like the rock question.

No...

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No...

Yes...

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes...

You simply have a clone, not God working in Jesus. So again, No.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You simply have a clone, not God working in Jesus. So again, No.

So, according to your position, when God "works in" a person it does not affect that person's physicality whatsoever but does affect their divinity status? Is God's working in a person sufficient for that person's being divine, or is it only a necessary condition for divinity? And if it's a necessary condition, then that implies that God works in Himself? I don't really get it. What does "work in" mean here?

Originally posted by LemonJello
This question was resurrected in sonship's short response thread, but I think it's an interesting question that may deserve its own thread. Originally posed in this forum by a great thinker, Pawnokeyhole, but that was several years ago. Sonship said he doesn't know the answer but would lean toward "no" (for reasons yet undisclosed). I would be interest ]

(The question, of course, presupposes that Jesus is divine, which many may dispute.)

Well, I don't believe that anything is divine, but I bet all the theists say that you didn't clone Jesus' soul so the clone isn't divine. At which point they get the fun task of trying to describe exactly what a 'soul' is.

The closest I can get to a concrete concept of a 'soul' is those little white ghosts that floated out of dead bodies in cartoons.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Well, I don't believe that anything is divine, but I bet all the theists say that you didn't clone Jesus' soul so the clone isn't divine. At which point they get the fun task of trying to describe exactly what a 'soul' is.

The closest I can get to a concrete concept of a 'soul' is those little white ghosts that floated out of dead bodies in cartoons.

Right, many theists hold to some dualistic view whereby a person is, at bottom, instantiated by an irreducible soul that can exist in a disembodied state or some such. Since they are not committed to the idea that the soul supervenes on, or is fundamentally attached in any sense, to any body, they may be free to reject the idea that exact duplication of a person's body translates to duplication of the person or soul, etc. That seems like a fair response to me. As you point out, though, I would think this position is in other respects a tough row to hoe.

Originally posted by LemonJello
This question was resurrected in sonship's short response thread, but I think it's an interesting question that may deserve its own thread. Originally posed in this forum by a great thinker, Pawnokeyhole, but that was several years ago. Sonship said he doesn't know the answer but would lean toward "no" (for reasons yet undisclosed). I would be interest ...[text shortened]... ]

(The question, of course, presupposes that Jesus is divine, which many may dispute.)

In my opinion, you would just be duplicating or cloning the physical aspects of the body of Jesus as a newborn baby that would be like a twin making it a new soul. You would not be able to reproduce or clone the divine aspects of Jesus. Therefore, my answer is no.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
In my opinion, you would just be duplicating or cloning the physical aspects of the body of Jesus as a newborn baby that would be like a twin making it a new soul. You would not be able to reproduce or clone the divine aspects of Jesus. Therefore, my answer is no.

The Instructor

What exactly are the divine aspects of Jesus? And if exact duplication of the physicality of Jesus is not sufficient to duplicate these divine aspects, could the divine aspects hypothetically be duplicated by any other route?

Originally posted by LemonJello
What exactly are the divine aspects of Jesus? And if exact duplication of the physicality of Jesus is not sufficient to duplicate these divine aspects, could the divine aspects hypothetically be duplicated by any other route?

I believe that the Holy Spirit would have to get involved for the divine aspects to be indwelt in the physical body. I don't have any idea how this could happen, but all things are possible when God is involved.

The Instructor

Originally posted by LemonJello
This question was resurrected in sonship's short response thread, but I think it's an interesting question that may deserve its own thread. Originally posed in this forum by a great thinker, Pawnokeyhole, but that was several years ago. Sonship said he doesn't know the answer but would lean toward "no" (for reasons yet undisclosed). I would be interest ...[text shortened]... ]

(The question, of course, presupposes that Jesus is divine, which many may dispute.)

Definately not.
I dont think JC was different than any other normal man, he just used his full potential.

But I'm assuming that this cloning is of his physical aspects only. As we know a man is made up of his genetics and his environmental influences.
Cloning only replicates his genetics.