Originally posted by NemesioIt seems like it goes to the core of some foundational concepts.
It does not, to my knowledge.
Nemesio
Consider the Garden of Eden and the fall. One explanation for God placing the forbidden tree and allowing the temptor is that they are necessary for free will. If God was able to intervene to make Mary sinless, couldn't he have done the same with Adam and Eve right from the start? The typical rebuttal to this is that Adam and Eve, and mankind, would then not have free will, but would instead be God's automatons.
Did God strip Mary of her free will by invoking this intervention?
Was the ability to choose to sin necessary for Adam and Eve to have free will?
Originally posted by NemesioThis is a case of people trying to enforce rules on God which is more or less nonsense.
This is why the dogma of the Immaculate Conception arose. Since Jesus was supposed to have been sinless, He had to be sinless from the Jewish perspective. So, the RCC teaches (I don't know about the Eastern Church, actually.....) that Mary was born without sin by means of intervention and, too, lived a sinless life. That way, none of her sin (for she lacked it both in action and in 'genetics'😉 was passed on to Jesus.
If God wishes to create a sinless human being he can do it though a strait forward miracle without having to go through virgin birth, intervention, etc just to avoid some sort of genetic sin inheritance. (And why do people believe that sins are passed down via chromosomes anyway ?)
My father believed that the whole miracle of Jesus depended entirely on the fact that Jesus was fully human and had all the weaknesses of a human being including being tempted by the Devil. If he was somehow perfect and super-human then the whole miracle of the crucifixion becomes meaningless.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot quite on a couple of fronts.
This is a case of people trying to enforce rules on God which is more or less nonsense.
If God wishes to create a sinless human being he can do it though a strait forward miracle without having to go through virgin birth, intervention, etc just to avoid some sort of genetic sin inheritance. (And why do people believe that sins are passed down via chromos ...[text shortened]... s somehow perfect and super-human then the whole miracle of the crucifixion becomes meaningless.
The sin nature is passed on by the male chromosomes, according to the Bible.
The doctrine of kenosis does not allow for there to be mixture between the two natures of Jesus. He is man, and He is God, with no mixture between the two.
As man, He was able to not sin, as God, He was not able to sin.
His life on earth, among other things, was to prove that man could be righteous, relying on the power of God only. To have used His deity would have negated the experiment.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The sin nature is passed on by the male chromosomes, according to the Bible.
The Bible makes no mention of chromosomes. This is a bogus argument.
Furthermore, the Jews who composed the Bible believed that the woman was a vessel
into which the seed was placed; that is, they had no knowledge of fertilization. That's
the word for the man's ejaculation is 'sperm' which means seed. In the Jewish conception
of things, it was already fertilized and being planted.
So, please, give up this lame, lame argument.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't recall saying the Bible used the word chromosomes.
The Bible makes no mention of chromosomes.
they had no knowledge of fertilization.
Nemesio[/b]
While the Bible's human authors sometimes had no knowledge in certain areas where we consider ourselves expert, the Bible's Author is expert while we have no knowledge, in comparison.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't recall saying the Bible used the word chromosomes.
When you say 'according to the Bible' it basically implies that the word
is used. If you don't mean this, then you should expand on your claim.
While the Bible's human authors sometimes had no knowledge in certain areas where we consider ourselves expert, the Bible's Author is expert while we have no knowledge, in comparison.
Furthermore, if the Bible's 'Author' is soooooo expert then how do you
explain the incorrect usage of seed that I described above? Are you
suggesting that science is wrong in its supposition that the woman has
a co-equal part in the passing on of information to the child?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe woman as a vessel for the seed of the man, is likely the usage you are referring to here.
Furthermore, if the Bible's 'Author' is soooooo expert then how do you
explain the incorrect usage of seed that I described above? Are you
suggesting that science is wrong in its supposition that the woman has
a co-equal part in the passing on of information to the child?
Nemesio[/b]
My reference was to Genesis 3:15, which refers to the offspring, the seed of the woman.
Science is correct on this one. Doesn't happen all the time, so I wouldn't necessarily call it a great victory. Science is merely 'discovering' something the Author of the Bible told us a long time before.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo new discovery; merely affirming that science's understanding of the shared chromosomes between male and female is old news, to the Bible.
This sounds interesting, but you're not being very clear. What is this new discovery, and what is the connection with the verse you quoted?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is no mention of 'seed of a woman.' You are imparting a meaning that is
The woman as a vessel for the seed of the man, is likely the usage you are referring to here.
My reference was to Genesis 3:15, which refers to the offspring, the seed of the woman.
not there. Such a meaning would be in contradiction to the seed-vessel relationship
which was the 'science' of the times and is iterated several times in the Bible.
Nemesio