- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
22 May 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSorry which of my posts was a "nonsensical mess"?
Seems that like you, they can provide a one or two sentence description of what they each entail and the difference, but then things really go sideways when they try to elaborate and it ends up being a nonsensical mess.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
22 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is what I was saying earlier; there is no way of knowing but if it was only the Y chromosome then the implications are astonishing.
I love how Christians often pronounce things they could not possibly know.
If Jesus's Y chromosome did not come from another human being, then it is perfectly possible that his X didn't either. God could easily have:
a) magically added a sperm to Mary's womb.
b) magically added a fertilised egg to Mary's womb.
There is no way to know which and nothing in the Bible indicates which.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by chaney3Can you imagine people living on a two dimensional plane encountering a three dimensional person. Imagine a race of people as two dimensional beings on a sheet of paper. Yet they encounter and are communicated with by a three dimensional artist interacting with them on that plane.
I'm not convinced, like others seem to be, that Jesus 'clearly' tried to get a message across that He was 'in any way' God, or a manifestation of God.
It comes down to personal interpretation of very particular Bible verses.
I defer to Jesus praying to God before the crucifixion. How can one perceive that Jesus was either talking to Himself, or to a 'manifestation' of Himself.
There would be something kind of inconceivable about this three-dimensional one to the understanding of the two dimensional ones.
Maybe this is an illustration of our perplexity at fully comprehending God. That is a God Whom we can fellowship with, enjoy, commune with yet who possesses a characteristic which is virtually incomprehensible to our experience.
The prophet Isaiah in 9:6 uttered inspired words from God about a "child ... born" Who is called "Mighty God" and a "son ... given" Who is called "Eternal Father".
But how could a born human child be the Creator - the Mighty God? And how could a Son given be the Eternal Father ? The Scriptures also describes Him as 'Wonderful".
"For a child is born to us,
A son is given to us;
And the government is upon His shoulder;
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God,
Eternal Father,
Prince of Peace.
To the increase of His government and to His peace there is no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it in justice and righteousness
From now to eternity.
The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will accomplish this." (Isa. 9:6,7)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Jesus never claimed to be God.
Jesus claimed to be God incarnate as a Man - "the Son of Man" - "the Son of God" in John chapter 1.
"Nathaniel answered Him, Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.
Jesus answered and said to him, Is it because I told you that I saw you under the fir tree that you believe? You shall see greater things than these.
And He said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, You shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (John 1:49-51)
Jesus' words refer back to the vision of Jacob in Genesis 28. Jacob had a vision of Bethel - meaning "the house of God". There the angels of God were ascending up and descending down a ladder. Jacob awoke from his vision and called that very place "Bethel" - the house of God. It was a dreadful place to him.
Here in John chapter 1 out of the mouth of Jesus - "the Son of Man" Who is also "the Son of God" (v.49) is the anti-type of the symbolic dream that the patriarch Jacob saw. Jesus, the Son of God, the Son of Man is the very house of God. On the earth God dwells in a Man - Himself - Jesus.
In the next chapter Jesus further builds upon this teaching that He is the human embodiment of God's dwelling place. He says that if they destroy this temple, ie. this house of God, He will resurrected it in three days.
"Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then the Jews said, This temple was built in forty-six years, and You will raise it up in three days?
But He spoke of the temple of His body. When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken." (John 2:19-22)
God lived on the earth in the body of the Man Jesus - the Son of God - the Son of Man -and the reality of Bethel, the house of God - the living temple of God.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonshipI meant fig tree rather than fir tree.
Jesus claimed to be God incarnate as a Man - "the Son of Man" - "the Son of God" in John chapter 1.
[quote] "Nathaniel answered Him, Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.
Jesus answered and said to him, Is it because I told you that I saw you un of God - the Son of Man -and the reality of Bethel, the house of God - the living temple of God.
John 1:50.
23 May 17
Originally posted by divegeesterI disagree. Even if it was only the Y chromosome, I think it would be impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions from just knowing that.
This is what I was saying earlier; there is no way of knowing but if it was only the Y chromosome then the implications are astonishing.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
23 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid you see my post on page 6? That explains why I think there are implications for bible believers.
I disagree. Even if it was only the Y chromosome, I think it would be impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions from just knowing that.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
Originally posted by chaney3Sure. Which bit?
Your post on page 6 needs a little more explaining, in my opinion.
The interesting thing in all this is whether or not God impregnated marry with a new fertilised egg, or caused one of her existing eggs to be fertilised. Because if it was an existing egg then the gene for "sinfulness" is carried on the Y chromosome, which is the "male" chromosome. And if sinfulness is a gene, then it can theoretically be identified and removed.
[This could of course not be even theoretically scientifically sound as the Y chromosome triggers make embryo development, which is probably in tandem with the X chromosome gene. Who knows. Not me.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by JS357
Humans are guilty for being created, and so we get sent to Hell. That's the baseline.
The positions that created man found himself on was that he was innocent and very good.
There is no thought of created man coming immediately from the Creator guilty or condemned.
He was neutral between God and God's enemy.
Adam moved himself from that station of innocence into a state of being under condemnation by joining himself to the anti-Creator opposition party.
On the sixth day, after man was created, God pronounced that His work was very good.
"And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (Gen. 1:31)
Years latter the wise man Solomon said man was created upright, BUT he sought out many devices [schemes] altering and damaging that innocence.
"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecclesiastes 7:29) ]
No, God did not create man condemned.