Was Jesus fully Human? How babies were made in those days.

by fulltimestudent 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    I feel confident that most visitors to this site, understand the essential conflict at the heart of Christianity. How could Jesus be fully human and simultaneously be a divine being who descended (supposedly, some thing Jesus specifically claimed to be) from heaven?

    As Jws we may have solved this tricky point by saying that Yahweh transferred the life of Jesus into Mary's womb, and so Jesus was born fully human.

    But if we remove the blindfold of faith, we immediately 'see' the problem. In our contemporary view of the reproductive process, we can be certain that there is a female 'egg,' that is fertilised by male sperm. No sperm, then no baby. Of course, an all-powerful Yahweh who is thought to have designed the reproductive process, could be seen as altering the process to achieve his goal of transferring Jesus from heaven. But consideration of that possibility introduces some additional complexities.

    We also now understand the role of genes. Both mother and father contribute genetic information to the newly fertilised egg, thus making the resultant child the off-spring of both parents.

    So if Yahweh creates a new 'perfect' set of genes that somehow 'holds' the 'life' of the heavenly Jesus as the 'father's gene set, then can Jesus be fully human? Surely, to be fully human, the human Jesus would require a full set of human genes, thus being in Adam's lineage, which you will recall, is precisely how Luke describes Jesus, as the eventual 'son of Adam, son of God.'

    But, doesn't that mean that Jesus bore Adam's genes? So how then can he be perfect, without sin?

    What does this mean? For an answer we have to forgo the usual Christian view of the Bible as 'authored' in some mysterious way by God and see it for what it is, the product of human believers who set down this story in fully human terms, that is, they tell the story according to the way they understood that babies were made.

    Andrew Lincoln, a scholar at the University of Gloucestershire, argues that the gospel authors would have believed something like this:

    Their understanding of conception, shaped by a patriarchal culture, would have been some variation of the dominant Aristotelian theory. On this view, the male semen provides the formative principle for life. The female menstrual blood supplies the matter for the fetus, and the womb the medium for the semen’s nurture. The man’s seed transmits his logos (rational cause) and pneuma (vital heat/animating spirit), for which the woman’s body is the receptacle. In this way the male functions as the active, efficient cause of reproduction, and the female functions as the provider of the matter to which the male seed gives definition. In short, the bodily substance necessary for a human fetus comes from the mother, while the life force originates with the father.

    Not very scientific, but an explanation that prevailed for a long time.

    From that unrealistic understanding point of view, Jesus could have been fully human - i.e. the bodily substance supplied by Mary, but with Yahweh supplying the lifeforce.

    The result - a perfect human, without Adam's genetic structure, because they, the gospel author's, knew nothing about genetics. In fact if Yahweh inspired the gospel authors to write, then he also knew nothing about genetics. But that is also clear in the very first Biblical account.

    If you'd like to follow up on this, the Biblical Archeological Review offers this study, from which I have drawn some thoughts:

    http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/who-was-jesus-biological-father/?mqsc=E3781886&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=E4BN03

  • humbled
    humbled

    Thanks for the background on this--I never thought about this bit.

    It does remind me of the other equation they could not make add up properly--the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

    You know, that doesn't refer to her being made pregnant by the Holy Spirit--It is derived from the ancient and popular idea that Mary was conceived without sin thus making her a fitting receptacle for Jesus. "Holy Mary, Mother of God" as the catholics say.

    It gave St Thomas Aquinas fits though--because if God could "cure" original sin so easily--which nullified the need for a blood ransom--then Mary had no need of Savior (and no one else would need saving if God could do this little parlor trick)

    Quite the theological mess, and Thom had to solve it since the Pope declared it true. The only remedy he could come up with was that however her mum n dad did "it", she just for one unholy second was she a sinner--then BLAM!--cured! Immaculate conception.

    Stupid.

  • smiddy3
    smiddy3

    Mary was born in sin like every other human being according to the Bible their is nothing in the Bible to say otherwise .

    That being the case Jesus could not have been born perfect without sin , he must have inherited the sins of his mother regardless of who his father was.

    According to the Bible Jesus was much more than a human ,he could control the weather ,and he could walk on water ,and he could perform miracles ,.?

    No human including the perfect man Adam could do any of these feats so how is it possible that the Bible claims Jesus to be a corresponding ransom for mankind ?

    He was a sinner with super human powers that no man ever had according to what we read in the Bible.

    I thought this subject needed to be re-visited

  • eyeuse2badub
    eyeuse2badub

    Are you suggesting the the bible contains a fabricated story? This is unthinkable!

    just saying!

  • fulltimestudent
    fulltimestudent

    Since then my understanding of the Hellenised world that Jesus grew up in has advanced a little further.

    Why did the idea that YHWH could in some way impregnated the virgin Mary suddenly appear in Jewish thought?

    We should remember that the proto-christianity taught by Jesus was entirely a product of Jewish thought, but a Jewish thought that had long been modified by a prolonged (hundreds of years) influence by the then dominant Hellenic (Greek) thought.

    In Hellenic thought there were many examples of Gods (Divine beings) impregnating human women, resulting in semi-divine off-spring.

    Surely an easy leap to claiming something similar in Jewish thought. And, therefore easy for Jesus to think that he had a semi-divine life.

  • JaniceA
    JaniceA

    It's the human Y chromosome that produces sin. That way it all somehow works. It's the snips and snails and puppy dog tails bits that are nasty. Jesus got unsullied Y chromosomes from god.

    Presumably.

  • stumbledbyothers
    stumbledbyothers

    My surface investigation tells me that this is a teaching NOT originated with Watchtower.

    You be surprise that a handful of Watchtower doctrine background origins are from the Catholic Church dating back to the middle-ages.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit