"Being born from a virgin"

[Hestha]

Bias, as in taking it as a basic supposition that the supernatural can or can't happen. It's not a negative connotation, just pointing out that it's a form of bias. It's not bad.

I've never seen the supernatural as terrible normative to begin with. I don't discount that the supernatural happens any less today than in the past; but I don't think it's to be expected.

-CryptoLutheran

But don't you have to expect another miracle to occur at the Second Coming of Christ?

According to this source, the Talmud predicts that the Messianic Age would come by Year 6000. That's approximately 200 years from now. So, if the Messianic Age doesn't come by then, then I suppose that would mean some trouble for the Jews.

Christians contend that the Messianic Age is already here, because Jesus is the Christ, and has been around for approximately 2012 years (2012 anno domini). What if natural events occur instead? Would that prove Christianity wrong? What about the Great Commission which tells Christians to baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit until the Son would be with them until the end of this age? I suppose "age" implies the Messianic age, isn't it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

But don't you have to expect another miracle to occur at the Second Coming of Christ?

By not expecting the supernatural I mean that I don't live my life with the notion that God is, at every twist and turn, contravening and overturning the natural order of the universe. That Christ walked on water doesn't mean that I should expect people to go around walking on water; just because Moses parted the sea doesn't mean that there are to be people hanging out on the edge of bodies of water with powerful winds blasting the water into walls. The supernatural can happen, that doesn't mean it always does.

According to this source, the Talmud predicts that the Messianic Age would come by Year 6000. That's approximately 200 years from now. So, if the Messianic Age doesn't come by then, then I suppose that would mean some trouble for the Jews.

Christians contend that the Messianic Age is already here, because Jesus is the Christ, and has been around for approximately 2012 years (2012 anno domini). What if natural events occur instead? Would that prove Christianity wrong? What about the Great Commission which tells Christians to baptize people in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit until the Son would be with them until the end of this age? I suppose "age" implies the Messianic age, isn't it?

There's disagreement among Christians concerning the concept of a "Messianic Age"; I would imagine that Millennialists (those that believe in a literal future 1000 year period where Jesus reigns here on earth) see this period as the "Messianic Age". As an Amillennialist I would disagree, largely in part because I don't believe the 1000 years are literal, or future for that matter. That aside, I would argue that the "Messianic Age" is here now, in part, but the fullness will be when Christ returns, the dead are raised, and God renews the entire cosmos--the Age to Come, which is without end.

When Christ says He will be with us "until the end of the age" He means this present period of time, this age which is filled with war, violence, greed, etc. It means Jesus, by ascending to the Father, was not abandoning us; He remains with us even until He comes again at the consummation of history.

When you ask, "What if natural events occur instead?" I don't know what this means. Do you mean something like that the earth will ultimately be swallowed up by the sun when it enters into its red giant phase?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hestha]

When you ask, "What if natural events occur instead?" I don't know what this means. Do you mean something like that the earth will ultimately be swallowed up by the sun when it enters into its red giant phase?

-CryptoLutheran

Yes. What will happen to the universe can be summarized by Robert Frost's creative poem, Fire and Ice. No, I am not saying that Robert Frost is a prophet; I am just saying that the poem has been used as a nice literary contribution to modern cosmology, based in astronomy and physics.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

It is predicted that the sun will swell up into a Red Giant. The "Fire" Part.
It is predicted that the universe will gradually cool down to nothingness. The "Ice" Part.

This cosmology gives me the creeps. I'd rather believe that something would be eternal. I suppose energy is the only thing in the universe that is eternal.

 

[jpcedotal]

Hmmm... I suppose that would support the Immaculate Conception of Mary, right? I mean, Mary must be sinless in order to not contribute any of her sins to Jesus by giving him part of her flesh?

Sin is passed down to the children of both sexes from Adam...the bio father, not the mother...

Mary was not sinless...she received her sin from her bio father. She just could not pass it down to Jesus...because she was female. Jesus' Father who is the sinless God certainly didn't pass sin down...because He is not a son of Adam.

 

[Hestha]

Sin is passed down to the children of both sexes from Adam...the bio father, not the mother...

Mary was not sinless...she received her sin from her bio father. She just could not pass it down to Jesus...because she was female. Jesus' Father who is the sinless God certainly didn't pass sin down...because He is not a son of Adam.

I see. Since all humans are descended from a mother and a father, even if they may be adopted by two or more mothers and raised collectively, I suppose all humans are sinners, huh? However, some species reproduce asexually, so I suppose those asexual species are sinless? Dolly the cloned sheep has three mothers and no father. If such an event occurs in humans, then that provides evidence, using your reasoning, that all humans can't be sinned because some humans would be descended from three mothers? I know this would raise a bundle of ethical issues, but let's imagine that this example is hypothetical. If you do produce a "sinless" human, but that human behaves like everybody else (or worse, becomes a serial killer), then what does Christianity have to say about this evil caused by this human?

 

[jpcedotal]

I see. Since all humans are descended from a mother and a father, even if they may be adopted by two or more mothers and raised collectively, I suppose all humans are sinners, huh? However, some species reproduce asexually, so I suppose those asexual species are sinless? Dolly the cloned sheep has three mothers and no father. If such an event occurs in humans, then that provides evidence, using your reasoning, that all humans can't be sinned because some humans would be descended from three mothers? I know this would raise a bundle of ethical issues, but let's imagine that this example is hypothetical. If you do produce a "sinless" human, but that human behaves like everybody else (or worse, becomes a serial killer), then what does Christianity have to say about this evil caused by this human?

uh....

(1) adopted kids still have a bio father and mother, so your analysis makes no sense.
(2) since only human beings are capable of sinning and they do not produce nor will they ever produce asexually...again your analysis makes no sense.
(3) I don't mind hypotheticals...but not science fiction ones when it comes to Christianity.

 

[Hestha]

uh....

(2) since only human beings are capable of sinning

So, does that mean the world would be a better place without humans? If there is a major natural catastrophe (say, a supervolcano eruption) that eventually and gradually kills most of the life on earth, thereby causing a mass extinction, including all humans, then does that mean the world would be free of sin?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes. What will happen to the universe can be summarized by Robert Frost's creative poem, Fire and Ice. No, I am not saying that Robert Frost is a prophet; I am just saying that the poem has been used as a nice literary contribution to modern cosmology, based in astronomy and physics.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

It is predicted that the sun will swell up into a Red Giant. The "Fire" Part.
It is predicted that the universe will gradually cool down to nothingness. The "Ice" Part.

This cosmology gives me the creeps. I'd rather believe that something would be eternal. I suppose energy is the only thing in the universe that is eternal.

If by the time the sun has spent up all its usable hydrogen and balloons up into a red giant--which by then the earth will have already become little more than a dry, lifeless, probably airless husk of its former self--and the Parousia has not taken place, it's a safe bet that we Christians were a bit, how to say, wrong.

However, as a person of faith, I'm hedging my bets that long before that takes place, Christ will come, there will be a renewal of the heavens and the earth, and as such there will be world without end. Of course when is a complete unknown. It could happen ten minutes after I post this, or it could happen in ten thousand years. The hour, Christ says, is known only by the Father--and it's not our business to know.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, does that mean the world would be a better place without humans? If there is a major natural catastrophe (say, a supervolcano eruption) that eventually and gradually kills most of the life on earth, thereby causing a mass extinction, including all humans, then does that mean the world would be free of sin?

The concept of the Fall (whether one reads Genesis 3 as literal history or not) means more than just that human beings are broken and have had their communion with God severed by sin; it means the entire cosmos--all of creation--labors under the bondage of sin.

"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole of creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we await eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved." - St. Paul, Romans 8:19-24a

At the resurrection of the dead--of the body--at the consummation of all things, God is going to make all things new, there will be a restoration and renewal of all things--of the entire cosmos. If every human being suddenly vanished from planet earth, that wouldn't fix the inherent problem of creation in bondage.

The historic, orthodox Christian teaching of course not being that we are saved so we can "go to heaven 'up there' after we die", but that in and by Christ God is setting to rights the entire universe, all of creation, and that this work is happening now in us who are being saved until the day of resurrection; and that we are invited to be partakers, fellow workers with God in this project through our living out and proclaiming of God's kingdom, overturning the dark spaces and places of this world in order to be salt and light, bringing healing to the hurting, embracing and mending the broken, and reconciliation to the enemy-other; to lay down all our swords, take up our cross of suffering in Christ, becoming servant to all with mercy and justice.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jpcedotal]

So, does that mean the world would be a better place without humans? If there is a major natural catastrophe (say, a supervolcano eruption) that eventually and gradually kills most of the life on earth, thereby causing a mass extinction, including all humans, then does that mean the world would be free of sin?

I don't understand the reality you are trying to portray. What point are u getting to? You are asking me very vague and very unreal questions. Does your line of questions actually point in some certain direction?

Not intended to be mean, but sheesh...u are making zero sense.