Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yep, totaly Gnostic Heresy!
Couldn't be that your assesment was the least bit hasty?
Yeah, gotta watch out for that heretic bumper, Uphill!
Didja get some sleep between 4:30 & now?
You're lookin' pretty fresh.
(Don't hold that bird over your bike seat for long, if he just ate.)
post 1 is a question.Exactly.
There are dubious tendencies towards Gnostic Heresy in some of the arguments being called upon in this thread. the Gnostics argued that Jesus was not a true fleshly son of Mary, but some sort of special creation.
But Jesus was NOT a counterfeit human, created in the LIKENESS of man He was MADE man. He is the true genetic son of Mary, and through her he claims his ancestry from David and from Adam - all of which is fully attested in scripture.
If asking questions makes you a heretic, all the Apostles were Heretics too.... just a thought.
Uphill Battle said:no so sure. God had created matter Ex Nihilo before. Could he not have created the DNA structure for the incarnation as well?
I just can't wrap my head around it as being neccessary that Mary's DNA was used for the incarnation, as is said.
he had not problem creating ex nihlio, why then would it be a problem that Jesus was (not created) but had his phyical form for the incarnation created as well?
Lionroars post was fair minded, I just don't see evidence one or the other, and it's been asserted quite vhemently on a number of occasions that Jesus MUST share DNA with Mary.
Fireinfolding said:Now when observing conversations it always seems to be steered (or reverted) "backwards" as if is needed to protect a singular woman (in the flesh) both to revere and protect her "person" (known after the flesh, in her singularity) rather then after the Spirit (knowing no one after the flesh).
I'd like to know
1) for those who state that Jesus for CERTAIN derived his DNA from Mary, how we know that with certainty?
and
2) why it is so important that he did?
It is said that it is poor Christology to think that Mary may have been merely a "vessel." and that Jesus derived his humanity from the DNA of Mary.
because I like questioning things.Misquoting me. I didn't call anyone a heretic.
I said that some of the arguments being edged forward here had tendencies towards gnostic heresy. This is true. The themes being raised are Gnostic in basis. ie that Jesus was not truly of the flesh (DNA) of Mary, but somehow "specially created" in her womb.
You may say this is just "questioning" but it is questioning along Gnostic lines. What need is there to question Jesus's real incarnation from the Virgin Mary?
thanks for that.Forgot this bit. This is not just poor Christology, it is poor human biology. However, in context of first century beliefs and medicine, it is understandable.
The ancient Greeks (and by extension everyone else around who was listening, because they were very influential) believed that the human child was contained in the sperm, which was a miniature humunculous. The man planted this humunculous into the woman, who was no more related to the child than a field is related to the vegetable planted in it; that is, it is essential to provide the basis for growth, but does not contribute to its identity.
Along with this thinking, the Greeks believed male children to be perfect, and female children to be an abberation or to be misbegotten in some way. In fact, our own knowledge of genetics shows that it is the other way round.
Clearly, ancient Jewish thought did not concur with this, but wherever we find in Scripture any mention of any woman being a vessel, this is a contamination from Greek thought, and it is wrong.
As we know, the man and woman contribute equally to any child, and to call any woman on earth 'merely a vessel' to her child is a gross insult. To say it of Our Lady is far worse.
thanks for that.
I don't believe in the "mere vessel" line of thought anyways.
the whole point of the thread was , hey, some people say this.
so why is it so crucial that he share Mary's DNA?
some people have answered very nicely.
some have picked up their heresy stick.
so why is it so crucial that he share Mary's DNA?
some people have answered very nicely.
some have picked up their heresy stick.
the point was, Ob, not denying Jesus his human nature. The theoretical argument that I read, and was wondering about (but don't believe, as I have stated numerous times, despite the continued allusion to heretical thinking) is that as Adam had his DNA created, so too, could Christ. Not that Christ was created, as he is eternal, but that the DNA used was not Mary's. Now, I don't think that's so, how could he call her mother otherwise?What is crucial is that He share her nature, which being human, is our nature. A natural outgrowth of this is that He share her DNA, as He is fully human, as is His mother. It is the the direct or implied denial that Christ took on the human nature given to Him by the Theotokos that is heresy. I would place questioning His DNA source as an implied denial, certainly not as grevious as the direct denial by those who would claim that she was only a vessel that gave birth to Jesus.
I don't need to.
Besides, didn't she have Davidic lineage?
At any rate, God's prophecy in Genesis said "seed of the woman", "seed out of nothing".
the point was, Ob, not denying Jesus his human nature. The theoretical argument that I read, and was wondering about (but don't believe, as I have stated numerous times, despite the continued allusion to heretical thinking) is that as Adam had his DNA created, so too, could Christ. Not that Christ was created, as he is eternal, but that the DNA used was not Mary's. Now, I don't think that's so, how could he call her mother otherwise?
but I still think it a case of jumping the gun to play the heresy card, without actually considering what it is that I'm saying.
specifically since I've been quite clear that I don't believe it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?