| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 36:12:39 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,011 |
The bible tells us that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became pregnant, but my question relates more to the science of it.-a Was sperm produced to impregnate the egg and if so, how did that sperm get there?
Or was it simply God developing the egg without sperm and there was something of God's DNA which allowed the foetus to develop?
The bible tells us that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became pregnant, but my question relates more to the science of it.-a Was sperm produced to impregnate the egg and if so, how did that sperm get there?
Or was it simply God developing the egg without sperm and there was something of God's DNA which allowed the foetus to develop?
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53202/has-there-ever-been-documented-human-individual-producing-both-kinds-of-sex-cell
So there is rather flimsy, but not impossible evidence suggesting that
there have been a few cases of people capable of producing both sperm
and ova.
I am of course not a medical person, but maybe it's feasible for a
person to have gonads that developed thus, that is, one as ovary and
one as testicular. Maybe such a person could somehow fertilise their
own ova, but I don't know.
So God could perhaps have achieved it that way, I don't know. I just
accept in faith that somehow Mary brought forth the Child as the angel
had prophesied.
So there is rather flimsy, but not impossible evidence suggesting that
there have been a few cases of people capable of producing both sperm
and ova.
* Timreason <10ac86d$2nnag$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 16 Sep 2025 18:53:18 +0100:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53202/has-there-ever-been-documented-human-individual-producing-both-kinds-of-sex-cell
So there is rather flimsy, but not impossible evidence suggesting that
there have been a few cases of people capable of producing both sperm
and ova.
I am of course not a medical person, but maybe it's feasible for a
person to have gonads that developed thus, that is, one as ovary and
one as testicular. Maybe such a person could somehow fertilise their
own ova, but I don't know.
So God could perhaps have achieved it that way, I don't know. I just
accept in faith that somehow Mary brought forth the Child as the angel
had prophesied.
filed for later.
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.
(from last week's service)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_of_the_woman
For Jesus to be called the "seed of the woman", therefore, is
interpreted to mean that he will have no earthly father. The phrase
"seed of the woman" is sometimes counted as referring to Jesus.
The woman does not have seed, only man does. How then was that
(Gen 3:15) said of the Woman? Is it not evident that there is
here question of Christ, whom the holy Virgin brought forth
without seed? As a matter of fact, the singular is used, "of the
seed", and not the plural, "of the seeds". The seed of the woman
is referred to again in Revelation 12:17
-- Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis (ibid)
Interesting. Of course, there is no doubt that Mary was a woman, but
just feasibly a woman with a gonad that developed as a testicle instead
of as an ovary. Yes, a woman does not *usually* produce seed, but of
course this was NOT a 'usual' event!
Really, it is far simpler to imagine God working a direct miracle than
to try and explain it away with a physical and anatomical impossibility.
3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.
(from last week's service)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_of_the_woman
For Jesus to be called the "seed of the woman", therefore, is
interpreted to mean that he will have no earthly father. The phrase
"seed of the woman" is sometimes counted as referring to Jesus.
The woman does not have seed, only man does. How then was that
(Gen 3:15) said of the Woman? Is it not evident that there is
here question of Christ, whom the holy Virgin brought forth
without seed? As a matter of fact, the singular is used, "of the
seed", and not the plural, "of the seeds". The seed of the woman
is referred to again in Revelation 12:17
-- Sacramentary of Serapion of Thmuis (ibid)
On 16/09/2025 17:10, John wrote:
The bible tells us that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she
became pregnant, but my question relates more to the science of it.
Was sperm produced to impregnate the egg and if so, how did that sperm
get there?
Or was it simply God developing the egg without sperm and there was
something of God's DNA which allowed the foetus to develop?
A search gave me:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53202/has-there-ever-been- documented-human-individual-producing-both-kinds-of-sex-cell
So there is rather flimsy, but not impossible evidence suggesting that
there have been a few cases of people capable of producing both sperm
and ova.
I am of course not a medical person, but maybe it's feasible for a
person to have gonads that developed thus, that is, one as ovary and one
as testicular. Maybe such a person could somehow fertilise their own
ova, but I don't know.
So God could perhaps have achieved it that way, I don't know. I just
accept in faith that somehow Mary brought forth the Child as the angel
had prophesied.
The bible tells us that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became >pregnant, but my question relates more to the science of it. Was sperm >produced to impregnate the egg and if so, how did that sperm get there?
Or was it simply God developing the egg without sperm and there was >something of God's DNA which allowed the foetus to develop?
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 17:10:26 +0100, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
The bible tells us that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became
pregnant, but my question relates more to the science of it. Was sperm
produced to impregnate the egg and if so, how did that sperm get there?
Or was it simply God developing the egg without sperm and there was
something of God's DNA which allowed the foetus to develop?
So, in my opinion, it was something completely different to that. As the wording of Scripture says, the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary, and that overshadowing involved directly acting on the egg that would become Jesus, both to supply the DNA which gave him his own genetic identity separate to hers and to override the effects of the fall so that he could be born
without sin.
But, I could be wrong. And it doesn't really matter if I am wrong. Because none of that matters to usThat's true, and maybe I started off with the wrong question, but this
On 16/09/2025 18:53, Timreason wrote:
On 16/09/2025 17:10, John wrote:
The bible tells us that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she
became pregnant, but my question relates more to the science of it.
Was sperm produced to impregnate the egg and if so, how did that
sperm get there?
Or was it simply God developing the egg without sperm and there was
something of God's DNA which allowed the foetus to develop?
A search gave me:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53202/has-there-ever-
been- documented-human-individual-producing-both-kinds-of-sex-cell
So there is rather flimsy, but not impossible evidence suggesting that
there have been a few cases of people capable of producing both sperm
and ova.
I am of course not a medical person, but maybe it's feasible for a
person to have gonads that developed thus, that is, one as ovary and
one as testicular. Maybe such a person could somehow fertilise their
own ova, but I don't know.
That's one theory I don't buy.
If the sperm was needed to fertilise the
egg then by some miracle that sperm got there, although I would go for
the alternative premis that in Mary's case the sperm wasn't needed and a miracle was performed to allow the egg to be fertilised.
However that leads me on to the main part of my question (and perhaps
that's where I should have started from) in what way is God the father
of Jesus?-a It is accepted that the Word was in Heaven prior to his incarnation as Jesus, but what part did he play there?-a Was he already God's son, which allowed God to say "this is my son, of whom I am well pleased" or did he only became the Son of God following the Spirit descending on him at that point?
On 17/09/2025 09:45, John wrote:
On 16/09/2025 18:53, Timreason wrote:
On 16/09/2025 17:10, John wrote:
I am of course not a medical person, but maybe it's feasible for a
person to have gonads that developed thus, that is, one as ovary and
one as testicular. Maybe such a person could somehow fertilise their
own ova, but I don't know.
That's one theory I don't buy.
Nor me, really. It doesn't sound reasonable to me, but it was all I came
up with after a fairly quick search.
That's one theory I don't buy. If the sperm was needed to fertilise the
egg then by some miracle that sperm got there, although I would go for
the alternative premis that in Mary's case the sperm wasn't needed and a miracle was performed to allow the egg to be fertilised.
I'm not suggesting it's relevant to Jesus, but it's entirely possible
for a virgin to conceive without anything supernatural. In fact, I
knew a couple where this happened.
She was a virgin and refused to have intercourse, but they must have
become quite 'intimate'. Sperm are good swimmers, it only took one to
find the egg, and they became parents. They married and were together
for over 60 years.
I see that as more an end time prediction than what happened in the
Garden of Eden, but I could be wrong.-a What is interesting though is
that if Genesis 3:15 does relate to Mary and Jesus was already the plan
to redeem mankind, then why the flood?
However that leads me on to the main part of my question (and perhaps
that's where I should have started from) in what way is God the father
of Jesus?-a It is accepted that the Word was in Heaven prior to his incarnation as Jesus, but what part did he play there?-a Was he already God's son, which allowed God to say "this is my son, of whom I am well pleased" or did he only became the Son of God following the Spirit descending on him at that point?
Also, there is thetradition of bathhouse insemination.I'm pretty sure that is a myth, urban or otherwise.
I'm not suggesting it's relevant to Jesus, but it's entirely possible
for a virgin to conceive without anything supernatural.
In fact, I knew a couple where this happened.
She was a virgin and refused to have intercourse, but they must have
become quite 'intimate'. Sperm are good swimmers, it only took one to
find the egg, and they became parents. They married and were together
for over 60 years.
I think a lot of confusion for us arises from our being by very nature limited to a temporal perspective.
So I just accept the Bible's 'Think of it this way' as telling us what
we need to know in a way we can (at least to some degree) comprehend.
We aren't told how that DNA got there, and I don't think we need to know. Bear in mind, also, that Jesus didn't just benefit from miraculously
inserted DNA (which, among other things, made him male, unlike Mary) but
also from the miraculous removal of inherited original sin.
On 18/09/2025 02:37, Madhu wrote:
Also, there is thetradition of bathhouse insemination.I'm pretty sure that is a myth, urban or otherwise.
On 17/09/2025 09:26, John wrote:
I see that as more an end time prediction than what happened in the
Garden of Eden, but I could be wrong.-a What is interesting though is
that if Genesis 3:15 does relate to Mary and Jesus was already the
plan to redeem mankind, then why the flood?
The Flood was a chance to prolong Earth's history long enough for Jesus
to come. Before the Flood humanity had become completely depraved and it
was either clean the place up a bit or bring on the end times!
In addition, never forget that Jesus' incarnation and death was not just
for us humans. As the book of Job tells us, there is a cosmic dimension
to what goes on here on earth. So the Flood was necessary to clean up
the Earth, but the incarnation was needed - in due course - both to save humans and to clarify issues in the controversy caused by satan's
rebellion.
On 17/09/2025 09:45, John wrote:
However that leads me on to the main part of my question (and perhaps
that's where I should have started from) in what way is God the father
of Jesus?-a It is accepted that the Word was in Heaven prior to his
incarnation as Jesus, but what part did he play there?-a Was he already
God's son, which allowed God to say "this is my son, of whom I am well
pleased" or did he only became the Son of God following the Spirit
descending on him at that point?
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, the three Persons of the
Trinity are - and always have been - equal to each other. To speak of
one of them as "Father" and another as "Son" is ridiculous and possibly blasphemous.
However when Jesus came to earth as a man, His relationship with the
other two Persons became such as could be described in earthly terms as "son" and "father". (And as two fathers is not possible in human terms,
one of the two Persons became known as "Father" and the other as "Holy Spirit".) Now that Jesus is back in heaven I suspect that the terms have become redundant.
On the other hand, we believe that Jesus retains His human form, so
perhaps He is still known as "Son".
The theologians have gone to great lengths to try and make all this comprehensible. One early analogy was fire. The Father is fire, the Son
is light, the Holy Spirit is heat. Fire comes before the other two and causes the other two, but just as you cannot have light and heat without fire, so you cannot have fire without light and heat.
Frankly, they are talking through the back of their necks. We simply do
not know the exact relationship between the Persons of the Trinity and
it is always possible that when we get up to heaven and meet them in
person, our human brains will still be unable to comprehend the reality.
On 17/09/2025 12:18, Mark Goodge wrote:
We aren't told how that DNA got there, and I don't think we need to know.
Bear in mind, also, that Jesus didn't just benefit from miraculously
inserted DNA (which, among other things, made him male, unlike Mary) but
also from the miraculous removal of inherited original sin.
Hmmm.
How does one measure original sin? Litres? Kilos? Centimetres? Or which
bits of our DNA are the original sin bits? The "junk DNA"?
In my understanding there are two aspects to "original sin". The first
is indeed our DNA, which has become corrupted over the millennia so that some are born with a weakness towards bad temper and others with a
weakness towards gluttony, etc. It is becoming increasingly recognised
that personality traits can be inherited, whether actual genes or just
the transcription factors which decide on the activation of certain genes.
However the second - and, in my view, more important - aspect of
original sin is illustrated by my children. I am an Australian citizen. Thanks to my decision to reside in Britain, my children and
grandchildren are British citizens. They are, so to speak, deprived of
their Australian heritage and citizenship.
When Adam and Eve chose to sin they voluntarily removed themselves from God's rule and placed themselves under satan's rule. If you like, they
lost their citizenship of heaven and became citizens of the devil's
kingdom, a situation which is inherited by their children. However any
one of us can, through God's grace, make a formal declaration (baptism
in Christian terms) repudiating satan's kingdom and joining God's.
As Jesus was tempted in all points like as us, I think it possible that
He had the first form of original sin by inheritance from His mother.
(Of course, I could be completely wrong on this point. Perhaps He had a perfect genome. Perhaps, in fact, He did not have any of Mary's genes!
Both ovum and sperm were of divine origin.)
However from birth Jesus was never part of satan's kingdom, a status
which He confirmed by His baptism and by God's recognition of it.
The "junk DNA"?
Unusual interpretation of Genesis 6:7 and 13 but ok
That's very interesting, but what did the death of Jesus accomplish
(serious question)?-a Did it redeem mankind or does it continue to
destroy 90% (at best) of those who's minds have been blinded by the god
of this world?
For sure, if Christianity is correct, then those who believe (and I meanI have no idea how many it will be. Sometimes I think that God will be
who truly believe what Jesus taught, rather than their denomination's interpretation of what Jesus taught, will go on to eternal glory, but
how many is that?
I don't see why you should blanket-discount it. Both Hindu and Rabbinic holiness codes come down strongly against emissions in water bodies.
Few things pollute more than genetic material. Urine is positively
benign considered to semen. The reason could be that the seers foresaw
the possibilities and danger of bathhouse insemination.
Not the same thing but confirming GB's anectdote ISTR an 80s readersHah! I've read the same book. It was a Hong Kong judge, not a doctor,
digest edition of a book by a doctor in China on his experiences there.
He was called to diagnose a pregnancy in impossible conditions. in which
the alleged participants (neighbours) had been strictly cloistered and segregated all their house in the respective houses. The doctor
discovered a hole of some small diameter in the wall.
You don't know that, the bible doesn't say they were equal, only the
creeds say that.
Well, given it was God in Heaven who said, this is my son, would that
not indicate that was the relationship?-a Jesus constantly referred to
God as his father, was that on mere human terms and God wasn't really
his father?-a We know that Jesus has some recollection of his time prior
to his human birth, so it would seem strange to identify the
relationship on those terms if it wasn't true.
It was once described to me as water, ice, steam and water, which I did latch on to at the time.
Although I'm shocked to admit it, I do accept that as a good explanation.I would rather say "analogy" than "explanation". I do not claim to have plumbed the depths of the mystery of God.
The "junk DNA"?
There's emerging evidence that the parts of the DNA that don't code for proteins (that's most of it) really are not junk. There's a difference between our not (yet) understanding what a particular bit of DNA does
and it actually having no purpose.
On 18/09/2025 09:11, John wrote:
Unusual interpretation of Genesis 6:7 and 13 but ok
Sorry? What's unusual about taking the Bible literally, that humans had
gone completely bad?
That's very interesting, but what did the death of Jesus accomplish
(serious question)?-a Did it redeem mankind or does it continue to
destroy 90% (at best) of those who's minds have been blinded by the
god of this world?
The really interesting question is, What prevented God from just
forgiving Adam and Eve and giving them a second chance? Why was all this rigmarole of Jesus' death necessary?
Jesus came and lived a perfect life, yet the devil persecuted and
harrassed Him and finally killed Him. His hatred of Jesus was the real reason for his rebellion and, of course, demonstrated God's justice in throwing him out and keeping him out.
If the devil was evil - as was now obvious - then that, not God's "unfairness", was the cause of evil in the world.
On 18/09/2025 17:05, GB wrote:
The "junk DNA"?
There's emerging evidence that the parts of the DNA that don't code
for proteins (that's most of it) really are not junk. There's a
difference between our not (yet) understanding what a particular bit
of DNA does and it actually having no purpose.
I know, which is why I put "junk DNA" in quotes. In fact, Creationists predict that there will be no - or very very little - junk DNA. It is Evolutionists who are happy to claim that large portions of our DNA is
junk.
I am glad to see you agree that in this case at least, it is the
Creationists who are (yet again) being supported by the evidence.
|What do you mean by junk DNA?If you have not previously encountered the term "junk DNA" then I
suggest that you need to do some pretty serious study before you try debating evolution v. creationism with those who are better informed.
I am glad to see you agree that in this case at least, it is the Creationists who are (yet again) being supported by the evidence.
On 18/09/2025 08:26, Madhu wrote:
I don't see why you should blanket-discount it.-a Both Hindu and Rabbinic
holiness codes come down strongly against emissions in water bodies.
Few things pollute more than genetic material.-a Urine is positively
benign considered to semen.-a The reason could be that the seers foresaw
the possibilities and danger of bathhouse insemination.
I am not sure that semen could survive for long exposed to a) a huge quantity of fresh water, and b) the chlorine in that water.
Not the same thing but confirming GB's anectdote ISTR an 80s readersHah! I've read the same book. It was a Hong Kong judge, not a doctor,
digest edition of a book by a doctor in China on his experiences there.
He was called to diagnose a pregnancy in impossible conditions. in which
the alleged participants (neighbours) had been strictly cloistered and
segregated all their house in the respective houses. The doctor
discovered a hole of some small diameter in the wall.
and the parents brought the daughter in complaining that the neighbour's
son had "seen" their daughter and thus made her pregnant. It took a
while for him to understand that "seen" was a euphemism and the real
problem was the knot hole in the wooden wall.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
* "Kendall K. Down" <10aj0os$bj5a$5@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:29:32 +0100:
On 18/09/2025 17:05, GB wrote:
The "junk DNA"?
There's emerging evidence that the parts of the DNA that don't code
for proteins (that's most of it) really are not junk. There's a
difference between our not (yet) understanding what a particular bit
of DNA does and it actually having no purpose.
I know, which is why I put "junk DNA" in quotes. In fact, Creationists
predict that there will be no - or very very little - junk DNA. It is
Evolutionists who are happy to claim that large portions of our DNA is
junk.
I am glad to see you agree that in this case at least, it is the
Creationists who are (yet again) being supported by the evidence.
[from the quotes file, from last time]
|Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:18:40 +0530
| Message-ID: <m37cenrjbb.fsf@leonis4.robolove.meer.net>
|
|* "Kendall K. Down" <v4os48$i61d$4@dont-email.me> :
|Wrote on Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:28:56 +0100:
|What do you mean by junk DNA?If you have not previously encountered the term "junk DNA" then I
suggest that you need to do some pretty serious study before you try debating evolution v. creationism with those who are better informed.
|"Don't take me seriously, but I have a hunch that when the unknown
|parts of the DNA are decoded, the so-called sequences of junk DNA,
|they're going to turn out to be copyright notices and patent
|protections."
| ---Donald Knuth
I wasn't referring to humans going bad, I agree that's what happened. I
was more taking aim that God decided to destroy the wicked and saving
the righteous Noah and his family, but that didn't stop the wickedness,
and if Jesus was the lamb slain before the world began or the seed of
the woman, it begs the question why?
I can't speak for the Hindu tradition, but a Jewish religious bath (a mikvah) does not contain Chlorine. My mother was a gynaecologist, and
she complained that mikvot were not hygienic and spread diseases.
Is that remark supposed to rescue Darwin's theory from the facts thatI am glad to see you agree that in this case at least, it is the
Creationists who are (yet again) being supported by the evidence.
A broken clock is completely accurate twice a day, whilst a working
clock is rarely, if ever, completely accurate. Which is more useful,
though?
|"Don't take me seriously, but I have a hunch that when the unknown
|parts of the DNA are decoded, the so-called sequences of junk DNA,
|they're going to turn out to be copyright notices and patent
|protections."
| ---Donald Knuth
A broken clock is completely accurate twice a day, whilst a working
clock is rarely, if ever, completely accurate. Which is more useful,
though?
On 19/09/2025 15:59, GB wrote:
I can't speak for the Hindu tradition, but a Jewish religious bath (a
mikvah) does not contain Chlorine. My mother was a gynaecologist, and
she complained that mikvot were not hygienic and spread diseases.
God's command was for the unclean to bathe in running water.
On 20/09/2025 00:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 19/09/2025 15:59, GB wrote:
I can't speak for the Hindu tradition, but a Jewish religious bathGod's command was for the unclean to bathe in running water.
(a mikvah) does not contain Chlorine. My mother was a gynaecologist,
and she complained that mikvot were not hygienic and spread
diseases.
Do you have a biblical reference for that?
[from the quotes file, from last time]
What's the quotes file? I had assumed that my previous nonsenses were
dead and buried. It's alarming to think that someone is going to dig
up something I said years ago, and use it against me. :)
* GB <10am16e$12dtu$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sat, 20 Sep 2025 11:55:10 +0100:
On 20/09/2025 00:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 19/09/2025 15:59, GB wrote:
I can't speak for the Hindu tradition, but a Jewish religious bathGod's command was for the unclean to bathe in running water.
(a mikvah) does not contain Chlorine. My mother was a gynaecologist,
and she complained that mikvot were not hygienic and spread
diseases.
Do you have a biblical reference for that?
Perhaps Leviticus?
15,13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue, then he
shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his
clothes; and he shall bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be
clean. (JPS 1917)
15:13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he
shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his
clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean. (KJV)
P.S. the plural appears to be mikvaot.
Running water has a messianic interpretation , John 4:20
[from the quotes file, from last time]
What's the quotes file? I had assumed that my previous nonsenses were
dead and buried. It's alarming to think that someone is going to dig
up something I said years ago, and use it against me. :)
The quote was Donald Knuth's. I got it from the a poster's ( Adam
Funk's) signature, and just called the source of the sigs a "quote file" loosely. I dont' have a quotes file myself -- and copied it from my
"sent folder". (I do have a very small number of ukrc posts "cached"
because they may be memorable but I haven't invested the time in
indexing them or even going through them), i imagine usenet is archived
by multiple bot-agencies though the archives may not be public.
Do you have a biblical reference for that?Most references are simply to "water", but Leviticus 15:13 specifically mentions "running water" and the fact that the rabbis set up this
Which literally means living water.
It is interpreted as rainwater or
spring water, but gathered into a pool. I think 'running water' is a mistranslation, but I see where Ken is coming from now.
P.S. the plural appears to be mikvaot.
Both are okay.
On 20/09/2025 17:49, GB wrote:
Which literally means living water.
Indeed.
It is interpreted as rainwater or spring water, but gathered into a
pool. I think 'running water' is a mistranslation, but I see where Ken
is coming from now.
It is hard to see how still water in a pool could be considered
"living", whereas a spring or a river is quite obviously "alive".
P.S. the plural appears to be mikvaot.
Both are okay.
Thanks for the clarification.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/09/2025 16:05, Madhu wrote:
[from the quotes file, from last time]
What's the quotes file? I had assumed that my previous nonsenses were
dead and buried. It's alarming to think that someone is going to dig
up something I said years ago, and use it against me. :)
The quote was Donald Knuth's.-a I got it from the a poster's ( Adam
Funk's) signature, and just called the source of the sigs a "quote file"
loosely.-a I dont' have a quotes file myself -- and copied it from my
"sent folder".-a (I do have a very small number of ukrc posts "cached"
because they may be memorable but I haven't invested the time in
indexing them or even going through them), i imagine usenet is archived
by multiple bot-agencies though the archives may not be public.
Google Groups used to be a great source for looking up old posts, but
they stopped collecting Usenet a year or two ago. I'm not sure whether
the old posts are still searchable.
To understand where the rabbis are coming from on this, you'd have to
read their writings. Only then, would you be in a reasonable position to comment on whether they are wrong.
On 18/09/2025 09:38, John wrote:
You don't know that, the bible doesn't say they were equal, only the
creeds say that.
Agreed. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable affirmation given that we
believe the Trinity is made of Three Persons. If They were not equal, it would be hard to comprise them as "One God.
Well, given it was God in Heaven who said, this is my son, would that
not indicate that was the relationship?-a Jesus constantly referred to
God as his father, was that on mere human terms and God wasn't really
his father?-a We know that Jesus has some recollection of his time
prior to his human birth, so it would seem strange to identify the
relationship on those terms if it wasn't true.
God's statement on Jesus' baptism should be seen in the light of the
ancient custom of acknowledging paternity - but also, perhaps, the
ancient custom of adoption. You could adopt someone not related to you
and thereby enable them to have a share in your will.
It is not unreasonable to think that the sonship was merely the human
part of Christ.
No, Jesus' whole purpose was to reveal God. Using human terms to
describe the relationship between Jesus on earth and God in heaven, even
if inaccurate, was understandable.
However, as with all discussions of God, I acknowledge that we simply doFair enough.
not *know* and can only draw inferences. I may be completely wrong.
It was once described to me as water, ice, steam and water, which I
did latch on to at the time.
<shrug>Fine. Whatever.</shrug>
On 21/09/2025 12:06, GB wrote:
To understand where the rabbis are coming from on this, you'd have to
read their writings. Only then, would you be in a reasonable position
to comment on whether they are wrong.
I don't need to read their witterings to look at the practical aspects
and, like your mother, conclude that they are wrong. Instead of
providing cleansing, the rabbinic mikveh spreads disease. I mean, even
the business of picking off scabs - which is not a Biblical command -
makes the body more liable to infection!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 22/09/2025 06:39, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 21/09/2025 12:06, GB wrote:
To understand where the rabbis are coming from on this, you'd have to
read their writings. Only then, would you be in a reasonable position
to comment on whether they are wrong.
I don't need to read their witterings to look at the practical aspects
and, like your mother, conclude that they are wrong. Instead of
providing cleansing, the rabbinic mikveh spreads disease. I mean, even
the business of picking off scabs - which is not a Biblical command -
makes the body more liable to infection!
You do come across as incredibly sure of yourself. If it is, indeed, a commandment from God to do things this way, then that is how it must be done, and any arguments based on practicality are fundamentally flawed.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
You do come across as incredibly sure of yourself. If it is, indeed, a commandment from God to do things this way, then that is how it must be done, and any arguments based on practicality are fundamentally flawed.
BTW, I should own up that I was wrong when I said they don't add
Chlorine to mikvah water. They do. I'm sure that you're relieved.
I see, and this was the point of me starting the thread, you're the
first person I know to define it like that and I don't necessarily
disagree.
The debate I mentioned was between Charlie King and a college student,
and the student made an excellent point regarding gender.-a Charlie presented the same argument as you in regards to identifying as the
opposite sex, and the student responded regarding God's gender, and how Christians identify "him" as Father, in particular Jesus' father, when
in fact God is Spirit, and is genderless, which is what led me to the
thread question.
Bit sarky lol, I didn't say I still agree with it, and I don't.All attempts to describe God are probably deserving of sarcasm, even the venerable fire/heat/light.
On 22/09/2025 12:09, GB wrote:
You do come across as incredibly sure of yourself. If it is, indeed, a
commandment from God to do things this way, then that is how it must
be done, and any arguments based on practicality are fundamentally
flawed.
Certainly we must obey God, but God's command was for running water
God did not command that scabs must be picked off and fillings removed
from teeth.
Doing what God commanded is good and safe; adding to what
God commanded - or taking away from His command - is neither good nor safe.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
God's command was for 'living water'. That's been explained to you, so
why do you persist?
God did not command that scabs must be picked off and fillings removed
from teeth.
I'm puzzled where you get this from?
Doing what God commanded is good and safe; adding to what God
commanded - or taking away from His command - is neither good nor safe.
The trouble is, how do you work that out? Do you do that on your own, totally disregarding other people's work and opinions?