FK to Kosta: To some extent, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. But without the fun part. :)
Thank you FK. You, are telling me that Christ is a "mixture" of divine and human, correct?
As I said before, the only thing we are told in scriptures about His appearance is that it was nothing out of the ordinary
Hmmm. The usual "stuff" but "without the fun part," right?
Therefore I conclude that the male DNA within Him did not make Him to "appear" to be a perfect male "specimen"
Imperfect man?
I've seen you mention this "demigod" thing a few times, but I don't think I get it
That's obvious.
Christ [sic] was 100% God
Was? (P-Marlowe, will you please note the tense here. It seems to be something you are sensitive to.) But, FK, you stated above that after Incarnation He is a "mixture" of divine and human. Are you saying He "was 100% God" until Incarnation but then became a "mixture" of 100% God and 100% human?
God made Mary's DNA in the first place, so what difference does it make, for these purposes, whether He used Mary's DNA or if He just went into the lab and manufactured some other person's DNA, not related to Mary?
I guess He could have used clay too. It's been done before.
OR, is your contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood? Ah, is this it?
So far, what you are telling me is not even close to what Chistiany taught and still teaches. To summarize: you are telling me (1) that Christ is a mixture of divine and human "genes," (2) that Incarnation is perfectly ordinary "stuff" except "without the fun part," (3) that Jesus Christ is not a perfect male "specimen," (4) that Christ was a 100% God and (5) that Mary "DNA" was as good as anyone else's.
And after all that you ask me if it is my "contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood!"
I believe that the concept of essence (nature) is not clear in your theology, FK.
FK to Kosta: To some extent, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. But without the fun part. :)
Thank you FK. You, are telling me that Christ is a "mixture" of divine and human, correct?
You have to tell me what "mixture" means. I think that if a DNA test was done on Jesus it would have proved that Mary was His genetic mother. If correct, that could have been accomplished by God in one of two ways. Either God could have completely manufactured a duplicate copy of Mary's DNA and injected it into Jesus before inserting the surrogate baby into Mary. Or, it could have happened just as my side has been telling you.
We have probably all seen the "Omen" movies and know what happened when they analyzed Damien's blood. Do you think this is some holy version of that? :)
As we all agree, though for apparently different reasons, Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man at the time of His birth.
FK: As I said before, the only thing we are told in scriptures about His appearance is that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
Hmmm. The usual "stuff" but "without the fun part," right?
Not really sure what you mean. We all agree on whether He took a wife, etc. Do you think His appearance was out of the ordinary?
FK: Therefore I conclude that the male DNA within Him did not make Him to "appear" to be a perfect male "specimen".
Imperfect man?
Yes, physically, if perfection is defined as being the tallest, strongest, fastest, being perfectly symmetrical, etc. As I said before, His physical appearance (and I therefore infer outward physical attributes) blended in with everyone else's as far as we can tell from scripture. Therefore, his left eye might have been a millimeter lower than His right, etc. That kind of thing. Would that diminish Him, in your opinion?
Was? (P-Marlowe, will you please note the tense here. It seems to be something you are sensitive to.) But, FK, you stated above that after Incarnation He is a "mixture" of divine and human. Are you saying He "was 100% God" until Incarnation but then became a "mixture" of 100% God and 100% human?
You well know that I wasn't paying any attention to the "tense" that became relevant in LATER posts. Before the Incarnation, the Word was 100% God. After the Incarnation, the Word was 100% God and 100% man. The Word BECAME flesh.
To summarize: you are telling me (1) that Christ is a mixture of divine and human "genes," (2) that Incarnation is perfectly ordinary "stuff" except "without the fun part," (3) that Jesus Christ is not a perfect male "specimen," (4) that Christ was a 100% God and (5) that Mary's "DNA" was as good as anyone else's.
(1) Yes, Jesus had Mary's DNA within Him from Mary herself. (2) No, the work of the Holy Spirit was wholly supernatural. Once completed, the pregnancy proceeded normally. (3) Yes, as I defined "perfect" earlier. (4) already addressed. (5) Mary's DNA was exactly what God wanted it to be for the purpose of mothering Jesus Christ. He created it.
And after all that you ask me if it is my "contention that the blood Jesus spilled was not human blood!"
Yes, do you have an answer? I really have no idea what you will say. :)