Greetings on hump day, y'all,
I had an interesting response from a cousin of mine, who was a new looker of my blog, Bob Brehme, a Professor retired from Wake Forest University. As you might remember, I posed a question "Who was Jesus' father?", and what led to such a question being asked.
Now, Bob goes into quite some detail explaining the legitimacy of WHO and WHY. You will find it pretty thought provoking, I think. So come on, weigh in on these subject matters. Your opinions yea or nay are welcome. So onward:
One important point: The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception
of Mary, not of Jesus. The Catholic Church holds that in order to keep the
blood of Jesus free of the taint of Original Sin incurred by Adam and Eve,
Mary had to have blood that was free of this taint. The Church did know
until modern times that the blood of the mother does not pass through the
placenta to become the blood of the child. It did not know when the concept
of the IC was conceived that Jesus' blood did not arise from Mary's blood.
One other point: Semen was thought of as seed until modern times, when
it was realized that semen contained sperm that joined with the egg to form
a human. Before this time, semen was thought to be like a real seed which
contained all the hereditary information of the father This seed during
conception was planted in the woman's body which nourished it the way the
earth nourishes the plant. Thus the blood of the fetus was like the water
of the earth. A child was like its mother only from this connection.
Otherwise the child inherited all from the father. Hence, since God was
Jesus' father, Jesus was divine.
Modern science has shown all this to be false. As I noted in the
earlier email, God had to invent a human male parent for Jesus to make Jesus
human in all ways. The question then must be asked: Who was this male
parent?
Bob earlier said he thought the father was Joseph, but no proof.
Cheerio for today, see you soon. CJ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment