I think this is my limit for the day, but a couple
quick responses.
--- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:35:56 -0500 George Murphy
> > > --- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Where Jesus' Y chromosome (or whatever may
> > > > substitute for it) came from
> > > > is relevant.
> > >
> > > To which question?
>
> To his manhood. It could not come from Mary, for a
> misplaced part of the
> Y on a somatic chromosome, sufficient to produce a
> male, sometimes found,
> is incompatible with her being female. This is not
> addressed in the
> gospels with good reason. The most sophisticated
> theory at the time was
> that the male provided the form or soul, the vital
> portion; the female,
> only matter to be formed.
It is interesting though that this problem is not any
different from asking where the Y chromosome came from
since the "form" has to come from a male just as the Y
chromosome does. But, it seems to me, if you try to
read it as a statement about heredity you can't take
it exactly that way since there are two statements
about heredity -- He is the Son of God and of the Line
of David. Given that the form comes from the male,
how can He both be Son of God and Heir of David --
trying to ask the question in the way I am suggesting
is wrong puts you in an artificial box saying either
God created the form or the form comes from the Line
of David, i.e., Joseph. If God created the form to be
consonant with the line of David -- i.e., gave Jesus
Joseph's Y chromosome -- how does that show divinity?
This is sort of a roundabout way of saying that the
question that is being asked is still a question that
is, in this context, not particularly meaningful (if
meaningful at all).
> > >
> > > > If it came from Mary's fornication,
> > > > then Jesus was a
> > > > normally begotten human being, innately
> endowed with
> > > > all the rights of
> > > > his fellows. If God then took him over, the
> deity is
> > > > acting as demons do.
> > >
> > > Well, this actually bundles a truckload of
> assumptions
> > > about, among others: 1) how God acts, 2) what it
> means
> > > for Jesus to be the Son of God, and 3) how Jesus
> > > expressed the will of the Father. Without
> expressing
> > > your assumptions it is difficult to give a fair
> > > reading, but the conclusion about the deity
> acting as
> > > demons do is clearly not logically (or
> theologically)
> > > required by anything you wrote as a preface.
> > >
> First assumption is that God does not violate the
> freedom he has given to
> human beings. Possession is such a violation. The
> closest to divine
> "possession" that comes to mind is Elijah and
> Elisha.
Isn't making Mary pregnant violating her freedom?
> But they are
> clearly not divine, let alone deity. Also, they were
> led rather than
> driven.
Even so, I don't see how calling Jesus is necessarily
possession -- Jesus clearly sees Himself as called in
many, many passages.
> Second, briefly, is that there is more than being a
> son of God. Hebrew
> has this idiom, along with son of man. However,
> Jesus also declared
> himself to be one with the Father.
Yes, indeed, and that is a reason for calling Him Son
of God. But I think you are taking a particular
interpretation of *how* Jesus understands Himself to
be one with the Father that is not demanded by
anything that Jesus, the evangelists, or indeed any
part of scriptures say. There are clearly orthodox
christians who I think would disagree with your
particular interpretation. I am not trying to say who
is right, I am saying that there is a variety of
interpretation all within orthodox christianity on the
question.
> I am, by grace, a
> son of God, but I
> cannot claim identity. Even glorification will leave
> me a creature. (I
> can't buy the notion some have produced that they
> will become atemporally
> eternal, one with God.)
I see. I think George made a good comment about those
who emphasize Christ's pre-existence do not even
mention the Virgin Birth. I wholly agree that Jesus
of Nazareth, the Christ, the Second Person of the
Trinity, is not a creature. I don't think that
requires the particular view you put forward. (And
bear in mind I am not saying your view is wrong, just
that it is not required by the texts or orthodoxy, it
makes assumptions about how God acts, etc.)
> > > > This is not moral. Only if Jesus
> unconditionally
> > > > owes his existence to a
> > > > direct divine act may we have the hypostatic
> union
> > > > morally (and, I would
> > > > think, metaphysically).
> > >
> > > Even accepting that, what is the divine act? As
> I
> > > noted in an earlier post to Michael R. Jesus'
> > > followers do not appear to have proclaimed Him
> Son of
> > > God due to the circumstances of His birth. They
> > > proclaimed Him Son of God most significantly
> because
> > > God the Father Resurrected Jesus of Nazareth.
> Note, I
> > > hold rather orthodox views about the VB, but I
> think
> > > when one makes statements such as the one above,
> one
> > > puts at least the cart before the horse in how
> and why
> > > Jesus was proclaimed the Son of God and why the
> > > kerygma went forth. It did not go forth simply
> > > because of the VB.
> > >
> Here you seem to expect a "mechanical" or biological
> explanation. I do
> not claim to explain a miracle. What I note are
> requirements or
> consequences on the basis of philosophical or
> scientific understandings.
I apologize that I am still not quite seeing your
point here. On one level, when someone says where did
Jesus' Y chromosome come from if it was a VB, they
(not you) are doing exactly that... asking for an
explanation of how the thing occurred. If they ask,
isn't it more probable that Mary conceived the way
that women normally conceive, that is a different
question which involves philosophical discussions
about the nature of "miracles", etc. That question is
also closer to having theological significance as to
Jesus' divinity, but I think that also presupposes a
certain set of ideas about how God works and the
nature of God, and Jesus, etc. such as the
extrapolations and traditions that the RC has
preserved and/or accreted regarding Mary the
Godbearer.
> As to the basis of the kerygma, I read your
> statement as saying that
> /only/ the resurrection was its basis. But one
> cannot have the
> resurrection without the crucifixion, the
> crucifixion without the life,
> etc. It's a package deal with inseparable parts.
You have to be born in order to die, sure. But I
don't think in Jewish thought it mattered whether the
birth was a VB. The messiah was thought to be a man,
not God. I think the first christians certainly
thought in that way and it is only because of the
unique character of Jesus that made them think of Him
in different terms, which is another reason to take
all those things seriously. But, not to digress, I
don't recall Jesus ever justifying His ministry or His
calling or His authority on the VB. If it was
important to His ministry and authority, why didn't
the evangelists record Him saying anything about it?
As George pointed out, the most developed
christologies in Paul and John don't mention the VB.
It seems pretty clear to me that if Jesus' followers
had believed the VB, but there was no resurrection,
the movement would have ended there. Remember, Bar
Kochba, IIRC, actually claimed in no uncertain terms
to be divine. When his rebellion failed, and he was
killed, his movement ended there. As a result, the
Talmud refers to Bar Kokhba derisively to show it's
disapproval of him. I think without the imprimatur of
God in the Resurrection, that's where the Jesus
movement would have ended -- at least that's a pretty
good bet.
(SNIP)
> > > To go back to my earlier point, if we DNA test
> Jesus
> > > and Joseph and find out his Y chromosome is the
> same
> > > as Joseph's -- how does that answer any question
> about
> > > Jesus' divinity? If the Y chromosome matches
> that of
> > > someone else, how does that answer any question?
> If
> > > it doesn't match someone else's (that we know
> of) do
> > > we DNA test all of 1st century palestine to find
> if
> > > anyone could be the father of Jesus? This is
> reductio
> > > ad absurdum. None of these tests answer the
> question
> > > of whether Jesus is divine -- although one can
> imagine
> > > the 1st century skeptic saying -- ah hah! Jesus
> and
> > > Joseph have the same Y chromosome, end of story.
> > >
> > > If Jesus is an heir of David in Joseph's
> genealogy,
> > > well, why wouldn't God give Jesus Joseph's Y
> > > chromosome. God the Father -- as far as I am
> aware --
> > > is never said to have His own Y chromosome.
> Again,
> > > there appears to be nothing of theological
> > > significance that is answered by this question
> or even
> > > a strict, empirical testing to answer that
> question.
> >
> I see this as silly, for there was, and is, no DNA
> test available. That
> is why I wrote of a Y chromosome or whatever
> substituted for it. What I
> am saying is that Jesus was not a Jewish bastard
> for, if you have any
> respect for scripture, Joseph was not his father.
>
> Could a Y chromosome like Joseph's, or taken from
> him, have been
> miraculously transferred? Of course. So? My point is
> simply that for Mary
> to be /Theotokos/, there had to be an unprecedented
> miracle.
And I don't think I quibbled at all with that. In
fact, I think I underscore that by saying that asking
the question where does the Y chromosome in Jesus come
from is a category mistake. If you say it comes from
God, it doesn't answer the question that is being
asked. My illustration was to point out that there is
no empirical test that tells you whether the VB is a
miracle or not and it doesn't tell you about the
meaning of the story. It may have relevance to
whether one's particular view of Jesus as being the
Son of God is accurate or not, but I am generally
uncomfortable with putting God in particular boxes
about how He should or does act in the world.
(SNIP)
Sorry, my e-mail truncates responses over a certain
length. Let me just talk about your comment on
clarity -- or certainty, which is often its
handmaiden. First, I sympathize with a desire to
clarify and make certain whenever possible. Second, I
think it is often not possible to clarify and make
systematic lots of things, especially about God and
divine action. Many interpretations are based on not
necessarily scriptural presuppositions about the
nature of God and God's actions. Based on scripture,
there are a wide variety of way God has been described
as acting in the world. I am uncomfortable vis-a-vis
something like the VB to say that it must be one way
and not the other. I think there is a certain wisdom
in the Eastern Orthodox tradition of saying that
something is a mystery -- that is it is incapable of
being systematically compartmentalized. For the same
reason I have sympathy for apothatic theology,
recognizing that we cannot always (or often?) same
something definitively in a positive sense about God,
but sometimes have to approach it by saying what God
is not. To put this in Western philosophical terms, I
believe Kant described God's infinity as being such
that God violates all our categories. I think that's
probably true, and since I recognize our severe
limitations in comprehending God, I think a lot of
humility is due in our interpretations. I guess that
makes me suspicious of too much clarity, too much
certainty, and too systematic of theologies.
That being said, none of that means that I am
postmodern in a strong sense or think that the creeds
can be interpreted to have any meaning one pleases.
Certainly, the creeds mean something objective and
definite, however, I think they are bounding
parameters and that there is a wide variety of
understandings within them.
As to the comment you made in the distinction between
deity and divine, I think the creeds make it clear
that the christian tradition considers Jesus to be the
Second Person of the Trinity and in that sense both
divine and a person of the deity as those terms are
popularly understood (at least by me). Without
knowing what they mean by the distinction of deity and
divine I cannot really say anything more about it.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
Received on Wed Dec 31 17:06:15 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 17:06:16 EST