Re: [asa] Creation and Incarnation

At 10:30 AM 8/11/2006, mrb22667@kansas.net wrote:

>Quoting Bill Hamilton: "My understanding is that the Jewish custom
>was to trace the lineage even of an adopted son through the father."
>
>
>That would make sense -- a patriarchal culture to be sure. In that
>time they were convinced that a woman's body did not contribute
>anything at all toward a
>baby's identity. Her role was "limited" to being its nourishing
>host. It was thought that the man's seed constituted the entire
>new being and that the
>woman's body was simply the receptical. So through most of the last
>2000 years, to say that Jesus was "begat of the Spirit" would have
>been (according to the
>knowledge of the times) to deify Jesus in a complete way. So they
>would have had no more reason to emphasize Mary's lineage than
>Joseph's, and the fact that Mary's is brought up at all turns out to
>be the real surprise given the patriarchal culture. My original
>musing was a 'contempocentric' imposition
>modern DNA issues into pre-modern cultures.
>
>Thanks for reposting my last post, Janice. --merv

@ You're welcome. (I should have maybe sent it back to you so that
you could have posted it to the list yourself. More people may have
seen it. :)

"...How hard would it have been to take an "adoptionist" Christology
and give Jesus an indisputably honorable birth (rather than claiming
honor by the dubious, on the surface, claim that God was Jesus' Father)? ..."

Excerpted from Factor # 2: The Impossible
Faith here: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Aug 11 12:00:05 2006