Re: [asa] Rejoinder 9C from Timaeus - to George Murphy

As I said, I understand why considering the virginal conception of Jesus in
this way seems at first seems tasteless. But set that application aside for
a moment & just consider the processes Kessel discusses as matters of
straight biology, & it's pretty amazing. (Assuming that what he says is
true, & as I said I'm not competent to assess the biological claim.) & then
think, maybe ...

Also recall that "kenosis" itself is not just a theoretical concept. It's
part of what is technically called Christ's state of humiliation. He was
humiliated, placed in situations that were just wrong for him, disgusting to
use your term - pre-eminently the cross. Think of the eternal Second Person
of the Trinity as a tiny blob of cells floating in amniotic fluid. & if
kenosis indeed displays the divine character, it pertains to the Holy Spirit
as well, so perhaps being reduced to the level of a lab technician instead
of doing things by fiat isn't so inappropriate.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
To: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Rejoinder 9C from Timaeus - to George Murphy

> George,
>
> Thanks for the comments. I'll just reply to the last. You wrote, "I
> understand the feeling, but why does the fact that we understand something
> mean that there can be no awe or wonder involved in contemplating it?"
>
> As indicated in my first comment, I actually get excited learning about
> things like the Red Sea periodically retreating from a certain locale,
> which might have allowed an army to walk across. So in general I would
> say, such things shouldn't reduce the awe or wonder we feel at seeing
> *how* God did something that we previously only believed that he did do.
>
> I can't fully explain my reaction in this case, however. The article was
> a scholarly discussion about how the virgin birth could have been
> explained as a combination of an extremely rare (never before observed in
> mammals) spontaneous generation resulting in an XX chromosome, combined
> with a rare sex reversal to coincide with the Biblical description of
> Jesus' maleness. My initial gut reaction was one of disgust at the
> scholarly presumption perhaps, or the ridiculous sound of the unnecessary
> proposal, in comparison with the apparent beauty of the traditional
> formulation, "and the Holy Ghost shall come upon you" (whatever that
> actually meant in Mary's case). I'll admit it's not necessarily a
> rational objection since I don't have any idea what the Holy Ghost did
> biologically to effect the conception, but rather a feeling that's
> probably based on traditional sensitivities. Never mind the fact that
> such a hypothesis is completely untestable, and therefore mere idle
> speculatio!
>
> n, unless the real "Shroud of Turin" is discovered so that one could check
> the DNA.
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 19 14:59:34 2008