Jesus-Neither Literal Son of God nor God

[inhumility]

The mother and father participate equally in producing a child. The cells of human beings contain 46 chromosomes, which carry the genes or character bearing threads of life. The ovum of a human mother possesses only 23 of the 46 chromosomes, which is half the number found in each man and woman. When the mother’s ovum is ready and available for insemination, the other half of the chromosomes which it lacks, is provided by the male sperm, which then enters and fertilizes it. This is the design of God, otherwise, the number of chromosomes would begin to double with every generation. As a result the second generation would have 92 chromosomes; humans would soon be transformed into giants and the entire process of growth would run amok. God has so beautifully planned and designed the phenomenon of the survival of species that at productive levels of regenerative cells, chromosomes are halved in number. The mother’s ovum contains 23 chromosomes and so does the father’s sperm. As such, one can reasonably expect half the characters bearing genes of the child to be provided by the female and half by the male partner. This is the meaning of a literal son. There is no other definition of being a literal son which can be ascribed to any human birth. There are variations in the methodology of course, but there are no exceptions to the rules and principles just explained.
Focusing our attention on the birth of Jesus, let us build a scenario about what might have happened in his case. The first possibility, which can be scientifically considered, is that Mary’s unfertilized ovum provided the 23 chromosomes as the mother’s share in the forming of the embryo. That being so, the question would arise as to how the ovum was fertilized and where did the remaining 23 essential chromosomes come from? It is impossible to suggest that Jesus’ cells had only 23 chromosomes. No human child can be born alive with even 45 chromosomes. Even if a human being was deprived of a single chromosome out of the 46 necessary for the making of all human beings, the result would be something chaotic, if there was anything at all. Scientifically, Mary could not provide the 46 chromosomes alone, 23 had to come from somewhere else.
If God is the father then that presents several options. One; God also has the same chromosomes that humans have, and these must have been transferred somehow to the uterus of Mary. That is unbelievable and unacceptable; if God has the chromosomes of human beings it means he is no longer God. So as a consequence of belief in Jesus as the literal ‘Son’ of God, even the divinity of the Father is jeopardised.
The second possibility is that God created the extra chromosomes as a supernatural phenomenon of creation. In other words, they did not actually belong to the person of God, but were created miraculously. This would automatically lead us to reject Jesus’ relationship to God as one of child and father, and would result in the all embracing relationship of the Universe to God, that is, the relationship of every created being to its Creator.
Is a Literal Son of God Possible?
Evidently therefore, literal sonship of God is impossible because a literal son must have half the character of his father and half the character of his mother. So another problem surfaces, the son would be half man and half god. But those who believe in the literal sonship, claim and emphasise that Christ was a perfect man and a perfect god.
If the chromosomes were half the required number then we are not left with any problem, no child would be born anyway. Suppose it did happen, that child would only be half a man. Not to mention the missing twenty-three full chromosomes, even a single defective gene within one chromosome can play havoc with a child born with such a congenital defect. He could be blind, limbless, deaf and dumb. The dangers attendant to such a mishap are unlimited. One should be realistic; it is impossible to conceive God as possessing any chromosomes, human or otherwise.
Therefore, with the personal physical contribution of God having been ruled out, if a son were born to Mary with only the human character bearing genes possessed by her ovum, whatever the outcome, he would certainly not be the ‘Son’ of God. At best you can describe that freak of nature as half a man and no more. If the reproductive organs of Mary were like any other female and still the ovum were to fertilize somehow by itself, the maximum one can expect is the creation of something with only half the human characters. It is abominable to call that something the ‘Son’ of God.

[Bandit]

the bible says to compare that which is spirit with spirit & that which is flesh with flesh. it also says that which is born of flesh is flesh & that which is born of spirit is spirit.

Jesus is LITERAL as both Son of God & son of man.
Son of God after the Spirit (God) & son of man after the flesh (David).

[taijasi]

Joseph and Mary, Jesus' human parents ... works perfectly fine with me. Flesh born of flesh, and thus, fully man.

As Bandit points out, Spirit is born of Spirit. And this process, in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, was no different, imo, than any other human birth. The Soul of the man entered in prior to birth, though in this case, it was a particularly evolved human Soul. And thanks to a careful upbringing in the Essene community into which Jesus was born, purity was emphasized from the very beginning. Both Joseph and Mary knew of the Mission for which Jesus would prepare for 30 years of his life. And therefore, careful attention was given, that he would become the suitable vessel, or vehicle, for the Christ.

As Jesus emphasized again & again during his Ministry, when the amazed disciples and witnesses would observe his healings & good works, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, HE doeth the works." (John 14:10) There, in this utterance, is the emphasis made upon Spirit, upon GOD, whom Jesus distinguishes from himself ... and surely not in simple courtesy, or humility. Is he being trite? Is he speaking a platitude? Is he simply paying lip service? No, that would indicate PRIDE, and false humility.

And what, if not the entering in of something beyond, is hinted at in the artwork depicting the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist at the River Jordan? Christians tend to believe that this is the "Holy Spirit," but esotericists maintain something else entirely. The Dove is understood as representing One, even Greater than Jesus of Nazareth ... Whom & which is the Christ, proper. SUCH a being was capable of uttering the Truth of the Spirital At-ONE-ment to which he had attained: I and the Father are ONE. Such a statement, Jesus himself could not and did not make. Rather, the great service, and contribution, of Jesus of Nazareth, was that he dedicated his entire life to the Treading of the Higher Way, to the Teaching of the Mysteries, and to preparation for the Spiritual Overshadowing ... which he knew would come after age 30.

Visiting Egypt, and probably studying there for long periods, he would have undergone Initiatory rites within that Ancient Tradition. Almost certainly these would have been recapitulatory, for we are told that the very common name, Jesus, had already belonged to this noble Soul in no fewer than three prior incarnations ...

"He is well known in the Bible history, coming before us first as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation, as related in the book of Zechariah, as Joshua, and in the Gospel story he is known for two great sacrifices, that in which he handed over his body for the use of the Christ, and for the great renunciation which is the characteristic of the fourth initiation." (Initiation Human & Solar)

And surely this is not by mere chance, as the Lord works in mysterious ways ... and those who even believe in "the accident of birth," might consider afresh how unlikely this would be in a Spiritual Universe - let alone from within the Higher Worlds, where time is naught, and where Purpose & Order rule the day. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth, there would surely have been the most careful attention paid to the circumstances of his birth, his early years, his preparation for the Great Work at hand ... and also to the very, intimate details - of his final moments in the physical world, if, indeed, these were actually upon the Cross, which I do not believe.

When the silver thread of Christianity, which is the life & being of Jesus of Nazareth, that Great Initiate ... has been distinguished from the Golden Thread which is the Life and Being of That Greater One, The CHRIST ... then a 2100-year-old Mystery will be solved. But until then, the three great divisions of Christianity, and the 25,000+ sects ... will continue to dispute. Meanwhile, many thousands upon this planet already maintain that Jesus of Nazareth, and His Master, The CHRIST, were both students, or Initiates, of the same Divine School of Wisdom ... of which every Human Soul is also a neophyte. This approach makes clear such misunderstood Teachings as the following:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34-36)

... which is a reference to Psalm 82:6:

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

And of course, there is the statement, Greater things than this, ye shall do, for I go unto my Father ... which is clear, and not ambiguous in the least ... and yet which is disputed, twisted, or ignored, because "inconvenient." Certainly this teaching is inconvenient, for to accept it requires that we take Responsibility - for living up to our potential. But deny a person his or her understanding of Innate Divinity, or Inner Human Goodness ... and insist that s/he is sinful, misguided and worthless ... and no wonder these recorded utterances of the Christ are rejected, disputed, and misinterpreted. What would you rather believe about yourself, and about this Planet, and about God's Creation(s)? Remember: Argue for your limitations, and they're yours!

And thus, May all the Sons and Daughters of God ... walk the Lighted Way, with an open Heart, and knowing Purpose.

Namaskar,

andrew

[mee]

Mary was a descendant of the sinner Adam, hence herself imperfect and sinful. The question therefore is raised as to how Jesus, Mary’s "firstborn" (Lu 2:7), could be perfect and free from sin in his physical organism. While modern geneticists have learned much about laws of heredity and about dominant and recessive characteristics, they have had no experience in learning the results of uniting perfection with imperfection, as was the case with Jesus’ conception. From the results revealed in the Bible, it would appear that the perfect male life-force (causing the conception) canceled out any imperfection existent in Mary’s ovum, thereby producing a genetic pattern (and embryonic development) that was perfect from its start. Whatever the case, the operation of God’s holy spirit at the time guaranteed the success of God’s purpose. As the angel Gabriel explained to Mary, "power of the Most High" overshadowed her so that what was born was holy, God’s Son. God’s holy spirit formed, as it were, a protective wall so that no imperfection or hurtful force could damage, or blemish, the developing embryo, from conception on.—Lu 1:35.

[wil]

While some may think this start blasepheomous and heretical...it appears that it is aptly describing the vagaries, variety and vastness of what is christendom. Our various, denominations, sects, and cults (cult-any organized religion) have so many tenents which allow or restrict freedom in beliefs it is amazing. While at first I thought this as an intrusion into the Christianity board...I think it more enlightening as to the variety of concepts and ideas which the bible has spawned.

[Quahom1]

No, what it is, is a personal affront to those who call themselves Christians. It is a subtle and veiled way of calling those who profess belief in Christ to be superstitious, ignorant, and below another's perception of human enlightenment. It is gone from the Christian forum. Perhaps it will do better in the Comparative Studies forum.

Q

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, what it is, is a personal affront to those who call themselves Christians. It is a subtle and veiled way of calling those who profess belief in Christ to be superstitious, ignorant, and below another's perception of human enlightenment. It is gone from the Christian forum. Perhaps it will do better in the Comparative Studies forum.

Q

Quahom,

Hmmm ... I'm confused. What is a "subtle and veiled way of calling those who profess belief in Christ to be superstitious, ignorant, and below another's perception of human enlightenment"? The original post simply suggests that we re-evaluate the meaning of the relationship between God the Father, and God the Son, as I read it. My effort was to run with the idea, and provide Biblical support for a non-literal interpretation ... by discussing the various relationships found in the Gospel story. Is that so radical?

What did I miss?

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Quahom,

Hmmm ... I'm confused. What is a "subtle and veiled way of calling those who profess belief in Christ to be superstitious, ignorant, and below another's perception of human enlightenment"? The original post simply suggests that we re-evaluate the meaning of the relationship between God the Father, and God the Son, as I read it. My effort was to run with the idea, and provide Biblical support for a non-literal interpretation ... by discussing the various relationships found in the Gospel story. Is that so radical?

What did I miss?

andrew

The boat...ship's movement, take your pick.

Please address any grievances you may have to "I, Brian" Here . He is the Admin exectutive and owner of this forum.

v/r

the "sober" Q

[lunamoth]

I think it (the OP) is a good example of what happens when you try to literalize the sacred events of the Gospel using material, scientific criteria as your baseline. IOW, you can't here from there.

peace,
lunamoth

[taijasi]

Oh. I think I see that, lunamoth ... but, didn't chromsomes exist back in Biblical times too? No no, really - I'm actually not trying to be a smartass here. I am assuming (wrongly?) that inhumility is perhaps raising the familiar question of virgin birth along with the opportunity to look closer at what is meant by "Son of the Father."

I must say, after all, that I've known a lot of Christians in my time, and the majority do not regard Jesus of Nazareth as the literal Son of the Father in the same way that I was born of my father. I don't want to just blurt out, that's absurd! ... because I guess it could be seen as offensive. I just find it strange that anyone would see the relationship as a literal one.

My background is Lutheran, btw. I did go to Sunday School. I'm quite used to "the drill." And though I may row the boat in circles on occasion, I do okay when both hands are on the oars, thank you. Not yet quite ready to surf without a board ... I do still aspire to one day achieve just such a feat.

But at any rate, no big deal. I was confused, and for a second there it almost looked as if someone was putting words in my mouth. But I think I was mistaken. As Gilda used to say ... Nevermind!

andrew

[I, Brian]

I think it's because you'll find that the Christian board (like each faith board) is set up for that faith to discuss their faith and answer questions relating to it from others outside of that sphere.

When people outside that faith start trying to introduce elements outside of that faith into the faith discussions, it can unbalance discussions and make it seem that the focus of the board is lost, and discourage people from that faith from taking part in the very discussions they can most constructively contribute to.

[wil]

So if we find inhumility to be christian it moves back? I thought I recently read possibly here, that the catholic positiion now on Mary is that she didn't conceive of God, but that there was no sin in the conception therefor referred to as a virgin birth? Didn't Jesus refer to all of us being children of God?

[Dondi]

How do we know that all 46 chromosomes weren't entirely from God? That perhaps the embryo was totally formed without a donor egg from Mary and that she served as a surrogate mother to Jesus?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

Didn't Jesus refer to all of us being children of God?

since you asked...
here is one group Jesus did not refer to as children of God. he told them they were children of the devil & not of God.
they hated Jesus & sought to kill him.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Dondi

How do we know that all 46 chromosomes weren't entirely from God? That perhaps the embryo was totally formed without a donor egg from Mary and that she served as a surrogate mother to Jesus?

did you ever hear of the divine flesh doctrine? not sure who started that but it was some kind of Christianity. they try to say Jesus did not have real flesh & blood, like he had some kind of synthetic flesh or whatever.
i dont think very many people still believe that way.