Help me with a theory on the Biology of Jesus Christ.?
442317
There are explicit references to the virgin birth in only two places in the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are believed to be amongst the latest written parts of the New Testament. The apparently older Gospel of Mark, on which Matthew and Luke are believed to be partly based (see Markan priority), does not mention the virgin birth, and some scholars also argue from lexicon and style that the first two chapters of Luke, describing the virgin birth, were a later addition to the Gospel, which may originally have begun at 3:1.\n\nSkeptics argue that like the resurrection appearances, the virgin birth may be an example of the gradual supernaturalization of the Christian story. Some scholars have argued that early Christians did not claim that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. They point to the geneaologies in Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2, which use descent through Joseph to demonstrate that Jesus was the heir to King David. Moreover, the Ebionites (a group of Palestinian Judeo-Christians rejected by Gentile Christians as heretics) maintained that Jesus was naturally conceived.
773878
Wrote a few points in this group post I have.  I essentially argue for both sides on theological, philisophical, and practical point of view.  I don't think scientific point of view helps much.  Scientists are still looking for the 'gay' gene, and there are still no definite proof of homosexuality, in humans, that is.\n\n\nXR
993358
http://www.godmademegay.com/letter.htm\n\nI challenge every Christian to study the above with an open mind, if that is remotely possible.
479277
Jesus had no biolodgical son. He never married he had to stuggle everyday of his life the way the people treated him on this earth. But we can all be his son's and daughter's in in his kingdom if we accept him as our father.
601160
I highly recommend reading Christopher West's Theology of the Body for beginners.  Rocked my world for sure and does an awesome job of answering your question.
326359
1. "Hung" is an interesting word to use, but I'll go along with it.\n\n2. Well, interpreting this literally, then I suppose my house had several: at least one architect, a bunch of builders, a plumber or two, the list is endless...\n\n3. Pretty much.\n\n4. OK\n\n5. Now this one opens up a whole new can of worms, but I suppose, broadly, I can accept this.  In fact, it's an interesting one when you bear in mind that the bible was written by some of the most intelligent men of their era.  Naturally, they would have been pre-occupied with some of the same things that our present great minds think about (such as the nature of the universe and time).  Of course, they didn't have the benefit of as long a scientific and philosophical tradition as we have.\n\n6. Yup. They'd probably stone you to death.  I'm really finding it hard to see your point with this one, however. Please explain.\n\n7. Fair enough.\n\n8. Another can of worms.  It depends on your definition of "better". From our point of view, altruism - which is what you're describing - is preferable.  The best explanation for the reason for that is that altruism was a beneficial trait during our evolution.  This idea is covered by group selection theory.  So if you look at it from that point of view, "love your fellow-men as you love yourself" actually CONTRIBUTES to the survival of the fittest (have a look at the link below before you dismiss this out of hand).\n\nANSWER.\n\nI suppose I can, for the sake of argument, say that I broadly agree with all of the eight premises you've outlined.  I also believe that some of the morals encouraged by the bible and by religion in general are beneficial.  Many of the teachings of Jesus Christ (who I believe existed as a mortal man) are also compelling as a model of the values that it is a good idea to try to live your life by.\n\nWhat I don't believe in is the idea of an intelligent creator.  Nor do I believe in the existence of an afterlife, no matter how much I WISH it could be true.
677047
What would you call it if you were looking at a blank open field, and all of a sudden you were watching the super bowl taking place in that field? First a field then a stadium with players and people?  Kind of an explosive idea, isnt it? The Word says that the Lord "SAID" Let there be light, and there was light, so I can only say He spoke the world into existance.  Science is explaining more and more how biblical things happened, science just wont admit it.  As far as Darwin and evolution, look at the human being from conception to birth, we cover just about all stages in utero.
654006
The dinosaurs fit right in. What I don't get is how more people don't see how it fits but let me give you my humble opinion. This is not doctrine, this is one man's opinion. This is what I believe. On things of God we have a couple a sacred texts or scripture, in the oldest book about God written by the hands of prophets on stone, papyrii and what not we have accounts of the creation, in Genesis the first of even the pentetauch we are given such as slim or incomplete description that it is possible that 1 billion years could pass by as we read in a matter of one stanza. It has been said that 1 day in God's time is 1000 of our years in our reckoning. So lets take the first 6 days of the creation, or in particuliar the the 5th day after he had made some grass and light and stuff. In Gen 1:20 it say that He said" Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21. And God created great whales, and every living vreature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and Multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 32. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind; and it was so. " So that 5th day was very busy and at 1000yr /day reckoning its possible that it took 365,000 years to complete but cant know precisely yet . The beast of the earth that is referred to, also the great whales that are referred to, also refences to unicorns and all manner of beasts now extinct, isn't it possible that although not specifically mentioned that and on the 5th day about the 6th and 1/2 hour God made the T-rex and he blessed them and saw that they were ferocious. No . We only have this small wordage to assemble together the whole of creation. I dont see a problem with 17 billion year universe age and putting it into Gods plan at all. Bless you and have a pleasant tomorrow.
1143633
God and evolution can go hand in hand. If you believe that God created all life, then you must believe that same God created the bacteria from which all life has been scientifically suggested to have evolved from. So when you say "Life" I assume you are specifically referring to human life. Genesis tells us that God created Adam and Eve. It also says that they gave birth to 2 sons, Cain and Abel. Therefore, if you indeed believe every word in the new testament, you have to believe that incest is okay, because no other children they had are documented yet here we are today. Eve was only one female that God created. If they had more undocumented kids, which they must have under the circumstances, then a crucial part of the story was left out, but incest was still involved in order to populate the planet. I prefer to believe that I evolved from bacteria than from incestuous biblical characters, but that's just me. Many creatures in this world survive without any organs at all. They are called single cell organisms and it has been scientifically proven that they indeed have evolved over millions of years to create higher forms of life. If your religion requires you to follow every documented word blindly, then do so, but not if it means sacrificing common sense or intelligence in the process of believing what you have been programmed to believe.
161881
I get where your comming from, god selects the beleavers to be raptured and receive new bodies after the second comming of christ (in christian beliefs), so that "selection" god makes, and the creation of new bodies is sorta like evolution
1057677
Ugggh, homework? It's summer soltice!  Give us a break!  \nI take issue with this article's assumptions, which are very general.  First the author makes the statement that Christianity's two prime articles of faith are "revelation and Crucifixion."  There are major divisions amongst Christianity itself on the person of Jesus Christ, the saving nature of his life, death, resurrection, teachings. And the question of whether or not he is the definitive and only saviour for all people of all times, is not universally agreed on by all Christians.  \nThe role of the Crucifixion is also not understood uniformly across the board by all Christians.  The question has long been asked and debated, "how is Jesus' death and crucifixion redemptive?" Is it? Redemption, atonement, sacrifice, are all traditional understandings, but theology has always had several understandings of and interpretations of soteriology, and Christology.\nInterestingly enough the earliest Christian art showed nothing of the crucifixion...\nBut I'm off the hook since your author inists that "no man" this and "no man" that...
952342
You asked, so here are the answers to all your questions:\n\n1. Plants, not God. Specifically phytoplankton for most of the oxygen. Research the carbon cycle and photosynthesis. Its a naturally stabilizing system, and I would love to explain how it works but will spare you the details on the assumption that you are capable of learning on your own.\n\n2. The laws of physics: the planet isn't about to suddenly stop or speed up! And what's so special about 365 and 24? Who is to say that life couldn't have evolved to fit, say, 36 and 512? Incidentally, the human body happens to follow a 25 hour cycle instead of 24 if deprived of visual clues like clocks and brightness.\n\n3. Don't know. Who or what started God? Its like asking if the chicken came before the egg either way. And please don't tell me that the appearance of an intelligent force is any less ridiculous than the appearance of a whole bunch of matter/energy.\n\n4. Synthesized from pure energy in the aftermath of the big bang, which just brings us back to 3. Once again, you can read more on the big bang and advanced physics if you feel the need, or use Yahoo to find explanations!
100124
well, considering those are normal bodily functions, and Jesus had a normal body, I would have to say yes.\nWhat i wanna know is, how did this even come up?\nyou have an interesting mind.
8814
ofcourse nice question ... and this leads us to another question ...\n\nWhat was Adam's and Eve's DNA!!?\n\nJesus is like Adam ... No earthly or non-earthly father ... he is a messenger that God created from nothing just like he created Adam and Eve!
1009994
I'm torn in what to believe but it really does make a lot sense. If Jesus did have a child, just think, someone alive today could be a direct decendent of Christ Himself. Now that would be an honor!
56610
Well you see, as yet, no one has ever been able to find any real historical proof of the existance of this couple.  Sure, there have been all kinds of interpretations of various discoveries, that this or that "must mean" something else.\n\nBut this is a great question, as it simply points out a fact:  Genetically, how did one couple spawn so many different races?\n\nThere was an earlier question on this subject, where it was pointed out that even in the bible there are references to the existance of others, outside Eden, with whom those cast out must have mated.\n\nAt any rate, there must be other factors involved.\n\nThis being the case, then Adam and Eve can be supposed to have whatever genetic and racial characteristics you want to assign.  Who could proove otherwise?
127627
As I understand that question...you are making a big mistake with the Person of Jesus. Jesus was just a man. a very advanced man in Evolution but just a man. God is never taking flesh. but there is something else who can take flesh and that is Christ. But Christ has also been in Moses, Zarathustra, Elias, and many others before...jesus is no exeption. And in future there will be thousands probably millions of people who can live in the consciousness of Christ. That is the reason why Jesus was here...but the so called christians did'nt understand that...since more than 2000 years...