Galatians 3 vs. Genesis 12

Post Reply New Topic

I don't believe the Bible really supports immaculate conception. I do believe the virgin birth, though, and I don't see how parthenogenesis explains the virgin birth. I forget where, but I seem to recall a mention of Jesus' circumcision. Matthew? Luke? Obviously parthenogenesis doesn't work since it only produces females.

There's no indication of whether Paul knew about the virgin birth, but it could also be that Paul presuppose the virgin birth and that the subject of the virgin birth is irrelevant to his purpose. I think it's safe to assume Paul believed in the virgin birth as many of his followers did.

Parthenogenesis would work for Mary, then.

If Paul believed that Jesus' mom was a virgin (seedless conception), then the present passage from Galatians would contradict this belief.

Not really. I don't think Mary was the product of parthenogenesis, nor do I believe in immaculate conception (the idea that Mary was born free of the influence or consequences of sin). I DO think that Mary conceiving through the Holy Spirit was just that. The supposed contradiction you're seeing doesn't really work because Mary is still a child of Abraham just like all Jews.

Mary didn't take over the land described in Genesis either. Unless Paul is trying to say that Mary will take charge of the land upon the return of Jesus.

Mary also died and didn't come back. I don't think you can really build a case for Mary as the Messiah, especially since the only prophecy she fulfilled was her role in the virgin birth. You'll also note that being a Southern Baptist, Mariology really isn't my thing. I'll say this for Mary, though--by all indications from the gospels she was a remarkable woman. The Magnificat among other attributions to Mary reflect theological precociousness uncommon in a society that generally regarded this kind of education as reserved strictly for males. I think of Mary as exemplary for young girls in modern-day society. However, I do think some Christians tend to give Mary an inappropriate position of reverence. The immaculate conception dogma is an example of what I mean. The Bible just notes that Mary had not been with a man when she conceived of the Holy Spirit. We know parthenogenesis was not the cause, or Jesus would have been a woman. It had to have been some supernatural event (another way science can actually detect supernatural activity, I might add).

No, I still think the prophecy refers to Jesus as THE seed of Abraham. Jesus was conceived by Mary, a descendent of Abraham, and thus technically Jesus was also the "seed of Abraham."

Here's a thought, though: Christ is considered the head of the church and the church the body of Christ. That would make Christians also the "seed of Abraham" by adoption. Does that mean the Christians along with the Jews will also inherit the Holy Land? If we are Christ's body, then technically we already own it because we are "in Christ." All we have to do is move in. As it is, though, many Christians are more concerned with preserving Israel as a place for the Jews rather than taking it for ourselves. Opinions?

The conception of Jesus was seedless--he didn't inherit Adam's sin (which is passed on through normal coitus) and does not merit eternal damnation, as the rest of us do. Technically, Jesus was not the "seed of Abraham."



One doesn't become "seed" through adoption. You would be the seed of someone else if adopted.



Israel does have a minority Christian population. During the Crusades, Christians did take the Holy Land for themselves. I suppose that you could buy property in Israel, or maybe a condo, and move there, if you wanted. I don't know what Israel's immigration policies are for non-Jews.

"Technically," from a current perspective of procreation. But if I understand Hebrew tradition correctly, one's "Jewishness" is inherited from the mother. Familial delineations are determined by the father. If I'm right, Jesus is the seed of Abraham through Mary. Joseph, being Jesus' earthly, adoptive father, gives Jesus his (Joseph's) family line. There is, of course, a biological line and another line traced back through similar things as adoptions, Levirate marriages, and the like. By all rights Jesus has a legit claim as the seed of Abraham.


Legally you would, though. It doesn't necessarily have to do with biology.


I actually was thinking about the Crusades, but I just don't think a child of Abraham in the Pauline sense quite justifies Christian land-grabbing. I wonder of many of the perpetrators of the Crusades used that as a rationalization for the conquest of the Holy Land. And I wouldn't feel quite right about taking up residency in Israel, either.

Okay: you have a point with the Levirate marriage. Your seed would be reckoned to be your brother's seed.



I would visit Israel some day, if I could, but I wouldn't want to stay, either.



That is quite a shift: Christians passing themselves off as Jews. It used to be the other way around.

Bingo. Some see the discrepancies between Jesus' two genealogies in the gospels as a Biblical contradiction. I view them as both being right in a different sense.


Well, for me it's primarily a matter of conscience. I don't feel I belong there. Visiting would be fun, but I feel the whole pilgrimage thing is probably a racket. I'd be more interested in things like the temple mount, the wailing wall, and the mount of olives than I would, say, the church of the holy sepulcher. I'd love to see some of the archeological discoveries, also.

The other reason I wouldn't hang around very long is a pretty obvious one: I don't want to get shot.


That is interesting. I'm of the opinion that they need to kick the Palestinians to the curb. Put them all in a buffer zone between Israel and Iran to use as a meat shield for when the bombs fall.

I can understand why Christians would want out of Eastern Europe. Claiming to be Jews and migrating to Israel isn't really the way to go, though.

It may be the quickest and easiest way out. Unless you're a buxom young blonde: you can marry an American.

On the other hand: there is certainly more to Israel than terrorists and Ultraorthodox killjoys.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkdUVJQqKo&feature=related[/youtube]