Jesus DNA?

[Ghosty]

Matt16_18: Such entities aren’t normally perceivable, but they are a theoretical possibility, possibly a necessity. A universe with three dimensions automatically includes the second and first dimensions by definition. We can’t normally perceive entities that are outside of the third (possibly fourth, if you count it as time) dimension, so I can’t give you a concrete example of one. Technically we are predominantly limited to perceiving three dimensions, with a fuzzy perception of the fourth. Just because you can’t see them, however, doesn’t mean they aren’t theoretically there, just like angels and quarks.

 

[thisismyusrname]

In the “nature” v. “nurture” argument for Original Sin, I take an approach that may sound on the surface like nurture. I think human flesh is not sinful, but is susceptible to sin, which is highly contageous. I do not believe an innocent baby is sinful, (unless sinfulness is so contageous that it can infect the infant in the womb) but cannot be anything but sinful once exposed to other judgmental humans. Bear with me here – I’m making this stuff up as I go along.

Alan
[/quote]

Because of Adam and Eve’s original sin, man has a fallen, a wounded nature. In the state that Adam and Eve were created in, they were free from concupiscence (sp?), that is a tendancy to sin - they had control of their passions if I’m not mistaken, and were not subject to such inner war as we are. Temptation had to be presented to them from the outside. When they sinned, however, they lost that gift. The rest of the human race is now born with a wounded nature, a fallen nature, in which we are subject to such concupiscence (how do you spell that?). It’s not a matter of “nuture”, but i don’t think it has anything to do with DNA or biological genetics.

ooo…after posting this, i saw how far back in this thread the post i was quoting was…we seem to have moved on to parallel universes

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

The dogma of the faithful cannot depend on cosmological concepts that have been developed in the last 90 years. That would be condemning the Catholics of the previous 1,910 years to heresy. You believe that Eden, heaven and hell lie in a space that lies outside the 3+1 metric of this universe, and there is no heresy in that, as far as I know. But you cannot claim this is a belief de fide because almost all catholics up to 90 years ago, had, as you yourself point out, no concept of another space-time metric.

I agree. It is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Church that the faithful must believe “that Eden, heaven and hell lie in a space that lies outside the 3+1 metric of this universe.”

To be a faithful Catholic, one must believe that Adam and Eve are the parents of the entire human race, and that our first parents once lived with the preternatural gift of immortality in an Eden that was not subject to death, disease and decay. The details of where, when, and how, Eden existed is a matter of legitimate theological speculation. A faithful Catholic must also believe that Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory exist - where these places exist is not a matter of dogma. If ISASBUS has a conception that Heaven is in another dimension in this universe, she is not being a heretic. If a Catholic of two thousand years ago thought the Heaven of the Blessed literally existed above the clouds in the sky, or in a celestial sphere above the stars, he or she would not be a heretic either.

You ridicule the idea that hell is in the bowels of the earth and heaven is above the clouds, but those beliefs that you claim as naive and primitive, are the beliefs that most Catholics held until not that long ago (and many Catholics still hold).

I don’t ridicule this concept. I said the concept is naïve, because people once had an entirely different understanding of how the physical universe is put together. How can simple people that lacked a modern understanding of the physical universe be faulted for believing things about the physical universe that ultimately proved to be untrue? Perhaps a thousand years from now, people will look at your scientific understanding of cosmology and find it touchingly naïve also.

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

I agree. It is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Church that the faithful must believe “that Eden, heaven and hell lie in a space that lies outside the 3+1 metric of this universe.”

Dear Matt, Good, we seem to be in violent agreement.

To be a faithful Catholic, one must believe that Adam and Eve are the parents of the entire human race, and that our first parents once lived with the preternatural gift of immortality in an Eden that was not subject to death, disease and decay.

Yes, which is one of the reasons I can no longer be a faithful Catholic.

The details of where, when, and how, Eden existed is a matter of legitimate theological speculation. A faithful Catholic must also believe that Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory exist - where these places exist is not a matter of dogma. If ISASBUS has a conception that Heaven is in another dimension in this universe, she is not being a heretic. If a Catholic of two thousand years ago thought the Heaven of the Blessed literally existed above the clouds in the sky, or in a celestial sphere above the stars, he or she would not be a heretic either.

Indeed not, as I have repeatedly pointed that has been the conventional belief of the Faithful for the great bulk of the Church’s history.

I don’t ridicule this concept. I said the concept is naïve, because people once had an entirely different understanding of how the physical universe is put together.

I accept that you don’t intend to ridicule the concept but you clearly don’t give it much respect. .

How can simple people that lacked a modern understanding of the physical universe be faulted for believing things about the physical universe that ultimately proved to be untrue?

They can’t. I agree with you - the only thing that I take issue with is your characterisation of the fathers of the Church, the greatest philosophers and cosmologists from ancient Greece to the late 18th century, and some of the greatest scientists of any age as simple people.

Perhaps a thousand years from now, people will look at your scientific understanding of cosmology and find it touchingly naïve also.

I sincerely hope so - unless we abandon science entirely in favour of sunbathing.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Charity]

Dear Alec,

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Charity

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

I accept that you don’t intend to ridicule the concept but you clearly don’t give it much respect.

I accept that the earth is one of several planets that orbits a star, and that this rather ordinary star is part of a local galaxy, and that there are many, many such galaxies in our universe … I also understand that this concept of the universe is a relatively new concept of the universe, and that the divinely inspired author of Genesis almost certainly did NOT conceive of the physical universe as existing in this manner. If my acceptance of modern cosmology automatically turns me into a person that ridicules everyone who has ever held a more ancient concept about the physical nature of the universe, then I suppose that most Catholics living today are in the same boat that I am in.

To believe in the divinely revealed truths of Catholicism does not require one to reject a modern cosmological conception of the universe.

 

[NewChristian27]

redeemed1:

I found the answer to this question very unsatisfying since Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, how could he have any DNA? Impossible!

I think this proves more that anything that he was fully man and fully God. If he only has Mary’s DNA, it proves he does not have a human Father.

 

[ISABUS]

Matt16_18:

When you describe the souls in Heaven as being in “another dimension within this universe”, you are saying the same thing that I mean, when I say the souls in Heaven exist in a “parallel universe”. We are just using different words to describe the same concept.

I believe that we both agree that the souls in Heaven are not literally located in a place above the clouds in the sky, but that they are in “another dimension” (to use your words). However, even though these souls are in another dimension, this does not prevent the souls in the Church Triumphant (Heaven) from being in communion with the Church Militant (the Church on earth) and the Church Suffering (the souls in Purgatory). So if we define “the universe” as the place where all angels and saints dwell, then it seems reasonable to me to say that the souls in Heaven are in “another dimension within this universe”. We are simply defining the word “universe” in different ways - your definition of universe is what I would call a multiverse.

Hello Matt,

Excuse the delay in reponse to your thread #328. I’ll be weaving throughout threads over the course of a couple of days. I’ve been busy helping a sick girlfriend - - a single parent now with her eight kids remaining at home. It amazes me how she’s managed to raise a total of 12 children while maintaining a sense of humor and the patience of a saint.

First off, if you refer to my thread #324, you will note that the experience I had strictly resulted from an observation of what might be termed as a “natural” phenomena. I clearly stated in my thread “…only GOD knows the truth of it ALL. I do believe there does exist another dimension within this universe where our souls live on once our human bodies die because I have briefly glimsed into that realm.” Matt, I didn’t imply or say it was “Heaven”. You would need to do some research by asking me exactly what I saw during my experience before reaching that conclusion which you assumed was a concept of mine. As it stands, my experience remains only an observation not a concept. Also, my observation occured in the universe we both reside in thus a miltiverse is impossible to define by me since I’ve never been outside of this universe. Hope you understand what I mean.

I’ll make my way through a few more threads later today…again, sorry for the delay. By the way, thanks for posting the Tennyson poem. It reminded me of a chat I had with a large group of poets long ago. . . my conclusion . . . The “breath of life” is found in God’s nature or the “breath of life” is founded within God’s nature. Either or, is it not true? You can stretch it into many dimensions of thought.

Thank you for your patience ~
Isabus

 

[hecd2]

Charity:

Dear Alec,

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Charity

Dear Charity

Possibly …

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm

 

[hecd2]

Matt16_18:

I accept that the earth is one of several planets that orbits a star, and that this rather ordinary star is part of a local galaxy, and that there are many, many such galaxies in our universe … I also understand that this concept of the universe is a relatively new concept of the universe, and that the divinely inspired author of Genesis almost certainly did NOT conceive of the physical universe as existing in this manner. If my acceptance of modern cosmology automatically turns me into a person that ridicules everyone who has ever held a more ancient concept about the physical nature of the universe, then I suppose that most Catholics living today are in the same boat that I am in.

Dear Matt,

I respect your energy and conviction in creating inventive concepts to reconcile the modern understanding of cosmology with a strict understanding of catholic doctrine. I do think that having demonstrated the compatability of some tentative ideas of modern cosmology with your reading of scripture, you tend to assume that more Catholics must be aligned with your thinking than are in reality. I concluded that you ridiculed cosmologies that predate the modern conception, because you talked about ‘simple’ people but we are or should be very careful to acknowledge the sophistication of earlier ideas and our debt to them. No-one who has seriously studied Ptolemeiac cosmologies will find them ‘simple’, nor will they find the theological concept that the Garden of Eden is physically on this earth in this universe, or that heaven and hell are physically in this universe naive.

To believe in the divinely revealed truths of Catholicism does not require one to reject a modern cosmological conception of the universe.

Indeed not

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Matt16_18]

hecd2:

I concluded that you ridiculed cosmologies that predate the modern conception, because you talked about ‘simple’ people …

You simply read way too much into my use of the word “simple” if you think I was ridiculing anyone.

… you tend to assume that more Catholics must be aligned with your thinking than are in reality …

The vast majority of Catholics that have ever existed have believed that Paradise was not destroyed by the Fall. The idea that Paradise exists “between” Heaven and Earth is an ancient idea. If I went back in time a thousand years to try in explain the “parallel universe” idea to a Catholic theologian, he wouldn’t find the idea that Paradise still exists to be at all strange, he would only have a hard time with my solar system-galaxy-many-galaxies model of the physical universe - as would anyone living a thousand years ago.

 

[ISABUS]

Matt,

Wishing to progess onward with complex patterns of thought by first asking of you to please tell me if your concept of a parellel universe resulted from a **direct revelation **brought about by your 'natural power of reasoning on the observable facts of creation which are revealed naturally" or was it a private revelation communicated by God to you that appears to have turned into a public revelation by the threads you have posted onto this and another message board ~ Keeping in mind that **dogma **is revelation.

Since my company will be arriving shortly, I’ll continue my threading tomorrow.

Thanks,

Isabus

 

[Matt16_18]

ISABUS

That Paradise was not destroyed by the Fall is something that is known by divine revelation - see Genesis 3:24.

 

[ISABUS]

Matt,

Be prepared because BY DAYS END you’ll be free diving into that world known as the God forsaken “FALL”.

Gather up your witts before they get splattered in etherland. Hope you can play a decent game of chess or this won’t be fun for me at all ~

Gee, I hope you aren’t that guy Matt C. Abbott . If you are then I’d have to show you an itsy bitsy tiny wennie bit of mercy! Shuckies*… *

Isabus

 

[Therese_Martin]

**Notice:

Because this thread has now gone on for a month and has accumulated many pages, it will be closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.**