I think we need to take into consideration that the concept of miracle = superseding natural law is not a biblical concept. Doesn’t it come from Hume?
In the Bible, miracles are just signs. The virgin giving birth was a sign people were looking for in identifying their Messiah. The blind seeing and the lame walking were signs that validated Jesus’ Messianic authority and mission. The feeding of the five thousand was a sign that triggered all sorts of frames about Moses and the Israelites getting manna in the desert. The casting out of demons was a sign the Jesus held all spiritual authority. I don’t think anyone back then was focused on whether or not these things violated natural law. There was no binary natural/supernatural divide in their worldview.They were looking for certain signals and those signals had powerful meaning. I think we understand the Bible better when he ask ourselves “what kind of sign was this miracle” instead of “did this miracle involve something supernatural or was there a natural explanation.” Just like with Genesis, you have to ask the questions the text is answering, not the ones you are most curious about if you want to get to the truth. The text is answering questions about who Jesus is and how we know he is the Messiah, and why he deserves worship and obedience.
At the time those genealogies were written woman made no contribution to the children they carried. They were only a fertile place where the seed planted by a male could grow. In fact the genealogies make clear Jesus did not have a Israelite father.
As Christy said the questions you are asking, such as where did the male DNA come from, are not answered in Holy Writ. They might be interesting or practical questions but we are not going to get a definitive answer.
Your argument is logically incoherent. If a woman made no contribution then the genealogies mean Jesus must have an Israelite father.
The Bible does not address the question directly, but those two genealogies strongly suggest an Israelite father and mother. This is a case where the only evidence points in a single direction.
You can believe in magic, golems and other things from fairy tales if you really want to. Or you can believe in genetics, evolution and other things from science if you want to. I certainly choose the latter.
But to get back to the main issue here… there is no reason why you have to choose between science and miracles. You can believe in a God who is rational and consistent, sticking with the laws of nature which He created while impressing people with miracles nevertheless because they are not a violation of those laws He created. Just because there is a scientific explanation doesn’t mean that it isn’t a miracle or that God is not involved, because science has demonstrated that the laws of nature are not causally closed.
You know… the only difference here I can see is that my explanation requires a God who is knowledgeable and clever in getting things done. I don’t know… these days it seems that people don’t like people in authority who are too clever… so maybe they also prefer a God who is more like them – a God they can understand. …Let me clarify that no implication on the intelligence of people is intended. I actually do not believe in the usual IQ measures which make such distinctions between people. Frankly I think everybody is intelligent in the areas they choose to apply themselves. I may be smart in math and science but I am rather a dunce in other areas. So what I am really talking about here is anti-intellectualism, which is not about measuring the value of people, but frankly about making your own personal choices in life the measure of everybody and everything.
I never said anyone ceased to be 100% human after death. Don’t know where that came from.
We don’t know where Christ’s Y chromosome came from. The even more interesting question is why you think he would have a "set of male chromosomes, " unless he had a genetic disease.
It’s one of the ways Jesus participates in the world. In accordance with his command I joined millions of Christians today and received the body and blood of Christ.
I also believe Jesus is still 100% man and 100% God, and that He still participates in the world, especially in the Eucharist. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jesus does not still participate in the world as living human beings do confined to the laws of nature, because we do not cease to be 100% human after we die.
But the only evidence we have are the genealogies given in the Bible which point only in one direction, that the His Y chromosome came from an Israelite. People who are 100% human have one set of chromosomes from a human mother and one set of chromosomes from a human father… EVEN those with a genetic disease. And do you think Jesus having a genetic disease would be a problem?
Being inside the bread and wine of the Eucharist is not a way in which human beings participate in the world. Or are you altering Jesus words to say… “I am the bread of life and you are bread of life and everyone is the bread of life.” Perhaps some people would go for that kind of thing but I never heard such a thing was a traditional Christian teaching.
Nonsense. We don’t have to choose between miracles and science, between Christianity and science, between spiritual and science, or between the Bible and science, precisely because miracles, Christianity, spiritual and the Bible do not have to be about magic, golems, and contradictions with natural law.
This is a question of whether your Christianity is all about excluding and demonizing science and scientists for which there is no rational reason whatsoever.
Yes the set of chromosomes from the father. I am well aware that only the Y chromosome determines the male sex. But even a woman has a set of chromosomes from the mother and a set of chromosomes from the father including an X chromosome. If you are going to be petty about this, none of the chromosomes have either male or female sex – only the whole organism has a sex.