Taking some embryonic stem cells is like copy and paste. The sperm that passed on sin(if this is how it happens) would be in that stem cell.
So I’m sure you know, something done in mice isn’t guaranteed to be able to be done in humans. I would have to cross that bridge when we get to it, if we ever did. God is allowing that in animals, who weren’t created in His image. I am not sure if He will allow us to pervert His image bearers that much.
Stem cells are not gametes, they are special cells that generate cells. In adults they are found in tissue like bone marrow or fat.
What if the stem cells came from women? Yes, they had fathers, but so did Mary. That’s where you get into immaculate conception issues, which as a good Protestant, I reject.
What makes you think God’s image is that closely tied to our biology?
Sorry, that was rhetorical. I know there are multiple levels of stem cells, the embryonic ones being the most controversial, yet useful. But the article if I read correctly utilized embryonic stem cells.
“The Cambridge team got around this issue by taking embryonic stem cells (cells found in embryos …”
So they basically got genetic information from the sperm that came the embryo right?
[[quote=“Christy, post:43, topic:36637”]
What makes you think God’s image is that closely tied to our biology?
[/quote]
Homo sapiens weren’t made in His image until they were. And then just as sin entered the world through a man, so did the image of God that was bestowed upon man.
But never mind about some of what I said above, I retract my statement that sins is transmitted through sperm. I had this insane ( even crazy coming from me, which I know some have read my “rational” theories) theory to reconcile that thought that was pages long until a simpler truth occurred to me.
The embryo was made from a sperm and an egg, so yes, the embryo’s cells had DNA from a father. My point is that Mary’s egg cells were composed of 25% of her father’s DNA and 25% of her mother’s DNA and therefore contained “genetic information from sperm” too. (At least, as I understand meiosis)
Sorry, I read to the end after I already typed above, so I’ll leave it in case anyone else wants to keep pursuing the idea. I was pretty much taught growing up that sperm carried the sin nature, so it’s not like you are the only person I’ve ever heard suggest it.
Personally, I think the image of God is a calling given to humans, not some quality or capacity intrinsic in our nature. As soon as you start tying the image of God to biology or capacities, you run into issues when you talk about humans who have abnormal biology (genetic disorders and such) or limited capacities (mental illness, brain damage or impaired intellectual functioning). I think our “sin nature” is about our community identity “in Adam,” which can be changed to an identity in “Christ” through faith. I don’t think our sin nature is tied to our biology. We are born sinners just like we are born into a nationality. Then we actualize that identity with our learning and personal choices, just like we actualize our nationality by learning a certain language and culture and internalizing the values and worldview of our country. So the way I see it, the extraordinary nature of Jesus’ birth gave him a unique identity. He was a recreation of humanity.
I never really thought about it that hard. I just accepted that, when when you asked me about it that required thought and and a theory.
Just like Eve was taken from Adam’s “rib” or side, to explain that women is a part of man, the other half.
It would make sense to believe that the entire reason Jesus came from “haploid gamete of God” (using that term very loosely to convey half from God) and the other half from women (human). Needing to come from the human half to be a human, and also needing to come from the God half, to show from God. That also reconciles that through a man, sin entered the world. Like it could rightly be said that through Darwin, evolution entered the world. Darwin didn’t spread evolution through his genetics, it just originated with him.
Where did it come from though? When did it appear?
This theory of Neanderthal being around and evolved, and humans evolved from them, makes an even more compelling case for evolution in that Jesus came from man too. If Adam was just breathed into adulthood existence from literal dirt and was fully human (without sin until He sinned), why could God not do the same with Jesus? The fact that Jesus came from woman is a strong case for EC.
But is it possible that the Y chromosome was what God gave Adam that made him an image bearer? And gave the female the mitochondria that made woman an image bearer? Perhaps the first male and female to have those became image bearers for each sex. And they mated with the Neanderthals, giving their offspring Y chromosomes and spreading mitochondria to the rest of the world? And this either propagated the image bearers of God throughout the world? And possibly the few left over Neanderthals if there was any, were wiped out in the flood? Just spit balling again… But this could explain some of it.
I agree with that, you spoke of this before which I agree on. But it could make sense of the 46 chromosomes that makes us human that have either mitochondria or the Y chromosome is what could make us human image bearers. This would not run into issues of abnormal biology or genetic disorders or mental capacity. Yet it still could be a genetic marker. Even these (if they ever happen) two egg humans (as linked above) would still have 1 or the other ‘image bearer markers’ right?
More brain storming…
Does the Bible literally say we are all born sinners? It does say for all have sinned (Romans 3:23), and anyone who claims they haven’t sinned is a liar (but a baby can’t claim they are not a sinner or remotely understand the concept) So is that literal to mean all (or just all capable of sinning, animals arne’t included in all have sinned)? I am more starting to think (until proven wrong) that it means all capable of sinning have sinned and that we are all born sinless, like Adam.
But Adam did sin, and had to be separated from God. Sin is missing the mark, rejection of God and His ways. Animals can’t sin, killing is in their nature, it’s not sin. Sinful/fallen man couldn’t exist before man became image bearer of God to be able to attempt to hit a mark and end up missing it. Sin being an archery term. One needs to attempt to hit the mark and pull the string back to miss something. Can a baby hold a bow and pull a string back? So it is possible Adam’s child was sinless too, but once grew up and sinned, also was separate from God. A baby is sinless, but not perfect, only Jesus was perfect (righteously speaking),
I agree with @Christy thumb banging, basket missing, flawed human Jesus theory, sinless and continued to not sin showed perfection. A baby is without sin because they haven’t had the chance to sin yet, but one day will, and therefore all (capable of sinning) have sinned. Though I knew Jews had beliefs that males weren’t accountable till 13 and females 12. I am not sure where this came from, maybe revelation of God. I can attempt to theorize, but I don’t know what happens to 9 year or 2 year old’s that die if they don’t know Jesus. I do know that God is good, and that is why having some age level of accountability makes sense, though we all mature differently and maybe that is why a number isn’t given in the scriptures. And then there are those with mental issues who never can grasp sin or God. I don’t have all the answers, just theories to potentially reconcile the goodness of God with tough questions.
Which I will again attempt to do by answering potential questions
So God created man, sinless, and lived on earth with Him, once man sinned, God left earth, can’t be in a place of sin. Man had a baby, who was sinless, but God was still not there (due to the sinful earth), and would never come back to earth (until He came as Jesus (also why He had to take human form), and then the second coming). Potentially He left the universe and is in another dimension? I don’t have all those answers either nor at what distance is required of separation from God and sin, I just know He can’t be near it. So this baby is sinless, and will go to be with God if they die before they can sin, but when they do sin, are like Adam, no longer able to be with God… Then later in the Bible, we learn of Abraham’s faith and willingness to follow God’s will that was credited to him righteous to sins of the past. Then sacrifice of animals that atoned for our sins of the past. But sin is still on the earth, so God can’t come to earth, and we are alive on earth, and can’t come to him, even though possibly at the moment in time righteous (when past sins are forgiven or atoned for), because we live in an imperfect body that Adam lived in, and would end up sinning, and God definitely can’t have sin in heaven. So we are stuck here, separate from God (which separation from God is also equated to death), making sacrifices to atone for sins of the past, and becoming momentarily righteous until sinning again.
But the sacrificial lambs were for the Israelite’s and it gave them access to a representation of God on earth, in the temple, if they were also pure (which brought about the laws of Leviticus that strictly and only applies to purity and access to the temple, and why they don’t apply to Christians today), and you had to be a Levite to enter the Holy of Holies and be as close as an earthling could get to being with God.
But there were other humans outside of Israel, that I believe probably didn’t go to hell just because they weren’t Israelites. There were a few who it mentions feared the God of Israel, some even joined/became an Israelite from the outside as an alien because they wanted to know this God better. And God used Rehab the harlot, a non-Israelite. My guess was she was in a tough situation, and possibly was seeking God and that is why God used her. It is possible that her faith was credited to her as righteousness of past sins? Again, don’t have all the answers, but these are potential reconciliations of a good God and a tough question.
Jesus came and forgave sins of the past (while He was on earth), but it wasn’t until He died that forgave us of our future sins. This now allows us to be with God in heaven again (after we die and leave this sinful body), now we are justified in our sin (or God cannot see our sins as we are covered by the blood of Christ). Now we are still born sinless until we sin, but then once we put our faith in Jesus, we are justified in our sins. I do believe we can take off this ‘robe of righteousness’ (to symbolize how our sins are covered by the blood of Christ, they can’t be seen by God like a white robe covering any black splotch on a garment under the robe) that Jesus puts on us when we ask for His forgiveness. This is referred to as the unforgivable or eternal sin. Ultimate rejection of God and the Holy Spirit. Any other sin one does after receiving the justifying ‘robe of righteousness’ can’t be seen by God, as it is/was forgiven by Jesus on the cross. But to willingly reject the and blaspheme the Holy Spirit (those who were once saved and turn to atheism) and take off that robe. It is possible that means anyone who rejects or doesn’t accept Jesus or God through Him, or the Holy Spirit through Him, is basically committing this unforgivable sin, and that is why they are in hell as they requested, they request eternal rejection for God. This is possibly what Satan demons did and why they can’t be forgiven?
But whether through sacrificial lamb, or Jesus, they are both somewhat of a formality (using that term very loosely for lack of better term), as God was always more about the heart than the actions. If you want to know God and be with Him, follow His will, I think He will make that happen. Which is all heaven is, being with God and following His will. And all hell is, is eternal separation from God, and you are in control of your destiny like you pridefully wanted, only there will be no glimpses of good as you will be surrounded with others of like mind and absent of God’s goodness.
And to get back on topic, Jesus was perfect (never sinned), and his perfection was required like that of a perfect (spotless lamb). which I am sure a spotless lamb still made mistakes and wasn’t a ‘perfect’ lamb. It probably still ran away, and needed a good beating from time to time. Why Jesus probably wasn’t perfect in means of lack of errors, rather in sinless nature. But this spotless, sinless Jesus was able to atone for everyone sin, past and present, IF those have faith (believe) in the atoning power and request forgiveness and wants God to be Lord of their lives (as God intended before man sinned, forgiveness wasn’t required, but it was still required to want God to be Lord of our lives). That is arguably the first and original sin, rejection of God. So of course reconciliation to God would require one to humble themselves and place God back in his proper position again as Lord of Lords and King of Kings. That is where the heart comes in and the yearning to be with God, having faith in God, knowing that God knows what is best for us. Even though we still screw up, we want to do what God wants of us. Like people on a diet screw up all the time, but their hearts desire is to be on this diet.
Desiring to do the will of the Father is how you love God with all your heart, loving others and actually doing the will of God is how you love Him with all your soul, and reading the scripture and attempting to understand it best so you can better follow the will of the Father is loving Him with all your mind.
This is how Paul says it is by faith we are saved, not works, it is the heart and want to honor God, but it is also why if you are saved (though you still screw up you want to not screw up) you have fruits that show your faith in your works.
I think Jesus was also perfect in that He lived the ideal life. Like if one had a checklist, He would have been perfect at accomplishing life. In how He shows us how we are to live. He fulfilled and explained what the commandments were about and how important our hearts are to God, more so than our actions.
Though God is about the heart, actions show what the heart is wanting. So is Jesus just the righteousness credited to us just like Abraham? Prior to Jesus all that was required was a desire to know and be with God and do His will(faith in God). Could faith in God be having faith in the concept of who Jesus was? So Jesus died for all the sins of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham too? And it was their faith in God that would have been a faith in Jesus (once He came), that ends up being a faith in Jesus that saves them, which would explain that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus. Where all the seekers of God in the past that were credited to them as righteousness placed in a paradise or sorts, a waiting room so to speak until the atoning death of Jesus that atoned for all of their sins? The thief on the cross was guaranteed to be in paradise that very day. Jesus forgave him of his past sins and he goes to paradise. Jesus says I am going to prepare a place for you as if heaven wasn’t ready yet or doesn’t exist yet. But now, post death of Jesus, faith in God isn’t enough to save (because faith in God would lead you to faith in Jesus), because God gave us Jesus, and if you show action of believing in Jesus and confessing yours sins, this shows your heart, and this is now credited righteous now and forever?
Not to discredit Jesus at all, but is not Jesus just a permanent solution to a problem that was band-aided with faith in God in the past? Faith in God (through Jesus) of now equals faith in God of the past, and some, as Jesus’ death not only atones for past sins, but present ones to.
I am again not certain of many of the inner workings or reasoning of tough questions, but I do know that God is good, and merciful, and those reasoning’s are potential reconciliations to those questions that I possibly would have been asked based of other things I said. A preemptive," I came to believe what I believe, because of this, because of this ect.". That forces me to summarize much of what most Christians are familiar with, with some ‘tweaks’ to explain for the reasoning behind my stance or what makes my stance still in agreement Biblically speaking and not heretical.
All that did above (other than hopefully not confuse and anger others too much), was explain if sin wasn’t hereditary, then it made the rest of the Bible still make sense, and allowed me to follow the thought that sin wasn’t hereditary.
But if imperfection is hereditary, then it would have been passed to Jesus but for immaculate conception, or if this imperfection gene came from man only.
You also run into the problem if Jesus was perfect and sin wasn’t inevitable, but impossible, was He or could he have been tempted? Or was the purpose of His temptation to show us how to deal with temptation. But then can He empathize with us when we are tempted if He never was? Heb 4:15
He was tempted, therefore, not perfect (according to the definition of imperfect, which means sin inevitable, which would make perfect sin not inevitable).
His perfection was in being blameless and not sinning, not, not having the capability to sin. The end result was perfection or spotlessness. If you pitch a baseball game and there are no bases reached (through a hit, walk, or pitch a ball as to hit the hitter), for 9 innings, it is a perfect game. If you never play or don’t make it to all 9 innings, it can’t be a perfect game. There is a difference between sinless and perfect. This is why babies who are without sin and have not sinned yet, are not perfect/spotless, they will go to heaven and are without sin, but they couldn’t die an atoning death for us, they never played the game of life and therefore never had a perfect game of life.
The only part that made Jesus God, is that He was God, and came from heaven. While on earth, He was 100% man (and still 100% God, but that is hereditary). He was hereditarily God, but 100% man. Like the son of a king, he has royalty in his blood. Jesus had “God royalty” in His blood. This is a saying, nothing special is in either blood, it is just a means on where they come from, who their father is and what authority you father has is given to you (often showed with a signet ring). Jesus had no powers of God (other than the ability to forgive sins, which must have come from his hereditary authority like a signet ring can give one authority of the king). He calmed the seas and performed miracles, but so did many other people (the powers of God did these miracles, not the humans) . This is one thing that made His journey so meaningful to us. He knows what we as 100% humans go through. John 8:58, before Abraham, I am. He was 100% God, but He was also tempted, and had the capacity to sin, which makes him 100% human. The capacity to sin what makes us human, its why we aren’t animals. The capacity to try and hit the mark, is what gives us the possibility to miss the mark, and that is only given to humans made in the image of God. In heaven we will have glorified bodies, we will not be able to sin, we won’t have human bodies, which have the capacity to sin.
Jesus showed us how to live a perfect life and pitch a perfect game. He pitched a perfect game because He had the Holy Spirit (and the wisdom it brings), He knew God intimately (the Scriptures), He prayed to God to know His will and have the Spirit help Him do His will. After having faith in Jesus, we too receive the Holy Spirit to help us and we could theoretically never sin again if we followed Jesus’ example exactly (which also requires the Holy Spirit helping us not sin, so it isn’t exactly though own own power or effort that we are not sinning). Though if we did not sin again after our salvation, it would just be a no-hitter, not a perfect game, as it required Jesus to atone of our sins at one point. Though I am not saying it is easy by any means or probably even possible, Paul and other great men of God who received the forgiveness of Christ probably still sinned again and spoke of how we want to do good and fail Rom 7:19. It is quite highly likely that no one on this earth will reach that level of sanctification (but that is our goal) But if they didn’t sin again, it wouldn’t make them perfect. Not being able to sin doesn’t make one perfect, nor is it a trait I believe the Bible says Jesus had. It is being able to sin, and going through the trials of life, and not sinning, that made Jesus perfect.
I tried to keep that somewhat short as I could, but if need me to use verses to back it up I could if requested. Though I know much of that is familiar, so I thought some verses wouldn’t be necessary to use, rather just an explanation of a common known verse that brought me to a conclusion.
I know some take offense to my assertiveness, which is not my intent. I am not claiming the above as the ultimate truth that only I know and discovered. Rather a brainstorming and open/public writings of my current beliefs backed up by the Bible. You are more than welcome to agree or not or to provide scripture that refutes that, which will help me learn and develop a new theory that reconciles Biblical passages. It would be easier in face to face to shoot an idea out and hear questions and respond and build a theory together. But being online, this is the best I can do, to anticipate possible problems and questions that might appear to go against current wide accepted belief, but does not necessarily go against the scriptures.
As scientist I guess you could look at it as multiple hypothesis’s, and me attempting to test against scripture and see if the result is still valid. But the problem is, is that one proof of wrong, can change so many other things. Its like attempting to do science while theorizing possible laws of physics before they were known. If these laws mean w, they x, y ,z. But if w is right and x is wrong, than so is y and z. It is even possible that x was on the right track and so was y, but now z invalidates them both and I need a slightly new x. Could Einstein have come up with relativity before the laws of newton or thermodynamics were discovered? Though I have the equivalent of the scientific process as my foundation, so I am not worried about any challenges to my above theories, they are neat to know, but not essential. If I don’t know how sin gets transmitted or where babies go, I still live my life the same, in pursuit of following the 2 greatest commandments, it doensn’t really change the way I will live my life.
Wow, what a marathon post, but great discussion. I am on my phone so will only address a couple of things. First, with gene editing now being done, if original sin was genetic, it could be edited out. But it isn’tand it can’t be done. Also, will comment that there are some good blogs on the Biologos site about image bearing that you would be interested in. They ultimately go back to scripture. I sort of see AdAm as continuing God’s creative work in the garden, before being separated by sin, and we being brought back to fellowship by the work of Christ on the cross, are called to continue his good work in creation. As I recall Wrights Suprised by Hope also touches on image bearing. Gotta get back to watching 5th graders.
The position that we are “born sinless - - but all will sin” (if we live long enough to earn our moral agency) is very common amongst the Eastern Orthodox.
Eastern Churches frequently state that Adam and Eve were the first sinners… but when their offspring sin, it is their own sin they perform.
Google “original sin” with “Eastern Orthodox” and enjoy…
Yeah, sorry about that. I lack the intellect and education of many of you and wish I could write things as concise and clear and elegant as some of you are able to. Hence my use of analogies to attempt to get my point across. But hey, Jesus used analogies (parables) too right?
My only argument to that is that it might just not be discovered yet. We haven’t discovered the ‘gay’ gene yet either have we? Or the murderers gene? Or the Danny Tanner gene. (Not trying to equate gays to murderers, just trying to say that those choices we make in life is supposedly in our genes though science can’t see that yet). I guess the same place that we get our souls from (that being image bearers provides us) is were we get our sin nature. This sin nature could be in our genes in a ‘higgs boson’ (equivalence) of undiscovered and maybe never able to be discovered. Like the code itself maybe? Like if genetic code is the sequence of GCAU right? Maybe the Uricil itself or the thymine itself has the sin, nature in it, and we won’t have genes or this genetic sin code in our glorified bodies. To which animals have these too right? But then we go to, animals aren’t image bearers, so can’t sin. If I want to murder, that could be in my genes, the desire to murder a competitor to help make myself better and achieve this victory. That is sin, we are to trust in God and His will and His plan. Then we have no need to murder. But a Lion, doesn’t like you in his territory, he kills you, its in his genes. Its not a sin, God does not have a plan that requires him to rely on God and sin by non-reliance and rejection.
So my theory is that sin nature is in our genes like any biological desire is in our genes. Can you edit out the desire to want to have sex? Or rather just edit out, freckles or not.
I will have to check out those blogs on image bearers, as of now I am stuck with Y chromosome and mitochondria theory.
I agree. But in our evolutionary biological desires to succeed, we are tempted to sin to achieve success. Whether that lying to make others look bad, or murdering to eliminate competition, or stealing to take an advantage or enjoy comforts we don’t have, or want comforts others have and we don’t ect. All sin stems from not trusting in God and Him being our ultimate security. When we attempt to find our security in anything else, even good things like family and church it is sin. And good thing that becomes a god thing, becomes a bad thing.
But I agree and think heaven will be like that. Just us using the gifts God gave us to do creative work in the garden (His creation), with ultimate security in the Father, we will have no need to sin.
It is the first I have thought of it. I was always taught (through what I now see as an incorrect interpretation of Rom 3:23) all have sinned therefore born sinners. Which I still trusted in God’s goodness, but I had no answers as to why babies don’t go to hell or did they. Now I have a good way to answer that that is still Biblically logical.
When God said to a human (or a human community, pick your interpretation), I am God of this world and I want you to be my representatives here and do my work here. I don’t think the image of God evolved or was contingent on humanity arriving at some place on the evolutionary spectrum, or is something biological at all. I think it is an example of election and God does what he wants to for his own reasons that are bigger and more all-encompassing than our species. Of course, in order to relate to humans the way God chose to relate to humans (who am I to say God doesn’t relate to dolphins or horses in a different way as their Creator and Sustainer), certain capacities needed to be there: communication, higher order reasoning, moral responsibility, etc. But I don’t believe the sum of those capacities equals the image of God. That isn’t how the term was used in the ancient world. (See the last part of this essay, for example; or this blog series.)
Other animals and even some plants have X and Y sex chromosomes. They are not unique to humans. And some humans have genetically abnormal sex chromosomes (X, XXY or XXX for example) and don’t fit the gender binary, so we can’t make being prototypically genetically male or female some kind of litmus test for humanity/image of God either without excluding people who are clearly human and potential image bearers.
Not saying I agree with everything here, but these are the verses that many Evangelical churches, especially ones with a more Reformed bent, are going to use to defend the idea that we are born sinners. I think we are born with an identity as sinners (we are born into the corporate guilt of the human race), into a sinful community, into a social world scarred and corrupted by sin and inherently broken in all its systems and structures. Then before long we act out our own personal rebellion against God and become personally guilty for our personal sin.
I think of it more in terms of someone needs to hand you the bow and arrow and point out the target before you can even attempt and miss. If sin is lawlessness, it does not exist outside of God’s revealed will. Rebellion against God’s rule can’t happen until God asserts his will and requires submission to it.
I don’t think that is true. The image we are given is that humanity could not remain in the sacred protected space enjoying an intimate relationship with God, not that God was forced to abandon planet earth. His Spirit has clearly been working throughout history. The OT is full of human/God interactions, including multiple accounts of God indwelling humans. God has always been intimately involved with his creation and human rebellion in no way renders God incapable of relating to his creation. It renders humanity handicapped in relating to God. That would make God pretty wimpy, if sin is somehow his kryptonite.
Hmm. That would be bad news for the Church. I thought at Pentecost, God’s spirit came to live in every believer, and the Church is Christ embodied on earth. Yes, Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, but that doesn’t mean God left the premises here. The whole Trinity thing gets complicated.
Thank you for those links, great reads, I enjoyed that essay a lot!
I think I also agree with what you said there. I don’t think the sum of these capacities equals the image of God, but the image of God was put into those with thees capacities.
I was getting at Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve as MRCA, and the possibility of God using them if they were the first, that would be a way to ‘project’ the image bearer status on us through evolution. So that should cover abnormal chromosomes right? But I see how that is a flawed theory.
I guess it could have still been something ‘magically’ placed into our genes , if not the coding. Like I said how we can’t see our future propensities in our genes either.
I think that is what I was trying to convey.
That brings up some interesting thoughts/points of discussion. If sin is lawlessness, then did those outside of Israel sin? How idd those in Noah’s time know what was wicked? Or in Sodam and Gomorah?
Did God provided us with a conscience to know right from wrong? Is a conscience God’s revealed will to us in a way?
whoops, nor do I believe that, sorry. I think a more correct way of saying that would be to say that God was on earth, with man, in the garden (temple). A sinful man can’t be around God. If you had the slightest sin or impurity, you couldn’t enter the temple and live. God the Father did us a favor and left earth so we didn’t all die.
God the Father is like the sun, the sun is good, it brings us heat and makes life possible, but if you get to close to it, it kills you. You require a ‘sinless suit’ to go near God and not die (thankfully Jesus provides one through faith in His death). Which accounts for Isiah having his tongue purified with a hot coal, the priests having purity laws before going to the holy of Hollies God can and did forgive us of sins which allowed us to be in His presence and not die. But Exo 33:20 says no one may see His face and live.
I think any prophet that saw God’s face, it was in a vision, so it wasn’t literally them seeing His literal face. Or was it? His presence was intimately involved through the Holy Spirit and His word, but can you provide scriptures that speak of God the Father being on earth? I think most passages that speak of God’s nearness, is a term of saying He is here for us, He can and will respond quickly as if one who is near…but is that the Holy Spirit (or command and angel to assist), or God the Father. Despite who He uses to protect us with, it is still Him who is able to quickly respond.
Jacob/Israel wrestles with God, and says I have seen God face to face, and my life was spared. So that sounds like the exception to the norm, the norm being sinful man in God’s presence is death.
Exo 29:45-46 says I will dwell with you. But does that mean, in the temple, with the temple protecting you from me and that is why so few can come it and only under very special circumstances?
You are right that the trinity is complicated. And yes the Holy Spirit did dwell among men as did Jesus and God sends representations of Himself like angels ect.
Gen 18 says and the LORD appeared to him.
Exo 3:2 (and many other passages) says and angel of the LORD appeared to Moses, in a burning bush, but then says God spoke to Him through the bush, and commanded him to take off his sandals, for he was on holy ground.
The more accounts I read, I see and angel of the LORD coming and acting almost like a portal for them to talk to God through or possibly see God through that protects them from His holyness?
After reading the many scriptures I have come to a new conclusion.
I guess if God is intending to talk with us in person, He could then provide us with the protective ‘shield’ we need to not die.
Which I guess also kind of sounds like a king. If you bother him without his consent, it was the law to be put to death, but if he wanted to hear you, he would extend his scepter and grant you his protection so you could talk with him and be pardoned from that death sentence.
So we(as in all the human beings) still can’t be in His divine glory as default, but there are special circumstances where on individual or smaller basis, He allowed it in the past to be in His presence. So nothing too great of a change from what I said above (other than my grave error of oppositely describing this making sin the kryptonite of God).
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to that.
Don’t sell yourself short, my friend. While you may not have advanced degrees, you have clearly worked (very hard!) on your own to gain the level of understand you currently have. This is no small feat. Combined with the humility to listen and learn, this attitude will serve you well!
See @AntoineSuarez’s threads about how God is in charge of “making souls”. If there is anything to this “image of God” vocabulary, this “thing” would be packaged into the soul … which has always been the unique role of God’s.
Phil, this statement clearly spotlights the advantages of my worldview that associates Original Sin with the Selfish Gene nature of Darwinian evolution. Biologists now have a better (but not perfect) idea how ‘gene shuffling’ produces a variety of phenotypes from the genetic components of two parents in sexual reproduction. The environment in which the offspring lives selects which genes are liable to be passed on. This environmental selection process, which Teilhard de Chardin rightly ascribed to God’s chosen method of creation in the Biosphere, produced the remarkably "designed’ primate, Homo sapiens, our immediate ancestors. By some epigenetic mechanism that science has yet to decipher, the brains of a few Homo sapiens (not necessarily but possibly a couple) were ‘programmed’ to perform as Minds–to create abstract thought and transmit it to another person so gifted, and to teach it to other Homo sapiens not yet gifted. Thus the Noosphere, the sphere of Ideas, was launched.
The earth was then inhabited with a creature that was not only conscious of its ‘creatureliness’ but which now possessed a conscience that asked how he/she should relate to the Creator. Even before receiving the gift of conscience, evolution had ‘found’ that a small amount of empathy and selflessness even outside of kinship could promote survival and well-being. But using their newly acquired conscience, the newly-minted humans found that, what was later called “brotherly love”, enabled the formation of more effective societies that extended beyond clans and kinship. These larger societies required leadership, and, regrettably leadership conferred power, and the ‘dark side’ of evolution took hold again. The lust for power is just another facet of the Selfish Gene. The potential that God had infused into Homo sapiens some 50K yrs ago needed more direct intervention to express His will: first with the Covenant with Israel, followed by the New Covenant made manifest through Christ.
Getting back to your speculation of ‘editing out the genes for original sin’, that would mean changing the entire genome, since that is what decides the ‘struggle for survival of the fittest’. So I think it is NOT faulty bio-genes that need correcting. It is the Noosphere and noo-genes that require our attention. Of course, these are just other labels for the Virtues and Sins that have been proposed by Christianity and other monotheistic religions. But building on Teilhard’s proposal of the reality of the Noosphere, and that noo-genes compete for survival in somewhat the same manner as do bio-genes, we may get a better idea of what Christ meant by His Kingdom, and what we might look forward to as Parousia. Christ said His Kingdom was NOT OF this earth (i.e. a product of Bio-evolution), but it still could be ON this earth as a product of a directed Noo-evolution.
Al Leo
P.S. I prefer the term ‘Noo-gene’ to Dawkin’s ‘meme’, but he also suggests they are subject to evolutionary pressure.
Sorry, I read to the end after I already typed above, so I’ll leave it in case anyone else wants to keep pursuing the idea. I was pretty much taught growing up that sperm carried the sin nature, so it’s not like you are the only person I’ve ever heard suggest it.