I would say there is something overlooked in the whole debate: The Son, when coming in his entirety out of the Father, was a Man of heavenly origin. Just because there were some claiming that his body was an illusion (Docetism) it does not mean that God is not capable of begetting genuine flesh and blood. I advise to view the bible from that point as it clears up many problems. The Son of Man is the same as the Son of God – it does not mean that 2 components originated in 2 different realms (Son of Man from Mary, Son of God from the Father) but rather it is one and the same thing – God had a human Son. That is a very central issue in the gospel of John, mostly John 6 and the “I ἐξέρχομαι ἐκ the Father” statements (Jn 16:28 i.E.)
Andre Bentrup said
The Son, when coming in his entirety out of the Father, was a Man of heavenly origin. Just because there were some claiming that his body was an illusion (Docetism) it does not mean that God is not capable of begetting genuine flesh and blood… That is a very central issue in the gospel of John, mostly John 6 and the “I ἐξέρχομαι ἐκ the Father” statements (Jn 16:28 i.E.)
Hi Andre,
I’d like to hear a little more about what you mean by your claim that (to put it in positive terms) God is capable of begetting genuine flesh and blood.
Are you saying that a literal virginal conception is historically plausible? At the risk of being crass: Do you imagine a literal conception through union of Mary’s earthly egg with God’s heavenly sperm?
I am skeptical if you are pressing it as a historical claim. On the other hand, I am open to the possibility if you are offering an interpretation of the Gospel of John.
Thanks in advance for your consideration of my comments.
Greg
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)