Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 08-19-2009, 10:12 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

No, their seed is not the vessel for the transmission of the yetzer hara.

Do you have a source for that view Steven? It sounds Talmudic. Thanks

Hi semi .. I'm uncertain if it is Talmudic or not, I probably should ask a friend in Israel who is well-versed in Talmud if he knows or can research.

Arthur Custance is the only one who I know of who has written about this cogently, although I found some related concepts a couple of years back when I was looking into the history.

No proof offered, simply I suggest you read Arthur Custance to start and give the idea consideration, and if you like, prayerful consideration.

xaxxat .. "seed" is the women's biological contribution.

show .. you have misused the term 'immaculate conception' . While I disagree with your points, I think I understand where you are coming from.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto · 08-19-2009, 10:35 AM

http://custance.org/

Virgin Birth

Seed of a woman

Quote:

Although originally published in 1980, this exhaustive study into the physiology of redemption-the part played by the physical body-is of timeless relevance. Dr. Custance was not seeking to prove the fact of the creation of Adam, or the formation of Eve out of his body, or the literal fact of man's Fall by eating a forbidden fruit and his consequent loss of a potential physical immortality, or the truth of the virgin birth, or the unique circumstances surrounding the death of Jesus, or the reality of his bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. All these things he takes as established truths and he accepts this without equivocation.

The thesis of this volume is that each of the historical facts which lie behind the creeds of the Christian faith is essential to the whole plan of redemption. The element of necessity attaches to every one of them. They form a kind of organic lifeline-a single thread of things causally related in such a way that to abandon any one of them is to destroy the rationale of the whole. Men and women do not need to understand the "rationale" to be saved: but it is our privilege now to be able to see more clearly what God had to do to make salvation possible.

The man sounds like a raving nutcase. Why should anyone read him?

Steven Avery · 08-19-2009, 11:00 AM

Hi Folks,

Thanks for making those links available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why should anyone read him?

The Bible believer ..

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

Others:
To learn the alternative to two common doctrines, the sinlessness of Mary - as in the immaculete conception doctrines, or Mary not contributing biologically to the human nature of Jesus. And the information may help some 'others' make the transition to the first group by increasing understanding and answering questions and giving greater insight into the virgin birth of Jesus.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Susan2 · 08-19-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

So females are sinless?

The better explanation is that 1st century science didn't know that women actually had eggs. They just thought that the woman's womb was an incubator for the man's sperm. It was the sperm itself that grew into a human being, not male sperm fertilizing female eggs. They had no idea why women had their periods.

Understanding this, this is what allowed the gospel writer(s) to declare immaculate conception. It wasn't that the "holy spirit" combined with Mary's eggs. The "holy spirit" simply grew inside of Mary's womb - thus Jesus didn't share any blood with Mary.

When it was discovered that women had eggs, then you start getting all of these modern questions about sin and blood and all that nonsense. The creators of the virgin birth story didn't need to explain that because they didn't think that Jesus and Mary shared any DNA.

That is a rather large assumption. I don't agree.

Do you think they eventually figured out that certain males were sterile? And from that knowledge made some accurate conjectures? And didn't the observe that certain females were sterile and from that made some accurate conjectures? I think they could add and subtract.

They may not have understood the details of physical reproduction as we do, but I suspect they knew far more then they are given credit for knowing.

I am sure they had a relatively decent understanding of hormones. :devil:

And, Ancient Egypt did preform autopsies, lending knowledge to body parts. I am sure that knowledge was preserved and passed along, no pun intended.

show_no_mercy · 08-19-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The better explanation is that 1st century science didn't know that women actually had eggs. They just thought that the woman's womb was an incubator for the man's sperm. It was the sperm itself that grew into a human being, not male sperm fertilizing female eggs. They had no idea why women had their periods.

Understanding this, this is what allowed the gospel writer(s) to declare immaculate conception. It wasn't that the "holy spirit" combined with Mary's eggs. The "holy spirit" simply grew inside of Mary's womb - thus Jesus didn't share any blood with Mary.

When it was discovered that women had eggs, then you start getting all of these modern questions about sin and blood and all that nonsense. The creators of the virgin birth story didn't need to explain that because they didn't think that Jesus and Mary shared any DNA.

That is a rather large assumption. I don't agree.

Do you think they eventually figured out that certain males were sterile? And from that knowledge made some accurate conjectures? And didn't the observe that certain females were sterile and from that made some accurate conjectures? I think they could add and subtract.

They may not have understood the details of physical reproduction as we do, but I suspect they knew far more then they are given credit for knowing.

I am sure they had a relatively decent understanding of hormones. :devil:

And, Ancient Egypt did preform autopsies, lending knowledge to body parts. I am sure that knowledge was preserved and passed along, no pun intended.

It's not an assumption. What tools were available to 1st century Jews to discover mammalian eggs? According to wikipedia, the first mammalian egg was discovered in 1826. The first human ovum was described by Allen in 1928. Have you ever seen a human egg? It's supposedly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Do you think an Egyptian is going to see a dot and conclude that it's an egg?

Reading things like Plato's "Symposium" it's obvious that they thought that sperm simply incubated and grew into a person via some magic inside of a woman.

Toto · 08-19-2009, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why should anyone read him?

...To learn the alternative to two common doctrines, the sinlessness of Mary - as in the immaculete conception doctrines, or Mary not contributing biologically to the human nature of Jesus. ...

That doesn't answer my question. Custace assumes the truth of the supernatural events in the Bible. What can he say after that?

And this is not "the" alternative to two common doctrines. Another alternative, even among Christians, is that Mary is a late addition to the myth of Jesus, and her virginity is an even later addition.

Susan2 · 08-19-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

That is a rather large assumption. I don't agree.

Do you think they eventually figured out that certain males were sterile? And from that knowledge made some accurate conjectures? And didn't the observe that certain females were sterile and from that made some accurate conjectures? I think they could add and subtract.

They may not have understood the details of physical reproduction as we do, but I suspect they knew far more then they are given credit for knowing.

I am sure they had a relatively decent understanding of hormones. :devil:

And, Ancient Egypt did preform autopsies, lending knowledge to body parts. I am sure that knowledge was preserved and passed along, no pun intended.

It's not an assumption. What tools were available to 1st century Jews to discover mammalian eggs? According to wikipedia, the first mammalian egg was discovered in 1826. The first human ovum was described by Allen in 1928. Have you ever seen a human egg? It's supposedly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Do you think an Egyptian is going to see a dot and conclude that it's an egg?

Reading things like Plato's "Symposium" it's obvious that they thought that sperm simply incubated and grew into a person via some magic inside of a woman.

Of course it is an assumption. I am making an assumption, but I think I have more reliable evidence for my assumption then you do.

Sorry, but I still can't agree. And I think that the writings of Plato that you sort of quote, is pulling your leg. If there is an after life, I am sure Plato is having a good laugh even as we speak.

And if not, there is no after life, I am sure you may have just created one. I can hear the ancients shaking in their graves, delighted with our folly. I bet they call us dumb ...., well you know what I mean.

What tools were available? Observation, subjects, a mind,, pen and paper to record the observation............same stuff. No microscopes would be needed in order to grasp an overview.

I am sure the Egyptians could see ovaries, fallopian tubes, wombs, viginas, bladders, uretha's intestines, ect, and connect the dots, no pun intended.

I read somewhere on the net, that archeologists found a human skull with a surgical incision, and suspect brain surgery, successful or not, meaning knowledgable or not, but certainly experimental. The skull was 8,000 years old. I thought that was pretty impressive.

I will see if I can find a link.

From there, knowledge of reproduction would have been baby food, no pun intended.

Yellum Notnef · 08-19-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Do you have a source for that view Steven? It sounds Talmudic. Thanks

Hi semi .. I'm uncertain if it is Talmudic or not, I probably should ask a friend in Israel who is well-versed in Talmud if he knows or can research.

Arthur Custance is the only one who I know of who has written about this cogently, although I found some related concepts a couple of years back when I was looking into the history.

No proof offered, simply I suggest you read Arthur Custance to start and give the idea consideration, and if you like, prayerful consideration.

Hi folks,
I think "prayerful consideration" is precisely what got Steven in this mess he's in.

show_no_mercy · 08-19-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It's not an assumption. What tools were available to 1st century Jews to discover mammalian eggs? According to wikipedia, the first mammalian egg was discovered in 1826. The first human ovum was described by Allen in 1928. Have you ever seen a human egg? It's supposedly the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Do you think an Egyptian is going to see a dot and conclude that it's an egg?

Reading things like Plato's "Symposium" it's obvious that they thought that sperm simply incubated and grew into a person via some magic inside of a woman.

Of course it is an assumption. I am making an assumption, but I think I have more reliable evidence for my assumption then you do.

Sorry, but I still can't agree. And I think that the writings of Plato that you sort of quote, is pulling your leg. If there is an after life, I am sure Plato is having a good laugh even as we speak.

This just means you haven't read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

What tools were available? Observation, subjects, a mind,, pen and paper to record the observation............same stuff. No microscopes would be needed in order to grasp an overview.

I am sure the Egyptians could see ovaries, fallopian tubes, wombs, viginas, bladders, uretha's intestines, ect, and connect the dots, no pun intended.

I read somewhere on the net, that archeologists found a human skull with a surgical incision, and suspect brain surgery, successful or not, meaning knowledgable or not, but certainly experimental. The skull was 8,000 years old. I thought that was pretty impressive.

I will see if I can find a link.

From there, knowledge of reproduction would have been baby food, no pun intended.

I might be impressed with all of your assumptions if you can point to the first ancient to refer to a human woman's egg. It might even be relevant to point out the etymology of the word "sperm" in this context.

Susan2 · 08-19-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

Of course it is an assumption. I am making an assumption, but I think I have more reliable evidence for my assumption then you do.

Sorry, but I still can't agree. And I think that the writings of Plato that you sort of quote, is pulling your leg. If there is an after life, I am sure Plato is having a good laugh even as we speak.

This just means you haven't read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

What tools were available? Observation, subjects, a mind,, pen and paper to record the observation............same stuff. No microscopes would be needed in order to grasp an overview.

I am sure the Egyptians could see ovaries, fallopian tubes, wombs, viginas, bladders, uretha's intestines, ect, and connect the dots, no pun intended.

I read somewhere on the net, that archeologists found a human skull with a surgical incision, and suspect brain surgery, successful or not, meaning knowledgable or not, but certainly experimental. The skull was 8,000 years old. I thought that was pretty impressive.

I will see if I can find a link.

From there, knowledge of reproduction would have been baby food, no pun intended.

I might be impressed with all of your assumptions if you can point to the first ancient to refer to a human woman's egg. It might even be relevant to point out the etymology of the word "sperm" in this context.

Oops, sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize that you were doing that talking under the table, private little conversation stuff.

So I'll just bail out and allow you all to continue...............

Anyway, no haven't read much of Plato.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.