Talk:Incarnation (Christianity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Merge?
I agree that this article is unfinished. However there is an excellent article on Christology, which really covers the same material. Perhaps Incarnation could comment on the usage of the term and then refer to Christology for the substance. We're having enough trouble with the doctrinal pages, without trying to maintain two different pages that cover essentially the same topic. Hedrick 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logical Coherency
I propose that a section be added which puts forth the controversies involved in the logical coherency (or lack thereof) of the incarnation. Some points worth mentioning:
1. If as conventional Christianity asserts that Jesus (Yah'shua) has a dual nature, then God the Father is sharing his earthly wife Mary with Joseph-- in essence polyandry which is never allowed in the rest of scripture.
2. If as conventional Christianity asserts that the Holy Spirit is masculine, then as above, there is polyandry once again for Mary.
3. Even if the the alleged dual nature issue of Jesus (Yahshua) is set aside and Joseph allegedly never has conjugal relations with Mary (as the Roman Catholic Church claims), then in Luke, it is clear that both God the Father and the Holy Spirit were involved in the incarnation of Jesus, and according to convenitonal Christianity, there are 2 male members of the Trinity sharing Mary-- polyandry seems to rear its ugly head again.
4. If the Holy Spirit is viewed to be masculine as is the Father, then you have a Jesus with two daddies-- the same sex marriage advocates are already exploiting this notion-- they already have a T-shirt with the slogan.
5. If the Holy Spirit is viewed to be feminine, as do some Messianic groups and Branch Davadians, then there is no polyandry between the Holy Spirit and God the Father
6. Conventional Christianity will object and say if however there is still an assumption of quasi-sexual union of the Godhead with the mortal Mary and that is combined with position #5, then there is polyamory which is never allowed in the whole of scripture (a possible exception could be the Millenial Kingdom???).
7. Conventional Christianity will also object and say that a feminine Holy Spirit implicates bisexuality for Mary, and implicates lesbianism for one of the members of the trinity.
8.There is apparently an assumption within some areas of Christianity that the incarnation was quasi-sexual (a combining of a human egg with a divine seed/sperm). Yet Mary never viewed herself as a "wife" of God, but rather as a "maid-servant."
9. As seen in Luke chapter 1, if the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaQodesh) is understood as feminine, conceiving Jesus (Yah'shua) in a human or human-like form by Her (the Ruach's) cosmic echad union with the Father (Yahweh), while Mary (Miriam) is viewed as only as a surrogate mother (or literally "conduit" as in at least one [1]Aramaic translation of Luke 1:46) then there are no conflicts. Lil'dummy 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the above 9 objections are not a reasonable contestation of the logic of the article. No Christian theologian would agree with labelling any of the persons of the Trinity with a sex, which hence makes all the above points irrelevant. Generally, there are very few things that you could definitely proclaim as characteristics of God, let alone the sex typification. I see the article as definitely neutral. 194.213.204.84 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I was not objecting to the logic of the article. Just as there is a section discussing logical coherency [2] in the article on the Trinity, so I was proposing a section here. You may want to check again on Christian Theologians' views of gender in the article God and gender. Lil'dummy 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the name "father" and the part with the Holy Spirit being male come from the tendency of other languages to label words as either male or female, and that male was the one chosen to reinforce the whole male-dominance thing. as far as I know the Holy Spirit is gender neutral, and God is described as male, but is understood to be gender-neutral, since as an omnipotent being applying traditional gender labels to him just doesn't make sense except when using pronouns (I'm sure many would detest the idea of labeling him as 'it' since that implies he's an object of some sort). Of course, I know nothing about Latin and other languages back then, so I could be wrong. ENSSB 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole argument is moot. The most logical conclusion is that a full zygote was inserted into the womb. You are implying that the Holy Spirit had sexual relations with Mary, which is never the case. Got2liv4him (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There have been many false doctrines creep in over the centuries through misconstrued ideas, mythology, and pagan deity worship. It is known that through all the years of mankind men have created deities that were both man and god. They all have a similar story. In all aspects every story appears to share the same story line. First the god was in the heavens and then he came down among men so the deity can share in their human nature to find compassion for them. I believe this comes from the need for man to connect with the higher power, as some call the true God, so they can identify with their creator. In reality nothing ever suggests such things in the entire Bible. The Bible does say the Word became Flesh. Men automatically think when it says this that the “Word was God” and therefore means that Jesus (Yahshua) was God. When a man truly reasons with this grotesque error of interpretation they find themselves lost in a whole slew of questions that are never answered. But, when you take the Word for just as it says it clearly shows what exactly happened. Where does Word come from? It comes from a person’s mouth right? First someone has to speak before it becomes Word. Whose mouth did this Word come from? The Father in heaven is clearly the answer. If the Christ (Messiah) was this God then why did he pray to himself? Why is it written that not even the Son of God knows the day and hour of his coming? It is also written that after Christ (Messiah) has finished all things then he will hand the kingdom back over to the Father in Heaven. Christ (Messiah) can’t hand everything back over to himself nor can he pray to himself. Again this is just man’s way of explaining the things they know nothing about. There attempt to create another God-man or false god is then in vein just as many others who have attempted to do the same thing. According to the Bible and all of its writings this is a great abomination in the eyes of God (whose name is Yahweh). To create a false deity is condemned in all of the scriptures. It is easy to create God in our own image because then there is little to be said about obedience unto truth. Remember we were created in his image not he was created in our image. Usually when anything points to a God-man it is either misinterpreted or simply misconstrued. All God has to do is speak and it happens. (DST)18 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.20.145 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
