quote Originally posted by GT: This is a pretty fascinating line of reasoning. It then stands to reason that Satan is genetically compatible with humans since the story says he's a fallen angel. Why hasn't he created Giants since the bible was written? Maybe he has. Maybe Jesus was the antichrist... ironic, eh? hmmm...how tall is George Bush?

Maybe Satan is breeding a race of giants in hell instead of on earth. But maybe he is creating them here on earth. If you look a suits of armour from the Middle Ages, you see that the average height is something like 5'2". But now, people are around 5'11". Better nutrition or slow breeding of giants...

If you take Shaquille O'Neal's year of birth (1972) subtract the month and day that he was born (March 6th) and then subtract his weight (325 lbs) you get 1638. If you convert that number to hexadecimal numbers, you get 666, the number of the beast. Does this mean that Shaq (a giant in many ways) is the Anti-Christ...

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Actually, I didn't give you a (-) for this thread. I had already rated you (-) for something else.

I must’ve had the gall to post in another thread of “yours”. So sorry.

By the way, you better stay out of the hot, mid-day North Carolina sun. I hear that thin-skinned people burn very quickly.

Well, I don't know about Satan breeding giants, and I doubt that the Shaq is the antichrist.

On the other hand, though, the point about Satan being a fallen angel (Lucifer) is well-taken. It even makes sense.

Perhaps some people who are said to be the "spawn of Satan" actually are!

I then have to wonder--was Noah and his family genetically "pure" (ie no angel DNA) or were their genomes simply the least "contaminated" with angel genes? The book of Genesis doesn't seem to say....

If it were possible that some angel DNA had survived in the gene pool, then it IS possible that someone could be born who somehow combines those "contaminating" genes...and THAT person could end up being the antichrist!!

***

It's amazing how much stew you can make from one oyster, isn't it?? But as a serious fan and creator of SF I like to look at all the possibilities of a postulate...

Ed

quote Originally posted by edhering: Well, I don't know about Satan breeding giants, and I doubt that the Shaq is the antichrist. On the other hand, though, the point about Satan being a fallen angel (Lucifer) is well-taken. It even makes sense. Perhaps some people who are said to be the "spawn of Satan" actually are! I then have to wonder--was Noah and his family genetically "pure" (ie no angel DNA) or were their genomes simply the least "contaminated" with angel genes? The book of Genesis doesn't seem to say.... If it were possible that some angel DNA had survived in the gene pool, then it IS possible that someone could be born who somehow combines those "contaminating" genes...and THAT person could end up being the antichrist!! *** It's amazing how much stew you can make from one oyster, isn't it?? But as a serious fan and creator of SF I like to look at all the possibilities of a postulate... Ed

You can't argue with the numbers. It is there in black and white (well, dark blue and white ). But I guess you are right. The Anti-Christ would be able to hit a free throw now and again.

Genesis 5 runs through the lineage of Noah from Adam to Noah and it doesn't mention Nephilim, so it would seem that Noah is pure. But the Bible doesn't mention the purity of Noah's wife or Noah's sons' wives. So they could be carriers of Nephilim DNA.

One thing I've noticed is that the Bible often shows mankind sowing the seeds of its own downfall. Could the Anti-Christ be some kind of superman that we bred and/or genetically altered. Like for example, a project starts to create a pure human without any of the recessive strains that cause birth defects.

quote Originally posted by edhering: I then have to wonder--was Noah and his family genetically "pure" (ie no angel DNA) or were their genomes simply the least "contaminated" with angel genes? The book of Genesis doesn't seem to say....

the bible says clearly:

Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

do a little research - his 'generations' refers to his genelology, all the way back to Adam.

Its interesting to note, that people who say they have been abducted by aliens report they do sexual experiments on them. Some have reported seeing babies that are 'alien' / human cross breeds

the same thing that was going on in the time of Noah

interesting because Jesus said " - Luk 17:26 - "When the Son of Man returns, the world will be like the people were in Noah's day.

things are not what they appear to be, and very often people are not who they say they are

Okay, so it looks like we've established that Noah was "purebred" human. Hmm... But it's also true that we don't know about his wife or his sons' wives....

Ed

Since it was 'male' fallen angles who took human women for mates, are there genetic traits that are only carried by the males, and cannot be transferred to the female offspring?

Its possible whatever this genetic corruption was, it only affect the men. Genesis 6 doesnt say anything about super-human women, only men.

?

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 06-06-2005).]

quote Originally posted by dezie36: ^^The Last Scion?^^

We can only hope.... we can only hope...

-Shawn

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Since it was 'male' fallen angles who took human women for mates, are there genetic traits that are only carried by the males, and cannot be transferred to the female offspring? Its possible whatever this genetic corruption was, it only affect the men. Genesis 6 doesnt say anything about super-human women, only men. ?

the sexist fools who wrote the books had no idea of X or Y cromosones
in fact the male sperm has the X or Y and is the sex pick factor
women are XX as are all egg cells only X

so IF and thats a BIG IF there were angels or alien DNA both sexes would be affected equaly

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

unless they were only able to produce male offspring

if the 'fallen angels' only had Y chromosones, that would be the case.

the bible indicates angels do not marry, and they do not reproduce (amoungst themselves). Apparently there are no female angels.

the only three mentioned by name are all male: Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer.

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 06-06-2005).]

*if* angels operate on DNA and chromosomes, since they *might* all be male, they could pass the angel traits by Y chromosome, male to male.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Maybe Satan is breeding a race of giants in hell instead of on earth. But maybe he is creating them here on earth. If you look a suits of armour from the Middle Ages, you see that the average height is something like 5'2". But now, people are around 5'11". Better nutrition or slow breeding of giants... If you take Shaquille O'Neal's year of birth (1972) subtract the month and day that he was born (March 6th) and then subtract his weight (325 lbs) you get 1638. If you convert that number to hexadecimal numbers, you get 666, the number of the beast. Does this mean that Shaq (a giant in many ways) is the Anti-Christ...

Would that make Shaquille the Diesel Devil?
Coming soon to a T shirt near you.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 06-07-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Maybe Satan is breeding in hell instead of on earth. But maybe he is creating them here on earth.

like maybe, for instance, in Canada?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050607/ap_on_re_us/chain_saw_border

I saw you, eh?

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 06-07-2005).]

God the father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are one, somehow. The trinity concept. Since they are all one, they are the same-male.

In forming humans, they CREATED humans. The didn't PROcreate to make humans. So there is no need for a "'mother".

No reason not to expect Jesus had Mary's DNA, since God decided WITH HER EXPRESS PERMISSION BEFOREHAND to use her to bear Jesus.

One thing that hasn't come up is that since God is spirit, and not FLESH, I doubt that he would have DNA since DNA is a protein based and flesh component.

It is a tricky concept for us to reconcile that someone like Jesus could be human, so He could be a flesh and blood sacrifice; and yet still God so He could be perfect and sinless, which was required of the sacrifice.

I can GUARANTEE you that Jesus did NOT have any of Joseph's DNA, because that would violate scripture. Because Joseph was a descendent from the kingly line and a distant descendant of former King Coniah , who was so wicked that God cursed ANY descendant of Coniah's and said there would NEVER be one of Coniah's blood descendants to sit on the throne of Israel again, Jesus could not have had Joseph's DNA.

So Jesus BY INHERITANCE from Joseph was rightful heir to be King of the Jews, but not by DNA. But Jesus qualified to be king of the Jews by DNA that he got from Mary, who was from a different line than Coniah but still descended from David. This is in those incredibly boring lists of genealogies.

So the whole DNA thing is very interesting to speculate upon, but if you are going to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is also very important so there are no contradictions.

Is God guilty of harrassment? If a boss (with simply power of firing) were to go to one of his employees and tell her that she was to be a host mother to his child, he would be up on so many charges it would take years just to read them.

When God (with power to do literally anything to you) tells you that you are going to be host mother to his child, who would have the guts to say no.

the guts to say no?!

why would she want to say no?

did she have different career plans?

Ha. Good one.

That is why I capitalized that it was her choice. God had an angel approach her about it. He didn't come down in her face about it.

There are lots of examples in scripture of people who said no to God, and they didn't wind up in a heap of ashes.

Ken makes a good point. Apparently it was the dream of many young jewish girls to be the one to have the Messiah.

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: why would she want to say no?

I'm sure it would have been somewhat embarrassing for a young virgin to suddenly be pregnant. But I do agree that she would have considered it the ultimate honor to be chosen as the one bringing the Messiah into our world.

As for DNA, that is only required for these tents of flesh we live in. Spirit beings don't need no stinkin' DNA. Editing to say I suppose the DNA of the man Jesus was created the same way Adam's was.

As for the male thing, the Bible says God is male and the church is His bride. But then it also says the believers are His adopted children.

Just throwing a few things out there.

[This message has been edited by Cheever3000 (edited 06-08-2005).]

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: did she have different career plans?

Yes, she wanted to be an astronaut. But since space travel was 2000 years away, she didn't know that she wanted to be an astronaut.

If the DNA of Jesus was created brand new (as opposed to being part of Mary and Joseph), why does Matthew 1:1 says that Jesus is the son of David and the son of Abraham? That implies that he is somehow descended from them. So if he is not descended from Joseph, then he must be descended from Mary (if Mary is descended from David, I couldn't find her lineage).

Mary is a decendant of David - there are two geneologies listed in the gospels, one for Mary and one for Joesph

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 06-08-2005).]

Yes, check out the SPECIFIC wording, too.

Matthew 1 has the genealogy for Joseph. Verse 11 has the reference to Jechonias, which is the same as the Coniah I talked about that was cursed. All the line to the throne after him , that was cursed, had no throne to sit on anyway because the Babylonians had conquered the country of Israel. But IF there was a kingdom, Joseph was in line to be king, except his family was cursed and God would never let anyone be king.

That's why verse 16 is specific: And Jacob begat Joseph THE HUSBAND of MARY, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. Doesn't say Joseph "begat" Jesus, because he didn't.

Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being AS WAS SUPPOSED the son of Joseph..."

Luke 3 contains Mary's genealogy, which goes from David to one of his sons named Nathan.
Matthew 1 is Joseph's, which goes from David to Solomon and on.

The reason for the Matthew 1 genealogy is to establish that, although not a DNA blood descendant to the throne, he inherited the right to the throne from Joseph via Solomon and David. But the wording is specific that he isn't an actual offspring because he COULDN'T be due to the curse on the descendants of Jeconiah (Coniah).

But he has a DNA blood right to the kingdom because God said one of David's descendants would always be the king of Israel.

Very technical, I know, but this is very important because it establishes Jesus as the only one who could qualify to be the Messiah.

Aside from that, a very interesting discussion of DNA, etc.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Luke 3 contains Mary's genealogy, which goes from David to one of his sons named Nathan. Matthew 1 is Joseph's, which goes from David to Solomon and on.

How is Luke 3 Mary's geneology? All it talks about are sons. No daughters.

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (King James Version)

23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, (American Standard Version)

23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (New International Version)

Now some later versions are gender neutral, such as:

23When Jesus began to preach, he was about thirty years old. Everyone thought he was the son of Joseph. But his family went back through Heli, (Contemporary English Version)

But that doesn't mean that it is Mary's family, just that it doesn't say which side it is. You could make the assumption that because it differs from the lineology in Matthew 1, that means that the other Bible versions are wrong. But considering all the other places where the Bible refers to sons, it would be hard to belive that all the translators got it wrong in just this verse.

The only thing I can think of is that it was speaking methaphorically. Like it said Jesus was the son of David and the son of Abraham. But why run through a list of insignifigant names that Jesus is the "son" of? When everywhere else a list of "was the son of X which was the son of Y" it is a literal genelogical list.

Heli is Marys father

"The real father of Joseph was Jacob (Mat 1:16); but having married the daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate ""son of God"" by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his posterity"

if someone listed out your family tree, would you assume one branch was your mothers family, and the other was your fathers family?

or would you assume one or both were wrong, because they were not the same?!

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 06-08-2005).]

Ken is absolutely right.

They don't mention the female names in the genealogy, so she isn't mentioned. So Jesus was "...the son of"---next up after Mary was her father Heli.

The verse structure would be read as: And JESUS himself began to be about thirty years of age which was the son of Heli, with the ---being as was supposed the son of Joseph---as a parenthetical entry for clarification because people would naturally think that Joseph was the father unless specifically stated otherwise.

So the "which was the son of Heli" part of the verse is referring to JESUS, and is not referring to the parenthetical part--that is, not Joseph.

Which makes sense because Joseph would have conflicting genealogies if they were both his.

You had a very good question. Not being jewish and not knowing their culture, this is something I had to learn. My culture doesn't put much emphasis on genealogies past the grandfather, and I don't think most US citizens do, either. But it is a big deal to jewish people, and they keep accurate records of this. AND they have their own conventions, like not mentioning the females in it.

Okay, we have that settled. So is Jesus a male-clone of Mary? Or does he have half Mary's DNA and half new DNA?

My OPINION, he is absolutely not a clone of Mary. For SURE he got 1/2 Mary's DNA, but the other half male DNA he got inserted directly into Mary's egg by the holy spirit. It wasn't the holy spirit's dna, since being spirit, there is no dna. But the holy spirit placed it there. A CREATIVE act of creating something (Jesus' male dna) from nothing, which you would have to be God to do.

I'm being specific in the wording that the holy spirit PLACED or INSERTED it directly into the egg, so it doesn't leave room for people to imagine some weird Mary/holy spirit sexual encounter, since she had to be a virgin to fulfill prophesy.

After all I have read and seen in astronomy and biology, I think God can do pretty much what ever he pleases, parthenogenisis or devine intervention, using any traits he wanted, or man from scratch.
I am always amazed at the structure of a cell and the wonder of all the galactic structures and what it took for them to develop.
Maybe God does know what he is doing after all? I think so.

[This message has been edited by TennT (edited 06-09-2005).]