> Your mail address probert@cs.ucsb.edu has been removed
> from the evolution@calvin.edu mailinglist.
> It generated an excessive amount of bounced mails.
Here it is again.
I wrote:
> I see no reason to conclude that Jesus would also share this common
> Y chromosome, because I see no reason to assume that sharing the
> 190,000 year lineage of this chromosome is a requirement for Jesus
> to be fully human.
> You have begged the question.
Russ responded:
> I think that Dave's problem arose because in answering Denis I quoted
> only part of what I said earlier. Dave wants to give a different answer
> to the original question about Jesus and the Y chromosome. I was trying
> to be brief, but it didn't work out. So here is more of the earlier
> discussion:
I will try to explain why I think your logic was incorrect, shortly.
> I think that Dave's claim that I begged the question rests
> on my assumption of "yes," rather than "either yes or no." But
> Dave, it was actually either "yes" or "no"; can you defend "no"?
I didn't say 'no,' I said 'cannot know,' which is a distinct
state [Deu 4:15-16]. 'yes' or 'no' are *not* the only possible states.
Whether Jesus could be submitted to a blood test depends on whether God
allows it [John 19:11], not on available technology (e.g. the shroud
could have been real and contained testable DNA).
Not everything that `could' be known `can' be known.
As to my objection to your logic. It is indeed because you argue
for assuming ``yes'' and then use it to make a further point.
Whether the answer is `cannot know' or `no' or `yes', I don't know.
But if it is either `no' or `yes' then I think `no' is more likely,
because I believe Jesus is not descended from Adam according to the flesh.
But that is beside the point. You assume `yes':
> 3. "Yes." Then his Y chromosome was miraculously created to *look
> like* the Y chromosome of a being from whom he was not descended.
> If that is so, then what is the objection against holding that
> the first humanbeings possessed genetic material which *looked
> like* the genetic material of beings from whom they were not
> descended?
The implication of `yes' is not that the `Y chromosome was miraculously
created to *look like* ...', but that the `Y chromosome *looked like*'.
*Why* it looked like `a being from whom He was not descended' is just
conjecture. But it is a conjecture you need to be true to make your
point about other matters. Thus you assume your conclusion.
Did Jesus have DNA? Did His blood circulate? We assume these things
to be true because they seem essential for Him to be human. Thus it
is indeed likely that He had a Y chromosome, because that seems
essential for Him to be a man. What would this Y chromosome look like?
That is the part that we cannot (or at least do not) know.
--DaveP.S. Conception in women by spirits is not unique with Christ, butthe other recorded instances all produced monsters (the Anakim, e.g.Goliath). I find it interesting that Jesus was not a monster. Perhapsthis is a consequence of humans being in the image of God, not of angels?
So, what did Goliath's Y chromosome look like? Anybody ever dig upany 9 foot skeletons in the hills of Palestine and find any residual DNA?