Who Was Jesus' Biological Father?

[dwilkins]

The following is a summary of an article describing how the ancients viewed conception and the implications for Christology. What's interesting to me about it is whether or not scripture embraced an ancient view of cosmology that turns out to be incorrect. If so, where else does this happen as is it a problem?

The following is an important quote in the middle of the article:

"Their understanding of conception, shaped by a patriarchal culture, would have been some variation of the dominant Aristotelian theory. On this view, the male semen provides the formative principle for life. The female menstrual blood supplies the matter for the fetus, and the womb the medium for the semen’s nurture. The man’s seed transmits his logos (rational cause) and pneuma (vital heat/animating spirit), for which the woman’s body is the receptacle. In this way the male functions as the active, efficient cause of reproduction, and the female functions as the provider of the matter to which the male seed gives definition. In short, the bodily substance necessary for a human fetus comes from the mother, while the life force originates with the father."

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... ign=E4BN03

[Paidion]

Well... I'm not going to comment on "how the ancients viewed conception and the implications for Christology", mainly because I don't trow that the ancients' view of conception has any implications for Christology.

However, I would like to share my view as to the answer to the question posed in this thread.
I believe that Jesus' biological Father to be His heavenly Father. For the spirit of God the Father came upon Mary and caused her to conceive. The spirit of the Father is none other than the Father Himself, since "God is spirit" (John 4:24)

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Homer]

To me original sin is irrelevant to the significance of the virgin birth. If Mary was not a virgin we can not know Jesus was the Son of God, or both God and man.

[Singalphile]

Who Was Jesus' Biological Father?
The following is a summary of an article describing how the ancients viewed conception and the implications for Christology. What's interesting to me about it is whether or not scripture embraced an ancient view of cosmology that turns out to be incorrect. If so, where else does this happen as is it a problem?

I agree with both Paidion and Homer. I've never thought about it, but it doesn't seem "troubling", as the article suggests it is, that Jesus had/has no human biological father. The literal interpretation of Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve had no human, biological parents. Were (or are) they therefore considered non-human? I don't think so.

I've reckon that the authors of scripture had many incorrect views about a lot of things, and I think that hints of those views can be seen sometimes, perhaps especially in the poetry (like possibly Psalm 139:15). It's not a problem for me.

[TheEditor]

I can only think it would shed light on the reaction of the Jews to what Jesus was saying when he called God his "Father". This would imply that they may have taken it to mean more than it may have.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

For me the theological significance of his virgin birth is original sin. Now how he avoided it through Mary, as I see her as a sinner just like everyone else is, is an interesting question. I don't think sin literally resides in the molecules that make up the body, as Scripture says it resides in the heart. Somehow the male side of reproduction since Adam's headship must be spiritually significant than, as sin is passed down spiritually through the fallen nature, an immaterial entity. I believe the above view has good Scriptural support. If this is the case, then, whatever erroneous views the ancients had concerning the biological reproductive system doesn't seem too relevant.

Who knows? Perhaps Jesus DID inherit the fallen, human, sinful nature through His mother, just like everyone else does through both parents. After all, He "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Heb 4:15, ESV). If He had no inclination toward sin because of having only a divine nature from His Father, it wouldn't have been much of a temptation. But the point is, on every occasion in which He WAS tempted, He chose not to sin.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Homer]

If Jesus was completely human, as I believe He was, then He necessarily had the same urges of a fleshly nature as we do. Certainly He got hungry and had a strong desire for food, else how did Satan tempt Him in the desert? If Jesus had no desire for food the temptation was meaningless, and "tempted in every way as we are" would be no inspiration to us.

I have long believed Christians today are so intent on establishing the deity of Jesus that His humanness is overlooked. Big mistake.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]