Anh Minh wrote:
Would that constitute rape and/or adultery?
The moral laws of sexual interaction applied to normal instances between two human beings (or more). However, a Divine would, especially in an attempt to keep an ancient promise, be willing to exempt himself from any and all rules.
As for the other question, yes. He would have fertilized an egg. Otherwise, Jesus would not have called himself "the Son of Man."
Diviton instigation would cause an egg to result that contained the fullness of DNA of whatever it wished. It would have copied Mary's DNA to perfection, then altered it so that a male rather than a true clone was produced.
It would also have purified the process so that no harmful mutations were transferred from mother to child. Therefore, he could be "without blemish or defect."
The bigger challenge is to keep original sin from being inherited. This would disqualify any such child. To understand that, we must first understand how original sin works:
1. If your left hand steals, your right hand is also guilty. The whole of you is guilty.
2. Therefore, if you then produce a child after having stolen, then your guilt curse applicable for your natural life on Earth is just as true for your eggs/sperm as it is for your hands.
3. The guilt is on both your spirit and your flesh. Spirit begets spirit, and flesh begets flesh. When one seeks reform, the other must also be reformed or else there will be a conflict as the one that has not reformed seeks control. This usually means the flesh needs discipline more than the spirit, and rarely the other way around.
4. In a normal instance, the fallen man fertilizes the fallen woman. Everything both have ever done wrong up to and including the moment of fertilization is then inherited either in the spiritual blueprint or in the physical blueprint (DNA), with the chance for further corruption for both from that point onward (due to mutation and/or disease for the flesh, and acquisition of learned vice for the spirit and flesh)
5. Therefore, children show an uncanny ability to reflect the worst aspects of their parents, even before being old enough to have learned those aspects. But once it is a learned trait, it becomes even harder to combat in the child's life.
6. Since the Bible insists that the Law of Death was not appended to the Law of Entropy until after Adam's
rebellion (since Eve could prior-to have been easily replaced), it is clear that a MAN (or man-made device) has to fertilize the egg for the sin of both parents to be inherited by the child.
7. Therefore, if a divine fertilization process is initiated, then no human male or human male invention caused the fertilization to occur. Therefore, the child is spared from inheriting the mother's dark side as well. The child can then be truly without sin, unless corrupted in life by other means.
Makes sense, but still presents us with a problem:
We cannot defeat original sin through scientific experimentation and technological development.
The pursuit of knowledge is a virtue in most world religions. But if knowledge alone cannot save, then this necessitates the grace-alone, faith-alone model that is not found in most world faiths.
This is why Buddhism has a different idea of what constitutes sin and why Islam rejects the teaching or original sin.
Basically, if you cannot subscribe to the above metaphysical mechanics, then it becomes a huge roadblock unless you can device some detour to get around having to believe in it. But then, that makes other parts harder to grasp.
Clearly, doctrines were not meant to be something we simply cater to our whims.