quote:
Originally posted by Amanuensis:
I think the virgin birth is important (see my comments on the thread in kerygmania).
Is the virgin birth an essential part of a healthy and empowering Christian doctrine?
Central to the Christian faith, IMV, is is the Crucifixion of Christ. This is the turning point in history, the point when a way back into full relationship with God the Father became possible. But, if Christ were just a man, even a very good man, his death would have been just that of a martyr; it would be something to inspire you to try and follow his teaching but would not effect any forgiveness for sin. But, within orthodox Christian tradition his death is a sacrifice for forgiveness of our sins (with several models of how that is achieved). To be effective this has to be a perfect sacrifice, and if that sacrifice was just a man then it would be the greatest injustice for God to accept such a sacrifice. However, if the sacrifice is God himself then it is both perfect and just (in that God isn't asking someone else to do what he himself isn't willing to do). Thus, the Incarnation is essential in understanding the Crucifixion.
Was it essential for Christ to be born f a virgin to be God Incarnate? Now that is an interesting question....
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm going to rephrase the question if I may ...Is the virgin birth an essential part of a healthy and empowering Christian doctrine?
...
...Was it essential for Christ to be born f a virgin to be God Incarnate? Now that is an interesting question....
Alan
Alan,
From my point of view it's necessary to rephrase the question:
Is A LITERAL UNDERSTANDING of the Virgin Birth an essential....
I don't believe in a literal Virgin Birth. Our faith is that in Christ, God and man are met. The problem with the volumes of explanations of the credal claims about Jesus is that they depend on a particular metaphysics. That metaphysics -- that explanation of how the world is -- does not work so well in our times.
The Virgin Birth made a lot more sense in the millenia before the discovery of the ovum. Mary was seen as the pure vessel of the action of the Holy Spirit. I think we need a new understanding that respects the realities of biology as they are known today.
Lots and lots of folk are Christian, and don't accept a literal interpretation of the Virgin Birth.
Lou
My opinion, FWIW.
I wonder how many 'people in the street' know that there are a lot of Christians who think it is not necessary to believe everything literally, leaving no place for the celebration of myth and allegory?
I would guess that when a large number of people reach an age when they decide for themselves that events in the bible are impossible to believe (often a few years after the Santa bubble bursts) then they give up on Christianity and Church altogether
But if they were to realise that they could still be Christians if they didn't have to swallow every literal truth ........? I wonder.......
(Cue Richard Holloway and other liberal authors)
1 - Is the virgin birth an essential part of a healthy and empowering Christian doctrine?
2 - Was it essential for Christ to be born of a virgin to be God Incarnate?
I have to stick my nineteen year old neck out and give a resounding 'yes' to both questions.
One does not have to compromise his intellect in order to be a Christian, but there are mysteries of the faith that, while hard to swallow on scientific grounds, are essential if we are to stay consistent with what has been believed by Christians for two millennia. Please cross-reference the Nicene Creed ("who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man") and the Ecumenical Councils - Mary was bestowed the title of "Theotokos" ('the God-bearer' or 'Mother of God') instead of simply "Mother of Christ" in order to preserve Christ's true identity as fully God and fully man.
If Mary was not a virgin, then Christ was entirely human - and if Christ was in no way divine, he would have fallen into sin at some point in time, which would make his death an imperfect, and therefore unacceptable, sacrifice for our sins. And there goes the salvation of the world.
Allison
instead, he was entirely human AND entirely divine.
is it possible for a child who hasn't been told the "facts of life" yet, and who doesn't know what a virgin is, to be a christian?
i think the answer to both is obviously yes. therefore, no, one does not need to believe in the virgin bith to be a christian.
I percieve much of Christianity to be rather hard to swallow. Indeed, if you're going to choose believe in most of a story that affects all of reality anyway (including a benevolent creator, angels, and a devil for contrast) why can't you believe in something as relatively minor as a virgin birth?
Before I dance around on too many people's toes, let me throw in the disclaimer that I freely acknowledge that Christianity could be right. Moreover, I have a great deal of respect for it's ideals, and as an important part of society (and for it's sheer story-telling audacity!).
Nevertheless, I connect the term "Christian" with a person's ability to accept what I consider to be dubious. Though, in my unfortunate habit of arguing against myself, I must admit that this does not mean that believing in any particular part, including virgin birth, is a necessary requirement.
Makes me wonder though - how much doubt of Christian principles is allowable before a person must rescind the title "Christian"?
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Indeed, if you're going to choose believe in most of a story that affects all of reality anyway (including a benevolent creator, angels, and a devil for contrast) why can't you believe in something as relatively minor as a virgin birth?
Amen, brother. The whole story is hard to swallow. Why stick on that particular point?
We are all in a sense the children of God. But Jesus is called the Son of God in a very literal and specific way. If there was no virgin birth then Jesus' father is not God.
Christianity rests on the claim of Jesus' divinity. Having Him born of a human mother and father pretty much denies that claim.
Rick.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christianity rests on the claim of Jesus' divinity. Having Him born of a human mother and father pretty much denies that claim.
I, too, think RooK hit the nail on the head (and I, FWIW, believe utterly in it - I have no compelling reason not to).
I think the Virgin Birth argument is actually a part of a larger argument: do miracles happen?
There are (I was surprised to learn) a lot of Christians who don't actually believe in miracles... (if anyone can explain this view in a succinct manner, I'd be grateful).
Given this, while my faith - partly - rests on the divinity of Christ, not every Christian's does... are they still Christians? Well, there's people I know who'd say otherwise, but I'd hesitate to call that judgement myself. I don't think we have a clear-cut definition of what a Christian actually is to decide that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:There are ... a lot of Christians who don't actually believe in miracles...
... are they still Christians?
If they do not believe in any miracles then that must include the resurrection, which IMO is probably the one fundamental belief of Christianity.
As Paul put it:
[1Cor 15:12-14] Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve_R:
If they do not believe in any miracles then that must include the resurrection, which IMO is probably the one fundamental belief of Christianity.
It's certainluy the fundamental belief of most of the Christians I know... but a few years ago I was acquainted with an Anglican priest, who didn't believe in the virgin birth or a literal resurrection - and didn't have a problem reconciling it with her faith.
Not having discussed this at any great length with her, I'm still at a loss to understand how this can be. I know there are shipmates who hold this view: would any of them be able to explain?
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
is it possible for a person so severly retarded that s/he can't understand the concept of virgin birth to be a christian?is it possible for a child who hasn't been told the "facts of life" yet, and who doesn't know what a virgin is, to be a christian?
i think the answer to both is obviously yes. therefore, no, one does not need to believe in the virgin bith to be a christian.
I think that logic is a wee bit faulty. By the same process, you could negate any aspect of the Christian mystery - the Trinity, the resurrection, Pentecost etc. God created all of us and knows our limitations and we believe to the best of our ability and understanding. What we believe and understand as children has to grow and develop as we do. The fact that I did not understand what the Virgin birth was at age 5 does not give me a reason not to believe it now.
God bless
Scotty
I thought this quite nicely framed the issue and accurately describes the fundamental project of modern theology, at least since Schleiermacher: how to make Christianity acceptable to its "cultured despisers"?
FCB
quote:
The Virgin Birth made a lot more sense in the millenia before the discovery of the ovum. Mary was seen as the pure vessel of the action of the Holy Spirit. I think we need a new understanding that respects the realities of biology as they are known today.
I don't see why this should be the case. In fact I think that knowing about the ovum makes the virgin birth make more sense. If Mary had - as would presumably been thought at the time (though I don't know what Jewish thought on the matter was, only Greek) - just been the 'soil' into which the 'seed' was planted, then where did Jesus' humanity come from? But knowing about the ovum we can see how Christ was incarnate 'of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary'. Or that's how I see it anyway.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I don't see why this should be the case. In fact I think that knowing about the ovum makes the virgin birth make more sense. If Mary had - as would presumably been thought at the time (though I don't know what Jewish thought on the matter was, only Greek) - just been the 'soil' into which the 'seed' was planted, then where did Jesus' humanity come from? But knowing about the ovum we can see how Christ was incarnate 'of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary'. Or that's how I see it anyway.
I think that's a very sensible way of seeing things. The biology thing is quite possibly a red herring.
Oh, and FCB, thanks for your explanation... but I'm not sure I understood its significance. It's most probably my fault, me being stupid and it being Thursday and stuff, but could you explain it again?
quote:
The biology thing is quite possibly a red herring
I agree. Given that Matthew records Joseph's intention to break off his engagement to Mary (when he finds out she's pregnant - and not by him) I suspect that more than enough of "the realities of biology" were known.
When I became a Christian some six or seven years ago my understanding of the faith was very limited. The virgin birth was something I knew of but hadn't really thought about. It certainly didn't play a part in my deciding whether or not I was a Christian, so I'd have to answer the thread's question "no".
I agree with Wood that crux of this debate may be on “Can we believe in miracles?”
So many impossibilities in the bible… ranging from the Jesus rising from the dead, down through the virgin birth, feeding of the 5000 and with a few minor ones dotted about, such as the iron bar floating on water somewhere in the depths of the Old Testament. Some Christians believe that all of these literally happened, some in some of them, some in none of them (I don’t want to get side-tracked onto “what is a Christian” at this point, so we’ll move on quickly).
But how did I order the sentence in bold type? Some people might range these reports according to how contra they are to the laws of science or how fundamental we see those laws to be (i.e gravity vs. mammal reproduction). Others might order them to how easy for them to be misinterpreted or mis-reported (biblical inerrancy here we come). But, on the basis of this discussion, I propose that most Christians ‘order’ these on the basis of their theological importance… how crucial any one event is in terms of their own faith.
Most Christians would argue that whether or not the resurrection literally happened is a more vital question than whether Jesus turned water into wine. But does that make the latter any less likely to have happened?
clare
I'm sure the problem is with me and not you. In trying to be concise I always end up being cryptic.
The point was that one way of understanding "modern theology" -- by which I mean mainly protestant theology since the early 19th century -- is that it seeks to explain Christian beliefs in such a way that modern people can believe them without difficulty (Roman Catholic theology didn't really begin to get "modern" in this sense until the 1960's). The reference to Schleiermacher is to his Speeches on Religion to its Cultured Despisers, which is generally considered a watershed for this type of theology. In it, he attempted to show the German intelligensia that Christianity was compatible with the Kantian philosophy that then held sway. Now, there is nothing wrong with that per se, except that beliefs that didn't fit with the presuppositions of Kant's philosophy tended either to get explicitly pitched, or reinterpreted in terms that fundamentally changed the belief. I would contrast this with my hero, Thomas Aquinas, who sought to use Aristotelian philosophy to better understand Christian beliefs.
Maybe an example or two would help. In trying to understand the traditional Christian belief in the Incarnation, Schleiermacher reinterpreted it as the claim that while all human beings possessed at least an implicit consciousness of a being upon whom they were absolutely dependent, Jesus' "God Consciousness" was so fully developed that we can speak of him as "God's Son." I would dare say that this amounts to a rather different claim than "one person, two natures" (or even, "And the Word was God") but it certainly is easier for modern people to believe. Or, regarding the resurrection, Schleiermacher claimed that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but simply fell into a coma. However, because his God Consciousness was so powerful, he was able to temporarily revive and was seen by some of his disciples. Again, this is certainly easier to believe than that God raised Jesus from the dead, but is it still belief in the resurrection?
The point that Oakes makes, I think, is that modern theology has fundamentally misunderstood its task as supplying people with an understanding of Christian beliefs that is easy to believe in the modern world.
But why should matters of belief be easy? What makes us think that people in the first century were more willing to accept a virgin giving birth, a man being God, or a person returning to life from the grave? Indeed, the Gospels indicate that most people in the first century found these things very difficult, if not impossible, to believe.
Now if there had only been theologians there to explain that the virgin birth was a mythological symbol. . .
By the way, a great short critique of (i.e. a screed against) the Catholic version of modern theology is Hans Urs von Balthasar's The Moment of Christian Witness.
FCB
Do I believe it is an issue of salvation? Nup.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I am rather keen on symbolism. I don't think it's cheating, because it is often harder to tease out the hidden depths of meaning behind a symbol than it is to simply believe everything unthinkingly just because the Bible says it is so.
Isn't this a rather stark contrast? In fact, modern biblical criticism is rather tone-deaf regarding symbolism, whereas pre-modern bible readers, who "unthinkingly" accepted such things as the virgin birth, didn't think there was any incompatability with thinking such things "really happened" and thinking that they were symbolic.
FCB
On the other hand, they tended to be pretty critical of this kind of stuff actually happening - see for example, Plutarch's rationalisations of a number of mythological characters (written c. AD120 or thereabouts).
And yet, the early Christians not only grasped the symbolic import of the Incarnaton etc. but also accepted it as true. Which, I think says something.
quote:
Originally posted by Allison Kistler:
...One does not have to compromise his intellect in order to be a Christian, but there are mysteries of the faith that, while hard to swallow on scientific grounds, are essential if we are to stay consistent with what has been believed by Christians for two millennia.
...If Mary was not a virgin, then Christ was entirely human - and if Christ was in no way divine, he would have fallen into sin at some point in time, which would make his death an imperfect, and therefore unacceptable, sacrifice for our sins. And there goes the salvation of the world.
The core belief that makes us Christian is that God entered the human experience in Christ. The myth of virgin birth provided the "how" of it, and was a perfectly satisfactory explanation for millenia. For many it no longer suffices because of how we see the world. But you are right. There are mysteries of the faith. For me it remains the greatest of mysteries that God entered into human experience. It virginal conception of Jesus is the metaphor that makes this notion accessable.
So, yes I believe in the virgin birth ... but not literally.
Lou
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:So, yes I believe in the virgin birth ... but not literally.
Lou[/QB]
This is getting too metaphysical for me - how can you believe in the virgin birth - but not literally. How did the Incarnation happen then? 
Peace
Scotty
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
If the Creator of the Universe decides for whatever reason that He will become incarnate and born of a virgin, then it's no biggie for Him to organise it I reckon.Do I believe it is an issue of salvation? Nup.
If Jesus was born of a virgin, there must have been a reason for it, surely? Is there any established theology which sets out to explain why Jesus was born in such a way? I can understand why Jesus would need to have become incarnate through the power of the Holy Spirit, which I guess would make Joseph a little unnecessary but why would Mary need to be a virgin? If there is a reason for it then it may become an issue for salvation.
In Tom Clancy's book, Debt of Honour, when the last of the Russian missiles has been destroyed two men (one Russian, one American) drink a toast and then, following a Russian custom, throw the glasses away so that they may never be used for a lesser purpose. Perhaps it has something to do with this?
Tim
the original poster asked not "is the virgin birth true", (a point i'm entirely agnostic about) but "is it neccessary to believe in it." the point i was making is that since there are christians who are incapable for whatever reason in believing in it, yet are undoubtedly christians (at least, i have no doubts on that issue) indicates to me at least that no, its not neccessary.
frankly this is part of a larger issue for me, the over-intellectualization of religion. if ya' gotta' have a high iq to be saved, then it leaves too many people out. if it requires convoluted theological contortions to understand the message, then the message is to complex.
If I may, can I turn the question around and ask "why don't you believe in a literal virgin birth?" ('you' being the agnostics/ non literalists posting on this thread). What is it in your theology that makes this an unlikely/impossible event to happen?
clare
quote:
Originally posted by Scottie:
This is getting too metaphysical for me - how can you believe in the virgin birth - but not literally. How did the Incarnation happen then?
My faith is that God entered into human experience through the person of Jesus. Doctrinally we hold that Jesus was FULLY human and FULLY divine. This is a mystery. Our mechanistic explanations for this are culturally and linguisticly limited. I believe the "what" (incarnation), and accept the "how" (virginal conception) metaphorically.
But this entire discussion raises great questions. Since the beginnings of "higher criticism" the mainstream of the churches has moved beyond literalism, and there has been a reaction called Fundimentalism. Has this dynamic happened with regard to the credal statements of the great ecumenical councils? If not, why not? Why would scripture be subject to critical analysis in light of culture, language, etc,. and not the credal statements themselves?
Interesting things to think about.
Lou
Sieg
quote:
but a few years ago I was acquainted with an Anglican priest, who didn't believe in the virgin birth or a literal resurrection - and didn't have a problem reconciling it with her faith.
Yes, these characters are out there--including that heretic Spong. How can you be a member of a church that subscribes to the traditional creeds, but not believe them? Part of the baptism ceremony, and usually the confirmation ceremony, of such churches includes giving assent to the creeds. Does one therefore lie in order to be initiated into the church, then go about the business of doing churchy things?
I have heard people stop speaking during parts of the creed that they can't go along with, which is at least more honest than reciting it and lying at the same time.
Well that's how I see it anyway. Anyone else agree, or am I on my own on this one? 
quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Winningham:
Yes, these characters are out there--including that heretic Spong. ......Does one therefore lie in order to be initiated into the church, then go about the business of doing churchy things?
I don't think that the issue of "literal vs non-literal" is a matter of lying. I say the creed weekly at Eucharist without qualms and without literalism.
Thomas Aquinas began his Summa Theologiae with the statement that God is unknowable, and we cannot say what God is, but only what he is not. (The Via Negativa) The Transcendent and the Holy is beyond our ability to delimit. It is possible to stand in awe of the mystery of God and yet not be awed by the statements the churches make about God (all of which are limited by culture and language).
Poor Jack Spong would have surely been burnt at the stake a mere four hundred years ago, don't you think? I recommend his latest book, which addresses the question of how to shape Christianity in this modern world. I don't think one has to agree with him to appreciate the validity of the question.
Lou
[corrected quote attribution]
[ 14 December 2001: Message edited by: Wood ]
quote:That is quite the most simple yet evocatively conveyed reason for the perpetual virginity of Mary that I've come across. Most thought provoking. But I suspect it will rile the humanists.
Originally posted by Tim V:
If Jesus was born of a virgin, there must have been a reason for it, surely? Is there any established theology which sets out to explain why Jesus was born in such a way?
...
In Tom Clancy's book, Debt of Honour, when the last of the Russian missiles has been destroyed two men (one Russian, one American) drink a toast and then, following a Russian custom, throw the glasses away so that they may never be used for a lesser purpose. Perhaps it has something to do with this?
I prefer this take on it to the one where the virgin birth is required so that Jesus' human nature is sinless. Or that birth of a woman is required for him to have a human nature. After all, God created Adam and Eve - so I see no reason why Mary could not just have been the receptacle of a divinely created human nature (ie. none of her genes) - this however is not orthodox (in the broad sense) christian belief. I'll accept it because it's the faith of the Church, but if anyone is clued up on why it was necessary for Jesus' human nature to come from Mary pls reply (or start a new thread not to derail this).
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do people who think one has to believe in the literal virgin birth also believe in transubstantiation?
Not at all. That's a theology that's come down filtered through different traditions, rather than the virgin birth, which is common to all Christian denominations.
There are many possible intrpretations of terms such as Son of God. Paul in Romans 1.4 says Jesus was declared Son of God by his rising from the dead. That isn't quite the same as being the pre-existant Logos as described by St.John. The Incarnation is a mystery and meant diferent things even to the writers of the NT. That doesn't mean any of them are wrong, it means that Jesus is Immanuel, but the details are shrouded in mystery.
The resurrection is also a mystery. That the resurrested Christ could appear and disappear at will suggests He appeared as a ghost, but that He could be touched by Thomas and others and eat fish suggests He could make Himself solid. But He tells Mary Magdalene not to touch Him because He is not yet risen, but encourages Thomas to do so. The point is that different witnesses had different experiences even of the Risen Christ.
The resurrection of the shattered lives of the disciples from selfish cowardly obtuse people, to courageous proclaimers of the Risen Lord through suffering persecution and martyrdom is the essential proof of the resurrection. Jesus' followers knew that the bond of love that had existed between them while on earth hadn't been broken by His death and He was still there as a guiding presence in their lives. The mechanics of it or what sort of body He was resurrected into is beyond the understanding of anybody alive and should be accepted as a mystery.
For me the essentials of Christianity are that Jesus was the icon of God on earth, that in some way I don't pretend to understand, He reconciled God and man, and that in some form which I also don't pretend to undertand, He convinced those nearest to Him that He had survived death and was always there to intercede for mankind with the Father. I don't think much else matters.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
For me the essentials of Christianity are that Jesus was the icon of God on earth, that in some way I don't pretend to understand, He reconciled God and man, and that in some form which I also don't pretend to undertand, He convinced those nearest to Him that He had survived death and was always there to intercede for mankind with the Father. I don't think much else matters.
wow, my thoughts exactly, PaulTH, but I wish I could put them as clearly as you
The virginal conception reminds us of God's "Otherness." Indeed, he is the Creator, and normally works through creation - but here was a case where, in Christ's becoming Man, God was not "limited" by the created order as He established it. (I don't know that 1st century Jews would have found the concept of miracles so astonishing in itself - they were far more aware of God's acting within creation than we - but a virgin birth would be so foreign an idea to anyone's thought that it would have been totally unlikely to be a created myth, either for those giving testimony to Christ or uttering prophecies.)
Of course, following the idea of God's limitless power to act, it was not essential that He bring forth the Incarnation in any particular fashion - I believe it was Cardinal Ratzinger (certainly no liberal!) who set forth that this was an ontological reality, and not, if you will, making the biological reality necessary for Jesus to be the Incarnate Word. (The point can even be stretched that it was not strictly necessary for a Christian to know anything about Jesus's conception to accept who he was.) Yet there being this detail, and its having been revealed to the Church, reminds us not only of Jesus's humanity, and His divinity (God's only son), but of our own limitations. It is rather awe-inspiring, I would say. God worked outside of the normal created order - but, dealing with "time and space limited" mortals, His both suspending the laws of nature, as it were, and making this known to us was a way of making us see, strongly, Jesus's uniqueness. We need that aid to grasping the truth, I believe.
I think that, central though the Cross is to our faith, we're limiting things too much when we think of the Incarnation solely in terms of our salvation. I think we need to re-visit the idea of deification - the ways in which our own intimacy with God was affected by Jesus's entire life, by His Resurrection and ascension, by His presence in the Church, etc. He is not an intercessor - that is far too limited a viewpoint. (Nor did His Incarnation consist only in His birth... I've also read too many Franciscans to forget to add that.)
That Jesus would assume human nature, and that, in the very act of this happening, God, without Jesus's being in any way less a man, worked (in a way that would boggle our thick heads forever afterward!) outside of the usual limitations of creation, seems very powerful to me. Concurrently, the divine Logos was accepting all of the limitations of being a man, while remaining a divine Person!
Certainly, the very first Christians were not less so for not knowing about the virginal conception - but I must say that, in our own Christian lives, it is likely to be more helpful than not if we do not ignore two thousand years of revelation and belief.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by Tim V:
Is there any established theology which sets out to explain why Jesus was born in such a way?
Swedenborgianism goes on at length about this, the general rule being that nothing recorded in Scripture happened without a reason.
There are basically three reasons for the virgin birth:
1. Because of the meaning of virginity - The reason that Messiah was born to a virgin is because of the symbolism associated with virginity. A virgin represents the pure love that receives God in a person's life. So virgins, or young women, are often mentioned in the Old Testament. It is true that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, but the Greek word is not. Mary represents humanity itself, and especially that aspect of humanity that is fully accepting of God. This is why it was important that she be a virgin.
2. Because of the necessity that He have human heredity, yet have a divine soul - The reason that Jesus was born in the normal way and not simply created was because of the nature of His mission. He was to take on the sins of the world hereditarily through His mother. The idea is that everyone inherits tendencies to selfishness and worldliness through their parents. These tendencies are the means by which hell influences a person, and so they were the means by which the hells were able to attack Jesus - and be defeated by Him.
So it was important that Jesus have a human mother, so that He could inherit the sins of the world, so to speak. But it was equally important that His inner soul be divine from the Father. During the course of His life this inner soul manifested itself increasingly. Through continual spiritual battles with the hells Jesus gradually united Himself with the Father, the union being complete in the resurrection.
3. The third reason is so that He could literally be the Son of God. If Jesus had a human father He would not be the Son of God.
These reasons all relate to the entire mechanism of salvation both of the human race as a whole, and of each individual. There is a part of each person that is like Mary - and God is born miraculously into that part of them. The process is replicated in many ways in a person's life.
To my mind these reasons make no sense if you accept the atonement theory of salvation. They are coming from an entirely different view of Jesus' mission. This view makes the virgin birth an essential part of the purpose of the incarnation.
So, anyway, that is one established theology which sets out to explain why Jesus was born in such a way.
quote:
Because of the necessity that He have human heredity, yet have a divine soul -
quote:
So it was important that Jesus have a human mother, so that He could inherit the sins of the world, so to speak. But it was equally important that His inner soul be divine from the Father. During the course of His life this inner soul manifested itself increasingly. Through continual spiritual battles with the hells Jesus gradually united Himself with the Father, the union being complete in the resurrection.
I'm not convinced these statements represent orthodox Christology, in fact I suspect it is a defined heresy to say his soul was divine and his body human - I'm just not sure which (Docetism?). Christ was fully human AND fully divine and those two natures are indivisible, so you can't say that one bit was God and another was Man.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I'm not convinced these statements represent orthodox Christology, in fact I suspect it is a defined heresy to say his soul was divine and his body human - I'm just not sure which (Docetism?). Christ was fully human AND fully divine and those two natures are indivisible, so you can't say that one bit was God and another was Man.Carys
I think the heresy your looking for is Apollinarianism. Apollinaris was bishop of Laodicea and a supporter of Athanasius. He held that human beings were tripartite: body, "sensual soul" (the part that received sense impression) and "rational soul" (the part that thinks). Christ had a human body and a human "sensual soul" but rather than a human "rational soul" he had the divine Logos.
I tend to be forgiving of Apollinaris (as I am similarly of Nestorius). He was making a stab at the knotty problem of how humanity and divinity were united in Christ. He, not unreasonably, took as his model the union of body and soul in human beings. The problem with this, as you point out, is that it ends up saying that Christ is not fully human.
FCB
I do recognize that this is not orthodox Christianity, since it denies the atonement and original sin. I don't think that this necessarily makes it heresy, since it accords fully with Scripture. The point is that it is a fully worked out theology that explains the necessity of the virgin birth.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I do recognize that this is not orthodox Christianity, since it denies the atonement and original sin.
If Mousethief is awake yet he may have something to say about that line.
It was said earlier that people struggled to see how people could lie in the creeds if they do not believe in the virgin birth.
People I know in this position (and myself when I struggled with the belief) got round the statement "born of the Virgin Mary" by saying that Virgin Mary is the title commonly given to the Mother of Christ and does not necessarily imply that they believe there was actually a virgin birth. A bit of a sidestep really.
I have struggled with this idea as much of the birth narrative does appear to be constructed to validate messianic claims for Jesus.
Saying that Jesus could not have been the Son of God if he had a human father is possibly looking at the subject too biologically. I see no reason God could not have "annointed" Jesus in this way regardless of biological parentage and in some ways it would make him more fully human.
All that said I am now more open to the teachings of the church on this and other matters such as immaculate conception, to willingly accept that these are real possibilities and not get too hung up. But I don't consider such beliefs essential and in no way comparable in importance to belief in the resurrection.
I don't think I believe in the existence of God-stuff. Have you ever felt the presence of God ? Did you see any God-stuff around at the time?
Seems to me that denying Jesus a human biological inheritance from both parents is envisaging him as less than fully human.
His relationship with God was that of Son to Father, but I suspect that this was achieved in a more subtle way than by God being a biological parent.
Russ
What's wrong with this picture? 
To stick my own neck out a bit, I do believe in a virgin birth, since it seems to me to make theological sense, and i can find no good reason not to believe it. But I can understand the non-literal point of view. I'm genuinely interested in how we work out our own beliefs regarding miracles.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree, is this miracle thing a red herring? Is the virgin birth significantly different to "a miracle"?
clare
quote:
Can I ask again, shipmates who don't believe in a literal virgin birth, do you have a literal belief in other miracles in the bible? Not so much the resurrection, but all the walking on water/ wine making / healing/ sticks bursting into flames ones. Do you believe some and not others? And if so how do you decide what is believable and what not?
To use an analogy (I will leave it up to you if it is a good one or not): take an impressionist painting. Looked at close up the detail breaks down and can be rather confusing. But look at the picture as a whole and it all comes into focus.
The entire question treats the creed like a smorgasbord that a not-completely-hungry man might idly shuffle by, picking this and that when it suits his fleeting fancy. Drive-thru Christianity. "Would you like Toronto Blessing with that?" It reduces Christianity to the level of comparison shopping. Beliefs as commodities.
The second problem, which was pointed out to me both by my wife and by a fellow at choir practice last night, is that it is part of this "what's the absolute minimum I can get away with?" reductionism which is, it would seem, endemic to Protestantism these days. Someone above made the comment that instead of thinking, "What do I have to believe?" we could be thinking, "Look at all I get to believe!"
This is one of the chief Orthodox (and probably RC, although I cannot speak for them) complaints about late 20th century Protestantism (it's too early to say 21st century protestantism or orthodoxy or rcism -- nothing has happened to differentiate the last 2 years (or 1 depending on how you count)) from the 40 or so that preceded them): viz., the minimalist aspect. If I don't HAVE to believe this, or do this, or have this "tat" in my church, then by God I shall not. I shall do, think, and possess the absolute minimum possible to still get into heaven.
It rather is not the attitude of one who embraces God with his entire heart soul and mind. Rather it is dilettante Christianity (if I may coin a term).
Unfortunately this position appears to be a pretty logical conclusion from Luther's soteriology. If "being saved" can happen instantly, then what does it matter whether one fasts, or gives alms, or prays unceasingly? What does it matter what the worship service is like, or whether the bread and wine are body and blood, or mere memorial meal? What does the virgin birth matter? Or even the creed?
If salvation is instantaneous, then what one does afterwards is of far less importance, and a dilettante attitude perhaps is not just acceptable but preferrable?
Well there's my musings. Fire away.
Reader Alexis
However, I do not consider the Virgn Birth a miracle in the same "class" as the others, as the others - mostly - are examples of Christ's divinity (He was divine whether or not he walked on water), whereas an individual's interpretation of the Virgin Birth can have much deeper inpact on their theology (and vice versa). As one with quite high level training in genetics, I have great difficulty believing in a fully human man who lacks a Y chromasome, and I believe Christ was a fully human man as well as fully divine. Possibly Mary could have been one of those women who are XXY, but the chances are so remote I find it easier to believe the Y came from Joseph. Jesus' Incarnation is so far beyond my understanding as it is, this makes little difference.
Please understand that a) I am in no way dismissing any of the miracles found in the Bible, I am simply saying they have different effects on my faith. and b) I'm thinking on my feet a little, so this might come out a bit confused.
xxxGinga
quote:
As one with quite high level training in genetics, I have great difficulty believing in a fully human man who lacks a Y chromasome, and I believe Christ was a fully human man as well as fully divine. Possibly Mary could have been one of those women who are XXY, but the chances are so remote I find it easier to believe the Y came from Joseph.
Well I agree Jesus must have had a Y chromasome, but I don't believe that it came from Joseph, or from Mary either or indeed from any human.
If his conception was entirely normal, how come he was different? I have far more trouble not believing the virgin birth than believing it.
Carys
Reader Alexis
quote:
Wulfstan: You could get 100 people to say they believed in the creed, but if you tried to nail down what precisely they meant by it, you risk getting 100 different answers. Does it really matter how people rationalise it to themselves?
That's why I'm here! I find it interesting, and other peoples answers help me think through my own beliefs, which are certainly not a signed and sealed document. But, no, in the much wider scheme of things, it doesn't matter. No-one is under any three line whip to defend an entirely logical faith.
You say that the reason people may or may not believe in x or y are individual, but in these recent posts you've reflected that you are a historian, Ginga as someone trained in genetics and Mousethief as an Othodox reader. Undoubtably our backgrounds inform the way we approach the bible and our faith, and I believe that we are richer and wiser from listening to one another. (Well, most of the time )
Ginga, thank you for your musings... i have a similar mix up of takes on the miracles, and you're right that they are too big a side track! I also think you're right that the Virgin birth has a "deeper impact" on our theology. It seems that you reject the idea of a virgin birth on the basis that it is genetically too improbable - what impact then does this have on your theology of the incarnation?
Mousethief. As a protestant it is with a sinking heart that I read this.
quote:
If I don't HAVE to believe this, or do this, or have this "tat" in my church, then by God I shall not. I shall do, think, and possess the absolute minimum possible to still get into heaven.It rather is not the attitude of one who embraces God with his entire heart soul and mind. Rather it is dilettante Christianity (if I may coin a term).
Your examples confound me, that what i believe should be strung together with what I possess or choice of building of worship. I find the coining of my tradition 'dabbling in a subject' offensive. And the use of the word 'endemic'. Yes, we might all get annoyed with people who believe the 'easy bits' and forget the rest... but I don't think that is the preserve of any one tradition. Equally, we might choose to have the grace to be thankful for the mustard seeds of faith we find in our own lives and those of fellow Christians.
I do find it incredulous that after the thread that have been running over the last few weeks you should resort to these barbs that you know will deliberately provoke people. You could have made your point (which is a valid one) without such jibes.
clare
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
[qi]I do recognize that this is not orthodox Christianity, since it denies the atonement and original sin. [/qi]If Mousethief is awake yet he may have something to say about that line.
Must I?
quote:
I see no reason God could not have "annointed" Jesus in this way regardless of biological parentage and in some ways it would make him more fully human.
This makes it sound like Christ's divinity was something painted on later. Whereas we teach that he was from the moment of his conception both wholly man and wholly God.
As for why or whether he had to be born of a virgin, I confess I do not know. But Isaiah foretold it, and Luke recorded it, and it is the teaching of the church from the very beginning. For that reason I would have to intensely scrutinize any suggestion or argument which purports to prove it false. Rather than invent my own Christianity, I prefer to receive the traditions passed on to me. It is the difficult truths which stretch us, as C.S. Lewis points out. If we jettison these, we will remain as we are and not be made to grow and deepen.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
and it is the teaching of the church from the very beginning.
Not quite true. It is possible, even including Phil. 2:5ff, to consider the preaching of Paul, Peter, the writer to the Hebrews and the evanglising of Mark (which are part of the very earliest core of Tradition) to be "orthodox" without the necessity of a virgin birth. I'd say that even John does not require belief in this. It is a known tradition, most definitely, but it is not the only tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by clare:
Your examples confound me, that what i believe should be strung together with what I possess or choice of building of worship.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that belief and practice are so divorced in your life that mentioning them together has confounded you?
quote:
I find the coining of my tradition 'dabbling in a subject' offensive.
I don't remember mentioning your tradition (which is?), or saying that any one tradition was entirely this way. I said this sort of thing was endemic in late 20th century protestantism.
quote:
And the use of the word 'endemic'. Yes, we might all get annoyed with people who believe the 'easy bits' and forget the rest... but I don't think that is the preserve of any one tradition.
On the contrary. Picking and choosing what to believe and what to throw away defines Protestantism from the very beginning. It is what Luther set out to do, and the motivation behind his "sola scriptura" was to determine what rule of thumb to use when deciding what to keep and what to throw out. Luther and Zwingli had heated arguments because Zwingli wanted to throw away the "real presence" whereas Luther wanted to keep it. The seeds of consumerist Christianity are in the very roots of the reformation.
quote:
Equally, we might choose to have the grace to be thankful for the mustard seeds of faith we find in our own lives and those of fellow Christians.
And I do.
quote:
I do find it incredulous that after the thread that have been running over the last few weeks you should resort to these barbs that you know will deliberately provoke people. You could have made your point (which is a valid one) without such jibes.
Possibly. But I was reporting a feeling (as I clearly stated at the beginning of my post) and will stand by what I posted, not as objective truth, but as an expression of my (and my wife's and my choirmate's) subjective reactions to what we see in the "Christian subculture."
If you are not a dilettante Christian, then what I wrote does not apply to you, and you have no cause for offense, I'm thinking.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Not quite true. It is possible, even including Phil. 2:5ff, to consider the preaching of Paul, Peter, the writer to the Hebrews and the evanglising of Mark (which are part of the very earliest core of Tradition) to be "orthodox" without the necessity of a virgin birth. I'd say that even John does not require belief in this. It is a known tradition, most definitely, but it is not the only tradition.
Oh really come on, Dyfrig, Paul says nothing either way on the virgin birth! How can you posit him as a countertradition? If you have somebody who comes out and says, "Mary was not a virgin when Christ was born" then you have a countertradition. But nobody says this. Thus the unanimous teaching on the subject in the early church was the virgin birth tradition.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
My problem here is that that there appears to be no strong basis to come to a decision on one side or another. And for that matter how strong is one's belief supposed to be?(and by what units would you measure it?)
I have had no earth-shattering experiences of the divine (a vague sense perhaps) so I have no personal experiences that convince me one way or another. As an ex-history teacher, the fact that the gospels say "x" happened doesn't strike me as an overwhelmingly convincing proof and while I can understand the idea that an all powerful God COULD do this, it doesn't necessarily lead me to believe that he has. [/QB]
I find it interesting that, as an ex-history teacher, you probably accepted the history texts that teach about what happened in the 1500's, the end of the first millenium, and, heaven forbid, even the ancient Roman and Egyptian empires of 2000 years ago (I am not an historian, so, please forgive the errors, if any in the timelines). Perhaps, you even teach older history. What evidence do you have that it is true as you teach it? A book? You weren't there, were you? So you believe what someone else wrote. Do you believe that Attila the Hun could have been a bad person, or that he was a bad person?
Why, then, can you not believe what the Bible says, even as an historical text? If it is nothing else, it is a book, written by someone else. I strongly believe that it is much more than that.
To quote clare:
quote:
If I may, can I turn the question around and ask "why don't you believe in a literal virgin birth?" ('you' being the agnostics/ non literalists posting on this thread). What is it in your theology that makes this an unlikely/impossible event to happen?
I agree, if you don't (or can't) believe in miracles, I think you should ask yourself, What do I believe?
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
but it strikes me that the reasons why anyone would believe (whatever that means) any of it is likely to be personal and individual
Exactly. Christianity is very personal.
quote:
mousethief said:The second problem, which was pointed out to me both by my wife and by a fellow at choir practice last night, is that it is part of this "what's the absolute minimum I can get away with?" reductionism which is, it would seem, endemic to Protestantism these days. Someone above made the comment that instead of thinking, "What do I have to believe?" we could be thinking, "Look at all I get to believe!"
This is refreshing, because I was beginning to think most people of the ship thought that all Protestants were Fundamentalist 
.
quote:
mousethief also said:If salvation is instantaneous, then what one does afterwards is of far less importance, and a dilettante attitude perhaps is not just acceptable but preferrable?
I would suggest that once one is saved, one would want (as opposed to have) to do all those things which are righteous.
Sorry for the long, and rambling, post .
Jesus was not a human body with a divine soul - he was fully human and fully divine. And (without repeating my previous reference to deification) there is far more import to His becoming man than that he needed to be human in order to take on the sins of the world (I also have a problem with the latter part of that sentence, in any case.)
I think we may need a separate thread on the Incarnation itself. Jesus of Nazareth (also the Divine Logos) was not only a sin offering!
quote:
The second problem, which was pointed out to me both by my wife and by a fellow at choir practice last night, is that it is part of this "what's the absolute minimum I can get away with?"
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Sharkshooter, from a strictly historical point of view, the Gospels I would say represent four, scarcely unbiased accounts, of events that are, strictly speaking, scientific impossibilities... [/QB]
5000 years ago space travel was thought to be a scientific impossibility. We now know differently.
Perhaps we should stop trying to find reasons not to believe. Instead, why not accept that we may not understand but choose to believe anyway. Is this not the essence of faith?
Virginity is a valued quality mentioned a number of times in Scripture to describe those who are pure. It is only a pure and innocent love in humanity that can receive God, and so it was important that Mary symbolize that quality.
So the issue is about more than simply the agency of a human father.
quote:
Originally posted by splodge:
I am intrigued by the suggestion that Jesus could not be "divine" if he was not born of a virgin
But please remember this is all speculation. The bare factum is the virgin birth. This is predicted by Isaiah, recorded by Luke, and codified in the Creed. Any reasons or motivation or mechanisms are 100% speculation.
quote:
I think this is phrased in too perjorative a fashion. Think of it rather as a reaction against a tendency toward prescriptive definitions of "true" faith, e.g. can I say in all conscience I am a Christian/Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox etc.
I don't understand what you're saying. I thought I did, then you gave your example which doesn't seem to match what I thought you were saying.
I'm sorry you don't like presecriptive definitions of true faith. The church has been doing that since at least Paul, and doesn't seem to have stopped yet. It seems to be a pretty fundamental part of Christianity if anything is. The argument between the Protestants and the RC/Orthodox would seem to be not over whether to codify, but how. It isn't until very late, maybe even the 20th century itself, that the anti-codifying thing really gets moving. Creeds and "statements of faith" are ubiquitous throughout the history of the church until very, very recently. If I have to put my money on codifying versus non-codifying as being intrinsic to Christianity, I'd have to pick codifying every time.
quote:
Similarly you refer to people "choosing" to believe things.I think this is rather denigrating often sincere attempts to figure whether one honestly can, for example, recite the creed without feeling hypocritical
Again this is this very personal thing. What do *I* think? What can *I* believe? Which parts of the creed can *I* sign my name to? This spirit of do-it-yourselfism is not apparent in the NT, nor in the ancient or medieval church. It is strictly a post-enlightenment thing. My claim is that if you really desire God with all your mind/heart/etc., then you are willing to give up the claim to decide for yourself what the faith consists of, or which parts of it you will (or will be able to) believe.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My claim is that if you really desire God with all your mind/heart/etc., then you are willing to give up the claim to decide for yourself what the faith consists of, or which parts of it you will (or will be able to) believe.
That's almost right, but not quite, in my view. Otherwise no one would have any ability to choose their religion, but would be stuck with whatever they were first introduced to. I'm sure this isn't what you mean.
The key, I think, lies in accepting - not the beliefs themselves - but the basis for belief.
quote:
Wulfstan said:
My problem here is that that there appears to be no strong basis to come to a decision on one side or another.
Wulfy evidently has things that he thinks constitute a basis for belief and for making decisions. But he sees no strong evidence, in terms of things that he sees as demanding credence, in this argument.
I think what MT means is that once you have accepted a basis for belief, you are obligated to be consistent about it. If you accept the authority of the Bible and the traditions of the church, then you automatically accept what these sources teach. The only question would be whether they in fact teach what is claimed. If you question the teaching, you are then questioning the sources, and are therefore outside of the church's basis of knowledge.
Protestantism basically threw out the traditions of the church as a basis of belief. It ostensibly based all belief, then, on the Bible. But it has degenerated, in my opinion, over the years to the point where this is no longer the universally accepted basis. So people feel free to question virtually any teaching, making it impossible to resolve issues of belief.
I fully accept the virgin birth because I fully accept the Gospels as authoritative. This is also the teaching of my church (Swedenborgian), which I regard as authoritative. On the other hand I reject the immaculate conception, not just because it makes no sense to me, but because it has no basis in sources that I consider to be a legitimate source of information about spiritual matters.
Reasoning is useful in helping a person decide whether or not to accept a system of belief and a basis for knowing what is true. But reasoning about particular, supposedly miraculous, events, where there is no accepted basis for accepting or rejecting them, is fruitless.
This, I think, is MT's frustration, with which I concur. Alex, tell me if I am wrong.
Anyone for another heretical view on the virgin birth? Don't read on if you offend easily - but then of you offend easily why are you in Purgatory??
There _is_ a denomination (delicacy forbids me from mentioning which) that teaches that God, (who in their belief has a physical body) became Jesus' father in exactly the same way any other physical father does. Mary was "virgin" only in that the father of her Son was not mortal.
quote:
. Perhaps, you even teach older history. What evidence do you have that it is
true as you teach it? A book? You weren't there, were you?
Um... Ancient texts need to be treated with a vast amount of caution and backed up with evidence from other sources when possible.
You then have to try and work out the bias of the author, their intentions, their closeness (in time/geography) to the events they are reporting and also what they actually meant to say in the language they were using.
When you've taken all these factors into account then you can make an educated guess as to whether you think something is true.
I'd take an educated guess and say that the virgin birth is a myth like the many other myths of miraculous birth stories to be found in the near eastern world and that it arose out of a wish to assert that an Old Testament prophecy had been fulfilled by the birth of Jesus.
This was Isaiah 7:14, but the Hebrew word 'almah' which usually means young woman was mistranslated by the Greek 'parthenos' which definitely means virgin by the translators of the Septuagint (which is the OT text the gospel writer would have been drawing on)
So the prophecy was actually about a young woman giving birth, not a virgin in our sense.
And it then got seized upon as a powerful symbol for thinking about the human and divine natures of Jesus and so it's still with us.
Probably one of the worlds most influential translation errors.
Louise
The pre existant Word taking on a human body in a monophysitic sense appears only in John, who has no nativity story. I think from this that the nativity stories stem from the late first century theological position of Christ's deification.
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
As one with quite high level training in genetics, I have great difficulty believing in a fully human man who lacks a Y chromasome, and I believe Christ was a fully human man as well as fully divine. Possibly Mary could have been one of those women who are XXY, but the chances are so remote I find it easier to believe the Y came from Joseph.
We're talking God here! God who spoke the Creation into being. Even if that and the assorted old testament miracles clapped him right out, I'm sure he could speak a little Y-carrying spermie into being. (Being facetious - the mechanism doesn't matter to me). I belong to a Creedal Church so I accept it.
Echoing what blackbird said, I hope that when we stand before the Throne, quizzes on the Virgin Birth and Trinity et al will be well down the list.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
...but a few years ago I was acquainted with an Anglican priest, who didn't believe in the virgin birth or a literal resurrection - and didn't have a problem reconciling it with her faith.Not having discussed this at any great length with her, I'm still at a loss to understand how this can be. I know there are shipmates who hold this view: would any of them be able to explain?
FX: nailing of colours to mast...
That would include me. Before I started Reader training I had already gone from agnostic to against on the virgin birth, by the time we finished I'd got to the point where I probably don't believe in a literal resurrection the way that most other people believe in a literal resurrection...
The problem is primarily the texts. I believe God COULD do all these things, I just don't think he would have left behind such a vague witness to it if he had. That's a thread in itself (probably two). But essentially I go along with the 1920s Modernist approach that I can't separate my views of the world into secular and sacred and apply different tests to them, and applying historical tests to the birth and resurrection texts does not produce a coherent story, IMHO.
I believe Jesus was born of a human mother and father in Nazareth. That he was a disciple of John, and later founded his own movement, possibly breaking with John on the issue of how you deal with sinners.
I believe he healed people; I don't know how they were healed, but I don't think it involved suspending the laws of nature - since if God is prepared to do this I have an insurmountable problem of why he doesn't always do it.
I believe he preached a gospel of love and reconciliation which is as valid today as it was then. I believe he was a man so closely aligned to the will of God that he was God in man; both, and entirely.
I believe he was crucified. I *know* he is alive. Therefore he returned to life, though I suspect that the accounts in the gospels contain more theology than history. But his followers became sufficiently convinced of his continued life to found the church rather than collapse into nothing. And they found in that continued life a promise of God's reconciliation with mankid while we ar estill sinners, which I also find today.
Ultimately the story we have is more important than the historical truth behind every step of it. There is a depth of meaning in the story which can't be reached - indeed to me is destroyed - by simple cause and effect atonement theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Mousethief, try it this way. Say I chose to become Orthodox and proclaimed my belief in it's doctrines, even though, deep down, many of them struck me as rather unlikely or hard to come to terms with (curse my western post-enlightenment education!) would this actually qualify as "belief" and would this be appropriate/advisable behaviour? Would you in fact allow me to participate as a communicant? Or alternatively should I wait until I am genuinely convinced about all aspects of the faith before proclaiming myself a believer.
If the latter does it matter what intellectual gymnastics I have performed in order to convince myself? Is the route to "belief" of itself important?
Apologies if this seems tangential but it strikes me as significant.
Significant indeed, and excellent questions, in my not nearly humble-enough opinion.
If you're not ready to accept the O. Church as the repository of apostolic teaching, I would counsel you not to join. I can't forbid you taking communion because I'm merely a lowly reader (one of the lowliest).
Maybe a story will help explain how I feel about belief. When I was at Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship in grad school, I was asked to be on the leadership team. In order to be on the leadership team, I would have to sign IVCF's "Statement of Belief". At that time I did not believe all the things on the statement. Yet I (somehow) felt that God wanted me to be on the team. So I decided to believe it. From that point on, I believed it.
I'm sure I'm weird in this respect. I acknowledge that I need to remember that not everybody will (be able to) approach belief in this sort of way. So I apologize if I have presupposed this to be normative or even normally do-able.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Truman:That would include me. Before I started Reader training I had already gone from agnostic to against on the virgin birth, by the time we finished I'd got to the point where I probably don't believe in a literal resurrection the way that most other people believe in a literal resurrection...
The problem is primarily the texts. I believe God COULD do all these things, I just don't think he would have left behind such a vague witness to it if he had...
I believe Jesus was born of a human mother and father in Nazareth. That he was a disciple of John, and later founded his own movement, possibly breaking with John on the issue of how you deal with sinners.
I believe he healed people; I don't know how they were healed, but I don't think it involved suspending the laws of nature - since if God is prepared to do this I have an insurmountable problem of why he doesn't always do it.
I believe he preached a gospel of love and reconciliation which is as valid today as it was then. I believe he was a man so closely aligned to the will of God that he was God in man; both, and entirely.
I believe he was crucified. I *know* he is alive. Therefore he returned to life, though I suspect that the accounts in the gospels contain more theology than history. But his followers became sufficiently convinced of his continued life to found the church rather than collapse into nothing. And they found in that continued life a promise of God's reconciliation with mankid while we ar estill sinners, which I also find today.
Ultimately the story we have is more important than the historical truth behind every step of it. There is a depth of meaning in the story which can't be reached - indeed to me is destroyed - by simple cause and effect atonement theology.
A few comments and questions.
First, Jesus said "I did not come to bring peace , but a sword" (Matt 10:34). This does not seem to reconcile with your believe that He preached love and reconciliaiton.
I find it interesting that you choose to believe some things, however, given the extent of what you do not believe, do you still call it Chriatianity? Other religions such as Islam, also believe some aspects of the Bible, like you appear to.
How can you have a problem with what God does? God is infinitely just, and as creator, can do whatever he wants (except, as I understnd it, anything which would be against His own character - i.e. evil, etc.).
You stated that you do not even believe that Jesus is God! What do you believe that makes you Christian? Do you believe that God came to earth in the person of His Son, Jesus, who died for our sins, and rose agian to reign in heaven with His Heavenly Father? This is what Christianity is all about. When you said you believe God could have done that, why do you then not believe that He did? Just because he did not leave witnesses credible enough for you is not a sufficient answer. He did it, and He left witnesses who wrote it down.
Please believe!
I know there is a risk that people who go on such courses could end up losing their faith altogether, but in reality it seems as if you end up with faith having been strengthened for being put under the microscope of scrutiny.
Such courses are exciting, challenging, and I would recommend them!
Not that I necessarily agree! I think you are influenced by a "modernist approach" in more ways than one. Although you are reading the Gospels from a perspective of faith, many of your conclusions seem to be based more on a good old-fashioned inability/unwillingness to accept the possibility of the miraculous. In general terms, I think this is a new way of going down the old Deist route, which almost led to the death of the Church of England in the 18th/19th centuries.
Although I see the great importance of reading the Bible in a sophisticated way I do think its important to accept the possibility that some of the historical stuff might actually have happened
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I think it is important to be not only skeptical about scripture and tradition, but also to be skeptical of this skepticism. Isn't it possible that self proclaimed neutral critics might be ideologically driven?
Hear, hear.
To be frank, I'm of the opinion that anyone who claims that they're not ideologically driven is fooling themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:Regardless of the number of X chromosomes, the presence of a Y denotes maleness. You don't get XXY women. Persons who are (47,XXY) are males with Klinefelter's Syndrome.
<bashful smirk> Yes, thank you Coot. I realised that, but alas, 'twas too late. I still stand by my point though - there are ways Jesus could have got his Y chrom, but they all seem either a little contrived, or a little pointless.
quote:
We're talking God here! God who spoke the Creation into being. Even if that and the assorted old testament miracles clapped him right out, I'm sure he could speak a little Y-carrying spermie into being. (Being facetious - the mechanism doesn't matter to me). I belong to a Creedal Church so I accept it.
Yes he could easily create a little Y chromasome, but then, he could also create a human without the need for a mother. But he chose not to. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, I confess, but I think I just don't understand why the mother is so necessary, but the father isn't at all, when the argument for not needing the father is that God is all-powerful. It just seems an odd time to start "bending the rules".
Sorry if I'm not making much sense.
xxG
p.s. I don't really want to discuss the rights and wrongs of Ernesto Guevara.
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
I just don't understand why the mother is so necessary, but the father isn't at all, when the argument for not needing the father is that God is all-powerful.
This is certainly a good point. For that matter, if God was all powerful why couldn't He think of another, less curious, way of saving the human race than the incarnation?
The fundamental principle, I think, is that although God can do anything, He wishes to act only in ways that do not detract from human freedom. The method He used, therefore, was a way of interacting with the human race that could result in their salvation, and yet not force them.
So He was born, to all appearances, in the usual way, and appeared to be an ordinary man. The miracles that He did were relatively minor ones compared to Old Testament miracles, or compared to more dramatic ones that we could easily imagine. Their purpose, aside from inspiring belief among a very worldly and very simple population, was to represent the genuine spiritual healing and renewal that He came to bring to the world as a whole.
I think that one of the reasons that He was actually born, instead of simply assuming a human body, was for the purpose of taking on the human heredity so that He could combat the power of hell that was connected to it. I have mentioned this before.
An added aspect to this that my own church teaches is that the heredity from a mother and that from a father are of a slightly different nature. I wouldn't expect others to accept this, but I will mention it anyway, because it partly explains to me why Jesus was born of a human mother but not of a human father. One reason is that the heredity that a person receives from their mother is less fixed and more changeable than that received from their father, which is more permanent.
Of course there is no way to demonstrate this.
But the relevance, in our doctrine anyway, is that Jesus, through combats with the hells, completely expunged the hereditary evil that He received through Mary. This would not have been possible if He had had a human father.
Jesus therefore, having been completely human, became completely divine. Or, rather, He elevated or glorified His humanity so that He became the Divine Human - both completely human and completely divine at the same time. The essential meaning of this is that God in this way put on a human face, coming down so that He could be known, understood, and loved, in a way that an invisile God cannot be. God did not change, He simply showed Himself to us - in a way that we can accept or not accept freely.
This, of course, is only part of what the incarnation was about. But it partly explains, to me anyway, why Jesus needed to have a human mother, but not a human father, and was therefore literally the Son of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that one of the reasons that He was actually born, instead of simply assuming a human body, was for the purpose of taking on the human heredity so that He could combat the power of hell that was connected to it. I have mentioned this before.
I like this. I shall think on it some more.
quote:
An added aspect to this that my own church teaches is that the heredity from a mother and that from a father are of a slightly different nature. I wouldn't expect others to accept this, but I will mention it anyway, because it partly explains to me why Jesus was born of a human mother but not of a human father. One reason is that the heredity that a person receives from their mother is less fixed and more changeable than that received from their father, which is more permanent.
This, however, I have a little trouble with. Any chance of an elaboration, at the risk of upsetting those who may have heard it before?
Cheers,
G
Sharkshooter: The prooftext of Matt 10:34 does not invalidate the claim that Jesus came to preach love and reconciliation, as a survey of the breadth and the height and the depth of that love and reconciliation as shown in the Sermon on the Mount will indicate... I certainly accept that Jesus knew his message would bring division amongst those that accepted it and those that rejected it (which is the point of the sword metaphor, see the parallel in Luke), but the message ITSELF was one of love.
How can I have a problem with what God does? I don't, I have a problem with my own understanding of it if it results in a God who is less loving than I would be. Would you, if you could have saved her, have stood by and watched Sarah Payne die as she did? No, and nor would I. So if I have a view of God's omnipotence that says God did precisely that, I know my view must be wrong. I don't have a clear alternative to offer, that's work in progress.
With respect, I'm not going to answer the rest, except to say that my beliefs are actually firmly in the mainstream of liberalish Christianity - I'm far from being a radical. I'm not interested in a slanging match along the lines of 'you're not a Christian - oh yes I am'; quite apart from anything else it would require the thread to be taken to Hell, and like a good liberal I don't believe it exists...
Amanuensis: I'm not actually a Bultmannite, I do believe in the miraculous, I just think that it normally happens at a mental or spiritual level, not (directly) a physical one.
Chorister: Strictly of course you've commented on textual criticism and not higher criticism. But paradoxically I don't have a problem with 'believing the overall truth of what the gospels portray', in two senses - first whilst I may not believe that Jesus said exactly what the red letter texts say, nor did exactly what the miracles describe, the overall message and the overall view don't actually depend too much on such a belief. But second and more importantly, in a parallel but different way to Mousethief I DO accept it all because it is the belief of the Church. It's just that I accept it as the -jargon alert - metanarrative of Christianity, the story where we find our truth. As Prayer D says (CofE CW) 'This is our story, this is our song'.
Thus it is not enough that Jesus merely appeared to be a man; he had to actually BE a man, and thus had to have human DNA, derived from the human race and not merely created ex nihilo. (Which is why I think parthenogenic explanations of his conceiving more convincing than sperm-ex-nihilo ones.)
The one-parent thing is perhaps (this is speculation!) just to drive home the point that he was BOTH human AND divine. By having one human parent (viz Mary) and one divine parent (viz God) this is thrown into sharp relief. Not perhaps (this is spectulation!) that it would be necessary for the God-Man to have no earthly father, but that it really points out the point. (I presume that having no mother would be far more difficult, given the necessity of mothers for gestation in those pre-test-tube days. 
)
Anyway, it's not like you had this hero and you had to invent some sort of divine origin for him. On the contrary, to save mankind He had to be both human and divine (at least according to Orthodox soteriology, which (it should be obvious) is the sort I think makes the most sense).
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
This, however, I have a little trouble with. Any chance of an elaboration, at the risk of upsetting those who may have heard it before?
I doubt that anyone has heard this before. As far as I know only New Jerusalem Churches teach this. I hope no one will take offense if I describe it for the sake of adding new ideas to the mix.
The principle is that everyone inherits from their parents tendencies to worldliness, self-centeredness, and other negative qualities, as well as positive qualities. This heredity has been accumulating since the beginning of the human race, and is modified in each generation. It replaces the concept of original sin. Since these attributes are only tendencies a person is not guilty of them. Nevertheless, they do serve as the basis through which the hells approach and influence us. Over the course of a person's life the person comes to approve of and carry out these tendencies, or reject them and adopt others that they freely choose.
This heredity comes through both the mother and the father, but the contribution of the two are not identical in nature. Not only do they carry different heredities, but they carry them in different ways - so they do not compete, but fit together. Essentially the male heredity makes up the inner part and the female makes up the outer part, although that doesn't adequately describe this relationship. In many ways the feminine contribution is interior to the masculine. In any case they are designed to fit together perfectly.
During a person's life they respond to their heredity, confirming some parts and rejecting others, and they then pass on a slightly modified version of the heredity they received. The father's heredity, according to this doctrine, changes less from generation to generation, whereas the mother's heredity changes more and is more responsive to a person's choices and environment.
The Lord came into the world as a fully human infant, born in the usual way, and with the same inherited tendencies that everyone has. The only difference was that in His innermost part there was something divine in Him that He had from His Father. It was therefore possible for the human nature that Jesus received from Mary - because of the character of the heredity from a mother - to become fully responsive to this divine nature from the Father. This process was called glorification. This would not have been possible if Jesus' father had been Joseph.
It is not that God can't make anything happen that He wishes. It is that He wishes to operate according to His laws. Even miracles operate according to certain laws. Nothing is simply arbitrary.
So the idea in New Jerusalem Churches is that the virgin birth happened for certain specific reasons and according to the normal laws of order, yet in a miraculous way. Every aspect of it is both literally true, and at the same time symbolic of the entire process of bringing the world from darkness into light and from unrest into peace.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So the idea in New Jerusalem Churches is that the virgin birth happened for certain specific reasons and according to the normal laws of order, yet in a miraculous way. Every aspect of it is both literally true, and at the same time symbolic of the entire process of bringing the world from darkness into light and from unrest into peace.
This I like as well. I'm not so sure about the rest of it though (possibly because it's very new to me, and the English are notoriously resistant to change). More things to think about...
xxG
As I said, I don't expect that too many will share this belief. But I think that it is an interesting explanation.
Very near, in some ways, to the Orthodox ideas that Alexis was just mentioning.
The stuff about the father's contribution being interior and the mother's exterior is not.
Your idea of inherited tendencies is okay as far as it goes. To this the Orthodox would add that the entire world is subject to corruption, decay, and death because of the fall, and not as-created (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a result of the fall).
(I think it's the 2nd: that all systems tend toward maximum entropy.)
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of something being historically true, yet redolent of deeper meanings is very Orthodox (capital "O").
It's orthodox with a small 'o' too.
[tangent]I like the idea of the 2nd Law of dynamics being a result of the Fall. That's cool. But it raises a number of interesting questions: if that is the case, then the idea that God only acts within the rules of His creation is immediately discredited, because they're not the rules that He originally intended.
Would that mean that in a perfect world (ie preFall/postRevelation)the miraculous would be normal and the impossible possible?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To this the Orthodox would add that the entire world is subject to corruption, decay, and death because of the fall, and not as-created.
I am in agreement with that, up to a point.
The world's spiritual corruption, spiritual decay, and spiritual death is caused by the fall. This also affects the natural world causing disease, and other disruptive natural effects.
However, the natural processes of the 2nd law, that all systems tend toward maximum entropy, are not, I believe a part of that effect. The cycles of birth, growth, deterioration and death, and of the entropic tendency towards disorganization, are a part of the natural order of God's universe.
The catch, and I think the cause for mistaking one for the other, is that natural laws and spiritual ones are inherently, from creation, in tension with one another. So if you translate the competitive character of natural processes into spiritual terms, most of them are simply wickedness.
So I don't think that the fundamental laws by which God governs the universe have changed. The rules that He originally intended continue to operate, and God operates within them because they are His, and, in a sense, are Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I like the idea of the 2nd Law of dynamics being a result of the Fall. That's cool. But it raises a number of interesting questions: if that is the case, then the idea that God only acts within the rules of His creation is immediately discredited, because they're not the rules that He originally intended.
But of course the idea that God only acts within the rules of His creation is a fairly new one, and not Orthodox with either kind of "O".
quote:
Would that mean that in a perfect world (ie preFall/postRevelation)the miraculous would be normal and the impossible possible?
Works for me! Which is why, when God does act in human history, it is miraculous: He's acting in accordance with the earlier, original laws, not the laws-in-re. They are miraculous to US, because we are accustomed to the world as it is: namely, in a state of decay and increasing entropy. Had the world not fallen, they wouldn't seem so miraculous or impossible.; they'd just be the way things worked.
Wood, you've stumbled upon a really intersting (and cool) bit of exegesis!
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Had the world not fallen, they wouldn't seem so miraculous or impossible.; they'd just be the way things worked.
Yes! Well said.
To continue this tangent, I believe that someday the world will return to this state. The key to it is the reuniting of the natural and spiritual worlds.
The spiritual world is invisible to us, but only because of our fallen state. Most miracles are simply the result of things being perceived on earth the way that they actually are in heaven. If the spiritual state of the world were to improve, the worlds would draw closer together, as it were, and this kind of perception would be more common.
The virgin birth is an example of this kind of interaction. Not that there would be other virgin births if the human race were to be more comprehending and accepting of God, but that if people were more innocently receptive of Him He would enter their world.
I believe that He literally came into the world to make this happen, and that, eventually, it will.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To continue this tangent, I believe that someday the world will return to this state. The key to it is the reuniting of the natural and spiritual worlds.
Reminds me of a snippet of a song:
Day by day the integration
Of the concrete and the spiritual
--Bob Bennett (from "Matters of the Heart")
Everything in your last post (the one I just quoted), Freddy, I agree with.
Reader Alexis
The "God impregnated Mary physically," i.e., the belief that God the Father exists (and always has) in physical form, is a Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) doctrine, if I understand them correctly. I don't agree with this doctrine, and am not trying to be rude to any Mormons reading this.
There are several attitudes people have here and it seems to me that people aren't responding to the underlying beliefs which are assumed in their writings -- just to the main thread -- but I think the real disagreements we have here are with the underlying differences in belief.
(1) Is "(post-)modern Biblical interpretation" valid? Some posters here believe that it must be, and that everyone would accept it if it weren't for one's theology or bias -- that we apply rules to this book that we don't to others. For my part, I don't believe in the sort of literary criticism which is in vogue, or historical criticism either, at the present time, whether it is applied to the Bible or not.
(2) Are we all basing our theology solely or mainly on the Bible and how we interpret it? I do not; in fact, I base how I interpret the Bible on my understanding of Christian Tradition -- which allows for multiple levels and is not limited to literal interpretation. (However, read on re literalness of the Virgin Birth.)
(3) The Bible has many different literary genres. I would argue that the literary style of the book of Genesis, or much of it, is myth -- not in the sense of "a false story," but in the sense of the Greek or other myths, symbolic, archetypal, etc. "And God made the world, and it was very good. And the evening and the morning, etc." Whereas in the Gospels we have events pinned down to specific times and places, boring (but useful) details, Joseph planning to marry and then divorce Mary quietly, etc. It doesn't read like a mystical vision in any way, for instance, or a fairy tale. (Note that if Genesis is not literal, it can still be true, and perhaps in ways which are far beyond symbolic. I find it interesting that the sequence of creation matches well with theories/findings concerning the sequence of evolution -- such as birds (stemming from dinosaurs) and fishes being created on the same "day" -- but science changes constantly so I do not base my faith on Genesis matching up to Jack Horner's latest book.) I personally suspect that there are truths in Genesis (Adam, Eve, etc.) which even with (perhaps especially with?) our more detailed knowledge of the physical universe, we cannot grasp except in the form of a myth. That perhaps it's not a poetic way of expressing something we can put into "better" words now -- but that, in our fallen world, it's the best we can get at to use as a base for grasping what sin and fallenness is and how it came to be. Perhaps in the same way that a poem can be the best way to express some realities...
So, to me, saying that we don't accept Genesis as entirely literal is NOT the same as not accepting the Gospels that way.
(4) Some people have posted with the implied assumption that we need to adapt Christianity to "the modern world." I strongly disagree -- and believe we should do the reverse. But I don't agree with many, many modern notions.
(5) Many people are sincerely trying to believe what they can in the Christian faith, and while on the one hand I agree that "how much do I need to believe to get in?" is a dreadful attitude, on the other I can imagine that someone who is struggling with doubt (or with approaching the Christian faith for the first time) may worry, "What if I can't believe this -- if I cannot make myself believe it no matter how hard I look at it -- and I die, and find out that I was mistaken, and it was something required, and God pitches me into Hell for not believing it? He-- he won't, will He?" Or perhaps someone worrying about a loved one in that situation. The emphasis that some traditions place on theological accuracy, and on "being saved," as contrasted by the notion of salvation being a growing process which may even continue after death, may be a factor which some of us in different traditions may not understand. (I'm more in the "growing process" camp myself.)
(6) Last, some here talk about the notion, "why did Jesus HAVE to be born of a virgin"? As if it were all a matter solely or mainly of practicality. Why couldn't God do it that way for artistic reasons? That it "fits" in non-"practical" ways with His notion of what this is all about -- not just "rescuing us from sin" but with His original vision of what Creation is supposed to be? (Some believe He would have become incarnate even without human sin -- that the Divine humility would have been without the humiliation in our history -- that humanity would have been raised to perfection or glory, or greater maturity of glory, without His redemptive sacrifice -- though also many say that we will be raised higher than we would have if we had not sinned also...)
(7) Okay, LASTLY lastly, if my understanding of our faith is correct, then the division between "myth" and "practical reality" is itself a mark of the Fall -- and that Jesus is at the centre of the healing of that division -- so it seems to me that being born of a virgin is part of the whole thing. Of course it seems magical and mystical. It is. And yet quite real. That's part of the point.
Just my way-too-many-more-than-two cents',
David
Rdr Alexis
Very nice thoughts, David. Thank you.
I agree with Freddy that we are spiritually blind because of our fallen state and when we acquire spritual vision we will understad that the changes which come about through death are illusory. I believe that is the mystery of the resurrection.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
I think Mousethief's view that the universe is in a state of entropy because of sin is spot on. I think the reversal of entropy or when God creates a new heaven and a new earth will come about when enough people have turned to God and entered His Kingdom.
Ah, the heaven-on-earth school. Very post-enlightenment.
quote:
I agree with Freddy that we are spiritually blind because of our fallen state and when we acquire spritual vision we will understad that the changes which come about through death are illusory. I believe that is the mystery of the resurrection.
This almost sounds like Mary Baker Eddy. I take it, then, that when Jesus wept at Lazarus's tomb, you think it was because of the people misunderstanding his death, rather than the fact that he was dead?
The changes brought about by death are neither illusory nor intended by God. The greatest is the separation of the body from the soul. This is so unnatural a state that we are promised a new body to rectify the situation.
Reader Alexis
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Believe me I have no Mary Baker Eddie sympathies!
Thank goodness!
quote:
I agree with you about separation of soul and body and a new body etc. The illusion is our inability to see what lies beyond due to ur sinful natures.
Okay, that sounds better. In fact it sounds very Orthodox. We believe that the "nous" is the eye of the soul, and was made to comprehend God and divine reality directly. But it is darkened by sin and death, and it is the work of a lifetime (mostly God's work, but it requires our assent and cooperation) to attain the clarity of "nous" that would allow us to perceive God.
I was thrown off by "illusion" which I was taking to mean "seeing something that isn't there" whereas you were meaning "not seeing something that is there."
Rdr Alexis
You may not realise this, but without the 2LoT there is no guarantee, for instance, that the sun would warm the earth. The earth could equally give its heat to the sun instead. Kettles needn't boil if the 2LoT doesn't decree that the heat will tend to pass from the element to the water.
All together now:
"Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to another body."
Heat won't pass from the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like but you'd far better notter
For the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
And the cooler body's heat will get hotter as a ruler....
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even, except at Absolute Zero
3. You can't reach Absolute Zero.
tongue firmly in cheek,
Reader Alexis
(1) The check (cheque for you Brits) is in the mail (or post).
(2) Of course I will still respect you in the morning.
(3) One size fits all.
i'm from the government, i'm here to help you.
quote:
If we
can understand this idea from science fiction (something in the present affects the past and therefore
changes the present, via time travel), then why could not this be an aspect of the world's fallenness
stretching all the way back to before man physically existed?
um, cause there was no such thing as the fall?
sorry.
quote:
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
John Cleese: No it isn't.
I believe in spiritual as well as physical evolution, ie that our awareness of God had to wait for a creature with the intelligence and sensitivty to appreciate it. So have we fallen or risen to our present level of awareness? Any opinions?
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
But that's only possible if the Fall predates the existence of the universe we know.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
well i know you ment it, chastmastr, but so did i. it can't, cause there wasn't.sorry.
[Host hat on. It's red with a fluffy white trim and a bobble, in case you were wondering]
Nicole, while I accept that you don't believe in the Fall, and that's fine, please remember that there's an awful lot of people here who do.
Please don't make out that not believing what is - let's face it - quite an important doctrine to a large number of people is some kind of self-evident truth. Believe what you like, but if you're going to make a statement that basically undermines the presuppositions of a large number of people here, don't just make out it's a fact - back it up.
I have wondered what a universe in which the 3 laws did not hold true would be like, to bring us back to the subject I expect that a virgin birth would be perfectly feasable.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
we still might have seen Jesus born (virginally) in an unfallen world, perhaps to bring it to glory and perfection from an immature state, rather than from a Fallen state -- the Divine humility without the Divine humiliation He had in our world.
This is taught by many of the Greek Fathers. It is a very common theologoumenon (devout opinion but not a dogma) of many, many Orthodox. Myself included.
Reader Alexis
