|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 27% - the Virgin Birth
|
Black Dog
Shipmate
# 2344
|
Posted
In my haste to speak of this subject I have been unable to check properly whether it has been dealt with before hand, I dont think it has, but if it has please accept my appologies.
Anyway, i was scanning teletext yesterday and found a news item that said that 27% of the CofE vicars did not believe that Jesus was a virgin birth, and said that he was probably fathered by Joesph. And that the 'virgin birth' idea was down to poor Bible translation.
Now if this is so surely this means.
a)It Makes the position of Jesus as the son of God questionable.
b)If this is true then the whole Bible could therefore be laid down as a complete sham. i.e what is and isn't correct?
c)The said Vicars are losing the plot completely, they believe in a one true God creator of the universe, yet do not believe that this almighty power could make a virgin birth possible.
Any thoughts?
[ 13. March 2003, 22:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
The difference between love and comfort is that comfort is more reliable and true. Brutal and mocking but always there it is a crutch for enmity's saddest glare.
Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
a) No
b) No and
c) No
Perhaps they just don't believe in a quixotic God who changes his own rules at a whim.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Black Dog
Shipmate
# 2344
|
Posted
Sorry but I think It does ask serious questions about the way thinking is progressing in the christian church. You either have a belief and you stick to it, or you become a walking contradiction.
To me the virgin birth is essential to how we believe in God, to dismiss it like mr grumble has only shows that people are willing to paper over the cracks to fuel thor own belief system.
--------------------
The difference between love and comfort is that comfort is more reliable and true. Brutal and mocking but always there it is a crutch for enmity's saddest glare.
Posts: 453 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Eb'lis
(1) Yes
(2) Yes, and
(3) Yes
The only qualification I woulfd make is that biblical inerrancy is not a part of Orthodox belief. We believe that the Bible truly and authoritatively teaches but that (minor) inconsistencies and archaic views that have no or little theological importance, (eg., HOW the Universe and life was created in Genesis 1), need not trouble us.
The virgin birth is an essential featue of the incarnation as it is the guarantee that in the one person of Christ the divine and human natures are joined. Ideas about the incarnation that see God as "uniquely indwelling Jesus" differ not in kind from any saint or holy person. I am not sure what "uniquely" means in this context. You can't qualify unique.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
If one's mind is so closed that one cannot even accept the possibility of
1. The Virgin Birth
2. The Resurection
then I would suggest that one's mind is also closed to the much more wonderous things in God's kingdom.
Why is it that mankind seem to try and explain everything away using their own intellect ?
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
... perhaps because the dominance of science has bequeathed to us the notion that the only things that count are reason and evidence. On both those counts the resurrection and the virgin birth fall. (I do believe that these are rational beliefs and that there is evidence for them but it is not the sort of "reason" and "evidence" that a logical positivist would endorse).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
So you're saying that the majority DO believe in the virgin birth? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Sorry Freddy I didn't make myself clear. The reason and evidence demanded by a non-believing or skeptic logical positivist are more narrowly defined subsets of reason and evidence that extend beyond the realm of the natural sciences. The rational / irrational and empiricism / faith polarities arise from a failure on both sides to recognise the due operation and limits of specific kinds evidence and reason applicable to each.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But I think we are coming dangerously close to saying that if you don't believe in the 'virgin birth', then you are not legitimately a Christian. I think questions are reasonably asked surrounding the meaning of the word 'virgin' and the preponderance of virgin births in other religious traditions.
Does Jesus as the Son of God mean he was physically the Son of God, or was the epitomy of Godliness in human form ?
My answers to the initial questions would also be no, no and no. And I probably do believe in the Virgin Birth, I should add! But if others don't , that makes no difference to whether I regard them as Christian or not
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Merseymike
quote:
But I think we are coming dangerously close to saying that if you don't believe in the 'virgin birth', then you are not legitimately a Christian.
Are we? No one has said that, implied or inferred it. I can be a Christian and a "walking contradiction" also "fuelling my own belief system" quite easily. Under what circumstances would a person cease to be a Christian? That is only for God to decide. Because it is only for God to decide we can quite happily go on speaking freely and questioning beliefs without disenfranchising anyone.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Merseymike
quote:
But I think we are coming dangerously close to saying that if you don't believe in the 'virgin birth', then you are not legitimately a Christian.
Are we? No one has said that, implied or inferred it.
Well actually they HAVE.
Garden Hermit wrote:
quote:
If one's mind is so closed that one cannot even accept the possibility of
1. The Virgin Birth
2. The Resurection
then I would suggest that one's mind is also closed to the much more wonderous things in God's kingdom.
That seems a pretty good indication that at least one person in this thread has so inferred or implied. Could it be that you didn't read the posing carefully??? Surely not.
Like Merseymike, I would say that I would believe in the Virgin Birth, but accept that some Christians don't. Failure to believe in it doesn't take them out of the kingdom. Equally (and I'm sure you will be horrified at this), I don't think that it should necessarily disbar them from ordination/church leadership either!
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Damn damn damn!
I previewed the post and still failed to notice the spelling mistake. I should have said "Could it be that you didn't read the posting carefully???" rather than POSING (although that could be a remarkably appropriate mistake to make!)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sorry Freddy I didn't make myself clear.
Whoops. Yes, you made yourself perfectly clear. I agree completely with what you said.
It was me who was not clear. I was responding to the OP when I said that this means that the majority of vicars accept the virgin birth.
I would personally expect the majority of the Christian clergy to deny the virgin birth. I believe in it myself, but I don't find that belief to be widely shared.
I don't know how many of the clergy would PUBLICLY deny it, however, since many of the simple still hang on to these things... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I think the birth stories were tagged on in retrospect, as an honour to someone they believed was very special. That is not to say they aren't necessarily true, but rather that we need to be careful about dogmatically stating that they are true.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
Please read what I wrote carefully.
The word I used was 'possibility' of the Virgin Birth.
That word doesn't say 'Yes' or 'No'. It implies Faith.
Christians can't actually prove anything, - what we say is 'its the best we got even though we don't understand it 100%'.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Well put Hermit. Although I am starting to think it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not, after watching that Virgin Mary thing the other day on the Beeb. All you need to do is anchor your faith in a realism that events did indeed happen in the Middle-East, and that much theological discussion is not essential for the strengthening of faith and trust in God.
I don't know whether Mary was a virgin. Does it matter? No.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think the birth stories were tagged on in retrospect, as an honour to someone they believed was very special. That is not to say they aren't necessarily true, but rather that we need to be careful about dogmatically stating that they are true.
Hear! Hear! The infant narratives are wonderful theologies written after the fact of the Resurrection and in the light of resurrection faith. Not all of the early faith communities felt the need of them, however. What is probably the earliest Gospel, Mark, didn't feel the need of an infancy narrative at all and the Johannine Community developed such a profound incarnational theology that the story became cosmic and symbolic.
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I guess an interesting question to pose might be: if we didn't have the 'virgin birth' narratives of Matthew and Luke, and had only the gospels of Mark and John on which to base a belief in the Son of God, how important then would a 'virgin birth' belief be?
Also, it's worth remembering that, inconsistent as it might appear to some folk, many Christians might well aver the reality, in some sense, of the Resurrection without affording the same weight of importance to a belief in the virgin-birth. Lumping the resurrection in with the virgin-birth may be convenient when wishing to categorize Christians, and clergy, into those who maintain the 'real' faith and those who don't; but in my limited experience it's rarely accurate.
I notice the OP refers to CofE 'vicars' (no doubt with a few curates, rectors, bishops, archdeacons, priests in charge etc, thrown in?). I wonder if the author of the OP has any similar figures relating to his own church's clergy's recorded belief in this area? It would be instructive to do a comparison! I've known quite a number of RC ordinands and clergy who, privately, would not have been prepared to go to the stake in defense of a 'virgin-birth' doctrine.....
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eb'lis:
... i was scanning teletext yesterday and found a news item that said that 27% of the CofE vicars did not believe that Jesus was a virgin birth, and said that he was probably fathered by Joesph. And that the 'virgin birth' idea was down to poor Bible translation.
Now if this is so surely this means.
a)It Makes the position of Jesus as the son of God questionable.
b)If this is true then the whole Bible could therefore be laid down as a complete sham. i.e what is and isn't correct?
c)The said Vicars are losing the plot completely, they believe in a one true God creator of the universe, yet do not believe that this almighty power could make a virgin birth possible.
Any thoughts?
a)It Makes the position of Jesus as the son of God questionable.
Not at all. The usual meaning and use of the term 'Son of God' in the bible does not refer to biological parentage. It is a metaphor. It does not need not be taken literally in a biological sense.
b)If this is true then the whole Bible could therefore be laid down as a complete sham. i.e what is and isn't correct?
If I found one mistake in a textbook I would not automatically write the whole text off as a complete sham. If the bible contains some material which is not literally true then it just means we need to be more careful and learned in our interpretation of it. We need to draw on as much insight and information as we reasonably can to help us with this.
c)The said Vicars are losing the plot completely, they believe in a one true God creator of the universe, yet do not believe that this almighty power could make a virgin birth possible.
Of course they do. It is entirely possible to believe in an almighty God and to believe that God can make a virgin birth happen, but believe that God chose not to make it happen.
quote:
To me the virgin birth is essential to how we believe in God
Can you say why it is essential? Mark, John, Paul and all the NT except Matthew and Luke get along fine without it.
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you're saying that the majority DO believe in the virgin birth?
Basically yes. The headline for the survey was that a quarter did not believe in the Virgin Birth as a historical reality. However, if you look at the statistics the other way round it means that three-quarters of Anglican clergy do believe in a Virgin birth. But that would make the thread less fun if you looked at it that way round wouldn't it ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Are all things possible with God?
Does God act contrary to his own nature?
Is he ever 'bad'?
If not then even God has limits.
And I suggest that another is that he follows his own rules where it comes to conceptions.
Lest there be misconceptions.
No the vicar is NOT the one who has lost the plot.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Will someone here state precisely why he or she:-
(1) Doesn't believe in the virgin birth?
Please don't go straight to the Bible ... we all know the gospels vary ... the first version of Mark had no account of the resurrection ... so what?!
(2) Believes that the incarnation can be just as easily believed without it.
I'm not restricting your answer but the "uniquely God-indwelling" christology doesn't itself require the incarnation to function, so, in my opinion, this falls outside the remit of the question. If you want to deny the incarnation ... that's another matter.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
It was no 'virgin' birth.
And frankly, I don't see why only having a human mother would make one more divine. Or are you saying that growing up with a step-dad is what did it?
The Lord be with you. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanuensis
Idler
# 1555
|
Posted
Perhaps we should just devote a whole board to the virgin (or not) birth.
--------------------
What's new?
Posts: 547 | From: Cornwall | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear mrgrumble_au
Yes, but I asked you WHY you did not believe in the virgin birth.
quote:
And frankly, I don't see why only having a human mother would make one more divine. Or are you saying that growing up with a step-dad is what did it?
Nothing can make anything or anyone MORE divine. I know I am being pedantic but we need to be clear. Jesus was and is fully God and fully Man or he was/is not.
So, why does his divinity REQUIRE a virgin birth? Muslims seem to accept the virginal birth whilst strongly denying the Incarnation. All that shows is that it is possible to accept the virgin birth without HAVING to believe in the Incarnation. It can just simply be taken as a stupendous miracle. Muslims are not averse to miracles (even if some Christians are). However, the oher way round ... accepting the Incarnation and denyong the virgin birth is something else entirely.
The Incarnation means that the human nature of Christ was indivisibly but distinctly joined to the human nature in the one person of Christ (Chalcedon). Note here we are talking about NATURE ... not person (vs. Nestorianism) and we are certainly not thereby talking about the Spirit of God either. The Spirit of God resides in the saints ... but that does not make of the saint another Incarnation of the Word, (yet another avatar). One cannot even say in this way of thinking that Jesus was UNIQUELY indwelt by God for how can grade indwelling? God dwells in a person or He does not. One could say that of any particular person that he or she is so open to God that the possibility remained that God was able to act fully through that person, unimpeded by sin but that wouldn't be the Incarnation either because moral and spiritual progress is a matter of the will, not nature. No, the Incarnation means that the Son came from the Father ... he did not achieve union with the Father post birth, (adoptionism). When Jesus was born as a human child he was already God in that his divine nature and human nature were already conjoined.
The virginal conception is necessary in order that the divine nature be received from the Father and not from Joseph, (who did not possess it).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
virgin birth exists in nature as parthenogenisis... in fact there is at least one species of lizard where a male has never been found, and which is presumed to be entirely parthenogenic. so virgin birth alone does not indicate anything about divine origin (unless we are to accept that these lizards are divine too!)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
I do NOT believe it because in the absense of any evidence FOR it (as opposed to theolgical musings in favour of it), I see no reason to invoke the miraculous.
In short you have given me all sorts of convoluted theory why you believe it but not a shred of evidence that God did what you want him to have done.
Evidence is the difference between fact and snake-oil.
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
What Arch said. And I thank him for saying it. As it happens, I preach the Virgin birth, but I certainly don't think it's necessary to the nature of Our Saviour as fully God and fully human, to the Mystery of the Incarnation, to Jesus's teaching and healing, to His Passion, or to his Resurrection. All the nativity narratives are back-formations from a resurrection-faith. The Virgin birth is the ultimate form of earlier Biblical miraculous conceptions: the birth of Samuel to Hannah (whose words prefigure the Magnificat), for instance. Incidentally, is there anyone here who believes Mary was still 'technically a virgin' after Jesus was born? If so, you are following in the footsteps of the author of the (disgustingly antisemitic) Proto-evangelium of James, which has a yokellish midwife named Salome give Mary a quick pelvic examination after the birth. For her impious impudence her hand withers up, and healing it has to be Baby Jesus's first post-natal miracle. I rather regret that episode didn't make it into the SoF Nativity Pageant!
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Nichole
The virgin birth is not simply parthenogenesis ... I am not going to speculate about chromosomes and genes ... although Alan has done that in an interesting way recently. The virgin birth is a corollary of the belief in Jesus' divine nature ab initio. How the miracle manifested itself is a different matter and is not exclusively linked to the Incarnation as I mentioned in my reference to Islam.
Dear mrgrumble_au
Evidence? Those who met and knew Christ in the flesh. Witnesses. The continuation of that witness out of the New Testament into the apostolic age. Theology is not rocket science and rocket science isn't the only form of truth.
Dear Amos
quote:
Incidentally, is there anyone here who believes Mary was still 'technically a virgin' after Jesus was born?
Let's not derail this thread but to answer your question, both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church confess the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary ... so did John Calvin, but that's another matter entirely. What that has to do with anti-semitism ... goodness knows. A case has been made for anti-semitism in John's Gospel ... which shows about daft these allegations can get when they cross over into irrelevant areas.
quote:
All the nativity narratives are back-formations from a resurrection-faith.
In this you are correct ... but they are not traditions created by the resurrection but events put into context by the resurrection. Neither of us can argue from silence as to what the Virgin Mary said or didn't say to the disciples. If there had been a virgin birth I guess it would be common knowledge anyway. Anyway, as I said ... you can have the virgin birth without the Incarnation but not the other way round. The resurrection requires the Incarnation first ... then the virgin birth becomes a necessary adjunct to that. After JAT Robinson we can no longer shove this aside for a now refuted later authorship of John. (In any event "later" means written down ... not the oral tradition itself which is primary).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wm Duncan
Buoy tender
# 3021
|
Posted
Natural parthenogenesis would result in the birth of a female offspring, wouldn't it?
But as to the virgin birth of Jesus, if it's not important enough for Mark John or Paul to mention, it's worth questioning whether it's a fundamental of the faith or the result of spinning-out the christology to fit the conceptuality of the age.
Wm Duncan
--------------------
I have overcome a fiercely anti-Catholic upbringing in order to attend Mass simply and solely to escape Protestant guitars. Why am I here? Who gave these nice Catholics guitars?
-- Annie Dillard
Posts: 1193 | From: about 30 km above the Juan de Fuca plate | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Dear Fr. G--
1) You've not read the Protoevangelium Jacobi, have you? Are you acquainted with any of the other Apocryphal infancy narratives?
2) I don't know anyone--Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, or Member of the Church Society who believes that Jesus was fully God, fully man, and was delivered through an aperture the approximate diameter of a hazelnut. Nor do I know how believing such a thing, or requiring others to believe it could possibly be edifying.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear William
As I said ... the original and reliable version of Mark has no account of the resurrection. On something so vital to Christianity as the resurrection shouldn't EVERY gospel have it? Doesn't that call into question your assumption that something should be included if all witnesses attest to it? John's Gospel of course has no account of baptism or eucharist but as Oscar Cullmann has pointed out; it's impossible to understand the depth of John's Gospel without its underlying sacramentality. Each gospel or epistle was never intended to be a comprehensive account. This is actually made explicit in John's Gospel itself ... John 20:30-31 ... albeit this relates to Christ's adult ministry. The principle remains valid.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Amos
That's not what the perpetual virginity is about at all. Jesus had a normal birth. The significance of the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary would derail this thread. I am more than happy that you should start a separate thread about that. The pepetual virginity of Mary is not necessary to the Incarnation but in our tradition it does have its own significance.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but I think it is important to distinguish between the affirmation of the creed that Jesus Christ is the only son of the Father, begotten not made; the fulfillment of the message of the Annunciation, and Mary's virginity either before or after Jesus's birth.
Frankly, I believe that had the Almighty wished, he could have chosen the village bike as the mother of his only-begotten son (He'd called upon the Prophet Hosea to do something similar...). Mary's virginity refers to her capacity to give her whole heart, to say 'Yes' utterly and completely. It isn't a matter (to paraphrase the great David Jenkins) of a conjuring trick with wombs.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
That may be how YOU square the notion of perpetual virginity with your common sense, Father G, but Tradition has done otherwise.
Do I see the baleful influence of modern science creeping in to corrupt simple faith?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
yes of course natural parthenogenasis would result in a female offspring, but that wasn't my point. i mean, if you wanted to disprove that jesus was created by parthenogenisis you could point out that it hasn't been known to happen in humans at all. my point was that if there was ever a parthenogenic human birth, it could concievably (pardon the pun) be to a virginal mother, but it wouldn't say anything about the divinity of the offspring.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr Gregory
I'm not qualified to answer this question because I do believe in the "uniqely indwelt" position of Jesus, which doesnt't require a belief in a virgin birth. But the history for it is poor. Matthew and Luke's accounts, IMo cut accross otherwise coherant narratives, as I've said in my "inconsistency in Matthew" thread. It seems to me that Mark, John, Paul, James and Jude, know nothing of it. I accept the argument that failure to mention something isn't evidence of ignorance. But Paul's writings were extensive, in which he mentioned Jesus being a descendant of David.
Again, I don't want to overlap another thread, but I argue that the Davidic lineage and the virgin birth are incompatible. Then there's the question of extra-Biblical evidence. Prior to 150AD, the only reference to the virgin birth comes in Ignatious of Antioch's "Epistle to the Virgin Mary." but this epistle is regarded by scholars as bogus. Eusebius had access to many early church documents but knew nothing of this one. So there is no reference in the anti-nicene Fathers before the second half of the second century, ie maore than 130 years after Christ.
If anyone knows better, of any references from an early period which support a belief in the virgin birth, I'd like to know them and check them out. However much weight adherants to this doctrine place on Matthew and Luke, theirs are the only references to it, and I don't think it's enough. They could easily be second century redactions. I believe, though I need to research it further, that an old Syriac version of Mathhew exists without the nativity stories and in which the genealogy names Joseph as Jesus' father. This info comes from the book "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes. I didn't agree with Dr. Vermes on some of the things he said about Jesus, but he is a scholar, and highly unlikely to cite non existent material in his book.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I know this will be hugely unpopular in some (most?) circles here Paul but in contested matters the Church that was responsible for codifying the oral tradition into Scripture is not a different animal from the society that persisted into the apostolic age and beyond. For me this isn't simply a piece of textual analysis but being part of a living stream of historical consciousness which bears witness to these things. Awaiting the missiles!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Dear Fr
Your 'evidence' is evidence of Jesus' birth not of immaculate conception.
Try harder.
Grumble
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
You'll get no missiles from me. Perhaps this issue is my "final frontier" for becoming an orthodox Christian. My objection to it isn't based on philosophy. If God can create a universe ex-nihilo, He can surely create a human body in which to tabernacle among us. It's just that IMO it doesn't fit with the rest of scripture or with historical analysis of contemorary sources.
I understand and respect your position as an Orthodox priest that you can't teach outside the faith, a point that some on the ship don't seem to understand. But I've struggled a long time with this one, like Jacob, who was renamed Israel(struggler with God). In suspect the hand of the Hellenisers on this doctrine. Perhaps we all still have much to learn. Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No mrgrumble_au, I think it may be you who have to try harder ... the immaculate conception is the Roman Catholic doctrine that the Virgin Mary at her conception was preserved fron all taint of original sin.
Dear Paul
The issue isn't really the virgin birth but the requirements of the Incarnation to be the Incarnation and not something else.
I have nothing but respect for your integrity on this key difference in our believing. Everything will work out in the End ... which we both believe.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
The Incarnation means that the human nature of Christ was indivisibly but distinctly joined to the human [sic – should be ‘divine’ ??? G.O.] nature in the one person of Christ (Chalcedon). Note here we are talking about NATURE ... not person (vs. Nestorianism) … When Jesus was born as a human child he was already God in that his divine nature and human nature were already conjoined.
The virginal conception is necessary in order that the divine nature be received from the Father and not from Joseph, (who did not possess it).
But ‘The virginal conception is necessary in order that the divine nature be received from the Father and not from Joseph, (who did not possess it)’ is a statement not an explanation. It still leaves it entirely unclear why the inheriting of the divine nature made it necessary for Joseph not to be the father.
Is receiving the divine nature a matter of genetics? Are you implying that Joseph did not have the right genetic coding? Well if it is a matter of genetics then God could have simply altered the genetic code of the sperm (and the egg too if necessary) and allowed conception to take place in the ordinary way. There would be no necessity for the virginal conception. (The genetic approach would also leave us with the rather odd idea of a particular genetic make up as being inherently divine – a rather odd idea.)
If, on the other hand, the inheritance of the divine nature is not a matter of genetics then why exclude Joseph from a role in paternity? There would again be no reason to have a virginal conception.
I feel that we simply do not know enough about the mechanics and metaphysics of the incarnation to make any compelling suggestions about why the incarnation would necessitate a virgin birth. Furthermore I fell that if there were no tradition of the virgin birth at all the early church would still have had no trouble in asserting the doctrine of the incarnation.
Glenn
--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Dear Fr
No evidence for that either.
Of course I assume if you actually had any evidence you would have given it.
Snake oil it is.
Grumble ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
One thing that strikes me as peculiar is the attributing of the story of the virgin birth to a poor translation. If all the Gospels said about the virgin birth was just the quote of a Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, that would make sense, since parthenos is a dubious translation of "young woman". However, what we have are two whole accounts from Matthew and Luke. Some translation error!
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Do we actually mean virgin birth?
Virgin conception would be more accurate.
Even then in modern time when 'fooling abuut' doing things short of your actual intercourse, many a couple has been surprised by the fact that penetration need not occur for the wily sperm to find its goal.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
quote:
If, on the other hand, the inheritance of the divine nature is not a matter of genetics then why exclude Joseph from a role in paternity? There would again be no reason to have a virginal conception.
True, divine nature cannot be coded by genetics or else we might eventually be able to create divine nature in the lab! The only coherent response (and I know it's speculative) is that divine nature is something other than DNA. This would seem to be consistent with the belief that God in his essence has no materiality. Could this extra "something" have been added into the womb / foetus AFTER conception? Possibly not since the human being then existed and the die would have been cast. (Adding after would ber a form of adoptionism of course, albeit minimalist). The father had to be "absent" of course because for a natural maturation and birth the mother had to be "present."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The incarnation could just as easily have taken place at the moment of a normal conception. No virgin birth, no adoption. The story of Mary's willingness to bear Christ is theologically compelling, but the mechanics of the virgin birth make no sense to me, given God's omnipotence.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Nor is it necessary.
Indeed a Christ born in 'questionable circumstances' is a more compelling son of God (to me) than the one embellished by the efforts of the 1st and 2nd century faithful.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth
quote:
The incarnation could just as easily have taken place at the moment of a normal conception.
In my post to Glenn I tried to explain why not. Do you have anything to say to that please?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
