Ship of Fools: Science and Incarnation

Thread: Science and Incarnation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024240

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Although there are interminable (Dead Horse) discussions about evolution and creation, we have no such disputes about the incarnation.

The traditional view of begetting was that a man put his seed into a woman where it grew, rather like a farmer sowing seeds into furrows.

In the Incarnation God provided the seed by the power of the HS and Mary remained a virgin, rather than Joseph providing the seed.

Now we have no fundamentalists insisting that Biblical faithfulness requires that we discard the 'theories' that children are formed from male and female gametes or that both parents provide DNA to the offspring; and that Jesus did not have any of Mary's DNA.

Why is this?
Is it because it is harder to understand genetics, or easier to demonstrate them?
Or is it just that Jesus can be seen to be a special miracle case where conventional genetics do not apply?
Or is there some other reason why the science of genetics is not seen to be a problem for faith?

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :

I don't see anything in the Biblical account that teaches anything that contradicts any known scientific facts about genetics. It doesn't teach the "traditional view of begetting", as far as I can see, and the Virgin Birth doesn't depend on this understanding. Even if it did, the older view of begetting is more of an incomplete understanding than a totally wrong one.

The Bible doesn't tell us anything about the mechanics of the Virgin Birth, simply that May became pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Presumably on a scientific level God created the necessary male genetic material, but the Bible doesn't give us that kind of information. But the claim that God on one occasion supernaturally brought about a virgin birth doesn't contradict anything that genetics has to say about how natural conceptions occur.

The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?

Possibly - possibly not. We really don't know, and given the ability of science to challenge the conclusions drawn by the church on such issues in the past, we're probably better off refusing to speculate.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Possibly - possibly not. We really don't know, and given the ability of science to challenge the conclusions drawn by the church on such issues in the past, we're probably better off refusing to speculate.

You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?

Yes.

Not sure what "divine genes" are though. [Paranoid]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

The Revolutionist

quote:
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.

The Revolutionist, what about the sinful nature of Mary?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

God doesn't have genes (except in the sense that he can create them). To have genes requires having a body of the sort we have on this planet (not guessing about other planets here.) So divine genes is silly IMHO.

We don't know anything about the mechanics of the conception, which is fine by me (like God would care if it weren't!) but I feel pretty uncomfortable with the idea some have put forth that God was deliberately trying to get rid of the male contribution as somehow more sinful. Mary comes of the sinful human race just as much as Joseph or any male, and I don't think that will fly. Rather, the virgin birth seems to me to be a case of God saying, "Look, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?" In pretty much the most obvious way possible, he shows that he is injecting new life into the human race, life that comes from outside it and is sourced in God. Which on a physical level is a nice "rhyme" with what he does to all believers through faith in Christ given by the Holy Spirit, described in John 1:12-13:

quote:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This lets out any nonsense about "we're getting better and brighter every day" and "look at what the human race is capable of producing!"--either with regards to Jesus himself or with regards to the new spiritual birth of believers.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Yes.

Not sure what "divine genes" are though.

A really, really well designed and fitted pair of denims?

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?

God doesn't have genes, but genes created by God, yes. But I highly doubt you'd find anything different between them and those of an average Jewish male of the time if you could put them under a microscope.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The Revolutionist
quote:
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.
The Revolutionist, what about the sinful nature of Mary?

It's not that men are more sinful, but that Adam was the federal head of the old covenant, and by the virgin birth, God is showing that Jesus is not part of that covenant, but the new Adam, the head of the new covenant and new representative of humanity. Paul develops this idea of in Romans 5, I think.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

I've always had serious problems with the virgin birth, but I'm much more open to its liklihood than I once was, because I'm trying to live a life of Christian faith. It isn't that I can't accept that God, when wanting to incarnate among us, could have created a bit of genetic information to make a complete human. This is nothing to He who created the universe ex-nihilo. It's about why He would do it that way, when there was already abundant genetic material among His chosen people, chosen among other things, to bring forth the Incarnation.

I doubt very much that, if modern science had had the chance to examine the DNA of Jesus, they would find Him to be much different from His fellow Jews of the time. And Mary was as much a part of the human race as any man of the time. The virgin birth is such an important part of Christian teaching since the very beginning, that I must remain open to its possibility, but it isn't essential to me. Mary's perpetual virginity could just as easily be a metaphor for her eternal openness to the Holy Spirit, and her "be it unto me according to thy word." What is inmportant is that God took human flesh and tabernacled among us.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The Revolutionist
quote:
The big theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless. To be fully human, he had to become a baby and be born like everyone else. But since the Fall, we are born in the sinful "image of Adam" rather than the "image of God" directly (Gen 5:2-3), Jesus' birth had to be by God directly so that he could be the sinless representative of humanity.
The Revolutionist, what about the sinful nature of Mary?

If you are RC this is taken care of by the Immaculate Conception.

But I disagree that the theological significance of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus is both fully human yet sinless.

Rather, the point of the virgin birth is that Jesus is the Son of God. Sinlessness isn't the point.

I agree with Kwesi. In fact, as I understand it, Christ needed to inherit Mary's sinful nature in order to fight against it and overcome it. In so doing He fought against the collected power of hell itself, putting it back in its place and releasing humanity from its grasp.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

In the Olden Days, AIUI, at least some Masters of Physick used to believe that semen was actually seed (hence the name), i.e. it contained the whole person, and the woman just provided nutrients (like a ploughed field).

Presumably those same Masters of Physick would have had to believe that God created the entire homunculus? IOW, ISTM that modern genetics increases Mary's role in the Incarnation rather than otherwise.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

But mythology is a separate sphere, like literature , folk-lore, painting or poetry. You don't apply science to any of these, do you ?

It would be a category confusion and a bit crazy.

These beautiful Christmas stories are mythological and poetic. Is nt that why they move us -sometimes to tears ?

Also when combined with wonderful music and interlaced with early experince, memory, desire and love.

Surely there is nothing to compare ?

'In the bleak mid-winter frosty wind made moan'

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?

Only 'could be'?! 'Are being' and 'will be' are my choices! [Smile]

[ 20. December 2012, 14:46: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.

Exactly. The desire to turn the incarnation into something clinical is truly pathological. The incarnation is the well-spring of our faith. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.

Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.

However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.

However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.

This has always been the teaching of the Orthodox Church. On his mother's side without a father, on his Father's side without a mother. He drew all of his divinity from God and all of his humanity from Mary.

As for impossible -- well duh. That's why it's called a miracle. Hello.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Science has nothing to do with the Incarnation.
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.

I think that it is true that science can't reveal the secrets of the Incarnation to us.

But the ability to conceive of how something could have taken place, or to understand what happened, is an important aspect of accepting something as true.

I absolutely believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and that God is His Father.

Therefore I believe that God miraculously provided what is normally provided by a human father to enable conception to occur.

I don't see the science of genetics as a problem for faith because Mary would have provided what mothers always provide, however we understand that.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I'll elaborate.

Orthodox Christology holds that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Why would it be necessary to maintain Mary contributed no DNA? Virginity of Mary implies only that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit instead of through sexual intercourse. Technical definitions of virginity are beside the point. In any event, the Creed states Jesus is of one substance with the Father. Philosophically, substance is beyond the scope of science.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
But mythology is a separate sphere, like literature , folk-lore, painting or poetry. You don't apply science to any of these, do you ?

Actually one can apply science to literature and poetry. Dante, for example, filled his poem with the best natural philosophy of his day.

Literature and poetry are not separate spheres. If there are different spheres, they overlap. In fact, I'd say they blend into each other. That being the case, I don't at all agree with the idea that theology, mythology et al can be separated out from science or philosophy or even history.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.

However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.
This has always been the teaching of the Orthodox Church. On his mother's side without a father, on his Father's side without a mother. He drew all of his divinity from God and all of his humanity from Mary.

As for impossible -- well duh. That's why it's called a miracle. Hello.

Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.

I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
God doesn't have genes (except in the sense that he can create them). To have genes requires having a body of the sort we have on this planet (not guessing about other planets here.) So divine genes is silly IMHO.

Everything Lamb Chopped says in her post. Especially the bit I've quoted. God is not Jesus' biological father.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.

I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.

You need to learn what "logically contradictory" means. Mary could have been XXY, so it is certainly not LOGICALLY impossible (or even biologically impossible).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Which would have made her male. I do know what Klinefelter syndrome is, yes.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.

I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.
You need to learn what "logically contradictory" means. Mary could have been XXY, so it is certainly not LOGICALLY impossible (or even biologically impossible).

The silliness is accelerating, at this point, but I felt obligated to check, and it appears that people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) are male, not female.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Fair enough. But anyway if it is biologically impossible, it's a biological and not logical impossibility.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fair enough. But anyway if it is biologically impossible, it's a biological and not logical impossibility.

My point is that the biological impossibility entails the logical impossibility.

Either Jesus' genetic material came entirely from Mary or it did not. Biology eliminates option 1. But if your theology eliminates option 2 as well, then there isn't an option 3, because of the law of the excluded middle.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not sure - I think I have come across the idea that Christ drew the entirety of his human nature from Mary, and modern genetics demonstrates that that is impossible if Christ was male.

However ISTM that Medieval people couldn't have believed that because it would have run contrary to their own (erroneous) views on genetics as well.
This has always been the teaching of the Orthodox Church. On his mother's side without a father, on his Father's side without a mother. He drew all of his divinity from God and all of his humanity from Mary.

As for impossible -- well duh. That's why it's called a miracle. Hello.
Yes, but even miracles don't allow you to do things that are logically contradictory.

I mean, God could have miraculously created a Y-chromosome for Jesus, but if he'd done so then Jesus wouldn't have derived all his humanity from Mary.

Surely miracles allow for anything? If God can raise people from the dead then God can allow Jesus to inherit all His humanity from Mary and still be male. It seems like quite a small miracle in terms of God's portfolio.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

God cannot do the logically impossible. But God CAN do the biologically impossible. Hence, your syllogism fails.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God cannot do the logically impossible. But God CAN do the biologically impossible. Hence, your syllogism fails.

My point (which wasn't a syllogism anyway) is that God can't do the biologically impossible without violating the condition that all the human substance has to come from Mary. When you start saying that God miraculously did stuff to change what Jesus' biological nature would otherwise have been, that implies that that part of Jesus' biological nature came directly from God. I quite clearly distinguished between biological and logical impossibilities without the help of capital letters in my previous post. I am trying to say that you can't miraculously do things naturally.

Having said that I suppose there are a few ways it could work. God could have made Mary XY and then miraculously swapped round her sex organs. Or he could have made Jesus XX ditto.

FWIW my personal feeling is that a.) human substance isn't a very well defined concept, and b.) there is no theological reason why God couldn't have created a special Y-chromosome.

[ 20. December 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God cannot do the logically impossible. But God CAN do the biologically impossible. Hence, your syllogism fails.
My point is that God can't do the biologically impossible without violating the condition that all the human substance has to come from Mary.

Why? Again, it's biologically impossible, not logically impossible. God could mash up Mary's DNA anyway He wanted to. It's a miracle, as I have pointed out before. It's not SUPPOSED to be possible.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Try addressing the second sentence of my post. (To be fair I added it in an edit so you might have missed it.)

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

There are two issues that are often conflated - the "incarnation" in general, and the "virgin birth".

I think that the gospels and Paul agree in the incarnation in principle, but I don't think they all agree in the virgin birth. I don't think the VB concept appears anywhere in the NT outside of the first 2 chapters of Matthew and Luke.

Paul appears to put forward the belief that Jesus, "born of a woman", was a "descendant of David according to the flesh".

Mark appears to argue that the incarnation involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an otherwise human Jesus, that began at the baptism and ended at the crucifixion.

John asserts the pre-existence of Jesus outside of the narrative and combines it with the testimony of John the Baptist on the Baptism (that appears to depend on Mark's account). He also notes the controversy of the Messiah possibly being born in Bethlehem.

All in all, I'm content to believe in the general notion of the incarnation while leaving the virgin birth itself as an open question over which the NT writers themselves could not definitively agree.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Try addressing the second sentence of my post. (To be fair I added it in an edit so you might have missed it.)

So basically you agree with me. Thus ends that argument.

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
All in all, I'm content to believe in the general notion of the incarnation while leaving the virgin birth itself as an open question over which the NT writers themselves could not definitively agree.

You seem to argue from silence here. Just because Mark or John don't address the virgin birth doesn't mean they disbelieved it. Yet you set them against Matt and Luke. Looks like handwaving to me.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to argue from silence here. Just because Mark or John don't address the virgin birth doesn't mean they disbelieved it. Yet you set them against Matt and Luke. Looks like handwaving to me.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. What I read BW to be saying is that the different NT writers have expressed different things. While it is true that Paul and Mark didn't say, "The virgin birth is bunk," there are some things that they did say, and that was what he was recounting.

ISTM that the real argument from silence is the notion that, since Paul and Mark didn't express disbelief in statements that were made after they wrote their books of the NT, they must be in agreement with what would be said by NT writers in the future.

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You seem to argue from silence here. Just because Mark or John don't address the virgin birth doesn't mean they disbelieved it. Yet you set them against Matt and Luke. Looks like handwaving to me.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. What I read BW to be saying is that the different NT writers have expressed different things. While it is true that Paul and Mark didn't say, "The virgin birth is bunk," there are some things that they did say, and that was what he was recounting.

ISTM that the real argument from silence is the notion that, since Paul and Mark didn't express disbelief in statements that were made after they wrote their books of the NT, they must be in agreement with what would be said by NT writers in the future.

--Tom Clune

But that's nto the argument. The argument is, they didn't say anything about it one way or the other, so they don't get a vote one way or the other. Only two people mention it at all, and they agree.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that the real argument from silence is the notion that, since Paul and Mark didn't express disbelief in statements that were made after they wrote their books of the NT, they must be in agreement with what would be said by NT writers in the future.

Or they didn't think it was important one way or the other.

Moo

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that's nto the argument. The argument is, they didn't say anything about it one way or the other, so they don't get a vote one way or the other. Only two people mention it at all, and they agree.

Just to be clear. It is not 2 people who get a vote or agree. It is writings attributed to them. Those who left it out, it was one or more of: it was not part of the oral stories they'd heard, which emphasized other things instead, they forgot about it, this part of the narrative was editted out of their story, or they didn't think it was important to emphasize.

There are lots of gaps in the stories as we know them, and also inconsistencies. I take the discrepancies and emphases as interesting, but not determinative of anything really important. The key issues are those of faith, particularly what it means about Jesus as a man, a god or both. I've always liked the historic answer: both and both in different ways, and it's a mystery.

Science on the other hand wants the nicely pinned down answer that it can't have, it asks the wrong questions in this case. The answer is that if we somehow got a DNA sample of Jesus, it would of course look human. He had a height, an eye colour, skin tone, shoe (sandal?) size etc. These are all DNA determined. So he had DNA. The story is that Jesus became a man. That means human. How that could possibly that speak to the spiritual side? It doesn't and it can't.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Growth of "tradition" after the fact is a problem that needs to be addressed. It can't be assumed that the "fullest account always wins" (i.e. Luke's lengthy gospel) and the shorter, older accounts (i.e. Mark's gospel) can be set aside for their "incompleteness".

We can't randomly claim, for example, that Jesus was a 9 foot tall giant with orange hair and assert that it's true just because the gospel writers never contradict it.

If Paul and Mark were written before Matthew and Luke, then what did they believe about Jesus' origins? If they believed in a virgin birth, they surely would have mentioned it?

The fact that they do give cursory statements justifying the "uniqueness" of Jesus (descendant of David for Paul, descent of the Spirit for Mark) is evidence that they did not believe in a virgin birth, and that it is probably later tradition imposed upon Jesus following a particular reading of Isaiah.

Was Jesus actually born of a virgin? Maybe he was, maybe not. It's certainly more likely that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, because all sources agree on that point. Hence, I'm more open to believe that the virgin birth was a literary device making a theological point about the life and ministry of the adult Jesus than to believe the same about the crucifixion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There are lots of gaps in the stories as we know them, and also inconsistencies.

Absolutely. My point here is that concerning the virgin birth, there are no inconsistencies. Concerning the date of the last supper, there is an inconsistency between the Synoptics and John. The former say one thing, the latter another. There is no NT source that denies the virgin birth, ergo no inconsistency. That was my only point here.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Jesus couldn’t have derived his human nature from Mary because he was male, and natural parthenogenesis can only produce female offspring* – the mother cannot pass on a Y chromosome to make the baby develop as a male, as has been mentioned in previous posts. And I don’t think that the idea that Mary passed on the X chromosome (and 22 others) and God created the Y chromosome (and 22 more) is tenable, as that would mean that Jesus was half human and half divine, not fully human and fully divine.

So the only possibility that makes scientific and theological sense to me is that Jesus’s human nature (and full genetic complement) came into being as an act of special creation by God, ex nihilo, and combined with Jesus’s eternal pre-existing divine spiritual nature. Thus, Mary does not need to be sinless, and the doctrine of the immaculate conception can be consigned to the dustbin for unbiblical theology where it belongs. I think that this formulation is consistent with the text of the Bible (but I would be interested in evidence that it isn’t**), with Jesus being born of woman but not biologically derived from Mary***. Ironically this would fit with the ancient (but biologically incorrect) view of the father planting ‘seed’ in the fertile soil of the mother’s body.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Does this mean you think that Jesus had God's and Mary's genes?
Possibly - possibly not. We really don't know, and given the ability of science to challenge the conclusions drawn by the church on such issues in the past, we're probably better off refusing to speculate.
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?

I can’t speak for ES but I’d suggest that on matters where the church has no information because God hasn’t revealed any, it is better to remain silent, because producing a speculation that is vulnerable to refutation does not enhance credibility.

Angus

*This is a slight simplification – see Wikipedia for an extensive discussion.

**For example the quotation posted by BWSmith “descendant of David according to the flesh” – where does that come from? Mind you, then you’d need to take account of Paul’s technical use of ‘flesh’ which may or may not mean ‘biological nature’, and probably doesn’t.

***My mind heads off on the tangent of Macbeth in which a major plot twist relies on the inverse applying.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Having said that I suppose there are a few ways it could work. God could have made Mary XY and then miraculously swapped round her sex organs.

Like in testicular feminisation?

Also it depends how basically one regards substance. X and Y chromosomes are made of DNA. If one is going to get into miracles, there's no reason why one can't rearrange the DNA of an X chromosome into a Y chromosome. The chances of it happening by chance are pretty much non-existent, but since we're talking miracles...

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

A Pilgrim

quote:
I think that this formulation is consistent with the text of the Bible (but I would be interested in evidence that it isn’t**), with Jesus being born of woman but not biologically derived from Mary***.

A Pilgirm, I find your thesis (last post) quite ingenious, though I'm not convinced that is what took place.

In terms of scripture the problem of the non-participation of Joseph in the conception of Jesus is that the Messianic credentials of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke are traced through the lineage of Joseph back to David, which surely causes problems for their narratives. It also causes problems for you as well because your explanation denies biological parentage to both Joseph and Mary.

What I find most intriguing about Luke's account is a genealogy dating back through Joseph to Adam, who is described as "the son of God". What does that tell us about human nature? And about the nature of Jesus as distinct from other human beings?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
X and Y chromosomes are made of DNA. If one is going to get into miracles, there's no reason why one can't rearrange the DNA of an X chromosome into a Y chromosome. The chances of it happening by chance are pretty much non-existent, but since we're talking miracles...

Thank you.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In terms of scripture the problem of the non-participation of Joseph in the conception of Jesus is that the Messianic credentials of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke are traced through the lineage of Joseph back to David, which surely causes problems for their narratives.

Luke says that Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.

The lineage as Luke traced it covered legal fatherhood, which, in the case of either adoption or of levirite marriage, would be different from biological fatherhood. Matthew gives the begats, which covers biological fatherhood.

Julius Africanus, a third century writer, investigated the difference in the genealogies, and learned from the relatives of Jesus who were still living at that time that Joseph was the child of a levirite marriage. Jesus therefore is descended from David both according to the flesh and according to the law.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

A lot has been posted since I went to bed last night.

Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

I can understand the mythic viewpoints, but there are many historical literalists out there.

From my scan of the posts the 'well, it is a miracle' is one way to transfer the problem to a different plane.

Personally, it is not at all necessary for the creation to be literally described to find theological meaning. On the other hand, Christianity and the work of Jesus Christ is meant to be at least rooted in history, though perhaps my understanding of 'rooted in history' needs refinement.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

If Jesus had biological DNA that could be shown to be Joseph's, would it actually matter? For it doesn't. On the one hand, once we're talking miracles, that would be possible. On the other, its entirely possible to have children and be a virgin. If there's a third hand, I'd say that God would not allow the miracle to be accepted on anything but faith, thus, it would have to appear explainable via some other means even if the truth was something else.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh my freakin' nevermind.

Whoever it is that is saying that all Jesus' DNA has to derive directly from Mary (and not partly special creation) else it's not fair,

all right, I'll give you a stupid explanation. Suppose Mary is a chimera, and one of the ... constituents ... of the chimera being happened to be male. That would provide you with item, one living breathing female virgin, who nevertheless possessed male DNA in at least some cells of her (their?) body.

We can call it "mosaic boy syndrome."

This is getting silly.

[ 20. December 2012, 22:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

If they did, it would be Bulverism, wouldn't it? Or if not, it would be outside the scope of this thread, which is about the virgin birth, not the psychology of those who believe in it.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Whoever it is that is saying that all Jesus' DNA has to derive directly from Mary (and not partly special creation) else it's not fair,

Somebody said this? If so I missed it.

[ 20. December 2012, 22:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Josephine

quote:
Luke says that Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.

Josephine, I thought that someone would make that point, but I don't think it lets Luke off the hook.

Josephine

quote:
The lineage as Luke traced it covered legal fatherhood, which, in the case of either adoption or of levirite marriage, would be different from biological fatherhood. Matthew gives the begats, which covers biological fatherhood.

So is your argument, Josephine, that Matthew's lineage rests on Joseph being the biological father?

Josephine

quote:
Julius Africanus, a third century writer, investigated the difference in the genealogies, and learned from the relatives of Jesus who were still living at that time that Joseph was the child of a levirite marriage. Jesus therefore is descended from David both according to the flesh and according to the law.

Josephine, I'm somewhat confused because I don't see how Joseph being the child of a levirite marriage relates to the biological origins of Jesus.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

no prophet

quote:
If Jesus had biological DNA that could be shown to be Joseph's, would it actually matter? For it doesn't.

no prophet, I'm inclined to agree with you, but it does matter for those who see the virgin birth as necessitated by the doctrine of original sin. It also matters to those who are biblical inerrantists. Being neither a believer in original sin nor in biblical inerrancy, I'm agnostic on this one, believing God is capable of manufacturing a virgin birth but can't see why he should want or need to.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

The clear difference is that the virgin birth is supposed to be an exception to the normal human reproductive pattern. That's the whole point of it. It doesn't require us to abandon a belief in what biology says usually happens - it just requires us to abandon the claim that it can't be overridden. But creationism requires someone who believes it to ignore or deny a whole lot of evidence for what actually happened.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If they did, it would be Bulverism, wouldn't it? Or if not, it would be outside the scope of this thread, which is about the virgin birth, not the psychology of those who believe in it..

I will have to check on the bulverism, but if you check on my OP it was all about a psychological or similar understanding

quote:
Why is this?
Is it because it is harder to understand genetics, or easier to demonstrate them?
Or is it just that Jesus can be seen to be a special miracle case where conventional genetics do not apply?
Or is there some other reason why the science of genetics is not seen to be a problem for faith?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Josephine
quote:
Luke says that Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.
Josephine, I thought that someone would make that point, but I don't think it lets Luke off the hook.

Doesn't let him off the hook for what?

quote:

quote:
The lineage as Luke traced it covered legal fatherhood, which, in the case of either adoption or of levirite marriage, would be different from biological fatherhood. Matthew gives the begats, which covers biological fatherhood.
So is your argument, Josephine, that Matthew's lineage rests on Joseph being the biological father?

No, Matthew's lineage gives the biological lineage of Joseph. It says, "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

quote:
Josephine, I'm somewhat confused because I don't see how Joseph being the child of a levirite marriage relates to the biological origins of Jesus.

It doesn't. It relates to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and why they differ. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Paul appears to put forward the belief that Jesus, "born of a woman", was a "descendant of David according to the flesh".

Mark appears to argue that the incarnation involves the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an otherwise human Jesus, that began at the baptism and ended at the crucifixion.

John asserts the pre-existence of Jesus outside of the narrative and combines it with the testimony of John the Baptist on the Baptism (that appears to depend on Mark's account). He also notes the controversy of the Messiah possibly being born in Bethlehem.

[tangent]
My potted version is that:

Mark portrays Jesus as the Son of God

Matthew presents Jesus as the Messiah, in the line of David and with a lineage back to Abraham, the patriarch of Israel.

Luke portrays Jesus as the Son of God through Adam; perhaps Jesus is the new perfect Adam.

John portrays Jesus as the Word who existed with the creator God from the beginning.

I suppose the different focus reflected the needs of their audiences. I see no need to harmonise or conflate the pictures we are given.
[\tangent]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The Gospel of Mark does not indicate a virgin birth. The Gospel of John does not indicate a virgin birth.
Paul does not indicate a virgin birth.
Peter does not indicate a virgin birth
The writer of Hebrews does not indicate a virgin birth.
James does not indicate a virgin birth.
Isaiah does not predict a virgin birth.
Only two gospels touch on it, Matthew and Luke.

But can it happen? I can't say no.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If they did, it would be Bulverism, wouldn't it? Or if not, it would be outside the scope of this thread, which is about the virgin birth, not the psychology of those who believe in it..
I will have to check on the bulverism, but if you check on my OP it was all about a psychological or similar understanding
quote:
Why is this?
Is it because it is harder to understand genetics, or easier to demonstrate them?
Or is it just that Jesus can be seen to be a special miracle case where conventional genetics do not apply?
Or is there some other reason why the science of genetics is not seen to be a problem for faith?

Okay, I apologize; I read the OP too quickly and failed to notice that it was an invitation to bulverize. Fortunately most of the conversation has moved away from bulverism but I can't expect everybody to have made the move.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

I don't think it is bulverism from my reading of the Wikipedia article on bulverism.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?

How are you going to prove wrong anything I say on this? Practically all ways in which you could obtain sufficient genetic material from Jesus (and Mary, and Joseph, ...) - i.e., by finding some conserved parts of Jesus' (and Mary's, and Joseph's, ...) body - would already imply that the Church is wrong on the resurrection. At which point we can simply call it a day. Since that is however exceedingly unlikely to happen in any even remotely believable manner, I can basically claim whatever I want on this.

The most "obvious" way seems to be to simply "clone" Mary and switch an X to a Y chromosome. In a sense modern genetics makes it easier to imagine how the Holy Spirit could have formed a male being from "the flesh of Mary". In particular, we don't need to imaging that the Holy Spirit created "Divine semen" or anything like that. The Divine miracle could happen directly at the level of manipulating the DNA of for example (but not even necessarily!) one of Mary's eggs. But I don't really know the cell biology of reproduction enough to call one particular way God could have done that the most spiritually fitting. And I doubt that this would change all that much if I knew a lot more... So it's best to simply leave it at the level of "not a problem". Because it sure isn't one.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

To return to the OP there are differences between the roles of creation and the virgin birth.

The creation story may be read as a normative account of how we all came to be here and how all creation came to be here. It may be an account of how all earth was made. It therefore is in direct conflict with different accounts of how the earth came about. And that reading of it can be challenged by scientific evidence.

On the other hand, the virgin birth in the gospels is not in anyone's reading an account of the normal process of making babies. It is in its most literal reading an account of a one-off miraculous event.

Thus it doesn't challenge other accounts of how babies are made, and modern scientific evidence can't really directly challenge it in the same way as it can challenge a literal creation account.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely miracles allow for anything? If God can raise people from the dead then God can allow Jesus to inherit all His humanity from Mary and still be male. It seems like quite a small miracle in terms of God's portfolio.

I think this is where we need to leave it from a biological standpoint. God can do any miracle he wants within His own creation. Manipulating Mary's DNA, so she can give birth to a male by parthenogeneis makes the most sense here.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The lineage as Luke traced it covered legal fatherhood, which, in the case of either adoption or of levirite marriage, would be different from biological fatherhood. Matthew gives the begats, which covers biological fatherhood.

This has always been my biggest problem here. That Jesus was legally Joseph's son wouldn't qualify Him to claim to be the Messiah of Israel. According to Orthodox tradition, Joseph had other sons, for which there is evidence outside Scripture. Their claims of Davidic descent would have been much stronger than any made by Jesus. According to the historian Hegesippus. as quoted by Eusebius in the 4th century, the Lord's "brother" Jude had grandsons who were still being harassed by the Roman authorities at the end of the first century, for their Davidic lineage.

It seems that most Christians regard a literal interpretation of the virgin birth as more central to their Christian faith than a literal understanding that Jesus was of the House of David, and could claim, on those grounds , to be the Messiah of Israel. That the bible contains such a lot of metaphor and allegory makes me keep an open mind of this most difficult of biblical debates.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

PaulTH

quote:
It seems that most Christians regard a literal interpretation of the virgin birth as more central to their Christian faith than a literal understanding that Jesus was of the House of David, and could claim, on those grounds , to be the Messiah of Israel.

A most interesting observation, PaulTH. Could it be that whereas for Jews the Messianic credentials of Jesus were critical, in the case of the gentiles the restoration of of the House of David was hardly a preoccupation? One suspects the requirement that Jesus' mother had to be a virgin was less a matter of Jewish theology that Greek philosophy.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely miracles allow for anything? If God can raise people from the dead then God can allow Jesus to inherit all His humanity from Mary and still be male. It seems like quite a small miracle in terms of God's portfolio.
I think this is where we need to leave it from a biological standpoint. God can do any miracle he wants within His own creation. Manipulating Mary's DNA, so she can give birth to a male by parthenogeneis makes the most sense here.

The thing that revolts me about the entire DNA line of inquiry is that it does violence to the entire point of the incarnation. We move from the Good News of emmanuel -- God is with us -- to some weird inter-species genetics -- God is a jackass. It truly vitiates the faith, to my way of thinking. As always, YMMV.

--Tom Clune

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

It's not a "psychology" issue as much as a denominational commitment to one particular view of what the Bible is and how it functions.

If the Bible said that the earth was 4.3 billion years old, and that man had evolved over the last 6 million of those years, the creationists would promptly drop all their theories about "catastrophism" and "impossible probability" and agree with the scientists.

The reality is that all creationists belong to denominations with a strong commitment to a theology that the Bible is directly the "Word of God" and cannot be factually wrong about any historical assertions it makes.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

I'm confused. You see to be asking why people who reject science in the case of evolution don't reject science in the case of the virgin birth? At any rate you seem to be making a dichotomy between the two in terms of people rejecting science.

Let's break people into groups.

1. Accept evolution, reject virgin birth. Call these the "science all the way" folks, maybe.

2. Accept evolution, accept virgin birth.

3. Reject evolution, accept virgin birth. Call these the "science my ass" people

4. Reject evolution, reject virgin birth. I posit that this group is empty.

Which group is it that is confounding you? I assume #2?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

How about "Accept Evolution, accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical while holding out the possibility that it could be literally true?"

Or the liberal Anglican answer [Razz]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.
You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?

I also would think it is empty. I struggle to imagine the mindset that result in filling it.

I am happily ensconsed in the warm and friendly company of group 2.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Rather, the point of the virgin birth is that Jesus is the Son of God. Sinlessness isn't the point.

I agree with Kwesi. In fact, as I understand it, Christ needed to inherit Mary's sinful nature in order to fight against it and overcome it. In so doing He fought against the collected power of hell itself, putting it back in its place and releasing humanity from its grasp.

On your first point, I have to disagree, certainly historically. The point of the Virgin Birth is that Jesus was conceived without original sin, original sin being passed on from generation to generation by the act of conception (which leads into the dim view of human sexuality and sexual intimacy that was prevelant for a lot of Christian history...) through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...

As for your second point, I've not come across that before and I would be grateful for some links to theological works that explain the theory...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Practically all ways in which you could obtain sufficient genetic material from Jesus (and Mary, and Joseph, ...) - i.e., by finding some conserved parts of Jesus' (and Mary's, and Joseph's, ...) body - would already imply that the Church is wrong on the resurrection.

The Church has historically accepted the possibility that Jesus' foreskin is still around.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

What do you think the chances are of the church allowing someone to sequence the DNA from one of those relics ?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...

The Virgin Birth does not have anything to do with original sin. You're thinking of the Immaculate Conception, by which Mary was conceived without original sin.

[ETA: Us Orthodoxen reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because we don't accept the RC understanding of original sin. But OC or RC, neither of us thinks the Virgin Birth has to do with original sin.]

[ 21. December 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Growth of "tradition" after the fact is a problem that needs to be addressed. It can't be assumed that the "fullest account always wins" (i.e. Luke's lengthy gospel) and the shorter, older accounts (i.e. Mark's gospel) can be set aside for their "incompleteness".

We can't randomly claim, for example, that Jesus was a 9 foot tall giant with orange hair and assert that it's true just because the gospel writers never contradict it.

If Paul and Mark were written before Matthew and Luke, then what did they believe about Jesus' origins? If they believed in a virgin birth, they surely would have mentioned it?

The fact that they do give cursory statements justifying the "uniqueness" of Jesus (descendant of David for Paul, descent of the Spirit for Mark) is evidence that they did not believe in a virgin birth, and that it is probably later tradition imposed upon Jesus following a particular reading of Isaiah.

Was Jesus actually born of a virgin? Maybe he was, maybe not. It's certainly more likely that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, because all sources agree on that point. Hence, I'm more open to believe that the virgin birth was a literary device making a theological point about the life and ministry of the adult Jesus than to believe the same about the crucifixion.

To address some issues as you raise them:

1. None of us can really say that they are traditions that grew up after the written accounts were composed, the 'traditions' can well have existed before and along side the written accounts.

2. Your argument in paragraphs 3 & 4 is faulty, in my view. The Gospels and Epistles were written for specific audiences, with a specific theological agenda. Just because the remains of Paul's Epistles do not mention a Virgin Birth does not automatically mean that he did not affirm the Virgin Birth, it is conceivable, and I would assert most scholars would agree, there is much of the written tradition that was already lost by the time the canon was formed, so what we have is not a complete overview of the writers theological beliefs.

In the fact these were written for specific audiences negates the need for them to be a full theological creed of beliefs, they may well contain much of what we hold as theological truths, but not everything... to portray a particular message to the individual Church Paul could be using a particular turn of phrase to emphasise a point (a point quite possibly lost to time now...) in the same way that St. John and St. Luke had different audiences and theological points to make in their accounts of the Gospel different theological truths are emphasised and others under-mentioned/not mentioned...

To paraphrase your argument:
(1) People mention all the things they believe in conversation; (2) The specific writers you mention do not mention certain things in incomplete records of all they said. (3)Therefore the writers in B didn't believe things they didn't mention.

Think about a conversation you might have with someone of a similar outlook and beliefs to your own, this conversation is being recorded, but you do not have your conversation any differently to normal, do you mention everything you believe in your discussions? Not normally, there are things you do not mention because they are agreed positions between each of you, agreed in some previous conversation that went unrecorded, and do not require repeating in this instance. If someone were to read the written transcript do you think it would reflect a true account of all your beliefs? Probably not, and that is what we are dealing with in the written tradition that has been passed down to us...

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...
The Virgin Birth does not have anything to do with original sin. You're thinking of the Immaculate Conception, by which Mary was conceived without original sin.

I know you mean it sincerely, but I do know what the Immaculate Conception is...

And no, I am not confusing the two... The Virgin Birth is linked to Original Sin and how orginal sin was thought to be passed on from generation to generation...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.
You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?

According to Wikipedia, Christians make up only about 1-2% of the population of Japan (and even fewer are Muslim) but about 11% of Japanese don't think that humans developed from earlier species of animals. That suggests around 10 million or so in group 4 from Japan alone.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.
You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
According to Wikipedia, Christians make up only about 1-2% of the population of Japan (and even fewer are Muslim) but about 11% of Japanese don't think that humans developed from earlier species of animals. That suggests around 10 million or so in group 4 from Japan alone.

The population we were looking at is Christians.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
How about "Accept Evolution, accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical while holding out the possibility that it could be literally true?"

Or the liberal Anglican answer

The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.
You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?

I suppose none in the christian tradition... it would be completely nonsense. But maybe a creationist non-christian???

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.
You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
I suppose none in the christian tradition... it would be completely nonsense. But maybe a creationist non-christian???

Right, but a non-Christian presumably wouldn't accept the virgin birth at all? Do Muslims accept the virgin birth? I was tetrafurcating Christians.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.
You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
I suppose none in the christian tradition... it would be completely nonsense. But maybe a creationist non-christian???
Right, but a non-Christian presumably wouldn't accept the virgin birth at all? Do Muslims accept the virgin birth? I was tetrafurcating Christians.

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_Mary#Virgin_birth_of_Jesus

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Thought I remembered that.

At any rate take my 4-fold division above to apply to Christians only. Clearly the vast majority of non-Christians are going to disbelieve the virgin birth; the real issue I think for this thread is Christians.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was tetrafurcating Christians.

I hope you weren't tetrafurcating individual Christians.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The thing that revolts me about the entire DNA line of inquiry is that it does violence to the entire point of the incarnation. We move from the Good News of emmanuel -- God is with us -- to some weird inter-species genetics -- God is a jackass. It truly vitiates the faith, to my way of thinking. As always, YMMV.

I agree entirely, but those who hold to a literal virgin birth often need to explain it from a genetic point. A literal virgin birth has never been important to my understanding of emmanuel, no nor are the genetics involved. For some people they are.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).

This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...
The Virgin Birth does not have anything to do with original sin. You're thinking of the Immaculate Conception, by which Mary was conceived without original sin.

[ETA: Us Orthodoxen reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception because we don't accept the RC understanding of original sin. But OC or RC, neither of us thinks the Virgin Birth has to do with original sin.]

To add to my thinking, and to clarify, I am not saying that this is the current position, I don't really think about Original Sin that much so don't know of current lines of thought, however:

Original sin was the stain, certainly since Augustine pondered the topic, transmitted by sexual intercourse, particularly through the concupiscence (libido) which is a basic and fundamental part of sexual intercourse (have you ever had sex free from feeling?), and therefore conception. Mary, in her Immaculate conception (which is a dogma that can be debated elsewhere regarding its merits, truth and when it came to be in its current form since certainly Aquinas and Bonaventure advocated that Mary was conceived with Original Sin yet this taint was removed after conception but before Birth) was granted, by God, at conception the benefits of Baptism and the preservation from the stain (in laymans terms I would say God removed the stain from her) through the merits of Christ (Mary being the first saved by Christ in a more full and unique manner) and by virtue of her part to play in redemption. If Mary was conceived normally, she would have, without God's intervention, been conceived with the stain of Original Sin because she would have been conceived by sexual intercourse with concupiscence.

Christ on the other hand, as 100% Divine was free from original sin, however his 100% human nature, if it were to be conceived by normal procreation would have become tainted by original sin (unless of course the taint was removed as in Mary's Immaculate Conception)... through the Virgin Birth Christ is uniquely created as Creation was, but also uniquely preserved from Original Sin as well since none of the fallen state, nor the potential of that fallen state, of man was used in the process of His conception.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).
This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.

Or more to the point, the conception of Our Lord was an act by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can very much well use the normal means of human conception to accomplish his will. Or by that same token, the Holy Spirit can very well supernaturally intervene in the virginal conception of the Lord.

For me, the crucial point is the Holy Spirit was involved in the conception of Our Lord. How he does that is less important.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).
This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.

No, it doesn´t. But still, people who think the virgin birth is a myth with some inspirational significance, while the conception of Jesus might have happened exactly like any other natural conception (trough sex between Mary and Joseph) fall into the category of people who don´t believe the virgin birth. Stating otherwise would only be dishonest.

Anyway, I have never ever heard of a christian theologian who simply said the virgin birth has not happened at all and we must get rid of the whole myth. Christians who deny the virgin birth usually hold the metaphorical meaning of the myth. That doesn´t change the fact that they don´t believe the virgin birth as fact.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).
This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.
Or more to the point, the conception of Our Lord was an act by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can very much well use the normal means of human conception to accomplish his will. Or by that same token, the Holy Spirit can very well supernaturally intervene in the virginal conception of the Lord.

For me, the crucial point is the Holy Spirit was involved in the conception of Our Lord. How he does that is less important.

I agree that the Holy Spirit could have used any way, even a natural conception, to acomplish His will.

However, the Scripture is not silent about this. It states that He has chosen a virginal conception. Wether that is important or not, it´s not what we´re discussing. But one just doesn´t reject Scripture and tradition over something that just isn´t important. Surely, if it´s such an insignificant thing, why nor stick with the orthodox teaching instead?

I believe that people who reject the virginal conception of Jesus actually think that this IS really important, and they only use the "this is not important" argument as a form of defense whenever they are acused of beig unorthodox. Of course, if one rejects the virginal birth purely on the basis that it cannot have happened by the laws of nature, then one has to reject the ressurrection aswell, for the same reasons (also stating that it is truth only in a metaphorical sense).

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

To answer Kwesi and Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In terms of scripture the problem of the non-participation of Joseph in the conception of Jesus is that the Messianic credentials of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke are traced through the lineage of Joseph back to David, which surely causes problems for their narratives. It also causes problems for you as well because your explanation denies biological parentage to both Joseph and Mary.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The lineage as Luke traced it covered legal fatherhood, which, in the case of either adoption or of levirite marriage, would be different from biological fatherhood. Matthew gives the begats, which covers biological fatherhood.
[Another post] No, Matthew's lineage gives the biological lineage of Joseph. It says, "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

In the 1stC, Jewishness was traced by male descent from Abraham and Jacob, and the kingly line by male descent from David. That’s why genealogy was such an important subject, as shown by the first nine chapters of 1Chronicles, and could provoke intense dispute, the avoidance of which is commanded in Titus 3:9.

So in Matthew’s gospel, which shows indications of being written particularly for a Jewish readership, Matthew starts with the assertion that Jesus is Messiah (Christ), son of Abraham, and son of David. He then sets about proving this, and works his way down (omitting some generations – compare with the genealogies in 1Chron – to get Jesus to be the (6x7) descendant, indicating by numerology the perfection of the start of the 7x7 sequence, hence the point of verse 1:17) but – shock horror! – the genealogy fails at the last step in v.16: ‘...Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born...’(ESV). It doesn’t say that Joseph was the father of Jesus, as would be required to prove Jesus’s Jewish pedigree.

Matthew makes his readers wait for the denouement until 1:25 where after the angelic dream, Joseph took Mary as his wife and gave Jesus the name that the angel had commanded him to. The significance of the second action is not just the attribution of a name, but also it showed that Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, with all the legal status of a full heir, and so the last step of the proof of Jesus as Jewish and kingly is made.

Some Jewish readers may well have started quibbling about the legitimacy of this last element of the proof, and regarded it as a bit dodgy. In order to pre-empt these objections, Matthew has included in the genealogy references to some other past examples of what could also be regarded as ‘dodgy’ – the conception of Perez by his mother Tamar pretending to be a cult prostitute in order to get pregnant by her father-in-law Judah (see Gen.38); and the inclusion of the steps of descent by gentile mothers Rahab and Ruth. One could imagine Matthew saying: ‘OK, so if you think that last step is a bit iffy, well, there’s other iffy stuff many generations back, and that affects you too, so if you’re going to query Jesus’s ancestry, your own ancestry has some questionable stuff in it as well’.

That’s how Jesus can claim to be rightfully King of the Jews, and Messiah, while not being Joseph’s biological descendant. There’s a reciprocity here that I find rather delightful – Jesus became a member of a human family by adoption; disciples of Christ become members of God’s spiritual family by adoption, too.

Luke’s genealogy, in contrast, is about showing Jesus to be the ‘second Adam’ who resisted temptation (the verses following Luke’s pedigree of Jesus are the temptations in the wilderness), and therefore unlike the first Adam who failed to resist temptation, and led to the sinfulness of the human condition, from which Jesus provided the salvation. Jesus is shown to be the true, faithful, obedient ‘son of God’ unlike Adam who was an untrue, unfaithful, disobedient ‘son of God’.

Angus

[ 22. December 2012, 14:12: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
There’s a reciprocity here that I find rather delightful – Jesus became a member of a human family by adoption; disciples of Christ become members of God’s spiritual family by adoption, too.

It should be obvious, but the link has never been made before in my little head, nor in anything I've read... maybe people just think it's obvious and doesn't need mentioning... nice though.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

You're right Ricardus.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0