|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 27% - the Virgin Birth
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Christina
The church has to determine doctrine rather than the individual, because a thousand different voices mske no sound. But given the way the church has been structured, establishing dogma and anathema, and with the power to excommunicate based on the idea that there is no salvation outside the church, that puts the church in an abusively powerful position which it has used many times.
In such a scenario the church hodls the power of eternal life versus eternal damnation over the souls of those who may or may not agree with them. Having once been the victim of a protestant sect who used such tactics, I can assure you that it's a life draining experience. But the whole history of Christianity is riddled with this psychotic treatment of fellow humans, from the crusades to the inquisitions to the holocaust.
Whenever an organisation from the Communist Party to the Vatican to the Ecumenical Councillors, set themselves up as ultimate arbitrators of truth, the only thing you can be sure of is that hate and bloodshed will follow in its wake.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Thank-you. I concede that point.
At the heart of this question is how we regard scripture.
If we think it is invariably to be read as 'literal truth' then we will fight tooth and nail to preserve that 'truth' over the truth that in the real world, to make a baby you need a sperm, an egg and a woman.
If you think as I do (which the more voluble of you do not) that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by fallable culture bound mortals with a first century mindset then you can open your mind to the facts rather then dwelling on the implausible.
For that reason there is no point in a text quoting fest. Whether we ascribed the words of Mary to her or the tradition repeated by th e gospel writers, they still amount to heresay, committed to paper many decades after the events.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Christina, you said earlier :
I believe it is the Church that determines doctrine, not the individual Christian.
The thing is, that for both of us, with regard to our sexuality and relationships, we are going against Church Tradition and Doctrine. Now, that doesn't cause me any real problem - but only because I am a liberal catholic rather than a traditional one.
Don't you think that for some people, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth may be something they simply can't believe ? Just like I can't believe the traditional church teaching about sexuality ?
I just don't think it is all or nothing. I don't personally have any problem with the Virgin Birth, but I am aware of various explanations, and I think all are acceptable for Christians to hold. I am also aware that some Christians believe that there are miracles today, but in terms of 'signs and wonders', I don't believe that.
I try to be consistent, and I don't see how a conservative position is commensurate with either my reason or experience : it is both of those things which, for me, temper both Scripture and Tradition
--------------------
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
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
By a grumbler:
Well, for a start, there is the fact that the gospel narratives were not written until many decades after the events; anyone who has played 'Chinese whispers' will attest to the problems with oral transmission of information.
If the subject were any else, common sense would tell us that inaccuracies are bound to have crept in; all the more so in the case of Our Lord, because of the enthusiasm of his followers.
Frankly, it is the suspension common sense by the (numerous) traditionalists who have posted that is the most astounding.
When proposing an idea that is beyond the realms of usual experience, the onus is surely on the person proposing it, (rather than on the sceptic) to provide evidence.
...
For that reason there is no point in a text quoting fest. Whether we ascribed the words of Mary to her or the tradition repeated by th e gospel writers, they still amount to heresay, committed to paper many decades after the events.
No no no no and more No. You are simply wrong. Oral transmission in a non-literate society has nothing in common with "chinese whispers". You need to update your knowledge by at least 30 years.
Frankly, it is the suspension of common sense by the (numerous) uneducated "liberals" who have posted that is the most astounding. To persist in this sort of anachronism while moaning about the blinkered view of "traditionalists" is quite stunning stuff.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
David
I agree with you completely that chinese whispers have nothing to do with oral transmission, especially aomong Jewish people, many of whom carried the entire Torah in their heads. That doesn't alter my point that the vb stories aren't fiction, aren't invented and aren't dismissive of the integrity of their writers.
What they are IMO are ways of explaining how God's nature came to dwell among us. They don't have to be historical to fulfill those demands.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
No it wouldn't, you keep repeating the same claims - "heresay" [sic] and the like.
You.Are.Wrong.
[That was to Grumbler. Crosspost is all.]
[ 26. December 2002, 22:58: Message edited by: David ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
PaulTH,
I'm arguing for the position of the Orthodox, which recognises the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I distance myself from any suggestion that I am arguing for a Roman Catholic understanding, which could be understood from your response.
As far as the idea that the Orthodox believe that the Church has power over someone's eternal damnation or life, I think that is untrue. I've read many statements by Orthodox, pointing out that being Orthodox guarantees nothing, what matters is a trusting relationship with Christ.
Furthermore, it is not Tradition in Orthodoxy, as I understand, that eternal damnation be believed, though some argue that it is. (Coniaris, for example) My understanding is that the Orthodox Tradition goes no further than the Nicene Creed, that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. There are many Orthodox who hope and pray for Universal Reconciliation. Indeed, it has been stated to me, that such an attitude is seen as a holy attitude in Orthodoxy. In many other churches, it would be seen as outright heresy.
There is a collegiate understanding of how the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, in Orthodoxy, rather than a central authority, such as the Papacy and Magisterium. It should be remembered that 'ekklesia' is literally translated as 'assembly' not church. I see the people as the Church, and that disallows any view that the Church is some power structure.
I do not believe the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were forced upon the people, who are the Church. They were accepted by the people. Other Councils were rejected by the Church - the people.
From my reading of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, both have strong views regarding the Church. However, neither teach that there is no salvation outside Roman Catholicism (Vatican 2), or Orthodoxy. (Bishop Kallistos - The Orthodox Church)
I think it needs to be understood that the comments about no salvation outside the Church, were made while there was one visible Church, and that the statements were made in opposition to Gnosticism.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
Chinese whispers may not be relevant at the transmission stage of oral tradition but they most certainly are at the formation stage.
But that is what the game is designed to illistrate: i.e. how 'stories start', not how an established oral tradition is transmitted.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Christina
I'm sorry if I made it unclear. I was referring to the historical position of the churches rather than their contemporary views. However, I hold that many lives have been lost to Christian bigotry.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Chinese whispers may not be relevant at the transmission stage of oral tradition but they most certainly are at the formation stage.
But that is what the game is designed to illistrate: i.e. how 'stories start', not how an established oral tradition is transmitted.
How does that jibe with this:
quote:
Written by Grumbler, then seemingly disowned:
...one who has played 'Chinese whispers' will attest to the problems with oral transmission of information.
We can see here that Chinese Whispers is also available as a one-player game.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear mrgrumble_au
quote:
Chinese whispers may not be relevant at the transmission stage of oral tradition but they most certainly are at the formation stage.
One step back but still no evidence. I presume we are talking about the formation of the canon now.
--------------------
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
David
There is a differnece betweeen spotting apparent inconsistencies and arguing the point.
Father
No. It is your onus to prove the implauible. Waiting.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Christina, you said earlier :
I believe it is the Church that determines doctrine, not the individual Christian.
The thing is, that for both of us, with regard to our sexuality and relationships, we are going against Church Tradition and Doctrine. Now, that doesn't cause me any real problem - but only because I am a liberal catholic rather than a traditional one.
Don't you think that for some people, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth may be something they simply can't believe ? Just like I can't believe the traditional church teaching about sexuality ?
I just don't think it is all or nothing. I don't personally have any problem with the Virgin Birth, but I am aware of various explanations, and I think all are acceptable for Christians to hold. I am also aware that some Christians believe that there are miracles today, but in terms of 'signs and wonders', I don't believe that.
I try to be consistent, and I don't see how a conservative position is commensurate with either my reason or experience : it is both of those things which, for me, temper both Scripture and Tradition
Merseymike,
I think homosexual relationships have existed within the Church for many years, but people have been discreet about it. Today, gay people are asserting themselves, and refusing to be in the closet. So, there's bound to be a backlash.
My own position is that Scripture clearly denounces same-sex acts in a context of cultic worship, ie heterosexuals, committing homsexual acts. Today, that would be applicable to prisons, etc, where that sort of thing goes on.
Scripture and Tradition is silent on transsexuality.
I once read a website arguing from Tradition, against homosexuality, it was by a RC chap. Every reference was to cultic acts, or pederasty.
I believe that Marriage is the norm, and the ideal, but there are certain people, for whom Marriage would be disastrous. My view is that same-sex relations, is a Pastoral Issue, as Contraception is. There are some confused transvestites, who think they are TS, and usually hormone therapy makes them change their mind. I've met a few. Obviously, such people have believed something false about themselves. Conservatives tend to argue from this, that ALL transsexuals are deluded. It's the same with ex-gays.
I expect a person who trusts in Jesus, to grow in grace, and over time, be healed of many emotinal scars. We all have them. If a person's homosexuality or transsexuality, is actually the result of psychological pain, I expect the Holy Spirit is capable of telling them. When people lay down the law, peer pressure can be substituted, for the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
I agree very much with the Orthodox, that the Church is a Hospital for Sinners. However, when it comes to homosexuality and transsexuality, there are some who denounce us, in a way that is no different really, than fundamentalists. Not all Orthodox are like that, neither are all RCs or Anglicans, or Baptists, or any other church.
I would describe my stance as based on Scripture, Tradition (Orthodox), Reason and Experience, and it is one that makes allowances for the human condition. We all have problems with sin, trouble is, many churches seem to have a culture where people are scared to admit it.
We need to understand that because we are all sinners, we are also all victims of sin too. Love is the cure, exclusion of certain people removes any hope for cure. We need each other, as well as God. Human love is healing too.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
My point is that you don't seem to have one. Is it that oral transmission is unrealiable, or that every story starts in a way that ensures that by the time it is a reliable oral transmission it has already been through the wringer?
Is it the first, which you have stated multiple times, or the second? It can't be both; and if you've directly contradicted yourself, it isn't my fault that I pointed it out. I will note, though, that this is the sort of thing that tends to happen when someone is simply making it up as they go along in an an attempt to sound clever and/or educated.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Christina
Through much pain, you have learned much wisdom. I'm glad you share it with us.
God Bless
Paul
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
Christina
I'm sorry if I made it unclear. I was referring to the historical position of the churches rather than their contemporary views. However, I hold that many lives have been lost to Christian bigotry.
Dear Paul,
Substitute the word 'Christian' with 'Hindu', 'Muslim', 'Communist', whatever.
I don't think bigotry is the product of Christianity, it is the product of fallen human beings.
I don't think the wheat and tares Scripture, is just about true Christians and false ones. I think we all have tares in our hearts. I learned to be bigotted, influenced by an atheist family. It took time for the Holy Spirit to convict me, and bring about growth and change in my outlook.
Yours,
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
There is no point at all.
'Oral transmission of information' occurs in both the formation stage and in the established oral tradition stage.
I'm sorry if refining my position has confused you.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyH
Shipmate
# 3570
|
Posted
quote:
conception without a sperm is not a common sense experience mr. grumble? And Jesue was?
thanks for the tip to search for shroedingers cat Fr Gregory . I will But Im not convinced theology is safer.
what if the Bible is all true. Will be it be less true because we dont beleve it.?
Do we need to think its not true because it suits us better tht way , Are we in danger of making God in our own image? Im going to be late for work and its all your fault for being so interesting ...but I forgive you. God bless- Lucy
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrgrumble_au:
There is no point at all.
'Oral transmission of information' occurs in both the formation stage and in the established oral tradition stage.
I'm sorry if refining my position has confused you.
It hasn't been refined, it's been contradicted. In any case, your position seems to equate oral transmission with inaccuracy. Again, as has been pointed out by many on this thread, You.Are.Wrong.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
IF you can't win the argument just misquote me.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
Point out the misquote, will you? You have a few minutes.
Idiot.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear mrgrumble_au
quote:
Father
No. It is your onus to prove the implauible. Waiting.
In my post I was referring to Chinese whispers. I wanted to deal with that first. Short of me being actually present at the moment of conception with at least one other credible witness and a medical examination I don't know how we're going to satisfy you on the primary issue. It does boil down to truth telling. It just won't do to claim that fanciful story telling was considered to be OK in dem dar days. That's importing our perspective from our own preconceived conclusions ... an impossible piece of circular reasoning. You are requiring standards of proof that a conventional historian would consider rare if not impossible.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear mrgrumble_au
quote:
Father
No. It is your onus to prove the implauible. Waiting.
You are requiring standards of proof that a conventional historian would consider rare if not impossible.
Which is not necessarily unreasonable given the wholly 'miraculous' nature of the claim.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
There are examples in the gospels of stories that seem to have been polished, or have evolved, in the process that occurred before they arrived at the final form we know. Oral tradition can be very secure, no doubt, but when stories are serving a purpose, that may shape the way they are told.
It is clear from the discussion in this thread that there are many people who think that a virgin birth is required or desirable. They have generally argued from the consequences of such a belief, rather than from the evidence - which is clearly unsafe.
No one has yet explored the complex tangle of ideas that adhere to the concept 'virgin.' Exactly what is meant by this? There has been some discussion about the diameter of Mary's vagina before, during and after Jesus' birth, but there are many questions here. Is a virgin someone with an intact hymen? Is the presence of a thing called a hymen a myth? Is a virgin someone who has not had penetrative sex? Is it someone who has not been fertilised? Is Mary's perpetual virginity of theological value? (I can't begin to imagine the answers to most of these questions.)
It has been stated that a virgin birth is necessary for belief in the incarnation. I think that a virgin birth is the refuge of those who are offended by the incarnation. How can God become flesh, including sperm, erectile tissue, excrement, verucas, ageing arteries, bogies, tumours, and the rest? How can the godhead be reconciled with the ghastly reality of human existence? Impossible, say some, so let's insist Jesus is different from the start, not like other humans. I suggest the virgin birth weakens the incarnation.
And behind all this discussion is a question I'd like to have a good go at here on the Ship at some point. It's a relatively trivial doctrine, most agree. The prospects for judging the evidence to the satisfaction of anyone (let alone all) are very poor. So where does our belief or disbelief come from? Do people believe in the virgin birth because they want to? Do they disbelieve because they prefer to? Is it a matter of choice? Are the pro VB folk hoping that the antis will see sense and decide to believe in it? And vice versa? Is belief voluntary? If it is (or if it isn't) what is it worth?
And finally, because this is mostly questions and that's cop out: I don't believe in the VB. I can't make myself. I wouldn't want to anyway. I'm sure it is tied in with the repellent history of Christian views of sex and women. I think it's secondary to the more reliable traditions about Jesus. I don't think it adds anything to Christian faith or doctrine. I think it is a dangerous doctrine for what it does to our views of the body and gender. And it is one of the great obstacles to Christianity speaking with integrity in the contemporary world.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I guess I should look forward to remarks of intellectual greatness now, that my remarks are below contempt. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Christina
At the risk of sending CM to sleep....... ![[Wink]](wink.gif) (although I think I can assure her we're quite safe from the threat of intellectual greatness....)
First, there's this....
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
For some of us, the Resurrection is an/the essential core belief in our understanding of Christ's salvific purposes in God. But the virgin birth (ie, she was a virgin when she gave birth) is not what 'saves' us, or offers us reconciliation with God.
And then there's this.......
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I don't believe that our salvation is dependent upon whether we believe in the Virgin Conception or not.
My bottom line is, that a person who has a relationship with God is saved from the penalty of sin, is being saved from the power of sin, and will be saved from the presence of sin. You can substitute 'liberated' for 'saved' too.
Christina
It's clear that CM and I have agreement on the one thing that is essential for salvation; and yet I still remain within the liberal spectrum of theology(or liberalism, as it's been labelled in previous posts) and CM doesn't. Doesn't this rather throw the 'liberal conspiracy' idea at least partially out of the window?
Rather confusingly, it gives the impression that even a liberal is capable of heretically misunderstanding, mis-interpreting and deliberately lying about scripture (cf. CM's comments on 'liberal conspiracy'), and still able to arrive at the truthful heart of the gospel.
Broad condemnatory statements about a huge and diverse representation of a particular kind of theology give the impression (maybe false?) that (in the eyes of some people) it's not the remarks of liberals that are below contempt, but the liberal Christians themselves. I do take exception to these kinds of statements, as they are inaccurate and unfair.
Personally, my experience of the more liberal theological influences has been one of liberation; a greater respect for and increased usefulness of scripture (I'm sure nobody believes me, but it's true!), than when I was a conservative interpreter of scripture; and a deepening relationship with God (naturally, with the usual more negative human moments thrown in).
I accept that this will not be everybody's response to their exposure to liberal theologies; any more than my response to, eg, Orthodoxy will ever be the same as CM's. Nevertheless, I'll always try to make the effort to respect those other experiences, regardless of how different to my own they are - especially should they arrive at the conclusion that it is relationship with the Triune God that saves, not our obedience to particular doctrines. A biased standpoint in its own right, I know, but who can say they are not in some way baised?
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Thanks, Anselmina. A much more civil response than I was contemplating.
The blanket condemnations of liberals make me unwilling to read the rest of your posts, ChristinaMarie. I don't care whether you find intellectual greatness in mine or not. Your attitude toward people like me tells me that there is nothing to be gained in discussing things with you.
Gregory, as to what I said yesterday about it being anachronistic to impose our views of factual, historical accuracy on the gospels: Alan answered as I would have done. I can't cite anything specifically as I am visiting my parents and have nothing to hand. But I can tell you that when I was an ardent student of the 18th century, I learned that our notions of the way history should be written, our ideas about what constitutes historical fact, were formulated then. So when we argue back and forth about whether the Evangelists were telling the truth, we are using the word in a way they would not have understood. If this thread is still going on when I get home next week, I will dig up the scholarship.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyH
Shipmate
# 3570
|
Posted
Supposing I write my memoirs or perhaps my testimony how would my view of history influence how I set it down. If I say a number of events led to my conversion would I not mean that a number of events ..etc.. or would I mean that I actually meant something else.? Are the gospels so many biographical novels.I seems to me that the importance here is not the virginity of Jesus mother but the grounds on which we take the Bible with a pinch of salt.If not virgin birth why believe in the resurection or the road to Damascus experience of Paul.?
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pcd:
If not virgin birth why believe in the resurection or the road to Damascus experience of Paul.?
Because they make require belief in a way that the Virgin Birth doesn't?
What I mean is that the complete transformation of the disciples makes no sense if you take away the resurrection. Even the most sceptical person must admit that SOMETHING happened to transform the followers of an obscure Jewish teacher into a movement that swept the world.
And so with Paul - you have to provide some explanation for his dramatic transformation (which is only deniable if you reject 100% of the Bible).
But the Virgin Birth doesn't (to me anyway) fit in the same category. You can believe in the divinity of Christ without having to accept the Virgin Birth.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear hatless
My aim is not to convince you but my aim is to show you that the virgin birth has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sex, (pun intended).
You have lodged an idea in your head that us VB folk recoil from the messiness of Jesus' humanity and want to protect his birth somehow from sexual ectasy and engorged penises and vaginas.
You will not be convinced but let me make it perfectly clear that the reason why we support VB is because we believe that only by this route can we have a christology that isn't adoptionist.
There are those who are better capable than I at textual archaeology and hypothesising what Mary may or may not have said about her condition and the psychology of the narrative and the biblical authors. All this is important and just because I concentrate on the integration of the VB into the Incarnation (as you have done contrariwise) doesn't mean that I think the evidence to be unimportant or inaccessible.
Why do I think that anything other than VB leads to an adoptionist christology - because the divine nature can only have a tangential contact with Jesus humanity if the conception was an entirely closed human loop. Without the VB God pops in to call when Jesus is old enough, spiritually mature enough ... whatever and then goes back home again when Jesus dies only to come back again in the resurrected Christ.
This christology is also neo-Nestorian if not Nestorian itself. The importance of the divine nature being there "ab initio" from conception is that Jesus is the Son sent from the Father .. the Word made flesh ... not the Spirit sent to indwell.
Don't ask me to speculate how physiologically the conception of Jesus differed from ours but it did. It's not the absence of semen here which is the point but the prseence of the creative Spirit who had no problem moulding the vessel of the Mother of God's chromosomes. He did not recoil in horror as you suggest. I think that you should indeed post a new thread about why anyone believes what they do. Do you want to put it up or shall I?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyH
Shipmate
# 3570
|
Posted
Thanks for your reply Smart Alex which does mke sense to me but also has implications to the effect that some things are to be believed because they are more plausible than others or beacause we need them to be true. I agree that it need not affect ones faith whether the vb is true or not but it might cause one to doubt the authenticity of other parts of the scriptures. Noone has addressed the prophecy of Isaiah as fa as I can see. Do we think the account of the birth of Jesus was written with that in mind. Of course the death on the cross is also foreshadowed here,
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Something meaty to get our teeth into even if it goes against the grain of many writing here ... (do not read if suffering from hypertension and subscribing to the view that the Holy Roman See is the whore of Babylon, ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
Virgin Birth - New Advent
--------------------
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
And at the other end of the spectrum ...
quote:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
... a prophet indeed ... for some.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyH
Shipmate
# 3570
|
Posted
Dear Father Gregory I did as you sugested and searched for shroedingers cat on the net. All I can say is- aaaaarrrrghhhhgh
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear pcd
That IS the correct response. Niels Bohr ... one of the pioneers in this field once said ...
quote:
Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.
Whilst theologians are seeking to tame Christianity scientists are trying to cage physics, (I speak hyperbolically). What I am really on about is the fact that what many Christians take to be nice, rational, predictable science is actually a marauding lion. We really should be a little less frightened of our own doctrines.
--------------------
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
If the virgin birth did happen then what on earth am I supposed to do with the doctrine? Hatless put an important question when he said: quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
…It's a relatively trivial doctrine, most agree. The prospects for judging the evidence to the satisfaction of anyone (let alone all) are very poor. So where does our belief or disbelief come from? …
If the creeds are so important and so much the result of God’s superintending the early church then what on earth was God doing putting the doctrine of the virgin birth into the Nicene creed?
As I said in my last post the mechanics and metaphysics of the incarnation are not well enough understood for anyone to provide a clear demonstration of why the virgin birth is necessary for the incarnation to take place. Fr Gregory has attempted to provide such reasons but admits that they are speculative. He says, for example, quote:
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.
As RuthW immediately pointed out “The incarnation could just as easily have taken place at the moment of a normal conception.” In other words the human conception and giving of the divine nature could have happened simultaneously, there need have been no moment at all when Jesus was only a human zygote and nothing more
If the virgin birth did take place we do not know the reason for it. And here is the resultant problem: because no clear demonstration of the necessity of the virgin birth can be given then affirming it achieves what exactly? What spiritual nourishment does it give when we do not know what it means or why it happened? What does affirming it safeguard other than the continued preservation of the doctrine of the virgin birth?
In fact what the affirmation of the VB is really functioning as is a way of saying: ‘I believe the VB because I believe that the church is right when it says that the VB should be affirmed.’ Or ‘I believe that the proper way to understand the bible is to accept the birth narratives as historically true’? In which case our reasons for accepting the virgin birth are to do with the reasons we have for trusting the church or the bible to be right about the VB being historically true rather than having to do with compelling reasons arising from the metaphysics of the incarnation.
But if that is what it implies then why not put that into the creed instead? Why not leave out the VB and put in ‘I believe that the New Testament scriptures are historically accurate’ or ‘I believe that the church is correct in what it teaches as essential to believe.’
To repeat: if the creeds are so important and so much the result of God’s superintending the early church then what on earth was God doing putting the doctrine of the virgin birth into the Nicene creed? Many people tell me how crucial and essential the doctrines of the creed are and yet here we have one whose function is incomprehensible, and the affirmation of which is not needed to safeguard any other doctrine (the incarnation does not depend upon it). So what is such a dispensable doctrine doing in the creed?
My own view (worked out over many years and not not not not not mere prejudice) is that the bible and the creeds and the traditions of the church fathers make much more sense as being fallible, incomplete, and sometimes over ambitious attempts to formulate and set down what their authors saw as the truth about God and Christ.
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Glenn
I want to try and answer your questions but in the light of my oft repeated assertion that those who drop the VB often have an adoptionist christology ... what precisely do you take the Incarnation to mean? We all know it means the Word was made flesh ... but that's just short hand. How would you elucidate its meaning?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Glenn, and further to Fr G's last post,
It still seems to me that you're going to end up with an adoptionist (or other non-Incarnational) account even if you you suggest, as Ruth did, that the Incarnation took place at the moment of a normal human conception, and here's why.
Consider the relation between God the Father and God the Son for a moment - here there is no problem with both Persons always having existed from the beginning, because the Son was timelessly begotten of the Father. The relationship is still (albeit a unique) one of Father to Son, but uniquely without the need for temporal generational separation.
But conversely, in the case of the Son becoming flesh, the Son does need to have been around before this for Him to be incarnated - otherwise, there's no real incarnation at all, because what is born just somehow comes to be at that moment, and so cannot be God at all. It doesn't matter at what point you say the Son becomes flesh in the case of a normal human conception, even if it is at the very point of "first contact" between the egg and the sperm, because if it's a normal human conception nothing else needs happen for that being to come into existence. This makes the incarnation, however you look at it, an add-on to an existing viable person, not a unique taking on of the flesh of the eternal Word. We are only looking at the latter when it is a unique generation of Christ-in-flesh between the Holy Spirit and Our Lady - how this happned is of course a mystery, but it seems to me to be one towards which a properly orthodox, reasoned Christology exclusively points.
Happy to clarify anything that may (very likely) not be clear here, folks.
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Chesterbelloc
I concur of course but I was hpoing that Glenn might declare his hand first. I hope he still does. I can only add that the "spiritual nourishment" to which Glenn refers arises from the Incarnation (as stated) directly and the virginal conception in a derivative manner.
Much the same insights led to the Church to uphold our Lady as the "Theotokos" or "birth-giver of God," commonly "Mother of God." This is not a title concerning Mary at all except in so far as her "yes" enabled the Incarnation to happen ... she was no empty vessel but an active agent. Theotokos is as much a title of the Incarnation as the Virgin birth is. The 3 really go together. Nestorius couldn't accept "Theotokos" because he couldn't accept the Incarnation in the orthodox sense in which you have described it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
I know I'm referring back to an old post, but . . .
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I think that the liberal questioning of the Virgin Conception, is more serious than just implying that Christians nearly 2000 years ago, got their facts wrong.
It is a conspiracy theory.
It points to a scenario, where these Christians lied, and fabricated stories, that were untrue, to back up their beliefs.
-- snip ---
Saying that the stories of the conception and birth of Christ in Luke and Matthew are not historically, factually true casts no aspersion on the early Christians. Historical fact was not a requirement of the genre in which they were operating - heck, historical fact the way we understand it is a relatively recent construction.
Sorry, RuthW, but ChristinaMarie is right. The gospels are the written in the wrong genre for their readers to have understood them as myth. (See this web page for details.) If the original first-century readership of the Gospels were to have found the virgin birth accounts to be unhistorical, they would have treated them as bald, rude falsehood, not myth.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
What you just said, Father. I think it really does show what is seldom realised - that when you unpick the VB a whole lot of core doctrine just unravels completely with it. This is nothing to do with sexual morality at all, but everything to do with God as man.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Maybe they put it in the creed because it's TRUE. Regardless of whether we in the early 21st century find it interesting, necessary, irrelevant, or whatever.
Nah. Forget I said anything.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But that is still reflecting what they believed to be true, not necessarily how things were ? That is the case with all of the Bible : it is the interpretation placed upon the circumstances by men of their time.
If some feel that the Virgin Birth is something which requires reinterpretation in the light of contemporary knowledge and insight, then that is surely up to them. It certainly isn't an 'essential', in my view
--------------------
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Maybe if we took that approach, Mousethief, then we would all stop thinking and accept what we are told by the Church despite any progress or insight we might make. That way Christianity will be unchanging...and irrelevant.
No thanks
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I guess it's a matter of what has trumping power: our current prejudices and blindnesses, or the collected wisdom of the centuries. I go with the latter; you apparently favor the former. We'll have to agree to disagree, obviously.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
It's true Merseymike not because someone tells me it is so but because I feel the Incarnation as described (that is with the Virgin Birth and the Theotokos) deep deep down in the core of my being. I believe in a God who takes FLESH to save me ... not merely one who inspires me but one who reaches down with wounded hands and grabs me out of the shit I both create and find myself in. Ultimately it's a measure of his Infinite Love ... not an interesting debate here.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Maybe if we took that approach, Mousethief, then we would all stop thinking and accept what we are told by the Church despite any progress or insight we might make. That way Christianity will be unchanging...and irrelevant.
No thanks
1. Is it "progress" to throw away the beliefs of the centuries because we can't stomach them? This is obviously some new use of the word "progress" with which I was not previously familiar.
2. What "insight"? That virgins don't conceive? Joseph knew that, and was prepared to divorce her quietly.
2a. Just a little stuck-up, aren't we, assuming we are so much smarter and insightful than anybody could possibly have been 2000 years ago?
3. Is traditional Christianity irrelevant to you? I'm sorry to hear that. But know this: You don't speak for all, not even everybody here at SOF, let alone all of Christendom.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh, I almost forgot.
4. Are you saying that you are, in virtue of the position you take on this question, "thinking" whereas I am not? I think this is the sort of thing that rather belongs in Hell than here, but let me say this: I'll take you on in "thinking" any time, any place you like. You apparently have this idea that traditionalists are all a bunch of knuckle-walking idiots. This is insulting, vain, and ignorant.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
