|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: 27% - the Virgin Birth
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Goodness! Does this subject raise some venom! I have to agree with hatless and Glenn, even if it makes me an adoptionist. But I really don't agree with the prevailing need to see all scripture as history in order to believe in it's eternal significance. In the Judeo-Christian heritage, we believe in a God who intervenes in history, through His trusted servants, but the gospels don't tell a straight tale.
Religious truth speaks through the language of story and symbol. True faith doesn't give certitudes, but pulls us forward into mystery. The mystery of how God came and dwelt among us and atoned for or sins can't be understood let alone described by the human mind. It is ludicrous to say that the VB is either biological history of a falsehood. To rely on literal interpretations of this and many other things in the gospel is to entirely miss their point, which is to guide us from our self-centred atachment to the world of the senses and achieve liberation as sons of God.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I'm simply not prpared to accept anything just BECAUSE it is the view of the Church or has been believed for a long time. Thats why reason is an integral part of the way I look at things, and if there are things I find totally unreasonable, which the Church has traditionally taught, then, yes, I do trust that more.
Thats what I mean about continuing to think rather than just accept.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Merseymike
Yes, I understand that very well ... a response to Mousethief's posts. Do you have any comment to make on my own post? I do hope it won't be the relativist one of "if that works for you."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pcd:
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.?
You would at the very least select what to write down - it being impossible to state everything that might be relevant. Have you ever read
Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne? The novel is (among many other things) a sort of extended joke on the idea of writing a complete biography of anyone - as well as being (I think) inspired by the Confessions of Augustine, who realised the impossibility of giving a full account of his own life and the workings of God on it.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I do understand that, Gregory : and perhaps for you, thats enough for you to say - I will submit that which I believe behind that which the Church teaches because of the superior position of the Church and Holy Tradition.
I think I would find that very hard to do, which may be why I wouldn't find myself able to embrace Orthodoxy.
On the substantive issue, though, you are arguing with the wrong person : I don't have any problem with the Virgin Birth, nor most doctrine which refers specifically to Jesus
I felt, though, that you were sayi8ng that belief in the VB was an essential : its that I find a bit questionable, given that so many people do not believe in it without it affecting their faith. It may affect their doctrinal position, but that isn't everything!
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Merseymike
quote:
I do understand that, Gregory : and perhaps for you, thats enough for you to say - I will submit that which I believe behind that which the Church teaches because of the superior position of the Church and Holy Tradition.
But that's not what I said. I chose my words very carefully.
To repeat ...
quote:
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.
Note that ... NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE TELLS ME
In the spin off thread "Why do we believe ANYTHING" I have stated that there are some things that make me a dissenter ... BUT that I don't put myself above the Church as only-member-and-only-Pope. That doesn't mean that I simply obliterate my conscience and submit. As the Great Leader says ... there is a "third way."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Is God capable of 'achieving' the incarnation without a virgin birth?
Well, I would consider him a rather small God if he weren't.
And if I said that such a thing was not possible, because my feeble human mind cannot comprehend how it could be achieved then I would think myself arrogant indeed.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
The history of the church's dealings with the revelations of scientific revelation is a sorry one indeed.
In every case wehere there has been a conflict betwteen faith and tradition, the church has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the light off truth.
No doubt those who opposed Gallileo said too that they felt 'deeply in the heart' that it was a terracentric universe.
Thankfully for the church, that particular 'verity' had not been incorporated into a creed, so could eventually jetisoned.
Alas, the virgin conception seems to have been set on stone because a pre-scientifc church acccepted it and put it in its creeds.
Feelings and faith are one thing that can indeed lead us seriously astray. Our propensity (as a species) for blind faith has probably been the cause of more interpersonal conflict than anything else.
Feelings are not infallible and neither are Popes or the church.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear mrgrumble_au
No ... and neither is reason and evidence isn't always what it seems either ... so where does that leave us?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrgrumble_au
Shipmate
# 3611
|
Posted
It leaves us on an insignificant planet somewhere in the Milky Way.
And with an unlikely doctrine for which there is no evidence.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
What is your evidence that this planet is insignificant? Unexceptional, yes ... but not insignificant. Copernicus was describing geography not value.
--------------------
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
Interestingly you seem to be seeking to keep the terracenetric model alive by swapping 'geoography' for 'significance'.
Isn't it the truth that the bible is actually silent on that subject and scientifically we have no evidence to judge it with either?
Unless by 'significance' you mean to us rather than to God.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No I mean that God created the earth (ny natural processes of course) and said that it was GOOD. He created life here (by natural processes of course) because he had humans in mind ... sentient creatures made in his image and likeness. That's why the planet is significant but not exceptional. Eventually I fully anticipate that we will find other unexceptional but significant planets where this has happened in other equally valuable but different ways.
--------------------
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
Thanks, Chesterbelloc, for your attempt to show that the incarnation necessitates the virgin birth. I do not follow your argument however. Let me take the crux of what you said in two stages. You say that:
quote:
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.
So you seem to be saying that it is incorrect to see the incarnation as something being added to fertilised human egg no matter at what stage this addition occurred because for some reason this would not constitute incarnation as properly understood. You don't say why, except that, earlier you imply that it would be an adoptionist view which seems to mean something like an independent human cell would have been chosen to become divine which is not an orthodox view.
You then contrast it with the correct view which is that the incarnation is:
quote:
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.
So you appear to be saying that we don't know exactly what happened but it can't have been a normal human conception. But this just presupposes that an alternative account of the incarnation is logically possible and coherent. Rather than stating it you presuppose it. You fail to address the question of how a virginal conception actually plays a necessary role in the incarnation. You say it is a mystery.
But surely the thing you object to and describe as problematic namely that of the 'add-on to an existing viable person' is an inevitable consequence of biology and physicality rather than of conception. Jesus's physicality presumably began with a single cell with the full necessary complement of chromosomes, cytoplasm, cell membrane and other biochemical components. As such it would have been a potentially viable human being just like any human fetilised egg would be. Why does that not count as an 'add-on to an existing viable person'? Why would it have prevented the incarnation if God had chosen to bring this cell into being by human conception rather than some other means?
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
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
Might it be that in the recent times theologians such as Gore and Temple and Ramsey and Macquarrie and Williams have also got it right in defending the Virgin Birth?
As to the estimable John Macquarrie, Cosmo, I have had a look at his book Christology Revisited (SCM 1998) and he defends the doctrine as a theological affirmation that Jesus’s origin is a unique an peculiar act of God, but he refuses to discuss the biology of it and in so doing leaves it entirely obscure whether or not he regards the virginal conception as historically true. If he does think it was he does not say so.
To claim that there was an historical virginal conception is a biological claim. As a result if Macquarrie thinks (which I doubt) that it can be affirmed as historically true without any reference to biology whatsoever, then he is wrong.
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
Will you please describe to me biologically Glenn precisely what happened from the moment of Christ's death on the Cross to the point where St. Thomas touched his wounds upon his resurrection ... that is the physical changes his body went through during the period of his resurrection. To follow the same logic as the VB his resurrection cannot be believed until this description is complete.
Do I take it you believe in the resurrection of the body or not, (yes, we know it's not the resuscitation of a corpse, but there is a physical component)?
If yes, then your argument about the virgin birth falls. If no then at least you are being consistent and we can knock off another item from the creed.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
al
Apprentice
# 672
|
Posted
Why do we need to refer to the biology of the VB? It is just as biologically implausible as the resurrection,and the gospel writers knew that both don't happen in the normal run of things.I don't see what is gained by not accepting it as historical.I don't accept the point that it separates Christ from the messiness of human existence- after all even after conception He still had to be born,and that's not tidy!
Posts: 12 | From: Watling street | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Will you please describe to me biologically Glenn precisely what happened from the moment of Christ's death on the Cross to the point where St. Thomas touched his wounds upon his resurrection ... that is the physical changes his body went through during the period of his resurrection. To follow the same logic as the VB his resurrection cannot be believed until this description is complete.
I think that you mistake my intentions Fr G. I am not in this thread attempting to disprove the VB. I have asked if anyone can tell me why the incarnation necessitates the virgin birth and so far I have not had a reply which explains that (not one I can understand anyway). The VB may have happened even though we can't say why. If one wishes to believe in it despite not having any biological understanding of it then, just like the resurrection one needs to look at the evidence available and the arguments for it happening. These evidences and arguments are far stronger (textually, historically, and so on) in the case of the resurrection than for the VB.
--------------------
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
quote:
These evidences and arguments are far stronger (textually, historically, and so on) in the case of the resurrection than for the VB.
They are not. No one witnessed the resurrection, (the resurrection APPEARANCES are another matter). Because no one witnessed the resurrection itself it is not possible to say biologically what happened to Christ's body. This is no different empirically from the impossibility of saying biologically what happened in Mary's womb.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
(treads carefully into the arena)
From my understanding of the incarnation, the need for a virgin birth flows from prophecy (verse not to hand, sorry), and on a more practical front, a virgin birth allowed Jesus to be very man (his Adamic and Davidic credentials) yet very God, untainted by sin (which is part of our human heritage).
So in effect, what the Lord God did was facilitate a second Adam, again in the prophetic sense, but as a perfect sinless man.
</pop head back behind rock>
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
I have asked if anyone can tell me why the incarnation necessitates the virgin birth and so far I have not had a reply which explains that (not one I can understand anyway).
Offhand, I don't think the virgin birth was necessary per se. God could have gone about the incarnation in other ways; he just went the virgin birth route, probably because it made the whole "son of God" thing more clear and easier to communicate.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear JJR
A lot of people have said that here but what do you make of the arguments put forward in these over 200 posts here that include reasons for refuting that view?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Glenn
quote:
These evidences and arguments are far stronger (textually, historically, and so on) in the case of the resurrection than for the VB.
They are not. No one witnessed the resurrection, (the resurrection APPEARANCES are another matter). Because no one witnessed the resurrection itself it is not possible to say biologically what happened to Christ's body. This is no different empirically from the impossibility of saying biologically what happened in Mary's womb.
I am sorry Fr G. I seem to have misunderstood you. I was merely saying that if you wish to believe in the resurrection a far greater amount of evidence and argument is available to a person than is the case with the virgin birth. We have the reports of the resurrection appearances, we have the question of what could have happened that so transformed the disciples, and so on. These arguments and evidences are rather different in type and quality from those for the virgin birth.
It appears however that you were talking about the physicality of the resurrection of Jesus to which, of course, you are right there were no direct human witnesses. The evidence for the empty tomb is the closest we get in this case.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
This is precisely the point I was making Glenn. The physicality component of the resurrection equates to the physicality component of the virgin birth. Neither have witnesses, both involve the alleged active interface of God and the material realm, neither (so it is often claimed) is necessary for the incarnation / resurrection to apply. In the case of the resurrection we are reduced to appearances and effects which could have an autosuggestive hallucinatory explanation and an empty tomb which can also have other explanations.
s
So, I defend the resurrection of the BODY in a very semitic manner against docetism and the virgin birth (physicality) account of the Incarnation adainst adoptionist models that would deny anteriority of the Word and the Spirit to the conception.
The key issue it seems to me on both fronts is the character of God's activity in the material realm. In an Orthodox understanding this is synergistic and balanced. Mary's "yes" is just as important as God's personal engagement and vice versa. In some traditions (let the reader understand) Mary's yes is incidental and God's action exterior. In our tradition Mary's "yes" is fundamental and God's action "interior."
--------------------
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
And thank you, Glenn, for responding to my post so fully. I'm just off to catch a train in a mo., so this will have to be a quickie response for the moment (just didn't want you thinking I was ignoring your interesting post!). I also think that some of some of Fr Gregory's posts between your and this one cast some light on my position, but let me just say this.
The problem with a normal human conception for the Son, as I see it is that, if there are two human gametes, Mary's and Joseph's, then there is nothing lacking from story to bring into being a person, but that person would be entirely human. Now, if God chose to make such an entity His Son at any stage whatsoever , this would either be by adopting them as such and adding special "stuff" of His own (which I rerject as adoptionism). The only alternative left, it seems is that God somehow converted sucha pre-existent being into His Son "proper", but in this case it would be the obliteration of the existing entity as such, not really its transformation into God at all. The Son did pre-exist His incarnation, and so no other entity could have been converted into the Son without it's utter destruction. It would just make no sense. This is why I say that however it happened, it must have been uniquely Mary's and the Holy Spirit's child, because anyone else's "oar in" (as it were) would either have been a direct obstacle to the child's being God "proper", or an utterly superfluous and removed extra.
Sorry for the haste - will clear up any more confusion I have undoubtedly caused later>
CB
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
What is the matter with you guys? Do'nt you believe in miracles? The Bible is full of God's miracles from Genesis,where it shows that God created the world from nothing,to Revelation.
If you wo'nt believe in the Virgin birth, the resurection and the other things that the Bible
teaches you may as well close the book altogether.
No one can explain miracles they are the work of God not the reasoning of our tiny minds.
If we could uderstand everything there would be no place for faith at all
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
We are back to 'all or nothing' again - that just isn't what I , and many others here, believe, barrea.
I am quite sure that the world did not begin as described in Genesis, and will not end as described in Revelation...
--------------------
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
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
I repeat what I said earlier, the crucial word is 'possibility'.
With all the miracles and unknown events in the Bible all you have to admit is the possibility that they are 'as published'.
That is the crucial point.
It's saying 'my mind is not clever enough to understand it.'
People who say it definitely happened (or didn't) like that are on the wrong track.
To say I think it happened like this but I may be wrong is a mind open to instruction from God, a closed mind is not.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear JJR
A lot of people have said that here but what do you make of the arguments put forward in these over 200 posts here that include reasons for refuting that view?
I think Chesterbelloc said it best:
quote:
The problem with a normal human conception for the Son, as I see it is that, if there are two human gametes, Mary's and Joseph's, then there is nothing lacking from story to bring into being a person, but that person would be entirely human. Now, if God chose to make such an entity His Son at any stage whatsoever , this would either be by adopting them as such and adding special "stuff" of His own (which I reject as adoptionism). . . .
What I am saying was that God could have adopted a human as the Son of God in the way that Chesterbelloc described, but opted for the virgin birth instead.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear JJR
If God had "adopted" Jesus then Jesus would not have been (literally) Emmanuel. He would have been another saint and/or prophet ... albeit top rank.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
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.
Uh, right. I feel the incarnation deep in the core of my being, but not the virgin birth.
Don't think we'll get very far on the basis of what we feel, no matter how deep those feelings.
quote:
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.
I too believe in this, and believe in it just fine without believing in the virgin birth.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
As you rightly say Ruth ... we won't get very far with feelings. My aim was PARTLY tangential really ... all those folks who think I'm Borg just because I'm Orthodox. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
Let's face it.
It's a stalemate.
An impasse.
A dead parrot in fact.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Not at all mrgrumble_au ... don't give up so easily. This doctrine has a long and venerable history of disputation. As far as I am concerned I'll just carry on believing it ... as I always have. [That will be 7 impossible things before breakfast please, (until cloning that is ... darn, Jesus would have to be a girlie).] ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
And there was I taking you for a lumberjack.
Posts: 139 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Why is a literal resurrection ie in a physical sense any more important than a literal virginal conception? Even the most hard nosed atheist would admit that something happened to Paul on the road to Damascas. Even if they concluded that he was a deranged crackpot, the total transformation of his life is evidence of something. The same goes for the disciples. That Jesus presence was still available to them after His death on the cross, is an uncontestable piece of history.
Paul's description of the resurrection in 1Cor 15.3-8 is the only canonical reference to His appearence to James, His brother, though this is expanded into Jesus serveing the bread and wine to James in the apocryphal gospel of the Hebrews. But Paul, whose experiences of the Risen Christ were undoubtedly mystical, mentions all the apearences in one breath. So we can't be sure that all the resurrection appearences weren't mystical. It is inconsistent in John, in the same chapter where Jesus says," Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." (20.17), but says"Put your finger here. Reach out your hand and put it into my side."(20.28)
Either He was physical or not. Either He could be touched or not. For these reasons I tend to go for a mystical resurrection in which Jesus assured His followers that He was still with them. Nothing else can account for the miracle of Pentecost.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Thanks, Chesterbelloc, for your reply. I will study it carefully. No time for a response tonight, alas.
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrgrumble_au:
The history of the church's dealings with the revelations of scientific revelation is a sorry one indeed.
[TANGENT]A pity that we seem to have deleted my thread on Galileo and the science-christianity conflict myth.[/TANGENT]
Anyway, back to the point (sort of). I've just lost who was making a comment regarding the Gospels and mythology with a link to the Christian think-tank site. I have already said here that I consider the Gospels to be different from modern historical or biographical works - that doesn't mean that I'm saying they're mythological.
As an example, the Gospels are biographical in terms of ancient understanding of biography but not a modern understanding. We tend to think of biographies as describing the important events in someones life that explains why they became the famous person they were or are - as such they tend to focus on events in formative years (which is how you can get biographies of people who are barely more than children themselves). In the ancient near east and Mediterranean world biographies were far more likely to emphasise the events that made someone famous, to describe the man through his actions as an adult - thus a biography of a Roman general could quite reasonably consist of an account of his actions in a single battle (and I'm sure such a biography does exist, I just don't have a reference to hand).
Thus biographies known to the Evangelists wouldn't have contained many details of childhood, nor be particularly concerned for historical accuracy so long as the narrative showed the character of the man.
Alan
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
quote:
So we can't be sure that all the resurrection appearences weren't mystical. It is inconsistent in John, in the same chapter where Jesus says," Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father." (20.17), but says"Put your finger here. Reach out your hand and put it into my side."(20.28)
These truths are complimentary not alternative. That's why they are BOTH in there, side by side, sitting quite happily. Why? ...
Mary is disposed to approach Christ through his humanity ... "Rabboni!" The response: "Don't hold on to me ..." Context: Ascension. Meaning: I am our Lord and God, not just your friend.
Thomas is disposed to approach Christ through his divinity and yet doubts for is this really the same MAN? The response: "Touch (the wounds)...." Context: against docetism Meaning: I the Risen Lord am still the Crucified Man.
In other words both Mary and Thomas approach Christ from different sides. Christ's response is particular to each. BOTH end up with the same confession ... true God and true Man. It is this synthesis which later emerges at Chalcedon.
At no point does the material / human/ vulnerable component get subsumed into the mystical / divine / spiritual component (or, of courtse, vice versa).
The same harmonious tension is maintained in the divine / human sides of the Incarnation / conception.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Anyway, back to the point (sort of)...We tend to think of biographies as describing the important events in someones life that explains why they became the famous person they were or are - as such they tend to focus on events in formative years (which is how you can get biographies of people who are barely more than children themselves). In the ancient near east and Mediterranean world biographies were far more likely to emphasise the events that made someone famous, to describe the man through his actions as an adult - thus a biography of a Roman general could quite reasonably consist of an account of his actions in a single battle (and I'm sure such a biography does exist, I just don't have a reference to hand).
Thus biographies known to the Evangelists wouldn't have contained many details of childhood, nor be particularly concerned for historical accuracy so long as the narrative showed the character of the man.
Alan
That's good, Alan, but there's a bit of detail missing, I think. The reason that childhood details/events were usually omitted in ancient biopgraphy (bios) is that ancients did not view character as something that was developed; rather, the character of a person was progressively revealed throughout their life.
This is the main difference between an ancient biography and a modern one. A modern biography will usually attempt to show causality (ie. attempt to explain why the person was like they were), whereas an ancient one will simply attempt to show the character of the person being written about. None of this means that ancient biographers routinely (or as a matter of practice) made things up to put into the mouths of their subjects. The idea that they did, in fact, do this is being rapidly overturned as baseless.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
(This posting is another one about whether it can be shown that the orthodox view of the incarnation necessitates the virginal conception.) It looks long but is full of repetition for the sake of clarity. It should be possible to get the gist.
Dear Chesterbelloc,
Thank you for your restatement of your argument for the incompatibility of a non-virginal conception with an orthodox understanding of the incarnation. On inspection I find it to be incomplete – it still begs the question, (i.e. it still assumes the very fact that is in question.) It is also unclear to me how a virginal conception would escape the charge of adoptionism either.
Your argument quoted
To first quote your argument with some added numbering:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
(1) The problem with a normal human conception for the Son, as I see it is that, if there are two human gametes, Mary's and Joseph's, then there is nothing lacking from story to bring into being a person, but that person would be entirely human.
(2) Now, if God chose to make such an entity His Son at any stage whatsoever , this would either be by
(2a) adopting them as such and adding special "stuff" of His own (which I reject as adoptionism).
(2b) The only alternative left, it seems is that God somehow converted such a pre-existent being into His Son "proper", but in this case it would be the obliteration of the existing entity as such, not really its transformation into God at all. The Son did pre-exist His incarnation, and so no other entity could have been converted into the Son without it's utter destruction. It would just make no sense.
(3) This is why I say that however it happened, it must have been uniquely Mary's and the Holy Spirit's child, because anyone else's "oar in" (as it were) would either have been a direct obstacle to the child's being God "proper", or an utterly superfluous and removed extra.
Your argument against a non-virginal conception ((1) and 2(a)) with implied detail spelled out
Your argument, written in haste as you say, leaves various steps and assumptions unspoken. I have therefore tried to reconstruct a more complete version of it. Please let me know where I have gone wrong. I give it below and then explain why it is still incomplete. I leave out 2(b) as a dead end option as you say.
(a) A non virginal conception took place when Mary’s egg and Josephs sperm fused and a cell was produced that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Therefore:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
Therefore:
(d) that cell was a person
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(f) in order to do this he must adopt it and add special stuff to it since it is as yet only human;
And
(g) no matter at what stage God chooses to do (e) it will be necessary for him to do (f);
However:
(h) the process (f) is a version of adoptionism;
(i) adoptionism is incompatible with an orthodox view of the incarnation;
Therefore:
(j) The incarnation cannot have involved a non-virginal conception.
Therefore;
(k) The incarnation must have involved a virginal conception.
Problems with the conclusion
The first problem we face is that the conclusion
(k) The incarnation must have involved a virginal conception
simply assumes that a non-virginal conception avoids adoptionism. It does not say why.
In your own argument para (3) you say that “, it must have been uniquely Mary's and the Holy Spirit's child, because anyone else's "oar in" (as it were) would … have been a direct obstacle to the child's being God "proper",” but your argument actually makes no use of that ‘oar’ at all. You ignore the fact what makes the use of a cell by God adoptionism is, in your argument, NOT its origin but its composition its ability to give rise to a person. As a result your argument works just as well against a non-virginal conception, thus:
Chesterbelloc’s argument used against a virginal conception
(av) A virginal conception took place by the unique action of the Holy Spirit on/with Mary to produce a cell that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Then:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
Therefore:
(d) that cell was a person
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(f) in order to do this he must adopt it and add special stuff to it since it is as yet only human;
And
(g) no matter at what stage God chooses to do (e) it will be necessary for him to do (f);
However:
(h) the process (f) is a version of adoptionism;
(i) adoptionism is incompatible with an orthodox view of the incarnation;
Therefore:
(jv) The incarnation cannot have involved a virginal conception.
How can the argument be saved?
I anticipate that you might say that the argument can be saved by amending (d) and go like this:
(av) A virginal conception took place by the unique action of the Holy Spirit on/with Mary to produce a cell that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Then:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
And:
(dv) that person was Jesus;
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(fv) in order to do this he need not adopt it since it is his Son;
Therefore:
(jv2) The incarnation involved a virginal conception.
(m) A non-virginal conception would not have resulted in a cell that was Jesus;
Therefore:
(n) A non-virginal conception is by the original argument incompatible with the incarnation.
Faults in the revised ‘saved’ argument
But the problem with the revised argument is that
(dv) that person was Jesus;
and
(m) A non-virginal conception would not have resulted in a cell that was Jesus;
are both just assumed and no arguments are given for either of them. The argument thus still begs the question and gives no grounds whatsoever to reject as impossible the following:
(a) A non virginal conception took place when Mary’s egg and Josephs sperm fused and a cell was produced that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
Then:
(b) a cell then existed in Mary’s womb (or fallopian tube) that had all the necessary components to become a human being;
(c) a cell that has all the necessary components to become a human being [and is in the womb] is a person;
And:
(dnv) that person was, by the action of God, Jesus;
(e) God chose this cell to be the incarnation of the Son;
But
(fnv) in order to do this he need not adopt it since it is his Son;
Therefore:
(jnv) The incarnation involved a non-virginal conception.
Summary
Your argument using adoptionism does not depend for its force on the origin of the cell which began Jesus’s physical incarnation. It depends on the composition of the cell. As such it cannot rule out the fact that God may have produced that cell by the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm.
Further problems
The argument (may, if I have understood you correctly) also rely on a highly debatable view of what constitutes a person.
Perhaps you could suggest where my attempted reconstructions of your argument go astray and could be improved. I hope I amended things properly as I copied and pasted!
Best wishes,
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
in order to do this he must adopt it and add special stuff to it since it is as yet only human
Is this perhaps the nub of the matter ?
The importance of the idea of the virgin birth is that it is tied up with our understanding of Jesus being "fully human and fully divine". That seems to me to be what the pro-virgin-birthers are defending. (no abbreviation - I'm afraid VB will always be visual basic to me).
If you believe that divinity is a matter of "special stuff", then the only logical options are that it was there from the beginning or was added later.
Father Gregory seems to think that "added later" is not tenable, but to those of us with less theological education it's not totally clear why "adoptionism" is bad.
The argument for a spontaneously-created sperm cell joining a natural egg cell (as against other ways in which special stuff could be present at conception) seems so far beyond anything that we could possibly know that I'm reluctant to go there.
What if it's not a case of "special stuff" at all ? What if that's too crude and materialistic a concept of what divinity is ?
What alternatives are there ?
One which comes to mind ((caution: wild speculation alert)) is the possibility of "perfect DNA". What if there were some possible combination of the genes of Mary and a biological father that was not only free from the more obvious impairments that human beings suffer (defective vision, skin problems) but free from every possible blemish, every malign tendency ?
But even that's not good enough, is it ? Is that a reason to worship the baby ? No it's not.
Sorry for ill-thought-out ramblings. I'll stop here at the point of tentative disbelief in "special stuff" and the thought that divinity is some sort of emergent phenomenon beyond humanity.
Only the God who is love itself is worthy to be worshipped. The spark of the divine can only be seen in creatures that are developed enough to demonstrate some sign of love. I find myself unable to worship the divine foetus.
Some years Christmas is really difficult...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I am confused. What is unreasonable or irrational about the Virgin conception of Christ that doesn't apply just as much to any other NT miracle?
Thanks,
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
Dear Russ
I'll leave Chesterbelloc to respond to Glenn's post. Thanks for some very interesting questions.
May I pick up a few key points?
quote:
The importance of the idea of the virgin birth is that it is tied up with our understanding of Jesus being "fully human and fully divine".
That is most certainly correct but it begs the question as to what is meant by "divine."
Christian theology differentiates between "divine" as something ADOPTED by God but which is a CREATED "thing" and "divine" as an attribute, energy or ontological category ... having the ESSENCE of God ETERNALLY.
(There is of course the metaphorical or hyperbolic sense which is entirely earthbound ... "that was a "divine" chocolate pudding!" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) }
Examples ...
Divine - adopted ...
The evangelists embarked upon a divine mission.
The divinely appointed fathers met in Council.
By grace we are to partake of the divine nature.
Divine - essential / eternal
The divine nature and human natures form a hypostatic union in the oner Person of Christ.
The divine nature cannot be seen by anyone.
When Christian theology affirms the divinity of Christ it does NOT refer to the former created sense but the latter uncreated sense. This was, of course, the issue behind the conflict with Arianism but it is also typical of adoptionist christology.
Adoptionism has Jesus as an ENTIRELY AND EXCLUSIVELY human natured person with "divinity" either as some sort of created extra stuff added from conception onwards OR (more classically) with a temporary possession of and by the Holy Spirit effectively rendering Christ's identity as "the Word / Logos FROM ETERNITY made flesh" redundant.
Why is this important? Because in the adoptionist scheme of things the incarnation is reduced to prophetic inspiration (albeit to a higher degree). In fact by being so reduced it ceases to be the Incarnation. The flesh must be joined to the Godhead not just the Spirit. This is what the Virgin birth ensures. The nature of that union at conception and subsequently (the enhypostatic union according to Leontius of Byzantium) is manifested as a certain sharing of attributes from each nature but without an erosion of either. Beyond that the Church has not gone and any toying with meta-genetics is pure speculation.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory
You talk of the speculative nature of going beyond the metagenetics. I don't think that would mean much to a convention of lumberjacks. The theology you expound is at best hinted at in scripture. St Paul frequently uses the "Risen Christ" and the "Spirit" interchangeably. I am not a sola scriptura adherant, but it is a serious stretch of NT theology to arrive at your theology. A "lower" Christology may be heretical to the Orthodox, but can be supported by both scripture and ancient non canonical sources.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Paul
quote:
The theology you expound is at best hinted at in scripture.
Scripture is quite clear ... God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. This is all about what "in" means once God is accepted as the subject. Classic Christianity (for want of a better word) doesn't have a "high" christology ... it has a christology that does justice to God ACTING out salvation ... himself, personally, in the flesh. That's biblical.
Meta-genetics ... trying to work out how the Incarnation involved the manipulation of human genetics. That's speculation .. or rather the rationalism of trying to pin down a miracle so that it can subjected to human logic ... the evidence of someone putting a host under the microscope trying to find the Body of Christ. It's all the same. Fruitless. That's non-biblical supposedly in the service of the Bible.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Meta-genetics ... trying to work out how the Incarnation involved the manipulation of human genetics. That's speculation .. or rather the rationalism of trying to pin down a miracle so that it can subjected to human logic ... the evidence of someone putting a host under the microscope trying to find the Body of Christ. It's all the same. Fruitless. That's non-biblical supposedly in the service of the Bible.
"someone putting a host under the microscope trying to find the Body of Christ. " This at least rules out a literalistic understanding of transubstatiation so is hardly fruitless.
If I am told that Jesus did not have an earthly father and yet was fully human I am entitled surely to ask about his genetics. What can it mean to say that 'Jesus was fully human but without a biological father but I am not prepared to say anything about his genetics'? I imagine that the reply would be 'they were fully human' and if I then ask 'how can that be?' I will probably be told: 'God can do anything, so if it says that God did X or Y God did indeed do X or Y and so that's that, don't ask questions.'
It is the same with the Chalcedonian account of the incarnation. The council ruled out various other approaches to understanding the incarnation and produced a tantalisingly summarised account of the key points they saw as essential and did not bother to expound how the parts of the definition were logically consistent, they just implied that they were. Trying to give a fuller exposition of the incarnation and also of its relation to the virgin birth is not idle speculation, it is trying to assess whether the doctrine is logically contradictory, logically coherent or undecidable. What is wrong with that?
In any case, what makes you think that logic is merely human? Is mathematics merely human? Is science merely human? Done by humans yes but transcending their whims and wishes and not mere convention.
If I am convinced by the evidence and arguments for the conclusion that the Church is authoritative and to be trusted in its declaration that these doctrines are true then I may feel that I can assent to them in an intellectually responsible manner and test them no further. If, on the other hand, I am not convinced by those arguments (and I am not) I will naturally feel the need to examine those doctrines carefully (along with wider issues too) to see if I can assent to them in an intellectually responsible manner.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Glenn
You have to use the right tools for the job. No physicist can do without mathematics. No literary historian can do without textual analysis. No theologian can do without Tradition.
The action of God in the material realm is accessible but it cannot be circumscribed by an earthbound empiricism. You can ask away about genetics as much as you like but in the case of the Virgin Mary it will remain speculative. The veracity of the Virgin Birth is not established by scientific enquiry. Logical positivistssay that this is the only truth worthy of the name. I demur.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
