homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Science and Incarnation (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Science and Incarnation
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

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

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

Somebody said this? If so I missed it.

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

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Josephine
quote:
Luke says that Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.
Josephine, I thought that someone would make that point, but I don't think it lets Luke off the hook.

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

Josephine
quote:
Julius Africanus, a third century writer, investigated the difference in the genealogies, and learned from the relatives of Jesus who were still living at that time that Joseph was the child of a levirite marriage. Jesus therefore is descended from David both according to the flesh and according to the law.
Josephine, I'm somewhat confused because I don't see how Joseph being the child of a levirite marriage relates to the biological origins of Jesus.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
no prophet
quote:
If Jesus had biological DNA that could be shown to be Joseph's, would it actually matter? For it doesn't.
no prophet, I'm inclined to agree with you, but it does matter for those who see the virgin birth as necessitated by the doctrine of original sin. It also matters to those who are biblical inerrantists. Being neither a believer in original sin nor in biblical inerrancy, I'm agnostic on this one, believing God is capable of manufacturing a virgin birth but can't see why he should want or need to.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

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

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If they did, it would be Bulverism, wouldn't it? Or if not, it would be outside the scope of this thread, which is about the virgin birth, not the psychology of those who believe in it..

I will have to check on the bulverism, but if you check on my OP it was all about a psychological or similar understanding
quote:
Why is this?
Is it because it is harder to understand genetics, or easier to demonstrate them?
Or is it just that Jesus can be seen to be a special miracle case where conventional genetics do not apply?
Or is there some other reason why the science of genetics is not seen to be a problem for faith?



--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Josephine
quote:
Luke says that Jesus was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.
Josephine, I thought that someone would make that point, but I don't think it lets Luke off the hook.

Doesn't let him off the hook for what?

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

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

quote:
Josephine, I'm somewhat confused because I don't see how Joseph being the child of a levirite marriage relates to the biological origins of Jesus.
It doesn't. It relates to the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and why they differ. But I suppose that's a bit of a tangent.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Paul appears to put forward the belief that Jesus, "born of a woman", was a "descendant of David according to the flesh".

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

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

[tangent]
My potted version is that:

Mark portrays Jesus as the Son of God

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

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

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

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

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Gospel of Mark does not indicate a virgin birth. The Gospel of John does not indicate a virgin birth.
Paul does not indicate a virgin birth.
Peter does not indicate a virgin birth
The writer of Hebrews does not indicate a virgin birth.
James does not indicate a virgin birth.
Isaiah does not predict a virgin birth.
Only two gospels touch on it, Matthew and Luke.

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

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

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If they did, it would be Bulverism, wouldn't it? Or if not, it would be outside the scope of this thread, which is about the virgin birth, not the psychology of those who believe in it..

I will have to check on the bulverism, but if you check on my OP it was all about a psychological or similar understanding
quote:
Why is this?
Is it because it is harder to understand genetics, or easier to demonstrate them?
Or is it just that Jesus can be seen to be a special miracle case where conventional genetics do not apply?
Or is there some other reason why the science of genetics is not seen to be a problem for faith?


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

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think it is bulverism from my reading of the Wikipedia article on bulverism.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You mean "don't say anything because we could be proved wrong"?

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

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

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To return to the OP there are differences between the roles of creation and the virgin birth.

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

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

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

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely miracles allow for anything? If God can raise people from the dead then God can allow Jesus to inherit all His humanity from Mary and still be male. It seems like quite a small miracle in terms of God's portfolio.

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

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

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

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

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PaulTH
quote:
It seems that most Christians regard a literal interpretation of the virgin birth as more central to their Christian faith than a literal understanding that Jesus was of the House of David, and could claim, on those grounds , to be the Messiah of Israel.
A most interesting observation, PaulTH. Could it be that whereas for Jews the Messianic credentials of Jesus were critical, in the case of the gentiles the restoration of of the House of David was hardly a preoccupation? One suspects the requirement that Jesus' mother had to be a virgin was less a matter of Jewish theology that Greek philosophy.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely miracles allow for anything? If God can raise people from the dead then God can allow Jesus to inherit all His humanity from Mary and still be male. It seems like quite a small miracle in terms of God's portfolio.

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

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

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

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

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

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

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Has anyone anything to say about the psychology (or similar) of why so many people (not all of us, or even many on the ship) cannot accept evolution and require the creation to be a historically described event in conflict with science, whilst reproductive science causes no such problem with the virgin birth.

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

Let's break people into groups.

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

2. Accept evolution, accept virgin birth.

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

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

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

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How about "Accept Evolution, accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical while holding out the possibility that it could be literally true?"

Or the liberal Anglican answer [Razz]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
I also would think it is empty. I struggle to imagine the mindset that result in filling it.

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

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Rather, the point of the virgin birth is that Jesus is the Son of God. Sinlessness isn't the point.

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

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

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

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Practically all ways in which you could obtain sufficient genetic material from Jesus (and Mary, and Joseph, ...) - i.e., by finding some conserved parts of Jesus' (and Mary's, and Joseph's, ...) body - would already imply that the Church is wrong on the resurrection.

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

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What do you think the chances are of the church allowing someone to sequence the DNA from one of those relics ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...

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

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

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

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Growth of "tradition" after the fact is a problem that needs to be addressed. It can't be assumed that the "fullest account always wins" (i.e. Luke's lengthy gospel) and the shorter, older accounts (i.e. Mark's gospel) can be set aside for their "incompleteness".

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

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

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

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

To address some issues as you raise them:

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...

The Virgin Birth does not have anything to do with original sin. You're thinking of the Immaculate Conception, by which Mary was conceived without original sin.
I know you mean it sincerely, but I do know what the Immaculate Conception is...

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

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
According to Wikipedia, Christians make up only about 1-2% of the population of Japan (and even fewer are Muslim) but about 11% of Japanese don't think that humans developed from earlier species of animals. That suggests around 10 million or so in group 4 from Japan alone.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
According to Wikipedia, Christians make up only about 1-2% of the population of Japan (and even fewer are Muslim) but about 11% of Japanese don't think that humans developed from earlier species of animals. That suggests around 10 million or so in group 4 from Japan alone.
The population we were looking at is Christians.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
How about "Accept Evolution, accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical while holding out the possibility that it could be literally true?"

Or the liberal Anglican answer [Razz]

The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
I suppose none in the christian tradition... it would be completely nonsense. But maybe a creationist non-christian???
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
I suppose none in the christian tradition... it would be completely nonsense. But maybe a creationist non-christian???
Right, but a non-Christian presumably wouldn't accept the virgin birth at all? Do Muslims accept the virgin birth? I was tetrafurcating Christians.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I suspect that group 4 is not empty.

You know somebody in it? Any churches or denominations?
I suppose none in the christian tradition... it would be completely nonsense. But maybe a creationist non-christian???
Right, but a non-Christian presumably wouldn't accept the virgin birth at all? Do Muslims accept the virgin birth? I was tetrafurcating Christians.
Yes.

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

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thought I remembered that.

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

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was tetrafurcating Christians.

I hope you weren't tetrafurcating individual Christians.

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The thing that revolts me about the entire DNA line of inquiry is that it does violence to the entire point of the incarnation. We move from the Good News of emmanuel -- God is with us -- to some weird inter-species genetics -- God is a jackass. It truly vitiates the faith, to my way of thinking. As always, YMMV.

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

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).

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

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
through the Virgin Birth Christ was conceived without original sin...

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).

This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.
Or more to the point, the conception of Our Lord was an act by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can very much well use the normal means of human conception to accomplish his will. Or by that same token, the Holy Spirit can very well supernaturally intervene in the virginal conception of the Lord.

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

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).

This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.
No, it doesn´t. But still, people who think the virgin birth is a myth with some inspirational significance, while the conception of Jesus might have happened exactly like any other natural conception (trough sex between Mary and Joseph) fall into the category of people who don´t believe the virgin birth. Stating otherwise would only be dishonest.

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

Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025

 - Posted      Profile for gorpo   Email gorpo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
The whole "accept Virgin Birth as metaphorical" should be dropped. It is the same as not accepting it. There´s no difference between people of this group and people of the group 1 (reject virgin birth, accept evolution).

This is only true for a biblical literalist. Those who see the bible as a mixture of history, metaphor, allegory, myth and inspirational spiritual stories, might accept that things can be true in a non-literal way. The virgin birth doesn't have to be a piece of biological history in oder for it to have an eternal significance for the human race.
Or more to the point, the conception of Our Lord was an act by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can very much well use the normal means of human conception to accomplish his will. Or by that same token, the Holy Spirit can very well supernaturally intervene in the virginal conception of the Lord.

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

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

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

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

Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To answer Kwesi and Josephine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angus

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

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
There’s a reciprocity here that I find rather delightful – Jesus became a member of a human family by adoption; disciples of Christ become members of God’s spiritual family by adoption, too.

It should be obvious, but the link has never been made before in my little head, nor in anything I've read... maybe people just think it's obvious and doesn't need mentioning... nice though.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You're right Ricardus.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools