From: aardvark@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Martin)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE: Virgin Birth
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:08:08 GMT

In <Sep.15.03.58.55.1992.25122@athos.rutgers.edu> our illustrious moderator
writes;

        Let's try this again. First, I am not arguing against the Virgin
        Birth. What I am saying is that orthodox Christology is not based
on
        it. Remember that the original question raised was whether the
Virgin
        Birth was essential, and the claim was made that if you deny the
        Virgin Birth you are denying Jesus' status as God. So what we're
        discussing here is not whether it's true, but whether it is
essential
        to a correct understanding of Christology.


I must disagree with much of the reasoning our illustrious moderator gave
here. On the contrary, not only is the Virgin Birth part of orthodox
Christology, it is a fundamental part.


#1 'Orthodox Christianity is not based upon it'

And just how are you defining 'orthodox' Christology? One of the single
most important declarations of 'orthodox Christology' comes from the
Council of Nicea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381). These
councils were called to refute the Arain Heresy that denied the divinity of
Jesus. In it we find;

        .... I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God,
        eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, Light from Light,
true God
        from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.
Through
        Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came
down
        from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the
       ***Virgin*** Mary, and became man.

This Creed was put together to define the very essence of our understanding
of who Jesus was. Since this creed forms the basic statement of faith for
Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants, I think if we had a show of hands
you'd see yourself out voted! I know of no serious patristic writing that
ever seriously even entertained the possibility of a non-Virgin Birth. By
denying the Virgin Birth, one is attacking those principles laid down in
the early centuries which are part of the very foundation that forms the
basis of 'orthodox Christology'.


Later on you say...

        This implies strongly that you are thinking of the Incarnation in
an Arian
        or Docetic fashion: i.e. that Jesus is effectively a half-breed, a
cross
        between man and god. This is not orthodox theology.

Well, no, the later is not orthodox theology, but your premises are at
fault. Or are you claiming the members of the Councils that promoted the
Creed were all Arians! :-) Somehow I do not think so!


#2 Scriptural Testimony to the Virgin Birth

We also, of course, have Scripture testifying to the account. Inerrancy
aside for the moment, denying the validity of a truth in Scripture is a
dicey proposition for most 'orthodox' Christians.

Those who wish to deny the legitimacy of the Virgin Birth on the basis of
that it is the only attested to in Luke and Matthew, must be reminded that
there are lots of places in Scripture where something is mentioned only
once or twice but are taken at face value. The Ten Commandments appear
twice in the OT and they would certainly be considered 'orthodox'.

Those that wish to deny the Virgin Birth citing the disparity of the
accounts of the genealogy must be reminded that under Jewish law the child
is part of the father's family and would naturally trace his ancestry
through the patriarchal family. An adopted child would have lost all
'rights' to his biological family group. For Matthew to demonstrate Jesus
as Messiah, Matthew must 'prove' to his Hebrew audience that Jesus is the
Son of David, hence in keeping with Jewish Law and tradition he traces
Jesus' genealogy through Joseph. Luke, on the other hand, being Greek and
having elaborated upon Jesus' origins, is more interested in demonstrating
the biological descent through Mary. Additionally, Church tradition holds
that Luke met Mary. It is quite conceivable (although admittedly
unprovable) that Luke got her side of the story then.

The lack of Mark mentioning it has little bearing on the subject. Mark was
interested in one thing alone, preaching the good news. We see an entirely
different emphasis in his Gospel. We see the opening verse in Mark: "The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ..." Mark does not directly attempt
to portray Jesus as Messiah, but rather in relating the events and
preaching of Jesus (the Gospel) lets his audience to make their own
conclusions about the signs and wonders that occurred.

In deny the Virgin Birth, one is implicitly denying the authenticity of the
events of the NT. In doing so, one attacks a fundamental pillar of
Christology. 'Orthodox Christology' demands a high level of fidelity to the
events in the NT. Depart from the authenticity of those events at your own
peril!


#3 Why the Virgin Birth must have occurred.

Let's look at the implications for the converse of the Virgin Birth and see
what it implies.

If the Jesus' birth were not through a virgin, then it must, perforce, mean
that intercourse occurred. Mary was only betrothed to Joseph at the time,
so any intercourse would have been sinful, be it with Joseph or any other
man. The act of conception would have been inherently sinful. God and 'sin'
are incompatible. Hence the conception of Jesus, who is divine, and sin are
incompatible. Thus we are stuck with a contradictor, either we deny Jesus'
divinity (Arianism) or we must reject a non-Virgin Birth. I'll choose the
later.


#4 Some unorthodox theology here

        In orthodox theology, Jesus' body and soul -- which is what
ultimately
        result from the conception -- are completely human.

Yipes! Souls produced from the act of human intercourse! I though only God
could make a human soul. Several heresies against 'orthodox soulology'.
However, it is not directly related to the discussion of the Virgin Birth,
so, I'll leave this one for later. The real whopper is what follows,


        The difficulty with the idea of God creating half of Jesus genetic
        material is that it partially breaks his biological continuity with
        the rest of the race. I don't absolutely reject the idea that God
        might have created human genes out of nowhere that didn't come from
        any actual human. But it raises troubling issues in bioethics. Do
we
        consider artificially created genetic material, that didn't
actually
        come from a human being, human? Maybe. 


Then what was Adam? Adam, perforce of being the first man, could not have
had any 'originally human' genetic material. If we take creatinism
literally for the moment, Adam was created from clay, not much human
genetic material there. If we prefer evolution, Adam descended from apes.
And while I know of a lot of humans that might qualify as apes, I do not
know any apes that qualify as humans! :-) In either case, was Adam any less
than human? I doubt it. No matter what Adam's non-human origins, he
certainly was fully human and had a fully human soul. Neither of which came
from his 'parents'.

But let's not stop there, we also have the first woman to speculate about.
Since Eve was created from the flesh of Adam, do we view her as less than a
woman? After all, her basic genetic material was male and therefore had
only XY chromosomes floating around. Where did God get the other X
chromosome? I dare say that if He can create a universe, He can most
certainly come up with an extra X chromosome! :-)

For that matter, all genetic material is basically composed of atoms. These
atoms do not have anything special about them than any other atoms. These
atoms form compounds, such as hydrochloric acid (HCL). Now HCL is used by
animals in the digestive process. I doubt one could distinguish an HCL
molecule from a human gut vs one from interstellar space. The difference is
not substance, but form. Our substance is of this world, but our humanity
comes from having a God given soul. That, and that alone is the criteria
for a human being.

The origin of one's genetic material and composition is of little
importance in determining one's humanity. Or would you argue that since the
genetically handicapped have a less than perfect set of genetic material
that their humanity is less than yours? Somehow I do not think you mean to
imply that either! :-)


# Conclusion

Granted, God did not 'have' to do it this way. Certainly from a purely
human and philosophical viewpoint, God has an infinite number of
possibilities. But we are faced with innumerable questions when we engage
in such speculation. Why did Jesus have to come when He did? Why were the
Jews the chosen people? He could have chosen the Philistines, or the
Greeks. Why a cross? Why do ostriches exist? There are a great many things,
at least to our mere mortal minds, that God could have done differently,
but He did what He did the way He did for His reasons. But that is part of
the mystery of creation and Divine Will and we will not know the why in
this life. Idle speculation on such matters is of little interest to me.

No, God chose the method He did for His own good reasons. The Virgin Birth
was a sign to us and, given the circumstances at hand at the time, 'had' to
occur. In denying the Virgin Birth, one is denying Scripture, the great
Councils that laid down our theology of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God.
I would hardly define that as any basis for an orthodox Christian theology!
:-)



Mike Martin
aardvark@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov

[Certainly I don't disagree that the Virgin Birth appears in the
creeds.  If you want to define essential by citing them as
authoritative, there isn't a lot I have to say.  Similarly, if you
want to say that denying anything in the Bible is denying something
that's essential there's not a lot I can say either.  My reading of
what most people mean when they say that the Virgin Birth is essential
is that other things of importance somehow depend upon it.  Normally
when people try to identify essentials, they're thinking of some
fairly small list, that includes things like us being in need of
redemption and Christ dying for us.  I think the Virgin Birth doesn't
belong on such a list.  I'm not interested in going beyond that.

--clh]