From: rcheek@access.digex.com (Richard Cheek)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Preaching to the Moderns
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:07:31 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

In article <Dec.11.02.15.22.1992.13736@athos.rutgers.edu> mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:
>In a previous article, mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) says:
>
>"As to why NOT to believe it -- let me offer my own perspective, as this
>is a point in the Creed at which I "cross my fingers."  I simply don't
>see any POINT to it
>"I have, like any "modern" approaching this question, a problem of where
>the Y chromosome comes from (and if Jesus doesn't have one, his humanity
>-- or at least his *male* humanity :-) -- is questionable). 

God spoke and the Universe came into being... and you have a problem
with a little Y chromosome?

 I do not
>dispute that God *could* create an on-the-spot sperm to impregnate Mary
>-- but again I don't see any POINT to it. 

Can it be that He might have a POINT to it even if you don't see it?
Maybe He was fullfilling prophesy; maybe He was bringing the Son He 
would miss from His presence and into the world warranted something
special in His opinion. The POINT isn't that He could or could not,
the point is why does everything God does have to make sense to 20th
century Westerners? Some of us seem to insist on observing the infinite
wonders of the universe and counting ourselves the rulers of a mere nutshell.

 I do not reject or abjure the
>traditional doctrine: but aside from its evident importance to tradition,
>I just don't see any function for this odd belief.  (And does anyone NOT
>think it odd?)"

I don't consider it odd because throughout the Bible God does miraculous
things in order to silence stiff hearted people so that they may "hear
the angels sing", so to speak. Isaiah 48:3-7 speaks of this sort of thing
if you prefer to see scripture, if not, whats the purpose to the questions?
>
>Although I believe that Christianity is rational, I do not think that
>we can put it into some rationalistic box.  I agree that the Virgin
>Birth belief is somewhat "odd", but I think this oddity is a function
>of the "odd" nature of the Incarnation.  Because even if we believed that
>Jesus was just "another" human being (the product of Joseph's sperm
>fertilizing Mary's egg), then we have another type of oddity when we
>consider the incarnation.  For now, the man Jesus becomes "possessed"
>by God at some point in time.  And I find this to be an equally, if not
>more, "odd" belief.  
>
Jesus was not "posessed" by God, He was God. This isn't "odd", merely unique
and the greatest blessing He has given us.

>Personally, I do not think the sperm was created ex nihilo.  I think
>the person was created as such.  This, of course, may concern some about
>the humanity of Jesus, but what is it really to be a human?  It is
>clear that throughout the Gospels, Jesus was most human.  More so
>than many humans I know!  ;)

Jesus was human in that He endured the same emotions, hurt, deprivation,
and other difficulties that the rest of humanity has endured and He was
still, in spite of it all Godly, because He still had His Devine Will.
Not that this was some kind of object that forced Him to be Holy, no,
but His character and His Will to be Holy were such that He had no more
interest or capacity of personality to do evil than some might have in
passing up a million dollar lottery winning or some easy sex. He hated sin
and kept it far from Himself in the same way we all can.

>I see it as a continuation of a long history of creation.  I believe
>that there were certain "discontinuties" that God involved Himself
>intimately with (the creation of Creation, the creation of Life, and
>the creation of Humanity).  From this framework, I see Jesus as a 
>"New Creation", what Paul calls "the second Adam".  In short,
>we "adopted" Him into humanity, but then rejected Him.  And through
>our rejection, He has adopted us into His life.  And He will not
>reject us.
>
An interesting thought, but Jesus was as human as you or I, and we should
bear in mind the wonderful thing He did at such a tremendous price. I suspect
we are going to have the opportunity to show our love for Him in the same
way in the near future.

>Michael   


Merry Christmas!

Richard

[While I find the term "possessed" odd in this context, note that mls
said that the "man Jesus" was possessed by God.  This seems to be
talking about the relationship between God and man in Christ.  As far
as I can tell, both you and mls believe that Christ was both God and
man.  Your statement that Jesus is simply identical to God is in its
own way as dangerous as the statement you're objecting to.  But I do
believe that you both intend to be following orthodox Christology.  So
I'd like to caution against getting into an unnecessary fight.  --clh]