From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Virgin Birth
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:58:57 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

Comments on the moderators comments below, for posting.

[I've omitted the original article, which seems not to be relevant --clh]

I'm a little perplexed on your point below.  Some of this has to do
with me not clearing understanding which subject/topic/view you are 
referencing, when you make some of your comments.

|[It's not clear that the Virgin Birth is necessary to a correct
|understanding of the incarnation, which is what you seem to be

Here I'm not sure what you mean?  Are you referring to the Incarnation
of Jesus the Christ?  (Luke 2:10-11 - today is born to you a Savior,
HE IS Christ the Lord.)  Or are you referring to some general concept
of incarnation not specific to Jesus? ...

|implying.  Indeed the most obvious theological implication would be

Here I'm not sure of which view, to which you refer, yields itself to 
the Arian view - mine or another's view?

|Arianism, a Jesus who is half God and half man.  The orthodox view is
|that Jesus is fully human, but also the incarnation of God.  Having

Jesus was fully human and fully God would be more of the ortodox view, 
wouldn't it?  In Him all the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form, He
is the exact representation of God, The Word became flesh and dwelt
among us, ...  It isn't recorded that Jesus ceased being God - some
phrase it that His glory was vieled, but not diminished.

|Joseph as his father would be just fine from the theological point of

Here's where you really lost me.  The Scripture does not indicate
that Joseph was at all Jesus' earthly/human father - Joseph was the
earthly father figure, but Luke, I believe, tells us that Jesus was
'thought to be' the son of Joseph.  Could you explain what you mean by
'just fine' and state which theological point of view to which you refer?

|view.  Indeed it might be slightly better, since we would not have the
|obvious question of where the half of Jesus' genetic material came
|from that would normally come from the father.  This is not an

God made man - couldn't he create the 'genetic material' necessary to
impregnate Mary?

|argument against the Virgin Birth.  It could have been intended as a

Again this perplexes me, for it almost seems you say the opposite above. 

|way to mark the special nature of this birth, emphasizing that Jesus
|was born not because of the will of the flesh, but as part of God's

This was the purpose "Jesus was born ... God's plan."

|plan.  If understood in such a way, I have no problem with it.  But if
|you try to use it to derive a doctrine of the incarnation, you will
                ^^
Here the "it", to me, is ambigous - to what does it refer?

|almost certainly end in heresy.  --clh]

My previous reply to this was to point out that we are to be aware of
ANOTHER JESUS, another gospel, and another Spirit.  I'm not sure
if you agreed of disagreed.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |

[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.

Orthodox Christology says that Jesus is a complete human being who is
at the same time the incarnation of God.  While there are two models
of how this happened, the one most common in the West says that the
Logos took to himself a human being, uniting divine and human in a
single hypostatis.  There's nothing in any of that that requires the
human to have been born unusually.  The Virgin Birth may be an
appropriate sign that something special is going on.  But if you try
to make it more than a sign, you're going to run into trouble.  If you
say that the incarnation requires the Virgin Birth, then you're saying
that his status as God is based on his having been conceived
unusually.  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.  In orthodox theology, Jesus' body and soul --
which is what ultimately result from the conception -- are completely
human.

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.  But I'd want to think very
carefully about it.  My "gut feeling" is that it would be more fitting
for God to have used Joseph's genes.  This seems particularly
appropriate when you consider that at least one of the geneologies
goes through Joseph.  Of course this whole area is speculative, so I
don't claim to have a real answer.  The only point I was making
originally is that the Virgin Birth at least raises questions about
whether Jesus is fully human, and thus that if anything it makes
things more difficult for orthodox doctrine.

--clh]