rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/16/85)
[David Harwood] > I believe that it misleading to take the NT account of >the Virgin Birth too literally; it is included in Matthew and >Luke, but not in the earlier and later sources, and it's included >as a theological figure; what this figure means is made clear >in the introduction to John, which does not mention that Virgin >Birth, but which refers figuratively to the children of God: >"These are they who believe in his Name (God's Name said to be >given to Christ, John17.6ff) -- who were not begotten by blood >(racially), nor by carnal desire (physically), nor by man's >willing it, but by God." Similarly, the Virgin Birth underscores >that Jesus was born of God. From an evangelical protestant perspective, the heart of understanding who Jesus, the God-man, was/is gets ripped out if you discard the Virgin Birth. Obviously, salvation does not depend on an understand- ing of this doctrine or the thief on the cross would not have had much going for him. (Notice that he didn't get Baptized either). However, I think your growth in understanding the Scriptures and the development of your Christ concept (Christology) will be retarded without the Virgin birth. If you are going to integrate what Jesus taught about Himself and what the Apostle Paul taught us (which implies you accept that the Scripture is authoritative) then you need to think about what Paul meant when he told us that Jesus is the Second Adam. The First Adam was created with a pure nature and sin didn't enter the picture till he fell. The doctrine of original sin fits perfectly with Paul's showing we needed the Second Adam. If Jesus were not the pure (tempted but not fallen) God-man, then on what basis would he be able to bear our sin problem for us ? He would be just another sin stained Son of Adam. And being so he degenerates into at worst - a cynical, demonic, megalo- maniac or perhaps a little more charitably - a confused holy mumbler who had grandiose visions about where he fit in the religious cosmos. How could Jesus have had the audacity to make statements such as: 1) My Father and I are one. 2) He who has seen me has seen the Father. 3) Before Abraham was...I AM. What gave Him that ability in part was the fact that he was not a child of Adam in that he did not inherit Adam's sin nature. It is a unexplained how this conception and birth took place from a scientific viewpoint. I think the Roman Church has the Immaculate Conception doctrine which explains that Mary's mother conceived her without original sin. Is this correct RCs ?? Protestant Christianity does not offer a doctrinal explanation further than what the Biblical text offers. Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}