Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[Mikeenders]

I might not see it on the first week, but I am going to see it while it is still in the theater.

Most definitely. Have to see it at least once (and twice if its really good) on the main screen with my son.

[robrecht]

Necessarily? No. Ehrman considers Jesus to still be an angel and then a more adoptionistic Christology. Bauckham and Hurtado are the leading writers in this area. Had Ehrman shown a high Christology, you would not have seen a book coming out like How God Became Jesus.

But Hurtado himself also says (cited above) that "principal angel speculation and other types of divine agency thinking . . . provided the earliest Christians with a basic scheme for accommodating the resurrected Christ next to God." And, while Ehrman suspects that he probably differs from Hurtado in seeing more of a continuum among various levels and kinds of divine beings, Hurtado himself

[Apologiaphoenix]

But Hurtado himself also says (cited above) that "principal angel speculation and other types of divine agency thinking . . . provided the earliest Christians with a basic scheme for accommodating the resurrected Christ next to God." And, while Ehrman suspects that he probably differs from Hurtado in seeing more of a continuum among various levels and kinds of divine beings, Hurtado himself

I don't see that in the article. I see statements about incarnational theology coming later and Jesus being seen as an angel and exaltation theology, but I don't see the earliest Christology being the highest Christology.

[robrecht]

I don't see that in the article. I see statements about incarnational theology coming later and Jesus being seen as an angel and exaltation theology, but I don't see the earliest Christology being the highest Christology.

I don't either. Is that significant? Do you think Hurtado says that the earliest christology is the highest christology?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I don't either. Is that significant? Do you think Hurtado says that the earliest christology is the highest christology?

He and Bauckham both do.

[robrecht]

He and Bauckham both do.

Well, then, what do you make of Hurtado speaking about 'principal angel speculation providing one of the earliest Christian schemata for accommodating the resurrected Christ next to God'? That to me sounds like an early high christology but certainly not the highest christology.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Well, then, what do you make of Hurtado speaking about 'principal angel speculation providing one of the earliest Christian schemata for accommodating the resurrected Christ next to God'? That to me sounds like an early high christology but certainly not the highest christology.

It's true. That is one way, but Hurtado and others claim that that was not the highest. They say Jesus was included in the divine identity from the moment of the resurrection on.

[robrecht]

It's true. That is one way, but Hurtado and others claim that that was not the highest. They say Jesus was included in the divine identity from the moment of the resurrection on.

We may be speaking about slightly different things, perhaps doctrine vs exegesis? Can you provide a quote where Hurtado says that the earliest christology is the highest christology?

[37818]

The great thing, is my Christian friend, the "truth" is now available to every one at a click of a mouse. One of my blog readers left this comment today which sums up the current state of affairs regarding the "truth" of supernatural-based Religions, such as conservative Christianity:


Anonymous
October 27, 2015 at 10:21 AM

I think this information (my blog) definitely needs to remain available to future "seekers". I'm an ex-Mormon who is now married to a committed Evangelical, and I'm now beginning to see that the Bible is as ridiculous as the Book of Mormon. I found this website (my blog) because I was wondering if other denominations are experiencing as much disaffection by their membership as the Mormon church is currently experiencing. I think information like this needs to be made as accessible as possible to people seeking the truth about religious dogma.

Gary
October 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM

Hi and thank you very much for your comment.

The Internet is sending tremors through all superstition-based religions. I posted an article recently written by an ultra-orthodox Jew. He says the same thing is happening in fundamentalist Judaism that is happening in Mormonism and conservative Protestantism: The Internet is bringing the light of reason and science right to the indoctrinated (brainwashed) believer's fingertips.

In the past if a layperson wanted to verify/question the validity of his pastor/priest/elder/rabbi/or mullah's teachings, he or she had to go out and read a stack of books. Now you can do a five minute google search while sipping your morning coffee and get the same information.

The Internet is killing Religion.

I doubt this.
This may very well be true for some. Also the WWW is seat of promotion of false religion superstitions.

Well, first let's make sure we agree on terminology.

Definition of METAPHYSICAL TRUTH
: the truth of ultimate reality as partly or wholly transcendent of perceived actuality and experience

So the question is: is there an ultimate reality that may exist apart from what we as humans can experience and perceive? Answer: Possibly.

I'm using the term "metaphysics" to refer to truths which are not subject to physical experiment.

However, if this "ultimate reality" cannot be examined, tested, seen, or touched how do we know it exists other than in the imagination of the person proposing it's existence??

If what is supposed is not real, then it is not real. What is real, remains real and not testable by physical experiment. It is a matter of whether what is supposed is really true or not. And whether or not it makes any difference to any of us at all, on the premise that it is something that is really true.

For instance, if I state that leprechauns are a metaphysical reality, how would you ever prove me wrong?

Do I need to? What difference would it make if it were true? And what consequence is to me if I think it a silly make believe? Again, presuming it to be true, and I do not believe it. What difference does it make?

I therefore choose not to worry or concern myself with metaphysical realities, because if I did, how would I know which of the thousands of claimed supernatural (metaphysical) "realities" are true?

Well, there is little to nothing one can do about what one does not know. Is there? It is not physical, how do you test it? And how can you suppose something is true, not knowing what it is?

The only way to determine reality, in my mind, is to examine the evidence, and by definition, metaphysical reality defies examination.

Physically yes, it defies examination. Not if a supposed truth were true, and had plausible consequences. What would be the best choice? On the premise, which ever you choose to choose will most likely be wrong? And you do not have the intention of believing what you think would be wrong. Between 10 different competing ideas, how? By taking two at a time. Eliminating one, and comparing a second. And so forth. 10 different people may end up with different choices. Or might all come to the same conclusion, believe none of them. Or maybe one of them.
Pascal's Wager was between two ideas. It fails only because others suppose multiple other issues not in the two ideas.

Conclusion: I consider the metaphysical the play ground of philosophers and theologians. I do not believe that it is a field of study that warrants even the slightest of attention from everyone else. Show me evidence (not theories) of the existence of your "ultimate reality" and if it is strong on it's surface, I will spend the time to study it. But if it's central arguments are weak (such as those for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism), I am not going to waste my time.

So ultimately truth does not really matter to you. Is that not so?

[JimL]

I doubt this.
This may very well be true for some. Also the WWW is seat of promotion of false religion superstitions.


I'm using the term "metaphysics" to refer to truths which are not subject to physical experiment.
If what is supposed is not real, then it is not real. What is real, remains real and not testable by physical experiment. It is a matter of whether what is supposed is really true or not. And whether or not it makes any difference to any of us at all, on the premise that it is something that is really true.
Do I need to? What difference would it make if it were true? And what consequence is to me if I think it a silly make believe? Again, presuming it to be true, and I do not believe it. What difference does it make?

Well, there is little to nothing one can do about what one does not know. Is there? It is not physical, how do you test it? And how can you suppose something is true, not knowing what it is?

Physically yes, it defies examination. Not if a supposed truth were true, and had plausible consequences. What would be the best choice? On the premise, which ever you choose to choose will most likely be wrong? And you do not have the intention of believing what you think would be wrong. Between 10 different competing ideas, how? By taking two at a time. Eliminating one, and comparing a second. And so forth. 10 different people may end up with different choices. Or might all come to the same conclusion, believe none of them. Or maybe one of them.
Pascal's Wager was between two ideas. It fails only because others suppose multiple other issues not in the two ideas.

So ultimately truth does not really matter to you. Is that not so?

I think he is saying just the opposite 37818, i.e. that truth matters very much to him, it doesn't though, as you've made clear above, matter very much to you.

[Mikeenders]

I think he is saying just the opposite 37818, i.e. that truth matters very much to him, it doesn't though, as you've made clear above, matter very much to you.

Just because you don't understand what someone is saying doesn't mean its clear that truth doesn't matter to them and if something were clear it would be clear to more than just you. So i have good reason to pronounce your claims as bogus. I think what 37818 was saying is there are a whole slew of things that we all have to rely on or choose for which there are no direct physical examination we can apply. Gary in true hypocrite form has already embarked on claiming some things can be examined which clearly (rightly used this time) cannot be physically examined.

There is no physical test to determine when Christians adhered to Christ divinity outside of the texts but Gary claims to know that and certainly has been examining it
The same can be said for the dating of the gospels and Gary claims to know this
in fact there are no end of things gary has examined and stated things about that have no physical test to verify.

Furthermore if metaphysical is defined as that which cannot be physically tested everything not in the present is metaphysical. Most all of history not leaving archaeological relics would be a huge area. logic would be another huge issue. We assume (I think rightfully) logic is a good thing but there is hardly a test that proves it without relying on it for the proof (which is somewhat circular) and as to our particular ideas of logic? things like QM tend to disagree in some key areas.

but most telling for Gary is that he has been totally unable to deal with the common sense reality that the supernatural is unavoidable. his best answer is to ..of all things... make a claim that a test that he cannot even conceive of will one day show that it can be avoided where up to now good logic and science points us away from that conclusion and firmly to the idea everything natural has a cause which leaves naturalism in a desperate conundrum and on that Gary runs away claiming one day in the great bye and bye the conundrum will be solved where logically it cannot be

So Gary's ultimate answer to the inevitability of the supernatural is to rely on - metaphysics.

[Tassman]

but most telling for Gary is that he has been totally unable to deal with the common sense reality that the supernatural is unavoidable. his best answer is to ..of all things... make a claim that a test that he cannot even conceive of will one day show that it can be avoided where up to now good logic and science points us away from that conclusion and firmly to the idea everything natural has a cause which leaves naturalism in a desperate conundrum and on that Gary runs away claiming one day in the great bye and bye the conundrum will be solved where logically it cannot be.

Where is your evidence that "that the supernatural is unavoidable"?

[Mikeenders]

Where is your evidence that "that the supernatural is unavoidable"?

I have presented it several times. I will again if you are willing commit to giving me a non pie in the sky answer. Sorry but to this date I have never found an atheist honest enough to deal with it without hand waving or relying on a non answer and the way you phrased your question and interjected out of nowhere in the thread doesn't give me great confidence you will either.

[psstein]

I'm far from convinced there's really a dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural."

[psstein]

Necessarily? No. Ehrman considers Jesus to still be an angel and then a more adoptionistic Christology. Bauckham and Hurtado are the leading writers in this area. Had Ehrman shown a high Christology, you would not have seen a book coming out like How God Became Jesus.

I have not read How Jesus Became God, but based on Ehrman's earlier work, Lost Christianities (which I like, by the way), I agree.

Ehrman believes the adoptionist Christology is earlier than the high Christology.