Keith B Miller wrote:
> >It's entirely possible that, in viewing the virgin birth as a sign, you are
> >not at all discounting the truth that God also acted decisively in the
> >life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But my tradition tends to
> >start from the other end -- that it was God's historical action in Christ
> >that is the fundamental meaning of the incarnation and resurrection of
> >Christ, rather than the communication of divine truths, principles or
> >insights.
>
> I agree that "it was God's historical action in Christ that is the
> fundamental meaning of the incarnation and resurrection of Christ." I also
> see the incarnation as a fundamental entry of divinity into humanity and
> creation (or rather God's assuming of our created nature). However, it
> seems that the virgin birth is not essential to God's assuming our nature,
> but rather serves as a testimony pointing to that incarnational reality.
A few points -
1) Revelation need not be understood as the giving of propositional
statements or texts. It is, in a more fundamental sense, God's
self-communication. Revelation is theophany - though not necessarily with the
thunder & lightning &c that that word sometimes suggests.
2) We don't need to decide whether the Incarnation & cross (N.B.) &
resurrection are revelatory OR salvific. They are both. God's action to save
the world shows what kind of deity God is.
3) Slightly more speculatively, I think that the virginal conception
points to the presence & action of the creator - as do other NT signs. That is
the thrust of, e.g., the quote from Ps.Ignatius that I posted earlier.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 09:08:45 EST