Re: Orthodoxy (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:05:59 -0800 (PST) "Dr. Blake Nelson"
<bnelson301@yahoo.com> writes:
> I think this is my limit for the day, but a couple
> quick responses.
>
<snip>
>
> It is interesting though that this problem is not any
> different from asking where the Y chromosome came from
> since the "form" has to come from a male just as the Y
> chromosome does. But, it seems to me, if you try to
> read it as a statement about heredity you can't take
> it exactly that way since there are two statements
> about heredity -- He is the Son of God and of the Line
> of David. Given that the form comes from the male,
> how can He both be Son of God and Heir of David --
> trying to ask the question in the way I am suggesting
> is wrong puts you in an artificial box saying either
> God created the form or the form comes from the Line
> of David, i.e., Joseph. If God created the form to be
> consonant with the line of David -- i.e., gave Jesus
> Joseph's Y chromosome -- how does that show divinity?
>
> This is sort of a roundabout way of saying that the
> question that is being asked is still a question that
> is, in this context, not particularly meaningful (if
> meaningful at all).
>
Looks to me as though you beautifully illustrate my claim that there is
tunnel vision. Man and God are not exclusive disjuncts. At least my Lord
is both.
>
<snip>
> Isn't making Mary pregnant violating her freedom?
>
Did you not notice her explicit consent (Luke 1:38)?
>
<snip>

> Even so, I don't see how calling Jesus is necessarily
> possession -- Jesus clearly sees Himself as called in
> many, many passages.
>
If it were only calling!
>
<snip>

> I see. I think George made a good comment about those
> who emphasize Christ's pre-existence do not even
> mention the Virgin Birth. I wholly agree that Jesus
> of Nazareth, the Christ, the Second Person of the
> Trinity, is not a creature. I don't think that
> requires the particular view you put forward. (And
> bear in mind I am not saying your view is wrong, just
> that it is not required by the texts or orthodoxy, it
> makes assumptions about how God acts, etc.)
>
Then he's not human? Sounds patripassian. Didn't think that was
considered orthodox any more.

<snip>
>
> You have to be born in order to die, sure. But I
> don't think in Jewish thought it mattered whether the
> birth was a VB. The messiah was thought to be a man,
> not God. I think the first christians certainly
> thought in that way and it is only because of the
> unique character of Jesus that made them think of Him
> in different terms, which is another reason to take
> all those things seriously. But, not to digress, I
> don't recall Jesus ever justifying His ministry or His
> calling or His authority on the VB. If it was
> important to His ministry and authority, why didn't
> the evangelists record Him saying anything about it?
>
The argument from silence has no logical standing, except perhaps, the
dog that didn't bark.

> As George pointed out, the most developed
> christologies in Paul and John don't mention the VB.
>
I already responded to this.
 
> It seems pretty clear to me that if Jesus' followers
> had believed the VB, but there was no resurrection,
> the movement would have ended there. Remember, Bar
> Kochba, IIRC, actually claimed in no uncertain terms
> to be divine. When his rebellion failed, and he was
> killed, his movement ended there. As a result, the
> Talmud refers to Bar Kokhba derisively to show it's
> disapproval of him. I think without the imprimatur of
> God in the Resurrection, that's where the Jesus
> movement would have ended -- at least that's a pretty
> good bet.
>
I never recall reading that he claimed divinity. My /New Columbia
Encyclopedia/ (quickest check) only says that he may have claimed to be
the messiah. Within Jewish thought, messiah is not equivalent to
divinity.
>
<snip>
>
> And I don't think I quibbled at all with that. In
> fact, I think I underscore that by saying that asking
> the question where does the Y chromosome in Jesus come
> from is a category mistake. If you say it comes from
> God, it doesn't answer the question that is being
> asked. My illustration was to point out that there is
> no empirical test that tells you whether the VB is a
> miracle or not and it doesn't tell you about the
> meaning of the story. It may have relevance to
> whether one's particular view of Jesus as being the
> Son of God is accurate or not, but I am generally
> uncomfortable with putting God in particular boxes
> about how He should or does act in the world.
>
In that case, where is your empirical test for anything in the gospels?
What's your point?
 
> (SNIP)
>
> Sorry, my e-mail truncates responses over a certain
> length. Let me just talk about your comment on
> clarity -- or certainty, which is often its
> handmaiden. First, I sympathize with a desire to
> clarify and make certain whenever possible. Second, I
> think it is often not possible to clarify and make
> systematic lots of things, especially about God and
> divine action. Many interpretations are based on not
> necessarily scriptural presuppositions about the
> nature of God and God's actions. Based on scripture,
> there are a wide variety of way God has been described
> as acting in the world. I am uncomfortable vis-a-vis
> something like the VB to say that it must be one way
> and not the other. I think there is a certain wisdom
> in the Eastern Orthodox tradition of saying that
> something is a mystery -- that is it is incapable of
> being systematically compartmentalized.

Miracle and mystery are not synonyms, but they are related. I'd say the
virginal conception (which is perhaps the more precise term) is both.

 For the same
> reason I have sympathy for apothatic theology,
> recognizing that we cannot always (or often?) same
> something definitively in a positive sense about God,
> but sometimes have to approach it by saying what God
> is not. To put this in Western philosophical terms, I
> believe Kant described God's infinity as being such
> that God violates all our categories. I think that's
> probably true, and since I recognize our severe
> limitations in comprehending God, I think a lot of
> humility is due in our interpretations. I guess that
> makes me suspicious of too much clarity, too much
> certainty, and too systematic of theologies.
>
The /via negativa/ is certainly important, as is the /via eminentiae/.
But I put no stock in Kant's statement, which would require that neither
/via/ is relevant, and probably that Christ cannot reveal the Father.

> That being said, none of that means that I am
> postmodern in a strong sense or think that the creeds
> can be interpreted to have any meaning one pleases.
> Certainly, the creeds mean something objective and
> definite, however, I think they are bounding
> parameters and that there is a wide variety of
> understandings within them.
>
One can certainly see this in the sequence of council documents. They
addressed the problem before them, not everything that might bear on
theological matters. However, I note that there are those who are looking
for wiggle room, as well as those who do not care about the creeds. I
hold that a narrow view that takes all of scripture and my best
understanding is better.
Dave

<snip>
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:09:54 2003