Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: implications of the virgin birth
Message-ID: <289@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 10:49:51 EST
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.289
Posted: Wed Apr  3 10:49:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 08:01:02 EST
References: <23193@lanl.ARPA> <281@scgvaxd.UUCP> <282@scgvaxd.UUCP> <778@trwatf.UUCP> <287@scgvaxd.UUCP> <1078@topaz.ARPA>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 47

In article <1078@topaz.ARPA> hedrick@topaz.UUCP (Chuck hedrick) writes:
>Dan Boskovich (dan@scgvaxd.UUCP) says:
>
>>	 In order for Christ to be sinless, He first had to be
>> born without sin. Since the bible teaches that we all inherit sin
>> from Adam, the virgin birth was imperative!
>
>You might want to think a bit more about the implications of this statement.
>There are a number of theories about what Original Sin means and how it is
>transmitted.  While the Bible is very clear about the concept that we are
>all involved in sin, it certainly does not say that it is passed on via a
>gene.  The view that you are expressing has a couple of serious implications:
>
>Original Sin.  He still has genetic material from Mary.  Either you have to
>say that Original Sin is only present in males, or you have to assume that
>some sort of miracle caused Mary to be free of it.  The latter position has
>been adopted by some Catholics.  However it seems silly to me.  If God is
>going to free someone of Original Sin by a miracle, it would seem the Jesus
>himself would be the obvious candidate.
>
>Please note that I am not arguing against the virgin birth, and I am not
>arguing against the idea that Jesus is sinless.  I am simply saying that I
>do not consider the virgin birth to have been the cause of the sinlessness.
>As a Calvinist, I consider the idea of Original Sin to be extremely
>important.  But I do not want to see it turned into something physical.  I
>believe that the correct view of the virgin birth is that it points up the
>fact that Jesus' coming was purely an act of God, and was not a decision
>made by Mary and Joseph.  As I understand it, in Biblical times, people
>believed that the human nature came completely from the egg, and the sperm
>simply "quickened" it.  Thus the Bible and the Church Fathers did not have
>to worry about giving the misimpression that the virgin birth threatened
>Jesus' human nature.  In the creeds and the writings of the Church Fathers,
>when someone says that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, they are generally
>emphasizing his humanity.  Now that our knowledge of biochemisty has
>improved, it is very easy for us to misread what was being said.

 What we know of biochemistry and genetics may apply only to the normal
 physical act of reproduction. Since Christ was conceived of the Holy
 Spirit, it would seem that God supernaturally protected Jesus from any
 genetic imperfection. The Christ child was nourished and protected in
 the womb of Mary, but may not have inherit any of her genes. That could
 only have happened through the fertilization process of the sperm and egg.
 Since science has never recorded an incident of a virgin birth conceived
 by the Holy Spirit, we can never understand its full genetic implications.
 It would seem that the virgin birth served a definite purpose. This
 purpose was to bring the God of Heaven down to earth to enter humanity.