Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[Mikeenders]

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

Part of that problem is that materialists often fail to define naturalism and some deliberately try to leave to door open to define it any way that suits them. some of them just jump around endlessly from classical definition - anything in this universe to anything with a cause that can be explained sometimes to even the completely ethereal whatever science or scientist proposes or like gary - whatever science might one day propose but can't say what

[Tassman]

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.

[robrecht]

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.

Is that what you guys are discussing, whether an adoptionist christology predated a higher christology? Which christology was first? If so, that is not what I have have been speaking of in terms of Ehrman's shift in his position. When I say that Ehrman has joined the 'early high christology club', it is not about which christology was first, but merely that a very high Jewish christology developed very early, prior to Paul's letters, and that Paul himself had a very high christology, considering Jesus to be divine and pre-existent. Ehrman has been very open on his blog about his change in position while writing How Jesus Became God so you really do need to read this book or his blog if you want to understand his current position. Ehrman did not attribute his change in position to being persuaded by Hurtado's work, but merely to acknowledging the plain meaning of the text of Paul. He was initially not engaging with the work of Hurtado and could only speculate about how his position may be different from his. For example, he presumed that Hurtado probably had a more absolute sense of divinity, whereas he was more inclined to see divinity as a continuum in the ancient world, where angels and emperors were also imbued with some sense of divinity. In this context, he has also shifted his view of adoptionist christologies with the realization that in the Roman world an adopted heir could rise to a much higher status than that of a natural son, especially with respect to the politics of the empire, but his view of Paul's christology is not merely adoptionist, even with a higher view of adoptionist christologies, but rather a pre-existent divine being, even the instrument of creation, who was later exalted to equality with God because of his obedience unto death. This view of exaltation does seem to combine elements of pre-existence divinity with adoption and exaltation to equality with God.

[37818]

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.

Hi JimL,
My comment was an accusation. But I asked him the question so he can deny it, and make that affirmation that truth matters himself. He is dismissing what cannot be physically tested outright as either not true or not really relevant, so my comment.

[Mikeenders]

You asked for evidence of why the supernatural is unavoidable and I asked you if I present it will you deal with it honestly and give a real answer so as not to waste my time presenting again what I have presented before. I get no answer but a statement that is the usual fundy atheist claim sans any commitment to actual considering the evidence you claimed to want to hear..

You should be able to see why I am unimpressed, If theres no good reason as you claim then you are not asking honestly for evidence - you intend to insist there is none regardless of what you get.

However if that s the way you wish to "play" I can have fun with it for awhile but my bet is at some point you will either run away, handwave or as I said give some pie in the sky answer and my bet based on what I have read so far is that point of time will come quickly if not in record time.

Truth is there is no good reason to assume everything arises from natural causes - the statement is absurd and usually made by a person that cannot think clearly and thoroughly. It necessarily implies infinite regress which by itself by definition cannot have a cause. I suppose you can start with a good reason why natural processes as a process itself has a cause and we can see if you can think on your feet.

Please do not flop out of the gates by trying to back away from your just stated thesis or deflecting to non answers and remember the subject is the supernatural - not christianity not God.

So to answer your question of what I have never seen an atheist deal honestly with - well infinite regress which you just implied would be one of them

So you have part of it to get busy with.

[Apologiaphoenix]

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.

I've read it and the response book. Again, Ehrman does not argue with the best of his opponents.

For the quote, it's at the start of one of Bauckham's books though I can't recall which one at the moment.

[robrecht]

I've read it and the response book. Again, Ehrman does not argue with the best of his opponents.

For the quote, it's at the start of one of Bauckham's books though I can't recall which one at the moment.

Hurtado and Ehrman agree and disagree on a variety of things, with there now being greater agreement along the broad strokes of the emergence of an early high christology among Jewish Christians. I don't think either one would consider the other to be an opponent. Popular books written for a general audience are not expected to go into much detail with respect to scholarly discussions, but on his blog Ehrman responded in detail to Hurtado's review of his book and also to the response book.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Hurtado and Ehrman agree and disagree on a variety of things, with there now being greater agreement along the broad strokes of the emergence of an early high christology among Jewish Christians. I don't think either one would consider the other to be an opponent. Popular books written for a general audience are not expected to go into much detail with respect to scholarly discussions, but on his blog Ehrman responded in detail to Hurtado's review of his book and also to the response book.

Go into detail? No, but still deal with the best of your opposition. Ehrman consistently does not do that. Would they consider each other opponents? Maybe not, but their opinions would be opposed.

[robrecht]

The question to ask of this is why make Galatians 4:14, with an interpretation not readily accepted by even non-Christian scholars, the lynchpin? What was it about this verse that made it the focal point, especially when Paul isn't really making a Christological argument there? Why not statements like Philippians 2 which is quoted? Note also that Philippians ends with every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus is Lord. That was reserved for YHWH alone. It also has Jesus being in the form of God, and that's a pretty clear statement about where Jesus ranks.

See Ehrman's response to you here:

http://ehrmanblog.org/an-irritating-...iew-of-christ/

I was going to respond to this post of yours last night, but didn't have time to intervene in your and Gary's discussion just yet. Now I don't need to.

[robrecht]

Go into detail? No, but still deal with the best of your opposition. Ehrman consistently does not do that. Would they consider each other opponents? Maybe not, but their opinions would be opposed.

Now you have another reason to read his blog. It's a modest fee and the entire amount goes to worthy charities.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Can't afford a modest fee right now and frankly, the critic is someone in the field, and that's Dr. Chris Tilling who was on my show on the book he helped write in response to Ehrman. You can see this in "How God Became Jesus."

[robrecht]

Can't afford a modest fee right now and frankly, the critic is someone in the field, and that's Dr. Chris Tilling who was on my show on the book he helped write in response to Ehrman. You can see this in "How God Became Jesus."

I'm not sure what you mean in bringing up Chris Tilling. Is it his criticism of Ehrman that you are advancing rather than your own? If so, exactly which criticism of his are you referring to?

[Apologiaphoenix]

In an interview he did he did state that the question we have to ask is why the Galatians argument should be the lynchpin.

[robrecht]

In an interview he did he did state that the question we have to ask is why the Galatians argument should be the lynchpin.

I don't think Galatians is the lynchpin of Ehrman's view of Paul's christology. I think Philippians is. It is much more important for understanding Ehrman's view.

[Apologiaphoenix]

If so, Philippians really isn't exaltation since it starts with Jesus being in the form of God and could in fact be a chiasm that begins and ends that way. THe ending is definitely a reference to Isaiah's passage where every knee will bow and every tongue confess that YHWH is Lord.