INCARNATIONINCARNATIONA PROBLEM FOR SCIENCE AND

THEOLOGY?A PROBLEM FOR SCIENCE AND

THEOLOGY?

1d: Miracles

incarnationincarnationIn Christian Theology the word Incarnation refers to the belief that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. (Latin. in and caro, stem carn, meaning “flesh”).

Traditional understandings of this are linked to the doctrine of the virginal conception whereby, in the words of the Apostle’s creed, “...Jesus Christ ... was conceived by the Holy Spirit (and) born of the Virgin Mary...”

The Nicene Creed underlines the pre-existence of Christ in the words, “Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God ... not made, being of one substance with the Father...”

UNIQUE GOD-MAN?UNIQUE GOD-MAN?Essentially yes - this is precisely what the historical Christian understanding is affirming.

Jesus is seen as a unique individual who is both fully God and fully man. His nature is unique. He is one person with a divine and human nature.

It is theologically important that Jesus does not share in Adam’s nature. He is the sinless one. Hence the emphasis on his not having a human father. Christians historically believe that Mary was a virgin at the time that she became pregnant.

BIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONSBIOLOGICAL

IMPLICATIONSWe would now have to translate this miraculous conception into something like the following story.

Mary supplied the ovum containing the relevant chromosomes and the rest came by supernatural intervention. Crudely speaking, X from Mary and Y from God.

theology and science together?

theology and science together?

•The Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne described it thus: ‘the dual origin of the X and Y chromosomes ... seems a possible physical expression of the belief, in the words of the Nicene Creed, that Jesus “by the power of the Holy Spirit became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made man”.’

Theology and science apart?Theology and science apart?

•The Reverend Dr. Arthur Peacocke represents a rather different position arguing that we should not confuse the notion of incarnation with the need for virginal conception and the miracle that this supposes. God does not ‘intervene’ in creating ‘part’ of the genetic material for the embryonic Jesus. He was conceived, in biological terms, like any other person.

ARE THE STORIES OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH TRUE?

ARE THE STORIES OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH TRUE?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm is a site which in a three part essay discusses the virginal conception without coming to a firm conclusion about what actually is the truth.

The Lion Handbook of Christian Belief (1982, p71) set out the positive and negative answers in the following bullet points:

ForFor√ Attempts to demonstrate them to be fictitious have been

unsuccessful.

√ Mark and John were not concerned to discuss the details of Jesus’ birth.

√ Apparently independent stories in Matthew and Luke.

√ Could well have been preserved in a comparatively small circle round Jesus’ family.

√ Those who believe on other grounds that Jesus was God incarnate will see it as fitting and probable that his birth was unique.

againstagainstX Their truth cannot in the nature of the case be proved.

X No sign of them in Mark or John

X No trace of knowledge of them before the gospels were written.

X Constructed to show that certain Old Testament prophecies came true.

X Not used in the earliest days to show Jesus was the Son of God.

X They are wholly fictitious - attempts to give story form to the church’s understanding of Christ.

QUESTIONSQUESTIONSIf you believe in God is it reasonable to believe in the virginal conception of Jesus?

Does it matter to Christians whether or not Jesus was supernaturally conceived?

If you do not believe in God is it reasonable to believe in the virginal conception of Jesus?

Is it a question of evidence for the atheist or an issue which is settled a priori?