Yes, I saw. Home Depot, Lowe’s and Menards come easily to mind for the U.S. Lots of others, and some are more regional.
Why are we talking about a quote from 90 years ago as if it describes the modern context of the discussion?
An agnostic theist is not a Christian. Christianity is credal and requires minimally affirming the faith claims of the Apostle’s Creed, which is derived from the Bible. There is no way to arrive at “I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried” via scientific deduction or logic.
3 Likes
I don’t think we have to accept some 5th century bullet point in order to be a Christian. Like I don’t have a specific reason to believe Mary was or was not a virgin versus being a young unwed woman. Just like the woman they hyperlink Mary too in the Old Testament does not require me to think she was a virgin.
It also depends on what do they mean descended into hell. Most Catholics seem to believe that the infernos is a place of everlasting eternal conscious torment and ect…
You need to believe the apostles creed, and their 5th century writer’s interpretation, in order to be accepted in enteral by Catholics but it’s not necessary to say “ if you don’t think Mary was a virgin then you are not Christian.”
As for agnostic theist it depends again. An agnostic is someone who says they are or are not certain if God is real. Agnostic theist vs gnostic theist and agnostic atheist vs gnostic atheist and ect…
So I can say I’m a agnostic theist because I choose to believe in a god, specifically Yahweh of the Tanakh and gospels , even though I can’t actually prove it or say with completely certainty. I can also say I’m a Christian, because the god Yahweh that I believe in says Jesus has a son and his son is Jesus Christ and I choose to place my faith in him.
But none of it requires me to accept what some Roman’s said 1500 years ago about events that happened 500 years before that anymore than I have to accept any other “biblical” creed.
If we allow hell to be death and the infernos to be hades I can better accept it. I’m not opposed to Mary having been a virgin, I just don’t think it’s concretely in the story or required to have a solid stance. I could see Mary having been a victim, keeping it silent, Jospeh was going to leave her and ect… God intervened. As mentioned before neither of us thinks God had sex with Mary. But that does not mea the only alternative is a magical pregnancy anymore than a magical mud man and rib woman.
There is a point of honesty where you should check whether your set of beliefs fit some definition of the religion. But the Apostle’s creed was never agreed to by any ecumenical council. Thus I think the minimal standard for an honest judgment of whether you are a Christian is agreement with the creed of Nicea 325 AD. (BTW it does not include the virgin birth)
At most I will only say that I am agnostic with respect to objective knowledge of the existence of God because I don’t believe that is possible.
1 Like
Doesn’t the Nicene Creed say that Jesus was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary?
The virgin birth is central to Christianity inasmuch as it makes Christ divine. If Mary had Jesus from conventional sex it changes both her status and the nature of Christ. and makes the whole faith based upon a lie.
Richard
Not for me. It changes literally nothing.
Jesus was not born magical. Jesus got all power and authority from God. Jesus had no power of his own. He was given it by Yahweh, his father and god, and he was even able to had some power off to the apostles.
Mary was just a mother. She was not a mother set apart. She gave birth to the son of god. But we see sons of god applied to people and even angels.
So let’s try it this way. This is the verses in question.
Matthew 1:22-25
New American Standard Bible
22 Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23 “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.
The first thing to notice is that they are using a quote from the Old Testament. This is the quote from the Old Testament.
Isaiah 7:10-16
New American Standard Bible
The Child Immanuel
10 Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask for a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I put the Lord to the test!” 13 Then he said, “Listen now, house of David! Is it too trivial a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will name Him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the boy knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned.
Was that a virgin that got pregnant back then also?
How did the virgin get pregnant back then? Was it also by God? I mean they had the same name “ Emmanuel “ applied to them that means “ god is here “.
If that was not a virgin, and simply meant young woman than why does it change in meaning with Mary?
Many as well in vs 25 it says he kept her a virgin!!! But no it does not actually say that. It says “ he did not have sex with her until she gave birth to a son”
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/1-25.htm
So no where does it say she’s a virgin.
There is also no theological reason to think Jesus was not a human given power and authority by god and there is no reason that Jesus could not have been a incantation despite having two human parents. It also was a concept they were familiar with. Many at that time, who knew that their emperor was born of two human parents, also believed they had a god as a father and they themselves were that god on earth. So they had a worldview that already included this concept.
Sure, you can interpret the creeds how you like, but it’s hard to be a Christian without reference to them. Believing in God is not Christianity. Christianity has Christ in it, and you don’t get there from science.
I think Laura’s point holds. There is a different between claiming agnosticism as your religious worldview and claiming to be agnostic about specific Christian claims.
Agreed, I should have used the Nicene Creed. I was thinking at the time that the Apostle’s Creed was even more basic.
3 Likes
I guess since I don’t hold the creeds in any significant light they just don’t play a role in my faith. The creeds could have completely disappeared and it would not affect my faith. Same as the positions held by Sadducees or Pharisees are not pivotal for my own faith.
For me all a creed is ultimately is nothing more or less than the opinions a handful of people slander on. Much like “ what we believe “‘sections on some website.
Or ask the pope. He has zero influence in my life. His opinion means nothing more to me than the opinion of street preacher screaming does. I mean every christian claims their beliefs are based on the Bible and almost every belief has a tradition and scholars behind it. But if the pope, or some creed from a specific place and time is really important to you then it is. Just like the KJV is super important to some.
I seem to regularly lose sight of that. I recognize I have faith positions from outside of Christianity but I don’t think they would qualify as credal if that implies professing a set of beliefs essential to joining a tribe. From within such a tribe I can appreciate how self describing as agnostic overall would not be tenable. In my own case while I recognize what could be described as faith positions, I don’t feel I can ever bring them into such distinct focus that I would forswear revisions. I believe that does make me what could be called broadly agnostic regarding religious sentiments.
1 Like
Yes there is.
God sacrificed His own son. If Jesus had no actual physical connection to God then this is not true and Jesus becomes nothing better than a human sacrifice.
Richard
I don’t see any logic there. Christs sacrifice counted because he never sinned.
Personally I am indifferent on the subject of the virgin birth.
Since conception only requires fertilization not sexual intercourse I see no problem with a miraculous virgin birth. We would expect that level of the miraculous in something so important to God’s providence.
But I don’t buy into the rational of RichardG that it must be a virgin birth because I don’t believe blood sacrifice has any power regardless of the nature of the lamb/person’s birth. I reject such a literal treatment of that metaphor for the atonement. This is not about some kind blood sacrifice magic spell or God’s inability to forgive without magical help. That is just total nonsense as far as I am concerned. (link to previous discussion)
But the belief that Jesus is God is central to the Christian religion. Or as the Nicean creed puts it: “of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God.” But for me the point was God, in every way, physically, spiritually, and experientially, coming down to where we are, in order to achieve reconciliation with His children. It is the ultimate meaning of God’s grace that He comes to us in order to lift us up.
For this, I see no great importance in the virgin birth. But neither am I opposed to the possibility. It seems reasonable to me. I don’t see any need or reason to be skeptical or cynical about this.
Christianity is a religion of Jesus being God become man, Jesus is a prophet, and certainly not one of Jesus being a man become God.
But then I don’t think beliefs are any kind of lynch pin for salvation. It is just what I judge to be correct. I don’t think it even affords me any kind of advantage even if what I believe is right.
1 Like
Not the creed originally agreed to in 325 AD.
Some have changed the creed and still call it the “Nicean creed,” but no it is not in the orginal agreement of 325 AD. This is typically the 381 AD revision in the council of Constantinople which includes the virgin birth.
We use the “final draft” of the Nicene Creed, which church ecumenical councils agreed to. Except for the “filioque” part concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, it has united the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants.
2 Likes
That may be… but I see no reason to exclude any of the others agreeing to first and not the second. Ever since there first ecumenical council there have been many many more councils and creeds chopping off more and more sectors of Christianity. And I am not buying into any of that.
If you fit that first definition of Christianity in 325 AD then I consider the requirements of honesty fulfilled and the all the later indulgences in excluding others who don’t believe quite the same way can just go hang themselves. To be sure most of the splits in Christianity happened a bit later, like in the council of Chalcedon 451 AD causing the separation of Oriential Orthodoxy. But the principle of sticking to the first agreement as the most minimal definition of the Christian religion remains a valid argument. And… the 325 AD creed is sufficient to distinguish other religions like Islam from Christianity.
This is not to endorse heresies like Apollinarianism being fought against by the council of Constantinople and those coming later. But often such efforts can exclude more they should.
Yes it does.
1 Like
Is there anybody except you who agrees to the first ecumenical council and not the second?
The Nicene Creed unites Christians. But what do you think of the Reformation? Was it good or bad? It certainly divided Christians.
Who said that was my viewpoint?
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…
Son, not servant, or some sort of adoption, or empowerment.
I do not care how you view salvation,(the atonement) but if God is the provider then Jesus is not just a man, Otherwise, our salvation comes from man, not God! It’s as simple as that.
Richard
Perhaps it is the same person who says this declaration of my belief equates to a declaration of your belief - some person in your imagination.
If you want more explanation then follow the link
Jesus was just a man. That is what 100% human means. Jesus was God - 100% God. God chose to become a man. God can do that. Jesus being 100% man and 100% God means God can become just a man. The virgin birth is irrelevant. Just because we have a virgin birth doesn’t mean the baby is more than a man – not woman either. And God is perfectly capable of becoming just a man or just a woman without a virgin birth.
Irrelevant. Doesn’t mean I am going to go along with the lie that this was the agreement made in Nicea.
Let me repeat., for both of you.
I have no problem with the teaching of a virgin birth (though this doesn’t mean I am going to accept the arguments of those who believe it), and NO I am not going to accept this dogma as a criterion for whether someone is a Christian or not. Get over it.