The First Advent

In calling the first advent "early" I only mean that the anthroposis occurred with mankind unripe. I am not suggesting that it occurred sooner than if man had not defected; I see no way to estimate how soon man would have ripened in that counterfactual case.

Life in the spoiled world inevitably involves suffering and death, so before he can experience fulfillment the Mediator must suffer and die, so that his passing to fulfillment life is called resurrection.

As the fact of the Mediator's suffering would be a collateral effect of his anthroposis as such, the detail of his suffering would be a collateral effect of the optimisation. For instance, alternatives have probably been possible in which he could save man more cheaply but not so well, in which case not only the fact but the extent of his suffering, perhaps including the mode of his death, would be part of what he would undertake in love for man.

A welldoer's experience is incomplete until they experience salvation through encountering the anthroposis. Given the chance they immediately embrace this fuller experience, received, like restoration, by trust.

(Many Christianoids) "It is necessary to add that the Mediator must be born of a virgin."

Regarding the Mediator, this objection implies [A] that no man sired him, [B] that he was conceived by a virgin, and [C] that she remained virgin until she brought him forth.

Although [C] (or occasionally [B]) is usually expressed, [A] is really the key point. The assertion of virginity has usually reflected an ascetic Otherworldalism that preferred celibacy to marriage; it is not the NT's focus.

The New Testament does strongly imply [B], but the implication of [C] is weaker; it says her betrothed did not fuck her, not that nobody else did. I hope this statement is not seen as needlessly crude; I am merely establishing that the NT does not teach the virgin birth as such.

The NT certainly seems to suggest that [A] was true, and I think those reports more likely to be biographical than legendary, but I say "seem to suggest" because there is room for doubt. Admittedly, the only alternative, that someone else fathered the Mediator, seems problematic, but I see no way to rule it out.

However likely it is that the NT regards [A], [B] or even [C] as true (and worth mentioning), there is no evidence that it regards any of them as necessary for anthroposis. For instance, Luke's logic seems to be as follows. (1) How will I conceive? (2) God will arrange it. (3) God's involvement shows that the child will be special. It is not implied that only this kind of divine arrangement could yield such a special child, as opposed to the kind that enabled Sarah (Abraham's wife) or Hannah (Elkanah's first wife) to conceive children who were special in lesser ways.

Back to God's way to save us.