The virgin birth of Jesus, fact or theistic fiction?

1. 60

   cjhunsingerposted 9 years ago

   There are certain tenets to Christianity, with one such, 'truth' or principle the virgin birth of Jesus of Jesus Christ. It is believed, certainly not a proven fact, that the Christian god impregnated Mary, thus a miraculous, godly, birth. This miraculous conception was not of the doing of the God of Abraham, as there is no indication , in Jewish scripture, that such a birth ever took place or that a god or gods ever had sexual relations with mortal women. But that is not necessarily true either, as is pointed out here, in the authored hand of Moses. So, it would seem that this god had many sons, who enjoyed the fruits of the father.
   Genesis 6:1-8New International Version (NIV)
   "When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
   In terms of the New Testament Paul avoids any mention of the virgin birth and only two of the gospels, Mathew and Mark mention a virgin birth, while Luke and John avoid it entirely. The virgin birth did not become popular until the Council of Nicaea in 324 CE. and thereafter, such doctrine would be enforced with a sword for the next 1200 years. What is interesting here was that this great 'truth'  of Christianity became a truth by popular vote  and not even a unanimous vote by those 1800 representatives of Christianity in attendance.
   Many men were born by virgins with godly fathers, to include Pythagoras, Amenkempt and Horus to name a just a few. Egypt and Mesopotamian were the cradles of the virgin birth myths and it all began around 4500-3500 BCE long before the New Testament and before Jewish Scripture.
   It would seem all that is credited to Christianity, in terms, of the virgin birth has been plagiarized or stolen from Egyptian mythology. Not only the concept of such a birth, but, too, the trappings that surround that birth. The birth celebrated on Dec. 21st, only begotten son, 12 apostles, birth announcements by an angle and the list goes on, to include the infants being cradled in the arms of his virgin mother.
   Islam is a compilation of Christianity and the Jewish Torah. Christianity is a compilation of Judaism, Roman, Greek, Indian and Egyptian mythologies. Judaism is a compilation of Mesopotamian and possibly Indian religions dated to around 4500 BCE.
   We can choose to believe what we like in the choosing of a god or in the  dismissal of such a belief, but when one chooses to ignore available knowledge in the acceptance or dismissal, one refuses the human capacity to reason and that is the greatest sin.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't suppose it really matters and people will believe what they want. However, I don't think the fact that John does not touch on it, but Matthew and Mark do, really matters. Each told the story from their perspective. Beginning where they thought it was appropriate. Luke was not, by my understanding, someone who was one of Jesus' followers. He came later. So, his failure to include it could simply be from the viewpoint that he couldn't corroborate such a tale. If we are to assume that Matthew and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus then we can reasonably conclude that there were those who believed it well before the Council. The movement grew through the testimony of these men and others. What is not reasonable to conclude is that we have the ability to know what was popular belief, and what was not, during the beginning few hundred years. We've probably lost more information than we will ever find about what these people believed.
      
      I was raised in the Christian faith and I don't know of anyone who thought God had sex with Mary. You are probably thinking, 'Well, how else could it have happened?' I guess that is the definition of a miracle. I honestly believe that if I could create a universe and everything within it I could jump the hurdle of how to make another living being without that type of participation being required.
      
      You mention myths being taken from myths and incorporated into other religions. I'm afraid that, again, I will have to point out that we can only draw conclusions with the information at hand and that does not constitute a full knowledge of ancient civilizations. We may find out that the one we thought stole a myth was actually the one who first created it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         replyreport
2. 72

   lone77starposted 9 years ago

   Greatest sin? Funny and wrong.
   
   You place reason on too high a pedestal. Reason is a useful tool, but the greatest sin is placing self ahead of love.
   
   With reason we can build nuclear bombs. Without love, we can use them with wild abandon, destroying all life. Hip, hip, hooray for "reason." Cut off its nose to spite itself. Duh!
   
   Reason has been used for more crimes than I can count. Reason is the glue that holds resentment close to the chest, making forgiveness impossible. Reasonableness will be the death of us all. Such reason has too often been the barrier to finding solutions to our greatest problems. Those who solved those problems told the "reasonable" ones to get out of the way while they were busy solving the impossible.
   
   Was there a birth without impregnation from a human father? You seem to say no, because the idea was stolen from the Egyptians.
   
   If you truly loved reason, you would use it properly. Instead, you're employing an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy and making a mockery of your own "prowess" with reason.
   
   The trouble with your arrogance is that you would never believe a miracle if one bit you on the backside. Arrogance (full cup) + reason = a terrible waste of mental capacity. It creates a biased blindness.
   
   You "know" too much. Or think you do, and that makes you incapable of learning anything new.
   
   If you truly loved reason as much as I do, you would be open to new ideas, rather than thinking you already had all the answers.
   
   Pity.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Lone
      I am always willing to learn new things and to take a lesson. if you would like to teach, I would be a willing pupil. I do not think that you have a good grasp of what reason is. Here is a definition.
      Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices,
      According to this, it is the practice of deity belief that is unreasonable and refusing of new things.
      I will leave you to wallow in whatever self-servicing sea of insecurity that you wish to wallow in. I think that some call it ocean of self pity and, too, narcissism.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         lone77starposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Sure you are (willing to learn) so long as it fits in your worldview. But that goes back to the argument to ignorance type logical fallacy you keep relying on. Tsk, tsk.
         
         "Certainly there are things worth believing. I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a leap—call it intuition or what you will—and comes out upon a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap." -- Albert Einstein

         replyreport
         1. 60

            cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Lone
            I am sure you are right and I know that Albert would agree, "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
            
            "Believe what you will, but let the rest of us live without your threat of damnation, as it serves no one, but the weak and the church." cjh
            Wallow if you will.

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Rad Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, such kind and gentle words.
      
      I'm just not getting how you think he's made an appeal to ignorance, can you explain how you came to that conclusion? Because from my perspective claiming that God exists and he at one time impregnated a women so that she could conceived God himself while he already still exists seems like an appeal to ignorance to me as your only logic is that you we can't prove it didn't happen. Unless of course you have something more to offer?
      
      Are you willing to learn something lone? or do you already have all the answers?

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Righteous Atheistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         He is pretty ego-driven this one. He is the only one that understands the hidden codes in the bible and can majick cars out of his way.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Rad Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, he seems to talk about the ego, but does't understand it at all. He seems to be filled with both anger and sometimes even bigotry. It's a same really, a waste of a beautiful mind.

            replyreport
3. 57

   Pedro Moralesposted 9 years ago

   Any piece of literature can be examined at least in two different grounds: historical and literary. The historicity of the virgin birht is highly questionable. From the point of view of modern science the idea sounds completely ridiculous. For interpreters of the Bible not to consider what science has to say about any subject does great disservice to the idea that God created the universe through principles and laws that apply anywhere in the universe and contribute so much to realize a better world (though we humans have learned to use the same principles to create monsters of destruction also) But even at that time does anyone think that Joseph was so dull that when told that the baby that Mary was to give birth to a baby by the Holy Spirit he never any questions, or doubts, or even resentment? What actually happened that the evangelists had to create a story about the virgin birth? Duh. Yeah of course, Mary got pregnant out of wedlock. There has to have been a physical father. On the historical level we must ask what would that have meant for Mary: she could have been stoned to death if Joseph do not marry her; which the evangelists write about. In addition something that no one ever asks is what would that have meant for Jesus. Most likely for his early years he must have been seen as a bastard child. Jesus' life must have been a difficult one from a young age. About this nothing at all is written in any extant text.
   
   The genealogical lists of Jesus' ancestors already appear references to two other very 'interesting' incidents that by any standard refer to women of some questionable behavior.
   In  Matthew chapter 1. The first one is Tamar: verse 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar
   The story of Tamar is found in 38:6-30
   
   5    And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth                                               
   Now on the literary level of the story of Mary we must ask what are the evangelists trying to do with this story. They are telling their readers that the gossip they have heard about Jesus is not true. He was conceived in a special manner. By including the references of Tamar and Ruth as ancestors of Jesus the writers also tell the readers that we should not jump into conclusions and make quick judgment about what we may call illicit relationships, in the case of Tamar, or wrong conduct of a widowed, as in the case of Ruth. The Story of Tamar exonerates her completely as Judah says: "She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son." Tamar had a lot more faith in the promise of God that through the lineage of Israel the Messiah was to come; and she acted in accordance with Jewish tradition until Judah fail to keep the tradition himself.. Tamar was willing to die if necessary to maintain the lineage of Judah; he on the other hand was willing to go to someone he thought to be a prostitute, but then once he found out that 'prostitute' was his daughter-in-law wanted to kill her.
   The story of Ruth also has some interesting twists which present her acting in a manner very much against the way a woman should act. But Ruth also was acting in love to her deceased husband's tradition by looking for a husband within the Jewish faith, even though her mother-in-law had told her to go and find a husband from her own ethnic background for she had no more sons to offer in matrimony.
   The Gospel of Luke has an interesting story about Mary and Zechariah and Elizabeth that I believe points to a very high possibility that Zechariah could have been Jesus' father. But going into interpretation of it would take more time. I want to place the following comment between parantheses because they are based on a book I read in the Evangelical Seminary in Puerto Rico many years ago and have not been able to find again. I recall what I read. The research done in that book contribute something to this conversation here; unfortunately as I said I cannot give the name of the book for you all to corroborate what I say--so those who are going to question the argument their based on lack of evidence, please dont read it.
   (But in terms of the story of Jesus one must further ask, was Mary acting entirely on her own when she entered into a relationship with someone to have the baby. One commentary on some ancient books written, if I recall correctly, by feminists interpreters argued through extensive examination of the texts in the original language that the 'Holy Spirit' was a reference to the high priest. They argue that the religious group called Essenes had some ideas that the Messiah was not going to come on the clouds but that he was going to be born on earth.--The idea of the messiah coming by birth and not in a supernatural manner sounds more scientific, doesn't it? They believed that they had to take responsibility to bring this about. Thus they conceived of the idea of how one of the High Priests that agreed with their beliefs and one of their woman disciples should have a sexual relationship without even seeing each other. How that happened is explained in the book. Sorry I read the book once and have never found it again. therefore I just include this as an interesting aside but no one has to consider it as part of the answer.)

   replyreport
   1. 60

      cjhunsingerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for the time and thought that went into your response, but I do not see how it deals with my Posting. The virgin birth of Jesus is a plagiarized version of more ancient pagan myths, which was interwoven into the idea contained in the Torah of a savior. All was articulated to meet the current story, the people and the culture.
      I would doubt that there is any question about the promiscuity of Mary, which was probably not the real name, but again stolen from the Sumerian mythology of Mar-i.
      The biblical account was written much after the alleged event and formulated to the intellectual abilities of the time for, basically, the intellectual abilities of the time.

      replyreport