According to Celsus [179 CE], as quoted by Origen, Jesus “invented his birth from a virgin” and was “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.” Contra Celsum 1: 28


Item #1: Was Jesus illegitimate? The writers of Matthew and Luke state very clearly that Miriam, Jesus’ mother, was pregnant with Jesus before she and Joseph had sexual intercourse. (According to one ancient tradition, Jesus’ biological father was a Roman soldier named Pantera.) The writers of Mark and John do not mention details surrounding Jesus’ conception and birth. Based on the gospel narratives, there is no good reason to dispute Celsus’ claim that Jesus was illegitimate. It should be noted that Paul states that Jesus was born naturally and was a blood relative of David. Apparently, that is all he knew.

Item #2: Did Jesus appear to have miraculous powers? He did what ancient magicians did (there are numerous examples in the narratives), and he was protected by magic. John of Patmos states that Jesus had magical inscriptions or marks: “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev. 19:16) A direct parallel can be found in the Greek magical papyri (magicians’ MSS dating to the second century CE, or earlier): “Come to me, lord, faultless, who pollute no place, joyful, unflawed, for I call on you, King of kings...” (PGM XIII.604-506) It is a fact that ancient magicians would sometimes tattoo portions of their bodies. E. A Wallis Budge, when speaking of certain very old and powerful amulets, states: “The wearer is even more protected if it [amulet containing words of power] be written on some part of the wearer, which seems to suggest that the figures and signs which men had tattooed on their bodies carried with them some magical protection.” Amulets and Superstitions, P. 43. Even Paul of Tarsus had his marks. In his letter to the Galatians he alludes to them: “Henceforth, let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” (6:17) Celsus was correct.

Item #3: Did Jesus consider himself a god? The opponents of Jesus said, “It is not for a good work that we [wish to] stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (Jn. 10:33) When Jesus did not deny their accusation, they attempted to arrest him, but he ran away. Again, Celsus was correct.

rodahi

Item #1: Was Jesus illegitimate?

You must understand the 12 year rule or you will get nowhere.
A Jewish future priest left his mother's community at the
age of 12 and became a 1 year old acolyte. These apparent
youth geniuses in Josephus' tales become a lot less intelligent
when you subtract 11 years from their age. Jesus Christ was
born in 7 b.c.e. and became an acolyte in A.D. 6 coinciding
with the census ordered by Augustus. In this year, A.D. 6,
Jesus became a 1 year old acolyte. In A.D. 17 Jesus graduated
from a 12 year school and is about to enter the world (community)
as a novice priest. He is an 11 year old acolyte and it is at
this time that he declares that he will follow the teachings of
the Gentile high priest Eleazar Annas (my father). It is at this
time, when he is 23 years old that he becomes illegitimate. The
Gentile's used Jubilee dating with a calendar with a March
New Year and the "All" (Joseph and Mary) used the Greek Calendar
with an October New Year. Jesus became 6 months premature
(they counted their birthdays at the New Year) and thus he was
illegitimate.

thanks, Offa

Thank you for responding, Offa. I thought this topic would provoke at least a trickle of comments. Apparently, most posters agree with Celsus.

Robert Sheaffer agrees with the illegitimacy theory -- and proposes that JC's mother Mary and Mary Magdalene were originally one and the same (!) He proposes that JC's mother had been "Mary the Hairdresser", and that the "hairdresser" part had gotten mangled to "Magdalene".

But somehow, I doubt that JC's mother will be made the patron saint of hairdressers; maybe that might happen when the apostle Thomas is made the patron saint of skeptics

Jesus was the first beast of Revelation 13.
He was born of the celesial sea, and thus from God, was born out of the ten commandements and the seven cardinal virtues.

Opposite this is the second beast of Revelation 13 which was born out of the earth, or from carnal desire as distinquished in Jn.1:13.

The difference between these two is clear as a bell. The first one becomes God and the second one becomes the final imposter that continually points at the first beast (Jesus today). They are those that we call born again christians living with the unresolved paradox sinful yet saved.

This means that Jesus was ligitimate as the first beast and those we know as second beast are illigitimate and have been from their mothers womb untimely ripped. We can also say that they have been reborn from a malevolent female after the rape of Mary Magdalene.

Amos

Rodahi,
Celsus' account of events is exactly what I would expect from someone who had read Matthew and wanted to make up their own atheistic account. Attacking Jesus' birth and his miracles is the obvious thing to do.
I wonder how Celsus in 179 CE could have known the truth about Jesus' birth and miracles? He is after all writing 150 or so years after the death of Jesus, and if I tried to bring in a source dated this late you'd probably instantly name it Christian Propaganda or mythological development and not bother to actually refute it. It seems to me a great leap of faith to believe that Celsus only of all the ancient writers knew the truth about Jesus.

But of course you know as well as I do, that they also state clearly that Jesus was NOT illegimate but was immaculately conceived.

Well there is the claim that Jesus was begotten of the Spirit... but you could ignore that if you wish and beg the whole question.

Layman's thread on: <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum6/HTML/000265.html" TARGET=_blank>
Paul and the birth of Jesus</A>
Apparently it wasn't all Paul knew.

Well I certainly agree Jesus did magic.
Are you trying to say that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is in fact a magical incantation, as opposed to a declaration of Jesus' Kingship?? I think you're on thin ice here. A few of the words -not even the whole sentence, but just 3 words- happen to coincide with a phrase used on a magic scroll and you think that proves something significant?
Aren't you overlooking the more simple possibility that Paul is just refering to the scars on his body that come from injuries done to him because of his beliefs? After all he was stone and left for dead a couple of times wasn't he? That sort of thing's bound to leave a few marks.
The Good News version renders this verse:
"To conclude: let no one give my any more trouble, because the scars I have on my body show that I am the slave of Jesus."

I'd certainly agree that Jesus considered himself to be God.
Have you ever heard the saying that the more truth lies have in them the more convincing they sound? Celsus agreeing that Jesus believed himself to be God doesn't really prove anything.
I'm interested though Rodahi, as far as the Trilemma goes where do you place yourself on that? Most skeptics I know avoid the argument as if it was contagious by vehemently denying that Jesus ever claimed to be God. -So you understand why I'm a bit surprised here. If you believe Celsus here that Jesus did, that would mean you must consider Jesus a liar or a lunatic. Celsus seems to me to favour the liar option, what about you?

Tercel

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited April 30, 2001).]

Rodahi

I have always been fascinated with the two opposing concepts:

(1) Jesus was a direct lineal descendent of King David, via Joseph. (somewhere in the gospels I am sure...:-) (the saviour was supposed to come "out of the House of David", is that not correct?)

(2) He was the product of a virgin birth ie. NOT RELATED TO HIS "FATHER" JOSEPH AT ALL.

I presume these to be impossible to resolve, or is there something I have not understood?

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
Rodahi,
Celsus' account of events is exactly what I would expect from someone who had read Matthew and wanted to make up their own atheistic account.

It is not certain where Celsus got his information. Also, he was not an atheist. Do you think that every ancient person who questioned or attacked Christianity was atheistic?

Tercel: Attacking Jesus' birth and his miracles is the obvious thing to do.

Why so?

Tercel: I wonder how Celsus in 179 CE could have known the truth about Jesus' birth and miracles? He is after all writing 150 or so years after the death of Jesus, and if I tried to bring in a source dated this late you'd probably instantly name it Christian Propaganda or mythological development and not bother to actually refute it.

Not necessarily. It would depend on the content of the commentary, not WHEN it was written.

Tercel: It seems to me a great leap of faith to believe that Celsus only of all the ancient writers knew the truth about Jesus.

I see no good reason to disbelieve him or others who spoke of Jesus and Christianity.

Tercel: But of course you know as well as I do, that they also state clearly that Jesus was NOT illegimate but was immaculately conceived.

Has it ever occurred to you that Matthew and Luke fabricated their fabulous stories to hide the true nature of Jesus' conception and birth? Which is easier to believe? 1) Jesus was conceived illegitimately and some attempted to cover it up, or 2) Jesus was conceived by Yahweh having the invisible "Spirit" impregnate his mother. I think option #1 is infinitely more likely.

Tercel: Well there is the claim that Jesus was begotten of the Spirit... but you could ignore that if you wish and beg the whole question.

I think Matthew and Luke told fairy tales.

Tercel: Layman's thread on: <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum6/HTML/000265.html" TARGET=_blank>
Paul and the birth of Jesus</A>
Apparently it wasn't all Paul knew.

I have read the letters attributed to Paul. No where does he mention a virgin conception and birth. He indicates that Jesus was born the natural way.

Tercel: Well I certainly agree Jesus did magic.

Good. We agree on something.

Tercel: Are you trying to say that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is in fact a magical incantation, as opposed to a declaration of Jesus' Kingship??

According to the writer of Revelation, the phrase "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS" is tattooed on Jesus' thigh and written on his robe. I see no good reason to think these are not the "marks of Jesus" that Paul has tattooed? on his body.

The words "King of kings and Lord of lords" also appears in a letter that was once attributed to Paul. In 1 Timothy, we read: "...I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blest and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see." The writer was heavily influenced by a pseudepigraphic work known today as The Book of Enoch:

"And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said to one another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of them that cry upon the earth to the gates of heaven. And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, 'Bring our cause before the Most High.' And they said to the Lord of the ages: "Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, the throne of Thy Glory [standeth] unto all the generations of the ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages" (IX.1-4)..."And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason of his magnificence and glory, and no flesh could behold Him." (XIV.20-21)

Originally, the phrase "King of kings and Lord of lords" referred to the Most High, not Jesus. This is made evident in Enoch. The writer of Revelation seems to understand this and indicates that Jesus has those "words of power" inscribed on him and his robe, ostensibly to protect him from harm and to enable him to perform magical acts. Also, the writer of 1 Timothy understood the phrase to mean the Most High, not Jesus. See 2:5. It should be noted that this writer was not above the use of magical cursing. In 1:19-20, we read: "By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan (i.e. magically cursed) that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Tercel: I think you're on thin ice here. A few of the words -not even the whole sentence, but just 3 words- happen to coincide with a phrase used on a magic scroll and you think that proves something significant?

Magicians used a phrase paralleling one Jesus, according to the writer of Revelation, had inscribed on his thigh and robe. I think it is significant.

Tercel: Aren't you overlooking the more simple possibility that Paul is just refering to the scars on his body that come from injuries done to him because of his beliefs? After all he was stone and left for dead a couple of times wasn't he? That sort of thing's bound to leave a few marks.

How is your explanation "simpler?" Paul does not say that he has scars as result of beatings and stonings. He says, "Henceforth, let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." (Gal. 6:17) According to Adolf Deissmann, "One of the marks of highly popular style of St. Paul's missionary methods is that in many passages of his letters we find St. Paul employing a usage familiar and intelligible to popular feeling--I mean the technical phraseology and the cadence of the language of magic. I have tried...to show that the curious sentence about 'marks of Jesus' is best understood if read in the light of a magical formula handed down in a Leyden papyrus." Light from the Ancient East, P. 303.

Tercel: The Good News version renders this verse:
"To conclude: let no one give my any more trouble, because the scars I have on my body show that I am the slave of Jesus."

Did Paul have "scars" or "brands?" Let's look at the meaning of "marks," or in Greek "stigma."

The word "stigma" refers to "a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what general or master they belonged to, and there were even some devotees who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods." Strongs #4742

Further, Paul states that the "brands" protect him from others: "let no man trouble me." How would scars received via beatings and stonings, etc., protect him from troublesome men?

Tercel: I'd certainly agree that Jesus considered himself to be God.

Since Jesus was a Jew, I don't think he considered himself equal to, or the same as, the Most High, i.e., Yahweh. Nor did his disciples. He more than likely considered himself possessed (at various times) by the magical "Power" of Yahweh's spirit, causing him to act irratically. This would give outsiders the impression that he thought himself a god or that he was demonically "possessed." Jesus could have considered his "Powers" to be superior to those of others. In that sense he may have considered himself to be a god or god-like.

Tercel: Have you ever heard the saying that the more truth lies have in them the more convincing they sound?

No. Sounds illogical to me.

Tercel: Celsus agreeing that Jesus believed himself to be God doesn't really prove anything.

Celsus did not say that Jesus considered himself to be "God." He said Jesus considered himself to be "a god." If Jesus considered himself a god or to possess god-like "Powers," then he placed himself among numerous magicians of his day who did the very same thing.

Tercel: I'm interested though Rodahi, as far as the Trilemma goes where do you place yourself on that? Most skeptics I know avoid the argument as if it was contagious by vehemently denying that Jesus ever claimed to be God. -So you understand why I'm a bit surprised here. If you believe Celsus here that Jesus did, that would mean you must consider Jesus a liar or a lunatic.

I don't think Jesus or his disciples considered him to be "God." With respect to what I "consider," I can only say that I think Jesus practiced magic as many other Jews of his time (and before his time) did.

Tercel: Celsus seems to me to favour the liar option, what about you?

I think Celsus believed Jesus to be an illegitimate Jewish magician who thought himself to be a god or possessed of god-like powers. I see no good reason to disagree with him.

rodahi

You haven't misunderstood a thing, TheCandle; the two concepts are logically incompatible. It is just one of the numerous illogical absurdities that some feel the need to believe in and apologize for. Another absurdity is the idea that one can be three and three can be one.

rodahi

Also, why believe in the divine paternity of Jesus Christ and not that of Alexander the Great?

Complete with the conclusion that Zeus is a real being and not a figment of the imagination.

I also note that Tercel advocates Josh McDowell's trilemma; I wonder if he would be willing to consider similar trilemmas about prophets of other religions, like Mohammed. Is he a lunatic, a liar, or the Prophet of the One True Religion?