Aspirin99

I'm creating a series of writings related to on-going discussions with Christian family members. The series is to explain my skeptic views. I have three family members who are all trained in theology. One is a 70 year old missionary who speaks 4 languages. Another is a fund raiser for a televangelist (actually, he changing jobs, but that's what he's done for years), and another works in prison ministries (he's a little more open minded).

This is the 2nd part of the series. Actually, I was going to go into several things related to the birth of the messiah that are suspect, but this became so long, part 2 may have to be segmented.

In the first part, I used Richard Carrier's approach to explaining why the resurrection does not pass muster for being historically probable. I may post that too later.

Anyway, any feedback on the following would be appreciated.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Why Christianity is Unbelievable: Part 2: Birth of a Messiah
By Kenny Bellew (Aspirin99)

In Part 1 of this series, I showed that Christianity has very weak historical proof of its claims to a resurrected Jesus. In fact, if it were not for the fact that Christians existed in the 2nd century, we would know almost nothing of Christianity. However, it would be a grave error to assume that what the Christians of the 2nd century believed to be true was the same thing that the Christians of Paul’s time believed to be true. In the latter half of the 2nd century, claims about Jesus are embellished greatly in efforts to prove he was the Messiah.

To the casual reader who picks up a Bible and begins reading the New Testament, he or she will first encounter the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The reader is given the impression that he or she is reading an eye-witness account by four men who were in the thick of it with Jesus. We’re told that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her she was with child. A miraculous Virgin Birth is described. We’re told of a Roman census that occurs that forces Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem. We’re told of an evil king who kills every baby under two-years old in an attempt to keep Jesus from making it into the world. We’re told of Wise Men who travel a great distance led by some “star in the east� to give gifts to the baby Jesus. We’re then told of an adult Jesus who gets baptized by a famous preacher, then he heals the sick, raises the dead, walks on water, causes storms to stop immediately, curses a fig tree, performs exorcisms (sends devils into suicidal pigs), then prepares for martyrdom. He rides into Jerusalem with a donkey and a colt and gets crucified. This causes day to turn to night (from noon to 3:00PM) and an earth quake which is so severe that graves break open. When the graves break open, a whole bunch of people come alive, crawl out of the graves and walk through the streets like zombies. These zombies are seen (we’re told) by MANY people. However, the theatrics are not over. The veil of the Temple suddenly rips in half from top to bottom (The veil is like a huge room-separating curtain in the Temple). A few days later, we’re told that Jesus rose from the dead. Then, he teleports around Jerusalem and Galilee, sometimes he disguises himself and sometimes not. Forty days later, we’re told he floats into the sky like a hot-air balloon and disappears.

The above is the view you have if you read the Gospels with no historical context. If you just take it as being written all at once around the time of Christ, but that’s not the way it happened. The only stories people know of the life of Jesus come from the Gospels written a generation after Christ’s death, but the Gospels were shaped by the political and religious frictions of the time. When you understand these, you understand the motivations behind why certain events in the Gospels must be presented the way they are. You understand why some fabrications are required for Christianity to establish itself as a universal religion based on orthodox rules. I believe there were at least three main frictions that shaped the Gospels.

1. The desperate need to prove Jesus was the Messiah.
2. To show that this messiah and his religion were not a threat to the Romans.
3. To combat specific Christian doctrines dividing Christianity at the end of the 1st century.

Of these three frictions, I’m going to concentrate only on the first one for part 2 of Why Christianity is Unbelievable. The following timeline applies to this discussion.


• 732 BCE – During the time of a divided kingdom of the Jews, Ahaz is king of the southern kingdom of Judah. He fears an invasion by an alliance between Syria and Israel (the 10 tribes). See Isa. 7 – 8.
• c. 6 BCE – Birth of Jesus - According to Matthew, Herod is alive at birth of Jesus (Mt 2:1).
• 4 BCE – Death of King Herod the Great.
• 6 CE – Birth of Jesus according to Luke, who says that it was during the reign of Caesar Augustus (reigned from 27 BCE to his death in 14 CE) and specifically at the census of Quirinius (6 CE).
• 30 CE – If Jesus existed, he probably died around this year.
• 37 CE – The Apostle Paul is converted and believes Jesus is the Messiah. He never knew Jesus before the crucifixion.
• 37 CE – Josephus Flavius was born. He grew up in Galilee similar to Jesus. He became the most noted Jewish historian of his time.
• 39 CE – Philo (b.20 BC – d.45 CE) wrote from Palestine. He was a Hellenized Jew who was contemporary to Jesus. He recorded Jewish history and philosophy.
• c.49 CE – Paul starts writings epistles to churches. He writes the majority of the NT outside of the Gospels.
• c.62 CE – Paul is killed in Rome for charges of treason. Paul dies without ever having read the Gospels, which would not be written for another 10 to 20 years.
• 64 CE – Nero becomes emperor of Rome. The stories of his persecuting Christians may or may not be true. However, there is no proof that recanting of religious views would save anyone’s life.
• 66 CE – The Jews revolt against Roman rule in Jerusalem. The revolt is crushed by Commander Vespasian.
• 69 CE – Vespasian becomes emperor of Rome.
• 70 CE – Due to continued Jewish revolt, Vespasian ordered Roman troops into Jerusalem. The city is partially razed. The Temple is completely destroyed. Thousands of Jews are killed.
• c.75 CE – Gospel of Mark was published anonymously. It probably did not look exactly like the version we have today- especially the ending. Our current version is 661 verses. Mark, who was later credited for this writing, never met Jesus.
• c.80 CE – The Gospel of Matthew is written anonymously. Matthew copies from Mark to produce a Gospel of 1068 versus. Of Mark’s 661 verses, he uses 606 of them to produce Matthew.
• c. 80 CE – The Gospel of Luke is written in 1149 verses. He also uses the anonymous work of Mark, but he only uses 302 verses of Mark. Because Mathew and Luke often contradict each other (eg, date of Christ’s birth), Luke did not have the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote Luke. Therefore, they were probably written about the same time. Luke never met Jesus.
• c.85 CE – Doctrines of Gnostism (specifically docetism) and adoptionism begin to divide Christianity. Christian writings of this time defend against these doctrines.
• c.90 CE – Gospel of John begins to be written. It was probably edited up until around 150 CE. John does not use any other Gospel.
• c. 155 CE – Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist, writes about early Christianity.
• 382 CE – Jerome is asked to translate the Bible into Latin by Pope Damasus.

If Jesus existed, the history of Christianity started as follows. Jesus was crucified around 30 CE. The disciples of Jesus do very little with the message of Jesus after his death. About 20 years later, a religious Pharisee by the name of Saul converts to Christianity after claiming to have a vision of Jesus, and he changes his name to Paul. It would be Paul who would tell the world about Jesus. Paul had three major missionary journeys telling people about Jesus before he is killed by the Romans for sedition. His story of Jesus was very different than the story that would be published after Paul’s death. The stories that Paul never read would be called Gospels. It wasn’t until the second century that the gospels got their names: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The post-Pauline church was still very Jewish. If you wanted to gain Jewish religious followers, one of the things you needed was a Messiah. Paul said Jesus was the Messiah, but he never tried very hard to prove it in his writings. When the Gospels were written, the Jews had recently had several failed Messiahs. According to Josephus - Yehuda of Galilee (6 CE), Theudas (44 CE), and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 CE) were all crucified for claiming to be Messiah. They had also endured an incredible war and destruction of their Temple in Jerusalem. The Jews must have been wondering if a Messiah would ever be successful.

To this question, Christianity tried to offer an answer. They claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, and he had already won the war, but the war was not with the Romans. It was with Satan.

To prove that Jesus was the Messiah, the Gospel would claim that Jesus was born of a Virgin according to prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 (which was written about 732 years before Jesus). The Christian message would be very clear. Mary never had sex before she conceived. This is why Jesus would also be called: The Son of God.

Here’s Matthew’s account (Matt.1:18-25 -NIV):
[18] This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. [19] Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

[20] But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. [21] She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

[22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23]"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."

[24] When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. [25] But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke’s account is a follows (Luke 1:26-35 -NIV):
[26] In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, [27] to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. [28] The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

[29] Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. [30] But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. [31] You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. [32] He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, [33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

[34] "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

[35] The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

A Virgin Birth would be an incredible miracle. If Jesus was conceived through a Virgin Birth by cooperation between Mary and the Holy Spirit of God, how could you ever tell the story of Jesus without mentioning this fantastic event? What more proof do you need that Jesus was the Messiah if God, Himself, fathered him? You would think that if this were true, everyone would know about it and talk about it.

Note: The fact that women contribute an ovum that the sperm fertilizes was not a known concept in Bible times. The idea that the woman contributed half of the DNA required for the chromosomes to build a human was entirely unknown. To the ancient world, the man’s “seed� contained everything required to grow a human. It only needed a womb in which to be planted, then, it could grow. In fact, a woman’s womb was viewed like a crop field in the Bible. Just as crop fields could be barren and not allow seeds to grow, so a woman’s womb might be barren. The barren womb is a common concept in the Bible. However, you will never find reference to a man who could not reproduce due to low sperm count. Therefore, it would be a mistake to view the authors of the Virgin Birth as thinking that Mary contributed anything to the creation of Jesus except her womb.

Paul Does Not Know of the Virgin Birth
Paul wrote his epistles 25 to 35 years before the first mention of the Virgin Birth. Paul apparently knows nothing of a Virgin Birth. He never mentions it, even when doing so would bolster his point. It’s not that Paul never mentions the birth of Jesus. In fact, Paul mentions the birth of Jesus twice. Once, Paul says that Jesus was “born of the seed of David� (Rom. 1:3 KJV). Saying that Jesus was “born of the seed of David� would imply that Paul believed that “human seed� was used to create Jesus. Otherwise, Paul would have said, “born of the seed of David and God.� In the same breath, Paul says that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God because of his resurrection from the dead, not because God caused his mother to conceive.

Paul writes in Romans 1:3,4 KJV, c.60 CE
[3] Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

[4] And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Paul writes in Galations 4: 4 NIV, c. 49 CE
[4] But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

To Paul, there was nothing miraculous about the birth of Jesus or the way Jesus was conceived. He is clearly making the point that the birth of Christ was as natural as any other. In fact, the point is specifically made to combat the idea that there was something supernatural about the way Jesus came into the world.

Mark, the First Biographer of Jesus, Does Not Record the Virgin Birth
The next biblical writer (chronologically speaking), Mark, created the first major biographical work on the life of Jesus. If Jesus had a Virgin Birth, why did Mark not record this in the first biography of Christ? It would be like someone writing the biography of Lisa Maria Presley and leaving off that her father was Elvis. Actually, it would be like that times a million. It’s unthinkable (unless it were not true).

I believe that the reason Mark did not record the Virgin Birth was that the doctrine had not yet been invented. It was probably another 10 years before the Gospel of Matthew would first record anything about a Virgin Birth.

The first time we learn about the Virgin Birth of Jesus was about 85 years after the event. The fact that the first two people to write about the life of Jesus, Paul and Mark, do not mention the Virgin Birth, suggests that the Virgin Birth was probably a later invention.

Why would someone invent the Virgin Birth? It was invented because it was one of many things that attempt to prove that Jesus was more than a normal man. If the Virgin Birth is proven to be an invention, other similar claims should also be viewed with suspicion like his miracles (which Paul never mentions), his exorcisms (which Paul never mentions) and his post-resurrection ministry in a human body (which Paul never mentions).

The Virgin Birth was used to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 regarding being born of a virgin. This was done to prove Jesus was the expected Messiah.

Isaiah 7:14
[14] Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

At some point, early Christians interpreted Isaiah 7:14 to be a messianic prophecy. Anyone who reads the Gospels critically knows that the writers were looking for messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. They decided that Isaiah 7:14 was such a prophecy, so they needed Jesus to fulfill it. After all, Jesus cannot be the messiah if he only fulfills a few of the messianic prophecies. He must fulfill them all. Therefore, Matthew records that Jesus has a Virgin Birth.

Not only was the Virgin Birth an invention, but the early Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 was soon under attack by the Jewish, Hebrew-speaking scholars of their day. We have multiple records that the Jews informed the Christians that not only was Isaiah 7:14 not a messianic prophecy, but that Christians had misinterpreted the original Hebrew word for “virgin�. The Hebrew word that is translated as “virgin� was “almah�, which means simply “young woman.� The native Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars told the Christians that if Isaiah wanted to be specific about her lack of sexual experience, Isaiah would have used the word “bethulah.�

It is true that most “almah� type (young women) who were not married would be a virgin. Sex outside of marriage was forbidden. However, an almah who was married would not be referred to as a “bethulah� type young woman (because she has had sex). Also, you would never refer to a young woman who was a harlot as a “bethulah.� She would simply be a whore who is also an almah. The ancient Jews made this point repeatedly to Christians to let them know that they had misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14. If Isaiah wanted to specify a young woman who would conceive a child without sex, he would have written, “Behold, a ‘bethulah’ will conceive.�

For example, in Genesis 24:16, Rebekah was called a “bethulah� because no man had had sex with her. Bethulah could be used as a noun as well as an adjective. Deut. 22:14, 15 reads, “If a husband find his new wife "not a maid [bethulah]," then on his complaint her parents must "bring forth the tokens of the virginity [bethulah] of the maid [naarah]". Many other examples can be sited.

Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist who wrote about 155 CE, records this debate in one of his letters called A Dialogue with Trypho.

For Justin Martyr’s A Dialogue with Trypho, see: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html
(Thanks again to Peter Kirby for making these works available online)

Justin responds to Trypho’s accusations saying:
“…But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son…� Justin also tries to address the argument against the Virgin Birth that the prophecy was long fulfilled before Christ’s birth.

Later, Jerome, who was probably one of the greatest linguists of the 4th century (he translated the Bible into Latin, which is called the Vulgate) records how the Jews are constantly telling Christianity about this mistake, and he admits that they are right.

Jerome, Against Jovinianus
[32] Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.� I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah..."

(Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 1, chapter 32; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, p. 370). See this online at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

Current day Christian apologist, in a desperate attempt to save face, have devised several tortured explanations trying to prove that Isaiah meant that the woman to whom he was referring would be a virgin when she conceived. However, it doesn’t take a theologian to see that the woman who fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 8 was not a virgin at conception. Also, native Hebrew-speaking Jews of the day were pointing out that Christians, who probably spoke Aramaic or Greek, had misinterpreted the Hebrew. How can today’s Christian students of ancient Hebrew language have a better understanding than the native Hebrew speakers of early Christianity?

How was the Mistake Made?
There were a variety of Greek translations of Isaiah (which was originally in Hebrew) floating around in the 1st century. Most of these Greek translations were known to be of poor translation quality. Some believe that the early Christians were reading a poor-quality Greek translation that may have caused confusion (Virtually all early New Testament manuscripts we have are written in Greek). While there were several Greek version of Isaiah in the 1st century that may have affected Christian interpretation, only one of these is extant today in the Christian version of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). Therefore, it difficult to know for sure if this is the source of the error. However, this is a possibility.

What does Isaiah 7:14 Really Prophecy?
What was Isaiah 7:14 actually talking about if not the Virgin Birth of a Messiah? It is actually fairly clear in our current translation. Isaiah 7 writes concerning the year 732 BCE. The Jewish kingdom had split from a united twelve tribes to ten tribes in the north (called Israel) and two tribes to the south (called Judah). Ahaz was king of the southern kingdom of Judah. He was very anxious that the ten northern tribes (Israel) were going to attack him with an alliance with Syria.

The Bible tells us (in Isaiah 7) that God spoke to Ahaz and told Ahaz to ask God for a sign that would put Ahaz’s mind at ease that Judah would not be destroyed by such an alliance. We’re told that Ahaz could ask for any sign he wanted, no matter how difficult. I would have asked for a giant pile of gold, but Ahaz replies that he could not tempt God such by asking for a sign.

Isaiah tells Ahaz that, whether he asks for it or not, God is going to give him a sign that the kingdom of Judah would not be destroyed by an alliance of Israel and Syria. Isaiah tells Ahaz that the sign to him would be that a young woman would have a son, and before that son was old enough to eat solid food, the ten tribes (Israel) and Syria would be destroyed by the Assyrians. However, Isaiah goes on to tell him that this is not necessarily good news, because the Assyrians will eventually destroy Judah. It is not a prophecy of complete deliverance. It is only a short reprieve followed by destruction. In actuality, the sign given to Ahaz was to predict the mechanisms that put in motion Judah’s ultimate destruction by the Assyrians.

As you can see, this prophecy was to be a sign to Ahaz – Not a struggling Jewish community a little more than 700 years later. If the birth of Jesus was to be the sign to the King of Judah, Ahaz would be dead before it was fulfilled. The idea that this is a double-meaning prophecy is silly and out of context. No place is that hinted.

There was nothing special about the way that the child was conceived that would be a sign to Ahaz. What would be a sign is that the baby would be born, and something would happen before the baby boy was old enough to eat solid food or know right from wrong.

In fact, we don’t have to wait long for this prophecy to be fulfilled. In the very next chapter (Isaiah 8), Isaiah has sex with his wife and writes about it this way:

Isaiah 8:3,4 (New Living Translation)
[3] Then I slept with my wife, and she became pregnant and had a son. And the LORD said, "Call him Maher-shalal-hash-baz. [4] This name prophesies that within a couple of years, before this child is old enough to say `Papa' or `Mama,' the king of Assyria will invade both Damascus and Samaria and carry away their riches."

Obviously, Mrs. Isaiah was not a virgin when the child was born. Isaiah says right in verse 3 that he had sex with her. Since she was his wife, I’m guessing that it wasn’t her first time, but even if it were, it is not a parallel to the Virgin Birth experience claimed by Christianity which claims no sex prior to conception. The Christian interpretation obviously got confused by whatever word was translated as “virgin.� Again, if the early Christians used a poor-quality Greek version of Isaiah that is no longer extant, we may never know exactly what confused them.

In summary, the first two writers about the life of Jesus know nothing of the Virgin Birth. The Virgin Birth is not mentioned until about 85 years after the birth of Jesus by only two of the four Gospel writers. It is probably mentioned because the Gospel writers think it is necessary for Jesus to be born of a Virgin in order to fulfill messianic prophecy. The scripture that is supposed to prophecy that the Messiah will be to a virgin (specifically, a woman who never had sex), was misinterpreted by early Christians because of the word “virgin,� as attested by native Hebrew-speaking Jews not long after the time the Gospels were written. Lastly, the prophecy has nothing to do with a messiah delivering the Jews, but it speaks of a child being born as a specific sign to Ahaz that he will not be destroyed the way he thinks he will be destroyed. Instead, he will be destroyed by the Assyrians. To claim that this utterly sad story of failure is a prophecy of hope for a messiah is ludicrous.

This attempt to establish the Virgin Birth so late in the game is a fumble by the early Christians. It sheds light on a desperate attempt to establish Jesus as the legitimate messiah. An attempt that will include embellishments and fabrications where needed, including an embellished resurrection story to combat the growing threat of Christian Gnosticism. Perhaps the Gospel writer really believed the stories of Jesus, and that the end justified the means. Nonetheless, I believe this shows that the writer is willing to invent stories to frame the life of Jesus in the required messianic painting. This is how early Christians gave birth to a Messiah.

-------------------------------------
edit for typo

Asha'man

Very nice, and well argued.

You might want to spend a little more time on how Matthew and Luke agree nearly perfectly on verses where they copied Mark, but diverge significantly where they needed to provide new material. While both Matthew and Luke had the basic idea of a virgin birth, the entire rest of the birth narratives are very dissimilar.

You might also bring in the conflicting genealogies. Again, Mark provided no guidance, so the stories diverge wildly. However, since all the local Jews were insisting that the Messiah had to be Davidic, Matthew and Luke felt pressured to meet that objection in the only way available at the time: fabricate a genealogy. Given that both genealogies clearly pass through Joseph, they almost certainly pre-date the introduction of the virgin birth.

Clearly, the stories were edited over time in order to counter the objections of the audience they were presentd to.

John A. Broussard

You might want to point out that a virgin birth helps to strengthen the divine aspect of any deity. It's very common through much of the supernatural tradition which is far older than Jesus and take even more dramatic turns.

Athena, for example, sprang fully armed from Zeus' brow. You can't get much more virginal than that.

The concept of a virgin birth was widespread in the Roman Empire long before the birth of Jesus. It would actually have been surprising if the early Christians hadn't taken over that myth for their own deity.

Diogenes the Cynic

Very nice, but you're too early with your date for Luke. His knowledge of Josephus means that his Gospel wasn't written until the mid 90's at the earliest.

Aspirin99

Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming. I'll make use of all of these suggestions.

I agree. I've been thinking about that, trying to decide if I think that the use of Josephus was a later injection to fortify its historicity of from the beginning. I'm leaning to the latter.

edit: spelling

countjulian

The best infancy narrative, and the one that influenced the Christians the most, was the Romulus and Remus story. Here, we have all the elements: a chaste, religious virgin, a king with knowledge of a(2) prophesied "messiah(s)'', an attempt to kill them, and a miraculous escape. The other really good one is the birth of perseus: king wants to prevent the birth of a prophesied prodigy, locks the virgin mom of Perseus in a tower, and Zeus impregnates her with a shower of gold. This is even more "virginal" than the story in Luke, where god uses his (phallic?) spirit to impregnate Mary: mark 1:35 "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." I wonder what it feels like to have the Holy Ghost come upon you? If they try to counter by saying that Mary is still a virgin after this unlike all of the pagan god-men, point out to them that the text says no such thing (and neither do the texts about the pagan-godmen say such a thing), and in fact this is a very Catholic tradition. Also be sure to remind them that the Christian community in Ephesus, which may well have had very much of a hand to play in the whole affair, was competing with the cult of a virgin goddess named Artemis.
Also, your date with Mark is even a bit early. In Mark, chapter 13, verses 14 and 18, the gospel writer says "The abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains: …And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter." This is a cryptic reference to Daniel, who is himself apocryphally referring to the defiling of the temple in 165 by Antiochus Epiphanes . The Emperor Hadrian, in 135, did the exact same thing, deliberately modeling himself on Antiochus. None of the gospels are named until 180, and we only hear talk of 4 gospels in the 170s. Both Justin Martyr and Papias cite gospels unknown to us today. This, to me, makes it somewhat incredulous to arbitrarily date the gospels to the end of the first century, since they bear all the markings of the 2nd. The only reason to do this, so it seems to me, is too make it somewhat plausible that some of the original sayings of Jesus might be lying around in the gospels, to the effect that the Jesus Seminar will have fantastic job security for the for next 2000 years.

Edit: Also check out the story of Joseph and Aseneth.

Beth Phillips

I found a bilingual proper name wordplay, with Greek and Semitic, that concerns the NT Mary as a 'virgin'.

‘Bethlehem’—is actually spelled in the Greek NT as 'bethleem/bhqleem and creates a GrecoSemitic wordplay with the Semitic ‘virginity’ or, 'bethuleem בתולי×?'.

Beth

http://www.fireonthewateronline.com/

judge

This is just an assertion though. Why would you expect it to be mentioned in the few remaining scraps we have from Paul?


Yes born of a woman , not born of a man.
One can easily read this as supporting the VB if one wants.

Clivedurdle

First, might the Virgin Birth and the Crucifixion/resurrection be seen as contradicting each other?

Paul sees Jesus becoming God at his death/resurrection (which?), Matthew and Luke see God becoming man at Jesus's conception, quickening (which?)

Does God become man or man become God?

Secondly, does anyone want to comment more on what people actually believed about foetuses, pregnancy etc then?

Here I ask was it possible there was a belief someone had two fathers? A physical father - Joseph - and a spiritual father - the Holy Ghost - who came upon Mary at the quickening - Did people realise women were pregnant before quickening, how did they explain the growing tummy and other symptoms? Luke is alleged to have been a doctor - what would he have believed, that by putting garlic in the mouth it could be smelt in the vagina for example?

Was there a belief that foetuses were ensouled later in the pregnancy at quickening from a supply of eternal souls in heaven? So what was special about Jesus's soul?

Aspirin99

I have already stated why I believe that to be true and why it seems unthinkable for Paul not to mention it.

Men cannot have children. Check it out. ahaha. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

To me, it seems clear that this verse is stating that Jesus came into the world as a normal human being. He was not, for example, vomited out of the mouth of a giant snake.