Post: #1

One of the last items bothering me in Christian theology is the concept of Jesus' immaculate birth.

We all know the story. The holy spirit came down unto Mary and made Jesus. Joseph, knowing Mary wasn't pure was going to disown her quietly because the community would have stoned her cheating if it had come out.

However Gabriel came to Jesus and told him not to and thus we have the holy family.

Right?

I don't think so. In fact, in Nazareth (Jesus' home town) it's well known that Jesus was never able to perform a miracle there. Why is that?

The bible states that he wasn't able to because of lack of faith. I believe the truth to be is because everyone there knew he wasn't Joseph's son and as such mocked him because of it. In the early days of Jesus' ministry and the early church they probably all knew the truth and silently acknowledged that Jesus was in fact born from his mother sleeping around.

The virgin birth story came out later to whitewash Mary's sin.

Do i view Jesus any less because of this? No, in fact i view this as a significant aspect of his ministry. In spite of his mother's actions he was able to perform miracles, act as humanity's savior , and be the son of God.

The sheer fact that God, the king of kings, decided to bring his only son into this world by way of a lowly slutty peasant woman makes Jesus and his ministry that much more powerful to me. A single man born from such a terrible act has made and imparted such grace and virtue on this world is so powerful. It blows my mind.

I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. What does everyone else think on this subject?

Post: #2

(10-28-2016 04:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  One of the last items bothering me in Christian theology is the concept of Jesus' immaculate birth.

We all know the story. The holy spirit came down unto Mary and made Jesus. Joseph, knowing Mary wasn't pure was going to disown her quietly because the community would have stoned her cheating if it had come out.

However Gabriel came to Jesus and told him not to and thus we have the holy family.

Right?

I don't think so. In fact, in Nazareth (Jesus' home town) it's well known that Jesus was never able to perform a miracle there. Why is that?

The bible states that he wasn't able to because of lack of faith. I believe the truth to be is because everyone there knew he wasn't Joseph's son and as such mocked him because of it. In the early days of Jesus' ministry and the early church they probably all knew the truth and silently acknowledged that Jesus was in fact born from his mother sleeping around.

The virgin birth story came out later to whitewash Mary's sin.

Do i view Jesus any less because of this? No, in fact i view this as a significant aspect of his ministry. In spite of his mother's actions he was able to perform miracles, act as humanity's savior , and be the son of God.

I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. What does everyone else think on this subject?

Keep in mind that I have a ton of background in scholarly study of the New Testament, so my view is a bit different. I accept the Virgin Birth largely on faith. The sources are horribly problematic. Essentially, the infancy narratives are cobbled together from Hebrew Bible sources and follow the theological purposes of the evangelists (I can get more into this if people are interested).

I tend to believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth for a number of reasons, again, which we can get into if people are interested.

So, long story short, how do I see the Virgin Birth? Virgin Birth narratives are extremely common in the Greco-Roman world; plenty of heroes are born of a virgin, both pre and post-Christian. My suspicion is that Jesus' followers didn't know very much about his birth and surmised that, since he was a great man who did miracles, he must've had a miraculous birth. Then, when Matthew was written (75-90, probably), Matthew discovered a prophecy that makes it work (Isa. 7:14).

What you're suggesting is pretty close to something called the Toldot Yeshu, which is a 5th-6th (can't remember specifically) century anti-Christian polemic. It suggests that Jesus was born of Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier named Pandira, he went to Egypt, learned sorcery, and then his body was stolen by his disciples after his crucifixion.

Post: #3

Truth Teller sums it up good. It is a very common myth and if you see Jesus life as a whole, you will notice all the elements of Joseph Campbell's archetype of Hero, which is a common motive throughout the history of world. But that doesn't it make less important or "fake".

On the other side, as a researcher on the nature of reality and with that, also of Divine (or what we assume Divine is), I must say that my opinion on the matter is that this is purely trivial aspect of story of this person called "Jesus".
More important is actually who was Jesus and what actually Christ means. When we look deeper into that, we open a whole new can of worms which will surely offend someone or baffle other.

Post: #4

(10-28-2016 04:22 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  So, long story short, how do I see the Virgin Birth? Virgin Birth narratives are extremely common in the Greco-Roman world; plenty of heroes are born of a virgin, both pre and post-Christian. My suspicion is that Jesus' followers didn't know very much about his birth and surmised that, since he was a great man who did miracles, he must've had a miraculous birth. Then, when Matthew was written (75-90, probably), Matthew discovered a prophecy that makes it work (Isa. 7:14).

It's interesting you write this. I recently read an article that claimed that the original translation of Isiah 7:14 was not the hebrew word for virgin but was simply just the word for"young woman". The reason being that there is a different hebrew word for virgin (ie a chaste woman) versus young woman. What's your take on this?

I've never heard of the Toldot Yeshu either. I'll do some more reading thanks!

I should add, my question really comes at an interesting time. I just got out of a reformation service which left me pondering a lot of the original Catholic doctrine which is what I was initially raised in until family switched to Lutheranism. I never understood the cult of worship and reverence of Mary and found it at best funny and at worst counter productive to the overall message Jesus was bringing to us on earth.

Post: #5

Mary was a slut who cuckolded Joseph hard.

One of the pharisee banged her out -- that was how Jesus was conceived.

This is also the reason why Jesus hated the hypocrisy of the pharisees: they acted holier-than-thou while fucking his mother in secret-- since that is how he was conceived.

This grudge that Jesus had against them is the reason he was soo anti-establishment(anti-pharisees), this is the reason he ushered in his own interpretation of the Hebraic faith/religion.


T.

Post: #6

My take on these sorts of things is largely Kafkaesque. From Chapter 9 in The Trial: "'No', said the priest, 'you need not hold everything to be true, you need only hold it to be necessary.'"

There is strength in religious faith, even if scientifically irrational. Look where rejection of upright faith has taken the SJWs.

Post: #7

That's because he wasn't born of a virgin mother.
/thread

Alternatively, god snuck down with an artificial insemination kit one night and did a sneaky one. He's god, so he can do anything.

Post: #8

Thats hardly the the most unbelievable thing in the christian dogma now, is it?

She could have been swimming in a warm waterhole someone wanked in?

I want someone to explain to me how all the fresh water fish species were collected and housed on the arc to save them from the salt water floods!

Post: #9

Post: #10

Tenebrous' interpretation is quite good.

Post: #11

(10-28-2016 06:20 PM)Tenebrous Wrote:  Mary was a slut who cuckolded Joseph hard.

One of the pharisee banged her out -- that was how Jesus was conceived.

There is an ancient tradition claiming knowledge of just who made Mary pregnant: a Roman centurion named Panthera (the panther). I believe rape was assumed rather than a consensual "cucking". This tradition became the province of occults, satanists and blasphemers. But it does have a certain resonance.

Personally, I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to the myths of paganism, especially the Odinism of the Eddas. But that's another topic.

Post: #12

(10-28-2016 04:12 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary. What does everyone else think on this subject?

My argument isn't really an argument, because when you are dealing with a large subject like a divine creator, and an often opaque topic like faith, it is almost impossible to find the solution in the abstract and overly cerebral world of argument and counter-argument.

As I am sure you know, when trying to wrestle with the concept of God, and in this case the Christian one as described by Jesus in the New Testament, again and again you come up against the whole problem of how is it possible to believe in God?

Blind faith is considered foolish by any thinking person, a good way to get fleeced by con artists, and at the same time, how much evidence do you need to believe?

And once you have seen evidence to your own satisfaction, should you be cocky enough to keep demanding evidence all throughout your life? Or is this the point where faith should take over?

There is too much to say about these topics, and that is not the point of this thread. All I will say is that the answer is not always more study, more reading, more hashing it out with other people on the internet.

Christianity is vital, and to paraphrase the gospel writer, man is not for Christianity, Christianity is for man. If you could find it in books and treatises, then all the saints and prophets would be the smartest and the most bookish. And yet we find that while the saints counted men like this in their number, many were poor, many were simple, and many were men and women who found their calling out in the world among other people.

It would follow, then, unless you are one hundred percent sure that you have been called by some inner prompting to the life of the religious hermit or contemplative, that the way to find an answer to the question of the reality of God does not lie in more reading and more thinking.

Most will find their faith growing, and the evidence they need in some combination of their prayer life and also in their community life through a church of their own, this all being in addition to whatever reading they do.

I think you will find that mulling over and over the concept of the virgin birth mentally will get you no closer to solving the puzzle it poses.

So, with that approach as a part of your search, you will either grow in faith or decide the whole thing is a bunch of superstition and be done with it.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you have come to a belief in God. You think he is real, is supernatural, and completely beyond our comprehension except in small glimpses here and there. You are still faced with a big problem, and one that isn't articulated very often.

Even though intellectually you believe in a higher being, your whole world view is still bounded by all the things you thought before you believed, and it may take a lifetime for you to free your mind up enough to allow it to conceive of what a truly all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful being might look like.

You are still limited by your human ways of seeing and knowing, and that includes science, just as it includes whatever pettiness we humans carry with us, as well as whatever meagerness of spirit the events of your own life has weighed you down with.

J.B Phillips, a clergyman and translator of the Bible addressed this issue in a book he wrote about trying to perceive God without tying him down with limiting human concepts and mental practices called:

Quote:Your God Is Too Small. A Guide for Believers and Skeptics Alike

Copies are cheap on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Your-God-Too-Smal...0743255097

I found a free version online here too:

http://thecommonlife.com/files/books/You..._Small.pdf

Rather than rehash what he has written, I will try to explain how I view this way of looking at it, in the form of an analogy, and that is as close as I can get to a counter-argument to what you wrote.

Think of God like an artist, and we are his creation. An artist creates a world in his mind, he creates the rules by which that world operates, and then forms a work of art reflecting those rules in whatever medium he chooses.

He has some concept or emotion or message he is trying to convey, and the rules of his creation are subordinate to what he is trying to express. The rules themselves aren't the full expression of the idea, they are only the means by which his idea is conveyed.

Take Picasso. In his later Cubist years, he had some pretty odd rules that he used to express his views:



And yet at the same time, in his early work, he showed a style similar to other great masters of painting:



Now, it wouldn't make much sense to say that he had no choice but to follow the laws of Cubism, and that it was absolutely impossible during that period for him to make a painting like he had from his earlier period.

During his blue period, his paintings were pretty monochromatic:



It wasn't blueness forcing him to paint like that, it was a choice he made, and then later, when the time was right, and he wanted to express a further aspect of his artistic message, he painted paintings like this one:




These were not fixed rules of the universe, forcing their will on a limited artist. No. They were choices made by an artist in a specific time and for a specific audience, to have a specific effect.

So it is with God and the laws of biology, or physics, or any other limited human conception of reality.

He is the artist. He is bigger than our perceptions. A virgin birth is a trivial problem for him, and I don't see what the big deal is.

To me, the harder problems are why good people suffer, or why there needs to be a hell. Problems like that.

Moral problems.

Questions that have made even people down the ages wonder not whether or not there is a God, or how big he is, but whether or not he is good.

Those are the problems I have trouble with.

Post: #13

(10-28-2016 04:46 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  It's interesting you write this. I recently read an article that claimed that the original translation of Isiah 7:14 was not the hebrew word for virgin but was simply just the word for"young woman". The reason being that there is a different hebrew word for virgin (ie a chaste woman) versus young woman. What's your take on this?

Right, so the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 is the word "almah," which can mean a young women, although there may be some presumption of virginity there in the first place. I'm not sure I find that such a convincing argument against the Virgin Birth proper. The prophecy of Isaiah refers to a birth under King Ahaz, some 700 years earlier, but I don't see that as an issue. Jewish writers would often recontextualize the Biblical text in order to explain situations in their own time, a technique called Midrash.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm

The Greek text, the Septuagint (LXX), unlike the Hebrew, reads "parthenos," which means virgin but can also mean "maiden" or "young woman," as does the Hebrew "almah." I suppose, however, that the correct Hebrew word would be "bethulah," which unambiguously means virgin.

Personally, I don't put much stock in the NT fulfillment of OT prophecies. In some cases, I think Jesus actively tried to fulfill prophecies (as a prophet or imitation of Elijah/Elisha). On others, I think the later evangelists saw OT prophecies and tried to fit them to Jesus.

Post: #14

(10-28-2016 04:22 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Keep in mind that I have a ton of background in scholarly study of the New Testament, so my view is a bit different. I accept the Virgin Birth largely on faith. The sources are horribly problematic. Essentially, the infancy narratives are cobbled together from Hebrew Bible sources and follow the theological purposes of the evangelists (I can get more into this if people are interested).

I tend to believe that Jesus was born in Nazareth for a number of reasons, again, which we can get into if people are interested.

So, long story short, how do I see the Virgin Birth? Virgin Birth narratives are extremely common in the Greco-Roman world; plenty of heroes are born of a virgin, both pre and post-Christian. My suspicion is that Jesus' followers didn't know very much about his birth and surmised that, since he was a great man who did miracles, he must've had a miraculous birth. Then, when Matthew was written (75-90, probably), Matthew discovered a prophecy that makes it work (Isa. 7:14).

What you're suggesting is pretty close to something called the Toldot Yeshu, which is a 5th-6th (can't remember specifically) century anti-Christian polemic. It suggests that Jesus was born of Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier named Pandira, he went to Egypt, learned sorcery, and then his body was stolen by his disciples after his crucifixion.

Truth Teller may be on to something, as googling virgin birth is called "Parthenogenesis." The semantics between young woman and virgin may lead to something, but unless she was prepubescent who cares? This is billed as an extraordinary and auspicious birth, and a young woman post puberty giving birth was usual back then. There are a few births of patriarchs throughout the old testament whos mothers were considered too old to conceive. That is what made them notable enough to write about, and also where the emissaries of God would interact with humans.

The idea of Mary being raped by a centurion is most likely plausible if you don't believe. Almost all Jewish men were married back then(this was reported as Josephs second marriage) and rape was severely punished within the Jewish community. Only a man of authority that was above Jewish law could get away with raping a young woman and not be officially punished. A Roman Centurion would fit this bill. On the other hand would a young woman gain clemency from her Jewish community due to being raped by a Centurion?

Honestly, I don't know what happened, nor do I plan on asking the creator any time soon. Whether she was a rape victim or something different, does not affect my faith in Christianity. If God has the power to create the universe, then impregnating a woman without breaking a hymen is child's play.

Post: #15

To be fair gents, whether Mary was or wasn't a virgin is really a pointless debate in the grander scheme of Christianity. I still believe that Jesus is God and do my best to follow his guidance.

I guess i'll have to take this one up to faith. Thanks for some good reading everyone!

Post: #16

(10-30-2016 09:11 PM)Bluto Wrote:  The idea of Mary being raped by a centurion is most likely plausible if you don't believe. Almost all Jewish men were married back then(this was reported as Josephs second marriage) and rape was severely punished within the Jewish community. Only a man of authority that was above Jewish law could get away with raping a young woman and not be officially punished. A Roman Centurion would fit this bill. On the other hand would a young woman gain clemency from her Jewish community due to being raped by a Centurion?

I think it more plausible that Joseph was Jesus' father than any of the rape scenarios. The "ben Pandira" legend only appears in the second century onward, so it's likely not reliable history.

To answer your question, my inclination is probably that she wouldn't be forgiven.

Post: #17

My guess is that he could be easily conceived occultly. It's not something extraordinary in India, for example, where occultism is common in certain circles.

Post: #18

What do you mean?

Post: #19

TheBeast1,

Jesus forgives you for talking shit about his mum being a liar...

...but he might not invite you to any more of his parties.

Post: #20

(11-01-2016 03:26 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  What do you mean?

I mean using siddhis (supernatural, occult abilities, which Jesus had, being a spiritual master).

Post: #21

I thought so, that is why I asked. Btw, there is theory that "missing years" of Jesus actually was absence of Jesus because he went to India where he schooled himself under the Buddhist teachers.
There is also theory that Mary and Joseph were in fact wealthy and they could easily pay for trip to India.

Post: #22

(10-28-2016 04:46 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 04:22 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  So, long story short, how do I see the Virgin Birth? Virgin Birth narratives are extremely common in the Greco-Roman world; plenty of heroes are born of a virgin, both pre and post-Christian. My suspicion is that Jesus' followers didn't know very much about his birth and surmised that, since he was a great man who did miracles, he must've had a miraculous birth. Then, when Matthew was written (75-90, probably), Matthew discovered a prophecy that makes it work (Isa. 7:14).

It's interesting you write this. I recently read an article that claimed that the original translation of Isiah 7:14 was not the hebrew word for virgin but was simply just the word for"young woman". The reason being that there is a different hebrew word for virgin (ie a chaste woman) versus young woman. What's your take on this?

I've never heard of the Toldot Yeshu either. I'll do some more reading thanks!

I should add, my question really comes at an interesting time. I just got out of a reformation service which left me pondering a lot of the original Catholic doctrine which is what I was initially raised in until family switched to Lutheranism. I never understood the cult of worship and reverence of Mary and found it at best funny and at worst counter productive to the overall message Jesus was bringing to us on earth.

Truth Teller largely explains this above, but he omits a few important facts that mainstream journalism is totally ignorant of, which jewish revisionists (that's the factual history) take advantage of. The 3rd century BC jewish translators of the old testament (Septuagint) give the unequivocal translation of virgin (parthenos, as mentioned). The "Masoretic Text" which is the new compilation of the jewish bible, put together from 7th to 10th centuries AD had the clear opportunity for retrospectiscope and adulteration, mainly because Hebrew language without diacritical marks (as in older texts) can be changed easily in "review." The problem, and the support of a "jewish conspiracy", which is the reality, is that the dead sea scrolls and all older aged documents are much closer to texts all translated into the Septuagint, which again has the added value and authenticity of never having even known Christ was going to come on the scene. The further backdrop of the fact that nearly every jew actually converted to Christianity (modern jews are a remnant people) at that time and already things like the Council of Jamnia had been assumed by the jews in order to delegitimize the Jesus accounts precisely because they had lost so many people by conversion (the biggest factor was probably the Romans, pagan people, leveling Jerusalem which was in ruins for several more centuries).

A few more things:

Catholic "worship" of Mary is classic, and obvious, counter-reformation-ism. They overdid everything including creating new theology of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception (no, that's not about Jesus, but rather about Mary herself, a necessary concept due to their flawed concept of "original sin") due to protestant protest. Not coincidental was the fact that this was also Vatican I time where the Pope was declared infallible, more silly doctrinal innovation and invention as a way to try to shut the Protestants up, something so obvious and absurdly wrong ecclesialogically they have to talk around it to this day.

What's more, the eastern churches have always practiced and maintained the same core theology and revered Mary as foremost of the Saints, so there has there ever been a question about the true teachings and tradition. One of those is that Joseph was an old man who already had kids (Christ's "brothers"), which makes far more sense than the lack of traditional and less sensical "Joseph was a young man" idea of western movies, stories, tradition etc.

Finally, and I know this has been a lot, but while possibly also an archetype, the virgin birth does have theological importance, the most important of which is that Christ assumes a broken humanity in order to heal it (thus the doctrine of Immaculate Conception above is necessarily flawed for Christianity to matter) but it is NOT a scandal in that his mother is a pure person, generally afflicted by being born into a fallen world with the tendency to sin, as we all are. That's the part that is crucial to the story, because ontologically we can be healed through obedience to God and becoming adopted sons, (Heb 4:15) For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Since she is the second Eve theologically (obedient to God), it is only right for her to be pure in her intentions and actions, and scandalous to consider any of the lascivious conjecture above.

Post: #23

(11-01-2016 07:18 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  I thought so, that is why I asked. Btw, there is theory that "missing years" of Jesus actually was absence of Jesus because he went to India where he schooled himself under the Buddhist teachers.
There is also theory that Mary and Joseph were in fact wealthy and they could easily pay for trip to India.

This is a silly theory if you ask me. First, I doubt that Jesus did come from a rich family, as Galilee was a backwater part of Israel which was a rather poor region to begin with. Secondly, traveling to India would either mean bypassing the Parthian Empire, or having to traverse it. Parthia and the later Sassanid Dynasty did not like the idea of Rome having contacts with the East as it was a major point of leverage in their almost thousand year conflict with them. We also don't have any evidence that Jesus spoke any languages besides Aramaic, Hebrew, and possibly Greek, which would have definitely not helped him (although if you have no problem with believing he really was divine then I suppose this is an irrelevant point).

Even if Jesus did study the Vedas or Buddhism, then the evidence available shows that he was a pretty poor student and did not follow Eastern teachings. The fact is that Dharmic religions are so fundamentally different on core concepts that to says Christianity is somehow derived from Buddhism is false. The theory is popular because New Age spiritualists like to use it to justify the pick-and-choose mentality they have between Eastern spirituality and Christianity, and of course it fills in a gap of Jesus's life that has little evidence for.

This has been an issue ever since the early days of Christianity, which is why so many pseudographical texts emerged such as the Infancy Gospels. People wanted to know more about Jesus, especially his youth, and people were willing to forge texts as needed.

Post: #24

Still doesn't change the fact that accounts of Jesus are pretty much vague.

Post: #25

(11-01-2016 11:33 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  Truth Teller largely explains this above, but he omits a few important facts that mainstream journalism is totally ignorant of, which jewish revisionists (that's the factual history) take advantage of. The 3rd century BC jewish translators of the old testament (Septuagint) give the unequivocal translation of virgin (parthenos, as mentioned). The "Masoretic Text" which is the new compilation of the jewish bible, put together from 7th to 10th centuries AD had the clear opportunity for retrospectiscope and adulteration, mainly because Hebrew language without diacritical marks (as in older texts) can be changed easily in "review." The problem, and the support of a "jewish conspiracy", which is the reality, is that the dead sea scrolls and all older aged documents are much closer to texts all translated into the Septuagint, which again has the added value and authenticity of never having even known Christ was going to come on the scene. The further backdrop of the fact that nearly every jew actually converted to Christianity (modern jews are a remnant people) at that time and already things like the Council of Jamnia had been assumed by the jews in order to delegitimize the Jesus accounts precisely because they had lost so many people by conversion (the biggest factor was probably the Romans, pagan people, leveling Jerusalem which was in ruins for several more centuries).

I'm not interested in arguing theology with you, but I will discuss history and the text with you.

The Masoretic Text and the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) are pretty damn close in most cases. Where they differ is where the DSS follow the Samaritan Pentateuch, not the Septuagint. The Masoretic Text is not the Hebrew Bible put together in the 7th century. The Hebrew Bible was codified far earlier, probably towards the end of the 1st century AD (I'm agnostic about Yavneh, personally).

About early Christian conversions, not even close. Most of the Jews did not convert automatically to Christianity, go read the Book of Acts or the Pauline Epistles. It's pretty obvious that even by the end of 1st century, there were a lot more Jews than Christians. The Birkat haManim, which condemns heretics, dates from the 1st century, and strongly indicates a strong anti-Christian slant in Judaism. Add that to the casting out of the Christians from the synagogues, alluded to in John, and you have good reason to believe that the majority of the Jews in the Roman Empire remained Jewish and did not convert to Christianity.

Judaism remained the only officially tolerated religion until the 4th century. Jewish belief and practice had a large number of adherents, to the extent that they fought the Bar Kochba Revolt in the 130s against Hadrian's plans for Jerusalem (which he rebuilt as Aelina Capitolina in the 120s/130s).

There's no "Jewish conspiracy" in New Testament scholarship or Hebrew Bible. Both fields were founded, believe it or not, by Protestants.