• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Virgin birth of Jesus

I

Imnotspecial

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Messages
6
Location
British Columbia
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Humanist
How is one to understand the virgin birth of Jesus?

Is there any way it can be understood as allegorical? A literal understanding seems to me has always been and still is the belief of the Catholic Church and it must be recognized as the linchpin for Christianity. Without a virgin birth there is no divine Saviour and all of the faith becomes false.
There is obviously no physical planting of sperm. If Joseph did not have any input, how does his genealogy to David matter at all? It is supposed to be an important fulfillment of prophecy.

I am sure these questions have been answered by believers and scholars and unbelievers from the beginning of the Christian cult. I would not expect to get an honest answer from the parish priest of our community. He probably would consider it an affront as it pretty well suggests that I believe the whole edifice of the Catholic Church is built on delusion and perhaps even fraud.


Maybe someone here has some answers. I had been a member of the Catholic Church for nearly 25 year and I don't remember the virgin birth ever being explained, just stated as fact as the Bible reports it.
 
Ya, it's meant to be a miracle. God waved his hand and Baby Jesus popped into Mary's tummy without her needing to lose any of her purity by doing some yucky stuff. Viewing it as somehow allegorical would majorly undercut one of the central tenets of Christianity.
 
Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus, therefore any explanations surrounding Jesus coming from the Church will confirm Jesus' divine status in one way or another. Logically Jesus' divine status makes absolutely zero sense, and isn't based on any evidence we know of today, so that people actually believe it confirm there is 'truth in numbers'.

I mean.. a billion people couldn't be wrong could they?
 
rousseau said:
Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus, therefore any explanations surrounding Jesus coming from the Church will confirm Jesus' divine status in one way or another. Logically Jesus' divine status makes absolutely zero sense, and isn't based on any evidence we know of today, so that people actually believe it confirm there is 'truth in numbers'.

I mean.. a billion people couldn't be wrong could they?
Click to expand...

It also depends on his full humanity. If it was the Holy Spirit Jesus would not be fully human as there would be no male input. The story which the Jews circulated was the father was a Roman soldier and this seems the most credible explanation. I suppose nobody has ever been identified. Maybe it was even rape. If that were the case it would make a good one for the anti abortion crowd.
 
Imnotspecial said:
rousseau said:
Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus, therefore any explanations surrounding Jesus coming from the Church will confirm Jesus' divine status in one way or another. Logically Jesus' divine status makes absolutely zero sense, and isn't based on any evidence we know of today, so that people actually believe it confirm there is 'truth in numbers'.

I mean.. a billion people couldn't be wrong could they?
Click to expand...

It also depends on his full humanity. If it was the Holy Spirit Jesus would not be fully human as there would be no male input. The story which the Jews circulated was the father was a Roman soldier and this seems the most credible explanation. I suppose nobody has ever been identified. Maybe it was even rape. If that were the case it would make a good one for the anti abortion crowd.
Click to expand...

It was some guy named Maximus Naughtius. It would explain the blue eyes we see in all the paintings.

The whole point of a miracle is that it is miraculous. It cannot be explained by natural order and is accepted as such. Declaring that it is a trick pulled by that man behind the curtain is effective, only if you are there to pull back the curtain.
 
Human parthenogenesis does sound corny but I guess it's the best their ancient minds could invent. It at least put their euhemerized cult deity on the same level as other cult deities.

But why not have the whole enchilada? Why still deal with delivery and afterbirth and all that? Why not just have him appear out of the sky like Superman?

There appears to be some fascination among some people with being conceived by fucking, like there's something wrong with it. Apparently god doesn't fuck so something that was fucked into existence could never be a god.
 
Imnotspecial said:
Is there any way it can be understood as allegorical?
Click to expand...
Well yes, you can interpret the bible pretty much any way you want to. Christians have been doing it for centuries.

If Joseph did not have any input, how does his genealogy to David matter at all? It is supposed to be an important fulfillment of prophecy.
Click to expand...
As you say, Joseph's lineage is important for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy. The fact that he didn't actually contribute to the process physically is a mere annoyance at most to any true believer. They certainly don't view it as an issue.
 
It seems to be the norm in ancient cultures to regard a baby who's biological father was a deity to also be legally the child of the surrogate father. I can't think of a single tale in which a divine conception happens where that is not the case. (in cases where there is a surrogate father, which is not all of them).

It is similar to how if the king bangs your wife, you don't object. You merely collect the under the table reward and go about your way.
 
Indeed, but it's more about people's perception of said banging. Is the offspring regarded by others as your own under such circumstances? If not, then the prophecy cannot be regarded as being fulfilled.
 
In the Mahabharata, Yudhistira was seen as being the legitimate heir of his foster father Pandu, even though his divine parentage was no secret. (the succession dispute that is central to the story doesn't hinge on that, but on whether Dhritarashtra's abdication and subsequent reassuption of the throne disqualified his 100 sons from the succession) Though people were a little weird about divinity in that one. They were all aware that Krishna was God, but kept forgetting it when he was actually around. Also, there is a character who was born a woman, but became a man, but another man refused to fight him, because he knew he was born a woman, and felt he couldn't honorably do so.
 
Imnotspecial said:
rousseau said:
Christianity depends on the divinity of Jesus, therefore any explanations surrounding Jesus coming from the Church will confirm Jesus' divine status in one way or another. Logically Jesus' divine status makes absolutely zero sense, and isn't based on any evidence we know of today, so that people actually believe it confirm there is 'truth in numbers'.

I mean.. a billion people couldn't be wrong could they?
Click to expand...

It also depends on his full humanity. If it was the Holy Spirit Jesus would not be fully human as there would be no male input. The story which the Jews circulated was the father was a Roman soldier and this seems the most credible explanation. I suppose nobody has ever been identified. Maybe it was even rape. If that were the case it would make a good one for the anti abortion crowd.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera

Also, consider this...http://www.amazon.com/Herodian-Messiah-Jesus-Grandson-Herod/dp/0615355080
 
Last edited:
Have they managed to find evidence he was a real person yet?
 
Thomas II said:
Sarpedon said:
Have they managed to find evidence he was a real person yet?
Click to expand...

No. But that is another thread. This one is "in case he was a real person", who was the biological father?

So, first, who are the candidates so far?
Click to expand...

1. Joseph

2. Antipater(Eldest son of Herod and his wife Doris)

3. Pantera (roman soldier)

5. Parthenogenesis
 
I say, get the DNA off the Magic Muumuu of Turin. They can do anything with forensics these days. See if Trump has any of Jesus' markers. That would be eeeeeEEEEEUUUUGE.
 
Is there a known time when details about his birth were even put to paper or discussed, relative to his death?
 
Jehovah was a common name amongst Bethlehem stable boys back in the day. Just saying ...
 
Thomas II said:
Imnotspecial said:
It also depends on his full humanity. If it was the Holy Spirit Jesus would not be fully human as there would be no male input. The story which the Jews circulated was the father was a Roman soldier and this seems the most credible explanation. I suppose nobody has ever been identified. Maybe it was even rape. If that were the case it would make a good one for the anti abortion crowd.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Panterahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera
Click to expand...

"Raymond E. Brown states that the story of Panthera is a fanciful explanation of the birth of Jesus which includes very little historical evidence"

It's a less fanciful explanation for the birth of Jesus than a virgin birth from a god that has no historical evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom