Virgin birth of Jesus

[Thomas II]

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

"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.

So Panthera is out...

1. Joseph

2. Antipater

3. Parthenogenesis

 

[DLH]

Matthew and Luke's account of the virgin birth leave no doubt that it was meant to be taken literally. I don't place much importance on the position of the Catholic Church because they are willing to accept a great deal of pagan nonsense that has nothing to do with the Bible and they tend to try and appease popular consensus in their position of Biblical interpretation. The Catholic Church isn't alone in this.

The virgin birth is a mythological or pictorial way of getting at theological mystery of the gratuitous nature of salvation. . . . Those who originated the story . . . used the picture images . . . to represent their sense of the Messianic event.

"Could any intelligent twentieth-century man believe . . . that Jesus was born of a Virgin without the agency of a human father? If everyone who didn’t believe in the Virgin Birth were asked to leave the Church of England there would be an acute shortage of clergy and hardly any professors left in our theological colleges."

Some confusion has been due to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches having difficulty with Mary as having no significant role aside from giving birth to the Son of God. In 553 C.E. the Second Council of Constantinople elevated Mary to "eternal Virgin," indicating, contrary to scripture, that she and Joseph had a celibate marriage after Jesus' birth. In 1854 Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which declared that she had been preserved from sin inherited from Adam, incapable of sin, and in 1950 Pope Pius XII introduced the article of faith that Mary, upon the conclusion of her human life, had been assumed into heaven - causing speculation in the Vatican every since then that she had died at all.

His genealogy to David is important for two reasons, 1. For adoptive reasons Jesus as Joseph's adoptive eldest son would have been entitled to the throne, and 2. For the customs of the time, genealogy went through the man married to the woman rather than to the woman herself.

This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2.*That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).

 

[DLH]

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?

Sure they could. In fact, they often are.

Divinity, for example, means what? That Jesus was God? Or a god? Or godlike? Moses, the judges of Israel and the Sumerian King Tammuz were mortal men who shared this distinction with Jesus. (Psalm 82:1, 6; John 10:34, 35 / Exodus 4:16; 7:1 / Ezekiel 8:14)

 

[Barbarian]

"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.

So Panthera is out...

1. Joseph

2. Antipater

3. Parthenogenesis

Parthenogenesis is also out, you can't get a male mammal from parthenogenesis.

Unless we are talking Raptor Jesus, because birds - and by extension all other dinosaurs - could get only males by parthenogenesis.

 

[Juma]

So Panthera is out...

1. Joseph

2. Antipater

3. Parthenogenesis

Parthenogenesis is also out, you can't get a male mammal from parthenogenesis.

Unless we are talking Raptor Jesus, because birds - and by extension all other dinosaurs - could get only males by parthenogenesis.

Zombie raptor jesus!

 

[Barbarian]

Parthenogenesis is also out, you can't get a male mammal from parthenogenesis.

Unless we are talking Raptor Jesus, because birds - and by extension all other dinosaurs - could get only males by parthenogenesis.

Zombie raptor jesus!

That's some purgeworthy heresy right there. Raptor Jesus went extinct for our sins. He cannot be alive for any, however minuscule, value of "alive", not even as a zombie.

 

[Thomas II]

So Panthera is out...

1. Joseph

2. Antipater

3. Parthenogenesis

Parthenogenesis is also out, you can't get a male mammal from parthenogenesis.

Unless we are talking Raptor Jesus, because birds - and by extension all other dinosaurs - could get only males by parthenogenesis.

And that leaves us with:

1. Joseph

2.Antipater

 

[Barbarian]

Parthenogenesis is also out, you can't get a male mammal from parthenogenesis.

Unless we are talking Raptor Jesus, because birds - and by extension all other dinosaurs - could get only males by parthenogenesis.

And that leaves us with:

1. Joseph

2.Antipater

Original GLuke says it's Joseph. Who are we to disagree?

 

[Thomas II]

And that leaves us with:

1. Joseph

2.Antipater

Original GLuke says it's Joseph. Who are we to disagree?

Nah...Even Joseph KNOWS he's not the father...

But what about Antipater?

 

[Barbarian]

Original GLuke says it's Joseph. Who are we to disagree?

Nah...Even Joseph KNOWS he's not the father...

But what about Antipater?

Graves' "King Jesus" champions the idea, but I'm not buying it. The Toledot Yeshu disagrees too. Maybe the ancients just gave up, threw up their hands and said "Dunno, let's just put it down as a virgin birth".

 

[4321lynx]

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.

As a fellow ex Catholic , allow me to tell you, Catholicism is like Communism:_

You are not to ask questions Comrade/"My Child"; your duty is to BELIEVE... or else...........

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are not to ask questions Comrade/"My Child"; your duty is to BELIEVE... or else...........

Catholic School for Marriage struck me a lot like Mormon congregations. You're actually encouraged to ask those questions for which they already have an answer.
It's when they don't, or when you reject the platitude and keep asking the question, that they start getting ticked at your effrontery.

 

[Thomas II]

Nah...Even Joseph KNOWS he's not the father...

But what about Antipater?

Graves' "King Jesus" champions the idea, but I'm not buying it. The Toledot Yeshu disagrees too. Maybe the ancients just gave up, threw up their hands and said "Dunno, let's just put it down as a virgin birth".

Just as a reference...http://www.amazon.com/Herodian-Messiah-Jesus-Grandson-Herod/dp/0615355080

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fuck. Can you even believe we're using 21st Century computers to discuss this old superstition from a 1st Century blood sacrifice religion? And that millions of our fellow citizens consider this to be a precious truth? No wonder they invented drugs.

 

[Malintent]

I thought the deal was that Mary was already betroved to someone, and when she came up preggers, that someone knew it wasn;t them... so um.. a miracle! still a virgin here, we all good.

 

[credoconsolans]

So Panthera is out...

1. Joseph

2. Antipater

3. Parthenogenesis

Parthenogenesis is also out, you can't get a male mammal from parthenogenesis.

Unless we are talking Raptor Jesus, because birds - and by extension all other dinosaurs - could get only males by parthenogenesis.

Richard Carrier in his Historicity of Jesus claims the Panthera was a play on words for parthenogenesis.

 

[blastula]

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.

Paul and the authors of John and Mark didn't seem to think he was born of a virgin, yet still said he was the son of God. Virgin birth was not required for deification.

 

[SLD]

How am I supposed to understand the virgin birth of Christ? Simple. The same way I understand the miraculous conception of Alexander, Augustus, and Caesar. i.e. As utter bullshit stories that ignorant first century illiterate peasants told each other to make the claim that their God was better than your God. It doesn't need any "deep" understanding of allegory or anything. It's just bullshit from the first century. Interesting only as a genre of literature to understand the times.

SLD

 

[Underseer]

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.

What I want to know is why there is such widespread aversion to normal procreation? It's not just many religions like Christianity, Buddhism, the ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, but also non-religious claims of virgin births. Even Genghis fucking Khan was supposedly born of a virgin, wasn't he?

 

[Sarpedon]

Religions strive to control the sexual urge because it is so powerful. If you can convince people that sex is something that the priest should control, then there's nothing the priest shouldn't control. Bizarre beliefs about the nature of sex grow out of this control, and are tools of the control. The ideal situation is to convince a person that sex is bad, unless specifically allowed by the priest. Hence marriage and the idea that sex is solely for reproduction. The belief that sex is bad gives rise to the belief that reproduction without sex is holy.