Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Concieved by the Holy Ghost

There are so many elements of the christian stories as narrated in the New Testament that I have a great problem with, but there is one in particular that is outright contradictory. The story of Mary and Joseph the parents of Jesus otherwise referred to as the doctrine of the virgin birth which by Jewish laws and traditions does not make any sense at all. The N.T. makes reference many times to the mosaic laws making it quite obvious that at the time of the alleged birth of Jesus those laws were still practiced and binding amongst the Jewish community. Deuteronomy 22:23,24 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. According to this text Mary would have faced the grave danger of being accused of adultery and would be subject to death by stoning.

Matthew tries very hard to explain how Joseph was able to accept that although he did not have sexual intercourse with his wife she was pregnant with child in Matthew 1:18-23 by stating that the angel of the Lord had visited Joseph in a dream and told him that that child is of the Holy Ghost. So according to the story Matthew accepted this dream as an actual reality and accepted Mary as his wife. The N.T. is full of all these little workarounds to compensate for discrepancies regarding the mosaic laws and also regarding Hebrew traditions. A careful reading of these types of contradictions only raises my suspicions even more regarding the authenticity of the life and times of Jesus.

To me it just seems like someone or in this case the various authors involved in the composition of the synoptic gospels were working very hard to try and fix the many discrepancies that are present in the N.T. I have also heard an argument that states that when the bible refers to Mary as a virgin that the word virgin in the original Hebrew could also be translated as young woman. Here is an excerpt on this matter from wikipedia: 'The Gospel of Matthew presents the virgin birth of Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew adapts to his purpose.[11]Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman. Since `almah is the word used in the Hebrew text of Isaiah, some commentators have believed it at least possible that Isaiah had in mind only a normal conception by a young mother and that Matthew applied this text of Scripture to the birth of the one he believed to be Messiah, as John seems to have applied to his death another text of Scripture that in its original context referred to the Passover lamb.[12] Others believe that Isaiah was directly prophesying the future virgin birth of the Messiah.'

That being said; if it were in fact true then Mary was not a virgin in the traditional sense but rather as used in the Hebrew text from which it was stolen she was just a young woman. But if any one who calls themselves a Christian were to accept this explanation it would make the so called virgin birth doctrine null and void. Not only that but it would clearly contradict the meaning that the author of the gospel of Matthew wanted it to mean. Matthew 1:18 clearly said that she was found with child before her and Joseph had come together ( had sexual intercourse), and it would also mean that good old Matthew (who might not have even authored the book using his name) plagiarized and intentionally reinterpreted its meaning to suit his purposes. The main purpose was to espouse the doctrine of the virgin birth with the intent to mislead those who bought into his lies. This is one of many explanations for which I think that the Jews did not accept Jesus. Stating in any way that he was the literal son of God or even God in the flesh would have been outright blasphemous.


  1. The immaculate conception does not refer to the conception and birth of Jesus. "The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain ("immacula" in Latin) of original sin." -- Wiki.

  2. You are right that the Hebrew text referred to a version. When the OT was translated to Greek they picked the word for virgin instead. NT writers need to fit that. It is quite common in ancient times to see a god born of a woman to be a virgin. There are a host of them, even Buddha came out of a slit in his mother side to avoid the sexual thing.
    We say things like George W Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He really was born with a spoon in his mouth but was born to wealth. Being born of a virgin is a similar statement saying the child was divine in some way.

  3. RkBall thanks for that, it was a good catch I stand corrected. ex-minister1 I am aware of the intent of the author regarding the divinity of Christ. The virgin birth and conception is essential to believers of all ages, and adds some sort of validity to the claim that Jesus was the son of God.

  4. The Virgin birth does seem to be one of those classic mis-translations, like the possible virgin/raison mistranslation in the Q'uran.

  5. I personally believe that there are a lot of these so called "mistranslations" throughout the N.T. and a lot of embellishments that were actually intentional. Many of the so called prophecies that Christians attribute as references to Jesus from the O.T. are actually taken out of context. Christianity has gotten where it is through lots of lies and deception,not to mention brute force and terror.

  6. And Atheism hasn't?
    Chat Pilot If you're going to start accusing Christians of brute force to get where they are to you better be prepared to answer for Atheism's...

  7. Your mixing the idea of atheism with communism and all those things when in reality the one has nothing to do with the other. Atheism is not a doctrine but rather an ideology based on the fact that God does not exist, it's that simple.

    When Christianity was persecuted it was persecuted by the authorities in defense of previous beliefs that were prevalent throughout that particular empire or kingdom. Atheism has nothing to do with that. Although, some dictators happened to be atheists does not make the idea of not believing in God a communist of the nonbeliever.

  8. That's not a fair statement to make Chapiliot You can't blame for Christianity for all the evil political things and have not take ownership when people under your ideology have spilt blood. You have to understand that while it is not an exuse, lots of the Christian leaders who led things like the crusades did not reflect what be a good "Christian" leader was. The fact is lots of those people were political leaders who someone who gained spiritual/religious authority. The fight for the Papacy was largely political. The two were married and you rightly hold to account us for the evil things people did in the name of Christianity.
    Russian Communism and Atheism were related in the same way. You are right they are not the same thing, but that does not matter. Russians didn't torture their fellow Russians for being capitalist, they tortured them because they would not affirm the non existence of God.Dude, isn't that the core of an Atheists ideology?They were persecuted because they believed in the existence of God. It was not persecution from one religion to another.
    If you accuse Christianity of violence, even though Christians admit that those people were not acting under their own belief system, then you must accept it when a policatcal power used an ideology to torture and kill those don't agree with it. Its not fair to blame us and not take ownership when people kill in the name of an ideology mixed with politics. This is because thats what happened with the crusades. This is in part why I don't feel Atheism is a superior thought processes; people will still do these things as frequently without religion, they'll just find a different excuse to make it seem right. I really doubt the world would be a better place if we were all Atheist, it would be the same.

  9. I am Dr.Kurians,the founder of KURIANISM the 12 th living organised living religions of the world after Sikkism. We atarted on 2003,and clear the doubts scientifically.

    I join with you and asking the meanings of so many biblical myths. I am a christian by birth and Baptism. I agree with you in answering some of the never ending questions.
    Kurianism is global and its principles (Magnacarta) is completely different. We dont believe the genesis stories,immaculate conception,eventencommandements stories and other mysteries of brain washing stories. Please ask me a question let me answer in a simplified way. TYhe macrocosmic power is our god and we are microcosmic power,never destroys. Our Bible is "MANNA" is in the process. we do not revolt,but revive and reform the thoughts of 21 st century brain.

    We hate the concept of "son of God",the mother of god,and sacred heart with thorns.

    Ask us questions,letus answer. For us religion is business,a white collar job,everybody is jumping into. There is money,tons of it. We can sell god,the son or mother who cares ?

    Dr. Kurians Maltv@hotmail.com