Jesus is a Bastard

N

NoOneCares

Registered Member
It is actually in the bible (told to me by a priest) that Josef and Maria didn't have sex before jesus was born.
In that case, there are two possibilities:

* The bible is right, so Maria slept with another man. This means Jesus is a bastard, and Maria is a whore.

* The bible is wrong. In that case, you can doubt everything that's said in the bible, which reduces it to a worthless book.

I'd love to hear your insights...

Please don't give me that miraculous impregnation stuff... We all know this is impossible, and you must be really naive to believe that.

Miracles don't happen... deception does.
 
Have you heard of artificial insemination? That does not and never produces a bastard. Ask any UFO nut, they will tell you that both were taken to a spaceship and the cells were teleported to you-know-where! And those bright stars in the sky....

On the otherhand, if no one cares why should I?....

Welcome to the Forum. Enjoy your stay....
 
Have you heard of artificial insemination?
Click to expand...

artificial insemination? Tell me, when was that invented? I'm sure they didn't have these techniques 2000 years ago.

Ask any UFO nut, they will tell you that both were taken to a spaceship and the cells were teleported to you-know-where!
Click to expand...

UFO nuts are just that... nuts.

On the otherhand, if no one cares why should I?
Click to expand...

My name, NoOneCares, is referring to, you guessed it, my name.
It is not referring to my opinions in any way.

Welcome to the Forum. Enjoy your stay
Click to expand...

I'm happy to be here :)
 
I doubt that he was a bastard. And many bibles will not be wrong. If we can believe that this man was a form of leader and teacher then he would have been educated and hence be from a respectable family. Remember that education as we know it now would have been very rare 2000 years ago and only the wealthy could have afforded it. But unfaithfulness has been around for the entire history of mankind. So we don't really know. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was not a bastard. How then does that leave the bible?

Back in 1952 a group of highly respected scholars decided to re-translate the bible so that the many inconsistencies could be removed. At that time the King James Version was the most widespread bible in use. As part of their team they invited a Jewish scholar to join them since his knowledge of ancient Hebrew was extensive. During the translation our Hebrew scholar noted that the term ‘virgin’ in the KJV did not correspond with the Hebrew. The correct translation was ‘young woman’. There was a lengthy and extensive discussion including further research, but they eventually concluded that this vital term was indeed ‘young woman’ and not ‘virgin’. This then entered the new bible, which became the RSV (Revised Standard Version).

As you can imagine this caused massive criticism from many sources. Most of the RSV was excellent and many parts of the Christian world accepted the new version without any problem. Others simply refused to accept it.

One intention of these scholars was to unite the Christian world around an undisputed and accurate translation. In the end the opposite occurred. Shortly after the publication of the RSV a number of other groups of scholars began their own independent translations. The effect was that we now have numerous bible translations and a corresponding split in the Christian world with each group now adopting their own interpretations of ‘biblical truth’.

So where did this idea of a virgin birth come from if it wasn’t from the original Hebrew? That’s rather easy – earlier mythologies often quote a virgin birth as a sign of divinity. The early Christian plagiarists simply ‘borrowed’ from those earlier myths. One such shows that as part of the Sun God myths, the sun would rise at certain times in the constellation of Virgo – the full description is more than I want to relate here. But you get the idea I’m sure.

Realistically we can see that this man that has been refereed to as Jesus had a normal birth and had no special indications that he was divine. Interestingly the word Jesus is a Hebrew word that means Savior, it is not a name that would be given to someone. So we don’t know the real name of this largely unknown leader/teacher. Did he even exist? We are not even sure of that. But it seems likely that some charismatic figure was around 2000 years ago and he inspired some to write stories.

Hope this helps
Cris
 
um... from a quick search through an online RSV bible:

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=virgin&SearchType=AND&version=RSV&restrict=New+Testament&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&language=english">here is what I found</a>

hmm... makes me wonder where you heard that...
 
I read it in a publication of a priest of the monastery of Roermond.
He clained that the bible said Maria and Josef did't have sex before birth of Jesus.

The publication itself was over the loss of 'true values'.
 
Cris

Excellent material. I did not know that. I have a book by Asimov who brings up the original jewish text and explains a lot of meaning that is confusing in the King James version.

Very well done.
 
Dan,

Sorry I missed out a chunk of explanation there. The reference is in the OT and is the prophecy that the Gospels use to support their claim that the arrival of a savior has occured and that he was born of a virgin according to the prophecy. But if the prophecy is wrong then what does that mean for the Gospel claims? Do you see the problem?

Isaiah, chapter 7

KJV

"14": Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

RSV

14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.

Notice how Matthew pretty much copies directly from Isaiah.

Matthew 1
23
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).

Cris

PS. I'd forgotten about the Immanuel part though. That gets dropped for some reason but I can't remember why.
 
Last edited:
Once you try to destroy some ancient document through overscrutinizing the details, you've completely lost sight of the purpose of what you read. To try to call into question the circumstance of Jesus' birth is to ignore what really mattered: the claim that he rose from the dead. I know lots of people who were born (and in todays age, under all sorts of circumstances), but the virgin birth claim pales in comparison to the claim that Jesus rose from the dead--and this issue is to the heart of Christianity.

By the way I could not get past the first few pages of, Isaac Asimov's thick critique of the Bible. It began with asserting that the Jewish religion began out of a polytheistic religion. His evidence was that God used "we" in speaking about himself in Genesis. He didn't bother to look up the fact that Hebrew doesn't have capitals, so the common form of showing authority was to use plurals. So the common use of "He" to speak about God would have to be rendered "we" in Hebrew. If you come with presuppositions about the Bible, there is enough difference in time and culture for you to prove it. Understanding the culture and language is necessary to understanding the Bible. Unfortunately, there are still many mysteries about the language of that time today.
 
Dan,

I agree that the resurrection is fundamental to Christianity, but if all or most of the other claims to special abilities are shown to be questionable or untrue then you will be faced with the issue of credibility. To then go on to state that he rose from the dead, an act seen in most religions as the ultimate of miracles, but without any other supporting pillars, means that you would have little hope of being seen as credible. The resurrection is also unproved; the supporting arguments are all circumstantial, so those other supporting special abilities are important.

I believe the lack of a virgin birth would destroy one of the key pillars of Christianity and will bring into question all the other claims of miraculous powers.

Cris
 
You have not even raised much of an argument against the virgin birth. Even your discussion of the Old Testament scholar replacing "virgin" with "young woman" doesn't discount the New Testament's claim. Maybe if it was changed to "harlot" or something of that like it would be a different story. Plus, when Joseph found his new bride whom he had not slept with was pregnant, he had two choices--have her publicly stoned, or send her quietly out of the city. He was vouching for the latter before--something--changed his mind. Of course, the New Testament says it was an angel who told him the whole story, but then again, if you don't trust that, why trust the Old Testament?]

And by the way, resurrection stories tend to only include a few followers witnessing it--not <a href=http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+15:6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off">crowds on the street alive at the time</a>.
 
If I may intrude...

The assertion of two possibilities is rediculous. You see, Jesus was born of virgin birth, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Jesus' Father is God. Jesus is fully man, fully God = equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit is equally God as well.

Thus, the Holy Trinity. One of the proofs of the Holy Trinity in the old testament is the fact that when God spoke He referred to Himself as We.

Therefore, Asimov should have considered all of the texts instead of just taking one or two sentences and arriving to a conclusion from there.

Also, I don't think that Matthew was plagerizing the texts but showing the fulfillment. You see, in the New Testament, scripture of the Old Testament is used to show examples and Prophecies of what was to come, and which has now passed and is fulfilled.

Just like a scientist saying that a meteor was going to pass the Earth in 2020 then after it is 2020 you can see the fulfillment of this prediction because the meteor came to pass.

Thanks.
 
-- We all know this is impossible?? --

NoOneCares wrote my subject line, and I'd like to respond to his post.

How interesting that men, knowledgable men no less, presume to know all, and arrogantly remark such things. In the 14th Century, I'm certain knowledgable men uttered similar comments.

I'd like to propose the following. Personally, I would find it exceptionally difficult to accept Christ as the son of God if he were born of natural means. I guess that is why so many religions ascribe to such supernatural conceptions. It makes sense.

If Jesus were born from some manner of artificial insemination with the combined DNA of God, and the DNA of homo sapiens, it would make sense for me. In fact, it would coordinate well with what we know from scripture.

It would help me understand how Jesus could be "fully God and fully man." It would help establish why Jesus had supernatural powers that allowed him to change the molecular structure of elements, such as water to wine, expansion of loaves and fish, etc.

These powers are not magic, nor supernatural as the term is used in our current culture. Clearly, they illustrate abilities greater than is currently understood.

How would the ancient man describe our recent marvels in biotechnology, genetics, computing, etc? "Magic" comes to mind.

Personally, the more I come to know, the more I realize how so much of what I used to ridicule as "impossible" -- is not.

Just a thought!
 
jesus was a woman then

maybe jesus developed from an unfertilized egg...but in that case jesus was missing the Y chromosome of course and technically was therefore a woman. This would explain a lot though, since when did any man ever say anything sensible.
 
Cris,

I could agree with you about the word in Hebrew be mistranslated as "virgin", but as I read in context, it seems clear that she was really a virgin...


Matthew 1:18-25

"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. "


Luke 1:26-38

"26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,
27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was.
30 The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."
34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.
37 For nothing will be impossible with God."
38 And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. "
 
sovrenti,

It would help me understand how Jesus could be "fully God and fully man." It would help establish why Jesus had supernatural powers that allowed him to change the molecular structure of elements, such as water to wine, expansion of loaves and fish, etc.
Click to expand...

We can do the same things if we have faith... Jesus had no supernatural powers...
 
"Spiritual Mechanics"

"Yet, the number of atheists in the world seems to be rising."

December's WIRED issue on "Science + Religion" seemed to postulate exactly the opposite, especially in the Scientific Community, which seems particularly relevant to this forum.

"Oh, so God also has DNA?"

I certainly wouldn't be surprised that our DNA is encoded based upon the actual design of God -- according to scripture, we are "created in His image."

I find it quite perplexing that so many people are dismissive of what I guess I would call "Spiritual Mechanics," that is, that God IS physically real; that what we call "supernatural" does in fact have science behind it, if not readily understood.

Just because we are not yet intelligent enough (and doubtful will ever be in our present state) to undertand it all doesn't negate the possibility that so many of these "mystical" attributes of God, are in fact quite scientifically possible.

Obviously, these positions can be "turned on their heads" -- it is much easier to shoot down such ideas than to construct them ...

Alas, the "Divine Conspiracy" does seem to be in effect. Any attempt to prove the reality of Christ as the Son of God (again, fully God and fully man [gender non-specific], literally), can never be proven.

If it were, there would be no faith, and, no freedom of our will to choose God.
 
Electric Jaguar,

God has a design? Who designed Him?
Click to expand...

God is the Truth. God is the source of all that exist. Does He need a design? Of course no. The Truth just is. It's not designed, it just simply exist.
 
We believe the miracle of life. All the miracles that Jesus did merely affirmed this - the greatest of which is the resurrection. This has proved Jesus' authority over life to Christians. But miracles are only believed by those whose lives have changed by it. Many of the witnesses of the miracles in the Bible saw them and still didn't believe. Even the people who would traditionally accept miracles (i.e. had no scientific prejudice against them), refued to acknowledge their purpose, such as the Jewish scholars who said Jesus performed them with the aid of Satan.

Jesus said the performing of miracles and signs would end, and the only sign left would be the sign of Jonah:
Luke 11:30
For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.

Jonah 1:17
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
Jonah 2:1
From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God.
Jonah 2:10
And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.

Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.

The story of Jonah, whether literal or figurative, is the story of Jesus' resurrection, and our life.
 
why do people always quote the bible?

just curious...

i mean, what has the following got to do with anything:
Jonah 1:17
But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.
Jonah 2:1
From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God.
Jonah 2:10
And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.

nice story...so what


all these bible quotes also make me wonder if they shouldn't do a drastic rewrite of it. The use of language is not really attractive. The style is awful. Who wants to read that nowadays. It's like using a toilet from 2000 years ago. It is not us. Human society has evolved beyond this aging document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top