Religion The Bible: Literal, figurative, bulldust?

[Gethelred]

To clearly delineate conversation between threads, this thread is for specifically bible talk; if you're debating biblical historicity or lack of it, if you're talking interpretation, this is the thread for you.

Standard board rules apply. Go nuts.

 

[Rosscoe 17]

Both genealogies in Matthew and Luke trace Jesus' ancestry back to David through his father Joseph. After all Joseph's paternity was essential to establish Jesus' Davidic descent. Mary's virginity was therefore questionable.

It is impossible that both ancestries recorded in Matthew and Luke are josephs; as they are different.


Luke traces Mary's Davidic descent; Heli was Jesus' grandfather. Josephs Davidic descent is listed as a record that God rescinded (Jeremiah 22:30), the messiah would come from this side of the bloodline.

The Davidic bloodline is represented through Mary as god told the serpent in Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (talking about Jesus).

 

[Rosscoe 17]

Joe Rogan bringing the bible and science together.
Biblical Evidence Story Goes Viral After Joe Rogan Notices It - He Couldn't Sleep After Learning This

These verses from Genesis are awesome. The separation of waters among other things also explains oxygen, rainwater. I also found it fascinating that mist came later.

 

[Roylion]

It is impossible that both ancestries recorded in Matthew and Luke are josephs; as they are different.

Joseph is mentioned as the father of Jesus in both. Are you suggesting that one or the other of the Gospels is wrong?

Luke traces Mary's Davidic descent; Heli was Jesus' grandfather.

Mary is not mentioned in either. Jewish law does not accept maternal ancestry as applying to lineage claims, which go through the father alone. Jewish law explicitly acknowledged by Jesus as binding and authoritative, (Matt. 23:1-3). Yet both Matthew and Luke agree that Joseph was of the Davidic line.

Josephs Davidic descent is listed as a record that God rescinded (Jeremiah 22:30), the messiah would come from this side of the bloodline.

Yet Matthew records this genealogy anyway.

The genealogy of Jesus Christ outlined in Matthew is clearly fictional and is little more than a theological construct (i.e largely if not wholly invented) rather than factual history.

Matthew's purported genealogy is neatly arranged into three sets of fourteen which is very convenient.The first fourteen is from Abraham to David. The second fourteen spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, such as three consecutive kings of Judah - Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah. These three kings were seen as especially wicked, from the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation, so of course wouldn't want to be associated with the 'Messiah'. Another omitted king is Jehoiakim the father of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin).

The Davidic line ends with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon". The last fourteen, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects the father of Jesus, (Joseph) to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names.

Indeed there are remarkably few names for such a long period.

The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen is deliberate. Fourteen is twice seven symbolizing perfection and covenant, and is also the gematria (numerical value) of the name David.

Matthew and Luke also have vastly different genealogies. 55 generations from Abraham to Jesus in Luke and 42 (14.14.14 as I pointed out above) for Matthew. The count of generations in the Book of Luke is 77, a number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins according to Augustine.

Their motive is also clear - the Gospel writers wanted to demonstrate that Jesus qualified as a Messiah partly because of his descent from King David (as per the so-called 'prophecy').

The Gospel writers invented 'fulfilled prophecies' for Jesus, including his descent from David and it's clear the Gospels were theological constructs.

As recorders of historical truth, including Jesus' supposed descent from David, the Gospels are spectacularly unreliable.

 

[Rosscoe 17]

Joseph is mentioned as the father of Jesus in both. Are you suggesting that one or the other of the Gospels is wrong?


Mary is not mentioned in either. Jewish law does not accept maternal ancestry as applying to lineage claims, which go through the father alone. Jewish law explicitly acknowledged by Jesus as binding and authoritative, (Matt. 23:1-3). Yet both Matthew and Luke agree that Joseph was of the Davidic line.


Yet Matthew records this genealogy anyway.

The genealogy of Jesus Christ outlined in Matthew is clearly fictional and is little more than a theological construct (i.e largely if not wholly invented) rather than factual history.

Matthew's purported genealogy is neatly arranged into three sets of fourteen which is very convenient.The first fourteen is from Abraham to David. The second fourteen spans the Davidic royal line, but omits several generations, such as three consecutive kings of Judah - Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah. These three kings were seen as especially wicked, from the cursed line of Ahab through his daughter Athaliah to the third and fourth generation, so of course wouldn't want to be associated with the 'Messiah'. Another omitted king is Jehoiakim the father of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin).

The Davidic line ends with "Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon". The last fourteen, which appears to span only thirteen generations, connects the father of Jesus, (Joseph) to Zerubbabel through a series of otherwise unknown names.

Indeed there are remarkably few names for such a long period.

The total of 42 generations is achieved only by omitting several names, so the choice of three sets of fourteen is deliberate. Fourteen is twice seven symbolizing perfection and covenant, and is also the gematria (numerical value) of the name David.

Matthew and Luke also have vastly different genealogies. 55 generations from Abraham to Jesus in Luke and 42 (14.14.14 as I pointed out above) for Matthew. The count of generations in the Book of Luke is 77, a number symbolizing the forgiveness of all sins according to Augustine.

Their motive is also clear - the Gospel writers wanted to demonstrate that Jesus qualified as a Messiah partly because of his descent from King David (as per the so-called 'prophecy').

The Gospel writers invented 'fulfilled prophecies' for Jesus, including his descent from David and it's clear the Gospels were theological constructs.

As recorders of historical truth, including Jesus' supposed descent from David, the Gospels are spectacularly unreliable.

Joseph is not mentioned as the father of Jesus in Luke or Matthew.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Joseph is not mentioned as the father of Jesus in Luke or Matthew.

That’s because he never existed, he’s a fictional middle eastern character in the poorest of stories ever told.

 

[Roylion]

Joseph is not mentioned as the father of Jesus in Luke or Matthew.

Then what's the point of the genealogies? Are they just made up to fulfil 'prophecy'?

Matthew 1:16 "...and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3.23 "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"

John 6.41 - 6.42. "At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?'

If Joseph is not his biological father, then Jesus is not of the seed of David and has no Davidic descent.

Even the Emperor Julian who reigned from AD 361-363 was incredulous.

"But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy."

 

[Roylion]

so i'm assuming you don't regard it as authoritative. in which case, why quote from it?

Go back and read why I'm quoting it.

If you think I'm arguing the Gospels are records of actual historical truth then you're barking up the wrong tree. They most definitely are not. In fact by quoting it I'm highlighting a contradiction in the Biblical account that apologists have gone through all sorts of mental gymanstics to try and explain away.

 

[Rosscoe 17]

Then what's the point of the genealogies? Are they just made up to fulfil 'prophecy'?

Matthew 1:16 "...and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3.23 "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"

John 6.41 - 6.42. "At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?'

If Joseph is not his biological father, then Jesus is not of the seed of David and has no Davidic descent.

Even the Emperor Julian who reigned from AD 361-363 was incredulous.

"But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy."

If it was prophesied that the messiah would be born by a virgin/young woman; how could the messiah have an earthly father?

One genealogy is the bloodline (through Mary) and the other his the fulfilment of the law (through Joseph).

Luke's genealogy records that Jesus did have David's blood (through Mary) in him.
2 Samuel 7:11 I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body

Matthew's genealogy reinforces Jesus as the legitimate heir to the throne of David through Joseph's acceptance of Jesus as his adopted son. Jesus as the legal heir establishes it as a throne to last forever. 2 Samuel 7:12 and I will establish his kingdom

2 Samuel 7:11
Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’ ” 17 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

Is Jesus the son of David?

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[e]
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

similarly:

2 Samuel 7:11 Moreover, The Lord declares to you that the lord will make you a house.

 

[Mr Sasquatch]

Then what's the point of the genealogies? Are they just made up to fulfil 'prophecy'?

Matthew 1:16 "...and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3.23 "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli"

John 6.41 - 6.42. "At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?'

If Joseph is not his biological father, then Jesus is not of the seed of David and has no Davidic descent.

Even the Emperor Julian who reigned from AD 361-363 was incredulous.

"But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy."

This is one of those times where once again you show a complete and total ignorance of Theology.
Matthew's gospel was written to the Jewish people. They understood completely that Jesus bar Joseph, whilst not physically descended from him
had every legal status in that family per the law. Legally he was from David's line. Mary of course was a physical descendant of David, so through either physical or legal argument, Jesus is of Davidic descent and therefor fulfils that requirement.

 

[Roylion]

This is one of those times where once again you show a complete and total ignorance of Theology.

Theology is not necessarily truth.

Matthew is a theological work, not a historical work.

The Gospels were clearly written to push an agenda that Jesus was supposedly the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. Not only are they meant to be theological they are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize. The Gospel of Matthew for example was largely written to present Jesus's ministry as largely the fulfilment of messianic prophecies from Isaiah and to a lesser extent other Biblical prophets and is part of the process to transform Jesus from executed criminal to divine Messiah and to base it in a solid foundation in existing Jewish and Greek doctrine.

Hence invented genealogies.

Matthew 1:22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet.."

Matthew's gospel was written to the Jewish people. They understood completely that Jesus bar Joseph, whilst not physically descended from him

No they did not.

If Jesus is not the biological son of Joesph, then according to the genealogies provided, he's not of the House of David and by extension has no claim to be the Messiah.

had every legal status in that family per the law.

In Jewish law, biological parents determine the child's identity. If the birth mother is Jewish, this means that the child is also Jewish. The Jewish biological father then determines the child's tribal status, as of the tribe of Judah or being a member of a certain House (i.e. the House of David). There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. For example a priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

Jewish law does not accept maternal ancestry as applying to lineage claims, which go through the father alone. Jewish law explicitly acknowledged by Jesus as binding and authoritative, (Matt. 23:1-3). It does not accept maternal ancestry as applying to lineage claims which go through the father alone. Yet both Matthew and Luke agree that Joseph was of the Davidic line and the only way that could happen was if Joseph was considered to be the biological father of Jesus.

Legally he was from David's line.

If Joesph wasn't his father then he was not of the seed of David.

Mary of course was a physical descendant of David,

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was a physical descendant of David. There is no textual support for this idea. Both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph", like Matthew did; Luke did not.

Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Numbers 1:18.

so through either physical or legal argument, Jesus is of Davidic descent and therefor fulfils that requirement.

Jesus was not of Davidic descent, if Joseph was not his biological father,.

 

[Roylion]

If it was prophesied that the messiah would be born by a virgin/young woman; how could the messiah have an earthly father?

I've gone through this over and over again.

There is no evidence for the virgin birth.

A virgin birth (if it were widely known) would be quite an unusual event and worthy of comment.

Paul doesn’t mention it all.

Paul seems to have thought that Jesus birth was natural and conventional.

Between AD 49 and 55, he recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, (which was written about AD 50) he writes:"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of momentous importance. He would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 30-40 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 50 to 56 years after Jesus' birth.

In about AD 57, Paul wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph. Matthew (written at the earliest in AD 80) of course traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph.

So how would a story of a 'virgin birth' have appeared in the Gospels?

There’s probably a few more believable and supportable reasons other than there actually was a virgin birth.

For example:
1. The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century AD. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin

2. The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion: Related to the first example, various religions claimed that various deities were born of a virgin. Buddha, Horus, Attis, Quirinus, Indra, Adonis, Mithra, Krishna and so on.

3. The virgin birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear of the very unusual births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to the parent-to-be; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised; and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke may well have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a virgin birth as proof that Jesus' birth was beyond simply unusual; it was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have been considered to be only equal in stature to those heroes.

4. The virgin birth story was an honest mistake: The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for virgin. When Greek translators were translating the Hebrew writings into the Greek Septuagint and similar translations, they mistranslated the Hebrew word "almah" into he Greek word "parthénos", which can mean "young woman," but usually means "virgin.' "Almah" appears nine other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the Hebrew Scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word "betulah". So, it appears certain that Isaiah referred to a young woman becoming pregnant -- a relatively ordinary event. This last explanation is most likely in my view. The so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not even about the Messiah either, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

It’s interesting that the writers of the later Gospel of St John did NOT mention the Virgin Birth. Given that most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John came after Matthew and Luke, they almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching.

In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph."

John 6:42 has the townspeople ask: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

If the author(s) of John believed in the miracle of the virgin birth, he/they would undoubtedly have mentioned it somewhere in the gospel, and they would not have referred to Joseph as Jesus' father on two occasions.

In fact based on the evidence above as well as other pieces of evidence, the scholarly consensus about the Virgin Birth is that sometime after 70 AD, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Romans had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not have a similar story. By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The author of the Gospel of Matthew, written about this time incorporated it into his Gospel in order that Jesus might fulfil a supposed prophecy. As did Luke.

As I said earlier, the earlier Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, has no birth story and states that Jesus's mother appears to have had no belief in her son as "Messiah" or "God" as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. Mark’s attitude toward Jesus’s blood relatives is fairly negative: some of them try to restrain him for insanity (Mark 3:21) so Jesus defines his true family - his "brother, sister, and mother" - as those who do the will of God (Mark 3:35). He rejects his mother and brothers when they come looking for him and are calling for him. (Mark 3:31-3:33)

This in itself places considerable doubt on the virgin birth story. Surely Mary, the mother of Jesus, would have been one of his most fervent supporters had she been visited by angels and delivered Jesus in a miraculous virgin birth. According to Mark apparently not.

As I said earlier, the even later John never mentions the virgin birth. And neither do the earlier writings of Paul.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams in April 1823.....

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

On a historical or scientific basis, it’s clear that there’s no real reason to consider the Virgin Birth, as outlined in Matthew and Luke, to be an actual historical event.

One genealogy is the bloodline (through Mary) and the other his the fulfilment of the law (through Joseph).

As I have already said...

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was a physical descendant of David. There is no textual support for this idea. Both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph", like Matthew did; Luke did not.

The claim by apologists that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's, is a clumsy attempt to reconcile the fictional genealogies with the equally fictional story of the virgin birth and a divine father.

Stories of heroes witb divine fathers were very common in stories around the time. For example:

• Heracles was supposedly the son of Zeus (king of the gods) and Alcmene, a mortal woman.
• Helen was daughter of Zeus and Leda not of king Tyndareus and Leda.
• Theseus was son of Poseidon (the sea god) and Aethra and not of the mortal King Aegeus.

Even if Mary can trace her genealogy back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus to claim to be the Messiah, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. (Numbers 1:18).

The genealogies themselves have been judged as purely fictional by a number of Biblical experts includiung Geza Vermes, E.P Sanders, Marcus Borg and N T Wright, the latter of who stated that:

"I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual."

Luke's genealogy records that Jesus did have David's blood (through Mary) in him.
2 Samuel 7:11 I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body

If Jesus was of the seed of David then he must be from Joseph's body.

Matthew's genealogy reinforces Jesus as the legitimate heir to the throne of David through Joseph's acceptance of Jesus as his adopted son.

That Jesus was Joseph's adopted son is completely made up and has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

[Mr Sasquatch]

Theology is not necessarily truth.

Matthew is a theological work, not a historical work.

The Gospels were clearly written to push an agenda that Jesus was supposedly the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. Not only are they meant to be theological they are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize. The Gospel of Matthew for example was largely written to present Jesus's ministry as largely the fulfilment of messianic prophecies from Isaiah and to a lesser extent other Biblical prophets and is part of the process to transform Jesus from executed criminal to divine Messiah and to base it in a solid foundation in existing Jewish and Greek doctrine.

Hence invented genealogies.

Matthew 1:22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet.."




No they did not.

If Jesus is not the biological son of Joesph, then according to the genealogies provided, he's not of the House of David and by extension has no claim to be the Messiah.


In Jewish law, biological parents determine the child's identity. If the birth mother is Jewish, this means that the child is also Jewish. The Jewish biological father then determines the child's tribal status, as of the tribe of Judah or being a member of a certain House (i.e. the House of David). There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. For example a priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

Jewish law does not accept maternal ancestry as applying to lineage claims, which go through the father alone. Jewish law explicitly acknowledged by Jesus as binding and authoritative, (Matt. 23:1-3). It does not accept maternal ancestry as applying to lineage claims which go through the father alone. Yet both Matthew and Luke agree that Joseph was of the Davidic line and the only way that could happen was if Joseph was considered to be the biological father of Jesus.



If Joesph wasn't his father then he was not of the seed of David.



There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was a physical descendant of David. There is no textual support for this idea. Both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph", like Matthew did; Luke did not.

Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Numbers 1:18.





Jesus was not of Davidic descent, if Joseph was not his biological father

I just explained how Jesus was of Davidic descent. It's not my problem if you want to look at semantics and play your games to try and disprove that. In fact, as an academic, you sure do a good job of not approaching this topic honestly.

 

[Rosscoe 17]

I've gone through this over and over again.

There is no evidence for the virgin birth.

A virgin birth (if it were widely known) would be quite an unusual event and worthy of comment.

Paul doesn’t mention it all.

Paul seems to have thought that Jesus birth was natural and conventional.

Between AD 49 and 55, he recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, (which was written about AD 50) he writes:"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."

If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of momentous importance. He would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 30-40 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 50 to 56 years after Jesus' birth.

In about AD 57, Paul wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph. Matthew (written at the earliest in AD 80) of course traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph.

So how would a story of a 'virgin birth' have appeared in the Gospels?

There’s probably a few more believable and supportable reasons other than there actually was a virgin birth.

For example:
1. The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century AD. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin

2. The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion: Related to the first example, various religions claimed that various deities were born of a virgin. Buddha, Horus, Attis, Quirinus, Indra, Adonis, Mithra, Krishna and so on.

3. The virgin birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear of the very unusual births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to the parent-to-be; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised; and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke may well have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a virgin birth as proof that Jesus' birth was beyond simply unusual; it was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have been considered to be only equal in stature to those heroes.

4. The virgin birth story was an honest mistake: The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for virgin. When Greek translators were translating the Hebrew writings into the Greek Septuagint and similar translations, they mistranslated the Hebrew word "almah" into he Greek word "parthénos", which can mean "young woman," but usually means "virgin.' "Almah" appears nine other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the Hebrew Scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word "betulah". So, it appears certain that Isaiah referred to a young woman becoming pregnant -- a relatively ordinary event. This last explanation is most likely in my view. The so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not even about the Messiah either, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

It’s interesting that the writers of the later Gospel of St John did NOT mention the Virgin Birth. Given that most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John came after Matthew and Luke, they almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching.

In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph."

John 6:42 has the townspeople ask: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?"

If the author(s) of John believed in the miracle of the virgin birth, he/they would undoubtedly have mentioned it somewhere in the gospel, and they would not have referred to Joseph as Jesus' father on two occasions.

In fact based on the evidence above as well as other pieces of evidence, the scholarly consensus about the Virgin Birth is that sometime after 70 AD, a myth of the virgin birth was invented, probably to strengthen the authority of Jesus' teachings by claiming that his birth was miraculous. This was a time of great change, as the Romans had demolished Jerusalem and its temples and scattered many of the Jews throughout the Roman empire. There, they would come into contact with many stories of virgin births of various politicians and deities from Pagan religions. In fact, it would have been unusual if the developing story of Jesus' birth did not have a similar story. By the 90's, the belief was widespread. The author of the Gospel of Matthew, written about this time incorporated it into his Gospel in order that Jesus might fulfil a supposed prophecy. As did Luke.

As I said earlier, the earlier Gospel of Mark, dating from around AD 70, has no birth story and states that Jesus's mother appears to have had no belief in her son as "Messiah" or "God" as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. Mark’s attitude toward Jesus’s blood relatives is fairly negative: some of them try to restrain him for insanity (Mark 3:21) so Jesus defines his true family - his "brother, sister, and mother" - as those who do the will of God (Mark 3:35). He rejects his mother and brothers when they come looking for him and are calling for him. (Mark 3:31-3:33)

This in itself places considerable doubt on the virgin birth story. Surely Mary, the mother of Jesus, would have been one of his most fervent supporters had she been visited by angels and delivered Jesus in a miraculous virgin birth. According to Mark apparently not.

As I said earlier, the even later John never mentions the virgin birth. And neither do the earlier writings of Paul.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to John Adams in April 1823.....

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

On a historical or scientific basis, it’s clear that there’s no real reason to consider the Virgin Birth, as outlined in Matthew and Luke, to be an actual historical event.



As I have already said...

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was a physical descendant of David. There is no textual support for this idea. Both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph", like Matthew did; Luke did not.

The claim by apologists that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's, is a clumsy attempt to reconcile the fictional genealogies with the equally fictional story of the virgin birth and a divine father.

Stories of heroes witb divine fathers were very common in stories around the time. For example:

• Heracles was supposedly the son of Zeus (king of the gods) and Alcmene, a mortal woman.
• Helen was daughter of Zeus and Leda not of king Tyndareus and Leda.
• Theseus was son of Poseidon (the sea god) and Aethra and not of the mortal King Aegeus.

Even if Mary can trace her genealogy back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus to claim to be the Messiah, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. (Numbers 1:18).

The genealogies themselves have been judged as purely fictional by a number of Biblical experts includiung Geza Vermes, E.P Sanders, Marcus Borg and N T Wright, the latter of who stated that:

"I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual."



If Jesus was of the seed of David then he must be from Joseph's body.


That Jesus was Joseph's adopted son is completely made up and has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

I have explained the genealogy. Paul mentioning Jesus being born of a woman and under the law, is what I had just finished explaining. I also have a Italian background, and the musings regarding Livy are irrelevant. Romulus and Remus were born of wolves as the tale goes. If you read John 1:45 you would find out what a gigantic misrepresentation your assertion was, that I care not even to explain it. I would like to continue discussing scripture with you; but would rather answer something you directly are curious about. Your faith in scholars, literary and historical figures opinions is grossly misplaced.

 

[Roylion]

I have explained the genealogy.

It's not correct.

Paul mentioning Jesus being born of a woman and under the law, is what I had just finished explaining.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:1-3: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph.

I also have a Italian background, and the musings regarding Livy are irrelevant. Romulus and Remus were born of wolves as the tale goes.

Romulus and Remus were not "born of wolves", according to the legend. They were suckled by a she-wolf and raised by a shepherd after being abandoned on the bank of the river Tiber to die. According to the legend, Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus. Their mother was Rhea Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. Divine father and mortal mother similar to the claims made for Jesus.

Livy's work called "Ab urbe condita" was written between 27 and 9 BC.

If you read John 1:45 you would find out what a gigantic misrepresentation your assertion was, that I care not even to explain it.

John 1:45 "Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Of course you care not to explain it. You can't.

Your faith in scholars, literary and historical figures opinions is grossly misplaced.

They are the experts who have devoted whole professional careers to Biblical analysis and Biblical history.

I'm interested in historical truth and what the evidence for determining what that historical truth might be. I'm not particularly interested in discussing Scripture, other than in the evidence for determining claims made by apologists using scripture to argue historical truth or that the scripture itself is historical truth.

What we do know is the Bible isn't inerrant when it comes to historical truth. Contradictions and anachronisms abound.

 

[Roylion]

I just explained how Jesus was of Davidic descent.

The only way he is of Davidic descent is - according to the Bible - is if he is the biological son of Joseph.

It's not my problem if you want to look at semantics

It's not me who is playing at semantics and trying to reconcile stories of a mythical virgin birth and the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph of the line of David at the same time.

you sure do a good job of not approaching this topic honestly.

You're not approaching it honestly. You're claiming things that are not supported textually and making huge leaps of faith to reconcile a story of a virgin birth and the supposed Davidic descent of Jesus.

 

[Mr Sasquatch]

The only way he is of Davidic descent is - according to the Bible - is if he is the biological son of Joseph.


It's not me who is playing at semantics and trying to reconcile stories of a mythical virgin birth and the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph of the line of David at the same time.


You're not approaching it honestly. You're claiming things that are not supported textually and making huge leaps of faith to reconcile a story of a virgin birth and the supposed Davidic descent of Jesus.

It's funny how people like you accuse Christians of cherry picking scripture or being too literal when you are guilty of that very thing.

 

[Roylion]

It's funny how people like you accuse Christians of cherry picking scripture or being too literal when you are guilty of that very thing.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm disputing your claims that you made about Jesus' genealogies. I don't believe in the inerrancy / infallibity of Scripture.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was a physical descendant of David. There is no textual support for this idea, much less supporting historical evidence. I've explained why. Both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph", like Matthew did; Luke did not. And its quite obvious why he did not. I've explained this.

The claim by apologists that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's, is a clumsy attempt to reconcile the fictional genealogies with the equally fictional story of the virgin birth and a divine father.

 

[Rosscoe 17]

It's not correct.


Paul wrote in Romans 1:1-3: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph.



John 1:45 "Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

Of course you care not to explain it. You can't.




They are the experts who have devoted whole professional careers to Biblical analysis and Biblical history.

I'm interested in historical truth and what the evidence for determining what that historical truth might be. I'm not particularly interested in discussing Scripture, other than in the evidence for determining claims made by apologists using scripture to argue historical truth or that the scripture itself is historical truth.

What we do know is the Bible isn't inerrant when it comes to historical truth. Contradictions and anachronisms abound.

At this point I would love to hear how the Romulus and Remus story was copied by the Bible. Considering the story of the Romulus and Remus circulated in 1ad as you stated and the Isiah prophecy was made between 740-701 bc.

 

[Roylion]

At this point I would love to hear how the Romulus and Remus story was copied by the Bible.

What I said was....

"there’s probably a few more believable and supportable reasons other than there actually was historically a virgin birth with a divine father.

For example:
1. The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century AD. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin.

Note the word "may". In other words, apart from the Gospels, there were other stories going around at the time about virgins giving birth with divine intervention. The so called "virgin" birth of Jesus isn't unique and Livy's which was written between 27 BC and 9 BC and is therefore at least 90 years older than the story described in Matthew, which according to mainstream scholarship was written after AD 80. At the time the Gospel of Matthew was being assembled / written, Judea was under the rule of Rome and had been for some decades. The story of the mythical founder of Rome via Livy (as I said his works were very popular) and possibly other earlier works would not have been unknown in Judea.

I also made the point that there's plenty of stories of personages that have a divine father attributed to them, similar to what is claimed about Jesus.

Stories of heroes with divine fathers were very common in stories around the time, particularly in Greek mythology, which would have been well known in the Hellenic world of which Judea and Rome were firmly a part of. For example:

• Heracles was supposedly the son of Zeus (king of the gods) and Alcmene, a mortal woman.
• Helen was daughter of Zeus and Leda not of the mortal King Tyndareus and Leda.
• Theseus was son of Poseidon (the sea god) and Aethra and not of the mortal King Aegeus and Aethra.

Considering the story of the Romulus and Remus circulated in 1ad as you stated and the Isiah prophecy was made between 740-701 bc.

I've addressed the so-called Isaiah "prophecy". Here it is yet again. Do you actually read anything?

4. The virgin birth story was an honest mistake:

The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for "virgin". When Greek translators were translating the Hebrew writings into the Greek Septuagint and similar translations, they mistranslated the Hebrew word "almah" into he Greek word "parthénos", which can mean "young woman," but usually means "virgin.' "Almah" appears nine other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the Hebrew Scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word "betulah". So, it appears certain that Isaiah referred to a young woman becoming pregnant -- a relatively ordinary event.

This last explanation is most likely in my view. The so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not even about the Messiah either, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

It’s interesting that the writers of the later Gospel of St John did NOT mention the Virgin Birth. Given that most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John came after Matthew and Luke, they almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching.

The earlier Gospel of Mark also did not mention the "virgin" birth. Surely for something so miraculous actually occurring, it would have been well known from the earliest time, these stories started to be written down.

 

[Total Power]

This last explanation is most likely in my view. The so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not even about the Messiah either, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

Wasn't he King Ahaz’s son. It was King Hezekiah who saved the tribe of Judah.

7:14 have been mistranslated, you are absolutely right, Almah doesn't mean virgin, it means young woman (or maiden). It has been used multiple times in the Jewish scriputures. The context shows that YWH was reassuring Ahaz about the conflict at hand, not a messiah to come years and years in the future. And considering the mistranslation of ‘’almah'. Some desperate stuff here to fit the prophecy into their story.

The word they are looking for is Betulah.

Instances like these:

“the girl was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה), and no man had had any relations with her” Genesis 24:16

“I took the woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin (בְּתּוּלָה)” Deut 22:14

 

[Mr Sasquatch]

I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm disputing your claims that you made about Jesus' genealogies. I don't believe in the inerrancy / infallibity of Scripture.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the Bible or anywhere else that Mary was a physical descendant of David. There is no textual support for this idea, much less supporting historical evidence. I've explained why. Both texts are quite clear that they focus on the genealogy of Joseph. Luke could very easily have mentioned Mary's name, even just calling her the "wife of Joseph", like Matthew did; Luke did not. And its quite obvious why he did not. I've explained this.

The claim by apologists that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's, is a clumsy attempt to reconcile the fictional genealogies with the equally fictional story of the virgin birth and a divine father.

Not at all. This is a perfect example of your cherry picking because you claim it doesn't say something specifically where you are focussing, which is nice and convenient. Luke 3 shows Mary's lineage not to mention her relationship with Elizabeth who was a Levite.

 

[Total Power]

You should know of all people.

No i don't, explain it to me , your contributions in this thread are for everyone to see.

 

[Rosscoe 17]

What I said was....

"there’s probably a few more believable and supportable reasons other than there actually was historically a virgin birth with a divine father.

For example:
1. The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century AD. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin.

Note the word "may". In other words, apart from the Gospels, there were other stories going around at the time about virgins giving birth with divine intervention. The so called "virgin" birth of Jesus isn't unique and Livy's which was written between 27 BC and 9 BC and is therefore at least 90 years older than the story described in Matthew, which according to mainstream scholarship was written after AD 80. At the time the Gospel of Matthew was being assembled / written, Judea was under the rule of Rome and had been for some decades. The story of the mythical founder of Rome via Livy (as I said his works were very popular) and possibly other earlier works would not have been unknown in Judea.

I also made the point that there's plenty of stories of personages that have a divine father attributed to them, similar to what is claimed about Jesus.

Stories of heroes with divine fathers were very common in stories around the time, particularly in Greek mythology, which would have been well known in the Hellenic world of which Judea and Rome were firmly a part of. For example:

• Heracles was supposedly the son of Zeus (king of the gods) and Alcmene, a mortal woman.
• Helen was daughter of Zeus and Leda not of the mortal King Tyndareus and Leda.
• Theseus was son of Poseidon (the sea god) and Aethra and not of the mortal King Aegeus and Aethra.

I've addressed the so-called Isaiah "prophecy". Here it is yet again. Do you actually read anything?

4. The virgin birth story was an honest mistake:

The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for "virgin". When Greek translators were translating the Hebrew writings into the Greek Septuagint and similar translations, they mistranslated the Hebrew word "almah" into he Greek word "parthénos", which can mean "young woman," but usually means "virgin.' "Almah" appears nine other times in the Hebrew Scriptures; in each case it means "young woman". When the Hebrew Scriptures referred to a virgin (and they do over 50 times) they always used the Hebrew word "betulah". So, it appears certain that Isaiah referred to a young woman becoming pregnant -- a relatively ordinary event.

This last explanation is most likely in my view. The so-called 'prophecy' in Isaiah 7:14 is not even about the Messiah either, but rather about the birth of King Hezekiah of Judah.

It’s interesting that the writers of the later Gospel of St John did NOT mention the Virgin Birth. Given that most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John came after Matthew and Luke, they almost certainly must have aware of the belief, since the Gospels of Matthew and Luke would have been widely circulated for 5 to 15 years by the time that the Gospel of John was written. They seem to have rejected it as being a false teaching.

The earlier Gospel of Mark also did not mention the "virgin" birth. Surely for something so miraculous actually occurring, it would have been well known from the earliest time, these stories started to be written down.

But Jesus was not raised by wolves?

and Mary was a young woman?

 

[Boston tiger]

No i don't, explain it to me , your contributions in this thread are for everyone to see.

Yes you do . You are a gnostic. What was John’s purpose in his writing his Gospel.

 

[Total Power]

Yes you do . You are a gnostic. What was John’s purpose in his writing his Gospel.

Cause John didn't write it? You're grossly underestimating what is needed to go from being unable to read and write to the linguistic and compositional skill exhibited in John. People who make this claim tend to imagine just some brief sessions of some kind, but all you need to do is ask yourself how long it takes for your average student to go from not being able to read to taking composition and becoming skilled at it and you'll have an idea how absurd such claims are.