Is there Evidence in the Gospels that the Virgin Birth was a Cover-Up for... Something Else?

Now all you ATSers - be sure to keep a civil keyboard under your fingertips (I'm just saying...) this topic can get quite explosive !

It is often difficult for modern educated adults in the 21st century to accept mythological language used in the Bible as 'pure historical fact' especially when it comes to things like Joshua causing the sun to stand still so he can finish a battle or in literal talking snakes (or Hebrew speaking donkeys) - or (to turn to the New Testament) things like 'resurrections' and 'virgin births'.

The idea that Miryam ('Mary') of Galilee not being a virgin (Heb. Bethulah) at the time of the conception of 'Jesus' may account for the fact that in the genealogy of the 1st council approved Greek Gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) is mainly composed of males but mysteriously also names four women -- all of whom were either 'whores' or who had some sexual immorality attached to them (Rahab, Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba) with Mary the fifth in the list - which is stated (once you examine the text's preponderance for 'fives' in 'Matthew') almost emphatically...

What exactly was the author of 'Matthew' trying to tell us?

In the 3rd canonical council approved gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) there is a poem forming part of the Infancy Narrative known as the 'Magnificat' where words placed into the mouth of 'Mary' which include "for thou hast looked 'upon the humiliation' of thy handmaid..." where the Greek term ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν means to look 'upon the degradation' (or 'humiliation') a word often used in cases of rape (or in cases of an elderly woman's barrenness...or inability to produce a son etc.)

Since the story in 'Luke' seems to portray Miryam of Galilee as a young woman (Heb 'almah' in Isaiah 7:14, does NOT say 'virgin') and not some barren 'old maid' the implication that one can only draw from the text is that (surreptituously recorded) she became 'degraded' or 'humiliated' and impregnanted = by rape.

What exactly was the author of 'Luke' trying to tell us?

This would also seem to fit the sneers placed into the mouth of the scribes when they accuse 'ho Iesous' (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) of being 'born of fornication'

'And they said to him, WE were not born of fornication, we know who OUR father is !' which according to the 4th canonical Greek Gospel ('according to John' whoever he was) has the word WE (Ἡμεῖς) emphasized in the Greek - see John 8:41 εἶπαν αὐτῷ· Ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα· ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν -

So..what is the author of 'John' trying to tell us?

Certainly if there was any doubt in his mind about his own paternity, it would make sense that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ('Jesus') would turn his father-fixation when referring towards YHWH as his use of the term 'Abba' ("Daddy') in such a close and personal way...

At any rate, there is an air of sexual immorality surrounding the birth of 'the Messiah' in the gospels - especially when you perform what is known as a 'close reading' of the text...something that persons that style themselves as 'Christians' rarely do, it seems...the net result being that if this is any evidence of a smoking gun what we have is a person who was considered by some in his own day as a 'mamzer' iin Hebrew ('one who is born of illicit union') in other words a 'bastard.'

Small wonder, then, that the gospels of 'Matthew' and 'Luke' went to such lengths to drag in Isaiah 7:14 to account for what would have been an embarrassment for the church...

Moreover the early church was in competition with dozens of other 'mystery' cults which boasted of their heroes being born miraculously from virgins e.g. Pythagoras, Zoroaster, Buddha, Hesus the Druid & Apollonius of Cappadocia - as well as of course the gods themselves of the Mystery Religions e.g. Osiris (Egyptian Wuzir) Dionysius/Bacchus, Hercules, Zeus and countless others - all born of virgins whose father was thought to be a god.

But we do not necessarily have to delve into pagan Mystery Cults to see this trend for miraculous births already forming before the New Testament was even written - in the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a long passage in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenApoc) c. 100 BCE which speaks of the son of Lamech (Noah) as being pure white and red with white hair whose eyes lit up the whole room to the point that Lamech doubted his own paternity, thinking the child was the son of one of the Watchers (i.e. angels) who had seduced his wife Bath-Enosh.

And other miraculous births in the Hebrew Bible show that it was not uncommon to devise stories of heroes who have been miraculously impregnated e.g. the birth of Yitzaaq (Isaac) to Sarah when she was 90 years old, or the birth of Samuel, Samson, etal. and in the New Testament we have the birth of John the Baptist after his mother was barren and advanced in age (Luke 1:5-25).

Comments?

a reply to: Sigismundus

It would probably make more sense then the "virgin birth" legend...

Virgin could also be a mistranslation in the gospels, which was meant to mean "young woman"

Its pretty hard to tell what actually happened from the limited knowledge we have of the events surrounding the life of Jesus

it seems the church does tend to embellish in many cases

So you hate your parents. Big deal, you can still cook a nice vegan ham for your partner and dress-up for the occasion. I would have thought you would be excited for an excuse to use felt and glitter.

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

Ha, I snorted beer at your response. Cuddos to you and Merry Christmas

Personally, I would be a little bit upset if I married and got no action on the wedding night and honeymoon. Then only to find out the wife is prego to some other dude. Talk about blue balls hey.....

I believe Mary had an affair and didn't want to be stoned to death. A bull# story was made up about a magic man making her pregs. The most simple answer is usually correct. Jebus was a bastard son who married a whore.

There are two Mary's in the new testament.

I'm thinking the snake was a croc.

I don't take some of that stuff literally, but the ten commandments do seem good for society. Trouble is that the definition of what they say has been twisted so much.

The virgin birth isn't meant to be taken literally. Just like with the story in Eden, the virgin birth is meant to be taken allegorically. It represents a greater truth that is written within the story that must be pulled out by the reader. If you take it at face value it will seem a bit ridiculous, but if taken allegorically it makes perfect sense.

This is my interpretation of the virgin birth: Mary is a virgin that gives birth to life. What else is a Mother, is a virgin, and gives birth to life? Earth. Mother Earth gave rise to life billions of years ago with an "immaculate conception" that is not fully understood. How did the "virgin" Earth give rise (birth) to life? We don't know yet, Christians will say the same about how the virgin Mary gave birth, they don't exactly know either.

Coming up with all these theories on the events surrounding Jesus' birth is to miss the forest for the trees in my opinion. There's no need to speculate on the events because they never truly happened in any way that the bible describes, at least not literally or historically.

a reply to: rickymouse

Ten commandments is way too many, I'll let George speak.

I believe Mary Mary was quite contrary ..so how indeed did her garden grow??, and Mary had a little lamb the doctors died of shock..(lamb reference to Christ child later to be sacrificed )
skit taken for Benny hill..In any case Merry Christmas, enjoy your holidays.

a reply to: Sigismundus

It's interesting to think about, but not for biographical reasons. The birth stories did not begin to be added to the Sayings of Jesus until half a century after they first circulated amongst the Jesus Movement in Roman-occupied Judea and Samaria. I have yet to find a convincing explanation for the later insinuations of rape, whoredom and adultery hurled at the young mother of Jesus in some gospel nativity accounts—that it's metaphorical is certainly true, with political and religious (the same in Herod's Jerusalem) corruption often the veiled target of these accusations of illegitimacy.

It does seem contrary to the gospel writers' attempts to link Jesus (known to them only as a teacher with memorable sayings) to Hebrew royalty and the Davidian line. (And we all know how weird it is to try connecting a miraculous child with no earthly father to his paternal heritage.) The political riddles in both the OT and NT are some of my favorite parts of the Bible.

a reply to: Sigismundus

in the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a long passage in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenApoc) c. 100 BCE which speaks of the son of Lamech (Noah) as being pure white and red with white hair whose eyes lit up the whole room to the point that Lamech doubted his own paternity, thinking the child was the son of one of the Watchers (i.e. angels) who had seduced his wife Bath-Enosh.

Noah's eyes lighting up the whole room is interesting. This story has an allegorical meaning behind it as well. It's very simple, Noah's eyes lighting up the entire room represents what we do every time we open our eyes. When we open our eyes, our eyes light up the entire room from our own perspective.

If you look at the story from an outer perspective, it seems as though Noah's eyes shine light like a flashlight out onto the room, but looking at it from an inner perspective you realize it is talking about what you see right now, light.

There will be another Noah, I believe Noah means "new" and we "Civilization" will be the watchers who stock and supply the new Noah on yet another journey. Several millenniums later their will be yet another Christ figure.
Out of the ruins will be the same old monoliths of the past, the same old questions of the past and the same old leaders of the past.

Someday the Christ figure will be renowned and in some days he will not.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Sigismundus

in the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a long passage in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenApoc) c. 100 BCE which speaks of the son of Lamech (Noah) as being pure white and red with white hair whose eyes lit up the whole room to the point that Lamech doubted his own paternity, thinking the child was the son of one of the Watchers (i.e. angels) who had seduced his wife Bath-Enosh.

Noah's eyes lighting up the whole room is interesting. This story has an allegorical meaning behind it as well. It's very simple, Noah's eyes lighting up the entire room represents what we do every time we open our eyes. When we open our eyes, our eyes light up the entire room from our own perspective.

If you look at the story from an outer perspective, it seems as though Noah's eyes shine light like a flashlight out onto the room, but looking at it from an inner perspective you realize it is talking about what you see right now, light.

Carbide type lamps were used by miners for a very long time. They have found a few of them around two thousand years old. Now what would the people of the time say if they had seen one of those on someone's forehead. Now this could be a possibility as to interpreting this, but Noah was from way earlier than two thousand years.

What God is it who would choose a young woman already in a loving relationship with a man and intending to marry him and who would impregnate her, forcing her to carry the social stigma of having sex whilst unmarried? Is that not immoral?

That's not what my God would ever do. But it is what the writers of the gospels would think of in order to fabricate the virgin birth myth so as to turn Jesus into some semi-divine figure for everyone to worship (as well as, no doubt, to deal with their hangups about sex). No wonder the myth never convinced the Jews of the time (and still doesn't today).

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The virgin birth isn't meant to be taken literally. Just like with the story in Eden, the virgin birth is meant to be taken allegorically. It represents a greater truth that is written within the story that must be pulled out by the reader. If you take it at face value it will seem a bit ridiculous, but if taken allegorically it makes perfect sense.

This is my interpretation of the virgin birth: Mary is a virgin that gives birth to life. What else is a Mother, is a virgin, and gives birth to life? Earth. Mother Earth gave rise to life billions of years ago with an "immaculate conception" that is not fully understood. How did the "virgin" Earth give rise (birth) to life? We don't know yet, Christians will say the same about how the virgin Mary gave birth, they don't exactly know either.

Coming up with all these theories on the events surrounding Jesus' birth is to miss the forest for the trees in my opinion. There's no need to speculate on the events because they never truly happened in any way that the bible describes, at least not literally or historically.

Oh trust me, Christians take the virgin birth quite literally and the whole deity narrative falls aparts if Jesus were just a mere human like the rest of us. I think the Mother Earth interpretation is misguided. Christians have to buy into the idea that miracles do occur because the bible is full of them. I think a virgin birth is untenable because we all know about the bird and bees. Apparently impregnated with a Holy Spirit not of this world brings up all kinds of questions and zero answers. I can make a strong argument that there is no way an invisible spirit is going to impregnate a female. It has never happened before, or since. So, did Mary lie about having sex, or did a miracle occur?

a reply to: mapsurfer_

Neither happened, it's an allegorical story with no true basis in history.

This is where both Christians and atheists get hung up, they take the story literally. Christians take it literally because that's what they're told to do, atheists take it literally because they know that if it is taken literally then it couldn't have happened, and they do not want to accept it in any way to begin with.

originally posted by: FieldCmdrCohen
a reply to: Sigismundus

It's interesting to think about, but not for biographical reasons. The birth stories did not begin to be added to the Sayings of Jesus until half a century after they first circulated amongst the Jesus Movement in Roman-occupied Judea and Samaria. I have yet to find a convincing explanation for the later insinuations of rape, whoredom and adultery hurled at the young mother of Jesus in some gospel nativity accounts—that it's metaphorical is certainly true, with political and religious (the same in Herod's Jerusalem) corruption often the veiled target of these accusations of illegitimacy.

It does seem contrary to the gospel writers' attempts to link Jesus (known to them only as a teacher with memorable sayings) to Hebrew royalty and the Davidian line. (And we all know how weird it is to try connecting a miraculous child with no earthly father to his paternal heritage.) The political riddles in both the OT and NT are some of my favorite parts of the Bible.

Well there were 150+ bishops at Nicea that wrote the storyline of the NT, and the only way for Jesus to be the Son of God was through a virgin birth. Like you said the scripture did not appear until 325, and there is no foundation that Mary was a virgin, and it was translated from the "almah" which meant female of child bearing age. The notion of the virgin birth actually was part of the OT prophecy of Isaiah, and the Nicene Creed and Apostle's Creed both use the virgin birth as an article of faith and they embellished the NT the actual details of divinity of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They did have editorial control over the scripture which should be considered.

If you develop of believe system that includes miracles

The Virgin Birth was a surrogacy. Mary didn't have sex. She didn't conventionally get pregnant. Christ was planted in her for incubation. Nor did Christ pass through the vagina canal, as in standard childbirth. Christ was a Breach birth. His head was right-side up and too large for any normal birth. He was unconventionally extracted. Mary's midwife was The Star of Bethlehem.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: mapsurfer_

Neither happened, it's an allegorical story with no true basis in history.

This is where both Christians and atheists get hung up, they take the story literally. Christians take it literally because that's what they're told to do, atheists take it literally because they know that if it is taken literally then it couldn't have happened, and they do not want to accept it in any way to begin with.

You may interpret this story to be allegory but I disagree. The event (virgin birth of Jesus) was fulfilling OT prophesy of Isaiah and literally interpreted as such by the Christian religions and Muslims.

So you think the allegory has something to with virgin birth taking on the meaning of Mother Earth? If that is true, then please explain how an allegory is an article of faith and explicity spelled out in both the Nicene and Apostles Creeds which
states:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic and apostholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.


Well I *was* a Christian from my childhood (1976), but didn't ask the tough questions til later in life. If this virgin birth is allegory as you suggest, that would mean Christians would all have to acknowledge it never happened. Do you believe their creed is allegory too? It is the one issue (most important) that elevates Jesus to divine status, and is where they came up with the Holy Spirit/trinity connection which are key tenants in scripture. Also, as I mentioned... the claim of a virgin birth had to be made to fulfill Isaiah prophecy.

Personally I always felt a disconnect with the God of the Old Testament versus New Testament and it reads like they hijacked the Jewish God to suit their purpose.

a reply to: mapsurfer_

Star of Bethlehem=Holy Spirit.