A skeptic's route to the Virgin Mary

[bythoughts]

Skeptics have some issues with the traditional story of the Virgin Birth. Basically, apart from some Gnostics who drew Jesus as a tree or the like, sources say Jesus was human. Looked human. With human hair and human skin, made in part of human keratin made in human ribosomes from human RNA and human DNA. So if Jesus had a strand of "God DNA", what would that look like? Would it be some weird glowing subatomic aberration merely camouflaged to work like ordinary DNA? Would it have ordinary base pairs, an ordinary sequence? Could you have sequenced Jesus and Mary's DNA to work out if God was a carrier of sickle cell anemia? Does God have the appearance of one particular race and background in general? And if that sequence is ordinary DNA, suitable for a human, then it has nothing to do with what makes God, well, God, right? Alternatively, you could go the parthenogenesis route, but then where did the Y chromosome come from? As you see, skeptics understandably dismiss the story as a fable at first blush, which makes a hash of physical and biochemical reality.

However.... there is a medieval Jewish text called the Toledat Yeshu, which makes such a compelling argument against the virginity of Mary that it could convince a skeptic that the story is true, and that indeed, Jesus is the son of God. What's funny about skepticism is that roads that lead away from faith also lead toward it.

According to various accounts, more or less, Jesus was the biological offspring of Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, a Roman archer from Sidon. But where the Toledat Yeshu goes further is to explicitly suggest this occurred by rape. Now modern audiences know a thing or two about rape, such as that it is not sex. A woman could no more lose her virginity to a rapist than she could lose it to a Pap smear! Morally speaking, if the Toledat Yeshu account is true, then Mary was a virgin!

But we're not done yet. There is one of the single most objectionable laws in the Old Testament to deal with, Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

This is the sort of law that reminds us the purpose of that covenant was to make Abraham's seed as numerous as the dust of the earth, but not to set a standard of goodness. Nonetheless, like all the old laws, it could be interpreted by a wise Rabbi. I expect that Panthera's case was rather notorious, but as an occupying Roman soldier, how could the courts punish him? Roman soldiers were typically married, and Rome didn't have polygamy, so they couldn't even make him get married. A humdinger. But then, I think, the court recalled why Moses could not enter the Promised Land. Moses struck the rock with Aaron's rod, but it was God who drew the water forth.

If so, then all sons are the sons of God, just like Adam though by a different mode of creation. But this particular son of God wouldn't have another father listed: the court could neither convict Panthera nor accuse Mary of something she didn't do. So it is possible that Jesus really could have been legally the sole begotten son of God.

The Romans would understandably be pleased by such a development, which would spare them from hurt feelings and inevitable bloodshed. So someone, perhaps Panthera himself, ordered the delivery of precisely fifty shekels in compensatin, calling it not a fine, but a present for the newborn God. Three magi, looking more like miserly money men than pilgrims, could have mutually verified and witnessed the transaction. Of course, first they had to see ('adore') the baby, to ensure that he looked like Panthera.

 

[bythoughts]

Now to be clear, I think such an explanation seems more inspiring than the common interpretation. It presents Jesus as more than God's science project, or wild oats. We see that Mary was indeed blessed, because unlike many women who would be enraged or sad and reluctant to assume their role, she was filled with love for her baby. The scene is a powerful metaphor for a God with a tainted creation - and God, being jealous, would want to be less loving than a mundane mother. The way that Joseph so quickly became a husband, how people were surprised by Jesus' religious knowledge, the willingness of foreigners to join in nascent Christianity ... this adds sensible context.

Lastly, we shouldn't forget that the New Testament doesn't call Jesus the son of God over and over - but the son of Man. This is an entirely different phenomenon, of far greater significance...

 

[ASHES]

If you're telling me the argument is, "if you dismiss everything we've ever said, and take up this new argument from the old books we haven't used previously because now it better fits the god of the gaps we're facing, so we're right", I would agree with you that is the argument you are making. Not a good one, but one nonetheless.

 

[bythoughts]

if you dismiss everything we've ever said,

Nope. Just dismiss everything said afterward. People get stuck in this rut where they think The Ten Commandments (I mean the movie) is the word of God. But all they need is for a few lines of prophecy to have come true. Those lines could come true in many, many ways, beautiful ways, not told in recent literature.

 

[Gordy327]

I discussed the topic of the Virgin Mary story in my Fallacy of Biblical Stories: The Virgin Birth

 

[ASHES]

Nope. Just dismiss everything said afterward. People get stuck in this rut where they think The Ten Commandments (I mean the movie) is the word of God. But all they need is for a few lines of prophecy to have come true. Those lines could come true in many, many ways, beautiful ways, not told in recent literature.

Now we're cherry picking the sacred texts to avoid the obvious cognitive dissonance, with a splash of special pleading.

 

[KingLeo]

The biblical story of a virgin birth is a retelling of several others, most all predating Christianity.

• Perseus: According to Greek legend, Perseus' mother, Danaë, was impregnated by Zeus in the form of a shower of gold while imprisoned by her father.
• Ion: In Greek mythology, Ion was conceived through a union between the god Apollo and the mortal woman Creusa.
• Alexander the Great: Legends circulated claiming Zeus impregnated Alexander's mother, Olympias, before her marriage.
• Romulus and Remus: The founders of Rome were said to be born of a Vestal Virgin, Rhea Silvia, who claimed divine intervention.
• Huitzilopochtli: This Aztec deity's mother, Coatlicue, was impregnated by a falling ball of feathers.
• Laozi: One legend about the founder of Taoism describes his mother conceiving him after gazing at stars.

 

[bythoughts]

The biblical story of a virgin birth is a retelling of several others, most all predating Christianity.

This is fair - the idea is an archetype that does attract the human mind - but that doesn't mean it couldn't have come true in a more literal, real-world fashion in this case, signifying the intentionality of this element of the world's plotline.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Although I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, I've read a bit, listened a lot, and have numerous conversations on God, Jesus, the Bible with pastors, scholars, friends, some Christians some not. Now I know there are countless studies, and scientific, philosophic, biblical studies all about the story of Christ, the teachings of the bible and unlimited examinations of those. I've never heard the story described above as an explanation of the virgin birth. So there's another one I've now heard, but doubt I'll put much stock in.
I'm pretty simple here on my belief in the Bible and my faith in Christ. Martin Luther, the Martin Luther, said "by faith alone" we are saved, emphasizing that it is received as a gift from God through trust in Jesus Christ, rather than through human works or merits. This doctrine, a core tenet of the Protestant Reformation, suggests that good works are a result of faith, not a prerequisite for it, I trust in Martin Luther's teaching along with others and that's enough for me. For if not for faith, I would have nothing.

 

[Logician Man]

Although I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, I've read a bit, listened a lot, and have numerous conversations on God, Jesus, the Bible with pastors, scholars, friends, some Christians some not. Now I know there are countless studies, and scientific, philosophic, biblical studies all about the story of Christ, the teachings of the bible and unlimited examinations of those. I've never heard the story described above as an explanation of the virgin birth. So there's another one I've now heard, but doubt I'll put much stock in.
I'm pretty simple here on my belief in the Bible and my faith in Christ. Martin Luther, the Martin Luther, said "by faith alone" we are saved, emphasizing that it is received as a gift from God through trust in Jesus Christ, rather than through human works or merits. This doctrine, a core tenet of the Protestant Reformation, suggests that good works are a result of faith, not a prerequisite for it, I trust in Martin Luther's teaching along with others and that's enough for me. For if not for faith, I would have nothing.

To the bolded:

Do you think people of no faith at all in any God/s can and do perform acts/deeds of "good works"?

How about people of faith who practice non-Christian religions/beliefs that don't align with Martin Luther's faith/beliefs?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Although I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, I've read a bit, listened a lot, and have numerous conversations on God, Jesus, the Bible with pastors, scholars, friends, some Christians some not. Now I know there are countless studies, and scientific, philosophic, biblical studies all about the story of Christ, the teachings of the bible and unlimited examinations of those. I've never heard the story described above as an explanation of the virgin birth. So there's another one I've now heard, but doubt I'll put much stock in.
I'm pretty simple here on my belief in the Bible and my faith in Christ. Martin Luther, the Martin Luther, said "by faith alone" we are saved, emphasizing that it is received as a gift from God through trust in Jesus Christ, rather than through human works or merits. This doctrine, a core tenet of the Protestant Reformation, suggests that good works are a result of faith, not a prerequisite for it, I trust in Martin Luther's teaching along with others and that's enough for me. For if not for faith, I would have nothing.

Logically, if salvation could come as a result of our own works, we would have no need of a savior. If that were true, it means Jesus suffered and died on the cross for nothing.

We do good works as a response to and a celebration of our salvation, not as a means to obtain it. If we could earn our salvation, it would mean we could put God in our debt. "I did my part, now God owes me!" How preposterous does that sound?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

To the bolded:

Do you think people of no faith at all in any God/s can and do perform acts/deeds of "good works"?

How about people of faith who practice non-Christian religions/beliefs that don't align with Martin Luther's faith/beliefs?

Paul had something to say on this:

Romans 2
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, [non-believers] who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Everyone, believer or non, is born with the light of Christ within them. How they act upon this light is up to them. They will be judged according to what they had, as will we all.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Logically, if salvation could come as a result of our own works, we would have no need of a savior. If that were true, it means Jesus suffered and died on the cross for nothing.

We do good works as a response to and a celebration of our salvation, not as a means to obtain it. If we could earn our salvation, it would mean we could put God in our debt. "I did my part, now God owes me!" How preposterous does that sound?

Exactly.
There is one way to salvation, Jesus Christ.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Paul had something to say on this:

Romans 2
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, [non-believers] who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Everyone, believer or non, is born with the light of Christ within them. How they act upon this light is up to them. They will be judged according to what they had, as will we all.

They will be judged on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior.

 

[Integrityrespec]

To the bolded:

Do you think people of no faith at all in any God/s can and do perform acts/deeds of "good works"?

How about people of faith who practice non-Christian religions/beliefs that don't align with Martin Luther's faith/beliefs?

The only way to salvation is acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior.
In Christian belief, salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, recognizing him as Lord and believing in his resurrection. This involves acknowledging one's sinfulness and accepting God's forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice. It's a gift from God, not something earned through human effort.

 

[Logician Man]

Logician Man said:
To the bolded:

Do you think people of no faith at all in any God/s can and do perform acts/deeds of "good works"?

How about people of faith who practice non-Christian religions/beliefs that don't align with Martin Luther's faith/beliefs?

The only way to salvation is acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior.
In Christian belief, salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, recognizing him as Lord and believing in his resurrection. This involves acknowledging one's sinfulness and accepting God's forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice. It's a gift from God, not something earned through human effort.

My question/s posed to you above (as all can see) are not asking you about a "way to salvation".

My question/s are asking you if a person or persona of no faith or a faith different than the one you believe in and adhere to can perform "good works" without believing precisely as you believe on matters of faith or don't believe in any God/s at all.

It's a simple YES or NO question.

 

[Gordy327]

Exactly.
There is one way to salvation, Jesus Christ.

They will be judged on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior.

Thats nice. Prove it!

The only way to salvation is acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior.
In Christian belief, salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, recognizing him as Lord and believing in his resurrection. This involves acknowledging one's sinfulness and accepting God's forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice. It's a gift from God, not something earned through human effort.

What about non-Christians, like Jews, Muslims, or whomever who does not believe in Jesus?? Are they all screwed?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

They will be judged on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior.

So those who never hear the name Jesus Christ are doomed to eternal damnation? What kind of god do you worship?

 

[phoenix2020]

Were midi-chlorians involved?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The only way to salvation is acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior.
In Christian belief, salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus Christ, recognizing him as Lord and believing in his resurrection. This involves acknowledging one's sinfulness and accepting God's forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice. It's a gift from God, not something earned through human effort.

So as long as you accept Jesus you are saved?

A mass murderer who accepts Jesus is saved but a 10 year old Indian child who never knew about Jesus is not

 

[Gordy327]

So as long as you accept Jesus you are saved?

A mass murderer who accepts Jesus is saved but a 10 year old Indian child who never knew about Jesus is not

It doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

[Logician Man]

Lord Tammerlain said:
So as long as you accept Jesus you are saved?

A mass murderer who accepts Jesus is saved but a 10 year old Indian child who never knew about Jesus is not

It doesn't make much sense, does it?

Actually, the "10 year old Indian child" gets a free pass on Judgement Day according to Christian apologists.

Saves having to be a slave to Jehovah all of your living days on earth, and no trips to any silly "Mourner's Bench".

I'd say the "10 year old Indian child" hit the vagina lottery, as his/her "salvation" is a "free gift" given to the oblivious child who never has to make the decision to accept, or not accept, the Christian God's "free gift" while living on earth.

One could even put forth a good argument that the "10 year old (saved) Indian child" is one of God's chosen people, as in Christian theology, the ultimate goal is to be "saved".

A truly omniscient God would know that 'before' the "10 year old Indian child" was ever conceived that the child would live and die having never heard "The True Word of God".

 

[Gordy327]

Lord Tammerlain said:
So as long as you accept Jesus you are saved?

A mass murderer who accepts Jesus is saved but a 10 year old Indian child who never knew about Jesus is not



Actually, the "10 year old Indian child" gets a free pass on Judgement Day according to Christian apologists.

Saves having to be a slave to Jehovah all of your living days on earth, and no trips to any silly "Mourner's Bench".

I'd say the "10 year old Indian child" hit the vagina lottery, as his/her "salvation" is a "free gift" given to the oblivious child who never has to make the decision to accept, or not accept, the Christian God's "free gift" while living on earth.

One could even put forth a good argument that the "10 year old (saved) Indian child" is one of God's chosen people, as in Christian theology, the ultimate goal is to be "saved".

A truly omniscient God would know that 'before' the "10 year old Indian child" was ever conceived that the child would live and die having never heard "The True Word of God".

Basically, it boils down to being ignorant. If one is ignorant of Jesus/God, then they get a free pass, as they "didn't know." That means christians have screwed everyone over by "spreading the message" of Jesus/God when we would have been just fine had we not known to begin with. So if we're doomed to damnation, it's all the Christians fault!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Lord Tammerlain said:
So as long as you accept Jesus you are saved?

A mass murderer who accepts Jesus is saved but a 10 year old Indian child who never knew about Jesus is not



Actually, the "10 year old Indian child" gets a free pass on Judgement Day according to Christian apologists.

Saves having to be a slave to Jehovah all of your living days on earth, and no trips to any silly "Mourner's Bench".

I'd say the "10 year old Indian child" hit the vagina lottery, as his/her "salvation" is a "free gift" given to the oblivious child who never has to make the decision to accept, or not accept, the Christian God's "free gift" while living on earth.

One could even put forth a good argument that the "10 year old (saved) Indian child" is one of God's chosen people, as in Christian theology, the ultimate goal is to be "saved".

A truly omniscient God would know that 'before' the "10 year old Indian child" was ever conceived that the child would live and die having never heard "The True Word of God".

So salvation is not through Jesus.

If those that never heard of him, never exposed to Jesus can be saved, anyone can be even without accepting jesus

 

[Logician Man]

Basically, it boils down to being ignorant. If one is ignorant of Jesus/God, then they get a free pass, as they "didn't know." That means christians have screwed everyone over by "spreading the message" of Jesus/God when we would have been just fine had we not known to begin with. So if we're doomed to damnation, it's all the Christians fault!

Regarding the above bolded:

Just another great indication that the "real truth" is that men concocted Gods/God concepts as opposed to vice versa in which any actual God inspired flawed, mere mortals to write the Christian Holy Text.