VIRGIN BIRTH. Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth, but also argue he was

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

VIRGIN BIRTH. Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth, but also argue he was descended from David. This overlooks that if virgin born, Jesus' 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would have had no connection with his conception, and his only human connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was of the Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who was of this descent - Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born, could not therefore be of Davidic descent and could not be the messiah which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would contradict all the N.T statements that Jesus was a descendent of David - Matt 1:1, 12:23, 15:22, Mark 10:47, Rom 1:3, Rev 5:5. NB. Jesus didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his 'adoptive father' as Rom 1:3 makes it quite clear that Jesus was of David's 'seed' (semen). So there is a problem; Jesus was either of David's line - but that means he wasn't virgin born (ie. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception), or he was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was not of the Davidic line) - so he couldn't have been the Messiah/Christ as the N.T teaches. NB. The virgin-birth story is only found in 2 of the 27 N.T writings, and in Luke, the style of writing indicates the part that relates the infancy was written quite separately, and added to the main story that begins in 3:1 (Note how 3:1 opens as a commencement here). Even the Catholic Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth story added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with Matthew, eg. (i) Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius (2:2,3-7), whilst Matt has it in the time of Herod, but the rule of these two never coincided or overlapped. There is no substance in the argument that the Ramsay Inscription regarding Quirinius as dummvir 'proves' he was governor in Herod's time, (ii) Matthew states that the family fled from Judea immediately to Egypt (2:4-14) and stayed there; Luke has the family calmly going to Jerusalem in Judea after the birth and then up to Galilee (2:21-22,39). The only reason that Matt's author seems to have the story is because he misunderstood Isa 7:14 that he read as messianic (which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it doesn't). This is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was born, the present threat from Syria would be over (7:14-17). There is NOTHING messianic about it at all. In this, the child was to be called Emmanuel meaning 'God with us', but the name 'Jesus' (in fact the Greek for the Hebrew Jehoshua) means 'Yahweh is salvation', so Jesus was therefore not called by the name Emmanuel and therefore did not fulfil this 'prophesy'; however Matt's author misunder -stood this and therefore couldn't have been the apostle of that name as he was not a Palestinian Jew (nor an eyewitness as he had to use Mark to write his Gospel). Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went and then impregnated his wife and the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria. Therefore it appears Isa 7:14 relates to Isaiah's own wife/child and does not have any messianic connotations. In fact there is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a woman would conceive. He does NOT say that a girl who would give birth would still be a virgin at/after the conception. The author of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' - the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible compiled in the 2nd century BCE for the Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora. However, it is not a good translation in some parts, eg. in the case of Daniel, the Jews would not use it. The Hebrew word in Isa 7:14 for the woman/'virgin' is "almah" and means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is rendered 'virgin' and there is the additional fact that in the Greek the root doesn't even necessarily mean a girl who has not had sex, but "denotes fullness or the like - fully developed". The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin state. As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have been Pales -tinian Jews (ie. the apostles) or they would have obviously used the Hebrew text and not made such errors. Matt makes other errors, eg. in 27:9-10 he says he is quoting Jeremiah, but in fact he's quoting Zechariah 11:12-13. There are other examples of this. It is very apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Pal- estinian Jews and in the case of Mark's author there has to be doubt whether he had even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical, chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about first cent. Palestine. But this is where it continues to be manifestly absurd. Jesus was supposedly a true Jew - a direct descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish Messiah, the Son of David (Matt 21:9), the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Test- ament, he quoted the GREEK LXX version ! Furthermore, in some cases the Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support the argument he is making, ie. because of the LXX's inaccuracies. In Mark 7:1-23 Jesus does this, but although it seems the LXX would support the point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the Hebrew original would not. So we are asked to believe that Jesus - a true Hebrew Jew - chose to use the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and furthermore, was unaware of the fact that he was using a passage that in reality was defective and the original would say something completely different, and be quite inappropriate for his argument, but also, accord- ing to the Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish oppo- nents with this - a mistranslation of their own scriptures - and they didn't challenge this!!! The fact is, therefore, Jesus could not have spoken what the Gospels reports, and such sayings are put into his mouth by the Gospel writers who being ignorant of Hebrew made their handiwork obvious. The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus' brother) in Acts 15 - he uses the LXX to support his argument, although again, the Hebrew original says something quite different and would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the audience didn't comment on this !!! Who could believe any of this ????????

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank