Mary cheats on her husband, gets pregnant, convinces the dumbass that it was some magic ghost that gave them a magic baby, and accidentally created a religion.
…woulda prevented a lot of problems had she just owned up to it >_<
I’ve read somewhere (don’t remember where sorry about that) Mary wasn’t a virgin, and Joseph was definitely Jesus’ father until some much later time when some pope decided that sex with women was gross and tweaked the story.
The fun fact is that Mathew insists this is to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah. (Mat 1:32, referencing Isaiah 7:14)
Mathew's verses
18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit. 19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to divorce her quietly. 20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
23“Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son,
and they shall name him Emmanuel,”
which means, “God is with us.” 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.
The verses in Isaiah Mathew is citing
10Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 Then Isaiah[d] said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
-Emphasis mine.
The Isaiah prophecy is being given to Ahaz as a sign that his enemies will get rekt. The child being mentioned, here, is nothing more than a time-marker. Basically, what it’s saying is, that somewhere a young woman will give birth and name the kid Immanuel. By the time that kid has reached the age of majority or whatever, then everything else (enemies being rekt.) will have happened.
There’s a few mistakes the author of Mathew is making here. First. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and could not have possibly been about some kid seven centuries later.
Secondly, in the original Hebrew, the word is most certainly “young woman” or “maiden” not “virgin.” so the prophecy isn’t even saying there’ll be a virgin giving birth. Just a woman, and the sole role the kid plays is to identify a period of time. at that time and place, it would have been around fourteen.
The second mistake comes from the author using the Septuagint instead of the original Hebrew texts. for whatever reason the Greeks translated ‘maiden’ to ‘virgin’, and quite incorrectly so. Most modern English translations (particularly for Christians,) make the same mistake because it would be awkward otherwise. Suffice it to say that the author of mathew has exactly zero understanding of the old texts- probably because he was a Hellenic Jew, and spoke/read Greek- not Hebrew or Aramaic.
basically all of the messianic prophecies mathew points to beign fullfilled were either not a prophecy originally, or so severly misunderstood that it’s incomprehensible to imagine the author did anything other than throw spaghettified shit at the wall to see what stuck.
Probably sooner than that. The “Pope” as we know it is an office that evolved later, though the Catholic church claims the line goes back to the Apostle Peter.
The stories in the gospels are a collection of stories that had been circulating orally among the first century Christians, and got written down mostly in the late second half of that century. Mary likely never claimed a virgin birth at all; that was invented by the oral tradition. Pretty much everything about Jesus childhood is made up to push certain religious narratives.
Which itself is sometimes interesting to follow. The whole census story behind Jesus birth, for instance, is almost certainly made up. Why would Rome require everyone to go back to their birth city to register? That’s hugely disruptive to everyday life if people have to travel days or weeks just to fill out some paperwork. But why did they stick that in there? One good answer is that the particular group who wrote that section of the gospels–it doesn’t appear in all of them–really wanted to connect Jesus to King David and Bethlehem, but everyone knows Jesus is from Nazareth. So they stick this convoluted census story in there to have a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth.
One good answer is that the particular group who wrote that section of the gospels–it doesn’t appear in all of them–really wanted to connect Jesus to King David and Bethlehem, but everyone knows Jesus is from Nazareth. So they stick this convoluted census story in there to have a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth.
Specifically from the prophecy from Micah
2But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
Contextually, the entire book is one prophecy being given in the face of the Assyrian occupation (which was brought on by Ahaz begging for help.) Micah says that a figure will come from Bethlehem- because that’s where David is from.
The key points are:
they’re a descendent of David
they will liberate Judah.
The israelites that were taken as slaves/captives will be returned
the people of Judah will come back to being righteous as a kingdom. (AKA stop sending treasure from the temples as tribute to the Assyrians.)
These are things that Hezekiah has done, mostly. The prophecy of Micah in general is a sort of justification for Hezekiah’s reign- it was in fact written after he came to the throne and started doing all these things.
Remember that Jesus did none of the messianic things that they’re supposed to have done.
He was never anointed a king by a prophet, and couldn’t have been an heir to david anyways. (his father was god, not joseph)
The temple was rebuilt by zebe-whatshisname; about five hundred years prior. the second temple wasn’t destroyed until after 70 CE, which happens to be around the time the gospels were written.
He didn’t bring any exiles back.
didn’t establish a divine, eternal kingdom in what would be described as the Messianic age,
didn’t bring peace.
and that… is why he rose from the dead and is coming back. he just had to run and get some milk from the grocery store.
Mary cheats on her husband, gets pregnant, convinces the dumbass that it was some magic ghost that gave them a magic baby, and accidentally created a religion.
…woulda prevented a lot of problems had she just owned up to it >_<
I’ve read somewhere (don’t remember where sorry about that) Mary wasn’t a virgin, and Joseph was definitely Jesus’ father until some much later time when some pope decided that sex with women was gross and tweaked the story.
it was always part of Mathew.
The fun fact is that Mathew insists this is to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah. (Mat 1:32, referencing Isaiah 7:14)
Mathew's verses
The verses in Isaiah Mathew is citing
-Emphasis mine.
The Isaiah prophecy is being given to Ahaz as a sign that his enemies will get rekt. The child being mentioned, here, is nothing more than a time-marker. Basically, what it’s saying is, that somewhere a young woman will give birth and name the kid Immanuel. By the time that kid has reached the age of majority or whatever, then everything else (enemies being rekt.) will have happened.
There’s a few mistakes the author of Mathew is making here. First. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and could not have possibly been about some kid seven centuries later.
Secondly, in the original Hebrew, the word is most certainly “young woman” or “maiden” not “virgin.” so the prophecy isn’t even saying there’ll be a virgin giving birth. Just a woman, and the sole role the kid plays is to identify a period of time. at that time and place, it would have been around fourteen.
The second mistake comes from the author using the Septuagint instead of the original Hebrew texts. for whatever reason the Greeks translated ‘maiden’ to ‘virgin’, and quite incorrectly so. Most modern English translations (particularly for Christians,) make the same mistake because it would be awkward otherwise. Suffice it to say that the author of mathew has exactly zero understanding of the old texts- probably because he was a Hellenic Jew, and spoke/read Greek- not Hebrew or Aramaic.
basically all of the messianic prophecies mathew points to beign fullfilled were either not a prophecy originally, or so severly misunderstood that it’s incomprehensible to imagine the author did anything other than throw spaghettified shit at the wall to see what stuck.
“Virgin birth” was already a concept with other dieties. Christians just absorbed myths.
Probably sooner than that. The “Pope” as we know it is an office that evolved later, though the Catholic church claims the line goes back to the Apostle Peter.
The stories in the gospels are a collection of stories that had been circulating orally among the first century Christians, and got written down mostly in the late second half of that century. Mary likely never claimed a virgin birth at all; that was invented by the oral tradition. Pretty much everything about Jesus childhood is made up to push certain religious narratives.
Which itself is sometimes interesting to follow. The whole census story behind Jesus birth, for instance, is almost certainly made up. Why would Rome require everyone to go back to their birth city to register? That’s hugely disruptive to everyday life if people have to travel days or weeks just to fill out some paperwork. But why did they stick that in there? One good answer is that the particular group who wrote that section of the gospels–it doesn’t appear in all of them–really wanted to connect Jesus to King David and Bethlehem, but everyone knows Jesus is from Nazareth. So they stick this convoluted census story in there to have a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth.
Specifically from the prophecy from Micah
Source
Contextually, the entire book is one prophecy being given in the face of the Assyrian occupation (which was brought on by Ahaz begging for help.) Micah says that a figure will come from Bethlehem- because that’s where David is from.
The key points are:
These are things that Hezekiah has done, mostly. The prophecy of Micah in general is a sort of justification for Hezekiah’s reign- it was in fact written after he came to the throne and started doing all these things.
Remember that Jesus did none of the messianic things that they’re supposed to have done.
and that… is why he rose from the dead and is coming back. he just had to run and get some milk from the grocery store.
Some other person would have done the same thing. This is just the words that survived.