Unmasking Doctrine

Unmasking Doctrine #3: The Deity of Christ: Virgin Birth

Good evening Heathens and Hell-bound friends and foes alike! For the last article in this series, click here:Unmasking Doctrine #2: One True God. So this article was going to originally be a lot longer but I felt like I might split it up a bit. There is a ton to cover with this one. The Assemblies of God state that they have 16 fundamental truths but the third truth is actually 6 truths in one…

Anyway the 3rd Fundamental Truth states…

The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.”

It then goes on to state that scripture declares several things about Jesus, tonight we will be talking about the first one, the virgin birth.

The Scriptures given to support this are:

picard gif.gif

First off I want to give the AoG church some props…

Why?

Because they make no mention of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 7:14 is the verse most often quoted as proving that the virgin birth was necessary in order for Jesus to actually be the Messiah that people say he is. However we now know that the book of Isaiah was mistranslated and did not actually mean a virgin but simply a woman of marriageable age. Not only that but the prophecy that Isaiah is speaking of is actually fulfilled by the prophet Isaiah in the very next chapter. He makes love to a prophetess, and she conceives.  I have no idea how Christians have believed this verse to point to the birth of Jesus other than the New Testament says it points to Jesus.  Why would the birth of a child hundreds of years later be proof to a current ruler that god is truly in control?

trump

Prophet: Hey Trump!

Trump: Yeah?

Prophet: I’m going to prove to you that god is real!

Trump: How are you going to do that?

Prophet: Hundreds of years after you’re dead a child will be born to a young woman!

Trump: Obviously you are bigly a man of god!

Do you see how this might not exactly make sense? So good job to the Assemblies for seeing this and not even mentioning the scripture in their statement of faith. Bravo!

However, the scriptures given are just as nonsensical…

For one, Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:31 are contradictory. In Matthew it says they called him Emmanuel and in Luke 1:31 it states they called him Jesus. Now I suppose this could simply be an example as Joe, also known as, Emmanuel, but I really don’t think that’s the case here. I actually think it’s simply a matter of one writer knowing the Old Testament better than the other. So in one, the author specifically gives the name quoted in Isaiah, in the other it skips that and just say, he was named Jesus, the Roman version of Yeshua, or Joshua. The reason I say this is that it supposedly is talking about the same situation. I really don’t think an angel would say, you’re going to call him Immanuel, but also call him Jesus the roman version of Yeshua….

i-am-not-the-messiah-im-a-very-naughty-boy

Luke 1:35 states…

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (NIV)

So the holy spirit will come(oooooohhhhh!!!!) on you, and your going to have a kid. He’s going to be called the son of god. However there is a footnote included with this scripture that states (Or : So the child to be born will be called holy.) This opens up a couple of issues.

alan_cumming_640
Alan Cumming…..get it….cumming….oh hohoho I am hilarious!

I’ve already had my little joke about the Holy Spirit cumming, but did you know that several Christian sects are much more in line with that idea? Some believe that god actually had sex with Mary and she conceived in that fashion.

For starters the term “sons of god” is used in the bible to just speak in general about mankind or it could also be angels. Generally it is used in reference to someone who is holy but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are divine. David was a son of god, Moses was a son of god,  neither of which were divine according to Christianity.

god

Secondly, it’s that foot note, it could simply reference the idea that Jesus was going to be a holy man. Lot’s of people in the bible were considered holy men and they did not need to be born of a virgin. Samuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elisha and Elijah were all holy men who had no requirement of being born of a virgin to be considered holy and work the “will of god” on earth.

What really gets me is that two gospels completely skip the virgin birth altogether. Why are Mark and John absent in this respect? If it was something crucial to the faith then wouldn’t the writers of these two gospels want to get it into their books as well? I’ve heard it said that possibly these writers didn’t know about the virgin birth, which is pretty surprising if they are writing to tell us all about this great guy Jesus. I mean most biographers spend a pretty decent amount of time on the childhood of their subject, only a piss poor biographer would write a book without understanding as much as possible about their subjects life.

Also not knowing means that there had to be many Christians who had no understanding of this doctrinal belief, which means it must not have be seen as important originally, or maybe even added later?

shrugged

Others will say that John and Mark had other reasons for writing their books and since god’s divine hand was on the making of the bible, he knew that they need not mention the virgin birth again, I mean it would just get really boring if the gospels didn’t contradict one or two hundred times…

Yet these were the works that many churches based their entire beliefs upon for hundreds of years until the canon of the bible was put together. This means that you had not one, but many versions of Christianity from the very beginning and how on earth are you going to be able to come into the picture hundreds of years later and dictate which version is the correct one…and yet that is exactly what they did.

Truth is there is very little to support the belief in the virgin birth, far less than the life, death and resurrection of Christ. If it were important you would think it would be mentioned much more, yet I believe the reason is that it actually wasn’t important to the early church and was simply used as a means of proselytizing later on. We know that Christianity adopted holidays and practices of foreign religions in order to spread more easily, so why not adopt characteristics of foreign gods in the idea of their own god. It makes conversion far easier if folks don’t have to learn a completely new set of characteristics.

To conclude I will leave you with a list of other gods that are said to be born of virgin birth, they vary to some degree in the method but the message is clear, sex is icky and it makes you icky!

virgin birth

 

 

 

6 thoughts on “Unmasking Doctrine #3: The Deity of Christ: Virgin Birth

  1. I am a bit confused. Some blogs I have read claim that Mary was the one born of the virgin birth, others say it was Jesus. I have never studied any of it so have nothing to base anything on. Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

    1. According to most Christian denominations, Jesus was born of a virgin. I believe Catholics are the only ones who believe Mary was conceived without original sin, meaning sex, in order to keep her clean from original sin and allow god to impregnate her with Jesus…

      It is confusing…lol

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s