Dear Editor,
While there are some people who have good reasons to doubt that Jesus even existed at all, I am willing to concede that he must have been a real person - at least for now. However, what is in very little doubt is the untruthfulness of the claims concerning his birth.
Take, for example, the claims made in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. According to the book of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. According to the book of Luke, Jesus was born during the census that occurred during the governorship of Cyrenius.
Those of us who know a little about history would know that these accounts cannot be correct. Herod the Great died some 10 years before the census mentioned in the book of Luke. So, either Jesus was already at least 10 years old when the census happened, or his mother had a 10-year pregnancy with Jesus!
Then there is the claim of the bright star, as mentioned by the author of the book of Matthew. Interestingly, only Matthew mentions this star. While various extra-biblical explanations have been given, none seem to confirm Matthew's star. This is not surprising, as several other claims in Matthew have proved to be false - in particular, Matthew chapter 27 verses 51 to 53 proclaiming the resurrection of previously dead people.
What about the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin? Again, if this was true, it would be a first for the people of Israel. But who then would have believed such a claim? The answer to this, I think, is the real reason why such a claim came about in the first place.
The people of Israel would have had no such experience, as such; belief for them would be very hard. After all, they knew Jesus' family. Indeed, as history would have it, they didn't, and to this day they still don't.
However, the founders of this new faith wanted to spread the word. Jerusalem would thus not do, they had to go to Rome - then the centre of their world. Unlike Jerusalem, Rome was accustomed to the idea of virgin births. Indeed, one of the requirements for being a god in the Roman world was for that god to be born of a virgin.
So, if Romulus and Remus, the supposed founders of Rome, could have virgin births, why couldn't Jesus, the Son of God, who was being sold to the Romans, also be born of a virgin? The early Christian leaders correctly reasoned that it was unlikely that the Romans would have accepted Jesus as divine if he had a common carpenter for a father. That just wouldn't work!
So there you have it: A simple birth involving Jesus being born to an ordinary couple being expanded to what most Christians believe today. Like fine wine, these beliefs do get better with age!
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
Virgin birth explained
-->
While there are some people who have good reasons to doubt that Jesus even existed at all, I am willing to concede that he must have been a real person - at least for now. However, what is in very little doubt is the untruthfulness of the claims concerning his birth.
Take, for example, the claims made in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. According to the book of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. According to the book of Luke, Jesus was born during the census that occurred during the governorship of Cyrenius.
Those of us who know a little about history would know that these accounts cannot be correct. Herod the Great died some 10 years before the census mentioned in the book of Luke. So, either Jesus was already at least 10 years old when the census happened, or his mother had a 10-year pregnancy with Jesus!
Then there is the claim of the bright star, as mentioned by the author of the book of Matthew. Interestingly, only Matthew mentions this star. While various extra-biblical explanations have been given, none seem to confirm Matthew's star. This is not surprising, as several other claims in Matthew have proved to be false - in particular, Matthew chapter 27 verses 51 to 53 proclaiming the resurrection of previously dead people.
What about the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin? Again, if this was true, it would be a first for the people of Israel. But who then would have believed such a claim? The answer to this, I think, is the real reason why such a claim came about in the first place.
The people of Israel would have had no such experience, as such; belief for them would be very hard. After all, they knew Jesus' family. Indeed, as history would have it, they didn't, and to this day they still don't.
However, the founders of this new faith wanted to spread the word. Jerusalem would thus not do, they had to go to Rome - then the centre of their world. Unlike Jerusalem, Rome was accustomed to the idea of virgin births. Indeed, one of the requirements for being a god in the Roman world was for that god to be born of a virgin.
So, if Romulus and Remus, the supposed founders of Rome, could have virgin births, why couldn't Jesus, the Son of God, who was being sold to the Romans, also be born of a virgin? The early Christian leaders correctly reasoned that it was unlikely that the Romans would have accepted Jesus as divine if he had a common carpenter for a father. That just wouldn't work!
So there you have it: A simple birth involving Jesus being born to an ordinary couple being expanded to what most Christians believe today. Like fine wine, these beliefs do get better with age!
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
Virgin birth explained
-->