Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog

The first mention of “virgin birth” in the Holy Bible is in the book of Isaiah 7:14, which was composed in 7th century Jerusalem.  In that text it says, “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call him Immanuel.”  It is this verse from the Hebrew Testament collection that was utilized seven centuries later by authors in Roman Empire times to authenticate the claim of the miraculous conception of Jesus.  Unfortunately for Christian fundamentalists who point to this OT “prophecy,” the intent that was imbedded in the tale written in 7th century Jerusalem then concerned local matters.  In that timeframe the priestly scheme was implemented to present the illusion that Isaiah had prophesied the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, which at the time composition happened to be a past event.  Thus the authors of the book of Isaiah beefed up the story by having the alleged prophetic character say, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given” (Isaiah 9:6).   Note that in the original the action was presented in the present tense.  It did not allude to a world savior predestined to be born in an entirely different timeframe and under different circumstances. 

The notion that such an unnatural happening as a birth occurring without the necessity of having been implemented through sexual excitement must have been inspired through association with some ancient knowledge.  Amazingly, it had a sound scientific basis that was colored by faulty translation of original writings.  In the version of Isaiah that had been written in Greek from which this interpretation was borrowed, the word from which “virgin” was translated was parthenos, which actually does mean “virgin.”  But in the original Hebrew text from which the Greek version had been taken, the word was almah, which meant a young woman, not necessarily meaning a virgin.  To the Christian cult developers in Rome that fact was of little concern, for a virgin miraculously bearing a divine person was beneficial.  In fact it had been a feature in countless older Pagan belief systems such as Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek—and even on the other side of the planet where it was taught that the virgin Sochequetzal had borne her divine son Quetzalcoatl.

Obviously this widespread notion of virgin birth had to have a common source of inspiration.  That source was in prehistory references that once taught cosmological knowledge regarding the energy involvement that culminated in the immaculate conception of the universe itself—the energy involvement that is today erroneously pictured as the “big bang.”  Certainly lust, sex, explosive passion, or moral conduct cannot be conditions applicable to primordial energies.  Thus in the various cult developmental presentations around the planet the cosmic processes in which the primordial energy-substance issues out of virginal conditions became personified and literalized.  Such is the substance of the revealed word of the Lord.

The elemental and primordial is all that can legitimately claim to be virgin born, and in recognition of this all prehistory mythic accounts of virgin born saviors placed the birth scene as occurring in the lowest circumstances—to allude to primordial conditions.  In the older Pagan versions, the birth of a god was therefore generally depicted as having occurred in a cave as suggestive of the primordial void from which the universe had been made manifest.  Interestingly, caves just happened to have been used as natural stables in more primitive times.  So in the Romanized updated  version of Jesus being born in a manger, the setting was not exactly an outright misreading of ancient data, for a manger is a stall where horses are kept.  Christian observance of Jesus’ birth would later be placed immediately after the winter solstice, as were most similar Pagan observances, for at this movement along Earth’s orbit the horse of Sagittarius has just passed it dominance.

There is a nagging problem in the Christian virgin birth presentation, for Jesus is avowed to be the king of the Jews and is thus actually provided with a genealogy—two genealogies, in fact; one in Matthew (1:1-16), the other in Luke.  These were presented in an attempt to back up the claim of Jewish kingship.  The problem with this is, if Jesus was delivered out of immaculate circumstances then no mortal father can be claimed, and yet a genealogical line is attempted from Joseph who, it is stressed, acts only as a surrogate father.  Such genealogical lines are utterly pointless if Jesus was born of a virgin who had been impregnated through some  energy exchange suspiciously akin to osmosis.

Undeterred by logic, it is alleged that Joseph was the descendant of David, and so Jesus was in that way supposedly linked to the line of Jewish kings.  But even taking that peculiar patched together genealogical effort at face value, we have to wonder about certain confusions; like the book of Matthew says that Joseph’s father was Jacob, while in Luke it says that Joseph’s father was Heli.  The purpose of the varied genealogical lines was an anxious attempt to show that the character of Jesus was not only the fulfillment of the history of Israel, but that he was also the savior of the world.

As a closing note, allow an observation by none other that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and was the third President of the young United States.  The right-wing fanatics like to quote some of his observations in their argument for smaller government, gun possession, etc. Jefferson wrote:  “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”  It is not likely Jefferson would be too keen on a Bible-based government.

This entry was posted on September 30, 2010 at 6:33 pm and is filed under agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, random, religion, thoughts with tags genealogy of Jesus, Immaculate Conception, virgin birth. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.