When Jesus born?

[Garry Denke]

The Holy Ghost impregnated Saint Elisabeth on the March equinox of 7 BCE, and
the Holy Ghost impregnated Saint Mary on the September equinox of 7 BCE.

Creator's sperm for John the Baptist delivered by Dark energy E/c^2 = m Dark
matter formulae; Sperm for His brother Jesus Christ was six months later.

(see equinox-solstice charts for dates)

G*Dark power = c^5
and G*Dark force = c^4
Dark power/Dark force = c

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, if you’re asking what the orthodox Christian view is, no, he doesn’t. The Holy Spirit doesn’t act as Jesus’ father in the act of conception. That would result in Jesus being half human and half divine, like Gilgamesh. But he’s not - he’s fully human and fully divine, which means that all of his physical attributes, including his DNA, are of human origin. God gives Mary the power to conceive without there being a father at all.

Jesus, in Christian theology, is not literally the “son” of God in the sense that you or I are the sons of our parents. Rather, Jesus is the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, which means that he *is* God (or one of him, at least). His “sonship” is an eternal relation that he bears to the Father within the Trinity, not a temporal relation that he bears to God as a whole as a result of his human conception.

In John the Baptist’s case, God gave his parents the ability to conceive in the normal way although they were too old to do so non-miraculously. And in Mary’s case, according to Catholic theology, God intervened in her otherwise normal conception to miraculously prevent the transmission of original sin (this is the Immaculate Conception).

So did Jesus have Joseph's DNA? So, it appears that we have at least two miracles: conception without sperm (or sex) but fully human DNA and blocking of original sin. Any others?

Yes, Glgamesh, and every Greek Hero of import (as well as Aphrodite's daughter, Helen), and several figures in Celtic, Chinese, Shinto, and some Native American and African Polythesm, as well as the Pharoanic, and Chinese and Japanese ruling lines, all have divine bloood. Christ is more like the Hindu Avatars, although they are born to fruitful couples, not virgins, but the God and the mortal lineage and nature are separate, there, too.

I think that in Hinduism the Avataric aspect of the child needs to be unveiled before god consciousness is experienced along with their more limited human consciousness.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Creator's sperm

God has DNA?

 

[Patine]

So did Jesus have Joseph's DNA?

That seems extremely unlikely, if the marriage hadn't been consumated. Christ's DNA is unknowable, as no verified organic remains are known to exist of Him - despite Medieval peddlers of, "holy relics."

Although God could, and by all intimations did, circumvent normal, natural reproductive laws.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That seems extremely unlikely, if the marriage hadn't been consumated. Christ's DNA is unknowable, as no verified organic remains are known to exist of Him - despite Medieval peddlers of, "holy relics."

Although God could, and by all intimations did, circumvent normal, natural reproductive laws.

Shroud of Turin?

 

[Patine]

Shroud of Turin?

Unverified.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Unverified.

I have not heard that they have tried to collect DNA from the Shroud.

 

[Patine]

I have not heard that they have tried to collect DNA from the Shroud.

Thus, as I said, unverified. A lack of an attempt to verify is still unverified.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The shroud is an interesting dilemma. Setting its age aside, the nature of the image is as yet unresolved. How did such an image get created? I could not find any reference to testing the blood for DNA.

 

[Plotinus]

So did Jesus have Joseph's DNA? So, it appears that we have at least two miracles: conception without sperm (or sex) but fully human DNA and blocking of original sin. Any others?

According to whom, though? Are you asking what orthodox Christian’s believe? Or what the authors of the Gospels or other parts of the New Testament believe? Or what other Christian groups believe? Or what other religions entirely believe? Or what is actually likely to have been the case, historically speaking?

According to both the Gospels and traditional Christianity, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, so he couldn’t have had his DNA. Jesus’ humanity was derived wholly from his mother. That wouldn’t mean he was a genetic clone of her, though, because his conception was miraculous.

There was a tradition among ancient anti-Christian polemicists that Jesus’ true father was a Roman soldier named Pantera, but needless to say, there’s no real evidence to support this. From a purely historical view there’s no particular reason to suppose that Mary and Joseph were not his biological parents. The birth narratives of both Matthew and Luke (especially Luke) are clearly wholly legendary, so there’s no way to get at what the historical truth was. I would guess that the evangelists got the names right, given that Jesus’ brother was one of the leaders of the early church, but beyond that it’s pure speculation.

 

[Patine]

given that Jesus’ brother was one of the leaders of the early church, but beyond that it’s pure speculation.

James Thaddeus was a step brother of Christ, a son of Joseph from a previous marriage. I can't remember where that is stated, but it's fairly common knowledge.

 

[Plotinus]

James Thaddeus was a step brother of Christ, a son of Joseph from a previous marriage. I can't remember where that is stated, but it's fairly common knowledge.

Not really! It isn’t stated anywhere in the New Testament. It’s a much later tradition, invented as part of the later doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (since if she retained her virginity perpetually then Jesus can’t have had any biological siblings). In fact there’s no historical basis for the claim at all.

 

[Patine]

Not really! It isn’t stated anywhere in the New Testament. It’s a much later tradition, invented as part of the later doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (since if she retained her virginity perpetually then Jesus can’t have had any biological siblings). In fact there’s no historical basis for the claim at all.

Well, someone who has already decided these elements are, "fantasy," and, "invented," and states that as, "fact,"with no more hard, on-the-ground knowledge of what REALLY happened than the religion's faithful, is highly dubious. Given the Divine, the Afterlife, an Ordained Morality, and a Cosmic Plan are all IMPOSSIBLE to empirically prove or disprove from a mortal perspective on the Earth, Atheists must, by nature, have PURE FAITH in their confident claims of a lack of Divine Mystery just as much as the adherents of religions must have PURE FAITH these elements exist. However, the religious are much more comfortable with Faith, and every Atheist I've debated (always on other forums - this is the first time I've brought this up on CivFanatics) denied it by fiat, and descend into denunciations, rants, screeds, insults, and other responses belying the claimed rationality that's supposed to define Atheism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Atheists must, by nature, have PURE FAITH in their confident claims of a lack of Divine Mystery just as much as the adherents of religions must have PURE FAITH these elements exist.

You do faith a disservice with such remarks. The truth about the origins and nature of Jesus are beyond the current scope of observation and reason but belief has no bounds and can make all the claims it wants without the need for facts or evidence. Belief has no need of evidence beyond "believing". For a non believer "lack of evidence" is just that: lack of evidence when they typically require evidence as a validation. Attributing "faith" to those who do not "believe" is just an effort to diminish them by making them appear to "just like Christians" whom they often disregard. The end is just a word game that benefits no one.

 

[Patine]

You do faith a disservice with such remarks. The truth about the origins and nature of Jesus are beyond the current scope of observation and reason but belief has no bounds and can make all the claims it wants without the need for facts or evidence. Belief has no need of evidence beyond "believing". For a non believer "lack of evidence" is just that: lack of evidence when they typically require evidence as a validation. Attributing "faith" to those who do not "believe" is just an effort to diminish them by making them appear to "just like Christians" whom they often disregard. The end is just a word game that benefits no one.

I disagree. This post I quote is an attempt to do to the views of the Religious what I am accused of (but not actually) doing to the views of the Faithful. Saying something is so because of Faith is no less credible, from an ideological perspective than saying is actually NOT SO because no standing evidence exists. Lack of evidence does not equal disproof - and validate terms like, "fantasy," or, "invented," being said as though verified fact. Atomic theory, for instance, had no evidence around it until the late 1800's - it was just a philosophical notion by an Ancient Greek philosopher (who coineed the term, "atomos") prior.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lack of evidence does not equal disproof - and validate terms like, "fantasy," or, "invented," being said as though verified fact.

Correct. Lack of evidence is not disproof and belief is not proof. "Proof" has a very specific connotation for many people and it can vary depending upon the situation. Mathematics, philosophy, science, courts, and common thinking each have their own version of what constitutes proof. For the religious often personal experience is sufficient to be proof enough.

The language people use when talking about faith (fantasy, invented etc.) is a different problem and more connected to the personal issues people have with religion.

 

[Plotinus]

I really don’t see what any of this has to do with the topic at hand. I didn’t use the word “fantasy”. You said that it is “common knowledge” that James was not really Jesus’ brother, but while this may be a common belief in some traditions, it is not knowledge, and my saying that is not a denigration of that belief or of “faith” in general, whatever you mean by that. It’s a simple historical fact that the claim that James was not really Jesus’ brother is not found in the New Testament, and was a later development, and it was based not on historical evidence but on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (a doctrine which itself has no biblical basis either). Perhaps my use of the word “invented” was a bit brusque, so I apologise for that; what I meant by it was to emphasis the point I’ve just made, that it was later and not based on any historically reliable sources.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and I didn’t say that we can be certain it isn’t true. I merely said that there is no good reason, from a historical point of view, to think that it is true. So while Catholics are perfectly entitled to say that they believe it to be true on the basis of other articles of faith, they’re not entitled to assert that it is generally known to be true, because it isn’t - even if by chance it happens to be true - because there is no historical evidence to support it. True belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

To say this isn’t to diminish “faith” or to presuppose a position of atheism. Nothing I’ve said here assumes atheism, or the falsity of Christianity, or anything of the kind. But this thread is in the History subforum and it is about historical questions about Jesus’ birth, and questions of that sort can only be settled by historical evidence, not by religious belief. Because if you allow religious faith to determine questions of historical fact then you lose all objectivity, since different religious traditions say different things. (I’ve heard devout Protestants denounce the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and its associated beliefs as contrary to the Christian faith! So if we’re going to allow religious faith to weigh in on such things, how do we decide whom to believe - the Catholics or the Protestants? Or the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Valentinian Gnostics?)

FWIW I don’t think it’s at all plausible to suppose that atheism requires as much “faith” as religious belief - at least not on any plausible definition of those words - and I’d be happy to debate that issue elsewhere, but it’s really off-topic as far as this thread is concerned.

(I hope this doesn’t come across as too strident. I don’t intend to be rude about anyone’s beliefs. But like I say, religious faith or the lack of it is not, in itself, a substitute for evidence when it comes to historical questions.)

 

[Patine]

I really don’t see what any of this has to do with the topic at hand. I didn’t use the word “fantasy”. You said that it is “common knowledge” that James was not really Jesus’ brother, but while this may be a common belief in some traditions, it is not knowledge, and my saying that is not a denigration of that belief or of “faith” in general, whatever you mean by that. It’s a simple historical fact that the claim that James was not really Jesus’ brother is not found in the New Testament, and was a later development, and it was based not on historical evidence but on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (a doctrine which itself has no biblical basis either). Perhaps my use of the word “invented” was a bit brusque, so I apologise for that; what I meant by it was to emphasis the point I’ve just made, that it was later and not based on any historically reliable sources.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, and I didn’t say that we can be certain it isn’t true. I merely said that there is no good reason, from a historical point of view, to think that it is true. So while Catholics are perfectly entitled to say that they believe it to be true on the basis of other articles of faith, they’re not entitled to assert that it is generally known to be true, because it isn’t - even if by chance it happens to be true - because there is no historical evidence to support it. True belief is not the same thing as knowledge.

To say this isn’t to diminish “faith” or to presuppose a position of atheism. Nothing I’ve said here assumes atheism, or the falsity of Christianity, or anything of the kind. But this thread is in the History subforum and it is about historical questions about Jesus’ birth, and questions of that sort can only be settled by historical evidence, not by religious belief. Because if you allow religious faith to determine questions of historical fact then you lose all objectivity, since different religious traditions say different things. (I’ve heard devout Protestants denounce the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and its associated beliefs as contrary to the Christian faith! So if we’re going to allow religious faith to weigh in on such things, how do we decide whom to believe - the Catholics or the Protestants? Or the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Valentinian Gnostics?)

FWIW I don’t think it’s at all plausible to suppose that atheism requires as much “faith” as religious belief - at least not on any plausible definition of those words - and I’d be happy to debate that issue elsewhere, but it’s really off-topic as far as this thread is concerned.

(I hope this doesn’t come across as too strident. I don’t intend to be rude about anyone’s beliefs. But like I say, religious faith or the lack of it is not, in itself, a substitute for evidence when it comes to historical questions.)

I was sure I had seen you say that a significant part of Christ's story was a, "fantasy," but looking back, I don't see it, again, and a self-edit leaves a tag, so I apologize. Maybe I misrembered from a less incendiary term. As for the step-fraternal relationship of James, I believe that was first sourced from one of the many Gospels and Epistles not included in the official 27 books of the New Testament by the Nicene Council - not a much later innovation.

Correct. Lack of evidence is not disproof and belief is not proof. "Proof" has a very specific connotation for many people and it can vary depending upon the situation. Mathematics, philosophy, science, courts, and common thinking each have their own version of what constitutes proof. For the religious often personal experience is sufficient to be proof enough.

The language people use when talking about faith (fantasy, invented etc.) is a different problem and more connected to the personal issues people have with religion.

Fath is not proof, and only zealots believe it is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I was sure I had seen you say that a significant part of Christ's story was a, "fantasy," but looking back, I don't see it, again, and a self-edit leaves a tag, so I apologize.

I have not said that Christ's story is a fantasy. My self edits are usually for fat fingered typing issues not changing language or notions I post. there re many here who post such things. I'm a theist so I do have a pretty good sense of what belief is all about.

 

[Plotinus]

As for the step-fraternal relationship of James, I believe that was first sourced from one of the many Gospels and Epistles not included in the official 27 books of the New Testament by the Nicene Council - not a much later innovation.

It’s the Gospel of James, so fair enough, it’s not *super*-late. However, there are two important things to bear in mind here. First, scholars agree that none of the gospels and associated works that are outside the New Testament have any value as far as giving us facts about the historical Jesus goes. (They do of course have great value for other things, but that’s a different issue.) The only exception to this, as far as I know, is the Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars think *may* preserve some sayings of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels.

Other than that, though, all of these non-canonical works - including the Gospel of James - were written much later than the canonical ones. And while scholars disagree about how much the canonical Gospels can tell us about Jesus, most agree that they can tell us at least something because they are based, to at least some extent, on oral (or written) traditions that go back to the earliest Christians. This isn’t true of the non-canonical works, which are all expressions of the religious beliefs of later communities. So to imply that they’re somehow of equal historical weight as (say) the Gospel of Mark, as a source for the historical Jesus, simply isn’t true. A work like the Gospel of James, unlike most of the New Testament, isn’t a source for what first-century Christians - let alone people within a generation of the first disciples - knew about Jesus or his immediate associates.

The second point is that, contrary to popular belief, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with establishing the canon of the New Testament. That canon was officially determined by a number of councils and episcopal pronouncements rather later in the fourth century. But in fact those pronouncements were mostly formalising what had already been standard practice in most of the church for the past two centuries. Most Christians had already been using the four canonical Gospels - and only those Gospels - since the second century. There were, I think, three main exceptions to this. The first were the Marcionites, who used only Luke. The second were the Syriac-speaking Christians, who used Tatian’s Diatesseron, which was a harmony of the four canonical Gospels. So neither of those groups used any gospel material from outside what would become the New Testament. The third exception were Gnostic groups, who were far more liberal about writing new gospels than anyone else.

So the point I’m trying to make is that the choice of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only canonical Gospels, and the exclusion of all others, wasn’t an arbitrary decision taken at a late stage, meaning that those other gospels are of equal value. It was the accepted practice of most Christians from an early date, and it was based on the fact that those four Gospels were the only known ones from an early date. The others are later works which some groups attempted to add later.