BTW this is a misconception, Jesus is not the literal son of god because Jesus is god, something cannot beget itself, Jesus is indeed the son of Joseph and Marry, and the idea that Mary is a virgin comes from a misunderstanding of the belief that she was born without sin.
People mistook that to mean that she gave birth without sin, but sex in marriage isn’t a sin in most religions, so Marry having conceived the child with Joseph is just fine.
The idea of Jesus as some kind of demigod was more a flubbism of the idea to make the early religion more understandable to greek converts who would have previously existed in a cultural context of heroic figures literally being the demigod children of gods.
Tl;Dr, Jesus is Joseph’s bio kid, Marry was born without original sin and that’s the kind of innocence that made her special not having given birth as a virgin, Jesus is God not the son of God
It’s funny to me cuz I confronted my parents priest as I was getting skeptical about religion in my mind 20s. I specifically brought up not believing Mary could be a virgin, and his response was “it’s in the Bible, just go read it!” MF that’s why I’m here, I already read the damn thing.
I studied Christian religious theory before I was an atheist, and I continue to do so because I find mythology interesting. The theory you presented falls far outside of contemporary Christian beliefs, any text of Christian scripture, and any historical Christian doctrine that I’ve ever read or heard of. How did you form that opinion, and what made you think it was a good idea to present it as fact?
I think this is JW interpretation but not Christian. I have some theology (Catholic) studies and Mary being a virgin is a Catholic dogma, it leaves no room for interpretation
Arianism is the belief that Jesus was a creation of God, the same way as the world or the creatures that exist in his creation. Nicene theology holds that Jesus as an entity existed in spirit coeternally as a part of God, but neither doctrine states that Joseph was his father.
Edit; minor correction: If my understanding is correct, Arianism specifically states that Jesus existed before the world, so there’s not really an interpretation that he was created at the conception.
This again raises the question of why you keep making these claims.
This is one interpretation of the story, but definitely not the accepted interpretation amongst the varying sects of Christianity.
Catholicism espouses that Mary was without sin, and Protestants generally disagree (Lutherans being the notable exception). They also believe that the trinity is intertwined yet separate (God is the father, Jesus the son, and the spirit a procession of both)
Most protestant sects generally believe that Mary was not without sin, but did indeed become pregnant without sex. They consider Jesus the biological son of God, and therefore fully human and fully divine (this is supposed to be a paradox and not make sense). Jesus is affirmed to be God’s actual son in all 4 gospels and several of the Epistles.
There doesn’t need to be a “logical” explanation free of contradictions and impossibilities in Jesus’s origin, simply due to the fact that he is God, and therefore above human understanding.
Source: I grew up in the church and was surrounded by theologians against my will. I got out, but the knowledge is still knocking around in my head.
BTW this is a misconception, Jesus is not the literal son of god because Jesus is god, something cannot beget itself, Jesus is indeed the son of Joseph and Marry, and the idea that Mary is a virgin comes from a misunderstanding of the belief that she was born without sin.
People mistook that to mean that she gave birth without sin, but sex in marriage isn’t a sin in most religions, so Marry having conceived the child with Joseph is just fine.
The idea of Jesus as some kind of demigod was more a flubbism of the idea to make the early religion more understandable to greek converts who would have previously existed in a cultural context of heroic figures literally being the demigod children of gods.
Tl;Dr, Jesus is Joseph’s bio kid, Marry was born without original sin and that’s the kind of innocence that made her special not having given birth as a virgin, Jesus is God not the son of God
Have you considered reading a book instead of trusting your pastor at their word?
It’s funny to me cuz I confronted my parents priest as I was getting skeptical about religion in my mind 20s. I specifically brought up not believing Mary could be a virgin, and his response was “it’s in the Bible, just go read it!” MF that’s why I’m here, I already read the damn thing.
I don’t have a pastor I just like theology as a subject
Religious people aren’t the only ones interested in the meanings of religious ideas.
I studied Christian religious theory before I was an atheist, and I continue to do so because I find mythology interesting. The theory you presented falls far outside of contemporary Christian beliefs, any text of Christian scripture, and any historical Christian doctrine that I’ve ever read or heard of. How did you form that opinion, and what made you think it was a good idea to present it as fact?
Maybe try to avoid using cromulent words, next time you try to convince people with how “logical” you are about people’s beliefs.
I think this is JW interpretation but not Christian. I have some theology (Catholic) studies and Mary being a virgin is a Catholic dogma, it leaves no room for interpretation
Actually the JWs hyperfixate on the idea that Jesus is literally God’s son.
It’s an idea called Arianism and it is big heretical
Arianism is the belief that Jesus was a creation of God, the same way as the world or the creatures that exist in his creation. Nicene theology holds that Jesus as an entity existed in spirit coeternally as a part of God, but neither doctrine states that Joseph was his father.
Edit; minor correction: If my understanding is correct, Arianism specifically states that Jesus existed before the world, so there’s not really an interpretation that he was created at the conception.
This again raises the question of why you keep making these claims.
I don’t know where you’re getting this theology from. What sources are you reading?
This is one interpretation of the story, but definitely not the accepted interpretation amongst the varying sects of Christianity.
Catholicism espouses that Mary was without sin, and Protestants generally disagree (Lutherans being the notable exception). They also believe that the trinity is intertwined yet separate (God is the father, Jesus the son, and the spirit a procession of both)
Most protestant sects generally believe that Mary was not without sin, but did indeed become pregnant without sex. They consider Jesus the biological son of God, and therefore fully human and fully divine (this is supposed to be a paradox and not make sense). Jesus is affirmed to be God’s actual son in all 4 gospels and several of the Epistles.
There doesn’t need to be a “logical” explanation free of contradictions and impossibilities in Jesus’s origin, simply due to the fact that he is God, and therefore above human understanding.
Source: I grew up in the church and was surrounded by theologians against my will. I got out, but the knowledge is still knocking around in my head.
Next you’re going to be telling me that the holy trinity is not Christian Voltron 🙄
Flubbism? Am I supposed to take that word seriously?
That’s heresy.
Correct; Nicene Theology holds that Jesus is both God and The Son. Denying either is heretical to contemporary Christian beliefs.
That sounds exactly like some shit God would say, after forgetting to pull out.