1 - A rational response to the dogma of the virgin birth
Christians (2.200 billion) and Muslims (1.6 billion) believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. Sceptics reject this idea because it contradicts science, and therefore they consider that Christians and Muslims, who together make up almost half of the world’s population, are ignorant. Settling the matter of Jesus’ virgin birth in this way makes sceptics feel good, because it allows them to think of themselves as superior. However, they should ask themselves whether it is a good idea to let so many people continue to believe in something that they assume to be a lie, and also whether considering believers to be ignorant might not in fact be a major cause of mutual animosity, something which, in the long run, could create problems for everyone concerned.
How can believers accept an idea that science has proved to be false? Believers respond by saying: “It is a matter of faith”. This reply, which is basically the same as saying ‘we believe it because we believe it’, is unanswerable, but it doesn’t explain anything and is very similar to the reply ‘that’s just the way things are’ which adults tend to give their little children when, fed up with their constant questions, they can’t find the right answers.
Believers claim to have faith, but it is not the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth or other similar ideas that they have faith in, but in the religious authorities that defend those ideas. Therefore, when we try to convince believers that some of the ideas of their religion go against science, we should not address them, but instead the religious authorities in question. However, the problem is that when we talk to them about Jesus’ virgin birth they also tend to say: “It is a matter of faith”, which means that the only thing we can do to make believers change their mind about the dogma of Jesus’ virginal conception is to investigate its origin.
A study of early Christianity shows that the first Christians did not believe in this idea. So where does it come from? What made the religious authorities –so many decades after Jesus’ death– believe that he was born of a virgin?
When we consult the New Testament we find that Jesus never claimed to have been born of a virgin, and that only two of the four gospels refer to Jesus’ mysterious birth. If Jesus really was born of a virgin, why do the other two gospels not mention this at all? And why does Saint Paul, who wrote 13 of the 27 books that form the New Testament, not mention it either?
When we look for the answers to these questions we see that it is logical to assume that the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth must have something to do with the two gospels that do associate this event with a mystery. It just so happens that these two gospels are also the only ones that offer genealogies for Jesus, but as these lists do not coincide, neither in all the names nor in the number of generations, they add even more mystery to Jesus’ birth.
All this mystery may surprise those who think that a sacred book tells nothing but the truth, but not those who know that calling a book ‘sacred’ originally meant recognizing that it held secrets. Therefore, the existence of these mysteries in the Bible simply confirms that it is indeed a sacred book.
2 - Jesus was not born on December 25th
The majority of scholars that studied the Bible admit that Jesus was not born on 25th December.
During the first two centuries Christians did not celebrate Christmas. They only became interested in Jesus’ birthday when they decided to organize the year by basing themselves on Jesus’ life. Ancient manuscripts inform us that at the end of the second century there was a controversy regarding the different dates for Jesus’ birthday (6th or 10th January, 19th or 20th April, 20th May, 18th November), and that some years later the theologian Origen of Alexandria said that only sinners celebrated the birthdays of their kings, whereas Christians celebrated the dates on which their martyrs had died, since that was when they entered heaven. This shows that the first Christians neither celebrated Jesus’ birthday nor knew exactly when he had been born.
Scholars assume that the date of 25th December was imposed by the Roman emperor Constantine, who was interested in having one religion for all Roman citizens. At that time there existed another monotheistic religion, Mithraism, also called Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Sun), which celebrated the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, when the sun is reborn. In those days, when the Julian calendar was in use, this day was 25th December. For practical reasons, the Christian authorities agreed to celebrate Jesus’ birthday on that day.
Christianity also adopted other characteristics from that other monotheistic religion. Sol Invictus also caused Christians to change their traditional weekly day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the day of week which in several languages is dedicated to the sun. The English word ‘Sunday’, for instance, means ‘day of the sun’.
Christian authorities later explained these decisions in a different way. In relation to Jesus’ birthday, they pointed out that in the year 221 Sextus Julios Africanus referred to 25th March as being the day of both the Annunciation and the Passion of Jesus, which, with a nine-month pregnancy, points to 25th December as his birthday. And with regard to the celebration of the weekly mass, they pointed out that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday.
When was Jesus really born? To find out, some have studied the Gospels. After analyzing all the information (the fact that the shepherds who worshipped Jesus had slept in the open suggests it was not winter / winter is not the best time to organize a census), they offered a certain date. However, all that information is not necessarily correct. Since several details relating to Jesus’ birth come from religions that predate Christianity, the authors of those gospels may simply have added certain information on purpose in order to convince the Pagans that Jesus was the ‘saviour of the world’ they were awaiting.
So do we not know when Jesus was born? There is a good reason for assuming that he was born on 1st January. Why? Because when we reflect upon the Christian calendar we see that it is logical to start it with both the year and the day of Jesus’ birth.
One would expect a society that attaches so much importance to the winter solstice to start the year on that day, as this would give them a calendar in which the first three months correspond to winter, the next three to spring, the following three to summer and the last three to autumn. The fact that we celebrate the winter solstice (Christmas) but do not start the year on that day seems to indicate that, even though the Christian authorities agreed to celebrate Jesus’ birthday on that day, they did not want to lose sight of when he was really born: the day on which they started the new year.
When we now look at the Calendar of Saints, we see that on 1st January, the first day of the year, Christians celebrate the name of Jesus, which is also Immanuel or Manuel, which shows that the Christian authorities did indeed associate that day with Jesus’ birthday.
3 - Jesus was not born from a virgin
The Gospel of Saint Matthew, the first book of the New Testament, starts with an enigma. Right after offering a genealogy for Jesus, which is based on the ‘father begot son’ principle, but which ends with: “and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ”, it says: “The sum of generations is therefore: fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen from David to the Babylonian deportation, fourteen from the Babylonian deportation to Christ.
Saint Matthew encourages us to count these generations. The traditional way of dividing these generations is:
1 Abraham David Jechoniah*
2 Isaac Solomon Shealtiel
3 Jacob Rehoboam Zerubbabel
4 Judah Abijah Abiud
5 Perez Asa Eliakim
6 Hezron Jehoshaphat Azor
7 Ram Joram Zadok
8 Ammindab Uzziah Achim
9 Nahshon Jotham Eliud
10 Salmon Ahaz Eleazar
11 Booz Hezekiah Matthan
12 Obed Manasseh Jacob
13 Jesse Amon Joseph
14 David Josiah* Jesus
There is, however, something not quite right about separating the generations in this way. While in the second column we again calculate the generation of David, we do not do so in the third column with the generation of Josiah. Since we include both the first and the last generation when counting the 14 that go from Abraham to David, should we not do the same when counting the generations from David to the deportation to Babylon, and from the deportation to Babylon to Jesus Christ? Following this logic gives us another division of these genealogies:
1 Abraham David Josiah
2 Isaac Solomon Jechoniah
3 Jacob Rehoboam Shealtiel
4 Judah Abijah Zerubbabel
5 Perez Asa Abiud
6 Hezron Jehoshaphat Eliakim
7 Ram Joram Azor
8 Ammindab Uzziah Zadok
9 Nahshon Jotham Achim
10 Salmon Ahaz Eliud
11 Booz Hezekiah Eleazar
12 Obed Manasseh Matthan
13 Jesse Amon Jacob
14 David Josiah Joseph + Jesus
According to this new division, Josiah marks the deportation to Babylon. Since there are 14 generations from Josiah to Joseph, and Saint Matthew says that there are 14 generations between Josiah and Jesus, Joseph and Jesus form part of the same generation. How is this possible? This would be so if Jacob, Joseph’s father, had Joseph from his first wife, and later, when Joseph reached adulthood, had Jesus from Joseph’s wife. This would explain why this genealogy, although based on the ‘father begat son’ principle, ends by saying: “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of her was born Jesus who is called Christ.”
Reasons for and against
Since this hypothesis contradicts the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth, we should immediately determine whether what we have discovered is what the Gospel of Saint Matthew is really trying to tell us.
Arguments against this new hypothesis:
1) It contradicts the most important Christian dogma.
2) It is not clear how Saint Matthew wants us to divide up the fourteen generations
Arguments in favour of this new hypothesis:
1) It enables us to conclude that Jesus is a descendant of David and Abraham.
2) It explains the enigma in the genealogies of Saint Matthew.
3) Saint Matthew mentions four women and all are adulterers.
4) It explains why Saint Matthew and Saint Luke offer different genealogies for Jesus.
5) Saint Luke mentions ancestors of Jesus who had relations with their daughter-in-law.
6) After what we have discovered in Genesis, this secret does not surprise us at all.
Christianity’s most important dogma
The first reason for dismissing this new hypothesis is that the idea of a Jesus being born out of a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law contradicts the most important dogma of Christianity. Over the centuries Christians have become so used to the idea that the founder of their religion was born of a virgin that to now suggest that he was actually born out of a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law seems outlandish and heretical. Yet whereas a virgin birth is scientifically impossible, being born out of a father and daughter-in-law relationship is possible; and whereas there are no recorded cases of a virgin having given birth to a son, there are several recorded cases of women who have given birth to a child from a relationship with their father-in-law.
We should not disregard the possibility of a child being born from a virgin just because there are no cases which prove that this has already occurred in the past. However, it is obviously much more realistic to assume that Saint Matthew is trying to tell us that Mary had Jesus from her father-in-law rather than assume that he is suggesting that Jesus was born of a virgin.
Christians show little interest in the origin of this dogma. Therefore, they ignore the fact that only two gospels –Saint Matthew and Saint Luke– refer to a mysterious birth. If Jesus really was born of a virgin, then why do Saint Mark and Saint John not mention such a miracle? And why doesn’t Saint Paul, whose books make up half the New Testament, mention it either? ¿Doesn’t Saint Paul contradict the idea that Jesus was born from a virgin by rermarking: “born a descendant of David, according to the flesh” (Rm1:3)?
The two evangelists who do refer to a mysterious birth are those who offer genealogies for Jesus. And these genealogies are extremely enigmatic, because up until now nobody has provided a satisfactory answer to the following questions: why does Saint Matthew end his by saying: “and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ”, followed by: “The sum of generations is therefore: fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen from David to the Babylonian deportation; and fourteen from the Babylonian deportation to Christ.”; and why do Saint Matthew’s and Saint Luke’s genealogies for Christ not coincide?
Those who defend Jesus’ virgin birth may argue that if Christ was born out of a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law, it is very suspicious that Saint Matthew does not make this explicit. But neither does Saint Matthew explicitly state that Jesus was born of a virgin. He merely refers to a prophecy about a virgin which, according to him, came true in Jesus. Saint Matthew refers to a verse in Isaiah, one of the books of the Old Testament, and it turns out that the original text in Hebrew does not mention a virgin, but instead a young woman (Is7:14).
Moreover, whereas in the case of Jesus being born of a virgin there is no reason for not saying so openly, in the case of a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law there are good reasons for keeping this a secret. One reason is that people who had extramarital affairs in those days were stoned to death, and another is that San Mateo proselytized for Jesus’ new religion and neither Jews nor pagans would have paid much attention to a bastard.
How to separate the fourteen generations
The second reason for dismissing this new hypothesis is that it is not clear how Saint Matthew wants us to count the fourteen generations from Abraham to David, from David to the deportation to Babylon, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ. This is absolutely true, but there may be a way to solve this problem.
Apart from encouraging us to count these generations, Saint Matthew seems to suggest that every fourteen generations this special lineage, always from father to son, produces someone very important. By starting Jesus’ genealogy with Abraham, Saint Matthew encourages us to find out who is separated fourteen generations from him going back in time.
As Saint Matthew’s genealogy for Jesus is based on the ‘father begat son’ principle, we can complete his list with the information that we find in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, since it offers us genealogies that are based on the same idea. Whereas some go from Adam to Noah (Gn5:3-32), others go from Noah to Abraham (Gn11:10-26).
1 Enoch Abraham David Josiah
2 Methuselah Isaac Solomon Jechoniah
3 Lamech Jacob Rehoboam Shealtiel
4 Noah Judah Abijah Zerubbabel
5 Shem Perez Asa Abiud
6 Arpachshad Hezron Jehoshaphat Eliakim
7 Shelah Ram Joram Azor
8 Eber Ammindab Uzziah Zadok
9 Peleg Nahshon Jotham Achim
10 Reu Salmon Ahaz Eliud
11 Serug Booz Hezekiah Eleazar
12 Nahor Obed Manasseh Matthan
13 Terah Jesse Amon Jacob
14 Abraham David Josiah Joseph + Jesus
Enoch is the person who is separated fourteen generations from Abraham going back in time and he is also very special. Genesis says of him: “Enoch walked with God. After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived for three hundred years and he begat sons and daughters. In all, Enoch lived for three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God, then was no more, because God took him.”
Enoch, Abraham, David and Jesus are all very important figures: Enoch walked with God and God took him with Him when he was 365 years old; God offered Abraham a covenant; David founded a kingdom and God said that the Messiah would be a descendant of him; Josiah imposed an important religious reformation; and Jesus did something similar.
When counting the 14 generations from Enoch to Abraham we included both the first (Enoch) and the last generation (Abraham), just as we did when counting the 14 generations from Abraham to David. It therefore seems obvious that we should do the same when counting the 14 generations from David to the deportation to Babylon and those from the deportation to Babylon to Christ.
Although in the Old Testament we find that the deportation to Babylon did not occur in the days of Josiah, Saint Matthew says: “Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers when the deportation to Babylon took place.” Therefore, he clearly associates Josiah with the deportation to Babylon. We should bear in mind that Saint Matthew refers to a deportation of Babylon, but not necessarily to the great deportation that occurred much later.
Jesus: a descendant of David
Saint Matthew traces his genealogy of Jesus back to King David and Abraham in order to demonstrate that he was the Messiah. And this was necessary, because God offered a covenant to Abraham (Gn15:18 and Gn17:2) and the Jews expected the Messiah to be a descendant of King David (2Sm7:9-17). But if that lineage ends with Joseph and the son of his wife was born of an angel, Jesus had nothing to do with those illustrious people. Retracing Jesus’ male lineage all the way back to King David and Abraham only makes sense if he forms part of it, which would be the case if Jesus were the son of Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Some Bible scholars assume that the Gospel of Saint Matthew originally said: ‘Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph begat Jesus’ and that this was later changed to: ‘Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ’ when Christianity adopted the idea of Jesus’ virginal conception. Yet the importance that Saint Matthew gives to the 14 generations from the deportation to Babylon to Jesus Christ demonstrates that this is not so, because in that case we would have 15 generations.
Supposedly, the main reason for including Jesus’ genealogy in his gospel was to prove that Jesus was a descendant of King David, as this was something the Jews expected of the Messiah. But if that was the only reason for offering Jesus’ genealogy, then why does Saint Matthew start with Abraham? It seems obvious that he does so in order to create an enigma. If Saint Matthew started with David and later pointed out that there are 14 generations from David to the deportation to Babylon and 14 generations from the deportation to Babylon to Jesus Christ, we would not have to wonder how we should divide these genealogies, because there would be no reason to question the division: David-Josiah and Jechoniah-Jesus.
The enigma in Saint Matthew’s genealogies
At the end of his genealogy Saint Matthew points out that: “The sum of generations is therefore: fourteen from Abraham to David; fourteen from David to the Babylonian deportation; and fourteen from the Babylonian deportation to Christ.” What does this information contribute to the story? Saint Matthew clearly encourages us to count these generations and thus find out which generation marks the deportation to Babylon. He also encourages us to find who is separated fourteen generations from Abraham going back in time. Whereas this information is totally superfluous if Jesus was born of an angel, because it then encourages us to count those generations for nothing, it does make sense if he was born out of an extramarital affair between Mary and her father-in-law, because then it holds an enigma.
Four women and all are adulterers
In his genealogy for Jesus, Saint Matthew mentions four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and the woman who had been married to Uriah; and it turns out that they all had extramarital affairs. Rahab was a prostitute (Jos2:1), Ruth slept with Boaz in secret (Rt3:4), and David slept with Bathsheba when she was still married to Uriah (2S11:2-5). But the woman that really interests us here is Tamar, because she had Perez and Zerah from Judah, her father-in-law (Gn38). Whereas the mention of these women does not fit in with the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth, it does fit in with our hypothesis of an affair between Mary and her father-in-law.
Two different genealogies for Jesus Christ
The hipótesis that Jesus was born from an extramarital relation explains why Saint Matthew and Saint Luke offer different genealogies for Jesus Christ. They differ for the simple reason that because of extramarital relations some lineages are real and others supposed. A woman’s husband is not necessarily her children’s father. Whereas Saint Matthew offers the real lineage, by basing himself on the ‘father begot son’ principle, Saint Luke offers the supposed lineage, by starting with: “being the son, as it was thought, of …”
When Luke points out that Jesus was ‘as it was thought’ the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, etc., he suggests that people not only believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but that they also thought that Joseph was the son of Heli, and he the son of Matthat, etc. This explains why Saint Matthew and Saint Luke name different fathers for Joseph. The fact that, according to Saint Matthew, Jacob begat Joseph and that, according to Luke, Joseph was thought to be the son of Heli, tells us that whereas Jacob was Joseph’s biological father, Heli was the husband of the woman who gave birth to Joseph.
When we study these two genealogies we see that on several occasions the real genealogy in Saint Matthew and the supposed genealogy in Saint Luke diverge from each other before converging again several generations later. An incorrect link in a genealogy (when the husband of a woman is not the father of her son) makes us follow the wrong lineage. However, several generations going back in time, this false lineage may again coincide with the real lineage, since two sons may have the same father. After Joseph, instead of offering the real genealogies through Jacob, Saint Luke offers the genealogies of Heli, the husband of Joseph’s mother. But that false lineage coincides again with Joseph’s real lineage due to the fact that Nathan (an ancestor of Heli) and Salomon (an ancestor of Jacob) are both sons of David.
Saint Luke mentions ancestor of Jesus who had relations with their daughter-in-law
When we compare the genealogy in Saint Luke with the genealogies in Genesis and Saint Matthew we find two two of Jesus’ ancestors who had a relationship with their daughter-in-law, which means that the relationship between Jacob and Mary should not surprise us. It only means that it is true that history repeats itself.
Saint Luke offers an additional generation between Noah and Abraham. Whereas Saint Matthew says: “Arpachshad begat Shelah”, Saint Luke indicates: “son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad”. This comes as a great surprise, because we can assume that Saint Luke was familiar with the genealogies in Genesis. Therefore, we must wonder what he is trying to tell us by including this additional generation between Noah and Abraham.
By starting his genealogies with: “When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat…”, Saint Luke lets us know that people not only thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but also that Joseph was the son of Heli, etc. Whereas Saint Matthew says that Arpachshad begat Shelah, Saint Luke indicates that people thought Selah was the son of Cainan and that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
By starting his genealogies with: “When he began, Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli, son of Matthat…”, Saint Luke lets us know that people not only thought that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but also that Joseph was the son of Heli, etc. Whereas Saint Matthew says that Arpachshad begat Shelah, Saint Luke indicates that people thought Selah was the son of Cainan and that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. And what can this mean if not that Arpachshad (Saint Matthew and Saint Luke often offer different spellings for the same name) first had his son Cainan and later, when he became an adult, had Shelah from his daughter-in-law, Cainan’s wife?
Saint Luke offers an additional generation not only between Henoc and Abraham, but also between Abraham and David. Whereas Saint Matthew says that Hezron begat Ram and Ram begat Amminadab, Saint Luke indicates that people thought that Amminadab was the son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron. It seems obvious that Arni and Aram are two versions of the same name. Therefore, just as Arphaxad begat Selah from the wife of his son Cainan, Aram begat Amminadab from the wife of his son Admin. We thus see that also Saint Luke seems to have known who Jesus’ real father was.
The genealogies in the gospels are similar to those in Genesis
The different cases of extramarital relations, endogamy and incest that we discovered while studying the genealogies in Genesis make that it is not such a surprise that Saint Matthew indicates that Jesus was born from a relation between Mary and her father-in-law. The genealogies in Genesis for Seth and Cain have a lot in common with the genealogies for Jesus in the gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke: that of Seth and Saint Matthew’s genealogy for Jesus are real, because they always base themselves on the ‘father begot son’ principle, and that of Cain and Saint Luke’s genealogy for Jesus are supposed, because they do not. One starts with “Cain knew his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch” and the other with: “being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli…”
Conclusion
After analyzing the arguments in favour and against this new hypothesis regarding Jesus’ real father, there is no longer any doubt that the Gospel of Saint Matthew indeed tells us that Mary had Jesus from her father-in-law. However, what this gospel tells us does not necessarily have to be the truth. Even though it is a sacred book, it is at the same time a book like all the others and, therefore, what it says may be true or not. What should however be clear is that there is no reason for assuming that we have discovered is not what its authors tries to convey.
4 - A prophecy about a virgin who will give birth to a son
He then said: “Listen now, House of David: are you not satisfied with trying human patience that you should try my God’s patience too? The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel. On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good” (Is7:14-15).
We thus discover that Isaiah does not refer to a virgin but to a young woman. We must, however, immediately point out that in many Bibles we do find that Isaiah refers to a virgin. But this is due to a falsification. When the Christian authorities found in the book of Isaiah that this prophet did not refer to a virgin but to a young woman they were most displeased. They had convinced themselves that Jesus was born of a virgin and that this miracle proved he was the Messiah. Therefore, instead of reflecting upon what this discovery really meant, they immediately assumed that it must have been a mistake made by a copyist or a falsification made by Jews who did not want to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Because of this, when they later made new copies of the Book of Isaiah, they changed ‘young woman’ to ‘virgin’ to make it coincide with Saint Matthew.
How can we be sure that Isaiah originally said ‘young woman’ and not ‘virgin’ if we do not have access to the original books? When there are different versions, the one that explains the others better usually tends to represent the original idea. Futhermore, in the Jewish Bible we find ‘young woman’ and not ‘virgin’.
Christianity associates the idea of Jesus’ virgin birth with that of being without sin and, therefore, with an exemplary life. This, however, does not square at all with what Isaiah later says about Immanuel: “On curds and honey will he feed until he knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good.” And neither does it square with what the parable about the adulterous woman teaches us. The fact that Jesus says: “Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her”, and that Jesus does not throw a stone, shows that he also considered himself a sinner (Jn 8:1-8). Furthermore, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, who baptized people after they had confessed their sins (Mk1:4-9).
5 - Did Saint Matthew make a mistake when he translated the book of Isaiah?
The Gospel of Saint Matthew is both the book that now reveals that Jesus was born from a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law and the one that many centuries ago led the religious authorities to assume that Jesus was born of a virgin. This helps us understand the mistake that Saint Matthew made in translating ‘young woman’ into ‘virgin’. Whereas in the past many Bible scholars assumed that this error was due to the fact that Saint Matthew had little knowledge of Hebrew –in his day the majority of Jews spoke Aramaic or Greek–, the fact that we have revealed the enigma in his gospel helps us understand that he made this mistake on purpose. Why? Because referring to a prophecy from the Old Testament about a virgin, which apparently fulfilled itself in Jesus, helped to conceal the secret regarding Jesus’ true father.
Saint Matthew also had another reason for referring to a virgin. He proselytized for a new religion and in his day many people were familiar with the idea of a god who is born of a virgin. This was, for instance, the case of the Persians and the Egyptians. The suggestion that Jesus was born of a virgin made it easier for all those people to accept Christianity.
It is of course very important that we realize that at no point does Saint Matthew explicitly state that Jesus was born of a virgin. He only insinuates this by referring to an Old Testament text which allows us discover that this is indeed only an insinuation.
The revelation of the enigma in Saint Matthew helps us to realize that Christianity was created as a Trojan horse to win over the Gentiles.
According to legend, when the Greeks realized that Troy was very difficult to conquer by force, they decided to use cunning. After building a huge wooden horse that was hollow inside, in which several soldiers hid themselves, the Greeks retreated. The next day the Trojans assumed that the Greeks had left after having realized how strong their city’s defenses were. Upon arriving at the Greek camp they found a wooden horse set on a wheeled platform. Assuming that it was some kind of idol, they took it into the city as a trophy. That night, after the Trojans had celebrated their victory, the Greek soldiers crept out of the horse and opened the city gates for the rest of their fellow troops.
Just as the Old Testament was created to enlighten the Jews, the New Testament –we do not use this term to refer only to its written version– was created to enlighten all other nations. Therefore, this enlightenment which first reached a single man –the person who created the mystery on which the Old Testament is based– was later passed on to a community and, eventually, to the whole world. In order to attract them to the New Testament –Christianity–, the gospels were based on a mystery containing many references to pagan ideas. Being familiar with those ideas made it relatively easy for Pagans to accept this new religion.
Since the mystery of the Old Testament has to do with the idea that mankind once lived in harmony, in order to attract the Pagans to monotheism Jesus based the new mystery, that of the New Testament, on the figure of the Messiah, the person who would make it possible to restore this harmony. Whereas in order to attract the Jews to Christianity the New Testament referred to the fact that several prophecies of the Old Testament came true in the figure of Jesus Christ, in order to attract the Pagans it mentioned several miracles.
The revelation of the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew teaches us that the prophecy that Matthew refers to is not that of a child being born of a virgin, but that of a child who will be called Immanuel. Many Bible scholars think that it makes no sense to refer to a prophecy in Isaiah about a child called Immanuel in order to show that it came true in a child called Jesus. However, immediately assuming that Saint Matthew contradicts himself shows that one has little humility. Since we cannot expect Saint Matthew to shoot himself in the foot, it is logical to assume that these names have something in common.
We should not ignore the importance that Judaism attaches to names. Saint Matthew explains that Immanuel means ‘God-is-with-us’. We can therefore assume that ‘Jesus’ means something similar, as it is Saint Matthew who creates this supposed contradiction. And when we study the origin of ‘Jesus’, we learn that it is a new version of Josiah (Josiah marks the deportation to Babylon and is separated 14 generations from Christ) and derives from Joshua, meaning ‘Yahweh is salvation’, which is really the same as ‘God-is-with-us’.
6 - Did Jesus aim to embarrass the future religious authorities?
If the Gospel of Saint Matthew tells the truth and Jesus was indeed born from an extramarital affair between Mary and Joseph’s father, it seems obvious that the enigma in this gospel is the work of Jesus. Who, if not Mary, Jesus’ mother, would possess this confidential information about Jesus’ true father? The fact that this book was written after Jesus’ life certainly does not mean that he could not have been the author of these genealogies.
The enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew is so ingenious –it first made the religious authorities assume that Jesus was born of a virgin, and many centuries later revealed that his father was also Joseph’s father– that it is logical to assume that it is the work of an enlightened individual and, therefore, that it was the work of Jesus.
Moreover, as the genealogies of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke are so similar to those in Genesis for Seth and Cain, the former being real and the latter supposed, we can assume that the author of the genealogies in the New Testament discovered the secrets in the genealogies of the Old Testament. And of whom can we expect such a feat if not Jesus?
We thus have three good reasons for assuming that Jesus was the author of the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew. This is something that we have to consider when we reflect upon the consequences of the revelation of this enigma. What are they? One is that it invites us to reflect upon the reasons why our pagan ancestors converted to Christianity. It is very likely that many of them did not understand Jesus’ message, but were impressed by all the hocus pocus surrounding the founder of that new religion. For them, Jesus was a god, and what they expected of a god was a supernatural birth and death; that certain prophecies came true in him; that he performed several miracles, etc. So many generations later, the panorama does not seem to have changed, because instead of caring about the ideas of Jesus Christ (empathy with the poor, non-violence, making the most of one’s gifts and talents, etc.), many Christians continue to care more about his miracles and the prophecies that came true in him. The revelation of this enigma finally encourages these people to question those miracles, because if Jesus’ virginal conception was not true, how can they still be sure of the other miracles that Jesus is associated with?
Another consequence is that it demonstrates that Jesus was enlightened. Creating an enigma that first made people assume that Jesus was born of a virgin, but many centuries later revealed that this was not so, is so amazingly ingenious that it can only be the work of an enlightened individual.
And yet another consequence of the revelation of this enigma, and perhaps the most important of all, is that it embarrasses the authorities of the three monotheistic religions as well as those of the non-believers who studied this book: those of Christianity because they misinterpreted the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament, thus creating a dogma that all subsequent generations accepted without too much opposition; those of Judaism because Jesus discovered certain secrets in Genesis that they still ignore today; those of the Islam (for whom Jesus is a prophet and not the son of God) because they adopted an idea from Christianity without verifying its origin; and of those of the non-believers because although they studied the Bible in a rational way, they also allowed themselves to be deceived by what these texts seem to say, when in fact they say something different.
This teaches us that Jesus did not trust the religious authorities of both Judaism and Christianity and that he deliberately created this enigma to embarrass them at a certain time in the future. Why? Since Jesus, the founder of Christianity, was enlightened, he must have thought a great deal about the different religions and become aware of all the good things and bad things that come with them. And having also reflected upon the origin and evolution of these religions, he must have realized that, since they were founded by an enlightened individual, they suffer considerably after their founder dies, because his disciples, and the disciples of the disciples, do not measure up to him, and because any profession that inspires people’s admiration tends to attract people who are only interested in power.
The good thing about religions is that they encourage people to behave well and give individuals the opportunity to form part of a community; the bad thing about them is that they sometimes encourage people to behave badly towards others who behave badly (yet without seeing any inconsistency in such behaviour), and also that by uniting people within a group they separate them from other groups and sometimes even set them against each other.
It is important to realize that the majority of believers do not choose their religion but are born into a community that professes that particular religion. If these believers were born into a different community, they would profess a different religion. This means that those in authority who now defend the ideas of a certain religion while criticizing others would defend the very same ideas they now criticize if they had been born into another community.
Earlier on we pointed out that believers, instead of having faith in the dogmas of their religion, actually have faith in the religious authorities that defend them. Now we should also emphasize that forming part of a community is very important for many believers. Indeed, the need to form part of a community can be so strong that they do not dare to question everything else this entails, and that for fear of being expelled they do not dare to question or criticize the ideas and the behaviour of the group that they belong to.
The different religions and philosophies divide people. The Swiss philosopher and theologian Hans Küng says in his book “Islam: Past, Present and Future”: “There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions and no peace among the religions without dialogue between the religions. And that dialogue must investigate the foundations of the religions”. As this is glaringly true, we can assume that Jesus, an enlightened individual whom people regarded as the Messiah (the person who helps mankind to restore harmony), was already aware of this some 2,000 years ago. By embarrassing the religious authorities he forces believers to investigate the foundations of their religions and thereby builds bridges between the believers of the different religions and philosophies.
At a certain moment, Jesus said: “The truth will set you free”. When we reflect upon our relationship with the ‘authorities’, we see that having faith in them makes us underestimate our own reasoning and turn ourselves into slaves. Today, by revealing its secrets, the enigma that Jesus created sets us free. And not only does it set believers free, but also all the religious authorities that strive for a better world but whose dogmas have done much to hinder and even damage relations with people who believe in other religions and philosophies.
Now that we have revealed the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the time has come to study the different religions in a rational way and become aware of both the good and the bad things about the different religions and philosophies.
Skeptics might argue that religions belong to the past and that rational people no longer need them, but they are mistaken for two reasons: firstly, they are not as rational as they claim to be, because if they were, when studying the Bible they would have discovered its secrets, and when reflecting upon mankind’s evolution they would have realized that a society that doesn’t live in harmony is bound to destroy itself; and secondly, because without religion we would have lost our Sacred Books, which would have been disastrous, because the Bible offers us an ideal we can strive towards –a better world–, and without that ideal it would have been easy to become prisoners of the present. Yet this is precisely what has happened to us. If the world is now facing another world crisis, it is because we have focused so much on the present that we have not learned from our past mistakes.
Non-believers should also realize that their ‘faith’ in science is not so different from the believers’ faith in religion. There is, of course, nothing wrong with science in itself; the problem is how we evaluate it. It makes no sense at all to think that in the future science will be able to solve all our problems, given that up until now it has basically served to allow an ever smaller percentage of the world’s population to acquire or take control of an ever greater percentage of all the available resources. Furthermore, our misuse of science has led to the development of increasingly sophisticated weapons, to such an extent that they are now capable of causing mankind’s complete self-destruction.
7 - Why this enigma managed to guard its secrets for so long
In order to understand how the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew managed to keep its secrets for such a long time, we must consider both the characteristics of the person who created it and those of the people who have read or studied the Holy Scriptures. Some of the various reasons listed below have to do with the person who created the enigma, while others relate to those who where later confronted by it.
-The person who created the enigma was enlightened.
-The enigma was protected by people from within the Church.
-The enigma was also protected by others from outside the Church.
-The enigma was designed to reveal its secrets only at a certain time.
-A lack of humility makes it difficult to evaluate the Holy Scriptures correctly.
-A feeling of inferiority or superiority influences our interpretation of the Bible.
-Not asking ourselves what the author seeks to convey.
-Not reflecting sufficiently upon the purpose of the Bible.
-Letting ourselves be guided by what the Bible supposedly says.
-Not processing all the information in an optimal way.
-Letting ourselves be influenced by the prejudices regarding this book.
-Our moral judgments influence our interpretation of the Bible.
-Not reflecting upon the nature of things.
-Attaching more importance to the end result than to the process.
-Accepting incoherent systems too readily.
-The Bible creates false expectations.
-Having a linear view of history.
-Assuming that the Bible tells the truth.
-Making poor use of textual criticism.
-Ignoring what we do not understand.
-Knowing too much.
The main reason why the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew has kept its secrets for so long is that the person who created it was an enlightened individual and, as such, knew that everyone else evaluates information in a defective way. Jesus realized that we do not process all information in an optimal way and was aware of the many factors that influence our intereptation of the Holy Scriptures. By taking our shortcomings into consideration, it was not that difficult for him to create an enigma that initially made the authorities reach the conclusion that he was born of a virgin, only to reveal many centuries later that he was born from an extramarital affair between Mary and her father-in-law.
The more we study this enigma and how it has managed to keep its secrets for so many centuries, the more clearly we realize that Jesus was enlightened and that we are not as rational as we tend to think.
There are few options for counting the 14 generations
When, at the end of his genealogy for Jesus, Saint Matthew tells us there are 14 generations between Abraham and David, between David and the deportation to Babylon, and between the deportation to Babylon and Jesus, he invites us to count these generations. Mathematically speaking, there are not many options for dividing these names into groups of 14. As the only alternatives are to include or exclude in each new column the last generation of the previous column, i.e. Abraham/David, David/Josiah and Josiah/Joseph and Jesus, or Abraham/David, Solomon/Jechoniah and Shealtiel/son of Jesus, it is amazing that so many scholars have accepted a division that does not follow the of either alternative, i.e. Abraham/David, David/Josiah and Jechoniah/Jesus.
The main reason why we so readily accept incoherent systems is because nobody else has realized that Saint Matthew indicates that Jesus was born out of a relationship between Mary and her father-in-law. Our familiarity with incoherent systems also means that, for instance, most people simply ignore the fact that cars drive on the right and trains on the left, that some books have the title on the spine running from top to bottom and others from bottom to top, and that in most languages there are many exceptions to the general rules of grammar.
Another reason for accepting the traditional yet incoherent division is that we tend to attach more importance to the end result than to the process. We know that by counting all these generations we somehow have to make it to Jesus and it doesn’t matter too much how we do so. Therefore, we do not realize that by encouraging us to count those generations, Saint Matthew wants us to reflect upon the best way of doing so.
Diferent factors that influence our interpretation
A major reason why those who study the Bible have not realized what the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew tries to convey is that, in general, they have not reflected sufficiently on the nature of sexual relationships and are therefore unaware that extramarital affairs mean that some lineages are real while others are supposed. Consequently, they did not discover the secrets in Genesis and, subsequently, they also failed to realize that the genealogies for Jesus in the gospels of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke are similar to those of Seth and Cain.
Another reason is that those who did realize what extramarital relationships mean had so many prejudices about the Bible and what it supposedly conveys –that Jesus was born of a virgin, for instance– that they did not realize that this book makes a distinction between real and supposed lineages.
Yet another reason is that they did not reflect sufficiently on the purpose of this work. The Jews expected the Messiah to be a descendant of David. If Saint Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy back to David, and even to Abraham, it is to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, it should be obvious that according to Saint Matthew Jesus should be somehow a descendant of David.
The assumption that Saint Matthew refers to Jesus’ virgin birth –by referring to the prophecy in Isaiah and by translating ‘young woman’ for ‘virgin’ this evangelist creates a false expectation– made that many people did not investigate how Jesus could be a descendant of David without necessarily being the son of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
Many scholars have also allowed themselves to be deceived by assuming that this genealogy initially said that Joseph begot Jesus but was later changed when Christianity adopted the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth. Assuming that Saint Matthew refers to Jesus’ virginal conception makes it very difficult to see that this evangelist actually indicates that Jesus was born from an extramarital affair beween Mary and her father-in-law. This assumption even causes us to completely ignore that fact that the four women in this genealogy of Jesus all had extramarital affairs.
Knowing too much, not processing all information correctly, and textual criticism
Yet another reason why we have ignored for so long what the enigma in the Gospel of Saint Matthew tells us is that those who studied the Bible had a lot of information at their disposal but did not process it correctly, thus creating only more confusion.
Instead of firstly making a list with those names in order to find out what Saint Matthew tries to tell us, they immediately investigated the origin of those names and who was king when the deportation to Babylon occurred. Apparently, the deportation took place during the reign of Jechoniah, but Saint Matthew says: “Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers when the deportation to Babylon occurred.”
These scholars find it difficult to trust Saint Matthew not only because he associates Josiah with the deportation to Babylon, but also because these names seem to have been chosen randomly. From David onwards all of them are kings of Judah, but some names are missing. For instance, this is the case of three consecutive kings. Although there is a reason for omitting these kings (they all disobeyed Jahweh), it is difficult to assume that the king before them may have been the father of the one that follows them.
This information about the kings of Judah and about which king ruled during the deportation to Babylon may make us doubt whether Jesus was indeed a descendant of Abraham and David, but it does nothing to alter the fact that Saint Matthew tells us that Jesus was born from an extramarital relationship.
Our feelings influence our interpretation of the Bible
It should also be pointed out that our feelings influence our interepretation of the Bible. It is not advisable to read the Holy Scriptures with a feeling of inferiority, because then we tend to accept ideas without questioning them. But neither should we read them with a feeling of superiority, because then we tend to reject ideas when we think that they contradict science. The best way to approach the Bible is with a feeling of humility; by assuming that these books were written by enlightened individuals who understood ideas that their contemporaries were unable to comprehend.
Textual criticism and the confusion created by contradictions
Those who have studied the Bible have also made an erroneous use of textual criticism. It is true that we do not have the original texts and, therefore, cannot be sure what the Gospel of Saint Matthew originally said. But that does nothing to alter the fact that today it tells us that Jesus was born from an extramarital relationship and that this should not surprise us bearing in mind what we have discovered in Genesis.
Furthermore, the supposed contradictions in the genealogies that we find in the Bible meant that many scholars did not take them seriously. By not processing that information correctly, they did not realize that Saint Matthew and Saint Luke do not contradict each other, and by assuming that the genealogies do not make sense, they preferred to assume that they were not important.
Jesus and his work
All those contradictions in the New Testament were created by Jesus. They not only helped him to create his enigma and then protect it, but also encouraged us to reflect upon certain matters. For example, in order to understand how his disciples created a new religion –bearing in mind that Jesus said, on two separate occasions, that he had not come to change the law and that his disciples should not to go to the Gentiles–, we first have to reflect upon the task of a Messiah. It is also only then that we realize that Christianity was created as a Trojan horse.
8 - Season’s greetings
If you found these articles about Jesus interesting, please help us to spread them by adding a link to this blog in your season’s greetings. The following texts can be used to notify friends and relatives:
Every 25th December, Christians commemorate Jesus' virgin birth. However, a study of Early Christianity shows that Jesus was not born on that day, while another of the genealogies in the gospels reveals that the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth comes from a misinterpretation of a cryptic message in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, which actually tells us the identity of Jesus’ real father. Nevertheless, I wish you a Happy Christmas.
You already knew that children are not born of a virgin. But did you also know that the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth comes from a misinterpretation of a cryptic message in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, which actually tells us the identity of Jesus’ real father?
You know my opinion about religion, but I have just read some articles about Jesus’ virgin birth in a blog that has surprised me very much. I recommend it to you:
I have just read that the dogma of Jesus’ virgin birth comes from a misinterpretation of a cryptic message in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, which actually tells us the identity of Jesus’ real father. I hope that the Christian authorities will soon make an announcement regarding this hypothesis. No longer having to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin will make it easier when I tell people that I am a Christian. I recommend this blog:
rationalXmas.blogspot.com / www.secretsinthebible.com
