Was Jesus a man? Think about this for a moment. Jesus was allegedly conceived after the Holy Ghost impregnated a teen girl named Mary. It’s hard not to conclude that the Holy Ghost raped Mary, impregnating her without consent. Even if you disagree with this line of thinking, one thing is clear: Jesus didn’t have male DNA. One could argue that the Holy Ghost supernaturally fertilized Mary’s egg with male DNA, but many theologians claim that sin is passed on through the male seed, and Jesus was without sin, so no male DNA. This means, of course, that Jesus was not a man.
One could bizarrely argue that the Holy Ghost is male and he had sex with Mary, impregnating her. However, this means the Holy Ghost had sex with Jesus’ mother. Yuck. The third part of the Trinity had sex with the mother of the second part of the Trinity, and the first part of the Trinity, the Father approved. Talk about a sordid story.
The true story is much simpler. Joseph had sex with Mary before marriage. Nine months later, Jesus was born with the DNA of both his father and mother. First and second-century Christians would later debate the parental lineage of Jesus, eventually cooking up the Trinity and virgin birth. Not all Christians agreed, but they were labeled Gnostics or heretics — enemies of “True Christianity.”
Was Jesus a man? Please share your thoughts in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
You continue to do what the ‘faithful’ never manage: speak with clarity, integrity, and wit — all while under conditions that would silence lesser men. Much appreciated, as always.
I think there was a flesh and blood man named Jesus. He probably went about telling stories with a moral ending, healing through the methods of the time (herbs, oils), gathering food (begging from the wealthy, gleaning) for the poor. He ran afoul of the authorities for whatever reason, was executed, and entombed or buried. The legend grew into a religion.
I think this myth stuck around so long because the man Jesus (if that was his real name) made a serious impression on the people. Telling people to leave their comfortable lives to take up the cause of peace, and to serve the poor? Sounds radical even by today’s standards. Now whether this man believed he was the Messiah (delusional) or was just trying to help his society improve, we will never know. Just as we will never know if this person truly existed.
Melissaa, that’s a thoughtful analysis. If Jesus or someone like him was a real person who went about doing good deeds and teaching wisdom, it’s reasonable he’d become a legend and a leader in his times, when life was harsh, brutal, dangerous, and leaders were tyrranical. As such, he presents a threat to the authority of rulers who would want to neutralize his influence. Devoting one’s self to doing good deeds and opposing tyranny has made legends of men through out history, selfless behavior being so unusual. Being martyred would certainly have sealed the deal, making Jesus into the enduring self-perpetuating legend that he is. Yeah, I could admire a guy like that, legend or real.
The whole idea of the incarnation is ridiculous.
If it happened, what was the DNA like? Did Jesus have 23 chromosomes from Mary and 23 from God? If it happened, it sure would be nice to test the DNA to see what combination of proteins makes a person God.
There are so many logical flaws with the whole Jesus story that it’s surprising it’s taken so many centuries for them to become ‘mainstream’ amongst ordinary people. Needless to say the internet has almost certainly propelled this at an exponential rate. I often refer to Christmas as being ‘that time of the year when we celebrate the impregnation of a young girl by a stronger being without her consent’. Apologists reply that she did give consent via some angel visit. I would argue that, given the respective positions of the two parties (all powerful God vs a teenage innocent girl) there could never be legitimate consent. God would be guilty of at least statutory rape.
Then as you point out there’s the issue that if Joseph didn’t father baby Jesus then it doesn’t matter a rat’s arse what his lineage is and who he was descended from. Oh and that so called lineage……! After a thousand years everyone in the Middle East was descended from David (who probably didn’t exist, but we’ve got this far so who cares?).
I tend to the view that someone existed on whom the Jesus myth was based (because bible scholars I respect hold the view), but trying to rationalise the plain nonsense of the miracles and the resurrection is nothing more than a combination of ‘well maybes’ that stretches credulity beyond anything that might be considered reasonable.
it was my understanding that it was KNOWN that mary was pregnant when joseph AGREED to marry her…
it’s entirely possible that SOMEONE ELSE had sex with, and impregnated mary, and joseph was her “saviour”, because, at that time, a woman who was pregnant out of wedlock was traditionally stoned to death. 😉