What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Born?

Hazlitt & Setanta: I'll get back to your comments later on...thanks, speak to you soon.

I believe Christianity was made acceptable to the Romans by St. Paul by transforming the revolutionary Jesus (of royal decent) into a mystical figure by incorporating elements of various other cults, especially Mithraism. It thus made Jesus of no threat to Rome, and Constantine's acceptance of it (he was somewhat of a collector of religions and gods, perhaps a good insurance policy for the hereafter), ensured its survival. Meanwhile James persevered the real mortal and revolutionary Jesus story, until Jesus was officially pronounced divine (by a vote) at the council of Nicea, in I think 325 ad.

Jesus was a pious Jew. Would a Jew pronounce himself the "Son of God" and claim divinity himself when death was the penalty for even pronouncing the name of the Most High? On the other hand, Christos the Messiah, a divinely inspired but utterly mortal leader descended from David, who might lead a revolt of the Jews against their Roman oppressors, was a very good candidate for crucifixion.

(I was writing a longer reply to ya, but me computer crashed before I could send it) ... At any rate, since unfortunately none of us CAN see through God's eyes, I'd be very interested in your, as well as anyone else's, personal clear moral distinction between the two.
I'm hard pressed to come up with one myself, as the tendency of the God of the Bible to classify people as an abomination worthy of death or torture simply for rubbing Him the wrong way (yes there are plenty of cases where "wicked" doesn't seem to have applied by any reasonable definition of the word) fits my description of Fascism a lot better than it fits "God is love." I could post a whole heap of scripture to support this.


Biblio, sorry for going way outside the topic subject again... Jespah, if ya read this, what do ya think of splitting my previous fairly-off-topic post along with any resultant comments, including this one, into a new topic? Pretty please... :wink:

Monger: if you want to start a new topic in this Forum then go ahead. I'm sure it will receive the necessary attention.

You've asked a few questions recently which could be topics in their own right. Go for it.

Steve: thanks for your comments. Like Hazlitt and Setanta, I'll have to get back to you later on. I want to give each of your latest comments some thought.

Hazlitt: you said, "Bib, I do not believe in the virgin birth simply because it is fairly well accepted that virgins do not bear children."

Your comment is not surprising, but then again, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is not meant to be logical; it is after all a miracle!

Hazlitt: you also said, "I have always found it interesting that aside from Matthew and Luke none of the other New testament writers seem to know anything about the virgin birth."

Because the other NT writers make no specific mention of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, that, in and of itself, does not mean they did not "know anything about the virgin birth."

There are lots of things that you know, Hazlitt, but you haven't chosen to mention them here at A2K. Does your omission of such knowledge prove that you don't know anything about it?

Hazlitt: you asked, "Do you believe that the true members of the spiritual body of Christ, that is the true Church, all live sinless lives? If not, does the committing of a sin, any sin, prove that the person committing the sin was never born again in the first place?"

Good questions. They are outside the scope of this particular topic, however, I would suggest you start a new topic and see what sort of reponse you get.

Hazlitt: you also said, "As I see it, Bib, Christians are not one iota different than anyone else."

I find your conclusive statement to be somewhat illogical! Think about this for a moment:

By definition, a Christian is a follower and implementer of the teachings and works of Jesus Christ. Anyone who chooses not to follow such teachings and works is therefore not a Christian, and therefore "different."

If, in your experience and observation, you've encountered people who SAY or PROFESS they are Christians, and their lifestyle is no different from those who have chosen the life of non-Christianity, then you would be correct in your statement - they wouldn't be "different than anyone else."

In my part of the world we call that type of a person a hypocrite or a charlatan. It is they who have failed and not Christianity.

Setanta: you cited the following information:

"With fervor about injustices of women, Elizabeth Cady Stanton published The Woman's Bible. She saw that degradation of women was ubiquitous and permeated to even the most sacred place-church. Religion hindered women from reaching their potential because of the religious belief that a woman's purpose in life was to tend and serve and that "the chief obstacle in the way of women's elevation today is the degrading position assigned [to] her in the religion of all countries - an afterthought in creation the origin of sin, cursed by God, marriage for her condition for servitude, maternity a degradation, unfit to minister at the altar and in some churches even to sing in the choir. Such is her position in the Bible and religion."

Looks to me like you have the basis of a new topic there. Why don't you start one and see what responses you get. It's a topic that I raised in Abuzz some time ago.

Steve: you made the following point:

"Jesus was a pious Jew. Would a Jew pronounce himself the "Son of God" and claim divinity himself when death was the penalty for even pronouncing the name of the Most High?"

Your point forms part of what is known as the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" trilemma that most historians and theologians have studied when addressing the purpose of Jesus's life.

It is worth noting, that it was the angel who appeared to Mary before her conception that made the proclamation that Jesus was to be the "Son of God." So you see, such a title was not self-imposed by Jesus himself, but was divinely imposed before He was even born.

Bib, Was Jesus in Mary's womb for nine months? c.i.

Hello CI: you asked,



Good question. Although I sense it may be somewhat loaded.

Would you care to expand on it?

Keep posting those questions, folks. I'll be back tomorrow.

Has everyone gone home for Christmas?

Ah well, I'll speak to you all when you're ready.

Bib, We are talking about a virgin birth aren't we? If that's the case, what makes Jesus' birth any different except for the fact that somebody claims it was a immaculate conception? c.i.

Hello CI, and welcome back.



A virgin birth is were conception takes place without the semen of a man being part of the fertilisation of the female's embryo.

Bib, I know all that! The question is, what differences are there between the birth of Jesus and all other births, except for the fact that somebody "claims" it's a virgin birth? I can also claim my birth was a virgin birth, but nobody will believe me, because I have an older brother. It's kind of difficult to 'prove' a virgin birth. Trying to prove Joe never had relations with his wife is kind of difficult to prove too. c.i.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru



I think you just described cloning.

CI: the "proof" my friend is in the DNA.

If someone claimed to be the result of a virgin birth then DNA would show whether their chromosomes were "human" in origin, and point towards the mother and father.