According to the gospels, the mother of Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. This claim by the gospels of Jesus’ virgin birth was unique in the history of the Jews. It seems very strange therefore, that only the gospels mentioned such a birth. However, it seems more likely that the authors of the gospels mentioned the virgin birth to satisfy the Romans and not their fellow Jews. Why?

As I said before, the concept of a virgin birth was unknown in Jewish culture, but it was widespread in Roman culture. Many famous Romans, like several of their gods and emperors, were said to be born of virgins. In order to make the new Christian faith more acceptable to the Romans (the Jews by the way largely rejected the new cult) the concept of the virgin birth had to be there. Jesus, the “son of god” could not possibly have had an earthly father - if he did, this would have made him less devine and less acceptable to the Romans over time.

This point about the authors of the gospels inventing their accounts is very important. Christians would want us to think that these authors were reliable historians, but all one has to do is check their claims against historical facts to see the many lies that these authors were telling. The author of Luke, in particular, is presented as a good historian. According to the gospel of Luke, Jesus was born in the year 6 AD, during the reign of King Herod. Yet, we know, as a matter of historical fact that King Herod died in 4 BC, ten years sooner. How could Jesus be 10 years old when he was born?

The Gospels tell us that Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem. According to the bible, Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem on account of a census that required them to be counted at the place of their birth. While at Bethlehem, Jesus was born. However, this is another lie being propagated by the early Christians.

First of all, there is not the slightest thread of evidence to support the claim that such a census ever occurred. Nowhere in Jewish or Roman history has such a census ever been mentioned. Indeed, such a census would have served no purpose. However, Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem for another reason - he was a descendant of King David, who was also born there.

The gospels tell us that Jesus was descended from David through his father Joseph. According to the very long genealogies (that don’t agree, by the way) presented by the gospels, Jesus’ ancestor was King David. In order to make Jesus more devine, he too had to be born in Bethlehem. However, it is very difficult to see how King David could be an ancestor of Jesus, seeing that god was supposed to be Jesus’ father and not Joseph. Also, most scholars agree that Jesus’ most likely birthplace is Nazareth and not Bethlehem.

One of the most well known claims of the gospels is the one about the bright star that marked the birthplace of Jesus. According to the gospels, a very bright star shone in the night sky. This star hovered over the place where the baby Jesus was. Again, like so many other claims, this cannot be true.

Some Christian traditions claim that this star was several times brighter than a full moon. Such an astronomical occurrence could never have gone unnoticed by the Roman and Jewish historians who would have surely recorded the event if it really did happen. This star claim is yet another vain attempt by the gospel authors to give Jesus a devine appeal.

Speaking of these gospel authors. Do we even know who they are? We are told that persons who were disciples of Jesus wrote the three gospels, Mathew, Luke and Mark. Yet, this is not true. For about one hundred years, the gospels were mostly an oral tradition - nothing was written. Then, after about a century, gospels penned under the names “Mathew”, “Luke” and “Mark” appeared.

Such oral accounts for such an extended time could never be completely accurate, as uncomfortable and unacceptable details would have been discarded and more acceptable ones invented. Indeed, history is very uncertain as to who the authors of the gospels really are - they could be anybody.

I have long said that the Christian claim of Jesus being the “son of god” is ridiculous. History is clearly agreeing with me. Indeed, like history, I am sure that the Jesus that is presented in the bible is a myth. Indeed, I am seriously beginning to think that this Jesus was never even born.

[Back to Main Page]