SECTION II
Chapter 1. The Birth Stories of Jesus Christ

  Ironically, during most of the first century C.E., ROMAN pagan historians
(who wrote at great length about the Roman emperors such as Augustus and
Tiberius) did not seem to notice the birth of a man named Jesus in Galilee.
This changed by the early second century C.E., as Christians became a sizeable
enough minority of the population!

  The Jewish historian Josephus does mention Jesus in his histories
describing the background of the first Jewish war with Rome (66-70 C.E.)
(See Section I, Chapter 5). However, even Josephus gives no real details
on the nature of Jesus' birth, any miracles, nor any resurrection scenes.
Basically all our information on any miraculous events come from the
gospel stories themselves.

 In the next chapters, we shall review major events within the life
of Jesus Christ, as described by each of the four gospel writers and Paul.
Proceeding in chronological order, we will start with the birth stories
on Jesus Christ.

Paul

   Paul's only reference to Jesus' birth is to simply state that he was
"born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) and was "descended from David according to
the flesh" (Romans 1:3).  To Paul, it is the SPIRIT that is important, as
opposed to the FLESH which houses it.  Thus, according to Paul, Jesus'
spirit pre-existed with the Father in Heaven, descended to earth, and later
ascending back to Heaven after the miracle of the resurrection.

Mark

    Mark (believed to be the first gospel written) never mentions any details
of Jesus' birth and childhood.  The gospel's first scene is of Jesus being
baptized by John the Baptist. We are told he "came from Nazareth of Galilee".


Matthew

  Only the gospels of Matthew and Luke give details of Jesus' miraculous
birth.

    According to the gospel of Matthew, Joseph is ready to call off his
marriage to Mary when he discovers that she is already pregnant.  However, an
"angel of the Lord appears to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1:20).  Joseph marries
Mary, and Jesus is born. Wise men from the east come to Jerusalem and
tell King Herod that they know the King of the Jews has been born recently
because they have seen his "star in the east".  King Herod demands to know
where the Christ would be born, and is told it had to be in the city of
Bethlehem of Judea, in order to fulfill that which was written by the
prophets.

  An angel of the Lord appears again to Joseph in a dream, and warns him
to flee with Jesus and Mary to Egypt, for Herod would try to destroy
the young Jesus.  After they depart, Herod orders the death of all children
in that region that were two years old or younger. After the death of Herod,
the holy family returns, as predicted by the prophecy, "Out of Egypt have I
called my son." The family decides to return to Galilee instead of
Jerusalem, to avoid the rule of Herod's son, Archelaus.

Luke

    According to Luke's gospel, the angel Gabriel went to Nazareth, a
city of Galilee to speak with Mary. He told Mary that she would conceive
a son, named Jesus, who would "be called the Son of the Highest: and that
the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And that
he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there
shall be no end." (Luke 1:32-33) Mary questions how this is possible
since she is still a virgin.  The angel responds that it would happen
through the power of the Holy Ghost.

    We discover (Luke's gospel only), that Elizabeth, the mother of John the
Baptist, is a cousin of Mary.  Elizabeth was barren, but the angel Gabriel
assisted her to conceive of the child John the Baptist, who was "filled with
the holy ghost even from the womb."  Mary pays a visit to her cousin,
Elizabeth while she is still pregnant.  Elizabeth becomes filled with the
Holy Ghost upon Mary's arrival, and issues blessings for the miracle bestowed
upon Mary.

    While Mary is still very pregnant she travels with her espoused, Joseph
from Galilee to register for a Roman tax. They travel to Bethlehem because
Joseph "was of the house and lineage of David".  There Mary gives birth to
Jesus in a manger, because there was no room in the inn. Angels and shepherds
come, glorifying  and praising God.

John

    The famous beginning of the gospel of John states: "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And later
on Jesus, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...full of
grace and truth."

 The gospel of John NEVER mentions Jesus' spectacular birth, NOR that
Mary was a virgin. In John 1:45, Philip, one of Jesus' disciples, states
what is known about Jesus:

"... We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did
write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Reconciliation of the Accounts
--Discrepancies with the Annunciation and the Virgin Birth

  In Matthew, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph to tell him that Mary
was about to be impregnated through the Holy Ghost.  In Luke, we are told of
Mary being visited by the angel Gabriel.  Therefore, if BOTH accounts are true,
BOTH Joseph and Mary must have been visited by an angel on separate occasions.
In Luke (only) we are told that there were shepherds attending Jesus' birth.
Likewise, only Matthew's account mentions the presence of magii. Most
Christmas nativity renditions, therefore combine Matthew and Luke's account
together to include BOTH shepherds and magi in their scenes.

    The gospel of Luke tells how Mary was the cousin of Elisabeth (the mother
of John the Baptist) and how Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost upon a 
meeting with Mary when she was still pregnant with Jesus.  However, she
must not have imparted any of this divine background to John the Baptist who,
as a young preacher baptizing converts at the Jordan River, NEVER seems to have
heard of Jesus. Indeed, he seems puzzled  when Jesus first arrives--For in
Luke 7:19, John the Baptist sends two of his disciples out to ask Jesus,

 "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?"

(There is never any reference here to Jesus being related to John the Baptist.)

   Neither the gospels of Mark nor John EVER mention the virgin birth.  As we
shall see below, both of these gospel writers seem to indicate that Jesus was
NOT born in Bethlehem--but instead in Galilee.

  With all the reported miracles at Jesus' birth, it is shocking how Jesus'
OWN family is reported to have had very short memories of Jesus' greatness:

 In Matthew, Jesus' family (i.e. the prophet's "own house") does not
recognize his authority during his ministry, despite the spectacular
miracles surrounding his birth. The gospel of Mark is even more explicit
in this, with Jesus reportedly saying at the same scene, "A prophet is
not without honour, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and
in his own house."  Matthew's version omits the phrase "and among his own
kin". (See Mark 6:4).  In John, it was only Jesus' brothers who did not
"believe in him". (John 7:5)

   In Mark, a curious scene appears where Jesus' mother and brothers "went
out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself"'; Jesus
refused to go along with them saying, "Whoever does the will of God is my
brother and sister, and mother". (Mark 3:21,31-5)

  As we have seen earlier, Jesus' own brother, James, headed up the Christian
movement in Jerusalem after his death (and their cousin Simon succeeded James).
It would seem likely that the gospel accounts stating that Jesus' family did
not believe in him, were thus the result of James' unpopularity with the
Pauline gentile Christians who later dominated the church. That is, in viewing
Jesus as a universal god as opposed to a local Jewish messiah, it was possibly
thought theologically correct to downplay Jesus' relationship with his family.
(Francis Watson, A GUIDE TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1987 (Barnes & Noble) p 100)

--Discrepancies regarding Jesus' place of birth and childhood

  ----Matthew and Luke

    Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and raised in
Galilee. Unfortunately the details are so very different, that devout
literalists have been hard pressed over the centuries, to explain how BOTH
could be true:

  According to Matthew's account, Joseph and Mary appear to be RESIDENTS
of Jerusalem (ie Matthew never mentions them LIVING first in Galilee and
then TRAVELING to Jerusalem, lodging temporarily in a manger, etc, etc).
Instead, when the magi arrive, they appear to visit the Holy Family
in their HOME in Jerusalem.

  However, in Luke, Joseph and Mary are residents of GALILEE, who TRAVEL to
Jerusalem to register for a tax. Mary, who is very pregnant, gives birth to
Jesus in a manger, because there was no room in an inn.

  After Jesus is born in Jerusalem, Matthew has the family leave for Egypt.
After a sojourn in Egypt, they move to Nazareth. Per Matthew 2:23, this was
done

  "to fulfill the words spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called
  a Nazarene.'"

Scholars have searched in vain to find any such prophecy in the Old Testament
that the messiah would be called a Nazarene!

  Per Luke, the holy family has stayed in Jerusalem temporarily to register
for a tax, and then immediately RETURNS to their home town of Nazareth (that
is, without the detour to Egypt mentioned in Matthew.)

   To reconcile these accounts, most nativity stories show the Holy Family
living in Galilee (Luke), then traveling to Jerusalem for a tax and staying
in an inn because there was no room in a manger (Luke). Shepherds (per Luke)
and magi (per Matthew) visit the Holy Family in Jerusalem. The family then
moves to Egypt to escape King Herod's death wish for the divine Jesus (Matthew). 
The Holy Family later returns to Galilee where they raise Jesus (Luke and 
Matthew).

---Mark and John

  Neither the gospel writers Mark NOR John ever mention that Jesus was
descended from King David or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  Instead
verses in Mark and John would indicate that Jesus came simply from Galilee.
In the following scene, the gospel writer of Mark has Jesus explicitly
state that he was NOT descended as a "Son of David" :

  "Jesus went on to say, as he taught in the temple, "How can the teachers
of the law maintain that the Messiah is 'Son of David'?  David himself
said [in Psalm 110], when inspired by the Holy Spirit, "The Lord said
to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your
feet.' David himself calls him 'Lord'; how can he also be David's Son?"
(Mark 12:35-37 NEB)  Possibly, since Mark was writing for a Roman gentile
community, he did not feel it necessary for the messiah to be from the
line of David.

 (Note: Psalm 110 does indeed begin with the passage "The Lord says
to my lord." Christians have interpreted this to mean David was the speaker
AND that he was addressing TWO "Lords"--ie Jesus and God. Of course, this is
not the only possible interpretation of this verse. Most biblical scholars
do not hold that David wrote all of the psalms. According to HARPER'S BIBLICAL
COMMENTARY, 1988, the passage here refers to the ceremony involved with a
royal coronation.  According to this source, the first part of the verse
refers to "the announcement of the Temple prophet" and the second portion
refers to the "ritual of vassals, no longer enemies, making their obeisance
to the new king."  Another possible interpretation could view this along
JEWISH messianic lines-- whereby the speaker is describing a vision of a
future messianic king (his Lord), whom the Lord God will give the strength
and power to conquer their enemies--see 110:5)

  The gospel of John is even more explicit: In John, there are scenes were
Jesus is mocked by the Jews for not being born in Bethlehem, as was expected
by Jewish prophecy-- but instead was from Galilee.  In John 7:41-43, we read:

  "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, that
  Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem,
  where David was? So there was great division among the people..."
  And in another scene in John 7:52, they cry out to Jesus' supporters:
  "... Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."

 The gospel of John, NEVER shows Jesus refuting this accusation. Instead,
John's gospel (which is believed to be heavily influenced by Greek platonic
thought), finds it IRONIC that the Jews are concerned whether Jesus' human
origins were in Bethlehem or Nazareth--because ultimately Jesus came from
ABOVE--ie from the Father in Heaven.

  This point was made by Jesus when he says: "You are from below, I am from
above" (John 8:23) According to John, no one understood the real significance
of this. Thus to John, the Jewish prophecies of a HUMAN messiah were not
important to believe in Jesus. (Note, John's gospel has many similarities with
Greek platonic thought-- in that it viewed Jesus as a god who co-existed
with the Father in a Trinity relationship since the beginning of creation.
(See Section IV, Chapter 3 on Gnosticism)

--Discrepancies on the Genealogy Lists from Jesus to David

  Both Matthew and Luke give listings of Jesus' descendants.  A close
look at these genealogies will quickly show that they are so very different
from each other, that they would appear to be irreconcilable.

According to Matthew:

  "There were thus fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David,
  fourteen from David until the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen
  from the deportation until the Messiah." (Matthew 1:17)

  Compared to genealogy lists given in the Old Testament, Matthew made
some mistakes (possibly on purpose to fit to the mystical number of
14) in listing his genealogies.  According to the second and
third chapters of Chronicles in the Old Testament, there were EIGHTEEN
generations from David to Jeconiah. Matthew thus drops off the names
Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim to reduce the list down to fourteen
names.

  The number "fourteen" had mystical significance to Matthew because he
was fitting his genealogies to fit the book of Daniel's 9:24-27th prediction
when the messiah would appear after the end of the Babylonian exile.
Matthew felt the number fourteen could be used to predict not only the
number of weeks until the Christ, but also the number of generations as
well. Matthew listed 14 generations (or symbolically 2 weeks) from Abraham
to David, another 14 generations to the Exile in Babylon (another 2 weeks)
and last, another 14 generations from the Babylonian exile to the birth
of Jesus (another 2 weeks).  Thus prior to Jesus there were 6 weeks (2+2+2)
generations, with Jesus ushering in the seventh week, which symbolized
the holy day of the Sabbath.  (Randel Helms, GOSPEL FICTIONS, p. 47)

  Luke's genealogy had developed independently of Matthew's. According
to Luke, there were  41 generations (compared to Matthew's 27 generations)
between Jesus and King David. The genealogies are so very different, that
even the names of Jesus' GRANDFATHER do not match-- In Matthew, Joseph
is the son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar... (Matthew 1:14-15).
In Luke, Joseph was the "son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi..."
(Luke 3:23). Some people have argued that perhaps some of Jesus' ancestors
had different nicknames.  This however cannot explain how Jesus could have
had MORE ancestors on one list than on another!

   Some biblical scholars have suggested that possibly one genealogy goes
through  Joseph's real father on one side, and possibly through a STEP-FATHER
on the other.-- The early Christian chronicler Eusebius (c 265-339 C.E.) 
included in his HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH a letter purported to have been 
written by the Christian scholar Sextus Julius Africanus (180-250 C.E.).  
According to this letter, Africanus wrote: "The names of the families in Israel 
were reckoned either by nature or by law; by nature, when there was genuine 
offspring to succeed; by law, when another man fathered a child in the name of a 
brother who had died childless."

  Africanus further explained that Joseph's mother was married first
to Heli (Luke 3:23), but he had died childless. She then married Heli's
brother Jacob, who fathered Joseph. Both Heli and Jacob were half brothers,
but had different fathers. According to Africanus in the letter, he had
obtained this information from the "Savior's human relations".

  One problems with this, is that during the second and third centuries
C.E., there were numerous apocryphal stories and legends that were circulating
around the area (see Section V, Chapter 3), making it possible that this
could have been one too.  For example, the Christian writer Tertullian,
who also lived in the second century C.E., wrote that he knew of evidence
in the public archives of Rome showing that Tiberius (who was the Roman
emperor during the time of Jesus' crucifixion) was actually convinced of
Jesus' divinity-- Virtually all modern historians agree that Tertullian
was mistaken.

   Another problem is that some biblical scholars have seriously questioned
whether any accurate genealogy records could have existed, between the
times of King David to that of Jesus (without divine assistance.)

  Even assuming the letter to be true, the statistical difference in
generations from Jesus to David (41 per Luke, 27 per Matthew) is very
great--especially since BOTH of them ALSO coincidently go back to David.
That is, this difference of 14 generations, would mean that on average,
Matthew's list of descendants were 50% older at the conception of their
children, than Luke's list.

  It shouldn't be forgotten that there is still the LITERAL discrepancy
between Matthew's genealogy continuing from David to Abraham, with the
version given in Chronicles of the Old Testament.  Here the names are
the same, but Matthew list is SHORT four names. Thus this discrepancy
can NOT be due to reckoning genealogies through say a step-father, instead
of a father--For it is IMPOSSIBLE for BOTH a grandfather AND a father
to be the previous ancestor of (the same) son.

  Of course, the entire argument over Jesus' blood relationship to King David
is meaningless, if Jesus were born of a VIRGIN--because then his genealogy
would need to be traced through Mary (assuming a blood-relationship existed
to King David.)  Instead, both Matthew and Luke's genealogies are traced
through Jesus' father, Joseph.

References Outside the Gospels

  Herod's massacre of the children is documented only by Matthew--it is
NOT mentioned by the other gospel writers nor is it mentioned by any
Jewish historian-- Even Josephus, who wrote a great deal on Herod's OTHER
atrocities-- including the murder of all other rival members of the Hasmoneans
and various persecutions--never mentions any such plots by Herod. Herod's
decree to kill the children sounds suspiciously similar to that of the
Egyptian Pharaoh during the time of Moses. This would also explain Matthew's
use of the prophecy, "Out of Egypt have I called my son", to prophecize
Jesus leaving Egypt and returning to Galilee.  (No other gospel writer
mentions a trip to Egypt!)

  Likewise, Luke's reference to a census DURING the census of Quirinius,
is not documented by any other gospel nor by any other early historical
source. According to Matthew, Jesus was born BEFORE the death of King Herod
(or BEFORE 4 B.C.E.) Palestine did not become a Roman province, until 6 C.E.,
ten years after Herod's death.  The historian Josephus mentions that a
census did take place under the Roman prelate Quirinius in the year 6 A.D
in Judea (not Galilee). Josephus also states that the tax caused the Jews to
revolt against the Romans under the leadership of Judas of Galilee (Judas
of Gaulonita of Gamala).

  Most historians believe Luke got his dates confused, when he combined
the census with Herod's reign.  The gospel of Luke also stated that Joseph
and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem because Joseph could trace his lineage
to David.  However, in reality the Romans were much more practical than
this--and only required that the person register in his current town, or
taxation center. Jerusalem was about 85 miles away.  At any rate, assuming the 
tax was real, some
scholars have questioned if Mary would have been required to travel along,
because typically males handled all such transactions.
(Schurer p 411. as referenced in WHO WAS JESUS P 63).

The Miracle of the "Signs" Surrounding Jesus' Birth

  In the Mediterranean world, the belief that stars heralded great events
such as births was very common, and historians have documented other
individual where this was claimed--including Mithra and Alexander Severus.

  The gospel of Matthew describes a star of Bethlehem that first arose
in the east.  The star then broke all laws of modern astronomy (ie was
a miracle) when the magi see it turn south to Bethlehem.  All stars
normally move from east to west, due to the rotation of the earth on
its axis.  The miracle was even greater than this though, because the
star appeared to hover "over where the young child was".

  Scholars and scientist have searched for centuries for some actual
astronomical occurrence which could have explained the account of the
star of Bethlehem: Halley's comet appeared in 12-11 B.C.E. In 1603, the
astronomer John Kepler calculated that a rare conjunction of the planets
Jupiter and Saturn would have occurred in the year 7 B.C.E.  More recently,
three Englishmen noted that Chinese astronomers in the Han dynasty had
recorded a nova (exploding star) which was visible for some 70 days
in the year 5 B.C.E.-- and suggested that this might be Matthew's Christmas
star. Each of these events did take place, although there was no record
of any cosmic body hovering over one spot, (which from other parts of
the earth, would appear as if the object had taken a sharp turn from
its typical east to west path).

  Only the gospel of Matthew mentions the existence of the star of
Bethlehem, which direct the magi how to find the baby Jesus. In Luke,
instead of wise men (or magi) who follow a star to Jesus--Luke tells how
shepherds near Bethlehem were told of Jesus' birth from an angelic messenger
and a heavenly choir, and then traveled to see the baby Jesus.

Greco-Roman Legends

  In the Greco-Roman world, sexual relations between the "gods" and a
"human" woman were believed to be fairly common occurrences. The Roman
historian Livy (who died a few years before Jesus' ministry) wrote an
extremely popular history of Rome whereby the twin founders--Romulus
and Remus--were born of a virgin.  Their mother Silvia was a Vestal Virgin
who was fathered by the Greco-Roman god Mars.( For this reason, it has been
suggested that early Christians, knowing of the great legend of pagan Rome's
founding, would naturally expect as miraculous a beginning for their Christian
founder, Jesus).

   There were many other role models within the Greco-Roman pagan
literature of women being impregnated by gods: Zeus reportedly fathered the
Greek heroes Hercules and Perseus. The god Aesclepius had fathered Aratus
of Sicyon, while in the disguise of a serpent.  Real, historical figures were
also purported to have been fathered by the gods.  Alexander the Great was
said to have been fathered by Zeus. Pythagorus, Plato, and even the
first emperor Augustus were believed to have been fathered by Apollo, the
Sun God.

 The terms "son of God", "savior", "gospel", and "magi"  were not unique
to the early Christians, but instead were common terms that can be found
throughout Greco-Roman literature, as can be seen in the following examples:

  -- On a marble pedestal from Pergamum, was carved the following words:
     "The Emperor Caesar, son of God, god Augustus.
     (DOCUMENTS FOR THE STUDY OF THE GOSPELS, ed David R. Cartlidge and
     David L. Dungan (Cleveland: Collins, 1980), pp 13-14)

  --  When the eastern ruler Tiradates came to pay homage to Nero, he
       "brought magi with him".  Approaching Nero, "He knelt upon the
        ground, and with arms crossed called him master and did obeisance."
        (Dio Cassius, ROMAN HISTORY, 63,2, trans. Earnest Carey (London:
        Heinemann, 1914)

  -- The Emperor Augustus was described as being sent to this world
     as a "savior" (Note: Augustus was the first emperor of Rome-- and the
     Roman Senate had set the precedent of claiming Augustus "divine"
     while he was still alive.)

     "Whereas the Providence which has guided our whole existence ... has
   brought our life to the peak of perfection in giving to us Augustus Caesar,
   who it filled with virtue for the welfare of mankind, and who, being sent
   to us and to our descendants as a savior, has put an end to war and has
   set all things in order; ... and whereas, finally that the birthday of the
   God (ie Caesar Augustus) has been for the whole world the beginning of the
   gospel concerning him, (therefore let  all reckon a new era beginning
   from the date of his birth)." (IBID)

     -- Again according to the historian Seutonius, "a public portent
        warned the Roman people some months before Augustus' birth that
        Nature was making ready to provide them with a king; and this
        caused the Senate such consternation that they issued a decree
        which forbade the rearing of any male child for a whole year." (Ibid)
        An " astrologer, hearing at what hour the child had been
        delivered, cried out, 'The ruler of the world is now born."
        (Seutonius, THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS, 94 trans. JC Rolfe (London
         Heinemann, 1914)

     -- According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great's mother dreamed that
         she conceived when a thunderbolt struck her womb.

     -- Also, according to Plutarch: "The fact of the intercourse of a male
        god with mortal women is conceded by all."  (Plutarch, CONVIVIAL
        DISPUTATIONS, viii, 1,2, quoted by Randall Helms, GOSPEL FICTIONS,
        p 48)


     -- Again, per Plutarch, "There was a woman living in Pontus who
          claimed that she was pregnant by Apollo.  Naturally enough many
          people doubted her story, but there were also many who believed
          her." (PARALLEL LIVES, Lysander,26)

     -- According to a biographer of Plato, Plato's father "had a vision
        in which Apollo appeared to him, and in consequence guarded her
        [the mother of Plato] pure of the relations of wedlock until she
        brought forth Plato."
        (Diogenes Laertius, LIVES AND OPINIONS OF THE EMINENT PHILOSOPHERS,
        quoted by Randel Helms, Gospels Fictions, P. 50)

  Nor were the Greeks/Romans, the only culture to have myths on virgin births--
Egyptian Pharaohs were believed to have had supernatural origins, centuries
before Jesus was born.  The story was told that Attis was born of the virgin
Myrrha. The Buddha, according to a later (but still pre-Christian) tradition,
was said to have entered (in the sacred form of a white elephant) into the
virgin mother Maya.  Ramakrishna was conceived by his mother Chandramani,
while embracing the god Shiva in a visionary trance.  Lao-tzu was conceived
by a 81-year old virgin, after a ball of light was sent by the gods to settle
on her lips--She bore her son out of her armpit under a plum tree.  The list
goes on and on.

  Thus, "IF" the early Christians WERE influenced by their pagan neighbors,
they would have had a rich background of pagan legends and religions from
which to have chosen. Interestingly, some early Christians appear to have
noticed these parallels, and therefore rejected the Virgin Birth stories of
Jesus, because they sounded  too similar to some Greek myths--such as the
the myth of Dana‰  who was impregnated by Zeus.  (Note: Danae was the mother
of the hero Perseus, who eventually become a Greek god):

   The Christian father Justin Martyr wrote in his DIALOGUE WITH THE
JEW TRYPHO how pagans accused Christians of taking the story of the virgin
birth from Danae.  Justin responded,

  "Why are we Christians alone of men hated for Christ's name, when we do
   but related of him stories similar to what the Greeks relate of Hermes
   and Perseus?...What we teach, we learned from Christ and the prophets
   who preceded him, and it is a true lore and more ancient than that of
   all other writers that ever existed; but we claim acceptance, not because
   our stories are identical with those of others, but because they are true."

  Justin goes on to say that Satan had created mischief in causing these
similarities:

   "When I am told that Perseus was born of a virgin, I realize that here
   again is a case in which the serpent and deceiver has imitated our religion."

  Justin noted that some of his fellow Christians believed Jesus was NOT
born of a Virgin:

  "It is quite true that some people of our kind acknowledge him to be
  Christ, but at the same time declare him to have been a man of men.  I,
  however, cannot agree with them, and will not do so, even if the majority
  [of Christians] insist on this opinion."

   Justin explained that he did not agree with them, because it appeared to
him that the Virgin Birth was based upon "predictions set forth by the
blessed prophets." (as quoted by Gospel Fictions, P. 48) Justin was likely
influenced by Matthew's analysis of Old Testament prophecy in predicting the
life of Jesus (See Section I Chapter 10, regarding Matthew's use of Old
Testament prophecy to predict the Virgin Birth.)

The "Nature" of Jesus

  The gospel of Mark, which is believed to be the earliest of the gospels,
indicates that it was at the moment of baptism that Jesus was chosen to be the
Messiah.  A dove--symbolic of the Holy Spirit--descended upon Jesus, with the
words "You are my son, my beloved, on you my favor rests". (Mark 1:11)  As
seen in Section I, there were early groups of Jewish Christians who believed
that Jesus was born a man, but was chosen by God to be the divine messiah
upon his baptism by John the Baptist.

  Both the gospels of Matthew and Luke (unlike Mark) have birth stories,
whereby they imply that Mary was impregnated with the Holy Spirit,
to conceive the supernatural baby Jesus.  The implication is that
Jesus came into existence from this union of the Holy Spirit and Mary.

  It is John's gospel (which virtually everyone agrees was written in a
different style and at a later time than the other "synoptic" gospels) which
declares that Jesus pre-existed with God from the beginning of Time.  There
are no birth stories in John and no implications that Jesus was born of a
virgin. Instead he is the "divine word incarnate", a God in human form who
is portrayed in a distant commanding manner, and does not even appear to
"suffer" on the cross.  Of the four gospels, only John mentions the
concept of the Trinity.

  Up until the fourth and fifth centuries C.E., there was a major split among
Christians on the NATURE of Jesus!-- Arian Christians believed that Jesus
was "adopted" by God--That is, he was born a man, and had been designated as
the divine messiah by God upon baptism. The other group, the Althanasians,
held the belief that has largely come down to us today-- ie where Jesus is
portrayed as a member of a Trinity, who pre-existed from the beginning of
Time.  Few Christians today understand how their beliefs on this major
doctrinal issue  was literally decided upon by ONE MAN about a thousand and
a half years (ie 1500 years) ago.  His name was Constantine, first Christian
emperor of the Roman Empire. The story is a fascinating one, and one we shall
address in a later section. (see Section V, Chapter 2).

Religious Response(s) to Scholarly/Historical Analyses of the Birth Stories

     Many liberal religious scholars have accepted that at least SOME
legendary material has entered into the gospels' accounts--and that the
stories of Jesus' birth and childhood were traditions that were formed
independently of the narratives of Jesus' ministry. However, although
many theologians and religious scholars believe that "some" myths have
entered into the gospels--TO THEM, THIS DOES NOT DIMINISH THE VALUE OF
THE GOSPELS AS INSPIRATIONAL DOCUMENTS!

  Many ultra-conservative Christians, of course, STRONGLY disagree with this
liberal Christian view! They argue that if one does not accept the premise
that EVERY verse in the Bible is LITERALLY TRUE, then the whole Bible becomes
opened up to individual interpretation--with the result that the DIVINE
authority of God Himself is undermined! Ultra-conservatives insist the Bible
has laid down strict guidelines on exactly how God wants society to function.
(Rarely acknowledged by these groups, is how many DIFFERENCES in interpretation
have existed over the centuries and among regional Christian sects.  From this,
one can infer that, at least SOME human-- as opposed to divine interpretation--
made its way into the Bible.)

  With this in mind, we shall continue on to the next chapters, which deal
with other major events within the life of Jesus Christ.