The first event in the life of Jesus, the gospel story of his birth, is now considered unauthentic by many scholars and some theologians. The birth of a virgin, the visitation of an angel, the star in the East are phenomena contrary to natural laws and rest on insufficient authority for acceptance as credible. The probabilities are against exceptions in the laws of the universe. The original evidence for the virgin birth is found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, two unknown historians, and both these evangelists implicitly deny their own tale when they trace the descent of Jesus from David through Joseph. There is dispute as to whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth, and the date of his birth has been placed anywhere from 4 b.c. to 7 a.d. Matthew says that Jesus was born "in the days of Herod", while Luke says it was "When Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Herod died in 4 b.c., while Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 a.d. The romantic story of the Christ-child is not corroborated by the historians of the time and is in opposition to the theory of evolution by natural processes. And yet it is still one of the main sources of Jesus' fame, being repeated at Christmas-tide in the churches, thus connecting Jesus with God in a superhuman manner. The consensus of scholarship is in practical agreement that the theory of the virgin birth as a link between Jesus and God is a mistake; but whose mistake was it? Jesus never referred to his miraculous birth. If he was merely a man and never heard of the rumor about his conception, he was not to blame for the spread of this misleading story throughout Christendom. While Jesus did not refer to his divine paternity in a physical sense, he did endeavor to convince his hearers that he was more directly connected with God than Jesus thus proclaimed himself identical with the Lord God of the Old Testament who called himself Jehovah. This is entirely in keeping with the whole Christian theory, for the raison d'Être of Jesus derived from the act of God soon after the creation. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which God had commanded them not to touch, and for this disobedience, this fall of man from grace, God cursed mankind. Jesus came to earth to save man from the wrath of Almighty God. But this claim of Jesus to oneness with God renders him liable to censure for the acts of Jehovah which represented a standard of ethics inferior to that preached by the Son of God. According to the scriptures, which anyone may freely search, God advised or countenanced deception While Jesus could read The dilemma is that Jesus must be condemned either for claiming identity with Jehovah (to whom he was really superior), or for accepting with only slight improvements the tyranny of God as described in the Bible, the Word of God. Of course if the Bible is not the Word of God, the whole system of Christian theology falls to the ground. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah expected by the Jews. "And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said." These acknowledgments by Jesus that he was the Messiah are important, for if he claimed divinity when he was merely mortal, either under false pretences or being self-deceived, he made a mistake of the most serious character. His claim was not recognized by his own people, and many of his followers today deny that he was the Jewish Messiah. Jesus said that he came from God to save the Jews. Either he was truly the predicted Messiah or he made an inexcusable error. In this as in other instances to be cited, Fundamentalists will not admit any mistake, for they believe in the supernatural events connected with the Son of God. But Modernists, who reject the anointed Christ while clinging to the human Jesus, may be at a loss to reconcile Jesus' claim to Messiahship with their rejection of his divinity. Jesus stressed his mission to save the world, saying "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Whether Jesus was mistaken or not in his estimate of his close relationship with God is for each person to decide; but his theory of the disasters that would follow unbelief in his divinity leads to serious difficulties if accepted literally. For not only was Jesus in error when he insisted that salvation depended upon belief, he was also reconciled to eternal suffering for unbelievers. Note some of his expressions: "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." "Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." "Except ye repent ye shall perish." "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands "How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." It is evident from these quotations that Jesus not only preached belief in his divinity as essential to salvation, but endeavored to terrify people into belief by threats of eternal torment. Jesus was responsible for the theological conception of a fiery hell. If he was mistaken, if there never was a place of torment for the wicked after death, is it not an act of constructive criticism to expose the person most responsible for the false doctrine that has caused so much fear and mental suffering? Must we not deplore this mistake of Jesus and recast our entire opinion of him as a religious teacher? Are we not justified in stating positively that Jesus made a mistake when he taught a physical hell and condemned people to spend eternity in torment for the doubtful sin of disbelief? The doctrine of the Atonement was taught by Jesus. "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Whether this sacrifice of the innocent Jesus to save sinful man was ordered by God or was voluntary on the part of Jesus, it represents a theory of reprieve from punishment long since abandoned as unethical. If sin must be punished, there is no justice in relieving the sinner and placing the burden upon the righteous. Moreover, the Atonement appears to have been ineffective, for in spite of the sacrifice that Jesus made, few were to be saved under his scheme of salvation. "Many are called but few are chosen." If the theory of Atonement for sin by the sacrifice of the innocent was not ethical and if Jesus taught that doctrine, he was in error, was he not? The sacrifice of Jesus was not so great as often made by men. Jesus was sustained with the thought that he was saving the world; his physical suffering was not long continued; on the night of his crucifixion he was in paradise. Jesus not only claimed the power to remit sins but also said to his disciples: "Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained." Is that true? Surely it is proper to ask that blunt question. Here is a definite statement concerning the power of certain men to remit sins. If those men did not have the power deputed to them, must we not doubt the accuracy of Jesus? Jesus made a distinction between himself and the Comforter: "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you ... And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." It must surprise some Christians that the Comforter could not be present at the same time with Jesus. Jesus believed in angels and devils, often referring to these imaginary supernatural beings as if they existed. "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions The devils were among the first to recognize Christ's divinity: "What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God?" Jesus believed in demoniacal possession, casting out devils on several occasions. Jesus frequently referred to heaven as a place above the earth: "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory." When Jesus was transfigured and talked with Moses and Elias, he charged his disciples, saying, "Tell the According to the creeds based upon the Bible, Jesus rose from the dead, descended into hell, and ascended bodily into heaven. According to the gospels he stilled the storm, walked on the water and told Peter to do so and to find money in a fish's mouth and catch a large draught of fishes. These and other miracles connected Jesus with God and were part of his theology. Every fair-minded person should re-read the gospels and refresh his memory regarding the theology of Jesus. Then a decision must be reached as to the correctness of the views expressed. Either conditions on earth were different in the first century from those of the twentieth, or Jesus was mistaken in his conception of God, heaven, hell, angels, devils and himself. FOOTNOTES: |