'Write this man childless'
These 'Christ Killers'

Luke's Testimony : Part 1

Luke commences his gospel by assuring Theophilus that he has done his research...that he has a 'perfect understanding of all things from the very first'.

One of the most important of his discoveries is that he has verified the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus. This is, for him, a cause of great celebration. He can demonstrate that their 'messiah' is a descendant of King David through a male line...that Jesus has a claim by right of birth to sit on the earthly throne of David.

Luke sets out to prove his claims to 'perfect understanding' by describing the circumstances surrounding the birth of John the Baptist. He establishes his credentials by going into great detail about the priest Zacharias, even going so far as to identify Zacharias as belonging to the priestly  'course of Abia'.

One of Luke's major purposes here is to identify Zacharias' wife Elizabeth as 'one of the daughters of Aaron'. Thus, husband and wife both belong to the tribe of Levi. He is laying the groundwork, painting an intimate and detailed picture of a priestly family, so that when he goes on to describe the events in Nazareth, Mary will appear no stranger to Theophilus: as a 'suggenes' (tribal kin) of Elizabeth, she will fit neatly into the framework he has already set out.

This crucially important factor has been completely overlooked by theologians intent on promulgating the doctrine of virgin birth.

Coming up : Luke's Testimony Part 2



I appreciate the directness of both your approach and your handling of the language.
Orthodox Christianity may annoy you but Dan Brown isn't in hidding. No riots took place over either the book or the movie of the Davinci Code. Bishop Spong is still peddling his wares, and your not cowering in fear that the local womens' church group is going to picket your house.
Real Historic Christianity( as opposed to the kind that exists in the trailer parks of the Southern U.S. )may find your writings annoying but we won't kill you, and if you write something popular, maybe, the lazier of our ministers will get off their well padded rear ends and do some teaching, or even write their own books, giving you free publicity. Do you really think Islam will give you the same deal. If you do, then I trust that I may await your posts attacking Mohammed's status as a prophet.
I'll say the same thing to you that was said to Bishop Spong, when his book, " Saving The Bible from Fundamentalism ", came out.
When you and your cohorts put half the energy and research into deconstructing the Koran and Orthodox Islam that you've spent attacking, and attempting to undermine Orthodox Christianity, I'll be willing to take a more serious look at your arguements.
Until then it's just more of the same repackaged, retreads of 19th century liberalism that I read about in school.


Welcome Ray and thanks for your comments.

I have posted a series entitled 'The Fabled Qur'an'. It is now hidden in the archives section so I shall immediately remedy this.

I was expecting some reaction to my posts but, so far, little has been forthcoming. By denying the Islamic version of the 'virgin birth', I therefore called into question the entire Qur'an, and the veracity of its 'prophet'.

Do not imagine that I am not willing to do whatever it takes to expose the demonstrable frauds of both Christian dogma and Islam.

I should not use the word 'christian' however, because the entire doctrinal system of so-called Christianity has nothing whatever to do with the Jesus of Nazareth presented in the New Testament.

As for 'repackaged, retreads of 19th century liberalism', I beg to differ. Please correct me if I'm wrong but, as far as I know, not one person has ever set out to demonstrate systematically, by reference to the scriptures themselves, that 'Christian doctrines' are not based on either the Old or the New Testaments.


If people like Bishop Spong wish to strut their stuff pumping up their own reputations as "professional personalities" then so be it.

Notwithstanding their dissidence and their professed "Love of the Lord",
they along with all other sects and denominations of "Christendom" totally demonstrate classic cases of proving the wrong points.

The churches have fallen for the SAME paradoxical trap which the Jewish Sanhedrin, and for that matter ALL institutionalised religions fall into.

Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN you, that it is a matter of individual integrity. (Luke 17:21; Deu 30:14).

The lessons of the OT are that God's agent prophets were constantly at loggerheads with the kings and the priesthood who had vested interests to protect.

Nothing has changed in several thousand years. One can still see the same issues and values in collision as documented throughout the Bible. It is a struggle between individual integrity and the vested interest of entrenched institutionalised formalism.


= = = = =


The unfolding of issues associated with the doctrine of "virgin birth" of Jesus are truly astounding.

As demonstrated with the Koran so too with the Book of Mormon - Both made faulty assumptions that the Bible said Jesus was a product of "virgin birth". Consequently both the Koran and the Book of Mormon deserve to be approached with circumspection at the very least, if not suspicion.

It is truly the quintessence of the divine comedy regarding the meaning of the word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14. If "almah" means "virgin" then we have TWO virgin births recorded in the Bible. Jesus is not unique.
And if "almah" does NOT mean "virgin" then we have no virgin birth recorded in the Bible.

He who sits in the heavens truly has a sense of humour!


= = = = = =

The comments to this entry are closed.