Was Jesus the biological son of Mary? If so, why did he not inherit the sin nature?

WAS JESUS THE SON OF MARY?
by Michael R. Burch

Was Jesus the biological son of Mary? If so, why did he not inherit her “sin nature”?

Since Eve was the “original sinner” according to the bible, of course Mary would have inherited Eve’s “sin nature.”

The catholic church’s theologians understood this catastrophic dilemma and thus came up with the nonbiblical “immaculate conception” of Mary, making her an alien free of a human “sin nature.”

Protestants who preferred sola scriptura (“scripture alone”) called this balderdash, which of course it was.

But of course so was the “virgin birth” of Jesus, which the earliest christian writers, the apostle Paul and the author of the first-written gospel, Mark, knew nothing about.

And freeing Mary from her father’s “sin nature” did nothing to free Mary from her mother’s.

It would have taken a chain of “immaculate conceptions” going back to a sinless Eve, to solve this theological conundrum.

Furthermore, the bible admits that Mary was not “perfect” or “sinless.”

In Luke 8:20–21, when Mary and her other sons came to see Jesus, he refused to see them, saying, “My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”

Since Jesus refused to see Mary, she must not have being doing what the word of God instructed.

To further complicate christian theology, there is the problem that the authors of the gospels were the Keystone Kops of religion.

They created a comedy of unintentional errors.

While the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE is my favorite bit of biblical nonsense, the “virgin birth” ranks high on the list.

The authors of Matthew and Mark were unable to read the Hebrew bible and thus found a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah as “virgin” in the Greek Septuagint.

The correct translation of almah is “young woman.”

Furthermore, the young woman in the prophecy of Isaiah was already pregnant at the time and the prophecy had nothing to do with a future messiah. In fact, the prophecy specifically says that everything would be fulfilled within 65 years, centuries before the alleged birth of Jesus.

Out of this mistranslation of a single word having nothing to do with a future messiah, the authors of Matthew and Luke created completely incompatible and irreconcilable “virgin birth” fantasies.

God needed better editors.

Was Jesus the biological son of Mary?

I see three different options:

1. Jesus was entirely mythical and thus had no “mother.”
2. Jesus was a Jewish messiah so obscure that the first christian writer, Paul, knew nothing about his earthly life or family, and thus never mentioned the names of his mother or father. Mary and Joseph were invented later.
3. If there was a real “Jesus” perhaps there was an oral tradition that he was the son of Mary and Joseph, but no one knew anything about them and their biographies were badly-told and contradictory fictions.

I don’t claim to “know” the unknowable, but in the end the result is the same: Jesus, Mary and Joseph became myths, however they originated.