Me again

Brysing, such things are why I question the history of Christianity. It is also evidence of the adoptionist theory -- which was the leading version of the tale for a while, before the establishment of Roman Catholocism, and some Christian sects still teach to this day -- in stead of the immaculate conception tale. Adoptionism teaches that Jesus may have been gifted or extra pious or whatever, and God took him in as son. The tale of his baptism in the River Jordan is another bit which follows adoptionist doctrine. In fact, the baptism of Jesus is the point at which adoptionists teach that Jesus became the son of God and more than just a man, sharing both his biological lineage through his parents and his lineage to God ... according to that particular teaching.

It lies in a deep, deep pile of evidence of editing and additions to Christian scriptures through the years.

Like I said, I believe something away from the mainstream about the historical Jesus character, but I believe I have enough at least circumstantial evidence to explain it, though it would take some time.

prsona, you don't understand Christianity at all. It was Mary who was The Immaculate Conception; not Jesus!

Brysing, perhaps it's a matter of semantics, then. I did not grow up Catholic, but I have learned that certain "Catholic" (as opposed to American Protestant) terms are more broadly understood.

The New Testament claims that Mary fell pregnant without lying with a man (that God literally made her pregnant) -- that was an immaculate conception, which resulted in her giving birth to Jesus.

Adoptionist teachings insist that Mary did conceive the natural way, and then God 'adopted' Jesus as an adult.