Hello all, christians and muslims both believe in the virgin
birth of Jesus, isnt it possible that mary was having an affair and she
accidentally got pregnant?, but since she knew the people that lived
back then were a superstitious gullible lot, she came up with the lie
that it was god that made her pregnant and the fools believed her,

i personally think she was a really smart woman because up till today her lie is still believed by christians and muslims

if she was alive today she will be a very good politician,

Views: 420

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There was no census. In fact the Roman Empire never conducted a census of the type described in the gospels.
Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times, in 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. There is also evidence that censuses were taken at regular intervals during his reign in the provinces of Egypt and Sicily, important because of their wealthy estates and supply of grain. In the provinces, the main goals of a census of non-citizens were taxation and military service. The earliest such provincial census was taken in Gaul in 27 BCE; during the reign of Augustus, the imposition of the census provoked disturbances and resistance.

"When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations."Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus
Additionally, the claim in the bible is that people had to physically return to the city of their birth for the census. This is the bit that is oft-refuted. Makes no logical sense in any day and age.

But, if you are trying to make your myth fit a prophecy, say, the bit about where the hero is supposed to be born, you want to underscore that point. Rather than just "They were from Bethlehem" create a plot vehicle to take them there. It gives the place-name in the story more weight and significance.
There is another alternative we seem to be overlooking.

Assuming that Mary and Jesus existed as real live persons in history, it is most likely that she was married to Joseph when Jesus was born, and perhaps already had other children. ("Whoring" could be a dangerous business in 3 BC, and no self-respecting or observant Jew would marry a woman carrying a child he could not account for.)

The whole virgin birth was a late contrivance to elevate the status of Jesus by his followers long after his death. In fact, good evidence for such an interpretation can be found in the gospel account saying that at one point Jesus' family thought he was crazy, based on some things he was saying. If there had been a virgin birth, his family would have known who he was and not questioned what he did.

But back to my main point, just because there was no virgin birth is not very convincing evidence that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock or that Mary was a whore.
The nativity accounts are in only 2 of the 4 canonical gospels. Both gospels pose a profound contradiction in presenting a kingship descent ("son of David") from Joseph's patriarchy as well as a virgin birth. Non-canonical gospels and early patristic apologist John Martyr (ca. 150) mention the virgin birth but not the Messianic kingship descent. Some scholars claim that the virgin birth was a later contrivance, but notice that the genealogical accounts remain in contradiction.

Even if not original to the accounts, I believe this indicates we are dealing with hagiographic literature here, and not historical reportage. Both types of nativity manifested in the narrative resonated with ancient peoples in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. It was as if the original authors were stating, "take your pick, what is your preference?"
No she wasn't. The catholic church started that bull. She was high born. And probable one of the people Jesus loved best. I am a Atheist who has studied the bible and the history of how it was put together.
Was Mary a whore? I think that would be giving her too much credit. Whores are independent and admirable people. Mary was a taciturn, passive figure. This comparison is insulting to any whore.
Interesting take on it Tom!
Nice. Well said. Whores are hard working and committed to their profession, unlike this one who gave up on just the first try.
I prefer not to use use the word whore for a woman who chooses to keep the father of her child a secret. It is a matter of personal choice, women have the ability and someone didn't follow up his screws well enough. That said lets think logically, now how many of us men actually do follow up on our one nights and screw ups (condom burst ...) all along. So lets give the gentleman a break, it happens so what if his child became famous. The child is just a scapegoat, the "sacrificial lamb" for the Politicians!! of the world. Muslim faith allows the ruler to profess his words as Gods words so Christians needed their version too, now it cant be all bad. After all no one is exporting the money made in this whole game out of the planet just yet!



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service