141 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

Ides plus 12, on 23 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

Ben:

I must say that I am deeply impressed with the historical perspectives you bring-up.  Anyone who dismisses you as being 'argumentative' is missing-out on what you bring to the table.  I wish we had all the answers and I can't wait for the day when all is revealed.  We can't ignore what is substantiated in history; unfortunately, the historical record is incomplete... what a shame that the Great Library of Alexandria was burned for much of the historical record was lost there.
The most notable thing about the story of Yeshua is that after 2000 years it is still a hotly debated story--almost self-evident that it is no ordinary story.

Ides plus 12, I don't say this with pride, because I wish it had not been true, but not every thing got lost in the flames of the fire in the Great
Library of Alexandria. This tragic episode was recorded by the Talmud, which was not burned in that fire. As I said, I am not proud to remind you of
that, because I wish it had not been that way.
Ben

[curseofhe44]

I would like to add my opinion to this if I may. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god. So, for me to believe that Mary was impregnated by a divine "hand" is ridiculous. My view is that there was indeed something else going on. In those days, women who were raped by soldiers were typically socially ostrasized or even stoned or beaten to death. So, if she were pregnant by rape, she would need to conceal that. If she is married, yet the baby is to another man, that was most certainly a death sentence. Now, here is a pregnant Mary, married to Joseph, and claiming the child is not HIS, but GOD'S. Huh? Nice story. Nice cover up. SOMEONE important knew she was pregnant by another man so she couldn't say the baby was Joseph's. Therefore, what to do? Hey, isn't there a legend of a messiah to be born? Yeah? Well, guess what? An angel said...

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Perhaps, Mary was so divine.  Maybe she "liked" this guy/soldier.  Maybe not.  Maybe it was rape.  Maybe this guy took her batting eyes in a way she didn't expect.  In any case, in order to live, the pregnant Mary had to make up a good story BECAUSE SOMEONE KNEW THE TRUTH.  When your life is on the line, you will do anything.  Jesus was just a man.  He was no son of God.  And Mary was like today's trailer trash.  Can anyone say, "Who's yer daddy?"

[Ben Masada]

HuttonEtAl, on 23 April 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

I think aliens planted Jesus inside of Mary.

Well, that would have been not so tragic an option. However, any thing but to bring the Greek myth of the demigod into Judaism.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Beckys_Mom, on 23 April 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

I used to think that with a few of Bens posts... But I no longer feel that way.... I feel he has a right to post up his beliefs  just like the rest of you...  If his beliefs  do not fall into your own, that's just  one of those things...  


Your beliefs do not match  mine,  yet if you post up what you see God as  ect,  I will not call it bait all because it is not what I personally believe.... See what I am saying?

Wow Mom, thanks! That was a tonic.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 25 April 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[J. K.]

Here's something that people don't usually think about.  Here Jesus is referred to as a demi-god.  If God is capable of supplying the male side of a conception, why could He not also supply the female side: creating a wholly divine sperm and egg.  Mary was not the biological mother; she was just the surrogate mother.

[Ben Masada]

curseofhe44, on 25 April 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I would like to add my opinion to this if I may. I am an atheist. I do not believe in any god. So, for me to believe that Mary was impregnated by a divine "hand" is ridiculous. My view is that there was indeed something else going on. In those days, women who were raped by soldiers were typically socially ostrasized or even stoned or beaten to death. So, if she were pregnant by rape, she would need to conceal that. If she is married, yet the baby is to another man, that was most certainly a death sentence. Now, here is a pregnant Mary, married to Joseph, and claiming the child is not HIS, but GOD'S. Huh? Nice story. Nice cover up. SOMEONE important knew she was pregnant by another man so she couldn't say the baby was Joseph's. Therefore, what to do? Hey, isn't there a legend of a messiah to be born? Yeah? Well, guess what? An angel said...

Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Perhaps, Mary was so divine.  Maybe she "liked" this guy/soldier.  Maybe not.  Maybe it was rape.  Maybe this guy took her batting eyes in a way she didn't expect.  In any case, in order to live, the pregnant Mary had to make up a good story BECAUSE SOMEONE KNEW THE TRUTH.  When your life is on the line, you will do anything.  Jesus was just a man.  He was no son of God.  And Mary was like today's trailer trash.  Can anyone say, "Who's yer daddy?"

Wow! Curseofthe44, I hate to agree with atheists, but hey! I must admit. You have hit the head of the nail on this one. Not that I wish we were
right, but if things went the way we take them, neither you nor I am at fault. Guilty are those who forced this idea with the intent to enhance
Jesus divinity by denying the natural way for man to be born.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 25 April 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Here's something that people don't usually think about.  Here Jesus is referred to as a demi-god.  If God is capable of supplying the male side of a conception, why could He not also supply the female side: creating a wholly divine sperm and egg.  Mary was not the biological mother; she was just the surrogate mother.

So, why all the mystery about hiding what really happened? Wouldn't the truth have avoided all the anxieties Mary and Joseph went through? For
heaven's sake, the lady could have been stoned to death! No, this case is worse than Swiss cheese; full of wholes.
Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 25 April 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Listen Paranoid, I have a question for you. As you know by now, I am Jewish. I have set before me the Tanach, which is the Bible of Judaism and the NT, which is the Christian Bible. While the Christian Bible vandalizes Judaism with the message of a Jewish demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman, I have also the testimony by Celsus that Jesus could have been born as a result of a rape by a Roman soldier. Since there is no such a thing in Judaism, what do you think I should go with, the NT or Celsus? Do you want to know who is at fault here? Neither myself nor Celsus but the NT. If the NT had pickep up a Greek to say that Mary had been conceived by the "Holy Spirit" to bear Jesus, we would not be having this discussion today. But, for heaven's sake, give me the benefit of the doubt. Jesus was a Jewish man and not a Greek.
Ben

And while I fully and totally agree with your Right to believe as per your Jewish heritage, the fact remains that Christians don't see Jesus as a "demigod".  Jesus was not a half-man/half-god as some others were (Hercules, for example).  Jesus was born of a human, but he was not half/half.  He was fully and 100% human, and he was fully and 100% deity.  I understand that you don't believe this, and I at no time have required that you agree with me.  I'm just saying that the demigod of Greek mythology is totally different, whether or not you agree with Christians.

But I will give you the benefit here - Jesus was Jewish, not Greek.  Though I don't think this supports what you want it to support, so again we rejoin our carousel of joy

~ PA

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 25 April 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

And while I fully and totally agree with your Right to believe as per your Jewish heritage, the fact remains that Christians don't see Jesus as a "demigod".  Jesus was not a half-man/half-god as some others were (Hercules, for example).  Jesus was born of a human, but he was not half/half.  He was fully and 100% human, and he was fully and 100% deity.  I understand that you don't believe this, and I at no time have required that you agree with me.  I'm just saying that the demigod of Greek mythology is totally different, whether or not you agree with Christians.

But I will give you the benefit here - Jesus was Jewish, not Greek.  Though I don't think this supports what you want it to support, so again we rejoin our carousel of joy

~ PA

Let us do this: Since Jesus was a Jewish man, as you have agreed with me above, IMHO, there is just one way to minimize the charge of vandalism of
Judaism in the NT; to find in the Tanach an evidence to support the case of Jesus as a full man and full God. I am all ears.
Ben

[shadowhive]

Personally my issue is the immense suspension of disbelief required to accept that a person is the child of/is a deity.

Today if a woman came told someone that she had an experience like Mary and had a virgin conception would she be believed? Not a chance. Yet an account 2000 years ago is believed without a thought on a global scale.

The most believeable explanation of Mary's pregnancy is that she simply had sex. Was it consentual? We may never know. However if she was raped there's the possibility that the experience was so traumatic her mind simply blocked it out (which is known to happen). If that she was the case then she genuinely BELIEVED it was a virgin conception.

So assuming that the conception was the result of natural causes, what about Jesus? Well, it would make him a normal human being. However he would also have been bought up in an environment where the people around him believed he was divine because of his virgin birth. That could easily have led to him believing his own hype and truly believe that he WAS the son of god. Again, this could very plausibly have happened.

Personally that's far more believeable than the virgin birth.

[eight bits]

I'd just like to put in a word for the lady's reputation here. There are only two sources for the virgin birth, Matthew and Luke. These were written, according to a non-axe grinding estimate, around 80 CE (or later), which is to say, comfortably 80-85 years after Jesus was conceived, and so plausibly well after Mary herself had died.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Neither source depicts Mary telling this story to any human being.

In Matthew Joseph tells himself the good news in a dream, 1: 18 ff. Apparently, Matthew includes this incident because of his opinion about what Isaiah meant by a "young woman will conceive." This is the same author who has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys, because of how he translated another passage of the Hebrew Bible.

In Luke, the question of telling Joseph doesn't come up. Mary discusses the matter only with Gabriel, in chapter 1. Gabriel is vague about the mechanics. Mary could just as easily be asking him whether it was permissible for her to have sex with her intended, with Gabriel assuring her not to worry about pregnancy. She is a virgin at the time of the vision, according to Luke, but this text  is silent about her sexual history at the time of her delivery.

So, it is unbiblical that Mary volunteered an account of the paternity of her unborn child to a human being. In fact, we have no record of any human being telling another human being about the supposed paternity of Mary's firstborn until one Christian told other Christians the story three generations later.
-

Edited by eight bits, 26 April 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Ben Masada, on 25 April 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Wow Mom, thanks! That was a tonic.
Ben

Well I feel your posts make a change from  the usual posts and threads I read  usually about  the same religion for years.. and so this makes a new change for once...  I know your posts are like the rest on here, all based on beliefs...but  I find  now  more informative...  It is good to have a change.. Something new...

[and then]

shadowhive, on 26 April 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

Personally my issue is the immense suspension of disbelief required to accept that a person is the child of/is a deity.

Today if a woman came told someone that she had an experience like Mary and had a virgin conception would she be believed? Not a chance. Yet an account 2000 years ago is believed without a thought on a global scale.

The most believeable explanation of Mary's pregnancy is that she simply had sex. Was it consentual? We may never know. However if she was raped there's the possibility that the experience was so traumatic her mind simply blocked it out (which is known to happen). If that she was the case then she genuinely BELIEVED it was a virgin conception.

So assuming that the conception was the result of natural causes, what about Jesus? Well, it would make him a normal human being. However he would also have been bought up in an environment where the people around him believed he was divine because of his virgin birth. That could easily have led to him believing his own hype and truly believe that he WAS the son of god. Again, this could very plausibly have happened.

Personally that's far more believeable than the virgin birth.

Yet many believe in the virgin birth.  I look on it as folly to attach the "normal rules" of humanity to God.  As Creator He can do anything He wishes.  Some, like myself, take this as being as believable as tomorrow's sunrise.  Others think it so silly that a person has to be very dumb to accept it.  And I think God understands both opinions.  If the existence of a creator needs proof beyond the creation itself then maybe it is the person seeking the proof who needs to re-evaluate.  Thomas wanted to see the nail prints.  Jesus showed them to him but then told him that others would be blessed who did not need to see to believe.  I'm not catholic and therefore am not as grievously offended at some of the comments about Mary.  But some things being said in this thread are simply disgusting and unnecessary.  I believe that someday we will all answer for "every idle word".  And that last was not aimed at you, Shadowhive...

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 25 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

So, why all the mystery about hiding what really happened? Wouldn't the truth have avoided all the anxieties Mary and Joseph went through? For
heaven's sake, the lady could have been stoned to death! No, this case is worse than Swiss cheese; full of wholes.
Ben

I assume by "hiding what really happened" you refer to their journey to Egypt?  Keep in mind that at that time in the history of the Jews, God had not moved overtly for several hundred years.  If Mary had revealed what the angel had told her, few would have believed her.

[shadowhive]

and then, on 26 April 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Yet many believe in the virgin birth.  I look on it as folly to attach the "normal rules" of humanity to God.  As Creator He can do anything He wishes.  Some, like myself, take this as being as believable as tomorrow's sunrise.  Others think it so silly that a person has to be very dumb to accept it.  And I think God understands both opinions.  If the existence of a creator needs proof beyond the creation itself then maybe it is the person seeking the proof who needs to re-evaluate.  Thomas wanted to see the nail prints.  Jesus showed them to him but then told him that others would be blessed who did not need to see to believe.  I'm not catholic and therefore am not as grievously offended at some of the comments about Mary.  But some things being said in this thread are simply disgusting and unnecessary.  I believe that someday we will all answer for "every idle word".  And that last was not aimed at you, Shadowhive...

I do think it's rather 'silly' to believe such a thing. As I said, if a similar situation happened today would people honestly believe a woman at her word alone as readily as they have done in this case?

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and religion is one of those things I'm extremely skeptical of because none of it makes a damn bit of sense. I'd require actual proof of these things that you take at face value and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

You're creator may be able to 'do anything he wishes' but I see a lot of people suffering and dying in this world, a lot of which pray to this creator and guess what? He doesn't do anything. To me that says a lot.

And I don't mean to ofend in what I say about her, I just gave a real alternative that we know could account for her claim of 'virgin' birth.

Edited by shadowhive, 26 April 2012 - 04:59 PM.