Basic Instinct director Paul Verhoeven is set to publish a book which claims that Jesus Christ's father was probably a Roman soldier who raped Mary during the Jewish uprising in Galilee.

Verheoeven's revisionist biography of Jesus will come out in September, following more than 20 years of research.

The Dutch film-maker has had a lifelong ambition to make a film about Jesus based on scientific research, and decided to write the book to raise interest in his film project.

In it he also claims that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot.

His publisher, Amsterdam-based Meulenhoff, is in negotiations for an English-language translation.

Verhoeven, who turns 70 in July, has been a regular attendee of US scholar Robert W Funk's Jesus seminars, which question miracles and statements attributed to Jesus.

Article here: Link

--------------------------------------------------
Makes more sense and logical that jesus was the b****** child of a Roman soldier from rape then the b****** child of 'god'.

Mary was probably too scared to tell the truth because they would have likely stoned her to death in those times thanks to their 'holy' book.


Source - Biblegateway.com

Women are treated so horribly in the book.

I totally agree, Kratos. It really blows my mind how people can believe in a mystical conception, but get all up in arms with a logical explanation.

Christians will have him drawn and quartered.

This is an old theory that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. There simply is no proof of this anywhere and is just conjecture. History though has not much to offer at all on Jesus so from a historical view any theory of his birth is pure conjecture.

On the other hand the Spirit in believers testifies that the Spirit can do many wonderful things. This proof of course is reserved only for a few so no one is expected to believe this nor has to.

Cannot wait to see the movie though should be interesting. I am sure there will be debates and the media will eat it up since it makes good business and creates press for both the movie and whoever even cares to make it their mission to defend the Faith in the media eye. As if the God needs any defending by us mere mortals *rolls eyes* they would clearly just be wasting their time to make it into some national campaign IMHO

It's an old story. It may have been circulating since Tiberias. Plus, it's already been done: Agnes of God (a nun is pregnant and her recollection is that an angel visited her, and her recollections suggest rape - by a worker in the gardens.)

BTW, angel comes from the Greek angelos - which means messenger. Greek messenger god: Hermes. Hermes had wings on his sandals. So, please, please, please make the link between messenger of/to the gods (wings on the sandals) to the Hebrew messengers (without wings) - they morph into - yes! angels with wings on their backs...

It does not take much to send any fundamentalist off, but I think inquiring minds who see that an actual historical figure must once have existed that started a trend that changed the world have a right to make theories and do investigations as much they do with any other part of history.

Well, "if" Christians start jumping up and down within Mainstream News Reports, then this could well be another $$$spinning "Da Vinci" epic.

What I mean, is:
It sounds like a good money-making story-line.
If an author can convince a film producer -- and if they produce a "block-buster", then they all succeed, and have lots of $$$ in the bank.

"Live long and prosper", I say,
Karlis

Good points about angels lmbeharry. And that is not so true Bella there are a few on both sides of the aisle that enjoy debate between science and faith but the majority of people could care less of their petty squabbles.

Well we know for sure that it wasn't divine intervention......But rape ?? I always thought a better theory might be that Joseph was her husband and the father of her baby......I mean in those days, why would a man hang around a woman if they weren't hubby and wife, especially if she was pregnant ? IMO....

I have NO doubt it WILL make money The Christian fundies WILL raise cain about it though, guarantee that. Remember Mel Gibson's The passion of the Christ(or whatever it was named) and how big of a stink it caused.? Imagine what this will do. I predict pandemonium.

Aaaaah. The mystery of Joseph. You know that in Roman Catholicism he is the patron saint and protector of "virgins."

BTW, congrats on almost 1900 posts!

Thanks sweetie......

I wish I could post more but the kiddies keep me busy......

Women were also treated horribly in the Bible.

I suspect that one of the basis for this claim is the translation of "parthenos" that can suggest a virgin woman but can also be used for a pregnant, unwed woman. There was a claim that Mary was from a city (the name escapes me) that had been plundered by the Romans with most of the women raped. At any rate, this will no doubt become another issue that has no resolution.

Just goes to show you that fools will do ANYTHING to try for their fifteen minutes of fame. As I saw demonstrated nicely in the film "There will be blood," the condition of human greed is capable of inspiring all sorts of evils. This filmmaker is another perfect example of this. He obviously has no fear of a disconcerting afterlife.

::sigh::
Oh Yetihunter, I love reading your remarks when it appears that someone is disparaging your belief, but I also love the fact that you don't seem to mind bringing others down, particularly, in fact specifically, those who don't believe what you believe.

I personally don't really adhere to this theory because I don't believe that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. But keep in mind, Yetihunter, that the OP said that the filmmaker has done 20 some odd years of research. Thats a lot of research.

There are people who walk around with sticks in their butts too! The guy could be a satanist for all I know. He may have spent twenty years studying the mating habits of the chinchilla for all I know. Now, when do I ever put people down for their beliefs? I may disagree with them - but i've been very good about sticking to the opinion that people can believe whatever they want. I respect that and you know it. So yes I may get upish if I feel my side improperly attacked, but I don't advocate intentional smashing of others from the standpoint of mocking their beliefs as a general rule. Sure, I'm going to have a hard time accepting some stuff (like Raeleism sp?) with a straight face. I probably would do some jesting for some truly crazy stuff, but hey, I'm only a man.

I've heard it as well but it should be interesting to see what's dug up and his own theories on the subject. Though it's far more rational and in a train of thought then a god got Mary knocked up.



Niether can I. I want to see his research laid out.

No doubt it'll create a media storm in the christian circles but thankfully today we have free speech and this film maker won't be murdered by the church and it's followers.



Fools? There is more rational thought and logic to this story then the story of a 'god' coming down and knocking up Mary for the next messiah of earth.

The christian story is like telling the world that the moon is made out of cheese and that it's just as valid as the claims that the moon is made up of rock and other matter that isn't cheese.

Well there's not much thought and logic behind your insulting comments of Jesus' mother is there? If I can't insult YOUR mother on this thread why would you insult Jesus'? Shut up!

Aw, come on, none of that.

Could have swore I defended her actions somewhat because in the time she would have been murdered by the believers for her 'sins'.

So we can't question the validity of christianity and those involved in it? Give me a break. This is 'Spirituality vs Skepticism' section. If you don't like people questioning your faith, don't click into this section because skeptics have just as much right to talk about their beliefs as you do.

Now if you don't mind... Lets all get back on topic please.

No matter how much or how long one studies, with the sources available, it is impossible to say for fact who was the father if attempting at all to give credence to this theory. While it is interesting, a theory among several, to take any of them as fact would be folly. This is why no Christians should protest this because they are wasting their time. I think the only people who will be hyping this up are people blinded by the Bible, either those who hate it and see nothing else, or those who defend it and see nothing else.

I will go see the film myself. We should not forget the person behind it is a director of both Basic Instinct and RoboCop, two movies that used to be favorites of mine, but he is in show business and not in academia. Though his theories are from scholars.





http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11247

I agree.

Please avoid personally attacking other members you disagree with, lets keep the discussion civil.

Thank you.

There's normally cutting down on the more unlogical ones and using the method of deduction to find the few that would make more sense like the rape of a roman soldier, pre-*spam filter* between her and Joseph or another guy... All leading to a b****** child which I bring up also is because in those times and in that place it was looked very unkindly to have sex out of married and to have a child out of wedlock regardless of the situation. The OT mentions it a few times I believe.

A magical being swooping down to set a baby in Mary is about as logical as a beach ball giving Mary the baby. They both hold the same weight in theory. So I fail to see how it can even be accepted rationally as one of the top theories of what really happened. It would have to be cut in the first round of deductions.

Then read the book... In 7 months time.

And satanist? They don't even worship anything in your religion...

There are no illegitimate children born to a married couple unless the father refuses to claim the child, refuses the child having his surname, and rejects the child as a *Legitimate Heir*.

That is all it denotes, whether one is an heir or not.

Pronunciation:
\ˈbas-tərd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to OldFrisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
Date:
14th century

They were married at the time of the birth.

1: an illegitimate child

-------------------------------------------

As far as I know there is no word in the English language to describe a child born to the wife of a man that the man did not father but claimed as his child.

There is more than one school of Satanism. There are witches, not Wiccan or any other of the earth based reconstructionist religions, who are Satanist. These type of Satanist do oppose Christianity and while I will not go into how they perform their rites I will say they have made attempts at visiting churches before. These are adults and not teenager pranksters, and those exist as well, but adults who seek the destruction of individual churches one at a time. Some cast spells, none you will find in a Book of Shadows sold at amazon.com, though I am aware some keep more authentic Books of Shadows like scrap books sort of that have more significance. Some of these other type of witches visit churches and do weird things during the service. Others join the churches and become members then slowly spread lies and gossip while attempting to seduce various of the congregation. Some might not believe this but in fact there are these type of Satanist and if the church is not strong in the Spirit it might fall apart. Some have in the past.

Bravo Bella, and as a culture we should encourage more of this ....

So do I, We just don't know enough about jesus, in fact not enough to really say one way or the other........i wasn't aware that some scholars consider this as a viable story, but i will watch this movie myself and decide for myself ...

I have heard the old theory too....

Many people would be suprised at me. I fit the exact criteria of a candidate of Robert W Funk's Jesus seminar. A non-Christian Bible Scholar. However, I do not agree with them.

While I am open to spiritual things being real, and equally open to the Bible being just a fairty tale. The Jesus Seminar seems to have too much of a hostile approach to Christianity. Many of it's key members seem to only want to attack spirituality and religion. And thus, are biased.

I also find that their methods of opperation are not as scientific or as sound as I think they should be. There are many people out there with similar goals as the Jesus Seminar, but go about it far better.

It also saddens me that it's members (including John Dominic Crossan ) are often the first one's called for documentaries now. Which just ads to the fact that their opperation brings sensationalistic results, that are not necessarily sound. They rely on people's ignorance. How many people are fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, etc? It does not seem to be a lot. So they tell people things, from their scholarly research, and it seems as though they know what they are talking about. Take anything you hear from them with a grain of salt.

They would be pagans (broadly speaking of course)...

Satanists, especially LaVeyan satanists, worship themselves.

Some witches would oppose the churches... Being that the churches used to burn them and all. Can't much blame them for their hatred to the church.

Paul Verhooven... He directed Robocop and Starship Troopers~ Should be a fun book he's making =D

Many do oppose the church but few would take it to attempt to destroy one. There are really Satanist, not the Satanic Bible types who believe in self, but the ones who commune with evil spirits and their main objection is to be, not a mockery of the church, but an active enemy of it. I am not sure if Pagan is a right word for that type or not. I would just view them as the opposite of Christianity, while Paganism has nothing to do whatsoever with the church at all, historically or presently.

Uhhh, do you really think Mary ever saw a Holy book in her whole life? Much less read one? I'd think not considering women typically didnt' learn to read, common man or woman didnt' have reading materials, certainly NOT in their possesion, and what they did have would have been kept in temples for religious leaders only. And there would have been no "book" per se... some scrolls in a temple somewhere sure, but not a book, certainly not one she could pick up from a common vendor or Barnes and Noble.

Pagan Roman and Greek women would have been stoned and otherwise beaten or killed by their pagan spouses, fathers or brothers had they found themselves in the same situation as Mary. Just ask Caesar Augustus' daughter Julilla (or Julia the Younger) whom Augustus banned to remote island, while she was pregnant, he had the baby killed and Julilla starved to death for having an affair.

It was hardly a holy book problem back in that time period ... it was cultural, probably stemming from an absolute necessity for men to know who is legitimately able to receive the families wealth upon the patriarchs death.

Mel Gibson's movie got the big stink not because of what it did to Christ but supposedly made the jews the bad guys.

He's just saying "Hey look at me! I haven't done anything since I made Sharon Stone spread her legs on camera! Pay attention to me America!!"....

I also find this theory really offensive. Also, original topic start.....was it necessary to refer to someone whom some consider their savior as the b@$tard child of God? It wasn't necessary. If you don't believe in God or Jesus, cool. Doesn't mean you have to be so inconsiderate to others though.

But there's no verifiable historical evidence of Jesus ever existing, either, as you stated..... No remains, no historical records, nothing..... so all we can do is speculate as to what happened and why. We can't say for sure that what happened in the Bible really happened, no matter how much anyone wants to believe in it. Belief does not equal the truth.

Belief does not equal truth. But that does not mean that truth trumps belief in the least. I am sure for some people it does but for others they can balance both beliefs and proven truths without contradiction.



Excellent and well balanced posting. Thank you for the historical insight it is always a pleasure to learn something new especially if it has anything to do with history.

It's not inconsiderate, Walking. It's a legitimate theory. Roman soldiers were expected by their leaders to rape women belonging to non-Romans during conquest. It's not surprising at all. It was to be expected from them, and if the soldiers refused, they were tortured. And calling Jesus a, well, you know the word, isn't offending at all, considering that's the actual definition of the word. If you believe Jesus is your savior then fine, but don't go bashing theories and calling them inconsiderate because they don't conform to your beliefs. People are not going to sugar-coat things like this just so Christians won't get upset. If you don't like the theory, then don't read it.

The theory is whatever, doesn't bother me. Believe what you want. The fact that the topic starter refered to him as a, you know, was what I found inconsiderate. I'm sure there is a less vulgar way to put it.

Daniel, this post is not an attempt to call into question the validity of the christian faith on my part, but in all fairness from an academic historuiacl perspective (keeping in mind many scholars are christian) the gospels are rot considered accurate hsitorical accounts or actual events that took place........these are a few reasons why ...

1) some of the accounts of events are told in the other gospels but clear discrepencies exist( there are courses to study the gospels) many

2) some of the accounts are implausibale because of what we do know historically.....

3) we know these stories could not have happened but are aware in the relgious context they are meant to convey 'teachings" about jesus( if indeed this was an actual person) ...

sort of like George washington and the cherry tree we know this didn't happen historically but we are trying to emphasize a point about our country and often use stories when dealing with children to help them grasp points.... ...Or the tooth fairy but i am sure you get my point.....



the bible is full of these stories( which were common in those days) we have to use great care when we are thinking they are historially accurate and really happened as we can see many have been harmed ( mel gibson is no exception, I think he feels that his movie really happened its not uncommon..... then intolerance and hatred get passed on instead of what these stories are intended for....as a culture we have to excersise great responsibilty when we profess to 'know the truth' and have to have a profound emphathy for what our ancestors didn't know and the stories they spun based on waht they did think they knew. .....just a thought hon....

Even me, a Christian, has very little concern for the mythos surrounding his conception, death and resurection. The details simply don't matter.

I was more annoyed that the OP blamed the "holy book" which was ridiculous. It was cultural, most of the cultures practiced stoning and killing women for a variety of transgressions. If Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier, she was a bright girl to have claimed her child to be conceived of God. She wouldn't have been the first to have done it either. There's speculation that Alexander the Great's mother did this... she, if I'm not mistaken claimed Alexander to be the offspring of Dionysis. Probably because he wasn't really Phillip's son.

If Jullila hadn't been such a royal flake, she probably could have claimed her child to have been the child of a god and she wouldn't have been executed. But because she was a greedy feather head, Augustus didn't like her much, her husband was a whiner, and adultry was the LEGITIMATE way for Augstus to get rid of her.

I believe that Mary was given the child by a supernatural being or at least because of supernatural circumstances.

In todays world the incredible, the amazing, scientific wonders, and technological miracles happen everyday and people take that for granted. Even with all this happening people present logic in the face of an ever growing and changing world that is not yet fully understood. There's plentry of room in the incomplete understanding of people and Earth for the paranormal to exist.

My point being is that truth of how Jesus was conceived was way ahead of its time back then and even still way ahead of todays time.

Verheoeven makes excellent movies so despite what i believe i will definetly go see this when it comes out.

Oh my does this mean the Christians are going to riot in the streets. I don't here anything, so I guess not.

It makes more sense than a virgin birth. I think Mary and Joesph were fooling around and oops, they beat the wedding. Is the message any different because of his parentage. But then I'm not a Christian and I am not so sure Jesus lived, much less his parents.

So because someone else does it, it's perfectly ok? That's not cool at all.

Also in case you haven't noticed it's the year 2008 now and that 'holy' book is still preaching the same ugly bigotry and oppression towards women.



He has every right to talk about his theories and they're based on more rational thought then "god did it!" in terms of deduction and finding out the truth. In all mythology there is always some back story to gods, goddesses, things and all the rest that are founded in earthly truth.

I didn't think many christians would agree with it.

It's a technical term... Last time I checked in the story of god and mary hooking up and having baby jesus that they were never married therefore that does make jesus a b****** child. I am talking from my atheist point of view. I'm not a believer and not going to talk like they do. Perhaps using your logic I should ask christians to never speak about sinning, hell or anything else negative against nonbelievers? That would have the same chance of happening as hell freezing over.

Posts like this always give me the slight feeling that they are attempting to dissuade believers in believing. That if biblical historians in academia believe this and this and this did not occur in the Bible then it cannot be true so we should all just toss faith out the window. While many things might very well be symbolic like the Genesis account of creation it does not take away from the fact that believers do not need science to say that Jesus was not conceived of the Spirit. When one believes and gives in to the Spirit and actually feels it and sees it at work that is proof for us that we have a new spiritual life and that Jesus did rise from the dead on the third day. I am not saying this to say science is wrong but to say that science has no business in telling believers that we are wrong. We are well within our right to say 'we know the truth' but would be in the wrong to say 'you have to believe our truth'. That applies to both believers and non-believers.

1) Discrepancies exist only because everyone has a different view point. You can have an incident today or just a simple recounting of an event and all eye witnesses will give a different account. That does not prove the incident or event did not occur.

2) Some of the accounts are implausible 'to academia' because of what they know and can prove using methodology and scientifically derived facts. On the other hand science cannot explain many things, from how exactly megaliths were built, to what some people experience today.

3) biblical historians will claim that some of the stories did not happen but were just allegorical illustrations to convey a message. That does not mean they know what exactly happened and even though they consider their view truth some who are believers know better.

Oh come on Kratos, you can do better than that LAME rebuttal. I know you can.

That likely has more to do with the men claiming they are the Bible and less to do with the Bible itself. When Christianity first started one of the reasons it became popular was mainly due to Roman women who found it liberating. They were able to find leadership positions in the church while they were only opressed within Roman society. They were able to be treated as equals finally including in marriage where the scriptures specifically state that in marriage the woman belongs to the man but likewise the man belongs to the woman. The Catholics started the trend of supressing women again but that does not mean that one is unable to follow the Bible more purely and treat each other as equals.




http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/997533

pssstt... he's adopted.

clovis, in anticipation of a reaction such as this i posted this: this is not an attempt to call into question the validity of the christian faith on my part, but in all fairness from an academic historical perspective (keeping in mind many scholars are christian) the gospels are rot considered accurate historical accounts or actual events that took place........these are a few reasons why ... etc etc.....


there is the pov from the beleiver ( I do not dispute that ) and details and evidence are not a factor. that is fine with me what ever works for another ...but thats not the only people that come to UM or to the skeptical side, we have alot of historians and scholars or just people who are interested in what we do know historically and I iinclude this pov too, alot of threads don't and we have to be gracious to all the posters ......... .. I use my posts to be all inclusive and consider the whole when i can...
its not personal please don't make it that way, there is nothing to defend,your rights aren't being violated... or in question.....????? I understand relgious expression but its not the only one hon.............,....

.also any personal beefs are to be taken to pm just so you know.....

LOL, smarty pants.