Originally posted by Phil Hill There is no reason to doubt she was pregnant when she didn't sleep with a man? Can you provide another incidence of any woman actually giving birth to a child without being touched by a man? If not, you have plenty of reason to doubt.
She probably had sex with someone other than her husband.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Why does she need to be ovulating?
Surely Jesus had none of Mary's DNA ???
Therefore no egg required.
i think she was a surrogate
She needs to be ovulating because there was a claim made that it was common for women at the time to be married and birthing children at age 12 or 13, justifying the estimate that Mary was ~46 when Jesus died.
Originally posted by Phil Hill So you disagree with what the bible says, then why believe the myth?
I believe there were Pharoahs too. They're in the Bible. I read critically. I don't take or dismiss the whole thing based on individual bits of writing.
Sure, Mary might have given someone a hand job and then fondled herself or something, but I believe Jesus had a human biological father. He may not have penetrated her but semen did react with her egg somehow.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Sure, Mary might have given someone a hand job and then fondled herself or something, but I believe Jesus had a human biological father. He may not have penetrated her but semen did react with her egg somehow.
Since you do not believe the Holy Spirit had anything to do with it, then you must not believe that God created the first humans. Are you one of those that believe in the hypotheses of abiogenesis?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I believe there were Pharoahs too. They're in the Bible. I read critically. I don't take or dismiss the whole thing based on individual bits of writing.
Yes, but if you are not going to accept the virgin birth, then you might as well accept the most likely explanation of all - that the writer of the gospel knew practically nothing about Jesus' early life and made it all up to fit with OT prophesy.
Originally posted by twhitehead Yes, but if you are not going to accept the virgin birth, then you might as well accept the most likely explanation of all - that the writer of the gospel knew practically nothing about Jesus' early life and made it all up to fit with OT prophesy.
Why do you think it's more likely that a religious zealot would lie about something like this then that a pubescent girl got knocked up and lied about it or was confused about it?
Girls that age get pregnant all the time and they will often lie to avoid embarassment.
When Celie’s cursing mother asks who fathered Celie’s baby, Celie, remembering Alphonso’s command to keep quiet, says the baby is God’s because she does not know what else to say.
Do you think Jesus' mother was someone other than Mary? Why?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Why do you think it's more likely that a religious zealot would lie about something like this then that a pubescent girl got knocked up and lied about it or was confused about it?
Because I find it highly improbable that the Gospel writer knew anything about Jesus' early life. I also think that even he had heard about it, he would not have believed it, nor bothered to record it, unless his main purpose was to support OT prophesy.
Remember that we are talking about someone writing about 100 years or more after the events in question.
Its also blatantly obvious that most of the other details of Jesus' conception and birth were equally made up to fit prophesy. Or do you really accept all the census, killing of infants and wise men stuff?
Originally posted by twhitehead Because I find it highly improbable that the Gospel writer knew anything about Jesus' early life. I also think that even he had heard about it, he would not have believed it, nor bothered to record it, unless his main purpose was to support OT prophesy.
Remember that we are talking about someone writing about 100 years or more after the events in quest o fit prophesy. Or do you really accept all the census, killing of infants and wise men stuff?
I haven't studied the prophecy stuff, but many of those prophecies were self-fulfilling e.g. there's one where he rides into town on a donkey or something. It's not hard to ride into town on a donkey when you know that's what the prophecy says.
Do you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
It says that most people think Luke is in error about that part of the story and that it's inconsistent with the other Gospels. That being said I don't think it's hard to move to another town so the child is born there.
Do I believe Zoroastians followed a star to Jesus and called him King of the Jews? Maybe. They liked to look at stars. Maybe it was a "falling star".
Originally posted by AThousandYoung I haven't studied the prophecy stuff, but many of those prophecies were self-fulfilling e.g. there's one where he rides into town on a donkey or something. It's not hard to ride into town on a donkey when you know that's what the prophecy says.
Do you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
It says that most people think ...[text shortened]... King of the Jews? Maybe. They liked to look at stars. Maybe it was a "falling star".
Since you believe in abigenesis, I see no point in your study of the Holy Bible at all. You are just wasting your time. Study chess instead. 😏
Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents - I do not doubt for a second that a King in ancient times would have infants murdered because of a mystical prophecy that threatened his rule.
Moses and his people did something similar in Egypt. I don't believe for a second the firstborns were killed by any sort of mystical being. I think Moses and his followers snuck out and murdered those kids.
25 Aug '12 07:24
Did Mary outlive Jesus?
Back to Top