The Virgin Mary - or was she? (Jesus Christ, reject, Earth)

[Hope]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I understand that to a person who shares your belief system, virgin motherhood is more believable than lifelong virginity. But that's one of the things that's so very odd about your belief system. If I told you my cousin never had sex with her husband after her child was born, you might be more likely to believe that than if I told you she never had sex with anybody before her child was born.

Of course. A virgin birth is a miracle, and I've already admitted one has to have faith to accept a virgin birth with Mary.

But unless your cousin is "chosen" by God for some special purpose like Mary was, then there's no reason I have to believe any of your story.....your comparison isn't valid.

Do you imagine that "sinful human nature" is inherited through the father, and only through the father?

I honestly don't know. For all we know, Jesus didn't share any of Mary's genes either. The Bible doesn't shed any light in this area. It simply says Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit. And because it was the Holy Spirit's work, and not the natural joining of two sinful human beings, Jesus didn't inherit sin.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I think we have pretty good evidence that Jesus existed, and we can assume that he had parents; most people do.

I think people who don't believe Jesus existed often confuse the person of Jesus with all the mythological beliefs that are added on to Jesus. You can believe that the Buddha existed without believing he came out of his mother's side after she was pierced by a white elephant's tusk; you can believe that Alexander the Great existed without believing he was a son of Zeus or even a descendant of Heracles; you can believe that George Washington existed without believing the cherry tree story. Many historical persons have been the subject of mythological fantasy.

If you have to "believe" someone existed then there isn't much hard evidence that that person did live. In the case of Jesus, there really is no hard historical evidence a man remotely similar to the biblical Jesus ever existed.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

If you have to "believe" someone existed then there isn't much hard evidence that that person did live. In the case of Jesus, there really is no hard historical evidence a man remotely similar to the biblical Jesus ever existed.

You sure are stuck on this whole "Jesus never existed" thing, aren't you?

Perhaps you need to get with the times, my friend. Because you are in the minority. Most people with any kind of education know Jesus was in fact a historical person. All they have to do is look at the evidence (which, apparently, you are in denial about...).

MB already explained you don't have to believe all the Biblical stuff surrounding Him, but to deny His existence completely is to put one's head in the sand, essentially.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Hope

You sure are stuck on this whole "Jesus never existed" thing, aren't you?

Perhaps you need to get with the times, my friend. Because you are in the minority. Most people with any kind of education know Jesus was in fact a historical person. All they have to do is look at the evidence (which, apparently, you are in denial about...).

MB already explained you don't have to believe all the Biblical stuff surrounding Him, but to deny His existence completely is to put one's head in the sand, essentially.

OK, please list all of this obvious "hard evidence" of the existence of a man named Jesus who fit the stories of the Bible. It should be easy.

[Ringer]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

OK, please list all of this obvious "hard evidence" of the existence of a man named Jesus who fit the stories of the Bible. It should be easy.

From Wikipedia:

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.However, a very small minority argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Hope

I honestly don't know. For all we know, Jesus didn't share any of Mary's genes either. The Bible doesn't shed any light in this area.

I'm having trouble seeing Jesus as an alien implant in Mary's womb, with no human ancestry.

Originally Posted by Hope

And because it was the Holy Spirit's work, and not the natural joining of two sinful human beings, Jesus didn't inherit sin.

That seems to put you in Augustine's camp, believing that it's sexual intercourse that causes original sin. Frankly, though, I think Augustine was a disturbed individual. Does the Bible actually say anything at all about Jesus' sinlessness being the result of his virgin conception?

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I'm having trouble seeing Jesus as an alien implant in Mary's womb, with no human ancestry.

That seems to put you in Augustine's camp, believing that it's sexual intercourse that causes original sin. Frankly, though, I think Augustine was a disturbed individual. Does the Bible actually say anything at all about Jesus' sinlessness being the result of his virgin conception?

I completely agree with the above two statements.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

If you have to "believe" someone existed then there isn't much hard evidence that that person did live. In the case of Jesus, there really is no hard historical evidence a man remotely similar to the biblical Jesus ever existed.

I'm using "believe" in the sense of acknowledging something as likely, not in the sense of having faith.

Personally, I think the evidence of Paul is convincing. Paul was in conflict with James, with no reason to ascribe fictitious credentials to him, but still acknowledged James as Jesus' brother. Why would he do that, unless James was in fact known to be Jesus' brother? Also, the Book of Acts, which is little short of a propaganda piece for Paul and his system of Christianity, acknowledges that James was the leader of the Jesus community at Jerusalem. At the "council" of Jerusalem, there is in fact no council. The arguments are presented, and then James makes a decision. James is also mentioned by Josephus. All in all, I think it's reasonable to conclude that James did exist, that he led the Jesus community at Jerusalem, and that he was in fact Jesus' brother.

Then there are the gospel accounts. While they obviously have some mythical elements, they also have elements that wouldn't be likely to be included unless they were true. For instance, when the Pauline church was plugging away trying to convert Gentiles, why would the gospel writers have Jesus saying he was sent only to the Jews, unless that was a well-known saying of his? Why would the Pauline church depict Jesus as having been baptized by John (who baptized "for the remission of sins") unless it was well-known that Jesus had been baptized by John? In fact, the baptism of Jesus by John is so startling that even the authors of the gospels seem to have had a problem with it -- they show John protesting; they show the Holy Spirit descending. Clearly, Jesus' baptism is something that requires explanation. It's just for that reason that most scholars think Jesus' baptism by John is one of the most certainly established facts of Jesus' life.

Now, if you want "hard" evidence -- a birth certificate, a deed to a house, or something like that, you're just not going to find it. You're not going to find that kind of evidence for very many people at all from antiquity. Jesus was a wandering sage and "healer"; he wouldn't have issued coins with his portrait on them or erected any memorial stelai. But the evidence that he existed is actually better than we would expect. The reasonable conclusion is that he did, in fact, exist.

Does it follow that every detail of the gospels is accurate? Of course not.