The Virgin Mary - or was she?

[gnostic]

I hoped that you don't seriously believe that John built this house for Mary, francine. It looked far too imposing for a former fisherman. The article clearly stated the original structure was 6th century, and has since being restored. This was rediscovered in the 19th century, and some crazy woman had a vision who say that this is the Virgin Mary's house. I hoped you understand why I am so skeptical about traditions, alleged holy sites or sacred relics (bones, hair, hand, blood, etc) of supposed saints.

 

[Smoke]

The article makes it plain the the structure was built as a chapel, not a house, and was built centuries after the time of Mary. Nevertheless, it preserves a tradition, and a tradition was all Francine claimed.

 

[Smoke]

It proves that there was divine intervention in Jesus' birth.

Unless you can prove she was a virgin, her virginity doesn't prove a thing. So it seems to be of no use for that purpose. Joseph and the others seem to have relied on angelic visitations, which they could have had whether she was a virgin or not.

Doesn't that prove my point?

No, just the opposite. Everyone expected him to be named after his father, which they wouldn't have done if it were contrary to custom.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm just wondering how many people during Mary's lifetime would have had any kind of accurate information on whether she was sexually active with her husband or not. I doubt she would have gone around discussing it with her neighbors.

 

[logician]

I'm just wondering how many people during Mary's lifetime would have had any kind of accurate information on whether she was sexually active with her husband or not. I doubt she would have gone around discussing it with her neighbors.

There's not really any hard evidence Mary, Joseph, or Jesus even existed, more than likely a myth similar to pre-existent religious myths of virgin births. See Freke and GAndy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Laughing Jesus" for a historical perspective on the origins of Xianity.

 

[kadzbiz]

It's the Ashkenazi custom now. I don't think it was the Jewish custom then, and if it was, the Christians weren't aware of it. See Luke 1.59-61: And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.......doesn't that prove my point?......No, just the opposite. Everyone expected him to be named after his father, which they wouldn't have done if it were contrary to custom.

I don't follow you. Is says they were going to call him Z after his father, but then the mother said that he'd be called J, which backs up what I said, that the mother does the naming and that they don't name after a living relative or am I still missing something here?

 

[Smoke]

I don't follow you. Is says they were going to call him Z after his father, but then the mother said that he'd be called J, which backs up what I said, that the mother does the naming and that they don't name after a living relative or am I still missing something here?

I'm not sure how else to explain. The assumption was that he would be named Zacharias after his father. That would not have been the assumption if it was the custom not to name a child after a living relative. He wasn't called John because of custom, but because that was the name the angel told Zacharias to give him.

 

[kadzbiz]

I'm not sure how else to explain. The assumption was that he would be named Zacharias after his father. That would not have been the assumption if it was the custom not to name a child after a living relative. He wasn't called John because of custom, but because that was the name the angel told Zacharias to give him.

Oh, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks.

 

[Katzpur]

There's not really any hard evidence Mary, Joseph, or Jesus even existed, more than likely a myth similar to pre-existent religious myths of virgin births. See Freke and GAndy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Laughing Jesus" for a historical perspective on the origins of Xianity.

Given the population of the Holy Land in 34 A.D. or there abouts, the evidence is pretty scarse that any but a few Roman emperors existed, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people did.

 

[logician]

Given the population of the Holy Land in 34 A.D. or there abouts, the evidence is pretty scarse that any but a few Roman emperors existed, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people did.

LAck of evidence is not proof of existence, besides there are reams of information about the Roman emporers written by historians of that time, none of the supposed Jesus.

 

[Smoke]

LAck of evidence is not proof of existence, besides there are reams of information about the Roman emporers written by historians of that time, none of the supposed Jesus.

Jesus was, after all, not an emperor.

I suppose it's the despicable behavior of Christians that makes people so eager to believe that Jesus never existed. Certainly, I never hear of people being so eager to deny that Gautama Buddha, Pythagoras, Hannibal, John the Baptist, Hillel the Elder, or Muhammad ever existed, though there are no surviving contemporary accounts of any of them, and only in the case of Muhammad is there any account written within a few years of his death.

 

[logician]

Jesus was, after all, not an emperor.

I suppose it's the despicable behavior of Christians that makes people so eager to believe that Jesus never existed. Certainly, I never hear of people being so eager to deny that Gautama Buddha, Pythagoras, Hannibal, John the Baptist, Hillel the Elder, or Muhammad ever existed, though there are no surviving contemporary accounts of any of them, and only in the case of Muhammad is there any account written within a few years of his death.

John the Baptist is part of the JEsus myth, saying the the Jesus story is comparable to the other names of history you mentioned simply is not acceptable. The Jesus story is remarkably similar to the stories of gods like Attis, of Phyrigia, Krishna, of India, Dionysus of Greece, and Mithra, of Persia. Do you claim all of these gods were real people too?

 

[Smoke]

saying the the Jesus story is comparable to the other names of history you mentioned simply is not acceptable.

On what grounds?

The Jesus story is remarkably similar to the stories of gods like Attis, of Phyrigia, Krishna, of India, Dionysus of Greece, and Mithra, of Persia. Do you claim all of these gods were real people too?

The Jesus story is also remarkably different from the stories of all those figures. Nevertheless, I agree that much that's in the Bible is fiction. I can accept the fact that Jesus existed without believing all the mythical accretions to his story, just as I can believe that Muhammad existed without believing that he rode a winged horse to heaven, and I can believe that the Buddha existed without believing he came forth from his mother's side after she was pierced by an elephant's tusk. Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp.

 

[logician]

On what grounds?

The Jesus story is also remarkably different from the stories of all those figures. Nevertheless, I agree that much that's in the Bible is fiction. I can accept the fact that Jesus existed without believing all the mythical accretions to his story, just as I can believe that Muhammad existed without believing that he rode a winged horse to heaven, and I can believe that the Buddha existed without believing he came forth from his mother's side after she was pierced by an elephant's tusk. Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp.

Again, the comparison is invalid, so you believe that gods like Attis, of Phyrigia, Krishna, of India, Dionysus of Greece, and Mithra, of Persia all existed?

 

[Buttons*]

Here's a better question... doesn't God impregnating Mary kind of kill her stance on virginity?

 

[Buttons*]

Jesus was, after all, not an emperor.

but according to Biblical stories, he attracted the attention of one Harrod. You'd think that there would be more written about this, at the very least.

I suppose it's the despicable behavior of Christians that makes people so eager to believe that Jesus never existed.

It could be that... but it also could be that people who haven't grown up knowing Christianity think that believing in a man who turns water into wine, raises dead, and walks on water a long time ago was the son of god and consequently your savior.... just doesn't mesh.

Certainly, I never hear of people being so eager to deny that Gautama Buddha,

Loads of people (mostly Christian extremists) will claim that Buddha never existed. I've heard it

Pythagoras,

Now, we believe that Pythagoras existed, only to say that he created a theory about numbers. We don't believe in him like the ancients did. We don't believe that he could raise the dead and walk on water. (Yes, both were said of Pythagoras by his cult followers.) But I'd wager that people who think Socrates was imaginary, also feel the same of Pythagoras.

I skipped some cause I don't know too much of them

or Muhammad

If I remember correctly, he also had tons of wives and children. He was a prophet, not son of God, so it's likely that his story is more believable.

 

[logician]

Here's a better question... doesn't God impregnating Mary kind of kill her stance on virginity?

Better yet, how does virginity imply sinlessness?

 

[Smoke]

Again, the comparison is invalid, so you believe that gods like Attis, of Phyrigia, Krishna, of India, Dionysus of Greece, and Mithra, of Persia all existed?

Why is the comparison invalid?

 

[Smoke]

It could be that... but it also could be that people who haven't grown up knowing Christianity think that believing in a man who turns water into wine, raises dead, and walks on water a long time ago was the son of god and consequently your savior.... just doesn't mesh.

I didn't say I believed all the crap in the gospels. However, the idea that Jesus never existed at all is as great a fantasy as anything in the Bible.

 

[logician]

I didn't say I believed all the crap in the gospels. However, the idea that Jesus never existed at all is as great a fantasy as anything in the Bible.

Really, please back this statement up with proof.