Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Offending the god botherers

I think Mary had children before she had the baby jesus.

I think the "virgin" bit refers to the nature of the conception, i.e it was "immaculate" insofar as there was no sweaty rumpy pumpy with god.

and who, prithee, witnessed/corroborated/gave a contemporary account of this per @woopert 's contention regarding whether there is evidence for what is written in the gospels.

We know that no registered medical practioner or medical board examined her and confirmed she was a virgin so who did? Was it one person or several? Do the Christian scriptures specify who verified that Jesus's mother was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

I'm not arguing about whether she was a virgin or not - I'm asking how Christians can know that she was a virgin.

And while we're about it - why out of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. How come Mark and John didn't even mention such an extraordinary detail?.

Are Christians aware that among the Jews since Bible times, family/tribal lineage is patrilineal? This means that if Jesus's mother was a virgin, Jesus could not be a descendent of the house of David and therefore he could not be the Messiah.

@scarbrough - perhaps you can help us out with explaining this?
 
I would have thought that the tone and gist of my post indicated I was not really a huge believer in the "virgin birth".

Similarly the "lifelong atheist" post might have been a clue.

I'm a big fan of Laplace, who when asked by Napoleon why there was no mention of God in his book on science replied "I had no need of that hypothesis sire".
 
and who, prithee, witnessed/corroborated/gave a contemporary account of this per @woopert 's contention regarding whether there is evidence for what is written in the gospels.

We know that no registered medical practioner or medical board examined her and confirmed she was a virgin so who did? Was it one person or several? Do the Christian scriptures specify who verified that Jesus's mother was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

I'm not arguing about whether she was a virgin or not - I'm asking how Christians can know that she was a virgin.

And while we're about it - why out of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. How come Mark and John didn't even mention such an extraordinary detail?.

Are Christians aware that among the Jews since Bible times, family/tribal lineage is patrilineal? This means that if Jesus's mother was a virgin, Jesus could not be a descendent of the house of David and therefore he could not be the Messiah.

@scarbrough - perhaps you can help us out with explaining this?
So we are going down the straw man argument of the appeal to authority whereby you will only accept as fact that which is certified by the academics/professionals whose credentials you accept as valid in your own mind? I'd suggest that let's say there was a medical board that examined her and that the medical board was versed in the first century with the equipment, knowledge, and techniques of the 21st. BY logical extension are you therefore saying that any corroboration immediately invalidates itself a hundred years hence when you could reasonably presume that there will be further advances in medicine that make current medical practice look positively barbaric in comparison? Or are you happy to settle for a 17th Century understanding of "humours" and a bit of blood letting?

If you are going to enter into any meaningful debate you have to have a common definition of what you are debating, otherwise the sands are always shifting.

So the Protoevangelum of James makes reference to a women or women who acted in a sort of midwifery role in Nazareth examining Mary after the birth, which was attested to by those present at the time. If we agree that we are not holding 1st C Palestine to the same medical standards of 21st C Britain, we can be as sure as knowledge was able to ascertain then, that Mary was a virgin.

On the basis of proof by balance of probability Mary would have been betrothed by about the age of 11 or 12 with the intention that she would have married by consumation when of child baring age. Luke 1:34 deals with that one, so she would have lived in Joseph's house with a chaperone until that time came.

The "scandal" of Mary bearing Jesus and the patriliniage issue is dealt with in John 8:41 - but it was widely accepted that Joseph was of the House of David and that Mary was his betrothed which makes Jesus of the same House. Again, there would be a grave mistake if applying the 21st C concept of "marriage" in a legal sense to that of 1st C Palestine without first understanding what a covenant is.

As for the literal omissions between the synoptic gospels, I've already covered that. The differences in descriptive detail do not challenge the account and that is because when something happened that was common in the culture, nothing was said about it. We write the same way today, leaving out any details that everyone knows by custom and culture. If we read in the newspaper that a thief drove down the road for miles while being chased by police, we do not think, “Drove? What is ‘drove?’ I wonder how he got down the road all that distance?” We all know what “drove down the road” means, so we exclude the details when we write about it. Similarly, if I tell someone, “I called Dan and talked with him,” it is clear from our culture that I called on a telephone, even though I do not say it.
 

theoriginalphantom

MIA
Book Reviewer
I would have thought that the tone and gist of my post indicated I was not really a huge believer in the "virgin birth".

Similarly the "lifelong atheist" post might have been a clue.

I'm a big fan of Laplace, who when asked by Napoleon why there was no mention of God in his book on science replied "I had no need of that hypothesis sire".


Bollocks, I bet he said it in French.
 
I think Mary had children before she had the baby jesus.

I think the "virgin" bit refers to the nature of the conception, i.e it was "immaculate" insofar as there was no sweaty rumpy pumpy with god.
It's a plain as the nose on your face as to who it was knocked Mary up
























1611254375951.png
 
I do believe that this thread is drifting far to much for safety.

All religion is based on fairy stories, and anyone believing in any of it should really be sectioned.

There is zero evidence for the existence of any supernatural beings, and trying to rationalise it is ridiculous.


(With the obvious exclusion of Santa Clause when m'granddaughter is about)
 
So the Protoevangelum of James makes reference to a women or women who acted in a sort of midwifery role in Nazareth examining Mary after the birth, which was attested to by those present at the time. If we agree that we are not holding 1st C Palestine to the same medical standards of 21st C Britain, we can be as sure as knowledge was able to ascertain then, that Mary was a virgin.

Let me get this straight - you believe that it is possible to determine that a woman was a virgin until she became pregnant by examining her AFTER she gives birth?
 
Let me get this straight - you believe that it is possible to determine that a woman was a virgin until she became pregnant by examining her AFTER she gives birth?
You're trying to get sense out of a god-botherer?

Wasting your time mate. Religion is just an early form of Qanon nuttery.
 
Let me get this straight - you believe that it is possible to determine that a woman was a virgin until she became pregnant by examining her AFTER she gives birth?

Well it does look like Jesus had older siblings so Mary clearly wasn't virgo intacta.

Maybe she went to Thailand for one of those muff repair operations.
 
Let me get this straight - you believe that it is possible to determine that a woman was a virgin until she became pregnant by examining her AFTER she gives birth?
In a barn, in the Middle East, a few thousand years ago.

Yeah, of course!
 
but it was widely accepted that Joseph was of the House of David and that Mary was his betrothed which makes Jesus of the same House.

This is categorically untrue.

Jewish law determines whether a person is Jewish by whether his biological mother is Jewish, while family and tribal line is determined patrilineally.
That is the way it has always been and that is the way it is now (I invite you to study this area of Jewish law so you can see for yourself).

I'm Jewish because my mum's Jewish and I'm a Levite because my dad's a Levite.
If Jesus's biological father wasn't descended from the house of David, neither was Jesus.
No amount of apologetics, attempts to alter the facts to fit the story or deliberate misinformation can ever change that.

If you continue the way you've been failing here to provide any proof whatsoever that Jesus's mother was a virgin (or even how anyone could have known she was a virgin), a trace of logic might be found in your story after all.

Of course we haven't even started yet on how you're going to prove that Joseph was descended from the house of David.
 
Last edited:
This is utterly incorrect. You have obviously been lied to.

Jewish law determines whether a person is Jewish by whether his biological mother is Jewish, while family and tribal line is determined patrilineally.
That is the way it has always been and that is the way it is now (I invite you to study this area of Jewish law so you can see for yourself).

I'm Jewish because my mum's Jewish and I'm a Levite because my dad's a Levite.
If Jesus's biological father wasn't descended from the house of David, neither was Jesus.
No amount of apologetics, attempts to alter the facts to fit the story or deliberate misinformation can ever change that.

If you continue the way you've been failing to provide here any proof whatsoever that Jesus's mother was a virgin (or even how anyone could have known she was a virgin), a trace of logic might be found in your story after all.

Of course we haven't even started yet on how you're going to prove that Joseph was descended from the house of David.

Are you telling me the baby jeezus was a 4x2?

Did he convert?
 
Christians claim he was Jewish.
Not sure if that is stated anywhere in the Bible, it is however a common assumption, not that that constitutes proof.
I have heard that even the Muzzies accept that JC existed and recognise him as a minor prophet.
It still surprises me that Christianity has just about conquered the world whereas as Judaism, which is a lot older, has stagnated at around 14 million.
Why should one brand of sky fairy worship be so much more widespread than another to which it is related?
 
All this talk of virgin birth/immaculate conception is all very well and good, but there is a hair in the soup.
According to an article in scientific journal decades ago (cannot remember the title) whereas virgin birth is a theoretical possibility, the only snag is that the baby will only have the mothers genes, it will therefore be a carbon copy of the mother. Of course one could argue that seeing as God had a hand in the matter then anything is possible, a very convenient argument, but it does presume a lot and no proof.
 
Not sure if that is stated anywhere in the Bible, it is however a common assumption, not that that constitutes proof.
I have heard that even the Muzzies accept that JC existed and recognise him as a minor prophet.
It still surprises me that Christianity has just about conquered the world whereas as Judaism, which is a lot older, has stagnated at around 14 million.
Why should one brand of sky fairy worship be so much more widespread than another to which it is related?

Put simply, Judaism is an ethno-religion - the religion of a specific ethnic group - the Jews, and limited to them. A Jew is anyone born to a Jewish mother.
Orthodox Judaism forbades trying to encourage anyone to become Jewish and strongly tries to discourage any non Jew who becomes interested in converting.

Regarding numbers - orthodox Jews take the Biblical command "Be fruitful and multiply" literally - the rest of us are just randy sods. Mind you, just a few decades ago, the Germans reduced our numbers by no less than six million.

Correct about the Muslims btw - they regard him and a fair few others as prophets (not THE prophet).
 
All this talk of virgin birth/immaculate conception is all very well and good, but there is a hair in the soup.
According to an article in scientific journal decades ago (cannot remember the title) whereas virgin birth is a theoretical possibility, the only snag is that the baby will only have the mothers genes, it will therefore be a carbon copy of the mother. Of course one could argue that seeing as God had a hand in the matter then anything is possible, a very convenient argument, but it does presume a lot and no proof.

I don't think that would necessarily be a problem for Christians but the fact that the product of an immaculate conception can't be a descendent of the house of David does rather put the kibosh on their entire house of cards.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought that the tone and gist of my post indicated I was not really a huge believer in the "virgin birth".

Similarly the "lifelong atheist" post might have been a clue.

I'm a big fan of Laplace, who when asked by Napoleon why there was no mention of God in his book on science replied "I had no need of that hypothesis sire".

Yes sir I wasn't trying to preach to the converted - just giving @woopert and @scarbrough a chance to clarify things and make some sense out of the apparent insanity.
 
Top