Birth of Jesus - Christmas

Regarding the Roman soldier story, was it consensual or rape? Romans were pretty well known for being rapists....just like those in the MAGA party.
Somebody would have to check me on it, but AFAIK neither the Talmud nor the Greek philosopher Celsus openly claim Mary was raped. One might possibly leap to that inference though. Celsus claimed the name of the Roman soldier was Panteras, or something like that.
 
A premarital pregnancy would have been a scandal in first century Jewish Galilee, bringing dishonor to the family of the woman.

Most scholars are predisposed to accept a historical reality of Mary becoming pregnant outside of wedlock. When such a damaging story appears in the gospels the underlying oral or written tradition was too persistent to ignore by first century authors. The Babylonian Torah seems to claim Mary was impregnated by a Roman soldier.

Luke and Matthew get around this problem by using the Hebrew Bible to frame the birth of Jesus in a theological context. The question is whether the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are only based on prophecy, or based on an authentic and long standing oral tradition.

The miraculous virgin birth narrative is only briefly mentioned in Luke and Matthew, composed around 80 to 85 AD.

Authors writing much earlier, Paul and Mark, make no mention of a virgin birth. Paul seems to allude that Jesus did not become divine until after he was crucified.

John and the author of Peter I and II make no mention of a virgin birth.

The gnostic gospel of Thomas and the other recognized Gnostic writings do not mention a virgin birth.

It is remarkable that an event so momentous and unprecedented as a virgin birth fulfilling Hebrew prophecy is not mentioned by these other authors.

Conclusion: the miraculous Virgin birth narrative is a later legendary account composed and framed by Luke and Matthew for theological reasons.
Hah! Look at Cypress trying to mess Christmas up, what an absolute faux intellectual miserable cretin.
Merry Christmas all!
 
Then you would have to explain why Mary in Mark's gospel - which predates Luke and Mathew - doesn't seem to know Jesus is son of God. Mary and Jesus' siblings hear about his ministry and faith healings and seem to think Jesus has gone mad

If the angel Gabriel came to tell Mary the holy spirit would cause her to give birth to the Son of God, why does Mary seem to not understand who Jesus is in Mark's gospel?
Okay, so if Mark predates Luke and Matthew, why is Jesus a grown man at the beginning of Mark? :palm: :rolleyes2:

Who says Mark predates Luke and Matthew?
 
Wow, you're really dumb.
Is that so? So who dated the books of The Bible, cupcake?
Just sayin', logic dictates that chronology where it's recorded a certain someone was conceived and born would be earlier
than reports of the same person being a grown man. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Religious scholars. You're way out of your pay grade if this is your first time hearing Mark is regarded as the earliest gospel.
Linko, Pinko-?
You would turn little children away from Jesus if you could, huh?
WWJD? Get behind me, Satan. In the name of Jesus Christ I command thee.
 
Last edited:
I've never seen a miracle that couldn't be explained by odds or "luck".

Isn't it odd that there were many "miracles" reported in ancient times yet not modern times? I know the Catholic church looks into some things such miracles and sainthood, but, again, I'm not buying as something other than misperception or just the odds.

Consider the Trump assassination. Some claim it was divine providence that he survived. Does that mean God hates the two people who were killed, including the nutjob shooting at Trump, and the two people severely wounded? No, since, IMO, God is all merciful. It's just the odds and examples of human beings making choices.
I think invoking miracles have to be pretty far down the list of explanations.
I do tend to think there is something to fate. How is it we got both Churchill and FDR at the exact right moment, in the face of isolationism in the US and appeasement in the UK?
 
Last edited:
I think invoking miracles has to be pretty far down the list of explanations.
I do tend to think there is something to fate. How is it we got both Churchill and FDR at the exact right moment, in the face of isolationism in the US and appeasement in the UK?
Wilson set the tone for US intervention in wars affecting our national security and economy. Notice that Truman continued to response without blinking an eye. IMO, the War Department briefings clearly laid out the "what ifs" and the consequences of failing to act.

Consider that Obama ran on a promise to get out of Afghanistan and close GITMO. After being seated he did neither and, in fact, the surge. Why? Same reason, the Joint Chiefs of Staff laid out for him, including all the classified stuff, the consequences of various actions.

While the President is, as GW put it, "the Decider", the office of the President is an institution with a large network providing information. Trump blew a lot that off when he was in the White House and, as #elonald, appears to be ready to do it again. The Panama Canal thing is just one example of him going off the rails. The British government is no different. Notice that dictators, be they Hitler, Assad or Putin, don't take input from a large staff. They do what they feel like doing which is exactly what Donnie wants to do.

Would you suggest that Donnie came along at the "exact right moment"? I wouldn't and do not believe you would either. It's just the way it works out.

There's a synergistic effect to well supported democratic institutions that do not exist in dictatorships. Note how fucked up Russia, North Korea and Syria has become. The cracks are beginning to show in Iran's conservative and theocratic government. Same for China although their system and culture do exist on a slightly different plane.
 
Back
Top