If Jesus was born of a Virgin - then he should be she ~!

I believe that Jesus was an alien woman. Men would never admit that Jesus was a woman. They changed her sex to confuse her and others when she made her return.

Originally posted by 1BornPatriot
if I understand of how the sex is determined in humans.... that is .... So what ?
well, good question - I'm not sure .... I think the stories, beliefs and insights of Jesus are more Female than Male,
a male would have been killed long before challenging authorities Females were property in that time. so, Jesus .... was a She .... Hum, I dont know - but I thought it was a good point of debate on ATS... what say you... here is the facts I Found ... interesting thoughts - like if Jesus was a Female - how come we think of Jesus as a male... and if he was a Male how could he be born without a male chromosome... and how could a Male expect to live after chasing the bankers out of the temple .... a Female would be able to do that without challenge .... ???? I really dont know about this one.....

You forgot this:

"Luke 2:21 - On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived."

--

Have you been circumcised?

There's your answer.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
way to try to be a pragmatist but we all know that is not the point the bible was trying to make.

it clearly states that mary would bear a child who was not fathered by a man but by Jehovah and if the whole point of the bible is to illustrate the differences between God and man then it's kind of silly to attempt to blur God and man into the same thing.... but seeing as how you are unbeliever obviously then there is no point in referencing Mary AT ALL.... OR THE BIBLE.

Why are you trying to explain a book in a pragmatic light that you don't even believe at all?

that makes NO sense.

Hi NAA,

No offence intended, but it is much easier to write about something after the fact, and from a different perspective due to the timeframe differences. Witness Paul creating all sorts of "Beliefs" about Jeshua's death while the real followers made no such claims.. until Paul usurped James' position as the head of the then fledgling church.

That changed everything, it made Jeshua a God who rose up to Heaven after saving us all from our sins through his death. Very, very different to the facts of the day for sure... and so very different to what the real followers of Jeshua had been saying.

With Mary and the latter day immaculate conception lie.... the only way Mary was a virgin is in not bearing a son to her second husband.. until she bore Jeshua. She did have two children by her former marriage.. a girl and a son called "James". The emphasis of the immaculate conception was a latter addition.

It matters not that I disbelieve the Bible. in fact it should make me clearer in my perceptions because I am not being forcefully Limited by adherence to such a Belief-System.

No offence intended, just trying to bring some important realism to the discussion.

Why is everyone arguing over a fictional character?

I really don't get why people even bother arguing with Christians. It is like trying to teach a pig to sing, it will get you nowhere and just make the pig angry.

www.youtube.com...
this is a really good debate

Originally posted by Tayesin

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
way to try to be a pragmatist but we all know that is not the point the bible was trying to make.

it clearly states that mary would bear a child who was not fathered by a man but by Jehovah and if the whole point of the bible is to illustrate the differences between God and man then it's kind of silly to attempt to blur God and man into the same thing.... but seeing as how you are unbeliever obviously then there is no point in referencing Mary AT ALL.... OR THE BIBLE.

Why are you trying to explain a book in a pragmatic light that you don't even believe at all?

that makes NO sense.

Hi NAA,

No offence intended, but it is much easier to write about something after the fact, and from a different perspective due to the timeframe differences. Witness Paul creating all sorts of "Beliefs" about Jeshua's death while the real followers made no such claims.. until Paul usurped James' position as the head of the then fledgling church.

That changed everything, it made Jeshua a God who rose up to Heaven after saving us all from our sins through his death. Very, very different to the facts of the day for sure... and so very different to what the real followers of Jeshua had been saying.

With Mary and the latter day immaculate conception lie.... the only way Mary was a virgin is in not bearing a son to her second husband.. until she bore Jeshua. She did have two children by her former marriage.. a girl and a son called "James". The emphasis of the immaculate conception was a latter addition.

It matters not that I disbelieve the Bible. in fact it should make me clearer in my perceptions because I am not being forcefully Limited by adherence to such a Belief-System.

No offence intended, just trying to bring some important realism to the discussion.

you're not getting my point.

My point is why analyze any little would be/ could be/ should be point about the bible if you believe none of the story.

wouldn't it save you time to dismiss the entire book as fiction rather than selectively pretending that every other part is real except the one you are currently picking at for the moment.

I could just as easily say that Jesus was still the son of Jehovah as the story goes and the corrupter of the text changed words to make it seem like Jesus had brothers just because he referred to them as brothers... which is not uncommon even if there is no relation.

That's like saying "there CAN'T be any such thing as a magic flying Christmas sled full of toys because Santa was way too fat to stay in the air"

You see, it's like you... a hypothetical unbeliever in Santa just made him real suddenly, in order to dismiss another aspect of the entire story and I don't see what the point is.

Yeah, and the movie gremlins isn't real because everyone knows mythical creatures don't have dietary restrictions so the only way Gizmos pals could have turned evil is if the Chinese guy had cast a spell on them!

I mean like WHAT ARE YOU SAYING.

"The only way mary could have been a virgin is....."

Oh yeah? Is that the ONLY alternate scenario you can pan out in a story you consider to be false therefore all bets are in?

WOW... You're imagination is pretty good until it goes against your point, huh?

Have you ever stopped to think if the bible is incorrect, maybe Jesus had no older siblings by mary. Maybe it is indeed as simple as that and Maybe... just maybe the conception story is one of the few REAL parts?

It might even be called artificial insemination in this day and age but in other ages I'm sure it would be called sorcery and people would be burned for it if it were exposed.... OH HOW TIMES CHANGE.

jesus was not born of a virgin......

I hate occams razor..... but doesnt it say in the bible when mary met joseph she was pregnant?????

" oh hey joseph,, i really like you lets get married " - mary

" i love you too,, i will take this fine virgin to be my wife" - joseph

" Oh,,, hmmm....... HEY!! how did this get here" - mary

" hmmm.... well you are a virgin,, couldnt have had sex before you met me with anyone from your village or an occupying roman solider..... therefore it has to be the child of the spirit of GOD!!!,,,, HORAYYYY" - joseph

Originally posted by ImaFungi
jesus was not born of a virgin......

I hate occams razor..... but doesnt it say in the bible when mary met joseph she was pregnant?????

" oh hey joseph,, i really like you lets get married " - mary

" i love you too,, i will take this fine virgin to be my wife" - joseph

" Oh,,, hmmm....... HEY!! how did this get here" - mary

" hmmm.... well you are a virgin,, could have had sex before you met me with anyone from your village or an occupying roman solider..... therefore it has to be the child of the spirit of GOD!!!,,,, HORAYYYY" - joseph

no, they were engaged prior to her pregnancy according to the story but were not yet married.

Joseph had a dream and then accepted the circumstances. his first thought was to put her away.

reply to post by NotAnAspie

Have you ever stopped to think if the bible is incorrect, maybe Jesus had no older siblings by mary. Maybe it is indeed as simple as that and Maybe... just maybe the conception story is one of the few REAL parts?

It might even be called artificial insemination in this day and age but in other ages I'm sure it would be called sorcery and people would be burned for it if it were exposed.... OH HOW TIMES CHANGE.

I've actually read a pretty good argument, from the present day Nazarene's, based on writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that a group of high priest were "breeding" holy women, or "temple virgins" for the purpose of being the vessel that the coming messiahs were prophesied. They didn't believe that "GOD" would inseminate a female, it never crossed their mind. So they all mixed their semen together, and midwife would inject the mixture into the virgin, never knowing who the father was.

Some people today believe that is the origin of the conception of Jesus. A planned, virgin birth. They believe that Jesus was raised in a communal Essene community never knowing who his father, being taught that he was the messiah from childhood.

I have no opinion either way. I'm just the messenger.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

Have you ever stopped to think if the bible is incorrect, maybe Jesus had no older siblings by mary. Maybe it is indeed as simple as that and Maybe... just maybe the conception story is one of the few REAL parts?

It might even be called artificial insemination in this day and age but in other ages I'm sure it would be called sorcery and people would be burned for it if it were exposed.... OH HOW TIMES CHANGE.

I've actually read a pretty good argument, from the present day Nazarene's, based on writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that a group of high priest were "breeding" holy women, or "temple virgins" for the purpose of being the vessel that the coming messiahs were prophesied. They didn't believe that "GOD" would inseminate a female, it never crossed their mind. So they all mixed their semen together, and midwife would inject the mixture into the virgin, never knowing who the father was.

Some people today believe that is the origin of the conception of Jesus. A planned, virgin birth. They believe that Jesus was raised in a communal Essene community never knowing who his father, being taught that he was the messiah from childhood.

I have no opinion either way. I'm just the messenger.

Any story involving a circle jerk that lead to a cold pot luck sperm mixture is disgusting but it is a theory... and evidence that there is not "only one way" Mary could have been a virgin.

There's another theory that Mary was not Jesus's mother at all... who might have likely been Egyptian royalty instead that sent Jesus with his siblings with Mary and Joseph because his life was in danger and that coincides with some of the story.

I tend to feel Jesus grew up elsewhere and then came back when he became an adult. Perhaps to the Himalayas near a trade route. I tend to feel since childhood he was viewed as different and singled out and sent to live among monks and was perhaps even castrated. Both of which could oddly be done to save his life but I wont get deeper into the hypothetical details of possibilities.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


"Circle jerk, cold potluck!"



Why didn't I say that? (Slaps forehead)

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by ImaFungi
jesus was not born of a virgin......

I hate occams razor..... but doesnt it say in the bible when mary met joseph she was pregnant?????

" oh hey joseph,, i really like you lets get married " - mary

" i love you too,, i will take this fine virgin to be my wife" - joseph

" Oh,,, hmmm....... HEY!! how did this get here" - mary

" hmmm.... well you are a virgin,, could have had sex before you met me with anyone from your village or an occupying roman solider..... therefore it has to be the child of the spirit of GOD!!!,,,, HORAYYYY" - joseph

no, they were engaged prior to her pregnancy according to the story but were not yet married.

Joseph had a dream and then accepted the circumstances. his first thought was to put her away.

ok,, yes now i remember.....

so my thoughts are that they were engaged,,, she cheated on him or was raped and either way to ashamed to tell him,,,,

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

you're not getting my point.

My point is why analyze any little would be/ could be/ should be point about the bible if you believe none of the story.

wouldn't it save you time to dismiss the entire book as fiction rather than selectively pretending that every other part is real except the one you are currently picking at for the moment.

I could just as easily say that Jesus was still the son of Jehovah as the story goes and the corrupter of the text changed words to make it seem like Jesus had brothers just because he referred to them as brothers... which is not uncommon even if there is no relation.

That's like saying "there CAN'T be any such thing as a magic flying Christmas sled full of toys because Santa was way too fat to stay in the air"

You see, it's like you... a hypothetical unbeliever in Santa just made him real suddenly, in order to dismiss another aspect of the entire story and I don't see what the point is.

Yeah, and the movie gremlins isn't real because everyone knows mythical creatures don't have dietary restrictions so the only way Gizmos pals could have turned evil is if the Chinese guy had cast a spell on them!

I mean like WHAT ARE YOU SAYING.

"The only way mary could have been a virgin is....."

Oh yeah? Is that the ONLY alternate scenario you can pan out in a story you consider to be false therefore all bets are in?

WOW... You're imagination is pretty good until it goes against your point, huh?

Have you ever stopped to think if the bible is incorrect, maybe Jesus had no older siblings by mary. Maybe it is indeed as simple as that and Maybe... just maybe the conception story is one of the few REAL parts?

It might even be called artificial insemination in this day and age but in other ages I'm sure it would be called sorcery and people would be burned for it if it were exposed.... OH HOW TIMES CHANGE.

For the WHY question you asked a couple of times in different ways.. because the thread title is..

"If Jesus was born of a Virgin - then he should be she ~!"

In which case the first reply I made was on topic and pertenant to the discussion about Mary by providing historical evidence for WHY Mary was not a Virgin. I pointed this out so that people would see that the whole Immaculate Conception concept was based on a misunderstanding about the Hebrew Marriage system of the time.

This one small fact SHOULD require Believers to reassess their Indoctrinated Belief-system. But that is a large ask for Believers to even consider.

The elder siblings information comes from recorded histories of the area, not from the Bible, so the argument you proposed would be a falsehood too.

I struggle to understand why you went into attacking mode so quickly, other than your beliefs were questioned. You then proposed a whole set of arguments for where no argument was being laid. This is a Symptom of a larger problem.

If our Beliefs are challenged, and we have a negative reaction to that, then we need to look within ourselves to understand WHY we behaved in such a manner, as this is what caring, growing human beings do in such situations. To do otherwise is to be Dishonest with ourself first.

Please try to understand I did not come here to argue with anyone. I simply supplied some basic information regarding the topic of the thread. In which case I am sorry for you to be offended and recommend the above course of action.

Be well.

reply to post by Tayesin

This one small fact SHOULD require Believers to reassess their Indoctrinated Belief-system. But that is a large ask for Believers to even consider.

One would think.

Shoot for the stars my friend. In the meantime, some people won't let "fact checkers" spoil their crusades!

reply to post by 1BornPatriot


Humans will never come close to understanding divinity. If you try to understand the mysteries of faith, you will most likely Fail, like a dog trying to drive a car. His ways are as far away from our understanding as is the earth from the stars.

Give up on your pondering and fall on your knees. - Michael Card.

Nothing is impossible with God.

Originally posted by Tayesin

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

you're not getting my point.



Have you ever stopped to think if the bible is incorrect, maybe Jesus had no older siblings by mary. Maybe it is indeed as simple as that and Maybe... just maybe the conception story is one of the few REAL parts?

It might even be called artificial insemination in this day and age but in other ages I'm sure it would be called sorcery and people would be burned for it if it were exposed.... OH HOW TIMES CHANGE.

For the WHY question you asked a couple of times in different ways.. because the thread title is..

"If Jesus was born of a Virgin - then he should be she ~!"

In which case the first reply I made was on topic and pertenant to the discussion about Mary by providing historical evidence for WHY Mary was not a Virgin. I pointed this out so that people would see that the whole Immaculate Conception concept was based on a misunderstanding about the Hebrew Marriage system of the time.

This one small fact SHOULD require Believers to reassess their Indoctrinated Belief-system. But that is a large ask for Believers to even consider.

The elder siblings information comes from recorded histories of the area, not from the Bible, so the argument you proposed would be a falsehood too.

I struggle to understand why you went into attacking mode so quickly, other than your beliefs were questioned. You then proposed a whole set of arguments for where no argument was being laid. This is a Symptom of a larger problem.

If our Beliefs are challenged, and we have a negative reaction to that, then we need to look within ourselves to understand WHY we behaved in such a manner, as this is what caring, growing human beings do in such situations. To do otherwise is to be Dishonest with ourself first.

Please try to understand I did not come here to argue with anyone. I simply supplied some basic information regarding the topic of the thread. In which case I am sorry for you to be offended and recommend the above course of action.

Be well.

It's not a problem with your beliefs. I think your merthod of thinking is awkwardly compartmentalized and I became alarmed because if that if how you decide what's real then HOLY CRAP. You could easily miss something right under your nose and I don't know why but that scares me.

Hey check out this verse

1 Corinthians 15:3-7
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Now it says 5 hundred brothers.

Yeah, yeah... totally different situation right... whatever. We are SO clear on who considers who a brother because apparently it can vary greatly... but None of this means that Joseph or any other man is Jesus's father because maybe Mary just found him NOR would it need to be true that Mary had sex with anyone before Joseph even IF the whole "Son of God" story was a lie.... and God knows that we can't trust the bible but we can trust some so called records. I'm not feeling that. I think you'll be pressed to convince me on that one.

So you think that they needed to make up the whole son of god story and therefore made up this lie that Mary was a virgin when she allegedly had other older children... so why not just pick some other kid? A firstborn or only child if you saying he was real yet not special. It makes no sense that you assume you have this all figured out like you were there and it can be no other way. It can be LOTS of other ways. They're adopted for example. They are kids of Josephs yet consider Mary their mother but was born before they were married. Lot's of other ways it could be.

If they simply wanted to support a lie that he was the son of God or important in some way, The virgin birth lie is not proof, nor is it necessary to carry the lie. The lie could be carried many more convincing ways then to give the oldest trick in the book when a woman lies about her virginity in the marriage bed. Why would MEN think other MEN would believe such a story and never question Mary's virginity? That is the LEAST buyable excuse for the lie. They would have been better of claiming to find him in the wild like they did Moses and say God himself put him in the basket.

My main point is this. You have a THEORY... Not a conclusion and it is really irking me that you assume you have a conclusion. It isn't healthy so don't you dare try to put that weirdness off on me again like I have some kind of problem because that is exactly what I was thinking about you.

reply to post by 1BornPatriot


Cool question & I learned a lot from the thread posters, so S&F. I still can’t help thinking of religious texts like old sci-fi flicks; in that, the more we understand about science, the more readily we identify the bad special effects.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


Hi again NAA,

To offer some insight, I do not have any Beliefs. I am not attached to any one or more Belief-Systems. So I am able to freely move about beyond the limitations of all Belief-systems in order to freely observe and perceive without such limitations being imposed upon me.

In which case I can take information out of their respective pidgeon-holes in order to view the larger picture made by them.. which is somewhat freeing also.

"Comparmentalised" does not apply to this discussion as the entire thread is only about one aspect of the story, hence why I am focusing more on that aspect than any other.

Yes. Historically speaking, it was Saul, who became Paul, that made up the whole Jesus as God and the resurrection story. He wrote about these things to a few churches while he was on his own self-proclaimed mission in other countries... a Letter to Corinthians being one of those letters he wrote.

At no time did the fledgling church have any knowledge about such things, nor did they push such things in their agenda... remembering now that it was 'James' the older blood-related brother of Jeshua who was head of that church at the time. It was not until Paul returned to Jerusalem and spent time speaking about these things to the followers of Jeshua that he was able to usurp James as the leader and then pursue his own agenda of having Jeshua placed above all other 'Gods".

We know humans and their desires have changed little since those times, it makes it far easier for us to see that Paul had an agenda in mind... to head up the most powerful Belief movement, to be remembered for it for all enternity as a patriarch of that movement.. which is now a fully blown religion. Today we can see the way Paul is held up high for his works.. so he got exactly what he wanted out of it... his religion became the most powerful on earth for a time.

Had he not gone about manipulating truth for his own gain then the current Christian Religion would be so very different to the one we see in our modern world. It would be based more on the real teachings of Jeshua about how true divinity lay within us all and how we can most effectively work with it. Instead Paul's agenda forced people into submission and Belief or lose their souls to hell.. and it worked so very well for so very long.

None of this is Theory, it is historical Fact.

I do not wish to continue this discussion as I am too tired to think straight today... illness is a tiring thing.

Be well.