|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 3:14:39 GMT
Well as Mary was 13 at the time, it was at least statutory rape. God is a pedophile. You state with certainty that Mary was 13 and therefore God was a pedophile (a preposterous notion in itself), but I'll bet you are one of those who act outraged when anyone accuses Mohammed of having been a pedophile for marrying a six-year old girl and consummating the marriage when she was nine.
Nope.
In both cases It was a different society with different rules. The life expectancy was much lower and high child mortality rate meant the women had to get pregnant as early as possible and have as many children possible. Or the society, perhaps even humanity would have died out. I have no doubt he married a young girl (although her exact age is disputed, its still young). But I'm not outraged. In fact it astounds me that this is something people are outraged about.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 3:21:49 GMT
Yup. We can all see just how immature and devolving with his arguments Vegas is being. It's "My way or the highway!" There is no middle ground. And when we don't see his points and we refuse to change our discussion because he doesn't provide any reason to, he just stomps his feet and cries to mommy that we are cheating when we clearly are not while we remain calm and rational. The whole thing with Mary was being FORCED or PRESSURED upon her with no room to say "No."Those who don't see that as being pressure, I fear for any sexual partners they may have. They probably will be in denial that there is such a thing as spousal rape. Middle ground lolYeah.... I was gonna make a "She must of been 'half raped'" joke in the name of it being "middle ground"... but... I don't think Stupid would get the joke.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 3:27:56 GMT
According to the apocryphal writings, Joseph was 90 years old when he married Mary. If so, I'd say it's more likely he was.... unable to perform.
There where other texts as well suggesting that the real father was a Roman soldier by the name of Tiberius Pantera and that he was paying the "virgin" to service her. Yes the "virgin" Mary was a prostitute. Needless to say, that work did not become a part of the Bible. The work is by a Greek philosopher named Celsus, has long been lost, however. The only reason we even know about it is because another writer, Origen discusses it in his work, Contra Celsum.
-Apocryphal- “of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.” I don’t know any Christian who believes Mary was 13 and Jospeh 90 at the time of their marriage. Ah but it does have some support in the bible as well.
Mary has only one child, Jesus, but Mathew 13 states that he has four brothers. Meaning that Joseph must have been an older man, a widower with children from a previous marriage when he married Jesus.
Then there's the fact that Mary is playing an active role throughout Jesus, but Joseph do not, in fact he is rarely even mentioned. Why?
The Apocryphal writing gives us the most logical answer: He is dead of old age.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 3:55:41 GMT
Ah but it does have some support in the bible as well.
Mary has only one child, Jesus, but Mathew 13 states that he has four brothers. Meaning that Joseph must have been an older man, a widower when he married Jesus.
Then there's the fact that Mary is playing an active role throughout Jesus, but Joseph do not, in fact he is rarely even mentioned. Why?
The Apocryphal writing gives us the most logical answer: He is dead of old age.
Not saying that those theories are wrong... as there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other.... But, The Bible doesn't literally claim that Mary only had one child... those brothers and sisters of Jesus could be from Mary. Not living to an old age isn't that unheard of... Joseph could have easily died at a younger age.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 4:05:27 GMT
Ah but it does have some support in the bible as well.
Mary has only one child, Jesus, but Mathew 13 states that he has four brothers. Meaning that Joseph must have been an older man, a widower when he married Jesus.
Then there's the fact that Mary is playing an active role throughout Jesus, but Joseph do not, in fact he is rarely even mentioned. Why?
The Apocryphal writing gives us the most logical answer: He is dead of old age.
Not saying that those theories are wrong... as there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other.... But, The Bible doesn't literally claim that Mary only had one child... those brothers and sisters of Jesus could be from Mary. Not living to an old age isn't that unheard of... Joseph could have easily died at a younger age. It's not something that is mentioned often, but that Joseph was a widower with sons from a previous marriage is considered canon in Catholic teachings.
He could have, but it's unlikely that he died from anything short of a natural death, or the bible would have mentioned it, especially since Jesus was the miracle healer.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Nov 27, 2018 4:22:05 GMT
You know that most people who bitch about projection... are in the process of projecting and its biggest transgressors, right? It depends on what is being projected. Yours is all bullshite and yet you refuse to deal with it and blame others. You own your own delusion, you stagnate in it. Me and you are enlightened and know better with our open minds. I would feel bad for the brain dead and retarded Vegas if he wasn't being such an asshole about this. What he is doing is now just trolling his bullshit and the more he does it, the more desperate he looks.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 4:35:17 GMT
It depends on what is being projected. Yours is all bullshite and yet you refuse to deal with it and blame others. You own your own delusion, you stagnate in it. Me and you are enlightened and know better with our open minds. I would feel bad for the brain dead and retarded Vegas if he wasn't being such an asshole about this. What he is doing is now just trolling his bullshit and the more he does it, the more desperate he looks. You've been nothing but close-minded this entire thread... Next time, try to actually rebut the things that people counter your points with.. instead of just pretending like they didn't exist... You'll look like less of a dumbass... But, hey.... If being a dumbass floats your boat this much... who am I to rain on your parade? Knock yourself even stupider. Be the best dumbass you can be.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 27, 2018 4:40:27 GMT
Not saying that those theories are wrong... as there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other.... But, The Bible doesn't literally claim that Mary only had one child... those brothers and sisters of Jesus could be from Mary. Not living to an old age isn't that unheard of... Joseph could have easily died at a younger age. It's not something that is mentioned often, but that Joseph was a widower with sons from a previous marriage is considered canon in Catholic teachings.
He could have, but it's unlikely that he died from anything short of a natural death, or the bible would have mentioned it, especially since Jesus was the miracle healer.
Except that he apparently abandoned his kids for long periods of time to protect Mary. There has never been a delineation between Mary and her children except to pretend she never boinked Jospeh despite the evidence they boinked frequently once Jesus was born. By the time Jesus healed anyone, it was 30 years after his birth after his baptism and toward the beginning of his ministry. Joseph was alive at least until he was 12. However, Jesus became a carpenter like Joseph and was likely his apprentice, perhaps pushing his lifespan into Jesus' teenage years. That leaves over a dozen years unaccounted for. For all we know, Joseph lived right up to the time Jesus began his ministry. It's not terribly important as it has no bearing on his need to be a wrinkly old guy or a young guy who simply died in his 50's or 60's.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 4:55:00 GMT
It's not something that is mentioned often, but that Joseph was a widower with sons from a previous marriage is considered canon in Catholic teachings.
He could have, but it's unlikely that he died from anything short of a natural death, or the bible would have mentioned it, especially since Jesus was the miracle healer.
Except that he apparently abandoned his kids for long periods of time to protect Mary. There has never been a delineation between Mary and her children except to pretend she never boinked Jospeh despite the evidence they boinked frequently once Jesus was born. By the time Jesus healed anyone, it was 30 years after his birth after his baptism and toward the beginning of his ministry. Joseph was alive at least until he was 12. However, Jesus became a carpenter like Joseph and was likely his apprentice, perhaps pushing his lifespan into Jesus' teenage years. That leaves over a dozen years unaccounted for. For all we know, Joseph lived right up to the time Jesus began his ministry. It's not terribly important as it has no bearing on his need to be a wrinkly old guy or a young guy who simply died in his 50's or 60's. Well, there are other writings which did not make it into the bible. Namely The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Quran 5:110 who tells about Jesus as a child and miracles he performed.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 5:07:18 GMT
Well, there are other writings which did not make it into the bible. Namely The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Quran 5:110 who tells about Jesus as a child and miracles he performed.I find the Apocryphal and Lost Books of The Bible (and the Quran) to be fascinating and having merit on their own. Just when discussing what The Bible says... anything outside of canon, just doesn't fit as concrete. It's like a discussion of comic books.. and somebody says "Well... in the movie.."..... Sure, the movie version is cool and has it's own interpretation of events and might stand on its own... but, as far as the actual discussion of the comics goes... Its kind of irrelevant. Both comic book Thanos and movie Thanos are cool... but they are motivated and do things differently.. to the point that the characters really aren't the same.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 27, 2018 5:17:21 GMT
Except that he apparently abandoned his kids for long periods of time to protect Mary. There has never been a delineation between Mary and her children except to pretend she never boinked Jospeh despite the evidence they boinked frequently once Jesus was born. By the time Jesus healed anyone, it was 30 years after his birth after his baptism and toward the beginning of his ministry. Joseph was alive at least until he was 12. However, Jesus became a carpenter like Joseph and was likely his apprentice, perhaps pushing his lifespan into Jesus' teenage years. That leaves over a dozen years unaccounted for. For all we know, Joseph lived right up to the time Jesus began his ministry. It's not terribly important as it has no bearing on his need to be a wrinkly old guy or a young guy who simply died in his 50's or 60's. Well, there are other writings which did not make it into the bible. Namely The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Quran 5:110 who tells about Jesus as a child and miracles he performed. Other narratives are irrelevant in relation to Gospel narrative. Only in regards to the Bible can something that may completely contradict it be introduced as the true plot of the story. Apocryphal writings are only as valuable as they support the predominant story. If they don't support it, are not contemporary, and lack verification, then someone writing a story about Jesus now in the 21st century holds about the same amount of weight. To be clear, anyone can choose to follow the contradictory sources all they wish and especially if it supports a preconceived notion, but that in no way means they should be taken seriously in relation to the more common versions and especially if they don't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 5:33:35 GMT
Well, there are other writings which did not make it into the bible. Namely The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Quran 5:110 who tells about Jesus as a child and miracles he performed.I find the Apocryphal and Lost Books of The Bible (and the Quran) to be fascinating and having merit on their own. Just when discussing what The Bible says... anything outside of canon, just doesn't fit as concrete. It's like a discussion of comic books.. and somebody says "Well... in the movie.."..... Sure, the movie version is cool and has it's own interpretation of events and might stand on its own... but, as far as the actual discussion of the comics goes... Its kind of irrelevant. Both comic book Thanos and movie Thanos are cool... but they are motivated and do things differently.. to the point that the characters really aren't the same. The bible (the New Testament, that is) is pretty much just a collection of writings that some old men has put together from their own judgements and political expedience. And has since then undergone quite a few changes by various rulers and priests. For example all the early editions of King James's Bible contained the apocryphal books. And nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.
I don't consider the bible an authority on what happened, any more than I consider any other works.
But I find the differences in what the different early Christian sects believed fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 27, 2018 5:44:11 GMT
I find the Apocryphal and Lost Books of The Bible (and the Quran) to be fascinating and having merit on their own. Just when discussing what The Bible says... anything outside of canon, just doesn't fit as concrete. It's like a discussion of comic books.. and somebody says "Well... in the movie.."..... Sure, the movie version is cool and has it's own interpretation of events and might stand on its own... but, as far as the actual discussion of the comics goes... Its kind of irrelevant. Both comic book Thanos and movie Thanos are cool... but they are motivated and do things differently.. to the point that the characters really aren't the same. The bible (the New Testament, that is) is pretty much just a collection of writings that some old men has put together from their own judgements and political expedience. And has since then undergone quite a few changes by various rulers and priests. For example all the early editions of King James's Bible contained the apocryphal books. And nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.
I don't consider the bible an authority on what happened, any more than I consider any other works.
But I find the differences in what the different early Christians believed fascinating.
You're missing a pretty important aspect of it and that is it's permanence and its general consistency of narrative. One is either being dishonest or ignorant if they these books were just put together and if they were picked to create a smooth narrative then that in and of itself is a sign of wise editing and a searching for the truest narrative. After all, no one has ever said that these are the only possible accounts of Christian living, but they are the only ones accepted and worthy of being canonical. They were formed prior to that ridiculous meeting in Nicea simply based on the sheer volume of copies created to be dispersed to the churches as one cohesive reading. It's silly to dismiss that so easily since even the far more basic stories in Greek & Roman mythology can't even get it right. So one can pretend it's a work of fiction and still comprehend the accounts Fiction or not, there have been few if any changes which is why people who say there are rarely have any verification to it. Common sense tells us there have been few changes because so many religions in no way worship in parallel with its teachings. There would be no reason to change it away from doctrines of the more common Christian denominations.
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Nov 27, 2018 6:34:07 GMT
The bible (the New Testament, that is) is pretty much just a collection of writings that some old men has put together from their own judgements and political expedience. And has since then undergone quite a few changes by various rulers and priests. For example all the early editions of King James's Bible contained the apocryphal books. And nothing in the New Testament was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.
I don't consider the bible an authority on what happened, any more than I consider any other works.
But I find the differences in what the different early Christians believed fascinating.
You're missing a pretty important aspect of it and that is it's permanence and its general consistency of narrative. One is either being dishonest or ignorant if they these books were just put together and if they were picked to create a smooth narrative then that in and of itself is a sign of wise editing and a searching for the truest narrative. After all, no one has ever said that these are the only possible accounts of Christian living, but they are the only ones accepted and worthy of being canonical. They were formed prior to that ridiculous meeting in Nicea simply based on the sheer volume of copies created to be dispersed to the churches as one cohesive reading. It's silly to dismiss that so easily since even the far more basic stories in Greek & Roman mythology can't even get it right. So one can pretend it's a work of fiction and still comprehend the accounts Fiction or not, there have been few if any changes which is why people who say there are rarely have any verification to it. Common sense tells us there have been few changes because so many religions in no way worship in parallel with its teachings. There would be no reason to change it away from doctrines of the more common Christian denominations. Absolutely not. Take Jesus's birth as an example.
In Luke his birth is only witnessed by some humble shepherds an a round ball with many eyes. That's how angels are described in Revelation 4:6-10, another aspects with many different description throughout the bible. I usually imagine angels as beholders from AD&D, just for fun.
And then they go in broad daylight to the temple and announce what happened and departs to Nazareth and live there quietly, but openly for 12 years.
In Mathew, however, he is treated as a king, being given kingly gift by wise men, but then has to dramatically flee for lives to Egypt because the king wants to kill him! No mention of a manger or shepherds.
No the bible is as inconsistent as it is possible to get.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy discussing this with you, and you've made several good points, but this is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Nov 27, 2018 10:13:07 GMT
An unwanted pregnancy. And so we celebrate something that is an oppression of a woman. The definition of rape is not "unwanted pregnancy". A lot of women had unwanted pregnancies and that doesn't mean that they were raped. Since, per the the Bible, there was no sexual intercourse or sexual activity between God and Mary so by definition that can't be rape.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 11:07:57 GMT
Ahhhh... There's that projection, again.... You project any more... and you'll have to get a job in a movie theater. Already been there done that At least you admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 11:13:43 GMT
You've been nothing but close-minded this entire thread... Next time, try to actually rebut the things that people counter your points with.. instead of just pretending like they didn't exist... You'll look like less of a dumbass... But, hey.... If being a dumbass floats your boat this much... who am I to rain on your parade? Knock yourself even stupider. Be the best dumbass you can be. If that means having to reduce oneself to extreme and inordinate stupidity and moronic rebuttals, then you will always come out on top due to your far greater experience. Excuses are like assholes... You should try not being one.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 27, 2018 14:29:31 GMT
Excuses are like assholes... You should try not being one. All I should try not to do is feed the troll. Leave your mom out of this.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 27, 2018 19:35:34 GMT
An unwanted pregnancy. And so we celebrate something that is an oppression of a woman. The definition of rape is not "unwanted pregnancy". A lot of women had unwanted pregnancies and that doesn't mean that they were raped. Since, per the the Bible, there was no sexual intercourse or sexual activity between God and Mary so by definition that can't be rape. We should all blame the turkeys!
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Nov 27, 2018 19:39:22 GMT
The definition of rape is not "unwanted pregnancy". A lot of women had unwanted pregnancies and that doesn't mean that they were raped. Since, per the the Bible, there was no sexual intercourse or sexual activity between God and Mary so by definition that can't be rape. We should all blame the turkeys! Normally, blame should go to the lagomorphs.
|
|