do you beleve the story of the birth of christ

[-Brett-]

As I understand it, historical evidence suggests there was a Jesus, and he was executed by the Romans.

The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.

 

[NCC1968]

As I understand it, historical evidence suggests there was a Jesus, and he was executed by the Romans.

The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.

The virgin birth of Jesus is also a cornerstone of Islam........seems many people didn't realize that........

 

[Peacemaker]

As I understand it, historical evidence suggests there was a Jesus, and he was executed by the Romans.

The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.

Here's a classic example of where skeptical argumentation regarding the virgin birth breaks down. It can't even get out of the gate. Skeptics typically demand evidence...well:

1. Where's the evidence that the church fabricated the VB after the fact?
2. Where's the evidence that his mother lied.

FYI, Number 2 is actually discussed in the AnteNicene literature. I might behoove some folks to actually look into how that was addressed before raising that objection.

 

[DeafPoet]

Well, Jesus actually existed so he was definitely born.

The rest of it falls apart when God can't even swangle a fucking motel room for his son's birth.

Let there be light? "No problem!"

Let there be advance reservations? "Hey now, I just hooked your greedy asses up with light 3000 years ago!"

 

[TGTheodore]

i beleve he was real what do you all think?

Regardless, historically he couldn't have been born in December. I believe one of those Roman snooties declared that.

--Ted

 

[NCC1968]

i beleve he was real what do you all think?

Regardless, historically he couldn't have been born in December. I believe one of those Roman snooties declared that.

--Ted

It's a pagen thing - sun worship ...winter solstice....all that astrology junk.
You can thank Constantine.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As I understand it, historical evidence suggests there was a Jesus, and he was executed by the Romans.

The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.

Here's a classic example of where skeptical argumentation regarding the virgin birth breaks down. It can't even get out of the gate. Skeptics typically demand evidence...well:

1. Where's the evidence that the church fabricated the VB after the fact?
2. Where's the evidence that his mother lied.

FYI, Number 2 is actually discussed in the AnteNicene literature. I might behoove some folks to actually look into how that was addressed before raising that objection.

It might behoove you to actually read where he said "My guess would be..." and then stated his opinion about what he thinks probably happened. Kind of a different thing from stating it as fact, isn't it?

And how exactly would one go about finding proof that Jesus' mother lied about the circumstances of his birth? Is there a 2,000 year old HebrewTube video I'm not aware of that contradicts her story? Demanding nearly impossible standards of evidence to support an opinion doesn't exactly help your cause if you're trying to make a reasonable argument.


I believe there was a real Jesus, that he built quite a following, had many positive ideas to teach, and accomplished some great though not supernatural things. But I also think that the circumstances of his birth and many of his more amazing and supernatural achievements were greatly embellished by his followers and later scholars in order to fit the details of preexisting messianic figures in Hebrew (and other belief systems such as Mithras worship) lore.

That is not to say that there is no value in his teachings or in subsequent interpretations of his teachings by the way. The fact that I don't think he is the son of God doesn't mean you can't honor the spirit or wisdom of his teachings.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Jesus was real, yes. We have documentations of it.

The question that plagues me is, was Jesus the only Son of God, did He have brothers and sisters on other worlds, or was He reborn on each world...

But too each their own...

 

[Philo]

I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the man Jesus existed. Beyond that, my personal canon is basically limited to The Gospel According to Jesus by Stephen Mitchell, and Jesus Christ Superstar. As far as Mathew and Luke's accounts of the birth story go, the words "purple monkey dishwasher" immediately come to mind.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Obviously, the occult aspects of his birth are mythological, and the No-Room-At-The-Inn story is fictionalized. There was probably a person who later evolved into the Jesus of legend, likely being merged with various other people along the way, but it's hard to say; there's not much in the way of proof.

As for the Virgin Birth, I believe that was a story developed by the church in later centuries.

 

[Philo]

^ As a humanist, I don't believe that the supernatural aspects of the bible are wholly necessary (and in fact, I think they're damaging) to understand and promote the messages contained therein. Paring those messages down to something that's relevant to today's society however is an entirely different can of tuna. At this point, it'd probably just be easier to stick to fortune cookies.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Time for a reboot. Call JJ.

 

[Philo]

Jesus in a Mustang? Caiaphas the robot rabbi? The Garden of Gethsemane in Iowa?

Now we're talking!

 

[cultcross]

Heavily compressed and turned into a nice pleasant story for the kiddies, but the core facts, yes I do believe that Jesus, God made flesh, was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.
"Born in a stable" would simply have meant the grubbiest part of a house back then, a part of the building where animals were kept - it didn't mean a 'stable' in the modern sense or the sense of those tacky nativity scenes you can buy. Shepherds and wise men are also probably exaggerated and compressed into a shorter timeframe in the popular version.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I believe that there was a rebel named Jesus, and the local government killed him. Everything else? No.

My position as well. I also think that he was just one of the many self-styled phophets or savior that sprang in that period in Judea. The stories we know about him are probably a condensation of their individual histories, sprinkled with supernatural bits from Hebrew messianic expectations, other pagan mythologies and early church's outright fabrications.

 

[Philo]

You know what I've always found to be an amusing little irony? If it wasn't for all of the people twisting and propagating the story, who didn't really seem to get it in the first place, we wouldn't even know about it.

 

[Carbon Unit]

Jesus was real, yes. We have documentations of it.

No, we don't. There's no credible evidence that he ever existed, and the historical evidence that does exist leads us to believe he never lived.

Several folks have said things like the above: 'we know he existed', etc. Where is this evidence? And don't bring up Josephus or Tacitus, since the passages refering to Jesus by both these authors have, for decades now, been shown to be crude inventions inserted by later christian apologists.

 

[Carbon Unit]

As I understand it, historical evidence suggests there was a Jesus, and he was executed by the Romans.

The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.

Here's a classic example of where skeptical argumentation regarding the virgin birth breaks down. It can't even get out of the gate. Skeptics typically demand evidence...well:

1. Where's the evidence that the church fabricated the VB after the fact?
2. Where's the evidence that his mother lied.

FYI, Number 2 is actually discussed in the AnteNicene literature. I might behoove some folks to actually look into how that was addressed before raising that objection.

It's not up to the skeptic to prove that something didn't happen. It's up to the person making the claim to prove that it did. I can claim that my great-great-grandfather was born from a virgin. You can't prove that I'm lying. That doesn't make it true.

 

[Deckerd]

The son of god, virign birth deal? No. My guess would be that it was either fabricated by the church after the fact, or his mom was screwing someone she shouldn't have been, spun that story, and somehow it was believed.

It's called hagiography. It was the Judaic* tradition for every important person in their writings.

*but not peculiar to them since most major religions indulge in it

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I gather that he was the first person in history to ride a bicycle.