Was Jesus the Bastard Son of a Menstruate and Promiscuous Woman from 100 BCE?

michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Was Jesus the Bastard Son of a Menstruate and Promiscuous Woman from 100 BCE?

 


 

In the following series of posts, I will not attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus was the bastard son of a menstruate, and promiscuous woman, who lived around 100BCE, for one cannot prove such a thing. Yet, if we apply the standards of proof used by Christians and other secular historicists to prove Jesus existed as an historical person, then we can also employ such standards to demonstrate that Jesus was a bastard, whose mother was an adulteress.

 

Most Christians and historicists rely heavily on the Christian texts to show that Jesus existed as an historical person. Professor of NT Studies, Bart Ehrman is one of them, who in his book ‘Jesus Interrupted,’ said:

 

What sources do we have for Jesus? Well, we have multiple sources in the Gospels of the New Testament. That part is good.(1)

 

Scholars like Ehrman, who is at present one of the leading biblical/textual scholars, one I have studied quite a lot and have a high regard for, believe that by using Christian sources, we can gather reliable information about the historical character named Jesus, a figure who stands at the heart of the Christian religion. Of course Ehrman does qualify his position somewhat, saying: 

 

But they (Gospels) are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events they narrate. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him. The accounts they produced are not disinterested; they are narratives produced by Christians who actually believed in Jesus, and therefore were not immune from slanting the stories in light of their biases. They are not completely free of collaboration, since Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. And rather than being fully consistent with one another, they are widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was.(2) 

 

But these discrepancies and errors, Ehrman and others claim, are due to the fact that the stories in the Gospels are based upon oral tradition, word of mouth stories, which in the words of Ehrman:

 

…can be used by historians to establish what really happened with some degree of probability, we have to learn more about the oral traditions about Jesus.(3)


So in the very words of this highly reputable scholar and historian, oral traditions which contain, nay, are built upon and fuelled by, religious biases, proven fictions, interpolations, forgeries and are tainted by the strongest motivations to lie and deceive, remembering the words of the “great” Martin Luther, who once quipped:

 

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (4).

 

These religious documents, historicists argue, can be used to demonstrate that Jesus was an historical person.


Well then, if that is the case, let us draw upon equally qualified material to show that Jesus was nothing but a poor little bastard, who was the son of a promiscuous woman, that conceived him during her niddah (menstruation) with a man, who was not her husband, at a time when King Jannaeus (100 BCE) ruled Judea. 

 

References:

1.    Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus Interrupted. Harper Collins Pg. 143.


2.    Ibid. Pg. 144.


3.    Ibid.


4.    Martin Luther cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I. "


 

 


 

 


 

 


 

To be continued….  


 

 


 

 

 

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
michaelsherlock wrote:  In

michaelsherlock wrote:

 


 

In the following series of posts, I will not attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus was the bastard son of a menstruate, and promiscuous woman, who lived around 100BCE, for one cannot prove such a thing. Yet, if we apply the standards of proof used by Christians and other secular historicists to prove Jesus existed as an historical person, then we can also employ such standards to demonstrate that Jesus was a bastard, whose mother was an adulteress.

 

Most Christians and historicists rely heavily on the Christian texts to show that Jesus existed as an historical person. Professor of NT Studies, Bart Ehrman is one of them, who in his book ‘Jesus Interrupted,’ said:

 

What sources do we have for Jesus? Well, we have multiple sources in the Gospels of the New Testament. That part is good.(1)

 

Scholars like Ehrman, who is at present one of the leading biblical/textual scholars, one I have studied quite a lot and have a high regard for, believe that by using Christian sources, we can gather reliable information about the historical character named Jesus, a figure who stands at the heart of the Christian religion. Of course Ehrman does qualify his position somewhat, saying: 

 

But they (Gospels) are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events they narrate. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him. The accounts they produced are not disinterested; they are narratives produced by Christians who actually believed in Jesus, and therefore were not immune from slanting the stories in light of their biases. They are not completely free of collaboration, since Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. And rather than being fully consistent with one another, they are widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was.(2) 

 

But these discrepancies and errors, Ehrman and others claim, are due to the fact that the stories in the Gospels are based upon oral tradition, word of mouth stories, which in the words of Ehrman:

 

…can be used by historians to establish what really happened with some degree of probability, we have to learn more about the oral traditions about Jesus.(3)


So in the very words of this highly reputable scholar and historian, oral traditions which contain, nay, are built upon and fuelled by, religious biases, proven fictions, interpolations, forgeries and are tainted by the strongest motivations to lie and deceive, remembering the words of the “great” Martin Luther, who once quipped:

 

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (4).

 

These religious documents, historicists argue, can be used to demonstrate that Jesus was an historical person.


Well then, if that is the case, let us draw upon equally qualified material to show that Jesus was nothing but a poor little bastard, who was the son of a promiscuous woman, that conceived him during her niddah (menstruation) with a man, who was not her husband, at a time when King Jannaeus (100 BCE) ruled Judea. 

 

References:

1.    Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus Interrupted. Harper Collins Pg. 143.


2.    Ibid. Pg. 144.


3.    Ibid.


4.    Martin Luther cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I. "


 

 


 

 


 

 


 

To be continued….  


 

 


 

 

 

As I just pointed out in another thread, it doesn't matter at all to me if there was evidence that a man named Jesus existed, he still would have just been a man. Humans do not have magic super powers, are not born of virgins, and cannot survive rigor mortis.

When applying the logic of Ocham's razor the choice is blatantly obvious about the nature of reality.

Which seems to be the least complicated and most likely answer?

1. Magic men are real and Jesus is the product of godsperm and magically survived rigor mortis?

Or

2. The people back then who started Christianity merely manufactured a legend and successfully marketed it, just like the Egyptians were successful for 3,000 years falsely believing the sun was a god.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

michaelsherlock wrote:
In the following series of posts, I will not attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus was the bastard son of a menstruate, and promiscuous woman, who lived around 100BCE, for one cannot prove such a thing. Yet, if we apply the standards of proof used by Christians and other secular historicists to prove Jesus existed as an historical person, then we can also employ such standards to demonstrate that Jesus was a bastard, whose mother was an adulteress.
 

Again the kernel of truth fallacy. If one minor thing can be twisted almost beyond recognition, what does kernel of truth mean?

It would seem most any male bastard could be the kernel of this twisting.

Besides that, this is Talmud stuff including the date.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:
In the following series of posts, I will not attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus was the bastard son of a menstruate, and promiscuous woman, who lived around 100BCE, for one cannot prove such a thing. Yet, if we apply the standards of proof used by Christians and other secular historicists to prove Jesus existed as an historical person, then we can also employ such standards to demonstrate that Jesus was a bastard, whose mother was an adulteress.
 

Again the kernel of truth fallacy. If one minor thing can be twisted almost beyond recognition, what does kernel of truth mean?

It would seem most any male bastard could be the kernel of this twisting.

Besides that, this is Talmud stuff including the date.

 

So my point is that if, as many historicists argue, we can rely on the Gospels for historical testimony for a man named Jesus, by stripping away all of the mythological motifs, taking into account the genre of the works, and ignore the religious biases, and motivations for dishonesty, then we should be able to do the same with the Jewish Rabbinical writings, no?  If that is the case, then once we strip away all the mythology from the Jewish Rabbinical writings, we discover that Jesus was probably the bastard son of a menstruate and promiscuous woman.  Or should we just concede that religious scriptures are full of shit?  I lean toward the latter position, but who knows?

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Carry one, Sherlock.

 

michaelsherlock wrote:

If that is the case, then once we strip away all the mythology from the Jewish Rabbinical writings, we discover that Jesus was probably the bastard son of a menstruate and promiscuous woman.  

 

I enjoyed your post and see where it is you are going with this. Keep going.

I agree. If the NT sources can be claimed as historical proofs for jesus by the godly and we are obliged to accept the partial veracity of the existing sources on the basis of the literary historical method then that same method should, given the contradictory nature of the evidence, prove that jesus' mum was just a girl who became pregnant out of wedlock.

I'm not sure what a menstruate woman means in this context. Does it mean a fertile woman, or a woman that was not impregnated by a peculiar combination of the undefinable holy spirit and the Arc Angel Gabriel's bejewelled dong? 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


michaelsherlock
michaelsherlock's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2012-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

michaelsherlock wrote:

If that is the case, then once we strip away all the mythology from the Jewish Rabbinical writings, we discover that Jesus was probably the bastard son of a menstruate and promiscuous woman.  

 

I enjoyed your post and see where it is you are going with this. Keep going.

I agree. If the NT sources can be claimed as historical proofs for jesus by the godly and we are obliged to accept the partial veracity of the existing sources on the basis of the literary historical method then that same method should, given the contradictory nature of the evidence, prove that jesus' mum was just a girl who became pregnant out of wedlock.

I'm not sure what a menstruate woman means in this context. Does it mean a fertile woman, or a woman that was not impregnated by a peculiar combination of the undefinable holy spirit and the Arc Angel Gabriel's bejewelled dong? 

 

Thanks AE,

You are right on the money.  I will go ahead and post part two.  BTW, Menstruate woman, in this context means that she conceived Jesus whilst on her period, or Niddah, as it is called in Hebrew, a time of ritual impurity.

You can always trust a person in search of the truth, but never the one who has found it. MANLY P. HALL


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

michaelsherlock wrote:
So my point is that if, as many historicists argue, we can rely on the Gospels for historical testimony for a man named Jesus,

That is an absurd IF which cannot be the basis of a serious conversation.

Quote:
by stripping away all of the mythological motifs, taking into account the genre of the works, and ignore the religious biases, and motivations for dishonesty, then we should be able to do the same with the Jewish Rabbinical writings, no?

Such writings contain miracles as though they are real events. Therefore they are worthless in toto.

Quote:
If that is the case, then once we strip away all the mythology from the Jewish Rabbinical writings, we discover that Jesus was probably the bastard son of a menstruate and promiscuous woman.  Or should we just concede that religious scriptures are full of shit?  I lean toward the latter position, but who knows?

What we discover after taking it all away ANY male who had a local following could have been the origin of the Jesus story. Ignore the bastard part of pick a different "kernal of truth" and say the bastard was an addition.

Once you agree that a kernel can be twisted almost beyond recognition then all kernels are equal.

The kernel of truth is a worthless exercise as it requires no evidence to say anything can be perverted almost beyond recognition.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm not sure what a menstruate woman means in this context. Does it mean a fertile woman, or a woman that was not impregnated by a peculiar combination of the undefinable holy spirit and the Arc Angel Gabriel's bejewelled dong? 

It means sex while menstruating, unclean sex with an unclean woman. It would lead to an unclean child in addition to being a bastard. A Mamzer was particularly hated as an additional reason to discourage wives from straying.

In the good old days no one knew about menstrual cycles nor the mechanics of fertilization nor in fact what the hell was going on. In this case the good old days were prior to about 1900. So much science has become common knowledge we have no idea of the depth and extent of prior ignorance.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:that conceived him

 

Quote:

that conceived him during her niddah (menstruation) with a man, who was not her husband, at a time when King Jannaeus (100 BCE) ruled Judea. 

 

This man was probably a Roman centurian whose name was either Naughtius Maximus or Biggus Dickus.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
michaelsherlock wrote:You

michaelsherlock wrote:

You are right on the money.  I will go ahead and post part two.  BTW, Menstruate woman, in this context means that she conceived Jesus whilst on her period, or Niddah, as it is called in Hebrew, a time of ritual impurity.

Actually, it doesn't.

A woman is a niddah from the time she has her period until she becomes ritually pure after a trip to the mikvah ("baptismal pool" for any Christians, or ex-Christians hanging around).  Since the only purpose a trip to the mikvah has is making it okay for her to have sex, a virgin would typically be a nidah from the time of menarche until she is either engaged or married, since "engagement" is often the prelude to "marriage" on account of she really should marry =while= a nidah.

In many communities the actual marriage ceremony (chuppah kiddoshin) is timed for the first week or so after the bride-to-be is "clean".  More than once I've seen a young woman slip in and out on a Friday afternoon, trying to make sure the final details of her wedding the next day were handled.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Michael Sherlock (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Mary was a slut!

FurryCatHerder wrote:

michaelsherlock wrote:

You are right on the money.  I will go ahead and post part two.  BTW, Menstruate woman, in this context means that she conceived Jesus whilst on her period, or Niddah, as it is called in Hebrew, a time of ritual impurity.

Actually, it doesn't.

A woman is a niddah from the time she has her period until she becomes ritually pure after a trip to the mikvah ("baptismal pool" for any Christians, or ex-Christians hanging around).  Since the only purpose a trip to the mikvah has is making it okay for her to have sex, a virgin would typically be a nidah from the time of menarche until she is either engaged or married, since "engagement" is often the prelude to "marriage" on account of she really should marry =while= a nidah.

In many communities the actual marriage ceremony (chuppah kiddoshin) is timed for the first week or so after the bride-to-be is "clean".  More than once I've seen a young woman slip in and out on a Friday afternoon, trying to make sure the final details of her wedding the next day were handled.

 

According to these records, the basis of this post, Miriam was a slut, not a virgin.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:According to these

Quote:
According to these records, the basis of this post, Miriam was a slut, not a virgin.

Those aren't "records" having anything to do with Jesus.

If you want to attack some polytheistic Roman religion, fine.  It's a fake religion.

When you start attacking people, that's where the line gets drawn.

Besides, the "Jesus" and "Mary" being referred to aren't even the same "Jesus" and "Mary" the Christians worship.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."