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….  

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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? 

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? 

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.

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