this post was submitted on
1,046 points (56% like it)
4,799 up votes 3,753 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,120,655 readers

2,590 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1045
1046

One woman's lie (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by Try_it

all 195 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]defineyoursound 69 points70 points ago

You know the earliest accounts of Jesus don't even mention a virgin birth (i.e. Paul's Epistles, Mark). So the idea that Mary was claiming a virgin birth from the get-go seems unlikely to me. Evidence suggests that tradition arose much later.

[–]WoollyMittens 13 points14 points ago

I can imagine the review comity after the first version: "It needs more pop. Add some miracles."

[–]cadet999 27 points28 points ago

It may have been added much later to help convert some Pagan denominations as quite a few Pagan religions have a god being born from a virgin.

[–]buckie33 15 points16 points ago

The Romans wrote the Bible, and they added and removed parts that would be best for them politically. So this might be right.

[–]cadet999 16 points17 points ago

I know for a fact All Soul's Day, Christmas, and Easter were created to be Christian parallels to the Pagan holidays of Samhain, Yule, and Ostara respectively.

[–]buckie33 12 points13 points ago

And dont forget the Roman tradition of gift giving.

[–]cadet999 22 points23 points ago

And the Pagan tradition of a bunny hiding eggs.

[–]BulletBilll 6 points7 points ago

I think that is meant to represent humping season.

[–]cadet999 -1 points0 points ago

Haha it's supposed to represent fertility.

[–]shhyguuy[!] 0 points1 point ago

audible chuckles all around (:

[–]ThatJanitor 2 points3 points ago

Sweden still calls it Jul (Yule).

http://i.imgur.com/Th8df.png

[–]mgarde 2 points3 points ago

Danes too

[–]iphonephotog 0 points1 point ago

Also the Vatican doors have old Pagan handles on them.

[–]SeeOtter 0 points1 point ago

Could you give a source on this? Just out of curiosity

[–]cadet999 0 points1 point ago

I honestly couldnt, i learned all of this last year out of pure curiosity. A google search should yield plenty of answers.

[–]prisoner42 1 point2 points ago

I heard that it was just a mistranslation of the bible so young woman became virgin

[–]i_am_a_boy 4 points5 points ago

Can you give some evidence to support this claim?

[–]buckie33 -3 points-2 points ago

The bible? Do your own research, look up Roman history.

[–]i_am_a_boy 0 points1 point ago

Can you give me an example of what I might find? Given your claim, you should already have done some research and could give me a hint. I was under the impression that the Romans didn't like the early Christians, and actually killed many of them.

[–]buckie33 0 points1 point ago

True, at first. But Christianity eventually became the Roman Empire's main religion.

[–]i_am_a_boy -1 points0 points ago

Yes, but the bible was written before that happened, so the Romans definitely didn't add the virgin birth to gain power. There is no evidence of the new testament being edited beyond minor transcription errors.

[–]anticastropgeon 2 points3 points ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

[–]i_am_a_boy -1 points0 points ago

Yes, I know about the council of nicea. However, they didn't change any of what was found in the new testament books, they just made official what books to include, although it was pretty much decided already by what was being used in churches.

[–]buckie33 5 points6 points ago

The Bible wasnt writen before, just manuscrips here and there. The Romans created the actual Bible, colleting and tossing parts they did not want in it. And other people did the same thing to the Roman Bible and then to that Bible and so on. IE King James.

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

To be clearer, it was Greeks and Assyrians living in the Roman Empire that wrote the oldest stuff. A lot of the early history actually happened in Alexandria. The NT is mostly written in broken Greek by people whose native language was Aramaic (aka Syriac) the language of the Assyrian Empire.

It also spread very early to the Red Sea and Ethiopia, which were outside the Roman Empire. The Ethiopian Bible is slightly different from the one we use, and their sacred language is not Latin or Greek, it's Ge'ez, a Semitic language.

There was also a sect called the Ebionites. They were around in Western Arabia and heavily influenced Islam. In fact about a third of the Koran is prbably taken directly from Ebionaite of other similar sources.

[–]i_am_a_boy -5 points-4 points ago

At the council of nicea it was decided what books to include in the new testament. Since then it has not been changed. I've seen for myself the oldest complete new testament, from the 4th century, and it contains the same books as we use now. I have no idea what you're saying about the king James version.

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

Well, actually there is quite a bit of evidence of editing. I recommend you google "synoptic gospels".

To make a long story short, Mark is the oldest and crudest gospel, written in pidgin Greek. The first version had no resurrection story. It was added later, and the Ethiopians use a different version. Also the "Secret Gospel of Mark" suggests that a lot of it was cut.

Luke and Matthew copied and heavily modified Mark and another, now lost, source called "Q". Both then added material of their own, including two conflicting nativity stories.

Generally, Luke corrected Mark's grammar and cleaned up the story, and making it more feminine. He is particularly found of the word "womb", and God speaks to Mary not Joseph. Luke has a lot of the parables. Luke is very interested in the resurrection and also the main source of the claim the Jesus ascended into heaven. The same author also wrote the Acts.

Matthew's editing is more heavy handed, adding long explanatory passages to the murkier stories. For example he explains why Jesus calls Simon "rock" ("kepha" which in Aramaic also means "blockhead") and adds a theological parable to the walking on water thing. He is really into the word "righteous".

Compare the Beatitudes in Luke and Matthew for a good example of Matthew's editing.

John, on the other hand, is totally different in structure and content from the synoptics, but clearly borrows from them.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Council of Nicea, where the Bible was assembled and Jesus Divinity was decided by a vote. There were hundreds of extant Christian texts at this point in history, Nicea decided which we cannon and which werent. The ones that centralized power were given priority, such as Romans

[–]Nociceptors 12 points13 points ago

one of the 'best' inconsistencies of the new testament. "you'd think that a virgin birth would be one of the things you might not want to leave out of god's biography" (paraphrase) -Hitchens

[–]TheMediumPanda 4 points5 points ago

Virgin birth is not an uncommon concept in many religions. It could have been an influence in taking it in. Probably made converting people easier if they already had a virgin birth myth in their native religion as well.

EDIT: Oh great. Just saw Cadet999 wrote almost exactly the same thing. I should take it down I guess :/

[–]BipboppityBoop 2 points3 points ago

Actually many religions have a tradition of Virgin Birth from Buddhism to Ancient Egyptian Religion. It's a common theme that plays out during all eras of human history. The church just chose to apply it to Jesus to make it appeal to more people.

[–]dannyboylee 4 points5 points ago

Wasn't Gilgamesh a virgin birth as well?

Oh, and Anakin Skywalker.

[–]BipboppityBoop 1 point2 points ago

indeed, this is so.

Also I think Mithra and some other Roman/Greek gods were born of vigrins but I'm really not an expert in this area.

[–]Nukleon 0 points1 point ago

Christianity inherited a lot of things from the Roman Mithra cult. Mithras' birthday was also December 25th, for instance.

[–]jt004c 3 points4 points ago

Let me simplify this for you:

There was no "Mary."

There was no "Jesus."

These are fictional characters, written into an extremely loose tale of historical fiction several generations after the events were supposed to have occurred, at a time when record keeping was not possible in the way we think of it today.

[–]Cyhawk 1 point2 points ago

You are correct, there was no Jesus, his name was Joshua. However there are small, VERY minor references during that time in Roman history that tell of an upstart rabbi causing unrest in the Jewish population. This person was not named, and it was just a small one line report, but it exists. You'd be amazed what the Romans recorded during that time.

His tale however is quite fictional, and pretty much just Buddhism with Jewish eyes.

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

There is one reference, in Antiquities by Flavius Josephus, to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". He was stoned to death for criticizing Herod's execution of John the Baptist.

[–]iphonephotog 0 points1 point ago

I think Joshua, Jesus, probably existed. Probably just a rabbi and his followers got a bit carried away after his death.

[–]davdev 1 point2 points ago

Jesus is probably about as historically accurate as Robin Hood or King Arthur, a collection of stories loosely based on historical people. The stories even share a lot of parallels especially when you compare the Apostles, the Merry Men and the Knights of the Round Table.

[–]iphonephotog 0 points1 point ago

I'm not satin the biblical Jesus is true just that a person probably lived whom he is based from

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

I know, I was just expanding on what you said. Robin Hood and King Arthur most likely came to life loosely based on real people as well, that was my only point

[–]oziak 0 points1 point ago

jesus actually was absolutely a real guy, except his history isn't quite what everyone has been led to believe. If you know who Barabas was, his name actually translates to "Son of the First King", he wasn't a murderer, but another figure in a different region who was saying similar stuff as jesus, and the reason Pilot made the executive decision to let the people decide who to kill was because he was afraid of a mass riot where a ton of killing would commence, had both lived.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Someone has read Holy Blood Holy Grail, too bad there is little evidence of that actually being the case.

[–]oziak 0 points1 point ago

nah, I don't know what that is. Don't care either. You can find this stuff everywhere

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

Actually Barabbas means "son of the father" bar son abba father. The s is a Greek ending. Abba is also what Jesus calls God. So maybe they were the same person?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

It's not just Mary though, the gospels mention numerous characters supporting it.

[–]aliofbaba 0 points1 point ago

"O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not A man of evil, nor thy Mother a woman unchaste!"

But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we Talk to one who is A child in the cradle?"

He6 said: "I am indeed A servant of Allah: He hath given me Revelation and made me A prophet;

"And He hath made me Blessed wheresoever I be, And hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long As I live: "(He) hath made me kind To my mother, and not Overbearing or miserable;

"So Peace is on me The day I was born, The day that I die, And the Day that I Shall be raised up To life (again)"!

Such (was) Jesus the son Of Mary: (it is) a statement Of truth, about which They (vainly) dispute.     Qur'an 19: 16-34

[–]Barney21 -1 points0 points ago

This passage is strong evidence that the Koran was borrowed from some Christian sect like the Nestorians or the Ebionites.

[–]xKazimirx 0 points1 point ago

Isn't there also some mention of how he had older siblings somewhere? I seem to remember that particular bit of information, and it led me to believe that Mary was a virgin in a spiritual sense, not a physical one.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

Mark 3:31

Also MArk 3 20 is memorable: Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

The Virgin Birth is really Luke's story. Luke is very feminist.

Mark clearly says that Jesus had brothers. Also James the Just is a saint, and he is the brother of Jesus.

The only non-biblical first century reference to Jesus is by Josephus. It is actually a reference to James.

[–]Nukleon 0 points1 point ago

Curiously some people (I know, weasel words, but bear with me) claim that Josephus is a contemporary source for the existence of Jesus, even though he wasn't born until several years after the death of Christ.

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

Well, assuming the traditional Jesus timeline is true, yeah...

[–]Nukleon 0 points1 point ago

If it's off, it's probably off to the wrong side for Josephus to have been contemporary of Jesus still. IIRC King Herod died in 8BC, which would mean that Jesus would have to have been born somewhere before then.

Also, the shepherds are not out with the sheep in December, they are out when the lambs are born, so it would have to be around springtime.

[–]Barney21 0 points1 point ago

The shepherd thing is just a story anyway. But the connection to John the Baptist looks real(ish).

[–]i_am_a_boy -4 points-3 points ago

Although, it was actually prophesied in Isaiah that the messiah would be born of a virgin - so it wasn't added as an afterthought.

[–]jt004c 2 points3 points ago

gentle pat

[–]i_am_a_boy 0 points1 point ago

Care to elaborate?

[–]jt004c 0 points1 point ago

It's a large book filled with loosely related historical fiction and myth, and it has been repeatedly modified, massaged together, and otherwise manipulated by countless vested interests over thousands of years.

In light of this, there is no way to say what was written when, by who, or why.

[–]i_am_a_boy 0 points1 point ago

Can you tell me why you think it has been manipulated? What is your evidence for this?

[–]Cyhawk 0 points1 point ago

Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” The crowd dissipates out of shame. Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. “It was added by later scribes.” The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible.

Thats just a quote from: http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-changed-the-bible-and-why-bart-ehrmans-startling-answers/

Quick review of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1161497492/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6643192-2731143?ie=UTF8

Yes, the bible has been manipulated, entire passages are fabricated, and meanings of Joshua's Parables have been changes to fit other peoples views.

For further evidence, read about the tenants of Buddahism. The teaching of Joshua (also called at the time, The Way) are VERY similar, however subtle meanings have been changed, and changed again over the years. Be it through poor translation (have you ever seen a movie/game translated from Japanese? Yeah... those go so well) or malicious/good intent.

[–]Nukleon 0 points1 point ago

Are you familiar with retcons in comic books? Think of something like that here, that earlier events were changed to better fit with what happened later.

Imagine in about 1000 years that people aren't aware of the many retcons that say, Spiderman has been through...

[–]super__mario 2 points3 points ago

"virgin" is a mistranslation. It's really alma i.e. young woman. But of course inventors of Jesus made him fulfill many other mistranslations. Guy goes out of his way to do things so scriptures can be fulfilled :D.

[–]i_am_a_boy -2 points-1 points ago

That is a common misunderstanding. Yes, it can mean young woman, but in the bible it is never used to mean a married woman

[–]super__mario 1 point2 points ago

Of course not. Nothing is said about marital status when you say "young woman". However, young woman giving birth to children that is not married is considered an abomination worthy of stoning outside the city walls.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

why would her marital status matter in this case?

[–]i_am_a_boy 0 points1 point ago

In that culture, unmarried woman was synonymous with virgin.

[–]defineyoursound 1 point2 points ago

I used to think the same thing. However, the fact that Isaiah mentions a virgin birth AND that a virgin birth wasn't included in the Jesus narrative until around 70 CE makes it even more likely that it was a mythological element that was attributed to Jesus way after his death as the legend surrounding him grew.

You have to remember, there was no TV, no reporters...everything was word of mouth. Imagine if, say, years ago someone "prophesied" that a great baseball player would be born who, among other things, would hit home runs with his eyes closed. A few years later Babe Ruth was born, and after his career everyone assumes that Babe Ruth was the baseball player who was prophesied about. After Babe Ruth's death, as fathers and grandfathers are recounting tales of Babe Ruth's greatness, would it be any surprise if stories emerged about Babe Ruth hitting homers with his eyes shut?

Isaiah says a messiah would be born of a virgin. Early Christians believed Jesus was that messiah, therefore he MUST have been born of a virgin, so that became part of the story -- waaay after the fact. Make sense?

[–]i_am_a_boy 1 point2 points ago

70 AD is only about 40 years after Jesus' death - there were almost certainly people around who met him.

[–]defineyoursound 1 point2 points ago

...and? If you met me would you be able to tell whether I was born of a virgin? What if one of my friends told you I was born of a virgin? I'm 26; what if in 50 years someone suddenly announced I had been born of a virgin even though no one had mentioned it up to that point? That doesn't seem fishy to you?

[–]i_am_a_boy -1 points0 points ago

If that was the only claim about Jesus there was, then yes, I would be suspicious, but since there are other reasons I believe he was the messiah, I can also accept this claim.

[–]everflow 0 points1 point ago

That makes me think of another thing. Isaiah explicitly states that this messiah guy would be called Immanuel. And that statement is even quoted in the gospel of Matthew.

The thing is, the gospel quotes a prophecy with the intent to back up the authenticity of Jesus' status – while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that nobody ever called Jesus Immanuel in his life – at least as far as we know. Perhaps it was never documented, but I still wonder why it was never mentioned. Even Christian tradition forgot to give him the byname of Immanuel in hindsight, or did I just miss that? We do not say Jesus Immanuel Christ, right?

My point is, when that part is totally irrelevant, why does the virgin birth matter at all? Why is that part relevant when the other is not?

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Isaiah actually says "young girl" when translated correctly. Also, it is easy to craft a story to fit prophesy after the fact. When you know a prophecy exists, you simply write your story to fit in with it, like being born in Bethlehem, of course, that prophecy actually referred to a man named Bethlehem and not the town.

[–]UnseenAlchemist 21 points22 points ago

That's an understatement...

[–]dat828 26 points27 points ago

"We have an entire religion based on a woman who reallllly stuck to her story." -Greg Giraldo

[–]QuackWhatsup 13 points14 points ago

This picture.... It looks like you did a pretty croppy job.

[–]Try_it[S] -5 points-4 points ago

Had to crop girlfriends phone screen cap. She can't just save things she screen caps... It was capped improperly, sorry.

[–]AcronymEjr 16 points17 points ago

You didn't need to do that. Next time just take directly from the r/atheism FAQ's "Overdone Submissions" image: http://i.imgur.com/MnjuN.jpg

[–]erryday_IAm_rustling 4 points5 points ago

I really enjoy when people call out egregious reposts in creative ways. Thanks.

[–]thenaterator 2 points3 points ago

That's a lot more effort than just googling the text, and snagging a new image.

Herpderp McHardway

[–]craybatesedu 5 points6 points ago

Man, I haven't seen this repost for days now.

[–]calculatroll 4 points5 points ago

Why Do People Capitalize Every Word In Their Sentences?

It Sounds Like Shatner In My Head...

[–]willard720 2 points3 points ago

"No, Joesph, I can explain."

[–]abbiistabbii 2 points3 points ago

Mary was most likely 13 when she had Jesus.

My theory, She was forced into a marriage to Joseph. In that marriage she was raped and impregnated. To deal with the trauma (because she was only a girl) she invented a fantasy land where the child she was carrying was the Son of God who would save humanity. That delusion was passed on to her Son, who started the Cult of the Christ.

[–]thenaterator 3 points4 points ago

Joseph knew.

"Well if she's gonna make up shit, we're gonna make some shit up THE RIGHT WAY!"

[–]Thomassn 3 points4 points ago

/r/atheism one repost center gone wrong

[–]onfia 3 points4 points ago

If she existed in the first place.

[–]Lazerkatz 6 points7 points ago

m-m-mega repost!

[–]Beaverkiller2004 1 point2 points ago

Seems legit

[–]because_its_friday 1 point2 points ago

a post nearly as ancient as the period of time it is meant to portray, BUT still an awesome demotivational poster. Upvotes for all!

[–]The_Shane_Company 1 point2 points ago

In her defense, she would have been stoned.

[–]VeryClever 1 point2 points ago

Is that Natalie Portman?

[–]firetruckretard 1 point2 points ago

look what happened to that poor lady recently, shot 9 times. who the fuck wouldnt lie?

[–]midgaze 1 point2 points ago

What came first, stoning as a punishment for adultery, or Mary lying about being a virgin after she became pregnant? She was married at the time of conception but they weren't knocking boots yet. Must have been frustrating to be a 14-year-old married to an old dude with all those other horny Christians around with their original sin raging away.

[–]Cyhawk 0 points1 point ago

Makes sense, and I use to think that as well, except for one thing.. the virgin birth was added later on to conform with Jewish predictions on the Messiah. His parents just had sex, normally, cause you know, they were MARRIED and its expected on their wedding night.. Theres no way she was a virgin, their marriage would of been absolved by Jewish law if they didn't consummate their marriage.

[–]Simba7 1 point2 points ago

Give her some credit, maybe she was just fucking Joseph out of wedlock. Still a shameful and scandalous offense. Explains why Joseph went along with it.

[–]DarKcS 1 point2 points ago

I like how we've transitioned in to bashing on Christians as whole now we are attacking the specific origins of their belief.

Humans are fallible, and we know the women will go to extremes to protect their children even if it means saying 'I never had sex b4!'. And this was 2000 years ago when everyone believed the sun rose each day because of magic, not gravity. OF COURSE A GOD DID IT, JESUS CHRIST!

[–]unas666 1 point2 points ago

If I could only share this on my FB - however there are too many Christian friends that I do not want to piss off. This is hilarious!

[–]DrHelminto 1 point2 points ago

"trust me, I'm an Angel" - Gabriel

[–]mikeyeli 1 point2 points ago

Its like that story about that lady that gave birth to a black baby when her husband was white, and she blamed it on a 3D porno.

According to the story, the husband believes her, so it doesnt sound so so crazy if mary just made up the whole thing, and poor old Joseph was just plain stupid.

Edit: btw the story is fake, it just reminded me of the Mary & Joseph fairy tale.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

One rule is life is stupid is eternal. Plenty of people today believe some crazy ass shit, so you would assume they would buy into some even crazier shit in a backwater cesspool during a less than literate time in human history.

[–]JeremyOfAllTrades 1 point2 points ago

one could say the same about a game of thrones...

[–]visceralhate 1 point2 points ago

Can we touch this up Photoshopper's? Baby Jesus isn't quite white enough.

[–]derrida_n_shit 2 points3 points ago

Well that escalated quickly.

[–]AToasterSeagul 1 point2 points ago

I bet joseph Porked her in her sleep.

[–]JimmyMac80 3 points4 points ago

You mean like this?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]JimmyMac80 -1 points0 points ago

It's Robot Chicken.

[–]buckie33 1 point2 points ago

I doubt she had an affair, I think she was raped by a Roman soldier.

[–]Cyhawk 2 points3 points ago

I doubt that. I'm pretty sure her and her HUSBAND had.. gasp.. sex. The virgin birth was added later.

[–]Taodeist 1 point2 points ago

That explains why all the pictures of him I see he's white.

[–]jt004c 1 point2 points ago

yes because clearly she existed.

[–]B-rad747 3 points4 points ago

I've always found this possibility very interesting. I've seen other theories that Joseph knocked her up before they were married and to avoid punishment made up an extravagant story to cover their asses. It makes me wonder if that made up story of divine conception was the snowflake that started the avalanche that is Christianity. But since there is hardly a shred of evidence that these people even existed we can only speculate.

[–]asheets96 -2 points-1 points ago

false there is evidence proving they existed there is also evodence proving many things about jesus's life if you actually backed your statements up with evidence instead of pulling lies out of your ass you might get upvotes instead of proving yourself to be an ignorant ass

[–]MeloJelo 2 points3 points ago

if you actually backed your statements up with evidence instead

You realize you provided no evidence "proving they existed" or "proving many things about jesus's life" while demanding evidence that they didn't exist, right?

If someone says the sky is green, and I say, "No, it's blue! There's tons of evidence it's blue!" and then criticize them for not providing evidence while providing none myself, it kind of makes me look like an asshat.

[–]B-rad747 0 points1 point ago

As the other guy pointed out it's a little ironic that you attack me for not providing evidence for my claims while you commit the same crime. While I'm happy to provide you evidence to back my claim, I'm currently away from my laptop(posting this from my phone). I will provide evidence as soon as I can and suggest you do the same and we can have a nice discussion on the topic, no need for name calling.

[–]B-rad747 0 points1 point ago

All right here we go. Outside of the new testament there is zero historical evidence for the existence for Mary. Period. Joseph on the other hand has some evidence proving his existence but it’s pretty weak and was deemed as almost certainly a forgery. In 2002 the James Ossuary was found, this was a small box that once held remains that had the inscription “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” This was a pretty significant discovery at the time supposedly proving that Jesus, Joseph, and Jesus’ brother James actually existed. As it turns out there is some damning evidence that the “brother of Jesus” was a modern day forgery and many scholars agree with this conclusion. Now you might ask why I disregard the bible as historical evidence. Well the bible is probably one of the least credible historical documents, if you can even call it that, out there. It contains mounds of historical inaccuracies throughout. Even the four gospels, which are apparently telling the same story, compared side by side can’t even agree. So there’s my argument and here’s my sources: Info on mary Info on Joeseph Info on James Ossuary Info on the bible and history

[–]Harioharima 2 points3 points ago

It actually makes for a pretty good story and, if you look at the character of Joseph, a wonderful example of morality. One of the things I struggle with the most as an atheist is a consistent basis for ethical behavior. And although I endured a degree of ostracism while growing up in a predominantly W.A.S.P. high school, I have recently come to the conclusion that there are some genuinely excellent moral guidelines for good humans in the Christian faith. The golden rule, for example, is one that should resonate with any person interested in morality. But Joseph, although assuming a relatively minor role in the saga of Christ, at least compared to Mary, is. . . well. . . a real swell guy. How many men would sincerely believe their significant other, or at least perpetuate their story about a divine conception if they were never past 3rd base together? Joseph must (assuming for a second, even if it requires some suspension of disbelief that this was how it happened) have had immense faith in Mary. This was 2000 years ago in the Middle East, not a notorious time or place for decent treatment of women. Yet this guy accepts her story and a child that he did not father as his own. It doesn't matter how you feel about later developments, every man should respect this hypothetical Joseph as a sir among sirs.

As for the conception of the child in non-divine terms, to say it was an affair is to assume. It is certainly possible. But so is rape. And how could we ever know? I must wonder though, if this man Joseph existed and his wife told him in earnest that she was pregnant with the child of a god, if that thought did not cross his mind. Yet he did not have her killed for adultery, he did not cast her aside, whatever Joseph truly believed he looked after her and her son although nobody forced him to. I'm no biblical scholar, but I think that that kind of behavior is fucking commendable. A man who shows kindness and faith in his lover when he has every right to be suspicious and vengeful is surely a stellar moral compass for any man with an interest in a healthy relationship. Because nothing is more crucial to a relationship than trust.

[–]Cyhawk 0 points1 point ago

Buddhism. All of those morals are present there, and, from what I've read and think, is the basis of modern day Christianity. Taoism is in there as well. Hell some of Joshua's (aka Jesus) parables are STRAIGHT from Buddhist teachings.

Going on your good morals.. One of the biggest teachings for Jewish people was, your "neighbor" didn't just refer to other Jewish people, it refers to everyone. For example, the concept of Murder. You can only murder another Jewish person, you can kill a gentile. Joshua changed that to mean EVERYONE.

Yes, the morals are quite good. Just don't drink the kool-aid too much.

[–]Harioharima 0 points1 point ago

Taoism is very interesting to me, the idea of following the path of least resistance seems very christ-like to me, with the added bonus of being very nature-centric. All in all I'm not too familiar with Buddhism. I believe a lot of the similarities between Christianity and Eastern religions has a lot to do with Christianity's roots in Zoroastrianism.

[–]liketotallylicious -1 points0 points ago

Nice way to call a religious figure a whore. Keep classy /r/atheism.

[–]BulletBilll 5 points6 points ago

Wasn't the other Mary a whore though?

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Mary Magdalena is referred to as a sinner, and it has been tradition she was a prostitute, but there really is no biblical accounts to support that interpretation.

[–]Gredenis 0 points1 point ago

Pretty much this

[–]BloodFeces 0 points1 point ago

She was a woman, but it takes a big set of balls to tell your husband that your pregnancy was divine intervention.

[–]Takedown22 0 points1 point ago

no, not really. Jesus' birth wasn't special at all. It was the adult man that caused problems with his brand of Judaism.

[–]subnetzero 0 points1 point ago

So its not that it was just a miracle. They wanted other women to think if they remained virgins for their future husband there is a possibility they will win God's lottery and be showered with luxurious presents?

[–]Deekzlol 0 points1 point ago

Would be better without the Unnecessary Capital Letter For Every Word.

[–]Jrocker-ame 0 points1 point ago

nice!

[–]falafel_in_pitta 0 points1 point ago

They gone and darn stole my karma :S http://www.mememaker.net/meme/what-if-the-story-of-jesus-was-was-just-an-escalated-lie-because-mary-got-knocke

[–]batfan20 0 points1 point ago

This is confirmed by the bible insofar as Eve tricked Adam by lying as well. Women are liars and tempters.

[–]Vexaire 0 points1 point ago

It's the basis for a Lifetime original movie.

[–]Lebagel 0 points1 point ago

Where does the idea of the virgin birth come into the bible? I know there's the immaculate conception but that actually refers to Mary and is a papal idea (Catholics made it up).

[–]davdev -1 points0 points ago

Immaculate Conception does not refer to the Virgin Birth. I.C refers to the conception of Mary as one without sin. The virgin birth comes from the story of Gabriel coming to Mary with news she was to carry God's child and her protestation that she has not known any man.

The Virgin Birth is not simply a Catholic thing, but a well accepted concept in all Christian denominations

[–]Lebagel 0 points1 point ago

Um, you didn't read what I said. I was the one pointing out the catholic made idea of immaculate conception.

I was asking where the virgin birth comes from.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Uhm, I told you where it came from:

The virgin birth comes from the story of Gabriel coming to Mary with news she was to carry God's child and her protestation that she has not known any man.

If you need the actual verses see:

Luke 1:26-38 The Birth of Jesus Foretold

26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.37 For nothing is impossible with God."

38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

[–]Lebagel 0 points1 point ago

Not in your first reply to me?

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

uhm, yeah, I did. The second sentence says:

The virgin birth comes from the story of Gabriel coming to Mary with news she was to carry God's child and her protestation that she has not known any man.

[–]Lebagel 0 points1 point ago

Silly idea isn't it?

Woman pregnant without being able to have any fun. I always take the virgin birth as being oppresive to women.

[–]Mines_Skyline 0 points1 point ago

now you know who the "three wise men" are ;)

[–]oziak 0 points1 point ago

yessss let's keep undermining one of the last things in existence that can create any sense of community. Ideally, I'd like to see a world where everyone has an absolutely objective view on every single thing in existence, similar to how a computer runs a bunch of algorithms to calculate the density of the sun.

[–]electricmaster23 0 points1 point ago

I thought like almost every atheist had seen this demotivator before... it's been around for years...

[–]crystallinegirl -1 points0 points ago

Misogyny? In my Reddit? You don't say!

[–]BulletBilll 1 point2 points ago

I don't think you truly understand what that word means. It's blasphemy at best.

[–]Umadbrah 0 points1 point ago

Mary was about 12 when she had Jesus and about 11 when she married a 80-90 year old Joseph, do you think she was cheating on people at that age? Two options it is the actual kid of Joseph or she was raped and kept it secret.

Edit: According to the Jewish Talmud she was cheating. Nevermind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

[–]jt004c 2 points3 points ago

Option 3:

It's all made up.

[–]DiscordianStooge 0 points1 point ago

Out of curiosity, where did you get Mary and Joseph's ages?

[–]Umadbrah 3 points4 points ago

12 is widely accepted and it is was the age per the Church of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)

Joseph is always called an "old" man when he married Mary, he married his first wife when he was 40 and Mary when he was 90.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

[–]DiscordianStooge 0 points1 point ago

Cool. Thanks.

[–]dianthe 0 points1 point ago

According to the Jewish Talmud she was cheating. Nevermind.

The Talmud verses about Jesus were written a long time after the New Testament, a few hundred years after in fact, so they are definitely a very unreliable source to use:

Peter Schäfer concluded that the references were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period.[21] He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were "polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death"[22] and that the rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a "bold and self-confident" assertion of correctness of Judaism, maintaining that "there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater."[23] (Source)

[–]jt004c 1 point2 points ago

This thread kills me.

NO RELIGIOUS TEXT is reliable on it's face. They are useful as historical documents in anthropology and archaeology, if the original text can be properly dated, when they reference leaders/locations of cities/practices and customs of a time, which can then be cross-checked with other writings and historical artifacts.

They are OBVIOUSLY NOT USEFUL to tell us accurate information about the lives of individual people who are central to the myths of whichever religion they are trying to put forward.

[–]smiitch 0 points1 point ago

this is the first picture to make me really laugh from my gut, and a tear to my eye in a very long time.

[–]redmon26 -1 points0 points ago

as i christian i found this funny

[–]kiwimac -1 points0 points ago

THIS is the kind of post which give atheists and atheism a bad rep. Not only is there no support historically for this viewpoint, it is simply poor scholarship and worse philosophy.

[–]CGord 1 point2 points ago

/r/atheism: NO HUMOR ALLOWED.

[–]Smoofer 0 points1 point ago

There's a difference between humor and blatant Christian bashing that accomplishes nothing.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Why can't Jesus eat M&M's? They keep falling through the holes in his hands.

Now that, my friend, is humor.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

it is also a joke.

[–]knighmare -1 points0 points ago

Based on this I will forever maintain that it was Mary's father that got to her. Therefore jesus was inbred, it makes sense given the psychosis that would have led the (obviously non-existant) jesus to have the god complex he had.

[–]jjjooonnnooo -2 points-1 points ago

Athiests are a bunch of 3 year olds - There was a big bang and we appeared. LOL

[–]KaynethFastWheels -2 points-1 points ago

oh look, havent seen this before. keep it classy r/atheism (13 year old children.)

[–]Squire4Hire 0 points1 point ago

wut.

[–]sampurban -2 points-1 points ago

I'm a visitor because this was on the frontpage, I support full marriage rights for all homosexuals and yes I am a christian. I see a lot of stuff like this on reddit because the athiesm subreddit floods the frontpage and it seems to me that everyone on this subreddit is so angry. Jesus and faith in god has helped me a lot in my life, getting me off of drugs (not hard drugs), helping me deal with my abusive parents, for a lot of people like me, faith is neccasary. I'm not saying Jesus fixed all my problems when I asked him too but I am saying that I asked god for strength and he helped. I don't know if he helped by actually providing me with strength or if I just thought I was stronger with god, but I have come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter. It was either my faith in god, or god that helped me. I'm having trouble formulating what I want to say because it's three in the morning, but I just want to somehow let you know that jesus is not bad, just sometimes his followers are, but that's no reason to blame all of them, that's prejudice. Besides if any christian tells you homosexuality (seems to be the largest issue here) is against christianity they obviously don't know jesus and they should change their name to biblist.

[–]Possob 3 points4 points ago

Jesus was the bastard son of a teenage girl and a lazy carpenter. God bless statutory rape.

[–]Taodeist 1 point2 points ago

I feel weird that I'm judging you based on the fact you needed god's help to get off not hard drugs. I shouldn't and I feel bad... but I have to ask, what kind of soft drugs required that?

Side note: Many past heavy drug users are easily converted to religion and make up the third largest demographic of converts surpassed only by the elderly and those born into the religion.

Side side note: That last part, while possibly true, was just something I made up. It would be an interesting study though. Who converts these days unless they're dying, broken, or don't know better?

[–]instapunish 1 point2 points ago

it seems to me that everyone on this subreddit is so angry.

Compare that with:

but that's no reason to blame all of them, that's prejudice.

Then realize there are almost ONE MILLION subscribers, and let me know if you see a contradiction in your statements.

if any christian tells you homosexuality is against christianity

How quaint, you claim your version of christianity is the "correct" interpretation, just like the hundreds of other branches of christianity do. I'm glad we can tell everyone you've settled the issue!

[–]asheets96 -2 points-1 points ago

Seriously? Why do people attack christianity? If you disagree keep it to yourself, dont try to force your ideology down everyone else's throat. And by insulting us like that you are just ruining your credibillity and making us pray for your ignorance or stupidity

[–]studmuffffffin 0 points1 point ago

Can you explain how we're shoving it down your throat? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you willingly came to reddit. You willingly came to r/atheism, you willingly clicked on this link, and you willingly came to the comments section.

[–]davdev 0 points1 point ago

Or he is just dumb and can't figure out how the unsubscribe feature works.

[–]Earthbeard 0 points1 point ago

We attack it because it is shoved down our throats constantly. As an American I am surrounded by Christian sentiments as well as bigotry. When I had biology in High School kids in my class made it difficult for me to learn evolution because of their ideals. I was forced to pledge my allegiance to a god I didn't believe in everyday. People should not keep quiet when they disagree upon an issue. America is where it is today because we did not agree. Tyrants were overthrown because they did not agree. When we keep things that we disagree with to ourselves terrible things tend to happen such as the rise of Adolf Hitler and his persecution of the Jews. We have a forum where we can vent our issues and if that bugs you then you don't have to click the links when you know what it is already going to be about.

[–]cdoesyawilly 0 points1 point ago

Cry about it ya tool

[–]oziak 0 points1 point ago

One thing that needs to be understood immediately, is that no one's opinion really matters. Opinions themselves hold absolutely no meaning at all. It's what you do about the things that agree/disagree with your opinions that make you a person. If you choose to focus a great deal of your strength fighting a war that ultimately doesn't matter, then do it. Just know that there are so many more terrible things going on behind the scenes of humanity that not a lot of people know about that if THOSE were truly fought in the same way as all this childish fighting over whose toy is better, then things would actually be better

[–]digbus -1 points0 points ago

Repost vs reddit - reposts are winning

[–]Rawr58 -1 points0 points ago

http://karmadecay.com/

[–]luciferase0 -1 points0 points ago

Must...deny...historicity of Bible...unless...can...craft...conspiracy theory...

[–]Pinoth -1 points0 points ago

Wouldn't saying that Mary lied about being a virgin also be saying that you believe Jesus existed?

[–]dclauch1990 -1 points0 points ago

repost #6487

[–]Possob -1 points0 points ago

REPOST!!!!!!!!!!!! Still, great stuff!!!!!! Ty

[–]wojtek858 -1 points0 points ago

Mom, dad! I swear, it was fucking sperm in the sea/swimming pool! I'm a virgin!

Anyway, seriously, what is weird that real virgin can give birth? You don't have to put dick inside to get her pregnant. Science, stupid people.

[–]saskanarchist -1 points0 points ago

Religion attacks all women in general more than anything, to say that Christianity is the product of a woman's lie is outrageous, any person that even remotely believes this just demonstrates to be as bigoted and intolerant as any other religious group.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]sampurban 2 points3 points ago

Reddit doesn't realize a change up of a classic copy pasta. This is a changed version of a 13 year old girl who found a certain 'random' website while looking for random people like her. this is absolutely hilarious, and I applaud you sir

[–]foxygpa 1 point2 points ago

Wish god was real, hit you with a lightning bolt or something, also hope this post was a joke or we are in serious need of an apocalypse.

[–]JeremyJustin 1 point2 points ago

You need to stop.

[–]spartaninspace 0 points1 point ago

<3

[–]dafuqalu -5 points-4 points ago

forgive them father for they know not what they do..

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 21829 on app-64 running 152ff4e.