First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
The True Father of Jesus!
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/6/10
IN my search for evidence for a Jesus in history, I came across only one piece of evidence from a historian speaking his name. What this historian claimed was Jesus is the child of a Roman solder, Marry being wedded to a man, had disgraced herself and her man. Knowing this it is most likely she would hide the fact that she slept with another man, hoping she could trick her man into thinking it was his kid. For some odd reason I take it he never slept with Marry. So in the end she maby even her Husband may have created this fabrication to save face. If that is the case than Jesus might have been lied to as well, making him really think he was a child of god. Children are easy to brainwash that way.


What do you think of that hypothesis?
As always I will not leave my threads without at least a little bit of backing.
Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (c. 22 BCE – CE 40) was a Roman archer of the Cohors I Sagittariorum. He is most notable because of a suggestion (vita di Gesù, Craveri 1966) that he is to be identified with the Roman soldier Panthera, who the writer Celsus claimed[1] was the true father of Jesus. All information about Abdes Pantera's life comes from his tombstone, found in Bingerbrück, Germany in 1859.


Debate this Hypothesis.!
Posted 1/6/10
not really sure if it's true or not a lot of history tends to be distorted and lost overtime but this would not surprise me if it was the was the case...
8356 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 1/6/10
That's just as much evidence as the bible. History, written down, interpreted, changed. Who knows if he really was the son of God, those who believe will believe, those who don't...well won't.... which is why I've stopped debating anything related to religion and the like. There's never been any hard evidence and never will be, debating ends in the same way every time, nothing changes. Until there's some concrete evidence bringing up the topic of religion is pointless in my eyes.

18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/6/10

Joushio wrote:

That's just as much evidence as the bible. History, written down, interpreted, changed. Who knows if he really was the son of God, those who believe will believe, those who don't...well won't.... which is why I've stopped debating anything related to religion and the like. There's never been any hard evidence and never will be, debating ends in the same way every time, nothing changes. Until there's some concrete evidence bringing up the topic of religion is pointless in my eyes.



Note..Topic on Religion it is not, but a topic on finding the truth within history it is.

8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/7/10 , edited 1/7/10
Virgin birth being impossible (let us disregard the possiblity of surgically reattaching the hymen, which was impossible anyway back in the 'ole days), Mary must have had sexual intercourse with someone. It would be a surprise to ever see conclusive evidence as to the father of Jesus, considering his very small significance at the time of his birth.
Posted 1/7/10
Mary should had file for child support.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/10 , edited 1/7/10
Well, considering the fact that Joseph married Marry anyway we can conclude that it was a virgin birth like God said would happen. Joseph was planning on divorcing Marry, and he didn't stay with her because she said she was a virgin, he stayed because an angel told him that it was a miracle from God and that Marry's son would be the Messiah. I think the hypothesis that a soldier got Marry pregnant is just a sad attempt to disprove Christianity.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/7/10

digs wrote:

Well, considering the fact that Joseph married Marry anyway we can conclude that it was a virgin birth like God said would happen. Joseph was planning on divorcing Marry, and he didn't stay with her because she said she was a virgin, he stayed because an angel told him that it was a miracle from God and that Marry's son would be the Messiah. I think the hypothesis that a soldier got Marry pregnant is just a sad attempt to disprove Christianity.


'Hypothesis founded and backed by historical documents.' What do you got for evidence for your side? Faith?
Sorry that was a low blow but I love to see some real backing for your side bub. At that I want to see some real evidence backing your side, it make the debate more fun, and educational.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/7/10

kyoukoujin wrote:

Mary should had file for child support.

At that time Child support was not a option, only a public stoning for sleeping around with another man.

Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/7/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


digs wrote:

Well, considering the fact that Joseph married Marry anyway we can conclude that it was a virgin birth like God said would happen. Joseph was planning on divorcing Marry, and he didn't stay with her because she said she was a virgin, he stayed because an angel told him that it was a miracle from God and that Marry's son would be the Messiah. I think the hypothesis that a soldier got Marry pregnant is just a sad attempt to disprove Christianity.


'Hypothesis founded and backed by historical documents.' What do you got for evidence for your side? Faith?
Sorry that was a low blow but I love to see some real backing for your side bub. At that I want to see some real evidence backing your side, it make the debate more fun, and educational.


Anyone can say that there were historic documents, but the truth is there were many women named Marry, and these documents were probably abused as an attack on Christianity. So much history is spun to make attacks on Christianity. For instance, the whole Horus garbage and Mithra stuff. I have seen it debunked by real history. I have faith, but there are also Roman census records somewhere for the year when Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. The problem is that we haven't found these records yet (though we know there was a census taken). If we have that we can prove Mary and Joseph were married (engaged at that time). And if they were engaged it would support the Biblical account.
362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Boston, Ma
Offline
Posted 1/7/10
Dark you always provoke things.
As far as the theory goes there many other ones about mary and jesus.
1.Jesus is the son of god?
2. Jesus is the son of roman
3. Jesus is just the son of mary, who was notably a very politcialy screwd woman, and might have wanted her son to be immortalized?
4. Any other random theory

As far as all of these go, I will never know. Based on human Psychology though this one seems to be the one that is the most logical, and I think it has merit.(Im referring to the one where jesus is the son of the roman and mary)

No offense to digs, as im not trying to debate religion, but rather just go from historical and psychological evidence.
Posted 1/8/10 , edited 1/8/10
Y'all niggas are postin' in a troll thread!
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/8/10 , edited 1/8/10

Anonymous4 wrote:

Y'all niggas are postin' in a troll thread!


It is a topic that is debate able, and has backing. How do you see this as a troll thread?

Did I say God is fake and you all should go to hell? NO!
I said there is evidence that Jesus was the sun of a roman solders. Witch is a not so well known fact. There is evidence for it.
As if they agree with that is up to them. There able to debate it and challenge it all they like, like any other ed thread, all they need is to bring some backing for there Ideals.

At that This thread is not about religion, its about debating a person named Jesus from the past true origins.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/9/10
wow...not one person on here debated about the hypothesis..why is this?

1)- it discusses a religious figure?

2)-the historical figure is not well known, or cared about?

3)-people mistake this thread for a religious one?

For me personaly, i think it's because Jesus (historical or religious) lived so long ago, there isn't much evidence for or agaisnt either existence, and Jesus is also worshipped by some.

So its going to be hard to debate about any historical figure that lived 1000s of years ago and that happens to be a religious one; but so i can be the ONLY guy to remain on topic, here is my answer to your topic-

Sounds like a pretty good hypothesis.

peace over war
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/9/10

Anyone can say that there were historic documents, but the truth is there were many women named Marry, and these documents were probably abused as an attack on Christianity. So much history is spun to make attacks on Christianity. For instance, the whole Horus garbage and Mithra stuff. I have seen it debunked by real history. I have faith, but there are also Roman census records somewhere for the year when Mary and Joseph registered in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. The problem is that we haven't found these records yet (though we know there was a census taken). If we have that we can prove Mary and Joseph were married (engaged at that time). And if they were engaged it would support the Biblical account.


I don't really find that an account promoting the idea of virgin birth needs further refutation, and on that one I will agree with you. It is pretty ridiculous as it is. I agree that the claims in question may have been made with the sole purpose of launching an attack on Christianity, however, that does not affect the contention that even if Mary was not impregnated by the soldier in question, impregnation was a necessary and unavoidable step provided that Jesus had existed and Mary was her mother. Again, I repeat what I have said, the claim is question is redundant, if it seeks to attack Christianity in respect of virgin birth, it us utterly unnecessary, Christianity has no defence or viable explanation in that regard anyway.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.