This is a sensitive subject and deservse care. I would like to first say that this is only speculation in trying to come to logic. If anyone is familiar with the story of Jesus (I’m assuming everyone is) it is claimed he was born from a virgin by the name marry. She was between the ages of 12-16. I’m sorry but I was always told that the simple answer is usually the correct one and god impregnating a 12 year old is a little wierd. I understand the culture is different but this sounds like rape. Not by a god but possibly by a man who was possibly intertwined with the church. As we know the least reported crime in the world is sexual assault, and usually the victims will remain silent and even lie for the offender because they feel guilt and shame thinking it was their fault they were hurt. If a member of the church wanted to hurt her it would’ve be difficult as the church held all the power next to the romans. What if Jesus was a product of rape? The whole religion would be founded on a tragedy. All I’m saying is this is more logical than the holy spirit getting freaky with a kid. Makes me sick. Anyways you have the floor
My guess would be the entire story is fake, its similar to other myths of people being born from a virgin.
If any of it at all really happened she could have just procreated with Joseph, you said you tend to go for the simplest answer and that seems more simple than speculating on a 2000 year old rape.
It is Mary, not marry.
At the time in which the legend is set, women were the property of men and existed first of all for the pleasure of men and of course the production of offspring, which were also chattel to the man. It wasn’t unusual to marry anywhere past the age of 12, which to this day is when Jewish Bar / Bat Mitzvah ceremonies occur to mark one’s coming of age.
That doesn’t make it right but by the standards of the day it would not have been rape. Besides, the story doesn’t imply that god manifested a Holy Phallus and physically invaded her. It’s written more like he magically caused her to conceive.
Of course the whole question is irrelevant really because it’s just a legend.
I agree with that except for the fact that the story is too convenient for the roman church to press their message. I’m attempting to connect the dots to from a corrupted power as the church to the victims whi would still claim its god. Isn’t it more likely that mary would have been threatened to prrach this prophecy out of fear than simply because a 12 year thought it was fun or something? I recognize that most atheists don’t believe that these stories were even true and I agree but if they are the behavior of a young woman who was sexualy asulted by a member of the church would definitely act this way as not to disrupt the culture she’s ment to be a part of. If she was raped she would have to marry that man and if she was with Joseph at the time they would have to stone her. It was a lose lose for her.
Assaulted by a member of which church?
I would first have to accept that the biblical character Mary was a real historical person, what can you offer in support of this?
In as a far as what you allude to is wild speculation regarding a possibly fictional character - yes. Absolutely. Mary was raped. Case closed.
If we are talking hypotheticals, what the story clearly depicts is non-consensual, but whether it would constitute rape I don’t know, as it involves the depiction of inexplicable magic. What I mean is, was any sex involved?
It all sounds very iffy to me, and of course this myth is not unique, in deities having dalliances with women who are virgins.
I would highlight here but all of you are missing the same point. I’m asking is it possible that mary or some girl back then was impregnated by a person with power and told to lie saying that the child is the son of God? I am not assuming god is real and impregnated mary in this question. The reason i ask this is that if we look at the Jewish church along with the roman catholic church they’re not shy to pedophilia and using the argument that everything is in gods plan. We also understand that victims of sexual always lie and won’t report a crime even in our current culture. I could’ve imagine being faced with having to either get stoned to death for adultery, marrying the man who raped me, or telling everyone that god gave me this child. The result of the outlandish lie outways the consequences of telling the truth if it was true.
This legend along others shows a virgin having a child by some gods hand. But that story came from somewhere why not one that was a result of rape. Because thats what it sounds like when you remove the supernatural from the story
Yes its possible, i would say its just not the most simple answer.
More simple answers include, it was all made up or the baby was born in circumstances what were frowned upon so some story about spirits were made up.
If a jewish organisation was the route of all this then wow that backfired on them.
They forced a woman to lie about how she got pregnant and ended up creating the biggest organized religion in the world that surpassed their own.
Impregnating someone, forcing someone to lie, even to make up a grand supernatural tale, are all demonstrably possible, so I think you mean to ask how probable is it. Given we accept this is possible, it is a priori more probable than a supernatural explanation, since no supernatural event / cause, has never been objectively demonstrated as possible.
Lost me sorry, not seeing a connection between the gospel myths about a virgin birth and this?
No, we don’t know that is always the case, though it certainly happens a lot, and in cultures that victim blame, it likely happens more often.
Well there is no objective evidence any deity or deities exist, or are even possible, or anything supernatural, so this is sufficient reason for me withhold belief, I don’t need to indulge in unevidenced conspiracies.
Of course it can’t be ruled out, but demonstrating this is what happened is impossible.
IDK, the Christian virgin birth myth is akin to earlier ones, which were common in the Grecio-Roman world. Those myths were inherently narratives about conception without sexual intercourse, hence miraculous. I think it likely that the original such myths were made up.
I don’t know how much you’ve studied early Christian history (the first 3 or 4 centuries CE, before something akin to the current Christian orthodoxy won out over the other competing ones), but there’s no evidence that the gospels were, as often alleged, “eyewitness accounts”. They are anonymously authored (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attributed authorship by later tradition) and do not have a rigorous modern story telling ethos. The were probably based on collected “sayings of Jesus” written down over time, passed on from oral tradition, with all that implies. What I’m getting at is that the stories in the gospels, including that of Jesus’ supposedly miraculous / remarkable birth, would have to be regarded as literal historical accounts or at least “based on real events” to be speculating as you are, when it’s far more likely they are made up stories further tweaked by subsequent generations of scribes and church officials seeking to conform them more to the evolving orthodoxy.
So I personally think they are best understood as legends / hagiography / propaganda, not some rape victim’s cover-up in the service of Stockholm Syndrome.
Besides, sexual assault / rape have a power imbalance dynamic that’s pretty universal. The reason it’s rampant in religious circles – especially in “high church” tradition where the clergy is deliberately given an elevated ethereal “otherness” through ritual and costume and pageantry and the confessor role and the celibate priesthood – is that the perps are beyond question, assumed pure of heart without evidence, and even more sexually repressed than the laity. The very reasons priests are sometimes called “vicars” is that, VICARiously, they are in the very role of Jesus himself, the son of god almighty, creator and ruler and sustainer of heaven and earth. You can’t have more dominance through power inequality than THAT.
So rape is hand-in-glove with that, as it’s not so much about sexual gratification as it is about ritual humiliation and dominance over victims. I think that dynamic adequately explains why it’s arguably more prevalent in the church than you’d think.
It is not BTW just the Catholics or other “high church” traditions. It happens plenty throughout all Christian sects. It is just not usually entrenched and nurtured / perpetuated at that kind of scale. But for example, it’s not hard to find stories of evangelical pastors brought down by sexual scandals. Youth pastors in particular, who have better / more frequent access to and influence over young teens, can be abusers and might be brought down years later when their past offenses are brought to light when they’re in more elevated roles.
My own formulation is that humans, by default and absent rigorous efforts at self-awareness, education and empathy, are shitty to each other. I don’t really feel the need for anything else to explain sexual assault / exploitation in (or out of) the churches.
I agree hence why I’m only claiming speculation. Where do you suppose this legend originated from. And do you think that if we could prove this was the case that it could start to dismantle the Christian faith and others?
I think you’re being a bit naive here. None of it really matters. If it did, why are we not asking how in the world Joesph believed the Mary was impregnated by God? Clearly the whole story is filled with absurdities, contradictions - all of which lead to skepticism and speculation. What if Mary was raped by the Wolfman? What then?
Ah and here is where things get interesting. We’re never told how Joseph and mary met. The biblical texts don’t explicitly detail how Mary and Joseph met. While the Gospels mention their betrothal and subsequent marriage, they don’t provide a specific story of their first meeting. Traditional accounts suggest they met through an arranged marriage. Some traditions, like the Golden Legend, depict a divine intervention where Joseph’s rod bloomed, indicating his selection as Mary’s husband. Other possibilities include them being friends or acquaintances within their community.
In response to that it basically is saying Joseph found that he was sexualy attracted to her at a young age therefore chose her as his wife. Was joseph connected to the Jewish church before jesus and the formation of the Christian church?
Yes, Joseph, Mary’s husband, was Jewish and connected to the Jewish faith before the birth of Jesus. He was a descendant of David, a key figure in Jewish history. Joseph’s role in Jesus’s lineage was important for establishing Jesus as the Messiah, as he was the legal father and heir to the Davidic throne.
Here’s a more detailed look at Joseph’s connections to the Jewish faith:
Joseph’s lineage through David was crucial because it was believed that the Messiah would come from that line.
As a Jewish man, Joseph followed Jewish customs and traditions, including observing the Sabbath and other religious practices.
Like many other Jewish people of the time, Joseph likely shared the hope of the imminent arrival of the Messiah, a figure who would lead Israel to a new era.
While Jesus’s mother, Mary, was biologically his mother, Joseph’s role in the genealogy of the Gospel accounts was important for establishing Jesus’s legal claim to the Davidic throne and thus his legitimacy as the Messiah.
It’s worth noting that a separate figure, Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy Jewish man, is also mentioned in the New Testament. He was a follower of Jesus and played a role in his burial.
Yes, there were various Jewish groups during Jesus’ time who expected the Messiah and his coming. While it’s impossible to definitively say whether they orchestrated Jesus’ birth, ministry, or death, it’s certainly plausible that some within those groups played a role in the events surrounding Jesus.
Elaboration:
- Jewish Expectations of the Messiah:
Many Jewish groups in the first century CE, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others, believed in the coming of the Messiah, a figure who would usher in a new era of peace, justice, and restoration.
- Different Messiahs:
Some Jewish groups expected the Messiah to be a political and military leader, while others envisioned a priest or a figure who would bring about spiritual transformation.
- The Qumran Community and the Dead Sea Scrolls:
The Qumran community, who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, anticipated a military leader as the Messiah.
- Claims of Messiahship:
There were also individuals and groups who claimed to be the Messiah, including Rabbi Akiva who thought Bar Kochba was the Messiah, and others who claimed to be God.
- Possible Influence:
It’s possible that some Jewish groups, like those who opposed Jesus’ teachings or saw his ministry as a threat to their authority, may have played a role in the events leading to his death, such as informing the Roman authorities.
- No Concrete Evidence of Orchestration:
While some may have seen Jesus as a threat and may have contributed to his death, there is no concrete historical evidence to suggest that any Jewish group orchestrated Jesus’ birth, ministry, or death.
Who’s to say that the son of david didn’t want to have all the power of the nation’s bestowed upon his son? By taking the virginity of mary By coercing her and making her fall for him Through manipulation Isn’t it possible that It was simply planned by this family of generations. Written in one book is about the genealogy of Jesus and his ancestors. Who’s not to say that this entire genealogy was bat S***, crazy, and so willing to gain power That they would exploit the innocence Of a twelve year old girl just for this one child to be born and then taught this fucked up way of thinking? If joseph was the offender he didn’t have much given to him and was just a carpenter. Poor life for the son of a suposed king. Well why not live vicariously through his rape child? He makes a mistake she’s pregnant and they get married. In his mind saying that god did it is a great way to regain power lost.
I would also like to argue that though i don’t believe in god or Jesus hence why I don’t capitalize the word god doesn’t mean that the evidence for Jesus as a living person isn’t true. Infact there is no evidence on the contrary that can be provided that Jesus wasn’t a real person. My personal understanding of this is I would consider Jesus more luciferian than anything and possibly even the catalyst for the occult though thats a debate for another time.