Do you think Mary, Joseph and Jesus existed?

[Papergirl1968]

Do you think Mary, Joseph and Jesus existed? I thought about putting this under religion, but thought there’d be a wider range of views on chat.
I’m not religious any more (was raised Methodist) but the Christmas story is something I think about occasionally, usually when I’m singing carols to the cat .
My own view is that they probably did exist, but I don’t buy the son of god thing. I’d hazard a guess that Mary got pregnant by Joseph when they were being intimate, even if they didn’t technically have sex. So she panicked and either invented or dreamed a convenient story about the angel telling her she was carrying the son of god.
I believe there’s evidence that they would have had to travel to Bethlehem - although not at Christmas - and that there was a bright star in the sky etc.
And I think Jesus may well have had children. Or maybe I just took the Da Vinci Code too seriously...
Would be interested to hear what others think.

I wonder if Jesus was just a really charismatic guy with paranoid delusions about being the messiah.

Jesus yes, Mary and Joseph no - they're just backstory. Jesus would almost certainly have fathered children, unless he was perhaps impotent.

*I think "Jesus" was one of many, many radical bigmouths who were executed by the occupying Romans for rabble-rousing and political activism.

There's no evidence that the "Christmas story" ever happened, and no evidence that Jesus was anything more than an executed rebel.*

This.

I believe he existed, but I think he was just an intelligent illusionist that was able to con many people. And still does of course.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/1699996-The-Great-Jesus-debate-Did-he-exist-at-all-and-if-he-did-what-reasons-do-we-have-to-believe-he-was-divine

This discussion is fascinating and helped me reach the conclusion that Jesus most likely did not exist.

I’m not at all religious, but Jesus was a real person and there appears to be historical evidence of his existence.

The rest is all a jolly good story and an excuse for a party, by way of appropriation from other stories and religions. With the odd historical grain of truth mixed in.

pocm.info/

I believe Jesus existed and had parents. I don't believe God exists.

No.

Given how much the Roman bureaucrats wrote down and how much has survived it is quite telling that there is no secular evidence of Jesus nor the supposed events around his life.

There may well have been a historical person called Jesus. In the bible, he was referred to as "teacher" which may well indicate he was a rabbi. If so, it would not have been unusual for him to marry and have children. It may have stood out more if he either did not marry, or married a woman who was not Jewish.
The story in the bible may well be akin to the evolution of the legend of King Arthur in Britain: There likely was a king or great warrior who had a name similar to Arthur, or was referred to by a name similar, but the whole Excalibur and knights of the round table are much later additions.
What you have to remember is that the founders of early Christianity needed to sell the guy they followed as the Messiah. Going round saying that their rabbi said X,Y,Z wasn't going to cut it. They story needed to fit what was prophesied. So, the Messiah needed to be born in Bethlehem, make up a story about there being a census and every man needing to return to his home town (no Roman census ever required that). One of the gospels even includes the line of descent to Mary, to prove that he was born from the "line of kings".
There's a lot of making the facts fit in the bible, but, speaking as an atheist, I wouldn't claim that there was no historical person called Jesus who went round teaching Judaism, or a slightly different form of Judaism and potentially rattled a few cages. I would simply claim that the acts attributed to him in the gospels are exaggerated in an attempt to make him into the Messiah. It's interesting to note that only the gospels which pronounce Jesus as the "son of God" are considered canon, while the rest were discarded.

Hmm, lots of varied and interesting views.
I just read on the internet that Mary was supposed to be 12 and Joseph 90!

Yes definitely. There were several none biblical accounts of the life of Jesus.

Yes I do think they did.

Finally, someone who shares my view on this. It’s as though I wrote it myself. After all there were no gaenacologists in those days, so who’d know.

Could you imagine saying to dp or dh ‘ last night an angel came to me and said I was pregnant and the baby is God’s son’
My dh would drop to the floor in hysterics!

This:

Yes. Also unicorns

Jesus may have existed, but the stories surrounding his birth, life and ressurection were formulated after his death in order to fit the narrative of the messiah written about in the old testament. The Romans would never have conducted a trial and execution in the manner that is described in the new testament and there is no Roman record of such a trial.

He was probably one of many itinerant preachers whose particular presentation and personality was inspirational and caught on.

When you look at some of the daft beliefs that humans are quite happy to devote their lives to, it's not really surprising that christianity came about. There's no reason to believe it's true though.

It's hardly an uncommon name.

Just one more noisy preacher who happened to go viral, I reckon.

I reckon he said we are all the sons and daughter of god and his message got translated wrong so people thought ‘did you hear that he thinks he’s gods son.’ He is mentioned in Islam as well although the story of his birth is very different and Joseph and the stable are not involved. I think his miracles were just exaggerated rumours. Think about how society loves to believe rumours etc. He was getting too popular and causing a bit of consternation so he was executed.

Now if he was crucified the Christians gave the imagery all wrong, you were nailed up by your wrist not thenpalm of your hands. The hands are too weak to hold you in place. He then went into shock and lapsedvinto a coma, his vitals were faint so he was assumed dead. They put him in a cave with a rock in front and guards. Now it is said that one of the Mary’s went in to clean and dress the body so the cave was open enough for someone to get in/out. I think the guards left their posts Jesus had come round and escaped and they made up a story about him coming back to life. I reality hebfled to safety and went into hiding.

This is just my theory though :)

Excuse the typos, fat thumbs

I find it fascinating to think about the origins of Christianity. I mean, someone must have kicked it all off? Jesus was like one of the original viral artists!

There are non-biblical sources showing Jesus lived - so yes, even if I didn't believe the biblical ones I'd say yes.
He must have had parents, though there is no other record of their names. However, as those who recorded the crucifixion said that Mary was his mother's name, no reason why it couldn't be.
I thought the word for "virgin" was an age/marital status thing.

(If you like that sort of stuff)

The full show is incredibly well researched and thoughtful ...

I feel genuinely quite saddened by how blithely people say quite contemptuous things about the central (human) people in my religion on this thread even though it’s to be expected given this is a British forum and the British are notoriously disrespectful to religion.

Guess if I can’t take the heat I should get out of the kitchen.

There are a couple of other historic figures, who probably existed, but not in the way we think.

The Great Heathen Army that invaded Briton in the 800s was lead by Ivar the Boneless, Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, and Uber Lothbrokson. They were all brothers, and along with Bjorn Ironside would have carried the surname Lothbrokson - son of the Lothbrok. The Lothbrok in question was Ragnar Lothbrok. Like Sigurd, Bjorn, and Ivar, he was know by a nickname (Hairy Britches - something akin to bear skin trousers) rather than adding a son suffix to his father's name. Whilst there is (relatively) evidence galore for Ivar, Bjorn, Uber, Siggurd, there is virtually none for Ragnar. Viking chieftains were unlikely to dilute their own accomplishments thru false affiliation - leaving us to conclude that either Ragnar did exist or was a later adjustment to their stories.

Similarly, we have King Arthur. As the Romans left Britannia, there were issues between various Pict tribes and the Trinnovantes and Iceni. A King Arthur recruited 2 Saxon/Engle war-chiefs to bring him victory. Hroth invaded Kent, and took position at Hrothcester (Rochester) and Hrors founded Horsham. The Saxons proved so good at killing Britons, that it wasn't long before a mass invasion took place. That mass invasion was resisted, allegedly, by a King Arthur (not the one from before); but there is virtually no contemporary record of such a person; and his achievements are more akin to attributing a number of unrelated events to one person - ie: "Arthur" is the entire British resistance, not an actual person.

With Jesus, it could well be the same. Mary and Joseph were allegedly travelling to add to the records of the Roman census. This almost certainly means they were travelling in the spring/summer where more day light made roads safer to travel. They may or may not have had a child. That child may or may not have gone on to have been executed for heresy (Jesus was convicted by Jewish religious courts not Roman political courts). It is more than likely that his life was repeatedly redrafted to add more events pre and post death; in whatever ways suited the desires of the redrafters.