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 believe they existed yes, and I believe Jesus was likely some form of missionary/evangelicist. The bible I think is already factually proven to be doctored to support religion in that time, ie of course today Mary wouldn't be a virgin, water wouldn't be turned to wine etc.

From what I understand the true story exists, it's in the Vaticans secret archives, much of which has been opened to scholars, but there are laws and rules and some of it cannot be published. Some of it is not even open to scholars and is only available to each pope. No one knows what it contains.

FFS, yes Jesus existed. The vast majority of (largely atheist) scholars support this view. It is perfectly possible to not believe he was the son of God, yet to believe he was a real person, just as I think Julius Caesar existed, but have doubts about his divinity.

Of course they existed.
It's documented.
Ths is an interesting read: www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/19/gender.uk1

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’

And then adding, BTW my mum was a virgin too when she had me.

Much of the Jesus story is lifted wholesale from previous myths and legends.
Very little (if any) contemporary evidence supporting any of it. Didn't he kill a dragon according to Matthew?

No

Sorry, Time, if the thread has upset you.
I’m grateful we live in a country where we can challenge beliefs though.

@Timewoundsallheals Ok, so you criticise people for voicing their opinion yet at the same time you give yours on the British public in a negative context. ???? Hypocrite. Maybe try listening in church if you have so much faith.
I also very much hope you didn’t mean to be racist when you referred to the British. Nobody else on her has been nasty. It’s people like you who give people with different faiths a bad name.

I do believe they existed. I also think that virgin just meant 'unmarried' and was translated incorrectly.
I've been christened and attend a Christian church (sometimes) but I believe Jesus was a prophet/minister and that 'son of god' was taken literally when it shouldn't have been.

Religious history is fascinating. I read a book called 'the evolution of god' and it's was so interesting (if a little heavy going).

“I also think that virgin just meant 'unmarried' and was translated incorrect”
No that’s not right imo.
Virgin meant virgin.
She was not sexually acitve.
But that was the point. She had to be as she would have to be pure for her to become with child with the son of God. But also pure of heart as she was very religious and obedient to the Lord. I believe Joseph Mary and Jesus definitely existed. I believe Jesus to be the son of God.

No

Cadburys
Why did Mary have to be 'pure' to carry the son of god?
Given the age differential, and the power balance involved (not forgetting his temper and spite like when he caused the flood), how could she have given any kind of meaningful consent?
There's a word for that, and it begins with R.

Virgin meant she had not yet had a period. It is of course possible to become pregnant without having your first period.

"Executed rebel" sounds about right. If Jesus did exist I think that's what he was like.
I go to church but I don't believe 99.99% of the bible. It's very creative.

My year 11's also raised the issue of consent when looking at the Jesus story.

Of course not. There was a lot of prophets and preachers around, and probably a lot called Jesus. The 'best' stories were repeated and repeated and then became recorded by a few religions as people learned to write and interpret them for their own needs. In general, the human race are way too consumed with how important we think we are. We're nothing but a bunch of cells and bacteria, Happy Christmas everyone

I heard that virgin is almost certainly a mistranslation from the original Greek where the word used could mean 'virgin' or 'young woman'.

I'm astonished that so many people don't know that Jesus really lived.

I am not religious but I believe they did exist. However, I do not believe Jesus was the son of god. Just a very charismatic man who was a good public speaker/story teller.

Yes he existed and obviously as a human, had parents. Wasn't born at Christmastime, Christian stories had to fit in with pre-existing belief system dates and times of year in order to be accepted.
Many parts were lost in translation and the stories were only allegorical, not intended to be taken literally.
I always wonder why the 'R' word and question of consent come up, as sexual intercourse didn't happen in the story, God isn't a human with a penis.

rabble-rousing

Wabble wousing you say?

My honest opinion about it is who cares if they did. God definitely doesn’t exist so that just makes those three a bunch of normal people who lied about not having a shag.

St Paul interviewed eye witnesses including St Peter, so his accounts in his various letters are fairly authoritative.
Mary did indeed give consent to the pregnancy, according to the gospel account. After Gabriel explained the plan, Mary said “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it unto me according to thy word”.
Mary and Joseph had several children after Jesus. His brothers did not recognise him as the Messiah and tried to stop him preaching and making a spectacle of himself at one point.
As for the resurrection - I think there is some evidence for that in the reactions of the disciples.
After the crucifixion, they initially denied having ever known Jesus, and hid away from the authorities in a locked room, planning to escape Jerusalem and go back to their old lives as fishermen in Galilee.
But something dramatic changed their minds. Something earth shattering and life changing gave them the courage to go out and preach the gospel, facing their own torture and crucifixion in many cases. I think that event could only have been the knowledge of Christ’s resurrection.
And as for Jesus himself. Either he was a liar, or mad, or he was exactly what he said he was - the son of God.
Let’s look at those possibilities. If he was lying, what did he gain from it? He owned nothing but his robe and sandals, took no money, and chose to suffer a savage whipping and agonising death by crucifixion. Why would he choose to do that?
Let’s say he was insane. A madman, raving nonsense about the kingdom of God. The Jews at the time did not tolerate lunatics. They assumed they were possessed by evil spirits and they drove them out of town. Or in Galilee, dumped them on the far side of the lake. They certainly didn’t follow them in their thousands and ask them for healing and forgiveness.
I think on the balance of probabilities, we have to assume he was telling the truth- he was the son of God.
And millions of Christians, in the 2000 years since then, have had personal encounters with the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ to be with us, after he himself returned to heaven.
Christ promised that he would prepare a place for us, and we would be with him after our own deaths. On the basis of his actions during his life, (and my own personal encounter), I trust that promise.

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.

I haven't seen anything contemptuous. Not believing a highly unbelievable story is not contemptuous. The majority of people in the UK are raised in a Christian(ish) faith and have every right to disregard or question bits of their culture.

I also very much hope you didn’t mean to be racist when you referred to the British. yeah, that's not racism. That's not what racism is.

I always wonder why the 'R' word and question of consent come up, as sexual intercourse didn't happen in the story, God isn't a human with a penis.

I wonder this too. Also we have no idea what age Mary was. The average age for starting periods has varied dramatically through the ages and might have been as high as 16 due to poorer nutrition (and not eating foods pumped full of hormones).

"millions of Christians, in the 2000 years since then, have had personal encounters with the Holy Spirit"
Well given the sincere belief and experience of millions of HIndus we know beyond any reasonable doubt - that there really are a whole bunch of gods up there with Jesus included a giant ape god and one with an elephant trunk.

Allah too of course and 1000s of other gods.