Was Jesus fathered by a Roman soldier?

[SkinsHokieFan]

In case anyone cares, the Quran confirms the virgin birth of Jesus (pbuh) and also adds a story that he spoke as a baby to confirm his prophethood

33-She said, `How can I bear a son while no man (has married me and) has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste.' (19:20)

34-(The angel) said, `So the fact is (just as you describe). Your Lord has said, "It is easy for Me. (We shall do it) so that We make him a sign and a (source of) blessing from Us for the people. It is a matter ordained".' (19:21)

35-She (- Mary) conceived him (- the child) and withdrew with him to a remote place. (19:22)

36-(When Jesus grew up) she took him to her people carrying him on a mount. They said, `Mary! you have brought a strange thing. (19:27)

37-Thereupon she pointed to him (- her son Jesus meaning thereby that he will answer them). They said, `How should we speak to one who was (till recently) a child in the cradle?' (19:29)

38-(It came to pass that the son of Mary) said, `I am indeed a servant of Allâh, He has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet. (19:30)

39-`And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined upon me prayer and alms-giving so long as I live. (19:31)

40-`And (He has made me) dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me arrogant, graceless. (19:32)

41-`And peace was upon me the day I was born, and (peace will be upon me) the day I die, and the day I shall be raised up to life (again).' (19:33)

42-Such was Jesus, son of Mary. (This is) a statement of true facts (about him), concerning which they so deeply disagree. (19:34)

[Chicken Fried]

I don't get it. Why is this necessary? Didn't Jesus intercede for us once and for all? Because of Him, don't we have communion with God from here to eternity? Why is Mary a middle woman?

It's part of Christianity. We pray for each other. Catholics pray to the Saints that they might pray to God for them. We want people praying for us because it is pleasing to God. In Timothy, Paul says that Christians should intercede, and he even asks for others to pray for him.

In addition, by praying to model Christians (the saints), they can support any of our own shortcomings in prayer.

Intercession by no means takes the place of praying directly to Jesus. That is a necessary part of prayer, but it helps to have others pray for you as well.

[Burgold]

OK, this is getting very tiresome. No offense, but you don't understand Catholicism. You have an outsider's perspective, and that's fine. I'm just letting you know it's wrong.

Catholics don't make Mary into anything close to a deity. She is incredibly respected, and she is a model for humans to try to emulate. Essentially, Catholics see her as the ideal human, someone who selflessly gave themselves to God's will without hesitation. We don't worship her or really come close. We pray to her, but like the communion of saints, she is not a deity. Quoting from a book on the catechism, "Devotion to Mary, and to all the saints, is ultimately devotion to Christ, whose grace has triumphed in Mary and the saints."

Certainly didn't mean to offend, but look a the highlighted words even in your own reply and you can understand the confusion. I don't want to go further for risk of further offending, but the language of elevation and exaltation when speaking about Mary is used pretty frequently. I didn't think that you put her on the same level as God or Jesus, but she seems to be as I said "almost"

[Kosher Ham]

Perhaps the soldier gave her a lot of wine.

[thebluefood]

I don't get it. Why is this necessary? Didn't Jesus intercede for us once and for all? Because of Him, don't we have communion with God from here to eternity? Why is Mary a middle woman?

"I know, right?"

(Just bustin' your balls, Chicken Fried )

[chipwhich]

She is incredibly respected, and she is a model for humans to try to emulate.

Yet the catholic church still wont let women be priests, even though Mary is just a model for humans to emulate. Got it

[Kosher Ham]

It's not even like she is the Matriarch of people according to the Bible.

Makes no sense.

[Thiebear]

Who cares who Fathered Jesus:

We dont say WFJ we say WWJD. It's his works and words that makes him what he is.

[thebluefood]

I don't really understand it either. Mary isn't even mentioned much throughout the New Testament.

Then again, I'm a Protestant, so...we're not really concerned about that. Catholics go their way and we go ours.

[endzone_dave]

Certainly didn't mean to offend, but look a the highlighted words even in your own reply and you can understand the confusion. I don't want to go further for risk of further offending, but the language of elevation and exaltation when speaking about Mary is used pretty frequently. I didn't think that you put her on the same level as God or Jesus, but she seems to be as I said "almost"

How many times during a Catholic Mass is Mary brought up?

[Kosher Ham]

Who cares who Fathered Jesus:

We dont say WFJ we say WWJD. It's his works and words that makes him what he is.

Jokes, I could make with that one.

I don't ask what Jesus would do. Because I have to decide on my own what I should do.

Let's mix it up...We don't even really know if those are his words.

[Thiebear]

Of course people go to Jesus and Mary and St. Patrick.

We are born to go to Mom when Dad doesn't give us what we wish for. It's built into our DNA.

If they fail to bend to our wants we go hitup Grandma.

[MartinC]

I'm in class (early Jewish history / Christian) right now and this theory came up...I have never heard of this before, but it sounds possible..

Apparently there was a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera who possibly raped Mary while he was stationed in Judea.

Brian to Mother : You were raped by a Roman !

Mother to Brian : Well, at first ........

[AsburySkinsFan]

Who cares who Fathered Jesus:

We dont say WFJ we say WWJD. It's his works and words that makes him what he is.

Well that would work if you wanted to just boil down Jesus into some 21st century philosophical stew, but if you actually want to listen to what Jesus actually says, well then...that just won't do.

BTW, for the record...His DIVINITY makes him what he is, his works and words are an expression of that divinity. Personally, I find it oddly amusing that you say that his words make him what he is and then immediately ignore the words that Jesus says.

[Kosher Ham]

I would argue ASF, that Jesus did not write the Bible. Perhaps part fiction. Fiction books were around even back then it seems.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Let's mix it up...We don't even really know if those are his words.

So far I'm looking through this thread for either a) an original question, or at least an original thought. You're right though, we don't know if those are Jesus' words at all, I mean while we're mixing it up why not ask the question: "Since we can't verify the authenticity of the scriptures through empirical evidence, what is there to stop us from saying that the real Jesus was a fat lazy, alcoholic, pedophile?"

See, isn't this fun!?

It's like this, you either take the words of the Bible (a book of faith) as they are, or you don't, but you don't get to tell the Bible what it was supposed to say, and you don't get to change what the Bible says just because it sounds to your ears like ancient mythology. Nothing is more insulting than someone trying to reduce a savior down to empty platitude and cliches.

---------- Post added February-25th-2011 at 08:26 AM ----------

I would argue ASF, that Jesus did not write the Bible. Perhaps part fiction. Fiction books were around even back then it seems.

Gee you know, I never thought of that. Although it does beg the question as to why every single (save Judas) Apostle of Jesus died a martyrs death for a work of fiction. I mean I know I line right up to die for the latest Danielle Steele novel...actually that probably would kill me, but you get the point.

[chipwhich]

Gee you know, I never thought of that. Although it does beg the question as to why every single (save Judas) Apostle of Jesus died a martyrs death for a work of fiction. I mean I know I line right up to die for the latest Danielle Steele novel...actually that probably would kill me, but you get the point.

Nope Americans don't typically die a martyrs death.

People from that region however do it all the time.

We Americans don't understand that.

[Tweedr01]

I tell you what ASF, when it comes to politics I am usually in disagreement with you, but in terms of faith, you do a great job standing up and representing for our God. It'd be nice if more people took a stand like you when blasted with degrading statements about their faith in God.

Side note, I can't stand using the word religion to describe my faith in God. It's not really religion in the sense of what everyone stereotypes it as, more like a relationship.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nope Americans don't typically die a martyrs death.

People from that region however do it all the time.

We Americans don't understand that.

So you're telling me that they died for what they knew was fiction?

Ok, so in order to substantiate this you're going to have to give some reasoning as to why they would die for what they knew was fake...and since they were going to their deaths it's not they they had a lot to gain. Either that or you're going to have to make the case that they were all insane.

Good luck either way.

[mcsluggo]

i really don't understand why this Mary thing is particularly confusing, but to lay out the groundrules:

a "saint" is defined as a person who died and went to heaven. EVERYONE who died and went to heaven. the church annoints a dead person as a saint when they think there is evidence that that individual "was accepted" into heaven (i know... it sounds like a colege application) but EVEREYONE that made it to heaven is a saint, we just don't know form here who made it and who didn't.

Jesus is God, born onto earth in order to more fully connect the perfection that is God with the imperfection that is human. Jesus suffered and felt emotions in a very human way.

Catholics pray to ALL saints... they made it. they are people to aspire to. clearly they had wisdom and other good spitzat about them. While death is scary, you are looking forward to seeing these people that you knew again, and meeting those saints that you didn't know here on earth

Mary is a saint. Catholics believe beyond any doubt that Mary is in heaven. IN fact she was so special amongst humans that she was spared the agony of death, and "walked" straight into heaven without actually dying on earth. so you could argue that she is first amongst SAINTS, but that is pretty far from being an actual deity.

[Thiebear]

Well that would work if you wanted to just boil down Jesus into some 21st century philosophical stew, but if you actually want to listen to what Jesus actually says, well then...that just won't do.

BTW, for the record...His DIVINITY makes him what he is, his works and words are an expression of that divinity. Personally, I find it oddly amusing that you say that his words make him what he is and then immediately ignore the words that Jesus says.

I'm not a follower so i normally don't call him God. I don't doubt he existed: And make it a point not to belittle another persons faith.

(to me) His words and Actions got him the followers and changed the world. I didn't make up WWJD.

I've read them, He'd hang out with me before you ASF , I'm just positioning myself at the head of the line.

[mcsluggo]

but back to the original thread premise:

OBVIOUSLY if you don't think Jesus was God, then the fact that Mary was pregnant before she was married implies some sort of hanky panky, whether it was with a roman soldier or not. It doesn't take very much clever thought or originality to come up with that, really.

IN the end it comes down to: "Do you belive the most incredible story on earth?" Do you believe: "That a young girl was impregnated by the essence of God in order to bring heaven onto earth and to help guide regular people back up into heaven?"

If you don't believe that incredible story, then OBVIOUSLY the more mundane ones are more plausible. no duh?

it is indeed all about faith.

---------- Post added February-25th-2011 at 03:07 PM ----------

and... for the record: I don't really have faith. But i wish I did. And i am very open to the possibility that it is true.... i just can't currently close my eyes and step into the abyss and faithfully believe that i will be caught. Like i said, i wish i did.

[Chicken Fried]

Certainly didn't mean to offend, but look a the highlighted words even in your own reply and you can understand the confusion. I don't want to go further for risk of further offending, but the language of elevation and exaltation when speaking about Mary is used pretty frequently. I didn't think that you put her on the same level as God or Jesus, but she seems to be as I said "almost"

You didn't offend me, and I understand what you're saying. I see the confusion you might have, but none of the highlighted phrases point to a deity. She's basically how God wants us to be, but it doesn't make her a deity or even "almost" one. Basically, she's at the top of humanity, but there is still a huge gap between humanity and the divine.

---------- Post added February-25th-2011 at 11:35 AM ----------

Yet the catholic church still wont let women be priests, even though Mary is just a model for humans to emulate. Got it

There are many reasons for that, both theological and Biblical.

[techboy]

We don't even really know if those are his words.

That's really not accurate, at least not entirely so. A.N. Sherwin-White (here's his Wikipedia entry) was an eminent historian of ancient Rome at Oxford University. He wrote Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, among other works. On page 186 of that book he writes:

Subtle techniques of source-criticism have been evolved for the detection and elimination of various types of bias and anachronism, whether of the intermediate or of the original source, or of the writer who actually survives and transmits his work to us. To judge by what is so freely published, we are satisfied with our methods, and believe that a hard core or basic layer of historical truth can be recovered from even the most deplorable of our tertiary sources- be it Diodorus or Florus or even the Epitome de Caesaribus. The basic reason for this confidence is, if put summarily, the existence of external confirmations, and the working of the synoptic principle. From time to time external contemporary evidence of a sort less warped by the bias of personalities- e.g. the texts of laws and public accounts- confirms the conclusions drawn from the critical study of literary sources. Hence we are bold to trust our results in the larger fields where there is no such confirmation. Equally, the criticism of sources tends to reveal the existence of a basic unitary tradition beneath the manifold divergences of detail in rival narratives, which is often the product of their particular bias.

Incidentally, there is the kind of external confirmation Sherwin-White mentions as backing up textual criticism for the texts of the New Testament. He continues on page 188:

Yet however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict the the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed, even if these were not shored up and confirmed by the external guarantee of their fabric and setting. That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins. For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propoganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

Do you remember the Jesus Seminar which was so big in the news a few years ago? They were a radically skeptical group of scholars, headed by the aforementioned John Dominic Crossan (of the "wild dog theory", you will recall), and they got a lot of attention by going through Jesus' words and voting on which they thought were actually authentic, i.e. came from Jesus. Even that group found strong enough evidence to support as reliable 18% of Jesus' words, and most Biblical scholars aren't that harsh in their analysis.

In point of fact, even conservative Biblical scholars tend to be more skeptical than historians would be analyzing any other text. Michael Grant (here's his Wikipedia page) was another eminent classical historian, and in his Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels writes on page 201:

A short way back, exception was taken to the view that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong. Should we, therefore, accept the opposite opinion, which has been locked in an agonizing struggle with it for two hundred years, that all the contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine? No, that is also too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields. When, for example, one tries to build up facts from the accounts of pagan historians, judgement often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation- which is sometimes, but by no means always, available- but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability. The same applies to the Gospels. Their contents need not be assumed fictitious until they are proved authentic. But they have to be subjected to the usual standards of historical persuasiveness.

There are actually quite a few sayings of Jesus that can be fairly reliably traced back to him, using the methods Grant and Sherwin-White talk about, far more even than the 18% garnered using the approach Grant dismisses as overly skeptical (he's not very impressed as an historian with what he calls the "form critics", which as I said, even the more conservative Biblical scholars tend to be),

I would argue ASF, that Jesus did not write the Bible.

That's true. Jesus' actions and teachings were recorded by others.

Perhaps part fiction. Fiction books were around even back then it seems.

Yes, there were indeed authors of myths and what we would today call fiction, in those days. What scholars are today recognizing, though, is that the Gospels are written in the genre of the ancient biography.

If you read that page from James D G Dunn's excellent Jesus Remembered, or perhaps this more general article on the genre, you will find that while the ancient biographer did not concern himself as much for specific details or precise chronological order, as might a modern biographer, there was a focus on portraying the character of a person by relating his words and deeds, so it was not anything like, say, Homer's Iliad, or Aesop's Fables.

This is borne out by the historical accuracy discussed by Sherwin-White, and also by the fact that the earliest Christians really believed at least the core of these stories, as I will elaborate a bit on below when I respond to chipwhich.

Nope Americans don't typically die a martyrs death.

People from that region however do it all the time.

You're talking about suicide bombers. Are you suggesting, though, that those suicide bombers are killing themselves for something they don't believe is true?

It's kind of a moot point, though, because it is an historical fact that the disciples and early Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus.

Consider this passage from Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying, by Dr. Gary Habermas. Keep in mind that this is a survey of critical scholars.

I like to quote this section:

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

Please keep in mind that Dr. Ehrman is not a Christian. He is a skeptic. Note also the citations of the various critical principles of the historian that we've been talking about.

Note only is it an historical certainty (insofar that we can be certain of anything, historically) that Jesus existed, it is also an historical fact that the earliest Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus.

There's no way, of course, to rule out embellishment by the authors of peripheral points (at least not with the standard historical method), but it's pretty clear that the earliest Christians believed the main points of the story. They weren't writing fiction, at least not intentionally.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not a follower so i normally don't call him God. I don't doubt he existed: And make it a point not to belittle another persons faith.

(to me) His words and Actions got him the followers and changed the world. I didn't make up WWJD.

I've read them, He'd hang out with me before you ASF , I'm just positioning myself at the head of the line.

To you his words and actions got him the followers, but that's only because you're looking on the surface, if one wants to really figure out what's going on then one needs to look more deeply to figure out why he said the things he said and why he did the things he did. And we get hints of that in what Jesus himself said about himself.

John 14:8-10 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work

You cannot at the same time say, "look at what Jesus said" while at the same time ignoring what he said.

And actually Jesus would hang out with both of us because Jesus hung out with the people who understood that they were sinners and fully dependent upon God for salvation, and at last check that included me. In the words of Paul, "I am the chief of sinners", make no mistake I am all to aware of my sin and need of forgiveness in Christ Jesus.