Your thinking here is very shallow. You would have us believe that Christianity was made up by Jesus' disciples and followers as a means of gaining power. But they include such a damning piece of evidence? If the religion had been created to control people and gain power, why would they have included this about Mary? The answer is, they wouldn't. Mary never fully grasped who Jesus was. She more fully understood him than James did, but she never seemed to understand that Jesus was God. James eventually accepted Jesus as God and became a stalwart Christian, but that wasn't until after the resurrection. Your own incredulity at the idea of Mary and James rejecting Jesus' God-hood punches a hole in any argument claiming that the Gospels are anything other than an attempt to record the actual events that occurred.

Excuse me?

Who is thinking shallow here?

You make it sound like the authors of the New Testament were all in cahoots to create a SINGLE BOOK that told their story. But you seem to be forgetting that this isn't what the Bible is. It's a collection of stories from various authors (albeit selected with much bias).

It doesn't truly matter much anyway. Mary was supposed to have been have been contacted by God via angels asking for her consent to have the child. If she later denies the whole thing then clearly that cannot have been the case. Either that, or she would have had to have been lying at some point.

If Mary denies the divinity of the "Christ child", then the whole thing falls apart. No wonder the Jews didn't give it any merit.

Someone wasn't paying very close attention to the whole story when they put these books together as a cannon evidently.

Somehow the TRUTH got in anyway! Jesus was not born of a virgin. The very woman in question denies this.

End of story!

If the so-called "Virgin Mary" denies the divinity of Jesus, then WHY should anyone else believe such rumors?

Can you answer me that?

So you've got some guy's hearsay rumor opinion. Big deal.

Seems like Jesus' very own mother disagrees.

You keep quoting from a bunch of old contradicting hearsay rumors as though someone should be impressed by these.

What makes them impressive?

I'm not impressed by any of it. They're riddled with contradictions, and absurdities.

I'm fully aware that the authors of the New Testament were confused about who Jesus was. So I'm not the least bit surprised that they wrote the things they wrote. They had some silly idea that Jesus was some sort of promised messiah spoken of in the Torah, but their case isn't impressive.

The Jews themselves especially were not impressed.

How would marry disagree? The word was made flesh and put in Marry for her to bare a child, Jesus. Where is the contradiction and or disagreement?

You continuously state their are contradictions and I continuously show there are none, I will do this till i'm blue in the face if you wish.

And where exactly did Mary deny the divinity of Jesus? I know of no such thing.

There are similarities, but that's from the pagan influences that were put there many years later.

Wise men came from Orion's Belt, correct?

What Mary questioned while he was alive and what she believed following his resurrection are two different things. His own disciples saw him heal the sick and raise the dead and they didn't believe he was God until after his own resurrection. Why is it so hard to believe that Mary wasn't sure? It's human nature to doubt your senses when you are confronted with the miraculous. Mary always seemed to have doubts about who Jesus was, at one time showing up with his brothers and sisters and tried to take Jesus home. But following Jesus' resurrection, James became a believer and while there is no mention of Mary, it isn't a far leap to assume that she also became a believer.

Ask Spider, he's the one who made the claim originally. I wasn't aware of it myself. I wouldn't mind reading those particular chapters and verses myself if I knew where to look.

If there was ever any doubt in Mary's mind at all that seems to shoot the whole story in the foot, because God supposedly asked for Mary's consent to bear his child. So how could she even remotely not be aware of the BIG PICTURE?

If Mary had doubts at any point along the way then the whole story is broken. How could she have been a VIRGIN and given birth to a child and NOT know it?

If she's thinking that Joseph was the father then he probably WAS!

How could she NOT KNOW?

God doesn't ask consent, everything that exists exists because God wills it. God doesn't ask for a woman's consent for her to be born or die or get pregnant after she has sex, why should God have to ask her consent to spontaneously create a child in her womb?

Mary thought Jesus was special, she was never told he was God. When he started preaching that he was God, his family tried to bring him home.

Read Mark 3.

You mean you continually delude yourself until you are blue in the face.

You have never resolved the blatant contradiction that a supposedly unchanging God who has a Master Plan, at one point deals with human sinners by drowning them out, and then the next moment he's sending his only begotten son to be crucified to pay for their sins.

You have never shown that this is not a contradiction. All you continue to claim is that this supposedly unchanging God did indeed change. However, the problem is that if it was God's plan all along to pay for the sins of man then the whole flood episode would have never been required. He could have just sacrificed Jesus right in the Garden of Eden at the time when mankind supposedly first fell from grace.

So you haven't even begun to resolve this major contradictions of these fables. Not even close!

WHERE did Jesus claim to be God? Just 1 verse where he did that and I'll believe that he was...

Exodus 3:14


John 8:58


One of God's names in Judaism is "I AM". When Jesus said "before Abraham was born, I am" was a claim to being God. Now you may not agree with me, but the Jews present did and tried to stone Jesus to death.

"I am" was only used once, correct?

I'm not going to convince you I'm right and I know you are wrong, so let's just leave it alone.

Perhaps you should read about "I will be what I will be".

But hey, I understand that you don't wanna talk to me about the Bible, it makes a lot of people nervous. So you take Jesus saying "I am" once and ignore the numerous other passages where he denies being God. Good luck with that...

Where is the contradiction? The only reward for sin is death. To receive forgiveness of sin(s) you have to show you are truly remorseful for doing as such. And in order to show as such a sacrifice is made eg., actions speak louder then words.





Nothing changed. Before Jesus sacrificed his life for us people sacrificed things to show remorse and ask for forgiveness. Then Jesus came to earth and sacrificed his entire life teaching us of the covenant between man and God and ultimately sacrificed his mortal life in the end. If you wish to accept such a gift you will be forgiven for you sin(s). So nothing has changed lol, Jesus was the ULTIMATE sacrifice welcome to anyone whom wishes to accept it for their sins.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised that the Jews would jump to the same conclusion. In fact,it's precisely that kind of jumping to conclusions that got the New Testament rumors started.

Personally I see what Jesus said as a pantheistic statement. The fact that it purely coincidentally contains the very common words "I am" that was also used in a previous text by Moses does not in any way suggest to me that Jesus was attempting to claim that he was the "Godhead" of the universe.

It's a very simple pantheistic statement. IMHO, Jesus was simply trying to tell these people that BEFORE the imaginary "God" of their folklore was even invented (i.e. Before Abraham was), Jesus is. Because Jesus was a pantheists and he's trying to explain that we are all eternal. And he even said, "Ye are Gods".

Why would he have said "Ye are gods" if he was trying to convey an idea that ONLY HE was God?

Clearly he was a pantheist.

Jesus is the only begotten child of our father. And is why we call God our father, for we are all God's. A pig can not give birth to a cat, a dog can not give birth to a bird. If one is born again, they have become a child of God. And with what we've previously learned in order for us to be a child of God we would have to then be God's ourselves.

I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst (6:35);

I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life (8:12);

Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins (8:24);

I am the good shepherd (10:11-14) [cf. Psalm 23:1: "The LORD is my shepherd"];

I am the resurrection, and the life; He who believes in Me shall live even if he dies (11:25).

There are more, but you don't want them. You only want to believe that Jesus isn't God. If Jesus isn't God, then he is a liar. You have two choices: 1) Jesus is a liar or 2) Jesus is God. I guess you can throw in the delusional claim that "Much of the stuff in the Bible is fake and only I have to special knowledge of what Jesus really said and believed and taught", but Abracadabra already has that delusion down pat and I don't think you can handle the competition.

Cowboy, you're contradicting yourself right here and now.

First you talk about having to show a sacrifice to prove that you are truly remorseful, because actions speak louder than words.

They you claim that Jesus made that sacrifice on are behalf? Why? So that we no loner need to prove that we are truly sincere and remorseful?

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Moreover, God is supposed to be omniscient and know what's in the hearts of men. You can't FOOL God!

So why should you need to prove anything to God? God knows whether or not you are sincere and remorseful. You shouldn't even need to ask God for anything ever. God should merely KNOW what's in your heart. And that's all that God would need to know.

So you're whole explanation is utterly absurd, IMHO.

You can't "prove" anything to God. God supposedly KNOWS the truth and doesn't require any proofs. He's not like a human.

He's like Santa Claus. He knows who's naughty and nice. Therefore there would never be any need to make any 'sacrifices' in order to prove anything to God.

So your entire approach is totally irrelevant when speaking about a supposedly omniscient God, IMHO.

The idea that Jesus would need to make any 'sacrifices' on our behalf makes absolutely no sense at all in this context.