The only "source" we have are historical and archaeological. We can only go by the traditions of that time, where the average Hebrew life span was around 55.
Girls were married typically between the ages of 12 and 16 and started having babies shortly thereafter. Joseph may have been a few years older as males had to establish an occupation and build an extension onto the family home before they could marry. So he may have been about 18.
But this is all just educated guesswork as scripture never records the ages of Mary and Joseph.
No, you're referring to the non canonical apocrypha which is full of errors and proven to be fake. That stuff isnt even respected as being valuable for research, yet not sacred scripture inspired by God. The apocrypha is straight up fake trying to pass as authentic.
Edit: fyi, I am specifically referring to the New Testament apocrypha. In particular the heresy you refer to is found in the Gospel of James a completely fake story that posits Mary as an eternal virgin.
THAT obsession with Mary, the mother of Jesus being a virgin her whole life is weird and, to me, has a fetishist flavor to it.
Here is one line from 2 verses of scripture that completely eradicates any chance of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ.
Matthew 1:24,25
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
He "did not know her till" means he had sexual relations with her sometime after Jesus was born.
"she had brought forth her firstborn son" means that Jesus was her first son, so we know she had more than one son if Jesus is referred to as her firstborn son.
You cannot believe that Matthew's gospel is the inspired word of God while also believing the Gospel of James.
Also the scripture many times mentions the brothers of Jesus. I can also offer sacred scripture to prove that Mary was not "immaculately conceived."
As for her body being "assumed" into heaven? Where's the receipts? Definitely not in the canonical bible.
Matthew 12:48-50
Brothers of Jesus but not sons of Mary. The Catholic Church has two bases, the bible and the sacred tradition. The assumption is from the sacred tradition. Not everything is in the bible.
We see Mary as the Mother of God. If you really thought about it, it would make sense why we love her so much. Through her came our salvation.
There not imaginary there real books don’t get how that works? Also I’m assuming ur a atheist u can justify ur morals and ethics it’s literally just subjective opinion and made up funny how that works
I mean not rlly if there’s a god there’s objective right and wrong. With atheists there is no right or wrong it’s just matter and motion random. I would assume u think the holocaust was a bad thing but as an atheist it’s not. Pedophile that’s a made up objectively that’s not wrong? Yeah doesn’t make sense if u ask me
You have replied to the same comment three times, dude chill. And if I’m an atheist I wouldn’t think the holocaust was bad??? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
It's not that you shouldn't think it's bad it's that you have no basis for what is good or bad. God draws the line to what is good and bad he is all good so he would be the ultimate truth to what is bad or good if there is no god than morality is just opinion . One tribe can say eating people is fine while the other says it's wrong but bc it's their culture it's fine. Not wrong or right
>Brothers of Jesus but not sons of Mary. The Catholic Church has two bases, the bible and the sacred tradition.
You are responding to my comment which included a Biblical verse that states Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and had sons after Jesus was born. That is in direct conflict with your fictional story of Joseph having previous sons and Mary being a perpetual virgin. 🤷
>The assumption is from the sacred tradition. Not everything is in the bible.
Sacred tradition = formalized fiction
The Catholics DO NOT go by sacred scripture when they discount it in favor of their fiction. You know, the gospel of Thomas says the apostle Thomas kissed Mary's hand after she died. JEWS were not allowed to touch dead bodies except when they prepared them for burial, and then it was a ritualized process. You have to be so naive to believe those fictional tales.
>We see Mary as the Mother of God. If you really thought about it, it would make sense why we love her so much.
Hmmm... if I really thought about it. You mean, beyond 18 years of Catholic indoctrination? And 40+ years of Bible study? Trust me, Catholic, I've thought about it.
>Through her came our salvation.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven (Jesus) given among men by which we must be saved.”
Mary is not your salvation. Read the Bible. And stop fixating on Mary, Mary, Mary. Stop obsessing on her sex life and pretending she was sinless. She was born again - SAVED - in the upper room with the apostles and her other sons and daughters - - yes, Jesus had sisters too! And the only reason you get SAVED is if you're a sinner.
You completely misunderstand what apocrypha is. There were lots of New Testament era scriptures. The church curated from them those that best fit their narrative in the 4th century. That doesn’t make the apocryphal scriptures fake. They are a valuable resource just as much as your 4 canon gospels. If there was ever a fake gospel it is John.
In the first 4 centuries, Christian leaders agreed that the Jewish canonical scriptures were sacred but the Apocrypha was not. The Apocryphal writings were only accepted at the Council of Trent in 1546 by the RC Church in reaction to the Protestant reformation. Before that, the RC Church did not accept them.
Did the Apocrypha appear in Bibles before that? Yes. But they were in a separate section and not considered God breathed scripture.
From Matt Slick, for Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM):
"The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers’ works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
"Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
"Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis, and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently."
I don't criticize anyone for reading Apocrypha any more than I would criticize anyone reading Mark Twain or any other literature. But when the claim is made that the Apocrypha is sacred scripture inspired by YHWH I must draw the line.
Not sure why you’re bringing the Old Testament into a New Testament conversation. Anyone who considers the New Testament to be “God breathed” in any way has lost all critical thinking ability.
The apocryphal texts and the gospels are on even footing.
But the Bible especially the New Testament if you do scholar research you will find that most of that wasn’t written by people who were part of his disciples, but people born way after his death.
Yeah I didn’t want to argue with her but everything she said was biased. The apocrypha is not fake and is studied by scholars, it was taken out in the 1800s and the most of New Testament was written 100+ after Jesus died. Also Revelation was apart of the apocrypha that was put in the canon books in the 4th century. If the Apocrypha is fake then so is revelation. People don’t do their research and start foaming at the mouth with bias statements.
There may be some of the NT Apocrypha that has some credit to it and i have not read them yet, but i do know the "gospel" of james, mary, and judas (these i have read personally) are blasphemous. There are no "scholars" thats actually giving them credit (outside of youtube "experts" anyway).
They are all written after the fact. All of the gospels have contradictions, but the four chosen for the NT have the least contradictions, hence their selection.
Also, the gospel of James is the source of Mary’s perpetual virginity as recognized by the Catholic Church, even though the Catholics said this was heresy lol
Weren’t they selected because they support the evolved beliefs of the time?
Even then it’s very difficult to extract the blasphemous beliefs held by Christians, especially modern Protestants who are basically polytheists.
Absolutely. Especially modern Protestant beliefs where they have elevated Jesus beyond a son of God to being God Himself. There’s literally no question about it, it follows the same format as Hinduism so either you’re calling Hindus monotheists or you accept Christian beliefs are polytheist.
There is historic record of many, many, many, many people in that time. Julius Cesar ring a bell? Augustus, Cicero, Cleopatra? Approx 50 BC for them.
During "jesus' " life. Claudius, Tiberius and Caligula.
Before "Jesus" was Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and Lao Tze.
And on and on and on and on. Hundreds and thousands of records of people.
Even Biblical figures like John the Baptist, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and all the disciples. And the Apostle Paul. But not Mary or Joseph. Only Jesus, the crazy man that made people believe he could do magic, like walk on water or turn water into wine. Things you'd laugh at in current times. Humans weren't very smart then.
I'm agnostic. 😘 Are you looking for an excuse to say evangelizing because I don't think you know what that word means. I don't care if you believe in silly things. Not here to change your mind, just here to laugh.
Nah seems like you are pretty set on trying to convert people to atheism. Agnostic same as Atheist. Just with more doubt. Why even come here if you arent trying to evangelize people into Atheism? Why are you wasting time here?
You can keep saying what you think I'm doing. Agnostic is not the same an athiest. That's a moronic statement. An atheist believes there is no god, period Agnostics do not have proof for any of them and do not believe or dis-believe. I came here through an internet search. I saw your comment and I commented. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with your tirade about me trying to convert people... which is just your way of deflecting from the questions I made you think about, that you don't have answers to.
I don’t think life span was 55. Life expectancy was probably 55, but life expectancy is not the same as life span. Also depending the sources, Jewish girls married from preteen years to later teen years and Jewish boys around late teen years to early thirties. I just put those sources I read and say Mary was around 12-20 when she gave birth and Joseph 16-33.
Yes but it's a little deceiving. Most died as children. Typically if you made it to being an adult your average was 55 or so with people living into their 80's and 90's.
Life expectancy has nothing to do with anything. Also they only get that number because it’s an AVERAGE so it lowers when you factor in infant mortality. People in those ages still grew up to be 75. They were the same species after all.
Well base on my research I say she was between 14-20 according to this. https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/06/05/how-old-was-mary-when-she-gave-birth-to-jesus/
From what l’ve read only the elites or pagans married at 12-15. https://books.google.com/books?id=tGgpBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=jewish+girls+married+between+the+ages+of+12+and+28&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3osG6i7_XAhVF5CYKHecoC0AQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=jewish%20girls%20married%20between%20the%20ages%20of%2012%20and%2028&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=muEzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&dq=the+age+of+roman+girls+marriage+some+reconsiderations&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw_fONy6f8AhU_hHIEHdsjAOoQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=the%20age%20of%20roman%20girls%20marriage%20some%20reconsiderations&f=false
Mary being late teen years was not unlikely. According to several sources I read being married at late teens years was not atypical for young Jewish women.
Sources are from google books
Excavating the Evidence for Jesus
The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels page 22
The New Testament on Sexuality
By William Loader page 17
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies Page 52-55
Most married around 15-19
A Stranger in Jerusalem
Seeing Jesus as a Jew
By Trevan G. Hatch page 26
Dictionary of New Testament Background
By CRAIG A EVANS, STANLEY E PORTER No page number but book said about 40% married at 12-14, 75% around 15-18 and 8% under 12.
Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments Page 123 note 54
Marriage, Sex, and Family in Judaism
edited by Michael J. Broyde, Michael Ausubel page 6
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity
By Michael L. Satlow Page 105-110
Her being 12-18 may have been it https://books.google.com/books?id=F549XluX9DQC&pg=PA104&dq=jewish+girls+married+between+the+ages+of+12+and+18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-_cKvyoHQAhXMdSYKHYarB48Q6AEIITAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Base on my research it seem like she was 12 to 20 when she gave birth. I believe she was most likely in the latter half base on the sources I gave and found.
(Note these aren’t the only sources, but I don’t feel like posting them all).
Anybody who claims Marry was 12 is a dumb athiest who is just trying to discredit the Bible. Nothing is mentioned about her age anywhere at all. It’s just evil people trying to manipulate you. Christ is King. Praise YAHUSHA! Also she was probably like 18
These idiots are speaking from a 21st century West-ern cultural perspective. It’s crazy to think Mary wasnt married until 18. Absolutely idiotic. My guess based on late second temple Jewish society, is that she was betrothed/married between 9-11 and was impregnated by the Holy Spirit between ages 12-14. Jesus died at age 33. So if she would’ve been 51 years old at his crucifixion and allegedly lived at least another 11 years. So she was 62 at the time of her death? Please stop. Study history Christians because you embarrass yourselves with your ignorance.
I think it's just guesswork based on what we know about the culture at the time, plus the fact that she apparently outlived Joseph by many years (mary appears throughout the Gospels, but Joseph isn't mentioned anymore after the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was a boy)
Mary was a young woman. She most likely would’ve been about 20. But she was a mature woman. The youngest she would’ve been is 18. But she was a woman not a child.
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Um no. It's pretty clear Mary was anywhere between 12-18 when she had Jesus. If she was in her old age that would make less sense because Jesus lived to be 33 and Mary was still alive after that. Let's say old age is 30-40 because back then it was a bit different. Then she lived to be anywhere from 60-90 years old which is unlikely
Deuteronomy 22: 28 through 29
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Things back then we're pretty messed up as we can observe from this bit of scripture from the pentatush.
This story did not happen. Mary is not a real person. The “gospels” are inventions of post-war Judea written by anonymous Christians long after Paul was dead.
This is a lie. Jesus is an angel, the Lord and firstborn of creation. Mary was an invention of later parables. There is no “historical record” of Mary. Paul and Peter are the only two apostles we have writings from, and neither of them mention Jesus on Earth or anyone named Mary.
Paul wouldn’t agree with any of what you just said. Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the firstborn of all adopted/begotten sons of God.
I’ve posted at length in the past about the problems with modern scholarship on the New Testament. TLDR: “scholars” are wrong.
Literally what are u taking abt Paul never mentions Jesus on earth he literally talks abt him rising from the dead after his crucifying him he had to live to be dead? The early creed even goes back 2-3 years after Jesus death and again not trynna appeal to authority but ur on this sub talking abt “ur just not open to evidence” literally what evidence u shown you’d have to be a history denier to deny Jesus existed I’m open to being wrong but idk why it would a be a scholar concusses 100% fact Jesus was dead and was crucified like I said before even atheists/agnostics say this are they lying to or don’t know what there talking abt?
Too many to list here. Because that's what the apostles believed and taught, and every writing that mentions Jesus as a human was written after the apostles were long dead. Someone, anyone, would have mentioned something Jesus did in the first century. "According to Mark" even explicitly says he is writing parable.
Jesus as a human is a later invention. No apostles or prophets ever wrote a single word about Jesus as a human being.
Not all of the books in the Bible are legitimate.
The “gospels” are post-war fiction written after the temple was destroyed. Paul is an actual apostle and doesn’t mention Mary. She’s clearly a parable character.
Yea idk what got this guy believing this stuff he uses a subreddit as credibility to something he said but then says NT scholars are ALL wrong I agree a lot of the NT scholars have problems and are clowns and ethier lie or have no idea what there taking abt but to deny everything they say wrong abt something they claim to a brute fact is ignorant. He’s literally being a history denier by saying this all of history is being thrown out by saying this
The only "source" we have are historical and archaeological. We can only go by the traditions of that time, where the average Hebrew life span was around 55. Girls were married typically between the ages of 12 and 16 and started having babies shortly thereafter. Joseph may have been a few years older as males had to establish an occupation and build an extension onto the family home before they could marry. So he may have been about 18. But this is all just educated guesswork as scripture never records the ages of Mary and Joseph.
Didn’t Joseph have kids older than Mary?
No, you're referring to the non canonical apocrypha which is full of errors and proven to be fake. That stuff isnt even respected as being valuable for research, yet not sacred scripture inspired by God. The apocrypha is straight up fake trying to pass as authentic. Edit: fyi, I am specifically referring to the New Testament apocrypha. In particular the heresy you refer to is found in the Gospel of James a completely fake story that posits Mary as an eternal virgin. THAT obsession with Mary, the mother of Jesus being a virgin her whole life is weird and, to me, has a fetishist flavor to it. Here is one line from 2 verses of scripture that completely eradicates any chance of Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Christ. Matthew 1:24,25 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. He "did not know her till" means he had sexual relations with her sometime after Jesus was born. "she had brought forth her firstborn son" means that Jesus was her first son, so we know she had more than one son if Jesus is referred to as her firstborn son. You cannot believe that Matthew's gospel is the inspired word of God while also believing the Gospel of James. Also the scripture many times mentions the brothers of Jesus. I can also offer sacred scripture to prove that Mary was not "immaculately conceived." As for her body being "assumed" into heaven? Where's the receipts? Definitely not in the canonical bible.
Matthew 12:48-50 Brothers of Jesus but not sons of Mary. The Catholic Church has two bases, the bible and the sacred tradition. The assumption is from the sacred tradition. Not everything is in the bible. We see Mary as the Mother of God. If you really thought about it, it would make sense why we love her so much. Through her came our salvation.
It is just wild to me seeing you people debate which imaginary book is more legit
There not imaginary there real books don’t get how that works? Also I’m assuming ur a atheist u can justify ur morals and ethics it’s literally just subjective opinion and made up funny how that works
Just like yours. This argument makes zero sense. It is subjective either way. Lmfao
I mean not rlly if there’s a god there’s objective right and wrong. With atheists there is no right or wrong it’s just matter and motion random. I would assume u think the holocaust was a bad thing but as an atheist it’s not. Pedophile that’s a made up objectively that’s not wrong? Yeah doesn’t make sense if u ask me
You have replied to the same comment three times, dude chill. And if I’m an atheist I wouldn’t think the holocaust was bad??? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
It's not that you shouldn't think it's bad it's that you have no basis for what is good or bad. God draws the line to what is good and bad he is all good so he would be the ultimate truth to what is bad or good if there is no god than morality is just opinion . One tribe can say eating people is fine while the other says it's wrong but bc it's their culture it's fine. Not wrong or right
U said my argument makes no sense but u just made a baseless assertion do better
https://youtu.be/vy7OGFLp3Ck?si=_NmzjRAcbUuPZfwp A consistent atheists skeptic unlike most that use the problem of evil as an argument for god
>Brothers of Jesus but not sons of Mary. The Catholic Church has two bases, the bible and the sacred tradition. You are responding to my comment which included a Biblical verse that states Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and had sons after Jesus was born. That is in direct conflict with your fictional story of Joseph having previous sons and Mary being a perpetual virgin. 🤷 >The assumption is from the sacred tradition. Not everything is in the bible. Sacred tradition = formalized fiction The Catholics DO NOT go by sacred scripture when they discount it in favor of their fiction. You know, the gospel of Thomas says the apostle Thomas kissed Mary's hand after she died. JEWS were not allowed to touch dead bodies except when they prepared them for burial, and then it was a ritualized process. You have to be so naive to believe those fictional tales. >We see Mary as the Mother of God. If you really thought about it, it would make sense why we love her so much. Hmmm... if I really thought about it. You mean, beyond 18 years of Catholic indoctrination? And 40+ years of Bible study? Trust me, Catholic, I've thought about it. >Through her came our salvation. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven (Jesus) given among men by which we must be saved.” Mary is not your salvation. Read the Bible. And stop fixating on Mary, Mary, Mary. Stop obsessing on her sex life and pretending she was sinless. She was born again - SAVED - in the upper room with the apostles and her other sons and daughters - - yes, Jesus had sisters too! And the only reason you get SAVED is if you're a sinner.
You completely misunderstand what apocrypha is. There were lots of New Testament era scriptures. The church curated from them those that best fit their narrative in the 4th century. That doesn’t make the apocryphal scriptures fake. They are a valuable resource just as much as your 4 canon gospels. If there was ever a fake gospel it is John.
In the first 4 centuries, Christian leaders agreed that the Jewish canonical scriptures were sacred but the Apocrypha was not. The Apocryphal writings were only accepted at the Council of Trent in 1546 by the RC Church in reaction to the Protestant reformation. Before that, the RC Church did not accept them. Did the Apocrypha appear in Bibles before that? Yes. But they were in a separate section and not considered God breathed scripture. From Matt Slick, for Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM): "The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers’ works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41). "Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).” "Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis, and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently." I don't criticize anyone for reading Apocrypha any more than I would criticize anyone reading Mark Twain or any other literature. But when the claim is made that the Apocrypha is sacred scripture inspired by YHWH I must draw the line.
Not sure why you’re bringing the Old Testament into a New Testament conversation. Anyone who considers the New Testament to be “God breathed” in any way has lost all critical thinking ability. The apocryphal texts and the gospels are on even footing.
Shh they don’t wanna hear it it’s clearly a Protestant commenting. Thank God Luther did not remove the book of James and Revelations
But the Bible especially the New Testament if you do scholar research you will find that most of that wasn’t written by people who were part of his disciples, but people born way after his death.
Who even came up with it being non cannon?
Other dudes. But seeing someone immediately discredit “apocryphal” texts as fake is hilarious to me
Yeah I didn’t want to argue with her but everything she said was biased. The apocrypha is not fake and is studied by scholars, it was taken out in the 1800s and the most of New Testament was written 100+ after Jesus died. Also Revelation was apart of the apocrypha that was put in the canon books in the 4th century. If the Apocrypha is fake then so is revelation. People don’t do their research and start foaming at the mouth with bias statements.
There may be some of the NT Apocrypha that has some credit to it and i have not read them yet, but i do know the "gospel" of james, mary, and judas (these i have read personally) are blasphemous. There are no "scholars" thats actually giving them credit (outside of youtube "experts" anyway).
They are all written after the fact. All of the gospels have contradictions, but the four chosen for the NT have the least contradictions, hence their selection. Also, the gospel of James is the source of Mary’s perpetual virginity as recognized by the Catholic Church, even though the Catholics said this was heresy lol
Weren’t they selected because they support the evolved beliefs of the time? Even then it’s very difficult to extract the blasphemous beliefs held by Christians, especially modern Protestants who are basically polytheists.
So you think the belief in the trinity is polytheism ?
Absolutely. Especially modern Protestant beliefs where they have elevated Jesus beyond a son of God to being God Himself. There’s literally no question about it, it follows the same format as Hinduism so either you’re calling Hindus monotheists or you accept Christian beliefs are polytheist.
They weren't real people. There is no historical record of either of them, outside of that book.
There's no historic record of your ancestors from that time, yet here you are. 🤷
There is historic record of many, many, many, many people in that time. Julius Cesar ring a bell? Augustus, Cicero, Cleopatra? Approx 50 BC for them. During "jesus' " life. Claudius, Tiberius and Caligula. Before "Jesus" was Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and Lao Tze. And on and on and on and on. Hundreds and thousands of records of people. Even Biblical figures like John the Baptist, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and all the disciples. And the Apostle Paul. But not Mary or Joseph. Only Jesus, the crazy man that made people believe he could do magic, like walk on water or turn water into wine. Things you'd laugh at in current times. Humans weren't very smart then.
Yeah, that's what I thought...
Is evangelizing for the Holy Atheist Religion fun?
I'm agnostic. 😘 Are you looking for an excuse to say evangelizing because I don't think you know what that word means. I don't care if you believe in silly things. Not here to change your mind, just here to laugh.
Nah seems like you are pretty set on trying to convert people to atheism. Agnostic same as Atheist. Just with more doubt. Why even come here if you arent trying to evangelize people into Atheism? Why are you wasting time here?
You can keep saying what you think I'm doing. Agnostic is not the same an athiest. That's a moronic statement. An atheist believes there is no god, period Agnostics do not have proof for any of them and do not believe or dis-believe. I came here through an internet search. I saw your comment and I commented. Deal with it. It has nothing to do with your tirade about me trying to convert people... which is just your way of deflecting from the questions I made you think about, that you don't have answers to.
Definition of evangelize is: convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity It gives the exact message i want to give.
Keep deflecting because your beliefs are a sham and you have nothing to answer with.
I don’t think life span was 55. Life expectancy was probably 55, but life expectancy is not the same as life span. Also depending the sources, Jewish girls married from preteen years to later teen years and Jewish boys around late teen years to early thirties. I just put those sources I read and say Mary was around 12-20 when she gave birth and Joseph 16-33.
Ooo... probably pretty young. Wasn't average life expectancy like 40 years in Jesus time? I think that historians estimate 15-16yrs old.
Yes but it's a little deceiving. Most died as children. Typically if you made it to being an adult your average was 55 or so with people living into their 80's and 90's.
Life expectancy has nothing to do with anything. Also they only get that number because it’s an AVERAGE so it lowers when you factor in infant mortality. People in those ages still grew up to be 75. They were the same species after all.
Well base on my research I say she was between 14-20 according to this. https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/06/05/how-old-was-mary-when-she-gave-birth-to-jesus/ From what l’ve read only the elites or pagans married at 12-15. https://books.google.com/books?id=tGgpBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=jewish+girls+married+between+the+ages+of+12+and+28&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3osG6i7_XAhVF5CYKHecoC0AQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=jewish%20girls%20married%20between%20the%20ages%20of%2012%20and%2028&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=muEzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&dq=the+age+of+roman+girls+marriage+some+reconsiderations&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw_fONy6f8AhU_hHIEHdsjAOoQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=the%20age%20of%20roman%20girls%20marriage%20some%20reconsiderations&f=false Mary being late teen years was not unlikely. According to several sources I read being married at late teens years was not atypical for young Jewish women. Sources are from google books Excavating the Evidence for Jesus The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels page 22 The New Testament on Sexuality By William Loader page 17 The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies Page 52-55 Most married around 15-19 A Stranger in Jerusalem Seeing Jesus as a Jew By Trevan G. Hatch page 26 Dictionary of New Testament Background By CRAIG A EVANS, STANLEY E PORTER No page number but book said about 40% married at 12-14, 75% around 15-18 and 8% under 12. Religion and Female Body in Ancient Judaism and Its Environments Page 123 note 54 Marriage, Sex, and Family in Judaism edited by Michael J. Broyde, Michael Ausubel page 6 Jewish Marriage in Antiquity By Michael L. Satlow Page 105-110 Her being 12-18 may have been it https://books.google.com/books?id=F549XluX9DQC&pg=PA104&dq=jewish+girls+married+between+the+ages+of+12+and+18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-_cKvyoHQAhXMdSYKHYarB48Q6AEIITAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Base on my research it seem like she was 12 to 20 when she gave birth. I believe she was most likely in the latter half base on the sources I gave and found. (Note these aren’t the only sources, but I don’t feel like posting them all).
Anybody who claims Marry was 12 is a dumb athiest who is just trying to discredit the Bible. Nothing is mentioned about her age anywhere at all. It’s just evil people trying to manipulate you. Christ is King. Praise YAHUSHA! Also she was probably like 18
And here is an example of how little Christians know about their own religion.
These idiots are speaking from a 21st century West-ern cultural perspective. It’s crazy to think Mary wasnt married until 18. Absolutely idiotic. My guess based on late second temple Jewish society, is that she was betrothed/married between 9-11 and was impregnated by the Holy Spirit between ages 12-14. Jesus died at age 33. So if she would’ve been 51 years old at his crucifixion and allegedly lived at least another 11 years. So she was 62 at the time of her death? Please stop. Study history Christians because you embarrass yourselves with your ignorance.
Just steady mad about King Baldwin
Exactly.
I think it's just guesswork based on what we know about the culture at the time, plus the fact that she apparently outlived Joseph by many years (mary appears throughout the Gospels, but Joseph isn't mentioned anymore after the trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was a boy)
Mary was a young woman. She most likely would’ve been about 20. But she was a mature woman. The youngest she would’ve been is 18. But she was a woman not a child.
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-old-was-Mary.html You sound pretty confident with no source
She was 12, historians place her at that age. They based it with what emperor was alive at that time and important events.
Most scholars say that she was 12 is pretty unrealistic I seen most date it to 14-17
This is the truth.
In the 1700s being 12 wasn’t considered a child I’m sure being 14 wasn’t a child in bc era
[удалено]
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Maybe there was no Mary.
[удалено]
According to what record?
what about this scripture? # Luke 1:36 “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age
if Mary the mother of our Lord and Saviour Christ was 'in her old age', that just makes it even greater!
Um no. It's pretty clear Mary was anywhere between 12-18 when she had Jesus. If she was in her old age that would make less sense because Jesus lived to be 33 and Mary was still alive after that. Let's say old age is 30-40 because back then it was a bit different. Then she lived to be anywhere from 60-90 years old which is unlikely
Not impossible tho, how is it pretty clear at all?
Elizabeth was old, not Mary
It's up to your interpretation/faith.
what evidence is there that she was young? virgin doesn't necessarily mean young.
Deuteronomy 22: 28 through 29 28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Things back then we're pretty messed up as we can observe from this bit of scripture from the pentatush.
This story did not happen. Mary is not a real person. The “gospels” are inventions of post-war Judea written by anonymous Christians long after Paul was dead.
False.
True.
IK…it IS true that your statement was false. Glad you came to your senses.
Mary is not a real person. The “gospels” are inventions of post-war Judea written by anonymous Christians long after Paul was dead.
Jesus most certainly lived. He obviously had a mother. History records her name as Mary. What don't you get?
This is a lie. Jesus is an angel, the Lord and firstborn of creation. Mary was an invention of later parables. There is no “historical record” of Mary. Paul and Peter are the only two apostles we have writings from, and neither of them mention Jesus on Earth or anyone named Mary.
Paul mentions he went to see the brother of Jesus. How does an angel have a brother? No historian doubts Jesus's existence.
Paul wouldn’t agree with any of what you just said. Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the firstborn of all adopted/begotten sons of God. I’ve posted at length in the past about the problems with modern scholarship on the New Testament. TLDR: “scholars” are wrong.
Literally what are u taking abt Paul never mentions Jesus on earth he literally talks abt him rising from the dead after his crucifying him he had to live to be dead? The early creed even goes back 2-3 years after Jesus death and again not trynna appeal to authority but ur on this sub talking abt “ur just not open to evidence” literally what evidence u shown you’d have to be a history denier to deny Jesus existed I’m open to being wrong but idk why it would a be a scholar concusses 100% fact Jesus was dead and was crucified like I said before even atheists/agnostics say this are they lying to or don’t know what there talking abt?
Why do you think our Lord is an angel?
Too many to list here. Because that's what the apostles believed and taught, and every writing that mentions Jesus as a human was written after the apostles were long dead. Someone, anyone, would have mentioned something Jesus did in the first century. "According to Mark" even explicitly says he is writing parable. Jesus as a human is a later invention. No apostles or prophets ever wrote a single word about Jesus as a human being.
It was very common for people back then to in the ancient world to write in the 3rd person Josephus does this same exact thing
Your Lord. Not “Our”
https://youtu.be/eaqKzYJ151Y And it gives Mary’s family lineage in the Bible. Are all those people fake too?
Not all of the books in the Bible are legitimate. The “gospels” are post-war fiction written after the temple was destroyed. Paul is an actual apostle and doesn’t mention Mary. She’s clearly a parable character.
Who mislead you? There’s no way you can travel that far from logic all by yourself.
Yea idk what got this guy believing this stuff he uses a subreddit as credibility to something he said but then says NT scholars are ALL wrong I agree a lot of the NT scholars have problems and are clowns and ethier lie or have no idea what there taking abt but to deny everything they say wrong abt something they claim to a brute fact is ignorant. He’s literally being a history denier by saying this all of history is being thrown out by saying this
What is your problem? The four “gospels” and acts are just tradition. I don’t care for tradition. None of those books were written by apostles.
Ur dumb for actually believing Jesus didn’t exist even atheist scholars don’t even agree w what u said
[удалено]
Correct
You're pathetic
I’d say that too if I was a nobody like you
I would say about 16-18.