Immaculate Misconception

[Father-Ted]

Now then, here is a curious thing. It is Catholic dogma that Anne the Mother of Mary (Mother of Jesus) was a virgin which presents an interesting problem, if Anne was a virgin fertilized by Immaculate conception then Mary would be the daughter of god which means that Jesus was the result of immaculate incest and Mary as well as being his mother was also his sister.
If Anne conceived Mary parthenogenetically that is to say without having her ovum fertilized (by incest) then the chances are very high that Mary could also do the same as she would have the same genes as Anne. This would mean that Jesus was not the son of God as no Immaculate Conception was necessary.
So what is it to be ? Either God is an incestuous Deity and Jesus was his Son and Grandson or Jesus is just the result of parthenogenisis.
However can parthenogenesis produce male offspring? If not then the Immaculate Incest is the best option.
There are other options but they are so far fetched as to not be worth considering as they would imply that the Holy Bible is not entirely true and Christianity has been built on a fiction. I look forward to your suggestions for a solution to this conundrum.

[naomi24]

Goodlife, true the bible doesn’t teach the immaculate conception, but it cannot under any circumstances be claimed to be confusion-free. Far from it.

[jomifl]

I think that an unstated but implied point of this thread is that if it isn't in the bible then the RC church make it up.
The veracity (if any) of the bible is another matter.

[jno]

no-one else had reported it previously

How do you know that, chakka? The most we can say is that no earlier report is known to us. To claim that if we don't know about something then it didn't happen is rather us-centric, don't you think? (There were after all millions of people alive then, doing things we know nothing about.)

At least three other possibilities, all quite plausible, occur to me: there were earlier records, which haven't survived; they have survived but we haven't found them; and that they weren't written.

[chakka35]

Certainly, jno. But if we are to believe something incredible, which goes against the laws of nature, than we need more than the idea that some records 'might' have existed. You could use that argument to believe in anything: "No, there's no evidence for this miracle but there might have been".

In any case, why is it that only evidence for the Jesus story is completely missing? We have lots of other stuff from about that time - historical facts about Herod and Pilate, Jewish and Roman records and the writings of contemporary historians (not the later ones quoted by Christians) but not a mention of Jesus anywhere.

Even in your imagination, how could a biological fact about Mary's body, known only to the lady herself, have been recorded (by whom?) and then kept secret for 80-90 years until casually mentioned by two unknown people who don't even bother to tell us how they knew such an astounding thing?

There are many indications that the two mutually-contradictory nativity stories are pure fantasy. I will list them if you want me to.

[jno]

it's not "only evidence for the Jesus story" that is missing. As I suggested, there were millions of people alive at the time. Evidence for 99.999% of their stories is missing; what we have are records of the ruling elite and a small, random smattering of historical and archaeological records. Which is indeed all we'd expect from anywhere until comparatively modern times.

If it doesn't convince you, fine; I'm not bothered by what other people believe. But that doesn't justify your claim that nobody reported it: this is simply unknowable.

[mibn2cweus]

If only He had worn a condom . . .

[mickrog]

The best thing about the fairy story called the Bible is its great to laugh at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk&feature=related

[jomifl]

Thanks for that Mickrog, Dave Allen was pure class.

[naomi24]

jno, unknowable? Your thoughts conjure up some bizarre possibilities.

[ladybirder]

Thanks for posting that mickrog. I'd forgotten how good he was. I remember he upset a more than a few people at the time having a go at religion.

[chakka35]

jno, that the lives of most ordinary people are lost to us does not explain the complete blankness surrounding Jesus. I have already mentioned supposed contemporaries of his of which we know a lot. Julius Caesar preceded Jesus' time by a century or so but there is a wealth of information about him and his contemporaries.

Yet a man who is supposed to have had a miraculous birth, who practised miracle cures and performed other miraculous things, who counselled wise men, who preached to thousands at a time, who raised people from the dead, who caused the Sanhedrin and Pilate to behave completely out of character and who rose from the dead himself goes unrecorded just by chance? Can you really believe that? Yes, I suppose you must.

But that is beside the point. You still have not offered an explanation as to how that knowledge about Mary's body, which only she would have been privy to, remained a secret for nearly a century and then emerged ever so casually with no evidence to support it.

You don't have to explain it, of course, but those of us who look on these things with more intellectual rigour are naturally curious as to why people believe such amazing things on such a flimsy basis. Faith, I suppose: a euphemism for blind credulity.

[naomi24]

I often wonder why someone didn’t make the effort to record his every word and deed, and preserve the record carefully for posterity. This was ‘God’ for goodness sake!

[jomifl]

There were so many gods around then that it was only wth the passage of time that jesus's true nature became apparent ;-)

[chakka35]

jomifl, are you seriously suggesting that all those contemporaries of (an alleged) Jesus totally ignored his extraordinary exploits only for people in the future suddenly to wake up to them?
If so, what caused this sudden realisation?

But the real flaw in your idea is this: the things that were eventually written about Jesus did not come from any of those people who knew him or saw the things he did, but from people who weren't there (Paul, "Mark", "Luke", "Matthew" and "John"). How come? Some of those eyewitnesses must still have been alive - at least when Paul was writing and maybe "Mark". But they kept quiet while others with no qualifications told the tale. Very odd.

I daren't mention Occam's Razor in case naomi is reading this but I'll use the principle: that the simplest, most straightforward explanation is that no-one had ever heard of any miracle-worker called Jesus until Paul suddenly produced him from out of the blue in AD55.

Anyone who thinks otherwise might like to tell us why and supply the evidence for their belief.

[naomi24]

Chakka, ha ha! I don’t believe even the lazy Mr Occam would bother to put his mind to best guessing this one. ;o)

[jomifl]

Chakka, you must be mistaking me for someone else, my opinions on the bible are very simple and would hardly support a discussion :-) The helpful Mr. Occam is much underrated.

[chakka35]

jomifl, if I have read you wrongly I apologise. As far as I know only naomi underrates Occam; everyone else treats it as the commonsense that it is - without which we would not be able to live our daily lives.

[naomi24]

Chakka, old chap. Best guesses in everyday life are often acceptable, but some things demand real answers. That's common sense. ;o)

[jomifl]

Naomi, I don't wish to intrude on a private disussion but Occam did not advocate accepting a best guess, rather the simplest explanation that worked. If that explanation fails then go to the next simplest and so on.

[naomi24]

Jom, as you know, discussions here are never private, so welcome. Chakka and I have discussed this many times and he knows I don't go with Mr Occam's principle. I'm happy to consider best guesses, but I'm looking for definitive answers - and there's nothing wrong in saying 'I don't know'.