If Jesus was really just a normal human being, then who fucked Mary?

filled her with ectoplasm

>le quirky mistranslation meme
>le virgin was just another term for young girl and got mistranslated!!! CHRISTIANS BTFO

like the who zombie thing? Matthew's just a crank isn't he, I wonder why they left him in

Going to go on a limb here and say she probably fucked her husband.

>I have no argument against this so I'll just meme him.

Isaiah make it up too?

Luke 1
In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin pledged in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.

No, you just have no understanding of the bible which, as a child of satan, you could not be expected to have.

As to Mark, Peter's account, Peter was telling John Mark about Jesus as the Ox, the Suffering Servant.

Hence no origin story, and not final conclusion (but for the one tacked on later). Nobody cares where a servant is from, or where he goes.

Again, as a child of the devil, you are not expected to understand the things of God.

Nice bait.

As to John the Beloved's account, portraying Jesus as the Eagle, the Son of God, Jesus has no origin. He is eternal. And as the Son of God, and God, Jesus was the Word, in the beginning, was with God, and is God.

Despite what Marian fanboys claim, Mary is not the "Mother of God", but the mother of Jesus, the Messiah, who came down from heaven in the flesh. The reason they cannot grasp this is due to their pagan nature and the spirit of antichrist in them.

According to the Talmud she was raped by a random roman soldier, though this was most likely just banter from jews angry at christianity. Though it is certainly plausible.

I think the important part of the virgin birth in Matthew is (aside from giving jesus a supernatural origin) Joseph communing with an angel in his dream, an obvious allusion to genesis 28, showing Jesus' connection to the patriarchs. Connecting Jesus to old testament prophecies is a frequent theme in Matthew, like how his birth is moved from Nazareth to Bethlehem, since according to the old testament that's where the messiah will be born, starting off with a lineage that connects Jesus to king david, etc. Matthew was clearly written for a jewish audience to try to convince them that christianity was inherently jewish, and should take the leadership of judaism rather than splitting off.

Luke on the other hand was written for a gentile audience, as it reads much more like a greek romance (when read together with the book of acts, its sequel). The virgin birth was most probably added into that to give Jesus an important birth, similar to that seen for many heroes of greek legend.

the prophecy of Isaiah is a double prophecy, as many long time prophecies were. Quick fulfillment so the listener knows the prophecy is real, and then ultimate fulfillment long after the prophet is dead. In such a manner you could tell who is a prophet of God, and who is not. Prophets of God are 100% precise and accurate and right, or they are killed.

Unto us a son is born

To Isaiah and his wife

Unto us a child is given

To the world

Two different baby boys. One born to Isaiah from a "young woman", and one born to a virgin, a "young woman", who, in that culture, would not only be assumed to be a virgin, but better be able to prove it upon pain of death.

>Though it is certainly plausible.

It explains nothing about the real Jesus.

if you disagree with what he had to say then make actual counter arguments not just greentext

Jesus never existed.

Stop this quest for the historical Jesus, it's 19th century pseudo-intellectual nonsense

The four writers of the gospels, Matthew, Peter through John Mark, Luke who only compiled what was written, and John the beloved wrote about four different faces of Jesus to four different audiences.

You are correct that Matthew the tax collector wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews to convince the Hebrews that Jesus the Hebrew is the King of the Hebrews.

Hebrew. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the King of the Jews, with a lineage going back to, as you said, King David through Joseph.

John Mark/Peter spoke to the Romans, depicting Jesus as the Ox, the Suffering Servant.

Luke compiled the works that had been written for the Greeks, portraying Jesus as the Son of Man.

And John wrote to the world to declare that Jesus is the eagle, the Son of God.

I always loved the start of John 1

but even when it was just written in the 2nd century AD it was being referred to as "the spiritual gospel", its not meant to be a historical account or taken literally

He's the most famous person in history.

Come up with a different idiotic attack.

>According to the Talmud...
[citation needed]

It was written in the first century by John the apostle, and while John did not write chronologically, and did not claim to, what he wrote was as accurate as what Luke wrote, in chronological order.

It is very much the case that a man must know Jesus is God in the flesh, who died for the sins of mankind and rose on the third day, in order to be saved.

There are many vile things written about Jesus in the Talmud.

Which not only is evidence to shithead here that Jesus existed, but that the people who remained Jews hated him, while the Jews who became Christians went to their deaths singing His praises.

It is impossible to verify with any accuracy who fucked Mary. Just as it is impossible to verify that jesus of Nazareth wasn't receiving visions from a demon, or Paul or any other prophet.

while it is true that there are no surviving primary sources that mention jesus when he was alive it seems rather unlikely to me for him to have been made up entirely considering how large a following he had.

What I think is most likely is that he was a carpenter from Nazareth of relatively humble origins, who became a preacher and faith healer around 30AD. During the passover holiday in 33AD he got overly riled up over Roman oppression, and Hellenistically inclined Judeans disrespecting traditions so he made a scene inside the temple by wrecking the tables of the money changers. For this he was arrested and crucified.

The flipping of the money changers' tables is one of the few stories that appears in all the gospels, and we know that zealot activity increased every year during passover (similar to how modern islamic terrorists do more attacks during ramadan) so there was a standing agreement between the Roman procurate and the sanhedrin to quickly crucify any trouble makers during the holidays.

give me a bit, I'll try to find the specific passage

It's very simple.

Joseph.

After Jesus was born.

The Yellow Emperor is pretty "famous" too. And "most famous" is not an empirically verifiable valuation, bitch.

Show the passages. Not to mention the earliest book of the Talmud was written in 200 CE you dumb nigger

>It was written in the first century by John the apostle
unlikely, its hostile views towards jews would seem to date it to the early 2nd century or at the very earliest the late 90s.

>The Yellow Emperor is pretty "famous" too.
In China perhaps, I had never even heard of him until I took a college course on ancient China.

I'd say he's probably less famous than Confucius, or Qin Shihuangdi.

Nice attempt to dodge the essence of the point. Although it's comforting to see you tacitly admit that "fame" means nothing factually speaking.

Better yet, is Joseph the first cuck?

Yes, and if Mary is canonically without sin then any intercourse aftwards between Joseph and Mary was by neccesity rape.

>made up
Fuck off back to plebbit
FUCK
OFF
BACK
2
PLEBBIT

remember to report posts like that one, the mods on this board are slow to act, but if you report obvious troll posts they usually do delete them and ban the posters eventually

>muh verification
Back to plebbit

>Italians
>white

So you're telling me you take secondary sources at face value? I think you should go back to Cultural Studies or whatever idiot pseudo-discipline you came from

>I only believe what I personally witness, and not even then.

The marriage bed his holy.

600 BC, during the Jewish captivity in Babylon.

So anyone running around like a contrarian asshole saying that the Yellow emperor never existed would look kind of like you.

This. Atheists BTFO

>some semen leaked into her vagina
Jesus was born from the ass. You cant have a virgin birth any other way as it would rip her hymen.

>the ORIGINAL gospel of Luke

>while it is true that there are no surviving primary sources that mention jesus when he was alive it seems rather unlikely to me for him to have been made up entirely considering how large a following he had.

Jesus didn't have a large following, there are no legit sources supporting his existence outside of Paul before the Gospels were written.

then why were the gospels written

>taking any sources at face value
Mate...

>italians
>romans

Ayo hol up, jesus was black ok. Mary got BLACKED and said god dun it. Jamal and shaniqua, not adam and eve. Praise black jesus.

what if she was raped by a Roman Soldier ?

Prove that Jesus is a man. Because chromosomally speaking, females are capable of female offspring.

t. Celsus

Of course Jesus was a woman. Leviticus 4:28 and 4:32 specify that when lambs are brought as sin offerings, they're to be female. And how many times is Jesus called the lamb of god? Offered for our sins?

Are we confirming reverse trap Jesus?

It is a mistranslation though

and it isn't even about the "virgin", who is already pregnant when he's making the prophecy

Jesus isn't mentioned a single time in the Talmud. Christians are just so insecure they assumed every reference to Yeshu or Yeshua was a reference Jesus. They like to cite this one Yeshu character that was sent to burn in hell in excrement, but the Yeshu it speaks of takes supposedly lived 200 years after Jesus' death, making it impossible to be Jesus.

docs.google.com/document/d/16J_rkA4gPoZOup1dMqFLbmm0fffExl_4VigvlNKmohs

Italians are romans, sweetie
Genetic studies proves it

>docs.google.com/document/d/16J_rkA4gPoZOup1dMqFLbmm0fffExl_4VigvlNKmohs
I'm only glancing through it, but it seems to get some things wrong, for instance, the Bar Kokhba revolt is about a century after Jesus, not before.

Wait, then how does Christianity exist?

How did Mithraism exist? Are you going to say Mithra must have existed for Mithraism to exist?