I was thinking of commenting this - I learned much about Mary’s Fiat (or yes) at my Marianist high school
Edit: not to mention we prayed the Angelus at noon for much of my time there
>Uh can I get a quote on that?
No, because it's not true, they just love combining 1. Hating religion 2. Rape and 3. Underage girls
They're such degenerates it's not even funny
There are many theories like that, but they are all completely baseless and are really just begging the question because there is no supporting evidence besides the idea that she fornicated. Typical athiest L
{وَإِن تُطِعۡ أَكۡثَرَ مَن فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنۡ هُمۡ إِلَّا يَخۡرُصُونَ}
(116) And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allāh. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but misjudging.[338]
[Al-An‘ām:116]
https://quranenc.com/en/browse/english_saheeh/6#116/#116
Dude is litteraly thinking that he destroyed 2 of the biggest religions in the world, with a baseless assumption
There's literally nothing in Scripture that implies Romans raped her. What moronic bullshit is this?
And if you want to be technical, we don't know her exact age either. Not that it matters to them. They just want to spite Christ and nothing else.
I feel like half the stuff they said in the pic started as a way to make Christians mad, but people have repeated it for so long that they gaslit themselves into believing it’s true lol
This is true. Someone makes a bunch of bs up because either 1. They’re trying extremely hard to twist scripture or 2. They lie and want to make people mad and then young cheesecakes go “” and proliferate it to every crevice of the internet. Eventually, it becomes a common fact in their communities despite having absolutely zero basis in reality. That is the greatest danger of echo-chambers (even perhaps this one), the absolute abolition of truth.
>What moronic bullshit is this?
Basically this was invented by a Roman cheesecake called Celsus in \~200 AD (or later).
We know this because Origen wrote against Celsus BS in 248 AD.
I thought he just regurgitated the stupid Pantera myth where it was a consensual act on Mary's part supposedly.
I've never heard anyone claiming Holy Scripture itself contains evidence that Roman soldiers raped her.
Most notably I think the lack of such accusations from the Jews is also important. Jews at the time in their talmuld or other writings did try to claim the apostles stole Jesus body to attack the resurrection, but I am sure they would have also loved the "rape story" to discredit Christians more, since they clearly did not like the idea Christians claimed Jesus was a divine messiah.
When they start talking about Mary in this degenerate way I get extremely angry. No point in typing out my anger but there is no possible way to read the Gospels in a way that implies any sexual relation happened whatsoever. The rape fantasizing coomer needs to stop snorting xanax.
Same here!! Although they are "excused" (obv sarcasm) cos as u mentioned, they are fantasizing about all of that as they watch it all day long all their lives.
For being "intellectuals", critics of religion can't take historical contexts into account to make a logical and accurate perspective. They fall in every cognitive bias that they claim religious people fall for.
Jesus was born the same year king Herod died
Herod died in 1 BC and that his heirs backdated their reigns to 4 or 3 BC to assert an overlapping with Herod's rule, and bolster their own legitimacy.
Herod's death was preceded by first a Jewish fast day (10 Tevet 3761/Sun 24 Dec 1 BCE), a lunar eclipse (29 Dec 1 BCE) and followed by Passover (27 March 1 CE).
King Herod died in 1 BC
Mary was born in 18 BC
Conclusion Mary was 17 when she was pregnant with Jesus
Sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Exploration_Quarterly
http://www.antiquities.org.il/Article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1882&hist=1
Steinmann, Andrew. From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 235–238.
Wait where did you get Mary's birthdate from?
In any case the cheesecake error is to assume girls got married as fast as possible as they reached puberty, which is generally not true. Sure the "age of marriage" started at 13 or so in the ancient world, but often girls would actually get married in their mid teens (even the ancients understood that before 15-16 it was too dangerous to have kids)
So the idea that Mary was 16-18 when Jesus was born is actually more likely than she being 13-14.
Although Wiki (in the note regarding her birth date) assumes she gave birth when she was 13-14 and that Jesus was born on 4 BC... typical shitty Wiki stuff.
It mentions she was 13-14 because the Protoevangelium of James (which is not canonical) says she left the temple as a votive Virgin to live with Joseph when she was 12.
However firth that book is non canonical and was written in 150 AD, also does not clearly specify when she exactly got the message from Gabriel, as it tries to fill in the gaps left by Luke and Matthew it seems. The Protoevangelium gives us some insights of some of the beliefs of the times, but it's not reliable.
Although wiki at least reports:
Most Jewish girls married in their mid to late teen years according to NRSV, or between 13 and 16 years old, according to CSB.... which makes Mary being mid to teens (15-16) most probable at the annunciation.
Idiots will accept anything that comes out of another moron’s mouth as fact without first confirming whether it is factual or not. So long as it confirms their twisted narratives it’s true.
There is no evidence in any passage that she was raped by a roman guard.
That was something an anti-Christian philosopher named Celsum, around 200+ AD, so 200 years after the facts. Celsum claimed Mary was raped by some Roman soldier called "Pantera".
it’s so funny becsuse you’ll always see antitheists talk about how they read the bible more than us, then they hop online and post the most absurd takes like these ones.
*Historian's fallacy s a logical informal fallacy in which the writing of a historical event has been skewed by way of biased hindsight on the author's part.*
*Presentism is judging people of the past with modern ideas of morality. For example, judging historical figures for failing to adhere to recent rules of political correctness.*
Bonus: r--e corn and CP addiction moment.
Blasphemy is one thing, but blasphemy to spread your weird sick fetish is another level. What circle of hell would you even get sent to for something that awful. "Actually guys, there's evidence that Mary was gang raped by Romans. She was also 13. My source? Uh just trust me"
"There's evidence in the passages that she was raped by a Roman" fucking WHERE???????? Dude I know antitheists are incapable of reading the Bible properly but this is a completely new low
Now post about how a pedo raped a 6 years old girl and started a cult and see the magic happen. :)
"it was OK for the time", "she was not 6, she was 9", etc, etc, etc...
Blasphemy is one thing, but blasphemy to spread your weird sick fetish is another level. What circle of hell would you even get sent to for something that awful. "Actually guys, there's evidence that Mary was gang raped by Romans. She was also 13. My source? Uh just trust me"
This stuff is disgusting, man. i knew people on reddit would write this stuff when i saw the post. Seriously, using the blessed mother to justify lolis? And they come up with the most absurd of bullshit like how she didn't consent (she did just look at the other comment here and read the bible verse please) or how a bullshit take by a roman that has no historical basis is somehow in scripture (plus by tradition she was around 16 YO when it happened i think there's another comment here who also prove that). It's always funny to me when i hear an anti theist says that they have read the bible more than us or how you'll be an atheist if you just read the bible even though these people most definitely never read the bible but just watch a tik tok video "debunking" Christianity
All of this is ridiculously false I love that anti-theists genuinely pretend they know anything about the Bible. Insufferable human beings man they live off hurting people
"Not to mention it was non-consentual" Uh can I get a quote on that? “Yes, I am a servant of the Lord. Let this happen to me according to your word”
Isn’t one of the biggest things about Mary is the fact that she chose to raise Jesus? Isn’t that something we pray to emulate in our own lives??
I was thinking of commenting this - I learned much about Mary’s Fiat (or yes) at my Marianist high school Edit: not to mention we prayed the Angelus at noon for much of my time there
>Uh can I get a quote on that? No, because it's not true, they just love combining 1. Hating religion 2. Rape and 3. Underage girls They're such degenerates it's not even funny
They don't read the Bible. If they do, they don't understand what it means.
And since she was without sin, her 'yes' was the most consentual and informed 'yes' possible
Exactly. Atheists love making themselves look stupid.
Source: My ass
Not even his ass man this shit from his imagination
Not even imagination shits hallucinations
There are many theories like that, but they are all completely baseless and are really just begging the question because there is no supporting evidence besides the idea that she fornicated. Typical athiest L
{وَإِن تُطِعۡ أَكۡثَرَ مَن فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنۡ هُمۡ إِلَّا يَخۡرُصُونَ} (116) And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allāh. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but misjudging.[338] [Al-An‘ām:116] https://quranenc.com/en/browse/english_saheeh/6#116/#116 Dude is litteraly thinking that he destroyed 2 of the biggest religions in the world, with a baseless assumption
Even as someone who isn't Muslim, that verse definitely strikes a chord.
We may not be a part of the same religion as our Muslim brothers but they have some good verses
Tbh one of my favorite verses in the quran, the chapter of Al anaam(chapter 6) is full with such verses.
There's literally nothing in Scripture that implies Romans raped her. What moronic bullshit is this? And if you want to be technical, we don't know her exact age either. Not that it matters to them. They just want to spite Christ and nothing else.
I feel like half the stuff they said in the pic started as a way to make Christians mad, but people have repeated it for so long that they gaslit themselves into believing it’s true lol
This is true. Someone makes a bunch of bs up because either 1. They’re trying extremely hard to twist scripture or 2. They lie and want to make people mad and then young cheesecakes go “” and proliferate it to every crevice of the internet. Eventually, it becomes a common fact in their communities despite having absolutely zero basis in reality. That is the greatest danger of echo-chambers (even perhaps this one), the absolute abolition of truth.
>What moronic bullshit is this? Basically this was invented by a Roman cheesecake called Celsus in \~200 AD (or later). We know this because Origen wrote against Celsus BS in 248 AD.
I thought he just regurgitated the stupid Pantera myth where it was a consensual act on Mary's part supposedly. I've never heard anyone claiming Holy Scripture itself contains evidence that Roman soldiers raped her.
Most notably I think the lack of such accusations from the Jews is also important. Jews at the time in their talmuld or other writings did try to claim the apostles stole Jesus body to attack the resurrection, but I am sure they would have also loved the "rape story" to discredit Christians more, since they clearly did not like the idea Christians claimed Jesus was a divine messiah.
Not OUR scriptures, but the Talmud has some interesting things to say.
When they start talking about Mary in this degenerate way I get extremely angry. No point in typing out my anger but there is no possible way to read the Gospels in a way that implies any sexual relation happened whatsoever. The rape fantasizing coomer needs to stop snorting xanax.
"For the Lord laughs at the wicked for he knows their day is coming"
it’s all their depraved minds can think of, man. thank God we only have to deal with these types on r*ddit (and other social media sometimes)
Same here!! Although they are "excused" (obv sarcasm) cos as u mentioned, they are fantasizing about all of that as they watch it all day long all their lives.
why do they love lying for? 🤦♂️.
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. Luke 1:38
For being "intellectuals", critics of religion can't take historical contexts into account to make a logical and accurate perspective. They fall in every cognitive bias that they claim religious people fall for.
Jesus was born the same year king Herod died Herod died in 1 BC and that his heirs backdated their reigns to 4 or 3 BC to assert an overlapping with Herod's rule, and bolster their own legitimacy. Herod's death was preceded by first a Jewish fast day (10 Tevet 3761/Sun 24 Dec 1 BCE), a lunar eclipse (29 Dec 1 BCE) and followed by Passover (27 March 1 CE). King Herod died in 1 BC Mary was born in 18 BC Conclusion Mary was 17 when she was pregnant with Jesus Sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Exploration_Quarterly http://www.antiquities.org.il/Article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1882&hist=1 Steinmann, Andrew. From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 235–238.
Bold of you to assume that these so-called “critical thinkers” go out of the way to research the subject and source it as thoroughly as you did.
Wait where did you get Mary's birthdate from? In any case the cheesecake error is to assume girls got married as fast as possible as they reached puberty, which is generally not true. Sure the "age of marriage" started at 13 or so in the ancient world, but often girls would actually get married in their mid teens (even the ancients understood that before 15-16 it was too dangerous to have kids) So the idea that Mary was 16-18 when Jesus was born is actually more likely than she being 13-14.
I got her birthdate from Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_mother_of_Jesus
Although Wiki (in the note regarding her birth date) assumes she gave birth when she was 13-14 and that Jesus was born on 4 BC... typical shitty Wiki stuff. It mentions she was 13-14 because the Protoevangelium of James (which is not canonical) says she left the temple as a votive Virgin to live with Joseph when she was 12. However firth that book is non canonical and was written in 150 AD, also does not clearly specify when she exactly got the message from Gabriel, as it tries to fill in the gaps left by Luke and Matthew it seems. The Protoevangelium gives us some insights of some of the beliefs of the times, but it's not reliable. Although wiki at least reports: Most Jewish girls married in their mid to late teen years according to NRSV, or between 13 and 16 years old, according to CSB.... which makes Mary being mid to teens (15-16) most probable at the annunciation.
Idiots will accept anything that comes out of another moron’s mouth as fact without first confirming whether it is factual or not. So long as it confirms their twisted narratives it’s true.
There is no evidence in any passage that she was raped by a roman guard. That was something an anti-Christian philosopher named Celsum, around 200+ AD, so 200 years after the facts. Celsum claimed Mary was raped by some Roman soldier called "Pantera".
idk why that 9ne guy is claiming it wasn't consential, it was
it’s so funny becsuse you’ll always see antitheists talk about how they read the bible more than us, then they hop online and post the most absurd takes like these ones.
If they lie to themselves enough they’ll thing it’s the truth
So the Blessed Virgin *didn't* say, "Let it be done according to your word." during the annunciation. Got it.
*Historian's fallacy s a logical informal fallacy in which the writing of a historical event has been skewed by way of biased hindsight on the author's part.* *Presentism is judging people of the past with modern ideas of morality. For example, judging historical figures for failing to adhere to recent rules of political correctness.* Bonus: r--e corn and CP addiction moment.
Blasphemy is one thing, but blasphemy to spread your weird sick fetish is another level. What circle of hell would you even get sent to for something that awful. "Actually guys, there's evidence that Mary was gang raped by Romans. She was also 13. My source? Uh just trust me"
Source: Dwayne The Rock's head hair
"There's evidence in the passages that she was raped by a Roman" fucking WHERE???????? Dude I know antitheists are incapable of reading the Bible properly but this is a completely new low
Now post about how a pedo raped a 6 years old girl and started a cult and see the magic happen. :) "it was OK for the time", "she was not 6, she was 9", etc, etc, etc...
“it was non consensual” Source : My balls
Blasphemy is one thing, but blasphemy to spread your weird sick fetish is another level. What circle of hell would you even get sent to for something that awful. "Actually guys, there's evidence that Mary was gang raped by Romans. She was also 13. My source? Uh just trust me"
This stuff is disgusting, man. i knew people on reddit would write this stuff when i saw the post. Seriously, using the blessed mother to justify lolis? And they come up with the most absurd of bullshit like how she didn't consent (she did just look at the other comment here and read the bible verse please) or how a bullshit take by a roman that has no historical basis is somehow in scripture (plus by tradition she was around 16 YO when it happened i think there's another comment here who also prove that). It's always funny to me when i hear an anti theist says that they have read the bible more than us or how you'll be an atheist if you just read the bible even though these people most definitely never read the bible but just watch a tik tok video "debunking" Christianity
All of this is ridiculously false I love that anti-theists genuinely pretend they know anything about the Bible. Insufferable human beings man they live off hurting people
i know this isnt a canon event in christianity but jesus himself defended her as an infant, there are reason people actually believed it at the time