# I was looking through the archives...

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [February 16, 2007, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458 "2007-02-16T05:47:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 7\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![untziggy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/53a042/32.png) [@untziggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/untziggy)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/1 "2007-02-16T05:47:19Z")

</div>

When I came across [this.](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a981002a.html) I wonder, is is conceivable that Jesus was actually a teratoma that somehow configured itself the right way? Highly unlikely, but it’d be cool.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/2 "2007-02-16T07:03:47Z")

</div>

If he was, surely he would have been a woman? Virgin birth, no apparent sperm involved …

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2007, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/3 "2007-02-16T08:28:08Z")

</div>

Since this is a comment of one of Cecil’s Columns, I’ve move it there.

**samclem** GQ moderator

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\
**Post date:** [February 18, 2007, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/4 "2007-02-18T19:22:46Z")

</div>

“Conceivable”? Heh.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2007, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/5 "2007-02-19T05:39:40Z")

</div>

It makes more sense to postulate Mary is Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, and that Jesus’s birth was called ‘virgin’ to cover up the fact that Joseph was Mary’s pimp and nobody knew who the baby-daddy was.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2007, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/6 "2007-02-19T13:32:31Z")

</div>

I can see the headline on the National Enquirer now: “Best Kept Secret of the Church: Jesus was a Woman!”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2007, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-looking-through-the-archives/392458/7 "2007-02-19T15:33:48Z")

</div>

Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute; that idea comes from A) conflating her with “the woman who was a sinner” – and usually with Mary of Bethany, too – and, B) assuming that there’s only one way a woman can be a sinner in the first place.