Questions: virgin Mary with 2 children, Jesus of David through Joseph, and nudity being evil

1) They say that The Virgin Mary got pregnant not from a man but by a miracle of God, but if James is the biological brother of Jesus then didn't Mary also give birth to him [thus making her not a virgin]?

2) If Jesus is not related to Joseph since Mary got pregnant by a Miracle of God and not by a man, then why do the Gospels give an account of Joseph's genealogy but not Mary's? Both Luke and Matthew speaks of Joseph's genealogy and how Jesus is therefore connected to David through him, but if Joseph did not get Mary pregnant then his genealogy is not connected to Joseph's bloodline.

3) Why do Christians judge people for wearing loose clothing? Didn't God make everyone naked and it was Satan who tricked people into eating the forbidden fruit, opening their eyes, and judging their own nakedness to be something ashamed of?



(NOTE: To me, it's Jesus's Word that is most important - his teachings - not his genealogy, not his or his mother's sex life, but I'm asking this for people who believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah talked about in the Old Testament and that he must be biologically related to King David. To me, the old testament is worshiping another being than the Merciful Heavenly Father described by Jesus in Luke 6:35-36, and to me, the old testament is prophesy of another "christ" - but that discussion is better saved for another thread. This thread is for the 3 questions I typed above.)

originally posted by: arpgme
3) Why do Christians judge people for wearing loose clothing?

I am not a theologian so cannot answer the Bible stuff, but I will pull you up on this statement. People go for nudity and clothing and it's not a Christian thing - for example, atheists may be judgemental on nudity and clothing et al. Christians are therefore clothing agnostic. Other religions stipulate dress codes, like Islam, especially what women are allowed to wear.

a reply to: paraphi

I know that other people do it, but my question was directed to christians because of the story in the bible where the shame of nudity only exists after being tricked by satan (the serpent).

By Christians judging nudity, that would mean that they are siding with satan against God (assuming any of the story is even true).

a reply to: arpgme

1. If Jesus existed is still a matter for debate, if James existed and was indeed his biological brother is a claim made by some based on the non canonical Gospels. Assuming Mary did exist and the Gospels are correctly understood and interpreted, for most Christians her virginity at the time of conception is a tenet of the faith. If she then remained a virgin for the rest of her life is a little less clear. I'm fairly sure this was defined as part of the Councils of Nicea rather than specific biblical references, but I could be wrong.

2. Assuming the information in the Bible as a whole includes accurate information in this regard, Joseph was a direct descendent of David. This would give Jesus credibility to most of the various Jewish factions of the time. I'm really not sure details of his conception were shouted from the rooftops when he began his ministry.

3. I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to with 'loose clothing'. sorry.

How about this then? These things make no sense because they are made up nonsensical rubbish not even a mentally challenged small child would believe without question.

Jesus never existed and was made up by scholars to control the ignorant and steal land.

To ponder the ins and outs of this hooey is a complete waste of time, as is the mental gymnastics required to distort what the book says into whatever oppressive bigotry or rabid persecution of others is called for at the time. Pathetic really. All religions seem to operate in the same fashion. It's all this 'us and them' mentality and piles of stupid rules.

In short. The Bible and all religion in general. Is crap, and that's putting it mildly.

a reply to: uncommitted

2. Assuming the information in the Bible as a whole includes accurate information in this regard, Joseph was a direct descendent of David. This would give Jesus credibility to most of the various Jewish factions of the time. I'm really not sure details of his conception were shouted from the rooftops when he began his ministry.

But Jesus is not Joseph's son because Mary became pregnant by a miracle of God and not through sexual intercourse with a man, right? so Jesus is not a descendant of Joseph's blood-line.

originally posted by: angus1745
How about this then? These things make no sense because they are made up nonsensical rubbish not even a mentally challenged small child would believe without question.

Jesus never existed and was made up by scholars to control the ignorant and steal land.

To ponder the ins and outs of this hooey is a complete waste of time, as is the mental gymnastics required to distort what the book says into whatever oppressive bigotry or rabid persecution of others is called for at the time. Pathetic really. All religions seem to operate in the same fashion. It's all this 'us and them' mentality and piles of stupid rules.

In short. The Bible and all religion in general. Is crap, and that's putting it mildly.

As has been said, opinions are like arseholes - we all have one. There are references to Jesus outside of the Bible in the 1st century AD, but of course no direct evidence at this point of time.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: uncommitted

2. Assuming the information in the Bible as a whole includes accurate information in this regard, Joseph was a direct descendent of David. This would give Jesus credibility to most of the various Jewish factions of the time. I'm really not sure details of his conception were shouted from the rooftops when he began his ministry.

But Jesus is not Joseph's son because Mary became pregnant by a miracle of God and not through sexual intercourse with a man, right? so Jesus is not a descendant of Joseph's blood-line.

All depends on how you look at it and how it was perceived at the time. I'm not sure Joseph or Mary spent a lot of time shouting out the whole story, effectively he would have been seen as the son of Joseph. I'm not sure once, anywhere in any of the canonical gospels he refers to himself as the son of God.

a reply to: arpgme


Jews never had a prophecy about a virgin birth, that was an error of the Greek texts that got erroneously applied to Jesus. How embarrassing! The word of God is supposed to be without error. I'm sorry, but inspired by God scripture is not supposed to make mistakes.

Joseph's geneology was given because of the prophecy of the Messiah coming from a certain lineage. But the writers of the New Testament had no understanding of what Israelites expected in the Messiah. They were just trying to match what they saw as Messianic prophecy with Jesus, who only exists in the New Testament. No record of his existence exists elsewhere.

He probably was a real person who was trying to unite the numerous Israelite factions for the purposes of the Israelites and the Romans killed him, and James who is CALLED the brother of Jesus but nobody knows why is made head of the church. James was also the leader of the wickedly apocalyptic Zaddikim and wasn't a disciple of Christ until late in the game.

But they say Joseph had kids when he married Miriam (priestess name?) but I don't believe in virgin birth or that a married woman needed to be celibate to be holy.

I am with you. If you like the idea that Jesus Father is not Yahweh, you would love the scriptures of the Nag Hammadi Library that elaborate on that extensively.

And your third question. I was not aware that Christians were against baggy clothes but I am not surprised. They judge because they think they are superior. Anyone who judges someone else in any scenario does so from a sense of superiority. Otherwise it would just be an opinion.

Also Christians judge because they follow the teachings of Paul over the teachings of Jesus, who couldn't have been more clear about being judgemental.

You are wise. I hope you broaden your scriptural horizons with the scriptures of other faiths and study the history of religion. It's a life long mission of mine to learn EVERY religion without the shackles of joining.

Always keep in mind that Christianity and religion have always been designed to control populations even if it doesn't begin that way.

Anytime anyone tried to liberate people from the threat of Yahwism like the Gnostics did by pointing out the absurdity of a god who orders people to kill and is both good and evil, they were exterminated by the theocracy.

Jesus was good. Christianity is a virus.

a reply to: arpgme

1) The scriptures aren't exactly clear thanks to vague uses of different words in Greek that can mean family or kin. Keep this in mind:

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

2. In Jewish culture, the genealogy of the father was very important. That's why it's discussed.

The Navarre Bible commentary on Matthew’s Gospel explains why this is important:

Jewish genealogies followed the male line. Joseph, being Mary’s husband, was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father as regards rights and duties . . . Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan, it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David. Several early Fathers of the Church testify to this—for example, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian, who base their testimony on an unbroken tradition. (28-29)

3. I personally don't know of any Christians that judge women for wearing loose clothing. Maybe for showing too much skin or leaving little the imagination, perhaps.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: paraphi

I know that other people do it, but my question was directed to christians because of the story in the bible where the shame of nudity only exists after being tricked by satan (the serpent).

By Christians judging nudity, that would mean that they are siding with satan against God (assuming any of the story is even true).

The story is allegorical. Adam realizing his shame at being naked means he was previously clothed in light, he had no knowledge of darkness or evil and he develops fear and all the human emotions that come from evil.

It's actually a pretty silly story. God could have just killed the tree and not given them the chance to eat from it. He is omnipotent and omniscient and he has trouble finding them? He expresses disbelief and wonder in asking "who told you you were naked." when the story says they realized it instinctually after eating the fruit. He takes revenge instead of restoring Adam and Eve to there previous state and dealing with the Serpent before he had the chance to manipulate Eve. Why does God have enemies in the garden of Eden working against him and his will?

The Chaldeans, Sumerians and other Mesopotamian cultures had similar myths that make it clear Genesis Eden story is a reboot of more ancient polytheistic myths preparing the rest of Genesis to focus on the patriarchs before Israel/Jacob, the namesake of the Israelites and father of the 12 tribes. It's very much meant for Israelites and was never meant to be the creation story of billions of people but it has been seriously studied for millennia as a Hebrew creation when it was based off of previous myths (Eden) and sold as a revelation to Moses who is based off who knows how many people. Lots of theories exist about who Moses was based off of because he doesn't exist outside of the Bible. Like Noah being based off Utanapishtim of the Epic of Gilgamesh (who some say is the same as Hercules and Nimrod, who has many names).

Likewise the New Testament theology of a final battle between good and evil is not original to Christianity. Neither is Judgement day or the resurrection. Pharisees believed in a resurrection and the judgement of souls probably comes from Zoroaster, the prophet of the Magi and hell comes from the Greek Hades. The Apocalypse was probably made popular at Qumran where many apocalyptic prophecies and an actual manual for the final battle between good and evil is found that may have been what led the Romans to eradicate them. The Romans were the main opponent of the Zaddikim but they had many people on their hit list called the war scroll that went back to prophecies in Genesis and Numbers. But when the apocalypse they predicted came the god that they thought would send his holy angels to annihilate the enemy never showed up and the apocalyptic victory went to the "heathen" Kittim (Romans).

And that's what you get when you become obsessed with apocalyptic destruction...destroyed.

a reply to: arpgme

Also, it is an error to call the Serpent, Satan. Satan is an altogether different being from the flesh and blood (beast) Serpent who was cursed to crawl on his belly all his days and Satan has access to Yahweh in the book of Job and sits with the divine council and operates according to the orders he is given.

Tell me how a beast, the Serpent, could go from cursed to be a crawling serpent, to a heavenly immortal who works with Yahweh and freely roams the earth.

Job 2:2 Yahweh said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the Lord, From going to and fro on the earth, and from WALKING up and down on it."

I emphasized walking because that serpent was no longer able to walk after being cursed. Or speak. And he definitely couldn't ascend to heaven with the Sons of God and present himself to Yahweh.

I would like to know why you would think that the Serpent of Eden was the same as Satan. One is a beast and the other a heavenly being who can go down to earth and back to heaven at will.

Even if the last book in the Bible says "that serpent of old, called the devil and Satan" Revelation is not a literal reading that everything it says means exactly what it says. Lots of symbolism and I am sure John knew that the Serpent and Satan were not the same. Could be why he "called " Satan instead of just "Satan" or "who is Satan". That serpent of old has been dealt with it is the spirit of sin that he introduced that lives on and Satan is the Adversary, literally that is what satan means. It is used informally to describe any adversary and in Satans case it's a title.

So the serpent is a symbol of wisdom and the bible made it one of evil. But serpent worship was popular in Egypt in the first centuries of Christ and many Egyptian Christians worshipped Serapis and called the worshippers of Serapis Christians because of the similarities between the two religions. One church father in particular wrote that they were Christians, the worshippers of Serapis.

And in Kabbalah and even the OldTestament there is a class of rreptilian angels called Seraphim. SERAPis, SERAPhim, no doubt there is a connection there too.

Serpent worship is a very old and very mysterious form of religion that seems to regard the serpent as a hero for giving us the ability to see evil because that Yahweh is a mad control freak and very evil posing as the God of all when he is incompetent and bloodthirsty. He punishes people for generations and favors peoplellike Abraham who would kill his own son no problem and marry his sister and then pimp her out twice. And Solomon who to have been one of the most sinful men to have ever lived with 300 wives and all their gods became his gods and he lives a ridiculously lavish lifestyle.

a reply to: AmenTelestai

The Aztecs worshiped a dragon.

They believed that their dragon god was angry with the world and unless they sacrifice a pure human to him, that they will experience his wrath.

This is similar to what some christians believe about Jesus; that Jesus was the pure Son of God who was sacrificed so that they wouldn't have to experience God's wrath and so that God would forgive all of their sins through Jesus being a human sacrifice for sins.

Many dragon-worshiping people believed in human sacrifice.

The christian religion, as it is taught today, sounds like another dragon-worshiping religion. Jesus taught people to love their neighbours and enemies, and to turn the other cheek, and to pick not up the sword. These teachings show that Jesus was against violence and the killing of other human beings.

Jesus even said this about the people who wanted to kill him:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." - John 8:44

So, while Christian sounds like another reptilian/dragon religion of human sacrifice, the teachings of Jesus Christ does not.

A lot of people in this world believes in a wrathful god (reptilian/dragon nature), but I believe in The Merciful Heavenly Father who is kind to all (Luke 6:35-36).


Why would Yahweh allow the Serpent (or whatever name you choose to call the Serpent), to create conflict against him? Because Yahweh is a war god and creating an enemy keeps him having something to fight against.

his name may be a shortened form of a cultic formula relating to El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon and the original god of Israel (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel),

yahwī ṣaba’ôt = Yahweh Sabaoth

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." - exodus 15:13

(The word for "LORD" in English was translated from "Yahweh" in Hebrew)

Jesus wanted to help people to get out of the cycle by loving their neighbours and enemies, turning the other cheek, picking not up the sword, and forgiving.

Even when those who believe in the Moses and Yahweh scriptures claimed that Jesus was a sinner and blasphemer and they sentenced him to crucifixion, Jesus did not fight back and resort to violence, instead he said "Father please forgive them for they know not what they do."

Love is the answer to go beyond the physical world and see into the deeper heavenly realm.

The Kingdom of Heaven is within.

People have experienced The White Light of Eternal Love and know that the Merciful Heavenly Father God taught by Jesus in Luke 6:35-36 who is kind to all, really exists.

I used to argue against Yahweh by talking about how the old testament has so much violent and non-compassionate behavior in it, and talk about how everyone was deceived, but now I try not to judge other people's beliefs and I choose to stay focused on Love, which is The Essence of The Merciful Heavenly Father God.