Was "Jesus" a "bastard" & the Church tried to Cover it up with the VirginBirth Stories?

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
No man that has ever set out to disprove the Bible has ever been able to do it.


copernicus and galileo sure did quite a number on the biblical model of the universe



Why would it be so important for anyone to try and disprove Jesus' Deity? That is a question that I would really like a rational answer to. Madness......

^
(long call for me to try to disprove that "jesus" was a deity)

basically, i don't care
i'm not going to disprove it because you cannot prove or disprove whether or not someone who supposedly lived nearly 2000 years ago was divine




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   


copernicus and galileo sure did quite a number on the biblical model of the universe

No they did not. The Bible said nothing much of the universe.
Lets get back to the topic onhand.
tell me that the basis of this whole thread is not the Davinci Code. It is sold in the fiction section in all bookstores. It is a fictional story.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by soothsayer
 


no, a bastard is not one born out of wedlock, a bastard is one conceived from a forbidden relationship. Jesus is a bastard because Mary was engaged to Joseph, and after this engagement (IRUSIN in Hebrew) was forbidden to other men, somehow she became pregnant whilst in this "betrothed to Joseph" state, therefore according to Jewish law Jesus is a bastard - simple



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,
Dear Readers,

The virginal conception of Jesus was announced 8 centuries before it happend by One of the Great prophets of Israel in reference to the coming of the Messiah. The discovering of the Death Sea scrolls in 1947 confirmed the authenticy of the existence of this prediction at least 1 or 2 centuries before Christ.

Isaiah 7:14-15, The New International version



Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the the wrong and choose the right.


St Mathew 1:22-23, The king James version


22
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


Being revealed by God through the prophets as an outstanding sign of the accomplished of the promised arrival of the King descendent of David, this is a core truth not only of the Christian faith but also about the Jewish one, for which the Messiah is so important, and also concerning the Muslim, since Jesus is one of the Great prophets in that religion.

So this is not a problem of any specific church, as somebody out of his mind can think, it is a fundamental Article of faith of the three Great Monoteist Religions, so the claim of Amadeus is not only insensate but also completly false.

I am going to tell only one more remark with respect to this thread that please be careful in the opinions that you give about it, specially in the ones that are in the line of skepticism with respect to the immaculate conception of the always Virgin St Mary, since any attempt to desprestige it can be automatically considered as Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Why is so important this warning? because the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin that never would be forbidden neither in this world or in the great bejond, that was clearly stated by Jesus Christ:




St Mathew 12, 31-32 King James version
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.


So if you value in something your ethernal salvation please think twice before to dare to post any comment here, weight carefully your words, or perhaps better bite your tongue. Of course Amadeus as a possible partner in the hell is not going to be a great consolation for any of you that follow him.

Thanks for your atention,

The Angel of lightness




[edit on 7/1/2008 by The angel of light]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Illmatic67
 

If YOU believe anything written in the new testament you've got problems!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The angel of light
 


Oddly enough, I was just listening to a Jewish Rabbi a few days ago, and the topic was talking about how people who didn't understand things tried to fulfill OT prophecy. Interesting enough, this "sign" you mention of the virgin birth was one of them.

He made 1 very good point. And that is what you call a "sign" is not actually a sign at all. And he had a good little story that goes along with it. I'll try to repeat it and hopefully I won't butcher it too much.

So there is this small town outside of Chicago, and it's very windy in the town. They have a problem because all their stop signs kept getting blown down. This can be dangerous because it might fall on someone, and it takes a good bit of resources to put them back up all the time, not to mention any wrecks that may occur from the missing sign.

So the town decides to have a town meeting to try and solve the problem. And they are all arguing back and forth about what to do. Suddenly, this little old lady stands up and says - I have the solution, just listen to me and I will tell you have to fix it.

And then the lady says, well all we have to do is bury the entire sign in the ground. And then you won't have to worry about the sign getting blown over any more. It will stay there. Problem solved.

Disagree? Why? Is it because it's not a sign when you can't see it?. So how can the virgin birth be a sign?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by irdulili
there is a definite parallel between the 'immaculate conception' of christ ( the holy spirit descending apon Mary in the form of a dove)


You have confused the virgin birth (of Jesus) with the immaculate conception (of Mary.)

They are NOT the same, but often confused.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The angel of light
...with respect to the immaculate conception of the always Virgin St Mary, since any attempt to desprestige it can be automatically considered as Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. ...

While most of your post is accurate, this I take issue with. Was Mary a virgin when Jesus was born? Absolutely. Of this I have no doubt.

The "immaculate conception of the always virgin St Mary"?

Ummmm, no. Mary was not immaculately conceived. There is no biblical proof of this.

She was no longer a virgin at some point after Jesus was born. How do I know this? BECAUSE JESUS HAD BROTHERS. (half-brothers, to be technical).

Why do people always try to make the bible say things it doesn't say? (Rhetorical question, don't answer.)



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


I'm pretty sure Mary wasn't a virgin. In the bible, it still shows Jesus as being from the line of Joseph. If Mary was a virgin, then that line and claim is a lie.

Is there still a "virgin" birth involved? Yes. Let me explain.

Jesus in the flesh is born of Mary and Joseph. These are his flesh parents, this is his "line" as mentioned in the bible.

The virgin birth is not of the flesh, it is of the soul/consciousness. The virgin birth is when Jesus realizes who his true father is. Meaning, when he realizes his consciousness and soul is an extension of the father, and who/what he truly is, then he no longer recognizes himself as being born from the flesh. He see's himself as only being born from the father, and thus a virgin birth. The virgin is god himself, not mary.

Joesph is told to take Jesus anyway and such because Jesus will not recognize Joesph as his true father. If anyone has kids, imagine if your child didn't recognize you as their parent. It would be quite troublesome and a heavy burden on anyones heart. My parents would be crushed.

I say this from my own experience. I have 2 flesh parents. For the majority of life, these are who I considered my parents. When I had my vision and experienced John 14:20 for myself, then suddenly I realized who my true father was. I no longer seen myself as a child of my 2 flesh parents, but rather I seen myself(my true self, consciousness/soul) as being a child of god/ the father.

Thus, son of man(flesh), becomes son of god. And of course, while on the earth in the flesh you are both, but the 2nd one is the only true one and the parent for eternity.



[edit on 3-2-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot


Hi Sir Lancelot -

The OP stated in his intro that the warped 'midrashic' 3 x 14-sets of Ancestors-Genealogy of the 1st Canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Matathias' whoever he was..) the author names mainly males/men (although skips a few male Judaean kings in his 'lists of 14' who technically did reign as Judaean clan chiefs between BCE 690 and BCE 630 to keep his 14's in tact...) but consciously chose to name 5 (ahem) 'very interesting' women in the mangled genealogy of 'Iesous', all of whom were 'whores' or had some kind of sexual indecency in their careers, yet still were able to give birth to 'saviours' e.g. Rachab the Harlot, or Bath-Shebiti (=BathSheba, who was still kind of technically married to a Hittite by the name of Uriah when she screwed around on the rooftop with David...and got pregnant, only to lose the baby...), then David's daughter Tamar (who was raped by her brother Amnon as discussed in 2 Samuel 13:1-22 - then Ruth who is a Moabitess (unable to join the Congregation of Yisro'el as a result) who threw herself down naked on the threshing floor of Boaz to seduce him etc. with 'Miryam of Galilee' (i.e. Mary) the 5th in the list of whores/sexual miscreants.

What do you think the writer of 'Matthew's gospel' was trying to tell us about Mary by packing her into such a list of sexually loose women, all of whom eventually (despite their sexual turpitude) managed to sire famous saviours of Yisro'el anyway?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Let me be the only one to flag you.

I believe that you are somewhere in the ballpark......

People are quick to flag everything under the sun around here, until....................Jesus is involved.......



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

That is because the existence of Jesus is up for debate...

Therefore, his genealogy is in question...



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

That is because the existence of Jesus is up for debate...

Therefore, his genealogy is in question...


We will never know.

The hardcore believers of faith made sure of that......There is no answers, there is only faith..


That just does not do it for me.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Imo, Jesus was the solar deity of the Gnostic christian sect,...

The roman elite chose the Jesus figure out of all the other solar deities because he most portrayed human characteristics...

Rome sought to historize the Jesus figure for social control... and boy did it work...



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amadeus
Was Jesus a Bastard? (& did the Church hide the Fact with a Virgin Birth Myth based on Isaiah 7:14?


No, because to be a "bastard" you would first need to exist. Would be a very imaginative excuse for gettin' a bit on the side... an imaginary freind did it! Really he did, I wouldn't lie!.. Yeah, that's plausible...
At any rate there seems conflicting opinions as to whether he was portrayed as an illegitimate bastard or simply illegitimate.

His existence is questionable, though when you throw in contradictory versions of a supernatural fairy tale, it should exclude it completely to any rational person. While the actual story is an obvious myth, the central figure in Christianity could possibly be based loosely on some charlatan character (that could have been a bastard), or mixture of different charlatans around the time claiming to be some sort of Messiah, or a mixture of various other myths. We will never know for sure.

The illiterate peasants in the first few centuries AD were probably less resistant to superstitious nonsense and doctrines of mind control cults than we should be. Though I guess it was forced on people under threat of torture and death eventually anyway.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Amadeus
 


Very interesting post OP. Appreciate you bringing up the content and everyone who has contributed with a questioning mind rather than blind faith coupled with a defensive attitude.
For me... Jesus is the personified metaphor of that which is eternal. Problem is, those offended by your post worship the metaphor rather than the truth beyond the symbol and the messages attached.
More often than not, even the messages are lost in translation to a religion and beliefs, and in the process the follower would make an anti Christ of themselves.
There are many truths yet the obvious would be:... just because people have eyes, does not mean they can see... just because people can hear, does not mean they understand... just because people can believe, does not mean they are open to a truth.... just because people have faith, does not mean it can not be misplaced. Here is the darkness that exists until the metaphor is understood and no longer worshipped....just because you are in the light, does not mean you are enlightened.
One must merge and become part of that light. I will not use scripture to back up this line of thought as it is my conclusion and my path I travel and I have no need of validation from an external or to argue over keynotes... as all is within the dimensions of thy soul. A journey is to know thy soul/energy and align it as an eternal pulse from the heart of One. The metaphor is but a compass and knowledge to synchronise/reunite thy soul/energy into the light.

peace to all



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by The angel of light
 


Oddly enough, I was just listening to a Jewish Rabbi a few days ago, and the topic was talking about how people who didn't understand things tried to fulfill OT prophecy. Interesting enough, this "sign" you mention of the virgin birth was one of them.

He made 1 very good point. And that is what you call a "sign" is not actually a sign at all. And he had a good little story that goes along with it. I'll try to repeat it and hopefully I won't butcher it too much.

So there is this small town outside of Chicago, and it's very windy in the town. They have a problem because all their stop signs kept getting blown down. This can be dangerous because it might fall on someone, and it takes a good bit of resources to put them back up all the time, not to mention any wrecks that may occur from the missing sign.

So the town decides to have a town meeting to try and solve the problem. And they are all arguing back and forth about what to do. Suddenly, this little old lady stands up and says - I have the solution, just listen to me and I will tell you have to fix it.

And then the lady says, well all we have to do is bury the entire sign in the ground. And then you won't have to worry about the sign getting blown over any more. It will stay there. Problem solved.

Disagree? Why? Is it because it's not a sign when you can't see it?. So how can the virgin birth be a sign?



The stop sign is like a virus particle, its represents information inserted as knowledge then it manifests as life and becomes a creative light force. Knowledge is like a virgin birth... the message extends beyond the birth. The sign needs to be understood in the context of its existence as a bringer of light, understanding and knowledge.
If the sign/the virus particle is buried, the message remains alive within the host, the mind of humanity as a metaphor and a virus of that light. So... there is a need to be infected/inserted with that knowledge to be made aware of the context of the message/metaphor to bring on the light.
Yikes !... what a head trip. Ha... what would i know I've been on pain killers for the last week....



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Amadeus
 


Are you a bastard? And if not, prove it too me. Do you have any "paper work" saying your not a bastard? Because Jesus does.....



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611

Hey KJV 1611--

You seem a tad confused about this whole issue of the alleged Bastardy of ‘Iesous’ – read the OP’s original post a few dozen times -- that is, until some of his facts start to sink in to that skull of yours…

Then take a very very close look at this gem (below) which seems to represent a deliberate swipe at the (ahem) paternity issue…at least as far as the Judaean authorities were concerned..

'The gospel according to John' - chapter 8:41ff
.

'And the scribes said to Iesous, 'WE (using the Intensive form in Greek word ‘HUMEIS’ = lit. ‘we ourselves’ as opposed to ‘you’ or any other group) were NOT born of Fornication ! At least WE (again intensive form in Greek, e.g. HUMEIS) know who OUR Father is !"

Apparently they were casting back into his face (believed?) some of the rumours of his (illegitimate ?) birth that might have been floating around eearly on about him...

Also it is clar that the writer of the 4th gospel (whoever he was) never ever heard of his alleged birth having occurred in 'Bethlechem of Judaea' or any of that childish 'Virgin Birth' nonsense we find in other canonical Gospels he knew nothing about (i.e. the 1st and 3rd, i.e. “matthew’ and ‘Luke’) when the author had the common rabble quite divided on this apparently thorny issue:

See: e.g. John 7:40ff

'On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man here is The Prophet [like unto Moses] who is to Come [in the last Days]."

Others claimed that he was in fact ‘The Messiah ‘.

Still others asked, "What, can ‘The Messiah [of Yisro’el]’ come from the Galilee? Do not the Scriptures say that the Messiah must come from David's family and moreover from the town of Bethlehem, where King David hailed from ?"

Thus the people were divided on this issue regarding Iesous...'

See also a few verses later in the same chapter (7) of the 4th canonical Greek gospel:

John 7:50ff

‘So Nicodemus, who had gone to Iesous earlier and who was one of the number of cchief priests asked, "Does the Torah of Moses condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what the charges are?" And they replied, saying, "Don’t tell me you are from the Galilee, too? Midrash the Scriptures – you will find that no Prophet arises out of the Galilee…’


Apparently they believed some of the rumours of his (illigitamate ?) birth that might have been floating around...

Of course the word MAMZER ('bastard') can also be translated ('one who was born of an illicit union'), for example when a Levite marries a non-Levitical person, which is illicit and 'reprobate' to Levi who are to keep themselves 'blood pure'

If 'John the Baptist' (i.e. 'Yohanon bar Zechariah', a Levite from a priestly family) was the first cousin to 'Iesous' as the 3rd canonical Greek gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) seems to indicate in all that haggadic midrashic legendary material we see in chapters 1 and 2 of that book, and if 'Iesous' came from the family of David, i.e. from the Tribe of Yehudah/Judah, then the marriage of Miryam of Galilee (if she was a Levite) and Yosef bar Heli (or bar Yakkov, depending on who the grandfather of Iesous REALLY was) then the spawn of any such union (Levite + Judean) would have constituted Mamzerism - i.e. an illicit union.

Now I cannot be absolutely sure if these two miscreants ever got divorced...but their first-born son sure had a bug up his arse about divorce being absolutely unthinkable ('what the Most High has woven together, let not any son of man pick apart...' or 'any man who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery...' a crime punishable by stoning to death in 1st century Palestine...

Or maybe the Greek-speaking 'Iesous' of the late 1st century 'canonical council approved Greek gospels' merely was born a few months prematurely - spawning all kinds of bastardly mamzer-rumours as to his origin, resulting in the 'council approved' nonsense about Virgin Births and such as we see in the later canonical Greek gospels of 'Matthew' (whoever he was) and 'Luke' (whoever he was)...

Either way, neither you yourself (or anyone else for that matter ! ) can provide a 1st century ‘birth certificate’ for this elusive gentleman whom American fundamentalists call Jeezzuzz for some reason (i.e. R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, c. BCE 12 to c. 36 CE)....so don’t even go there…

And if you insist on quoting from the midrashic legends of the Virgin Birth stories, at least have the goodness to show that you are very very very aware that the two legends (found onoly in ‘Matthew’s’ and Luke’s’ canonical Greek gospels, but NOT in ‘Mark’ or ‘John’s gospels) do not match each other in many details at all except to make loose haggaid midrashic references to the same verse i.e. Isaiah chapter 7:14 which accounts for their only similarities except the names in the story.

These contradictory legends really makes one wonder what the church was trying to hide about this man’s physical paternity…



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Amadeus
 


Are you a bastard? And if not, prove it too me. Do you have any "paper work" saying your not a bastard? Because Jesus does.....




Most people have a birth certificate stating their parents details. If they haven't, it is usually easy enough to acquire and cross reference with marriage certificates etc. if necessary. Either way it is no big deal and whether someone else was or wasn't born out of wedlock has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

I would like to see Jesus birth certificate, that would be interesting. Who did they put as his father...himself? I hope you are not referring to a certain contradictory book of fables that claims he got his own mother pregnant so he could give birth to himself. Apart from any proof he wasn't a bastard, there is no proof he was anything more than extremely exaggerated stories and outright lies, possibly based on one of the more obscure religious fanatics/ charlatans of the day, or possibly complete fiction based off other myths.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it





top topics
 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join