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:
‘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
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…