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

reply to post by Sigismundus


First of all, who in the world is "Iesous"??? Second, I "scanned" through your whole post as it was too long for something of such little importance to me seeing as how I already know the answer.

As for the the people accusing Jesus of being born a bastard, these were the same people that also crucified him. So much for their credibility and yours as well for citing them as pseudo authoritative. Oh well

Please re read the OP question to really see what he was "hinting" around too, thus my question to him. It may have been over yours and the above (↑) persons head though....

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also find this statement related to

Was Obama a bastard and the CIA tried to cover it up with a fake Birth Certificate ???

sound familiar ???

Santa, the good fairy, Hansel and Gretel, Mickey Mouse...were they bastards too?

It says a lot that your op hasn't been removed, if Mohhamed was the subject matter or Moses, then I believe it would be removed , but hey Christians have little rights in 2011, they can have their traditional relligious days manipulated into Santa Claus and Easter bugs bunny chocolate eggs days, but no mention of Jesus Christ.

I dinne ne if Jesus was illegitamate, but the thread title is directly offensive and vilifying in my opinion.

Do you know some peoples live sare intertwined so tightly with Christ?

Just as fundamentalist Jews and Islamists feel as one with their scriptures teachings.

Amazing to mae at least the double standards in the world.

I respect anyones right to express themselves, but this thread title?

JMO but I think somewhere in time the words used for virginal and pure because all mixed up.

I think that it is possible that women can be sexual beings and still be pure - in the sense that they strive to be loyal and faithful and loving and true and moral.

Mary might have had sex with Joeseph or been raped or whatever, but, in my mindset, still been pure. She -as I envision her- was a being of incredible compassion and love and devotion to her God and people.

She could have had children with Joseph and remained pure as well. The epitomy and embodiment of the divine feminine spirit of love and compassion, who because of her faith in the divine, which the divine RECOGNIZES AND KNOWS- is able to give birth to the Prince of Peace.

For is it NOT the mother who has the earliest and most profound influence on her children? Is it not the mother that teaches her young to be gentle and kind people, and who, through her devotion to them, causes them to be able to grow in the sense of trust?

Jesus HAD to trust that there was something so good in people that they were worth saving, and giving his life for.

I am a pagan. I do not need a human with a hymen for a Goddess.
That said, the whole nativity story is one of the most wonderful ever told - I just wish that sometimes people would look at it WITHOUT supernatural elements, because I was brought up looking at it like that, but once i stopped, and considered it as a human story that I could use to reflect my own life experience on, it became so, so much more sacred.

reply to post by badmedia


How can it be a sign if it is common. Young women give birth all the time.

reply to post by Amadeus


The Christians and Catholics can pretty it up all they like but the fact is Jesus was an illegitimate child not biologically Joseph's; obviously Mary was not a virgin when she married Joseph. This "miraculous" conception is a load of balony.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Amadeus

 

The Christians and Catholics can pretty it up all they like but the fact is Jesus was an illegitimate child not biologically Joseph's; obviously Mary was not a virgin when she married Joseph. This "miraculous" conception is a load of balony.

So its ok to vilify directly and ridicule a religions central tenets if that religion happens to be Christian?

Without any proof?

Jesus Christ said "Love those who hate you" it is a sad thread.
Can't believe the thread title is still there.
"Bastard " in most western nations is a derogatory term used to degrade a persons worth and character, it does not just refer to their parents state of Union at birth.

It is sickening in my opinion that this thread title hasn't been removed, but I guess anything goes against Christians.

Originally posted by Dr Expired

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Amadeus

 

The Christians and Catholics can pretty it up all they like but the fact is Jesus was an illegitimate child not biologically Joseph's; obviously Mary was not a virgin when she married Joseph. This "miraculous" conception is a load of balony.

So its ok to vilify directly and ridicule a religions central tenets if that religion happens to be Christian?

Without any proof?

Jesus Christ said "Love those who hate you" it is a sad thread.
Can't believe the thread title is still there.
"Bastard " in most western nations is a derogatory term used to degrade a persons worth and character, it does not just refer to their parents state of Union at birth.

It is sickening in my opinion that this thread title hasn't been removed, but I guess anything goes against Christians.

We have no specific proof either way regarding the central tenets of Christianity (immaculate conception, the various miracles, resurrection after three days etc.) or any other ancient myth. Though unlike illiterate superstitious early AD peasants, we know they are nonsense because they are physically impossible. It should take more than contradictory Chinese whispers to entertain this notion. Though this is not the debate. The debate is whether the Christ of popular myth, was not only obviously illegitimate, but possibly also a bastard.


Bastard denotes someone born to unmarried parents, it seems largely due to the fake morals of religion, the bible and god fearing people that it is seen as derogatory. I couldn't care less about the marital status of someone's parents. Unless they are claimed to be a God who, supposedly spouts a doctrine that looks down on such things.

reply to post by Amadeus


I would like to know why "Christians" who lived before Yeshua would change the words of Isaiah to prove Yeshua was Messiah.

reply to post by KJV1611

Hi KJV

Obviously you cannot read the canonical Greek gospels in the original language otherwise you would have recognised IESOUS right off the bat. Not that he could speak Greek - but the gospels were not written in Galilean Aramaic, but late 1st century Koine Greek.

The 'Greek Speaking 'IESOUS' of the canonical 'council approved gospels' is the way (IESOUS) it is spelled in the Greek speaking Gospel texts - for some reason, right wing non-Greek reading modern day persons who style themselves 'Christians' especially in America call him weird and wonderful names like Jeeezuzz for some reason...not that he would recognise the pronunciation in his own day !

Of course, the actual name of this 1st century Jewish Daviddic pretender (who had been crucified for armed sedition against Rome in breach of Lex Maiestatis in March-April 36 CE) would have been 'R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir' i.e. Rabbi (teacher), Yehoshua (= Heb for 'Joshua' , which in Latin is 'Iesus', and in Greek 'Iesous') bar (son of) Yosef (= Joseph), the Galilean (places him in the north), and Nazir (or NETZER) is 'branch of David' a title shahred by many Palestinian Judaean Messianic pretenders in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Common Era (CE).

So if you see the term R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the galilean Nazir, now you know to whom it refers.

See, you can learn so much NEW info on ATS if you just read the more intelligent posts on threads like these...and ignore all the trolls !

You DID know that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean was a Palestinian first century Jew who armed his disciples with swords (see the 3rd canonical gospel 'according to Luke' whoever he was, chapter 22:35 ff) didn't you? Well, that's what Romans used to do with armed 'kingly pretendder' seditionists who did not recognise the 'divine" Tiberius Caesar as a god - they crucify them spread eagled and naked and theen castrate them.

Pretty ugly stuff to put up on a church altar as an idol to be prayed-to, but there you are...

reply to post by hadriana


Hi Hadriana

You raise an important point about the rape scenario. In the 3rd canonical Greek council approved gospel ('according to Luke', whoever he was...) there is a passage called the Magnificat, where a Greek speaking Miryam of Galilee speaks of her 'gross humiliation' or 'unthinkable dishonour' (the Greek word is: TAPEINWSIN) which for an old woman would normally mean 'barrenness' (the humilation of a middle eastern female who has not given birth and is now too old to bear children, e.g. like Sarah etal.) and for a young woman in the ancient middle east it generally meant 'rape' - at least it appears to be the latter in this context since Miryam was apparently not 50 years old or more as far as we know - the question is: what was the author of 'Luke' trying to tell us by Miryam of Galilee being 'grossly shamed' ?


Was he using the same subtle techniques as the anonymous author of the 1st Greek gospel ('according to matthew' whoever he was) when he made Miryam of Galilee the 5th in a long line of whores in the normally male genealogy of Iesous?

If you recall (or read the text very closely) In the 1st Gospel's case, ALL 5 of the Females named in the Matthean Genealogy have gross-sexual-indecendcy issues attached to them (e.g. Rahab the Harlot, or Tamar who was raped by her half-brother, or Bath-Sheba who whored around with David when she was still technically married to Uriah the Hitite etal.) - with Miryam of Galilee being the last of the 'sexually promiscuous whores' - yet all 4 of the 'loose women' that precede Miryam still managed to produce 'saviiours' or at any rate, be part of the idea of the Divine Plan, according to Jewish folklore at least.

Perhaps the 1st Gospel is merely hinting that Miryam of Galillee was a little loose with her favours - but still produced a Messiah figure anyway - ('the Most High works in mysterious ways...') whereas the 3rd Gospel ('according to Luke') seems to take it that her 'gross defilement' (i.e. she uses the language of banishment from society which is soon to be reversed with the birth of her famous first born son ... ) was not entirely her own fault - either 'rape' or perhaps merely 'seduction...'

Here is a modern translation of the Greek Text from 'Luke's Magnificat ('he magnifies') 'Luke' 1:47ff.

And Miryam spake saying,

My soul glorifies the Most HIgh ('YHWH')
And my spirit rejoices in the clan-god ('EL') of my Salvation !
For he has looked upon the (lit. 'gross-humiliation' ) of his handmaid -
So that from henceforth all future Generations will now call me Blessed !

For lo, the Mighty One of Yisro'el has performed deeds in my honour
Holy be ha Shem (lit. 'the Name') !
For his Chesed is extended to all who honour him
Even from one generation to another...

The point of the Magnificat seems to be 'people look down upon me a pregnant unmarried girl, but wait and see what the Most High has in store for the child and me !'

These clues are all in the Greek texts, but most English Speaking 'fundamentalist bible believers' cannot read Greek and are content to believe what their ministers or priests tell them every Sunday - probably so they won't have to think for themselves (too much work for them, apparently !) and of course, the ecclesiastical authorities like it better when their sheeple are non-thinking - but regular weekly Sunday payers into the shiny tax free offering plates !!

Here are some great video's on God grace in Jesus Christ by Kent Mattox. Jesus was not a bastard.






www.youtube.com... Channel

Jesus was not a bastard.

I agree, but for different reasons. I am quite certain the person portrayed in the book of lies did not exist. At least not in the way explained.

Though some learned people here have raised valid points about this mythological figure. Was he a bastard, also known as a whoreson in some cultures?

reply to post by Sigismundus


What are you doing? You wrote over 500 words to explain what "Iesous" was, yet didn't even address the main part of my post to you?? You just like reading your own words or something? (aka, hearing yourself talk)

Ps.... Who in the world is "Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir"?? (heeheehee....)

reply to post by KJV1611

Hi KJV -

If you were to go back 2000 some odd years and meet this rabble-rousing sword-wielding whips-and-cords carrying temple-riot-causing Daviddic Pretender Person that you worship as a 'god' in person to see what he was up to up close and personal, you'd be in for quite a shock.

For one thing he saw no reason to speak with Gentiles (goyim) - but rather with ingathering 'the lost sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro'el...'

see Matt chapter 15 with his treatment of the poor and evidently distraught SyroPhoenecian gentile woman who had come to him for help wwith her bleeding daughter - and was basically told to naff off.

Certainly if you went back in time, this Pretender would not recognise you calling him by the name (in Greek) i.e. 'Iesous' or 'Jezzuzz' or whatever name you tend to use to speak of him. He spoke first century rural Galilean Aramaic, and certainly would not have understood KJV English....

Read this passage for a taste of his zionist-racism, which somehow made it through the censors...

'And a SyroPhonecian Gentile comes to him and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy upon me ! My daughter has a bleeder daemon and suffers terribly!'

But Iesous turned his face away from her and said not a word. So his disciples approached him saying, Rabbi, can you give us orders to send her away for she is becoming a nuisance

So Iesous turned and answered her saying,

"The Bar Enasha ('son of man') was sent ONLY to the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE OF YISRO'EL...and anyway, since when would it be right to take the Children's Bread out of their Mouths and throw it away on the DOGS under the table? !!'

As you may have heard, the word 'Dogs' was a racist techincally perjorative term of abuse term applied by 1st century Judaeans to the goyim, i.e. gentiles. i.e. non Jews (cf: the anti Gentile racist passages in the Talmud e.g. 'If a son of Israel should eat with a Gentile, it would be the same thing as eating with a dog." ... Hagigah 27a etc.) - the scene in Matt chapter 15

So this Greek speaking 'Iesous' that you worship as a god in the 1st canonical council apprved gospel is mouthing the words of 'racist' (at least we to-day would call it that) first century Zionists who had no truck with the goyim (...that means you, too)

This same Greek speaking Iesous in the 1st canonical council approved gospel also ordered the immediate circle of his own closest disciples to avoid gentiles (i.e. goyim, i.e. non Jews) and even forbade them entering into their towns...(see Matt 10:5fff, and Matt 10:16)

Matt 10:5fff

So Iesous sent out the Twelve with the following orders: “Do not ever go out among the Gentiles (i.e. goyim, i.e non Jews, that means YOU) or enter any town of the Samaritans but rather go announce the Coming of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. And as you go forth, proclaim this message: ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is coming soon !’

Matt 10:16ff

'Behold, I am sending you out like sheep standing among a pack of wolves. Therefore inside be as cagey as snakes but outwardly appear as innocent as doves - and always be on your guard; ffor amen, amen, you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues and for your preaching you will be brought before governors and rulers and made martyrs by them and by the Gentiles (i.e. non Jews, i.e. Goyim-----that means YOU...)

So I'm not sure where you derive your warped theology from, but a thorough study of the Dead Sea Scroll material would certainly enlighten you as to the time and place and Weltanschauung of these racist-zionist religioius extremists in Palestine in the 1st century who were desperately looking for a Jewish Warrior Daviddic Messiah to save them from their occupiers.....but in the case of many Messianic Pretenders, including R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, who in 36 CE announced 'the times of the Gentiles is over' (i.e. the Romans) on the 100th anniversary of the Invasion into palestine of the Roman General Pompey back in 63 BCE...andd led an armed revolt hoping that legions of Angels would save them (see Luke 22:35ff for the sword weilding disciples who had a habit of chopping off the ears of the slaves of 2nd Temple High Priests) looked how that turned out..

Not single mother birth.
Think more along the lines of IVF.

reply to post by Sigismundus

wow......lots of pretty words
____________________________

reply to post by KJV1611


Hi KJV

Here's some more pretty words for you...

“And Iesous said to them,

Do you imagine for one minute that the Bar-Enasha (‘Son of Man’) was sent to bring Peace upon the Land [of Yisroel]?

By no means ! The Bar-Enasha (‘son of man’) came not to bring Peace upon the Land [of Yisro’el] but rather a Sword –

For Amen, the Bar-Enasha was sent not to bring Harmony to the Land [of Yisro’el] but rather to bring upon it Divisions –

So that he might set Father against Mother, and Son against his Father and to pit Daughter against her Mother and Daughter in Law against Mother in Law – so in the end a man’s worst Enemies be they of his own Household !”

Pretty words, indeed !

(In fact, the above excerpt is a Midrash on the Targum of Micah 7:4-6

Lo, Now the Time of Confusion has arrived !
Even the Day that Your Watchmen will come,
Yea, the Day in which YHWH shall visit you
Even when a man will not trust his Neighbour
Nor will he even be able to put Confidence in his Best Friend
Yea, it shall be the Day when you must measure carefully each Word you speak
Even when speaking to her who lay in Love’s Embrace :
For in that Day, every Son shall dishonor his own Father
And every Daughter shall berate her own Mother
When every Daughter in law shall be set against her Mother in law…
So that a man’s enemies be they of his very own household !


And all that pretty bombast (part of the 'Q' collection) attributed to the ‘Greek Speaking Iesous’ in the Council-Approved Gospels of ‘Matthew’ (10:34-35) and ‘Luke’ (12:51) whoever they were…)

reply to post by KJV1611


You failure of a shepard, he cited them as references because of the personal, crude and primitive insults they slung at Jesus. Not Just their ultimate validity, but their frame of mind. The very possibility that these Pharices truly BELIEVED that Jesus was a bastard. A conclusion the Pharicees had ample time to arrive to since everyone knew Jesus' final destination for a while before he arrived, though most would or could not believe that it was in-fact his last stop here on earth.

These Pharicees might have done some research on Jesus so that they could nip it in the bud when he arrived, what's clear however is they failed, and had to resort to their last tactic which they were barely able to pull of with the very group of people that many believe to be Jesus's blood bretheren. Some believe his mother was raped by a roman sentry I think Pantera did a song about it.

My point is man when you see someone making enough of a ruckus that you have to step in, either because it's your duty to protect the sheep from this blasphemy or just because their so wrong that you can't stand it, please please don't do so as a blatant christian, you looked like a strawman demon sent to aid his champion leuitenant by taking a dive.