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

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Biggie
For what it's worth one of the two "historical" mentions of Jesus say he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panther. I'm guessing this is where the "Mary was raped by a Roman" idea comes from.

That theory is written in the Talmud, a book of views no different than a book of views if Hitler would've written one.

You can't believe anything written in the Talmud and if you do you've got problems.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:01 PM

(It's not Yehosua bar Yosef as you type it, ben being Hebrew for son)

Yes, but "bar" is "son of" in Aramaic.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by Biggie
For what it's worth one of the two "historical" mentions of Jesus say he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Panther. I'm guessing this is where the "Mary was raped by a Roman" idea comes from.

That theory is written in the Talmud, a book of views no different than a book of views if Hitler would've written one.

You can't believe anything written in the Talmud and if you do you've got problems.

Yeah, that's where it's from. I couldn't remember off the top of my head where it came from.

And I don't believe it; don't worry.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:30 PM
Hey Strange & Crafty:

I assume that you would know by the title of this Thread that you would have to try and bear with some arguments which will not allign very well with your Christian doctrinal upbringing !

First off, no, p66 is clearly early 3rd century AD and cannot be dated before 200 AD, despite the lame attempts by some "christian scholars" (whatever that means) to date any surviving fragments of copies of the 4 "canonical" gospels as EARLY as possible, and date any surviving fragments or copies of "non canonical gospels" (e.g. Thomas) as LATE as possible.

FYI it is also known as the Bodmer II Papyrus and contains 108 sheets representing a part of the Gospel of "John" is clearly cognate with other Bodmer papyri such as Bodmers VII, XIV and XV (all of which date around 260 AD) currently held in the Swiss Library in Geneva.

I am aware of your edition, as I have consulted the Aland version back in the 1970s. The version I consulted was far from "standard" even back then, but it sure was better than some of the "reconstructions" of p66 I had to work with !

I did notice back then that the Aland for some reason did not identify a great deal of the fragments from p66 (e.g. John 14:21; 15:1; 16:23, 29; 17:6-7, 12-13; 19:16, 20-21, 24; 20:24, 27; 21:12, 17. ) perhaps it was rushed to print, and I am assuming your 3rd edition of his "text" reconstruction makes up for these publication oversights.

However the added "marginalium" ["even of God"] would probably have been incorporated into the body of the text of John :L41 prior to the p66 copy being made (which was sometime between 210 and 250 AD to go by current dating consensus of the latest scholarship research on the actual fibres of the papyrus itself).

In general, such "marginalium issues" in the transmission of biblical texts is highly technical and a little out of scope in a chat room.

The whole subject of Scriptural "text tampering" (i.e. the very common practice of adding and subtracting to sacred texts by scribal personnel over the centuries in the process of transmission) also makes the Church (and Synagogues, in the case of the OT) very very uncomfortable, and as I've mentioned before, the Christian Chuch goes to great lengths NOT talking about this subject.

The Church would rather their little flock believe in a single authoritative inspired text" and they DO NOT LIKE the uncomfortable truth of the matter viz. that there is NO ONE TEXT of their precious Scriptures that are in any way Authoritative, just hundreds of contradictory manuscripts found scattered in places literally all over the world)---which is why I think it is important that we are talking about it now.

There are however several dozen examples of these marginalia in the 4th Gospel and at least 50 of these scribal impertinences perceptible in the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder (=Book of Revelation)

If you would like me to give you some of these hypothetical "added marginalia" examples, I would be more than happy to accomodate you when I have time to list some.

But, ultimately, since we are lacking original copies of what later became "canonical" gospel texts from which to reconsturct a definitive URTEXT, the source-critical scholar cannot line up all the copies of any gospel in a row and point to the first "handled" copy which contains a certain scribal "marginalium addition" and say, SEE THE LATER MARIGNALIUM BEGAN IN AD 213 with MS number x copied in Antioch !

It would be easier to show you if we did; but we SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS AT OUR DISPOSAL (and by the way, neither do you), so unfortunately we have to apply other methods, which would be considered more "circumstantial" in nature. Indirect evidence rather than direct empirical evidence, which from the tone of your answer, is what you would like to see.

But, alas, as I said, all we have are sloppy copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, and thus we are forced to take any marginalium example on its own "merits" and weigh up the "circumstantial" evidence that a certain word or phrase had been added.

And it is the same thing with the converse (i.e. weighing up circumstantial evidence) for certain words or phrases deliberately LEFT OUT of a text.

Sometimes this happened for definite theological reasons, such as with the Lord's prayer in Matthew's rendition:e.g. 'for thine is the kingdom" omits the previous phrase "blessed art Thou YHWH the god of Israel" for obvious reasons in its echo from I Chronicles 29:10-14, the socalled Prayer of Solomon: scholars knew something was wrong with the version in Matthew because one cannot start a sentence with "for" --yet there are no early MSS copies of Matthew to say, LOOK, HERE IS BLESSED ART THOU O YHWH GOD OF ISRAEL etc. even though we know GRAMATTICALLY it must have been part of the original prayer, by circumstantial evidence, i.e. comparing the prayer with I Chronicles 29:10-14 which provides the missing portion etc..

As I said, sadly for the present discussion we do not possess any original copies of the gospels, nor do we possess anything like full or "complete texts" of these same canonical Gospels in the NT until the late third/early 4th century AD: so we are forced to look at "plausible" reconstructions based on obvious interruptions to the flow of the Greek, to see if there was a reason why a marginalium was added etc.

This may seem to be a little indirect of an approach for Christian literalists who like black and white answers and who fight any critical study of their precious texts tooth and nail, but it is the best we can do in the complete absence of original source material.

What makes examining the hard evidence of the texts even more difficult of course is the fact that all the handy "Quotations" from the so-called "Church Fathers" show that the texts of the "gospels" were quite fluid and these "quotations" seemed to have been rather loosely tossed off, rather than literally or even particularly reverently copied letter for letter in correspondence before c. AD 250 etc. so we have to be wary about claiming any original authoritative Gospel text was known to take any particular "final" shape before that time.

I wish I had more time to add other aspects that need to be discussed, but this will have to hold you until next time...keep studying those texts VERY CLOSELY, no matter how hard the church tries to get you to stop !

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:33 PM
Amadeus, That's not an answer.

You said the reference to God in Jn 8.41 was an insertion by a third century scribe.

Pages of blather and huge quotes from google later, you still cannot give one shred of evidence for saying there is a later insertion into ANY of the copies of the text, early or late.

One more time: every copy that I can find of John 8:41 contains the clause referring to God as the father referred to by the speakers.

P66 and p75 are only examles of the phrase in the text. So I have given you two early examples. Here are some later ones: The Pe#ta, Vaticanus, The Byzantine codex, ALL of the Bodmer Papyrii that contain that verse, and even the Boharic texts. All of them refer to God in 8.41.

My beliefs are not the question. Your assertions of fact ARE. I am saying that you are making up "facts" as you go along to prove your own point.


Everyone look at the way he says "a chatroom is not the place for this" and tells me to "keep studying." It is Amadeus who needs to keep studying, or even to begin to study.

Notice how, like every Charlatan, he cannot admit that he might have made a mistake. No, that would be admitting that he's not an "authority."

I will be happy to admit if I have misread the critical apparatus concerning any of the textual copies of that verse ( I keep looking for some evidence that might support his claim, but still haven't found any.)

He certainly has a right to his own interpretation of the texts, just as I do.

But no one has a right to start making up lies in order to bolster a weak and hastily cobbled together argument.

Notice how he tries to cover up his lies by dazzling the audience with even more bull.

Keep this in mind when you read his posts, when he cites "facts."
Keep it in mind when you read his conclusions.

This is just one example. Another is his insertion of a phrase into the Biblical text, then turning around and demolishing the text he has altered. If I can find two instances of such shoddy logic in a paragraph, you can imagine how many there must be in his whole post.

I'm sure he'll have to have the last word. To condescendlingly tell me to 'keep trying'

Charlatans always do that.

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:36 PM
I think it sucks that he accuses other people (me; Christians) of being intellectually dishonest, when he KNOWINGLY DOES THIS to try and make his case. And what for? For tenure? For money? No. so that strangers on the internet will be impressed.

It's really repugnant that this person would stoop to that level of dishonesty, for no real reason.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:15 AM
I imagine some on this thread, like you, find my bombast a little too much for them !

But what I am trying to do is to get people to take a cold hard look at the evidence for their belief system and think and talk openly about it.

For a change!

If anyone is being "dishonest" (or a "charalatan") it would be the organized Christian Catholic and other christian "churches" who over the years have deliberately concealed what they knew about the mangled texts which they call their "bible", contradictory manuscripts which they have been foisting on the peoiple lied and lied and lied to the people about words that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galielan could never have said...

But, it is you who are grossly misrepresenting half of what I am saying on this thread. Possibly because you cannot understand much of it.

Yes --I try to be a little abrupt with the argument at times (only because people on these religious threads sometimes have the attention span of a six year old) but I do not willfully deceive. Also every little point would take chapters to answer...and my threads are typically longer already than most.

You have accused me of "adding words to a text" which certainly sounds like you feel I am some how being "dishonest":

Actually it is you and people like you are the dis-honest brokers here because you deliberately fail to see the reasoning behind my text clarifications which might involve subtle changes of English Grammar and immediately jump to the most outrageous conclusions, that somehow I am making it all up.

And writing statements like "don't believe him, he's a charlatan" falls flat when you see the evidence for yourself with an "open mind". I am certainly not tryuing to deceive anyone: I am trying to expose aspects of Christianity that the "church" simply WILL NOT DISCUSS IN PUBLIC for fear of losing member$hip.

Here's an example of your hogwash:


"..and his insertion of a phrase into the Biblical text, then turning around and demolishing the text he has altered. If I can find two instances of such shoddy logic in a paragraph, you can imagine how many there must be in his whole post. "

Presumably you didn't like the way I added "at least" to the text of my own translation of "John 8:41"


("And they said to him, [at least] we were not born of Fornication")

The reason why ["at least"] was added BY ME was because the Greek texts says HUMEIS which is an emphatic-intensive pronoun ("we ourselves"or "we, as for us") etc. in Greek but has no "English Equivalent".

I WAS NOT TRYING TO DOCTOR ANY TEXT....which you would know if you knew any Koine Greek beyond the sundayschool level.

The text here seems to be trying to capture some of the nastiness of an exchange, in a theological treatise.

The random and loose logic of chapters 7 and 8 are not exactly some of the gospel of "John's" best arguments.

And of course the abrupt switch from "even Abraham" to "even God" in the "descendants" argument is quite unnatural, leaving us to wonder, what is being meant here: most would argue for a marginalium.

The text of John 8 is not a smoothly flowing dialogue but one which is full of bumpy holes and textual insertions. The whole gospel is a kind of mishmash anyway incorporating other gospels in its midst (e.g. pieces of an earlier so-called Signs Gospel, "this is the first sign that J,. performed...this is the 2nd sign that J. performed...)

Just why in the world was BASTARDY brought into the discussion in 8:41 in the first place should raise a few flags on its own. Much of the text seems corrupted

To be sure, I could could have translated the Greek words as

"and they said to him, WE are not bastards!!",

which would be a more "literal" translation into English, at least in essence, but I chose a slightly more polite "equivalent" ("at least we were not born of fornication") to bring out the force of the 1st person plural pronoun UMEIS (maybe I was feeling nice).

Perhaps you are not fully aware of all the nuances in translating words and ideas from one language to another? Do you even know what an emphatic plural first person pronoun is?

Should I be accusing YOU of being a CHARLATAN because you made a false accusation of me adding English words to a Greek text in order to clarify an emphatic Greek word?

Don't forget..."Jeeezuzz" never spoke "English" nor did he speak "Koine" Greek either.

So when you are dealing with a third language (English) to understand a 1st century palestinian Jew speaking Aramaic, you are already two languages away from the original...

At any rate, I hope this clarifies your muddle a little:

I am certainly not deliberately trying to fool people or "making up facts" as you seem to suggest, just trying to draw out the force or implications of of the Greek, which point was certainly beyond your comprehension since you seem to think I am adding things that should not be added to the text.

This discussion thread is not focussed on the subject of textual corruption (that would be ANOTHER THREAD and for different people): this discussion is ALL ABOUT challenging "believers" to take a hard look at the texts they are forced to believe, and getting all the "lazy Christians" on this thread off their lazy behinds and start reading a little between the lines of the texts they consider "inspired" (for some reason) i.e. texts which they (and you apparently) cannot even read or fully understand (grammatically or otherwise)

I fully realise the horror you must be feeling when you come across people like myself who can read the texts in the original and see and point out things that "are not quite right" with the official church doctrines that socalled Chrsitians have been spoon fed since infancy---so I will bear your accusational outbursts with compassion and a great deal of patience.

No, I am not making up Stuff just for the fun of it. I am exposing Stuff. I leave a lot of this discussion open in hopes that people will do a little research on their own--which is what these discussion threads are all about after all.

I am drawing out certain evidence that the church wants very much to be hidden from its congregations.

It was only fairly recently that the Catholic church even allowed these texts to be read by their flock, and for centuries had them the exclusive property of the clerics---kept even more secret by having it kept preserved in Latin no less. But that is beginning to change now...

But back to the original thread discussion: if you don't believe me, believe some of the scholars I've worked with, like Chas. K. Barrett, an expert on John's gospel (and a Methodist minister!) who writes:

"John depicts Jesus in 8:41 as a man who has received the Truth from God who denies this Truth as having been received by his accusers: who can their father be, he asks.

The charge is repelled with a sneer: Jesus, it is implied, was born of fornication. This slander was certainly later, and probably was used in the anti Christian propaganda in John's time, and perhaps even earlier..."

Perhaps we are making too much of John 8:41? Maybe the whole discussion is not about Jesus' personal "bastardy" but more about the Galilean people as a whole, where the Pharasim (or whoever is supposed to be talking here) are southern Judaeans ("descendants of Abraham") and Jesus is from the north where a lot of mixed marriages with Greeks and Assyrians took place ("Now we know you are a Sammaratin !!"), who is to say?

Perhaps we should try another doctored gospel text, say Mark 6:1-6

"Is not this the son of Mary?" an odd thing to say in 1st century Palestine. In Matt 13:55 and Like 4:22 we read the parallel text:

"Isn't this fellow the son of the carpenter? Isn't his mother Mary?" (Matt 13:55) where Joseph is not mentioned.

Luke corrects the obscurity of Mark : Luke 4:22 reads: "Isn't this fellow the son of Joseph"?

The later readings try to soften the hints of illegitimacy of Mark (the earliest gospel).

The MSS tradition of this verse and the parallels in Matt and Luke are a confusing jumble of textual variants (and "marginalia"!) and if you want me to go into the textual history of these verses, I will gladly oblige you.

I just don't want to bore everyone to tears on this thread...

The plainer and earlier text of the gospel of "Mark" is often "corrected" (!) in later Greek manuscript tradition to bring it into line with Matthew or Luke, especially when the wording is offensive to a Christian Scribe or audience (since the "gospels were read in the churches").

Despite the variety of readings in the all the Greek MSS most scholars feel quite secure that the difficult passage "son of Mary" was probably what Mark originally wrote, and what Luke and Matthew writing later, changed to cover up the implications...

THE QUESTION: DOES MARK 6:3 represent a SLUR on Jesus' birth?
("Isn't this guy the son of Mary whose brothers and sisters we know?")

Again the tradition is awkwardly handled in the later Greek Manuscripts who didn't want to have to open "a can of worms" about the evident "paternity problem"of Jesus.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:11 AM
This will be my last post on this thread. You're not addressing any kind of criticisms of, or dialogues with, your posts. Maybe you should just put your stuff into a blog, where other people's comments won't get in the way.

I was just rereading your posts.

I still cannot figure out why you wouldn't be familiar with the Novum Testamentum Graece of Kurt Aland and the Nestle brothers.

Especially if you "worked with" C.K. Barret. I was looking at his commentary on Acts (don't possess a copy of his commentary on John), and he cites it extensively when he discusses variant readings. My first thought was that perhaps you used the UBS critical apparatus; but then, you'd still be familiar with Nestle-Aland.

Then there's comments like "your precious p66." As if I owned it or something. As if any text quoted against your argument is automatically suspect. When there are probably some passage in 66 that would underscore your point. Whatever.

I've been looking at the text of p75 for comparison, and reads the same as p66. Incidentally, p75 has Mark 6:3 and it DOES contain "tou tektonos uios" as do several vulgate and at least two bohairic manuscripts.

I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that your posts are actually a compilation of a couple of books you've read (Robert Eisenman?) + class notes + some serious googling and cut/paste.

You make forceful arguments, but then don't bother to back them up; you either make up attributions, or misquote.

Funny how whenever I question anything you say, you lump me i with "Christians" and "the Catholic Church." As if any one who disagrees with you is an agent of the enemy.

But isn't that what you are accusing me, christians, and the church of doing to you?

Anyway. Not to worry. I won't take up any more of your thread with questions or comments that get in the way of your grand thesis. Someone u2u'd me, and they sound like a far more interesting (and honest) dueling partner.

happy bloviating.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:01 PM
Ah, well, methinks the Strange and Crafty-Doth-Protest-Too-Much.... !

Must have hit a nerve on that one.

And as they say, Another one bites the dust...

Wasn't it Harry Truman who said something about heat and kitchens?

And didn't Mark Twain that said something about evacuating food and people vacating the premises ("although a great variety of all kinds go into the body, there's a strange similarity to what tends to go out...")

And just when I was getting warmed up, darn...

Oh well, this Strange-Crafty Apologist didn't bother to respond to the Geneaological Matthew's "whores" list (of which Mary is the fifth in a long line), and also had a little trouble recognisiing 3rd century AD papyri, has trouble with his/her ability to recognise Greek emphatic pronouns in their context and imagines false argumentative "Cruces" where they don't exist, seems to think that 1st century Palestinian Jews freely embraced bastardy, and thinks that "Amadeus" gets all of his "distilled knowledge" from reading a few books and "downloads" off the Internet, or that he deliberately twists and distorts facts just because he wants to or can...and then goes and gets mad when I call him a Christian apologist for not putting two and two together.

This thread was meant to get people a little riled of course, that's why I use some of the harsher language at times. And yes, I could prove a lot more than I do, but I would rather others joined in rather than having me do all the work !

I of course don't have any firm opinion about the Alleged Bastardy of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Seditionist whom "Christians" tend to worship as a god ...

I just think it is curious that the "Church" won't even discuss the possiblility that their texts are somehow covering up something unsavory about his origins, even though there are clues in the text of the gospels that are still to be read if you know how to sift through all the Midrash and Mythology.

As Prof. Barrett used to say in his lectures, these were the kinds of sneers that his enemies threw into his face: Barrett's question to us simply was, how true do you think were those accusations? And "What is Matthew" trying to tell us by listing five women with a past the way it appears in the text of the first gospel.

That is the essential question on this thread which I would like to see discussed, and not arbitrary venturing off a subject which certain persons cannot bear to have to deal with----

So let's have a "real" attempt to discuss this subject, and let the pouting crybabies go back to their nurseries where I'm sure they'll all feel more at home...

Any takers?

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 02:58 PM
I have a couple comments, and some questions-

Back to the original topic- Didn't the earlier Christians (and at least the Gnostics from what gospels I've read) view the holy ghost as a female?
I remember a passage that asked the question of whether Jesus was a son of Joseph or a product of a virgin birth where it was stated it was rediculous to think he wasn't the son of Joseph because a female can not concieve by a female.
Besides, if he wasn't his son why is Jesus's bloodline traced back to previous Jewish leaders through Joseph? (I realize they had different names at the time, but that just makes this needlessly confusing)

Also- I am guessing by referring to the bastardisation of other myth forms you are referring to specific instances of the common myth archtype throughout the world that is basically the story of Jesus. This in connection with the complete lack of Historical evidence for the actual existance of the man we know as Jesus would be what I would think the church is trying to cover up. Is this your impression, or are you seeing some cover up far more complicated?

I believe that the Christianity we have today evolved from the outer circles of the Gnostic beliefs, they were the initial teachings before truth was revieled- something along the lines of Jesus's historical significance is not what's important. That it is really how you can attune with a higher power and grow through his message that they actually want you to learn.

My personal belief is that what we see today is the failing of a larger plan to enlighten people, when they turn to a need for literal fact rather than higher truth.

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 06:49 PM
Hi Blanket Girl:

The Ruach Elohim (the Wind or Spirit of God) in the Hebrew Scriptures is viewed as a female dove ("and the Ruach Elohim BROODED over the face of the Tehom") where "brooding" is the process of spreading its wings over a nest.

The linkage between DOVE and HOLY SPIRIT is also manifested in the gospel accounts of the Baptism of R. Yehosha bar Yosef ("Jesus") by John the Baptist (Yohanon bar Zechariah the Levite) for the remission of his sins, "where the Holy Spirit "descended" as a Dove" (see the Luke 3:15 and parallels).

The verse about the Holy Spirit being the "mother" of Iesous is quoted as having been taken from a Gospel According to the Hebrews which was apparently very widely circulated in the 3rd century AD.

Here are a few citations of that Lost Gospel by the so-called Church Fathers, e.g. Origen (early 3rd century) in his Commentary on John:

QUOTE: Those who give credence to the Gospel of the Hebrews, in which the Savior says, "Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and brought me to great Mt Tabor," have to face the problem of explaining how it is possible for the "mother" of Christ to be the Holy Spirit..." and also in his Sermon on Jeremiah 15:

"If someone can accept this---"Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and brought me to the Great Mount Tabor"---one can see that she is his Mother.

Jerome also quotes the Gospel of the Hebrews in his Commentary on Mic 7:6 -- "And whoever gives credence to the gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews," which we recently translated, in which it is said by the Savior himself, "Just now my mother, the holy spirit, took me by one of my hairs," will not hesitate to say that the word of God proceeds from the spirit...

Jerome also mentions it in his Commentary on Isaiah : "In the Gospel of the Hebrews that the Nazarenes read it says, "Just now my mother, the holy spirit, took me." and also in his Commentary on Hezekiel: "In the Gospel of the Hebrews that the Nazarenes read, the Savior indicates this by saying, "Just now my mother, the holy spirit, whisked me away."

Variations on a theme at any rate. There also seems to be a rejection of Mary as his spiritual mother in the Synoptics

("Rabbi, behold your mother and your brothers are outside waiting for you....and he said to them, Who are my mother and my brothers and my sisters? They who do the will of my father is my mother and my brother and my sister..." etc.)

Or in the 4th Gospel at the Wedding of Cana he says to Mary (John 2:4 "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" when she asks him to provide more wine at the Wedding (cf: the Gospel of The Egyptians, "The Son of Man cometh to Undo the Works of Eve...")

But of course John's dialogue (like all the gospel narratives) is always deceptively symbolic (i.e. not a pure historical transcript of actual speech) so one never quite knows what to make of such outbursts....or whether the words spoken to his mother in the dialogue figure of his mother somehow reflect the fact that his mother's presence at a wedding in some way gave him pain enoug to speak in this way...

I think the theological implications are enormous for the church if they had to abandon the Virgin Birth Pretence, which they might well have to someday as long as more and more church goers start to become more scientific in their thinking and realise all of this virgin stuff is a biological impossibility.

It may even end up with the Church abandoning a "literal Virgin Birth" belief sometime eventually in the future for a "theological" or "symbolic" Virgin Birth (to retain the absence of Original Sin Theology viz. a viz "Jesus") as populations gradually move away from the non-scientific mythologising message of Christianity...but we'll have to wait and see I guess !

As for the "Joseph blood lineage" in the gospels, you raise a good question:

i.e. Why bother putting all those boring "begats" in the two contradictory Gospel geneaologies (Matt chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3) if he was not "physically" descended through Joseph to David (like a good Messiah had to be)?

That's another important point of this whole discussion thread...

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:31 PM

As for the "Joseph blood lineage" in the gospels, you raise a good question:

i.e. Why bother putting all those boring "begats" in the two contradictory Gospel geneaologies (Matt chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3) if he was not "physically" descended through Joseph to David (like a good Messiah had to be)?

That's another important point of this whole discussion thread...

very good point

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:17 AM

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Unlike our own time, pre-renaissance people were not embarrased about bastardy.

The problem that I see here is that we are not talking about pre-renaissance people here. We are talking about Jews and proto-Christians. Being a bastard at the time of Christ and before was looked upon as being incompatible with Yahweh worship.
The Wisdom of Solomon contains a tirade against bastards and condemns them to oblivion. They are placed amongst the worst offenders against Yahweh and even their ancestry is condemned.
Of all Biblical literature, The Wisdom of Solomon is one of my favourite books. The only thing that really spoils it is this attack of hatred. It has to be one of the most vehement pieces written.

16: As for the children of adulterers, they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed of an unrighteous bed shall be rooted out.
17: For though they live long, yet shall they be nothing regarded: and their last age shall be without honour.
18: Or, if they die quickly, they have no hope, neither comfort in the day of trial.
19: For horrible is the end of the unrighteous generation.

But it therefore makes me tend to disagree with the theory that Jesus was a bastard even more. Amadeus, by using The Criteria of Embarrassment in reverse isn't it logical that the Jews would have made a far bigger deal about Jesus being a bastard than they apparently have?

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Leveller
But it therefore makes me tend to disagree with the theory that Jesus was a bastard even more. Amadeus, by using The Criteria of Embarrassment in reverse isn't it logical that the Jews would have made a far bigger deal about Jesus being a bastard than they apparently have?

(i know you weren't adressing me but I wanted to add) I think they would have made a huge deal out of it.
A point I've had told to me before which makes this an endless sort of circle, was that Jesus was born of Mary and concieved through the holy spirit... (female+female- should we be warning the LGBT community know it IS possible?!?) Joseph, knowing this was the case and feeling compassionate, hurridly married her and claimed the child as his so that she and Jesus wouldn't be harmed.
Any arguement for or against that case is really just speculation. The man who through that line at me is the sole reason I ever began studying religions.

Originally posted by Amadeus
i.e. Why bother putting all those boring "begats" in the two contradictory Gospel geneaologies (Matt chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3) if he was not "physically" descended through Joseph to David (like a good Messiah had to be)?

It makes me really curious too, even more so because you would think if it was that important, they could have at least gotten their facts straight and written the same geneologies.
Makes me think either the people writing it didn't think it was important (but just added it for show) or they had no idea what they were talking about.

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:01 AM
Hi Leveller:

You raise some very good points....here are some aspects to think about.

To judge from the harsh language employed in the Rabinnic legal texts (hallakhot) in the Talmud based on Deuteronomy chapter 4, BASTARDY was NOT EVER condoned in Israel and was even considered a "curse." It ritually barred a Mamzer from entering into the Assembly for one thing.

So, Leveller, unlike some grossly misinformed individuals on this thread who have since gone the way of all flesh, you are absolutely correct about the so-called Qahal-Yisroel or "Congregation of Israel" allowing a MAMZER ("born illicitly") to enter their ranks, "until the 10th generation" when apparently the "ritual curse" was lifted off the "bastard"

The Dead Sea Scrolls also forbade Mamzerim ("bastards") to enter their own rather strict Levitical circle as well, even "unto 10 generations".

In the socalled Levetical Holiness Code (Lev 17-22_ the amphyctionic Elders of ancient Israel called an Assembly for variety of reasons.

A. Every circumcised Israelite was a member of the Congregation.
B. The Congregation of Israel was subdivided into tribletes and then by individual family.
C. The Congregation of Israel functioned in military, legal, punishment, and annual feasts matters.

Those who were born "illegitimately" were excluded from entry into the Asembly (Lev 21:2).

This would no doubt have been a thorny problem for the church to deal with with respect to Iesous" being the Jewish Messiah who had to fulfill certain "requirements" based on the socalled OT prophecies.

I suspect that "allowing ANY charge of Bastardy" to be applied to "Iesous" by the Christian community would GREATLY impugn upon his blood line or his ability to claim to be a physical descendant of David and thus be able to "fulfil the prophecies of the Messiah in the Last Days"----that's also why the birth narratives in BOTH Matthew and Luke took a Galilean person (we'll presume for the sake of argument that we really are dealing with an historical individual in some form!) and DELIBERATELY morphed him into someone born in Beth-Lechem of Judaea (i.e. to "fulfil" the Messianic birth requirement in Micah chapter 5:2), even though he was probably a Galilean (and yes, there was a Beth-Lechem in Galilee too: it meant simply "Bakery" = Bayit Lechem, lit. "house of bread.")!

Presumably the early Nazorean Christian Messianic circles would want to REVERSE ANY ACCUSATIOnS of "Mamzer!" against "Jesus" made by Rabinnic post Jersualem-Destruction Jews who were naturally bitter about what Messianism did for them !

There seems to have been an early interest to preserve the Daviddic lineage in the church: even the very "anti-Nazorean" circle around Saul of Tarsus mentioned "my gospel of Iesous born of the Seed of David...", one of the few references to "Jesus" earthly attributes placed into the mouth of Paul in the "Timothy" letters.

Presumably it made the Messianic argument more weighty to have "Jesus" related to the line of King David without charges of Bastardy getting in the way of things--so the church perhaps could not have allowed this particular "Criterion of Embarrassment" accusation to remain intact.

Even the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Elder ("Book of Revelation") in the socalled Lucifer Pericope in chapter 24 states: "I am Iesous the Root and Offspring of David..." which shows how ancient and integral Daviddic lineage must have been to Messianic Claimants in the 1st century AD.

Hmmmmmmmm..... Does the "Criterion of Embarassment" apply or not here in view of all this? It's almost as if it were TOO embarassing to leave in without doctoring up (sort of like the Baptism of "Jesus" as handled by Luke--embarassing so deliberatley softened from Mark's text...)

Methinks the final editors of the gospels of Luke and Matthew protest a little too much about this whole subject:

They both seem to be "covering up" these recurring charges of Bastardy against "Iesous" by all the Rabinninc post AD 70 Communities (who were understandably bitter about any Messianic pretender after all, they LOST the war against Rome and more than half their population died as a result).

Maybe the later doctrine of the "Virgin Birth" was to silence these critics, just as the so called Transfiguration Periocopes seem to be countering charges by the same Jewish-Rabinninc naysayers that "Iesous" was a False Prophet because the Kingdom never came as advertised ("This is my Son, LISTEN TO HIM!" booming from a thundercloud sounds a little like anti-propganda about the Deuteronomic law of false prophets e.g. "if a Prophet foretells an event and it DOES NOT COME TRUE, that prophet is not from me saith YHWH, and YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO HIM!" etc.).

In fact there are many aspects of the gospel material which seem to be "answering" various specific charges against Jesus claims to being the Messiah in general.

The question is: Was the Virgin Birth Myth made up to help diffuse the charges of Bastardy----which is the purpose of this discussion. Or merely to make him more of a pagan god like Alexander the Great who also was Theodikos (god born)?

Notice for example the linkage between David AND Bethlehem:

It is curious that BOTH Matthew and Luke cling on to the Virgin Birth myth: and they ALSO cling on to the "Bethlehem in Judaea" as "Jesus" birth- place.

In John's Gospel, it is interesting that BOTH THESE CONCERNS are mentioned in the same sentence (viz. David's blood and Bethlehem)

There seems to be some floating accusations that "Jesus" was NOT born in Bethlehem in John which would naturally DISQUALIFY him from being the long hoped for Jewish Messiah ("midrash the scriptures and you will see that NO PROPHET arises from Galilee"):

See: John 7:40-52

e.g. "Others were saying: 'This is the Christ (Messiah).' But some asked, 'Surely the Messiah will not come from Galilee, will he?

Do not the Scriptures say that the Messiah will be descended from David and will comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?' So there arose a division among the people because of him..."

NOTICE THAT JOHN's gospel here ALSO LINKS DAVIDDIC BLOOD-LINEAGE WITH BETHLEHEM for the Messiah to be "authentic" :

But back to "Bastardy and Messiahship."

Even though it was considered a curse to be a Mamzer, there seems to have been some talk that "Bastards" (Mamzerim) during the "Last Days" would be one day be eventually ritually entitled to "join the Congregation" of Israel after all.

As we said, the Dead Sea Scrolls strictly forbid Mamzerim ("bastards") to enter their own Levitical circle as well, even "unto 10 generations".

A. The meaning of "Mamzerim" actually is rather non-specific. It may refer to a child born out of wedlock, but it could very well only refer to a child born from a incestuous relationship, or from a cult temple prostitute of say Asherah or Ba'al or Dagon, widely worshipped in ancient Israel before the Exile (i.e. prior to the Yahwistic returnees c. BC 521)

C. Some of the Rebbes interpret this to mean a child born of a forbidden racial "squeezing" i.e. marriage (i.e., Israelite married to an Ammonite etc.) designed to deter Israelites from entering into forbidden unions with Canaanite locals which might cause the Yahwists to adopt pagan practices. (These laws presumably were not in effect until after the Exile: David certainly did not know of them when he killled a Hititite General Uriah to marry the Jebusite princess Bath-Shebiti ("Bath-Shebaq")!)

In Israel, Bastard Children we also thought to be the result of gentile idolatry.

A "Mamzer" could also refer to the offspring of pagan temple prostitutes.

Here are some of the Rabinnic arguments partially preserved in a section of the Talmud known as : Kiddushin (On "Holiness") section 7 2b-73a:

The Rabbis taught:

Mamzerim and Netinim will become pure in the Last Days: this is R. Jose's view.

Rabbi Meir said: Mamzerim shall not become ritually clean ever.

Rabbi Jose said to him: But was it not already written in Hezekiel: And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean? (Ezekiel 36:25)

Rabbi Meir replied saying: When it is added "from all your filthiness and from all your idols" yes, but not from bastardy.

R. Jose said to him: When it is [further] said, I shall ritually purify you, you therefore must add: "from bastardy too."

As for Rabbi Meir, he hath spoken well: For thus it is written: "and the bastard shall dwell in Ashdod in that Day" (Zechariah 9:6.

But according to R. Jose, why ‘and the bastard shall dwell in Ashdod?’

As R. Joseph translated it: The house of Israel shall dwell in security in their land, where [formerly] they were as strangers.

I do not think we have even a fraction of the kind of viscious sneers the post destruction Jerusalem (after AD 70) Jewish Rabbinnic Community hurled at the failed Palestinian Nazorean/Messianic movement (alligned with the faction of "Jesus' brother" James) which later morphed into "Nazorean/Ebionite Christianity".

The question still remains to discuss:

How much "actual historical knowledge" did all these 1st and 2nd century AD Jewish Rabinnic sneering critics actually have of Jesus' alleged bastardy, and are the Virgin birth narratives in the later gospels an attempt to counter these slanderous accusations?

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 05:48 PM
Quote: "the offspring of a Roman Soldier named Pantera?" with Mary I Presume.

You know this sounds entirely plausible to me - why else do you think that Catholics get hysterical when you poke around in the "Virgin Birth" fable?

Quote: "As you aware Christianity and the Jesus story is based on Paganism."

Again this is also highly plausible. Jesus or Yehoshuah or Whatever - was probably a Real Man - but the Legend of his Powers of Healing &
"Son of God" status does seem to be borrowed from other sources - HERCULES definitely comes to Mind!

Quote: "Being a bastard at the time of Christ and before was looked upon as being incompatible with Yahweh worship."

Perhaps that is why they were so eager to Crucify the
"Trouble Making Bastard Magician".

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Quote: "As you aware Christianity and the Jesus story is based on Paganism."

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Or how about this. Since God made mankind, He has been around longer than us. So when satan deceived Adam and Eve, God pronounced the consequences to Adam, Eve and satan. One of the consequences to satan was (Genesis 3:15) that a savior(seed) would be coming that would crush satan. So satan has been manipulating and copying God since almost his creation moment. The birth and life of Christ isn't based on paganism. paganism is a perversion of the story of Christ. satan has been deceiving people with false paganistic stories. He had ample time to do it since God predestined 4000 years before Christ(the seed) would come.

posted on Oct, 21 2004 @ 11:03 PM
well possibly the worst testimony to human nature is "dost think thus dost thou protest to much"

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 09:46 AM
Hey RyanP5555:

I'm afraid your Shakespearean English is a little rusty.

I have absolutely no IDEA what you were trying to say just then….

Maybe you need to go back and re-read the "Tawdry and Wholly Innaccurate" 1611 King James Bible in English again, at least to get back a feel for the language ...(admittedly it may be a very, very bad English translation of all the faulty Greek and Hebrew manuscripts those poor boobies had to deal with back then, but it sure sounds pretty!)

"Methinks the Lady doth Protest too much"----is a phrase from Hamlet that I sometimes use for people on these threads who are just a teeeeenzie weeeenzie bit tooooooo sensitive (shall we say) about certain "curious observations" in the Bible they might just possibly disapprove of ----

i.e. if they ever knew it was in there in the first place---which isn’t very often because so few people on these threads apparently read the texts very carefully it seems…

But I digresss…..

Now it seems that there is renewed interest this morning for some reason on this older thread (Was R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean a MAMZER?) that I had started a while back on the Illegitimacy Question of the man modern American Christians just love to call "Jeeeezuzzz" for some reason....

There are a great many reasons one could put forward for WHY the early Church trying desperately to sell their saviour-god “Jeeezuzz” to the masses within the Roman Empire in the 2nd century AD felt the need to embellish a Midrash on to Isaiah 7:14 i.e. to invent a Virgin Birth Narrative Series---a prophetic utterance which by the way has absolutely NOTHING nothing to do with "virgin births" pagan or otherwise:

(Heb: ‘almah means merely “young woman” and nothing more—the Heb. bethulah means “Virgo Intacta” but that is NOT the word being used.

The Greek Old Testament Septuaginta LXX (BC 250) word “parthenos” CAN mean Virgin or “girl”, but not the Hebrew) but everything to do with poetic speech placed into the mouth of a prophet about the “ time frame” of a war

e.g. "take a look at this young woman....she is pregnant with a male child and you will call this child Immannuel, which means EL is ON OUR SIDE..." i.e. a Canaanite war chant... and later, "by the time the child is weaned..your two enemies will be vanquished..." etc.

This is Prophetic-Poetic language referring to the "timing of the length of a War" between three nation states, which poetically is expressing the idea that: i.e. “in 9 months time from now, the tide will turn on your war effort” and later “within ONE year, the whole thing will be over..."

The richly poetic verse in proto-Isaiah has nothing whatsoever to do with Messianic “fulfillment” which Christians purport to apply to a man born some 700 years later...

It seems that the early Church went to inordinate lengths to cover something up here…just look how desperate both Matthew AND Luke try to twist and contort an obscure verse out of the OT like that---and to prove what exactly?

That all those boring lists (Matthew cheats a little and deliberately leaves 6 generations out to make up his pattern of 14s---which most Christians do not seem to notice!) of who-begat-who through Joseph’s blood line don’t even matter?

The socalled “Fundamentalist Christians” today, especially in the US, rarely study Koine Greek and even more rarely look very deeply into many of the curious issues and implications raised when examining the Greek texts of the Virgin Birth Myths in all the distorted copies of the Greek texts of Matthew and Luke: (by the way, the gospels of Matthew and Luke don't match each other in these Midrashic stories).

Neither do most “Fundamentalist Christians” today even bother to consider why certain passages were deliberately worded the way they were in their Bbles (i.e. by use of CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE catch- phrases from the LXX Greek Old Testament) carefully placed into the mouths of their characters in the Greek texts by the authors (whoever they were, since both Matthew and Luke circulated anonymously for 200 years before names were stuck on the labels).

If we look at the curious Greek of the so-called MAGNIFICAT (Luke 1:46-55), i.e. the Aramaic sounding Greek poem placed into the mouth of “Mary” in Luke’s gospel, we see some conscious references to the SEDUCTION OF A RAPED VIRGIN in Deuteronomy 22:23

“If a man meets a virgin betrothed to another and in a village and he lie with her, you shall take them both to the gate and stone them to death. First the girl because she was in a town YET DID NOT SCREAM FOR HELP and then the man because he violated another man's property—do this to purge the evil from among you.

"On the other hand if a man comes upon such a betrothed virgin in an open field and holds her down to rape her, only the man shall die. You shall do nothing to the virgin since she is not guilty of a crime…since it was in the open field that he seized her and although the betrothed maiden MAY HAVE CRIED OUT FOR HELP, NO SAVIOUR WAS FOUND FOR HER.”

Notice the CONSCIOUS idea of the word SOTER (saviour) in the LXX of Deut 22:23: which lay in the back of all allthose pretty Greek words placed into the mouth of Mary in the Magnificat of Luke 1:46

"My soul glorifies in [YHWH]
and my spirit rejoices in [EL] my SAVIOUR,
for he has REMOVED the HUMILIATION of his slave…
From now on all generations will call me Happy,
for the Mighty One [of Israel] has performed great things for me--
holy be his Name.
He will bring down the Mighty from their thrones
and will lift up the HUMILIATED ONES [in that Day].

The phrase “he hath removed the humiliation of his slave” would be more fitting perhaps on the lips of a barren woman (e.g. Elizabeth) rather than a young “virgin” betrothed to another man—since in Israel, an older woman without sons was one of the most abject states in which to find oneself on the social order.

Whoever wrote this and placed it into Mary’s mouth was “trying hard to “salvage Mary’s honour from some un-namable and perhaps un-imaginable disgrace” (C.K. Barrett).

That disgrace may well have been “rape” (or unlawful seduction even).

Other clues can be found in Luke’s gospel if you take the time to look (e.g. META SPOUDE in Luke1:39 “with high anxiety” does “Mary” run to Elizabeth after the “overshadowed event” which suggests the idea of panic—something more expected from someone who had just been raped, and was unsure what to do next----rather than having just been visited by some angel with a message…)

As poetic as these sentiments are, again, methinks the writer of the “Magnificat” (whoever he might have been) doth protest a little too much here to make “Mary” the “passive submissive object” of the “will of God”….

Possibly the authors of Matthew and Luke’s Virgin Birth Myths (whoever they were) had been aware of a “scroll of the Family of David” found around the time of the failed Jewish War against Rome in AD 70 which R. Shimeon bar Hazzai links to the “birth and death” of YESHU—and wanted to clear the name, as it were:

“Shimeon brought evidence forth of a scroll he had found in the archives to show that in the case of one very notorious [instance] the penalty of a Judicial Death had FOLLOWED UPON AN UNLAWFUL BIRTH” from a union prohibited under pain of execution….

There are about a dozen of these references in the Rabinninc literature which parallel certain passages in Matthew and Luke’s stories, which do seem to indicate that the Virgin Birth Myths were conjured up as a way to answer these charges that R. Yehoshua was a MAMZER and therefore could NOT have been the promised Messiah…at least in Jewish eyes.

The same thing would have been done in the socalled Transfiguration Periocopes of Mark chapter 9:1 and following (where Iesous promises a Kingdom to happen within the lifetime of his disciples) in order to counter-act early 2nd century Jewish-Rabbinic snears about R. Yehoshua bar Yosef being a FALSE PROPHET -----something these Zionist Losers of the War were VERY sensitive about (after all the Kingdom of God did not come as advertised, and the Son of Man did NOT appear in GLORY) and the disappointment about how the Jewish War turned out (900,000 dead) among the Rebbes must have been enormous---and so naturally they would "search the scriptures"

e.g. Deuteronomy and find explicitly:


Notice in the transfiguration Pericoipes, the Flash of Light Brilliance (Lightning) and QOL (“Voice” or Thunderclap) the VOICE thunders down from heaven “THIS IS MY SON, YOU WILL LISTEN TO HIM…!” as if to refute the charges that Rebbes made about “Jesus”

(“That man is a False Prophet, YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO HIM…”)

In other words, RyanP5555, methinks these early Christian Gospel Writing “Apologists” protest a little too much at times…to cover up some of the more shameful aspects of the man they hoped, like on the Road to Emaeus “would redeem Israel from her enemies”….(Luke 24) --------

but look how that all turned out...seems the 12 legions of angels never showed up on cue....

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:14 PM
Ah Heresy at its finest!

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in