It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:00 PM

Did those texts that you have read teach you that if someone is going through a lot of stress, such as knowing they are about to be beaten and crucified to die, they can actually bleed blood through their pores? Also, do you guys not understand the concept of God... i really think that it is flying over your head. Lets just say that we agree, whether or not you do agree, that there is a God. Do you really not believe that a being capable of creating DNA in order to create life can not create his own DNA in the form of Jesus... It is God for crying out loud! And finally, the Jews may have interpreted/hoped that a saviour would come to save the Jews, but that is tunnel vision for a race that actually believes they are the choosen race! Jesus came to save the world, not a race! Since no one is addressing you Amadeus, i will address you, first let me know where you got the information that Jesus led an assault on the Pentecost, i know i am not as "versed" as you are in religious affairs, or even my own religion, but that doesn't make you better than me, and doens't mean you are right. I say that not to start a fight, but to make sure that we have that out of the way so that you can't use those as attacks on me!

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Amadeus
Hi Ashlar:

Maybe you also forgot what R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (the "Jeezuzz" you worship and pray to as a man-god) did that night when he armed his disciples with swords on the hill?

For one thing, I don't like cutting people's ears off...and for another, I would hardly be waiting around all night ("sweating blood") for 12 legions of Jewish Angels to swoop down and overthrow the Romans and put the Davidds back on the throne of "Israel"...

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Amadeus]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Amadeus]

what are you talking about? I don't know what Bible you are reading.

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:42 AM
Hi Dbrant:

Are you one of those people who know a verse here and a verse there in the contradictory Doublet Accounts of cetain "events" in the Jewish "bible" without standing back and seeing the larger picture?

What do you mean what Bible am I quoting? Take some time and check all the contradictory and late Greek MSS of the NT, and you'll see quite a messy hotchpotch of confusing ideas.

The arrest and crucifixion of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jeeeziz") was a gross embarassment for the early church, whose followers lost the war against Rome in AD 66-72.

So it is a minor miracle all its own that any of these curious details were even left in the tradition----presumably it was so embedded into the earliest oral traditions about "Jeeeezizzz" that they simply could not explain all of it away...

Here are some verses for you to study---which I had assumed you had come across in your sunday school lessons?


Luke 22:30-40 about Iesous ordering his disciples to sell their outer tunics on a cold night and buy swords with the cash. Matthew and Mark and John mention the ear cutting, but not how the disciples got swords in the first place...that part was cut out of the texts..but Luke leaves a trace of it in his gospel.


John 18:10 and parallels such as Mark 14:47 and the other Greek gospels of Matthew and Luke : where the slave of the High Priest Joseph Kaiphah is cut off with a sword. Perhaps they taught you in Sunday School that the slave of the High Priest's ear was severed with a butter knife left over from the Last Supper? Why do you think "Iesous" was crucified for armed sedition in the first place? Do you think nice mamby pamby little Rebbes telling harmless parables start riots in Temples?


Obviously the term is symbolic in Luke and parallels other figures of ancient literature "sweating blood" see Luke 22:44


See Matt 26:53 : Have you never read this passage before?

The 1st century Jew believed from the teaching of the Rebbes that each "Israelite" had his own private Legion of Angels to protect him when he went out to slay the goyim (gentiles), whereas the goyim only had a single Angel guarding them...

Maybe you need to line up all the confused accounts of the Arrest, Crucifixion and Resurrection pericopes in the 4 council approved canonical Greel "gospels" side by side. You might be shocked to notice they don't match very closely.

If you've never read these text portions in your bible, maybe you need to go out and buy a better translation??

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Amadeus]

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:03 AM

What exactly do you mean by IESOUS being "universal"? Don't you know the HEBREW word for WORLD means "ERETZ ISRA'EL" i.e. the LAND of Israel? read the Dead Sea Scrolls in English--- those texts were being copied while this "Jeeezizz" of yours was still alive....

The only concern any 1st century Daviddic Jew in Roman Occupied Palestine would have for the goyim (gentiles, i.e. non Jews) would be for the LOST SHEEP OF THE ELECT OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL WHO WERE SCATTERED AMONG THE GOYIM (Gentiles)...i.e. the sheep not of his fold.

There were TWO sets of "Jews" that the Messiah was supposed to ingather: the ones in Palestine (whom "Jesus" preached to) and the ones in the Diaspora (who were exiled out of Palestine during more than 7 gentile invasions).

That is the context of Iesous' world. He believed anyone outside of Israel were "dead dogs", unworthy of the life ("No Gentile can die, since no Gentile has a Nephesh-Soul that he might live in the first place, later to die" from the Gospel of Phillip)

Here is what you wrote:


And finally, Jews may have interpreted/hoped that a saviour would come to save the Jews, but that is tunnel vision for a race that actually believes they are the chosen race! Jesus came to save the world, not a race! UNQUOTE

The historical figure of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef cared nothing for Gentile Goyim whom he called DOGS: Go out and read Matthew chapter 15 for example when a gentile woman comes to him begging for his help.

He rebuked her with a sneer: (Matt 15:24 ) Iesous said to her "Woman, I was sent only to the Lost sheep ofthe House of Israel."

Matt 15:26 "And anyway, since when is it right to take the children's bread [out of their mouths] and toss it to dogs under the table?"

These are not the words of any universal saviour god. Paul had to try to make this racist Daviddic messiah acceptable to the goyim in the Empire (by twisting the words and theology of a man he never even met!).

You have a lot to learn my friend....

ALSO: I did not say "Jeeezizz" led an armed revolt during Sukkoth (Pentecost) I said PESACH (=Passover).

Get your Hebrew feasts straight please. Passover was the time when Yehudah (Judas) the Galilean led an armed revolt in Jerusalem in AD 6, and was a time when most of these insurrections take place "in order to reflect the EXODUS from the grip of Israel's gentile oppressors" in this case the Romans (or Kittim as the Dead Sea Scrolls like to call them sometimes !)

You CANNOT understand the message or R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean outside of the CONTEXT of the ROMAN OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE....after all the man was a Daviddic Pretender, in the process of re-instating the Davidds on the Throne of Israel "during the last days" in order to innaugurate the TIQQUN (i.e. the Day of the Regeneration of the Son of Man)...

But it seems most of THIS is way above YOUR head, young around your subject a might be shocked what you might find...!

posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 09:53 PM

I would really appreciate an answer to my query regarding a good place to begin studying the supposed 'knowledge' you posess.

I really am open to the idea, believe it or not.

And whether you mean it to be or not, referring to the Christan God as 'JEEEZIZZ' or anything other than your supposed jewish titles or simply 'Jesus' or 'The Christ' would be greatly appreciated. Anything less invites unwarranted criticism and skepticism and outright offense at your postings by those who may otherwise take you seriously, in part.

Of course, you may be working under the premise that everything you do is meant to offend and ridicule, in which case ATS is not the place for such rantings.

edit: Spelling

[edit on 25-10-2004 by everlastingnoitall]

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 08:48 AM
Hey Everlastingnoitall:

Here are just a very few book suggestions for you and others on these threads who want "To Keep Up with AMADEUS" (recommended reading only) .

Be aware that many of the books listed below are aimed more or less for the non-theologian (such as books by Shelby Spong Series): several others on this list pre-suppose some basic working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew--which by the way is NEVER too late for anyone on these threads to learn....

Most of these can still be ordered on AMAZON.COM etc. but it really helps if you happen to have some spare cash lying around (ones like the Charlesworth Pseudipigrapha are not exactly cheap, but required reading for any serious student of the gospels and Dead Sea Scroll material):

This list is NOT exhaustive (by any stretch):

I have over 4,000 books on my own personal shelves as well as all my copious notes from the years I spent studying under C. K. Barrett and John Rogerson in this is only the proverbial TIP of the ICEBERG).

If you want more, I could easily post another 50 or so which would build upon this one.


THE ILLEGITIMACY OF JESUS : A Feminist Theological Interpretatin of the INFANCY NARRATIVES (of Matthew and Luke) by Jane Schaberg ISBN 0-06-254-668-0 Published by Harper and Row, 1987, NYC etc.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS TRANSLATED: THE QUMRAN TEXTS IN ENGLISH by Florentino Garcia Martinez (editor: Wilfred G.E. Watson, 1996)

JESUS the JEW by GEZA VERMES (pronounced "Fair-Mesh")

JESUS OF NAZARETH, KING OF THE JEWS : A JEWISH LIFE AND THE EMERGENCE OF CHRISTIANITY by Paula Fredriksen, (First published by Alfred Knoof, Random House, NYC 1999 and later in 2000 by First Vintage Books)

THE PENTATEUCH : AN INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE (by Joseph Blenkinsopp) In the Anchor Bible Series, 2000

APOCALYTPICISM IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (by John J Collins, 1997), Routeledge Publishing New York City.

THE BIBLE UNEARTHED: Archaelogiy's New Vision of Ancient Israel and its Sacred Texts (a surprisingly candid overview of the problems with the Jewish accounts of its "history" by Israel Finklestein, head of the Archaeology Dept at Tel Aviv University and Neil Asher Silberman), published by the Free Press, 2001. A must read for beginners to the history of Israel.

JESUS in his JEWISH CONTEXT (by GEZA VERMES) Augsburg Fortress Publishers (June 2003) ISBN: 0800636236

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS UNCOVERED (by Robt Eisenman and Michael Wise, Barnes & Noble Element Books Series, 1992 ISBN 1-85230- 368-9)

PILATE: THE "BIOGRAPHY" of an INVENTED MAN (by Ann Wroe, 1999) ISBN 0-234-05942-4 published by Random House UK

A MARGINAL JEW (in 3 Vols) RE-THINKING THE HISTORICAL JESUS (by John P. Meier published by Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1991, &tc.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO St. JOHN: An INTRODUCTION WITH COMMENTARY NOTES ON THE GREEK TEXT (1978 or any 2nd editions or revised editions after that) by C.K. Barrett

Published by Harper SanFrancisco: November 1995

THE LIBRARY OF QUMRAN (by the Dead Sea Scrolls professor Hartmut Stegemann, kindly translated into English, 1998 by WB Eerdsman Publishing)

GOSPEL PARALLELS (A Synopsis of the First Three Gospels) (ed by Burton H. Throckmorton Jr) published by Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville & NYC, 1949 revised 1967 in their 3rd edition)

THE UNKNOWN SAYINGS OF JESUS (Marvin Meyer, 1998 ISBN 0-06-065588-7) Harper San Francisco

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND JUDAIESM by C.K. Barrett (ISBN 0800-604318)

WHO WROTE THE BIBLE? By Richard Elliot Friedman (now in paperback: use your highligher on this book to help you see the sourcing)

THE NEW COMPLETE WORKS OF JOSEPHUS (Rev. Edition 1999 translated by William Whiston) by Kregel Publications Grand Rapids MI, now in Paperback...


JESUS and the DEAD SEA SCROLLS (By Charlesworth) ISBN: 0385478445
Publisher: Doubleday, August 1995

THE FIVE GOSPELS: THE SEARCH FOR THE AUTHENTIC WORDS OF JESUS (extracted from the "Jesus Seminar Findings" in San Diego CA) by Robert Funk and Roy Hoover), 1993 ISBN 0-02-54-1949-8

RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM (1993) by John Shelby Spong, Harper San Francisco

RESURRECTION: MYTH OR REALITY by John Shelby Spong, (1994)Harper San Francsico (ISBN 006-067546-2)

THE OLD TESTAMENT PSEUDIPIGRAPHA (ed. Charlesworth) 2 Volumes (not cheap but a must have)

GOSPEL TRUTH (by Russell Shorto 1997) Riverhead Books NY ISBN 1-57322-659-9)

THE LOST GOSPEL: THE BOOK OF Q and CHRISTIAN ORIGINS (Burton L. Mack, 1993, Harper San Francsico, ISBN 0-06-065-374-4)

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE (Ed. Abegg, Flint & Ulrich, 1999) ISBN 006-0600632 Harper San Francisco

RECLAIMING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS for Judaeism (by Lawrence Shiffman)

THE MYTHIC PAST (by Thomas L. Thompson, Perseus Basic Book Series, 1999) ISBN 0465-0062-2-1)

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS DECEPTION (Michael Baegent, 1991 TouchStone books, NYC ISBN 0-671-73454-7)

THE DEATH OF THE MESSIAH in 2 VOLS (by Raymond Brown, part of the Anchor Bible Reference Library put out by Bantam-Doubleday-Dell Publishing Group NYC, 1993) ISBN 0-385-49448-3 & ISBN 0-385-49449-1

These are just off the top of my head: I'll post another LIST (# 2) later in the week if you want more...

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Amadeus]

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 03:03 PM
There are a LOT of people out there who think they know EXACTLY what Judeo-Christianity/Protestant Christianity or Catholicism is 100% for Sure - the sad fact is that Most people are Misguided & Delusional. Over the many Years there has been a LOT of Manipulation & Distortion of the Faith for Various Reasons - Namely Politics. Not even Priests & Scholars know for sure.

What I an personally waiting for is a MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Both the Greek Septuagint & the Original Greek New Testament - by Unbiased Scholarly Experts!!!

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
What I an personally waiting for is a MODERN ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Both the Greek Septuagint & the Original Greek New Testament - by Unbiased Scholarly Experts!!!

you should be able to find a version that suits you now, there are many versions out there already.

some people will say the king james version is the best (because it was the first and only for a long time) i think it is very good, except it wont do you any good if you cant understand old english.

if you are looking for an easier read try the New international version.

i would like to know which version amadeus reccommends -if there is one that is truest/truer to the original(s)

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:10 AM

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall

I would really appreciate an answer to my query regarding a good place to begin studying the supposed 'knowledge' you posess.

I really am open to the idea, believe it or not.

And whether you mean it to be or not, referring to the Christan God as 'JEEEZIZZ' or anything other than your supposed jewish titles or simply 'Jesus' or 'The Christ' would be greatly appreciated. Anything less invites unwarranted criticism and skepticism and outright offense at your postings by those who may otherwise take you seriously, in part.

Of course, you may be working under the premise that everything you do is meant to offend and ridicule, in which case ATS is not the place for such rantings.

edit: Spelling

[edit on 25-10-2004 by everlastingnoitall]

I am sorry, but I must step in here. If you wish to understand what lies behind the scriptures, then you must read them with an open mind, as though you are studying history, because that is what they in fact purport to be, and not the other renderings of anti-Christian or anti-Hebrew, or anti-Muslim authors. If you do so, I promise you will seek to find answers to questions elsewhere, and in teh end find much within them that will enlighten you in a way you have not previously known. You will, as you read and pay careful attention to each verse and those which directly relate without requiring edification, come to find many things that may upset you. But do not be taken by some of the findings of others, unless you investigate every claim thoroughly.

In the end, you may be disappointed, and feel deceived, but at the worst, you will only be disappointed to find out that behind the mask of it all, lies a story though tainted, has a spiritual benefit, however that is interpreted, which cannot be denied. In fact, that is the one truth that is never hidden in the scriptures.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:51 AM
it lacks motive. For any action in history to create a significant change in the thoughts and actions of people, there is typically a motive. For example:

Work - Effort made by individuals to achieve income.
War - The aquisition of land, money, power, and resources through force.
(my own definitions used here, not dictionary)
Peace - A compromise to end war, death, and ruin.

So... how about:

Virgin Birth Cover-up? - Well, it may have saved Mary's relationship, but didn't an angel appear to Joseph when he was ready to pack his bags? Okay, now we're saying that's a cover-up too. What about this child growing up performing miracles, teachings, and dying for mankind? Another conspiracy. So that didn't happen either, what about everyone there after going out and spreading, practicing, and teaching the word until this day? Man, this is a lot of work for a single cover-up...

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 08:54 AM
Hi Saint4God:

It is difficult to think like early 2nd century AD Greek speaking Christians, many of whom had by AD 100 to AD 125 been converted to the new religion from Roman-Empire Paganism (where Virgin births of their gods were most commonplace) and not from Diaspora (out of Palestine) Judaeism (which would have eschewed any virgin birth ideas for an historical personage such as R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean).

Either way, it is clear that the idea of the Virgin Birth did not exist prior to around AD 90 after Jerusalem fell to the Romans, and Jewish Christianity virtually died out. What was left were the Pauline churches which had incorporated Gentiles and God-Fearers who were WIDE OPEN TO THE IDEA OF A VIRGIN BIRTH in order to PROVE that R. Yehoshua ("Ieosus") was a divine Messiah or "son of god".

The title or term "SON OF GOD" (or A SON OF GOD = "innocent man" in Luke's Centurion speech at the foot of the cross) in Israel would have been a SYMBOLIC title for a King like David (read Psalms 2 etc.) not a LITERAL SON ("this day I have begotten thee" is a kind of adoptionist language, not a literal returning to the womb) but the title SON OF THE GODS or SON OF GOD in the Greco-Roman pagan world (where the Greek New Testament Gospels were circulating and hoping for acceptance among pagan converts to Christianity) meant something completely different, a more literal son born of divine parents.

So the motive for a Virgin Birth story (notice how late the development is: Paul knew nothing of it for example) include:

l. hiding the bastardy (mamzer) of "iesous" or addressing the accusations of the Jews in the Roman Empire criticising the new religion's founder's genealogical claims to Messiahship = reactive posturing against Rabinnic critics (the transfiguration pericopes in Mark 9 are also reactive to Rabinnic ciriticism of iesous being a "False Prophet: Ye shall NOT listen to him...!"

2. trying to ingratiate themselves by making Iesous like Alexander the Great (widely believed by people in his conquored lands to have been born of a Virgin and a god in the 360s BC), or Julius Caesar (also born of a Virgin) or the Divine Emperor Tiberius (ditto)---all of these men had temples built to them after their deaths with their own cult of priests and had "priestly incense burned unto them as gods"...and they were all born of Virgins = proactive - making Iesous appear like a pagan gentile god and worthy of gentile worship (=making the product sell better to gentiles)

So you can see, to make Christianity compete with all these divine kings and emperors who were gods after their deaths, the early Church had to do a little adapting of the facts----in order to make converts. Something by the way Paul would have had no trouble with if it meant bringing in more believers to the faith, by whichever way necessary ("to a Jew I became a Jew to a Goy I became a Goy etc.)

There may have been other motives too, but these are two of the main ones it seems to me...the first REACTIVE and the second one PROACTIVE...

Clear as Mud?

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 09:56 AM
Thanks Amadeus, that does help explain why a virgin birth would be significant during that time.

The question above I'm referencing Matthew 1 & Luke 3:21 showing the Geneology of Jesus. It was recorded in Luke 2:5 where there was a registry of births. Geneology seemed important because of the prophecy of House Abraham and David. Do you believe these records were falsified or that Joseph was actually the father? The reason why I don't include the Roman soldier theory is:

In Matt 1:19, Joseph essentially said, "I'm outta here" then an angel stops him, reminds him of his own geneology, tells him to marry Mary, and the child is a result of the Holy Spirit. Now, why document a potential split in the couple? If he was with her, he wouldn't have wanted to leave, then changed his mind to stay and register. In fact, he didn't even marry her until the baby was born to show he had no part in the conception.

One question turned into three, sorry about that. I'm finding more questions about the conspiracy than I am about the written event.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:28 AM

Is it true for JC to be the messiah of the prophecy he would have to decsend from Davids bloodline? If Joseph was the one in relation to the royal bloodline and Joseph WASN'T the father how do X-ians say he is the messiah? Is it a big goof up? This is one of the reasons the Jews reject him as the messiah correct?

I know you got the answer.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:51 AM
I was thinking along the same lines when I read it. I took it to mean Christ was genetically, biologically God and socially raised by Joseph. I guess the same way he was a carpenter as well as the Son of God. An interesting mix no doubt, but don't know of anyone who considers it an inconsistency with the pages that precede or follow after.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:07 PM
I once read somewhere, (sorry I can't find the link at the moment) that the term "virgin" didn't mean virgin as in not having sex but really meant "not married" in those times. so yes to the original post, it is most likely the scenario.

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:05 PM
Hey WorldWatcher:

The Hebrew word BETHULAH means "virgin" (virgo intacta). The Hebrew word ALMAH (which is the Heb. word used in the "prophecy" of Isaiah 7:14 which Christians use to base their faith in a Virgin Birth) means "young woman of marriageable age" but not one necessarily a Virgin. For example a young widow could be called an ALMAH, but she would not be assumed to be a virgin.

The Greek Septuaginta LXX word-term that was chosen to be used when the Hebrew text of Isaiah was translated (from Hebrew into Greek) in Alexandria around 280 BC was the Greek: "PARTHENOS" which generally means "virgin" but could also be "young woman", and was a title for the goddess DIANA of EPHESUS.

The Gospel of Matthew said that Miryam (Mary) was "betrothed" to Joseph, but not married to him. If she was found pregnant before the final signing of the Ketuvah (marriage license) then he could divorce her legally (i..e break off the formal engagement betrothal contract).

More later on this !

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:56 PM
Quote: "Greek New Testament Gospels were circulated - hoping for acceptance among Pagan Converts to Christianity".

With Great Success I might Add!!! If it wasn't for Saint Paul pushing this New Religion of "Christianity" amongst the Gentiles - it probably would not exist today and then Christians would not have their
"Loving God" - just the Old Wrathful, Tyrannical, Murderous, Egotistical Gods of the Pagans & "God" - Singular (or is it?) - of the Jews!!!

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:08 PM
I note a question was asked twice of Amadeus to which he did not respond, so if I may. The geneaology of Christ as told by Luke was forced to make his birth equal to the seventy-seventh generation's birth of the Messiah as Jews expected. In fact, Luke, quite the mouthpiece with Paul after Christ's death, took it upon himself to fabricate lines of generations between Abraham and Zerubbabel, then from there injected the generations to Joseph to make it equal the 77.

Edited to add: The seventy-seven seems to have been taken from the Books of Enoch.

[edit on 10/27/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:27 PM
Thanks for addressing SomewhereinBetween. How about Matthew 1, also fabricated? Any response to the question on Joseph?

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by saint4God
Thanks for addressing SomewhereinBetween. How about Matthew 1, also fabricated? Any response to the question on Joseph?

You're very welcome. yes, Matthew is the same issue. Only in Matthew and Luke is the birth of Christ addressed as well. Luke goes to great pains to paint the prophesy of the messiah from the days of Abraham, and construct the basis for his birth being from the line of David through Joseph, a man whose history and deeds are entirely unknown until introducd as being espoused to Mary.

The story of the virgin birth as presented in both gospels, gives rise to the questions; which was created first and was a clarification required? Oddly enough, the sermon of the mount is only shared by these two as well. Luke speaks of the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary to tell her of the miraculous birth to come, picking up the story with Joseph and his "espoused wife," the now pregnant Mary, making their way to Bethlehem, he then records the birth. He mentions nowhere that Joseph knew of the miraculous birth as foretold, or even questioned it, so leaves one to wonder why he stayed with her. Matthew relates that Joseph knowing Mary was pregnant, was pondering the advice of others to take her away privitely, which can only suggest that either Mary did not tell him of the visit by the angel, or he did not believe her. None the less, Matthew corrects that oversight with an angel appearing to Joseph in a dream and explaining the happening, convincing Joseph to marry her before she gave birth.

The author of Matthew's gospel is actually still in question, and while it was generally considered that his was the first composed, there is now a suggestion that in fact it was Mark's. Luke was a prolific writer, a learned man at that, versed in several languages and supposedly responsible for Acts as well as his own gospels, accounting for 25% of the NT's writings, some of which is presumed to have been written while he may have been residing in a Roman jail.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in