posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 05:36 PM
“Parthenogenesis” (virgin birth) may work in female turkeys in a Lab, but it does not work with female humans outside of glass testubes in the 1st
century AD---no matter how “over-willing Christians are to accept the miraculous” (Josephus, Testimonium Flavium)…
I suspect we are dealing here with a much more MUNDANE issue: that of illicit birth (or even a pre-mature birth) possibly as the result of RAPE—---and
the Midrashic covering up of something “embarrassing” for the church…
There are some hidden clues (previously discussed on other threads) buried deep within the text of the NT that all was not quite so cozy with the
family of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (“Jeeeeezzzuzzz”) : “Woman! What have I to do with thee ?” = what a way to talk to your mother at a Wedding! (John
One of these “embarrassing clues” occurs in the Gospel of John (again!) with “Iesous” having a confrontation with some group (Saduccees or Pharisees?,
it is not specified but they seem to be making shall we say hints about “Iesous” parentage somewhere in here: see John 8:39-42)
The conversation is clearly not a literal event, but a combination of theological discussion heavily edited and made into a literary poem of sorts,
but buried deep within the gist of the conversation is the odd phrase:
“WE were not born of Fornication: WE (emphatic in Greel HUMEIS) have one father !.” to which someone wrote in the margin (apparently) “even God” which
is by the way quite out of the context of the Greek---since the discussion was about the descendants of Abraham, not God.
The Johanine context suggests a definite sneer is being made here, even behind all of the 4th Gospels smooth and symbolic Greek words…..
Certainly this WAS the LATER charge (i.e. being a Mamzer) of the middle 1st Century Judaean establishment at odds with the Daviddic Messianists (the
sons of Zadok in the Temple were dancing very gently with Rome to stay in power) who found every shred of evidence available to deride whom they
considered “the false prophet whom the Most High put to death by having him hung on a cross for leading Israel astray…and for sorcery”.
The question of the day is:
Were the Pharasim (or whatever group is meant) casting aspersions about Iesous’ parentage PERSONALLY
(i.e. meaning: YOU were born of Fornication, a Mamzer---and do you DARE teach US?) or were they merely saying something racially i.e. more general
e.g. “You people up North in Galilee are nothing but a bunch of mixed breed bastards---at least WE (emphatic) have a genetic link to Abraham, but
only God knows where YOU people up north come from---you bunch of mixed half breed spawn of Greeks and Sammaritans!!” etc.
Certainly, even if his “accusers” were hurling a specifically “personal” insult at “Jesus”, Jesus” himself hurls back a more or less class-oriented
“collective insult” at the priesthood in general, claiming that the lot of them were “sons of your father the Devil…”
But what are we to make of these slanderous accusations?
Was the man truly illegitimate as the Talmud would later suggest, the offspring of a young muscle-bound Roman Soldier named Joseph Ben Pantera, who
was posted mainly in nearby Syria according to a recent inscription?
(Or is the Talmud actually speaking of another “Yeshu”, since there were many “false” Messiah’s running around at the time in the 1st century
organizing armed seditionist revolts against Rome…usually ending up on a gibbet eventually)
Another curious fact that some have put forward---if the possibility that “Iesous” may have been illegitimate is assumed for a moment---is that
throughout the gospel narratives, he seemed rather too “fixated” on a “Father Figure” image---and Freud was also fond of pointing this out, since
according to Freud’s logic, “Jesus may have had no biological father” to call his own and so used the word ABBA to pray (lit. “Daddy!”) as a
The more you dig into the gospels, the worse it gets….
In “Matthew's” warped and contrary version of the lineage of the Messiah (Christ) “Iesous” was listed as having been descended from a list of several
groups of “14” ancestors, most of them male---but---oddly--with 5 odd females mentioned along with the men—very strange in a 1st century Jewish
geneaology which were always PATRILINEAL (names listed through the fathers’ line not the mothers’)…
The issue is highly curious to some who have studied this text closely, because (if you read the Greek text very carefully) ALL FIVE OF THE WOMEN
MENTIONED IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL HAVE ISSUES OF SEXUAL PROMISCUITY CONNECTED WITH THEM …..!
The five women included were: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bath-sheba, and Mary.
l. Tamar: Genesis 38:6-30
Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah. A childless widow, she was given to her brother-in-law after her husband's death. Such a union was later
called a Leverite marriage (Deut 25:5-6).
Tamar's brother-in-law refused to have proper intercourse with her and for this “Elohim killed him”. Judah would not give Tamar to any of his other
sons soTamar disguised herself as a harlot and seduced Judah, became pregnant with his son Perez.
Rachab: Joshua 2:1-24
Rahab (whom Matthew spells RACHAB for some reason) was a “prostitute” who lived in Jericho. She hid the spies of Joshua. Because of this, the
Israelites spared her life when they conquered Jericho. She later became the wife of Salmon, and the mother of Boaz.
Rahab's faith, despite her occupation as a professional whore, was later commended by the writer of Heb 11:30-31.
Ruth: Ruth 1:1-4:22
Ruth was a gentile Moabitess, an arch-enemy of Israel (“no Moabite shall ever enter into the Congregation of Israel, not even beyond the 10th
generation, ever! . but had married a Judaean named Mahlon. .
Her mother-in-law, Naomi, lived in Moab, and the language used to describe their relationship bordered on what we would call “Lesbian”.
Ruth, the Moabitess, was later married to Boaz, one of Naomi's relatives.
The (Gentile) Moabetess Ruth later became the mother of Obed, the grandfather of David.
Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11:1-27
Bathsheba was the Jebusite Princess Bath-Shebiti (“Daughter of the 7 gods of Jebus”) and wife of Uriah the Hittite (the Jebusites and Hititites were
blood related and inter-married) , a soldier in the professional standing Hittite (i.e. foreign) army of David, who allegedly seduced her on a
When David discovered Bathsheba was pregnant, sent Uriah back into battle, with orders that Uriah should be slain, so that David could marry Bathsheba
who later became the mother of Solomon.
The fifth and last in the long line of promiscuous Females in the Genealogy is Mary, the very pregnant bride to be of Joseph, and mother of said
One could make a case that even though there was sexual misconduct going on in all of these cases, eventually this women gave birth to heroes or
famous men in some form, so it seems to be the point of the writer to suggest that even if Mary was pregnant, there is ample history to show that
“God’s Plan of Salvation” can still be worked out…in other words, “he works in mysterious ways, and not to judge by appearances...”
As Professor C.K. Barrett used to ask us poor divinity students: “What exactly is the writer of Matthew trying to tell us?”
This also begs the Question:
If “Jesus” has no earthly father why do BOTH his genealogies trace their bloodlines through Joseph? Arguments in favour of “legal” genealogy fall on
their face when the prophecies about the Messiah BEING OF THE SEED OF DAVID do not make any mention of legalisms.
The Question is: Did the Church make up the VIRGIN BIRTH story out of Isaiah 7:14 in order to cover up some of these inconsistencies and make a
"physical negative" into a "spiritual positive" for the man they proclaimed as Messiah, such as they did with the way he died?
At any rate, the Hebrew word ALMAH in Isaiah 7:14 does NOT mean VIRGIN anyway:
(“Behold THAT WOMAN shall BECOME PREGNANT AND BEAR A SON AND YOU SHALL CALL HIS NAME “EL IS ON OUR SIDE” (Emmanuel) = which is a WAR CHANT.
It was a POETIC way of saying “in 9 months time, your enemies will be defeated..”
ALMAH merely means “a young woman of marriageable age.” Bethulah means “virgo intacta”, i.e. a virgin.
It was the Greek translation (the LXX Septuaginta) which chose the word PARTHENOS (“virgin” or “young girl”) which could be construed either way—it
actually means young lady or young girl in Greek.
But the phrase in Isaiah 7:14 was NOT messianic originally. It only grew that way over time (read the Dead Sea Scrolls for a taste of what they did
with certain passages in the Hebrew Bible!)
Why did both Matthew and Luke go to such obscene lengths to twist the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 into something more like the birth of a pagan god like
Hercules or even Alexander the Great who was also thought to have been descended from the gods, and “partheno-theodikos” i.e. “a god born of a
Here's something more to think about ref: those pesky Matthean and Lukan Genealogies that "Don’t Quite Match Each Other…"
As most thinking “Christians” must know by now, the two “genealogies” of “Iesous” in the gospels of Matthew and Luke SIMPLY DO NOT MATCH each other
See Matthew 1:1-18 and Luke chapter 3:1-22
The author of Luke (whoever he was) wants to trace the ancestry of “Iesous” back to “Adam” (apparently to make him more Universal for his Gentile
Audience) and names his paternal grandfather as Heli (or Eli).
Matthew’s version is only interested in tracing his “ancestry” in convoluted groups of 14 (the gemmatrial numerological code for the Messiah derived
from the name in Hebrew for DVD or David = Daled = 4, Vav = 6, Daled = 4).
Moreover in order to make all those tidy little near groups of 14, the writer of “Matthew” has to eliminate at least four kings from his list
(Matthew’s king lists lacks a King sitting on the Throne of Israel between BC 680 and BC 630), namely Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, the
last was cursed never to have any physical descendants to sit upon the throne of David: (see Jeremiah 36:30) !!
In the Matthean version, the paternal grandfather of “Iesous who is called Christos” is Yakkov (Jacob).
So which is it, is Joseph’s father Heli or Yakkov? And who cares anyway since “Iesous” was not even supposed to be related to him by blood anyway?
And no, these two contradictory genealogies are not one for Mary and one for Joseph either because any tracing back to David by bloodline would have
to go through the male lineages.
Moreover to make all those tidy little near groups of 14, the writer of “Matthew” has to eliminate at least four kings from his list (Matthew’s king
lists lacks a King sitting on the Throne of Israel between BC 680 and BC 630), namely Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, the last was cursed
never to have any physical descendants to sit upon the throne of David: (see Jeremiah 36:30)
So rather than turn to “Parthenogenesis” (miracle birth by a “Virgin”), one should rather perhaps see a possible rape-mamzer scenario where the 2nd
century church, still smarting from Rabinnic accusations of Mamzerhood (among other things) of their hero “iesous” would have had to turn desperately
to Old Testament verses to make up a MIDRASH on a VIRGIN BIRTH topic (ostensibly out of Isaiah 7:14) in order to cover up some of these
inconsistencies, and somehow turn their Mamzer-Rabbi into a virgin birthed god the pagans could revere…and turn Mary into a goddess at the same time
(cf: her later title as : Theodikos: “god-bearing”)---making the pair of them doubly attractive to the idol worshipping goyim…..