«Am I my Brother's Keeper?»

«If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.» [ESV] Deuteronomy 25:5

«And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.»

This is a central mitzwah, or rather three central mitzvot, in Judaism and serves to explain a few things that the Church has misunderstood, and sadly, still today many preachers would preach that the sin of Onan was the action of spilling his semen on the ground that was the sin, with the morale being that it's a sin to masturbate. However, the sin of Onan was not to spill his semen, his sin was the direct and central effect of his spillings, that he «blotted out [his brother's name] of Israel».

This is also why Cain said to God «Am I my brother's keeper» after having killed his brother, and why Seth's firstborn son, Enosh, and the following generations listed, are really the descendants of Abel. This is also why later, Jacob is listed as the son of Isaac, even though Abraham killed Isaac before Isaac had any children, or so the story goes anyway. The part when God relents and Isaac's life is spared was added long after the Assyrians destroyed Israel (the Northern Kingdom) in 722 BC and perhaps even the Babylonian exile when Judah or the Southern Kingdom was destroyed— and you could probably see it as a reflection of the rise of Hellenism. The "original" story about Abraham and Isaac ended with Abraham killing his firstborn son with Sarah, Isaac.

This mitzwah is also the reason why even if Jesus died unmarried and without heirs, Jude or one of his other brothers would give him a descendant, meaning that there are in any circumstance— a bloodline of Jesus of Nazareth, our King of the Renaissance.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

However, the sin of Onan was not to spill his semen, his sin was the direct and central effect of his spillings, that he «blotted out [his brother's name] of Israel».

Quite so.
"His name not being blotted out in Israel" was the nearest they got at the time to an understanding of "continuing life", so Onan's refusal to co-operate amounted to a kind of murder.

The "original" story about Abraham and Isaac ended with Abraham killing his firstborn son with Sarah, Isaac.

Can you provide an external source for this?

This mitzwah is also the reason why even if Jesus died unmarried and without heirs, Jude or one of his other brothers would give him a descendant, meaning that there are in any circumstance— a bloodline of Jesus of Nazareth, our King of the Renaissance.

According to your reference; Jesus needed to be married in order for any of his brothers to give him a descendant. If Jesus died unmarried his brothers are free of any responsibility.

originally posted by: Abednego

The "original" story about Abraham and Isaac ended with Abraham killing his firstborn son with Sarah, Isaac.

Can you provide an external source for this?

I suggest you start with a search for the Documentary Hypothesis and a book by Richard E. Friedman simply called the Bible with Sources Revealed (2003) ISBN 978-0-06-073065-9 for quick reference. «The Documentary Hypothesis «continues to be outlined in introductory textbooks on biblical studies.» to quote from the books introduction. The book contains a brief, but good survey of the seven arguments of the hypothesis, the Linguistic, Terminology, Consistency, Continuity, Referencing/Connectedness, Relationship among the sources and finally Convergence-- as well as the whole Torah formatted in different text styles for easy access. A very good book I've used a lot. It's very well done and the Hypothesis stands to this day and is taught as reliable and relevant at any university or faculty, and sound and firm to any scientific approach.

This mitzwah is also the reason why even if Jesus died unmarried and without heirs, Jude or one of his other brothers would give him a descendant, meaning that there are in any circumstance— a bloodline of Jesus of Nazareth, our King of the Renaissance.

According to your reference; Jesus needed to be married in order for any of his brothers to give him a descendant. If Jesus died unmarried his brothers are free of any responsibility.

No that's according to your theological approach. The law speaks for itself. If you want to find some way that you can manage to disprove Jesus' marital status even if he had a house, was a rabbi with disciples, I suggest you go to a rabbi, and ask him how you can be a rabbi without fulfilling the first mitsvah, which in all essence is «Get married and make babies». You Christians have no idea about the terrible sins you repeat by claiming the Lord was unmarried and generally impossible. You have no idea.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I believe the understanding involved, is that everyone deserves to be remembered, and that his name should live on in the name of his descendant: Like in the name Elymas "Magus" Bar-Jesus which means Eli "the Magician" Son of Jesus (see Acts 13 for the whole story and compare with Matthew 27:46). The collective memory of the Hebrew people is nothing short of amazing. You can't squeeze Jews out of Israel (pun unintended)...

ETA: And also there is the important question of inheritance. In the case of Jesus: All of Caesar's riches, all of Ptolemaios' riches, and all of David's riches. Even the devil knew that. But not the Christians. Noooo. To them he was just some poor unmarried schmock who can't possibly have lived or done any of the things he should have done, and even his conception was even more immaculate than Kim il Sung's.

I suggest you start with a search for the Documentary Hypothesis and a book by Richard E. Friedman simply called the Bible with Sources Revealed (2003) ISBN 978-0-06-073065-9 for quick reference. «The Documentary Hypothesis «continues to be outlined in introductory textbooks on biblical studies.» to quote from the books introduction. The book contains a brief, but good survey of the seven arguments of the hypothesis, the Linguistic, Terminology, Consistency, Continuity, Referencing/Connectedness, Relationship among the sources and finally Convergence-- as well as the whole Torah formatted in different text styles for easy access. A very good book I've used a lot. It's very well done and the Hypothesis stands to this day and is taught as reliable and relevant at any university or faculty, and sound and firm to any scientific approach.

Thanks for the reference. I appreciate that.

No that's according to your theological approach. The law speaks for itself. If you want to find some way that you can manage to disprove Jesus' marital status even if he had a house, was a rabbi with disciples, I suggest you go to a rabbi, and ask him how you can be a rabbi without fulfilling the first mitsvah, which in all essence is «Get married and make babies». You Christians have no idea about the terrible sins you repeat by claiming the Lord was unmarried and generally impossible. You have no idea.

I don't want to disprove Jesus status. As a matter of fact I don't really mind if he was married or not (I'm not your average Christian).
I was trying for you to clarify.

a reply to: Abednego

both ideas of Jesus are appealing, I claim divergence on this debate of Jesus being married or not.

afterall his adherents are to ask "what would Jesus do?"

originally posted by: AinElohim
a reply to: Abednego

both ideas of Jesus are appealing, I claim divergence on this debate of Jesus being married or not.

afterall his adherents are to ask "what would Jesus do?"

For me Jesus came to Earth to live like a human in order for him to advocate for us in front of God. So that implies that he got married. He needed to be exposed to all sort of feelings. Remember we only know the last years of his life (according to bible).

What happened in the previous years?

originally posted by: Abednego
I don't want to disprove Jesus status. As a matter of fact I don't really mind if he was married or not (I'm not your average Christian).
I was trying for you to clarify.

Yes, sorry. Please pardon my prejudice.

a reply to: AinElohim

How many good priests, nuns and monks have the Catholics cut off by their insane celibacy doctrines? God must tell. For all I know it's high magic and the Church is actually Satan the Dragon himself working such that these guys would be demonised and bred out. And occasionally, that pisses me off.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Also,

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” [ESV] Genesis 4:25

To replace. And the word for appoint is the same as the name, Seth. Also in English: To set in motion. The Sun sets.

am I my brothers keeper?

yes... I AM

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: AinElohim

How many good priests, nuns and monks have the Catholics cut off by their insane celibacy doctrines? God must tell. For all I know it's high magic and the Church is actually Satan the Dragon himself working such that these guys would be demonised and bred out. And occasionally, that pisses me off.

I really don't have a problem with Catholics, all the past forgiven...

I respect their establishment and history, they've been through a lot.

It is just how things progress through time, civilization itself matures evolutionary fashion.

I perceive the adherents as idolaters... and the Pope a necessary evil.

---

my unusual surname appears in their encyclopedia... they have provided me with a link to history and the past.


it was the Orthodox wing in the State which my name landed in America that held all marriage records.

www.antiochian.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

*the original original original reformers and definitive Justice... if one of these Churches pops up in your neighborhood, take heed.

a reply to: AinElohim

I know it's not much compared to your's— but this one here,



is what the goldtops like to squeeze down to the ears of the kings of Jesus' lineage.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

oh that's not my crown I posted, just the dust from which my bones originated.

a reply to: AinElohim

This one here is my idea of crown, Saint Stephen:



Στέφανος "Stephanos" is Greek and means Crown. St. Stephen was the first Christian martyr and it was Saul Paulus called Paul who had our Stephanos killed.

Pic from Wikipedia, Saint Stephen by Carlo Crivelli (circa 1435–circa 1495).

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

WOW! unbelievable man!

that was a heck of a read...

thx

a reply to: AinElohim

Picture Stephanos gazing upon the Northern sky at dawn. In the astrology that at the time of Christ was still pretty young, Draco is seen prominently at the aphex of Heaven. Above the Dragon's head sits Herakles with a chisel and a hammer ready to beat the dragon out of Heaven. Let's pretend he did, or that the Dragon fled or beat Hercules' arse, anyway, for some reason, Draco would no longer be found in Heaven, just a dark void full of stars. Now, go somewhere dark far North on the darkest night of the year and look up to where Draco used to be chained. You see the outline of a person facing us, sitting on a throne. And by this character's Right Arm (Draco) stands Ursa Major "the Great Bear". I suspect Ursa Major is the 'Son of Man' in question with St. Stephen. I doubt he was hallucinating. He was showing us the night sky and he deciphered some of its mysteries to us.