Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

[Odë:hgöd]

.

what's the point of this thread?

The information you seek is located in post No.1
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: Why was Joseph left out of Jesus' conception? Why couldn't he have been Jesus' biological father?

A: There's a few theories going around out there we might consider.

1• Men are filthy, unsanitary beasts. It's unthinkable that God would permit them to contaminate, and thus violate, the womb that was to bear the Holy Son of God.

» Women's bodies are made of material taken from a man's body (Gen 2:21-23). Mr.Job nailed it when he remarked: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You see; women aren't from Venus after all; they're actually from Mars, same as men.


2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

» Well; whence did Eve get it? She was constructed of material taken from Adam's body; but he tasted the fruit after she was born, so it was too late for him to pass the fallen nature on to her via his genetics.


3• Joseph was left out of Jesus' conception in order to protect him from the curse upon king Jeconiahs' royal posterity (Jer 22:29-30, Matt 1:11).

» That's a very popular theory among quite a few Protestants. However; according to the language and grammar of the curse; its duration was limited to an era when the land of Israel was divided into two kingdoms-- Judah in the south and Samaria in the north --which came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. When Christ takes the reins, the land of Israel will be unified, i.e. it will no longer be Judah in the south and Samaria in the north.

And besides, Jeconiah's royal line and the curse were inseparable. Had the curse been established in perpetuity, then when Jesus was placed in Jeconiah's royal line via his adoption to Joseph, he would've inherited the curse right along with the line; virgin conceived or not would've made no difference.


4• Another theory, which to me seems the best interpretation, is that it was simply God's wishes that Jesus be not only Adam's progeny, but also His own, viz: Son of Man and Son of God, in accord with the angel's announcement. (Luke 1:32-35)
_

 

[tango]

.

The information you seek is located in post No.1
_

Seeing post #1 and subsequent posts it seems to be that the intention is a monologue of rambling and mostly disconnected observations with little intention to engage in discussion. It seems more like a blog post to me, hence the question.

 

[JRT]

During the ministry of Jesus he visited Nazareth and people said in effect "is this not Jesus the son of Mary?" To identify him through his mother is to question his parentage. My personal opinion is that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and that the story of the virgin birth cane as a result of Matthew using a Greek mistranslation of a verse in Isaiah. I also have no problem in accepting that Jesus had full siblings named James, Simon, Judas and Joseph plus sisters possibly named Miriam and Salome. It is also possible that Mary was raped possibly by a Roman soldier of Egyptian ancestry named Pantera.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

story of the virgin birth cane as a result of Matthew using a Greek mistranslation of a verse in Isaiah.

The lion's share of the details pertaining to Jesus' conception, and his birth, are
recorded in Luke.
_

 

[tango]

During the ministry of Jesus he visited Nazareth and people said in effect "is this not Jesus the son of Mary?" To identify him through his mother is to question his parentage. My personal opinion is that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and that the story of the virgin birth cane as a result of Matthew using a Greek mistranslation of a verse in Isaiah. I also have no problem in accepting that Jesus had full siblings named James, Simon, Judas and Joseph plus sisters possibly named Miriam and Salome. It is also possible that Mary was raped possibly by a Roman soldier of Egyptian ancestry named Pantera.

If Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, how do you account for the miracles he performed and his declaration "your sins are forgiven". If only God could forgive sins, and Jesus was not divine (on account of being the perfectly natural result of human parents getting together), then wouldn't Jesus have deserved to die for blasphemy?

I can see that Jesus could have been a regular man like any other but unusually anointed with the Holy Spirit, much like Peter, Elijah etc. Even death and resurrection don't inherently hinge on him being divine, as the two witnesses in the Revelation aren't claimed to be divine. I don't see how you can reconcile him forgiving sins if he wasn't God.

 

[JRT]

If Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary, how do you account for the miracles he performed and his declaration "your sins are forgiven". If only God could forgive sins, and Jesus was not divine (on account of being the perfectly natural result of human parents getting together), then wouldn't Jesus have deserved to die for blasphemy?

I can see that Jesus could have been a regular man like any other but unusually anointed with the Holy Spirit, much like Peter, Elijah etc. Even death and resurrection don't inherently hinge on him being divine, as the two witnesses in the Revelation aren't claimed to be divine. I don't see how you can reconcile him forgiving sins if he wasn't God.

As a progressive Christian I do not regard the Bible is as either inerrant or to be understood literally. but, like the Rabbi I quote below, I do take it seriously.

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously. To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

 

[tango]

OK, does that mean you essentially regard the story of Jonah as being more of a parable than a historical event?

I'm still not sure how you reconcile Jesus' words that "your sins are forgiven" as either the words of a man who was divine, or a blasphemous utterance by someone falsely claiming to be God. Do you believe that Jesus actually said that?

I think I'm following your distinction between taking the Bible seriously and taking it literally, I'm just not seeing how you can resolve some aspects here. If you are right and Jonah was a parable rather than a literal event we can still draw value from it - as you say it addresses how we are prone to try and get out of doing the things we don't want to do. But if Jesus was not who he said he was, if he didn't die and rise again, if he didn't die as a wholly innocent man who had done nothing deserving of death, doesn't the whole of the Christian faith crumble into nothing?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted. Watch for the revision.

● Mark 2:9-12 . .Which is easier, to say to the paralytic: "Your sins are forgiven" or
to say, "Arise, and take up your pallet and walk". But in order that you may know
that the Son of God has authority on earth to forgive sins-- He said to the paralytic:
I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home. And he rose and immediately
took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and
were glorifying God, saying: We have never seen anything like this.

No; Jesus didn't identify himself as the Son of God in that passage, rather, the Son
of Man; and there's something to it.

As a divine being Christ would inherently have authority to forgive sins on earth,
but not as a human being. In other words; the Son of Man's authority to forgive
sins on earth was conferred rather than intrinsic; just as his miraculous powers
were conferred rather than intrinsic. Much of the time Jesus passed himself off
as God's servant rather than His equal.

NOTE: Most Christians will readily attest to believing that Christ is fully God and
fully Man, but in reality they only believe he's fully God because they are unable to
tell the difference between the divine form of the Word in John 1:1 and the Word's
human form in John 1:14; so they typically end up misinterpreting passages like
Mark 2:9-12 to prove that Jesus is divine when what they should be doing is using it
to prove he's human.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting Jesus;
which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just as
naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till Adam tasted
the fruit that she obtained a sense of decency. Prior to that, had someone walked
up and said; "Hey, put some clothes on; you're indecent." she would've stared at
them as if they were a man gone mad.

Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, give her a
sense of decency by means of procreation, nor by means of his body parts that God
used to construct her.

Since Eve didn't obtain a sense of decency from the chemistry of the fruit, nor via
procreation by means of Adam's body parts; then whence?

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My money is
on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the
human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death the
moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
set in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both immediately set to work with the
fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she tasted the
forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that sin and death come into the world via a
man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the world via
a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb or out
of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm guessing that
for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)

In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological father, the
child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because
it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's biological mother. It's
obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent-- ergo: protecting baby Jesus
from the so-called fallen nature was just a simple matter of keeping the Devil's
paws off him.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Luke 2:22-24 . . And when the days of her purification according to the law of
Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the
Lord. (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb
shall be called holy to the Lord) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is
said in the law of the Lord: a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

The birds were for Jesus' mom (Lev 12:6-8). They were a "sin" offering; but I don't
think it would be wise to conclude from the wording of Leviticus that Jesus' mom
was a sinner because whether sinner or saint, God required it of Moses' people;
take for example Matt 13:13-15 where it's said:

"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried
to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? Jesus
replied: Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.
Then John consented."

John's baptism was "unto repentance" (Matt 3:11). Well; surely Jesus needed no
repentance; he was a saint in the extreme sense of the word: i.e. Jesus was 110%
sinless (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21, Heb 4:15, and 1Pet 2:22). However, it was God's
wishes that people in the Israel of that day submit to John's baptism regardless
whether they needed it-- not only because it was God's wishes, but by doing so
they publically acknowledged that repentance is a good thing.

In other words: Jesus' mom brought those birds; not because she was a sinner, but
primarily because it was the right thing for Jewish mothers to do.

Now, Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). His mom brought her
birds thirty-three days later (Lev 12:3-4). Along with the birds, she was supposed
to bring a sum of money to redeem her boy (Num 18:15-16).

The redemption money was a buy-back; in other words: its purpose wasn't to save
Jesus' soul from Hell; rather, the money was a ransom; so to speak. All the
firstborn sons in Israel were God's private property to do with as He pleased. In
other words: the boys were all born into slavery to God. The redemption money
bought them their freedom.

It really wasn't all that much; just five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary,
which is something like twenty gerahs per shekel (Ezek 45:12) roughly equivalent
to 10 English pennyweights or 1/2 troy ounce of silver. So five shekels would be
about equal to 2½ troy ounces. The price of silver as of Aug 05, 2020 was 27 US
dollars per troy. So 2½ ounces troy would total about 67.50 US dollars (57.35
Euro).

I don't know the equivalent of $67.50 back in Mary's day but in our day, silver
prices fluctuate due to the activity of investors; back in her day silver's value was
no doubt strictly regulated by the government and thus probably worth a whole lots
less than it is now.
_