The Alleged Sons of God

[buckskin scout]

There is no exception to Halacha or Jewish law. And names had nothing to do with tribal genealogy. How many "Josephs" were there in the Tribe of Judah? Many. And so, there were many "Josephs" in all other tribes. And just for one more time, to repeat here what I have said more than several times, the mother had nothing to do with passing down tribal genealogy.

Ben

Once again, you misunderstood what I said.

I am comparing genealogies of Matthew & Luke.

Specifically comparing Matthew chapter 1:6-7 (Solomon) to Luke 3:31 (Nathan).

Then comparing Matthew 1:16 (Jacob) to Luke 3:23 (Heli).

I am proposing Heli had no sons (see Numbers 27:1-11).

[WilliamW]

I think aliens planted Jesus inside of Mary.

Well, is'nt that "a given", even to christians." Neither god nor the holy spirit is human.

I don't know if this is a given at all. I think that such concepts - while increasingly popular as answers to who what and where the God of Israel derives from, are either not explored or simply denied as a possibility by those driven by faith in the belief systems they are taught.

There is mention in their holy scripts of 'gods' and 'sons of gods' having 'relationships' with human women. Other clues can be harvested from the Genesis story of Eden, and there does seem to be a 'family argument' over and above the human drama threading its way through in the background of the Judeo-Christian mythology.

Such concepts are 'terribly offensive' to those running on 'faith'...up there with the theory of Jesus being the product of rape.

In terms of the 'spirit' - as Mr. Walker proclaims, We are all "sons and daughters" of god. Some (including myself) understand that we are not the form we live through to experience this life. This seems to be what Jesus also proclaimed. So does it matter how our earthly vessel came to be, or is it more important how we use it and express ourselves through it?

*SNIP*

What Gnostics meant by "the doctrine of the aliens" is the ensemble of beliefs at the core of Judaic and Christian religion —and, by extension, Islam. All three of the "great world religions" derive from the revered Patriarch Abraham, thought to have lived around 1800 BCE. Because the history of the ancient Hebrews is taken as exemplary or symbolic of humanity as a whole, our species' "sacred history" begins with Abraham, but Gnostics considered that Abraham was a dupe, the psychological "vector" for the intrusion of the Archons. In effect, they trashed the notion of a “Divine Plan” overseen by Jehovah, and exposed Judeo-Christian salvationism (the Redeemer Complex) as an extraterrestrial religion, alien to the Earth and hostile to human potential.

http://www.metahisto...ialReligion.php

Edited May 23, 2012 by Karlis
deleted duplicate within post

[Ben Masada]

Once again, you misunderstood what I said.

I am comparing genealogies of Matthew & Luke.

Specifically comparing Matthew chapter 1:6-7 (Solomon) to Luke 3:31 (Nathan).

Then comparing Matthew 1:16 (Jacob) to Luke 3:23 (Heli).

I am proposing Heli had no sons (see Numbers 27:1-11).

Things don't go as Christians propose. Anyways, it does not matter if Mary was a Judahite. Jesus would not be one if he was not a biological son of Joseph's. I am going to keep trying until the drop of water makes a hole in the stone.

Ben

[WilliamW]

*SNIP*

What do we know for sure? Well we know it is ll still just based on the beliefs of ancient man.. and nothing is proved..or can ever be proved... That is what we know for sure...

It is apparent that those harboring beliefs systems which if they betray they are promised there will be unpleasant consequences...will be blind to such reason voicing itself from outside of those beliefs.

[buckskin scout]

Things don't go as Christians propose. Anyways, it does not matter if Mary was a Judahite. Jesus would not be one if he was not a biological son of Joseph's. I am going to keep trying until the drop of water makes a hole in the stone.

Ben

That is where you are incorrect, these are two separate geneaologies from the line of King David, one had at least one son (Joseph) and the other had at least one daughter (Mary) in the very last generation before the Messiah. Heli, a Judahite from the line of King David, had no sons.

[Ben Masada]

That is where you are incorrect, these are two separate geneaologies from the line of King David, one had at least one son (Joseph) and the other had at least one daughter (Mary) in the very last generation before the Messiah. Heli, a Judahite from the line of King David, had no sons.

Even if Mary had been a daughter of David, it would not make of Jesus a Jew from the Tribe of Judah.

Ben

[HollyDolly]

I have never heard of any children born of roman soldiers and native women by rape or otherwise called Sons of God.

Usually when the subject comes up,people are talking about the Book of Genesis.Genesis mentions that the Sons of God found the daughters of man pleasing and came down and mated with them.This then brings up the idea of aliens coming and mingling with humanity and causing genetic and other advances in the human race.

[Ben Masada]

I have never heard of any children born of roman soldiers and native women by rape or otherwise called Sons of God.

Usually when the subject comes up,people are talking about the Book of Genesis.Genesis mentions that the Sons of God found the daughters of man pleasing and came down and mated with them.This then brings up the idea of aliens coming and mingling with humanity and causing genetic and other advances in the human race.

And, of course, you take things like that in the Torah of all literature, as something literally believed by Jews. That fragment about the Nephilim is part of a Babylonian midrash brought over to Israel by the returnees from Babylon. It was about a tale of fallen spirits. IMO, Ezra enclosed it in Genesis 6:1-4 as a prelude to the catastrophe of the Flood, which became a simile to the fall of Mankind because of the sins of the people in general. Hence, the subject of the Flood follows suit with verse 5 of the same chapter.

Ben

[Erudite Celt]

THE ALLEGED SONS OF GOD

According to an ancient Roman policy, any able-bodied man from the conquered lands, who joined the Roman Army, would obtain authomatic citizenship. And if he was lucky enough to reach retirement age, he could choose where he would like to spend the rest of his life, and he would be granted a piece of land or farm as severance pay for his services to the Empire. Rome excluded.

When the Roman Legions arrived in the Middle East and conquered Sidon, a man called Pantera applied to join the Army and was accepted. Then, he was conscripted into the Roman Legion which got stationed in Syria. When he reached retirement age, he chose to return to Sidon and got his farm there to live for the rest of his life.

According to Josephus, in the year 4 BCE, there was a local revolt in Israel against Herod. It became known as the Revolt of the Pharisees. It was so strong that it was threatening to depose him. Herod appealed to Rome for help and Caesar gave orders to the Legion stationed in Syria to cross over into Israel and put down the revolt.

Thousands of Roman soldiers came over and the task was quite easy. They crucified a few thousand Jews, and decided to stay for some time to make sure the discontent were subdued. In the meantime, the Roman soldiers would rape young Jewish ladies, at their hearts content, almost daily.

As it was to expect, many children were born as a result of those rapes. Since the unfortunate mothers were not to blame for promiscuity, the religious authorities forbade to ostracize them or to consider their children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God." (Lecture on the "Historical Jesus" at Stanphord University)

Since Jesus was born just about that time, I am of the opinion that, it is much more prudent and less embarrassing to acknowledge that he was a biological son of Joseph's than to run the risk that Jesus might have been one of those sons of God.

Now, regarding Mark 7:24, I have here with me two different Bible translations. One is the Catholic New American version of the Bible, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would retire into a certain house and wanted no one to recognize him in there. The other translation is the King James version, wherefrom, I read that when Jesus went to Sidon, he would enter into a certain house and would have no man know it.

Although I am not assuming anything, everyone of us has all the right in the world to speculate about such a shouting evidence, and to think that there was something fishy going on for Jesus to insist on secrecy about his being in Sidon or in that certain house. At that time Joseph had been long dead. Could it be that jesus knew about his real origins and was interacting with his real father? Everything is possible, but if you ask me, I am still in favor that he was rather a biological son of Joseph's.

What's your reaction to all the above?

Ben:

If this happened in 4BC* as you say then Jesus would have been approaching his thirties. This I think you will agree would make his birth even more miraculous!

*(I'll stick with BC thanks. Who was this Common Era anyway, never heard of him?)

[Ben Masada]

If this happened in 4BC* as you say then Jesus would have been approaching his thirties. This I think you will agree would make his birth even more miraculous!

*(I'll stick with BC thanks. Who was this Common Era anyway, never heard of him?)

If I were to take you word for it, you would be contradicting the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew. Take a look at Mat. 2:19-23. Immediately after Herod's death, an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and told him that Herod had died, and that he should take the baby back to Israel. Then if you read Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," he says that Herod died in the year 4 BCE. Surprised?

Ben

Edited June 1, 2012 by Ben Masada

[buckskin scout]

Even if Mary had been a daughter of David, it would not make of Jesus a Jew from the Tribe of Judah.

Ben

Of course Jesus is, He was the legal son of Joseph and child of Mary.

[Ben Masada]

Of course Jesus is, He was the legal son of Joseph and child of Mary.

Yes, a legal son; but if he was adopted and not a biological son of Joseph, he could not be of the Tribe of Judah.

Ben

[buckskin scout]

Yes, a legal son; but if he was adopted and not a biological son of Joseph, he could not be of the Tribe of Judah.

Ben

Mary was from the bloodline of Judah, and additionally, Joseph was Jesus's legal father just not his biological father. Was the virgin birth common knowledge where Jesus was raised and while He lived here during His ministry? Or was Joseph commonly accepted as the biological father?

Later anti-Christian propaganda would arise stating Jesus is a child of sin and that Mary was a prostitute, etc. But that is all it is, heretical propaganda.

[Erudite Celt]

If I were to take you word for it, you would be contradicting the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew. Take a look at Mat. 2:19-23. Immediately after Herod's death, an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and told him that Herod had died, and that he should take the baby back to Israel. Then if you read Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," he says that Herod died in the year 4 BCE. Surprised?

Ben

I am surprised that you have usurped the Aramaic word Child for the Greek word Baby! You rather unbelievably quote Josephus from Book 8 of the Testimonium.A book which you have publicly labelled under a heading as THE BOOK THAT JOSEPHUS DID NOT WRITE!!! I am well aware that book 8 has been modified to suit the political ends of the early Catholic church and as such I am loath to use it as a reliable source. So am I to understand that you no longer believe the book to be a pure invention or are you prepared to abandon your scruples and quote sources to meet your own anti-Christian (Antichrist) ends?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Erudite Celt

[Ben Masada]

Mary was from the bloodline of Judah, and additionally, Joseph was Jesus's legal father just not his biological father. Was the virgin birth common knowledge where Jesus was raised and while He lived here during His ministry? Or was Joseph commonly accepted as the biological father?

Later anti-Christian propaganda would arise stating Jesus is a child of sin and that Mary was a prostitute, etc. But that is all it is, heretical propaganda.

And do you know who are the ones responsible for that "heretical propaganda" idea? The Christians themselves, who deny that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's. Since Jesus was a Jewish man, whose Faith was Judaism, there is no other way to explain his origin but by means of the man Panthera. Why don't you google about this Panthera? You will find out that the idea did not originate in my mind.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

I am surprised that you have usurped the Aramaic word Child for the Greek word Baby! You rather unbelievably quote Josephus from Book 8 of the Testimonium.A book which you have publicly labelled under a heading as THE BOOK THAT JOSEPHUS DID NOT WRITE!!! I am well aware that book 8 has been modified to suit the political ends of the early Catholic church and as such I am loath to use it as a reliable source. So am I to understand that you no longer believe the book to be a pure invention or are you prepared to abandon your scruples and quote sources to meet your own anti-Christian (Antichrist) ends?

Antichrist. That's the first time I am referred to as antichrist. I'll take the chance to explain to you what antichrist really means. "Christ" comes from the Greek word for anointed or Messiah, which in Hebrew means also "anointed" or Mashiach. If you read Habakkuk 3:13 it says that the Lord comes out to save His People His anointed one. Within that context, the Jewish People is the anointed one of the Lord; aka, the Messiah. Now, what is the right definition for the word "antichrist?" That's anyone who stands against the anointed one of the Lord. Any one who stands against Israel.

Ben

Edited June 2, 2012 by Ben Masada

[buckskin scout]

Antichrist. That's the first time I am referred to as antichrist. I'll take the chance to explain to you what antichrist really means. "Christ" comes from the Greek word for anointed or Messiah, which in Hebrew means also "anointed" or Mashiach. If you read Habakkuk 3:13 it says that the Lord comes out to save His People His anointed one. Within that context, the Jewish People is the anointed one of the Lord; aka, the Messiah. Now, what is the right definition for the word "antichrist?" That's anyone who stands against the anointed one of the Lord. Any one who stands against Israel.

Ben

Which would include the Lord Himself?

[Erudite Celt]

Hey Bella, there is no need to persuade me that Jesus was a son of Mary with Joseph. That's exactly what I have chosen to believe in. The problem is based on the Christian stiff necked attitude to deny that Jesus was NOT a biological son of Joseph's. That's why they are the ones, not us, to blame for the suspiction that Jesus could have been the result of a Roman rape.

Ben

It,s not based on stiff necked Christian attitudes! Isaiah clearly gave the prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Why would anyone who calls himself a believer choose to ignore the word of Isaiah?

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version[NIV])

[deerslayer]

Ben,

I have been told that "the sons of God" written about in Genesis refer to fallen angels (demons) whom were able to take on bodies and have human women as wives. The offspring of this unholy union were called nephilims and tended to be giants (Goliath etc.)

Also, the reason for the flood was because only Noah and his family were free from nephilim genes. Most Christians and Jews are not aware of this because the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever language Genesis was written in has been mistranslated to indicate Noah was the only good man left. Some of this demon - human women contact also occured after the flood. This is interesting to research.

[Ben Masada]

Which would include the Lord Himself?

Yes, which includes Jesus, if this is what you mean. As far as Lord is concerned, he himself, in answer to a question about the greatest of the commandments, he declared that Adonai is absolutely One and the only Lord. That's in Mark 12:29 in answer to Deuteronomy 6:4.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

It,s not based on stiff necked Christian attitudes! Isaiah clearly gave the prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Why would anyone who calls himself a believer choose to ignore the word of Isaiah?

Isaiah 7:14

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (New International Version[NIV])

Erudite, let us try to find Jesus in Isaiah 7:14, will ya?

Isaiah 7:14 - "The virgin shall be with a child and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel." Now, let us see if the virgin was Mary and the child was Jesus, and how about this Immanuel?

Amos 5:2 - "She is fallen, to rise no more, the virgin Israel." From here, we already know that the virgin was not Mary but Israel that fell before the Assyrians. Let us continue.

Isaiah 7:15 - "The child shall be living on butter and honey." Now, let us see what reference the child here is pointing to as living on butter and honey. Proceed.

Isaiah 7:22 - "Butter and honey shall be the food of all who remain in the Land." Who remained in the whole Land when Israel was transferred to Assyria? Judah, right? Right. History is evidence of the fact stated in Isaiah 7:22. But let us proceed to strengthen the evidences, although the child has already been identified with Judah.

Isaiah 8:8 - "The Assyrians shall pass into Judah, and spread its wings the full width of your land, Immanuel." Now, we are sure from Prophet Isaiah that when he talks about Immanuel, he means Judah; and that the virgin was Israel, and the child was Judah. As you can see, there is nothing about Jesus in Isaiah 7:14. Only by faith which sees things in empty spaces.

Ben

Edited June 8, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

Ben,

I have been told that "the sons of God" written about in Genesis refer to fallen angels (demons) whom were able to take on bodies and have human women as wives. The offspring of this unholy union were called nephilims and tended to be giants (Goliath etc.)

Also, the reason for the flood was because only Noah and his family were free from nephilim genes. Most Christians and Jews are not aware of this because the original Hebrew or Greek or whatever language Genesis was written in has been mistranslated to indicate Noah was the only good man left. Some of this demon - human women contact also occured after the flood. This is interesting to research.

I have researched about this text. I found out that the Nephillim is part of a fragment from Babylonian myth of fallen evils angels in the desert. By some reason, Ezra found convenient to include this fragment just prior to the Flood to enhance the corruption of the people of that time. And this happened when he was still in Babylon where he completed the Tanach.

Ben

Edited June 8, 2012 by Ben Masada

[Vatic]

I have researched about this text. I found out that the Nephillim is part of a fragment from Babylonian myth of fallen evils angels in the desert. By some reason, Ezra found convenient to include this fragment just prior to the Flood to enhance the corruption of the people of that time. And this happened when he was still in Babylon where he completed the Tanach.

Ben

You have got to be kidding. The Nephilim are merely the descendents of the fallen angels. Haven't you even read the book of Enoch? it goes into great detail about the history of the world prior to the flood. It gives great detail concerning the fallen angels and how they were involved with Eden. It even gives the name of the fallen angel which tempted Eve witht he fruit of the tree of knowledge. Eden traditions are HEBREW creation accounts. Ezra was drawing upon Hebrew Enochian traditions when he included the mention of certain things in Genesis. Your babylonian "fragment" stuff is pure bombast and buncombe.

[lozaleibou]

Why is a late 2nd Century writing (appearing only in history because of a 3rd Century Christian author quoting him) seen by you as reliable while other 1st Century texts are ignored as forgeries?

Excellent question!!!!!

[Ben Masada]

You have got to be kidding. The Nephilim are merely the descendents of the fallen angels. Haven't you even read the book of Enoch? it goes into great detail about the history of the world prior to the flood. It gives great detail concerning the fallen angels and how they were involved with Eden. It even gives the name of the fallen angel which tempted Eve witht he fruit of the tree of knowledge. Eden traditions are HEBREW creation accounts. Ezra was drawing upon Hebrew Enochian traditions when he included the mention of certain things in Genesis. Your babylonian "fragment" stuff is pure bombast and buncombe.

You must be a member of the literal interpretation club. Listen Vatic, the whole Genesis account of Creation is nothing other than a huge allegory as the Jewish contribution for the creation of man among all the cultures of the world. Besides, this so-called book of Enoch is not part of the Jewish Canon of the Tanach. Therefore, without significant meaning as the Jewish Scriptures are concerned. We are already having a hard time to harmonize what is extant, and you are bringing more legends. You are not making it any easier that way.

Ben