Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Alleged Sons of God


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#46    Marks_Thoughts

Marks_Thoughts

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 120 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2011

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:38 AM

Putting aside all of the supernatural elements of christianity I tend to favor the birth as natural, and Joseph as the likely father. That said, there is much about the life of Jesus that is not well explained. He was a Jew, but spent at least some of his life in Egypt, which undoubtedly exposed him to the religious beliefs there. What I'm saying is that if Jesus actually existed he had a lot of conflicting philosophies that impacted his life.
I would even not be all that surprised if he somehow survived the cross (recall he was only up there for a few hours) and was able to live for some years following; although, he would likely have been quite crippled from the nails and the beatings. This could account for why he was not always well recognized. The scars from the crown of thorns, the crippling nails in the heels and wrists, and the Roman whip would have left unmistakable marks. Heck, if anyone survived such treatment it would be a miracle all of its own, especially at that time in our level of known medicine.
What interests me more than anything is the geneology associated with him. Who was he, really? Was he, in fact, a valid claimant to the throne? This would have been a real and present danger to many at that time.


#47    EDinWAState

EDinWAState

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:45 AM

I did not know that the children born to the women raped by the Roman Solders were called "The Sons of God." Is that somewhat akin to an "Act of God?"
That seems to confuse the reference in Genesis that speaks of the "Sons of God" saw that the women of man were beautiful and took them as wives each to his own choosing (paraphrased).
If Jesus was a son of god, in the sense of being an offspring of lustful rape, then, that term seems accurate. On the other hand,  if Jesus is the Son of God, how can the chroniclers of the Bible claim two different ancestral lines of heritage starting with a very mortal Joseph and leading back to the mortal house of David?
Interesting... "Veerry Interestink."


#48    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:44 PM

View PostJ. K., on 27 April 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

How do you decide which parts are legitimate and which parts are not?  What are your criteria?

First, and foremost, the context. If I cannot be proved wrong, there is contradiction in the text. Contradiction is not good for the creditation of a book people claim to be Divinely inspired.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 02 May 2012 - 09:45 PM.


#49    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:47 PM

View PostBeckys_Mom, on 27 April 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

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  lol ....

I just found  it all interesting  though...

And that includes the myths and theories of Science too.
Ben


#50    Copen

Copen

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:10 AM

If Jesus was not overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary conceived according to the OT prophecy; but was the result of a seed from Joseph or a rapist then He was a mere man and not God. Heavenly entities can not procreate, therefore, they did impregnant Mary.

According to Romans 8:14, eternally saved children of God who have mortified the deeds of the flesh and are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. There are many scriptures that affirm that. Therefore, the sons of God are not alien beings who married daughters of men. Married them. That means they stuck around. Doesn't sound like alien mythological traits.

Descendants of Adam were sons of God who married Gentile women. Also, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit before Mary and Joseph were legally married, then Jesus was a b******. A b****** could not be a priest. He could not even enter into the tabernacle or temple for worship. He also would not have been God. As a mere man, His blood would not be worthy to pay a substitute for anyone else's sins. After He ascended into heaven He became our High Priest.


#51    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:18 PM

View PostJ. K., on 26 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

I assume by "hiding what really happened" you refer to their journey to Egypt?  Keep in mind that at that time in the history of the Jews, God had not moved overtly for several hundred years.  If Mary had revealed what the angel had told her, few would have believed her.

We would believe that she had gone crazy. Why? Because that's Judaism, for heaven's sake! There is no such a thing as Greek Mythology in Judaism. Christianity must come to the account that this either did not happen or that Jesus was rather a Greek personage and not Jewish.
Ben


#52    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:31 PM

View PostKarlis, on 28 April 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:


Ben, concerning "God's Kingdom on Earth": what are your thoughts about messianic prophecies in Zechariah? For instance:
Zec 14:4  And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives ...
Zec 14:9  And the LORD shall be king over all the earth


Also your thoughts about NT Scriptures such as:


Mat 20:21  ... Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Mat 20:23  And he saith unto them, ... to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

(Also in Mark 10:37-40)


Mar 14:25  Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.


Mat 19:27  Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

Mat 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

(Also Luke 22:29-30)

Thanks,
Karlis


Karlis, regarding the quotes from Zechariah 14:4,9, to stand that day upon the Mount of Olives, is a reference to the return of the Jewish People from exile in Babylon, when in the Land of Israel, symbolized here by the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the Government of God's People would be restored. It means that the Lord shall be King over all the earth in the sense that by mean of Israel, the Lord's holiness would be manifested in the sight of the nations.

For the quotations from the NT, they depict Hellenistic doctrines that have nothing to do with the Tanach but with Christian preconceived notions.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 04 May 2012 - 08:33 PM.


#53    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:45 PM

View PostEDinWAState, on 30 April 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

I did not know that the children born to the women raped by the Roman Solders were called "The Sons of God." Is that somewhat akin to an "Act of God?"
That seems to confuse the reference in Genesis that speaks of the "Sons of God" saw that the women of man were beautiful and took them as wives each to his own choosing (paraphrased).
If Jesus was a son of god, in the sense of being an offspring of lustful rape, then, that term seems accurate. On the other hand,  if Jesus is the Son of God, how can the chroniclers of the Bible claim two different ancestral lines of heritage starting with a very mortal Joseph and leading back to the mortal house of David?
Interesting... "Veerry Interestink."

The appellation of "sons of God" on the children born at that time as a result of the numerous rapes caused by Roman soldiers was an application of the concept of pichuach nephesh to avoid an injustice of the effects of being ba$tards not only on the innocent children but also on the women who had rather been forced against their will. It only shows Jewish justice on the make.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 04 May 2012 - 08:46 PM.


#54    GoSC

GoSC

    HOSEA 1:10; 2:23

  • Member
  • 2,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Silver Mountain

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:13 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 26 April 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Oi vey! If the mother, according to Judaism, is good only to make of the child Jewish, it means that Jesus was not even Jewish? That really
complicates further.
Ben

Like I said before, Ben. Matthew records the royal lineage of Joseph (descendent of King Solomon, son of King David), Luke records the bloodline lineage of Mary (descendent of Nathan, son of King David). After the Babylonian captivity, the royal lineage was never again possessed a ruling throne over Israel as spoken of in Jeremiah 22, the royal lineage altogether ceased. What happened to the royal lineage Ben? Where is it? I know where it is!

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#55    Vatic

Vatic

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 227 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North American Continent

Posted 06 May 2012 - 03:35 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 21 April 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:


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:

Hello Ben

What is needed to supplement your view is a biography of the girl Mary herself, which would make most points of your speculation moot.

Mary was dedicated to the Temple by her mother as a vow to God in exchange for having a child. Mary was weaned and a small child when the family made a procession of celebration to make Mary comfortable and happy to be taken to live at the Temple. The priest recieved the small child who began her life at the Temple. She was taught to spin threads of scarllet, blue and purple for the Temple. Ashe she grew, the preiast took thought of the girl noting that she was about to approach the age of puberty. They wanted her out of the Temple before she started her menstral cycles, fearing she might defile the Temple. They decided to offer her to be betrothed.

The plan was to compelled all the men in the community to put in their lot. Joseph was also among those compelled, though he personally thought the whole idea was rediculous. To his shock, his lot came up as the individual who would marry Mary. Jospeh was appalled at the idea of having a child wife and balked considerably. But after getting chewed out for resisting God's plan, Joseph accepted Mary as his companion and kept it secret that she was betrothed to him. He often introduced Mary to people as his daughter, since he found it humiliating and extremely embarrassing to let it be known the girl was his future wife.

Legend states that Mary had often been in the company of angels while in the Temple, which would explain her demeanor at the famous visitation where she was told she would have a child. Apparently angelic visitations were something that would drive the girl off the deep end as she seemed relatively composed.

Mary came up pregnant and a scandel erupted. The Priest demanded a trial by ordeal in which both Jospeh and Mary had to drink a concoction of water and dust from the Temple, and then they were sent out to the wilderness to await their judgement and fate. After a while both Jospeh and Mary returned in good health, and the Priest response was to declare them both inocent, even though the nature of Mary's pregnancy was still mystifying. But the Priest held that since God didn't condemn Mary and Joseph, the case was closed. However tongues still wagged.

On their journey period, Mary went into labor in Bethlehem. Josphe put her in the manger and left to find a midwife to help Mary delver the child. But while he was away seeking help, Mary began to delever her child. At this time the the Cloud of the Glory of the Lord descended upon Mary as she gave birth, and the Glory of the Lord became incarnate as an infant. At the same moments, Joseph testified that everything stopped. He saw insecst flying in the air were stopped, he saw livestock with lambs hopping, but they were still in mid air. Everyithng just stopped for a few moments.

After awhile, Joseph found a midwife and returned to Mary only to find the birth was already over. At this time the midwife recounted to Mary how she had heard she was a virgin. She wanted to know this for herself and told Mary to brace herself for and examination of her virginity. But as the midwife put forward her hand toward Mary for the examination, her arm and hand siezed and became immobile. The midwife realized that God was against her examination, and plead with God not to leave her paralysed, reproaching a Mother of Israel. So the Lord God relented and let her arm free. In this was the virginity of Mary is attested to by the midwife.

Ben, you can find this account in a two volume set of collected intertestamental writings titled, "Psuediphigaphra 1 & 2". The name of this particular account is called, "The Proto Gospel of Mary".  I personally do not question the inspiration behind this very jewish writing since it makes direct referance to esoteric knowledge of the Glory of the Lord, and depicts the Glory of the Lord descending from Heaven in a Cloud to become incarnate. Only the inspired, and the prophetic testimony would be able to testify of such an event.


#56    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:04 PM

View Postdside, on 04 May 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Like I said before, Ben. Matthew records the royal lineage of Joseph (descendent of King Solomon, son of King David), Luke records the bloodline lineage of Mary (descendent of Nathan, son of King David). After the Babylonian captivity, the royal lineage was never again possessed a ruling throne over Israel as spoken of in Jeremiah 22, the royal lineage altogether ceased. What happened to the royal lineage Ben? Where is it? I know where it is!

You have caused me to go back and recheck both texts, and again, I have seen no hints or indication whatsoever that Luke is tracing the geneaology of Mary. Only, as a result of poor research by the gospel writers proves the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke. Not only according to Jewish culture but also according to Greek Literature, the lineage of a person was recorded according to the father and not to the mother. The only indication of what Tribe Mary belonged to is found in Luke 1:5,36, where Mary is said to have been a relative of Elizabeth, a direct descendant of Aaron the Levite. I see no other stronger evidence to tell me that Mary did not belong in the Tribe of Levi.
Ben


#57    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:20 PM

View PostVatic, on 06 May 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

Hello Ben

What is needed to supplement your view is a biography of the girl Mary herself, which would make most points of your speculation moot.

Mary was dedicated to the Temple by her mother as a vow to God in exchange for having a child. Mary was weaned and a small child when the family made a procession of celebration to make Mary comfortable and happy to be taken to live at the Temple. The priest recieved the small child who began her life at the Temple. She was taught to spin threads of scarllet, blue and purple for the Temple. Ashe she grew, the preiast took thought of the girl noting that she was about to approach the age of puberty. They wanted her out of the Temple before she started her menstral cycles, fearing she might defile the Temple. They decided to offer her to be betrothed.

The plan was to compelled all the men in the community to put in their lot. Joseph was also among those compelled, though he personally thought the whole idea was rediculous. To his shock, his lot came up as the individual who would marry Mary. Jospeh was appalled at the idea of having a child wife and balked considerably. But after getting chewed out for resisting God's plan, Joseph accepted Mary as his companion and kept it secret that she was betrothed to him. He often introduced Mary to people as his daughter, since he found it humiliating and extremely embarrassing to let it be known the girl was his future wife.

Legend states that Mary had often been in the company of angels while in the Temple, which would explain her demeanor at the famous visitation where she was told she would have a child. Apparently angelic visitations were something that would drive the girl off the deep end as she seemed relatively composed.

Mary came up pregnant and a scandel erupted. The Priest demanded a trial by ordeal in which both Jospeh and Mary had to drink a concoction of water and dust from the Temple, and then they were sent out to the wilderness to await their judgement and fate. After a while both Jospeh and Mary returned in good health, and the Priest response was to declare them both inocent, even though the nature of Mary's pregnancy was still mystifying. But the Priest held that since God didn't condemn Mary and Joseph, the case was closed. However tongues still wagged.

On their journey period, Mary went into labor in Bethlehem. Josphe put her in the manger and left to find a midwife to help Mary delver the child. But while he was away seeking help, Mary began to delever her child. At this time the the Cloud of the Glory of the Lord descended upon Mary as she gave birth, and the Glory of the Lord became incarnate as an infant. At the same moments, Joseph testified that everything stopped. He saw insecst flying in the air were stopped, he saw livestock with lambs hopping, but they were still in mid air. Everyithng just stopped for a few moments.

After awhile, Joseph found a midwife and returned to Mary only to find the birth was already over. At this time the midwife recounted to Mary how she had heard she was a virgin. She wanted to know this for herself and told Mary to brace herself for and examination of her virginity. But as the midwife put forward her hand toward Mary for the examination, her arm and hand siezed and became immobile. The midwife realized that God was against her examination, and plead with God not to leave her paralysed, reproaching a Mother of Israel. So the Lord God relented and let her arm free. In this was the virginity of Mary is attested to by the midwife.

Ben, you can find this account in a two volume set of collected intertestamental writings titled, "Psuediphigaphra 1 & 2". The name of this particular account is called, "The Proto Gospel of Mary".  I personally do not question the inspiration behind this very jewish writing since it makes direct referance to esoteric knowledge of the Glory of the Lord, and depicts the Glory of the Lord descending from Heaven in a Cloud to become incarnate. Only the inspired, and the prophetic testimony would be able to testify of such an event.

Interesting reading, but there are two things going against your views: One is that they belong in the realm of myth with a lot of mythological speculation. And the second is that it still does not delete the possibility of rape by a Roman soldier, as the fact is reported by Flavius Josephus as a serious tragedy during the time Rome was in power in the Land of Israel. However, of the three probabilities: This one of yours, the one of the rape by a Roman soldier and that of a normal conception as a result of Mary's legal relationship with Joseph, I am more in favor of the last. As you can see, I have no malicious intention to mar the reputation of Mary.
Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 09 May 2012 - 07:21 PM.


#58    Bella-Angelique

Bella-Angelique

    Caprica Six Cylon

  • Member
  • 7,174 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • There is more to learn

Posted 09 May 2012 - 07:42 PM

It was not overly unusual for girls to become pregnant during their engagements in those times since the engagement was more like the first part of marraige and not like an engagement today. You know that, so you also know he would have been titled as Joseph's son and not have carried a title of any sort indicating illigitimacy.

You also know that man of God and son of God were titles common slang titles applied to any man who displayed psychic prophetic abilities by the various different Hebrew sects followers, as they did not apply a derogatory term to psychics who were devote followers of their faith. That he was associated with female prophets in the minds of the early believers is shown by the presence of Anna and the four daughters of Phillip being included in the early writings.

So he was associated in many mens' minds at that time as someone connected to female prophets, who wanted the death penalty for prostitution removed, and advocated that women and girls be educated the same as boys and men. Why should anyone be surprised that many men coming across any material about him would not throw it into a fire or a river, whichever was closest, as fast as possible? If you rewrote it in a modern fashion, set it into current time, and changed the names, there are hoards of men who would still do the same today.

Edited by Bella-Angelique, 09 May 2012 - 07:43 PM.

Posted Image

#59    GoSC

GoSC

    HOSEA 1:10; 2:23

  • Member
  • 2,615 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Silver Mountain

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:18 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 09 May 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

You have caused me to go back and recheck both texts, and again, I have seen no hints or indication whatsoever that Luke is tracing the geneaology of Mary. Only, as a result of poor research by the gospel writers proves the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke. Not only according to Jewish culture but also according to Greek Literature, the lineage of a person was recorded according to the father and not to the mother. The only indication of what Tribe Mary belonged to is found in Luke 1:5,36, where Mary is said to have been a relative of Elizabeth, a direct descendant of Aaron the Levite. I see no other stronger evidence to tell me that Mary did not belong in the Tribe of Levi.
Ben

Well, personally I believe the genealogy in Luke is Mary's bypassing the cursed bloodline of Coniah/Jeconiah (Royal lineage through Solomon, ending with Jeconiah). When is the last time Israel had a Jewish king? Where is the Royal lineage? Did the Royal Lineage cease? Remember, the Royal Lineages passes from father to son from generation to generation. Strengthens the case of Jesus and the fact his throne is eternal and will never pass on to any "son". His kingship will never cease and he will never cease to exist.

"I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in its own times he shall show, WHO IS THE BLESSED AND ONLY POTENTE, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS; who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen" (I Tim 6:13-16).

#60    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,752 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 10 May 2012 - 08:46 PM

View PostBella-Angelique, on 09 May 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

It was not overly unusual for girls to become pregnant during their engagements in those times since the engagement was more like the first part of marraige and not like an engagement today. You know that, so you also know he would have been titled as Joseph's son and not have carried a title of any sort indicating illigitimacy.

You also know that man of God and son of God were titles common slang titles applied to any man who displayed psychic prophetic abilities by the various different Hebrew sects followers, as they did not apply a derogatory term to psychics who were devote followers of their faith. That he was associated with female prophets in the minds of the early believers is shown by the presence of Anna and the four daughters of Phillip being included in the early writings.

So he was associated in many mens' minds at that time as someone connected to female prophets, who wanted the death penalty for prostitution removed, and advocated that women and girls be educated the same as boys and men. Why should anyone be surprised that many men coming across any material about him would not throw it into a fire or a river, whichever was closest, as fast as possible? If you rewrote it in a modern fashion, set it into current time, and changed the names, there are hoards of men who would still do the same today.

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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users