Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

The Alleged Sons of God

142 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I'd just like to put in a word for the lady's reputation here. There are only two sources for the virgin birth, Matthew and Luke. These were written, according to a non-axe grinding estimate, around 80 CE (or later), which is to say, comfortably 80-85 years after Jesus was conceived, and so plausibly well after Mary herself had died.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Neither source depicts Mary telling this story to any human being.

In Matthew Joseph tells himself the good news in a dream, 1: 18 ff. Apparently, Matthew includes this incident because of his opinion about what Isaiah meant by a "young woman will conceive." This is the same author who has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys, because of how he translated another passage of the Hebrew Bible.

In Luke, the question of telling Joseph doesn't come up. Mary discusses the matter only with Gabriel, in chapter 1. Gabriel is vague about the mechanics. Mary could just as easily be asking him whether it was permissible for her to have sex with her intended, with Gabriel assuring her not to worry about pregnancy. She is a virgin at the time of the vision, according to Luke, but this text is silent about her sexual history at the time of her delivery.

So, it is unbiblical that Mary volunteered an account of the paternity of her unborn child to a human being. In fact, we have no record of any human being telling another human being about the supposed paternity of Mary's firstborn until one Christian told other Christians the story three generations later.

-

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Mom, thanks! That was a tonic.

Ben

Well I feel your posts make a change from the usual posts and threads I read usually about the same religion for years.. and so this makes a new change for once... I know your posts are like the rest on here, all based on beliefs...but I find now more informative... It is good to have a change.. Something new...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally my issue is the immense suspension of disbelief required to accept that a person is the child of/is a deity.

Today if a woman came told someone that she had an experience like Mary and had a virgin conception would she be believed? Not a chance. Yet an account 2000 years ago is believed without a thought on a global scale.

The most believeable explanation of Mary's pregnancy is that she simply had sex. Was it consentual? We may never know. However if she was raped there's the possibility that the experience was so traumatic her mind simply blocked it out (which is known to happen). If that she was the case then she genuinely BELIEVED it was a virgin conception.

So assuming that the conception was the result of natural causes, what about Jesus? Well, it would make him a normal human being. However he would also have been bought up in an environment where the people around him believed he was divine because of his virgin birth. That could easily have led to him believing his own hype and truly believe that he WAS the son of god. Again, this could very plausibly have happened.

Personally that's far more believeable than the virgin birth.

Yet many believe in the virgin birth. I look on it as folly to attach the "normal rules" of humanity to God. As Creator He can do anything He wishes. Some, like myself, take this as being as believable as tomorrow's sunrise. Others think it so silly that a person has to be very dumb to accept it. And I think God understands both opinions. If the existence of a creator needs proof beyond the creation itself then maybe it is the person seeking the proof who needs to re-evaluate. Thomas wanted to see the nail prints. Jesus showed them to him but then told him that others would be blessed who did not need to see to believe. I'm not catholic and therefore am not as grievously offended at some of the comments about Mary. But some things being said in this thread are simply disgusting and unnecessary. I believe that someday we will all answer for "every idle word". And that last was not aimed at you, Shadowhive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why all the mystery about hiding what really happened? Wouldn't the truth have avoided all the anxieties Mary and Joseph went through? For

heaven's sake, the lady could have been stoned to death! No, this case is worse than Swiss cheese; full of wholes.

Ben

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yet many believe in the virgin birth. I look on it as folly to attach the "normal rules" of humanity to God. As Creator He can do anything He wishes. Some, like myself, take this as being as believable as tomorrow's sunrise. Others think it so silly that a person has to be very dumb to accept it. And I think God understands both opinions. If the existence of a creator needs proof beyond the creation itself then maybe it is the person seeking the proof who needs to re-evaluate. Thomas wanted to see the nail prints. Jesus showed them to him but then told him that others would be blessed who did not need to see to believe. I'm not catholic and therefore am not as grievously offended at some of the comments about Mary. But some things being said in this thread are simply disgusting and unnecessary. I believe that someday we will all answer for "every idle word". And that last was not aimed at you, Shadowhive...

I do think it's rather 'silly' to believe such a thing. As I said, if a similar situation happened today would people honestly believe a woman at her word alone as readily as they have done in this case?

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and religion is one of those things I'm extremely skeptical of because none of it makes a damn bit of sense. I'd require actual proof of these things that you take at face value and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

You're creator may be able to 'do anything he wishes' but I see a lot of people suffering and dying in this world, a lot of which pray to this creator and guess what? He doesn't do anything. To me that says a lot.

And I don't mean to ofend in what I say about her, I just gave a real alternative that we know could account for her claim of 'virgin' birth.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something that people don't usually think about. Here Jesus is referred to as a demi-god. If God is capable of supplying the male side of a conception, why could He not also supply the female side: creating a wholly divine sperm and egg. Mary was not the biological mother; she was just the surrogate mother.

Because no where is this implied. Since he isn't related to Mary, we can throw out his genealogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I feel your posts make a change from the usual posts and threads I read usually about the same religion for years.. and so this makes a new change for once... I know your posts are like the rest on here, all based on beliefs...but I find now more informative... It is good to have a change.. Something new...

Yes, "all based on beliefs..." But, in my case, according to the concept of probability. What do we know for sure? Therefore, I neither affirm nor

deny any thing 100%.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something that people don't usually think about. Here Jesus is referred to as a demi-god. If God is capable of supplying the male side of a conception, why could He not also supply the female side: creating a wholly divine sperm and egg. Mary was not the biological mother; she was just the surrogate mother.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to put in a word for the lady's reputation here. There are only two sources for the virgin birth, Matthew and Luke. These were written, according to a non-axe grinding estimate, around 80 CE (or later), which is to say, comfortably 80-85 years after Jesus was conceived, and so plausibly well after Mary herself had died.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Neither source depicts Mary telling this story to any human being.

In Matthew Joseph tells himself the good news in a dream, 1: 18 ff. Apparently, Matthew includes this incident because of his opinion about what Isaiah meant by a "young woman will conceive." This is the same author who has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys, because of how he translated another passage of the Hebrew Bible.

In Luke, the question of telling Joseph doesn't come up. Mary discusses the matter only with Gabriel, in chapter 1. Gabriel is vague about the mechanics. Mary could just as easily be asking him whether it was permissible for her to have sex with her intended, with Gabriel assuring her not to worry about pregnancy. She is a virgin at the time of the vision, according to Luke, but this text is silent about her sexual history at the time of her delivery.

So, it is unbiblical that Mary volunteered an account of the paternity of her unborn child to a human being. In fact, we have no record of any human being telling another human being about the supposed paternity of Mary's firstborn until one Christian told other Christians the story three generations later.

-

IMHO, the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew, was a prophecy hunter with the mission to gather as many as he could to enhance the case of Jesus as

the Messiah. He was probably reading the Tanach and happened to stop by Isaiah 7:14 and helped himself up with the virgin who would be with child. It did not matter to him that Amos 5:2 states that Isaiah was talking about Israel in "The virgin Israel is fallen." And that Isaiah himself was talking about Judah as being the child born of the virgin Israel. (Isa. 7:14,15,22; 8:8) Then, there! He must have said. I found a good one to explain the virgin birth. And the forest was set on fire.

Ben

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You know, J. K., Jesus' parents never took him to Egypt. As I have said beofore, the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew was a prophecy hunter and, reading Hosea 11:1, he grabbed one more and sent Jesus to Egypt to call him from there. It did not matter to him that Hosea would identify that child as Israel by name.

Have you ever read Josephus? If you have or not, Josephus talks about Herod's life down to the details of even the most foolish of family intrigues. The main reason why the family had to go to Egypt was to escape the slaughtering of the children up to 2 years of age. Do you think that Josephus would have missed such a tragedy in the life of Herod? Not a chance! Nevertheless, not a single word on the subject.

Besides, Luke also ignores such an event in the life of Jesus. And this takes Jesus back to Nazareth soon after his last law requirement at the Temple, which was his presentation when Jesus was only 40 days old, which brings to my memory a thread I wrote about this issue, "Were There Two Different Jesuses?" Take a look at it?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, I respectfully accept your stated opinions, but we will have to agree to disagree. I accept the Old Testament/New Testament as both a historical document and a spiritual guide to living in God's kingdom. Would it be accurate to say that you do not accept it as such?

Given my position, I would have to answer the OP with the opinion that Jesus was not biologically fathered by a human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben, I respectfully accept your stated opinions, but we will have to agree to disagree. I accept the Old Testament/New Testament as both a historical document and a spiritual guide to living in God's kingdom. Would it be accurate to say that you do not accept it as such?

Given my position, I would have to answer the OP with the opinion that Jesus was not biologically fathered by a human.

Two points here: The first is that if Jesus was not fathered by a human, as I hope you mean mother and father, the problem is settled: Jesus was

not a Jewish man. Perhaps an alien. And the second point is about "living in God's kingdom." Jesus himself said that God's kingdom is not a place

to live in but exoteric. A spiritual state within every one of us. That's in Luke 17:21.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points here: The first is that if Jesus was not fathered by a human, as I hope you mean mother and father, the problem is settled: Jesus was not a Jewish man. Perhaps an alien.

Well, no, that's not what I was trying to say. My belief would be: God created an genetically Jewish embryo without the sin nature that humanity carries, and implanted the embryo within Mary. The child was born to Jewish parents and could claim ancestry from both father and mother.

And the second point is about "living in God's kingdom." Jesus himself said that God's kingdom is not a place to live in but exoteric. A spiritual state within every one of us. That's in Luke 17:21.

I would agree that the idea of a kingdom is a metaphor for a spiritual existence. However, I am confused about something. Didn't you say that the New Testament vandalized the Old Testament? That would imply that you doubt the veracity of the New Testament, yet you have quoted it. Do you or do you not accept the New Testament as a reliable source document?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, that's not what I was trying to say. My belief would be: God created an genetically Jewish embryo without the sin nature that humanity carries, and implanted the embryo within Mary. The child was born to Jewish parents and could claim ancestry from both father and mother.

I would agree that the idea of a kingdom is a metaphor for a spiritual existence. However, I am confused about something. Didn't you say that the New Testament vandalized the Old Testament? That would imply that you doubt the veracity of the New Testament, yet you have quoted it. Do you or do you not accept the New Testament as a reliable source document?

Good question! I accept 20% of the NT as legal and legitimate; I mean worthy learning something from. The other 80% is made out of interpolations

against the Hebrew Scriptures, with the intent to promote Replacement Theology. That's the reason why I often quote the NT. Such a confession from

a Jew is more than one can conceive. Usually, Jews reject the whole thing altogether. I even read the NT; a thing considered anathema to other Jews.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question! I accept 20% of the NT as legal and legitimate; I mean worthy learning something from. The other 80% is made out of interpolations against the Hebrew Scriptures, with the intent to promote Replacement Theology. That's the reason why I often quote the NT. Such a confession from a Jew is more than one can conceive. Usually, Jews reject the whole thing altogether. I even read the NT; a thing considered anathema to other Jews.

Ben

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, "all based on beliefs..." But, in my case, according to the concept of probability. What do we know for sure? Therefore, I neither affirm nor

deny any thing 100%.

Ben

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...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not that it be my wish or belief that any thing of that sort ever happened to Mary. I would rather sustain that Jesus was a biological son of Joseph's than to have such a tragedy happened to Mary. If there is someone here to blame for, Christians are the ones for promoting the Greek myth of the demigod.

Ben

What of all the talk of the translation and the context being wrong. I read somewhere that the original name for Mary had a title infront of it "Miriamne" I think. It was used in a context that might read "Young Miss Mary". But the word itself could be confused with virgin because in highly contextual languages like most ancient languages are words often can have double meanings. the words for a young woman and virgin might be the same. Since it is used with her name it stands to reason it has a context of youth not a virgin. It dosnt make a lot of sense to call all young women virgin.

The same thing happens in mandrin Chinese. The word "xiao" (shao) literally means small. But the formal title for a young woman is "xiao ji" which has a meaning of youth. Mary xiao ji would mean "young mis Mary" to a natural speaker of mandrin , but if literally translated it would read small miss Mary. Not the same thing at all. ( trust me I struggled with these contextual arrangments in my studies)

Hmmmm and we all know how the religious like to be litteral.... I'm sensing a red flag.

Edit: ahhhh here we go.... Though the source is powerfully bias I think this is similar to what I read all those years ago.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/chapter_2.html

".

     "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth

a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel." (Matt. i, 23.)

     Isaiah's original Hebrew, with the mistranslated words

underscored, reads: "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath

shem-o immanuel"; -- which, falsely translated by the false pen of

the pious translators, runs thus in the English: "Behold, a virgin

shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"

(Isa. vii, 14.) The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young

woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, "conceived,"

which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed

action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: "Behold, the young

woman has conceived -- [is with child) -- and beareth a son and

calleth his name Immanuel."

     Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether

married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense 

exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, "

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally my issue is the immense suspension of disbelief required to accept that a person is the child of/is a deity.

Today if a woman came told someone that she had an experience like Mary and had a virgin conception would she be believed? Not a chance. Yet an account 2000 years ago is believed without a thought on a global scale.

The most believeable explanation of Mary's pregnancy is that she simply had sex. Was it consentual? We may never know. However if she was raped there's the possibility that the experience was so traumatic her mind simply blocked it out (which is known to happen). If that she was the case then she genuinely BELIEVED it was a virgin conception.

So assuming that the conception was the result of natural causes, what about Jesus? Well, it would make him a normal human being. However he would also have been bought up in an environment where the people around him believed he was divine because of his virgin birth. That could easily have led to him believing his own hype and truly believe that he WAS the son of god. Again, this could very plausibly have happened.

Personally that's far more believeable than the virgin birth.

On the other hand, today, we could do medical tests, not just to establish mary's virginity but also to determine the genetic make up of christ. It would be interesting, would it not, if jesus proved to have only his mothers dna or perhaps a mixture of her dna and a non human dna?

A miracle is a miracle (or not) 2000 years ago or today. They either occur, or they do not. One can either believe in them or not, or one can experience them or not. If christ is the son of mary and the holy ghost/spirit, then that is what he is/was. There is no need to find mundane or other rationales for his birth, if that is the case.

Today, apart from the actual case of christ, miracles occur exactly the same as they did in the OT and NT times. There are skeptics now, just as there were then, and one still has to choose belief or disbelief, unless one is actually a participant in such miracles.

MAny, if not all, humans (even today) have in part the gifts of the holy spirit found in christ. They are conected by those gifts to the wider nature of god and are capable of many of the gifts of the spirit . Christ, conceived of the spirit, had a much stronger component in him, which made him more able to perform miracles, but all of us have some of that spirit in us, and all of us are capable, in some part, of "miracles" of healing, prophesy etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

~~~ ... about "living in God's kingdom." Jesus himself said that God's kingdom is not a place

to live in but exoteric. A spiritual state within every one of us. That's in Luke 17:21.

Ben

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

Edited by Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, today, we could do medical tests, not just to establish mary's virginity but also to determine the genetic make up of christ. It would be interesting, would it not, if jesus proved to have only his mothers dna or perhaps a mixture of her dna and a non human dna?

A test came up with those results (done serveral times to ensure 100% accuracy) then I'd believe it. That is exactly the sort of test that would need to be performed on anyone that claimed they were spontaneously pregnant today.

I always find it rather disappointing that so many people believe such a thing without such evidence.

A miracle is a miracle (or not) 2000 years ago or today. They either occur, or they do not. One can either believe in them or not, or one can experience them or not. If christ is the son of mary and the holy ghost/spirit, then that is what he is/was. There is no need to find mundane or other rationales for his birth, if that is the case.

Our world is filled with 'mundane' explanations for things. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for miracles? That depends. The use of the word 'miracle' is often so stretched it devoids meaning. People say that something as mundane as the sunrise is a miracle. Or a rainbow. Or any number of other things that are simply natural occurances. Other time 'miracle' is used to describe people's recoveries from illnesses/accidents/surgeries etc. Is it a miracle they survive, or is it really down to their medical treatment (which is pretty much written of the moment miracle is used).

Today, apart from the actual case of christ, miracles occur exactly the same as they did in the OT and NT times. There are skeptics now, just as there were then, and one still has to choose belief or disbelief, unless one is actually a participant in such miracles.

MAny, if not all, humans (even today) have in part the gifts of the holy spirit found in christ. They are conected by those gifts to the wider nature of god and are capable of many of the gifts of the spirit . Christ, conceived of the spirit, had a much stronger component in him, which made him more able to perform miracles, but all of us have some of that spirit in us, and all of us are capable, in some part, of "miracles" of healing, prophesy etc.

That depends on what the 'miracle' is. Do I deny that some things that qualify as miracles happen? No. What I (and others) deny is if they ARE miracles or are they just natural occurances?

Like with miracles, it depends what you define as 'gifts'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.