The virgin birth story.

[dmgdnooc]

its down to one or two possibilities already mentioned.

mary was knocked up by a soldier already,,, or ,,, they made it up to keep up with other pagan deitys


Most historians and scholars can say nothing at all of jesus childhood and birth with any certainty

Rubbish!.
The Lady could have passed the Child off as being Joseph's and that would have been the logical course.
Joseph was dead, had married her despite her pregnancy and many 1st children gestate for less than 9 months with no stigma attached.
　
You are merely repeating things you have heard, you are not thinking about the matter.

 

[outhouse]

Joseph was dead,

?????????????????????????

Rubbish!.

do you have anything other then a opinion to back up your unfounded statement???

 

[fallingblood]

Rubbish!.
The Lady could have passed the Child off as being Joseph's and that would have been the logical course.
Joseph was dead, had married her despite her pregnancy and many 1st children gestate for less than 9 months with no stigma attached.
　
You are merely repeating things you have heard, you are not thinking about the matter.

Accept the community would have known. So Jesus still would have born under less than honorable circumstances. And that is something the writers would have wanted to cover up. Because by having a dishonorable birth, the child itself was considered less.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Accept the community would have known. So Jesus still would have born under less than honorable circumstances. And that is something the writers would have wanted to cover up. Because by having a dishonorable birth, the child itself was considered less.

It has never been a lasting stigma for a 1st child to gestate for less than 9 months.
So why choose an account that excluded Joseph?
Certainly not to cover up an event that had long since been covered and legitimised.
And certainly not with an account that opened up so many opportunities for slander.

 

[dmgdnooc]

?????????????????????????



do you have anything other then a opinion to back up your unfounded statement???

My opinion of your opinion is that it is rubbish.
My opinion is based on the reasoning I gave and have expanded on to fallingblood.
My understanding of your opinion is that it is an echo of long ago Jewish slanders.

 

[fallingblood]

It has never been a lasting stigma for a 1st child to gestate for less than 9 months.
So why choose an account that excluded Joseph?
Certainly not to cover up an event that had long since been covered and legitimised.
And certainly not with an account that opened up so many opportunities for slander.

If it was known that Joseph and Mary were not together, or married at the time of conception, then Joseph, even if he planned on marrying Mary, would not matter. Jesus would still have been born a dishonorable birth.

And the community would have known. The community was very small, and much would have been related.

In a historical sense, it is much more likely than Jesus being born of a virgin, where there is no evidence.

 

[outhouse]

My opinion of your opinion is that it is rubbish.
My opinion is based on the reasoning I gave and have expanded on to fallingblood.
My understanding of your opinion is that it is an echo of long ago Jewish slanders.

so you dont have anything other then a unfounded opinion to base your assunption???.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Harris' arguments are based on faith. But I will deal with the misinformation anyway.

The first claim was that that the author was a Jew. Out of all of the Gospels, John is the most unJewish of the Gospels. Throughout it, the author condemns the Jews. The blatant anti-semitism in the Gospel of John just seeps through. Everywhere from John blaming the crucifixion simply on the Jews (to the point in which the suggestion is that the Jews actually crucified Jesus) to the Jews being called the sons of Satan.

This discussion of the authorship of John is a minor sideline to the subject of the OP.
I'm reluctant to pursue it to its end, so let's just go a few points at a time, coz I'm waiting for a response to my post #116.
　
I think Harris' arguments are based on facts, regardless of whether he be a man of faith or not.
Faith does not exclude intellectual honesty.
　
The writer of John was a Jew.
The Gospel is framed around the progression of the Jewish holy year, its feasts, fasts and festivals; and it is accurately framed thus.
The writer is intimately acquainted not merely with the mechanics of the Jewish calendar (which is no mean feat in itself) but also with the underlying spiritual significance of its features.
　
The entire NT, Matthew included, appears to me to be oriented towards a gentile perspective.
This is not accidental, but, to my mind, by design.
I would say that Mark is the most 'unJewish' of the Gospels, John the least.
John's point of reference is consistently on aspects of Jewish life, the calendar, as previously mentioned, but also on particular and obscure aspects of the Temple (portico of Solomon etc) the Law (Jesus' garments being woven in the Priestly fashion) politics (the relationship with the Samaritans) and more.
There is no 'blatant anti-semitism' in John, although it seems to have been written for a Gentile audience. Its faithfullness to things Jewish is a major feature.
And much of his perspectives on subject matter and hard words against the Jews is to be found echoed in Jewish tradition itself as features of the writings found at Qumran and written in the times BC.
Later Jewish tradition found it convenient to forget this current of Jewish thought and practice, but it has been rediscovered in recent years and come to be recognised as a shaper and mover of the early Christian church and especially of John's Gospel.
It should be added to your interpretation of John's, and the whole NT's, focus.
　
From my pov, the triumph of Rabbinical Judaism destroyed no less of Judaism than the triumph of Papal Christianity destroyed of Christianity.
But you seem to accept, with no criticism so far, that Rabbinical Judaism has faithfully preserved 1st century Judaic perceptions.
And therefore reason that John's perspective must be non-Jewish, because it is non-Rabbinical.
The fact is that Rabbinical Judaism has preserved only a few strands from the complexity of thought that was current in 1st century Judea and the Diaspora.
From those few strands has been woven a beautiful garment, I admit, but it is a modern garment bearing scant similarity to the diversity of the homespun original.
　
'Blaming the crucifiction simply on the Jews'
19.23 'Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments' Roman soldiers.
'Jews being called the sons of Satan'
Can't find the reference, maybe you mean devil (which I understand to mean something like - the perverted propensities of the flesh) from 8.44.
　
I think that is the point that I would like to make here.
That the Jewishness of John is to be understood from a non-Rabbinical 1st century perspective.
From that perspective I think that its Jewishness must be self-evident.
It was most certainly not produced as a Gnostic text, as the higher critics would have us believe, although it may have been adopted, at a later date, by Gnostics.
　
And further, the Jewishness of John is not something I have picked up from Harris, it is a long held view and held, in its origin, without regard to anything much other than reading the Bible.
Harris and I agree on the point because, I think, we both read the Bible with a respect for its words and meaning. That may be a product of faith.

 

[dmgdnooc]

If it was known that Joseph and Mary were not together, or married at the time of conception, then Joseph, even if he planned on marrying Mary, would not matter. Jesus would still have been born a dishonorable birth.

And the community would have known. The community was very small, and much would have been related.

In a historical sense, it is much more likely than Jesus being born of a virgin, where there is no evidence.

They were espoused.
An arrangement with all the force in law of a marriage. Much stronger than a modern engagement.
There was no dishonour in a gestation of less than 9 months.
The people of his own village called him the 'son of Joseph' it was an established/accepted fact that carried no dishonour.
He read in the Synagogue, that is no privilege allowed to a person dishonoured in the way you imply.
A bast**d could not enter into the congregation, he was most certainly not treated, or thought of, in the manner your suggestion requires.
　
Physically yes, it was much more likely that Joseph and Mary had known each other than that an unknown person was involved.
Logically Mary would have kept her mouth shut forever, Joseph seems to have done so until his death.
But after Jesus' death she publicly, through interview with Luke, let the cat out of the bag and invited all manner of calumny to fall on her.

 

[dmgdnooc]

so you dont have anything other then a unfounded opinion to base your assunption???.

My opinion, as I said, is founded on the reasons I have given.
You, however, are merely repeating, uncritically, an old Jewish slander.

 

[outhouse]

My opinion, as I said, is founded on the reasons I have given.
You, however, are merely repeating, uncritically, an old Jewish slander.

i dont care why you have an opinion.

I would love to see something that has historicity or validity. Opinions dont cut it unless your a scholar.

 

[fallingblood]

They were espoused.
An arrangement with all the force in law of a marriage. Much stronger than a modern engagement.
There was no dishonour in a gestation of less than 9 months.
The people of his own village called him the 'son of Joseph' it was an established/accepted fact that carried no dishonour.
He read in the Synagogue, that is no privilege allowed to a person dishonoured in the way you imply.
A bast**d could not enter into the congregation, he was most certainly not treated, or thought of, in the manner your suggestion requires.
　
Physically yes, it was much more likely that Joseph and Mary had known each other than that an unknown person was involved.
Logically Mary would have kept her mouth shut forever, Joseph seems to have done so until his death.
But after Jesus' death she publicly, through interview with Luke, let the cat out of the bag and invited all manner of calumny to fall on her.

Being pregnant before being married was dishonorable. Sex was meant to be in the confines of marriage. Being conceived out of wedlock was dishonorable. It would have labeled Jesus as a mamzer. There is a reason why the ordeal described in the Gospel accounts seemed to be a major ordeal.

Jesus technically would not have been a ******* though. He would have been a mamzer. There is a difference. And really, the group in Nazareth does not seem to really respect Jesus. In fact, in the passage you mention, they try to kill him.

More so, the incident with Jesus reading in a synagogue is very unlikely. The first being that the verses read simply would not have been able to in the manner described. The reason being that the scripture was written on a scroll, and to jump between the passages that Jesus did, it would not have been possible. In all actuality, Jesus was probably illiterate.

Either way, it really doesn't matter as Jesus would not have been a *******, but a mamzer.

More so, Jesus is never called the son of Joseph except in the genealogies, which clearly are making a case for an adoption. For instance, in Mark, Jesus is called Mary's son. Later, the verse was reworked, but still, it simply says, is this not the son of a carpenter. Never is Joseph is mentioned, and Mark is probably correct in saying that the original comment was isn't this the son of Mary.

As for when Joseph died, there is no evidence of that. Yes, he really isn't mentioned in the Gospels, but that does not mean he died. It could mean that Mary and Joseph got divorced. This would explain Jesus' harsh words on divorce, and one of the only times that he contradicts Jewish law. That or Joseph simply didn't care about the ministry. In fact, we are hardly told anything about the brothers of Jesus, and nothing about the sisters of Jesus. We can't assume they were all dead.

Finally, there is no evidence that Luke ever spoke to Mary. And if we assume he did, then how do you explain Matthew, that is very different? Either way, it poses a problem. And again, there is no evidence that Mary spoke to Luke. That is simply later tradition in order to try to explain a problem.

 

[fallingblood]

Can we all admit to the inability to convince each other of our differing views?
And, for the sake of gathering information pertinent to the subject, realise that it may well be the case that none of us have THE definitive answer to the question?
I ask this on the assumption that your educational institution and Professor would appreciate a balanced survey of the differing views of all who have an interest in the question, and why those views are held, rather than a pedantic rant that assumes its own infallibility and disallows any contrary argument.
I'd prefer your assignment qualified for a distinction, not merely a passing grade.

I agree; however, I see no place for faith based assumptions in such a paper. I look at this as a historian. I want to see evidence for the claims that are being made, and not simply tradition that was passed down later on, by people who already had faith of the claims they were supporting.

　
There are a variety of good reasons to read the genealogy preserved in Luke as being Mary's.
Firstly, it was accepted as such by the early church fathers. see Ireaeus XXII
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Irenaeus is in no doubt as to whose genealogy is recorded in Luke and as to why it is there recorded.
As to why this was later obscured is another question, but suffice to say Mary's lineage is there, and it is there for a reason, it means something and shows a link to David.

I'm not very interested in what Early Church Fathers have to say in this case though. They dealt in apologetics. For the most part, they aren't always even basing their information on facts. More so, Christians don't agree with everything they wrote anymore.

The Gospel of Luke is enough for me. Looking at the passage, it is clear who the genealogy is. It specifically states that it is of Joseph. That is why they use Joseph as the starting point, and tell us that he was the son of Heli. There really is no wiggle room here. We are told that Jesus is the son of Joseph (or at least that was thought to be the case), and that Joseph was the son of Heli, and so on and so forth. There is no mention of Mary. Not even an off hand suggestion.

More so, there is no reason for a genealogy to go through the mothers side. It would show nothing, as the significance was through the father's side (even if it was just an adoptive father). And there is no reason to mention Joseph in that account unless it was his genealogy. Logic, and a brief knowledge of Jewish customs shows us beyond a doubt that the genealogy in Luke is that of Joseph. Again, that is why it specifically states that.

　
The same passage from Irenaeus quotes Paul, the very verses that you fragment.
That Irenaeus and I read the verses in the same way shows that the long held understanding of those verses has remained consistent.
I have not added to their content.

Ireneaus was wrong about the case above though. So why should we assume he is right about what Paul is stating? I can point out many scholars, throughout history, who would agree with my reading, but that really shows nothing. In order for you point to be valid, you would have to show that was the general consensus up through the ages, and not just that of one Church Father who is known to have twisted the facts in order to support his cause.

And since Paul never mentions anything of the such, nothing about Mary, or Jesus having a divine birth, I see no reason to assume that is what Paul is talking about. Without the Gospels influencing your thought, it is highly unlikely that you would see that verse in the same light.

　
I do not rely on tradition.
There is no reason to assume that Paul was isolated from conversation with the other Apostles, any argument that assumes such is flawed at its root, imo.

You are relying on tradition. Your use of the Church Fathers is part of that tradition.

We have no evidence that Paul ever met with the writers of the Gospels. The writer of the Gospels were not the Apostles. That idea is part of the Christian tradition.

The only individual who may have known Paul, from the evidence we have, is that author of Luke, and that is even debated. As for Mark, Matthew, and John, there is no suggestion that those authors knew of Paul. If you want to hold such an idea, you need to show a reason to actually believe such. You need to provide some evidence for such a belief. As it stands, there is no evidence, and thus it is not logical to assume that they knew each other. That is making an unfounded assumption, and I see little room for that in a historical matter.

　
Paul says that Jesus was born of a woman and he also says that Jesus was born by the direct agency of God.
You seem to be unaware of the duality of Jesus' nature as elaborated on by Paul.
The resurrection is Paul's proof that Jesus was born with a dual nature as it is also, most clearly so, in John.
　

Paul never states anything about the direct agency of God in the birth of Jesus. I am aware that Paul had an idea of Jesus having a dual nature. One that was physical, and one that was spiritual. However, there is no suggestion in Paul that the two crossed. Paul, for the most part, talks of Jesus after the resurrection. Paul is interested in a post-resurrection Jesus that is spiritual.

When Paul speaks of Jesus as a physical being, during the life of Jesus, nothing miraculous is being described. Very little is actually mentioned. We are told that he was born of a woman, born of the flesh, born under the law. To say anything else from Paul about the birth of Jesus is adding additional material to Paul. Because as it stands, you can't show with Paul the idea Mary was a virgin (that never even comes up), or that Paul thought God impregnated Mary. Neither idea is stated or suggested.

 

[fallingblood]

continued:

Psalm 2 does not carry an ascription to David. It is said in Acts to apply to Jesus.
Jeremiah 8.31, there is no such verse.
2Samuel 7.14, is a conditional sonship, conditional on Solomon's continuing fealty and righteous actions.
Hosea 11.1, this verse speaks of Isarel (the Nation) as being God's son and I agree that Israel is God's national son.
But that is not to be confused with God's particular and individual son who would be born in that nation.
I do not take the term, 'the' son of God, out of its historical or scriptural contexts.
However, I do recognise that the NT always uses the term in a particular and exacting way in applying it to Jesus.
And i don't care if it works for you, or me (for the sake of the discussion), my interest here is to discern what the NT writers mean by the term.

For the passage in Jeremiah, I will drop as I'm not quite sure which verse I was trying to think of.

For Psalms, if read in context, it is clear that it is meant to be David. Psalms 2 is regarded as the words of King David (either written by him or Nathan). The fact that he states that the message is to him, shows that it is David who is being spoken of.

The later accreditation that Acts gives it is just one more example of the Gospel writers searching into the Old Testament to find verses that they can manipulate to mean something they aren't.

In order to understand what the New Testament writers meant by the use of the word Son of God, one must look into the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the way in which the term was being used by others during that time. The Gospels did not evolve in isolation. They were greatly influence by the Jewish ideas that they were founded on. Thus, how the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and books such as Enoch use the term are important in this discussion. Without realizing how the word was being used at the time, it takes the whole idea out of context.

　
Again I refer you to Irenaeus and his understanding of the verses under discussion from Romans 1.
He thought what I think the verses are saying. And we both think this because we are reading the whole of the sentence not merely one of its phrases.
That Mary is not mentioned is irrelevant, you must understand that Mary is the 'woman' mentioned and that there is no male mentioned other than God.
Refer again to the duality of Jesus' nature that Paul and John elaborate on at length.

Even read as a whole, as I've pointed out when you quoted the whole verse, it does not state what you are saying. It never talks about a virgin birth, or a miraculous birth.

　
The book of Enoch does not appear in my Bible.

It doesn't need to appear in the Bible to be of use. It shows that the term son of God was being used elsewhere and did not imply a miraculous birth. It helps place the idea into a historical setting.

In fact, we see this to be true for other writings as well. Such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

　
Paul rarely mentions the birth or generation of Jesus in an overt way, he had little need to.
But the idea underlays and supports all that he did say.
Paul teaches that Jesus, in the days of his flesh, was the battle ground of the enmity between the mind of the flesh and the spiritual mind; of the 2 natures that warred within him.
At his death on the cross the mind of his flesh, his physical nature, was destroyed, the battle resolved, the enmity ceased.
After the resurrection of his body Jesus's nature was wholly spiritual.
see Ephesians 2.14-16
Paul teaches that Jesus had 2 natures from the time of his birth until his death.
And that those 2 natures were inherited from his 2 parents.
1 parent being God (the source of Jesus' spiritual nature) the other 'a woman' (Mary, the source of his physical nature).

Ephesians was most likely not written by Paul. The general consensus is that is is Pseudo-Pauline.

　
Paul's 'pre-resurrection Jesus' bore within himself 2 natures that were constantly at war, one with the other.
And in a special, particular and cosmic way that fitted Jesus to the idea of a 'second Adam' and to make Adam 'the figure of him that was to come' - now there is a paradox.
So that the benefits of Jesus' internal struggle and triumph can be applied to all humanity in similar manner to the way Adam's defeat has been.
Because Jesus stood, in the days of his flesh, at the threshold of a new creation the representative of all humanity who will become the sons of God.

This is a theological argument, and not a historical argument. It's fine if you believe this, but there is little evidence to support such a position.

　
Please reference to these 'best' versions and manuscripts because my survey, I've just looked at 6 or 8 different versions, reveals no support for your assertion.

Check out Bart D. Ehrman. He has various books that speak of the best manuscripts and why that are considered such.

There is a reason why most modern translations are getting rid of the word Begotten. The NRSV has gotten rid of it, the NIV. Here is an alright overview: John 3:16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

　
As I said earlier, Luke relates Mary's genealogy.
This was held to be the case by the early church, but for reasons unknown, the text became ammended sometime after Irenaeus.
　

When you say the early church, you are not being completely honest. You have found what one church father believed. He in no way represented the entire early church. And as explain above, it is clear he was wrong.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Being pregnant before being married was dishonorable. Sex was meant to be in the confines of marriage. Being conceived out of wedlock was dishonorable. It would have labeled Jesus as a mamzer. There is a reason why the ordeal described in the Gospel accounts seemed to be a major ordeal.

Jesus technically would not have been a ******* though. He would have been a mamzer. There is a difference. And really, the group in Nazareth does not seem to really respect Jesus. In fact, in the passage you mention, they try to kill him.

More so, the incident with Jesus reading in a synagogue is very unlikely. The first being that the verses read simply would not have been able to in the manner described. The reason being that the scripture was written on a scroll, and to jump between the passages that Jesus did, it would not have been possible. In all actuality, Jesus was probably illiterate.

Either way, it really doesn't matter as Jesus would not have been a *******, but a mamzer.

More so, Jesus is never called the son of Joseph except in the genealogies, which clearly are making a case for an adoption. For instance, in Mark, Jesus is called Mary's son. Later, the verse was reworked, but still, it simply says, is this not the son of a carpenter. Never is Joseph is mentioned, and Mark is probably correct in saying that the original comment was isn't this the son of Mary.

As for when Joseph died, there is no evidence of that. Yes, he really isn't mentioned in the Gospels, but that does not mean he died. It could mean that Mary and Joseph got divorced. This would explain Jesus' harsh words on divorce, and one of the only times that he contradicts Jewish law. That or Joseph simply didn't care about the ministry. In fact, we are hardly told anything about the brothers of Jesus, and nothing about the sisters of Jesus. We can't assume they were all dead.

Finally, there is no evidence that Luke ever spoke to Mary. And if we assume he did, then how do you explain Matthew, that is very different? Either way, it poses a problem. And again, there is no evidence that Mary spoke to Luke. That is simply later tradition in order to try to explain a problem.

It seems that Mary and Joseph cohabited soon after her return from Elisabeth.
She may not have yet been showing, which is particularly likely considering the style of clothing of the time.
　
Being born out of wedlock was a stigma, not being conceived.
But, in any case, Mary and Joseph were married (being espoused) at the time. Joseph could not have considered divorce unless they were already married.
Maybe you can drop the repeated assertion of dishonour and provide a reference.
　
And Jesus would have only been a 'mamzer' if his father was forbidden to marry Mary.
To say he was a mamzer assumes that Joseph was not his father and clearly, physically, Joseph was the most likely candidate.
And Joseph was the man that those closest to them ascribed the parentage.
　
I don't understand how you can reason anyone other than Joseph as the father.
Which would not make him a mamzer.
How do you reason he was a mamzer?
　
The community of Nazareth respected Jesus enough to have him reading at there services.
That is not an honour afforded to just anyone, but only to the most respected of individuals.
And of course they wanted to thrust him out, he had angered them by bringing faithful Gentiles to their attention.
　
The scripture was written on a scroll and Jesus 'found the place' and read 2 contiguous verses from Isaiah 61.
Then he closed the book and handed it back.
He did not have to jump from place to place.
Why couldn't he roll the scroll, was it open at chapter 1 or chapter 33 or chapter 66, and why would that preclude his finding the passage?
　
'Jesus was probably illiterate'
C'mon, he was a Rabbi and could even write in the dust of the ground.
He continually upbraded people for not reading the scriptures and prefaces so many remarks with 'it is written', have ye not read', 'Moses saith' etc.
Where'd you get that one from?
　
Why a mamzer?
　
Jesus is called 'Joseph's son' in the passage from Luke that you just quoted.
　
Jesus was the head of the household, he could not have been if Joseph still lived.
He sent his mother to live with John, he had no right to do that if Joseph still lived.
　
I do not assume they were all dead.
I very much doubt that divorce was an issue between Mary and Joseph.
Joseph is described as being an 'just man' and had a sensitivity of spirit, he took care for his family, both their physical and spiritual well-being, and had struggled with the idea of divorce before the consumation of his marriage.
Mary had her children about her, but no Joseph, and Jesus was the head of the household; I reason that Joseph was dead when the Ministry began.
　
The evidence for Luke speaking with Mary is in the details of his opening chapters.
They describe events that only Mary would have known of and the deep and secret ponderings of her heart, and inmost thoughts and they contain her detailed genealogy.
　
Matthew's account is very much from Joseph's pov. It may be that Matthew knew Joseph.
Matthew doesn't give his sources, Luke takes trouble to mention that he spoke with those who were witnesses and only Mary could be witness to the things of his 1st 3 chapters.

 

[outhouse]

It seems that Mary and Joseph cohabited soon after her return from Elisabeth.
She may not have yet been showing, which is particularly likely considering the style of clothing of the time.
　
Being born out of wedlock was a stigma, not being conceived.
But, in any case, Mary and Joseph were married (being espoused) at the time. Joseph could not have considered divorce unless they were already married.
Maybe you can drop the repeated assertion of dishonour and provide a reference.
　
And Jesus would have only been a 'mamzer' if his father was forbidden to marry Mary.
To say he was a mamzer assumes that Joseph was not his father and clearly, physically, Joseph was the most likely candidate.
And Joseph was the man that those closest to them ascribed the parentage.
　
I don't understand how you can reason anyone other than Joseph as the father.
Which would not make him a mamzer.
How do you reason he was a mamzer?
　
The community of Nazareth respected Jesus enough to have him reading at there services.
That is not an honour afforded to just anyone, but only to the most respected of individuals.
And of course they wanted to thrust him out, he had angered them by bringing faithful Gentiles to their attention.
　
The scripture was written on a scroll and Jesus 'found the place' and read 2 contiguous verses from Isaiah 61.
Then he closed the book and handed it back.
He did not have to jump from place to place.
Why couldn't he roll the scroll, was it open at chapter 1 or chapter 33 or chapter 66, and why would that preclude his finding the passage?
　
'Jesus was probably illiterate'
C'mon, he was a Rabbi and could even write in the dust of the ground.
He continually upbraded people for not reading the scriptures and prefaces so many remarks with 'it is written', have ye not read', 'Moses saith' etc.
Where'd you get that one from?
　
Why a mamzer?
　
Jesus is called 'Joseph's son' in the passage from Luke that you just quoted.
　
Jesus was the head of the household, he could not have been if Joseph still lived.
He sent his mother to live with John, he had no right to do that if Joseph still lived.
　
I do not assume they were all dead.
I very much doubt that divorce was an issue between Mary and Joseph.
Joseph is described as being an 'just man' and had a sensitivity of spirit, he took care for his family, both their physical and spiritual well-being, and had struggled with the idea of divorce before the consumation of his marriage.
Mary had her children about her, but no Joseph, and Jesus was the head of the household; I reason that Joseph was dead when the Ministry began.
　
The evidence for Luke speaking with Mary is in the details of his opening chapters.
They describe events that only Mary would have known of and the deep and secret ponderings of her heart, and inmost thoughts and they contain her detailed genealogy.
　
Matthew's account is very much from Joseph's pov. It may be that Matthew knew Joseph.
Matthew doesn't give his sources, Luke takes trouble to mention that he spoke with those who were witnesses and only Mary could be witness to the things of his 1st 3 chapters.

are you not dragging allot of personal details from books not written by any first hand witnesses?????????

 

[fallingblood]

It seems that Mary and Joseph cohabited soon after her return from Elisabeth.
She may not have yet been showing, which is particularly likely considering the style of clothing of the time.

That is all assumption, and is not suitable for a historical discussion.
　

Being born out of wedlock was a stigma, not being conceived.
But, in any case, Mary and Joseph were married (being espoused) at the time. Joseph could not have considered divorce unless they were already married.
Maybe you can drop the repeated assertion of dishonour and provide a reference.

Check out Bruce Chilton. In his book, Rabbi Jesus, he covers this whole thing.

And yes, being conceived out of wedlock was a stigma. Primarily because there was a suggestion of adultery.

　
And Jesus would have only been a 'mamzer' if his father was forbidden to marry Mary.
To say he was a mamzer assumes that Joseph was not his father and clearly, physically, Joseph was the most likely candidate.
And Joseph was the man that those closest to them ascribed the parentage.

You are saying this long after the time. Joseph obviously didn't think he was the father.

　
I don't understand how you can reason anyone other than Joseph as the father.
Which would not make him a mamzer.
How do you reason he was a mamzer?

Bruce Chilton covers this very well in his book, Rabbi Jesus.

As for someone else being the father of Jesus, it is quite easy to think of a way. Mary was either raped, or had sex with some other man. We know that the idea of Mary having a child with a Roman soldier goes back some time. And there are hints in the Gospels, such as ascribing Jesus to be the son of Mary, a woman, which was not common, that something was circulating about his birth. Which would make Jesus a mamzer.
　

The community of Nazareth respected Jesus enough to have him reading at there services.
That is not an honour afforded to just anyone, but only to the most respected of individuals.
And of course they wanted to thrust him out, he had angered them by bringing faithful Gentiles to their attention.

I think you are mistaking the synagogue of the time of Jesus to the post-Temple synagogue. They are different.

Jesus did not have to be one of the most respected individuals. They had to be able to read. And, by that time anyway, Jesus had already built up quite a reputation for himself. So it wouldn't have been out of the question to let a mamzer preach in the synagogue.

As for bringing faith Gentiles to their attention, that is doubtful. We are told that Jesus stated that his followers were not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans. There are quite a few reason to assume that this account was not a historical account. John Dominic Crossan covers it more in his biography of Jesus.
　

The scripture was written on a scroll and Jesus 'found the place' and read 2 contiguous verses from Isaiah 61.
Then he closed the book and handed it back.
He did not have to jump from place to place.
Why couldn't he roll the scroll, was it open at chapter 1 or chapter 33 or chapter 66, and why would that preclude his finding the passage?

Actually, if the verse is looked at, it's a couple of different verses in Isaiah that are quoted. So for one, he couldn't have read the verse as stated in Luke. The quote in Luke comes from a mixture of Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 58:6.

So he couldn't have read the verse as said. And the way scrolls were, he couldn't have switched back easily. So it is highly improbable that he read those verses.
　

'Jesus was probably illiterate'
C'mon, he was a Rabbi and could even write in the dust of the ground.
He continually upbraded people for not reading the scriptures and prefaces so many remarks with 'it is written', have ye not read', 'Moses saith' etc.
Where'd you get that one from?

You are using a definition of Rabbi that has nothing to do with the first century. A Rabbi in the first century did not constitute one who went through extensive study. It did not mean they could read or write. It did not mean they were educated. It really was just a teacher, and that did not require an education, especially not one of the later Rabbis.

Also, he never wrote in the dust. He drew or scribbled in the ground, but what he did, no one saw. So that is not evidence.

Also, he would say, You have heard it said, but I say to you. Why? Because most people couldn't read. The best studies show that at most, 10 percent were literate. Some closer studies for the area put it to 1-3%. And for the most part, that was something for the upper class. The ones who had the time and money to partake in an expensive education. So it would be illogical for Jesus to say you have read it, because most people couldn't read. Instead, they would have heard it read in the synagogue. Most people knew the Hebrew scripture by hearing it, and memorizing it.
　

　
Jesus is called 'Joseph's son' in the passage from Luke that you just quoted.

Like I said, it only occurs in the birth passages, in regards to the genealogies. And in those cases, for all extensive purposes, he was the legal son of Joseph. However, legal does not translate to biological. And even in the passage in Luke, Jesus is only said to appear to be the son of Joseph.

Every other case, when talking about Jesus, Joseph is not mentioned. Our earliest source in fact says that Jesus was the son of Mary, with no mention at all to a father.
　

Jesus was the head of the household, he could not have been if Joseph still lived.
He sent his mother to live with John, he had no right to do that if Joseph still lived.

Who says Jesus was the head of the household? How could he have been if he was out ministering? For the most part, we are told that Jesus is not at home, that he is out and about. Not a very good head of a household. More so, Jesus had other brothers who could have taken that position.

And really, if Joseph divorced Mary, then Jesus, or James would have all of the right to do that. Again, it is just as likely that there is a divorce as there was that there was a death. There is actually more evidence towards a divorce than a death. And even then, it is very scant evidence.
　

I do not assume they were all dead.
I very much doubt that divorce was an issue between Mary and Joseph.
Joseph is described as being an 'just man' and had a sensitivity of spirit, he took care for his family, both their physical and spiritual well-being, and had struggled with the idea of divorce before the consumation of his marriage.
Mary had her children about her, but no Joseph, and Jesus was the head of the household; I reason that Joseph was dead when the Ministry began.

Joseph is only described in the very early years of Jesus, his birth. Things change after ten, twenty years. And to get a divorce did not mean he wasn't a just man. It simply meant that there was a problem.

And again, Jesus is not said to be the head of the household. Jesus was not even home for most of the time that we have any record about him. You are assuming way too much, and there simply is not enough evidence to support your case.
　

The evidence for Luke speaking with Mary is in the details of his opening chapters.
They describe events that only Mary would have known of and the deep and secret ponderings of her heart, and inmost thoughts and they contain her detailed genealogy.

Or he could have made up the whole thing. That is just as possible. As for the genealogy, again, there is no sign that it came from Mary. It specifically says it was the genealogy of Joseph.

And really, the story in Luke doesn't make sense. There was no reason for a trip to Bethlehem. Actually, such a trip is illogical. Not to mention unnecessary as the census was only of Roman provinces, Galilee not being one. So if Mary was really the source, she had gone delirious.
　

Matthew's account is very much from Joseph's pov. It may be that Matthew knew Joseph.
Matthew doesn't give his sources, Luke takes trouble to mention that he spoke with those who were witnesses and only Mary could be witness to the things of his 1st 3 chapters.

There is no chance that Matthew's account came from Joseph. It resembles the story of Moses way too much. More so, there is no evidence of such.


You're basing your argument on tradition, and assumptions that have no historical evidence.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

that is not how evolution works. This is grade school basic evolution.

I am not discussing the details of evolution as that is not the subject of this thread.

I suggest you use google and search for a basic understanding of evolution

Well, google has thousands of sites discussing this subject. If we are discussing, then I think we should use our own logic and explaination, rather than refering me to google.

 

[outhouse]

I am not discussing the details of evolution as that is not the subject of this thread.





Well, google has thousands of sites discussing this subject. If we are discussing, then I think we should use our own logic and explaination, rather than refering me to google.

you need to go to google and learn, its obvious you have a poor understanding of evolution. if your still in grade school thats fine. If your not, your probably getting left behind by 7th graders in most country's around the world..

this is basic science

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is what evolution is about. It is a change over time. At some point, prehuman beings slowly changed into humans. Most likely, there were probably many first humans. It doesn't prove it wrong. Just that it is more complicated than you try to make it.

I think, we should look at this subject with a broader view, and not limit our focus to only one thing without biasing.

I mean, we should look at the fact that, from a time when even the earth didn't exist, and then human came into existence over billions of years. I believe this would give a much better and broader view, which takes us closer to reality. If we only consider that every human has parents, therefore it is impossible that Jesus didn't have a father, then this is narrowing our view. Which makes it like chicken and the egg story!