Genealogy Of Jesus

[Aiyana]

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

[Guest Marty]

For many reasons, I feel jesus never existed as a single person, but was an attempt to Helenize Judaism using the tried and true mythological archetype of the hero story.  (Read Joseph Campbell for more info)  Now, there were lots of messiah's in the first century, and elements of the jesus character may have been taken from some of these real life people, or, the writers chose to put their story in this time because of the many would be messiahs would make the tale more believable.

 

One of the "clues" I think point to this are the 2 separate genealogies of jesus' ancestry in the NT that are completely different except for the beginning and the ends.  i.e. Mary and Joseph and Adam and Eve.

[centauri]

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

There's really no way to know how much might be true.

Considering these genealogies both rely on a miracle conception, that part of the tale smacks of fiction.

However, neither genealogy in the NT can produce a king messiah, for multiple reasons.

[mymistake]

George R. R. Martin can write better fiction than the gospels of Matthew or Luke.

[Blood]

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

 

Only the super rich and powerful had any way of keeping family genealogies, and even then, it would only be from when they attained their power/wealth. 

 

Peasants had no idea what their genealogy was and didn't care. They had no way of keeping such records. There were no "family bibles" to write birth dates in. Even if there were, they couldn't write anyway.

 

Like most people, Jews didn't have "last names." You were simply called "Simon, son of Benjamin." This tradition lasted until the 18th-19th Century! 

 

So the idea that this peasant "Jesus Ben Joseph" could trace his ancestry back A THOUSAND YEARS to King David is the first clue that the New Testament is bullshit. Not just ordinary bullshit, but big-time, major leagues bullshit of a rare order. 

[mymistake]

Abraham was the original Jesus Christ.

 

Back in the old religion Abraham was God's avitar.  Abraham was the bridge between humans and the divine.  Abraham had all the cool old religious stories.  And then Moses became the new Jesus Christ.  So Moses was getting all the attention as the bridge between humans and the divine.  Then centuries later, Joshua became the new Jesus Christ.  Joshua even has the same name as Jesus.

 

None of these jokers was real.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Which genealogy are you asking about?  There are two and they contradict one another.

[miekko]

 

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

 

Only the super rich and powerful had any way of keeping family genealogies, and even then, it would only be from when they attained their power/wealth. 

 

Peasants had no idea what their genealogy was and didn't care. They had no way of keeping such records. There were no "family bibles" to write birth dates in. Even if there were, they couldn't write anyway.

 

Like most people, Jews didn't have "last names." You were simply called "Simon, son of Benjamin." This tradition lasted until the 18th-19th Century! 

 

So the idea that this peasant "Jesus Ben Joseph" could trace his ancestry back A THOUSAND YEARS to King David is the first clue that the New Testament is bullshit. Not just ordinary bullshit, but big-time, major leagues bullshit of a rare order. 

 

Yet we know many illiterate peasant societies keep track of several generations back! Of course there'll be a certain amount of errors in it (but mainly because of unfaithfulness, not because of misremembered information). So, your argument in part is wrong. (Also, literacy in the ancient world was greatest in Israel, as the Jewish religion was more focused on scripture than other religions.) Your conclusion is correct, but the arguments you present are somewhat mistaken.

[miekko]

Abraham was the original Jesus Christ.

 

Back in the old religion Abraham was God's avitar.  Abraham was the bridge between humans and the divine.  Abraham had all the cool old religious stories.  And then Moses became the new Jesus Christ.  So Moses was getting all the attention as the bridge between humans and the divine.  Then centuries later, Joshua became the new Jesus Christ.  Joshua even has the same name as Jesus.

 

None of these jokers was real.

rrrreally? Sources please? (I mean, I agree Abraham and Joshua didn't exist; your further claims about them seem rather a tad too strong though.)

[mymistake]

 

Abraham was the original Jesus Christ.

 

Back in the old religion Abraham was God's avitar.  Abraham was the bridge between humans and the divine.  Abraham had all the cool old religious stories.  And then Moses became the new Jesus Christ.  So Moses was getting all the attention as the bridge between humans and the divine.  Then centuries later, Joshua became the new Jesus Christ.  Joshua even has the same name as Jesus.

 

None of these jokers was real.

rrrreally? Sources please? (I mean, I agree Abraham and Joshua didn't exist; your further claims about them seem rather a tad too strong though.)

 

 

You need sources that Yoshua and Yeshua are the same name in different languages?

 

You need sources that Moses, Joshua, Abraham were religious icons?

 

You need sources that the Jewish invasion of Canaan does not match archeology?

 

You need sources on the Priestly, Yawist,  Elohist, and Deuteronomist sources of the Old Testament?

 

You need sources that Abraham was a patriot for a wider range of cultures in the Mid East?

 

Or all of the above?

[DoubtingNate]

George R. R. Martin can write better fiction than the gospels of Matthew or Luke.

I could talk all day about the role of religion in westerosi society. May the warrior grant us courage and the crone guide us in her wisdom, for the night is dark and full of terrors!

[mymistake]

 

George R. R. Martin can write better fiction than the gospels of Matthew or Luke.

I could talk all day about the role of religion in westerosi society. May the warrior grant us courage and the crone guide us in her wisdom, for the night is dark and full of terrors!

 

 

 

Heretic!  The God of Light is the only true God!

[miekko]

 

 

Abraham was the original Jesus Christ.

 

Back in the old religion Abraham was God's avitar.  Abraham was the bridge between humans and the divine.  Abraham had all the cool old religious stories.  And then Moses became the new Jesus Christ.  So Moses was getting all the attention as the bridge between humans and the divine.  Then centuries later, Joshua became the new Jesus Christ.  Joshua even has the same name as Jesus.

 

None of these jokers was real.

rrrreally? Sources please? (I mean, I agree Abraham and Joshua didn't exist; your further claims about them seem rather a tad too strong though.)

 

 

You need sources that Yoshua and Yeshua are the same name in different languages?

 

You need sources that Moses, Joshua, Abraham were religious icons?

 

You need sources that the Jewish invasion of Canaan does not match archeology?

 

You need sources on the Priestly, Yawist,  Elohist, and Deuteronomist sources of the Old Testament?

 

You need sources that Abraham was a patriot for a wider range of cultures in the Mid East?

 

Or all of the above?

 

I need sources for the claim that Abraham (and even more so Joshua) had roles in pre-Judaic religion that is comparable with that of Jesus wrt Christianity (that is, was Moses really seen as a "bridge" between human and god, was Abraham *really* seen as God's *avatar*. Those are your claims, and those are claims that are pretty clearly stated in your post, and those are the ones I want to ) .

 

If you have even 5 fucking cents worth of reading comprehension, you'll notice I did not question whether the Torah (not the Old Testament, apparently you're a bit more ignorant than you want to pretend!) most likely has four main sources by those four names (and the Deuteronomist goes on to contribute the bulk of "historical" books - i.e. Kings and so on, but Chronicles is a competing recension by some other hand), you would notice I don't question whether Jeshua and Joshua are linguistic variants of the same name, etc. All these things you ask whether I am asking are entirely fucking absent from my post, and it looks like you're trying to claim I am an idiot or something. All the questions you seem to assume I am asking are entirely not there, whereas the question I am asking is pretty goddamn clear from looking at in considering that it's a response to your post.

[mymistake]

If you have even 5 fucking cents worth of reading comprehension, you'll notice I did not question whether the Torah (not the Old Testament, apparently you're a bit more ignorant than you want to pretend!) most likely has four main sources by those four names (and the Deuteronomist goes on to contribute the bulk of "historical" books - i.e. Kings and so on, but Chronicles is a competing recension by some other hand), you would notice I don't question whether Jeshua and Joshua are linguistic variants of the same name, etc. All these things you ask whether I am asking are entirely fucking absent from my post, and it looks like you're trying to claim I am an idiot or something. 

 

 

I was polite to you.  You did not elaborate what you wanted to know so I asked you to clarify.  I can't read your mind.  All you said was "Your further claims" and doesn't communicate enough.

 

Looks like you have already made up your mind.

[miekko]

 

If you have even 5 fucking cents worth of reading comprehension, you'll notice I did not question whether the Torah (not the Old Testament, apparently you're a bit more ignorant than you want to pretend!) most likely has four main sources by those four names (and the Deuteronomist goes on to contribute the bulk of "historical" books - i.e. Kings and so on, but Chronicles is a competing recension by some other hand), you would notice I don't question whether Jeshua and Joshua are linguistic variants of the same name, etc. All these things you ask whether I am asking are entirely fucking absent from my post, and it looks like you're trying to claim I am an idiot or something. 

 

 

I was polite to you.  You did not elaborate what you wanted to know so I asked you to clarify.  I can't read your mind.  All you said was "Your further claims" and doesn't communicate enough.

 

Looks like you have already made up your mind.

 

The entire content of your post was exactly what I was asking about - yet you in return ask me if I am asking about all these things your post did not hint at. You were the first to be rude here.

[mymistake]

You were the first to be rude here.

 

 

 

Nope.  I did not fling f-bombs at you.  I asked you to clarify.  That isn't rude.  I don't know what your deal is but my interest was in friendly discussion. 

[miekko]

 

You were the first to be rude here.

 

 

 

Nope.  I did not fling f-bombs at you.  I asked you to clarify.  That isn't rude.  I don't know what your deal is but my interest was in friendly discussion. 

 

Your question was basically framed as though you were speaking to a complete and utter idiot. I bet you realize just how offensive that is.

[mymistake]

 

 

Your question was basically framed as though you were speaking to a complete and utter idiot. I bet you realize just how offensive that is.

 

 

 

I don't have any control over what you take offense over.  I never assumed nor implied that you were an idiot.  Get as angry as you wish but "your further claims" does not communicate anything specific and I wanted to narrow it down so I didn't have to write an entire book.

 

 

 

I think you owe me an explanation.  Are you angry at me from a previous incident or perhaps were you angry about something else and just blowing off steam?  I would hate to think you lose your temper at the drop of a hat.

[wyson]

According to the History of Christianity by Diarmaid McCulloch, Jesus had a brother called James who is documented as having played an important role in the early Christian church.

 

Robert Beckford in his series Who wrote the Bible theorised that Jesus was a rabbi, who went on to preach, whose sermons were radicalised by Paul of Tarsus.

 

Robert Beckford also did a program called The Secret Family of Jesus which goes into Jesus's geneology.

 

Robert Beckford is an academic at mainstream UK universities so his research should be reasonably sound. Both of his programs can be found on youtube.

 

Diarmaid McCulloch is a professor of church history at Oxford University so his research should also be sound.

[chrisdownunder]

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

Let me put it this way, if this world suffered a global disaster that destroyed all current knowledge and thousands of years later archaeologist dug up the harry potter novels, it would most likely become a holy book and millions of people would create a religion out of it.

[Blood]

 

 

What do you guys think about Jesus and his genealogy? Do you think Jesus was a real man, with real ancestors (David, Ruth, and all the like), but he just wasn't divine? Or do you think the whole thing was made up, like if I were to sit down with a pen and paper and invent a genealogy for my book character? Do you think some of the people were real, but not related to Jesus? Any other thoughts?

 

Only the super rich and powerful had any way of keeping family genealogies, and even then, it would only be from when they attained their power/wealth. 

 

Peasants had no idea what their genealogy was and didn't care. They had no way of keeping such records. There were no "family bibles" to write birth dates in. Even if there were, they couldn't write anyway.

 

Like most people, Jews didn't have "last names." You were simply called "Simon, son of Benjamin." This tradition lasted until the 18th-19th Century! 

 

So the idea that this peasant "Jesus Ben Joseph" could trace his ancestry back A THOUSAND YEARS to King David is the first clue that the New Testament is bullshit. Not just ordinary bullshit, but big-time, major leagues bullshit of a rare order. 

 

Yet we know many illiterate peasant societies keep track of several generations back! Of course there'll be a certain amount of errors in it (but mainly because of unfaithfulness, not because of misremembered information). So, your argument in part is wrong. (Also, literacy in the ancient world was greatest in Israel, as the Jewish religion was more focused on scripture than other religions.) Your conclusion is correct, but the arguments you present are somewhat mistaken.

 

 

I'd like to know the source of the statement, "Literacy in the ancient world was greatest in Israel."

[Blood]

According to the History of Christianity by Diarmaid McCulloch, Jesus had a brother called James who is documented as having played an important role in the early Christian church.

 

Diarmaid McCulloch is a professor of church history at Oxford University so his research should also be sound.

 

Arguments from authority won't cut it around here. We are dealing with theology, which is pseudo-history, not real history. Sadly, even brilliant people like MacCulloch fail to grasp that immensely important distinction. "Tradition" is not history. 

 

Since Jesus was mythical, he couldn't have a brother, much less one who supposedly "played an important role" in the church. You basically have a figure mentioned once in Josephus, called Yacob, whom the later Christian mythographers grafted onto their pseudo-history via fake letters by another mythical figure, "Paul the miracle worker from Tarsus." 

[wyson]

Yes, even McCulloch and especially Beckford always state their theories with caveats such as "as far as we can tell", "the evidence suggests", "there are lots of competing theories, but I think...".  For these sorts of matters, I put an emphasis on the stuff that comes out of academia, as I feel its more rigorous than a lot of stuff out there, say Joseph Atwills theories. 

 

I would agree that Jesus of the Bible was mythical.  I feel the myths are based on a real man however, probably a learned paranoid schizophrenic, whose croonies wanted to make a living using his legacy after his death.  Some version of this taken by academia, and even entertained by people like Justin Welby (current archbishop of canterbury), albeit in a dilute form.

 

What sources did you read / research that state Jesus was a total myth?  Always interested in widening my horizons!

[qadeshet]

The miracle working Gospel Jesus, born of a virgin, is a myth. It is possible, but not probable, that one, or several, 1st century men partially inspired the Gospel accounts. I suspect that figures such as Jesus son of Damneus, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus "The Egyptian", and Jesus the Samaritan might have been combined to form the Gospel "Jesus". Jesus either began as an historical figure who became myth, or as a mythical figure who was later brought down to Earth. Take your pick. 

[themonkeyman]

Our good friend Celsus for example highlights that Jesus was the Bastard Child of 'Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera'

 

Now people can discredit Celsus all they like but the fact is we all know that the early church burned any critical documents and also killed those they considered a heretic.  Prophyry having absolutely no work in existance apart from a rebuttal from a priest shows us that early people in those centuries more than likely knew it was all bull shit and wrote about the problems.

 

Then the church burned them all so that Christianity would have no information with which to discredit it,  Think about it - If you want something to be snuffed out, Back then you killed the person and burned the library which is why its oddly quiet in history books regarding Jesus and the 12 Desciples.

 

Possibly because other works discredited Jesus and his miracles as bull shit - Even Celsus agrees that Jesus teachings were problematic at best and even argues on some of the things jesus did.

 

My two cents