Who Was Jesus' Father?

[1989]

3 hours ago, Lefty said:

Though I must admit it puzzles me when you ask those questions, then state you want "justifications, not facts". What specifically are you trying to accomplish?

 

It was a joke.  I was soliciting opinions on the matter because I thought it was an interesting subject.

[Lefty]

Fair enough. I tend to be a little slow at times!

[wellnamed]

On 2/28/2019 at 9:39 PM, DarkBishop said:

Ok here is a serious answer. The truth is that the gospels were written well after Jesus' death and also after most anyone who was alive at the time. Every word in the gospels is from second hand accounts. The oldest gospel is considered to be Mark which didn't have a geneology. Basically for the scriptures used to justify the story of Jesus being the son of God on earth to be true he had to be traced back to David as the Old testament scriptures had said. I'm sure that the scriptures that the early christians were quoting were coming under heavy scrutiny especially by anyone who was actually Jewish. This is probably an example of one of the first attempts at a cover up for the holes in the christian narrative. OOOooooo I know lets write another gospel with his family tree on it so they will know that he was also the son of David. So they knew a few of Davids descendants made up a few then popped ole Joseph or Mary in there and boom. See Jesus is the Son of David. 

 

Yeah, so I think it's clear that the genealogies exist because of the Jewish expectation at the time that the Messiah should be descended from David.

 

It's probably worth mentioning that the doctrine of the Trinity comes about much later, in the fourth century, and was conceived of by Greek Christians who were much less concerned with that question, which might explain the apparent tension. If you read Gregory Nazianzen or the other principle inventors of the trinitarian doctrine you'll find they have their own reasons which are quite disconnected from Jewish concerns about the lineage of the Messiah. Gregory needs Jesus to be God (and the spirit to be God) quite literally because of his theory of salvation and the divinization of Man. His principle is that God can only "save" mankind by becoming human and so making human beings divine. I'm not sure, but it seems possible to me that very early Christians didn't think that "Son of God" meant exactly the same thing that trinitarian Christians do. We know for sure at least that there were more than a few different views about Jesus' divinity, and the unorthodox ones came to be considered heresies over time. One possibility is that they didn't interpret Mary's story as implying that Joseph's sperm wasn't involved at all, but something more like that God blessed their union or whatever. That wouldn't seem incompatible with Luke 1 anyway.

 

One of the things that I've always found entertaining about Trinitarianism -- beyond just the fact that most trinitarian Christians can't seem to make heads or tails of it to begin with -- is that they also are mostly ignorant of the theological reasons for it. I'd guess most modern Christians would think some of the 4th century theology sounded suspiciously new agey

[Lefty]

The problem is with referencing all those various religious experts of so-called "organized Christianity" old or new. That is their interpretations, and many are offered up with ulterior motives.

 

If a person can read the book themselves, they will find a clear case for the Trinity. You don't need some biased expert to tell you it's there or not in print. The early followers didn't have a single book to read, and many couldn't read anyway, so there was no way for them to read it all and see all the connections. Once the bible was assembled, it becomes much more clear. You also have to sort out all those who offered their interpretations even though they themselves did not/do not actually believe. There are many "false teachers" in the Christian realm and a ton more who simply are not correct in their interpretations because they adhere to an organized church group's doctrine.

 

You can make the case though that the evidence is there, even in a single book. Jesus said, assuming it was true, that "I and my father are one". (book of John) Of course that alone causes a problem with many who believe that to be blasphemy, so they don't bother to read further. We also have to remember that back in the day, there were virtually no Christians at all for a long time. It was mainly Jews, middle eastern pagan variations along with followers of Roman gods. The only real complaints were coming from Jews. The rest of the population couldn't care less about a trinity, but Rome cared a lot about the public bowing to Ceasar. Rome was determined to get the Jews under control. Rome had motive, and where did the Catholic church end up? Rome. It would have made much more sense if it had turned out to be the Roman Catholic Synagogue, and the Vatican was a Jewish temple. The details of what is correct doctrine quickly become nothing more than a distraction so you don't see what is going on with the other hand.  

[Casey]

Jesus, if he ever existed, was probably the son  of a Roman Standard Bearer of a Cohort of Archers, whose name was Julius Abdes Pantera. The Talmud refers to Jesus as Yeshua ben Pantera, "Jesus the son of Pantera." Celsus makes this allegation in a now lost work of his quoted by the Church Father Origen in his apologetic Contra Celsum. or Against Celsus. Makes more sense to me that another dog jumped the wall and got the bitch in pup than that the Holy Spirit did the job.

Casey