Geshmache Yid!

Welcome to our Forum. Please log in. If you have issues, please contact the adminstrator for assistance.
Geshmache Yid!

All things Jewish



    Posts : 721
    Join date : 2009-08-07
    Location : Pa


    Post  Arik on Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:52 am

    (C&P from another Forum)

    Let us examine the miraculous pregnancy of the Ever-Virgin Mother (who had more than half a dozen children), and the circumstances of the birth of her first-born, Jesus.

    Again, Matthew is the inspired historian--relating that, "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1.18); that Joseph felt quite naturally disposed to "put her away privily," but that he dreamed that an angel of G-d told him to fear not to accept his wife Mary, "for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1.20). This dream seems to have quite satisfied Joseph, though he had never heard of a Holy Ghost, and no such person of the Christian trinity is recorded in Hebrew Scriptures.

    A curious grammatical consideration tends to disprove that Gabriel told Joseph (Matthew 1.20), or Mary (Luke 1.35), that the Holy Ghost would be the father of her child. In the Hebrew, or, Aramaic, spoken by these peasants, the word "spirit" or "ghost" (ruach) is of the feminine gender, and would never be thought of as indicating a potential father. But in Greek the word (pneuma) is masculine, so that the Church Father who forged the tale might with grammatical propriety, however fictitiously, say that the hagion pneuma (holy ghost) begot Jesus. So Joseph, "being raised from sleep, did as [he dreamed that] the angel of G-d had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (Matthew 1.24-25; cf. Luke 2.7).

    Thus we learn, from Matthew, that the news of this pregnancy of his wife by the Holy Ghost was first broken to Joseph in a dream. When he dreamed this, Inspiration does not directly tell, but it is readily deduced that it was not until at least three months after the secret visitation by the Holy Ghost took place (see below). That it was several months after is also indicated by the fact that Joseph then took her unto himself, "and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" -- evidently a considerable space of time, as the fact of Joseph's marital self-restraint is specially noted.

    This also disproves the dogma that Mary remained immaculate and ever-virgin: for, that Joseph knew her not "till" she had given birth to her first-born son, shows that he did "know her" carnally thereafter; and her "first-born" son shows that there were others born thereafter. So a favorite fallacy of the "celibate Fathers" is exploded; to say nothing of the virginity-destroying effects of the births of half a dozen brothers and sisters of Jesus: "his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, and his sisters," (Matthew 13.55-56; Mark 6.2-3); and Paul speaks of seeing his friend the apostle "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians. 1.19).

    Luke, as usual, contradicts Matthew's story of Joseph's dream of the origin of his wife's pregnancy. Luke goes into much detail, relating that the angel Gabriel, in the sixth month after his like mission to Mary's cousin Elizabeth, was sent from G-d to Nazareth, "to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, ... and the virgin's name was Mary" (Luke 1.26-27). Gabriel announced to Mary that "the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," and that she should "bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus." And Gabriel told her that the same kind of thing had already happened to her cousin Elizabeth six months before; and be departed. Mary, with true womanly instinct, arose and went with haste into the hill country, to Elizabeth's town, to congratulate her and to break the news of her own like expectation; they both celebrated exultantly "with a loud voice" (i, 42).

    Mary's hymn of praise at the "annunciation" is not a spontaneous and original jubilation; it is almost word-for-word copied from the song of Hannah over the similar annunciation of the birth of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 2.1-5; Luke 1.47-55).

    Whether the annunciation was made by an angel to Mary or in a dream to Joseph, there is little difference; Luke's angels are of the same sort of stuff as Matthew's dreams, and everyone is coming now to know that angels's tales and the New Testament visions are just "the baseless fabric of a dream."

    Mary had not told Joseph of the "visitation" of the Holy Ghost to her, and that he was ignorant of it for at least three months. This is very evident from Matthew's inspired record. The promise was no doubt performed to Mary at the time of the "visitation" of the angel, related by Luke. It was three months later, when Mary returned to Joseph, or later still, that Joseph, by some means not revealed, "found" that Mary was "with child of the Holy Ghost." Really what Joseph found was simply that his wife "was with child," without his knowing by whom or what. For Joseph was naturally, "minded to put her away privily," so as not to "make her a public example" and create a scandal, as Matthew says. So Joseph could not have known, at the time of his discovery of the pregnancy, who was its source. It was only later, when he was sleeping on the matter, that he dreamed that he was told: "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1.20). That the suspicions of Joseph should have been so easily allayed by a dream may appear strange. Both Joseph and Mary, as Luke elsewhere relates, disclaim the whole story of the intervention of the Holy Ghost in the conception of Jesus, and themselves assert their own human and natural parenthood of the Child (Luke 2.48-50).

    The great god of the Greeks, Zeus, was a prolific author of virgin births, of which I cite only the well-known and highly accredited instances of his copulation in the form of a swan with Leda, the miraculous product of which was the twins Castor and Pollux, and his intrigue with Io, which resulted in a son Epaphus.

    The Roman war-god Mars likewise kept amorous tryst with the vestal virgin Rhea Silvia, from which the twins Romulus and Remus resulted. The great hero Achilles was also the product of the amours of, this time, a human father and the immortal sea-goddess Thetis. Divine hybrids in human form resulted. Alexander the Great was reputed son of his mother Olympias and Jupiter Ammon, as that god himself declared. The Egyptian Pharaohs and the Roman emperors were gods, the former by birth, the latter by apotheosis, just as are saints by canonization. The son of the Holy Ghost and Mary could not have been altogether "Very God," but was half human, and so only a demigod. Either virgin births by gods were very frequent actualities in the good old pagan times, or priestly assurance and popular credulity passed them as miraculous events worthy of faith. It is all the same, so far as they may serve as precedents for faith in the virgin birth of the reputed Son of G-d.

    The only authentication which we have of this much controverted event is sundry "proofs of Holy Writ," consisting of very contradictory scraps of inspiration in the New Testament.

    Peter, at Pentecost, when all were filled with the Holy Ghost, preached his first sermon, in which by plenary inspiration he declared: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you," etc. "The patriarch David. ... Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him [Psalm 132.11-12], that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2.22, 29-30). What could be more positive proof of humanity and disproof of divine paternity than this first avowal of Peter, perverted by his successors? And Paul, if he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, says: "Jesus Christ of the seed of David" (2 Tim. 2.Cool. And John of Patmos: "I Jesus ... am the root and the offspring of David" (Revelations 22.16). A god cannot be crazy, but Mark records (Mark 3.21; cf. John 10.20) that the family and friends of Jesus thought him so and went to arrest him as a madman: "And when his friends [margin: relatives] heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself" (Greek: existemi, to be out of one's wits, distracted, beside oneself). Thus his own family knew him for human and knew nothing of the fabled paternity of the Holy Ghost.

    Paul, admits that Jesus was altogether human in origin, for he "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1.3), and was simply "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness" (Romans 1.4). Paul admits the manhood of the Christ: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2.5). The Christ of Peter and Paul was not a god, but a mere man, "approved of God," and endowed with divine gifts, but yet a mere human being. Mark, the earliest of the gospel biographers, mentions no miraculous or virgin birth at all, either of Jesus or of John; Mark is therefore a potent witness 'ab silentio' against the controverted fact. Luke, after quoting Gabriel in chapter 1 (28-36), seems to forget all about him in chapter 2, where he simply relates that Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem "to be taxed, with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. ... And she brought forth her firstborn son" (Luke 2.5,7). Luke also relates the visit of Simeon to the temple to see the Child. Simeon indulged in ecstasies very like those of Gabriel. It is recorded: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him" (Luke 2.33). Why should they marvel at what they already knew from Gabriel? It is evidence that Gabriel hadn't told them, and that they knew the child was their own son.

    John says not a word of miraculous or virgin birth; be says: "I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God " (John 1. 34). Exactly what what John meant by "Son of God" he has previously defined--this expression is clearly shown by his own words to be used in a metaphorical, or Pickwickian, sense ― for all believers are sons of God: "But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name [even the devils believe and tremble]: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (i, 12, 13).

    Thus two of the four gospel biographers wholly ignore ― and so tacitly deny ― any pretence of miraculous or virgin birth ― the most transcendent dogma of later Christian faith. Also Paul and Peter, the greatest authors of dogma, expressly declare Jesus to have been of purely human procreation and birth ― "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" ― as he could not have been if of godly paternity. And if Jesus was not, through Joseph, "of the seed of David," every inspired "prophecy of the Messiah" fails utterly.

    Posts : 82
    Join date : 2009-08-11


    Post  Philip on Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:39 am

    I would like to add something I read but cannot remember the exact details..... the lineage of Mary to David ha Melech is through a cursed lineage. The person or King that Mary is descended from was cursed by God to have no heir on the Throne. I cannot remember which King that was. Although perhaps descended from David.... the Messiah could NEVER come through the line that is listed for Mary.

    Posts : 721
    Join date : 2009-08-07
    Location : Pa


    Post  Arik on Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 pm

    evangelicals use the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23-38) to argue that it is Mary's and that it leads to King David. This approach suffers from the following multiple problems, which make it a rather difficult pill to swallow:

    - Mary's name is missing from the genealogy
    - Christians cannot agree on whether this genealogy is Mary's or Yeshu's
    - Even if it were Mary's genealogy (which is in doubt), and even if maternal lineage were acceptable according to the Hebrew Bible (which is not so), this genealogy reaches King David through Nathan, who was Solomon's brother. Yet, the Hebrew Bible explicitly states that the Davidic throne will pass through Solomon, David's son who would build the First Temple (2Samuel 7:12-16, 1Kings 8:15-20, 1Chronicles 17:11-15, 22:9-10, 28:3-7)


    Posts : 2
    Join date : 2012-05-30

    cursed line

    Post  OregonAngel on Wed May 30, 2012 11:27 am

    Read the lineage of Joseph.
    it has Coniah as a grandfather of his.

    Posts : 466
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 55
    Location : East Coast, USA


    Post  Yehudah on Wed May 30, 2012 1:43 pm

    None of it matters.

    The Torah is clear: If any man or woman changes one letter of Torah, that person is an apikorais and will be put to death.

    yeshka and his ilk decided that G-d's Torah wasn't good enough, and decided that it's laws weren't applicable - not to mention proclaiming yeshka as flesh of Hashem.

    he was put to death and the Torah dictates.


    ...trying to actualize my potential!

    Sponsored content


    Post  Sponsored content

      Current date/time is Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:08 am