Sheshbazzar

Why then have the Christians spent the last 2000 years in trying to convince everyone that Gawd was the father of Jezuz, and Mary was Jezuz mother?
Now the idea that Gawd is just everyones "father" just don't wash.
Wasn't the whole idea of Jezuz'z uniqueness and superiority among men, based on the claim that he alone is "the only begotten son" of Gawd?
Implicit throughout the NT teaching is that JC is the actual "Son" of Gawd in a sense that no other mortal could be.
His very claim to authority rests on him being the descendant of, and being a co-regent with Gawd, his father.

All of which is quite ridiculous anyways, as an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent and eternally-existing Entity would have absolutely no need for a co-regent, or for a descendant son to take over his reign, or to sit upon his throne.
A bunch of borrowed pagan mythology crudely cobbled together and pasted onto to the fabric of an ancient Hebrew national creation myth.
A political/religious ruse conveniently adaptable to the domination and manipulation of the ignorant and superstitious, and to the fleecing of the flock for the benefit of both the church and the state.
The slavishly willing victims of the system, love to have it so.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Sheshbazzar,

Good points, but remember that the writer of the gospel of Matthew wasn't looking at what Christians would do in the next 1900 years or so, he was interested in telling a tale for his time period (circa 140 C.E., I would suggest).

The Jesus material up to his time has a dove descending on a suddenly-appearing Jesus, during a baptism ceremony, and being adopted as a son by God. Apparently, people also had some kind of notion that Jesus was born of a promiscuous, unmarried women. This is seen in the scene where his mother and brothers and sisters come looking for him, but not his father. The wedding scene in the gospel of John, where Jesus' mother orders him to fetch wine, may also indicate that she was portrayed as a drunkard in the earliest narratives.

That there are scenes outside the birth narrative involving his mother, but none involving his father, even as a step-father, indicates that Joseph was never a part of the story. Even Joseph's trade as a carpenter seems to be derived from the idea that Jesus himself was a carpenter.

In any case, he had to be given some kind of birth. Apparently, there was a narrative about the birth of John from a Priest named Zachariah and a woman (prophetess?) named Elizabeth. This birth narrative itself may have been derived from a birth narrative of the Hebrew King Hezekiah.

The main function of the birth narrative is to tell us that Jesus was not born to a promiscuous woman (a whore, so to speak) but to an almost virgin woman. She was under contract to be married, which indicates that she was a virgin until the unfortunate incident with only one lover, and that even that act was done with divine blessing, so that even her promised future husband did not turn her out.

So in the evolution of the story narrative, Mary starts out as the hard drinking, sexually promiscuous, unmarried mother of Jesus and then gets reformed by Matthew into the almost-virgin, almost-married, blessed mother of Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke (Circa 200, I would suggest), she becomes an actual virgin impregnated by the holy spirit. Later writers make her into a symbol for eternal virginity.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

reniaa

I love your speculations of this write-up, they show how easily people can manipulate something to be something it isn't, especially that Mary was a drunk scenario because she wanted wine at a wedding for her guests, Of cause that wine was the everyday sort of drink then, much as it is in france with very few alternatives is overlooked by you, and not having enough wine at a wedding is seen as a black mark in provisioning the wedding.

and because there are 2 birth narratives why are they related just because they cover birth?

And erm it was common practise to bring your sons up in the same trade as you then, schools and Universities as well as a benefit systems, didn't exist so you worked for survival in way that we couldn't understand now.

I don't mind speculation if it's realistic but not if it's putting a modern cynicism as well as eyes on it, even providing drink for a wedding party now is customary so to say that shes a drunk because of this even with modern eyes is pushing it a lot.

But it is in keeping with the speculating Op that derives rape where no sex was ever involved...

You either believe the bible account of things or you don't! if you don't, twisting it out of shape by speculation doesn't take from the account, just makes what you say irrelevant.

Atheism gets no credibility from wildly speculating threads like this, all it does is damages it, if you want to argue a point bring more depth to it please

WVIncagold

I do not think you get the point reniaa. if Yahweh took another mans wife without consent or even with it under the old laws of Yahweh it is rape. she should of been stoned for not resisting or calling for help.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Reniaa,

I am also very much against wild speculation. However speculation when it is supported by the text is quite a different matter.

The idea that Jesus' mother may have been a drunkard in the original narratives may be supposed for several reasons:1) She is the only one who asks for more wine at a wedding. The father of the bridegroom is ordinarily in charge of providing guests with wine at a Jewish wedding. It is possible that she was in charge due to the absence of any father. We may assume that Jesus or one of his brothers was getting married. However, if she was not in charge, then her request for more wine can be easily seen as an exposition of her personality. 2) Jesus reacts to her in an extremely harsh manner saying "Woman, what have I to do with you!" This is how he reacts to a demon possessed man. This may be seen as a way of saying that Jesus is not an alcoholic like his mother, and that he is repulsed by her alcoholism. 3) Jesus is known for hanging out with prostitutes and drunkards. We may assume that this originally applied to his family situation. He hung out with prostitutes and drunkards because his mother was a prostitute and drunkard. "The fruit does not fall far from the tree," as the ancient proverb goes.

So we have substantial clues pointing in the direction of Jesus' mother having a drinking problem in the early narratives. We cannot be certain about it, but it does explain 1) her request for more wine, 2) Jesus' extreme reaction to her request, and 3) certain traits associated with Jesus.

Please note that it is the text that makes the association of Jesus' mother with wine. As far as I can recall, no other woman in the New Testament is associated with wine in any way, so we cannot say it is a common thing. I mean if several other of the dozen or so women mentioned in the NT were associated with alcohol we could dismiss it as unimportant. Likewise, if Jesus' mother was shown making requests for numerous things, we could dismiss it, but the only things she asks for in the New Testament are Jesus and more wine.

It is true that we should take into account the fact that drinking wine at a wedding was a normal custom (as it is today). However, we are dealing with a situation where drinking has already taken place. The wine has been drunk and it is finished. The request for more wine is what has to be considered. The request for more alcohol after alcohol has been consumed may point to an excessive and problematic situation, a desire for inebriation as opposed to just sociable drinking.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

reniaa

dictionary definition :-

I repeat there was no sexual intercourse the worst you could say is that he unlawfully operated on her and yet she knew and consented so even that wouldn't be valid.

reniaa

your statements are speculation if they have no proof behind them...

http://www.beingjewish.com/cycle/wedding.html

the wine is an important part of a jewish wedding extremely traditional and this is a quote from a normal one showing the mothers are all part of this.

a/ we do know that Joseph dies quite young but not when, so if only his wife Mary was around she would be in charge of supplies.

b/ so far all proof you have shown is the request for wine at a wedding and that he does it, by the same token if he was horrified over his mother being a drunk why would he do it?

c/ you are also picking and choosing how much of the scripture to show it goes on for longer and goes against your speculation then.

he says "my hour has not yet come" not "you are a drunk" this is the first miracle in cana and it's easy to see he was not really ready or sure it should start there but he allowed himself to be persuaded and then filled 6 jars full for the wedding. hmmm! would he do that if he though his mother would drink them down as a drunkard? I think not!

Also running out of wine at a wedding was a dishonor on the family even towards the end so quite natural for the mother to notice first she'd be the supplier rather than the father who if alive would have his own duties.

he also hung out with blind men and lepers does that mean she was blind and a leper too?

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this statement, which seems very speculative and vague at best?

So your best argument is well she asked for wine at wedding which she was in charge of when it ran out, therefore shes a drunk hmmm WEAK very weak.

WVIncagold

do you have proof god did not have intercourse? just because her hymen wasn't broken doesn't mean he didn't use a magic penis to impregnate her that somehow avoided the Hyman.

operate: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
op·er·ate /ˈɒpəˌreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[op-uh-reyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
–verb (used without object) 1. to work, perform, or function, as a machine does: This engine does not operate properly.
2. to work or use a machine, apparatus, or the like.
3. to act effectively; produce an effect; exert force or influence (often fol. by on or upon): Their propaganda is beginning to operate on the minds of the people.
4. to perform some process of work or treatment.
5. Surgery. to perform a surgical procedure.
6. (of a drug) to produce the effect intended.
7. Military. a. to carry on operations in war.
b. to give orders and accomplish military acts, as distinguished from doing staff work.

8. to carry on transactions in securities, or some commodity, esp. speculatively or on a large scale.
9. Informal. to use devious means for one's own gain; insinuate oneself; finagle: a man who knows how to operate with the ladies.
–verb (used with object) 10. to manage or use (a machine, device, etc.): to operate a switchboard.
11. to put or keep (a factory, industrial system, ranch, etc.) working or in operation: to operate a coal mine.
12. to bring about, effect, or produce, as by action or the exertion of force or influence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1600–10; < LL operātus, ptp. of operārī, -āre to work, be efficacious, effect, produce, L: to busy oneself, v. deriv. of opera effort, work, akin to opus work; see -ate1]

I guess the number 9 is apropos but really your talking virgin birth. So its outside the realm of reality so you cant hold it to the confines of what is logical. number ten would also work but again its a force but in the way your meaning it would require going into the body requiring sutures which didn't happen to anyones knowledge. Personally I prefer the magic incorporeal penis. When talking virgin births it does make more sense that conception would happen in a more human manner. but i think a better OP would of been was Mary a willing participant? Women had very little to say at that time about procreation or even to whom they were wed. But you still fail to address that she under the law of god should of been stoned for carrying another mans baby regardless of how the child was impregnated into her.

Acetylhexene

They were either brother and sister or father and daughter. Or eve was a clone. Either way, yes, it was.

And let's not even think about how their grandchildren came about...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Reniaa,

Good criticisms. Thanks.

When looking at a narrative such as this one, we have to consider how we should read it. If we are reading it as an historical account, the type given by 19th, 20th or 21st century newsreporters, we will read it simply for the historical information. However, if we see it as a constantly evolving dialogical ancient narrative, we will see it quite differently. In this case, we look at the starts and abrupt stops, the unexpected shifts in meaning, the replacement of characters, names and objects in the narrative. We try to see how the text might have been changed from the prior version. We may try to reconstruct the censorship mechanism.

To a certain extent, I am being heavily influenced by Freud's "Interpretation of Dreams" and I am treating the text as a dream that needs to be explained. We can justify this psycho-analysis of the text by considering that the religious world closely resembles a dream-world and religious writings are generally dream-like fantasies (consider the story of Adam and Eve, for example).

First note that the expression τι εμοι και σοι γυναι. It is translated differently by different Bible translations.

The New American Standard Bible has it as "Woman, what does that have to do with us? The King James has it as "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"

The expression is parallel to the expression we find in Mark 1:24 (also see Mark 5:7, Matthew 8:29, and Luke 4:34) that the demon/unclean spirit in a possessed man says to Jesus, "τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί ιησου ναζαρηνε". The New American Standard Bible translate that as "What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? The King James translates it as "what have we to do with you, you Jesus of Nazareth?"

If we compare the two translations, we see that the King James version is being consistent in preserving the parallel nature of the two lines:

"Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
"what have we to do with you, you Jesus of Nazareth?"

while the New American Standard Bible is being inconsistant:

"Woman, what does that have to do with us?
"What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth?"

Since τι εμοι και σοι γυναι and τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί ιησου ναζαρηνε are such parallel expressions, we may judge that the New American Standard has elected to change the translation in order to avoid the parallelism that is in the original text. In other words, the reaction of the demon to Jesus in the original text is virtually the same as the reaction of Jesus to his mother. The King James version captures the parallel nature of the expressions. The New American
Standard disguises the parallel nature in its translation. It appears that the translators are trying to cover over the hostility of Jesus towards his mother.

We may take it that in the original text, Jesus' attitude towards his mother was identical to the demon's reaction to Jesus. In both cases their reaction is more or less a hostile and the attitude is one of "You're disgusting, get away from me."

Now, the next line, "My hour has not yet come" (οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου) makes no sense. It may be taken as my hour to get the wine hasn't come yet or as a reference to his death. In both cases, it doesn't really connect to the narrative. It appears to be a later addition to cover up another line. The demon at Mark 5:7 adds "I implore You by God, do not torment me!" This seems to fit here. We may take it that Jesus originally said "Woman, what have I to do with you. I implore you, by God, do not torment me." The original editor apparently did not like the idea of Jesus swearing at his mother, so he changed the line, "I implore you, by God, do not torment me," to the less offensive "My hour has not yet come," The editor, perhaps, wanted to show Jesus as being a prophet aware of his own death, and at the same time, excuse Jesus' hostility towards his mother, by suggesting that he was just in a bad mood and thinking about his mother.

This is a small change to a single line. The really important thing to notice in the text is the introduction of the ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος the chief stewart or ruler of the feast.

Since Jesus' mother has told Jesus to get the wine, it is obvious that she is ὁ ἀρχιτρίκλινος. The introduction of a new Chief Stewart into the narrative makes no sense. Only if the Chief Stewart is the mother does the text makes sense. We may substitute Jesus' mother for the chief stewart to see the orignal text more clearly.

The story nows makes sense. We can now see the original story. Jesus' mother tells him to get more wine. He gets angry at her. How dare she ask him to bring her wine! There are two or three measures of wine in the storage jars. He has the waiters full the jars to mix in a lot of water. He has the waiters send it back to her. She tastes it and she is so drunk that she tells the bridegroom that it is the best wine yet.

We can now understand that this is not a miracle story at all. This is simply an anecdote about Jesus tricking his drunken mother by watering down her wine. The punchline is that she thinks it is the best wine of the evening.

Wine was ordinarily mixed with water in kraters (mixing bowls). Jesus mixed in the wine in the original wine storage jars, so his mother did not realize it was mixed wine.

We may take it that in the original narrative, Jesus pulled a series of tricks. This tricking of his mother at a wedding into drinking watered down wine was the first one.

Note that as an amusing anecdote, the watering-down-the-wine story makes perfect sense. Presented as a water-into-wine miracle, as the writer/editor of John does, it makes no sense. In the same way dreams make no sense until they are analyzed into their component parts and we see how they have been fit together

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

P.S. The antipathy to wine shown by the Jesus character would indicate that the original story was about John the Baptist/Nazarene.