Tholzel

A new book claims to have positively identified the biological father of Jesus. Titled "The virgin Mary conspiracy: the true father of Christ and the tomb of the virgin," by Graham Philips, it claims Antipater, son of Herod was Jesus' father. What makes this claim so interesting is that Herod was the official rule of Paestine, i.e., the "King of the Jews." Then, as Herod's first-born son, Antipater would succeed him and after him, his first-born son Jesus.

Thus, when Jesus is asked by Pilate "Are you King of the Jews," and Jesus answers in the afirmative, he is not instantly sentenced to death but rather turned back to the Jews with the astonishing comment by Pilate that he finds in him no fault. How can that possbily be except that, under Roman law, Jesus is indeed in a direct line with Herod and Antipater, both dead?

This being the case, it means that Jesus was a blue-blood (and not a humble carpenter's son), and that he was trained to take over the job--most likely at the rigorous Essene community.(This precis is detailed further at: http://www.velocitypress.com/pages/Religion.php , Part 4. )

It also makes Jesus' conversion from a true hereditary King to a humble itinerant preacher all the more remarkable, and sheds a whole new light on his religious teachings. One major element: He does not preach poverty because he is poor; he preaches as a man from a wealthy family who has voluntarily gone poor.

Seems to me this new angle requires a complete rereading and reorientation of the Gospel stories, beginning, I would think with Robert Funk's book--The Acts of Jesus.

Toto

The book is The Marian Conspiracy: The Hidden Truth About the Holy Grail, the Real Father of Christ and the Tomb of the Virgin Mary by Graham Phillips. It is listed on Amazon.com here. This review seems to say it all:

I think it is a comment on how incoherent the basic gospel story is, that it seems to excite so many attempts to make better sense of it.

Wallener

Sounds like Buddha.

Faldage

Robert Graves uses this same idea in his book King Jesus, which he claims to have based on early Roman notions of the story of Jesus.

offa

A new book claims to have positively identified the biological father of Jesus. Titled "The virgin Mary conspiracy: the true father of Christ and the tomb of the virgin," by Graham Philips, it claims
"Antipater, son of Herod was Jesus' father. What makes this claim so interesting is that Herod was the official rule of Paestine, i.e., the "King of the Jews." Then, as Herod's first-born son, Antipater would succeed him and after him, his first-born son Jesus."

That assumption may not be as far off base as you may think. Antipater Jr. was a Samaritan. Herod's wives were all Samaritan leading one to believe that Herod was a Samaritan. The problem is that Samaritan wives were Virgins and procreated the same as we do. Joseph (Cleophas) was a Samaritan and he and Mary had at least seven children. James was born in A.D. 1 and his birth was long after Antipater was executed. Jesus and James were full blooded brothers.

Antipater was imprissoned at Herodium and both he and his father (Herod) died there. Herodium and Bethlehem are not far apart.


offa

Tholzel

The $64 dollar question is, could Antipater have been Jesus' father. As mentioned above, Graham is an adroit writer, able to slide easily among facts.

Amen-Moses

Herod's son Antipas actually turns up in the story at the time Pilate is supposedly asking this question so he isn't dead. IIRC Antipater was Herods father.

Anyhow Antipas shared the kingship with his brothers and was only "king" of Galilee not Judea or Samaria, at the tiem of the story the Romans had taken control of them from the other brothers and were running them as part of the Empire, Galilee was still a separate kingdom albeit only under Roman sufferance.

Amen-Moses

yummyfur

No, Pilate would not be pleased with an offspring of Herod, making a claim to the throne, and most definatly would never let such a person out of prison. You would have to ignore the fact that the current Emperor Tiberius, had another of Herod the Greats grandsons in prison in Rome at the time, that is Herod Agrippa I. It is also clear from the Archelaus story, that the Emperor has to approve Judean Kings, or they are illegitimate, and that also the Emperor is executor of Herod the Greats estate, and that Antipater's offspring(if there were any that were legitimate, Jospehus record no offspring) have no claim to any title. Primogenitor, is not a rule in Roman or Judean estates.

yummyfur

He is talking about Antipater, Herod the Greats first son by his first wife Doris, not Herod Antipas, a son by a later wife Malthace. Antipater is executed by judgement of Augustus, because of his intent to kill Herod the Great, shorty before Herod the Greats own death.

Amen-Moses

Oh right.

That would put a whole new angle on the "death of the innocents" bit wouldn't it!

Amen-Moses

Incidentally his first wife was Doris, was she from Manchester by any chance? :Cheeky: