Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fallingblood · 06-18-2004, 11:38 PM

A bastard is someone who is born of unwed parents. Jesus's parents were Mary (the virgin) and God. They were never married which therefore makes Jesus a bastard. Or was he really a bastard?

If he was, that woud mean that he couldn't step into a Church or a Temple.
Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Jesus would have broken God's word whenever he walked into a temple, thus making him sin. Jesus was supposed to be sinless, therefore he could not have been born from a virgin (because that would make him a bastard).

To get Jesus's birth, we have to look at Matthew and Luke (as Mark and John says nothing). We also can look at the Quran. Matthew is the only one that says Mary became pregnant from the Holy Spirit. Luke says nothing special about the birth, as does the Quran. The virgin birth is often regarded as an extraneous later addition that should not be understood literally.

So if we look at this, Jesus could not have been born to a virgin. Thus the only other choice is Joseph. At the time of Jesus's birth, Joseph and Mary were married.
This way Jesus isn't a bastard, could go into a temple, and therfore wouldn't have sinned.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallingblood

A bastard is someone who is born of unwed parents. Jesus's parents were Mary (the virgin) and God. They were never married which therefore makes Jesus a bastard.

They were married before Jesus was born according to Matt 1:24.

fallingblood · 06-19-2004, 01:06 AM

Mary and God were never married. But yes, Joseph and Mary were.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2004, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Mary and God were never married. But yes, Joseph and Mary were.

And so... ? Regardless of who the father was (even if it was a Roman soldier called "Panthera"), it wasn't an illegitimate birth.

fallingblood · 06-19-2004, 01:12 AM

Oh, I thought it was that your parents had to be married. Sorry about that. Kinda throws my whole argument out.

Baidarka · 06-19-2004, 06:55 AM

But if Yaweh or Panthera were his father by blood, than Jesus was not from the root of Jesse and would not be the Messiah, even if Joseph was his legal father.

Baidarka · 06-19-2004, 10:17 AM

"Was Jesus a bastard?"

Depends on what you mean by bastard. If he was an unscrupulous magician who made a career out of fooling gullible people and taking their money. If he tried to use their gullibility to gain political power, then, maybe he was a no good bastard.

Dr_Paine · 06-19-2004, 06:02 PM

Joseph was Jesus' father. Both genealogical accounts (Matthew and Luke) enumerate Christ's descent from David (although contradictorily) through Joseph.

Hmm. Why would Joseph be relevant to the bloodline of Jesus?

Because - Joseph was his father. (i.e. the sperm donor)

fallingblood · 06-19-2004, 06:10 PM

Dr_Paine- I always found that weird. I mean why would the writers of the Gospel trace Jesus's heritage through Joseph if Jesus was supposedly the son of God? Just doesn't make sense.

GakuseiDon · 06-19-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Dr_Paine- I always found that weird. I mean why would the writers of the Gospel trace Jesus's heritage through Joseph if Jesus was supposedly the son of God? Just doesn't make sense.

The apologetic answer seems to be that one was 'natural' and the other was 'legal'.

From here

Quote:

Let's look at the situation and background closely.

1. Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity.

2. It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)

3. Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".

4. So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage?

Probably through the law of levirate marriage.

The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.

One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]

What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.).

So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).

06-18-2004, 11:38 PM	#1
fallingblood Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Mandan, ND Posts: 80	Was Jesus a bastard? A bastard is someone who is born of unwed parents. Jesus's parents were Mary (the virgin) and God. They were never married which therefore makes Jesus a bastard. Or was he really a bastard? If he was, that woud mean that he couldn't step into a Church or a Temple. Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Jesus would have broken God's word whenever he walked into a temple, thus making him sin. Jesus was supposed to be sinless, therefore he could not have been born from a virgin (because that would make him a bastard). To get Jesus's birth, we have to look at Matthew and Luke (as Mark and John says nothing). We also can look at the Quran. Matthew is the only one that says Mary became pregnant from the Holy Spirit. Luke says nothing special about the birth, as does the Quran. The virgin birth is often regarded as an extraneous later addition that should not be understood literally. So if we look at this, Jesus could not have been born to a virgin. Thus the only other choice is Joseph. At the time of Jesus's birth, Joseph and Mary were married. This way Jesus isn't a bastard, could go into a temple, and therfore wouldn't have sinned.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2004, 01:06 AM	#3
fallingblood Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Mandan, ND Posts: 80	Mary and God were never married. But yes, Joseph and Mary were.

06-19-2004, 01:12 AM	#5
fallingblood Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Mandan, ND Posts: 80	Oh, I thought it was that your parents had to be married. Sorry about that. Kinda throws my whole argument out.

06-19-2004, 06:55 AM	#6
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	But if Yaweh or Panthera were his father by blood, than Jesus was not from the root of Jesse and would not be the Messiah, even if Joseph was his legal father.

06-19-2004, 10:17 AM	#7
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	"Was Jesus a bastard?" Depends on what you mean by bastard. If he was an unscrupulous magician who made a career out of fooling gullible people and taking their money. If he tried to use their gullibility to gain political power, then, maybe he was a no good bastard.

06-19-2004, 06:02 PM	#8
Dr_Paine Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Indiana Posts: 533	Joseph was Jesus' father. Both genealogical accounts (Matthew and Luke) enumerate Christ's descent from David (although contradictorily) through Joseph. Hmm. Why would Joseph be relevant to the bloodline of Jesus? Because - Joseph was his father. (i.e. the sperm donor)

06-19-2004, 06:10 PM	#9
fallingblood Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Mandan, ND Posts: 80	Dr_Paine- I always found that weird. I mean why would the writers of the Gospel trace Jesus's heritage through Joseph if Jesus was supposedly the son of God? Just doesn't make sense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.