Jesus, the son of who?

from what I have read in the bible, the idea is this:

Joseph and Mary are married
Mary sees an angels telling her she's going to bear God himself
Mary tells Joeseph of this
Joeseph isn't sure if he can hendle it, and considers leaving
An Angel shows Joseph not to be afraid, and Joseph doesn't leave.
Mary, at this point, is still a virgin. She carries and bares Yesu (or Eesa or, the modern version, Jesus).
After this point, Joseph and Mary "know" each other a few times, from which comes Jesus's siblings, one of whom is Yshua (otherwise known as James, the martyr who was one oft he founders of the Christian church as an institution)
Mary and Joseph live long enough to see Jesus die
I don't know what happens to them after Jesus's death, to be honest.

So Jesus is the son of Mary and God, or Just God, and carried by Mary. Joseph doesn't enter into the picture genetically. Jesus cannot be from Mary alone, however, as Jesus is a guy, and were he a clone of Mary with God's spirit inside, he would be a she. It's possible that an entirely different genetic code could have been created, and Jesus is not genetically related to anyone; if he is the son of god, maybe he didn't need genes at all. Maybe he didn't need blood. Maybe he was actually animated clay made up to look human. Unless you were to do a biological study of Jesus himself, you'd never know for sure.
 
I am not planning on reading this whole thread, so I don;t know if anyone addressed this or not, but here goes nothing...

Originally posted by justathaught
Mary was a virginn. Thus, Jesus could not be directly related to anyone on earth.
Click to expand...

Ummmm...

OK..
Let's say, for sake of argument, that Mary actually was a virgin.
And, let's assume that Jesus actually was the son of Mary.

Jesus, then would be Mary's son, but not Joseph's son, right?

Let me know if I am going too fast...

Therefore Jesus would be directly related to Mary, Mary's parents and everyone else further up her lineage.
He would not be directly related to Jopseph, true.
Virgin means she never had sex, however, she was impregnated by God, and gave birth to his son, therefore she is Jesus' mother.
His paternal line (his father's family tree) only has one in it (the Big Guy), but his maternal line (Mary's family tree) goes back many generations, and he is the decendent of all of them.

What would make you come to the conclusion that Jesus was not directly related to anyone on Earth?
 
We are all Mary's children. I believe that Jesus was formed by God through Mary's flesh but this is open to interpretation.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
We are all Mary's children.
Click to expand...

So she got around quite a bit after Jesus was born, huh?
That tramp!
;)

Can you please explain what you mean by that?
How can Mary be the mother of us all if she was human with a traceable lineage, AND people existed before and during her time (she is not Eve, and many women were giving birth back then).
I assume you mean metaphorically, and if so, I don;t get the metaphor.

Also, who, specifically, you mean by "we".
All people? All Christians?
 
Children can be assigned to the care of adoptive parents. That makes them their legal parents. The only biological link Jesus shared with humanity was his humanity. We are all biological children of Eve, but adopted children of Jesus. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from the woman's side, so Mary was Jesus genetic mother - skin, blood and all.

Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your Father".

John 19:26
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
 
Last edited:
God's child as well

Originally posted by Voltaire
if Jesus is the son of God then I am God's daughter as well. he was just a human like us but he was influential and had very good intentions in helping the people around him soooooo people thought that was rare therefore he "must" have been the son of God.
Click to expand...

No, scripture teaches that we are simply God's creation, until we are born again, at which time, he says that He immediately adopts that person, as His child into His family.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by one_raven
I am not planning on reading this whole thread, so I don;t know if anyone addressed this or not, but here goes nothing...



Ummmm...

OK..
Let's say, for sake of argument, that Mary actually was a virgin.
And, let's assume that Jesus actually was the son of Mary.

Jesus, then would be Mary's son, but not Joseph's son, right?

Let me know if I am going too fast...

Therefore Jesus would be directly related to Mary, Mary's parents and everyone else further up her lineage.
He would not be directly related to Jopseph, true.
Virgin means she never had sex, however, she was impregnated by God, and gave birth to his son, therefore she is Jesus' mother.
His paternal line (his father's family tree) only has one in it (the Big Guy), but his maternal line (Mary's family tree) goes back many generations, and he is the decendent of all of them.

What would make you come to the conclusion that Jesus was not directly related to anyone on Earth?
Click to expand...

Jesus had many younger brothers and sisters, according to the biblical text. The text says that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations, until after Jesus was born.

Jesus' younger brother James was the Bishop of Jerusalem around the period of 40 to 50 AD.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
Click to expand...
No. John tells a story that purports to convey a dialogue. When do suspect the story was written?
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Where?
Click to expand...

Matthew 12:46 - While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 - Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Matthew 13:55 - Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Matthew 13:56 - And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

This was not speaking of the disciples, because the disciples were inside already, and the verse says the brothers are outside. Jesus goes on to point to his disciples, and says that these are my real brothers, becasue they do the will of His heavenly father.

It is believed that the writers of the biblical books called "James", and "Jude", were both biological brothers, from the list in 13:55.

Jude and Judas are different forms of the same name.
 
Re: God's child as well

Originally posted by biblthmp
No, scripture teaches that we are simply God's creation, until we are born again, at which time, he says that He immediately adopts that person, as His child into His family.
Click to expand...

why are you saying no? i remarked that if he was his son then i am his daughter. i think jesus was a cool man but he wasn't that different from any other human. explain what you mean by your statement.
 
Originally posted by biblthmp
Jesus had many younger brothers and sisters, according to the biblical text. The text says that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations, until after Jesus was born.

Jesus' younger brother James was the Bishop of Jerusalem around the period of 40 to 50 AD.
Click to expand...

biblthmp, you are wrong! The word "virgin" simply means "young woman". It has nothing to do with not having sex. That's an American Puritanical fundamentalist's definition. The word "virgin" was misinterpreted by the translators of the Latin Bible. They translated every thought about sex to be dirty and vile. The word in Latin is "alma," which means "young woman."

You must realize that Paul hated females and promoted celibacy. He commissioned the Gospels to be written by his friends and they spun the Gospels to be slanted about sex which he considered vile.
----------
okinrus, all the visions and apparitions of Mary are not actually the BVM but Mariam of Magdala.
 
Well, biblthmp is likely right about one thing, ive read of james being bishop of jerusalem as well, moreover, that his idea of christianity seemed a little different to the Pauline version that weve ended up with. So one wonders what was going on back then.
 
Originally posted by biblthmp
Matthew 12:46 - While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without,
Click to expand...
Strong's 80:
  1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
  2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
  3. any fellow or man
  4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
  5. an associate in employment or office
  6. brethren in Christ
    a) his brothers by blood
    b) all men
    c) apostles
    d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So she got around quite a bit after Jesus was born, huh?
That tramp!
Click to expand...
No, spirtual children born in the spirit but not in the flesh.

Can you please explain what you mean by that?
How can Mary be the mother of us all if she was human with a traceable lineage, AND people existed before and during her time (she is not Eve, and many women were giving birth back then).
I assume you mean metaphorically, and if so, I don;t get the metaphor.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's metaphor but something deeper. If we are born again through the spirit, are we to be left without a mother. In that case the law "honor your father and mother" is useless correct?

Also, who, specifically, you mean by "we".
All people? All Christians?
Click to expand...
Yes I believe everyone or at least those who have not chosen to go to hell. Revelation 12 says all those who keep who keep the commandments of Jesus are her offspring. However my definition of Christian is probably looser than yours.

CA is right here. In aramaic the word for brother could be cousins. The orthodox church maintains that Jesus had half brothers and the roman catholic church has traditionally, from St. Jerome, maintained that those were Jesus' cousins.

James was killed early in christianity, at least that's what Josephus tells us.

biblthmp, you are wrong! The word "virgin" simply means "young woman". It has nothing to do with not having sex. That's an American Puritanical fundamentalist's definition.
Click to expand...
This is from a "mistake" in the septuagint, which was a translation of Hebrew into Greek before Christ. M*W I've already corrected your mistake here 4 months ago so I'm wondering what inaccurate book your reading this in. There are may be valid reasons for the greek translators to use this translation. The text sourounding it, calls the birth a sign, or perhaps they felt that the emphasize on a young woman meant a virgin. Either way it's no fault of Mathew for quoting it.

okinrus, all the visions and apparitions of Mary are not actually the BVM but Mariam of Magdala.
Click to expand...
I would listen to both of them.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
CA is right here. In aramaic the word for brother could be cousins.
Click to expand...
That's a rather pathetic and confused distortion. The term used in gMat was adelphos, which is no more aramaic than is spanakopita and which, according to Strong's 80, can equally well mean "countryman", "fellow man", or fellow believer.

Originally posted by okinrus
There are may be valid reasons for the greek translators to use this translation. The text sourounding it, calls the birth a sign, or perhaps they felt that the emphasize on a young woman meant a virgin. Either way it's no fault of Mathew for quoting it.
Click to expand...
The Isaiah reference by Matthew is no less a confused distortion.

In each case the question remains: is the distortion intentional or simply ignorant? :rolleyes:
 
That's a rather pathetic and confused distortion. The term used in gMat was adelphos, which is no more aramaic than is spanakopita and which, according to Strong's 80, can equally well mean "countryman", "fellow man", or fellow believer.
Click to expand...
http://users.rcn.com/jcrobin/Brothers of the Lord.htm

In each case the question remains: is the distortion intentional or simply ignorant?
Click to expand...
Of course it wasn't intentional. It would be no different than someone quoting from the King James version and then finding out that the KJV translated it with implicit assumptions.
 
Originally posted by guthrie
Well, biblthmp is likely right about one thing, ive read of james being bishop of jerusalem as well, moreover, that his idea of christianity seemed a little different to the Pauline version that weve ended up with. So one wonders what was going on back then.
Click to expand...

Let us look at that problem. Paul was working from the framework of faith, which has a different definition from the Greek word. The Hebrew word "Emuna", which Paul used meant a heartfelt belief, which produces a life change, as a result. James on the other hand was combatting the Greek/Hellenized meaning that was coming into the church, of "Pistis", which simply means an intellectual assent to something.

"Pistis" will not produce the life changing effect, that "Emuna" will.

Paul is saying that is one has Emuna, it is enough, but James is saying that having Pistis is not enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top