- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
InquiringMind. Nothing wrong with asking these questions, and I don’t consider it blasphemy to search for understanding. The following are all possible, and for the moment, let’s assume they are all equally likely:
– Jesus was fathered by God, in exactly the same physical way that all children were fathered in those days.
– Jesus was the physical offspring of God and Mary, but without any sexual act or unity between the two parents… hey, we can do that right here in the 21st century; I’m pretty sure God could also make that happen.
– Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and an unknown father.
– Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and Joseph.
– Jesus was the son of the married Mary and Joseph.
The reality is that we will never know, in this lifetime at least, which of the above is the reality. As pointed out by Ray, I don’t know that it matters. It’s an interesting topic, for all of the ramifications. However, while questioning, and thinking about something is good, I would argue that trying to actually ANSWER the question is a fruitless exercise. We have no way to know. All of the above could still result in Jesus the Messiah, if that’s what God wanted.
Here’s a related example of how questions are intriguing, but answers, when you don’t really know, are just useless at a minimum and harmful if not checked… Jesus may have had a twin brother, Thomas. Thomas Didymus (“The Twin”), was a close associate of Jesus, and was a church leader after Jesus’ death. While Thomas was identified as “The Twin” there is never any indication of who he was twins with, and if it wasn’t someone in the story, it seems pointless to call him “The Twin”. When the soldiers went to arrest Jesus, Judas had to identify which one was Jesus, which makes sense given the times, but makes even more sense if Jesus and Thomas were twin brothers. Like Jesus, himself, twins in general were viewed as having magical qualities in ancient times. Thomas was openly accepted to be Jesus’ twin brother in the 2nd and 3rd century, but the tradition was eventually put away, probably because of the mind-warping implications of the immaculate conception resulting in Jesus and one other person. To me, this is intriguing. Fun to think about… imagine the possibilities… But we will never ever ever (in this life) be able to say whether Jesus and Thomas were twins. Afterall, there are plenty of explanations that don’t involve Jesus as the twin. For starters, “Thomas” is derived from a word that means “twin” in Aramaic, so maybe that’s just the name his parents gave him… the first boy was named Bob and the second was named “Twin”. Or maybe he was the twin of someone else in the story, like James. But suppose I decide, based on shadowy self-serving circumstantial evidence and my intuition, that Jesus and Thomas were twins. There’s no solid basis for it, but now, I make it a (false) basis for extended analysis: “I know what really happened. You ever notice, that when ‘Jesus’ appeared to his disciples after the ‘resurrection’ that the only one of them not there, conveniently, was Jesus’ TWIN BROTHER?… Hmmm… Peter Parker and Spiderman are never in the same place at the same time.” In fact, determining “truth” based on selective but questionable “evidence” or “facts” coupled with assumptions, and then using those “truths” as a basis for argument is a trick that conspiracy theorists and anti-mormons alike use with regularity.
I’m with wayfarer in thinking that Occam’s Razor is on the side of a mythical interpretation of the story of Jesus’ birth. Obviously, the story has been quite successful and arguably has value even if it does not describe historical events. The mythical origin is also simpler when we consider the story scientifically. I had a whole spiel about how Heavenly Father must have DNA with base pairs A, T, C, and G to be able to produce a child with a human, but I’ll spare you all of that 🙂 On Own Now wrote:– Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and Joseph.
– Jesus was the son of the married Mary and Joseph.
These are one and the same. A betrothed couple could not have an illegitimate child, because in Jewish law, the moment you had sex with your betrothed, you were married, by definition. Hence, there was no issue with premarital sex, because sex constituted and consummated the marriage without any need for a ceremony.IF Jesus was the literal son of Mary and HF, would that make Mary a wife of HF? And if she’s HF’s wife, then is she his peer, or on the same level, or near his level and should she be worshipped and revered? Now the Catholic fascination of Dear Beloved Mary starts to make more sense, huh! I’m with Occam’s Razor on this one… the simplest explanation is probably the most correct.
Cnsl1 wrote:IF Jesus was the literal son of Mary and HF, would that make Mary a wife of HF?
If a lesbian couple uses sperm from the sperm bank, does that mean that the anonymous man is the husband of woman bearing the child? No. Does it mean he is the literal father? Yes.
Or Jesus was the son of Mary, and Panthera, the Roman centurion. Do a websearch…
SamBee wrote:Or Jesus was the son of Mary, and Panthera, the Roman centurion.
You really DO want to open upPandira’s Box…
The story is of Panthera, a Roman archer stationed in Palestine until 8CE with credible records of his transfer to Germany (home?) to finish out his military career.
Early Rabbinical apologists (DCP in a past life) in early Talmud versions used the story to demonstrate the apostate and heretical origins of the christian Jewish sect.
The question is whether the earlier incarnation of DCP was truthful or just “lying for the Lord”. I go with the latter — it’s just so DCP to attack the man rather than the argument..
On the other hand, if Panthera/Pandira was northern Germanic in origin, it might explain the 6 foot tall fair haired blue eyed Jesus in LDS depictions….
No idea who DCP is. Most likely explanation is that Panthera is a corruption of Parthenon, which means Virgin in Greek.
SamBee wrote:No idea who DCP is.
Most likely explanation is that Panthera is a corruption of Parthenon, which means Virgin in Greek.
DCP = “Daniel C. Peterson”, a very controversial apologist for the LDS church, and the Hubris for which John Dehlin is Nemesis.Panthera, yes, could have been a corruption of parthenon, and given the lack of academic rigor, could have been the reason that the Talmudic scholars picked up the story in an attempt to discredit the jewish christian movement. For listeners, there are numerous talmudic references to “Yeshu the son of Pandira”, where Pandira is a roman soldier who impregnated either miriam or strada and covered up the story of who the father was. This miriam/yeshu story also refers to how this yeshu brought egyptian heresy into judaism. Some scholars think this refers to Jesus, others do not. Some think it may be apologetic response to the Jesus Judaisers who wanted to remain jewish and christian at the same time. Who knows? These talmudic references seem to have arisen around 100 CE, but the stories are dated inconsistently.
Meanwhile, there is a tombstone in Germany that reads as follows:
German tombstone wrote:Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, who in 9AD was transferred from Sidon, Phoenicia to service in Rhineland (Germany)
Sidon was/is 50 miles north of Nazereth, and Nazereth constitutes a direct stopping point between the port of Sidon to Jerusalem. The “Sidon District” was likely responsible in some way for Nazareth, so an archer/soldier in the ranks may well have found the young Miriam attractive as he journed through the various cities. It was a common occurrence.Celsus, an early Christian Critic, latched on to the rabbinical stories and called Jesus a ‘bastard’. The only extant version of Celsus’ critique is in Origen’s apologetic Contra Celsum/Against Celsus.
Origen, quoting Celsus, wrote:v 1.28: [Jesus was] “born in a certain Jewish village, of a power woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and was turned out by her husband, a carpenter by profession, after she had been convicted of unfaithfulness.”
v 1.32: “when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bbor a child to a certain soldier named Panthera”
v 1.28: “that after being driven away, wandering for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.”
Origen then uses argumentum ad ridiculum to try to shut down Celsus’ suggestion that Jesus was a bastard, saying that Celsus invented it and understandably so, because unbelievers cannot understand the things of god.Does this sound familiar?
When I said this opens Pandira’s box, there is no more legitimate writer in the second and third century than Origen. His treatment of Celsus, taking Celsus quite seriously, says that there was a credible story circulating that Jesus was indeed a bastard by a roman soldier. While it may not be advisable to take the jewish records as ‘gospel truth’, they having an agenda to discredit the Jesus movement in the second century when the Talmuds were forming, but the consistency of the records, plus the existence of an explicit story by a roman critic and historian named Celsus, show that the story of Jesus, the illegitimate son of Panthera and Miriam, was prevalant from multiple sources.
No one can really explain from the scriptural record why the Holy Family goes down to Egypt, but here, we find in Origen and Celsus, a credible story of mary and jesus voluntarily selling themselves to slavery and then go to Egypt. This makes a lot of sense. As well, egyptian mystics may well have been connected with “magi from the east”, bringing with them thoughts and ideas that clearly infuse oriental philosophy into the teachings of Jesus. Most christian scholars categorically deny any influence in jesus from oriental thought, so there is no credible scholarly evidence of oriental influence on Jesus. But…I can suspect…
Of particular note is the name on the german tombstone, “Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera”. Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis in the latter half of the fourth century, frankly stated in his traditional writings:
Epiphanus wrote:Jesus was the son of a certain Julius whose surname was Panthera
Frankly, it’s clear that in the writings of the early church fathers, they were dealing with the idea that the miraculous virgin birth narrative was a cover-up of Mary’s forced indiscretion with a Roman soldier. That two of the most credible church fathers dealt with this seriously, Origen trying to defend his way around it, and Epiphanus frankly stating it as fact, says that there is a much simpler answer to Jesus’ parentage than the LDS version of God the Father coming down in person to have sex with Mary.In some ways, the Panthera story does resemble the God the Father coming down… Some speculative scholars have tried to impute that Tiberius Julius Ceasar Augustus (“Tiberius”) is indeed the same person as “Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera”, where Abdes is a vague reference to Tiberius before he became emperor (inheriting Ceasar Augustus’ role and title) in 14 CE, and panthera either referring to Parthenon or the catlike existence Tiberius had going through his various cities… Tiberious would have been around 42 when he had a liaison with a poor girl in the stop-over city of Nazareth on his way from the port of Sidon to Jerusalem, perhaps. Thus, the Roman Emperor, being a God to all of the roman realm, did indeed come down to a virgin/almah in Nazareth, and so it goes…
And that is “Pandira’s box”, in my impression.
Thanks for that writeup, Wayfarer. I will note that if Jesus had been the son of a specific legionnaire, it would be pretty astonishing that Celsus, writing a century later would be either aware of it or be able to specifically identify the person. I personally think it’s more likely that Jesus’ father was a kid from the other side of the tracks who had a motorcycle.
Celsus likely got it from the Jewish establishment, who had an agenda to discredit the heretical Jewish Christian movement. In the beginning, Jewish Christians operated within the larger Jewish cultural/religious framework: James himself being authorized to officiate in some capacity in the temple (Now I find that fascinating). The Jewish establishment also was pretty rigorous about parentage and geneology, so they may well have had ‘evidence’, but who knows. The fact remains that there was a very prevalent story that links Jesus-Mary-Panthera-Egypt-the Joseph rejection narrative in the second through fourth centuries. Celsus wrote his work in approximately 178, and even into the fourth century, Epiphanus was familiar with the story and more or less accepted it as so.
My question is this: does the idea that Jesus was in fact born of natural processes and even perhaps illegitimately so alter the possibility that he was the Son of God? Even in a mythical/religious framework, could god not have ‘sanctified’ the conception somehow? Should such mundane things like who was who’s father affect our faith — i.e. acceptance and agreement that Jesus is divine?
I personally love that Jesus came from a bloodline that had its fair share of unsavory corners. The bible itself tells us some of these stories. Does the possibility of Jesus being an illigitimate child crush my faith? If God, no respector of persons, can raise up such an individual from a broken past to glory – maybe there is additional reason to hope for myself. On the other hand – humans are generally less forgiving. I would not fault the gospel fathers if they made the “first Christmas” narrative more miraculous and immaculate. The historical details are part of the story that transmits the powerful (and life changing) ideas. I guess this is what Way refers to when he talks about pious fraud.
wayfarer wrote:My question is this: does the idea that Jesus was in fact born of natural processes and even perhaps illegitimately so alter the possibility that he was the Son of God? Even in a mythical/religious framework, could god not have ‘sanctified’ the conception somehow? Should such mundane things like who was who’s father affect our faith — i.e. acceptance and agreement that Jesus is divine?
100% agree. If there is a God and he wanted Jesus to be the Messiah, then I think all options are on the table, including that Jesus was the literal offspring of God and also that physically Jesus was just a man, imbued with heavenly power. LDS theology includes the concept of being adopted into the house of Israel, even when there is no lineage, so the idea that the Son of Man and the Son of God could be one in the same is not way out there. We will never (in this life) know the answer to this question, and I believe it makes no difference.
Roy wrote:I personally love that Jesus came from a bloodline that had its fair share of unsavory corners. The bible itself tells us some of these stories. Does the possibility of Jesus being an illigitimate child crush my faith? If God, no respector of persons, can raise up such an individual from a broken past to glory – maybe there is additional reason to hope for myself.
On the other hand – humans are generally less forgiving. I would not fault the gospel fathers if they made the “first Christmas” narrative more miraculous and immaculate. The historical details are part of the story that transmits the powerful (and life changing) ideas. I guess this is what Way refers to when he talks about pious fraud.
indeed. pious fraud moved the narrative along. I don’t see God at any point in history giving a literal “this is it” speech. Paul told Timothy (2 Tim 3:16) that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” And if so, then it’s all through the mind and heart of the prophet who receivs it (D&C 8:2-3). So, what we have in scripture, and in general conference, is the mind of god in inspiration given through the minds of men, translated into words, mixed with opinions, and expressing something.When we look at scripture as a narrative from which divine ideas emerge, then we must seek, through inspiration, to find the divine witness in the scripture and the words of inspired leaders. This isn’t to take their words literally, but rather, to find the emergent Way to which they testify. The truth of the gospel is that flawed humans, like us, like joseph smith, like Thomas S. Monson, and like Mary and Jesus, can fully participate with the divine through the at-one-ment we so critically celebrate. This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true god, and jesus christ, whom thou has sent. That is, wake up and smell the coffee: god and jesus manifest themselves within us flawed humans!
wayfarer, I personally think that possibility makes sense given the rest of the historical narrative. I think it actually fits the OT lineage theme better than a literally divine and/or immaculate conception. I’m not saying I reject the divine conception possibility. I can’t know one way or the other. I do think, however, we miss great symbolic power if we remove the very thing that would take the general idea of someone who was born in the most humble of circumstances and empower it with being marginalized and rejected, as well. Think about it:
If Mary had to flee her family and stay with a cousin in a different area (Elizabeth), and then Joseph had to take her to Bethlehem to avoid his family, how much more symbolically powerful could it be?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.