Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=7252&start_row=1


About the "virgin" birth

1 - 5
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 12/11/2019 10:02:04 PM
Reply

about the virgin birth:

GA: This virgin birth thing has to stop. Whether the word means young woman or not, they still claim that Joseph isn't the biological father right? Den ano infedility in some shape and form?

"they claim", is the right word, my brotha.

But I ask you... who told this story? And when was it told?

The real circumstances of his birth require honesty from a lot of people. I can't tell you the story of my own birth. I can only tell you what my parents told me. Problem... I don't remember them telling me anything about it. So where are Jesus's followers getting the story from? Joseph's father appears to be dead before Jesus died and perhaps even before his ministry began. This leaves his mother as a source of information as well as other family members.

We tend to forget about the ancient journalism that should have taken place here and assume that these accounts are being written or recorded like a journal with contemporaneous notes. But does that really makes sense? Does a seemingly 3rd person omniscient POV make sense?

Jesus sounds like one of those Maury Povich babies and there was no DNA testing back then. The story doesn't say whose baby it was, only that Joseph didn't believe it was his. All we do know is that it was an arranged marriage and that he didn't want her secret to come out because he was afraid of what would happen to her. Is this true? If it is true then why put the whole story on blast as part of the legend?

Because you can use it to claim God is literally the father?

It seems clearer to me that Joseph was getting advice from someone who basically told him that this was simply "God's will" and therefore "of the holy spirit" and perhaps he didn't want to penalize the unborn child who would also effectively be aborted (because Christians hate abortion but don't seem to realize that a woman caught in adultery could also be pregnant).

Miriam (Mary) could have had a whole love story we know nothing about because this isn't a documentary about her and Joseph. Joseph is who she was promised to. But perhaps she was in love with another man; possibly even a young man closer to her age. The fact that Joseph dies early in Jesus's life is not only due to the life expectancy of that time period but also the fact that arranged marriages often featured older men marrying young women (or even girls we would consider under age).

Imagine a girl in love, marrying some old dude out of family obligation because he paid her dowry. And perhaps, and this is speculation that shouldn't be taken as more than that, but perhaps he simply has second thoughts about paying the dowry for her because she wasn't "as advertised". Because she wasn't a virgin even though she was a "young woman".

Not to go too deep in the weeds but they had cultural measures in place to protect intended husbands; where a woman would literally check the girl to see if she was still a virgin. But if she was pregnant she probably wasn't showing at the marriage feast. So this is something he likely discovered later. Matthew says, that during their engagement period she was found to be pregnant. It doesn't say who found her to be pregnant. So there's some potentially interesting things just right there.

If the family knew prior to the engagement... if Mary had already had sex they could have simply forced her lover to pay the dowry. Maybe they knew and he didn't have the money and so they deceived Joseph, telling her about this pretty young girl, enticing him to pay because they knew he already had the money while this young man would have had to work for it; possibly for years, judging by the story of Jacob. The other thing is that the dowry for a virgin would have been more expensive than the dowry for a non-virgin. Jacob got cheated over a similar situation. Why not Joseph? Especially if this was money her family was counting on.

But as usual, there's a lot of deceit in the bible that isn't necessarily called out. What we see in Matthew is the Joseph suffering from the deception and being told to go along with it so that the girl didn't suffer. And maybe Joseph already knew her and part of the reason why the family chose him was because they believed he would protect her.

But I think the most likely scenario was that this was some other dude's baby. And that may not have been the story that Jesus was raised on. He may have used his father's lineage as claim to the throne because he honestly believed Joseph to be his real father. After all... Joseph had to keep this secret which meant lying and keeping up appearances. At what age would he have told his son and why would he? And there's no reason to believe that Jesus knew who his real father was, because no other man is included in the gospel lineage. And there's no evidence that Jesus went to find his biological father. That story isn't told because people don't care. So when people were told "the holy spirit" is his true father, they went with it because at that point they already bought into him as a mythical creature who could even bring people back to life. It simply fit the narrative; too well.

And its not simply that they didn't care. His lineage was a problem they couldn't deal with.

When you start with an story like this, involving deception, and then you spin it into "God himself was the father" that's a bit too convenient; at least for my taste. We're willing to overlook Joseph getting deceived as he COULD... COULD have been visited by an angels YEARS in advance of him paying the dowry and before he's even confronted with the possibility of getting engaged to Miriam. But no... This leads me to believe that Joseph was used in the same way women take guys on Maury only for Maury to tell them "you are NOT the father" after the guy has been financially supporting the child, possibly for years.

Joseph was forced to make a choice to protect a girl from something that would not have even existed as an issue if it wasn't for him getting engaged to her, because engagement had the same strength as marriage. Cheating during engagement was adultery. Surely, God, didn't need Joseph or his money to take care of his son, or even his chosen messiah. But the family, on the other hand... likely would see that need for deception.

And so again, who is the source of this story? And what's the purpose of it? Was it intended to be a fair and accurate journalistic depiction of Jesus's origins? Or were they paid to create propaganda?

If we were just talking about a random guy from Nazereth, no one would have written this story or cared about his birth. They cared about his story because they wanted a messiah; not the Christian version who is a savior from sin, but a messiah according to Israelite tradition... the next king of Israel.

This is why they cared. They wanted to use his influence. That's why you see Judas embedding himself with his disciples. That's why you see Barabbas. They had zealots willing to fight but without a king... without someone who could be a true heir to the throne, they could never hope to raise an army to fight Rome. It is only because they failed in their efforts to make him a king, that this other story of the son of God, is being told.

Jesus believed he was going to be king and spoke about "his kingdom". He was speaking about an earthly kingdom in which he and his disciples would rule. They saw his following and believed this was possible. But did they know his true lineage? Or did they find out only after becoming loyal followers/retainers? And did they find out too much and had to cover up the rest by crafting this story about an angel appearing to Joseph? Or did Miriam or her family make up that part of the story to cover their own deception? Certainly, she knew what she had done. Did she tell?

What's certain is that Jesus had to fit into a certain narrative in order to be king and attempts were made in order to turn him into the next king of Israel. Ultimately, these attempts failed and Jesus went on to be a savior from sin. On the other hand H.I.M also had to fit into a certain Judeo-Christian narrative, and actually and successfully became king and defended his people against the European powers. And he did so while also being about harmony, love, and peace.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 12/13/2019 9:23:15 AM
Reply

I love it

Have you heard the Panthera story?

According to the biblical law at the time Mary should have been stoned to death.

or

is this all just a consequence of the plaigarisation of the Ausar Asset story requiring one if not both parents to be a diety

The problem isn't with how crazy/unlikely the story sounds. Kemetic cosmological stories went even further into crazy with accounts of Dieties masterbating into the earth etc. The problem is when you take an abstract allegory as literal truth. Which lets face it, most do when it comes to this stuff.......

Black people need to come out of allegory and deal with the raw truths and messages as they are. If that means putting the bible down then a so. Same thing with a kebra negast or per m heru

Selah



Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 12/14/2019 2:15:00 AM
Reply

Yes, I've heard the Pantera story but I just can't give it any credibility. You can't really trust the story from his followers who clearly had motive to lie. However, you also can't trust the story from his critics who also had motive to lie.

We only know of this story because of Celsus and he doesn't really give any evidence of how he knows. But he was an opponent of Christianity. Origen responds to his account of an affair between Miriam and a roman soldier. I find this to be unlikely. It's not impossible, but it would be like a black female slave having an affair with massa. White slave owners had plenty of sex with their female slaves but even if there wasn't active resistance it wasn't exactly voluntary either. They knew what would happen if they turned down massa's advances.

Their situation was different. The Romans were ruling their whole nation and forcing them to pay taxes to Rome. Many taxes. Many people wanted to rebel and were willing to use Jesus's ministry for that purpose just like one of these radical Islamist clerics. There's plenty of interracial relationships now but it wasn't really that many slave owners in comparison to the rest of the white population. And still, just about every black person has second and third thoughts when it comes to dating white people. And that's many years after slavery.

There's too much of a question about how the Jews came about this information; assuming that it came from them and that's where Celsus heard it. It's in the Talmud. But the Jews were the ones that sold him out to the Romans so why wouldn't they try to tarnish his lineage and reputation in order get back public sentiment and trust on their side? He was popular and they needed a good reason other than "he embarrassed us" because people were going to eventually find out what they did. So I can easily imagine them using this story in order to further sabotage his credibility. Because a lot of evidence points to the fact that they were in two different sects of Judaism. So it was also a competition for leadership on the sectarian level. They just had too much of an ax to grind.

Plus, even if Miriam did somehow give the time of day to a Roman soldier who was probably older than her like Joseph was, why would she tell the Jews after Joseph kept it a secret? And why didn't the Jews know this prior to the events leading to the crucifixion? Because I assume, if they knew it, they would have simply attacked him with it and rebuked his claim to being messiah based on it. If they had a smoking gun in terms of evidence, they would not have had to leverage false witness or even deliver him to the Romans. They could have just told their own people who would have stoned Jesus for being a pretender. So it's too convenient a story, after his death.

I don't think Mary "cheated" on Joseph. I think she was probably already in love with someone and her family intervened but not before she got impregnated. It wasn't illegal prior to her engagement to Joseph so the question is why wouldn't her family just allow her to marry for love. I believe her lover would have been responsible for paying the bride price if he was responsible for taking her virginity. If he was a Roman soldier maybe he could get away with saying "F-you" but if anyone knew she was pregnant they would have also known that the child had a high probability of coming out with much lighter skin. If this was the case there wouldn't be much of a point in Joseph trying to pass him off as his own son. The fact that we don't know who the father is allowed for critics to make up the worst possible scenario. Yeshua (Jesus) was a revolutionary against Rome. So you give him a Roman father? Lol. The irony alone would have killed him.


Messenger: jessep86 Sent: 12/21/2019 3:47:38 PM
Reply

Who can defy the laws of nature besides the one who established them?


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 12/26/2019 3:04:27 PM
Reply

why would one establish laws only to choose when and when not to follow them? Doesn't going against natural law suggest an inherent imperfection, remedied by such magical subversion?


1 - 5

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I