BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Who Was Jesus’ Biological Father?

Examining the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke

jesus-birth

Was Joseph Jesus’ biological father or adoptive father? Joseph is a major figure in the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. Along with Mary, he is depicted at Jesus’ birth in this 16th-century painting by Lorenzo Lotto. Photo: Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.

Was Joseph Jesus’ biological father? If not, who was Jesus’ biological father?

The annunciation stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke recount that Jesus was conceived without the participation of a human male. Ancient views on the biology of conception—based on Aristotelian theory—differed from our modern understanding of genetics and biology. For Jesus to have been considered fully human by our modern standards—and not a semi-divine or special being—he would have needed complete human DNA. While Mary would have supplied the X chromosome, who supplied the essential Y chromosome? God? Joseph?

Andrew Lincoln of the University of Gloucestershire tackles these questions in his article “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time” in the November/December 2014 issue of BAR. Starting with the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, he examines what early Christians thought about conception and explains how views about this subject have changed over time.

Who was Jesus’ biological father? As modern readers, we might wonder how the product of a virginal conception could truly be human—since the Y chromosome did not come from a human father. Andrew Lincoln explains that this issue would not have been troubling to an ancient audience or to the writers of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke:

Their understanding of conception, shaped by a patriarchal culture, would have been some variation of the dominant Aristotelian theory. On this view, the male semen provides the formative principle for life. The female menstrual blood supplies the matter for the fetus, and the womb the medium for the semen’s nurture. The man’s seed transmits his logos (rational cause) and pneuma (vital heat/animating spirit), for which the woman’s body is the receptacle. In this way the male functions as the active, efficient cause of reproduction, and the female functions as the provider of the matter to which the male seed gives definition. In short, the bodily substance necessary for a human fetus comes from the mother, while the life force originates with the father.

Those who heard the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke would have considered Jesus to be fully human since his mother supplied all of his bodily substance. Lincoln clarifies: “In terms of ancient biology, even without a human father, Jesus would have been seen as fully human. His mother, Mary, provided his human substance, and in this case God, through the agency of the divine Spirit, supplied the animating principle instead of a human father.”


Interested in learning about the birth of Jesus? Discover the history of Christmas and the date of Jesus’ birth in the free eBook The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition.

According to the New Testament, was Joseph Jesus’ biological father or just his adoptive father?

The annunciation stories in Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was conceived without a human father, but later in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph is listed as Jesus’ parent and father (Luke 2:27, 33, 48; 4:22). Indeed, through Joseph’s lineage, Jesus is shown to have descended from King David (Luke 3:23–38). Do these accounts contradict the annunciation stories?

The traditional way of reconciling these seemingly incongruous accounts is that Joseph was Jesus’ adoptive father.

In his article, Lincoln offers another way: He posits that knowing the genre of the Gospels helps make sense of this apparent contradiction. As a subset of ancient Greco-Roman biography, the Gospels can be compared to other Greco-Roman biographies, such as Plutarch’s biographies of Theseus, Romulus and Alexander the Great. In these examples, the central character is given two conception stories, one natural and the other supernatural.
 


 
Read “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” by Lawrence Mykytiuk from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR >>
 


 
Dual conception stories for the same figure was not uncommon in Greco-Roman biographies, and Lincoln suggests that this was a way of assigning significance and worth to those “who were perceived to have achieved greatness in their later lives.” In this genre, those who accomplished great things in their adult lives deserved an equally great—even supernatural—conception story.

Lincoln’s approach is certainly intriguing—especially when applied to the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. To read Lincoln’s entire treatment of the matter and learn more about what early Christians thought about conception, read the full article “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time” by Andrew Lincoln in the November/December 2014 issue of BAR.

——————

BAS Library Members: Read the full article “How Babies Were Made in Jesus’ Time” by Andrew Lincoln in the November/December 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library member yet? Join the BAS Library today.
 


 

Learn more about ancient views of conception in the BAS Library:

J. Edward Barrett, “Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?” Bible Review, October 1988.

James E. Crouch, “How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus,” Bible Review, October 1991.

Pieter Willem van der Horst, “Did Sarah Have a Seminal Emission?” Bible Review, February 1992.

Join the BAS Library today.
 


 
Is it possible to identify the first-century man named Jesus behind the many stories and traditions about him that developed over 2,000 years in the Gospels and church teachings? Visit the Jesus/Historical Jesus study page to read free articles on Jesus in Bible History Daily.
 


 
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 3, 2014.
 


 

Related Posts

Paul and Pri
Nov 11
Priscilla in the New Testament

By: Jonathan Laden

Nov 10
What Did Jesus Really Look Like?

By: Biblical Archaeology Society Staff

Sep 29
First Person: Misogyny in the Bible

By: Hershel Shanks


92 Responses

  1. Allyne Knox says:

    I seem to recall reading that the word from the book of Isiah from which this text was drawn actually refers to “a young girl.” An entirely different word would have been used if it was to refer to a virgin. Hence we are not talking about a virgin birth at all.

  2. Jeffrey says:

    While this article is informative, it omits what is a real possibility for Jesus’ biological father. According to Jewish legend this person was a Roman soldier named Pantera. The gravestone of so-named Roman solder was found in Germany, and this particular solder may have been Jewish and may have served in Palestine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Julius_Abdes_Pantera

  3. Robert Fitzgerald says:

    Expand in Mary’s family? Was she of Herod’s extended family?
    Was Jesus father a Roman solder who had an affair with Mary?
    Where did Jesus go in early adult life? To visit husband Bio father in Egypt?
    Fascinating story.
    Did I see a tunnel of sorts under the assume burial site during reguvination by National Geo few years back?

  4. Okwudili says:

    It will bring peace to mankind if all this blindness been shared by deferent religions were treated and cured.

  5. NelMac says:

    The day that humans wake up and stop practicing ‘Religion’ is the day that the race shall be set free from a hideous idealogical tyranny.
    The ‘Bible’ is a book of politics, created by humans for susceptible minds to be controlled.
    It is the ultimate insult to the species to believe that, in your minds, you are so self important that you must attribute your existence to some ‘divine entity’, simply on the grounds that arriving at any other potential source of your existence is beyond your punile, limited and scarred mind(s).
    The only thing responsible for the divsion of humanity IS RELIGION.
    Disgustig, despicable, incalculable, incomprehensible, unprovable religion.
    GROW UP HUMANS.
    LOOK BEYOND THIS SPHERE AND EXPLORE THE UNIVERSE before arriving at absurdity.
    I suppose that given the timescale of your ‘learning’, you may well have self-annihilated before that happens though.

  6. Julie Daniel says:

    Thank God there is finally discussion on
    this. You have to be so careful who you confide in with your thought, worried or concerns within the body of Christ for you
    may be looked at in un- believer, instead of a human being with questions

    Thank you. Julie Daniel

  7. Frank Frivilous says:

    Read the Gospel of Luke. Zachariah and Elizabeth were having trouble getting pregnant until the Angel Gabriel appeared to him. The angel also visited Mary who then went to stay with her cousin Elizabeth who was then pregnant with John (the baptist). Mary stayed about three months while Zachariah was struck dumb by the angel. When Mary left the house of Zachariah she was pregnant. She then went to her husband Joseph. Zachariah was the high priest (most high) and from what is hinted at in the gospel…….probably Jesus biological father.

  8. mackenzie says:

    when jesus was born the jews were not gods people anymore. so they would be lying if he said it bc it wasnt the truth

  9. Pierre says:

    Jesus father was a a Roman knight. His name, Creolus.
    He was gone on soldier duty when the child was to be born and Mary’s mother
    was terrified. So Josef an yet 52 old pious man, asked Mary’s mother to sustain her
    and marry her daughter.
    So is it written in the Talmud and papers were found in the
    Basilica of Constantinople that Jesus was tall and handsom whereas his half brothers and sisters
    were smal and black haired.
    When Creolus came back as to marry Mary, Josef and Mary were on way to Egypt.
    The tomb of Creolus was found in Germany.
    God’s spirit invented how to make chirdren… why would he have denied himself by
    making his Son on Planet Earth differently ???

  10. Gene R says:

    Luke 1:26-31 (JB) reports that it was to “a virgin” whose name was Mary that the angel Gabriel carried the news: “You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.” At this, verse 34 states, “Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin [“I do not know man: i.e., as husband,” NAB footnote; “I am having no intercourse with a man,” NW]?’” Matthew 1:22-25 (JB) adds: “Now all this took place to fulfil the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel, a name which means ‘God-is-with-us’. When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”
    Is this reasonable? Surely it was not impossible for the Creator, who designed the human reproductive organs, to bring about the fertilization of an egg cell in the womb of Mary by supernatural means. Marvelously, Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his firstborn heavenly Son to the womb of Mary. God’s own active force, his holy spirit, safeguarded the development of the child in Mary’s womb so that what was born was a perfect human.—Luke 1:35; John 17:5.https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989246#h=10:0-12:489

  11. J.T. Smith says:

    All religious Jews consider themselves children (i.e. sons and daughters) of God. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. It MUST be understood in that context that statements of Jesus being the “son of God” are in reality statements affirming his Jewishness. Any notion that Jesus biological father was God is a GREEK notion, NOT a Hebrew one!

  12. Martyman39 says:

    The messiah according to Jewish must be a descendent of King David through King Solomon. Since the Christians claim that Jesus was the “son of God”, he had no earthly father, Joseph was his foster father, so he evidently had no blood line from the tribe of Judah to which David belonged, since paternity is always determined by the father. As far as Mary was concerned, the mother of Jesus, her father was Joachim, a Levite, not descended from King David. So that pretty well rules out Jesus as qualifying as the messiah as far as the Jews are concerned.

  13. Clark T says:

    Jesus was fully human. John the Baptist and Jesus were more than cousins – they were half brothers, that is, they had the same biological father. Bu this was covered up in history.

    Don’t ask me how I know this. Let’s just say it was ‘revealed’ to me.

  14. mark says:

    Why not ask Him?

  15. May Okhotnikoff says:

    Reading your comments something else comes up

    A couple of years ago there were at least two or three web informations of
    strange pregnancies, in China mainly. Two women who insisted they hadn’t had
    any sexual relations for several years and one man, hello!, pregnant!!! I believe
    I still have the copies somewhere. Those “twins” , for a better name, were
    never born, their bodies as per the information were not correctly formed or even
    I believe not in one piece…. Studies were made, some info was published, but
    what surprised me was the lack of paternal DNA information. It had to be the
    answer, mainly in the American 5 months old baby for whom a total minimum was
    stated. Couldn’t the father’s sperm have lodged somewhere where the ovum (???)
    would have joined it and produced a new body. It must have been, especially in
    that baby’s case. Don’t tell me sperms don’t last more than a few days, those
    pregnancies prove that it can happen, as well as the few cases of twins born a
    month later…..

    Now, supposing Saint Joachim’s, father of The Virgin Mary, might have landed in
    a particular site of her body and been met by her ovum at the proper age, been
    Blessed by The Holy Spirit that conceived Baby Jesus with Life: He was Son
    of God and Son Of Man, Descendant of David, like He said and always answered
    to….. He never lied.

    It requires understanding and accepting of the news of today, and adapting them
    to the news of yesteryear, with the faith we have in Jesus Truth and the Gospel’s
    Truth. Also, I have never found confirmation of the fact that God created the
    same thing twice and the Word, The Son, was conceived by The Holy Spirit,
    Blessed with Life in Our Lady’s womb. It seems so very possible with our
    new knowledge of today…

    From: May J Okhotnikoff
    Date: December 21, 2017 at 1:35:25 PM EST
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: A virgin birth or not? Find out now

    Have you ever thought that according to what is stated in the Gospel the Virgin
    Birth is really a possible fact and Our Lady’s Virginity is another possible fact???

    A) Woman was told that birth would be painful because of the sin. However, Our Lady was addressed by Archangel Gabriel as “Full of Grace” therefore, no sin. So no painful birth.

    B) The Gospel states that upon resurrecting the Lord Jesus went to meet the
    Apostles and entered their room through the door or the wall without opening it
    Thanks to Holy Spirit. But His was a human body which they touched and was
    hungry and he ate.

    C) Now couldn’t Virgin Mary’s Child have been born without pain the same way at The beginning of His life Thanks to the Holy Spirit, confirming to Saint Joseph that marriage could never be effective….

    D) If you accept that The Holy Spirit brought Jesus through the door or the wall
    After the end of His Life, don’t deny that the same Holy Spirit that conceived Him could have brought The Child to Life the same way at His Birth.

    And perhaps it was that kept silent knowledge that called the Mother
    the Virgin Mary

  16. Bobby Garringer says:

    On the biological-realities point, Jesus would have been fully human – as a result of a miracle – whether God “supplied the animating principle instead of a human father” (in an Aristotelian sense) or created the male Y chromosome (in the scientific sense).

    With Lincoln’s assumption, the children of Abraham that God can raise up from stones (Matt. 3:9) would not only be less than “fully human”; they could not possibly be human at all!

  17. Dennis Blue says:

    If Jesus was “assigned” two births, who was it that made the assignment? Jesus was not of Davidic lineage. King David was fully human and as such, his seed was corrupted by original sin. If Jesus was born into the Davidic line, then he was a sinner and was not qualified to be a Savior. The Jewish Messiah, who Jesus claimed to be, was prophecied in the Mishnah and Talmud to be born of two human parents. He was rejected by the Hebrew religious hierarchy because of his claim to be the son of God. Joseph had nothing to do with fathering him as Matthew 1:19 states that Joseph had been out of the region and returned to find his young betrothed pregnant. Lastly, the assignment of godhood to renouned men is akin to their receiving an honorary degree. It is just a title, usually self imposed. It gets tiring when these complicated and convoluted arguments keep popping up that are aimed at resolving an impossible situation.

  18. James Blevins says:

    Yeah….definetly time to throw the old bible, koran, whatever, in the dumpster and admit that we just dont know God or the plan. It is no sin to not know somthing. It is the only honest answer, and isn’t that what we all strive for, is the truth. Faith….give me a break!!!

  19. Benita Smith says:

    What they believed in the first or second century is fine for their time. But today we KNOW that conception is a biological act that requires DNA from both a woman & a man for it to take place. Mary was probably raped by a Roman centurion and got pregnant. Joseph married her to keep Mary from being stoned which was a required punishment for an unmarried young girl during the first century in the southern Levant as it is to day with honor killings. If Joseph was Jesus biological father Jesus could not have been the true Messiah. Joseph, though he was descended from King David, was not descended through David’s son “Solomon” as Got commanded as one of the signs by which we would recognize the true Messiah. Joseph was descended through King David’s son “JACONIAH” who was the cursed son of King David, God said, “Even if Jaconaiah was a signet ring on my hand . . I would pull him off.” No son of Jaconaiah will ever sit on the thrown is Judah or be king. So if Joseph was Jesus’ biological father Jesus could not be the True Messiah or “The Chosen One.” If Mary was impregnated by a spirit then Jesus could not have been human and if Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or any other man Jesus still cannot have been the true Messiah. At least not according to the word of God. So if you believe the Gospels you are contradicting the word of God. If you believe in the word of God then the Gospels are a myth.

  20. Tino Gonzalez says:

    According to the Talmud, Meriam (Mary), a roman soldier named Paterna impregnated Meriam , or Mary from which Jesus was conceived. Ben Stata

  21. rinda mb says:

    I rather think that God, creator of all miracles, large and small, and surely every child conceived is a miracle, had the ability–and the power–to begat Jesus in Mary’s womb—and for her to conceive Him.

    If I were into abstract physics, I might well think of Christ’s conception as an event horizon.

    It goes back to Eve: “I have gotten a man child of the Lord !,” paraphrase, first chapters of Genesis, Conception–and/or begatting–was never just a man/woman or woman only or man only activity for the Jewish people. It was a man/woman/God activity—for every child, every single time a child was created,not just for Jesus. God was ALWAYS involved in the creation of a child, in the creation of a unique miracle–and again, surely, each child created IS a unique miracle.

  22. Keith Hunking says:

    Wow, all the brains in the world that are so smart can’t understand or believe in what the bible says. God is real and we will meet him in the end,BELIEVE THAT ! He was divinely concievced.(no sex) image that and image this he is all powerful and can do all things. All we have to do is believe and have faith in all things! Praise him don’t doubt him he’s always here for me good or bad he has a plan for my life and your’s try it you’;ll like it! He always see’s us through all things that I know for a fact because I’ve seen alot of hard times even now. But I’ll get through it with my Lord and saviour, Jesus Chris amen

  23. Krzysztof Ciuba says:

    comments on Matthew 1:23 as the reference to Isaiah7:14 at footnotes in RC Bible commentaries explain it also. Do people read and reason and…repent (from stupidity)? Do not forget about Mark 1:5 and 9: a sinner, Jesus from Nazareth, converts after hearing the Good News of John the BApatist!

  24. Krzysztof Ciuba says:

    Romans 1:3-4 expalins perfectly from 50’s A.D. Matthew and Luke, 90’s A.D.: why does a problem?

  25. H Kilby says:

    I believe that God can do as he pleases….he makes the rules. As Rev. Charles Stanley has stated, “God said it, that settles it.” Many of God’s rules were beyond human understanding at the time of Christ’s birth. How many do we not grasp today?

    When I raised honey bees, I understood that, only an unfertilized egg from my queen produced a fully functional male bee, i.e., a drone, hardly a rarity! Male sea horses get pregnant…go figure

    All things are possible through Christ Our Savior.

  26. Ranger Rick says:

    I believe that Jesus had a biological father: it doesn’t have to be a virgin birth to be pure: Joseph would be in line with the lineage to David which makes sense for Jesus’s divine heritage!
    Another explanation outside the box but in the realm of reality would be instead of a divine intervention: the insemination of Mary by God: Ancient Alien theorist would say that Mary was visited by an alien angelic like being: that gave Mary artificial insemination even DNA engineered for a spiritual person with healing powers, telepathy and premonitions of the future and visions of the past!
    Normal mortal men and women have exemplified all of these abilities some from birth some through blows to the head some from near death experiences and on and on!
    These abilities exemplify the normal “some “human beings shave: so we must all have these abilities to some degree just that some have greater degrees of those abilities!
    Remember much of the Bible are parables stories and works written not by the actual prophets themselves and not for many years after their deaths!
    Also many stories have to be interpreted for the interpretation of what happened at the time!
    Take Ezekiel for example:
    A fiery chariot comes out of the heavens sky and if you look at the description; he’s describing a airship or space vehicle: beings come out of the vehicle and levitate Ezekiel back into the craft and they shoot off into the sky: that’s obviously an alien spaceship abduction!
    There is also the entire book of Enoch!
    There’s many things in the Bible that can be explained by the reality of technology and other beings not of this world coming to this world and interacting with human beings!
    Jonah and the whale another example: obviously Jonah was taking aboard a submarine like craft.
    These interactions of technologically advanced intelligent beings from other worlds is in every culture around the world in every corner of the world: Hindus and Buddhists, Mohammed: the Mayans: Incas; the Samarian’s: Chinese religious texts and stories: the ancient Japanese culture; the Hopi Indians; the Druids of Scotland on and on!
    Exemplified by buildings and architecture that has a certain energy field that’s connected to Geo magnetic lines in the earth such as Stonehenge, the pyramids not only in Egypt but the Mayan peninsula: ancient pre-Incan cities Hopi settlements in the Southwest many of these structures were in alignment with the star system of Orion and on and on!

    I’m not saying that all these experiences in the Bible were ancient alien intelligent being interactions misinterpreted as God: but many can be explained in this way!
    It doesn’t mean that there weren’t spiritual experiences as well: it just means that will never know the exact truth for some of the stories!

  27. Javad says:

    How we could prove a woman become pregnant when a man like Joseph be beside her? Even they were engaged with each other.

  28. IAMtherefore I AM says:

    LOVE THERE’S NO GREATER GIFT THEN LOVE One another as I have loved UYou

  29. IAMtherefore I AM says:

    All what is………is we all believe U see what U want to see we have choice OUR GOD GIVEN RITE U SEE I know GOD level and true all the Questions of his WORD he breathed everyone just know in all U R all he is and dont allow questions to fill up /Get in your head stay pure stay sharp stay aware and stay awake most of all stay focused on the scriptures the true S BIBLE GODS VIRGAN Word KING JAMES ITS ALL TRUTH EVERY WORD

  30. ArcturusOrion says:

    The first paragraph has some interesting questions in it; the first one that caught my attention was “Who was Jesus’ biological father?”The birth of Jesus was literally an astronomical event, prophesied through the ages. In Luke’s gospel, we pickup the account of Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Angel Gabriel; The angel told her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor with God. (31)You will become pregnant, give birth to a son, and name him Jesus. (32) He will be a great man and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. (33)Your son will be king of Jacob’s people forever, and his kingdom will never end.” (34) Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’ve never had sexual intercourse.” (35)The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child developing inside you will be called the Son of God. So we see that El Shaddai is the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was and is All God and All man. He referred to himself many times throughout the gospels as the son of man also, to identify with mankind because of the plan of redemption from our sins. God created Adam in his image and gave him X and Y chromosomes at the time of his conception. Jesus is known as the “second” Adam, who was conceived in the “earthly womb” of a female, just as Adam was created and conceived from the womb of the Earth. The answer is…. Jesus did not have a biological father, hence we have the Virgin birth…..

  31. Gamini Silva says:

    When Philosophy ends Theology bigins. We have to accept that we are spatio-temporal beings. But at the same time, there are certain caregories that do not fall under the space and time. Concepts such as eternity, everlasting life, God are some examples. A God with out biginning or end or everlasting life are inconceivable to our human intelect.
    Therefore, if we believe that God exists and that Jesus is Son of God, it is pointless arguing about his biological fatherhood. Finally it becomes a matter of faith. May be we have to learn some thing from the great Doctor of the Church, St Aaugustine, who was trying to understand the mystery of Trinity, who finally said, “Credo ut Intelligam” in Latin which means, “I belive so that I may understand”

  32. bill hudgins says:

    Ron WYATTS NAME IS ENCODED IN THE BIBLE CODE ALONG WITH THE SHROUD OF TURIN. BLOOD SAMPLES TAKEN FROM THE SHROUD AND FROM THE ARK OF THE COVENANT BOTH DO NOT HAVE THE HUMAN MALE CHROMOSOME . IF PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO EXPOSE HO W RON WYATT FOUND THE BLOOD ON THE MERCY SEAT THAT MATCHED THE BLOOD ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN. PULL UP THIS; IS RON WYATTS NAME IN THE BIBLE CODE. IT IS AND IT FORMS A CROSS ACROSS THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. PLEASE TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG. BiLL Hudgins

  33. michael karnas says:

    Very interesting explanation of Jewish marital customs, particularly separating out the Galilean differences. I would simply like to suggest that you read Luke’s biographical account Chapters 1 and 2. Consider these lines (Lk 1: 34-35) ” then said Mary (Miriam) unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, ‘the Holy spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ Since Luke was not an eye witness to the life of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach it is a logical conclusion (given Luke’s newly attained historical veracity) that he interviewed Miriam. The account of the miraculous birth of Yohanan (John son of the Levite Zacharias) is also included. It is worth remarking that the angel Gabriel makes 2 appearances: one to Zacharias and one to Miriam. The last time he appeared to a human was to Daniel 500 years before (Dan 8: 14-16) concerning Yeshua Ha-Mashiach). The question needs to be asked and maybe you might look into this. Could Mary possibly have read the Torah and made up a story to satisfy prophesy? I think not. She could not read.

  34. Frederick E Edelstein says:

    I have often wondered about our biological information (God is a master of intelligent design) having another backup, similar to the way that one has a backup in case of information being lost. In the gospel of John, we see that the Word was in the beginning with God, so there we have Messiah’s complete informational genetic makeup. All that needed to be done was to implant these “saved” genes of information within a womb, which could have been placed genetically (not by sexual act) by God’s messenger Gabriel. Another problem that some have is about resurrection of those that have been martyred by, say fire. No genetic material, not even bone present. If the resurrection is true, then there must be an information backup that only God can have. I rest my case.

  35. Gene Peterson says:

    I have heard voices advising me of several events that came true. I spoke to others who have such experiences. People have experienced, as I have many biblical promises such as God will protect, provide and bless believers. What more proof do we need who his father was then the word?

  36. Mary Frankkin says:

    Jesus never had an earthly Daddy.Joseph raised him,because his father God .told Joseph too. I believe him. he has shown himself to me in Dreams. because I Believe. “

  37. sibonelo says:

    jesus is the son of God end of story .plz guys dont confuse other at the end you will not worship the relly God

  38. Guest says:

    oh dont forget , 1 of the so called 10 commandments is dont worship idols etc . Well how come in ALL churches you see statutes , paintings etc etc of images of ” jesus ” , animals, birds etc etc on windows, statutes , cloths etc etc … thats worshiping images , statutes etc etc , isnt it ! they are the antichrist surely

  39. Ashok says:

    Does anybody knows about a similar site about Islam? A comparative analysis of beliefs and practices might be helpful for a person with Dharma background (as against religious background) to appreciate where they come from and value for humanity going forward.

  40. Guest says:

    You all been hoodwinked.
    Noahs ark didnt happen. Its not possible for 4 couples ie Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives to create thousands of people of different colours and races all over the world in such a short time frame. Physically not possible and mathematically not possible to produce all those people in that time ..
    IF Judas existed why do priests male and female of all religions dress up in different clothes according to their ranking in their religion ??? IF Judas betrayed Jesus why kiss him ? A) Jesus was dressed in plain clothes .
    If you stand in front of a mirror .. raise your arms out , sideways and you will see the cross…its a human cross. the crosses made out of anything else is wrong.
    No where in any bible OR any other book is there a time stating Christmas is on 25th December and Easter is in April etc etc …. Its all made up .
    The holy grail is a myth as well….. it wasnt until a few centries ago this grail was introduced to The world …its meaning is nothing ….
    The religious books written are written by HUMAN interpretations
    Why in the bible are there TWO Jesus ( people ) ????? of different characters !
    Why is all religions stating their religion is the best and thats that and so a WAR or fighting is declared against ALL others by them that dont believe in their religion !!!!!
    How about living in peace and wait until the end of time to see who is right and wrong and so in the meantime just live in peace and harmonly not wars and hatred …
    As there are stone , rock busts, paintings etc of thousands of humans at jesus time why are there not any of him ? Did he exist as we are led to believe and is really a myth ?
    Mary had 2 fathers , Heli and Acheim ( spelling ) Who said that jesus was crucified and rose again and he died for our sins … man/ female did /…actual proof is ???????? no proof at all .
    Jesus WAS NOT Jewish . He wasnt born in Jerusalem nor were his alleged parents …he was never a Jewish.
    To control masses leaders of the past and now use religion as a fear and or belief this is what is happening and will happen to you and or the world …
    Who or what benefits from conflicts ?

  41. Shane Roach says:

    These sorts of stories make me tired. God couldn’t supply chromosomes? If God supplied chromosomes without having carnal sex with Mary, then Jesus is not fully human?

    What are you even thinking about. Excuses for lying….

  42. Derek Dey says:

    By simply reading the gospels and material from other sources including historical sources its clear Mary spent time helping Zechariah in the temple around the onset of her pregnancy. Thus he is the biological father but the prepared lineage from dad and beyond perhaps clear through to Lot and then to the Abel-tradition (God’s people after the fall) is what explains why these things happen an why inexplicable story of the women in the Bible avoiding the fall or reversing it, is the main factor leading to the birth of Christ.

    When Mary spent time in Zechariah’s home with Elizabeth both women were comfortable with this fact initially and Jesus would have been raised with John the Baptist so that John would have testified to the Christ. However, for whatever reason, Mary left and a jealousy issue arose between Jesus and John so when John had the chance to testify to the Christ he did so but then just left, ignored Christ’s ministry, went on his way to deal with a trivial issue, and was murdered. He and his followers separated form jesus and this was a huge problem in Christ’s ministry and in part pointed Jesus to his own untimely death – a murder orchestrated by the political and religious powers of the time.

    Unification Theology discusses the problem with John the Baptist and it might be a good bit of homework for people interested in why Jesus died before his time and before marriage and family. On this point, Jesus and his bride would have restored the fall of Adam and Eve, and his family of goodness would have multiplied and filled the earth with goodness – and created a salvific opportunity for others to follow.

  43. Joseph Burke says:

    To J.T. above

    Something that YOU are missing in your definition of what a virgins is, is that 2000 years ago if a woman was unmarried, she HAD to be a virgin in order to be considered eligible for marriage. Virginity was not optional. Unmarried women who were not virgins were considered to have the same standing as prostitutes and were stoned to death. Are you saying that Mary was a prostitute? If Mary had not been a virgin, she would not have eligible for marriage and certainly not to someone of noble blood (Joseph was of the line of King David, after all, and would have derived some measure of social standing from that fact). You are trying to overlay the morality of today, where it is OK for a woman who no longer has her virginity to get married, onto the reality of 2000 years ago and the two are incompatible.

  44. Joseph Burke says:

    When Jesus authority was challenged by the Pharisees, they declared that their own authority stemmed from the fact that they were sons of Abraham. Jesus told them that he could raise sons of Abraham from the stones lying on the ground at their feet. If Jesus could create whole people from stones, then it would have been no problem for God to create a single Y chromosome from the line of David and implant it in Mary’s egg at the time of her conception. Jesus did not have to have a biological father because of the creation power of the heavenly father.

  45. Don says:

    Sadly many of the above post seem to only be verbiage or clouds without water. Lots of quotes from third century rabbis or perceived customs and all with an agenda? If you simply read between the lines on most of theses post it’s easy to see their bias. If they are non-Christians or many even well beyond this to anti-Christian then they gravitate to any theory or twist or spin that can be put on the historical text to try and prove their bias and justify their rejection of the claims of Christ and the New Testament. I do have several “sheep skins” to decorate my walls with and have studied at many graduate schools around the world under some of the best scholars both Christian and Non-Christian in Jewish customs and Hebrew and even did much of my research in Israel but this really means nothing. I can still twist the agenda in my favor and fail to really do justice to the text if my preconceived agenda that I am attempting to prove is flawed my research will reflect this also. As someone wisely said we must be careful who we pick for our “expert witness”. One can find equally lettered “scholars” on total opposite poles of any opinion. I am a Christian and don’t attempt to hide this fact but for me unless a person has his mind and heart transformed by the power of the indwelling Christ and the Holy Spirt of Jehovah living in him to help him “interpret” the facts, they will never fit together in any logical way no mater how many sources you consult. You will simply come out with the preconceived results you were looking to prove when you started trying to justify your unbelief. The apostle Paul said that the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, and that without the Spirit of God no one can understand the things of God. All the best with the above seekers. I hope you find God in all this effort your expending?

  46. Dr.H.Davis says:

    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-15.*
    This reference indicates that the coming Messiah or Jesus would be of the ‘seed’ (“zera” ) OF the woman. His conception would NOT come from a male. This verse excludes a male.
    Matthew and Luke say His conception was ‘from the Holy Spirit ‘thus bypassing human biological intervention as to his conception or as Luke says that ‘holy thing or fetus.’ Jesus declared many times that ‘God was his father!’

    Jeremiah declared the same thing in Jer.31: 22 * “..a female shall ‘encircle or give conception’-or her seed- to a male.’ He says it’s a “new” thing or never before event done by God. A virgin birth would be a ‘brand new;’event in human history!
    I know Hebrew and studied each word here and it is inescapable that the virgin birth is refered to by Jeremiah. Take Strong’s numbered Hebrew Dictionary online and check for yourselves.

    Hebrews says that it was God tthe father hat ‘prepared ‘or created the body of Jesus . Heb.10:5

    Some say that John did not discuss the virgin birth. He stated Jesus was the ‘Word and that the Word was God. ‘ Jn.1:1 Then in verse 14 he says the ‘Word was made flesh'[by God] and tabernacled [ was born] among us.’

  47. Where Was Jesus Born According To The Bible? | When is Jesus Coming Back? says:

    […] Pictures Jesus BornMerry Christmas Wallpaper Jesus Born FreeJesus, born to save – Bible RevelationWho Was Jesus’ Biological Father .a3a5_box {font-size: 14px !important;font-style: normal !important;font-weight: normal […]

  48. Benjamin says:

    According to your gospels Joseph did NOT impregnate Mary. That makes Jesus without a father and therefore not a descendant of King David. IN the Bible the line of descent is through the males. Mary’s lineage is irrelevant. The concept of virgins being sired by gods is steeped in Greek mythology and paganism. This concept disqualifies Jesus from being the messiah. If Jesus is a descendant of King David then he is not the son of God. Regret that I must say that there is no logic in Christian dogma.

  49. bent14 says:

    Possibly another assumption that guided “J.T.” in his comment on the “children of G-d” referring only to Jews is that Judaism teaches that salvation is only attained via Judaism? If so, that too is a far-reaching error (even though it is commonly assumed in Christian theology). It is normative Talmudic teaching (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2) that “the righteous of all peoples have a place in the World-to-Come,” i.e., eternal bliss, salvation.The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 105a, has a discussion of those categories of Jews and non-Jews who have no place in the World-to-Come (e.g., for non-Jews, the Generation of the Flood is a chief example), and says that for all others, comprising the vast majority of both Jews and non-Jews, they do have a place in heaven and will be saved. I.e., due to G-d’s great mercy, almost all of humanity will enjoy eternal salvation.

    In the Jewish Scriptures, which Christians call the Old Testament, there are three books that deal mostly or solely with non-Jews; each teaches that salvation and righteousness is attainable by non-Jews, even righteousness of the highest sort that can be a model for Jews too. The Book of Genesis speaks of Noah, Melchizedek/Seth, Abraham himself (for he arose out of non-Jewish culture), and others. The Book of Job is all about a supremely righteous non-Jew, Job, whom the first sentence of the book says is from the land of Uz, northern Arabia: i.e., he was a pagan Arab, and there is no reference to specifically Jewish associations anywhere in the book. And the Book of Jonah indicates that even the notoriously idolatrous and cruel Ninevites are gladly accepted back by G-d when they acknowledge their Noahite heritage and repent sincerely.

    The main standard of righteousness binding on all humanity is that of the Noahite Covenant (also spelled “Noachide” covenant in many English accounts), which G-d made with our common ancestor Noah (Gen. 9). There are, concluded the Talmudic rabbis, seven basic commandments of righteousness contained in that covenant, and implied even in its wording, that assure salvation if they are observed by anyone, of no matter what religion or culture. They include acknowledgement of one supreme source of all reality that should be revered and honored, even if the particular culture associates other powers with it as intermediaries, acceptance of prohibitions on murder, robbery, sexual crimes that break down family life, and, to ground this in society endorsement of courts of justice that punish such crimes and establish an at least minimal rule of law, and, finally, accepting that one should be kind to animals and not cause unnecessary pain to them since they are living beings too.

    Any non-Jew observing these basic norms is assured of salvation. That is why conversion to Judaism was never enforced on non-Jews in Jewish kingdoms down through the ages, and the Pharisees accepted “G-d-fearing Gentiles” into synagogue services, during the first centuries BCE and CE, without requiring their full conversion to Judaism. In fact, the Talmudic rabbis went further: they said that even a single compassionate and self-less act of kindness and righteousness by an otherwise evil person is sufficient to attain salvation, precisely because of G-d’s overwhelming mercy and lovingkindness (e.g., BT Avodah Zarah 18a). So no one has to be Jewish to be saved, and the prophets tell us that in the End of Days the other cultures and peoples (and religions) will still exist, but all will recognize G-d fully and dwell in peace together, coming up to Jerusalem (as Zechariah says) on the festival of Sukkot to participate at the rebuilt Temple in worship of G-d: that will be their festival too, but otherwise they will not observe the festivals and will remain non-Jews governing their own affairs and peoples. Then Israel shall be a “kingdom of priests” for all humanity and honored for this as its service these days is not. Even though, according to Jewish sources the daily services traditional Jews have always done have served to link G-d with everyone, this service will only be fully acknowledged in the Messianic Era.

    It is a remarkable thing that these non-exclusive universalistic significances of the Biblical accounts of Noah, the Books of Job and Jonah, etc., are not noted by almost any Christian exegetes of Scripture, and have no place in Christian theological reflections. Why that is, is something that Christians alone can answer.

  50. bent14 says:

    On Bamberger’s findings: he does show a revival of the myths of fallen angels and even of Satan “so long suppressed by the rabbis” in some early medieval Jewish writings, “But it could now be tolerated even publicly because it was no longer dangerous” (p.133). That is, the evil forces were supposed to exist, in a few peripheral writings, but they were considered to have no real or enduring independent sway, due to the strongly monotheistic temperament of later Judaism. Nevertheless, in still later times the ideas, encouraged by all the surrounding religions, both Christian and Muslim, penetrated into the medieval mystical tradition, and were developed into the view that opposing forces did exist that had their origin within G-d himself, in breakdowns of the connection between G-d and Creation, and so those forces did have real effect on the world. It was the chief task of the Jews, taken up especially by the saintly amongst them, to restore healing unity to the universe through their on-going daily prayers and sanctifications.

  51. bent14 says:

    And an additional comment relating to the comment by “J.T.”: it is simply incorrect to say that there is no difference in ancient Jewish culture between a virgin and a young woman. The word for virgin existed, had legal standing and meaning in Biblical times and later as a “virgin,” and it is betulah (derived from a root meaning “to separate”: i.e., she has not had any connection with men). It is written in the Torah that “tokens of virginity” had to be shown at the time of marriage (Deut. 22:13-21, etc.) if it was found that a woman claimed to be but was not a virgin (betulah) at the time of marriage, it was considered a capital crime. It was a very serious matter. On the other hand, the Hebrew word (ancient and modern) for a young woman is almah (derived from a root meaning “sexually mature” and of marriageable age). Unlike the Greeks and Romans, whose terminology confused these matters (reflecting much more promiscuous societies), Biblical Israel certainly did not. The term used in Isa. 7:14, which so many Christian exegetes of the past mistakenly claimed was a prophecy of Virgin Birth, is almah. More modern Christian translations have accepted the fact that the Hebrew merely refers to a young woman. It is quite common for young sexually mature women to become pregnant from normal sexual intercourse.

    The second serious misstatement in J.T.’s comment is that Jesus was simply referring to himself as a member of the Jewish people by regarding himself as a “son of G-d.” J.T. seems to suppose that only Jews according to Judaism were children of G-d. Actually, the Torah teaches without any cavil at all that we are all children of G-d, Jew and non-Jew alike, as descendants from Adam and Eve. That is standard ages-old Jewish teaching. All of us, without distinction, are created as Adam and Eve our ancestors were, according to the Torah, in the divine image (what that image is is a matter of deeper discussion — it does not refer simply to a person’s physical shape or necessarily to any person in isolation, but something deeper and more symbolic and spiritual: one definition is given already in Gen. 1 as being male and female in loving communion, creating and bringing up children). However, the Torah tells us very early in it that “Thus sayeth the L-rd: Israel is my first-born son” (Exod. 4:22). Isaiah makes much of Israel being shaped from the womb by G-d, who takes on maternal characteristics here. All of these are of course mere symbolisms and analogies for what transcends all finite categories: G-d is above male and female, but has aspects that in us are shown in those two interdependent characteristics.

    By the way, there is an excellent historical review of the “fallen angels” myths in Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the 1952 study by Bernard Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm. It shows that the mainstream Jewish tradition utterly rejected the myth, since to believe in rebel angels and Satan is to believe in multiple gods, i.e., polytheism, at least as understood by the Rabbis.

  52. bent14 says:

    One further brief clarification: I dissociate myself from the similarly named commentator “Ben” of comment #6. His views are not mine.

  53. Kenneth Heck says:

    Before our increased knowledge of genetics, we would have classified how Jesus was conceived as another of the Christian mysteries. We know Christ resembled His Father in heaven quite accurately (John 4:19). When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, He processed than one egg to reproduce the appearance of the Father in Christ’s own DNA. In other words, Mary supplied the physical DNA to create the Y Chromosome, but the Father supplied the pattern to reproduce His own appearance. There was no sexual activity of any kind as believed by the Mormons and others.

  54. Jolynn says:

    Boy, any mention of Jesus really brings out the kooks. Bring it on! Each in their own way, every tongue will confess….

  55. J.T. Smith says:

    There are two problems with this article that’s been a problem foe Western cultures for centuries.

    The first problem is a mistranslation of the meaning of one single simple word: virgin. In the Middle East, both in ancient times and now, a virgin is simply an unmarried female of marriageable age. The term “virgin” didn’t gain any sexual aspect until around the 1100-1300s [C.E.] when Christian monks and the priesthood who were translating Biblical Texts had a rather jarring realization: they took a vow of celibacy that was really a mistake. Their conclusion basically comes down to that if they [the monks] aren’t getting any, then neither did Mary. This also allowed the monks/priests to share something else with Mary, now both are considered virgins. Unfortunately, it missed the small detail that marriages in Biblical times were still very much arranged, that marriages based on two people who actually love each other and on their own want to marry each other was close enough to non-existent as makes no odds.

    When you hear about the fanatical Muslims who’re performing acts of terrorism for the reward of 70 virgins, they’re not looking for 70 women who’ve never had sex, they’re actually aiming for 70 potential and viable wives. (Polygamy was very common among during Biblical times, women were effectively property, and having more wives was a direct reflection of wealth.)

    The second problem is another translation glitch is that modern Christians in Western societies end up taking a very Greek view of Jesus rather than a Jewish one. The reason the story of Jesus caught on with the Greeks was they already had a similar story in their history (a birth involving a human woman and a deity), that of Hercules. Unfortunately, this misses something entirely that’s rather important. ALL religious Jewish males consider themselves to be sons of God and ALL religious females consider themselves daughters of God. In this respect, God has a similar aspect to Odin as both are effectively considered all-fathers. When Jesus spoke to the masses and referred to himself as “son of God,” he was telling his Jewish audience that he was in fact one of them.

    Until those two very important aspects are taken properly into account, along with Talmudic law, etc, the beginings of Jesus’ story aren’t going to make proper sense.

  56. bent14 says:

    The point made by Chris is the most pertinent response to this article — namely, that by ignoring the Jewish law, environment and values that actually applied to Jesus’s life, Andrew Lincoln’s article despite all its learning regarding Greek and Roman values and law is almost entirely irrelevant. (I will come back to the “almost” caveat in a moment. It turns out to be important.) But Steven B.’s seemingly full, detailed and informative comment regarding Talmudic and other issues relating to marriage also misses the most important point of all, a glaring point that must strike anyone familiar with ancient Jewish law, which is evidenced already in the authoritative Scriptural accounts of lineage and inheritance that governed Judean life and which is specified clearly in Talmudic law too, which is that there is no adoption in Jewish law. (On this, see the articles on “Adoption” in the Encyclopaedia Judaica and in the on-line great classic Jewish encyclopaedia from the early 20th century, The Jewish Encyclopaedia.) There was guardianship, which could be almost everything that adoption was but without the lineage or inheritance rights, but there could be no adoption as such nor therefore assumption of born children’s lineage or inheritance. A simple instance is that if a Jewish family adopts (in secular terms) a child, it does not become by that even a Jewish child; the child must affirm Judaism as such, at the time of maturity, for him- or her-self: that makes the adoptive child a “Jew.” The ancestry and lineage of the Jewish parents does not become the ancestry of the child. And its birth parents remain (in Jewish law) its natural parents, who must be honored as much as possible.

    That means that if Mary had a child by anyone other than Joseph, that child did not share Joseph’s Davidic lineage (assuming that he had one). In that case, providing the two very different Davidic ancestral genealogies of Joseph in Luke 3:23-38 and Matt. 1:1-17 cannot apply to Jesus in Jewish law, and invalidates right from the start any claim that Jesus was of the line of David and therefore could be the Davidic messiah prophecised by the Prophets of Israel. Put briefly, if Jesus was God the Son, he could not be the Messiah. If he was the Messiah, he could not be God the Son. So the Gospel account is called into doubt right at the start. Its associated claims of the Virgin Birth etc. could not be true. Jewish law provides no way out of this self-refutation, the same Jewish law that Jesus is quoted in Matt. 23:2 as saying is authoritative and must be followed, even to every jot and tittle (Matt: 5:17-19, etc.).

    A chief reason why there is no adoption in Jewish law is given in the Ten Commandments themselves (cited by Jesus himself as fundamental to everything in Jewish piety and law, Matt. 19:16-21): Honor your father and mother. Why is that on the first tablet of the two tablets, culminating the commands to know that God is and should be acknowledged as such? Because, the Torah tells us, through procreation humans attain to the divine image of being male and female together and creating life: it therefore is a holy thing of the highest sanctity (Gen. 1:27-28); as Steven B. pointed out it is taught by the Rabbinic Sages that God is present in every procreative act that creates a new human being. God seals and witnesses every creation of a new human person. This being so, it cannot be set aside by any merely human law or institution.

    Now I come back to the fact that the Gospel account shows no awareness of these basic Jewish laws and values that governed Judean society and piety and were taken for granted by Jews. As Andrew Lincoln demonstrates, instead the account assumes Graeco-Roman laws of adoption and inheritance — i.e., this demonstrates yet again that there was a sweeping and extensive later gentile Christian editing of the Gospels which simply did not know much of Judaism.

  57. Steven B. says:

    @ KING #21 – I would invite you to search YouTube for “Hebert Basser”, specifically his two lectures “Mistakes and Misconceptions” and “How Reliable Are The Talmudic Teachings About Jesus?” Rabbi Prof. Hebert W. Basser is an Orthodox Jew. Now that Prof. David Flusser is no longer with us, I submit that Rabbi Basser is the pre-eminent Jewish scholar on the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef.

  58. Rick says:

    Thanks Chris for pointing out the apparently not-so-obvious obvious fact: Jesus was a Jew. I think the trouble arises from the relatively immediate Graecizing of Him via literature. It would be very interesting to see Eastern (Syriac etc) literature accounts. And thanks Steven B for background info regarding Jewish customs. I do think your assumptions sometimes assume too much though. Scholars caution about relying too much on the Talmud for pre-Talmudic times.

    The Talmud and the Greek scriptures are the best we have when trying to uncover Jesus’ first-century Galilean Jewish life though. So, we need to be detectives and use the (few) facts we have to judiciously come to as few assumptions as we can. Like Job, we need to finally realize we don’t know what we don’t know.

  59. Kurt says:

    SEED (Offspring) OF ABRAHAM
    Some 2,000 years after Abel’s day, Jehovah gave the patriarch Abraham this prophetic promise: “I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens . . . And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Genesis 22:17, 18) Those words linked Abraham with the fulfillment of the first prophecy. They indicated that the Seed through whom Satan’s works would be brought to nothing would appear in Abraham’s lineage. (1 John 3:8) “Because of the promise of God [Abraham] did not waver in a lack of faith” and neither did other pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who “did not get the fulfillment of the promise.” (Romans 4:20, 21; Hebrews 11:39) Instead, they maintained faith in God’s prophetic word.
    The apostle Paul identified God’s promised Seed when he wrote: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: ‘And to seeds,’ as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: ‘And to your seed,’ who is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16) The Seed through whom the nations were to bless themselves did not include all of Abraham’s offspring. Descendants of his son Ishmael and of his sons by Keturah were not used to bless mankind. The Seed of blessing came through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. (Genesis 21:12; 25:23, 31-34; 27:18-29, 37; 28:14) Jacob showed that “peoples” would be obedient to Shiloh of the tribe of Judah, but the Seed was later restricted to David’s lineage. (Genesis 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:12-16) First-century Jews expected one person to come as the Messiah, or Christ. (John 7:41, 42) And God’s prophecy of the Seed was fulfilled in his Son, Jesus Christ.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273113

  60. Kurt says:

    JOSEPH (Adoptive Father of Jesus)
    Why did Joseph contemplate giving Mary a certificate of divorce when the two were only engaged?
    According to Matthew’s Gospel, Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant while she “was promised in marriage to Joseph” but before they were united. Not knowing that Mary was pregnant “by holy spirit,” Joseph must have thought that she had been unfaithful to him, and thus he intended to divorce her.—Matthew 1:18-20.
    Among the Jews, engaged couples were viewed as already married. The two, however, did not begin living together as husband and wife until the wedding formalities had been completed. Engagement was so binding that if—because of a change of heart on the part of the bridegroom or for some other compelling reason—the marriage did not take place, the young woman was not free to marry until she had obtained a divorce certificate. If an engaged woman’s husband died before the wedding, she was considered a widow. On the other hand, if she committed fornication during her engagement, she was considered an adulteress and was sentenced to death.—Deuteronomy 22:23, 24.
    Joseph evidently pondered the consequences of Mary’s becoming a public spectacle. Though he felt obligated to bring the matter to the proper authorities, he wanted to protect her and avoid scandal. Thus, he decided to divorce her quietly. A single mother’s possession of a divorce certificate would, after all, indicate that she had already been married.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273159

  61. Mike says:

    Ok for all the “educated beyond their intellects” idiots that inspired, wrote and then commented on this article. The answer is God the Father. Denial of this truth means God incarnate has not come for you and therefore Christianity is a complete lie. At which point “Biblical” archaeology is also a farce because the Bible is itself just a fantastical collection of useless stories, rules and fairy tales.

  62. David says:

    Sorry, but none of this discussion explains the miracles or the resurrection except – God incarnate.

  63. KING OF JUDEA says:

    According to the Talmud, Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier named Ben Pandira.
    Jesus was not of the seed of David anyway.

  64. Chris says:

    Steven,

    One scholar I enjoy reading, who’s writings serve as a patter for all scholars, is George Foote Moore. I refer to “Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era”. I had his method in mind when I requested you to “brief me” on your assertions. His “opinions” are based on historical primary sources, and he makes few conclusions t/o his scholarly work.

    Cheers … Chris

  65. Chris says:

    @ Steven – #17 & #18:

    Thanx for your interesting comments.

    I really wanted to see the historical primary source quotes and cites for all the things you say.

    I’ve discovered that reading these religious books by 3rd and 4th parties requires a lot of time and energy I don’t have. That’s why I asked for you to “brief me” on your assertions. That way, I could go to the primary sources and read the quotes in their greater context and see if I can determine the value of them. That’s how I would test the “scholar” to see where he’s coming from.

    The one scholar I have read a lot of is David Flusser. His writings are some of the best reading I’ve done, except that all his writings are infused w/his political agenda. The older he got, the worse it got. It gets on my nerves after a while. He was one of the top scholars of our time. If I can hardly stomach his perverted conclusions due to his hidden agenda, how much more contemporary scholars.

    That’s why I asked for a brief of your opinion w/full authority. That is not the same as plagurizing.

    Cheers … Chris

  66. Steven Madewell says:

    @ Chris – “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (συνελθεῖν), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (KJV Matt. 1:18).

    During the Second Temple Period, the betrothal (kiddushin) came first, which was followed a year later by the “taking” (kichah; cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins) and the nisuin (nuptials), when the husband “takes” (kichah) his wife from her father’s house and brings her to the home that he’s prepared for his bride.

    I submit that the use of συνελθεῖν (came together) in Matthew 1:18 refers to the nisuin (nuptials), when the ketubah is read aloud and the husband and wife publicly “come together” (συνέρχομαι) as a couple.

    The Church assumes that the Greek word συνελθεῖν alludes to the couple “coming together” in a sexual union. Yet, the word συνέρχομαι is used of Yeshua (Jesus) “coming together” with his disciples (Acts 1:6) and it’s used of Cornelius’ kinsmen and near friends “coming together” (Acts 10:24-27) and it’s used of Paul and the chief of the Jews “coming together” (Acts 28:17), etc. In short, the word συνέρχομαι needn’t be interpreted as “coming together” in a sexual union.

    Prior to the 3rd century C.E., Jewish law held that a man obtained a bride by (1) paying the bridal price (kessef) to the virgin’s father (i.e., 200 zuz, about 3,100 to 3,700 USD), (2) a written declaration of intent (shetar), and (3) sexual intercourse (bi’ah) – Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. (See also, “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by Maurice Lamm, pp. 143ff).

    It was the custom among the plebeian class of Jews to have sexual intercourse as part of the betrothal (kiddushin). Why? Aside from tradition, it was only logical for the groom to ensure that his wife was indeed a virgin, rather than pay the kessef (bridal price) and wait a full year only to find out at the nisuin (nuptials) that his wife wasn’t actually a virgin.

    All the account in Matthew is stating is that Miriam was found to be pregnant by Yosef prior to their coming together at the nuptials (nisuin). As for the role played by God’s Spirit in the conception, it was the belief in proto-Rabbinic Judaism that:

    “There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).

    In short, the Holy Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child. I hope this sufficiently clarifies my “opinion” on this matter.

  67. Steven Madewell says:

    @ Chris – Thanks for taking the time to read my comment(s)! As to Second Temple marriage customs…. I would strongly urge you (and others) to read, “The Jewish Way In Love And Marriage,” by Maurice Lamm and “Birth Control and Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman, which I referenced and quoted in my above comment.

    As to the differences that existed between the plebeian-Galilean Separatists (P’rushim) from the House of Hillel and the patrician-Judean Separatists (Pharisees) from the House of Shammai…. I would strongly urge you (and others) to read, “The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith,” by Louis Finkelstein, and “A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisee’s Search for the Kingdom Within” by Ellis Rivkin, and “Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus,” by Harvey Falk. I don’t agree with Rabbi Falk’s final conclusion, but his insights regarding the tensions between the disciples of Hillel and Shammai and how their differences later fueled the anti-Semitism of the Church is well worth the read. To that end, one might also read, “The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew,” by Phillip Sigal.

    BTW, the text of Matthew in the Peshitta actually states that Miriam was found to be pregnant while Yosef was scraping together the kesef (money) to pay his father-in-law the full bridal price (for a virgin), which was 200 zuz (approx. $3,100 to $3,700 USD). Not every plebeian had the means and wherewithal to make a payment in full, so a token payment during the shetar (declaration of intent) with an agreed upon installment plan was the norm. (See further the works cited above). Additionally, the year long separation of husband and wife also gave the parties involved enough time to hash out the details of the ketubah (marriage contract), which would be read at the wedding feast as part of the nisuin (nuptials). Here again, I would urge you to read Lamm’s work, which will give you all the applicable references to Jewish Law on the subject.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “authorities,” but I believe my “opinions” were sufficiently laced with references to scholarly works and the source material said scholars used. The problem is that we’re all attempting to reconstruct the events of a period and culture that is completely foreign to us. Worse! We’re doing so with the added burden of 1,700 years of religious dogma, which makes it difficult to place this material back into its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context.

    Is there a specific “opinion” that you want me to elaborate on and/or provide a source for? The only reason I don’t write a book on this subject is because I’d simply be plagiarizing a plethora of scholarly works. Also, I don’t have a lamb skin hanging on my wall. At best, I’m just a student of comparative religions and my “opinions” frequently rub people the wrong way. Feel free to contact me – steven(dot)madewell(at)yahoo(dot)com.

  68. Chris says:

    @ Steven B – #14-15:
    Very interesting “opinion” about Miriam’s virginity and the halakah, and 2nd Temple marriage customs. Would you mind detailing your historical assertions for me? I don’t see any cites or quotes of the “authorities” on which you base your reasoning. If you’d be so kind, please post all the legal citations, with a brief quote in context, for all the assertions you make above in your “opinion”.
    Thanx!

  69. Still hunting for Jesus’ real father Everyone gets to… | Honor Dads says:

    […] Still hunting for Jesus’ real father? Everyone gets to meet Him eventually. […]

  70. Steven Madewell says:

    @ Simone Venturini’s Blog, which states, “Therefore, the pre-eminent role in the physical conception of a new human being is played by women and not by men.”

    That’s not what Judaism maintains and it certainly wasn’t a notion that one finds in proto-Rabbinic Judaism, which was the faith of the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef.

    “There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).

    We are all the literal Offspring of Our Heavenly Father! Please, put this material back into its proper context and stop slanting it to jive with your dogmatic assertions!

  71. Steven Madewell says:

    All this nonsense regarding parthenogenesis is based on a huge cultural misunderstanding.

    1. Marriage was a two-stage process during the Common Era – the betrothal/sanctification (erusin/kiddushin) and the nuptials (nisuin). The betrothal (kiddushin) was followed a year later by the “taking” (kichah; cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins) and the nisuin (nuptials), when the groom “takes” his wife from her father’s house and brings her to his home. The kiddushin was not merely an engagement. The couple were deemed husband and wife from that point onward and if things didn’t work out the groom would have to give his bride a bill of divorce.

    2. The religio-legal ruling (halakah) during this period held that a man could obtain a wife via a declaration of intent (shetar), money (kesef), and sexual intercourse (bi’ah). In “The Jewish Way In Love And Marriage,” author Maurice Lamm writes (p. 146), “After the man has addressed the marriage formula [contained in the shetar] to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting the betrothal [kiddushin] through intercourse.”

    3. The marriage customs of the Galilean disciples of Hillel the Elder were different from those of the Judean disciples of Shammai the Elder.

    4. It was only in the 3rd century C.E., that the halakah was changed and the Judean custom of separating the act of giving kesef (money) from the act of bi’ah (sexual intercourse), by a span of one year, was made the social and legal norm – paying money to one’s father-in-law remained part of the kiddushin (betrothal), while sexual intercourse became part of the nisuin (nuptials).

    Why the change? Because, at least as far as some religious extremists were concerned, having sex with the bride to determine if she was in fact a virgin immediately after the act of paying (or making arrangements to pay) the girl’s father the full price for a virgin bride (3,100 to 3,700 USD) smacked of prostitution — sex for money.

    The plebeian class of (Galilean) Orthodox Jews had a long standing kiddushin tradition of following the kesef with bi’ah, in order that the groom could take immediate action to recover (or adjust) his payment if the bride wasn’t in fact a virgin. However, this whole custom of “kesef followed by bi’ah” as part of the kiddushin was regarded with disdain by the patrician class of (Judean) Orthodox Jews, who eschewed any hint of prostitution by waiting until the nisuin (nuptial-elevation) to have sexual intercourse with the bride.

    5. Yosef, being a (plebeian-Hillelite) Galilean, obviously had sex with Miriam as part of the kiddushin and thus began the year long wait for their nisuin. Why wait a year? Because the groom had just given his life savings to his father-in-law. The reason for the year long separation was to give the groom sufficient time to save up money for the wedding feast and/or to finish preparing a suitable home for his wife.

    6. Why did Yosef think about divorcing Miriam after learning that she was pregnant? It wasn’t because he thought she’d committed adultery! He knew her to have been a virgin and he knew that the child was his! What he sought to avoid were the insults from the religious extremists and gossips, who regarded the custom of “kesef and bi’ah” during the kiddushin to be tantamount to fornication (lit., prostitution).

    7. It was this “whisper of prostitution” that eventually led to a change in the halakah, but it took three centuries for this change to come about! That’s why Yosef initially thought about divorcing Miriam in secret, but he eventually decided against it, because – per the confirmation by the angel in his dream – Yosef knew that the halakah permitted having sexual intercourse as part of the kiddushin. That said, legally speaking, Yosef didn’t have to wait for the nisuin in order to have sex with his bride, as was the custom in Judea. Still, to mitigate whatever accusations others were bound to throw at him, his wife, and their offspring, Yosef immediately took Miriam from her father’s home and brought her into his home and shortly thereafter sent her away to visit relatives.

    8. If all this be the case, then why didn’t Yosef have sex with Miriam while she was pregnant?

    “R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: Three [categories of] women must use a ‘mokh’ in marital intercourse; a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother. The minor, because [otherwise] she might become pregnant and die. A pregnant woman, because [otherwise] she might cause her fetus to become a sandal [i.e., a flat fish-shaped abortion due to superfetation]…..” (Y’vamot 12b).

    The use of a “mokh” (i.e., a tuft of wool or cotton padding) is rather problematic, because the religio-legal rulings (halakhot) states that the “mokh” must effectively block the cervix in order to prevent the sperm from entering the uterus, while not preventing the man’s phallus from having unimpeded contact with the woman’s vaginal wall, in order that the two might literally become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

    Also, the man’s seed must be sown in the woman, rather than in the “mokh,” which means that the ejaculate must come into contact with the vaginal wall before being absorbed by the “mokh.” The “mokh” is simply meant to block the cervix by absorbing any semen that tries to make its way into the uterus. See the problems involved here? [Ref. “Birth Control and Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman, pp. 180-193].

    Given all this, the Essene solution to the problematic use of the “mokh” was to focus on the higher ethics involved. Josephus states of certain Essenes that, “They do not approach those with child, showing that they marry not for self-indulgence, but for the procreation of children” (War 2.160-61). No, I’m not saying that Yosef was a card-carrying Essene. I’m just saying that the (plebeian-Hillelite) Galilean Jews had their own customs and chumrot (strict measures) regarding intercourse with a pregnant woman.

    The bottom line…? Yeshua (Jesus) was the biological offspring of Yosef and Miriam. Further, according to Judaism, God’s Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child, because we are all the Offspring of our Heavenly Father. In short, the God’s Spirit overshadows each and every woman during the conception of her offspring:

    “There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).

    One must place this material back into its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context. I submit that the Church’s belief in parthenogenesis is based on a cultural, linguistic, and historical misunderstanding of the texts in question.

  72. John Mayger says:

    Modern surrogacy has two forms, ‘Traditional’ where the mother supplies half the DNA and the womb and ‘Gestational’ where she just supplies the womb. The author assumes that what the ancients believed was incorrect. Historically believed was that YHWH employed The Blessed Virgin Mary as a gestational surrogate, which is what I believe. God created the second Adam as He did the first Adam, without the need for human input. The author twists the story to fit his limited understanding of surrogacy. Jesu was fully tou Theou ( Luke 3:37) become man.

  73. Maxine Eldred says:

    I think the ones who think Joseph was Jesus father are not reading the Bible to find out who his father really was. The account I read is Joseph was worried when he found out Mary was pregnant and was thinking of putting her away meaning he was sending her somewhere and he was not going to marry her. But read where God gave him a dream and said ” do not put her away” because she is pregnant of the Holy Ghost”. That is why Jesus was human and spiritual. People do not read the bible word for word only take something some man wrote and RUN WITH it. Search it out and find the truth The Bible says what really happened. Some people do not want to know the truth..

  74. Jürgen Rahf says:

    According to Jewish believe the father was Joseph Pandira. But he denied and said in court it was a Roman soldier.

  75. Darrell says:

    Go back to sleep Jürgen.

  76. The mistery of Jesus’ Conception – Simone Venturini's Blog says:

    […] Lincoln, Professor at University of Gloucestershire (published in the November/December of the Bible Archaeology Review). He maintains that the virginal conception of Jesus should be considered from the point of view of […]

  77. Il mistero del concepimento verginale di Gesù – Il Blog di Simone Venturini says:

    […] Lincoln dell’Università di Gloucestershire sostiene (nel numero di novembre/dicembre della Bible Archaeology Review) che occorre, giustamente, considerare la questione del concepimento verginale a partire dal modo […]

  78. ed l says:

    Where does the information that the Jews of that time had either temple virgins or prostitutes come from?

  79. JoeSnow says:

    There is a new theory going around now that prior to marrying Joseph, Mary was a temple virgin and that when the Bible says that Jesus was “born of a virgin”, that is what it is referring to and not that Mary was a literal virgin at the time that Jesus was born.

  80. Chris says:

    The article makes this fundamental hermeneutical error: EISAGESIS (reading into the text what isn’t in there originally (in this case, the cultural and literary background).
    The article errs in alleging that the Gospel writers possessed “Greco-Roman” worldviews.
    The FACT is, the Gospel writers were 2nd Temple “JEWS”, NOT Greeks, Romans or Greco-Romans. These people thought and live according to the 2nd Temple LAW (not the Greco-Roman). they observed “Jewish” Halakah, based on MOSAIC LAW and GOD’S “10”.
    Conclusion: These people obviously wrote from a “JEWISH” perspective, and NOT a Greco-Roman perspective.
    That dose of error poisons the entire article.
    No sense in discussing any of the other points the writer makes.

  81. Ben West says:

    CB, I enjoyed and agree wholeheartedly with your post and reply. My viewpoint is that of a believer that all scripture was divinely inspired. Regarding biology, God, who established life and all of the genetic components certainly had no difficulty making Jesus fully man, without the need of a physical, biological father.

  82. Mike Durham says:

    I like BAR Facebook articles because in a way the articles attempt to bring science face to face with Biblical passages. A trend that I have noted is that when faced with a real constraint such as X and Y chromosomes, BAR lowers the standard for input. Relying on the myths of dual conceptions isn’t an explanation; it’s an aggravation to and an amalgamation of questionable rationales to finding the truth about Jesus presence on Earth. It begs the concept that some writer speaks for God.

    Question: When God put into place the process of reproduction through X and Y chromosomes as a standard process, why would that process be suspended and avoided for Christ’s coming?

    This article brings into play the consideration of license in explaining how things happened during Christ’s time. This article explains how Christ’s existence was wrapped into literary devices of the time to maintain a mystical aura around Jesus. It falls sadly and miserably short of explaining how Christ received an X chromosome.

    I hope BAR reloads its archeological search effort to address this XY conundrum. Repeating 2,000 year old stories to avoid the truth doesn’t meet the test of the article’s title. A shift has occurred in the last 2,000 years. Faith is the basis for discovery of real evidence, and real evidence divides faith from false explanations, literary devices, stories and myths resulting from ignorance of the real world at that time.

    I’d recommend that BAR avoid article titles that uses “teasers” that fail to represent the article itself. This article had nothing to do with a factual explanation of Jesus’ biological father.

  83. conor o'sullivan says:

    it was tradition that should a daughter of a Lord held at court become pregnant by the king she would still be classed as a virgin – as the King was divine. She would then be married off to a son of any other Lord who was also held at court (in effect to ransom) and that child – should it be a male would inherit the Lords wealth – even though he was not the Lords son.
    Jesus father could have been Herod the Great – hence the question that Pilot put to him which sealed his fate – ‘are you the true King of the Jews?’

  84. CB Ross says:

    I am not in a position to comment on Ron Wyatt’s findings. However, I wonder about the relevance of any of these alleged discoveries – finding Noah’s ark; the Shroud of Turin; finding the Ark of the Covenant; etc.

    When the resurrected Jesus made His first appearance to the disciples (John 20:19), Thomas was not with them. He was informed, later, and responded that without ‘concrete’, material proof, he would not believe!

    Eight days later, Thomas was with the others, and Jesus appeared again. He invited Thomas to check out the evidence as he had wanted. Of course, brought face-to-face with the risen Saviour of the world, and King of the universe, Thomas could only fall to his knees in worship. (v.28).

    Jesus’ following words are very enlightening: “Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'” (v.29). I would respectfully suggest that those words could be interpreted as, “Blessed are those who have no material evidence, but who still believe”!

    In other words, whatever alleged material evidence is produced, real faith does not require it. Rom.3:4!

    Blessings, and shalom.

  85. guy says:

    Yah, I saw that Ron Wyatt’s documentary, Only the X chromosomes were present on the tests..

  86. Melissa McNamara says:

    Read Ron Wyatt’s test results from the dried blood on the Arc of the Covenant…..it’s pretty interesting. When he took it to a lab in Israel they said that the blood was to old to test but Ron insisted…..they went ahead and did the testing and the blood “came alive”…further testing showed that it only had the mothers chromosome. I believed what the Bible said, that Joseph was not Jesus’s biological father…..but he was his Dad, meaning that he raised him as his own but knew the truth. Ron Wyatt’s findings were just another piece of proof for the world to see..

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


92 Responses

  1. Allyne Knox says:

    I seem to recall reading that the word from the book of Isiah from which this text was drawn actually refers to “a young girl.” An entirely different word would have been used if it was to refer to a virgin. Hence we are not talking about a virgin birth at all.

  2. Jeffrey says:

    While this article is informative, it omits what is a real possibility for Jesus’ biological father. According to Jewish legend this person was a Roman soldier named Pantera. The gravestone of so-named Roman solder was found in Germany, and this particular solder may have been Jewish and may have served in Palestine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Julius_Abdes_Pantera

  3. Robert Fitzgerald says:

    Expand in Mary’s family? Was she of Herod’s extended family?
    Was Jesus father a Roman solder who had an affair with Mary?
    Where did Jesus go in early adult life? To visit husband Bio father in Egypt?
    Fascinating story.
    Did I see a tunnel of sorts under the assume burial site during reguvination by National Geo few years back?

  4. Okwudili says:

    It will bring peace to mankind if all this blindness been shared by deferent religions were treated and cured.

  5. NelMac says:

    The day that humans wake up and stop practicing ‘Religion’ is the day that the race shall be set free from a hideous idealogical tyranny.
    The ‘Bible’ is a book of politics, created by humans for susceptible minds to be controlled.
    It is the ultimate insult to the species to believe that, in your minds, you are so self important that you must attribute your existence to some ‘divine entity’, simply on the grounds that arriving at any other potential source of your existence is beyond your punile, limited and scarred mind(s).
    The only thing responsible for the divsion of humanity IS RELIGION.
    Disgustig, despicable, incalculable, incomprehensible, unprovable religion.
    GROW UP HUMANS.
    LOOK BEYOND THIS SPHERE AND EXPLORE THE UNIVERSE before arriving at absurdity.
    I suppose that given the timescale of your ‘learning’, you may well have self-annihilated before that happens though.

  6. Julie Daniel says:

    Thank God there is finally discussion on
    this. You have to be so careful who you confide in with your thought, worried or concerns within the body of Christ for you
    may be looked at in un- believer, instead of a human being with questions

    Thank you. Julie Daniel

  7. Frank Frivilous says:

    Read the Gospel of Luke. Zachariah and Elizabeth were having trouble getting pregnant until the Angel Gabriel appeared to him. The angel also visited Mary who then went to stay with her cousin Elizabeth who was then pregnant with John (the baptist). Mary stayed about three months while Zachariah was struck dumb by the angel. When Mary left the house of Zachariah she was pregnant. She then went to her husband Joseph. Zachariah was the high priest (most high) and from what is hinted at in the gospel…….probably Jesus biological father.

  8. mackenzie says:

    when jesus was born the jews were not gods people anymore. so they would be lying if he said it bc it wasnt the truth

  9. Pierre says:

    Jesus father was a a Roman knight. His name, Creolus.
    He was gone on soldier duty when the child was to be born and Mary’s mother
    was terrified. So Josef an yet 52 old pious man, asked Mary’s mother to sustain her
    and marry her daughter.
    So is it written in the Talmud and papers were found in the
    Basilica of Constantinople that Jesus was tall and handsom whereas his half brothers and sisters
    were smal and black haired.
    When Creolus came back as to marry Mary, Josef and Mary were on way to Egypt.
    The tomb of Creolus was found in Germany.
    God’s spirit invented how to make chirdren… why would he have denied himself by
    making his Son on Planet Earth differently ???

  10. Gene R says:

    Luke 1:26-31 (JB) reports that it was to “a virgin” whose name was Mary that the angel Gabriel carried the news: “You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus.” At this, verse 34 states, “Mary said to the angel, ‘But how can this come about, since I am a virgin [“I do not know man: i.e., as husband,” NAB footnote; “I am having no intercourse with a man,” NW]?’” Matthew 1:22-25 (JB) adds: “Now all this took place to fulfil the words spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel, a name which means ‘God-is-with-us’. When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”
    Is this reasonable? Surely it was not impossible for the Creator, who designed the human reproductive organs, to bring about the fertilization of an egg cell in the womb of Mary by supernatural means. Marvelously, Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his firstborn heavenly Son to the womb of Mary. God’s own active force, his holy spirit, safeguarded the development of the child in Mary’s womb so that what was born was a perfect human.—Luke 1:35; John 17:5.https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989246#h=10:0-12:489

  11. J.T. Smith says:

    All religious Jews consider themselves children (i.e. sons and daughters) of God. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. It MUST be understood in that context that statements of Jesus being the “son of God” are in reality statements affirming his Jewishness. Any notion that Jesus biological father was God is a GREEK notion, NOT a Hebrew one!

  12. Martyman39 says:

    The messiah according to Jewish must be a descendent of King David through King Solomon. Since the Christians claim that Jesus was the “son of God”, he had no earthly father, Joseph was his foster father, so he evidently had no blood line from the tribe of Judah to which David belonged, since paternity is always determined by the father. As far as Mary was concerned, the mother of Jesus, her father was Joachim, a Levite, not descended from King David. So that pretty well rules out Jesus as qualifying as the messiah as far as the Jews are concerned.

  13. Clark T says:

    Jesus was fully human. John the Baptist and Jesus were more than cousins – they were half brothers, that is, they had the same biological father. Bu this was covered up in history.

    Don’t ask me how I know this. Let’s just say it was ‘revealed’ to me.

  14. mark says:

    Why not ask Him?

  15. May Okhotnikoff says:

    Reading your comments something else comes up

    A couple of years ago there were at least two or three web informations of
    strange pregnancies, in China mainly. Two women who insisted they hadn’t had
    any sexual relations for several years and one man, hello!, pregnant!!! I believe
    I still have the copies somewhere. Those “twins” , for a better name, were
    never born, their bodies as per the information were not correctly formed or even
    I believe not in one piece…. Studies were made, some info was published, but
    what surprised me was the lack of paternal DNA information. It had to be the
    answer, mainly in the American 5 months old baby for whom a total minimum was
    stated. Couldn’t the father’s sperm have lodged somewhere where the ovum (???)
    would have joined it and produced a new body. It must have been, especially in
    that baby’s case. Don’t tell me sperms don’t last more than a few days, those
    pregnancies prove that it can happen, as well as the few cases of twins born a
    month later…..

    Now, supposing Saint Joachim’s, father of The Virgin Mary, might have landed in
    a particular site of her body and been met by her ovum at the proper age, been
    Blessed by The Holy Spirit that conceived Baby Jesus with Life: He was Son
    of God and Son Of Man, Descendant of David, like He said and always answered
    to….. He never lied.

    It requires understanding and accepting of the news of today, and adapting them
    to the news of yesteryear, with the faith we have in Jesus Truth and the Gospel’s
    Truth. Also, I have never found confirmation of the fact that God created the
    same thing twice and the Word, The Son, was conceived by The Holy Spirit,
    Blessed with Life in Our Lady’s womb. It seems so very possible with our
    new knowledge of today…

    From: May J Okhotnikoff
    Date: December 21, 2017 at 1:35:25 PM EST
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: A virgin birth or not? Find out now

    Have you ever thought that according to what is stated in the Gospel the Virgin
    Birth is really a possible fact and Our Lady’s Virginity is another possible fact???

    A) Woman was told that birth would be painful because of the sin. However, Our Lady was addressed by Archangel Gabriel as “Full of Grace” therefore, no sin. So no painful birth.

    B) The Gospel states that upon resurrecting the Lord Jesus went to meet the
    Apostles and entered their room through the door or the wall without opening it
    Thanks to Holy Spirit. But His was a human body which they touched and was
    hungry and he ate.

    C) Now couldn’t Virgin Mary’s Child have been born without pain the same way at The beginning of His life Thanks to the Holy Spirit, confirming to Saint Joseph that marriage could never be effective….

    D) If you accept that The Holy Spirit brought Jesus through the door or the wall
    After the end of His Life, don’t deny that the same Holy Spirit that conceived Him could have brought The Child to Life the same way at His Birth.

    And perhaps it was that kept silent knowledge that called the Mother
    the Virgin Mary

  16. Bobby Garringer says:

    On the biological-realities point, Jesus would have been fully human – as a result of a miracle – whether God “supplied the animating principle instead of a human father” (in an Aristotelian sense) or created the male Y chromosome (in the scientific sense).

    With Lincoln’s assumption, the children of Abraham that God can raise up from stones (Matt. 3:9) would not only be less than “fully human”; they could not possibly be human at all!

  17. Dennis Blue says:

    If Jesus was “assigned” two births, who was it that made the assignment? Jesus was not of Davidic lineage. King David was fully human and as such, his seed was corrupted by original sin. If Jesus was born into the Davidic line, then he was a sinner and was not qualified to be a Savior. The Jewish Messiah, who Jesus claimed to be, was prophecied in the Mishnah and Talmud to be born of two human parents. He was rejected by the Hebrew religious hierarchy because of his claim to be the son of God. Joseph had nothing to do with fathering him as Matthew 1:19 states that Joseph had been out of the region and returned to find his young betrothed pregnant. Lastly, the assignment of godhood to renouned men is akin to their receiving an honorary degree. It is just a title, usually self imposed. It gets tiring when these complicated and convoluted arguments keep popping up that are aimed at resolving an impossible situation.

  18. James Blevins says:

    Yeah….definetly time to throw the old bible, koran, whatever, in the dumpster and admit that we just dont know God or the plan. It is no sin to not know somthing. It is the only honest answer, and isn’t that what we all strive for, is the truth. Faith….give me a break!!!

  19. Benita Smith says:

    What they believed in the first or second century is fine for their time. But today we KNOW that conception is a biological act that requires DNA from both a woman & a man for it to take place. Mary was probably raped by a Roman centurion and got pregnant. Joseph married her to keep Mary from being stoned which was a required punishment for an unmarried young girl during the first century in the southern Levant as it is to day with honor killings. If Joseph was Jesus biological father Jesus could not have been the true Messiah. Joseph, though he was descended from King David, was not descended through David’s son “Solomon” as Got commanded as one of the signs by which we would recognize the true Messiah. Joseph was descended through King David’s son “JACONIAH” who was the cursed son of King David, God said, “Even if Jaconaiah was a signet ring on my hand . . I would pull him off.” No son of Jaconaiah will ever sit on the thrown is Judah or be king. So if Joseph was Jesus’ biological father Jesus could not be the True Messiah or “The Chosen One.” If Mary was impregnated by a spirit then Jesus could not have been human and if Mary was raped by a Roman soldier or any other man Jesus still cannot have been the true Messiah. At least not according to the word of God. So if you believe the Gospels you are contradicting the word of God. If you believe in the word of God then the Gospels are a myth.

  20. Tino Gonzalez says:

    According to the Talmud, Meriam (Mary), a roman soldier named Paterna impregnated Meriam , or Mary from which Jesus was conceived. Ben Stata

  21. rinda mb says:

    I rather think that God, creator of all miracles, large and small, and surely every child conceived is a miracle, had the ability–and the power–to begat Jesus in Mary’s womb—and for her to conceive Him.

    If I were into abstract physics, I might well think of Christ’s conception as an event horizon.

    It goes back to Eve: “I have gotten a man child of the Lord !,” paraphrase, first chapters of Genesis, Conception–and/or begatting–was never just a man/woman or woman only or man only activity for the Jewish people. It was a man/woman/God activity—for every child, every single time a child was created,not just for Jesus. God was ALWAYS involved in the creation of a child, in the creation of a unique miracle–and again, surely, each child created IS a unique miracle.

  22. Keith Hunking says:

    Wow, all the brains in the world that are so smart can’t understand or believe in what the bible says. God is real and we will meet him in the end,BELIEVE THAT ! He was divinely concievced.(no sex) image that and image this he is all powerful and can do all things. All we have to do is believe and have faith in all things! Praise him don’t doubt him he’s always here for me good or bad he has a plan for my life and your’s try it you’;ll like it! He always see’s us through all things that I know for a fact because I’ve seen alot of hard times even now. But I’ll get through it with my Lord and saviour, Jesus Chris amen

  23. Krzysztof Ciuba says:

    comments on Matthew 1:23 as the reference to Isaiah7:14 at footnotes in RC Bible commentaries explain it also. Do people read and reason and…repent (from stupidity)? Do not forget about Mark 1:5 and 9: a sinner, Jesus from Nazareth, converts after hearing the Good News of John the BApatist!

  24. Krzysztof Ciuba says:

    Romans 1:3-4 expalins perfectly from 50’s A.D. Matthew and Luke, 90’s A.D.: why does a problem?

  25. H Kilby says:

    I believe that God can do as he pleases….he makes the rules. As Rev. Charles Stanley has stated, “God said it, that settles it.” Many of God’s rules were beyond human understanding at the time of Christ’s birth. How many do we not grasp today?

    When I raised honey bees, I understood that, only an unfertilized egg from my queen produced a fully functional male bee, i.e., a drone, hardly a rarity! Male sea horses get pregnant…go figure

    All things are possible through Christ Our Savior.

  26. Ranger Rick says:

    I believe that Jesus had a biological father: it doesn’t have to be a virgin birth to be pure: Joseph would be in line with the lineage to David which makes sense for Jesus’s divine heritage!
    Another explanation outside the box but in the realm of reality would be instead of a divine intervention: the insemination of Mary by God: Ancient Alien theorist would say that Mary was visited by an alien angelic like being: that gave Mary artificial insemination even DNA engineered for a spiritual person with healing powers, telepathy and premonitions of the future and visions of the past!
    Normal mortal men and women have exemplified all of these abilities some from birth some through blows to the head some from near death experiences and on and on!
    These abilities exemplify the normal “some “human beings shave: so we must all have these abilities to some degree just that some have greater degrees of those abilities!
    Remember much of the Bible are parables stories and works written not by the actual prophets themselves and not for many years after their deaths!
    Also many stories have to be interpreted for the interpretation of what happened at the time!
    Take Ezekiel for example:
    A fiery chariot comes out of the heavens sky and if you look at the description; he’s describing a airship or space vehicle: beings come out of the vehicle and levitate Ezekiel back into the craft and they shoot off into the sky: that’s obviously an alien spaceship abduction!
    There is also the entire book of Enoch!
    There’s many things in the Bible that can be explained by the reality of technology and other beings not of this world coming to this world and interacting with human beings!
    Jonah and the whale another example: obviously Jonah was taking aboard a submarine like craft.
    These interactions of technologically advanced intelligent beings from other worlds is in every culture around the world in every corner of the world: Hindus and Buddhists, Mohammed: the Mayans: Incas; the Samarian’s: Chinese religious texts and stories: the ancient Japanese culture; the Hopi Indians; the Druids of Scotland on and on!
    Exemplified by buildings and architecture that has a certain energy field that’s connected to Geo magnetic lines in the earth such as Stonehenge, the pyramids not only in Egypt but the Mayan peninsula: ancient pre-Incan cities Hopi settlements in the Southwest many of these structures were in alignment with the star system of Orion and on and on!

    I’m not saying that all these experiences in the Bible were ancient alien intelligent being interactions misinterpreted as God: but many can be explained in this way!
    It doesn’t mean that there weren’t spiritual experiences as well: it just means that will never know the exact truth for some of the stories!

  27. Javad says:

    How we could prove a woman become pregnant when a man like Joseph be beside her? Even they were engaged with each other.

  28. IAMtherefore I AM says:

    LOVE THERE’S NO GREATER GIFT THEN LOVE One another as I have loved UYou

  29. IAMtherefore I AM says:

    All what is………is we all believe U see what U want to see we have choice OUR GOD GIVEN RITE U SEE I know GOD level and true all the Questions of his WORD he breathed everyone just know in all U R all he is and dont allow questions to fill up /Get in your head stay pure stay sharp stay aware and stay awake most of all stay focused on the scriptures the true S BIBLE GODS VIRGAN Word KING JAMES ITS ALL TRUTH EVERY WORD

  30. ArcturusOrion says:

    The first paragraph has some interesting questions in it; the first one that caught my attention was “Who was Jesus’ biological father?”The birth of Jesus was literally an astronomical event, prophesied through the ages. In Luke’s gospel, we pickup the account of Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Angel Gabriel; The angel told her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor with God. (31)You will become pregnant, give birth to a son, and name him Jesus. (32) He will be a great man and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. (33)Your son will be king of Jacob’s people forever, and his kingdom will never end.” (34) Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’ve never had sexual intercourse.” (35)The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child developing inside you will be called the Son of God. So we see that El Shaddai is the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was and is All God and All man. He referred to himself many times throughout the gospels as the son of man also, to identify with mankind because of the plan of redemption from our sins. God created Adam in his image and gave him X and Y chromosomes at the time of his conception. Jesus is known as the “second” Adam, who was conceived in the “earthly womb” of a female, just as Adam was created and conceived from the womb of the Earth. The answer is…. Jesus did not have a biological father, hence we have the Virgin birth…..

  31. Gamini Silva says:

    When Philosophy ends Theology bigins. We have to accept that we are spatio-temporal beings. But at the same time, there are certain caregories that do not fall under the space and time. Concepts such as eternity, everlasting life, God are some examples. A God with out biginning or end or everlasting life are inconceivable to our human intelect.
    Therefore, if we believe that God exists and that Jesus is Son of God, it is pointless arguing about his biological fatherhood. Finally it becomes a matter of faith. May be we have to learn some thing from the great Doctor of the Church, St Aaugustine, who was trying to understand the mystery of Trinity, who finally said, “Credo ut Intelligam” in Latin which means, “I belive so that I may understand”

  32. bill hudgins says:

    Ron WYATTS NAME IS ENCODED IN THE BIBLE CODE ALONG WITH THE SHROUD OF TURIN. BLOOD SAMPLES TAKEN FROM THE SHROUD AND FROM THE ARK OF THE COVENANT BOTH DO NOT HAVE THE HUMAN MALE CHROMOSOME . IF PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO EXPOSE HO W RON WYATT FOUND THE BLOOD ON THE MERCY SEAT THAT MATCHED THE BLOOD ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN. PULL UP THIS; IS RON WYATTS NAME IN THE BIBLE CODE. IT IS AND IT FORMS A CROSS ACROSS THE ARK OF THE COVENANT. PLEASE TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG. BiLL Hudgins

  33. michael karnas says:

    Very interesting explanation of Jewish marital customs, particularly separating out the Galilean differences. I would simply like to suggest that you read Luke’s biographical account Chapters 1 and 2. Consider these lines (Lk 1: 34-35) ” then said Mary (Miriam) unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, ‘the Holy spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ Since Luke was not an eye witness to the life of Yeshua Ha-Mashiach it is a logical conclusion (given Luke’s newly attained historical veracity) that he interviewed Miriam. The account of the miraculous birth of Yohanan (John son of the Levite Zacharias) is also included. It is worth remarking that the angel Gabriel makes 2 appearances: one to Zacharias and one to Miriam. The last time he appeared to a human was to Daniel 500 years before (Dan 8: 14-16) concerning Yeshua Ha-Mashiach). The question needs to be asked and maybe you might look into this. Could Mary possibly have read the Torah and made up a story to satisfy prophesy? I think not. She could not read.

  34. Frederick E Edelstein says:

    I have often wondered about our biological information (God is a master of intelligent design) having another backup, similar to the way that one has a backup in case of information being lost. In the gospel of John, we see that the Word was in the beginning with God, so there we have Messiah’s complete informational genetic makeup. All that needed to be done was to implant these “saved” genes of information within a womb, which could have been placed genetically (not by sexual act) by God’s messenger Gabriel. Another problem that some have is about resurrection of those that have been martyred by, say fire. No genetic material, not even bone present. If the resurrection is true, then there must be an information backup that only God can have. I rest my case.

  35. Gene Peterson says:

    I have heard voices advising me of several events that came true. I spoke to others who have such experiences. People have experienced, as I have many biblical promises such as God will protect, provide and bless believers. What more proof do we need who his father was then the word?

  36. Mary Frankkin says:

    Jesus never had an earthly Daddy.Joseph raised him,because his father God .told Joseph too. I believe him. he has shown himself to me in Dreams. because I Believe. “

  37. sibonelo says:

    jesus is the son of God end of story .plz guys dont confuse other at the end you will not worship the relly God

  38. Guest says:

    oh dont forget , 1 of the so called 10 commandments is dont worship idols etc . Well how come in ALL churches you see statutes , paintings etc etc of images of ” jesus ” , animals, birds etc etc on windows, statutes , cloths etc etc … thats worshiping images , statutes etc etc , isnt it ! they are the antichrist surely

  39. Ashok says:

    Does anybody knows about a similar site about Islam? A comparative analysis of beliefs and practices might be helpful for a person with Dharma background (as against religious background) to appreciate where they come from and value for humanity going forward.

  40. Guest says:

    You all been hoodwinked.
    Noahs ark didnt happen. Its not possible for 4 couples ie Noah and his wife and their sons and their wives to create thousands of people of different colours and races all over the world in such a short time frame. Physically not possible and mathematically not possible to produce all those people in that time ..
    IF Judas existed why do priests male and female of all religions dress up in different clothes according to their ranking in their religion ??? IF Judas betrayed Jesus why kiss him ? A) Jesus was dressed in plain clothes .
    If you stand in front of a mirror .. raise your arms out , sideways and you will see the cross…its a human cross. the crosses made out of anything else is wrong.
    No where in any bible OR any other book is there a time stating Christmas is on 25th December and Easter is in April etc etc …. Its all made up .
    The holy grail is a myth as well….. it wasnt until a few centries ago this grail was introduced to The world …its meaning is nothing ….
    The religious books written are written by HUMAN interpretations
    Why in the bible are there TWO Jesus ( people ) ????? of different characters !
    Why is all religions stating their religion is the best and thats that and so a WAR or fighting is declared against ALL others by them that dont believe in their religion !!!!!
    How about living in peace and wait until the end of time to see who is right and wrong and so in the meantime just live in peace and harmonly not wars and hatred …
    As there are stone , rock busts, paintings etc of thousands of humans at jesus time why are there not any of him ? Did he exist as we are led to believe and is really a myth ?
    Mary had 2 fathers , Heli and Acheim ( spelling ) Who said that jesus was crucified and rose again and he died for our sins … man/ female did /…actual proof is ???????? no proof at all .
    Jesus WAS NOT Jewish . He wasnt born in Jerusalem nor were his alleged parents …he was never a Jewish.
    To control masses leaders of the past and now use religion as a fear and or belief this is what is happening and will happen to you and or the world …
    Who or what benefits from conflicts ?

  41. Shane Roach says:

    These sorts of stories make me tired. God couldn’t supply chromosomes? If God supplied chromosomes without having carnal sex with Mary, then Jesus is not fully human?

    What are you even thinking about. Excuses for lying….

  42. Derek Dey says:

    By simply reading the gospels and material from other sources including historical sources its clear Mary spent time helping Zechariah in the temple around the onset of her pregnancy. Thus he is the biological father but the prepared lineage from dad and beyond perhaps clear through to Lot and then to the Abel-tradition (God’s people after the fall) is what explains why these things happen an why inexplicable story of the women in the Bible avoiding the fall or reversing it, is the main factor leading to the birth of Christ.

    When Mary spent time in Zechariah’s home with Elizabeth both women were comfortable with this fact initially and Jesus would have been raised with John the Baptist so that John would have testified to the Christ. However, for whatever reason, Mary left and a jealousy issue arose between Jesus and John so when John had the chance to testify to the Christ he did so but then just left, ignored Christ’s ministry, went on his way to deal with a trivial issue, and was murdered. He and his followers separated form jesus and this was a huge problem in Christ’s ministry and in part pointed Jesus to his own untimely death – a murder orchestrated by the political and religious powers of the time.

    Unification Theology discusses the problem with John the Baptist and it might be a good bit of homework for people interested in why Jesus died before his time and before marriage and family. On this point, Jesus and his bride would have restored the fall of Adam and Eve, and his family of goodness would have multiplied and filled the earth with goodness – and created a salvific opportunity for others to follow.

  43. Joseph Burke says:

    To J.T. above

    Something that YOU are missing in your definition of what a virgins is, is that 2000 years ago if a woman was unmarried, she HAD to be a virgin in order to be considered eligible for marriage. Virginity was not optional. Unmarried women who were not virgins were considered to have the same standing as prostitutes and were stoned to death. Are you saying that Mary was a prostitute? If Mary had not been a virgin, she would not have eligible for marriage and certainly not to someone of noble blood (Joseph was of the line of King David, after all, and would have derived some measure of social standing from that fact). You are trying to overlay the morality of today, where it is OK for a woman who no longer has her virginity to get married, onto the reality of 2000 years ago and the two are incompatible.

  44. Joseph Burke says:

    When Jesus authority was challenged by the Pharisees, they declared that their own authority stemmed from the fact that they were sons of Abraham. Jesus told them that he could raise sons of Abraham from the stones lying on the ground at their feet. If Jesus could create whole people from stones, then it would have been no problem for God to create a single Y chromosome from the line of David and implant it in Mary’s egg at the time of her conception. Jesus did not have to have a biological father because of the creation power of the heavenly father.

  45. Don says:

    Sadly many of the above post seem to only be verbiage or clouds without water. Lots of quotes from third century rabbis or perceived customs and all with an agenda? If you simply read between the lines on most of theses post it’s easy to see their bias. If they are non-Christians or many even well beyond this to anti-Christian then they gravitate to any theory or twist or spin that can be put on the historical text to try and prove their bias and justify their rejection of the claims of Christ and the New Testament. I do have several “sheep skins” to decorate my walls with and have studied at many graduate schools around the world under some of the best scholars both Christian and Non-Christian in Jewish customs and Hebrew and even did much of my research in Israel but this really means nothing. I can still twist the agenda in my favor and fail to really do justice to the text if my preconceived agenda that I am attempting to prove is flawed my research will reflect this also. As someone wisely said we must be careful who we pick for our “expert witness”. One can find equally lettered “scholars” on total opposite poles of any opinion. I am a Christian and don’t attempt to hide this fact but for me unless a person has his mind and heart transformed by the power of the indwelling Christ and the Holy Spirt of Jehovah living in him to help him “interpret” the facts, they will never fit together in any logical way no mater how many sources you consult. You will simply come out with the preconceived results you were looking to prove when you started trying to justify your unbelief. The apostle Paul said that the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, and that without the Spirit of God no one can understand the things of God. All the best with the above seekers. I hope you find God in all this effort your expending?

  46. Dr.H.Davis says:

    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-15.*
    This reference indicates that the coming Messiah or Jesus would be of the ‘seed’ (“zera” ) OF the woman. His conception would NOT come from a male. This verse excludes a male.
    Matthew and Luke say His conception was ‘from the Holy Spirit ‘thus bypassing human biological intervention as to his conception or as Luke says that ‘holy thing or fetus.’ Jesus declared many times that ‘God was his father!’

    Jeremiah declared the same thing in Jer.31: 22 * “..a female shall ‘encircle or give conception’-or her seed- to a male.’ He says it’s a “new” thing or never before event done by God. A virgin birth would be a ‘brand new;’event in human history!
    I know Hebrew and studied each word here and it is inescapable that the virgin birth is refered to by Jeremiah. Take Strong’s numbered Hebrew Dictionary online and check for yourselves.

    Hebrews says that it was God tthe father hat ‘prepared ‘or created the body of Jesus . Heb.10:5

    Some say that John did not discuss the virgin birth. He stated Jesus was the ‘Word and that the Word was God. ‘ Jn.1:1 Then in verse 14 he says the ‘Word was made flesh'[by God] and tabernacled [ was born] among us.’

  47. Where Was Jesus Born According To The Bible? | When is Jesus Coming Back? says:

    […] Pictures Jesus BornMerry Christmas Wallpaper Jesus Born FreeJesus, born to save – Bible RevelationWho Was Jesus’ Biological Father .a3a5_box {font-size: 14px !important;font-style: normal !important;font-weight: normal […]

  48. Benjamin says:

    According to your gospels Joseph did NOT impregnate Mary. That makes Jesus without a father and therefore not a descendant of King David. IN the Bible the line of descent is through the males. Mary’s lineage is irrelevant. The concept of virgins being sired by gods is steeped in Greek mythology and paganism. This concept disqualifies Jesus from being the messiah. If Jesus is a descendant of King David then he is not the son of God. Regret that I must say that there is no logic in Christian dogma.

  49. bent14 says:

    Possibly another assumption that guided “J.T.” in his comment on the “children of G-d” referring only to Jews is that Judaism teaches that salvation is only attained via Judaism? If so, that too is a far-reaching error (even though it is commonly assumed in Christian theology). It is normative Talmudic teaching (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2) that “the righteous of all peoples have a place in the World-to-Come,” i.e., eternal bliss, salvation.The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 105a, has a discussion of those categories of Jews and non-Jews who have no place in the World-to-Come (e.g., for non-Jews, the Generation of the Flood is a chief example), and says that for all others, comprising the vast majority of both Jews and non-Jews, they do have a place in heaven and will be saved. I.e., due to G-d’s great mercy, almost all of humanity will enjoy eternal salvation.

    In the Jewish Scriptures, which Christians call the Old Testament, there are three books that deal mostly or solely with non-Jews; each teaches that salvation and righteousness is attainable by non-Jews, even righteousness of the highest sort that can be a model for Jews too. The Book of Genesis speaks of Noah, Melchizedek/Seth, Abraham himself (for he arose out of non-Jewish culture), and others. The Book of Job is all about a supremely righteous non-Jew, Job, whom the first sentence of the book says is from the land of Uz, northern Arabia: i.e., he was a pagan Arab, and there is no reference to specifically Jewish associations anywhere in the book. And the Book of Jonah indicates that even the notoriously idolatrous and cruel Ninevites are gladly accepted back by G-d when they acknowledge their Noahite heritage and repent sincerely.

    The main standard of righteousness binding on all humanity is that of the Noahite Covenant (also spelled “Noachide” covenant in many English accounts), which G-d made with our common ancestor Noah (Gen. 9). There are, concluded the Talmudic rabbis, seven basic commandments of righteousness contained in that covenant, and implied even in its wording, that assure salvation if they are observed by anyone, of no matter what religion or culture. They include acknowledgement of one supreme source of all reality that should be revered and honored, even if the particular culture associates other powers with it as intermediaries, acceptance of prohibitions on murder, robbery, sexual crimes that break down family life, and, to ground this in society endorsement of courts of justice that punish such crimes and establish an at least minimal rule of law, and, finally, accepting that one should be kind to animals and not cause unnecessary pain to them since they are living beings too.

    Any non-Jew observing these basic norms is assured of salvation. That is why conversion to Judaism was never enforced on non-Jews in Jewish kingdoms down through the ages, and the Pharisees accepted “G-d-fearing Gentiles” into synagogue services, during the first centuries BCE and CE, without requiring their full conversion to Judaism. In fact, the Talmudic rabbis went further: they said that even a single compassionate and self-less act of kindness and righteousness by an otherwise evil person is sufficient to attain salvation, precisely because of G-d’s overwhelming mercy and lovingkindness (e.g., BT Avodah Zarah 18a). So no one has to be Jewish to be saved, and the prophets tell us that in the End of Days the other cultures and peoples (and religions) will still exist, but all will recognize G-d fully and dwell in peace together, coming up to Jerusalem (as Zechariah says) on the festival of Sukkot to participate at the rebuilt Temple in worship of G-d: that will be their festival too, but otherwise they will not observe the festivals and will remain non-Jews governing their own affairs and peoples. Then Israel shall be a “kingdom of priests” for all humanity and honored for this as its service these days is not. Even though, according to Jewish sources the daily services traditional Jews have always done have served to link G-d with everyone, this service will only be fully acknowledged in the Messianic Era.

    It is a remarkable thing that these non-exclusive universalistic significances of the Biblical accounts of Noah, the Books of Job and Jonah, etc., are not noted by almost any Christian exegetes of Scripture, and have no place in Christian theological reflections. Why that is, is something that Christians alone can answer.

  50. bent14 says:

    On Bamberger’s findings: he does show a revival of the myths of fallen angels and even of Satan “so long suppressed by the rabbis” in some early medieval Jewish writings, “But it could now be tolerated even publicly because it was no longer dangerous” (p.133). That is, the evil forces were supposed to exist, in a few peripheral writings, but they were considered to have no real or enduring independent sway, due to the strongly monotheistic temperament of later Judaism. Nevertheless, in still later times the ideas, encouraged by all the surrounding religions, both Christian and Muslim, penetrated into the medieval mystical tradition, and were developed into the view that opposing forces did exist that had their origin within G-d himself, in breakdowns of the connection between G-d and Creation, and so those forces did have real effect on the world. It was the chief task of the Jews, taken up especially by the saintly amongst them, to restore healing unity to the universe through their on-going daily prayers and sanctifications.

  51. bent14 says:

    And an additional comment relating to the comment by “J.T.”: it is simply incorrect to say that there is no difference in ancient Jewish culture between a virgin and a young woman. The word for virgin existed, had legal standing and meaning in Biblical times and later as a “virgin,” and it is betulah (derived from a root meaning “to separate”: i.e., she has not had any connection with men). It is written in the Torah that “tokens of virginity” had to be shown at the time of marriage (Deut. 22:13-21, etc.) if it was found that a woman claimed to be but was not a virgin (betulah) at the time of marriage, it was considered a capital crime. It was a very serious matter. On the other hand, the Hebrew word (ancient and modern) for a young woman is almah (derived from a root meaning “sexually mature” and of marriageable age). Unlike the Greeks and Romans, whose terminology confused these matters (reflecting much more promiscuous societies), Biblical Israel certainly did not. The term used in Isa. 7:14, which so many Christian exegetes of the past mistakenly claimed was a prophecy of Virgin Birth, is almah. More modern Christian translations have accepted the fact that the Hebrew merely refers to a young woman. It is quite common for young sexually mature women to become pregnant from normal sexual intercourse.

    The second serious misstatement in J.T.’s comment is that Jesus was simply referring to himself as a member of the Jewish people by regarding himself as a “son of G-d.” J.T. seems to suppose that only Jews according to Judaism were children of G-d. Actually, the Torah teaches without any cavil at all that we are all children of G-d, Jew and non-Jew alike, as descendants from Adam and Eve. That is standard ages-old Jewish teaching. All of us, without distinction, are created as Adam and Eve our ancestors were, according to the Torah, in the divine image (what that image is is a matter of deeper discussion — it does not refer simply to a person’s physical shape or necessarily to any person in isolation, but something deeper and more symbolic and spiritual: one definition is given already in Gen. 1 as being male and female in loving communion, creating and bringing up children). However, the Torah tells us very early in it that “Thus sayeth the L-rd: Israel is my first-born son” (Exod. 4:22). Isaiah makes much of Israel being shaped from the womb by G-d, who takes on maternal characteristics here. All of these are of course mere symbolisms and analogies for what transcends all finite categories: G-d is above male and female, but has aspects that in us are shown in those two interdependent characteristics.

    By the way, there is an excellent historical review of the “fallen angels” myths in Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the 1952 study by Bernard Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm. It shows that the mainstream Jewish tradition utterly rejected the myth, since to believe in rebel angels and Satan is to believe in multiple gods, i.e., polytheism, at least as understood by the Rabbis.

  52. bent14 says:

    One further brief clarification: I dissociate myself from the similarly named commentator “Ben” of comment #6. His views are not mine.

  53. Kenneth Heck says:

    Before our increased knowledge of genetics, we would have classified how Jesus was conceived as another of the Christian mysteries. We know Christ resembled His Father in heaven quite accurately (John 4:19). When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, He processed than one egg to reproduce the appearance of the Father in Christ’s own DNA. In other words, Mary supplied the physical DNA to create the Y Chromosome, but the Father supplied the pattern to reproduce His own appearance. There was no sexual activity of any kind as believed by the Mormons and others.

  54. Jolynn says:

    Boy, any mention of Jesus really brings out the kooks. Bring it on! Each in their own way, every tongue will confess….

  55. J.T. Smith says:

    There are two problems with this article that’s been a problem foe Western cultures for centuries.

    The first problem is a mistranslation of the meaning of one single simple word: virgin. In the Middle East, both in ancient times and now, a virgin is simply an unmarried female of marriageable age. The term “virgin” didn’t gain any sexual aspect until around the 1100-1300s [C.E.] when Christian monks and the priesthood who were translating Biblical Texts had a rather jarring realization: they took a vow of celibacy that was really a mistake. Their conclusion basically comes down to that if they [the monks] aren’t getting any, then neither did Mary. This also allowed the monks/priests to share something else with Mary, now both are considered virgins. Unfortunately, it missed the small detail that marriages in Biblical times were still very much arranged, that marriages based on two people who actually love each other and on their own want to marry each other was close enough to non-existent as makes no odds.

    When you hear about the fanatical Muslims who’re performing acts of terrorism for the reward of 70 virgins, they’re not looking for 70 women who’ve never had sex, they’re actually aiming for 70 potential and viable wives. (Polygamy was very common among during Biblical times, women were effectively property, and having more wives was a direct reflection of wealth.)

    The second problem is another translation glitch is that modern Christians in Western societies end up taking a very Greek view of Jesus rather than a Jewish one. The reason the story of Jesus caught on with the Greeks was they already had a similar story in their history (a birth involving a human woman and a deity), that of Hercules. Unfortunately, this misses something entirely that’s rather important. ALL religious Jewish males consider themselves to be sons of God and ALL religious females consider themselves daughters of God. In this respect, God has a similar aspect to Odin as both are effectively considered all-fathers. When Jesus spoke to the masses and referred to himself as “son of God,” he was telling his Jewish audience that he was in fact one of them.

    Until those two very important aspects are taken properly into account, along with Talmudic law, etc, the beginings of Jesus’ story aren’t going to make proper sense.

  56. bent14 says:

    The point made by Chris is the most pertinent response to this article — namely, that by ignoring the Jewish law, environment and values that actually applied to Jesus’s life, Andrew Lincoln’s article despite all its learning regarding Greek and Roman values and law is almost entirely irrelevant. (I will come back to the “almost” caveat in a moment. It turns out to be important.) But Steven B.’s seemingly full, detailed and informative comment regarding Talmudic and other issues relating to marriage also misses the most important point of all, a glaring point that must strike anyone familiar with ancient Jewish law, which is evidenced already in the authoritative Scriptural accounts of lineage and inheritance that governed Judean life and which is specified clearly in Talmudic law too, which is that there is no adoption in Jewish law. (On this, see the articles on “Adoption” in the Encyclopaedia Judaica and in the on-line great classic Jewish encyclopaedia from the early 20th century, The Jewish Encyclopaedia.) There was guardianship, which could be almost everything that adoption was but without the lineage or inheritance rights, but there could be no adoption as such nor therefore assumption of born children’s lineage or inheritance. A simple instance is that if a Jewish family adopts (in secular terms) a child, it does not become by that even a Jewish child; the child must affirm Judaism as such, at the time of maturity, for him- or her-self: that makes the adoptive child a “Jew.” The ancestry and lineage of the Jewish parents does not become the ancestry of the child. And its birth parents remain (in Jewish law) its natural parents, who must be honored as much as possible.

    That means that if Mary had a child by anyone other than Joseph, that child did not share Joseph’s Davidic lineage (assuming that he had one). In that case, providing the two very different Davidic ancestral genealogies of Joseph in Luke 3:23-38 and Matt. 1:1-17 cannot apply to Jesus in Jewish law, and invalidates right from the start any claim that Jesus was of the line of David and therefore could be the Davidic messiah prophecised by the Prophets of Israel. Put briefly, if Jesus was God the Son, he could not be the Messiah. If he was the Messiah, he could not be God the Son. So the Gospel account is called into doubt right at the start. Its associated claims of the Virgin Birth etc. could not be true. Jewish law provides no way out of this self-refutation, the same Jewish law that Jesus is quoted in Matt. 23:2 as saying is authoritative and must be followed, even to every jot and tittle (Matt: 5:17-19, etc.).

    A chief reason why there is no adoption in Jewish law is given in the Ten Commandments themselves (cited by Jesus himself as fundamental to everything in Jewish piety and law, Matt. 19:16-21): Honor your father and mother. Why is that on the first tablet of the two tablets, culminating the commands to know that God is and should be acknowledged as such? Because, the Torah tells us, through procreation humans attain to the divine image of being male and female together and creating life: it therefore is a holy thing of the highest sanctity (Gen. 1:27-28); as Steven B. pointed out it is taught by the Rabbinic Sages that God is present in every procreative act that creates a new human being. God seals and witnesses every creation of a new human person. This being so, it cannot be set aside by any merely human law or institution.

    Now I come back to the fact that the Gospel account shows no awareness of these basic Jewish laws and values that governed Judean society and piety and were taken for granted by Jews. As Andrew Lincoln demonstrates, instead the account assumes Graeco-Roman laws of adoption and inheritance — i.e., this demonstrates yet again that there was a sweeping and extensive later gentile Christian editing of the Gospels which simply did not know much of Judaism.

  57. Steven B. says:

    @ KING #21 – I would invite you to search YouTube for “Hebert Basser”, specifically his two lectures “Mistakes and Misconceptions” and “How Reliable Are The Talmudic Teachings About Jesus?” Rabbi Prof. Hebert W. Basser is an Orthodox Jew. Now that Prof. David Flusser is no longer with us, I submit that Rabbi Basser is the pre-eminent Jewish scholar on the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef.

  58. Rick says:

    Thanks Chris for pointing out the apparently not-so-obvious obvious fact: Jesus was a Jew. I think the trouble arises from the relatively immediate Graecizing of Him via literature. It would be very interesting to see Eastern (Syriac etc) literature accounts. And thanks Steven B for background info regarding Jewish customs. I do think your assumptions sometimes assume too much though. Scholars caution about relying too much on the Talmud for pre-Talmudic times.

    The Talmud and the Greek scriptures are the best we have when trying to uncover Jesus’ first-century Galilean Jewish life though. So, we need to be detectives and use the (few) facts we have to judiciously come to as few assumptions as we can. Like Job, we need to finally realize we don’t know what we don’t know.

  59. Kurt says:

    SEED (Offspring) OF ABRAHAM
    Some 2,000 years after Abel’s day, Jehovah gave the patriarch Abraham this prophetic promise: “I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens . . . And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves.” (Genesis 22:17, 18) Those words linked Abraham with the fulfillment of the first prophecy. They indicated that the Seed through whom Satan’s works would be brought to nothing would appear in Abraham’s lineage. (1 John 3:8) “Because of the promise of God [Abraham] did not waver in a lack of faith” and neither did other pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who “did not get the fulfillment of the promise.” (Romans 4:20, 21; Hebrews 11:39) Instead, they maintained faith in God’s prophetic word.
    The apostle Paul identified God’s promised Seed when he wrote: “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: ‘And to seeds,’ as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: ‘And to your seed,’ who is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16) The Seed through whom the nations were to bless themselves did not include all of Abraham’s offspring. Descendants of his son Ishmael and of his sons by Keturah were not used to bless mankind. The Seed of blessing came through his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob. (Genesis 21:12; 25:23, 31-34; 27:18-29, 37; 28:14) Jacob showed that “peoples” would be obedient to Shiloh of the tribe of Judah, but the Seed was later restricted to David’s lineage. (Genesis 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:12-16) First-century Jews expected one person to come as the Messiah, or Christ. (John 7:41, 42) And God’s prophecy of the Seed was fulfilled in his Son, Jesus Christ.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273113

  60. Kurt says:

    JOSEPH (Adoptive Father of Jesus)
    Why did Joseph contemplate giving Mary a certificate of divorce when the two were only engaged?
    According to Matthew’s Gospel, Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant while she “was promised in marriage to Joseph” but before they were united. Not knowing that Mary was pregnant “by holy spirit,” Joseph must have thought that she had been unfaithful to him, and thus he intended to divorce her.—Matthew 1:18-20.
    Among the Jews, engaged couples were viewed as already married. The two, however, did not begin living together as husband and wife until the wedding formalities had been completed. Engagement was so binding that if—because of a change of heart on the part of the bridegroom or for some other compelling reason—the marriage did not take place, the young woman was not free to marry until she had obtained a divorce certificate. If an engaged woman’s husband died before the wedding, she was considered a widow. On the other hand, if she committed fornication during her engagement, she was considered an adulteress and was sentenced to death.—Deuteronomy 22:23, 24.
    Joseph evidently pondered the consequences of Mary’s becoming a public spectacle. Though he felt obligated to bring the matter to the proper authorities, he wanted to protect her and avoid scandal. Thus, he decided to divorce her quietly. A single mother’s possession of a divorce certificate would, after all, indicate that she had already been married.
    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273159

  61. Mike says:

    Ok for all the “educated beyond their intellects” idiots that inspired, wrote and then commented on this article. The answer is God the Father. Denial of this truth means God incarnate has not come for you and therefore Christianity is a complete lie. At which point “Biblical” archaeology is also a farce because the Bible is itself just a fantastical collection of useless stories, rules and fairy tales.

  62. David says:

    Sorry, but none of this discussion explains the miracles or the resurrection except – God incarnate.

  63. KING OF JUDEA says:

    According to the Talmud, Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier named Ben Pandira.
    Jesus was not of the seed of David anyway.

  64. Chris says:

    Steven,

    One scholar I enjoy reading, who’s writings serve as a patter for all scholars, is George Foote Moore. I refer to “Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era”. I had his method in mind when I requested you to “brief me” on your assertions. His “opinions” are based on historical primary sources, and he makes few conclusions t/o his scholarly work.

    Cheers … Chris

  65. Chris says:

    @ Steven – #17 & #18:

    Thanx for your interesting comments.

    I really wanted to see the historical primary source quotes and cites for all the things you say.

    I’ve discovered that reading these religious books by 3rd and 4th parties requires a lot of time and energy I don’t have. That’s why I asked for you to “brief me” on your assertions. That way, I could go to the primary sources and read the quotes in their greater context and see if I can determine the value of them. That’s how I would test the “scholar” to see where he’s coming from.

    The one scholar I have read a lot of is David Flusser. His writings are some of the best reading I’ve done, except that all his writings are infused w/his political agenda. The older he got, the worse it got. It gets on my nerves after a while. He was one of the top scholars of our time. If I can hardly stomach his perverted conclusions due to his hidden agenda, how much more contemporary scholars.

    That’s why I asked for a brief of your opinion w/full authority. That is not the same as plagurizing.

    Cheers … Chris

  66. Steven Madewell says:

    @ Chris – “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together (συνελθεῖν), she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (KJV Matt. 1:18).

    During the Second Temple Period, the betrothal (kiddushin) came first, which was followed a year later by the “taking” (kichah; cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins) and the nisuin (nuptials), when the husband “takes” (kichah) his wife from her father’s house and brings her to the home that he’s prepared for his bride.

    I submit that the use of συνελθεῖν (came together) in Matthew 1:18 refers to the nisuin (nuptials), when the ketubah is read aloud and the husband and wife publicly “come together” (συνέρχομαι) as a couple.

    The Church assumes that the Greek word συνελθεῖν alludes to the couple “coming together” in a sexual union. Yet, the word συνέρχομαι is used of Yeshua (Jesus) “coming together” with his disciples (Acts 1:6) and it’s used of Cornelius’ kinsmen and near friends “coming together” (Acts 10:24-27) and it’s used of Paul and the chief of the Jews “coming together” (Acts 28:17), etc. In short, the word συνέρχομαι needn’t be interpreted as “coming together” in a sexual union.

    Prior to the 3rd century C.E., Jewish law held that a man obtained a bride by (1) paying the bridal price (kessef) to the virgin’s father (i.e., 200 zuz, about 3,100 to 3,700 USD), (2) a written declaration of intent (shetar), and (3) sexual intercourse (bi’ah) – Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. (See also, “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by Maurice Lamm, pp. 143ff).

    It was the custom among the plebeian class of Jews to have sexual intercourse as part of the betrothal (kiddushin). Why? Aside from tradition, it was only logical for the groom to ensure that his wife was indeed a virgin, rather than pay the kessef (bridal price) and wait a full year only to find out at the nisuin (nuptials) that his wife wasn’t actually a virgin.

    All the account in Matthew is stating is that Miriam was found to be pregnant by Yosef prior to their coming together at the nuptials (nisuin). As for the role played by God’s Spirit in the conception, it was the belief in proto-Rabbinic Judaism that:

    “There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).

    In short, the Holy Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child. I hope this sufficiently clarifies my “opinion” on this matter.

  67. Steven Madewell says:

    @ Chris – Thanks for taking the time to read my comment(s)! As to Second Temple marriage customs…. I would strongly urge you (and others) to read, “The Jewish Way In Love And Marriage,” by Maurice Lamm and “Birth Control and Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman, which I referenced and quoted in my above comment.

    As to the differences that existed between the plebeian-Galilean Separatists (P’rushim) from the House of Hillel and the patrician-Judean Separatists (Pharisees) from the House of Shammai…. I would strongly urge you (and others) to read, “The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith,” by Louis Finkelstein, and “A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisee’s Search for the Kingdom Within” by Ellis Rivkin, and “Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus,” by Harvey Falk. I don’t agree with Rabbi Falk’s final conclusion, but his insights regarding the tensions between the disciples of Hillel and Shammai and how their differences later fueled the anti-Semitism of the Church is well worth the read. To that end, one might also read, “The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew,” by Phillip Sigal.

    BTW, the text of Matthew in the Peshitta actually states that Miriam was found to be pregnant while Yosef was scraping together the kesef (money) to pay his father-in-law the full bridal price (for a virgin), which was 200 zuz (approx. $3,100 to $3,700 USD). Not every plebeian had the means and wherewithal to make a payment in full, so a token payment during the shetar (declaration of intent) with an agreed upon installment plan was the norm. (See further the works cited above). Additionally, the year long separation of husband and wife also gave the parties involved enough time to hash out the details of the ketubah (marriage contract), which would be read at the wedding feast as part of the nisuin (nuptials). Here again, I would urge you to read Lamm’s work, which will give you all the applicable references to Jewish Law on the subject.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “authorities,” but I believe my “opinions” were sufficiently laced with references to scholarly works and the source material said scholars used. The problem is that we’re all attempting to reconstruct the events of a period and culture that is completely foreign to us. Worse! We’re doing so with the added burden of 1,700 years of religious dogma, which makes it difficult to place this material back into its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context.

    Is there a specific “opinion” that you want me to elaborate on and/or provide a source for? The only reason I don’t write a book on this subject is because I’d simply be plagiarizing a plethora of scholarly works. Also, I don’t have a lamb skin hanging on my wall. At best, I’m just a student of comparative religions and my “opinions” frequently rub people the wrong way. Feel free to contact me – steven(dot)madewell(at)yahoo(dot)com.

  68. Chris says:

    @ Steven B – #14-15:
    Very interesting “opinion” about Miriam’s virginity and the halakah, and 2nd Temple marriage customs. Would you mind detailing your historical assertions for me? I don’t see any cites or quotes of the “authorities” on which you base your reasoning. If you’d be so kind, please post all the legal citations, with a brief quote in context, for all the assertions you make above in your “opinion”.
    Thanx!

  69. Still hunting for Jesus’ real father Everyone gets to… | Honor Dads says:

    […] Still hunting for Jesus’ real father? Everyone gets to meet Him eventually. […]

  70. Steven Madewell says:

    @ Simone Venturini’s Blog, which states, “Therefore, the pre-eminent role in the physical conception of a new human being is played by women and not by men.”

    That’s not what Judaism maintains and it certainly wasn’t a notion that one finds in proto-Rabbinic Judaism, which was the faith of the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef.

    “There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).

    We are all the literal Offspring of Our Heavenly Father! Please, put this material back into its proper context and stop slanting it to jive with your dogmatic assertions!

  71. Steven Madewell says:

    All this nonsense regarding parthenogenesis is based on a huge cultural misunderstanding.

    1. Marriage was a two-stage process during the Common Era – the betrothal/sanctification (erusin/kiddushin) and the nuptials (nisuin). The betrothal (kiddushin) was followed a year later by the “taking” (kichah; cf. the Parable of the Ten Virgins) and the nisuin (nuptials), when the groom “takes” his wife from her father’s house and brings her to his home. The kiddushin was not merely an engagement. The couple were deemed husband and wife from that point onward and if things didn’t work out the groom would have to give his bride a bill of divorce.

    2. The religio-legal ruling (halakah) during this period held that a man could obtain a wife via a declaration of intent (shetar), money (kesef), and sexual intercourse (bi’ah). In “The Jewish Way In Love And Marriage,” author Maurice Lamm writes (p. 146), “After the man has addressed the marriage formula [contained in the shetar] to the woman before two witnesses, the couple retires to a private place with the intent of effecting the betrothal [kiddushin] through intercourse.”

    3. The marriage customs of the Galilean disciples of Hillel the Elder were different from those of the Judean disciples of Shammai the Elder.

    4. It was only in the 3rd century C.E., that the halakah was changed and the Judean custom of separating the act of giving kesef (money) from the act of bi’ah (sexual intercourse), by a span of one year, was made the social and legal norm – paying money to one’s father-in-law remained part of the kiddushin (betrothal), while sexual intercourse became part of the nisuin (nuptials).

    Why the change? Because, at least as far as some religious extremists were concerned, having sex with the bride to determine if she was in fact a virgin immediately after the act of paying (or making arrangements to pay) the girl’s father the full price for a virgin bride (3,100 to 3,700 USD) smacked of prostitution — sex for money.

    The plebeian class of (Galilean) Orthodox Jews had a long standing kiddushin tradition of following the kesef with bi’ah, in order that the groom could take immediate action to recover (or adjust) his payment if the bride wasn’t in fact a virgin. However, this whole custom of “kesef followed by bi’ah” as part of the kiddushin was regarded with disdain by the patrician class of (Judean) Orthodox Jews, who eschewed any hint of prostitution by waiting until the nisuin (nuptial-elevation) to have sexual intercourse with the bride.

    5. Yosef, being a (plebeian-Hillelite) Galilean, obviously had sex with Miriam as part of the kiddushin and thus began the year long wait for their nisuin. Why wait a year? Because the groom had just given his life savings to his father-in-law. The reason for the year long separation was to give the groom sufficient time to save up money for the wedding feast and/or to finish preparing a suitable home for his wife.

    6. Why did Yosef think about divorcing Miriam after learning that she was pregnant? It wasn’t because he thought she’d committed adultery! He knew her to have been a virgin and he knew that the child was his! What he sought to avoid were the insults from the religious extremists and gossips, who regarded the custom of “kesef and bi’ah” during the kiddushin to be tantamount to fornication (lit., prostitution).

    7. It was this “whisper of prostitution” that eventually led to a change in the halakah, but it took three centuries for this change to come about! That’s why Yosef initially thought about divorcing Miriam in secret, but he eventually decided against it, because – per the confirmation by the angel in his dream – Yosef knew that the halakah permitted having sexual intercourse as part of the kiddushin. That said, legally speaking, Yosef didn’t have to wait for the nisuin in order to have sex with his bride, as was the custom in Judea. Still, to mitigate whatever accusations others were bound to throw at him, his wife, and their offspring, Yosef immediately took Miriam from her father’s home and brought her into his home and shortly thereafter sent her away to visit relatives.

    8. If all this be the case, then why didn’t Yosef have sex with Miriam while she was pregnant?

    “R. Bebai recited before R. Nahman: Three [categories of] women must use a ‘mokh’ in marital intercourse; a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother. The minor, because [otherwise] she might become pregnant and die. A pregnant woman, because [otherwise] she might cause her fetus to become a sandal [i.e., a flat fish-shaped abortion due to superfetation]…..” (Y’vamot 12b).

    The use of a “mokh” (i.e., a tuft of wool or cotton padding) is rather problematic, because the religio-legal rulings (halakhot) states that the “mokh” must effectively block the cervix in order to prevent the sperm from entering the uterus, while not preventing the man’s phallus from having unimpeded contact with the woman’s vaginal wall, in order that the two might literally become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

    Also, the man’s seed must be sown in the woman, rather than in the “mokh,” which means that the ejaculate must come into contact with the vaginal wall before being absorbed by the “mokh.” The “mokh” is simply meant to block the cervix by absorbing any semen that tries to make its way into the uterus. See the problems involved here? [Ref. “Birth Control and Jewish Law: Marital Relations, Contraception, and Abortion as set forth in the classic texts of Jewish Law” by David M. Feldman, pp. 180-193].

    Given all this, the Essene solution to the problematic use of the “mokh” was to focus on the higher ethics involved. Josephus states of certain Essenes that, “They do not approach those with child, showing that they marry not for self-indulgence, but for the procreation of children” (War 2.160-61). No, I’m not saying that Yosef was a card-carrying Essene. I’m just saying that the (plebeian-Hillelite) Galilean Jews had their own customs and chumrot (strict measures) regarding intercourse with a pregnant woman.

    The bottom line…? Yeshua (Jesus) was the biological offspring of Yosef and Miriam. Further, according to Judaism, God’s Spirit is an agent in the conception of each and every child, because we are all the Offspring of our Heavenly Father. In short, the God’s Spirit overshadows each and every woman during the conception of her offspring:

    “There are three partners in man … his father supplies the … substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, brain and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the … substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair and black of his eye. God gives him the soul and breath, beauty of features, eyesight, hearing, speech, understanding, and discernment. When his time comes to depart this world, God takes his share and leaves the shares of his mother and father with them” – Niddah 31a; cf. She’iltot, Yitro, 56; Leviticus Rabbah 14.5 (on Psalms 27:10).

    One must place this material back into its proper historical, linguistic and cultural context. I submit that the Church’s belief in parthenogenesis is based on a cultural, linguistic, and historical misunderstanding of the texts in question.

  72. John Mayger says:

    Modern surrogacy has two forms, ‘Traditional’ where the mother supplies half the DNA and the womb and ‘Gestational’ where she just supplies the womb. The author assumes that what the ancients believed was incorrect. Historically believed was that YHWH employed The Blessed Virgin Mary as a gestational surrogate, which is what I believe. God created the second Adam as He did the first Adam, without the need for human input. The author twists the story to fit his limited understanding of surrogacy. Jesu was fully tou Theou ( Luke 3:37) become man.

  73. Maxine Eldred says:

    I think the ones who think Joseph was Jesus father are not reading the Bible to find out who his father really was. The account I read is Joseph was worried when he found out Mary was pregnant and was thinking of putting her away meaning he was sending her somewhere and he was not going to marry her. But read where God gave him a dream and said ” do not put her away” because she is pregnant of the Holy Ghost”. That is why Jesus was human and spiritual. People do not read the bible word for word only take something some man wrote and RUN WITH it. Search it out and find the truth The Bible says what really happened. Some people do not want to know the truth..

  74. Jürgen Rahf says:

    According to Jewish believe the father was Joseph Pandira. But he denied and said in court it was a Roman soldier.

  75. Darrell says:

    Go back to sleep Jürgen.

  76. The mistery of Jesus’ Conception – Simone Venturini's Blog says:

    […] Lincoln, Professor at University of Gloucestershire (published in the November/December of the Bible Archaeology Review). He maintains that the virginal conception of Jesus should be considered from the point of view of […]

  77. Il mistero del concepimento verginale di Gesù – Il Blog di Simone Venturini says:

    […] Lincoln dell’Università di Gloucestershire sostiene (nel numero di novembre/dicembre della Bible Archaeology Review) che occorre, giustamente, considerare la questione del concepimento verginale a partire dal modo […]

  78. ed l says:

    Where does the information that the Jews of that time had either temple virgins or prostitutes come from?

  79. JoeSnow says:

    There is a new theory going around now that prior to marrying Joseph, Mary was a temple virgin and that when the Bible says that Jesus was “born of a virgin”, that is what it is referring to and not that Mary was a literal virgin at the time that Jesus was born.

  80. Chris says:

    The article makes this fundamental hermeneutical error: EISAGESIS (reading into the text what isn’t in there originally (in this case, the cultural and literary background).
    The article errs in alleging that the Gospel writers possessed “Greco-Roman” worldviews.
    The FACT is, the Gospel writers were 2nd Temple “JEWS”, NOT Greeks, Romans or Greco-Romans. These people thought and live according to the 2nd Temple LAW (not the Greco-Roman). they observed “Jewish” Halakah, based on MOSAIC LAW and GOD’S “10”.
    Conclusion: These people obviously wrote from a “JEWISH” perspective, and NOT a Greco-Roman perspective.
    That dose of error poisons the entire article.
    No sense in discussing any of the other points the writer makes.

  81. Ben West says:

    CB, I enjoyed and agree wholeheartedly with your post and reply. My viewpoint is that of a believer that all scripture was divinely inspired. Regarding biology, God, who established life and all of the genetic components certainly had no difficulty making Jesus fully man, without the need of a physical, biological father.

  82. Mike Durham says:

    I like BAR Facebook articles because in a way the articles attempt to bring science face to face with Biblical passages. A trend that I have noted is that when faced with a real constraint such as X and Y chromosomes, BAR lowers the standard for input. Relying on the myths of dual conceptions isn’t an explanation; it’s an aggravation to and an amalgamation of questionable rationales to finding the truth about Jesus presence on Earth. It begs the concept that some writer speaks for God.

    Question: When God put into place the process of reproduction through X and Y chromosomes as a standard process, why would that process be suspended and avoided for Christ’s coming?

    This article brings into play the consideration of license in explaining how things happened during Christ’s time. This article explains how Christ’s existence was wrapped into literary devices of the time to maintain a mystical aura around Jesus. It falls sadly and miserably short of explaining how Christ received an X chromosome.

    I hope BAR reloads its archeological search effort to address this XY conundrum. Repeating 2,000 year old stories to avoid the truth doesn’t meet the test of the article’s title. A shift has occurred in the last 2,000 years. Faith is the basis for discovery of real evidence, and real evidence divides faith from false explanations, literary devices, stories and myths resulting from ignorance of the real world at that time.

    I’d recommend that BAR avoid article titles that uses “teasers” that fail to represent the article itself. This article had nothing to do with a factual explanation of Jesus’ biological father.

  83. conor o'sullivan says:

    it was tradition that should a daughter of a Lord held at court become pregnant by the king she would still be classed as a virgin – as the King was divine. She would then be married off to a son of any other Lord who was also held at court (in effect to ransom) and that child – should it be a male would inherit the Lords wealth – even though he was not the Lords son.
    Jesus father could have been Herod the Great – hence the question that Pilot put to him which sealed his fate – ‘are you the true King of the Jews?’

  84. CB Ross says:

    I am not in a position to comment on Ron Wyatt’s findings. However, I wonder about the relevance of any of these alleged discoveries – finding Noah’s ark; the Shroud of Turin; finding the Ark of the Covenant; etc.

    When the resurrected Jesus made His first appearance to the disciples (John 20:19), Thomas was not with them. He was informed, later, and responded that without ‘concrete’, material proof, he would not believe!

    Eight days later, Thomas was with the others, and Jesus appeared again. He invited Thomas to check out the evidence as he had wanted. Of course, brought face-to-face with the risen Saviour of the world, and King of the universe, Thomas could only fall to his knees in worship. (v.28).

    Jesus’ following words are very enlightening: “Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'” (v.29). I would respectfully suggest that those words could be interpreted as, “Blessed are those who have no material evidence, but who still believe”!

    In other words, whatever alleged material evidence is produced, real faith does not require it. Rom.3:4!

    Blessings, and shalom.

  85. guy says:

    Yah, I saw that Ron Wyatt’s documentary, Only the X chromosomes were present on the tests..

  86. Melissa McNamara says:

    Read Ron Wyatt’s test results from the dried blood on the Arc of the Covenant…..it’s pretty interesting. When he took it to a lab in Israel they said that the blood was to old to test but Ron insisted…..they went ahead and did the testing and the blood “came alive”…further testing showed that it only had the mothers chromosome. I believed what the Bible said, that Joseph was not Jesus’s biological father…..but he was his Dad, meaning that he raised him as his own but knew the truth. Ron Wyatt’s findings were just another piece of proof for the world to see..

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Send this to a friend