"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
|
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) |
MedLawPlus.com® |
Comments Upon
|
|
From: Bill State: TN Subject: mary mother of jesus Date: 11-29-2010 It never ceases to amaze me that the Catholic Church and her Protestant daughters have been able to keep the Virgin Birth Myth alive for almost 2000 years.
From: Joe State: MO Subject: reply to Abba Date: 4-19-2010 That would be interesting Abba. The premise (that Jesus was a mixed Herodian-Hasmonean prince) is not unique but obscure. The Hasmonean kings were Kohanim priests (i.e., sons of Aaron). I've not met an academic who gave the theory serious thought. The proof I've developed to support the theory is unique as far as I know. I can be reached via email at jjray7 (at) yahoo.com. I'd be happy to send your friend in Canada a copy of my book on this topic. If you are currently in North America, I'd be happy to also send you a copy of the book. If not, there is a length excerpt of the book available online from the link found in this post.
From: Joe State: MO Subject: reply to Linda Date: 2-21-2010 "only levites were called rabbi" This statement is 100% false. Only the levites were Temple priests; however, rabbis could be from any tribe. A rabbi is not the same as a Jewish Temple priest. They were two discinct groups with separate functions during the Second Temple period. "For only kings came from the tribe of Judah." Saul, the first Jewish king was from the tribe of Benjamin. The entire Hasmonean line of Jewish kings (and the lone Jewish queen, Salome Alexandra) were from the tribe of Levi. Read Maccabbees (one and two). As to the covenant with the Lord that the Jewish throne would forever rest with the descendants of David (Judah) as stated in Psalm 132, I address it in my book Herodian Messiah. See Chapter 2 starting on page 6. In short, the argument is that the descendants of David broke the covenant with God leading to their deportation to Babylon by the Chaldeans and the destruction of the first Temple. The next Jewish kings after the deportation of the Davidic royal family to Babylon were the Hasmoneans of the tribe of Levi. That last point is not conjecture, it's historical fact.
From: Joe State: MO Subject: reply to Dan Date: 12-24-2009 Thanks for the comment Dan but too much to respond to. Just a few comments. "Jesus could not have been a Herodian (or one of the Hasmoneans, who nominally survived only through the Herodian's line)…why? Because, Saul of Tarsus would have claimed kinship with him (i.e Jesus), especially if Jesus was in the line of Aristobulus" The way to test a hypothesis is to take all its tenants as true then test it against known facts. My theory is that Jesus was the grandson of both Herod and King Antigonus (the last Hasmonean king). It is not central to the theory of Jesus but I also theorize that Paul of Tarsus was a Herodian-Hasmonean on separate grounds. The theory on Paul as a Herodian is much more accepted than the theory on Jesus, see Paul as Herod by Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University at Long Beach. So your point is that Paul would have claimed kinship to Jesus if they were cousins in order to raise his standing in the incipient Nazarene movement after the death of Jesus. I can see your logic but it's weak IMHO. Paul's Hasmonean mother was herself a Herodian. Meaning Paul could only claim his Hasmonean heritage by also revealing his Herodian link. Not so with Jesus. Under the theory, Jesus' mother Mary was not of Herodian blood, she was pure Hasmonean. The theory alleges Paul intentionally hid his Herodian background claiming he was a "Jew's Jew" and "from the tribe of Benjamin." Remember, take all elements of the theory as true and then argue why they do not fit. That Paul lies is implicit in the theory. The next historical fiction book in this series is to be titled "Paul, Agent of Rome". However, Jesus also failed to be forthright about his connection to Herod as well. He never mentions his biologic father (or at least this is not recorded in the Gospels nor the apocrypha). I theorize that this information (that Jesus was the grandson of Herod) became public knowledge during his last fateful trip to Jerusalem during Passover when he tried to start a revolution against Rome but failed. Neither Paul nor Jesus wished to be publicly connected to Herod. "he could have been a Messiah without claiming the throne" There is limited support for that contention. Certain texts within the Dead Sea Scrolls collection discuss two messiahs, one each from David (king) and Levi (priest); however, these concepts later merge into one united entity--a kingly messiah from the priestly tribe of Levi (which was embodied by the Hasmonean kings). See Aramaic Levi Document (ALD). "While messianic doctrine varied in detail from sect to sect, it generally represented a desire for a king who was appointed directly by God to perform supernatural wonders for the Jews. He was to remove from them all oppression and injustice, defeat all forces of evil, and usher in the true reign of God." The Jews in the Time of Jesus by Stephen M. Wylen (Paulist Press 1996) at page 25. Jesus undoubtedly claimed to be a king and that is the crime for which Pontius Pilate executed him. I enjoy debating Jesus but the fact he claimed to be a king is fundamental. If we can't start from there, the process just becomes too laborious. BTW, your point about James the Just has merit IMHO. I believe James was of pure Hasmonean blood and, therefore, a Kohen priest. Jesus did not qualify as Kohen due to his father's lineage. In my view, Jesus was to be king and James the high priest. Prof. Eisenman suggests James acted as an opposition high priest in the years after Jesus was crucified. Why didn't Jesus step aside in favor of James? Good question. It's still a riddle to me. My best guess is that James refused, wishing to confine himself to Temple duties and having no interest in the secular duties of a king.
From: Joe State: Missouri Subject: reply to Philt Date: 11-30-2009 Thanks for the comment. So your view is that Mary was of the "House of David" yet you cite Graves? Remember that Graves' theory was that Mary was the daughter of Hasmonean King Antigonus. None of the Hasmonean kings descended from King David. That's pretty well agreed by scholars. The Hasmoneans were high ranking Kohanim priests (meaning father to son descendants from Aaron, the first high priest). Ipso facto, all Kohanim priests are members of the tribe of Levi, not Judah (David's tribe). That's the hurdle to overcome by putting Mary simultaneously in the House of David and, also, a descendant of the last Hasmonean king. It's pretty much one or the other.
From: Joe State: Missouri Subject: mary mother of jesus Date: 2-8-2008 Thanks for the comment Paul. The Hasmoneans were not converted Jews. They were high-ranking Jews of the tribe of Levi (Kohanim, descendants of Aaron). Herod's father was Idumaean (Edomite), as you say converted Jews from a kingdom to the south and east of Judea. However, history indicates substantial intermarriage between the Idumaeans and the Judeans. Herod's mother was a prominent family from Petra in modern day Jordan. At best, Herod's mother is Arabian and his father of mixed Arabian / Jewish blood. After Herod captured Jerusalem in 37 BCE (with Roman troops), he married a Hasmonean wife (Mariamne). The Hasmoneans did not descend from David but were the Jewish royal family at the time they were overthrown by Herod. The Hasmoneans are the heros of the Book of Maccabees (celebrated by Hanukkah). Thus, Herod attempted to infuse his family with Jewish royal blood by taking a Hasmonean wife.
From: JJR Subject: Anonymous comments received on Mary article Date: 2-1-2007 I've received extensive comments from a professor in the department of religious studies at a US university, however, he or she requests to remain anonymous. The following is one of the more interesting points from the professor with my response thereto. >>What is the evidence that Jesus himself claimed to be descended from David? This is an attribute by the Synoptics and Paul, and yet, absolutely necessary for any claim to messiahship. Note that the evangelists even "fudge" when it comes to putting this on Jesus's lips directly. John is much later, and doing his own thing, so I cannot take John as "historical" evidence.<< The point of my article on Mary is to present the hypothesis that the genealogy given in Luke 3 contains Hasmonean kings coupled with the belief that this is Mary's genealogy. Conclusion: Mary was an Hasmonean princess descending from the last Jewish king--Antigonus. True, the Hasmoneans never claimed to be descendants of David (or, at least, descendants of David through Solomon). Thus, if Jesus is an Hasmonean and not a descendant of David through Solomon, does he have a claim to messiahship? Is it absolutely necessary for Jesus to claim to be the messiah in order to claim the Jewish throne? Does a candidate for the throne / messiahship need to be from the house of David? I believe these questions are the thrust of the issue presented by the professor--i.e., my thesis of Jesus as Hasmonean royal (through Mary) disqualifies Jesus as messiah / king due to the lack of proper Davidic lineage. Ergo, big problem. A solid point and glad to have it brought up for discussion. Here is a link to every instance in the gospels of the NT where the word "David" appears. Although others in the gospels are often recorded exclaiming that Jesus is a son of David, Jesus himself never makes such a claim. Although Jesus (as recorded in the gospels) never directly discusses the issue of whether he is a descendant of David, he does very clearly address the issue of whether the messiah (i.e., the Christ, the anointed-one) must be a son of David. In Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44, Jesus uses a passage from Psalm 110 to argue that as David addresses the Christ as "my Lord", then how could Christ be the son of David? IMHO, the clear implication of Matthew 22:41-45, Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44 is that Jesus maintained that the messiah or Christ did not need to be a descendant of David. FN1. Why would Jesus bother making the argument unless he himself was not a "son of David"? Considering the sparse number of direct quotes from Jesus found in the gospels of the NT, why would the writers of the NT include this quote if it did not have something important to tell us about Jesus? FN1 Interesting (Jesus citing Psalm 110 for authority as his qualifications for messiah) given that some scholars believe Psalm 110 was written during the period of Hasmonean rule and was explicitly written to buttress their claim to the high priesthood. Add Comment |