The Alleged Sons of God

[Servetus]

Please excuse my delay in responding, Ben Masada, I've been busy celebrating Sol Invictus and all that.

... Even if Mary had gone through the test, a woman does not get pregnant by ingesting semen ...

As inaccurately as I might read the quoted portion of Josephus concerning the sotah, I don't think it ever entered my mind that the mysterious liquid that the Levite gave the woman to drink was semen. Whatever it was, though, as I read it, as soon as she had drunk, she conceived. But anyway, and as I said, to my mind the issue is moot because, if, as you seem to suggest, miracles are out of the question for Judaism, what of the parting of the Red Sea? How about a quid pro quo? If you Jews can have your parting of the Red Sea, let us Christians have our miraculous, virgin birth. Is it a deal?

It is hard to stop being angry when a foreign religion takes upon itself to vandalize the Theology of another by picking up a Jew and making of him a demigod as if Greek Mythology was possible in Judaism.

To my mind, the issue of whether Jesus were a Jew has not been clearly settled. According to the writers of the Sefer Toledot Yeshu (probably the underlying source text of the lecture to which you referred), he was the bastard son of the Panther (Roman). However often maligned (by modernity and its acolytes) the writers of the New Testament Gospels may be, even they point out the fact that Jesus was at times accused of being a Samaritan, which, as I understand, is just another word for half-breed.

If you ask me, Jesus was not the bastard son of a Roman soldier, but a biological son of Joseph's.

And if you ask me, he was neither. However, according to the comparatively authoritative Maimonides, Jesus was, though only figuratively illegitimate, the son of an un-named Gentile whom we can probably safely assume was identified as "Panther." This suggests to me that, again according to Maimonides let it be understood, Mary was a willing accomplice in what must have been an almost inexcusable infraction in the Judea of the time, exogamy:

"The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile ... Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." (Epistle to Yemen, page 441)

Paul decided to make of Jesus a son of God in order to promote his policy of Replacement Theolory.

I note your assumption, or contention, but do not as yet agree. This point might become clearer as the conversation between (and among) us progresses.

I am not too sure about the kind of peacemaker I seem in your sight to be.

I called radarmark a peacemaker. I consider you something of a controversialist, but, provided there is no guile -and, thus far, I sense none at all on your part- I rather like that trait, pugnacity, in a person and I will, if you don't mind, both consider and call you blessed as well.

The opposite could rather be true as I have been charged with inviting antisemitic feelings by charging Christianity with Replacement Theology.

I think it more likely that antisemitism could be stirred by your even obliquely referring to such a potentially problematic work as the medieval anti-Christian polemic, the Sefer Toledot Yeshu. But, thus far, and I can only speak for myself, though the issues may be sensitive, I don't feel any latent or for that matter actual antisemitism stirring in my chest. As far as I am concerned, you may believe as you wish, and I suspect that it is to dust that the bones of Maimonides have also subsequently returned, whether or not they were ground in the process.


Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

But anyway, and as I said, to my mind the issue is moot because, if, as you seem to suggest, miracles are out of the question for Judaism, what of the parting of the Red Sea? How about a quid pro quo? If you Jews can have your parting of the Red Sea, let us Christians have our miraculous, virgin birth. Is it a deal?

The parting of the Red Sea was not a miracle of God. I think that the creation of the universe would seem more of a miracle and it has never been considered so. To take the parting of the Red Sea as a miracle of God is to bring God down to the level of man, to whom yes, it would be considered a miracle.

To my mind, the issue of whether Jesus were a Jew has not been clearly settled.

I wonder why it hasn't. All it takes for one to be a Jew is either to be the son or daughter of a Jewish mother or converted according to Jewish Law.

And if you ask me, he was neither. However, according to the comparatively authoritative Maimonides, Jesus was, though only figuratively illegitimate, the son of an un-named Gentile whom we can probably safely assume was identified as "Panther." This suggests to me that, again according to Maimonides let it be understood, Mary was a willing accomplice in what must have been an almost inexcusable infraction in the Judea of the time, exogamy:

Everything is possible but, I find hard to admit that Mary, the mother of Jesus might have been an accomplice in the affair with Panthera; considering that the time was for the Romans, and they were cruelly amoral as women were concerned.

"The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile ... Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." (Epistle to Yemen, page 441)

I have read several of Maimonides' works, especially "The Guide for the Perplexed" where I have read about his reference to Jesus as "may his bones be grounded to dust" as a metaphorical application to the "may his memory be forgotten". Besides, he was giving reply to a letter from Yemen about what to do about some one who was proclaiming himself the Messiah. A fake messiah, therefore, according to Maimonides.

As far as I am concerned, you may believe as you wish, and I suspect that it is to dust that the bones of Maimonides have also subsequently returned, whether or not they were ground in the process.

Won't we all return to some day?

Ben

 

[Servetus]

The parting of the Red Sea was not a miracle of God.

I am gobsmacked ! That's not what my Greek and Latin-speakin', demi-god worshippin' Sunday School teachers taught me. But at least somewhat seriously, shall we attribute it, instead, to Moses' being an adept in Egyptian magic? On the other hand, there is also the suggestion, current in "naturalistic" circles, that Moses merely led the Children of Israel through a swampy, ankle-deep marshland (quite how Pharaoh and his henchmen drowned in the process is, according to this explanation, not altogether clear).

To my mind, the issue of whether Jesus were a Jew has not been clearly settled.

I wonder why it hasn't ...

Because, at this point, I don’t know who to believe: Moses Maimonides, Simon ben Azzai (Yebamoth, 49A) or the late General Ludendorff.

I have read several of Maimonides' works, especially "The Guide for the Perplexed" where I have read about his reference to Jesus as "may his bones be grounded to dust" as a metaphorical application to the "may his memory be forgotten".

Well, we seem to be falling into a state of civilizational amnesia, a sort of post-Christian miasma, and it is entirely possible, though I don’t think it very probable in the short-term, that Maimonides may yet get his wish. Next time, "a pox upon his house" or something similar might also be in order.

Besides, he was giving reply to a letter from Yemen about what to do about some one who was proclaiming himself the Messiah. A fake messiah, therefore, according to Maimonides.

As I said, I do usually appreciate pugnacity and spunk, to say nothing of intelligence, in a person, and thus I do also sometimes enjoy a measured dose of the impressive Rambam -in small quantities, naturally.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

I am gobsmacked ! That's not what my Greek and Latin-speakin', demi-god worshippin' Sunday School teachers taught me. But at least somewhat seriously, shall we attribute it, instead, to Moses' being an adept in Egyptian magic? On the other hand, there is also the suggestion, current in "naturalistic" circles, that Moses merely led the Children of Israel through a swampy, ankle-deep marshland (quite how Pharaoh and his henchmen drowned in the process is, according to this explanation, not altogether clear).

Try Baruch de Spinoza. He said that to attribute to God a miracle is to bring Him down to the human level of weakness. To Moses, yes, it would be a miracle to part the Red Sea; but to the Creator of the universe, how could it be? BTW, why we never mention the parting of the Jordan River by Joshua? (Joshua 3:17) Perhaps, the writer did find a big deal to commemorate that feat, since it had already happened once? I believe that the idea is rather metaphorical of achievement after almost inhuman struggle.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Try Baruch de Spinoza. He said that to attribute to God a miracle is to bring Him down to the human level of weakness ...

Little wonder, then, that Mr. Spinoza was excommunicated!

 

[Servetus]

“It is a fact that Spinoza’s life was beyond reproach and pure and spotless as the life of his divine cousin, Jesus Christ. Like Him, he too suffered for his teachings; like Him he wore the crown of thorns. Wherever a great mind expresses its thoughts, there is Golgotha.” (Heinrich Heine)

 

[Ben Masada]

“It is a fact that Spinoza’s life was beyond reproach and pure and spotless as the life of his divine cousin, Jesus Christ. Like Him, he too suffered for his teachings; like Him he wore the crown of thorns. Wherever a great mind expresses its thoughts, there is Golgotha.” (Heinrich Heine)

Servetus, I would like to bring to your attention something that perhaps you have forgotten; and that I cannot share with fundamentalistic Christians because faith does not allow them to see: Your assertion above that the life of Jesus was beyond reproach, pure and spotless, like that of a divine being.

Once, perhaps on a festival day, Jesus visited the Temple and did not like to see the turbulance of the money changers making easier to the foreigners to change their money to buy a lamb for a sacrifice, since the monetary mean could not be that of a foreign country in a sacrifice to be offered in the Temple.

Instead of using his charisma, and, with an authoritative glance to get them to disperse from doing that before the Temple, Jesus armed himself with a whip and caused not only physical pain but financial damage to the money changers. I am sure he was doing to others what he would definitely not like they did to himself. That's the Golden Rule he was breaking. The law that included all the next six commandments of the Decalog. And Jesus broke it. Would you still call him a beyong-reproach-pure-and-spotless divine being? I wonder if he was reminded of this episode when the Romans were wripping him in preparation for the cross. But what is your taken on this?
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Servetus, I would like to bring to your attention something that perhaps you have forgotten; and that I cannot share with fundamentalistic Christians because faith does not allow them to see: Your assertion above that the life of Jesus was beyond reproach, pure and spotless, like that of a divine being.

Once, perhaps on a festival day, Jesus visited the Temple and did not like to see the turbulance of the money changers making easier to the foreigners to change their money to buy a lamb for a sacrifice, since the monetary mean could not be that of a foreign country in a sacrifice to be offered in the Temple.

Instead of using his charisma, and, with an authoritative glance to get them to disperse from doing that before the Temple, Jesus armed himself with a whip and caused not only physical pain but financial damage to the money changers. I am sure he was doing to others what he would definitely not like they did to himself. That's the Golden Rule he was breaking. The law that included all the next six commandments of the Decalog. And Jesus broke it. Would you still call him a beyong-reproach-pure-and-spotless divine being? I wonder if he was reminded of this episode when the Romans were wripping him in preparation for the cross.

Ben, you are fantastic. Thank you for your characteristically unique, insightful and of course arguable commentary. I might point out, though, that the assertion to which you refer in your opening paragraph is not mine, but, rather, that of the great Heinrich Heine, whom I had quoted. I say "great" because he is one of my favorite, minor historical characters. I suspect that his already rapier wit must have been at times further sharpened by the morphine which he was reportedly taking, toward the end of his life as his physical condition worsened, and one must at any rate realize that his comments are often said with his tongue in cheek. For instance, his reference to Jesus being Spinoza's "divine cousin" is probably a case in point.

I might mention, too, that, as a search on my name, or, rather, the name I have borrowed, will show, with someone named "Servetus," one is most likely not in the company of a Christian fundamentalist who is wearing faith blinders. I am, in fact, and whether for good or ill, one of the original harbingers of heterodoxy. I am admittedly opinionated, but very little disturbs me.

But what is your taken on this?

Thank you for asking. I shall (try to) give it some thought and maybe respond, but I can predict in advance that (the driving of the money-changers from the Temple) is a big, potentially touchy subject and, though I try to behave myself, I am not always known for my sensitivity.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[iBrian]

That Christianity was raised by a man named Paul is not my saying, but Luke's, who reported in Acts 11:26 that Christians were called Christians for the first time in Antioch after a whole year that Paul spent in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch, teathing about Jesus as Christ.

If you want to find a good deconstruction of Saul of Tarsus, and how he subverted a Jewish religious protest into the religion of Christianity, try this feature, written by fellow member, Victor:
Pauline Conspiracy : Interfaith

 

[Dream]

The html quotation engine (see the Tag) has mismatched names above here's the original quote.

That Christianity was raised by a man named Paul is not my saying, but Luke's, who reported in Acts 11:26 that Christians were called Christians for the first time in Antioch after a whole year that Paul spent in the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch, teathing about Jesus as Christ.

and here is the link again Pauline Conspiracy : Interfaith

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, you are fantastic. Thank you for your characteristically unique, insightful and of course arguable commentary. I might point out, though, that the assertion to which you refer in your opening paragraph is not mine, but, rather, that of the great Heinrich Heine, whom I had quoted. I say "great" because he is one of my favorite, minor historical characters. I suspect that his already rapier wit must have been at times further sharpened by the morphine which he was reportedly taking, toward the end of his life as his physical condition worsened, and one must at any rate realize that his comments are often said with his tongue in cheek. For instance, his reference to Jesus being Spinoza's "divine cousin" is probably a case in point.

I might mention, too, that, as a search on my name, or, rather, the name I have borrowed, will show, with someone named "Servetus," one is most likely not in the company of a Christian fundamentalist who is wearing faith blinders. I am, in fact, and whether for good or ill, one of the original harbingers of heterodoxy. I am admittedly opinionated, but very little disturbs me.



Thank you for asking. I shall (try to) give it some thought and maybe respond, but I can predict in advance that (the driving of the money-changers from the Temple) is a big, potentially touchy subject and, though I try to behave myself, I am not always known for my sensitivity.

Best regards,

Serv

Servetus, you too have a mind of substance. Brilliant post this of yours.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

The html quotation engine (see the Tag) has mismatched names above here's the original quote.


and here is the link again Pauline Conspiracy : Interfaith

Good link! Nice to know that other people share with me almost the same views.
Ben