So was this Jesuschrists biological father?
So was this Jesuschrists biological father?
Julian Jackson
Other urls found in this thread:
web.archive.org
twitter.com
Grayson Ross
Jesus is God's son. No biology involved. It was a historically established miracle
Zachary Sullivan
According to the Jews who hate him, and the fantasy they wrote.
So, No.
Charles Evans
Jesus didn't exist, user.
Luke Johnson
You don't exist, user.
Xavier Sullivan
Mary carrying him in her womb and birthing him is biology. Or are you saying her vagina is divine?
Jordan Harris
Yes, user.
Caleb Bailey
divine seed
James Ortiz
haven't you read Luke or Matthew? both says it was Joseph
Ian Bailey
Joseph is an adoptive father. Pantera is the biological father he had when he slept with Mary. Mary afraid of being shamed a whore for her affair with this Roman got protection from Joseph.
Joseph Morales
Source for this blasphemous bullshit?
Angel Young
thats some esoteric talmudposting senpai
only autistic rabbis and true antisemites will understand
Connor Parker
Sup chaim. No one believes that crap
Ryan Myers
Angry jews from the 2nd century ad
Brandon Price
The jews are still killing Christ it seems.
Chase Cruz
Anyone familiar with early classical sources on Jesus and Christianity will understand.
Brandon Jenkins
Lmai fedoras btto!!! Ebin upvoted
Carson Myers
No. At least, there's no reason to think he was. The idea that Jesus was a Roman bastard seems to have originated in the second century among groups that obviously didn't like Christians and were trying to insult them. None of the sources actually close to Jesus's life mention it, and you'd think that if it was common knowledge (as Celsus implied), someone would have brought it up earlier. It just doesn't seem to come from anywhere except made up insults.
And even if Jesus's father was a Roman soldier (which probably wasn't the case), there's no reason to think it was that Pantera. Pantera was a pretty common name among soldiers at the time; the only reason that specific one is associated with Jesus is entirely based on coincidence.
Jordan Diaz
It seems to make the most sense the theory. I don't think it's an insult, just a logical conclusion.
Andrew White
He who denies the father and so on
Jace Gonzalez
It really doesn't, though. Especially because the earliest Christian writings don't even make a big deal about Jesus's birth or parentage. The Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke didn't come until later. People seemed to take for granted the fact that he was Joseph's son, and it was widely acknowledged by the his community. Even the stories that say his father wasn't Joseph make efforts to connect him to Joseph's lineage, which also imply that people who knew him thought Joseph was his father.
Speculating that he was a Roman bastard is entirely the result of working backwards from Christian claims about Jesus's birth being unusual in some way, even though there's no reason to think that it was.