… the timeframe of his existence is roughly correct
… the characters around this central figure are as stated in the bible.
… we suspend purely theological arguments for the moment.
If we assume that a man called Jesus really existed, we can also safely assume that he must have been born. If he was born, he must have been conceived – ergo there must have been a man somewhere – or at least some sperm and the ancient equivalent of a turkey baster.
We know his mother. Do we know who his real biological father was?
Was it Joseph? Did he get the big M in trouble and then had to marry her?
Was it a roman solider?
Was it one of the shepherds?
Another boyfriend?
Not necessarily. Few dispute the existance of Jesus, while many dispute his divine status. I think it is reasonably well accepted even amongst the Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists and what have you that Jesus was a man who lived on this planet ~2000 years ago. So, in the current environment, is it not reasonable to ask, for the sake of the historical record, if Jesus existed and you do not buy the virgin birth, who was his father?
I think I need to add that, regardless of your own perception of Jesus’ divinity, he remains without question a significant figure in the human record.
The problem with this question is that there is simply no ready answer. Obviously, there is no contemporary record purporting to identify a father.
I would note that in general, when a child is born in wedlock, the presumptive father is the husband. So if you would like to pick a candidate, Joseph is a fairly reasonable one.
I, of course, accept the alternate theory: to wit, that the Holy Spirit was responsible. But if your question excludes that, then (a) we can only speculate, and (b) one speculation is abou as useful as another.
Thanks Bob, but I disagree. Even if there were no virgin birth, Jesus’ other achievements attributed to him would make him a remarkable man and therefore a significant historic figure – of any age
Well, the whole things seems rather irrelevant. I think this is merely an attempt to reinstate the ‘Was Jesus a Jew’ thread.
In order to solve all these world-wracking problems, what we need to do is find out whether religious notions arise from genes in the Y chromosome or in whatever that route is that makes something matrilineally inheritable. Then we can determine whether Jewishness is controlled by whether your mother was one, or by whether your father was one, or. . .maybe there was a mutation.
Of course, this parthenogenesis thing sort of confuses things, but I believe some amphibians are good at it, so maybe JC really didn’t have any father. I’m pretty sure his father wasn’t Thomas Jefferson though. Do those who regularly communicate with his mother ever ask this question of her? I dunno, maybe if you start running cyberspace on tachyons you can find out. If you did, I’m sure the answer would pop up first on this MB.
not to encourage probably the hundreth jesus thread . . but . . but if paul hadnt assigned him the attributes and guided the whole “cult” . . . jesus would probably be a historical nobody
anyone who thinks there wasnt “myth creation” involved is an idiot.
uh oh . . am i offending someone by expressing my opinion?
Let’s see… A completely off-topic response, calculated to offend. Insults thrown at a large group of people without qualification. Taunting of those who would be offended. No capitalization.
Not that he isn’t right in some aspects, of course. Paul is probably responsible for the spread of the religion so far, so powerfully. And I’m sure that there’s some embellishment. But the form, the style, the manner of his(?) post all point to one conclusion–
Ugh. I hate to post immediately after myself, but let me qualify. I haven’t seen all of bda’s posts. I cannot say with certainty that he/she IS a troll. However, the first post by bda in this thread was **a ** troll, and low-class.
I think that if there were no virgin birh, then Jesus wasn’t who he said he was. In which case you have to discount the miracles attributed to him.
And then what do you have? An itinerant preacher, who thought he was God, who claimed that he would come back to life when he was killed, and who said he had the power to give other people eternal life.
He didn’t say bring any new ideas about morality or how to live life, he brought himself. So if he wasn’t the Son of God, he doesn’t matter. And we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I don’t think anyone can really say who Jesus’s real father was If Jesus was a real man as we all believe, how do we know his wasn’t borrowed from another religion? There’s Muhammed, who seems to me to serve roughly the same purpose as Jesus did to the Christians. And there’s Siddharta, aka Budda, who did the same. Why couldn’t Jesus have been one of those and he was just trascribed into the Christian faith?
When are you going to realize being normal isn’t necessarily a good thing?
Well, Jesus was on the proverbial religious scene well before either of the other two, so that kind of wipes out the “Jesus was Budda” theory. Anyway, I dare say that trying to guess at Jesus’s biological father is an effort in futility. All that’s mentioned is that there was a Mary, she was wed to a Joseph, and that’s about it once you strip away the theological aspects (i.e. the Annunciation). Might as well assume it was her husband, unless there’s hinting of an affair with a Romman soldier in there that my copy is lacking.
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
