LibriumArcana.Games

Well, from Christian perspective, Jesus was born from a virgin; conceived in Mary's womb without participation of human father. Now we know that such thing is scientifically impossible (or at least highly improbably), since even artificial insemination requires human sperm, while cloning technology were virtually non-existent in that era.

So who was Jesus' biological father, according to history and genealogy? Was it Joseph? And if it was really Joseph, why he just accepted the claim that Jesus was not his son? Did he ever attempted to rebuke the belief? ("what are you talking about, you fucks. Jesus is MY son!", or such)

This is science how?

This thread does not belong here. In fact, I am hesitant to think it even belongs in the academic forums. But I will humor it. I am putting this in P&T

Okay the reason he didn't claim Jesus as his son was

A: Mary was pregent before they were married and before he slept with her.

B: He had a fucking angel come down and have a talk with him.

Unfortunatly we cannot play detective as no foresnisc evidence is present. We cannot do a dna analyis nor get any factual data. Anything we would say would be pure fiction. If you ignore all religios belifes which ultimatly relise on fate, then there would need to be a genetic father to provide a Y chromosome.
Another viable theory would be that jesus was a she. Now that would be so contorversial. lol.

Another viable theory would be that jesus was a she. Now that would be so contorversial. lol.

Not viable at all. Jesus as a she would not be allowed to be a Rabbi nor would a female Jesus have any chance of holding authority of any type in Jewish society at the time. Also any quick look at pre-Nicea Counsil literure comfirms Jesus was decidely male. Some sects even going so far as to say he fathered a child.

The whole reason Jesus was devine was because he was born of a virgin. To fully' understand it you have to take into considderation the fact that she was 'impregnated' by a diety and did not need the touch of a man to become with child. In essence Jesus has no human father, just a deity. And another thing, Jesus was God incarnate.

Rukia wrote:The whole reason Jesus was devine was because he was born of a virgin. To fully' understand it you have to take into considderation the fact that she was 'impregnated' by a diety and did not need the touch of a man to become with child. In essence Jesus has no human father, just a deity. And another thing, Jesus was God incarnate.

god created jesu witin mary. It is not like she has not done it before.

god created jesu witin mary. It is not like she has not done it before.

I think you might want to try saying that again, it made no sense to me.

frigidmagi wrote:

Another viable theory would be that jesus was a she. Now that would be so contorversial. lol.

Not viable at all. Jesus as a she would not be allowed to be a Rabbi nor would a female Jesus have any chance of holding authority of any type in Jewish society at the time. Also any quick look at pre-Nicea Counsil literure comfirms Jesus was decidely male. Some sects even going so far as to say he fathered a child.

I was approching it from a scientific approch. If no y chomosome was introrduced and you keep the immaculate birth idea.

frigidmagi wrote:

god created jesu witin mary. It is not like she has not done it before.

I think you might want to try saying that again, it made no sense to me.

god created life within mary. This feat has been seen before as god has created life out of nothingness before. There is no need for what we call conception to occure.

Jesus as a woman holds in water, not even in mythological terms.

As frigid has already pointed out, as a woman, the Nazarene would have had no power, no man would have ever followed her, her gospel would never be listened to by the public, she would be no better than property, first of her father, then to whoever wed her.

I was approching it from a scientific approch.

No you weren't because this theory requires you to throw out all existing evidence with no real reason to do so. Scientific approach would require you to take into account all evidence you can't prove false. So first you have to prove that everyone is lying about his gender, then you can say he was female.

Ali Sama wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:

Another viable theory would be that jesus was a she. Now that would be so contorversial. lol.

Not viable at all. Jesus as a she would not be allowed to be a Rabbi nor would a female Jesus have any chance of holding authority of any type in Jewish society at the time. Also any quick look at pre-Nicea Counsil literure comfirms Jesus was decidely male. Some sects even going so far as to say he fathered a child.

I was approching it from a scientific approch. If no y chomosome was introrduced and you keep the immaculate birth idea.

Um... no... becauase then Jesus would just be Haploid, and would die during the development process.

Humans, unlike whiptail lizards, are not capable of parthenogenesis. So if we are going to keep immaculate conception at all, we have to go all out and simply assume that god added in a Y chromosome; because there is no evidence at all that Jesus was a woman in the records we have, and every reason to think that Jesus could not have been female. If we assume for the sake of argument (and it can be argued, though I will not do it here) that jesus ever even existed.

frigidmagi wrote:This is science how?

History IS science, isn't it?

I wonder whether any historical records, historical evidences, etc, that are sufficient to deduce who Jesus' real father was. Or how about the possibility to obtain Jesus' DNA from possible relics (like the Shroud of Turin -assuming that thing is real and not some hoax), for instance, to trace his genealogy? Have such attempt been made?

Comrade Tortoise wrote:In fact, I am hesitant to think it even belongs in the academic forums.

And why not? The purpose of this thread is to ask whether there are sufficient evidences (historical records, relics, etc) to deduce who Jesus' biological father really was.

History IS science, isn't it?

Actually no it isn't. See science requires experimentation and direct measurement. You cannot do either with History. History has more in common with law than science.

I wonder whether any historical records, historical evidences, etc, that are sufficient to deduce who Jesus' real father was. Or how about the possibility to obtain Jesus' DNA from possible relics (like the Shroud of Turin -assuming that thing is real and not some hoax), for instance, to trace his genealogy? Have such attempt been made?

Well most historical records are written by us Christians on the matter. Guess what we think? And no expect for say bones no DNA would survive over 2000 years. I mean you have to prove without doubt that it came from Chirst in the first place! Good luck with that.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:If we assume for the sake of argument (and it can be argued, though I will not do it here) that jesus ever even existed.

Wait, I guess this one is actually the more important question; aside the Christian's belief, are there actually historical records/evidences that the person named Jesus actually existed? And assuming such records exist, how much they tell us about the person?

Honestly KAN, because it stinks of trolling.

Also, history is NOT science. Itis a respectable academic discipline, but it is not science. The scientific method proper, is not used.

I wonder whether any historical records, historical evidences, etc, that are sufficient to deduce who Jesus' real father was. Or how about the possibility to obtain Jesus' DNA from possible relics (like the Shroud of Turin -assuming that thing is real and not some hoax), for instance, to trace his genealogy? Have such attempt been made?

No, not really. The only records are christian ones, and the jews traced descent matrilinially IIRC. And without DNA from jesus, Mary, and the proposed father, you wont get anything.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Comrade Tortoise wrote:If we assume for the sake of argument (and it can be argued, though I will not do it here) that jesus ever even existed.

Wait, I guess this one is actually the more important question; aside the Christian's belief, are there actually historical records/evidences that the person named Jesus actually existed? And assuming such records exist, how much they tell us about the person?

Dont hijack your own thread.

Wait, I guess this one is actually the more important question; aside the Christian's belief, are there actually historical records/evidences that the person named Jesus actually existed? And assuming such records exist, how much they tell us about the person?

Guess how many records we have for the period as a grand total? However there are minor historys that mention Paul (I know he's not Jesus) and here's this. It is drastically easier for there to be a man named Jesus who lived in anicent Isreal and was executed for stirring up trouble (alot of people were stirring up trouble at this point and time) than for a group of men and women to make it up and then go to die horrorable deaths. Not to mention such a religion would be easily disproved.

"Look your founder never even existed, we can prove it right here!" Says the Jewish Priest who is the main guy losing followers at this point. And the Jews were obessesive over keeping genological records, which were all destoryed by the Romans.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Honestly KAN, because it stinks of trolling.

WTF?

Comrade Tortoise wrote:

I wonder whether any historical records, historical evidences, etc, that are sufficient to deduce who Jesus' real father was. Or how about the possibility to obtain Jesus' DNA from possible relics (like the Shroud of Turin -assuming that thing is real and not some hoax), for instance, to trace his genealogy? Have such attempt been made?

No, not really. The only records are christian ones, and the jews traced descent matrilinially IIRC. And without DNA from jesus, Mary, and the proposed father, you wont get anything.

Hm. Alright. Then my question is answered. Thanks.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Dont hijack your own thread.

No, goddammit. I was originally asking whether there are academic evidences (archeological records, etc) that can tell us more about a particular historical figure named Jesus; more specifically, regarding to the information on who Jesus' biological father really was. But since you pointed out the argument about Jesus' existence, I just realized that I was putting the cart in front of the horse: before asking such specific question, of course first we have to ask whether the person being discussed actually ever existed or not.

Take a look at Hercules, for instance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally it is safe to say that Hercules only exists in Greek Mythology, unlike, say, Julius Caesar. I wonder whether Jesus is more like Hercules or Caesar in the context of actual existence, because if Jesus didn't really exist, then my question about his biological father becomes pointless.

Now, I will argue it. There is little evidence either way. To be perfectly honest, there is no reliable account of his existence in any historical record. The romans to my knowledge, did not have a record of him, and the only historian who wrote about him, the Jew named Josephus, was not born until after he died, and the writings he did on the matter were later found out to be 4th or 5th century forgeries.

The only evidence we have of his existence comes from an oral tradition, which was not written down until 70 years after his death.

That said, there had to be an originator point. There had to be someone who's name was jesus (or the hebrew equivalent of Joshua, or Yeshua, or however the hell it is spelled), who was probably executed by the romans for political reasons and/or by the jews for heresy. Reports of things he did would have been blown out of proportion. Going to get more wine from the cellar for example. Everyone is drunk and having a good time, few retellings later and a game of telephone augmented by drunkeness later, and he magically conjured up the wine.

He convinces a "blind man" (read: con artist) to give up his evil and coniving ways, and a few retellings later he cured a blind man.

Not knowing what a pulse was, Lazarus was burried alive by his family. Jesus gets him out of the tomb he was imprisoned in, and a few retellings later, ressurected him.

Hell, there are people today who think ELVIS isnt really dead.