Jesus is the father of David

The descent from Jesus
grammatically correct: Jesus' descent

Take the veil off your eyes and see!

It's all in the Bible!

Let's start with Jesus' origins. What does the Bible say?

The Gospel of Matthew tells us the following in chapter 1, verses 1-25:
"1. This is the book of the birth of Jesus Christ, who is a son of David, the son of Abraham.
2.Abraham became the father of Isaac ... (etc.) up to
16. Jacob begat Joseph, Mary's husband, of whom was born Jesus, whose name is Christ.
17. All the members of Abraham except David are fourteen members. From David to the Babylonian captivity are fourteen members. From the Babylonian captivity to Christ are fourteen members.
18. And so the birth of Christ was done. When Mary, his mother, was trusted in Joseph before he brought her home, it was discovered that she was with the Holy Spirit.
19. But Joseph, her husband, was pious and did not want to reprimand her, but he intended to leave her secretly.
20. As he thought so, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your husband to you; for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21. And she will bear a son, whose name you shall be called Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins.
22. All this was done so that what the Lord said through the prophet might be fulfilled, who said:
23. Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and they will be called his name Emanuel, that is to say, God with us.
24. And when Joseph woke up from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his husband with him.
25. And did not recognize her until she gave birth to her first son, and his name was Jesus. "

What is actually being described here?

You have eyes and do not open them - you are able to read and write, but you still do not understand?

Even as a child I noticed the following contradiction: Although Joseph is not Jesus' father at all - as already described in the few lines above - the descent of Jesus from the house of David is from JOSEPH hera led. If Jesus is not related to Joseph at all, then it should be quite simply, purely logically, Jesus' origin from the house of David from MARIA can be derived from here, because Jesus is supposedly only related to Mary here on earth and not to Joseph. The question immediately arises: what is it now? Was Jesus begotten by Joseph and thus from the house of David? Or is Mary from the house of David, and then the family tree is incorrect, although Joseph's descent from the house of David is confirmed again in verse 20? Or does Jesus have nothing to do with the house of David because he is not related by blood to them anyway? So, something is logically wrong here!

What does the Virgin Mary mean now?

In the old days a Virgo was a sexually active woman. The expression "virgin" means nothing else than that it is a question of a woman who - yet - does not belong to a man and can therefore freely dispose of herself, her life and her body. The virginity in our sense is only an invention of the Catholic Church and has precious little to do with the life of the historical Mary.

What does the virgin birth tell us?

In the old matriarchal religions, the virgin birth is always related to the creation of the earth and life. The Great Goddess, who still existed alone, created the world and the Son out of herself simply because there was nothing and no one else but her.

In other words: the virgin birth is an ancient MATRIARCHAL symbol, in other words: Jesus is the son of a priestess of the Great Goddess, who received her son in freedom, as a free wife, from the man to whom she gave herself in love and gave birth.

If what the Bible says is correct - and it is not a later insertion - then Joseph is not the father of the child. But since the origin of Jesus from the house of David is emphasized so much, I think that it plays an important and decisive role, so that I assume that Joseph is the biological father of the baby Jesus he conceived.

If we now assume once again that Jesus is only related to Mary, the great goddess, then the evangelist gets into a great dilemma: he would have to justify Jesus' descent from the house of David with Mary's descent from the house of David. What seemed only logical to me as a child under the premise that Joseph is NOT the biological father of Jesus, however, means an absolute challenge, especially for patriarchal Christianity: the matriarchy is structured matrilineally, the ancestry is derived from the mother, the patriarchy patrilineal, i.e. according to the descent from the father.

How can the New Testament of all things begin with a matrilineal origin, after everything but really everything was done in the Old Testament to eradicate the matriarchy? That would be an absolute relapse into matriarchy! But it would have the advantage that the story of the carpenter's son would be more believable, since the current status at that time would clearly be determined by the husband. But since Joseph, the father of Jesus, was a king's son, Jesus was not a child of a poor carpenter's family either, but a very real and politically dangerous king's son and legitimate heir to the Jewish royal throne. Under this premise, some passages from the Bible will certainly appear in a completely different light!

Further in the text: Joseph did not recognize Mary ...

The expression, he "recognized" her, has nothing to do with recognizing someone in the common sense, but rather the sexual union with another person, which in the bible is not presented as mutual physical satisfaction but as a very deep one A cognitive process that has to do with getting fully involved with the other and recognizing the other in their deepest being in the pre-patriarchal sacred sexual union. In pre-patriarchal times this was the ritual holy wedding, the Hierosgamos, which is still echoed here in the word "recognize" for "to beget".

Amargi
Mindfulness, the importance of eight
Adam and Eve
Jesus' descent
God of war
Back to Sabine