Mary and Old Joe

March 3, 2020

We left our last article with a surprise, Jesus being the answer, but what exactly does he answer? To many folks, like over 1 billion Catholics and tens of millions more protestant Christians, JC is the bees knees of their spiritual lives. In some ways that makes a kind of sense, I mean we all long for a type of spiritual fulfillment and it makes sense to approach and accept the “common” thing, that which is most normal. In that, we do not have a lot of choice, our schools, politics, and entertainment is geared to keep us in line with church “values”. And it doesn’t matter whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or believe in the purple polka dot monster, our religious systems are designed to keep you in line. Period.

But what if there was a different type of normal?  A type of normal that led to an enduring serenity that was with you 24/7/365. A normal where there is no guilt or shame, where there is no dogma, no questions as to why you exist. Where there is no need to become hysterical to believe that a statue bleeds, or even to feel the presence of god. Sounds ideal and impossible doesn’t it? I’m here to tell you that it’s not, but to get there, we must first understand some of the things that have been done to us, so that this state of serenity has been taken from us, and replaced with, fear and non-belief in any type of spiritualism.

 I have to admit that it is easy to believe in nothing, I mean who can take the church’s version of events seriously? A god floating around in nothingness, gets bored, creates the universe, then earth and everything and everyone on it, gets mad and drowns all of it, then just for shits and giggles, impregnates a virgin, then kills that child on a cross, an incredibly painful way to die, then sends all the unbelievers in him, this murdered child, to spend eternity swimming around in a lake of fire. Really? Seems like there is something very fucking wrong with this god. Then, after a couple of thousand years of people believing in the shit above, there is this new age thing, something about East Indians being able to levitate and walk on fire and beds of nails. That’s just too out there.

But what if it’s not too out there? What if the East Indians had it right all along? What if we westerners in our arrogance, believing India to be a third world country and it’s religion wrong, and unfathomable were the ones who were wrong? So what exactly makes India a third world country? It’s politics? Lack of wealth? It’s religion? All of it? Sure, and since its independence from colonialism, it has come a long way towards distinguishing itself as a world-class country.

It’s in understanding, that  allows for clarity, and that, is one thing that the Christian bible does not provide regarding the politics of Israel during Christ’s time. Sure, we are given that there is a foreigner on the throne, Herod, and that Rome has occupied the country, but it fails miserably in explaining to us that the people themselves are in open revolt against Rome. It is from other sources that we learn that the Romans are crucifying Jews by their hundreds and thousands trying to crush the rebellion. Nowhere in the bible are we told that this is the political environment that Jesus was born in to.  So why is this information not given to us?  Another pertinent question is, with all the begatting that the bible tells us about, and how crucial the line of David is to Jesus, and his decedents, why is his mother Mary described as a peasant? And Joseph an old man? Clearly all those begats make Mary and Joseph scions of a pretty important bloodline. But why does it matter? Why would god in his infinite wisdom, pick this mis-matched couple to be parents to himself? What?  Wait! This line of thought is going to get weird real quick, let us get back to Mary and old Joe.

Right, let us back up a minute, the Gospels were not written as a proper history, they were started around 37 AD, during the height of the Jewish rebellion. The author(s) obviously had their personal safety in mind, and therefore would not write anything too obviously anti-Rome. As a result, the gospels came out as a type of good news propaganda. Another notable thing about the gospels is, as compared one to another, some mention the virgin birth, where others do not, none of them mention a stable with its familiar cast of peaceful, friendly animals, nor an Inn, but a house, is mentioned, and so is a manger, and what is in what book? Often when a clergyman gives a sermon from the gospels, he/she will say stuff from this book chapter and verse, and then go to this book chapter and verse, then another, finally meshing all that stuff in to a book of information that never really existed.  Moreover, when we question that, the clergy tells us that the bible says, and we look at them a little dumbfounded, and think, no! the bible does not say that, because those books do not say that, and in fact, disagree markedly! But still we accept it, because supposedly the clergy are the ones in the know. That always made me feel like a daft sheep. B-a-a-a! B-a-a-a!

The virgin birth of Jesus is central to the Christian belief system, and the bible as a whole seems to have been written to forecast this momentous occasion. I find it odd that the first published gospel, the book of Mark, makes no mention of the virgin birth; however, Mathew and Luke do with varying degrees of detail, but is totally ignored by the book of John. We are all familiar with Mathew 1:18-25 and how it talks about how the Holy Ghost got her pregnant and that Joe should marry her, and that how they will have a son named, Emmanuel, which means god is with us.

The physical virginity of Mary becomes less credible when we consider the word almah, which is a Semitic word, and only means, a young woman. In Hebrew, a virgin is bethulah, virgo intacta, virgo means unmarried in Latin, and needs to be qualified by the adjective, intacta to denote sexual inexperience. It’s interesting how catholic dogmatism paints Catholics as complete hypocrites, mother Mary was no virgin forever, in instance after instance, the gospels themselves prove that she was not, Mathew 13:55, Luke 2:7, Mathew 1:25, Luke2:27, Mathew 13:56, and Mark, 6:3, indicates that Jesus had sisters.

Hebrews 7:14 says that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, therefore being of the Davidic bloodline, scripture also says Jesus was a Nazarene, but that does not mean that he came from the town of Nazareth, Acts 24:5  talks about how Paul was seditious and a ring leader of the sect of Nazarenes. The Arabic for Christians is Nasrani; the Koran renders the word as Nasara or Nazara, both variants of the Hebrew Nazrie ha-Brit- keepers of the Covenant, a designation for the Essene community at Qumran on the Dead Sea. In regards Nazareth, there is quite a bit of debate whether the town actually existed during Christ’s time. It does not appear on any Roman military maps, nor does even Paul speak of it. The term Nazarites can be traced back to the old testament figures of Samson and Samuel; they were bound by strict vows as were related to Moses in Numbers 6:2-21. This then, was where Mary and good old Joe lived.

The Essene community observed highly regulated disciplines in regards to dynastic betrothal and matrimony, Marys’ supposed virginity needs to be seen in this context. Mathew 1:18 and Luke 2:5 say that Mary was espoused to Joseph, where she is referred to as his wife. The word espoused does not mean betrothed or engaged, a better translation would be, contractual wedlock. Mary was both an almah, and Joseph’s wife, and as such, she would have been governed by the dynastic regulations applicable to the Messianic (anointed) rules of the Davidic bloodline.

A long line of grail kings. The house of David.

The rules of dynastic matrimony were of course, quite different from those of Jewish marital norm of that time.  Rules around procreation were explicitly defined, and meant a celibate lifestyle. Sexual relations were allowed after 3 months of espousal, or the first marriage in September. Relations would be put on hold after that until the first half of December, this to ensure that if and when a Messianic birth occurred; it would take place in the atonement month of September. If the almah in general, and Mary in particular, did not conceive, they would have to wait until the following December to try again, and so on. The problem was, Jesus was born out of sequence, and he was born on March 1, so he had to have been conceived in the previous either late June or early July, which means our Davidic Dad Joseph was a horny bugger, or our mother Mary was, hell maybe both, obviously they couldn’t keep their bits to themselves.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s