Was Joseph (a jew?)ostrasized because he was not the father of Jesus?
468643
Unlikely.  Judaism is not  as condemnatory of pre-marital sex and babies born out of wedlock as Christianity is.  In fact, strictly speaking their is no prohibition against pre-marital sex in the Torah, the ban was instituted by later Rabbis to prevent shame coming onto a woman or the appearance that she was a concubine or prostitute.\n\nSo the fact that Jesus was not Joseph's son would not have been viewed as a big deal at the time- the common assumption may well have been that the father was a Roman soldier since rape by Roman soldiers was a common occurence.
324185
Your question is most pertinent. As a man of the time, it would have been considered downright weird for a man of Yeshua's age not to have a family for the prevailing culture and mores of the region. \n\n"Yeshua" is the more correct name. There was no "J" until the 1600s. It's dotted because it was descended from the "i" and was pronounced similarly. \n\nThis is just another factor in the confused history of the person we have to come to know as Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nThe early church, later the Medieval Catholic church, suppressed this knowledge because it conflicted with their dogma that was arrived at after cennturies of meetings some called Diets.\n\nIt was in those conclaves from the AD 600s to the 1400s that the agreed-upon dogma on the the four Synoptic Gospels (out of at least 12!); the Virgin Birth, and the Immaculate Conception (which is associated with Maryam, Yeshua's mother but that's an entire article!) were straightened out. Dissenters were dealt with harshly.\n\nThe process of tinkering goes on even in our time. Vatican I and II were major Catholic Church revisions that got rid of the Vulgate Latin language masses, and brought down the priesthood from a loftier level.\n\nI have traveled to Jerusalem and the Mediterranean and seen many things for myself. See some of the the pictures from Jerusalem and the Vatican at: \n\nhttp://community.webshots.com/user/travelgriot97 \n\nAlso, check out my articles on "The Real Reasons For The Seasons" at\n\nhttp://www.blackwebportal.com/wire/DA.cfm?ArticleID=2558 \n\nMany of the things we have been given to believe just isn't so. Your questions again are very reasonable; indeed there will be much discussion of these and accepted knowledge with the movies and books coming out. \n\nKeep seeking the truth. There are interesting but disturbing pathways you'll encounter along the way. --kjw
479277
Jesus had no biolodgical son. He never married he had to stuggle everyday of his life the way the people treated him on this earth. But we can all be his son's and daughter's in in his kingdom if we accept him as our father.
1173755
The view from history would be "yes."  Many of the historical Jesus' teachings were related to reforming the practice of Judaism to be more assimilationist with the predominent Roman/Hellenistic culture in the region during the period of his life.\n\nSince he was interesting in reforming practice to "fit in," he might also be interested in reforming his looks to "fit in," as well.
108952
His real name was Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus/ Joshua son of Joseph) Yeshua was a quite common name at that time and is the name of other biblical characters but translates differently each time\n\nOK Joe... Jesus' name was also translated Joshua, like the spy/ leader of the Israelites and another name but I confuse which is a translation of Yehudah and which is Yeshua-- I do know Yehudah was Judah and James but I don't remember what Jude and Judas were
178048
Well first of all He wasn't born under the curse of Adam since Joseph didn't have relations with Marry.  Chirst also made the decision not to sin.
85015
Jesus was neither black nor white. He came from the Middle East and was Jewish, so chances are he had an olive colored skin complexion.\n\nHowever, if you read the accounts in the Gospels carefully, there is no mention at all of any of his physical characteristics... interesting, huh?
1050596
You are correct that early Christians used Greek translations, which is why they made rather rediculous errors like misinterpreting Nazarite to mean 'someone from Nazareth'.  Is any other proof even really needed that Jesus was not a Jewish Rabbi?
337420
Jesus was a good little jew boy and always did what his mother told him. Joseph was just his stepdad. He was expected to be married with children by the time he was 26, so I would guess he was married and had children. To do otherwise would be irreligious. I do not know if you were aware of it but Jesus was a very religious person. Breeding was an absolute requirement of religiousity. The jewish bible said to go forth and multiply. If your brother died before having children, you were required by law to knock up his ol lady. Better hope she was cute.\nIt was the later perverted priests of the false religion formed after Jesus that gave credence to the theory that Jesus was a celibate male because the Wierd Gay priests hated women and thought that you could not be holy if you defiled yourself with female contact. So they invented the myth that Jesus was celibate and that all priests should follow suit. We now know that is hogwash to cover up the fact they are mostly gay guys and always were. Take a look at those clothes the pope and the cardinals wear man. is that gay or what?\nThe reason the "bible" does not mention it is because it was a collection of old Jewish books that were written long before Jesus was born.\nYes the new testament portion of the so-called bible was added to it by the new religion of the followers of Christ AFTER he dies, BUT those too were just the writings and ramblings of the few people that had met and known Jesus during his brief period of life. These were called "gospels", meaning good news. But some of the people that knew jesus duing his time wrote books about it did not get included in the new religion "bible' because the gay priests got together and voted them out because they did not like the messages. the messages of the other gospels are completely in accord with the notion that jesus probably had a wife and child and she was Mary Magdalene\n(not his Mom for Chrisakes, he was not incestuous) It was the Mary Magdalene that hung out with him and the guys like a groupie. Sort of like Yoko Ono. She was his favorite and the other desciples were always complaining about her . These complaints were recorded in their "gospels" too and that is why they were left out by the new Church that was trying to establish a religion that they could control the world with.\nThey had a big meeting together of all the church leaders from around the old world and decided by VOTE to exclude many gospels, and burn them, and kill anyone who mentioned them as heretics and then they proceeded to do so.\n\nAmong these were the gospels of Mary( of course) and Phillip, and Thomas and some other works of note that explained many things. It is all available on the net at NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY in Egypt. A few copies and fragments were unearthed about 35 years ago, translated and are available for anyone who cares to read them.\nit is a shame that the friends of Jesus who knew him best were not allowed to tell anyone what they knew. But that is the way of the world of organized religion, something jesus did not really like. he was like a guru with desciples who were each supposed to spread the word by mouth to individuals who would each in turn spread it to others like a big AMWAY. But they killed him and  squelched his efforts.\n\nThe Mary that jesus loved and probably married, was NOT the whore named Mary mentioned in some bible verse as a person he helped, She was another Mary (Marys? hoodathunkit)\nI guess Mary was a common name back then too. The Church Fathers deliberately decided to discredit this Good Mary by spreading the misinformation that she was this whore. They later confessed to this canard about 30 years ago and apologized to the world but everyone still mistakenly believes that the Mary that Came to see Jesus on the cross and later got his body and took it to a tomb and washed it, like a good little wife, and was the first one he appeared to, was the whore. This was meant t
1068420
Flavius Josephus ?\n\n*he was a jew that lived around the time of Jesus ,they have an original manuscript that claims Jesus is the messiah.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthis could be totally wrong*
1096410
no no no wrong... jesus came to this earth in the human form.. naturally since there were so many communities he had to be under one.. the truth is, by chance the good people to who he was born turned out to be jews.. so he was born in a jew family on earth.. that does not men he was a jew before that.. so obviously neither is God.
389737
He had a brother Joseph.
459386
Please refer to the Gospel accounts in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).  You will note that Mary & Joseph did have sons so Jesus did have "half" brothers (in an earthly sense).  But remember that Jesus was all God and all Man.  Mary was just the way he entered the world as human. So technically, he was an only child - the Son of God.
712574
Of course Jesus was Jewish.  The book of Matthew gives his lineage back to Abraham.\n\nHe couldn't be Christian since Christianity is based on Jesus' death and Resurrection.  Acts chapter 2 describes the beginning of Christianity.
234521
You are not Jewish, as you were raised a Christian, unless you renounce your Christianity and formally convert to Judaism. So, when asked if you are Jewish, the correct answer is, 'No, but my father is.'
1145205
no, Jesus was just his son, not like a second god.
842796
Well, there was David Friedrich Strauss, but as far as I can find he only claimed that Jesus was not divine. I'll keep searching and see if there was another who went further.