Joseph was the Physical Father of Jesus

[Bruce Michael]

Friends,


It is a strange thing- Rudolf Steiner tells us that Mary was able to return to a state of virginity after she had conceived.

There were cases of "virgin" conceptions before the time of Jesus. How all this took place is explained very well by Alfred Heidenreich in his "Unknown in the Gospels".

According to Steiner the time has not come when the full truth concerning this mystery can be told to humanity as humanity is today.

Suffice to say that Joseph was the physical father of Jesus. This makes
sense of the genealogies. Actually there are two genealogies and two Jesus children. All this was well known in the early Church:
Borgognone
Defendente Ferrari

Physical procreation was instituted by Jehovah not Lucifer. Rudolf Steiner
has explained this in more detail.

Cordially Yours,
Br.Bruce

[cavalier]

I don't really understand why this stuff matters, either you believe Christ was the son of God, or you don't. I don't get people are trying to come up with theories that explain the mysteries of the Bible, it seems like they're embarrassed of their religion

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by cavalier

I don't really understand why this stuff matters, either you believe Christ was the son of God, or you don't. I don't get people are trying to come up with theories that explain the mysteries of the Bible, it seems like they're embarrassed of their religion

The other side to that coin, Cavalier, is are people afraid of the truth therefore unwilling to search for it. This can be said for all religions.

If someone could prove tomorrow that Jesus (pbuh) had married Mary Magdeline and had 2 children from this loving marriage, would that change the work that he did for G-d or the message he brought from G-d? I don't think so. So why should people not question our current understanding of history?

[cavalier]

OK, I take your point, but if these things don't change anything then what's the point? You may remove a stumbling block for some people but put up a new one for someone else. Then it would also create divisions, "the Josephists and the Virginists", "the Magdelinians and the Bachelorians"

Is it not just scholarship for the sake of scholarship?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by cavalier

OK, I take your point, but if these things don't change anything then what's the point? You may remove a stumbling block for some people but put up a new one for someone else. Then it would also create divisions, "the Josephists and the Virginists", "the Magdelinians and the Bachelorians"

Is it not just scholarship for the sake of scholarship?

I didn't say it doesn't change anything, it just doesn't change the message. Perhaps it would allow more people to believe, that have difficulty accepting certain issues of dogma. There has been a lot of material published which makes people suspicious. Take the issue of the church choosing 4 of over 30 gospels, many people find issues such as this keep them away from faith.

[cavalier]

ok. I don't know enough about what keeps people from faith to be able to definitively agree or disagree with you, but it does seem like you're making a good point. Thanks for your reply.