Monday, December 28, 2009

The Jesus Genealogy Myths

By the Rev. Howard Bess
December 28, 2009

The Matthew gospel does not start the story of Jesus with his birth. Rather Matthew starts the story with a genealogy.

Read on.
Posted by at

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rev. Howard Bess,

Thank you for your insights regarding the genealogy of Jesus the Christ. Many folks have lost touch with the reality of the kingship of Jesus: that he was descended from the kings of Israel and even before. Some assert that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and on were pharaohs of Egypt and that the Holy Bible is a recollection of the civil wars that emerged at the times of the changes of the astrological Age. Moderns dismiss the importance of astrology in the ages before this common era. Artifacts across the planet attest to just how important the courses of the stars were to the leaders and peoples of the world. It was through the “signs” that kings justified their reigns and demanded fealty.

Many recall the story of Moses and the conflict between those who followed kings sanctioned under the sign of Taurus and those who sought a new line of kings under the sign of Ares. We recognize that Abraham was the great king and the founder of the line of kings of the Arian (Aries) Age and before the Taurian kings were kings (pharaohs) linked to Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, and so on. Abraham and the leaders of who became the Jews were called shepherds (guiders of sheep). When Jesus emerged as a new king of a new age, the Piscean, he was styled as the Fisher King and his disciples were assigned the task by Jesus as “the Fishers of men”. Jesus’s political group were the Nazareans, a term at root that means “fish” or “fishers” and likely the name assigned to the constellation Pisces by early middle eastern cultures.

It is my contention that Jesus is rejected by historical and modern Jews as the Christ or Messiah, both terms meaning Crown Prince, because they were not prepared to see a king of the new age, Pisces, instead insisting on the continuing reign of kings in the Arian or Sheperdian line.

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the Bible is a compendium of hero tales keyed to the progression of the Zodiac through the heavens. The genealogy of Jesus as cited in Matthew and Luke is the only justification for the kingship of Jesus. Perhaps further scholarship will disclose that the New Testament reported pretenders to the throne to which Jesus ascended. In particular the false messiah cited as “coming in ‘sheep’s clothing’” (a reference to the Arian kings or kings of the previous Age).

Tue Dec 29, 12:56:00 PM 2009
Morton Kurzweil said...

The man who would be king has no existence in reality. The compounding of parables, campfire tales of witches and magic are not sufficient evidence to erect a king, much less a divinity, as was the form in Rome and Egypt for centuries before these stories were adapted to turn a rebellious population into submissive servants of Rome.
There is not one shred of shroud, bone, or artifact attributable to an unnatural act. Belief is an act of will. The creation of a virtual reality is in the mind of the belief process itself. The very idea that religious beliefs require constant reinforcement by ritual and social support, rather than the immediate knowledge of a God, has placed the existence of divinity in the hands of ambitious evangelists for centuries. There are always enough people to form a cult and find any preposterous claim a certainty.
Jesus as he is described in the earliest Christology, is as far from a man of peace as the God of Abraham, given to rage and violence, threats and commands at the slightest provocation or suggestion of doubt about his authority.
It is the unquestioned authority that is the teaching of Christianity. It is no different than the Commandments in the Old Testament. Seven of the first ten commandments demand recognition and obedience of God. The remainder proscribe behaviors not suitable to independent thought, even at the risk of damnation.
There is nothing rational about belief. That is what makes belief so significant in man. We have the opportunity to use or imagination to free the possibilities and associations of our minds.
It is easier to invent, to delude, to hallucinate and substitute an imaginary reality, safe and secure from the surety of the trials of life in which we make escape to another better life after death, if we simply believe.
It would be better not to believe and do something to improve the prospects of man on Earth, than to believe and waste the time available. What kind of God would invent such convoluted story? Such beliefs are an embarrassment to humanity.

Tue Dec 29, 07:34:00 PM 2009
John L.Opperman said...

Like George Carlin says; "It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya".
~john L.

Tue Dec 29, 07:46:00 PM 2009
The Days of the Bonfires said...

Dear Rev. Bess,
Thank you for your thoughtful piece. It seems to me, too, that the influence of Paul is here in the backgroung, in creating a Hellenistic face to Jesus, in the sense that Jesus becomes a power figure on the scale of Zeus. Absolute power. Have just recently reread the Acts of the Apostles and some of Paul's letters, and felt there, too, that there already is a gap between what Jesus said and how Paul "interpreted" him. Your piece adds a good perspective to that, for me.

Tue Dec 29, 08:43:00 PM 2009

Post a Comment