• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Two Jesus children?

!Kaggen

Illuminator
!Kaggen
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
3,874
Someone brought up in another thread the genealogy's of Jesus in the bible being different between Mathew and Luke gospels and I remember reading about this from Rudolf Seiner

"According to Steiner, the two boys were only separated in age by 6 or 9 months; they grew up near each other, one in Nazareth, and the other in Bethlehem. But there was a clear difference between the two. The Nathan/Luke Jesus had never incarnated before and Steiner tells us that this child would have been looked upon as retarded, perhaps autistic. On the other hand, the Matthew child would have been seen as very precocious since it contained the advanced ego of Zarathustra."

from
http://antroposofi.org/mellett/twojesus.htm

I was wondering if anyone else had a better explanation :D
 
Last edited:
I've never heard of this idea before. Interesting. I'm wondering if Dan Brown knows about it?
 
A place to start, might be to point out that there doesn't seem to have been a town named Nazareth in 1 AD ..


On the other hand, I didn't think the Jesus story could be any goofier .. I was wrong ...
 
!Kaggen said:
Someone brought up in another thread the genealogy's of Jesus in the bible being different between Mathew and Luke gospels and I remember reading about this from Rudolf Seiner

"According to Steiner, the two boys were only separated in age by 6 or 9 months; they grew up near each other, one in Nazareth, and the other in Bethlehem. But there was a clear difference between the two. The Nathan/Luke Jesus had never incarnated before and Steiner tells us that this child would have been looked upon as retarded, perhaps autistic. On the other hand, the Matthew child would have been seen as very precocious since it contained the advanced ego of Zarathustra."

from
http://antroposofi.org/mellett/twojesus.htm

I was wondering if anyone else had a better explanation :D
Click to expand...
I tried reading, but unfortunately I am allergic to nuts.
 
Using Occam's Razor, we can easily slice this idea of two Jesus children to pieces. Though Matthew has Jesus as a descendant of Solomon and Matthew has him as a descendant of another son of David named Nathan, both genealogies include Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel. Also, each has a different number of generations. The simplest explanation for their differences is that they are two incompatible - and fictional - genealogies.
 
It is not like that. Jesus had a twin that did not survive birth. Lots of people who are brotherless twins go on to be over achievers. Jesus' twin was named Jessy.





just kidding (but I am guessing few will get the joke)
 
TimCallahan said:
Using Occam's Razor, we can easily slice this idea of two Jesus children to pieces. Though Matthew has Jesus as a descendant of Solomon and Matthew has him as a descendant of another son of David named Nathan, both genealogies include Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel. Also, each has a different number of generations. The simplest explanation for their differences is that they are two incompatible - and fictional - genealogies.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.
What I was curious about is what has been the official church explanations for the last 2000 years.
 
!Kaggen said:
Thanks for that.
What I was curious about is what has been the official church explanations for the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about "official"... But the most popular apologetic tries to establish that the Gospel of Luke presents the genealogy of Mary.

But as Bart Ehrman, a professor of Biblical textual criticism states, regarding the argument that Luke is presenting the genealogy of Mary, that "The problem, of course, is that both of them explicitly trace the ancestry of Joseph (Matt 1:16 ;Luke 3:23)."
 
The official church explanation is that one of the Genealogies was actually Joseph's. Never mind that since none of Joseph's seed was involved, his genealogy is just about as irrelevant as the genealogy of the owner of the two donkeys Jesus rode into town like a circus acrobat.
 
!Kaggen said:
Thanks for that.
What I was curious about is what has been the official church explanations for the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...

I believe the official explanation is, "DON'T LOOK BEHIND THE *********** CURTAIN!!!!"

Now enjoy this cracker and a little wine.
 
Last edited:
Another question regards Steiners explanation.
Is there any reason to believe Steiner's intricate explanation to be any less entertaining than any other interpretation or even the original gospels interpretation of historical events for that matter?
After all since the bible is a fictional interpretation of some real events then any analysis is simply some more fictional interpretation.
Why read the boring and confusing interpretation as if it is the gospel :D
 
Bill Thompson It is not like that. Jesus had a twin that did not survive birth. Lots of people who are brotherless twins go on to be over achievers. Jesus' twin was named Jessy.





just kidding (but I am guessing few will get the joke)
Click to expand...

and their middle name was Arron ?:p
 
Considering that the 4 gospels can't even with each other in more than that, and give wildly different accounts of the same actions -- and it really hits the fan in force when it gets to the crucifixion and resurrection -- I figure there must have been 4 Jesuses or so :p
 
!Kaggen said:
Is there any reason to believe Steiner's intricate explanation to be any less entertaining than any other interpretation? :D
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of one of my favourite poets:

"Jiggerypokery, anthroposophical wisdom reveals hidden depths to the mind.
Similar spiritual insights are offered by lysergic acid diethylamide."
 
jiggeryqua said:
I'm reminded of one of my favourite poets:

"Jiggerypokery, anthroposophical wisdom reveals hidden depths to the mind.
Similar spiritual insights are offered by lysergic acid diethylamide."
Click to expand...

:gasp:Ok, now that not fair.

Evidence please :gnome:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom