Mary and the Brothers of the Lord

[RabbiBarry]

Judaism makes it the duty of a wife to have sexual relations with her husband at least once per year. The gospel according to Mathew says at 1:25: He (meaning Joseph) had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Yeshua. It was allowable under Jewish law for a man to have relations with his betrothed during the betrothal period. Nasorean Judaism rejects the idea of "ever virgin" on several bases: 1) it is contrary to tradition; 2) the penalty for failing to have relations would be to declare her an adulterer and execute her which clearly did not happen; and 3) the clear statement of all three synoptics that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. Dr. James Tabor in his new book The Jesus Dynasty adopts the position that in the Nasorean Church makes the most sense. He claims that Yeshua had a father other than Joseph. We would claim that said father was the Archangel of the Presence called YHVH and whose human form was that of Enoch. Joseph died without issue. Mary, in accordance with the Jewish laws of levirate marriage, had a son by Clopas, Joseph's brother, and his name was James or in Hebrew Ya'akov. Mary found Clopas a good husband and had other children by him. They were Simon, Yehudah, Yoset, Maryam, and Salome. The relationship of these children to Jesus therefore became unusual, almost hillbilly. Ya'akov was legally Yeshua's brother because Joseph had not denounced his fatherhood of Yeshua. He was in fact his half brother.
Simon, who became the second bishop of Jerusalem after James, was Yeshua's half brother and cousin. He was half brother because his mother was the same and cousin because Simon was the son of Clopas, Yeshua's uncle. Likewise, the other children were both cousins and half-siblings. James was special because although he likewise would appear to be a cousin, he was legally a brother.

In the Nasorean belief, Maryam was a very holy woman and therefore it would have been inconceivable for her not to have had sexual relations. In Judaism, holiness and sexuality are prerequisites. Men and women must have procreative sex.

I think that this situation is a major difference between our theological positions. Of course, this position also raises difficulties when dealing with Yeshua and Maryam the Tower (Magdalah). Rabbis had to be married. They should have children. The husband judges a wife caught in adultery. The woman brought to Yeshua must have been his wife. Only the wife can touch the body of man. Maryam ha Magdalah wiped his feet with her hair. A wife can not leave grieving for a close relative except by direct command of her husband. Yeshua told Martha to order Maryam to come out when dealing with Lazarus. We refuse to believe that Yeshua was unmarried.

[David Kone]

There is a great deal of convincing speculation on these matters nowadays. Unfortunately for what ever reason much has been hidden from our view. I personally have been a family man for most of my life and have a hard time believing that anyone can fully understand the meaning of life outside of that experience. I choose to retain an open mind on these things. Ultimately our faith must be built on more then than parroting the stories of the past. The Spirit that guides me seems to be saying that there is much more yet to be told than what has been allowed. The scriptures themselves seem to infer things which can not be said. If I told you a story and all the main women characters in the story were all named Jane or Susan wouldn't you think it a bit odd? Every name in the Bible apparently has a meaning. Mary which is actually Miriam means bitter. We are told that Miriam, Moses' sister, was a prophetess. If Mary is a title rather than a name there seems to be an unusual number of bitter prophetess' around our Lord. One in particular, Mary Magdalene, appeared closer than any of the other disciples. Some explanations look as if they are missing. Maybe it was done to propagate the theology of pagans or maybe it was done to protect the precious family of our Lord, what ever the reason some knowledge was with held. One can hope that here may be some things about to be revealed as today’s scholars revisit the past, like the real structure of Jesus' family, that have the potential to shake the foundations of the church. Our Lord indeed works in mysterious ways. :innocent:

[RabbiBarry]

Maryam was the most popular name in Israel at the time of Yeshua. Ya'akov was a very popular name as was Shimon.

These are not titles any more than John is today.

[RabbiBarry]

Also, you did not respond to the post.

[David Kone]

I respect your opinion as I can tell you have given this subject considerable thought and study. From what is written in Mathew 1:23-25 very little of concrete fact can be ascertained. Personally, I have no problem with the concept that Joseph was Jesus’ father. After all Joseph was the direct link to the line of David. I do not think this changes Jesus’ importance in Heaven one wit nor does it make Him any less our Savior. The word meaning young maid, referring to the fact that she had not yet given birth to any children, which was used to describe Mary, was manipulated by those who had a need for the scriptures to fit pagan concepts by interpreting it with the word virgin. Mary, as far as I am concerned, was better than a mere virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, she was holy. She was set apart from the wickedness of the world and was loved for her virtue by God. Joseph was a holy servant of the Lord in as he followed the instructions of the messenger of God with out hesitation ... and took unto him his wife.

Many of the myths regarding the virgin birth and the eternal virgin stem from the Greek disgust with the flesh and frankly also of women in general who symbolized the flesh. Having “God” coming in contact with a real woman just did not fit into their schema of things.

I am actually pleased with the revisiting of these things as I believe they represent relevant issues in our own time. You may be right in what you teach I have no way of proving one way or another. I just hope that we remain open hearted to each other's views on those matters that were not stated explicitly in the scriptures.

[RabbiBarry]

It is exactly that openness that I seek. I believe that the scriptures, written by Jews, with Jewish traditions and Jewish law, should be read in its context. The Christian Church has refused to interpret the new or much of the old in the context of its writers. Maryam is called by Luke the most blessed among women. Now how can she be the most blessed among women when the Christians insist upon making her out to be an adulterous. And Joseph is said to be a Tzaddik (a Just Man). But the Christians would claim that he squandered a kingly gift from the Magi so that by the time Yeshua was old enough to need it, he was poor. In my understanding Maryam was Holy and therefore had sex with her husband. And Joseph was Righteous and did not squander Yeshua's Kingly Gifts.

[David Kone]

Amen! I do agree who heartedly that we need to understand the culture that created the people who wrote these things to be able to understand what they wrote.

[dark_knight]

I also agree 100% and underline that we must study the Scriptures (including NT) in the light of Hebrew culture of their time. I think that these books are quite eye-opening to this issue:
They Never Told Me This in Church! A Call to Read the Bible with New Eyes
by pastor Greg Deuble,
The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound, by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting.
(www.restorationfellowship dot org)

Now excuse me for putting the discussion perhaps bit further - I believe and hope and know we can discuss these things here in brotherly way, unlike in other forums. I am perhaps alone with my views here, for they differ from official ACC view and yours.

All these ideas you have discussed are convincing and interesting, and I think they show healthy and unbigotted attitude.

I strive to show this same attitude, but even so, my view is yet little more 'conservative'. I believe that for God who created everything, it is not quite difficult to plant a new life in a womb of a virgin. I yet believe that Mary was untouched and Jesus' life was uniquely generated in her womb.
Jesus had to be outside of Adam's Y-chromosome (not sure how it's spelled in english) so that he would not inherit the sinful nature of Adam. Jesus was biologically Maryam's son (by birth at least) and thus from the aristocratic, non-royal lineage of David (Mary's father's side?) and priestly Aaronic lineage from Mary's maternal family (though this theory contradicts a bit with the Torah and marital laws??). Furthermore I currently view that Jesus' siblings were Mary's and Joseph's biological offspring. Jesus was Joseph's legal son in every way, and he being righteous servant of God and hearing from the angel that Mary had not commited adultery but conceived by HaKodesh he did not doubt her fidelity.

Thus, my view in the issue of Messiah's family is somewhat in line with the protestant view, not including the heretical doctrines of the two natures of Jesus, and Trinity.
I do not, for the sake of my time, now take any standing on wheter He was married and what were the traditions of Rabbis being married or not in Jesus' time - Rabbi Barry knows these thing 10x better than me. Still, Jesus DID break the traditions of his day. He broke tradions about Sabbath and other things, but not the Torah. He told that we ought not to change God's laws for men's tradition!

I yet await to see what is the offical view of ACC to whole Inherited Sin and Atonement issue, for this is a very basis for my whole religious and spiritual cosmology, and basically I see no point in believing Jesus as Messiah and 'Archangel' if we strip him off the title of universal ransom Lamb of God (perhaps I put these words ackwardly, please excuse me, for I'm not native english-speaker). In core, if I do not believe that Yeshua paid the price of my sins at the Golgatha, he is only better teacher than other great figures, like Kungfutse (Confucius) or Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), but not greater cosmic Being, or somehow different from them.

This is going even farther.
Also, I wish to state that I long for the Truth! I want to live in the truth and Spirit. I want to live the truth for real - I cannot do that if Christ is not mediator between God and myself. I love the lore and all the detail, but tell me guys, what do you say we have to do to live in accordance with will of the Father? How can we achieve relative happiness in this life? How will we receive the better resurrection? What is the relation of doctrine and salvation, detail and whole Gospel? What is the Kingdom of God, as it was the top priority in the proclamation of Good News of Christ himself? If someone is willing to answer in one or two of these questions, I'd be more than happy.

[RabbiBarry]

I believe that for God who created everything, it is not quite difficult to plant a new life in a womb of a virgin.

And I grant that, even if the prophecy does not require it that is the clear import of Matthew's statement.

Jesus had to be outside of Adam's Y-chromosome (not sure how it's spelled in english) so that he would not inherit the sinful nature of Adam.

I will not respond to the sinful nature of Adam or his allegedly passing that sin down to his children here, but later. However, I would note that this church accepts 1 Enoch as scripture. I do not know if it accepts 3 Enoch as scripture. In 3 Enoch, it is clear that Enoch after his ascension becomes the Archangel of the Presence. If that is true, then YHVH, the Archangel of the Presence is inhabiting a man, Enoch, and the DNA that Maryam had was that of Adam. [/I]

Furthermore I currently view that Jesus' siblings were Mary's and Joseph's biological offspring.

Eusebius, Hegessipus and Dr. James Tabor in Jesus Dynasty deny that James, Simon, Yehudah, Yoset, Maryam or Salome were Joseph's biological offspring. The more likely situation is presented by Dr. Tabor. James was the result of a levirate marriage between Maryam and Clopas, Joseph's brother. After producing the one child for Joseph, Mary married Clopas in truth and had Simon, Yehudah, Yoset, Maryam and Salome.

Thus, my view in the issue of Messiah's family is somewhat in line with the protestant view, discluding the doctrine of two natures of Jesus, and Trinity.

It is the issue of the Trinity that is very essence of this Forum. Arianism denies the Nicene definition of Trinity and adopts the Subordinationist View.

He broke tradions about Sabbath and other things, but not the Torah.

If Yeshua broke the Sabbath law, he broke the Torah. He did not break the Sabbath law. Healing is lawful on the Sabbath. Eating is lawful on the sabbath. Pulling the grain as one walks through the field if one has no other food and is in danger of dying is lawful on the Sabbath.

I yet await to see what is the offical view of ACC to whole Inherited Sin and Atonement issue, for this is a very basis for my whole religious and spiritual cosmology, and basically I see no point in believing Jesus as Messiah and 'Archangel' if we strip him off the title of universal ransom Lamb of God (perhaps I put these words ackwardly, please excuse me, for I'm not native english-speaker). In core, if I do not believe that Yeshua paid the price of my sins at the Golgatha, he is only better teacher than other great figures, like Kungfutse (Confucius) or Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), but not greater cosmic Being, or somehow different from them.

Thank you my brother. I see that you have now told us what the real issue is. You are still a Nicene. I will post my recent blog on Original Sin and you will see that the doctrine, which is only spoken of by Paul, is a lie. Yeshua is important because He is the Creator. Origen taught that and the writer of Colossians taught that at 1:15. Yeshua is important because as the High Priest of Heaven, he is the Only Mediator between G-d and Man. Yeshua is important because according to Exodus 23:20, the Archangel can take away sins, not just cover them. Your lamb of G-d theology is flawed. Yeshua is the Lamb of G-d, not because he took away our sins on the Cross, but because he changed the Torah to return us to the Melchizedek sacrifice of bread and wine and openned that sacrifice to all men. He then ascended as a perfect High Priest and continues to pour out his own blood over the HaKapporet of Heaven for any sinfulness we claim and reject as sinful.

Also, I wish to state that I long for the Truth! I want to live in the truth and Spirit. I want to live the truth for real - I cannot do that if Christ is not mediator between God and myself.

And he is.

I love the lore and all the detail, but tell me guys, what do you say we have to do to live in accordance with will of the Father?

For you, a Gentile, you must obey the Seven Laws of Noach, you must follow the teachings of the Didache, the Constitution of Shimon, the Brother of Yeshua and second bishop of Jerusalem, and you must listen intently to the teachings of our Great Rabbi, Yeshua. He is our Father. G-d is our Grand Father.

How can we achieve relative happiness in this life?

By submitting to the Voice to its teaching on the Scriptures.

How will we receive the better resurrection?

All men will be resurrected. Some will choose Hell. Origen and Arius did not believe that anyone was eternally damned. Jews say that one can only spend 10 years in Hell. But many choose hell during their in between times.

What is the relation of doctrine and salvation, detail and whole Gospel?

The purpose of Scripture is to help us live a good life now. Only G-d can give us the gift of the Path to aid us in eternal life.

What is the Kingdom of God, as it was the top priority in the proclamation of Good News of Christ himself?

When you walk on the Path, you are pilgrims that are returning home to the Kingdom of G-d. You are already citizens there.

[dark_knight]

Thank you Brother, Rabbi Barry for your thoughtful reply! :)

Perhaps there is indeed something wrong in my theology, because so many (radical- or 'judaist') Unitarians and Non-Trinitarians keep saying I'm a Nic :D
But I sincerely do not accept the Nicene creed! I do not believe in Triune God. (Maybe there may be some misunderstandings of some of my statements, because though my English may seem fluent, it's not my native tongue and so I have some time trouble to articulate intelligebly:confused: ).

Even before I read this post of yours, I was planning to post a brief statement of my Theological and Christological standing (which is called by my mainstream 'christian' friends and foes as clearly Arian). I also read your post about the origin of the doctrine of Emanation and this has somethings I was going to post there as a reply (that was wonderful essey you wrote!).

I believe that the Ancient of Days, the true Origin of All is YHWH. He is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent (same time Transcendt).
He is El Elyon and El Shaddai, He is the G*d of the Tanach and the Father of our Adon Yeshua haMasiach (prior and after his incarnation).

I believe that the Angel of the LORD, the Rock which gave water to the children of Israel in the wilderness, Commander of Host, One of the likeness of Man is the Being Logos prior to his birth as a child Yeshua bar Maryam.
He was emaneted from the Father in different way than everyone and everything which was created - as the Scripture tells us (John 1. , Col.1. Prov.8.), it was by Logos that all things were created. He was the Agent of Creation, but Yahweh the Father was the actual creator and designer of everything.

Thus the Logos is an emantion of YHWH the Father. He is the Good Demiurge of Cosmos, principle of Light - as such, he is 'a god', and as participant of LORD's glory and filled by His Spirit, he has attributes and priviliges of YHWH himself (pre- and post ascension) .

There is also this Evil Demiurge called Heylel, Shaitan, Ahriman and Lucifer, who according the Scripture is "god of this world" (2.Cor.), but not creator of material world, like hellenist gnostics attribute to Evil Demiurge and name him YHWH - for which I with great "righteouss" wrath anathemize them for blaspehemy! :krolleyes:

I believe that all men will have ressurection in the Kingdom of God, ruled by immortal Christ here on Earth. Those who are and were his true disciples or had true faith in his 1.coming and his Father before his incarnation (be them called Nasoreans, Arians, Christians, Unitarians or whatever) are going to receive Immortality in the Second Coming and Earthly Founding of the Eternal Kingdom (Daniel 2.).
Other people are going to receive resurrection into mortality at the dusk (perhaps) of the Millenium period and are going have to choose between Kingdom and Lake of Fire, Messiah or the Great Evil Serpent.

Here's something from my views.

May He Who Lives, bless you.

-Henrik

[RabbiBarry]

I believe

One of the difficulties that the Arian Catholics will have to deal with is the question of legitimacy. In order to be truly Arian must you agree with Arius and Origen his grandfather in faith. Is there room for ideas which deviate from their norm? I suspect and hope that there will be room for honest debate. I do not want to see Nasoreanism or Arianism fall into the traps of Rome where someone declares it is true and everyone has to agree. We should agree on what is essential for faith and then people can decide whether they meet the essentials.

There is also this Evil Demiurge called Heylel, Shaitan, Ahriman and Lucifer, who according the Scripture is "god of this world" (2.Cor.), but not creator of material world, like hellenist gnostics attribute to Evil Demiurge and name him YHWH - for which I with great "righteouss" wrath anathemize them for blaspehemy! :krolleyes:

First of all, Origen said and Arius agreed that G-d emanated the Demiurge. That Demiurge was the Logos. There is no room for a second Evil Demiurge in this conceptualization. The Devil is not the Equal of G-d. Nothing is the Equal of G-d. He is not the Equal of the Logos. In fact, he is an Archangel created by the Logos as were all the Archangels. One must be careful to recognize that even though Jewish thought sounds like Neo Platonism in some areas it is not neo-platonist. Dr. Barker in her book effectively shows the Philo was expressing Enochian Judaism to the Greeks not adopting Neo Platonism from the Greeks. There is no room in Jewish thought for a second Demiurge that is evil. We rejected that when we left Babylon.

I know that you are searching Henrik. I have found over the last 34 years on the Path that a true Seeker will be led by the Holy Spirit to all truth. Keep up the seeking.

[dark_knight]

Thank you again for your thoughtful post.
In my personal faith, there will be a room for thought, consideration and debate - That is how and what we are created.

Perhaps I used the term Demiurge bit too easily, but basically my demonology is in line with yours.
I believe that Logos was the agent of creation of everything, including the Cherub Heylel, who later rebelled against the Father (and the Logos I think) and became known as Satan and the Devil.
St.Michael the Archangel cast him out from the realm of good spirits (the Heaven) and now his power has been reduced to this World (material universe).

I indeed am searching - life is a journey where we do not find all pieces ever. Some things I have found (including Arian Catholism), some not - and will keep searching, as I believe like you, that the Spirit will guide us to all Truth.

Amen and thanks.

[RabbiBarry]

Henrik:

You said: St.Michael the Archangel cast him out from the realm of good spirits (the Heaven) and now his power has been reduced to this World (material universe).

Now it is true that Revelations 12 says that at some time in the future the Great Dragon, Satan of Old, will be cast out of heaven, but on what basis do you say that he has been currently cast out. I think that idea is a Protestant idea that has no scriptural support. And how do you deal with Job 2:1 that says the Sons of G-d, that is, the Archangels, came to YHVH and Satan was with them. He certainly is not cast out in Job. So if Revelations 12 has not occurred, and if you treat Revelations as a chronological prophecy, then the two witnesses have not yet come (Revelations 11) and so Satan has not been cast out, where do you find authority for the claim that he has power only on Earth and has been cast out of heaven.

When you were a Jehovah Witness, you had to spout Witness theology. But now you are free of the Witnesses, so you need to support your claims from Scripture.

[dark_knight]

You are right, and that is a bit problematic to me. As I am quite a keen (though not enough!) student of the Scripture I am fully aware of the passage in Job.

I humbly admit that I presented my statement without any proof whatsoever, and cannot present them at this point either. I do not rely on WT theology in this, but quite (foolishly :confused: ) assumed that maybe it has occured. Perhaps only passage I can present for support of that statement would be Luke 10:18; (again translated from my memory/finnish) "Lo, I saw Satan fell down from heaven like a lightning!"

:vbgrin:

[RabbiBarry]

In the context of the Seventy Two returning from their missionary journey they say that demons are subject to us because of your name. He responds: "I have observed Satan falllike lightning from the sky. Behold, I have given ou the power 'to tread upon serpents' and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you." The statement means clearly that Yeshua has given the Disciples the tools to cast out demons. He implies that their war with Satan and his forces will be successful. He says nothing will harm them. Clearly, he was wrong. The Disciples of Yeshua were persecuted and executed. They suffered harm. From an objective standpoint one has to conclude that the statement was wrong. In fact, it has been my observation that when you exercise a ministry of exorcism, you will be tested and mistreated and maligned and harmed. Now, either Yeshua saw a false vision or he is a liar or the vision has not yet taken place or he just did not know. Yeshua did not see a false vision. Satan cannot stand against the Disciples when they are called to act. Their purpose will be accomplished. He did not lie. He misinterpreted what he saw. He was a man; until he ascended he was like us in every way. When he ascended, he became the Archangel. When he ascended his Neshamah returned to the Archangelic being. When he ascended, He became the vessel of YHVH. When he ascended, he knew the truth about many things he did not previously know. He did not lie, he misinterpreted.

From the standpoint of those like Origen, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Lucian of Antioch, and later Nestorius, Yeshua did not have divinity on him when he was here. He was like us. He was capable of error. Error unless it breaches Torah is not sin. Saints err. Saints try not sin.

It remains a certainty that Satan is part of the Seven Fold servants of YHVH and is still welcome in the Throne Room at the top of the Pyramid that is the Heavens. Likewise, he rules with others in the places of darkness. But they are in the heavenly dimension. Heaven and Hell are not here. The Kingdom of G-d is here and there but not synonymous with Heaven and Hell. Heaven and Hell are subsets in a greater whole called the Kingdom of G-d.

[David Kone]

The falling of Satan from heaven referred to does not mean he did not rise right up again. Until he is chained his perilous flight of contest will continue. When ever demons are cast out, Satan’s foundation is removed from under him causing him to fall. Demons are made of lies and therefore not real, but their effect on our soul is real if we fear them more than we fear being separate from God. In the war Yeshua was referring to, he was correct, nothing could harm them. He was not referring to bodily harm but to the spiritual danger of succumbing to the threats of the master of lies.

I do like that we are talking about Yeshua in terms of his humanness. After all the ages of studying human nature we are still puzzled about our own nature. If we do not understand ourselves it is presumptuous to outline the nature of God when we have no experience to measure with. The master of lies has kept us believing that if we question the divine nature of Yeshua we will be eternally punished. I suspect the word ‘heretic’ is one of the favorites in the demon lexicon.

[RabbiBarry]

I have been an exorcist for 34 years now. I must admit that the effect of an exorcism often appears merely psychological and it is easy to dismiss the event as merely a form of hypnotherapy or psychological counseling, but as I have exorcised psychoanalysts who were thereafter totally surprised with the results, I have to dismiss the idea that it is merely a figment of our imaginations. And then there is the remarkable physical cures that often occur because of an exorcism.

[David Kone]

Although imagination is a serious part of this I would say that intention is the most crucial aspect. In more modern terms I believe this would come under the heading of Thought Field Therapy. I view it as a kind of programming only through the crystalline arrangements of light. In fact I see religion in its highest form as human programming language. This is not just some slight of hand or mere suspension of belief, though these may be part of the tools that come into play, but rather the manipulation of the unseen aspects that comprise the true self. The soul yearns to be free; the exorcist is the disinhibiting agent. Many people, usually those who have suffered some kind of abuse, exist within a hypersuggestable state that makes them easy pray to those evil forces that seek to enslave them. They fall victim to false programming were they operate in a (false) as if real state. This false programming is the lie that demons exist within.

[RabbiBarry]

While this is truly an interesting theory, I tend to believe the ancient truths until science has validation of an alternative view. Psychology is far from an exact science, so I have found no reason to adopt its theories at least on this subject.

[Postulare42]

As an ante-Ireneaus follower of Jesus, I can certainly appreciate the desire to duck dogmatism.

The issue of Jesus' siblings was long ago explained to me as Mary being Joseph's 2nd wife, he bringing prior children into the marriage. That always seemed needless complexity.

I prefer Occam's Razor, i.e. Jesus had siblings. There is no need for more. The issue neither validates nor invalidates the truth inherent in Jesus' message. Why bother.

As far as Jesus being poor . . . I don't accept that either. Nazareth was a very near suburb of an extremely wealthy town, the excavation of which shows no signs of a trade/craft district. . .very like Carmel-by-the-Sea, here in California. With the deforestation by the Roman Empire, wood was an extremely expensive commodity, and woodworking a very lucrative trade. Further, being raised next to an affluent Jewish community, would have added a sophistication to Jesus' early experiences and education. Sounds at least lower-middle class to me. I wonder if Joseph made fishing boats, too ?

I fully concur that to understand Jesus it is vital to understand his milieu. But that's just basic historiography, isn't it ?

Personally, I am completely willing to even accept that Jesus was the son of a Roman legionaire named Pantera. I really don't care. To me, I find no diminution in the truth of Jesus's message in saying that Jesus was the son of an unwed teenage mother, born in a stable, raised by a stepfather, etc. The whole thing seems designed to get under the enemy's radar. Really, who would have thought that the Lord of creation would infiltrate His messanger so effectively and thoroughly.

It all makes for great story. I still don't find it essential.

I have a question, though.

I was told a long time ago, that legitimate sons were called "ben" or "bar"-whomever-their-father-was. But illegitimate sons were called "the-son-of"their mother's name. In the gospel accounts, Jesus has been refered to as "...the son of Mary...". Was I informed correctly?

"Mirriam" means "bitter". "Maryam" can be translated as "rebel" (dim), or so I've been informed. Is this also true ?