Where’s Maury Povich when you need him to travel back in time to figure out who Mary did the nasty with behind Joseph’s back. Oh honey oh Joseph oh no no it’s a virgin birth. To me, Joseph is one cock blocked motherfucker in this story. Talk about power and control, Mary sure pulled a fast one over people of her time and all future generations — well to those who don’t question.
Many promote the Roman soldier rape theory because it provides a naturalistic explanation for Jesus’ questionable paternity while explaining early Christian defensiveness about the virgin birth narrative. The Talmud references “ben Pantera” a possible corruption of (parthenos, virgin) or referencing a soldier named Panthera. This theory suggests the virgin birth doctrine emerged as theological damage control—transforming potential scandal into miraculous conception. It’s historically unprovable but addresses why Matthew and Luke authors felt compelled to include genealogies while simultaneously claiming virgin birth, and why early Christians were so fucking defensive about Jesus’ legitimacy and Mary’s purity.
Wendy, I have a question related to the Book of Mormon that I’ve been dying to ask a scholar of Judaism. I don’t think it requires any knowledge of Mormonism: it has to do with what the self-exiled future Mormons did after arriving in America. May I ask you here? Would you prefer an e-mail? If you indulge me, thank you.
It’s just this: after Lehi’s descendents settle in the Promised Land, they built a new Solomonitemple and chose new high priests for it. This struck me as, to put it mildly, unlikely. I had understood that the reason the Temple of Solomon was built in Jerusalem because that was where God physically made contact with Earth. Similarly, unless one of the group happened to be a descendant of Aaron, none of them were qualified to be priests in the temple. Am I mistaken? From your familiarity with the Tanakh, does it make sense that Lehi and company did these things?
And Secondly, the Aaronic priests (Kohanim) is strictly patrilineal through Aaron's line. No exceptions, no substitutions, no "we'll figure it out ourselves" bullshit. The Torah explicitly states that approaching the sanctuary without proper Levitical credentials results in death (Numbers 18:7). Lehi's tribe isn't specified, but assuming non-Levitical status, his descendants creating their own priesthood would be hillul (desecration) of the highest order.
Joseph’s tribal inheritance creates an even bigger problem. The tribe of Joseph was divided between Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:5), receiving territorial inheritance but zero priestly authority.
Joseph’s descendants have no more right to priesthood than some carpenter from Galilee. The territorial issue makes it worse. Joseph’s inheritance was specifically in Eretz Yisrael—the Promised Land refers to Canaan, not some random American wilderness. The Torah repeatedly emphasizes that tribal inheritances are geographically bound (Joshua 13-21). Moving to another continent doesn’t magically transfer your territorial covenant.
I’m asking about this because most of the criticisms I see of Mormonism treat it as an offshoot of Christianity. That’s fair; that’s how the Mormons treat it. But, according to the Book of Mormon, it was founded by pre-exile Jewish people, and therefore (to my mind) its doctrine and the behavior of its founders ought rightly to be examined from a Jewish perspective. Thank you for your help!
Ok here we go. First off, the Jerusalem Temple's sanctity isn't arbitrary. The Makom refers specifically to Mount Moriah, where Abraham bound Isaac (Aqedah) and where David purchased Araunah's threshing floor (2 Samuel 24:18-25). The Shekhinah (divine presence) dwells there uniquely. You cannot just fucking build another Temple wherever you feel like it—that's exactly the kind of bamot (high places) worship that the prophets consistently condemned as abomination.
This comment misses the point entirely. The argument isn't that there were no more kings—it's that Christianity claims Jesus IS the promised Davidic king despite being genealogically descended through a divinely cursed bloodline that explicitly prohibits any descendant from ever sitting on David's throne. Christians assert Jesus fulfills messianic prophecy while Matthew's genealogy traces him through Jeconiah whom Jeremiah cursed with permanent royal disqualification. It's theological impossibility, not historical observation.
It took me longer to read that article than it did for me to read Numbers, ugh, and I may have skipped a few words, just like when I read Numbers, lol. Still, a lot a lot a lot of words to try and prove a typo or semantic or something. I don't know Hebrew. Sounds impossible to me to read or understand. Even if I did, there is no way I would trust my soul (do we have souls? Prove it!) to it's interpretation.
I mean, Hebrew is a decidely easy language to learn. Its not particularly complex (Id equate it to Hawaiian which is equally simple. Most Judaic kids grow up being forced -- or encouraged actually -- to learn the hebrew language sets.).
Greek is also Similar in ease. Those were much easier to me than German (and I have a fluent german language understanding).
Wendy, I just want you to know I have read every one of these posts. Just haven't commented although I always have plenty to say. I do have a two-pronged question, though. Since Jesus' lineage was Davidic, the line through his foster father, how can any of the lineage be construed as Messianic? And wouldn't that render the Jeconiah problem moot? And if these are totally stooopid questions, please let me know. I haven't studied Bible since the 2010s . . . from the King James AND in a fundamentalist (yikes!) Baptist church.
On the second part, the Jeconiah curse in Jeremiah 22:30 states that none of his descendants would prosper on David's throne. Matthew includes Jeconiah in Jesus' genealogy, creating a massive theological shitstorm. Luke's genealogy sidesteps this by going through Nathan instead of Solomon. So in this, the virgin birth actually creates the Jeconiah problem rather than solving it—if Joseph isn't the father, why include his cursed lineage at all? Simple. It is Circular logic. And impossible.
It's either a can of worms or Pandora's box. Are we talking about the prophet Nathan, who gave David holy hell over Bathsheba. And yes, you are the only person who has ever acknowledged the BLOODLESS lineage through David. And I'm probably going to go to hell. I'm a lapsed Catholic and my sister is a Baptist minister. Pray for me.
Different Nathan (Im still shocked that people think that Hebrews who spoke PURELY Judaic Hebrew used Romanized names right?)—you're thinking of the prophet who called out David's Bathsheba bullshit. Luke traces through Nathan the son of David, David's kid, not the prophet.
And fuck your Catholic guilt—questioning theological contradictions doesn't damn anyone.
Your Baptist minister sister probably never examined (Like Most Baptists who only take what their pastor feeds them, rather than actually studying the fucking text themselves) how Matthew's genealogy creates impossible Davidic succession through a cursed bloodline. Biblical literacy isn't heresy, it's intellectual honesty.
I'm very grateful to you for taking the time to respond to all this. I do know, however, that your typing speed on a keyboard is about 2.5 million words so I don't feel too bad. The cursed bloodline is fascinating. Maybe I'll take a short break from the shit storm in DC and research this. It may keep me out of trouble for a day or two.
Right off, the Davidic lineage through Joseph creates a goddamn paradox: if Jesus is born of a virgin then Joseph's genealogy is genealogically irrelevant. Matthew and Luke both trace Davidic descent through Joseph, but if he's not the biological father, what's the point? This is where Jewish legal concepts of yibbumm (levirate adoption) and patrilineal inheritance come into play—Joseph's legal adoption would confer tribal and royal standing, but it's still a theological stretch that makes many scholars uncomfortable.
Tribal and royal standing: still leaves out the blood. And the new testament contains gallons of blood, but not Joseph's. My head is going to explode now. Thank you, Wendy. Hope I didn't ruin your Monday. I still love you. (smiley face here)
I aim to please Jan. I am happy to discuss with a proper person , who comes in and asks questions, rather than someone who attacks me by saying "AI Wrote this".
But fine. The Jeremiah 22:30 curse against Jeconiah doesn't become less real because you suspect that the article is influenced by AI rather than an actual person (in this case me).
The divine prohibition (loa yitzlaach mizaro ish yosheva al-kisse David -- Apologizing in advance as my SPELLING MIGHT BE OFF) still permanently disqualifies Jesus from legitimate Davidic successsor as theological impossibility. Dismiss the messenger if you want, but the biblical contradiction remains unfuckingresolved.
Im happy to see you attempt to refute it.....if you want....Ill leave my texts on my desk open and waiting.
Where’s Maury Povich when you need him to travel back in time to figure out who Mary did the nasty with behind Joseph’s back. Oh honey oh Joseph oh no no it’s a virgin birth. To me, Joseph is one cock blocked motherfucker in this story. Talk about power and control, Mary sure pulled a fast one over people of her time and all future generations — well to those who don’t question.
Raped by Roman soldiers
Well, I wasn’t there so no way of knowing. Maybe she was a willing participant with someone and not raped by Roman soldiers.
That’s the common suggestion though
Many promote the Roman soldier rape theory because it provides a naturalistic explanation for Jesus’ questionable paternity while explaining early Christian defensiveness about the virgin birth narrative. The Talmud references “ben Pantera” a possible corruption of (parthenos, virgin) or referencing a soldier named Panthera. This theory suggests the virgin birth doctrine emerged as theological damage control—transforming potential scandal into miraculous conception. It’s historically unprovable but addresses why Matthew and Luke authors felt compelled to include genealogies while simultaneously claiming virgin birth, and why early Christians were so fucking defensive about Jesus’ legitimacy and Mary’s purity.
Wendy, I have a question related to the Book of Mormon that I’ve been dying to ask a scholar of Judaism. I don’t think it requires any knowledge of Mormonism: it has to do with what the self-exiled future Mormons did after arriving in America. May I ask you here? Would you prefer an e-mail? If you indulge me, thank you.
Im in a live session atm on substack, but Ill answer just as soon as Im done.
It’s just this: after Lehi’s descendents settle in the Promised Land, they built a new Solomonitemple and chose new high priests for it. This struck me as, to put it mildly, unlikely. I had understood that the reason the Temple of Solomon was built in Jerusalem because that was where God physically made contact with Earth. Similarly, unless one of the group happened to be a descendant of Aaron, none of them were qualified to be priests in the temple. Am I mistaken? From your familiarity with the Tanakh, does it make sense that Lehi and company did these things?
And Secondly, the Aaronic priests (Kohanim) is strictly patrilineal through Aaron's line. No exceptions, no substitutions, no "we'll figure it out ourselves" bullshit. The Torah explicitly states that approaching the sanctuary without proper Levitical credentials results in death (Numbers 18:7). Lehi's tribe isn't specified, but assuming non-Levitical status, his descendants creating their own priesthood would be hillul (desecration) of the highest order.
I looked it up: Lehi is descended from Joseph.
Joseph’s tribal inheritance creates an even bigger problem. The tribe of Joseph was divided between Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:5), receiving territorial inheritance but zero priestly authority.
Joseph’s descendants have no more right to priesthood than some carpenter from Galilee. The territorial issue makes it worse. Joseph’s inheritance was specifically in Eretz Yisrael—the Promised Land refers to Canaan, not some random American wilderness. The Torah repeatedly emphasizes that tribal inheritances are geographically bound (Joshua 13-21). Moving to another continent doesn’t magically transfer your territorial covenant.
I’m asking about this because most of the criticisms I see of Mormonism treat it as an offshoot of Christianity. That’s fair; that’s how the Mormons treat it. But, according to the Book of Mormon, it was founded by pre-exile Jewish people, and therefore (to my mind) its doctrine and the behavior of its founders ought rightly to be examined from a Jewish perspective. Thank you for your help!
Ok here we go. First off, the Jerusalem Temple's sanctity isn't arbitrary. The Makom refers specifically to Mount Moriah, where Abraham bound Isaac (Aqedah) and where David purchased Araunah's threshing floor (2 Samuel 24:18-25). The Shekhinah (divine presence) dwells there uniquely. You cannot just fucking build another Temple wherever you feel like it—that's exactly the kind of bamot (high places) worship that the prophets consistently condemned as abomination.
So, then there were no more kings. Sounds right. Not sure what the argument is.
This comment misses the point entirely. The argument isn't that there were no more kings—it's that Christianity claims Jesus IS the promised Davidic king despite being genealogically descended through a divinely cursed bloodline that explicitly prohibits any descendant from ever sitting on David's throne. Christians assert Jesus fulfills messianic prophecy while Matthew's genealogy traces him through Jeconiah whom Jeremiah cursed with permanent royal disqualification. It's theological impossibility, not historical observation.
It took me longer to read that article than it did for me to read Numbers, ugh, and I may have skipped a few words, just like when I read Numbers, lol. Still, a lot a lot a lot of words to try and prove a typo or semantic or something. I don't know Hebrew. Sounds impossible to me to read or understand. Even if I did, there is no way I would trust my soul (do we have souls? Prove it!) to it's interpretation.
I mean, Hebrew is a decidely easy language to learn. Its not particularly complex (Id equate it to Hawaiian which is equally simple. Most Judaic kids grow up being forced -- or encouraged actually -- to learn the hebrew language sets.).
Greek is also Similar in ease. Those were much easier to me than German (and I have a fluent german language understanding).
I knew you were smart. I barely know one language. Doesn't stop me, though, from having an opinion on just about everything.
I wouldnt dream of stopping anyone from doing anything.
I wasn't implying that you would. More of a warning lol
Wendy, I just want you to know I have read every one of these posts. Just haven't commented although I always have plenty to say. I do have a two-pronged question, though. Since Jesus' lineage was Davidic, the line through his foster father, how can any of the lineage be construed as Messianic? And wouldn't that render the Jeconiah problem moot? And if these are totally stooopid questions, please let me know. I haven't studied Bible since the 2010s . . . from the King James AND in a fundamentalist (yikes!) Baptist church.
On the second part, the Jeconiah curse in Jeremiah 22:30 states that none of his descendants would prosper on David's throne. Matthew includes Jeconiah in Jesus' genealogy, creating a massive theological shitstorm. Luke's genealogy sidesteps this by going through Nathan instead of Solomon. So in this, the virgin birth actually creates the Jeconiah problem rather than solving it—if Joseph isn't the father, why include his cursed lineage at all? Simple. It is Circular logic. And impossible.
It's either a can of worms or Pandora's box. Are we talking about the prophet Nathan, who gave David holy hell over Bathsheba. And yes, you are the only person who has ever acknowledged the BLOODLESS lineage through David. And I'm probably going to go to hell. I'm a lapsed Catholic and my sister is a Baptist minister. Pray for me.
Different Nathan (Im still shocked that people think that Hebrews who spoke PURELY Judaic Hebrew used Romanized names right?)—you're thinking of the prophet who called out David's Bathsheba bullshit. Luke traces through Nathan the son of David, David's kid, not the prophet.
And fuck your Catholic guilt—questioning theological contradictions doesn't damn anyone.
Your Baptist minister sister probably never examined (Like Most Baptists who only take what their pastor feeds them, rather than actually studying the fucking text themselves) how Matthew's genealogy creates impossible Davidic succession through a cursed bloodline. Biblical literacy isn't heresy, it's intellectual honesty.
I'm very grateful to you for taking the time to respond to all this. I do know, however, that your typing speed on a keyboard is about 2.5 million words so I don't feel too bad. The cursed bloodline is fascinating. Maybe I'll take a short break from the shit storm in DC and research this. It may keep me out of trouble for a day or two.
Right off, the Davidic lineage through Joseph creates a goddamn paradox: if Jesus is born of a virgin then Joseph's genealogy is genealogically irrelevant. Matthew and Luke both trace Davidic descent through Joseph, but if he's not the biological father, what's the point? This is where Jewish legal concepts of yibbumm (levirate adoption) and patrilineal inheritance come into play—Joseph's legal adoption would confer tribal and royal standing, but it's still a theological stretch that makes many scholars uncomfortable.
Tribal and royal standing: still leaves out the blood. And the new testament contains gallons of blood, but not Joseph's. My head is going to explode now. Thank you, Wendy. Hope I didn't ruin your Monday. I still love you. (smiley face here)
I aim to please Jan. I am happy to discuss with a proper person , who comes in and asks questions, rather than someone who attacks me by saying "AI Wrote this".
Phew, alright, Here we go.
I'd put up a smiley face but I'm severely Substack emoji challenged.
I believe this is AI.
I don't think so.
She might be an angel
I know thats not even close to true. lol.
But fine. The Jeremiah 22:30 curse against Jeconiah doesn't become less real because you suspect that the article is influenced by AI rather than an actual person (in this case me).
The divine prohibition (loa yitzlaach mizaro ish yosheva al-kisse David -- Apologizing in advance as my SPELLING MIGHT BE OFF) still permanently disqualifies Jesus from legitimate Davidic successsor as theological impossibility. Dismiss the messenger if you want, but the biblical contradiction remains unfuckingresolved.
Im happy to see you attempt to refute it.....if you want....Ill leave my texts on my desk open and waiting.
My annotated Tanahk and Greek interlinear New Testament , along with my Judaic Talmud disagree
Thank you so much for this lesson in Thelogy! This is so interesting I love Theology!!