So was this Jesuschrists biological father?

Jesus is God's son. No biology involved. It was a historically established miracle

>>2742534
According to the Jews who hate him, and the fantasy they wrote.

So, No.

>>2742534
Jesus didn't exist, anon.

>>2742557
You don't exist, Anon.

>>2742548
Mary carrying him in her womb and birthing him is biology. Or are you saying her vagina is divine?

>>2742534

Yes, anon.

>>2742676
divine seed

>>2742534
haven't you read Luke or Matthew? both says it was Joseph

>>2742734
Joseph is an adoptive father. Pantera is the biological father he had when he slept with Mary. Mary afraid of being shamed a whore for her affair with this Roman got protection from Joseph.

>>2742795
Source for this blasphemous bullshit?

>>2742802

https://web.archive.org/web/20060427150628/duke.usask.ca/~niallm/252/Celstop.htm

>>2742534
thats some esoteric talmudposting senpai
only autistic rabbis and true antisemites will understand

>>2742534
Sup chaim. No one believes that crap

>>2742802
Angry jews from the 2nd century ad

The jews are still killing Christ it seems.

>>2742827

Anyone familiar with early classical sources on Jesus and Christianity will understand.

File: jacko.jpg (146KB, 903x713px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 903x713px

>>2742833
Lmai fedoras btto!!! Ebin upvoted

No. At least, there's no reason to think he was. The idea that Jesus was a Roman bastard seems to have originated in the second century among groups that obviously didn't like Christians and were trying to insult them. None of the sources actually close to Jesus's life mention it, and you'd think that if it was common knowledge (as Celsus implied), someone would have brought it up earlier. It just doesn't seem to come from anywhere except made up insults.

And even if Jesus's father was a Roman soldier (which probably wasn't the case), there's no reason to think it was that Pantera. Pantera was a pretty common name among soldiers at the time; the only reason that specific one is associated with Jesus is entirely based on coincidence.

>>2743733
It seems to make the most sense the theory. I don't think it's an insult, just a logical conclusion.

>>2742534
He who denies the father and so on

>>2745283
It really doesn't, though. Especially because the earliest Christian writings don't even make a big deal about Jesus's birth or parentage. The Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke didn't come until later. People seemed to take for granted the fact that he was Joseph's son, and it was widely acknowledged by the his community. Even the stories that say his father wasn't Joseph make efforts to connect him to Joseph's lineage, which also imply that people who knew him thought Joseph was his father.

Speculating that he was a Roman bastard is entirely the result of working backwards from Christian claims about Jesus's birth being unusual in some way, even though there's no reason to think that it was.