THE HIDDEN TRUTHS OF THE BIBLE

ETERNAL GNOSIS:
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE VATICAN
Includes the evidence of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene and the supreme teaching about sex

IN THIS VOLUME
Mary's virginity - truth or symbolism? The real original sin Mary Magdalene: the Jesus wife The offspring of the Nazarenes

Of interest to theologians, sociologists, historians, anthropologists, specialists in comparative religion, and in general,

Las Verdades Ocultas de la Biblia

to followers of all Christian denominations

THE HIDDEN TRUTHS OF THE BIBLE

ETERNAL GNOSIS:
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE VATICAN
TRANSLATED BY GEORGE TEODOR CROITORU
FOREWORD BY JOS LUIS GIMNEZ RODRGUEZ

J. Lallemant

Original title:

LAS VERDADES OCULTAS DE LA BIBLIA

Gnosis eterna: El principio del fin del Vaticano Bubok Publishing S.L. All rights reserved It is strictly prohibited, without written permission of the copyright holders, under the penalties provided by law, the total or partial reproduction of this work by any means or process, including photocopying and computer processing and the distribution of copies by rental or public lending. Copyrights 2013 J. Lallemant, Bogota D.C., Colombia Translated by George Teodor Croitoru Dottore in Lingue e Letterature Moderne georgecroitoru@yahoo.com Cover: The Pantocrator - Hagia Sophia (Istanbul) The Hidden Truths of the Bible www.lasverdadesocultasdelabiblia.com First edition ISBN: 978-84-686-2756-4 from the printed edition ISBN: 978-84-686-2757-1 from the digital edition Copyrighted BUBOK PUBLISHING S.L. www.bubok.es C/Aguacate, 41 Portal A2 1 Planta, oficina 8 28054 Madrid, Spain 2013

Las Verdades Ocultas de la Biblia

If you want to market this book wholesale from 100 copies you can get more information on the website.

Jesus is dead! Long live the Christ! Jesus said, those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will rule over all. Rather, the Father's imperial rule is inside you and outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty. Jesus said, those who know all, but are lacking in themselves, are utterly lacking. Jesus said, I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. Gnostic Gospel of Thomas

The main objective of this book is to make every person to understand that all human being can rid from their own psychology the causes of pain, diseases and death itself.

The main objective of this book is to make every person to understand that all human being can become themself a living Christ.

Las Verdades Ocultas de la Biblia

The main objective of this book is that each person can do the work of the Father.

"We found that the history of Christianity bequeathed to us by the Roman Church was a gross distortion of the truth. Actually the evidence completely endorsed the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. It was becoming increasingly obvious that we had been deliberately deceived, that the Gnostics were indeed the original Christians, and that their anarchic mysticism had been hijacked by an authoritarian institution which had created from it a dogmatic religion and then brutally enforced the greatest coverup in history". Timothy Fredke and Peter Gandy Secrets of the da Vinci code. Burstein, Dan One form of Christianity... emerged as victorious from the conflicts of the second and third centuries. This one form of Christianity decided what was the correct Christian perspective; it decided who could exercise authority over Christian belief and practice; and it determined what forms of Christianity would be marginalized, set aside, destroyed. It also decided which books to canonize into Scripture and which books to set aside as heretical, teaching false ideas... Only twentyseven of the early Christian books were finally included in the canon, copied by scribes through the ages, eventually translated into English, and now on bookshelves in virtually every home in America. Other books came to be rejected, scorned, maligned, attacked, burned, all but forgotten lost. Bart D. Ehrman Secrets of the da Vinci code. Burstein, Dan

Index

Prologue INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1
1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY THE DIVERSITY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN CURRENTS NAZARENES AND NEO-NAZARENES TOWARDS A NEW RELIGION 1.3.1. The Council of Nicaea 1.3.2. Athanasianism and Arianism 1.3.3. The extermination of the heresy 1.4. THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS 1.5. THE TRIUMPH OF THE EARTY CHRISTIANITY

CHAPTER 2
2. 2.1. 2.2. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SECRET TEACHING LITERAL AND SYMBOLIC CONTEXT IN THE BIBLE CATHOLICISM AND GNOSTICISM 2.2.1. The various ways to understand a message

2.2.2. The secret part of the message

CHAPTER 3
3. 3.1. 3.2. MARYS VIRGINITY - TRUTH OF SYMBOLISM? BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS 3.2.1. Advanced Technology 3.2.2. The Jinn states 3.3. MORAL ASPECTS 3.3.1. Method of dissuasion to honor God 3.3.2. Method of dissuasion for the change of behavior 3.3.3. Method for a later reputation as virgin 3.4. HISTORICAL ASPECTS 3.4.1. The historical-mythical version 3.4.2. The story in the Gospels 3.5. MARY, MOTHER AND WOMAN 3.6. MARRIAGE IN THE TIME OF JESUS 3.7. THE PROPHECIES 3.8. PROBABLE STAGES OF THE VIRGINITY 3.9. THE ANNOUNCING SCHEME 3.10. THE ENGAGEMENT 3.11. THE CONCEPTION 3.12. THE MARRIAGE IN THE TRUE SENSE 3.12.1. He did not know her until Jesus was born 3.12.2. Applicability of the expression until 3.12.3. The expression until in Mt 1, 25 3.13. THE BIRTH 3.14. THE VIRGINITY VOW

3.15. FIRSTBORN AND ONLY-BEGOTTEN 3.15.1. Josephs firstborn 3.15.2. Marys firstborn 3.16. JESUS BROTHERS 3.16.1. Abbreviated familiar connection 3.16.2. The koin 3.16.3. His brothers, disciples and followers 3.16.4. Kinship 3.16.5. James, Jesus brother 3.16.6. Mary, mother of James and Joseph 3.16.7. Mary, Cleophas wife 3.16.8. Judas James brother 3.16.9. The Two Widows 3.16.10. The beloved disciple and Marys attention 3.16.11. Brotherhood relationships 3.16.12. Josephs sons 3.16.13. The names of Jesus brothers 3.17. BORN OF A WOMAN 3.18. DAVIDS SON ACCORDING TO THE FLESH 3.18.1. The genealogy 3.18.2. Josephs son or Helis son 3.19. MARYS MORAL TRAGEDY 3.19.1. The Jewish sources 3.19.2. Marys greatness 3.20. THE SONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 3.1.1. The possibility of becoming a child of God

3.20.2. The Holy Spirit 3.20.3. The dove 3.21. THE BIRTH OF SOL INVICTUS 3.22. THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS 3.23. A.Z.F. ARCANUM

CHAPTER 4
4. 4.1. 4.2. EL VERDADERO PECADO ORIGINAL LA NATURALEZA DEL PECADO ORIGINAL EL EDN 4.2.1. El Jardn del Edn 4.2.2. El Jardn de las Hesprides 4.2.3. Correlaciones entre el Jardn del Edn y el Jardn de las Hesprides 4.3. EL RBOL DE LA CIENCIA DEL BIEN Y DEL MAL 4.4. EL ROL DE LA MUJER 4.5. EL TENTADOR 4.5.1. La serpiente 4.5.2. La desobediencia pecado o virtud? 4.5.3. El Cristo Lucifer 4.6. EL RBOL DE LA VIDA 4.7. UNA APROXIMACIN SIMBLICA 4.8. EL VERDADERO PECADO ORIGINAL 4.8.1. Un fruto, en el sentido literal 4.8.2. El sexo como fruto prohibido 4.8.3. Desnudez paradisiaca y desnudez pecaminosa 4.8.4. El rbol de la ciencia del bien y del mal fuera del Edn

4.9.

LOS HIJOS DE DIOS Y LOS HIJOS DE LOS HOMBRES 4.9.1. Los hijos de Adn y Eva 4.9.2. La herencia del pecado original 4.9.3. La causa de la muerte 4.10. ES POSIBLE VOLVER AL EDN? 4.10.1. No comer ms del fruto prohibido 4.10.2. Desnudos y en pareja

CAPTULO 5
5. 5.1. 5.2. MARA MAGDALENA: LA ESPOSA DE JESS ASPECTOS HISTRICOS EL MATRIMONIO: EL PRIMER MANDAMIENTO 5.2.1. El Matrimonio: Funcin natural 5.2.2. El matrimonio: El primer Mandamiento 5.2.3. El hombre se hizo para la mujer y la mujer el hombre JESS: EL HOMBRE, EL HUMANO 5.3.1. Jess: el hombre, el humano 5.3.2. El celibato 5.3.3. Jess y el Matrimonio 5.3.4. La tradicin juda PASAJES INTRIGANTES 5.4.1. Jess: Rey, Sacerdote y Maestro 5.4.2. La cruz 5.4.3. La samaritana 5.4.4. Las bodas de Can MARA MAGDALENA 5.5.1. Las diferentes Maras 5.5.2. El pasaje de Lzaro

para 5.3.

5.4.

5.5.

5.6. 5.7. 5.8.

5.5.3. La uncin 5.5.4. Crucifixin, muerte, sepultura y resurreccin 5.5.5. El discpulo amado EL ESPOSO LOS PASAJES DE LOS EVANGELIOS GNSTICOS LA SUPREMA ENSEANZA ACERCA DEL SEXO

CAPTULO 6
6. LA DESCENDENCIA DEL NAZARENO 6.1. EL DERECHO DE TODO HOMBRE 6.2. LOS JUDOS: PUEBLO DE FERTILIDAD Y MULTIPLICACIN 6.3. EL MATRIMONIO 6.3.1. Matrimonio pagano y matrimonio judo 6.3.2. Un matrimonio se constituye para tener hijos 6.4. LA EVIDENCIA DE LAS ACUSACIONES 6.5. LA ESPERANZA DE VIDA EN LA PALESTINA DE LOS TIEMPOS DE JESS 6.6. EL CLIZ: EL RECEPTCULO DE SU SANGRE 6.7. PINTURAS EN QUE SE REPRESENTA A MARA MAGDALENA EN ESTADO DE GESTACIN 6.8. LOS EVANGELIOS 6.8.1. Los Evangelios Gnsticos 6.8.2. Los libros cannicos 6.9. MARA MAGDALENA EN EL APOCALIPSIS 6.10. LOS NOMBRES DE LOS HIJOS DE JESS ULTILOX REFERENCES

LIST OF BOOKS ABBREVIATION

Prologue
The Hidden Truths of the Bible When I received an email, where I was asked the permission to use a photography included in my two books: The Legacy of Mary Magdalene, Amares - 2005 and The Triumph of Mary Magdalene: Checkmate to the Inquisition, Corona Borealis - 2007 , where Mary Magdalene appears pregnant of Jesus, I did not pay too much importance and I accepted pleased, as is my custom. Soon after, the author itself, asked me to make a little preface to this book, and I accepted gladly despite the fact of not knowing the content yet. The truth is that, when I received the original manuscript, and despite being limited in time, reading it made me pleasantly surprised, as it treated some of the themes that both excited me and that made me spend several years of investigation. The title itself is already explicit enough, because as the reader will discover in the course of the reading of this book, the official history of Christianity and, therefore, the narrative in the canonical Gospels of the New Testament have little matching with the truth. A truth that has remained hidden for more than two thousand years, and that has been undermined and manipulated. I will not go into detail at this time all the falsehoods and manipulations that have been made through the official history that was shown to us by the Church and that has been "camouflaged" conveniently in the "holy" books, but it is enough a small sample of the above to make the reader aware of how far such manipulation can go:
Not all truths must be explained to all men.

Such an overwhelming phrase was written by the Bishop Clement of Alexandria, one of the fathers of the Church and it perfectly defines the policy adopted by that institution from the earliest times to become the official religion the Roman Empire, and one of the major religions around the world. From leftovers it is known that Jesus used two forms of language: a simple one, based on parables, to the public, used for explaining to the ordinary people those matters that they should clearly know and another more hidden one, esoteric or gnostic, intended to expose those teachings that not everyone could know to his disciples. When Jesus was asked by his disciples about it, he replied:
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the rest in parables; that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.. Luke 8:10

As we see, Jesus himself is in charge to make clear that not everyone has access to discover the mysteries of God, the gnosis, the knowledge. And, as rightly shows J. Lallemant in The hidden truths of the Bible, the official history of Christianity, nothing or very little has to do with the doctrine or the original intent of those Jews, belonging to the sect of the Nazarenes or Nazaritas, from which would arise the Messiah; from the Hebrew word (mashaj, anointed); The Anointed, the Christ; in Greek (khrists, anointed). There is no need to step back far in time to observe the attitude of the Church. In fact, in 2005, following the great success of Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code," the Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (Cardinal Camerlengo and Secretary of State of the Vatican) even forbade parishioners to buy and read that book! And that was a

simple novel! While it is also true that the basis on which it is argued is not too far from the truth. This gives us an idea of how far they can get in order to keep control over the will of Catholic Christians. But lets go back in time and return to the origin. It was the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, thanks to the imperative need of holding together the Empire, who, in 325 AD, decided to summon the first Ecumenical Council of the New Apostolic Roman Catholic Church at Nicaea, formalizing it as the new religion of the Empire. Although it would be not until the year 380 when the Emperor Theodosius, by the editorial of Thessaloniki, also known as "Cunctos Populos" would decree the total officialdom of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire. Since the Council of Nicaea, pagan rituals are introduced in the Catholic religious services, the gospels or manuscripts called apocryphal are removed, annoying or uncomfortable to the new official religion of the Empire, the writings, until then regarded as true, are adulterated, to suit them to the needs of the Empire, dogmas of faith are created, the Nicene Creed is written to elevate Christ, which was hitherto followed by the Christians supporters of Jesus, to the status of God and, ultimately, a new religion was created, the product of a syncretism between the pagan customs of the Romans and the Christian rituals. And if something the Romans knew to do very well was to appropriate of the Gods, and if the new religion of the Empire lacked of the human image of God, it should be created, and so it was done. Thus, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was a touchstone in the Christian History. All that does not comply with what was agreed in that council would be deemed as heresy,

and would be through heresy and on behalf of a God who would come to produce true holocaust, indiscriminate killings, crusades among the own Christians (or Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars), until obtaining a forced homogeneity of the various Christian groups, even if it would never occur a complete homogenization of the Christian religion. One of the greatest heresies, punished by death at the stake, but not before going through all kinds of torture, was referring to the human nature of Jesus, and therefore his marital relationship with Mary Magdalene, with whom he would get his offspring. This issue, despite having been discussed among the members of the Church and some authors, like the writer itself, it is no less relevant nor lacks of credibility, as it can be the canonical Gospels, the only accepted by the Church as mentioned earlier in this preface, in the books already mentioned, and shows the relevant physical evidence of the true marital relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their offspring. In The hidden truths of the Bible, J. Lallemant presents the hidden story intentionally ignored by the Church and de facto, as well as a Gnostic Jesus, human and divine at the same time, able to become the Christ who decides to give his life for the truth. Barcelona, October 30, 2012 Jos Luis Gimnez Rodrguez www.jlgimenez.es

INTRODUCTION
Christianity is much deeper than it is usually considered, more authentic, more mysterious. Christianity has an inexhaustible teaching that has never been taught to the crowds on the pretext that they were not mature enough. And perhaps it is true that many people are not yet ready to know the Truth, but it is our duty at this time just to publish the occult teaching, the Christian mysteries that were hidden for more than two thousand years beyond any affable speech uttered by the pastor or the priest in the pulpit. In this regard, it is possible to obtain prolific evidence, as it is discussed below. 1 Cor 2, 6: We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: 7: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8: which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Saint Pauls words are positive in the way that there is a hidden wisdom, a wisdom that was usually not transmitted to the bulk of humanity, but kept hidden from those who were worthy of understanding the mysteries, and Jesus himself spoke to the crowds in parables while to his disciples secretly revealed it all (Mk 4, 33-34). In this sense, Christianity, as many other religions, is a mysterious religion in which the public teaching is revealed to the masses, while the mysterious wisdom remains hidden. However, what at first was hidden only so that the masses did not get access to the greatest mysteries of Christianity, at the time that it grew, it started to disappear, until finally Christianity became an empty shell without a teaching allowing the radical transformation of the persons without its primal wisdom, without those great Christic mysteries for which the first apostles gave their lives and die as martyrs.

In that line of thought, the contemporary Christianity that was taught to us, forced by the circumstances, was only a corruption of the original early Christianity. Unquestionably the mysteries that were taught in secret stopped being taught in the first centuries of our era and what has got to us has just been institutionalized only in an external and void form while the biggest mystery is the Belief (the Belief is the principle of subjugation and slavery). But in the beginning it was not so, and this was showed also by the different branches of Christianity that were reputed as heretical by the version of Christianity that prevailed at the time and subsequently, became a kind of stylized and imperialist Christianity. The great mysteries of the beginning were gradually forgotten and Christianity became an institution where the great initial truths are reduced to a free counseling preaching (apparently free). However, it is clear that behind the biblical text are hidden great truths and mysteries; behind the biblical text lays a thick and incomparable teaching that rejects contemporary Christianity despite the sacred text which supports the ratification and the evidence. It is necessary to expose the agonizing cult of Rome and to reveal a legitimate Christianity on the steaming ruins of the Vatican. And in that sense is presented this book, so that humanity can learn all the fundamentals of the legitimate Christianity and to radically transform to become Christ, to embody and to experience an authentic nativity 1, by themselves, not through some clumsy guide. The Hidden Truths of the Bible are an attempt to restore that order, to lift the veil and indicate, with a loud command, to the new generations, with reasoning more clear and free of all dogmatic and blind contamination, to recognize in these pages a real and vivid path of the early Christianity that leads directly to the Father, while
1

Until Christ is vividly born in the hearts of all, so that each of us can say: Christ is born in me, and I have incarnated, I AM A CHRISTIFIED.

empowering us to the final emancipation of all the false priests of all religions and all kinds of belief. For this purpose we have chosen in this book to approach our research based on the biblical text itself. We believe that, using the symbolism that vivifies and not the literalism that kills, we can recover the truth in the midst of darkness, the legitimate teaching that cuffs and discredits directly the dogma that is usually professed. And we will do this so the Christian world could check it itself and return to its fundamental roots, to the forgotten old teaching. Likewise, and when necessary, we will also rely on the Gnostic Gospels, the mythological references, the comparative religion, the sacred books of other religions (because Gnosticism is more than a medley, it is a universal synthesis) and to biological and scientific aspects to reinforce what the Bible, with prior notice, ratified, openly or veiled. The biblical transcription that we will use is the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, when appropriate using the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 (especially when it is a priority to understand a particular meaning). Also, if applicable, we will use complementary other versions when appropriate, especially in the case of omission of books by the ASV and KJV. At first we thought that these hidden truths will gradually continue appearing in different volumes and different themes until all of the topics posted are covered, it does not imply a strict rule in the sense of excluding others because, arguably, there is a whole universe of things brewing and, in due course, should come to light. However, being only the practice of Three Factors the ultimate synthesis of all religious systems and doctrine that allows the revolution of consciousness and ultimate union with Christ, it is clear that we are always attentive

to direct it toward it - even without intending we would invariably arrive always at the same point. Gnosticism, as the legitimate representative trend of early Christians, claims the right to the truth and that mankind does not remain deceived. The Gnostic teaching is only the biblical teaching; the Gnostic teaching is just teaching that can be evidenced from the same text of the Holy Scriptures; the Gnostic teaching is merely the ratification of Christ because we did not come to abolish the Christic teachings, but to verify them (cf. Mt 5, 17). The Hidden Truths of the Bible start from there, and we are convinced that can raise eventually a revolution within Christianity, that there will emerge a new vision, that we will achieve, even if only partially, to put a stone in the guardian wall and to contribute so humanity can be free, absolutely free and happy.

CHAPTER 1
THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

1. THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

The Church has always tried to conceal that Christianity was born within the Nazarenes or Nazarenes, a Gnostic Jewish current. THE DIVERSITY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN CURRENT The Contemporary Christianity1 we have agreed to, by necessity forced by the circumstances, was only a corruption of the original primitive Christianity, not only due to the same way it was presented, but also because of various historical circumstances that had to occur during its formation and development, and other various elements. Christianity in its beginnings, in a greater or lesser scale, was transmitted orally, and this in itself implies an interpretation of the message. And, even when it is also transmitted in written form, the way it was communicated also involves the interpretation of the message. That means, whether it was oral or written, the way it was transmitted to Christianity bears different assessments in people and different circumstances. These different interpretations and insights, as well as the very form in which it is assimilated, are conditioned by several factors and are not uniform. It is undisputed that when someone transmits and teaches a message to a specific audience, the message is not apprehended by all in an identical manner, but varies according to the perceptions and culture of each individual, - there have to be preserved similar elements,
1

1.1.

We understand here the contemporary Christianity as the sum of the currents of actual thought that base the beliefs or profess their faith in Christ.

part of them in the background. So, the message that Jesus conveyed in secret to his apostles is processed to them according to their own psychosocial constraints, cultural influences, according to their own experiences, needs, dreams, hopes, etc., and, when this message processed is broadcast, although it has to contain the main points of the message, has a specific dye, a special tint that makes it individual.
1 Cor 1, 11: For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12: Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

This particularity, also helped by the adherence of the followers to the message that is regarded with more charisma, more truth, or just with the one that mostidentified the due also to its own internal constraints, needs, beliefs, etc. - creates what we might call " different schools of thought" coming to condense them in different branches of Christianity. Of course, everything has a gestation process and, therefore, in the beginning these different currents were hardly distinguishable, being characteristic of them the intensity with which they transmit the charisma and the approach that the transmitter will permeate to the message. The particularization actually occurs over time, and is the same time and spontaneous or provoked circumstances which are characterizing the message. Thus, it is quite natural that eventually the message acquires nuances that make it varied, and within communities where it has been christened the phenomenon is presented that indicates Paul of Tarsus when he accuses that there are some ones who claim to follow the message of Paul, others the one of Apollos, others the one of Cephas, and

the others the one of Christ, without quoting others who undoubtedly had to occur. At this point there are two very interesting things. The first is that Chloes community shows us as Pauls Christians1 because, although Paul advocates by following alone the Christ, the truth is that this same position becomes that charisma and special nuance that beats the followers. On the other hand, the community did not attend Peter or other of the disciples, but Paul instead, and this already indicates that he is their authority or religious leader. And Paul himself indicates that there are some who claim to belong to Paul, i.e. Christians of Paul. The second issue is that the Corinthian community had already received other Christian influences, although Paul is aware of it and he closely follows it. And is it clear that the other apostles have focused their scope in other areas and in other communities, but if this is perceived in one community what could be seen in other communities? Even if inside of the other communities had not been divergence or adherence to different lines of the message, even if that community was unanimous about the message Paul gave, or Peter, or John, etc.., the same sympathy and identification with that person and his message, the characterization and identification, but that same characterization also individualizes and arises at a minor or major scale, the heterogeneity of the message, which in time will cause major characterizations to be noted and more sharpened within the nascent Christianity. The Christian message is the common element that unites all of these communities, but we must also consider, forced on the circumstances, due to the process of formation of that Christianity, that Christianity is not homogeneous, but heterogeneous and, as Paul noted, some say they are Christians of Paul, others will say they are Christians of Peter, other Christians of John, etc. And indeed, the history
1

Pauls Christians were also known as Pauline communities.

shows that in the early centuries existed many Christian current of different shades and varied influences. However, the origin of these must go back, as Paul tells us (Acts 24: 5) to the sect of the Christians Nazarenes, or simply Nazarenes, same as the one that which would have inspired Jesus, to which He would have joined in greater or lesser extent and that eventually he would have earned for being known as Nazarene 1 (Mt 2, 23; 26, 71; Mk 1, 24; 10, 47; 14, 67; 16, 6; Lk 4, 34; 18, 37; 24, 19; John 18, 5, 7; Acts 2, 22). But who were the Nazarenes, of which Paul -and not Peter-, was the leader (Acts 24, 5)? 1.2. NAZARENES AND NEO-NAZARENES

In The book that kills the death of Mario Rozo de Luna, we find some interesting information about it:
The Nazarenes were known as Baptists, Sabeans and Christians of St. John. His belief was that the Messiah was not the son of God, but simply a prophet who wanted to follow John. Origines (Vol. II,
1

Perhaps because they come from Nazareth - but eventually the term Nazarene would have preceded the population of Nazareth - perhaps for the form of her long hair to the Nazarite vow manner set in Nm 6, 5 and Judg 13, 5; 16, 17. Apparently the term Nazarene would be a corruption of the term, the correct translation being Jesus the Nazarite. However, it has also been argued that Jesus would have been an Essene and, indeed, among some contemporary Essene communities, or who claim that title, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve is declared as Essene and, in it, Jesus is the main character. It may be that the Essenes and the Nazarenes shared doctrinal aspects in varying degrees and that came from a common etymon - the Essenes appear as sedentary, while Nazarenes were Nomadic, so that the Essenes were called sometimes as Nazarenes. In fact, in the Talmud are presented as Morning Baptists. It is possible that both currents came from a common root and their inactivity, or better asceticism, and nomadism constitute some of the particular traits. However, when Jesus presented such revolutionary teaching for the time, He would not have been an Essene, or Nazarene, or Jew. That is, He would become a target under the attack of all.

page 150) notes that there are some who say of John the Baptist that he was the anointed (Christus).1

The Nazarenes or Nazarenes if the correlation is correct were prior to the laws of Moses, since the Pentateuch is written it gives the impression that the separation was not something native but is welcomed to Judaism. Possibly introduced by Abraham-and respected by the reluctant by that very fact, it was something that the Israelites could adhere by a vote of Nazarenes, and eventually assimilated and adapted, not without some misgivings, within Judaism, becoming one of their sects, quite heterogeneous, by the way, according to what the sources refer (perhaps by merging of cults?) and vehemently attacked by the Jews Sadducees and even by some factions Pharisaic. Indeed, and as Dr. Morris Goldstein says2, this sect was known to the Greeks as Nazaraioi (Nazarenes) and its main doctrines consisted of new Gnostic interpretations that introduced the Jewish elements taken from the Tanakh (Old Testament). We are facing with a kind of mystical syncretism -specific to the Gnostic3 and, as we saw, how we have seen, that it was
1 2

ROZO DE LUNA, Mario. El libro que mata a la muerte. Chapter 15. GOLDSTEIN, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish tradition. New York: McMillan, 1950.
3

Every great religion has always provided a public education and a secret teaching, or mysterious. The public education has the most diverse forms - perhaps by being subjected to the public screening, and thus receives all the opinions and influences-and is heterogeneous. The secret teaching, meanwhile, is usually not exposed publicly, and is more or less homogeneous. The Gnosticism is merely the secret teaching of each of these religions; same as for being reserved and veiled, acquires an initiatory and mysterious dye. And, inasmuch as veiled teachings of all religions are similar, or have a common element, the Gnosticism rescues these common elements and reconciles, going beyond public form and gathering in his body of doctrine mysterious elements of each of them. So, the Gnosticism is perceived as a syncretic current, usually dualistic that pervades the religions. But it is not generated as something intrusive, but as something quite natural

early Christianity, at least in regard to his teaching and hidden mystery, which was not disclosed to the crowds, but only a few, who were worthy of the mysteries. But not only the scholars support the fact that Christianity was born of the Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, but the Bible itself illustrates it in these terms: Acts 24, 5: For we have found this man [Paul] pestilent and a mover of sedition among all the
since it is implicit in the secret teaching or mystery. In a broad sense we can say that Gnosis is true knowledge, when taught, takes a name to hide. And, since the knowledge has been given at different times and in different cultures, the gnosis exists both at the Egyptians and Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, both Jews, and the Islamic, etc. For example, the Buddhist death which seeks to liberate the individual from suffering is the same as the Christian teaching to kill sin in the flesh, or Islamic teaching regarding the Jihad, or "Holy War" in which the enemy must die. So there is no difference, we just have to find the common element that unites them. In any case, it is incumbent of the Initiator to evaluate which elements reveals and which elements discloses, what aspects hides under allegory and what aspects literally says, what publicly unveils to just a few people. The Gnosticism, as mystery component in each of them, teach the "mystical death" as the sum of deformed psychological elements (called egos, sins, demons, etc.) that all humans have within them, and it is necessary to eliminate. In that vein, the Buddhist death is the removal of those psychological elements to free human beings from suffering, and that death is the same as the Christianity teaches when it says that it must die to sin in the flesh, the same for Islam, in which enemies should be understood as our internal psychological elements that make us suffer and therefore, must die - understood only in the psychological aspect. Where is the contradiction? So are we both Buddhist and Christian or Islamic, etc., as brothers and comrades in the same difficult task of eliminating the very cause of our own pain, that hurts us and hurts others? Is it a crime to highlight the commonalities that unite us and forget and bland apparent contradictions? However, the enemies of the Gnosticism say this is a hodgepodge of beliefs (perhaps with some encouragement warmonger that prevents them from seeing that we are not English or French, we are not Hindus or Christians, but we are just humans with a definite need to be happy). We affirm that the Gnosis, rather than hodgepodge, is the synthesis. How initiatory and mystery of religions is always considered Gnostic greater or lesser degree.

Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. We know that Paul was the main promoter of early Christianity and the Christian gospel destined to the Gentiles, and with this the case remains sentenced: Christianity was born within the Nazarenes, but made a separate movement, a kind of neo-Nazarenisme. Now the problem is that Nazarenes were not only Paul or Jesus, but also John the Baptist is presented also as a very remarkable among the Nazarenes. Even before Jesus was a Nazarene, his cousin John was already Nazarene, as noted by Rozo de Luna, since they, the Nazarenes, were also known as Baptists, for professing the doctrine of the

And there is only one type of Gnosticism as different cultures, regions and Sympathies make every human community to have different traditions and customs, so that religious forms fit to it. Thus we have Gnosticism Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Norse, Native American, Christian, etc, and each one of them with different names. These types individualized of Gnosticism are admitting the Gnostic elements of other faiths, which undoubtedly create a type of syncretism and General Gnosticism (which in any case has the particular tint of culture that is exposed). This book, for example, is the product of a Christian Gnosticism (would be absurd to expose an Islamic or Buddhist Gnosticism, etc, among the Christians, between a culture that do not really knows the mystery elements Buddhist or Islamic). Ultimately, the Gnosticism is the attempt to communicate to people the truth and the transcendent knowledge of things, and even more, to foster in each person the direct experience, unmediated, to bring a change, to recommend that all people are free, absolutely free and happy.

Baptist, Sabeans1 and Christians of St. John2, and since it is Jesus who is presented to John to be baptized, and not the contrary. Christianity was born of the sect of the Nasorans, Nazarenes or, more usually referred to, Nazarene (as Acts 24, 5). The scene in which Jesus of Nazareth is presented to John to be baptized is vitally important because it
1

The origin of Christianity is related to the Nazarenes, and the origin of the Nazarenes to the Chaldean mystery religion of the Sabeans. The Sabeans claimed to be the genuine religion of Noah and had as prophets Enoch and Seth. The Bible identifies them repeatedly (Job 1, 15, Isaiah 45, 14, Ezekiel 23, 42, Jl 3, 8) and it is interesting to know that they practiced baptism (a ritual absolutely Gnostic) the same as the Sabean Mandalas. The history talks about two groups known as the Sabians. The Sabian Mandalas (also known as Mandalas and Mandaeist) and the Sabians of Chaldea (or Harranianos-of Harran or Haran, meaning the path. The early Christians were called the ones of the path (as Acts 9, 2; 19, 9; 19, 23; 22, 4; 24, 14; 24, 22). It is considered, because of the strong links suggesting by the Bible that Abraham could have drunk too of the Sabean Harranian font and for this reason, eventually and pervading from Judaism, have given birth to a mixed Jewish esoteric Chaldean (later it would receive Egyptian mystery elements) known as the Nazarenes or Nazarenos that were known also as Sabaeans, Sabean or Sabeists. The Sabians Harranianos had a cult which was associated mainly to the planets, the stars and the moon, and are named in the Bible (Joel 3, 8) as a distant nation. As for Sabean Mandalas (later than Chaldea Sabens, but with similarity of rites and beliefs), have emerged as a heterodox branch of Judaism in the Nasorans, and they are Johannine (Baptists); are associated with a breed known as Nasurai. Even today they call themselves mandayyah (meaning Gnostics) and nazorayyah (meaning observant). Epiphany made a distinction between a sect known as nasaraioi and the nazoraioi, but we understand that there is nothing but a division within the Nazarenes, one tinted of Christian and the other Jewish and even Johannine. In one of his sacred books, the Harran Gavita, are identified (the Sabean Mandalas) as nasoraeanos, and recount his escape after the destruction of Jerusalem, Harran, and then to Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). While it is not clear on this point, for the Sabians harrianistas also might have migrated from Yemen to Iraq, what seems common to both Sabean people is that at some point had to occur a mix of Chaldean rites with Mandalas forming possibly the Chaldeans those belonging to primeval Sabeanism. Today the Sabean Mandeans

implies that he recognizes him and he adheres to the doctrine of the Nazarenes (reason enough, incidentally, to mitigate and remove the role of John the Baptist from the canonical gospels). However, as the Bible shows us, he took a separate path, with a neo-Nazarene doctrine (heresy within heresy). John and Jesus were considered as two great exponents of Nazareth philosophy -or Nazarite, however, over time, sympathy for the messages and persons was breaking new ground in the Jewish Nazarene sect characterizing and distancing gradually, to supporters of both parties. Rozo de Luna, about it, notes:
When the metaphysical conceptions of the Gnostics, who saw the Logos and the Anointed in Jesus, began to gain ground, the first Christians separated from the doctrines of the Nazarenes, who accused Jesus of perverting the doctrines of John and of changing the Baptism in the Jordan for another. (Codex Nazarenus, II, p. 109.)1

still survive and have some followers in southern Iraq preserving as liturgical language an Aramaic dialect, their holy books are the Ginza, The Book of John and the Qolasta or Songs and hymns for Baptism and Ascension, obey the seventeen commandments and one of its main symbols, that calls attention, parallel to Christianity, is a cross with ribbons of fabric (darfash), refers and represents the Christ and the Christ force, however, for the Mandalas the Christ is John the Baptist and not Jesus of Nazareth (who is considered as impostor). Some of its main rituals are associated with baptism, marriage, death and ascension. It seems that the Mandaean derives from the Aramaic "manda"-which means knowledge - same term that in Greek is translated as "gnosis".
2

It is the name given unreasonably to Mandalas by some Portuguese missionaries. The Mandalas were also called by the Arabs as subbi or sobbis, which would mean Baptists. 1 ROZO DE LUNA, Mario. El libro que mata a la muerte.

The neo-Gnostic Nazarenes were the first to see in the person of Jesus the new Christ, the new Messiah, and not the cult of Rome with their councils. However, one of the main ways that the dominant church used as a weapon against Gnosticism was to create a historic set where he would have us believe that Gnosticism is mimicked with Christianity during the second century. However, as evidenced, Gnosticism predates Christianity itself 1, and the same Jewish sect of the Nazarenes was, if the term permits Gnostic (Jewish gnosis) due to its heterogeneity, with roots in the mystery cults Chaldean (Chaldean Gnosticism), Mandalas elements (commands means knowledge, i.e. gnosis in Greek), with a large cult of the planets and, of course, not viewed favorably by the orthodox Judaism. And we know that the neo-Nazarenes (thus identifying the current of Jesus) emanated from the Nazarenes; in a broad term, of the Gnostics, or of gnosis Jewish Nazarene. It is possible to find an indication of this in the Mandeism2, which is considered the last surviving Gnostic sect of the early centuries, and who remains faithful to the doctrine of John and see him as the Logos and the Christ. This was the first great division and must not be surprised that the Catholic cult of Rome had also fought fiercely Johannine heresy or Baptist 3. This Mandeism is a section of Sabeanism, and has emerged within the Nazarenes, the sect named in Acts 24,
1

Proof of this is that it existed not only in Christian religious groups, but also to Jews and Egyptians. The Gnosticism, as mentioned above, is the top side of all true religion and therefore is present in the mystery teachings of both Orient and Occident, both North and South. 2 Mandalas are usually known today, including as Nasorans.
3

In the Bible both Jesus and John, are presented with some distance and even antagonism. Both preach, both have disciples, both baptized, but do not appear together, they preach independently of each other and even have their own areas of influence.

5, though under the influence of John 1. The Nazarenes of Jesus that went gradually isolating of Johannites called correctly as Johannine, and called also as Baptists or Baptists-they were just Gnostic Nazarenes, or Jewish Gnostics, who then would become Gnostic Christians who began to see in Jesus the Logos and the Christ and that, in time, began to be known as Christians2 and, of course, would also interacted with other forms of Gnosticism and various cults existing not only in Palestine, but also in other surrounding areas. It is therefore an untenable claim that Gnosticism was the action was mimicked within Christianity for the simple fact that it was not Gnosticism which was expanding, but Christianity. And it is Christianity that permeates and even has to adapt into other cultures in order to find a place to its message and make a space that enables its survival (such as he did when it became the Roman Christianity, leading to a
1

As for the different denominations of one and another party, namely: Sabean, Mandalas, Nazarenes and Christians, it seems that they were only Gnostic groups that followed, first to John, and after that to Jesus, and there is no reason for mutual disqualification when one understand the essence of what happened. In fact, at first corresponded to assume as Christ for that time, but John-without thereby ceases to be what it is, - Jesus gave the power to take over as the Christ of the time (for highest hierarchical level perhaps?). Indeed, in the Gospels we see that Jesus is baptized by John arguing that this is done justice (Mt 3: 15) (because John was the Christ), but also that John recognizes the superiority of Jesus-which eventually would not have been more than an agreement between great initiates. So, it is normal for Johannine and Mandalas Jesus is nothing but a usurper, but the reasons are unknown in the background. The underlying reasons make us understand that this does not distances us but deeply unites us.
2

The neo-Nazarenes were called Christians in the first century (cf. Acts 11, 26, 26, 28, 1 Pet 4, 16), however, the name would have been given by the Judaism as a form of marginalization. What happened is that, over time, they took possession of the name and then, in effect, were officially recognized as such. Similar phenomenon occurred with the Gnostics, who ended up adopting and being recognized by the name by which the sect of Rome identified them.

pagan Christian religion which came to adopt various pagan symbols which, incidentally, then demonized, and what the story brings us so clearly). In this respect it is very interesting what Newman tells us, quoting a Catholic cardinal:
We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.1.

So, beyond the obvious paganism of the religious institution of Rome, the truth is that Gnosticism did not mimicked in Christianity, but the nascent Christianity was Gnostic and, in turn, interacted with other forms of Gnosticism -among them with current Greek, Egyptian and Hindu-. It was a special kind of Gnostic Christianity which then permeated in other schools of thought, including other types of Gnosticism, which created an amalgam profuse of Christian currents that, over time, began to be attacked by the current that managed to prevail.

NEWMAN, John Henry. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 2 ed. London: James Toovey, 1846. P. 359, 360.

The Mandeism (which derived from the Nazarenes) followed John, and Christianity (also derived from the Nazarenes) followed Jesus. The Mandeism is known today as the last of the early Gnostic of the current centuries and about Christianity (listed as Gnosticism by some Orthodox Jews), we know that there is a huge controversy regarding Gnosticism, and it is even said that Gnosticism permeated the Christian factions (we assert that this was a little different). In any case, in any event, it is certain that Christianity was also a Gnostic current, and both, together Mandeism and Christianity emanated from a common trunk which, incidentally, also had syncretic and heterogeneous elements, plus a certain initiatory form. In short, the circumstances suggest that the Nazarenes were part of Gnostic Judaism, with Persian and Chaldean elements with a deep devotion to the planets and, though they accepted the grudgingly for having been introduced, presumably by Abraham (the great Chaldean magician), the truth is that it was not very well tolerated by the dominant religious institution (perhaps for professing the same thought as usual? Perhaps to indicate that there is no need for any religious institution?). The Nazarenes were a Jewish sect rather close to Pharasaism, and with the raid of John and Jesus in it, even when the term Nazarene Orthodox-even when the same separation, or Nazarenism, was a heterodox sect within Judaism-and Nazarenes Johannine and Christian Nazarene thoughts 1.

The Nazarene Christians, or better, the followers of Jesus, in the beginning could also have been known or have been self-described as "the ones of the Path" (same as the Sabians harranianos, remote ancestors of the Nazarenes), as inferred from passages of Acts 9, 2; 19, 9; 19, 23; 22, 4; 24, 14; 24, 22. At present time, and mainly because of the stigma imposed the sect of the Gnostics Rome (which means "those who know"), the wayfarers of the Path are also known as 'Knowledge' and preach, not for a salvation mediated by priests and temples, but by the knowledge of itself.

While in the beginning, both the Nazarenes Johannine and the Christians arose within the as Orthodox Nazarenes -and, therefore, within Judaism, given the enormous force that were taking, both lines of separation were gradually separating from orthodox Nazarean, and both side became distant. The Johannine Nazarenes remained closer to the Nazarenes Orthodox, while Christians Nazarenes were isolated enough of the Jewish religious tradition to the point that, in time, became a religion that is perceived as antagonistic to Judaism 1. The fledgling Christian Nazarene sect was gaining strength, was growing and adding followers and, in time, established itself as a new religion. From the Nazarene Johannine line-also known as Baptists, Sabeans and Christians of St. John, were derived several additional religious or sectarian currents (e.g., the Mandalas)2 and, similar phenomenon, although at a higher rate, occurred with the Christian Nazarene thought 3.
1

Jesus, without abrogating the temple worship, professed rather a direct relationship with the Father who is in secret, and this, as will be inferred, was not suitable for the economic interests of the temple or the dominant religion of the time (and this is, indeed, fully Gnostic position). Then, in time, when the Gnostic Christians also wanted to defend the same position of the direct relationship with the Father and the self knowledge were fiercely attacked and exterminated by Rome Catholic sect because not convenient for their economic and expansionist interests. 2 It is very interesting that the Mandalas are reputed as Gnostics, in fact for many specialists they are the latest Gnostic current of the first centuries that still survives. This goes to confirm what we have said about the two sides, both Johannine and Christian, which had been strongly permeated by Gnosticism, until we can assert that early Christianity was Gnostic Christianity.
3

It should be noted that the maximum initial difference between Baptists and Christians was only adherence, preference and / or identification by Jesus or John the Baptist, and that both belief and practices would be very similar. One of them saw in John the Christ, while the others saw him in Jesus. This constitutes a very good example of what this may result in the identification with the people, while the message is left in the background, it prioritizes the former over the latter, at least the less relevant over the most relevant.

On the other hand, both Essenes (other Jewish religious sect) and Nazarenes have arisen from a common root. Indeed, sometimes it is discussed even the question of whether Jesus would have been an Essene-even when He seems that it was, Jesus would have preferred the nomadic life of the Nazarenes; more specifically, Jesus would have been both as Nazarene and Essene and influenced by both sides, even after he was mainly associated to the Nazarenes1. Baptists have arisen from Nazarenes (the Essenes were also called as morning Baptists morning) and Christians Nazarenes. Within the Christian Nazarenes, similarly, have emerged not Judaizing Christians Nazarenes and Judaizing Christians Nazarenes. From the side of Judaizing Christians Nazarenes, in turn, also have been several currents, among which have been the Ebionites and even some Messianic Jews-some of which still survive and claim to have derived from the Nazarenes 2. From the Christians Nazarenes have arisen a more profuse range and with different nuances and elements, divided at times, as
1

In his homily on Holy Thursday April 5, 2007, the Pope Benedict said: "Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples probably according to the calendar of the Qumran community and, therefore, at least one day before the date set at the time by the official Jewish ritual ", as it seems to suggest John 18, 28, with bread and wine, and no lamb, because the animals had not yet been slaughtered and because the Essenes were vegetarian. This, anyway, and not constituted as an evidence and continues to confirm the theory about what has been said about in one way or another, Jesus also took the teachings and participated to Essenes rites, knew the calendar and, inclusive, adopts it at the time of His supreme sacrifice.
2

References concerning this fact are found in Acts 10, 45, 11, 2-3 and 15, 1-29. In this last passage, considered by many as the Jerusalem council are discussed at the behest of some Pharisees who had believed in the gospel, about whether it was necessary to circumcise them who have adhered. Is this is clearly a side of penitents? Christians? Judaizers - where after that the Messianic Jews would emanate.

noted above, by the identification of the preaching Apostles, region, culture (in many occasions to permeate certain cultures, it would have created a fusion of faiths), of personal determinations to justify personal situations or others, or the same geopolitical circumstances, 1 etc. 1.3. TOWARDS A NEW RELIGION

In the beginning there wasnt a single form of Christianity, but many branches of Christianity. This, of course, had to be tempered in a heterogeneous and not homogeneous as Christianity presented today, and would have happened in a similar way to what happened with Judaism that for the time of Jesus, was quite heterogeneous (had different currents such as Pharisaic, Sadducee, Zealots, Essenes, Nazarenes, etc., and each of them had other derived versions) and then, in times of difficulty, made an effort to unify the different position in favor of the union although in this unification necessarily other positions are deleted. The triumphant Christianity also wanted at crucial times to unify criteria, to form a creed and build a dogma, ultimately, to standardize the Christian notion. However, this standardization also suppressed other views and adopted the creed that was more convenient for the time, which suited the empire or the one judged as correct. For the second century AD there was an amalgam of profuse currents that, in any case, were twinned by the message of Christ, beyond their natural differences were linked
1

Between these we can mention the escape of a massive part of Jews from the Jewish-Roman War in 66 AD from the city of Jerusalem to other cities. The very fact that not all fled to the same region-including some of them returned to Jerusalem after the revolt and other expanded into other locations, including Egypt, this also implies that, in time, there will be location found and disparity in the doctrinal area, not only between different Jews currents, but also among the movements that have emerged from them.

together because they preached the Christian gospel and recognized in the person of Jesus to Christ or, at least, a prophet. Despite their differences, they were not enemies, but different branches of the same tree Gnostic Christian, i.e. the same neo-Nazarene which emanate after new currents-rather heterogeneous-that would eventually be known as Christian. Gnosticism, of course, would permeate from the very beginning the Nazarene sect. Proof of this is found in the Mandalas, which emanated from the Nazarenes-, recognized today as the last of the ancient Gnostic sect (more specifically from the Johannine side) and it is clear that Christians Nazarenes also had a similar influence. Indeed, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels came to reinforce the idea of a Gnostic Christianity. Thus, it is clear that in beginnings of Christianity had to gestate various Christian communities. These communities, in turn, would produce abundant literature of the Christian message which is intended to communicate the teachings and deeds performed by Jesus1. Indeed, there are not the four canonical gospels the only ones that were written, and of this talks the fact that in the first centuries of our era circulated nearly a hundred Christian writings and gospels now known as Gnostic Gospels. All these communities have been permeated by Gnosticism whenever the same sect of the Nazarenes was a heterogeneous current within the Judaism, that is, had taken various religious elements for its creation. However, for one reason or another, they had to be characterized gradually, to be individualized and even create differences for different reasons2. They were united by the Christian message and the principal points of Christianity and we
1

Same as the one that did not always emerge within the Christian Nazarenes, but also within other currents which joined the Christian message. Such as the Egyptians, Essenes, Pharisees, etc.

understand that the differences were only secondary and formal aspects. Examples of these differences could consist in the mutual adhesion or not to circumcision 1, in the belief of the divinity of Jesus or not (meaning that the divinity constitutes the acceptance of Jesus and the universal God creator of all were the same), in the disputes concerning if Jesus had a physical body or only apparent (due to his divinity), and a long list of things to be disputes that do not cancel nor add the essential and transcendental message of Christ2. Whatever the case, in the first centuries of our era, there was a large range of Christian communities, currents and trends3 that while in the beginning were fiercely persecuted, to early second century had achieved some refreshment when the Roman Emperor Hadrian forbade
2

We know that Gentile Christians have persecuted the Christians Ebionites who, even they accepted the Gospel of Matthew, did not share at all Saint Pauls Gospel. In the same biblical text Paul of Tarsus is shown rebuking Peter for theological issues and, we understand that the replication of similar situations would have been quite common in the nascent seed of Christians.
1

This aspect at that time was a capital point and possibly because of this had to propitiate the first major division within the Nazarene Christians, Gnostics of course (if we look at the sum or initiatory and mystery elements with varying degrees of truth that permeated them). 2 However, once in a while the devil sticks out a horn or his tail and, in the case of early Christianity, it is indisputable that, locking in the anodyne and irrelevant Christological disputes about the nature of Jesus (human, divine, or mixed), its pre-existence or begetting, etc., it is forgotten what is really transcendent. Priority was given to the messenger and the message is discarded.
3

Among those are included the Adamites, Adoptionists, Apolinarianists, Arrianists, Athanasians, Basilian Carpocratians, Cayanists, Cerinthus, Docetists, Ebionists, Elcasaits (or Elkesaits) Elcesaits, Eutychians (or Monophysites), Manichaean, Marcionits, Marcosians, Nestorians (or Difisits, subsequent to the second century), Ophites, Saint Pauls, Priscilianists, Sticklers, Sampsaens, Valentinians, among many others.

the persecution of Christianity (we warn that Rome had, in general, an enormous condescension cults and practices of other communities1, so it was so accepted the paganism as Mithraism and Christianity). All of these communities had to produce written material- that eventually would be called gospels, and began to increase the differences and theological disagreements 2, and even
1

Helen Ellerbe in The Dark Side of Christian History says: Yet, it was their belief in the many faces of God that helped Romans to accommodate the Christianity, not the uniqueness of Christian theology. Christianity resembled certain elements of Roman belief, particularly the worship of Mithra, or Mithraism. As "Protector of the Empire," Mithra was closely tied to the sun gods, Helios and Apollo. Mithra's birthday on December 25, close to the winter solstice, became Jesus's birthday. Shepherds were to have witnessed Mithra's birth and were to have partaken in a last supper with Mithra before he returned to heaven. Mithra's ascension, correlating to the sun's return to prominence around the spring equinox, became the Christian holiday of Easter. Christians took over a cavetemple dedicated to Mithra in Rome on the Vatican Hill, making it the seat of the Catholic Church. The Mithraic high priest's title, Pater Patrum, soon became the title for the bishop of Rome, Papa or Pope. The fathers of Christianity explained the remarkable similarities of Mithraism as the work of the devil, declaring the much older legends of Mithraism to be an insidious imitation of the one true faith.

Within the Christian gnosis destructive currents were infiltrated that, calling themselves Gnostic, were promoting ideas contrary to legitimate Gnostic Christianity, such as the condemnation of the marriage or adoption of kalas. In this sense it is true that the nascent Catholic Church recently separated from the Christian Nazarenesfought both Gnostic Christians Nazarenes (faithful followers of the Christian message) and also the false Gnostic Christians (false gnosis), but in the midst of this darkness and theological confusion, in order to attend such discrepancies, the transcendent message was almost extinct.

at a later time, to have lists of books accepted by certain currents. Indeed, for this time Marcin 1 had developed what could be considered as the first attempt of compilation of books or the first canon-to what the Orthodox Christians would react also creating their own canon, it would come to be known as the New Testament. Despite all this, Christianity grows substantially and, although not yet becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire-which will become gradually while the empire starts to seep, as one of the more important sects of that time 2. But is precisely with the conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great, after the vision of the symbol of Christ accompanied by the inscription "in hoc signo vinces" and his victory over Maxentius in 312, when he finally stopped the persecution of the Christian current. In 313

Marcion, who was a follower of Pauls doctrine, proposed that Christianity had to separate from the Judaism (he did not tolerate the Old Testament and, incidentally, believed that the Christian God was good, while the Jewish god was evil). He accepted the Gospel of Luke and some Pauls epistles (he said that Paul had understood Christ while Peter did not, that along with the other apostles tried to keep Christianity as a Jewish sect). He developed the first canon of the New Testament, with the total exclusion of the Old Testament, of course. In response to the development of this first canon Orthodox Christians, headed by Irenaeus, he will also summarize its own canon, basis used for the making of the Bible as we know it today, and about the year 144 he was excommunicated for heresy. It is often mentioned among the Gnostics. He believed that the creation of the Jewish God was bad, that the material was evil and that Jesus therefore had not taken flesh (here in a theological way, they deny the Incarnation of the Word and the resurrection of the dead). It also adopted a not very favorable position with regard to marriage and sexual pleasure within marriage.
2

This was due in large part to that, despite the differences in the various streams, basically all of them are preaching the Christian message- uniting them-and attracting the followers.

Constantine and Licinius1 issued the Edict of Milan2 declaring the freedom of worship-which delegitimized the paganism as the official religion and allowed the legal practice of Christianity (which would play an important role for the future and final organization as Church) 3. This implied an endorsement to Christianity, the construction of much more episcopal sees, a greater recognition of the bishops, a religious and social status and with the contemptible donation of sums of money and even palaces, or the opportunity to compete for the high office of the state4. 1.3.1. The Council of Nicaea

However, the relationship between Constantine and Licinius was cooled and, with the support of the pagan, Licinius made it possible to allow hostility towards the Christians. Constantine defeated him finally in 323, becoming the sole monarch of the empire. Since there was only one emperor and a law, now it was only needed a religion-as uniform as possible-, and Constantine, who had adhered to Christianity, seemed to understand it very well.
2

There was already a precedent when the Emperor Galerius, in 311, issued the edict of toleration of Nicomedia in which he recognized their legal existence, while the chase continued.
3

It was organizing itself as an institution a long time before in order to survive but obviously the religious freedom imposed by the Edict of Milan put it in a very favorable position in regard to paganism, which is practically equivalent to its deposition as official religion amounted almost to his deposition as official religion. And soon had to move from just over 10% of the Roman population before the edict to a far higher percentage after the boost of Milan.
4

All this, however, failed to solve the Christological differences between the different current of the Christianity, as it should no longer hide their differences which were now exposed in public and even violently.

With this background, and facing the pressure needed to normalize and standardize the different Christian views to be presented as the new religion, the Emperor Constantine itself, also perhaps as a political move made with the intention to unify his empire that, as the historians accuse, was his real concern-convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 in order to reconcile the religious conflicts between Christians, along with several doctrinal issues. Spengler, in The Decline of the West , states it in these terms:
In the mind of Constantine it was self-evident that the Pauline foundation within the Pseudomorphosis was synonymous with Christianity. The Jewish Christians of Petrine tendency were to him a heretical sect, and the Eastern Christians of "Jotiannine" type he never even noticed, When the spirit of the Pseudomorphosis had, in the three determining councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.1

No wonder that the various Christian denominations discussed also the right to be recognized as legitimate in order to rise to the political, economic and religious power that it was foreseeable at that time because, of course, there were all kinds of interests from the purely religious to the political and economic. Anyway, it must be inferred that the result of that council had to be, by necessity of circumstances the one which favored the interests of the empire (would have been nonsense to triumph against Christian current opposed to those interests and that threatened that union).
1

SPENGLER, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1966.

At this point it should be said that Paul of Tarsus was one of the most prominent figures among the various early Christian currents and he became known as the Apostle of the Gentiles-the very fact that he had been entrusted to evangelize the non-Jewish nations assured his success (as Gal 2, 7-9). And is the same Paul who enacts the non necessity of circumcision for Gentiles and the inclusion of the same; evangelized Greece, Asia Minor and Rome, his Roman citizenship and scholarship serve to successfully undertake such evangelization and the drafting of several Christian writings which embodied his thought, influenced by the way, for the Christian message, even he was not a direct disciple of Jesus and did not know him. Finally he dies in Rome and, as will be assumed, there will be a prolific Pauls cult1. 1.3.2. Athanasianism and Arianism Thus Christianity which Rome agreed, by necessity forced on the circumstances, it was mainly due to the Pauls current -same than they would have issued other currents, while Judeo-Christianity of the Apostle Peter and the other apostles would not have been so well received. The Athanasianism2, a Christian current that might be called belonging to Paul, in effect, achieved a great popularity for this period so vital and important for Christianity. This current had his big counterpart in the Arianism, another Christian current under Pauls influence 3.
1

The Cult which they is said to be based on the teachings of Peter, perhaps as a ruse to achieve a final permeate and placate the Judaizing Christians far from the line of Peter, while winning their votes on major decisions.
2 3

Form of Christianity promulgated by Athanasius of Alexandria. Several passages in the Epistles of Paul even agree to the Arian position, since they point to the time when the Son is begotten.

The truth is that, after heated debate among various branches of Christianity, the Athanasian position managed to win and to affirm the creed that had been prepared for the occasion, -the Nicene Creed-. Also a significant progress was made in ecclesiastical authority, the standardization of certain Christological questions and of course, the favorable vote regarding the divinity of Jesus, where he became God. This was important because it could prepare other gods and impose as a great cult, which would have been difficult if there had been a mortal prophet competing against the great gods of paganism. In this sense, it seems that Constantine, even he had more affinity with the Arianism position1 (in fact he was baptized under Arianism at the end of his life), he supported for this occasion the Athanasian orthodoxy-which evidences that he adopted the Christianity that suited the interests of the Empire, and as soon as he could, he brought many ecclesiastical privileges civil, political and economic. So, it makes sense that there was a huge fight to belong to the new elite. Fight that, in time, and after no little bumps between Athanasians and Arians, came to win the Orthodox Athanasians who, settled finally in power, and after the issuance of the Edict of Thessalonica by Emperor Theodosius in 380 which recognized finally and definitively Christianity as the official religion of the empire, they decided to remove, as they called it, the heresy 2. And in
1

The Athanasian position stated that Jesus was God himself and that had always existed. The Arianism position accused the divinity of Jesus, but noted that it had been conceived at some point, which was the Son of God, but not God himself and therefore was subordinate to the Father. Finally, the doctrines and dogmas adopted at the Council of Nicea were defended by Athanasius.
2

However, it is quite curious that Christianity itself was born as a heresy because, for Judaism that was what constituted the nascent religion (Acts 24, 14) which, incidentally, was not known as a religion but as a sect (Acts 24, 5); sect which seen very bad (Acts 28, 22) because the religious monopoly of that time considered that were

that heresy, obviously, not only were included the Arians, but all other currents of Christian thought that do not receive the Communion with the Nicene dogma. As stated before, in all these schools of thought was a Gnostic background, since where they emanated there was a huge mystery teaching whose basis would have been in the same Chaldean rites. Even among the Athanasians mysteries were preserved and they too were, more or less, seeds of Gnosticism Jewish Nazarene. What happened over time was that the elite were considering more and more attractive the religious, political and economic power than the vivid realization of the mysteries themselves. 1.3.3. The extermination of heresy At the same time what was happened was that led to the cry of the exiled and excommunicated by the Council of Nicaea keep the message claiming corruption free political and economic power, free from the distortions that had been exposed for the sake of supremacy and the unification of the empire, the cry of those who claimed to have the true message and true knowledge. And so, as in the past the first apostles were called Christians as a way of mockery and stigma-because they were posing as followers of Christ-, the same way now, the Catholic elitename that was adopted gradually by masquerading as universal and infallible, and was validated by the decree of Theodosius Thessaloniki-also referred to the Gnostic banished and excommunicated as a way to isolate and stigmatize-because they claimed to have given the true Christian knowledge. So were deemed as those who know, i.e. as gnosere" or "Gnostic" as a joke. And since these represent a serious danger to the continued monopoly, now renowned for themselves as Catholic,
corrupting the Jewish morality.

persecuted the Gnostic-Christian currents to which they themselves once belonged-stigmatizing them, calling them heretics, destroying their writings and eliminating them by burning or hanging them. The imperial edict of Thessalonica would use these terms:
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.1

So, the Christians Athanasians, by imperial order, were converted into "Catholic Christians"-what should have been gestated also for some of them, and this kind of Christianity became the official religion of the empire, which give advantage to the Arian Christians, who
1

Fragment of the Edict of Thessalonica, issued in 380 AD Theodosian Code 16 1.2.

incidentally, were very close to becoming the official religion, and for lapses, were welcomed as such and were to triumph on several occasions and in different geographical areas. It is questionable if they were Peters Christians because the Athanasians were a Pauls current, including it is possible to see this in the conformation that they made to their particular canon New Testament where most books included are Pauls Epistles. It seems that what happened was that, in order to give the tint of catholicity, it went back to basics teaching, to Jesus and the same Peter who, at the time was reputed as the first pontiff1 and as the stone on which rested Christic while teaching. But this would be only by name because, basically, we can find that the teachings of Peter and Paul differed both in form and content, while Pauls were oriented to the Gentiles, the teaching of James, Peter and John were more Judaizing (Gal 2, 7-9) and forced by necessity, even than in the background the gospel unites to Christ, in the external forms it becomes different. At this point the Athanasians Christians (called Christians Nicenes)-from now on-Catholic Christians were already a mixture of power and religion subordinated to the emperor. In any case, as evidenced by the Edict of Thessalonica, were given the title of Christians universal and stigmatized to all other branches of Christianity, already Hellenistic, Jewish, Persian, Egyptian, pagan, etc. 2
1

It seems that Peter was not the first leader of the Jerusalem church, but James, the brother of Jesus and, in this sense, would not have been Peter the first Pope. In fact, in Acts 8, 14 we see that Peter and John seem to obey superior orders. Anyway, what it is possible to say is that the Roman Christians are not the legitimate Christians of Peter, as the teachings of the Vatican would make us believe. 2 It is curious that the Catholicism, having taken elements and symbols of paganism, once in power, would have chased the pagans to the point that the Emperor Theodosius sought mechanisms to protect pagans from the harassment of Catholic Christians that he had been institutionalized. -In fact, thousands of pagan believers were killed between the centuries IV to VI. It is also curious the temporary

and, ultimately, to any kind of Christianity different to Rome. Even the same Arianism, which was about to become the official religion was anathematized, persecuted as heresy and finally grouped within the Christian denominations who are baptized, as derogatory and as a means of differentiation, under the name of Gnosticism1. During this period some Catholic Christians professed and even went to the ranks of the other branches of Christianity and vice versa; appearance showing and pointing a conflict of an important part of the theology produced and accepted into Catholic Christianity 2 the future Roman Catholic Church, although it is clear that the
excommunication of the emperor Theodosius by St. Ambrose, who was the first to get the preeminence of the church over the state and achieve total banishment of the pagans. For this time was suppressed and banned the cult of the Vestal Virgins, the women carrying a lamp in their hands and who were responsible for keeping the fire going in the temple, the same who had the power, under certain circumstances, to redeem to a sentence of death (Note the deep symbolic meaning of all this). Also at this point, and thereafter, perhaps in response to the patriarchal structure of the empire, the women could not practice as priests within the Catholic cult.
1

One of the reasons why Gnosticism is presented with a varied hue was also because it was nominated to several Christian currents as Gnosticism.
2

Indeed, some of the representatives of the Catholic Church and some of its most important theologians, doctors and ministers belonged to or joined other Christian denominations, including antagonistic, and who would later reputed as heresy. Tertullian, one of the fathers of the church, adhered to Montanism (Christian current that emerged around the year 160 AD and struggled back to the early days of Christianity) and, although it is reputed as the father of the church, in "Adversus Praxeam" blates against the modalism, calling it heresy, considering that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were the same person, even though he was a precursor of Trinitarianism. Also lashed hard against Marcionism-even though it was clearly belonging to Paul - and against the Gnosticism. Then he separated from the Montanism and founded his own movement.

Gnostic Christian currents and, in general, all that did not belong to the new cult were anathematized, persecuted and removed, and the Gospels and other Christian writings, without any exception, destroyed, attacked or, at least, changed. Ultimately, all that was not Catholic Christianity was madness and insanity, heresy that must be removed. So it was that, after the publication of the official canon in the fourth century, all extra-canonical literature was anathematized and exterminated, among them important early Christian gospels. Fortunately not all were destroyed, and several communities, despite the extermination of the writings and persecution, managed to hide the most representative of their libraries on remote sites, including, in the Nag Hammadi desert, where they managed to hide important material of early Christian current, of Gnostic Christians, in synthesis, of the legitimate Christian or, at least, of Christians who raised their voices in protest against the elite claiming to have true knowledge, while accusing the elite of corrupting and perverting the true message of Christ sold to the benefits of power and wealth and institutionalizing a relationship with God to be given in a direct and no-intermediaries manner, without the intervention of priests or beliefs. There is no doubt that Christianity in Rome, perhaps also by the fierce persecutions they had to suffer in the beginning, was diminished and eventually distant from legitimate Christian teachings. In fact, the edict of toleration of Nicomedia by Galerius in the year 311 AD illustrates about how Christians, especially those living in Rome had largely abandoned the religion of the early apostles, following their own, adopting laws and amid own small nodules scattered all due to the Roman persecution. A fragment of the Edict of Toleration of Galerius, prays:

Among other arrangements which we are always accustomed to make for the prosperity and welfare of the republic, we had desired formerly to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians who had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason; since, indeed, the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity, which perchance their own ancestors had first established; but at their own will and pleasure, they would thus make laws unto themselves which they should observe and would collect various peoples in diverse places in congregations. Finally when our law had been promulgated to the effect that they should conform to the institutes of antiquity, many were subdued by the fear of danger, many even suffered death. And yet since most of them persevered in their determination, and we saw that they neither paid the reverence and awe due to the gods nor worshipped the God of the Christians, in view of our most mild clemency and the constant habit by which we are accustomed to grant indulgence to all, we thought that we ought to grant our most prompt indulgence also to these, so that they may again be Christians and may hold their conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to good order.1, 2

Even if it is true that by the Edict tolerance of Nicomedia the Christians were allowed to rebuild their worship, it would not be the same one, indisputably, and every time they have to undergo in one way or another to the traditional authorities this would generate a corruption
1

From Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. ch. 34, 35. Opera, ed. O. F. Fritzsche, II, P. 273. (Bibl. Patt. Ecc. Lat. XI, Leipzig, 1844.) 2 GIESELER, Johann Karl. A compendium of ecclesiastical history. Trad. Samuel Davidson, v. 1. 4. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1846. P. 197.

within the cult; that kind of Christianity is simply one that fits the interests of the empire, perhaps in return for allowing it to survive. It is obvious that, in Rome, given the fierce persecutions in the beginning against Christianity that had formed there, the Christian cult of Saint Paul had to be reduced to its doctrinal level, resulting a distortion of the Christian message. It is true that there are still a few mysteries preserved, but it is also true that they did not have the purity of the teaching that were offered to the first apostles or to retain the diaphanous character of other places where Christianity flourished without much repression or without of being maimed or suffered violent adaptation. In Rome, the Christian message was perverted, in Rome it was built a lifeless religion, and in Rome it was built a deformed skeleton that is nothing more than a caricature of the true mysteries Gnostic-Christian Nazarenes. A comedy that was later sold to the world as a true religion. Ironically, the place where the Catholic Church was established and later flourished, is the same place where there were fiercely persecuted other Christian currents so that, at the top of this persecution, they were almost extinct. So, it is reasonable that once institutionalized this new Christianity- or this rebuilt Christianity, because he had been maimed due to the harsh persecution- it will not retain the primeval authenticity. By contrast, Christian groups that have flourished in the absence of this persecution, had the opportunity to maintain their rituals and mystery teachings in a more pure state (like the Christians in the line of John, sharply Gnostic), and they would be more or less the same ones who raised their voices in protest against that type of Christianity such stylized and rigged to the needs of the empire that it was managed to be imposed. Those Christians, on the periphery or in distant geographical areas of the monopoly, would have been benefited since the Roman persecution would not have destroyed their transmission

and practice of their cult. However, this isolation also have been largely its sentence, because, because they have agreed to the decision that would be brewing in Rome, the capital of the world at that time. These would have been the same Christians who after that, would have anathematized by the emerging elite, calling them Gnostics, and that would have been persecuted and forced to hide and bury their sacred writings to save them from the fire of Roman Catholic Christianity that eventually would have seen in these Gospels, reputed as heretics, a threat to their institutions and to their imposed creed, by the way, by edicts and councils. 1.4. THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS

The Gnostics did not call themselves by that name, but they were called Christian. It was the Christian current that managed to impose that gave them the name of Gnostic to the followers of other Christian currents. However, and as we bounded, not all managed to be destroyed. Many Gnostics already sensed what was brewing, what was coming up and hide in Egypt a significant sample of early Christian thought, as would have been transmitted in the first centuries of our era. Some of those writings, - there were also a plenty of extracanonical gospels (i.e., not recognized by the church, accused of heresy), also called apocryphal or Gnostic-were discovered in 1945 in the Egyptian desert of Nah Hammadi in clay jars. There it can be reflected the thought of the exiles, the legitimate Christian teaching without adulterations to which Christianity stylized of Rome would have been submitted. Finally the world could see first hand what it was heresy and expose the dying Vatican sect. Among the most prominent Gospels it is worth quoting:

Gospel of Thomas: The immortal Gnostic Gospel with the secret sayings uttered by Jesus himself. This would be the oldest of all Christian documents, the source - 'Quelle' -, from which emanated the rest, including the scriptures, which keep the saying rendered from Him. Gospel of Philip: The only document that reveals the mystery of the bridal chamber, plus many mystery teachings. Gospel of Valentino (Pistis Sophia): The Gnostic Bible. It contains the teachings that Jesus gave to his disciples, including Mary Magdalene, after His resurrection. Gospel of Mary Magdalene: A version which claims the role of women in early Christianity and shows Mary Magdalene as a leader of the nascent movement. Gospel of Judas: Gnostic Gospel which affirms the role of Judas in the drama of Jesus. It is prophesied that Judas is not only cursed for generations (despite being the most exalted), but the shameful departure from the priests. Other writings also included are: Gospel of Peter (paradoxically was not included in the canonical books), Gospel of Nicodemus, Gospel of Paul 1, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of Truth, Gospel of the twelve saints (Essene) and, of course, the four canonical gospels, among many others. Since then, the Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi, and as it was concluded by many Scientifics, in the light of all the events, have greater historical character and greater
1

Here we will understand as the sum of the letters attributed to Paul of Tarsus.

credibility than the canonical ones, since some Gnostic gospels are contemporary and, inclusive, prior to the traditional Gospels. In this regard, Elaine Pagels, the global expert in early Gnosticism, said:
But scholars sharply disagree about the dating of the original texts. Some of them can hardly be later than c. A.D. 120-150, since Irenaeus, the orthodox Bishop of Lyons, writing C. 180, declares that heretics "boast that they possess more gospels than there really are,'' and complains that in his time such writings already have won wide circulation from Gaul through Rome, Greece, and Asia Minor.1

Indeed, the evidence shows that the Gnostic Gospels- the early Christian writings not included in the canon of the cult of Rome, - were recognized among the early Christian communities as reliable documents of the story of Jesus and the nascent movement. About it talks not only the history, not only the Gnostic codices but, what is more revealing, the canonical Gospels themselves.
Lk 1, 1: Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2: even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3: it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.

Luke mentions that many people have tried to put in order the events between them-note, however, that does not disqualify those other sources or accused of heresy, and,
1

PAGELS, Elaine. Trad. Jordi Beltrn. Los evangelios gnsticos. Barcelona: Critica S. L., c1982. P. 15.

in fairness, we must acknowledge that "many people" are not between the other two evangelists, Matthew and Mark even discounting John that would not have written the Gospel of John. Some of them, trying to disprove the fact that at that time there were a profuse range of gospels and early Christian writings (including, of course, Gnostic Gospels), argue that Luke refers to an oral tradition. However, when Luke states that he would like to write toohe says to write unto thee, not to narrate unto thee, or to recite unto thee, explicitly suggests that there were many other writings, many other gospels that eventually will be in a piecemeal (Can it be found here the text of Jesus, embodied in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas? Everything suggests that this is correct). What he does is to act as a compiler, trying to establish a chronological sequence, and from a point of view, not so much doctrinal, but historical. Now this is the conclusive and irrefutable proof of the existence of other Christian writings, but then - where are those other Christian writings that predated the same Gospel of Luke? This advance suggests that there is greater fidelity in the facts stated and teaching. Where are these writings? The cult of Rome hosted only four Gospels and rejected the rest and condemned it as heresy. Luke implies that the other gospels were somewhat fragmentary or focused only on certain aspects or stages of the life and teaching of Jesus. And what he does is try to put it in order, while covering a longer period of history. But he does not say that the other writings are false, precisely, he would have relied on these gospels to make yours-and, obviously, those other writings are the Gnostic gospels, recovered partially from the Nag Hammadi library. The evidence from this verse of Luke is unobjectionable. Indeed, experts do not hesitate to point out that the oldest of all the Gospels, preceding the same of Mark and Matthew, would

be the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas 1. These writings, held in high esteem by the early Christians and considered as original sources, were deemed as apocryphal and heretical later. The original sources that were stated in the first steps of Christianity were exterminated and, depending on the new Roman religion, Christianity could be constructed differently. The original early Christianity had been defeated, at least for now. 1.5. THE TRIUMPH OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANITY

It is true that history is written by the winners and that generally, when a clash between two cultures is produced, the loser is eradicated and the overcomer writes the history books, books that ode the glories of their cause and disparage the conquered foe. In the case of legitimate Gnostic Christianity, fortunately, not all documents managed to be destroyed and a small part could be hidden, being ignored by nearly two millennia. It was in the year 1945, with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, where most of these texts-buried for safekeeping of persecution-were discovered - were brought to light the Gnostic gospels. Now, for the first time, the world could meet face to face, the gospel and the words of the heretics, now, for the first time, the world could access to this type of early Christianity that have been so persecuted by the Roman Catholicism as it were the devil itself, being both a threaten or an enemy for its monopoly. Now the world could know the other side of the story, the story of the persecuted Christians, about hidden books, the history of those who lost only measure they believed it was not necessary to go through the authority of any church to get the salvation, but they felt it was sufficient self-knowledge and self-relationship with the Father who is
1

PAGELS, Elaine. Trad. Jordi Beltrn. The Gnostic Gospels. Op. cit. P. 15.

in secret; for the same reason that made no effort to establish any religious institution or to evangelize the masses to make an entourage, nor turned dogmas of faith on the basis of his absurd literalism. This is a proof of the ferocity with which Gnosticism was being chased and its followers eradicated, not without naming then, in time, and when the hidden knowledge tried to be revived, the Catholic sect was violently repressed it and his followers were vehemently suppressed, burned or thrown from a cliff. Over time, in the midst of the great heterogeneity of Christian current, Christianity must have easily qualified in a literalist tradition, on the one hand, and a symbolist tradition, on the other1, and, on the evidence of later events, it is clear that the Roman Christianity became literally -the same literalism that led him to commit the most ridiculous rants and errors with respect to the interpretation of the biblical text, adhering to the letter that kills and forgetting the spirit that gives life, the symbolism and metaphor. The Roman Christianity, formed from one of the current religious sides of Saint Paul, apart from other Christian-lines that were discarded and anathemizadas- helped Gnosticism to be nuanced and differentiated from other Christian currents (same as they were in possession of the other Gospels). This way, among the Gnostics we find the immortals Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Judas and Mary Magdalene, among the Gnostics there were the Gospels of John or the legacy of Peter. In this vein, it is very natural that among Christian Gnosticism even if Gnosticism in itself is syncretic, there is a varied hue of the Christian message as it comes to represent the majority of persecuted Christian current, punished and branded, as a joke, of Gnostic. In Gnosticism therefore are represented most of the Christian early
1

It is logical that a part of Christians construe the gospel from a literal perspective, it is logical that other Christians rather construe the gospel from a mystical and symbolic perspective, with two different types of traditions and interpretations.

currents. In fact, we, the Gnostics, or Gnostic Christians, we ensure to be in possession of the Gospel of Peter and be the proud custodians of the petra. The world must unite around the Gospel of Peter, around the Gospel of the stone-and we know that this stone is always a rock of offense and stumbling-. The world must know the Gospel of Thomas and reach the profound knowledge of Christ, which talks about getting a deeper self-knowledge. The world must know the Gospel of Philip and his deep teachings about self-realization through the mystery of marriage and the bridal chamber. The world must understand the Gospel of Judas and his background teaching about the beheading of inhuman psychological elements. The world must compensate the role of Mary Magdalene as a representative of the eternal feminine, the only thing that can redeem us and promote our new birth. The world must recognize, ultimately, the inexhaustible source of life that can be found going back to the roots of the legitimate Christianity, and accept that Gnostic Christianity is not more than the reunion of the different Christian currents that form partnerships to reveal and unearth from the shadows of forgotten teaching of the Nazarene martyr; those teachings that lead to true path of redemption and human liberation, the true way of background Christification, the true way of peace and true freedom. Let the world know once and for all and for all that, as in the days when the elite institutionalized persecuted us and keeping our own ideological position, there is no need to go through any false church or by any external pontiff to reach the knowledge of God, or to reach freedom a liberationist 1.
1

Jesus himself, amid of all the religious framework of his time that made almost mandatory to resort to the temple at all stages of life, advises, do not go to synagogue, but into our bedroom, close the door and pray to the Father who stays in secret (Mt 6, 5-6). Jesus, contrary to the institutionalized religious scheme of His time, calls for the direct, unmediated relationship with God, which is, in effect, a hundred

The Church, as pointed out by the gospel, is we and it is within ourselves because our body is the living temple of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God (as 1 Cor 6, 19). This is the new era and there is no need to tithe or to offer up anything in order to keep others or nourish religious organizations which are more interested in money than in actual spiritual liberation of their parishioners. Each of us, from home, from the privacy of his own room can abandon himself in the presence of ones Father who is in secret and annihilate the error, together, as a couple, can love truly, can get to know each other and feed with love and caresses, everyone can make an act of love by wearing this gospel by the confines of the world. This is Gnosis, for attitude like this we were violently killed in the past, but since the bonfires are blown and illuminates the light of intelligence freed from all dogma once absurd and at the same time irrefutable. We, the Gnostics, are the last worthy link that Christianity has in these times of overflow and disorder. The Catholics and the others may compromise on doctrinal issues pressed by the course of generations and hooting debauchery and lewdness asking: but we, the Gnostics, we never back down, we are the genuine early Christians and this time we will not banish to a desert or fall into the precipice. We, the Gnostics, accuse the Catholic cult of Rome to pervert our teaching and to distort the true doctrine of Christ, we, the Gnostics, we accuse them of the crime of theft (because they were posing as the true followers of Christ when, in practice, they are not able to follow any of His teachings or to eliminate none of His flaws). We, the Gnostics, we accuse them of murderers, not the mass murder or the persecution that once used to do for us and for science, but of the murder of the spirit, because their uncut literalism have killed the spirit that gives life to the
percent gnostic stance.

letter, the allegory that gives meaning. We, the Gnostics, we accuse them of separateness and not of unity, of love to fire and not to Man. It's time that Gnosticism gets out of obscurity to which he was condemned by the right-wing faction 1 of the early Christianity, it's time to be recognized as the legitimate Christianity and that the impostor to be relegated to the shadows of his own blindness, because he killed the spirit, because he was misunderstood the message making mistakes and ridiculous interpretations, because talking about a God of love made war and lit the fires, because they repudiated the woman and cloistered in her stones, because they confused the truth and remained aimlessly, because they have been the shadow and the spot of dying era, because they hid their knowledge, so that they themselves came, and those who were about to enter was prevented because hid the key science and posed as Puritans cenobites spitting thereby the sanctuary of life, because accomplish more than anything good natured discourse that may well be delegated to psychology, because, being unable to create a new dawn on the world, only become a hindrance to the generation of a new order of things and ideas. Once again, more than ever, and for the Christ: TO THE BATTLE! TO THE BATTLE! TO THE BATTLE!

To be understand here by extreme right the fact of maintaining a radical literalism, authoritarianism contrary to the diversity, the concept of irrefutable dogma.

CHAPTER 2
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND SECRET TEACHING

2. PUBLIC EDUCATION TEACHING

AND

SECRET

There is no doubt that the deep knowledge that Jesus sent to his apostles in secret, and these in turn to the most advanced in the mysteries, has never been taught, no doubt that it was hidden, veiled, distorted and eventually forgotten by false Christian priests. In sermons, both the priest and the pastor, we find very fine words in which we hear talking about the good, the love or the virtuelaudable speeches about prosperity, self-improvement, of motivation and, in synthesis, of aspects that would come from a psychologist or a motivator, but this does not lift the veil of the deep mysteries of early Christianity. And the reason we were not dehorned those mysteries is simple: neither the preachers nor priests have ever had access to these mysteries, for were never taught and everything what they repeat is merely part of public education, not of the secret teaching, the knowledge that was imparted to the masses, but not about the gnosis (knowledge) that was revealed from lips to ears only to a few people. Paradoxically Jesus, whom they say He came to reveal the truth to everyone, without distinction of any kind, is the first to hide and veil the message to the crowds (possibly because they were not prepared to receive the truth, the mysteries)1. In the passage where Jesus talks about the parable of the sower we found the following text:
Mt 13, 10: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Jesus would not have been the first. Tibetans believe that Buddha, before he died, he instructed his closest disciples in the secret doctrine of the Tantras, the cream of the Buddhism.

11And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

(S. a. Mk 4, 11-12; Lk 8, 10) And again, the same Jesus, in a clear allusion to the fact of publishing the private gospel, teaching mystery, said:
Mt 7, 6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.1

And yet, in the immortal Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, says:

G. G. Tho 62: Jesus said, I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries.

Obviously not everyone is ready to receive the gnosis (the knowledge), that not everyone can understand the mysteries and, what is more, that not everyone can practice them and live fully the difficult doctrine of Christ 2 (hence the mysteries are communicated to those unprepared and, even, what they are taught in parables, is conditioned to what they can hear and receive).
1

But why would they trample the secret teaching? Is it because those people were aware of that knowledge it would have given an outrageous teaching, and even immoral? A teaching which only apparently, offends decency and healthy principles? Then, as Peter noted (1 Pet 2, 7-8. S. a. Rom 9 32-33), Jesus and his teaching would be the stumbling block and a snare, the head of the corner stone rejected by the builders (Mt 21, 42; Mk 12, 10; Lk 20 17-18).
2

Jesus says: Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me (Mt 10, 37-38). The Christ demands everything, requires that we give up everything, to get it all. However, some light Christians have believed that first He gives us everything (that we first get prosperity) and after that we give Him a small piece (maybe something which is left) to Him.

Mk 4, 33: And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it; 34: and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.

So, it is clear that there is an external message and a secret message, hidden wisdom that the apostles were not always willing (or Jesus himself) to inform to the crowds. This means that we have only known the surface of Christianity, we are taught to believe in the fundamental, the basic, to profess a faith based solely on external and public education, but they never taught us to live those mysteries within ourselves.
1 Cor 2, 6: We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: 7: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 8: which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Paul leaves the case sentenced and clearly implies that there is a public education and other hidden one, that Christianity has, at its upper segment, an occult and mysterious teaching, a teaching that is even spoken in a particular language, in a particular way so that it appears as a mystery and to seem encoded1 and to be spoken only through symbols, in which case the sacred texts contain more substance that is perceived on the surface, and can only be understood by those who have achieved the mysteries (or are initiated)-. Paul himself suggests that,
1

As this reminds us of the medieval treatises on Alchemy and the development and production of the Philosopher's Stone.

even in his epistles, has revealed all, but only revealed a doctrine as for children, that has not given solid food but milk, so what can we expect? What are these mysteries? If not even the disciples of the apostles are worthy of receiving the Christic mysteries.
1 Cor 3, 1: And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. 2: I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it: nay, not even now are ye able.

In effect, what we can infer is that in the Gospels and the Epistles have not been declared all the mysteries and, even there are empty, truths not revealed, secrets that have been transmitted orally only to a few people, to initiates in the upper segment of Christianity, to be ones worthy of the mysteries. Another passage of the Apostle Paul (remember that the form of Christianity that was managed to impose was the one of Saint Paul, reason enough to understand why the New Testament is composed mostly from the writings of Paul) this time the book of Hebrews clears the doubts about on this situation:
Heb 5, 7: Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear, 8: though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; 9: and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation; 10: named of God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. 11: Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing.

12: For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. 13: For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. 14: But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.

These passages in themselves contain a hidden teaching about the person of Jesus which can hardly be acceptedand about how we can become every one of us, but it serves as an example to show that not all mysteries are declared in the Gospels or in the Epistles (even if it is possible to see them and show them on a background analysis). In any case, the fact is that at that time to the masses, to the crowds was not given solid food, but milk, something specific to the children. Precisely one of the biggest mysteries is that we too can become Christ and reach their height and stature. Saint Paul barely hints at when he writes:
Eph 4, 13: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

(King James Version) The upper segment of Christianity was never openly taught to the crowds, but veiled or in parables as it was registered. And only a few continued the mystery tradition, so that the masses were given a stylized teaching, while the Christic mysteries were reserved for the few, for the initiated. But even these few were not always revealing the whole truth; they are not always

teaching the esoteric teachings depth. The following passage shows it clearly.
John 16, 12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

What were those mysteries that not even his disciples could know? (at least before the resurrection of their master). And if this happened, even within the inner circleWhat can we say about us? St. Clement of Alexandria mentioned that division of the mysteries, differentiating the two aspects, of which we are speaking, the upper and lower circle of Christianity, that is, the public and the secret teaching.
After these are the minor mysteries, which have some foundation of instruction and of preliminary preparation for what is to come after; and the great mysteries, in which nothing remains to be learned of the universe, but only to contemplate and comprehend nature and things.1

He adds yet:
We must speak in enigmas that should the tablet come by any mischance on its leaves either by sea or land, he who reads may remain ignorant.2
1

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Stromata, book V, chapter XI, cited by BESANT, Annie Wood. Esoteric Christianity: The Mysteries of Jesus of Nazareth. Argentina: Kier, 1982.
2

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Stromata, book V, chapter X. Op. cit.

This, in part, explains the Hermetic teaching that would develop further, primarily within the Alchemy-including the research of the Philosopher's Stone, among others, in that while we talk about the mystery, it speaks in riddles and symbolism so finally the unsuspecting reader, uninstructed in the mysteries, founds himself in the same darkness while the initiate grasps the deep symbolism and understands the transcendent teaching hidden under the text.
Let the specimen suffice to those who have ears. For it is not required to unfold the mystery, but only to indicate what is sufficient for those who are partakers in knowledge.1

Fulcanelli, amid the symbolism typical to the hermetic art, approached, however, like no other before the unveiling of verbum dimissum (word missing) and the maximum Christic mysteries, as can be inferred from the immortal work The Mystery of the Cathedrals:
Thus the cathedral appears to be based on alchemical science, on the science which investigates the transformations of the original substance, elementary matter (Lat. materea, root mater mother). For the Virgin Mother, stripped of her symbolical veil, is none other than the personification of the primitive substance, used by the Principle, the creator of all that is, for the furtherance of his designs.2

And approaching the nature of the philosopher's stone continues:

1 2

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Stromata, book VII, chapter XIV. Op. cit. FULCANELLI. The mystery of the Cathedrals. Nevada: Brotherhood of Life, Inc., 1990. P. 132.

'It is a stone of great virtue,' says Nicholas Valois 1 in his turn, 'and is called stone, but is not stone and is mineral, vegetable and animal, which is found in every place and at every time and with every person.' Flamel2 writes similarly: 'There is an occult stone, concealed and buried in the depths of a fountain, which is vile, abject and valued not at all; it is also covered with filth and excrement; to which all names are given, although there is really only one. This stone, says Morien the Wise, which is not a stone, is animated, having the virtue of procreating and engendering. This stone is soft, owing its beginning, origin and race to Saturn or to Mars, the Sun and Venus; and if it is Mars, the Sun and Venus. . . .'3

Clement of Alexandria writes about the need to speak in symbols so that higher knowledge remains veiled to those who have not been initiated into the Christic mysteries and, in this sense, Fulcanelli seems to give a good lesson from it, yet it is approached the edge of revealing the "verbum dimissum"-and it is reasonable that the teaching should be hidden because there was no time to break the vow of silence. Hermetic education has always been direct path to liberation, but to the world masters is not convenient to the common person to be free, to be empowered, to be out of their control. It is not convenient to the priests of the churches the common person to reject their worship and not go to them and for them to tell him what to do, what to believe and how he has to
1

GROSPARMY, Nicolas, VALOIS, Nicolas. Obras de N. Grosparmy y Nicolas Valois, mans. cit., pg. 140, citado por FULCANELLI. The mystery of the Cathedrals. Barcellona: Plaza & Janes, 1970. P. 157.
2

FLAMEL, Nicolas. Original du Dsir dsir, o thrsor de Philosophie. Pars: Hulpeau, 1629. P. 144, citado por FULCANELLI. The mystery of the Cathedrals Op. cit. P. 157.
3

FULCANELLI. The mystery of the Cathedrals. Op. cit. P. 157-158.

believe. In this sense it is natural that the Hermetic teaching, even it would be the upper section of Christianity or any other genuine esoteric teaching, was attacked, lowered, ridiculed and, if possible, extinguished. The early Christianity suffered the same destiny when the persecution made hundreds of martyrs and whose cult (because it was a Jewish faction that had been isolated from the main trunk) was reviled and persecuted. In the book of Acts, including, we found a direct allusion to this fact:
Acts 28, 22: But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest [Jews were asked about Paul, at that time, a prisoner in Rome]: for as concerning this sect [the nascent Christianity], it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.

And in the book of Thessalonians we found:

1 Thes 2, 1: For yourselves, brethren, know our entering in unto you, that it hath not been found vain: 2: but having suffered before and been shamefully treated, as ye know, at Philippi, we waxed bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict..

Of course, much of the initial persecution is due to the fact that Christianity did not preach anymore Moses as central figure, but Jesus, who become the son of God himself, but this does not alter the fact that there were two segments of Christianity, an upper one (revealed only to those who had been initiated into the mysteries) and a lower or external one (the gospel of the masses), as is made clear by St. Clement of Alexandria. In the upper one we find the mysteries of the kingdom that even Jesus himself retains to his disciples until the time comes that they are worthy and deserving of them (John 16, 12).

In this sense, we have no doubt that all who were versed in the science of alchemy, anyone who had studied the esoteric works of the Middle Ages, anyone who would have corroborated the staunch way in which it was veiled the mystery of alchemy and the preparation of the Philosopher's Stone, after making appropriate correlations, come to the conclusion that in this work we are unveiling the "Verbum Dimissum", that we are unveiling the mechanism so that everyone can develop his own philosopher's stone, that everyone can freed from the evil empire. We're not doing anything more than returning the anima to Christianity, its hermetic value; we are not doing anything more than exposing the absurd literalism Christian factions that have confined the biblical text, example more than sufficient of the ridiculous errors that have been committed, and of its own ignorance. 2.1. LITERAL AND SYMBOLIC CONTEXT IN THE BIBLE

The Bible is more than a history book, and can be read and interpreted in different contexts. The first and most basic of these is the literal context. In this, if we are told that the universe was created in thirty minutes, you should believe that it was in thirty minutes, if we are told that Noah entered into the boat from worms to elephants and hippos, they must believe that it was so in the unfailing form, and in the case of not believing or professing such eyesores-you could be qualified as heretic to be eradicated. However, there is no doubt that this way of reading the Bible is very close to the idiocy and it can lead us to make the most ridiculous mistakes. Not everything can be read literally, and not everything can be interpreted allegorically, but it had to be connected to the contexts: literal, historical, parabolic, symbolic and hieroglyphic.

Indeed, reading the Bible in the very literal context is not anything different than if you would read a newspaper; doing this you could only have access to its surface, the letter shell. A small advance-without involving too muchwould not take the historical elements that it contains, and which are more or less profuse. Although, if we move towards the parabolic or symbolic context (or allegorical), doing this involves problems every time in the book of Galatians (Gal 4, 22-31) we are given a masterly interpretation of the Bible in the symbolic aspects that normally are taken as literal and historical facts. Similar thing will happen with the story of Samson if we take it as a historical fact. However, is it not historical or does not correspond to the physical reality, that a man has more strength for the sole reason to grow a seven locks of his hair (there is no doubt that the seven braids and honey that feeds him hide a hermetic symbolism elevated that is known by anyone versed in biblical symbolism). A third context in which we can read the Bible would be the allegorical, where, by the way, we approach a proper reading, as the Bible does not do anything but speak in proverbs from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus himself speaks in allegorical language in most of his speeches, especially those aimed to the crowds. The same story of Noah's ark is nothing more than an allegory of a physical fact, and also a hermetic symbol associated to a sin that the humanity had to make at that time massively. In an upper segment the Bible is nothing more than a Hermetic teaching written by initiates and for initiated where symbolism is present in all in codifying private texts, which is not for the masses and that can accessed only by initiated ones into the mysteries. So you can not read the Bible as if it were an ordinary book, much less think that the message it contains can be assimilated in the same literal way in which a newspaper would. That would like to underestimate the Judeo-

Christian writers, thinking they were suffering from the ignorance of the clergy, thinking that the universe was actually created in seven days or that Noah built an ark which would fit from worms to dinosaurs. On the contrary, the Bible itself tells us that it is necessary to use the spirit so that the text does not get empty and barren ( 2 Co 3, 6; 2 Co 3, 14-17). And, because the sacred text is not just words, but in many of his quotes hides the allegory ( Gal 4, 24), the real meaning behind the apparent, we dare to postulate an eminently symbolic significance for many of the stories of the Bible. In fact, one can read it all on a symbolic context; however, you can not read it all in a literal context, because you can get the most absurd conclusions repugnant to logic and sterile. If it were true that we could read the Bible through in a context literal what we might think, for example about the book of Revelation?
Rev 11, 8: And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

There is no doubt this crucifixion was symbolic and comes to represent the very fact that Jesus removed from his psychology all the subhuman elements, including His own lustful-psychological elements which certainly no one would be willing to accept for the impact of background implication involved in such assertion (however, they would be willing to accept that He was physically crucified twice, first in Palestine and the second in Egypt, or vice versa). And to this comes to get correct the assertion of Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews when he says:
Heb 4, 15: For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Egypt, in one of its aspect, allegorizes the land of slavery, and it is clear that we are slaves to our own vices, our own desires and fears. There is no doubt that the Bible is more than a history book, is a book of allegories and refined symbols that carry the initiates of the mysteries to discover the background teaching background. In this regard, it is curious that even the wives of Abraham are also a symbol. But if this is said about the wives of Abraham, what allegorizes Abraham himself? What do Adam and Eve allegorize? The original sin? Is it the same Eden garden or the river that flows from east to water it? Let's see what the two wives of Abraham symbolize and the son from each of them.
Gal 4, 24: Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. 25: Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. 26: But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.

And still points:

2 Cor 3, 14: but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ. 15: But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart. 16: But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Paul suggests that the Jews would have made a wrong reading of the books of Moses. And the fact that at this

point Jesus is the Spirit suggests that the reading made about Moses was literally -as opposition to the spirit. Not gratuitously existed aphorisms before that the word kills, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3, 6). This, of course, has another implication in the background, as early Christianity preaches no longer Moses as the most recent messenger of God, but Jesus, the new Christ-who would, had the name of Jesus Christ, which can result a slap to official Judaism.
1 Cor 10, 1: For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2: and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3: and did all eat the same spiritual food; 4: and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.

The Christ is the rock, and the rock is Christ. Christ means the anointed, anointed but why? Anointed with oil. But which oil? The alchemists are always looking to get the philosopher's stone and have no problem in saying that that rock, that rock at the bottom of the sea, which is found in both plants, animals and humans, an abject and despised stone, the stone rejected the builders and that becomes the cornerstone (Pss 118, 22; Mt 21, 42; Mk 12, 10; Lk 20, 17; Acts 4, 11; Eph 2, 20-21; 1 Pet 2, 6-7 ). There is no doubt that this will always be understood symbolically, in allegorical form, and that the simple appearance indicates, shows veiled knowledge, a knowledge that there will always be transmitted directly, in its crude realism. And it is just at this point where two opposing currents that, in time will be qualified and defined in literalists and Symbolists. The literalists took the form of institution and built churches made of stone, -but they did not build their own inner temple. The

second ones did not take anything of that form as they continued faithful to their slogans and were finally exterminated, but they were never completely eliminated. Those Symbolists were the Gnostics Symbolists. 2.2. CATHOLICISM AND GNOSTICISM

As the Catholic sect1, given the intrinsic nature of his philosophy as evangelical institution, has managed to attract a good number of followers and, however it was the Christian teaching that managed to beat because of the decimation of other philosophies that emerged after the appearance of Hebrew Christ, it is necessary to make some clarification about the circumstances that promoted these events and, more importantly, to establish a comparative table that can weigh the position of both philosophies, the one which managed to impose itself and the one sentenced to exile. In the beginning it is very important to note two premises: The various ways in which a message is understood The secret part of the message

2.2.1. The various ways to understand a message It is reasonable that, having trained Jesus many disciples including the Twelve-, and being from every aspect each individual a different world, the original teaching suffers various interpretations and highlights certain features depending on the psychological, moral and even somatic individual. From this we can infer that, in the beginning, and as the experts conclude Christianity was not just that homogeneous as some may suppose but, on the contrary, analogous to what for anthropologists means the Burgess
1

Sect is considered to be a religious bias, an ideology that is independent of another or a creed that is considered false.

Shales event,1 a sort of explosion of life that will decimate the species, while gaining certain characteristics. Thus, in the first century of our era, and the beginning of the second one, it was possible to find a profuse amalgam of interpretations of the Christian message, including: Arians Carpocratians, Manichaeans, Marcionites, etc.., and a mixture of different religions including Judaism, Platonism, Pythagoreanism and Egyptian cosmogony, among other. Logically, and for simple law of affinities, with time some points of convergence were found and the initial disparity went characterizing, segmenting itself. In this characterization, and as a last resort, we can and we must distinguish two traditions in early Christianity: those who defended the literalism and those defending the symbolism. The Literalism became Orthodox Christianity and, at the time, decided that they should be an ecumenical movement, i.e. Catholic2 because they believed it contained the universal truth. At this point, believing that their doctrine contained the universal truth, decided (and so far we think they did it in good faith) to undertake an aggressive campaign of evangelization. Nor can we ignore the fact that there were emerging in the ranks of early Catholicism very holy men who were willing to die in defense of their belief. In contrast, there were others who were willing to attack other groups of Christians (the Gnostics) also in defense of their belief. The second ones, the Gnostics, unlike the Catholics, made no evangelistic campaign, and this is understandable given the intimate nature of their belief, their autognosis teaches that there is no need to go through any church for
1

Explosion of life that, according to what Stephen Jay Gould exposes in Wonderful Life, had to befall more than five hundred million years ago, during the Cambrian, and in which, contrary to present a cone of increasing diversity, which is seen in the fossil record is a multiplicity and a disparity of anatomical models that of course decimated.
2

Catholic, according to the dictionary, is an adjective that means universal which comprise all. Synonym of true, certain and infallible.

salvation, but that each, in the privacy of his room and self-examination, can attain enlightenment, salvation. Those, the Gnostics, were proud of having a hidden knowledge-same reason they were severely attacked, and that was not for the masses, but for only few people. And though in the beginning the emerging ecumenical church had the key of knowledge and was responsible of "verbum dimissum", we consider that the Catholic, or Catholic precursors as Irenaeus and Epiphanius, in order to exterminate the dissenters of their ideology, sacrificed the truth and spread the easy part of the teaching. They sacrificed the truth just for the pleasure of beating and imposing. They sacrificed the truth just by doing an entourage, and later, when they managed to gain a following one, became as sweeping force that numbs others incipient movements of Christianity. This is how they managed to prevail. It is clear that the false sophistry by which it pretends that the gospel should be preached to the whole world is a scheme by which it is intended to hide and ignore the two sections of the message: the one aimed at the masses, and the one that only the closest disciples were worth knowing. Obviously the Catholic Church chose to present the gospel for the masses, got their enthusiasm and managed to masquerade as legitimate Christian institution. Of course, we are not unaware that evangelism was necessary as an preparatory and introductory exercise to, then, in time, the most advanced could enter into the deep mysteries of Christianity, -such as Clement of Alexandria says. However, that link was broken (perhaps for not recognizing Gnosticism or overturn the mask already built) and the cult of Rome chose the silence, to hide the message, to hide the key of science. What they may not know is that silence is also a way of lying, what they may not know is that silence is also a type of crime. They do not only took the key of knowledge (Lk 11, 52), so that they themselves did not enter but,

what is worse, they prohibited it to whom had been willing to access it. What is that key of knowledge? What is the great mystery that even dared reveal the medieval alchemists dared to reveal? 2.2.2. The secret part of the message Christianity we know today is only the external facade of true Christianity, its caricature. In all religious teaching two topics are handled: the internal and the external. So it has been in all the great religions of history and, of course, Christianity is no exception to the rule, in spite of those who believe that Christianity has nothing to hide and that the teaching transmitted is the real gospel, standard, available to all (incredible how they managed to convince so many and how incidentally, were able to get rid of those who claimed to have a hidden message because, back in time, all teaching considered hidden was demonized and prohibited). However, Jesus Himself always speaks in parables to the crowds and only reveals the true message to his disciples and, even more, says openly that gnosis, meaning knowledge, it is not feasible at all, but only to some.
Mt 13, 10: And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11: And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

The external message is the speech of the priest or psychologist, but not the secret teaching, that it is not for the masses, but only for the ones advanced into the mysteries (at least for that time), so that means you can not evangelize half of the world making it to believe that this or that gospel is the absolute truth, because it is not. The four Gospels and the Pauls Epistles promoted by the

sect of Rome are not the absolute truth. It is undeniable that there is a hidden teaching, a mystery, and that it can not be found in the doctrine that the religions teach to the crowds, and less probable in the miserable and weak teaching of the institution of Rome. It should be the institutions fantasy that they are not the owners of that teaching, of the supreme mysteries which lead us to Christ, they must recognize that their part of the work ends with the external gospel preaching and that Gnosticism, which they fiercely fought, is the true doctrine which teach the mysteries of death and rebirth, because only those who are born again can see the kingdom of heaven (as John 3, 3; 3, 5; 3, 7). The traditional Christian denominations are not only devoid of legitimate teaching, but, to make things worse, they attack-unintentionally or unknowingly- the fundamental truths that the book in which they are based. If the pontiffs of different Christian denominations understand, for example, that castration, circumcision or celibacy should not officiated in words, but that they are allegory and symbols of spiritual circumcision (as Rom 2, 29), then they would not fall into the error of rejecting women, then, they would join her and become geniuses of God, sealed source (as Song 4, 13; Prv 5, 15-19) and virgins that kept the oil (as Mt 25, 112). However, and supposing that this does not happen, today's Christianity becomes nothing more than a laughable caricature and even a heresy regarding the sacred mysteries of early Christianity, a sort of exclusivity in the sense that only them believe to be the universals, while other religions are described as illegitimate-which merely confirms that Christianity is not a universal teaching. Gnosticism, in that sense, has received the epithet of medley (term that rather flatters us because the truth is not the exclusive privilege of a particular creed, of this or that ideology, but it lies at the bottom of each and every one of these doctrines if we see the symbol, the spirit, the allegory); but if we are impartial, we would see

more than hodgepodge is the synthesis that binds all, that unites everybody. And that's different. The following comparative table shows better the similarities and differences between the Gnostic Christians and the Catholic Christians: CATHOLICISM - Literalistic - Patriarchal - Creational oneness GNOSTICISM

- Symbolic - Equal - Duality (there is good and evil) Sexual abstinence - Sexual rites Isolation of women - Inclusion of women Celibacy - Marriage God (without the female complement) - God and Goddess Condemnation of sex - Proper use of sex Rhetorical teaching - Practical teaching The life events are Gods will - The man is a decisiontaker, and builds his own destiny

- Public teaching. Does not teach the mysteries of the Kingdom - Hidden teaching hidden. The great mysteries are revealed Monotheism. There is only one God - We are all gods,
when we embody Him

- Relationship mediated with God - Direct relationship with God - God is in heaven or in a place far away - God is in our heart, there is no need to look far

- You should go to Church and its priests to reach Salvation - Salvation is possible without intermediaries or false pontiffs - Implementation of a belief system - Rupture with all kinds of beliefs. Do not believe, check it. - Only Catholics are saved - Everyone can achieve salvation - Physical churches are built of Stone - The temple of the heart is built - No defects are removed - It provides practical instruction for removing defects - Does not embody the Christ - It embodies the Christ, it becomes a new Christ Although when both doctrines, Catholicism and Christian Gnosticism, emanated from the same source, it seems incredible that two united teachings could distance itself from each other, but even more surprising is the fact that, compared to their respective ideologies- Catholicism and its related ramifications, have been able to survive and to be considered as real doctrines for over twenty centuries, since it is clear that the balance tips, inevitably,-if analyzes without bias of any kind-to endorse Gnosticism as a more correct doctrine, equitable, comprehensive and legitimate. Since the historical verdict is relentless and no academic expert on the subject may be unaware that Gnosticism is as valid as any other ideological doctrine, and that the Gnostic Gospels are historically more reliable than the Gospels itself. Any attempt to know himself is Gnosticism, and it is clear that the act of knowing yourself and explore the endless

possibilities of development within the human being is a legitimate right that assists us. Gnosticism is eternal because wherever there is self-exploration there is and gnosis and self-knowledge and there will always be someone to fight for self-exploration, and self-knowledge. That self-knowledge, of course, implies the denial of doctrines that seek to lead us, to save us thanks to their mediation of priests who want us to believe what they judge as right. So, Gnosis is simply natural functionalism awareness1, the path of those who wish to free themselves from suffering and to unite with the Father; with no religion, no churches, no priests, and no beliefs without intermediation of any kind.

Gnosis is the narrow road full of sorrows and dangers inside and out. Gnosis is only for the brave and pure ones.

CHAPTER 3
MARY'S VIRGINITY TRUTH OR SYMBOLISM?

3. MARY'S VIRGINITY SYMBOLISM?

TRUTH

OR

Oh Divine Mother, if you were not with us we would be lost! Oh Divine Mother, if you wouldnt have eliminated our shortcomings we would be nothing more than shadows sentenced to suffer! 3.1. BIOLOGICAL ASPECT

That a woman, in the time of Jesus, retained her organic virginity after birth, from the medical point of view, is presented as impossibility because of the technology of that time. On one hand, we know that he had not developed the artificial insemination and, secondly, the cesarean-if we stick to the acceptation and modern results- has not been implemented yet 1. In general, the medicine, the surgical practices, the cell research and the genetics were still incipient and had not even begun or discovered. It is not impossible, however, that a woman could become pregnant and maintain, still, its organic virgin state. This would have meant certain objectionable practices that no Jew man or woman usually would have matched. Accepted in the gynecological field, although infrequent there is known the case that, under favorable conditions, a very fertile woman become pregnant if the sperm was spilled on the outside of her genitals (in this case it is necessary for the sperm succeed in making contact with internal genital area); it could also exist the case that a woman leading a normal sexual life would not have her
1

Abdominal-uterine incisions were performed to pregnant women who died to remove the fetus trying to save him.

hymen broken because of its highly elasticity, in which case it could have gotten pregnant without losing her virginity1. Even so, if one of these hypothetical situations had been given, it is unlikely that organic virginity was preserved after the birth unless they had done surgery to remove the infant from the uterus through the practice of a caesarean section. This practice, although it dates back several centuries before, is usually performed to remove the baby from the womb of his dead mother in order to save him or, in most of the time, to give them both a separate burial. In the Roman mythology, Aesculapius (Asclepius or Asklepios among the Greeks) is extracted by Apollo from the womb of the deceased Corinis (Coronis of Koronis), similar case occurs with Dionysus (Dionysos or Dionysus, also called Bacchus), being rescued from the womb of Semele by Zeus. In the eighth century AD the Numa Pompilius Roman law is issued, which prohibits to bury a woman who had died in a state of pregnancy without first removing the child by an abdominal cut. More recently, the first cesarean section during which would have survived both mother and child would have been made by a pigs castrator in 1500. Other successful cases are registered in the seventeenth century, although there may have been favorable cases from the same XVI century. In any case, it is feasible that a Jewish woman of the first century of our era would conserve her organic virginity
1

In any case, this event is not an public event and eventually the respective couple would prefer not to reveal it as being a part, absolutely, of the privacy of every woman and / or each partner and, in any way, would have liked to hide it to avoid uncomfortable situations, morbid episodes, or to generate harmless gossip.

after having given birth, not only by the multiplicity of cultural elements, medical and anatomical, but also for the failure to practice a successful cesarean section that could made possible to survive both mother and child. Now, in the case of a woman in an advanced state of pregnancy that would had died, saving the life of the baby through an incision in the mother's womb to remove him, and if that woman had not lost their virginity by the circumstances anatomical already mentioned, there is the possibility for her to be reputed as a virgin before, during and after childbirth, together with the no less important caveat that have died. This, of course, does not seem to be the case of Mary because the historical references suggest that Mary did not die in labor or before labor, but afterwards. These same referents do not speak of a Jesus orphan, although some traditions place the death of his father before his mother at some point in their childhood or adolescence (in which case it would have been orphan not by mother, but by father). In any case, in the hypothetical case that had both mother and child would have survived after surgery, what would have been disclosed would not have been the virginity of the woman, but the fact of having achieved the first successful Caesarean section in history that both mother and child survived. 3.2. TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS 3.2.1. Advanced Technology Scientists are already making experiments regarding the transfer of states of matter at a distance without the intermediation of any other component. It is possible that virginity after birth would have been achieved by using advanced technology to reach it, however, this argument has no solid background with respect to what the Gospels tell us, nor has utilitarian value. Indeed, it would not make

sense to make a big waste of technology to achieve something irrelevant and common to other women and, after all, this thesis becomes unfeasible since then-and note now- there is the technology capable of doing it. Another option would have been the artificial insemination1; however, this also becomes unfeasible because there were was no appropriate technology for it. In synthesis, the infeasibility unavoidable in each of these propositions concludes that, it were like that, the advocated offspring of David would have been impossible (if we consider that, by tradition, was transmitted patrilineal). Also it is ruled out either of these possibilities because the Gospels, even that suggest that the father is Joseph, do not mention that it had been an elohim or an angel who had impregnated Mary 2. That means that these concepts lie outside our basic scheme of argument and have no biblical justification. 3.2.2. The Jinn States The Jinn states affirm the possibility that an object or a substance in the third dimension, temporarily mute its physical properties so that, reaching a higher vibrational frequency, manage to reach the fourth dimension, moving in it and escape totally to the properties of the physical world. Scientists are not at all skeptical about this possibility, although they could to transfer the atoms
1

Some argue that intelligences from outer space could have accomplished this, and presented facts that eventually would support such a theory (as the star of the East, which would become a flying object). A final hypothesis, also from outer space, would be the conception through Jinn states favored by technological devices.
2

It is common to find in the Old Testament odd references that allude to angelic beings that may well impersonate human and sometimes are seen with the same metabolic needs as food and shelter.

quantum values1. Radio waves, X-rays and magnetic elements transfer from one place to another without physical connection in itself are a good indication of the transmission power and physical properties and of the energy from one place to another crossing the objects or obstacles that may interpose. Some events, a little less scientific, could have happened in the passage referred in Acts 5, 17-23 in which the apostles are put in prison, but an angel rescues them, so that when the police go to the cell where they were held they not find anyone. According to the Gospel, the cell was well closed, seemingly inviolated and with guards standing at the doors. These final annotations are very important because they allow us to infer that the leak was not from the front or in presence of anyone, or that somebody bribe them out of prison 2. Later in the same book, we find another interesting fact:
Acts 8, 39: And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing. 40: But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

In both cases, at least in appearance, states would have experienced the Jinn state. In both cases people have teleported from one place to another without respecting the physical barriers such as walls or distance. By the
1

An interdisciplinary team of experts from the Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland, achieved in 2009 for the first time to transfer quantum states between atoms separated without the mediation of any other atom or any third party.
2

Which does not cancels the possibility that there had been some massive bribery to permit the escape, in which case the jailer or the person who had rescued them would be rightly considered as a kind of savior angel.

same procedure the fetus would have entered to Jinn state to exit the womb of Mary and, once outside, had returned to the vibrational level of the third dimension 1. The question in this case is whether it would have made for yourself or if you have taken out a third, with some kind of superior technology. Also arise here not less important questions related to the pragmatic value, utilitarian of all that. It is relevant for a woman to retain her organic virginity after having a child? Is it relevant that to someone do the toenails wont grow? Does it matter that someone, after urinating, conserves his urinary dry? Nobody would invest a high cost, a big waste of technology to achieve such results irrelevant and unimportant. And this is precisely what would have happened in the case of Marys virginity. 3.3. MORAL ASPECTS

At the other hand- leaving aside the hypothetical technologies or unusual procedures- a moral connotation can be found, which considers Mary's virginity as an extraordinary event meant to provoke moral reactions. This proposition is based on the fact that it can be profitable to honor God, and to deter men to get a change in their behavior. 3.3.1. Method of honor God dissuasion to

By using this technique it would also made possible there wonders as achieving the manna in the wilderness, the multiplication of the loaves or walk on water. In any case it is not a miraculous, is not that a particular material passes from a state of low frequency to a high frequency state, similar to when water is drawn across a piece of wood (here equivalent to a high frequency state). Lets suppose that before crossing the wood was dry (in which case it could not happen), and that for a moment becomes liquid (so you can go through the wood), then returns to its initial state.

The virginity may have originated so that Mary honors the Providence, however, it seems logical to think that, more than honor, would have caused fear. It seems like she already honored him with or without unnatural additives, so that it occurs unfeasible. To someone could grow blue teeth and that would not mean an honor to God; another may be born with wings and not for this reason would become closer to God, so that all these implausible inventions, basically, are not conducive to a more assiduous honor. The person who wants to change will change, not forced by natural deformations, but because he perceives it as necessary. Another possibility would lie in the fact of allowing regional society of that time would honor God and, in a broader aspect, that all mankind would honor God. With respect to the regional honors, and to what the Gospels tell, what we see is that there is a total lack of this state, therefore, is not consistent that this was the objective. In case it would have been a mass honor we could notice that God, or whatever they called God, does not change depending of either an anthill would worship him or not. He really does not need people to honor Him, or that people worship Him, but needs that people change radically what they are daily, their anger, their vices, their frustrations, etc. Moreover, having so many means of deterrence would not seek the most irreverent and, perhaps, the least dissuasive. 3.3.2. Method of dissuasion for the change of behavior It could it be that the virginity of Mary was focused on changing behaviors at regional scale or to crowds. However, what we see again at the regional level, according to the Gospels, is a lack of knowledge of this pathology by that -although they recognize Mary as Jesus' mother, and indicate the names of other of Jesus brothers

. If it was aimed at the crowds, the truth is that someone's virginity does not change anyone's behavior. In our neighborhoods, in our cities there are many virgin girls, and not for that we are better people. Even so, we believe that these genital issues are very personal and private for each person and that there are better methods of deterrence and lead to a change in the human being. Beyond all doubt it would be something intimate and not something intended for the crowds. So, if virginity was not able to provoke changes that had justify it, it would have been created by God, it would not have allowed except to instill fear or as punishment because a virgin woman in Israel, after birth, could have been anathematized and even repelled and isolated if it would have been a public notice. The best method of dissuasion is undoubtedly the teaching and, at this point, we believe that all means of deterrence are achieved through his son, and all other additives are unnecessary. Well might Mary have had a hair of which emanated light, eyes which could see God, or a hymen that could resist to birth or any other pathogen state and, in any case, all this would be irrelevant to the essential: the mission, the death and the resurrection of her son, the phenomenon that really cause a moral reaction decisive and forceful. 3.3.3. Method for a later reputation as a virgin It is possible that God wanted her to be recognized by posterity as a virgin, but this claim has no meaning or utility. It is like creating a woman whose sexual organs light up at night with the intention to be known as the holy woman's sexuality or something like that. Both propositions are sexual, and both are equally preposterous and without any utilitarian sense. This would only prove a capricious God, persecuting superfluous

meanings, a little morbid, and even sexually sick. This would have a mitigating if the initiative had been not his but Marys. Perhaps she would wanted to have a hymen supremely elastic (as rubber) that even when having children, would not break or damage. And, even though the idea would come from God or Mary, in any case, the practical effects can not fail to produce certain rejection or to be immoral. And, if we defend virginity about moral aspects and do overlap this with practical and anatomical justifications that such defense must lead, it can not result more than deductions repugnant to the logic, which do not produce a mystical ecstasy. If Marys virginity had been purposely reputated as such, and to receive bliss honors, that would not have taken place at all. We infer that for her would not have been too useless and senseless to be recognized by men, although it would have been more palatable to be recognized by God. Moreover, the belief or not in this disease-physiologically and anatomically impossible, does not make people better, maybe work as tetra to create a cult and enslave people under certain belief-not before without abusing of common sense-, but nothing more. So, we infer, by force of circumstances, that if virginity would have been wrought by moral aspects, its result would have been doomed to failure. The anatomical implications, strictly speaking, are not closer than moral, but immoral and unnecessary. Additionally, we have to agree that when people do not want to change or do not change, not even when in that city or in that place where you live a thousand virgins who have just given birth. This purported virginity for moral aspects is somewhat ridiculous, and clearly exposes the psychological type of people who defend it. Although is not moral, or ethical, shows no greatness and no purity, -a woman is no more holy for the fact of being virgin. Currently there are women who, using surgical methods manage to

reconstruct her virginity and therefore we do not think that such women are on a mystical ecstasy or in a higher level of purity. In that vein we must to ask ourselves: is it necessary Marys virginity? Why? What for? The Gnostic Christians we can only reject a resounding and unequivocal way the eyesore that built the sect of Rome- sufficient proof of ignorance and sense of the absurd-around anatomical virginity, discarding the symbolic aspect that represent the same one: the esoteric truth, the greatest of all time. 3.4. HISTORICAL ASPECTS1 3.4.1. The version historical-mythical

The cult of the Virgin, the Mother Goddess, the Star of the Sea, or just to the Mother of the gods is much earlier than the Catholic tradition. It is possible in the beginning, even outside the same mother earth, whose cult can be found in the earliest times and in more distant cultures. The virgin and the goddesses mothers themselves are an archetype of fertility, motherhood and the ability to create, the eternal feminine also associated with the sea, the lagoon, the water, the earth, the moon, to fertility and seed, among others.

Actually, more than historical are mythological. However, we prefer this term because it more specifically circumscribes the actual topic at hand.

Ishtar between the Babylonian and Inana 1 among the Sumerians-assimilated then, among the Phoenicians as Astarte, is the quintessential mother goddess, deity of love, fertility and war. She symbolizes the eight-pointed star, which resembles and reminds us of the starfish. In the Greek mythology Astarte has her equivalent in Aphrodite, goddess of love, of reproduction (fertility) and sexuality. Her equivalent in Roman mythology is the goddess Venus, and in Etruscan mythology Turan. Both Astarte as Aphrodite, Venus and Turan are usually represented nude or symbolized with pigeons. Astarte (Ashtoreth or Asherah, among the Israelites), being associated with the constellation of Virgo, in effect, becomes one of the first virgins in the history. Meanwhile Gaea, or Gaia, Gaya-Terra for the Romans, Cybele among the Phrygian and Rhea between the Minoans-, is the primordial goddess, Mother Earth. Hesiod in his Theogony describes her as the "ample bosom, always solid for all Immortals". She, without joining anybody in the softness of love2, begets Ponto. This certainly makes her one of the first miraculous conceptions where the "virgin" or woman, without joining any man sexually, does engender, and precedes by far the subsequent adaptation of the story of Jesus. In the Greek mythology, Artemis was the virgin goddess of the hunt, and her equivalent in Roman mythology was Diana, but she, emblem of chastity, have obtained the
1

The temple of this goddess was E-Anna. It is possible that this word was the equivalent of I-Anna and from there arose, first Inana and secondly, Dianna (or Diana), the virgin goddess of the hunt. The Babylonians associated the constellation Virgo (Virgin) with the goddess Ishtar (Inana), goddess of fertility. The constellation Virgo is also associated with fertility and the harvest time. Unquestionably the parallels are undeniable.
2

HESIOD. The Theogony.

grace of perpetual virginity, like her sister Minerva 1 (Athene among the Greeks). Artemis was also identified with Selene, the Greek goddess of the moon, who used to be depicted with a crescent at her shoulder. In this case, the iconic parallelism between Selene and Mary is surprising, since Mary is usually depicted standing on a crescent. No less important was the role of Demeter, the Greek mother goddess of agriculture, carrier of apple and poppy (the elixir and the ecstasy of love), the life-giving, and protagonist, along with Persephone of the mysteries of Eleusis2. It is worth mentioning to the Valkyries, the virgin warriors of the Norse mythology, and the Vestal Virgins of the temple of Rome, undisputed symbol of both mother virgin and priestess wife3. The second ones were responsible for
1

Minerva, along with Jupiter and Juno, is part of the three major gods from the Roman classics, forming what is known as the "Capitoline Triad". This may help to the Christianity religion based in Rome to incorporate the Trinity which, in any case, is a contribution paid by the Gnostics and many other religious forms of the pagan world, prior to the cult of Rome.
2

The Mysteries of Eleusis were erotic initiation rituals related to fertility, the revitalization and rebirth of life, made in honor of Demeter and Persephone. Apparently both were associated with the same "Great Mother". There were dances, music, kisses and adorable goddesses with who they hoped to achieve ecstasy and union with the divinity. In summary, nothing more and nothing less than sexual magic, same known only in the greater mysteries, and that was unspeakable (it is important to know that who would disclose it was punishable by death).
3

Samael Aun Weor, founder of the contemporary Gnostic establishes a clear distinction between the "virgin mother" and "priestess wife". In this regard, in The perfect marriage, declares: Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the same Isis, Juno, Demeter, Ceres, Maia, etc, The Cosmic Mother or Kundalini (Sexual Fire) of who is always born the Cosmic Christ is born. The Mary Magdalene is the same Salambo, Matra, Ishtar, Astarte, Aphrodite and Venus with who we have to practice sexual magic to awaken the fire.

keeping the fire burning in the Temple and carried a lighted lamp. Among many of the privileges they were granted, was also to acquit a death penalty. Surely the symbolism transcendent of this is really portentous. As for the different "Christos" born of a virgin or who have a miraculous conception there were several, in all times and even from remote geographies. Among the Phrygian Atis (or Attis) is conceived without the help of man, by the virgin Nana, by putting an almond fruit in her lap. Among the Greeks Dionysus, also known as Bacchus, the twiceborn, the son of Semele, comes directly from God by being grafted miraculously in the Zeus's thigh. Among the Hindus Krishna (or Govinda) is also born miraculously. It is conceived by his mother Devaki, but his embryo is transferred to the uterus of Rohini (or Rojini) having birth without sexual union (many events similar to those occurring with Jesus also happen during the birth of Krishna). Maia (or Maya or Mahamaya) is the virgin mother of Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) who conceived her without sexual union to be mildly wounded by an elephant tusk. However, the closest parallel, the similarity between the birth of Jesus any other Christ has its most explicit example in the birth of Mithra and, in a way, in the birth of Osiris-Horus. Some traditions presented him born of a rock-which is vastly more prodigious; he might have been born of his own will- with no sexual contact.
This is why the cave played a primary part in the Mysteries of Mithra. On the other hand, according to a tradition transmitted by al-Biruni, on the eve of his enthronement the Parthian king retired to a cave, where his subjects approached and venerated him like a newborn infant more precisely, like an infant of supernatural origin. Armenian traditions tell of a cave in which Meher (i.e., Mihr, Mithra) shut himself

up and from which he emerged once a year. In fact the new king was Mithra, reincarnated, born again. 1

This, with no doubt, has a very close parallel to the baby Jesus born in a cave or manger which glows like the sun would born -the Sun god was born on December 25. In this regard Helen Ellerbe states:
Mithra was closely tied to the sun gods, Helios and Apollo. Mithra's birthday on December 25, close to the winter solstice, became Jesus's birthday. Shepherds were to have witnessed Mithra's birth and were to have partaken in a last supper with Mithra before he returned to heaven.2

His birth has a portentous symbolism; he is represented with a torch in his hand and the knife to kill the bull in the other (symbolizing the removal of the animal ego). Mithra is the light of the world and, like Jesus, is a suffering Christ and, same as Him, has risen shortly after dying (the Mithraism priests used to say that Mithra had risen from the dead3). The form of worship is very similar to the Roman church, and even held the communion with bread and water (wine). Gmez de Liao narrows:
There will therefore be assumed that Christian community is an imitation of the Mithraic one, same as still the caps the bishops testify in the form and
1

ELIADE, Mircea. Translated by Willard R. Trask. A History of religious ideas, Volume 2: From Gautama Buddha to the triumph of Christianity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982. P. 322.
2

ELLERBE, Helen. Trad. Cherly Harleston. The Dark Side of Christian History. Mxico D.F.: Editorial Pax Mxico, 2007.
3

SARAYDARIAN, Torkom. Trad. Hctor Vicente Morel. Sinfona del Zodaco. Buenos Aires: Kier, 2006. P. 87.

name its Mithraic source? Impossible to answer with certainty, as both communions are inspired by the sacred banquet, a very common ritual in antiquity. But it is hard to believe that the worshipers of Mithras imitated the Christian communion, because in that case it would have taken more than a century to discover the most important sacrament of their liturgy [...]. A sample of Mithraic influence on the Christian religion -that perhaps had in the Essenes of Qumran as intermediaries-is the sanctification of Sunday, the day when the Mithraic dedicated to the Sun, and especially of December 25, the day the Mithraic celebrate the birthday of the Sun (Natalis Solis Invicti) and their God ex petra natus1.

The cult of Mithras, much older than Christianity, was condemned latter; the Christians accused it of being a malicious plagiarism of the true mysteries of the true faith. Indictment, of course, totally absurd because how can it be an older cult a plagiarism of the recent one? As to Osiris (Asir, or Usir) and Horus (or Hor), the tradition presents them as the great Egyptian gods. Horus was killed by his brother Seth, but he resurrects when his wife Isis unites his parts2 it is always the woman who allows the resurrection of the initiate-. Apparently Osiris and Isis have a sexual relationship when she manufactures him an artificial phallus that, for a moment, does vitalize, and
1

GMEZ DE LIAO, Ignacio. El crculo de la sabidura: Diagramas del conocimiento en el Mitraism, el gnosticismo, el cristianismo y el maniquesmo. Madrid: Ediciones Siruela, 2005. 2 Except his penis that ate by the Oxyrhynchus fish. In the Gnostic the symbolism synonym of the elimination of animal passion, the symbolic castration that precedes the sexual magic (Note the similarity between Osiris, Attis and Jesus). Osiris, without his penis, is a castrated god, like the other major gods that will come after him. We believe this sacred fish of the Nile can and should be associated with the sacred snake that comes out of water, the same fiery serpent, erect and on a stick Nm 21, 8-9.

manages to conceive. The result of this conception is Horus. Here, even when conception is miraculous, apparently it is not virginal. However, the iconography of infant Isis, Isis mother with the child Horus in her lap is a pagan element which was incorporated into Christianity, and it is one of the most remarkable images of this religious, obviously, an adaptation of the myth. So, the birth of Jesus is not the first miraculous birth of history, nor it will be the last. However, we are convinced that such births should not be assimilated into a strict and literal order, because they correspond, beyond any doubt, of the truth of interpretive type. Mary and Jesus represent the same role as Isis and Horus, Juno and Mars, Cybele and Attis, Neith and Ra, Semiramis and Tammuz, among many others. Among the Christians, the Virgin Mary conceives from the Holy Spirit (symbolized as a pigeon) and gives birth to Jesus Christ. In other traditions the fertilization is not made by a pigeon, but some other sacred animal, an elephant, a cow etc. At other occasions the sacred hero emerges from a stone, water or simply a woman becomes pregnant by the eating some fruit. In summary, the birth, life, work, death and resurrection of Jesus, find a very close parallels among other great gods of antiquity such as Hormuz, Mithra, Osiris, Horus, Buddha, Attis, Krishna, Zoroaster, Odin, etc. -by the way, prior of them, and his miraculous conception is not the first one because, as noted, the tradition of the miraculous births and virgins (particularly without sexual contact) was already the rule among the great gods of the paganism. Thus, the birth of Jesus and his history is presented as nothing more than a syncretism, a patchwork quilt. The Christian scholars, proclaiming that Jesus (in the same way as it happened with the other major gods) was born of a virgin, were still not following any biblical indication at all, but they only adhered to the existing tradition about the big gods, anointed, enlightened, resurrected, etc.

Thus, mother and virgin goddesses are many, and they all become fertile, conceiving in her womb gods, demigods and titans. In fact, every Christ comes to be assimilated as the son of a virgin. It is not an exclusive faculty of Mary to become Mater Dei or Mater mundi. It is not Mary the first "mother goddess" or the first "virgin", or the first to have a miraculous conception. But she undoubtedly also comes to symbolize Stella Maris1 (indeed, it is one of her titles), the star of the sea, the sea goddess, and even the virgin of the sea. She is the same mea domina, the virgin madonna, the same Baalti (Semiramis, before Abraham) that converts the simple man in a God 2. It seems to be an immediate adaptation of the Egyptian Isis, another embodiment of the Great Mother, also called Io (Mater-Io, Io Maris, and even Mar-Io, and the first word inclusion Ram-Io. One of her epithets is precisely mother of God, and she is represented holding in her arms her child god Horus, who she breastfeeds. More than three thousand years after they have instituted the cult of Isis, the Roman Church gave to Mary 3 similar
1

Stella Maris means star of the sea, and reminds us of the sea to the stars whose arms are actually forming a pentagram (also called pentacle or pentalfa); same as the various meanings, including the Matrix, or subterranean Mother, Venus, sexual love and the man himself. That Stella Maris exists in every man, in the sea (or sexual waters), which shines as the womb of all, where it waits to be awakened to true love through sexual union without blemish. Stella Maris certainly is a creative power, generator, who lives within us.
2

The legend says that once her husband Nimrod died, put together the pieces, and proclaimed that he had come to life, become a god in the person of Tammuz, -also known as Baal.
3

Within the Hebrew Miriam (Mary) could come from the term mr, which means love. Love, sea, water, mother and fertility, are all attributes of the Mother Creator, the seed from which we are born. Christ is always son of love and the virgin sea.

titles and attributes given to Isis, the other mater lactans and mother of the universe. By doing this certainly they did not follow a biblical tradition because the Bible never concedes that title, or ensure that the virginity to be perpetual1. By doing this they simply followed the esoteric tradition underlying in all the great religions. In other words, the fact that Mary is reputed as virgin is an interpretive truth, but not a literal truth, and so it is evidenced by the mythological and historical circumstances in which it is immersed. 3.4.2. The story in the Gospels When referring to history we do not analyze it in a strict context as we know too well that the Gospels are not necessarily a historical truth and that the same story in a strict sense and context, hardly outlines the existence of Jesus, presented in a more or less consistent form. As for his mother, and from the historical point of view, the situation is less hopeful. We know, by logic induction logic, that she must have had physical mother and father, because no human being comes into existence of wind or spirit. However, it is not historically or anatomically evident that this woman had not been a virgin after the birth, nor we can find in the annals of medicine or obstetrics gynecology reference regarding any similar case. It can be argued that there is evidence in the canonical Gospels. However, it is clear that the Gospels have no historical character, but religious, and symbolic and interpretative. In other words, the Gospels, more than
1

The perpetual virginity of Mary does not belong to the doctrine promulgated in the Bible. There isnt in the Bible a single verse that even suggests it. This seems to advocate in favor of the thesis that the perpetual virginity was a later invention. The Church of Rome says that the faith is not based on Scripture, but on the authority and certainty of the Church.

being a historical fact, are a symbolic reality that in the best case, contain historical elements. And those historical elements in context, do not allow even remotely say that Mary of Nazareth would had retained their physical virginity after her firstborn son. Strictly speaking, virginity is not a biblical truth. And if it is not a biblical truth, it is clear that it is a later invention. In the beginning, the Gospels themselves give us the first evidence of it, although Mary is reputed as a virgin before birth, not to mention again after birth, -which is more than logical. There is not even a single reference, either in the canonical gospels or the epistles or in any corner of the New Testament (which in our time has nothing new and, in fact, is obsolete) where rather the absence of Mary is remarkable. This is not a grant-silence- not always the silence accordsthis is the silence of the obvious. In the history of mankind there have been millions of births, and the history of those births did not say that mothers lost their virginity during the whole process because it is something obvious and it would been stupid to tell (a role which would be a little ridiculous). This is the same silence that occurs in the case of the birth of Jesus in that while Mary is named as virgin before the birth, and never called again a virgin after the birth1, and only is called by name or in relation of kinship of Jesus as her mother, or-in case of most texts of the New
1

Only Mt 1, 23 and Lk 1, 27 cite her as virgin before birth, and are the only two verses in the entire Bible that suggest he had not had sex until the conception of Jesus. And if we are strict in the sense this is never a claim that would have been still a virgin after the birth, and no verse in the entire Bible suggests so. In contrast to these two verses, we have a long series of verses speaking of the brothers of Jesus (Mt 12, 46-50, 13, 55-56, Mk 3, 20-21, 30-35, Lk 8, 19 -21, John 2, 12, 7, 35, 7, 10, Acts 1, 14, 1 Cor 9, 5, Gal 1, 19). What is literal - the existence of brothers or the virginity? What is it really possible - the existence of brothers or virginity? Beyond this fact is that all women are virgin at birth and eventually are virgins that will conceive and give birth. But we know that after giving birth that virginity is lost.

Testament- she is never mentioned again. Most likely is that the writers of the New Testament had not considered auspicious to state the event as if it was a normal conception, a normal pregnancy and normal birth, is foolish enough to simply state it and to know and say that he is the son of Mary and Joseph. A similar thing happens with people involved in the gospels and who know Jesus and his family. They do not refer to the mother of Jesus as the Virgin, or Jesus as the son of the virgin. For them it is absolutely unknown the dogma of virginity, the title which is given to them. In fact, had it been so, it was quite possibly that it would have impelled to show the evidence of her virginity, and Mary could extend the canvas with tests (as Dt 22, 13-19). But none of this happens, and she is really considered a common woman, who has become a mother
Mt 13, 54: And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? John 6, 41: The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread which came down out of heaven. 42: And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven?

S. a. Mt 2, 11; 2, 13-14; 2, 20-21; 12, 47-50; Mk 3, 31; Lk 2, 34; 2, 43; 2, 48; 2, 51; Lk 8, 19-21; John 2, 1-5; 2, 12; 19, 25-26; Acts 1, 14 (Passages in which Mary is mentioned after the birth. None of them mentions her as a virgin).

Mt 12, 46: While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.

It is strange that the evangelist, who knows what has happened in this last passage (where he cites the mother and the brothers), says that his mother was a virgin, but says he had brothers. Moreover, it is clear that those in the know, and who know Mary, do not refer to her as a virgin. Jesus, in fact, did not refer to her as virgin in the passages referred to her (Mt 12, 49-50, 13, 55, Mk 6, 3, John 2, 3, 6, 42), which implies a lack of respect, an insult to the alleged miracle wrought useless to her. Indeed, the evangelists do not recognize as a virgin. Jesus, in all his preaching never refers to his mother: my mother is virgin. On the contrary, what we see is that not only does not name as my mother the virgin, but additionally he does not know her when he says that his mother may well be the daughter of the neighbor next door, since the will of God would be done (Mt 12, 46-50; Mk 3, 31-35; Lk 8, 1921). Does not call her virgin, but woman 1 (John 2, 3; 19,
1

These episodes also appear hinting distance between Jesus and Mary. The fact to called her woman and not mother, show some distance between them. It is as if, in a way, he would not know her. And that would not be the first time. In Lk 11: 27-28 a woman says, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you. And he said, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it! Jesus does not promise to be fortunate to Mary, does not bless as immutable because anyone can become more blessed and fortunate than her. There are certain disdain of Jesus to his physical mother, but what could have been the cause? The renunciation of Jesus to all whats material, while recognizing that there is something greater than the physical family, due to their detachment, could be the answer. It could also be that she did not believe or trust him that he had brought up in a rough way. But if she had rudely educated him might have occurred as a form of reaction to that son was the result of forced sexual intercourse. And if Jesus also responds with indifference could be for this reason. His people on the other hand, where doing anything different, but also treat him as a madman who has lost his mind: "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they

26-27), and this would be the difference of virgins and puts them in the field of women who have given birth. After birth the mother of Jesus is cited more than a dozen times, and never as a virgin. If this had been a truth known by the evangelists, it is clear that it have been mentioned. And no less occurs with the testimony of the apostles. They never preach the virginity of Mary at the time of preaching the resurrected Jesus. They never preach to the mother at the time when the child is preached. They actually never preach to the mother 1. It is assumed that they would know something, which they would reveal something, but this does not happen. It is true that at some point they spoke of Jesus as the son of the Virgin Mary, but this was a later tradition, when they mistook the symbolic aspect with the physique. With respect to persons who must have access and understand
said, He is beside himself (Mk 3, 21). And it seems that his mother must be included. When his mother and brothers want to talk to him they dont want to commend him, but to admonish him and ask him to reconsider everything he is doing. In an extreme case, one can say that there is a mutual denial or mutual disdain and indifference. As if they mutually would feel uncomfortable. The limit of this ratio could, inclusive, have been given in the passage of John 19, 26-27. In that case that passage is read easier if Jesus or Mary would not known to be the mother or son-in Jesus this is clear, in Mary there are certain allusion that seem to believe it. Then it is understood that Jesus tell his mother, "Woman, behold your son" as a mechanism to reconcile the parties, as a form of Mary and the beloved disciple anodyne to forget their differences. This passage, on the other hand, allows us to infer that Mary was not a virgin known not even by his own son; otherwise Jesus would have referred to her as a virgin. So who invented the dogma? One is tempted to think that the same as those who spread it, which taught it (the sect of Rome teaches false truths? Teaches that illustrious institution things that are not aware, that have not been proven?).
1

The cult of the eternal feminine is really gnostic. The Gnostic Christianity from its beginnings-turn to its peak by interacting with Greek Gnostic doctrines that gave shape and grandeur of early Christianity. However, that portentous symbolism was prostituted by the Church of Rome, which transformed all in a dogma.

the history of the virginity of Mary, the following sequence shows his total ignorance. Mary: does not declare virgin (even when her performance in the Gospels is virtually nil, in the few times that it does not interact to pose as virgin). Jesus: does not know to be born of a virgin or at least does not proclaim her. The attitude is not "virgin" but "woman." The evangelists: They do not mention that Mary was a virgin before, during and after birth. Matthew and Luke suggest that Mary was a virgin before having the first child, Jesus (usually every woman is a virgin before having children). Those who know Mary: Do not cite it as a virgin, but as the mother of Jesus. The apostles do not cite her as virgin in its various outreaches. Not even name her. Paul mentions her not as a virgin, but as a mother The New Testament: do not mention her as a perpetual virgin. Apart from the four gospels she is cited only once. The Church of Rome: without any foundation states that Mary was a virgin before, during and after childbirth.

If we follow the usual sequence of people who had access to any information related to the myth of virginity, it is anomalous that the Church of Rome develop a belief against the biblical truth and the apostolic tradition. Did they confuse Mary with some of the great mythological virgin? Or with any of the reputed mother goddesses that existed since antiquity, with the most traditional and worshiped? As noted, in asserting that the mother of Christ is ever virgin never adhere to any literal truth, but it

is continued the esoteric tradition, in which everything anointed is always the son of the great Mother ever Virgin, to which no mortal has lifted the veil. As to organic virginity of Mary, it is clear that this presumption is not a biological truth, or historical, or medical, or logic, or genetic, or biblical or evangelical, or apostolic. In the Gospel, those who interact with Jesus and who know Mary do not refer to her as a virgin. It seems that the tradition of Mary's virginity is a later invention and in the time of Jesus, it was not recognized by those who knew her, for which she had been seen by neighbors or relatives. Jesus himself did not even mention anything about it or refers to his mother as a virgin, yet some say that the signal is the birth of a virgin of Israel, while he merely states it, regarding himself, which will not be given more than the sign of Jonah (Lk 11, 29). So, it is inadmissible an organic virginity from every point of view. Jesus himself does not know it and, to some extent, seems to refute it. There seems to be any kind of worship of Jesus to his mother as a virgin (not really seem to be worship of Jesus to his mother). And there's more, those who know Jesus at that time did not call him the son of the virgin, and the early Christians and apostles do not know that it was. No doubt that this story was a later invention, possibly created by people with repressed sexual fantasies or, in any case, ignorant of the great esoteric truths. Aguilar Pial, in this respect, says:
Regarding to the illusory conception 'by the Holy Ghost' did not belong to the doctrine as 'dogma of faith' until centuries later. The virginity of Mary, something as sensitive to Christian minds, is a later 'invention, since not even Paul mentions it, nor to speak of conception (Rom 1:3) and the birth of Jesus (Gal 4:4) and it is not proclaimed that she was

"sinless virgin" until the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). Christians believe that Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any human semen1.

From the genetic point of view it seems unlikely that a spirit fertilizes the egg of a woman, while it would be much like saying that the wind stopped during pregnancy (which is more credible if we observe the process of pollinated plant fertilization). And Jesus, having failed to open parent-in the sense that it was not born, according to the theory of the Church of Rome, through the birth canal of Mary-not to be born by caesarean section, becomes orphaned, which somehow implies that he is not even is the son of Mary. In other words, it is an elaborate attempt to ignore the human origin of Jesus provided to flatter this divine origin.
Lk 2, 27: And he came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law, 28: then he [Simeon] received him into his arms, and blessed God.

S. a. Lk 2, 41
Lk 2, 48: And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father [Joseph] and I sought thee sorrowing.

Trivial surprise after all he did have parents! But who were they? Did Mary show up held by her by God in the temple? In this case it seems strange that Simeon worship a baby wrapped in cloths, not to God himself, or the Holy Spirit, which is presented in person, beside Mary, to present her firstborn son. Perhaps the father of Jesus was an ordinary
1

AGUILAR PIAL, Francisco. La quimera de los dioses. Ojos que no ven, corazn que no quiebra. Madrid: Visin Libros, 2010. page 403.

man of flesh and blood, which explains why he became unnoticed for Simeon. Perhaps, if correct the eventual result later purification of the Gospels, this would be one of the passages that escaped the premeditated and targeted weeding. Indeed, Lk 2, 27, Lk 2, 41 and Lk 2, 48 linked directly to Joseph as Jesus' father, or when less linked to a man as the father of Jesus. Anyway, in the case of the virginity of Mary, nothing seems to fit with the idealized and artificially images created during centuries by meetings of councils and popes of the early Church, which regulate and normalize the needed beliefs, not only among the followers and supporters, but among themselves, among their own leaders then, is not a secret, had deep theological differences among its most illustrious representatives. In this regard Cotterell mentions:
In the person of the Virgin Mary the earth goddess the great mother of ancient religionssucceeded in re-establishing something of her former position. At first the Virgin was not honored above other saints, but from the fourth century onwards there was a marked growth in the devotion accorded by Christians to Mary. In 431 the Council of Ephesus, which met in a church supposed to contain her mortal remains, confirmed the title of Theotokos, God-bearer, which was translated into Latin as Mater Dei, mother of God [...]. She was Mater Virgo, virgin mother, the primal material prior to its division into the multiplicity of created things; Stella Maris, star of the sea, the immaculate womb of the divine font as well as the primeval waters over which the Spirit moved. 1

COTTERELL, Arthur. Dictionary of World Mythology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. P. 190

As we see, the roll of virginity is not to be understood in a physical way, the very fact that names Mary as Universal Queen of all creation is not to be understood in a literal way, but in this title is contained the essence of the Virgin, as Cotterell notes, she is the immaculate womb of the divine source, the generating matter, the primordial waters and in its most sacred aspect, the origin of organs waters, and with no doubt, the God bearer. But it cant be in the physical sense because otherwise how can it be a woman, created by the creations of the creation be the creator of creation?
Gal 4, 22: For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman. 23: Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise. 24: Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar. 25: Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. 26: But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.

It's amazing that passages, usually filled with the most rigorous considered literalism, they are not so in reality. And even more, that the same biblical text so vehemently evidences it. This passage recognizes a heavenly Jerusalem as the true mother of all, what could be termed as 'universal mother'. It does not say that it was Mary (though, according to the text, it seems to be more close Sarah than Mary to be the mother figure) and, if so it was, as the writers wisely glossed it has to be understood in an interpretative manner, not literal.

3.5.

MARY, MOTHER AND WOMAN

The character of Mary apparently, being Jewish, and in the absence of historical evidence that could to infer the contrary, would be matched perfectly to the social and religious traditions of Judaism. The Gospels do not cite her to refer as a woman who violates the law or behave in a way that would call controversy. She seems willing to comply with the law or as provided in the Providence, at least that is what allows to infer the passage of "announcing" when she, at the end of the event expressed: Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word (Lk 1, 38). She also appears to be responsive to the environment and the circumstances in which it operates, particularly in the mystical environment (Lk 2, 19). The Wedding at Cana also show her diligent, concerned that domestic things march at their end. All these circumstances make us think of a woman that fits in a natural way to traditions and cultural and social customs and even religious of the Jewish people (which in our time may be perceived as a kind of sickly submission). Indeed, the normal would be having been educated according to Jewish traditions and customs in a religious and cultural sense. So, she would have received a basic religious education, primarily serving the role of women in the Jewish religion and in a special way, in the role to play in the family, in marriage and in society. It is natural, according to the education and the tradition she received, not to be outside of the human role played by women, especially when accepting to receive a man as a spouse, which means that she will also know the obligations of husband among the conjugal duty. Moreover, we think that crafts like spinning, achieving water, parenting, the ways to behave with the husband, etc., would have been within the normal range of her teaching and education.

Joachim Jeremias, the renowned expert on Palestinian history from the time of Jesus, with respect to the situation of women, notes:
The wife's first duties were household duties. She had to grind meal, bake, wash, cook, suckle the children, prepare her husband's bed, and, as repayment for her keep (b. Ket. 58b), to work the wool by spinning and weaving (M. Ket. v.5). Other duties were that of preparing her husband's cup, and of washing his face, hands, and feet (b. Ket. 61a, cf. 4b.96a). These duties express her servile relationship with her husband; but his rights over her went even further. He laid claim to anything his wife found (M.B.M. i.5 in this she resembled a Gentile slave), as well as any earnings from her manual work, and he had the right (because of Num. 30:7-9) to annul her vows (M. Yeb. x.1) The wife was obliged to obey her husband as she would a master the husband was called Rab indeed this obedience was a religious duty.1

No doubt that spinning and parenting would be two of the activities more common for an average woman in the Palestine of Jesus' time. The mill we know it from the Bible itself, and rearing, because the Jews had a strong thought of reproduction as a blessing and, not least, because they had no efficient methods of contraception-which would not care, for what they wanted was exactly that: the conception, children. This agrees with what we know about Mary, as she is easily recognized mainly distinctly, for her role as mother. She, before any myth, is primarily a Jewish woman, a woman who, at least during the marriage, has to serve her husband, to submit to his will, to take care of the household things, to breastfeed Jesus, to clean his facials, to raise him, as well as spinning and weaving as a mechanism to compensate her support. The
1

JEREMIAS, Joachim. Translated by F.H. and C.H. Cave. Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. P. 369.

image produced subsequently sold us is different, and the story of her life is to change over time to become the perfect archetype of woman and mother. The Council of Ephesus held in 431 against Nestorianism 1, makes it clear that the Jewish Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. Thereafter the Marianism, ignored until then, becomes relevant and unites supporters to become, gradually, one the major Christian devotions. Much later in time, in 1854, by the dogmatic Bull Ineffabilis Deus, was proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception 2 and finally, in 1950, by the papal bull Munificentissimus Deus, the Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Virgin Mary's ascension into heaven body and soul. Obviously, the church of Rome made a process of "construction of Mary", a process applied selectively to a woman and a Jewish mother of the first century of our era, for what we can infer, they never knew she was a virgin. 3.6. MARRIAGE IN THE TIME OF JESUS

The fragmentary and scattered stories relating to marriage in the time of Jesus did not allow determining with certainty the strict protocol that was followed from the time of betrothal up to the consummation of the
1

Doctrine preached by Nestorius, V century Christian patriarch, who was deposed after he declared his doctrine as heretical, which states that in Jesus there are two natures (the divine one and the human one), but separately, from which it is understood that Mary can be called the mother of the human nature of Christ (Christotokos), but not Mother of God (Theotokos).
2

This means she was conceived without an original sin, a hypothetical spot with which, from the point of view of the Catholic Church of Rome, all human beings are born. However she only for a whim of God would be born without the stain. It is presumed that this special condition would have allowed her up to ascend to heaven in a mortal body (which is very strange because many ancient traditions, each in their respective site, fought to preserve the mortal remains of the mother of the Savior).

marriage itself. However, we can sketch in general the traditional process, the overall shape that would have been used in most cases. First, we know that about parents had, in the beginning, the obligation to seek a wife for their children, and vice versa. Are them who, too, except very rarely, will give their endorsement for this to happen. So, the pretender -usually between 16 to 24 years- was going to the house of the father of the bride-usually between 12 to 13 yearsto get her hand and really talk some monetary issues (dowry)1 and to refine the betrothal contract. In case the agreement had been reached, the daughter and the suitor sealed their betrothal agreement and since that time as a woman would have been considered as bride. This was the first stage of marriage, and usually had a 12 months period time. From that moment the woman was considered as married, and the marriage could not be dissolved except by formal divorce. Both remained in the house of their fathers, the bride preparing for her future role as wife and the man adapting the accommodation for his wife. After this period came the marriage as such, in which case the bride, after certain formalities, would be taken to the groom's house, where they finally would-be carried out the ceremony, after making the ketubah2 or the final marriage contract. Joachim Jeremias, in an undeniable parallel with the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25, 1ss-quoting F. A. Klein and L. Bauer notes:
1

Examples of the delivery of dowry are found in Gn 34, 12; Ex 22, 1617; 1 Sam 18, 22-27. 2 This contract regulates the obligations to which the husband agrees and the amount of money that he will pay in case of divorce, among others. Moreover, in Jesus, the groom's friends would be the guarantors of the bride's virginity. The opposite is the Ketubah is the Guet, or the divorce document.

After the day is spent in dancing and other entertainment, takes place the wedding dinner after nightfall. In the light of the torches the bride is conducted to the husband's house. Finally a messenger announces the arrival of the bridegroom, who until then had to stay out of the house; the women leave the bride alone and go with torches to meet the bridegroom, who appears in front of his friends. The description that my late father published in 1909 talks about a wedding in Jerusalem (1906) in an urban environment (Christian). In the evening the guests are regaled in the bride's house after waiting a few hours the groom (repeatedly announced by messengers), he finally came around eleven thirty, to pick up the bride, led by his friends in a sea of flaming lamps and received by the guests who come to the meeting. In festive atmosphere the procession moved to the groom's father home, again in a sea of light, where the wedding took place and a new banquet. Both the reception of the groom with lights as the long hours waiting the arrival of the groom are frequently mentioned in modern reports on Arabs wedding customs in Palestine1.

Alfred Edersheim2 comments about the ceremony was accompanied by the use of crowns for the husband, and jewelry for the wife (Song 3, 11; Is 61, 10; Ez 16, 12 ), were carried palms and myrtle branches, and were throwing grains and money. In addition there was a party and before the procession music. The wedding party took a week, but the wedding days extended, normally, within a month (ending the second part of the betrothal).

JEREMIAS, Joachim. Trad. Francisco J. Calvo. Las parbolas de Jess. 3 ed. Navarra (Spain): Editorial Verbo Divino, 1974. III, 5. 2 EDERSHEIM, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish social life in the days of Christ. New York: Cosimo, 2007.

These two phases, the betrothal and the marriage itself, are absolutely vital when interpreting what happened between Mary and Joseph. We know they were in the betrothal stage, prior to the marriage itself, but at this point they already considered as husband and wife considered not anymore to be subject to the parent but to be subject to her fianc, including they could have relationships in this period (Cf. Tob 6, 11-13; 7, 1-20; 8, 116; 9, 1-12). That is, as newlyweds, nothing prevented Joseph and Mary to have sexual intercourse. Apart from this, it is also noted that the purpose of a couple that is getting married-or at least somewhat predictable-is to have children, and the environment of that time was not oblivious to this because, as is known, infertility was something like a curse, a reproach result of some hidden sin (Gn 16, 1-5; 30, 23; Ex 23, 25-26; Dt 7, 11-15; 1 Sam 1, 5-6; 1, 11; Job 15, 34; Hos 9, 14; Lk 1, 5-7; 1, 13-15; 1, 24-25). Claiming that Joseph and Mary would have considered staying together in a sterile role would be the craziest idea we could imagine. It is only natural that Joseph and Mary, at some point, considering also the Jewish history regarding fertility-had contemplated the possibility of having children, or would understood that eventually they would have children later which is therefore normal for all Jewish marriages were preparing for it. 3.7. THE PROPHECIES

There are several prophecies that predicted the birth of the Messiah and the general circumstances in which to be born such as location (Mic 5, 2) his sufferings (Is 53, 3), his death (Is. 53, 7), and even that he would be the firstborn among others.

Is 7:13: And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15: Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16: For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.

For the Jews the permanent virginity of a woman was not a primary goal or an ideal state1, whenever the divine command received by them was focused on fertility. It is even possible to find a more specific reference to a woman who mourns her virgin status, and women who regret it together in the Book of Judges ( Judg 11, 38-40). Typically, natural and socially accepted was that a woman had a prolific descendent and this, of course, in no way would absolve Mary. In any case, the fact that someone born of a virgin, in the Jewish cultural environment, meant only that the child was the firstborn and therefore holy to the Lord (Ex 13, 2; 23, 19). This would put him in a privileged position because, being the first child, is considered a special man, as scoop consecrated to the Lord and of the Lord (consecrated and sacrificed, or
1

However, if it was considered an affront the fact that a woman would lost her virginity by rape and sorrow, in case of been betrothed, there was the death penalty for the rapist (Dt 22, 23-27). Judith's book records: Jdt 9, 2: Lord, God of my ancestor Simeon, you armed him with a sword to take vengeance on the foreigners who had undone a virgin's belt to her shame, laid bare her thigh to her confusion, violated her womb to her dishonor, since, though you said, 'This must not be,' they did it. (Cf. Gn 34; Dt 22, 28). (New Jerusalem Bible).

redeemed in the case of animals) the same would not have been able to partake in the event in case there would have been the second son. In other words, what the prophecy raises is that if there would have been a child of God, dedicated to God, and even, at the image of the firstborn animals, sacrificed too, with what he becomes himself the prophetic sign 1. The practical situation is simple: Jesus would be the first child, the first to open the womb 2. If he had been the second son the situation would have been diametrically opposite: he would not have been consecrated to God, he would be a symbol of Jewish fertility, he would not be the Messenger (which is usually also transposes to mystical conceptions) and he would not have been born of a virgin.
Is 7, 14: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son

Some argue that the sign is the virgin birth; however, we believe that the signal is the same Jesus (Lk 2, 34). Virginity or not a woman at the time of conception is irrelevant in our times of course there have been many reported cases of this type and, however, no one cares about it, it is not a sign of anything. The era was not divided into before and after the virginity of Mary, but before and after the advent of Christ. The signal is not the organic virginity of a woman, but the fact of giving birth to the Christos, the Anointed. On the other hand, this could be a sign of virginity in the conception, but not permanent virginity. But even this is not irrefutable proof. When he says: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign 'is sentenced that it should not be something private, but something for the public, to a large crowd, the whole house of David (Is 7, 13) -. And virginity is not something to vent to the four winds or something meant to be public, but rather it is presented as something personal, intimate. Virginity is a sign is a failure, to the time of Jesus Mary was not recognized as a virgin, or a sign. The signal, as Lk 2: 34 and Mt 12: 39-40 indicates, is Jesus himself.
2

The matrix, until birth would have remained closed, and this can and should be associated to the virgin matrix and, by extension, to the concrete fact of virginity.

Apparently the prophecy refers to Mary, from the population of Nazareth. However, in such population there is not only one woman. It is logical that in the region should have many more women: some virgins and others not. The prophecy simply means there is to be born of a virgin women, and in this sense it is absolutely correct to say that "all girls are virgin who will conceive and bear a son" (in case that they may become mothers). That's it. Born of a virgin simply indicates that he is the firstborn and, in the case of Jesus, that he was a dedicated scoop of God.
1 Cor 7, 36: But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

The same misogynist Paul of Tarsus acknowledges that by then there were "virgin" women in his community- or the community to which he addresses-, and the same book of Genesis illustrates about the virgin Rebekah (see Genesis 24, 15-16). If in the case of virgins who cites Paul (1 Corinthians 7, 36) here was a prophet who could glimpse the impending pregnancy in this or that woman would not be a mistake saying: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." Mary of Nazareth is not a sign of anything, if we should stick to her alleged virginity. In the time of Jesus, Mary was not recognized as a virgin, or her hypothetical virginity as a sign. The signal, as indicated in Lk 2: 34 and Mt 12: 39-40, is the same Jesus:
Mt 12, 38: Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. 39: But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there

shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: 40: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If the signal had been Mary, Jesus would have rebuked them saying that the signal had already been in his mother's virginity. But it does not happen, and he proclaims himself as the signal, and that leaves the issue solved. Mary's virginity is absolutely no signal. And if it is, it is natural to believe that this is simply because it never happened. 3.8. PROBABLE VIRGINITY STAGES OF THE

The virginity of Mary, takes various stages or moments in which it is possible to trace it. The different probable stages of such virginity are:
a) From birth b) During childhood and adolescence c) Until the Annunciation d) To conception e) During the pregnancy f) To childbirth g) After childbirth h) After having more children

Given the anatomical structure of a woman, often it is associated to female virginity keeping the hymen with no ripping or perforation. However, in some cases this membrane can be sufficiently fragile to breaking with the movement or activity subject to great stress, with no need to have penetrative sexual activity. In case that Mary had had these anatomical conditions and would have done some activity or movement that would come to break her hymen, her virginity would be over even long before

marriage, long before giving birth to Jesus and long before theyd had sex. It may have happened, but there is no evidence to prove it. On the other hand, it is important to note that not all women have hymen elastic enough not to break during intercourse. So, if Mary had not had a hymen could, from a purely anatomical, having sex without breaking her hymen, and even get pregnant in anatomical virginity status. However, if we take the absence of sexual experiences as reference, we can say that all people are born virgins. In that vein, Mary, the biological mother of Jesus, was born virgin, and it is possible that she remained a virgin throughout her childhood and adolescence and, recounting the Gospels, that she would been so even during the episode known as the Annunciation. From the anatomical point of view, and in the case that Mary was born and raised devoid of hymen, it can be accepted, including, that she was a virgin at the time of her first sexual encounter, and until the very moment of the time of birth; however, it is understood that in vaginal birth that state ceases technically1. On the other hand, such anatomical virginity would not be something exclusive to Mary as a large percentage of women have no hymen and, even after having sex are still virgins (only if it is alleged that there has been no rupture). If that had been the case of Mary, her virginity makes no sense and is a common situation, normal, irrelevant, something that can happen to any woman, without being holy or having sought it. In any event, the Jewish sociocultural context understood as virgin to the maiden who had not had her first sexual intercourse with her husband and therefore she had not had her first child (thus she would not have opened the womb). In the case of Mary, to be received by Joseph as wife for having their first child, which means they had
1

We could not say to the one who does not have he has pain in the eye. We could not tell the woman who delivered vaginally that she does not lost her virginity.

sex-, it is understood implicitly that her state of virginity has ceased. And, in fact, is precisely to this point where, from the biblical and medical viewpoint the virginity of Mary can be traced. In summary, and considering that virginity can be understood from several aspects, lets consider the different possibility of such virginity. a) From birth Anatomical: Yes, a virgin. Lack of sex: Yes, a virgin. Jewish cultural context: Yes, a virgin. a) During childhood and adolescence Anatomical: It is possible, yes, it may not. Lack of sex: It's possible, yes, it may not. Jewish Social-Cultural Context: It is possible, yes, it may not (to be inferred, as the gospels refer, that yes she was still a virgin). a) Until the Annunciation Anatomical: It is possible, yes, it may not1. Lack of sex: Yes, a virgin (Lk 1, 26-27). Jewish cultural context: Yes, a virgin.

a) Until the conception Anatomical: Maybe. Lack of sex: It is possible, although there is no evidence to prove it. It is neither logical nor specific to a marriage that
1

It is possible that Mary had lost her anatomical virginity by accident, but that the Gospel story would have given more importance to the moral virginity, to the fact of not having sex with any man. This, together with the fact that, according to Jewish cultural perception about Mary, she is still a virgin, becomes viable that Mary was not anatomically a virgin, but it is as she would have been.

professes to be a moral model (for the sexual practices that it involves). Jewish Socio-Cultural Context: She is no longer a virgin. It is feasible that a pregnant woman of the time would go out on the street to say, "I have not slept with a man, it was the Holy Spirit." a) During the pregnancy Anatomical: Maybe. Lack of sex: It's possible. Jewish Socio-Cultural Context: She is no longer a virgin. b) Until the birth Anatomical: Maybe. Lack of sex: It's possible. Jewish Socio-Cultural Context: She is no longer a virgin. c) After giving birth Anatomical: Technically not a virgin. Lack of sex: It's possible. Jewish Socio-Cultural Context: She is no longer a virgin1.
1

Normally there is a perforation of the hymen and then opening array. And, in the case of childbirth, with the opening of matrix necessarily have drilling and breaking of the hymen (in case hitherto not been drilled). Hymen Being a part of the vagina, the vagina of Mary opened to the time of birth technically means that virginity has ceased. Propose an example to understand better: If anyone has fingers can get a glass. Those fingers are part of the arm. If someone loses arm, has implicitly losing fingers. If a person who has no fingers lost his arm, although that does not lose fingers (so you can say that they lost the fingers), not to have them, the practical reality is the same: You have fingers and can not take the cup. In the case of Mary, the open matrix implicitly opens hymen, so that virginity is lost and can not serve as a virgin. You can say that is a virgin, but the practical reality is that it is not. The opening of matrix necessarily involves opening the hymen and, even in the hypothetical that Mary would have no hymen, opening indicates that matrix is no longer a virgin from the Jewish cultural

d) After having more children Anatomical: Technically not a virgin. Lack of sex: She is no longer a virgin. Real situations of the time make it impractical, although technically possible1. Jewish Socio-Cultural Context: She is no longer a virgin. Actually, it is logical to think that Mary ceased to be a virgin from the moment of the conception of Jesus. While not explicitly stated, the pattern of conceptions indicates that Mary had to have sex with a man she knew for the conception to be possible. Since then, with high probability of truth, Mary ceased to be a virgin. 3.9. THE ANNOUNCING SCHEME

In the Bible there are several cases that can be framed as an announcement of the future conception of a child. These "annunciations" apparently have a pattern in the sense that, whenever an angel announces the next conception of a child, always there is one. In the book of Genesis (Gen. 18: 1-15) Jehovah 2 tells Abraham that Sarah, who is old barren (Gen 11, 30) and
aspect, from the anatomic and what is Moreover, from the moral one.
1

In the absence of in vitro insemination or other technical mechanisms, this would imply that the husband of Mary is not having sex with his wife and he will ejaculate outside. This would imply that Mary would introduce with her fingers or some objects the sperm to get fertilization. This circumstance, it is theoretically possible, but in fact, in practice, impossible. It is absurd that a couple gets married to get children in similar way.

has a ceased menstruation is going to have a son. And, indeed, has only one son, to whom he will name Isaac. In the book of Judges (Judg 13, 1-5) an angel of the Lord appears to Manoah, whose wife is barren and eventually old1 and communicates that he will have a son. And, indeed, Samson is born. In the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1, 13-18) the angel Gabriel tells to Zechariah, whose wife is old, and seemingly barren (Lk 1, 15) that he is going to have a son, and even he does not say he will be the son of the Holy Spirit, it does say that it will be filled with the Holy Spirit from the very womb of the mother (which agrees a lot with the case of Jesus). And indeed, John the Baptist is born. In this same gospel (Lk 1, 26-35), the same angel announces to Mary (who has not known a man) that she is going to have a child. And certainly, Mary conceives Jesus. Indeed, it seems to appear in the scheme of annunciations, not only a pattern, but several. The first thing to note is that when the angel says he will have a child, it is related to the future conception of the women. If that same woman were to have another child, and it should be announced, it is likely that the messenger will appear again saying, "Behold, you will conceive another
2

This Jehovah is a bit strange because it looks decidedly anthropomorphic. It is a three-man Lord who, for the texture of the passage, which is not an isolated case, appear to differ physically from the other men, as if they had some sort of distinctive sign, since Abraham recognizes them as soon as he saws them. 1 In Judg 13, 2 we find: "And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of Dan, whose name was Manoah and his wife was barren and had no children." Note that when it is said that he never had children implicitly implies that a woman is old, which had already stopped the practice of women. Otherwise, if she would still be fertile, they would have said simply that "he had no children".

child," in which case it is one. If the angel would say: Behold, you will conceive two children, we would understand that would be twins. In the case of Mary, the pattern is not ratified, it is broken. It is true that in the previous annunciation to Mary the women had only one child, but that is easily explained because, by the time the announcement is made, both Sara1, Manoah's wife and Elizabeth, are sterile and old. This explains that, hopefully, they will succeed in having a child. And we should not expect more. These women at least have to feel infinitely grateful for having achieved having a child at a time when normally it would have been impossible. Infertility is removed for a time to conceive the son announced, but after it is conceived, infertility is present again - how can they conceive again? These are old women to who wont only infertility, but death itself would have removed the possibility of having more children. In Mary's case the situation is diametrically opposed, and the circumstances in which it presented the Annunciation become different. In the scheme of the previous annunciation the women before have had sex trying to have children, otherwise they would not know they are sterile or would lament the fact of failing to have children. If we replicate to the pattern of these women in the case of Mary, we conclude that, according to this, Mary would also have had sex with the attempt to have children. However, Mary seems to have other pattern. And it is rightly so because she has not had sex- other women yes, they did, did not have a proper husband, the other woman, yes, she is not old, the other women yes, she is not sterile- the other women yes-and she has not stopped the custom of women, the other women the other women yes. So, there seems to be no pattern in the case of the annunciation to Mary.
1

We understand here that that the fertile phase is no longer present in Sara despite a natural form of sterility.

If the other women, with all the obstacles that have, managed to have a child, it is natural that Mary, free from all these impediments, can gain many more. If an infertile old woman manages to have a child how many could have had the fertile, young and just at the beginning of her path as woman, mother and wife? The scheme of annunciations makes us believe that Mary must have had not one child, but several, and so, not even in that, the pattern of previous annunciation would have fulfilled-, and the favorable circumstances in this regard indicate so. After having Jesus still has her husband, still young, still fertile (the women who preceded her are still old and infertile, simple reason why they could not have other children). The impediment for having the child is also extremely different in the case of Mary and in the standard case of the other women. For Sarah, Manoahs and Elizabeth the impediment is clear: they are sterile, or they have ceased the menstrual period, and are old. The impediment to Mary is not so serious and just consists in not having a male. And that really is not any impediment. That is, in the case of the "annunciation" to prior women it seems there was a special event that allows the childbirth announced, but in the case of Mary there isnt is not. The Annunciation of Mary is not miraculous, nor operates any prodigy. The only impediment is that she has not known a man, which is no impediment to know him in the future (as we shall see, the implicitly announcing is a call to accept to know one). And it can not be otherwise, for there is no need to announce it to a young, fertile and new bride that is going to be a mother. That appears stupid, ridiculous, and meaningless. And that knowledge implies the presence of male sex, and so the pattern evidenced in the case of the other women who had sexual contact with their husbands (unless we believe that they had sexual contact with the angel and not with their husbands). However, in the other women the sexual contact is allowed, but only in Mary,

totally contradicting the pattern and common sense, is credited with a son of a spirit. Although the pattern in the other women suggests certain circumstances common practices in all of them, in the case of Mary it suggests the opposite pattern: the other women had sexual contact with their husbands to become pregnant, in the case of Mary is said to not have sexual contact. The other women were not virgins and got their virginity rebuilt, -they had lost it-, during conception, pregnancy or after birth, in the case of Mary, whenever she lost it or not, the virginity was rebuilt, even that is commonly accepted that she did not lost it. In the other women the child's paternity is not discussed, in the case of Mary it does. That means, Mary is meant to be a perpetual virgin in the announcing pattern, however, she is credited with the opposite of that pattern. The only aspect consistent with the pattern is the one of having had only one child, aspect that as we seen is totally contrary to the actual situation, practical, organic and even metabolic of Mary in relation to other women. In the other women the stage that follows is infertility, but Mary continues fertile, she is still suitable for reproduction. The other women can no longer have children, Mary may have more children and it would be absurd that have the possibility of more children, would not have them. In Jewish culture that implies a greater blessing, and even a greater religious fidelity. Not having children is a sin for the Jews. Not having them, and dying a virgin, was considered a curse ( Gn 16, 1-5; 30, 23; Ex 23, 25-26; Dt 7, 11-15; 1 Sam 1, 5-6; 1, 11; Job 15, 34; Hos 9, 14; Lk 1, 5-7; 1, 13-15; 1, 24-25) and cause of lamentation and weeping (Judg 11, 38-40).
Gn 21, 1: And Jehovah visited Sarah as he had said, and Jehovah did unto Sarah as he had spoken.

2: And Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.

The announcement in the case of Sara is at least remarkable. It is certainly a prodigy, much higher than the conception of Mary. Sara is old and sterile, Mary is young and fertile. In case of Sara Jehovah himself annunciates-or at least a retinue of angels-, and in the case of Mary it is only the angel Gabriel who visits her. For Sara he is Jehovah, God himself who comes on to produce her fertilization (if we are to understand and interpret the verbatim and as the Church of Rome does), in the case of Mary is the Holy Spirit. Accordingly we have that Jesus as the son of the Holy Spirit, but Isaac is directly child of God - who becomes superior to him-. Should we worship Isaac and not Jesus? Even in the case of Isaac we have another clemency and it is generated, again, a miraculous conception, as his wife Sarah is barren, but Isaac prays to God and accepted by the Lord, conceives Rebecca of twins (Genesis 25, 21). However, in this scheme of annunciation there is still something strange, and contradictory to the standard presented in the case of other women: the Annunciation is always made to a man, not a woman. In Mt 2, 13 is Joseph to whom the angel appears in a dream to tell him to flee with Mary and Jesus to Egypt, and for cultural circumstances of the time, we have motivations that make us think that it is Joseph who had to get the Annunciation made. Indeed, in the gospel of Matthew is to him, Joseph, who is given the announcement of the birth of the child, even with the express understanding to be named Jesus (Mt 1, 18-21). It is possible that for some reason the Annunciation, which is usually made to the man, would have been moved to Mary to highlight her role? Possibly to make a more friendly terrain for her role as a perpetual virgin? Or it occurred to prevent her, exceptionally, of some imminent situation? As she

represents the only case where the Annunciation is not made to the man, but to the woman. Paradoxically, the Annunciation, since it involves conception and fertility, is not a call to virginity, but an incentive to mating imminent call-to achieve the child announced, possibly taking advantage of the favorable circumstances of the time, a brief fertility period, etc. The announcement is not a call to abstinence because, obviously, the way to accomplish having a child is not running away from sex. It is precisely at this point when intercourses intensify looking for the situation more conducive for conception1. 3.10. THE ENGAGEMENT At the time when it is presented the episode known as "the Annunciation"2, and what can be inferred from the biblical text, Mary still had not had sex with Joseph and, consequently, is still a virgin of Israel (as suggested by the prophecy). The common mistake is to extend the state of virginity, only existing before knowing a man, until the time of birth, including after it, which is not only unnecessary, but has no solid background in the biblical text. Lucas, in this respect, is quite explicit:
Lk 1, 26: Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

A good example of it is giving by the couple that made fertility treatments. 2 The Annunciation or Hail Mary is the episode in which the angel Gabriel tells Mary about the pregnancy, with the prodigious child that will be called Son of God.

27: to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28: And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. 29: But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. 30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31: And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34: And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

The verse 27 refers to the first phase of the marriage -the betrothal-where, although sex was allowed, it was not a usual practice1. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but even they had not yet had sex, and if we assume that Joseph
1

Although not usual, the couple could maintain marital relations before the actual nuptials. The very structure of the gospel seems to indicate because, under the law, Mary and Joseph would have sustained sexual relationships betrothal period, and was allowed, they were punished for it or mention any punitive appointment, including Mt 1, 18 seems to imply again it was allowed, although there is the conception of the Holy Spirit. These two stages were clearly marked in the Jewish tradition, evidence of this is found in Deuteronomy 20, 7 when the writer says: "And who has betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he dies in the battle and another man takes her. "The Jerusalem Bible says, "Who has married a woman and not yet married her? '.

and Mary are maintaing a conservative tradition, they would not have sex yet-and this, of course, explains the words of Mary when she asks How shall this be, seeing I know not 1 a man? 2. The answer is simple and logical. She has not had sex yet-and apparently she will do it only

Here the verb to know means sexual union between man and woman. The same word is used by Mary to tell the angel (messenger) who did not know man, and Matthew to say that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until only Jesus was born implying implicitly then yes. 2 It is assumed that Joseph and Mary would be observing a conservative tradition and relationships have not yet, but wait until marriage, and that would explain the question of Mary. Pretending that the questions how will this is? Is it the result of a decision previously made with respect to not have sex and remain a virgin is absurd. Mary, however village it was, know something about the way babies come into the world, the very fact that Joseph had accepted marry implies that he knew what awaited him, and women were prepared for it, for role as mothers and as wives, after all Jewish marriage was not established to make the role of infertile and celibate until death. To defend this thesis is to pretend that she, indeed, did not know how babies come into the world (strange women, marginalized from formal education were not, however, excluded from basic education of the Jewish religion, and this indicates, up simply, women's fertility as a blessing) and, with the same possible naivety with which a three year old could ask about how babies come into the world, she had asked the angel, How shall this be possible? Then the angel, in a romantic tone, similar to that used to explain our grandparents and the princes including storks, he had declared that the Holy Spirit overshadows her. However, it seems that Mary was not ignorant, but, as can be inferred from the passage of Lk 1, 46-55, a woman she would be advantageous, prudent, patient, receptive, and do not believe he was so clueless not to know or intuit the role of Jewish women in marriage, or to not know how to behave with dignity in that environment. Certainly, she does know how babies come into the world because he says I am a virgin, she knows that the children born of sexual union between man and woman. The only thing this indicates is that Mary and Joseph, perhaps, they would have agreed not to join until they are sexually from marrying. That's it. Thinking that Mary know that the multiplication of the species is a form of blessing and, even more, to think she ignores how people are born

months later, after the formal marriage with Joseph-which was not irrevocable, as seems to have happened 3. The question is simple: The fact that a woman does not know a man does not mean she can not get to know him, i.e. to have sex with him. What eventually happens to the Annunciation is presented as irreverent as arises in the betrothal period and in a context of immediacy ( And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and shalt call his name Jesus); That, coupled with the fact that so far she has not had sex, explain the confusion of Mary. And it is well known that in a context of immediacy it must be understood and arise because, in their absence, would be illogical the visit of the angel announcing the conception of a child in 5 or 10 years because, as is evident, a Jewish marriage eventually would sooner or later have children. Typically, with the Annunciation or without it, is that Joseph and Mary had children, not only as a means of prolonging their families, but to prove with their progeny the blessing of the Most High. In this sense, and taking into account the undeniable existence of the two phases of Jewish marriage, we come to the logical conclusion that the passage from the Gospel of Luke, strictly speaking, does not provide any evidence or discover anything new since, although Mary was betrothed to Joseph, had not had sexual relations and they would probably want to wait a little longer, maybe they were following the conservative
(only to defend an organic virginity, by any irrelevant), is trying to make Mary a calibrated as being espoused not only ignore the purpose of Jewish marriage, not just ignore how she came into the world and, by extension, how other people come into the world, not only would not have recognized his body, not just ignore the socio-cultural in which it operates, but would have shown sluggish to capture the traditions and Jewish religious teachings. A very smart woman and, above all, with an ingenuity foolproof.
3

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, implying a bridal preliminary agreement (which in our day would have asked something like hand and given the engagement ring) therefore would contract marriage at a given time, becoming thereby sex, if it did not exist before.

tradition and still expect to consummate the betrothal marriage. However, as we have stated, the announcement could have another reading. Considering the urgency of the savior to be born in the world, is announcing a mechanism to discourage Mary so that Joseph could get to her and have sex (in the case that Joseph wanted to join her, but she would not). Clearly, there is an unspoken vow of chastity of Mary1 that is, an agreement to follow a conservative tradition-at least until marriage itself, but Mary, in the event that there was a temporary vow of chastity, with the expression: "be to me as you have said" (Lk 1 38) as soon as the angel announces that she is pregnant, implicitly suggests that it is dissolved by a higher imperative. That is, if there had been a temporary vow of chastity by Mary, she takes care of cancel it when
1

That vow of virginity would last until the time of consummation of marriage with Joseph. She would have agreed not to have sex until then, i.e. it is a perpetual vow of virginity, and she wanted to marry a virgin. That's it. The passage in Luke in which she states: "I know not man" (Lk 1, 34), in Greek (ou ndra EPEI gignsko) can be interpreted as a repetition or customary present sense of style intention "do not smoke" or "do not drink", but this would be tantamount to saying: "I bought a pack of cigarettes do not smoke" or "I bought a bottle of liquor because I do not drink." And if Mary: "I got a husband because I know not man." In other words: I married because they want to have sex. Now if we take that as a no husband present repetition we see that the same does not mean that this will not really happen indefinitely. That is, if someone says "do not smoke", in effect, manifested an intention at the present time, but does not mean it will go when someone may pass a cigarette and appropriate emphasis. So, these do not smoke" is only an intention (that person may have smoked in the past but in the present moment and do not, or plan to do so). When Mary expresses her intention not know if maleexpress, or if it is true that she had such intention, (I might have had sex in the past but at the present time no longer holds, or has the intention not to keep) does not mean that you will not have sex or you will not know man when her husband takes to consummate the marriage. And indeed, we see that that's what happened because she became pregnant. Not knowing man is only an intention, to spare, we have to understand that it was only until the time of marriage itself.

the angel announces that she is pregnant (as she accepts), and that implies that Joseph, or someone else, got to have sex with her. That becomes immediate context, including, as a method to prevent the woman of what is going to happen imminently, an ad so she wont be afraid because the Holy Spirit will accompany her during that episode. But why should be the Providence taking care of her in that trance? Perhaps Mary was in an adverse or dramatic situation? Why did the angel tell her not to be afraid? (Lk 1, 30). We know that Mary had made a vow of chastity to get to the marriage virgin, which would suppose to have an agreement with Joseph to live the tradition conservatively. It is clear: they will not have sex until marriage, but then what happened to Joseph? Perhaps, in a moment of drunkenness, she forgot her commitment and he got Mary? Then the "dont be afraid" of the Annunciation would make sense.
Mt 1, 18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19: And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20: But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21: And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22: Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

23: Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24: And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25: and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. Mt 1, 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(King James Version).

In the New Jerusalem Bible the text from Matthew 1: 18 is translated like this: This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. This is important because a wrong reading could suggest that Mary would become pregnant before joining with a man sexually. What it really tells us is that she became pregnant before formally living with Joseph. In other words, she became pregnant at the stage of engagement, before making the actual nuptials, before the husband take his wife to live with him. Now, at this point in the Gospel of Matthew we notice two aspects. In the first, the gospel says that the son that Mary wants is from the Holy Spirit-which seems to want to hide the identity of the real father (back then on this issue, although this can be understood in a symbolic context). In the second, Joseph, of one way or another realizes but, "as it is right", decides to keep it secretly (we partially talk here about this aspect and return later to mention it). With respect to fertilization, we can infer that it happened at some point, very close by the way, after the "annunciation" as it was possible to see from Luke's version and as already noted. The natural drawback to this

unusual fertilization should emerge when Joseph realizes that Mary is pregnant or when Mary warns Joseph that the unborn baby is the work of the Holy Spirit 1. It is customary that Joseph would have hesitated, in fact, it is natural that Joseph had not only doubted, but any man, before that statement, would consider seriously the veracity of the girlfriend or wife that has got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, even considering the possibility that under such implausibility could hide an affair. Do you think girlfriend or wife what your boyfriend and wife can ever get pregnant by the Holy Spirit? Do you think, husband or boyfriend that your partner may get pregnant in the morning by the Holy Spirit? In the case of Joseph's its true that there is a mitigating factor because in a dream he is warned not to subject his wife and to receive the child. Note, however, that the text never says that the child is not Josephs son or forces Joseph to say: Joseph, the child is yours. And this is almost normal. It is clear that the child is not of Joseph, but then who made him? The Holy Spirit? The dream persuades Joseph to take Mary, but not that the child is his. In fact, the dream confirms that it is not, and this is confirmed by the position assumed in Mt 1, 19.
Mt 1, 19: And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Joseph, presumably altered, is convinced that the unborn baby that Mary waits is not his because he has not had sex with her (which implies that he has not violated her, then what happened?). The implications are at least noticeable. This would mean that Mary would have sullied his bed by fornicating in her father's house and leaving, not only to him but to Joseph, as fools. The book of
1

The apocryphal gospels were burdensome to narrate this situation, which is Joseph who warns that Mary is in a state of pregnancy.

Deuteronomy explains the normal procedure to follow in such cases.

Dt 22, 23: If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24: then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.

If Joseph was wounded in his honor, in his manhood and psychologically altered by eventual adultery of Mary, the fact that of not wanting to leave her secretly appears ridiculous and totally contradictory. For a good Jew, right would have been the fulfillment of the law and not the fact of being complicit in the crime. Joseph, to conceal an act contrary to Jewish law, he commits a crime and also, according to this, becomes guilty. This is similar to someone seeing a person killing another, but not reporting to the authorities for fear that these imprison the murderer, or they even come to sentence him to the death penalty. Surely after the fact is neither fair nor good citizen, nor ethical, not content with this, it also becomes henchman and crime partner. We do not think, honestly, that one type of citizen should receive any applause or recognition. In the context of Jewish religious law this is not an exaggeration, but that adultery was considered a felony and was sentenced to the death penalty by stoning (Dt 22, 23-24). A righteous man, according to the Jewish concept-and, especially, hurt by feelings, would not have allowed his wife to commit adultery and fornicating in his bed, sullying his honor and their marriage. .

But it does not end there, as also the Gospel of Matthew says that Joseph did not want to disgrace her, but to put her away secretly1. The question is can you secretly leave a pregnant woman, after you married her? Maybe the closest relatives did not know about her pregnancy, but they knew that they had espoused. And what could be hidden then when planted and left Joseph when Mary's womb to grow a little more and, at one end, when she had to raise her child without the father's presence. But even more explicit evidence to the effect that could have hardly has left Joseph secretly. In case when a man espouses a woman with prenuptial agreement, or "shitre erusin" which could only be overturned by a legal separation by a certificate of divorce, or "guet2. For Joseph to leave should give a bill of divorce-same libel or letter of divorce (Deut 24, 1) and clearly state the reasons which impelled him to it (usually the same exposed in Dt 22, 13-21). And we ask ourselves not wanting to disgrace her, put her away secretly? The question is simple: I could not, for obvious circumstances, her quietly. The question is simple: I could only let her openly, and could not leave without her infamada result. Now, in the hypothetical that Mary remained a virgin after being pregnant, Jewish law allowed him to defend himself by presenting his virginity tests. If Joseph had not had marital relations with his wife did not have to lose heart because it had the right to check that she remained a virgin. And Mary could, as set Dt 22, 13-17, present the evidence to the council of elders 3.
1

A more orthodox would say it would give the "guet" private. Even so, the humiliation persists because the womb of Mary grew and eventually would become undeniable. 2 According to Jewish law (Halacha), while a woman is considered to receive the get married (even if a civil divorce), and live with another man is considered adultery. 3 Even without that law she could present evidence to Joseph in a private, after all were betrothed and she was not alien or unknown.

Dt 22, 13: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14: and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity; 15: then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate; 16: and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17: and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge, saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

Virginity signals consisted of a canvas with blood stains from the rupture of the hymen in wedding night (closely guarded by the guarantors of the bride). It is true that Mary did not tend it, therefore, because his marriage had not been consummated, but she had something better. She was able to ascertain her virginity in fact, and even submit a canvas at the precise time of the hearing, which would be free to drink the bitter water (Nm 5, 12-28). In any case, the fact is that neither Mary nor Joseph presents the requested evidence. Why? Wasnt the case there? Finally Joseph is deterred of receiving her by the imperious mandate of the Angel (Mt 1, 19-21). 3.11. THE CONCEPTION Jewish Marriage in Jesus' time was divided into two stages: the betrothal and marriage, or the marriage itself. For a man was more palatable to marry a virgin, although, for purposes of dowry, would had a much higher value than a

marriage with a woman who was not a virgin. For understanding the gospel it must be divided the women of Israel into two types: virgins and non-virgins. Jesus, as the texts tell us, was born of one of the virgins.
Is 62, 5: For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee1.

Marrying a virgin was the normal situation, the usual one, and was an honor to the woman getting virgin at the time of marriage. Joseph, to marry the Virgin Mary, did not do anything extraordinary; he simply followed the tradition-it would have been scandalous to marry a woman who was not a virgin. What happened later was that, before cohabitation, i.e. before the actual marriage would have celebrated, she was heavily pregnant, and the conception occurred. That's it. In betrothal period they were considered as spouses and, even, could have marital relations, having the same rights of marriage, even they were not living in the same house. Apart from this there is nothing extraordinary. Luke speaks of a virgin espoused to a man (Lk 1, 26-27) that someone, apparently "an angel", announces their next conception. The appellation of virgin in these cases is very natural and no one objects to it by the fact that this involves the unnatural notion of ideas that challenges the natural metabolism and the female anatomy. Even in the same Bible text (Ex 22, 16-17) is discussed the case in which a woman, who, though she had lost her virginity, serves as a virgin and is treated, thanks to the dowry, as a virgin.

Jewish men married young and, as usual, with a virgin. Joseph and Mary had to marry, presumably very young, mainly Mary, if we stick to the standard between Jewish cultures, was to have no more than thirteen years.

In the book of Leviticus we find that one of the requirements for the priests was to take a virgin woman.
Lv 21, 13: And he [the priest] shall take a wife in her virginity. 14: A widow, or one divorced, or a profane woman, a harlot, these shall he not take: but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife.

Joachim Jeremias, in this regard, indicates:

The Old Testament precept that the high priest must marry a virgin, while widows, divorced women, violated women and prostitutes were forbidden to him (Lev. 21. 13-15), was interpreted thus in rabbinic exegesis: On the one hand, the concept of 'virgin' was restricted to girls from twelve to twelve and a half years of age (M. Yeb. vi. 4).1

The implications of this are surprising because, although it appears that a girl of this age is a virgin, this is not necessarily accurate. According to the interpretation of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon - to what Jeremiah says, the young person who has lost, even if it was by accident the signs of virginity should not be counted as a virgin, but this would a technicality because, for the masses, the girl between twelve and twelve and a half years was regarded as a virgin by the mere fact of being in that age range. This, in large part, explains the terms "almah" (young woman, maid) and "betulah" (virgin) that appear in the prophecy of Isaiah.
Is 7, 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

JEREMIAS, Joachim. Translated by F.H. and C.H. Cave. Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. P. 154.

In the text it is used the Hebrew word "almah" and not "betulah" that should be understood as a maid, or as a young woman, that is, the prophet does not refer to Mary as a virgin explicitly, anatomically, but that, being young, is inferred to be a virgin, since that maiden will be in the range of twelve and twelve and a half years old (which originated that the term was used like this by the translators). But there is more. If Mary had not yet lost her virginity, in effect, is a "virgin who will give birth". Most women have gone through this. Actually, all the mothers have been through this, so that at some point they were that, "a virgin who will give birth". This, of course, does not diminish the role of Mary; it simply means that there is no need to imagine her with some oddity in her sexuality to worship or recognize her in all her majesty. 3.12. THE MARRIAGE IN THE TRUE SENSE If Joseph did not receive Mary as wife nor consummated the marriage it is acceptable to infer, then, that they lived together breaking the Jewish law and the divine law, in concubinage Some Jewish communities as the Essenes remained celibate while it was not an invariable rule 1. This, though
1

Flavio Josefo, in Wars of the Jews (L. II, Chap. VII) indicates that some Essenes consent to the marriage, although it takes three years to join their wives sexually. This is very similar to some Buddhist communities that, indeed, remain celibate, but eventually, in order to fulfill a higher mission, some of them married. In this regard, [Mingyur] Rinpoche, a Buddhist monk Kayupa-order in the documentary The Labyrinth of Tibet, Chapter 4 (Canal +, 1999) -, says By practicing Tantra, mentally we become familiar with the consorts, that does not mean that all practitioners of Tantra have to have a woman, that is something that is restricted to people who reach level lot in practice, these people, when it comes time, through dreams and predictions of various Buddhas, are an indication of what

it could be interpreted in some cases as a desire to preserve the virginity by obeying the celibacy vows- in the case of the Essenes-, becomes unworkable and is totally out of context in the case of other Jewish religious communities. And Mary, until the contrary is proven, formed part of one of the other Jewish religious communities. Among the Jews a woman did not marry to stay as a sterile, she did not marry not to have conjugal relations, so that these outlandish ideas that the premeditated desire of Mary to remain virgin was always a little less ridiculous. If that had been her desire she would not accepted to marry Joseph, she would not have formalized her marriage to him. In any case, if she wanted to preserve her virginity, it is obvious her lack of tact in choosing the worst strategy.
Mt 1, 24: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(King James Version)

kind of woman is ready to join them. With these blades is an exception is made because it has come the opportunity to transform their ordinary nature in divine nature. The documentary ends: Tibetans believe that Buddha also conveyed, before dying, to their disciples another set of secret teachings: The Tantras, a path to enlightenment esoteric, inaccessible to the great mass of believers which dedicate themselves wholly and throughout their life the monks [...] In the tantric orgasm there is no ejaculation, is a way to break free of the desire to achieve "Spiritual Realization", end the suffering by renouncing to the desire is the great redemptive message of Buddhism, and that Tantra has provided an original variation: the desire to dominate through the desire itself.

When it is indicating that Joseph received his wife means that the marriage took place1 -she moved from living at her parents house to live in the house of her husband and that it happened (immediately or later, in Mt 1, 25 we know that there it did not happen at that time but they waited for the birth of Jesus). It seems that the fact that a man gets pregnant a woman bride forced him to anticipate the marriage or, at least, to immediately receive her as wife2. The normal period of betrothal was twelve months, which makes us think that the Annunciation took place during the first months of the wedding and the conception itself perhaps halfway through this period, in about six months. But Joseph received Mary as his wife before the birth of the child, which means that the betrothal could have lasted slightly a little less, compelled by the state of Mary. In the hypothetical case that the conception had been at three months after being promised as spouses, nine months later, and the exact year of the wedding, the child would have been born. That is approximately at the third month of pregnancy of Mary, and at the sixth months of betrothal, Joseph must have noticed the pregnancy of his wife. And it seems that this puts him in a situation of urgent decision to receive her as a woman 3.
1

Sexual relations in marriage were not optional. Even sexual union was so definitively sealed the marriage. If Mary would not had sex with Joseph she would not have been married since, in this case, marriage would not have realized, what then was understood as a civil and religious foundation indisputable.
2

Lucas, while Mary living with Joseph, still considers them as espoused (Lk 2, 4-5).
3

But even here contradiction is revealed. Taking a woman, in biblical language, is to consummate the marriage, and only be consumed by sexual union. So David did when he took the wife of Uriah the Hittite. (1 Samuel 11, 4). What the evangelist eventually want to express is that Joseph respected the gestation period, during which, -and according to the Hermetic tradition we have received-, the initiate must not reach

Mt 1, 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(King James Version)

Sex between promised spouses would take place, eventually, during the betrothal (though not always), but clearly would be taken after carrying out the marriage itself. In which case "the couple was taken to the bridal room (cheder) and the marriage bed (chuppah)1 Sexual union finally consummated the marriage, and the husband immediately came to his wife (Gen 2, 24, 29, 21-25, Deuteronomy 20: 7, 21, 10-13, 22, 17). It was one of the most anticipated, including, in many cases joining the women sexually was accepted as having married her, assimilating indifferently one for each other. The Gospel of Matthew is quite radical in saying that Joseph did not know her, which is he has not sexually joined Mary, until the time Jesus was born. This means that even if the marriage itself was celebrated and Joseph took her into his home as a woman, and even if it was normal sexually reaching her as marriage was on the way, he has not penetrated her-perhaps to respect her status of pregnancy-but waited until Jesus was born to know her and to seal, finally the marriage 2. That means, while Mary was pregnant, Joseph did not have marital relations with her. 3.12.1. He did not know her until Jesus was born In the field of marital relations between Mary and Joseph's the evangelist himself sentenced the issue when he says: "And knew her not till she brought forth a son, and called
the women. 1 EDERSHEIM, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish social life in the days of Christ. Op. cit.
2

The gospel implicitly says that after the birth of Jesus, the marriage was celebrated.

his name Jesus" (Mt 1, 25), it naturally assumed that, after Jesus was born, they knew it, i.e. did have marital relations. If Joseph had not received Mary as a woman and had consummated the marriage is acceptable to infer, then, they lived together in violation of Jewish law and the divine law, in concubinage. However, the fact that there is no passage in the Bible where it is expressly acknowledged that simply obvious and mentioning it as unnecessary and even becomes awkward. In many of the marriages that the Bible tells us we do not find any passage in expressly mentioned that they had had sex, but no one thinks they really have not had as the same are implicit in the marriage itself and this, inclusive, is not accomplished without them-what Joseph would have taken his role as a husband. If that had happened so he could not have truly speak of a family, but a householder single mother. However, things do not go well, Joseph and Mary were married, were married, and thus the matter is resolved. The Bible, with respect to sex, simply tells us how far they did not go.
Mt 1, 24: Mt 1, 24: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(King James Version) Even the expression until o , ewsou, in Greek means, in most of the time, a change in the condition expressed after a certain time (we do not cite cases in which it presents it because there are many), it does not always occur in this way. 3.12.2. Applicability expression "until" of the

The gospel implicitly implies that after the birth of Jesus, the marriage was celebrated. Some, nevertheless, indicate that the gospel does not stipulate that after Jesus was born, Joseph would aide Mary, which is as ridiculous as thinking that Joseph would have never put clothes on him just because the Bible does not say so. If someone said: "He ate until he washed his hands" means that, once washed his hands, he proceeded to eat. It is wrong to think that, even after he washed his hands, he did not eat, but also wrong to think that before washing your hands has never eaten. The only initial solution to this type of would be the one which would expose an end to prevent continuity to for example "he did not eat until the day of his death." But let's look another look at the problem. While it is true that sometimes the word " until" can be taken with continuity of uninterrupted time, the same grammatical construction strives to show in those cases, which does not occur in the passage of Mt 1, 25. This expression only acquires such particularities in four specific cases. When it is mentioned an impossible event or a remote end (necessarily it is used the future tense) When it is associated until the time of death, including old age Occasionally, when the proposal comes from God (arises in future tense) When it involves temporary the reduction or the pause of the action mentioned. When it is mentioned an impossible event or a remote end (necessarily it is used the future tense)
Pss 72, 7: In his days shall the righteous flourish [apparently in the time of Solomon], And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more. Mt 28, 20: [] and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

1 Cor 15, 25: For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.

In these passages is proposed as well an impossible event, and either a remote event, or even a future act accompanied by imprecation. If a person were to say to another to love her until the moon turns blue, he intends to communicate that love for her will always exist, even if in the future the moon could turn blue or not. Here it is proposed also a remote end which exceeds the limit of human life, which means he's going to love her every day of his life. In the second case, when Jesus says he will not leave the apostles to the end of the world he clearly states that he will never leave them, during all his life-the end of the world would be after their death - (which, undoubtedly, is to encourage them in their mission of evangelization). If a person tells another that he will love her till the end of the world implicitly tells that he will love her forever, during all his life. The same thing happens in the passage from 1 Corinthians 15, 25 and, where the fact that it is mentioned the future makes impossible to be applied to the passage of Mt 1, 25, which refers in the past tense and in which the judgment is not more or less valid even if it is accompanied by oath or threat. When it is associated until the time of death, including old age
2 Sam 6, 23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

(S. a. Gn 3, 19) Although we will not find the "until", it is perfectly legitimate to say, "she never had children until death came," and get the same result. And it is an exceptional case, similar to that if you say, "and she did not eat until he died." This obviously does not mean that after she died

if she had eaten. When meeting the sentence in the past tense is perfectly valid for the passage of Mt 1, 25, which is also in timing past. The evangelist may well have used this form. Sometimes, when the proposal comes from God (arises in future tense)
Gn 28, 15: And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee, whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land. For I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. Pss 110, 1: Jehovah said unto my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

In these cases it suggests a situation of no abandonment by God, it is pretended to give confidence to the person who needs it. Until the time that God will not abandon the person that he made the promise to. This does not imply that after that he will leave him. Typically, if the person continues to be a right person in front of God, hr will not leave him after that, otherwise he could abandon him, as happened in the case of Solomon. This context, we believe, that is barely comprehensible. When it involves the reduction or the temporary pause of the action mentioned
Is 7, 15: Butter and honey shall he eat [the Messiah], when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

In the last aspect, it does not imply that the action diametrically changes, but that it suffers a significant decrease to the point where it could disappear or can get to disappear. That is, does not mean that, once the Messiah know to reject the evil and choose the good,

implies, immediately and inexorably, eating butter and honey, but perhaps it can get lower to eventually disappear1.
Acts 8, 40: But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

This implies that here was a pause, a temporary break (something similar happens in Acts 23, 12-14, 21), a decreased activity reviewed. When Philip came to Caesarea he did continue preaching the gospel to all the cities possibly because that was the final destination of the evangelizing tour, it doesnt mean, in the general context that this would never have return to continue evangelizing. 3.12.3. The expression until in Mt 1, 25 Unless these details, or when specifically indicated endless time, all times when using the formula "until" the cessation takes action that has been done and is generated, including an opposite action. In that vein we note that the passage in Matthew (Mt 1, 25) does not meet any of the criteria already seen and are likely to keep the previous action up to "until. 1. It is indicated by an impossible event or remote end (in which case it is required that the sentence is structured in the future tense, which is impossible to Mt 1, 25, found in the past tense). In this case the sentence should be structured so as: and Joseph did not know her until the sun disappears.
1

In this case the verse is metaphorical sense and raises the fact that once the Messiah overcame the evil nature he would feed using solid food, not food for children (Cf. Heb 5, 12-14).

2. There is no indication that he had not known associating the event of death of any of the two. For such an exception could be supported verse should have said and did not know until the day of her death. Another variant could have been outlined in Genesis 3, 19 when expressed:
Gn 3, 19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Which means, every day of his life, until the death comes? Note that in the Matthew passage is not stated: And knew her not until she returned to earth, grammatical form, we believe, was perfectly lawful for the evangelist if he wanted to imply that Joseph never had come to Mary in every day of his life. 3. Also becomes impractical because it does not come from God, but it is a grammatical structure used by the evangelist. Apart from this, at this point form "until" is used in future time (and comfort mode), not in the past tense. We do not believe that God, to comfort Mary, said to him not to have sex with her. 4. This fourth aspect involves a temporary or partial cessation of action listed a significant decrease of the same and, anyway, it becomes impractical to try to implement in the case of Joseph and Mary because if they had sex, only a little, means loss of virginity. If Joseph penetrated Mary, not completely, meant loss of virginity. And if they had not have sex for a few days, but after that yes, it also means loss of virginity.

So, given that the verse is in the past tense, we see that the only functional form to be valid, it would had been expressed: "But Joseph did not know until the day of his death" (his or hers). The evangelist had the legitimate right to use this grammatical form, but even more: he not only had the right but, inexcusably, he had the duty to do so, given the greatness and uniqueness of the case. A SCALE OF SUCH AS AN INEVITABLE EVENT WOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED EXPLICITELY, SO THERE WOULD BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. And the evangelists had all the linguistic tools of the case, and could have the most diverse use grammatical constructions. But then why didnt they do it? This is the only indication that Joseph and Mary formed a marriage in the fullest sense of the word (that's really indicating Mt 1, 25), otherwise they would have used certain literary variants, including: 1. Joseph did not know her until the day of his death, or until death came, or until he died (we saw that it was feasible) 2. He did not know her until she returned to earth (we saw that it was feasible) 3. Joseph did not know her during her life 4. Joseph did not know during all the days of his life 5. Joseph did not know her till she slept with his fathers And the proof of this is found in the Bible itself.
1 Sam 15, 35: And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death.

(S. a. Dt 17, 18-19; Josh 4, 14; 1 Sam 1, 11; 1 Kgs 11, 34; 15, 5; 15, 14; Pr 31, 12; Eccl 2, 3; 5, 17-18; 8, 15; Jer 22, 30; Heb 2, 15)
2 Kgs 25, 29: and [him, Evil-Merodach, king of Babylon Jehoiachin king of Judah] changed his prison

garments. And Jehoiachin did eat bread before him continually all the days of his life: 30: and for his allowance, there was a continual allowance given him of the king, every day a portion, all the days of his life.

(S. a. Dt 17, 19; 1 Sam 1, 11; 1 Kgs 11, 34; 15, 5-6; 2 Kgs 25, 30; Prv 31, 12; Eccl 2, 3; 5, 17-18; Jer 22, 30; 52, 33-34)
1 Kgs 22, 50: And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; And Jehoram his son reigned in his stead.

(S. a. Gn 49, 33; Judg 2, 10; 1 Kgs 1; 21; 2, 11, 21; 11, 43; 14, 20; 14, 31; 15, 8; 15, 24; 6; 16, 28; 22, 40; 22, 50; 2 Kgs 8, 24; 13, 9; 13; 14, 16; 14, 22; 14, 29; 15, 7; 15, 22; 15, 16, 20; 20, 21; 21, 18; 24, 6; 2 Chron 9, 31; 16; 14, 1; 21, 1; 26, 2; 26, 23; 27, 9; 28, 27; 33; 2 Chron 33, 20; Acts 13, 36).

10; 16, 13, 38; 12, 32,

Jdt 16, 22: She [Judith] had many suitors, but all her days, from the time her husband Manasseh died and was gathered to his people, she never gave herself to another man. (S. a. Jdt 16, 25)

(New Jerusalem Bible) Clearly, if the evangelist would have intended to say that Joseph has never got Mary, not before having Jesus, nor after having him, it would not have used the form "he didnt know her until she gave birth to her firstborn but he would have used the structure But did not know her during all the days of his life , or have referred to or any of the terms already indicated, which were perfectly viable. But it is not something that happens before or after Jesus was born. The Biblical evidence is indisputable: Matthew never wanted to express what the Catholic

exegetes interpreted later when he manufactured the myth of virginity. But there is still more in the book of Judges. Lets see:
Judg 11, 39: And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew not man.1.

There is no doubt that the evangelist could not only indicate that Joseph never met Maria, but-what is more important, expressly noted that Mary was a virgin. But it doesnt always happen like this. It seems that the Evangelist did not intend to make such a connotation, such an emphasis. Thus, the normal thing is that the biblical reading allowed by the texts after Jesus was born, says that Joseph and Mary were intimate, and the gospel never expressly opposes that this would not have happened this way. And this is irrefutable. If the evangelist really wanted to note that Joseph and Mary never had sexual intercourse, if the evangelist had wanted to communicate and teach the alleged virginity of Mary, he would, without fail, expressed: "But Joseph did not know her during all the days of his life "or" but she knew no man. "The evidence is overwhelming and, with this, the case is sentenced. 3.13. THE BIRTH The Gospel of Luke says that Joseph went with his wife to the city of Bethlehem to be counted (Lk 2: 1-5) and they were there during the Marys labor.
Lk 2, 6: And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.
1

In this episode the girl cries and laments the fact that she will die a virgin (Cf. Judg 11, 30-39).

7: And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Except the episode in which the angel announces to Mary that she will get pregnant, it appears that the pregnancy was normal. She, pregnant visits her cousin Elizabeth 1 and stays there for three months (apparently nothing strange happens concerning the gestation), and then returns home to Joseph to be with him during the final stagey 2. At this point, with Mary in late pregnancy, they must travel to the city of Bethlehem to be counted, and that is where, finally, Mary gives birth to her son. The more normal situation must have happened at the moment of birth, and to the pains of childbirth, is that Joseph had sought a midwife or midwife villager to help Mary in the work of labor. The fertile egg of Mary, which must have been fertilized by human seed or, at least, by some kind of biological structure to allow fertilization and zygote formation and subsequent cell multiplication would have developed to the point of becoming a healthy fetus upcoming to water break. This stage, in Mary, must submit identical metabolic processes of other women, in which the egg is
1

Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth possibly during the third and sixth month of pregnancy, precisely to the time Joseph must have noticed her pregnancy. The strange thing is that the visit is prolonged for so long. It is possible that Joseph is that since it had been received or not, is still very hurt and prefers to be alone to reconsider. This visit seems more like a flight of Mary itself lasts until eventually, Joseph is predisposed by the angel's words to mean that Mary received. 2 A hypothetical timeline of key events during Mary's pregnancy can be: 0-3 months: conception is given. Joseph during the entire state of pregnancy of Mary. The woman receives. 3-6 months: Stay of Mary with her cousin Elizabeth (the reason may be more human than you think). 6-9 months: Mary returns to the house of Joseph. Salen travel to meet the registration. Birth of Jesus.

fertilized by human sperm hopefully allow physiological processes such as the development of the placenta-to allow breathing functions, nutrition and excretion of the fetus, and the activation of the mammary glands, thereby encouraging the infant-feeding in order to provide him with the necessary nutrients and allow a period of normal, healthy breast. By not mentioning any incident that could have happened during this period, the gestation cycle seems to develop in the most natural, something strange happens to disturb the optimal formation of the creature, and therefore can wield from the Gospels (except for certain apocryphal accounts that account for some extraordinary events), so is labor, which seems to be normal, unnatural conditions, malformations, or anything like that. Even certain biological reactions can be glimpsed common to any newborn child, so that is wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a sort of cradle. In general, it was a normal delivery, both for Jesus and for Mary. This, of course, suggests that the vaginal canal of Mary must be open to allow passage of the fetus, other natural thing all the time delivery. If so, the fact of birth marks a point of no return in the alleged virginity of Mary. Really the circumstances of the time make impossible that a Jewish woman would had kept her virginity after delivery for the basic reason that (even though it might keep her virginity at conception) technology at that time did not allow performing a successful Caesarean where both mother and child survived. This means that Jesus must have been born through the cervical canal, vaginal delivery and this, of course, makes it impossible for the condition persists virginity. In aspects of gynecology and obstetrics, have existed as of the hymen stretching impossible to accept for the delicacy of the membrane, and that the baby's head would have exceeded many

times the maximum diameter that could yield before breaking. The once virgin ceases to be right at this moment, the adjective no longer applied to Virgin Mary in her mother roll. And neither hold nor mention needed in a time when it was no longer necessary and that it was, for obvious from the circumstances, inappropriate. The fact that he had been called virgin means that met all the requirements of the Jewish tradition to be married, who had not been tainted, maintaining its state of purity, he had not had other children before. It was time to take a new roll: being a mother. 3.14. THE VIRGINITY VOW It is often said, mainly in the Catholic circles, that Mary had already committed to a vow of virginity, or of celibacy, before marrying Joseph 1. This, though it reveals a quite respectable position regarding Mary, and puts an important question: What man in his right mind would have married a woman that he will not be able to enjoy himself sexually, or having children or raising children, who are presented as the blessing of God? It would be like marrying a nun. By contrast, this hypothesis implies
1

Apparently, and based on what it says Nm 30, 1-16, a woman could make vows to the Lord. However, know the type of votes to which the Bible refers. You may be votes of virginity, although it is likely they were Nazarite vows (Nm 6, 1-2), in any case, we have enough reasons to think that these votes were temporary and not permanent. They were provisional Nazarite vows (Nm 6, 13), although there are exceptions (Judg 13, 7) - and did not include among its constraints, refraining from sex-which would have been anti-Jewish heresy-; reason perhaps why it is possible to see Samson, who would have been a Nazarite from his birth to his death, having sex with a prostitute (Judg 16, 1) - and therefore, the vow of virginity is not only unworkable separation but from the way sociocultural then. They were perpetual vows of consecration, and the less they could be the hypothetical vows of virginity of the Bible never speaks. Actually the Bible also tells us that Mary had taken a vow of a Nazarite, in which case top prohibitions were not drunk or shave their heads.

another equally important question: what woman in case of taken vows of chastity, in their right mind- would accept marriage, knowing it will be subordinate to men and that this mathematically implies the inevitable end of her virginity, and her vows? The question is irrevocable and is doomed: If she marries she gives up at her vows, if not first she must give up their vows to get married. That would be like a nun leaving the convent to marry, but for the purpose of never having sex with her husband. The immanent reality is quite different, and the Jewish concept of marriage does not admit the possibility of a vow of virginity and celibacy in marriage. Moreover, God commands husbands to sexually not refuse each other, but for a while and with mutual consent, after which he commands to re-unite sexually (1 Cor 7: 3-5). God never commanded Mary to refrain from having sex with her husband, God does not announce infertility, but on the contrary, fertility1, pregnancy, childbirth, and that is diametrically opposed. God never forbids Adam to take his wife sexually. Thus, any votes of virginity become unviable and, having presented a similar situation we frankly doubt that the woman or the man would have agreed to marry. One of the purposes of marriage is to have children. If Joseph and Mary would not have children, the fruit of their sexual union, they would have not fulfilled that purpose. The answer that Mary gives to the angel during the Annunciation is "How will this be? I know not a man "does not seem to be a vow of perpetual virginity (although it is possible that she wanted to be a virgin at the time of marriage2. Now the question is this: If the
1

In itself, the concept of fertility in Jewish culture was seen as a blessing, and it was not confined only to have a child-just enough to read the huge genealogies do not hesitate to broach the writers of the Bible to fall into account thereof.
2

In this case, the announcement would have worked as a deterrent method that Mary did not wait until marriage itself, but allow Jos together sexually with her.

announcement would not been made did Joseph and Mary would not have had children? The answer is no. Jews Marriages had, by custom, several or many children, and the angel does not come to restrict news children but, on the contrary, he brings the good news of the imminent future state of blessedness of Mary, and that means reproduction, fertility, intercourse. And she herself, as we have seen, would have accepted implicitly when she says: "let it be done with me as you said you said. 3.15. FIRSTBORN AND BEGOTTEN So, the normal thing, according to the religious and cultural traditions, with or without announcement, would be that Mary and Joseph had children. That is the summary and the simple fact. This is a Jewish wedding and a Jewish marriage without children was perceived as a kind of punishment and curse. The descent was a right and even a duty. More children, better it was. The woman, in a way, was educated of taking care of the house and raise children, and a marriage without it was to be considered an unhappy marriage. So when the messenger announces to Mary that she will be a mother, it really is good news, that the marriage is to rejoice because it is not only going to prolong the lineage, the blood, the name, but it will also fulfill the promise of God concerning a nation whose numerous progeny would be uncountable. Whatever the religious, social and cultural ways that made the motherhood repetitive, virtually, an imposition, the concrete fact of the Annunciation is an incentive to the fertility, to the conception.
Lk 1, 28: And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. 29: But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.

30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31: And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

The angel never anathematizes her or damns her because she will conceive a child. That would have been the absurdity of the absurd and totally contrary to the Jewish tradition. Precisely the opposite happens and the angel did not anathematize her but declares her blessed among women, she has found grace to God and therefore she will get pregnant: a special blessing, not only for a Jewish woman but eventually for every woman. The difference is that her firstborn will be great for God, he will be different, and that he will change the course of history. Given all this, it is clear that she is not like other women already, but among them she is special, because she has been blessed with virtue and found grace enough to be worthy of gestating in her womb as singular Man. So, she doesnt have to see her mothering as something reprehensible or as something to be self-conscious, but on the contrary, her belly has been blessed by God himself and blessed as mother by the angel. Her conception is the blessing and grace that has found because she has been shown capable for what will happen later, and since the announcement seems to be a stimulus to motherhood, there is no reason for her not wanting to have more children, after all her womb has been blessed to the miracle of conception.
Mt 1, 25: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (King James Version) Lk 2, 7: And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Certainly the first child that was born, -the firstborn- of a Jewish marriage was dedicated to God through certain rituals in the temple (Ex 34, 20, Lk 2, 22-24, Lk 2, 27). Strictly speaking, the firstborn simply means first to be born and should be understood only as well as the firstborn child. In the Jewish culture was expected to have more children and, in any case, even if it did not happen, he always had something special. That is, Jesus was the first son of Mary, but he may have had other brothers or not.
1 Chron 23, 15: The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer. 16: The sons of Gershom: Shebuel the chief. 17: And the sons of Eliezer were: Rehabiah the chief; and Eliezer had no other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many. 18: The sons of Izhar: Shelomith the chief. 19: The sons of Hebron: Jeriah the chief, Amariah the second, Jahaziel the third, and Jekameam the fourth.

This passage is explicit in the sense that it clarifies a situation rather obvious. There is no need to have more siblings to be considered as first-born 1, it is clear that the firstborn is simply the son the first to be born, whether if there were or not more children. However, this passage also is explicit in making the clarification whether there were or not more children using the formula "had any other children." That is, make it clear whether he was the firstborn and begotten at a time, or not. Without this kind of clarification it is reasonably inclined to think that there would be more children-it was a normal situation. In the New Testament, although the authors are different, it also seems to follow the same grammatical form. First, they mention the position of Jesus, -the first one -as well
1

In this context, the boss should be understood as the first, or the firstborn.

as whether he was the only one or not and the name of the brothers in a hierarchical-note that the book of Chronicles names the children in order of birth, which comes to establish the pecking order. On the other hand, although firstborn is a word applicable to the first-born child, that word is even more defined and specified when using the word begotten1, which only applies when during the marriage is no longer possible to have more children more than they already have. Means it is applicable to marriages with one child. The first canonical gospels would have been written between 60 AD 100 A.D. By this time Mary of Nazareth, who was born between the years 20-30 a. C. already have died, -most likely-, or would she would be a venerable old nonagenarian2 without any possibility of having more children. It is assumed that by this time, the approximate time that Luke would have written his gospel, he would already knew if Jesus was first born or begotten. The fact is that he never says that Jesus was the only begotten, -means the only son-, but the firstborn-that is, the first child-and, not satisfied with this, also quotes others who identifies as his brothers (lk August 19 to 21). In fact the four evangelists and Paul himself quoted to other people that they identify as his brothers. But there is still more explicit evidence
1 Chron 23, 22: And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters only.

(S. a. Nm 26, 33; 27, 3-4; Josh 17, 3; 1 Chron 2, 34)

1

The word begotten, inclusive, is used in the Old Testament (Amos 8, 10, Zechariah 12, 10), indicating that the one-child sense exists and is used. In the New Testament this sense is recorded profusely for pointing primarily to Jesus as the only begotten of the Father, and as the firstborn of Mary. 2 Commonly the ordinary people of Palestine from the time of Jesus did not live much, 60 years representing a good average age of life.

1 Chron 2, 31: But Seled died without children.

(S. a. 1 Chron 2, 32) Obviously, when writers refer to past events, it is normal to know if they had children or not. That is logical. But the writers are even more explicit as in the case of not having sons, they specifically cited if there were daughters, all this, as will be assumed, was due to be past events where the writer had some kind of omniscience.
Gn 22, 16: By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing [Abraham], and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, 17: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is upon the seashore. And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. Judg 11, 34: And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 1 Chron 23, 17: And the sons of Eliezer were: Rehabiah the chief; and Eliezer had no other sons. Lk 7, 12: Now when he drew near to the gate of the city, behold, there was carried out one that was dead, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

The writers are also very careful when they say there was only one child. It is clear that there was the notion of only son (cf. Jer 6, 26). And because those were events of the past, the writer has no objection to know it, and to express it.

Mt 1, 25: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (King James Version) Lk 2, 6: And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. 7: And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes.

Note that when the author writes about past events he already knows if there was one (1 Chron 23, 17) or more children. And this is outlined explicitly. What happens in the case of Mary is identical. It is evident that the evangelists wrote several decades after Jesus' death and know whether or not there were more children. The funny thing is that is not recorded anywhere that Jesus would had been the only son 1. The strange thing is that Lucas not only says is the only begotten, but continues and claims he was the firstborn. This would be fine if the gospel would have been written when Jesus was born. But not when it is written many years before that because,
1

However, there are those who think they see in the passage of Lk 7, 12 a replica of the situation of Jesus and Mary, but the evangelist is not of the same mind, the evangelist does a parallel or unrelated to that is the same situation of Jesus and his mother. In fact, ignore it and quote it seems like a miracle of Jesus. The text in question says: Lk 7, 12: Now when he drew near to the gate of the city, behold, there was carried out one that was dead, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. 13And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. If the Evangelist had seen in this passage the same situation as Jesus would have mentioned possibly would have made any parallel. The fact that Jesus took pity of it is not indicative of absolutely nothing; in fact, Jesus has compassion most sick, most of the possessed, of most of the suffering. This passage, however, is further evidence that only children are explicitly differentiated, which is not the case with Jesus, because at no point is said to be the only son of Mary.

implicitly it is accepted the idea that there were more children. Returning to 1 Chron 23, 15-19 we notice that this is what happens. When it says the boss- that is the firstborn- it implicitly claims that there were other children. And otherwise, it is note that was eldest and the only one (1 Chron 23, 17). In the case of Joseph and Mary the gospels do not quote Jesus as an only child, or firstborn, or say they would not have more children, but they point out that he was the first child and he had siblings. All this implies, suggests, accuses clearly that Jesus was not the only child and, as suggested by the Bible stories, had several brothers and sisters 1 -thing that would have been a normal circumstance and would be standard among the Jews-. 3.15.1. Josephs firstborn

Among the Jews it was normal that a marriage had several children, and Jesus, in this sense, would have been the firstborn of many brothers. It would have been the firstborn not only of Mary, but the firstborn of Joseph (at least by adoption), and the only begotten of that was his real father.
Mt 1, 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren. Mt 1, 11: and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren.

Note that relations are outlined genealogy and transmitted paternally (cf. Nm 1, 2), totally normal in a village quite patriarchal tradition as the Jewish one. In that
1

Another reading, perhaps the best one, is to understand Jesus as the son, on the one hand, the Holy Spirit, on the other, of Mary. Jesus may be the only Son of God (John 1, 14, 3, 16, 18, 1 John 4, 9), but the firstborn of Mary (Matthew 1, 25, 2, 7, Lk 2, 22-24) and those relations are, strictly speaking, can be inferred from the biblical texts.

sense, Jesus, rather than being the firstborn of Mary, is the firstborn of Joseph.
Mt 1, 24: Mt 1, 24: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(King James Version)

Mt 1, 25: But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born.

(New Living Translation)

Joseph did not have sex with Mary during her pregnancy, until the birth of his firstborn.
Lk 2, 4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; 5: to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. 6: And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. 7: And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

It is true that the passage from the Gospel of Luke (Lk 6, 7), seems to refer to the first-born of Mary -is an ambivalence that has played in favor of Mary, however, if we consider the whole context we realize it is about Joseph, his wife and, by extension, his firstborn. Now, what can we say - that Joseph gives him birth? The short answer is no. In the Jewish tradition, even if the woman was the one who had the children, the children were considered as belonging to the father.

Ex 13, 1: And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2: Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

In other words, Mary begat the first-born to Joseph (or to the one who was his legitimate father) 1. In the broader context, it is all about of Joseph and, naturally, because the story is relatively detailed, his wife appears on the scene. Then the evangelist notes: "And she Brought forth her firstborn son, but we see that not only has to be the first born of Mary, but also of Joseph. The men of Israel did not give birth to the children, nor had womb, but the children were seen as belonging to the men, and the genealogies started from them. Considering that, one can say that Jesus was the firstborn of Joseph, either legally, or at a genetic level (but not both simultaneously, as discussed below). The passage in Matthew 1, 25, which, incidentally, is talking about Joseph again, and Mary is mentioned in the scene as an instrument through which shows his eldest son (of Joseph), it does not talk of a adopted son, but expressly states that he is his son (of who would have been his real father), which is logical since, as we have noted, the lineage was not transmitted maternally (cf. Nm 1, 2), the children were not of the mother but of the father (which incidentally clears the ambivalence, inclusive, of the primary sources of the gospel). Jesus is the firstborn son of Joseph by adoption although sometimes it is considered as his real father (Lk 4, 22, John 1: 45), who can have pretended he would not know what was actually have happened. 3.15.2. Marys firstborn

We have seen that Joseph really not his real father, his biological father. Was there, perhaps, another Jose? Or, was there another person who was assimilated as Joseph?

The brothers of Jesus mentioned by name in the Gospel are sometimes considered to belong to Joseph, pretending that they were from one of his previous marriage. However, it is clear that Jesus is the firstborn of them (legally and by adoption). Only one option remains: That these brothers are the result of a previous marriage of Mary.
Lk 3, 23: And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.

One hypothesis suggests that Heli would have been the first husband of Mary, with whom she would have had several children, including Jesus, being him the last one, not the son of Joseph, as it was believed, but the son of Heli. In case that Heli would had died, leaving Mary pregnant, and she, knowingly or unknowingly, once the mourning period was over1, or as soon as this had happened, she would had espoused to Joseph, she would have get pregnant for real, and espoused to Joseph, before they came together, as suggested by the gospel (Mt 1, 18). However, at this point there is evidence suggesting that Mary had no previous children because the Gospels, before having Jesus related about her as a virgin (Isaiah 7, 14, Mt 1, 23, Lk 1, 27) because Jesus is presented as the one that opened the womb (Lk 2, 22-24) and as the firstborn in all (Col 1, 15, 1, 17, Heb 1, 6). All this leads uniquely to the conclusion that Jesus was the firstborn both for Mary and Joseph (and for the one who would have been his real father). It is clear that there were no previous children for Joseph, and it is clear that there were no previous children for Mary. If there were after that, this is very possible.
1

Usually between 40 and 70 days (Genesis 50, 3-4), but could last longer. The book of Deuteronomy mentions a time of mourning of Moses for 30 days (Dt 34, 8).

3.16. JESUS BROTHERS Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters are they not all with us? Several interpretations have emerged trying to explain this context, among the most important: That they were the children of Joseph and Mary (Helvidius) That they were the sons of Joseph, from a previous marriage (Epiphanius) That they were Jesus' cousins, sons of a Marys sister (Jerome of Stridon) That they were brothers in Platonic sense, faith companions, etc.

From these interpretations certainly the one that seems more likely for its simplicity, and because it doesnt need to develop complicated propositions, including, are distant from the Bible reading, is the first one. The following ones are not presented in a natural way, and they even seem designed to defend the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. They are in some way versions more influenced, more developed. It is understood that if Mary was to be considered as a virgin after the birth, those brothers would hinder this conception. If it starts from this dogmatic imposition, it is clear that these brothers are absolutely compatible with marriages and Jewish families in the time of Jesus. And, in the case of Mary, this possibility is considerable because we are talking about a young, fertile and married woman. That means, the probability that Mary would had more children is very big and, in this sense, the Bible passages were are cited the brothers of Jesus ( Mt 12, 46-50; 13, 55-

56; Mk 3, 20-21; 30-35; Lk 8, 19-21; John 2, 12; 7, 3-5; 7, 10; Acts 1, 14; 1 Cor 9, 5; Gal 1, 19 ) become in a natural way, spontaneous, not forced. The most natural thing is that Mary had had other children otherwise she would have aborted, but we do not believe her to be an assassin, or even genocidal or filicidal. However, and this is true in the Bible when writing the word "brother" it can refer, in fact, to a blood brother, but it can also refer to a direct family member, to a close or distant relative and, even, it can be understood in a broader sense, as countryman or colleague of faith or cause. In Aramaic there was no grammatical affluence that would express the different forms of kinship1, which does not imply that no distinctions were made. 3.16.1. Abbreviated connection familiar

In any case-and this is something that seems to be the rule, in the same text that uses the word brother, and that does not refer to a blood brother, it is avoided the true connection. It's as if for the writer would be sufficient to make it clear at some point in the narrative the real link (cousin, brother, uncle, nephew, etc.) and then to follow the relative naming as "brother" -in Greek adelfs. And this is only logical, any writer, for lack of words and as a quick and convenient method, would do it. That was precisely the case of the Aramaic language, a problem apparently solved by making it clear, at most a few times, the real filiation for then use the acronym. This system is used even today by using acronyms and allows avoiding
1

The Jewish people perceive themselves as one big family, sons of sons of the same father (Abraham), which makes the brotherhood and family to be perceived as very flexible and extensive, that, somehow, must have contributed to his being considered and designated as a brother even to the more distant relative.

the trouble of writing the long description previously cleared by the abbreviated word. In the Bible, in the absence of words which expressly define the connection, it is usual to find expressions like "daughter of my father, but not of my mother" (Gen. 20, 12. S. a. Lv 18, 9, 11), "the wife of your father" (Lev 18, 8), "the daughter of your son, your daughter's daughter" (Lev 18, 10), "the sister of your mother" or "your father's brother (Lv 18, 13-14), etc.1 Broadly, they are all relatives, all brothers, that brotherhood should be understood in the sense that they are part of the same family. So, it was only necessary to make clear once the actual link and follow naming them as brothers are broad because they belong to the same brotherhood, to the same kindred, to the same family, understanding that, in the if you do not make any clarification regarding any part of the link-or it becomes apparent, it is because they are indeed blood brothers2. This is a general rule throughout the Bible and in many cases, the long description of actual family relationship has served to differentiate and clarify the affiliation abbreviated where the writer uses only the word "brother"3. With regard to Jesus' brothers the situation is very interesting because in no verse of the entire New
1

This mechanism can show all kinds of relationships: parents, in-laws, sons, nephews, cousins, siblings, etc. It is true that at other times it becomes a connection in deference, but taking this unprecedented series promptly illuminating gloss writers wisely to avoid confusion. 2 There are cases where there is no clarification as to the binding by to be implicit in the text or be evident if Mt-1, 11 and similar passages. That link should be understood in its own context. If someone, for example says: all the inhabitants of planet Earth are my brothers-in a sense are-no need to have any long description as to the binding, which is understood in a broad and platonic way.
3

In Genesis 13, 8 Abraham addresses to Lot a brother, but he is his nephew (Gen 11, 27, 12, 5). Note that previously has been made clear by the long description of kinship

Testament is done the long description of the actual blood ties. That means, the neo-testamentary text always says they are his brothers, and nowhere does not say that they are not, not saying they were, for example, "the children of your father" or "the children of the sister of his mother ", etc. (which come to serve as a mechanism of differentiation and nomination of the different modes of kinship). 3.16.2. The koin

This etymological problem, typical of ancient Aramaic and which is solved by kinship long explanation, although it is moved to the koin1, it does so only in part. The ancient Greek incorporates more words and, with respect to kinship relations, is particularly enlightening. In this language, though still allowed certain liberties, there are different words for the multiple relations of kinship. In the specific case at hand is important to note that different words are used for brothers (adelfs) and cousins (anpsios)2. Paul uses the latter term in Colossians 4, 10 and, even if it is normal that the meaning of anepsios was not widespread among the Jews, who use the word to refer Adelfos indistinctly cousins or brothers, it is strange that Paul who used the adelfs (to refer to brothers) and anpsios (to refer to cousins) in Galatians 1: 19 refers to Jesus' brother as a brother and not as a cousin or friend 3.

Greek language used in the Hellenistic world. It was the international language in the time of Jesus.
2

This word can also mean nephew (cf. Tob 1, 22 and T 11, 18). Throughout the Old Testament appear a couple of times (Nm 36, 11, Tb 7, 2) and is not used more, being "Adelphis" the word that is used instead to designate cousins and brothers. 3 There could have used the Greek word for relatives' syngens "or" siggenes "which, somehow, also have been valid to refer to cousins.

Gal 1, 19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

In this verse, implicitly, a differentiation is made between the apostles and the brothers of Jesus, otherwise it would not be long description of kinship, but would simply say, "but I saw none of the other apostles, but James'. Moreover, Paul says: "James the brother in the Lord", but is explicit in saying, "the Lord's brother", which comes to be an accusative of kinship, not own to refer to one of his cousins. Indeed, Paul's intention seems to be to not indicate that it was his cousin, not only because it uses the word anepsios, but because, if so, have said, "a brother in the Lord", and even "a relative of the Lord ", not" James the Lord's brother. 3.16.3. His brothers, disciples and followers While it is true that in the biblical context the word brother has a fairly broad sense, and that can mean actual brother, brother in law, cousin, uncle, nephew, family member, relative, friend, follower, fellow citizen (Dt 23, 7), companion of faith or cause (John 21, 23), and even to breed brother (Ex 2, 11, 2 Sam 19, 12), it is also true that there are Greek terms for many of these affiliations and, even in the absence of these, the writers of the Old Testament, along with the writers of the New Testament, manage to make respective differentiations, and even to record them in order of importance and simultaneously, allowing to distinguish one of another, a family relationship of a friendship, etc.
Mt 28, 10: Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

(S. a. John 20, 17).

Clearly the word brother has an extensive meaning even in our day, the brothers in this passage that refers to Jesus are the companions of faith or cause, and this is something that is clear in Mt 28, 16 we know that here his brothers are his disciples-. Same case happens in John 20, 17-18 -. In a broader aspect, it is considered as a brother to our neighbors, our fellow citizens (Lk 22, 32), to unit holders of the same creed (John 21, 23), and even to any human being (Mt 25, 40 ). But this is not always the case, the context and the terms that are used in certain episodes allow considering other affiliations.
Lk 14, 12: And he said to him also that had bidden him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbors; lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. Lk 21, 16: But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

Jesus himself in these passages makes a full differentiation, resounding and unequivocal among several possible meanings with which usually, in Platonic terms, we associate the word brother. He, with the exception of cases in which evidently refers to brother as a neighbor or as each individual of humanity, seems to be very strict in making the differentiation, very analytical and thorough in the expression, so that fully distinguishes between parents, brothers, relatives, friends and neighbors. This, as we shall see above, has a vital importance.
Lk 1, 36: And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren.

The term used by the Evangelist is syngens (relative). This is extremely significant because, although it is his cousin, is called relative. It is said that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Bible are not brothers, but cousins, but in that case, and being the same writer, the same that has differentiated them between parents, siblings, relatives, friends, neighbors and acquaintances (Lk 2, 4445) - why did not he call them also as syngens (relatives)? That being dubbed a relative in the biblical text can only help to strengthen the hypothesis of the brothers of Jesus, because if Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and are called relatives in verses that allude to the brothers of Jesus (Mt 12, 46-50, 13, 55-56, Mk 3, 2021, 30-35, Lk 8, 19-21, John 2, 12, 7, 3-5, 7, 10, Acts 1: 14; 1 Corinthians 9, 5, Gal 1, 19), which is claimed to cousins, they had termed as inexcusably relatives from the beginning. There are so many times when appointing the brothers of Jesus that the only thing that can induce is to think they really are brothers. If not, somewhere in the Testament would have found evidence to the contrary, in a passage would have made some kind of clarification, it was brief. But that does not happen, and it is incomprehensible how can transform into something completely repeated. The most basic and possible is unknown (that Jesus had brothers), but recognizes the impossible and the absurd (the virginity of Mary).
John 2, 12: After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and there they abode not many days.

In this passage is explicit the differentiation between brothers and disciples (S. a. John 7, 3-5, Acts 1, 14. Y 1 Cor 9,5). Note the importance of relationship provided by the writer, the hierarchical connection. If these brothers were fellow believers or fellow citizens undoubtedly they would

have been mentioned, even there they would not have been named as brothers, but as followers.
John 7, 2: Now the feast of the Jews, the feast of tabernacles, was at hand. 3: His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. 4: For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world. 5: For even his brethren did not believe on him [] 10: But when his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.

We know that his disciples follow him precisely because they believe in him, it would be foolish to follow someone without believing, without endorsing his ideology, without receiving communion at his teaching, etc. - And clearly here we can infer that they were his disciples also, we know that, for this time he was in Galilee (John 7, 1), in his land (John 7, 41-44) and, therefore, with his people, with his blood family. And it is precisely his family that did not believe him. They did no say that her mother did not believe him, but says so of one of his brothers 1 who, incidentally, can not be understood in a platonic way because, if so, his brothers would become all mankind. But it can not be said that all mankind would have gone to the party and, what is more, there would have been room for everyone.
1

It's like his own brothers did not liked it and / or did not believe in his ministry or wanted to receive communion of his teachings. Possibly Jesus would warn this distant situation with his brothers, and recognized a relationship a bit damaged or broken, additional reason that he would not known his family. They, in that vein, do not do the will of the Father, and Jesus seems determined to recognize as his real brothers the people, that even without being carnally, practice his teachings.

Mt 12, 46: While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47: And one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee. 48: But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49: And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren! 50: For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

(S. a. Mk 3, 31-35; Lk 8, 19-21) (Cf. Acts 1, 14; Mk 3, 21; 1 Cor 9, 5) It is interesting to know that Jesus, who makes a complete differentiation between parents, siblings, relatives, friends and neighbors, right at this moment, when someone tells him that his mother and his brothers arrived doesnt do any correction, he does not say he is not my brother says but my neighbor. It's as if tacitly accepted- of course the conversation is very fluid and natural direct accusative: "Behold your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to talk to you" -. Not only Jesus does not say that they are not his mother or his siblings but implicitly he asserts, affirms it in his subsequent response. It is also important to note that the passage exposes the most important person in his life -except Joseph that eventually, would have already be dead. And Jesus, in a felt metaphor, makes us understand what the ones who follow him when the will of the Father is made, is part of his family. The metaphor would have been meaningless, and would have not presented with the image of greatness, if would have hinted that he who does the will of the Father is like his cousin or a more distant relative. On the contrary, it

suggests that he is his immediate family, which is like his own mother, which is like his own blood brothers. But this passage contains an even more revealing data. On the one hand, emphasizes Jesus' inclusion to women and, on the other, suggests that not only, in terms of his physical family, he has a mother and siblings, but also he has at least one sister. The messenger does not say at the beginning that there are also sisters-or sister, but Jesus, on its own, he implicitly suggests it 1. This, of course, in itself is already a huge argument and Jesus, almost subconsciously; affirms himself about the composition of his immediate family. But is it possible, as suggested by Jesus himself that he would also had sisters?
Mt 13, 54: And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? 56: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

(S. a. Mk 6, 1-5) It is important that the evangelist to clarify that this episode occurred in the land of Jesus, in the land of his birth -or childhood and parenting-, because the people involved are locals and they know his family, especially if we understand that these cities were not exactly the same as in the contemporary sense, but were villages or small towns roughly and generally, everyone knows everyone. It is also important to note that, in case that the brothers
1

It can be argued that it does not, but that in a Platonic sense, seeing women their age or younger, associations like sisters. The problem is that they also have older men to whom, in a platonic, associate as a father, but he says, possibly because they do not have it.

named in the gospel were not his brother, but were his cousins, they would have been, in any case, very few. Moreover, we know that families are not trees, planted in the same place, but are likely to move. For example, we know that Elizabeth, Mary's cousin, did not live in Nazareth, but in a city of Judah (Lk 1, 39-40). We also must consider that would not have been Joseph who should have gone to the house of Mary, but Mary to the house of Joseph1. This, in some way would have created a physical distance with his immediate family, forming, with her husband and children to come, his new family. All this gives credibility to the people who live in the birthplace of Jesus and who knew his family. Indeed, the description and the precision made with respect to the family of Jesus are amazing: they not only know who his mother is (and name), but also his father (and his father's occupation), and each of his brothers (and their names) and sisters 2. With this kind of detail, it is impossible to believe that they refer to the brothers of Jesus with neat details if they were in fact if they were relatives of Mary. And that it is not consistent, Mary's relatives would not have gone all to accompany her only because Jesus was to preach the gospel raids. The most logical thing is that she is surrounded by her children 3 possibly some of them very young, considering that Jesus is the eldest, being thirty years (Lk 3, 23) - and possibly some close relatives 4.
1

It seems that this would have changed because of the persecution, so the marriage went to live in the land of Mary.(Cf. Mt 2, 19-23).
2

His sisters are not mentioned by their respective names possibly inferior status of the woman who, for legal purposes, it was not even counted. 3 Especially the father of these have missed and, perhaps, one reason why they seem to have differences with Jesus, because he does not stand with them in one of the most vital.
4

The children who are not mean they can not be close relatives, and indeed cousins. It was and is usual, two or more families together in one house, especially brothers and sisters-what would that even,

Moreover, the evangelist doesnt-t make any clarification regarding the true parentage, does not make a huge description makes blood ties meaning that, implicitly, it confirms the nexus that is expressed 1, thus it guarantees that it is talking about his brothers (later we will see some clarification in this regard). If it would have been like this the evangelist would have said, "but they were not like this, but Jesus called that way', i.e., we would have here anyway the long description or clarification of kinship 2. The detailed description of the family of Jesus even goes further, as it adds: "Are not all his sisters with us?". This is what has already sentenced could infer from the preceding verses (Mt 12, 46-50) in which Jesus himself is the one who seems to indicate that not only brothers, but also sisters, doing a masterful sample including the woman. So, is the same Jesus who tells us, first hand, that they are his brothers when we knew at the beginning that he had at least one sister.
Mk 6, 3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him. 4: And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
cousins and siblings are homogenized. 1 The omission of the description would have preceded only real relationship in the case of someone who made his appearance in the gospels of circumstantially, in which case it would have turned a blind eye. In the case of the protagonist himself such failure occurs unfeasible. But even, in some cases people who are named in the Gospels circumstantially, are named with kinship should be defined in such way (Cf. Mt 8, 5-6, 14; Mk 1, 30; Lk 4, 38).
2

Later we will see some considerations by which we can infer that yes there would be a clarification of the actual blood bond as brothers, strictly speaking, would only James, Joseph, while Judas and Simon would be his cousins.

It is the same Jesus who again put things in order, if it is true that there were his mother and his brothers, it is also true that there were some family members. Such differentiation is conclusive: "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country." Jesus had gone to their land, to their place of origin, but added it would not be recognized in that town, in that area, in their own land. He adds that there will not even be recognized "among his relatives." This, of course, limits the circle of people to which it refers. Not about their countrymen, of its neighbors, but of relatives who lived in that region. This tells us that his mother was not alone with his other brothers, but also had there other family members, other relatives, possibly maternal and paternal uncles and cousins, and even nephews. But it does not end all, for Jesus adds that there will not even be recognized by the members of "home" and this and talks about his private home, or that of his mother, who would have inherited from his father Jos (in case he were already dead), and where they would live his mother and his brothers and, eventually, some relatives more. Note that Jesus makes a relationship that goes from general to the specific: his countrymen (his homeland, or provenance), your relatives, and his own house (indisputably his own house would be conformed by their parents and his brothers) 1. That
1

We do not believe that Jesus himself was not able to meet his family, to the people who made up his own home and that confused with relatives, so that the verse would be: "Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his relatives'. You could also say that their relatives are not your relatives, but refers to his fellow citizens and neighbors, with which home would be their family members, but those accommodations reinforced seem to go well with Jesus, an expert in differentiating between parents, siblings, relatives, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens and even pagans. The word used in Hebrew passage is (mishpox), i.e. "family". When Jesus mentions his own house he is referring to something closer to something more intimate, insider their own relatives (relatives).

clarification issued by the same Jesus is overwhelming, irrefutable. Still, it is possible that some of those who are counted as brothers were actually his cousins. If in the same house not only Mary and her children lived, but a relative of her or of Joseph, and their children or relatives, it is possibleonly fully endorse that fact that all are mentioned as brothers-that between they had at least a cousin or close relative (of Jesus) and at least one brother (of Jesus) 1. Note, however, that Jesus refers to "my brother and my sister" only (Mt 12 50, Mk 3, 35), but it says "my brethren" (Mt 12 48, Mk 3 34, Lk 8, 21) and "my sister" (Mk 3, 35) this indicates that, at least in the house of Mary Jesus lived two brothers and a sister. This statement by Jesus, if we are mathematical to the expression, Jesus seems to be so, since makes differences to full-kinship indicates that he had, at least three blood brothers, including a sister. And if we refer back to the list of Jesus' brothers-James, Joses, Judas and Simon (Mt 13, 54-55, Mk 6, 3) -, or those who are cited as his brothers, based on the criterion stated above, we conclude that two, at least, are his brothers. The other two could indeed be related, possibly cousins who lived in the same house of Mary, along with the other brothers of Jesus. Only this would explain that they mimicked simultaneously with each other and they were included in the list of brothers of Jesus. 3.16.4. The Kinship

Without any doubt Jesus is the hub of the neotestamentary stories, the protagonist, and the main character. This explains sufficiently why everything
1

Some argue that there may be one or two relatives in this group, but all who are named in the list as their brothers are not brothers but they are his relatives. However, if none had been his brother probably would have mentioned as relatives to all and / or would have made the long description of the relationship and the same Jesus, careful in expression, would have bounded.

revolves around him and why the kinship relationships are made around him. For clarity, family references are given around him, directly, and not around Mary (cf. John 12, 2). In the biblical text he was not referred as "the son of Mary ',' the disciples of the son of Mary ',' the brothers of the son of Mary", the "sons of Mary", etc. The reason is simple, and referred back to it: it is not Mary, the main character of the stories1, but her son Jesus.
Mt 12, 46: While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47: And one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee. 48: But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

Some authors have suggested that when the evangelist says, "his mother and his brothers', in case of being also sons of Mary, he would have said" her mother and her mother's children. "Against this kind of reasoning is just what we have except that Jesus must answer "Who is my mother and who are the children of my mother? '. Clearly the kinship relations are made with regard to him directly, and not with respect to his mother, father or any of his brothers or relatives. Additionally, this is the usual way in the Bible when it comes to quote someone's brothers. In Matthew 1, 2, for example, we find:
Mt 1, 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren.

(S. a. Mt 1, 11)
1

Even though she had been the focus of the stories, it would have been difficult for kinship relations were made with respect to it, not only for the Jewish patriarchal culture, but by the fact of being a woman. Not that it was impossible because, in the absence of a male referent would have been mentioned (cf. Mt 20, 20). Although even there is present the male referent.

To pretend otherwise is as if any of us had a brother and, upon being asked about it, we do not we say, "my brother", but the formula "is the other son of my mother" or, even, "is a son of my mother." It's crazy, right? Such kind of reasoning is not only atypical, but becomes ridiculous, absurd. In that vein, the Gospels do not say that Mary has more children because the same structure, in terms of kinship, bounded by the main person by the protagonist of the story, so be unviable. This, however, does not mean they are not recognized in an indirect way for Jesus, which makes a clear distinction between the different affiliations and kinship relations, says other than his brothers, says they are just "children of his father, but not his mother's brothers' and, what is more, it says that his mother is a virgin. If Jesus had wanted to pay tribute to her mother virginity physics (which are paid to him later), no doubt, in this passage we found: Who is my mother, the Virgin, and who are my brothers? In any case it would probably have been refuted would have been unusual for a child vaginal canal opened, hinting that her mother is a virgin. It would have been strange for someone to say that her mother is a virgin when other people are quoting his brothers, with their names. So, it is natural that, at least directly, not to talk of the children of Mary. It is noteworthy that the ties of kinship of Jesus, except in its infancy-not made in relation to their parents, but of him, which is the axis and the central figure in the stories. In that vein the gospel says: "The son of Mary was teaching and she came to visit with their other children." Why is not it? Because Jesus is the central figure of the story, not Mary. But it does say that Jesus was teaching and there was his mother and siblings. Note the difference with respect to kinship. However, in the absence Jesus and Mary who still heads the list- or had a prominent role, they will appoint as the mother of his other children. And that is precisely what appears is

happening in some passages of the Gospels, in appointing a Mary, mother of James and Joseph. The strange thing is that these same names correspond to the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels. On the other hand, some authors believe that mentions Jesus as the son of Mary indicates that was the one, arguing that, in the case of having more children, he would have been mentioned as one of the children of Mary. However, it is natural to speak of Jesus as the son of Mary and not as a son of Mary, not only from a purely grammatical lime, but because Jesus, as noted, the protagonist and hero Bible stories. Indeed, in the time when Jesus is mentioned as "the son of Mary" (Mk 6, 3), and not as "a son, or a son of Mary" (which would remove his starring role and as one put it), is quoted alongside their brothers, which only serves to highlight the paradox of the argument by which it seeks to show that Jesus was the only son. We also know that Jesus is the only begotten, but the firstborn is the largest, and we believe that the order in which they are appointed reflects the eventual birth order of siblings. The problem also is that Jesus is presented not only as the first-born of Mary, but also as the firstborn of Joseph (Lk 4, 22, John 1: 45), which implies that the other brothers, who are mentioned with their names , which are both father and mother, unless Joseph had left Mary to have children with another woman, which would be close to the claims of the parents of the Church of Rome because it is believed that Joseph had other children, although from a previous marriage of Joseph. And here what we see is that it could be from a previous marriage, but a later and this, of course, it would be consistent with the image that we have passed from Joseph as exemplary husband and father. Now if it were true that left Mary to have children with another woman would have been very wrong to bring

them to her house for them to live under the same roof. This, in short, is unfeasible that the brothers mentioned in the Bible, were only half-brothers of Jesus. The evidence suggests that they were legitimate brothers, blood brothers. 3.16.5. James, Jesus brother

In the Bible are mentioned as brothers of Jesus five people: James, Joses, Simon, Judas (the latter two would be in the broad sense), and one sister (who is not mentioned by name), and even though all must have had some relevance after the death of Jesus, one of them stands out from others with a notable difference: this is James, the enigmatic brother of Jesus. While it is true that the Bible records the fact that not even Jesus' brothers believed him (John 7, 5) and at one point they want to catch him because they believed he was crazy (Mk 3, 21), this does not mean that they do not believed him after his resurrection (that fact alone should have convince many people) and after his appearances (cf. 1 Cor 15, 6-8). In fact, they may not believe in his moral message, but they saw in him a figure ripe for political liberation. It is also possible to believe partially in the structure of the message, and also that, pretending a conversion; they wanted to corner the nascent movement under the guise of being his family-the annals of the Church of Rome shows that relevant posts were given to his family in the early centuries, or both. In fact, in Acts 1, 14 we see that the apostles gathered after the death of Jesus, met his brothers and his mother. This means that even they did not believe him, and even if they would have left during his crucifixion (possibly fear), he was quite indifferent to them, especially to James, second son of Mary, same that appears to top the list of children after the death of his brother, and also him that

have appeared in 1 Corinthians 15, 7. He is not only mentioned as one of the brothers of Jesus, but as the Lord's brother.
Gal 1, 18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. 19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Everything indicates that this James is the same of whom Luke speaks in the book of Acts (Acts 15, 12-22), and brother-in the strict sense- of Jesus and Joseph, and, -in the extended sense-of Judas and Simon. But if it is true that Jesus did not have brothers was Paul deceived when he was introduced to James as the brother of Jesus? Or, if he had them, was Paul deceived when he was introduced to James as a brother and not as a cousin? (Because Paul made a strict difference between adelfos and anepsios).
Acts 15, 12: And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them. 13: And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me.

Everything indicates that this enigmatic James would have been the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem (Acts 12, 17, Acts 15: 13, Acts 21, 18, Gal 1, 19, Gal 2, 9-12), in some way, the first Pope, first before Peter, the same as the Roman-Jewish historian Flavio Josefo1 cites in his

JOSEFO, Tito Flavio. Jewish Antiquities, v. II. Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 1997. Cap. XX.

Jewish Antiquities1 as Jesus brother2, killed by Annas (also called Ananus, Anano or Ananias), taking advantage of the absence of the newly appointed Festus, convened the Sanhedrin and made James stand into trial along with others, condemning them to be stoned by the year 62 or 63 AD3. However, it is clear that he was not an apostle of Jesus or, at least, is not reckoned among the twelve. At this point is explicit 1 Cor 15, 7 when it says: Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles 4. It seems that being a brother of the Savior would have earned great appreciation and, after the death of his brother Jesus, he would have taken the lead, coordinating the work of spreading the gospel. This same James would have been, hierarchically, in a superior position to Peter, who, apparently, had to keep him informed of his movements (Acts 12, 17), although it may just do it on
1

This work, written in Greek, is focused on telling the story of the Jews. It ranges from the very moment of creation until the rebellion against Rome.
2

Some experts think that this passage, since it seems interrupting the narrative of the book, is a later Christian interpolation.
3

In the following paragraph (Jewish Antiquities, Sec. XX) Josephus relates that King Agrippa took, for this reason, the pontificate of Annas gave it to Jesus son of Damneo. It is possible, if we adopt the theory of Christian interpolation, that the person cited is not Jesus called Christ, but Jesus son of Damneo. Agrippa, as punishment for his wrongdoing, deposed Annas and gives the pontificate the brother of James, Jesus son of Damneo. Remains to be seen if Jesus son of Damneo could choose to pontificate, in which case the hypothesis would claim interpolation. For now, given background evidence to affirm either position, we subtract only highlight the fact that, with interpolation or not, what matters is that appointing James, not as cousin or relative of Jesus, but as his brother. 4 In any case it is understandable that even if an apostle and brother of Jesus, the fact that it was his brother gave more weight, authority, even above the 12 apostles. On the other hand, it is curious that there seems to be a preference relation on these appearances, to Mary Magdalene and to his brother James, above the apostles.

their own as a form of respect and keep abreast of things the brother of the Lord and the other brothers in the faith, although it is hard to believe that I would inform their movements free. The passage in Acts 15, 13 shown as last to speak because, being the visible head of the nascent Christian movement, his word had the final decision. Unquestionably he from who emanate the instructions for actions to be performed plans to follow. Undoubtedly he appropriates of what would his brother Jesus did in life and fulfilled his roll. His role as head after the death of Jesus, though Paul's letters seem to diminish the role of James and other apostles in favor of himself can be seen in several passages ( Acts 12, 17; 15, 13; 21, 18-19; 1 Cor 15, 7; Gal 1, 19; 2, 9; 2, 12, Jude 1, 1 1). It is clear that this James is different, he is not the same James the son of Zebedee, nor is the James son of Alphaeus. Including differences in the way that each dies. James the son of Zebedee would have died under sword (Acts 12: 12)-note that after the death of James the son of Zebedee remains our James the Lord's brother 2, James the son of Alpheus would have been thrown from a top of the temple
1

It is possible that James quoted in the Epistle of Jude is James the brother of Jesus, in which case it would be his cousin, but make no mistake to appoint him as a brother, not only by the extensive meaning of the term, but because they are brothers in faith. You may also refer to James the son of Alphaeus his brother, or older stepbrother. The relationship of authority per se seems to indicate that the passage refers to James the brother of Jesus.
2

After the death of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12: 1-2) Peter was imprisoned (Acts 12: 3). However, when Peter gets out of prison asking to be notified to James (Acts 12, 17), he can not be the son of Zebedee because he is dead. Clearly, there are 3 people with the name James (two disciples and the brother of Jesus). And that James, the brother of Jesus is not James the son of Zebedee (for the reasons given above) is not, either, James the son of Alpheus (see that James the son of Alpheus not have been the leader of the Church of Jerusalem, the Peter asked to be notified of his release from prison).

in Jerusalem and then beaten (Fox1), while James brother of Jesus would have died stoned (Ant. Jud.)2.
Mk 15, 40: And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

That James, cited as brother of Jesus, and called also, even as James the Right One by later tradition, is, if our conjecture is correct (it looks that way) the same James from in this passage of the Gospel of Mark. James the brother of Jesus and James the minor would be virtually the same. We would like, however, to draw attention to this James the minor (Mk 15, 40), because the Church of Rome has honored James (or Santiago) son of Zebedee, as James the Greater, and James (or Santiago) son of Alphaeus as James the minor. But there is a further distinction. James the minor, quoted in Mk 15, 40 is not the son of Alphaeus and also quoted Joseph, his brother, is the son of Alphaeus. They would have called the child, not because he was a minor, the very fact that you first name, in connection with his brother, indicates that it is older than him, and why not Judas son of James is the brother of this James3, but because it would highlight among the group of followers of Jesus. Recall that when the disciples
1

FOX, John. The Book of Martyrs. Terrasa, Bacerlona (Espaa): Clie, 1991. Cap. 1.
2

It is possible that the death of the different Jacobo had been intermingled, so that sometimes it is not clear the deaths of the two. 3 The apostle Judas is cited as the brother of James. This means that James is greater, but why, then, Mk 15, 40 places it as minor? In other words, Mark does not quote, does not refer to James the son of Alpheus, but another James, Brother Joseph, if you stick to the statement of Paul, brother of Jesus. So, "Judas of James' brother is not, strictly speaking, of" James the less ". And we know that it is not because they are said to be "Judas the brother of James and Joses" as "James the less" is the brother of Joseph.

ask Jesus what is the greatest, he tells them that the greater the lower (cf. Mt 11, 11, 18, 1-4, 23, 11, Mk 9 35, Lk 7, 28, 9, 46-48, 22, 24-26), and in other passages Jesus himself noted this same situation. So, to call it James the less actually implied that was the greatest. In that vein James the less it would not be the shortest or age, except in relation to Jesus, in which case, in fact, is less-or understanding of the message of Jesus, nor less in leadership, being that really occupy privileged position among the followers of Jesus. Recall that he would not have been a disciple of Jesus, however, since the brother of Jesus, have been appointed, or he would have taken the initiative to lead the early church after the death of his brother. We believe, therefore, that the differentiation of the Church of Rome between the highest and James the Less is not only unfair, it is wrong, it did not differentiate or clarify, but to confuse. On the one hand the New Testament does not speak of a James the greater and, moreover, James the less would have been misidentified with the Apostle James the son of Alpheus, being that James the less would be the brother of Jesus (Gal 1, 19) , Joseph (strictly speaking), Judas and Simon (in broad sense). 3.16.6. Mary, mother and Joseph of James

The Gospel cites three people under the name James: James the son of Zebedee, apostle and brother of John (Mt 4, 21, 10, 2, Mk 1, 19, 3, 17, Lk 5, 10, 6, 14) James the son of Alphaeus (Mt 10, 3, Mk 3, 18, Lk 6, 15, Acts 1, 13) James, the brother of the Lord (Mt 13 55, Mk 6, 3, Gal 1, 18-19).

However, inasmuch as two of these people are between the lists of disciples of Jesus, and for better understanding, let us first see the list of the twelve apostles. 1. Simon (Peter), also called Cephas, son of John and brother of Andrew (Mt 4, 18, Matthew 10, 2, Mk 1, 16, Mk 3, 16, John 1: 42) 2. Andrew, son of John and brother of Simon (Peter) (Mt 4, 18, Mk 1, 16, Mk 3, 18) 3. Philip, a native of Bethsaida (John 1, 43, Mk 3, 18) 4. Bartholomew, also identified as Nathaniel (Mk 3, 18, John 1: 45) 5. Thomas, also called Didymus (Mk 3, 18, John 11, 16) 6. Matthew also called Levi the son of Alphaeus (Mk 2 14, Lk 5, 27). Some people think that Jesus awarded him the name of Matthew (Mt 10, 2-3, Mk 3, 18, Lk 6, 14-16, Acts 1, 13) 7. Simon the Zealot (or the Canaanite), also called the Zealot (Mk 3, 18, Lk 6, 15) 8. Judas Iscariot, possibly from the Kraiot village (Mk 3: 18)

9. Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus (Mt 10, 4, Mk 3, 18), apparently replaced by Judas the brother of James 1 (Lk 6, 16; Acts 1, 13) 10.James (hispanicized as Santiago) 2 son of Zebedee and brother of John, also surnamed Boanerges (Mt 4, 21, Mk 1, 19, Mk 3, 17) 11.Two. John son of Zebedee and brother of James, also surnamed Boanerges (Mt 4, 21, Mk 1, 19) 12. James (hispanicized as Santiago) son of Alpheus (Mk 3: 18) S. a. Mt 10, 3, Mk 3, 18, Lk 6, 14-16 and Acts 1, 13 (Listings of the twelve apostles). It is clear that among the disciples of Jesus, there are only two people with the name James: the son of Zebedee and the son of Alpheus. However, as we have seen, there is another James, the brother of the Lord (Mt 13 55, Mk 6, 3,

Apparently Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus, of Mt 10, 3 and Mk 3, 18 would be different from Judas the brother of James of Lk 6, 16 and Acts 1, 13. According to this hypothesis, at the death of Thaddeus or any serious offense that originated his expulsion, or the same desertion, he has been replaced by Judas the brother of James. In the latter case we are not certain what James refers to the evangelist. If we think of James the son of Zebedee is strange that he was not named along with his brother John, also a son of Zebedee. The truth is that Judas is not only mentioned as the son of Zebedee, but also there is no passage in the New Testament to involve some Judas brother of John, the brother of James the son of Zebedee. If we think of James of Alpheus surprising that in Mt 10, 3 and Mk 3, 18 not name him as his brother. The truth is that the grammatical construction makes it virtually impossible for out brother James son of Alphaeus. In any case, there are two options: that this Judas was one of Jesus' brothers or that his brother was another James not mentioned in the Bible (though, of enormous significance because this Judas quoted only in relation to his brother James).
2

Santiago's name reflects a Spanish variant of the name in Hebrew (Jacob, Jacob pronounced). When added the title of Sanctus, which evolved saint, and adding it to Jacob, who also suffer some modifications, originated the name of Saint Jacob, i.e. Santiago.

Gal 1, 19). And we know that Jesus is not the son of Zebedee or Alphaeus. It is clear, resounding and definitive that there is a third James, who because of his importance, it is said not to be the son of anyone, and that he is neither the son of Zebedee or the son of Alphaeus, although he is quoted in relation to Jesus like his brother. Is it possible to capture these subtle but profound relationships that can clarify everything? If James had not been the blood brother of Jesus he would have been cited, not in relation to him, but in relation to his father. This James, according to the evidence, was the visible head of the early church of Jerusalem, leader of the nascent Christianity and brother of Joseph (Mt 13 55, Mk 6, 3), strictly speaking, and of Judas and Simon (Mt 13 55, Mk 6, 3)-in the extended sense. But is there a verse that suggests these relations of consanguinity?
Mt 27, 55: And many women were there beholding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Mk 16, 1: And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

(S. a. Lk 24, 9-10)

It is possible that this Mary, mother of James and Joseph is the same Mary the mother of Jesus. Sure, this would diametrically give a twist to the story because we had always believed that Mary was in a pain so deep that she was absent from the scene of the crucifixion (even she is not named, but if correct, Mary had always been there! She had always been with her son, accompanied by Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of the anointing of the body,

it becomes logical that she was there, according to Jewish tradition, only close relatives can be contaminated by anointing the body of the deceased. If Mary Magdalene had been his wife and Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, his biological mother, they would not be strangers that anointed the body of Jesus, but-of course-his wife and his mother, the two women closest to him (however painful Mary was, the same affliction the impel her to be herself who would touch the body of his son and to be, in some way, there to mourn him and anoint him). And it is precisely the gospel of John which says that indeed, the mother of Jesus was present during the crucifixion.
John 19, 25: But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

This, as we shall see, is extremely important and is relevant to the point to make us revise the commonly accepted history. Now we are certain that Mary, the mother of Jesus was present during his crucifixion, something absolutely normal and even deductible in case her name did not appear. However, the strange thing is that the other gospels were appointed. Did the evangelist forget that there was the mother of the Savior of the world, further universal queen of all creation? Instead, is cited Mary, the mother of James and Joseph. However, Mary the mother of Jesus, according to Matthew 13, 54-55 and Mk 6, 3, would also be the mother of James and Joseph.
Mt 27, 55: And many women were there beholding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mk 15, 40: And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. Lk 24, 9: and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. 10: Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.

Because women cited during the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus are several, and what's more, almost all named Mary and in order to avoid confusion between them, we have to make a short summary of those who were in that place. During the crucifixion1.
1

Mary Magdalene (Mt 27 56, Mk 15, 40, John 19, 25) Mary, Mother of Jesus (John 19, 25) (The other gospels do not quote her, as if were to hide her, except as being the mother of James and Joseph) Mary, mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27 56, Mk 15, 40) Marys sister (John 19, 25)2 Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19, 25) The mother of Zebedees sons (Mt 27, 56)

The Gospel of Luke does not cite any woman with a proper name for the crucifixion, but says they were during his crucifixion several known people and several women who had followed him from Galilee (Lk 23, 49).
2

Perhaps Joanna, deduction taken from Lk 24, 9 that even appointed him before his sister. In the event that the evangelist does not refer to it then we infer that is Mary the wife of Cleophas, it would be sister in a broad sense of familiarity (as discussed below).

Salom (Mk 15, 40)3

After the crucifixion, related to the grave. Mary Magdalene (Mt 27, 61; 28, 1; Mk 15, 47; 16, 1; Lk 24, 10; John 20, 1)2 The other Mary3 (Mt 27, 61; 28, 1) Mary, mother of Joseph (Mk 15, 47) Mary, mother of James (Mk 16, 1, Lk 24, 10) Salome (Mk 16, 1) Joanna Summarizing, we have the following list of women: 1. Mary Magdalene 2. Mary, the mother of Jesus (from Mt 13, Mk 55 and 6, 3 it indicates that the brothers of Jesus would be, at least, James and Joseph and, possibly, Judas and Simon) 3. Mary the mother of James and Joseph 4. Mary, the mother of Joseph (which would also be the mother of James)
3

Perhaps the mother of Zebedee's children if we assume that Mt 27, 56 are three women watching from afar the crucifixion: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and that those same women, in the same order are quoted Mk 15, 40, except that the last woman is not cited as the mother of the sons of Zebedee, but as Salome.
2

Note that it is the only woman who appears in all the Gospels in this difficult time of his life.
3

That other Mary is possibly Mary the mother of James and Joses. In Mt 27, 56 is named after Mary Magdalene, and if we contrast this information with Mk 15, Mk 47 and 16, 1 we realize that we are the same women who are watching over against the sepulcher. In other words, the two women who are facing the tomb would, again, his wife and his mother.

5. Mary the mother of James1 (it would also be the mother of Joseph) 6. The other Mary (as mentioned above would be, or the mother of James and Joseph, or the mother of Jesus) 7. Mary's sister, aunt of Jesus (Apparently Joanna would be the same, but it is also possible that it was Mary the wife of Cleophas) 8. Juana (A Family of Jesus, perhaps an aunt or cousin, because it is in the courtship of women that goes to anoint the body of Jesus) 9. Mary the wife of Cleophas. Possibly wife of Cleopas himself quoted in Lk 24, 18. (We will return to this later). 10.The mother of the sons of Zebedee (mother of James the greater and John, surnamed Boanerges) 2 11.Salom (as mentioned above, would be the name of the mother of the sons of Zebedee)3.
1

We infer that "Mary mother of Joseph" and "Mary of James" is the same "Mary the mother of James and Joseph". In Mk 15, 40 is quoted as "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph", but later (Mk 15, 47) is cited only as Mary the mother of Joses, and 1 verse then only as Mary the mother of James. It is possible that over and Mary are the same otherwise, which would be better, there would be a mother who is just Joseph, one that is only one more than James and what is of James and Joseph.
2

It is the same Mary the mother of James and Joseph, because Mt 27, 56 the appointment to both in the same verse. Some exegetes have associated it as a sister of Mary (mother of Jesus), which James the greater and John would become the cousins of Jesus, but there is a passage that suggests this. On the contrary, if we look at Matthew 20, 20-21, you can see some distance on the words of Jesus, who treats her like a family member, but as an aunt, and she also refers to his children as to brothers of Jesus (which would be a good way to achieve what she aims to reproach relationship). 3 We want the same Salome was the daughter of the mother of James and Joseph, with what would the name of one of the sisters of Jesus, but the grammatical structure of Mk 15, Mk 40 and 16, 1 appears to establish a difference, or talking about another woman.

We know that Mary the mother of Jesus is in the group accompanies Jesus during the crucifixion, and it is important that John 19, 25 I mentioned. From this fact can infer a number of circumstances that, taken together, constitute tremendous evidence. We know that Mary endured the most painful moment that, perhaps, can live a mother, being near the cross watching her son die, which incidentally allows us to glimpse the psychological strength of Mary. Now it is virtually impossible that this Mary, who has endured the most difficult, to go quietly home, as usual, once her son dies right? The most natural is also still present; to follow the funeral procession goes to the tomb and, even more, who is in charge of preparations for the anointing of the body, which is directed to the tomb to have some time with her late son. If she was not there and did this for his son then who would? Now, the relevant question is why the evangelists not named after the crucifixion? We know that it is there only because John's appointment-during the crucifixion. But the other evangelists did not even name it why do they seem determined to hide? If it were not for the passage of John had managed to delete it completely, but who would be interested in it, which obviously is there was not? The answer, perhaps, is how to avoid compromising the role that was given as a perpetual virgin? One thing is certain: We know that Mary, the mother of Jesus is there at the crucifixion. One thing is certain: We know that it virtually is also during burial and, even if no gospel names it, there is strong evidence that leads us to link it to the Mary of Mk 15, 47, 16, 1 and Lk 24, 10. Why? Because in Mt 13, 54-55 and Mk 6, 3 tells us that Jesus' brothers are James, Joses, Judas and Simon, and because according to the evangelists the other woman, the other Mary (Mt 27, 61, 28, 1 ), is also the mother of James and Joses. The issue is clear; there is in the New Testament

some other woman who could be the mother of these two brothers. The mother of the sons of Zebedee has no children is called Joseph (his sons are James and John). The mother of the son of Alpheus has a son named James son of Alpheus, but no two children are called James. Additionally, at any time that James is quoted as the brother of Jesus and a brother of Joseph1. One Mary is the mother of James the son of Alpheus and other Mary the mother of James the less. As we have seen, these two James are different (cf. Mk 15, 40). Joseph is the brother of James the younger but not James son of Alphaeus. So, only one could be Mary the mother of James and Joses, and that Mary is the mother of Jesus 2. By the passage of
1

We know that Jesus would have been the son of Joseph, and the fact that it is cited as the son of Alpheus James clearly tells us that they are not brothers.
2

One hypothesis is that Mary the wife of Cleophas, is the mother of James and Joseph would have been of Alpheus or other man, and stepmother of Judas and Simon, through his marriage with Cleopas. What does not resolve this hypothesis is that Judas is named as brother of James, a careful analysis reveals that must be at least maternallyand, in this scenario would not be brother Judas or maternally or paternally , of James. That is, the child must be the son of Judas it and the fact that he was not named as the mother of James and Joses and Judas, tends to dismiss. Later we will see that she is really the mother of James the son of Alphaeus (Alpheus would have had to) and Judas and Simon (of Cleopas would have been). This hypothesis, as also becomes poor stepmother because the evangelists and the people who know the family closely, call them brothers, when they could have managed to quote them as relatives, acquaintances and neighbors. And, even more unforgivable would be in the case of Luke, a physician (Col 4, 15) that takes the trouble to quote Mary's cousin and cousin (Lk 1: 36), and name all kinds of differentiators (neighbors , relatives, acquaintances, friends, family, family life, wife, children, etc..) whileafter have carefully investigated everything from the beginning (Lk 1, 3) - speaks of Jesus' brothers (Lk 8, 19-20), although it would not be Simon and Judas his brothers, cousins because they would be tolerable, but unforgivable in the case of James (that would be James son of

Mt 13, Mk 55 and 6, 3 (in which are listed the brothers of Jesus) contrasted with Mt 12: 49-50, Mk 3, 33-35 and Lk 8, 19-21 (where the Jesus himself seems to implicitly accept that you have one or two brothers) it was possible to infer that at least two of them were also children of Mary. That is, not only was Mary the mother of Jesus, but would have been at least two other sons, James and Joseph well off (the most viable in order of appearance), and Judas and Simon (less likely on the order of appearance). But it is only from Mt 27 56 and Mk 15, 40 where you get a final certainty. If our guess is correct, Mary of Nazareth, Joseph's wife, had three children: Jesus, James and Joseph. But in this case why not quotes Jesus the son of Mary while James and Joseph? It is not possible to know a definitive way. It is possible that his name had been removed so that it did not interfere with the free development of certain defined patterns of belief 1. Still, there is a basic reason would not have been mentioned: Jesus had died2. In his absence there were only two other
Alphaeus) and Joseph (in which case there would be no close connection).
1

It is possible that, in the beginning would say: Mary mother of Jesus, James and Joseph. In any case, as we have seen, the proper deduction for this passage is the same. 2 This does not mean that from that time and again he was not mentioned as mother of Jesus, especially since it is precisely what constitutes their full identification. Acts this sample is 1, 14. Certainly, if the brothers referred to this passage are the brothers of Jesus-is ambivalent, perhaps were not called by their names not to diminish the role of Jesus, or to differentiate to Mary. While it is true that in this passage does not mention that is mother of the brothers of Jesus, the matter is sentenced in the Gospels, when yes is appointed to be the mother of James and Joseph. Finally, he was not mentioned as the mother of the brothers of his son does not mean that it is not. Here's an example: If a mother asked where is your son? And she says: She's with her little brother or little brother, does that mean the brother is the child of another woman, the product of a previous marriage of her husband? The answer is a clear and resounding no.

brothers, James and Joseph. Paradoxically, James, being younger than Jesus now is going to top the list as the eldest son. It is clear that the mother of James the son of Alphaeus is not the mother of Joseph. It is the mother of James and Joses mentioned in the Gospels. As we have noted, the mother of Jesus, James and Joseph would be Mary, the mother of Jesus. The same is ratified by the Gospels themselves, which situate brothers James and Joseph and Jesus (Mt 13, 55, Mk 6, 3). But then what about Judas and Simon? Well, they also appear in the list of brothers of Jesus. While you may discard pit and relieve them to the background, content ourselves with knowing who are their cousins or relatives (we had seen that, of the four persons mentioned as brothers of Jesus, at least two would be blood brothers, in which case two would be cousins or relatives), it is still possible to undermine valuable information. 3.16.7. Mary, Cleophas wife

Usually it was associated to this Mary, Cleophas wife1 with the wife of Alphaeus and, even when there is no explicit link to this association induces, it is not impossible that it was2 in Jesus' time men used to have or be called by
1

Should not fall into the mistake of thinking that this is the mother of James the less because, as we have seen, James the Less, the son of Mary the mother of Jesus, and James the son of Alpheus are two different people. 2 In Jesus' time men used to have or be called by more than one name. This would explain that Cleopas and Alphaeus were one person. They could also be different transcripts of the same Hebrew word Halfaiwhich, however, linguistics is conjecture. Really, what we see is that when a person is called simultaneously with another name you expressly cited (cf. Mt 4, 18, Mt 10, 2-3, Mk 3, 16, Lk 6, 15; Lk 22, 3, John 1: 42, John 11, 16, John 20, 24, John 21, 2, Acts 1, 23, Acts 4, 36, Acts 10, 5, Acts 10: 18, Acts 10, 32; Acts 11, 13, Acts 12, 12, Acts 12: 25, Acts 15, 22, Acts 15, 37, Col 4, 11), which occurs neither with nor Alpheus Cleophas. Such situations always clear, as in the case of the apostles (S. a. Acts 12, 12).

more than one name. So it's possible that your husband was Alpheus, also called Cleopas. The problem is that the neo-testamentary text nowhere does this kind of clarification nor does it suggest to be taken in that sense, there is No link to each other. However, it is possible that Mary herself had had a double wedding: first with Alpheus, and then with Cleofas1. With Alpheus would have had at least one son: James the son of Alphaeus and Cleophas would have had at least two sons, Judas the brother of James and Simon2. It is also proposed, based on the text in John 19, 25, that this Mary the wife of Cleophas is the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. I.e., four women would not be present, but three.
John 19, 25: But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

The response to this ambivalence is grammatically possible. However, a Jewish marriage would not put the same name to her two daughters, or two of his daughters. This would make it impossible to be sisters themselves, although they may have been close relatives, in which case the Evangelist, and according to the broad concept of brotherhood among the Jews would not have made any mistakes.

This, however, does not eliminate one last possibility: That was another Mary-related or not to the family of Jesus, a mother of James the son of Alpheus, and wife of Alphaeus (cf. Mk 16, 1) -, and that this Mary the wife of Cleophas mother was only Judas and Simon.
2

The order of the brothers according to the sequence of authority conferred upon them by the New Testament would be: James the son of Alphaeus (major), Judas the brother of James and Simon (would be the youngest and the least mentioned).

Eusebius of Caesarea 1, 2, refers:

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

From this interesting passage of Eusebius can infer several things, and above all, very important 3. In the beginning, it is clear that Mary, mother of Jesus, and Mary the wife of Cleophas not strictly sisters4, they are sisters;
1 2

CESAREA, Eusebio de.. Historia eclesistica. Book III, chapter 11.

He was born around the year 265 AD. Known as the father of church history, concludes his "Ecclesiastical History" in 326 AD in which, as it says, is the first to reconstruct the history of the Church from the Apostles themselves (I, 3), and no one will beat him during this period. The authenticity of the history of Christianity by Eusebius is not questioned and data regarding names, dates and places are presented as reliable. It is indeed one of the best sources for the history of early Christianity. 3 One of the most important things is that Jesus had a family, according to the flesh. It is something that can usually be guessed, but has been controversial, especially if you think of his brothers. It is also important to know that some members of the family of Jesus were those who, in the beginning, were at the forefront of the emerging church. 4 We had suggested that it could be Joan. And this would confirm if the women mentioned in John 19, 25 are not three but four. For to be four, the evangelist does not commit any error in not relate to Mary the wife of Cleophas and sister. On the other hand, if there are three, the evangelist did not quote the sister of Mary as sister (broadly defined). In either case the fact background-the brothers of Jesus-not altered in any way, we would only be making the attempt to identify a proper sister Mary.

aspect does not imply any error by the evangelist who eventually places them as sisters, depending if there are three or four women in John 19, 25. Following kinship we have: Clopas (or Cleopas) is the brother of Joseph, namely, uncle of Jesus and, most importantly, Simeon (or Simon) is the son of Clopas (or Cleopas), i.e. Simon, son of Cleophas, is a cousin of Jesus. The reason why there is no mention of Mary as the mother of James, and Joses, and Simon is at least remarkable: Both Jesus-confirmed by Hegesippus1, like Jacob and Joseph are his cousins. Mary the mother of James and Joseph and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Jesus also is not Simon's mother, and can not be. Both Simon and Judas would Jesus' cousins and brothers have been taken because, eventually, they would live in the house of Mary the mother of Jesus, or in the same area, very close to each other. But there is still more explicit evidence regarding Simon, through which it is possible to show not only that is a cousin of Jesus (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History), but, what is more, the same cousin James, who is called the Lord's brother. This, of course, puts them decisively, both James and Jesus, as brothers, sons of the same Mary, while Simon becomes a child of the other. James, leader of the nascent Christianity, and brother of Jesus, is the brother of Simon. Note that implicitly is a differentiation between the two. James, the first Pope, Peter above, in the absence of Jesus, and with the
1

Hegessipus of Jerusalem, considered the first church historian, was born at the beginning of the second century. He would personally interviewed relatives of Jesus of second and third generation and writing his memoirs about the year 180. Thus, the historical value of his writings, may not always doctrinal-deserve a prominent place in the history of the early Christian Church. He fought some Gnostic theories, possibly, in our concept, born Gnostic Christian positions within the Gnostic Christianity to which he himself belonged, or possibly generated from the Hellenization of Christianity Gnostic (mixture of two types of Gnosticism, or knowledge) -.

exception of this one, need not be quoted in reference to anyone, while Simon himself. It is said that James was the son of Cleophas, nor to be brother Simon itself. And, as we have emphasized, the Lord's brother James is not the same James son of Alphaeus James of Alpheus was not leader of the early church, although there have done a very good work of evangelization. In other words, there is distance between James the brother of Jesus and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who seem to form a duo apart. Epifanio de Salamina in El Panarion, or Adversus Haereses (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 14, 5 Contra Antidicomarianos), is explicit in stating that Simeon (or Simon), son of Cleophas, is a cousin of James the Right One.
This James, the Lord's brother and Joseph's son, died in Jerusalem, after living for about twenty-four years after the assumption of the Savior. For at the age of ninety-six he was struck on the head with a fuller's rod, was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and fell without injury, but knelt in prayer for those who had thrown him down and said, "Forgive them, for the know not what they do". Meanwhile Simeon, his cousin but the son of Cleopas, stood at a distance and said, "Stop! Why are you stoning the Just? And look, he's praying you the best he can!" And this was the martyrdom of James1.

The question is simple: If Jesus is Simon's cousin, if James is also a cousin of Simon, and if James is mentioned as the brother of the Lord, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Jesus and James, in mathematical and inexcusable, become like brothers in the strict sense of the word. This, of course, is not new, but missing the final
1

EPIFANIO DE SALAMINA. Translated by Frank William. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide). 2 ed. Leiden (Netherlands); New York; Kln (Germany): Brill, 2013. P. 627.

evidence. Only one issue missing What about Judas? As he is also mentioned as a brother of Jesus. 3.16.8. Judas, James brother

Chances are that Judas had been the son of Cleophas, and not of Alphaeus. That is, brother of James the son of Alphaeus (in some way, his older brother). We do not think it would have been the son of Alphaeus passes one more reason to believe that Alpheus and Cleophas are not the same person since it is not mentioned son of Alphaeus. While neo-testamentary passages associate him as the brother of James, his brother-, what is certain is that the grammatical structure of Lk 6, 16 and Acts 1, 13 brothers makes them impossible to strictly.
Lk 6, 13: And when it was day, he called his disciples; and he chose from them twelve, whom also he named apostles: 14: Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip and Bartholomew, 15: and Matthew and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, 16: and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

(S. a. Acts 1, 13. The formula is repeated almost invariably).

Note that Andrew and Simon (Peter) are clearly distinguished as brothers. Note that the sons of Zebedee, James and John, are cited with a connector that links grammar as a couple (we know they are brothers) and Philip and Bartholomew are also associated with similar way. But it did not happen so with James the son of Alphaeus and Judas the brother of James. Even kinship relations become opposite. James is quoted as the son of Alpheus, but Judas did not.

For both presented the following phenomenon: not named followed-it seems that the intention was to differentiate same-Evangelist, not used, therefore, any connector that associate and, not least, are listed separately, distance from each other, with a disciple through and eventually with a different father (the same is repeated in Acts 1, 13). This infers that Judas is the son of Cleophas, and not of Alpheus, in which case we have to Judas and Simon are brothers of meat and therefore cousins of Jesus, James and Joseph. But then why is he being appointed Judas the brother of James? The reason is simple: James the son of Alphaeus is your brother (brother really), although difference and distance in the text of the gospel so that will not be mistaken as the son of Alpheus. This way, solves the fact that he was not acknowledged as the brother of Simon, which is smaller. This does not imply that it was impossible. In short, what Lk 6, 13 and Acts 1, 13 shows us is that Judas the brother of James maternally, but not paternally. It is not feasible to cite him as the brother of James the Lord's brother because even though Lk 6, 13 and Acts 1, 13 places not being siblings of the same father, in any case the norm of this verse implies that when related to two brothers is because there-and on the paternal, maternal or both-a relationship of brotherhood, not broad but restrictive, and Judas, without being the son of Alpheus, brother of James itself is maternally. It could also be named as brother of James in relation to James the Lord's brother (which Judas would really cousin) to be the leader of the Jerusalem church, but this link is poor, not in the sense that not his brother-in extended sense and cite the Gospels, perhaps because they live in the same neighborhood or in the same house, along with the brothers of Jesus, but because, as we have seen, in the context of Lk 6, 13 and Acts 1, 13 the relationship established when brothers are mentioned (e.g. Peter and Andrew) is because indeed they are, and

from the mother, father or preferably both. The exception would be Jude 1, 1, only time would appear applicable 1. This Judas the brother of James, also the author of the epistle that bears his name, would be the only close relative of Jesus who have been part of the group of the Twelve Apostles2 and, given the overwhelming evidence, never James son of Zebedee and his brother John, allegedly cousins. 3.16.9. Mary, Jesus mother Mary, the Mother of Jesus (and in his absence), also the mother of James and Joseph, according to Christian tradition would have remained widowed. Her husband Joseph, who is mentioned alive when Jesus is 12 years old and go with him at the feast of Passover (Lk 2, 41-52M) 3,
1

The Two Widows

And yet here is not mentioned is that James the Lord's brother. However, we know that James the son of Alphaeus is his brother from the mother. The beginning of the Epistle of Jude (Jude 1, 1) is: "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James [...]. Now we know that Judas is not strictly brother of Jesus, why not quote him as a brother.
2

James, the brother of Jesus, would be the exception. However, what we see is that while it is part of the emerging Christian movement, rather than being an apostle was one of the leaders. Judas, Jesus' cousin, being an apostle, would be named as a brother and differential (which is logical, while giving greater status and relevance). And this is when he, along with Simon, is included as brothers of Jesus. In any case, you can not argue that several relatives of Jesus were part of the nascent movement as they were considered apostles or not, we can see clearly in 1 Corinthians 9, 5 when Paul says: "Have we not power to lead a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? ". Even see here that being a brother or relative of Jesus makes that deserves separate treatment, preferably. It is sometimes argued that if Jesus had other brothers these have been cited. 3 It is sometimes argued that if Jesus had other brothers these have been mentioned in this passage. Such nonsense is crazy, and then are they not named in Mt 13, Mk 55 and 6, 3 for their names, respectively?

is not mentioned again alive during the public ministry of Jesus, so presumably he died during this period. So, Jesus must take care of the house or, in some way, had to deal with situations that normally would not attend while his father was alive. Yet Jesus seems to give more importance to the business, to the things of the Father (cf. Lk 2: 49) and, although we do not know if neglected his home, the fact is that, one day decides to leave to fulfill his ministry. It is possible that this would have been one of the reasons why it does not seem to have good relations with their brothers, even at some point; he seems to speak ironically (John 7, 2-5). It is obvious that they did not agree with his message, but that does not it imply that they are angry enough to let him die.

Lk 2, 42 seems to suggest that only up when Jesus was twelve went to Jerusalem with him. The reasons for not charging children under twelve can range from religious to practice. In this kind of parties concurred so many people, very young bear was not very convenient or comfortable and could disrupt the conduct of religious ceremonies, and even get lost. Best would be to leave them in charge of a person, preferably a relative. In any case Mary and Joseph returned, assuming that Jesus is in the caravan (cf. Lk 2, 43-44) - uninvolved parents? - Which means you probably did not notice the absence of Jesus along the road or up to the house in Nazareth. Once there, if they carried the other childrenhighly unlikely-is it going to return with them to find Jesus? That would have been risk having another child becomes lost-James about 8 to 10 years, and Joseph perhaps about 4-6 years. The other reason not to count them in the scene, even when present-is the irrelevance of the same (we know that children and women, in certain contexts, they did not, they were canceled). Note that Joseph disappears from the accounts at any time after this point (possibly die), which explains why Mary did not have more children.

When his mother and his brothers want to talk to him (we do not think that they would have gone to flatter him, or to tell him to go up to the extreme end) it is possible to do so to dissuade him from continuing the rebellion, perhaps worried that the situation may get worse (and would have been threatened with death). But more poignant at this moment would have been the mood of Mary. She has already lost her husband, she doesnt seem to be very happy now with the possibility to see her child die too, or maybe she was distraught or angry. Mary, Cleophas wife As we saw, this Mary would have had twice married, first to Alpheus (whose marriage have been born James son of Alphaeus), then Cleopas (whose marriage have been born Judas and Simon). After the death of Alpheus, and after a time of mourning for her husband, she would be married to Cleophas. This, as will be noted, is a great approach to Joseph and Mary. Joseph and Cleopas, who are brothers, and their wives, especially if they lived in the same city, would have had a close relationship. This link would have reached a climax by a tragic event: the death of Joseph. Cleopas Family Unquestionably, secured to the widow of his brother, would have strengthened the bonds, perhaps making two house one. This explains why they are referred to as Jesus' brothers; James, Joses, Judas and Simon (note the priority, the order in which they are appointed, for the first two and the last two1). Even if you did not become a single house, the link that Joseph posed to both families, as husband of Mary and a brother of Cleophas, makes the nomination as brothers James,
1

A seemingly innocuous detail but lets see the detail with the locals or the evangelists know Jesus' earthly family, giving them a certain places each of them. Note also that James the son of Alphaeus is mentioned as a brother of Jesus (Mt 13 55, Mk 6, 3). It is indeed very poor link. Judas and Simon are cousins of Jesus, but not James son of Alphaeus.

Joseph, Judas and Simon, are present in a natural and, in any way forced. 3.16.10. The beloved disciple and Marys attention Usually it is believed that when Jesus says: "Behold your son and behold your mother" (John 19, 25-26) beloved disciple is commending the care of his mother, and vice versa. However, the truth is that Jesus apparently has no intention of entrusting nobody cares. The texture of the scene rather appears to intend to reconcile two parties have been at odds. That said, and in the hypothetical that Jesus was truly concerned about the fate of his mother why delivering the beloved disciple, and not one of his brothers? It is inferred that the husband of Mary and would have died for the simple fact that he was not named, from which it follows that Mary had been widowed for some time, and therefore can not entrust to the care of his father1. Moreover, the fact that there is not to say that name had died, you may be left Biera human, who had left to Mary, who had repudiated, that Mary had fled 2, etc. In short, the fact that Mary is a widow catalog is something only incidental and is a void that can not be answered completely. In the absence of Jose, it is normal that Jesus had entrusted the care of their siblings or a close relative. The question is why did so?

What is stupid anyway Now Joseph had been the consolation of Mary and would have assumed her care, while Jesus told him or not. 2 It is strange that the Evangelists do not record the death of the father of Jesus, but they soon record the death of others to result in a secondary. But if Joseph had repudiated Mary, or if something had happened between Joseph and Mary to darken the image of Jesus or Mary, it explains why the Gospels do not re-appoint Jose (or the earthly father of Jesus) . It may well have happened that Mary had been a single mother, and would have had to raise her children.

John 19, 25: But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27: Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home.

Clearly, in the background, close to the scene of the crucifixion are only some women, the mother of Jesus and the disciple whom Jesus loved, but they are not there the brothers of Jesus (do not think any man would be not to run the risk of being arrested and executed. Women, being even considered just would not have this problem).
Mt 12, 46: While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. 47: And one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee.

(S. a. Mk 3, 31-32; Lk 8, 19-21) To which Jesus' brothers could refer? No doubt he was the same one accompanying Maria to look for. It is curious that in other passages they cite with Mary, but at the height not the name at all. It is clear that Jesus' brothers did not go to his crucifixion1, how then could Jesus commission one of his brothers? It is possible that some physical circumstances have prevented them; you may not have wanted to attend the event. In any case, any guess is made with respect to the absence of his brothers is always risky.

It is possible that the evangelists, in a non zaherirles and cover his absence, does not say that Jesus' brothers had not gone, but it does not say that they were present, as if the claim in the past.

However, considering that Jesus' relationship with his siblings is not the most optimal, we can infer that, between one and other, there is some distance. In this case, Jesus could well identify with the passage of the Psalms in which it says: "I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's children. Because I consumed the zeal of thine house "(Psalms 69: 8-9). It is possible that Jesus entrusted his mother wanted another person whose fidelity was better than that of his brothers, since those do not even believe in him (John 7, 5) and up would have leftwhich also made at some point their same disciples and was declared by Jesus himself explicitly (Mt 26, 31-56) -. In any case to which one brother entrusted the care of his mother if none are present? And since we were children of Mary and Joseph's sons, the fact is that absent. Thus, the strange thing is that Jesus would not have entrusted the care of his mother to one of his brothers, the strange thing is that I had not assigned to any of his relatives. So, the fact that Mary's other children are not in the crucifixion scene does not mean they do not exist and perhaps he would have no fear of being caught and suffer the same fate (same reason I do not are his disciples). Anyway, this entire episode is very strange. In the event that this disciple was John, it is clear that he had his home, his family, his relatives, and did not need additional mothering-not even care and maternal-needed, did not need to be entrusted to the care of Mary. In the case of Mary, it is clear that she has a home, your family, your relatives, and have no doubt that in the absence of Jesus, his brother James would provide the most painstaking care. But not only was James, but women had more close friends to Mary in the scene of the crucifixion, including his sister, same that eventually would live in the same house. Some of them would have taken care of it perfectly, and had no need to entrust his mother to the care of anyone (if that was his intention, which is not very

likely). In that vein, there is no need for this episode, obviously, becomes strange, unnecessary, unusual, and rather has all the texture of someone who wants to reconcile two parties, inclusive, are in contention. When the Gospel says that "from that hour the disciple took her into his home" perfectly indicates that the disciple did something extraordinary, something that did certain circumstances or which would have refused to do or that even, Mary would not have wanted accept. Both people would be quite close friends to Jesus but for certain circumstances, not have to have a good relationship. One mother, the other on (the) disciple loved. This explains, then why is directed, at the time of his death, to both people, which explains why Jesus gave Mary to the care of a relative. Or, did the beloved disciple was a relative? In the event that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, and in the unlikely she would have been pregnant at the time of the crucifixion, as suggested by some traditions, or even if he had been born and was a young child, Jesus, tell your mother, behold your son, find a way to encourage and to hint to seek solace in their grandchild. Jesus, telling Mary Magdalene, his disciple (a) loved (a): behold your mother entrusts the care of his mother nothing more and nothing less than his own wife, while trying to reconcile them. But reconciling what? The very cause of this could have been that Mary the mother of Jesus would never have looked favorably upon the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and even pregnancy itself from the last one. 3.16.11. Brotherhood relationships Even when the same context allows it, elucidating the relationships of brotherhood and discovering what kind of brotherhood they refers to-if narrow or wide, if cruel or Platonic in a given context, there is a strict fact in the New Testament that permits us to detect, confine, sentencing

the blood brotherhood relationships. This means that we can know when two people cited as brothers, they really are in the strict sense, as brothers of flesh. This formula or rule, if it fits the term, is that when a person cited by name being sister of another, is cited also by its name, is because, in effect, are blood brothers, either on paternally, maternally, or both.
Mk 3, 17: John the brother of James.

(S. a. Mk 3, 37) They are brothers, both through maternally and paternally.
Acts 12, 2: James the brother of John Lk 6, 16: And Judas [the brother] of James.

(King James Version) (S. a. Acts 1, 13; Jude 1, 1) We know they are maternally:
John 1, 40: Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. John 6, 8: One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, saith unto him, 9: There is a lad here, who hath five barley loaves, and two fishes: but what are these among so many?

We know that Peter is the son of Jonah (Mt 16, 17), but nothing is said of his brother. Maybe he is from the mother, father, or both (Mk 1, 29).
Mk 6, 3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James []?

This, no doubt, is a long way to say: Is not this Jesus, the son of James? And other relationships are related to fully identify him. The evidence, at least for the fact that Jesus is mentioned as the son of Mary, suggests that the

brotherhood is maternally, although we do not know if it is also paternally (presumably yes, because it seems that Mary had no other spouse, or mentioned that Joseph had had another wife).
Gal 1, 19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

(Here it is done for the dignity of Jesus, although is a variant of James the brother of Jesus). It is notable that there is no single event in which, fulfilling the standard that we have indicated, the brothers cited as brothers are not blood brothers, either maternally or paternal or both. It is unchanged. Other forms, sometimes (actually very few) refer to brothers of faith, citizens, etc.., But when a person (mentioned by name) is related to another (mentioned by name) as a sister, or as brother, is because inexcusably are blood brothers. And this, in that sense, shows a relationship of blood brotherhood between Jesus and James, at least from the mother. That is, Mary would become pregnant (at least) not only of Jesus but also of James, Mary would have given birth (at least) not only to Jesus but also to James. Sure, we've seen that here children would be really three. 3.16.12. Josephs sons It seems that the question of Jesus 'brothers was usually accepted in the first century AD - How could refute if they were alive, if in Jesus' life was sought by his mother and brothers? (Mt 12: 46-49, Mk 3, 31-35, Lk 8, 19-21), and Eusebius of Caesarea himself mentions that many relatives of Jesus, in the flesh, had held important positions in the nascent movement?1 But then over time, as the manufacture of dogma progressed (and as the
1

CESAREA, Eusebio de. Trad. George Grayling. Ecclesiastical History. Op. cit. III, 11.

early gospels no aligned with the church of Rome, already mounted in power, were destroyed and people demonstrating another version of the facts were persecuted or silenced)1, those annoying brothers of Jesus had to change their tactics. In this sense, the brothers of Jesus, - the other sons of Mary-, and were no longer children of Mary, but they became only the sons of Joseph.
1

Some argue that, in the event that Mary had had other children, making the dogma of Mary's virginity would have been impossible because their children and grandchildren would have raised their voice of protest saying how it is said that our grandmother is virgin if we, her grandchildren and great grandchildren are here? However, that is not evidence of its impossibility, and the reason is this: Mary had a son who was born by caesarean section and yet, the Church of Rome-abusing, indeed, the common sense of the people, and showing thus the enormous power he had-inquisitorial maintains that she lost her virginity. This shows that the production of dogma, after having a child, it is not impossible, indeed, that was what happened. On the other hand, is to warn that the creation of dogma came in stages. The incipient stage indicates that Mary, before sex was a virgin and that Jesus, as the firstborn, were born of a virgin (which would have been impossible if it had been the second child). At a later stage it was established that Mary, even if had been pregnant, had not lost her virginity (something anatomically possible). But the final phase was the claim that, even if he had a son, he had not lost his virginity. And, to top it off, that although he had several children, had not lost their virginity (then accommodated him Joseph or Become Sound as cousins of Jesus). This last stage was when her children were dead. By the third century AD, when the manufacture of dogma and fully finished. It is clearly no longer survive or grandchildren or great-grandchildren, so that the impact in terms of someone to tell them that their great grandmother had been a virgin would not have been very large. It is even possible that they were accordingly because who would not like a legend tremendous about your ancestors? Who would not want to make money with this legend? It is possible that the church, to those distant descendants, would have purchased his silence. This does not mean that there were no voices of protest itself noting that Mary had more children. It is clear that there was, and it is clear that were removed by the inquisitorial power of the church of Rome. The same Epiphanius of Salamis attacks the "Antidicomarianos" of Arabia (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII)-name perhaps accommodated by the same Epiphany, or the same church of Rome, to prejudice people against

Epiphanius of Salamis himself has no objection to note that James is the son of Joseph (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 14, 5), while noting that he is a child from a previous marriage. However, we should note that this type of scenario has serious difficulties. In the first place would not have been Jesus who would have inherited the carpentry workshop of Joseph, as usually indicated by the same Catholic sources, but would have been James or his brother Joseph. However, Jesus, being treated as a carpenter (Mk 6, 3), seems to indicate that he would have inherited the carpentry workshop, which would only have been possible if he were the eldest. Have to be also noted together this hypothetical case that Jesus would not have been the firstborn of Joseph nor the firstborn in all, as suggested by the New Testament (Col 1, 18), although he might have been the firstborn of Heli. We also have the explicit disadvantage of the advanced age that Epifanius gives to James because he dies at 96 years thrown from the pinnacle -24 years after the death of Jesus, without suffering any injury (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 14, 5 ). The tradition relates that he was taken to the top of the temple, initially with the aim of a retraction of Jesus
them, because they indicate that the dogma of virginity is false, because they claim that she had more children. Voices of protest also came from the Gnostic Christians in relation to that virginity is of a symbolic and spiritual. But most expressive is that created the legend of the lineage of the family of Jesus. Obviously, in secret because he could not be openly because the Church of Rome would immediately condemned as heretics, which would have meant death and the end of the transmission of occult teaching about Jesus' brothers and the same lineage. Other more, before the destruction of the Gnostic Gospelslisted by Rome as heretical sect-had to be hidden to preserve preinquisitorial fire. The most representative sample of these documents by Commission Nag Hammadi library, which fortunately were saved. So these outlandish ideas that there were no voices of protest are false. Even in our time there are those who claim to be line of succession of the lineage of Jesus and perhaps the Rome's religion did recognize them?

and his teaching, and from there he was cast. This, of course, due to his advanced age, should at least leave him with severe sprains and bruises, and even fractures, loss of consciousness, or death. The strange thing is that none of this happens and he is unharmed, without any physical damage. That rather speaks of a young person with a good physique that can withstand a fall at high altitude. That is, James was no older than Jesus, but younger, which clearly prevents Joseph had had his children from a previous marriage, unless he would had committed adultery, cheating on Mary. The other major drawback of this hypothesis is the age of Joseph, perhaps he is given more years to fit his previous children, although it is possible he was younger and his betrothal to Mary had occurred when he was between 16 and 24 years (cf. Is 62, 5), according to the Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah. Epifanius is reporting that Joseph was more than 84 years when he returned from Egypt (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 10, 5) and survived eight years more, when Jesus was 12 (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 14, 6). This means that he died at the age of 92 years, an age not only high for a person engaged in a trade of high physical wear if he had been a carpenter, but for the average person in the time of Jesus as including, the normal age among the elite was 60 years (Pss 90, 10). So, it is completely unfeasible that these were children of a previous marriage of Joseph 1
1

In the History of Joseph the Carpenter, an apocryphal writing Nag Hammadi Coptic language, states that Joseph would have had a previous marriage, which would have been born six children: Judah (or Judas), Josetos (perhaps comparable to Joseph), James and Simon, and Lixia and Lydia. However, the fundamental problem is that it also indicates, express: The just man who I'm talking about is Joseph, my forefather, whom he married spouse as my mother, Mary (Santos Otero, Aurelio. Apocrypha the Gospels). And, in the hypothetical that what is expressed in this apocryphal was true, it would anyway that Joseph and Mary did have sustained sex and that she had lost her virginity to Jos-after all she had been united to Joseph as spouse, consort, which legitimizes sexual union. The problem is that later states that Jesus, of his own accord entered the womb of Mary, without the

because the Bible is explicit to place Jesus as the firstborn (at least in a legal way), because Jesus was the one who inherited the carpentry shop (James would have been engaged in some kind of priesthood), and because Joseph would not have expected to be old to get married, with a virgin (he have married young). On the other hand we see that the Gospels are explicit in naming a Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (which some would same hypothetical previous children of Joseph) along with two sisters, Salome and Mary (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII , 9, 6).We finally have the name not only of one of his sisters, but of two of them!
Mt 27, 55: And many women were there beholding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Mk 15, 40: And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

(S. a. Mk 16, 1)

So, James and Joseph that Epiphanius recognized as sons of Joseph (at least in the case of James) - are the product of a previous marriage of the latter. The strange thing is that the mother of them is still alive. According to Epiphanius, Joseph died at the age of 92 years 1, when Jesus was about 12. According to these data, Joseph would
help of any man. This, of course, and before its impossibility, denotes that must be understood in a symbolic order, but not literal. If it had done so could not have expressed carnal being the son of Joseph. 1 According to the "History of Joseph the Carpenter" would die within 111 years. In this vein, the wife of his previous marriage would have about 130 years. It becomes decidedly impractical.

have been born around the year 80 BC. Typically, about this time was also born while the woman he would have his first marriage and marrying contemporary resulting normally, according to tradition, at the age of 15 or 18 years. This means that this same woman, at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, would be 110 years old (plus the years she would have lived later) which, according to the average life expectancy of Jewish women in the time of Jesus, it is impossible she would have been the oldest person in the world for those times (well above the life expectancy of the elites), and even the evangelists seem summarizing his prodigious senility. It is also extremely odd that Joseph, the same who does not abandon his wife Mary even when it is pregnant with a child, according to the gospels, is not his, abandon the woman who has several children, his first love, and goes after a girl who has been pregnant with the Holy Spirit. It is as if this man would go crazy, although able to overlook the great faults of a woman, which means that he also must be able to pass smaller tests. Then why would he have divorced his first wife? Why would have he given her a bill of divorce, he who is a righteous man? Why the nonagenarian woman, unable to drink water unless it was milled, would have to leave the silence and comfort of her home, the most favorable and recommended, and to take the trouble of going to provide comfort to women thanks to why Joseph eventually would have repudiated her? Thus, it is clear that the history of previous children of Joseph, before his marriage to Mary, becomes unfeasible. It seems, on the contrary, an invention of the early church at that time, or that church leaders to hide something, it is as if something they did not want any one to know, as if there was a very human function would made them uncomfortable. If these prior children would exist for real

the normal would be that the gospel to name them when Joseph fled to Egypt to escape to the persecution.
Mt 2, 13: Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

According to Epiphanis calculations -slightly inflated anyway-, James would be 39 years, but Joseph, and his sisters, would be much younger. Eventually one of them would be minor. It is strange, then, that the angel commanded Joseph to protect Mary and Jesus, but say nothing of their children. We believe that, Joseph had the right and duty to give priority to them, to his legitimate children. 3.16.13. The names of Jesus brothers

The names of Jesus brothers (James and Joseph) are not out of the biblical context, this is not a casualty, but strictly correspond to the tradition of that time regarding to the naming of children. While it is true that in the beginning the name was given in relation to the circumstances in which they were born or in relation to some good fortune granted by God, it is also true that it was customary to give a child the name of the father or the grandfather. This, inclusive, is a habit that, to a greater or lesser extent, is still valid today.
Mt 1, 20: But when he thought on these things [Joseph], behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

21And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

(S. a. Lk 1, 31) This passage is very similar to that of Lk 1, 13 in which Gabriel ordered to Zechariah to name his son John. This obviously is unusual for those who know Zechariah and think he is also going to name his son too Zechariah, or at least, will put a name of one of his relatives (Lk 1, 59-61). However, -taking orders from the Angel- he confirms that the child's name will be John (Lk 1, 62-63). Note that, even if it would be normal to put the name to the child as father's name or, the name of a grandparent or close relative of the two, in the specific case of Zacharias and Joseph this is interrupted due to a higher order. It seems that in the house of Zechariah was already determined the name of the baby and everything leads us to believe that in the case of Joseph something similar would be presented, because a higher order expressly suggests something different. And Joseph is shown quite responsive in addressing what is revealed in the dream and perhaps for fear, he does not dare to act against what the angel commanded, and, as the Gospels express, puts him the name of Jesus. However, if Joseph had had other children after Jesus is possible that he would act differently. But, if so, what possible name would he put it?
Mt 1, 15: and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph's father was called James. This name, together with that of Mattan, of Eleazar, and of the same Joseph, are a very good choice, although the names of Joseph and James, are presented as prime candidates for direct result of affection of Joseph

and because it was normal for a child to be called after his father. The evidence indicates that Joseph chose to call his second son as his grandfather, perhaps moved by affection of Joseph to his father, perhaps because they call him as the patriarch James, father of the twelve tribes, perhaps by both. Both James and James are English variants of the Hebrew name Yaakov. The nearest English version is James. However, in Latin was translated Iacobus, and after that in English as James, so that is valid both 'Iacobus' and 'James' as, in both cases, we refer to its Hebrew form Ya'akov. When Joseph gets the name to his second son, he did not really put a different one from that of his father, Yaakov, same as the grandfather of the child. So much Joseph found the name for two of his sons, Jesus and James (or Iacobus). If, fortunately, he had been blessed with a third child, following the normal patterns of that time then what would have been the tentative name of his third child? That's right, Joseph, like his father. In that vein, and as we indicated, the names of the sons of Joseph are not random or something isolated. All this certainly can only affirm in the sense that the brothers of Jesus were really his brothers. Jesus (Name awarded by the angel. Joseph had no choice) James, or Iacobus (same name as his grandfather) Joseph (as the father, except with a slight variation in the name). But this has an additional detail, as Epiphanius tells us that Salome and Mary were also daughters of Joseph and thus Jesus' sisters. Mary (same as the mother, Mary the mother of Jesus) Salome (possibly a sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, or a close parent).

The text from Epiphanius ( Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 9, 4-6)1 says:

9, 4: I always heard that James was called the Lord's brother, and I said in wonderment, "What's the use of this?" But now I understand why the sacred scripture said this beforehand. When we hear, "Lo, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee," 5: let us by all means learn that it is speaking of James and the other sons of Joseph, and not of sons of Mary whom she never had. For it was plain that, in comparison with the [years of] the Lord's incarnation, James was the elder. 6: The scripture calls them brothers to confound [our opponents], and names James, Joses, Simeon, Judah, Salome and Mary, so that they will learn whose son James is and by which mother, and understand who is the elder.

Nevertheless, we can not understand why Jesus would have inherited the woodworking shop if he would not have the eldest brother. Actually, because it was impossible that these children were from a previous marriage, the issue is sentenced, though Epiphany tries to hide it (and from him serves only the names of the sons of Joseph, which are also Marys). This step discards that they are sons of Alpheus or Cleopas because we find none bearing the name of their father (something very common for the time of Jesus), because there are none to be called Alpheus or Cleopas. The same Epiphanius of Salamis or Salamina, has no problem in accepting that James is the son of Joseph. The problem is that James is quoted together with his brother Joseph. On the other side, and having shown the inability of Jacob and Joseph were sons
1

EPIFANIO DE SALAMINA. Translated by Frank William. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide). Op cit. P. 622-623.

of a previous marriage of Joseph (the foster father of Jesus), and not believing that Joseph would have been involved in a betrayal, for having committed adultery with his wife Mary there is no other choice but to accept that Jesus, James and Joseph are children of Mary, besides Salome and Mary (daughter). As to Judas and Simon we know that they were not his children, although they were Jesus' cousins from the father. If we think for a moment about the disputes in the positions among those who argue that Jesus' brothers are not brothers (but cousins or relatives), and among those who argue that the brothers of Jesus are blood brothers, on the evidence circumstances, it is curious that both parties were right in their own way, even if only partially. On one hand, it is correct to argue that the brothers of Jesus, quoted and named in the biblical text are not brothers, but they are cousins or relatives, because, in effect, two of them are his cousins. On the other hand, it is correct to argue that the brothers of Jesus, quoted and named in the biblical text, which are strictly speaking, they are blood brothers, provided that there be clarification that only two of them are. Not all are his brothers. Not all are his cousins. Both sides were right! 3.17. BORN OF A WOMAN The evidence shows that Jesus was born of a womb When it say that Jesus was born of a woman this is done in parallel a clarification regarding own doctrines of early Christianity in which Jesus was considered as an incorporeal being who had descended to earth to redeem mankind. On the other hand, when we say that Jesus was born of woman, it is ensured that he was born under the biological nature of human beings, that he was a human. This, of course, perfectly amalgamated with the practical

reality in which both men and women are born of a mother, of a woman.
Gal 4, 4: but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5: that he might redeem them that were under the law.

According to the book of Galatians, we can infer, interpret, and even ensure that Jesus was born of a woman and in a normal mode; case of having something special happening this verse we would have had it declared. Now we know that in Jesus' time a successful cesarean section, in which both mother and child survived, it was impossible, so Jesus, since we know that his mother survived the birth, must have been born through the vaginal canal of Mary. There is evidence that biological circumstances implicit in the whole process of conception, gestation and birth of Jesus were normal and identical to those normally present at fertilization, gestation and birth of any other human being. This means there was sperm that fertilize the fertile egg of Mary 1 and that, once the fertilization was made; the zygote was formed and followed the successive cell divisions that form the fetus. This means that there was created the placenta and that it must have activated the mammary glands of Mary, and some Metabolic functions of Mary must have operated according to their pregnancy. Finally, how is logical, and in the absence of Cesarean section, the fetus, in the height of its development stage, would have abandoned the uterus from the cervical route, through the vaginal canal. This, in biblical terms is known as openeth the womb.
1

If we thought the absurdity of what was fertilized egg was not fertile Mary in other words not the son of Mary. That is, not only is deprived of family, brothers, father, but also a mother. He becomes a kind of being born of the wind.

Ex 13, 1: And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2: Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

(S. a. Ex 13, 12; Nm 18, 15)

If Jesus was born of a woman, as seems to have happened, and was born through the vaginal canal (as must have happened), this implies that he opened womb. In fact, the Mosaic Law indicates to be dedicated to Jehovah anyone who opens womb, when Jesus was presented in the temple to be consecrated, there is a direct nod in that he opened womb. At that time there was no strange idea that a baby could be born without Caesarean section and without opening the womb and, worse, that after giving birth the mother, vaginally, remained a virgin. So, the evidence points to note that Jesus opened womb, which implicitly indicates that he was born vaginally born.
Lk 2, 22: And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord 23: (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord).

With this passage from the Gospel of Luke the situation is doomed: JESUS OPENED womb, JESUS WAS BORN BY VAGINA. Note that, in the Jewish context, open womb (uterus) means to born vaginally. Where were most people born? (remember that cesarean section was not yet a successful procedure). The same mechanism that allows us to know that Jesus was a human being of flesh and blood because he was circumcised (cf. Gen 17, 11-13, Lk 2, 21), lets us know that Mary was not a virgin after the birth because Jesus born vaginally and opened her womb.

The same observance of the days of purification of Mary as cleaning mechanism of the uncleanness of her period (Leviticus 12: 1-3) we realize the same. But how can it be that the Immaculate Mother of God had been defiled?
Ex 13: 1: Ex 13, 1: And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, 2: Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine. Ex 13, 12: That thou shalt set apart unto Jehovah all that openeth the womb, and every firstling which thou hast that cometh of a beast.

According to these fundaments, as stipulated in the Jewish law, Jesus, being the eldest and therefore a womb opener, was presented in the temple and consecrated to the Lord (cf. Lk 2, 22). The fact that he opened womb implies that there was no water breaks and expulsion of placenta, besides this, the vaginal canal of Mary had to been dilated enough to allow the passage of the baby and in immediately, their mammary glands due to become active to produce colostrum and milk to carry out Jesus' breastfeeding, among other physiological changes. All this means that, according to Jewish cultural context, Mary, the virgin of Nazareth once began a new stage, her time as a mother. So, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable. 3.18. DAVIDS SON ACCORDING TO THE FLESH In the Catholic Christianity are believed these two fundamental aspects: 1. Jesus is a descendant of David (which gives his role as Messiah) 2. Mary was a virgin even during the birth (so Jesus had an immaculate conception)

However, it is clear that both can not be true simultaneously. If it is true that Mary had a virgin birth and that Jesus is not the son of Joseph, then, by logical sequence, he is not the son (descendant) of David. And if not the son of David (sine qua non), then Jesus is not the Messiah, or the Christ or the Anointed. Moreover, if Jesus himself was begotten from a descendant of the house of David, he may eventually take the throne of David and to serve as Messiah, but this means that Mary was not a virgin because she had to have sexual relationships. The Hebrew term Messiah ( , , mashiach) means to anoint and, by extension, he becomes the Anointed. This same term in Greek word is translated as , Khrists (Christ). Within Judaism one of the unmistakable signs is that the Messiah would be the son of David, i.e., descended from the father1, from Davids root. The prophecies, in this sense, are explicit:
Is 7, 13: And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Jer 23, 5: Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. Jer 33, 15: In those days, and at that time, will I cause a Branch of righteousness to grow up unto

The lineage, in Judaism, is transferred only from paternally.

David; and he shall righteousness in the land.

execute

justice

and

(S. a. Is 9, 6-7; Jer 30, 8-9; 33, 15-17; Ez 34, 2224; 37, 24)
Lk 1, 32: He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. John 7, 42: Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? Acts 2, 30: Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David], that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; 31: he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. Rom 1, 1: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2: which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3: concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4: who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord.

(S. a. Lk 2, 4; 20, 41-44; Rom 9, 5; 2 Tim 2, 8; Rev 5, 5; 22, 16) The affair is doomed, if Jesus is not, as flesh, the son of a descendant of David, he is not the Christ, and we were deceived. If, however, he really was the Christ, then Mary was not a virgin because she must have sex with one of

the descendants of David (in which case the Roman church has lied to us). Moreover, the fact that they recognize Jesus as the son of David points out that, at that time, the interest of spreading the image of Mary as perpetual virgin did not exist because since there was an emphasis on Jesus as the first-son of David, the last one gets abrogated. Additionally, the text appears to be definitive when it says that Jesus is the son of David according to the flesh and, regardless of whether he has the necessary credentials to sit on the throne of David, the fact of being the son of David converts him, inevitably, in a son of Joseph according to the flesh1. If so, this means that Joseph and Mary had to have sex to make possible the conception of Jesus. The situation is clear and does not allow loopholes. According to Jewish tradition the restorer, the Messiah had been of the house of David and the city of Bethlehem Ephrathah (Mic 5, 2, Matthew 2: 5-6, John 7, 42). That is, two conditions should be met simultaneously. However, in the Gospel of John we find a passage, at least, provocative.
John 7, 40: Some of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the prophet. 41: Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, What, doth the Christ come out of Galilee? 42: Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?

What is really questioned here is the lineage of David (of the tribe of Judah) and the town of Bethlehem, or at least, it suggests that none of two criteria are found. Indeed, the dispute seems to focus on the place of origin of Jesus, it is
1

Jesus himself seems to recognize in Rev 22, 16 when you put in your mouth, "I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."

possible that it is not discussed the fact that it might be the house of David, but it is discussed that he is from Nazareth of Galilee, and not Bethlehem of Judah. This, moreover, explains why the Gospels strive to put Jesus as a descendant of David according to the flesh, and to be born in Bethlehem of Judah, although most of the Gospels indicate that came from Nazareth of Galilee 1 (Mt 26, 69; 26, 71; Mk 14, 70; 21, 11; Lk 22, 59; 23, 5-7; John 1, 45-46; 7, 41-42; 7, 52; Acts 3, 6; 4, 10; 6, 14; 10, 38; 22, 8; 26, 9). This, of course, would support the Jewish thesis that defends that Jesus was not the Messiah. In fact, if Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, he was not eligible to be the Jewish Messiah2. 3.18.1. The genealogy

Normally genealogies that expose both Matthew and Luke should be of Joseph, because it is on the paternal that the lineage is transmitted, however, some scholars suggest that Matthew's genealogy is the one of Joseph and Luke's genealogy, of Mary.
1

In any case it seems that the case is sentenced to Lk 4, 16, which states that Nazareth is the place where he grew up. The strange thing is that during his tours of Judea Jesus had not gone through Bethlehem, for his hometown. If Joseph, his father, was from there, you should have some relatives in this site that have survived and that eventually would to visit this village. Nazareth could be not only the city where he grew up, but also his hometown, and Jesus himself confirmed in Acts 22, 8 when he says: "I am Jesus of Nazareth." The strange thing is that they say, 'I am Jesus of Bethlehem. " 2 Not necessarily be literal prophecy. People born in Bethlehem would receive the name of "belemnites" or "belenos". Beleno (or "Belinus" or "Belanus") is the Celtic god of the sun and fire, and Jesus Christ to become, not only would become the morning star (Rev 22, 16), or the carrying the fire, but the fire itself, i.e. a child of the sun (son of Bethlehem, or child of Beleno) and the sun itself (the Logos)-a "Beleno" or "belemnite 'authentic. Recall that December 25 was set as the birth of Jesus, the same day when we celebrate the birth of the Sun, i.e., the same Beleno Celtic.

Mt 1, 15: and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16. and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Lk 3, 23: And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.

The Christian tradition has considered that Mary's father is Joaquin. In that order of ideas is not easy to reconcile with Luke's genealogy of Mary, while it is possible that the last one is not related to parent-child relationships, but the older brother of a sibling group. I mean, Eli would be, or the older brother of James (in the case that Luke's genealogy is paternal), or Joaquin's older brother (in the case that Luke's genealogy is maternal). It is very strange that Matthew does not name Joseph as Jesus' father, really evades the issue definitively and, against all odds, in the time where he should mention him, transfers to Mary as being the mother. As already stated, the lineage went through the paternal way and, for legal purposes, the children were considered of the father. The genealogies, therefore, were made in relation to the father. And Matthew, if actually it is done so, when he comes to Joseph does not call him as his son who breaks definitively with the structure of the text and the traditional way of doing genealogies. Perhaps, was he the real father of Jesus? For Luke the overture is more provocative thus not it is not only limited to avoid the controversial issue of paternity, but goes further and directly states that Jesus was the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph. It is strange that the evangelists devise a relatively extensive genealogy to trace the lineage of the line of David and, in the climax, they say it is not the son of David (or he is, but only by adoption). In any case, it is certain that Luke

seems to know something that others do not. And whenever he expresses manifestly that he has been documented diligently (Lk 1, 3), and suggests that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus, we must look elsewhere. Is it possible that Joseph was, as referred to Christian sources, only the putative father, the adoptive father of Jesus? But then where is the fact that Jesus reputed to be the son of David according to the flesh? Does the other father was also of the house of David? Perhaps, the real father of Jesus name was Joseph, same as his adopted father?1 Jesus is cited as the son of Joseph (Lk 4, 22, John 1, 45, 6, 42) by ordinary people, and in the beginning of his ministry, by one of his disciples, and is also recognized and acclaimed by the people as the son of David in the whole course of the Gospels (Mt 1, 1, 9, 27, 12, 23, 15, 22, 20, 30-31, 21, 9, 21, 15, Mk 10, 47 - 48, Lk 18, 38-39). However, at this point there is a gap, something strange as if, after the known version, accepted and promoted by the people there would be a story not known or disclosed and perhaps only accessible to those who documented diligently. 3.18.2. Josephs son or Helis son

The Christian tradition has considered that Joseph is only the foster father of Jesus, which in the final synthesis means that he is not the real father. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke makes it clear that he is not, and suggests that the
1

It has also been suggested that Jesus is the son of David through Mary. In other words, Mary would be the descendant of David and Joseph. This, in any case has several difficulties. First, the genealogy is not traced through the mother and, secondly, the matter would be resolved well committed that Mary is of the tribe of Judah, not Levi, as it seems he was. This is suggested by the texture of Lk 2, 4 when he says that Joseph was of the house of David, but does not say that Mary was, it says they both were, but to mention only Joseph is a clear case of exclusion.

common belief was thinking that Joseph was his father ( Lk 3, 23). So, we can infer that the paternity of Jesus was the little secret of the family of Nazareth, something that was better not to speak of, assuming that Joseph is the father of Jesus, and even telling that so to anyone would ask. This, of course, would have been quite effective because it is well recognized by the crowds and the common people, arguably, that do not know the hidden history. However, one thing is certain, and now we know: Jesus is not the son of Joseph, but of whom then? Now you can understand why Joseph thought that Mary had committed adultery when, from one moment to another, became pregnant. She, if you stick strictly to what the Gospels tell us, got pregnant before having sex with Joseph (Matthew 1: 18). Now you can understand why Joseph wanted to leave in secret, which means the cancellation of marriage and the divorce letter. His action, though contrary to the law, can only be explained in one way: He loved her. The loved perhaps so intense and did not want his beloved to die stoned in the streets of Nazareth. Now you can understand why Luke says that Jesus is not the son of Joseph, although it was commonly accepted and believed. Now you can understand why it is necessary that an angel appeared to Joseph to convince him to agree to receive possibly Mary and Joseph reluctantly agrees only because God has ordained. Now you can understand why Joseph did not know her until Jesus was born, possibly moved to modesty or to wait definitely that he was born without involvement, without being part of the insult. Now you can understand why it is said that Jesus' brothers are sons of Joseph, though he is noted that he comes from a previous marriage, which becomes unfeasible, and only attempts to cover up some small blemish on the marriage of Joseph and Mary. It is clear this blemish if there is one, otherwise would not have built an elaborate ruse, an elaborate story about the birth of Jesus. And the fundamental problem is

that Mary had him not from Joseph, but from another man (hidden under the name of the Holy Spirit). If Joseph and Mary would have sex none of this would have happened. If Joseph had joined sexually Mary, he would not have hesitated about his paternity, would not have thought of her virtual adultery, nor would have reached the point of thinking of abandoning her. If Jesus was the son of Joseph, the evangelist Luke even remotely would have suggested something different. If Jesus would have been the son of Joseph, the writer of Mt 1, 15, just at the time when he should say that of him, Joseph, was born Jesus, makes a sharp turn in the narrative, to put Jesus, not like son of Joseph, but son of Mary. Even the opponents of Jesus seem to suggest that he is a bastard because in a certain way they insinuate that he is born of fornication-commonly accepted as sexual relations occurred outside the marriage (John 8, 41), or, at least, are exempted them but did not exempt Jesus.
Lk 2, 48: And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father [Joseph] and I sought thee sorrowing. 49: And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?

This passage is very important because, although it show us that Mary does recognize a man as the father of Jesus, also allows us to glimpse that Jesus seems not to recognize him, as he speaks of another father. Sure, here it should be understood that other father in a spiritual order, however, it is strange that Jesus, although he comes to talk about his mother and his brothers, never speaks of his earthly father, as if he unaware him. Jesus really looks like a child without a father, or a son who never got to know him.

At this point it is possible that even when Maria puts Joseph as being the father of Jesus, she would only really tell it in an affective context. Joseph would have been acting as his real father because he had agreed to take Mary and her child (Mt 1, 20), and would have assumed to take care of them1, so that in a platonic way it is, even if he is not his biological father (an aspect that Luke has made it clear), is his father by adoption. But then, if Jesus is not the son of Joseph, of who is he? To this question there are only two options: a) Of the Holy Spirit b) From another man It is difficult to conceive of a human being born of the wind, a beautiful poem, a flower, a dove, etc. (unless in a symbolic sense). Typically, a human being born of a woman with the help of a man who has to provide creative material capable of fertilizing the womans egg. When the evangelists claim that Jesus is the son of David according to the flesh, we do not believe it because that he was born of a beautiful sunrise or a rainbow, but he comes, according to the flesh, from the succession line of David. And this involves mating, copulation, and sexual involvement between the descendants of the lineage of David. Jesus' contemporaries would never have thought that he was born of the wind or a spirit that was paired with Mary. They thought he was the son of Joseph, if someone had said that was not the son of Joseph, then it was another man, but no wind or a ghost. Even in our days such a notion is not favorable and is difficult to
1

Note that in Mt 2, 13 the angel tells Joseph: "take your son and his mother" or "take your wife and your son", but expresses: "take the child and his mother", it which suggests that Jesus, as Luke expresses, not Joseph's biological son. It is also interesting that the angel did not use any kind of deference to Jesus warned about Herod, but it does not say that Herod could kill God.

believe that a woman gets pregnant by a spirit. What would you think, for example, if your neighbor turned out pregnant and she told him that the child she is expecting is the Holy Spirit? Perhaps you would say that the Holy Spirit must have a name. The logical and practical sense has taught us how babies come into the world. Jesus, as a human being, adjusted to all the conditions inherent in the human being (Heb 2, 17) and, therefore, must be born as human beings are born (and even adding that he opened womb and he is the son of David according to the flesh). This, in summary, leads us to contemplate the possibility that, if he was not the son of Joseph, he must have been of another man.
Lk 3, 23: And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.

It is true that, eventually, Eli would be the father of Joseph, and Jesus' adoptive grandfather; however, it is also possible that things went differently. In the Gospel of Luke, the author clearly states that he is not the son of Joseph, and it is this same gospel that could reveal the name of the real father of Jesus. If we isolate the passage in which the evangelist, words more, words less, states that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, we get a statement like the following one:
And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age [being the son as was supposed of Joseph], the son of Heli.

Note that we have not changed anything at all concerning the verse of Lk 3, 23, except for the insertion of the brackets that allow us to isolate the interpolation of the narrator. If we ignore for a moment of this, we get:

And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, the son of Heli.

Depending on the translation this same passage can also be transcribed as: "Jesus himself began to be about thirty years old, he was the son of Heli." That is, if we disregard that Lukes interpolation makes regarding Jesus' adoptive parenthood (son, as it was thought, of Joseph) we obtain, in any case, the same way unchanged from about Jesus being the son of Eli (or Heli). The genealogy of Luke, in this case, it would be that of Mary, -remember that, in the Bible, the lineage is passed through the paternal line- (Nm 1, 2) - but of the real father of Jesus. The author of the Gospel of Luke, as noted at the beginning of it, has proudly carefully investigated everything from the beginning (Lk 1, 3) and in this case, would have achieved undermining, including, truths a little painful or not easily to be spread. It is possible that the lengthy documentation of Luke would have served to realize that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus, going against public opinion, belief mass. It is possible that to mitigate, disguise and reverse the effect that this would have meant for the nascent religion and to the emerging dogma would have been better to accommodate a Spirit paternity (which it is still a bit naive) or, obeying to the will of God, the Holy Spirit probably the initially version- which does not contradict the concrete fact that Joseph is not his father-. Now it is hard to believe that Eli was his grandfather when the Gospel of Matthew tells us explicitly that Jacob begat Joseph (Mt 1:16), who would certainly eventually dismissed as Jesus' adoptive grandfather1. And that's it. As for Eli, it's hard to know what happened because the Gospels do not mention him again, unless where it talks about Eli and Jesus, the last one to the point of death,
1

It can be argued that it was Jacob, also named Eli, just because the Gospel does not express it. Also anyone with the name of the patriarch Jacob would want to be called by another name.

cries out and calls him (Mt 27, 46). What seems to be clear is that both Eli and Joseph would be both of the family and lineage of David. 3.19. MARYS MORAL TRAGEDY There were many anti-Christian or Jewish writers who believe that Mary was an adulteress, a prostitute who liked to cheat Joseph with other men. Celso, for example, states that Mary held an illegal relationship with a Roman soldier (Origins, Contra Celso 1, 28) and to tell the truth, we, on the other hand, have been educated to think that Joseph is the foster father of Jesus. And this is not the first time it is considered that Mary could have had a previous husband, before Joseph; men like Brigham Young, in the mid-nineteenth century, expressed it in these terms:
The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.1

While it is true that Young believed that husband would have been God, it does not seem plausible that a woman becomes pregnant with a spirit; it is usual to be a man (of flesh and blood) who begets a child and, in that order of ideas, it must not be Joseph the biological father of Jesus (we have always been told that it is only putative) implies that Mary had him with another man. However, if we stick to the words of Mary, and the reaction she has during the Annunciation we can see that she wanted to marry as a virgin, possibly she had concerted with Joseph not have sex until when Joseph would have received her in his house as his wife. If it fits the term, they would have made a small vow of chastity, of virginity. But then, if Mary did not consent to have sex with her fianc, she would have not consent with another man. In other words, we do not
1

YOUNG, Brigham. Journal of Discourses, v. 11. Liverpool: B. Young, 1867. P. 268

believe her to be an adulteress. So how it is that Joseph was not the father of Jesus? The only possible answer, though painful, is this: Mary was raped. This explains why there was in Nazareth a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph (Lk 1: 27) and that virgin had conceived before joining him sexually (Mt 1, 18). The adultery of Mary could also be explain it, but we have seen that Joseph and Mary were having a conservative tradition and they would not have sex until the marriage itself and, on the other hand, we do not believe that Mary was so dull to risk having sex with another man and losing thereby her virginity, that would be the first thing that Joseph would find once he would deflower her at the time to consummate the marriage. The Annunciation, in this sense, it is a mercy that God has for her, including making her a woman, as the custom is to make it to the man-in the sense of warning her about what id coming. Clearly the announcement should be understood in the context of immediacy because otherwise, it would illogical because sooner or later would have kids in a Jewish marriage and any marriage, provided there is no infertility in either spouse. In that vein, the conception of Mary is imminent. Now the conception for an old woman infertile makes sense because it works something miraculous, but has no sense in young, fertile and newly married girl. This, at least at one point, advocates that the annunciation to Mary has a different background, which it intends to communicate something, more than a mere conception.
Lk 1, 31: And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

It is clear that Joseph did not make it, and he would have accepted it. And it is clear that Mary hardly, from the Annunciation, would have proposed to fulfill the sexual appetites of Joseph to seduce him. It does not seem to be

that kind of woman Mary, it does not seem to be right, that is comes naturally of her, the virgin who has not known a man, and prefers a temporary vow of chastity, up to the moment of marriage.
Lk 1, 34: And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

How can this be? It is clear that Mary knows how babies come into the world. The same verse implicitly makes sentenced to the matter: she knows that to have children she has to join a man sexually. The surprise lies in the relative inability to copulate at that time with Joseph but how they will break their vows of chastity? And eventually Jose is absent from the scene, possibly in another city, away from Nazareth of Galilee because he belongs to the tribe of Judah. In a way, all this implies that Mary did not have Jesus in a union with her future husband and that, consequently, his father would be another. That means that she had sex with someone who is not Joseph.
Lk 1, 35: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.

It is possible that Luke, at this point, would have hesitated in time to unveil one of the untold secrets of the birth of Jesus. It is also possible also that the original text would not say "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" but "A man, by the will of the Holy Spirit will come upon you, but the power of God will overshadow you." What undoubtedly becomes different? The word to cover-with synonyms such as shelter, clothing, shelter, wrap- of the gospel, in any case, has a sexual connotation 1.
1

Not always has a sexual connotation, as well an object can be covered with a blanket. In Deuteronomy 33, 12 we find: "Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; always cover him." In this case the context is different. It is clear that here, as in many cases, the word cover has no sexual connotation. Benjamin LORD cover via

Gn 31, 10: [...] and, behold, the he-goats which leaped upon the flock were ringstreaked, speckled, and grizzled.

(S. a. Gn 31, 12)

1 Kgs 1, 2: Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and cherish him; and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.

The word cover in the text of Lk 1, 35 has a sexual connotation. Mary asks about the circumstances in which they will have the conception and the angel responds the way she will be dressed: a man, by the will of the spirit, will come on you to cover you (mating). In any case, we do not believe it would have been God who would have covered her. We do not believe that Mary had sex with God, with the Holy Spirit or the angel does not seem that the angel is sexually enticing. Different thing is that the circumstances in which the conception of Jesus would be out the knowledge of the Providence. The announcement would be nothing more nor less that the statement to Mary that she will be raped 1, although
different circumstances, among others, for the God of the Old Testament seems to be a sodomite. Mary's case is totally different, she's a woman, and she can have children, but not least, are wondering how that will have your first child. The connotation here is clearly the word cover sexual, and is understood to cover or wrap something and since when a man and woman copulate clothes each other, cover each other, it is clear that the word is meant to cover also sexual sense, almost in parallel as understood the expression "uncover nakedness" with respect to another person, and is also entirely biblical language. 1 It is clear that there is a form of violence towards Mary because she has not asked anyone or anything to cover it. Except that expects to be covered eventually by her husband, by Joseph, once marriage occurs, the fact that a man or spirit (in which case it would have been more traumatic possibly) outside her husband, unsolicited, come to cover, is sexually violating it. However, we believe it was a man and not a spirit

the statement that God will accompany her during that trance, that he's going to help, to give breath, that he will protect and shelter-nonsexual treatment. And Mary, in an attitude that moves, it shakes, it makes clear her deep desire to do the will of God, comparable to Abraham when he was about to sacrifice his only son just to do the will of Jehovah, after hearing the angel statement about what it will happen- forgotten by Luke partially or by posterity-, only manages to say that she is willing to do whatever it takes, to endure, including the maximum vexation, the greatest humiliation, while Christ is born, he who takes away the sin of the world. Only he, the son of the most heinous sin, could erase all sin in each of us.
Lk 1, 38: And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

Product from all these events Mary gets pregnant and Joseph, who has come to her, supposes that she has been unfaithful and plans to leave her1. So, Joseph's attitude is completely understandable, it is logical that he plans to abandon her, deeply hurt. But at this point it is necessary to make attention to the innocence of Mary in the sense that if it would had been an adulteress, the Providence would had not been aided by the appearance of the angel to Joseph in which he fully indicates what has happened, in which he indicates that the child is the will of God, who is son of Promise, and that Mary is innocent. If she would had committed adultery, if she would had soiled her bed in her father's house, if she would have liked to fornicate with other men, the Providence would not have had mercy for her.
because a spirit, or ghost, does not have the power to fertilize. 1 As we have noted, only adultery or rape fully explains all the events that occur during the annunciation and the conception of Jesus. If Mary had joined the Holy Spirit sexually or had allowed to fertilize it, in a way, is a form of adultery, is a form of infidelity to Joseph. But if she was molested in Joseph's absence, she has no sin (Dt 22, 25-27).

Mt 1, 20: But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The appearance must have been tough, including explicit, otherwise possibly Joseph would had hesitated and thought everything would have been a bad dream, a mental image originated from his thought repeated in all these events, infidelity of Mary, etc. It is only from this appearance that he manages to do some justice to Mary. In the Koran, or Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, there is a gap regarding the exact circumstances in which that conception occurred, and if it is true that the Jesus birth, a little extraordinary, - he speaks as soon as he is bornbecomes as God, and it does not appoint to a human father (Sura 19, verses 16-21)-which only serves to increase the doubt-, nor is said that Mary had conceived to mate with God. In fact, their relatives do not believe that it would have been the Holy Spirit which had gets her pregnant, who had arrived there to cover her. In some extracts, the Qur'an1, prays:
Quran 19, 19: He said [the angel]: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, [to announce] to thee the gift of a holy son. 20. She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" 21. He said: "So [it will be]: Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and [We wish] to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter [so] decreed."
1

THE HOLY QURAN. Translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. [s.l.]: King Fahd Holy Quran Printing Complex, 1987. P. 144-145

At this point it does not seem that Jesus was not God himself but that it would have been declared his birth, no matter the cost. The choice to have that pure son has been Mary of Nazareth.
Quran 19, 22: So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. 23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried [in her anguish]: "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"

Possibly he may feel the pain of shame that he has been submitted. True labor pains are very strong, but are supported. Mary, rather than labor pains, seems to complain about the humiliation of an unwanted child, to the point of having wanted to die, even regardless of the fact that the Sustainer would have promised he would be remembered for all generations, thanks to their sacrifice (not completely disappear into oblivion). Note here the similarity with the thesis that we are exposing. If it is true that Mary of Nazareth was the pious woman presented in the Koran, and knowing about the impossibility that a spirit would have fertilized her, again we have the logical conclusion that, without her being corrupted, the conception would have been only be result of a blemish.
Quran 19, 27: At length she brought the [babe] to her people, carrying him [in her arms]. They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! 28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

No doubt, Mary's relatives believe that she has committed adultery, she had been unfaithful to Joseph by fornicating with another man (including she gets compared to a prostitute), and that her child has not been conceived within the marriage. But Mary seems to have another

version, she, as we have seen (cf. Quran 19: 22-23), rather than natural childbirth pains, seems to deplore the shame of an unwanted child, a kind of abuse that would happened to her. And even when there is no sufficient reason for Mary to flee or stay away, we can understand this decision if Mary would had been violated (in which case not only she would have wanted to die it, but the child would not have been born). Of course, this, together with the refusal of Joseph to receive her (if it was that, ultimately, she repudiated her and Mary was forced to flee) have justified the action of Mary, who would have fled, in forced or not, after be violated, far away from the presence of her husband. Her absence will be explained in the Bible with the stay of Mary with her cousin Elizabeth (Lk 1, 39-40), but her situation might have been different and not so romantic. It is possible that Mary had had her son in exile, walking through the harsh desert sun. 3.19.1. The Jewish sources

One of the first sources to suggest that Mary would have been violated in such a way, comes from Jewish sources and traditions embodied in the Talmud and Toldot Sefer Yesh'' u-(or Sefer Toldot Yeshu)1. In the Palestinian Gemara we find the following:
Ben Stada was Ben Padira. R. Hisda said: 'The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was
1

Written Medieval which tells the life of Jesus from the Jewish perspective, made from fragmentary texts of the Talmud concerning Jesus, although it is also possible that he had developed making use of Jewish oral tradition. There are several versions (which do not differ much from each other, except for the date that would have been Jesus). One was originally published in "Fabric igneous Satan" by J. C. Wagenseil (1681), and another was included in "History Jeschua Judaeis Nazareni to blaspheme corrupt" by JJ Huldrich (1705). The most important manuscripts are Strasbourg, Vindobona and Alder.

nor the husband Pappos b. Judah? His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? ([H] megaddela neshayia): As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away ([H]) from her husband, (i.e., committed adultery).'

(Bab. T. San 67a)

This, as noted by Mead1, shows that for the rabbis of that time it was difficult to trace the story to its authentic form. In any case, it seems impossible that Ben Stada and Ben Pandera (or Pandira) were the same person, and some commune with it (not the same can be said of "Miriam the women's hairdresser" and the mother of Jesus) 2. This story is partially consistent with other similar passages in Talmudic literature that Jesus would have been the son of Pandera, for more detail a Roman soldier (Tosef. Julin II, 24; Aboda Zarah 17a, Against Celsus 1, 28) Judeo-Roman ancestry. His mother would have adulterated Pumbeditha city with Pandera (T. Babylon. Sanhedrin 67a, Shabbath 104b), from the result of this union has been born Yehoshua ben Pandira, or Jesus son of Pandira (or Pandera, and including Pantera). While it is true that an approximation to the real story gets better in the same scene and mouth of the locals have known, in this case, since the frontage of Judaism against Christianity-and vice versa-it is only natural that the story is found a little full of anti-Christian and inclusive are a bit
1

STOW MEAD, George Robert (G.R.S. Mead). The stories of Jesus ben Stada the Talmud. [Online resource].
2

Mead narrows the matter: "Miriam," women's hairdresser, "Miriam is in the original," megaddela nesaiia "and Miriam Megaddela is the twin of Mary Magdalene for all practical purposes in this game of words." Magdalena, according to other sources, means it was grown and in the highest sense of Gnostic symbolism, Magdalena is what allows the development of Christ. In other words, the wife is not only wife but a mother. The eventual Jewish interpolation refers not to Mary the mother, but the Mary wife.

inflated hale against Mary1. In any case in Toldot Sefer Yesh'' u-(or Sefer Toledot Yeshu) is a little favor to Marynot the same for Jesus-, and is not presented as an adulteress, but as a virgin, like a maiden humble and respectable who was raped by Pandira. In the first chapter of Sefer Toledot Yeshu we found:
[You may check this version that I consider to be as faithful as possible: http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Sefer_Toldot_Yeshu because I did not find this version in English]

S. T. Y. 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Yesh "u (Jesus of Nazareth), son of Pandira, son of sexual impurity. 1:2 Behold, in the year 3671 in the days of King Janay2, a great misfortune happened in Israel, when presented certain disreputable man of the tribe of Yehudah, his name was Yosef Pandira. 1:3 He lived in Beit-Lehem Yehudah. 1:4: And near his home dwelt a widow with her beautiful daughter who was called Miriam (Mary). Mir "iam a virgin (betulah- )and was engaged to Yohanan, of the House of David, a man" learned in the Torah and Gd fearing s ". Yochanan 1:5 committed to Mir "iam in Beit-Lehem (Bethlehem), the maiden humble and respectable. 1:6 But Mir "iam (Mary) brought the beautiful villain Pandira Yosef. 1:7: After Motzae-Shabat (end on Saturday), Yosef Pandira, pike as a warrior and look attractive shamelessly Mir "iam, who later hit the door and pretending that he was her husband Yochanan.
1

In the most extreme case Mary, as "women's hairdresser," is associated as the madam of a brothel. I would have done "Teshuvah" (repentance) before the rabbi (or rabbi) Paphus ben Jehuda, and he had offered marriage, but Mary (or Miriam) have begun to tamper with Yosef ben Pandira.
2

The text of Huldrieich in Sefer Toldot Yesh'' u-says: "In the days of King Herod.

1:8 Even so, Mir "iam was surprised by the misconduct and raped her against her will. 1:9 After that, when Yochanan whole Mir "iam express his amazement about strange behavior, because she assumed it was her fianc and subjecting only against his will, he raised eyebrows this act of his" pious "boyfriend. . Yochanan 1:10 Pandira suspect and reported his suspicions to ben Shetach Shime'on Rabban. Who relate to him the tragic seduction. 1:11 Lacking witnesses required to punish Pandira Yosef, Mir and "iam, it became pregnant, and Yochanan knew it was not him, but failing to see the guilty party, fled to Babylon1.

While it is true that the Toldot Sefer Yesh'' u-blames Mary for having suffered such humiliation, our perception is oriented to think she was just an innocent victim, and seems well corroborate it the Pentateuch.
Dt 22, 23: If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24: then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee. 25: But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter.
1

In other manuscripts it is said to have fled to Egypt.

Accordingly, if things were as Toldot Sefer Yesh puts the'' u-, Maria becomes innocent. From a moral standpoint is innocent, but from the standpoint of Jewish law is guilty because she did not cry (Dt 22, 27)1. Mary thought it was really her fianc Pandira in a trance of lust, and was accessed against their will. In our perception Maria is innocent. Now the word parthenos in Greek is translated as virgin (or virgin), and its current form is parthena, (, virgin). In an exchange of letters the word Parthena would have been taken as Panthera (converted to Pandera). In other words, Jesus son of Pandera (Yehoshua ben Pandera, or Pandira) have been converted to Jesus Son of the Virgin (son of Parthena). Epifanio de Salamina in El Panarion,2 or Adversus Haereses (Panarion, Haer. LXXVIII, 7, 5 Contra Antidicomarianos), says as follows:
For how could such an old man, who had los his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther.

Coincidence is when less noticeable. We know that Joseph's father was Jacob (Mt 1, 16) and Epiphanius confirms it, adding detail not least James was named Panther (or Panthera). In other words, the correct name of the stepfather of Jesus would Yosef ben Panthera (which it follows that, in fact, one of the correct names for Jesus
1

It is also to blame for being in menstruation during rape, which would have broken the lo'tashen mitzvot (prohibitions) established in Lv 15, 19-24. 2 EPIFANIO DE SALAMINA. Trad. Frank William. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide). Op cit. p. 620.

would Yehoshua ben Panthera, or Pandera, and even Pandira). This apparently suggests that the vocal side clasped to promote significance was the Christian side (Panthera turning in Parthena). In any case, the fact is that the name Panthera lends itself to be taken as Parthena, i.e. as Virgin. In any case, it is important to note that Jesus would not have been called the son of the Virgin Mary a special condition, but because of his father.
Is 7, 14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin1 shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus, in a way, can be called as Jesus son of the Virgin, while the son of Panthera. Panther is a surname that dysgraphia means Virgin. Jesus, being the son of Yosef ben Pandera really fulfilled the prophecy because, according to Jewish tradition, lineage is passed from the father and, according to what we have seen, Jesus can be called: On behalf of the Father: Jesus son of Virgin (Yehoshua ben Panthera. By dysgraphia, Parthena ben Yehoshua, and meaning Jesus son of Virgin). On behalf of the mother: Jesus son of Mary (Because it was the first born of Mary, and it works only until birth). In short, Jesus son of Virgin refers to his father, and the son of the virgin Jesus refers to his mother. This is an affirmation of prophecy or, at least, is more noticeable the signal2 spoken of by the prophet Isaiah. This amounts to a
1

In the text uses the Hebrew word almah (young woman, maiden) and betulah (virgin). Therefore, the prophecy refers to Mary as a virgin in an explicit form, but that, when young, is inferred to be a virgin. In this sense, they may even be made to work as synonymous words. 2 The signal would not have been a woman's virginity (a quite common thing among the Jews), but how that would be engendered by a man named Parthena in Greek Virgin, and Panthera dysgraphia. This, above all other circumstances, is an event that is a reference, in scandal-same reason that it is a sign, which moves with compassion and certainly has

double connotation, Jesus son of Mary (Mary) and Jesus son of Virgin (Yehoshua ben Parthena, or Panthera, his father). Now, in both Christian and Jewish sources, not only would have made an exchange in the letters of the father (Panthera by Parthena), but an exchange in the very name of parents (Joseph, the father's name was taken as the stepfather). In Christian sources can not identify the father's name (though we can guess that it is Eli), while the stepfather is Joseph. In Jewish sources is reversed, the father is Joseph, while the putative father is Papo, or Paphos, and even Paphus (according to the Talmud) or John, or Yochanan, and even Jochanam (according to Sefer Toldot Yesh ''u-). Can not in any case have a definite certainty as to which of those is the father and stepfather which 1. For Christian writers the putative father is Joseph, while for the Jewish writers Joseph is the real father. The story in both versions also differs with respect to outcome. In the Jewish version Mary is repudiated by Papo (Talmud) and abandoned by Yochanan (Toldot Sefer Yesh'' u-) and wandering have Jesus under the roof of the desert (which would be consistent with the Qur'an). In the Christian version is received as wife Mary Joseph and form what later writers have called the holy family. 3.19.2. Marys greatness

a double connotation because it of a man, for dysgraphia, called Virgin, forcing to a virgin.
1

For Luke it is clear that Joseph was not the father, so that it would be Eli, which means father, or God. On the other hand, Paphos could also come to mean father, or dad. As for John (or Yochanan), some authors relate to the Word itself, and through this, it may mean God. At Eli appear contained, if it is not a direct or an etymology includes both strictly Paphos name like Yojanans.

Mary is much greater, majestic and virtuous than fans of the Catholic leaders suppose. Mary is the vivid depiction of internal virginity, of virgin esoteric level to which every man and woman should aspire. However, there was not a virgin in the physical sense. The physical virginity is not parallel to greatness or dignity of a man or a woman. Mary is the woman able to bear the greatest humiliation, just to achieve the good of humanity. Mary is the woman capable, inclusive, to burn in flames just because a little light could reach the minds of men. How many times the inquisitorial bonfire of the sect of Rome will have burned her as witch? The ultimate humiliation, the maximum humiliation for a woman considered as a prostitute. The ultimate humiliation is that, having taken a vow of virginity (and still a virgin internally) a man, crazed with lust, sexually abused her, torturing her. The ultimate humiliation and indignity is that as soon as she has been raped, she was considered a prostitute, and that fame would have dispersed. But Mary calls herself the handmaid of the Lord , Mary is willing to do anything, for the good of humanity (albeit in the Qur'an seems abjure the humiliation so huge that she has accepted). Mary is the woman willing to comply to the letter of the will of the Father. If necessary to rip out her tongue, burn her eyes, and throw her body to the vultures, she would have accepted as long as the birth of the Messiah would have been possible. She, indeed, has made a bigger sacrifice that her one made by her own son. And without her he would not have been born. The birth of Jesus had a price, and in some way had to be paid. And Mary, even if it was defiled, raped, repudiated, even she had her child in the harsh sun of the desert, without fortune or honor (it would have been promised to her, but for a future time), even she was accused of sinful, was willing to accept. What woman would be willing to do that? We doubt that another woman would had agreed to be defiled, humiliated, to renounce to all honors and, last

but not least, to get pregnant with the man who raped and wander as an outcast, by the blazing sun of the desert, in complete abandonment. In fact, after the angel would make the Annunciation and would tell her how everything will be she says: Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. It is clear that what the angel declares is not a honeymoon with perfume and music and enchanted evenings. When Mary says to be the servant of the Lord and that she is willing to do his will implicitly means that the angel has communicated her something unwelcome, but she is willing to do, to comply. What the angel tells her is that she will conceive, how? A man, by the will of Providence, comes upon her. At this point the angel reassures her by telling her that the Almighty will be with her during this trance and that the result of such an event (sacrifice) will be the birth of the Anointed. The Annunciation is, on the other hand, a test that seeks to determine if Mary is willing to sacrifice so that is a savior would be born for her people. And, as we have said, Mary is the woman who is always ready, even, to be burned in parts, especially since a good for humanity would be achieved. Mary's response is blunt: be it unto me according to thy word (Lk 1, 38). If a person is going to receive a prize she does not say: Okay, I accept it, as you wish. And here it is clear that Mary is not receiving an award, but she is being subjected to the ultimate sacrifice, to a test of love. If Mary had been that woman created immaculate from the beginning, her humiliation would have no meaning or merit because she would have been created to do that. But if a woman exposed at all to human nature agrees to be sacrificed for the sake of her people, humanity and the

universe itself, her sacrifice is worthy of all honor and all the credit. When a criminal is killed or a murderer, people celebrate and death has no meaning or merit. But when a righteous man is killed, his merit is really great and the people feel hurt and raise their voices in protest. We believe that similar has happened with Mary and that therefore her merit had no limits. However, leaders of Catholicism fans have made her a white dove, blessed forever, fed by angels, of the most exquisite beauty (the Gnostic gospels present it like to teach a truth, not literal, but spiritual order), and do not know a greater majesty, a even bigger sacrifice, a woman who would have resigned, not just to physical possessions (because she was poor) 1, but up to the vanity of physical beauty 2, 3. They do not
1

If we compare the passages in Leviticus 12, 1-8 and Lk 2, 22-24, we can infer that Mary was a poor woman, who did not have sufficient financial resources to offer a lamb as a sin offering (after purification by son delivery), but had to settle for providing a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. Lv 12, 6: And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb a year old for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sinoffering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest: 7: and he shall offer it before Jehovah, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth, whether a male or a female. 8: And if her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering: and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean. In Lk 2, 22-24 it is stated that she would only have offered a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. 2 AUN WEOR, Samael. El libro de la virgen del Carmen. Bogot: [s.n.], 1952. Cap. 1.
3

In "The Book of Our Lady of Mount Carmel" the author, founder of the contemporary Gnostic currents, gives a detailed description of

know that is was not only was the son who sacrificed, that is was not only was her son who suffered and died as a sorcerer hung on a tree1, but she also made her voluntary sacrifice, that she suffered, she also exhibited voluntarily to ignominy. They, ignorant of the same as say, take away all the credit from her, all the dignity, all the greatness that woman who is willing to lose, including life, love of this sad humanity. People can not feel but gratitude, debt,
the physiognomy of Mary. Although its description is not historical references, but is based on any mystical experiences, his testimony is worthy of note because it is one of the few authors by which we can know more of it to that level of detail. In one section it says: It was not Mary that global beauty watercolors painted in all. With the eyes of the Spirit only contemplate a virgin brown sunburned desert. Before our astonished gaze spiritual slender bodies and faces blurred provocative female figures, to appear in its place a simple little woman petite, slim, small, oval face, flat nose, upper lip somewhat outgoing gypsy eyes and broad forehead [ ...] Walking through African deserts towards the land of Egypt, looked like a prodigal old and torn his robes, and his dark face soaked in copious sweat [...] It is Mary that unforgettable beauty since childhood contemplate on the sumptuous altars of our village churches, whose bells metal markets cheer our parishes [...] At the sight of the spirit completely disappear all fantasies to appear in its place a prodigal humble, a humble woman of flesh and blood [...] The first years of his life were surrounded by every comfort. Tradition has it that Mary made carpets for the temple of Jerusalem and that these carpets became roses. Mary knew the secret doctrine of the Tribe of Levi. Maria was educated in the shade of the porches august of Jerusalem, in the foliage of these palms nubile Oriental, whose shadows lie the old camel drivers. Mary was initiated into the Mysteries of Egypt, met the Wisdom of the Pharaohs, and drank in the Goblet of ancient Christianity, scorched by the burning fire of the eastern lands. The Catholic religion as we know it today, even glimpsed on the seven hills of Rome of the Caesars august and old Essenes knew only the old Christian doctrine, the doctrine of the martyrs, that doctrine that St. Stephen was martyred. That holy doctrine Christ was kept secret within the Mysteries of Egypt, Troy, Rome, Carthage, Eleusis, etc. How big was the Christ, was to have published the old doctrine on the roads of Jerusalem. So far the story goes. As for carpet weaving is of note that this agrees with Jewish accounts that mentioned as a knitter, though not without some derision. Would forego economic amenities to follow the

for the woman who agreed to be humiliated just to bring us the Christ, feel hurt with the moral drama that this great woman had to experiment and accepted undeservedly voluntarily all because Christic mysteries openly teach this poor suffering humanity and darkness. That certainly is bigger than the physical virginity that the ignorant attributed to her, and that would have achieved without merit, without asking it. 3.20. THE SONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT According to what the Gospels refer us, it is possible to infer two types of sons, two different kinds of people. Sons of God, sons of heaven, sons of the kingdom, sons of the Holy Spirit Sons of the devil, sons of the evil
John 8, 44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. Mt 13, 38: The field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one. Rom 8, 14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 1 John 3, 8: He that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9: Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
path of initiation, lighting (which reminds us of determination, in time, also have taken Buddha).
1

In Acts 10, 39 we also find the notion that Jesus would have been hung on a tree, which can be understood as either crucified or hanged, hung.

10: In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

(S. a. John 8, 39; Acts 13, 10; 1 John 3, 12)

It follows that a son of God is he who does the will of God. He that do not commit sin is the son of the Holy Spirit. He that committed sin is of the devil. That is, even if neither God nor the devil mated with our mothers so that one cant say he is the son of God or the devil in a strict form, in any case results interpretive according to the behavior of each one of us. Not surprisingly says John: "He who does not sin carries the seed of God in him and his seed remains in him (1 John 3, 9). We believe that Jesus is the son of the Holy Spirit, fertilized by the Holy Spirit, not because that a spirit had copulated with Mary, but because Jesus is the son of the promise, a child of God. Jesus, determined long before birth to fight the sin nature was, for that reason, inspired by the Holy Spirit, guided by the Holy Spirit from the moment of conception, and even before conception. From this point of view is consistent the fact that Jesus is presented as a work of the Holy Spirit, not the son of man, nor of the will of man, but of God. It is true that would have had a human father, but the circumstances under which that notion would have been propitiated and effected by the Providence were prepared long before, so that Jesus, rather than being the son of the will of any man, is the son of the Gods will.
Mt 1, 18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

It is possible that the evangelist would like to emphasize that, despite the moral tragedy of the conception of Jesus, it was all the work of Providence and that, as Luke says,

he is a son of the Almighty for the high mission that has to bring out in favor of humanity. A son of heaven, but fertilized under the guidance of human nature, is a child who is controlled of the Holy Spirit. It is undeniable that, while physical parents are the doers, they are just instruments of the Supreme, who is the real architect. Misrepresentation is different, as it seeks to deny the carnal union claiming that Jesus was born of God, attributing to mere literal truth, demonstrating with this that what they do, that they are not capable of more, that same literal sense condemns them because when the gospel text refers to the children of God, the work of the Holy Spirit, they reach very distinguished conclusions and that, however, they do not refer to the mothers of these children the unique pathology, and other unnecessary, that is attributed to Mary1.
Lk 1, 32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High.

Luke makes it clear that God did not pair with Mary and had deposited his seed in her, to beget Jesus. In other words, is explicit in implying that Jesus is not the son of God, but he is to be called the son of God, or treated as a child of God-literally, although he is the son of God in Platonic sense. And this, in case these passages from the
1

That same literal sense condemns them because when we speak of Jesus' brothers why the meaning is changed diametrically arguing that there the text refers in a symbolic sense? A man of clear mind cautions that symbolic meaning fits with respect to who is a child of the Holy Spirit, while as regards his brothers may well have happened physically. These come to be in the same position as the Jews of the verse of John (John 6, 35-42), because, although it is very true that Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph, conceived in the flesh, it is imperative to have seen down tangibly the sky to deduce that jump down. Read dead letter and do not see the spirit, because, although it is very true that the son of Mary and Joseph, also very true that he is the son of God, work of the Holy Spirit.

Gospels would have not been altered, specifically point in the direction of the sons of God and the sons of the wicked. The birth of Jesus was not a freak of nature, it was not a random birth, suddenly, without any prior planning, but it was already being prepared, announced. The birth of Jesus was not because any man would have thought it would be good to have Jesus born, but because his coming had already been decreed, even before Mary was born. 3.20.1. The possibility of becoming a child of God Within Christianity it was considered too often that all people are children of God, at least in what concerns the spirit-, as an innate and inalienable function. However, what is clear from the Gospels is that while men do not stop their wickedness they are sons of evil. The Gospels are explicit in stating that there is a possibility to become children of God-which means, in some way, they still are not still- children of God-.
John 1, 12: But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Which does not mean that their biological mothers have to rebuild their virginity or that this is attributed to Marys pathology. On the other hand, these passages come to prove conclusively that being begotten by the Holy Spirit is not something unique to Jesus. If someone becomes a child of God, if one becomes mature, even when people know their father and mother, is someone descended from heaven (John 6, 42), begotten not of blood, nor of the will of flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. This is the situation not only of Jesus but of many others who have

managed to become begotten of God. In hermetic terms we can say that Christ is always begotten of the Holy Spirit through anointing with water.
John 6, 42: And they said [the Jews], Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come down out of heaven?

We believe that this is the case of ben Yehoshua ben Pandira (Jesus) that even when people knew his father 1 and mother (John 6, 42)-the people of the time were unaware of the dogma that surrounding the birth of Jesus would be developed after -, and being born again of water and the Spirit (John 3, 5), is regarded as the son of [Holy] Spirit, begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 3.20.2. The Holy Spirit God to create needs a creative agent and therefore vital and vitalizing, and it is obvious that, in this respect, we are given the Holy Spirit as a force boldly creative, fertile and fertilizing. We can even assert that the Gospels are very careful in pointing out that Jesus was not fertilized by God, but by the Holy Spirit. Overall, it is a child of either is indistinct, but in technical aspects, the fact that the precision that he is the son of the Holy Spirit is very significant, and it is different than if it is said he is the son of God (the Father) or son of the son. And since he is fertilized by the Holy Spirit, we can infer that the Spirit has a fertilizing function, related to fertility, with germination and reproduction. Indeed, the fact that Jesus was impregnated by the Holy Spirit is to reveal a Holy Spirit as
1

In this passage, Joseph is identified as his blood father. It is possible that, in order to cover up the way Jesus was conceived, would identify as Joseph both his biological father and his putative father, in which case the name of his biological father would Yosef ben Pandira (or Pandera). It really drives us to think that Yosef (Joseph) was his father.

a continuous acting force and God, engendering and vital, intimately creative and therefore sexual, same as Josephs function, i.e.: the creative sexual energy. The Holy Spirit can be understood both as inspiring spirit (by which the prophets speak) as an agent begetter, a kind of creative energy, fertile, and even sexual (which is what allows the conception of Mary). In the New Testament literature it is symbolized in the form of a dove (Lk 3, 22), indicating that it is feminine in nature (this is consistent with the Gnostic gospels where, inclusive, is called Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit, in summary, is the representation of women within the Trinity. And rightly so for a man, without the help of a women, can not bear children or have a uterus to hold them during them pregnancy. In other words, a male trinity could not create. A God exclusively male could not create. But a God which itself incorporates both male and female strength, can generate a third force (the Son), and a complete creation. God as male could not create without the Holy Spirit, that is, without the female. From the union of the Father and the Mother comes the Son. That is the Son of Man. 3.20.3. The dove

Birds generally have been associated to the sexual function, and even seen as a phallic symbol. Same happens with the rooster (possibly a variant of the mother goddess Gaia, or Gaya) 1 or, more explicitly, the connection is established when you associate the bird with the male sexual organ. The dove itself is a phallic and sexual

The Gaia, or Greek Gaya is the same Phrygian Cybele. To the eunuchs of the cult of Cybele were called "Galli" or "Gauls". We understand that these would be the same "gaios" or "cocks" worshiping Gaia, the mother fertile and fertilizing. All this, in short, is nothing more than veiled symbol of sexual magic in which, in effect, there castration. That is, annihilation of animal passion, no water drainage.

symbol1. In the Christian iconography it is usually represented in front, with wings spread, forming cross. The dove, forming cross, is a sexual symbol which represents the union men and women, as discussed below. In Roman mythology Venus Columba2 (Venus the dove) is a deity associated with love and fertility. Also associated with Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love 3, reproduction and sexuality, is represented with a dove in hand (in other occasions as well with an apple-apple of discord, which is extremely significant), and even, sometimes, they are taken either, which dove mean fertility and sexual union. Aphrodite emerges from the sea foam. The funny thing is that in marine pigeon being dubbed foamy waves that form in the sea4. Undoubtedly there is an indirect association with the erotic image and sex (even if at first glance seem platonic). Also in navy dove is the middle of the yard, which is cross, used to hoist the sails of a ship. The cross forming the penis 5 (horizontal) relative to the mast (vertical) is called dove. In other words, the cross and dove with outstretched wings against the same. And the cross represents the sexual union of male and female, between male and female.

In Central America the word pigeon is a colloquialism used to refer literally to the phallus, the erectile organ of mammals.
2

Columba is a term for a group of doves and, by extension, is synonymous with pigeon Columba. Columbia and Columbian are derived from the same term.
3

Not romantic love, but a love sexual attraction and related sexual union-same reason also is associated as a goddess of lust.
4

DICCIONARIO DE LA LENGUA ESPAOLA. Real Academia Espaola. 22 ed. [Recurso en lnea].

5

The cock, of course, is one of the terms used in some places in the popular language to refer to penis, the male sexual organ.

Guseme, in this sense, provides the following description with respect to Venus and dove, in the field of numismatics.
Ericina medals, or the Mount Eryx, where he was a celebrated temple of Venus, have the sign a dove, and the same in the Apollonia in Ionia, and Neapolis in Campania. A simulacrum of Venus accompanies a dove, or in their hands, or at the toes, of Smyrna, and Tentiris, and one of Salonina. The Pafia Venus is placed in a temple between two pigeons on a base, or with only one in Cyprus [...] Vesta in front of a pigeon is seen on a rod, in Smyrna medal. Another figure sitting naked in the D. lance in S. dove and bucranio front, seen in another of Alexander M.1

It seems that the dove is what the cross Venus Christianity. That dove symbolizes sexual union, fertility (and thus germination and copulation), beauty and love. His presence in Christianity represents the adoption of one of the many pagan symbols in the nascent Church of Rome. (However, the symbolic value presented is extremely significant). Picknett and Prince, meanwhile, Revelation, mark out the following: in The Templar

The one major Egyptian deity who is usually associated with the symbol of a dove is, however, once again Isis, who was known as Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea (Stella Mans) and Mother of God long before the Virgin Mary was born. Isis was frequently portrayed as suckling Horus, the magical offspring of herself and the dead Osiris. It was in the annual festival that marked his death, and, three days later, his resurrection, that the sun
1

GUSEME, Toms Andrs. Diccionario numismtico general: for perfect intelligence of old medals, signs, notes and inscriptions, and generally all that is contained in them, v. 5. Madrid: Imp. Joachin Ibarra. 1776.

was described as turning black when he died and entered the Underworld.1

It is not unknown that the infant Isis with the child Horus in her arms became the Virgin Mary in the same gesture. Isis, in Egyptian mythology is the fertilizing of nature, the goddess of fertilization and motherhood. And this, clearly, has a sexual context, associated with sexual fertility. So, and beyond doubt, the dove is a sign of fertility and, by extension, sexuality and sexual union. In Christianity the dove is also used in the context of the anointing. God anointed with the Holy Spirit of Jesus (Acts 10: 38) and also, by the same Holy Spirit baptized.
Lk 3, 21: Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22: and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. John 1, 32: And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. 33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.2
1

PICKNETT Lynn, PRINCE, Clive. The Templar revelation: secret guardians of the true identity of Christ. New York: Touchstone, 1998. P. 280 2 It is a way of saying: Jesus baptizes with "sexual union" (cf. Mt 3, 11, Mk 1, 8, Lk 3, 16). And that sexual union should be pure, as the dove also symbolizes purity. In Gnostic Christianity is called "Sexual Magic", "maithuna ',' Suprasexo", "Sex of the Gods ',' Arcane AZF", "Ambrosia", etc. We believe that Jesus came to teach the profound mysteries of sex for all human beings have the opportunity to be born again from them. The baptism of Jesus himself implies eroticism and sexual union

The dove is used to measure the water level esoteric (cf. Gen 8 8-12). A and others are living representation of the human creative waters (evenings also under the anointing oil). So, the dove is a symbol of fertility (the Holy Spirit, which is represented as a dove, fertilizes the womb of Mary) and the feminine creative force of the Trinity. In some cases it has also been taken as a phallic symbol, and in others as female symbol 1; however, we think it is more a representation of fertility, conception, sexual union, regardless of genre. On the other hand, the dove has also been seen as a symbol of purity and chastity, and it is clear that if we juxtapose the different meanings, the dove represents the pristine sexual function, energy unpolluted and uncorrupted creative. And that sexual energy is within us, in our own body. This sexual energy is properly processed water and uncorrupted is likely to become the dove in head started.
1 Cor 6, 18: Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committed fornication sinneth against his own body. 19: Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own.

It is clear that sin which is associated with the Holy Spirit is sexual, and that is the only one not forgive (Mt 12: 32). It's like the human body and sex, in a way, was a representation of the Holy Spirit (we infer that if intercourse is immaculate no transgression, whereas if there is no transgression fornication). In these passages the Holy Spirit gives us so damning, not only as an
according to the meaning of the dove.
1

It is possible for a man to be a feminine symbol, while for a woman to be a phallic symbol. However, the syntheses are, in either case, fertility, conception, sexual union and even the sexual creative energy.

inspiring and giving spirit powers, but as a person who has full representation within each of ourselves and, arguably, with a sexual connotation. When the angel announced to Mary that the Holy Spirit will come upon it nothing else announces the consummation of a sexual relationship. A sexual relationship that would be, by the way, out of wedlock. A sexual relationship contrary to the will of Mary, but she accepts, submissive to the will of God. 3.21. THE BIRTH OF SOL INVICTUS The feast of Sol Invictus was a Roman celebration of the first centuries that marked the birth of the god Sun. The Sun worship was widely celebrated, especially disseminated by emperors Elagabalus and Aurelian. The date established to commemorate this anniversary was on December 25, the day when were also born much of eastern solar divinities. Closely related to the seasons, the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere generally takes place between 21 and 22 December (although usually it is dated on December 21). Prior to this date, from June solstice (usually June 21), the nights gradually become increasingly longer, finding its peak on the night of December 21, -the longest night in the Northern Hemisphere. During the 22, 23 and December 24 the sun seems to die at the same point but eventually the December 25 it moves back to the north, so it is said that the sun rises, giving birth to the celebration of Sol Invictus. Thus, the dark and the shadows that seemed to cover entirely the Earth are finally defeated on December 25 with the birth of the Sun God who, in the end, is presented as the Savior of the humanity. This feast, which was booming in the first two centuries AD in Rome, was finally banned by Emperor Theodosius I (who also recognized to Christianity as the official religion of the empire). In its place was instituted, to our day, the

celebration of the nativity of Jesus, which is also celebrated on December 25th1. It is possible that Christianity, as a way of permeating into Roman society, would have matched the date of the birth of Jesus with the date of the celebration of Sol Invictus to present him as the new God, conqueror of darkness and savior of humanity. During the days of December are visible, rising from the East, three stars belonging to the belt of the constellation Orion (referred to be the three kings) that align with the sun Sirius so that it appears that the three kings follow the East star, visibly brighter. The route indicates seem to go towards the rising sun on December 25, to the point where it has to be born the "savior of mankind", i.e. the Sol Invictus. In biblical language, the birthplace of the "savior of mankind" is Bethlehem or in Hebrew language, Bet Lehem, which literally means house of bread. Paradoxically, this is the same name that is often given to the house of Virgo (Virgin, from the Latin Virgo), represented by one or two strokes of wheat. In other words, the three kings and Sirius indicate that the Savior would be born of the Virgin, in the house of bread (which has a high esoteric symbolism). Bethlehem, however, is also associated with Beleno (Belenus, Belanus or Belenos), the Celtic god of the sun. This, unquestionably, represents the birth of the Sun or the birth of the son of the Sun In any case, the association of Jesus with the Sun worship is undeniable. So, the fact that Jesus is considered as being born of a virgin does not have so much literal significance as
1

The birth of Jesus in originally held on different dates. It seems that by the fourth century that date moved to December 25 to mean that Jesus himself was the embodiment of "Sol Invictus". This should permeate deep in the Roman society which saw in him the new Sun God. Jesus is usually considered as the incarnation of the solar planetary genius, the giver and sustainer of life, in which case it would make sense that Paul expresses: "In him we live and move and exist (Acts 17, 28).

astrological and symbolic. He is the incarnation of the solar logos, the new Man-God, the new Christ. And there has never been, or will be, the first Christ not to be born of a virgin. 3.22. THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS Gnosticism was really the first to proclaim the virginity of the mother of Christ BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER BIRTH. There has been or will be, the first Christ whose mother is not a virgin, the fertile womb from which all things emanate1. We must declare, in the name of truth, that the gospels of the cult of Rome were written by gnostic initiates. However, later in time the priests of the cult of Rome, ignorant of transcendental reality and the enormous symbolism reflected in the Gospels, not only developed a creed based on a physical virginity of Mary, but build the most absurd and unreasonable dogmas and guidelines. Paradoxically the Gnostic texts, or apocryphal, repudiated by the Church of Rome, are often cited as a benchmark to defend the physical virginity of the mother of Jesus. Among them are the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew, and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Armenian Gospel of childhood and the History of Joseph the Carpenter, among others.
History of Joseph the Carpenter 5, 1: Now in the fourteenth year of her life I came our of my own will and resided in her [in Mary], I who am Jesus, your life. 2: And when she was three months pregnant, the guileless Joseph came from the place where he worked in carpentry and found my virgin mother
1

The Queen and universal mother of all creation that Catholicism sees in the person of Mary, but without the anthropomorphism because Mary, as a creature, was actually created by the life-generating substance.

pregnant. Disturbed and fearful, he planned to dismiss her secretly.1

As we see, the quotes regarding the virginity of Mary are much more explicit, far more eloquent than in the case of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. We can even find in the Gospel of James, the story of a woman named Salome who uses the tact in the vaginal area to check the virginity of Mary after childbirth. Indeed, Mary remains a virgin after giving birth and the hand of Salome is charred. However, it should be understood that these passages do not reflect a literal truth, but truth intended to indicate a symbolic type because, as we have suggested, the Christ is always born of a virgin and, this, in a way, two maternity of Jesus are established: one is the mother of the human, and the other is the mother of his divine side, Christified 2.
G. G. Tho 101: For my mother [she gave me birth], but my true [mother] gave me life.

The mother who gave birth to Jesus is Mary of Nazareth, she begot the physical body, the vehicle of flesh in which Christ would be born later. In other words, Jesus was not born as Christ indeed, but managed the Christification
1

EHRMAN, Bart D., PLESE, Zlatko. The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. P. 167.
2

In this respect we are aligned with the Nestorian Christianity (or Nestorian). One position of this aspect is that the Jewish Christian Mary was the mother of the human side of Jesus, but that was not the mother of God. This current was condemned as heretical Christian and diffuser, Nestorius, deposed from his patriarchy in the church of Constantinople. The triumph of Cyril, which argued that Mary was the mother of God and Jesus at the same time (two natures in one person), is the representation of the dogma which has survived up to our days. The Gnostic Gospels can not but endorse the Nestorian position (while basically unknown dogma of the Church of Rome).

later. And the Word became flesh, the Holy Spirit came upon him and a voice from heaven recognized him as Son (Mt 3, 17)1. When he says that his real mother gave him life refers to the mother that allowed to be born as Christ. The virginity of the real mother has nothing to do with the no virginity of the woman who gave him birth. The Virgin is not Mary of Nazareth, but the one who begets Christ in Jesusmaking him Christ. The last one is always the Virgin, Mother and Queen of all creation universal, full of supreme glory for all eternity, the lovely Virgin to who no mortal has lifted the veil. That mother is the Holy Spirit, as we have seen; the Holy Spirit is closely related to the conception and fertility. Origins2, taking a quote from the Gospel of the Hebrews which relates the following:
Little took my mother, the Holy Spirit, by one of my hairs and took me to the sublime mountain of Tabor.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit has a procreative function, generating, fertilizing and fertilizing. The Holy Spirit is for Jesus, in this context, his real mother, which reveals him as Christ. In that order, is not her, the Holy Spirit, which impregnates Mary -otherwise Mary would have become
1

This explains his controversial nature. In other words, in the person of Jesus two natures manifest, but there are differences. One thing is that these two natures have been realized simultaneously with the birth of Jesus (even during the formation of the fetus), and quite another that human nature exists first and then the divine. When each of us to become an incarnate Christ there will be divine nature, then there will be a strange symbiosis between Man-God. 2 ORGENES, in Ioh II, 12 (6), cited by ORBE, Antonio. La Teologa del Espritu Santo: Estudios valentinianos, v. IV. Roma: Libreria Editrice dell'Universi Gregoriana, 1966. P. 112. ORGENES, In Ioh. 2, 6, cited by SANTOS OTERO, Aurelio de. Los Evangelios Apcrifos. Biblioteca de autores cristianos: Madrid, 2005.

the Christ revealed- but which fertilizes Jesus- so its Jesus who becomes Christ revealed1.
G. G. Phi 17: Some said that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit2. They are in error. They do not understand what they say. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary at the same time is the immaculacy, which was not defiled by violence. She is a great temptation to Hebrews, both to those who preach and to those who listen to their preaching. Her immaculacy, which was not defiled by violence, is pure. But the mighty of this world defiled themselves (through their fantasies).3

The texture of the logion of Philip clearly affirms us in the sense that we have been pointing out and allow us to infer several things:
1

Jesus is the son, according to the flesh, both Mary and Joseph (or is a biological father)4.

The Holy Spirit is the one that generates our physical body so that our physical body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6, 19) -. And once we are born, the Holy Spirit can beget something within us-the higher bodies mentioned Paul, so we are born again. Is this really the birth of Jesus mentioned again when he tells Nicodemus, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God (John 3, 5 ). This implies that we do detailed work within them with the Holy Spirit to be born of the water (and be saved from the waters).
2

In Greek, in which the Gospel was written, the Holy Spirit is of feminine gender. This is the reason for the irony of Philip in the beginning of the fragment.
3

ANTONOV, Vladimir. Translated by Anton Teplyy and Mikhail Nikolenko. The Gospel of Philip. [s.l.]: [s.n.], 2008. (Online resource).
4

The author seems to anticipate the literalist Christians who believe that Mary conceived Jesus without the assistance of Joseph and states: "When a woman has never conceived a woman?. But Jesus did conceived by a woman, and the result of this concept was Christ. When

 Mary lost her virginity when she was raped. Mary gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth, but the true Mother of Jesus as Christ and revealed fertilized. The true Mother of Jesus (the Holy Spirit) impregnated her not to Mary. The true Mother of Jesus impregnated and gave birth to Christ. That Mother (the Mary or Ram-Io esoteric) is the virgin whom no power has stained; virgin before, during and after childbirth. However, that is not Mother Mary of Nazareth is the mother of one physical body, and the other is the mother of Christ. The one is the mother of the subject and the other mother's spirit, one only stop, but the true Mother gives life. The Christ, in itself, has only a single father and a single mother, and so says the same Gospel of Philip when referring to Christ only had a fatherand not two. In that vein, Mary and Joseph only is human parents car, but never of Christ. We, the Gnostics, were the first to declare that the Mother of Christ is the ever virgin, universal queen of all creation, the mother first, the generator of everything, and we have done forcefully. The largest esoteric truth of all time, in order not to lose, should be expressed in a radical-even if it was presented as a violation of natural law. This apparent violation of natural laws, we think, serve to deter in the sense that it was not a literal truth, but symbolic. However, it was not, the literalists, much of the time as of now, in the darkness of their minds retrograde corrupted and changed everything esoteric truth the greatest of all time by an absurd dogma that even served as a good way to kill anyone who did not believe or confess. And, when humanity believes or disbelieve that the physical mother of Jesus was virgin-literally-? Solves anything? Does best
Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit (Mother true) descends on Jesus and, as a result of this, is presented to the new super-man, the new Solar Man, the new Man-God.

man? Was to eliminate psychological mistakes? To be a better father, a better son, a better citizen? The cult of Rome perverted our sacred teachings and our sacred mysteries became the forbidden fruit in an apple, the ark of the deluge was transformed into a kind of boat where were transported from dinosaurs (fit in the ark?) To flies and rats. Jesus, even though he himself cries out to God, it became God himself to his wife, queen and priestess, made her a prostitute and mother, even after having children, we booked the hymen intact (no cite a few thousand more mistakes). Not worth more trust in this institution, not worth saying, we continue to believe and what not, not worth hear, that we continue deceiving. . a. A.Z.F. ARCANUM While it is true that from the Annunciation presented in the canonical Gospels can infer that Joseph was only the foster father of Jesus (the same as is confirmed in other passages) and that Mary had Jesus outside of marriage, it is also true that it is said that she conceived of the Holy Spirit, which, undoubtedly, may also have an additional reading, obviously only in a symbolic reading up tight. The fact that Jesus is the son of David and, therefore, of Joseph according to the flesh, but Joseph did not know that Mary was pregnant and what is expected of the Holy Spirit is to reveal a secret hidden Sexual Magic (perhaps the most guarded by the esoteric tradition), and one of the most recurrent, but hidden under biblical texture. It seems that the evangelists also sought to introduce the Arcanum AZF in the same conception of Jesus. That is, not only have tried to teach a physical fact, one symbolic and one parabolic, but additionally, allegedly

tried to reveal one tight1 which in itself is already a huge challenge in the sense of making the text consistent in every way-. In the case of Joseph and Mary had been initiated, invariably have had sex without orgasm without ejaculation in the spinal cord. However, in this type of practice, and when they deem appropriate hierarchies, a single sperm, mature and select is directed toward the woman's fertile egg, causing conception 2, enough for Joseph to go unnoticed. Such children are fertilized, not by the will of man or flesh, but by the will of the Holy Spirit. However, this would have been more than enough for Joseph to consider infidelity (if often the case with contemporary insiders, including as a trial). Today we know this and yet, they still have some doubts on the part of man in some cases with respect to which the child is of him as easy to think that the woman has committed adultery and that, since they have preserved uncorrupted his seed, the child is not theirs. It seems that this would have been the case of Joseph, and the great esoteric truth which would have also been communicated by the evangelists. If so, it is possible that the writers had wanted
1

How ridiculous is the position of those who think that the books of the Bible were written solely in historical context, or textual, literal. That believes to be very short compared to the great initiates, widely versed in hermetic science, and pretend that all they could provide was a historical narrative of events.
2

Some argue that this practice, since it requires the elimination of any form of contraception, is unworkable because, to be intercourse, in the pre-cum sperm are present. To this we reply: In the seminal ducts always sperm are present, the result of previous sexual immorality. Furthermore we show that when man meets a woman with intent to commit fornication, that's what you get. When a man meets a woman with the intention of making up sexual energy transformed, that is what you get. The beginner who wants to do this kind of practice should achieve chastity to avoid such risks. Then proceed to transform the lifegiving energy in the choicest hormones and vitamins for the body.

to teach esoteric truth veiled greatest of all time, the Great Arcanum A.Z.F.1 unspeakable since the days of Noah-putting Jesus as the son of such a union. It is clear, however, that even these literalists understood. And, even if there had been, as we have noted, it is one of the readings allowed by the Gospels and, in any case, does not indicate that it happened in this way. Only Jesus (Christ par excellence), he met in the very bottom of evil, could free us from sin and he alone, who knew the most terrible temptations, and won, could point the way to victory. Only he who went down to the depths of hell was raised to the top of heaven. Later in the time he knew the mysteries of the kingdom, practiced Sexual Magic with his priestess wife and was worth reaching baptism. Then the Holy Spirit as a dove, symbol of sexual union gave birth to Christ. The Christ became one with him and he became one with Christ. Then the world met the new Man-God, whose mother is ever virgin, BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER BIRTH.

Arcane is a word which refers to something hidden. It comes from the Latin arca, which became arcanus. From this root are derived other words, including some that have the meaning to keep and hold. In a different perspective, arcane means secret container. Arcanum, undisclosed until the times of Noah became something that was not possible to teach publicly - thus became arcane. It is noted that this arcane can save us from the water spill ( fornication) while it is only possible to enter it as a couple (man and woman, male and female). In contemporary times it has been also called Arcanum AZF, which clearly indicates that it is the beginning and the end of everything, the Alpha and the Omega - in that Arcane resides the Christic substance. The beginning and the end of the fire from Fohat. Igneous reactivity (F). The fire itself. God is a sea of blazing fire. From the water the fire is born. The Arcane A.Z.F. is the waters undisclosed where the fire burns. The Arcane A.Z.F. is the waters undisclosed where God is born.

END OF FIRST PART

Christ came to us through a virgin (the Dove, the Mother, the Holy Spirit, by sexual union). So we, to go to the Christ, can and must find the same path that he chose to come to us, through a virgin (the Dove, the Mother, the Holy Spirit, the sexual union). When the seed is no longer

drawn over the body and becomes a symbol of Mother undefiled, in the sealed and virgin source. Only from her the Christ can come to us. Each of us can and must become "Christ".