# Was Jesus married?



## granfire

http://www.freep.com/article/20120919/NEWS07/120919009/jesus-wife-ancient-papyrus-fragment

On the small fragment of ancient writing Jesus speaks of 'my wife'

Personally I find it mildly interesting, but the short phrase with little context has no deeper impact.

of course other people have a different take, since much of their believes are grounded on the assumption tat the historical figure was single and celibate. 

On the other hand, Early  Christians debated if they should even get married and have sex at all (I suppose they understood pretty quickly that by avoiding that the community won't survive long, as the Shakers have proven) 

Not sure who it was who threw it into the discussion a while ago, but it seems fair enough to assume that Jesus, the historical figure, was a Rabbi and as such expected to marry and have children.


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> Not sure who it was who threw it into the discussion a while ago, but it seems fair enough to assume that Jesus, the historical figure, was a Rabbi and as such expected to marry and have children.



Of course, that was me.:lol:



> [h=3]John 2:1-11[/h]King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 2 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
> [SUP]2 [/SUP]And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
> [SUP]3 [/SUP]And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
> [SUP]4 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
> [SUP]5 [/SUP]His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
> [SUP]6 [/SUP]And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
> [SUP]7 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
> [SUP]8 [/SUP]And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
> [SUP]9 [/SUP]When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
> [SUP]10 [/SUP]And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
> [SUP]11 [/SUP]This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.



Jesus's first miracle, performed at the behest of his mother, _as though they were the hosts_. 

Likely, it's *His* wedding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I don't know.  It's an interesting question, though.  I don't suppose there will ever be anything resembling proof one way or the other.  I find it all very fascinating.


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Of course, that was me.:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus's first miracle, performed at the behest of his mother, _as though they were the hosts_.
> 
> Likely, it's *His* wedding.



:lfao:

I am sure you did at one point...I am actually thinking it was my mom, or the authors of the book about the Qumran scrolls. :lol:

But you dug out the fun thing about how the church preferred gay marriages if it could not be helped, so they would not have babes that could inherit the farm...


----------



## WC_lun

I don't think it matters much either way in the big picture of Christiandom.  Being married though, I can only imagine how arguments in thier household went if Jesus were married. How do you argue with the son of god who can do miracles?!  "Shhh wife, you are mute now."


----------



## granfire

well, actually the piece says something about 'my wife' and 'she can be a disciple' the latter is probably the more troublesome, as many have a problem with females taking a more active and vocal role in their congregations.

The Gospel of Mary was conveniently omitted from the bible...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

> [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]                                         Peter said to Mary, "Sister,  we know that the Savior loved you more than all other women. Tell us  the words of the Savior that you remember, the things which                                          you know that we don't because  we haven't heard them."
> Mary responded, "I will teach you about what is hidden from you." And she began to speak these words to them.[/FONT]





> [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]     Then [M]ary wept  and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you                                          imagining? Do you think that I  have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling  lies about the Savior?"
> Levi answered, speaking to  Peter, "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. Now I see you  contending against the woman like the Adversaries. For if the Savior                                          made her worthy, who are you  then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the Savior's knowledge of  her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us.[/FONT]



Was prob. Mary.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc).  I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot.  Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so.  Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.

In other words, I don't find the opinions of non-Christians about Christianity terribly compelling, since it certainly appears to me that many of them have an ax to grind, whether they see it that way or not.  Much love all y'all, but your biases are a bit too obvious in this area.  Leaving this thread now before I let myself get angry again.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I'm not versed in Gnostic texts but don't they hint at Mary Magdalene being a bit more than your average disciple


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc). I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot. Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so. Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.



It's not rumor, innuendo or anti-Christian to state the *fact* that there are records of "Same Sex Union"  and orders "For the Uniting of Two Men" that date back to the 10th century , and throughout history right up to the 18th century. What does it mean? Not so much.


----------



## oaktree

So when Jesus died or ascended to heaven does his
Wife get half of heaven or is there a prenup?


----------



## granfire

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc).  I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot.  Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so.  Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.
> 
> In other words, I don't find the opinions of non-Christians about Christianity terribly compelling, since it certainly appears to me that many of them have an ax to grind, whether they see it that way or not.  Much love all y'all, but your biases are a bit too obvious in this area.  Leaving this thread now before I let myself get angry again.



Sadly, when your facet of Christianity is put under the microscope your responses are less than rational. 
it is no secret or conjecture that there were numerous books of religious text not included in what is now known as 'the Bible', some to the detriment of context. 

Considering what all is out in religious doctrine and texts that fly in the face of commonly accepted teachings, I can only imagine what is locked away in the library of the Vatican....and no, I do not put any stock in the DaVinci code. 


I love you anyhow, even if you call me 'the lot of you' :angel:


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc).  I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot.  Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so.  Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.
> 
> In other words, I don't find the opinions of non-Christians about Christianity terribly compelling, since it certainly appears to me that many of them have an ax to grind, whether they see it that way or not.  Much love all y'all, but your biases are a bit too obvious in this area.  Leaving this thread now before I let myself get angry again.



And of course you leave without any bias on your part...... :asian:


----------



## Xue Sheng

granfire said:


> Sadly, when your facet of Christianity is put under the microscope your responses are less than rational.
> it is no secret or conjecture that there were numerous books of religious text not included in what is now known as 'the Bible', some to the detriment of context.
> 
> Considering what all is out in religious doctrine and texts that fly in the face of commonly accepted teachings, I can only imagine what is locked away in the library of the Vatican....and no, I do not put any stock in the DaVinci code.
> 
> 
> I love you anyhow, even if you call me 'the lot of you' :angel:



The Vatican has a rather large library that is not open to the public and of course there are multiple reasons given for that ranging from historical preservation to conspiracy theory

And yes there are a lot of books that were not put in the Bible and the decisions as to what went in and what did not was decided by a group of guys in a room no divine intervention necessary

But let us not forget that it was Attila the Hun the Catholic Church has to thank for its popularity&#8230; so good or bad... the current situation is.....all Attila&#8217;s fault


----------



## Instructor

I am gonna go with the GotQuestions answer:

Jesus Christ was definitely not married. There are popular myths today that 
speak of Christ being married to Mary Magdalene. This myth is absolutely false 
and has no basis theologically, historically, or biblically. While a couple of 
the Gnostic gospels mention Jesus having a close relationship with Mary 
Magdalene, none of them specifically states that Jesus was married to Mary 
Magdalene, or had any romantic involvement with her. The closest any of them 
come is saying that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene, which just as easily could be a 
reference to a &#8220;friendly kiss.&#8221; Further, even if the Gnostic gospels directly 
stated that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, they would have no authority, 
as the Gnostic gospels have all been proven to be forgeries invented to create a 
Gnostic view of Jesus.

If Jesus had been married, the Bible would have 
told us so, or there would be some unambiguous statement to that fact. Scripture 
would not be completely silent on such an important issue. The Bible mentions 
Jesus&#8217; mother, adoptive father, half-brothers, and half-sisters. Why would it 
neglect to mention the fact that Jesus had a wife? Those who believe/teach that 
Jesus was married are doing so in an attempt to &#8220;humanize&#8221; Him, to make Him more 
ordinary, more like everyone else. People simply do not want to believe that 
Jesus was God in the flesh (John 
1:1, 14; 10:30). So, they invent and believe myths about Jesus 
being married, having children, and being an ordinary human being.

A 
secondary question would be, &#8220;Could Jesus Christ have been married?&#8221; There is 
nothing sinful about being married. There is nothing sinful about having sexual 
relations in marriage. So, yes, Jesus could have been married and still be the 
sinless Lamb of God and Savior of the world. At the same time, there is no 
biblical reason for Jesus to marry. That is not the point in this debate. Those 
who believe Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was 
the Messiah. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, &#8220;For even the Son of 
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom 
for many.&#8221;

*Recommended Resource: *Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus 
and Mislead Popular Culture.


----------



## elder999

Instructor said:


> I.* Those
> who believe Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was
> the Messiah*. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, &#8220;For even the Son of
> Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom
> for many.&#8221;
> 
> *Recommended Resource: *Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus
> and Mislead Popular Culture.




This makes an altogether false value statement-many people who believe Jesus was married believe he was the Messiah-and it misses a larger point: God sent Jesus to live as a *man* among us-if you are following the Gospel narrative-and part of a man's life in that time was to be married-*that's* a life that might be seen as worthy of sacrifice, rather than one solely devoted to that sacrifice.

More to the point, as Gran has pointed out, one word that survives the numerous translations is _rabbi_: his disciples called him _rabbi_, meaning "master," which was not, typically, an honorific applied to unmarried men.


----------



## WC_lun

Wouldn't Jesus being married increase the enourmity of his sacrifice?  Wouldn't it also increase the ability to relate with Jesus the man?  How would Jesus being married change the importance of his message of compassion?  It confuses me when some people seem to resist change, even if that change might have positive conatations.


----------



## Xue Sheng

WC_lun said:


> Wouldn't Jesus being married increase the enourmity of his sacrifice?  Wouldn't it also increase the ability to relate with Jesus the man?  How would Jesus being married change the importance of his message of compassion?  It confuses me when some people seem to resist change, even if that change might have positive conatations.



:flammad: Change Bad :enguard:

:disgust: Blind, unquestioning adherence to accepted history and/or dogma good :uhyeah:


----------



## cdunn

Given the... paucity of contemporary sources corroborating the events of the New Testament, verification one way or the other of any personal detail is entirely impossible. We can see, though, that the idea of a bride of Christ or female disciple would be very inconsistent with the writings attributed to St. Paul, and probably therefore would have been rejected in the sects and cults that formed the fountainhead of modern Christianity.  

After all, women are not to be allowed to teach, or to have authority over a man, and it is good to remain unmarried and abstinant.


----------



## Instructor

WC_lun said:


> Wouldn't Jesus being married increase the enourmity of his sacrifice?  Wouldn't it also increase the ability to relate with Jesus the man?  How would Jesus being married change the importance of his message of compassion?  It confuses me when some people seem to resist change, even if that change might have positive conatations.



It might have positive connotations if it happened to be true.


----------



## Tgace

I'd be more interested on the facts surrounding the discovery of this small piece of papyrus. Such as where it was found, who found it and has it been tested for authenticity?

Not to mention, how accurate is the translation?


----------



## WC_lun

...and what happens if it is true?  If proof that he was married keeps showing up.  Does it really change anything in the message of Christ?  Would it effect your faith?  If not, then why is him being single be such a big deal?


----------



## granfire

Tgace said:


> I'd be more interested on the facts surrounding the discovery of this small piece of papyrus. Such as where it was found, who found it and has it been tested for authenticity?
> 
> Not to mention, how accurate is the translation?



If you believe the article, the person translating it is one of the top, if not the authority on these types of texts. They are reasonably sure it is authentic. Given the small sample they won't carbon date it, but do some other tests to determine the approximate age.
the owner has remained anonymous so far, and given the nature of the text, I can't blame the individual.


----------



## Tgace

granfire said:


> If you believe the article, the person translating it is one of the top, if not the authority on these types of texts. They are reasonably sure it is authentic. Given the small sample they won't carbon date it, but do some other tests to determine the approximate age.
> the owner has remained anonymous so far, and given the nature of the text, I can't blame the individual.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=2



> The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.



And no..it wouldnt change my beliefs one bit. But to me, one bit of papyrus of unknown origin doesnt quite outweigh all the centuries of Church Cannon for me quite yet.


----------



## granfire

Tgace said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=2
> 
> 
> 
> And no..it wouldnt change my beliefs one bit. But to me, one bit of papyrus of unknown origin doesnt quite outweigh all the centuries of Church Cannon for me quite yet.



well, it's not the first time it came up, even long before the DaVinci Code.

but then again, I am a rebel. I can see the man behind the curtain quiet clearly.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Xue Sheng said:


> I'm not versed in Gnostic texts but don't they hint at Mary Magdalene being a bit more than your average disciple



yup.


Which books are included and excluded was decided by committee. Revelations was also considered a questionable inclusion, and there are well documented contradictions in the books that were included.  Given political consideration at various points in history when the Christian Bible was 'updated', and current variances between the sects, a 'definitive' work doesn't seem likely.  The Gnostic texts vary from the redundant to the outrageous in claim.  Gospel of Mary puts Mary as 'very close' to Jesus. Gospel of Judas paints a much different picture of the arch traitor, one where he's a brother and closer than the others.   

I think based on the culture at the time, and the oft forgotten fact that Jesus, if he existed at all, was a Jew, and would have obeyed the Jewish laws and social norms. In which case, he was probably married and had children, and had a 'day job'.


----------



## Tgace

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdr...-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/


> *A Pragmatic Reason for the Singleness of Jesus
> *Well, a little Google surfing turns up proof that Jesus was married. Quite a good looking couple too, though I don&#8217;t think this is what Dan Brown has in mind. (Note: I did not doctor this picture, other than to blur the names to protect the innocent.)
> Some have argued that Jesus remained single because He knew that He wouldn&#8217;t be able to fulfill His marital and parental obligations adequately. If Jesus knew, even years before His itinerant ministry began, that He&#8217;d be roaming around the Galilean countryside preaching and healing, then He might well have determined that this wasn&#8217;t a good basis for family life. Moreover, if Jesus knew that His ministry would lead to confrontation with the authorities and ultimately death at the hand of Rome, then He might have thought that this was not suitable for a husband and/or father. I believe this pragmatic reason is heading in the right direction, but still hasn&#8217;t hit the bull&#8217;s eye.
> *A Theological Reason for the Singleness of Jesus*In Matthew 19 Jesus is asked about the circumstances in which divorce is lawful. His answer makes it clear that He holds marriage in the highest regard, and that divorce is therefore legal in rare circumstances only (vv. 3-9). In response to Jesus&#8217;s &#8220;hard line&#8221; on divorce, His disciples say, &#8220;If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry&#8221; (v. 10). Jesus responds:​&#8220;Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.&#8221; (vv. 11-12)
> 
> Most commentators believe, and I agree, that Jesus is not speaking here of literal eunuchs, but of those who are celibate, and, in most cases, unmarried. Some people, Jesus explains, choose to be celibate &#8220;for the sake of the kingdom of heaven&#8221; (v. 12). To put it differently, some people might choose to devote all that they are to proclaiming and living out God&#8217;s kingdom. They would find earthly responsibilities, such as those that go with marriage and parenting, a hindrance to their kingdom calling. This is similar to the situation of the disciples who were called away from their professions (fishermen, tax collectors, etc.) in order to follow Jesus with singular purpose.
> So, in light of the coming of God&#8217;s kingdom, and in light of Jesus&#8217;s commitment to announce and inaugurate the kingdom, He might have chosen to remain single so that nothing would distract Him from His primary calling and purpose. Although Jesus does not say specifically, &#8220;The agenda of the kingdom explains why I am not married,&#8221; I believe that this passage from Matthew 19 provides a theologically satisfying reason for why Jesus remained single. Thus it covers the objection of Robert Langdon in _The Da Vinci Code_: &#8220;If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible&#8217;s gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood.&#8221; The explanation, in Jesus&#8217;s own words, is that the kingdom of God calls some people, including Jesus Himself, to a wholehearted commitment and investment that precludes getting married.​


----------



## Tgace

Bob Hubbard said:


> yup.
> 
> 
> Which books are included and excluded was decided by committee. Revelations was also considered a questionable inclusion, and there are well documented contradictions in the books that were included.  Given political consideration at various points in history when the Christian Bible was 'updated', and current variances between the sects, a 'definitive' work doesn't seem likely.  The Gnostic texts vary from the redundant to the outrageous in claim.  Gospel of Mary puts Mary as 'very close' to Jesus. Gospel of Judas paints a much different picture of the arch traitor, one where he's a brother and closer than the others.
> 
> I think based on the culture at the time, and the oft forgotten fact that Jesus, if he existed at all, was a Jew, and would have obeyed the Jewish laws and social norms. In which case, he was probably married and had children, and had a 'day job'.



Was his older cousin John married? The guy wandering the desert??


----------



## Sukerkin

Tgace said:


> I'd be more interested on the facts surrounding the discovery of this small piece of papyrus. Such as where it was found, who found it and has it been tested for authenticity?
> 
> Not to mention, how accurate is the translation?



Those are important questions I do agree.  For reasons best known only to those for whom collecting things and making money are their reason for being, there is a trade in artifacts that is worth quite a pile of cash.  So initially determining if this is a fake or not is a vital first step and then making sure that the translation is as accurate as it can be is the next one.

That's me with my ex-historian/museum curator hat on.  

To everyones relief no doubt, my anti-religion hat I shall leave in it's box.  I've said a few things about Islam these past few days (not here) that I deeply wish I hadn't because of how small-minded they made me sound and how unfair they were to millions upon millions of followers of Islam that are *not* like the scum who have been killing and rioting.  That self censorship had better buy me some leeway when I die if it turns out there is a God after all :lol:.


----------



## Tez3

When Jesus was alive there wasn't any such thing as Christianity, it was Judaism and as Gran pointed out as a Jewish male he would be expected to marry (a good Jewish girl of course), whether he was or not is a matter of conjecture but it isn't anti Christian to wonder whether about it. He was, after all, of his time and his religion. I think sometimes people forget Jesus?Joshua was Jewish, and quite fervently by the sound of it.


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> When Jesus was alive there wasn't any such thing as Christianity, it was Judaism and as Gran pointed out as a Jewish male he would be expected to marry (a good Jewish girl of course), whether he was or not is a matter of conjecture but it isn't anti Christian to wonder whether about it. He was, after all, of his time and his religion. I think sometimes people forget Jesus?Joshua was Jewish, and quite fervently by the sound of it.



Also: They all were expected to be married, I suppose it would not be of any notable importance to mention it specifically. 

Kind of like breathing and eating and going behind the bush.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> When Jesus was alive there wasn't any such thing as Christianity, it was Judaism and as Gran pointed out as a Jewish male he would be expected to marry (a good Jewish girl of course), whether he was or not is a matter of conjecture but it isn't anti Christian to wonder whether about it. He was, after all, of his time and his religion. I think sometimes people forget Jesus?Joshua was Jewish, and quite fervently by the sound of it.



Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity


----------



## elder999

Xue Sheng said:


> Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity



Ritual bathing was a pretty big part of Judaism during that time.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity




If he was baptised it wasn't because it was used in early Christianity, it would be the other way around, early Christians would have done it because John and Jesus did. There is the Mikveh which I imagine is where this came from. Obviously I am not an expert in early Chrisitanity but from what I've seen and heard there's little that's original in it, that's not a bad thing,  http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Mikveh.shtml


----------



## Bob Hubbard

People will argue that if it's not in the Bible it didn't happen, which when taken to an ludicris extreme could lead to a cult that never poops because no where in the bible does it say "_and yeah verily did our lord goist behind the tree of the palm, and there liftist the cloth of his loin, and verily drop the holy chalupa. Then having done so, he looketh at it and saw that it was good, for it was a steamer. Satisfied, the Lord then washed his hands, and driest them on the leaf of the fig, for cleanliness is next to godliness. So ends the reading_".  (read in Michael Pallens voice for effect)



(Of course the Bible does contain instructions for pooping, 25 paces out side of town, wooden shovel, and all that)


----------



## elder999

Bob Hubbard said:


> (Of course the Bible does contain instructions for pooping, 25 paces out side of* town*, wooden shovel, and all that)



That's 25 paces out side of *camp*. Just for context. :wink:
(It's a good rule!)


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> If he was baptised it wasn't because it was used in early Christianity, it would be the other way around, early Christians would have done it because John and Jesus did. There is the Mikveh which I imagine is where this came from. Obviously I am not an expert in early Chrisitanity but from what I've seen and heard there's little that's original in it, that's not a bad thing,  http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Mikveh.shtml



That would be a satisfactory explanation. 

Especially if you consider that after the dip, good old Jesus goes on a tear.


----------



## seasoned

Weren't Adam and eve his kids.................... Which would make their mother (nature)............  Just saying.


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> That's 25 paces out side of *camp*. Just for context. :wink:
> (It's a good rule!)



as long as it's down stream....


----------



## Tgace

All this would make sense if you think that Jesus was simply a "man"...who had to bow to social mores.

There's also a lot of "Jews did that..." talk here from people...please forgive...that I'm not convinced are experts on the subject. The "Jews were expected to have married back then argument" presents facts based on what evidence?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> All this would make sense if you think that Jesus was simply a "man"...who had to bow to social mores.
> 
> There's also a lot of "Jews did that..." talk here from people...please forgive...that I'm not convinced are experts on the subject. The "Jews were expected to have married back then argument" presents facts *based on what evidence?
> *
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



being Jewish?


----------



## Tgace

Tez3 said:


> being Jewish?



So that makes you an expert on Jewish traditions and society  from over 2K years ago?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

:anic: oh man...now there a can-o-whoopass I don't think I would open


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> So that makes you an expert on Jewish traditions and society from over 2K years ago?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Funnily enough, yes. I have a very good Jewish education because if you don't understand your history, you cannot understand your present and cannot go forward into your future.


----------



## granfire

xue sheng said:


> :anic: Oh man...now there a can-o-whoopass i don't think i would open :d



:boing2::boing2:


----------



## CanuckMA

Tgace said:


> So that makes you an expert on Jewish traditions and society  from over 2K years ago?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Our history is tradition. Passed on. Jews are one of the cultures that are the most closely tied to their history and tradition. We have oral and written tradition going way before 2,000 years ago. I know it may be hard to fathom for some whose history only goes back 200 years. We pass on things. My synagogue regularly reads from a Torah scroll that is nearly twice as old as the US.


----------



## Xue Sheng

CanuckMA said:


> Our history is tradition. Passed on. Jews are one of the cultures that are the most closely tied to their history and tradition. We have oral and written tradition going way before 2,000 years ago. I know it may be hard to fathom for some whose history only goes back 200 years. We pass on things. My synagogue regularly reads from a Torah scroll that is nearly twice as old as the US.



Not hard for me to fathom...my wife is Chinese and she'll take you all the way back to Qin


----------



## seasoned

seasoned said:


> Weren't Adam and eve his kids.................... Which would make their mother (nature)............  Just saying.



This was me making light of things as I some times do. When I first read the OP, and the text provided, I didn't think much of it and really didn't give it much mind. 

There wasn't much written about the early years of Jesus as a boy or young man. His trials and tribulations as he matured and became a man are in my opinion not important. Whether he married or not is insignificant and takes away from the big picture of the "why". 

In his early 30's when his ministry began, it was to reveal a plan of salvation for all of mankind. He was preordained to be a sacrifice as he took on our sin, as that sin died with him on the cross, it opened the door of salvation for all that would except this simple deed.

The OP talks about this Jesus being married, and for comments, and my comment is, that it is just not that important.


----------



## jks9199

"Was Jesus married?"

Who cares?  Really.

It is immaterial to my Faith, His teachings, the teachings and doctrines of His Church, or my personal faith and beliefs.  The Church teaches that he was fully God and fully man, subject to all the temptations of the flesh.  He simply never succumbed to them.


----------



## arnisador

I saw an article earlier saying that Jesus was often referred to as a bridegroom (implicitly, of the Church) so the "wife" was the Church. I'm unconvinced.

We still lack solid evidence for an historical Jesus--this fragment is tantalizing but what can you learn from so little?


----------



## Buka

Remember, bedsides being the Son, Jesus was a _man_. Hey, you know. Really.


----------



## granfire

seasoned said:


> This was me making light of things as I some times do. When I first read the OP, and the text provided, I didn't think much of it and really didn't give it much mind.
> 
> There wasn't much written about the early years of Jesus as a boy or young man. His trials and tribulations as he matured and became a man are in my opinion not important. Whether he married or not is insignificant and takes away from the big picture of the "why".
> 
> In his early 30's when his ministry began, it was to reveal a plan of salvation for all of mankind. He was preordained to be a sacrifice as he took on our sin, as that sin died with him on the cross, it opened the door of salvation for all that would except this simple deed.
> 
> The OP talks about this Jesus being married, and for comments, and my comment is, that it is just not that important.



well, that is pretty much my take.
it is not really that important.

but then, we live in a world where the 'not so important' aspects of human life take center stage in political campaigns...
And - judging by Bill's reaction, to some it is important. Again, I don't really see it but I suppose he is entitled to his POV.


----------



## Tez3

jks9199 said:


> "Was Jesus married?"
> 
> Who cares? Really.
> 
> It is immaterial to my Faith, His teachings, the teachings and doctrines of His Church, or my personal faith and beliefs. The Church teaches that he was fully God and fully man, subject to all the temptations of the flesh. He simply never succumbed to them.




The union between a man and a woman in this respect isn't a 'temptation of the flesh', it's something that is good and actually holy, something to be encouraged not disparaged, this stuff about sex and by implication women being 'temptations' leads down a road where women are the sufferers.


----------



## jks9199

Tez3 said:


> The union between a man and a woman in this respect isn't a 'temptation of the flesh', it's something that is good and actually holy, something to be encouraged not disparaged, this stuff about sex and by implication women being 'temptations' leads down a road where women are the sufferers.


Sorry, that didn't come out quite as clear as I might have wished.  Were Jesus to have been married, of course any sex would not have been sinful.  And, in the sense I meant, "man" is "human", not simply male.  So Jesus was tempted, I'm sure, to be lazy and sit around and do nothing.  He may have been tempted to drink too much, or eat too much, or by a shapely female form, or to play practical jokes, or what have you -- but, being fully God as well, he would never have given in to those temptations in a *sinful *manner.  I'm probably still clear as mud... but that's kind of why the Church calls this sort of thing a Mystery.


----------



## punisher73

Xue Sheng said:


> Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity



There was a religious sect of the Jewish people called the Essenes.  They used baptism as part of their practices and also a form of communion.  It would not be far fetched that John the Baptist and Jesus were familiar with them and used those practices also.


----------



## punisher73

The hard part about the personal life of Jesus is this.  There is no biography of Jesus.  Many people point to the New Testament gospels as biographies of Jesus and they were NOT.  They were sermons that were written for a specific target audience.  In the case of Matthew, we see MANY references to the Old Testament and how Jesus fulfilled prophecy and traced his lineage to King David because it was written for the current Jews.  If we look at the book of John, it seems a little different because it was written for the Greek audience and used terms and examples relavant to them.  For example, "In the beginning was the Word (logos)..." was a very hellenistic idea and established a reference point for them.

When people point to the writings of Paul, we see a similiar problem.  His letters are like playing Jeopardy, we have the answers but don't know the question.  His letters were written responses to questions from churches he went to or corresponded with.  They wrote their concerns and he gave them advice on how to run things.  Later the churches started to pass the letters around to each other and collect them.  There are letters mentioned in other letters that we don't have.  So, one of the things to do with Paul's writings is to look at the theological threads that don't change and are repeated vs. the "advice" type things that only appear in specific letters to deal with a specific issue.


----------



## elder999

For starters, the canonical Gospels don't say that Jesus was married, and they don't say that he wasn't. 

As a matter of faith, it's likely immaterial, or not really relevant. 

Culturally, taking into account what we know about Hellenized Hebrews of the region through archaeology and anthropology , it's likely that Jesus was married. His being called "rabbi" is an indication of this, though not necessarily a sealed deal-the term didn't even mean the same thing that it does to Jews of today.
The reasons for the Christian teaching of his being unmarried are widely varied, and have less to do with what the Gospels (that men *chose* ) say and more to do with what men thought-still does today: no one can offer a verse that definitively states that Jesus was unmarried, and no one can offer any definitive proof from any of the canonical Gospels. 

It is, like so much of this business of religion, a matter of faith, for those who believe-and the best and shortest definition of faith is _choosing to believe._

So, if it's important to you as a Christian that the Son of Man was.....well, more than a man, but a *man*, you can choose to believe he was married-it shouldn't effect how you practice or behave as a Christian one iota, though...


If it's important to you as a Christian that the Son of Man was, well, more than a man-and *only* more than a man, you can choose to believe he was unmarried,and it shouldn't effect how you practice or behave as a Christian one iota.

If you're a scholar of religion, or the period, or Christianity, or Judaism of the period, _or all of the above_, well, it's not necessarily a matter of belief as much as it is what the evidence says-and of that there is very little, in the Gospels, canonical or otherwise......


----------



## elder999

punisher73 said:


> When people point to the writings of Paul, we see a similiar problem. His letters are like playing Jeopardy, we have the answers but don't know the question. His letters were written responses to questions from churches he went to or corresponded with. They wrote their concerns and he gave them advice on how to run things. Later the churches started to pass the letters around to each other and collect them. There are letters mentioned in other letters that we don't have. So, one of the things to do with Paul's writings is to look at the theological threads that don't change and are repeated vs. the "advice" type things that only appear in specific letters to deal with a specific issue.




I think Paul has been misinterpreted for 2000 years-if you look at his *intended audience*, the period, what was said, and how he said it,-_"as a Jew,_ or, more importantly, _asa *Pharisee*_, a lot of what he said turns out to have meant just the opposite of what people have believed.....it's kind of fun.


----------



## punisher73

elder999 said:


> I think Paul has been misinterpreted for 2000 years-if you look at his *intended audience*, the period, what was said, and how he said it,-_"as a Jew,_ or, more importantly, _asa *Pharisee*_, a lot of what he said turns out to have meant just the opposite of what people have believed.....it's kind of fun.



I agree, lots of church doctrine that was/is Psuedo-Pauline Theology that missed the boat.


----------



## Xue Sheng

WAIT!!!!!


This just in

He was married







Or are you calling Leonardo da Vinci liar


----------



## jks9199

An opinion piece in the NY Times by Fr. James Martin, S.J....



> What if corroborating evidence of marriage is found from an earlier  date? What if scholars unearth a first-century papyrus with additional  lines from, say, the Gospel of Mark, which states unequivocally that  Jesus was married? Would I stop believing in Jesus, or abandon my vows  of chastity?
> No and no.
> It wouldn&#8217;t upset me if it turned out that Jesus was married. His life,  death and, most important, resurrection would still be valid. Nor would I  abandon my life of chastity, which is the way I&#8217;ve found to love many  people freely and deeply. If I make it to heaven and Jesus introduces me  to his wife, I&#8217;ll be happy for him (and her). But then I&#8217;ll track down  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who wrote so soon after the time of Jesus,  and ask them why they left out something so important.


----------



## punisher73

Xue Sheng said:


> WAIT!!!!!
> 
> 
> This just in
> 
> He was married
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you calling Leonardo da Vinci liar



gonna have to call "photoshop" on that one.  It is interesting in the painting that a woman is present, and one of the 12 disciples is missing.  

What is also interesting is that in "The DaVinci Code", one of the main books to provide "historical evidence" about the theory/plot was Holy Blood Holy Grail, which based all it's support on an old text that was known to be a fake and not real at all.


----------



## Xue Sheng

punisher73 said:


> gonna have to call "photoshop" on that one.  It is interesting in the painting that a woman is present, and one of the 12 disciples is missing.
> 
> What is also interesting is that in "The DaVinci Code", one of the main books to provide "historical evidence" about the theory/plot was Holy Blood Holy Grail, which based all it's support on an old text that was known to be a fake and not real at all.



 I was not serious..much the reason for the "" and the DaVinci code is a work of fiction


----------



## Instructor

Sukerkin said:


> That self censorship had better buy me some leeway when I die if it turns out there is a God after all :lol:.



Whether or not you believe in Him Sukerkin He loves you.


----------



## granfire

punisher73 said:


> gonna have to call "photoshop" on that one.  It is interesting in the painting that a woman is present, and one of the 12 disciples is missing.
> 
> What is also interesting is that in "The DaVinci Code", one of the main books to provide "historical evidence" about the theory/plot was Holy Blood Holy Grail, which based all it's support on an old text that was known to be a fake and not real at all.



Fiction.

With just enough historical facts strewn in to make things interesting on the 'what if' level. 

(just for argument's sake tho: If Mary was a disciple, there was non missing in the picture. What is missing is the goblet He was drinking from)

Funny tho...the posture of this person makes more sense in the photoshopped position....interesting. (I had not seen that one before)


----------



## Xue Sheng




----------



## granfire

stalker!
I was looking at the same picture.

(plus I stand corrected, the glasses are on the table)


----------



## Instructor

http://www.sonofman.org/last.htm

"The most historically accurate rendition of the Last Supper is 
two of Nicholas Poussin's paintings. In terms of superb color and the mood 
depicted, the one in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinborough is superb. 
It is worth a special trip, if you really want to see the glory of what it was 
like during the Last Supper. 

This painting from Olga's Gallery 
(http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin35.html ) seems to be an earlier 
rendition, almost a practice. Nevertheless, this as well as the other in 
Edinborough accurately describes the furniture (tricline) and posture of the 
Apostles. Tricline is a Roman, squarish U-shaped divan or sofa. On the exterior 
of all three sides (hence tri) dining guests recline (hence cline). The open 
side is for servants to serve food, and in this painting the servant is leaving 
the room on the left side of the room."


----------



## granfire

Instructor said:


> http://www.sonofman.org/last.htm
> 
> "The most historically accurate rendition of the Last Supper is
> two of Nicholas Poussin's paintings. In terms of superb color and the mood
> depicted, the one in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinborough is superb.
> It is worth a special trip, if you really want to see the glory of what it was
> like during the Last Supper.
> 
> This painting from Olga's Gallery
> (http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin35.html ) seems to be an earlier
> rendition, almost a practice. Nevertheless, this as well as the other in
> Edinborough accurately describes the furniture (tricline) and posture of the
> Apostles. Tricline is a Roman, squarish U-shaped divan or sofa. On the exterior
> of all three sides (hence tri) dining guests recline (hence cline). The open
> side is for servants to serve food, and in this painting the servant is leaving
> the room on the left side of the room."



LOL

The occasion was probably a lot less grand than this.
I mean, they all paint what they thought the scene might have looked like.


----------



## Tez3

Edinborough? Where's that then? EDINBURGH! http://www.rampantscotland.com/features/pronounce2.htm


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Edinborough? Where's that then? EDINBURGH! http://www.rampantscotland.com/features/pronounce2.htm




Well I can guarantee you it is not in Edinburg NY


----------



## Instructor

LOL...hey Tez how would your pronounce my town Gloucester, VA?


----------



## punisher73

Xue Sheng said:


> I was not serious..much the reason for the "" and the DaVinci code is a work of fiction



I got it was a joke, should have put in my smiley too.  I just thought it was a good point to elaborate on, that there are ALOT of people that view "The DaVinci Code" as all facts woven through the book everytime that they talk about the painting or the plots etc.


----------



## Tez3

Instructor said:


> LOL...hey Tez how would your pronounce my town Gloucester, VA?



However the locals pronounce it, it's only polite. 
It might seem trivial but this thread is about something that has been written down so a little accuracy wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## punisher73

granfire said:


> Fiction.
> 
> With just enough historical facts strewn in to make things interesting on the 'what if' level.
> 
> (just for argument's sake tho: If Mary was a disciple, there was non missing in the picture. What is missing is the goblet He was drinking from)
> 
> Funny tho...the posture of this person makes more sense in the photoshopped position....interesting. (I had not seen that one before)



Assumption is that DaVinci didn't include Judas Iscariot in the painting.  It is also assumed that it is Mary in the painting.  The posture is very unique in that they are leaning away from each other though.  It definately reflects some views that DaVinci held though when re-creating the scene.


----------



## punisher73

In the painting, it is very hard to tell if it was an actual woman or an effeminate man.  On the retouch, it looks more like a female though.


----------



## Instructor

Tez3 said:


> However the locals pronounce it, it's only polite.
> It might seem trivial but this thread is about something that has been written down so a little accuracy wouldn't go amiss.



Locals say it like: gloss - tur.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Instructor said:


> LOL...hey Tez how would your pronounce my town Gloucester, VA?



Back in Massachusetts it is pronounced Gloster.....Gloucester, Ma


----------



## Xue Sheng

punisher73 said:


> I got it was a joke, should have put in my smiley too.  I just thought it was a good point to elaborate on, that there are ALOT of people that view "The DaVinci Code" as all facts woven through the book everytime that they talk about the painting or the plots etc.



Well THIS one is real


----------



## Tez3

It's less about pronounciation than being accurate, a lot of what Christians see in their Bible is stuff that has been translated so many times it's really lost a lot, not to mention political translations. Writing 'Edinborough' ,might mean nothing other than a misleading spelling mistake but what if the word instead was something else like the word 'maid' describing a young girl? And that word 'maid'  was translated as 'virgin' instead?  So you have the original ... a maid who is pregnant being described as a virgin who is pregnant and you have yourselves a whole different kettle of fish.


----------



## Instructor

Xue Sheng said:


> Back in Massachusetts it is pronounced Gloster.....Gloucester, Ma



Except in Mass they don't pronounce the 'R'.

GLA- STA


----------



## Xue Sheng

Instructor said:


> Except in Mass they don't pronounce the 'R'.
> 
> GLA- STA



Depends on what part of Mass you are in. 

Boston and on the Northshore (Where Glouster is) Yes it is Glosta. But in Worcester (pronounced Woster in Worcester) and points west it is pronounced Gloster. But go back to the Northshore Worcester becomes Woosta  

I lived in those areas of Mass and spent my young formative years on the Northshore and my older formative years near Worcester so I have the ability to talk funny... just like them


----------



## EddieCyrax

Does it really matter?


----------



## Tez3

EddieCyrax said:


> Does it really matter?



In a lot of ways yes. It's fairly well known that the celibacy of RC priests is held to be because Jesus was celibate though in truth it was more that the Vatican was worried about providing for priest's families. The early church including the Celtic Christians allowed it's clergy as well as monks and nuns to marry however the justification for forcing celibacy on it's religious communities is as I said that Jesus was celibate, if he was married however it makes a bit of a mockery of that rule. It's also known that the early Christian church had female disciples as well as female bishops, it seems to have been very much an 'equal opportunity' church something that was again slapped down by the Catholic church and women relegated to the role of either mother or temptress sometimes both. 

It doesan't matter to me of course but I do always have concerns when women are held to be lesser or at least not equal beings. If it can be proved Jesus was married perhaps the lot of women would be improved in some places... perhaps.


----------



## Xue Sheng

EddieCyrax said:


> Does it really matter?


 
Well of course it matters....proper pronunciation in Massachusetts means the difference between finding out how to get where you are going and staying lost...I mean if the local linguistics mean nothing then......oh wait.... you were talking about the whole was Jesus married thing weren't you...in that case....no...it is not particularly important


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> a bit of a mockery of that rule.



All you need to do for that is look into the life and times of Pope Leo X


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Well of course it matters....proper pronunciation in Massachusetts means the difference between finding out how to get where you are going and staying lost...I mean if the local linguistics mean nothing then......oh wait.... you were talking about the whole was Jesus married thing weren't you...in that case....no...it is not particularly important



If you are talking about the importance of how things are pronounced try Northern Ireland where pronouncing things differently gets you beaten up and/or kneecapped and most likely killed. Accents are keenly listened to there as they indicate which part of the Province you come from, come from the 'wrong' side and you are in trouble........and all because one side's priests marry and the others don't, among other stuff.


----------



## Makalakumu

Tez3 said:


> It's less about pronounciation than being accurate, a lot of what Christians see in their Bible is stuff that has been translated so many times it's really lost a lot, not to mention political translations. Writing 'Edinborough' ,might mean nothing other than a misleading spelling mistake but what if the word instead was something else like the word 'maid' describing a young girl? And that word 'maid'  was translated as 'virgin' instead?  So you have the original ... a maid who is pregnant being described as a virgin who is pregnant and you have yourselves a whole different kettle of fish.



Ah, the translation problem.  

If God inspired the writers of the Bible to record his will, why didn't he inspire his followers to translate it correctly?  This is a major problem when it comes to the idea of whether Jesus was married.  As you've already noted, women would have a different place in the church if this matter could be straightened out.  Also, all the priests could finally give up their vow of celibacy...especially if Jesus was getting his groove on.


----------



## jasonbrinn

Jesus was NOT married.  Jesus was also not an uncommon name at that time.  This translated scrap does nothing to the overwhelming unmatched number of manuscripts that are the scriptures.  As for translations there is what amounts to a 1% difference between all of them and those are mostly just spelling issues NOTHING in any of the more than 26,0000 copies differs in teaching.  NO OTHER book in history comes close to the authenticity of the Bible.

During the time of Jesus and right after his death it was popular, as it is today with popular things, to makeup stories with the same people or plot lines in order to sell books or gain fame and the like.  This reference more than likely will come to fall under that category as well I believe.

Jason Brinn


----------



## elder999

jasonbrinn said:


> During the time of Jesus and right after his death it was popular, as it is today with popular things, to makeup stories with the same people or plot lines in order to sell books or gain fame and the like. This reference more than likely will come to fall under that category as well I believe.




Ironically, so do the Gospels, for the most part.....:lfao:


----------



## jasonbrinn

elder999 said:


> Ironically, so do the Gospels, for the most part.....:lfao:



Being an expert Troll, blaspheming the word of God or talking about things you can't back up....its seems to be a triple hit!


----------



## Tez3

jasonbrinn said:


> Jesus was NOT married. Jesus was also not an uncommon name at that time. This translated scrap does nothing to the overwhelming unmatched number of manuscripts that are the scriptures. As for translations there is what amounts to a 1% difference between all of them and those are mostly just spelling issues NOTHING in any of the more than 26,0000 copies differs in teaching. NO OTHER book in history comes close to the authenticity of the Bible.
> 
> During the time of Jesus and right after his death it was popular, as it is today with popular things, to makeup stories with the same people or plot lines in order to sell books or gain fame and the like. This reference more than likely will come to fall under that category as well I believe.
> 
> Jason Brinn



Actually 'Jesus' is a very unusual name for a Jew of that time, I'd go as far as to say it was never used for Jewish boys in the Palestine of that time. 

How do you know what you call the Bible is 'authentic', I'm curious as I can certainly point out many basic mistakes in translation of what you call the Old Testament.


----------



## jasonbrinn

Tez3 said:


> Actually 'Jesus' is a very unusual name for a Jew of that time, I'd go as far as to say it was never used for Jewish boys in the Palestine of that time.



You are mistaken.  Jesus is a Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua.  The name Jesus was used many times.  Research this some more and you will find this is the truth.




Tez3 said:


> How do you know what you call the Bible is 'authentic', I'm curious as I can certainly point out many basic mistakes in translation of what you call the Old Testament.



24,000 handwritten copies that only have about a 1% difference and only in spelling let me KNOW that the Bible is authentic.  No other book in history comes close.  The Iliad is the next in line with only 643 manuscripts.  What I call the OT is the OT.  The NT was written in Greek which is a pretty exact language.

Jason Brinn


----------



## Tez3

So, you are saying the Jews of the time called him Jesus? That's as likely as finding an Inuit of the same time called Clive. His name was Joshua, he wasn't Greek or Roman, he was a Jew, calling him Jesus is trying to hide his origins, he was a Jew practising Judaism.
You can call the Old Testament what you like but it isn't the Old Testament. if you are going to use books from other peoples religions at least give a nod in the direction of acknowledging it's origins.


----------



## jasonbrinn

Tez3 said:


> So, you are saying the Jews of the time called him Jesus? That's as likely as finding an Inuit of the same time called Clive. His name was Joshua, he wasn't Greek or Roman, he was a Jew, calling him Jesus is trying to hide his origins, he was a Jew practising Judaism.
> You can call the Old Testament what you like but it isn't the Old Testament. if you are going to use books from other peoples religions at least give a nod in the direction of acknowledging it's origins.



The people of his time called him either Yeshua, or Yesu but mostly rabbi.  Jesus was a Jew but he wasn't practising Judaism he was fulfilling his own word.  I said that Jesus was a common name.  It is important when studying people and times from past generations to understand what was actually going on during the times you are studying for proper context and understanding.  Rome controlled this area so there were 3 very common languages spoke; Aramaic (most commonly), Greek (by anyone conducting business for the most part) and Hebrew which was used in religious contexts and within the particular community of Jews.  People wouldn't have called him Joshua either friend - there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.

I am not using books from "other peoples religions" but rather the complete text of mine.  Maybe "other people" should think about why they study parts of books from "other people's religions" first.  Jesus is the nod and the origin.

If we are going to debate lets use facts and things that can be discussed without spiraling downward.  I truly want to help anyone wishing to understand these matters in all love and peace.  I am not trying to convince anyone, nor does the Bible or Jesus need any defending.


Jason Brinn


----------



## Tez3

So, you think you understand what was happening in Palestine in the time of Joshua Bar Joseph, mmm, okay then you will of course know that messiah doesn't mean what you think it does and that messiahs were ten a penny. Judaism has never been a religion where everyone followed completely a party line, a lot of people were fulfilling their 'own word', nothing that your 'Jesus' said is new to Judaism at all, it fact it's very Jewish in it's origin and it's practice. It wasn't changed until non Jews started joining in the party.

If you aren't using books from other religions what, exactly, do you think the thing you know as the Old Testament is? I'm not sure how you think you can explain the 'Old Testment' to me.


----------



## jasonbrinn

Tez3 said:


> So, you think you understand what was happening in Palestine in the time of Joshua Bar Joseph, mmm, okay then you will of course know that messiah doesn't mean what you think it does and that messiahs were ten a penny. Judaism has never been a religion where everyone followed completely a party line, a lot of people were fulfilling their 'own word', nothing that your 'Jesus' said is new to Judaism at all, it fact it's very Jewish in it's origin and it's practice. It wasn't changed until non Jews started joining in the party.
> 
> If you aren't using books from other religions what, exactly, do you think the thing you know as the Old Testament is? I'm not sure how you think you can explain the 'Old Testment' to me.



I know I have an educated understanding from studying the time thats it.  Jesus was/is not Joshua Bar Joseph.  You don't know what I think messiah means because I haven't stated that yet - unless you can read minds.  NO ONE said the things that Jesus did, if you think so then you are mistaken or deceived.

Jesus said he is THE ONLY way to God.  Jesus said he is GOD.  I am pretty sure that's new to Judaism - at least the priests of that time thought so.  Nothing in scripture has been changed by anyone EVER - unless you'd like to prove that and then you'd be the first since they were written 2000 years ago.

Judaism uses our books.  I can't explain something to someone arguing about how they know it already - your cup appears full.


----------



## Tez3

jasonbrinn said:


> I know I have an educated understanding from studying the time thats it. Jesus was/is not Joshua Bar Joseph. You don't know what I think messiah means because I haven't stated that yet - unless you can read minds. NO ONE said the things that Jesus did, if you think so then you are mistaken or deceived.
> 
> Jesus said he is THE ONLY way to God. Jesus said he is GOD. I am pretty sure that's new to Judaism - at least the priests of that time thought so. Nothing in scripture has been changed by anyone EVER - unless you'd like to prove that and then you'd be the first since they were written 2000 years ago.
> 
> *Judaism uses our books*. I can't explain something to someone arguing about how they know it already - your cup appears full.



Really? I mean you really actually believe that the Christians had the Old Testament first, wow.

Your Jesus has said things that have been said before even the words he's supposed to have said on the cross are from Psalm 22. I have it on good Christian authority that he actually said he wasn't there to destroy the Law or the Prophets and that he regularly quoted from what you like to think of as that Christian book, the Old Testament. By the way he's not the first to say this nor the last. the three day resurrection story was that long before Jesus was born. The Messiah is a Jewish concept so I guess I do know what it means, whatever you mean it isn't the messiah. The prophecy for the Messiah coming is that when he does the world ends and as its hasn't I'm guessing the messiah hasn't either. Believe what you wish but while our religion may not necessaryily be the 'correct' one or the only one, it is ours and I would think we tend to know about our history, beliefs etc than a non Jew who is mangling up bits of ourbooks to make his religion. Of course I know about it already, it's my bloody Book and I'm of the people of the Book as some quaintly put it! 
http://jewishroots.net/library/messianic/false_messiahs.html


Believe what you will, makes no difference to me but I have to tell you that the Old Testament wasn't written by Christians and passed to the Jews.


----------



## Makalakumu

jasonbrinn said:


> 24,000 handwritten copies that only have about a 1% difference and only in spelling let me KNOW that the Bible is authentic.  No other book in history comes close.  The Iliad is the next in line with only 643 manuscripts.  What I call the OT is the OT.  The NT was written in Greek which is a pretty exact language.



Rubbish. If you pulled out the bible you use, there are posters here who can show you the exact translation errors in several ancient languages.  Huge errors.  

I wrote a paper in colege for a world religions class where I picked 17 different Bibles and compared five passages. None were eactly the same and many were hugely different in syntax, far more than 1%.

My conclusion was that there was no logical way to support a literal reading. The Bible is not a history book or any kind of accurate record of the past. The "Bible" is not "Authentic" in any way.


----------



## Tez3

There are always going to be  differences in translations, with the best will in the world to try for an true translation you aren't going to get one. Sometimes there just aren't exact word for word translations. We even have trouble just translating American English to Queen's English! My shift partner who is a Gurkha speaks several languages, Hindi, Nepalese, his own dialect plus some Fijian, Chinese and a couple of othe Nepalese dialects besides, it is not always possible for him to translate exactly, he often has to translate to convey the meaning rather than a word for word translation which can sound uncannily like Yoda talking!


----------



## jasonbrinn

Look I could debate this with you two for days.  If you have points then point them out.  I don't care what you wrote in college, no offense, I take the studied opinions of lifetime biblical scholars from places like Harvard, Standford, etc (click here).  You are both REALLY wrong.  Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and I have that on the highest authority.  Jesus was quoting anything - he was re-stating things.  Of course you heard words from the OT - he was completing them and they were all written about him.  The 3 day resurrection story was long before Jesus - being foretold like more than 300 prophecies he fulfilled.

The book belongs to Jesus, he is the word made flesh.  You are worshipping prologue friend - you say its your book bu you dont seem to know who it is about...strange and sad?

Jesus backed up a literal reading of the Bible so you need to take that up with him when you see him one day.  I pray that you meet him today and not tomorrow and on the decision side not the judgement side.

Jason Brinn


----------



## Josh Oakley

Dare I jump in? Hmmm....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng

jasonbrinn said:


> Being an expert Troll, blaspheming the word of God or talking about things you can't back up....its seems to be a triple hit!



WOW!!! 

I get to post the same thing twice in the same thread and it is applicable both times

here goes

:anic: oh man...now there a can-o-whoopass I don't think I would open ​


----------



## seasoned

The whole concept must be approached spiritually not intellectually. God is spirit so that is the way to understanding. Over and out......


----------



## Tez3

jasonbrinn said:


> Look I could debate this with you two for days. If you have points then point them out. I don't care what you wrote in college, no offense, I take the studied opinions of lifetime biblical scholars from places like Harvard, Standford, etc (click here). You are both REALLY wrong. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and I have that on the highest authority. Jesus was quoting anything - he was re-stating things. Of course you heard words from the OT - he was completing them and they were all written about him. The 3 day resurrection story was long before Jesus - being foretold like more than 300 prophecies he fulfilled.
> 
> The book belongs to Jesus, he is the word made flesh. You are worshipping prologue friend - you say its your book bu you dont seem to know who it is about...strange and sad?
> 
> Jesus backed up a literal reading of the Bible so you need to take that up with him when you see him one day. I pray that you meet him today and not tomorrow and on the decision side not the judgement side.
> 
> Jason Brinn




So...the whole of the 'Old Testament' was about Jesus? Fancy that eh. However you aren't deabting with us you are telling us that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
What a person believes it up to themselves, doesn't bother me unless they start taking the piss about my religion, and that's what you are doing.

If it ever turns out I meet your Jesus it will be in the synagogue (where I don't have to die to meet him, classy that wishing me dead) where we will discuss Jewish matters, Jewish Law etc as Jews do. Then we'll have cake and wine, and if he's not married already we'll find a nice wife for him...because that's what we do.


----------



## elder999

jasonbrinn said:


> Being an expert Troll, blaspheming the word of God or talking about things you can't back up....its seems to be a triple hit!





Okay then, for starters, please reconcile the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew.

Never mind that the nativity is a later addtion in both instances......

(Jason, you don't know the first thing about me. I suggest a look at this post :



elder999 said:


> Early on I earned *a degree in religious studies*; *my father, grand father and great-grand father were all ministers*, though they also practiced other trades. I managed to dodge that bullet, and wound up working in commercial nuclear power, earning degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering, and advanced degrees in nuclear engineering and, more recently, my doctorate in applied physics. I&#8217;m a certified firefighter, HAZMAT technician, avid hunter, ultra-marathon runner and triathlete (though hardly competitive; I&#8217;m just happy to finish.), fourth-generation &#8220;gun nut,&#8221; as well as a federally certified ordinance and munitions disposal technician.


----------



## Makalakumu

jasonbrinn said:


> Look I could debate this with you two for days.  If you have points then point them out.  I don't care what you wrote in college, no offense, I take the studied opinions of lifetime biblical scholars from places like Harvard, Standford, etc (click here).  You are both REALLY wrong.  Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and I have that on the highest authority.  Jesus was quoting anything - he was re-stating things.  Of course you heard words from the OT - he was completing them and they were all written about him.  The 3 day resurrection story was long before Jesus - being foretold like more than 300 prophecies he fulfilled.
> 
> The book belongs to Jesus, he is the word made flesh.  You are worshipping prologue friend - you say its your book bu you dont seem to know who it is about...strange and sad?
> 
> Jesus backed up a literal reading of the Bible so you need to take that up with him when you see him one day.  I pray that you meet him today and not tomorrow and on the decision side not the judgement side.
> 
> Jason Brinn



Wow. This post explains a lot.

I compared different versons of the Bible. Anyone can do this. You cannot support a literal translation and you cannot point to a single version that is authentic. The Bible itself is a political creation of the Roman Empire, Jason. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you believe what you stated, you're wrong and a person who can read and comprehend can demostrate this.

No need for Ivy League Appeals to Authority at all...


----------



## jasonbrinn

I never wished you dead.  I just said you WILL meet him and I hoped you did so before it was in judgement.  I don't expect you to understand.


----------



## elder999

jasonbrinn said:


> Jesus was NOT married.Jason Brinn





And what Bible verse do you base that upon?


----------



## jks9199

Makalakumu said:


> Ah, the translation problem.
> 
> If God inspired the writers of the Bible to record his will, why didn't he inspire his followers to translate it correctly?  This is a major problem when it comes to the idea of whether Jesus was married.  As you've already noted, women would have a different place in the church if this matter could be straightened out.  Also, all the priests could finally give up their vow of celibacy...especially if Jesus was getting his groove on.


Is the Truth in the Bible literal -- or is it the underlying message that's been preserved?

I believe that the essential truth of the Bible and of Christ's revelation and sacrifice has been preserved -- even if the literal events have been rather jumbled.  In a very loose analogy -- if five people say that someone was shot, but describe different guns... isn't it clear that someone was probably shot?  The idea that someone or even some group could have successfully and so effectively created a false religion that so influenced the world is rather hard to credit, believe.  Mankind fell away from a perfect union with God in an act of defiance or rejection.  Jesus Christ's ultimate obedience and acceptance of death restored and redeemed that rejection.

As a side note, and I apologize, but I don't have time to dig everything up now -- priestly celibacy isn't simply mindless imitation of the belief that Christ and the Apostles weren't married.  It's about sacrifice, and about being free to devote their lives to service, among other things.


----------



## jasonbrinn

elder999 said:


> And what Bible verse do you base that upon?



EXACTLY - now you're thinking Elder.  The entire Bible speaks to almost every aspect of Jesus's life; his adopted father, mother, half sister and half brothers but NOTHING of his wife!  It is not that he couldn't have had a wife - having a wife is not sinful it is the fact that the scriptures would have mentioned something so special yet didn't.  This all stems from people who want to humanize Jesus - they don't like and don't want to admit that he is the son of God with all power and authority the worlds only chance to God and perfect free sacrifice.

Jason Brinn


----------



## jks9199

jasonbrinn said:


> I know I have an educated understanding from studying the time thats it.  Jesus was/is not Joshua Bar Joseph.  You don't know what I think messiah means because I haven't stated that yet - unless you can read minds.  NO ONE said the things that Jesus did, if you think so then you are mistaken or deceived.
> 
> Jesus said he is THE ONLY way to God.  Jesus said he is GOD.  I am pretty sure that's new to Judaism - at least the priests of that time thought so.  Nothing in scripture has been changed by anyone EVER - unless you'd like to prove that and then you'd be the first since they were written 2000 years ago.
> 
> Judaism uses our books.  I can't explain something to someone arguing about how they know it already - your cup appears full.



No -- historically, Christianity uses Judaism's books.  Christ was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and the law -- to a Christian.  To others, he was a prophet.  And to at least some, I suppose, if he existed, he was on heck of a huckster.  I know what I believe -- but I can still be respectful towards what others believe.


----------



## jks9199

jasonbrinn said:


> EXACTLY - now you're thinking Elder.  *The entire Bible speaks to almost every aspect of Jesus's life*; his adopted father, mother, half sister and half brothers but NOTHING of his wife!  It is not that he couldn't have had a wife - having a wife is not sinful it is the fact that the scriptures would have mentioned something so special yet didn't.  This all stems from people who want to humanize Jesus - they don't like and don't want to admit that he is the son of God with all power and authority the worlds only chance to God and perfect free sacrifice.
> 
> Jason Brinn



Really?  The Bible speaks to His entire life?  I only recall a handful of incidents from childhood.  Nothing explaining his young adulthood or what He did; we presume He was in his 30s when he began his public ministry.  Honestly, I'm not really sure where they get his age at the beginning of His public ministry.


----------



## seasoned

It is by faith, is a hard concept to understand, let alone explain. 

From a martial arts perspective, try to explain principles, when they are something you must feel. You can be taught principles through head knowledge, but that does not give understanding. So it is, with faith......... 

I don't mean to interrupt the conversation, but I was asked to share...........


----------



## jasonbrinn

jks9199 said:


> Really?  The Bible speaks to His entire life?  I only recall a handful of incidents from childhood.  Nothing explaining his young adulthood or what He did; we presume He was in his 30s when he began his public ministry.  Honestly, I'm not really sure where they get his age at the beginning of His public ministry.



Luke 3:23 - Jesus was 30 when he started his ministry.

We know of his birth, his childhood, that he worked with his father until he was 30 and then preached for 3 years before being crucified on the cross for the sins of the world.


----------



## jasonbrinn

jks9199 said:


> No -- historically, Christianity uses Judaism's books.  Christ was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and the law -- to a Christian.  To others, he was a prophet.  And to at least some, I suppose, if he existed, he was on heck of a huckster.  I know what I believe -- but I can still be respectful towards what others believe.



What should matter is twofold;

1.  Who did Jesus say that he was?
2.  Who do you say that Jesus was?

How you answer these questions determines everything.

Christianity doesn't use Judaism's books.  Judaism uses the story and prophecies of Christ to create a religion around God's law.  Being a Jew will not save your soul according to the Son of God.

I respect others rights to believe what they want, I also respect others souls enough not to placate them when they are wrong about eternal matters.  Jesus is the Son of God and the only remission for sins and justification unto God and his law.

Jason Brinn


----------



## WC_lun

Jason, stuff like you posted is why religions get a bad name.  You believe what you believe and that is all well and good.  The bible was written by Jews.  Like it or not, that is the truth.  The books in the new testament were put in there by political decision.  There were books much more popular in history that never made it into the bible.  The "good book" is also full of contridictions and instructions that are not relevant to todays life, some of which we as a society even find odious, such as instructions on how to sell a daughter or when it is okay to kill a slave.  Despite that, if Christianity's message is what you believe that is cool.  The message of compassion and being saved is indeed a powerful one. However, these attacks on other ways of seeing the world are base and just indicate unconfidence in your own beliefs.  You keep sounding the horn of your own rightiousness and perfection just like every other religious zealot of any other religion.

"What does it matter if my nieghbor believes in 20 gods or no gods?  It doesn''t take coin from my pocket.  It doesn't break my leg." -Thomas Jefferson


----------



## arnisador

jasonbrinn said:


> NO OTHER book in history comes close to the authenticity of the Bible.



This may be the least accurate statement ever made on *MartialTalk*...and that's saying something. 

What do you mean by this? It's of unknown authorship, written decades after the death of its main subject by a variety of individuals of unknown motivation, probably based on missing intermediate sources (most notably _Q_), and scholarship clearly shows how it evolved from hippie-style nature philosophy through the 30s CE to more politically-defensive in tone by the 50s CE (as Jesus' followers were persecuted) to apocalyptic and supernatural in tone after the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. Add to that the near-absence of contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth from non-Christian sources and you the large number of internal consistencies and the Bible's assembly by committee hundreds of years later and you have a serious authenticity problem. 

How is this book more authentic than something written by, say, Plato--_The Republic_, maybe?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Too funny.
"authenticity of the Bible." is pure wrong.  300+ translations. Meanings vary, whole sections are omitted, etc. It was assembled by committee on orders of an emperor to standardize a rising faith for political reasons.   It is full of contradictions, later day political reworkings, and some parts supposedly written by those with 'first hand knowledge' show a surprising lack of familiarity with local geography and politics.  To say the Christian Bible is authentic because it says it is, well, believe what you want to.

-opcorn:

I've spent half my life researching religions, faiths and what not. There is so much wrong here...I'm just going to sit back, munch some popcorn, and relax.  

Namaste.


----------



## arnisador

jasonbrinn said:


> The entire Bible speaks to almost every aspect of Jesus's life; his adopted father, mother, half sister and half brothers but NOTHING of his wife!  It is not that he couldn't have had a wife - having a wife is not sinful it is the fact that the scriptures would have mentioned something so special yet didn't.



The Bible as we know it came together during the 300s CE. Choices were made and there were arguments over what should and should not be included. Who knows what books--on the adolescence and young adulthood of Jesus, say, information concerning which is notably missing in the Bible (and which could have included a marriage)--may have been lost due to their lack of inclusion? Look at the discoveries we have made in the past hundred years--the Dead Sea Scrolls, the 'wife' fragment--that reflect other writings that we knew nothing about until relatively recently. We can't possibly know what we're missing about Jesus and his life and teachings. Look at what is not in the Codex Vaticanus Codex Sinaiticus (e.g., both lack Matthew 5:44 Matthew 5:44, to name two examples) but is in the Bible as we know it. 

Political decisions were made. Who knows if some parts were excised because they didn't fit the desired narrative? Unless you have a (proto-)Bible from about 33 CE, you can hardly claim that lack of mention in the Bible is anything more than lack of evidence. The Bible was pulled together more than 300 years after his death in a largely illiterate age when papyrus writings would not have been prized by the average person inheriting it from a great-grandfather who was a member of the Jesus movement.



jasonbrinn said:


> Christianity doesn't use Judaism's books.  Judaism uses the story and  prophecies of Christ to create a religion around God's law.



I can't even process this. It seems like you're denying the existence of Judaism. I don't get it.


----------



## Makalakumu

Jason could have a moment here where he realizes that Santa in not real.


----------



## Tez3

I wouldn't deny anyone their right to believe in anything they want, they can believe the Hulk is real or that Little Women is the literal truth, it only begins to matter when they start impinging on others and trying to enforce their views as being the only correct one. It does seem odd however that in an established religion such as Christianity where everyone accepts that their main focus Jesus was born Jewish and kept to his traditions, ideas and worship that we have someone who differs so much from that established idea. I know some think the Old Testament is literal and some think it's allegorical and others that it's all madeup but none of these groups doubt it's Jewish. It seems indeed that Jason is denying the existance of Judaism which goes against all historical facts, if you leave out the religious aspect there is still the people to consider. Who does he think the Jewish people are?


----------



## Chris Parker

So... we shouldn't point out the texts of the Qu'ran, the Torah itself, the Ethiopian Bible, or the rest of the "Apocryphal" texts...? It might help his understanding..? Yes?


----------



## jks9199

arnisador said:


> I can't even process this. It seems like you're denying the existence of Judaism. I don't get it.



Yeah, it is a novel statement.


----------



## elder999

jasonbrinn said:


> EXACTLY - now you're thinking Elder. The entire Bible speaks to almost every aspect of Jesus's life; his adopted father, mother, half sister and half brothers but NOTHING of his wife! It is not that he couldn't have had a wife - having a wife is not sinful it is the fact that the scriptures would have mentioned something so special yet didn't.




Uh...yeah. First off, there would have been nothing special about his having a wife at all-it was a cultural expectation. The only one in all of the New Testament we can guess with any certainty to not have had a wife would have been Paul, and, as a Pharisee, it's likely that he was married, and, in 1st Corinthians, 95-7, he does mention "a wife," so it's entirely possible that he had one-Eusubius used this verse in 325 A.D. to show that Paul did have a wife, but I digress...

Just as believers can say about God to atheists, so I say to you:_absence of evidence is not evidence of absence_

No, the Bible makes no mention of Jesus's wife. Nor does it mention his beard, his long hair, his tools,(or, for that matter, his being a "carpenter,") his diet, his eyes, or his sword. All things that he's likely to have had, or that we can be *certain* he had, at least, inasmuch as we can be "certain" that he existed.

Of course, "the Bible," as you know it, is largely the creation of men, who discarded Gospels that *do* mention Jesus's wife.


----------



## Josh Oakley

jasonbrinn said:


> Christianity doesn't use Judaism's books.  Judaism uses the story and prophecies of Christ to create a religion around God's law.  Being a Jew will not save your soul according to the Son of God.
> 
> Jason Brinn



Congratulations,  Jason. You have written the most asinine statement I have ever read.  Could this perhaps be called putting the cart before the horse? I've been a chaplain assistant for 12 years, and served with some of the best chaplains in the army, ans some of the worst, too. And every single one of them would be laughing if they read what you just wrote.

It is a RIDICULOUSLY contrived interpretation of reality. 

The Tanach (the old testament) is a Jewish compilation of Jewish scripture. And the Tanach was QUOTED by paul, and loosely quoted by a couple of the gospel writers. By LITERAL definition, Christian's used Jewish scriptures.

*facepalm*
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3

Just an aside here to sidetrack the thread for minute ...as the troops here deploy to deploy to Afghan I'd like to salute a brave bunch of Christians who take tolerance to a new level and manage to be there for everyone whatever religion and with none, they don't try to convert, they listen, offering tea, quiet wisdom and dry humour They are brave under fire as they aren't armed. I salute the Christian padres who accompany their regiments through thick and thin. 
Thank you.


----------



## Carol

Tez3 said:


> Just an aside here to sidetrack the thread for minute ...as the troops here deploy to deploy to Afghan I'd like to salute a brave bunch of Christians who take tolerance to a new level and manage to be there for everyone whatever religion and with none, they don't try to convert, they listen, offering tea, quiet wisdom and dry humour They are brave under fire as they aren't armed. I salute the Christian padres who accompany their regiments through thick and thin.
> Thank you.



I'll pass your thanks to my niece (MP, equestrienne), who is now in theatre.   She also fondly salutes our Allies who bravely fight along side us  :asian:


----------



## CanuckMA

jasonbrinn said:


> I know I have an educated understanding from studying the time thats it.  Jesus was/is not Joshua Bar Joseph.  You don't know what I think messiah means because I haven't stated that yet - unless you can read minds.  NO ONE said the things that Jesus did, if you think so then you are mistaken or deceived.
> 
> Jesus said he is THE ONLY way to God.  Jesus said he is GOD.  I am pretty sure that's new to Judaism - at least the priests of that time thought so.  Nothing in scripture has been changed by anyone EVER - unless you'd like to prove that and then you'd be the first since they were written 2000 years ago.
> 
> Judaism uses our books.  I can't explain something to someone arguing about how they know it already - your cup appears full.




The Jewish concept of Messiah is not G-d. The Messiah will be a man of the line of David (strike one). Will gather all Jews to Israel (strike two). Will usher an era of world peace (strike three), will have a male heir who will reconstitute the Danhedrin (strike four) and build the Third Temple (strike five).


Judaism uses none of Xtianity's books, quite the reverse. And we read them in the original language.


----------



## CanuckMA

jasonbrinn said:


> Christianity doesn't use Judaism's books.  Judaism uses the story and prophecies of Christ to create a religion around God's law.  Being a Jew will not save your soul according to the Son of God.




Just WOW. You have no concept of historical and erligious matters do you. 

Rough timeline.
4,000 years ago,  G-d tells Abraham to leave for a land He will give him and He will make him a great nation.
3,000 years ago,  The Jews leave Egypt and wander in the desert to find the only piece of land in the Middle East that has no oil. It's rare enough that it takes them 40 years to find it. Along the way, they haved a rest stop at the foot of a mountsain. Moses decides that mountain climbing is good exercise, goes up and G-d gives him the Torah.
2,000 years ago, A good Jewish boy is born. We know he was Jewish because a) he lived at home until he was 30, b) went into his father's business and c) thought his mother was a virgin. The boy decides to do something that's always been popular with Jews, and calls himself the Messiah. Jewish history is replete with those making such claims. 
1,800 years ago, 4 guys from Liverpool,  opps, 4 guys decide to write about the Jew Yoshua, the book's a hit. 

How can you possibly claim that the Tanach is not antecedant to Xtian books? Bu quirk of location, I went to Catholic school, never heard anybody even hinting at such a thing. AAMOF, Xtians are rather fond in mistranslating and/or interpreting Jewish books to find references of Jesus.


----------



## arnisador

A nice piece on the new fragment:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...roversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html



> King makes no claim for its usefulness as biography. The text was  probably composed in Greek a century or so after Jesus crucifixion,  then copied into Coptic some two centuries later. As evidence that the  real-life Jesus was married, the fragment is scarcely more dispositive  than Browns controversial 2003 novel, _The_ _Da Vinci Code_.
> 
> 
> What it does seem to reveal is more subtle and complex: that some  group of early Christians drew spiritual strength from portraying the  man whose teachings they followed as having a wife. And not just any  wife, but possibly Mary Magdalene, the most-mentioned woman in the New  Testament besides Jesus mother.
> 
> 
> The question the discovery raises, King told me, is, **Why  is it that only the literature that said he was celibate survived? And  all of the texts that showed he had an intimate relationship with  Magdalene or is married didnt survive? Is that 100 percent  happenstance? Or is it because of the fact that celibacy becomes the  ideal for Christianity?


----------



## Tez3

arnisador said:


> A nice piece on the new fragment:
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...roversial-New-Text-About-Jesus-170177076.html



Good questions, worth thinking about, not necessarily from a religious point of view but certainly from an academic and historical one.


----------



## granfire

I am actually quiet shocked, to be honest.

I was not quiet sure where to put my post initially.

It is astounding how a small word can fire up a conversation and controversy.


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> I am actually quiet shocked, to be honest.
> 
> I was not quiet sure where to put my post initially.
> 
> It is astounding how a small word can fire up a conversation and controversy.



Good job! :lfao:

Seriously, it's one of main-stream Christianity's "sacred cows." 

_Jesus was celibate. Jesus was pure. *Jesus was too good for any earthly woman* Jesus was above the desires of the flesh._ 

Jesus was a *man*. The Bible makes no mention of his_ testicles_, but I'm *certain*.......well, you get the picture. :lol:


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> Good job! :lfao:
> 
> Seriously, it's one of main-stream Christianity's "sacred cows."
> 
> _Jesus was celibate. Jesus was pure. *Jesus was too good for any earthly woman* Jesus was above the desires of the flesh._
> 
> Jesus was a *man*. The Bible makes no mention of his_ testicles_, but I'm *certain*.......well, you get the picture. :lol:



Yeah, I know. He didn't go down stream for 25 paces to use the bush either...


----------



## Tez3

If one was a cynic one could say if he was sent here to know suffering he certainly was married......... and probably had teenage kids!


----------



## granfire

Tez3 said:


> If one was a cynic one could say if he was sent here to know suffering he certainly was married......... and probably had teenage kids!



butbutbut: Honor your parents...if not, they could off you, no?


----------



## Tez3

granfire said:


> butbutbut: Honor your parents...if not, they could off you, no?



Jewish kids can twist their parents round their little fingers for most parts. My daughter ( age 27) perfected as soon as she could talk how to say 'daaaad?' in such a way that she hadn't said the final 'd' before her dad said yes


----------



## arnisador

elder999 said:


> Seriously, it's one of main-stream Christianity's "sacred cows."
> 
> _Jesus was celibate. Jesus was pure. *Jesus was too good for any earthly woman* Jesus was above the desires of the flesh._



Yup.



> Jesus was a *man*. The Bible makes no mention of his_ testicles_, but I'm *certain*.......



The Pope has to have them, so...


----------



## granfire

arnisador said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pope has to have them, so...



Well they joke that celibacy was implemented by Pope Impotence the VI.


----------



## jks9199

granfire said:


> I am actually quiet shocked, to be honest.
> 
> I was not quiet sure where to put my post initially.
> 
> It is astounding how a small word can fire up a conversation and controversy.



Well... when that word is "wife", no matter the context... Yeah.  Ask any married man!


----------



## punisher73

jks9199 said:


> Well... when that word is "wife", no matter the context... Yeah.  Ask any married man!



When a man is wrong and he keeps quiet, he shows he is wise.
When a man is right and he keeps quiet, he shows he is married.


----------



## elder999

arnisador said:


> The Pope has to have them, so...



Jesus wasn't Catholic...:lol:....in fact, _there was *no such thing* as "Catholic."_ :lfao:


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> Jesus wasn't Catholic...:lol:....in fact, _there was *no such thing* as "Catholic."_ :lfao:




We were also Pope free back then too


----------



## Makalakumu

Has anyone read Joe Atwill's work? What if Christianity was entirely manufactured by the Romans? Does this question of whether Jesus was married make a difference then?

How many angels fit on the head of a pin?


----------



## granfire

Makalakumu said:


> Has anyone read Joe Atwill's work? What if Christianity was entirely manufactured by the Romans? Does this question of whether Jesus was married make a difference then?
> 
> How many angels fit on the head of a pin?




Paulus was an undercover plant to divert the growing movement into something different, less unifying? 
I think that was raised as question in the book about the Qumran scrolls I read, not sure who wrote it. 
Something like 'he came out of nowhere, then has a huge welcome parade and whoosh, he is gone, disappears into history'


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> Has anyone read Joe Atwill's work? What if Christianity was entirely manufactured by the Romans? Does this question of whether Jesus was married make a difference then?
> 
> How many angels fit on the head of a pin?




Meh. 

Speculations like Atwill's feed upon themselves-through the veil of 2000 years, and limited history, you could make  case for any sort of conspiracy around the events portrayed in the Gospels-and the Gnostic Gospels-that you want:

_What if Jesus was an alien?_ :lol:

_What if Jesus were twins?_

_What if Jesus didn't rise from the dead?  _


Atwill's a good writer and pretty fair scholar-he's an excellent chess player, which makes him paranoid by nature. Frankly, he's got an anti-Christianity agenda, I think. What people like him-and  most Christians- fail to take into account is that "Christianity" isn't something that happened immediately after the "death and resurrection." It was a movement that took centuries to become what we call it. No matter the original events, the formation of the Gospels, the acceptance of "Christianity" by Constantine, etc., etc., etc., took place in an environment of syncretism-the Jews of the time were _Hellenized_, the doctrine spread among all sorts of Gentiles, numerous "Gospels" were written and disseminated, and various differing foreign beliefs were added and taken away. The whole thing was stirred and simmered, then edited by various councils to become "Christianity."  Thus it is that the feast of Christ's resurrection-the highest holy day of the Christian calendar, is called Easter, for _Oestre,_ the pagan goddess of the spring equinox, etc., etc., etc.-these things are not all "Roman inventions," anymore than Christianity is-though, in some respects, when we speak of the institution of "the Church" as it exists today, Atwill is right-it is a Roman invention. 

The events of the "deat and resurrection," though?  I'm betting on aliens....:lfao:


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> The events of the "deat and resurrection," though?  I'm betting on aliens....:lfao:



Put the wine down!

:roflmao:


----------



## Xue Sheng

Jesus Built My Hotrod


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Meh.
> 
> Speculations like Atwill's feed upon themselves-through the veil of 2000 years, and limited history, you could make  case for any sort of conspiracy around the events portrayed in the Gospels-and the Gnostic Gospels-that you want:
> 
> _What if Jesus was an alien?_ :lol:
> 
> _What if Jesus were twins?_
> 
> _What if Jesus didn't rise from the dead?  _
> 
> 
> Atwill's a good writer and pretty fair scholar-he's an excellent chess player, which makes him paranoid by nature. Frankly, he's got an anti-Christianity agenda, I think. What people like him-and  most Christians- fail to take into account is that "Christianity" isn't something that happened immediately after the "death and resurrection." It was a movement that took centuries to become what we call it. No matter the original events, the formation of the Gospels, the acceptance of "Christianity" by Constantine, etc., etc., etc., took place in an environment of syncretism-the Jews of the time were _Hellenized_, the doctrine spread among all sorts of Gentiles, numerous "Gospels" were written and disseminated, and various differing foreign beliefs were added and taken away. The whole thing was stirred and simmered, then edited by various councils to become "Christianity."  Thus it is that the feast of Christ's resurrection-the highest holy day of the Christian calendar, is called Easter, for _Oestre,_ the pagan goddess of the spring equinox, etc., etc., etc.-these things are not all "Roman inventions," anymore than Christianity is-though, in some respects, when we speak of the institution of "the Church" as it exists today, Atwill is right-it is a Roman invention.
> 
> The events of the "deat and resurrection," though?  I'm betting on aliens....:lfao:



It's been a while since I read it, but to sum it up, Atwill suggests that the gospels are actually an allegory created by Roman writers to lampoon a Jewish rebellion decades after the supposed life of Jesus.  Jesus is a fictional character that is supposed to speak to a group of rebel Jews who believe that the Messiah will return and deliver them from Roman rule.  After, the "gospels" were used, along with all kinds of other portions of writing, to form a State Religion for the Roman Empire.  Atwill acknowledges that the nature of the Bible is Roman Political propaganda and suggests that the Council of Nicaea simply recycled old Roman Propaganda to create Roman Catholicism.  

As far as simply being "anti-christian" goes as a criticism, I'm pretty sure that's uniformly recognized as fallacious.  However, I know his writing appeals to ME because I'm a non-believer and hold the opinion that all religions are human inventions.  I think it's a fitting explanation, government creates propaganda to control people and then reuses the propaganda to create more institutions of control.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Tez3 said:


> Just an aside here to sidetrack the thread for minute ...as the troops here deploy to deploy to Afghan I'd like to salute a brave bunch of Christians who take tolerance to a new level and manage to be there for everyone whatever religion and with none, they don't try to convert, they listen, offering tea, quiet wisdom and dry humour They are brave under fire as they aren't armed. I salute the Christian padres who accompany their regiments through thick and thin.
> Thank you.



Same with the Jewish and Buddhist padres.  Of course, it helps they have chaplain assistants ready and willing to do violence on their behalf! 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

Josh Oakley said:


> Same with the Jewish and Buddhist padres.  Of course, it helps they have chaplain assistants ready and willing to do violence on their behalf!
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



That's how the world works!


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> It's been a while since I read it, but to sum it up, Atwill suggests that the gospels are actually an allegory created by Roman writers to lampoon a Jewish rebellion decades after the supposed life of Jesus. Jesus is a fictional character that is supposed to speak to a group of rebel Jews who believe that the Messiah will return and deliver them from Roman rule. After, the "gospels" were used, along with all kinds of other portions of writing, to form a State Religion for the Roman Empire. Atwill acknowledges that the nature of the Bible is Roman Political propaganda and suggests that the Council of Nicaea simply recycled old Roman Propaganda to create Roman Catholicism.



I've got both editions of his book-they were worth reading, and imaginative, and there's some good work done there in terms of the Gospels as _literature._ Insofar as "the Bible," being "Roman propaganda," well, which parts? As far as the "Old Testament" goes, as others have posted, they're completely Hebraic, and not at all "Roman propaganda." Not even possible. As far as the Gospels go, well......._which parts_? :lol: (I'll readily acknowledge that the Nativity story and Pilate's conflict represent a sort of Roman propagana, or _apologia_, along with a few other notable examples, but what of it? They were added to appeal to the Gentiles-that is to say, a Roman audience)

Atwills thesis rests upon what he sees as a stylistic thread in the Gospels that he traces to Josephus Flavius. WHile some similarities (in the Greek, anyway) can be found, they are almost entirely attributable to the writing style of the time and region, and not at all to being from the same person. In point of fact, with the exception of the account of Jesus's execution, Josephus's writings are almost entirely a product of the first century A.D. The execution, or _Testimonium Flavianum_, is a later addition, and _it is this upon which a great deal of Atwill's thesis relies._ Moreover, the Gospels as we know them are a fourth century product-based, partly, on texts that survived from the 1st century, but not at all cometmporaneous with Josephus. 

In short, Atwill's thesis is that the egg laid the chicken. :lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> As far as simply being "anti-christian" goes as a criticism, I'm pretty sure that's uniformly recognized as fallacious.



No, it's not. He has an agenda. Simply look at his blog.One of his principle collaborations was on dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, with Robert Eisenmann, who has soundly praised Atwill's book. Interestingly, Eisenmann falls into that category of Biblical scholar whose entire _raison d'etre_, in terms of New Testament scholarship, is to disprove or diminish the existence and importance of the "hisorical Jesus." I can remember being very excited about his _James, the Brother of Jesus_, fifteen years ago, only to have a somewhat mixed reaction to reading it-a remarkable piece of scholarship, but clearly bent upon supporting the author's foredrawn conclusions, to deprecate the New Testament, rather than really explore the Dead Sea scrolls and early Christianity-and in a turgid and circular manner, at that.

In addition, Atwill's _Flavian_ plan-to surpress rebellion? Didn't go so well, did it? Seem to recall Rome destroying Jerusalem in 70 A>D., and Josephus writing about it, and the seige at Masada, right? So, the basic _premise_ of his thesis is somewhat loony-the Romans were confounded by the Jews' monotheism and refusal to pay homage to graven images like "good Roman citizens" as it was, they certainly wouldn't have made any attempts to interfere in Jewish religious life, especially with the concessions already made in that regard-especially since they were collecting taxes from the Sanhedrin on a regular basis.....



Makalakumu said:


> However, I know his writing appeals to ME because I'm a non-believer and hold the opinion that all religions are human inventions.




All religions *are* human inventions. :lol: Doesn't mean he's not out to lunch-it's especially difficult dealing with such a slim corpus of writing and events that allegedly took place over 2000 years ago, and _especially *easy* to make a theory that "fits."_ Jesus as Mithras? Sure. Jesus as Osiris? Why not? Jesus as Apollo? Makes sense to me. Jesus as Caesar? I wouldn't be the first to say so.



Makalakumu said:


> I think it's a fitting explanation, government creates propaganda to control people and then reuses the propaganda to create more institutions of control.



Nah. You gotta remember that Constantine ruled from Byzantium. "The Church" as we know it was an Eastern creation at first.

I suppose, though, that it's almost as fitting an explanation as aliens....:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu

I honestly don't know enough about this to have a clear idea what to think.  I guess the reason that I'm bringing up Atwill's work at all is to talk about the idea that Jesus may not have existed at all, therefore how important is the question as to whether or not he was married?  Perhaps it's important in the same way that other works of fiction are important?  If Jesus had a wife, the narrative certainly changes, but if Jesus never existed, then whether or not he had a wife is less of an issue.

What I'm wondering is where all of this fragmentary work that describes Jesus' life came from?  How did the aliens hide the Dead Sea Scrolls in those caves?


----------



## elder999

Makalakumu said:


> I honestly don't know enough about this to have a clear idea what to think. I guess the reason that I'm bringing up Atwill's work at all is to talk about the idea that Jesus may not have existed at all, therefore how important is the question as to whether or not he was married? Perhaps it's important in the same way that other works of fiction are important? If Jesus had a wife, the narrative certainly changes, but if Jesus never existed, then whether or not he had a wife is less of an issue.



My point is that if Jesus had a wife, the _narrative doesn't change at all_, and that it's likely that the "historical Jesus," if in fact there was such a person, had a wife. 

Whether or not he existed is another question altogether.



Makalakumu said:


> What I'm wondering is where all of this fragmentary work that describes Jesus' life came from? How did the aliens hide the Dead Sea Scrolls in those caves?



It's in the Bible, dude. They convinced those poor shepherds, _in fields where they lay_, that they were *angels*, and had them do it for them.........:lfao:


----------



## Josh Oakley

Makalakumu said:


> It's been a while since I read it, but to sum it up, Atwill suggests that the gospels are actually an allegory created by Roman writers to lampoon a Jewish rebellion decades after the supposed life of Jesus.  Jesus is a fictional character that is supposed to speak to a group of rebel Jews who believe that the Messiah will return and deliver them from Roman rule.  After, the "gospels" were used, along with all kinds of other portions of writing, to form a State Religion for the Roman Empire.  Atwill acknowledges that the nature of the Bible is Roman Political propaganda and suggests that the Council of Nicaea simply recycled old Roman Propaganda to create Roman Catholicism.
> 
> As far as simply being "anti-christian" goes as a criticism, I'm pretty sure that's uniformly recognized as fallacious.  However, I know his writing appeals to ME because I'm a non-believer and hold the opinion that all religions are human inventions.  I think it's a fitting explanation, government creates propaganda to control people and then reuses the propaganda to create more institutions of control.




It does seem like something Constantine would do, too.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

Makalakumu said:


> Has anyone read Joe Atwill's work? What if Christianity was entirely manufactured by the Romans?



I hadn't heard of this theory, but who knows?


----------



## Tez3

Josh Oakley said:


> Same with the Jewish and Buddhist padres. Of course, it helps they have chaplain assistants ready and willing to do violence on their behalf!
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



We only have one Jewish ( who also does prisons and universities!) and one Buddhist padre and they don't deploy, the same with the Hindu one. Our Christian ones are quite happy though to look after everyone, and without trying to convert which always impresses me. True gentlemen.


----------



## Josh Oakley

Tez3 said:


> We only have one Jewish ( who also does prisons and universities!) and one Buddhist padre and they don't deploy, the same with the Hindu one. Our Christian ones are quite happy though to look after everyone, and without trying to convert which always impresses me. True gentlemen.



We have a good chunk of Jewish chaplains over here. And two Buddhists. I met the Buddhist ones in Iraq. 


Our Christian chaplains run the gamut on proselytism, though none of them are supposed to do it.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu

Josh Oakley said:


> And two Buddhists. I met the *Buddhist *ones in Iraq.



I apologize for the thread drift, but some contradictions are too much for the mind to comprehend.  Carry on.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Bud...den Rule/five_precepts_the_buddhist_golde.htm



> [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*1. To abstain from taking the lives of living beings.*
> 2. To abstain from taking that which is not given.
> 3. To abstain from sexual misconduct.
> 4. To abstain from telling falsehoods.
> 5. To abstain from distilled and fermented intoxicants, which are the occasion for carelessness
> (which also includes drugs).[/FONT]


----------



## Josh Oakley

Makalakumu said:


> I apologize for the thread drift, but some contradictions are too much for the mind to comprehend.  Carry on.
> 
> http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Bud...den Rule/five_precepts_the_buddhist_golde.htm



What contradiction? Chaplains are noncombatants.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3

Josh Oakley said:


> We have a good chunk of Jewish chaplains over here. And two Buddhists. I met the Buddhist ones in Iraq.
> 
> 
> Our Christian chaplains run the gamut on proselytism, though none of them are supposed to do it.
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Ours are Church of England and Church of Scotland so religion rarely comes into it, CofE especially isn't very into preaching etc, it's what you'd call a gentlemanly religion, that G-d is an Englishman is taken for granted so there's very little talk of religious stuff with them. They get embarrssed when a firebrand pops up every so often. It was always the tradition that the youngest sons of gentlemen became vicars ( the oldest inherited the estate, the next joined the army and the next joined the church). C of S is a bit more peppery but none try to convert. It's just not done, the British army is definitely not a religious one.


----------



## Instructor

I met a Catholic Chaplain in Saudi that really helped me work through some childhood issues.  He was interested, engaged, and above all a great listener.  He used to come visit me on post, bring me coffee, help me while away the long desert night.

I was a lay leader at my last unit a kind of untrained shipboard chaplain.


----------



## jasonbrinn

Look people can come on here and make fun and post things like this is 'the most blah blah blah" that they want.  It changes nothing.

God, Jesus (the Word) and the Holy Spirit were together from the beginning of time.  God created the first man and woman.  When sin entered the world the plan for the salvation of man began.  The plight and stories of the Jews throughout history including their scriptures are the story of God's plan for salvation and Jesus is the hero of it.  All of scripture points to Jesus.  The Bible is ONLY about Jesus and Jesus is the only thing that is meant by the Bible.  The Law is meant to show men and the world that they are dead eternally in sin without Jesus.  

You run to and fro gathering information but never gaining in knowledge.  You people who claim lineages to the fold and even having worked in the ministry need to clear yourselves as I am doing.  Stand for what you know is true or either learn the Truth today.

All people will bow their knee and stand one day before king Jesus to make an account for how they dealt with him.  Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and his blood wil make you right forever with God.  There is NO other way to the father except through Jesus.  God sent Jesus so that all people might be saved.  All you need to do is to call on Jesus and you will be saved.

Please stand on notice that the Truth has been told to all of you now and you will not have any excuses on that day.  I wash my hands of this issue and anyone who chooses to willfully act in rebellion against the gospels, God and Jesus Christ.

Jason Brinn


----------



## Josh Oakley

I've been a chaplain assistant for 12 years. I'd say I have worked in the ministry.

Don't try and shift it. You said Jews have been using Christian scriptures. You're wrong. It is really that simple. Just admit it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## The Last Legionary

jasonbrinn said:


> All you need to do is to call on Jesus and you will be saved.



*Picks up phone*

*Calls Jesus*

Come on, come on, pick up. Ah! Jesus! Hey, it's Keil. Yeah I know you have Caller ID.  I know it's been a while since we last spoke, but I was over on MartialTalk. You know it? Really? Thats you?  I would never have guessed.  Cool handle.  Anyway, I know you're busy but I was over on MT and this new guy Jason Brinn popped up in a thread about if you were ever married and made a few comments, and I thought I'd call and get it direct from you.  Oh?  Really? A restraining order? For what?  You're kidding me? He did that on your sandals?  Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Did it come off?  Uh huh.  Told him you just want to be friends but he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer?  Tried to explain the Bible to him but he kept getting it wrong? Really?  No, I would never have gotten that idea from reading his posts.  Oh, all right, you got me on that one. You know when I'm fibbing.  Well, been good chatting with you, next Saturday we're having a BBQ, why not stop by if you're free?  Great.    Bring some wine though, Horas and Ra are supposed to bring some but you know how they are.  See you then.


----------



## Xue Sheng




----------



## granfire

The Last Legionary said:


> *Picks up phone*
> 
> *Calls Jesus*
> 
> Come on, come on, pick up. Ah! Jesus! Hey, it's Keil. Yeah I know you have Caller ID.  I know it's been a while since we last spoke, but I was over on MartialTalk. You know it? Really? Thats you?  I would never have guessed.  Cool handle.  Anyway, I know you're busy but I was over on MT and this new guy Jason Brinn popped up in a thread about if you were ever married and made a few comments, and I thought I'd call and get it direct from you.  Oh?  Really? A restraining order? For what?  You're kidding me? He did that on your sandals?  Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Did it come off?  Uh huh.  Told him you just want to be friends but he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer?  Tried to explain the Bible to him but he kept getting it wrong? Really?  No, I would never have gotten that idea from reading his posts.  Oh, all right, you got me on that one. You know when I'm fibbing.  Well, been good chatting with you, next Saturday we're having a BBQ, why not stop by if you're free?  Great.    Bring some wine though, Horas and Ra are supposed to bring some but you know how they are.  See you then.



:lfao:


----------



## arnisador

jasonbrinn said:


> All people will bow their knee and stand one day before king Jesus to make an account for how they dealt with him.  Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and his blood wil make you right forever with God.  There is NO other way to the father except through Jesus.  God sent Jesus so that all people might be saved.  All you need to do is to call on Jesus and you will be saved.
> 
> Please stand on notice that the Truth has been told to all of you now and you will not have any excuses on that day.  I wash my hands of this issue and anyone who chooses to willfully act in rebellion against the gospels, God and Jesus Christ.



I understand that you believe this, but do you understand that this is kind of offensive to those of us who don't?


----------



## elder999

I don't "claim" anything, including being a Christian, Jason. I've seen insulting and offensive  dreck like your post used by so-called "Christians"to manipulate, marginalize and ostracize people *all of my life.* :angry: So, I'll leave you with some Gospel quotes:

*Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 

Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'* 

*Mt 7:15 Jesus said to his disciples: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing,but underneath are ravenous wolves.* 

*Matthew 24: 4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people*

And one especially appropriate for a mail-order martial arts teacher:

*Matthew 7: 16-20 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them." *


----------



## jks9199

arnisador said:


> I understand that you believe this, but do you understand that this is kind of offensive to those of us who don't?


It's not necessarily inoffensive to those of us with similar but less absolute beliefs, either...


----------



## elder999

The Last Legionary said:


> **Calls Jesus*




"_I tried talking to Jesus,
but He put me on hold-
said He was swamped with calls this week,
and could not shake his cold...._"
:lfao:


----------



## jks9199

Warning:  Some adult language.

[video=youtube_share;pPdFrW076R0]http://youtu.be/pPdFrW076R0[/video]


----------



## CanuckMA

jasonbrinn said:


> Look people can come on here and make fun and post things like this is 'the most blah blah blah" that they want.  It changes nothing.
> 
> God, Jesus (the Word) and the Holy Spirit were together from the beginning of time.  God created the first man and woman.  When sin entered the world the plan for the salvation of man began.  The plight and stories of the Jews throughout history including their scriptures are the story of God's plan for salvation and Jesus is the hero of it.  All of scripture points to Jesus.  The Bible is ONLY about Jesus and Jesus is the only thing that is meant by the Bible.  The Law is meant to show men and the world that they are dead eternally in sin without Jesus.
> 
> You run to and fro gathering information but never gaining in knowledge.  You people who claim lineages to the fold and even having worked in the ministry need to clear yourselves as I am doing.  Stand for what you know is true or either learn the Truth today.
> 
> All people will bow their knee and stand one day before king Jesus to make an account for how they dealt with him.  Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and his blood wil make you right forever with God.  There is NO other way to the father except through Jesus.  God sent Jesus so that all people might be saved.  All you need to do is to call on Jesus and you will be saved.
> 
> Please stand on notice that the Truth has been told to all of you now and you will not have any excuses on that day.  I wash my hands of this issue and anyone who chooses to willfully act in rebellion against the gospels, God and Jesus Christ.
> 
> Jason Brinn




I'm just back form an entire day in synagogue, and may still be a bit ounchy from a 25 hour fast, but I've read Tanach, in the original language, a number of times. And nowhere is thre any mention of Jesus. Anywhere. In texts that predate Jesus by at least 500 years. 

I'm not acting in rebellion against G-d. I'm following His Mitzhvot.


----------



## Josh Oakley

The Last Legionary said:


> *Picks up phone*
> 
> *Calls Jesus*
> 
> Come on, come on, pick up. Ah! Jesus! Hey, it's Keil. Yeah I know you have Caller ID.  I know it's been a while since we last spoke, but I was over on MartialTalk. You know it? Really? Thats you?  I would never have guessed.  Cool handle.  Anyway, I know you're busy but I was over on MT and this new guy Jason Brinn popped up in a thread about if you were ever married and made a few comments, and I thought I'd call and get it direct from you.  Oh?  Really? A restraining order? For what?  You're kidding me? He did that on your sandals?  Wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Did it come off?  Uh huh.  Told him you just want to be friends but he wouldn't take 'no' for an answer?  Tried to explain the Bible to him but he kept getting it wrong? Really?  No, I would never have gotten that idea from reading his posts.  Oh, all right, you got me on that one. You know when I'm fibbing.  Well, been good chatting with you, next Saturday we're having a BBQ, why not stop by if you're free?  Great.    Bring some wine though, Horas and Ra are supposed to bring some but you know how they are.  See you then.



Uh... attack the message not the sender. Now let me catch my breath from laughing too hard.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> "_I tried talking to Jesus,
> but He put me on hold-
> said He was swamped with calls this week,
> and could not shake his cold...._"
> :lfao:




"The number you are trying to reach has been disconnected or is not in service."
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> "_I tried talking to Jesus,
> but He put me on hold-
> said He was swamped with calls this week,
> and could not shake his cold...._"
> :lfao:



I think he had caller ID...


----------



## Chris Parker

Full disclosure, I have no religious beliefs in this area at all, I did not have a religious upbringing, other than my own personal research and study, but this area (historically verified facts, doctrines from various faiths, and so on) has been an interest of mine for a very long time. And with that, as I prefer actual discussion to closed off rhetoric and evangelical postulating... 



jasonbrinn said:


> Look people can come on here and make fun and post things like this is 'the most blah blah blah" that they want.  It changes nothing.



Well, you're right. Saying that your statement was the most asinine, the most blatantly incorrect, the most ill-informed doesn't change anything. Your statement was still the most ill-informed, blatantly incorrect, and asinine seen. Even if it wasn't called out as such, it would still be. Then again, there is power in recognition... but you thinking it is "making fun", or incorrect as well doesn't change things either. You're still completely demonstrably incorrect.



jasonbrinn said:


> God, Jesus (the Word) and the Holy Spirit were together from the beginning of time.  God created the first man and woman.  When sin entered the world the plan for the salvation of man began.


 
This is a theological belief, Jason, not a statement of fact. The fact that you don't seem to be able to differentiate between those two states of being doesn't make it any less so.



jasonbrinn said:


> The plight and stories of the Jews throughout history including their scriptures are the story of God's plan for salvation and Jesus is the hero of it.


 
No, the stories of the Jewish people throughout history (as told through their scriptures and other sources) tell of their relationship with God, some parts of it are stories of past, some parts are prophecy of future comings, and none of it specifically deals with Jesus (from a Jewish perspective). There are prophecies of a Messiah, but that's not taken as Jesus in the Jewish faith, therefore you cannot state that the Jewish scriptures have "Jesus (as) the hero of (them)".



jasonbrinn said:


> All of scripture points to Jesus.


 
Now, here's the fun part.... you do realize, of course, that what we have as the New Testament books (and other gospels and apocryphal stories) are not eye witness accounts, yeah? They were written for a particular agenda, which altered depending on the target audience and the time and context of the surrounding world, and part of those agendas included sculpting and altering the narrative to fit the prophecies? I mean, the whole thing with the census was not historically correct, the dates are completely wrong, certain historical figures are used in ways that don't fit historical accounts (which King Herod is being referenced, for instance?), locations were changed, timing was changed, reasons and events were changed, the lineage of Jesus was constructed to give him a direct line from King David, although there isn't much evidence outside of the self-supporting claims found within such documents, and so on. As a result, the only way you can say that all of scripture points to Jesus is if you change the events of Jesus' life to fit scripture, in order to create the effect that "all of scripture points to Jesus".

In other words, no.



jasonbrinn said:


> The Bible is ONLY about Jesus and Jesus is the only thing that is meant by the Bible.  The Law is meant to show men and the world that they are dead eternally in sin without Jesus.


 
Really? How are you going to back that one up, Jason? Book of Job? Book of Exodus? Lots of good people there, true followers of Gods Word, going from Abraham through Moses and on... but because they had the misfortune of predating Jesus' life, they are dead eternally in sin? Does that sound like a loving and reasonable God to you? And how does the story of Job, for instance, have anything to do with Jesus? It's not even really dealing with sin, it's about human limits to acceptance, and what happens when faith is tested... nothing to do with Jesus, when it comes down to it.

And while the Christian interpretation of the spiritual doctrines known as the Bible is dominantly about the message of Jesus Christ, that doesn't mean that the entire thing is only about Him.



jasonbrinn said:


> You run to and fro gathering information but never gaining in knowledge.


 
Well, as "knowledge" is the gathering and pooling of information, I'm pretty sure the pithy comment you were going for was that people "run to and fro gathering information but never gaining in wisdom"... but that's an aside. More importantly, you seem to be grabbing hold of a single idea, and not allowing yourself outside of it... which leads, not only to a lack of wisdom, but also a lack of knowledge and information.



jasonbrinn said:


> You people who claim lineages to the fold and even having worked in the ministry need to clear yourselves as I am doing.


 
There's a lot of things that you seem to think everyone else should do, Jason, and you have been less than convincing in any of them. Evangelical preaching really isn't what this place is for. For confirmation of that, see the TOS, specifially:



			
				AdminTeam said:
			
		

> *Section 6 : MartialTalk Policy on Religious Tolerance
> 
> Religion is an important part of the lives of many of our members, and we believe it is important that people be given the opportunity to express their religious and spiritual beliefs in their online lives. This goes for all faiths, equally.
> 
> Our members are welcome to express themselves spiritually in all of our forums here.
> 
> At the same time, people must be aware that not everyone will share those same beliefs.
> 
> We expect our members to show tolerance of others beliefs in a non-judgmental manner.
> 
> Naturally this means that any kind of blatantly excessive religious posting or attempts to convince other people that their religion
> (or lack thereof) is wrong simply cannot be allowed. Such posts damage the community at large because they can be disruptive.
> 
> Our forums are full of a diverse group of people with many different beliefs, and people must respect that
> diversity. To keep things as fair as we can we ask that people not make large numbers of posts of a purely religious nature on non-religious threads.
> 
> At the same time, if people see threads that involve individuals praying with each other or otherwise sharing to help each other deal with a difficult situation, please remember that people who choose to share their religious feelings in the context of providing support for others should be given that opportunity (as long as it is not intentionally disruptive to other non-religious threads).
> 
> If you don't agree with their beliefs, then simply don't participate.
> 
> Some communities solve this "religious tolerance" issue the easy way. They simply ban all cases of religious expression. While we could do this also, it flies in the face of what we are trying to provide here  an open forum for all kinds of dialogue, information and support.
> 
> MartialTalk welcomes people of all faiths and does not condone the wholesale condemnation of a faith or the defamatory general characterizations of a faith, based on the actions of a few.
> 
> Members are welcome to their opinions however we must insist that they be posted in such a manner as to not condemn an entire group for the negative actions of a few.
> 
> Such actions may run afoul of our hate-speech policies and will be dealt with as such.
> 
> Please be respectful of your fellow members, who may believe differently than you, yet are still human beings with the right to believe as they do, the same as you and I.*


*
*
Note the underlined.



jasonbrinn said:


> Stand for what you know is true or either learn the Truth today.



But what is Truth? Is Truth unchanging Law? We both have Truths, are mine the same as yours?

In other words, what you're espousing here conflicts badly with what I understand to be true. I find it impossible to take something as "true" when the only evidence it has to rely on is itself. There is no testing of religious truths, therefore they are subjective, and, to my mind, only a "truth" in terms of a persons individual relationship with themselves, and any deity they may believe in. Now, you can have your truth, but you really need to understand that your truth is only THE TRUTH when it comes to you... to me, it's a strong belief you hold that I have no basis or need to have myself.



jasonbrinn said:


> All people will bow their knee and stand one day before king Jesus to make an account for how they dealt with him.


 
And what would happen if He turned to you and asked why you denied his Jewish heritage? Or if you don't stand before Him at all... Again, Jason, this is purely a matter of belief for you. The only evidence is that those who believe it think this is what will happen.



jasonbrinn said:


> Jesus's sacrifice on the cross and his blood wil make you right forever with God.


 
If it happened, if he existed, and if what is claimed by Christian texts is correct. There's a lot more "if's", but there's no need to clutter this up too much... 



jasonbrinn said:


> There is NO other way to the father except through Jesus.


 
Which is a Christian ideal, not a universal one. It's not even a universal ideal throughout the various faiths that worship the same God. It's great you have faith, but dude, you're sounding like a crazy missionary at this point... 



jasonbrinn said:


> God sent Jesus so that all people might be saved.  All you need to do is to call on Jesus and you will be saved.



According to people who wrote stories well after Jesus died, who never met Him, and decided to make claims of what He did, what He said, and more. Every time you get a comment of "Jesus said...", the reality is "how do you know?" Because the only evidence we have is that people who never met Him put the words in His mouth.



jasonbrinn said:


> Please stand on notice that the Truth has been told to all of you now and you will not have any excuses on that day.


 
No excuses, but then again, to me, none of this is the truth... so I don't have much concern, when it all comes down to it.



jasonbrinn said:


> I wash my hands of this issue and anyone who chooses to willfully act in rebellion against the gospels, God and Jesus Christ.



Jason Brinn[/QUOTE]

Good for you. You make a good Pontius Pilate... of course, you do realize that the way Pilate is portrayed in the Gospels, even down to the ceremony of releasing a prisoner at Passover, has no real correlation with historical accounts or facts, yeah?

Of course, I don't think I'm "acting willfully in rebellion against the Gospels, God, and Jesus Christ", as I don't see anything there to act willfully against. To me, there is no God, Jesus, if He existed, was just a person who was a charismatic leader of a particular group of Jewish people around two thousand years ago, who has been blown out of all proportion for a variety of reasons (showmanship among them... did you know that the first real followers of Jesus, those that actually knew him, didn't have anything about miracles, resurrections, being the Son of God, or anything else, and it was a separate group, whose connection was the leader of the group claiming to have seen a vision of Jesus, although he never met him, that came to be the basis of the Christianity we know today? Basically, they had a more appealing story with better tricks and a lot more showmanship, and that's why they "won"... nothing to do with historical accuracy, or even connection...), and the Gospels are deliberately chosen texts to convey an agenda, rather than the single, universal truth of anything. 

If you want a more complete understanding of the differing portrayals of Jesus, read the Qu'ran (which focuses far more on Jesus' Mother than the Bible does... say, here's a question, who is referred to as the "Immaculate Conception", in the older forms of the story? Here's a hint: It's not Jesus), the Ethiopian Bible, which includes longer forms of Genesis, among other texts, the so-called apocryphal texts, and more. You'll find stories of Jesus as a child, which aren't in your Bible at all, including him getting upset with another kid, and killing him, creating clay birds, the seemingly forgetting them, allowing them all to die, we get to see a temper on the young Jesus, and more (so your claim earlier of the Bible containing all of Jesus' life was blatantly incorrect... and held a lot of leaps of logic which has no support in the texts themselves, which you were called on, but couldn't answer...). At the moment, you're spouting rhetoric without the knowledge of the larger picture that others have. Your faith is wonderful... but it's not the only expression of Christianity, nor indeed necessarily the "right" one for most. You really should accept that.

As to the thrust of the thread, whether Jesus had a wife, personally I think that He would have had one. I'd be rather surprised if He didn't, really. When we have arguments of "well, where's the reference?", the thing to remember is that it would have been considered such a normal, expected part of His life that there'd be no point. On the other hand, if He wasn't married, at the age of 30, that would have been worthy of note. We could also point out that the stories we have of His life are rather scant, a series of short episodes, many of which take place as he is out ministering, so it's entirely likely that, unless the wife was Mary Magdalene, she wouldn't have needed to be mentioned at all. And even if it was Mary (very plausible), mentioning her as His wife isn't really needed either... 

Right, I think that's it for now.


----------



## Makalakumu

Josh Oakley said:


> What contradiction? Chaplains are noncombatants.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



It would be difficult to represent the faith and support people in that environment. That's all I'm trying to say. Maybe others would have no problems with it...


----------



## Tez3

CanuckMA said:


> *I'm just back form an entire day in synagogue, and may still be a bit ounchy from a 25 hour fast,* but I've read Tanach, in the original language, a number of times. And nowhere is thre any mention of Jesus. Anywhere. In texts that predate Jesus by at least 500 years.
> 
> I'm not acting in rebellion against G-d. I'm following His Mitzhvot.



Well the plan was for us to go down to Leeds on Tuesday ( a about an hour away with a big Jewish community) stay with friends and come back today, only things worked out differently. It started raining on Monday, it carried on during the night so the motorway flooded, the villages around us flooded then the Garrison flooded, it rained horrendously hard all through Tuesday and only stopped late last night. I was called into work on Tuesday morning, we've had married quarters flooded, people stranded, cars swamped, school children trapped in schools, in in all far more eventful than it should have been, I should have been on leave but it was literally all hands to the pumps, the fire brigade worked for hours pumping out water where they could, the recruits were sent to help families as most of the men have been deployed to Afghan, they also built miles of sandbag walls.  
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...tion_underway_but_misery_lingers_on_for_many/

It's the first time for many years I haven't had this time off but I was told not to fret about it, though I do, it wasn't possible for me in all good faith to say no I can't come into work. They would have understood if I had as they knew the importance to me to be off. 

Jason, you can wash your hands all you like, you can rant, you can rave but it's not for you to judge, it's not for you to condemn, you aren't humble in your belief, you are arrogant and unforgiving, not good traits I believe for a Christian? There's no milk of human kindness in you, no compassion, no understanding just high handed arrogance. You don't wish to teach or inform you want to dictate, if I had ever felt inclined to convert to Christianity you would have put me right off! It's a good job I know a lot of good Chrisitians who I can admire otherwise if my view of Chrisitianity had been based on you I would have seen it as just as a hateful, vengeful religion full of ignorance and hate. You do not represent Jesus in any good light, you threaten, rant and rage in his name, I'd be very surprised if that was what he meant you to do.


Camp Centre Catterick Garrison early Tuesday morning before it got really bad! The bridge goes over a beck (a stream, the word is a leftover from the Vikings) which comes down from the dales. We are still clearing up but all our water drains away in the River Swale which itself drains into the River Ouse which goes through York now, they've had four metres of flood water and rising still today.


----------



## Tez3

As I said before our flood water is on it's way to York, one of the places that gets flooded there is Clifford's Tower. ( The photo is of it flooded, the river is a couple of miles away, the river has risen 15 feet so far.) 
Perhaps this may serve to remind Jason of the price of his intolerance. We don't forget, we still hold memorial services there. Tolerance is everything.

http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/norman/the-1190-massacre


----------



## CanuckMA

Tanach is the story of the Jewish people's relationship with G-d. It is bad enough when Xtians pick some verses out of context and  mistranslate them to prove a prophesy, but what jason is doing is highly offensive. It is the wholesale dismissal of the Jewish faith. It is spitting on the graves of all those who died because they were Jews.


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> I don't "claim" anything, including being a Christian, Jason. I've seen insulting and offensive  dreck like your post used by so-called "Christians"to manipulate, marginalize and ostracize people *all of my life.* :angry: So, I'll leave you with some Gospel quotes:
> 
> *Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
> 
> Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'*
> 
> *Mt 7:15 Jesus said to his disciples: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing,but underneath are ravenous wolves.*
> 
> *Matthew 24: 4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people*
> 
> And one especially appropriate for a mail-order martial arts teacher:
> 
> *Matthew 7: 16-20 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them." *



You forgot one of my favorite and one that may of the "religious" seem to forget.

Matthew 7 

-Judge not, that ye be not judged.

-For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Note: In my world the "religious" is rather different from the religious


----------



## Tez3

For Jason, whose ego has overtaken his belief.

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

Perhaps simplistic but it does say '101'.


----------



## punisher73

http://radiofreebabylon.com/RFB Images/CoffeeWithJesus/coffeewithjesus339.jpg

can't get it to post.


----------



## punisher73

http://radiofreebabylon.com/RFB%20Images/CoffeeWithJesus/coffeewithjesus273.jpg


----------



## geezer

Whoa... is this thread still going? Well, I'll admit that I skipped a few posts. I did read Jason's post though. Unfortunately, it didn't scare me straight. I'm still incorrigeably irreverent. Speaking of which, has anybody considered that if Jesus _was_ married, and _did_ have kids, that would make his children the grandkid's of God. And, considering how the Jews got around in the diaspora, any one of us could be a direct descendent of God. Cool, huh? 

I wonder if that would show up in DNA tests? You know like that Englishman who's a direct descendant of Genghis Kan? That'd be cool too. But I think God 'd be cooler.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Well I'm a desendant of Frederick the Great... but yeah.... you're right....God would be cooler....sigh...


----------



## Sukerkin

On the matter of descent and lineage, it takes a surprisingly few number of generations to pass before we all share a common ancestor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938


----------



## jks9199

geezer said:


> Whoa... is this thread still going? Well, I'll admit that I skipped a few posts. I did read Jason's post though. Unfortunately, it didn't scare me straight. I'm still incorrigeably irreverent.


One of the most irreverent people I've ever met was the Abbot of a Benedictine Abbey...

The thing is -- he knew what mattered and when it mattered to be reverent.  The rest of the time?  He had fun.


----------



## Chris Parker

geezer said:


> Whoa... is this thread still going? Well, I'll admit that I skipped a few posts. I did read Jason's post though. Unfortunately, it didn't scare me straight. I'm still incorrigeably irreverent. Speaking of which, has anybody considered that if Jesus _was_ married, and _did_ have kids, that would make his children the grandkid's of God. And, considering how the Jews got around in the diaspora, any one of us could be a direct descendent of God. Cool, huh?
> 
> I wonder if that would show up in DNA tests? You know like that Englishman who's a direct descendant of Genghis Kan? That'd be cool too. But I think God 'd be cooler.



Well, there is the (purely hypothetical, and unsupported by any evidence) theory sometimes referred to as the "Bloodline of Jesus", which says that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child, and that progeny eventually became the basis of all the Royal families of Europe.... mind you, all the Royal families of Europe are also said to have descended from Charlemagne... so was Charlemagne a direct descendant of Jesus then? Hmm, the plot thins...


----------



## Josh Oakley

Chris Parker said:


> Well, there is the (purely hypothetical, and unsupported by any evidence) theory sometimes referred to as the "Bloodline of Jesus", which says that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child, and that progeny eventually became the basis of all the Royal families of Europe.... mind you, all the Royal families of Europe are also said to have descended from Charlemagne... so was Charlemagne a direct descendant of Jesus then? Hmm, the plot thins...



The Merovingian thing? Pure tripe, made to make Charlemagne seem divine. 

And if it is unsupported by any actual evidence, it is conjecture or at best a hypothesis.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley

Chris Parker said:


> Well, there is the (purely hypothetical, and unsupported by any evidence) theory sometimes referred to as the "Bloodline of Jesus", which says that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child, and that progeny eventually became the basis of all the Royal families of Europe.... mind you, all the Royal families of Europe are also said to have descended from Charlemagne... so was Charlemagne a direct descendant of Jesus then? Hmm, the plot thins...



The Merovingian thing? Pure tripe, made to make Charlemagne seem divine. 

And if it is unsupported by any actual evidence, it is conjecture or at best a hypothesis.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chris Parker

Yep, that's it... and that was also my point. To my mind, it's fantasy, pure and simple.


----------



## elder999

Josh Oakley said:


> The Merovingian thing? Pure tripe, made to make Charlemagne seem divine.
> 
> And if it is unsupported by any actual evidence, it is conjecture or at best a hypothesis.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



As I've posted elsewhere, though, it's the likely reason for depictions of Jesus as a long blonde haired, blue-eyed Caucasian, instead of Semitic features-like those of most pre 700A.D. icons.

Merovingian King:

View attachment $thumbnail.jpg

Jesus image from Roman catacombs, circa 400 A.D.:


----------



## Josh Oakley

elder999 said:


> As I've posted elsewhere, though, it's the likely reason for depictions of Jesus as a long blonde haired, blue-eyed Caucasian, instead of Semitic features-like those of most pre 700A.D. icons.
> 
> Merovingian King:
> 
> View attachment 17331
> 
> Jesus image from Roman catacombs, circa 400 A.D.:
> 
> View attachment 17332



Yep. Absolutely. In fact I have seen a couple of paintings where Jesus was made to look like that painting you posted.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## punisher73

You mean like the famous image done by Warner Sallman?  Totally inaccurate, but a neat painting to see anyways
.


----------



## granfire

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49209554#.UGWtjVHhe-4

Of course!
:lol:


----------



## CanuckMA

granfire said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49209554#.UGWtjVHhe-4
> 
> Of course!
> :lol:



The only decent reporter that L'Osservatore Romano ever had was Father Guido Sarducci, their gossip columnist.
h


----------



## elder999

PHP:
	






CanuckMA said:


> The only decent reporter that L'Osservatore Romano ever had was Father Guido Sarducci, their gossip columnist.
> h



Showin' yer age there, bub....:lfao:


----------



## Tez3

Thought you'd like this story, we did! Lots of clearing up to do, some roads still closed, lots of damage to houses etc but this made us all smile.They live just up the road from where we are. Sometimes life gives a shove as to what really is important...

http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/story/2012-09-28/flood-dash-baby-is-called-noah/


----------



## Sukerkin

Cool name :thumbsup:


----------



## arnisador

Shocked to learn that the Vatican doubts its authenticity--but in fairness there _is _still much work to be done to vet it.


----------



## WC_lun

Authentic or not, it is also 400 years after the fact.  We already knew there were factions of Christianity that believed all sorts of different things about Christ, including that he was married.  i'm not really sure why this is such big news or how the Vatican knows it is a fake without studying the piece.


----------

