biglukes Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 A Jewish friend of mine raised an interesting observation about the Jesus/Mary Magdalin thing once upon a time First, two of the widely accepted tenets about Jesus are that he was a Jew and he was crucified sometime in his 30s. Next, Jews are different from most cultures in that lineage is passed down thru the mother instead of the father. So that means if Jesus was Jewish, he had a Jewish mother. If Jesus had a Jewish mother and wasn't married by age 30, the Jewish mother would have nagged him to death long before that business with Judas and Pontius Pilate I just cracked up at that last line. Well done sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Glad you're all enjoying your little blasphemer phest here. The lot of you should be stoned in public (not that most of you aren't anyway). After a proper scorning of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 HAHA. People here arguing over a fairy tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) HAHA. People here arguing over a fairy tale. This is what I don't comprehend: why a group of nonbelievers find this an interesting topic. I'd think the old saw about if it doesn't effect me, ignore it, would apply here. I personally find it very plausible and very interesting. Maybe we can start to put aside some of the inherent misogyny and guilt about sex in some Christian traditions if this is proven. Edited September 20, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 This is what I don't comprehend: why a group of nonbelievers find this an interesting topic. I'd think the old saw about if it doesn't effect me, ignore it, would apply here. I personally find it very plausible and very interesting. Maybe we can start to put aside some of the inherent misogyny and guilt about sex in some Christian traditions if this is proven. I believe in Jesus Christ, and not the one at Lowes. I don't believe in "God." I am not here to provoke anyone just laugh and share that it is hilarious to see people argue over something that is pure speculation (the article of topic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I believe in Jesus Christ, and not the one at Lowes. I don't believe in "God." I am not here to provoke anyone just laugh and share that it is hilarious to see people argue over something that is pure speculation (the article of topic). So you believe in Jesus Christ, who according to the tenets of those who believe in him is the Son of God But you don't believe in God So if you don't believe in God, how can you believe in His Son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) So you believe in Jesus Christ, who according to the tenets of those who believe in him is the Son of God But you don't believe in God So if you don't believe in God, how can you believe in His Son? Maybe he believes there was a man named JC, who was a historically significant person, but not divine. I started the thread because it's an interesting find. That's all. No one is changing their beliefs based on it. If you have faith, some early document isn't going to shake it. That's not how faith works. Edited September 21, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So you believe in Jesus Christ, who according to the tenets of those who believe in him is the Son of God But you don't believe in God So if you don't believe in God, how can you believe in His Son? see post after yours. Don't want to offend anyone more then I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Maybe he believes there was a man named JC, who was a historically significant person, but not divine. I started the thread because it's an interesting find. That's all. No one is changing their beliefs based on it. If you have faith, some early document isn't toning to shake it. That's not how faith works. I interpreted his post to mean that he believed in the theological Jesus Christ Believing in the Jesus thing but not believing in God seemed kind of out of balance But the rest of your post I agree with. It's a pretty safe bet to label me as a Deist. I believe in God but not religion. I was raised in an Episcopal/Roman Catholic family and always had a tendency to piss off my religious relatives with my stupid questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I was raised in an Episcopal/Roman Catholic family and always had a tendency to piss off my religious relatives with my stupid questions Then you're doing it wrong. You should be pissing off you're religious relatives with THEIR stupid questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 based on this, can u imagine that fateful day??? "seriously honey, I was dead for the past 3 days, I couldn't call because I was dead..." oh sh*t...i hope my above statement doesn't cause an angry mob to attack my apartment...it was meant as a joke.... No worry - by the time you get there the Holy Inquisition will have you hung for heresy. It used to be as bad in Europe in its dark ages as in Middle East during current dark ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Jesus wrote a blank check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Is there anyone that really doesn't believe Jesus Christ actually existed? I ask this because I don't think I've heard of people disputing that JC existed, only disputing his divinity. You mean... that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Calling him Christ = the divinity part. And no, even for non-super-naturalists, atheists, etc., I'm hard pressed to name offhand a group that has serious backing that denies the existence of the man. They do quibble about his story as presented in the bible / the stories attributed to him. To me, it would be as if Socrates' students got together after his death and decided... this man was so smart and a great teacher, and yet his end so sad that we need to say he was the Son of God or Demi-god and go out and sell this story so no one will question his teachings, and you don't question even what Jesus DIDN'T say but what this or that one says he said or says this is what was meant, because you don't question God. (The Catholic Church later doubled --- no, tripled --- down in this and said Jesus WAS God as part of the Holy Trinity. The first order of it was for millenia to revert to the Old Testament view of women and try to demonize Mary M. because they were jealous of the power she had and they wanted a paternalist society where men decided everything. I'm not a raging women's studies' major guy who wears polyester and kicks himself in the nuts (in fact I'm quite a misogynist because most women are stupid and crazy) but the farce of male domination in most church societies is painfully obvious in creed and deed. The apostles and later writers really didn't have to go this route of divinity for the message of love and forgiveness to spread. Look at Socrates' influence in thought even today. But, that's what they either convinced themselves of or decided would sell best, and so that's what they did. PBS's Frontline had a nice little series a few years back titled "From Jesus to Christ." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 One interesting factoid about Jesus is he never traveled more than like 100 miles from his hometown and hasn't the wife thing sort of been gone over since the Da Vinci code thing. Nothing to see here they found a piece of paper, there is lots more "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 One interesting factoid about Jesus is he never traveled more than like 100 miles from his hometown and hasn't the wife thing sort of been gone over since the Da Vinci code thing. Nothing to see here they found a piece of paper, there is lots more "evidence". What evidence is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Well, he might very well have had a wife. Which gets us into a thousand years of speculating whether he had a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Well, he might very well have had a wife. Which gets us into a thousand years of speculating whether he had a kid. Actually he had several. Coincidentally enough, one played for the Pats and the other plays for the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Jesus wrote a blank third party, post-dated check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 "Gospel of Jesus' wife" fragment is a fake, Vatican says The fragment, which reads "Jesus said to them, my wife" was unveiled by Harvard Professor Karen King as a text from the 4th century at a congress of Coptic Studies in Rome last week. Her study divided the academic community, with some hailing it as a landmark discovery while others rapidly expressed their doubts . "It's really pretty unlikely that it's authentic," University of Durham Professor Francis Watson told Reuters after he published a paper arguing the words on the fragment were a rearrangement of phrases from a well known Coptic text. Watson, who has previously worked on identifying forged gospels, said it was likely to be an ancient blank fragment that was written over in the 20th or 21st century by a forger seeking to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts