Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 9:42 AM
27 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,049 Year: 7,085/19,786 Month: 1,626/1,581 Week: 5/443 Day: 5/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   How Likely Is It Jesus' Got Married
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 39 of 109 (316434)
05-30-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by arachnophilia
05-29-2006 6:57 AM


Cosmic implications
i think the whole issue is just silly.

Ditto. But perhaps my reasoning differs on why I think its silly.

ok, so jesus has to be perfect if he's to be a sacrifice for our sins. central to christianity, ok, got it. being born of a virgin doesn't have anything to do with that, at all. that bit is to make him the literal son of god.

Yeah, that bears no relevance as to why the whole idea is problematic on the most fundamental level.

what does his own virginity have to do with anything? it's not a sin to get married. it's not a sin to have children with your wife. every other major jewish leader had a wife, and usually kids. moses was married, aaron was married. all of the patriarchs were married. david was married. the idea of chastity as it relates to holiness is utterly foriegn to judaism.

Marriage is not a sin. Having sex while marry is not a sin. His virginity has nothing to do with His holiness or lack thereof. Jesus from an early age expressed that He was about His Father's buisness. Getting married and having little chitlins was not apart of the program. Jesus existed for one, central purpose - and that purpose is to reveal Himself as the Messiah and to become the sacrificial Lamb to cover sin in the penitent man/woman. Having a typical life did not fit into the parameter of His purpose.

Aside from this, consider how God in His infinite wisdom, could forsee the cosmological and astronomical implications for the Son of God raising children. What happens in the speculation even today?

Man 1: "I come from the line of Christ."

Man 2: "No, I come from the line of Christ."

And so, there would be this underlying indication that one man is 'holier' by virtue of association or by bloodline. Don't you think that God would seek to ensure that such a trivial notion wouldn't arise? I mean, look how ridiculous people act concerning the 'Spear of Destiny," or the "Holy Grail," as if trinkets make you holy! This elucidates well the fact that so many still don't know Jesus, even the one's that claim they do. This just further supports that people are fickle and their understanding of God is abysmal. If you need 'things' to help you be holy or you need little beads, or candles, or incense, or whatever material object in order to be holy, you miss the point entirely. On just on the principle that they don't know what holiness even means, makes their quest for it all the more invalid.

Lastly, there is absolutely no evidence corroborating that Jesus was married. To even imply it, I suspect, is intended to stir up controversy in order to bring Jesus into disrepute. I have no doubt that the "Divinci Code" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is an intentional act of heresey, in order to destroy peoples faith in the historical Christ. But, there isn't even circumstancial evidence to support the assertion that Jesus was either married or bore children. And this whole thing that Da Vinci had some kind of esoteric knowledge of this assertion is laughable. Why? For one, Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper was an artists rendition, a construct of his mind, as he envisioned it to be. He lived 1,000 years after Christ was alive. People are acting like Christ and the Posse were posing in front of Leonardo or something. Furthermore, if it was so secretive, then why even give 'clues' at all if they wanted to suppress this information?

All in all, the whole story is quite silly to me, though a copy of the Da Vinci Code might make for some good kindling. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2006 6:57 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 2:21 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 78 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-26-2006 9:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 08-28-2006 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 44 of 109 (316458)
05-31-2006 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by macaroniandcheese
05-30-2006 11:19 PM


Re: Cosmic implications
there's hardly more evidence that he ever existed. we're all dabbling in might have beens

There is no 100% gauruntee that the historical Jesus ever existed, however, I make a simple plea for pluralism as we weigh the juxtaposition. The assertion that Jesus never existed perplexes me. I mean, is it entirely plausible that His personage has been greatly embellished? Sure, of course. But, something has compelled people to believe in the beginning of His existence. In other words, how could such a magnificient personage spring out of thin air? It seems, given the fact that Jesus is the most widely discussed figure in human history, that there is on some level, veracity to support at the least, His existence.

This line of questioning is equally perplexing when juxtaposed by other famous, historical figures. For example, Plato. Why is that people challenge the historicity of Christ, but not Plato? Is there corroborating evidence that Plato ever lived? Why does everyone take Plato's existenece for face value, but challenge Jesus? It appears that a level of bias is always present when discussing Jesus, that it is hardly ever present when discussing other famous people.

For the sake of the argument, I understand that Plato never made fantasitic claims about himself. I take this into consideration. But, for starters, lets look at this logically. Plato lived several generations before Jesus, well into the 3rd millenium BC. As time passes, the lines between fiction and reality can become skewed, as history degrades into tales. Secondly, there are under 700 known manuscripts of Homer's Illiad in existence. None of them are originals. The Bible, on the other hand, is the best selling book (or compilation of books) in the existence of literature. In fact, its been the best selling book since the invention of the printing press, which was in the 1400's. Does that mean the Bible has survived tampering? No, not necessarily. But there is great evidence to support that the Bible has retained its originality.

So, we see that Plato has not been challenged, even without much corroborating evidence. (Don't misunderstand this to mean that I don't believe Plato existed. I'm merely proving a point of bias). But there is alot of extra-biblical evidence supporting that Jesus was in fact a distinct person of the past.

1. Flavius Josephus: (37 AD – 101 AD) Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born four years after Jesus’ physical death. As evidenced by his writings, Josephus was quite familiar with the turmoil in Palestine during the Roman occupation. As well, Josephus wrote about central figures of the New Testament period.

a. Josephus makes mention of John the Baptist: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, called the Baptists: For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. And so to come to Baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.”

b. Josephus makes mention of Jesus: “Now, there was about that time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as to receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had him condemned to the cross. Those that loved him did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again on the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

c.Josephus makes mention of James, the brother of Jesus: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

d.Josephus makes mention of Ananias, the High Priest: “Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias, he increased in glory every day, and this to a degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder of money.”

2. Tacitus: (55 AD – 117 AD) Tacitus was a Roman historian who makes mention of the early Christians.
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate. A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular… And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps… people began to pity these sufferers, because, they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.”

3. Thallus: (52 AD) Thallus was a historian who wrote about the Eastern Mediteranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Here, Thallus records an eclipse of the sun, contemporaneous with the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.” In addition, this was also recorded in Luke’s gospel. What is most interesting is that Jesus was crucified on the Passover, which is on a full moon. It is not physically possible for an eclipse to occur on a full moon. “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until about the ninth hour, the sun being obscured; and a veil of the Temple was torn in two.” –Luke 23:44-45

4. Pliny the Younger: (112 AD) Pliny was the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He here, in his tenth book, makes mention of Jesus. “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor dent a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

5. The Babylonian Talmud: (33 AD) This is the actual recording by the very men that ordered the execution of Jesus. *Take note of His charge* “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.” Therefore, we see that Jesus was crucified for supposedly leading others away from the Law and for sorcery. This corroborates the gospels magnificently, as we see extra-biblical evidence of His miracles and of His teachings, even though He did NOT teach against the Law. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one who hangs from a tree.” –Galatians 3:13

6. Lucian: (120 AD – 180 AD) Lucian, a Greek writer and rhetorician, speaks of the early Christians. “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures’s start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them. And then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and to deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they quite take on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

So, all in all, there really is no reason why I think anyone should challenge that Jesus, at the very least, was an actual figure in human history. Whether or not you want to believe the prophecies concerning Him is another matter of debate. But for the time being, I would like to eradicate the notion that He never existed.

"I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of myself, Caesar, and Alexander should have vanished into thin air, that a Judean peasant, Jesus, should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 11:19 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 05-31-2006 12:52 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-31-2006 1:08 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-31-2006 10:07 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 57 by Kapyong, posted 05-31-2006 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 46 of 109 (316464)
05-31-2006 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by arachnophilia
05-30-2006 11:18 PM


Re: Messiah
where did he claim to be the messiah?

"The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ (Messiah/Anointed One), the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy." -Matthew 26:63-65

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2006 11:18 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 2:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 47 of 109 (316466)
05-31-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by nwr
05-31-2006 12:52 AM


Re: Cosmic implications
It doesn't really matter whether Plato existed or not. We value Plato for the writings attributed to him, not for his existence.

Then value Christ for what was attributed to Him.

For many people, it matters greatly whether Jesus existed or not. Therefore questions about the historicity of Jesus are more important than those about the historicity of Plato.

Why? What difference does it make that I believe in Jesus Christ and Plato? Why such an aversion unless it poses a threat?

Why would anyone want to spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to refute Jesus, if they simply disbelieve the stories concerning Him?


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 05-31-2006 12:52 AM nwr has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 58 of 109 (316745)
05-31-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
05-31-2006 1:08 AM


Re: Cosmic implications
NJ, have you studied the Talmud?

I wouldn't say that I've studied it. I've lightly perused through some of it. Its quite volumous.
Sotah

The reason I ask is that I have read the Talmud

Which one?

and what you are quoting is taken totally out of context.

The name 'Jesus,' is the Greek equivalent of Iesous, which is a derivative of Yahshua, which literally means, 'Yahweh is our salvation'. The term was synthesized and shortened to Yeshua or Yeshu - similar to what Kim is to Kimberly or Danny is Daniel. Many people have claimed that Yeshu was a very common name in Israel in those days, which very well may be true. However, given the year it was written (33 AD) and the historical data concerning it, that means that another man named Yeshu was extremely controversial in that land and was crucified the exact year that Jesus was said to have as well. The odds against it not being Jesus, dwindles significantly. Now, lets look at the text again, along with some new ones:

Sanhedrin 43a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

As well, there is the Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, and Gittin 57a that further support Jesus' existence, and His (in their eyes), infamy. Rosh Hashanah 17a, Sanhedrin 90a, and Shabbath 116a speak specifically about followers of Jesus and their ultimate destiny.

That particular section of the Talmud is a discussion on what constitutes evidence, what constitutes defense, who bears the costs in a trial, what can be used as defense. It is not a history of Jesus, was never even meant as some assertion that Jesus lived, and in context, is but one example of many being discussed.

The bulk of the Talmud concerns the Mishna, which is the Oral Law attributed to Moses. This apparently what you are describing. However, the specific verse I provided is unambiguously about a specific man and his alleged crime on the basis of the Mishna. Given the sources I have provided, there is credible evidence that no other person fits the profile quite like Jesus Christ. Therefore, He existed. Whether or not you want to believe that He still exists is a matter of informed faith. That part is up to you with you personal walk with God.


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-31-2006 1:08 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-31-2006 10:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 60 of 109 (316747)
05-31-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by macaroniandcheese
05-30-2006 11:16 PM


Re: The symbolism of Christianity
if he was more complete than ordinary men, then he wasn't wholly man and wholly god. if he was complete in himself, then he was not tempted as man. if he was not lonely (and the bible suggests he sometimes was), then he did not experience humanity.

Jesus was God, indwelt in the form of man taking on all of our weaknesses and temptations. I'm not sure why this presents such a problem philosophically.

further, i think we are all complete in ourselves. it is unhealthy to marry to try to fill an emptiness. you marry because you wish for a companion to share the happy road you have discovered.

Well said.

and, jesus was a jew. jews have a religious requirement to fill the earth

I think you are confusing Genesis 1:28. God was not directing Jews, as there was no such thing as a 'Jew' in those days. God was speaking about all of mankind.

and make their numbers as the sand on the shore or the stars in the heavens.

God was specifically speaking to Abraham (Abram) concerning his seed. It was a covenant for his righteousness. This verse isn't concerning Jews, but literally, Abrahams seed and how would relate to the awaited Messiah. Again, there was no such thing as a Jew in Abrahams day. That came through his line shortly after, but at that time there was nothing distinguishing what a Jew was.

he absolutely had a purpose in having children.

I disagree.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-30-2006 11:16 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-31-2006 11:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 63 of 109 (316766)
06-01-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by arachnophilia
05-31-2006 2:21 AM


Re: Cosmic implications
are you sure?

I'm not even sure that I exist. :eek:

the first commandment that god gives man in the bible, other than "don't touch my tree," is "be fruitful and multiply."

Yes, He intended mankind to proliferate just like all creatures. I'm not sure what that has to do with Jesus, or even the Rabbi's that chose to be celibate.

why not?

I guess its as asinine as asking why plumbers don't arrest people. Why don't they? Its outside of their prescribed parameters. Again, think about it logically for a moment. If Jesus is God, the Son of God, or even the human Messiah, wouldn't that cause astronomical problems? Those of the line of Christ would have a rather large chip on their shoulder. Those not of the line of Christ might be inclined to covetousness.

Aside from this, consider how God in His infinite wisdom, could forsee the cosmological and astronomical implications for the Son of God raising children. What happens in the speculation even today?

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Translation: People that follow God and ascribe to His law and His mercy are partakers of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. 'sons of God.'

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Same as above.

Hbr 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Translation: If God rebukes you, its a good thing. Because He only exhorts those who seek to be exhorted. Therefore, consider it a blessing that He does this for you, because it means that you are a partaker of His kingdom. i.e. a 'son of God.'

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Translation: The world (pagans) don't know God and don't know how to understand God. When He comes to you, consider it pure joy that you are partakers of His kingdom. i.e. sons of God.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Ditto.

more over: adam (the father of all mankind) is called "the son of god" by luke:

quote:Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Yep, that's right. If you to take notice to that chapter, its devoted to Christ's genealogy. It extrapolates backwards, in sequential order, down to Adam, who was the only man aside from Jesus to be born of God, rather than natural procreation that was to follow.

this happens anyways. the merovingian dynasty of france claimed to be from christ's lineage -- and pierre pettard ("priory of sion") forged a few documents to make himself the heir to the merovingian throne, as part of an underground and utterly failed political movement 20 years ago in france. (this is why i haven't bothered reading the da vinci code, btw)

And this trivial banter presented to us by Pierre Pettard and his wild fantasies only solidify why it would be so tragic had Jesus actually bore children.

the jews have claimed for well over 2000 years to be god's chosen people

Indeed, they are.

separated by god himself.

Indeed, they were.

the bible makes this claim directly countless times. i won't quote them here (even though i COULD have quoted one with the above set of quotes) but i'm sure you've read them.

Yes, I've read them and I agree with you. I'm just uncertain to how you've managed to tie this in with Jesus having children. Can you explain exactly how you've marrid the two?

jews are not the only group that sees themselves as more holy than others. christians and muslims do too. and many sub-groups of these major religions see themselves even as more holy than other groups WITHIN that religion.

Some Jews see themselves as holier than thou, as well as many Christians and Muslims. Actually, virtually everyone on some level secretly espouses themselves to be more smart, than the average Joe, more capable than the average Joe, better looking than the average Joe. This is the nature of fallen man. No one is immune to it. It takes constant reminders to remain humble. But 'holiness' cannot exist apart from God. Sometimes we lose sight of this, as if our attributes and accomplishments are of our own devise.

*shrug* i collect vinyl records. i have nearly every variation of every vinyl release by this one band -- but i know a few people that collect everything to do with them. stickers, posters, books, cd's, cassettes, even stuff they KNOW is fake.

:frazzled: I'm sorry, but I completely missed the analogy. Can you explain it to me?

people just like collecting stuff. we like having things, and religion is no different. people want something solid to hold on to of their god, and their faith. it's part of human nature.

Ah, never mind. I understand what you arriving at. Yes, people are fickle. They think they need trinkets and whatnot to make things 'real.' Kind of like people visiting the cemetary. Some people feel like they need for their family member or close friend to have a headstone in order to make it 'feel' as though they are speaking directly to them.

the implications of how jesus reacts to and regards mary of magdala is a good hint. for instance, she's the first person he appears to, after being resurrected.

That's much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Yes, He met with Mary first according to Mark's gospel, but Mary Magdalene was not the only person present during that encounter. Of the four gospels, they make referrence to Mary (the mother of James), Joanne, and Solome being with her, as well as the two men traveling on the road to Emaeus. In all the instances spoken about Mary, not one of them even hints to any kind of sexual/marital relationship. I mean, its literally based on nothing at all.

he's also called "rabbi" and to the best of my knowledge, rabbis (until recebtly) had to be married. i could be wrong. anyone know jewish tradition better?

I think we have to first understand what Rabbi means in the first place. 'Rabbi' comes to us as a synthesis off the Hebrew word, 'rav,' (Ravi) which means 'great', or 'great one.'. In the old days, there were only three types of people. The wealthy 'masters', slaves, and day laborers (which were actually the bottom of the barrel in Jewish society). The term 'Rabi,' progressively had come to those who are learned in the Torah. During the time of Jesus, it was further synthesized to speak of wise men, in general. The Pharisees and Sadducess were considered the privaleged and scholarly type. In an era where illiteracy was more than just prevelant, but rampant, the scribes were esteemed. Many people considered Jesus to a Rabbi, and many are recorded as calling Him that, however, He was not formally trained in the Torah. He was not really a Rabbi in any kind of traditional sense, (though He was, at the same time, the ultimate Rabbi, cuz He's God!)

Now, with that out of the way, do Rabbi's have to be married? Not in His day. I don't know of any statute that forces Rabi's to be married. In fact, in Jesus' day it was considered an honorable sacrifice to forgo your personal rights in attempts to be more 'holy.' Kind of like Catholic priests, except that they are now forced to be celibate (which is very unscriptural).

why would it bring jesus into disrepute?

Because it didn't happen. And spreading falsehood like that is blasphemous against Him.

it's like middle school: "you're gay!" well, if you are, so what? is it really an insult?

Eh, not to me. But I guess some people get all butt-hurt over it.

the da vinci code is a work of fiction.

Yeah, that's what its officially presented as. I happen to believe its an intentional jab at the historical Jesus.

the merovingians really DID claim to be descended from christ. if you go to small villages on the southern shore of france, you WILL find traditions honoring the arrival of mary of magdala and her daughter in a boat.

Oh, I'm not contending that. I know a 'Priory of Sion' existed, (if only to be a couple of disconnected Frenchmen).

what does being married have to do with whether christ was a real person or not? actually, i think it makes him more believable.

I already explained that in great detail. Why, though, does it make it more believable?

"the last supper" is actually suprisingly inaccurate.

Yeah, and why shouldn't be? I guess some people actually believe that painters were present during the last supper, as if they could give a first-hand account. Its really quite silly to me.

i can go into the details, if you'd like, but the most obvious one is the presence of levened bread. being passover

Heh. Yeah, good call.

(also, the "woman" to jesus's right is john.)

leonardo was a very subversive kind of guy. apparently, he really disliked the catholic church, and maybe religion in general. i would imagine he might, after the "madonna of the rocks" debacle. they made him completely re-paint it, because he made the infant john the baptist larger than the infant christ. nevermind that jonh was older, jesus had to be bigger because he was more important.

I really can't speak on that. All I know was that he was clearly a genius.

there's actually an interesting idea that leonardo was responsible for the forgery of the image on the shroud of turin, involving a very large camera.

Well, the man was inventing helicopters 500 years before they were invented. With his genius, I wouldn't put anything past him. I mean, I doubt he had anything to do with the Shroud, though I certainly believe it to be a forgery.


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by arachnophilia, posted 05-31-2006 2:21 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 06-01-2006 8:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 67 of 109 (319967)
06-10-2006 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by macaroniandcheese
05-31-2006 10:07 AM


Re: Cosmic implications
why don't we question plato... well. he founded a school, a physical building with his name on it, that operated for a thousand years after his death.

Uhhh, Jesus has numerous schools and schools of thought devoted to Him, physical buildings everywhere on the planet devoted to Him that are far more numerous than that of Plato, and that are operating thousands of years after His death. So, once again, there is a level of bias amongst many people who it seems just want to rid the world of the notion of Jesus. But why?

there are people who have written about him

There are people who have written about Jesus, as I've already pointed out.

there is a series of work allegedly produced by him with a common voice (ie, they were in fact written by the same person).

Well, I appreciate the wording, 'allegedly,' because there is even less evidence that Plato existed by comparison. Once again, I'm not stating that I don't believe that Plato existed. Indeed I do. I'm merely pointing out that there is an aversion towards Jesus that is undeniably present. If we are to question the historicity of Jesus, then by the same token we should question all of antiquity.

jesus has no writings of his own

This is true.

jesus didn't do anything physical

He didn't do anything physical? What does that mean?

all you could come up with was 6 little quotes that happen to contain discussion of a bunch of loonies who believe that someone actually raised from the dead. there's more in historical text about the existence of sirens.

6 little quotes? If I recall, people were contending that no evidence that Jesus existed could be found outside of the Bible. Now 6 isn't enough. This is always the case. Its never enough because you don't want it to be. Do you realize how many people were illiterate or how many people didn't have access to parchment and writting materials? It was a serious undertaking by scholars. This wasn't like going down to Office Depot and picking up supplies and then trotting over to the university that is so common in our day. Furthermore, given the fact that hardly any ancient documents survive decay, that a multitude of early Christian and secular sources should have survived is miraculous even by naturalistic standards.

you're going to tell me that 6 quotes is sufficient record of something that happened in clear view? jesus was supposed to have cause countless scenes at temples, on beaces, on hilltops. jesus was supposed to have had a MOB proclaim he should die. a mob. and you want me to think that no one but these 6 dudes mentioned it?

The New Testament, the Apocrypha, the Nag Hamadi, along with the other extra-Biblical accounts I provided gives us over 50 seperate sources for one man in ancient times. That's remarkable. What is even more remarkable is that you believe that the most widely discussed figure in human history, who distinguished the old world from the new (BC-AD), is somehow completely mythical. As I said in an earlier post, is it possible, humanly speaking, that His personage was greatly embellished? Yes, that's entirely possible. But this particular argument is whether such a man even existed at all. Please give me one referrence of such a great historical figure that ended up never even existing. Oh wait, I thought of one. Piltdown man. ;)

i'm not talking about james of john or ananias. i'm talking about jesus.

James was the brother of Jesus, it even says so in the account I gave, John was his cousin, and Ananias was high priest the year He was crucified, which means that it was he that ordered His execution. For the reason that they are spoken about in direct context with Jesus in the Bible and in outside sources only further supports the fact that Jesus existed and that the Biblical accounts are accurate and trustworthy.

i think this is a far more important quote. but then i'm a dirty hippie and not a real christian.

That's alright. Jesus loves dirty hippies.... Heck, some say He was one


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-31-2006 10:07 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 2:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Nighttrain, posted 08-26-2006 9:53 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 76 of 109 (320113)
06-10-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ringo
06-10-2006 3:37 PM


Bilbo
Bilbo appears in person in The Fellowship of the Ring. Need I quote chapter and verse?

Whoa, wait a minute.... First you say that Jesus did not even exist, now you're telling me that Bilbo Baggins didn't either? If Bilbo didn't exist either, then who wrote, "A Hobbits Tale: There and back, by Bilbo Baggins."

Sheesh!

:D


“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
–1st Peter 3:15
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 3:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 7:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 88 of 109 (344549)
08-29-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by U can call me Cookie
08-28-2006 10:16 AM


Re: Double Standards?
I wonder if the same uproar occurred when people started portraying Jesus as a pale European. That certainly wasn't in the Bible....

I don't like the blonde haired, blue-eyed version of Jesus for the same reason I don't like Negro Jesus-- both are counterintuitive. The Scriptures say that there was nothing in Jesus that people could physically see that would make us look at Him any differently from the common Jew walking around in the marketplaces of Jerusalem. Yeshua probably looked like most Jews back then: olive skin, brown eyes, brown hair, etc. He probably looked like your average 1st century Jew.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by U can call me Cookie, posted 08-28-2006 10:16 AM U can call me Cookie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by U can call me Cookie, posted 08-29-2006 2:50 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 94 of 109 (344716)
08-29-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Nighttrain
08-26-2006 9:53 PM


Re: Where`s the gossip?
Close to a thousand manuscripts written by an obscure sect survived from roughly the same time period. Odd how the more numerous Christian body failed to deliver.

What are these obscure manuscripts you refer to that are in the thousands?

Too many missing periods in Jesus` life.

Because the details of His younger life aren't important to His message. He was asked by His mother to change water to wine, indicating that everyone was aware that there was something special about Jesus, but He went on to say that it was not yet His time to reveal Himself as the Moshiac. He had one purpose and that was to be the Moshiac. He revealed Himself at the time when Halacha states that its lawful for one to become a Rabbi. Everything Jesus did was according to the Law.

Nothing on the deaths of the giants, Peter and Paul.

The giants, I assume, you are speaking about Nephilim or the Annakim? There is mention of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aside from that, it really doesn't mean much to our salvation. Its just an historical accounting. As for Peter and Paul's deaths, why should it surprise you that their deaths aren't recorded Biblically? It obviously means that their epistles were written by them and that their deaths occured after their writings took place. So, how is it that they could write of their own death? That's just asinine. As for speculation of their deaths, there are lots of different versions. Paul was reputedly assassinated in Rome and Peter was said to have been crucified upside down on a cross next to his wife.

Nothing on the subsequent proselytising and deaths of the apostles. Contradictions galore in the Gospels. Even the Jewish authorities thought it of so little moment, they couldn`t be bothered putting pen to papyrus. All those miracles and only the Christians noticed?

The Jewish authorities did write about it, and so did the Greeks, and so did the Romans, particularly on their martyrdom.

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.” -Flavius Josephus

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, called the Baptists: For Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God. And so to come to Baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.” -Flavius Josephus

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures’s start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them. And then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and to deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they quite take on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” -Lucian

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had it’s origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate. A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for a moment, broke out again not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular… And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps… people began to pity these sufferers, because, they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.” -Tacitus


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Nighttrain, posted 08-26-2006 9:53 PM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Nighttrain, posted 09-01-2006 9:24 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 95 of 109 (344724)
08-29-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Brian
08-28-2006 2:04 PM


Re: Jesus needed to have children
The 'offspring' referred to here is actual children, and not the metaphorical 'children' that Christians claim it means. Zerah, which is used for offsrping here, is never used metaphorically in the Hebrew Bible. So, Jesus would need to have had real children if He was the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as Christians cliam he was. However, there are another two huge problems trying to fit Jesus into Isaiah 53. One is his fairly short life, it certainly wasn't a prolonged life as the servant was blessed with. Oh, it is an extended physical life as well, not some spiritual hocus pocus. The second, and biggest problem, is that Isaiah 53 is not even messianic.

For starters, Isaiah 53 is unmistakably messianic. Secondly, the "offspring" is true believers, not physical descendants. I'll break down the chapter verse by verse:

"Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high (by God)… Who has believed our report? (Who believes Christians?) And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? (Who amongst us has humbled himself, in order to understand who God is?) For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground. (Jesus grew up like a regular little boy). He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. (There was nothing in Jesus, that by sight, we might understand who He is). He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. (Jesus was rejected, smitten, scorned, beaten, and battered, because we did not care to listen to Him). Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His STRIPES, we are healed. (Jesus bore our sorrow and took it upon Himself and was crucified that we might live)! All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is silent before it’s shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. (Jesus before Pontious Pilate was silent as the charges were brought against Him). He was taken from prison and from judgment, and who will declare His generation? (Who among you will take up His Name, even at the risk of death?) For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked, but with the rich at His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth. (He was crucified like a criminal and yet, never committed one crime, either against God or against community.) Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. (For the remission of our sins, God has given His only begotten Son, in our stead.) When you make His soul as an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. (The Lord will compel Him to rise from the dead for His obedience, even unto to death.) By His knowledge, My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I shall divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and HE BORE THE SIN OF MANY, and made intercession for the transgressors.” –Isaiah 52:12 and 53:13

Okay, so explain to me how that this not messianic and explain how if the Messiah is merely a man that he can do what only God can do, which is the remission of sin?


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Brian, posted 08-28-2006 2:04 PM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ramoss, posted 08-29-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 96 of 109 (344728)
08-29-2006 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by U can call me Cookie
08-29-2006 2:50 AM


Re: Double Standards?
Exactly my point. While you're one that does not agree with it, have you made much of a fuss over it? (Not saying that you've made much of a fuss over Jesus' "married life", don't know that either)

The only time I make a fuss over Jesus is when people attempt to impugn His divinity. Claiming that He was married and had children is to malign the gospels. Its as simple as that.

Now with all the anti-semetic sentiment in the old days, and even now, in europe, do you think most people thought like you? They were all too happy to accept an image of Jesus that was more like them than the jews they hated, regardless of what the Bible said.

I don't know what was in the hearts of people back then. I know there was and has always been anti-semitism. And I know is there is some artistic rendering of Asian Jesus, Black Jesus, White Jesus, etc, etc. I don't think its a matter of divinity. But as a matter of keeping the Sriptures accurate, Jesus most likely looked like your average 1st century Jew.

There is in fact a stronger argument in the Bible against Jesus' pale white skin, than there is against him being married. To scoff at the latter and not the former is strongly hypocritical by most protestors against Jesus' alleged marriage.

I would say that you're right as far as their being more evidence, scripturally, against Him being considered white than married. However, there is no evidence, whatsoever, to suggest that He was married. In fact, it has cosmic implications attached to it if He were. As for me scoffing at His non-married life means that I'm following the premise of the post, not showing partiality to one argument over the other. If the thread was on what race did Jesus fall under, I would engage in that debate too and back it up with the few Scriptures that allude to His race.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by U can call me Cookie, posted 08-29-2006 2:50 AM U can call me Cookie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 08-29-2006 2:18 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 98 of 109 (344778)
08-29-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ringo
08-29-2006 2:18 PM


Okay
On the contrary. Claiming that you "know" He wasn't married when you have no possible way of knowing - that is misusing and maligning the gospels.

Okay, to be fair, Jesus is married. He's the Bridegroom and believers are His bride. But if you want to think of Jesus as being married in the first century CE, then that's all you. Maybe He wore purple dresses with purple polka dots too.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ringo, posted 08-29-2006 2:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-29-2006 4:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 102 by ringo, posted 08-29-2006 4:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5641
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 101 of 109 (344797)
08-29-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ramoss
08-29-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Jesus needed to have children
Isaiah 53, if you read about it in context, is talking about the nation of Israel, not Jesus.

Absolutely false. So, Israel can take away sins? That's news to me. Isaiah 53 is unequivocally messianic-- it is not speaking about Israel

From what I can see, you don't know how to read the Bible.

Chapter 41:8 But you, Israel My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, who loved Me, 9 Whom I grasped from the ends of the earth, and from its nobles I called you, and I said to you, "You are My servant"

This is speaking about Israel as a nation and 'Jacob' represents the Jews, whom God chosen from Abraham (Abram) who was faithful from the beginning. You are on a completely different chapter.

So, in line and line after line, before Isaiah 53, the servant of isreal is repeatedly mentioned to be Israel. It just doesn't make sense for a writer to consistantly refer to the servant of Israel, change gears to try to make a prediction of someone 700 years in the future, and then try to shift back. That is all without discussing the translation problems the KJV version of the bible has with this passage.

The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are notoriously all over the place-- all of them prophets. There is not generally a sequential order to the scripture. Its the same with the Psalms. The psalms do not go in an order, yet, its replete with messianic imagery that have been agreed upon by Rabbinic scholarship long before there was ever such a thing as Christ or Christians.


“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ramoss, posted 08-29-2006 4:10 PM ramoss has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019