Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 8:33 AM
20 online now:
Percy (Admin), RAZD, Theodoric, vimesey (4 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,248 Year: 5,285/19,786 Month: 1,407/873 Week: 303/460 Day: 3/52 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   How Likely Is It Jesus' Got Married
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 61 of 109 (316756)
05-31-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Hyroglyphx
05-31-2006 10:41 PM


Re: The symbolism of Christianity
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.

no. jesus was wholly man and wholly god. if he was more complete than ordinary men, then he was not wholly man.

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.

no, i was referring to

Genesis 22: 15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son-- 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

it is a requirement to fill the earth, and i feel this is backed up by the fact that god punished david for having a census which would count the numbers of jews and thus deny the prophecy which is namely to make them uncountable. but that's just my interpretation and i think we've had that particular discussion on this board before. not you and i, but the evc we.

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.

just because this nation doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it doesn't refer to it. clearly, the 18th verse (see below) can be interpretted to mean jesus (or einstein. he was jewish right?) but he didn't exist (earthly) at the time either.

god said he would make abraham into a great nation. this great nation is the nation of ISRAEL which is abraham's grandson's name. (crap. i had that verse, now i lost it.) this verse is about how many people will be in this great nation. if there aren't a bazillion jews, then the promise isn't fulfilled. and how do we get a bazillion jews? by the jews we have boning like rabiits (or hyraxes who do chew cud).

the next verse is about how abraham's decendants will make the world better

Genesis 22:18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

the verses refer to both.

I disagree.

sucks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-31-2006 10:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2039 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 62 of 109 (316759)
05-31-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kapyong
05-31-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Evidence for Jesus ?
thank you for that post. i especially appreciate the detail in word meanings and usage. but i would say you should cite more sources and more 'credentialed' ones like journal articles. it's ass to find though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kapyong, posted 05-31-2006 7:24 PM Kapyong has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
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

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 109 (316924)
06-01-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Hyroglyphx
06-01-2006 12:06 AM


Re: Cosmic implications
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.

were there celibate rabbis?

I guess its as asinine as asking why plumbers don't arrest people. Why don't they? Its outside of their prescribed parameters.

well, no. it's like asking why plumbers don't get married. the answer is: many of them do. arresting people is a pretty specific action that only a select group does. marriage is something a much, much larger segment of society does, and in no way violates anybody's job description.

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?

you seem to have this idea that god protects his children from having to deal with life, and temptation. this idea is utterly un-biblical. the third chapter in the whol book deals explicitly with this idea. god makes a garden especially for man, and says "eat all you want, just not THAT tree. that one's mine." had god wanted to protect mankind in that manner, he could have put the tree completely out of his reach.

when god takes the israelites out of egypt, he leads them into the heart of temptation, to fight it. he takes them back the canaan, and tells them "stay away from the idols." had he wanted to make sure that they did, he could have obliterated all canaan before they even got there. remember, he just got done killing every firstborn in egypt. surely he could have easily killed every citizen of the promised land himself.

god does not protect his children from learning the hard way, or from having to make choices.

Translation: ... etc

yes, i get what they mean. the point of all of those is the basica message of jesus. god loves us, and we are ALL sons of god, because he treats us all like his own children.

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.

no no, you see, the point of that is that it doesn't actually matter whether jesus had children or not, or even whether or not jesus existed. people did it anyways, and WILL continue to claim descent from christ.

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?

your original issue was that one group would claim to be more special than others, and claim power and authority over others, because they came from christ. the point is that the bible actively promotes a very similar idea -- that one group of people is more special than others.

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.

right. we do this anyways. saying that christ having children would cause it, and therefore christ didn't have children is just bad logic. we do it anyways. people claim to come from christ anyways. evidently, it IS happening. it doesn't mean christ DID have children, just that it probably wouldn't have affected things much one way or the other if he did.

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.

exactly. we are very physical beings. we like having real, solid objects.

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.

yes, probably so. if christ WAS married, any such indication was very carefully left out of the new testament.

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!)

there is very little upon which we can base ANY claim as to his formal training in the torah. the new testament is quite silent on about 20 years of his life. we have the story of his birth, a few childhood stories, and then suddenly adulthood and crucifixion. maybe he studied the torah, maybe he didn't. evidently, he knew it quite well, as knew some interpretation of it too.

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).

do you have any documentation of this? it would be most helpful.

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

claiming someone was married is hardly an insult, though. if he WAS married, and you claim he was not, you are also spreading a falsehood.

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

i think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.

some years ago, i rented a movie called "revelation." working at the video store, you get bored and start renting any old crappy movie pretty quickly.

the basic twist of the movie is that relic they find is built with the nails that were used to crucify christ. some evil scientists manage to re-hydrate the dried blood on the spikes (the blood of christ) and clone him, creating the antichrist. the person who will have to fight him, of course, is the last direct descendant of the line of christ.

similar idea, a few years before the da vinci code. moderately entertaining, but not really any huge deal. no controversy, nothing. it wasn't a new idea then, it's not a new idea now. people have been writing stories about it for literally millenia.

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

christianity has a tendency to portray jesus as fully god, ignoring that he was also fully human. over the years, the idea of jesus has slowly reverted to a more gnostic ideal, forgetting that jesus was subject to all of the concerns of flesh, temptation etc. i think there is nothing controversial about suggesting that he lived a fairly normal human life, to a certain point. things may have been a bit different when he began his ministry (we don't all lead groups around israel preaching, performing miracles, and eventually dying for the sins of all mankind). but he probably apprenticed under his father, he ate and slept like a normal judean, had a family (mother and father, brothers), broke bread on passover, went to temple, etc.

the idea of him being married adds to the perspective that he as a real person, not just and obscure religious idol worshipped by christians.

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.

yes, it is. actually, most renaissance and baroque art is highly inaccurate. they quite commonly portrayed religious figures in either the clothing and customs of the day, or in classical greco-roman garb. we do this today, too, just not to such a great extent.

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.

yes, leonardo was a few steps ahead of almost everyone else. he practically invented baroque art, before everyone else was painting renaissance art. and he only painted about a half dozen paintings.

the shroud suggestion has to do with the appearance of the shroud in the collection of one of leonardo's patrons, along with a self-portrait of leonardo that looks remarkably like the face on the shroud. it explains a few things, too. for instance, why the figure is a flattened image, instead of a wrap-around image like we would see on a globe projection. previous explanation all produced such an image. it also explains why the image shows up better in negative, and why the proportions don't match front-to-back. such an image could have been made during the day, if leonardo had found the right medium (using contemporary chemistry). camera obscuras were very common.

there are a number of problems with it though. the most obvious being that an image was describe on it before leonardo's time. (might be a different shroud, might not be a real claim.. *shrug*) the other is that the proportions aren't anywhere near accurate. the legs are WAY too long. leonardo was skilled anatomist, one of the first to disect cadavers so that his paintings and drawings would be more accurate.

anyways, as a photography major, i just find the idea that photography was invented 350 years before we think mildly entertaining.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-01-2006 12:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 65 of 109 (316969)
06-02-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
05-29-2006 1:44 AM


Re: Having kids
She wasn't married yet, fair game.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 05-29-2006 1:44 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 66 of 109 (317000)
06-02-2006 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
05-29-2006 1:44 AM


Re: Having kids
NosyNed writes:

Didn't Jesus' Dad have a kid -- out of wedlock and with a woman married to another?

Y'know, Ned, I didn't get your joke at first (just a dumb stubble-jumper from Saskatchewan). I always capitalize God's name in all its forms, but I didn't notice when you did it. At first, I thought you were talking about Joseph.

Either way, having kids seems to have been traditional in Jesus' family. :D


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 05-29-2006 1:44 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 68 of 109 (319970)
06-10-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
06-10-2006 2:26 PM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:

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.

There are hundreds of books that refer to Bilbo Baggins. Not much use for historical authentication.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-10-2006 2:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 3:26 PM ringo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 69 of 109 (320002)
06-10-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
06-10-2006 2:35 PM


but clearly, only "there and back again" is the authoritative word of tolkien, as told through bilbo baggins (in third person).


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 2:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 3:37 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 70 of 109 (320013)
06-10-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by arachnophilia
06-10-2006 3:26 PM


arachnophilia writes:

only "there and back again" is the authoritative word of tolkien

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

(Of course, The Silmarillion is clearly fictional - mythical, e-vun. :D )


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 3:26 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 4:17 PM ringo has responded
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-10-2006 6:46 PM ringo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 109 (320029)
06-10-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ringo
06-10-2006 3:37 PM


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

such is a later interpretation of the events presented in there and back again, and extension of the philosophy presented therein. some hold that it is the continuing word of tolkien, as given to bilbo's nephew/cousin/heir/whatever, frodo baggins.

(Of course, The Silmarillion is clearly fictional - mythical, e-vun. :D )

clearly.


אָרַח

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 72 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 4:57 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 72 of 109 (320046)
06-10-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
06-10-2006 4:17 PM


arachnophilia writes:

some hold that it is the continuing word of tolkien, as given to bilbo's nephew/cousin/heir/whatever, frodo baggins.

They are the only "True Tolkienians". The rest will never go over Sea.

(This is all a nice commentary on canon and historicity - but it doesn't help the topic much, since Bilbo never married. :) )


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 4:17 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 5:07 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 73 of 109 (320050)
06-10-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ringo
06-10-2006 4:57 PM


(This is all a nice commentary on canon and historicity - but it doesn't help the topic much, since Bilbo never married. )

yes, but didn't frodo?

(i still suspect he was gay)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 06-10-2006 4:57 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 5:17 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 109 (320057)
06-10-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by arachnophilia
06-10-2006 5:07 PM


No frodo didn't. Sam did.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 5:07 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2006 5:23 PM jar has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 75 of 109 (320063)
06-10-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
06-10-2006 5:17 PM


ah, see, there you go. even more evidence that he was gay!


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 5:17 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019