PDA

View Full Version : Saw a great show on the Discovery Channel


Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 10:12 AM
about Jesus' family. It was very well done and interesting, regardless of your religious ties. Here's a link to the video.

http://www.discoverychannelstore.org/product-58055.html

From the Discovery site:

Most people know very little about Jesus' family members – who they were, how many there were and what role they played in his life as rebel leader and founder of a new religious movement. For the first time, a team of archaeologists and biblical historians reveal that Jesus was part of a large extended family – a network of relations that played a critical part in his upbringing and in the rise and success of Christianity.

Learn how, in a society that promoted the "extended family," Jesus was well supported and even inspired by his cousin John the Baptist, his grandfather Joachim, his uncle Clophas and more. Evidence from the gospels and recent archaeological finds reveal that Jesus' family was a dynastic clan that believed it was descended from King David. Like all dynasties, it did everything in its power to promote and perpetuate its lineage. But what they would never know is how well they would succeed.

Rain Man
10-25-2005, 10:16 AM
It'd be odd to be Jesus' little brother. Think about how overshadowed you would feel.

Parents: "Jason, why can't you be more like your brother? He founded a religion that will change the world, and you're spending all of your time playing football."

Bullies: "Hey, Jason. Your big brother has girl hair. Heh-heh."

Girls at School: "Hey, Jason. Your big brother cured my acne! He's soooooo cute."

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 10:19 AM
I think most of his siblings were older, but I'm not positive. However, the guy still living at home while his brother is out dying for sins is going to catch some flak.

Donger
10-25-2005, 10:20 AM
Here's the family tree: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tree.html

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 10:24 AM
Here's the family tree: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tree.htmlCool. The show talked about how James really got squeezed out of the historical picture due to his not-as-popular take.

Dremel
10-25-2005, 10:26 AM
I did a Family Tree on the net and found out Jesus
is my Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Uncle!!!

Holy Shit

Ultra Peanut
10-25-2005, 10:26 AM
Here's the family tree: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tree.htmlUncle Ralph always got totally wasted at family gatherings and embarrassed Him.

kepp
10-25-2005, 10:28 AM
It'd be odd to be Jesus' little brother. Think about how overshadowed you would feel.

Parents: "Jason, why can't you be more like your brother? He founded a religion that will change the world, and you're spending all of your time playing football."

Bullies: "Hey, Jason. Your big brother has girl hair. Heh-heh."

Girls at School: "Hey, Jason. Your big brother cured my acne! He's soooooo cute."
ROFL

Rain Man
10-25-2005, 10:29 AM
I think most of his siblings were older, but I'm not positive. However, the guy still living at home while his brother is out dying for sins is going to catch some flak.

You know there had to be some interesting arguments in that house.


Mary: "Willie, you need to get out on your own. Can't you get a carpentry apprenticeship with your brother?"

Willie: "Are you kidding? That's dangerous stuff. He puts a nail through his hand or his foot nearly every day."

Mary: "You're just lazy. You're just lying around, and carpentry is a good living. Just the other day, Jesus had a job down on the coast, and he brought back enough fishes and loaves to feed an army."

Willie: "I bet he stole them. You know that he's been hanging out with a prostitute, right?"

Mary: "Stop talking bad about your brother. And get a job! When I was your age, we would've done anything to get work. Why, when I had Jesus we didn't even have a place to stay! I had the baby in a barn, for crying out loud!"

Willie (under his breath): "Yeah, right. And you're the only woman in the world who has ever gotten pregnant without having sex."

Donger
10-25-2005, 10:41 AM
In spite of my best efforts, this thread has forced me to recall my favorite Jesus joke:

What did Jesus say to the guys who were taking him down from the cross?

"Feet first, you pricks!!!!"

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 10:49 AM
The four Gospels, the Acts of Apostles, and two of Paul’s letters mention “the Lord’s brothers,” “the brother of the Lord,” “his brothers,” “his sisters,” naming four of the “brothers”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. (Mt 12:46; 13:55,*56; Mr 3:31; Lu 8:19; Joh 2:12; Ac 1:14; 1Co 9:5; Ga 1:19) This is not Judas "Iscariot". The majority of Bible scholars accept the evidence that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters and that all were offspring of Joseph and Mary by natural means after the miraculous birth of Jesus.
Of coarse this is contrary to the Catholic church teachings in which they believe that Mary was an "ever virgin", not having any additional childern.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 11:07 AM
The four Gospels, the Acts of Apostles, and two of Paul’s letters mention “the Lord’s brothers,” “the brother of the Lord,” “his brothers,” “his sisters,” naming four of the “brothers”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. (Mt 12:46; 13:55,*56; Mr 3:31; Lu 8:19; Joh 2:12; Ac 1:14; 1Co 9:5; Ga 1:19) This is not Judas "Iscariot". The majority of Bible scholars accept the evidence that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters and that all were offspring of Joseph and Mary by natural means after the miraculous birth of Jesus.
Of coarse this is contrary to the Catholic church teachings in which they believe that Mary was an "ever virgin", not having any additional childern.
I think they are portrayed as older in the show.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:09 AM
I think they are portrayed as older in the show.

Then Mary wasnt a virgin when Jesus came along.

Rain Man
10-25-2005, 11:12 AM
Maybe Mary and Joseph were a blended family, like the Brady Bunch.


Here's the story
of a lovely lady
who was bringing up three very lovely kids
All of them had hair of gold
Like their mother
The youngest one was Christ.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 11:13 AM
Then Mary wasnt a virgin when Jesus came along.True, but from what I understand, the word "virgin" had a completely different meaning back then.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:18 AM
True, but from what I understand, the word "virgin" had a completely different meaning back then.

The bible, which this discussion is based upon, is very clear on what a virgin is and isnt.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 11:19 AM
The bible, which this discussion is based upon, is very clear on what a virgin is and isnt.Hmm. I wish I could remember where I read that; it was some religious book (although, clearly not the Bible). Eh, my memory sucks.

Fishpicker
10-25-2005, 11:23 AM
she was a virgin. Since Mary had a royal bloodline from David to Ruth to her, God had to intervene. Joseph would have ruined the bloodline if he was the one to impregnate her.

ChiTown
10-25-2005, 11:25 AM
Maybe Mary and Joseph were a blended family, like the Brady Bunch.


Here's the story
of a lovely lady
who was bringing up three very lovely kids
All of them had hair of gold
Like their mother
The youngest one was Christ.

ROFL , literally

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:27 AM
Hmm. I wish I could remember where I read that; it was some religious book (although, clearly not the Bible). Eh, my memory sucks.

I can appreciate what your trying to say, but reguardless of what any other book or person states, the bible backs itself up on what definition of what a virgin is. Therefore I cant see how it can even be historically or religiously debatable.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:29 AM
she was a virgin. Since Mary had a royal bloodline from David to Ruth to her, God had to intervene. Joseph would have ruined the bloodline if he was the one to impregnate her.

How could Joseph ruin the bloodline?

HolyHandgernade
10-25-2005, 11:33 AM
In Jewish lineage, kingship is only passed through the male line making Mary's lineage superfulous. It is only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament.

-HH

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 11:34 AM
Then Mary wasnt a virgin when Jesus came along.

I haven't seen this program, but most historical Jesus scholars believe that Jesus' older siblings were half brothers and sisters, where Joseph was the father.

Any research like this has a lot of speculation, but these same scholars that believe the siblings are all older do not believe in the immaculate conception so their ideas are based on historical evidence, not by the need to have Mary's cherry intact for Jesus.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:38 AM
I haven't seen this program, but most historical Jesus scholars believe that Jesus' older siblings were half brothers and sisters, where Joseph was the father.

Any research like this has a lot of speculation, but these same scholars that believe the siblings are all older do not believe in the immaculate conception so their ideas are based on historical evidence, not by the need to have Mary's cherry intact for Jesus.

Yes....agreed.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 11:38 AM
I haven't seen this program, but most historical Jesus scholars believe that Jesus' older siblings were half brothers and sisters, where Joseph was the father.

Any research like this has a lot of speculation, but these same scholars that believe the siblings are all older do not believe in the immaculate conception so their ideas are based on historical evidence, not by the need to have Mary's cherry intact for Jesus.
Very interesting. It would be a lot of fun to dig through the old writings and evidence to study things like this for a living. The Discovery Channel show follows a researcher as he goes through this stuff.

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 11:40 AM
The bible, which this discussion is based upon, is very clear on what a virgin is and isnt.

This is true, but the word used for virgin in Isaiah is also used for a young maiden elsewhere in the OT, who is a virgin until she gets married. A strong argument can be made that the child of the "virgin" referred to in Isaiah was born a few chapters later.

Some scholars believe that while Jesus is the Son of God, Light of the World, and Lamb of God, that these titles were never meant to be taken literally.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:40 AM
In Jewish lineage, kingship is only passed through the male line making Mary's lineage superfulous. It is only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament.

-HH

Yes only a male could be a king, but your not biblically accurate on that statement as far as the linage is concerned.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 11:43 AM
This is true, but the word used for virgin in Isaiah is also used for a young maiden elsewhere in the OT, who is a virgin until she gets married. A strong argument can be made that the child of the "virgin" referred to in Isaiah was born a few chapters later. Yeah, that was basically what I read. It was a book that I borrowed from my father-in-law and I can't for the life of me remember what it was called.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:43 AM
This is true, but the word used for virgin in Isaiah is also used for a young maiden elsewhere in the OT, who is a virgin until she gets married. A strong argument can be made that the child of the "virgin" referred to in Isaiah was born a few chapters later.

Some scholars believe that while Jesus is the Son of God, Light of the World, and Lamb of God, that these titles were never meant to be taken literally.

Yes but words do mean things and a virgin, in terms of physical, is easily understood in the bible as someone who has not had intercoarse.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 11:49 AM
Yes but words do mean things and a virgin, in terms of physical, is easily understood in the bible as someone who has not had intercoarse.
I wonder how they documented that she was a virgin. Joe be all "yeah, you know, we just cool right now, and, you know, it's not like I have to get it and all..."

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 11:52 AM
Very interesting. It would be a lot of fun to dig through the old writings and evidence to study things like this for a living. The Discovery Channel show follows a researcher as he goes through this stuff.

If you like this kind of stuff, Bruce Chilton wrote a book called "Rabbi Jesus", that is an awesome book. Chilton takes what most historical scholars believe happened, makes a complete story out of it, and while it is only "based on recorded events" he does a good job of writting a convincing, passionate story.

I don't think I could do this kind of research for a living. I can't explain Jesus or validate his story, but I know the effect He has had on me and I know how I experience Him. The problem comes in when non-believers are trying to comprehend something that can't be comprehended when they have never experienced it, and many of the people that have experienced Jesus grew up being taught not to question things in the bible, and choose to believe something that doesn't make sense rather than to except that maybe we have been looking at the wrong way.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 11:58 AM
I wonder how they documented that she was a virgin. Joe be all "yeah, you know, we just cool right now, and, you know, it's not like I have to get it and all..."

Obviously it was God who did the documenting, but from an observers stand point, since she had no children and wasnt married at the time, the odds were good.

Ebolapox
10-25-2005, 12:22 PM
Uncle Ralph always got totally wasted at family gatherings and embarrassed Him.

yeah, he got a little too much of a kick out of jesus's water to wine trick--got wasted every time he did it

-EB-

Ebolapox
10-25-2005, 12:26 PM
is there anything in there about jesus's kids or mary the 'prostitute'??

-EB-

InChiefsHell
10-25-2005, 12:42 PM
is there anything in there about jesus's kids or mary the 'prostitute'??

-EB-

Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That theory was bandied about for a long time and the kinda legitimized by the rock opera Jesus Christ, Superstar. Also was prominent in that POS "The Last Temptation of Christ". Jesus did not have children.

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 12:47 PM
Wonder if this will be re-aired anytime in the near future.

Sounds intriguing as hell.

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 12:49 PM
Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That theory was bandied about for a long time and the kinda legitimized by the rock opera Jesus Christ, Superstar. Also was prominent in that POS "The Last Temptation of Christ". Jesus did not have children.

What, you didn't buy William DeFoe as Jesus? :p

What was the exact controversy involving that movie? I was pretty young when it came out and (since I am Catholic and went to a Catholic grade school) was forbidden from seeing it.

Does it infer something to the effect that Christ "thinks" about coming down off the cross for Mary Magdalene?

Ultra Peanut
10-25-2005, 12:50 PM
Jesus' Kidz: We don't die, we multiply!

Donger
10-25-2005, 12:57 PM
What, you didn't buy William DeFoe as Jesus? :p

What was the exact controversy involving that movie? I was pretty young when it came out and (since I am Catholic and went to a Catholic grade school) was forbidden from seeing it.

Does it infer something to the effect that Christ "thinks" about coming down off the cross for Mary Magdalene?

Pretty much. In the film, Jesus is offered by (unbeknownst to him) the devil to not be sacrificed, and he accepts. He then goes on to marry Magdalene. She dies (God kills her), and he marries the other Mary and has a bunch of kids, living as just a man. He eventually learns that he has been tricked by the devil, and begs to be returned to the cross. Which he is.

The opening of the film also shows him making and carrying crosses for the Romans.

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 01:03 PM
Pretty much. In the film, Jesus is offered by (unbeknownst to him) the devil to not be sacrificed, and he accepts. He then goes on to marry Magdalene. She dies (God kills her), and he marries the other Mary and has a bunch of kids, living as just a man. He eventually learns that he has been tricked by the devil, and begs to be returned to the cross. Which he is.

The opening of the film also shows him making and carrying crosses for the Romans.


Making and carrying crosses other than his own? As a carpenter?

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 01:04 PM
Yes but words do mean things and a virgin, in terms of physical, is easily understood in the bible as someone who has not had intercoarse.

You are correct, but virgin is an English word and not used in the OT. The actual Hebrew word for virgin as bethulah, but in Isaiah they use the word alma which could go either way.

Before a Christain can look further into this subject they must first ask themselves, Jesus is the Son of God, so does it matter if he wasn't born of a virgin?

Donger
10-25-2005, 01:08 PM
Making and carrying crosses other than his own? As a carpenter?

Yes. He carried the cross to the crucifixion site, and tacitly assisted in getting the condemned situated on the cross.

IIRC, the scene shows Jesus holding down the guy's arm who was about to be crucified and getting splattered with the guy's blood when the nail is driven in.

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 01:10 PM
Making and carrying crosses other than his own? As a carpenter?
I doubt the cross making business was big enough to be profitable as a cros-maker, but many Christains are incorrect in thinking that Jesus was some sort of skilled carpenter. The NT says that Jesus was a tekton, which is is a general laborer that makes rudimentary objects from wood such as doors, gates, etc... In the class structure of the day, a tekton was below the peasant class.

Ebolapox
10-25-2005, 01:18 PM
Nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That theory was bandied about for a long time and the kinda legitimized by the rock opera Jesus Christ, Superstar. Also was prominent in that POS "The Last Temptation of Christ". Jesus did not have children.
first of all, I was being a smart ass--and for the record, I didn't mean to drag this thread into a religious debate--however, I'll state my peace and attempt not to perpetuate the debate--say what you say, I won't be able to convince you, and you won't be able to convince me--so it's almost a pointless 'possible' debate

I put marks around prostitute like 'prostitute' because it was TIC (tongue in cheek)--not only was the myth of mary magdalene being a prostitute perpetuated by jc superstar, it was also perpetuated by the catholic church for hundreds of years (the same catholic church that within the last ten years finally apologized for centuries of anti-semitism, held a blind eye towards the nazi regime of hitler and their 'ethnic cleansing', and the same catholic church that professes several popes who had people murdered, had massive orgies in the vatican and the other cities they were quartered in, and the same catholic church that's very up to date--that is, they would be if it were the year 1600)

anyway--enough catholic church badtalk--the point is, there's some evidence out there that jesus could have had children--in jesus' time, it was very uncommon and frowned upon for a man to be unmarried by 30... as a matter of fact, you pretty much HAD to be married--it's a more acceptable story factually if one believes jesus was married and thus, PROBABLY had children... it states in the bible that jesus did everything he could to stay true to the word of the law and true to his culture so he could be held blameless--this would INCLUDE being married--

another problem that many don't realize--jesus wasn't considered 'divine' (aka, son of god) until 200 AD at the council of Nicea (sp?)--and it was a VERY close vote, for the record... it was like 25 to 23 or somewhere in that neighborhood...

to have a religion, especially one based on monotheism, they had to compete with the other monotheistic religions and their views... amazingly enough, EVERY SINGLE monotheistic religion of that time had a god whose son was sent to earth and 'sacrificed'...hmmm... interesting...

it's also interesting to look at the similarity between jesus and hercules...son of a god (by the way, think of how we view zeus and god in very much the same way--old guy, white beard, , white hair, wise, et al)--both sons of a virgin birth (zeus came in the form of a cow, but I'm not 100%--zeus was very prolific with his mortal women)... both were saviors to their people... etc

I won't go into my other problems with catholocism and christianity as a whole though--I was raised a christian, but you have to realize I analyze things from a purely scientific point of view--I have to have proof--I have more evidence that christianity/'the cult of jesus' are a sham than I do evidence to the contrary...I do realize it's a leap of faith, and I don't look down on people who do have to hold onto that belief--I was that way for a long time... however, in a lot of ways, I view religion as karl marx did... the opiate of the masses--a way for those in power to control those not in power so they stay in power--and we all know, power corupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

...phew... didn't mean to go into THAT much

-EB-

Ebolapox
10-25-2005, 01:22 PM
I should point out that if you're interested, there are several very good books on the subject if you don't mind reading somewhat boring (they're written like a dry research paper) books...

"Holy Blood, Holy grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln... there's a sequal out called "the messianic legacy" as well...

HolyHandgernade
10-25-2005, 01:23 PM
Yes only a male could be a king, but your not biblically accurate on that statement as far as the linage is concerned.


http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/index.html

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus'
ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of
the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of
Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's
genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law
of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no
genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament,
which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no
verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that
Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal
connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the
throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male
line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the
right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are
exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding
the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27
and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of
physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could
claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and
his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship
if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God
chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1
Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the
messianic office.

Donger
10-25-2005, 01:31 PM
Heh. Didn't know this one...

Trivia for
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

* According to director Martin Scorsese, the last shot was *not* intentional. The camera used to film this scene was faulty and light leaked in onto the the film, causing a white-out at the exact point in the scene at which Jesus expires, and this was not discovered until the film was processed. Serendipity or divine intervention, take your pick.

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 01:38 PM
Yes. He carried the cross to the crucifixion site, and tacitly assisted in getting the condemned situated on the cross.

IIRC, the scene shows Jesus holding down the guy's arm who was about to be crucified and getting splattered with the guy's blood when the nail is driven in.

It is not likely that this portrayal is correct since there are no records of Jesus outside of the Nazereth area until he starts his teachings.

In the movie, Jesus is dieing on the cross and has a vision of what the alternative life for him could have been. I don't believe that much of the "Last Temptation" story is accurate, simply because I read a lot of work from both religous and historical scholars, and the story doesn't fit from what is written in the bible or what historians feel would be plausible. However, I really like the movie, and it made me think about my religion more than any other movie has.

If you think of Jesus as the literal Son of God, he is sent to earth, he knows his whole life that he has to die, and really has no choice but to get on the cross and die since he is part of the trinity and sent himself to earth for that purpose. Thinking of the pre-Easter Jesus a part of the trinity lessons the magnitude of the sacrafice. Making the pre-Easter Jesus human paints his entire life in a different picture, and lets us know that the Messiah was once a man just like us.

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 02:05 PM
another problem that many don't realize--jesus wasn't considered 'divine' (aka, son of god) until 200 AD at the council of Nicea (sp?)--and it was a VERY close vote, for the record... it was like 25 to 23 or somewhere in that neighborhood...

That'll blow your hair back a little.

Don't most scholars approximate his death around 35-40 AD?

So he wasn't considered "divine" until roughly 150 years after his death?

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 02:07 PM
It is not likely that this portrayal is correct since there are no records of Jesus outside of the Nazereth area until he starts his teachings.

In the movie, Jesus is dieing on the cross and has a vision of what the alternative life for him could have been. I don't believe that much of the "Last Temptation" story is accurate, simply because I read a lot of work from both religous and historical scholars, and the story doesn't fit from what is written in the bible or what historians feel would be plausible. However, I really like the movie, and it made me think about my religion more than any other movie has.

If you think of Jesus as the literal Son of God, he is sent to earth, he knows his whole life that he has to die, and really has no choice but to get on the cross and die since he is part of the trinity and sent himself to earth for that purpose. Thinking of the pre-Easter Jesus a part of the trinity lessons the magnitude of the sacrafice. Making the pre-Easter Jesus human paints his entire life in a different picture, and lets us know that the Messiah was once a man just like us.

Hence the magnitude of "The Passion".

Donger
10-25-2005, 02:14 PM
Don't most scholars approximate his death around 35-40 AD?

Most 'scholars' wouldn't dare use the "BC/AD" at all.

Please use "BCE/CE," or face being outed as a religious nutjob.

Thanks!

InChiefsHell
10-25-2005, 02:29 PM
first of all, I was being a smart ass--and for the record, I didn't mean to drag this thread into a religious debate--however, I'll state my peace and attempt not to perpetuate the debate--say what you say, I won't be able to convince you, and you won't be able to convince me--so it's almost a pointless 'possible' debate

I put marks around prostitute like 'prostitute' because it was TIC (tongue in cheek)--not only was the myth of mary magdalene being a prostitute perpetuated by jc superstar, it was also perpetuated by the catholic church for hundreds of years (the same catholic church that within the last ten years finally apologized for centuries of anti-semitism, held a blind eye towards the nazi regime of hitler and their 'ethnic cleansing', and the same catholic church that professes several popes who had people murdered, had massive orgies in the vatican and the other cities they were quartered in, and the same catholic church that's very up to date--that is, they would be if it were the year 1600)

anyway--enough catholic church badtalk--the point is, there's some evidence out there that jesus could have had children--in jesus' time, it was very uncommon and frowned upon for a man to be unmarried by 30... as a matter of fact, you pretty much HAD to be married--it's a more acceptable story factually if one believes jesus was married and thus, PROBABLY had children... it states in the bible that jesus did everything he could to stay true to the word of the law and true to his culture so he could be held blameless--this would INCLUDE being married--

another problem that many don't realize--jesus wasn't considered 'divine' (aka, son of god) until 200 AD at the council of Nicea (sp?)--and it was a VERY close vote, for the record... it was like 25 to 23 or somewhere in that neighborhood...

to have a religion, especially one based on monotheism, they had to compete with the other monotheistic religions and their views... amazingly enough, EVERY SINGLE monotheistic religion of that time had a god whose son was sent to earth and 'sacrificed'...hmmm... interesting...

it's also interesting to look at the similarity between jesus and hercules...son of a god (by the way, think of how we view zeus and god in very much the same way--old guy, white beard, , white hair, wise, et al)--both sons of a virgin birth (zeus came in the form of a cow, but I'm not 100%--zeus was very prolific with his mortal women)... both were saviors to their people... etc

I won't go into my other problems with catholocism and christianity as a whole though--I was raised a christian, but you have to realize I analyze things from a purely scientific point of view--I have to have proof--I have more evidence that christianity/'the cult of jesus' are a sham than I do evidence to the contrary...I do realize it's a leap of faith, and I don't look down on people who do have to hold onto that belief--I was that way for a long time... however, in a lot of ways, I view religion as karl marx did... the opiate of the masses--a way for those in power to control those not in power so they stay in power--and we all know, power corupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

...phew... didn't mean to go into THAT much

-EB-
ROFL Well, glad you didn't want to blow this up into a full fledged religious debate! ROFL

There's alot there to argue about, and like you said in your original statement, we ain't gonna be changing each other's minds...ever. See, as a Catholic, I get to argue with all kinds. Not just non-Christians, but also anti-Catholic Christians and others. So, it's hard to find a starting point to enter into this discussion. Suffice it to say, I'm sure you are convinced of your point of view, and obviously have thought this out.

This is not me wussing out. I typically enter into these debates, but I'm a little late here and I need to get home. We'll agree to disagree eh?

God Bless and Go Chiefs!

InChiefsHell
10-25-2005, 02:33 PM
What, you didn't buy William DeFoe as Jesus? :p

What was the exact controversy involving that movie? I was pretty young when it came out and (since I am Catholic and went to a Catholic grade school) was forbidden from seeing it.

Does it infer something to the effect that Christ "thinks" about coming down off the cross for Mary Magdalene?

Among other stuff, like he had voices in his head, at one point he chooses to lead a violent rebellion...blah blah blah. Typical anti-Christan artsy fartsy hollywood drivel.

...the only saving grace to the movie is that it has a huge disclaimer at the beginning stating that basically, the movie you are about to see is not based on anything other than a loose (and I mean loose) interpretation of scripture. Personally, I thought the thing was waaaay too long.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 02:39 PM
You are correct, but virgin is an English word and not used in the OT. The actual Hebrew word for virgin as bethulah, but in Isaiah they use the word alma which could go either way.

Before a Christain can look further into this subject they must first ask themselves, Jesus is the Son of God, so does it matter if he wasn't born of a virgin?

Yes the Hebrew word "bethulah" signifies a woman who has never been united to a man in marriage and has never had sexual intercourse.
The Greek term "parthenos", however, can apply to both single men and single women and often in the bible the term “virgin” is used in connection with cities, places, or people, but reguardless it isnt difficult to discern whats being talked about and what is meant by using it in its context.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 02:44 PM
............
another problem that many don't realize--jesus wasn't considered 'divine' (aka, son of god) until 200 AD at the council of Nicea (sp?)--and it was a VERY close vote, for the record... it was like 25 to 23 or somewhere in that neighborhood..............
-EB-

That was a nice cut and paste. :shake:

Your scholar has his information and dates screwed up.
FWIW "The Roman emperor Constantine viewed religious division as a threat to the unity of the empire, he summoned a council of bishops at Nicea in 325 C.E." -Encyclopædia Britannica.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 02:47 PM
ROFL Well, glad you didn't want to blow this up into a full fledged religious debate! ROFL

There's alot there to argue about, and like you said in your original statement, we ain't gonna be changing each other's minds...ever. See, as a Catholic, I get to argue with all kinds. Not just non-Christians, but also anti-Catholic Christians and others. So, it's hard to find a starting point to enter into this discussion. Suffice it to say, I'm sure you are convinced of your point of view, and obviously have thought this out.

This is not me wussing out. I typically enter into these debates, but I'm a little late here and I need to get home. We'll agree to disagree eh?

God Bless and Go Chiefs!

Just curious, how do you view the biblical account of Mary with Jesus having half brothers and sisters?

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 02:47 PM
Most 'scholars' wouldn't dare use the "BC/AD" at all.

Please use "BCE/CE," or face being outed as a religious nutjob.

Thanks!


BCE / CE?

Donger
10-25-2005, 02:49 PM
BCE / CE?

Before the Common Era & Common Era.

Unless things have changed, it's politically incorrect to use BC and AD in academic circles. Cuz, you know, not everyone's a Christian.

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 02:50 PM
Before the Common Era & Common Era.

Unless things have changed, it's politically incorrect to use BC and AD in academic circles. Cuz, you know, not everyone's a Christian.


Got it.

What's considered the cutoff between the two (BCE / CE)?

KC Kings
10-25-2005, 02:51 PM
anyway--enough catholic church badtalk--the point is, there's some evidence out there that jesus could have had children--in jesus' time, it was very uncommon and frowned upon for a man to be unmarried by 30... as a matter of fact, you pretty much HAD to be married--it's a more acceptable story factually if one believes jesus was married and thus, PROBABLY had children... it states in the bible that jesus did everything he could to stay true to the word of the law and true to his culture so he could be held blameless--this would INCLUDE being married--

another problem that many don't realize--jesus wasn't considered 'divine' (aka, son of god) until 200 AD at the council of Nicea (sp?)--and it was a VERY close vote, for the record... it was like 25 to 23 or somewhere in that neighborhood...

it's also interesting to look at the similarity between jesus and hercules...son of a god (by the way, think of how we view zeus and god in very much the same way--old guy, white beard, , white hair, wise, et al)--both sons of a virgin birth (zeus came in the form of a cow, but I'm not 100%--zeus was very prolific with his mortal women)... both were saviors to their people... etc

I won't go into my other problems with catholocism and christianity as a whole though--I was raised a christian, but you have to realize I analyze things from a purely scientific point of view--I have to have proof--I have more evidence that christianity/'the cult of jesus' are a sham than I do evidence to the contrary...I do realize it's a leap of faith, and I don't look down on people who do have to hold onto that belief--I was that way for a long time... however, in a lot of ways, I view religion as karl marx did... the opiate of the masses--a way for those in power to control those not in power so they stay in power--and we all know, power corupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

...phew... didn't mean to go into THAT much

-EB-

1. Jesus could have had children without being married, as the Bible says that adultry is a sin and Jewish law ruled against having sex with a virgin female. I don't think he had children, but it would have been possible for Jesus to have sex with Mary since she was not a virgin.

2. I think you meant Jesus was not officially divine until the council of Nicea. He was considered divine by many long before that time.

3. When Julius Caesar died, they said a comet carried him into heaven so he could become a god. This meant that Agustus Caesar (aka Octavius), (who was really his sisters son that he adopted), was now a son of a god, and on pre-Jesus Roman inscriptions the a phrase strikingly similar to Glory to the God in the highest, on earth peace, goodwill towards men was used speaking of Augustus.

Donger
10-25-2005, 02:52 PM
Got it.

What's considered the cutoff between the two (BCE / CE)?

Same as BC & AD.

Pitt Gorilla
10-25-2005, 02:53 PM
Before the Common Era & Common Era.

Unless things have changed, it's politically incorrect to use BC and AD in academic circles. Cuz, you know, not everyone's a Christian.
I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

tomahawk kid
10-25-2005, 02:54 PM
I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

First I had heard of it too.

Learn something new everyday I guess.

Donger
10-25-2005, 02:59 PM
I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

Well, maybe it has changed since I was in school, like I said. But, in the early 1990s, it was commonplace. In fact, I had a few papers reviewed by profs that actually scratched out BC/AD and scribbled in BCE/CE.

Donger
10-25-2005, 03:01 PM
I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

Out of curiousity, keep your eyes open, particularly around historians and theologians. I'd be truly surprised if the practice has gone away.

tiptap
10-25-2005, 03:09 PM
Have you all ever tried to document lineage? Queen Elizabeth II has the most documented lineage. It only goes to about the 1000 AD. You know the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066. It is just difficult for me to imagine that anyone of normal standing could have real understanding of true lineage from Jesus back to King David at app. 1000 BC. Records of important people are kept and you end up having to tie yourself to them in order to progress further back in time. And some of that includes exile to Babylon? It is convenient to claim divinity based upon heritage. Royalty of Europe use to invent connection to King David. Now if you think the Bible is inerrant. . . will nothing of reason or likelyhood will deter your bias.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 03:13 PM
First I had heard of it too.

Learn something new everyday I guess.

Jesus evidently was born in the month of September-October(Ethanim Jewish calendar) of the year 2 B.C.E., was baptized about the same time of the year in 29 C.E., and died about 3:00 p.m. on Friday, the 14th day of the spring month of March-April (Nisan Jewish calendar), 33 C.E.

BTW Both terminologies are still used, but the BC and AD are slowly phasing out.

C-Mac
10-25-2005, 03:30 PM
Have you all ever tried to document lineage? Queen Elizabeth II has the most documented lineage. It only goes to about the 1000 AD. You know the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066. It is just difficult for me to imagine that anyone of normal standing could have real understanding of true lineage from Jesus back to King David at app. 1000 BC. Records of important people are kept and you end up having to tie yourself to them in order to progress further back in time. And some of that includes exile to Babylon? It is convenient to claim divinity based upon heritage. Royalty of Europe use to invent connection to King David. Now if you think the Bible is inerrant. . . will nothing of reason or likelyhood will deter your bias.

Good point.
It is beneficial to know that the historical accuracy's of the bible helps give credence to itself when appying linages.

InChiefsHell
10-26-2005, 06:52 AM
Just curious, how do you view the biblical account of Mary with Jesus having half brothers and sisters?

The kicker is, there is no real proof that the brothers and sisters mentioned are really blood brothers. It is also possible that Joseph had other children.

I hate to use a cut and paste, but I'm man enough to admit when I do:

Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother.

Since there is no diffinitive proof otherwise, I defer to the Church and its teachings on the matter. I know that will drive some people nuts, but hey, to each their own.

So to answer your question, how do I view the biblical account of Mary with Jesus having half-brothers and sisters, well like I said there is a possibility that he didn't have them. Not in the way people think nowadays as outlined above. As such, it does not affect the idea of perpetual virginity.

The church has answers for all of her "weird" doctrines and they are all biblically based. I don't have the answers to everything at my fingertips cuz I'm not much of an apologist, but everything I've looked into is answered satisfactorily by the Church, insomuch as their reason for their beliefs. In other words, I don't think the Church just made stuff up (as so many others believe) and a little research proves that I'm right.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 08:39 AM
The kicker is, there is no real proof that the brothers and sisters mentioned are really blood brothers. It is also possible that Joseph had other children.

I hate to use a cut and paste, but I'm man enough to admit when I do:

The church has answers for all of her "weird" doctrines and they are all biblically based. I don't have the answers to everything at my fingertips cuz I'm not much of an apologist, but everything I've looked into is answered satisfactorily by the Church, insomuch as their reason for their beliefs. In other words, I don't think the Church just made stuff up (as so many others believe) and a little research proves that I'm right.

Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother.

Yes you are correct, but even though no word for cousin is found in the Hebrew(Old Testament), the relationship is clearly indicated "They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother". (Gen 14:12)
There was a word used for cousin in the Greek(New Testament), the word "anepsios" (cousin) is found at Colossians 4:10, where Paul calls Mark “the cousin of Barnabas.” The Greek term means primarily “first cousin,” but in a wider sense, any cousin.
The word "anepsios" (cousins) also occurs in the Septuagint translation(Old Testament) at Numbers 36:1 and supporting that expression in Hebrew, the Masoretic translation, the text is rendered literally “sons of their father’s brothers".
In Luke 21:16, the Greek words "syggenon" (relatives, such as cousins) and "adelphon" (brothers) both occur, showing that the terms are not used loosely or indiscriminately within the Greek (New Testament).
Noting that the relationship these "brothers" of Jesus had with his mother Mary could easily indicate they were her children rather than more distant relatives because they are usually mentioned in association with her. Also statements to the effect that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn” (Lu 2:7), and that Joseph “had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son,” also support the view that Joseph and Mary had other children. (Mt 1:25) Of coarse as the scripture you quoted even their neighbors recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”(Mr 6:3).
I can appreciate your argument, but perhaps with a little more research and a little more reasoning, it would lend more to the reality that Jesus most likely indeed had half brothers and sisters.

Sully
10-26-2005, 08:47 AM
I'm in school right now, a history major, and all they use now is BCE/ CE.

Guess what, it starts at 0

InChiefsHell
10-26-2005, 10:04 AM
Yes you are correct, but even though no word for cousin is found in the Hebrew(Old Testament), the relationship is clearly indicated "They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother". (Gen 14:12)
There was a word used for cousin in the Greek(New Testament), the word "anepsios" (cousin) is found at Colossians 4:10, where Paul calls Mark “the cousin of Barnabas.” The Greek term means primarily “first cousin,” but in a wider sense, any cousin.
The word "anepsios" (cousins) also occurs in the Septuagint translation(Old Testament) at Numbers 36:1 and supporting that expression in Hebrew, the Masoretic translation, the text is rendered literally “sons of their father’s brothers".
In Luke 21:16, the Greek words "syggenon" (relatives, such as cousins) and "adelphon" (brothers) both occur, showing that the terms are not used loosely or indiscriminately within the Greek (New Testament).
Noting that the relationship these "brothers" of Jesus had with his mother Mary could easily indicate they were her children rather than more distant relatives because they are usually mentioned in association with her. Also statements to the effect that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn” (Lu 2:7), and that Joseph “had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son,” also support the view that Joseph and Mary had other children. (Mt 1:25) Of coarse as the scripture you quoted even their neighbors recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”(Mr 6:3).
I can appreciate your argument, but perhaps with a little more research and a little more reasoning, it would lend more to the reality that Jesus most likely indeed had half brothers and sisters.


The thing is, I've heard all your arguments as well. I frequent a website called protestwarrior.com and pretty much live in the religious forum. Like I said earlier, I typically don't back down from such discussions, but I usually don't get into them here on the Planet. Usually this place is just for my team.

But, hey, rules are meant to be broken.

In the Mark quote above, James and Joses (or Joseph) is mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. But in Matthew 27:56, it says:
"Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons".

Soooo...it's not Mary the mother of Jesus, but the mother of James and Joses, the same dudes that everyone says are Jesus' "brothers". Surely you can see that this doesn't make sense.

Also, when Jesus is on the cross and appoints John to take care of his Mother and all of that, it would make no sense to do that if he had surviving siblings. (Actually that scene has alot to do with Catholic Marian teachings, but that's for another discussion.) THis action would have been hugely insulting. It would be like you telling your best friend to take care of your mom when you have brothers and sisters to do that. That alone was the argument that first got me to thinking about this issue.

I'd have to look up the argument against the "firstborn" argument, I remember having that discussion before but off the top of my head I can't recall the argument.

There's alot of good websites that explain the Catholic position better than I can. The one I used above is called BibleChristianSociety.com but there is also CatholicAnswers.org. If nothing else, it explains clearly the Catholic postions on all of these issue that seem to be points of contention between us and Protestants (or non-denoms, how ever you want to be labled).

I challenge you to the same research that you challenge me on. It's not as easy to simply dismiss the Catholic position once you really become familiar with it...

Pitt Gorilla
10-26-2005, 11:02 AM
It's not as easy to simply dismiss the Catholic position once you really become familiar with it...I guess I don't understand why a position is needed. Jesus had siblings, he didn't, it really doesn't matter. In terms of being a Christian, Christ is pretty much all you need to know.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 11:09 AM
The thing is, I've heard all your arguments as well. I frequent a website called protestwarrior.com and pretty much live in the religious forum. Like I said earlier, I typically don't back down from such discussions, but I usually don't get into them here on the Planet. Usually this place is just for my team.

But, hey, rules are meant to be broken.

In the Mark quote above, James and Joses (or Joseph) is mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. But in Matthew 27:56, it says:


Soooo...it's not Mary the mother of Jesus, but the mother of James and Joses, the same dudes that everyone says are Jesus' "brothers". Surely you can see that this doesn't make sense.

Also, when Jesus is on the cross and appoints John to take care of his Mother and all of that, it would make no sense to do that if he had surviving siblings. (Actually that scene has alot to do with Catholic Marian teachings, but that's for another discussion.) THis action would have been hugely insulting. It would be like you telling your best friend to take care of your mom when you have brothers and sisters to do that. That alone was the argument that first got me to thinking about this issue.

I'd have to look up the argument against the "firstborn" argument, I remember having that discussion before but off the top of my head I can't recall the argument.

There's alot of good websites that explain the Catholic position better than I can. The one I used above is called BibleChristianSociety.com but there is also CatholicAnswers.org. If nothing else, it explains clearly the Catholic postions on all of these issue that seem to be points of contention between us and Protestants (or non-denoms, how ever you want to be labled).

I challenge you to the same research that you challenge me on. It's not as easy to simply dismiss the Catholic position once you really become familiar with it...
Being raised Catholic, going to all Catholic schools and attending church till I was around 26, allows me to be somewhat familiar with many positions. Although it didnt allow me to be too familiar with the bible since it was rarely used for teaching.
Back to the discussion.
One must use good discernment because there are many names used in the bible that are the same but definetly not the same person. For example John (the Baptist) and John the apostle. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus. Names like Judas and Joshua were very common names, in fact Jesus' name more properly translated should be Joshua.
The scripture you mention reads "Moreover, many women were there viewing from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Gal´i·lee to minister to him;among whom was Mary Mag´da·lene, also Mary the mother of James and Jo´ses, and the mother of the sons of Zeb´e·dee." This scripture appears very clear to me, why is it you feel it must be referencing Jesus mother?
In the folowing verses in 61 its states "But Mary Mag´da·lene and the other Mary continued there, sitting before the grave".
In Mark 15:40 it states"There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me, who used to accompany him and minister to him when he was in Gal´i·lee, and many other women who had come up together with him to Jerusalem."
So I cant see how anyone can properly conclude that this "other Mary" is Jesus mother?

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 11:37 AM
I guess I don't understand why a position is needed. Jesus had siblings, he didn't, it really doesn't matter. In terms of being a Christian, Christ is pretty much all you need to know.

Knowledge is deep and wide. Ever wonder why supposedly God left this big book to explain himself? Ever wonder why this Jesus you speak of rebuked the religious leaders in his time and called them hypocrites and children of the devil? Ever wonder why there is only one book, yet a zillion different Christian religions. For those in whom it matters, sometimes a position or accurate knowledge is needed to discern whats truth and whats not, whats acceptable in Gods eyes and whats not. For example, today many churches claim to know God and Jesus, yet some of these support homosexuality and even have them as ministers. No matter how you feel about it, the book they claim to follow and represent is very clear on that subject, thus making them just as hypocritical as the religious leaders of Jesus day.
So you just have to ask yourself if truth or proper understanding even matters to you. As for myself, my interest and curiousity got the best of me.

Ebolapox
10-26-2005, 11:38 AM
That was a nice cut and paste. :shake:

Your scholar has his information and dates screwed up.
FWIW "The Roman emperor Constantine viewed religious division as a threat to the unity of the empire, he summoned a council of bishops at Nicea in 325 C.E." -Encyclopædia Britannica.

it's not a cut and paste--it was recited from memory of books I've read (I believe that particular was from holy blood, holy grail)--I couldn't recall the exact date though...don't be a hater

-EB-

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 11:47 AM
it's not a cut and paste--it was recited from memory of books I've read (I believe that particular was from holy blood, holy grail)--I couldn't recall the exact date though...don't be a hater

-EB-

You should know that I'm not a hater.
I apologize if this wasnt the case, but so many times you see cut and pasting in these types of discussions. A quote or two doesnt bother me but normally you just want to hear that persons thoughts and not the thoughts of someone else..... and it goes for both sides of the discussion.

InChiefsHell
10-26-2005, 02:07 PM
So I cant see how anyone can properly conclude that this "other Mary" is Jesus mother?

Um, actually, that was my point. She is the mother of Joses and James, who people say are Jesus' brothers, but she is not the same Mary that is Jesus' mrother, hence, these guys are not Jesus' brothers...hence Jesus didn't have siblings, at least not these two guys. Since this is used as a proof text that Jesus had brothers, it blows away that argument.

Sorry if I didn't explain that so well.

Ebolapox
10-26-2005, 02:09 PM
You should know that I'm not a hater.
I apologize if this wasnt the case, but so many times you see cut and pasting in these types of discussions. A quote or two doesnt bother me but normally you just want to hear that persons thoughts and not the thoughts of someone else..... and it goes for both sides of the discussion.

I know you're not being a hater--I just tend to have very open opinions on the above subject, and have researched/read enough books to be able to almost quote verbatim on it... I agree with you on copy/paste, though

-EB-

InChiefsHell
10-26-2005, 02:11 PM
I know you're not being a hater--I just tend to have very open opinions on the above subject, and have researched/read enough books to be able to almost quote verbatim on it... I agree with you on copy/paste, though

-EB-

Same here. If I'm gonna copy and paste, I always say where it came from. People can usually tell anyway, so why try to fake it?

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 02:13 PM
Um, actually, that was my point. She is the mother of Joses and James, who people say are Jesus' brothers, but she is not the same Mary that is Jesus' mrother, hence, these guys are not Jesus' brothers...hence Jesus didn't have siblings, at least not these two guys. Since this is used as a proof text that Jesus had brothers, it blows away that argument.

Sorry if I didn't explain that so well.

What? These are two totally different instances in the bible with different named siblings and different mates.
How are you bridging that?

Ebolapox
10-26-2005, 02:14 PM
Same here. If I'm gonna copy and paste, I always say where it came from. People can usually tell anyway, so why try to fake it?

'zactly--and I should point out the jabs against catholicism weren't personal (didn't realize you were catholic)--though let's be honest, catholicism has a LOT of things to answer for--but what religion or sect of a religion DOESN'T?!?

-EB-...not a proponent of organized religion

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 02:25 PM
Um, actually, that was my point. She is the mother of Joses and James, who people say are Jesus' brothers, but she is not the same Mary that is Jesus' mrother, hence, these guys are not Jesus' brothers...hence Jesus didn't have siblings, at least not these two guys. Since this is used as a proof text that Jesus had brothers, it blows away that argument.

Sorry if I didn't explain that so well.

In John 19:25 it mentions three different people named Mary.
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

KC Kings
10-26-2005, 02:37 PM
Knowledge is deep and wide. Ever wonder why supposedly God left this big book to explain himself? Ever wonder why this Jesus you speak of rebuked the religious leaders in his time and called them hypocrites and children of the devil? Ever wonder why there is only one book, yet a zillion different Christian religions. For those in whom it matters, sometimes a position or accurate knowledge is needed to discern whats truth and whats not, whats acceptable in Gods eyes and whats not. For example, today many churches claim to know God and Jesus, yet some of these support homosexuality and even have them as ministers. No matter how you feel about it, the book they claim to follow and represent is very clear on that subject, thus making them just as hypocritical as the religious leaders of Jesus day.
So you just have to ask yourself if truth or proper understanding even matters to you. As for myself, my interest and curiousity got the best of me.

1st of all, Jesus rebuked the leaders of the times because the many of them were hypocritical. Most people think about the Good Samaritan as Jesus telling us how we should act when really He is saying how we shouldn't act. The man on the side of the road was half dead, and death is very unpure. The Jewish Priest crossed to the other side of the road so they would not become impure, as to follow Jewish law. IN this parable Jesus is explaining how skewed the meaning of the word had become, when people were acting un-Godly as to perserve their Godliness.

2nd Most of the many religions are because of man trying to impose their rules over Christianity. The catholic church split to make up Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox because the Greeks allowed their Preist to get married, but the catholics did not and required that all services be held in Latin when everybody back then spoke Greek. Do either of those rules really matter, and if so why weren't they specified in the bible like so many other rules were? Then in the 1500's after the invention of the Guttenberg press, the Roman Catholics were finaly able to read a bible in a language that they spoke, could not find 80% of what the church had been teaching for over 1,000, and protested the blatant disrespect for the bible, in turn creating their own religion that used the Bible as the basis for their teachings. Notice that there are not 500 different types of catholic churches? That's because they abide by rules and customs that they have created, and there is little room for interpretation.

3rd, I don't agree with having Homo's as preachers/priest, but I also don't agree with the church or Christains being hateful towards gays. The bible is pretty clear about all men being sinners and falling short of the glory of God, and lets us knhow that we should worry about our own actions and sins, and not to look at the speck in your brothers eye when their is a log in your own. Jesus concentrated his teachings on sinners, hookers, tax collectors, etc... I find it hard to believe that we can look at His example and think that he would have showes his love to prostitutes but not homo's.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 03:07 PM
1st of all, Jesus rebuked the leaders of the times because the many of them were hypocritical. Most people think about the Good Samaritan as Jesus telling us how we should act when really He is saying how we shouldn't act. The man on the side of the road was half dead, and death is very unpure. The Jewish Priest crossed to the other side of the road so they would not become impure, as to follow Jewish law. IN this parable Jesus is explaining how skewed the meaning of the word had become, when people were acting un-Godly as to perserve their Godliness.

Yes.

2nd Most of the many religions are because of man trying to impose their rules over Christianity. The catholic church split to make up Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox because the Greeks allowed their Preist to get married, but the catholics did not and required that all services be held in Latin when everybody back then spoke Greek. Do either of those rules really matter, and if so why weren't they specified in the bible like so many other rules were? Then in the 1500's after the invention of the Guttenberg press, the Roman Catholics were finaly able to read a bible in a language that they spoke, could not find 80% of what the church had been teaching for over 1,000, and protested the blatant disrespect for the bible, in turn creating their own religion that used the Bible as the basis for their teachings. Notice that there are not 500 different types of catholic churches? That's because they abide by rules and customs that they have created, and there is little room for interpretation.

Pretty darn close.

3rd, I don't agree with having Homo's as preachers/priest, but I also don't agree with the church or Christains being hateful towards gays. The bible is pretty clear about all men being sinners and falling short of the glory of God, and lets us knhow that we should worry about our own actions and sins, and not to look at the speck in your brothers eye when their is a log in your own. Jesus concentrated his teachings on sinners, hookers, tax collectors, etc... I find it hard to believe that we can look at His example and think that he would have showes his love to prostitutes but not homo's.

It should go without saying that one professing as being a Christian shouldnt be hateful toward anyone. The key was educating and then they themselves choosing to turn from those errant ways, but it is very clear what happens to those who continue practicing such things.

Sully
10-26-2005, 03:11 PM
Biblical litralists make me laugh. Then cry...

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 03:28 PM
Biblical litralists make me laugh. Then cry...

.....and your point is what again?

Sully
10-26-2005, 03:39 PM
It's a long point, but if you didn't get how it fit into the conversation going on, I'm not going to elaborate. Nothing would be gained by elaborating.
Unless you are really asking and not being a douche, in which case I'd be glad to...

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 03:52 PM
It's a long point, but if you didn't get how it fit into the conversation going on, I'm not going to elaborate. Nothing would be gained by elaborating.
Unless you are really asking and not being a douche, in which case I'd be glad to...

What's can make it tricky is ones definition of a Biblical literalist.
I strive to be a Biblical accurast if you will, because I think the bible posses historical and contextual accuracy. As far as my recent discussion whether Jesus had bro's and sis's, I dont see how its brings up "literal" issue.

HolyHandgernade
10-26-2005, 03:56 PM
You should know that I'm not a hater.
I apologize if this wasnt the case, but so many times you see cut and pasting in these types of discussions. A quote or two doesnt bother me but normally you just want to hear that persons thoughts and not the thoughts of someone else..... and it goes for both sides of the discussion.

That is such a copout. There is no problem with people cut and pasting articles and sources to back up assertions. Are you against footnoting too? Does someone have to change a few words of what they have read or studied so they can claim it as original? If someone does leave a link or cut and paste, deflectors say they aren't using their own original ideas (whatever definition that happens to be); if they don't leave any such link, they are drilled for their source. Its a cheap debating trick and a way for people to skirt particularly tricky assertions from their opponent.

-HH

Sully
10-26-2005, 03:57 PM
The discussion, as I saw it, had turned a little.
Gays in the Bible, for instance, had been brought up. Add that to the Jesus' lineage question and the rest of it, and it had, in my mind, turned a little toward someone interpreting the Bible literally, with an English translation...

Pitt Gorilla
10-26-2005, 04:11 PM
Knowledge is deep and wide. Ever wonder why supposedly God left this big book to explain himself? Ever wonder why this Jesus you speak of rebuked the religious leaders in his time and called them hypocrites and children of the devil? Ever wonder why there is only one book, yet a zillion different Christian religions. For those in whom it matters, sometimes a position or accurate knowledge is needed to discern whats truth and whats not, whats acceptable in Gods eyes and whats not. For example, today many churches claim to know God and Jesus, yet some of these support homosexuality and even have them as ministers. No matter how you feel about it, the book they claim to follow and represent is very clear on that subject, thus making them just as hypocritical as the religious leaders of Jesus day.
So you just have to ask yourself if truth or proper understanding even matters to you. As for myself, my interest and curiousity got the best of me.Why chose Mary's "virginity," in our sense of the word, to be the "truth" on which you base other truths? That just seems a bit random. Also, you claim a book is "clear," implying that there is a single interpretation. How can anyone possibly believe that there is only one interpretation of anything? I mean, even behaviorists might scoff at that one.

Ebolapox
10-26-2005, 04:52 PM
the ultimate pointless argument--if jesus really is divine (obviously, I personally don't believe that), why the hell does mary HAVE to be a virgin birth--jeesh--IT DOESN'T EFFIN' MATTER-- does anyone else have a problem with how everything related to jesus has to be a big disney-related story with fairy tale stuffed into it so much as to make it unbelievable?!?

jehosephat--for crying out loud, why don't we just fall into the 'my god is better than your god because he's all pretty in the pictures we draw of him and because we disagree with you--now, it's time to slaughter your people or try to go to war with you because we disagree with you'

-EB-

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 05:01 PM
That is such a copout. There is no problem with people cut and pasting articles and sources to back up assertions. Are you against footnoting too? Does someone have to change a few words of what they have read or studied so they can claim it as original? If someone does leave a link or cut and paste, deflectors say they aren't using their own original ideas (whatever definition that happens to be); if they don't leave any such link, they are drilled for their source. Its a cheap debating trick and a way for people to skirt particularly tricky assertions from their opponent.

-HH

You have obviously misunderstood me.
Backing up with the facts or sources of what you say is very important.
Using the cut and paste opinion of someone else to speak your thought is another and it really doesnt carry much weight.
I'm not trying to trick anyone, I just like know someones thoughts from their own words when it comes to opinion or feelings on a matter. Guess I like a more personable approach when it comes to discussions like this and IMO when you cut and paste from someone elses discussion, it takes that away from that.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 05:08 PM
Why chose Mary's "virginity," in our sense of the word, to be the "truth" on which you base other truths? That just seems a bit random. Also, you claim a book is "clear," implying that there is a single interpretation. How can anyone possibly believe that there is only one interpretation of anything? I mean, even behaviorists might scoff at that one.

Mary's family was just the discussion at the time.
The bible is much simpler to understand that you think.
How could the church you follow have anything to stand on if they didnt accept what they believe as the correct single interpretation. The crusades would have never happened if the opposite was true.

HolyHandgernade
10-26-2005, 05:26 PM
You have obviously misunderstood me.
Backing up with the facts or sources of what you say is very important.
Using the cut and paste opinion of someone else to speak your thought is another and it really doesnt carry much weight.
I'm not trying to trick anyone, I just like know someones thoughts from their own words when it comes to opinion or feelings on a matter. Guess I like a more personable approach when it comes to discussions like this and IMO when you cut and paste from someone elses discussion, it takes that away from that.

OK, let's say I've misunderstood, and I'll go back to my original two cents and see if I can inquire what you are asking for.

I say:

In Jewish lineage, kingship is only passed through the male line making Mary's lineage superfulous. It is only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament.

You say:

Yes only a male could be a king, but your not biblically accurate on that statement as far as the linage is concerned.

To which I posted an explanation from Jews For Judaism on what Jews considered to be the rights of lineage and how that disqualified Jesus as the messiah for Jews. Not necessarily for Christian interpretation, but for Jews. I don't think it is a secret Jews do not accept that Jesus was a messiah for them and this is one of the reasonings for them behind this. Since there was no counter-argument for what I consider to be an authoritative voice in the discussion, and since it is now assumed that I have misunderstood, allow me to rephrase the query in a different direction to see if I can gather your response/interpretation.

When you say "biblically accurate", was does that mean? Do you mean that my statement is inaccurate because the Bible doesn't state a Mary lineage? Are you saying it is inaccurate that rites of kingship are only passed through the male line? Or is something else intended when you pose this vague statement towards my observation? Since this is all I had to work with, I went with the assumption I thought you meant and posted supporting material. So, please tell me what you mean when you say I am not being biblically accurate about lineage.

-HH

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 05:30 PM
The discussion, as I saw it, had turned a little.
Gays in the Bible, for instance, had been brought up. Add that to the Jesus' lineage question and the rest of it, and it had, in my mind, turned a little toward someone interpreting the Bible literally, with an English translation...

Well if the bible says for example, "Mary gave birth to Jesus". How should one understand this sentence? Literally it says Mary gave birth to Jesus, but should we naturally assume that Mary was Jesus' mom or was it maybe that Jesus was actually her husband that she gave her birth too? Its all ridiculious obviously and I dont know why it matters if you believe the bible or not. The fact is this certain book stated that this Mary had a child named Jesus and thats exactly what the writer was trying to convey. So if the bible condemns "men who lie with men" or "men who have unatural sex with men", so be it. You obviously dont have to agree with it or believe it, but its not fair to try and take away from what the writer of that book is obviously trying to convey, literal or not.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 06:03 PM
OK, let's say I've misunderstood, and I'll go back to my original two cents and see if I can inquire what you are asking for.

I say:

In Jewish lineage, kingship is only passed through the male line making Mary's lineage superfulous. It is only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament.

You say:

Yes only a male could be a king, but your not biblically accurate on that statement as far as the linage is concerned.

To which I posted an explanation from Jews For Judaism on what Jews considered to be the rights of lineage and how that disqualified Jesus as the messiah for Jews. Not necessarily for Christian interpretation, but for Jews. I don't think it is a secret Jews do not accept that Jesus was a messiah for them and this is one of the reasonings for them behind this. Since there was no counter-argument for what I consider to be an authoritative voice in the discussion, and since it is now assumed that I have misunderstood, allow me to rephrase the query in a different direction to see if I can gather your response/interpretation.

When you say "biblically accurate", was does that mean? Do you mean that my statement is inaccurate because the Bible doesn't state a Mary lineage? Are you saying it is inaccurate that rites of kingship are only passed through the male line? Or is something else intended when you pose this vague statement towards my observation? Since this is all I had to work with, I went with the assumption I thought you meant and posted supporting material. So, please tell me what you mean when you say I am not being biblically accurate about lineage.

-HH
Its hard to understand if you believe in the bible or your against it.
Maybe I totally misunderstood you. I was saying that within the bibles context what you say is inaccurate because all the lineage is important to bible accuracy and prophecy. Why do you state its only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament without sharing those differences?
Luke 2:24-38 shows the lineage from Adam to Jesus and Matt 1:1-16 starts with Abraham and goes to Jesus.
Yes most Jews didnt accept Jesus as the Messiah, but there were many Jews looking because of the prohecy and timeline.

HolyHandgernade
10-26-2005, 07:02 PM
Its hard to understand if you believe in the bible or your against it.
Maybe I totally misunderstood you. I was saying that within the bibles context what you say is inaccurate because all the lineage is important to bible accuracy and prophecy. Why do you state its only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament without sharing those differences?
Luke 2:24-38 shows the lineage from Adam to Jesus and Matt 1:1-16 starts with Abraham and goes to Jesus.
Yes most Jews didnt accept Jesus as the Messiah, but there were many Jews looking because of the prohecy and timeline.

OK, so you are maintaining there is no inaccuracy between the two. So we have Luke on the left and Matthew on the right but only to David:

Christ
2. Joseph 2. Joseph
3. Heli 3. Jacob
4. Matthat 4. Matthan
5. Levi 5. Eleazar
6. Melchi 6. Eliud
7. Janna 7. Achim
8. Joseph 8. Sadoc
9. Mattathias 9. Azor
10. Amos 10. Eliakim
11. Naum 11. Abiud
12. Esli 12. Zorobabel
13. Nagge 13. Salathiel
14. Maath 14. Jechonias
15. Mattathias 15. Josias
16. Semei 16. Amon
17. Joseph 17. Manasses
18. Juda 18. Ezekias
19. Joanna 19. Achaz
20. Rhesa 20. Joatham
21. Zorobabel 21. Ozias
22. Salathiel 22. Joram
23. Neri 23. Josaphat
24. Melchi 24. Asa
25. Addi 25. Abia
26. Cosam 26. Roboam
27. Elmodam 27. Solomon
28. Er 28. David
29. Jose
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Juda
36. Joseph
37. Jonan
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menan
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David

So, please show me how these two are the same lineage?

-HH

HolyHandgernade
10-26-2005, 07:55 PM
Its hard to understand if you believe in the bible or your against it.
Maybe I totally misunderstood you. I was saying that within the bibles context what you say is inaccurate because all the lineage is important to bible accuracy and prophecy. Why do you state its only brought up so that apologists can attempt to reconcile the two different lineages in the New Testament without sharing those differences?
Luke 2:24-38 shows the lineage from Adam to Jesus and Matt 1:1-16 starts with Abraham and goes to Jesus.
Yes most Jews didnt accept Jesus as the Messiah, but there were many Jews looking because of the prohecy and timeline.

As far as "for or against" the Bible, the question is superfulous to me. Its like saying am I for or against the Illiad. I have no problem with people drawing spiritual allegory from the Bible and I have no problem with people who want to believe the Bible literally. Where I have disagreement is when people claim the Bible's contents are historically accurate and therefore authoritative. I can rebut claims of historicity, logical consistency or empirical claims.

-HH

Boozer
10-26-2005, 07:57 PM
I love these threads. Any time I see a C-Mac post about the Bible, I always scroll until I see Holy Handgrenade's ownage.

Valiant
10-26-2005, 08:45 PM
I'm in school right now, a history major, and all they use now is BCE/ CE.

Guess what, it starts at 0


I think it depends where you go and who your professor's are, because Park Univ. uses BC/AD still...

Sully
10-26-2005, 09:21 PM
Well if the bible says for example, "Mary gave birth to Jesus". How should one understand this sentence? Literally it says Mary gave birth to Jesus, but should we naturally assume that Mary was Jesus' mom or was it maybe that Jesus was actually her husband that she gave her birth too? Its all ridiculious obviously and I dont know why it matters if you believe the bible or not. The fact is this certain book stated that this Mary had a child named Jesus and thats exactly what the writer was trying to convey. So if the bible condemns "men who lie with men" or "men who have unatural sex with men", so be it. You obviously dont have to agree with it or believe it, but its not fair to try and take away from what the writer of that book is obviously trying to convey, literal or not.


Well... for instance, there is argument over what the original text actually says and in what context it speaks about "men lying with men." The obvious, in English is that gayness is bad, but there are plenty of Biblical scholars who have read a lot of earlier manuscripts and translate it much differently. Of course, people today don't want to hear that, because it doesn't cater to their beliefs and fears...
But that's just one example.
Another is the virginity of Mary...
I could go on and on, but unless any of us saw it first hand or have even read the original manuscripts in their original language, or talked with the men who wrote the Bible, then we are speaking purely from ignorant faith.

Boozer
10-26-2005, 10:01 PM
Re the BC-AD/BCE-CE distinction. We rarely have occasion to deal with this at my publication, but we defer to the author (consistent with the Chicago Manual). If someone wants to avoid reference to Christianity, they're more than welcome to do so, even if it is a bit contrived.

In my limited experience (reviewing submitted law review articles...very few of them reference dates over 2000 years old), use of BCE-CE is an anomaly. I really can't fault a non-Christian for refusing to refer to the "year of [his] Lord," however.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 10:04 PM
Well... for instance, there is argument over what the original text actually says and in what context it speaks about "men lying with men." The obvious, in English is that gayness is bad, but there are plenty of Biblical scholars who have read a lot of earlier manuscripts and translate it much differently. Of course, people today don't want to hear that, because it doesn't cater to their beliefs and fears...
But that's just one example.
Another is the virginity of Mary...
I could go on and on, but unless any of us saw it first hand or have even read the original manuscripts in their original language, or talked with the men who wrote the Bible, then we are speaking purely from ignorant faith.
Well then how can you refute what the original text says if you dont even know it? It goes both ways. Are you a Hebrew scholar or a Greek scholar or the Bible scholar for that matter? I would guess not. Your out to debate a books writings wrong or right yet you dont posses the proper knowledge or authority to refute it other than just say it must be wrong because you dont agree with it or because someone else has a similar opinion. It also appears as if you really have no desire to learn anything about the bible unless it pertains to proving it a worthless book of words. The old scripts arent hidden away in a vault, their photoscripts have been made public accessible. So yes you cant go on and on but you really have nothing to rely on but someone elses opinion and someone elses interpretation. Like I said before, it doesnt matter if you agree with the bible writers or not, I'm not presenting that, but as it is translated, anyone with some bible knowledge and some simple reasoning can figure out what the writer is saying.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 10:11 PM
I love these threads. Any time I see a C-Mac post about the Bible, I always scroll until I see Holy Handgrenade's ownage.

Oh the weight of someones opinion continually thrown upon me, just finally overtakes me......what can I say.

Boozer
10-26-2005, 10:15 PM
Oh the weight of someones opinion continually thrown upon me, just finally overtakes me......what can I say.

It's not just the weight of "someone's opinion." It's clear that you're a far-above-average Biblical scholar. (Un)fortunately, you're tainted by faith, which prevents you from being objective. When dealing with an obviously ambiguous text, attempts to reconcile with a coherent belief system are an impairment.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 10:27 PM
It's not just the weight of "someone's opinion." It's clear that you're a far-above-average Biblical scholar. (Un)fortunately, you're tainted by faith, which prevents you from being objective. When dealing with an obviously ambiguous text, attempts to reconcile with a coherent belief system are an impairment.

I try to be objective and I try to always present a balanced take on all things but on the same token sometimes the bible itself has to be used to reconcile its context. There is faith and there is blind faith and you should know if you follow my posts, I dont buy into blind faith because I disagree with many religions teachings. Can you tell me how can or should anyone refute something they are not well versed in?

Boozer
10-26-2005, 10:31 PM
I try to be objective and I try to always present a balanced take on all things but on the same token sometimes the bible itself has to be used to reconcile its context. There is faith and there is blind faith and you should know if you follow my posts, I dont buy into blind faith because I disagree with many religions teachings. Can you tell me how can or should anyone refute something they are not well versed in?

I'm not saying it can be done. I hope you're not referring to HH, though. Saying he's not "well-versed" in the Bible would just be silly.

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 11:00 PM
I'm not saying it can be done. I hope you're not referring to HH, though. Saying he's not "well-versed" in the Bible would just be silly.

HH is very intelligent and I will say he's is well versed in superficial bible knowledge and bible criticism, but putting the format on a biblical context understanding only plain....sorry I havent seen that.
Now before you blast me, let me give you an example of what I mean.
-In 1Cor 15:45, the bible refers to Jesus as "the last Adam" Why is that, what does that mean?
-Who is this "god" in 2 Cor 4:4 thats spoken of?
-In the book of Daniel what does the clay feet of the statue represent? The correct "biblical based" answers would require good biblical context knowledge and understanding.....or maybe just a good Google search.

Boozer
10-26-2005, 11:16 PM
HH is very intelligent and I will say he's is well versed in superficial bible knowledge and bible criticism, but putting the format on a biblical context understanding only plain....sorry I havent seen that.
Now before you blast me, let me give you an example of what I mean.
-In 1Cor 15:45, the bible refers to Jesus as "the last Adam" Why is that, what does that mean?
-Who is this "god" in 2 Cor 4:4 thats spoken of?
-In the book of Daniel what does the clay feet of the statue represent? The correct "biblical based" answers would require good biblical context knowledge and understanding.....or maybe just a good Google search.

You're saying his knowledge of the Bible is superficial? ROFL

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 11:21 PM
You're saying his knowledge of the Bible is superficial? ROFL
Glad you waited to blast me. :rolleyes:
My "non-superficial" biblical questions are meaningless and irrelavent. Sorry, disreguard.... carry on.

HolyHandgernade
10-26-2005, 11:24 PM
HH is very intelligent and I will say he's is well versed in superficial bible knowledge and bible criticism, but putting the format on a biblical context understanding only plain....sorry I havent seen that.
Now before you blast me, let me give you an example of what I mean.
-In 1Cor 15:45, the bible refers to Jesus as "the last Adam" Why is that, what does that mean?
-Who is this "god" in 2 Cor 4:4 thats spoken of?
-In the book of Daniel what does the clay feet of the statue represent? The correct "biblical based" answers would require good biblical context knowledge and understanding.....or maybe just a good Google search.

Does this mean you won't answer my superficial question? You say the two lineages are not conflicting. I present them side by side which shows they are not only conflicting, they do not agree in the number of generations between David and Joseph. So explain it to me like I'm a five year old, how are they not conflicting?

-HH

Boozer
10-26-2005, 11:25 PM
Glad you waited to blast me. :rolleyes:
My "non-superficial" biblical questions are meaningless and irrelavent. Sorry, disreguard.... carry on.

No, I'm just amused by your inability to see...pardon the pun..."Devil's advocate" questions for what they are, rather than genuine inquiries. Please don't interpret my amusement as "slamming."

C-Mac
10-26-2005, 11:32 PM
No, I'm just amused by your inability to see...pardon the pun..."Devil's advocate" questions for what they are, rather than genuine inquiries. Please don't interpret my amusement as "slamming."

Maybe I just need to explain better.
Knowledge of understanding what the biblical context means as compared to knowledge of where or what is written is two completely different things.
Thats why I proposed those questions, it takes more that just knowing where to find them and whats written there to understand there meaning.
Do I make any sense?

HolyHandgernade
10-26-2005, 11:49 PM
HH is very intelligent and I will say he's is well versed in superficial bible knowledge and bible criticism, but putting the format on a biblical context understanding only plain....sorry I havent seen that.
Now before you blast me, let me give you an example of what I mean.
-In 1Cor 15:45, the bible refers to Jesus as "the last Adam" Why is that, what does that mean?
-Who is this "god" in 2 Cor 4:4 thats spoken of?
-In the book of Daniel what does the clay feet of the statue represent? The correct "biblical based" answers would require good biblical context knowledge and understanding.....or maybe just a good Google search.

Paul does not know anything of the living Jesus, Paul only claims to know the risen Jesus, the mystical Jesus. Adam represents the perfect man prior to the fall, but fall he does. To compensate, God forms a compact with Israel, the laws, of which the Ten Commandments are part, to purify man. Christians claim these laws cannnot be fulfilled without transgressing at some point in one's life, so redemption is impossible. God thus sends Jesus as the last perfect man (Adam) to be the spiritual salvation lost in Eden.

The orthodox Christian interpretation is that the "god of this world" is Satan. This is gnostic dualism through and through however. This is the demiurge.

The statue is a metaphor describing four kingdoms thought to be Neo-Babylonian(Gold), Median(Silver), Persian(Iron), and Greek(Clay). The divided kingdom refers to the Greek empire splitting into four kingdoms. The feet are a mixture of iron and clay indicating the base is supposed to be strong but is also brittle. It cannot compare to the kingdom of God and will one day crumble, it is a temporal thing.

Do I get my question about the lineages answered now?

-HH

C-Mac
10-27-2005, 12:01 AM
Does this mean you won't answer my superficial question? You say the two lineages are not conflicting. I present them side by side which shows they are not only conflicting, they do not agree in the number of generations between David and Joseph. So explain it to me like I'm a five year old, how are they not conflicting?

-HH
The problem appears HH is that your goal, as some others, is only out to prove that the bibles validity is worthless. That the bible is no different that a Dr.Suess book. No matter that its the most distributed publication in the history of mankind, no matter that 4000 year old manuscripts found in 1947 have proven that its context has been preserved even up to this very day. No these facts mean nothing to someone with ulterior motives. So be straight with me, do you truly desire to know why there is this seemingly unexplainable differences in lineage and would it really matter if I could? You know I'm not intimidated by you because I'm studious on the bible and bible history and I'm comfortable with that. On the same token neither are you intimdated. So why waste both of ours time, rather just agree to disagree.

HolyHandgernade
10-27-2005, 12:10 AM
The problem appears HH is that your goal, as some others, is only out to prove that the bibles validity is worthless. That the bible is no different that a Dr.Suess book. No matter that its the most distributed publication in the history of mankind, no matter that 4000 year old manuscripts found in 1947 have proven that its context has been preserved even up to this very day. No these facts mean nothing to someone with ulterior motives. So be straight with me, do you truly desire to know why there is this seemingly unexplainable differences in lineage and would it really matter if I could? You know I'm not intimidated by you because I'm studious on the bible and bible history and I'm comfortable with that. On the same token neither are you intimdated. So why waste both of ours time, rather just agree to disagree.

What do you mean by validity? I will concede the Bible has had a huge impact on Western culture and thought. Quite possibly the defining impact. My contention is over the issue of historicity. If a myth is preerved perfectly for 4000 years does it become true due to longevity? Similar oral traditions were passed among the Greeks until Homer wrote them down. So yes, I want to know how one reconciles them. You were the one who said I was biblically incorrect. I understand spiritual allegory, well enough in fact that I don't have to believe such allegorical stories actually occurred for their significance to be appreciated. So, even if I disagree with your interpretation on how the two are similar, I do want to know what it is.

-HH

C-Mac
10-27-2005, 12:22 AM
What do you mean by validity? I will concede the Bible has had a huge impact on Western culture and thought. Quite possibly the defining impact. My contention is over the issue of historicity. If a myth is preerved perfectly for 4000 years does it become true due to longevity? Similar oral traditions were passed among the Greeks until Homer wrote them down. So yes, I want to know how one reconciles them. You were the one who said I was biblically incorrect. I understand spiritual allegory, well enough in fact that I don't have to believe such allegorical stories actually occurred for their significance to be appreciated. So, even if I disagree with your interpretation on how the two are similar, I do want to know what it is.
-HH

Fine!
So why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1*Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew. He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it right then and there For until 70C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
So both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

HolyHandgernade
10-27-2005, 12:28 AM
Thank you, I'll reply tomorrow.

-HH

InChiefsHell
10-27-2005, 06:23 AM
'zactly--and I should point out the jabs against catholicism weren't personal (didn't realize you were catholic)--though let's be honest, catholicism has a LOT of things to answer for--but what religion or sect of a religion DOESN'T?!?

-EB-...not a proponent of organized religion

No worries. I didn't get offended, like I said I kinda get into this sort of thing alot.

My contention is that Catholocism does not have anything to answer for, but some of the boneheads that have been it's leaders do. They will answer to God, the rest is pretty much out of my hands.

InChiefsHell
10-27-2005, 06:42 AM
What? These are two totally different instances in the bible with different named siblings and different mates.
How are you bridging that?

How are you establishing that they are different people? I don't get that either...how do you know that they are not the same James and Joses in both passages?

Another cut and paste from BCS:

Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the "brothers" of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, "[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers...the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty." A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the "brothers" of Jesus. Let's see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus' mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let's say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument's sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus' brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the "brothers" of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

I'm also curious as to how you explain the appointment of John by Jesus from the cross as caretaker for Mary when he already had siblings to do that...

BTW, I realize this thread has kinda gone away from where it was originally, so I'm pretty much officially off topic. Sorry about that, I was really busy yesterday afternoon.

C-Mac
10-27-2005, 08:07 AM
How are you establishing that they are different people? I don't get that either...how do you know that they are not the same James and Joses in both passages?.

In John 19:25 it mentions three different people named Mary.
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother(Mary), and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene".

(Matthew 13:55-56) Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did this man get all these things?”
(Acts 1:14) 14 With one accord all these were persisting in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers."

This Mary is identified as the wife of Joseph(the carpenter) and the mother of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judasso.

(Matthew 27:55-56) Moreover, many women were there viewing from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Gal´i·lee to minister to him; among whom was Mary Mag´da·lene, also Mary the mother of James and Jo´ses, and the mother of the sons of Zeb´e·dee.

(Mark 15:40) 40 There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me,

(Mark 16:1) 16 So when the sabbath had passed, Mary Mag´da·lene, and Mary the mother of James, and Sa·lo´me bought spices in order to come and grease him.

This Mary is identified as the wife of Zebedee (the fisherman), and the mother of James theLess, Joses and Salome.

HolyHandgernade
10-27-2005, 09:41 AM
Fine!
So why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listings of the other chroniclers? First of all, to prove one’s genealogy it was not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. For example, Ezra, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5, omitted several names contained in the listing of the priestly line at 1*Chronicles 6:1-15. Obviously it was not essential to name all these ancestors to satisfy the Jews as to his priestly lineage. Similarly with Matthew. He doubtless used the public register and copied from it, if not every name, the ones necessary to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. He also had access to the Hebrew Scriptures, which he could consult alongside the official public records.—Compare Ru 4:12, 18-22 and Mt 1:3-6.
The lists made by both Matthew and Luke were comprised of names publicly recognized by the Jews of that time as authentic. The scribes and Pharisees as well as the Sadducees were bitter enemies of Christianity, and they would have used any possible argument to discredit Jesus, but it is noteworthy that they never challenged these genealogies. If either Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy of Jesus had been in error, what an opportunity it would have been for these opponents to prove it right then and there For until 70C.E. they evidently had ready access to the public genealogical registers and the Scriptures.
So both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

Let's first recall the list and I'll highlight the names which are the same:

Christ
2. Joseph 2. Joseph
3. Heli 3. Jacob
4. Matthat 4. Matthan
5. Levi 5. Eleazar
6. Melchi 6. Eliud
7. Janna 7. Achim
8. Joseph 8. Sadoc
9. Mattathias 9. Azor
10. Amos 10. Eliakim
11. Naum 11. Abiud
12. Esli 12. Zorobabel
13. Nagge 13. Salathiel
14. Maath 14. Jechonias
15. Mattathias 15. Josias
16. Semei 16. Amon
17. Joseph 17. Manasses
18. Juda 18. Ezekias
19. Joanna 19. Achaz
20. Rhesa 20. Joatham
21. Zorobabel 21. Ozias
22. Salathiel 22. Joram
23. Neri 23. Josaphat
24. Melchi 24. Asa
25. Addi 25. Abia
26. Cosam 26. Roboam
27. Elmodam 27. Solomon
28. Er 28. David
29. Jose
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Matthat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Juda
36. Joseph
37. Jonan
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menan
41. Mattatha
42. Nathan
43. David

If your point is that they are not listing all the names, one would expect to at least find some similar names along the way and that is simply not the case. The most telling aspect, however, is that the two lines do not agree who was Joseph's father (Heli/Jacob) and that their are two lines of descent from David (Nathan/Solomon). These are two different lines and it matters not if the lines past Joseph are correctly recorded or not, they cannot both be linked to Joseph paternally.

Only Solomon's line can be considered for kingship, so the Nathan line, even if correctly copied, is useless as far as messianic claims go. The writer of Luke is apparently unaware of this indicating he is not writing for Jewish audience but a gentile one unconcerned about actual Jewish law. This may have been the only record the writer of Luke had access to, and so he decided to go with that.

This information weakens your defense that both are the same line. First of all, there is no record in the Talmud or anywhere outside the New Testament that the Jews were actively seeking to discredit Jesus or even acknowledged his existence at all. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were more at odds with one another, and the teachings of Jesus differed only slightly to the Pharisees. Most Pharisee schools were rather tolerant of viewpoints within the theology and I suspect the writers of the New Testament transposed some of the more fundamentalist Sauducee attitudes onto the Pharacee characters in the Gospel. I would suggest the book, Paul, And The Invention Of Christianity by Hyam Macabee for a concise but thourough review of the dynamics of Jewish sects around the purported time of Christ.

Anyway, the explanation offered cannot logically be melded into one lineage. And if I followed your reasoning, it would appear to me the autthors of these books simply copied down a suitable lineage and ascribed it to Jesus. Apparently the two authors did not confer to ensure conformity and the editors of the Bible did not catch the oversight. But, as I believe, these books were never written as testimony for the Jews but always intended for a gentile audience, the geneology question was never raised in the early days of the Church. In fact, I believe it was punishable by death for anyone outside the clergy to actually read the Bible til the 14th or 15th century.

While I can appreciate your conviction, I don't think you have adequately and objectively reconciled the two. It may not be necessary for a person of faith, but it is these types of inconsistencies that make it hard for persons such as myself to accept such holy books as historical record. Since they are not reliable in this fashion, it draws considerable skepticism on my part in further trying to establish brothers and sisters and such as historical people as well. Not unlike arguing if Prometheus was born of a virgin or had extended family. Because that particular mythos is not our mythos, we tend to view such a question or speculation as unnecessary. But, because we believe the Bible mythos to have been real, people go to great lengths to try and prove their mythos is actually history, not allegory.

-HH

C-Mac
10-27-2005, 09:43 AM
I'm also curious as to how you explain the appointment of John by Jesus from the cross as caretaker for Mary when he already had siblings to do that...

You could also make the case of where's is Joseph her husband, in this situation too.

(John 7:3-10)Therefore his brothers said to him: “Pass on over from here and go into Ju·de´a, in order that your disciples also may behold the works you do.......But not even his brothers had put faith in him ......... But when his brothers had gone up to the festival, then he
also went up himself, not openly but as in secret....

In the quote above it states that his brothers at least at this time, had not put faith in him so likey if they had, they would have been there with there mother.
This could easily explain what happens in John 19:25-27 when Jesus was dying looking down at his mother, who obviously was deeply sorrowed, and noticing also John the disciple whom he loved, also grieving, standing nearby. Jesus said “Woman, see! your son!” Then to John he said: “See! your mother!” The Bible says that from that very hour John lovingly took (his aunt) Mary, Jesus’ mother, into his own home in Jerusalem. Really who better could comfort Mary in her despair than her own fleshly sister Salome, a believer also. This act indicates a loving tribute paid by Jesus to the woman who unselfishly gave of herself from the birth to the death of earth’s greatest man, whom she was privileged to bear.

C-Mac
10-27-2005, 10:13 AM
While I can appreciate your conviction, I don't think you have adequately and objectively reconciled the two. It may not be necessary for a person of faith, but it is these types of inconsistencies that make it hard for persons such as myself to accept such holy books as historical record. Since they are not reliable in this fashion, it draws considerable skepticism on my part in further trying to establish brothers and sisters and such as historical people as well. Not unlike arguing if Prometheus was born of a virgin or had extended family. Because that particular mythos is not our mythos, we tend to view such a question or speculation as unnecessary. But, because we believe the Bible mythos to have been real, people go to great lengths to try and prove their mythos is actually history, not allegory.
-HH
To ad, the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is also quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
So if your father was Joe and his father was Jack and his father was Jim, would you not still be a decendant of Jim? There is a lot of credibilty in the presented issue that the geneology would be the first thing challenged by opposers and those verifying the fact of his lineage, for that would quickly and easily dismiss Jesus as the messiah. Not one debate is mentioned in the bible or in secular history. Your being more presumtious in stating the opposite. You stated that "The Pharisees and the Sadducees were more at odds with one another, and the teachings of Jesus differed only slightly to the Pharisees" but this "slight" difference was huge. Its hard to make light of the fact that they were out to kill him because of his contrary teachings and his messianic claim.
Like I said before, when you view the bible as no more a credible book than a Dr. Suess book, its hard to appreciate much about it. You claim that its not historically accurate, but the opposite is true. You discredit the fact that its context has been held intact for over 4000 years despite the many language translations and many opposers. No other book can make that claim. So ya, you can try to pick it apart and make it appear as a myth book to yourself, but certain undisputable facts remain that set it apart from any other writings known to mankind that makes it earn my respect.

HolyHandgernade
10-27-2005, 10:55 AM
To ad, the difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is also quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
So if your father was Joe and his father was Jack and his father was Jim, would you not still be a decendant of Jim? There is a lot of credibilty in the presented issue that the geneology would be the first thing challenged by opposers and those verifying the fact of his lineage, for that would quickly and easily dismiss Jesus as the messiah. Not one debate is mentioned in the bible or in secular history. Your being more presumtious in stating the opposite. You stated that "The Pharisees and the Sadducees were more at odds with one another, and the teachings of Jesus differed only slightly to the Pharisees" but this "slight" difference was huge. Its hard to make light of the fact that they were out to kill him because of his contrary teachings and his messianic claim.
Like I said before, when you view the bible as no more a credible book than a Dr. Suess book, its hard to appreciate much about it. You claim that its not historically accurate, but the opposite is true. You discredit the fact that its context has been held intact for over 4000 years despite the many language translations and many opposers. No other book can make that claim. So ya, you can try to pick it apart and make it appear as a myth book to yourself, but certain undisputable facts remain that set it apart from any other writings known to mankind that makes it earn my respect.


OK, so now we are finally back to my first assertion that some apologists try to cast one of the geneologies through Mary, which you first said was biblically inaccurate. So let me go back to the Jews For Judaism refutation of this line of reasoning:

The Gospel of Luke provides a variant tradition concerning Jesus'
ancestry. In the literal Greek of its genealogical listing "Joseph of
the Heli" (Luke 3:23) is just another way of saying "Joseph son of
Heli."

Some Christian commentators have claimed that Luke gives Mary's
genealogy. Accordingly, it is proposed that Heli is the father-in-law
of Joseph, that is, Heli is the name of Mary's father. There is no
genealogical record, in either the Jewish Bible or the New Testament,
which refers to a man as the son of his father-in-law. There is no
verse in the New Testament that says Mary is the daughter of Heli.

To presume that Mary was of Davidic descent presents the problem that
Mary could not pass on what she did not possess: (1) Maternal
connection does not enter into consideration for succession to the
throne of David which is passed on only through a continuous male
line: "There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17); (2) Biblically, the
right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are
exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding
the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27
and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of
physical property and not privileges of lineage.

Considering Luke's genealogical list, neither Joseph nor Mary could
claim an inheritance to the throne of David through Heli. Heli and
his progeny would be disqualified in regard to the Davidic kingship
if he were a descendant of Nathan. Of all the son's of David, God
chose Solomon to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 29:1, 1
Kings 2:24).

Whether through Joseph or Mary, Jesus is disqualified from the
messianic office.

As far as I know, rites of kingship are not passed through adoptive children, that would "cut off from David" since Jesus would not be of David's bloodline.

The reason, I believe for lack of debate on this or any other issue, is that this story of Jesus is a myth that was subsequently some time after the events were said to have occurred, passed off as history. There are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus at all, let alone a debate about his ancestery. So the silence on the matter is not proof of anything to me.

The writings of Ahura Mazda are just as old, if not older. But most Christians do not attribute their age or intactness as being just as historically acurate as the Bible. The Illiad has long lists of ancestors so that royals could attempt to trace their lineage back to the Greek heroes of Perseus and thus back to Zeus. If we are to allow the Bible's claim, on what objective grounds do we disqualify these others as myths? Cultural bias?

I am not trying to disuade your conviction that it stands out as very important in your life. I'm just pointing out why others do not and why referencing such a holy book in justifying secular matters such as homosexuality, creationism, etc., via authority of the Bible is not an objective standard.

-HH

InChiefsHell
10-27-2005, 10:21 PM
HH,

I can understand doubting Jesus' divinity, but doubting his historical existence? That's a new one to me.

See the link below when you get a minute. Yes, it is from a Christian website, but it has some compelling arguments regarding recent archaeological discoveries over the last century or so that seem to point at least to the existence of a historical Jesus:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

I grant you that this source is biased, but bias does not necessarily equal inaccuracy. I'd be curious of your opinion on it.

C-Mac
10-27-2005, 10:37 PM
HH,

I can understand doubting Jesus' divinity, but doubting his historical existence? That's a new one to me.

See the link below when you get a minute. Yes, it is from a Christian website, but it has some compelling arguments regarding recent archaeological discoveries over the last century or so that seem to point at least to the existence of a historical Jesus:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

I grant you that this source is biased, but bias does not necessarily equal inaccuracy. I'd be curious of your opinion on it.

Yes history is littered with proof of his existance, heck even the Jewish people at least believe he existed. Your wasting your time with HH, he seems like a nice guy and very intelligent, but he doesnt always apply it in a practical way.

HolyHandgernade
10-28-2005, 09:03 AM
Yes history is littered with proof of his existance, heck even the Jewish people at least believe he existed. Your wasting your time with HH, he seems like a nice guy and very intelligent, but he doesnt always apply it in a practical way.

You mean the most popular way. I have no doubt my viewpoint is in the minority, but that does not mean it has no practicality. I'll go further into it later, but here are the three camps as far as the historicity of Jesus goes:

Believers : People who take the Judeo-Christian Bible as the literal “Word of God,” accepting “on faith” that everything contained within is historical fact infallibly written by scribes “inspired by God”. The intellectual arm of this branch is known as apologetics.

apologetics : 2 : that branch of theology devoted to the defense of a religious faith and addressed primarily to criticism originating from outside the religious faith; esp : such defense of the Christian faith


Evemerists : This group is named after the Greek philosopher Evemeras/Euhemeros (4BCE) who circulated the idea that the mythical creatures and heroes of old told in the Greek myths were actually historical characters whose lives had been later deified. Likewise, people who fall into this camp believe the major characters of the Bible were historical, but their deeds and exploits were then deified or exaggerated for various purposes. This approach attempts to circumnavigate the more fantastic elements of the Bible, such as extraordinary miracles, to focus on the moral or life lessons taught by exemplary human beings.

Mythicists : This final group contends that the Bible stories are mostly mythical in nature set in an historic backdrop for dramatic effect. The core is a retelling of a popular conception of the divine that gets subsequently redressed in various cultural settings. To the mythicist, the more interesting aspect of these stories is their common archetypes, not the cultural surface features.

C-Mac
10-28-2005, 09:33 AM
You mean the most popular way. I have no doubt my viewpoint is in the minority, but that does not mean it has no practicality. I'll go further into it later, but here are the three camps as far as the historicity of Jesus goes:

Believers : People who take the Judeo-Christian Bible as the literal “Word of God,” accepting “on faith” that everything contained within is historical fact infallibly written by scribes “inspired by God”. The intellectual arm of this branch is known as apologetics.

apologetics : 2 : that branch of theology devoted to the defense of a religious faith and addressed primarily to criticism originating from outside the religious faith; esp : such defense of the Christian faith


Evemerists : This group is named after the Greek philosopher Evemeras/Euhemeros (4BCE) who circulated the idea that the mythical creatures and heroes of old told in the Greek myths were actually historical characters whose lives had been later deified. Likewise, people who fall into this camp believe the major characters of the Bible were historical, but their deeds and exploits were then deified or exaggerated for various purposes. This approach attempts to circumnavigate the more fantastic elements of the Bible, such as extraordinary miracles, to focus on the moral or life lessons taught by exemplary human beings.

Mythicists : This final group contends that the Bible stories are mostly mythical in nature set in an historic backdrop for dramatic effect. The core is a retelling of a popular conception of the divine that gets subsequently redressed in various cultural settings. To the mythicist, the more interesting aspect of these stories is their common archetypes, not the cultural surface features.

One issue I have is that you dont allow for certain "unwritten" yet useful and practical tangibles to apply. Like I mentioned before, no man has changed history more than this man they call Jesus, even most calendars are based upon him. This isn't maybe some written engraved historical proof that you search for, but it is proof none the less. What information or subject that you dont know for sure on, you say "as far as I know" which should also be accepted I dont really know for sure. You also paint the bible as not being historically accurate, when in fact it is. Like for one example, I mentioned before there was no secular record of Pontius Pilate until just a few years ago. For centuries historians used to use this to discredit the bibles accuracy...but now they cant. That would seem to carry some weight in just about anyones discerning eye's.

HolyHandgernade
10-28-2005, 10:16 AM
A little biased? Wow, not only am I wrong, but I'm also dishonest according to the final wording. OK, I'll see what I can pick apart generally:

History, Archaeology and Jesus

Hard evidence from the ancient world dramatically supports the New Testament record on Jesus.

by Paul L. Maier

Mythical personalities are not involved in authentic episodes from the past. Nor do they leave hard evidence behind. In the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, however, there are many points of contact between His record in the Gospels and the surrounding history of His times. Just as the New Testament is studded with authentic geographical locations, it is also full of genuine personalities who are well known from secular sources outside of the Bible record, including some that are even hostile to Christianity.

Mythical personalities are quite often set in authentic episodes of the past. For example, archeologists believe they have uncovered Troy, but does that mean all the events described in the Illiad are now true. Did Aphrodite swoop down and rescue Paris from the battlefield? Was Achilllies really dipped in the river Styx?

All of the following are Bible characters about whom we know as much, or more, from secular ancient historical records than from the New Testament.
Roman emperors: Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius.
Roman governors: Pontius Pilate, Serguis Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus.
Local rulers: Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Philip, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Lysanias, Aretas IV.
High priests: Annas, Joseph Caiaphas, Ananias.
Prominent women: Herodias, Salome, Bernice, Drusilla.
Prominent men: John the Baptist, James the Just.
In some cases, the additional, non-Biblical information on these personalities is immense. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37—100), for example, supplies about a thousand times as much data on Herod the Great as does Matthew’s Gospel.

If one is going to set a mythical story in an historical context, it is much more dramatic if prominent characters from that period are added. If I write a ficitious novel set in the Civil War, I'm going to mention Lincoln, Grant and Lee, I'm not going to reinvent the entire historical period. I may take exception with a couple later listed above, but this doesn't prove anything.


In other cases, the secular facts are crucial. The New Testament does not tell us what became of Jesus’ half-brother, James the Just of Jerusalem, the first bishop of the Christian church (Acts 15). Josephus, however, gives us the details of his being stoned to death by the Sanhedrin in A.D. 62.

James the Just is claimed to be Jesus' half-brother, but outside of the Bible there is no credible evidence this is the case outside of the disputed Josephus passage which I will address below.

Josephus on Jesus

Twice Josephus refers to Jesus. His second reference concerns the episode involving James, whom he defines as "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." Earlier, in the middle of his reports on Pontius Pilate’s administration, Josephus has a longer passage on Jesus. For centuries this had been dismissed as a Christian interpolation. But what is doubtless the original wording has now been restored. In view of its importance, the entire passage is presented here:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day" (Antiquities 20:200).

The "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF") has been demonstrated to be a forgery over and over, but apologists keep bringing it back and trying to redress it so it doesn't stink quite as bad. But I'll stick with Bishop Warburton's assessment of the "TF" as "...a rank forgey, and a very stupid one too."

First of all, no Christian apologist references the "TF" until the fourth century, and curiously, there are no more copies of Josephus that date prior to this....for some odd reason. Origen (185-232), a prominent Christian apologist later declared heretic, was one of the most learned early Christians of the time and an avid reader of Josephus laments that although Josephus mentions many "Jesuses" he does not consider any of them to be the Christ. How could Origen miss even the revised "TF" mentioned in this article? He would not of missed it indicating it was not originally there.

There is an actual term in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "pious fraud". Basically, any forgery or such that was used to increase the faith was not seen as a sin. The bishop widely suspected of employing this tactic to great extent was Eusebius, and in fact, many non-biblical sources of Christ's purported existence "appear" after this bishop's time of influence. Here is a list of Christian authorities who also never mention the "TF":

Justin Martyr (100-165) who poured over Josephus's works without mention of it

Theophilus (180) bishop of Antioch

Irenaeus (120/140-200203), saint and compiler of the New Testament

Clement of Alexandria (150-211/215) influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian School

Hippolytus (170-235) saint and martyr

In fact no prominent Christian mentions them at all until Eusebius "found it" in the fourth century. Add to this, the passage interrupts the narritive and if taken out the narritive flows once again and it is the only time that the "Christians" are ever even mentioned in the entire works of Josephus. Wouldn't one think, that if the Christians were as numerous and trouble making as we are led to believe that Josephus might mention them elsewhere? The entire passage is an interpolation, along with the reference to James the Just. There is much more I could offer, but I think you get the idea.

This will take some time, and I have to do some errands and go to work tonight. So I'll break up the links assertions giving you time to digest it in small parts along the way.


Here is a link to a more in depth Joesphus discertation than the brief one given above. It is lengthy, but sometimes impractical viewpoints such as my own need comprehensive supporting material:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm

-HH

HolyHandgernade
10-28-2005, 10:17 AM
One issue I have is that you dont allow for certain "unwritten" yet useful and practical tangibles to apply. Like I mentioned before, no man has changed history more than this man they call Jesus, even most calendars are based upon him. This isn't maybe some written engraved historical proof that you search for, but it is proof none the less. What information or subject that you dont know for sure on, you say "as far as I know" which should also be accepted I dont really know for sure. You also paint the bible as not being historically accurate, when in fact it is. Like for one example, I mentioned before there was no secular record of Pontius Pilate until just a few years ago. For centuries historians used to use this to discredit the bibles accuracy...but now they cant. That would seem to carry some weight in just about anyones discerning eye's.

I'll address this as well later.

-HH

HolyHandgernade
10-28-2005, 10:25 PM
Other non-Biblical, non-Christian ancient references to Jesus occur in the pagan Roman authors Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, as well as in the Jewish rabbinical traditions. One especially important notice in the last, the arrest notice for Jesus, will be dealt with in the next article.

Bottom line: In view of the many points of tangency between the Biblical and non-Biblical documentary evidence and the full correlation of these two, history also supports the complete historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

I'll deal briefly with these and if anyone wants a fuller discertation, I'll provide a link.

Tacitus is not cited by any Christian apologist until the 15th century, and Tacitus himself does not write the disputed passage until well after the purported events, thus it would only be second hand knowledge, that is, hearsay. There is also the problem that Tacitus refers to Pilate as a procurator even though he would have known that title hadn't been invented yet.

Suetonius refers to a Chrestos or Chrestus, not Christos, and to further complicate matters, Christ was never alleged to have been in Rome. This historian was also born after the events were supposedly completed.

Pliny the Younger alleged letter to Trajan has only one word that could be linked, and that is "Christians". But most believe this to be an interpolation and that the original word was Essenes.

Jewish rabbinical traditions reference many Jesuses (it was a common name) but none of them fit the Gospel story. Most usually point to Jesus ben Pandira, but the Jews deny this is Jesus Christ, and actually have no corroborating story to the Gospels. ben Pandira was stoned to death, not crucfied, and there is no mention of Roman involvement.

The most important aspect of this debate is that there are NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA references to this Jesus of the Gospels by any historian who would have been a contemporary of the time. Prior to the twentieth century this is actually one of the best documented times of the common era. Apologists often go back and forth between "he was a great man who shook up the world and changed the culture" to "an obscure intinerant rabbi who didn't attract alot of attention". So which is it? It can't be both. If he was even modestly famous, he would have been noted, but he isn't. The most glaring omission is from Philo of Alexandria who actually grew up a Jew and traveled in the very region Jesus was supposed to be. His theology matched very closely what Jesus claimed to be. So why did he never hear about him? Or anybody else. Why is it only after a century or two that we start to get these non-biblical corroborations?

-HH