Saw a great show on the Discovery Channel

[Pitt Gorilla]

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.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by EBOLA

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]

Originally Posted by KC Kings

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]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

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!

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by EBOLA

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-

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

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!

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

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

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]

Originally Posted by KC Kings

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]

Originally Posted by EBOLA

............
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.

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]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

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]

Originally Posted by Donger

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]

Originally Posted by EBOLA

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.