“Jesus Had a Wife” Gets Coverage on CBS and ABC

[Pogo]

I don't get it. Why is Israel so important? After watching Passion of Christ, was that not Jews who were demanding Jesus to be scourged and crucified...and then the temple was jolted with an earthquake? So what is this fascination with Israel and Jews as the chosen people when they turned their backs on their own and killed him? (IF the bible is to be believed, mind you). No offense meant to Jews. Just confused as usual.

I still just flat don't get it.

no... it was not "jews" who demanded anything. it was rome who killed jesus because he preached revolution against rome. the sandhedrin didn't much like him because the high priests were appointed by rome at that time.... which was actually one of the things jesus and every other insurrectionist who called himself messiah preached in those days.

what earthquake in the temple?

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

Whether directly or indirectly (and doing it indirectly would keep you alive a lot longer), of course he did. That's why he was executed. The Jews were in the midst of a period of 300 years of being under the Roman thumb. Of course there were insurrections, overt and covert. And Rome had a special penalty for those who rose against the State, and that penalty was .... crucifixion.

The Romans certainly didn't give a shit about religious preaching. What they were concerned about was earthly kings in earthly kingdoms, not abstract ethereal ideas of the hereafter. Some of Jesus' words (if we are to believe the reporters thereof, which is very dicey) can be heard as not-so-subtle allusions to political uprising, e.g. establishing the "kingdom of heaven". Heaven is not what wets the Romans' whistle; kingdom is. That's also what's behind the bizarre cat-and-mouse questioning with Pilate.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.

How do you know Ohm's Law is true?

Well... I was taught it in school. Who taught it? My teacher. Where did my teacher get it? He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Georg Simon Ohm. Where did he get it? Well he tested it, and it worked. How do you know? Because Georg Simon Ohm said so, and no one has been able to prove it wrong.

In all knowledge there is an ultimate authority. When you trace knowledge back to the ultimate authority, you automatically end up with a circular logic scenario.

How do you know Newton's laws of motion, are true? Because Newton tested it, and it was right. How do you know? Because he said so, and no one has proven it wrong yet.

Similarly, I believe in Jesus Christ being G-d, that came to Earth as a human, preached for 3 years, was killed for our sins, came back from the dead, and is now in Heaven awaiting His return.

Where did I get that? From a book. Who wrote the book? A number of people. Where did they get that from? They lived it, and were with him at the time. How do I know? Because they wrote it down, and no one has been able to prove it false yet.

Circular? Yup. But no more circular than people who believe The Code of Hammurabi exists. There is an ultimate authority at some point, for all knowledge.

Mad Cabbie says that the North Star is made of string cheese. He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Mad Cabbie.

So, this being the logic - until someone proves that the North Star IS NOT MADE from string cheese - Cabbie is right.

 

[Pogo]

The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.

How do you know Ohm's Law is true?

Well... I was taught it in school. Who taught it? My teacher. Where did my teacher get it? He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Georg Simon Ohm. Where did he get it? Well he tested it, and it worked. How do you know? Because Georg Simon Ohm said so, and no one has been able to prove it wrong.

In all knowledge there is an ultimate authority. When you trace knowledge back to the ultimate authority, you automatically end up with a circular logic scenario.

How do you know Newton's laws of motion, are true? Because Newton tested it, and it was right. How do you know? Because he said so, and no one has proven it wrong yet.

Similarly, I believe in Jesus Christ being G-d, that came to Earth as a human, preached for 3 years, was killed for our sins, came back from the dead, and is now in Heaven awaiting His return.

Where did I get that? From a book. Who wrote the book? A number of people. Where did they get that from? They lived it, and were with him at the time. How do I know? Because they wrote it down, and no one has been able to prove it false yet.

Circular? Yup. But no more circular than people who believe The Code of Hammurabi exists. There is an ultimate authority at some point, for all knowledge.

Mad Cabbie says that the North Star is made of string cheese. He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Mad Cabbie.

So, this being the logic - until someone proves that the North Star IS NOT MADE from string cheese - Cabbie is right.

Also known as Russell's Teapot.

 

[ScienceRocks]

and I have a dick!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't get it. Why is Israel so important? After watching Passion of Christ, was that not Jews who were demanding Jesus to be scourged and crucified...and then the temple was jolted with an earthquake? So what is this fascination with Israel and Jews as the chosen people when they turned their backs on their own and killed him? (IF the bible is to be believed, mind you). No offense meant to Jews. Just confused as usual.

I still just flat don't get it.

no... it was not "jews" who demanded anything. it was rome who killed jesus because he preached revolution against rome. the sandhedrin didn't much like him because the high priests were appointed by rome at that time.... which was actually one of the things jesus and every other insurrectionist who called himself messiah preached in those days.

what earthquake in the temple?

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

Yes, or to put it better, the Roman Empire considered what he was saying to be quite dangerous to their authority.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.

Because according to our interpretation of Tanakh, he was not Moschiach (Messiah). And so, in according with the law of the day, heresy was to be met with death. One of the first commandments.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.

How do you know Ohm's Law is true?

Well... I was taught it in school. Who taught it? My teacher. Where did my teacher get it? He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Georg Simon Ohm. Where did he get it? Well he tested it, and it worked. How do you know? Because Georg Simon Ohm said so, and no one has been able to prove it wrong.

In all knowledge there is an ultimate authority. When you trace knowledge back to the ultimate authority, you automatically end up with a circular logic scenario.

How do you know Newton's laws of motion, are true? Because Newton tested it, and it was right. How do you know? Because he said so, and no one has proven it wrong yet.

Similarly, I believe in Jesus Christ being G-d, that came to Earth as a human, preached for 3 years, was killed for our sins, came back from the dead, and is now in Heaven awaiting His return.

Where did I get that? From a book. Who wrote the book? A number of people. Where did they get that from? They lived it, and were with him at the time. How do I know? Because they wrote it down, and no one has been able to prove it false yet.

Circular? Yup. But no more circular than people who believe The Code of Hammurabi exists. There is an ultimate authority at some point, for all knowledge.

Mad Cabbie says that the North Star is made of string cheese. He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Mad Cabbie.

So, this being the logic - until someone proves that the North Star IS NOT MADE from string cheese - Cabbie is right.

It's called the String Cheese theory. Very popular among mice in Wisconsin.

 

[JoeB131]

And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.

Well, kind of.

You see, because Jesus is a fictional character, the story gets rewritten.

The first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, which was clearly written by someone who never had been to Judea and gets things about the culture and geography clearly wrong.

the Gospel of Matthew, which heavily plagarized Mark, was written to try to appeal to the Jews, so there is a whole bunch of citation of "Prophecy" in Matthew, which either make up old testament verses that aren't actually there, or completely gets them out of contex.

then you get the gospel of JOhn, which is pretty trippy, and written at a time where the Schism between jews and Christians were clear and pronounced. So you will not in John that John constantly talks about "The Jews" being against Jesus and instigating his crucifixion. Meanwhile, Pontius pIlate is recast as a softy who was reluctant to crucify Jesus. (When in fact, Pilate was kind of ruthless and had no problems killing people who got out of hand without trial.)

Or to put it another way. Mark and Matthew are the ROddenberry version of Captain Kirk, and John is the JJ. Abrams version.

 

[BobPlumb]

no... it was not "jews" who demanded anything. it was rome who killed jesus because he preached revolution against rome. the sandhedrin didn't much like him because the high priests were appointed by rome at that time.... which was actually one of the things jesus and every other insurrectionist who called himself messiah preached in those days.

what earthquake in the temple?

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

Yes, or to put it better, the Roman Empire considered what he was saying to be quite dangerous to their authority.

There is quite a difference between the two.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

Yes, or to put it better, the Roman Empire considered what he was saying to be quite dangerous to their authority.

There is quite a difference between the two.

The effect is absolutely the same.

 

[jillian]

I don't get it. Why is Israel so important? After watching Passion of Christ, was that not Jews who were demanding Jesus to be scourged and crucified...and then the temple was jolted with an earthquake? So what is this fascination with Israel and Jews as the chosen people when they turned their backs on their own and killed him? (IF the bible is to be believed, mind you). No offense meant to Jews. Just confused as usual.

I still just flat don't get it.

no... it was not "jews" who demanded anything. it was rome who killed jesus because he preached revolution against rome. the sandhedrin didn't much like him because the high priests were appointed by rome at that time.... which was actually one of the things jesus and every other insurrectionist who called himself messiah preached in those days.

what earthquake in the temple?

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

you really don't know that he wanted jerusalem for the jews and wanted the roman occupiers gone?

interesting given that's why rome wanted him dead and the san hedrin thought him dangerous.

rome killed many so-called messiahs in that day and age.

jews did not see the messiah as only a "spiritual" being, but as a messianic king who would restore control of judea, particularly jerusalem, to jewish control. jesus existed in THAT context, not in the context written about decades later

list of claimants to being messiah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

now granted, jesus has a particular charisma and resonance.... but to ignore that the crux of what he said was to end the corruption of jerusalem by rome is to ignore history.

you might also want to look at this article. it's certainly not dispositive and there are probably better examples. but this is history there beyond the religious dogma.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html

again, i'm not saying you shouldn't believe what you believe. but there are other perspectives that are certainly valid and not based in faith but in research.

 

[Statistikhengst]

no... it was not "jews" who demanded anything. it was rome who killed jesus because he preached revolution against rome. the sandhedrin didn't much like him because the high priests were appointed by rome at that time.... which was actually one of the things jesus and every other insurrectionist who called himself messiah preached in those days.

what earthquake in the temple?

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

you really don't know that he wanted jerusalem for the jews and wanted the roman occupiers gone?

lol...


So, somehow we go from an OP about a film that poses the question as to whether Yeshuah maybe had a wife and kids to someone getting upset, thinking that Rome didn't want to get rid of him?

Funny.

 

[BobPlumb]

Yes, or to put it better, the Roman Empire considered what he was saying to be quite dangerous to their authority.

There is quite a difference between the two.

The effect is absolutely the same.

The effect is not what I questioned.

I have trouble reconciling messages such as love your neighbor as yourself and the meek shall inherit the Earth as Jesus preaching for the overthrowing of Rome. I know of no such instances in the bible inwhich he did this. Of course most people posting on this thread give little credibility to the bible.

I did not question that Rome saw him as a theat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DriftingSand is not offering an analogy. DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority." If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.

 

[Statistikhengst]

DriftingSand is not offering an analogy. DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority." If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.

Which is all the more proof that literally 98% of the Christian service in it's infancy was a take-away, almost word-for-word from the Jewish Avodath Hakodesh (Sacred Service), and the Sabbath Bride became the Bride of Christ.

Which would even more support the theory that had man addressed Yeshuah as "Rabbi", knowing the context of how it was allowed to be spoken under Halakha (Jewish Law), then must just as literally assume that Yeshua married and had offspring.

There is not one single sentence in the NT that states that he did NOT marry. Not even one.

Of course, Yeshuah himself made it very clear that many of the things he said were parables and intended to only be parables.


Food for thought.

 

[guno]

And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.

Well, kind of.

You see, because Jesus is a fictional character, the story gets rewritten.

The first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, which was clearly written by someone who never had been to Judea and gets things about the culture and geography clearly wrong.

the Gospel of Matthew, which heavily plagarized Mark, was written to try to appeal to the Jews, so there is a whole bunch of citation of "Prophecy" in Matthew, which either make up old testament verses that aren't actually there, or completely gets them out of contex.

then you get the gospel of JOhn, which is pretty trippy, and written at a time where the Schism between jews and Christians were clear and pronounced. So you will not in John that John constantly talks about "The Jews" being against Jesus and instigating his crucifixion. Meanwhile, Pontius pIlate is recast as a softy who was reluctant to crucify Jesus. (When in fact, Pilate was kind of ruthless and had no problems killing people who got out of hand without trial.)

Or to put it another way. Mark and Matthew are the ROddenberry version of Captain Kirk, and John is the JJ. Abrams version.

The two gods of Christianity.

The church admitted that vital elements of proceedings at Nicaea are ´strangely absent from the canons´30 and the suspicion exists that documentation recording the true nature of the creation of Jesus Christ was later suppressed or destroyed. However, using records that endured, Bishop Eusebius ´occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural addresson the emperor´s behalf´.31 Documentation available revealed that there were no British churchmen in attendance at the Council, for most delegates were Greek. ´Seventy eastern bishops´ represented Asiatic factions32 and small numbers came from other areas. Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa; Paphnutius from Egypt, Nicasius of Die from Gaul and Dommus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia. It was at that puerile assembly, and under cult conditions, that two thousand and forty-eight ´bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists´ gathered to debate and decide on a unified belief system that encompassed only one god. By that time, a huge assortment of´wild texts´33 circulated amongst presbyters, and no list of´accepted´ or canonical writings existed. Many of those Gospels, Epistles and Revelations are listed in the ´Lost Books of the Bible´ later in this book, and some still carry the names of a great variety of Eastern and Western divinities.

The men argued violently among themselves, expressing various personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special god. When speaking of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, the Bishop of Hereclea, said in an account of the proceedings:

Excepting Constantine himself, and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing.

Dr Richard Watson, a disillusioned Christian historian and previously Bishop of Llandaff in Wales, referred to them as ´a set of gibbering idiots´. After a lifetime of research into church councils he concluded that ´the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were nearly all under the power of the devil and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble, and patronized the vilest abominations´.34

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new Roman religion and the subsequent creation of Jesus Christ.

A Libyan presbyter named Arius, in attendance at Nicaea, expressed concern that ´the bishops shall develop two gods´35 and that ancient statement caused confusion in the church for centuries. Pious Christian historians confessed that they ´didn´t understand its meaning´ and ascribed it ´to the peculiar interposition of heaven´ ,36 However, in light of current understanding from particularly the Vatican scroll discovery, it is now possible to determine what Arius meant, and it provides major conflictions with the church´s presentation of Jesus Christ.

Selecting a god.

Up until the Council of Nicaea, Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods, Apollo and Zeus, but the great bulk of common people idolized Julius Caesar. Excluding the first letter in Caesar´s name, the remainder of the word had great significance in the community, ´namely AESAR is the Etruscan for ´god´...C being the Roman numeral 100´.37 Because of that godly connection, Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate five days after his death (d. 15 March 44 BC) and was subsequently venerated as the Divine Julius. Because he was Roman and ´Father of the Empire´, he was the most popular god among the rabble for more than 400 years. His followers were called %%WORD773%8 and so revered was the Divine Julius that at least three ancient provincial cities were named Caesarea in his honour; one each in Palestine, Northern Africa and Cappadocia.

At the Palestinian Caesarea, Josephus described a massive structure built and dedicated in the first century to the honour of the Divine Julius:

Directly opposite the harbour entrance, upon a high platform, rose the Temple of Caesar, remarkable for its beauty and its great size. In it stood a colossal statue of Caesar, not inferior to Zeus at Olympia ... and one of the goddess Roma, equal to the Argive statue of Hera.39

The Temple of Caesar stood until around mid-sixth century, indicating that the inhabitants proudly preserved their ancient edifice, perhaps as a revered relic to the Divine Julius. Some time later, a Christian church was built on the northwestern flank of the site of Caesar´s Temple, directly over the Temple foundation and using some original stones. Archaeologists at the site were puzzled by the chronological discrepancy between what they believed was the Christianizing of the Roman Empire with Emperor Constantine and the construction of a Christian church some 300 years or so later. They wondered how the most imperial and Roman city in Palestine, the Episcopal see of Bishop Eusebius, could preserve and honour a so-called Pagan temple for so many Christian centuries.

Clearly, archaeologists were accepting the orthodox presentation of Christian development and were yet to realize that there was no Christianity until well after the Council of Nicaea.

It is probable that Constantine sited the summit at Nicaea because it was the original home of Julius Caesar´s clan, the Ulius (hence Julius). Remains of a temple structure exist there today and the probability is that it was originally built in honour of the Ulius family, or Julius Caesar himself. Some archaeological evidence suggested that Nicaea was called Caesarea in the fourth century but principal Catholic author and celebrated Doctor of the Sorbonne in Paris, Lewis Du Pin (d.c. 1725), claimed that it was called ´Number 1 Caesar´ (Nl Caesar) and that was later vocalized as Nicaea.* Part of the Caesar name is still carried in the word today and enhances Du Pin´s reasoning.

Because the general Roman populous adored the Divine Julius, he was the most fashionable god in Western presbyters´ texts but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings. Constantine´s intention at Nicaea was to create a new god for the Empire that would unite all religious factions under one deity and presbyters were permitted to debate and decide upon who the new god would be. Throughout the meeting, the howling factions were immersed in heated debates in attempts to promote their own divinity and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion; ´As yet, the new God had not been selected by the council, and so they balloted, in order to determine the matter. For one year and five months the balloting lasted´.41

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a short list of five prospects, namely, Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, and Zeus. Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and ultimately decided the new god for them.

He determined that the names of his two first century descendants Jesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus be joined as one, Jesu Khrestus, and that would be the official name of the new Roman god.

A vote was subsequently taken and it was with a majority show of hands that both men became one God ...161 votes to 157. Following longstanding Heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman Apotheoses Decree to legally deify the new god for the rabble and did so by democratic consent and with the blessing of presbyters in attendance. A new Roman god was proclaimed and´ officially´ ratified by Emperor Constantine.42

That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Yesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus among the Roman gods as one individual composition today called Jesus Christ and lent earthly existence in two forms to the Empire´s new deity.

At that time, historical records revealed that the Christian religion had not yet developed and the few church documents that refer to an established Christian god previous to the Council of Nicaea are ´later forgeries, written retrospectively´.43 Bishop Taylor´s assertion is supported in later chapters.

 

[DriftingSand]

I find it interesting that Jesus Christ takes constant "heat" from so-called "atheists" while Buddha, Allah, Thor, Dryghten, etc. hardly get honorable mention. There must be great power in the name of Christ that His detractors fear.

 

[Pogo]

Jesus preached revolution against Rome?

Yes, or to put it better, the Roman Empire considered what he was saying to be quite dangerous to their authority.

There is quite a difference between the two.

Same thing, looked at from two different directions really.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duplicate post. Disregard.

 

[DriftingSand]

DriftingSand is not offering an analogy. DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority." If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.

That's correct. If the Bible can't be trusted as fully true then it can't be trusted at all (in my opinion). So, as a Christian, I put full trust in God's ability to reveal His will and Word to His followers. The Bible speaks of "the marriage supper of the Lamb" which speaks of the marriage between Christ and His followers. Since Christ is opposed to adultery He wouldn't marry more than one wife for He says that a leader of the Church should be married to "one wife."