T1B

mv:
Try actually reading the Bible someday, dumbfuck.

I have enough to know the dif between The New Way, and The Old.
Do You?

tough love wrote:

mv wrote:
The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder" not "Thou shalt not kill". It isn't even subject to reasonable disagreement.

Straight outta your Bu$h bible

The Jews practiced capital punishment which would make no sense at all if the comandment was against killing.

The Jews record on following the Will of God has been pretty freakin dismal, especially at the time when they bestowed their "capital punishment" upon the Son of God.

Jews didn't crucify people they preffered a good stoning on Thursday afternoons. Quit perpetuating the myth that it was Jews and not Romans who killed Jesus. The new Testament is not only innaccurate about the powers and ability to convene of the Sanhedrin council but out and out lies about it.

Religion was a very profitable business for the Jewish leadership when Christ arrived, and they were not about to let the Word of God mess up their thang.

Yeah that is why the Essene priesthood lived in caves off the shores of the Dead Sea, because they were raking in the gold. The only Jewish priesthood that was profiting from Rome were the Hasmoneans and those tribaly aligned with the Agrippa family that were placed in the priesthood by Rome itself.


Explain Joseph of Arimathea, James the Lesser, and Jonathan Annas then please. All were deciples of Jesus and all were members of the Sanhedrin.

Mv; I acknowledge that you are very good at debating, and even better at baiting, but for you to suggest that God supports man killing man is just to much for me to let slide.
We live in the NEW, and Jesus lived his life teaching that we are all children of God, and Gods Will for us is that we love and show compassion for each other, as He does for us.
Jesus was the living and dying example of the will of our Paridise Father.
Their is only one way which leads to God Paradise, and that is by us living our life trying to do the Will of our heavenly Father.

Yep that's why he had within his group of disciples an assassin, known Zealot leader, and two members of the Mannasseh, because his message was totally of a peaceful nature.

You can play your games all you want for whatever reasons you do, but be warned that when you 'take' against The Holy Spirit of Truth, the stakes become a whole lot higher.

God is Love; and while his Son lived his/our Heavenly Fathers will for man on earth, he replaced the 360ish rules and regs that the Jewish relig leaders were using against their people for their own advancement, with only two commandments.

God's will in the man flesh taught that #1...We are to love and honor our Paradise Father, and #2...Love others as we would want others to love us.

At the last supper Jesus gave his Apostle's a new commandment to follow...Just One..."Love others as I have loved you"


Love Love Love...It's just that simple.
How far have we strayed from God's simple truth. :(

SunCoastSooner wrote: The new Testament is not only innaccurate ...but out and out lies...

Nice.

It's on.

Well someone turn it off.

SunCoastSooner wrote: The new Testament is not only innaccurate about the powers and ability to convene of the Sanhedrin council but out and out lies about it.

You---the here, now, and 2000 years later

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Timothy---Contemporaries to what they wrote about. Even suffered unimaginable deaths for it.

Glad to know you are so much smarter...even though you were born eleventy hundred decades later.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

mvscal wrote:The Jews

The Jews didn't establish this nation. There were no Jews signing the Declaration of Independence.

Christians believe in Christ. Capital punishment goes against Christ's teachings.

Many of the signers of the delclaration weren't Christian either moron. Many were Deists, namely Ben Franklin, Caesar Rodney, George Ross, Joseph Hughes, and numerous others. George Washington was a deist as well, you know that guy who was the first president.

Franklin and possibly Jefferson were deists, Rodney and Ross were Episcopalians, and I don't even know who the fuck Joseph Hughes is.

But Joseph Hewes was a Quaker turned Episcopalian.

And you have the biblical understanding (read lack thereof) of a Deist.

Yes mv; The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.
Christ, The Son of God, brought us The New.
Gods Man Plan hit a new phase. Glory Glory Christ brought mankind A New Saving Way...An eye for an eye was replaced with forgive AND be forgiven.

The Lords Prayer:
Forgive us our tresspasses, AS we forgive those who tresspass against us.
God is Merciful...So must we be also, if we seek to do his will.

Forgiveness is a selfless act. Christs New Way may be a simple way, but not so easy for some of us. :wink:

None of Christ's teachings conflict with the big 10. The Lord only simplified the will creatures of this realms sitch...Jesus (Gods Will for us) introduced mankind to a personal religion which is what ticked off the leadership of the socialized so.

Sunny;
The Jewish leadership of that time pushed the Romans to murder Jesus.
But you knew that, didn't you.

Jesus taught by example that man must do the will of The Paradise Father to know The Paradise Father.
He taught that The Paradise Father wants mankind to Love Love Love.

Many since have taken this simple truth and used it for self gain, just as had the Jewish Leadership in Jesus's time used their "religious" positions for self gain. The Dinsdales of this earth would have others believe that is some way that would be Gods fault.

We need to love our Heavenly Father.
We need to love each other.
Love begets love.
It's just that simple, and it's not Jesus/Gods fault if mankind is to thick and full of themselves to get it.

God or not.
Unfortunately, godless man appears to be stubbornly stuck with the bitter harvest of his own demise escalating itself daily.
Without love, there flourishes hate.



Your call, Urantians.
God Bless

tough love wrote:Yes mv; The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.
Christ, The Son of God, brought us The New.
Gods Man Plan hit a new phase. Glory Glory Christ brought mankind A New Saving Way...An eye for an eye was replaced with forgive AND be forgiven.

The Lords Prayer:
Forgive us our tresspasses, AS we forgive those who tresspass against us.
God is Merciful...So must we be also, if we seek to do his will.

Forgiveness is a selfless act. Christs New Way may be a simple way, but not so easy for some of us. :wink:

None of Christ's teachings conflict with the big 10. The Lord only simplified the will creatures of this realms sitch...Jesus (Gods Will for us) introduced mankind to a personal religion which is what ticked off the leadership of the socialized so.

Sunny;
The Jewish leadership of that time pushed the Romans to murder Jesus.
But you knew that, didn't you.

Jesus taught by example that man must do the will of The Paradise Father to know The Paradise Father.
He taught that The Paradise Father wants mankind to Love Love Love.

Many since have taken this simple truth and used it for self gain, just as had the Jewish Leadership in Jesus's time used their "religious" positions for self gain. The Dinsdales of this earth would have others believe that is some way that would be Gods fault.

We need to love our Heavenly Father.
We need to love each other.
Love begets love.
It's just that simple, and it's not Jesus/Gods fault if mankind is to thick and full of themselves to get it.

God or not.
Unfortunately, godless man appears to be stubbornly stuck with the bitter harvest of his own demise escalating itself daily.
Without love, there flourishes hate.



Your call, Urantians.
God Bless

How was Jesus born of a virgin and yet still able to meet the requirment set forth by God through the prophets that the Moshiach be a direct male decendant through the Male Davidic/Judaic line. Don't give me the BS that Mary was of the tribe of Judah as the Catholic Church tried to state for 1,500 years; the bible is quit clear that Mary was of the tribe of Levi and makes clear this through positions that her father, uncle, and nephew held in the High Priesthood.

As far as the "Lord's prayer" ... That is a prayer that was Essene and was being said about 160 years, amongst pious Jews, before Jesus was born and is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is also almost a word for word copy of an Egyptian prayer to Ra hence the ending of the prayer Amen (Amen-Ra).

The Jewish leaders wouldn't have forced Rome to do anything that weekend, it was strictly against Hebrew law for the Sanhedrin to meet over the passover. There also was never a tradition for releasing a prisoner on the Passover as the New Testamnet states. The prisoner that was supposedly released Barrabas is not even a name but two Aramaic words that early scribes intentionally did not translate the meaning Son of the Father in Aramaic.

Secondly, Jesus was not without representation or backing amongst the Sanhedrin as most have been led to believe. Joseph of Arimathea, James the Lesser (Jesus younger brother), Jonathan Annas, James Annas, and Simon Zelotes (corrupted from Zealot) were all members of the Sanhedrin. Also considering that just over half of the members of the Sanhedrin would not have even been congregated in Jerusalem as the NT would have you assume but in Bethany, Qumram (for the Lord's Feast), and Damascus, tending to the Jews in those communities who could not travel to Jerusalem or attending the Lord's feast which had been held in a community outside of Jerusalem since the Hasmonean seizure of the throne after the revolt aginst the Syrians and would have not had the ability to convene during the last minute meeting supposedly called by Calphias.

Don't get me wrong love is a good message but stop trying to feed me the mythological bullshit along with it. I

rozy wrote:You---the here, now, and 2000 years later

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Timothy---Contemporaries to what they wrote about. Even suffered unimaginable deaths for it.

Glad to know you are so much smarter...even though you were born eleventy hundred decades later.

You forget Simeon but that's understandable considering that is pretty conveinant to forget a guy that after Jesus was crucified left and started his own cult on an island in the med. sea. We have his writtings and far more than what we have on Jesus; everything from cosmotology to politics but Christians don't like or even half the time acknowledge that these exsist.

Political dissidents opposed to an empire in the ancient world were crucified????? :o Oh the horrah the horrah I would have never thought Rome to be so bold as to crucify people opposed to them. I guess we should all start hunting down any records of Spartcus' teachings as a slave since rozy has just set the standard for righteousness and truth as to how grizzly your execution is.

The Gospel of Phillip is atleast 2 decades older than any of those you just mentioned. Tell me again why it isn't used in the scripture? Oh yeah that's right, they couldn't edit it in the manner they did Mark.

Bishop Clement of Alexandria to his colleague Theodore wrote:For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth; nor should that truth which seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true Truth - that according to the faith. To them one must never give way; nor, when they put forward falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark but should deny it on oath. For not all true things should be said to all men

Yep they really wanted you to know about Jesus especially the way they conveinantly edited the part of Lazurus' raising, in Mark, where he was screaming from within his tomb for someone to release him which is what Clement was reffering to in this letter.

suncoastsooner is far more interesting than I originally thought.
good read. plenty of stuff I wasn't familiar with.

Bizzarofelice wrote:suncoastsooner is far more interesting than I originally thought.
good read. plenty of stuff I wasn't familiar with.

I study middle eastern religion/theology/history. I can go off about it at times when I have the time. I am sort of jumping into this two thirds of the way but it's hard not to do so. When discussing this subject Christians will always fall back on the letters of Saul/Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus own brother after his death who was also an appostle himself (James the Lesser also known as James the Just) and led the church for a following thirty years after his death. What really gets me is that in the letters of Saul/Paul this rift is addressed as though it is some sort of side note and not at the fore of the religious movement. Peter was an easily influenced individual who was one of the very few actual real lay people that Jesus had amongst him as a disciple and it was likely, by the NT's own description of them at times, that he and his brother were likely Jesus' body guards, for lack of a better term. The appostles were an interesting group of people and it too bad that much of the facts about them have been muddled by the Catholic church with over 2000 years of trying to enforce religious Dogma. The Appostles, and even some of the followers of Jesus mentioned in the bible but not listed among the appostles, were dynamic and importnat people in their own time. It's a sad thought that there will always be much we are not sure of or will be debated for millenia to come because of over zealous censoring and destruction in the early era Church of Rome. Most Christians have never heard, or atleast not until recently, about early forms of Christianity that exisisted in the early common era. Despite popular thought in America today the Church was not always ruled from Rome, infact there great differences in beliefs about Jesus that varried from region to region. There were two relativly minorly mentionable things that made Christianity what it is today: 1) Emperor Constantinus Chlorus being elevated to emperor in 293 AD and 2) Clovis I marriage to Burgundian Princess Clotide.

I may start a thread to really get into it all but damn it is just so much shit. I also have a terrible time trying to stay on point in these discussions because so many things are cause and effect and you feel the need to go into detail on everything.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:suncoastsooner is far more interesting than I originally thought.
good read. plenty of stuff I wasn't familiar with.

I study middle eastern religion/theology/history. I can go off about it at times when I have the time. I am sort of jumping into this two thirds of the way but it's hard not to do so. When discussing this subject Christians will always fall back on the letters of Saul/Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus own brother after his death who was also an appostle himself (James the Lesser also known as James the Just) and led the church for a following thirty years after his death. What really gets me is that in the letters of Saul/Paul this rift is addressed as though it is some sort of side note and not at the fore of the religious movement. Peter was an easily influenced individual who was one of the very few actual real lay people that Jesus had amongst him as a disciple and it was likely, by the NT's own description of them at times, that he and his brother were likely Jesus' body guards, for lack of a better term. The appostles were an interesting group of people and it too bad that much of the facts about them have been muddled by the Catholic church with over 2000 years of trying to enforce religious Dogma. The Appostles, and even some of the followers of Jesus mentioned in the bible but not listed among the appostles, were dynamic and importnat people in their own time. It's a sad thought that there will always be much we are not sure of or will be debated for millenia to come because of over zealous censoring and destruction in the early era Church of Rome. Most Christians have never heard, or atleast not until recently, about early forms of Christianity that exisisted in the early common era. Despite popular thought in America today the Church was not always ruled from Rome, infact there great differences in beliefs about Jesus that varried from region to region. There were two relativly minorly mentionable things that made Christianity what it is today: 1) Emperor Constantinus Chlorus being elevated to emperor in 293 AD and 2) Clovis I marriage to Burgundian Princess Clotide.

In HS we had a teacher give us a little of the low down on some of the bad popes, sales of indulgences, and the attempt by several of the popes to extend their reach into other parts of Europe that weren't buying their version of the Jesus story. I'd be interested to know more about the earlier years.

I may start a thread to really get into it all but damn it is just so much shit. I also have a terrible time trying to stay on point in these discussions because so many things are cause and effect and you feel the need to go into detail on everything.

If you want, I can sicky it so it stays up the top, and we'll just moderate it to keep the flamers from taking over.

It's an interesting enough topic, and an angle not really covered all that much. Most of the religious discussion here has dealt more with what is typically known and argued about Jesus and the bible.

Just start one, ask everyone to keep it clean, and I'll tack it to the top. We'll leave it there until it runs its course.

Okay.

I am going to figure out a way to go about this while offending as few of our fellow christian posters as possible. Before I do so I just want to get one thing out of the way... I admire the Christian teachings concerning morals, values, and the way one should live their lives. It is a laudable and generous society in this age of human history and those things should be commended. My problem with Christianity is with the Mythology and supposed history that certain leaders of the religion, in the past, have used as pawns for their own personal gain and such.


Let me ask you a question then. Do I just jump in with Jesus or do you really want me to bust back to the beginning? And when I mean the begining I mean Abram getting off his ass and marching out of Babylon.

SunCoastSooner wrote:Okay.

I am going to figure out a way to go about this while offending as few of our fellow christian posters as possible.

Everyone has their own viewpoint, and we'll never all agree. If they're offended by a viewpoint or fact, too bad for them.

Let me ask you a question then. Do I just jump in with Jesus or do you really want me to bust back to the beginning? And when I mean the begining I mean Abram getting off his ass and marching out of Babylon.

Totally up to you.

Diogenes wrote:James the Lesser (brother of Matthew) and James the Just (brother or step-brother of Jesus) were two differant individuals.

Robert Eisenman notwithstanding, the differances between James' and Paul's theologies are quite overblown, and James is mentioned often in Acts. If Paul is usually stressed, it is because there are more of his writings, and none of James' deal with the issue of a universal vs. strictly Jewish church. Most of the rest of what you post is unsupported, Constatine's conversion was pivitol, Clovis' less so because a majority of his subjects were already Christian, it was only a matter of time before it became official.

I'll address this... eventually Dio, I promise. Right now that would be just like throwing a kid from arithmetic to calculus to get into that off the top. James the Lesser and James the Just may or may not be different people. There is argument about this. Sorry, at the time I was typing that post I was using two books as reference material that both make the assumption they are one and the same. I need to pay greater attention to the way I word things in this conversation. I should have really caught that considering I do not subscribe to those theories. I believe they were seperate people as well. Sometimes it gets difficult to not use some of the same wording, to make a point correctly, from a source. I just prefer to use my books and periodicals as opposed to the internet because I know what I am trying to say and I know what books and where they are on my shelf that discuss that particular point.

I notice how good you are at google or just research by the way you come behind and clean shit up. So I hope that you take this as a personal challenge from me to you to try and found, if even just one of the theories, as to why certain "brothers" have as many as two or three "fathers" named throughout the NT.

Diogenes wrote:If your serious about this, talk to the admins about a seperate theology forum. I could spin SCS's posts alone into seven difernt threads so far, and a place with a Motorsports forum, a Deathmatch forun and a fucking WEEN forum should be able to spare one more.

See what I mean about trying to stay on track? I probably prevented myself from straying that many times and still realized I strayed anyways while reading it. :(

Diogenes wrote:Which brothers in particular? Some of the disciples had more than one name (Simon/Peter/Cephus) there is no reason to think others might have multiple names. As far as Mary's Levi geneology, Matthew 1 makes it clear Joseph was descended from David. I would be interested in what these books are you are using as source material, BTW.

The "Son's of Thunder" :D. Figure that one out I'll give ya bonus points ;).

Jonathan Annas was also called Nathanael in some scriptures, which essentially the same name in Hebrew. Labbaeus Thaddaeus is also, possibly, Judas Theudas (in two of the Gospels), Matthew was most likely also called Levi in some of the Gospels. Bart was John Mark in some of the scriptures. Most of these are essentially the same name in Hebrew though.

But if Mary was a virgin that would mean that the seed was not the seed of David. See where I am getting at? You can't have it both ways either he was the Davidic Heir or he wasn't.

As far as the books I am using.... I have a Library. I am being serious. My wife gets pretty pissy about it at times as well. After the Hurricane the first thing I had coming up out was my bookshelves.:twisted: I read this shit constantly; most books four and five times. Basically more books and periodicals than I really want to sit down and catalogue for a message board. I could give you an authors list sometime when I feel like getting off my ass and getting around to it. :D

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Which brothers in particular? Some of the disciples had more than one name (Simon/Peter/Cephus) there is no reason to think others might have multiple names. As far as Mary's Levi geneology, Matthew 1 makes it clear Joseph was descended from David. I would be interested in what these books are you are using as source material, BTW.

The "Son's of Thunder" :D. Figure that one out I'll give ya bonus points ;).

Jonathan Annas was also called Nathanael in some scriptures, which essentially the same name in Hebrew. Labbaeus Thaddaeus is also, possibly, Judas Theudas (in two of the Gospels), Matthew was most likely also called Levi in some of the Gospels. Bart was John Mark in some of the scriptures. Most of these are essentially the same name in Hebrew though.

But if Mary was a virgin that would mean that the seed was not the seed of David. See where I am getting at? You can't have it both ways either he was the Davidic Heir or he wasn't.

As far as the books I am using.... I have a Library. I am being serious. My wife gets pretty pissy about it at times as well. After the Hurricane the first thing I had coming up out was my bookshelves.:twisted: I read this shit constantly; most books four and five times. Basically more books and periodicals than I really want to sit down and catalogue for a message board. I could give you an authors list sometime when I feel like getting off my ass and getting around to it. :D

Sons of Thunder refered to James and John's style of preaching, their father was Zebedee if I remember. I don't recall any 'Johnathon Annas' off the top of my head, Nathanial was the one linked to Bartholomew, not John Mark. Levi was Matthew. Judas son of James was also known as Thaddeus or Labbaeus. I can't speak to your sources, But you may be on the same reading lists as Dan Brown (Laurence Gardner and Barbara Thiering ).

As far as whether being a stepson of a descendent of David fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, or whether Mary was also descended from David(the Messiah would have to come from both Judah and Levi), that is debatable, but not compelling either way. Back to your comment on Clovis, BTW, I see Gregory VII as being more of a pivitol figure, you can trace the gradual secularization (and de facto corruption) of the Catholic Church from Cannosa, indulgences and such were just a symptom of the problem.





So where's the Theology forum? You notice BTW, it's always the Atheists/deists/ 'I'm a christian, but the Bible is just a storybook' types who bring these subjects up, not the supposed 'thumpers'.

Diogenes wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Which brothers in particular? Some of the disciples had more than one name (Simon/Peter/Cephus) there is no reason to think others might have multiple names. As far as Mary's Levi geneology, Matthew 1 makes it clear Joseph was descended from David. I would be interested in what these books are you are using as source material, BTW.

The "Son's of Thunder" :D. Figure that one out I'll give ya bonus points ;).

Jonathan Annas was also called Nathanael in some scriptures, which essentially the same name in Hebrew. Labbaeus Thaddaeus is also, possibly, Judas Theudas (in two of the Gospels), Matthew was most likely also called Levi in some of the Gospels. Bart was John Mark in some of the scriptures. Most of these are essentially the same name in Hebrew though.

But if Mary was a virgin that would mean that the seed was not the seed of David. See where I am getting at? You can't have it both ways either he was the Davidic Heir or he wasn't.

As far as the books I am using.... I have a Library. I am being serious. My wife gets pretty pissy about it at times as well. After the Hurricane the first thing I had coming up out was my bookshelves.:twisted: I read this shit constantly; most books four and five times. Basically more books and periodicals than I really want to sit down and catalogue for a message board. I could give you an authors list sometime when I feel like getting off my ass and getting around to it. :D

Sons of Thunder refered to James and John's style of preaching, their father was Zebedee if I remember. I don't recall any 'Johnathon Annas' off the top of my head, Nathanial was the one linked to Bartholomew, not John Mark. Levi was Matthew. Judas son of James was also known as Thaddeus or Labbaeus. I can't speak to your sources, But you may be on the same reading lists as Dan Brown (Laurence Gardner and Barbara Thiering ).

As far as whether being a stepson of a descendent of David fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, or whether Mary was also descended from David(the Messiah would have to come from both Judah and Levi), that is debatable, but not compelling either way. Back to your comment on Clovis, BTW, I see Gregory VII as being more of a pivitol figure, you can trace the gradual secularization (and de facto corruption) of the Catholic Church from Cannosa, indulgences and such were just a symptom of the problem.





So where's the Theology forum? You notice BTW, it's always the Atheists/deists/ 'I'm a christian, but the Bible is just a storybook' types who bring these subjects up, not the supposed 'thumpers'.

Son's of Thunder may also be titles and not because of their preaching style either.

I do have books by Dr. Thiering and Laurence Gardner. Laurence Gardner is rather far out there in some of his stuff like assuming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. I do believe there was a good possibility that Jesus was married but to whom I would not venture to guess at. Just because of the nature of his position but I am sure we will get into that as well. Laurence Gardner is also employed by the House of Stewart so he has a bias and I don't paticularly care for some of his theories about Jesus himself after the crucifixion but some of the family tree work he did is rather exceptional. Many of the facts that he presents about the early church are pretty accurate but the assumptions he makes, especially during the period of 40AD-325AD in the south of France to be pretty big steps to make on assumption alone. I think there is a very good possibilty that blood relatives of Jesus living well after him and the middle east knowning of them to be more likely than not. I mean look at this rationaly; Four Jewish brothers and none of them had kids when all of them would have been expected to have been married and had two male heirs by the time they were 38? None of us can be that naive can we? This family was the blod line of King David. They were pretty damn importnant by Jewish standards.

Barbra Thiering on the other hand was/is a very well respected expert in her field. I don't even know if she is still alive though. I think there is a very good possibility that a New Testament code is there based on some of her work but I do not agree with all of her work. I wish she would stick to her field of expertise without the theological assumptions she attempts to imply.

Dan Brown is a bastard who should be hanged. Sorry just needed to get that off my chest. His bullshit books have set back the real study of some of the real factual possibilities atleast 20 years. :(

Nathanael has been linked to both. I think that you are going by the Catholic Church's assumptions as to which appostle correlates to which appostle. Jonathan Annas and the Annas family as a whole was a pretty damn prominent family during the new testament period. Gregory VII is a pretty good call but Silvester I takes the cake for me. Sold the church on a golden platter to the empire.

Nathanael has been linked to both. I think that you are going by the Catholic Church's assumptions as to which appostle correlates to which appostle. Jonathan Annas and the Annas family as a whole was a pretty damn prominent family during the new testament period.

Appearantly you edit faster than I type.

Do you have a source (aside from Gardner-for those not in the know author of Bloodline of the Holy Grail from which Brown cribbed the DaVinci code mythos) or reference for this? As far as Silvester, I noted you were on tagret with the Constatine thing, the problem with both that and Gregory is the secularization of the church.

Interestingly enough, look at what has happened to African American culture and society since the average black church became a political forum and 'civil rights' leaders started calling themselves 'Reverend'. As far as I'm concerned, mainstream Churches obsessing over abortion and 'protecting the definition of marriage' are on the same path.



Then again, I'm a bit of a heretic. :wink:

Diogenes wrote:There is actually no reason to believe that Jesus was married, and every reason to believe he wasn't (after all, he knew his eventual destination was the cross, that leaving a wife and or children would be irresponsible and that his followers would elevate any offspring of his to the possible detriment of the gospel). And since those who knew him never mentioned wife or child, assuming either is not reasonable. As far as blood brothers, John wouldn't have been given responsibility over Mary art the cross if she had male sons. The problem with the two authors in question is more their bias and a priori assumptions than their scholorship, BTW. Just like the 'higher' criticts, they tend to devolve into circular reasoning... Jesus was just a man, the Bible is just a book.. therefore...

You might mix in a little C.S.Lewis to see how the other side actually thinks (some of us do, you know).

Mere Christianity would be a good choice.

Are you really Roger the Shrubber? I have read C.S. Lewis. I grew up in a methodist household. I know how both sides think. I think I sort of let myself get sucked into this thread in a way. I planned on just starting my own thread sometime next week. Forgive me if I present a different view than the one that is presented ad nauseam. I don't believe anywhere did I state that I totally agreed with everything or anything they said in my post. I simply stated that I had works by them and had read them. Frankly not much of anything either one of them said was anything enlightnening; mostly grafted material from others works. I will give credit to Dr. Thiering for being the first with the Gonads to put the theory of the code in ink with her name on it though. I think you will find me a sort of Devil's Advocate in this argument. I could argue the Christian side just as thouroughly.

Love Love Love
I recall reading about a Catholic Bishops' account of his Near Death Experience. During his Life Review process (which many NDE'rs claim to have encounterd) what struck him soundly was that there was never any mention of his many years of service with the Church during the whole review process.
What impressed his spiritual guide the most, to the point of delightment, were the spontanious acts of kindness which this Bishop had performed throughout his earth life.
Love Love love, my friends.

As for getting all mentally up in the history and dissection of socialized religious matter; Knock yourselves out.
Aside from The Bible; my personal taste enjoys reading, The Urantia Book, especially, The Life of Christ part.

The 'what is' IMO:
When it comes to accepting the eternal gift which Christ/God more then generously offers, it is more a matter of faith, then accumulated historical knowledge, or theological understandings.
A personal relationship with God/Christ/Spirit (which is simply there for the sincere asking) replaces material existence and doubt with a everlasting spiritual thrist to know God.
Accepting Christ places the disciple upon the eternal paradise path leading one closer and closer to an understanding of God.
Accepting Christ is like going to God School.
To know God is to love God. To love God is to try and try and keep trying to do his will, and to get to know him more through the various spritual helpers which become available through faith...YES, God is addictive. :)

Two commandments my earth friends, just two simple commandments.

The keys of the kingdom of heaven are: sincerity, more sincerity, and more sincerity. All men have these keys. Men use them--advance in spirit status-- by decisions, by more decisions, and by more decisions. The highest moral choice is the choice of the highest possible value, and always--in any sphere, in all of them--this is to choose to do the will of God.

Oh Dio as far as Mere Christianity and CS Lewis go while I find that CS Lewis' works are very good at presenting an argument for Jesus and very well written I don't understand how you can insist that an English Lit Proffessor has any more validity as far as from a theological standpoint than someone whose field is ancient Middle Eastern Communications.

Dio I also took the liberty of yanking down just a couple of rows of books last evenning before I assed out to take note of some of the authors. I intentionally snatched as many of the esoteric works as I could remember for the purposes of getting your expected rants out of the way early.

Charles G. Addison
Lynne Picknet
Clive Prince
David Hatcher Childress
Andre Douzet
Mark Amaru Pinkham
Kersey Graves
Acharya S.
Ralph Ellis
Bonnie Gaunt
John J. Robinson (I really do enjoy his works, especially "Born in Blood", never realized just how quickly the Peasant's revolt occurred across England)
Charles Greenstreet
Geoffrey Ashe
James Wasserman
Jolan Chang
E.S. Drower
Robert Eisler
Graham Hancock (No esoteric library is complete without his heavy handed load of shit, I really liked his first two books but since then me thinks he has been listening to himself too much or popping a couple too many hits of LSD.)
M.R. James
Prudence Jones
Nigel Pinnick
Christopher Knight
Robert Lomas (the previous two while I don't agree with much of their work I really enjoy reading them and especially when they write together; you just get the sense that these are two guys you could sit down with at the Pub and throw back a few beers with and bullshit)
Ahmed Osman
Raphael Pattai
Gay Roberts
James Webb
Ian Wilson
Ben Witherington III
Susan Ackerman
G. Boccaccini
H. Jagersma
Arthur Hertzberger
John Marco Allegro
M. Black (He has also worked with Peake's Commentary on the Bible for a number of years)
F.M. Cross (Great work on the grafting of Canaanite religion on Israel during the pre-Hasmonean era)
J.D. Crossen
Richard Watts
H.W. Robinson
B. Sykes
Al Wolters (does some of the most accurate translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls according to many in his field)

I think that list is sizeable enough to show what I am dealing with. Outside of Oklahoma Athletics this is really my pasion. I also have works (and obviously they are copies and not originals ) from Joseph Flavius, Herodotus, Apollonius, Aulus Gellius, Dion Pruseus, Justus of Tiberius, Phlegon, Quintius Curtius, Tacitus, Plutarch, and Valerius Flaccus, to name a few. Obviously, as I stated before, none of these are originals and most are translated. The ones that aren't translated are usually ones that my family bought for me as a collector or such work but when I do the purchasing I try to find translated texts so I can actuall read them. :D

Diogenes wrote: Last time I checked, both Noam Chomsky ..... possessed PhDs, and I don't give a rat's ass what either of them have to say about anything. Credentials don't mean shit to me if someone's argument is weak (or in the case of Gardner, rather insane)and their sources are dubious.

That's funny - you simply don't like what you're hearing. Chomsky's historical footnotes are always extensive and impeccable. The vast majority of his sources comes directly from government archives. Stop being silly.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Last time I checked, both Noam Chomsky and Michael Savage possessed PhDs, and I don't give a rat's ass what either of them have to say about anything. Credentials don't mean shit to me if someone's argument is weak (or in the case of Gardner, rather insane)and their sources are dubious.

That's funny - you simply don't like what you're hearing. Chomsky's historical footnotes are always extensive and impeccable. The vast majority of his sources comes directly from government archives. Stop being silly.

And he's still a fucking idiot.

Diogenes wrote:Good bibliography....which of them claim 'Johnathan Annas' is actually Nathaniel?

As far as credentials validating one's point of view, I don't believe I have ever bought into that theory. Last time I checked, both Noam Chomsky and Michael Savage possessed PhDs, and I don't give a rat's ass what either of them have to say about anything. Credentials don't mean shit to me if someone's argument is weak (or in the case of Gardner, rather insane)and their sources are dubious.

By 'getting my expected rants out of the way' I guess you mean guessing your sources before you admit them? And the only reference I could find to a 'Johnathon Annas' seems to think the high priest at the time (and Jesus, and the disciples) were part of a Herodian plot to Judaize the world (you know the 'real' history of Christianity). I haven't checked any of the sites that claim Jesus was a space alien, maybe they have references to Johnathan Annas being one of the disciples as well.

Step back off the diving board dio. Take a xanex. A couple of those authors have put forth the idea that Nathanael was was Jonathan Annas. As far as Gardner. You asked if I had books by hime and I answered that I did. His shit is boring, grafted, and as I stated he mskes some mighty big assumptions that I don't agree with.

Jesus in a plot to Judaize the world, this I would have to see. At most I think Jesus may have been someone who didn't appreciate Roman rule much but was not a military leader of any sort. I don't think he was a thumb sucking pacifist either though. I think he had a wide variety of people amongst his company, that included people who were violently opposed to Roman Rule. As the Davidic Heir he would have naturaly come into contact with these people.

SunCoastSooner wrote:A couple of those authors have put forth the idea that Nathanael was was Jonathan Annas. As far as Gardner. You asked if I had books by hime and I answered that I did.

No, I asked which authors other than him you were getting that little tidbit from. And more precisely, I'd be interested in what their sources were for that assumption.

Don't take it personal, it's just that the idea is moderatly idiotic (if this is the same Annas who was later High Preist) and I wanted to know where to go to see where they spin this crap from.

BTW, Googling the name 'Jonathon Annas'...

http://mirrorh.com/timelinead.html
http://www.thegrimoire.com/religion_of_a_lie.htm
http://www.thegrimoire.com/man_of_a_lie.htm
http://www.jesusinkashmir.com/pmedia/yahweh2.htm

Good stuff.

Sunny Wrote:
I don't think he was a thumb sucking pacifist either though.

You are most certainly entitled to think what you like.
I'm thinking; it takes great courage to go against the norm, and live the life of a true Christian...Especially now with the rise of the Islamofacists, and those terribly hateful Pub_Uglies ya'Alls got roaming your turf. :wink:

Anywho; according to The Book of Urantia.

P1608:4, 143:1.6 "Because my Father is a God of love and delights in the practice of mercy, do not imbibe the idea that the service of the kingdom is to be one of monotonous ease. The Paradise ascent is the supreme adventure of all time, the rugged achievement of eternity. The service of the kingdom on earth will call for all the courageous manhood that you and your coworkers can muster. Many of you will be put to death for your loyalty to the gospel of this kingdom. It is easy to die in the line of physical battle when your courage is strengthened by the presence of your fighting comrades, but it requires a higher and more profound form of human courage and devotion calmly and all alone to lay down your life for the love of a truth enshrined in your mortal heart.

P1608:5, 143:1.7 "Today, the unbelievers may taunt you with preaching a gospel of nonresistance and with living lives of nonviolence, but you are the first volunteers of a long line of sincere believers in the gospel of this kingdom who will astonish all mankind by their heroic devotion to these teachings. No armies of the world have ever displayed more courage and bravery than will be portrayed by you and your loyal successors who shall go forth to all the world proclaiming the good news -- the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men. The courage of the flesh is the lowest form of bravery. Mind bravery is a higher type of human courage, but the highest and supreme is uncompromising loyalty to the enlightened convictions of profound spiritual realities. And such courage constitutes the heroism of the God-knowing man. And you are all God-knowing men; you are in very truth the personal associates of the Son of Man." :wink:

tough love wrote:

Sunny Wrote:
I don't think he was a thumb sucking pacifist either though.

You are most certainly entitled to think what you like.
I'm thinking; it takes great courage to go against the norm, and live the life of a true Christian...

You Quakers crack me up.

SunCoastSooner wrote:

But if Mary was a virgin that would mean that the seed was not the seed of David. See where I am getting at? You can't have it both ways either he was the Davidic Heir or he wasn't.

I do have books by Dr. Thiering and Laurence Gardner. Laurence Gardner is rather far out there in some of his stuff like assuming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. I do believe there was a good possibility that Jesus was married but to whom I would not venture to guess at. Just because of the nature of his position but I am sure we will get into that as well. Laurence Gardner is also employed by the House of Stewart so he has a bias and I don't paticularly care for some of his theories about Jesus himself after the crucifixion but some of the family tree work he did is rather exceptional. Many of the facts that he presents about the early church are pretty accurate but the assumptions he makes, especially during the period of 40AD-325AD in the south of France to be pretty big steps to make on assumption alone. I think there is a very good possibilty that blood relatives of Jesus living well after him and the middle east knowning of them to be more likely than not. I mean look at this rationaly; Four Jewish brothers and none of them had kids when all of them would have been expected to have been married and had two male heirs by the time they were 38? None of us can be that naive can we? This family was the blod line of King David. They were pretty damn importnant by Jewish standards.

Barbra Thiering on the other hand was/is a very well respected expert in her field. I don't even know if she is still alive though. I think there is a very good possibility that a New Testament code is there based on some of her work but I do not agree with all of her work. I wish she would stick to her field of expertise without the theological assumptions she attempts to imply.

Dan Brown is a bastard who should be hanged. Sorry just needed to get that off my chest. His bullshit books have set back the real study of some of the real factual possibilities atleast 20 years. :(

Did you ever read holy blood, holy grail? supposedly that's where brown culled his idea from. how about Malcolm Barber's "The Cathars and The Trial of the Templars" and "Medieval Heresy"; and Michael Costen's The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade?

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely Jesus and his brothers were all childless. I had always assumed that Mary Mag was his wife, but the images and stories we've seen and heard ignore that because of how it would have taken away from the story of his life.

Nobody lives life knowing they are going to die. I find it hard to believe Jesus would have done so.

SunCoastSooner wrote:How was Jesus born of a virgin and yet still able to meet the requirment set forth by God through the prophets that the Moshiach be a direct male decendant through the Male Davidic/Judaic line.

Without getting into a long discussion about it, one should take note that the very FIRST Messianic prophecy came from God Himself, who spoke in Genesis 3:15 and said (to satan) ...........


And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


God clearly tells us that the Christ would be of the woman's seed, which indicates Divine pregnancy.

And then, yes of course, the Christ DID come from the family line which eventually led to Joseph (husband of Mary) as later prophecy dictated.

wha???

How do you interpret that from that quote?

"Clearly" is not a word I'd used.

Bruise the head bruise the heel, no reference to joseph or mary???

Break it down dude. There are a lot of non believers who are rolling their eyes about now wondering how you came to that conclusion.

Let's face reality.

Non-believers will roll their eyes at about anything I 'conclude' about scripture, Bushice.


As chronicled in Genesis, the very first thing that God did when man sinned after being deceived by satan, is promise curses TO SATAN, not man.
The second thing he did was promise man a way out of this problem.
Yes, immediately following man's mistake, God promised a way out.
So sad that many people have a picture of God as spiteful or judgemental.
Nothing is further from the truth.
God IS love.
This love is demonstrated by his IMMEDIATE promise of a way for man to get out from this problem.

But anyway.........


Genesis 3:15 gives the first glimpse into the Gospel, and points out a three truths.

1) satan is the enemy of mankind (such an enemy that God needed to put 'enmity' between satan and the woman).
2) God would place a spiritual barrier between 'thy seed' (satan's people (non-believers)) and 'her seed' (believers).
This 'number 2' meaning is evident when looking at numerous other corroborative scriptures (which I don't intend to detail)

3) the representative seed of the woman (human Christ) would deliver a crushing death blow to satan, but would be 'bruised' in the process, which would be Christ's suffering on the cross.



Give the 3rd chapter of Genesis a read and tell me what you think 'her seed' means.

And, what is the 'enmity' that God is saying he will place between satan and the woman, between 'satan's seed' and the 'woman's seed'...?



Point is, as I said, SCS's balk at the Christ not literally coming through a 'man's' family line (due to virgin birth) is easily explained when noting that the first Messianic prophecy (from God) speaks of the Christ coming through the seed of a woman.

Man's seed can't save man because all men are born sinful.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Mister Bushice wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:

But if Mary was a virgin that would mean that the seed was not the seed of David. See where I am getting at? You can't have it both ways either he was the Davidic Heir or he wasn't.

I do have books by Dr. Thiering and Laurence Gardner. Laurence Gardner is rather far out there in some of his stuff like assuming that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalen. I do believe there was a good possibility that Jesus was married but to whom I would not venture to guess at. Just because of the nature of his position but I am sure we will get into that as well. Laurence Gardner is also employed by the House of Stewart so he has a bias and I don't paticularly care for some of his theories about Jesus himself after the crucifixion but some of the family tree work he did is rather exceptional. Many of the facts that he presents about the early church are pretty accurate but the assumptions he makes, especially during the period of 40AD-325AD in the south of France to be pretty big steps to make on assumption alone. I think there is a very good possibilty that blood relatives of Jesus living well after him and the middle east knowning of them to be more likely than not. I mean look at this rationaly; Four Jewish brothers and none of them had kids when all of them would have been expected to have been married and had two male heirs by the time they were 38? None of us can be that naive can we? This family was the blod line of King David. They were pretty damn importnant by Jewish standards.

Barbra Thiering on the other hand was/is a very well respected expert in her field. I don't even know if she is still alive though. I think there is a very good possibility that a New Testament code is there based on some of her work but I do not agree with all of her work. I wish she would stick to her field of expertise without the theological assumptions she attempts to imply.

Dan Brown is a bastard who should be hanged. Sorry just needed to get that off my chest. His bullshit books have set back the real study of some of the real factual possibilities atleast 20 years. :(

Did you ever read holy blood, holy grail? supposedly that's where brown culled his idea from. how about Malcolm Barber's "The Cathars and The Trial of the Templars" and "Medieval Heresy"; and Michael Costen's The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade?

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely Jesus and his brothers were all childless. I had always assumed that Mary Mag was his wife, but the images and stories we've seen and heard ignore that because of how it would have taken away from the story of his life.

Nobody lives life knowing they are going to die. I find it hard to believe Jesus would have done so.

I've read and own them all.

I don't see how he being married would take away from him. Either his ideas are correct or not. The fact that an early 30s heir of the Davidic throne and rabbi was unmarried at that age would have been a source of major controversay and even illegal, surely the Sanhedrin would have mentioned it amongst his charges.

poptart wrote:Let's face reality.

Non-believers will roll their eyes at about anything I 'conclude' about scripture, Bushice.


As chronicled in Genesis, the very first thing that God did when man sinned after being deceived by satan, is promise curses TO SATAN, not man.
The second thing he did was promise man a way out of this problem.
Yes, immediately following man's mistake, God promised a way out.
So sad that many people have a picture of God as spiteful or judgemental.
Nothing is further from the truth.
God IS love.
This love is demonstrated by his IMMEDIATE promise of a way for man to get out from this problem.

But anyway.........


Genesis 3:15 gives the first glimpse into the Gospel, and points out a three truths.

1) satan is the enemy of mankind (such an enemy that God needed to put 'enmity' between satan and the woman).
2) God would place a spiritual barrier between 'thy seed' (satan's people (non-believers)) and 'her seed' (believers).
This 'number 2' meaning is evident when looking at numerous other corroborative scriptures (which I don't intend to detail)

3) the representative seed of the woman (human Christ) would deliver a crushing death blow to satan, but would be 'bruised' in the process, which would be Christ's suffering on the cross.



Give the 3rd chapter of Genesis a read and tell me what you think 'her seed' means.

And, what is the 'enmity' that God is saying he will place between satan and the woman, between 'satan's seed' and the 'woman's seed'...?



Point is, as I said, SCS's balk at the Christ not literally coming through a 'man's' family line (due to virgin birth) is easily explained when noting that the first Messianic prophecy (from God) speaks of the Christ coming through the seed of a woman.

Man's seed can't save man because all men are born sinful.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Really poptart?

Genisis 49:10 "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet.

2 Samuel 7:12 - 13 And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever"


Neither of our quotes from Genisis are concerning the messiah either BTW. I was just making a point. There are bot 360+ prophecies concerning the messiah, there are about 16 if memory serves me correctly. They are all from Samuel, Jerimiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. It was revisionist Christian history over 800 years after Jesus Death that suddenly all manner of text began to suddenly be a prophecy about Jesus.

And as far as the argument that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah because Joseph addopted him. That shit don't fly. To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah.[/color=red] End of story, that was and still is Jewish law of the Torrah set forth by God to Moses from Mt. Sinai.

Diogenes wrote:

SunCoastSooner wrote:A couple of those authors have put forth the idea that Nathanael was was Jonathan Annas. As far as Gardner. You asked if I had books by hime and I answered that I did.

No, I asked which authors other than him you were getting that little tidbit from. And more precisely, I'd be interested in what their sources were for that assumption.

Don't take it personal, it's just that the idea is moderatly idiotic (if this is the same Annas who was later High Preist) and I wanted to know where to go to see where they spin this crap from.

BTW, Googling the name 'Jonathon Annas'...

http://mirrorh.com/timelinead.html
http://www.thegrimoire.com/religion_of_a_lie.htm
http://www.thegrimoire.com/man_of_a_lie.htm
http://www.jesusinkashmir.com/pmedia/yahweh2.htm

Good stuff.

Sure you aren't Roger_the_Shrubber, dio? RTS enjoys the grimoire as well. As a few of us from scobode discoverd.

I am going to get started today. Guess I'll start with Abram/Abraham. He is at pretty much the beggining of Judaism as both religions see it, one of the most interesting biblical figures, I think, and his biblical story is quit interesting when you look at the archeological evidence behind it. Might not be posted today but I am going to try. If it doesn't happen before 8pm I wouldn't count on it until tomarrow (Bedlam Basketball tonight).

BTW that Jesus in Kashmir site looks a little bit loopy. Though there are people who really do believe that Jesus escaped the crucifixion and went there later in life. I seriously doubt that, personally. I have no need to go to the grimoir, as I said RTS has already introduced some of us to that site and one visit was enough for me. RTS tried to imply the same shit about me once before and got ran for it. There are a couple of Sooners, and non sooners alike from bode here and lurking that have been involved in previous theological discussions with me and more than enough to know that those sites don't represent me in the least.

Jonathan Annas certainly was a real person though as he was noted, if only briefly, by a number of historians at the time. He was a member of the priesthood (most likely Essene or Sadducee) but was not a High priest of any sort. May have been a member of the Qumram community but this is as speculative as James the Just being a member. The Essenes do have many links to early christianity and their doctrine is very similar to much of early Christianity as well. They were inclusive to Gentiles and the Order of Shem is traced back to their society. I think it is a good possibilty that these people were heavily involved in early christiandom as their entire doctrine seems to be centered by anticipating the coming King of Israel.