Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Well…maybe. Interesting in nerdy, Indiana Jones kind of way.

BTW, how many "gospels" like Thomas were left out of the bible?



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Well…maybe. Interesting in nerdy, Indiana Jones kind of way.

BTW, how many "gospels" like Thomas were left out of the bible?



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read the article, but is this based on that 8th century piece of papyrus that was uncovered in 2012?

He might have had a wife. And children. However, the gospels were selected to present a certain view of Jesus. Him having a wife, children or siblings weren't important to the narrative of Jesus dying for our sins. We know he had siblings, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas), are mentioned in all 4 Gospels. Some scholars beileve that the the epistle of Jude is written (ghostwritten really) by his brother Judas (he identifies himself as the brother of James.)

Then they scoffed, "He's just the carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Matthew 13:55

To me, that shows a familial relationship and not the friendly relationship (e.g Brothers in arms aren't really familial brothers)

Cue D1b to ruin this interesting, theological discussion in 3..2..1..

kalm wrote:Well…maybe. Interesting in nerdy, Indiana Jones kind of way.

BTW, how many "gospels" like Thomas were left out of the bible?



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hundreds.

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:Well…maybe. Interesting in nerdy, Indiana Jones kind of way.

BTW, how many "gospels" like Thomas were left out of the bible?



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't read the article, but is this based on that 8th century piece of papyrus that was uncovered in 2012?

He might have had a wife. And children. However, the gospels were selected to present a certain view of Jesus. Him having a wife, children or siblings weren't important to the narrative of Jesus dying for our sins. We know he had siblings, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas), are mentioned in all 4 Gospels. Some scholars beileve that the the epistle of Jude is written (ghostwritten really) by his brother Judas (he identifies himself as the brother of James.)

Then they scoffed, "He's just the carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Matthew 13:55

To me, that shows a familial relationship and not the friendly relationship (e.g Brothers in arms aren't really familial brothers)

Whether Jesus had full biological siblings is hotly debated.

The Greek word used in this passage, and in other locations of the Gospels, translated as "brothers" -- "adelphios" -- refers to both siblings and first-cousins. Also, there has always been a strong traditional belief that Joseph was older than Mary, and a widower who had children prior to marrying Mary. Therefore, the brothers and sisters of Jesus may have been half-siblings. As you know, a number of Christian Churches believe that Jesus has no full siblings.

JoltinJoe wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
I haven't read the article, but is this based on that 8th century piece of papyrus that was uncovered in 2012?

He might have had a wife. And children. However, the gospels were selected to present a certain view of Jesus. Him having a wife, children or siblings weren't important to the narrative of Jesus dying for our sins. We know he had siblings, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas), are mentioned in all 4 Gospels. Some scholars beileve that the the epistle of Jude is written (ghostwritten really) by his brother Judas (he identifies himself as the brother of James.)


To me, that shows a familial relationship and not the friendly relationship (e.g Brothers in arms aren't really familial brothers)

Whether Jesus had full biological siblings is hotly debated.

The Greek word used in this passage, and in other locations of the Gospels, translated as "brothers" -- "adelphios" -- refers to both siblings and first-cousins. Also, there has always been a strong traditional belief that Joseph was older than Mary, and a widower who had children prior to marrying Mary. Therefore, the brothers and sisters of Jesus may have been half-siblings. As you know, a number of Christian Churches believe that Jesus has no full siblings.

Yes, I know. My parents (Catholics) are split on the idea. It doesn't matter, truly. Him having siblings (full or half) has no bearing on the message. Same with him have a wife. That's just my opinion. Translations are a problem for many, especially because some words were translated incorrectly and therefore implying some conspiracy to write a certain narrative. Like the translation of "almah" into "parthenos" when we all know the Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah."

meh... nothing new here / Its really just more fodder used in the debate:
The "Idea" of Jesus is far more important than the facts about Jesus
and the observation that the church has been obscuring various truths in order to forward various "Ideas"

kind of a 101 on "How to sell a concept"

If Jesus is a regular guy with brothers and sisters his god-hood status looks suspect
if he has no history then he can be anything the council sees fit for him to be (even a god among men)

or something like that (your mileage may vary)

1) By Christian Faith, Jesus had no full siblings, unless God had a regular thing going with Mary.
2) By Christian Faith, any offspring of Joseph by a prior marriage would have no blood ties to Jesus.
3) I saw Jesus over the weekend - he has a new boyfriend.

dbackjon wrote:1) By Christian Faith, Jesus had no full siblings, unless God had a regular thing going with Mary.
2) By Christian Faith, any offspring of Joseph by a prior marriage would have no blood ties to Jesus.
3) I saw Jesus over the weekend - he has a new boyfriend.

I've thought about this...

If God favored straight guys over gay guys, then why did he make women so difficult?

dbackjon wrote:1) By Christian Faith, Jesus had no full siblings, unless God had a regular thing going with Mary.
2) By Christian Faith, any offspring of Joseph by a prior marriage would have no blood ties to Jesus.
3) I saw Jesus over the weekend - he has a new boyfriend.

1) You're not exactly right, but you aren't wrong. The bible clearly mentiones his brothers multiple times, in different texts. It's all in the interpretation of those texts. It's ridiculous to believe that his parents, Mary and Joseph, never had sex or children after Jesus.

2) Christian faith has nothing to do with the lack of a genetic relationship.

3) Ha. Good one.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:1) By Christian Faith, Jesus had no full siblings, unless God had a regular thing going with Mary.
2) By Christian Faith, any offspring of Joseph by a prior marriage would have no blood ties to Jesus.
3) I saw Jesus over the weekend - he has a new boyfriend.

1) You're not exactly right, but you aren't wrong. The bible clearly mentiones his brothers multiple times, in different texts. It's all in the interpretation of those texts. It's ridiculous to believe that his parents, Mary and Joseph, never had sex or children after Jesus.

2) Christian faith has nothing to do with the lack of a genetic relationship.

3) Ha. Good one.

1 and 2 went right over your head.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
1) You're not exactly right, but you aren't wrong. The bible clearly mentiones his brothers multiple times, in different texts. It's all in the interpretation of those texts. It's ridiculous to believe that his parents, Mary and Joseph, never had sex or children after Jesus.

2) Christian faith has nothing to do with the lack of a genetic relationship.

3) Ha. Good one.

1 and 2 went right over your head.

I ignored the idiocy in it as much as possible.

I would make since, he was married. To be a Rabbi in the jewish faith, one has to be a man. Being a man means, that your are married to a women. I asked this lady, if Jesus was married, does it take away the wonderful things that he has done. She said no, but I wont belive it. People are such Sheep.

mrklean wrote:I would make since, he was married. To be a Rabbi in the jewish faith, one has to be a man. Being a man means, that your are married to a women. I asked this lady, if Jesus was married, does it take away the wonderful things that he has done. She said no, but I wont belive it. People are such Sheep.

What the fuck? There are so many things wrong with your post. Let's break them down.

I would make since, he was married.

What? English, do you speak it? You don't make any SENSE.

To be a Rabbi in the jewish faith, one has to be a man. Being a man means, that your are married to a women.

Rabbis and Men are allowed to be single. There are plenty of unmarried men that are men and Rabbis.

I asked this lady, if Jesus was married, does it take away the wonderful things that he has done. She said no, but I wont belive it.

So, you asked a woman if Jesus being married makes his "achievements" less than wonderful. She says no and you think she's wrong. Did I read that correctly? Why couldn't a married man do great things?

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

The mythological accounts Christian and catholic idiots put their faith in are riddled with inaccuracies, errors, contradictions.

It's all silly bullshit to placate the weak and delusional.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

1 and 2 went right over your head.

I ignored the idiocy in it as much as possible.

No, no idiocy. Just logic. Which is why it went over your head.

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

I ignored the idiocy in it as much as possible.

No, no idiocy. Just logic. Which is why it went over your head.

There wasn't any logic. For instance, Christian Faith has nothing to do with human genetics. It probably went over my head because your "logic" made no sense. Or it was poorly worded. And it is obvious that there wouldn't have been full siblings, that isn't the point.

Ibanez wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

No, no idiocy. Just logic. Which is why it went over your head.

There wasn't any logic. For instance, Christian Faith has nothing to do with human genetics. It probably went over my head because your "logic" made no sense. Or it was poorly worded. And it is obvious that there wouldn't have been full siblings, that isn't the point.

If it is so obvious that he didn't have full siblings, then why was that a point of discussion earlier in the thread??

CCU Education

hey look another Christ was just a dude thread

i expect consensus this time

CID1990 wrote:hey look another Christ was just a dude thread

i expect consensus this time

I'd think we all would want a messiah we could sit down and have a beer with...

dbackjon wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
There wasn't any logic. For instance, Christian Faith has nothing to do with human genetics. It probably went over my head because your "logic" made no sense. Or it was poorly worded. And it is obvious that there wouldn't have been full siblings, that isn't the point.

If it is so obvious that he didn't have full siblings, then why was that a point of discussion earlier in the thread??

CCU Education

Wow. You read "wouldn't" as "didn't." Oh no, NAU education. I am hoping dal has hacked into your account.

Besides, it's a hypothetical discussion. Get over yourself.

Jesus had a wife?

That explains him not defending himself and the early death.

D1B wrote:There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

The mythological accounts Christian and catholic idiots put their faith in are riddled with inaccuracies, errors, contradictions.

It's all silly bullshit to placate the weak and delusional.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-vuqTWGGlA[/youtube]

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:hey look another Christ was just a dude thread

i expect consensus this time

I'd think we all would want a messiah we could sit down and have a beer with...

no i agree- i think he was just a dude- probably an admirable one

the snark was in the consensus part

kalm wrote:Well…maybe. Interesting in nerdy, Indiana Jones kind of way.

BTW, how many "gospels" like Thomas were left out of the bible?



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The odds were against Jesus being a bachelor.