Should children read the bible?

[orgaelin]

Okay, I found out why it was thought that she was twelve.

"And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’"

- (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120])

She was twelve, supposedly, and Joseph an old man?! And already had children?!

No. The Protoevangelium of James (POJ) is often used by the Catholic church to argue that Mary was 'ever virgin', and that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the bible were from a previous marriage, but this is easy to show as wrong. The POJ is one of those wonderful works written by the church to support whatever view they wished to put across.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the POJ thus:

pseudepigraphal (noncanonical and unauthentic) work written about the mid-2nd century AD to enhance the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Christian tradition. The story of Mary's childhood as given in the Protevangelium has no parallel in the New Testament, and reference to a nine-year stay in the Temple of Jerusalem contradicts Jewish customs.

So the reference to Mary's age was falseified by the POJ, a book written by the church. In fact, mary was born in 26BC, and aged 17 and a half when she conceived Jesus.

Furthermore, as we have discussed here already, Joseph WAS descended from the Davidic line (shown in Matthew 1:1-7), even if some think he wasn't the source of the Davidic heritage in Jesus (and that it was from his mother). Now, as a Davidic descendent it was strictly forbidden for him to divorce, ever.

So the concept of him having had a previous wife is not true. Also, if he had other children from a previous marriage, then the first born of THAT union would have been the heir, not Jesus, and thus Jesus would never have been called Jesus the Christ (greek Christos = King)

The quoted excerpt calls Mary a Young Girl, which was again her status, as well as her age. Similarly the reference to Joseph as an Old Man was again a reference to status. In fact he was 36 at the time, but the explanation for that is complicated... I'll give it a go all the same...

I'm going to quote directly from "Jesus the Man" by Barbara Thiering...

In Matthew's gospel, Heli [Joseph's father] is treated as a descendant of the royal David line, by calling him "Jacob the son of Matthan" (Matt 1:15). A process of grafting a junior branch or new line into a senior branch was well known in priestly and royal dynasties. Matthew allows 25 generations, of 40 years each, to cover the same time span of 1000 years between David and Jacob-Heli, whereas Luke allows 40 generations of 25 years each, and gives the actual genealogy. The royal generations were counted as 40 years, whereas those of a junior line were only 25 years. Thus Jacob-Heli of the junior line was 25 at his marriage, but Joseph, after the grafting process, had to wait till he was 36.

[Gorgo]

That's just you that should be taken from your parents?

Children should be allowed to read just about whatever they want to without somebody that has some screwed up ideas about what they're reading telling them what they're reading.

To have them read the Bible and tell them that Jesus lived and walked on water and healed people and rose from the dead? Now that's probably child abuse.

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, I think that Children denied the right to read the Bible should be taken from thier parents. But thats just me.

[orgaelin]

I actually agree to an extent... some of the teachings of the bible are so wrong that it would be criminal to instill these ideas into one's children.

For example the notion of the devil. What sicko would tell them there's an evil being running rampage in our heads and making us do evil too? You'd be setting them up to become muderers and thinking it was just the devil making them do it.

Obviously it rarely goes to such an extreme, but still, it's wrong.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin, Okay, I found out why it was thought that she was twelve. - (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]) She was twelve, supposedly, and Joseph an old man?! And already had children?! No. The Protoevangelium of James (POJ) is often used by the Catholic church to argue that Mary was 'ever virgin', and that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the bible were from a previous marriage, but this is easy to show as wrong. The POJ is one of those wonderful works written by the church to support whatever view they wished to put across. The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the POJ thus: So the reference to Mary's age was falseified by the POJ, a book written by the church. In fact, mary was born in 26BC, and aged 17 and a half when she conceived Jesus. Furthermore, as we have discussed here already, Joseph WAS descended from the Davidic line (shown in Matthew 1:1-7), even if some think he wasn't the source of the Davidic heritage in Jesus (and that it was from his mother). Now, as a Davidic descendent it was strictly forbidden for him to divorce, ever. So the concept of him having had a previous wife is not true. Also, if he had other children from a previous marriage, then the first born of THAT union would have been the heir, not Jesus, and thus Jesus would never have been called Jesus the Christ (greek Christos = King) The quoted excerpt calls Mary a Young Girl, which was again her status, as well as her age. Similarly the reference to Joseph as an Old Man was again a reference to status. In fact he was 36 at the time, but the explanation for that is complicated... I'll give it a go all the same... I'm going to quote directly from "Jesus the Man" by Barbara Thiering...

17 and a half is still jailbate. (but that is nowadays).

Anyway if they had kept track of everyone's family tree then the Temple people and nearly everyone who knew the family of Joseph (or Mary) would have known that he (Jesus) was a potential canidate for being the "one" they were waiting for to become their king and to defeat Rome or to fullfill the promise of the old testiment predictions (which were numbered such that the the person would be born in that time). Other canidates were walking around also, like Jesus, and like the guy they selected instead of Jesus according to a custom that one person would be set free from prison during passover. The person they picked instead of Jesus was convicted of murder but was also a leader of the violent revolution attempts to gain liberty form Roman rule, and although in the eyes of Roam the person was a terrorist they (the Jews) requested freedom for him instead of Jesus he (Barbaras (spelling?) was more the "David type" then was Jesus. (more the Commander and Chief personality).

Now we must keep in mind that Matthew, and some other diciples had to write the story in such a way as to prove that Jesus was the "one" and so they included some parts about his history being born. However the diciples did not give their sources for that information, nor were they present as eye witness reporters when Jesus was born. None the less they made sure they covered all the predictions made in old scriptures when writing about Jesus.
The motive for doing that is self-evident.

Unlike today, girls did not go to the doctors office for check ups, sometimes they would hire a midwife but we have no meidical records of facts given by a 3rd party that she was a virgin, other then taking their word for it on fatih.

Changing direction - I think it might have been the custom, if a man's wife should die, and he is left with children to raise, that he could be remarried to another woman, as long as the woman also was without a husband (if he was dead or if it was unknown who the father is - such as in a rape case.) However he would not be able to web a girl who was still a virgin and had never known a man before, when taking his 2nd wife (aka helpmeet).

It is rather interesting that the virgin birth idea was originally concerning the son of the King of Babylon, whom it was said would reincarnate in a virgin, that is to say someone dedicated to the goddess of Venus (goddess of love). As in their religion the "Nuns" provided sex instead of giving up sex, and the donations they gathered were for the sacred Temple. In Revelations Babylon was called the "city of whores" and in his community where Jesus lived the gossip was that he was the son of a whore. Thus, if we take into account "other then biblical sources" as you suggested, we could come to a more logical conclusion that Jesus was the reincarnated son of the King of Babylon - which triangle was King, Queen, and Child. Instead of Father, son, and holy ghost, however as I mentioned the holy ghost would be the female aspect of unconditional motherly love). This also could be further confirmed in reading Daniel chapters where he talked about Babylon as the "everlasting kingdom" (now called Iraq or Bagdad). Strange are the webs weaved by history.

Now returning to the first question "should kids read the Bible" or at least be informed about the stories. Well, should kids be allowed to watch the news about the reconstruction of Babylon (Iraq)? Do people know that our democratic three house system of government was greatly patterned after the original government of Babylon? (only they just called the President a King instead).

I have also more insites concerning this atlernative perspective.

Technosoul.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Anyway if they had kept track of everyone's family tree then the Temple people and nearly everyone who knew the family of Joseph (or Mary) would have known that he (Jesus) was a potential canidate for being the "one"...

They knew. The problem was that Jewish law is a bit weird concerning firstborn males. They attach *huge* importance to the first born male of ANY family, so long as it is the first child also. If the first is a girl and the next is a boy, there is nothing considered special about either.

Anywho, since Mary's firstborn was a male then he deserved to inherit his father's position. The problem was that not everyone agreed. The Saducees were fairly flexible, and recognised that a child being born out of wedlock is considered to be only a "minor transgression" in the eyes of Jewish law. The Pharisees held that it was a bit more significant, and thus disputed Jesus' rights.

It isn't entirely fair to call Jesus illigitimate thought, since Jewish law (I learned this today!) considered a child a bastard ("Mezzarim" in Hebrew) only if it had been born of a mother whom the father should not have legally been having sex with. That is, if the mother was related to him, or too young, or already married, etc... then the child was a bastard, but a child born out of wedlock would still have the normal rights as if he had been born according to plan.

they were waiting for to become their king and to defeat Rome or to fullfill the promise of the old testiment predictions (which were numbered such that the the person would be born in that time).

The problem was that many thought John the Baptist was the main man, but then his prophecies failed to come true, and he was condemned to death as a false prophet. So that kinda ruled him out!

There were, as you say, still plenty of other candidates, and Jesus was just one of them. He too, knew that he would die if he wasn't proven to be the saviour within a certain amount of time.

I believe he was above all the superstition, however, and saw in his death and apparent resurrection an opportunity to present himself as a saviour.

Other canidates were walking around also, like Jesus, and like the guy they selected instead of Jesus according to a custom that one person would be set free from prison during passover.

Ah. I can tell you something about that which might change your mind. For a start, there never was any custom to release one person during passover, it's a fabrication. (see Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, ch 12, p 309; notes, p 433) I would check it out, quote and/or explain it, but my copy of the book has gone walkabout!

The person they picked instead of Jesus was convicted of murder but was also a leader of the violent revolution attempts to gain liberty form Roman rule, and although in the eyes of Roam the person was a terrorist they (the Jews) requested freedom for him instead of Jesus he (Barbaras (spelling?)

Barabbas. Another interesting one! Barabbas is actually a gentleman named Thaddaeus, one of the three leading Zealot revolutionaries. He was, as the bible says a deputy of the succession, which means he was deputy to the reigning 'Father', and thus was the devotional 'Son of the Father'. In Hebrew the word for son is 'bar' and father is 'abba', hence "Barabbas".

Another example of the bible giving us specific details where it seem not to.

It is interesting that you came across the correct story without the correct name. Most people take the view that he was just a thief, which is ludicrous since theft didn't lead to crucifixion!

was more the "David type" then was Jesus. (more the Commander and Chief personality).

Yes, I see what you mean, but I wouldn't view Jesus as too much of a pacifist. It his own words, he came to bring "not peace, but a sword", and told his own men to sell their clothes that they might buy a sword if they had not got one.

Although he didn't support an out-and-out uprising against Rome.

This whole part of the story is interesting. Both of the guys being crucified with Jesus were Zealot leaders, but Jesus had done nothing. In short, the Pharisees wanted him out of the way, fast.

They said they could not judge him according to their laws because they could not sentence a man to death, but that was just not true. They were quite able to do so, except the timing was wrong. It was against their own laws for the council to sit during the Passover, and they did not want to wait because they knew they had no real charge over him.

They knew his time for being proven the saviour was almost up, but obviously feared that something might indeed happen. They wanted him dead before anything did.

Unlike today, girls did not go to the doctors office for check ups, sometimes they would hire a midwife but we have no meidical records of facts given by a 3rd party that she was a virgin, other then taking their word for it on fatih.

That's why matrilineal succession became important. They realised that no-one could dispute who was the mother of a child, but the father could be anyone for all they knew.

Changing direction - I think it might have been the custom, if a man's wife should die, and he is left with children to raise, that he could be remarried to another woman, as long as the woman also was without a husband (if he was dead or if it was unknown who the father is - such as in a rape case.) However he would not be able to web a girl who was still a virgin and had never known a man before, when taking his 2nd wife (aka helpmeet).

I agree. The Jews have extensive laws on this subject, saying who can marry who, and what should happen if someones brother dies, etc. It's almost bizarre.

It is rather interesting that the virgin birth idea was originally concerning the son of the King of Babylon,

You know there are LOADS of virgin births?

All these people alleged sons of God who were crucified, just like Jesus...

Adad of Assyria
Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
Alcides of Thebes
Attis of Phrygia
Baal of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Beddru of Japan
Buddha of India
Crite of Chaldea
Deva Tat of Siam
Hesus of the Druids
Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34
Indra of Tibet/India
Jao of Nepal
Krishna of India
Mikado of the Sintoos
Mithra of Persia
Odin of the Scandinavians
Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
Salivahana of Bermuda
Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35)
Thor of the Gauls
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
Zoar of the Bonzes

Then there's Buddha... check out what Buddha has in common with Jesus...

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."

Horus, Mythra and Krishna all had the same myths about them as Jesus, and they all came well before his time.

All the mythical aspects of Jesus' life were simply made to fit in with the various gods and faiths to whom early Christianity was preached. It was meant to be a new religion that would suit everyone, all over the world, and thus incorporated the myths of all the world.

If you want more of this info, go read this amazing document complete with everybodys' favourite; *references*

Strange are the webs weaved by history.

Historys web is weaved by the victors in all things!

I have also more insites concerning this atlernative perspective.

I look forward to them as much as all of your posts on this subject!

~ Org.

[orgaelin]

Man that was a long post - a new record for me I think!

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (orgaelin,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, Anyway if they had kept track of everyone's family tree then the Temple people and nearly everyone who knew the family of Joseph (or Mary) would have known that he (Jesus) was a potential canidate for being the "one"...

They knew. The problem was that Jewish law is a bit weird concerning firstborn males. They attach *huge* importance to the first born male of ANY family, so long as it is the first child also. If the first is a girl and the next is a boy, there is nothing considered special about either.

Anywho, since Mary's firstborn was a male then he deserved to inherit his father's position. The problem was that not everyone agreed. The Saducees were fairly flexible, and recognised that a child being born out of wedlock is considered to be only a "minor transgression" in the eyes of Jewish law. The Pharisees held that it was a bit more significant, and thus disputed Jesus' rights.

It isn't entirely fair to call Jesus illigitimate thought, since Jewish law (I learned this today!) considered a child a bastard ("Mezzarim" in Hebrew) only if it had been born of a mother whom the father should not have legally been having sex with. That is, if the mother was related to him, or too young, or already married, etc... then the child was a bastard, but a child born out of wedlock would still have the normal rights as if he had been born according to plan.



The problem was that many thought John the Baptist was the main man, but then his prophecies failed to come true, and he was condemned to death as a false prophet. So that kinda ruled him out!

There were, as you say, still plenty of other candidates, and Jesus was just one of them. He too, knew that he would die if he wasn't proven to be the saviour within a certain amount of time.

I believe he was above all the superstition, however, and saw in his death and apparent resurrection an opportunity to present himself as a saviour.



Ah. I can tell you something about that which might change your mind. For a start, there never was any custom to release one person during passover, it's a fabrication. (see Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, ch 12, p 309; notes, p 433) I would check it out, quote and/or explain it, but my copy of the book has gone walkabout!



Barabbas. Another interesting one! Barabbas is actually a gentleman named Thaddaeus, one of the three leading Zealot revolutionaries. He was, as the bible says a deputy of the succession, which means he was deputy to the reigning 'Father', and thus was the devotional 'Son of the Father'. In Hebrew the word for son is 'bar' and father is 'abba', hence "Barabbas".

Another example of the bible giving us specific details where it seem not to.

It is interesting that you came across the correct story without the correct name. Most people take the view that he was just a thief, which is ludicrous since theft didn't lead to crucifixion!



Yes, I see what you mean, but I wouldn't view Jesus as too much of a pacifist. It his own words, he came to bring "not peace, but a sword", and told his own men to sell their clothes that they might buy a sword if they had not got one.

Although he didn't support an out-and-out uprising against Rome.

This whole part of the story is interesting. Both of the guys being crucified with Jesus were Zealot leaders, but Jesus had done nothing. In short, the Pharisees wanted him out of the way, fast.

They said they could not judge him according to their laws because they could not sentence a man to death, but that was just not true. They were quite able to do so, except the timing was wrong. It was against their own laws for the council to sit during the Passover, and they did not want to wait because they knew they had no real charge over him.

They knew his time for being proven the saviour was almost up, but obviously feared that something might indeed happen. They wanted him dead before anything did.



That's why matrilineal succession became important. They realised that no-one could dispute who was the mother of a child, but the father could be anyone for all they knew.



I agree. The Jews have extensive laws on this subject, saying who can marry who, and what should happen if someones brother dies, etc. It's almost bizarre.



You know there are LOADS of virgin births?

All these people alleged sons of God who were crucified, just like Jesus...

Adad of Assyria
Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
Alcides of Thebes
Attis of Phrygia
Baal of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Beddru of Japan
Buddha of India
Crite of Chaldea
Deva Tat of Siam
Hesus of the Druids
Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34
Indra of Tibet/India
Jao of Nepal
Krishna of India
Mikado of the Sintoos
Mithra of Persia
Odin of the Scandinavians
Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
Salivahana of Bermuda
Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35)
Thor of the Gauls
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
Zoar of the Bonzes

Then there's Buddha... check out what Buddha has in common with Jesus...

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."

Horus, Mythra and Krishna all had the same myths about them as Jesus, and they all came well before his time.

All the mythical aspects of Jesus' life were simply made to fit in with the various gods and faiths to whom early Christianity was preached. It was meant to be a new religion that would suit everyone, all over the world, and thus incorporated the myths of all the world.

If you want more of this info, go read this amazing document complete with everybodys' favourite; *references*



Historys web is weaved by the victors in all things!



I look forward to them as much as all of your posts on this subject!

~ Org. [/b][/quote]

Thanks for all the facts and related data. Sounds like you know your stuff pretty good.

My background about the Buddha religion is a bit different, I hear he died after eating a pigfoot mushroom that had somehow become toxic. Never did hear about him walking on water or healing people. He did have some of the same teachings that Jesus later also spoke of. As I recall his name was not Buddha but that is the name of the philosophy because he was sitting under a Buddha tree when he found his first revealation. He was from a Royal family, most every religion was started by someone with a rich background, I think even Jesus was from a family that was well off relative to his community.

I will have to check out the link you provided and will comment later on that source.

About the sword (words) I think that is interesting. I think he understood that his words would cause debates, not peace. But also I think it might have been a custom for some Sages to keep people guessing, never giving a plain and simple answer, to always a riddle. For in my opinion one of the objectives was to teach people how to think for their self, to liberate them from a need for Masters and middle-men, to force them to look within their self for the answers instead of adopting some ready-made idealogy.

You want to learn how to walk on water?

Come back this winter then the lake is frozen and I will show you how.. hee hee. (old indian trick).

I beleive his disciple went downstairs in the boat and was dreaming and in his dream had te vision about Jesus walking on water which vision contains a lot of useful anology for explaining things. As the story is retold the vision was reported as a real event. (that is for the skeptics).

Technosoul.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by Technosoul Thanks for all the facts and related data. Sounds like you know your stuff pretty good.

Actually I'm just pretty good at remembering where to find references in many books. I have about 9 on my desk beside me, each of which I have been using over the past few days to find the necessary backup for what I'm saying. The credit goes, for the most part (I have done some researching of my own), to the authors of those books.

My background about the Buddha religion is a bit different,

I honestly couldn't dispute. I'm sure I understand the idea of Buddhism, but know very little of the guy under the tree or the history surrounding it.

I think even Jesus was from a family that was well off relative to his community.

Well, sort of. When the Romans took over Judea they abolished the Jewish kingship, and took all the riches too I presume. It was all long out of Jewish hands by the time Jesus was born, and any way Jesus belonged to a sect that deliberately lived in poverty, sharing everything equally.

But he was rich in status, and still fits the tendency for religions to start on the backs of the rich.

I will have to check out the link you provided and will comment later on that source.

It's a lengthy but excellent read. The author actually suggests that a character called Jesus simply NEVER existed at all, but I think even the most hardened scholar would disagree with that. Even so, he raises a valid opening point...

Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent. Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Their silence is deafening testimony against the historicizers.

Is that amazing or what?!

to teach people how to think for their self, to liberate them from a need for Masters and middle-men, to force them to look within their self for the answers instead of adopting some ready-made idealogy.

As I understand it, Jesus' intention was to reform Judaism into a new faith that was compatible with the many other beliefs and practices prevalent in that day, and that would welcome anyone, irrespective of race of financial status.

Ultimately that kind of happened, but I think Jesus would not be happy with Christianity were he alive to see it. The fact is, he was Jewish. Everyone seems to forget that in their paintings of the long-haired, bearded, but nonetheless White British male!

It has to be said that although Jesus was unhappy with the strictness of Jewish customs, which were effectively racist, he did respect the law. He did believe in absolute piety, and that one should quite literally give everything up and devote one's life to God.

Christianity is a wealthy religion. Consider how much wealth could be ammassed over 2000 years of taking donations from people. The majority of people who are Christians are from wealthy, upper class families too.

I remember one day in church as a child, surrounded by all these highly respectable families, my own included. Then in walked two tramps. They weren't drunk, they weren't dissordely. They were brave. They were brave enough to stay despite the scowls and fierce resentment in the faces of the congregation. Sure they smelled, and they were certainly unsightly, but in this - perhaps their first visit to church in their lives - they were each more holy than every other person in that church altogether.

You want to learn how to walk on water?

I do, every time it rains and I go outside!

(old indian trick)

Tee hee! I think we're mocking the Lord... ah well!

I beleive his disciple went downstairs in the boat and was dreaming and in his dream had te vision about Jesus walking on water which vision contains a lot of useful anology for explaining things. As the story is retold the vision was reported as a real event. (that is for the skeptics).

Um... I don't know.

The version I have is that Jesus walking on the water was actually Jesus walking on the peer. It was common for the priest performing the ritual in question to be described as 'walking on the water'. What was 'miraculous' was that Jesus wasn't the right man to be doing that ritual. He shouldn't have been walking on the water because he didn't have the right.

It's a long story, but you'll be glad to know I'm going to tell you all of it... except not right now!

I have decided upon a plan. I'm going to start a series of posts titled something like "Jesus Miracles, part one", etc. The bible describes 7 miracles, I think, or 8. Any way, each of these has a far less mystical explanation, and I'm sure we'd all love to debate each one in turn.

~ Org.

[Technosoul]

Good idea, I jumped the gun and started a new message thread about "walking on water" from my perspective, please add your background information, and we can go from there.

I have permission to mock the "lord" because he loves a good joke.
He often took the role of a stand-up comic to poke a little fun at the Temple people, so it is part of the our methodolgy.

I got the frozen water joke from Swiftdeer, a Native American teacher.

Once Swiftdeer, representing the Native Ameircan culture, went over and got some time to speak with the Pope. He suggested to the Pope that he should tell everyone that their famous sacred sites (churches over there, etc) were all built on top of ancient pagan sacred sites, of the Celtic Seers and so forth. And that many of their teachings were adopted from the pagan ideas, such as Easter, Christmas, and they purposely templated the older beliefs with their own belief. He said that the Pope should tell people about that so they can become knowageable of their true roots. The Pope listened to him in a very polite way but did not make any comment on his suggestion.

I rather enjoyed the adventures and stories told by Swiftdeer.

Afterwards Swiftdeer when outside in the garden to smoke his peace pipe and he had a vision, in his vision he saw all the bushes in the garden growing like vines and they completly covered the chruch building, and monkeys were playing in the vines. He concluded that his vision was telling him that someday the the modern Christian religion would be no more and it would be covered over by a nature-based religion such as those that they covered up by building thier belief system on top of. Example: Easter (springtime) was celebrated by the pagans as the rebirth of nature from (symbolically) winter's death. And they would thank the sun for returning it's blessings upon earth to give us another year of newly created plant life and a new generation of animals and birds, etc. That basic idea was altered (in his opinion) as the story of Jesus returning from death to bring us a new springtime of being "reborn" of the spirit.

Technosoul.

[tusaki]

The problem with christianity (and islam), in my opinion, is that people take the stories too literary. For all I know they are fictional stories trying to make a point, teaching something you perhaps inherently already knew through myth and legend. If the stories help you become a better person, that's good. But if you value the words over the message, the most important part of the lesson is not learned.

[Ken Carman]

Originally posted by tusaki, The problem with christianity (and islam), in my opinion, is that people take the stories too literary. For all I know they are fictional stories trying to make a point, teaching something you perhaps inherently already knew through myth and legend. If the stories help you become a better person, that's good. But if you value the words over the message, the most important part of the lesson is not learned.

I think the problem may be deep in humanities disfunctional mentality. My wife often accuses me of disecting topics, relationships... I think many of us do this. The difference is that I'm not all that concerned with using a brass plated, three inch cog made in Nagasaki if I notice that's what was exactly there before. I think a lot of people approach life; politics and religion that way. If the story says... then MUST be absolutely true to the "letter." It's a sickness in my opinion and, even if you believe in classic Christian theology, probably destroys the actual message Jesus, Moses were trying to teach, and what every anonymous soul who actually penned what we call the bible was trying to say. It's like Mel's "The Passion." I'm sure he went through hell, like Nick Berg, like those innocents in Iraq caught in the crossfire or any who MAY be in Cuba right now. But what Jesus went throu is almost, I repeat, almost completely superfluous to the message. The focus is wrong, in my opinion.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by Ken Carman, But what Jesus went throu is almost, I repeat, almost completely superfluous to the message. The focus is wrong, in my opinion.

Hi Ken. I find you easy to agree with lately! This point included.

To me the focus should be on Jesus' plan to accept everyone and open Judaism up to the world, rather than have it as a birth-right to a select few. What was great about him was his acceptance of people, and his love of people.

I'm keeping my posts brief as I'm working on two other big ones: the big J walking on water, and the 'secret' power of gold.

[Technosoul]

"When you wish upon a star, it makes do difference who you are"

Now no one (except someone like me) would view the stories in those Disney movies as a religion, but many of those stories have a important message for kids to learn, that basically are like those of a any spiritual movement.

That is what I like about the Disney Religion, it never pretended to be one.

No one would mistake the cartoons for being real, and yet you might have to wipe away a tear or two because the message made us aware, or caused us to remember, something important about the values or principles of life.

What would if matter if it was said by Jesus, Martin King, or Jimmy Cricket, it is the message not the person that counts.

And wishing upon a star is as effective as praying to the heavens.

I agree then, with the lastest postings.

Technosoul.

[orgaelin]

Now no one (except someone like me) would view the stories in those Disney movies as a religion

You're actually quite right... about the 'no-one but you' bit!

But seriously, there are some great messages in Disney films. Did you see the Moses film? It was a very modern interpretation, and very interesting I thought. Also very daring, since it flew in the face of biblical tradition.