A Jesus lesson for Christians

[orgaelin]

XM. Bretton has requested I back up my claims for the mundane-ness of the real story of Jesus’ life and works.

This post is my effort to do so. If your faith is something you depend on but isn’t very strong, I suggest you stop reading about… here.

Let’s start with a simple lesson…

Was Jesus Married?

Quick answer, yes, the bible says so.

Many people have the idea the Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Nowhere in the bible does it say this. The confusion arises through her being mentioned in the bible immediately after a story about a prostitute. In 591AD, Pope Gregory the Great (idiot) stated in his Easter sermon that Magdalene was the prostitute from the preceding story. However, the Vatican corrected this in 1969. She is officially NOT a prostitute. It is also recognised by the Catholic church that Mary Magdalene and Mary Bethany are the same woman.

It also doesn’t state, directly, in the bible that Jesus was married. It does, however, state that he was of the seed of David. Did you know that it was a legal requirement for descendants of the Davidic line to marry? AND to have children?

This alone doesn’t prove his marriage, though…

In marriage rites, one of the oils used to anoint is called Spikenard. This is what Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus with. (read your bible, it’s there)

At Simon Zelotes’ (Lazarus’) house, she anointed Jesus’ head. In June 30AD, She anointed his feet with spikenard at the wedding feast at Cana. She anointed them again in March, 33AD, and wiped them dry with her hair.

The ONLY person allowed to do this to a Davidic line descendent was his bride, and ONLY at the first and second wedding ceremonies.

First and second wedding ceremonies I hear you ask? Knowledge of Jewish customs which do NOT come ready-written in the bible would let you know that a Davidic descendent has very strict rules regarding marriage and procreation. This brings us to our next question therefore…

Was Mary a Virgin?

Well, the law regarding marriage had to be altered for kings because it was forbidden to divorce, but essential to have children… with no sex before marriage, if the bride turned out to be infertile then the royal line would end there and then. So there was a first marriage, after a betrothal period of three months, beginning, as it did for Jesus, in June.
Now, it was not until the first half of December of that year that sexual relations were allowed. This was to ensure that the baby would be born in September, the month of Atonement. If a baby was indeed born, the marriage was then legalised by a second marriage which would take place in the following March, again as it did for Jesus.

If there was no baby, there was no sex until the following December. Now, until that second marriage had actually taken place, the ‘bride’ was given the status of being an “almah”, which means ‘young woman’, and has no sexual connotations whatsoever.

At the time of the second marriage in March, the bride would be three months pregnant. Why wait three months if the woman is pregnant? They were smart people; they allowed time for the risk of a miscarriage.

Now, when they were not supposed to be baby-making, the husband and wife always lived apart. There were, of course, to be NO sexual relations except when it was allowed. So what happened? It is clear that Jesus was born ‘out of wedlock’ – at a time when he should not have been if Mary and Joseph had been behaving correctly.

This is why it is such a significant point, that Jesus was the son of an ‘almah’, which was deliberately played on to suggest that she was in fact a physical virgin. (as an almah should be)

I do not blame the church fathers for this, since it would have been deliberate right from the start. When Joseph discovered his wife to be pregnant there would have been a dilemma. The custom in these circumstances would be for him to ‘put his wife away’, whereupon the subsequent child would be taken and raised by priests as an orphan.

But they decided to keep him, evidently. And later it would be beneficial in an evangelical sense. The world around them was essentially pagan, and many of the cults involved stories of virgin births. It was thus much easier for those spreading the Christian faith to keep the play on words and imply the virgin birth of Jesus.

The ever present question of Jesus’ kingship was actually a reference to the question of his legitimacy. Many preferred to view his brother James as the legitimate heir.

Jesus had a brother? Yes. The bible says it perfectly plainly, yet still the church denies it. Why? Because if there were descendents of Jesus they would have a greater right to the Christian ‘throne’ than any of the popes.

So you see, the bible alone says many things that can only be understood with contextual knowledge which is not present within the bible. You have to read other books if you hope to understand the it.

This post just describes the marriage of Jesus and his virgin birth. There are simple explanations (that is, explanations not requiring the suspension of disbelief) for every single miraculous event of Jesus’ life. Ask me for one, and I’ll write that up for you too. How about the feeding of the 5000? Healing the blind? Water into wine?

Before I go, let’s have one more… did you know that Jesus was not born in Nazareth? The town of Nazareth didn’t even exist at the time of Jesus’ birth! It was actually Jesus the Nazarene, in reference to his belonging to the sect called the Nazarites.

For those who are really fascinated by this, the majority of this information comes from the collective works of Sir Laurence Gardner and Barbara Thiering. Both write fully referenced, scholarly books rather than ‘popular’ books that make outrageous statements without a hint of supporting info.

[orgaelin]

I should point out here that in no way do I suggest that any of this takes away from the greatness of Jesus.

Although I view him as having been just a man, he was definitely a tremendously clever and wise one, who genuinely had something to offer the world. And just because he was a man does not mean that he was not part of some plan of God, or that he is any less holy.

The point is this: whoever your god is, Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Buddah... know him in your heart rather than in another's words. Words can lie, words do lie. Only your own heart can tell you your own truth.

[PatrickHenry]

You have no references. Your "information" is all spin. Your opinion, no more. Why bother with trying to appear erudite when you have squat to quote from?

The only thing factual was Jesus brother, James.
"But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother.
(Galatians 1:19)"

The Roman Catholic Church denies that the "ever virgin" Mary ever could have had relations with Joseph after Jesus miraculous birth. Thus, in their view, there could have been no brothers. Non-Catholics take the Bible at its word that James was Jesus brother and he had others who were Mary and Joseph's boys. Half-brothers are still brothers. And Mary was a virgin before Jesus birth, not forever.

[Rave7pt0]

One interesting factoid, is that around the time of Jesus' birth, they had what was called "holy whores," which were essentially priestesses whose charge it was to facilitate "sexual worship" -- many rituals back then involved ritual sex between holy man and holy whores... conceptions during these rituals were considered "immaculate," and these women, having taken part in the ritual were still considered virgins.

That is probably the source of the "virgin birth" story.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, You have no references.

Yes I do, I just didn't give them to you.

Your "information" is all spin. Your opinion, no more.

Even if that were true, it would be curious that I would include such detail in my imaginary versions of events, don't you think?

I honestly suspect that you have either not the capacity to recognise the obvious, or you are so determined to argue (Hence "Let's argue") that you refuse to waste your time on the pointless exercises of thought and reason.

At the very least, you should be able to recognise what a lie sounds like. When someone makes something up there is always a certain lack of detail, a general vagueness about everything. There were so many contributing arguments in my post for just the two points that when I finally posted it, it looked like the longest post this forum had ever seen!

Why bother with trying to appear erudite when you have squat to quote from?

I feel thoroughly complimented by this. I wasn't trying to be anything other than myself, yet you seem to view what I wrote as being the work of someone who was erudite. Fine by me. Thanks!

The only thing factual was Jesus brother, James. "But I saw no other of the apostles, except James the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:19)"

I am surprised you admit even that.

Most Catholics (or am I just assuming you're Catholic?) argue that references to Jesus' brothers were on a friendly basis, rather than suggesting that they were actually related.

That wasn't the only factual thing either. How about Bethany and Magdalene being the same woman? That she's not a prostitute? That Jesus was of the seed of David?

Just some examples. None of these need references, especially for a man of your wisdom. You know full well the bible says that Jesus is genetically descended from David... but of course, you don't like to admit that because that kinda creates a contradictory problem for you...

How in the name of God can Jesus be descended from David but not be the product of an ordinary sexual encounter between his parents? If his male parent was the holy ghost, then Joseph's genetic descendency from David would be irrelevant!

Also, in Matthew (13:55) it says "Is this not the carpenter's son?". In Luke (2:27), Joseph and Mary are clearly referred to as Jesus' parents. There's some references for you!

This time, don't babble about references and ignore the arguments. Come back at me with some reasoning. At least explain for me the david-seed/holy-ghost thing.

The Roman Catholic Church denies that the "ever virgin" Mary ever could have had relations with Joseph after Jesus miraculous birth. Thus, in their view, there could have been no brothers.

She wasn't even declared to be an 'ever virgin' until the Council of Trullo in 692AD. Didn't know that did you?! But here's the question: how can a bunch of priests who themselves never even had sex, determine, huddled together in a room, the sexual practices of a woman who lived *700* years before their time?!

Furthermore, in both Luke (2:7) and Matthew (1:25), Jesus is cited as Mary's 'firstborn son', implying there were more. The same quote above, Matthew (13:55) goes on to say "..and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (That's four, besides Jesus)

It then goes further and says, "...and are not all his sisters with us?" and this is repeated by Mark (6:3). The word "all" implies not one, not two, but at least *three* sisters.

Is it nice having references? I'll give you more, for all the claims I made in the first post. But when I do (it'll take me a while) what are you going to say then? That I'm right? (I doubt it) Or that I'm wrong? But if you say that I am wrong, I will want references to back up your claims.

Non-Catholics take the Bible at its word that James was Jesus brother and he had others who were Mary and Joseph's boys. Half-brothers are still brothers.

Half brothers! Just listen to yourself!

And Mary was a virgin before Jesus birth, not forever.

Ah... so which camp are you in then?! Catholic, or loose Catholic?!

I look forward to your response, genuinely.

~ Org.

[orgaelin]

Rave7... I would love to know where you read that!

[PatrickHenry]

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'>I honestly suspect that you have either not the capacity to recognise the obvious, or you are so determined to argue (Hence "Let's argue") that you refuse to waste your time on the pointless exercises of thought and reason.[/b]

No need to insult; I'll argue without it. I rarely argue in the Religion and Philosophy Forum for the simple reason that proofs, if available, are always contestable and the ground seems to shift. There is no "winning" a debate here. It's more of a discussion than an argument. However, I assure you that I am a man who thinks and reasons well, even if the fruit is sometimes "pointless".

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'>At the very least, you should be able to recognise what a lie sounds like. When someone makes something up there is always a certain lack of detail, a general vagueness about everything. There were so many contributing arguments in my post for just the two points that when I finally posted it, it looked like the longest post this forum had ever seen![/b]

You haven't seen long unless you have seen Osborn, Young or even me sometimes! And often people make up lengthy stories. Why? Various reasons: some find them entertaining, some are able to bring congruency to theri views by so doing, some are plain evil and hateful. Why do the creators of computer viruses act so hatefully? Go figure...But just because you have lengthy views contrary to scripture does not make you correct. Surely you can see this is a fallacy...

Originally posted by orgaelin, am I just assuming you're Catholic?

Faulty assumption. I don't follow the Catholic teachings or defend them. They must do so without my effort.

Originally posted by orgaelin, How about Bethany and Magdalene being the same woman? That she's not a prostitute? That Jesus was of the seed of David?

Mary of Bethany was Lazarus' sister, Mary of Magdala was another of the New Testament Marys. Not a prostitute that I can tell, but Jesus wouldn't have cared about her past. He cared about her soul...

Originally posted by orgaelin, Just some examples. None of these need references, especially for a man of your wisdom. You know full well the bible says that Jesus is genetically descended from David... but of course, you don't like to admit that because that kinda creates a contradictory problem for you... How in the name of God can Jesus be descended from David but not be the product of an ordinary sexual encounter between his parents? If his male parent was the holy ghost, then Joseph's genetic descendency from David would be irrelevant!

You seem to be patronizing me again; no need for that. I am friendly. the problem you pose isn't difficult or contradictory in any way. http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabb...tri_descent.htm

Judaism introduced matrilineal descent somewhere in the period of the Second Temple and the Roman occupation according to Prof. Shaye Cohen, now at Harvard, and he wrote an historical review of the change in "Conservative Judaism" among other journals. His presentation was historical and not intended to effect changes in Jewish law as it affects us today.

Mary was descended from David. I believe this accounts for the seeming discrepancy between the genealogies. I believe that Mary's descent line is the one in Matthew.

Originally posted by orgaelin, Also, in Matthew (13:55) it says "Is this not the carpenter's son?". In Luke (2:27), Joseph and Mary are clearly referred to as Jesus' parents. There's some references for you!

Sure, the community viewed Jesus as Joseph and Mary's boy. They were his parents. Nobody ever hear of a stepfather referred to as a parent?

<!--QuoteBegin-orgaelin,@
don't babble about references and ignore the arguments.[/quote]
Sorry, dude. References are the stuff of debate. Ya gotta back up what you say or it's just opinion...
<!--QuoteBegin-orgaelin,
Is it nice having references? I'll give you more, for all the claims I made in the first post. But when I do (it'll take me a while) what are you going to say then? That I'm right? (I doubt it) Or that I'm wrong? But if you say that I am wrong, I will want references to back up your claims.
Half brothers! Just listen to yourself!
[/quote]Why anticipate my responses? We aren't enemies, just debaters with different points of view. What is wrong with the half brothers reference? I don't understand your argument. As to the sisters: no argument. I am not Catholic. And Jesus mother obviously gave birth to natural children as well as the offspring of the Holy Spirit, according to my simple reading of scripture.

[orgaelin]

We aren't enemies, just debaters with different points of view

Alright, I can at least agree that a change of tone is perhaps in order!

I should say that I am enjoying this debate. I wouldn't be so much if I thought I couldn't back up my claims, but I think I can in most cases.

I have some wonderful references for you on the Bethany/Magdalene thing, which contribute further to my assertions of Jesus' marriage to her.

But alas, the wife is nagging (Mine, not Jesus'!) and I must take my two youngest children to the "Pirate's Play Pit" before I get enough time to do some serious typing! I just thought I'd drop in a post to let you know the argument's not over yet!

~ Org.

[orgaelin]

As far as the question of 'are Mary Magdelene and Mary Bethany the same woman?' is concerned, it has to be said that in fact there never was a Mary of Bethany. She and Martha are only ever referred to as 'sisters' at the house of Lazarus (Simon) of Bethany.

Now I did say that the Catholic Church had itself agreed that Bethany and Magdalene were the same woman. To provide further detail: Gregory I, Bishop of Rome 590-604, and St Bernard, the Cistercian abbot of Clairvaux 1090-1153, both confirmed that Mary of Bethany was synonymous with Mary Magdalene. Might verify this in an encyclopaedia?

I think that clears up the question of whether or not they were the same woman. If not, that’s all I have!! It was enough to convince a bishop and an abbot, so it’s enough for me!

On to the wedding…

Apart from that Jesus is said to love Mary Magdalene, not much is mentioned in the gospels about their intimate relationship. The Gnostic gospel of Philip is more open, however.

And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved them more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said unto him, Why do you love her more than all of us? The Saviour answered and said to them, Why do I not love you like her? …Great is the mystery of marriage – for without it the world would not have existed. Now the existence of the world depends on man, and the existence of man on marriage.

One of the reasons for the lack of mention of the marriage in the bible is that the evidence was deliberately removed by church decree. I can hear you already, 'give me proof!' and proof you shall have!

Within a book of the works of St Ignatius of Antioch is a transcription of a letter by Bishop Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215AD), who was an early father of the Christian Church. The letter was to his colleague, Theodore. Included with the letter was a section of the gospel of Mark, one which is not present in the bible you and I would read. The letter stated that some of the original content (as was included) should be suppressed, as it did not conform to church requirements.

AND I shall even do you the pleasure of quoting it... (the letter)

For even if they 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 which seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true Truth—that according to the faith.

And the letter ends thus...

To them one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret gospel is by Mark—but should deny it on oath. For not all true things are to be said to all men.

How surprising to see such an attitude in the early church? Not at all.

I don't have access to or copies of the missing extracts, so have to take the word of those who do. I am looking for copies if anyone knows an online source at all?

From what I have learned, the extracts detail a little more about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. It has Lazarus calling to Jesus from the tomb, even before Jesus has 'raised him from the dead'. How could that be?

Again this is something that needs to be understood in the light of knowledge of Jewish customs. If someone had committed a high crime he would receive the ultimate punishment, which was excommunication. This was thought of as a spiritual death, and someone who had been excommunicated was indeed said to have ‘died’. It was a process, however, that lasted some number of days, after which time they were released to freedom. Jesus performed a ‘miracle’ because it was indeed miraculous that he should ‘raise him’ when Jesus was not in a position that afforded him that right.

What am I doing?! I’m just making more claims I’ll have to back up! This is tiring work you know?!

That’s all for now. I’m taking a break!

~ Org.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by Patrick+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Patrick)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Orgaelin How in the name of God can Jesus be descended from David but not be the product of an ordinary sexual encounter between his parents?

the problem you pose isn't difficult or contradictory in any way. http://judaism.about.com/library/3_a...ri_descent.htm[/b][/quote]

I rather think it is.

Check out Matthew (1:1-17), which clearly (if somewhat laboriously) dictates a patrilinear descent from Abraham, through David, right down to "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born..."

Why on earth would he list a long line of male-line descendents right through to Jesus, arguing that Jesus was therefore of the seed of Abraham and David? If it were the matrilinear descent that made him of the seed of David, why did he not list that one instead?

It is a plain and outright contradiction with no workable explanation.

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, I rarely argue in the Religion and Philosophy Forum for the simple reason that proofs, if available, are always contestable and the ground seems to shift.

A fair point. I had wondered why a man who spends more than 60% of his posting time in "politics" would have such strong religious opinions!

just because you have lengthy views contrary to scripture does not make you correct. Surely you can see this is a fallacy...

That is a fallacy. But then I didn't say it, you interpretted it!

I shall explain my point more carefully: if you have ever studied 'how to determine if someone is lying' you learn various things, from body language, to what might be called 'story structure'. If someone tells you a story which is true, there are patterns present which indicate its truthfulness. Conversely, if their story is false, there are detectable patterns which indicate this too.

Now, it is of course not a hard and fast rule that sometimes the presence or lack of certain types of detail may indicate the truthfulness or otherwise of a 'story'.

That's all!

I don't follow the Catholic teachings or defend them.

Alright, then I'll stop blaming you!

Mary of Bethany was Lazarus' sister, Mary of Magdala was another of the New Testament Marys. Not a prostitute that I can tell, but Jesus wouldn't have cared about her past. He cared about her soul...

I'm running out of time again, but I've just found more evidence to support my claims counter to your assertions.

It's going to require some explaining! As I said before, while Jesus and Mary were married but seperated (they had to live seperately most of the time) she was given a different rank than 'wife'. Instead she was called a 'sister', but in the devotional sense, as a nun might be.

I'm going to have to work on writing up an explanation of the way apparent names throughout the NT are often titles relating to rank, rather than actual names.

Anywho, Lazarus' rank was 'Father', and as was custom, the Sister was under the authority of the Father. Martha was perhaps literally his sister, but Mary was not.

Somehow I don't think I've argued that too well, or that you'll accept even a scrap of it! Ah well!

[LDS]

*Is* Jesus Married?

"IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of marriage];

And if he does not, he cannot obtain it."

I would say Jesus is married, however at the time or to the people you present, I dont know.

Was Mary a Virgin?

Your right, it wasnt referring to sexual purity, that was a given back then. It was referring to a youth.

Jesus had a brother?

Yep. One guy I was listening to said Jesus had something like 9 brothers and 2 sisters. I dont know how accurate that is.

The bible says it perfectly plainly, yet still the church denies it. Why? Because if there were descendents of Jesus they would have a greater right to the Christian ‘throne’ than any of the popes.

Why would lineage be the deciding factor? Yes, it plays a part, but even great men have wayward sons (Lehi -> Laman and Lemuel) Not really arguing with you Orgaelin just pointing out.

Before I go, let’s have one more… did you know that Jesus was not born in Nazareth? The town of Nazareth didn’t even exist at the time of Jesus’ birth! It was actually Jesus the Nazarene, in reference to his belonging to the sect called the Nazarites.

There are many variations between the traditional nativity. For instance the bible only says wise men, it doesnt say there were 3 wise men. They brought 3 gifts, true, but that doesnt mean there were 3 wise men.

[orgaelin]

My goodness LDS, I know we've started this new trend of finding agreement with each other, but this is amazing!

About the lineage thing; it's not me who argues for bloodline inheritance of titles. That's just the way titles are handed down.

I figure there must have been at least 3 sisters, because the bible refers to "ALL his sisters"... if it was one it would say 'his sister', if two, 'both his sisters', but if more than 2 it would say 'all'.

I'm not fighting this point, though. It really doesn't have much importance as far as I can see.

I'm not going to get started on the nativity! I have enough currently ongoing debate subjects to keep me busy!

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by orgaelin, Check out Matthew (1:1-17), which clearly (if somewhat laboriously) dictates a patrilinear descent from Abraham, through David, right down to "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born..." Why on earth would he list a long line of male-line descendents right through to Jesus, arguing that Jesus was therefore of the seed of Abraham and David? If it were the matrilinear descent that made him of the seed of David, why did he not list that one instead? It is a plain and outright contradiction with no workable explanation.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ markedly. One must be Joseph's no doubt, but what of the other? My conclusion and that of other traditional Bible scholars is that it is Mary's ancestry, her father being Joseph's father-in-law. Thus the reference to Joseph in both lines of descent.

In any case the virgin birth of Jesus is prophesied in the Jewish Scripture. Many disbelievers in miracles, like you, have sought to render Jesus' life and ministry mundane and explainable by natural means. Even your previous reference to the theft of the body by the disciples was propagated by the Jewish authorities of the First Century. But if the Disciples of Jesus were in on a conspiracy, why would they all have died martyr's deaths rather than renounce what they would have presumably known to be a lie?

[orgaelin]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, The genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ markedly. One must be Joseph's no doubt, but what of the other? My conclusion and that of other traditional Bible scholars is that it is Mary's ancestry, her father being Joseph's father-in-law. Thus the reference to Joseph in both lines of descent.

To be honest, I've not heard that one. I'll check it out and get back to you. As for the rest....

In any case the virgin birth of Jesus is prophesied in the Jewish Scripture.

Oh no it's not!

Let's explore the story. The prophet Isaiah, in 735BC, when Jerusalem was under threat from Syria, proclaimed to the troubled King Ahaz, "Hear ye now, O house of David... Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel' (Isaiah 7:13-14)

This is the Jewish scripture that supposedly prophecies Jesus' birth, 700 years later. Consider the situation: Ahaz's Jerusalem is under threat from Syria, and they are in imminent danger, needing some help. Then a prophet tells him not to worry because, *700* years later, there will be a child born of a virgin.

What good would that have been to Ahaz?!

This is just like horoscopes. They give you highly ambiguous predictions so they can later be flexibly applied to variable situations. People have a natural tendency to be selective, which is why most people seem unphased by the fact that Isaiah never actually mentioned Jesus' name, but gave an entirely different name!

The names meanings:

Immanuel = Hebrew, Immanu-El = 'With us [is] God'
Jesus = Hebrew, Yehoshua = 'Jehovah saves'

Not even the meanings are the same!

Many disbelievers in miracles, like you, have sought to render Jesus' life and ministry mundane and explainable by natural means.

And why? Because what was once a set of ideas that people were readily able to accept is now a set of ideas that alienate people who are even basically scientifically literate. Times have changed. People still want to believe in something wonderful, but the line has moved. Walking on water is too much for many people. They would still worship God willingly and as fully without the miracles, but the miracles put them off.

Even your previous reference to the theft of the body by the disciples was propagated by the Jewish authorities of the First Century.

Hang on, don't put words in my mouth! No-one believes that story, and I certainly never suggested it at all.

I simply stated that Jesus, together with his buddies, faked his own death.

I will elaborate on this, but it's one of those 'give me time' things, as it's a damned long story! I know no-one stole his body!

But if the Disciples of Jesus were in on a conspiracy, why would they all have died martyr's deaths rather than renounce what they would have presumably known to be a lie?

I'm sorry, you've lost me. What disciples were martyred?

~ Org.

[LDS]

There are simple explanations for every single miraculous event of Jesus’ life

"Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

...Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come."


This is the account of Christ appearing to the Nephites after his crucifixion. My simple explanation is that he is the Christ, he has conquered death and brought redemption to all. I would like to hear your simple explanation, orgaelin.

[orgaelin]

I would like to hear your simple explanation, orgaelin.

And hear it you shall. But you know there's a lot of points to my overall argument that we're all going to be debating over individually, one by one, for some time!

[Young]

Peter was crucified upside down.

Most of your theories come from Brown, but his books are very popular, and some of your theories can be seen as Fact.

How is it You can't believe in Jesus?

What would Jesus being Married to Mary change?

The story of Jesus was recorded by more than the writers of the Bible, and it was so powerful that the news trickeled to Rome where it Founded Christianity amid very horrible repurcussions.

After seeing The Passion, i find that sometimes now i refer to Jesus by the name that those of His time called Him.....Yeshwa.

Try it sometime, Prayers are more direct this way.

Heavenly Father Jehova who art in Heaven



In Yeshwa name i Pray.

Amen