yea my mom hates when a movie comes out based on a book she knows she has to go get it for me or she knows i will be on her back saying you should read it its wonderful . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by LITEMAN
Printable View
yea my mom hates when a movie comes out based on a book she knows she has to go get it for me or she knows i will be on her back saying you should read it its wonderful . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by LITEMAN
On the next episode of CSI: Shreveport, investegators are perplexed when the only DNA found at the scene matches 75% of the city's population.Quote:
Originally Posted by T
First of all, I am not stupid, I know that the murder plot, mystery, whatever is not true, therefore making the book FICTION. However, my point throughout the whole thread has been...the basis for the book, which the author says is true, is not. I have not said the actual murder story line is true....just the "fact" basis of the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by LITEMAN
Secondly, I am not going to read the book or see the movie for that matter. But, just because I havent read the book, doesnt mean what I have said is not true. As a matter of fact, as I said in the opening post, The information that I am going off of was presented in a two week series my pastor did on the book. He used outside resources and opinions of Christian reviews and phds to gather his information.
I understand that you may think I do not have valid points because i have not read the book, but just know that my information is coming from what i consider a valid source. It's just up to you whether or not you want to consider it or discount it as not true.
:)
LITEMAN...just thought you should know you're my hero! lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by LITEMAN
Hmm... I thought Arkansas had problems with inbreading! :mad2:Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
"T"
OK, I understand what you are saying. But it is like writing a fact page in a fictional book. It isn't real.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE RED
My point is the "fact page" of the book was written as fiction. And anybody that asks him "what would you change" about a book (I heard today has sold over 65,000,000 copies) that has made him more money than he could ever dream about is not very bright. I mean, would you have asked Sam Walton "What would you have done to make your stores have a more upscale clientel?" You wouldn't! Becasue Sam Walton was not trying to cater to an upscale clientel. Sam Walton and Dan Brown both made/making alot of money from what they did. Why would they ever change anything reguardless of what the question is?
(WOW! 40mil copies to 65mil copies in a week. Maybe if there wasn't all this talk about it that extra 25mil wouldn't have been sold. I guess that's another 25mil people that we will have to save from the pits of hell because they don't understand the difference between fiction and nonfiction.)
just because someone tells you something is true doesn't mean it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE RED
i suggest you actually take the time to read the book before making a judgment. after all, you are in college. college is not meant for you to learn by spoon feeding. that is for elementary school. you should take the time to educate yourself. that's what higher education is about.
OH PUHLEASE tell me your JOKING!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
I am assuming that the "facts" that you speak of not being true would be that Jesus was married to Mary. Can you prove it Untrue? Just curious. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus was a single man?Quote:
Originally Posted by THE RED
I read a book one time called "River God" by Wilbur Smith. A very good read by the way. It was a book on Ancient Eygpt. At the end of the book, he stated that the story I had just finished had been found in a tomb written on scrolls and buried for thousands of years until recently. Everything was written identical except for liberties he had taken to use modern references for clarity. I tried finding out if this was really the case, but later realized the reason he did that was a lead in for his next novel.
Thanks for that example Dawgbitten! That's what we've been saying! Just b/c a fiction book labels something as true (and whether or not the author believes what is in his FICTION book) doesn't make it necessarily true.
Aside from all of this, if a person wouldn't be able to enjoy reading a book because they're worried that it might make them question their personal beliefs then they shouldn't read it. Although I've been taught that questions are good. If your faith can't handle your questions then there is serious problem and i promise it's not with the questions...
The only reason why I find it fishy is because of all the people that knew Jesus and all the books and historical knowledge of him, all they can come up with is a conspiracy theory that he was married. You would think that there would be stone cold proof. You would think that out of the many eyewitnesses and close friends that Jesus had, somebody would have seen something and it would have became known to everyone. I dont think there were many people in on a secret and they all kept it covered. Jesus being married would have leaked with as many people that had close personal contact with him, IMO. I dont know of any stone cold proof but somebody might.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
The Bible doesn't say what Jesus did between birth and age 12... Can you prove he didn't swim to America, teach the indians to tap dance, invent a primitive airplane powered exclusively by frankensense(sp?)and fly back to meet with the temple elders?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
in the entire library of religious works written in or near the time of Jesus there is not a single mention of Him being married. even in these books that were too radical to be canonized there is no mention of marriage. don't you think that something of that import might slip into some document of the time? we know alexander the great, caesar, octavian, herod, peter, ect...were married their wives were mentioned as their wives...even the document that claims Jesus kissed mary doesn't say that they were married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
what if i were to say that julius caesar was a latin-speaking, highly-intelligent shaved gorilla...it says nowhere in the historical record that he wasn't...can you prove that untrue? the argument of "can you prove it untrue" could just as easily be applied to any historical figure.
It is said in one of the non-cannonised Gospels that Mary was Jesus' companion. Companion meant marriage.
In the greek, that is a true statement. But the gnostic gospel where you find that wasn't written in GREEK!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
You know, if you can't trust Dan Brown to get the number of glass panes in the pyramid right (he says 666, the Louvre states 673) then how can you trust much else in the book? I mean, that should be a pretty verifiable fact, shouldn't it?
Let’s dive into Dawgbitten’s head and look around for a minute at all the empty spaces..
IMO, Jesus was sent to earth to learn more about man. It is obvious to me that God can not understand man's sin. Jesus was sent for this mission, to learn.
Let’s take a look at sin. Think of every sin that you can think of. I can put them under three Needs that cause such sin.
- Need for Food/resources- Greed. Gluttony. Selfishness and a host of others. All stem back from our early days of meager survival. The instinct is born in us to overeat in case the next meal doesn’t come easy. Acquiring of resources better ensures one’s survival. What causes one to steal? What causes one to envy? The more one has, the better chances of one’s survival. The same is true today. It is also the reason the richer class of people kick the poorer people in our society. Survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom, the lower one’s status in a pack, the lesser of chance that one gets to eat.
- Need for sex/reproduction- Vanity. The better one looks, the better chances of reproduction. Cheating on spouses, sex without marriage, lust, porn, and the list goes on. All in the name of spreading one’s DNA. The more attractive qualities a male/female species has, the better her chances of survival and reproduction. Yes, we still look for those qualities in the opposite sex that ensure easier survival.
- Need for power/alpha male female- I always love watching the documentaries where the young wolf tries to become alpha male. The alpha male position, if acquired, entitles that one to food and reproduction. Sometimes that power corrupts or the desire to acquire that power leads to murder or a host of other sins. The old alpha male is sometimes outcast from the pack in some species. Ever hear of the commandment: Honor thy father and mother? That means don’t disregard them later in life. Take care of them when they are elderly.
So I see sin as basically the laws that divide our race from the animal kingdom and allow us to have a civilized society. Jesus came to this world to preach against the brutality that is the nature of all of us. To evolve into a better species.
To understand sin he would have to know about all of the temptations. He spent 40 days in the desert without food or resources. He was an alpha male with disciples who worshipped him. So to completely understand the lust for sex and the sex drive, I have to believe that he was married.
What was it written in then?Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
The passage comes from the Gospel of Philip and is believed to have been written around 180-250 AD. The only manuscript found was written in Coptic (ancient Egyptian) and was found in the Nag Hammadi library which was buried in the Egyptian desert around 400 AD. Scholars do not know the origianal language, but many believe it was written in Syriac due to the presence of Syriac words and baptismal practices of that region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Chris
So basically, what you are saying is, you have to be married to be tempted by sex and to have lust and to have a sex drive?? This is completely untrue. Being tempted with lust and sex has nothing to do with being married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
I agree, all you have to do to understand that is be a jr high boy. When you would watch tribal documentaries just to get a look at a pair of boobs. Dont lie guys, we all have done it.Quote:
Originally Posted by THE RED
You also don't have to go 40 days without food to know what it is like to be hungry. Believe what you want. I don't care. Just analyze facts and human nature before believing everything that doesn't make sense and call it faith.
I just dont understand your reasoning behind why Jesus was or had to be married. No proof has ever been brought forward to prove otherwise. I dont care either way, but the burden of proof is on those that think he was married. Until I see substatial evidence to support such a claim, I can only assume that he wasnt. Besides, the Bible put the 40 days of temptation in there to show what Jesus had to endure and how he overcame it. I have never ready anything about how he had to have sex to understand human nature, that is just pure conjecture on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
AMEN dhussdawg!!! We have the Bible as our proof, and until there is solid proof otherwise, why would you believe anything else??Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
Dhuss, the proof, outside of the Gospel of Phillip (which in my opinion is pretty solid), was probably destroyed. Your early history was destroyed. Scrolls, books, and people have been burned throughout the last 2000 years for any kind of belief that didn't agree with the early church. That is fact. Like I said, Believe what you want. History is written by the victors.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
Sick pervert.Quote:
Originally Posted by dhussdawg
DB,
While I don't agree with what you are saying, I do understand it.
I'm going to get over my head real quick here so just stay with me.
Jesus didn't sin. He was blameless and that was what made him the perfect and only sacrifice that could cleanse us of our sins. Was he tempted? Sure he was. But he didn't succumb to the temptation. But rather than looking at the sin, consider the CONSEQUENCE of sin. Sin results in spiritual death, or a spiritual separation from God. Sin is sin is sin. There is no difference in God's eyes between murder and cheating. In order to understand that, you have to have a definition of sin. I'll take a stab at it as I've done before - Sin is doing what you want to do because you want to do it rather than what God wants you to do. It is rebellion against God and the following of your own desires. It can take many forms, some of which you have already brought up.
Since Jesus was sinless, He had never experienced that separation from the Father. He and the Father were one. They were as Adam and Eve were in the Garden before the fall.
Ever wonder why the cross was so painful for Jesus? While I'm sure he had physical pain, it wasn't the driving force. He said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" It was because, for the first time in his life, he was suffering the consequence of sin. Even though He was sinless, he bore our sins and had to suffer the consequence of it which is separation from the Father. It is why he was agonizing in the garden. It wasn't that he didn't want to die, but that he didn't want to have to suffer the consequence of our sin and be separated from the Father.
I'm rambling now.
Chris
Really? There are plenty of account of history written by the defeated. What about Jeremiah's account of the Israelites defeat at the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar around 586 BC? There are numerous examples of history being written from the hostile defeated, which is actually a better account of what actually happened since they are forced to concede what actually occured. Heck, just look at the Civil War. Much more has been written about the South and the southern generals than the North.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Chris
And in full disclosure, here is the text from the Gospel of Philip:
Anywhere you see [...] it is where there is no word on the manuscript. It is blank, not that it isn't interpretable or more text.Quote:
And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] more than [...] the disciples, [...] kiss her [...] on her [...]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.
If Jesus had to cave to "human nature" just like anybody else, there was nothing special about him and we shouldn't be talking about him now. The "proof" in the gospel of Phillip is by no means difinitive. The gospel of Phillip was written very long after the deaths of anyone who would've had any first hand knowledge of Christ. The four gospels were cannonized because those who had seen Christ and been around him had debated their content and agreed that it was true. You can believe that Jesus was married if you wish, but you shouldn't trick yourself into thinking that there is ANY solid evidence to support such a claim.
Well, I find the Gospel of Phillip fairly suspect, considering it was written around 150 years after Jesus died. It had no review by anyone who was alive during Jesus' time on earth. I am just saying if it was so common knowledge and there was so much proof out there as you claim, it would have slipped through the cracks of history in many places. No way did the early church destroy everything that had to do with Jesus being married. Christians were the persecuted during most of the first century by the Roman soldiers anyway. It is a wonder how any of the Four Gospels made it through those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Yeah, the victors write the history is a fallacy...there are numerous examples of the opposite. I don't personally have those examples with me, but we went over them 2 Sundays ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
History is written by everyone. You and I can go watcht he same historical event and write two totally different things about it. Our either of our writings wrong? Not necessarily, you might have seen one thing that made you stray from my same account or vice versa. For ages, military's ahve exaggereated numbers that they have fought against. the defeated may have written the account to show that they were powerful but were overwhelmed. The victors might have written that they defeated tens of thousands, so that it might make them look like a small mighty force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
The point is, I can prove something historically right and you can prove it historically wrong. We just might not use the same materials for our research.
The first few books of the Bible were written several centuries after they actually happened, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I am not trying to back up DB and I haven't completely followed all of this thread. I am a Christian and a historian. You can't believe everything you read, but you can't disbelieve it either. That might not be worded right. I was fighting a fire last night and only got 2 hours of sleep.:)
Ok then. I will concede and say early Christians destroyed history. Is that better?
And some things did slip through the cracks. The Gnostic gospels being some of it. Do you know that a bedouin by the name of Muhammed Ali burnt most of the manuscripts trying to stay warm out in the desert night before turning it over for some cash?
Hebrew men were to marry by 20. Jesus is referred to as Rabbi in the Bible. Rabbis were required to marry. I saw this the other night on History channel.
So being married and having sex with your wife is not a sin. So what is the big deal? There isn't. Church conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
[quote=Dawgbitten]Ok then. I will concede and say early Christians destroyed history. Is that better?
And some things did slip through the cracks. The Gnostic gospels being some of it. Do you know that a bedouin by the name of Muhammed Ali burnt most of the manuscripts trying to stay warm out in the desert night before turning it over for some cash?
Hebrew men were to marry by 20. Jesus is referred to as Rabbi in the Bible. Rabbis were required to marry. I saw this the other night on History channel.[/quote]
Don't believe everything you see on the History Channel.
I know. I have seen inaccuracies on there more than once. Sometimes just small inaccuracies to make the stories more entertaining. I will try and find some other source that backs this up.
[quote=Dawgbitten]Ok then. I will concede and say early Christians destroyed history. Is that better?
And some things did slip through the cracks. The Gnostic gospels being some of it. Do you know that a bedouin by the name of Muhammed Ali burnt most of the manuscripts trying to stay warm out in the desert night before turning it over for some cash?
Hebrew men were to marry by 20. Jesus is referred to as Rabbi in the Bible. Rabbis were required to marry. I saw this the other night on History channel.[/quote]
This article is about proof that Jesus was not married; it also addresses the rabbi issue:
Was Jesus Married?
All the available evidence points to an answer of "no." http://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/x.gif
By Darrell L. Bock
http://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/x.gifhttp://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/x_ccc.gifIt has long been believed that Jesus was single. Every detail of Scripture indicates this. When he was in ministry, there is no mention of a wife. When he was tried and crucified, there is no mention of his having a wife. After his death, there is no mention of a wife. Whenever Jesus' family is referred to, it is his brothers and sisters who are mentioned, but never a wife. Nor is there any indication that he was widowed.
Attempts to suggest that any of the many women associated with his ministry were, in fact, his wife are empty speculation. This includes the woman with the alabaster container who anointed Jesus (read Luke 7:36-50). This woman's act was shocking and would not have been nearly so surprising had she been his wife.
We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married. It is often suggested that because Jesus was a teacher and functioned like a rabbi that he would have been married as well, since that was the Jewish custom. Sometimes it is noted that the apostles called him 'rabbi' (Mark 11:21). However, two factors make this argument weak. First, Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one. The apostles addressed him as such to say he was their teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish office. The Jews asked Jesus 'by what authority' he did certain things because he did not hold any kind of formal office within Judaism. He did not have an official position that would have permitted him to do things like act within the temple (Mark 11:28). As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had no recognized role within Judaism. Read another view on whether Jesus acted as a rabbi.
Second, the example of the call to be 'eunuchs for the kingdom' appears, in part, to be rooted in Jesus' own commitment and example not to be married (Matthew 19:10-12). In fact, the rationale for the Roman church's later view that priests should not be married partially stems from the view that Jesus was not married.
My belief is simple.
Being married would not make Jesus any less God or man. There is absolutely no reason the gospels would have left it out. With the mention and absolute importance of other notable's wives like Abraham and Job, there's no basis for an exclusion. And out of all the times it mentions Mary Magdelene because of her important involvement in the story her relationship would have at least been mentioned. How many times when talking about Mary does it reference her as the mother rather than just Mary?
If you say her profession was reason for exclusion, then how do you explain Rahab, a prostitute in the direct lineage to Jesus who is never recorded to denounce her profession?
I know these points have been covered, but it bears repeating.
I think this whole idea is ridiculous and unfounded in reality or history. You simply have to want it to be true. When you say history must have been changed... It's not even open for debate to me when the argument for it is that the Bible doesn't say otherwise.
I'm not sure about the early books of the Bible...and the only reason I'm up on the Gospels is because we discussed it yesterday at Church. All of the gospels were completed before the end of the first century. That's a major difference between the true Gospels and the so called gnostic gospels. You can see how there is a difference between the early books and a book about a man who was a lightning rod of controversy before and after his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by firedog
tdf is correct. i believe that the most descriptive definition of the word for "companion" is something to the effect of: a very close friend. history channel was doing a "davinci code" documentary marathon yesterday that definition was given on one of their shows and backed up by several historians/theologians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
FYI, did you know that the Roman Catholic Bible has about 4-5 books that are not in your current protestant King James or NIV version? Ever heard of Purgatory? Not in your version, but only in RC Bible. So I have to ask, since these books were cannonized in the early Bible by the early church, why did the protestants have to exclude them?
Lots and lots of questions.
As far as the Mary Mother reference, it just seems a good way to differentiate between the two. It seems MM had a bigger role later in Jesus' life than his mother. I am confused at your saying the renouncement of profession?? MM was never a prostitute.
One more question, how does anyone know what years these books were written? Copies of the gnostic gospels obviously were found and the "Evil inconsistant method" of carbon dating was used to date them to that time. Did anyone ever consider they were probably rewritten? How were the gospels dated?
not required, paul was not married...i have seen no evidence of john the baptist being married. another thing...fathers were the one who was to arrange the marriage of his son...if joseph died early in Jesus life then who would have arranged an earthly marriage...and an even greater analogy is that Jesus' marriage was arranged but it was arranged by His true Father and the bride was the church. God is all about some symbolism and allegory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
While I will DEFINATELY not disagree that we have more text relating to Mary Magdalene in the later portions of the 4 gospels than his mother, Mary, John records and interesting passage of Jesus on the cross. When he looked down and saw who was there, it was his mother he addressed and then John, not Mary Magdalene. Don't you find it interesting that if Mary WERE his wife, he is not recorded in ANY of the gospels (the canon OR the gnostic gospels) of having addressed her while on the cross?Quote:
As far as the Mary Mother reference, it just seems a good way to differentiate between the two. It seems MM had a bigger role later in Jesus' life than his mother. I am confused at your saying the renouncement of profession?? MM was never a prostitute.
Chris
Your history is a bit off. Protestants did not "remove" the apocryphal books from the Bible. They were always seen as dubious. Jerome made it clear that he didn't consider them at the same level as the OT or NT when he did the Vulgate -- which was a couple hundred years after the main canon had been established. They really didn't come to be fully accepted by the Catholic church until after the Protestant split.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
On the other matter:
The gospels are generally dated between 60 and 90 AD. (there was a time when they were dated a bit later, but modern scholarship has blown most of that theory up). Matthew, Mark and Luke were almost certainly written before 70AD. John is a bit more controversial. It gets dated anywhere from 65 to 90. The two "gospels" that Brown references in the book were probably written in the early third century. (They don't, incidently, say just what he says they say even at that -- but they are clearly "gnostic" gospels). Dating is done by a combination of issues -- carbon dating really doesn't apply much since it can only get within about 100 years. It has to do with writing styles, paper styles, and what the texts reference. For instance, a major reason a lot of people date the gospels before 70AD is that they don't mention the destruction of the temple. That would have been a huge ommission considering Jesus's references to it -- especially for Matthew, who was big on showing how prophecies were fulfilled.
I found this site to be very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
http://www.nccg.org/JesMar-04.html
So the guys that cannonized the Bible made a mistake?Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgMc
Writing styles, paper styles. Transcription?
No, no, Rahab was. It was a explanation that Mary's past character flaws would not make her unsuitable for Jesus' bride. I can see how I wrote it in a confusing way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
DB is right about Mary Mag...I think she became "widely thought of" as a prostitute when some pope decided that she was. I've looked and maybe I've missed it, but I didn't see where it said that she was a ho...for sho.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Huh? Non-sequitors are us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
that's because it isn't there. the pope is thought to have done it to show how, no matter how scandalous your past, you can still be saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
That's what I was trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Rahab was a woman of ill repute and despite that is in the lineage of Jesus and one of the most important females in Jewish history.
Mary had unspecified demons.
The connection I was going for is that a marriage to Mary would not be something that would have to be hidden in order to preserve the holiness of Christ.
Yeah, I agree. I just think it's interesting that everyone assumes (according to the Discovery Channel) that MM was a prostitute when the scripture doesn't say she is one.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
I read an amazingly fair article on the movie and the book yesterday morning and couldn't wait to share it with y'all! in the last part of the aritcle the writer says that the greatest line of the movie is something "Robert" says off screen to "Sophie" when trying to help her understand her identity in the end - it's something to the effect of: ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I thought it was awesome! Just thought i'd share...
MM was at the cross, but nothing about him addressing her. He addressed John to take care of his Mother. Keeping the commandments by honoring his mother. I think MM being there speaks volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
25 But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
it would have spoken more volumes if it read "mary magdalene, the wife of jesus." it doesn't. it would have only made since to identify her as such if that were actually the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Do you have faith that the Bible is written in the same words, wording, etc. as the original writers wrote it? If so, you have much faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
Reference the ID thread in politics section. I think the general consensus is that Religion is man influenced and jaded by sin. Why would you think that those words passed down through the early church (with an agenda) managed by a handful of literates were not manipulated either?
Is that Barry "juicehead" Bonds in that picture? Speaking of jaded.
i don't think that is the general consensus. i would certainly not use those words to describe what the consensus (if it exists) is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Unfortunately, the historical truth about Jesus will not be known since he lived a short life and little was known about him until he started preaching at age 30 or so. Buddha, on the other hand, started his missionary work about his early 20s and traveled far and wide to many countries, his talks recorded at the time, and he lived to a ripe old age.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
Was Jesus a virgin when he died? Does the NT ever mention Jesus' sex life? What did Jesus do between the age of 15 and 30? The bottom line is that the NT reports what its authors wanted to report. My impression was at the time that part of the world was filled with many similar preachers, and Jesus was just one among many. He would not surprise me that he was married, probably not to MM, had children, and the early writers wanted to present him as the Son of God, and not as a ordinary married carpenter with kids.
That Jesus had a very powerful presence and a strong understanding of spiritual matters is self-evident given the drama of his death and the work of his followers to ensure that His message did not die with Him.
BTW, I haven't read the "Code" or the movie. Probably will see the movie when it is on AMC.
Salty, would you be willing to die a long painful martyrs death because you were spreading a lie about somebody? Or would you tell the truth to spare your life? Why didn't Jesus fess-up and say, "Well you know what? I was just kidding". Likewise, I believe all of the disciples, save one, was dealt a cruel death by the Romans, and the like, for their belief and spreading of the gospel of Christ as the risen Son of God that can take away my sins as well as yours. Many thousands of others and their children suffered the same fate at the hand of the Romans and in other countries. Why? Remember that theirs was a first person true witness account of the pure and sinless life, countless miracles as well as seeing the living and risen Jesus Christ. Why leave this world in such fashion over a lie they would have created? No, as has been stated on this, as well as other threads, you as well as all of us and those mentioned above must at some time in your life face and call Christ a "Liar, Lunatic or your Lord". Those are the only 3 choices you have. What will you call and/or say to Him when you meet Him? Better yet, what do you call Him today?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
TT, that is one of your better posts. I have the CD set of C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" here in front of me and plan on listening to it on my road trip in September out to California.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
That Jesus' intimate followers were totally committed to Him and his message goes without saying. I'm not saying that the NT is a lie or total fabrication, but rather it is written by His followers and not objective 3rd party observers. Many religious people die for their beliefs but that in and of itself does not mean that their beliefs are true. It just means that they believe them so strongly that they are willing to die for them.
As for the "pure and sinless life" and countless miracles of Jesus, I'm not convinced nor do I think it is really necessary to believe such things in order to appreciate Jesus' message. I tend to view such supernatural beliefs as a relic of ancient world-views and certainly not 21st century.
I reject your assetion that I have to view Jesus as either a "liar, lunatic or Son of God". I have the choice of viewing Him as a simple carpenter who was at the same time a great spiritual leader who was intent on leading humanity to the next level, a world where individuals could communicate directly with their personal God.
Not trying to take away from your message, Tyler, because you make a good point. However, study history and even modern history. Christians did not create the matyr system nor were they the first ones persecuted for their belief system. History has a bloody past and much of that can be traced back to certain Gods and the powerful influence that control people's minds.
Many idiot muslims strap on suicide vests and die for Allah every day in the middle East. Babylonians offered themselves as human sacrifices to appease their Gods. Aztecs.....The list could go on.
Tyler, you forgot to add Mary Magadalene to list that escaped death. She was considered a disciple by some and according to the RC church, she escaped to the South of France.
The Muslim killers go to their death due to hate in their heart for others. Christians were willing to die for Christ and their beliefs out of love. One of the big differences in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
True on first point. OK...maybe right but I doubt on second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
One distinct difference is that the disciples believed what they believed because they were first hand witnesses of Jesus. Many of the ones you mentioned have been taught what to believe by others. They chose martyerdom not because of what they were told by others but because of what they believed having witnessed it themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Chris
You guys are forgetting the betrayal and denial of two of the disciples? I wouldn't exactly call that "stepping up to the death plate" for their belief in the saviour. How do we know if any of these martyred disciples were not begging for their lives or denying their beliefs when they died?
I am failing to understand your points with all of this what if this happened and we dont know this or that. How do we know if they didnt beg for their lives? I dont know, but there are no accounts of them doing it. So, we can make up anything we thought they did. They might have done three cartwheels and yelled "hallelujah, I am dying for Jesus". They could have danced a little jig, who knows? Why speculate on something we have no idea about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
My point is valid. TDF says they chose Martyrdom when the Bible clearly states that one denied him while the other betrayed him. One even doubted his reserection. Clearly three of the 13 were not so strong in their beliefs.
Yes, Peter denied him 3 times. But what a change there was! It's too long to reproduce, but go to www.biblegateway.com and look up Acts 2:14-39. Yes, the one who wouldn't even acknowledge Jesus to a servant girl now stands before crowds and even the Sanhedrin declaring that Jesus is the Messiah!
I'm not going to get into the whole Judas issue. I'll just say that Judas' role was prophesied years before he was even born.
Thomas doubted then placed his fingers in the wounds on his hands and side. He wanted to find the truth. But so many look over Thomas once he was presented with the answers to his questions, they cling to the fact that he doubted. But read on, "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
Chris
Didn't Jesus prophesize this also?Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgFan
Another explaination could be that God crafted it this way so that the future generations could believe as well having heard these doubts and denials. Things happen for a reason.
As for Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, the Gospel of Mark says that Judas says in remorse "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood" It follows by saying threw back the bribe money and hanged himself. That seems to me to be taking responsiblity for his actions in his own way and not denying his beliefs.
Yeah, he did.
Well, taking 3 of the 13 that doubted or betrayed at one point in their lives and speculating that they begged for their lives in the end is not valid. Nor is it valid to base off that invalidated assumption that all 13 could have begged for their lives. You are just speculating which, as I said, we can all do. Peter doubted three times and probably denied him some other times, but for the most part, he followed Jesus and proclaimed him King after Jesus died. So, if I were to weigh moments of denial against years and years of proclaiming Jesus King, I would come to the conclusion that he was proclaiming Jesus as Lord even when he was martyred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Since Peter and Thomas eventually died for their beliefs, your argument doesn't really work as a response to the "why would they die for a lie" argument. And in both cases you're talking about things that happened before they became convinced of the resurrection. None of them ever backed down after the resurrection -- which is the main argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Exactly. Thanks TechDawgMc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgMc
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgMc
so...
this is a bit off-subject. but did you guys see "the gospel of judas" or read the translation of the book that came out about a month ago? the documentary was on natl geographic channel a month or so ago...i have it tivo-ed and can burn a dvd for anybody who is interested. it's very interesting (and very gnostic).
btw...saw the movie this weekend and have determined that ron howard is one of the most talented directors of our age...you have to be extremely talented to make an entertaining page-turner like the the "davinci code" into one of the most boring movies i have ever seen!
There is a national geographic channel?
pretty cool shows sometimes too
it's kind of like how the discovery channel was before they started having jesse james make lawnmowers out of sports cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by sik-m-boi