Jesus returns!
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Jesus returns!
(12-09-2016 11:41 AM)unsapien Wrote:  Here's a handy list of Jewish, Christian and Muslim messiah claimants.

I'm at work but I will look though it when I get home it's kind of interesting.

Isn't there also some kind of "condition" or "psychosis" where some people that visit Jerusalem suddenly start thinking that they are Jesus?

Sort of. One of them could have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
13-09-2016, 02:23 AM
RE: Jesus returns!
(27-07-2016 02:58 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-07-2016 03:59 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Yeah but the ancient Jews had a word for swim. שָׂחָה (sachah) why wouldn't they have used that? Although it's a funny image. I feel it's a stretch.

Ol' Dot-Connector DeltaB (aka Ralphie's smelly sock) isn't the type to be troubled by *facts* Rolleyes

I am very in facts, in fact.

That's why I read Ellis' book because he at least has the courage to see where "facts" take him. The "fact", in fact, that it got him into so much smelly stuff is that this is an area of study which is mired in myth, legend, magic, inter-religious feuding, political correctness and just plain "up your ass" name calling of anyone who anyone involved in it disagrees with.

Here's something I just came across, figuratively speaking, about the origin of the Irish:

My take on the New Testament is that I think we should look first at a rational explanation of something before accepting either divine origin or jumping onto the "it's a myth" bandwagon. I have no problem with mythicism, by the way.

Look at the v!!!irgin birth. The conversation Mary has about it is in pre-Christian society. So, what god is she talking about who impregnates virgins? I'd really like to know because I find this incredibly odd. I didn't know that the Jewish god had that kind of a reputation...

What do you do with this stuff? First, it's not a reflection of Christianity, because Mary is not a Christian. If you don't believe she was impregnated by a metaphysical, invisible thingy, then she had to have had sex with a man. I find even mentioning this makes me feel odd becasue, by now, one's own rearing in this religion makes one feel queezy with uncertainty. Yes, so she had sex with a man... whoo. I got it out. So who was this and why does she call him "the lord"? If you step back and look at it ratinonally then you just might think it was because she was impregnated by some human "lord" or member of some royal line.

Then, we have the description of Jesus' lineage, taking us back to David and Solomon via his "dad", Joseph...Whoa, hold on a minute. I honestly did not twig to this until fairly recently. He's god's son, we've just heard. because God screwed his mum. Joseph isn't his dad, right, so now we're told he is.

I'm not getting this at all. I'm completely baffled by this aspect of Christianity as it is presented.

I can't figure out any way to reconcile this other than this, and it's entirely possible and agrees with practices back then of preserving "royal" blood. The only way Jesus can be the son of god via his lineage, and also via his "real" father is that his biological father is related to Joseph and what you have here is the "father" impregnating a daughter who is married to her own brother.

That sounds appalling and it's only a theory, but its a theory which could be true without asking anyone to believe in miracles so it is possible whereas the Christian version is plainly false. But, you'll get more stick from people for presenting a plausible hypothesis than you do if you just overlook this issue or even if you just say, "I'm a Christian and entitled to my beliefs".

Why it's plausible is that none of this behaviour was unusual back then. Achnaten and Nefertiti were brother and sister, had a child. Queen Helena married her own brother, who was a king, and they had children, so she was impregnated by the Lord...

Even Shakespeares' play Pericles develops this theme:

John Gower introduces each act with a prologue. The play opens in the court of Antiochus, king of Antioch, who has offered the hand of his beautiful daughter to any man who answers his riddle; but those who fail shall die.

Marina singing before Pericles, Thomas Stothard, 1825
I am no viper, yet I feed
On mother's flesh which did me breed.
I sought a husband, in which labour
I found that kindness in a father:
He's father, son, and husband mild;
I mother, wife, and yet his child.
How they may be, and yet in two,
As you will live, resolve it you.

Pericles, the young Prince (ruler) of Tyre in Phoenicia (Lebanon), hears the riddle, and instantly understands its meaning: Antiochus is engaged in an incestuous relationship with his daughter. If he reveals this truth, he will be killed, but if he answers incorrectly, he will also be killed. Pericles hints that he knows the answer, and asks for more time to think. Antiochus grants him forty days, and then sends an assassin after him. However, Pericles has fled the city in disgust.

So, kill me! At least it would stop people calling me a sock puppet.Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2016, 05:07 AM
RE: Jesus returns!
(13-09-2016 02:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  That's why I read Ellis' book because he at least has the courage to see where "facts" take him.
Ralphie and you have the same appreciation of fact, there's that point in your favour. Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: