Is your god dead?

Jubal_Harshaw said:
Tomb of Christ, Mary Magdelene and son found.

What's your take? Is it or isn't it?

Out of curiosity, anyone know the Hebrew word for carpenter? How bout the Hebrew word for savior?


It doesn't matter if it is or isn't... if you don't take your bible literally, this is no big deal... *shrug*

and those who do, won't believe it anyway.

Hebrew for carpenter: banah
I believe the Hebrew for savior is Messiah...
 
Jubal_Harshaw said:
Where was my head? I knew that.

I think it's also, actually, "Jesus"... a different form? I'm no expert... you can try google! or wiki! :)
 
SelenaKittyn said:
I think it's also, actually, "Jesus"... a different form? I'm no expert... you can try google! or wiki! :)

Actually the Hebrew word is Yéshūa and means 'God is help'. I guess that could be translated as savior
 
SelenaKittyn said:
Doh! *I* knew that! Sacred Union...

Eh, sometimes it's hard to make heads or tails of any of it when it's been translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. Like playing operator with an evil twist.
 
Too many people have made up too many things about Jesus over the last few thousand years for my tastes. I haven't considered myself christian for over half my life, but even if I did, I would understand that someone who died and rose from the grave could still have a corpse in the coffin. It could have been a spiritual rising.

And why couldn't Jesus have ever been in love or had children? Because he was supposed to be pure? Where the heck did that crap come from anyway? Love is pure. Having a wife and children makes him a beter character.

Stop making him out to be God instead of the Son of God.
 
TheeGoatPig said:
Too many people have made up too many things about Jesus over the last few thousand years for my tastes. I haven't considered myself christian for over half my life, but even if I did, I would understand that someone who died and rose from the grave could still have a corpse in the coffin. It could have been a spiritual rising.

And why couldn't Jesus have ever been in love or had children? Because he was supposed to be pure? Where the heck did that crap come from anyway? Love is pure. Having a wife and children makes him a beter character.

Stop making him out to be God instead of the Son of God.


amen... it's just a metaphor... we are *all* the sons/daughters of god/the divine/cosmos... whatever you'd like to call it...
 
My God ain't dead :)

Jesus was a very popular name, Mary Magdelene was alive after Jesus died and His body was put in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, not in a family tomb.

Mary Magdelene could have married some bloke named Jesus later on in her life.

I personally believe that Jesus came, lived on earth, died and rose again. There's alot of evidence around his life to show that whats written in the bible is accurate about his life and his death - so I'm really not very convinced by this guy's tomb - it seems like a lot of "may be, could be, might have been." to me.



However a friend and a wise scholar once told me this and I'm sure he won't mind me sharing it with you:

"I'll give you a tidbit that might interest you... one of the best "one-liners" I've ever dealt with. It concerns the Bible, and is always a good response to the faithful who swear by its accuracy and the non-faitful who attack its content:

The historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of its point

That is to say, the point of the Bible isn't "this is the infallible word of God" nor is its historical components the issue. Did Moses really write the Pentateuch? There's no record of Jesus having truly lived. The Bible doesn't support evolution. Etc.

The Bible doesn't have to be historically accurate to have a point, no more than The Cat in the Hat needs to be factual to get the message. Too many people get hung up on either trying to defend the historical efficacy of the Bible or attack it. Jesus need not have actually existed for the message he represented to be understood. The Hebrews need not have actually been enslaved by Egypt for the meaning behind the story to be understood."

And I think there's alot too that. Faith is the key and my faith is still unshaken.
 
If I was a Hebrew and a guy my name would be YasuhWoWo... meaning, "God, what a big penis" :D

As far as the funeral boxes are concerned. They are meaningless - Remember the one they found for James last year?

And so what if Jesus was buried? There's nothing in the bible that says "his body" rose into heaven. Regardless of what comes out of this, the god squad will find some way of proving it means they were right all along :rolleyes:
 
English Lady said:
My God ain't dead :)

The Bible doesn't have to be historically accurate to have a point, no more than The Cat in the Hat needs to be factual to get the message. Too many people get hung up on either trying to defend the historical efficacy of the Bible or attack it. Jesus need not have actually existed for the message he represented to be understood. The Hebrews need not have actually been enslaved by Egypt for the meaning behind the story to be understood."

And I think there's alot too that. Faith is the key and my faith is still unshaken.


Yup.
I :heart: EL.

:cathappy:
 
Organized Christian and Catholic religion has built a trap for themselve that is coming back to bite them on the ass.

The four gospels make one promise: You may find salvation through the sacrifice of the Son of God.

This has been embellished, first by the writing of Paul and the apostils, then later by the chruch to include the body of Christ rising into heaven, Christ's reappearances after his death and other things included in the rituals of the individual denominations (litergys).

Was Jesus married? He was 30 years old and spoke to the congregation in the temple. The chances are he was. Did his body rise to heaven. It doesn't seem likely except in Sci-Fi, but we have the Shroud of Turin and all the other "artifacts" that prove he did (Not to mention that there was a well entrenched goup of artifact peddlers who roamed europe with religious items during the day and robws graves to collect artifacts at night - one reason Peter seems to have had three arms as evidenced by such "sacred artifacts").

The church leaders are very much afraid of the exposure of their fraudulant embellishment. That's what the controversy was about with "The DiVinci Code." That's what the controversy is about with this "discovery", which isn't a discovery at all since it was found in 1980.

What I would like to see, is a religious archeologist who is NOT a priest examining this issue. But it won't happen. Religious Archeology is a very small group of Archeologists. They are all priests who have one thing in comon: Prove the lies of the church. The problem is obvious, if you set out to prove something, you will, regardless of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
So, assumingt it's true. What woul that say?

1. Jesus existed. Score one for the Bible.

2. At the time of his crucifiction he was niether wed nor had kids (or so says the bible). So if he died on the cross (which the bble is very clear on that he did), he couldn't marry Maggie and have a son. But he did. So he must have risen from the dead. Score two for the bible.

3. Ok, so he didn't go into heaven in his bodily form. But hey, only the real nutters think that everything in the bible is historical record to the letter anyway. Maybe he rose to heaven metaphorically? Or maybe he came back down to marry the gal he loved, what do I know? Only that it doesn't really change all that much, unless you are totally anal about it.

4. Regardless of all of this, was the stuff Jesus said wrong?

(But maybe it's like with Al Gore and his gas guzzling house, if we can discredit just one detail about the messanger, the guy's message will not matter?) ;)

Omg, did I just compare Al Gore with Jesus? Someone slap me.
 
Last edited:
Liar said:
So, assumingt it's true. What woul that say?

1. Jesus existed. Score one for the Bible.

2. At the time of his crucifiction he was niether wed nor had kids (or so says the bible). So if he died on the cross (which the bble is very clear on that he did), he couldn't marry Maggie and have a son. But he did. So he must have risen from the dead. Score two for the bible.

3. Ok, so he didn't go into heaven in his bodily form. But hey, only the real nutters think that everything in the bible is historical record to the letter anyway. Maybe he rose to heaven metaphorically? Or maybe he came back down to marry the gal he loved, what do I know? Only that it doesn't really change all that much, unless you are totally anal about it.

4. Regardless of all of this, was the stuff Jesus said wrong?



All very good points. *nods*
 
Liar said:
So, assumingt it's true. What woul that say?

1. Jesus existed. Score one for the Bible.

2. At the time of his crucifiction he was niether wed nor had kids (or so says the bible). So if he died on the cross (which the bble is very clear on that he did), he couldn't marry Maggie and have a son. But he did. So he must have risen from the dead. Score two for the bible.

3. Ok, so he didn't go into heaven in his bodily form. But hey, only the real nutters think that everything in the bible is historical record to the letter anyway. Maybe he rose to heaven metaphorically? Or maybe he came back down to marry the gal he loved, what do I know? Only that it doesn't really change all that much, unless you are totally anal about it.

4. Regardless of all of this, was the stuff Jesus said wrong?
I think you are miss-stating here, Liar. I do agree with 1.

However, there is nothing in the bible that says one way or the other that Jesus was married or not. Paul wrote years later that it's better to be single so you can keep your mind on "the good work". So it's inferred that Jesus was unmarried, but that's not proof.

In 3 you say he came back to get married and have children. I know the Old Testiment has Prophets raising the dead and there is the story of Lazuras, but I cannot recall a story of a prophet raising himself from the dead. I simply cannot accept that he rose and carried on after death. If he was married, it was before his death.

Finally, if Jesus said the things recorded in the Gospels, they were not wrong. But the question is more did he really say them or were they included later by the gospel writers? (Remember, the gospels were not written until years afterward. The first some 30 years after, the last almost 50 years after his death. Memories fade and change over time.)
 
English Lady said:
Aww, and I love you too.


But the wise words aren't mine -you gotta :heart: the wise man for them ;)


Yes but I love your unshakable faith. :rose:

(But maybe it's like with Al Gore and his gas guzzling house, if we can discredit just one detail about the messanger, the guy's message will not matter?)

Omg, did I just compare Al Gore with Jesus? Someone slap me.

I was reading the other thread and thinking the same thing... :eek:
 
mismused said:
There is much to indicate that the bible is very inaccurate, too.

It's not the facts that really matter (to me)... it's the message and the metaphor in the stories... I don't use the bible to moralize... I see the stories there as a representation of something greater than ourselves...

Jung once said that only Jesus could be a "Christian" and only Jung himself could be a "Jungian."

Be a YOU-ian... with your own understanding of and connection to the divine...

like El... she would say she is a Christian, but it's just a label... she has a deep faith and heartfelt understanding of the divine.

She's an El-ian... ;)

Not to be confused with ALian... :D
 
mismused said:
There is much to indicate that the bible is very inaccurate, too. One can look at the evidence, and see it is there, or one can turn their back so as not to see it, and therefore easily deny that it is not there. What the "evidence really says is very much up for grabs, but as Jenny says, there's a big trap there somewhere, and maybe in a lot of places.

If I believe one thing about the bible, it is where it says: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (Supposedly Jesus' words in the gospel of John, ch. 8, v. 32.).

Faith is fine, as is hope (who can live without them?), but when things are there before you, one can't hope they will go away, nor have faith that they are not so.

As I said, you can find "facts", statistics, evidence etc to back up whatever your belief happens to be.

I also believe in that verse, I think it's a very important one.

I am not just writing this off, actually I'm participating in another thead on this article over in the GB too, but I really don't see any "truth" in it.
 
SelenaKittyn said:
It's not the facts that really matter (to me)... it's the message and the metaphor in the stories... I don't use the bible to moralize... I see the stories there as a representation of something greater than ourselves...

Jung once said that only Jesus could be a "Christian" and only Jung himself could be a "Jungian."

Be a YOU-ian... with your own understanding of and connection to the divine...

like El... she would say she is a Christian, but it's just a label... she has a deep faith and heartfelt understanding of the divine.

She's an El-ian... ;)

Not to be confused with ALian... :D

I don't want to be a Me-ian. My name sounds like crap placed in there. I'm already the high Priest of the Order of the Almighty Spork anyway :D
 
Back
Top