|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 51 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 51:
| 
Nov 4 13:49 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 26 of 51:
|
Nov 4 18:02 UTC 2003 |
Thats what this item is about, the idea that Christ married Mary Magdelene.
That she is the Holy Grail, ( I am not going into the sexual inuendo that
leads to her being the cup of Christ), and the mother of his child. (Lets
really get into the Divine Right of kings here)
I am not saying I support any of these conclusions. But there are a lot of
things that can be looked at.
Did he marry Mary? I don't know. But is it impossible?
did he have children? I don't know. But is it impossible?
Did Christ exist? Yes. There is evidence to support his existence outside
the bible.
Did he have brothers and sisters? There is some evidence that this is true,
but you will not find it in the Bible.
Pontius Pilot existed. Herod Existed. Ceaser existed. It is amazing just
how much evidence there is that many of the stories in the Bible may have
happened. The new testament is a lot easier to prove than the stories in the
old testament. Hey! It was only 2000 years ago.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 27 of 51:
|
Nov 4 18:15 UTC 2003 |
(Bruce, I'm curious what you mean by "Did he have brothers and sisters?
There is some evidence that this is true, but you will not find it in
the Bible." I can think of at least one reference to siblings in the
Gospels.)
|
tod
|
|
response 28 of 51:
|
Nov 4 18:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 29 of 51:
|
Nov 4 20:54 UTC 2003 |
I think the divine right of kings is an idea pretty well understood by
NON-crackpot historians.
|
jp2
|
|
response 30 of 51:
|
Nov 4 21:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 31 of 51:
|
Nov 4 21:56 UTC 2003 |
One of the crazy theories advocated in the book that started all this
nonsense is that one of the French dynasties (Salian? Can't remember)
was descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene's love child, and that the
Divine Right of Kings was based on this descent.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 32 of 51:
|
Nov 4 23:39 UTC 2003 |
If the hokey conspiracy stuff in Robert Anton Wilson's books is the
same hokey conspiracy stuff here, I believe it's the Merovingian
dynasty..
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 51:
|
Nov 4 23:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 34 of 51:
|
Nov 5 00:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 35 of 51:
|
Nov 5 01:11 UTC 2003 |
If the "remains" people are talking about is the supposed ossuary
(bone box) of James, it's a fake (the box is old, but the inscription
on it is recent). And it contains no bones, either.
|
other
|
|
response 36 of 51:
|
Nov 5 04:53 UTC 2003 |
Did Pontius Pilot a ship until Ceaser made him cease?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 51:
|
Nov 5 06:20 UTC 2003 |
Would those that claim that there is concrete historical evidence for the
existence of person as described in the bible as Jesus, and his specific
deeds, please provide the citations for the scholarly substantiation of
that.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 38 of 51:
|
Nov 5 08:53 UTC 2003 |
you just need to have a little faith, rane.
re26: so basically you're an agnostic fundamentalist new-age
christian cracker?
|
bru
|
|
response 39 of 51:
|
Nov 5 15:28 UTC 2003 |
What? You want me to bring forth a photograph of Jesus turning water into
wine at the wedding? You want me to bring out newsreel of him healing his
desciple on the mount of olives? You want a court transcript of his trial?
EEEEGHHH!
Sorry, it aint gonna happen.
What historical evidence do we have of anybody who lived in those times. We
have some oral tradition, adn we have the written word. All we had to prove
the existence of Troy was a legend until Schliemann cut thru a mound and found
the city. While this has nothing to do with Christ, it does show that oral
tradition has some fact in it.
I guess I am just not as closed minded as you are.
Why do you care happyboy? Looking for a guru you can follow?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 51:
|
Nov 5 17:40 UTC 2003 |
Most fiction is written within a realistic context. The tales of Dickens
have real places and real people as backdrops for his fictional characters
and events. But the real existence of those places and people does nothing
to support the real existence of those fictional characters and events in
their lives.
It is not "closed minded" to hold in abeyance blind belief in
unsubstantiated legends, especially when they involve magic. I suspect
that you take that attitude toward many legends, such as those of
Hiawatha, even though components of them have some historical basis. So,
why do you pick and choose to believe some subset of legends of myth and
magic?
|
tod
|
|
response 41 of 51:
|
Nov 5 18:42 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 42 of 51:
|
Nov 5 19:32 UTC 2003 |
/cues: "If I were a Rich Man"
(happyboy mountainstyle banjo version)
|
slynne
|
|
response 43 of 51:
|
Nov 5 19:40 UTC 2003 |
No, it just shows that oral tradition can have some basis in fact, not
that it necessarily does.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 44 of 51:
|
Nov 6 02:47 UTC 2003 |
That spear was kept at the Wewelsburg, right Tod?
|
tod
|
|
response 45 of 51:
|
Nov 6 19:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 46 of 51:
|
Nov 7 09:48 UTC 2003 |
soooooooooooooo, any comments on teh upconing mel gibson movie using
the bible as the script?
better script than what cbs used on the reagans .... eh, what?
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 51:
|
Nov 7 14:22 UTC 2003 |
Should we consider it a sign that the actor who plays Christ was hit by
lightning?
http://www2.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/24/gibson.passion/
|
flem
|
|
response 48 of 51:
|
Nov 7 16:33 UTC 2003 |
Some of the extremely religious folks I encounter through work have had
good things to say about it. I'm expecting that it will be one of those
movies that you enjoy if you're religious, and sleep through or hate if
you're not. *shrug*
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 51:
|
Nov 7 20:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|