ForumGarden

Im finding it most interesting that the church scholars are so dead set against any possibility that Jesus might have fathered children or been married. If it were true, would this really shake the foundation of christianity or instead would it shake the notion that the church can never be wrong ?

If the church could be wrong about one thing they might be wrong about another.

So what are they really afraid of I wonder ?

I find it highly suspect when people arent open to the possibility of new ideas, or at the very least to examine them with an open mind.

Why would altering Jesus's journey on Earth as we know it now delete his presence as a deity ? Perhaps we only have some of the history wrong. He was flesh and blood as we know because his blood was spilled. Would it be unholy to suggest he had active sperm ?

Pinky;562134 wrote: The Pharoahs of ancient Egypt were also regarded as manifestations of the divine on earth, or descents of...yet they used to sleep with their relatives and generally treat everyone else like scum. Before anyone argues that they acted like this because they lived in the bad old unenlightened days, I'd like to point out that they were achieveing huge feats in engineering while we were pretty much living in mud huts.


I thought Stonehenge pre-dated the pyramids. The Pharaohs were very kind to their dead cats, too, and they caused the Nile to flood every year by impregnating the Sacred Ibis in the reeds at full moon which is more than Tony Blair ever managed.

Nomad;562062 wrote: Im finding it most interesting that the church scholars are so dead set against any possibility that Jesus might have fathered children or been married. If it were true, would this really shake the foundation of christianity or instead would it shake the notion that the church can never be wrong ?

If the church could be wrong about one thing they might be wrong about another.

So what are they really afraid of I wonder ?

I find it highly suspect when people arent open to the possibility of new ideas, or at the very least to examine them with an open mind.


Diuretic;562083 wrote: I think that's the point isn't it? If Jesus was a man who was just a man and not a human manifestation of a deity, then regardless of the worth of his philosophy it would destroy the central tenet of Christianity as a religion, wouldn't it?


What most Christians believe is that Jesus was fully man, and fully God, here on earth. Its a hard concept to grasp, but it makes sense. It's true Jesus was man, his blood spilled, so on and so forth, but he was also fully God. God created women to be a helpmate to man Gen.2:20-25 If Jesus was perfect, being 100%man and 100%God, why would he need a helpmate? Aren't we then questioning the being of God??

spot;562153 wrote: I thought Stonehenge pre-dated the pyramids. The Pharaohs were very kind to their dead cats, too, and they caused the Nile to flood every year by impregnating the Sacred Ibis in the reeds at full moon which is more than Tony Blair ever managed.


If only (((sigh)))

Here is my issue with the DNA thing. Yes, I understand that Jesus was a man and hand ancestors as well as descendants, if he did father children. BUT..in order for DNA tests to work you need to have a credible base sample to compare it against. Do they have anything at all that they know for certain is credible DNA from Jesus, in order to compare it to what they have found in the tombs. If they do, then I would be most interested to see the results.

Sweet Tooth;562167 wrote: What most Christians believe is that Jesus was fully man, and fully God


Is this really true (the belief by "most", I mean)?

Sweet Tooth;562167 wrote: What most Christians believe is that Jesus was fully man, and fully God, here on earth. Its a hard concept to grasp, but it makes sense. It's true Jesus was man, his blood spilled, so on and so forth, but he was also fully God. God created women to be a helpmate to man Gen.2:20-25 If Jesus was perfect, being 100%man and 100%God, why would he need a helpmate? Aren't we then questioning the being of God??


:yh_sick

Nomad;562062 wrote: Im finding it most interesting that the church scholars are so dead set against any possibility that Jesus might have fathered children or been married. If it were true, would this really shake the foundation of christianity or instead would it shake the notion that the church can never be wrong ?

If the church could be wrong about one thing they might be wrong about another.

So what are they really afraid of I wonder ?

I find it highly suspect when people arent open to the possibility of new ideas, or at the very least to examine them with an open mind.


Do you want it to shake the foundation of Christianity?

Ciao, Bella!;562262 wrote: Do you want it to shake the foundation of Christianity?




Im unclear on the intent of the question. Im merely implying that perhaps collectively we dont have all of the answers now, or maybe we have come up short on accurate historical data. Im wondering if we were to find another or an altered truth would it necessarily be the end of Christianity as we know it, or is the church strong enough to evolve with new information as it becomes exposed ?

I suspect many of the men and women that inhabit the "thrones" of Christianity would be unwilling or unable to rearrange their thinking.

In my mind this is merely a human weakness as opposed to the undoing of the actual holy experience.

Why is this James Cameron digging around? He is a movie Producer - is this all for attention?

I think he's pissed he didn't win a Oscar.

Patsy

:-6 , Patsy.

Diuretic;562407 wrote: Serious question - not baiting or being a, well, not being a troublemaker.



What if Jesus were really just a man, albeit totally enlightened. What would it matter? Would it cause a believer to cease believing? Would it cause a non-believer to believe? Would the earth cease to revolve around the sun (with due respect to certain politicians in Tx and Ga who believe that the sun revolves around the earth and that evolution is a Jewish plot).
Thats a good question- being a Christian, I don't know what I would think. I guess I would still believe because I would still want to believe and have something to hope for then die having hope in nothing. As for the rest of the question with the world revolving around the sun- bs- and the same with the evolution thing

Diuretic;562407 wrote: Serious question - not baiting or being a, well, not being a troublemaker.

What if Jesus were really just a man, albeit totally enlightened. What would it matter? Would it cause a believer to cease believing? Would it cause a non-believer to believe? Would the earth cease to revolve around the sun (with due respect to certain politicians in Tx and Ga who believe that the sun revolves around the earth and that evolution is a Jewish plot).


Good Question..and one I have thought of long before this discussion.

Remember the Joan osborne Song?







Joan Osbourne



If God had a name, what would it be

And would you call it to his face

If you were faced with him in all his glory

What would you ask if you had just one question

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us

Just a slob like one of us

Just a stranger on the bus

Trying to make his way home

If God had a face what would it look like

And would you want to see

If seeing meant that you would have to believe

In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets

And yeah yeah god is great yeah yeah god is good

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if God was one of us

Just a slob like one of us

Just a stranger on the bus

Trying to make his way home

He's trying to make his way home

Back up to heaven all alone

Nobody calling on the phone

Except for the pope maybe in rome

And yeah yeah God is great yeah yeah God is good

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

What if god was one of us

Just a slob like one of us

Just a stranger on the bus

Trying to make his way home

Just trying to make his way home

Like a holy rolling stone

Back up to heaven all alone

Just trying to make his way home

Nobody calling on the phone

Except for the pope maybe in rome













© 2007 LyricsOnDemand.com All lyrics are property and copyright of their owners. All lyrics provided for educational purposes only. LyricsOnDemand.®

I don't think it would make a difference to me. I did the agnostic bit for close to a decade, and explored other faiths. I kept coming back to Christianity, but not the denomination I grew up in. They were the reason I became agnostic in the first place.

In this day and age there are essentially two Christianities. One we refer to as the older paradigm and the new approach is referred to as the emerging paradigm.

If this story proved to be credible it would shake the faith of many in the older paradigm. They might, though, just take the position as they do with evolution that its simply an unproven theory.

The emerging paradigm is not afraid of the truth. Those of that paradigm, myself included actively seek out the truth no matter what it is.

Those in the older paradigm are the fundamental/literalists. Those in the emerging paradigm are much more liberal in their thinking and do not take the sacred scriptures as the inerrand and absolute word of God. They take the position that God does speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.

As for the question of Jesus, he was indeed a human being. He was an Eastern Mediterranean Jewish peasant. He was born to Mary and perhaps Joseph. He was in all likelihood born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem but due to the midrashic nature of the Bible it was written as Bethlehem. This Jesus was indeed fully human and died during the crucifixion. This Jesus was dead and buried. He is gone just as the rest of us die.

The understanding today is that he enjoyed the experiential reality of God in a way that only a few had and that it so profoundly affected him that we began to see manifested in him the true nature of God.

We do not know what the Easter event was. Whatever it was it was so profound that it turned his followers from cowering in fear to very vocal group of supporters of Jesus and has effected the course of history ever since. They felt in a very profound way that this Jesus was still truly with them. Millions down through the centuries have had the experiential reality of the Risen Lord. The whole issue is treated by speaking of the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith.

Because we are speaking of the great mystery of God we lack any language with which to deal with this issue so must resort to metaphor as the only way we can approach the topic. The Bible refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God but we are not talking about "Mary Had a Little Lamb".

None of this denies the Holy Trinity which is simply beyond human conceptual abilities.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Diuretic;562395 wrote: I suppose I could always construct an argument that Jesus really was a deity incarnate and then got amnesia because he had a bump on his head when he was a baby and forgot he was a deity until he was crucified. Silly isn't it though? I mean it would be silly of me to suggest that. Who'd believe it?




What I mean is perhaps our version of deity is incorrect. Is it plausible to consider our perceptions could be flawed ?

Were Adam and Eve perfect? No. If they had been, Eve wouldn't have succumbed to temptation. However, she merely ate an apple. It was a man, Cain, who first murdered.



I think if we were perfect, there would be no need for Christ in our lives, as we wouldn't sin. We'd actually be boring. :-6

The question then comes down to what one means by deity.

Was Jesus deity? No he was a human being. Any additions to the definition of Jesus such as deity or "son of God" are both theological and metaphorical proclamations. They are metaphorical because we do not have the conceptual ability or language to go any further.

Jesus was an easter Mediterranean Jewish peasant: Carpenter, teacher, healer, exorcist, mystic, charismatic, spirit person. He no doubt had profound experiences of the reality of God and ultimately his will became one with God's.

The attributions ascribed to him in the NT are what the church had come to believe about him. As one writer said "He taught the Kingdom of God and we got the church. A new church was not his purpose. As with Martin Luther he really wanted to reform Judaism and promote within Judaism "The Kingdom of God" here on earth. This kingdom is understood to be an eternal kingdom that will go on for all within it for ever. As a Christian I understand them to be metaphor for the indescribable but it does not matter to me if others see it more literally. That is their choice.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;564048 wrote: Jesus was an easter Mediterranean Jewish peasantAs typos go, Ted, that one deserves framing on a wall.

It seems to me that we (society) spend much of our time trying to bring the sacred down to the level of the profane. I wonder how it would feel if we put that effort into striving for the sacred.



Whatever happened to mysticism?

Ted;564048 wrote: As with Martin Luther he really wanted to reform Judaism and promote within Judaism "The Kingdom of God" here on earth.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Ted, as a Jewish believer in Jesus, I really liked the way you said that. I have found that in my own experience, I am more aware of my "Jewishness" since becoming a Christian than I ever was before I had a relationship with Christ.

Insomniac:-6

It is interesting because I feel much closer to my Jewish brothers and sister than I ever have before. I have the greatest respect for Judaism.

Shalom

Ted:-6

spot:-6

You are correct. That was a rather interesting typo. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

theia:-6

I think that more and more the mainline churches are striving for the sacred. The ancient mystics are being reread and looked at again.

Shalom

Ted:-6

So is anyone going to watch the show tonight? They are going to be also airing a townhall discussion of the show afterwards.