9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Named Joshua, not Jesus

Kinda sorta.

He was named Yeshua which translates to Joshua.

As for the idea he wasn’t crucified. Well here is a quote from the 1st century historian Josephus:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.

Although there is controversy on whether it was altered. I don't think the crucifixion aspect is part of that controversy.

I think there is writings to suggest he was romantically involved with Mary but they are not canon.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Um duh let's see...

How about the ancients sites that circumnavigate the globe as a code...
how about ancient Sumerian text?
how about the ancient cites in direct correlation with myths that existed before they were found buried deep underground?
How about enormous humanoids?
How about technology superseding that of today from ancient times?
Or how bout cause I said so, which seems to be all you dimwits have to back you up...
Lol

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Um duh let's see...

How about the ancients sites that circumnavigate the globe as a code...
how about ancient Sumerian text?
how about the ancient cites in direct correlation with myths that existed before they were found buried deep underground?
How about enormous humanoids?
How about technology superseding that of today from ancient times?
Or how bout cause I said so, which seems to be all you dimwits have to back you up...
Lol

I see that you have no proof other than vague references to disproved nonsense then.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Do you actually have a worthy point to make or are just hoping your "threats" will be taken seriously?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I posted before reading your article *blush* ... it goes into this point quite well. Mea culpa.

I'm guilty of this as well.

Doh!

As far as Jesus committing adultery, perhaps not ... but his Father certainly did.

Poor Joseph. Once you go god you don't go back.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yawn*
All of that is real...
Disprove it!

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
#10: He existed in the first place.

11. If he did exist, he probably wasn't Jewish.

During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. When Jesus was in Judea, it was not the "homeland" of the ancestors of those who today style themselves "Jews". Their ancestors never set a foot in Judea. They existed at that time in Asia, their "homeland", and were known as Khazars. In neither of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew", just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas. [Source]

and/or

11. The Romans didn't kill hm.

In the letters of Paul, which are regarded by historians to be the oldest works of the New Testament (written 10 to 20 years after Jesus' death), Paul mentions, almost in passing, "the Jews who killed the Lord, Jesus" (I Thessalonians 2:14-15).

ETA: What all of this discussion shows us is that no one seems to know for sure, and there's a lot of debate over many of these things that most take at face value. In the reading I've tried to do since I saw this article, that's the one thing that stands out most.

I may read this book: 'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case

It comes to a conclusion, as most books must, particularly those written by humans who may want to believe one way or the other and search for truth based on their original premise, but it seems to have some pretty interesting information in it anyway.

"Most importantly," he explains, "these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again."

In his book, Ehrman marshals all of the evidence proving the existence of Jesus, including the writings of the apostle Paul.

"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says.

You know what, guys? If you're that obsessed with disproving the very foundation of a church which has existed for nearly 2,000 years, good luck with that. You'll need it.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yawn*
All of that is real...
Disprove it!

You want me to disprove nonsense???? Sorry, reality doesn't work that way.

in reply to: ~Lucidity

Oh, that'll rattle 'em. Yet they'll still argue the toss for another 2,000 years...

As far as Jesus being married it was the norm for Jews to marry mostly at a young age even...
And although it may help some view him as more human or be more believable...
he did not spend all his time on one place on earth...
Mary Magdalen the woman purposed he was married to would not have been met until he was over 30 years old...
Also do you think it would make sense for him to marry let alone have children knowing full well he would die soon?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Why not?
You want me to prove reality...

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Well. Jesus was poor. Weddings were and are expensive. Also jesus would be hard pressed to find anyone of the religious order of the day who would marry him. He was hated by them.

Does that mean that people who were poor and expelled from religious/ social life did not have husbands and wives? No. Like today.....people look for love.

If jesus was a mortal man he then understood humanity in its quest for love. He could have had a wife and still be freaking jesus if he is jesus at all. That wouldnt break his stride.

All this fuss about her is absurd.

a reply to: tadaman

I know. Why is the possibility that he may have been married, had children, be abhorrent to so many people? Particularly the same people who claim that marriage is a sanctity that they say the bible claims is between a man and a woman?

Also, the thing about priests not marrying? In some sects they can marry and in some not. Also, historically, in that region of the world, was it not common for a man to have more than one wife? Maybe I'm mixing up my history here (I'm not that great with it and forget things from all I've read and have to rely on historians, but we all know what happens to and with history.)

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But does any of this even remain true to the one common foundation? How far do you take the argument? Can we really prove or disprove something that was taken by a lot of people who then pursued multiple paths to interpret it in multiple ways?

originally posted by: tadaman

... If jesus was a mortal man he then understood humanity in its quest for love.

Huh? If he wasn't a mortal man, why was he hated by some "religious order".

All this fuss about her is absurd.

Huh? You just said Jesus understood love. So Magdalene was important then, right?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

11. The Romans didn't kill hm.

I think it's perspective. If you ultimately blame the Jewish for his death then it makes sense one might say they killed him, even if Pontius Pilate technically did. Perhaps that's how Paul meant it. As I understand Jesus and his followers were a non-issue to the Romans until the Jewish made it an issue by causing a ruckus. The Romans wanted order. The Jewish wanted a false god to die. That's my understanding anyways.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

He was named Yeshua which translates to Joshua.

It was? Blimey, don't tell Abraham that.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

The Jewish wanted a false god to die.

In that case, they got the wrong guy.
 

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yeah. All perspective and dependent on which premise a person is trying to prove or disprove.

The pagan connection/roots are what interest me more, to be honest. That they were co-opted (to put it simply) and had gods that died and resurrected. That and the anti-Christ thing.

I just found the thread on John the Baptist...interesting theory there, too.