Was it Jesus's wedding?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

And Dbates, we can see where the issue of a lack of Jesus' lineage comes into play elsewhere.

If Jesus had descendants, even offspring-in-hiding
Royal descent flows through the oldest son of the oldest son. Second sons, or uncles, come into play only when there is no progeny.

You are right dr_strangecraft Jesus was a high priest but for some the term "high priest" will bring pictures of paganism.

Now about the death sea scrolls, the most important discovery in modern times, they only contradict the Jesus of history and Christ of faith. When they were discovered the Christian researchers when into a frightened time.

It proves that when it comes to translations "prophecies" referring to Jesus were mistranslated and many worlds omitted or complitly changed.

Prophecies were seen as statements after the facts. Remember it took 40 years for the scrolls to be published.

I believe that is to Jesus, the man in history and the Christ of faith, the icon of the Christian beleives.

I am very much interested in the history man I bet he had a very incredible life as just a regular leader of his time.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
dbates, djohnsto, what do you make of this? I'm sure this is going come up.

A HEBREW OR GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?

worldwatcher, I think that link means that although the texts were written in Greek they were steeped in Hebrew/Jewish idioms, manners of speaking, and societal norms/preconceptions. So a direct word-for-word translation from the Greek may not capture the full meaning unless you take into account the Hebrew traditions behind the words...

so one more time, does Jewish tradition dictate that only immediate members of the family or the bride and groom can serve wine or whatever at their weddings?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
worldwatcher, I think that link means that although the texts were written in Greek they were steeped in Hebrew/Jewish

The Jewish palestinian language at the time of Jesus life was Aramaic.

To dialect from aramaic the judea people spoke the northen style Aramaic, and the Galilee people spoke the southen style, Jesus and his disciples used both.



[edit on 21-1-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by worldwatcher
so one more time, does Jewish tradition dictate that only immediate members of the family or the bride and groom can serve wine or whatever at their weddings?

I don't think it really matters in this case, Jesus went back with the servants to the back-kitchen area for lack of an appropriate term for the time where he turned the water into wine. The servants then brought out the wine and served it. Only the servants and Jesus knew where the wine came from.


[edit on 1/21/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by worldwatcher
so one more time, does Jewish tradition dictate that only immediate members of the family or the bride and groom can serve wine or whatever at their weddings?

Ok I have not found the wedding per say, but I found by a friend that in the semitic culture, is the custom of the host to sever the wine and to drink from the same cup.

In the Galilee region sharing food and wine is part of the host duty of love and friendship.

So that said only one thing the wedding host was Jesus and it was then his wedding.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Are there any credible links and cogent arguments to the contrary in our foreseeable future?

I have yet to see any.

By the way, it is also mentioned in Life Between Life by Joel L.Whitton, M.D., Ph.D. & Joe Fisher.
I quote from pages 62-63 . . .

Well, since you are the one making the rather far-fetched claims, it is up to you to convince others, and not the other way around. The "argument from silence" doesn't prove anything.

And your authorities seem to only have one published text, one which isn't about ancient texts, but rather about metaphysics. Can you quote from any Bible scholars, rather than reincarnation-scholars???

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Well, since you are the one making the rather far-fetched claims, it is up to you to convince others, and not the other way around. The "argument from silence" doesn't prove anything.

The argument is only far-fetched to the ignorant who have not done the research and the close-minded who ignore the research once it is presented. There are credible historical scholars in the reference links I posted. Go back and read them. They were found from only a short search on the Internet. An extended search will bring one many more reference sites that address Emperor Justinian's edict to end reincarnation in the Bible.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And your authorities seem to only have one published text, one which isn't about ancient texts, but rather about metaphysics. Can you quote from any Bible scholars, rather than reincarnation-scholars???

The only prerequisite for examining history objectively is that one must be free of prejudice. I see that you have a problem with that. Were you always this biased or did you learn your prejudice in this incarnation?

Biblical scholars push their own version of metaphysics. There is no difference between them doing so and another sect doing so. Reincarnation is a metaphysical subject that you are not going to find in the writings of Christian fundamentalist Bible scholars because Emperor Justinian made sure that that doctrine was omitted from their version of the Bible in the Sixth Century. That would be tantamount to asking the Flat Earth Society for a globe map of the planet.

The kind of biblical scholars you want confirmation from are the ones who accept church dogma as fact and are only studying the church's version of history, which is distorted and fragmented. Of course they are not going to claim that reincarnation was part of early Christendom. To admit that would be to admit that they are either fools or that they have been hiding the truth. Either way they lose credibility.

That's like asking the government if space-aliens exist. Many abductees know firsthand that they exist. If the government were to fully admit it, then many citizens would want to know why they didn't admit it much sooner. Either way the government would lose credibility.

Same idea. The Christian churches and their "scholars" are never going to officially admit that reincarnation was a part of the lives of most early Christians. It is not in their best interests of theological control to do so.

Here’s a page which addresses Emperor Justinian’s specific edicts against the doctrine of reincarnation:Medieval Sourcebook: Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553.

I quote:

>

>

It didn’t pay to be a reincarnationist Christian in those days, to say the least.

The truth always comes out eventually.



[edit on 21-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]

Our orthodox versions of the Old and New Testaments date no further back than the 6th Century,

I've already dealt with this in the discussions of the dead sea scrolls (which contain Isaiah, as well as other texts), and the papyrus scrolls I mentioned in my own posts. We have original documents that predate the 6th century, whether Poor Richard's sources (!) want to acknowledge them or not. In fact, here's a picture of one of those pages that pre-date Justinian! It's called "The Martin Bodmer II Papyrus" after its discoverer, also called P66, and dates from around 200 AD. The whole document contains an almost complete copy of the gospel of John.



I wonder what your sources would make of that!!!

Anyway. Moving on . . . .

. . . when the Emperor Justinian summoned the Fifth Ecumenical Congress of Constantinople in 533 A.D. to expunge the Platonically inspired writings of Origen, an early Church Father, who had upheld reincarnation until his death three hundred years before.

Maybe you didn't know this, Richard, but Origen never wrote any of the books of the Bible! So your own source doesn't claim that the Bible's text was ever changed by the 5th ecumenical council!

Although this Council was well documented, the reason behind the Emperor's decision was never noted. After a show of hands, the bishops agreed with the Emperor. They found three chapters in the Bible mentioning reincarnation and decided to remove those chapters. The Pope agreed with the Council but did so only because he did not want the Eastern Empire to appear "advanced" to the Western Empire.

This is just Hilarious! Your own source is corrupt. The author doesn't even know what he's saying! look, richard from your own linke to the Medieval sourcebook: www.fordham.edu...
In paragraph 2 of the "Historical Introduction," it quite clearly states:

The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret's writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. They examined whether that letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon

.

The "three chapters" under review at the council of Chalcedon were NOT CHAPTERS OF THE BIBLE! They were paragraphs in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Iba of Edessa.

If you disagree with this, then please name which three chapters of the Bible have been altered!?!?!?!?

Do you even understand the sources you've been quoting? They claim that the bible was altered; in fact, it was the writings of Origen (long considered a heretic in the East) and the writings of several minor "doctors of the church;" None of those texts are considered scripture any any church I've heard of.

Another one of your sources is the "Coptic Fellowship Homepage." at
www.coptic-sun.org...

Did you notice their wording in the intro to their site?

"Read about our founder Hamid Bey" and "The Coptic fellowship is a modern metaphysical organization,"

In other words, this website is someone's personal promo, who wishes to bill himself as "coptic" for the sake of getting the bank accounts of people just like you. He's no more of a "copt" than I am, he just uses the name so that you'll treat his metaphysical teachings as "authoritatve" and "ancient."


So at this point, poor richard, I am waiting for you to show me the three chapters of the Bible that once had references to reincarnation in them, and have been changed.

IF you can provide them, we'll compare them with the papyrus manuscripts at the site I provided, and we'll see just which words have been altered. If you go back and read the proceedings in the council of Chalcedon you linked, you'll notice that they are not talking about the Bible at all. They are talking about other authors' works. Your sources don't know enough about the council of Chalcedon to understand what was going on, or they are being dishonest with you.

I am open to the idea that the Bible's text has been altered, I really am. But your sources have done a sloppy job of making their case, and I think if you retrace their steps, then I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

This is the problem I have with most "New Age" and "Mystical" books; they push slipshod scholarship in order to make their case.

For all I know, Richard, reincarnation may be the reality. But I don't think the Bible ever said so. If you'll take the time to educate yourself, as I have, you will discover that we have a large number of manuscripts from the time before Justinian was even born. THOSE manuscripts have not been altered, because they were undiscovered at the time.

But hey, if you can name the three chapters of the Bible that were changed, I'll be happy to look them up and educate myself.

Again, your "authorities" are misrepresenting what tookplace at the council of chalcedon. I think you need some better books to read from.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

[edit on 21-1-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

Nicodemus: It's just not addressed. So what? Does that somehow undermine the validaty of what is said?

No, but only if you are a Christian, for you see, Paul, from whom Christianity claims its right, demands celibacy. The object is not to gloss over the facts in favour of proclaiming Christianity as it is today, but to get to the truths and for Christians to live as Jesus lived, not as those who tell you how he lived.

Yes it was a large amount of wine, that would lead to the conclusion it was not Jesus' wedding. He was from a poor carpenter's family, why would he have a huge lavish wedding?

On the contrary, that would lead to someone who purports to hold the Davidic right of lineage, and one who by my assessment was a high priest. There is no other explanation, unless they were drunkards, for 2000 years ago, how many people do you presume lived in the village of Cana?

dr_strangecraft: Actually, the office of Rabbi, as community leader, was not established until after the destruction of Temple. It was at the council of Jamnia in 90 AD that the rules for the Rabbinate were laid down.

Kindly provide evidence to this, as well as to what constituted the term "rabbi” prior to that date.

dbates; Once the ruler of the feast taste this new wine he calls the bridegroom to compliment him on his wine selection. Who is this bridegroom? If it was Jesus then why doesn't it say, "The ruler of the feast called Jesus" ? No, this bridegroom is a mystery person other than Jesus.

If they wanted you to know it was he or anyone else they would have told you so as in: John 3: there was a man…Nicodemus.” What you all miss is the most relevant part of the chapter. Jesus apparently performed this miracle, and the host missed it, yet his disciples did not. For a man who was supposedly to convince all of the people, he hid it well.

dbates: To answer the question of why Mary asked Jesus to perform a miracle. If you'll remember how Mary was informed of Jesus' arrival, and all the surrounding events of his birth, you'll know that Mary knew exactly who Jesus was.

Mary obviously had an intermittent memory as to who he was. This was a woman who already told by an angel she would bear the son of God, then pondered the marvel that he was; Luke 2:19; marveled at what was spoken about him at his circumcision; Luke 2:33; was disturbed along with his half-brother by the messiah engaging the priests, and went to get him out of there; Luke 2:48. What, did she forget the visit of the wise men and the shepherds, or why they ran away from Herod because he was looking to kill his replacement? And for news of his divine birth having been known some 30 years before, it seems that while word of him at age 30 supposedly spread far and wide, the story of that birth just managed to be forgotten such that two gospel writers can’t decide whether he is a carpenter or the son of a carpenter.

dbates: You can find the original writing in the Blue Letter bible

The original has been lost.

How then do you account for the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written BC?

They post date the LXX. And not only hold scripture not contained within the OT, but writings contra to the OT. What NT scriptures were contained within the DDS?

How often are these facts to be repeated, before one is willing to stop pretending they do not exist, so you can continue pushing half-truths?

dr strangecraft: If Jesus had descendants, even offspring-in-hiding, then THEY would have been the leaders of that most critical congregation, the church in the "capitol" of Judaism.

Incorrect! Subconsciously you apply a right of kingship based on direct descendents, however, Jesus, had no right of kingship of his own, but supposedly left that of his new church to Peter, not James, and the early church documents have Peter abdicating in favour of James, who by the way was not considered a person of importance by the church.

worldwatcher: so one more time, does Jewish tradition dictate that only immediate members of the family or the bride and groom can serve wine or whatever at their weddings?

It is not what is dictated that is at play, it is the importance of the persons in attendance. As I have stated above, Jesus apparently performed this miracle, and the host missed it, yet his disciples did not. For a man who was supposedly to convince all of the people, he hid it well.

djohnsto77Only the servants and Jesus knew where the wine came from.

It is best to proffer an argument based in fact. Refer John 2:11.

Paul_Richard: The argument is only far-fetched to the ignorant who have not done the research and the close-minded who ignore the research once it is presented.

They do not want to know the truth, however, it is important to refute their claims as this is an open board accessible by search of a phrase, and therefore important that the reader is not tainted by a one-sided position.

dr-strangecraft: I've already dealt with this in the discussions of the dead sea scrolls (which contain Isaiah, as well as other texts), and the papyrus scrolls I mentioned in my own posts. We have original documents that predate the 6th century, whether Poor Richard's sources (!) want to acknowledge them or not. In fact, here's a picture of one of those pages that pre-date Justinian! It's called "The Martin Bodmer II Papyrus" after its discoverer

I repeat, no NT documents were contained within the DSS. This document was found at Oxrynchus, Egypt, and purchased by Bodmer in 55/56, not found by him. You will find I have discussed these already, weeks ago. Oxrynchus for your information was the site of one of the first and prominent Christian churches in Egypt, where Matthew and Luke’s gospels were dominant. It also contained fragments of other gospels NOT sanctioned by the RCC, as have all other unearthings where the church decided those were against their doctrine. Hence, your gospels have been chosen for you to fit the view of the church fathers and have done a fabulous job of molding you as they intended. Furthermore, the bishop at Alexandria, was a driving force behind what you read today.


[edit on 1/22/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

I will try to correct (!) some of my mistakes, and clarify the direction of my posts, by responding to S.I.B.'s comments.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

dr_strangecraft: Actually, the office of Rabbi, as community leader, was not established until after the destruction of Temple. It was at the council of Jamnia in 90 AD that the rules for the Rabbinate were laid down.

Kindly provide evidence to this, as well as to what constituted the term "rabbi” prior to that date.

dr strangecraft: If Jesus had descendants, even offspring-in-hiding, then THEY would have been the leaders of that most critical congregation, the church in the "capitol" of Judaism.

Incorrect! Subconsciously you apply a right of kingship based on direct descendents, however, Jesus, had no right of kingship of his own, but supposedly left that of his new church to Peter, not James, and the early church documents have Peter abdicating in favour of James, who by the way was not considered a person of importance by the church.

dr-strangecraft: I've already dealt with this in the discussions of the dead sea scrolls (which contain Isaiah, as well as other texts), and the papyrus scrolls I mentioned in my own posts. We have original documents that predate the 6th century, whether Poor Richard's sources (!) want to acknowledge them or not. In fact, here's a picture of one of those pages that pre-date Justinian! It's called "The Martin Bodmer II Papyrus" after its discoverer

I repeat, no NT documents were contained within the DSS. This document was found at Oxrynchus, Egypt, and purchased by Bodmer in 55/56, not found by him. You will find I have discussed these already, weeks ago. Oxrynchus for your information was the site of one of the first and prominent Christian churches in Egypt, where Matthew and Luke’s gospels were dominant. It also contained fragments of other gospels NOT sanctioned by the RCC, as have all other unearthings where the church decided those were against their doctrine. Hence, your gospels have been chosen for you to fit the view of the church fathers and have done a fabulous job of molding you as they intended. Furthermore, the bishop at Alexandria, was a driving force behind what you read today.

[edit on 1/22/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

1. The changing role of Rabbi:

The source I would like to quote from is R. Jacob Neusner's "The Reader's Guide to the Talmud." Sadly, that book is no longer in my library, having been loaned out and not returned. I will try and use only online sources, so that you can cross-check them, and decide for yourself what biases the authors have.

A. On my first google, I got this site: mosaic.lk.net...
with this quote in their glossary for "Rabbi":

(Hebrew, "my master") an authorized teacher of the classical Jewish tradition after the fall of the second Temple. The role of the rabbi has changed considerably throughout the centuries. Traditionally, rabbis serve as the legal and spiritual guides of their congregations and communities. The title is conferred after considerable study of traditional Jewish sources. This conferral and its responsibilities is central to the chain of tradition in Judaism.

(emphasis added by Dr. S.)

And there is this webpage, from the lectures of L.A. Belford, whose curriculum vita is given in the intro to the lecture. www.philosophy-religion.org...
Belford makes this statement about the changing role of rabbi in Jesus' day:

No fixed ministry was required for synagogue services. Any esteemed member of the congregation, or a visitor, could be asked to read one of the lessons and comment on it, as Jesus did on at least one occasion (Luke 4:16-21). However, since one of the major purposes of the synagogue was instruction, rabbis (learned men and teachers) often enjoyed a position of esteem.

Here is another quote, this one from Darrel Bock, of Dallas Theological Seminary. One needs to keep in mind that Bock is considered extremely conservative. Even so, his opinion is an informed one:

from this site: www.leaderu.com...

It is often suggested that because Jesus was a teacher and functioned like a rabbi that he would have been married as well, since that was the Jewish custom. Sometimes it is noted that the apostles called him 'rabbi' (Mark 11:21).

However, two factors make this argument weak. First, Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one. The apostles addressed him as such to say he was their teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish office. The Jews asked Jesus 'by what authority' he did certain things because he did not hold any kind of formal office within Judaism. He did not have an official position that would have permitted him to do things like act within the temple (Mark 11:28). As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had no recognized role within Judaism. Read another view on whether Jesus acted as a rabbi.

The whole article is titled "Was Jesus Married?" and is worth a read by anyone interested in this thread.

2. On the question of James as the leader of the Christian movement.

It IS true that I did speculatively equate leadership in the early church with king-like inheritance. It IS conjecture, but one I think is not without merit. The priesthood, at least before Herod's meddling, was inherited among the oldest sons, and I believe the early church might see the high-priesthood as a model for its own succession. Not that they DID, mind you; I'm only saying it might have seemed like one possibility, when shaping a new religion.

Certaintly, if James has no right to leadership based on blood, then neither do any of Jesus' alleged lineal descendants . . .


3.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

dr-strangecraft: I've already dealt with this in the discussions of the dead sea scrolls (which contain Isaiah, as well as other texts), and the papyrus scrolls I mentioned in my own posts. We have original documents that predate the 6th century, whether Poor Richard's sources (!) want to acknowledge them or not. In fact, here's a picture of one of those pages that pre-date Justinian! It's called "The Martin Bodmer II Papyrus" after its discoverer

I repeat, no NT documents were contained within the DSS. This document was found at Oxrynchus, Egypt, and purchased by Bodmer in 55/56, not found by him. You will find I have discussed these already, weeks ago. Oxrynchus for your information was the site of one of the first and prominent Christian churches in Egypt, where Matthew and Luke’s gospels were dominant. It also contained fragments of other gospels NOT sanctioned by the RCC, as have all other unearthings where the church decided those were against their doctrine. Hence, your gospels have been chosen for you to fit the view of the church fathers and have done a fabulous job of molding you as they intended. Furthermore, the bishop at Alexandria, was a driving force behind what you read today.

I did not mean that any NT documents were found in the DSS. Sorry if my post was so unclear that it seemed I meant such . . .

You are correct and I was wrong to day it that p66 was found by Bodmer. My bad. Mea Culpa.

As far as my reading goes,
I've read much of the Nag Hammadi texts, many of the othe "shunned texts" that were repressed by the RCC (I'm protestant, btw.) My whole point with that post was to refute Poor Richard's claim that we have NO texts that were not altered by Justinian and the 5th ec. council.

As far as the "church fathers" shaping my beliefs, it is true that I look to Eusebius' "ecclesiastical history" for a list of what books the early church found important. Eusebius, remember said that there were 4 gospels "found throughout all the churches in Christendom." He goes on to list several books not found in English Bibles, which I think SHOULD BE read by mainstream Christians, and can be considered authoritative on Jesus' teachings. They include (from Eusebius' list)

THE DIDACHE
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
I & II CLEMENT
THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER (Which Eusebius remarks was accepted by the Eastern Bishops as authentic, whereas the APOCALYPSE OF JOHN was considered spurios.)

A favorite claim of many conspiracy theorists is that the church fathers 'suppressed' all documents they didn't agree with. I would point out that for the first 250 years of Christianity's existence, it was considered subversive, and was technically illegal. It was hardly in a position to outlaw various books. Granted, the churches after 330 did a masterful job of rooting out 'heresy.' Even so, there was remarkable agreement on what text were 'scripture,' even before the church took official state power.

It kind of saddens me that anyone asking the wrong questions is viewed as some kind of militant. Just because I am with the mainline of Christianity on this issue doesn't mean I'm a zealot out to crush your freedom of expression.

If it is OK for you to believe and advocate that Jesus is married, then surely it is just as OK for me to believe he was not.

It is true that I am biased. So are each of you. Welcome to intellectual adulthood.

If there was a Jesus of history, which I beleive there was because even though the Testimonium Flavinium is disputed (Antiquities 18.63) , the passage containing reference to his Brother James (Antiquities 20.200) is not.

Leading biblical scholar Louis H. Feldman - "...few have doubted the genuiness of this passage (20.200) on James"

And how can someone who does not exist have a brother?

On Jesus Lineage, It states in the bible many times that Jesus was of the line of David, now before anyone says "that just means he was Judean", all the jews at that time were either of the Judean majority, the Benjamite minority or a handful of Levite Preists.

To draw an analagy, calling Jesus merely Judean from the line of David, is like in Roots continually calling Kunta Kinte black...

of course he is....it is an otherwise piontless remark, reiterated time and time again.

The rational explaination for calling Jesus an heir of King David, would surely be because Jesus was in fact an heir of King David.

Christ, of course, comes from the greek Christos, meaning King. Why would Jesus attempt to claim ascendancy to the dynastic legacy of the line of David if he was not the deposed heir to the Judean throne, if there was in fact another "legitimate heir".

We know that Herod the Idumean was King during Jesus time in the holy lands, we know that Herod was installed by the Romans. We know that Jesus was of the line of David, and no sceptic to date has present one shred of evidence of an alternative legitimate Judean royal line...

Or are we to beleive that a nation of people who have kept records of their histories in such exquisite detail as the Hebrews, especially when the Levite Preists of Abaithar and Sadok were also strictly dynastic, simply forgot who was related to who, to the extent that any punter could claim he was the rightful King...

Actaully, the English translation of the Greek title Christos, which is the translation of the Hebrew title Mashiach. Both meaning one who has been anointed, generally with oil. In Hebrew, "Ha" is translated "the" hence Ha Mashiach being translated the Christ or the Messiah.

Since it was a common custom to Annoint kings, it is easy to confuse the term.

Also Jews of Jesus time were terribly confused thinking Jesus was going to be an earthly "bread" king that was going to kick the Romans out of Jeruselam, when actaully he was a heveanly king

Right you are on Ho Cristo, however there are instances where Jesus is called King and not Christ or Messiah. See John i :49 where Nathanial calls Christ "King of Israel"

yes, but that is just followers calling him that. If someone calls me a goat, doesn't mean I am really a goat. Which is why I added my last statement in my last post about a "bread king" which Jesus clarifys in the next verse to everyone he is not an earthly king, but an heavenly king using an example from the Old Testement about the "stairway to heaven". Also not this is early in the ministry of jesus before people really understood who he was.

It is better to post that which you know to be fact first, rather than correct same after. The later seriously undermines your original position. Such that the revision:

Originally posted by dr_strangecraftThe changing role of Rabbi

Means that the original statement of fact

Actually, the office of Rabbi, as community leader, was not established until after the destruction of Temple. It was at the council of Jamnia in 90 AD that the rules for the Rabbinate were laid down.

should not have been presented as same without a caveat as to your thinking it was so. I Itis up to you to decide if the quote you surrender supports your claim, for either your claim is incorrect or your scriptures have been lying to you: John 1:38/ 49; 3:2; 6:25; 20:16. You may wish to to pay particular attention to this part of the quote you provided: However, since one of the major purposes of the synagogue was instruction, rabbis (learned men and teachers) often enjoyed a position of esteem. as well First, Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one. Did your scriptures lie to you, and if not why would John a Jew refer to him a such?

It IS true that I did speculatively equate leadership in the early church with king-like inheritance. It IS conjecture, but one I think is not without merit.

There is no room for conjecture when arguing the authenticity of something as important as a man who you or others claim to be the saviour of mankind. You either know of what you speak, and can support same, or if you cannot you make it clear that you are guessing.

The priesthood, at least before Herod's meddling, was inherited among the oldest sons,…

Your proof of this is?

I believe the early church might see the high-priesthood as a model for its own succession. Not that they DID, mind you; I'm only saying it might have seemed like one possibility, when shaping a new religion.

So you are suggesting then the church was playing politics. If they played politics here, then it stands to reason they did so elsewhere.

Certaintly, if James has no right to leadership based on blood, then neither do any of Jesus' alleged lineal descendants

Having now negated your earlier statement, we are in agreement;

dr strangecraft: If Jesus had descendants, even offspring-in-hiding, then THEY would have been the leaders of that most critical congregation, the church in the "capitol" of Judaism.

You are correct and I was wrong to day it that p66 was found by Bodmer. My bad. Mea Culpa.

NP, you owe Richard an apology for your attack.

As far as the "church fathers" shaping my beliefs, it is true that I look to Eusebius' "ecclesiastical history" for a list of what books the early church found important. Eusebius, remember said that there were 4 gospels "found throughout all the churches in Christendom." He goes on to list several books not found in English Bibles, which I think SHOULD BE read by mainstream Christians, and can be considered authoritative on Jesus' teachings. They include (from Eusebius' list)

Why start there? Let’s go a bit earlier to the Muratorian Canon circa 170, a synopsis of an address to Pius1 of scripture:

Accepted: Matt:Mark:Luke:John: Paul’s Corinthians 1&2; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; Galatians; Thessalonians 1&2; Romans; Philemon:Titus, Timothy1&2 Jude; John 1&2; the book of Wisdom; Hermas the Shepard; apocalypses of John and Peter.
Total Paul’s 13. Total of current canon 20.

Excluded; Acts; Hebrews: James: Peter 1&2; John 2&3; Revelation.

It should be noted the Book of Wisdom is placed in the NT.

Muratorain fragment statements: "Luke the well known physician…composed it in his own name, according to the general belief Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. "

John- "The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him to write, he said, Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another. In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it."

"We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (11) though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote "The Shepherd" very recently, (12) in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. (13) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time."

Rejected: Arsinous; Valentinus; Miltiades; Basilides.

My Comments: A gospel, John’s, which is a collective piece by Jesus’ direct disciples, and there is the grand ripoff by Luke who witnessed nothing, and is contradictory to John. Yet while not allowing a writing by Hermas the brother to be read publicly, they do employ nepotism and allow their brethren to be tainted by same, and at the same token allow Luke and Paul who never met Jesus to be included.

And why should the Shepard of Hermas be accepted when it is made under a pseudonym, and concocted by the brother of the pope?

Clement 1&2 are not what you want to list as support for Christians, trust me here. In fact, you want nothing prior to the 4th century.

A favorite claim of many conspiracy theorists is that the church fathers 'suppressed' all documents they didn't agree with. I would point out that for the first 250 years of Christianity's existence, it was considered subversive, and was technically illegal. It was hardly in a position to outlaw various books.

Only partially correct, they could not outlaw, for they had no singular mandate to do that, but they certainly created their cliques which attempted to do just that. Aside from that, you do realize you are condoning the RCC hierarchy establishment.

Granted, the churches after 330 did a masterful job of rooting out 'heresy.'

That depends on the side you are on. There was a winner yes, sanctioned by an emperor who was caught between his sister and his mother, and a bunch of inept, uneducated buffoons pushing their idiosyncratic ideas while sucking up to that emperor. That despite their claim of divine providence, does not make their choices the correct ones. And never forget that Peter and Barnabas parted ways with your self-appointed saviour; Paul.

It kind of saddens me that anyone asking the wrong questions is viewed as some kind of militant.

Then apologize a second time to Richard for your behaviour.

If it is OK for you to believe and advocate that Jesus is married, then surely it is just as OK for me to believe he was not.

Absolutely. I believe what I come to believe because I am always seeking to learn, not satisfied as being all there is to know about what someone else tells me. The point I make here, is be prepared to support your absolutes after having done your best to learn both sides at the time you make your case. There is no credibility in making absolute statements, refuting someone, and within a day coming back to acknowledge your homework was not done.

quote: dr strangecraft: If Jesus had descendants, even offspring-in-hiding, then THEY would have been the leaders of that most critical congregation, the church in the "capitol" of Judaism.

If and when they came of age. only by that time the center of Jesus'
church had moved to Gaul i believe.

The high preisthood of the Levites was indeed dynastic as Flavius Josephus notes in antiquities (A 8:1) as said of Solomon...

"He also stripped Abaithar of the high preisthood, and transferred it to the family of Sadok"...

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Gothic Cathedrals are all dedicated to Mary Magdalene, the black madonna, so she must be very important.

The Black Madonnas are of the Virgin Mary. Where did you get the idea of Mary Madalene?

"The women of the Order of Dan were lay Nazarites. Mary Magdalene, as a "Miriam", was a Head Sister of the Order (the equivalent of a senior bishop) and was entitled to wear black, like the Nazarites and the priests of Isis. With the early reverence for Mary Magdalene, a cult known as the "Black Madonna" emanated from Ferrieres, Gaul in AD 44."

From Bloodlines of the Holy Grail, Sir Laurence Gardner