Jesus had a son?

Originally posted by Cygnific
You sure the bible is 100% the original text and not edited also?

If it was, it was during the first two centuries (note, that means before the council of Nicea and Constantine) because there are many fragments of many of the letters and gospel accounts, as well as extra-biblical sources quoting the epistles and gospel accounts as they stand today. Where there are deviations, too, you will find the NIV, NASB and ESV (at least, I'm not sure about all the others) point out when some things are present in some but not all manuscripts, when something doesn't appear in early manuscripts but does in later, etc. Those instances are rare, not common, so any editing and manipulation had to have taken place in the first two centuries, and have taken place throughout, as there are early manuscripts discovered from those time frames from Ethiopia to Germany.

So, in other words, not likely.

Originally posted by andy1033
The only reason people want jesus to have a son, is because they want to see him as a man. If jesus was a man in there eyes, then all humans can become god in there eyes. This is very important for some people.

The only reason people want jesus to exist is because its what their milieu taught.

Seriously though, believing in Jesus is and has always been an act of faith.
Same as believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

People of the West take it for granted that its as natural as night and day to place their faith in this unknown God. - and religions such as Buddhism are looked down upon by the Christians as Pagan. Again, its the "I believe it, and so does my milieu, so it has to be right."

Nothing wrong with questioning. Infact, this is not meant to give my belief either way about Jesus...My point of this little blurb is summarized with what I just said...its good to question and search with all your heart, as the bible put it...what you believe. - You wont be sorry.

As far as humans wanting to be 'god' - well Jesus said that he and the father were one, and that we were one with him. Paul also said Jesus was the head of the body and Christians the body. (and he wasnt referring to political structure...remember, politics is what got ol' judas into trouble...Jesus wasnt into it, and he was...ironically today evangelicals have taken a kingdom on earth Judas position.)

Again, all this is surface allegories...we have to get past the defensiveness of the stories we hold so dear, to get to what the text of all religions say.

Its comfortable staying where you are...never being quite at ease...this is good for the ego, (or as Paul would put it, the false self), it helps keep and feed the egos identity.

After all, if most Christians would search out of their comfort zone for awhile, they might be astounded at what they would find. I know I was and am.

Peace

Dalen

Originally posted by Ironside
I do, have you not read my posts? The bible has been so twisted and torn by the Roman Catholic Church. Have you ever heard of the Book of Enoch? It was removed from the Bible.

I'm not a religious person (as in believe of a God, i believe there is more though), and have not read that much in the bible and other religious books/papers. I will try to find something about the Book of Enoch or if you want to explain a bit of what it represents feel free.

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by Ironside
I do, have you not read my posts? The bible has been so twisted and torn by the Roman Catholic Church. Have you ever heard of the Book of Enoch? It was removed from the Bible.

I'm not a religious person (as in believe of a God, i believe there is more though), and have not read that much in the bible and other religious books/papers. I will try to find something about the Book of Enoch or if you want to explain a bit of what it represents feel free.

Ittalked mostly of the angels, but the main reason it war taken out was due to it talking of large lizard-like creatures.

Jesus having a blood line would be very bad for the church. In short, Jesus' lineage would be looked on as leaders of the Christian church. whether the were pious or not. Multiple kids could lead to factions. It comes down to politics on why Jesus "officially" was single and childless

It is my opinion that He would probably have had a wife (Magdalene, the Beloved Disciple), because of the reasons stated earlier about him being a Rabbi/teacher. I believe the Wedding at Cannae was his. He then most likely did father offspring, perhaps more than one.

The Catholic study bible consists of three parts...

The old testament
Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha
and the New testament

Apocrypha consists of 15 books...has anyone heard of these books?

Apparently the books are part of the septuagint greek text which were interspersed among other books of the Old testament. Now im wondering if the christians have 'these books' in their bible?

Now ive always considered the bible as guidelines not something to lose my life over...
least we forget that the bible was compiled by a bunch of votes and a dictator who was using early christians as his army and claim to the roman throne.
So books were added and left out to satisfy the general concensus of the day.
If the religious sects are divided there is no way to control them.
Therefor alot of the non mainstream gnostic gospels were left out to prevent controversy.

The point is regardless of what is/isnt in the bible today, I would like to know peoples opinion on the author of the book of John we DO have.

I just wanted to hear peoples opinion on who the beloved disciple is?

Cheers

I have heard several connections to Jesus and his "descendants". I'm sure you have heard reference to the Holy Grail? Apparently skeptics and scientists alike believe the "holy grail" was actually a bloodline descending from Jesus whom had all of the church's funding and has been kept secret FOREVER! Interesting stuff too bad we'll never know for sure.

I'd love to see where the holy grail is mentioned in scripture. So far as I've read, it's never come up.

jesus was a pimp, i mean think about it if your a profit spreading the word of god, well lets just say back in those days you would have been mr. popularity...so it is possible that jesus had many children.

Originally posted by ATSGUY
jesus was a pimp, i mean think about it if your a profit spreading the word of god, well lets just say back in those days you would have been mr. popularity...so it is possible that jesus had many children.

Based on what? Israel had a tendency to kill its prophets, not glorify them. Typically, God would send a prophet not to tell everyone, "hey, great job, guys! Keep it up!" but instead to tell them they're screwing up and they need to change their ways. Christ was no exception. He preached a message contrary to the one being preached by the Jewish leaders of the time. His own town tried to throw Him off of a cliff for the message He was spreading.

Originally posted by junglejake
I'd love to see where the holy grail is mentioned in scripture. So far as I've read, it's never come up.

well, it depends on how you define "holy grail"
if you mean the cup he drank from at the last supper... well, it does mention him with a cup at the last supper

if you mean tray in which someone collected his blood from the crucifxion (something they really wouldn't have allowed them to do) it's nowhere to be found

if you mean a red stone that fell from the sky.... it's nowhere to be found

if you mean the offspring of jesus, it's nowhere to be found

I seem to like to repeat myself I seem to like to repeat myself

[edit on 6/15/07/15 by junglejake]

Actually, everything you pointed out was exactly what I meant

On top of all that, even the cup that Christ drank from at the last supper was not holy. Yes, Christ used it, but there was a lot Christ used; that didn't give them super powers or anything (that I know of or that's written about in scripture).

Originally posted by pieman
jesus was a man, at least in part, i don't think he ever claimed otherwise...

Jesus did make some pretty specific claims to Godliness.

He used the term "I AM" do describe himself, which was a blasphemous claim to diety at the time.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

The next verse shows how strong those words were...

John 8:59
So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Aside from the I AM references, he also made other statements that would be pretty strange to be coming from someone who thought they were all human...

John 8:23-24
He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."

Does this means Jesus wasn't married or had kids?

Don't know.

A voice inside me tells me that he didn't...I haven't figured out yet if that voice is God or just my 3rd grade Sunday School teacher.

wait, jj.... jesus salivia doesn't make things holy? darn. and here i had this fantasy where jesus went around blessing people by licking them...

Originally posted by blowfishdl
I have heard several connections to Jesus and his "descendants". I'm sure you have heard reference to the Holy Grail? Apparently skeptics and scientists alike believe the "holy grail" was actually a bloodline descending from Jesus whom had all of the church's funding and has been kept secret FOREVER.

Actually, that's not what skeptics and scholars and scientists believe.

What we do believe is that the Holy Grail is a medieval legend (does not appear in any Christian literature before 1100 AD. It's an artifact of the Aurthurian legends.
en.wikipedia.org...

The "Holy Grail is a bloodline" belief ONLY appears in the 20th century.

Originally posted by hot_acacia
thank you for your opinion..

I hope youre not refering to everyone else as 'wanting to see him as a MAN' because that is a very blunt and generalised statement..yes I use the word statement because you believe that it is a fact.

My belief is that Jesus is god, i was stating what i said because others want to see man as god. Just look at the hindus

[edit on 6/15/2007 by andy1033]

Jesus - A Composite Figure?

The tradition of criticizing the Holy Bible as if it was any other old book began in the 19th century in Germany. One of the most famous early scholars of that school of Historical Criticism or Higher Criticism, was Albert Schweitzer who became a well known selfless missionary to Africa. He was also a composer of some merit. His doctoral dissertation is available today under the title, “Quest for the Historical Jesus.”

Thirty odd years ago an ecumenical study group called, I believe, the Jesus Study Group, took up the old Red Letter Edition so popular in the early 1900s and decided there was almost nothing in it that was either dogmatically or linguistically fairly attributable to Jesus, excepting a small part of the Sermon on the Mount. Even the famous Jeffersonian Bible - available at your local Unitarian Universalist Church bookstore - attributes too much prose to Jesus.

We know very little about Jesus. The religion that bears his name would be more accurately called “Pauline” or “Paulist” or “Paul-ism” if based on a word count of recorded sayings of both men. Most of the doctrines Paul advocates are never mentioned by Jesus. Paul himself has suspicious origins. First he was a fanatical anti Jesus person. After his Damascus road conversation, he flip-flopped and became just as fanatical - single minded may be a less provocative word - advocate for Jesus or at least for his own vison of Jesus. Which itself quickly brought about the First Church Council held in in Jerusalem with James, Jesus' brother, Peter and Mary Magdalene involved.

Based on Jewish traditions of the First Century, the wedding feast must have been his own and being overseen by his mother indicates his father had died. Not an unusual happenstance in that era of medical malpractice. Modern day retelling of the story assigns other causes behind the event but that is patronizing of the people who lived then. It was either Jesus’ own wedding or Jesus was a magician or He performed a miracle that failed to attract much notice - if any - among the attendees. All the miracles attributed to Jesus (after the fact) seem to have made little to no impoct on those around him.

Reporting accuracy. Jesus spoke Aramaic. He died in 30 AD. The first writing down of the accounts of his life are dated 65-70 AD, the later date more preferred. Post the First Jewish Revolt. Prior to that momentous event, the followers of Jesus believed the END of time was at hand as indeed Jesus seems to have also believed, based on words attributed to Him. The first writings were in Greek. Aramaic is a Semitic tongue which the written alphabet has 22 letters, all consonants. Greek on the other hand, added vowels to its alphabet. My point is that we know how hard it is to translate from one language to another today, it was no easier then. Not to mention the changes in meaning in dialects of the same tongue.

Then, the Greek was translated into Latin and evolved over a millennia and a half. Finally, an English translation was prepared - the Wickliffe Bible (1580s) was first - followed by the AV - Authorised Version a/k/a KJV, King James Version. 1609. It is based on Latin and Greek antecedents. We now have an English language bible translated from Greek or Latin which recorded sayings in Aramaic. Three or four cultures. It’s easy to see why Catholics give precedence to tradition over the written word.

Finally, my major reason for doubting the existence of a Biblical Jesus as seen on Sunday School cards as opposed to a revolutionary figure who had accumulated several 1000s of men outside Jerusalem’s walls while he lead a small band of commandos to capture the Temple. Probably due to good intel by the Jewish High Priest, Jesus and his group failed in that undertaking. Escaping, Jesus met his band at a pre-arranged rendevous we know as the Garden of Gethsemene. Judas - who may well have acted on Jesus’ own instructions - led the Romans to Jesus. That was Jesus’ final gambit, that his execution by Roman authority would be the call to arms to the men waiting outside the city’s wall. That was a forlorn hope and it failed too, as we know.

I base this scenario on what we can glean from the texts and using good old common sense. Walking on water, raising the dead, was pure hyperbole added by sincere believers a century or two after the First Jewish Revolt in 66 AD. For nearly two centuries, from the first revolt of the Maccabees, Judea had been a notorious place to govern. If Jesus had been GOD, the people would have known that in 66. My position is further strengthened by the Second Jewish Revolt, 132-135 AD, in which the leader Simon bar Kochba was actually hailed by the inhabitants of Judea as the Messiah. None of those people knew about Jesus. I repeat, if Jesus had been GOD, the people wold have know it.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by donwhite]

Jesus, or correctly Yeshua (Yeshuosha), was cousin to John the Baptist. It is John the Baptist who is first on record to recognise the power of Yeshua when he remarks that it should be Yeshua baptising John instead of the other way around. It was John the Baptist's head that was brought to Salome (a slut of the first order) on a platter at her request.

Mary Magdelene, much maligned by the Roman Catholic church, is actually Miriam (Miryam) Hasmonean, a princess of royal Jewish blood and a woman of excellent virtue. The basis upon which Miriam Hasmonean has been made to appear a woman of impure virtue is due to mistranslation of a single word. Miriam was a woman who sat and discussed things with men. She was an intellectual. The word which was used for a woman who consorts with men in an intellectual capacity is not much different from the word which was used for a woman who consorts with men sexually. The early translator stuffed up!

The wedding which was the scene for the miracle of turning water into wine was the wedding of Yeshua and Miriam Hasmonean. At a Jewish wedding, the groom's family was responsible for the wine. For anyone else to interfere would be a huge insult. When Mary the mother (also really a Miriam) came to Yeshua seeking more wine, it was the mother of the groom advising the groom of the shortage.

Yeshua is called rabbi by the disciples. At that time there was no way that an unmarried man would be considered to be a rabbi.

The disciples complain that Yeshua listens too much to Miriam Hasmonean. If you had the enormously valuable asset of a royal wife of proven intelligence, wouldn't you listen to her?

Yeshua kisses Miriam Hasmonean on the lips. Whereas a kiss on the lips has degenerated to something that cheapshod female "entertainers" do in public for puerile publicity, it once meant much, much more - yep, she was his wife.

The Barabbas who was released from crucifixion was Yeshua's son. Barabbas has been distorted from its original spelling and pronunciation (in the same way that Yeshuosha has become Jesus) and means "son of". The mob chose to release the son and kill the father.

Yes catholicism, the gnostics are still telling the truth.