NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever since the formation of the Christian faith, one of the thing that most Christian has held dear was that he was never married, never had a family, and died a bachelor and maybe a virgin. However, let's say that tomorrow, archaeologist finds undeniable proof that not only has Jesus been a married man, but also a father, would this really change the message of Jesus that much? I mean what he spoke about in his three year as a traveling minister would still be true, and his sacrifice on the cross would still hold the meaning that it has today, IMHO, all that really would change would be the private life of Jesus. So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?

According to the Bible, Jesus was a Jew. In those days a Jew in his twenties being unmarried would be downright odd.

The Bible never mentions Jesus being unmarried, IIRC.

Ever since the formation of the Christian faith, one of the thing that most Christian has held dear was that he was never married, never had a family, and died a bachelor and maybe a virgin.

No Christian has ever emphasized this point to me as a central tenant of their faith...ever.

However, let's say that tomorrow, archaeologist finds undeniable proof that not only has Jesus been a married man, but also a father, would this really change the message of Jesus that much?

No...the message remains the same.

I mean what he spoke about in his three year as a traveling minister would still be true, and his sacrifice on the cross would still hold the meaning that it has today, IMHO, all that really would change would be the private life of Jesus.

Correct on all points.

So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?

I'm not a Christian, so I can't really answer this question...but I'm guessing most Christians don't care one way or the other.

It'd be interesting to watch the heads of some of the fundies explode though. :p

I'm not a Christian, so I can't really answer this question...but I'm guessing most Christians don't care one way or the other.

Oh, I don't know. Imagine Richard Dawkins being shown to be a direct descendant of Christ...

No Christian has ever emphasized this point to me as a central tenant of their faith...ever.

Don't Catholic priests claim to be emulating Jesus with the whole celibacy thing?

I know a fair bit of baptists who were extremely pissed off about the fictional Da Vinci Code.
Someone even thought to write a book "debunking" the novel.

Don't Catholic priests claim to be emulating Jesus with the whole celibacy thing?

I don't know.

My guess is no, or that fact would be more well known. It seems at least two of us are unsure. :p

Ever since the formation of the Christian faith, one of the thing that most Christian has held dear was that he was never married, never had a family, and died a bachelor and maybe a virgin. However, let's say that tomorrow, archaeologist finds undeniable proof that not only has Jesus been a married man, but also a father, would this really change the message of Jesus that much? I mean what he spoke about in his three year as a traveling minister would still be true, and his sacrifice on the cross would still hold the meaning that it has today, IMHO, all that really would change would be the private life of Jesus. So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?

Well, it wouldn't change Jesus' message one bit.
But his message is only part of Christian faith, it's not the whole thing. Part of faith is also that Jesus was divine, and I know more than one Christian who would have a serious problem aligning divinity and sex in their understanding of the world and their faith. Then again, those Christians normally have no problem at all ignoring absolutely any kind of evidence that contradicts their views, so I guess they'd be fine even in that situation.

I don't know.

My guess is no, or that fact would be more well known. It seems at least two of us are unsure. :p

From what I recall from my Religious Education classes, Catholic priests don't marry because they are emulating Jesus (amoung other reasons, such as it means they can devote their whole time to looking after the parish etc). Though if this is actual canon or and ad hoc argument from the teacher, I don't know. I never cared enough to find out.

According to the Bible, Jesus was a Jew. In those days a Jew in his twenties being unmarried would be downright odd.

Jesus was a pretty odd guy. On the other hand, I can't help but recall Paul's defense of the fact that he's unmarried. If Jesus had been single all his life too, it does kind of seem like Paul would have mentioned that.

But to answer the original question, I don't think it would change anything essential about Jesus' teachings.

Well, it wouldn't change Jesus' message one bit.
But his message is only part of Christian faith, it's not the whole thing. Part of faith is also that Jesus was divine, and I know more than one Christian who would have a serious problem aligning divinity and sex in their understanding of the world and their faith. Then again, those Christians normally have no problem at all ignoring absolutely any kind of evidence that contradicts their views, so I guess they'd be fine even in that situation.

Why does being divine must mean that you never had a family, or even had sex?

I know a fair bit of baptists who were extremely pissed off about the fictional Da Vinci Code.
Someone even thought to write a book "debunking" the novel.

In their defence though, an awful lot of people did believe the novel and Dan Brown appeared to endorse the view that he was presenting historical truth, side by side with a fictional story.


Still a shit book though

In their defence though, an awful lot of people did believe the novel and Dan Brown appeared to endorse the view that he was presenting historical truth, side by side with a fictional story.


Still a shit book though

Yes. Dan Brown is a fucking hack who pretended he was presenting history to sell more books and get a movie deal.

From what I recall from my Religious Education classes, Catholic priests don't marry because they are emulating Jesus (amoung other reasons, such as it means they can devote their whole time to looking after the parish etc). Though if this is actual canon or and ad hoc argument from the teacher, I don't know. I never cared enough to find out.

Meh...as a non-Christian, I can't say I care very much either way. :p

Don't Catholic priests claim to be emulating Jesus with the whole celibacy thing?

I know a fair bit of baptists who were extremely pissed off about the fictional Da Vinci Code.
Someone even thought to write a book "debunking" the novel.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

Every time I hear things like that, I can't help wondering why on earth people make such a horrendous fuss about such an obviously badly researched novel ... most of it is almost literally copied from previous novels on the subject.

Why does being divine must mean that you never had a family, or even had sex?

I was told (by the same teacher refered to above btw) that celibacy detaches you from the material world and aids you in communicating with God. Presumably it is an ascetic thing too. Which is why Jesus commanded the apostles to go into the world a preach with the bear minimum of possessions they needed to stay alive.

Though it is interesting that Jesus's general asceticism is as played up as much as his celibacy. (At least in my experience)

Why does being divine must mean that you never had a family, or even had sex?

Oh, I'm not believing that. Personally, I don't believe in the divine bit at all, I regard Jesus as an ancient philosopher with some very good ideas.

But Christianity all over the world has spent centuries declaring sex as sinful, in some parts it's only just now recovering and declaring it "well, not sinful as such, you know, but... just don't do it, ok?"
Assuming that Jesus had sex contradicts many mainstream interpretations of Christian faith.

Oh, I'm not believing that. Personally, I don't believe in the divine bit at all, I regard Jesus as an ancient philosopher with some very good ideas.

But Christianity all over the world has spent centuries declaring sex as sinful, in some parts it's only just now recovering and declaring it "well, not sinful as such, you know, but... just don't do it, ok?"
Assuming that Jesus had sex contradicts many mainstream interpretations of Christian faith.

But you know, Jesus could've had sex after he was married, and remained a virgin until then, so the Christians would still be safe. Although it would be funny to see what would happen if he did have premarital sex.

*pays archaeologist millions of dollars to find out if Jesus as a family man and then gets popcorn to watch the fundies head asplode* :)

Jesus was a pretty odd guy. On the other hand, I can't help but recall Paul's defense of the fact that he's unmarried. If Jesus had been single all his life too, it does kind of seem like Paul would have mentioned that.

But to answer the original question, I don't think it would change anything essential about Jesus' teachings.

How on earth would Paul know about that? He never met Jesus!

How on earth would Paul know about that? He never met Jesus!

But - and here is an interesting thought - maybe he met his descendants. Which would explain where he got his information.

But - and here is an interesting thought - maybe he met his descendants. Which would explain where he got his information.

Hmmm, you may be on to something.

How on earth would Paul know about that? He never met Jesus!

Sure, but he met people who'd known him. Maybe the topic of Jesus' marital status came up in conversation, maybe not. I don't know.

But you know, Jesus could've had sex after he was married, and remained a virgin until then, so the Christians would still be safe. Although it would be funny to see what would happen if he did have premarital sex.

*pays archaeologist millions of dollars to find out if Jesus as a family man and then gets popcorn to watch the fundies head asplode* :)

As I said, we're talking about a faith here that spent centuries promoting "no sex". Sex was barely just allowed after marriage, and even then the church in its heyday had clear guidelines as to HOW to have sex (no anal, no oral, and her always on her back with him on top, if I remember correctly).
Even today, some confessions regard sex as some sort of necessary evil in order to procreate.

Me, now, I'd find it funny to have evidence that Jesus was happily fucking his way through the Holy Land :D

Me, now, I'd find it funny to have evidence that Jesus was happily fucking his way through the Holy Land :D

No, that was his brother.

(Excerpt from "Craig" by Stephen Lynch):

Because while Jesus is prayin,
Fuckin Craig is layin,
Every lady in the Testament,
You know what I'm sayin'?
I won't die for your sin,
Like my famous kin.
But if you've got a little sister,
Then there's room at this inn.

I'm fuckin Craig.
I'm fuckin Craig.
I'm fuckin Craig.
Craig Christ.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7258760685009081166

:D

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7258760685009081166

:D

That's brilliant.

Ever since the formation of the Christian faith, one of the thing that most Christian has held dear was that he was never married, never had a family, and died a bachelor and maybe a virgin. However, let's say that tomorrow, archaeologist finds undeniable proof that not only has Jesus been a married man, but also a father, would this really change the message of Jesus that much? I mean what he spoke about in his three year as a traveling minister would still be true, and his sacrifice on the cross would still hold the meaning that it has today, IMHO, all that really would change would be the private life of Jesus. So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?


It wouldn't bother me in the least. :cool:

Since we are having blasphemy here I thought I would post this

http://http://forums.jolt.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=59833&stc=1&d=1181814421 :eek:

If anyone is offended I'll remove it :)

lol, I like it.

Wouldn't bug me in the slightest. I'd be curious, but it would be of no direct consequence, except perhaps to show an even greater sacrifice that He made for us. Not just dying, but leaving His family.

Wouldn't bug me in the slightest. I'd be curious, but it would be of no direct consequence, except perhaps to show an even greater sacrifice that He made for us. Not just dying, but leaving His family.

I love that attitude... "Isn't he a great guy for leaving his family? So selfless, making his family cry and suffer, a true role model!" :rolleyes:

Don't Catholic priests claim to be emulating Jesus with the whole celibacy thing?

I know a fair bit of baptists who were extremely pissed off about the fictional Da Vinci Code.
Someone even thought to write a book "debunking" the novel.

They can claim, but it all comes down to the church being greedy and wanting to keeps it's lands.

As fair as I'm concerned, I believe Jesus would have had a family - as was the expected thing to do for Jews around his age. So its just an excuse.

According to the Bible, Jesus was a Jew. In those days a Jew in his twenties being unmarried would be downright odd.

or gay.

and no, there were dozens of funny little sects that weren't mainstream Jewish running around, like the Essenes, who never married. it really wasn't that strange. in fact, most of his life has been lived in large parts by other people (including the death and resurrection) and his message is copied in its entirety from older sources (the entire sermon on the mount is several centuries older than christ, an Essene text I believe...) - the most remarkable thing about his life is that it starts in a place more or less ideal for the ideology to spread to other places...the particulars of the religion, and his life, are not especially unique.

there are some people who suggest that the wedding at Cana was his own. (though these people are also likely to suggest the existence of the illuminati...so, believe what you will)

A Brief History of Celibacy (http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm)

I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it's a good time line outlining the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church.

It seems that practice of celibacy came in during the 12th century and before then it was common for priests to marry and have children.

1123 - Pope Calistus II: First Lateran Council decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.
1139 - Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous council’s decree.

Popes who were married

St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

This site had other interesting facts on it. But like I said, you can take it with a grain of salt. :)

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest (http://www.arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html)

For those who want a more indepth article on the matter.

No Christian has ever emphasized this point to me as a central tenant of their faith...ever.


Gah! Not again....! :headbang:

Tenet: any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.

Tenant: a person or group that rents and occupies land, a house, an office, or the like, from another for a period of time; lessee.

A Brief History of Celibacy (http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm)

I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it's a good time line outlining the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church.

It seems that practice of celibacy came in during the 12th century and before then it was common for priests to marry and have children.

1123 - Pope Calistus II: First Lateran Council decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.
1139 - Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous council’s decree.

Popes who were married

St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

This site had other interesting facts on it. But like I said, you can take it with a grain of salt. :)

St. Peter was married?

and yeah, even today eastern rite priests of both the roman catholic and eastern orthodox communions marry. bishops and other higher-ups are taken from the monastaries, though, so they're never married. if you're married before you're ordained its ok, but you can't marry after becoming a priest.

St. Peter was married?

and yeah, even today eastern rite priests of both the roman catholic and eastern orthodox communions marry. bishops and other higher-ups are taken from the monastaries, though, so they're never married. if you're married before you're ordained its ok, but you can't marry after becoming a priest.

It makes sense, since divorce is HIGHLY frowned upon in the church.

It makes sense, since divorce is HIGHLY frowned upon in the church.

indeed - in orthodox churches the wife of the priest is called the khouria and she has some expected roles as well, it's not priesthood but it's definitely more than a layperson, too.

Ever since the formation of the Christian faith, one of the thing that most Christian has held dear was that he was never married, never had a family, and died a bachelor and maybe a virgin. However, let's say that tomorrow, archaeologist finds undeniable proof that not only has Jesus been a married man, but also a father, would this really change the message of Jesus that much? I mean what he spoke about in his three year as a traveling minister would still be true, and his sacrifice on the cross would still hold the meaning that it has today, IMHO, all that really would change would be the private life of Jesus. So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?

What Christians hold dear is the exclusion of feminine principles from their faith. Only men can be priests. Homosexuality is a bigger sin than eating shellfish.

All over the country protestant ministers have given speeches applauding virility and masculinity as Christian ideals. One guy even wrote a stupid shitty book about "reclaiming Christian barbarian manliness."

This is why you've got people who think it's Christian to execute people, or to wage wars, or play football. Or who can be persuaded that a draft dodging college cheerleader is more masculine than a college football playing war hero. Because these people have a screwed up understanding of gender identity, and they like it that way.

It's like how people got all upset when art restorers showed everyone that the Sistine Chapel was actually painted in very bright and cheerful tones. What everyone thought was somber and respectful tone was in fact just centuries of accumulated dirt.

Wow. When I started that last paragraph, I didn't expect it to be filled with such metaphorical significance. Check it out. I'm profound. :cool:

Jesus and Mary Magdalene are at it:

*Grunt*
*Moan*

"Oh yes, yes!"

*Grunt*
*Moan*

"I'm coming, oh God, I'm coming!"

-earie silence-

"Oh, for the love of... Could you please leave my dad out of this, at least once, Mary?"

:D:D:D
That still stands.

HOW DARE YOU DEFILE OUR LORD AND SAVOUR BY SAYING HE WASN'T MARRIED!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! THIS WHOLE THREAD IS DARK SIDED!!!! BURN IT TO THE GROUND, FOR THE DEVIL HIMSELF HATH MADE IT!!!!!!!!!!!

If I was Christian, I probably wouldn't care either way.

What Christians hold dear is the exclusion of feminine principles from their faith. Only men can be priests. Homosexuality is a bigger sin than eating shellfish.

not that christ says a word about homosexuality, or that homosexuality as a concept even existed, as in the ancient Mediterranean world gay "men" were not seen as male but as eunuchs (who are addressed in a neutral light in both the new and old testaments, in circumstances that, when understood in their cultural context, make it clear they weren't' castrated men at all - its arguably portrayed in a positive light in certain parts of the old testament, and also arguably has been accepted in certain christian societies for a very long time), and of course we also have the fact God is explicitly beyond gender, while the equal hypostases of Christ and Sophia, the holy spirit, are male and female...and not that the single most highly revered individual outside of God himself in all of christianity isn't a Woman, called "empress of heaven" "mediatrix of all grace" "rose without thorns" "ray of the noetic sun" "co-redemtrix" "more honourable than the seraphim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim" - the fact that the majority of christians agree, and have always agreed, the that first and best christian was a woman, who acted on the promptings of a female holy spirit, seems to imply that any influences the patriarchy has had on the religion are not fundamental to its theology or worldview.

All over the country protestant ministers have given speeches applauding virility and masculinity as Christian ideals. One guy even wrote a stupid shitty book about "reclaiming Christian barbarian manliness."

protestants represent a fragmented and ideologically diverse minority of christians in the modern day, and an *extremely* small minority of christians when all of those living and dead are counted. selective misrepresentation can make any group look idiotic.

This is why you've got people who think it's Christian to execute people, or to wage wars, or play football. Or who can be persuaded that a draft dodging college cheerleader is more masculine than a college football playing war hero. Because these people have a screwed up understanding of gender identity, and they like it that way.

a gender identity your comment there just reinforced by using perceived femininity as an implied insult to an admittedly very insultable president.

Oh, I don't know. Imagine Richard Dawkins being shown to be a direct descendant of Christ...

...or Fred Phelps?

Oh, I don't know. Imagine Richard Dawkins being shown to be a direct descendant of Christ...

He'd denounce himself! :D

So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?

Actually, it'd probably be fairly noisy. Can you imagine how many people would crawl out of the woodwork claiming to be Jesus's direct descendant?

"I'm Jesus's great, great, grandkid. Give me money"

That'd be the basic premise I'll bet.

So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?
Marriage is pretty important, to Christians that followed him and to the Jewish community Jesus lived in. I'm pretty sure that if he was married, someone would have mentioned it; it's not as marriage was frowned upon and that covering it up would somehow help his followers.
Would it "rock the foundation of Christianity"? In terms of what Christians believe, no; however, I believe it would cast doubt upon the Bible. If it doesn't mention this, what else isn't it mentioning? But as I said before, the fact it isn't mentioned is what makes me doubt it happened.

A Brief History of Celibacy (http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm)

I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it's a good time line outlining the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church.

It seems that practice of celibacy came in during the 12th century and before then it was common for priests to marry and have children.

1123 - Pope Calistus II: First Lateran Council decreed that clerical marriages were invalid.
1139 - Pope Innocent II: Second Lateran Council confirmed the previous council’s decree.

Popes who were married

St. Peter, Apostle
St. Felix III 483-492 (2 children)
St. Hormidas 514-523 (1 son)
St. Silverus (Antonia) 536-537
Hadrian II 867-872 (1 daughter)
Clement IV 1265-1268 (2 daughters)
Felix V 1439-1449 (1 son)

This site had other interesting facts on it. But like I said, you can take it with a grain of salt. :)

Celibacy and the Catholic Priest (http://www.arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html)

For those who want a more indepth article on the matter.
I remember reading celibacy became law when priests started leaving their descendants the Church's land, which makes sense. But even before then, I think celibacy wasn't odd, as not only were plenty of Church Fathers celibate, but there was a tradition of celibacy among priests of other religions.

Why does being divine must mean that you never had a family, or even had sex?

Dude, your missing the basic point. Sex is divine. :)

For the church to recognize that would mean giving up the monopoly on divinity.

Actually, it'd probably be fairly noisy. Can you imagine how many people would crawl out of the woodwork claiming to be Jesus's direct descendant?

"I'm Jesus's great, great, grandkid. Give me money"

That'd be the basic premise I'll bet.

you mean like the descendants of jesus living in japan today?

SHINGO VILLLAGE, Japan--Jesus Christ's direct descendant is a garlic
farmer living in northeast Japan, or so residents in this isolated
village say.

According to local legend, Jesus escaped here after the Romans tried to
crucify him and died a peaceful death at the age of 106 after having
fathered three daughters by a Japanese woman.

http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/ancient/0163.html



i dont think it would make a huge difference to christianity. some bits would have to be rearranged but the basic message would be just fine.

According to the Bible, Jesus was a Jew. In those days a Jew in his twenties being unmarried would be downright odd.

Is this what you're hinting at? :confused:

http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/exodus_international.gif

It would make me feel more secure in my beliefs. But that's mainly because I'm a rather odd Christian. :P

So a question to Christians, if Jesus was a family man, and he did have a wife and children, would it really change your faith that much, I mean would this really rock the foundation of Christianity that much?

So, you finally read the Da Vinci Code or watched the movie?

I'm an atheist but really, it wouldn't matter to me. Dan Brown is a hack anyway.

However I do think Jesus might have been married, and if he wasn't perhaps he had a few girlfriends or something. I don't know. Jesus as a celibate guy doesn't make sense to me, tbh.

Yes. Dan Brown is a fucking hack who pretended he was presenting history to sell more books and get a movie deal.

When did he say that it was true?

So, you finally read the Da Vinci Code or watched the movie?

I watched this thing on Discovery (I think) about this guy who goes to Israel to uncover the tomb of a Jesus. Notice I said A Jesus.

Actually, it'd probably be fairly noisy. Can you imagine how many people would crawl out of the woodwork claiming to be Jesus's direct descendant?

"I'm Jesus's great, great, grandkid. Give me money"

That'd be the basic premise I'll bet.

haha, according the book "holy blood, holy grail" the merovingian kings of france were his descendants. every minor aristocrat in post 1066 england is descended in some way from the merovingian kings of france, because every french noble before then was inbred. so technically because I am descended from a minor branch of the house of lancaster (John of Gaunt, a Platagenet and descendant of Charlemagne and through him every duke count or lord in france, had a mistress who had made duchess of something or other, Beaufort I believe, who I am descended from) so, uh, technically I am descended from Jesus, and like Charlemagne, he probably shows up on my family tree multiple times...on different levels and branches, too. it's totally gross when you get far back enough that you have to have the same man as someone's grandfather and father in law or something like that. I've actually emailed the family tree software people to ask if there's a way I can copy and paste from one branch to another. so...I (along with half of europe, no doubt) am descended from Jesus. you should give me money.

I watched this thing on Discovery (I think) about this guy who goes to Israel to uncover the tomb of a Jesus. Notice I said A Jesus.

yeah, actually the Jews kind of panicked when they noticed the whole Jesus thing was getting popular, so they made a bunch of fake criminal records for him and all sorts of things to "prove" he was just an uppity rabbi. its not at all unlikely that there are 1900 year old crypts labeled "Jesus of Nazareth" with a body inside somewhere over there - which is why when they found "his tomb" earlier it didn't surprise me. even if it wasn't a modern hoax it's highly likely it was an ancient one.

My theory is that Jesus was a mamzer - he was born from an illicit relationship (maybe Mary got raped by a Roman soldier). A mamzer can only marry another mamzer. Perhaps Jesus never found another mamzer who he liked.

Anyway, from the Jewish perspective, Jesus was simply another heretic. He had some good ideas - I would not deny that he was a good person - but he was a heretic. The difference was that after his death, his followers managed to find the perfect formula to attract converts.

if that was true I would totally not be a christian...but I am not one now so meh...

if that was true I would totally not be a christian...but I am not one now so meh...

*genulates*

nice to see you, grand inquisitor.

yeah, actually the Jews kind of panicked when they noticed the whole Jesus thing was getting popular, so they made a bunch of fake criminal records for him and all sorts of things to "prove" he was just an uppity rabbi. its not at all unlikely that there are 1900 year old crypts labeled "Jesus of Nazareth" with a body inside somewhere over there - which is why when they found "his tomb" earlier it didn't surprise me. even if it wasn't a modern hoax it's highly likely it was an ancient one.

Can the list of hoaxes include the existence of Jesus itself ;) ?

*genulates*

nice to see you, grand inquisitor.

I was blocked for a while then got distracted...I have kept current in my region and am in constant contact with the lord my god Straughn. Really don't have much to say. Straughn is the verbose one with his speculative rants I am more of a "how is this useful" type of guy.

My theory is that Jesus was a mamzer - he was born from an illicit relationship (maybe Mary got raped by a Roman soldier). A mamzer can only marry another mamzer. Perhaps Jesus never found another mamzer who he liked.

Kinda like Rasputin was?

I was blocked for a while then got distracted...I have kept current in my region and am in constant contact with the lord my god Straughn. Really don't have much to say. Straughn is the verbose one with his speculative rants I am more of a "how is this useful" type of guy.

When his wife lets him on, that is.