If you noticed I said that Joseph of Arimathea chowed down on Jesus. The body was in his tomb. Jesus had been babbling about how people could gain eternal life if they drank his blood and ate his flesh. In John 6:48-66 Jesus goes off about how he's the bread of life and people have to eat his flesh and drink his blood for eternal life. Some disciples were disgusted at that and took a hike. Evidently Joseph believed it and, when he had the opportunity, chowed down of some Jesus steaks. It's not too hard to imagine that the Apostles would have neutered themselves because Jesus had promised that they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel if they were loyal. Some were always trying to gain an advantage. So it's logical that they joined him in becoming an eunuch. That might seem farfetched but remember the story about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39. People will do anything to become immortal.
As you say,if Joseph believed that was the way to eternal life,he would have also believed enough to give Jesus a chance to rise from the dead as he told the deciples he would.Then you have the problem with the Roman guards,which I highly doubt would let him into the tomb in the first place but even so, I don't think he could have consumed his whole body,not to mention the bones. I just don't think it was necessary enough for them to do it,especially since they were with Jesus most the time. I don't think any of them gouged out their eyes or cut of their hands to avoid destruction either. Judas betrayed him,peter denied him but castration ? I do have my doubts.
Do you really think Joseph would have chowed down on the corpse right in the tomb? Besides, we have no idea what kind of tomb it was. It could have had an extra hidden entrance. The guards could have been bribed. Everyone has a price. A sack full of gold would have been hard to resist. Judas got 30 pieces of silver. Joseph was buying eternal life if he got his hands on the corpse. Don't you think he would have paid a fortune for it? The Apostles were greedy for what they could get for sticking with Jesus. In Matthew 19:27-30 Peter asks Jesus what they would get for running around after Jesus. Matthew 19:27-30 (MSG) = [SUP]27 [/SUP]Then Peter chimed in, “We left everything and followed you. What do we get out of it?” [SUP]28-30 [/SUP]Jesus replied, “Yes, you have followed me. In the re-creation of the world, when the Son of Man will rule gloriously, you who have followed me will also rule, starting with the twelve tribes of Israel. And not only you, but anyone who sacrifices home, family, fields—whatever—because of me will get it all back a hundred times over, not to mention the considerable bonus of eternal life. This is the Great Reversal: many of the first ending up last, and the last first.” Remember the other temptation stories. Abraham was willing to slice and dice and roast his son Isaac to become rich and famous. Jesus was offered the world if he would worship Satan. So here Jesus is offering his Apostles power over the twelve tribes of Israel, a hundred times what they had lost, and eternal life. They couldn't wait to start doing surgery on each other. Did you notice the promise of getting a hundred times back what they had lost? It included houses, wives, kids, land. That tops the 72 virgins in Islam. They would get 100. They would be like junior Mormon gods but without their own worlds.
No,and why would he ? As I've said before, if he believed in immortality by eating the flesh of Jesus, he would have also believed that Jesus would rise. If Jesus didn't rise then eating his flesh was pointless. 4:12 AM.. time to sleep
It's one thing to chow down on a corpse. It's another thing to chase down a zombie and start chewing on it. When Jesus said to drink his blood and eat his flesh to gain eternal life the crowd took it to mean that they should engage in standard cannibalism as their ancestors had done in the past. The last thing on their mind was that they had to eat a zombie. In any case most found the idea disgusting and said "adios". But Joseph ended up with the corpse and then the corpse vanished into his belly. Neither Jesus' mother, brothers and sisters, or alleged wife got it.
Do you think there was a moment of embarassment for Joseph of Arimethea when Thomas felt the holes in Jesus's body and then came across a set of human bite marks? Thomas says, "Well how'd you get these?" Jesus glances over at Joseph, giving him a dirty look. "There was a bit of a misunderstanding," Jesus explains as Joseph bows his head in shame.
The Book of Acts is considered to be the second part of the Book of Luke and was based upon oral tradition and not first hand knowledge. We would today refer to it as hearsay, or accurately, an unverifiable story of highly dubious accuracy. In many respects it's very similar to believing the Jesus wasn't married when the New Testament doesn't make any mention of it. It would have been highly unusual for a Jew to remain unmarried as it would have gone against Jewish traditions of the time and would have been noteworthy if it had been the case. It wasn't until 300 years later that the Church decided that Jesus wasn't married in it's official doctrines. Personally I don't see what the problem is anyway. Married or not it doesn't change what is in the New Testament and if people want to believe in the story of Jesus why would they care? The "Church" has often been shown to be wrong in it's beliefs.
You think that just because something is oral tradition that automatically make it untrue? Aren’t their certain parts of American history that could be considered hearsay but it still accepted as true? Was everything that is now a part of the American history books written down right then and their as it was happening? So what is written by Paul that you see that contradicts the other parts of the New Testament Bible? You still don't get it at all, do you? Jesus is the God of the Old Testament....He was the one that brought the Israelites out of Egypt. It was He that married the House of Israel. So if He had married He would have sinned. I don't know what Church you are talking about.
What did Jesus told Thomas when he saw Jesus after His resurrection? Luke 24:39 (ASV) 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. Jesus has a physical, gloried and immortal body....He is not spirit. He was raised bodily and He ascended into Heaven bodily. It is the very reason why the body of Jesus was not found. Notice that Jesus did not say flesh and blood.....there is no blood coursing through Jesus' new body.....He does not need it. He does not have a heart that would pump blood nor veins and arteries.
What luck that the author of John suddenly recalled this account of a risen Jesus showing His physical body to the doubting Thomas around the same time that the gospel of Thomas was in circulation and made no mention of a literal resurrection when that account was not included in any of the other gospels which far predate John. It's amazing that Thomas stuck his hands in the crucifixion wounds and still wrote a gospel denying the resurrection. Very amazing that virtually all of Jesus's post resurrection statements somehow settle doctrinal disputes which existed in the early church.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and heresay is not evidence. Paul never claimed to have met Jesus in the writings attributed to him from what I understand. That alone makes a third party statement of dubious accuracy. During the canonizing of the Bible the "Church" was careful to omit any contradictions or to edit them out of the original documents. Still there are contradictions in the Bible even though the "Church" spent about 100 years in it's attempts to eliminate them by editing. Being married and having sex with one's wife are now sins? Where does it say this in the Bible? The "Church" being referred to was later to become the Catholic Church but at the time it was the "Church" under Constatine and was the official (political) State church of the Roman Empire. It was one sect of Christianity and other sects, such as several of the Gnostic Churchs, believed that Jesus was married and some believed he had children. Of note in the early teachings of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Chruch) they also believed that Jesus was married. It is often amaziing how little Christians know about the history of their own religion.
They found another parchment, it's a snippet from His wife's diary... “And so my husband Jesus doth come hometh from Happy Hour in Galilee and is a bit tipsyeth and he has broughteth all these peoples with him and he do sayeth: ‘Feed us, woman, for we have the munchies’, and I protesteth like billy-o. ‘But Jesus, you big chump,’ I doth reply. ‘We haveth only two loaves and five fishes!’ “But, of course, being of womankind, I did stretch it to go round everybody and as I was scraping the burnt bits from the bottom of the pan, for this was to be mine own supper, I overheard the peoples sayeth to Jesus: ‘You have worketh a miracle!’, and I heard my Jesus say, ‘Yes, I have worketh a miracle’ and he doth bask in the glory, which waseth annoying. “And then after my husband and his people had feasted, he do sayeth to me: ‘Give us drink, woman, for we are thirsty.’ So I poureth out the water but then he doth sayeth: ‘We want drink drink’, and I protesteth like billy-o for my day had been hard and my mule had been stubborn but I went to the offie and did getteth some wine and when I returneth my husband doth hold the bottles over his head and sayeth joyously: ‘The water is now wine!’, and all did cheer, thinking he had done another miracle, which did seriously pisseth me off, letteth me tell you.... " http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...bout-jesus-let-his-wife-tell-you-8168139.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm http://www.markmason.net/ch4ex2.htm http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_India_%28book%29
Just as you say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and hearsay is not evidence. So what you say on the canonising of the Bible is also just your opinion, and I believe one that is wrong. There was many writtings to do with the life of Christ. The early Church relied heavily on oral tradition. They accepted the authority of the apostles and the bishops they commisioned. It was through them that what was regarded as true and what was regarded as false was decided. St. John is the last apostle who is believed to have died, the Church has writtings from St. Iraeneus who was taught by St. Polycarp, who was taught ny the apostle John. St. John you think would have let St. Polycarp know if Jesus was married or not. We have the guidance of the Church fathers to direct us in the truth of Jesus' life. Under Constantine the Christian Church was not the official state Church. The conversion of Constantine only made Christianity acceptable and prevented Christians from being further persecuted though it was far from being the faith of the empire. The compiling of the Bible started before Constantine was in power, and was not finished till after he was dead.
It is true the Constantine did not establish the Church of Rome but he did "legalize" Christianity in the Roman Empire with the Edict of Milan, establishing religious freedom. which was cosigned by Constantine who ruled the Western Empire along with Licinius that ruled the Eastern Empire. It wasn't until 380 AD when the Edict of Thessalonica was issued that Christianity became the official religion of Rome. Constantine was transitional in this process and is often cited as being the origin of the Church of Rome although it wasn't established officially until after his death. It is also true that all religions are fundamentally based upon heresay and verbal traditions as there no written texts from "god" in any religion. The canonizing of the Bible by the Christian Church in Rome (which later became the official Church of Rome) was obviously political in nature. Many forget that the "Church" had a political agenda as is reflected by the fact that it has often evolved in the the "official Church" of government. This has historical roots related to government as often the "Kings" declared themselves to be deities above the people and the law under the "Divine Right of Kings" that predated Christianity in many cultures. Religions historically always seek political power and this was no different for Christianity in the 4th Century. Back to the point though which is whether Jesus was married and it was stated that if he was, and he had sex with his wife, it would be a sin. I questioned this and there has been no response. Where does it state anywhere in the Bible that a man having sexual relations with his wife is a sin? Why would Christians believe this or why would it diminish their belief in their religion? I don't believe in any religion but I wonder why this would make a difference in someone's beliefs.
This assumption you have that the Bible had a political agenda is not supported by any evidence and is only a theory. As I stated before if you were to choose a religion or holy Scriptural writtings to go along with your poltical agenda you would choose anything other than Christianity. Christian scripture speaks very much out against those who have power. It speaks against kings and pharises constantly. It preaches a love for the poor and the oppressed. The conversion of Constantine was a great help and did make Christinity legal as you say. The impact of Constantine's conversion was of great impact but after Constantine death Christianity once again suffered a brief period of persecution. I do not believe that Constantine or any other government helped compile the Bible in order to bring some sort of control or established belief system just to keep people under control far more easily. If they were to do that they would have used a far more widely held belief system and one that was more submissive to authority. I beleive, though I cannot prove it , that Christianity spread like wildfire not because of any government or emperor, but because it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who may have used governments and leaders to further the faith. I am a Christian and I do not believe a man having sex with his wife is a sin. As matter of fact I think it is a good act and one pleasing to God. Though I do not beleive Jesus was married and had children. Jesus is God made man, Jesus is God in the flesh. I do no tbelieve Jesus could contaminate Himself by being in such a union with a much lesser being. Jesus is much greater and far from our fragile minds and bodies. You, would not make love to an animal not matter how beautiful you thought it to be. An animal is beneath us and though you may find an animal beautiful, you would not look at it in that way. We show compassion and affection to animals and we can say we love them, but we realise they are beneath us and we do not look at them in a sexual way. Though we still want what is best for our pets, and we want them to be happy, maybe God looks at us in the same way.
He said that Jesus is the God who was married to Israel. When he says sin, he's talking about adultery. That's not true. Do you want to give a source, though, so we can see why you believe it?
Jewish marriages were generally arranged by the fathers of the bride and groom, typically at the initiation of the father of the groom. "In all periods of Jewish history, almost all marriages were arranged by the young couple's respective fathers, who were obligated to see to it that their children be married. Thus, Jeremiah, for example, charged the exiles in Babylon, `Take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men.' (Jer. 29:6)" (1) Example: Genesis 34:3-6---And he (Shechem) was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying "Get me this young girl for a wife."...Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak to him." "Marriage was arranged by the parents; a mother could play a role (Gen. 21:21; 27:24), but a father could act alone (38:6)." (2) Genesis 21:21---And he (Ishmael) lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt. Genesis 27:46-28:1---And Rebekah said to Isaac, "I am tired of living because of the daughters of Heth; if Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth, like these, from the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me? So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, "You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan..." Genesis 38:6---Now Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. "During the biblical era, sons and daughters alike were completely under the authority of their parents...The match would be made between the heads of families---the fathers, the father of the son taking the primary initiative." (3) http://http://ldolphin.org/risk/ult.shtml
If it talks about the kid's preference, it's not an example of an arranged marriage. The only examples I see, here, are the one in Genesis 21 and in Genesis 38. Hagar does not set precedent for Hebrew tradition, Judah might, but this is nothing like what you need to show that arranged marriage was the prevailing Hebrew custom in the first century, and that a wife would have been selected for Jesus, and that he would have been required to marry her. And I can bring up a lot more biblical examples than that, from times a lot closer to the first century, of marriages of which the parents had no say at all. That link doesn't go to a source.
Thinking that being "leaders of the church" is not political is rather naive IMO. It's about the politics of religion and the leaders are as political as any leader of government. Christianity "thrived" after it opened itself up to non-Jewish people. This was a great marketing move because it would have died as a small Jewish cult had it not made the choice to expand to address non-Jews. The inclusion of the Greek god Hades in Revelations was intentional, not accidental, in expanding the scope of Christianity to the Romans. Even the concept of "God" impregnating the "Virgin Mary" was taken from the Roman and Greek religious mythologies. It was something the Roman's believed in and was an intentional part of the marketing of Christianity to the Romans. Do people actually believe that this happened by accident? Jesus was raised as a Jew and he would have been married based upon Jewish tradition. It would have been an arranged marriage when he was a young teenager. Interesting that we are being called the "pets" of god.
