Jesus was....

[ButterflyBlood]

Poll question: Jesus was....

Just want to to get a consensus here.

[arwalden]

1. Assuming He Existed... Was He Called "Jesus"?

Did his friends and followers actually enunciate the syllables "GEE-ZUS"... or is that just an invented name that came about later?

[Sandpiper]

2. Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name

Jeshua/Yeshua.

[Sympleesmshn]

3. They have found a "urn" with a reference to him

It say this is the body of the Brother of Jesus... the catholics have kept it under raps, because they don't believe Mary ever had another child. As for the name, he would have been called Iesous by the Greeks, Yeshua by the Hebrews, and Iehova or Iesus in latin... and as story goes he was called Messiah or teacher by his followers

[Az]

5. Old news. It turned out to be a forgery

The text mentioning Jesus was even in a different style than the rest of the text. It was actually a quite bad forgery.

[Sympleesmshn]

19. I wasn't sure of that fact...

I was going to put a disclaimer in it. Thanks for the info though...

I know this as fact. One of the first references to "Christians" is in a letter from Pliny in 116 or so. He asks the Trajan the Roman Emperor at the time, what to do about these people who follow the beliefs of a man named Christ. While I know the faith existed before that, it is the first reference in writing. Before that they were a sect of the Jewish faith. I have read the letter in Latin, and I think I can find a quote if anyone wants it...

[trotsky]

20. Unfortunately, Pliny's letter only proves that Christians existed.

Not Jesus Christ himself. In other words, it's not proof of anything that we didn't already know.

A good writeup on this passage (as well as other early writings purported to be "proof" that Jesus existed) can be found here:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

[Sympleesmshn]

22. I just think that this prove that there was a man named Christ...

each person has to read it their own way. Thanks for the link.

[Az]

23. Its not direct evidence

It merely indicates there are people claiming to follow someone they call Christ. Evidnece for a historical Jesus would be if Pliny wrote of having met Jesus.

[phatkatt]

57. His name wasn't 'Christ'

"Christ' was added after his death when they deified him and claimed he was the messiah prophesied about by the prophets.

His name was Jeshua.

[illflem]

6. Jesus was a First century Frodo

[count_alucard]

4. Jesus is a fictional character

badly written by the way.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Jesus Alou

Was a player for the S.F. Giants in the '60s.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. The Son of God

and the model of everything our creator wanted us to be.

[somnior]

9. Other

I was going to go with the second choice ("A really smart guy..."), but chose other (because he may very well have been a smart guy, but he also was cast into a role of great import in contemporary Jewish thought).

While he may be a fiction, or a generalization of itinerant rabbis, I have no reason to assume he didn't live - and the assumption makes other things simpler.

The Gospels & Acts themselves (canonical or otherwise) do a decent job of presenting historical fact alongside interpolations, probable errors (of facts or translation), and bias.

The entire story of his life - from birth to death - makes sense if Jesus is understood as a teacher and reformer (despite common misconceptions and Biblical text, his words are more in line with those of the Pharisees, and both contrary to the Sadducees, although the Essenes are also invoked as bearing similarities), seeking to reform Judaism as did the prophets of old, who also, by his own choice or by the decisions of his followers, was cast as the messiah - "the anointed one", scion of the line of David, heir of kings, the one who would return Israel to her glory of old as a united kingdom. Of course, such action would have required an overthrow of the Roman occupiers... treason, then as now, was punished with death, and the Romans specialized in crucifixions.

Forgive the summary, and don't take it as an assault on beliefs, as I don't mean it as one. Just wanted to explain my answer a bit better. :)

[shrike]

27. Interesting way to look at it n/t

[Maat]

10. I put a 'really smart guy' because ..

in my faith (Religious Science), we believe that God is within all of us and everywhere else too - and that we are all equally divine.

That being the case, he was a super-enlightened one, who I view as a Master Teacher (assuming that he existed - and I think he did).

[Stunster]

11. Textual attestation of ancient authors

I guess some people are just ignorant about this, but both in terms of quantity of manuscript attestation and shortness of time interval from authors to earliest extant copies of the texts, the New Testament FAR surpasses ANY other writing from antiquity in its quality of bibliographic attestation.

I actually have the detailed numbers for manuscripts and time intervals comparing the New Testament with the works of Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Euripides, Aristophanes, Lysias, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Euclid, Epicurus, Polybius, Cicero, Catullus, Lucretius, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Livy, Propertius, Tibullus, Ovid, Lucan, Seneca the Younger, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Florus, Juvenal, Ptolemy, Appian, and Galen, if anyone wants them.

The New Testament beats them all out of sight. Thus, if one were to say that Jesus never existed, one would have to doubt even more strongly every single other personage mentioned in the literature of antiquity as being historically a real person.


You might be surprised to know that there are more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. If we add over 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions, then we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer's Iliad comes second, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. Even then, the first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century AD.

It is no wonder that S.E. Peters observes that: "On the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the Christians' New Testament were the most widely circulated books of antiquity" (The Harvest of Hellenism, p. 50).

And F.J.A. Hort adds that, "... in the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings" (The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 561).

Bruce Metzger, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, also stresses the uniqueness of New Testament textual witnesses compared with other writings of antiquity. He states: "The works of several ancient authors are preserved for us by the thinnest possible thread of transmission" (The Text of the New Testament, p. 34).

Dr. Metzger gives three pertinent examples: The History of Rome, by Vellius Paterculus, survived to modern times through only one incomplete manuscript – a manuscript that was subsequently lost in the seventeenth century after being copied by Beatus Rhenanus at Amerbach.

A second example is the Annals of the famous historian Tacitus, the first six books of which are in a single manuscript dating from the ninth century. And the only known manuscript of the Epistle to Diognetus, an early Christian composition which editors usually include in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, perished in a fire at the municipal library in Strasbourg in 1870.

Metzger writes: "In contrast with these figures, the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material" (p. 34).

2. How long is the interval of time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the dates of the earliest of our manuscripts?

The great biblical scholar Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, and second to none in authority for issuing statements about manuscripts, concluded that: "... besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors, and this time the difference is clear again. In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament" (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 4).

Dr. Kenyon goes on to explain that the books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century. He points out that "... the earliest extant manuscripts, trifling scraps excepted, are of the fourth century - say from 250 to 300 years later."

This may seem a considerable interval, but it is nothing compared with the gap that separates the great classical authors from the earliest surviving manuscripts of their works. For example, scholars believe that they have, in all essentials, an accurate text of seven plays of Sophocles. Yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1,400 years after the poet's death!

Writing along similar lines, F.F. Bruce, former Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Manchester, explains that, of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (circa A.D. 100), only four and one-half survive (The New Testament Documents, p.16). And his minor works (Dialogus de Oritoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a 10th-century copy.

Bruce also points out that The History of Thucydides (circa 460-400 BC) comes to us from eight manuscripts, the earliest dating from circa A.D. 900 along with a few papyrus scraps from the beginning of the Christian era.

"The same is true for Herodotus," Bruce says, "Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals" (pp. 16-17).

Harold Greenlee agrees with Bruce, and states the obvious conclusion: "Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics - even though the earliest manuscripts were written so long after the original writings, and the number of extant manuscripts is in many cases so small - it is clear that the reliability of the text of the New Testament is assured" (Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 16).

More here.

[Poppyseedman]

14. Excellent post

I was going to make the points you are making, but you did it about 100 x better than I could.

[aneerkoinos]

16. Utter crap

"I actually have the detailed numbers for manuscripts and time intervals comparing the New Testament with the works of Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Euripides, Aristophanes, Lysias, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Euclid, Epicurus, Polybius, Cicero, Catullus, Lucretius, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Livy, Propertius, Tibullus, Ovid, Lucan, Seneca the Younger, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Florus, Juvenal, Ptolemy, Appian, and Galen, if anyone wants them.

The New Testament beats them all out of sight. Thus, if one were to say that Jesus never existed, one would have to doubt even more strongly every single other personage mentioned in the literature of antiquity as being historically a real person."


Sorry but the line of argument that textual attestation has ANYTHING to do with number of surviving manuscripts is idiotic beyond idiotism. That is about the stupidest thing I've ever hear, and having studied classical philology for ten years at the university, I've heard some pretty stupid things, you can take my word for it...

[Stunster]

18. I am not going to take your word for it and it's not crap at all (n/t)

[aneerkoinos]

24. Well then

According to you because DaVinci Code is a best-seller, it is more powerfull attestation and evidence of truth than less popular books.

According to you shit is tasty because billion shit-flyes can't be wrong.

[Stunster]

25. Oh dear

Are you sure you understand this stuff?

How do we know a natural historian called Pliny the Elder existed? We have 200 manuscripts, the earliest extant copy of which dates from 400 years after Pliny the Elder is supposed to have lived.

How do we know an orator called Demosthenes existed? We have 200+ manuscripts, the earliest extant copy of which dates from 1250 years after Demosthenes is supposed to have lived.

How do we know a philosopher Plato existed? We have 7 manuscripts, the earliest extant copy of which dates from 1250 years after Plato is supposed to have lived.

No serious historian looking at the wealth of manuscript and papyrus evidence with respect to the New Testament, which far surpasses the quantity we have for any other writings of antiquity, and the earliest extant examples of which date from less than a century after Jesus is supposed to have lived, believes that the Jesus of Nazareth personage referred to in the New Testament was non-existent.

[aneerkoinos]

26. Yes I do

I understand this stuff. Understanding this stuff is what I've been educated for and I continue to work in the field.

It's not really that difficult, some skill at putting together a jigsaw puzzle with many missing pieces and common sense is what understanding this stuff requires. Both of which you and your "scholars" so obviously lack.

It is, indeed, the most plausible theory that there was a historical person, a religious teacher, to whom certain texts refer to. Sadly, that is about all that can be plausibly said about the life of Jesus, the biographical "facts" in Gospels are just mythopoietic stuff very typical for that time and place.

[Stunster]

28. It was his existence I was addressing (n/t)

[aneerkoinos]

29. jesuit morals?

Yes, but the argument sucked big time.

[Stunster]

30. Huh?

You yourself say that the existence of Jesus is the most plausible conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.

What is that evidence? It's the evidence I gave, for crying out loud!

And what's "jesuit morals" got to do with anything?

[aneerkoinos]

33. Bah

The quantity of surviving manuscripts means zit, nada, nothing for purposes of historical attestation. Actually reading the texts and relating the content to all other related sources is what matters, the art of textual criticism is what matters.

You gave no evidence but only blatant show of idiocy - the most plausible conclusion is based on totally different grounds, those I mention above.

"Jesuit morals" means, I believe, that end justifies the means, applied here that even the most gross intellectual dishonesty is OK by you if some poor sod buys it and it thus serves the "Cause".

[Stunster]

34. Humbug

In his definitive work, Introduction to Research in English Literary History, Professor Charles Sanders explains three basic principles involved in evaluating the reliability of historical documents (p.143 ff.). They are the bibliographic test (have the original manuscripts been handed down faithfully?), the internal evidence test (what the books tell us about themselves), and the external evidence test (an examination of other sources that shed light - such as contemporary ancient literature).

Future articles in this series will evaluate the Gospels in light of internal and external evidence. In this article we will focus on the bibliographic test - how historically reliable the Gospels are in terms of manuscript witnesses to the New Testament in general.

The bibliographic test is an examination of the textual transmission by which the documents have reached us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents (called autographs), how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and the copies we have?

Let's take a closer look at what biblical scholars call manuscript attestation and time interval....
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/trustgospels.htm

Here is what you are misunderstanding. In order to assess the historical reliability of the New Testament, there are three tests. If the New Testament did not pass the first test, that would be a reason to question the historical authenticity of what it says. But in fact, the New Testament passes the first not only admirably, but passes it better than any other ancient literature does. That's the relevance to the historical existence of Jesus. Is it a sufficient condition for establishing the historical existence of Jesus? No. Is it a necessary condition? Yes. Does it meet that necessary condition? Emphatically.

If you had bothered to read the link I gave carefully, you'd see that it goes on to consider the other two tests as well.

[bigendian]

36. Set, Match, Stunster.

I think the evidence is on your side.

[aneerkoinos]

37. ...

Like they say, stop digging when you are in hole...

Sanders gives some of principles of textual criticism. But here is what YOU wrote:

>>>I guess some people are just ignorant about this, but both in terms of quantity of manuscript attestation and shortness of time interval from authors to earliest extant copies of the texts, the New Testament FAR surpasses ANY other writing from antiquity in its quality of bibliographic attestation.

SNIP

The New Testament beats them all out of sight. Thus, if one were to say that Jesus never existed, one would have to doubt even more strongly every single other personage mentioned in the literature of antiquity as being historically a real person.<<<

Let's just take up the most obvious point: There is a generation of very unreliable oral tradition between the birth of textual tradition and the events the texts are supposed to describe. All evidence is hearsay and worse.

Then there are, to take up the most obious examples, Herodotos and Thucydides describe also contemporary events they have witnessed themselves. Also, based on evidence from many independent sources, for example the historicity of Apollonios of Tyana is far better established than that of Jesus.

And then you just keep digging further:

>>>But in fact, the New Testament passes the first not only admirably, but passes it better than any other ancient literature does.<<<

No, simply not true. Most Paul's letters are not authentic, synoptic Gospels are full of later additions, omissions and distortions made for dogmatic and other reasons, we don't even know who wrote the Gospels and when, etc. The texts selected to the New Testament do not pass the first test admirably, least of all "better than any other ancient literature". And even you must be aware that New Testament is not an original source but a compilation of texts which was given it's final form only in Late Antiquity, so there isn't much point discussing New Testament as historical source.

[Stunster]

38. It's astounding that you use the examples of Thucydides

and Herodotus as being eyewitnesses. The former, by his own admission, composed the speeches he puts in the mouths of others!

The vice of the "chroniclers," in his view, is that they cared only for popularity, and took no pains to make their narratives trustworthy. Herodotus was presumably regarded by him {Thucydides} as in the same general category.....
....Thucydides is the real founder of the tradition by which historians were so long held to be warranted in introducing set speeches of their own composition. His own account of his practice is given in the following words: "As to the speeches made on the eve of the war, or in its course, I have found it difficult to retain a memory of the precise words which I had heard spoken; and so it was with those who brought me reports. But I have made the persons say what it seemed to me most opportune for them to say in view of each situation; at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said." So far as the language of the speeches is concerned, then, Thucydides plainly avows that it is mainly or wholly his own.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/eb11-thucydides.html

For Thucydides, we have 70+ manuscripts, the earliest extant examples of which date from 1350 years after Thucydides is supposed to have lived.

For Herodotus, we have 9 manuscripts, the earliest extant examples of which date from 1380 years after he is supposed to have lived, and 18 papyri the earliest extant examples of which date from 480 years after Herodotus is supposed to have lived.

We have thousands of manuscripts and 85 papyri for the New Testament, the earliest extant examples of which date from a mere 80 years after the crucifixion of Jesus.

[aneerkoinos]

43. OK, I'll give up

I've allready wasted too much of my time with an idiot. By all means, go on believing that New Testament is more reliable historical source than Thucydides or Herodotus.

[Dhalgren]

52. All writings from antiquity have been passed down to us

through transcriptions made by Christian monks. The various church leaders would decide what got transcribed and what didn't - they also got to alter whatever they liked (or didn't like) in the process. The Library at Alexandria contained hundreds of thousands of manuscripts from the most ancient of times. This Library, of course, was burned by Christians in the fifth century - so we didn't get any of those passed down to us. So I wouldn't use the argument you are using, because it only shows one side of a very two-sided coin.

[Jamastiene]

12. Round 6,323

He was this guy who came along and said your religion sucks, mine is better, and if you don't believe me, my daddy will torture you for all eternity in sizzling flames.

And I know many of your will hop this post like a bunny rabbit. One question to get the ball rolling. Where is your "god" now? He's on Bush's side obviously. Either I am right in what I posted or you folks need to pray way harder.

[FM Arouet666]

13. Interesting poll, majority think he is the son of God

I voted of the delusioned individual that got himself killed, but I was split with the option that he never really existed. Scientifically speaking, the whole god, son of god, omnipotence, origin of life debate holds little weight. Historically speaking, there is almost no evidence for Jesus, except for the bible. My personal belief, based on historical and scientific reason, is that a man probably did exist, named jesus, that was killed by the Romans, who presented himself as a profit. Beyond that I find little to believe in. Generally I find the natural world far more complex and interesting than anything suggested by those that believe in the super natural.:evilgrin:

[arwalden]

31. Thirty-Four Percent Isn't A Majority... Sorry.

[AZCat]

32. It is with the "new math"

Also known as "The Diebold Way".

But until Skinner lets them run our polls, you are correct.

[shrike]

41. It's a plurality n/t

[FM Arouet666]

50. Jump on me like a pack of wild dogs

Yes, it is not the majority, but it is, or was at the time of posting, the leading opinion in the poll.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. A prophet of God and seal of the Saints

Isa, as he is called in the Islamic tradition, was a prophet born of the virgin Mary, seal of the Saints, but a man.

That being said, from a mystical point of view, Jesus (or Joshua, or by whatever name you wish to call Him) was an enlightened human being who realized the Secret and whose words and commandments showed the way for each person to gain enlightenment:

Love the Lord your God....
Love your neighbor as yourself....
Judge not....
Love your enemies....
Forgive those who tresepass against you.....

[MellowOne]

17. The greatest rewards

Are for those who gladly accept Him now.

When Jesus walked this earth, his own people, the Jews, knew Him not. So how do you expect people who did not live with Him, see His miracles and hear His teachings to believe in Him?

If you travel to Israel, you can witness firsthand, the tomb of his burial and other evidence that He actually did exist. He is a historical figure.

But believing He is the Son of God takes faith. And faith is greatly rewarded by God when we die and return to the spiritual realm. God is spirit, we are spirit living in a earthen vessel, our fleshly body. From dust we were made and to dust our bodies return. But our spirits live forever.

[MellowOne]

21. Also want to add

If you really want to know the truth, read the New Testament. It is a historical account of the life of Jesus written by his disciples as well as letters the disciples wrote to each other. You may not believe in God but these books or letters are historical accounts of what happened at this period in time.

[Proud liberal Kat]

47. Why is it that

God will reward those who have faith in the belief that Jesus was the only Son of God who died for all humans past present and future sins? Why is that necessary? Why would someone who may be termed in all but their faith a greater sinner than I be rewarded greatly and I would not just for an issue of Dogma? I don't understand that concept of God and what he/she wants?
Kathy

[arwalden]

48. And Someone Who Happened To Be Born In India Or Pakistan...

... and isn't Christian simply by virture of the fact that their were born in a country where Christianity isn't the predominant religion... they're going to be punished?

Wow. That doesn't seem quite fair. What kind of god do you worship? That sounds pretty damned cruel to me.

[GOPBasher]

35. I think he's the Son of God.

That's my belief; it's not something that can be proven.

[Zen Democrat]

56. Right. And He said We are ALL Sons of God. He was an Enlightened Being.

And His teachings have been twisted and bastardized to suit the MoneyChangers of Organized Religion. Jesus opposed Organized Religion.

[trotsky]

39. Probably some kind of combination.

The character of Jesus may have been based loosely on some historical person, but over the years (especially in those first few decades) there has been so much added on and written to make the story *fit* the old prophecies, there's no way we can know what the real truth is.

But considering that most Christians deny the historicity all other religions' messianic figures, I see no reason to accept theirs.

[shrike]

40. Don't know about that

Abraham, Buddha and others are recognized as teachers and prophets, in the same fashion that (many) Jews and Buddhists recognize Jesus as a teacher and prophet.

[trotsky]

42. As I noted,

in the messianic sense. Mithras, Zoroaster, etc.

Abraham is part of the Christian mythos as well, since Xianity is simply based on the fulfillment of Jewish scripture. But he's certainly not considered a messiah by anyone.

[Modem Butterfly]

45. History does not equal Divinity

It's a good point to make that proof of Jesus' existance does not equate to proof that he was a god.

[shrike]

46. To be frank, I doubt many Christians have even heard of

Mithras and Zoroaster, and so would have no idea what, or who, they were.

Of course that's more of an indictment of our educational system than anything else.

[Modem Butterfly]

44. "Jesus" is an amalgam

The man we call Jesus is nothing more than amalgam of would-be Messiahs of the time with some Greek, Roman, and other myths. It's a nice story with some good ideas, but certainly not something to base your life on.

[jsw_81]

49. Option two ("smart guy")

But it's very possible that he was nothing more than a myth. The similarities between the Jesus story and stories about many earlier "saviors" who were born to virgins and crucified are striking. Believe it or not, but I've heard more than a few fundies say that those stories -- which predate Christianity by centuries -- were created by Satan to fool us and that Jesus was the Real Deal. :eyes:

I think it's far more likely that the early Christians copied those stories/myths to make their fledgling new religion more attractive. But I could be wrong!

[onager]

51. New Testament as a "historical account?"

I've seen this said a couple of times in the thread. But a lot of the New Testament is very suspicious historically, or just flat wrong.

Here's one example (of many), using a person who was undoubtedly a real historical person--King Herod The Great.

According to the Gospel of Matthew (but no others), Herod ordered a massacre of all the male infants in Bethlehem when he heard about the birth of You-Know-Who.

On Xian websites, I've seen some really jaw-dropping explanations of why no historians bothered to mention this atrocity. One of the weirdest said: "Well, Bethlehem was a small town, so killing all the male babies there probably wouldn't have attracted much attention."

The mind reels.

Two Jewish historians, Philo and Flavius Josephus, left lengthy catalogues of King Herod's crimes, misdeeds and general unpleasantness, along with all the gossip they could round up about him.

Both had to rely on hearsay. Philo Of Alexandria, as his name implies, was a Jewish refugee living in Egypt. Flavius Josephus wasn't born until 37 CE or so.

Still, it's hard to imagine that either historian would have heard a story about Herod slaughtering helpless infants, and NOT included it in their writings. They sure raked him over the coals for far lesser offenses.

And if there were even a hint of such a story, it surely would have been making the rounds among the people. For many reasons, Herod was despised by his subjects in Judea. He was a foreigner, from Idumea, and seen as a Roman lackey. One story said that during a visit to Rome, in search of an alliance, he had sacrificed to the Roman gods. (Which he probably did, for political reasons.)

He also taxed heavily to fund his civil engineering projects, but for once the citizens may have gotten their money's worth. The seaport he built near Caeserea (IIRC) is still considered an engineering marvel.

[Roland99]

53. Well, from what we *do* know, he did exist but was far from divine

He was from the Davidic line but managed to combine the royal line with the priestly line (a major reformation in Judaism).

He was married to Mary Magdelene.

He fathered three children (first-born - daughter, Tamar; second-born - son, Jesus; third-born - son, Joseph - also known as Josephes)

Eventually fled to the Kashmir region while Mary and the "grail" child (Joseph) fled to Gaul (France).

[onager]

54. Does anyone here read the "What If?" books?

They're alternative history. I love that stuff.

What If 2 had a great article by Carlos M. N. Eire, professor of History and Religious Studies at Yale and chairman of the Department Of Religious Studies.

The title of Eire's piece: Pontius Pilate Spares Jesus: Christianity Without The Crucifixion

I refuse to post SPOILERS, but here's a short passage. Oh, and Jesus finally dies of a cerebral stroke at age 97:

Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Caligula and Nero will hear of this Jesus and heartily approve of having him protected and so will their immediate successors.

If only other subject nations could have such a prophet and teacher!

So what if Jesus and his followers refuse to worship the gods of the Empire? There's plenty of room for that Jewish God in the pantheon of all divinities.

No one in their right mind would think that the Jewish God could totally displace all the other gods that exist and are worshipped.

So what if this sect balks at worshipping the emperor? Better to allow these people to teach and practice submission than to insist on worship of the emperor. Only that crazy Caligula really believed he was a god, anyway.

Any wise Roman knows that Jesus is a gift from the gods--a strange one, since he denies their existence, but a gift all the same.

The gods have a strange sense of humor.

[Roland99]

55. Haven't heard of those. Here are some books that I have, though

Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed
- Laurence Gardner,Foreword by Prince Michael of Albany
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780760707357&x=53162802

(This is the one I'm reading now. I've been an atheist for several years but I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic grade school and high school. This book has definitely challenged a lot of ideas I had about Jesus and, at first, I took this book as rather aggressive and judgmental. However, since I'm now more than 1/2 way thru it, I've come to accept his research and explanations based upon his extensive bibliography. It really makes a lot of sense, once you get past the details in the first few chapters, esp. re:the multiple names by which people were known - real names, symbolic names, religious names, etc. all referring to the same person)


Genesis of the Grail Kings - Laurence Gardner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780760761977&x=53162802

Realm of the Ring Lords: The Myth and Magic of the Grail Quest - Laurence Gardner
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=dK8FQf1Bep&isbn=1931412146&itm=7

Holy Blood, Holy Grail - Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, Richard Leigh
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=dK8FQf1Bep&isbn=0385338457&itm=3
(One of the books upon which The DaVinci Code was based)

Gnostic Gospels - Elaine Pagels
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780679724537&x=53162802

From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries and Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith - L. Michael White
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780060526559&x=57162802

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail - Margaret Starbird, Foreword by Terrance A. Sweeney
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=dK8FQf1Bep&pwb=1&ean=9781879181038

The Cult of the Black Virgin - Ean C. M. Begg
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140195106/qid=1109777284/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3828405-5209521?v=glance&s=books&n=507846