Looks like there really isn't proof of Jesus, is there Suze?

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


i mean: you gave the jewish viewpoint of jesus's intentions, and i think that a secular review of what jesus said would reach the same conclusion as to his intentions. so from a secular viewpoint, i agree, as opposed to speaking from a jewish viewpoint.

but why throw in the 'from a secular point of view'. it's not. oh nevermind. neverfuckingmind.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by hereisnowhy
Am I the only one who doesn't understand how Jesus could have had a brother? Wasn't he an only son?!

he was a first son, but that doesn't mean he was an only child. it's generally believed (well, as long as you're not a member of certain churches) that he did have brothers and sisters.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by Samsa
but why throw in the 'from a secular point of view'. it's not. oh nevermind. neverfuckingmind.

my viewpoint is secular in that i am going directly from what the text says. you can have a secular view of a religious text. is this so hard to understand?

[Salena Child]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


he was a first son, but that doesn't mean he was an only child. it's generally believed (well, as long as you're not a member of certain churches) that he did have brothers and sisters.

his brother was james.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by Salena Child

his brother was james.

as one example, yes, but some churches will claim that he isn't REALLY his brother, but a cousin or something of the sort.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


my viewpoint is secular in that i am going directly from what the text says. you can have a secular view of a religious text. is this so hard to understand?

yes it is. because i didn't think my point of view was specifically religious, mostly historical. a religious point of view would be 'jesus wasn't the son of god because god can't have sons'

i wouldn't say a religious point of view would simply be an explanation of jesus' probable intentions. just because it's stated by people who happen to be religious doesn't make it a religious point of view. it's just a certainpoint of view believed by some jews and some historians. is that so hard to understand? the word 'secular' may be unnecessary. it just stuck out okay?

[Samsa]

a lot of people say the brothers and sisters are children from an earlier marriage of joseph's. because sex is evil or something and mary never consecrated her marriage. really pisses me off.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by Samsa
yes it is. because i didn't think my point of view was specifically religious, mostly historical.

you said "jews think this..." and i was saying "secular people also think this..."

it was a way to point out the concurrence of two different views, those of jewish and secular scholars, and i think the use of the word secular was not out of place.

heh.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


you said "jews think this..." and i was saying "secular people also think this..."

it was a way to point out the concurrence of two different views those of jewish and secular scholars, and i think the use of the word secular was not out of place.

heh.

the way you phrased it made it out of place. or maybe just redundant. i don't fucking care at the moment. it definitely stuck out as being unnecessary. iguess because it's obvious that your point of view would be secular and even though as i said "jews" believe it doesn't make the belief necessarily a religious one so the word 'secular' is redundant.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by Samsa
the way you phrased it made it out of place. or maybe just redundant. i don't fucking care at the moment. it definitely stuck out as being unnecessary. iguess because it's obvious that your point of view would be secular and even though as i said "jews" believe it doesn't make the belief necessarily a religious one so the word 'secular' is redundant.

but saying "jews believe..." narrows the range of your answer down, and specifying that other people believe it too is important to its validity. sigh.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by Irrelevant


but saying "jews believe..." narrows the range of your answer down, and specifying that other people believe it too is important to its validity. sigh.

someone asked what jews think of jesus. i replied.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by Samsa
someone asked what jews think of jesus. i replied.

yes, i was responding to someone else but when i saw you had already stated the same thing i felt redundant in stating it so i thought i'd point out that i think the jewish viewpoint is accurate in a secular way also.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Samsa
a religious point of view would be 'jesus wasn't the son of god because god can't have sons'

[Smiley33]

Originally posted by Samsa
a religious point of view would be 'jesus wasn't the son of god because god can't have sons'

LOOLahontas

[Samsa]

Originally posted by DeviousJ

what don't you get? that point of view is obviously a religious one -- it has definite religious prerequirements -- a specific belief in god. why is this so confusing?

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Samsa


what don't you get? that point of view is obviously a religious one -- it has definite religious prerequirements -- a specific belief in god. why is this so confusing?

I think you should have put 'an example of a religious point of view' - in the context of religious vs secular viewpoints it came across as a universal belief. But now I get what you mean

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by Affect
Proof? Other than the good book?

The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for the Romans, wrote of Jesus near the time of the war in 70 A.D. He was assigned by the empire to catalogue a history of the Jewish people so they could get a feel for the people they would be handling.

Regardless what you think of him, no serious religious scholar/historian questions whether he actually existed or not.

[noir cat]

Gettin religious today, eh?