Tangent discussion from 'Theory of Beginning of Life and "God"' continued...

[alexander]

Well, upon Irishes request, we should continue discussing whatever tangent that we stranded towards in the Theory of Beginning of Life and "God" ( http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?p=53054 ) topic here.

 

basically if you need to recap it all, this page is where the main discussion takes place:

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3077&page=5&pp=20

basically from post 84 and down...

[Southtown]

it is called common sense... follow me through on this one:

Established:

Jesus was a Jew

He was raised a Jew

His family was Jewish

He taught pure Judeism

He was he was in his thirties when he was Crucified

Ok that established, how much do you know about Judeism (especially about Early Judeism and early world Civ) would determine your response to your own question.

I dont calim Marry Magdalene to be Jesuses wife, but he was married, great scolars have expressed that as well, take for example Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper", you should really spealk to a person who specialises in symbology and iconography, but that person just to the left of Jesus (from our view) is infact a woman, you can also see a woman on the last suppers by Jean Fouquet and Albrecht Durer. That said, read "The Woman With The Alabaster Jar", classic that revolutionized Christian scolarship.

That is an extrapolation based on typical Judaism. Jesus was no typical Jew. Why would they crucify Him if He was so in line with tradition? He was accused of breaking Sabbath by healing people. He was accused of blasphemy by professing to be the Son of God and the promised Messiah. He drove out the merchants from the temple with a whip. And He almost continually debated with the Sanhedrin publicly. The logic that He was married because He was a Jew is inconsistent, and paintings centuries later are as irrelevant as the later adoption of paganistic symbols.

[Erasmus00]

That is an extrapolation based on typical Judaism. Jesus was no typical Jew. Why would they crucify Him if He was so in line with tradition?

 

They didn't. The Romans did.

-Will

[Southtown]

They didn't. The Romans did.

-Will

True ...reluctantly at the threat of Jewish uprising. Mark 15; Luke 23

[alexander]

That is an extrapolation based on typical Judaism. Jesus was no typical Jew. Why would they crucify Him if He was so in line with tradition? He was accused of breaking Sabbath by healing people. He was accused of blasphemy by professing to be the Son of God and the promised Messiah. He drove out the merchants from the temple with a whip. And He almost continually debated with the Sanhedrin publicly. The logic that He was married because He was a Jew is inconsistent, and paintings centuries later are as irrelevant as the later adoption of paganistic symbols.

 

I never said that Jesus was a typical jew, he taught pure judeism, and he was crucified for his beliefs, that does not change the fact that he was raised as a jew in a jewish family and had could have taken over the throne of jews

I thought we agreed that he did not prophecy to be the son of god, so unless you have any kind of hisorical evidence backing your argument there, but i'm all ears, or eyes i should say :lol:

And the logic behind the marriage is not inconsistent, jewish tradidtion at the time strongly encouraged marriage, and they used to marry really early in life. so logic is there, you just dont want to see it because you are stuck on the Bible!