• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

5 Unanswered Questions About Jesus

ecofarm said:
Explain?
Click to expand...

The "Church" in her laws never sanctioned simony, in fact she punished it with excommunication. While some corrupt ecclesiastical officials abused the practice of granting indulgences for generous donations to line their own pocketbooks, this was not officially sanctioned by the Church. Plus there's the fact that indulgences only removed the temporal debt of punishment due to sin which had already been forgiven, and didn't to grant forgiveness.

Also, Luther could have reformed the Church from within, as was done by many of the saints, heck if he had done that he may have eventually become St. Luther.
 
lizzie said:
it's a little hard to believe that he was just born of a different mindset than virtually everyone that he knew and grew up around. At the least, it's interesting to ponder.
Click to expand...

Being God might have had something to do with it.
 
Paleocon said:
The "Church" in her laws never sanctioned simony, in fact she punished it with excommunication. While some corrupt ecclesiastical officials abused the practice of granting indulgences for generous donations to line their own pocketbooks, this was not officially sanctioned by the Church. Plus there's the fact that indulgences only removed the temporal debt of punishment due to sin which had already been forgiven, and didn't to grant forgiveness.

Also, Luther could have reformed the Church from within, as was done by many of the saints, heck if he had done that he may have eventually become St. Luther.
Click to expand...

Prior to Luther the Great Schism had already occurred. The division of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox had resulted. Luther rejected the Roman Catholic rule. But Luther like the Roman Catholic had his political influences of support by very wealthy people as well that would benefit in a Luther revolution against the Catholic Church. If you want the truth go back prior to the Great Schism. Seek those like Polycarp a saint recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. Polycarp was a student of St. John. You know the one who is accredited with the Gospel of St. John? Polycarp taught just like the disciple John did. He used the writings of the Old Testament to prove Christ to be whom he claimed. He fought the change of Passover to Easter. He celebrated Christ as our Passover Lamb on PASSOVER. If you want the truth, do yourselves a favor and seek it.
 
vesper said:
Prior to Luther the Great Schism had already occurred. The division of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox had resulted. Luther rejected the Roman Catholic rule. But Luther like the Roman Catholic had his political influences of support by very wealthy people as well that would benefit in a Luther revolution against the Catholic Church. If you want the truth go back prior to the Great Schism. Seek those like Polycarp a saint recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic. Polycarp was a student of St. John. You know the one who is accredited with the Gospel of St. John? Polycarp taught just like the disciple John did. He used the writings of the Old Testament to prove Christ to be whom he claimed. He fought the change of Passover to Easter. He celebrated Christ as our Passover Lamb on PASSOVER. If you want the truth, do yourselves a favor and seek it.
Click to expand...

I've looked into Orthodoxy, and rejected it. The primacy of the Pope was recognized by the Church of the first millennium.
 
1. When was Jesus born?

Jesus was born during the rule of the Roman Emperor Cesar Augustus during a census; which census is unclear. According to the Gospel accounts Jesus was also born during the rule of King Herod the Great who died in 4 BC. It is doubtful that December 25th is the date. The date was probably injected centuries later by the church to replace the pagan winter solstice festivals.

2. Was Jesus married?

No

3. Did Jesus walk on water?

Yes. If you believe he could have been raised from the dead, walking on water would not have been a problem.

4. When did Jesus die?

Jesus died during the administration of Pontius Pilot the Roman governor of Judea (26-36 AD) probably between 30 and 33 AD during the Jewish passover.


5. Was Jesus buried in the Shroud of Turin?

NO. During the middle ages European cathedrals were the tourist attractions of their day, drawing many Christian pilgrims from all over the western world. Each of these city/states and their individual cathedrals were in competition for these pilgrims who paid real money into the coffers of these cities, and funded the building of these cathedrals. It is unfortunate, but many if not all of these so called Christian relics were fabricated to draw these pilgrims for this economic purpose.
 
So far, I doubt anyone has followed the link in the OP.

BTW, if it were to be discovered beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was married, what difference would it make to modern Christianity?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So far, I doubt anyone has followed the link in the OP.

BTW, if it were to be discovered beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was married, what difference would it make to modern Christianity?
Click to expand...

I suppose the same difference that it would make to science if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat.
 
Paleocon said:
I've looked into Orthodoxy, and rejected it. The primacy of the Pope was recognized by the Church of the first millennium.
Click to expand...
Prior to the Great Schism, the writings of the Saints are very enlightening. In fact I would venture to state that they make the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox today off their rocker vesus what the early church taught. Yes the pope was established but do you realize what political influence and other powers were involved in making that happen? Like I stated earlier, if it is truth you desire, go back to prior of the Great Schism. Read the writings of the Saints of those days and then scrutinize them with Scripture and the truth will set you free!
 
vesper said:
Prior to the Great Schism, the writings of the Saints are very enlightening. In fact I would venture to state that they make the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox today off their rocker in regard to what the early church taught. Yes the pope was established but do you realize what political influence and other powers were involved in making that happen? Like I stated earlier, if it is truth you desire, go back to prior of the Great Schism. Read the writings of the Saints of those days and then scrutinize them with Scripture and the truth will set you free!
Click to expand...

What position are you advocating then? And the papacy was recognized before the conversion of Constantine.
 
Paleocon said:
What position are you advocating then? And the papacy was recognized before the conversion of Constantine.
Click to expand...
Long before Constantine there was Polycarp.
 
Paleocon said:
And what sect do you believe carries on the true teachings of Polycarp?
Click to expand...

None, it's on an individual basis. You know some claim I am of Pope Francis, I am of Luther, I am of the current leader of the Southern Baptist, or I am of the current leader of the Church of the do drop in. It has nothing to do with "sect" It has everything to do with wisdom and knowledge. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Matthew 7:7 Peace Palecon.


Peace.
 
vesper said:
None, it's on an individual basis. You know some claim I am of Pope Francis, I am of Luther, I am of the current leader of the Southern Baptist, or I am of the current leader of the Church of the do drop in. It has nothing to do with "sect" It has everything to do with wisdom and knowledge. "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Matthew 7:7 Peace Palecon.


Peace.
Click to expand...

You realize that all of the people St. Paul mentioned in the passage you're referring to were in communion with one another, right?
 
Paleocon said:
You realize that all of the people St. Paul mentioned in the passage you're referring to were in communion with one another, right?
Click to expand...
Yes and those yearning to know God, seeking the truth regardless of "sect" are in communion wouldn't you agree? Ditch the "sect" Paleocon, it all lies in the heart and mind of the believer. Cheers.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So far, I doubt anyone has followed the link in the OP.

BTW, if it were to be discovered beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was married, what difference would it make to modern Christianity?
Click to expand...

I did follow the link. I answered the questions based on my belief.

As to the the other question about marriage I would say, yes it would make a difference. First of all I don't agree that Jesus was in anyway related to his mother Mary in terms of genetics. Some faiths believe that God is his father and Mary his mother, but they based this too heavily on the idea of what "virgin birth" meant at the time. Today Mary could just be called a surrogate mother. I don't say that to take anything away from the person Mary. She was obviously chosen for reasons which were God's reasons, but to say that Jesus was the genetic offspring of anyone other than God/Creator would seem unnecessary. The 'creator' would not need the DNA of this woman or any other woman to do what the narrative describes. And philosophically (at least to many Christians other than Catholic Christians) Mary was subjected to the same fallen condition as her natural father Adam. If she was not subjected to 'the fall', then she did not need a redeemer.

So back to the marriage question: Why would the God/Man need to be married? Since it is assumed that marriage would entail the possibility of offspring, what kind of offspring would these be? Half God/Man half Man/Man? I see that as not having a purpose to what the mission of Jesus was described to be in the narrative.
 
Dittohead not! said:
[h=1]5 Unanswered Questions About Jesus[/h]



Answers: 1. probably not on December 25, 2. maybe 3. maybe 4. maybe 5. maybe

Check it out. It's an interesting site at least.
Click to expand...


Nothing new about Dec 25. Or the exact date of His death. It's not the date that's important.
It's the significance of those events that matters!

As for the rest, they don't make any difference at all.
The purpose of the Messiah's death and Resurrection is still the same:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
 
Sean.McDonnell said:
Honestly there is much more we don't know about Jesus then we know.

The fact Christians didn't know if he was divine or not for three hundred years after his death should speak to this.
Click to expand...

The Apostles, and all those who witnessed Him risen from the dead and His Resurrection, knew.
 
Paleocon said:
Being God might have had something to do with it.
Click to expand...

That presumes that I believe Jesus is God. I don't view Jesus in the traditional Christian manner, as I believe he is the son of God, just as you and I are sons of God- he was just a bit higher up on the evolutionary ladder.
 
Paleocon said:
I suppose the same difference that it would make to science if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

It's that basic, really? Why? What would change about the teachings of Christ if it came to light that he was married?
 
Del Zeppnile said:
I did follow the link. I answered the questions based on my belief.

As to the the other question about marriage I would say, yes it would make a difference. First of all I don't agree that Jesus was in anyway related to his mother Mary in terms of genetics. Some faiths believe that God is his father and Mary his mother, but they based this too heavily on the idea of what "virgin birth" meant at the time. Today Mary could just be called a surrogate mother. I don't say that to take anything away from the person Mary. She was obviously chosen for reasons which were God's reasons, but to say that Jesus was the genetic offspring of anyone other than God/Creator would seem unnecessary. The 'creator' would not need the DNA of this woman or any other woman to do what the narrative describes. And philosophically (at least to many Christians other than Catholic Christians) Mary was subjected to the same fallen condition as her natural father Adam. If she was not subjected to 'the fall', then she did not need a redeemer.

So back to the marriage question: Why would the God/Man need to be married? Since it is assumed that marriage would entail the possibility of offspring, what kind of offspring would these be? Half God/Man half Man/Man? I see that as not having a purpose to what the mission of Jesus was described to be in the narrative.
Click to expand...

Questions like that suppose that what made Christ divine was his body, and not his spirit. Any progeny he may have had would have been children of his flesh only, not of his spirit.

If Christ lived a perfect life as an example to the rest of us, it would seem that marriage and parenthood would have to have been a big part of that life.
 
lizzie said:
That presumes that I believe Jesus is God. I don't view Jesus in the traditional Christian manner, as I believe he is the son of God, just as you and I are sons of God- he was just a bit higher up on the evolutionary ladder.
Click to expand...

Then why did He do things that only God could do?? I'm not talking about the miracles, but rather what He did more than once - forgiving sins. It wasn't forgiving someone for doing something that personally offended Him, but forgiving people for the sins in their life that separated them from God. You can argue about anything else, but this is the one act that only God can lay claim to. The Jews of the time knew and knew it well and it was this that offended them more than anything.
 
ecofarm said:
He reformed the church when it was accepting payment for forgiveness. He's not Jesus, who reminded us of faith, but he was thinking rather differently than esteemed peers. The message of faith above law is clear throughout the Old Testament, yet was paid lip service. Similar cases.
Click to expand...

Similar cases, but different times and cultures.

Jesus seems to have been an extreme anomaly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom