Chili

I have no problem with water being his baptism and blood the eucharist since religion is the greatest enemy to overcome.

And be sure to understand that Mary was from Nazareth, which is that 'big little city of God' in the mind of Joseph, and if and only if She was from Nazareth will ascension follow. This is made very clear with Joseph in Matthew not being a Nazorean but only made a pitstop there so it can be said that he was a Nazorean . . . and the end goes back to Galilee to fry some more.

So Nazareth was indeed the water that he bled, but also all his persistent evils that were intergenerational to him (transpersonal or soul orientations, or incarnate evils, if you like), are part of this water, including his communion with the saints in heaven that sustained him until thusfar (i.e. he was not a bible thumper, let me point that out).

And right, he was ready to die with the 'old artificer' line and that 'no breaking a leg' thing is just added to show that they already knew then that he would ascent to heaven.

I actually think that Mary becomes the 'myther' that they wear in Rome and they seem to walk around in her shoes too, as she is the wherewithall of Rome (except maybe for the gold that she does not want).

Blood is milk and Eucharist is the solid food he chewed in Galilee.

Sheshbazzar

No. and that was not what started this particular line of discussion.
The matter came up only because your utter ignorance concerning the usages of the words catholocisim and catholic.

And I have never once suggested that they weren't.
כי הנה בן־אלהים אנכי׃
ככתוב אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם׃


Then you had little valid reason to be raising objection to the statement;
with;
And is it not factual that the unknown authors of the NT scripture did their building of their Jesus deity AFTER the lifetime of your alleged historical man?
And that the characteristics of deity and of possession of supernatural miracle working abilities were added LATTER by the means of the writings of these unknown deity builders?

Or do you believe that Jesus, Joshua, or whatever the hell name you may wish to call your imagined tax rebel, actually performed all of those recorded supernatural miracles, and that they were not invented by your unknown deity builders and added to his reputation 'LATTER'?


I'll take that as being a concession to the point I made, and have been arguing. You do understand and now conceed that 'the mythology was added latter';
'Only after his death'.
Back on track, Perhaps we can return to the crux of the matter that we were originally arguing.
This being that it is your belief, and your often stated position, that there was once a very real and living man, a human being (not a 'half man/half god') a "tax rebel" whose words and actions in 1st century CE Jerusalem led to his execution by crucifixion at the hands of the Roman authorities.

Before I add more, is that not an accurate summary of what you, John Winford, believe, and have repeatedly asserted on this Forum?

outhouse

Isnt that a blessing?


But I beg to differ. Both do not think a tax dodging man died on a cross, a normal Roman punishment.


I know he did not preform any supernatural events. And those events were added decades after the fact by people not only, not witness to the events, but didnt even belong to the same geographic location or culture attached to the mythology.



I do not conceed, I have always had this poistion and made it quite clear.


Bingo!

Montgomery Scott

I would think that if his wrists and feet were nailed with railroad tie like spikes, that the crucified would bleed out rather quickly, not to mention the shock of the excruciating pain (I have stepped on construction nails and this is the worst fucking pain, I dont think getting shot would hurt that much more).

Then there is the suffocation, the victim would have to keep moving, through the excruciating pain just to get air from the dead weight of one's own body. The crucified would want that pain to end quickly and desire to give up life. It's torturous.

In the Jesus story, a Roman stuck him in the side with a sword which caused a bleed out. I have also read that the Romans used to break the legs and knnes of victims to cause them to suffocate faster.

I dont think the process took that long from crucificxion to death. It also served as a warning to others not to muck around with authority.

aa5874

Where in the Bible was Jesus a human being?? The Bible Specifically described the Conception of Jesus.

If Jesus walked on nails he would boast about it and leave them in his "foot" to show people he was God.

It was the author of the story who determined how long he wanted his character to be on the cross.

Now, please read the stories.

Does it NOT say Jesus was seen alive by the disciples after the crucifixion??

Does it not say Jesus Commissioned his disciple AFTER the crucifixion??

Did NOT Jesus eat fish after the crucifixion??

Did NOT Jesus cook fish after the crucifixion??

Jesus, if he was really a man, must have survived.

Jesus NEVER really died in the Gospels if he was seen alive.

But it just a Myth Fable about the Son of a God called Jesus.

stephan huller

But that's the whole point. If all these things were true then we have an explanation. But the reality is that most of these things were added later to assist in explaining the sudden death. Just to recap, in Mark Pilate is 'surprised' and he was allegedly in a position to judge how long one should expect to survive given the injuries. Moreover Mark mentions only 'flogging.' Origen furthermore specifically says there was no piercing and moreover reinforces that Jesus should have lived much longer. His tradition held that the Father intervened and Jesus died supernaturally (i.e. not from the crucifixion). That's very important because we know of lots and lots of Christians who said that Jesus didn't suffer from the effects of crucifixion or die from being crucified.

sotto voce

Quote, please.

Iskander

The word ‘nail’ only gives one reference in the book I am using .In John 20:25, 25 So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.’


Thomas would not have spoken this obviously made up statement. I want to see him, where is he? Is what a disciple of the resurrected leader would have said.


He wanted to see that mark of the nail in the hand, but the nail would have torn the hand had it been used to support the body.
When Thomas says he wants to see the mark of the nails in the hand and the mark of the spear, it is the church official the one who is doing the speaking and who is using Thomas as physical proof of the resurrection.


Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...ifixion/roman-

crucifixion-methods-reveal-the-history-of-crucifixion/

Chili

Thomas as doubter is the flip-side of Peter as faith (they were twins), and so no-faith equals no doubt . . . and no hope can remain in I AM, that I AM.

The stigmata is the evidence of crucifixion and the licence to preach the good news while pointing only to 'the self' and say: "do as I did" as you can see for yourself, with the implied message being: "do not worship the Jesus of old."

Upon seeing Thomans exclaimed: My God and Lord God, to say that all doubt was removed and so also all faith was gone and hence they could not catch a single fish all nigth in the faith-side of life.

That is when they cast their nets on the other side of their life-houseboat (read mind) and hauled-in those big ones to built this new religion on and called it Catholic in Rome.