Tars Tarkus

Ok, I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I was taught both in my fundamentalist christian school and church, that when Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding, that it really didn't become wine but grape juice. This let them declare consumption of any alcoholic drink in any amount a sin. Must have been a fun wedding.
They were also against long hair on men and denied Jesus had long hair, as depicted in most pictures. You see, Jesus would have worn the style that was in vogue in Rome at the time and that style was set by the emperor Tiberius, who had short hair. Did they think Jesus went to a barber with a Roman sesterce and told him "I wanna look like this guy!"?

NZSkep

according to wiki (the fount of all knowledge) the origin is actually in dispute (or rather, unknown)

fatpie42

Probably a good thing this thread was moved here then. I must admit that I personally can't read Greek. Anyone want to clear up this little issue?

fatpie42

That's a good one. I haven't heard it before though.

Anyone else heard of this one? It's be good if anyone else who has heard it could speak up so that we can gauge how widespread it is.

I'm going to put the claim in bold here:
"Jesus turned water into grape juice, not wine."

Do they get around the whole holy communion issue by saying that during the ritual it isn't really wine anymore? Or do they use grape juice there too? If they don't use wine in communion do they suppose that Jesus only drank grape juice at the last supper too?

The Tiberius angle sounds like a load of rubbish. Jews would not be encouraged to look like Roman figures as they deeply resented the influence that Rome had over the area. (Although it's probably worth noting that the area Jesus lived in wasn't technically 'occupied' by the Romans. The king was allowed to rule so long as he kept the people under control and conceded to any of Rome's demands.)

Nevertheless, I was of the impression that the common image we are used to was based on an image of Zeus. Rather than risking simply spreading another urban legend, I'm going to use information on wikipedia and leave you guys to correct anything which seems out of place. This way, if I do make any mistakes at least it will because someone writing on wikipedia has made a mistake and not because I am spouting off things I don't understand properly.

So here goes.

The first Christian depictions of Jesus were rare and it is unlikely that they had an image of Jesus to work with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images_of_Jesus

The similarities between the ikons at a later stage is very probably because some holy relic which was believed to actually depict Jesus. The tradition of ikons would have been arisen relatively late, so it still remains that the earliest images of Christ were not based on any particular image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images_of_Jesus

The wikipedia page on ikons gives a more detailed explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon

It seems that the preference for a Jesus with long hair prevailed, but perhaps the best sign that it would not have been culturally accepted where Jesus actually lived is the following quotation from St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 11:14-15

So it actually seems pretty likely that Jesus would not have had long hair as a part of his cultural heritage and that the image we commonly see today is based on the depictions of Zeus of the time.

Please feel free to challenge this if I'm making a mistake here.

fatpie42

I've got some new ones. I've been reading Michel Onfray's book recently and in it he names Jean Meslier as the first atheist philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

I decided to have a look at his Testament, which appears to be translated here:
http://www.marxists.org/history/fran.../testament.htm

He writes:
Here are a few examples of contradictions. The Gospel writer Matthew has J. Ch. descend from King David through his son Solomon until Joseph, the at least putative father of J. Ch. Luke has him descend from the same David by his son Nathan down to Joseph.

Speaking of Jesus, Matthew says that the word had been spread around Jerusalem that a new king had been born, and that the Magi had come seeking him so as to adore him. King Herod, fearing that the so-called new king would some day take the crown from him, had had all the babies born within the last two years in the area of Bethlehem killed, for it was there he was told this new king was going to be born. Joseph and the mother of Jesus, having been warned in a dream by an angel of this evil plan, had quickly fled to Egypt, where they remained until Herod’s death, which occurred a few years later.

On the contrary, Luke says that Joseph and the mother of Jesus peacefully remained for six weeks in the place where their child Jesus was born, that in keeping with the law of the Jews he was circumcised there eight days after his birth. And when the time prescribed by that law for the purification of the mother had passed, she and Joseph her husband took him to Jerusalem to present him to God in His temple and also to offer a sacrifice, which was commanded by the law of God. After this they returned to Galilee to their city of Nazareth, where their child Jesus every day grew in grace and wisdom, and his mother and father went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn days of Passover. Luke makes no mention of their flight to Egypt, nor of Herod’s cruelty towards the children of the province of Bethlehem.

As for Herod’s cruelty, since the historians of those times don’t speak of it at all, and neither does Josephus, the historian who wrote the life of Herod; and since the other Gospel writers make no mention of it, it’s obvious that this voyage of the Magi led by a star, this massacre of little children, and this flight to Egypt are nothing but absurd lies. For it is not credible that Josephus, who condemned the vices of this king, would have passed silently over so black and detestable an act, if what this Gospel said were true.


Now I was told by my RE teacher at school that there was no conflict between Matthew and Luke. Being fairly impressionable (in other words 'gullible') as we tend to be as children, I was quickly convinced by being shown that in Matthew's account the wise men discover Jesus in a house, not a manger. As such I quickly conceded to the argument that Luke's account took place first (shepherds visiting the manger on the night of Jesus' birth) and then later on when Joseph and Mary have a place of their own the 'wise men' (who have a much further distance to travel) turn up.

However, what I hadn't noticed was that in Luke's account there is a very detailed account of the rituals the parents had to perform with the child. They circumsise him on the eighth day, they take him for purification in Jerusalem and they offer a sacrifice for him. Finally Luke 2:39 claims "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." That pretty thoroughly rules out any fleeing to Egypt, doesn't it?

And of course the other classic one is that one of the family trees traces Jesus on his father's side while the other traces Jesus on his mothers side. Naturally the idea that anyone back then would trace a family tree from the mother's side is clearly nonsense. Oddly enough those who claim that one of the family trees is traced from Mary seem to claim that it is the one in Luke which does this, however Luke's genealogy names only men while it is Matthew's account which mentions several women.

As for the claims about Herod, I have heard it said that Herod was actually quite a savage figure and that he therefore might well have committed many atrocities like (though most probabaly not including) the massacre of innocents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

What do people think?

Solitary Man

Kamilos is listed in the online Lewis and Short, but with the note that it's possibly coined from the Matthew phrase!

Solitary Man

I have. It's a southern American thing, I think.

fatpie42

Now that's classic. :rolling:

Minimalist

The highly quotable Robert G Ingersoll had this to say on the subject.

James Brown

I thought it was Josephus who carefully cataloged all the atrocities of Herod, with the exception of the Bethlehem slaughter of innocents, of course, arguably the worst atrocity in the list.


Here's another Christian Urban Legend I can think of:

Peter was crucified upside down because he didn't feel himself worthy of dying the same way that Jesus did.

Another one I heard runs along the line of:
Husband forbids wife to practice Christianity. He locks her Bible in a lockbox and throws the key into the river. Wife goes to market and buys fish. Inside fish is key. Husband converts to Christianity.

And another along the same line:
Husband forbids wife to practice Christianity. He throws her Bible into fireplace. Next morning, all of Bible is ash except for one scrap. Husband looks at scrap which reads, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away." Husband converts to Christianity.

And another:
Young rebellious man listens to sermon in Church. He decides against converting to Christianity. Young man exits church and is run down by a truck.