Sir, Pilate wrote a letter to Tiberius Caesar detailing Jesus physically. Much of this has only recently came to light for the masses after being locked up in the Vatican for centuries. Therefore, and due to other ancient writings, he existed. I do not believe he was conceived from immaculate conception, nor do I believe his physical body was raised from the dead. Oh, Pilate describes Jesus as having strikingly different physical characteristics from the Jews. Could it have been that Jesus felt that his task on this earth was to try to prevent Jewish heirarchy from spreading their manipulation of human beings by adopting an attitude of persecution and gold as world common denominator?
Cite, please.
This is odd in more ways than one. First, because gold tends to be divided between people, so I think it is more the common numerator. Second, because paranoid individuals seeking to wrest “control of currency by the Jews” normally advocate having a physical stock of gold as a representation of the valorisation of labour. The normal spiel is that the principle is to be opposed is usury / capital’s control of the means of production (and creditor’s control of capital). After all, with mines in worker control and no interest ridden debt, the only way to accumulate gold without trading for something the gold miner finds equally valuable is to steal it.
I’d also point out that Jesus didn’t reserve his criticism for the Jews… First of all, racial theory is ridiculous. There are fewer genes encoding for race than height and overlapping error bars due to the large variations between individuals of various “races” no matter how one chooses to define a race. Even if Jesus were proposing to combat the Jewish octopus (about 18m people worldwide identify as Jews: there are more Jedi Knights than Jews in England), presumably his followers would display semitic qualities. Jewish heritage is counted by mother, not father as well (destroying Matthew’s genealogy), so unless there is a special sort of Lamarckism at work where people that are born without avarice look less semitic or those that evolve into less semitic people become less avaricious that quote would be bunk. Also, most of the people that agreed with his views would have both a Jewish father and a Jewish mother, so the idea of genetic predisposition is untenable. Not to mention that Muhammad was a semite that vehemently opposed usury too (and loved figs). Jesus didn’t really speak much about economics, though did support charity at any cost (giving more than what is asked for - Luke 6:34-35 without expecting in return)… He also may have been in favour of progressive taxation, since he claimed that a woman paying two motes had paid more than those that put larger sums of money into coffers. The following phrase:
Is used to support the idea that he was fine with interest. He also didn’t have anything bad to say about slavery. The idea that he was an intellectual rather than a prophet has enjoyed some currency, with Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky all supporting the secular moral philosophy he espoused (and individuals like Rand and Nietzsche dissenting, marrying his moral philosophy to his quite disturbing theology and deciding that the poor in spirit are doomed). That said, he spends a lot of time admonishing hypocrites and those that would cause a child to lose their faith (I haven’t seen any factor analysis of the individuals he opposes most). A large minority of individuals identifying as Jewish are secular, so its highly unlikely that there is a religious disposition to charging interest (though there may be a cultural one, since early Christians and Muslims opposed it so had to borrow money from Jewish people in a time when people largely continued the trade of their fathers). So for accuracy, I think Jesus would have just as vehemently decried Kenneth Lay (father a baptist preacher) and Jeffrey Skilling as Andrew Fastow or Lloyd Blankfein.
Are you referring to the Acts of Pilate?
All of these are considered forgeries, btw, by modern scholars. The following, from here:
Yes there is.
Oh, I missed this: apparently holocaust deniers are less loathsome than people asking the Church to re-evaluate its position on homosexuality, priest celibacy and patriarchy.
I also like that on the page the person criticising Father Berrigan for being an intellectual has a PhD in sociology and wrote at least two books a year.
Nope. It was the Romans on Golgatha with the lumber and nails. Actual COD might have been a spear to the side.
There isn’t if you don’t want there to be. It’s that simple.
He took an arrow to the knee. Then they took him to the quarry and threw shit on him.
Let he who is without a snowboard cast the first stone?
I am not an expert in theology, but it seems that the Jews made sacrifices for thanksgiving, not for atonement.
The expiatory goat, used for atonement, was set free in the fields, not sacrificed.
Not wholly. The first that comes to mind is the Red Heifer (Numbers 19).
Nobody believes this as far as I’m aware. It doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Immaculate Conception is not the same thing as the Virgin Birth. It refers to Mary being conceived in the regular sexual manner but without the stain of original sin. Or something like that.
That’s correct. IC concerns the circumstances of Mary’s birth (or more accurately, her conception), not Jesus’. Your memory is correct.
As far as who believes in IC, it’s pretty much only a Roman Catholic doctrine.
Yeah, but what about Mary’s mother? I bet that skank was conceived by steaming hot monkey love.
Moderator Speaketh: Look, I know that these are VERY funny comments. Both caused me to chuckle, no doubt about it. However… it makes me very uncomfortable to be bringing an extraneous topic into another thread. I’m therefore suggesting that people lay off this kind of aside. However amusing, it’s border-line insult. I’m not doing anything official here, I’m just suggesting in a friendly manner that we not blow the damn quarry thing up any more than it’s been.
Yep - just like everyone else (including Mary as noted in my post) with the sole exception being for Jesus (according to Christians).
If you were trying to contribute something worthwhile to the thread, it eludes me.
Then I won’t spoil it for you.
When a wee tad, I thought his name was Pontius Pirate.
Yo-ho-ho!
I’m seeing my next Halloween costume: toga, eye patch.
“Who are are you?”
“Pontius Pirate. Arrrh!”
