h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That's a new one on me Gaggle Halgrunt (fantastic name by the way!).
It's reasonably well established that when Jesus was a scholar he spent many years in India. That would fit because there's a lot of Krishna stuff in his philosophy. Of course, he had to keep some back, such as reincarnation because that would have got him branded a total crackpot in the so-called Holy Land and he wouldn't have been able to complete his ministry. So it wouldn't be surprising that when they fled from the so-called Holy Land many of them, Jesus included, might have gone back to the sub-continent.
What clinches Glastonbury for me Gaggle is that along with that early date of an established Church in Glastonbury (Britain) in 96AD is the word "Glas". In those days the ancient Celtic tongue of Cymraeg (Welsh) was spoken far and wide in Britain and "Glas" means - Heaven, Sky, Blue.
Could be that William Blake was on the mark when he wrote his famous hymn: "And did those feet in ancient times ...". And maybe also there is something to the legend of the Round Table, the Holy Grail and so on. The trail leads on to Wales, Ireland, Iona, Lindisfarne ...
One thing's for sure - Even if he died on the cross (and I don't believe he did because too many people saw him in the following days) there's no way that Joseph of Arimethea, having bribed all those Romans, would leave the precious body behind when he set out in his ships.

<>

I'm sorry, I have to disagree... I realise that the Resurrection is a bit of a stretch, but then it's a one-time-in-history event! We shouldn't expect it to be replicable...

Why distrust our forebears so much? There were witnesses!

Here are some interesting links.

http://www.preachingtodaysermons.com/stleetrabre.html
and
http://members.aol.com/OrthodoxUM/Resurrection.html

<>
Hi Catwoman,
Many of the witnesses claimed to have seen Jesus walking around a few days after his 'death'. Some of them even touched his wounds which rules out the possibility that it was actually one of Jesus's brothers and therefore a case of mistaken identity.
To me it's not important if Jesus actually died physically on the cross. It would be enough for me if he had died symbolically on the cross.
As already stated, I personally think it's more crdible that he went to Britain in ships with Joseph and the 500.
What I do believe are his teachings as reported in the Gospel of Thomas and these I accept almost without reservation (for there was a little holding back of information by Jesus for reasons I have stated in a previous reply).
I think Thomas's version of Jesus' ministry is by far the most reliable.

Siw'mae Llaregub! Mae'n amlwg dy fod ti'n Gymro/Gymraes hefyd!
Nice name too - a Dylan Thomas fan eh?

Hi Della,
nice to hear from you. I'm not surprised that you disagree with me, as I've seen some entertaining conversations that you've had with Hoovooloo/Son of Roj Blake and Blatherskite.

You're right - the Resurrection is one hell of a stretch. Also, I think that event has actually been replicated, albeit withoutinvolving crucifixion. It is well known that people can appear "dead" - unconscious, very shallow breathing, faint, barely palpable heartbeat/pulse, and yet not be brain-dead, which is the modern, scientifically and legally acceptable definition of death.

I'm sure that some of the witnesses were convinced he was dead. This does not necessarily make it so, as they did not have the required medical knowledge. This is why their evidence cannot be trusted.

I'm afraid the burden of proof lies with the proponents of the Resurrection in this case. There are too many confounding variables (outlined in detail previously) which can explain the apparent death of Jesus in physiological terms.

Hi Della,
I've followed the links you gave. The first one proclaims it has evidence, but it asks for money to obtain it. I'm not willing to waste money on it.

The second one also claims to have proof for the Resurrection, but then actually doesn't provide any real evidence at all. Saul/Paul's conversion and Peter's Acts don't really count as true evidence, regardless of whether they died for their beliefs or not. It doesn't really cut the mustard.

I'm still not convinced, I'm afraid.

Hello, Gaggle!

No doubt, I could find other more informative links, though I am bit busy right now...

<< Saul/Paul's conversion and Peter's Acts don't really count as true evidence, regardless of whether they died for their beliefs or not. It doesn't really cut the mustard.>>

To me, there's no question at all, that they believed what they taught. I find it highly psychologically that they would die for a falsehood.

Meanwhile, I'll see what other links I can find...
This one is a bit more detailed...
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm
and here is another one.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
And, hello, Llaregub!

Nice one Gaggle. I've read Under Milk Wood in English and in German but never in Welsh. My Cymraeg is a bit rusty since I left The Land of Song quite a few years ago. Still get pangs of the old Hiraeth and try and make it to Ynys Mon, Lleyn, etc. when I can.
As far as <> it's apparently lost in the mists of time, perhaps even beyond DNA etc?

Della,
Why is it unlikely that people would die for beliefs they deeply, sincerely believe are true, and yet may not have proper, indisputable evidence for them?

An analogy - thousands of adult Nazis and Hitler Youth died for their cause in World War 2. They fervently believed in their cause, yet the vast majority of people today (even in Germany) would agree that they were victims(?) of a falsehood.

That's an interesting question. Perhaps there's a psychologist can enlighten us?

Yeah, it's possible that they may have believed but been wrong - the point though, is that they *did* have evidence! Do check out the second pair of links I gave, they talk about the evidence.

A good point is, that the story of the Resurrection was being told within the living memory of people who could easily have refuted it if any of the 'disciples stole the body', or 'Jesus didn't die, he merely fainted, or took a drug that simulated death' stories had been true. Yet, that didn't happen - no one came forward to 'prove' the statements of the early Christians false.

The earliest of the Gospels was in circulation much earlier than many people nowadays think, and the Epistles were even earlier, within 20-30 years of AD33, the estimated date of the Crucifixion.

Llaregub, afaik, that applies to the Gospel of Thomas, which also afaik, is a 'sayings gospel', which doesn't include any narrative. I don't see therefore, how it 'refutes' any of the Canonical four... There are many sayings in Thomas which are obvious parallels to sayings in the Canonical gospels, although Thomas is clearly Gnostic. (I did a study of it in the 1990s)

Della,
Have I missed something? Has the learned professor in your 2nd link neglected to mention Joseph of Arimathea (feast day 17th March) the local Mr. Moneybags who bribed Pilate to release Jesus's body into his special custody so that Jesus could be buried in his (Josph of Arimathea's) rather posh tomb as would befit a King; not a simple cave with a rolling stone.

I always understood that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb *was* the one with the stone! The alternative would have been no burial at all, which was the fate of those who didn't have any Moneybags friends or rellies...

That's very interesting, Della.
Do we know what happened to the bodies of the two criminals when they were taken down.
How did they dispose of the (presumably 1,000s) corpses of the people who were sentenced to death)?

ok I will give my answers to the questions. There are alot of different answers, but here are mine.

1. There is a major difference between believing in Astrology and believing in divine intervention. As I understand it, in Astrology, life follows the stars, whereas in the birth of Christ, the star followed life. It is a difference of cause and effect. (assuming I understand Astrology correctly - it is not a subject that I have taken upon myself to learn much about)

2. Must be. If you see a connection between these events, then I'm not seeing your logic, because they appear unrelated to me. Maybe I'm being a bit dense, but you'd have to spell out exactly what you think the conspiracy is for me to understand what you're getting at.

3. Hmm ... there are a couple things I might say on this one ...
A. I seriously doubt that every single person present was drunk. Someone had to serve. My guess is that the story is based on the serving people's testimony, BUT ...
B. We simply don't know. We also don't even know if it was Christ's first miracle. There may have been several different miraculous events that the gospels leave out.

4. "The orthodox gospels denounce Magdalene somewhat as a repentant whore/prostitute." - Perhaps I'm not as much of a Bible scholar as I thought I was, but where specifically does the Bible call Magdalene a whore?

"This seems far too simplistic to me. Magdalene is the only one to anoint Jesus (the meaning of Christ is "anointed one")," - "the annointed one" ... I have heard many names for Christ ... but you're saying that is what the actual name/spelling "C-H-R-I-S-T" means? I may have heard this before but I don't remember.

"and she was the first to witness the resurrection." - Ah, I'm pretty sure the gospels disagree on that point.

"However, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene bears witness to an uncomfortable relationship between Magdalene and the rest of the apostles, who denounce her version of Jesus' teachings. It is easy to see from this how the orthodox church, based on Peter's teachings, would have incorporated this dim view of her into its canon." - how do you know the gospel of mary magdalene was written by mary magdalene? I must say, all these other gospels that are not canon sure seem to be accepted as "gospel" by all nonbelievers.

That was supposed to be a pun.

...

it was terrible. forget it.

I've read the "DaVincci Code" and I am not convinced.

Even if all these documents that supposedly "prove" a relationship between Christ and Magdalene were somehow found (that would be like finding ... the Holy Grail! (another stupid pun, forget it)) I don't see how we could authenticate them. Sure, we could date them, but how could we prove their authorship? Grailers all seem to believe in the "Jesus was married" thing already, so what is the point of finding a case of documents to "prove" it?

Have I ever told anyone that I reject biblical infallibility? Because I do. There are errors in the Bible.

Hi Nerd 42!
I'll try to respond to your comments in turn. If I don't manage to reply to every one, I'll get around to it later.
Della, I'll also try to answer the points in your quoted articles, but there's a hell of a lot to get through there!
This thread has suddenly picked up momentum after a year.

ok, Nerd...

1. That's an interesting viewpoint on the astrology v. star of Bethlehem debate. I don't really buy it. The Magi practised Astrology, period.

2. Re: Salome. I made a mistake here - it's the Gospel of Philip which maentions Salome by name as one of the women who followed Jesus. But anyway...
Am I correct in understanding that the only other area in the Gospels (canonical and apocryphal) where a Salome is mentioned is in the events around the death of John the Baptist? A significant event, and one in which the name of the perpetrator (Salome) is significant enough to be mentioned by name, rather than just a "young dancing girl." Salome is also significant enough to be mentioned by name as one of the women who followed Jesus, along with the three Marys. Strikes me as one hell of a coincidence. Could it be the same girl involved? Of course not! Jesus' followers would never do that!
The Gospels (written by followers of Jesus) then seem to overly go out of their way to "quote" John the Baptist as proclaiming Jesus as his superior. John's followers, including the "cult" of John in modern Iraq, didn't/don't view it that way.

3. OK, I'm taking the p*** slightly on this one.

4. Oops, I've made a mistake here as well! I fully accept your correction. The orthodox Gospels don't denounce Magadalene as a prostitute. It's c.2000 years of Orthodox Christian TRADITION that does this. The Gospels state that she was a repentant sinner who had had seven demons cast out of her (by Jesus).

Yes, "Christ" does mean the anointed one. Christ was not his surname. "Christ", or rather the Greek word "Xristos" means "the anointed (king)", and is a direct translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah", as far as I understand it. The Hebrews understood the word Messiah to mean an anointed King of the Davidic bloodline. It did not mean a supernaturally-conceived Son of God to them.
Of course, Jesus never heard the word Christ/Xristos as a reference to him during his lifetime. He was known as Jesus the Nazarene - hence Pilate's statement on the cross "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum".

Mary Magdalene the first to witness the risen Christ: I thought that was why she was known as "the apostle to the apostles". I agree that the Gospels differ in their accounts of the actual chronology of these events, but I nevertheless understood it that she was always the first one to find the empty tomb, at the very least.

I didn't say that the Gospel of Mary Magdalene was written by Mary herself, but it is very compelling to read of these dynamics in the Jesus follower group following the crucifixion. And this was just one of the "heretical" gospels that was hidden in a jar in the Egyptian desert to escape destruction by the persecutory tendencies of the developing orthodox Church. This is why it's so important with regard to the history of the early Christian community. These other Gospels provide a much broader flavour of early Christianity than the canonical Gospels/Acts/letters provide. On whose REAL authority did the Council of Nicea deem them heretical? I'm afraid "divine" inspiration/revelation isn't a good enough answer.
But anyway, no I do not believe in the apocryphal gospels as "gospel." I would still question their absolute validity. My point is that the orthodox Church has suppressed, destroyed, and persecuted these other Christian traditions, and therefore in my view cannot say with authority that it teaches the real teachings of Jesus.

Actually, I haven't read the Da Vinci code. I'm rather reluctant to. I think that Dan Brown has capitalised on something that is essentially quite important. Although he has made the issue topical to the public, this is a bit of a double-edged sword. His novel has also served to cheapen the debate somewhat. Sceptics of the "Grail" debate and all that it entails now seem to focus on disproving Dan Brown's book, which is a work of fiction and contains inaccuracies of artistic license (as I know from seeing TV documentaries on the subject) rather than the real issue of the apocryphal gospels and the history of the early Christian community.

Llaregub, afaik, the bodies of those executed were normally thrown to dogs... Rather like in the 19th century, they were thrown in a hole in the prison yard, and covered with quicklime...

<>

It doesn't.

Wow, I would so love to have multi-quote here! Technical people, are you listening, please!

"The Magi practised Astrology, period."

Um ... I'm pretty sure the Bible itself (KJV) doesn't refer to the men as "Magi". Just says "wise men from the East" or some such. It also doesn't say there are three of them.

The Protestants and Latter-Day Saints both believe that the Catholic church fell into apostasy pretty early on. So, we are trying to debunk alot of Catholic tradition the same way you all are.

were three of them, not "are" - "were"

Nerd42,

The King James Bible.

Check out:

www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm

You'll see there are many words in the KJV that are commonly perceived as mistranslations of the original texts.

Also, do a Google search for "King James Bible mistranslations" and see what you find.