BTW don't insult Passion of The Christ, I don't care for Mel Gibson after his comments, but that movie was amazing, and he portrayed so amazingly. That move can make a Christian feel good in a Secular Progressive world.
Yuck... these pieces of slime sicken me to no end.
Jesus was NOT married, he did NOT have a child, EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGES (EVEN ATHEISTS) THERE WAS A MAN NAMED JESUS
But I am SO SO insulted that these 'people' try to make up lies and false hoods.
You know why? They want to prove Christianity wrong.. and one method is to try to make Jesus look like a normal human with a wife and child, to discredit him as a prophet.
Don't test me here people.. I get VERY emotion when Jesus Christ, my lord and savior, is made a mockery of with falsehoods and lies.
Not that the documentary proves anything but why would it be such a stretch to consider Jesus' body may not have floated away to the heavens? Is it that far fetched to think it might not have? Why would it make a difference if it was ever proven it didn't?
Because the dogma is that he bodily ascended into heaven, thus there should be no earthly remains. If there are, his ascension is a lie and one of Christianity's major props gets kicked out from under it. I wouldn't worry about it though, there's no conceivable way to prove any particular pile of bones once belonged to Jesus. It is a legitimate empirical question and is definitively answerable, at least in principle, but we don't have the necessary data and almost certainly never will. Besides, people who believe claims like virgin births, the miracles reported in the New Testament, and bodily ascension into heaven, aren't going to be swayed by circumstantial evidence and probability calculations.Not that the documentary proves anything but why would it be such a stretch to consider Jesus' body may not have floated away to the heavens? Is it that far fetched to think it might not have? Why would it make a difference if it was ever proven it didn't?
I think it's about St. Paul's writings. Paul either hated or feared women, possibly both, and clearly considered virginity and celibacy to be superior lifestyle choices, though he did concede that it's better to marry than burn. But he expected Jesus to return, and the end of the world, within his lifetime, and given that, it's reasonable to refrain from such long term commitments as marriage and parenting. The Bible doesn't say Jesus was married, nor does it say he wasn't, but as somebody (Zzarchov I think it was) pointed out, in Jesus' times the former state would have been much more worthy of comment than the latter for a man in his 30s. It seems Jesus' marital status was deemed unworthy of comment by the gospel writers, which suggests there was nothing unusual about it. Proves nothing though.. What's all the indignation about?
And I could never understand why all the Christians are so outraged at the thought of Jesus' having a family. It is not an outrageous crime, to have a family, is it? To married by the law and to have legitimate children? Even if Jesus was a God, he walked this Earth in a human body, so I guess it's just natural that he did have a human life, too. I don't see this as in any way offensive to him. What's all the indignation about?