Evidence That Jesus Was Married to Mary Magdalene? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

 

[Godsbrother]

Of course he was married...or at the very least banged some chicks. He was half human after all.

Are we talking about Jesus or Spock?

 

[timschochet]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Why would any of that be significant information, given the purpose of the gospels?

I wasn't trying to make an argument, just curious. But to answer your question, why would it be insignificant? If you tell me that there was this guy who was God, I would want to know everything I could about him.

 

[beer 302]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

Well the birth of the Son of God to a virgin is somewhat significant, no?

 

[matuski]

So we have a scrap of parchment with no context, from a private source that refuses to divulge the location it was found, written in a language that none of the rest of the New Testament was written in, that mentions two of the most common names during that time period with no additional identifiers attached to those names.Am I missing anything else?

Sounds like it has as much going for it as the bible in terms of evidence?

Either you're trolling, or you're mis-informed. If you're trolling, you're not doing s very good job. If you're mis-informed, I can recommend some reading that you may find interesting.

matuski does this stuff in every Christianity-related thread. It's best to ignore him.

Feel free to ignore me, but if you do indeed have any evidence of Jesus (the God claimed in the Bible), I am dead serious when I ask you to bring it forward.

 

[beer 302]

Of course he was married...or at the very least banged some chicks. He was half human after all.

Are we talking about Jesus or Spock?

Wait a minute, shouldn't you be somewhat of an authority here How's about a little insight into big bro's business a few thousand years ago?

 

[Jagov]

Was there any pre-marital action?

Did they have any children? Was any birth control deployed?

How did J-Man feel about Mary being a whore? Did he even care?

 

[Godsbrother]

Of course he was married...or at the very least banged some chicks. He was half human after all.

Are we talking about Jesus or Spock?

Wait a minute, shouldn't you be somewhat of an authority here How's about a little insight into big bro's business a few thousand years ago?

Nahhh. No one tells me anything.

 

[CrossEyed]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Why would any of that be significant information, given the purpose of the gospels?

I wasn't trying to make an argument, just curious. But to answer your question, why would it be insignificant? If you tell me that there was this guy who was God, I would want to know everything I could about him.

Ok, significant may have been the wrong word to use. But the gospels exist to tell the story of the Messiah coming to earth and his earthly ministry. The birth narrative is important in that it establishes that Jesus is the Messiah and that He fulfills the prophecies they were given. His ministry, death, and resurrection are important because they tell the story of God's grace and offer of salvation. Details of Jesus' boyhood and teen years would satisfy some people's curiosities, but it really wouldn't give us much in the way of substance for the purposes of explaining His ministry and reason for coming to earth.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Like I said, they left those books out of the New Testament to fit their agenda. They needed the mortaresque things, like dieing for our sins, last supper, tempted by Satan, betrayal, etc...

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Further proof that not even the son of god can "just be friends" with a chick.

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

 

[timschochet]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Uneventful and didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost until then?

As a footnote in Christian history, there were early Christian groups that believed that Jesus was chosen by God not at birth, but at his baptism. The holy spirit descended upon him like a dove at his baptism and subsequently departed from Jesus when he died on the cross. He gave up the spirit when he said "it is finished" and the Temple curtain ripped as the holy spirit ascended back to heaven. There were many arguments, for hundreds of years, over Jesus' divine nature.

That's very interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Like I said, they left those books out of the New Testament to fit their agenda. They needed the mortaresque things, like dieing for our sins, last supper, tempted by Satan, betrayal, etc...

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a fun read. I don't believe it was "left out to fit [any] agenda" per se. I think it was probably reasonable to conclude that it was less reliable than the Gospels that were selected. But it's still kind of fun to read about the "Dennis the Menace" Jesus.

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

The infancy gospel of Thomas describes some of Jesus' childhood. According to him, young Jesus sometimes had some anger issues and put his parents in awkward social positions.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Like I said, they left those books out of the New Testament to fit their agenda. They needed the mortaresque things, like dieing for our sins, last supper, tempted by Satan, betrayal, etc...

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a fun read. I don't believe it was "left out to fit [any] agenda" per se. I think it was probably reasonable to conclude that it was less reliable than the Gospels that were selected. But it's still kind of fun to read about the "Dennis the Menace" Jesus.

My favorite book was left out...The book of Enoch. Now that is a crazy book. It talks about Enoch being taken into outer space by aliens...eerrr...angels. I wonder why that was left out of the Old Testament (that is the Jewish Bible too).

 

[GeauxTigers]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

The infancy gospel of Thomas describes some of Jesus' childhood. According to him, young Jesus sometimes had some anger issues and put his parents in awkward social positions.

Didn't that book mention that Jesus killed another little kid by pushing him off a roof? I saw that in one of those History Channel shows.

 

[acapella]

This seems like another example of awful mainstream reporting. My understanding is that this evidence of another 2nd century non-canonical gospel. That hardly seems like a revelation.

At least for protestants, whether Jesus was married or not doesn't have any theological significance. But the thing that we're talking about here -- a fragment containing a few words from an up-until-now-unknown non-canonical gospel -- doesn't really even qualify as evidence on this point.

Many would disagree with this.

How so?

I'm curious as well. Not that I have an opinion one way or another but as I think about my understanding of the Bible and Jesus' teachings, I am not sure of the significance of him being single or married. I understand that the Church is his "bride" but nothing immediately jumps out at me otherwise.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

The infancy gospel of Thomas describes some of Jesus' childhood. According to him, young Jesus sometimes had some anger issues and put his parents in awkward social positions.

Didn't that book mention that Jesus killed another little kid by pushing him off a roof? I saw that in one of those History Channel shows.

When the parents of one of the kids he kills complain to Mary and Joseph, Jesus strikes them blind (when I picture this, I think of a trombone playing WAH WAH WAH WAH!).

 

[Parrothead]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Why would any of that be significant information, given the purpose of the gospels?

I wasn't trying to make an argument, just curious. But to answer your question, why would it be insignificant? If you tell me that there was this guy who was God, I would want to know everything I could about him.

teenage Jesus probably masturbated, and that would make for some 'uncomfortable' discussions at Sunday school..

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This seems like another example of awful mainstream reporting. My understanding is that this evidence of another 2nd century non-canonical gospel. That hardly seems like a revelation.

At least for protestants, whether Jesus was married or not doesn't have any theological significance. But the thing that we're talking about here -- a fragment containing a few words from an up-until-now-unknown non-canonical gospel -- doesn't really even qualify as evidence on this point.

Many would disagree with this.

How so?

I'm curious as well. Not that I have an opinion one way or another but as I think about my understanding of the Bible and Jesus' teachings, I am not sure of the significance of him being single or married. I understand that the Church is his "bride" but nothing immediately jumps out at me otherwise.

The controversy, as I understand it, is that this non-canonical Gospel can be traced back to the 2nd Century (in Greek, this parchment is translated Coptic from a few centuries later), to a time before the first stories portraying Jesus as celibate turned up. Keeping in mind that I have no interest whatsoever in the "historical Jesus", the "literary Jesus" is characterized by the tension between his human qualities and his divine qualities. I think scholars think it's somewhat significant because it represents a real difference of opinion among early Christians over whether it was significant that Jesus was more fully human (capable of lust, jealousy, and a desire for the quotidian comforts of marriage and family) or more fully something above us (who loved more perfectly yadda yadda yadda).Now, I'm not sure it was such a raging controversy in the church (priests were allowed to marry until around 1000 AD, when the emphasis on celibacy was sort of revived). But we might surmise that this change in the church might have never happened if the canonical Jesus had taken a wife.

 

[Jayrok]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

The infancy gospel of Thomas describes some of Jesus' childhood. According to him, young Jesus sometimes had some anger issues and put his parents in awkward social positions.

Didn't that book mention that Jesus killed another little kid by pushing him off a roof? I saw that in one of those History Channel shows.

The child's parents accused Jesus of pushing him off the roof, but Jesus denied it and said the boy fell. Jesus then resurrects his friend. On another occasion, a kid brushes by Jesus in the village and knocks into his shoulder. Jesus didn't care for that and said the kid wouldn't make it to the end of his journey. The kid then fell over and died. Young Jesus is portrayed as a mischievious youngster not uncommon with other young god-men heroes of Greek mythology.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

OK, that makes sense to a degree. Yet they do relate the Nativity, in some detail.

The infancy gospel of Thomas describes some of Jesus' childhood. According to him, young Jesus sometimes had some anger issues and put his parents in awkward social positions.

Didn't that book mention that Jesus killed another little kid by pushing him off a roof? I saw that in one of those History Channel shows.

When the parents of one of the kids he kills complain to Mary and Joseph, Jesus strikes them blind (when I picture this, I think of a trombone playing WAH WAH WAH WAH!).

LOL...Don't mess with Jesus!

 

[GroveDiesel]

So we have a scrap of parchment with no context, from a private source that refuses to divulge the location it was found, written in a language that none of the rest of the New Testament was written in, that mentions two of the most common names during that time period with no additional identifiers attached to those names.Am I missing anything else?

Sounds like it has as much going for it as the bible in terms of evidence?

Either you're trolling, or you're mis-informed. If you're trolling, you're not doing s very good job. If you're mis-informed, I can recommend some reading that you may find interesting.

matuski does this stuff in every Christianity-related thread. It's best to ignore him.

Feel free to ignore me, but if you do indeed have any evidence of Jesus (the God claimed in the Bible), I am dead serious when I ask you to bring it forward.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#_

 

[NCCommish]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

 

[CrossEyed]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

 

[NCCommish]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

Yeah sucked to be them. But that doesn't change the reality of what the gospels were.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Not sure why this is a story. It is common knowledge that several books were left out of the New Testament on purpose to fill the agenda of the church at that time. Initially, Jesus wasn't even considered the son of God or supernatural, but they changed it to fit their needs.

Exactly. The bible is a man made book used to control the populace and put people into power.

 

[CrossEyed]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

 

[CrossEyed]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

So you've never actually read the gospels? Where in the Bible does it say you get a place in heaven by selling Christianity?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

At the risk of getting lumped into a group I'm not particularly interested in being involved with, I don't think it's very significant that a group of true believers who espoused a somewhat novel philosophy of eternal life might have had somewhat less regard for their life. We see that with relgious martyrs of many different stripes. It is evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs, not really the accuracy of their beliefs.

 

[matuski]

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

Power, control, influence, wealth.All in the name of pure benevolence and charity, of course.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

So you've never actually read the gospels? Where in the Bible does it say you get a place in heaven by selling Christianity?

You know what I'm getting at. They believed in their leader so they wanted to spread the message. No different from the followers of any other cult.

 

[TPW]

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

Power, control, influence, wealth.All in the name of pure benevolence and charity, of course.

What early Christians usually gained was beheading, crucifixion, and dinner dates with hungry lions courtesy of people such as yourself.

 

[cstu]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Why would any of that be significant information, given the purpose of the gospels?

I wasn't trying to make an argument, just curious. But to answer your question, why would it be insignificant? If you tell me that there was this guy who was God, I would want to know everything I could about him.

They told everything people needed to know in order to believe and left out everything else. Are you questioning the success of their methods?

 

[matuski]

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

Power, control, influence, wealth.All in the name of pure benevolence and charity, of course.

What early Christians usually gained was beheading, crucifixion, and dinner dates with hungry lions courtesy of people such as yourself.

Usually the way it goes when you try to take power from those in power.Feel free to take all the ugly shots at me you find necessary to make yourself feel better, but the obvious observation stands.

 

[Mario Kart]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

I want the E! True Hollywood story version of Jesus. What does he have to hide? Hookers and blow? C'mon.

 

[mad sweeney]

So we have a scrap of parchment with no context, from a private source that refuses to divulge the location it was found, written in a language that none of the rest of the New Testament was written in, that mentions two of the most common names during that time period with no additional identifiers attached to those names.Am I missing anything else?

Sounds like it has as much going for it as the bible in terms of evidence?

Either you're trolling, or you're mis-informed. If you're trolling, you're not doing s very good job. If you're mis-informed, I can recommend some reading that you may find interesting.

I'll take some of that reading please.

 

[CrossEyed]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels?

Because none of the Gospel writers thought it was important. The point of the Gospels is to pass along Jesus' teachings and to document the passion. They're not meant to be biographies.

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

So you've never actually read the gospels? Where in the Bible does it say you get a place in heaven by selling Christianity?

You know what I'm getting at. They believed in their leader so they wanted to spread the message. No different from the followers of any other cult.

I understand your argument, but it doesn't explain why they would be "selling" a message. That was what I was asking about originally. Selling implies a payment of some sort. They weren't expecting anything as a result of sharing their message, other than what Jesus promised, which was persecution.

 

[mad sweeney]

Was there any pre-marital action?Did they have any children? Was any birth control deployed?How did J-Man feel about Mary being a whore? Did he even care?

The whore issue was a smear campaign.

 

[timschochet]

The early Christians were incredibly brave people, and their success at spreading their message to a world hostile to them is nothing short of astonishing. For me it's one of the most impressive aspects of the Christian religion.

This has been an interesting discussion, but as always it's starting to go downhill as certain people want to come in here and attack and insult Christians. For the life of me, I don't understand why there is the constant need to do this. If you are an atheist who is comfortable in your own skin (and I'd like to think that describes me) then you can have discussions with religious Christians, sometimes respectful disagreements or arguments. Point out contradictions if you want. But no need to antagonize them or degrade them. People who constantly engage in such tactics are only demonstrating their insecurity over their own beliefs.

 

[TPW]

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

Power, control, influence, wealth.All in the name of pure benevolence and charity, of course.

What early Christians usually gained was beheading, crucifixion, and dinner dates with hungry lions courtesy of people such as yourself.

Usually the way it goes when you try to take power from those in power.Feel free to take all the ugly shots at me you find necessary to make yourself feel better, but the obvious observation stands.

Spoken by someone with obviously very little knowledge of the beginning years of the faith. Early Christians were about as powerless as they come. When they weren't being used for sport by their Roman overlords they were being treated as second class citizens by whatever local populace they happened to live amongst. There was no push for domination, only the desire to live in peace and spread the message of the Gospel to those willing to listen.My link

It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire nearly 300 years later that it became a substantial political force. Ironically, these days it seems we are rapidly headed back to a place in time where Christians will be forced back to the underground.

 

[mad sweeney]

The point of the gospels was to sell Christianity. They were advertising and as such should be eyed suspiciously.

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

So you've never actually read the gospels? Where in the Bible does it say you get a place in heaven by selling Christianity?

You know what I'm getting at. They believed in their leader so they wanted to spread the message. No different from the followers of any other cult.

I understand your argument, but it doesn't explain why they would be "selling" a message. That was what I was asking about originally. Selling implies a payment of some sort. They weren't expecting anything as a result of sharing their message, other than what Jesus promised, which was persecution.

Selling doesn't imply payment. It's used figuratively, as in "Brady really sold the play action".

 

[mad sweeney]

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

Power, control, influence, wealth.All in the name of pure benevolence and charity, of course.

What early Christians usually gained was beheading, crucifixion, and dinner dates with hungry lions courtesy of people such as yourself.

Usually the way it goes when you try to take power from those in power.Feel free to take all the ugly shots at me you find necessary to make yourself feel better, but the obvious observation stands.

Spoken by someone with obviously very little knowledge of the beginning years of the faith. Early Christians were about as powerless as they come. When they weren't being used for sport by their Roman overlords they were being treated as second class citizens by whatever local populace they happened to live amongst. There was no push for domination, only the desire to live in peace and spread the message of the Gospel to those willing to listen.My link

It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire nearly 300 years later that it became a substantial political force. Ironically, these days it seems we are rapidly headed back to a place in time where Christians will be forced back to the underground.

I don't think you understood what was being said there.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

You realize almost all of the apostles were killed because of their faith in Jesus, right? What did they have to gain by "selling" Christianity?

You realize all of the people who drank the kool-aid died because of their faith in Jim Jones, right?

Oh, and you realize all of the suicide bombers die because of their faith in Allah, right?

Still doesn't answer my question. What did they have to gain by "selling" what was a very unpopular message at the time?

A place in heaven? Just like muslims will get their virgins or the Peoples Temple would get whatever they were promised.

So you've never actually read the gospels? Where in the Bible does it say you get a place in heaven by selling Christianity?

You know what I'm getting at. They believed in their leader so they wanted to spread the message. No different from the followers of any other cult.

I understand your argument, but it doesn't explain why they would be "selling" a message. That was what I was asking about originally. Selling implies a payment of some sort. They weren't expecting anything as a result of sharing their message, other than what Jesus promised, which was persecution.

Because they had great faith in their leader. We see it all through out history. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on it. If people truly believe in something, they will die for it. That doesn't make it true though. I can't tell you the motives of people who lived 2000 years ago. I don't know what life was like then and neither do you or anyone else.

 

[Socrates11]

I understand your argument, but it doesn't explain why they would be "selling" a message. That was what I was asking about originally. Selling implies a payment of some sort. They weren't expecting anything as a result of sharing their message, other than what Jesus promised, which was persecution.

Bull. They were "expecting" converts. Had they not converted people, their ideas would have died with them.

 

[Claydon]

Serious question: why isn't there more biographical information about Jesus in the Gospels? For instance, why all the detail of his birth and baptism, and then the timeline jumps to when he is 30 and begins his ministry? What about Jesus the young man, in his teens and 20s?

Even still...the gospels are vastly different. They contradict each other left and right.