Stigmata
David Wynne-Griffiths
stigmata. 330 people, almost all Catholics, have since St. Francis of
Assisi exhibited various stigmata including most often wounds in the
palms of both hands. Curious, because for obvious reasons the
victim was normally nailed to the cross through the wrists.
--
~~~~~~~~~~
David W-G
~~~~~~~~~~
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
probably psychosomatic.
APM
Guy King
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Curious, because for obvious reasons the
> victim was normally nailed to the cross through the wrists.
But if the stigmata were produced through fervent belief, then it is
not surprising tht they should be in the palms as that is where most
people /believe/ that nails went!
Not that I believe, but it would seem to follow?
--
| |\_/|
Guy King |~~(o o) My mother warned me about
Hounslow, Middlesex | /=(Y)= loose cars and fast women.
guy....@zetnet.co.uk |(
www.users.zetnet.co.uk/gking/ | \
Sian Lindsey
from Guy King <guy....@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> But if the stigmata were produced through fervent belief, then it is
> not surprising tht they should be in the palms as that is where most
> people /believe/ that nails went!
Though of course we know that when crucifying someone the Romans
actually drove the nails through the wrists because the structure of
the palms isn't such that it could support the person's body weight
on the wood - one would fall down!
Hmmm...
Sian
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> probably psychosomatic.
I would think that is the only explanation. It does, however,
illustrate the amazing power of imagination especially in relation to
religious beliefs.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> 330 people, almost all Catholics, have since St. Francis of
> Assisi exhibited various stigmata...
Oddly enough I'd not come across this phenomenon until I saw an
X-files episode about it. Some RC colleagues gave me the full
rundown next day.
IMO, the X-files is exactly where it belongs.
--
Adrian Tupper, Edinburgh
adrian...@zetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/adriantupper/
David Poole
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> In the Carol Vorderman Mysteries programme there was a short piece on
> stigmata. 330 people, almost all Catholics, have since St. Francis of
> Assisi exhibited various stigmata including most often wounds in the
> palms of both hands. Curious, because for obvious reasons the
> victim was normally nailed to the cross through the wrists.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
You're forgetting the alternative universe where their Jesus was
nailed through the palms ;)
David Poole
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <199812091...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > probably psychosomatic.
> I would think that is the only explanation. It does, however,
> illustrate the amazing power of imagination especially in relation to
> religious beliefs.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
You little monkey David.
I remember when I was a believer, the whole church congregation going
nuts and shaking. We were hitting the floor one by one crying and
shouting out the Lords name etc. I knew I was putting it on but I had
to follow everybody else so I didn't look out of place. I now believe
that everybody else were shamming too.
Gerald L R Stubbs
I was going to say that...... Oh! Whoops...
I seem to have stumbled into a religious
thread... Sorry,
Exits, stage left.
--
Stubbsy stu...@zetnet.co.uk
<:)(((((><<
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David Poole <david...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I remember when I was a believer, the whole church congregation going
> nuts and shaking. We were hitting the floor one by one crying and
> shouting out the Lords name etc. I knew I was putting it on but I had
> to follow everybody else so I didn't look out of place. I now believe
> that everybody else were shamming too.
Either that or they were experiencing a form of religious hysteria.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> But maybe Yeshu was nailed through the palms....
Nails through the palm of the hand would not hold the body upright
for very long as they would tear through the flesh of the hand. The
alternative to nails through the wrists was to bind the arms to the
cross bar. The methods to ensure the victim stayed alive as long
as possible were well developed and there was usually a ledge or seat
on the cross. Crucifixion was a common form of capital punishment
particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and
Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD.
Guy King
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Either that or they were experiencing a form of religious hysteria.
I think that was what David meant!
Eric H-T
says...
> It does, however,
> illustrate the amazing power of imagination especially in relation to
> religious beliefs.
But doesn't it occur to people who are not really religious at all, the
psychosomatic reason cannot really apply to them... I would of
thought?.....I dunno..
--
Bye for now, Eric.
ICQ uin >> 2764113
Fidonet >> 2:256/651.26
HotMail >> eh...@hotmail.com
Freeserve >> er...@htuk.freeserve.co.uk
Mailto >> eric.he...@zetnet.co.uk
David Wynne-Griffiths
from eric.he...@zetnet.co.uk (Eric H-T) contains these words:
> But doesn't it occur to people who are not really religious at all, the
> psychosomatic reason cannot really apply to them... I would of
> thought?.....I dunno..
I think they have all been Catholics. Odd that the problem should
not effect Protestants!
From the 14th to the 20th century, more than 330 persons were
identified as having been stigmatized; 60 were declared saints or the
blessed in the Catholic church.
Sian Lindsey
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> circumstantial evidence to suggest the crucifiction (sic) was a staged
> event with Yeshu's survival intended.
Oh, now *that* would put a spanner in the proverbial xtian works,
wouldn't it? I can see the headlines now -
"Lord and Saviour Dies Unexpectedly: Two Romans Remanded In Custody
Charged With First Degree Manslaughter"....
Uh-huh...
Sian
Elaine Jones
<URL:mailto:eric.he...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <199812091...@zetnet.co.uk>, dav...@zetnet.co.uk
> says...
>
> > It does, however,
> > illustrate the amazing power of imagination especially in relation to
> > religious beliefs.
>
> But doesn't it occur to people who are not really religious at all, the
> psychosomatic reason cannot really apply to them... I would of
> thought?.....I dunno..
Bit of confusion here re the meaning of psychsomatic - it generally refers
to a physical disorder brought about by stress - not relating to imagination,
e.g. stomach ulcers can be psychsomatic.
--
...ElaineJ... Visit Jones' Pages at http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ejones
.on an Acorn. Corwen, North Wales; Steam Traction, with feature on Fodens;
..StrongArm.. Textures/Backdrops; Christmas GIFs (and Acorn Drawfiles)
...RISC PC... CMMGB with pics of pre- WW 1 Dawson & Yukon Volunteers.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I'm aware of that but nailing through the palms of a supported body
> would also cause only superficial damage whereas nailing through the
> wrists would, I understand, affect use of the hands - not of any great
> concern where the subject dies but in this case there is plenty of
> circumstantial evidence to suggest the crucifiction (sic) was a staged
> event with Yeshu's survival intended.
Indeed, and that would provide an excellent reason for what would
otherwise be totally inexplicable. However, if Jesus did not die on
the cross it does blow rather a big hole in most of the teaching of
the Christian churches. Strange too that the cover up left such
obvious clues behind.
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I think they have all been Catholics. Odd that the problem should
> not effect Protestants!
> From the 14th to the 20th century, more than 330 persons were
> identified as having been stigmatized; 60 were declared saints or the
> blessed in the Catholic church.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
This 'Catholics Only' syndrome is explained by the protestant who
was being shown round Heaven. After the tour, his guardian angel
asks: "Have you any questions?"
"Yes," he replies: "what's that high wall over there?"
"Oh, that! All the Catholics live behind that. They think they're
the only ones in Heaven!"
APM
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from Elaine Jones <ela...@cae-coed.zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Bit of confusion here re the meaning of psychsomatic - it generally refers
> to a physical disorder brought about by stress - not relating to imagination,
> e.g. stomach ulcers can be psychsomatic.
> --
> ...ElaineJ...
That depends on how you define 'stress'?
APM
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Bit of confusion here re the meaning of psychsomatic - it generally refers
> > to a physical disorder brought about by stress - not relating to imagination,
> > e.g. stomach ulcers can be psychsomatic.
> That depends on how you define 'stress'?
"Psychosomatic. Med. Designating, pertaining or relating to illnesses
having both physical and mental components, usually involving a
physical condition caused or aggravated by mental or emotional disorder."
John Greetham
> > > Bit of confusion here re the meaning of psychsomatic - it generally refers
> > > to a physical disorder brought about by stress - not relating to imagination,
> > > e.g. stomach ulcers can be psychsomatic.
> > That depends on how you define 'stress'?
> "Psychosomatic. Med. Designating, pertaining or relating to illnesses
> having both physical and mental components, usually involving a
> physical condition caused or aggravated by mental or emotional disorder."
> --
David, yet again it is necessary to chastise you!! (No I don't enjoy it!! :)) )
1 You remove reference to Elaines post causing the casual observer
to think that Aonghas may have replied to his own post.
2 Aonghas begged the question ". . . on how you define 'stress'?"
but you replied defining "Psycosomatic"
I'm not complaining at your definition only at the fact that you have
not defined "Stress"
JG
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from John Greetham <cres...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> David, yet again it is necessary to chastise you!! (No I don't enjoy it!! :)) )
> 1 You remove reference to Elaines post causing the casual observer
> to think that Aonghas may have replied to his own post.
> 2 Aonghas begged the question ". . . on how you define 'stress'?"
> but you replied defining "Psycosomatic"
> I'm not complaining at your definition only at the fact that you have
> not defined "Stress"
> JG
Hmmm, but we're going round in circles here, and David (W-G) was
rather correcting Elaine's definition of 'psychosomatic', as was I in
a more roundabout way.
It isn't always easy to snip (especially with multiple headers) in
order to indicate the specific beginning of a point. While you are
technically correct, John, I think you are holding up a mirror to
David. Naughty!
APM
(But should keep the thread boiling a bit longer.)
David Wynne-Griffiths
from John Greetham <cres...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> David, yet again it is necessary to chastise you!! (No I don't enjoy it!! :)) )
> 1 You remove reference to Elaines post causing the casual observer
> to think that Aonghas may have replied to his own post.
> 2 Aonghas begged the question ". . . on how you define 'stress'?"
> but you replied defining "Psycosomatic"
> I'm not complaining at your definition only at the fact that you have
> not defined "Stress"
You seem to have a talent for nit picking which I am sure could be
put to better use, and I think you are wrongly assuming that the
readers of .local are so dim that they need to have all postings
endlessly requoted in full! Eric and Guy would not like that at all <VBG>
You appear to be interested to know the definition of stress. "
Stress = a condition or adverse circumstance that disturbs, or is
likely to disturb, the normal physiological or psychological
functioning of an individual". As you will see it is only slightly
different to "aggravated by mental or emotional disorder" as set out
in the dictionary definition of psychosomatic. By the way I can
recommend Spellwrite!
David Poole
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> In article <199812101...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > The message <48b2066...@zetnet.co.uk>
> > from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > > But maybe Yeshu was nailed through the palms....
> > Nails through the palm of the hand would not hold the body upright
> > for very long as they would tear through the flesh of the hand.
> but in this case there is plenty of
> circumstantial evidence to suggest the crucifiction (sic) was a staged
> event with Yeshu's survival intended.
Blimey, I actually agree with this.
The Roman catholics will one day get their come uppance for what
they've done to the real church.
Dave the atheist who does believe in Jesus the man.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Are we in danger of finding common ground here?
> I guess the 'cover up' was carried out by the rich and powerful. Joseph
> of Aramathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and, tradition would have
> it, a rich tin trader who visited Britain; and Yeshu's own family seems
> to have been not short of a shekel or two. Presumably it had to
> convince the mob, which included most of the poorer disciples, who were
> kept at a distance - very few people were allowed near the cross. The
> accounts that have come down to us would be from those not privy to the
> subterfuge and so not unwilling to report the curious details, but
> rationalising them or finding OT prophetic justification.
Do you think he survived the crucifixion? That would seem a more
likely explanation for his subsequent appearances than the highly
improbable resurrection. Most of the other dogmas are equally
suspect for instance the virgin birth and assumption. If the
crucifixion was faked what does that leave of the teachings of the
Christian churches? It is instructive to look at the 'Q' text to see
how the stories were added and the message adapted to meet the
requirements of those who were running a new religion.
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Are we in danger of finding common ground here?
> I guess the 'cover up' was carried out by the rich and powerful. Joseph
> of Aramathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and, tradition would have
> it, a rich tin trader who visited Britain; and Yeshu's own family seems
> to have been not short of a shekel or two. Presumably it had to
> convince the mob, which included most of the poorer disciples, who were
> kept at a distance - very few people were allowed near the cross. The
> accounts that have come down to us would be from those not privy to the
> subterfuge and so not unwilling to report the curious details, but
> rationalising them or finding OT prophetic justification.
Crucifiction was intended to be a public spectacle to act as an
example. People would have been encouraged to see it from close
quarters. When Jesus' side was pierced by the Roman soldier's spear
'blood came out, mingled with water'. This is an indication of death,
and death by severe trauma at that. One of the traumata which can
trigger this separationof the blood and plasma is, by the way, a
'broken heart'.
APM
David Poole
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <48b2fbd...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > Are we in danger of finding common ground here?
> > I guess the 'cover up' was carried out by the rich and powerful. Joseph
> > of Aramathea was a member of the Sanhedrin and, tradition would have
> > it, a rich tin trader who visited Britain; and Yeshu's own family seems
> > to have been not short of a shekel or two. Presumably it had to
> > convince the mob, which included most of the poorer disciples, who were
> > kept at a distance - very few people were allowed near the cross. The
> > accounts that have come down to us would be from those not privy to the
> > subterfuge and so not unwilling to report the curious details, but
> > rationalising them or finding OT prophetic justification.
> Do you think he survived the crucifixion? That would seem a more
> likely explanation for his subsequent appearances than the highly
> improbable resurrection. Most of the other dogmas are equally
> suspect for instance the virgin birth and assumption. If the
> crucifixion was faked what does that leave of the teachings of the
> Christian churches? It is instructive to look at the 'Q' text to see
> how the stories were added and the message adapted to meet the
> requirements of those who were running a new religion.
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> David W-G
> ~~~~~~~~~~
Even the so called miracles can be easily explained away. Turning
water into wine and raising the dead were terms used for converting
the unbelievers. They used terms like we do today but the Romans took
them literally and therefore completely ruining a decent religion.
The Romans also pushed the real church underground in favour of Pauls garbage.
I've read many books that interprete the bible and reckon that Jesus
was married to Mary, had at least two sons and died an old man. I'm
not saying that I believe but it certainly makes more sense to me
since I can't believe in the paranormal.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Crucifiction was intended to be a public spectacle to act as an
> example. People would have been encouraged to see it from close
> quarters. When Jesus' side was pierced by the Roman soldier's spear
> 'blood came out, mingled with water'. This is an indication of death,
> and death by severe trauma at that. One of the traumata which can
> trigger this separationof the blood and plasma is, by the way, a
> 'broken heart'.
One would need to know much more as to how deep the spear went in and
the proportions of water and blood that came out. One of the main
causes of death in crucifixion was drowning in the fluids built up in
the lungs. It is possible the spear relieved this build up and
helped save Jesus's life. Crucifixion generally took several days to
cause death and there were many cases where the victims were kept
alive for a week. For a victim to be taken down so quickly was very unusual.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The Xian churches don't have a lot in common with the movement led by
> Yeshu. You've only to read of Paul's bitter conflict with the Jerusalem
> church to realise that his 'Christ' is not the Jewish 'Messiah', nor
> his mystery religion the original religious nationalist movement.
Was not the Jerusalem church run by Jesus' brother James?
The rewrite of the story in which we are expected to believe in a
miraculous trip to heaven and hell and then resurrection back in the
tomb, has always worried me as being so highly improbable.
Substitute the alternative of Luke and others working through the
Sabbath to revive Jesus with the aid of the large quantities of drugs
brought in by Nicodemus, and the whole story begins to make some
sense. I think there is very little doubt that he did survive, which
is how it was possible for various individuals and groups of people
to see him.
The gospels are written as if they were eye witness contemporary
accounts, and yet they were in fact written many decades later mainly
by people who were not present. Plenty of time for the desired
revisions of the basic story to be included. Paul was the driving
force in establishing the new religion. Perhaps the first, and in
many ways the best ever, spin doctor. The interesting speculation is
how much was there before Paul got to work on the story. The 'Q'
text would suggest that there was remarkably little and most of what
the churches teach was added afterwards.
Nicholas Besley
brother-in-law, who is Rector of Gravesend. I shall also ask
one or two of the other Zetrevs if they would like to comment!
Tony
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The gospel accounts and tradition have very few people at the foot of
> the cross - close family and Nicodemus who, if you remember "came to
> Jesus by night". This isn't surprising since the event took place in a
> private garden (from which the crowds could easily be kept) only cubits
> from a prepared 'tomb' into which the 'body' could quickly be taken
> from sight to receive medical help.
Crucifixion took place at Golgotha, which was a rock close to
Jerusalem, and not a private garden. Golgotha (place of the skull)
resembles a skull when viewed from a particular angle. It has nothing
to do with the use to which the Romans put it, unless they thought it
a black joke.
> In 1978, the Vatican doctor, Guiseppe Toscano, stated that, in his
> opinion, Jesus had suffered a myocardial infarction with rupture of a
> ventricle. The profuse sweating in Gethsemane is supposed to be
> evidence of a prior disposition to heart attack.
> However, others have theorised that the restriction of normal breathing
> caused by the hanging can result in a dangerous accumulation of fluids
> in the thoracic cavity. Careful lancing would alleviate this and also
> result in a visible flow of blood mingled with water. The profuse
> sweating of Yeshu is also easily accounted for by fear that his plan
> might not work: he seems to have offered himself up - with Judas acting
> as go-between - in exchange for the freedom of his captured son, also
> called Yeshu, and possibly the others who had been holed up with him
> since the failed coup.
Where does the suggestion of this son come from? I have never
believed that Judas just betrayed Jesus for 'forty pieces of silver'.
If he did hang himself as believed, it would suggest that Jesus did
die on the cross.
> It is the fact of the lancing which is most odd. True Roman crucifixion
> required /crushing/ of the legs - and the other two victims did have
> their legs smashed. Why was Longinus so squeamish about smashing the
> legs of Yeshu? Come to that, why is his name remembered? Is it because
> he was in on the subterfuge, as he would have to be?
The most usual reason given is that he was so obviously dead that it
was not necessary to break his legs. Other suggestions noted with interest.
> The bit parts are worth critical examination. Who was Nicodemus? The
> name is mentioned but five times (in John) and in the first three of
> these he is "a man of the Pharisees...a ruler of the Jews". Why should
> he bring a hundredweight of myrrh and aloes along to the deposition?
Nicodemus wasn't an uncommon name. Other namesakes are usually, but
not always distinguished, as in: James the son of Zebedee; James the
son of Alphaeus (James the Little); and James, the brother of Jesus.
It just might not have been the same Nicodemus. There is even some
dispute about which Herod was around when Jesus was born, remember?
> No, there certainly seems to have been some high-level political
> shenanigans going on.
Yes. Jesus was the Rabbi at Capernaum, not just an itinerant
preacher, and a known Zealot. I cannot believe that the entry into
Jerusalem wasn't stage-managed to fit exactly OT phrophesies. Whether
this strenghhens or detracts from Christian belief I cannot make up my mind.
> One further point on the 'medical lancing' - the titulus didn't say
> "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" (all four canonical gospels disagree on
> the wording, anyway), it said "INRI": the first four letter of the
> Roman word 'irrigate'. The danger was known.
Interesting. This is a theory of which I was unaware.
> --
> / O \ David
--
Aonghas Mackenzie
an.b...@zetnet.co.uk
Aonghas P MacKenzie
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I think it highly probable that his survival was intended and that he
> did indeed survive for a while at least.
I wouldn't dismiss this, but why should the Romans collude with a
revolutionary Zealot?
> There is some evidence (for what it's worth) that he died at Masada;
I haven't met anything remotely convincing: source(s) please?
> alternatively, his grave is still tended in India where he went by the
> name of 'Issa'.
This I have heard.
> The Xian churches don't have a lot in common with the movement led by
> Yeshu. You've only to read of Paul's bitter conflict with the Jerusalem
> church to realise that his 'Christ' is not the Jewish 'Messiah', nor
> his mystery religion the original religious nationalist movement.
Yes: this is the whole crux (sorry!) of the matter. If Jesus
believed he was the Messiah, (as his preparations for his death and
resurrection suggest, nay, dictate), can he be the Son of God? Are
the two mutually compatible, and can one stand without the other?
Discuss.
Mark Trudgill
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Crucifixion took place at Golgotha, which was a rock close to
> Jerusalem, and not a private garden. Golgotha (place of the skull)
> resembles a skull when viewed from a particular angle. It has nothing
> to do with the use to which the Romans put it, unless they thought it
> a black joke.
From what I can recall, Golgotha was also the site of the municiple tip.
Mark Trudgill..
Linda Casey
from Nicholas Besley <empo...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Rector of Gravesend.
Sorry, but that has to raise a smile
:)
Linda
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The message <48b383d...@zetnet.co.uk>
> from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > I think it highly probable that his survival was intended and that he
> > did indeed survive for a while at least.
> I wouldn't dismiss this, but why should the Romans collude with a
> revolutionary Zealot?
> > There is some evidence (for what it's worth) that he died at Masada;
> I haven't met anything remotely convincing: source(s) please?
> > alternatively, his grave is still tended in India where he went by the
> > name of 'Issa'.
Another tradition is that Jesus with his wife and mother went to
France and died there some thirty years later having had several children.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The rewrite of the story in which we are expected to believe in a
> miraculous trip to heaven and hell and then resurrection back in the
> tomb, has always worried me as being so highly improbable.
> Substitute the alternative of Luke and others working through the
> Sabbath to revive Jesus with the aid of the large quantities of drugs
> brought in by Nicodemus, and the whole story begins to make some
> sense. I think there is very little doubt that he did survive, which
> is how it was possible for various individuals and groups of people
> to see him.
You seem to be well up on Gnostic / Rosicrutian teachings, David.
--
Adrian Tupper, Edinburgh
adrian...@zetnet.co.uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/adriantupper/
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David Poole <david...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> I've read many books that interprete the bible and reckon that Jesus
> was married to Mary, had at least two sons and died an old man. I'm
> not saying that I believe but it certainly makes more sense to me
> since I can't believe in the paranormal.
A popular idea in pre-Holy Roman Empire times.
Jesus and the Marys (amongst others) were said to have moved from the
Holy land to France. Mary Magdelene was of equal status to Mary the
Mother. The (mediaeval) Romans couldn't handle the thought that
Jesus may have some descendents who were known to be alive and well
so the Magdelene bits were cut out and Jesus became the son of a
virgin who ascended into heaven.
A guy called Michael Stewart reckons he is one of these descendents
as well as being a descendent of Charles Edward Stewart (whose line
was supposed to have died out). He wants to be king of Scotland and,
who knows, pope aswell.
Maybe we'll never know the true story.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from Aonghas P MacKenzie <an.b...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Yes. Jesus was the Rabbi at Capernaum, not just an itinerant
> preacher, and a known Zealot. I cannot believe that the entry into
> Jerusalem wasn't stage-managed to fit exactly OT phrophesies. Whether
> this strenghhens or detracts from Christian belief I cannot make up my mind.
Likewise.
Simon the Zealot (one of the 12) was effectively the leader of the
millitant opposition - a sort of Yasser Arafat of his day. With
friends like this, Jesus had real political influence.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Adrian Marsh Tupper <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> You seem to be well up on Gnostic / Rosicrutian teachings, David.
Having been well instructed and confirmed in both the Cof E and RC
churches I was already well informed about the Christian version of
the story, and I have read all the other accounts. It just happens
that resuscitation is far more likely than resurrection.
Richard Spencer
legally dead when his hands and feet were ruined, so that he could no
longer pick up and carry freight. Contrast with the citizen's
execution with the sword - a citizen had a head with a mind in it, so
he was done by removing the head!
I rather thought that many crucified who were not of powerful build
died from suffocation, not being able to breathe, when strung up.
Christ however died because he yielded himself, which must have been
a little difficult for God omnipotent, but then that was the little
miracle, followed by the full power one a couple (no, three ) of days
later, when the body was removed from the closed tomb and reanimated.
Richard
Richard Spencer
from David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> The 'Q'
> text would suggest that there was remarkably little and most of what
> the churches teach was added afterwards.
When do you (EB?) think Quelle (=source) was written? If I remember
rightly it was still available to the translators of the vulgate.
Richard
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Richard Spencer <richard...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> When do you (EB?) think Quelle (=source) was written? If I remember
> rightly it was still available to the translators of the vulgate.
'Q' contained the sayings attributed to Jesus which circulated in the
years immediately after his death, and were eventually incorporated
into the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Thomas. Some have called these
sayings the Gospel of Sayings. The 'Q' project has been going on
each summer for about fifty years in the USA with most of the leading
biblical scholars in the USA and from round the world working on it
and, slowly isolating the various different sources of the gospels by
textual analysis. There are several books which have the 'Q' texts
to date. The 'Q' texts are instructive because it is possible to get
a glimpse of the message Jesus actually brought before it was spun
into the versions contained in the Gospels.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Richard Spencer <richard...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> Christ however died because he yielded himself, which must have been
> a little difficult for God omnipotent, but then that was the little
> miracle, followed by the full power one a couple (no, three ) of days
> later, when the body was removed from the closed tomb and reanimated.
Or perhaps the somewhat lesser miracle of Jesus' resuscitation inside the tomb.
Adrian Marsh Tupper
from David DCLXVI/M <DA...@zetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> > My alternate theory is that the letters are really the Hebrew
> > characters aleph-resh inscribed inside two vertical lines. These
> > would look like Greek X-P (the chi-rho cross of Constantine) or Greek
> > N-P, or even Latin N-R. The chi-rho cross is the 'skull and
> > cross-bones' of later Templar and even later Freemasonic fame.
> He-he! You really must have had your head screwed on backwards last
> night, DAcha.
Scriptural smileys ?