Captured on hidden mic... Sir Elton was heard to say, "I know he's gay. I can't tell you how many times I've needed help pushing my stool in and he's been right there behind me."

Poor Elton.

When he did the song for Diana using his same tune--it was then he was washed up.

Candle in the Wind...

as the pied piper of the christian faith is it any surprise that he liked to occasionally play the flute?

"Is it any surprise that He occasionally liked to play the flute....?"

Is it any surprise you pay more attention to Elton John than Jesus?

Elton John: "Jesus was gay"

He's certainly old enough to know.

"I don't know what makes people so cruel...."

I don't know why he's confused. Most of the reasons are very, very uncomplicated. Most center around the fact that love costs you something.

How could he be gay if he was banging Mary Magdelane?

If you "banged" someone in 1st Century Judea, you were automatically married to her. Alternatively she and you were stoned to death.

Some people think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. That seems unlikely on it's face, but more probable still than the idea anyone in such a tight social structure was "banging".

"How could he be gay if he was banging Mary Magdelane"

Sometimes, even the connoisseur of tamales sometimes gets the urge to eat a taco...

"That seems unlikely on it's face, but more probable still than the idea anyone in such a tight social structure was "banging".

'cept lot and his daughters. they banged and it was soooooo horrible that it made it into the bible!

#8 | POSTED BY ZED
"Some people think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. That seems unlikely on it's face"

Perhaps, but it's not nearly as unlikely as him being unmarried, and she seems as likely a candidate as anyone else. Although that may be simply because we're familiar with her.

"If you "banged" someone in 1st Century Judea, you were automatically married to her."

Automatically married? May be true to an extent, and in a given context....but (speaking of Magdalene) the second oldest profession was certainly around then, so it wasn't always quite so automatic.

It was the norm for rabbis to be married in the 1st Century. What's fascinating is that none of the Apostle's apparently considered Christ's marital status remarkable enough to write about. After all, they did mention his mother, father, brother, sisters, and at least one cousin.

My idea is that Jesus was a widower. There is no Biblical evidence for that, or course.

according to godisfemale jesus must have been a woman, well unless god is female but also a male
oh wait my head hurts

If Paul hadn't made a power play after Jesus died, James would have been the de facto leader. Mary M. was a huge part of Jesus' life. Paul resented her and the other women in Jesus' life.

"What's fascinating is that none of the Apostle's apparently considered Christ's marital status remarkable enough to write about."

they could've written about it, but those who compiled the bible didn't see the whole "marital bliss" storyline falling in line with what they wanted others to believe so they tossed those parts out.

just like today's magazines, even the bible had a group of editors...

We know what texts were considered in the compilation of the Bible. I've read a few of them, they never went away. Nothing about Christ's wife.

"Paul resented her and the other women in Jesus' life"

Are you implying Paul was a repressed homo?

Hmmm... that would explain all those letters he wrote to the galatians telling them not to disfigure the penis...

Paul was a misogynist who resented the women who played a major role in Jesus' day to day life.

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34) - Paul

#12 | POSTED BY ZED
"It was the norm for rabbis to be married in the 1st Century. What's fascinating is that none of the Apostle's apparently considered Christ's marital status remarkable enough to write about."

True, but it would have been, if you will, UNremarkable for a 30-something rabbi to be married, as it was the norm.
I'm pretty sure Jesus walked upright, regardless of the lack of mention. It was the norm.
(Yes, that's an incredible, if not unforgivable, stretch, I know, but you get the point.)

"After all, they did mention his mother, father, brother, sisters, and at least one cousin."

Also true. Not sure about that, except to say that it's possible that the subject was avoided by later authors.

"My idea is that Jesus was a widower. There is no Biblical evidence for that, or course."

Hadn't occurred to me, but it's not a bad idea, regardless of Biblical evidence. Jesus pretty much disappears from the record from childhood until age 30. Must've been doing something all that time....

In any case, if Elton wants to believe Jesus was gay, he's welcome to.
But I've a sneaky suspicion that he's chosen to believe that for reasons that are his own.

#17 | POSTED BY NERFHERDER
"that would explain all those letters he wrote to the galatians telling them not to disfigure the penis..."

Yeah, but the Galatians were Celts, and you know how weird those guys can be...

Great, next he'll say Bernie Taupin was straight.

The Essene's writings relate a fuller picture of Jesus' life and times.

Paul set the Christian doctrine down the path of exclusion of women. The Council of Nicea were all men. Until the Council of Ephesus in 431, women weren't allowed to enter early Christian churches without men, and then had to stay behind a curtain in the back. Only after an uprising did the Church pull out a verse from Ezekiel to elevate The Virgin Mary as a co-equal to Jesus to placate women.

hahaha....

Next thing you know, he'll be saying Jesus and his disciples were secretly having orgies.

There's nothing worse than a celebrity who starts believing their own PR.

Shut up and sing.

isn't it false that Magdalen was a prostitute?

i thought that idea was added later.

Few characters in the New Testament have been so sorely miscast as Mary Magdalene, whose reputation as a fallen woman originated not in the Bible but in a sixth-century sermon by Pope Gregory the Great. Not only is misidentified as the repentant prostitute of legend, meditating and levitating in a cave, but she was not necessarily even a notable sinner: Being possessed by "seven demons" that were exorcised by Jesus, she was arguably more victim than sinner. And the idea, popularized by The Da Vinci Code, that Mary was Jesus' wife and bore his child, while not totally disprovable, is the longest of long shots.
U.S. News and World Report

i really don't want to see men's curling. i want to see women's curling, please.

Paul was a misogynist who resented the women who played a major role in Jesus' day to day life.

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34) - Paul

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-02-18 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

AU proves, yet again that you can make the Bible say anything you want, if you are willing to pull it out of context.

Paul was a misogynist who resented the women who played a major role in Jesus' day to day life.

True that.

Spud always suspected that Paul nee Saul was really a self-loathing closeted gay man who manifested his inner loathing outwardly in the form of homophobia and misogyny.

In many ways Paul was a prototype for the modern rapture-ready, Republican religious right.

On Topic.

Jesus was gay?

Not out of the realm of possibility but highly improbable.

Spud bases this notion entirely on the fact that Jesus never uses the word "fabulous" even once in the bible.

Be Well.

Gee, VERN

I wonder what Paul could possibly have meant? Let's look at the next verse for clarification, shall we?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (King James Version)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

You were saying? Jesus valued women. Paul did not. Period.
As to you, VERN, looks like verse 38 applies:

14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

So it is written, so it shall be done, VERN. I shall let you be ignorant.

proves, yet again that you can make the Bible say anything you want, if you are willing to pull it out of context.
#28 | Posted by vernon

Just a wild guess, but I'll bet one hour free on the Verminator Miscalculator that Vermin doesn't have a clue he just shot himself in the arse.

VERNON 'The Christian' only wants what he wants out of the Bible.

Mostly, forget about the 'Christ' part. Too inconvenient.

FWIW, Bernie Taupin is indeed straight.

jebus is a figment of peoples' imaginations. But, if there was such a person, or god, he most certainly would have been gay. no doubt about that one.

I've been saying that I suspected that Jesus wasnt really the SON of God.. maybe Jesus was really a female soul in a man's body.

#30 Americanunity> You were saying? Jesus valued women. Paul did not. Period.

What about all the women Paul mentions and even praises in his various writings and epistles? He even uses the Greek work diakonos to describe Phoebe, thereby making her a deaconess!

I too think you are taking the verse quoted (1 Corinthians 14:34-35) out of context. Some theologians argue that Paul was only addressing a problem in *that* particular church involving women. In other places he speaks of women praying in church, without condemning the practice.
Best,
AKAT

#34 & #35 = more fiction writers like Dan Brown. Write it as a novel, make millions of $$$...

#34 | Posted by buckeyenutlover at 2010-02-19 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stick to your buckeynuts - topics such as this obviously is above your pay grade.

Conversations concerning Christ and Christianity on the DR are about as productive as the US postal service.

Why does anyone bother putting a thread up concerning religion? Those that believe are not going to change their minds, and vice versa. The threads are for masochists. As I posted, I must be one by that logic.

"Don't let the Son go down on me..."

If Jesus was gay, does that make the Apostles the Village People and Mary Magdalene the first Fag Hag?

Elton John was a nutcase, is a nutcase, and always will be a nutcase----some great songs but a nutcase.

How could he be gay if he was banging Mary Magdelane?

#7 | Posted by ZombieHunter

I guess you have a copy of the film.

how do you respond to such an idiotic statement.

did Jesus spit or swallow?

Maybe, then again maybe not.

Elton is a fantastic composer. One of the few people in Rock & Roll that can violate music rules and thereby make the song sound better, like Fagen and Mozart.

"The threads are for masochists. As I posted, I must be one by that logic."

I suspect Jesus was one too considering, if he was really God, he could easily have avoided crucifiction.

Jesus a closet homo? Would explain a lot of things, from how the pope and the popettes dress to why priest systematically bugger little boys.

.. if he was really God, he could easily have avoided crucifiction.

#45 | Posted by danni

I guess you realy don't know the story, do you.

"So Wolf, is Elton John is still gay?" - McCafferty

I suspect Jesus was one too considering, if he was really God, he could easily have avoided crucifiction.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-19 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fact you wrote this statement removes all doubt you have no clue about Christ and his beliefs. ZED or someone more liturgically proficient could comment make a more informed comment but I will leave it at this: as usual, you know nothing of that which you speak.

Sorry Sniper - I see you already addressed the ignorant.

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

So basically moron thinks that only a gay guy could have been as compassionate as Jesues.

What he's forgetting is that Jesus is God - the most cruel and vindictive entity ever if you've read the Bible.

If crucification would placade an angry God, it implies some terrible things about God. Those who do not recognize this obvious truth know nothing about Christianity, what Christ was really trying to tell people before he was crucified.

The story of Job reveals some terrible things about G-d; that he would so torment a single man to prove a point to Satan.

"The story of Job reveals some terrible things about G-d; that he would so torment a single man to prove a point to Satan."

Original sin is a rather vindictive and nonsensical concept. Turning Lot's wife to salt for looking over her shoulder was pretty extreme. Flooding the whole world and killing almost everyone doesn't seem all that rational either. Traumatizing Abraham's son by demonstrating to the kid that his father will kill him if asked couldn't have been too good for Jr's development either. I'd call it child abuse.

Then you have stories like Saul/Paul - Guy spends his whole life being a bastard but for some reason God reveals himself to this dick in such a way that the guy basically has no choice but to repent and become one of God's favorite people. But millions of people who were always faithful and did what God wanted never got to talk to him. And millions more who were decent people who didn't go to services ended up in Hell for their lack of faith but had God revealed himself to them the way he did to Saul, they would have been saved. But only the biggest bastard around gets this preferential treatment and everyone else is expected to believe in God without question or be tortured for all eternity. Why? God is batshit fuckin crazy.

projecting much?

that's quite a reach... around.

"projecting much?"

No, I'm not able to turn people into salt or torture them for all eternity if they don't do what I want. Nor would I want to if I could. Only psychopaths get off on the that stuff.

I that is what he wants to believe so be it

-Why? God is batshit fuckin crazy.

Possibly. Or perhaps the God of the Bible operates on spiritual principles (Laws) instead of physical ones, being a spirit and all. (Your dictionary says that "spirit" is, "the animating force")

So that, as a matter of perspective, when a child dies in the OT during a war that God permitted, perhaps God feels that being with him is not worse than living here. (Paul said that, "to be absent from the flesh is to be present with God)

And when God allows Job to be persecuted by the leader of the fallen angels, who still has access to the halls of Heaven today and rules the earthly realm as the Prince of the Power of the Air, perhaps God and Job both know that it will be made up to him.

In these stories, what ever mix of fact, fantasy, or metaphor they might be, God operates by spiritual laws, and, having once said a thing, sticks by it.

Which makes it tough to be God in the since that you have to watch what you say because whatever you speak becomes reality. And once you say it, it is Law.

Which is why Jesus played the part of the kinsman redeemer from the old Law, a substitute able and wiling to pay a price that had to be paid.

As a spirit, flesh is corruption to God, and he isn't partial to it. But, according to the story, he created ADM in the image of spirits, and enjoyed his creation. (Also likes gardens and music)

One gets the impression from these stories that Lucifer, the Chief Musician, second in command, and most beautiful of God's messengers grew pissed about God's new friend the hu-man, and thought God had abrogated his own laws by letting ADM and mankind live after they broke the law, "for sin (missing the mark, being imperfect spiritually) comes death".

Of course, God had an out in the kinsman redeemer concept, which allows for a physical/spiritual being to be tolerated until it becomes a solely spiritual being.

God lost Lucifer and a third of heaven during this jealous, misguided revolt, and man appears to be their replacement.

Now, that's just fragments of the story as told in the original language, some of it real, some metaphoric, some added by later translators.

On the surface, it's easier to understand why one would not believe such apparent ancient claptrap than it is to understand why one would believe it

But, over a couple of millenia, millions of people have followed the thread begun in Genesis (Job was actually probably written down before Moses wrote most of Genesis) as it weaved it's way into a fabric of fascinating beauty and intricately interwoven complexity that is both intriguingly possible and yet to be completed.

Of course if you think it impossible in our reality, read up on quantum entanglements or the QM theorized source of gravity, and get back to me.

to be persecuted by the leader of the fallen angels,

It is G-d tormenting Job. The Satan is not the "leader of the fallen angels" in the story of Job, it is a choir of Angels appointed by G-d to act as the persecutors of man. They held no power and it was G-d doing all those things to Job at their bequest.

So that, as a matter of perspective, when a child dies in the OT during a war that God permitted, perhaps God feels that being with him is not worse than living here.

Same claim could be made about abortions, couldn't it?

You mean most unmarried men in their 30s don't hang out 24/7 with a posse of 12 other guys?

(forgive me, Lord j/k)

Moses and Pharaoh is a great example of G-d's insanity. He kept hardening Pharaoh's heart and then punishing Egypt for Pharaoh's hard heart in regards to freeing the Israelites.

I'll stick to my reading of the original languages, thank you ever do much.

There is a good layman's description of the story in Slate, of all places.

His hair was FAAAAAAAAAbUlous!!!!

I'll stick to my reading of the original languages

Then you should KNOW that the SATAN was not the Fallen Angel, but was the choir of Angels appointed by G-d and that it was G-d who did the things to Job. That you don't know this really calls your "reading of the original languages" into severe doubt.

I've been saying that I suspected that Jesus wasnt really the SON of God.. maybe Jesus was really a female soul in a man's body.

#35 | Posted by Godisfemale at 2010-02-19 10:31 AM

Geesh, you never let go, do ya?

Per your link Corky:

Here is what this Satan is not: a fallen angel, wicked, omnipotent, demonic, living in hell, warring with God for dominion over the earth, carrying a pitchfork, smelling like brimstone, or wearing red spandex.

Per your quote:

And when God allows Job to be persecuted by the leader of the fallen angels,

Conclusion: you know not of what you speak here.

-Same claim could be made about abortions, couldn't it?

I suppose.

#62 Showing who was in control.

I'm afraid the Slate writer, while perceptive, is not a Hebrew scholar.

There is a good layman's description of the story in Slate, of all places.

Oh, he disagrees with me?

I'm afraid the Slate writer, while perceptive, is not a Hebrew scholar.
-Corky

But you pick at details rather than dealing with premises that I was retorting to Sully.

And Sully was commenting on me Corky.

"The story of Job reveals some terrible things about G-d; that he would so torment a single man to prove a point to Satan."

This is what he responded to, my quote.

Here is the problem with Jesus being gay. The Jews wanted Jesus dead yes? The jews also had a law that said that you could stone a man to death for being gay. The jews would not have needed to send Jesus to Pilot if they had a way to rebuke him before ALL of the jews and stone him to death. There would be jewish doctrine about Jesus as a sinful man. They had an inside man (Judas). All of the disciples would have been hunted by the Jewish authority and stone for being gay. Sorry I see no evidence of jesus being gay.

That he was responding to you isn't the point, the point is what he said.

Gay?

Possibly, he did spend a lot of his time with 12 dudes out in the wilderness. (Broke Back Desert??).

White Eurotrash as depicted everywhere these days?

Not unless he walked across the Med from Europe in the year 0.

Birthday on Dec 25th (on the Roman Calender)?

Not even close.

Rose from the grave...?

Well, if I saw my very famous buddies grave empty 3 days after we buried him there I would naturally assume he rose from the grave (and not that he was grave robbed by miscreants trying to make a buck off of his fame).

Son of God?

Nope. He never claimed to be, the Church started that little rumor 500 years later to keep the ignorant masses in line.

Wow, I just realized I could keep this up all day but I really need to do some actual work even if it is Friday afternoon.

-M

The Jews wanted Jesus dead yes?

No, the Romans and G-d wanted Jesus dead.

Corky, you are no more a biblical scholar than Palin is a deep thinker. The difference is, she knows this about herself.

Jesus was, of course, Jewish, and yes, the priesthood wanted him very dead.

#77

I know you can't stand to be contradicted, but, look at it this way. I wasn't talking to you.

I haven't been contradicted in any way Corky. Don't worry. You jumped the shark so long ago that I hardly care what you think, but have fun trolling you anyway.

The best is a deep biblical scholar who can only post Slate to prove his points and then, when Slate actually counters them, discredits the very link he posted to prove his point. ROFLMAO directly at Corky.

As you couldn't possibly hold a conversation about ancient Hebrew translation, much less grammar or root words, I find no fun in trolling you.

But you do this every few months, K.

Feel contradicted or slighted somehow, unleash some ad hominem as in the Palin reference, then hold your breath until you turn purple and quit the site for a while.

Just history repeating itself.

Neither could you Corky, so we are on the same level.

You said clearly the Satan in the Book of Job is the "fallen Angel." There is not one biblical scholar who says that as they all know the Satan was the aggressor appointed by G-d to act as persecutor of man and seek out sin.

Corky,
You have really become a pathetic mockery of yourself.

then hold your breath until you turn purple and quit the site for a while.

The old "he left so I win" point of view, huh? Most people call it "having a life and not spending 24/7 here."

-Satan was the aggressor appointed by G-d to act as persecutor of man and seek ou

I was talking about Christian theology, and that ain't part of it.

-The old "he left so I win" point of view, huh?

No, Kanrei. I was referring to leaving for some weeks, then crawling back apologizing to everyone for your behaviour.

It does get repetitious.

Satan was the aggressor appointed by G-d to act as persecutor of man and seek ou

I was talking about Christian theology
#86 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-19 02:25 PM

From first to last, it is patently clear that in the account of Job, God is responsible for all things, good and bad and that Job�s trials were from God, not �satan�. The true identity of the adversary is not given, yet we see that his unbelief in the purity of Job�s faith was the reason God took the steps he did. It is also clear that this �satan� became the tool through which God afflicted Job.
Supporters of Satan must look elsewhere for proof of his existence!

Here is a whole bunch more all saying the same thing:

I guess if your a hammer everything looks like a nail or in Elton's case if your a pin cushion every one looks like a prick.

I guess if your a hammer everything looks like a nail or in Elton's case if your a pin cushion every one looks like a prick.

Posted by WI_Hunter at 2010-02-19

Didn't you say you were gay also?

But you can learn more about angels and Satan here, if you have a mind to learn.

"Possibly. Or perhaps the God of the Bible operates on spiritual principles (Laws) instead of physical ones, being a spirit and all. (Your dictionary says that "spirit" is, "the animating force")"

Another way people say this is "God works in mysterious ways. God does not view the universe from the same limited perspective that man has and its not our place to question God....."

Well that is convenient. But the problem I have with it is that the biblical God seems to have alot expectations for man and the consequences of non-compliance are rather severe (eternal torture). So given the what is at stake, the whole "mysterious ways" schtick is completely unfair. If the consequences of not doing what you want is that I spend all of eternity in torment, be explicite about what you want from me. In the Bible, a few select individuals speak to God and God doesn't tell them to figure out his intentions. He tells these people to take very specific actions. And they do them. And then you have everyone else being held to the same standards but God doesn't tell us he's real and not fooling around. We're supposed to trust what some other schmucky human is telling us. Not only that, but some of these schmucks do horrible things in God's name and God allows them to get away with it. So we can't even tell the difference between perverted cult leaders who just want to fuck a ton of young girls and people who legitimately communicate with God. How is that fair? Then you have the "Do as I say not as I do..." aspect of God's actions. Thous shalt not kill. But if you piss me off, I'll kill nearly every last motherfucker on the planet including almost all the animals just for good measure. Given eternal torture is the consequence of my being confused by mixed messages, why the mixed messages?

ignoring the premise of what I posted

Who can follow it with the amount of times you moved the goalposts and changed your point?

Cockfish wants attention? Poor little loser feeling left out? You really wish Corky and I were gay to satisfy your Daisy-chain fantasy, huh?

Didn't you say you were gay also?

#91 | Posted by jackass at 2010-02-19 02

Like I said, if you are a hammer......

Thanks for making my point jacksinyourass

come on Kanrei.

that was funny!!!!

Kanrei umm If the Romans wanted him dead they would have killed him outright. He wasn't a roman citizen he had no rights under roman law. Pilot found no fault with Jesus and without the pressure of the jews would not have hung him on the cross.

-why the mixed messages?

Good retort to my post, Sully.

First off, science cannot, for example, tell you exactly what the source of gravity is, or where it originates, so much of what we experience is still mysterious to us, even scientifically.

And we know even less about the spiritual than the physical worlds.

But your question is a good one and one that has been asked for millennia.

Paul, a Jewish scholar in his own right, said that in his day, as he preached Jesus to pagan peoples and to the philosophers on Mars Hill, what God wanted has never changed. He said that as in Abram's time, God gave man "justification/righteousness", the ability to stand blameless before God, for man's faith in God.

Faith is not belief, but an action based upon believe, sustained by confidence.

Some of the original words for faith meant things like "run to the shelter of a rock" or "run the the shelter of a mother bird's wings".

It is a simple question really... what do you want from your children? Do you want perfection? Or do you want for them to trust you?

When Paul preached at Mars Hill, he had seen an idol to the unknown God there amongst all the other idols, and he described to his listeners who that unknown God was, the God they felt but could not see.

There is a good description here.

Israel was occupied land and fell under Roman law; citizen or not. The fact that he was killed on Passover is enough to tell you it wasn't the Jews killing him. That is, if the fact he was crucified (the Roman method of execution) and not stoned to Death (the Jewish method.)

"You probably won't find many Jews conceding the point that, biblically speaking, Jewish leaders were complicit in the death of Jesus. In fact, given the history of this topicwith the Christ-killer charge having helped provide the justification and fuel for European anti-Semitismit's no surprise that it is nearly impossible to have a constructive interfaith conversation about the Crucifixion."

"1) Jews should admit that some of their forefathers probably helped get Jesus killed. The four Gospels say Jewish priests demanded Jesus' crucifixion. For me, the most interesting account is the Gospel of Mark. Scholars now believe that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and possibly John, were based in part on Mark or on the same source that Mark used. Mark's Gospel is thought to have been written before the others, circa A.D. 70,* and, perhaps because it was written within a generation after Jesus' death, is widely considered freer of ahistorical embellishments. Yet Mark clearly says:

But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab'bas instead.

And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?"

And they cried out again, "Crucify him."

And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." Chapter 15: 11-15

In Luke, Matthew, and John, Jewish leaders look even worse."

These are excerpts from this link

He was arrested by the jewish priests and handed over to Roman authority. Where the jews pressured Pilot to execute him. If the Roman's had wanted him dead it would not have been a public affair. The Roman's even placed the the markings for King of the Jews to chastise them for pressuring them into the execution. The jews were behind his demise on the cross.

#101. the Pharisees had no role at all?

There are miles between "Jewish leaders were complicit in the death of Jesus" and "The jews were behind his demise on the cross."

the Pharisees had no role at all?

Again, miles between "the Pharisees had no role at all" and "The jews were behind his demise on the cross."

#106. That's kind of like saying the gun killed him, not the one who pulled the trigger. Romans were instruments, Pilate didn't even really want it to happen.

What I said holds true and I think even Corky will agree:

1) Crucifixion was the Roman method of execution

2) There is no way the Jews would execute anyone on Passover

3) Israel was occupied and under Roman law at the time.

4) The Priests were complicit in his death, but not "behind" it.

He was tried, convicted and sentenced by a Roman judge, there were Jewish witnesses against him but still he was executed by Romans. So, IMHO, the Romans killed Jesus, then later the Romans took over the Catholic Church. Ironic?

No it isn't Somoco, not even close to it.

#109, #110. C'mon. If a state has the death penalty, and then 10 witnesses conspired to fabricate evidence to frame someone else for a murder, you would take the position that the instrumentality of death (i.e. the state) has MORE to do with the death than the people who fabricated the evidence?

That doesn't make any sense.

"Pilate didn't even really want it to happen."

You can't sentence someone to death and then blame someone else. Pilate was responsible, he was the judge.

Did they "fabricate" evidence?
Jesus didn't deny any of the charges did he?
What exactly was he charged with anyway?

Danni,
You cannot fight people's fairy tales when they use Mother Goose as their only source of reference. Ignore Somoco.

Now personally, I believe Jesus was killed by the Romans AND the Jewish leaders, not the Jews, but the Priests who feared Jesus would lead Israel into a rebellion against Rome and they did a "cut off the head and the tail stops wagging" move.

The difference between "complicity" and 'behind it" appears negligible.... but I don't want to be accused of pettifogging, lol

Here's an interesting chronology of Passover and Christ's death.

There have been discovered at Nag Hammadi a few of the books that were left out of the bible that show Jesus in a very different light-one is the book of Phillip.

In the book of Phillip, Jesus kisses Mary Magdelane passionately on the lips. This is a cause of concern among the Apostles:

"And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

difference between "complicity" and 'behind it" appears negligible

If we may debate rationally again and put aside the earlier combat, I see "complicity" as aiding while being "behind it" as leading.

Let's kill Jesus- behind it.

Let me help- complicit

The Gospel of Philip was written between 150AD and 300AD... which is why it isn't canonized material.

Danni helps prove my point. The Romans had no charges to execute him. Corky hand fed you verses indicating that Pilot attempted to wash his hands (um Pilot even said that) of this affair and tried to get it out of his court. I believe the jews shouting "Crucify him." are pretty good indicators. Also Judas the betrayer was paid by the jewish priests. I'm sorry there is to much evidence for you to see the truth.

Corky, when were the Gospels in the Bible written?

"Pilot attempted to wash his hands (um Pilot even said that) of this affair and tried to get it out of his court."

But he would still be responsible for any sentence that was made in his court.

Corky hand fed you verses indicating that Pilot attempted to wash his hands (um Pilot even said that) of this affair and tried to get it out of his court.

That would be like a US written Iraqi history book claiming Saddam really did have weapons. The Church that wrote and edited that book he quoted is based in Rome, the very place that killed Jesus.

"As you well know, I don't have all the answers, but I can point you in the right direction for some thoughts on the subject that you and I and many others have pondered."

Well I don't think we're ever going to agree on this topic but I do respect your right to have faith and not be hassled for it even if to some the language and ideas I use when discussing this stuff seems completely dissrespectful.

Kanrei so what other book do you plan to reference to backup your assumptions? I believe even in Corky's link it provided an outside of the Bible jewish source that also pointed to the jewish priests as having a hand in his death. Please provide us with something other than conjecture.

-Corky, when were the Gospels in the Bible written?

-even if to some the language and ideas I use when discussing this stuff seems completely dissrespectful.

I hadn't noticed, lol.

Thanks for the post.

K makes a salient point about the "victors" writing the history. You might check Josephus.... who was paid really well to write from the Roman point of view.

Thank you for that Corky.

I'll pick you up at 8.

Don't tell Crackfish.

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

Pontius Pilate: So, yaw fatha was a Woman? Who was he?
Brian: He was a Centurion, in the Jerusalem Garrisons.
Pontius Pilate: Weally? What was his name?
Brian: 'Naughtius Maximus'.
[the Centurion laughs]
Pontius Pilate: Centuwion, do we have anyone of that name in the gawwison?
Centurion: Well, no, sir.
Pontius Pilate: Well, you sound vewy sure. Have you checked?
Centurion: Well, no, sir. Umm, I think it's a joke, sir... like, uh, 'Sillius Soddus' or... 'Biggus Dickus', sir.
Pontius Pilate: [guard chuckles] What's so funny about "Biggus Dickus? "
Centurion: Well, it's a joke name, sir.
Pontius Pilate: I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus Dickus'.
[guard chuckles]
Pontius Pilate: Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.
Brian: Can I go now, sir?
[slap]
Brian: Aaah! Eh.
Pontius Pilate: Wait till Biggus Dickus hears of this!
[guard chuckles]
Pontius Pilate: Wight! Take him away!
Centurion: Oh, sir, he - he only...
Pontius Pilate: No, no. I want him fighting wabid, wild animals within a week.
Centurion: Yes, sir. Come on, you.
[takes the guard away as continues laughing histerically]
Pontius Pilate: I will not have my fwiends widiculed by the common soldiewy. - - Anybody else feel like a little... giggle... when I mention my fwiend... Biggus...
[another guard chuckles]
Pontius Pilate: ... Dickus?
[more chuckling]
Pontius Pilate: What about you? Do you find it... wisible... when I say the name... 'Biggus'...
[chuckle]
Pontius Pilate: ... Dickus?
[both guards chuckle]
Pontius Pilate: He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called? She's called... 'Incontinentia'... Incontinentia Buttocks
Pontius Pilate: [Guards are laughing] Stop! What is all this?
Pontius Pilate: [laughing continues] I've had enough of this wowdy webel sniggewing behaviour. Silence! Call yourselves Pwaetowian guards? You're not - Seize him! Seize him! Blow your noses and seize him!

lol

Incontinentia ... I always thought that was funny as hell.

K, don't you and Danni work in similar fields in the same town?

I loved Life of Brian.

Maybe this part will clear up some of the "Who Killed Jesus and Why" debate:

Pontius Pilate: [Pilate is going to release a prisoner to the crowd] People of Jewusalum,
[Evrybody laughs at his speech impairment]
Pontius Pilate: Wome... is your fwiend!
[They laugh more]
Pontius Pilate: To pwove our fwiendship, we will welease one of our wong-doers! Who shall I welease?
Man in crowd: Welease Woger!
[Everybody laughs, and begin to chant, "Welease Woger"]
Pontius Pilate: Vewy well, I shall... Welease... Woger!
[Everybody laughs]
Centurion: Uh, we haven't got a "Woger", sir.
Pontius Pilate: Oh, okay. We have no "Woger'!
[They all laugh]
Man in crowd: Well what about "Wodewick" then?
[They laugh and chant "Welease Wodewick!"]
Pontius Pilate: Vewy well! I shall welease... Wodewick!
[the crowd laughs some more]
Centurion: Sir, there's no "Wodewick".
Pontius Pilate: Who is this "Wodewick" you speak of?
Man in crowd: He's a wobber!
[they laugh]
Man in crowd: And a wapist!
[more laughter]
Girl In Crowd: And a pick-pocket!
[Everybody shakes their heads at her and say no]
Pontius Pilate: He sounds a notowious cwiminal.

K, don't you and Danni work in similar fields in the same town?

I don't know what she does actually, but I think she is up in West Palm Beach, about 3 hours away.

Personally, I find that to be a perfectly reasonable assertion....unveriviable, as well, but pretty reasonable historically...

I do not think that during the time of the bible's writings that the christians were considered the victors. We have documents up to 70 AD about Christ (written easily during the persecution of the church) that confirms Christ's death and resurrection, Mark included.

#138

She's a runner, and pretty hot looking. I think you should check her out.

You could be a game changer.....

Have a great weekend kids! I am leaving for home thank you G-d! This week was WAY TOO LONG.

Good debate. Sorry to anyone I offended or was rude to (Corky), I tend to get slightly caught up in these threads.

See Pilot rocked he didnt kill Jesus.

I can't date runners Corky, they get away. I need the crippled. Blind would help =D

Have a good weekend, Kanrei!

Nice Life of Brian bit, Kanrei.

Sorry, folks, am I late for school?
I mean shul?

"We have documents up to 70 AD about Christ (written easily during the persecution of the church) that confirms Christ's death and resurrection, Mark included."

Confirms? That's a bit of an overstatement. But I won't press you on it.

but (speaking of Magdalene) the second oldest profession was certainly around then, so it wasn't always quite so automatic.-Thetom

Are you suggesting one of the most inaccurate rumors of the Bible, that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute? Just asking because she wasn't. I'm no Bible scholar, Bible thumper, or hard core Christian but I know that she was no whore. There is a better chance of her being Jesus' wife then there is of her being a prostitute.

Besides, Jesus probably never existed in the first place. There is much evidence that points to him being fashioned out of thin air using the example of a man named Apallonious to create him. Read 'Antiquity Unveiled'. There are free copies of it on the net. You have to believe in mediums though and that they can communicate with the other side. If you don't then you won't buy anything that the book has to say.

I read it though and found it very interesting. It should be a favorite of atheists except they would never believe it because of the medium and afterlife aspect. But it shoots down Christianity as a religion. It claims that it was all made up and its founders just stole from other places to create it. At the same time, they destroyed many many books and entire libraries to help keep their secrets.

#148 Correctomundo... not a ho.

-But it shoots down Christianity as a religion

Not hardly.

That's about equal to those that read the Davinci Code as fact.

Does that make Judas a gaybashing homophobe?

#148 | POSTED BY EVERLONG
"Are you suggesting one of the most inaccurate rumors of the Bible, that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute?"

Haha, no, not at all! Good catch, though.
I was just making reference to the very lie you mention.

I'm pretty sure the prostitute thing didn't start until the 5th or 6th century, although I'd have to check.

There IS a prostitute mentioned, and there are I believe THREE women named Mary mentioned. That's including Magdalene, but not counting the mother of Jesus.
However, nowhere does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
That's a much later tradition.

#149 | POSTED BY EVERLONG
"You have to believe in mediums though and that they can communicate with the other side. If you don't then you won't buy anything that the book has to say."

And even if you DO believe in mediums, you have to believe that the medium in question is being 100% accurate, 100% unbiased, and 100% honest about the given subject.

I could tell you the whole story.. but I'm not gonna

"Jesus was gay?

Not out of the realm of possibility but highly improbable.

Spud bases this notion entirely on the fact that Jesus never uses the word "fabulous" even once in the bible."

Spuddie:

Then again, there's long hair and a dress to consider.

TheTom, the medium in question was basically uneducated and could never come up with the names of people of antiquity that he does come up with. But you're right, you never know how accurate it is. Personally, I do believe that some people can communicate with the other side. I've just seen too much evidence that shows they can not to believe it has a basis in reality.

I can talk with God..I can tell you anything you want to know about the afterlife

Im still waiting for you to show me how to see god. I would prefer not to have to wait to pay for your book.

I'd also be interesting in how you can have a dialogue with god if you can provide that info too I'd appreciate it.

#156 | POSTED BY GODISFEMALE
"I could tell you the whole story"

We know you could.

"but I'm not gonna"

We know that, too.

#159 | POSTED BY GODISFEMALE
"I can talk with God"

We know that, too.
Talking TO God is easy.
Talking WITH God, on the other hand...

"I can tell you anything you want to know about the afterlife"

What are your top 3?
And please don't say that Jesus isn't really blond and blue-eyed.
It'll seriously depreciate my art collection.

If Jesus was as loving and perfect as they say he was, is it not possible that he would have been pansexual? Too obvious?

Elton always has thought with opinions. As if they were to even be considered... just an entertainer who is still trying to entertain in a new venue of a comedian.

And I was wondering what this publicity clown would do next to get in front of the cameras. Is he talking about the same Jesus who said the fornicators would not get into heaven?

-And please don't say that Jesus isn't really blond and blue-eyed.

Likely not, though he was a descendant of David, who was described as, "ruddy and fair".

Reddish hair and maybe freckles.

Reddish hair and maybe freckles. -- #166 | Posted by Corky

Huh. Just curious: was the crucifixion on "Kick a Ginger" Day?

People tend to project. They tend to assume other people feel or would react as they do themselves.

I would guess Elton John sees himself as an intelligent gay man who understands human nature.

I mean...we've all read about Elton John being awfully egotistical. I can only imagine how it must be to have everyone around you falling at your feet.

Perhaps he has a Jesus complex??

If this were true wouldn't that make Jesus an abomination or am I thinking of Sasquatch?

#164 | POSTED BY DIABLO
"Is he talking about the same Jesus who said the fornicators would not get into heaven?"

Jesus? If you're talking about Ephesians, that's Paul.

And what about that whole forgiveness bit?

Well Jesus hung out with 12 guys and as was a norm in the Hellenistic period world likely did homo sex and it was not that unusual.

The fact of this discussion about the hidden or secret gospel of Mark is well known.

Is that the gospel the christians wanted to keep in the closet?

"The same Jesus Whom said fornicators couldn't get into Heaven...?'

Worried/angry that a spot in something you never believed in might not be reserved for you?

I've encountered this weird idea before. But be of good cheer. Fornicators can and do get into Heaven, we have that from the Man Himself. But He does want you to stop fornicating.

"AS was a norm in the Hellenistic world..."

Jesus was acquainted with Hellenism. He wasn't Hellenistic. That guts your argument. Not to put too fine a point on it.

Oh---I visited that skeptical website---Anyone patient enough for an utter and quite nasty dissection of their nutty ideas by moi? Really, it would be no trouble at all.

We could start with the fact the our skeptical friends, ignoring each and every point they've laboriously made for years to undermine the authenticity of the Gospels---Finally find a Gospel that they like.

Beyond that, it's interesting that out skeptical friends---Having made sure they identify Christ as a purely fictional character---Worry that the fictional character was gay.

Fictional gayness. Now, that's something to really worry about.

"Shoots down Christianity as a religion...."

APOLLONIOUS of freaking TYANA shoots down Christianity?

Ever stop to consider that, much like you tend to see other people, you may not be fully informed and--Just possibly mind you---Something of a rube?

APOLLONIOUS of freaking TYANA shoots down Christianity?

No, leave it to common fucking sense to do that.

"No, leave it to common sense to do that...."

Well, safe from you then.

I'm glad Joe Nickel (Skeptical Inquirer) doesn't visit this website. We'd have reams of pages devoted to the notion that Christ was really a Great Horned Owl.

Back to the skeptics website linked to upthread. The skeptics, respecting Mark for a few pages in order to make their point, argue that the author of this Gospel saw Christ as being a man.

Yup. Funny thing is, Christ saw Himself as a man as well. It just didn't end there. Mark does speak at length about the power of Christ as God in his Gospel.

But I imagine that the skeptics are back to seeing Mark as possibly fictional himself at this point.

Realists. Got to love them. God said so.

Does it make a difference, does it matter?

Believe, be good, back off, give people a break, be kind, we are all trying to do the same thing.

--path~