Jesus

nampigai · April 9, 2003

woah? you didn't expect that now did you. NaMp starting a religous thread now I'll be damned, this call for celebration, pop up a fine bottle and let's all drink till we loose our mind..... hmmmm

well here goes. ok if Jesus excisted he must surely have been a man, with a mans flaws and lusts. I've seen several programs about cathars and Knight Templars were they make very good statements that Mary Magdalene traveled to France with the blood of Jesus, she was pregnant? or was it the holy grail holding his blood? I know this is kinda blasphemic but think of it.

Caid Ivik · April 9, 2003

Please, this is a word of some weird jansenists, who believe english kings are predestinated to rule the world, because their dynasty is based on Jesus' children...

nampigai · April 9, 2003

no it's not it was kept in secrecy and so was his "heirs"

sneezer3 · April 9, 2003

well here goes. ok if Jesus excisted he must surely have been a man, with a mans flaws and lusts. I've seen several programs about cathars and Knight Templars were they make very good statements that Mary Magdalene traveled to France with the blood of Jesus, she was pregnant? or was it the holy grail holding his blood? I know this is kinda blasphemic but think of it.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Most of the places were biblical events were suppose to have taken place are still in existance today.

They also claim Peter was the first Pope. But his body was uncoverd in Jerusalem not rome. He was also born in humen form 100% God and 100% Man. With humen lusts but not flaws or sin.

Egeides · April 9, 2003

Please, this is a word of some weird jansenists, who believe english kings are predestinated to rule the world, because their dynasty is based on Jesus' children...

If so, it is probably linked to the Arthur's tales, Lancelot and so on.

nemafakei · April 9, 2003

Are we assuming that this Jesus was actually sent by god etc, or just that he was a good preacher, or whatever we want to think...?

Warlord Ripskar · April 9, 2003

The British monarchs are ultimately descended from a Scandinavian pirate, hardly divine. Vortigern Artorious (King Arthur) is reputed to be a descendent of one of the Roman Emperors, again no suggested link to Jesus.

The Sharifs are directly descended from Mohammed, so for example the King of Jordan is a direct descendent of "The Prophet".

nampigai · April 10, 2003

Nema you can asume whatever you want.

Caid Ivik · April 10, 2003

They also claim Peter was the first Pope. But his body was uncoverd in Jerusalem not rome. He was also born in humen form 100% God and 100% Man. With humen lusts but not flaws or sin.

He was the first Pope, according to Mt 16,18:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Also his execution by crucification in Rome is also chronicled by secular historists. I see no problem with transporting his body to his motherland, there were many christians in Rome, also many rich ones, who could give everything needed.

Anathema · April 10, 2003

Didn't the verse mention "petra" instead of rock? It has the same meaning.

sneezer3 · April 10, 2003

They also claim Peter was the first Pope. But his body was uncoverd in Jerusalem not rome. He was also born in humen form 100% God and 100% Man. With humen lusts but not flaws or sin.
He was the first Pope, according to Mt 16,18:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Also his execution by crucification in Rome is also chronicled by secular historists. I see no problem with transporting his body to his motherland, there were many christians in Rome, also many rich ones, who could give everything needed.

Matthew 16:18 records the promise of Jesus to build his church. Jesus says, " You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." This passege is often used as a proof-text for an argument is the same passage that destroys the argument. Peter

Edric O · April 10, 2003

"St. Peter's body was uncovered in Jerusalem" - Ummmm, how could you tell that a certain dead body (or to be more exact, skeleton) is St. Peter's? I mean, it's not like we have his dental records to identify him...

nemafakei · April 10, 2003

DNA testing, of course!

Correct:

Petros is a stone a piece of rock.

Petra is ledge, a mass of rock, or a cave

(I'm not quite sure I understand your stance)

"The language itself suggests this when he says, you are PETROS (masculine) but upon THIS Petra (feminine) I will build my church"

Er... well he isn't going to name the man 'Petra' (prprnf), so he must name him 'Petros'(prprnm).

Obviously, the gender of petra (nf) cannot be changed to account for Petros (prprnm) being masculine, because petra (nf) is a noun. Therefore, he is likely to be equating Peter with the rock on which he builds the church - unless the mentoi or men...de is there, which I doubt, else the english texts would definitely show it.

And you don't want to build a temple on a pebble. Hence, you shouldn't really use petros (nm).

Anyway, what he said is corrupted by the fact that he said it in Aramaic, and it was translated by Matthew into Greek!

Edric O · April 10, 2003

Also, the notion that Mary Magdalene went to France (with or without "the blood of Jesus") is quite absurd. By ancient standards, France is EXTREMELY far away from Palestine. Even the Apostles never went beyond Rome! To claim that an ordinary person from 1st century Palestine (and a single woman, no less) would go as far as France for no apparent reason is completely ridiculous...

nampigai · April 11, 2003

there was a large comunity of jews in southern france at the time, I believe.

edit:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=83

also an interresting site:

http://www.renneslechateau.com/default-uk.htm

Caid Ivik · April 11, 2003

Matthew 16:18 records the promise of Jesus to build his church. Jesus says, " You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." This passege is often used as a proof-text for an argument is the same passage that destroys the argument. Peter’s name means "stone". This stone usually refers to a stone of such size that one may throw. The word translated "rock" usually means "a massive stone" such as a cliff or ledge of rock. Jesus is making a play on words. You are a small stone but the church is to be built upon a huge cliff. The language itself suggests this when he says, you are PETROS (masculine) but upon THIS Petra (feminine) I will build my church.The church is to be built upon the foundation of Jesus being "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Peter understood this because in 1 Pet. 2:6-7 he quotes Isaiah and applies it to Jesus. Then, in verse 8 he refers to Christ as the rock (petra).
There are some major catholic doctrines that are wrong such as that one. I highly recomend you reserch into them.
See also www.reachingcatholics.org

You are playing with words. In Greek is the word core same for "petra" and "petros" ;)

nemafakei · April 11, 2003

Edric, um... how to put this... Roman soldiers had to move pretty far - from plases like Jerusalem in the East, to Rome, to Gaul... and, er, "a single woman, no less" Mary Magdalene - remind me of her profession. Now tell me how it is possible for Mary Magdalene to make the transition - perhaps without even intending it.

Caid Ivik · April 12, 2003

I am not sure if Maria Magdalene remained in her...ehm, proffession after the acts of Evangelium.

nampigai · April 13, 2003

There will be an interesting program on dicovery next sunday.

Sign In

Jesus

Recommended Posts

nampigai

Caid Ivik

nampigai

sneezer3

Egeides

nemafakei

Warlord Ripskar

nampigai

Caid Ivik

Anathema

sneezer3

Edric O

nemafakei

Edric O

nampigai

Caid Ivik

nemafakei

Caid Ivik

nampigai

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information