Jesus Question

[Guest_1]

I was just curious if Jesus fulfilled every commandment that G-d gave the Jewish people, according to Christianity.

If so: Since he was not a Cohen, did he perform the commandments in the temple?

Did he fulfill all of the commandments given to women (and not applicable to men) specifically?

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

Thanks in advance!

[PegLegHolly]

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

wife: mary magdelene
child: the holy grail

[Guest_1]

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

wife: mary magdelene
child: the holy grail

Great! Can you please provide proof?

[james_dean]

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

wife: mary magdelene
child: the holy grail

my reaction: lol

[Jeremy]

Actually Josh asks a really good question, because quite a large number of people actually believe that there is some truth to the claims of The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, or even simply concede that the story is plausible, even if it might not be true.

It's certainly an interesting phenomenon (that people believe this theory) and something that could be discussed at great length.

The reality is that much of the claims made by both books can be directly disproved (Mary's arrival in England, the role of the Templar Knights etc.). Interestingly some of the so called "evidence" for this theory actually comes from pieces of work that were written as fiction in the middle ages. People at the time knew they were fiction, and still know that they're fiction today, but a very small group of conspiracy theorists, I guess largely because they'd already accepted their theory and are looking for ways of proving it, believed them as factual instead. I mention this slight digression because it's an interesting example of the claim that in a thousands years from now people might be worshipping Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. This rather meaningless argument against religion is actually plausible (although still misses the point in the debate against religion).

The thing I find most interesting about the claims made in this case is the evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a relationship. It's an interesting claim, and there is certainly some degree of circumstantial evidence to be found in the Gnostic gospels; in that they do read that Jesus treated Mary with a great deal of respect. However, and I find this to be a really crucial part of the argument. The only time there is ever any mention of Jesus making any physical contact with Mary is a line that says (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here); "Jesus kissed her on the..." and the rest of the text is missing.

To me, that's not enough evidence to even consider the possibilities that they had a relationship. I mean you can come up with any hypothetical situation that could theoretically happen, but I'm going to dismiss it without much thought unless you can provide some evidence that your hypothetical is true. In the case of this, we can be very confident that many of the later claims are false, but also when we look at the very premise of the claim we see almost no reason to believe it at all. Kissing somebody somewhere on their body is not evidence of any kind of sexual relationship or that you had children. The fact that there are so many different gospels written about Jesus, some of which are completely contradictory to each other and some of which we know were hidden after the Catholic Church tried to suppress, but none of which give any real suggestion of a relationship is enough that we should confidently say, given the evidence, we should assume that theory is false.

Of course hypothetically more evidence could arise that gives the theory more weight, but it seems very foolish to base beliefs on the hypothetical existence of evidence, rather than the evidence we have at hand. There is no shame in changing your mind when you know more, but it seems very presumptuous to assume that probably non existent evidence will one day appear.


Something we can take from this discourse though, is it seems like one of those examples where especially the left, but also many of the not faithful and religious apologist want to give excuses to religion. While they do not believe, they also do not understand that religious people actually do believe. In this case they can see that the propositions of the Catholic Church are ludicrous and they can't understand why they believe them, and so they respond by coming up with ways of justifying what they teach. They claim that the Pope knows that he's not infallible and that their religion is based on a lie but they come up with this elaborate explanation of why the Catholic Church has continued to lie for so long.

In this case these days, it seems rather trivial and inconsequential, however one only needs to look at the same argument applied in different places to see just how dangerous this idea is.

We are told that Islam wants to destroy our way of life. That Islam hates us. We are told this, yet many of us, especially on the left, and I certainly bought into this for a long time, dismisses this view. Islam doesn't really hate us we say. They're just reacting to our oppression of them. Instead of fighting a war against terrorism, we should be fighting a war against poverty and that would get rid of terrorism.

There is no doubt that there is a small amount of truth in these claims. Certainly the behaviour of Israel should be abhorred by all reasonable people, just as the behaviour of many Muslims should also be. However we have to accept that it's a reality that many people in the Islamic world actually do believe exactly what we're told they believe. They actually believe that killing themselves will mean they go to heaven with 72 virgins and they actually believe that Western civilisation is bad and that it should be destroyed. It's a reality that a massive majority of Muslims in many of the countries around the world believe that suicide bombings deliberately targeting civilians can be justifiable.

If we're going to solve world problems, we need to understand what the actual problem is first.

[Jeremy]

Sorry, there is a small error in that post. I talked about Mary's arrival in England, but actually I meant her supposed arrival in Europe (France? I don't recall the details). It was a different Mary, and that's clearly documented. It's also clearly documented when this was misinterpreted and it was a very short lived misinterpretation, until dug up by 20th century conspiracy theorists.

[PoisonTaffy]

Wow, I hate being dragged into political debates, if one could cal a one sided bashing a debate, but

Certainly the behaviour of Israel should be abhorred by all reasonable people

must be the most unreasonable sentence I've heard recently.

Are you implying that any behavior of Israel should be abhorred just because it's a behavior of Israel?

[Jeremy]

Oh please.

I'm saying that certain behaviour of Israel should be abhorred because it's a complete disregard for human rights and because it exacerbates the problem, rather than helping it.

For example, the Israeli government should pull down all the illegal settlements. It should use force if necessary and it should lock up any Israeli citizens that attempt to physically prevent such an action. Events like the Sabra and Shatila massacres should be fully investigated and we should see justice and an apology from the Israeli government. Events like the attack on the Jenin refugee camp in 2002 are absolutely disgusting, and shouldn't be tolerated at all. That kind of behaviour is unjustifiable.

[PoisonTaffy]

My problem is not the need to prove your sentence, but the way you present yourself as a leftist, reasonable person, and then proceed to sum a very complex issue in a sentence within a clause that had nothing to do with it in the first place.

Granted, I have problems with certain behaviors of Israel, even some very personal ones. Further, I have some problems with certain behaviors of the Palestinian authority, the Hammas and the Hizbollah, some are personal as well. However, I get the feeling that if I said something along the lines of "Certainly the behavior of the Palestinian Authority should be abhorred by all reasonable people", you'd be calling me on my shit exactly as I did on yours.

[professor]

I was just curious if Jesus fulfilled every commandment that G-d gave the Jewish people, according to Christianity.

If so: Since he was not a Cohen, did he perform the commandments in the temple?

Did he fulfill all of the commandments given to women (and not applicable to men) specifically?

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

Thanks in advance!

He fulfilled everything that was prophesied that the savior would do.
He was perfect so he followed all of God's commandments. I'm not quite sure which temple or women specific commandments you are referring to, but if there were commandments that didn't apply to him, why/how would he follow them?

And the commandment to have children is for married people, more specifically Adam and Eve. Since Jesus wasn't married, this also doesn't apply to him.

[Jeremy]

My problem is not the need to prove your sentence, but the way you present yourself as a leftist, reasonable person, and then proceed to sum a very complex issue in a sentence within a clause that had nothing to do with it in the first place.

I was assuming people had knowledge of the claims the left make about Islam and specifically, but briefly, addressing the claim that one of the reasons Islam is fighting against us is because of the US' support for Israel and because of the way Israel oppresses people. I was hardly attempting to sum up the situation, but I think my statement is absolutely true, there are actions, such as the Jenin incursion, that every reasonable person should abhor and my statement; "certainly the behaviour of Israel should be abhorred by all reasonable people," is absolutely true. No part of that statement is a judgement or an attempt to "sum" the situation in Israel/Palestine.

Granted, I have problems with certain behaviors of Israel, even some very personal ones. Further, I have some problems with certain behaviors of the Palestinian authority, the Hammas and the Hizbollah, some are personal as well. However, I get the feeling that if I said something along the lines of "Certainly the behavior of the Palestinian Authority should be abhorred by all reasonable people", you'd be calling me on my shit exactly as I did on yours.

If you wrote a long post attacking Israel, just as I wrote a long post attacking Islam, and in that post made a passing remark that Islamic groups are also morally repugnant, what would I have to call you on? Have you actually read my post, or did you just read the 12 words about Israel?

[PegLegHolly]

Actually Josh asks a really good question, because quite a large number of people actually believe that there is some truth to the claims of The Da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, or even simply concede that the story is plausible, even if it might not be true.

It's certainly an interesting phenomenon (that people believe this theory) and something that could be discussed at great length.

i agree with you jeremy.

ive read other books though on the issue. "woman with the alabaster jar" and the actual gospil of mary magdeline. ive also read the da vinci code, but that is obviously a fictional book.

i dont feel like i have proof though, since no one has real proof because there wasnt good documentation of anything during those times. alas, since we werent there, we may never know.

[dyalander]

Also on

"Certainly the behavior of the Palestinian Authority should be abhorred by all reasonable people", you'd be calling me on my shit exactly as I did on yours.

I'm sure I remember Jeremy detailing the injustices of both sides in past threads. I don't think that's a fair assumption at all.

[Jeremy]

i dont feel like i have proof though, since no one has real proof because there wasnt good documentation of anything during those times. alas, since we werent there, we may never know.

Sure. There's plenty of things we may never know for sure. However we can be reasonably certain that they're not true anyway. For example we can be certain that I don't have a live tyrannosaurus in my backyard. Without going and looking, what proof do we have? Yet we're all happy to accept that it's not true. Given that there is actually no evidence supporting the "Jesus had children" theory which hasn't been discredited, given that the core premise is so weak that we have to make a gross assumption to even suggest that Jesus was in a sexual relationship, it seems very rational to assume the theory is not true at this stage, given the evidence we do have.



Dyalan; you are correct, but I think it's even more important to note that my post was mainly an attack on Islam, with 12 words in it agreeing that Israel doesn't behave nicely either. So if I was going to be attacked over blaming 1 side in that conflict, you'd think I'd be blamed for attacking the side I wrote 214 words attacking, rather than the side I wrote 12 words attacking.

He says I present myself as a "leftist, reasonable person." While both are largely true, it's important to note that I viciously attacked the left in that post. In fact the point of my post was that the left makes excuses for disgustingly immoral behaviour, rather than accepting the fact the people really believe that what they're doing is right and that the left is making the problem of Israel and the problem of Islamic terrorism worse rather than better.

I'm going to go ahead and question whether he actually read my post at all.

[PegLegHolly]

However we can be reasonably certain that they're not true anyway.

i guess thats not the way i think.

[Guest_1]

I was just curious if Jesus fulfilled every commandment that G-d gave the Jewish people, according to Christianity.

If so: Since he was not a Cohen, did he perform the commandments in the temple?

Did he fulfill all of the commandments given to women (and not applicable to men) specifically?

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

Thanks in advance!

He fulfilled everything that was prophesied that the savior would do.
He was perfect so he followed all of God's commandments. I'm not quite sure which temple or women specific commandments you are referring to, but if there were commandments that didn't apply to him, why/how would he follow them?

And the commandment to have children is for married people, more specifically Adam and Eve. Since Jesus wasn't married, this also doesn't apply to him.

But it is a commandment to get married and have children

Also, if the commandments didn't apply to him, how could he fulfill all of them? Moreover, if he only fulfilled the ones applicable to him (which he didn't if you say he never married) how does that negate all of them?

[Jeremy]

Are you trying to claim that religion should be based on reason? Do you believe that another religion, like Judaism, has no contradictions in its teachings, or that it is somehow more rational than Christianity?

[professor]

But it is a commandment to get married and have children

Also, if the commandments didn't apply to him, how could he fulfill all of them? Moreover, if he only fulfilled the ones applicable to him (which he didn't if you say he never married) how does that negate all of them?

If you have a verse that says you must get married I would love to see it. because I've never read it.

There are a couple things I think you are confused about. First off a person doesn't really "fulfill" a commandment. A person "follows" a commandment. Like when your parents tell you not to play in the street. You either follow their command or you don't.

Most of the time fulfill is used when speaking of prophecies. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies, meaning everything that was prophesied Jesus would do, he did.

So did Jesus fulfill all the prophecies? Yes.
Did he follow all the commandments? Yes.

[FlexThis]

Visual Aid:

1.) I am the Lord thy God
2.) Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
3.) Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God
4.) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5.) Honor thy Father and Mother
6.) Thou shalt not murder
7.) Thou shalt not commit adultery
8.) Thou shalt not steal
9.) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10.) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife

Didn't see anything above about "going forth" to multiply.

[Iron Clad Ben]

I was just curious if Jesus fulfilled every commandment that G-d gave the Jewish people, according to Christianity.

If so: Since he was not a Cohen, did he perform the commandments in the temple?

Did he fulfill all of the commandments given to women (and not applicable to men) specifically?

Also, if it's a commandment to have children, what were his wife and kid's names?

Thanks in advance!

Josh, when you say commandments are you referring to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_Mitzvot

Because I think others are assuming you mean the 10 commandments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_commandments

Not that I care one way or another, just want to make sure everyone is discussing the same thing so that this doesn't degenerate into a flame war.