The Religion Thread

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I too reckon did they bollox. Couldn't just nip over on Ryanair for a quick visit to Knock in those days.

I've never flown there, just always went by sea; sailed there, just like all those pilgrim chaps and early missionaries did. That the word of God/Christianity was widely spread is well known, even by the "bollox" historians.

Aye, I'm not claiming they couldn't, more that they most probably didn't. The early missionairies took a fair few centuries to reach the limits of the old Roman Empire, and they had reason to travel. Most peregrinatory folk in ancient times were one of three types: traders (on routes well established since neolithic times), warriors (usually under the command of Empires spreading the imperial cosh), and migratory tribes (such as Ostrogoths, Huns, Pechenegs). Now correct me by all means but an Aramaic carpenter was neither a trader, an Imperial soldier nor a member of a nomadic tribe.

[TANGODANCER]

I too reckon did they bollox. Couldn't just nip over on Ryanair for a quick visit to Knock in those days.

I've never flown there, just always went by sea; sailed there, just like all those pilgrim chaps and early missionaries did. That the word of God/Christianity was widely spread is well known, even by the "bollox" historians.

Aye, I'm not claiming they couldn't, more that they most probably didn't. The early missionairies took a fair few centuries to reach the limits of the old Roman Empire, and they had reason to travel. Most peregrinatory folk in ancient times were one of three types: traders (on routes well established since neolithic times), warriors (usually under the command of Empires spreading the imperial cosh), and migratory tribes (such as Ostrogoths, Huns, Pechenegs). Now correct me by all means but an Aramaic carpenter was neither a trader, an Imperial soldier nor a member of a nomadic tribe.

The Glastonbury legends are all based aound his uncle ( Joseph of Arimathea) who owned tin mines and thus, was a trader. Ships would also offer passage to paying passengers who just wished to visit other lands, no, or is that too improbable? It's all hypothetical, but one theory is as good as another as no one really knows the truth of it. "Bollox" isn't much of an argument really.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I too reckon did they bollox. Couldn't just nip over on Ryanair for a quick visit to Knock in those days.

I've never flown there, just always went by sea; sailed there, just like all those pilgrim chaps and early missionaries did. That the word of God/Christianity was widely spread is well known, even by the "bollox" historians.

Aye, I'm not claiming they couldn't, more that they most probably didn't. The early missionairies took a fair few centuries to reach the limits of the old Roman Empire, and they had reason to travel. Most peregrinatory folk in ancient times were one of three types: traders (on routes well established since neolithic times), warriors (usually under the command of Empires spreading the imperial cosh), and migratory tribes (such as Ostrogoths, Huns, Pechenegs). Now correct me by all means but an Aramaic carpenter was neither a trader, an Imperial soldier nor a member of a nomadic tribe.

The Glastonbury legends are all based aound his uncle ( Joseph of Arimathea) who owned tin mines and thus, was a trader. Ships would also offer passage to paying passengers who just wished to visit other lands, no, or is that too improbable? It's all hypothetical, but one theory is as good as another as no one really knows the truth of it. "Bollox" isn't much of an argument really.

You are right, and I seriously apologise, it's theBish's fault I jumped in by agreeing with him. But, bollox to one side, the premise of the argument was the opening to Jerusalem, which (again correct me if I'm wrong) was asking the question 'and did those feet' not of Joseph, but of Jesus? or have I got that wrong??

[TANGODANCER]

You are right, and I seriously apologise, it's theBish's fault I jumped in by agreeing with him. But, bollox to one side, the premise of the argument was the opening to Jerusalem, which (again correct me if I'm wrong) was asking the question 'and did those feet' not of Joseph, but of Jesus? or have I got that wrong??

No appologies needed. The legends have it that Joseph brought Jesus (as a young boy) with him to Glastonbury, so the hymn "seems" to be asking the question of the feet of Jesus. My only contention was that I liked the hymn.The rest, as I said, is in the great unknown.

[thebish]

He's doing what I'm doing... Social Notworking.

I like it!!

[thebish]

You are right, and I seriously apologise, it's theBish's fault I jumped in by agreeing with him. But, bollox to one side, the premise of the argument was the opening to Jerusalem, which (again correct me if I'm wrong) was asking the question 'and did those feet' not of Joseph, but of Jesus? or have I got that wrong??

No appologies needed. The legends have it that Joseph brought Jesus (as a young boy) with him to Glastonbury, so the hymn "seems" to be asking the question of the feet of Jesus. My only contention was that I liked the hymn.The rest, as I said, is in the great unknown.

and the answer is still - did they bollox...

some of those legends you refer to also claim that Jesus was in fact King Arthur...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I too reckon did they bollox. Couldn't just nip over on Ryanair for a quick visit to Knock in those days.

I've never flown there, just always went by sea; sailed there, just like all those pilgrim chaps and early missionaries did. That the word of God/Christianity was widely spread is well known, even by the "bollox" historians.

Aye, I'm not claiming they couldn't, more that they most probably didn't. The early missionairies took a fair few centuries to reach the limits of the old Roman Empire, and they had reason to travel. Most peregrinatory folk in ancient times were one of three types: traders (on routes well established since neolithic times), warriors (usually under the command of Empires spreading the imperial cosh), and migratory tribes (such as Ostrogoths, Huns, Pechenegs). Now correct me by all means but an Aramaic carpenter was neither a trader, an Imperial soldier nor a member of a nomadic tribe.

It seems to me that for a Nazarene carpenter Jesus did a fair bit of wandering - off in the desert, messing about in Jerusalem, preaching here and there - and all this after he was thirty. It wouldn't take that long to go to a Roman province like Britain and back. I didn't realize, Tango, that Joseph of Arimathea was said to be Jesus's uncle - I though he was a rich chap who was also a disciple.

[TANGODANCER]

and the answer is still - did they bollox...

some of those legends you refer to also claim that Jesus was in fact King Arthur...

So does mean that all legends are the same and have no consequence? The legends I refer to are those of St Augustine and finding Christianity had reached Glatonbury. Can you direct me to the one about Arthur being Jesus? Never heard that one.

[TANGODANCER]

It seems to me that for a Nazarene carpenter Jesus did a fair bit of wandering - off in the desert, messing about in Jerusalem, preaching here and there - and all this after he was thirty. It wouldn't take that long to go to a Roman province like Britain and back. I didn't realize, Tango, that Joseph of Arimathea was said to be Jesus's uncle - I though he was a rich chap who was also a disciple.

So the legends claim Monty. http://www.glastonburyabbey.com/arimath ... &rpn=myths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I too reckon did they bollox. Couldn't just nip over on Ryanair for a quick visit to Knock in those days.

I've never flown there, just always went by sea; sailed there, just like all those pilgrim chaps and early missionaries did. That the word of God/Christianity was widely spread is well known, even by the "bollox" historians.

Aye, I'm not claiming they couldn't, more that they most probably didn't. The early missionairies took a fair few centuries to reach the limits of the old Roman Empire, and they had reason to travel. Most peregrinatory folk in ancient times were one of three types: traders (on routes well established since neolithic times), warriors (usually under the command of Empires spreading the imperial cosh), and migratory tribes (such as Ostrogoths, Huns, Pechenegs). Now correct me by all means but an Aramaic carpenter was neither a trader, an Imperial soldier nor a member of a nomadic tribe.

It seems to me that for a Nazarene carpenter Jesus did a fair bit of wandering - off in the desert, messing about in Jerusalem, preaching here and there - and all this after he was thirty. It wouldn't take that long to go to a Roman province like Britain and back. I didn't realize, Tango, that Joseph of Arimathea was said to be Jesus's uncle - I though he was a rich chap who was also a disciple.

The argument, as I've said, isn't whether you could but more like was it probable. When you say he did a fair bit of wandering I've got to point out that you can see the desert from Jerusalem and that all specifically quoted places where Jesus was stated to be in the bible lie within a circle of 45 miles radius.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I too reckon did they bollox. Couldn't just nip over on Ryanair for a quick visit to Knock in those days.

I've never flown there, just always went by sea; sailed there, just like all those pilgrim chaps and early missionaries did. That the word of God/Christianity was widely spread is well known, even by the "bollox" historians.

Aye, I'm not claiming they couldn't, more that they most probably didn't. The early missionairies took a fair few centuries to reach the limits of the old Roman Empire, and they had reason to travel. Most peregrinatory folk in ancient times were one of three types: traders (on routes well established since neolithic times), warriors (usually under the command of Empires spreading the imperial cosh), and migratory tribes (such as Ostrogoths, Huns, Pechenegs). Now correct me by all means but an Aramaic carpenter was neither a trader, an Imperial soldier nor a member of a nomadic tribe.

It seems to me that for a Nazarene carpenter Jesus did a fair bit of wandering - off in the desert, messing about in Jerusalem, preaching here and there - and all this after he was thirty. It wouldn't take that long to go to a Roman province like Britain and back. I didn't realize, Tango, that Joseph of Arimathea was said to be Jesus's uncle - I though he was a rich chap who was also a disciple.

The argument, as I've said, isn't whether you could but more like was it probable. When you say he did a fair bit of wandering I've got to point out that you can see the desert from Jerusalem and that all specifically quoted places where Jesus was stated to be in the bible lie within a circle of 45 miles radius.

I don't want to get into a silly argument as I agree it would be highly improbable - Jesus as son of God is improbable to me tbh. However in the interest of facts Nazareth is well over 60 miles from Jerusalem...

[thebish]

The Glastonbury legends are all based aound his uncle ( Joseph of Arimathea) who owned tin mines and thus, was a trader. Ships would also offer passage to paying passengers who just wished to visit other lands, no, or is that too improbable? It's all hypothetical, but one theory is as good as another as no one really knows the truth of it. "Bollox" isn't much of an argument really.

no... one theory is NOT as good as another! A theory built on a tottering pile of supposition, guesswork, made-up stuff and mistranslation is not as good as a theory which is not built on such guff....

i know you like your Grail conspiracy stuff - but...

for your Jesus=Arthur bollox - look up a certain Ralph Ellis - he'll keep you amused for days!

[thebish]

I don't want to get into a silly argument as I agree it would be highly improbable - Jesus as son of God is improbable to me tbh.

you'd have to say quite what you meant by the phrase "son of God" before deciding on its scale of probability...

[TANGODANCER]

Whilst not offering it to prove anything, this is interesting:

http://www.nazarethvillage.com/research ... st-century" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TANGODANCER]

The Glastonbury legends are all based aound his uncle ( Joseph of Arimathea) who owned tin mines and thus, was a trader. Ships would also offer passage to paying passengers who just wished to visit other lands, no, or is that too improbable? It's all hypothetical, but one theory is as good as another as no one really knows the truth of it. "Bollox" isn't much of an argument really.

no... one theory is NOT as good as another! A theory built on a tottering pile of supposition, guesswork, made-up stuff and mistranslation is not as good as a theory which is not built on such guff....

i know you like your Grail conspiracy stuff - but...

for your Jesus=Arthur bollox - look up a certain Ralph Ellis - he'll keep you amused for days!

That's just a load of smoke of an answer based on opinionism. I never mentioned Grail conspiracies ( although I've probably read far more than you on the topic) nor even professed much of an opinion on any of it. Any view is better than just the bollox one.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't want to get into a silly argument as I agree it would be highly improbable - Jesus as son of God is improbable to me tbh.

you'd have to say quite what you meant by the phrase "son of God" before deciding on its scale of probability...

Deep waters for me to enter but nothing deep in what I meant! It is difficult because of the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost - all being one God. I meant that the claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, thus making Jesus the Son of God was to me improbable if taken literally.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The argument, as I've said, isn't whether you could but more like was it probable. When you say he did a fair bit of wandering I've got to point out that you can see the desert from Jerusalem and that all specifically quoted places where Jesus was stated to be in the bible lie within a circle of 45 miles radius.

I don't want to get into a silly argument as I agree it would be highly improbable - Jesus as son of God is improbable to me tbh. However in the interest of facts Nazareth is well over 60 miles from Jerusalem...

I'm with you theologically, mathematically however, you are wrong: viz a circle of 45 miles radius gives a diameter of 90 miles across, and therefore Nazareth to Jerusalem sits well inside the circle.
And to pre-empt another objection, where (I think in Luke but it might be Matthew) in one Gospel he travelled to Egypt and in the other he travelled to Nazereth it has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated that 'Egypt' is a mistranslation from a transliteration of Hebrew/aramaic Mish'Raim to Misri (Greek) equals Musri (Greek for Egypt). Mish'Raim being the tax district in which Nazareth lies.

[thebish]

The Glastonbury legends are all based aound his uncle ( Joseph of Arimathea) who owned tin mines and thus, was a trader. Ships would also offer passage to paying passengers who just wished to visit other lands, no, or is that too improbable? It's all hypothetical, but one theory is as good as another as no one really knows the truth of it. "Bollox" isn't much of an argument really.

no... one theory is NOT as good as another! A theory built on a tottering pile of supposition, guesswork, made-up stuff and mistranslation is not as good as a theory which is not built on such guff....

i know you like your Grail conspiracy stuff - but...

for your Jesus=Arthur bollox - look up a certain Ralph Ellis - he'll keep you amused for days!

That's just a load of smoke of an answer based on opinionism. I never mentioned Grail conspiracies ( although I've probably read far more than you on the topic) nor even professed much of an opinion on any of it. Any view is better than just the bollox one.

really - it's not! cos if Jesus didn't walk on our mountains-green - then the bollox view is entirely correct - and I am still minded to believe that given there is no even closely contemporaneous documentary reference at all the the contrary - then, he didn't - hence - bollox.

it wasn't a smokey answer - it was a very precise answer!! you asked for a reference to someone who talked about Jesus being King Arthur - I gave you one!!!

[thebish]

I don't want to get into a silly argument as I agree it would be highly improbable - Jesus as son of God is improbable to me tbh.

you'd have to say quite what you meant by the phrase "son of God" before deciding on its scale of probability...

Deep waters for me to enter but nothing deep in what I meant! It is difficult because of the Trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost - all being one God. I meant that the claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, thus making Jesus the Son of God was to me improbable if taken literally.

but then you know I don't believe that anyway....

[Montreal Wanderer]

The argument, as I've said, isn't whether you could but more like was it probable. When you say he did a fair bit of wandering I've got to point out that you can see the desert from Jerusalem and that all specifically quoted places where Jesus was stated to be in the bible lie within a circle of 45 miles radius.

I don't want to get into a silly argument as I agree it would be highly improbable - Jesus as son of God is improbable to me tbh. However in the interest of facts Nazareth is well over 60 miles from Jerusalem...

I'm with you theologically, mathematically however, you are wrong: viz a circle of 45 miles radius gives a diameter of 90 miles across, and therefore Nazareth to Jerusalem sits well inside the circle.
And to pre-empt another objection, where (I think in Luke but it might be Matthew) in one Gospel he travelled to Egypt and in the other he travelled to Nazereth it has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated that 'Egypt' is a mistranslation from a transliteration of Hebrew/aramaic Mish'Raim to Misri (Greek) equals Musri (Greek for Egypt). Mish'Raim being the tax district in which Nazareth lies.

Oh, mathematically. All right - how about Capernaum, which is 99.7 miles from Jerusalem (John 2:12).