BS: An Easter Question

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 16 - 01:20 AM

Steve Shaw says: As for what happened to tolerance, where exactly is the tolerance in bringing your kids up in the faith that you happened to be accidentally born into, when there are so many others available? I call that the height of intolerance. I call letting children grow up before they make up their minds about religion tolerant. Of course, that wouldn't work, because they simply wouldn't sign up, and your Church would quickly pass into history. Oh yes. We "scary" atheists know only too well why you believers do things the way you do!

I guess Mr. Shaw was conditioned as a child to see faith only as ideology, and that's too bad. I see bringing kids up in a church as bringing them up in a tradition, a tradition that celebrates and explores birth, death, and life and the events of life according to a treasured tradition and set of rituals. My own Catholic upbringing had little to do with ideology. It was growing up in an interesting, rich tradition that I enjoyed - and I received an exceptionally good (and critical) education in the practices of that tradition and the reasoning behind those practices. A tradition that you choose as an adult because it's tailored to your needs, just doesn't feel authentic to me - although my neopagan Catholic wife and many others have made that choice.

I realize that there are some people who see faith as ideology, but I don't. Neither does my wife. She respects but doesn't feel at home in the stricter Polish Catholic tradition she was raised in, so she has chosen another path. She sees faith and religious practice as a method and school of insight, but not an ideology. What she does is good for her, and what I do is good for me - and we respect that in each other.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 09:02 PM

Absolutely, Greg. Thousands of years of evolution and human advance have left us with populist, fundamentalist claptrap, all because we weren't allowed to keep an eye on what religion was getting up to.

Don't be scared, Joe Offer. We are like the little fleas on your great big Christian dog. You are the scary buggers, not us, with your fearsome unsupportable doctrines and lack of escape clauses. Note that I said we should be vigilant, not controlling (the latter being the modus operandi of all big religions - do you actually deny that?). As for what happened to tolerance, where exactly is the tolerance in bringing your kids up in the faith that you happened to be accidentally born into, when there are so many others available? I call that the height of intolerance. I call letting children grow up before they make up their minds about religion tolerant. Of course, that wouldn't work, because they simply wouldn't sign up, and your Church would quickly pass into history. Oh yes. We "scary" atheists know only too well why you believers do things the way you do!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 08:10 PM

Maybe there are people of faith who understand that their faith is rooted in myth, and yet they still have reason to practice that faith because they see profound value in myth and ritual and tradition and shared values and ideals.

Absolutely, Joe, and for that I respect them. And you.

And yet there are far too many who, thru "belief" are conditined to accept any unsubstantiated garbage that happens come along.

vide the "Christan"[sic} supporters of Cruz, Trump, and David Duke, et. al.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:57 PM

Steve Shaw, infallible as always, sez: We all have the right to be vigilant about the way all children are raised. The line between parental privacy and the best interests of children and the society they will be required to contribute to is a hard one to draw, I admit. But you don't get to do just anything you like, let's put it that way. 25 years of being a teacher in rough areas, seeing a hands-off, keep-your-nose-out policy of that kind, taught me that much. And religion can't be sacrosanct, I'm afraid. Allowing everyone to do exactly what they want to, faith-wise, with their children leads to fundamentalism and the perpetuation of bigotry. And that affects all of us. Which kind of makes it all our business.

Why does that sound so scary to me? And yet so "sacrosanct" at the same time. I remember a time when I felt more comfortable with atheists than I did with Christians, because the atheists didn't bother with ideologies and agendas. But now, they're getting downright huffy about their right to condemn the rest of us. Just like that "old-time religion."

Whatever happened to tolerance?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:35 PM

Doesn't take much to set ol' Steve off, does it?

But gee, I got Greg going, too.

Greg, maybe to some people belief doesn't necessarily mean accepting an ideology with an absolutely literal understanding. Maybe there are people of faith who understand that their faith is rooted in myth, and yet they still have reason to practice that faith because they see profound value in myth and ritual and tradition and shared values and ideals. Maybe they see their sacred myth as the embodiment of those values and ideals.

Maybe some people of faith fully acknowledge that there are people of their faith tradition who have done terrible things in the name of that faith, just as people have done terrible things in the name of just about everything - including "truth."

Maybe to some people, it isn't all that important to be in possession of the absolute "truth," whatever that is.

Maybe some people just like being who they are, warts and all.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:14 PM

Actually, anything by Bach will do me. I confess to listening to the John Passion on Friday. Sublime. I went to the Matthew Passion decades ago and, grand as it was, you needed to take a picnic with you. The John Passion is far more concise. But Messiaen? Sheesh...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 07:06 PM

By the way, what is it about your faith that makes you feel so offended when people attack or insult it? Would you like us to bring back the heresy laws, perhaps? Your faith gets attacked or insulted because it has made itself the default position of society. It's everywhere. I've been Eastered up to my bloody eyeballs on the telly and radio all day today. Services, holy music, bloody Messiaen Catholic organ music, Bach cantatas, Songs of Praise, papal bullshit all over every news bulletin... Well, for someone like me who doesn't buy into it, it's bloody annoying (don't worry, I'll get over it). Why shouldn't I do a bit of offending back?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:54 PM

Excuse me, but at least two people above have derided your faith far more than I have.

"People choose to believe.."

Er, really? Most people of religion were forced into their particular faith initially by their families, thereafter by religious instruction from the institutions in which they received their schooling. Even for bright people who have had this drummed Into them for the best part of their first two decades, it isn't easy to get out of it. There's the family pull, the guilt, the fear of earthly and heavenly consequences... Hmmm, " choose," eh?

I don't deride people who believe. I defend them, whilst still considering them to be misguided. Said it so many times. What I deride is the compulsion of people of faith to propagate it, without evidence, to other vulnerable people.

We all have the right to be vigilant about the way all children are raised. The line between parental privacy and the best interests of children and the society they will be required to contribute to is a hard one to draw, I admit. But you don't get to do just anything you like, let's put it that way. 25 years of being a teacher in rough areas, seeing a hands-off, keep-your-nose-out policy of that kind, taught me that much. And religion can't be sacrosanct, I'm afraid. Allowing everyone to do exactly what they want to, faith-wise, with their children leads to fundamentalism and the perpetuation of bigotry. And that affects all of us. Which kind of makes it all our business.

I don't give a damn who you marry or what you call your kids. But if you charge around America, burning your ultra-cheap yankee petrol in a six-pot car that does fifteen to the gallon, I do give a damn. That's my business. You can't keep those emissions to yourself, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM

That's the whole deal with faith Steve. People choose to believe, without evidence.

Sigh.

Like alien abduction, chupacabras, the moon landing was faked in Hollywood, Prez. Obama's a Muslim, Donald Trump's vomit, vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax................................................................................................................

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 04:34 PM

Jack says: His father beamed down a Hawaiian shirt, Bermuda shorts, flip-flops and a "kiss me quick" hat, but the disciples couldn't bring themselves to describe it.

Hey, Jack, that's how He looks on those packets of Zig-Zag cigarette papers!

---

PFR sez: And the saviour said "I'll be back !!!"

Somehow, I can't picture Arnold Schwarzenegger playing The Redeemer...

---

Steve Shaw sez: All I want is your evidence. I don't expect a direct, honest reply, of course.

That's the whole deal with faith Steve. People choose to believe, without evidence. My faith tradition has been very rich and fulfilling to me, and I like being a believer and I am convinced that my believing does nobody any harm. If that's not satisfactory, then feel free not to believe. What I can't understand, is why you feel so compelled to deride and attack people who do believe. Although you deny that you do this, your compulsion is clear.
There's nobody here at Mudcat who promotes religion; but yet it's clear that there are many here who feel free to attack and insult it. Why is that? And for that matter, is there anyone here who attacks and insults and derides nonbelief?
The choice to believe or not to believe is a very personal decision. I don't think anyone has a right to question or challenge or deride my decision, as long as I don't try to force my faith on anyone else - and I never have, unless you feel you have some right to question my bringing my children up in a church. I don't think you have a right to question how I raise my children, either - and you certainly will never really know how I raised them. You can only speculate, and that sort of speculation is none of your business. There are aspects of other peoples' personal lives that are best left for them to determine. And your derision is not welcome, thankyouverymuch. I suppose you think you have a right to demand me to defend the kind of car I drive, too, huh? And the names I gave my children? And the woman I chose to marry?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: EBarnacle
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 12:18 PM

I recommend RA Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice" which will put some of the questions raised here into a somewhat different context.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 11:35 AM

" The Bible does not say anything about what happened on Easter Monday, the day after Jesus' resurrection"

Newly declassified redacted files provide strong evidence of cataclysmic events the day after regeneration:
Jesus-Bot V.2.00 reactivated and re-equipped with even more powerful 'miracle' weaponry;
an army of disciple clones ready to march relentlessly on the world.
The day the conquest began....

And the saviour said "I'll be back !!!"

Tonight 10.00pm special exclusive only on The Crackpot History Channel.

"Invasion of the Disciples - Almighty Clone Army War Against Mankind"... 💥

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 11:08 AM

We are told Jesus' body was left in the tomb overnight wrapped in a shroud. When the open tomb was discovered on Easter Sunday, this gravecloth was found neatly folded, but Jesus had disappeared.
Soon afterwards he was seen by various folk, walking about quite the thing. Now what was he wearing? And where had he obtained the clothes?

His father beamed down a Hawaiian shirt, Bermuda shorts, flip-flops and a "kiss me quick" hat, but the disciples couldn't bring themselves to describe it.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 10:34 AM

Easter Question: What about those Cadbury eggs? Do rabbits actually lay them?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 10:07 AM

Controversial new evidence unearthed: Exclusive.

As soon as the cave was sealed shut from prying eyes Jesus was beamed back up to the mothership
Where his circuitry & cyber-mechanisms were checked for faulty components, his battery recharged, software upgraded,
and human camouflage bio exterior repaired...

Then when all system diagnostics passed satisfactorily and his new mission directives programmed to continue conquest of planet Earth ,
he was beamed back in time for Easter Monday...

Watch "Was Jesus an Alien Conquest Spy-Bot ?" on The Crackpot History Channel - Tonight 8.00pm..... 👽

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Mr Red
Date: 27 Mar 16 - 03:46 AM

perhaps he nicked the emperor's new clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:03 PM

"Steve, I think it's only your definition of God that requires the Divinity to defy the laws of physics; and you seem to require that all people of faith adhere to your narrow definition, so that you can more handily refute them."

Now why would I bother to come up with a definition of something that isn't there? What's my definition of God, Joe? And when have I ever required anyone to do anything? I don't know whether there's a God and I don't care whether you believe in him or not. You don't know whether there's a God or not but you organise a whole institution around him notwithstanding, and you're cool with passing that uncertainty-wrapped-in-certainty down to your kids. Refuting isn't my modus operandi. All I want is your evidence. I don't expect a direct, honest reply, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 07:39 PM

Steve, I think it's only your definition of God that requires the Divinity to defy the laws of physics; and you seem to require that all people of faith adhere to your narrow definition, so that you can more handily refute them.

I came across an article about Rob Bell, an evangelical pastor who has recently been on a speaking tour, promoting the concept of evolution to evangelicals. He says that any conflict between religion and science has been overblown by small groups of extremists at either pole. I agree.

Frogprince, wasn't it George H.W. Bush who was very fond of pork rinds? Makes you wonder. Maybe there's a comparison between Bush senior and King David?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:17 PM

Well he. might as well defy the laws of physics, as his very existence is predicated on just that. No matter how you define him.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:10 PM

", are foreskins kept by any culture after circumcision?"

About 46 years ago, a college roommate and I surmised what those so-called "pork skins" in the vending machines really were...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 02:05 PM

Hi, Eliza-

You say "Jesus was in the form of a very clear 'apparition.'" That's more-or-less the way I see it.

The question of suffering is a big one. I guess I think that suffering just happens. I don't see God as scripting what happens in our lives. We're in a universe that works according to certain principles that are best defined by science. We operate within those principles, affected by the very powerful forces of consequences and coincidences. It takes real effort to go beyond those forces and accomplish significant change. I see God as a spiritual force that inspires that effort.

I usually give my definition of God as an essence that is both within and beyond each of us, and I see that essence as good and as calling us to good. If I respond to that essence, I can accomplish things beyond the ordinary flow of things.

Other people have other understandings, but mine is what works for me. I don't see an interventionist God that defies the laws of physics - including natural consequences and coincidences.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 12:55 PM

Yea, have another three marks and TWO gold stars AND you can give out the inkwells !!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 12:43 PM

that last guest was me...😜

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 12:28 PM

I'm a life long agnostic/atheist - ie i'm not exactly certain of my exact position on that spectrum.

But I like the tradition of enjoying a good jesus movie at easter.

.. part of my culture, along with Zulu, The Great Escape, The Magnificent 7, The Italian Job, The Battle of Britain, Planet of the Apes, etc
on other bank holidays....

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 08:55 AM

Exactly Les. And volcanoes, earthquakes, droughts, myriad nasty, painful diseases, venomous creatures.
It's true humans have free will and free choice, but the victims on the receiving end of evil actions have no choice about it whatsoever.
As the Scots say, "Ah hae mae doots aboot it a'."

Husband says cut-off foreskins in the city are taken away by the circumciser and 'disposed of'. He thinks probably chucked in a bin. (ugh)

Ah I nearly forgot: Happy Easter everyone!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

My sister says it's people doing it not God. people are not smallpox or maleria

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Stu
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:12 AM

"I wonder what he did with all of them..."

He used to ping them like rubber bands at the heads of passing Samaritans.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 05:08 AM

In my husband's culture (Malinke/Muslim Senoufou ivorian) foreskins are buried wrapped in a large leaf under the floor of the family hut (earth floor) but this is in the remote villages. I must ask him what happens to them in the city of Abidjan. As most of the shanty shack floors are solid concrete, they'd need a pneumatic drill to make a hole.

Joe, I often concern myself with the details as it's among them one can verify the big story. (A bit like Sherlock Holmes.) I tend to subscribe to the explanation that Jesus was in the form of a very clear 'apparition' so he could walk through walls and so on. Thus the clothes would be part of the vision and not actually real clothes at all. I'm rather suspicious of doctrine which counters a perfectly reasonable doubt with "Well, it's so, and you should concentrate on the spiritual and holy side of things, not quibble like this!" If I'm going to subscribe to an entire religion I like to read the small print so to speak. Jesus' disciples were men of their age; they hadn't the benefit of modern science and knowledge. We have, and should be allowed to exercise them.


I've taught eight year-olds for thirty years and know only too well the pertinent questions with which they interrupt a gripping story. But that's natural scepticism and a very healthy thing.

Musket, my biggest stumbling block with accepting God is the point you make above. If he's all powerful, whatever is his mindset regarding the unspeakable suffering and pain inflicted in his name all over the world. My sister says it's people doing it not God. But presumably with a wave of his hand he could put a stop to it all. She says 'free will'. But I sometimes wonder if he has any pity in him at all. When I pray I often have a rant at him about this, but one has to 'let it go' or faith would wither completely.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 03:53 AM

And for that matter, are foreskins kept by any culture after circumcision? Seems to me, it might be a good idea to keep them for David when he's told to collect 100 and decides to collect 200 instead.
I wonder what he did with all of them...sold them to Catholic virgins for use as wedding rings?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 03:41 AM

Thompson sez: Didn't St Catherine of Siena have a supposed relic of the circumcision of Jesus, a ring that she wore, saying that she had been married to God "not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his holy flesh…"

Yuck! Better to leave the foreskins to David. He had a thing about them. And by the way, is Michaelangelo's David circumcised?

But yes, Catherine of Siena had some strangeness to her writings, and much of what we know about her is mostly folklore. The most important thing about Catherine is that she was a woman who dared to confront the Pope. And yes, she and a number of other female mystics had some sort of "mystical marriage" to Jesus. I can't get too concerned about that, until they start having mystical children...

Never heard the foreskin story before. Maybe it's an absurd conversion of a metaphor into literalism. Apparently, Catherine claimed the ring indicating her marriage to Christ, was invisible.

Odd, but interesting story, nonetheless. And Siena, by the way, is a strange and interesting city to visit.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 03:32 AM

MGM says: All a bit confused and mysterious and folklorish, eh?

I think there's a lot of truth in Mike's comment.

It always seems strange to me that people here on a folk music Website can't accept folklore if it has religious implications. When it comes to religion, they accept only the "literal interpretation."

I get this a lot when I'm telling stories to kids. I tell the story and 95% of the kids are going along with me, and some damn kid interrupts and wants to know what color shoes the hero is wearing.

It ruins the whole friggin' story. Sometimes, it's best just to enjoy a story as a story, and not get bogged down in the details. Those people experienced something that had a profound experience on them. What was it? Maybe they didn't get the details right, but there must have been something that had such a profound effect on them.

And no matter what, it's a good story, so don't sweat the details.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Thompson
Date: 26 Mar 16 - 01:55 AM

Didn't St Catherine of Siena have a supposed relic of the circumcision of Jesus, a ring that she wore, saying that she had been married to God "not with a ring of silver but with a ring of his holy flesh…"

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,#
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 10:27 PM

How crucifixion kills.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 08:55 PM

anyone remember the book
The Passover plot

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Musket
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 07:47 PM

You know, with most novels you can just read what it says. Not having read it, does the bible say what he did to look decent?

Anyway, a nice story but plagiarised from earlier ones apparently.

History however relates that crucifixion had a pretty good success rate so if anyone of that name got nailed to a cross, I doubt it failed to kill him. They tended to leave you till you were really dead.

A nice aside concerning clothes but unless the story says something about them, any question should start with the idea nobody ever got up again once they actually died and doesn't the story say he dies up there? The novelist cocked up with that one because unless he introduced a ghost, it's a bit difficult attributing adventures to a stiff.

Still, I do like Eliza's question concerning the continuity error. pete's reply that God can do anything is good too. Perhaps he can sort out the carnage, mayhem and obscene loss of life in the name of him going on at present then pete!

No, thought not zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 07:29 PM

True Eliza , he still had the marks of his passion , but otherwise a ressurection body. It may well be that it was as he broke the bread that the deciples saw the wounds. To Thomas was shown the wounds in his feet and hands, and nothing was said about any other wounds preserved in his ressurected body. I am uncommitted as far as the Turin shroud is concerned but I understand that image shows the nail marks as on the wrists.   Another interesting detail as regards the grave clothes is it is thought the text indicates not their being folded but vacated .....but I might need to check that....so in his ressurection body he passed through them , as it seems he did the stone which was not rolled to let Jesus out but that others might see he was not there. And, also, in one of his post ressurection appearances when "the doors being shut" he stood among them. And the gospels do record him eating with the deciples and this would be evidence (for them, not our resident skeptics!) that it was not a spirit/ghost but he himself .

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 06:07 PM

His wrists would surely have been tied to the arms of the cross, like those of the thieves crucified along with him, and nails added just as a bit of extra nasty just for him...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 06:03 PM

I watched a documentary years ago which pointed out that nails through the palms of the hands wouldn't hold the weight of the body. The nails would in fact have been knocked through the wrist bones. (barbaric and unspeakably cruel)

Oh phew, Michael, that's a comfort! (She's actually very nice, and I doubt if she'd throw a strop at my over-logical doubts)

After his resurrection, Jesus apparently stood on the shore and told a group of disciples who were out fishing where to get a large catch. They brought the fish ashore and they all sat down and had a feast. Does this mean Jesus actually ate and drank? With his hands, brow, side and back lacerated and wounded? And presumably his digestive tract was in working order which I find strange, though I can't explain why.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:52 PM

Ah, but he will have kept the stigmata, Eliza, as a sort of memento, and identifier. It's not everyone, after all, whose palms have been pierced by bloody great nails!

I don't think parish clergy in the C·of·E actually have power of excommunication, BTW!

Best ··· ≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:44 PM

But Pete, he wasn't 'well and whole' because apparently he still had the holes in his hands for Thomas to look at.

Oddly, I find it perfectly acceptable that he rose from the dead in the tomb, but getting hold of some clothes/footwear and tidily folding up his shroud before he left somehow makes me giggle.

Our Rector will probably excommunicate me now as a heretic. She's quite broad-minded though, so maybe I'll be spared.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:37 PM

In most cases in the real world, lots of unanswered questions and contradictions cause people to have....ummm.. suspicions... about the story being told.

In religious matters, it's just "Oh, god(s) can easily do anything." Very convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: keberoxu
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM

Good point, MGM Lion, about Mary Magdalene: They have taken him away, and I know not where they have lain him.

Ought to double-check "The Man Who Died" by D. H. Lawrence. I recall that Lawrence's modus operandi was that Jesus was not dead, but catatonic. But I don't recall about the clothing.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:29 PM

I'm going to spend this Easter emulating Jesus. Piss off tonight and reappear on Sunday morning...

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:19 PM

So was Jesus one of the earliest recorded accounts of a zombie ?

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:13 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 09:35 AM

Well, for a fellow capable of dying after being bled dry then coming back to life, the matter of obtaining a few clothes, by comparison, must have been an absolute cinch.

Surely a 'cinch' is just the belt, or rope, around his robes!

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:06 PM

Must admit Eliza , that it had,nt occurred to me that Jesus would need to requisition new clothes after conquering death. Certainly a God who validates the sacrifice of his Son by raising him from death is unlikely to be thwarted by what he will wear , but of course I don't know either where the new apparel came from. We are told that in creation he only had to speak and it was created, so I guess a new suit is small fry in comparison. As to not being recognised post resurrection we are told in one place that they were prevented from recognition till he broke bread.   And of course they were not expecting to see him , especially well and whole.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: BobL
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:04 PM

I seem to remember that Mel Gibson's film on the Passion ended with Jesus exiting the tomb in his birthday suit, so a least this question has been considered before.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 05:04 PM

How did he die?

Evidence seems to show he was crucified in the Roman manner which was on an X propped on the ground and tied to a stake.

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 04:20 PM

People is People

Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 16 - 04:14 PM

Ah .......... isn't that nice and civilised, just the sort of thing that would happen in Palestine 2000 years ago.

Streuth, the lengths some people will go to.