'Jesus 'may have visited England', says Scottish academic

[djohno]

This is sillier than the Da Vinci code. You could make a TV show out of it though, it'd be like Smallville - Jesus: The Early Years. Jesus and his young, edgy companions explore the world looking for enlightenment (and chicks) whilst getting into zany adventures with a different demon-possessed local each week. Meanwhile cryptic hints are constantly dropped about his eventual destiny for long-time fans ("Jesus? Why you're the splitting image of your father!" "Ah, aren't we all though?") It'd bring a new debate to what is and isn't canon though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8380511.stm

[2NaFish]

its not that outrageous actually. i'll grant you it is silly, but the ancient world wasnt as static as we would think, and whether or not jesus was the son of god he was certainly from a pretty powerful family. add to this the fact that we know very little about jesus up to the age of 30 and it is not inconceivable. but this guy is probably just attention seeking. the academic, not jesus. he has enough attention.

altogether now, "And did those feet, in ancient times........"

[bucketsixx]

Pics or it didnt happen.

[sunnyp]

Well if god is omnipresent, and Jesus is the son of God, then 50% of Jesus must be everywhere?!

Imagine the entourage he would have collected on the way!

[2NaFish]

Well if god is omnipresent, and Jesus is the son of God, then 50% of Jesus must be everywhere?!

Imagine the entourage he would have collected on the way!

emm, one third surely. father, son and holy ghost.

[aintitfun22]

Pics or it didnt happen.

[ktallett]

surely this is very possible i know from what the majority of the world has been told about jesus this wouldnt have been taken too seriously. Yet as said above even if it is true and his life ended during his 30's, still many years to travel, explore. im sure he was exploring and finding himself as if this (by this i mean he was the son of god and the faith that he was preaching was correct) was what he believed how did it come about so to speak.
 Also i have to say the tiny amount of work that is avaliable to us to do with jesus' life is not exactly a proven fact, its very wishy washy definately not proof or evidence of anything. Simply a few men writing down a story that no one will ever know whether it is actually non fiction.
As all the gospels that have been found (gnostic gospels) arent taken as seriously as the ones actually printed in the bible which is odd as im sure carbon dating would prove their origins and age so authentic from the time (so to scholars and christians should be just as noteworthy). Yet again teh disputers are probably jsut people who are willing to avoid looking at the whole case,rather they would prefer to just spreak of and read about the bits that support what they think.
To prove something as is taught in science is impossible, as one story/piece of evidence can change the whole thing and turn it on its head. To quote einstein exactly "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. It is always of the believer to prove correct and prove it is factual, yet sad to say people dont believe this should be the case.

[aintitfun22]

ive said it many times before, and i'll say it again......manbearpig is real. i swear.

[ktallett]

may i also add i love the people who are saying pictures or it didnt happen exactly what in 20ad (may as well use the correct julian dates, changed it to correct myself although ad wasnt avaliable then ill use it so its easier to understand) would be recoqnisible today. Its really not as if its possible you will find a parchment at any point with a drawing of jesus next to big ben that jesus took home to show his mum. It would simply be rolling fields and forest and woodland that im sure he can find in many other european countries. Its very likely he did come to europe whether it was england no one will ever know.

[aintitfun22]

^ are you serious.........we were kidding.......

[Sean]

ok young man...  peace be with you

[2NaFish]

may i also add i love the people who are saying pictures or it didnt happen exactly what in 20ad (may as well use the correct christian dates even though jesus' wouldnt have used this) would be recoqnisible today. Its really not as if its possible you will find a parchment at any point with a drawing of jesus next to big ben that jesus took home to show his mum. It would simply be rolling fields and forest and woodland that im sure he can find in many other european countries. Its very likely he did come to europe whether it was england no one will ever know.

Whoosh.

(and its gregorian, not christian. if you're gonna be a smart ass, whilst being a bit slow, its preferable to be factually correct)

[ktallett]

my mistake sorry, although actually we both got it wrong because as im talking about jesus' time its actually the julian calendar (introduced by Julius Caesar). as the gregorian calendar wasnt brought in until 1582 by pope gregory the 13th.

[2NaFish]

if i remember the julian calender refers to a calender of 365 and one quarter days, whereas the gregorian calender takes it main reference from the death of christ. as such the correct term would be gregorian.

[ktallett]

julian calender does refer to 365 and a half days. it started the leap year every 4 years. As im trying to make a point in the context of the age when jesus was alive i am using the one calendar type (julian) that was actually avaliable to him in that day and age (the julian calendar was possibly one he followed, of course the gregorian wasnt as the calendar hadnt been reformed to the gregorian stage at that point in time (gregorian). It wasnt reformed until 16th century so up to that point no such thing as a gregorian calendar. In a sense the reform  was to do with jesus' death. It was changed to celebrate easter at the same time as  the council of nicea decided it should be in 325AD. So jesus' followed julian calender and we follow gregorian although very minor differences between the two. So in the context i meant the julian calendar is correct.

[2NaFish]

thanks, but i understand the concept of anachronism, by your logic you would have to have written in aramaic, as that was the language available to JC.

Gregorian is correct as it defines the 'AD' part of it, julian simply defines the length of the year which is irrelevant to the point.

[ktallett]

im pleased you get that. Although AD was added whilst the julian calendar was the main calendar system in circulation . Was added so they could compute the date of the christian easter festival. I was incorrect in using AD infact as i was just reading into this situation it seems as though the suffix would be Ab urbe condita  and the year would be around 770 Ab urbe condita. By the way the julian calendar refers to much more than just 365 and a half day. It was the major calendar system for just over a millenium and a half until the pope gregory reformed the calendar and that was then adopted by the majority of the christian world yet took many years. Just like teh julian calendar was simply the roman calendar reformed. Julian calendar was the most dramatic transformation of any calendar and the earliest adoption of a calendar similar to what we recoqnise today. Although noth really the first calendar system to have 365 days as the roman calendar (i believe lunar calendar) had months with 304 days then 61 days of winter not assigned to any months. If i could of (lack of keyboard functionality and time) i would have happily wrote it in another semitic language (arabic as i dont know any aramaic)

[Sean]

I just remembered why I hated Catholic School.

(come on we need a couple trolling posts)


anyway I had a big laugh this morning about the tree's and forrest in the background thing.  He could have been into kinky stuff for all you know in England

[2NaFish]

im pleased you get that. Although AD was added whilst the julian calendar was the main calendar system in circulation . Was added so they could compute the date of the christian easter festival. I was incorrect in using AD infact as i was just reading into this situation it seems as though the suffix would be Ab urbe condita  and the year would be around 770 Ab urbe condita. By the way the julian calendar refers to much more than just 365 and a half day. It was the major calendar system for just over a millenium and a half until the pope gregory reformed the calendar and that was then adopted by the majority of the christian world yet took many years. Just like teh julian calendar was simply the roman calendar reformed. Julian calendar was the most dramatic transformation of any calendar and the earliest adoption of a calendar similar to what we recoqnise today. Although noth really the first calendar system to have 365 days as the roman calendar (i believe lunar calendar) had months with 304 days then 61 days of winter not assigned to any months. If i could of (lack of keyboard functionality and time) i would have happily wrote it in another semitic language (arabic as i dont know any aramaic)

didnt say it was just 365 and a quarter days, that was just the immediate and relevant facet, but your meanderings were highly illuminating.


Anyway, how much does Jesus love crucifixion?


This much.



Geddit?
Sean, i'd make an S&M joke about the crucifixion but thats in bad taste.

[sunnyp]

This just in.....

Jesus was a Southampton fan!!

It all makes perfect sense now!

[Sean]

2Na I was going to also this morning..... but then something inside of me said  'go in peace' something like that...    something held me back, but since I'm on my 14th work hour for the day....  I gave in slightly to temptation.

... Funny thing is that I did a google search this morning for SNM because I couldn't remember how it was spelled out ...