9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

Not sure if this is conspiracy or just folklore but thought it was interesting.

[Source]

Jesus has been described as the best known figure in history, and also the least known. If you mentioned the name “Jesus” and someone asked Jesus who, you might blink. Or laugh. Even people who don’t think Jesus was God mostly believe they know a fair bit about him. You might be surprised that some of your most basic assumptions about Jesus are probably wrong.

1. Married, not single.
2. Cropped hair, not long.
3. Hung on a pole, not necessarily a cross.
4. Short, not tall.
5. Born in a house, not a stable.
6. Named Joshua, not Jesus.
7. Number of apostles (12) from astrology, not history.
8. Prophecies recalled, not foretold.
9. Some Jesus quotes not from Jesus; others uncertain.

More to read at source. I've actually read quite a bit about the pole vs cross part and also lean toward the possibility that he was married and probably had children. Never heard of some of these others though.

Mythology? Just things getting changed up through time?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Jesus was not married. Not by a long shot. He's coming back for his bride. Are you also claiming he's an adulterer?
The primus-resurrecsurit are his bride.

If he weren't hung on a cross why did he ask his follower to check his HANDS to see the marks?

This is utter nonsense and not Biblical at all.

What a surprise all the other posts by the author are things like.


10 reasons Christian heaven would actually be hell

so on and so on...... Boring.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

It would have been very, very much out of the ordinary for Jesus (as a good Jew who may have been a Rabbi himself) to be unmarried and childless at his age.

As it would have been for the Apostle Paul ... but that's another story.

Actually, evidence that Yeshua/Joshua was married would add to his reality in my mind, not take away from it.

EDIT: I Lucid, I posted before reading your article *blush* ... it goes into this point quite well. Mea culpa.

a reply to: Joneselius

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

There is no claim in the OP that the Bible is the source of these comments.

As far as Jesus committing adultery, perhaps not ... but his Father certainly did.

Or is that fornication? I can never remember.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

1. Based on a parchment scrap, not exactly canon.
2. Based on what we think the style at the time was, not on any documents referring to Jesus.
3. Article admits: The Romans did not have a standard way of crucifying prisoners, and Josephus tells us that during the siege of Jerusalem, soldiers nailed or tied their victims in a variety of positions.

He would have had long hair. I have read quite a few articles that stated that. Some said he may have been married and that he may not have really been born in a stable.. I tend to read research, but who knows if the research on this subject is actually correct. It was two thousand years ago after all, lots of misinterpretations can be made in a time like that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So..... You don't think the Bible should be taken as an authoritative text on Jesus' validity? Okay.......

Also I'm guessing you know this, he was crucified as a testament to God being outside of time, as when it was mentioned of his in the old testament, crucifixion was not a punishment.

a reply to: Joneselius

I'm not claiming anything

I'm just asking if it's possible whether over the course of a couple of millenniums some of the salient details may not have made it through. Or got altered.

The cross vs pole issue, for example has been pretty well researched. I haven't read all that much on the other items.

However, I do believe that one of the secrets the Vatican is guarding is the fact that they know who his direct descendants are and where they are.

a reply to: Elton

Elton, what do you think "canon" is made up of? Prior to about 200 AD, there are only bits and pieces of the gospel documents.

It's a minor point, just sayin'.

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: Gryphon66

So..... You don't think the Bible should be taken as an authoritative text on Jesus' validity? Okay.......

Also I'm guessing you know this, he was crucified as a testament to God being outside of time, as when it was mentioned of his in the old testament, crucifixion was not a punishment.

I would submit that if you knew much of the actual history of "the Bible" you might have second thoughts yourself.

But no, I'm not slamming the Book, I was just pointing out that the OP's article was not using the Bible, per se, as its primary source.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I believe I've heard that story in other places too.

I believe this was a real man and probably a very good but very human man. I'm just not sure of some of the facts. It does make me want to read more about it though.

No worries.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Maybe the real thing the Vatican is guarding is how they're the absolute apostate church in this world filled with evil and liars? The Vatican being taken as a serious source on ANYTHING to do with Jesus is utterly laughable. Utterly. They're liars and false prophets, especially their pope with his assumed authority.

They're the Pagan sect of true Christians and most Christians know this. They worship idols and hoard wealth, if people can't see them as the blatant enemy of Christians everywhere, that's a sin in itself.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I would dearly, dearly love to see something actually written in 4-50 AD confirming His existence ... anywhere anyhow.

I would love, surprisingly enough, to be wrong on this one.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you care to test me on the Bible? I've been researching it for the last 12 years friend. When I see things posted like this I can't help but feel a little insulted.

It says IN the Bible that our saviour didn't have long hair as it was an abomination. Yet the Catholic church would have us believe he's this beautiful long haired man. This isn't a 'none known fact' it's common sense to those who KNOW the scripture.

originally posted by: Joneselius
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Maybe the real thing the Vatican is guarding is how they're the absolute apostate church in this world filled with evil and liars? The Vatican being taken as a serious source on ANYTHING to do with Jesus is utterly laughable. Utterly. They're liars and false prophets, especially their pope with his assumed authority.

They're the Pagan sect of true Christians and most Christians know this. They worship idols and hoard wealth, if people can't see them as the blatant enemy of Christians everywhere, that's a sin in itself.

Oh my. Does it matter at all that the Roman Catholic Church was THE CHURCH in the West for 1500 years?

That fact doesn't cause even a little tickle in your brain?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I simply would not use one parchment scrap to determine the issue is CLOSED and SETTLED.

It may raise interesting questions, but as a stand alone document it kinda proves nothing...

a reply to: Joneselius

Do I care to test you? LOL. That'd be off-topic.

I see things that insult me every day; thank goodness we're adults and know how to deal with that, eh?

Which version of the Bible are you studying? I can see in one of my bookshelves from where I'm sitting the King James, Revised Standard, American Standard, Amplified, New International Version, the New King James Versions and about 4 more I can't remember the names of off-hand.

No friend. You'll have to show off your Bible know-how without me, unless it's on topic.

originally posted by: Elton
a reply to: Gryphon66

I simply would not use one parchment scrap to determine the issue is CLOSED and SETTLED.

It may raise interesting questions, but as a stand alone document it kinda proves nothing...

Absolutely agreed.

I doubt any of these matters will be "closed and settled" unless we create a working time machine.

Best,

a reply to: Gryphon66

One thing about Jehovah's Witnesses, as odd as their rep may be, is that they spend a lot of time in real bible study, as in doing a lot of historical research using books other than the bible to get to the historical accuracy of it all. I wish I had paid more attention to my former sister-in-law about some of this.

Through this research they determined that it was not a cross:

THE cross is loved and respected by millions of people. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not?

An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross. The Greek word generally translated “cross” is stau·ros′. It basically means “an upright pale or stake.” The Companion Bible points out: “[Stau·ros′] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle .

There seems to be a lot of historical evidence to back this up.

If “Jesus” was married with kids he was a very bad husband and father (and a major asshole) contrary to what most believe about him.Nothing was written of him being married(or had kids).It was contradictory to his character to put himself first.If he knew he was going to die young it makes no sense to have wife and kids and leave them husband and fatherless.He does nothing to provide for them.The conjecture is about as true as a Dan Brown novel.

Besides that blaring error the list is way to short even though it can be summed up to be very short because nothing anyone believes about Jesus or what he said is true.The disciples clearly recorded Yahoshua said none understood anything he said (including the disciples) and that fact has not changed at all only the myth grows.

The cornerstone myth is he started Christianity.That is as false as it could be.Everything Yahoshua said and did was about the extreme error of religious belief yet billions of people through out the last 2,000 years of history believe the opposite whether they believe in him or not.That should be a huge clue that even those with opposing beliefs are so in error about the most foundational thing believed about him.

You could not get two people out of billions to agree what they believe about Jesus and what they do believe would be incorrect religious rhetoric…hell if they can’t even get the “name” right what more is not known…and that’s the point ….. nothing.The Jesus of Christianity is nothing more than an idol of the mind made in the believers image for those that believe and don’t believe.