People of the desert in the time of Jesus the Christ did not bathe very often.

People of the desert in the time of Jesus the Christ did not wash or change ther there clothes very ofte.

Men of the deset do not shave.

No one in the time of Jesus the Christ ever heard of a Sears and Robuck catalog or toilet paper.

(Jesus the Return.)

If Jesus the Christ returns to the earth as promissed by the bible,let us all pray that his dad gets him a shower,a shave,a haircut and a new wardrobe this time.

(AMEN.)

That wasn't funny. What was the point?

Did you realy think that Jesus and his mob were vanilla ice cream cones???

Did you realy think that Jesus and his mob were vanilla ice cream cones???
I don't really understand that... ice cream cones?

For one thing, I don't even know if Jesus existed. If he did, he was NOT the son of god, but he was a great man with wonderful teachings. Who the hell cares how clean he was? Would you say that Leonardo Da Vinci or Galileo were not great men? Most people bathed once a month at most when they were alive.

I don't really understand that... ice cream cones?

For one thing, I don't even know if Jesus existed. If he did, he was NOT the son of god, but he was a great man with wonderful teachings. Who the hell cares how clean he was? Would you say that Leonardo Da Vinci or Galileo were not great men? Most people bathed once a month at most when they were alive.
Leonardo Da Vinci or Galileo are not real people. They were made-up characters from some old book.

:)
SMW

P.S. DF, who do you think this dingaling character really is? Obviously someone trying to pull some wool over our eyes, eh?

I have no clue... some weirdo... Perhaps English is not his first language.

OMG, we spoke his name, and he vanished!

You don't think... nahhhh, surely not.

Surely the savior of the universe could spell better.

;)
SMW

LOL.... Yeah, even Santa Claus could spell better.

Did you realy think that Jesus and his mob were vanilla ice cream cones???
Are you trying to say that Jesus wasn't a white guy?
Everyone already knows he was Hebrew or Arabic. Thats old news.

I have no clue... some weirdo... Perhaps English is not his first language.

He's an old member come back to haunt us again...

Jesus the Christ a dirty guy???

LOL.

This is akin to alleging that the Tooth Fairy has halitosis.

_______________________________

I think I have discovered the root cause of America's growing stupidity, whether it be in the educational or political process. A recent Gallup poll showed that 72% of Americans believe that "angels" are real and interact in our daily lives. Yep, angels. Asexual, flying, feathery-winged, translucent metaphysical beings from outside our sphere of existence, which CNN News spent hours on recently documenting their proficiency at saving lives by deflecting bullets and stopping car crashes. Is it just a coincidence that as we suffer this spiritual revival in America, our kids get dumber, we move further to the Right, the majority of us are less secure in our jobs and homes, and rabid little right-wing nitwits are running the show?

It seems we have a new troll.

Way to go Troll Dingaling.

Leonardo Da Vinci or Galileo are not real people. They were made-up characters from some old book.

:)
SMW

P.S. DF, who do you think this dingaling character really is? Obviously someone trying to pull some wool over our eyes, eh?
I need to respond to your bland assertion that Jesus had to exist because Leonardo da Vinci really existed.

First of all, however, let me make it clear that my view that certain religious "founders" (including Jesus, Moses, and the Buddha) almost certainly did not exist as historical beings in no way detracts from the modern value of the respective religious traditions. That is entirely a separate issue, and I see no reason for saying that God is not present in these religions just because they have mythical origins. Myth is the foundation of culture and religion.

The problem with "Jesus of Nazareth," in particular, is that we have no testimony as to his having really existed except the Gospels, written much later and full of mythical material. It is as though one were to assert the reality of Agamemnon based entirely on the Iliad.

The earliest mention of a historical Jesus is in Josephus, a passage that has plainly been inserted by some later, Christian, pen--it was not written by Josephus. (Most of ancient antiquity has been filtered through several centuries of Christian copying and recopying).

There is also a mention of Christians (but not actually of Jesus) found in Tacitus, 150 years later. That is it.

Now consider that this Jesus is supposed to have created several virtual riots, to have attracted great multitudes, and so on. There are about 50 known classical authors of the period who wrote about Jewish affairs, and none of them mention him. We have secular testimony of Palestinian figures of far less importance, but no secular testimony of any Jesus.

Of course, absence of mention is not proof of absence, but it is damn good evidence of absence.

Then there is "Nazareth." This "city" (according to the Gospels) enters history in the third century when Constantine's mother, touring Palestine, discovers there seems to be no "Nazareth" about, so she declares a place to be Nazareth, and builds a church, around which the modern city developed. (Her tour of Palestine, "discovering" all sorts of things--the "Mount of Olives," the place of the crucifixion, etc., etc., as well as many holy relics, is really a wonder to study).

Before then, not even any "Nazareth" is known to history--even in Josephus, who lists over fifty communities in Galilee (an area smaller than Rhode Island), but not "city" of Nazareth.

These historical facts lead an objective observer to wonder what could have been going on? The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that Christianity was not even Palestinian in origin, but Greek--they even confused a passage in Isiah where the prophet speaks of "The Stem of Jesse" as being a proper name ("Jesus") and a place of origin (in the Greek, not the Hebrew style)--"of Nazareth" from the LXX, which mistranslated the original Hebrew ("Nazaria" equal "Branch.")

So in the mid-first century we have a person (known as "Paul") active in Asia Minor dealing with "Christian" churches in the Hellenistic world, claiming to be a "Spiritual Jew" (of the tribe of Benjamin), but never once referring to the Jesus biographies of the Gospels (I say "biographies" because they frequently differ on details).

In this Paul we see a dead and resurrected Jesus in heaven about to come to the earth to bring the End of Time, who provide a means of salvation through his sacrificial death--all standard Greek Mystery Cult themes.

Only later does the "historical" Jesus myth develop--in reverse order to what most people think happened.

I need to respond to your bland assertion that Jesus had to exist because Leonardo da Vinci really existed.

First of all, however, let me make it clear that my view that certain religious "founders" (including Jesus, Moses, and the Buddha) almost certainly did not exist as historical beings in no way detracts from the modern value of the respective religious traditions. That is entirely a separate issue, and I see no reason for saying that God is not present in these religions just because they have mythical origins. Myth is the foundation of culture and religion.

The problem with "Jesus of Nazareth," in particular, is that we have no testimony as to his having really existed except the Gospels, written much later and full of mythical material. It is as though one were to assert the reality of Agamemnon based entirely on the Iliad.

The earliest mention of a historical Jesus is in Josephus, a passage that has plainly been inserted by some later, Christian, pen--it was not written by Josephus. (Most of ancient antiquity has been filtered through several centuries of Christian copying and recopying).

There is also a mention of Christians (but not actually of Jesus) found in Tacitus, 150 years later. That is it.

Now consider that this Jesus is supposed to have created several virtual riots, to have attracted great multitudes, and so on. There are about 50 known classical authors of the period who wrote about Jewish affairs, and none of them mention him. We have secular testimony of Palestinian figures of far less importance, but no secular testimony of any Jesus.

Of course, absence of mention is not proof of absence, but it is damn good evidence of absence.

Then there is "Nazareth." This "city" (according to the Gospels) enters history in the third century when Constantine's mother, touring Palestine, discovers there seems to be no "Nazareth" about, so she declares a place to be Nazareth, and builds a church, around which the modern city developed. (Her tour of Palestine, "discovering" all sorts of things--the "Mount of Olives," the place of the crucifixion, etc., etc., as well as many holy relics, is really a wonder to study).

Before then, not even any "Nazareth" is known to history--even in Josephus, who lists over fifty communities in Galilee (an area smaller than Rhode Island), but not "city" of Nazareth.

These historical facts lead an objective observer to wonder what could have been going on? The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that Christianity was not even Palestinian in origin, but Greek--they even confused a passage in Isiah where the prophet speaks of "The Stem of Jesse" as being a proper name ("Jesus") and a place of origin (in the Greek, not the Hebrew style)--"of Nazareth" from the LXX, which mistranslated the original Hebrew ("Nazaria" equal "Branch.")

So in the mid-first century we have a person (known as "Paul") active in Asia Minor dealing with "Christian" churches in the Hellenistic world, claiming to be a "Spiritual Jew" (of the tribe of Benjamin), but never once referring to the Jesus biographies of the Gospels (I say "biographies" because they frequently differ on details).

In this Paul we see a dead and resurrected Jesus in heaven about to come to the earth to bring the End of Time, who provide a means of salvation through his sacrificial death--all standard Greek Mystery Cult themes.

Only later does the "historical" Jesus myth develop--in reverse order to what most people think happened.

(If God created man in his own image and i look like God then God must be in a lot of reouble.)

(If God created man in his own image and i look like God then God must be in a lot of reouble.)

I have often wondered what in the world that passage, quoted so often, might really mean. I think the orignial human author (some priest working under Josiah to produce the books Josiah intended to "discover" for his reforms) no doubt meant it quite literally.

Of course nowadays even those who say we must read the Bible "literally" hedge on this one, and refer to something like our intelligence or conscience or whatever.

Can that be? Imagine infinity being compared with a finite human being? "Image" is not appropriate. There could be no image. The gap between something infinite and something finite is infinite.

I think theists would be well advised to just bury that passage and act, as they do with so many other passages, like it doesn't exist.

It's actually quite true.People of that time of Jesus ate with one hand and wiped with the other.Thay still do in some areas.

The post is an accurate summary of the state of hygiene of the time.

Thats just the way that it was.

It's actually quite true.People of that time of Jesus ate with one hand and wiped with the other.They still do in some areas.

The post is an accurate summary of the state of hygiene of the time.

Thats just the way that it was.

That is not quite how I have experienced it. While it is true the world has a bias against south paws, everyone tries to avoid actually using their hand. Grass or leaves or paper or, most commonly, flowing water, is preferred (America misses a lot not having bidets). Then they wash their hands. The idea that people in third-world countries don't wash their hands is absurd (I don't think you meant to imply it, but this is a widespread idea that needs refuting).

Of course it is not always possible to wash, but the aversion to the left hand is more habit than fear, and even though the hand is washed, people still have a residual psychological aversion.

I am talking about a society that lived two thousand years ago.

There are still nomads of the desert who still live the same way.

Pardon the off-topic interruption, but Mr. Dingaling... your spelling seems to have improved dramatically today. Do you credit devine intervention or spellcheck for the remarkable change? (Or maybe you were just pretending before, huh?)

He probably just upgraded to the latest Firefox.

Whoever he is, he's well named. If ever there was a dingaling he is it.

Hehe... dingaling... hehe...

Some people's spelling is devine.

Other's spelling........not quite as divine.