Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was the tiny Looe Island off the English coast actually visited by a very young Jesus Christ?


Manwon Lender
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Legends surround this tiny island called Looe Island off Cornwall's south coast, including a visit by Christ himself, brought here by Joseph of Arimathea from distant Glastonbury. The team are out to discover the truth behind the myths. Could this island have witnessed the birth of Christianity in Britain? They are hampered by the tide, which limits the time allowed for digging. Previous digs have linked the now-vanished St. Michael's Chapel on the hill to the Celtic dark ages following the Roman occupation.  Two chapels are dug. One on the island, other on the mainland, between tides. Some excavators remain on the island, to continue digging. What was here before Glastonbury Abbey started a cult of Saint Michael?

Although evidence of an earlier church was not conclusively found during the archaeological investigation the name Lammana means ‘the early Christian enclosure or monastery of the monk’ and so an earlier building than the 12th century cannot be ruled out in the general area. In the papal taxation of Pope Nicholas IV, taken in 1291, the chapel at Lammana, opposite Looe Island, was worth 30s. St. Augustine is said to have written to the then Pope saying he had discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus at about 37 AD. A 6th Century cleric, St.Gildas, however, went one step further and said it was built by Jesus himself.

Additional about Looe Island is linked below:

Looe Island and GlastonburyMedieval News: Looe Island and Glastonbury (celtic2realms-medievalnews.blogspot.com)

Additional information about the possible Visit of a very young Jesus Christ is in the link below:

Did Jesus Visit Cornwall? Mike's Cornwall: Did Jesus Visit Cornwall? (mikescornwall.blogspot.com)

 

 

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Was the tiny Looe Island off the English coast actually visited by a very young Jesus Christ?
19 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

 

Legends surround this tiny island called Looe Island off Cornwall's south coast, including a visit by Christ himself, brought here by Joseph of Arimathea from distant Glastonbury. The team are out to discover the truth behind the myths. Could this island have witnessed the birth of Christianity in Britain? They are hampered by the tide, which limits the time allowed for digging. Previous digs have linked the now-vanished St. Michael's Chapel on the hill to the Celtic dark ages following the Roman occupation.  Two chapels are dug. One on the island, other on the mainland, between tides. Some excavators remain on the island, to continue digging. What was here before Glastonbury Abbey started a cult of Saint Michael?

Although evidence of an earlier church was not conclusively found during the archaeological investigation the name Lammana means ‘the early Christian enclosure or monastery of the monk’ and so an earlier building than the 12th century cannot be ruled out in the general area. In the papal taxation of Pope Nicholas IV, taken in 1291, the chapel at Lammana, opposite Looe Island, was worth 30s. St. Augustine is said to have written to the then Pope saying he had discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus at about 37 AD. A 6th Century cleric, St.Gildas, however, went one step further and said it was built by Jesus himself.

Additional about Looe Island is linked below:

Looe Island and GlastonburyMedieval News: Looe Island and Glastonbury (celtic2realms-medievalnews.blogspot.com)

Additional information about the possible Visit of a very young Jesus Christ is in the link below:

Did Jesus Visit Cornwall? Mike's Cornwall: Did Jesus Visit Cornwall? (mikescornwall.blogspot.com)

 

 

I dont believe so, although there was a tin trade between the Mediterranean and Cornwall around this time and so it is technically feasible 

More likely, these claims were like claimed  relics , designed to increase the attraction of a site, and bring in monies from  pilgrims and patrons  

Plus the writers of the new testament would probably  have included such a voyage in their writings in some way to enhance the reputation of Christ if it had actually happened 

Most people of the time never ventured more than a days walk from  their home town.  Anyone who did was either wealthy or  powerful,   (or in the military, a sailor, or someone like an itinerant entertainer, or tinker  ) :) 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I dont believe so, although there was a tin trade between the Mediterranean and Cornwall around this time and so it is technically feasible 

More likely, these claims were like claimed  relics , designed to increase the attraction of a site, and bring in monies from  pilgrims and patrons  

Plus the writers of the new testament would probably  have included such a voyage in their writings in some way to enhance the reputation of Christ if it had actually happened 

Most people of the time never ventured more than a days walk from  their home town.  Anyone who did was either wealthy or  powerful,   (or in the military, a sailor, or someone like an itinerant entertainer, or tinker  ) :) 

Well Mr. Walker thats exactly why I started this thread I was hoping to see if it would start a conversation, so thanks you much for supporting it. I really agree with you on this topic, but there are facts you have over looked, forgot, or possible may have never known. Hypothetically, lets say Jesus was taken to Looe Island, I think the raeson it would not have been included in the New testament is because, first if it was done it would have been secretly and the people who would have aware of would have Mary, and Joseph.

The reason it would have been done would have been out of some form of fear for Jesus safety so in that respect once the threat passed it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events. As far as your comments concerning only those who were weathy or powerful could not have made a trip like that, and on the surface I agree with you except for two things!

1. According to you Religious Beliefs Jesus Christ was the son of God so taking that alone into consideration if it was necessary to protect Jesus from some threat whatever need would have been available because he had a verey very important role to fill and it was not time to do so!!

2. Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant so it not out of the realm of possible, do to finances, and also if somehow Joseph of Arimathea was a protector of the young Christ again finances would not be an issue, because the man known as Saint Joseph in later life would have protected Jesus at all cost, I meanhe is the one responsible for Jesus being taken down off the Cross and he is also resonsible for buring Jesus. Now let me clear my comments are ny opinion only I have no proof, just playiong the Devls Advocate!!

Peace my Friend, I hope you, your wife and your entire family are healthy, safe and have a wonderful Christmas. I understand from you previous posts that your wife is not in good health, however I offer the blessing just the same it never hurts. In addition I sympathize with you and your wife I can also honestly say you both will be in the Prays of myself along with my wife this holiday season!!:tu:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant so it not out of the realm of possible, do to finances, and also if somehow Joseph of Arimathea was a protector of the young Christ again finances would not be an issue,

Golly. I don't know that. I know that part of the Grail Lore (surrounding the "Gallahad" version) has Joseph of Arimathea visiting Britain with the cup Jesus used the night before he died. And there are lots of "Jesus slept here" legends all over the Old World (and the Mormons give him a post-mortem visit to America).

And of course there's the Blake poem about Jesus visiting Britain, And did those feet in ancient time, set to music as the hymn Jerusalem (always a crowd pleaser).

 

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Golly. I don't know that. I know that part of the Grail Lore (surrounding the "Gallahad" version) has Joseph of Arimathea visiting Britain with the cup Jesus used the night before he died. And there are lots of "Jesus slept here" legends all over the Old World (and the Mormons give him a post-mortem visit to America).

And of course there's the Blake poem about Jesus visiting Britain, And did those feet in ancient time, set to music as the hymn Jerusalem (always a crowd pleaser).

 

 

Thanks for the video my friend you know where I stand where spiritually is concerned, in all honesty I have no idea if this is true or a complete fabrication. The only reason I posted it was because it was a new addition to a site a huge amount documentaries and I thought some forum member may enjoy the content. To me though what is most interesting are the Archeological investigations themselves, I actually really enjoy watching the discoveries being exposed and removed from the ground to me it is very fascinating and true wonderful. In addition while some of the topics referring to the titles of their excavations like this one can't possible be proven the only reason I watch the shows is for the Archeology and being able to learn about interest subjects I have little or no knowledge of. 

Oh and by the way, the channel for all these documentaries is free on YouTube, and the specific site is called Odessey Channel if your unfamiliar with it you should check it out I don't care what time period of history your interest in you can find it there and unlike the totally crazy proposals made by people just trying to get click the people here are doing what they love to do and I get watch it while it occurs, what better than that.:tu:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Jesus Christ was born, England didn’t even exist on world maps yet.

The world according to Strabo Paolo Porsia, two thousand years ago, around the time that Jesus of Nazareth was born.

5580259346_3d6e215a4b_o.jpg

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hypothetically, lets say Jesus was taken to Looe Island, I think the raeson it would not have been included in the New testament is because, first if it was done it would have been secretly and the people who would have aware of would have Mary, and Joseph.  The reason it would have been done would have been out of some form of fear for Jesus safety so in that respect once the threat passed it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events.

Would this happen to be the same New Testament that's happy to record the family's flight to Egypt?  How they ran from Herod, inadvertently precipitating the Massacre of the Innocents?  How they stayed there until several years after Herod died even though they lived in Nazareth which is over 100 miles north of the Bethlehem/Jerusalem region? 

But now we have to imagine that even Cairo wasn't safe enough so they had to take/send Jesus to an island 3600 miles away?

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events.

Really?  Do you have the slightest evidence to support such a strange comment?  Isn't the entire Bible pretty much a blow-by-blow account of the misfortune and calamities suffered by the Israelites (OT) and Jesus & his followers (NT)?

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

1. According to you Religious Beliefs Jesus Christ was the son of God so taking that alone into consideration if it was necessary to protect Jesus from some threat whatever need would have been available

We know Herod was dead & unmourned by this point, so there's probably little threat from his heirs.  Joseph was busy eking a living out of carpentry - making spice racks and kitchen roll holders and stuff, so he was unlikely to be sending shockwaves through 1st century Judea.  So - what overwhelming threat might have necessitated the evacuation of the toddler Jesus yet again?

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

2. Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant

No, it is NOT a well-known fact.  It's a fringe idea based on untestable speculation that Joseph of Arimathea was related to Jesus.  JoA is described in all four canonical gospels but none of them call him a relative.

On 11/29/2021 at 9:58 AM, Manwon Lender said:

an earlier building than the 12th century cannot be ruled out in the general area

I guess that's true of almost everywhere on the planet except Antarctica?  

On 11/29/2021 at 9:58 AM, Manwon Lender said:

St. Augustine is said to have written to the then Pope saying he had discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus at about 37 AD

That's codswallop.  St Augustine would never have visited Glastonbury and certainly never wrote such nonsense to Pope Gregory I.  When he wrote to Rome it was to ask questions of serious (to him) ecclesiastical matters, not to make tabloid-style sensationalist claims.  I know you're only regurgitating what you've read on one poorly-researched webpage, but there's no cause to repeat such drivel on this site, or treat it as factual.

On 11/29/2021 at 9:58 AM, Manwon Lender said:

A 6th Century cleric, St.Gildas, however, went one step further and said it was built by Jesus himself.

Augustine landed in Kent to start his mission in 597, and died 604.  So at some point in these seven years he excavated Glastonbury and discovered ancient stonework he managed to date to 37 AD.  And after that St Gildas 'went one step further, etc.' even though he'd died thirty years earlier? 

Is anything about this yarn starting to sound implausible to you?

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

the totally crazy proposals made by people just trying to get click

Yep - that pretty much sums up the whole 'Jesus went to Cornwall' theory.  Tune in next week to see some cranks debate "Did Jesus meet the Buddha six hundred years before He was born?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom1200 said:

Would this happen to be the same New Testament that's happy to record the family's flight to Egypt?  How they ran from Herod, inadvertently precipitating the Massacre of the Innocents?  How they stayed there until several years after Herod died even though they lived in Nazareth which is over 100 miles north of the Bethlehem/Jerusalem region? 

But now we have to imagine that even Cairo wasn't safe enough so they had to take/send Jesus to an island 3600 miles away?

Really?  Do you have the slightest evidence to support such a strange comment?  Isn't the entire Bible pretty much a blow-by-blow account of the misfortune and calamities suffered by the Israelites (OT) and Jesus & his followers (NT)?

We know Herod was dead & unmourned by this point, so there's probably little threat from his heirs.  Joseph was busy eking a living out of carpentry - making spice racks and kitchen roll holders and stuff, so he was unlikely to be sending shockwaves through 1st century Judea.  So - what overwhelming threat might have necessitated the evacuation of the toddler Jesus yet again?

No, it is NOT a well-known fact.  It's a fringe idea based on untestable speculation that Joseph of Arimathea was related to Jesus.  JoA is described in all four canonical gospels but none of them call him a relative.

I guess that's true of almost everywhere on the planet except Antarctica?  

That's codswallop.  St Augustine would never have visited Glastonbury and certainly never wrote such nonsense to Pope Gregory I.  When he wrote to Rome it was to ask questions of serious (to him) ecclesiastical matters, not to make tabloid-style sensationalist claims.  I know you're only regurgitating what you've read on one poorly-researched webpage, but there's no cause to repeat such drivel on this site, or treat it as factual.

Augustine landed in Kent to start his mission in 597, and died 604.  So at some point in these seven years he excavated Glastonbury and discovered ancient stonework he managed to date to 37 AD.  And after that St Gildas 'went one step further, etc.' even though he'd died thirty years earlier? 

Is anything about this yarn starting to sound implausible to you?

Yep - that pretty much sums up the whole 'Jesus went to Cornwall' theory.  Tune in next week to see some cranks debate "Did Jesus meet the Buddha six hundred years before He was born?"

Hello Tom hope you and your family are Healthy and safe. 

Tom said

Really?  Do you have the slightest evidence to support such a strange comment?  Isn't the entire Bible pretty much a blow-by-blow account of the misfortune and calamities suffered by the Israelites (OT) and Jesus & his followers (NT)?

Tom I have nothing except memory and something I came across ( So No ) while try to add some additional information to the video in the OP. I was born in St, Louis, Missouri in 1959, and since my parents were German immigrants who where strong Roman Catholic parishioners from birth their religious faith also became my own. So I was baptized and forced to go to Bible Study until I was about 14 years old to honest I don't believe in any organized religious beliefs at all.  

The only reason I started the thread was became I am a member of the Odyssey youtube archeological network and this was there I started the thread because I thought maybe some of the Christian members of the forum may enjoy discussing it. However, that did not occur and I personally am not interested in the discussion.

The Odyssey site on youtube is full of archeological documentaries many more than I could ever possibly watch. The other documentary I posted as a thread last night is much more interesting to me personally here is link to it.

Hey I liked the word you used above, ( codswallop it was the first time I ever heard it so I looked it up and added to a list of new words I keep on my hard drive. A similar word I grew up using in St. Louis, county near St. Charles has been used since at least the turn of the 20th Century is Doodly Squat and to my knowledge is has been mainly used in the Center Mid-Western US. 

Tom said:

Tune in next week to see some cranks debate "Did Jesus meet the Buddha six hundred years before He was born?"

Buddha would not have been interested in that meeting Jesus, they had far to little in common Jesus pressed the flesh trying to gain followers, and Buddhas teaching the Dharma do not teach Buddhist to seek out followers like many Christian groups do, for example the Jehovah Witnesses. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

To me though what is most interesting are the Archeological investigations themselves, I actually really enjoy watching the discoveries being exposed and removed from the ground to me it is very fascinating and true wonderful.

I know what you mean. While I doubt (as in I doubt that Elvis is visiting mini-malls in Montana these days) that Jesus visited this place, nevertheless, there's some real archeological adventure there, and that is worth learning about.

The thread reminded me of a visit I made some years ago to Crete. The island is so loaded with archeological sites that they haven't yet gotten around to excavating many of them. So, I'm walking around Hersonnisos, a coastal town, touristy as hell. I walk up this modest hill, and there in front of me, in the open air unattended is this:

800px-Mosaic_in_early_Christian_basilica_in_Hersonissos.JPG.c21bd93c67935019cab6804fdca693d6.JPG

This is the floor of a 5th or 6th Century Christian basilica. (The photo is from Wikimedia and is in the public domain.) Which is startling enough, but then you lift your eyes and take in the setting, the view of the coast, the feel of the wind coming off of the sea, and you just know that those Christians were not the first people to worship here. In fact the town has been inhabited since Minoan times, and the ruins of a temple to the local version of Artemis is not far away.

But there on the hill, I didn't just know it, I felt it.

If I do get a next life, then I'd like to be an archeologist.

(Back to this life: I am told that the site is now closed off and excavation is in progress. Needless to say, I am curious about what they may find there. Still, I feel lucky to have had the chance just to stand there.)

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I know what you mean. While I doubt (as in I doubt that Elvis is visiting mini-malls in Montana these days) that Jesus visited this place, nevertheless, there's some real archeological adventure there, and that is worth learning about.

The thread reminded me of a visit I made some years ago to Crete. The island is so loaded with archeological sites that they haven't yet gotten around to excavating many of them. So, I'm walking around Hersonnisos, a coastal town, touristy as hell. I walk up this modest hill, and there in front of me, in the open air unattended is this:

800px-Mosaic_in_early_Christian_basilica_in_Hersonissos.JPG.c21bd93c67935019cab6804fdca693d6.JPG

This is the floor of a 5th or 6th Century Christian basilica. (The photo is from Wikimedia and is in the public domain.) Which is startling enough, but then you lift your eyes and take in the setting, the view of the coast, the feel of the wind coming off of the sea, and you just know that those Christians were not the first people to worship here. In fact the town has been inhabited since Minoan times, and the ruins of a temple to the local version of Artemis is not far away.

But there on the hill, I didn't just know it, I felt it.

If I do get a next life, then I'd like to be an archeologist.

(Back to this life: I am told that the site is now closed off and excavation is in progress. Needless to say, I am curious about what they may find there. Still, I feel lucky to have had the chance just to stand there.)

 

Wow, what an interesting experience, thank you for sharing. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

I know what you mean. While I doubt (as in I doubt that Elvis is visiting mini-malls in Montana these days) that Jesus visited this place, nevertheless, there's some real archeological adventure there, and that is worth learning about.

The thread reminded me of a visit I made some years ago to Crete. The island is so loaded with archeological sites that they haven't yet gotten around to excavating many of them. So, I'm walking around Hersonnisos, a coastal town, touristy as hell. I walk up this modest hill, and there in front of me, in the open air unattended is this:

800px-Mosaic_in_early_Christian_basilica_in_Hersonissos.JPG.c21bd93c67935019cab6804fdca693d6.JPG

This is the floor of a 5th or 6th Century Christian basilica. (The photo is from Wikimedia and is in the public domain.) Which is startling enough, but then you lift your eyes and take in the setting, the view of the coast, the feel of the wind coming off of the sea, and you just know that those Christians were not the first people to worship here. In fact the town has been inhabited since Minoan times, and the ruins of a temple to the local version of Artemis is not far away.

But there on the hill, I didn't just know it, I felt it.

If I do get a next life, then I'd like to be an archeologist.

(Back to this life: I am told that the site is now closed off and excavation is in progress. Needless to say, I am curious about what they may find there. Still, I feel lucky to have had the chance just to stand there.)

 

Wow that really cool I can certainly understand why you felt that way, I mean to me its very exciting just looking at the photo can imagine what you were feeling. Like I have said, my parents bought a Home outside St, louis, Missouri, when I maybe 10 years old was playing army with some friends ( go figure ) and I found a Arrowhead in a creek bed near a natural lake (  Creve Cour lake and park ) not far from my home. At that time when I found that single small arrowhead it was like lighting struck me and from day forward I always would spend asmuch time as possible pursuing my hobby.

The area I lived near is where Mississippi river and the Missouri river meet just above the Black Dot that identifies St. Louis. Needless to say for some who collected Arrowheads and other Native American artifacts that was a amazing place to grow up. After the first arrowhead I started walking farmers fields in the spring and in the fall after plowing. After about 6 year of collecting I hit pay dirt, I located a bluff  that was about mile away form the Missouri river and it was high enough to clearly see many miles up and down the river from that location and it was plowed every year like I described above. So, the first thing to do was secure permission from the land owner / farmer.  The guy said he had no problem with me walking his fields, but he said he doubted I would find much and he asked me in return to pick up any metal trash or large rocks that were in the plowed sections I was searching, and well I said shure that was fine with me.

I found the location mid-Summer when his crops where growing, so I waited until fall to talk with the John.  Well within an hour i hit pay dirt, at first I was finding all differnt types of Pottery, which I later determined was from across the historical spectrum, and then I found the first Fluted Point, it blew my mind completely it was identical to the point located in the photo I pasted below, its the second point from the left. What became very obvious was the fact that the site had artifacts that ranged from approximately 9500 - 8000 B.C. through A.D. 1440 - 1700s however sadly do to plowing that had takeen place at the location everything was shifted from its original location it was so mixed up you could easily find a fluted Folsomoid type point with pieces of pottery that were no more than 300 to 400 hundred years old. But there was a brightside to it also after collecting at that site for 1 or 2 years it became obvious that while everything was mixed up at least it was mixed up in uniform manner in those fields.

 I figured out that the oldest points ( fluted Folsomoid type points ) and other items from that time period were found only in approximately 1 acre areas in only two locations so even though there was newer material mixed in from occupation levels at least I still could find the most important items with out having to walk that entire area, so after each plowing those areas were where I start every year. Over the course of 6 years I found approximately 840 complete and broken points, spearheads, grinders, small flint pieces that were used to connect seems where animal hides would be connected for use in teepeesand host of many many items in some cases I never was able to identify.

""However, like most hunting and gathering groups, the subsistence base of these populations was probably diversified. It is likely that these populations utilized a settlement scheme similar to that used by later Paleoindians with habitations placed near Pleistocene lakes or bluff tops overlooking floodplains. The lack of identifiable sites could indicate that most of Missouri was not occupied at this time. It is more likely that these sites have simply been overlooked and would be difficult to distinguish from small sites dating to other periods. There are no temporally diagnostic artifacts which can be used to readily identify these sites. It is possible that such a site could exist within the limits of Wildwood, but has simply been overlooked at this time.""

PREHISTORIC CULTURES OF THE CITY OF WILDWOOD ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI: https://www.cityofwildwood.com/DocumentCenter/View/52/Prehistoric-Cultures-of-Wildwood-by-Archaeological-Research-Center-of-St-Louis-PDF

This was a situation that became very critcal do to development that was veryt

Election 2012 | Daddy's Tractor

 Here is a perfect example of what I was finding at that loaction.

L-H-pt-guide-cover.jpg

Thanks very much for helping me keep this thread alive I cant tell you how miuch I appreciate your help and the information your sharing!!

By the way later when there is time I will tell you about my experience ta the city of Ur, and I found it completely unoccupied during the Gulf War Operation Desert Storm.

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well Mr. Walker thats exactly why I started this thread I was hoping to see if it would start a conversation, so thanks you much for supporting it. I really agree with you on this topic, but there are facts you have over looked, forgot, or possible may have never known. Hypothetically, lets say Jesus was taken to Looe Island, I think the raeson it would not have been included in the New testament is because, first if it was done it would have been secretly and the people who would have aware of would have Mary, and Joseph.

The reason it would have been done would have been out of some form of fear for Jesus safety so in that respect once the threat passed it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events. As far as your comments concerning only those who were weathy or powerful could not have made a trip like that, and on the surface I agree with you except for two things!

1. According to you Religious Beliefs Jesus Christ was the son of God so taking that alone into consideration if it was necessary to protect Jesus from some threat whatever need would have been available because he had a verey very important role to fill and it was not time to do so!!

2. Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant so it not out of the realm of possible, do to finances, and also if somehow Joseph of Arimathea was a protector of the young Christ again finances would not be an issue, because the man known as Saint Joseph in later life would have protected Jesus at all cost, I meanhe is the one responsible for Jesus being taken down off the Cross and he is also resonsible for buring Jesus. Now let me clear my comments are ny opinion only I have no proof, just playiong the Devls Advocate!!

Peace my Friend, I hope you, your wife and your entire family are healthy, safe and have a wonderful Christmas. I understand from you previous posts that your wife is not in good health, however I offer the blessing just the same it never hurts. In addition I sympathize with you and your wife I can also honestly say you both will be in the Prays of myself along with my wife this holiday season!!:tu:

First ,Thank you for your good wishes They are most appreciated  

It s usually just my wife and I for Christmas these days  unless we have a few family, or other people without their own families, around 

We do have a number of invitation's to visit and celebrate but its too painful for my wife to move around much 

Likewise.  As  always I would hope that you and other posters are in good physical and emotional shape Christmas can be a blessing or a curse with the demands and expectations it can put on people

This year for the first time our two cherry trees have provided  enough cherries   to share with others, so neighbours and family will be getting a small gift od home grow cherries. 

You make some good points,

This particular story had Jesus visiting as a young person 

I am not sure why he would have needed to be protected at that age 

I guess the argument would be because he was s survivor of Herod's  genocide 

He only became a threat once he began teaching aged about 30

It is hard to separate  the mystical and practical aspects of the Christ narrative Ie how much was he man and how much ( if any) "god"" ? 

Thus this seems a convoluted way for god to protect him from m a threat which might not have existed 

Another argument would be that christ's life and death were planned out before he became man, by himself  and god the father 

Its more feasible that Christ had wealthy   relatives,  although not documented 

As far as I know, joseph of Arimathea was not related to Christ  and he is the only man of wealth really written about as a follower of Christ 

so your hypothetical  arguments are possible, but unlikely. It was a long and dangerous sea voyage from  the eastern Mediterranean to Britain and as far as i know only the tin merchants made it, although possibly some roman military might have travelled there by sea, from Rome, but this was after about 43 AD  

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jethrofloyd said:

When Jesus Christ was born, England didn’t even exist on world maps yet.

The world according to Strabo Paolo Porsia, two thousand years ago, around the time that Jesus of Nazareth was born.

5580259346_3d6e215a4b_o.jpg

 

Hi Jethro

Of course and that does not exclude that people lived in those regions not matter what they were called or even recognized as that were living in those regions at that time whos descendants still live in those areas. Stories are told and adapted and one guy tries to out myth the other guy, did Jesus exist in the first place? For some that follow a certain teaching there has been a Jesus on over 300 planets and from what they know this was the only place where they crucified him so we can conclude that aliens are saints.:whistle::lol:

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Would this happen to be the same New Testament that's happy to record the family's flight to Egypt?  How they ran from Herod, inadvertently precipitating the Massacre of the Innocents?  How they stayed there until several years after Herod died even though they lived in Nazareth which is over 100 miles north of the Bethlehem/Jerusalem region? 

But now we have to imagine that even Cairo wasn't safe enough so they had to take/send Jesus to an island 3600 miles away?

Really?  Do you have the slightest evidence to support such a strange comment?  Isn't the entire Bible pretty much a blow-by-blow account of the misfortune and calamities suffered by the Israelites (OT) and Jesus & his followers (NT)?

We know Herod was dead & unmourned by this point, so there's probably little threat from his heirs.  Joseph was busy eking a living out of carpentry - making spice racks and kitchen roll holders and stuff, so he was unlikely to be sending shockwaves through 1st century Judea.  So - what overwhelming threat might have necessitated the evacuation of the toddler Jesus yet again?

No, it is NOT a well-known fact.  It's a fringe idea based on untestable speculation that Joseph of Arimathea was related to Jesus.  JoA is described in all four canonical gospels but none of them call him a relative.

I guess that's true of almost everywhere on the planet except Antarctica?  

That's codswallop.  St Augustine would never have visited Glastonbury and certainly never wrote such nonsense to Pope Gregory I.  When he wrote to Rome it was to ask questions of serious (to him) ecclesiastical matters, not to make tabloid-style sensationalist claims.  I know you're only regurgitating what you've read on one poorly-researched webpage, but there's no cause to repeat such drivel on this site, or treat it as factual.

Augustine landed in Kent to start his mission in 597, and died 604.  So at some point in these seven years he excavated Glastonbury and discovered ancient stonework he managed to date to 37 AD.  And after that St Gildas 'went one step further, etc.' even though he'd died thirty years earlier? 

Is anything about this yarn starting to sound implausible to you?

Yep - that pretty much sums up the whole 'Jesus went to Cornwall' theory.  Tune in next week to see some cranks debate "Did Jesus meet the Buddha six hundred years before He was born?"

Manwon was just presenting a theory, and not even one he has any personal commitment to (being Buddhist) 

However i suspect that indeed church leaders of the period  made those CLAIMS  

The y did so for the same reasons they claimed   to possess holy relics.

ie to get pilgrims, patrons, and monies ( for many reasons, from  honourable, like maintaining a church building and clergy,  to dishonourable, like getting wealth and prestige for themselves ) 

ps a person can "go one step further", with a claim, even if he does so earlier.  It relates to the content of  the   claim, not the sequencing of the claims. 

eg if in 1900 someone claims there is intelligent life on Mars, and in 2000 someone  claims there is primitive  life on Mars, the first claim has "gone  further,'  even though it was made 100 years earlier. 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Manwon was just presenting a theory, and not even one he has any personal commitment to (being Buddhist) 

However i suspect that indeed church leaders of the period  made those CLAIMS  

The y did so for the same reasons they claimed   to possess holy relics.

ie to get pilgrims, patrons, and monies ( for many reasons, from  honourable, like maintaining a church building and clergy,  to dishonourable, like getting wealth and prestige for themselves ) 

ps a person can "go one step further", with a claim, even if he does so earlier.  It relates to the content of  the   claim, not the sequencing of the claims. 

eg if in 1900 someone claims there is intelligent life on Mars, and in 2000 someone  claims there is primitive  life on Mars, the first claim has "gone  further,'  even though it was made 100 years earlier. 

Thank you very much Mr. Walker for having my back I appreciate it some people just cant prevent read more into thing than is necessary.

Take care sir!!:tu: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Manwon was just presenting a theory, and not even one he has any personal commitment to (being Buddhist) 

Manwon did more than present someone else's theory.  He edited material from multiple sources and presented these as a single extract.  In post #3 he wrote unsubstantiated and erroneous views of his own.  Setting aside the plausibility (or otherwise) of the theory, his journalistic approach is open to analysis and criticism.

Two of his statements I picked him up on were "it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events" and "Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant".  (There were plenty of others I could have used.)  Neither claim holds any merit, and he made no attempt to defend his words in his reply to me.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

They did so for the same reasons they claimed to possess holy relics.  ie to get pilgrims, patrons, and monies

Yep.  I understand that - there was a thriving trade in relics throughout Christendom.  (It's one of the things we know for certain Augustine DID write to Pope Gregory about.)  It's probably apocryphal but I've heard (was it on QI? or maybe even on this site) that there's enough splinters of the One True Cross to build a ship or two.  And as for Jesus's holy foreskins... well, ships need sails.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ps a person can "go one step further", with a claim, even if he does so earlier.  It relates to the content of  the   claim, not the sequencing of the claims. 

eg if in 1900 someone claims there is intelligent life on Mars, and in 2000 someone  claims there is primitive  life on Mars, the first claim has "gone  further,'  even though it was made 100 years earlier.

I'm afraid you're comparing apples & onagers here.  Mars exists.  Anyone can make silly statements about it in any order they like.  I was talking about the illogical sequence of this from Manwon's post #1:  "St. Augustine is said to have written to the then Pope saying he had discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus at about 37 AD. A 6th Century cleric, St.Gildas, however, went one step further and said it was built by Jesus himself."

Setting aside the unfortunate fact that neither sentence is supported by any contemporary or documentary evidence whatsoever, or that St. Augustine never went to Glastonbury or engaged in amateur archaeology, or the astonishing precision of the dating, this is also chronologically impossible.  

  • IF Augustine excavated at Glastonbury it could only have happened between 597 and 604.  If HE discovered this church then there was no church discovered prior to his explorations.
  • Gildas died c.570.  IF he knew about this church (in order to claim Jesus built it) then Augustine can't have discovered it 50 years later.
  • So Gildas cannot have 'gone one step further' in discussing a church that was not discovered until at least 30 years after his death.
  • (And wasn't discovered then, either, because it isn't there.  And Augustine wasn't there to find it, etc.)
  • (This whole nonsense isn't even an ancient myth and seems to have first appeared in some chap's blog from 2019.)

This thread is titled "Was the tiny Looe Island off the English coast actually visited by a very young Jesus Christ?"  It's not the snappiest of titles, but one I think we can all agree the answer to is NO.  It's a legend, a myth, a fanciful story with no basis in any historical evidence or credibility.  And there's really no point looking deeper for evidence when the yarn contains such drivel and inconsistencies as those I've pointed out.  But we can at least discuss it with skill and intelligence, and this includes looking up facts, sources and references.  And not making idiotic statements with nothing to support them, like this one:

23 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Buddha would not have been interested in that meeting Jesus, they had far to little in common...

... which I suspect will offend pretty much every Buddhist and Christian on the planet.  

 

I spent some time researching this topic before writing my first reply, because we're actually heading to Looe next Easter and it's been interesting to learn about a part of our history that I'm unfamiliar with.  When I'm there I'll ask around and see if any parts of the story are true.  Perhaps there's still some 'Jesus woz ere' graffiti scratched on a rock and authentically dated to 10 AD?  I'll let you know.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 5:14 AM, jethrofloyd said:

When Jesus Christ was born, England didn’t even exist on world maps yet.

The world according to Strabo Paolo Porsia, two thousand years ago, around the time that Jesus of Nazareth was born.

5580259346_3d6e215a4b_o.jpg

 

Note the landmass in the northwest quadrant of the map separated from "Celtica" by a narrow channel? The one labeled "Britannia"?

While "England", as a socio-political entity was yet to come, it would appear that the general landmass was known during the time period you are concerned with.

.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 11:30 PM, Sherapy said:

Wow, what an interesting experience, thank you for sharing. 

Hello Sherapy I hope this finds you and your family safe and in great health. Yes his experience was really interesting, I was really disappointed that your thread was shut down, I was reading through it and trying to keep up and honestly I don't really understand why that happened. I just hope my comments throughout your thread didn't create the problems that caused it to occur.:(

If it was my fault I sincerely apologize, and who was that member I don't remember his user name but he kept responding with biblical quotations. I tried to have a conversation with him but he was mighty hateful there seems to be a lot of that going on right now. In seems like some people will act in a very bias manner to intentionally create situations because they enjoy the drama. 

Anyway thanks for your post and I enjoyed that thread very much even thought I did not post to it very often. 

Namaste! :tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Manwon did more than present someone else's theory.  He edited material from multiple sources and presented these as a single extract.  In post #3 he wrote unsubstantiated and erroneous views of his own.  Setting aside the plausibility (or otherwise) of the theory, his journalistic approach is open to analysis and criticism.

Two of his statements I picked him up on were "it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events" and "Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant".  (There were plenty of others I could have used.)  Neither claim holds any merit, and he made no attempt to defend his words in his reply to me.

Yep.  I understand that - there was a thriving trade in relics throughout Christendom.  (It's one of the things we know for certain Augustine DID write to Pope Gregory about.)  It's probably apocryphal but I've heard (was it on QI? or maybe even on this site) that there's enough splinters of the One True Cross to build a ship or two.  And as for Jesus's holy foreskins... well, ships need sails.

I'm afraid you're comparing apples & onagers here.  Mars exists.  Anyone can make silly statements about it in any order they like.  I was talking about the illogical sequence of this from Manwon's post #1:  "St. Augustine is said to have written to the then Pope saying he had discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus at about 37 AD. A 6th Century cleric, St.Gildas, however, went one step further and said it was built by Jesus himself."

Setting aside the unfortunate fact that neither sentence is supported by any contemporary or documentary evidence whatsoever, or that St. Augustine never went to Glastonbury or engaged in amateur archaeology, or the astonishing precision of the dating, this is also chronologically impossible.  

  • IF Augustine excavated at Glastonbury it could only have happened between 597 and 604.  If HE discovered this church then there was no church discovered prior to his explorations.
  • Gildas died c.570.  IF he knew about this church (in order to claim Jesus built it) then Augustine can't have discovered it 50 years later.
  • So Gildas cannot have 'gone one step further' in discussing a church that was not discovered until at least 30 years after his death.
  • (And wasn't discovered then, either, because it isn't there.  And Augustine wasn't there to find it, etc.)
  • (This whole nonsense isn't even an ancient myth and seems to have first appeared in some chap's blog from 2019.)

This thread is titled "Was the tiny Looe Island off the English coast actually visited by a very young Jesus Christ?"  It's not the snappiest of titles, but one I think we can all agree the answer to is NO.  It's a legend, a myth, a fanciful story with no basis in any historical evidence or credibility.  And there's really no point looking deeper for evidence when the yarn contains such drivel and inconsistencies as those I've pointed out.  But we can at least discuss it with skill and intelligence, and this includes looking up facts, sources and references.  And not making idiotic statements with nothing to support them, like this one:

... which I suspect will offend pretty much every Buddhist and Christian on the planet.  

 

I spent some time researching this topic before writing my first reply, because we're actually heading to Looe next Easter and it's been interesting to learn about a part of our history that I'm unfamiliar with.  When I'm there I'll ask around and see if any parts of the story are true.  Perhaps there's still some 'Jesus woz ere' graffiti scratched on a rock and authentically dated to 10 AD?  I'll let you know.

Tom your certainly very consistent , and your personal bias towards me is affirmed with every post you make no matter what thread it is in.:w00t::D Now it obvious the only reason you posted in this thread was to again personally attack me, so please let me be very clear I am not offended by you comments, and the only person who is losing any sleep over this is you. 

I would much rather have you here intentionally taking my comments out of context than bothering other members anyway because some may not be as comfortable in their own skin as I am in mine. I never intentionally try to harm or be disrespectful to others and why you have chosen me to be your personal kicking boy I don't know, but more importantly I really don't care either.:D

But Tom there is one thing you can be assured of, I am not going to come down to your level and respond in the manner you have chosen to here. In that respect you can keep that crown and also have the last word because you will receive no completion from me in that area I happy to let you continue on the path you have chosen. 

However I do understand the Sarcasm and why you brought Buddha into this thread in your first post which was Post #7 in this thread where you said and I quote:

""Tune in next week to see some cranks debate "" Did Jesus meet the Buddha six hundred years before he was born"

Now this comment below seems to really bother you Tom, and honestly I don't understand why. Because Buddhism and Christianity are vastly different and my accretion that Buddhist are totally unlike Christians in the respect to this manner, because Christians push their religious beliefs upon others, and not all but many are very intolerant  of other Religious religious practices. However, Buddhists are tolerant of other religious practices and unlike many Christians. In fact I would go as far to say that Christians intentionally depending upon the Specific group, actually try to control those who choose not to follow their belief system and they will go to any length to do just that.

The Abortion issue in the United States is just one obvious example of Christian Conservatives trying in this case to use Political power upon an entire Nations population of approximately 331,449,281 people in an with the intent of forcing their religious beliefs upon others. The Buddhist philosophy doesn't teach Buddhist to be controlling, to force their beliefs on anyone, and unlike Christians in general, Buddhists are tolerant of other spiritual beliefs and when confront with the disenfranchised they will walk away without a response.

Because Buddhist clearly under stand that responding to a fool also makes one a fool, and many Christians no matter how long they have practiced their faith do not understand this or were never taught this and its one of the first lessons a Buddhist is taught!!:tu:

""Buddha would not have been interested in meeting Jesus, they had far to little in common Jesus pressed the flesh trying to gain followers, and Buddhas teaching in the Dharma do not teach Buddhist to seek out followers like many Christian groups do, for example the Jehovah Witnesses.""

So when you make the comment and I quote: ""which I suspect will offend pretty much every Buddhist and Christian on the planet.""   The only people who would actually be offend in some cases are Christians who do exactly was I said above, and to honest you be appear to be one of them!!:no:

So truly your welcome to unload your negative feelings on me because I am not offended by them I actually pity you for acting in the manner you choose to.:(

Take Care and have a great day!:tu:

 

Edited by Manwon Lender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Manwon did more than present someone else's theory.  He edited material from multiple sources and presented these as a single extract.  In post #3 he wrote unsubstantiated and erroneous views of his own.  Setting aside the plausibility (or otherwise) of the theory, his journalistic approach is open to analysis and criticism.

Two of his statements I picked him up on were "it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events" and "Its a well know fact that Jesus Father had wealth brother who was a merchant".  (There were plenty of others I could have used.)  Neither claim holds any merit, and he made no attempt to defend his words in his reply to me.

Yep.  I understand that - there was a thriving trade in relics throughout Christendom.  (It's one of the things we know for certain Augustine DID write to Pope Gregory about.)  It's probably apocryphal but I've heard (was it on QI? or maybe even on this site) that there's enough splinters of the One True Cross to build a ship or two.  And as for Jesus's holy foreskins... well, ships need sails.

I'm afraid you're comparing apples & onagers here.  Mars exists.  Anyone can make silly statements about it in any order they like.  I was talking about the illogical sequence of this from Manwon's post #1:  "St. Augustine is said to have written to the then Pope saying he had discovered a church in Glastonbury built by followers of Jesus at about 37 AD. A 6th Century cleric, St.Gildas, however, went one step further and said it was built by Jesus himself."

Setting aside the unfortunate fact that neither sentence is supported by any contemporary or documentary evidence whatsoever, or that St. Augustine never went to Glastonbury or engaged in amateur archaeology, or the astonishing precision of the dating, this is also chronologically impossible.  

  • IF Augustine excavated at Glastonbury it could only have happened between 597 and 604.  If HE discovered this church then there was no church discovered prior to his explorations.
  • Gildas died c.570.  IF he knew about this church (in order to claim Jesus built it) then Augustine can't have discovered it 50 years later.
  • So Gildas cannot have 'gone one step further' in discussing a church that was not discovered until at least 30 years after his death.
  • (And wasn't discovered then, either, because it isn't there.  And Augustine wasn't there to find it, etc.)
  • (This whole nonsense isn't even an ancient myth and seems to have first appeared in some chap's blog from 2019.)

This thread is titled "Was the tiny Looe Island off the English coast actually visited by a very young Jesus Christ?"  It's not the snappiest of titles, but one I think we can all agree the answer to is NO.  It's a legend, a myth, a fanciful story with no basis in any historical evidence or credibility.  And there's really no point looking deeper for evidence when the yarn contains such drivel and inconsistencies as those I've pointed out.  But we can at least discuss it with skill and intelligence, and this includes looking up facts, sources and references.  And not making idiotic statements with nothing to support them, like this one:

... which I suspect will offend pretty much every Buddhist and Christian on the planet.  

 

I spent some time researching this topic before writing my first reply, because we're actually heading to Looe next Easter and it's been interesting to learn about a part of our history that I'm unfamiliar with.  When I'm there I'll ask around and see if any parts of the story are true.  Perhaps there's still some 'Jesus woz ere' graffiti scratched on a rock and authentically dated to 10 AD?  I'll let you know.

Ill take marwon's  word for his intention. He doesn't have a bone in this dog fight 

The historical facts you outline are (as far as  I know) correct  

But this is a legendary story,  not an historical account.  I'm more interested in the  narrative power and the motivations of the writers, than the historical accuracy .

I think it (almost) impossible that jesus ever left the  area of his homelands during his short   life.

The two other points are interesting contentious and debateable 

first  there are some good arguments that jesus came from a relatively wealthy family in the contextual stories of his family life.  Joseph was an older, successful and respected member of the community and church, when Christ was born.  He was a t least comfortably well of,f or he would not have been expected to marry Mary and provide for her and a child    The word for Joseph's occupation translates more accurately as  "master builder" than "simple carpenter"

Social customs vary considerably over time and location. I remember reading in several places about how beliefs and superstitions shaped the things people would talk about and how they did 

Certainly there were periods in history where grief was not to be  publicly expressed, and other times when it had to be very public

The ":stiff upper lip"  of Victorian times extended into the 20th century. Likewise there have been times when people did not talk about or dwell upon  negative past events.  Before psychology it was a way of avoiding PTSD and grief.   I cant definitively say, however, that historically, this was one of those times.  

Scottish stoicism is another case where people don't think about or dwell on past tragedies  You just get up and keep on going  after the loss of a child, or even half a dozen. Your partner dies but you remarry and go on.   Dwelling on the past can keep you living  in it 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hello Sherapy I hope this finds you and your family safe and in great health. Yes his experience was really interesting, I was really disappointed that your thread was shut down, I was reading through it and trying to keep up and honestly I don't really understand why that happened. I just hope my comments throughout your thread didn't create the problems that caused it to occur.:(

If it was my fault I sincerely apologize, and who was that member I don't remember his user name but he kept responding with biblical quotations. I tried to have a conversation with him but he was mighty hateful there seems to be a lot of that going on right now. In seems like some people will act in a very bias manner to intentionally create situations because they enjoy the drama. 

Anyway thanks for your post and I enjoyed that thread very much even thought I did not post to it very often. 

Namaste! :tu:

Oh gosh you sweet man, the thread just ran its course. This is fine with me. It was a good thread. I am thinking of another thread to share my mindfulness journey as long as it lasts. Merry Xmas to you and your wife my friend. My heart is with you. :wub: How are you holding up, hun. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Ill take marwon's  word for his intention. He doesn't have a bone in this dog fight 

The historical facts you outline are (as far as  I know) correct  

But this is a legendary story,  not an historical account.  I'm more interested in the  narrative power and the motivations of the writers, than the historical accuracy .

I think it (almost) impossible that jesus ever left the  area of his homelands during his short   life.

The two other points are interesting contentious and debateable 

first  there are some good arguments that jesus came from a relatively wealthy family in the contextual stories of his family life.  Joseph was an older, successful and respected member of the community and church, when Christ was born.  He was a t least comfortably well of,f or he would not have been expected to marry Mary and provide for her and a child    The word for Joseph's occupation translates more accurately as  "master builder" than "simple carpenter"

Social customs vary considerably over time and location. I remember reading in several places about how beliefs and superstitions shaped the things people would talk about and how they did 

Certainly there were periods in history where grief was not to be  publicly expressed, and other times when it had to be very public

The ":stiff upper lip"  of Victorian times extended into the 20th century. Likewise there have been times when people did not talk about or dwell upon  negative past events.  Before psychology it was a way of avoiding PTSD and grief.   I cant definitively say, however, that historically, this was one of those times.  

Scottish stoicism is another case where people don't think about or dwell on past tragedies  You just get up and keep on going  after the loss of a child, or even half a dozen. Your partner dies but you remarry and go on.   Dwelling on the past can keep you living  in it 

Mr. Walker, thanks for your comments I certainly appreciate them very much, however unfortunately they will fall upon deaf ears. That gentleman from his from his very first post in this thread has had a chip on shoulder where I am concerned. Whenever, he quotes me, its either sarcastic or an attempt discredit or belittle me :lol: and in reality it doesn't both me at all for two reason. First I am certainly not thinned skinned at all Mr. Walker in fact I am just the opposite and very comfortable within my own shin.  Second if he here trying to bother me, he isn't bothering other people. In truth though I find the guy funny and helpful at the same time, and when I say helpful I mean that his actions reinforce my beliefs and also remind me of what I certainly don't want to be. :yes: In a way I feel sorry for people like that because in most cases they don't even realize how others view them which is pretty sad!:(

Again  Mr. Walker thank you for having my back, and  keep this in mind I own you one and I always pay my debts!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Oh gosh you sweet man, the thread just ran its course. This is fine with me. It was a good thread. I am thinking of another thread to share my mindfulness journey as long as it lasts. Merry Xmas to you and your wife my friend. My heart is with you. :wub: How are you holding up, hun. 

Well thank you for all the kind words, and I appreciate  your thought on the subject, and Merry Christmas to you and yours also. I am not doing so good,  I have run out of options, all other treatments and injections have failed, so there is nothing left except Surgery and I am not certain at this point what I will do. Because all the surgical options have also been pretty much exhausted also except for spinal fusion, and I don't like idea of having a metal cage built around spine to stabilize it. This reason it appears a cage will be necessary is because the MRI shows 3 possible 4 sections of my spine that are no longer tight and the vertebra are actually slipping and in the process pinching nerves. So over the next few weeks I am going to make up mind one way or the other the neurosurgeon 

Again thank you very much for kind words, they are certainly appreciated and again to you and your entire family Merry Christmas my friend!!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

"Tom your certainly very consistent" (sic)

Thank you!  I'm grateful that my lonely hunt for morsels of truth and accuracy is recognised and appreciated.  Some people pop up here quoting all kinds of unsubstantiated gibberish, and it's not always easy to see if they're even trying to make points.  It's really reassuring to know you've got my back in this endeavour.

 

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

"your personal bias towards me is affirmed with every post you make" (sic)

My bias is towards truth: honesty, accuracy, openness and transparency, no matter where that takes us.  In science we abandon long-held, cherished beliefs when they are demonstrably false; I see no reason to apply an alternative approach to wider matters.  I have no bias towards or against individuals, just the ideas or views they espouse.

 

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I would much rather have you here intentionally taking my comments out of context than bothering other members

I would be interested to learn where I have taken any of your words out of context.  Would you please elaborate?  This is only my third post in this thread so it shouldn't be too difficult to identify the offending comments.  Where I have responded to Mr Walker or your good self I have quoted you as precisely as possible and expressed myself as clearly as I can.  When you are unable to demonstrate this, would you be willing to withdraw that particular accusation?

 

These are not scholarly articles, so I do not expect to see detailed notes and references and neither do I plan to pepper my responses with distracting details.  However some statements (made by contributors of all persuasions, me included) appear so obviously at variance with any semblance of accuracy that they deserve challenge and critical analysis.  Here's one example:

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

there are some good arguments that jesus came from a relatively wealthy family in the contextual stories of his family life.  Joseph was an older, successful and respected member of the community and church, when Christ was born.  He was a t least comfortably well of,f or he would not have been expected to marry Mary and provide for her and a child    The word for Joseph's occupation translates more accurately as  "master builder" than "simple carpenter"

This extract might lend credence to the assertion that Jesus came from a wealthy background and may have had the opportunity to travel (e.g. as far as Cornwall?).  Unfortunately there is no contemporary evidence to support this, and there are many more arguments that contradict the fundamental theme that "Jesus came from a relatively wealthy family". 

  • Nowhere in the Bible says that Joseph was affluent, successful or even respected. 
  • The word for Joseph's (and Jesus's) occupation is tektōn (τέκτων) which translates best as 'someone who crafts wood/ carpenter' as opposed to 'someone who crafts iron/ blacksmith' (χαλκεύς) or 'someone who crafts stone/ mason' (λιθολόγος, λαξευτής).  This does not belittle the role of the tektōn, but neither does it elevate Joseph's position or influence.
  • The notion that tektōn implies more than woodworking dates to a 1983 work by the scholar Géza Vermes, who scoured texts from Bibles and the Talmud in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, looking for deeper significances.  At no point did Vermes call Joseph a 'master builder' or imply he enjoyed an elevated status or income.
  • Wealth had no bearing on Joseph's decision to marry a pregnant girl and raise her child as his own.  This story is there to show that Joseph was a kind and compassionate man.  If he had rejected Mary she risked being stoned to death for adultery.

My knowledge of this topic is extremely superficial and I would welcome elucidation.  Does Mr Walker, Manwon or anyone have a source for the statement Joseph's occupation translates more accurately as  "master builder"?  I would welcome the opportunity to learn more.  Maybe somebody here has read and understands Vermes's works and can correct my limited understanding?

 

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

However I do understand the Sarcasm and why you brought Buddha into this thread in your first post which was Post #7 in this thread where you said and I quote:

""Tune in next week to see some cranks debate "" Did Jesus meet the Buddha six hundred years before he was born"

Point One: if you're going to quote me in an attempt to ridicule or undermine my position - make the effort to quote accurately.  Most of us aren't as lazy as your target audience.  We can - and will - check.

Point Two: if you're going to quote me in an attempt to ridicule or undermine my position - taking an extract out of context is only ever superficially clever.  Most of us aren't as lazy as your target audience.  We can - and will - check.  Here it was my closing sentence, intended to poke fun at anyone who tried to defend the notion that St Gildas could have used St Augustine's work and gone 'one step further'.  It's as preposterous as, say, Jesus meeting the Buddha six hundred years apart.  It's a comment on those who uncritically use unreferenced and poorly researched works.  Now do you get it?

Point Three: that was an example of flippancy, not sarcasm.

Point Four: I meant no sleight by referring to the Buddha.  I could have used any unconnected historical character out of context.  (I think I used the Buddha because - in addition to the nonsense that Jesus holidayed in Cornwall - there are also debunked woo stories that he studied in India, Tibet, etc. during his 'missing years'.  So he might have met Hindus and Buddhists and whoever else was there at the time.  Which of course he didn't.)

 

Your subsequent foray into religion and the contrasting philosophies of Christianity and Buddhism is confusing to me.  Please don't take that as a personal attack!  It's far more likely a reflection of my own lack of knowledge.  Give me a day or six to pick through the grammatical errors, typos and contradictions, and I'll see what sense I can make of it.

 

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

approximately 331,449,281 people

That's a very specific number for an approximation.  I can envisage contexts where it might be appropriate, e.g. the speed of light is exactly 331 449 281.0126 206 18 wombles per second so you might, for ease of calculations, approximate that to 331 449 281.  But you're talking about people, who traditionally come as whole units.  And (although I might be wrong again!) but isn't the population always changing?  You know - people are born, others die, others reidentify as non-Americans or non-people.

(I'm only dwelling on this because, as a scientist, I consider it my duty and honour to educate readers who are less-versed in matters like science, maths, logic and reasoning.)

 

I still find it an odd and sweeping statement to say:

On 11/30/2021 at 2:17 PM, Manwon Lender said:

"Buddha would not have been interested in that meeting Jesus, they had far to little in common" (sic)

and I stand by my comment:

21 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

... which I suspect will offend pretty much every Buddhist and Christian on the planet.

It doesn't say much for the character of the Buddha if he would ignore meeting Jesus because of their perceived differences. It portrays him as rude, judgemental, supercilious and condescending.  But I know even less about Buddhism than I do about Christianity, so - in this matter at least - I'll concede that you're the Buddhist expert and you know best.

 

One final thought:

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

But Tom there is one thing you can be assured of, I am not going to come down to your level and respond in the manner you have chosen to here.

Which, of course, is your prerogative.  To respond in 'my' manner takes time, thought, research, contemplation, attention to detail, moderation, modesty, humility, intelligence, eloquence and humour.  It's not for everyone.

Edited by Tom1200
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Certainly there were periods in history where grief was not to be  publicly expressed, and other times when it had to be very public

The ":stiff upper lip"  of Victorian times extended into the 20th century. Likewise there have been times when people did not talk about or dwell upon  negative past events.  Before psychology it was a way of avoiding PTSD and grief.   I cant definitively say, however, that historically, this was one of those times.  

Thank you for your thoughts here.  Of course you're totally correct in what you say.  The attitude that you never complain was so entrenched in society that when men collapsed on the battlefields of WW1 as quivering wrecks, utterly destroyed by shellshock, they were more often treated with disgust than any compassion, and hundreds were executed as examples for 'cowardice'.  

However - we know rather a lot about that period and very much less about turn-of-the-first-millennium Judea.  I'm still hoping for evidence to support the original statement:

On 11/30/2021 at 8:24 AM, Manwon Lender said:

"it was pretty common in that time period not to dwell or even talk about neagtive past events." (sic)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.