The movies portray the Lord's cup in two ways.  One, as the cup of a king and two as the cup of a carpenter.  So what do you think it may have looked like?  \n\nMy little brother just told me something yesterday that was kind of interesting.  On the day we call "Palm Sunday"  Jesus was hailed as a king.  It is very probable, yet NOT biblicly recorded, that they gave him many gifts because it was customary to show love and respect for your king by giving to him generously.  It MAY be possible that He had quite a bit of money at that time.  \n\nMy response to my brother was, the house where they had the last supper did not belong to Christ or any of His disciples.  No one really knows the financial status of the man whos house it was.  He may have been quite wealthy.  \n\nSo what do you think?
119997
See if you can see the LAST SUPPER CUP in this picture of the last supper...\n\nhttp://impiousdigest.com/last_supper.jpg\n\nALSO I BELIEVE THAT THE LAST SUPPER MAY HAVE LOOKIED LIKE THIS:\n\nThese are Wooden Cups made from Authentic Olive Wood in Jerusalem maybe the same style Jesus used... these cups are  on Auction at Ebay - obviously not the originals hehe...\n\nhttp://i23.ebayimg.com/04/i/04/e5/3f/77_1_b.JPG\n\n\n--------------------\n\nTo asnwer your 2nd Question:\n\nYou had a good response.\n\nWhy did they not put GIFTS at the feet of Jesus?\n\nwell the first answer would be: Obviously he was on a Donkey, it would be hard to put gifts at the feet of someone who was riding a donkey... however, I do imagine they might have put gifts at the rode where Jesus intered. Although the bible does not say anything about it does not mean that it didn't happen...\n\nThe second smart answer would be: They were all too buisy putting Palm Branches down before him...\n\nhere is a thought: Maybe the Gifts were the actual PALM BRANCHES? \n\nMaybe they couldn't afford gifts... hmmmmm?\nMaybe All they could afford were palm branches to lay before him...\n\nJust a thought lol :)\n\nTell your Brother I said - Good thinking, almost stumped me... \n\nthank you,
318644
I understand your confusion, and to a ceratin extent, I agree with you.\n\nI read the book, and I plan to see the movie (as soon as the hype dies down).  I think that the reason this book is taken so seriously is for two reasons:\n\n1.  Dan Brown begins the book by stating that all of the groups, artwork, etc. are completely true.  People assume that if these things are true and accurate, then the whole book must be as well.\n\n2.  The whole premise, that Jesus was married and that the "holy grail" isn't a cup but is in fact the holy bloodline of Jesus, isn't a new theory and is one that some people have argued for many years.  Plus, it is plausible!  I'm not saying that it is likely, but it is possible.\n\nWhat I don't understand is why this film has to change poeple's faith.  Even if it was discovered with 100% certainty that Jesus was married, that doesn't change my faith in Christianity at all!  (It makes me wonder about the people who made the decision to cover it all up, but it doesn't change my faith in God.)  In fact, learning that Jesus was married might actually make me identify with Him more than I currently do.\n\nI wish that people would think about that more seriously... what has REALLY changed?
670354
honestly if you think the trinity was just added to the bible at nicea .. dont you think they would have put the word trinity in the bible ?? \n\nPlease recognize that this question is for thoughtful consideration and polite responses. Please try to be acedemic in your answer approach. Thanks
240920
I heard a story today that when Mel Gibson was making the movie "The Passion", he stopped production when the actors were recreating the scene where the nails were put through Jesus' hands.  Mel then went to the actor with the nails, took the hammer, and proceeded to do the nailing himself.  This was an acknowlegment that he was directly responsible for Jesus being on the cross, just as much as if he'd been there with the hammer in his hand.  That touched me because it is true for me.  My sins held Him on the cross.  He chose to go to that cross to pay for them.  To answer your question, I already did.
377627
A person needs to read this passage very carefully, and it really helps to read it in the Hebrew. The three men are never actually identified as God. A number of Jewish rabbis have noticed the same thing. It is *first* said that Abraham was sitting in his tent and had a vision of God, *then* he opened his eyes and saw three men. While Moses's narative style sometimes has an overview of events, and then more details, it's hard to say if that's what's happening here or not. In fact, it's almost funny to read if you take the stance that these three were angels in the last half of Genesis, because it has Abraham speaking to the angel that remained behind, and calling him "Adoni" (Lord) but never YHVH. But the one to reply is always YHVY and never Adoni. Also, in Genesis 18:22, it says that the men Abraham was speaking with turned and left, but Abraham stayed and pleaded with the LORD.\n\nBut even if you take the stance that one, or even all three, of these "angels" were in fact God Almighty, there is nothing to keep God Almighty as a spirit from creating a body and animating it himself. St. Augustine gets into that kind of an idea  little bit in one of his 15 books on the Trinity, I don't remember which off the top of my head.
598236
Ugggh, homework? It's summer soltice!  Give us a break!  \nI take issue with this article's assumptions, which are very general.  First the author makes the statement that Christianity's two prime articles of faith are "revelation and Crucifixion."  There are major divisions amongst Christianity itself on the person of Jesus Christ, the saving nature of his life, death, resurrection, teachings. And the question of whether or not he is the definitive and only saviour for all people of all times, is not universally agreed on by all Christians.  \nThe role of the Crucifixion is also not understood uniformly across the board by all Christians.  The question has long been asked and debated, "how is Jesus' death and crucifixion redemptive?" Is it? Redemption, atonement, sacrifice, are all traditional understandings, but theology has always had several understandings of and interpretations of soteriology, and Christology.\nInterestingly enough the earliest Christian art showed nothing of the crucifixion...\nBut I'm off the hook since your author inists that "no man" this and "no man" that...
281766
Bible doesn't specify what the carpenter built, was it furniture or boats? Why mention it? Same thing, Jesus was human and it was normal to be married, so why write about something that is obvious? Even the gnostics, who wrote that he loved her, didn't mention any details at all. If the writer's intention was to only make Mary look like Jesus' wife, then she (gnostic writers were mainly females) would have added details. They didn't because it is irrlevent, it's the "love" that is important and that's all. However note that the gnostics married spiritually, the marriage ceremony was sexual intercourse. Note also the wedding mentioned in the Christian bible... it was "on the third day" (significance?), the groom always provided the wine (Jesus turned water into wine there [this is symbolical, not a miracle]). Then, who is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? Why does the writer not simply say who it is? If bible is "word of God" then the reader has a right to know. Why the mystery? The reason is because the gnostics were all about "hidden knowledge", that is how they wrote. Gospel of John is the most "gnostic" of the synoptics. No time left, but yes there is more than enough evidence to support that the Magdalene was Jesus' consort.
240464
To daredevil pup:  of course that's not God.  That's the EYE of God.  Actually, the sixth eye of God, I guess.\n\nMr. Eye of God:  I can't speak for others, but I forsake your Son for a very good reason:  it was his turn to buy at the pub over the weekend and he "forgot" his wallet.  Something about not having any pockets in his white robe where he could put a wallet.  Frankly, I'm just a little sick of that excuse!
366619
seekfind, \n\nhow did Jesus come down from heaven when he was born here on earth???!!\n\nAhmad don't ask them questions they can't answer. they can't seem to agree on whether he was God or son of God or both.\n--\nedit:\nfor mimi.\ngreat i agree with you that the Trinity doctrine is made up and that Jesus and God are indeed not equal.\nso what would make Jesus a physical son of God just because he spoke God's word? was Moses the son of God? was David the son of God?\nGod is so powerful and can do any thing he wants just by saying "be" and it is. then why couldn't God do the same in the case of Jesus' birth? we know Mary was virgin, but why couldn't Jesus be a Human Miracle? a sign from God for the Israelites?
242052
Eduardo P: That special herb was marijuana. Jesus was a pot head, well all the messiahs of that time period was potheads. And YES, there were other Messiahs and that is why the existence of Jesus is so vague. There were just too many "Messiahs" and Jews getting crucified to keep track of.
621421
Ecc 9 is telling of how he views it.  He is frustrated with life and sees it as a waste of time... and to just go out and eat drink and be happy...for tomorrow we die - is the sentiment there.  \n\nBut there actually is mention of ghosts in the new testiment.  \n\nWhen Jesus was walking to them across the water - they were scared and though he was a ghost.  \n\n\nMatthew 14:26 \nWhen the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.\n\nMark 6:49 \nbut when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out,\n\nLuke 24:37    \nThey were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.\n\nONE OF THE BEST IS THIS\nJesus himself is saying this - so he clearly believes in ghosts -  Judge for yourself. \n\n\nLuke 24:38-40     \n38  He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39   Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."    40  When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.\n\nPS -  i do believe in ghosts, spirits, demons, and angels.  \n\nThere is WAY more to this world than when meets the eye.   I have been through some pretty strange things with living in a haunted apartment and all. I have absolutly no doubts (personally speaking) that spirits AKA ghosts do exist.  \n\n(seeing it refered to in the Bible - only serves to back up what I already knew though)  :)
627861
I agree with you completely. I am a christian, but I do not believe in the trinity theory. and there are ALLOT of references like this one that points toward the fact that they are not the same. A few of them are: after Jesus got baptized, God said to him, "this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." would he talk to himself? also when the people asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, Jesus taught them to pray to God, not to himself. If he was God why wouldn't he have the people pray to him? yet another, Jesus on the cross said "My God, why have you forsaken me?" would God not only talk to himself, but also forsake himself? A final one... the bible says that the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the holy spirit (Mark 3:29). If they were all the same, then blaspheming any of them would be unforgivable. They are very separate beings, and not the same.
556800
From a Mormon point of view I would say God the Father and Jesus Christ were definitely there. Since we are all children of God, I believe that we were also in the same pre-mortal realm, although we did not have the same creative authority as they have. However, it would not be outside the bounds of imagination to say that God and Jesus Christ organized intelligent spirits to help with smaller aspects of the creation. Those would be both male AND female spirits, including any angels who had that capacity to serve. Perhaps you have lived in a community where an elementary school was being built to further the education of children of new families who had moved into the area. If you can apply that idea further, perhaps that is what was going on in the pre-earth life - we all had a chance to see what was going on and support God and Jesus Christ. As children of God, we would resemble our Heavenly Parents (in their image), just as children on earth resemble their physical parents. We are part of the race of gods, but we are passing through a mortal stage right now to keep learning about physical and spiritual laws. This is just my opinion, but it is based on a smaller book of scripture called the Pearl of Great Price we use in addition to the Bible and the Book of Mormon (because after all, who wants to limit an author to just one book, and we can't limit God if He wishes to teach His children in other lands).
401896
Dear Chipper S,\n\nThe Bible doesn't explain why there was no book of Lazarus.  i understand your thought process but at the end of the day it is only speculation.  We don't wonder why there was no book of the lepors who were healed, the paralytic, the women at the well, etc.  \n\nLazarus is a wonderful story that teaches us that God's plans are greater than our own plans and sometimes God's ways are not ways that we can comprehend.  Most certainly Mary and Martha could not understand why Lazarus was raised from the dead instead of being healed days before.  \n\ni would apply that same wisdom to life.  i don't think anyone can give you a satisfactory answer except for the Lord Himself.\n\nWe know that the Bible reveals to us what God wants us to know about Himself and gives us wonderful principals that we ought to live by, but it does not contain everything that we want to know.\n\nHope that helps.  Kindly,\n\nNickster
662558
I think this is the low down, Jesus was having some issues with this dude Satan, he was from the dark side. One day Jesus was cruising along in his cloud convertible and Satan called him out. Jesus knew he couldn't handle Satan by himself, I mean just look at the size of the pitchfork that mofo is packing. So he thought he needed some help, so he rang up Oprah, but she was busy with a show on 101 ways to stop Tom Cruise jumping on your couch, so Oprah suggested he get in touch with Tupac. This was a brilliant idea thought Jesus, after all he owes me big time for that day I gave him awesome sunshine to have a bumper crop. So Jesus asked Tupac and reminded him of a few things he had done for him and may have even exaggerated a little saying how he wanted tupac over Oprah, because tupac is more powerful then Oprah and tupac was happy to go along. Because just like Jesus sis "Bro's before Ho's" So I wouldn't say that Jesus abducted Tupac, I just think he was to wasted to not agree to go with Jesus. That and Jesus promised him a Big Mac when they got there.
258749
it's John 1:1-2 that states "In the Beginning was the Word(Jesus) and the Word(Jesus)was with God and the Word(Jesus) was God." verse 2 says " He was in the beginning with God." so you see He was. And also think on Adam and Eve, since no man can look upon God, how then did they walk with Him? Jesus is the visible form of God that humans CAN look upon! Also seek in the old testament when it speaks of "The Angel of the Lord" you will see when the A is capitalized that the people see Him as a Deity, I believe it's Jesus, given all the studying I've done on the subject. Sampson's parents even made a sacrifice to Him, and He left them as He went up in the smoke of the sacrifice(as Jesus is The Sacrifice)!!! I hoipe this confirms this to you and God bless you.
196060
In the movies, it always portrays Jesus looking up and addressing heaven. Some say that this is when Jesus absorbed all the sin of mankind and God had to look away--seeing that He cannot look upon sin. I am not saying that this is not what happened, but there is a better explanation--it is very Jewish.  \n\nBack then, they did not have multiple copies of the Tonakh. They kept one copy safely stored in an ark in the synagogue. So the students and priests, back then as well as today, would memorize the scriptures (they did this by singing it). Whenever they wanted to bring a chapter, or a Psalm to the attention of the students, they would not recite the entire chapter, they would say the first verse and the rest of the students would know the rest by memory.  \n\nWhen Jesus was on the cross, He employed this rabbinical device--He quoted the first verse. The Pharisees would hear this, then in their mind they would immediately do the "scripture shuffle" and find that this was the first verse of Psalm 22.They would then automatically recall the entire Psalm that would show that what was happening before them was prophetic--that Messiah had to die, be surrounded by accusing Gentiles scoffing, "he trusted in God, let Him deliver", He will have His hands and feet pierced causing His bones to come out of joint, that they would divide His garments, and at the end He will say "It is finished" (which is the Greek translation of the last verse). \n\nSo really, Jesus was alerting the Pharisees to what was happening and that all what they were seeing was planned from the foundations of the earth and that He was who He said He was--the Messiah, the subject and focus of Psalm 22.