Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Nova]

Could whether Jesus rose into heaven bodily, or in spirit, after being resurrected, be one of those minor details?

I don't believe this report, because there's just too much wrong with it (location especially), but if they've got more or better data than we're seeing here - I don't see why that would be an attack on faith. Heck, once upon a time, suggesting the earth went around the sun was a major attack on faith. Then it just wasn't true, and whadda know, it wasn't such a big deal.

I'm just wondering out loud here, but didn't the trade in Christian relics begin fairly early? Not all relics were authentic, of course. And not all early Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Maybe the ossuaries were an early version of what we now call a "tourist trap."

It might explain their presence in Jerusalem.

 

[Nova]

I never said that all ancient historians and scholars agree that the events of the NT are factual. But I still maintain that the vast majority of them do.
We can find enough evidence in the writings of such "hostile" witnesses like Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Celcus to conclude that Jesus was born, claimed to perform miracles, and died, even without the NT or the writings of the early church fathers. And the writings of the NT and church fathers cannot be discounted for their accurate historical knowledge even though they may seem biased.

Maral, I have now run across that exact phrase ("the majority of historians and Bible scholars agree that the events of the NT are factual") in any number of websites.

So again I have to ask: which NT events? The answer is most certainly not "all events in the NT," so without some clarification, how can the claim of scholarly support have any meaning?

It does seem that many, if not most scholars begin with a premise that Rabbi Yeshua was a teacher of the early first century C.E. But I'm not sure whether that's a considered, scholarly conclusion or simply a convenient place to start.

Of the non-biblical authorities you mention, of how many do we have original works? How many are like Josephus, i.e., copies from later, Christian eras with references to Jesus that seem suspiciously like interpolations from later believers?

 

[Dark Knight]

How can the biblical ext be "lacking in human error" if yuo have four versions of a story presented by four self-proclaimed witnesses, each of the stories with details that CONFLICT with each other. It is not simply that each remembered and wrote about different details -- the stories CONFLICT. It is impossible that all of the versions are correct. Either it is human error or, if you want to assume divine inspiration, then it is divine error. Other options are that that at least a couple of the disciples intentionally misrepresented what happened, or that later redactors intentionally changed details of some of individual gospels to suit the agenda of various sects and/or the Church. The latter two options are the most likely explanation considering the history of the compilation of the NT and the history of early Christianity, IMO.

No, they agree there was a resurrection and they agree there was an Ascension. The other details are not relevant. You have 4 witnesses to a car accident, and you will get 4 different sets of details, but all 4 still saw an accident.

 

[Dark Knight]

DK, that's such a Catholic statement, I have to laugh! To most Protestants, founders (other than Jesus and the 12 apostles) don't have much authority.

I was baptised protestant, so I know, lol. That would explain why protestant churches continue to break apart from each other. Everyone wants it THEIR way, like they're at Burger King or something, hehe.

 

[Nova]

No, they agree there was a resurrection and they agree there was an Ascension. The other details are not relevant. You have 4 witnesses to a car accident, and you will get 4 different sets of details, but all 4 still saw an accident.

I think what Cypros and I are both asking is re your use of the phrase "without human error." In your car accident analogy, that is very much "human error."

Are you saying discrepancies in the NT are the result of human error, but are simply not significant? That would make more sense to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[Cypros]

I'm just wondering out loud here, but didn't the trade in Christian relics begin fairly early? Not all relics were authentic, of course. And not all early Christians believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Maybe the ossuaries were an early version of what we now call a "tourist trap."

It might explain their presence in Jerusalem.

hmmmm....VERY interesting theory, Nova!

 

[Dark Knight]

I think what Cypros and I are both asking is re your use of the phrase "without human error." In your car accident analogy, that is very much "human error."

Are you saying discrepancies in the NT are the result of human error, but are simply not significant? That would make more sense to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yes, that is basically what I am saying. The teachings of Christ, His Passion, the teachings of the Apostles in their Epistles, His Resurrection, Revelations, etc. are all God inspired, especially the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in their letters. The minor details are the error of the writer and are not significant to the faith. The time He died (usually considered 3pm) is not relevant. The fact He did, is.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

And there's the error. Carbon dating, nor any other type of dating, is so precise as to give an exact date. So this group of tombs is not from the population of Jerusalem at one point in time, but probably for a minimum of 40 years, plus or minus, if not a hundred. That's several more generations of possible Mary, Joseph and Jesus's out there.

I didn't read anything about carbon dating. I think the dating of the ossuaries around Jerusalem is more historical, and considered to have been in practice between roughly 20 BCE and 70 CE when the Jewish population there was high. Ossuaries weren't the traditional burial method of the Jews, but space for burial caves became limited in crowded Jersualem in the early 1st century.

In another article, I've also read that the calculations on how common the names were is incorrectly stated - they're using a smaller set of data that is less accurate, in which these names are not quite as common as in the larger set of data. It seems their largest error here is with Joseph - saying that is a very unique name, where Mary is about 50% of the female population (that one sounds about right).

The article by Flinn warns that statistics never give an "absolute truth but only an approximation of the truth". He also points out, though, that it's the occurence of the cluster of names in one tomb rather than the frequency of a particular name that makes the statistics from the documentary so startling.

They're also making some strong assumptions about the family relationships here - has DNA testing shown that this was mother, father, son, brothers, unrelated female? For all we know, Jose could be the father in this family group.

I haven't found yet what DNA testing was possible (or has been done) on each ossuary, except that the testing results on the Yeshua bar Yehosef ("Jesus") DNA showed that he was not related to the Mariamne e mara ("Mary Magdelene") DNA, which indicates that there might have been a marriage relationship since they were unrelated by blood but buried in same tomb.

The basis of the claim that this might be the tomb of Jesus seems to rest on the calculations based on the cluster of names found in the same tomb.

 

[Nova]

I was baptised protestant, so I know, lol. That would explain why protestant churches continue to break apart from each other. Everyone wants it THEIR way, like they're at Burger King or something, hehe.

True. Or maybe an infinite God is so multi-faceted He must be worshiped in an infinite numbers of ways.

(On a personal note, I'm glad you and I have reached the point we can be amused with one another without either one of us thinking the amusement is malicious.)

 

[Details]

No, they agree there was a resurrection and they agree there was an Ascension. The other details are not relevant. You have 4 witnesses to a car accident, and you will get 4 different sets of details, but all 4 still saw an accident.

But if one saw a green car hitting a red car, the other saw the red car at fault, the third is quite positive both cars were black, and the fourth says it was two big-rigs.... it sounds then like all 4 witnesses did not see the same accident, or are making it all up - at least some of them.

I don't know the degree of difference here, but just because they all describe the same basic event doesn't make the differences irrelevant. If they are different enough, it becomes clear they did not see the same event, maybe some are hearsay, made up, or whatever.

 

[Nova]

hmmmm....VERY interesting theory, Nova!

Well, you know what inspired it.

 

[Nova]

But if one saw a green car hitting a red car, the other saw the red car at fault, the third is quite positive both cars were black, and the fourth says it was two big-rigs.... it sounds then like all 4 witnesses did not see the same accident, or are making it all up - at least some of them.

I don't know the degree of difference here, but just because they all describe the same basic event doesn't make the differences irrelevant. If they are different enough, it becomes clear they did not see the same event, maybe some are hearsay, made up, or whatever.

Just to be clear, IIRC, Mark never claimed to be an eyewitness. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, I'm sure.

 

[Dark Knight]

True. Or maybe an infinite God is so multi-faceted He must be worshiped in an infinite numbers of ways.

(On a personal note, I'm glad you and I have reached the point we can be amused with one another without either one of us thinking the amusement is malicious.)

Me too. It makes for better discussions.

My (Catholic) view of the Bible is also similar to Lutherans and other "original" protestant Churches. The more fundamentalist view didn't come along until quite a bit later, I'm pretty sure. FWIW, anyways.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I hope if I keep asking, I'll get an answer

Originally Posted by DarkKnight
Scripture says she kept all of these things that happened to him close to her heart and made not of them. Only she could have.

What scripture says that Mary "made not of them"?

 

[Cypros]

Well, you know what inspired it.

Of course. A great source of inspiration!

 

[azwriter]

I would think that the names of Jesua, Joseph and Mary were common names back in the day, so to speak. I guess that we will have to pay if we want to see the documentary.

I would think that archeologists who made the find would have announced this to the world, not a film maker who stands to make money off of the project.

Actually, Jesus was not a common name in that period of time, not in Hebrew. If I recall from my religous studies class in college, the name didn't even exist. The name Jesus didn't come along until the era of the King James Bible.
I can't remember the exact name of Jesus in that period of history. It was something like Hausesus.
JMO

 

[Details]

I hope if I keep asking, I'll get an answer


What scripture says that Mary "made not of them"?

I can't answer, and what's worse, I'm going to ask you a question - which is - I don't understand the meaning of the question there - what's the deal?

 

[Dark Knight]

I hope if I keep asking, I'll get an answer




What scripture says that Mary "made not of them"?

Made NOTE, was a typo. :crazy:

 

[LovelyPigeon]

TY, DK. So you didn't mean that Mary kept the events to herself.

 

[Dark Knight]

TY, DK. So you didn't mean that Mary kept the events to herself.

No, I didn't. I apologize for not answering sooner, I corected the typo and forgot about it, lol.

Luke 2 is the Chapter. Twice it says Mary kept all of these things in her heart. She would be a logical choice for Q, if Q exists.