Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Nova]

And you are also saying you think the bible, the Word of God, has lies in it. (Embellishing is lying.)

I believe the Bible is the word of men inspired by God, certainly. As are the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, The Conference of the Birds, and most assuredly (to me), the works of Aristotle.

Whether embellishing a tale with angels and magi is lying depends on what one believes to be the significant truth of the tale. IIRC, you and Maral made the distinction of significant truth v. trivial details some pages ago.

 

[Nova]

Nova might have the same view as Thomas Jefferson, founding father and 3rd President of the U.S.

Jefferson, while in the White House, edited the Gospels of the NT to create his own Jefferson Bible "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". Jefferson removed all the stories of miracles and the resurrection, and included only what he thought were the moral teachings by Jesus. None of the letters or Acts is included.

Much as I admire Jefferson, I wouldn't go that far. To me, the resurrection was the essential lesson: that we live on after physical death. I suspect the resurrection may not have been bodily in our terms, but I understand that the Jews of the period didn't have our exact concept of body vs. soul, and a bodily resurrection may have been an important aspect of the tale in communicating to them.

 

[Dark Knight]

I believe the Bible is the word of men inspired by God, certainly. As are the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, The Conference of the Birds, and most assuredly (to me), the works of Aristotle.

Whether embellishing a tale with angels and magi is lying depends on what one believes to be the significant truth of the tale. IIRC, you and Maral made the distinction of significant truth v. trivial details some pages ago.

The difference is INTENT. Embellishment is a different intent than seeing/remembering something differently.

 

[Nova]

The difference is INTENT. Embellishment is a different intent than seeing/remembering something differently.

Granted. But if a writer believes his message is of ultimate importance to his readers, he may decide to "dramatize" his tale to aid its reception.

Particularly in a pre-Enlightenment period when "objective reporting" wasn't even a concept yet.

As I'm sure you know, Jesus's wasn't the only virgin birth reported in ancient times. It was a way of signifying the importance of a man. (We're talking poetry here, not legal depositions.)

 

[Dark Knight]

Granted. But if a writer believes his message is of ultimate importance to his readers, he may decide to "dramatize" his tale to aid its reception.

Particularly in a pre-Enlightenment period when "objective reporting" wasn't even a concept yet.

As I'm sure you know, Jesus's wasn't the only virgin birth reported in ancient times. It was a way of signifying the importance of a man. (We're talking poetry here, not legal depositions.)

I think, much like W.C. Fields, you are looking for loopholes, LOL! :crazy:

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I understand that the Jews of the period didn't have our exact concept of body vs. soul, and a bodily resurrection may have been an important aspect of the tale in communicating to them.

There were people raised from the dead described in the OT and the NT before that of Jesus, and more raised after Jesus' death. 2 men (Elijah and Enoch) of the OT seemed to have been carried up bodily to God.

What do you find about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead to have been the essential lesson?

 

[Nova]

I think, much like W.C. Fields, you are looking for loopholes, LOL! :crazy:

Loopholes for what? I'm not claiming inerrancy.

Aristotle writes in his Poetics that poetry is more important than history because poetry deals in universals, while history merely records specifics. And Aristotle was talking about mere plays, not "gospels."

Of course, Aristotle was not a Biblical commentator, but the point is that pre-Enlightenment cultures do not value "just the facts, ma'am" in a Dragnet sort of way as we might..

Sure, you and I would call inventing a virgin birth a "lie," but gospel writers may well have thought it an unimportant technicality, or they may even have understood that readers would understand it as an honorific, not a literal account.

(I am saying "may" here. I can't prove this any more than you can prove Mary was a virgin, in the scientific sense of proof.)

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Granted. But if a writer believes his message is of ultimate importance to his readers, he may decide to "dramatize" his tale to aid its reception.

And if not the writer, those copying his writing in years following.

Mark's gospel ends at 16:8 in the most reliable ancient texts:
"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.


Verses 9-16 were added sometime later by some unknown editor.

 

[UM&AMWfan]

MAN created god, not the other way around.

If you look at history it is unequivocally clear that MAN created god as an instinctual reaction to FEAR of his own mortality, the unknown and to give a meaning to life.

This site gives 50 proofs that god DOES NOT exist. It's very interesting for those who believe or don't believe so check it out:

www.GodisImaginary.com

 

[Dark Knight]

There were people raised from the dead described in the OT and the NT before that of Jesus, and more raised after Jesus' death. 2 men (Elijah and Enoch) of the OT seemed to have been carried up bodily to God.

What do you find about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead to have been the essential lesson?

The only person to be carried body AND soul into Heaven besides Jesus is His Mother the Virgin Mary, iiirc. One from the OT ascended into heaven but was transfigured into an angel instead.

 

[Dark Knight]

MAN created god, not the other way around.

If you look at history it is unequivocally clear that MAN created god as an instinctual reaction to FEAR of his own mortality, the unknown and to give a meaning to life.

This site gives 50 proofs that god DOES NOT exist. It's very interesting for those who believe or don't believe so check it out:

www.GodisImaginary.com

Well that ended what had been a civil and intelligent discussion up to this point. That sure sounds like an unbiased site. :slap:

 

[LovelyPigeon]

The only person to be carried body AND soul into Heaven besides Jesus is His Mother the Virgin Mary, iiirc. One from the OT ascended into heaven but was transfigured into an angel instead.

There's no bible passage OT or NT that says Mary the mother of Jesus was carried into heaven. That's a tradition not supported by the Bible.

Elijah was taken bodily into heaven via a a whirlwind chariot (2 Kings 2:11), as witnesses by his son Elisha. Enoch was taken up bodily by God (Gen 5:24)

 

[LovelyPigeon]

That sure sounds like an unbiased site.

There are few unbiased sites when it comes to religion, whether Catholic, Protestant, fundamentalist, agnostic, atheist, whatever flavor.

 

[Dark Knight]

There's no bible passage OT or NT that says Mary the mother of Jesus was carried into heaven. That's a tradition not supported by the Bible.

Elijah was taken bodily into heaven via a a whirlwind chariot (2 Kings 2:11), as witnesses by his son Elisha. Enoch was taken up bodily by God (Gen 5:24)

Tradition wasn't pulled out of someone's bum, you know. The church DOES use historical records and ancient antiphons outside of the Bible, as it did for 324 years. The doctrine of the Real Presence comes from written history of a Church Mass during the time of the Apostles themselves, and was carried down from generation to generation from there. The Bible is just a part of divine revelation. The Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, discern that. Obviously people who have their own agenda get mad when things don't go their way. As Christ told His Apostles when establishing His Church, "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, andwhatsover you loose, is loosed in Heaven." He also commanded them to hear one another's sins and forgive those sins.

 

[Nova]

And if not the writer, those copying his writing in years following.

Indeed. We know that happened all the time with copyists. And alterations were made with the best of intentions, I imagine.

LP, I'll have to think about your question re the basis for my interpretation of the message of Jesus. It was formed over many years in and out of the church and probably reflects my reading in other traditions as well.

Bottom line is probably that I don't believe God requires a blood sacrifice to save our sins.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Tradition wasn't pulled out of someone's bum, you know.

Like someone already said, there goes what had been a civil and intelligent discussion up to this point.

Regardless of the Roman Catholic Church using traditional stories outside the Bible to create teachings, there is no record in the Bible of Mary ascending body & soul into heaven.

Using your argument, we could claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene because it's not recorded in the Bible but is claimed in extra-biblical teachings.

And it's also implied by the topic of this discussion: the documentary on findings of the names of Jesus son of Joseph and Mary (Magdelene) found on ossuaries in the same 1st century tomb in southern Jerusalem.

 

[Nova]

MAN created god, not the other way around.

If you look at history it is unequivocally clear that MAN created god as an instinctual reaction to FEAR of his own mortality, the unknown and to give a meaning to life.

This site gives 50 proofs that god DOES NOT exist. It's very interesting for those who believe or don't believe so check it out:

www.GodisImaginary.com

Man may well create concepts of God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist, outside all of our concepts of Him/Her.

 

[IrishMist]

Man may well create concepts of God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist, outside all of our concepts of Him/Her.

And, I'd like to point out... you can believe in God, but not in the Bible.

Seriously, if I had to believe in the Bible to believe in God, I'd be an atheist.

 

[Nova]

Like someone already said, there goes what had been a civil and intelligent discussion up to this point.

This isn't directed to you, LP, just in general:

Everyone knew before this discussion began that a wide range of beliefs are held on this subject. Nothing has changed that.

No, Catholic tradition isn't random nor pulled from nowhere. On the other hand, it isn't recognized as authoritative by many Protestants.

The nature of Biblical authority is also understood quite differently by different faiths and different individuals even within a faith.

That's no reason we can't continue to be civil and intelligent.

 

[IrishMist]

This isn't directed to you, LP, just in general:

Everyone knew before this discussion began that a wide range of beliefs are held on this subject. Nothing has changed that.

No, Catholic tradition isn't random nor pulled from nowhere. On the other hand, it isn't recognized as authoritative by many Protestants.

The nature of Biblical authority is also understood quite differently by different faiths and different individuals even within a faith.

That's no reason we can continue to be civil and intelligent.

Uh... Nova?