Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[accordn2me]

Confession: I haven't read this entire thread.

Forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said.

Beware of hair-splitting issues. They divide people and take the focus off the "important" stuff.

What's important? Red words in the 4 Gospels.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

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

Yeah, but let's continue anyway! LOL

(we know that was a typo, Nova...and it fits so well with the entire discussion, so don't worry! )

 

[Nova]

Uh... Nova?

Freudian slip, probably. I fixed it. Thanks.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

What's important? Red words in the 4 Gospels.

Uh oh! my NIV Bible doesn't have any red words!

Thomas Jefferson agreed with you, though. It was only the words Jesus was reputed to have spoken in the 4 gospels that he included in his version of "Bible".

 

[accordn2me]

Uh oh! my NIV Bible doesn't have any red words!

Thomas Jefferson agreed with you, though. It was only the words Jesus was reputed to have spoken in the 4 gospels that he included in his version of "Bible".

Touche':blowkiss:

 

[LovelyPigeon]

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

Absoposalutely! It's that wide range of beliefs that makes the documentary that's the subject of this thread possible.

The documentary isn't likely to change any firmly entrenched religious beliefs, but I'm glad it gave some of us an opportunity to discuss the specific religious beliefs we hold and why we hold them.

Or why we don't.

 

[Dark Knight]

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.

Oh no! I said "bum!" So sorry. And you missed the point of the rest of what I said, lol, oh well.

 

[Dark Knight]

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.

This thread went a lot more smoothly when it was mostly Catholics posting, LOL! :crazy: :truce:

Yeah, I love that Luther comes along 1,500 years later, removes some books from the bible and then declares it the word of God. 1,500 years later and HE is the biblical expert all of a sudden. This was part of why I converted. However, Lutherans now hold almost the same exact view of the Bible as Catholics.

 

[Glow]

I come home every night eager to read everyone's thoughts here!

I just wanted to comment on the posts about Elisha....

According to scripture he could not have gone to heaven in the way that we think of people going to heaven in view of what is stated at John 3:13..."No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." (RSV)

So no one before Jesus could have attained heaven. So where does that leave Elijah in a way that prevents the Bible contradicting itself?

Elijah was as some translations put it "transferred" to another prophetic assignment. This is shown by

1) The fact that Elisha does not hold any period of mourning for his master.

2) A number of years after his ascension in the windstorm Elijah is still alive and active as a prophet, this time to the king of Judah. Because of the wicked course taken by King Jehoram of Judah, Elijah writes him a letter expressing God's condemnation, which is fulfilled shortly.—2Ch 21:12-15;

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Hi Glow. The ascension of Elijah into heaven by chariot and horses of fire in a whirlwind did become controversial after the proclamation in John that you cite.

Again, a contradiction in the Bible has to be explained in some way in order for the Bible to remain inerrant or else admitted to be a contradiction.

Elijah of Judah years after Elijah the Hishbite left earth is probably not the same person. It's also possible that Elijah the Hishbite left a message that was later translated to be for Jehoram when he became king.

Elisha was prepared for Elijah's leaving and knew he would receive Elijah's mantle, which did fall off of Elijah and fall from the sky to Elisha from the flying chariot. No reason for Elisha to mourn after seeing such a sight!

According to Matthew's gospel, some Jews during Jesus time apparently thought that Jesus might be Elijah, returned from heaven or "the bosom of Abraham".

 

[Maral]

Cypros, I was wondering what your thoughts might be on something I read on another forum.

It was pointed out that Latin names were carved onto the ossuaries. And while there were some Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem at the time who spoke and used Latin, Jesus and Mary weren't among them. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic and Hebrew. And His family wouldn't have buried Him with Greek-bearing ossuary with Latin text.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Maral, I know you didn't request my thoughts, but there might be some misunderstanding on that other forum about the language used on the ossuaries. There's no Latin text.

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."- http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

 

[Maral]

Thanks, LP. I didn't read this Link that he was referrencing until now, but I think this is what he was referring to:
As the documentary tells us, there is reason to make these assumptions.

Maria is the Latin form of Mary, and is how Jesus's mother was known after his death as more Romans became followers. Mariamne is the Greek form of Mary. Mary Magdelene is believed to have spoken and preached in Greek. Jose was the nickname used for Jesus' little brother.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

His family wouldn't have buried Him with Greek-bearing ossuary with Latin text.

Apparently they didn't, as the ossuary with "Jesus Son of Joseph" is written in Aramaic.

 

[Glow]

Hi Glow. The ascension of Elijah into heaven by chariot and horses of fire in a whirlwind did become controversial after the proclamation in John that you cite.

Again, a contradiction in the Bible has to be explained in some way in order for the Bible to remain inerrant or else admitted to be a contradiction.

Elijah of Judah years after Elijah the Hishbite left earth is probably not the same person. It's also possible that Elijah the Hishbite left a message that was later translated to be for Jehoram when he became king.

Elisha was prepared for Elijah's leaving and knew he would receive Elijah's mantle, which did fall off of Elijah and fall from the sky to Elisha from the flying chariot. No reason for Elisha to mourn after seeing such a sight!

According to Matthew's gospel, some Jews during Jesus time apparently thought that Jesus might be Elijah, returned from heaven or "the bosom of Abraham".

Hi Lovely Pigeon,thanks for your reply!

Here's why I was wondering....

Elijah finds Elisha plowing a field, Elijah throws his official garment over him, indicating an appointing, or anointing. Elisha follows Elijah closely from that time on as his attendant. Many years pass (18?)all the while Elisha knows of his appointment... then Elijah is caught up. So I understand that would have been a real sight to see. But why wouldnt Elisha as a faithful Jew, hold the "customary" period of mourning for his master according to Jewish tradition if he thought that this was a literal death?

Also, what is to be done with that statement at John 3:13? It seems pretty clear. Peter would later say the same thing about David, another faithful jew of the Old Testament, that he did not ascend to heaven. (Ac 2:34) 1Cor. 15:20 claims Jesus was the first one to ascend from earth to the heavens of God’s presence.

It seems to me that the hope of going to heaven really "came alive" (pun observed) in the New Testament when Jesus started to talk about it at length.

 

[Cypros]

Well, while I was going through articles trying to find any reference to Latin inscriptions on the ossuaries (I found nothing), it looks like the confusion was already cleared up. Indeed, if the inscriptions were in Latin it a Latin form it would be highly unprobable that they were associated with the biblical characters.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

For all us non-intellectual types who've been reading here and not posting - what are the odds on what the documentary has discovered (so to speak). There has not been one bit of physical evidence Jesus existed, and then suddenly the whole darned family is found in one place, with their names on the boxes, to boot. Best darned luck I ever heard of!

 

[Pepper]

For all us non-intellectual types who've been reading here and not posting - what are the odds on what the documentary has discovered (so to speak). There has not been one bit of physical evidence Jesus existed, and then suddenly the whole darned family is found in one place, with their names on the boxes, to boot. Best darned luck I ever heard of!

I think there is substantiated evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, as well as the others mentioned in the New Testament. Scholars and historians do not dispute his existence - only his divinity.

 

[Cypros]

I think there is substantiated evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, as well as the others mentioned in the New Testament. Scholars and historians do not dispute his existence - only his divinity.

Well, there are some scholars and historians who dispute it, but they are a relatively small number and the majority agree that he existed.

 

[Nova]

I think there is substantiated evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed, as well as the others mentioned in the New Testament. Scholars and historians do not dispute his existence - only his divinity.

Actually, there is no direct evidence, regardless of what people think.

There is hearsay testimony that wouldn't be admissible in court.

Nonetheless, the conclusion that Jesus existed is simpler than the alternative (that a group of writers conspired to make him up). And in science, barring conclusive evidence, the simpler explanation is preferred to the more convoluted one.

That is not the same as "substantial evidence."