Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Dark Knight]

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

Does anyone dispute the existance of other religion-based figures such as Mohammed or Buddha? I've never looked into that.

It'd be a stretch for the world's largest religion to exist for over two millenia if the founder never even existed, lol. But I then wondered about some of the other founders historicity. (I may have made that word up, lol.)

 

[Nova]

Does anyone dispute the existance of other religion-based figures such as Mohammed or Buddha? I've never looked into that.

It'd be a stretch for the world's largest religion to exist for over two millenia if the founder never even existed, lol. But I then wondered about some of the other founders historicity. (I may have made that word up, lol.)

"Historicity" is the right word.

Longevity isn't much of a test. Belief in Zeus and Thor lasted just as long.

I don't believe history can prove Buddha was historical, though he may have been.

Mohammed, on the other hand, is more recent and was a political/military leader as well as the founder of Islam. For him, there is considerably more documentation.

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

Isn't that true for many of the claims written in history books?

And in science, barring conclusive evidence, the simpler explanation is preferred to the more convoluted one.

Hmm, I wonder how many wrong conclusions are reached if that is how claims are decided. I've witnessed some pretty convoluted stuff in my 42 short, sheltered years on this earth.

I have learned so much from this thread. Thanks to all.:clap:

 

[Dark Knight]

"Historicity" is the right word.

Longevity isn't much of a test. Belief in Zeus and Thor lasted just as long.

I don't believe history can prove Buddha was historical, though he may have been.

Mohammed, on the other hand, is more recent and was a political/military leader as well as the founder of Islam. For him, there is considerably more documentation.

Thanks for confirming the word!

Zeus and Thor were regional Gods, worshipped primarily in Greece and surrounding areas. You wouldn't find them worshshipped worldwide on any great scale.

Did you know there are some who theorize that the Greek gods were actually the fallen angels spoken of in the OT who also had relations with mortals, and their offspring could be the "half-gods" such as Hercules. Certainly these fallen angels would have supernatural powers to some extent to make them appear God-like. I don't know that I believe this, I'm just saying that is a theory I have heard a espoused few times.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

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?

It isn't described as a death at all, but as an ascension into the heavens. I think Elisha thought Elijah had been taken directly to the bosom of Abraham, at least that's how I read the story as told.

Also, what is to be done with that statement at John 3:13?

I think there are contradictions in the Bible, and we are talking about one of them, where it comes to Elijah and Enoch in the OT against John's gospel in the NT.

Some think John was speaking of believers in Jesus who had died since Jesus returned to heaven rather than of OT figures.

John was written maybe 50 years after Jesus died, and during those years quite a few believers had died. Does John mean that none of those believers went to heaven, but stayed in their graves where they have yet to rise? John doesn't tell about the thief on the cross that Jesus told would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day, but Matthew did, and that would seem to contradict believers remaining in graves as spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:20 says that Jesus rose from the dead and that he was the first of all those who "will rise" after him. This verse seems to describe those who become believers in Jesus that then die and rise into the air at some future point. It can't mean literally that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead because there are several instances in the OT and NT were dead people were raised and lived again.

Another similar reference comes from Paul in II Corinthians where he describes what sounds very much like a bodily ascension to "third heaven/paradise": I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. If Paul was describing himself, then he ascended and returned to earth to preach some of what he heard while in paradise.

 

[Nova]

Isn't that true for many of the claims written in history books?

Certainly, and history books are rewritten as new evidence emerges.

It has been pointed out by others that we have no more direct proof that Alexander the Great existed than Jesus did. Yet based on accounts from much later, we believe Alexander was King of Macedonia and conquered most of the then known world.

An objection to that comparison is that no one (nowadays) claims divine powers for Alexander. One might take a position that extraordinary claims (such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus) require extraordinary proof. But that position pretty much negates all faith.

If I have given the impression that belief in an historical Jesus is "silly" or "crazy," I apologize. I believe it myself. I thought we were discussing in this thread how we know what we know.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for confirming the word!

Zeus and Thor were regional Gods, worshipped primarily in Greece and surrounding areas. You wouldn't find them worshshipped worldwide on any great scale.

Did you know there are some who theorize that the Greek gods were actually the fallen angels spoken of in the OT who also had relations with mortals, and their offspring could be the "half-gods" such as Hercules. Certainly these fallen angels would have supernatural powers to some extent to make them appear God-like. I don't know that I believe this, I'm just saying that is a theory I have heard a espoused few times.

Thor was a Norse god, as I'm sure you know. Also regional, in your terms, but not worshiped in Greece.

By the same standards, Christianity was also "regional" until about 500 years ago. Its spread around the globe may be better attributed to the success of European technology and colonization than to the truth of its message. (Note I said "may be." I realize there are other arguments.)

Re theories about Greek mythology, there are striking similarities (as well as differences) in various myths. Whether this is because the myths descend from common, historical events, or whether the similarities result from common human needs, I don't pretend to know.

 

[Nova]

John was written maybe 50 years after Jesus died, and during those years quite a few believers had died. Does John mean that none of those believers went to heaven, but stayed in their graves where they have yet to rise? John doesn't tell about the thief on the cross that Jesus told would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day, but Matthew did, and that would seem to contradict believers remaining in graves as spirit.

The Gospel of John may have been written as much as a century after the death of Jesus.

The writer of John (like other early Christians) may have been influenced by Zoroastrianism, a Persian faith. In Zoroastrianism, IIRC, all virtuous humans wait after death for an eventual bodily resurrection during the End Times.

 

[Cypros]

Does anyone dispute the existance of other religion-based figures such as Mohammed or Buddha? I've never looked into that.

It'd be a stretch for the world's largest religion to exist for over two millenia if the founder never even existed, lol. But I then wondered about some of the other founders historicity. (I may have made that word up, lol.)

Nova already very adequately answered your first question.

As for the second question..... Abraham (all of the OT Patriarchs) and Moses quickly come to mind....

 

[Dark Knight]

Thor was a Norse god, as I'm sure you know. Also regional, in your terms, but not worshiped in Greece.

By the same standards, Christianity was also "regional" until about 500 years ago. Its spread around the globe may be better attributed to the success of European technology and colonization than to the truth of its message. (Note I said "may be." I realize there are other arguments.)

Re theories about Greek mythology, there are striking similarities (as well as differences) in various myths. Whether this is because the myths descend from common, historical events, or whether the similarities result from common human needs, I don't pretend to know.

Whoops, I often get the Norse and Greek god's switched, thanks for the correction. (I've studied greek mythology moreso than norse.)

 

[Dark Knight]

Nova already very adequately answered your first question.

As for the second question..... Abraham (all of the OT Patriarchs) and Moses quickly come to mind....

You'd think Judaism would be the world's largest religion given how ancient it is. But it's Christianity and Islam that "fight it out" for most popular, which actually says something for Islam given how relatively new it is. Some say it may surpass Christianity in number of followers. I am not sure about that, but it sure grew by leaps and bounds.

 

[Cypros]

You'd think Judaism would be the world's largest religion given how ancient it is. But it's Christianity and Islam that "fight it out" for most popular, which actually says something for Islam given how relatively new it is. Some say it may surpass Christianity in number of followers. I am not sure about that, but it sure grew by leaps and bounds.

I don't think it is important to the Jews to be the "largest religion". They do not dilute their religion through proselytizing or missionizing. Theirs is the first monotheistic religion and the oldest of the world's major religions. that is impressive in itself. Bigger and more populous does not equate to better.

 

[Dark Knight]

Certainly, and history books are rewritten as new evidence emerges.

It has been pointed out by others that we have no more direct proof that Alexander the Great existed than Jesus did. Yet based on accounts from much later, we believe Alexander was King of Macedonia and conquered most of the then known world.

An objection to that comparison is that no one (nowadays) claims divine powers for Alexander. One might take a position that extraordinary claims (such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus) require extraordinary proof. But that position pretty much negates all faith.

If I have given the impression that belief in an historical Jesus is "silly" or "crazy," I apologize. I believe it myself. I thought we were discussing in this thread how we know what we know.

Using scientific methods to determine one's faith might be considered silly, since that would eliminate the need for faith. If God wanted to show Himself to us in such a way that it would be impossible to deny, He would do so. He chose not to so that we must have faith. Recall Jesus' words to Thomas, "Have you come to believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

 

[Nova]

You'd think Judaism would be the world's largest religion given how ancient it is. But it's Christianity and Islam that "fight it out" for most popular, which actually says something for Islam given how relatively new it is. Some say it may surpass Christianity in number of followers. I am not sure about that, but it sure grew by leaps and bounds.

Judaism was actually quite large during the Roman Empire (something like 10 to 20% of the population), but has declined through years of persecution and extermination. What is miraculous is that any Jews remain at all.

What is surprising about its extent in the Ancient World is that Judaism doesn't proselytize in the manner of Christianity or Islam. The latter are very aggressive religions and have been expanded through use of the sword as much as by the power of the Word.

(DK, I knew you knew Thor was Norse. We're all typing quickly here.)

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't think it is important to the Jews to be the "largest religion". They do not dilute their religion through proselytizing or missionizing. Theirs is the first monotheistic religion and the oldest of the world's major religions that is very impressive. Bigger and more populous does not equate to better.

Merely an observation my defensive friend. Not necessarily better or worse, just an historical observation on the trends of each faith through history. But it might be hard to believe any belief system could succeed without a founder who was real.

Islam doesn't really missionize, either. I do NOT that see it as dilution of ones faith anyways. That's an antagonistic statement, but that's you. And that's also a whole other discussion which probably falls outside TOS.

 

[Nova]

Using scientific methods to determine one's faith might be considered silly, since that would eliminate the need for faith. If God wanted to show Himself to us in such a way that it would be impossible to deny, He would do so. He chose not to so that we must have faith. Recall Jesus' words to Thomas, "Have you come to believe because you have seen? Blessed are those who have NOT seen, and yet believe."

Understood, DK. I just wanted to reiterate that *I* am not dismissing Faith just because I distinguish it from Science.

I remember well the words to Thomas. But one could also argue that God DOES show Herself to us every day, but often we fail to recognize Her.

 

[Nova]

Merely an observation my defensive friend. Not necessarily better or worse, just an historical observation on the trends of each faith through history. But it might be hard to believe any belief system could succeed without a founder who was real.

Islam doesn't really missionize, either. I do NOT that see it as dilution of ones faith anyways. That's an antagonistic statement, but that's you. And that's also a whole other discussion which probably falls outside TOS.

I believe Cypros was summarizing the traditional Jewish view, not making a judgment about Christianity being "diluted."

Islam certainly does proselytize. Check out any American prison. And historically, it was spread quite aggressively throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The Koran commands followers to convert the infidel, I believe.

 

[Dark Knight]

Judaism was actually quite large during the Roman Empire (something like 10 to 20% of the population), but has declined through years of persecution and extermination. What is miraculous is that any Jews remain at all.

What is surprising about its extent in the Ancient World is that Judaism doesn't proselytize in the manner of Christianity or Islam. The latter are very aggressive religions and have been expanded through use of the sword as much as by the power of the Word.

(DK, I knew you knew Thor was Norse. We're all typing quickly here.)

I'm amazed Catholics and Muslims didn't exterminate each other, lol. But Jesus did promise, "Even the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against His church."

As I said above, I don't see Muslims doing much missionary work, but could be wrong. I do agree they used to spread their religion via the sword quite a bit, hence the battles. And yes, we did a few times as well back in the day.

Judaism will alays survive persecution I think. It is a stronge and ancient faith that survived the worst of evils in Hitler. It played a huge role in the history of the world and will play it's role in the future of it.

 

[Cypros]

Merely an observation my defensive friend. Not necessarily better or worse, just an historical observation on the trends of each faith through history. But it might be hard to believe any belief system could succeed without a founder who was real.

As I said in a previous post..... Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses.....

 

[Dark Knight]

As I said in a previous post..... Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses.....

I don't see your point. Judaism HAS survived and they WERE real. Which proves my point. Abraham is the common denominator between all 3 major religions, actually. Are you saying they didn't exist so my point is disproved?