Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Dark Knight]

I'm no expert, but the wording is highly suspect, IMO. Josephus doesn't just confirm Jesus' life and work, but announces the resurrection in language suspiciously similar to that of the NT. (This is not to say I don't believe Jesus existed; I just strongly doubt Josephus would have written of Jesus in that fashion.)

Josephus is no more reliable than the authors of the Gospels. He shouldn't be treated as such, regardless of what he wrote or didn't write about Jesus.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Scripture says that Caeser at the time of Christ's birth called for a census of the whole (known) world. Does anyone have any record of that? Just curious, is all.

Quirinius was appointed governor in 6 CE. Jesus is believed to have been born in 4 BCE (a miscalculation in the Roman calendar puts his birth back at 4-6 BCE instead of what's generally thought to have been in 1 CE or 1 BCE). The corrected date of Jesus birth puts his birth years before Quirinius was governor.

Also, Matthew says that Jesus was born before Herod died. Herod died in 4 BCE. How could Jesus be born in the time of Quirinius' governorship if he was born before Herod died?

Josephus mentions a census in Palestine in 6 CE but none earlier.

Additionally, Roman census didn't require travel to the city of his ancester in order to be counted, even though that is what Luke describes.

 

[Nova]

Josephus is no more reliable than the authors of the Gospels. He shouldn't be treated as such, regardless of what he wrote or didn't write about Jesus.

DK, I think everyone who has mentioned Josephus here has agreed with that statement. Who is claiming Josephian infallibility?

 

[Maral]

Originally Posted by Maral
The New Testament is a historical document whose accuracy has been proven many times over. So, because of this, we can be pretty sure that anything recorded in the New Testament actually happened.

Originally Posted by Nova
Ouch! This is so not true, my friend. The Gospels themselves don't even agree, much of the time. Most weren't written until long after the events they describe and not necessarily by first-hand witnesses, despite the attribution to original disciples.

Nova, I'm not an archaeologist, my expertise is in history, so I will defer to Cypros on the archaeology part of this. But the external test of archaeology/ancient history has shown the Bible to be reliable and accurate. I am not aware of any archaeological discovery that has contradicted a Biblical reference.

 

[JimPence]

Here's a response by Darrell Bock, one of the top New Testament scholars in the world. He was given a chance to see the special before it airs next week, but was not allowed to make any public comments until after today's news conference. You might find his thoughts interesting.

http://dev.bible.org/bock/node/106

Blessings,
Jim

 

[Nova]

Nova, I'm not an archaeologist, my expertise is in history, so I will defer to Cypros on the archaeology part of this. But the external test of archaeology/ancient history has shown the Bible to be reliable and accurate. I am not aware of any archaeological discovery that has contradicted a Biblical reference.

But Maral, if history and archaeology have not DISproved the accounts of the NT gospels, it does not therefore follow that those accounts have been - or even can be - proved. Just because some of the more "public" events - such as the governorship of Pontius Pilate - can be verified, does not prove Jesus ever turned water into wine.

(And speaking of Pilate, most scholars that I've read agree the account of his behavior in the NT is calculated to show the ruling Romans in a better light.)

What evidence is there for Jesus' resurrection outside of early Christian writers who were making a case for his divinity? Whether it ever happened was already the subject of debate mere decades after it was to have occurred?

 

[Wrinkles]

Hello All,

Interesting discussion, nice to see everyone sharing info.

I have a somewhat simple minded rhetorical question to toss out... How is it that it is now 2007 in a large part of the world? i.e. it is 2007 AD (after the death of Christ?)

How does this happen? Some question whether Christ was an historical figure. We do not question other figures...but we do this "Jesus" - the Lord of so many.

How can it be that a large part of this world, into its dating system, was affected by someone who, perhaps (in the mind of some), did not exist?

I think about this at times. Isn't it somewhat phenomenal? What happened to cause this phenomenon?

W

 

[Nova]

Hello All,

Interesting discussion, nice to see everyone sharing info.

I have a somewhat simple minded rhetorical question to toss out... How is it that it is now 2007 in a large part of the world? i.e. it is 2007 AD (after the death of Christ?)

How does this happen? Some question whether Christ was an historical figure. We do not question other figures...but we do this "Jesus" - the Lord of so many.

How can it be that a large part of this world, into its dating system, was affected by someone who, perhaps (in the mind of some), did not exist?

I think about this at times. Isn't it somewhat phenomenal? What happened to cause this phenomenon?

W

No one questions that Christianity has had a great historical and cultural impact. And that is the answer to your question.

Much of the world has a day in each week called Thursday (or some variation). But this is hardly proof that the Norse god Thor was an actual, historical figure. Rather, it is merely evidence of the lingering influence of Germanic cultures.

(ETA: For the record, I am not arguing that Jesus never existed, historically. I am merely questioning whether the gospels of the New Testament can be verified historically to any great degree.)

 

[kgeaux]

Quirinius was appointed governor in 6 CE. Jesus is believed to have been born in 4 BCE (a miscalculation in the Roman calendar puts his birth back at 4-6 BCE instead of what's generally thought to have been in 1 CE or 1 BCE). The corrected date of Jesus birth puts his birth years before Quirinius was governor.

Also, Matthew says that Jesus was born before Herod died. Herod died in 4 BCE. How could Jesus be born in the time of Quirinius' governorship if he was born before Herod died?

Josephus mentions a census in Palestine in 6 CE but none earlier.

Additionally, Roman census didn't require travel to the city of his ancester in order to be counted, even though that is what Luke describes.

Was it a Roman census? I know the old testament speak of going to your ancestoral home for a census. Maybe this was a Jewish census?

 

[Cypros]

With the exception of much fantasy and sci-fi literature, just about any novel you pick up has some historical accuracy. The places are places that actually exist, there are often references to real (historical) people and events and certainly descriptions of people and actions that fit the description and behavior of real people. However, despite much cohesion between the novel and history/reality the novel is still fiction.

There is no question that the people and events described in the New Testament are set within an historical context. The Roman province of Judea actually existed. King Herod ruled (under Roman auspices) during the second half of the first century BCE. By all accounts he was a horrid ruler, but he was also the patron of some of the most amazing architectural accomplishments of his time. He rebuilt the temple at Jerusalem, built for himself a number of incredible palaces scattered throughout the kingdom, designed urban hydraulic systems that impress modern engineers. Most of what we know about Herod comes from extra-biblical texts and archaeology. The "Massacre of the Innocents", however, is only referred to in the NT (only Matthew). It is not mentioned in any other contemporary documents and cannot be taken as historical. The fact that it is reminiscent of the story of Exodus and the killing of all the male children makes the NT reworking of this especially suspect. Perhaps it happened, but there is no proof and it is more likely an embellishment to emphasize the significance of a new "King of the Jews".

The same historical criticism must be applied to the existence of Jesus and his purported miracles and resurrection. It is likely that the man existed (and possible that this is his tomb) and there were numerous self-proclaimed prophets at the time, but there is no good proof. Whether he was the son of god, performed miracles, and was resurrected is entirely based on the faith of those who follow the religion that was created in his wake.

 

[txsvicki]

A Catholic priest made a good point on the Glenn Beck show. He asked why the Christian religion, more than any other religion, is always a target by people who don't believe in anything to begin with. That is a good point, why do they care what Christians of many different denominations believe and try to discount it and prove it wrong. I know that what anything anyone says is only making themselves feel better about death and eternity and they are not influencing Christians who believe many things by faith one little bit. They've been trying for a couple thousand years now and it hasn't worked yet.

 

[Cypros]

Hello All,

Interesting discussion, nice to see everyone sharing info.

I have a somewhat simple minded rhetorical question to toss out... How is it that it is now 2007 in a large part of the world? i.e. it is 2007 AD (after the death of Christ?)

How does this happen? Some question whether Christ was an historical figure. We do not question other figures...but we do this "Jesus" - the Lord of so many.

How can it be that a large part of this world, into its dating system, was affected by someone who, perhaps (in the mind of some), did not exist?

I think about this at times. Isn't it somewhat phenomenal? What happened to cause this phenomenon?

W

The dating system to which you refer was established and imposed by the Church. Other cultures established their own calendars based on their own significant figures and events. However, the reason why the modern world follows the Christian calendar is because Western society has dominated the world and imposed its ways on others through colonization, global trade, etc. Just as english has become the global language, the Western calendar has became the global calendar. It has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus. And now, much of the scientific and academic world chooses to use the BCE/CE system rather than the BC/AD system as a way of trying to separate from the Christiocentric system.

 

[Cypros]

A Catholic priest made a good point on the Glenn Beck show. He asked why the Christian religion, more than any other religion, is always a target by people who don't believe in anything to begin with. That is a good point, why do they care what Christians of many different denominations believe and try to discount it and prove it wrong. I know that what anything anyone says is only making themselves feel better about death and eternity and they are not influencing Christians who believe many things by faith one little bit. They've been trying for a couple thousand years now and it hasn't worked yet.

I don't think skeptics are more interested in the Christian faith than any others. There are certainly more interesting religions and plenty even more bizarre religions. However, Christianity is the one major religion that makes a practice of proselytizing and missionizing. Other religions are secure in themselves and do not feel the need to convert everybody else. This practice of converting -- forcing one's religion on others, throwing it in their faces -- has coincided with colonization, westward expansion, etc. and the destruction of many amazing cultures and ways of believing. No surprise that Christianity is greeted with skepticism and criticism from those who do not approve of its tactics. It is not the reliigion itsef, it is the history of its practice.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Israel may open 'Jesus tomb' to public
Feb. 27, 2007
Israeli authorities say they are prepared to consider opening to the public a 2,000-year-old burial tomb in Jerusalem's East Talpiot neighborhood which is said by the makers of a new documentary to have likely been the final resting place of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother, partner Mary Magdalene, son, and other members of his family.

The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), responsible for the tomb - which was first uncovered during construction of the neighborhood in 1980 - said it would be up to the Jerusalem Municipality to make such a decision. And municipality spokesman Gidi Schmerling told The Jerusalem Post on Monday night that if a request was made to open the site it would be considered. --->>

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894526073&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[reb]

<<I don't think skeptics are more interested in the Christian faith than any others. There are certainly more interesting religions and plenty even more bizarre religions. However, Christianity is the one major religion that makes a practice of proselytizing and missionizing. Other religions are secure in themselves and do not feel the need to convert everybody else. This practice of converting -- forcing one's religion on others, throwing it in their faces -- has coincided with colonization, westward expansion, etc. and the destruction of many amazing cultures and ways of believing. No surprise that Christianity is greeted with skepticism and criticism from those who do not approve of its tactics. It is not the religion itself, it is the history of its practice.>>

HOORAYYYYYYY!! cypros. right on!! this couldn't possibly be repeated enough. BRAVO!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

and--
<<Some question whether Christ was an historical figure. We do not question other figures...but we do this "Jesus" - the Lord of so many.>>

uhh, wrinkles... we DO question other religious figures-- ALL OF THEM. and all dieties out there are 'the lord of so many'. i guess that a person named jesus probably existed, since this supposed person seemed to have quite an impact. but no one can say for sure. and you have a good point, about our dating system. however, there is no proof anywhere other than hearsay and a book that has been copied and recopied a million times over, that he did anything more than exist, and maybe do some stuff that was outisde the norm and got peoples' attention. other than that,, it's just myth and mysticism. the bible is nowhere close to being a 'historical document'. it is a book of mythical stories, some of them possibly having some basis in fact somwhere. it is considered a sared text. it's a collection of narratives, fables, and prophecies that has always been evolving and changing over the past 2,000 years. it is a lot of things, but it sure ain't a 'historical document'. it is too vague and contradictory to be considered as such.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Was it a Roman census? I know the old testament speak of going to your ancestoral home for a census. Maybe this was a Jewish census?

kgeaux, Luke (the only gospel that makes mention) says that it was a Roman census, decreed by Caesar Augustus during the governorship of Quirinius.

Luke 2:1-2
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

 

[Details]

But they have run all the info through mathematicians to find out what the odds are that a similar family would have all the same names in the family, with the mother being Mary, Jesus being married to Miriam (Mary Magdeline), that lived in the same area, had births and deaths around the same time, etc. The odds are insurmountable that there would be another family that similar.

I'm not buying those odds. It's a common set of names, and the tomb is in the wrong place, not to mention, wrong for a poor family, as they were. I think Cameron and the people he is working with are taking the odds they want to use, and misusing them.

 

[Details]

So, according to Pfann's argument, any skeptic who doesn't believe that Jesus was resurrected should be jumping on the bandwagon with this story of a Jesus ossuary which, if true, demonstrates that Jesus was just a man and dies and was buried just like any other man. Well, I am a "skeptic" (meaning that I respect scientific method and critical thinking over blind faith) and yet I am not buying this Jesus ossuary business. It is not scientifically provable.

Likewise! If you believe in rationality and science and objectivity - this claim is pretty skinny. Not impossible - but then if it were a crypt with the name "Sara Miller" on it, burried in Egypt, it wouldn't be impossible - just even more highly unlikely.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

A Catholic priest made a good point on the Glenn Beck show. He asked why the Christian religion, more than any other religion, is always a target by people who don't believe in anything to begin with. That is a good point, why do they care what Christians of many different denominations believe and try to discount it and prove it wrong.

Interesting observation, especially since the priest is Catholic, Glenn Beck is Mormon, and never the twain shall meet. And "Christians" of different denominations care about the others' beliefs, since they often contrast in ways as to be considered invalid by other "Christians".

 

[Details]

For one thing, you just said there was no census, now you're telling me to look at a census. Make up your mind please. Are you a mathematician? Do you know how to write an equation to determine these kinds of issues? I think not. Until you can show me you have figures that prove otherwise, I think I will go with the proven. The mathmeticians are much smarter than I am when it comes to determining the odds and I'm sure they checked the history of names in the region.

Mathematicians are easy to misquote and misues their statistics. I do understand these equations, and how they are frequently used to 'prove' anything, especially when some filmmaker or non-mathematical person tries to use them to find what they want to see.

For instance - the odds that there is a poster, who is agnostic, who happened to be a poster on this board, is left handed, happens to be named Susan on another board - that's about 1 in 100 for agnostic, 1 in 10 for lefty, 1 in 300 for regulars on the Internet who happen to post here (very optimistically), 1 in 40 for the name Susan - hmm, that makes a 1 in 100*10*300*40 - a 1 in 12,000,000 chance I exist! But here I am.

I could well believe, with how common the names are, that there's a 1 in 100 odds that a tomb containing 4 people would have a Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Mary. That's not bad odds at all to find maybe several tombs like this - 1 out of 100 will have this combo - just by chance. But when you ask for partial odds, you get bad odds. The odds that it's bible Jesus et al, buried there, when you take into account the fact that isn't where they lived, when you take into account that this is a middle to upper class tomb, which doesn't fit family circumstances, etc. - the odds that this Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Mary is the biblical one is pretty darn skinny!