Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Nova]

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

In the original article, it explains it was a very common name then. It just wasn't in the J.e.s.u.s. form yet. The ossuary under discussion isn't inscribed "Jesus" but some variation of "Yeshua."

 

[Nova]

Made NOTE, was a typo. :crazy:

And here we have the entire history of ancient scripture and centuries of copies illustrated to us by example in a couple of emails.

Meaning can vary vastly with one small, accidental error.

(This is from an historical view, of course. A religious view might claim that God Himself prevents serious errors from occurring.)

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Nova, from what I've been able to find, the ossuaries used by Jewish families were only common to the area of Jerusalem, and only then because of limited space for burials between about 20 BCE and 70 CE (when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and the Jewish population were killed or taken into slavery and dispersed).

My guess is that the tombs at Talpiyot contained bones and bodies of Jewish families who lived, then died, in the near vicinity of Jerusalem before 70 CE.

 

[Dark Knight]

And here we have the entire history of ancient scripture and centuries of copies illustrated to us by example in a couple of emails.

Meaning can vary vastly with one small, accidental error.

(This is from an historical view, of course. A religious view might claim that God Himself prevents serious errors from occurring.)

Talk to me after the Holy Spirit comes upon me like a tongue of fire and maybe I wont make any typos, lol.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

azwriter, are you thinking of the name Yeshua which was the Hebrew that (much) later became Jesus in English?

 

[IrishMist]

Talk to me after the Holy Spirit comes upon me like a tongue of fire and maybe I wont make any typos, lol.

The last time the spirit came upon me, and believe me- I had a tongue of fire- I had SUCH a hang-over the next day!!

I crack myself up, I really do

 

[Dark Knight]

The last time the spirit came upon me, and believe me- I had a tongue of fire- I had SUCH a hang-over the next day!!

I crack myself up, I really do

:slap: :slap: :slap:

 

[Dark Knight]

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

Other Gospel writers placed Matthew as an eyewitness (Book of John) but not sure if Mark placed himself there. Most of the apostles didn't seem to speak of themselves by name (i.e. "the apostle whom Jesus loved.")

 

[LovelyPigeon]

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.

DK, as best I can tell from your comments you fall into the category of Limited Inerrancist or Infallabist (how 'bout them words! )

 

[IrishMist]

:slap: :slap: :slap:

On a serious note, I AM really enjoying this discussion. I'm blown away by everyone's knowledge.

 

[Maral]

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.

I'm not sure what kind of websites you are looking at, but I would imagine they would be apologetic sites. I guess there just aren't that many different ways to say that phrase, lol.

I have said all along that the concensus among the majority of historians is that Jesus did in fact live and die and that He claimed to be divine. I've never said that these historians believed He was a divine figure, although I'm sure there are those that do.

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?

I don't know right off the top of my head how many original works we have of these non-biblical authorities. But if we apply the standard that we must have original works of all ancient documents in order for them to be credible, then we lose a lot of our ancient history.

 

[PaperDoll]

On a serious note, I AM really enjoying this discussion. I'm blown away by everyone's knowledge.

Even mine? My knowledge blows everyone away, I think they are surprised I even have some... hehe :blushing:

 

[IrishMist]

Even mine? My knowledge blows everyone away, I think they are surprised I even have some... hehe :blushing:

Oh, PD, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's!

 

[Dark Knight]

On a serious note, I AM really enjoying this discussion. I'm blown away by everyone's knowledge.

yeah we done be perty smart peoples, ain't we? *spits*

(I praise the Lord for any knowledge I may have. I'd barely be able to tie my shoes somedays without Him, lol.)

 

[PaperDoll]

Oh, PD, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's!

hehe.. thanks :blowkiss:

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, you know what inspired it.

Heavy drinking? :crazy:

 

[Maral]

:laugh:

The last time the spirit came upon me, and believe me- I had a tongue of fire- I had SUCH a hang-over the next day!!

I crack myself up, I really do

You crack me up, too, IM!

 

[Dark Knight]

If, btw, u were to lie and perpetuate a lie to people, say with a group of others, you would get together with them and MAKE SURE your every little detail agreed and u would tell the story in MUCH the same manner. God does NOT do this in the gospels, obviously. So any descrepancies tend to validate them rather than discredit them, for that very reason.

 

[Cypros]

I have said all along that the concensus among the majority of historians is that Jesus did in fact live and die and that He claimed to be divine. I've never said that these historians believed He was a divine figure, although I'm sure there are those that do.

I agree that the majority of ancient historians agree that Jesus lived and died, although it is not a proven fact. That he claimed to be the Son of God is certainly NOT agreed upon and definitely a matter of debate. Since we have no gospel of Jesus we are left with the accounts of others, written years later. The claim of divinity is arguably a later claim made by his followers in an attempt to promote increased attention to his teachings.

 

[IrishMist]

:laugh:

You crack me up, too, IM!

Thanks, Maral. I'll be here all week- don't forget to tip your bartender and server!

K, all, I'm done hijacking this interesting thread, and will behave starting now