Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Maral]

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

I ain't tipping until you bring me my beer!

 

[Dark Knight]

I ain't tipping until you bring me my beer!

Boy you ARE Catholic! LOL!

Reading some of Cypros' claims may drive ME to drink, hehe.

 

[Cypros]

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.

This illogical statement surely drives ME to drink!!!

(we need a smiley holding a beer mug)

 

[Dark Knight]

This illogical statement surely drives ME to drink!!!

(we need a smiley holding a beer mug)

Don't call me Shirley! :slap:

 

[IrishMist]

Don't call me Shirley! :slap:

Oh, DK, you're getting as bad as me with THAT one!!

But it DID make me giggle

:doh:

 

[Nova]

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

Much as we disagree at times, I have no doubt the Holy Spirit is already very much upon you.

(But that doesn't mean we can PROVE it historically or scientifically. )

 

[Nova]

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.")

I believe Mark was a later follower of Paul or Peter. I'm sure he wasn't one of the 12.

John's gospel does mention him by name, which is one of the reasons its authenticity is doubted by scholars. The passage you quote is believe by many scholars to be a later interpolation.

 

[Nova]

Heavy drinking? :crazy:

Hey! I was making an argument that supports the notion that the recent claim of a tomb of a married Jesus is scurrilous. You really want to mock me when I'm arguing for your side?!!!!! :waitasec:

Actually, my phony relic theory was inspired by something I read. Professor Cypros has been giving me homework.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

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.

The 4 gospels included in the NT weren't all written at the same time, though, or in the order found in the NT. The dates they were actually written and the actual authors aren't known, but there is speculation about them.

Mark, thought to be the earliest gospel in the NT, from the mid-60's CE, may have used the apostle Peter as his source; Matthew, who may have been the apostle, seems to have written his gospel in the late 60's. Luke, who seems to be a gentile, may have been a traveling companion of the apostle Paul (and probably also wrote Acts); John may have been the apostle John, and his gospel appears to be written around 90.

Mark, Luke, and Matthew are the synoptics and do tell some of the same stories in much the same way. John varies considerably from those 3, and includes stories not found in the synoptics at all.

None are written in the first person.

Luke begins his gospel with a dedication to Theophilus, who may have hired Luke to undertake the writing. "Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed." The indication is that many others than Luke had written gospel accounts previously, although they have not survived.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Other Gospel writers placed Matthew as an eyewitness (Book of John)

I'm still trying to understand what you're saying here. John says that Matthew was an eyewitness at the crucifixion? John says that Matthew the gospel writer was the same person as Levi/Matthew the disciple? Could you throw me a chapter and verse to go with the book?

 

[Maral]

Originally Posted by 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.

This illogical statement surely drives ME to drink!!!

(we need a smiley holding a beer mug)

Do you really think it is illogical, Cypros? I think it makes a lot of sense.
When these four Gospels were chosen to be a part of the Canon of the NT, the Council knew there were dicrepancies and still claimed inerracy. They didn't change them. I believe they recognized the difference between discrepancy and contradiction.

 

[Nova]

Do you really think it is illogical, Cypros? I think it makes a lot of sense.
When these four Gospels were chosen to be a part of the Canon of the NT, the Council knew there were discrepancies and still claimed inerrancy. They didn't change them. I believe they recognized the difference between discrepancy and contradiction.

It might make sense if all four gospel writers were sitting in the same room at the same time hatching a "plot." But those works were written over a period of 50 to 75 years.

To the extent some claim the gospel writers sought to legitimize Jesus' message by linking him to the Messiah prophesies in Isaiah, what is imagined is a general agreement or tradition to do so (and perhaps with the best of intentions), not a carefully organized collaboration.

BTW, most of Mark appears more or less verbatim in Matthew and Luke. Too close to be anything but copying. Why was a supposed eyewitness such as Matthew copying from a latecomer like Mark? He wasn't, of course. Somebody was copying in his name.

 

[kgeaux]

How can the biblical ext be "lacking in human error" if yuo have four versions of a story presented by four self-proclaimed witnesses, each of the stories with details that CONFLICT with each other. It is not simply that each remembered and wrote about different details -- the stories CONFLICT. It is impossible that all of the versions are correct. Either it is human error or, if you want to assume divine inspiration, then it is divine error. Other options are that that at least a couple of the disciples intentionally misrepresented what happened, or that later redactors intentionally changed details of some of individual gospels to suit the agenda of various sects and/or the Church. The latter two options are the most likely explanation considering the history of the compilation of the NT and the history of early Christianity, IMO.

Eyewitness details of modern events often conflict, too. And yet the event occured.

 

[Cypros]

Do you really think it is illogical, Cypros? I think it makes a lot of sense.
When these four Gospels were chosen to be a part of the Canon of the NT, the Council knew there were dicrepancies and still claimed inerracy. They didn't change them. I believe they recognized the difference between discrepancy and contradiction.

It is not merely discrepancies or differences -- It is CONFLICTING accounts. Go to the gospels and read them for yourself. The Council was composed of human beings right? Capable of human error? If the Council read these and claimed inerrancy then THAT is another excellent example of human error.

 

[Nova]

Eyewitness details of modern events often conflict, too.

I think everyone understands that, k. The query comes from claims that the Bible is either the "literal" word of God or "without human error."

In general, the response has been that the gospels are in agreement on important matters -- which makes sense to me if these are works by men "inspired" by God. But it doesn't explain Fundamentalism.

 

[Cypros]

Eyewitness details of modern events often conflict, too. And yet the event occured.

Yes, and they are human and their accounts are not considered to be divinely inspired.

 

[Utopia]

This illogical statement surely drives ME to drink!!!

(we need a smiley holding a beer mug)

How's this?



It's the least I could do for this fascinating thread! Thought provoking, educational and civil to boot! Thanks to all.

 

[Maral]

I think everyone understands that, k. The query comes from claims that the Bible is either the "literal" word of God or "without human error."

In general, the response has been that the gospels are in agreement on important matters -- which makes sense to me if these are works by men "inspired" by God. But it doesn't explain Fundamentalism.

NOTHING explains fundamentalism!

 

[Cypros]

How's this?

That's it! How do I get that to show up on my posts??

 

[Nova]

NOTHING explains fundamentalism!

There are explanations, I think, but discussing them would probably violate TOS and get this thread locked.