Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[LovelyPigeon]

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

Oh, let's not do that! I'm enjoying the opportunity for the discussion!

 

[Dark Knight]

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.

No, I just was waiting for a chance to make a drinking reference. Yeah, that's it! No mocking.

 

[Dark Knight]

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.

No, they weren't. If a group of people/believers wanted to perpetuate a lie, they WOULD write them all at the same time, however.

 

[Dark Knight]

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?

The resurrected Jesus appeared to the other 11 apostles in John.

 

[Cypros]

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.

Nova, it is this reference to "agreement on important matters" that really bothers me. Who decides what is important and what is not important? Who exactly discovered that Jesus' body was missing form the tomb? What and who exactly was there when they entered the tomb? Where was Jesus when he greeted the disciples? What did he look like? What did he say to them? Why is this not important information? I would think Jesus' appearance and the words he spoke in that brief time on earth between resurrection and the ascension would be considered very important and yet, apparently, since there are conflicting reports, the faithful rationalize that this is not important. From what I am hearing here on this thread, the ideology of the Church and Christianity as a whole developed around what was NOT problematic in the selected accounts.

 

[Dark Knight]

Nova, it is this reference to "agreement on important matters" that really bothers me. Who decides what is important and what is not important? Who exactly discovered that Jesus' body was missing form the tomb? What and who exactly was there when they entered the tomb? Where was Jesus when he greeted the disciples? What did he look like? What did he say to them? Why is this not important information? I would think Jesus' appearance and the words he spoke in that brief time on earth between resurrection and the ascension would be considered very important and yet, apparently, since there are conflicting reports, the faithful rationalize that this is not important. From what I am hearing here on this thread, the ideology of the Church and Christianity as a whole developed around what was NOT problematic in the selected accounts.

Most of those questions are answered in the Gospels. You are exaggerating the discrepancies.

 

[Cypros]

Most of those questions are answered in the Gospels. You are exaggerating the discrepancies.

And you are belittling them.

Because of the "discrepancies", as you call them, the answers to my questions are NOT answered in the gospels. They are confused and impossible to answer. If you can do it, please do.

 

[Maral]

Nova, it is this reference to "agreement on important matters" that really bothers me. Who decides what is important and what is not important? Who exactly discovered that Jesus' body was missing form the tomb? What and who exactly was there when they entered the tomb? Where was Jesus when he greeted the disciples? What did he look like? What did he say to them? Why is this not important information? I would think Jesus' appearance and the words he spoke in that brief time on earth between resurrection and the ascension would be considered very important and yet, apparently, since there are conflicting reports, the faithful rationalize that this is not important. From what I am hearing here on this thread, the ideology of the Church and Christianity as a whole developed around what was NOT problematic in the selected accounts.

Cypros, I found this article to be quite informative.

The author answers questions like yours using these five points:

1. The absolute necessity of conjecture in historical reconstructions;
2. The significance of different details in the accounts (from the standpoint of evidence)
3. The legitimacy of harmonization attempts relative to historical material;
4. The issue of "plausibility" of explanations.
5. Several specific reconstructions/sequencing of the post-resurrection events (or appearances of Christ);

 

[BarnGoddess]

To interject, I veered from blind faith in early adulthood. I was always questioned and never totally believed what I was instructed I must believe.

I read two works that started my questioning, one in college and one later:

The Passover Plot by Hugh Shconfield and Why I Am Not A Christian by Betrand Russell

http://www.amazon.com/Passover-Plot-Hugh-J-Schonfield/dp/0553149288/ref=dp_return_1/103-0641239-8783857?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

By reading these works, I began to understand differing points of view and a sense of questioning and intellectual reasoning.

 

[Utopia]

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

Hi Cypros,

Here's the website where I found it: http://www.thesmilies.com/party.php

It took me a bit to figure out but it's not difficult. Find the smiley you want and then copy the link that appears in the little window. There is a drop down menu beside the window with options for "BB Code", "URL" and "IMAGE". I believe it defaults to "BB code" (whatever that is) and that's the one you need. Simply copy and paste the code where you want it and, VOILA! - happy beer drinking people appear. So, you are not copying the graphic itself, just the code. Hope it works.

Cheers!

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Ted Koppel to Moderate Panel Discussion Following the Lost Tomb of Jesus

'The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look' will be an open forum, bringing independent and critical perspectives to the debate regarding possible find of Jesus Family Tomb - http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20070228/DCW05128022007-1.html

 

[LovelyPigeon]

No, they weren't. If a group of people/believers wanted to perpetuate a lie, they WOULD write them all at the same time, however.

That's an assumption on your part, of course.

If a group of people in Jesus' day wanted to "perpetuate a lie" they wouldn't have to write anything at all, but only spread the lie. The writing of the letters and gospels came at least 20 years after Jesus died.

I'm not claiming that is how Christianity came about, but only countering your claim of how it would have had to to be a group who wrote the gospels all at the same time.

The Passover Plot by Scholfeld makes a case for a lie, but not by the plotters all writing the gospels at the same time in order to perpetuate that lie.

 

[Maral]

To interject, I veered from blind faith in early adulthood. I was always questioned and never totally believed what I was instructed I must believe.

I read two works that started my questioning, one in college and one later:

The Passover Plot by Hugh Shconfield and Why I Am Not A Christian by Betrand Russell

http://www.amazon.com/Passover-Plot-Hugh-J-Schonfield/dp/0553149288/ref=dp_return_1/103-0641239-8783857?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

By reading these works, I began to understand differing points of view and a sense of questioning and intellectual reasoning.

BarnGoddess, I'm happy that you veered away from blind faith. Blind faith is what I believe leads to fundamentalism. The Catholic Church teaches that blind faith is not true Catholic faith. A Catholic who is within the age of reason is expected to have enlightened faith, not blind faith. I've been very influenced by the writings of G. K. Chesterton. I think it was him who said "Blind faith is oblivious to reason".

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Blind faith is what I believe leads to fundamentalism.

I can't help but notice that you refer several times in this discussion to fundamentalism and fundamentalists, with obvious disparagement. How do you define the term?

What I understand fundamentalism to be is a belief that a religious/holy collection (like the Bible) of books/texts is infallible and inerrant as to history and to science. Fundamentalists don't accept that there are contradictions to either history or science found in their holy text.

 

[Dark Knight]

That's an assumption on your part, of course.

If a group of people in Jesus' day wanted to "perpetuate a lie" they wouldn't have to write anything at all, but only spread the lie. The writing of the letters and gospels came at least 20 years after Jesus died.

I'm not claiming that is how Christianity came about, but only countering your claim of how it would have had to to be a group who wrote the gospels all at the same time.

The Passover Plot by Scholfeld makes a case for a lie, but not by the plotters all writing the gospels at the same time in order to perpetuate that lie.

They wouldn't be so stupid as to not get their "stories" straight.

Furthermore, they would not have perpetuated the lie to the point of their own death, in sometimes brutal fashion (Peter and Andrew were crucified.) That isn't an assumption, that is common sense.

 

[Dark Knight]

Nova, it is this reference to "agreement on important matters" that really bothers me. Who decides what is important and what is not important? Who exactly discovered that Jesus' body was missing form the tomb? What and who exactly was there when they entered the tomb? Where was Jesus when he greeted the disciples? What did he look like? What did he say to them? Why is this not important information? I would think Jesus' appearance and the words he spoke in that brief time on earth between resurrection and the ascension would be considered very important and yet, apparently, since there are conflicting reports, the faithful rationalize that this is not important. From what I am hearing here on this thread, the ideology of the Church and Christianity as a whole developed around what was NOT problematic in the selected accounts.

From NewAdvent.org:


The main sources which directly attest the fact of Christ's Resurrection are the Four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. Easter morning is so rich in incident, and so crowded with interested persons, that its complete history presents a rather complicated tableau. It is not surprising, therefore, that the partial accounts contained in each of the Four Gospels appear at first sight hard to harmonize. But whatever exegetic view as to the visit to the sepulchre by the pious women and the appearance of the angels we may defend, we cannot deny the Evangelists' agreement as to the fact that the risen Christ appeared to one or more persons. According to St. Matthew, He appeared to the holy women, and again on a mountain in Galilee; according to St. Mark, He was seen by Mary Magdalen, by the two disciples at Emmaus, and the Eleven before his Ascension into heaven; according to St. Luke, He walked with the disciples to Emmaus, appeared to Peter and to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem; according to St. John, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalen, to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday, to the Eleven a week later, and to the seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) enumerates another series of apparitions of Jesus after His Resurrection; he was seen by Cephas, by the Eleven, by more than 500 brethren, many of whom were still alive at the time of the Apostle's writing, by James, by all the Apostles, and lastly by Paul himself.

Here is an outline of a possible harmony of the Evangelists' account concerning the principal events of Easter Sunday:

• The holy women carrying the spices previously prepared start out for the sepulchre before dawn, and reach it after sunrise; they are anxious about the heavy stone, but know nothing of the official guard of the sepulchre (Matthew 28:1-3; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).
• The angel frightened the guards by his brightness, put them to flight, rolled away the stone, and seated himself not upon (ep autou), but above (epano autou) the stone (Matthew 28:2-4).
• Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome approach the sepulchre, and see the stone rolled back, whereupon Mary Magdalen immediately returns to inform the Apostles (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1-2).
• The other two holy women enter the sepulchre, find an angel seated in the vestibule, who shows them the empty sepulchre, announces the Resurrection, and commissions them to tell the disciples and Peter that they shall see Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:5-7).
• A second group of holy women, consisting of Joanna and her companions, arrive at the sepulchre, where they have probably agreed to meet the first group, enter the empty interior, and are admonished by two angels that Jesus has risen according to His prediction (Luke 24:10).
• Not long after, Peter and John, who were notified by Mary Magdalen, arrive at the sepulchre and find the linen cloth in such a position as to exclude the supposition that the body was stolen; for they lay simply flat on the ground, showing that the sacred body had vanished out of them without touching them. When John notices this he believes (John 20:3-10).
• Mary Magdalen returns to the sepulchre, sees first two angels within, and then Jesus Himself (John 20:11-l6; Mark 16:9).
• The two groups of pious women, who probably met on their return to the city, are favored with the sight of Christ arisen, who commissions them to tell His brethren that they will see him in Galilee (Matthew 28:8-10; Mark 16:8).
• The holy women relate their experiences to the Apostles, but find no belief (Mark 16:10-11; Luke 24:9-11).
• Jesus appears to the disciples, at Emmaus, and they return to Jerusalem; the Apostles appear to waver between doubt and belief (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35).
• Christ appears to Peter, and therefore Peter and John firmly believe in the Resurrection (Luke 24:34; John 20:8).
• After the return of the disciples from Emmaus, Jesus appears to all the Apostles excepting Thomas (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25).

The harmony of the other apparitions of Christ after His Resurrection presents no special difficulties.

Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts 4:17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, fot the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

 

[Dark Knight]

An excellent article that used the very same analogy I used earlier, but explained it much better:
"Why Do The Gospel Accounts Contradict Each Other?"

I understand that if 4 people saw an accident, they would each have a different story. You said that was why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had slightly different accounts of the resurrection. But isn't all of the Bible inspired by God? Didn't He tell those four guys what to write? And also, some parts still seem a bit different... like inside of the tomb... how many angels were there and did they sit or stand? I know that's probably not very significant, but it still bothers me.

Yes, the four gospel writers are inspired of God and provide different but not contradictory details of the life of Jesus. Inspiration does not mean they must have identical accounts. Inspiration means they have different but not contradictory accounts. When put together, they complement nicely and fill in details the others leave out. Let's consider the example of an accident. If one witness stands to the north side of the accident, he sees the accident from his vantage point. Now the other witness stands on the south side, the opposite side of the street, he sees different details because of his angle. Now would both men have identical accounts? Of course not, the one on the south side cannot see what happens on the north side of the accident nor can the man on the north side see what happens on the south side. However, when you put the two accounts together, you get a more complete picture of the accident. Both men include different details but they should not be contradictory.

That is what we have in the gospels. The writers include different, but not contradictory, details. Inspiration does not mean the four gospels must be identical in every way. That would be quite boring to read four accounts tht are exactly the same. Each writer includes details he feels are necessary for the audience he is addressing. Matthew, writing to the Jews, must include all the Old Testament prophecies, while Mark, writing to the Greeks, does not include many prophecies but writes on the action of Jesus' life. Is that a contradiction? No, it's just that each writer included details he felt were necessary and left out others he felt would not be necesary for his audience. Alleged contradictions are explained when one studies the accounts and puts each event of Christ in its chronological order.

Matthew records one angel, Luke and John record two. The answer is this. Where there are two there must be one. Get it? There were two angels at the tomb but Matthew only writes about one in his account. Is this a contradiction? No, because where there are two, there must be at least one. Luke includes two, but Matthew only includes the one that spoke with Mary. He keyed in on that one and left the other angel out. Luke and John include the other one. We do that in our reporting. If Clinton and Gore appear on the podium but only Clinton talks and Gore says nothing, some newspapers will say "Clinton appeared and said such and such" and not mention Gore. Other papers will say, "Clinton and Gore appeared and Clinton stated ...." Is there a contradiction? No, just some reporters mentioned one person while another chose not to.

Hope this helps. Keep studying the word!

Patrick Zukeran
Probe Ministries

This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2007 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.



http://www.probe.org/probe-answers-e-mail/bible/why-do-the-gospel-accounts-contradict-each-other.html

 

[IrishMist]

Question- referring to DK's post #316- Mary Magdelene seemed to be an intregal part of Jesus' life and resurrection. Why would her gospel not be included in the Bible?

 

[Dark Knight]

Question- referring to DK's post #316- Mary Magdelene seemed to be an intregal part of Jesus' life and resurrection. Why would her gospel not be included in the Bible?

At it's EARLIEST estimate, the Gnostic Gospel of Mary was written in the 3rd Century, 300 years afterwards. Some date it as late as the 4th or 5th century. Her ldevoation to Jesus was well covered in the original Gospels.

 

[Dark Knight]

I love this, SO true:

Now I want to show you these five things...five characteristics of willful unbelief. Number one, unbelief sets false standards. And these are universal, they operate today. Number two, unbelief always wants more evidence, but never gets enough. Number three, unbelief does biased research purely subjective. Number four, unbelief rejects the facts. And number five, unbelief is totally ego centric.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/GC1526.HTM

© 1997 Grace to You