10fttall Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Does it change anything in terms of Christian faith is Jesus was found to have married? It's complicated, but there are a couple things, like ASF mentioned. On a more big-picture level, If you take belief and faith from an Evangelical POV, the accepted Scriptures represent God's word to us. Most believe that the writings we have in the Bible, are what we were meant to have. On the other hand, if you think of Christianity as a quaint old belief and the Bible as a partial record, then I guess it wouldn't change too much about Christianity as viewed from the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Growing up, he always looked like a white 17 year old kid with a strangely overgrown, but well kept beard. Turns out he was an old black married guy with a slew of kids. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 ASF, I was being a little silly, but the point is still valid. It was deemed a sin by a book not written by him. By that we can assume he didn't really walk on water too right ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I was wondering if this story was going to make it here. It's not as sensational as most, so I thought perhaps people might let it slip. Here are some key points. 1. This document, if legitimate (and it looks like it might be), is kind of important in one sense. Until now, there have been precisely zero writings from the first several centuries that explicitly stated that Jesus was married. Not one. The texts people like Dan Brown generally point to don't actually explicitly say he was married. One has to make huge leaps of "reasoning" (and fill in blanks in the text, literally in one case) to reach that conclusion. So it's interesting from that perspective. 2. Is this useful to talk about the historical Jesus? Absolutely not. It is, however, very useful in examining the way certain groups thought about Jesus in that time, a few centuries later. *EDITED*- I was getting crossed up about the dating. There's no evidence it dates back to the second century, even. If you read the article, for instance, the scholar behind this is very careful to note that this doesn't "prove" that Jesus was married, just that someone at some point hundreds of years later might have thought so (perhaps for theological reasons). 3. Major Kudos to Dr. King, by the way, for doing this the right way. Instead of splashing this to the media first, and surfing on the hype as we see in so many of these types of stories, she presented her findings to an academic conference and is calling for peer review, while cautioning the media not to go crazy (good luck ). Refreshing, to say the least. 4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was not married, because if he was, the other texts would say so. There is no theological reason Jesus could not have been married, and marriage was so important in those times that it would certainly have been mentioned. Peter's is, for instance. Some might argue that the authors of the New Testament might have left it out to downplay Jesus' humanity, but this argument doesn't hold water, because they left in many anecdotes showing Jesus' humanity (growing in knowledge, getting angry, not knowing parts of the future, asking to have the cup of suffering taken from him, etc.), even when they were potentially embarrassing to their other teachings, so there's no reason to think they'd leave this out, especially since Christian doctrine emphasizes Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity. 5. In that sense, it wouldn't really be an issue if Jesus had been married. It would just be one more sign that he was human as well as divine. One of my go tos for issues like this is Dr. Michael Heiser's blog, Paleobabble, and he has an article about it, Ancient Coptic Fragment Has Jesus Alluding to His Wife, so those that are interested in the opinion of a qualified scholar can go there for more. I do want to quote this part to avoid confusion, though: Now, to be clear, this discovery isn’t PaleoBabble — at least not yet. Karen King is a good scholar. She teaches on the history of early Christianity (which would include Gnostic sects) at Harvard. I don’t believe for a minute she’s faking anything. However, the text is unprovenanced, which is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wantarace17 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Where is Dan Brown when you need him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 ASF, I was being a little silly, but the point is still valid. It was deemed a sin by a book not written by him. Fine, I just don't take things like that for granted as others have seriously tried to make that case before...:doh: :peace1: By that we can assume he didn't really walk on water too right ? Dunno, why you'd automatically assume that? :whoknows: ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:10 AM ---------- BTW, what happened to the thread title? *edit...ahh it's back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Dunno, why you'd automatically assume that? I wonder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I wonder I can see why some would automatically dismiss miracles, but I don't see that the fact that his story was written by others is proof that the miracles didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Interesting article on the subject http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/the-bible-refers-to-jesus-wife-too/262545/ The Bible Refers to Jesus' Wife, Too The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church. Christ calls himself a bridegroom throughout the New Testament. When the finger-wagging Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples don't fast, he answers: How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. In other words, Christ is the groom and his disciples are his friends—and it would be rude of them to abstain from eating while they're in the presence of the groom. Later, as Jesus foretells the coming of God's kingdom, he also refers to himself as a groom: "The kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Again, Christ is the groom and his followers are the groom's friends—there to celebrate the wedding with him. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I can see why some would automatically dismiss miracles, but I don't see that the fact that his story was written by others is proof that the miracles didn't happen. It is impossible to prove anything about miracles. We have to judge between two possibilities: 1) 2000 years ago Illiterate people in rural iron age location witnessed suspension of natural laws. 2) 2000 years ago people were telling each other stories of miracles in order to try and convert each other. We know for a fact that 2) was as common as dirt (and still is, in many places), and we do not have a single documented case of natural laws being suspended. So this is not a matter automatically dismissing miracles but a matter of not having good evidence for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Interesting article on the subjecthttp://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/the-bible-refers-to-jesus-wife-too/262545/ The Bible Refers to Jesus' Wife, Too The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church. Christ calls himself a bridegroom throughout the New Testament. When the finger-wagging Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples don't fast, he answers: How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. In other words, Christ is the groom and his disciples are his friends—and it would be rude of them to abstain from eating while they're in the presence of the groom. Later, as Jesus foretells the coming of God's kingdom, he also refers to himself as a groom: "The kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Again, Christ is the groom and his followers are the groom's friends—there to celebrate the wedding with him. more at link Yeah. but that's metaphorical....'cause I ain't wearin' no dress!!!! ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:33 AM ---------- It is impossible to prove anything about miracles.We have to judge between two possibilities: 1) 2000 years ago Illiterate people in rural iron age location witnessed suspension of natural laws. 2) 2000 years ago people were telling each other stories of miracles in order to try and convert each other. We know for a fact that 2) was as common as dirt (and still is, in many places), and we do not have a single documented case of natural laws being suspended. So this is not a matter automatically dismissing miracles but a matter of not having good evidence for them. #1 You make the invalid assumption that the people 2k years ago were all illiterate or even the authors of the NT who were learned, and that they couldn't tell when something was out of the norm of natural occurence...i.e. resurrection, they knew that people didn't come back to life after they died. #2 You forgot to add that you do not have a "single documented case of natural laws being suspended that would satisfy an Enlightenment minded observer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 #1 You make the invalid assumption that the people 2k years ago were all illiterate or even the authors of the NT who were learned, and that they couldn't tell when something was out of the norm of natural occurence...i.e. resurrection, they knew that people didn't come back to life after they died. #2 You forgot to add that you do not have a "single documented case of natural laws being suspended that would satisfy an Enlightenment minded observer." #1 Miracles were very common back then. People were way too good at telling when something was out of the norm. #2 I built that into the "documented case" language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 #1 Miracles were very common back then. People were way too good at telling when something was out of the norm.#2 I built that into the "documented case" language What would you consider a "documented case" of natural laws being "suspended"? If not telling other people, how does one go about documenting such things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It is impossible to prove anything about miracles. Maybe you should listen to yourself when trying to "DISprove" them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 #1 You make the invalid assumption that the people 2k years ago were all illiterate or even the authors of the NT who were learned, and that they couldn't tell when something was out of the norm of natural occurence...i.e. resurrection, they knew that people didn't come back to life after they died. It's impossible to know the exact literacy rates of the time, but the generally accepted number is that 90+ % of the population was illiterate and could not read or write. So his assumption that the vast majority that the people witnessing 'miracles' were illiterate is a very valid one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 What would you consider a "documented case" of natural laws being "suspended?If not telling other people, how does one go about documenting such things? See, as one who wishes to employ the Enlightenment standard the most you can say is, "we have no way to verify these professed miracles to satisfy our non-universal standard of proof." ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:48 AM ---------- It's impossible to know the exact literacy rates of the time, but the generally accepted number is that 90+ % of the population was illiterate and could not read or write. So his assumption that the vast majority that the people witnessing 'miracles' were illiterate is a very valid one. Yet, the books of the Bible were not written by the 90%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 See, as one who wishes to employ the Enlightenment standard the most you can say is, "we have no way to verify these professed miracles to satisfy our non-universal standard of proof."---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:48 AM ---------- Yet, the books of the Bible were not written by the 90%. They also weren't all written by people who witnessed these things themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 What would you consider a "documented case" of natural laws being "suspended"?If not telling other people, how does one go about documenting such things? Things not always falling down when dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 BTW, if the scrap in the article is to be considered authoritative then so must this recent discovery. Amazing Discovery that Reveals George Washington to be in Homosexual Union with John Knox 213 years after his death a recent discovery reveals that George Washington may have actually been a homosexual. When asked, the person who discovered the document fragment said, "It is genuinely a remarkable find which may well lend credibility to the lifestyles of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, certainly it is not definitive, but it should add nicely to the debate." Somehow I doubt that this document fragment will be taken seriously by the historical experts, even while it dates to a time much closer to its subject in comparison than does the fragment in the original article. BTW, I have this parchment in my possession if any wish to test its authenticity and accuracy of its dating. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Things not always falling down when dropped. How about things producing heat when they aren't suppossed too? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289080009U How does one document a suspension of natural laws? I "dropped" my book off my desk. It didn't fall, but instead rose and settled on shelves above my desk. How do I document that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 They also weren't all written by people who witnessed these things themselves. Most of history isn't....what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Maybe you should listen to yourself when trying to "DISprove" them then? Default state is not to believe things until there is good evidence for them. I do not need to disprove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Default state is not to believe things until there is good evidence for them. I do not need to disprove anything. That's your default state...and yet the vast majority of human beings do not live by that standard, it is far from being universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Default state is not to believe things until there is good evidence for them. I do not need to disprove anything. I see, so you really didnt mean it when you said "It is impossible to prove anything about miracles.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 That's your default state...and yet the vast majority of human beings do not live by that standard, it is far from being universal. I actually don't think that's an unreasonable position. The issue becomes what constitues evidence. What evidence do I (or any of us) have that our physical world is real? Is that evidence "good"? How do we decide? What happens if some set of people decide that it isn't "good" evidence and therefore don't "believe" it is real? And therefore things like morality and good and evil have no purpose or meaning? Initially he used the word documentation. What is documentation? What is good? Is the information in this link, not docuementation? Why or why not? Is it "good" evidence? Of what? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289080009U **EDIT** Note, there are several pretty recent threads where this would be more on topic. Including, the last thread I started. Generally, IMO, it would be better if this thread were left to the historical importance of this document and its potential religious implications. Can I politely suggest that this conversation thread be taken to one of those threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.