Discussion in 'Community' started by DantheJedi, Sep 18, 2012.
At the end of days, he'll come down from heaven and tell us for sure.
*sits and waits*
OP will surely deliver.
If Jesus did exist, he was the head of a cult, so I wouldn't be surprised if he had more than one wife.
Sam Kinison said there was no way Jesus had a wife.
I didn't say that I believe it is entirely fiction. I believe that the story of Christ as written in the Gospels is, as I think I did say, more or less historically true. I can't come up with a good reason they wouldn't be, so I accept them as I accept all early history, as probably being at least fairly close to accurate. I, for the record, believe there is a historic Jesus. But when I read the account of the "historic Jesus" in Luke, I feel a great deal of transcendent and transportive emotion. It is emotionally and philosophically and morally the greatest achievement of humanity, some of the things the "historic Jesus" said in Luke. I feel God when I read those words. I have no doubt that God expressed real capital-T Truth through Jesus, as he is written down in the Gospels. No one has ever asked us to be better. No one. Not just asked; expected it. Expected us to truly be all that we were made to be. That is of tremendous power to me. I'm sorry you don't think I can get a moral code from art. I think I can. Does the admonition to turn the other cheek really lose all its power and beauty if it was spoken by a fictional character and not a living person? That seems idiotic to me, or at least very narrow minded. It's still a powerful, transcendent philosophy.
When I read a business card size fragment of papyrus that says Jesus once said the words, "my wife," I do not feel transcendence. It is of some interest to me, since I do believe in a historical Jesus. But my faith is not based on what you find out about the historical Jesus. My faith is based on the fact that I found God in reading the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.
I find the argument that many of these other gospels were suppressed because they had things in them like Jesus being married silly. Probably the people that set the canon all those centuries ago were using the same frame of reference I was. In some of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), you can feel a tremendous moral and spiritual power. In others (Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene; and, yes, I've read all of those), you don't. I mean, guys, the Gospel of Thomas was stupid. Anybody here actually read it besides me? But it was suppressed on heretical grounds? More likely, it was just left off the "essential reading" list, since, you know, it isn't very good. The day someone uncovers a heretical gospel that's even one quarter as powerful as the gospels contained in the Bible, then we can talk. Until then, you haven't touched my faith. That's what I was trying to say.
Well, as my old Jewish landlady used to say, "Oh please. Jesus was a young Jewish man with a Jewish mother; as long as his mother was alive, it's hard to believe that he wouldn't have been married or at least nagged to death about it."
Maybe that's why he got himself nailed to that cross? Though there are less painful ways to commit suicide.
Yes, I know what you're all saying: I'm going straight to hell. I might be worried, if i believed such a place existed that is.
I don't think it really makes any difference if he was married or not.
However I have several reasons I don't think he was:
- Darth Maestro mentioning earlier about how the early church would have probably made his wife a saint.
- If biblical texts are accurate, this guy walked from place to place preaching to people, without a penny to his name. If he had a wife and family, there's no way he would have been able to do that.
- Jesus mentions in the gospels that he's going to be killed before it happens, so he clearly knew that he was going to die in a very unpleasant way. If the gospels are true in the way they talked about him, we can say he was a nice guy to be around and considerate. I hardly think he'd marry, knowing that he was gonna die and leave a wife and family minus a husband and father.
- The gospels (which have the earliest and the texts that are generally considered most accurate) don't mention one. But from their track record (and the bible's overall), they do mention the wives of other people who appear. I find it unlikely that any wife that Jesus had would be skipped over.
i'm just waiting for the gospel to come out that claims jesus and judas were partners and they knew each other in the biblical sense.
Gives a whole new meaning to the Judas kiss.
I hope it turns out to be true that Jesus was married, I don't see why he shouldn't be.
Plus it might make many members of the Catholic Church a lot less frigid.
No papyrus codex snippet is going to alter the course of any world religions. If you really want to screw with Christianity, or Islam for that matter, you're going to need better education and higher literacy rates and a higher standard of living for the world's poor. The Christianity project is mostly over in western Europe. Hopefully, that trend will take root elsewhere.
The one that would conceivably go along with "making up a Messianic figure out of whole cloth"?
I am going to be really pissed if this chick proves this is correct and I got excommunicated from the RCC for saying the SAME DAMN THING 10 YEARS AGO.
They were not written by eyewitnesses. None of them. Even though they're older than the apocryphal gospels, they're still not old enough and their authorship is unknown. Matthew and Luke take a lot from Mark (without proper citations!!) and probably a "lost" gospel, so even if Mark were written by an eyewitness, the other two certainly were not.
Also, because it suited agendas that followed to have them say things a certain way? You know... power? Control?
I just went with the most irrefutable reason. I'm not sure the Gospels were the most relied upon parts of the Bible by those who wanted "power" and "control" using the text, at least not directly. Eh.
I think most of it is historically true, aside from the bits about God and having powers and whatnot.
What power would you accrue from the Gospel of Mark, which simply tells the story of a charismatic rabbi who was executed for sedition? I would agree if the earliest Gospels about Jesus were extremely didactic ("Jesus was God incarnate. He lived a sinless life so that he could offer himself as a sacrifice for the human race so that they might no longer be burdened with the Fall of Adam, etc. etc.") then that would indicate fabrication, but there's nothing of the sort in there. Even in the latter two Synoptics, which contain resurrection scenes and more miracles, don't contain such material, and Jesus remains evasive and oracular regarding his identity and mission. Furthermore, the Jews were expecting the Messiah to be a conquerer figure a la David who restored the Kingdom of Israel's power and autonomy.
The Gnostic Gospels have been authenticated. There are several verses that refer to the male disciples being upset with Jesus because he often kissed his companion on the mouth and ignored the other disciples when it came to dinner conversations.
I think the knowledge that Jesus had a wife was suppressed by the Apostle Paul, who was opposed to marriage in the first place and in the second place, knew that if followers of Christ had families, they were distracted from the cause of spreading the Gospel.
You also have to remember that early Christianity was viewed thru the lenses of several pagan religions, the Cult of Isis, the Cult of Mithras and the Greek and Roman religions, to name a few, so aspects of those religions became incorporated into Christianity.
Which similar figures, exactly? You are saying there are lots of Jewish figures that this parallels? Because, certainly, you wouldn't be trying to cite some culture that a Jewish audience would never even find palatable, would you? So what were you thinking of?
Yeah, I wonder what it would be like if the Christian myth found an audience?
I guess we'll never know.
You made an argument about how the earliest gospels were composed, and said they were built off the mold of several "similar figures." It's a Jewish offshoot religion. Which important Jewish figures were you thinking of?
Meh, so are a lot of ancient histories that are still accepted as more or less true since they're sole source or nearly so. Just like Matthew and Luke, a lot of old histories take their info from histories that are now lost. With ancient texts, you have to assume a level of accuracy, within bounds of reason, or you just end up throwing nearly everything out.