JCC Jesus may have been married, according to new evidence

Discussion in 'Community' started by DantheJedi, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. NYCitygurl NSWFF Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2002
    star 9
  2. Obi-Ewan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2000
    star 4
    Ah so just like before Superman could fly? Just jump stupidly far?

    Or back when Joseph was his natural father, when he wasn't actually God's biological son but rather adopted as such at his Baptism? Back before he was the product of a "Virgin Birth?" And before his resurrection ended with him appointing men to lead his church?

    Seriously, the original Mark ends before anyone actually sees him resurrected, and the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. Hardly appropriate for a patriarchal church hierarchy to base its core belief around the word of two women.

    The Eastern Catholic Churches are still part of the Catholic Church and recognise the Pope as their head.

    I thought the Eastern Church was now Orthodox rather than Catholic?
  3. TOSCHESTATION Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2003
    star 4
    Just to jump in Obi-Ewan, but NO 'main-line'/non-heretical Christian church (Catholic, E. Orthodox, Protestant, etc) believes that Jesus was God's "BIOLOGICAL" son.....just to clear things up.
    Last edited by TOSCHESTATION, Sep 23, 2012
  4. Obi-Ewan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2000
    star 4
    Just to jump in Obi-Ewan, but NO 'main-line'/non-heretical Christian church (Catholic, E. Orthodox, Protestant, etc) believes that Jesus was God's "BIOLOGICAL" son.....just to clear things up.

    Current doctrine holds that Jesus was God's son planted in Mary's womb by the Holy Spirit. You can quibble of the semantics of the word "biological" all you want, but it comes down to this: does the church believe that Joseph was the biological father, or that God himself planted Jesus into her virginal body?

    Secondly, my other point was that this idea that he was born of a virgin, and was not Joseph's natural son (or the seed of any mortal man), was not part of church doctrine from its inception, but rather developed over time. (Note how the current Catholic Church teaches of the immaculate conception of Mary, as a prerequisite to bearing Jesus. One can easily imagine the same rationalization behind the virgin birth story.) Historians mostly agree that The Gospel According the Mark was the first one written, and the Virgin Birth is conspicuous by its absence. When Baptised by John, Jesus is told by God "You are my son." Later gospels have God speaking not to Jesus himself but to all the onlookers, telling thim Jesus is his son. "Son of God" was not taken literally by Jews at that point in history, Moses could be considered a Son of God as well for having done His work on Earth. And as Mark begins with the Baptism, that could easily be taken as the point in time when Jesus became annointed by God.

    If the Gospels (at least Matthew and Luke) are willing to take a natural conception, and the importance of women being the first witnesses of the resurrection, out of the picture, who's to say they wouldn't do the same for a wife?
  5. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    Yeah... because those childrean were molested in the name of god... or something. Those rapes were done out of love and compassion... no harm was intended.

    70s and 80s... that would be two decades.

    Yeah... because nothing heals trauma from sexual assault like money... or something.

    ....

    wtf?
  6. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Your timing is off, Obi-Ewan. While Mark was the first gospel written, all of the gospels were written after the earliest epistolary works included in the New Testament were already written and in wide circulation. These aforementioned works explicitly called Jesus a divinity and discussed his divine origins. In fact, they are more emphatic about the issue than anyone save John, and only then they draw to a tie because you can't be anymore forceful about the point than either is. Your theory that the absence of the virgin birth in Mark somehow represents an evolution in theology is weak in light of this.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Sep 23, 2012
    yankee8255 and TOSCHESTATION like this.
  7. TOSCHESTATION Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2003
    star 4
    ^^^^This.


    No...the Church believes that God's spirit (or, the Holy Spirit) caused Mary to conceive. This is not God 'planting' a preexistent 'Jesus' into Mary's womb. More on the preexistence of Jesus to follow in a bit.



    Not really, since there's little evidence that Mary was venerated to such an extant that such a 'rationalization' was called for.


    But it's ALSO absent in the Gospel of John, which 'most historians agree' was the last of the four gospels to be written, so I'm afraid that the absence of the concept of Jesus not having a human father necessarily points to it not being an early belief about Jesus.


    A couple of things:

    "Son of God" is also NOT taken "literally" by mainline Christianity, either. Notice that in Christian works, whether the canonical NT or the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Jesus is never called GOD'S "child", but only "Mary's" child. The word "Son" in Koine Greek and in Hebrew/Aramaic (but especially in Semitic languages) carries so much more nuance of meaning than just the literal definition of biological male offspring .

    Second, yes it's true that figures such as Moses (or David) could be considered a "Son of God" without implying a literal biological meaning, or that the person 'preexisted' in Heaven before their birth. BUT, the Christian belief (mainline anyhow), is that Jesus is the 'Word of God' incarnate, and that the 'Word of God' - 'Logos' in Greek or 'Memra' in Aramaic) is the pre-existent Christ/Messiah/Jesus.

    Third, the 'Word of God' was a concept in Second Temple Judaism* already before Jesus. Contrary to popular belief - whether Jewish or otherwise - Judaism at one time, until the Rabbinical movement became 'normative' Judaism, allowed for 'multiplicity' within the God-head. God's 'Wisdom' ('Hokhma' in Heb.) , in the writings of this period - sometimes called the 'Inter-Testament period' - had it's own 'persona' or 'voice' if you will. Then, there was also God's 'presence' or 'Shekhina' (Hebrew), which the 'Holy Spirit' is based off of. The early Christians, being steeped in the background of Second Temple Judaism, simply applied this category - God's "Wisdom/Word/Logos/Memra" to Jesus. It was not a borrowing from 'pagan' mythology (Greek or otherwise), or something that Emperor Constantine arbitrarily 'imposed' onto the Church :rolleyes:.


    What would the motivation be for it? It's just like the part with Jesus naming his disciples as leaders in the Church - what motivation did the writer of Matthew have for doing this? The 'classical' episcopal paradigm of the Church - where the bishops were the leaders of the individual city/metropolitan churches, is thought to not have existed fully until the Second century. Even if Matthew was written or 'published' as late as 80 A.D., the office of bishop supposedly still wasn't 'normative' within the early church.
    Last edited by TOSCHESTATION, Sep 23, 2012
  8. Obi-Ewan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2000
    star 4
    Where is there an epistolary reference to Jesus being born of a virgin? Not just a woman, a virgin. Especially in Paul, as his epistles make up so much of the NT.

    "Son of God" is also NOT taken "literally" by mainline Christianity, either. Notice that in Christian works, whether the canonical NT or the writings of the Early Church Fathers, Jesus is never called GOD'S "child", but only "Mary's" child. The word "Son" in Koine Greek and in Hebrew/Aramaic (but especially in Semitic languages) carries so much more nuance of meaning than just the literal definition of biological male offspring.

    And yet the idea of a Virgin Birth clearly means he had no natural father on Earth, which goes a step farther than the understood meaning of Son of God.

    No...the Church believes that God's spirit (or, the Holy Spirit) caused Mary to conceive. This is not God 'planting' a preexistent 'Jesus' into Mary's womb. More on the preexistence of Jesus to follow in a bit.

    Which leaves us with two options: 1. Mary conceived via the Holy Spirit. 2. Mary conceived the natural way, presumably with Joseph. You keep getting hung up on the use of the word "biological," when the real issue is the choice between the two above options. The first Gospel makes no mention of his manner of conception, and the two that do tell mutually exclusive, and historically irreconcilable, stories about it. (Please do your homework on Vardaman before bringing him up.)

    Second, yes it's true that figures such as Moses (or David) could be considered a "Son of God" without implying a literal biological meaning, or that the person 'preexisted' in Heaven before their birth. BUT, the Christian belief (mainline anyhow), is that Jesus is the 'Word of God' incarnate, and that the 'Word of God' - 'Logos' in Greek or 'Memra' in Aramaic) is the pre-existent Christ/Messiah/Jesus.

    Yes, it is the current belief, courtesy of John, whom you so helpfully point out was the last Gospel written. That one is, after all, the Gospel with the "word made flesh" reference and all the "I am" quotes, the only ones in which Jesus himself makes claims about his own divinity.

    What would the motivation be for it? It's just like the part with Jesus naming his disciples as leaders in the Church - what motivation did the writer of Matthew have for doing this? The 'classical' episcopal paradigm of the Church - where the bishops were the leaders of the individual city/metropolitan churches, is thought to not have existed fully until the Second century. Even if Matthew was written or 'published' as late as 80 A.D., the office of bishop supposedly still wasn't 'normative' within the early church.

    To assert male authority within the church. Mark gives us to women who witness the resurrection, and who are not believed at first when they tell others about it. These two women were clearly more loyal than the rest of the disciples, as they were the first to arrive at his tomb, and unlike Peter, had never renounced him. If they are going to build up a male-centered hierarchy of the church they are building around this character, they need a claim on their positions therein--and therefore the Gospels had to be made to reflect this. Look at Paul's strong views on having a woman in a position of authority within the church--it couldn't be allowed because man's fall from grace was all Eve's fault. Imagine what claim a wife (and child, if he had one) could have on this church.
  9. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    That's not what was said. You postulated that the absence of Mark mentioning a virgin birth was evidence that, at some point, Jesus had been considered a normal human who only received the title "Son of God" in teh same sort of spirit of honorific that Abraham was once called "Friend of God." I noted that the epistles already called Jesus explicitly divine, so whatever else was behind the absence of the virgin birth in Mark, it almost certainly wasn't what you were trying to claim.

    Why, exactly? You are speaking about a being who, in the understanding of the time, created entire species out of nothing at all, and humanity out of clay. Yet, somehow, he is obliged to involve actual sperm to create a child. Cells couldn't merely start dividing with Mary at the behest of God? An omnipotent being lacks the power to make a zygote that isn't even related to her appear within her reproductive tract? Really? Where are these bizarre limitations coming from, such that you can only think of the two options you did above?

    Your reading, and thus your understanding, is incomplete. Perhaps you missed in Hebrews, where Jesus was called "the express image of [God]'s person." Or how Paul described that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily?" Or could you perhaps explain how, in Colossians, this supposed non-deity was supposed to have been "before all things" and how, also "by him all things consist." Why Jude hailed him as "the only wise God, Our Savior" or why David is described as flatly calling him "God?"


    So to be clear. It is your theory that the early church was so committed to preventing female authority that they obliterated all traces of major historical figures from the records, and did so with such thoroughness that all we have is potentially one reference on one fragment of papyrus after a full two millennium. Yet, they somehow forget to remove the part where women witness Jesus's resurrection first and are the ones that don't betray him? Alright.
    Further, what exactly are you trying to imply by all this? They didn't hold modern, American views about relationship. Marriage wasn't a partnership between two equally valuable, capable, and functional people making a life together. Women were considered inferior and didn't have much public role at all. A hypothetical wife of Jesus probably wouldn't have been considered any sort of co-messiah.
  10. Mar17swgirl Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 26, 2000
    star 7
    But isn't this pretty much what "conceived via Holy Spirit" means, biologically? (Well, more or less, as far as we can tell...)
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  11. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    It's honestly not clear what he means to imply. To me, though, it would suggest that there is an actual fertilization event where a second set of genetic material must fuse with the ovum. Absent any conception event, I don't see how you can talk about either A)being conceived or B)having paternity.
  12. Darth_Invidious Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 21, 1999
    star 5
    Oh for frak's sake, the fairytale just implies that God just popped itself into Mary (cos that's how gods roll and they can simply magic stuff like themselves out of nothing), while poor Joe was the helpless cuckold.
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    So now we're suggesting that Jesus was, in fact, a woman? Interesting proposal there.
    Darth_Invidious likes this.
  14. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I'm pretty sure God turned into a bull and had sex with-- wait, no, that's the other guy.
    Darth_Invidious likes this.
  15. Darth_Invidious Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 21, 1999
    star 5
    I guess Christians can take heart to the fact that their god didn't have to do things the old fashioned way (i.e., reproduce by icky-messy "sinful" sex), whereas the guys of those other pantheons relished in it.
  16. Ulicus Lit'ari

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2005
    star 6
    Hey, now, sex isn't supposed to be considered either sinful or icky by Christians.
    Last edited by Ulicus, Sep 24, 2012
  17. Darth_Invidious Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 21, 1999
    star 5
    Depends on the Christian sect. Or just how prudeful the particular or individual repressed zealot may be. :p
  18. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 7
    When people that are known abusers are moved to new parishes with no protections in place to prevent them from abusing again that is either knowingly inflicting harm or being too stupid to live. No one can be that stupid. They knew that those priests would abuse again and they just let it happen. And this was, in fact, done "systematically."

    I'm also well aware that the church has done some things toward rectifying the massively horrifying situation they created. The fact that it took them decades (there's that word again!) to figure out what the right thing to do was when minors were being raped has essentially crippled their moral authority forever. If I can't trust them to just know intuitively that priests raping kids is wrong, what on earth can I trust them for?
    Frank T. likes this.
  19. EHT Manager: New Films

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Jesus was conceived by the midichlorians.
  20. Darth_Invidious Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 21, 1999
    star 5
    You can definitely trust on them to recite trite, snooze-inducing homilies and ask - CONSTANTLY - for donations for thischarity, a new temple roof, that other charity, to fix the temple's A/C, etc.

    That the abuse went on for decades is undeniable. That it may have gone on longer than that -- and in many corners of the world -- I'd say more than likely. It can be argued that it's a sign of the times and the waning power of (and respect to) the Church that many abused parties have stepped forward. But you could definitely say that it was "systematic" for one very single reason: priesthood isn't like the army, or a police force. There has never been an endless number of men (or women) lining up to serve the Church. Therefore, any diocese couldn't easily afford to replace any priest accused or suspected of wrong doing. So facing the choice of doing the right thing (i.e. by either suspending any accused or suspected clergy member pending a formal investigation that includes civilian authorities), or deal with the problem of one parish suddenly being left without a priest, they'd prefer to shuffle priests around parishes or dioceses and wait for things to die down. After all, 20, 30 or even 50 years ago they could've gotten away with...persuading...the affected family to spare themselves and the Church the embarrasment by not going to the authorities. But nowadays, you can barely keep secrets anymore. And the Church can no longer rely on the sort of secrecy they could always depend on to deal with such situations. And the manner in which they dealt (and still deal) with that scandal is simply embarrasing and offensive.

    Now the Catholic apologists here may say I'm exaggerating or blowing things out of proportion, but just like we can't say with certainty that a 1st century Israelite rabbi was married or not, we don't know with certainty the number and manner of horrors members of the Church founded by the followers of said rabbi have commited against their flock and that they've covered up across two millenia.
    Last edited by Darth_Invidious, Sep 24, 2012
    Frank T. and eht13 like this.
  21. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    It really shouldn't be by anybody, people should be free to do it whenever they want to. Seems to me this issue of sex being something bad that is pushed by the right (and the church itself) in the US is just a way to try and control people's lives.

    If people choose to abstain that is fine, but spending lots of effort and money promoting it as a general mentality for young people is silly and outdated.
  22. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    Depends on what kind of sex.
  23. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Since I already have a reputation for being a stick in the mud, I'll go ahead and just respond literally to a joke post. My general point was that there is no reason any normal biological processes had to be adhered to in this process. Besides the absence of any actual fertilization event, there could also have been no meitotic events or even mitosis early on. To try and speak of "parternity" here doesn't really make sense. The body was a human body, not otherwise specified. The mind/soul inhabiting said body was God. Nothing else is revealed by Biblical texts, nor would anything else necessarily be coherent.
  24. mrsvos Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2005
    star 5
    There's a reason some folks desperately hid their books in jars in caves. It threatened 'The Man'.
    The Nag Hammadi texts are amazing.
  25. DarthIntegral Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2005
    star 7
    This thread is simultaneously all that is right and all that is wrong with the JC.

    Keep up the good work!