Mrs. J. Christ

Reoil · 19-09-2012 03:24PM

4th Century?! You can't rely on something passed down by word of mouth for 400 years as fact!

Shenshen · 19-09-2012 03:26PM

Reoil wrote: »

4th Century?! You can't rely on something passed down by word of mouth for 400 years as fact!

300 years.
And most of the bible has been passed down by word of mouth by much, much longer than that.

El Weirdo · 19-09-2012 03:27PM

Reoil wrote: »

4th Century?! You can't rely on something passed down by word of mouth for 400 years as fact!

I'm not sure that anyone is.

Reoil · 19-09-2012 03:30PM

Shenshen wrote: »

300 years.
And most of the bible has been passed down by word of mouth by much, much longer than that.

Not the new Testament - it was written before the end of the first century by those who either knew him personally, or were under the influence of those who were disciples.

19-09-2012 03:30PM

Reoil wrote: »

4th Century?! You can't rely on something passed down by word of mouth for 400 years as fact!

Or recently for that matter.
If the tabloids had anything to do with it, it was all a sham. She marrys the son of god to help with her image of being a whore. And he gets seen walking out and about with a woman to combat the gay jibes from hanging around with 12 other men.

gobnaitolunacy · 19-09-2012 03:30PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRzway95yI

Reoil · 19-09-2012 03:31PM

(And yes - 300 years - but I knew that

)

Pompey Magnus · 19-09-2012 03:34PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Reoil wrote: »

4th Century?! You can't rely on something passed down by word of mouth for 400 years as fact!

300 years.
And most of the bible has been passed down by word of mouth by much, much longer than that.

In terms of the New Testament the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, by the time of the Gospel of John around 95AD the character of Jesus had already changed dramatically, any Gospel later than the Gospel of Thomas in the early 2nd Century can be more or less disregarded as historical sources.

Galwayguy35 · 19-09-2012 03:35PM

smash wrote: »

She was just his assistant. All magicians have assistants.

Like Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee.

Sin City · 19-09-2012 03:37PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Like Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee.

More like Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan

Making all our money dissapear

Biggins · 19-09-2012 03:47PM

Shenshen wrote: »

300 years.
And most of the bible has been passed down by word of mouth by much, much longer than that.

Add to that, there should be much more books in the bible but a good number of them were left out at the instance of Rome who with a Roman Emperor (who wished to unify his country), brought about the bible as we know it today, espousing what they thought was best for their agenda of the day, for their gain.

Left out, a sample:

The Life of Adam and Eve
The Book of Enoch
The Book of Jubilees
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Proto-Gospel of James
The Gnostic Scriptures of Nag Hammadi
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Apocalypse of Peter
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
The Testament of Solomon
The Zohar (The Book of Splendor)
The Alphabet of Ben-Sira
Joseph and Aseneth
The Septuagint
Bel and the Dragon
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
Mar Saba letter and The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Judas

Number of reasons why some was left out.
See: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside.stm

Under the title "Outrageous"

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas opens with a story about five-year-old Jesus making twelve sparrows out of mud. He claps his hands; they come to life and fly away. A nice story but in the next story, child Jesus curses a boy and makes him wither up. Later Jesus is angered when another child bumps into his shoulder and strikes him dead! This gospel, which may be as old as the second century, is a different book from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Sir Pompous Righteousness · 19-09-2012 03:47PM

Husband:

"Oh yes, Suzi! Oh yeah! Just like that Suzi! Yeah!"

Wife:

"... eh, honey, my name isn't Suzi."

Husband:

"Oops! Sorry about that baby. I just get carried away sometimes."

Wife:

"Who is this Suzi anyway? Is this Suzi the reason it takes you until 9pm to come home each night?"

*Wife gets up and sits at the side of the bed, anxious to hear a reply*

Wife:

"Well?"

Husband:

"C'mon baby, it was nearly 10 years ago. Remember I told you about her, I used to date that chick in high school."

Wife:

"Keep her the hell out of your mind! I'm getting sick of this honey. I'm started to think you care more about this Suzi than me."

Husband:

"Forget about it baby. Now please, c'mon back to bed."

Wife:

"Okay but if I hear more about this Suzi, you'll be sleeping on the sofa for the next week, you hear me?"

Husband:

"Okay, honey."

*Wife get back into bed and copulation continues*

Wife:

"Oh yeah! Oh yeah! I'm gonna cum! Oh yeah Jesus I'm gonna cum! I'm gonna ... JESUS CHRIST! OH YEAH!!"

Husband:

"Hold on a second! Who's this Jesus motherfucker?"

keane2097 · 19-09-2012 03:47PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

In terms of the New Testament the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, by the time of the Gospel of John around 95AD the character of Jesus had already changed dramatically, any Gospel later than the Gospel of Thomas in the early 2nd Century can be more or less disregarded as historical sources.

They can all pretty easily be dismissed as historical sources considering they are contradictory to one another in hundreds of ways.

The fact that to my knowledge the oldest existing manuscript from the gospels has been dated to over 100 years after Jesus' is purported to have died and is at best a copy of earlier documents seems to have been lost on people in this thread as well. And that's only fragments, the oldest full copy is from 300 years later and could easily be utterly different from the original.

The resurrection of Jesus doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere till several generations on either, which is interesting.

Pompey Magnus · 19-09-2012 04:01PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

In terms of the New Testament the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, by the time of the Gospel of John around 95AD the character of Jesus had already changed dramatically, any Gospel later than the Gospel of Thomas in the early 2nd Century can be more or less disregarded as historical sources.

They can all pretty easily be dismissed as historical sources considering they are contradictory to one another in hundreds of ways.

The fact that to my knowledge the oldest existing manuscript from the gospels has been dated to over 100 years after Jesus' is purported to have died and is at best a copy of earlier documents seems to have been lost on people in this thread as well. And that's only fragments, the oldest full copy is from 300 years later and could easily be utterly different from the original.

The resurrection of Jesus doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere till several generations on either, which is interesting.

Historians don't throw out sources just because another may contradict them, there is plenty of reliable historical information present in the New Testament that gives us a relatively good idea of who Jesus was.

The earliest Gospel fragment is a small piece of a page from the Gospel of John and has been dated to about 10 to 20 years after the Gospel was written and seems to agree with the Gospel we now have, while changes definitely were made to the Gospels what we have now are very close to the original documents.

Seaneh · 19-09-2012 04:06PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

IvySlayer wrote: »

Dan Brown didn't invent Mary Magdalene, she's mentioned in at least 4 different Gospels!

She was mentioned in them, but in all she is a very minor character prior to yhe resurrection story, she only gets one or two mentions before Jesus dies. I don't think it is credible that the earliest sources would all fail to mention that she was his wife.

It also was not unheard of for men at the time to be unmarried, St Paul is an example of this.

Saul was either divorved or a widower.

keane2097 · 19-09-2012 04:07PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Historians don't throw out sources just because another may contradict them, there is plenty of reliable historical information present in the New Testament that gives us a relatively good idea of who Jesus was.

They're self-contradictory (as well as contradicted by pretty much every other historical source).

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The earliest Gospel fragment is a small piece of a page from the Gospel of John and has been dated to about 10 to 20 years after the Gospel was written and seems to agree with the Gospel we now have, while changes definitely were made to the Gospels what we have now are very close to the original documents.

A small fragment of a single page of a single gospel dated to something like 60-80 years after the purported death is a fairly lolbad piece of evidence to postulate that the entire four books bear much or any resemblance to the original manuscripts. Even if they did, the fact that they are inaccurate and contradictory in their own terms fairly invalidates them as sources in any case.

Dyr · 19-09-2012 04:10PM

MistyCheese wrote: »

There were a fair few "Mary"s knocking around Israel 2,000 years ago according to the Bible.
Mary Christ, Jesus' ma.
Mary Magdalene, his mot.
Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.
"The other Mary", wife of Clopas and mother of James the Less and Joses.
Mary, the mother of John and Mark.

Must've been a pretty popular name back then.

Maybe they were irish?

gobnaitolunacy · 19-09-2012 04:13PM

Bambi wrote: »

Maybe they were irish?

Yes, Jesus was Irish

He had 12 drinking buddies.

Lived at home into his 30's

And his mammy thought he was God.

hatrickpatrick · 19-09-2012 04:16PM

To be honest it makes more sense. Whole idea was for Jesus to come to Earth, live as one of us, and experience the life that we live in full.
Would have been massively incomplete without a relationship or two.

What I don't get is why this should matter so much? It was the church after Jesus which assigned so much weirdness to sexuality from a religious point of view.
It raises an interesting question though. What if they had children? Would the children of God's child also be divine in some way?

hatrickpatrick · 19-09-2012 04:17PM

MistyCheese wrote: »

There were a fair few "Mary"s knocking around Israel 2,000 years ago according to the Bible.
Mary Christ, Jesus' ma.
Mary Magdalene, his mot.
Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.
"The other Mary", wife of Clopas and mother of James the Less and Joses.
Mary, the mother of John and Mark.

Must've been a pretty popular name back then.

Maybe they're all the same person and she was just very... Open minded?

Chuck Stone · 19-09-2012 04:46PM

davet82 wrote: »

So Christians beliefs have been insulted with these 'crazy' accusations about Jesus...

Can we expect wide scale rioting?

I doubt it

Christians prefer to internalise their rage and sleep safe in the knowledge that heretics spend an eternity being tortured in the after life while they are living in paradise.

It's the ultimate fantasy of vindictiveness.

Pompey Magnus · 19-09-2012 07:19PM

keane2097 wrote: »

They're self-contradictory (as well as contradicted by pretty much every other historical source).

They are only self contradictory in certain parts, mostly only important from a theological point of view and they certainly aren't contradicted by almost every other historical source, I don't know where you got that from considering the lack of historical sources that refer to early Christianity. The only really relevant source to compare them to is Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and what little he says about Jesus and the region at the time is pretty much in line with what is portrayed in the New Testament. He confirms the existence and execution of Jesus, the existence and execution of his brother James, the preaching of John the Baptist, the governership of Pontius Pilate, the revolt of Judas of Galilee are just a few examples of historical details that the New Testament mentions which stand up to non related accounts presented by a prominent non Christian historian of the time.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to disregard the New Testament as a historical source simply because it mentions miracles or has points of internal inconsistencies. I haven't come across any genuine historian who would do such a thing.

keane2097 · 19-09-2012 07:23PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

He confirms the existence and execution of Jesus, the existence and execution of his brother James

lol, no.

Biggins · 19-09-2012 07:26PM

Originally Posted by MistyCheese
There were a fair few "Mary"s knocking around Israel 2,000 years ago according to the Bible.
Mary Christ, Jesus' ma.
Mary Magdalene, his mot.
Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.
"The other Mary", wife of Clopas and mother of James the Less and Joses.
Mary, the mother of John and Mark.

Must've been a pretty popular name back then.

You forgot one!

Mary Christmas!

Pompey Magnus · 19-09-2012 07:53PM

keane2097 wrote: »

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

He confirms the existence and execution of Jesus, the existence and execution of his brother James

lol, no.

Insightful reply but would you like to clarify further why you believe the 2 references to Jesus in Antiquities by the best known Jewish historian of the era are not a valid pieces of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus?

Pompey Magnus · 19-09-2012 08:05PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

IvySlayer wrote: »

Dan Brown didn't invent Mary Magdalene, she's mentioned in at least 4 different Gospels!

She was mentioned in them, but in all she is a very minor character prior to yhe resurrection story, she only gets one or two mentions before Jesus dies. I don't think it is credible that the earliest sources would all fail to mention that she was his wife.

It also was not unheard of for men at the time to be unmarried, St Paul is an example of this.

Saul was either divorved or a widower.

He never claimed to have ever been married and neither does the book of Acts.

IvySlayer · 19-09-2012 08:26PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

He never claimed to have ever been married and neither does the book of Acts.

She's mentioned as the Companion of Jesus. Didn't companion literally mean spouse?

Biggins · 19-09-2012 08:29PM

IvySlayer wrote: »

She's mentioned as the Companion of Jesus. Didn't companion literally mean spouse?

According to some historic research, that indeed was the common vernacular for 'wife' at the time.

Pompey Magnus · 19-09-2012 08:36PM

Biggins wrote: »

IvySlayer wrote: »

She's mentioned as the Companion of Jesus. Didn't companion literally mean spouse?

According to some historic research, that indeed was the common vernacular for 'wife' at the time.

The word used does mean companion in Aramaic but the Gospel of Philip, where it is found, was a Coptic translation of Greek original and in Greek the word just means companion with no marital sense at all.

Biggins · 19-09-2012 08:41PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The word used does mean companion in Aramaic but the Gospel of Philip, where it is found, was a Coptic translation of Greek original and in Greek the word just means companion with no marital sense at all.

Possibly true but thats relying on a translation (much later), not the actual use of the word in the very day I'm assuming.
(Open to be wrong - and not biased either way)

Just for reference, this might be interesting to some: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/

Mrs. J. Christ

Comments