New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
It's my opinion when King James 'decided' (with a handful of butt kissers) what would and would not be 'included' in the Bible? He found great offense at anything that glorified the importance of woman - or - put them on the same level as men... Much less made Jesus a 'real' man - still without sin, as, anything He did under the mantle of a true marriage would (still) allow him to remain blameless/sinless.


Um...

There are Bibles out there that are dated prior to the King James version and can be compared to it. Guess what? They're pretty much the same thing. So, unless King James had a time machine and could go back to the texts which predated 1600AD and remove "anything that glorified the importance of woman", you had best rethink this theory.




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Haha...like the gospel of Jesus? The one that should be in the Bible, no matter what, turns out missing? The pivotal character in the Bible doesn't get his own voice? Everyone who WASN'T pure and divine gets to speak for him? Please.

All that need be said.

Egg-zactly.


Do I try to study the bible? Yep! The good parts like Proverbs and Psalms and some of the New Testament. It's incredible beautiful as text alone. Do I have faith there's a LOT MORE we should have at our disposal - and do not? You bet. And I bet a good hunka hunka that has to do with women and where, when and who 'The Man' was - for all those 'lost' (*cough choke*) years.

peace



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by randyvs
 

Just look at the pic. So pristine like it was done yesterday. Hey that just might be an indicator of doubt ? You people.

No, it means they did their job by cleaning it as best possible, as any archeologist would in order to leave no doubt when deciphering it.

I'd so love to say 'duh' but I wont.


peace


Well then allow me. Duh!



Seems like the keeper of the scrolls was a bit lazy.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Looks like there's a compromise between OCD and being able to retain the original work. There's a trade-off, you know. But that's beside the point.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Well I rather enjoy being a skeptic of " A religious artifact " for once.

I paraphrase.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen

Hi Adjensen--

Actually there are hints in certain passages embedded within some forms of the the NT canonical Greek gospel texts that ‘ho Iesous’ (i.e. Rabbi Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, Latin: Iesus) was married to Miryam haGedolah (‘Mary the Great’), a (possibly Daviddic) follower/disciple who is always mentioned first in the list of other Marys that surrounded ‘king’ Ieosus (the title ‘Miryam’ has ancient paleo-Egyptian roots – and means ‘princess of the Blood royal’)

See the 4th Canonical Gospel ‘according to John the Presbuteros’ ( or ‘Elder’, whoever he was) in chapter 20:13

καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῇ ἐκεῖνοι• γύναι, τί κλαίεις; λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἦραν τὸν κύριον μου, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.

And they say to her [Miryam haGedolah] Woman, why are you weeping? And she says to them, [I’m weeping] because they have removed [ the corpse of ] my husband and I do not know where they have laid it out ..”

In 1611 the text read in Middle English (no longer spoken to-day outside of Amish-lands) ‘my lord’, rather than ‘my husband’

“And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my lord and I know not where they have laid him”.


See a contemporary English text where Juliet refers to Romeo who has just married her secretly as ‘my lord’ :

JULIET

What Storm is this that blowes so contrarie?
Is Romeo slaughter'd and is Tybalt dead?
My dear-loved Cousine and my dearer Lord?
Then dreadfull Trumpette, sound ye general Doom!
For who is living if those two be gone?

Suddenly the bad Coptic translation out of an ancient Greek gospel (itself badly translated out of an Aramaic oral stream) mentioned on this Threadlet does not sound so out of place after all, does it?
edit on 21-9-2012 by Sigismundus because: stutteringgggg keyboardddddd




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Cameron did nothing but put up the money for it... I find the statistical analysis compelling, and I have no horse in this race, so please don't project your bias on me...



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sigismundus
καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῇ ἐκεῖνοι• γύναι, τί κλαίεις; λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἦραν τὸν κύριον μου, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.

And they say to her [Miryam haGedolah] Woman, why are you weeping? And she says to them, [I’m weeping] because they have removed [ the corpse of ] my husband and I do not know where they have laid it out ..”


Pasting that Greek text into both Google and Bing translators results in "the Lord", not "my husband". Husband, in Greek, is σύζυγό της and I don't see that appearing in that sentence, do you?

Here's the google translation: Translate



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen
 


Cameron did nothing but put up the money for it... I find the statistical analysis compelling, and I have no horse in this race, so please don't project your bias on me...


You have no "horse in the race", and yet you said this earlier:


I have no doubt whatsoever that the historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are VERY different.


Sounds like you have a preconceived notion (aka: bias) that resulted in you ignoring the archaeologist who says that the conclusions you're praising are invalid, and has the background required to make that sort of statement.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen

Hi Adjensen

You should know that in Koine Greek 2,000 years ago the term KURIOS MOU could mean either 'my lord' (as in 'my lord and master' ) or 'my husband' = it is the same with the twin-usage of lord/husband found in paleoHebrew (e.g. Ba'al li = 'my lord 'or 'my husband')

Ba'al = lord, husband (Ugaritic)
Kurios = lord, husband (Koine Greek)

The linked idea-terms had more of a sociological relation 2,000 years ago in the Levant when a married man was REALLY the 'lord and master' of the house - not like today, especially out here in the West.

Typically in ancient times when Kurios Mou was used to a male by another male, it generally referred to royalty as in 'my lord the king' - and we certainly see several examples of that in the mangled canonical hand copied Greek gospel texts when 'Kurie' is used in the vocative in places - often as a replacement for Aram. Rabbi ('my great one' i.e. the teacher) or 'ha Moreh' ('the Teacher') as we see in the Ass-Donkey Stealing Episode ('just tell them the Teacher has need of her...' whereas in other gospels it states 'tell them the lord has need of her..')

In the 4th canonical Greek gospel ('according to John the Elder' whoever he was), we read of Miryam ha Gedolah calling him 'Rabbouni' being transliterated into the text, which of course is an Aramaism meaning 'my OWN great one' which suggests possession or legal linkage by marriage or perhaps other ties of blood.

When reading the KJV (King James Version) English of c. 1611 we must always bear in mind that 'lord' and 'husband' were often interchangeable - and this usage has influenced the way that modern e.g. American 'Christians' (who by and large cannot speak, read or understand paleo Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek terms) use the term 'lord' in their churches - completely unaware that there is a layer of nuance buried underneat the Greek texts that they cannot (or are too lazy to learn to) read for themselves !



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


No, this is based on historical precedent. Since the four Gospels were written 30 to 70 years after his death, and thus were written by people who never actually met him, the accuracy of these 'biographies' is highly suspect. This is found in other accounts of religious 'founders' like the Buddha, Confucious, and Lao Tzu. Add to that the number of times these stories were translated from language to language, and it leaves a lot of room for historical inaccuracies. Also I read where you spoke about Jesus being a Rabbi. This is false. He was called Rabbi, which translates to Teacher. Jesus lived during the Second Temple Period, and died almost 40 years before the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, and the diaspora of the Jewish people which marked the beginning of Rabbinical Judaism.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


Okay, thanks for the further details. Still seems like a stretch, to me, though -- if a word can be either Lord or husband, and there's no other references to his being married, it seems like the reasonable answer would be that, in this passage, it means Lord, not husband.

Here are all the Biblical references to Mary: Bible Verses: Mary Magdalene in Scripture. I don't really see anything in there that makes her seem any more important than any of the other women who were followers.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen
 


No, this is based on historical precedent. Since the four Gospels were written 30 to 70 years after his death, and thus were written by people who never actually met him, the accuracy of these 'biographies' is highly suspect.


There is nothing in the fact that the Gospels were written after his death that says that they were written by people who never met him (apart from Luke, who says in the text that he did not.) Tradition has it that Matthew was the tax collector (most likely to be literate,) John testifies in the text that he was a witness, and Mark was the "secretary" of Peter (who was likely illiterate) and his Gospel are the stories Peter told.

That, at least is what those who were most connected to the Apostles in history, the early church fathers, believed.

I'm not a giant fan of videos, but this one is very good -- Dr. Peter Williams gives a fairly compelling statistical argument that the Gospels must have been written by eyewitnesses.




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Biblical scholars, who practice methodological agnosticism, would disagree. Academic Theologians seem to agree through analysis of the Gospels that Mark was written sometime between 65 and 70 CE, Matthew was written between 75 and 80 CE, Luke was written around 85 CE, and John was written between 90 and 100 CE. It wasn't until 312 CE that Christianity became an openly practiced religion, and the Bible in its current state wasn't put together until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. It is commonly thought among academic circles that the four Gospels that were chosen were done so because of the congruity of the four.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adjensen
 


Biblical scholars, who practice methodological agnosticism, would disagree. Academic Theologians seem to agree through analysis of the Gospels that Mark was written sometime between 65 and 70 CE, Matthew was written between 75 and 80 CE, Luke was written around 85 CE, and John was written between 90 and 100 CE.


There are differences of opinion, of course, but one clue that supports early dating is the way that Acts ends -- Paul is in prison and the Temple is still standing. As the destruction of the Temple meant the effective ending of the church in Jerusalem, and as Paul's martyrdom would be highly notable the ending of Acts without their inclusion would point to a date of writing in the mid 60s. Luke references his Gospel in the introduction to Acts, so that was written prior to Acts. And it is clear that Luke is using Matthew as one of his sources of research, so that puts Matthew prior to the mid-60s, as well.

In addition, the criteria for selection of canonical works was documented. To be considered for inclusion, a book had to:

1) Be in general circulation and generally accepted
2) Have an apostolic connection (written by an Apostle, or with an Apostle's assistance)
3) Be in harmony with other scripture

So, for the second generation church leaders, who were followers of the Apostles and would have been familiar with whether they had written these texts, the use of this criteria indicates that the texts were believed to have been written by the people whose names were on the texts.


It wasn't until 312 CE that Christianity became an openly practiced religion, and the Bible in its current state wasn't put together until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. It is commonly thought among academic circles that the four Gospels that were chosen were done so because of the congruity of the four.


The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the determination of New Testament canon. I wish I had a dollar for every person who thought that, I could retire on it, lol. There is historical proof that the four Gospels were declared canonical in the late Second Century, and as best as can be determined, they are the only four that are known to have met the above listed criteria.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Do you have sources for this? Apparently, Adjensen doesn't agree, and I want to see which version is correct.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the determination of New Testament canon. I wish I had a dollar for every person who thought that, I could retire on it, lol. There is historical proof that the four Gospels were declared canonical in the late Second Century, and as best as can be determined, they are the only four that are known to have met the above listed criteria.


My apologies, I was incorrect, but you were also:


By the turn of the 5th century, the Catholic Church in the west, under Pope Innocent I, recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had been previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419).[14] This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in the Vulgate, an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by Jerome[15] under the commission of Pope Damasus I in 382.
Source

The Council of Nicea was just too early. The primary purpose of the Council of Nicea was to decide upon whether or not Jesus was of Divine origin, and this is where the idea of the Trinity was originated.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Dating of the Gospels. My original post came from my lecture notes from my World Religions class (college level).



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by adjensen

The Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the determination of New Testament canon. I wish I had a dollar for every person who thought that, I could retire on it, lol. There is historical proof that the four Gospels were declared canonical in the late Second Century, and as best as can be determined, they are the only four that are known to have met the above listed criteria.


My apologies, I was incorrect, but you were also


No, what I said was "the four Gospels were declared canonical in the late Second Century", which is the case.


C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
(Source)


So around 200AD, the New Testament canon is lacking only five epistles and Revelation, and would later lose the Apocalypse of Peter. The 200AD date is a bit on the conservative side, as the Muratorian Fragment is generally dated to 170AD, exactly what I said.
edit on 22-9-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Dating of the Gospels. My original post came from my lecture notes from my World Religions class (college level).


Though I have no doubt that AfterInfinity will accept the late dating approach simply because it is contrarian to me, I have never seen sufficient evidence that supports that approach and refutes the logical determination that I presented earlier.

I suspect that the biggest rationale for the late dating stems from the Quest for the Historical Jesus crowd and Jesus Seminar sorts, who begin with the stated position that Jesus was not divine, so anything that he says regarding the destruction of the Temple in 70AD must have been written after that date.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in an eighth or 7th century codex that came from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains internal cues which suggest that it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century.
Source

Seems that is up to debate...





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join