Karl`s PC Help Forums

Jesus
the bear - 11-11-2014 at 02:56

Mr and Mrs Christ ? Did Jesus marry Mary Magdalene? ;)



Regards the Bear waveysmiley


marymary100 - 11-11-2014 at 07:07

Many think so. Some think he never existed at all. The majority believe the official biblical version and Musilms believe the official bibiical version apart from the whole "Son of God" thing. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice...


Nimuae - 11-11-2014 at 08:02

He certainly held her in high regard - so it is possible - especially given the culture into which he was born. No-one can say definitely one way or the other as no contemporary records exist and the little we do know about him was written years after the event by those who had their own agenda.


waffler - 11-11-2014 at 12:15

Quote:
Originally posted by the bear
Mr and Mrs Christ ? Did Jesus marry Mary Magdalene? ;)



Regards the Bear waveysmiley


Jesus & Mary


LSemmens - 11-11-2014 at 23:16

Good link, waffler. I would have thought that, had Jesus been married to anyone, there would have been some reference to the fact, given that just about everything else is reported.


marymary100 - 11-11-2014 at 23:31

He couldn't claim infallibility with a wife - we all know how much they like to point out their husband's failings...


John Barnes - 11-11-2014 at 23:35

None of the authors of the four gospels ever knew Jesus personally they only wrote on hearsay from the people who did and this would not be admissible in a modern court as evidence jmb


LSemmens - 12-11-2014 at 11:08

The authors did claim first hand knowledge. What we have, though, are copies of the original documents. A copy, or a copy of a copy, and so on, in times when there were no photocopiers, however, may not be exactly as originally written.


Katzy - 12-11-2014 at 13:15

Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
None of the authors of the four gospels ever knew Jesus personally


John is supposed to have been one of "The twelve". His gospel makes WAY more sense than the others, to me, too.

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmensI would have thought that, had Jesus been married to anyone, there would have been some reference to the fact, given that just about everything else is reported.


At the time, women didn't exist, except as chattels. If he was married, they're likely to have played it down, to enhance their own standing(s). As the bible's contents were decided upon by men, many, many years (Centuries) after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, men who were all likely to have thought of women in the same way, it's something that, I feel, they would've gone along with.

Some would say that the evidence that he escaped from the cross and scuttled-off to live in France, with Mary Magdelene, is about as compelling as the evidence for him dying on the cross.

Not only that... But, my cat is convinced that SHE's God and she doesn't remember any of this ever happening, herself. ;)


LSemmens - 12-11-2014 at 22:53

Quote:
At the time, women didn't exist, except as chattels. If he was married, they're likely to have played it down, to enhance their own standing(s). As the bible's contents were decided upon by men, many, many years (Centuries) after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified, men who were all likely to have thought of women in the same way, it's something that, I feel, they would've gone along with.


By that reasoning, there would be no mention of women at all. The fact that Jesus is reported to have spoken to "the woman at the well" and that women were the first to report his resurrection. Why would these, and other facts, be reported at all?


LSemmens - 13-11-2014 at 00:57

For a change of pace. If you have no head for heights, this is not for you!


John Barnes - 13-11-2014 at 05:16

The gospels were written around 70 Ad Jesus died in 33 AD there is no proof of the authors being contemporaneous with Jesus, any how in my opinion which is about as valid as any one else's on here it all opium for the masses, jmb


LSemmens - 13-11-2014 at 12:23

Quote:
from here:"In evaluating the significance of these statistics...one should consider, by way of contrast, the number of manuscripts which preserve the text of the ancient classics. Homer's Iliad...is preserved by 457 papyri, 2 uncial manuscripts, and 188 minuscule manuscripts. Among the tragedians the witnesses to Euripides are the most abundant; his extant works are preserved in 54 papyri and 276 parchment manuscripts, almost all of the later dating from the Byzantine period...the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the lapse of a millennium or more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are extant which were copies within a century or so after the composition of the original documents."

This page gives a good overview of extant Biblical manuscripts. I'd suggest that if we are to reject the Biblical accounts as valid out of hand, then many other historical documents must also be rejected based upon more tenuous links. The Iliad Euripides, as mentioned above, whilst not claiming any "revelation" are accepted as a valid insight into society as it was when written.


John Barnes - 15-11-2014 at 01:42

Those who wrote the Gospels did NOT know Jesus personally. None of them were eye witnesses: they did not wander around with Jesus with pens and paper writing down everything he said and did! Instead, they came to believe in Jesus through hearing others speak about him. So, when they came to write down what they had come to believe, they used the oral stories they had heard.


http://www.thebibledoctor.com/about-the-gospel-writers.html

hearsay evidence , not admissible in a modern day court


scholar - 15-11-2014 at 12:25

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Many think so. Some think he never existed at all.

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery has made the factual, evidential case that there is more evidence for Jesus and His life than there is for Julius Caesar.


scholar - 15-11-2014 at 12:57

Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
None of the authors of the four gospels ever knew Jesus personally

Not so; Matthew (Levi) and John both followed Him around as disciples (student-followers) during His years of ministry and teaching. Mark may well have been the young man, mentioned only in the gospel he wrote, who tried to run away and slipped out of his clothing so as to escape after he was grabbed. Luke is thought to be one of the two who encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

Quote:
they only wrote on hearsay from the people who did

When no video recordings or comparable physical documentation exist, it is the practice to this very day for reporters to interview witnesses to establish what has happened. It makes no more sense to impose the modern hearsay rule on that time than it does to require video evidence or DNA evidence--events that happened were established by the testimony of witnesses and by examining the accounts of those who had knowledge of the events.

In those days when there was no paper (papyrus is far from paper, and parchment was expensive and required hand-writing), people were accustomed to memorizing what they needed to retain, and this was especially so with disciples (students). The disciples who followed rabbis were known to be something like living tape recorders in this respect. The followers of one particular rabbi were easily identified because he had a distinctive pronunciation, and all his students copied it!

If the genuine first-hand accounts had been left as scattered records, it would be a problem to know which was trustworthy. It is fortunate that Jesus' disciples and contemporaries (Mark wrote for Peter, and Luke was close associate to Paul) included information of trustworthy accounts, investigated while those who knew Jesus were still alive. (Luke introduces his writing with a mention of his investigation, and his writings have led him to be called Luke the Historian.)


John Barnes - 15-11-2014 at 13:58

Sorry Scholar all your teachings are just hearsay and your own personal belief, not fact at all just smoke and mirrors. I just find your blind faith unconvincing and quoting every man jack in the world does not make one differences as they are all shooting in the dark with no convincing proofs what so ever as stated, hearsay and blind faith and supposition
. jmb


Nimuae - 15-11-2014 at 15:27

Well ... I quite like the idea of Jesus being married - makes him seem more of a real person.


LSemmens - 16-11-2014 at 00:56

Whilst you may not believe in the Biblical account, John, that does not negate the evidence that many of the events as described occurred. Scholars point that the is more evidence for Jesus having done what is claimed is correct. We have far less evidence for the fact that Christopher Columbus "found" America, or that Captain Cook "found" Australia, but these are accepted as fact. Did Gengis Kahn really exist? What about your great great grandmother's maiden Aunt?


John Barnes - 16-11-2014 at 01:16

If it makes a person happy to go through life believing unfounded facts so be it, there is quite a difference between historical written fact than quoted hearsay and if a person thinks it will attain eternal happiness in some happy here after well and good, but what I don't like is some bible puncher quoting numerous passages from an old Jewish tome as though it is concrete fact and quoting such as some type of proven truth of which it patently isn't


scholar - 16-11-2014 at 01:19

Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
Sorry Scholar all your teachings are just hearsay and your own personal belief, not fact at all just smoke and mirrors. I just find your blind faith unconvincing and quoting every man jack in the world does not make one differences as they are all shooting in the dark with no convincing proofs what so ever as stated, hearsay and blind faith and supposition
. jmb

John makes a point of affirming that he is giving witness to what he saw and knew to have happened. He left a written account that was widely circulated. Luke affirmed that he investigated the events of which he wrote. The canonical gospel writers were close to the events, and many incidental markers indicate their genuineness.

There ARE people who write about Jesus without any foundation to what they say. They dream up fanciful origins of Christianity, without the support of any early historical documents or witness. They are centuries removed from the events, yet they think they know more than what you can learn from the writings of Jesus' own apostles. They call themselves modern critical scholars, and their methodology is called Higher Critical Method.

Sadly, people who don't know any better read what they say in encyclopedia articles and so forth and take it as if it were true.


John Barnes - 16-11-2014 at 17:37

The John you are referring to lived in Domitian's reign way after Christ also he lived on the island of Patmos he was not the john who stood at the foot of the cross under the reign of Tiberius Ad 33, the John who wrote Revelation was living in 96Ad under the rule of Domitian. I don't mind Bible scholars as long first they get their facts right and what they say can be verified by contemporary Thinking and not quoted as a panacea to everything, Also I don't have the temerity to hold my self aloft and proclaim to world I am a Scholar, brass trumpets come to mind,shocked_yellow


Dreamweaver - 16-11-2014 at 23:35

OK , curved ball here, if the gospels were written 40 years "after the event" how do we know some were/not written by people suffering from what we call now "old age problems? "


John Barnes - 17-11-2014 at 00:36

The most satisfactory way of telling is to research more than one source and not to rely too heavily on other peoples opinions, use common sense to evaluate any answers as one persons slant on things are not another's.


LSemmens - 17-11-2014 at 02:32

Whilst you make a valid point, DW, would you consider many of is (who are approaching/in old age) as suffering from "old age" problems? Remember, the disciples may well have been much younger than Jesus, there is no mention of how old the disciples were. Given your time frame, they may well have been only in their late fifties, or early sixties when they wrote them. I can certainly remember events of 30 years ago with a fair degree of accuracy.

If we find a copy of an article that was printed in a newspaper on the day that JFK was assassinated, even though that copy was made some years later, it will not negate the veracity of said article if there are other supporting, independent, documents, also manufactured some time after the event. That is how "evidence" is gathered to support or deny the "facts".


scholar - 19-11-2014 at 02:45

Quote:
Originally posted by John Barnes
The John you are referring to lived in Domitian's reign way after Christ also he lived on the island of Patmos he was not the john who stood at the foot of the cross under the reign of Tiberius Ad 33, the John who wrote Revelation was living in 96Ad under the rule of Domitian. I don't mind Bible scholars as long first they get their facts right and what they say can be verified by contemporary Thinking and not quoted as a panacea to everything, Also I don't have the temerity to hold my self aloft and proclaim to world I am a Scholar, brass trumpets come to mind,shocked_yellow

John who wrote the Gospel according to John IS the same John who was close to Jesus, who wrote the three letters of John, and who wrote Revelation. He is the apostle who lived to old age, not an early martyr's death. He emphasizes that he writes as a witness to the truth about Jesus, whom he knew.


John Barnes - 19-11-2014 at 14:12

Don't believe you. You cant go to court without concrete evidence Hearsay is not enough