Jesus Had a Wife?

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Rex, Sep 19, 2012.

  1. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    23,890
    People believed they had witnessed some type of resurrection. It doesn't mean they actually did--there are many theories on what they actually experienced. But scholars don't really argue that some believed some sort of resurrection event took place.

    As a parallel, it wouldn't be contested that some people today believe the world is 6,000 years old. It would be contested that world is actually that young, but not that some people believe that.

    Hope that makes sense.
  2. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    30,765
    My belief in Christianity in no way has been a "then I must hate/vilify" anyone else's belief system (or not belief) to validate that my religion is better than yours.

    I have several friends, who I respect for many reasons, who believe that the ONLY way into heaven is through the belief that everyone must accept Jesus as their savior and really can't understand why I am ok with my niece converting to Judaism or my sons being agnostic.

    For them, they recognize that Jesus was a Jew but that he is the light that other Jews refuse to see. In that faulty reasoning - the Jews who have (had) the opportunity to see the light are not worthy. And the "recorded actions" of the Pharisees - like being elite in the Jewish society, somehow translates to all Jews who have not seen the light.

    Please, understand that this is not my view - but something that I am trying to describe to you.
  3. milanessa

    milanessa engaged to dupa

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    18,917
    It may have been clearer had it been described as a Resurrection experience. Not capitalizing the word confused me - as written I thought it meant his followers believed they had experienced resurrection themselves. :lol:
  4. cruisin

    cruisin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    17,362
    Who said that other historical figures' records were not destroyed? We don't know that they were not. The "hot potato" records of Jesus' crucifixion could, very well, have been deliberately destroyed. If Rome was trying to lay blame on the Jews for Jesus' death, that is a great motive.

    I have never understood Jews being blamed for Jesus' death.
  5. PrincessLeppard

    PrincessLeppard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    21,977
    At the time the Gospels were written, that area was under Roman control. And the Jews had just staged an uprising. It was politically expedient to hold the Jews accountable and not blame the people in charge.

    That's how I see it, anyway.
  6. Rogue

    Rogue Sexy Superhero

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Messages:
    932
    According to the Gospel, Pilate offered to release either Jesus or a murderer named Barabbus (sp.?), believing the Jews would naturally choose Jesus over a murderer. However, the Jews chose Barabbus, which is why they have historically been blamed for Jesus death. Although that is kinda like blaming all of Islamic faith for 9/11.
  7. Holley Calmes

    Holley Calmes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,856
    I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. I was raised Baptist. My best friends were always Jewish. I went to their holiday ceremonies. I went to my best friend in High School's confirmation. I dated the Rabbi's son. I have always had a very soft spot in my heart for Jewish people, their religion and their culture.

    When I was about 10, I started worrying about this issue-were my friends going to hell? I could not accept that at all. I asked my precious Daddy about it. He's an incredibly beautiful soul and wonderful Christian. He loves everybody, regardless. I asked him if my friend Carol was going to hell when she died, and he said, "Oh, I don't think so. I think God has a plan for everybody." I have believed that until this day. I know the Bible is interpreted differently by most, but in the words of Frank Sinatra, "My heart just won't buy it." God is a big God. I definitely believe God has a plan for everyone. Even bad people. I think the love Christ described is big enough to accommodate everyone who ever lived. Obviously I don't go by a literal translation of the Bible, but I do try to go by the spirit of it as I interpret it for myself. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it.
  8. MacMadame

    MacMadame Internet Beyotch

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,897
    It's because their arguments for why they accept the evidence they accept seem weak to me.

    For the most part, the argument seems to be "we all agreed to accept this level of proof so, if you don't, you're a moron". [See ag's comments about birthers as a prime example.]

    If you want to convince me, you have to do better than that... :lol:

    What amuses me about this debate is that I don't feel strongly about the subject. I'm quite willing to believe that Jesus was an historical figure. But I want to see some contemporary record of his existence. That's all I'm asking for. And no one has given me that.

    Until you do... I will remain skeptical.

    You are not understanding my point. My point is, if there are 50 years of records of various censuses in the area but they aren't complete, how can you credibly argue that only records that mentioned Jesus and his family got lost? Sure, some years are missing. And maybe some pages within the years that exist are missing or illegible. But, if someone lived for 25-50 years then they should have been caught in at least one of the censuses that took place during that time and that we still have a record of.
  9. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    42,157
    This is interesting because I think that we all are faced with many, many issues that we can either try to evaluate the evidence for ourselves or lean on those who have specialized in studying them to guide us. I generally do the latter on many issues. Do you usually reject what you hear until you can determine for yourself the evidence? This seems difficult to me given the sea of information out there.
  10. MacMadame

    MacMadame Internet Beyotch

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,897
    I tend to like to confirm things. For example, when my neurologist told me to take magnesium and B2 for my headaches, I did a quick Google search first. I wanted to see where this recommendation was coming from (and if there were any gotchas that he failed to mention).

    I don't do this for everything but I do it for a lot.
  11. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    42,157
    But if you do a quick google search about whether Jesus existed historically you get a great deal of information that points to his historical existence. Why do you trust what you googled on B2 and magnesium?

    I really think at some point in areas we are not experts we end up relying on what we might not like to call "authority." I'm really interested in skepticism and in epistemology, so I find in interesting to look into how we really know things and at what point we feel accepting a proposition is warranted.
  12. Simone411

    Simone411 aka IceSkate98

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,117
    This is exactly how I feel. I found it interesting in regards to the material I found earlier. I keep an open mind in regards to many issues, but I do not believe that Jesus was a myth.

    I was raised Baptist, and was baptized when I was 21 years old. My dad was raised as Catholic and converted to Baptist when he and my mom were married. They were also married in the Baptist church.

    I was around 4 years old when the priest came to visit my dad at our home. The Catholic priest told my dad and mom that they weren't considered married since they didn't get married in the Catholic church. The priest also went as far to say that my brother and I were considered illegitimate because they weren't married in the Catholic church.

    Of course, I am not illegitimate nor is my brother since my mom and dad were married in the Baptist church and have a marriage license. I don't know if those Catholic 'laws' still apply today, but they did back in 1962.

    The point is I do have an open mind to different beliefs and theories, but to say "our religion is right and yours is wrong" is a whole other ball game. I also have many Jewish friends, Catholic friends, Methodist friends, etc., and I don't criticize them for their beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, it's all good and about God.
  13. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Port de bras!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,304
    It absolutely does. So what are some of the theories that try to explain their experience?

    numbers, in no way did I mean to suggest anything about all Chrstians--but I did grow up in a country where prior to the commie rule, many Christians were antagonistic to Jews. Same applies to Europe--not the most historically Jew-friendly place.

    Thank you for your perspective. :)
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2012
  14. PDilemma

    PDilemma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,756
    Not sure how this story illustrates your point of open minded tolerance. That value usually precludes pointing fingers at any faith.

    The priest was not representing the actual position of the church. The Church does not consider the marriage of a baptized and confirmed Catholic valid unless it takes place in a Catholic church and is blessed by a priest or deacon. However, as is the case when a marriage is annulled (declared "invalid"), the children of such a marriage are not considered illegitimate per canon law number 1137 which states that children of a valid or "putative" (presumed valid) marriage are legitimate. Having left the church, your father, mother and the pastor who married them would have "presumed"/considered the marriage was valid. Additionally, most experts in canon law would point to the marriage's legality as a factor as well.
  15. Simone411

    Simone411 aka IceSkate98

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,117
    I understand what you're saying, but the priest actually did state that my parents weren't considered married since they didn't get married in the Catholic church and that my brother and I were considered illegtimate. Of course, I didn't understand what the word, "illegitimate" meant at the age of four, and my parents sent my brother and me to our rooms after the Priest said that. My parents explained what the word meant when I was a little older.

    The point I was making is that the Catholic Priest truly believed what he was saying was right regarding the Catholic religion when he said that my parents weren't considered married. He also wanted them to get married again in the Catholic church where it would be official. It's not about pointing fingers in a sense. It's about whose religion is right and whose is wrong. I never understood why the priest even did that.
  16. AxelAnnie

    AxelAnnie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,677
    Because you can't prove there is no G-d anymore then you can prove there is one..... so you simply, on faith, choose to believe one or the other ;-)
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2012
  17. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,713
    Or you choose not to claim to know either way, which seems to be the most honest response based on your statement.

    Usually, though, we don't make faith claims about unicorns or life in outspace based on the provable reasoning.
    cholla and (deleted member) like this.
  18. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    30,765
    :confused: unicorns aren't real? :drama:
    rfisher and (deleted member) like this.
  19. cruisin

    cruisin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    17,362
    Actually the word was ignorant, which I thought was a bit strong. But, it was only one person who said that, not "we all".

    I still think it was possible, he could have avoided the census.

    My father was Catholic, my mother Episcopalian. They were married in an Episcopal church because my mother did not want to raise the children Catholic.
    My father was told the same thing your parents were, that was 62 years ago. In addition, my father's cousins went to Catholic school and the Nuns told them that they could not go into the Episcopal church, for the wedding, or they would go to hell. PDilemma, it is unfortunate, and maybe doesn't represent the Church (in general) but these kind of things were said by representatives of the Church.
  20. MacMadame

    MacMadame Internet Beyotch

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    15,897
    For the health stuff, I have a lot of history of prior research so I have a good feel for which websites have which biases and which ones are total quacks to avoid.

    For this area, I haven't got that feel but every web site I've gone to has either said this:

    "Jesus is not a historical figure because there are no contemporary references to him in the historical documents we have."

    or

    "Jesus is absolutely an historical figure. It's just so accepted that if you don't believe that, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you as only openly idiots and extremists don't believe it! Oh and there are these documents that were written 90-150 years after he was alive that mention him. So there."

    What can I say? I don't find the later argument all that compelling and I'm not willing to wade through diatribe after diatribe about what an idiot I am for even entertaining the idea that he wasn't an historical figure to get into the meat of why mainstream scholars accept that he is on evidence I find flimsy. If they can't make their point succinctly without all that rhetoric, then I've got better things to do with my time. :D For one thing, it has absolutely no impact on my quality of life whether Jesus was a real person or not. That limits how much work I'm willing to put into coming to a conclusion. ;)

    In the area of the headaches, my neurologist suggested B2 and magnesium over Topamax which he felt was too risky given my symptoms. He said I had to get at least 100 mg to be effective and that many OTC multivitamins had more like 10mg which just wasn't enough. What I wanted to know is if the former had actually been found to be effective in clinical studies and if they had any bad side effects, particularly at those doses, and also how much I should take. (I already knew Topamax had a lot of risks so I didn't bother to google it.) When I googled "magnesium for headaches" and "B2/riboflavin for headaches", I found many, many websites on migraines and they almost all had pages that listed effective vs. ineffective vs. "suspected of being effective but not proven effective" treatments for them and B2 and magnesium was on every list in the effective column. On top of that, I found some links to actual studies on PubMed and the abstracts also showed the magnesium and B2 had been found effective at higher doses. That seemed reasonable enough to me because now I had my doctor agreeing with WebMD agreeing with published studies. Plus, there didn't seem to be any downsides to taking the supplements so it was a no-brainer to try them. If I had found a lot of articles about being careful not to take to much or you could die, I'd probably have looked harder or gone back to my doctor to discuss it some more.

    For the whole Jesus thing, what I want to see is a list of sources that were written in Jesus' time that mention him. I would find that credible probably no matter what the source of the list was though I'd probably Google the listed sources as well for a spot check, particularly if the original list was on a site that felt kind of crackpot.
  21. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    42,157
    The Wikipedia article I linked to doesn't say if you don't think Jesus is historical you're an idiot, in fact I didn't see any place that said that. The article I linked gives detailed information on the argument and evidence for Jesus being historical.

    As a skeptic, all I conclude is that those who study the issue think Jesus is historical. I don't feel justified in judging the issue myself nor do I feel any need to. I do think it is interesting what those studying the issue have to say about it. I'm not seeing any reason to suggest that this field should be treated differently than any other scholarly field regarding its general consensus. To me, I would want to see some reasons why they would be giving out an insufficient or false answer to the question of Jesus being historical before I would be ready to dismiss their work.

    New information arises and scholarly consensus does change, but that is also something for me I think requires some evidence.
  22. PRlady

    PRlady aspiring tri-national

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    20,682
    Oddly, this militant atheist agrees with you, because since the 19th century, unbiased scholars -- in other words, scholars who were not trying to prove this or that about Christianity, but who were really looking for the historical Jesus -- have done some rigorous work on this. I'm not willing to think that all these scholars, some of whom I've read, arrived at fallacious methods to determine what was and wasn't true.

    Now the minute you get into interpretation -- e.g. what really did happen on that Sunday morning, who saw what, whether pagan or Jewish tradition was more influential in the belief in a resurrected god, not to mention the two millenia of argument about the divine/human nature of Jesus, what his legacy was supposed to be - THAT'S where to me we enter the realm of mythology. In other words, real people are arguing about real traditions and real biography and real theology, but unless you choose to believe that Jesus was something other than a human being, the rest is....a lot of trees that have been cut down. And a lot of religious wars, schisms, and other unpleasantness.

    One reason I've alway been a skeptic is the logic of growing up in what is in this country a minority religion. When I asked questions about Christmas, Easter, Jesus, that other half of the bible I wasn't supposed to read, basically I got either the PC or non-PC version of...this is what they believe, but they're wrong. And since I figured out by age six that there were a lot more of them than of us, that meant there were a lot of people who were somehow misled to believe something wrong.

    It's only a short step from that to taking a hard look at your own traditions and figuring out that your own people are also steeped in logical, factual and historical error.

    That did not get me out of trouble when it was discovered I was sneaking into various church services on Sunday out of curiousity...and rebellion.
    millyskate and (deleted member) like this.
  23. Doubletoe

    Doubletoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,602
    This may have been how it happened, or it may have been that Pilate simply had Jesus put to death (his position as the Roman governor certainly did not require him to give the Jewish subjects any choice in the matter). But keep in mind that the Catholic church was based in Rome and it certainly didn't make the Romans look very good if a Roman killed their Savior. Some scholars theorize that the line about Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the deed was added into the scriptures by the early Roman Catholic Church. Also, the sect of Christianity that was spread across Europe by Emperor Constantine happened to be a very anti-Jewish sect, so it would kind of make sense that the Jews were villified here. Until that point, there was much less distinction between Christianity and Judaism.
  24. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Port de bras!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,304
    OTT but my friend and colleague, a physician and a fellow migraneur, recommends magnesium (without the calcium!) supplements. Works well for me since about two weeks ago I started having my first ever ocular migraines (aura, no headache).

    However, Dr. Google does not replace medical advice. Clinical experience still counts for something, otherwise we'd have computers evaluating patients. So it IS a good thing to see your doctor and to educate yourself like MacMadame did.

    Alright, back to Jesus and his wife!
  25. AxelAnnie

    AxelAnnie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,677
    Well, without arguing about Unicorns (and I have one in my backyard:D)

    From Wikipedia

    But the best part is that it stopped my husband in his tracks about his belief that there is no G-d because there is not proof ...... and no proof the other way either.;)
  26. DAngel

    DAngel Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    672
    Ah alright... the thing is, I don't choose my beliefs... they choose me ;)

    I'm always :confused: when someone tells me that I have to choose to believe in something... Because, well, I don't know how to do that... My beliefs are shaped from past experiences/available information. I always feel trying to "choose" my belief is like trying to fool myself and deep down inside I still know the truth. (This applies to more than just religions too... Like I really want to believe I'm a great painter, but every time I look at my painting, I know that's not true... yet :D)
    millyskate and (deleted member) like this.
  27. agalisgv

    agalisgv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    23,890
    I asked MacMadame this question before, but is wasn't answered so I'll try again. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed?

    Do you believe Julius Caesar existed?

    Yes or no?
  28. IceAlisa

    IceAlisa Port de bras!!!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,304
    Could you please answer my question about the theories of what could explain the experiences at Jesus' "resurrection"? Much obliged, really curious.
  29. Japanfan

    Japanfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    12,772
    When you say mythicists do you mean scholars who specialize in the study of mythology? If so, is Joseph Campbell seen as a whackadoodle?

    IMO religion does have a mythic dimension. Do the scholars you refer to reject that idea?
    IceAlisa and (deleted member) like this.
  30. snoopy

    snoopy Team St. Petersburg

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,713
    This I suppose is pedantic but the wiki article says faith is the belief in god. Not a lack of belief in god. And it relies on the word hope. Faith is tied together with hope. I don't think non/theists hope there is no God. So I don't think the orientation is the same wrt belief (faith) and non/belief. I find it a critical difference and why I don't think you can justifiably invert one for the other.

    But your last sentence indicates your purpose. To say non/theists have faith is just an argumentative tool toward belief. And generally non/theists know what's going on.
  31. allezfred

    allezfred Prick Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    42,659
    Don't know about Alexander the Great, but didn't Julius Caesar write books about his campaigns?
  32. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    42,157
    I've always been perplexed by the casual use of the word faith regarding ultimate quesitons. It has seemed to me that faith meant much more than simply a choice of belief to religious people.

    Here is one Christian's explanation of faith as a form of knowledge (albeit in a review written by an atheist):

    A Philosopher Defends Religion (NY Review of Books)

    Non-theists do not have faith. They do have beliefs, you can't exactly function on earth without them.
  33. Angelskates

    Angelskates Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    I thought I completely agreed with you, but then I looked in the dictionary out of curiosity, and I disagree with you. Just looking a definition one, a non-theist can have faith in him/herself, can't he/she? Or their fellow human? Or science? It's an interesting word, individually (and, IMO, therefore personally) defined. I have faith in God, but also faith in myself and my fellow humans, that we are capable of feeling love and acting lovingly, and I believe I can have faith in all of these.
    AxelAnnie and (deleted member) like this.
  34. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,492
    Is there a technical sense in which the word is used in faith-based religions (although members of different sects or even of the same sect may debate exactly what it entails), and also a more general sense of the word, less strictly defined, as used in secular contexts?
  35. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    42,157
    Just curious and you don't need to answer if you don't wish to, but do you feel those two aspects of faith are the same?

    There is obviously a non-religious use of the word faith which is commonly employed. I can't personally speak to the use of faith that Plantinga gives because I don't feel any religious faith. But it makes sense to me that in a religious context as Plantinga is saying, faith is a source of belief. Thus it is not just belief but a way of knowing.

    Non-religious individuals tend to react negatively when faith is ascribed to them and I think the reason is that faith really is a religious experience. Nontheists, atheists, whatever term people prefer have a belief system but they don't come to it the same way religious people do. They do not rely on faith as a source for belief.

    I hasten to add that is my take on it. I'm very interested both in others opinions on this and also to hear from our posters who have extensive academic knowledge of this.
  36. PRlady

    PRlady aspiring tri-national

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    20,682
    Isn't that sort of a circular definition of faith? If a Christian believes that God endows him with a special sense that allows him to discern the truth of the gospels, doesn't that mean that one can't dispute that truth, since if one does, it means ipso facto that one is not endowed with that sense?

    In other words, we "blocked" non-theists can't ascertain Christianity without the sense we are missing -- and that we are missing a sense is "proven" by the fact that we don't embrace Christianity. Talk about circular logic, or your assumptions proving your conclusions!

    Oh boy.
  37. BlueRidge

    BlueRidge AYS's snark-sponge

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    42,157
    Yes its logically circular. Rather like Descartes argument that we know that God exists because he gives us clear and distinct knowlege of him and how do we know that knowledge is of God? Because it is clear and distinct...

    For those who require empirical verification for knowledge claims, there would have to be some way of proving that some people have a sensus divinitatis just as science can show that we have other senses. You'll have to look to neuroscience for answers to that. There is an atheist view that humans evolved a sensus divinitatis because it aided survival but that it is a natural feeling and does not mean God actually exists.

    I find it a very interesting subject.
  38. Angelskates

    Angelskates Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,791
    Interesting question. My answer is, I think so. I have enough proof for me that God (the Christian God) exists, and I have enough proof, for me, that people are capable of feeling love and acting out of love. I know I am. I've experienced, on a regular basis, that both are true. Some people don't believe in angels, I've seen one, that's enough for me. I don't care if people think I (or someone or several someones thousands of years ago) was/am dreaming, hallucinating, making the whole thing up, *I* know what I experienced, and experience, that's enough for me. I don't think that's all there is, I am constantly asking questions - and I have an interfaith (including an atheist and non-theist) dinner in my house once a week because I'm interested in others' views, but it doesn't change my own experiences, which is how I (mostly) form both my faith and my beliefs. They do change somewhat, but the basis mostly stays the same.
    BlueRidge and (deleted member) like this.
  39. numbers123

    numbers123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    30,765
    to me the use of the word faith = faith in the convictions that you hold are true. More in faith in yourself to believe what you believe because for you it is true.

    I am never sure how to describe someone who is atheist or agnostic. Should I say your belief is to be ____ or your faith is _____. I am not poking anyone, I am not trying to assign my descriptions on you, just want to know how I should address your convictions?
  40. PRlady

    PRlady aspiring tri-national

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    20,682
    So do I. I wonder what I should read about this....[usual wonky reaction]

    Perhaps the sense/need for divinity was really a way of establishing human hierarchy when society settled down and started to diversify economically and then stratify. In other words, the Divine Right of Kings was a pretty early idea...and let's face it, those kings had some excellent publicists. Why is that guy king? Because the gods made him one, of course!

    The various mythologies also should have served the in-group purpose, uniting a tribe against its adversaries because each tribe had its patron god(s). Unfortunately that us vs them characteristic of religion still obtains.