168 replies to this topic

[laver]

Paranoid Android, on 26 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Sorry I was not very clear. Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters. The Gospels and other texts that have come to light were not apparently meant to be works of fiction and the consensus of opinion seems to be that they are based on a real historical person. All the more reason to look carefully at all these documents to try and establish what truths can be gleaned from them. Christianity did not exist at the time of Christ and is built on the interpretations made of some of these ancient texts, interpretations that may be very different from the original events that may have inspired them. The role of Mary of Magdala is a prime example as it was clearly a much more important one than many 'churches' have portrayed over the years. Lawyers, and say politicians, often present arguments that they know are not true, but suit the 'case' or 'party line'; this does not advance the search for truth which must surely be the main quest.

[Paranoid Android]

laver, on 26 January 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Sorry I was not very clear. Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters. The Gospels and other texts that have come to light were not apparently meant to be works of fiction and the consensus of opinion seems to be that they are based on a real historical person. All the more reason to look carefully at all these documents to try and establish what truths can be gleaned from them. Christianity did not exist at the time of Christ and is built on the interpretations made of some of these ancient texts, interpretations that may be very different from the original events that may have inspired them. The role of Mary of Magdala is a prime example as it was clearly a much more important one than many 'churches' have portrayed over the years. Lawyers, and say politicians, often present arguments that they know are not true, but suit the 'case' or 'party line'; this does not advance the search for truth which must surely be the main quest.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.  Just to highlight a key part, though:

Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters.

Is this different to how we approach the Gospels?  Surely a group discussion Internet forum talking about the Gospels are working out what the author intended to convey when they wrote what they did, including whatever messages they were intending to convey  And sometimes there may even be different interpretations that are equally valid (note, some interpretations are NOT valid, if they do not contextually fit the text).

I cannot see why the debate must end at "Did Jesus *insert hypothetical scenario*", if the response comprises only "A better question is did Jesus exist in the first place".  It's counter-productive and lazy.  My opinion.

~ Regards, PA

[laver]

Paranoid Android, on 26 January 2013 - 12:29 PM, said:

Ok, thanks for the clarification.  Just to highlight a key part, though:

Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters.

Is this different to how we approach the Gospels?  Surely a group discussion Internet forum talking about the Gospels are working out what the author intended to convey when they wrote what they did, including whatever messages they were intending to convey  And sometimes there may even be different interpretations that are equally valid (note, some interpretations are NOT valid, if they do not contextually fit the text).

I cannot see why the debate must end at "Did Jesus *insert hypothetical scenario*", if the response comprises only "A better question is did Jesus exist in the first place".  It's counter-productive and lazy.  My opinion.

~ Regards, PA

I agree that we have to discuss some issues on the assumption that say Jesus existed as a given, or any debate would grind to an immediate halt. If someone is so ardently opposed to the idea that Jesus could ever have existed then just saying so won't help the debate but would remind us that some people may have this point of view.

[Paranoid Android]

laver, on 26 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

I agree that we have to discuss some issues on the assumption that say Jesus existed as a given, or any debate would grind to an immediate halt. If someone is so ardently opposed to the idea that Jesus could ever have existed then just saying so won't help the debate but would remind us that some people may have this point of view.

I know such people exist.  But as I said, it sounds counter-productive to simply post a response such as "a better question to ask is whether Jesus existed in the first place".  It's dismissive and adds nothing to the discussion.  At the very least it derails current discussion and causes people to move away from whatever the topic is and debate Jesus' existence.

That's my view of it, as far as I have been able to internalise it after seven years posting on internet forums such as UM.

~ Regards, PA

[laver]

Paranoid Android, on 26 January 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

I know such people exist.  But as I said, it sounds counter-productive to simply post a response such as "a better question to ask is whether Jesus existed in the first place".  It's dismissive and adds nothing to the discussion.  At the very least it derails current discussion and causes people to move away from whatever the topic is and debate Jesus' existence.

That's my view of it, as far as I have been able to internalise it after seven years posting on internet forums such as UM.

~ Regards, PA

Point taken. On the issue of whether Jesus was married and therefore might have had children this would have profoundly affected how Christianity has developed over the last 2000 years, so it must be a very interesting and significant idea. In the Gnostic gospels the close relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala is recorded as causing great tensions and divisions in the group largely we are told because Mary was a confidant and a woman. If it were to be established that Jesus was in fact married the impact on many parts of Christianity would have to be considerable and with incidents like the Samaritan lady at the well cast Jesus in a very different light.

[Paranoid Android]

laver, on 26 January 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Point taken. On the issue of whether Jesus was married and therefore might have had children this would have profoundly affected how Christianity has developed over the last 2000 years, so it must be a very interesting and significant idea. In the Gnostic gospels the close relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala is recorded as causing great tensions and divisions in the group largely we are told because Mary was a confidant and a woman. If it were to be established that Jesus was in fact married the impact on many parts of Christianity would have to be considerable and with incidents like the Samaritan lady at the well cast Jesus in a very different light.

For me as a Bible-believing, Conservative Evangelical non-denominational Protestant Christian my understanding of God would not in any way at all be affected if Jesus were to be married to Mary Magdalene.  Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is no evidence Jesus ever was married to Mary.  The Gnostic gospels are actually pretty silent on the issue, but Dan Brown (yes, I went there) basically made it popular to think otherwise.

For me, my idea of Christianity would be identical whether Jesus was married or ended up single.

~ Regards, PA

[docyabut2]

Jesus was a rebel  then much like the liberal of today, new principles and ideas, he love and accepted all as equals.

[laver]

Paranoid Android, on 26 January 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

For me as a Bible-believing, Conservative Evangelical non-denominational Protestant Christian my understanding of God would not in any way at all be affected if Jesus were to be married to Mary Magdalene.  Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is no evidence Jesus ever was married to Mary.  The Gnostic gospels are actually pretty silent on the issue, but Dan Brown (yes, I went there) basically made it popular to think otherwise.

For me, my idea of Christianity would be identical whether Jesus was married or ended up single.

~ Regards, PA

Ok. But in the hypothetical case that Jesus and Mary were man and wife as well as confidants this would surely have changed the course of Christianity over the years and led to a different religion to the one we have today. Women are a very important part of the story of Jesus, even in the Gospels, not reflected in the attitude of some churches over the centuries.

[laver]

docyabut2, on 26 January 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Jesus was a rebel  then much like the liberal of today, new principles and ideas, he love and accepted all as equals.

This may well be the case but if this extended to women it would have been totally against the thinking of the Jerusalem authorities of his day

[Paranoid Android]

laver, on 27 January 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

Ok. But in the hypothetical case that Jesus and Mary were man and wife as well as confidants this would surely have changed the course of Christianity over the years and led to a different religion to the one we have today. Women are a very important part of the story of Jesus, even in the Gospels, not reflected in the attitude of some churches over the centuries.

With so many variants to Christianity as it already stand, another denomination or two wouldn't make a difference.  Though a married Jesus may be interesting to some groups, the theological understanding of it makes zero difference.  My opinion, of course,

~ Regards, PA

[eight bits]

Quote

Ok. But in the hypothetical case that Jesus and Mary were man and wife as well as confidants this would surely have changed the course of Christianity over the years and led to a different religion to the one we have today.

Really? I wonder. Acts lightly sketches a possible power struggle between the family of Jesus, in the person of James ("brother" of Jesus), and the closer, but unrelated, pupils of Jesus, especially Peter. This is somewhat similar to the struggles following Mohammed's death, where family claims (by marriage) to succession vied with non-kin's.

The Christian solution, according to Acts and maybe actually in history, was the wholesale recruitment of Gentiles into the movement, by a second-generation leader, Paul, who was neither family nor a close associate of Jesus. The fall of Jerusalem took all the Jewish wing(s) of the church out of the picture, whether based on kinship or discipleship. Gentiles were the last folks standing, and that is the "bottleneck" from which all living orthodox Christianity descends.

A church faction headed by Mary of Magdala and her hypothetical child(ren) would be just another Jewish sect wiped out or scattered with the fall of the Second Temple. Tradition has Mary herself moving to the vicintiy of Marseilles (now in France) to live as a semi-hermit. If the tradition is true, then she was well thought of locally, but not the leader of anything, and not succeeded by anybody in her community role when she died.

[sslama]

Hebrew law states only married men may be teachers.  Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher.  Especially if he taught religion.    It was the law.  If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him.  I doubt people decided to ignore their laws and traditions and listen to him anyways.  Most likely he was married.  

Also when he was crucified.... Mary Magdalene was there.  Again by law the only women allowed to anoint a man are family members.  If Mary Magdalene even tried to anoint Jesus....that would have been absolutely unthinkable unless she was married to him.    So again most likely he was married to her.

The writers of the bible left out a lot I think.

[eight bits]

That there is no record anywhere of Mary Magdalene ever annointing Jesus is noted again. But regardless of what women not his wives did annoint him at one time or another,

Quote

Hebrew law states ...  It was the law.

Dude was scourged and then crucifed. Somebody must have thought that he had broken some law. All four Gospels agree that Jesus initiated violence to drive from the Temple peaceably assembled merchants whom the law permitted to do business there. That's a start.

The more you say "Hebrew law requires this, and Hebrew law requires that, and no Jew could think of doing this other thing," then the more nearly certain it becomes that some Jew saw the power and potential in raising his God-given middle finger up to the nose of convention, shouting in its face, "Now that I have your attention, ..."

Whatever else Jesus was, he was a Dionysan figure: a disruptive presence. This can be an effective strategy for changing minds, which depends on giving offense and making even supporters uncomfortable. It is also a dangerous strategy. Ask Socrates. But it is a strategy, available to all thinkers, unless your point is that Jews somehow can't think strategically, or can't think for themselves, the way Greeks can. You don't seem the type, but that is the issue.

Is a Dionysan strategy effective? Define effective. Jesus changed some, but not many Jewish minds around him. Socrates changed some, but not many Greek minds around him. The quality of the changed minds may make up for the quantity. Also, the impact may not happen, or be completed, in the lifetime of the first change-agent.

Socrates scored Plato and then Aristotle; Jesus bagged the best-selling named author of all time, Paul. Both Jesus and Socrates are admired household names, even in Gentile and unGreek households, two thousand years and more later. All men die; Jesus and Socrates accomplished something with theirs, furthering their agendas and permanently changing the cultural landscape. They didn't live on in people's minds by thinking inside the box.

Quote

  If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him.

Did I mention that the gentleman was killed, taking up most of a working day to do it? Somebody paid attention to him, and what they attended to, offended them.

[laver]

sslama, on 28 January 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

Hebrew law states only married men may be teachers.  Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher.  Especially if he taught religion. It was the law.  If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him.  I doubt people decided to ignore their laws and traditions and listen to him anyways.  Most likely he was married.  

Also when he was crucified.... Mary Magdalene was there.  Again by law the only women allowed to anoint a man are family members.  If Mary Magdalene even tried to anoint Jesus....that would have been absolutely unthinkable unless she was married to him. So again most likely he was married to her.

The writers of the bible left out a lot I think.

Good points and yes it would appear that some of those who compiled the bible did so with an agenda. There are some big 'grey' areas and at the centre of these is Mary of Magdala as the messenger, companion, confidant of Jesus and possibly much more. The story of Jesus and the Samaritan lady at the Well next to Shechem told in John 4 : 1-42 is also very telling not because it tells us much about whether Jesus was married but about his attitude to women in general and we know that there were women who were close followers and supporters of Christ. His disciples we hear were astonished to find him talking with a woman. In the Gnostic gospels his close relationship with Mary of Magdala is noted as having caused friction in the group, particularly with Peter, and when the 'official' accounts of the life of Jesus were decided it would appear that her role was played down and confused. Much later Rome decided that she was a prostitute but we understand that this has recently been withdrawn.

[laver]

eight bits, on 28 January 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:

That there is no record anywhere of Mary Magdalene ever annointing Jesus is noted again. But regardless of what women not his wives did annoint him at one time or another,



Dude was scourged and then crucifed. Somebody must have thought that he had broken some law. All four Gospels agree that Jesus initiated violence to drive from the Temple peaceably assembled merchants whom the law permitted to do business there. That's a start.

The more you say "Hebrew law requires this, and Hebrew law requires that, and no Jew could think of doing this other thing," then the more nearly certain it becomes that some Jew saw the power and potential in raising his God-given middle finger up to the nose of convention, shouting in its face, "Now that I have your attention, ..."

Whatever else Jesus was, he was a Dionysan figure: a disruptive presence. This can be an effective strategy for changing minds, which depends on giving offense and making even supporters uncomfortable. It is also a dangerous strategy. Ask Socrates. But it is a strategy, available to all thinkers, unless your point is that Jews somehow can't think strategically, or can't think for themselves, the way Greeks can. You don't seem the type, but that is the issue.

Is a Dionysan strategy effective? Define effective. Jesus changed some, but not many Jewish minds around him. Socrates changed some, but not many Greek minds around him. The quality of the changed minds may make up for the quantity. Also, the impact may not happen, or be completed, in the lifetime of the first change-agent.

Socrates scored Plato and then Aristotle; Jesus bagged the best-selling named author of all time, Paul. Both Jesus and Socrates are admired household names, even in Gentile and unGreek households, two thousand years and more later. All men die; Jesus and Socrates accomplished something with theirs, furthering their agendas and permanently changing the cultural landscape. They didn't live on in people's minds by thinking inside the box.



Did I mention that the gentleman was killed, taking up most of a working day to do it? Somebody paid attention to him, and what they attended to, offended them.

There is little doubt that Jesus did sometimes use 'shock' tactics at particular times and places. The Temple at Jerusalem was one occasion which is strange because we hear that he told the Samaritan Lady at the Well that the time would come when worship would not be on her sacred mountain, next to where he was speaking, or in Jerusalem. Yet Jerusalem was the location that Jesus deliberately chose to end his mission. The whole recorded incident with this Lady at Shechem is also a 'shock'  tactic, it clearly shocked the Samaritan Lady, others in the town and his disciples, and it would seem that Jesus was making sure that the incident would be well remembered and no doubt recorded.