168 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

libstaK, on 24 January 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Where does it say this is Mary Magdalene - it says "woman of the city"  In 7.00 Jesus entered Capernaum, following this in Luke 7:11 he entered the town of Nain.  Mary does not originate in any of these places and the "woman of the city who is a sinner" is not mentioned at all by name.  Therefore, you have yet to prove your point

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the next chapter. There is no induction that this person and the "sinner" from the previous chapter are the same person. However, such a belief seeped into tradition and therefore some people find it hard to separate tradition from what the text actually says.

~ PA

[libstaK]

Paranoid Android, on 24 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the next chapter. There is no induction that this person and the "sinner" from the previous chapter are the same person. However, such a belief seeped into tradition and therefore some people find it hard to separate tradition from what the text actually says.

~ PA

Exactly.

[Jacques Terreur]

Paranoid Android, on 24 January 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

The fact that a fully-fledged Christian community can be identified historically in the mid-1st Century AD strongly implies that at the very least there was a person on whom the Jesus-narrative is based.  Add in to that writings as early as ten years after Jesus' alleged death, and most historians (secular as well as Christian) believe that there was a person on whom the gospel stories are based.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all historians believe everything written in the New Testament about Jesus.  Most historians (especially secular and non-Christian historians) see much embellishment in the stories, but do not see such embellishment as cause to doubt the historicity of the character known as Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph).

Putting it another way - it is far more likely that the Christian movement was started by a man who's story was embellished and passed on, rather than the Christian movement started by a man who never existed at all.

~ Regards,

well argumented.... but what about the fact that a lot of occurences in Jesus' life are told in other, sometimes way older myths already, like the virgin birth, being the "son of god" and similar stuff? Let's say he WAS a real person once, even an influential prophet,  but the myths attributed to him kinda got out of hands? Or were partly fabricated to make that young startup religion called christianity more appealing to possible new followers? Anyway, in my opinion (and it's MY opinion alone which i don't feel the urge to convince anybody of) the OP's question is as important and meaningful as to ask who the parents of Donald Duck's nephews are.....

[eight bits]

Ben

Quote

There are many; albeit not reputable, as I do not trust their preconceived notions in the interpretation of Jewish characters. If we are discussing the Tanach or the NT, let us do it based on our understanding of what is written. To appeal to suthorities is a fallacy.

First, let's be clear. "Appeal to authority" is called a fallacy because it can play no part in a mathematical or other tautological demonstration. The word does not connote that an appeal to authority is false. To confuse the word fallacy with the word falsehood is a performance failure in reading comprehension.

Which, by an amazing coincidence, is what we are discussing here, another failure in reading comprehension. However, since you acknowledge that those who share your reading aren't reputable scholars, then that avenue for advance has been explored and found useless.

Quote

Well, why don't you use the NT to prove my misreading of it?

The burden is on the teacher to teach. It is the student's prerogative to say "Show me where that is written." It's not my OP, Ben. Do the math.

minera

Quote

What exactly is the big deal if Jesus was married or not. He was after all a man. Not one word in the bible about him being celibate or having other interests than females. It is insulting to all women that we are referred to as something not important and hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time is acceptable. But then the Catholic church is a great example of that. Whether he was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and who he represented.

Yes. It is far more important whether Mary of Magdala was the first Apostle, as she was according to John 20, then whether she was Jesus' wife.

You mentioned the Catholics, and might have mentioned the Orthodox as well. Their theory for excluding living women from holy orders and consecration is that Jesus chose only men for his emissaries. Uh huh. So what's the Gospel According to John? Fanfic?

[Paranoid Android]

Jacques Terreur, on 24 January 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

well argumented.... but what about the fact that a lot of occurences in Jesus' life are told in other, sometimes way older myths already, like the virgin birth, being the "son of god" and similar stuff? Let's say he WAS a real person once, even an influential prophet,  but the myths attributed to him kinda got out of hands? Or were partly fabricated to make that young startup religion called christianity more appealing to possible new followers? Anyway, in my opinion (and it's MY opinion alone which i don't feel the urge to convince anybody of) the OP's question is as important and meaningful as to ask who the parents of Donald Duck's nephews are.....

I suppose it would depend on what you meant when you said that other events in Jesus' life are told in other stories. If you're appealing to the Christ-myther argument that Jesus is a "copycat" of other saviours (eg, that Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra etc) all had virgin births, 12 apostles, death and resurrection then I would simply ask that you do more research and don't rely on conspiracy websites (eg, find a site that outlays the story of Krishna or Horus without trying to parallel to Jesus, and see if you find any information).

On the other hand, if you're being less specific then some similarities may crop up (eg, Hercules was also the son of God, though not in the same way and much of the rest of their life bears no similarity; I'd have to see your reasoning on other arguments such as a "virgin birth" before I addressed it) then I'd wonder if it's even possible to construct an entirely unique saviour. Take the birth, for example - if not a virgin birth, then what? Entirely natural human birth - mythology had they covered. Transformation from an animal or out of solid rock - mythology had that covered too. Divine incarnation directly as a unique entity - mythology has that one covered also.

I honestly can't think of a unique birth or a unique death or any such, so if Jesus' birth happened another way, I suspect we'd still have the same argument, just with different mythologies.

But as I said, this is referring to passing similarities only, the argument of the Christ-myther is entirely unfounded. I'm not sure to which argument you refer, so I'll leave it at that for now.  To the question of the OP, I'll reiterate what I said in my first response - we have no evidence that Jesus married, but even if he did it really doesn't affect a Christian understanding of the gospels.  It just isn't an issue to me (though I understand that some Christians do believe it important to think of him as not being married).

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 24 January 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[docyabut2]

Any one wonder why there was so much emphasis on Mary Magdalene, if it was not she that was the frist women Jesus had saved from stoneing.

[docyabut2]

A pychic had said ,Jesus brought her to her home to untie with her family of lazarus who Jesus became good friends with and Mary called him when lararus became ill with typhiod fever

Edited by docyabut2, 25 January 2013 - 02:26 AM.

[Theater of Dreams]

The Da Vinci Code?

[Jacques Terreur]

Paranoid Android, on 24 January 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

I suppose it would depend on what you meant when you said that other events in Jesus' life are told in other stories. If you're appealing to the Christ-myther argument that Jesus is a "copycat" of other saviours (eg, that Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra etc) all had virgin births, 12 apostles, death and resurrection then I would simply ask that you do more research and don't rely on conspiracy websites (eg, find a site that outlays the story of Krishna or Horus without trying to parallel to Jesus, and see if you find any information).

On the other hand, if you're being less specific then some similarities may crop up (eg, Hercules was also the son of God, though not in the same way and much of the rest of their life bears no similarity; I'd have to see your reasoning on other arguments such as a "virgin birth" before I addressed it) then I'd wonder if it's even possible to construct an entirely unique saviour. Take the birth, for example - if not a virgin birth, then what? Entirely natural human birth - mythology had they covered. Transformation from an animal or out of solid rock - mythology had that covered too. Divine incarnation directly as a unique entity - mythology has that one covered also.

I honestly can't think of a unique birth or a unique death or any such, so if Jesus' birth happened another way, I suspect we'd still have the same argument, just with different mythologies.

But as I said, this is referring to passing similarities only, the argument of the Christ-myther is entirely unfounded. I'm not sure to which argument you refer, so I'll leave it at that for now.  To the question of the OP, I'll reiterate what I said in my first response - we have no evidence that Jesus married, but even if he did it really doesn't affect a Christian understanding of the gospels.  It just isn't an issue to me (though I understand that some Christians do believe it important to think of him as not being married).

~ Regards, PA

Ah, i'm sorry. I shouldn't have joined the discussion in the first place, since i am an agnostic with a tendency to atheism. I just got slightly agitated by the threads' headline. In my understanding, there is a thinking mistake when you start pondering on topics that base more on mythology than on scientific proof. Let me explain that with a more obvious example: Once i read a headline in this forum saying "is there a heaven for pets, too?". While this might be an interesting practice in philosophy or argueing, you just can't SERIOUSLY ask yourself that when you have absolutely NO PROOF that something like an afterlife even exists....

[laver]

eight bits, on 24 January 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Ben



First, let's be clear. "Appeal to authority" is called a fallacy because it can play no part in a mathematical or other tautological demonstration. The word does not connote that an appeal to authority is false. To confuse the word fallacy with the word falsehood is a performance failure in reading comprehension.

Which, by an amazing coincidence, is what we are discussing here, another failure in reading comprehension. However, since you acknowledge that those who share your reading aren't reputable scholars, then that avenue for advance has been explored and found useless.



The burden is on the teacher to teach. It is the student's prerogative to say "Show me where that is written." It's not my OP, Ben. Do the math.

minera



Yes. It is far more important whether Mary of Magdala was the first Apostle, as she was according to John 20, then whether she was Jesus' wife.

You mentioned the Catholics, and might have mentioned the Orthodox as well. Their theory for excluding living women from holy orders and consecration is that Jesus chose only men for his emissaries. Uh huh. So what's the Gospel According to John? Fanfic?

Mary of Magdala is the key. From biblical and other texts she was the messenger, companion and confidant of Jesus but what were they being so confidential about? Did it relate to her town Magdala on the Sea of Galilee? Next to Magdala is a mountain called Mount Abel and Jesus had a special mountain in this area which Mary of Magdala directs the Apostles to. (Matthew 28). What was so special about this mountain that Jesus chose as a meeting place? It is a special location and the reason must have been known to Jesus and Mary of Magdala.

[Paranoid Android]

Jacques Terreur, on 25 January 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Ah, i'm sorry. I shouldn't have joined the discussion in the first place, since i am an agnostic with a tendency to atheism. I just got slightly agitated by the threads' headline. In my understandings, there is a thinking mistake when you start pondering on topics that base more on mythology than on scientific proof. Let me explain that with a more obvious example: Once i read a headline in this forum saying "is there a heaven for pets, too?". While this might be an interesting practice in philosophy or argueing, you just can't SERIOUSLY ask yourself that when you have absolutely NO PROOF that something like an afterlife even exists....

You don't need to apologise for sharing an opinion, that's what this board isfor. The title of this board is Spirituality vs Skepticism, and it would really defeat the purpose of this entire section if debate was stalled just because we don't know for certain if heaven exists or if Jesus' story is exactly as said in the gospels.

At the very least, I would think discussion and debate would be fun even if the things we debate turn out to be false. For example, think about people that get together to discuss fiction novels, suggest motives for characters, hypothesise about story lines and offer theories about characters and events (Lord of the Rings, for example, is one of the more popular and elicits heated debate among hardcore fans). It doesn't matter to them that Middle Earth didn't exist, or that there was no War of the Ring, they just love debating the mythology of a fictional world.

Why can't the same outlook be used with real mythology as well as fictional universes?

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android, 25 January 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[laver]

Paranoid Android, on 25 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

You don't need to apologise for sharing an opinion, that's what this board isfor. The title of this board is Spirituality vs Skepticism, and it would really defeat the purpose of this entire section if debate was stalled just because we don't know for certain if heaven exists or if Jesus' story is exactly as said in the gospels.

At the very least, I would think discussion and debate would be fun even if the things we debate turn out to be false. For example, think about people that get together to discuss fiction novels, suggest motives for characters, hypothesise about story lines and offer theories about characters and events (Lord of the Rings, for example, is one of the more popular and elicits heated debate among hardcore fans). It doesn't matter to them that Middle Earth didn't exist, or that there was no War of the Ring, they just love debating the mythology of a fictional world.

Why can't the same outlook be used with real mythology as well as fictional universes?

~ Regards,

If we look at our world today the impact of beliefs in spirituality rather outweigh the impact of Lord of the Rings etc so will be taken rather more seriously?

[Paranoid Android]

laver, on 25 January 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

If we look at our world today the impact of beliefs in spirituality rather outweigh the impact of Lord of the Rings etc so will be taken rather more seriously?

Though I see your point, the end result is that we are not referring to "our world today" when we post in a random section of a random forum.  Especially if you don't live in the United States of America.  Yes, beliefs about Christianity impact us more than beliefs on Lord of the Rings, but for the purpose of the discussion I was having with Jacques Terreur, I was pointing out that one can intellectually consider a proposition without actually believing in that proposition.  

~ Regards, PA

[laver]

Paranoid Android, on 25 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Though I see your point, the end result is that we are not referring to "our world today" when we post in a random section of a random forum.  Especially if you don't live in the United States of America.  Yes, beliefs about Christianity impact us more than beliefs on Lord of the Rings, but for the purpose of the discussion I was having with Jacques Terreur, I was pointing out that one can intellectually consider a proposition without actually believing in that proposition.  

~ Regards, PA

Does that make you a lawyer?

[Paranoid Android]

laver, on 26 January 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

Does that make you a lawyer?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.