Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:
We talking porn star hot or MILF hot?

I guess if you are a protestant the former, if Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, the latter.

 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like the most important question is being avoided. If Jesus was married, would his wife have been hot?

I don't know about that but her hot cross buns were heavenly.

 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like the most important question is being avoided. If Jesus was married, would his wife have been hot?

Well from biblical sources I doubt it would be out of the question that Mary Magdalen was in fact Mrs. Christ and I think it's implied she was pretty hot.

On a more serious note, Jesus was a skilled tradesman and respected rabbi for most his life, he'd probably have his pick of the local hotties.

Any one have an issue with the very solid chance that Jesus had siblings?

I feel like the most important question is being avoided. If Jesus was married, would his wife have been hot?

I figure that comparatively, God must be the richest guy in the universe. So the answer would obviously be a resounding yes.

Which brings up another important question. How much does God pay in taxes?

 LordofHats wrote:

I feel like the most important question is being avoided. If Jesus was married, would his wife have been hot?

I figure that comparatively, God must be the richest guy in the universe. So the answer would obviously be a resounding yes.

Which brings up another important question. How much does God pay in taxes?

Well the Christian answer is that Christ gave everything he had...

but that's only one year... hmmm.

Is God republican, democrat, or independent?

 Jihadin wrote:
Is God republican, democrat, or independent?

What if god is part of a parliamentary system with more options, and not even *gasp* American?!

Depends....would he be a legal immigrant?

 Jihadin wrote:
Depends....would he be a legal immigrant?

I'm pretty sure that god is Mexican, since he has apparently been asleep for the last few billion years...

Think he get PO if we ask him if he wants to hang around with us?

 LordofHats wrote:
Which brings up another important question. How much does God pay in taxes?

Zero, of course. It's proven fact that the more wealth you have the more tax loopholes you find. Therefore, as the richest being in the universe God would find all the loopholes and pay zero taxes.

Can see that. Can point at the Vatican and say "That's mine" and next thing you know we get him for propery tax around the world.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

On a more serious note, Jesus was a skilled tradesman and respected rabbi for most his life, he'd probably have his pick of the local hotties.

Any one have an issue with the very solid chance that Jesus had siblings?

Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers, I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.

 AustonT wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

On a more serious note, Jesus was a skilled tradesman and respected rabbi for most his life, he'd probably have his pick of the local hotties.

Any one have an issue with the very solid chance that Jesus had siblings?

Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers, I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.

I missed that in Matthew, and considering the whole sibling thing got my knuckles whacked just as hard as when I asked if Jesus was married back in Catholic school I considered them similar levels of blasphemous thought

 AustonT wrote:
Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers

Um, no. Matthew is explicit in naming Jesus' familial lineage through his parents. Its ambiguous as to any potential siblings. There are versus that say he has brothers and sisters, but it was common practice among Jews that cousins and close relatives of the same age be referred to as brothers and sisters, so whether those are Mary's children is unclear (once the doctrine of perpetual virginity was established the answer for the church became no). The interpretation that they are merely close relatives makes sense though since Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (but its still ambiguous). But of course Mark also says he had brothers and sisters and Mark was written to a gentile audience. Another possibility is that they are Joseph's children through a previous marriage, but no evidence for that theory exists.

There isn't enough information available from the texts to definitively determine one way or the other. That said, the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity was a later addition to church doctrine and it would seem, odd, for Mary to only have one child. It's impossible to determine the historical status of James, Jose, Simon, and Judas in relation to Jesus. It thus becomes a purely doctrinal problem (and a silly one at times).

I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.

None of the Canonic or Apocraphal books accepted by the Christianity today list any twins for Jesus. The only books that mention siblings at all are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Thomas, and only Matthew names them.

See now that to me is completely unbelievable, fine I'll accept that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but that a married couple wouldn't get to begating? That's unrealistic on a "dinosaurs are a hoax" scale.

Yeah gonna say I fall on that side of the line. It seems horribly improbable that she'd never have any other children. Not dinosaurs are a hoax level, but some level of "oh reeaaally?" I don't think there are that many people circa 10-20 CE who only had 1 kid... Except Elizabeth but she was barren so she has an excuse.

The Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity

There is no validity behind the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity except as a means to enhance the reputation of Mary. Its a Roman Catholic revisionist pipe dream with little to no scriptural basis.

Matthew 13: 53-57
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Mark 6: 2-3
2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

The Gospel account states that Jesus has siblings, while it is indeed possible that this could be a colloquial term for relatives in general we have no justifiable reason to assume that is the case. Normally if a passage refers to brothers it means brothers, not cousins. The Bible mentions cousins only a limit number of occasions but it does make the distinction, especially of note is the reference in Leviticus 25, which highlights cousins in the Law, albeit the sole instance of doing so. As cousins are specifically identified in the Torah it is pretty much inconceivable that the Gospel account would mistake ignore the distinction between a brother or a cousin.

Leviticus 25: 48-49
48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves.

Part of the problem with some Roman Catholic teaching is Marianism, the doctrine of elevating the Virgin Mary above her station in scripture. As the scriptures say generations will call her blessed, but they should not call her divine. The Bible strictly forgives worship of any being but God, so it was never intended for the Virgin Mary to be an object of prayer, veneration yes, but not a subject of petition. In parts of south America particularly an extreme version of Marianism has risen which called for the Virgin Mary to be labeled as co-salvator with Christ. Fortunately and to his credit Pope John Paul II blocked this.

Nevertheless many unscriptural parts of Marianism linger in orthodox Catholicism including the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity, which is frankly not only unscriptural but counter productive. The Biblical doctrine of Virgin Birth highlights the purity of Jesus, the non Biblical doctrine of Perpetual Virginity highlights the purity of Mary alone.

The only Biblical account that has any support for Perpetual Virginity is the account that Jesus on the cross passed care of his mother on to the disciple John. It would have made more sense to pass responsibility onto one of Mary's other sons, if they existed. However that is very thin. It still would make no indication that Mary lived her whole life free of sexual relations, or may have indicated that John was chosen because John was there and the brothers were not, or that John had better material means with which to look after her. John was also known for his longevity, in fact this was prophesied, it may even be thev purpose for which he was given a long life.


Married Jesus?

I don't have a problem with this frankly. Jesus had many female followers, some of whom were close to him. The Gospel account gives them little attention, but does acknowledge they were there. It is telling that Jesus first appeared to some of his female followers before the disciples.

I think in balance that Jesus probably was unmarried but I cannot defend that beyond saying that it is a hunch. Jesus was mission orientated, he came to Earth for a purpose, to marry is in some regards counter productive. Saying that untyil the age of thirty Jesus lived a relatively normal life and probably practiced his foster fathers business. An unmarried man at that age would be odd especially as Jesus was referred to as a rabbi and rabbis have always been a married post by tradition. on the other hand rabbis are not married by Law, only tradition and Jesus practiced an open contempt for the traditions that lay outside the Law.

It doesnt matter either way really, but if it makes a point for feminist theologians then I have to ask: Are the scriptures being interpreted to match a desired doctrine, or is this open revelation? Only the latter is desirable.


Merovingian Dynasty.

Part of the reason to assume Jesus married is that as a married man he probably would have had children. Again I do not believe this as provision for the Virgin Mary was made at the cross, however no provision was made for any siblings. Jesus if he was to leave behind a family would not have omitted this.
It is telling that no record of Jesus' family survives, which is all for the better as any proven blood relative of Jesus would have super-royalty status, particularly in the middle ages. This is not to say that such relatives don't exist, if Mary had other children with Joseph, which is likely from the Gospel account then they are half-blood relations to Jesus, and also descendants of Mary and ultimately King David.

I think it likely that the early church and indeed God may not have wanted a dynastic royalty within Christianity. Some like to believe this dynasty exists and some think it can even be traced, hence the Merovingian dynasty. This is in my opinion conspiracy nonsense on the same level as UFO conspiracies and secret messages in old paintings. Some even like to postulate if they are connected. I mention this for completeness, not because it has any place in rational theology.

There's also the more contemporary problem that if the Saint Claire are the actual descendants of the Christ, then his latest inheritor is a porn star.

That might resolve some issue with church attendance.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
There's also the more contemporary problem that if the Saint Laure are the actual descendants of the Christ, then his latest inheritor is a porn star.

That might resolve some issue with church attendance.

Thats fairly pointless frankly. unless the 'dynasty' kept to having single children the genes would eventually spread, especially as there isnt a single key 'official' family. Two millenia later and Mary's/ Jesus's (you choose) genetic heritage is probably very widespread indeed. So if a descendant is a porn star, so what. Plenty more who arent.

Also the geneology of Jesus in Mathew 1:5 includes the prostitute Rahab, so nothing new.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
There's also the more contemporary problem that if the Saint Claire are the actual descendants of the Christ, then his latest inheritor is a porn star.

That might resolve some issue with church attendance.

Thats fairly pointless frankly. unless the 'dynasty' kept to having single children the genes would eventually spread, especially as there isnt a single key 'official' family. Two millenia later and Mary's/ Jesus's (you choose) genetic heritage is probably very widespread indeed.

Yes, well that argument can be used against any type of dynastic system relying on some type of quality of character in the leaders. Even with 5-10 generations the genetic baggage becomes quite different.

The Gospel account states that Jesus has siblings, while it is indeed possible that this could be a colloquial term for relatives in general we have no justifiable reason to assume that is the case. Normally if a passage refers to brothers it means brothers, not cousins. The Bible mentions cousins only a limit number of occasions but it does make the distinction, especially of note is the reference in Leviticus 25, which highlights cousins in the Law, albeit the sole instance of doing so. As cousins are specifically identified in the Torah it is pretty much inconceivable that the Gospel account would mistake ignore the distinction between a brother or a cousin.

I think that's a very bad logical assumption. We have non-Biblical texts from Palestine that refer to close relatives as brother and sister, so we know it happened. The term cousin is almost never used in the Bible for this exact reason. And it wasn't just a Jewish thing. They likely picked that tradition up from the Persians.

You also assume authorship with united styles and motivation which is just plain wrong. Leviticus was written centuries prior to the Gospels by different authors in a different time.

One of the biggest things to note about Jesus' supposed brothers is that one is named Jose. This is a different way of rendering the name Joseph in Greek. Jesus, is a Hellenistic rendering of Joseph. It seems odd that were Mary to have other children she'd give two of her sons the same name. Joseph was by far the most common name among Jews in this time period (think John Smith levels of common). Two siblings with the same name is odd, but two close relatives probably likely.

The most probable answer may be that some of the brothers listed were close relatives, and some siblings either by Joseph or Mary. It's not a simple question to answer (fortunately I don't really think it's an important question that needs answering beyond the interests of raw academics).

The only Biblical account that has any support for Perpetual Virginity is the account that Jesus on the cross passed care of his mother on to the disciple John. It would have made more sense to pass responsibility onto one of Mary's other sons, if they existed.

The key origin for the doctrine is the Book of James (and partially the Book of Peter). Despite being rejected for canonization we can trace the doctrine's origins to these texts.

I think that more than likely those listed in Matthew are a mix of both close relatives and Joseph's children either from Mary or another marriage. It's unlikely Mary was his only wife. Since Joseph disappears absolutely from the Bible it may be possible he died (it's most likely he died, as he would culturally take charge of his son's body on his death, which he didn't do) and his sons were caring for his other wives, leaving Jesus to send his mother to the care of a close friend. EDIT: Of course there's also the theory that there is no Joseph. The oldest of the Gospels is Mark and Joseph isn't in it. Early Christians believed Jesus would return very soon, so the question of whether they should marry and have children was one they struggled with. It's possible Joseph's character was written into texts to address this question and to encourage early Christians to go about their business as usual. But Mark still mentions brothers and sisters.

 LordofHats wrote:

I think that's a very bad logical assumption. We have non-Biblical texts from Palestine that refer to close relatives as brother and sister, so we know it happened. The term cousin is almost never used in the Bible for this exact reason. And it wasn't just a Jewish thing. They likely picked that tradition up from the Persians.

Its also not particularly far fetched given that words like "brother" and "uncle" are often used today to refer to people with whom you have a close, thought not necessarily genetic, relationship. We're not so free wheeling as was common in the time of Jesus, or so focused on familial ties, but the appellation is still used in a distorted manner. For example, I've got a very old friend who I've introduced as my brother for years. I've known him since I was 6, and while we're not particularly good friends anymore he still ends up at every family holiday meal to this day.

Sam covers my thoughts on the previous six pages.

 Peregrine wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
By the way I didn't attempt to argue from authority..all I did was point out your logical fallacy that a PHD theologian's/Bible scholar's writings were equivalent to Glen Beck (a TV personality).

Except he's a "PHD" and "scholar" in name only. His "degree" is from an unaccredited mail-order diploma mill (IOW, its only value is as toilet paper), and the fact that he published a book disputing evolution proves that he's laughably unqualified as a scholar. Comparing him to Glen Beck is probably a bad comparison, but only because Glen Beck is actually successful and wealthy in his chosen field, while your "scholar" is just a fraud.

Interesting..

Dr. James Whites diploma Mills.
B.A. Bible (Major in Biology, minor in Greek), Grand Canyon College, 1985.
M.A. Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1989
Th.M. Apologetics, Faraston Seminary, 1995
Th.D., Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 1998
D.Min, Apologetics, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, 2002

Timothy Jones' diploma mills
B.A., Manhattan Christian College;
M.Div., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary;
Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Bart Ehrman's diploma mills

Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985
M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

Anyway you are starting to get emotional in your responses, while I see your point that Columbia Evangelical Seminary is unaccredited and therefore not as prestigious as Princeton, it still doesn't "auto fraud" someone. James white was a consultant for the New American Standard Bible update in 1995 The NASB is a well respected translation. And he stood toe to toe with Ehrman in the Misquting Jesus debate. Which I own by the way..it's well worth the watch if your in to this stuff.

I'm not going to continue on this derail, as I think we have both made our points and it's kind of off the topic.

GG

 Seaward wrote:


Sam covers my thoughts on the previous six pages.

That's kind of how I feel about the perpetual motion thread.

This discussion has been mostly interesting.

 Seaward wrote:


Sam covers my thoughts on the previous six pages.

 LordofHats wrote:

The Gospel account states that Jesus has siblings, while it is indeed possible that this could be a colloquial term for relatives in general we have no justifiable reason to assume that is the case. Normally if a passage refers to brothers it means brothers, not cousins. The Bible mentions cousins only a limit number of occasions but it does make the distinction, especially of note is the reference in Leviticus 25, which highlights cousins in the Law, albeit the sole instance of doing so. As cousins are specifically identified in the Torah it is pretty much inconceivable that the Gospel account would mistake ignore the distinction between a brother or a cousin.

I think that's a very bad logical assumption. We have non-Biblical texts from Palestine that refer to close relatives as brother and sister, so we know it happened. The term cousin is almost never used in the Bible for this exact reason. And it wasn't just a Jewish thing. They likely picked that tradition up from the Persians.

You also assume authorship with united styles and motivation which is just plain wrong. Leviticus was written centuries prior to the Gospels by different authors in a different time.

One of the biggest things to note about Jesus' supposed brothers is that one is named Jose. This is a different way of rendering the name Joseph in Greek. Jesus, is a Hellenistic rendering of Joseph. It seems odd that were Mary to have other children she'd give two of her sons the same name. Joseph was by far the most common name among Jews in this time period (think John Smith levels of common). Two siblings with the same name is odd, but two close relatives probably likely.

The most probable answer may be that some of the brothers listed were close relatives, and some siblings either by Joseph or Mary. It's not a simple question to answer (fortunately I don't really think it's an important question that needs answering beyond the interests of raw academics).

I cannot say the brothers of Jesus were not brothers in a coloquial sense, but there is no defense for a doctrine that claims that they are. its Marian wishful thinking.

Besides it doesnt take into account this:

Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

So according to the Book of Matthew Joseph had Mary afterwards. if so she wasn't a virgin anymore and as barrenness is considered a curse and sinful I have no reason not to believe the union was fruitful. Frankly I think they were brothers, especially as they thought they had special access to Jesus as brothers, cousins don't necessarily have priority over close friends. The inidcation is that Jesus knew his three inner disciples and possibly other from before his ministry.

 LordofHats wrote:

The key origin for the doctrine is the Book of James (and partially the Book of Peter). Despite being rejected for canonization we can trace the doctrine's origins to these texts.

Can you expand on that please.

 LordofHats wrote:

I think that more than likely those listed in Matthew are a mix of both close relatives and Joseph's children either from Mary or another marriage. It's unlikely Mary was his only wife. Since Joseph disappears absolutely from the Bible it may be possible he died (it's most likely he died, as he would culturally take charge of his son's body on his death, which he didn't do) and his sons were caring for his other wives, leaving Jesus to send his mother to the care of a close friend. EDIT: Of course there's also the theory that there is no Joseph. The oldest of the Gospels is Mark and Joseph isn't in it. Early Christians believed Jesus would return very soon, so the question of whether they should marry and have children was one they struggled with. It's possible Joseph's character was written into texts to address this question and to encourage early Christians to go about their business as usual. But Mark still mentions brothers and sisters.

Sorry, but I can't buy that, its very likely Mary was Josephs only wife, polygamy was sinful and Joseph was a righteous man.. Yes several Old Testament characters practiced polygamy, such as Solomon, always with negative results. By this time AFAIK it was not usual in Jewish society to practice polygamy.

According to tradition Joseph died before Jesus began his ministry. Jesus was head of his household when he began his work and a man in his own prime. Part of the reason he started his ministry at 30 the traditional entry age for true adulthood in Jewish society. There was a Joseph in that Mary was engaged to be married to, he lasted long enough to return to Galilee so Jesus became 'the carpenters son'. How long he lived and when he died, we dont know.

 Orlanth wrote:
Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Or, more likely, Mary and Joseph were having lots of hot premarital sex but in ways that can't produce kids, Mary cheated on him with some other guy and got pregnant, and said "god did it" to get herself out of trouble. It certainly makes a lot more sense than any other explanation.

 generalgrog wrote:
Anyway you are starting to get emotional in your responses, while I see your point that Columbia Evangelical Seminary is unaccredited and therefore not as prestigious as Princeton, it still doesn't "auto fraud" someone.

Yes it does. "Unaccredited" doesn't mean "less prestigious", it means that the standards for getting a degree are so low that they can't convince any accrediting organization to recognize their program as legitimate. And it's automatically fraud if you claim a "degree" from an unaccredited "school"* in your author summary just like it was a real degree. What you actually have is a rather expensive piece of toilet paper, not a degree, and you're counting on people not knowing that it's from an unaccredited "school" when you claim to be a "PhD bible scholar". Just like if I claimed to be a "PhD bible scholar" using my own degree** it would be fraud.

Oh, and before you claim that this is unfair to the poor Christians, I'll just point out that there are plenty of accredited religious schools offering degrees in religious subjects. The only thing preventing a "scholar" from getting a real degree from one of these schools is the fact that they don't want to invest the effort required.


*While there might be some unaccredited programs which offer some kind of education most of them are little more than mail-order diploma sellers or "schools" created for the sole purpose of awarding "degrees" to members of their religion to give them credentials to claim in public debates.

**Which I just awarded myself from Peregrine University. We're now offering degrees starting at $19.95 with no classes required!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Or, more likely, Mary and Joseph were having lots of hot premarital sex but in ways that can't produce kids, Mary cheated on him with some other guy and got pregnant, and said "god did it" to get herself out of trouble. It certainly makes a lot more sense than any other explanation.

This reads like the script for Innocence of Muslims.