Excatly. Alot of people think this true simply for the fact that she came from a town that was known for prostitution and that she was about to be stoned for adultery before Jesus saved her, although there is no evidence that she was a prostitute. There is also NO mention in the BIBLE that Jesus was ever married. The Da Vinci Code is a good read, but IMO people try and read to much into it.
Well whenever the FULL Bible is released by the Catholic church, and all the edited books are put back in...then we shall see. DD
those books exist DaDa..you can still read them. start with the Gospel of Thomas. google it. we've become a society of "experts" by knowing just enough about a subject to be dangerous. we take assumptions and literary license to be fact if they're presented in an entertaining fashion...Oliver Stone made a living off this. "i read something on the internet once that said bill clinton killed a bunch of people." yeah...right.
Nothing in the Bible says that the woman who was going to be stoned to death was Magdalene. There's no reason to absolutely trust a council 300 years after Jesus' death to decide which books written 100 years after his death were accurate and which were not. All or none of them might be true accounts. It does seem odd that there's a 20 year gap in which nothing about Jesus' life is mentioned, and that it's never commented upon that he is not married.
the guys who wrote the gospels didn't know him as a child. the only one who did, that i can think of, would be James, who was his brother. James wrote probably the strongest of all the letters in terms of who Christ was. i don't know that he wasn't married. frankly, i don't care. i don't believ he was, but it would not diminish in any way the claims he made of who he was in the bible.
If only it were that easy, that would be a bible worth checking out. The bible 2000 years ago had to recopied by hand every 200 years or so. Those books that The Church found be uninspired or theologically problematic were not found to be canonical, were not copied, and have not made it to this day and age. Outside of another Nag Hammadi like find, we will be in the dark.
what books, no worries? seriously..what books outside of the gnostic gospels are you talking about?? are you assuming there were texts other than the gospels of the Nag Hammadi??
i'm not Catholic. God created sex. Can it be abused? of course! Can it be misused? of course! Can it be made to be TOO important and separate you from the things that truly are important? of course?? But men and women were made the way they are for a reason. God sanctioned marriage as the best way to know that. As a place for that. Sex is awesome! Praise God! i mean..let's get it out...that's the real issue right? people would freak out if Jesus had sex with a woman he's married to. i really don't believe he was married. the suggestions of them are vague to say the least. and i don't pretend to know more about the facts surrounding Jesus' life than the guys who wrote the Gospels. but....if Jesus was married...and had sex with his wife...I don't think that in any way diminishes his ability to be EXACTLY who he claimed to be in the Gospels. you know what else...he probably farted, too. oooppssss....i said it!!! and he probably laughed about it, too. and he probably goofed around and joked. yeah...i'm a heretic.
Someone had to, surely. Jesus had to touch someone's life before the age of 30 or whenever the gospels pick up. Certainly his birth is documented by Matthew and Luke, and those guys weren't there. Paul composes much of the New Testament despite never meeting Jesus, although he did meet his brother. I agree with you there. Being married wouldn't affect who he was. But it still seems like it'd be worth a mention somewhere, one way or the other.
They had to edit it out. Imagine what he could do on a date. "I don't drink." says the hot chick to Jesus. "I'll just have water." Jesus snickers to himself.
couple of thoughts here. there were probably few events that were significant. the gospels aren't a biography. they're written with a definite purpose. they usually write by saying, "so that you may believe.." or some such thing. John finishes by saying something like, "and he did countless other things too which i suppose, if they were all to be written down, there would not be enough paper to contain them." -- paraphrased! they're not supposed to be full accounts of his life...but rather hit the points that illustrate that he was who he claimed to be. there is a story from his childhood about visiting the Temple during Passover...and him staying behind to talk with the rabbis. but the story is told for the punchline...when asked where he's been, he says to Mary, "didn't you know I'd be in my Father's house." the birth story is important for the same reason...to answer who he was. the Gospels are purposeful. that's why i suppose it's possible that him being married could have been left out. it wouldn't necessarily fulfill a purpose. however, if she were with him in his ministry as his wife, i think you would have seen a lot more of her in their accounts. that's partially why i have my doubts about that. paper and ink were NOT plentiful. you hit the important points. the Gospel of Mark ends rather abruptly...i've read a 1000 theories as to why...but the one that makes the most sense is that these guys were being persecuted like crazy...they were running from place to place...they were in prison from time to time...and he likely just ran out of paper and/or ink. not having Walgreens is a b****!
That's fine, and I understand what you're saying, but nobody believes that the gospels were actually written (pen to paper) by the disciples. Their origin is believed to date to sometime during the first and second century, AD. They were oral traditions before this. Except for part of John, no original manuscript exists that dates prior to 300 AD.
Luke wasn't a disciple. Matthew was. The dates I've seen for Matthew all have it within the first century. Mark is the oldest and it's most assuredly written in the first century. John is written sometime around 120 or so, if I remember right. i came across this, but i don't know the source well: http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm 3. When was the Gospel of Mark written? The date of the gospel is difficult to determine with precision. There is no internal, direct evidence nor any internal, indirect evidence, although traditionally scholars have tried to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem based on Mark 13: it is assumed that the reference to "the abomination that causes desolation" in Mark 13:14 is an allusion to Titus's destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. But this is not so obvious as is often thought. The external, direct evidence is as follows. (It should be noted that tradition places Peter's death in Rome during Nero's persecutions [64-68].) 3.1. Irenaeus, as quoted above, says that it was after Peter's death that Mark produced his gospel: "And after the death of these (Peter and Paul) Mark the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutês) of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter" (Adv. Haer. 3. 1. 2 in H.E. 5.8.2-4). 3.2. Clement of Alexandria, as quoted above, writes in his Hypotyposeis: "When Peter had preached the gospel publicly in Rome...those who were present...besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended" (H.E. 6.14.6-7). The implication is that Peter was still alive at the time of the composition of the gospel. 3.3. The fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue, as already cited, says: "Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy." 3.4. What do you conclude about the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark? The external, direct evidence is contradictory. There is disagreement about whether Mark wrote his gospel before or after Peter's death, which took place during Nero's persecution of the church c. 65. The Gospel of Mark was written either when Peter was in Rome or just after his death in Rome. To be on the safe side a date ranging from 63-68 should be attributed the Gospel of Mark.
Yes. It is my understanding that there likely are other noncanonical texts "lost to antiquity". Early Christian Writings Q (all three of its versions!!!) would be a good example.
Q: Why do you think the assertions about Christian origins that Brown makes have been so eagerly received, even by self-professed Christians? Welborn: Because, unfortunately, they have not been well educated in the historical origins of Christianity. That was good for a laugh.
Why is that so funny? MAybe I'm just missing it. Or maybe members of the Freemasons have taken over the papacy and are espousing doctrines meant at oppressing women and putting them in their place, like that whole Virgin Mary thing...
Welborn is suggesting a better historical understanding of Jesus is needed by the lay folk. I found that humorous.
