Things the Bible does not say

[Merlin]

Have you some reference for this Lilithu?
I`m not looking for a debate, quite the opposite the concept seems to jibe very well with my limited knowledge of Gnostic tradition.
I`d just like to see if thats where it stems from.

try reading the book. It will give you quite a lot of references

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail
Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln

 

[Qumran]

Even if God knows how it will all end, this experience isn't for Him, it's for us.

I never suggested this experience was for God or for his benefit.

...The Fall was a necessary step for our progression ....

"Necessary".??? .. Your post seems to suggest that God's plan required man to fall and fail to be obedient for the whole 'Jesus as savior' thing to happen. Did Adam ever have a choice to obey and succeed if his fall was "necessary" from God's point of view?

...and because God does know all, it was already a part of the plan that Christ would be our Saviour.

Does that mean:

1- The Devil was serving God's will by tempting humans to their "necessary" fall...because it was part of God's plan?
2- That Adam's sin was inevitable.... because it was part of God's plan?
3- The people who tortured and crucificied Jesus were not at fault...because it was part of God's plan?

In my view, if you are in power and plan a series of events, while knowing full well, how the entire thing would work out - BEFORE - anyone else does... YOU are responsible for it.... Is God responsible for the fall of mankind into sin?

 

[JerryL]

"Necessary".??? .. Your post seems to suggest that God's plan required man to fall and fail to be obedient for the whole 'Jesus as savior' thing to happen. Did Adam ever have a choice to obey and succeed if his fall was "necessary" from God's point of view?

Nope. Omniscience precludes choice.

 

[Radar]

Good post Qumran

 

[angellous_evangellous]

University of Harvard published in America the fragment of the so-called "Secret Gospel of Mark" (scarcely 20 lines), interpreted by the American scholar in a homosexual sense. With regard to Jesus' raising of a young man from a tomb in Bethany, the text says: "The young man, looking at him, loved him.... Six days later ... in the evening the young man joined him wearing a cloth of linen over his naked body; that night he stayed with him, and Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God".

I have successfully destoyed this arguement previously. The text in question is dated in the 18th century.

My argument is simply this:

Why would this peice be accurate and little else that Christians have treasured for the past 2000 years? We aren't that stupid. We have critical scholars that put (the NT texts) together.

I honestly can't believe that the question is even being entertained, but I gues we will have to humor those who wish to project their sexuality onto Jesus - the heteros and homos both have done it. We have entertained the notion that Jesus was married, now that he might have been gay, which will not be supported by your textual fantasy nor is it a historically probable theory. Do you honestly think that religiously-minded Jews (eg, his disciples and apostles) (who our soceity would consider redically homophile) would follow a gay man?!!! :banghead3

Give me a break. This question hardly warrants scholarly inquiry.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12080&page=3&pp=10&highlight=Mark+homosexual post #23

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Post #53 - You should know that the text is not linked to the NT, but to a quote from Clement of Alexandria, who did not directly quote the so-called Markan fragment. The connection is not solid, and the text is too late to give us any information on the historical Jesus or the Lazarus event. Please also see post #69.
---

The manuscript is dated in the 18th century. I can't believe that we are talking about this. We don't even use manuscripts dated after the 3rd century in the cannon. We can reference much older copies, but the 18th century is a bit late to offer anything to the discussion. It is interesting that Clement of Alexandria may have quoted one extremely small portion of the letter in the third century, which is not convincing evidence that the entire addition existed in his time. The quotation is very general, and he says that it is not genuine anyway.

So we have a source from the 18th century being linked to the third century by a very general quote of a small portion by a Christian bishop who says that the source in question (which most likely is not even our 'homosexual' text here) is not genuine.

From Pah's source

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/8secmk.htm and http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/secm.htm

A small tidbit of Chrisitan history helps here as well. The Gnostics were not fully developed until the fourth century, which is one of the reasons why Christians have never accepted later texts: we are only interested in what came from the folks who actually walked and talked with Jesus and not from people who are not even part of our group. Those who used the name of Jesus outside of the Christian confession (eg Gnostics and others whom we consider heretics) continually added to our texts outside of our textual tradition, which is why we have the Gnostic "Gospels," all of which are too late to be attributed to an apostle, and most of which are dated in the 3rd century and are contradictory to Christian theology as presented in the NT.

The Chrisitan heretical groups also practiced homosexuality, and it is not far fetched to believe that they would project their beliefs and practices onto a text that does not premit it.

Projecting our sexuality onto Jesus is wrong - we must look to the text. Even if the text were even close to the time period, it is most unlikely that devot Jews who were violently opposed to homosexuality would follow a man who claimed to be a prophet and practiced homosexuality. However, this insertion is extremely late and unworthy of further discussion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, many people believe that Jesus and Mary were married. They believe that the wedding at which Jesus created wine from water was his own wedding. There is quite a lot of evidence that that is true.

This should be good. Please present the evidence.

 

[Apriori]

Hey folks,

This has gotten way off topic. PLEASE take your debates to a new thread. This thread is not for the purpose of debate, but survey. I knew this would happen and therefore the reason for the guidelines in the original post.



I'm taking a SURVEY of things the Bible Does Not Say but are attributed to the Bible.



Thanks for you corporation and help.

 

[Radar]

Hey folks,

This has gotten way off topic. PLEASE take your debates to a new thread. This thread is not for the purpose of debate, but survey. I knew this would happen and therefore the reason for the guidelines in the original post.



I'm taking a SURVEY of things the Bible Does Not Say but are attributed to the Bible.



Thanks for you corporation and help.

If that was the case then you should not have put this in the debate forum... Seeing how it is here then the debate is on..

 

[michel]

Hey folks,

This has gotten way off topic. PLEASE take your debates to a new thread. This thread is not for the purpose of debate, but survey. I knew this would happen and therefore the reason for the guidelines in the original post.



I'm taking a SURVEY of things the Bible Does Not Say but are attributed to the Bible.



Thanks for you corporation and help.

Following Radar's comment; would you like me to move this thread ? If so, where ?, The only other suitable place for it is discuss individual religions; but that is hardly the place for it. Perhaps theists only discussion ?........:help:

 

[Merlin]

This should be good. Please present the evidence.

Firstly, they are not my theories. Nor do I necessarily subscribe to them (other than to say so what). But if you're interested here's a few

It is highly improbable that Jesus was not married well before the beginning of his public ministry. If he had insisted upon celibacy, it would have created a stir, a reaction which would have left some trace. So, the lack of mention of Jesus's marriage in the Gospels is a strong argument not against but for the hypothesis of marriage, because any practice or advocacy of voluntary celibacy would in the Jewish context of the time have been so unusual as to have attracted much attention and comment.

Jesus was often addressed as Rabbi. But if Jesus was a Rabbi in the strict sense of the word, a married would not only have been likely, but virtually certain under Jewish Mishnaic Law.

 

[Apriori]

This is most likely the best forum for this survey. If you read the original post, it is clear as to its intent. Please abide by that intent. It is impolite to hijack a thread on any forum.


Thank you

 

[Merlin]

This should be good. Please present the evidence.

In the fourth Gospel there is an episode related to a marriage which may, in fact, have been Jesus's own. This is the wedding at Cana. It would seem to have been a typical village wedding, whose bride and groom remain anonymous. To this wedding Jesus is specifically called, which is slightly curious perhaps for he has not yet fully embarked upon his ministry. More curious still, however, is the fact that his mother 'just happens' to be present. And her presence would seem to be taken for granted. That is not explained.

What is more it is Mary who not merely 'suggests' to her son, but in effect orders him to replenish the wine. she behaves quite as if she was the hostess (John 2:3-4).

"His mother said to the servants, whatever it He says to you, do it". And the servants promptly comply. Quite as if they were accustomed to receiving orders from both Mary and Jesus.

Despite Jesus's attempt to disown her, Mary prevails and Jesus performs his first major miracle, the transmutation of water into wine. As far of the Gospels are concerned he has not tried prior to this to display his powers and there is no reason for Mary to assume he even possesses them. But even if she did know, why would such a unique and holy gift be employed for so banal a purpose? Why would Mary make such a request of her son at a village wedding?

More important still, why would two artisan class 'guests' at the wedding take on themselves the responsibility of catering, a responsibility that, by custom, should be reserved for the host? Unless of course it was His own wedding, in which case it would be His responsibility.

Then in John 2:9-10, the Governor of the Feast (Master of ceremonies) called to the bridegroom and said what fantastic wine it was. These words would would clearly seen to be addressed to Jesus, and according to the Gospel they are addressed to the bridegroom.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If Jesus was the bridegroom, he would not be asked to take care of the problem. In the Gospel, it says that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding. Surely Jesus would not need an invitation to his own wedding. He would have known about it, and his family would make sure that there was enough wine to go around...

 

[Merlin]

This should be good. Please present the evidence.

Is there any indication in the Gospels of the identity of any possible wife?

On first consideration they would appear to be two possible candidates, two women apart from his mother who are mentioned repeatedly in the Gospels as being of his entourage.

The first of these is Mary Magdalene (Mary from the village of Migdal or Magdala) in Galilee. In all four Gospels this woman's role is singularly ambiguous. In the accounts of Mark and Matthew she is not mentioned by name until quite late. In the Gospel of Luke, however, she appears relatively early in the Ministry while He is preaching in Galilee. It would therefore seem that she accompanies him from Galilee to Judaea, or if not that, she at least moves between these provinces as readily as he does. This in itself strongly suggests that she was married to someone. In the Palestine of Jesus's time it would have been unthinkable for an unmarried woman to travel unaccompanied - and even more so to travel unaccompanied with a religious teacher and his entourage.

A number of traditions have taken cognisance of this potentially embarrassing fact. Thus it is sometimes claimed that Magdalene was married to one of Jesus's disciples. If that were the case, however, a special relationship with Jesus and her proximity to him would have rendered both of them subject to suspicions if not charges of adultery.

Despite popular tradition, she is not at any point in any of the Gospels said to be a prostitute. Luke reports that her friends include the wife of a high dignitary in King Herod's court. And she was a woman of means, because Mark's gospel stresses the costliness of the ointment with which the ritual anointing was performed.

Mary Magdalene became a figure of immense significance in the Gospels, and heads the list of women and followed Jesus. She was also the first witness to the empty tomb.

The other candidate is Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. I will elaborate on these theories if anybody is interested (and if I survive the bombs which will be thrown at me now). Remember I am quoting General theory is not my own.

 

[Merlin]

If Jesus was the bridegroom, he would not be asked to take care of the problem. In the Gospel, it says that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding. Surely Jesus would not need an invitation to his own wedding. He would have known about it, and his family would make sure that there was enough wine to go around...

It was the disciples who were invited, and who else could turn water into wine? Unless you think it is a standard party trick.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the fourth Gospel ...

You promised us "quite a lot of evidence" and, instead, you're offering us a garbled interpretation of a sliver of Gospel? Good grief!

there is an episode related to a marriage which may, in fact, have been Jesus's own. This is the wedding at Cana. It would seem to have been a typical village wedding, whose bride and groom remain anonymous. To this wedding Jesus is specifically called, which is slightly curious perhaps for he has not yet fully embarked upon his ministry. More curious still, however, is the fact that his mother 'just happens' to be present. And her presence would seem to be taken for granted. That is not explained.

No. What is not explained is why you should declare it "slightly curious" and "more curious still". And what is "curious" and "not explained" is your willingness to pretend to know what would be typical or atypical in 1st century CE Israel.

A wedding is a simcha, in a covenanted community family, friends, and acquaintances would be expected to attend.

What is more it is Mary who not merely 'suggests' to her son, but in effect orders him to replenish the wine. she behaves quite as if she was the hostess (John 2:3-4).

No, the story has her behaving as one who knew her son was capable of resolving an embarrassing situation.

"His mother said to the servants, whatever it He says to you, do it". And the servants promptly comply. Quite as if they were accustomed to receiving orders from both Mary and Jesus.

These were not unionized servants. There is no reason to think that responding to a guest's request was outside their job description.

As far of the Gospels are concerned he has not tried prior to this to display his powers and there is no reason for Mary to assume he even possesses them.

I guess she figured the whole Virgin Birth thing was just a fluke.

But even if she did know, why would such a unique and holy gift be employed for so banal a purpose? Why would Mary make such a request of her son at a village wedding?

She's a Jewish mother. You think that was something? I cannot imagine what she might have done had they run out of food!

More important still, why would two artisan class 'guests' at the wedding take on themselves the responsibility of catering, a responsibility that, by custom, should be reserved for the host?

"More important still!" "Artisan class"! This is truly stupid.

Then in John 2:9-10, the Governor of the Feast (Master of ceremonies) called to the bridegroom and said what fantastic wine it was. These words would would clearly seen to be addressed to Jesus, and according to the Gospel they are addressed to the bridegroom.

You have a marvelous ability to read what you want to read, ignore what you want to ignore, and blather about things that you've clearly never thought through. Let's leave this silliness behind and look at the text:

2:01 Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there,
2:02 and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
2:03 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine left.”
2:04 Jesus replied, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.”
2:05 His mother told the servants, “Whatever he tells you, do it.”
2:06 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washing, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
2:07 Jesus told the servants, “Fill the water jars with water.” So they filled them up to the very top.
2:08 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the head steward,” and they did.
2:09 When the head steward tasted the water that had been turned to wine, not knowing where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), he called the bridegroom
2:10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests are drunk. You have kept the good wine until now!”
2:11 Jesus did this as the first of his miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee. In this way he revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.​

So, what does it say?

• There was a wedding some 4 to 8 miles from Nazareth, i.e., clearly withing the community in which Jesus was raised.
• Jesus and the disciples were invited. Bridegrooms are not invited to a wedding: they invite.
• Mary notices a problem and askes Jesus to intervene.
• Jesus responds “Woman, why are you saying this to me? - or, more correctly - “Woman, what to me and to you?”, a semitic idiom meaning "what does this have to do with us. This is not the response of a bridegroom being asked to take responsibility for his guests, but of a guest being asked to take responsibility for the bridegroom.
• Jesus then notes "My time has not yet come." The suggestion here is that it was a little premature to be performing miracles. Again, this is hardly the response of a bridegroom.
• The miracle was performed and the wine was presumable good. Having been to Israel and having tasted their wines, let me assure you that this was, indeed, a miracle.
• The steward tasted the wine and, "not knowing where it came from", complimented the bridegroom. The whole point of Jn 2:09 was that the steward complimented the wrong person.

In brief, you promised us "quite a lot of evidence" and all we got from you was a horribly distorted rendition of John 2:2-11. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[linwood]

Do you honestly think that religiously-minded Jews (eg, his disciples and apostles) (who our soceity would consider redically homophile) would follow a gay man?!!!

AE,

I`m not arguing for the homosexuality of Jesus as I don`t think we can know one way or another or more importantly why we should care .
However if homosexuality was so abhorred by ancient Jews and their religious leaders would have no respect if they committed homosexual acts whats the deal with all the male temple prostitutes I keep hearing about?
Who were they servicing?

 

[Apriori]

I REMOVE THE ORIGINAL POST

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN HIJACKED and IS NO LONGER OF PRACTICAL USE OR PURPOSE


Moderator please close this thread.

 

[Katzpur]

I REMOVE THE ORIGINAL POST

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN HIJACKED and IS NO LONGER OF PRACTICAL USE OR PURPOSE


Moderator please close this thread.

*** MOD POST ***

Apriori,

I can understand your frustration at where your thread appears to be headed. But deleting the opening post was probably not the best way to handle it. In the future, if you can see your threads going off on a tangent, please contact a moderator and ask that the offenders be officially reminded to stay on topic.

This was really a fascinating thread. I'm sorry you want to see it closed.

Kathryn