paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Not everybody believes that Jesus was god or son of god, that should be kept in mind.
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where are the remains of Jesus of Nazareth?
- Thread starter First Baseman
- Start date
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
There could be claimant of being descendants of Mary and Joseph the carpenter.
Regards
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Well that's an easy one...
They are as readily available for study as the substantive evidence for the existence of a Transcendent Omnipresent being named Yahweh.
Can you give me a reason to believe that you know more about Jesus' life than @First Baseman?
You are both claiming that the stories told by ancient people are more plausible than that He just died and nobody knows where His remains are today. Why should I believe either one of you about this?
Tom
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Quote:"One such approach was featured on aMarch 27, 2006 episodeof the History Channel's archaeology seriesDigging for the Truth.
Former hostJosh Bernsteinput theDa Vinci Codeto the test bycomparing DNA from the bones of a French Merovingian queen with DNA from a community claiming kinship with ancient Galileans. Not surprisingly, the samples showed no match. However, Bernstein made a more important discovery.
He found that members of Jerusalem’sSyriac Orthodox Churchclaim descent from the family of Jesus. This ancient community still speaks and worships in Aramaic. Its origins are obscure.
“These families can be traced all the way back to Jesus Christ?”, Bernstein asked the church'sArchbishop Severios Malki Murad.
“Of course”, he replied. “We are from the same family”.
Such claims may or may not withstand scientific scrutiny. But they are worth exploring.
By comparing oral history, DNA and whatever scraps of written records survive, we may yet succeed in locating the nearest living relatives of Jesus."Unquote
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942082/posts
Former hostJosh Bernsteinput theDa Vinci Codeto the test bycomparing DNA from the bones of a French Merovingian queen with DNA from a community claiming kinship with ancient Galileans. Not surprisingly, the samples showed no match. However, Bernstein made a more important discovery.
He found that members of Jerusalem’sSyriac Orthodox Churchclaim descent from the family of Jesus. This ancient community still speaks and worships in Aramaic. Its origins are obscure.
“These families can be traced all the way back to Jesus Christ?”, Bernstein asked the church'sArchbishop Severios Malki Murad.
“Of course”, he replied. “We are from the same family”.
Such claims may or may not withstand scientific scrutiny. But they are worth exploring.
By comparing oral history, DNA and whatever scraps of written records survive, we may yet succeed in locating the nearest living relatives of Jesus."Unquote
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942082/posts
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Quote :"Why is this such a big problem? Because if Mary, the mother of Jesus, had remarried, it implies a sexual relationship with a second husband, or alternatively, if Joseph were Clophas, that Mary had other children. And Rome refused to admit that this was possible.
Even many Protestant denominations are now backing down on this issue in order not to jeopardize ecumenical talks with Catholics. Yet there is no legitimate basis in Scripture OR tradition for this teaching. It is based purely upon the 4th-century false doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, a teaching that is completely contrary to the Bible.
Saint Joseph was told by the angel not to fear to take Mary to himself as wife--ie have sex with her--and he did so after Jesus was born. That is the obvious meaning of the text. Had we not been intended to view it that way, Matthew would have phrased it differently or added a corrective to avoid the implication. Likewise, no such corrective is used when Luke says Jesus opened her womb or when Revelation 12 describes her pain in childbirth or in the many places where a "Mary" is cited as having had other children and the mother of Jesus would be the Mary the reading of the passage would assume. No correctives were ever added because none were ever needed until the 4th-century when new amateur theologians like Ambrose became over-night Bishops and introduced false doctrines about Mary's permanent virginity.
Indeed, this lack of correctives in the text of the New Testament is proof that this text had by then become so well-known and unchangeable that Rome could not insert such changes into the wording. Ironically, the lack of any correctives to support this false teaching proves Rome's "tradition" behind the teaching was NOT as powerful as the authority of the Scriptures that refuted it. This fact overthrows Rome's claim that "tradition" and "Scripture" were reckoned as early as the 4th century as of equal authority. That is clearly not true. Rome simply IGNORED the Scripture whenever it contradicted its new doctrines, but had no power to change the text to support its claimed traditions.
So Joseph and Mary had a series of children--at least 7 more after the birth of Jesus. We know of 4 other sons: James (actually "Jacob"), Jude (also called Thaddeus or Lebbaeus, meaning "baby"), Joses (that is, "Little Joe"), and Simeon (possibly the Cananite or Zealot). The text also refers to "all" Jesus' sisters--certainly more than two.
Rome pretends that "brothers" and "sisters" means "cousins" and that whenever a passage CAN be read in a way that supports their doctrine, it "proves" their case. This is what the Bible calls a "wresting" of the Scripture to FORCE it to fit pre-conceived doctrines contrary to the way the text would naturally be understood. The normal reading of the texts would be that these were Jesus' own brothers and sisters, not cousins. IF the Greek can sometimes in unusual cases refer to cousins--and not all scholars agree that it can--this would still not justify stretching the meaning in this passage to force an obviously UNINTENDED reading. This would make little sense in the context of a discussion about the MOTHER of Jesus and his (supposed) FATHER. Why cite someone else's children? It is Jesus' IMMEDIATE family that the people are discussing, not some group of otherwise unknown cousins. [Mt 13:55-56; Mk 6:3-4]". Unquote.
http://petragrail.tripod.com/tecton.html
Regards
Even many Protestant denominations are now backing down on this issue in order not to jeopardize ecumenical talks with Catholics. Yet there is no legitimate basis in Scripture OR tradition for this teaching. It is based purely upon the 4th-century false doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, a teaching that is completely contrary to the Bible.
Saint Joseph was told by the angel not to fear to take Mary to himself as wife--ie have sex with her--and he did so after Jesus was born. That is the obvious meaning of the text. Had we not been intended to view it that way, Matthew would have phrased it differently or added a corrective to avoid the implication. Likewise, no such corrective is used when Luke says Jesus opened her womb or when Revelation 12 describes her pain in childbirth or in the many places where a "Mary" is cited as having had other children and the mother of Jesus would be the Mary the reading of the passage would assume. No correctives were ever added because none were ever needed until the 4th-century when new amateur theologians like Ambrose became over-night Bishops and introduced false doctrines about Mary's permanent virginity.
Indeed, this lack of correctives in the text of the New Testament is proof that this text had by then become so well-known and unchangeable that Rome could not insert such changes into the wording. Ironically, the lack of any correctives to support this false teaching proves Rome's "tradition" behind the teaching was NOT as powerful as the authority of the Scriptures that refuted it. This fact overthrows Rome's claim that "tradition" and "Scripture" were reckoned as early as the 4th century as of equal authority. That is clearly not true. Rome simply IGNORED the Scripture whenever it contradicted its new doctrines, but had no power to change the text to support its claimed traditions.
So Joseph and Mary had a series of children--at least 7 more after the birth of Jesus. We know of 4 other sons: James (actually "Jacob"), Jude (also called Thaddeus or Lebbaeus, meaning "baby"), Joses (that is, "Little Joe"), and Simeon (possibly the Cananite or Zealot). The text also refers to "all" Jesus' sisters--certainly more than two.
Rome pretends that "brothers" and "sisters" means "cousins" and that whenever a passage CAN be read in a way that supports their doctrine, it "proves" their case. This is what the Bible calls a "wresting" of the Scripture to FORCE it to fit pre-conceived doctrines contrary to the way the text would naturally be understood. The normal reading of the texts would be that these were Jesus' own brothers and sisters, not cousins. IF the Greek can sometimes in unusual cases refer to cousins--and not all scholars agree that it can--this would still not justify stretching the meaning in this passage to force an obviously UNINTENDED reading. This would make little sense in the context of a discussion about the MOTHER of Jesus and his (supposed) FATHER. Why cite someone else's children? It is Jesus' IMMEDIATE family that the people are discussing, not some group of otherwise unknown cousins. [Mt 13:55-56; Mk 6:3-4]". Unquote.
http://petragrail.tripod.com/tecton.html
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
1 Corinthians 15:44
Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of 1 Corinthians 15:44.
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Corinthians-15-44/
Regards
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Where does it say that Jesus got married?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Quote:
Unquote
The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the ...
By Ed Hindson, Ergun Caner
https://books.google.ca/books?id=yi...rious body was seen after crucifixion&f=false
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
People are asking such question for new information surfaced, it is an open question though, but must be investigated, unbiased.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I made no claims, I say that it is a valid point to be investigated and I am pointing to available clues in this connection. One may continue believing as per one's faith, yet keeping a window open for new discoveries. This is very much within the scope of truthful religion which does not impede free thinking or investigation, unbiased. Right?
Regards
"Well that supposes that Jesus died on the Cross, which he didn't, so one should search for his remains "
I asked why I would believe either of you.
The whole thing can be explained very easily with no supernatural anything. Including Muhammad's magical knowledge of events from six centuries before.
Tom
You did make a claim. It was the usual Muslim claim.
I asked why I would believe either of you.
The whole thing can be explained very easily with no supernatural anything. Including Muhammad's magical knowledge of events from six centuries before.
Tom
The vast majority of Christians accept that Christ ascended bodily into heaven. The body becomes glorified, not subject to the limitations and corruptions of the earthly body, but it is nonetheless a gloried form of the real earthly body. It is a physical resurrection.
I simply pointed out the reasoning the OP wants to employ here is not very well thought out.
Do you really think it's feasible to find the remains of a first century Judaean peasant, assuming that such remains still even exist? And even if we were to stumble upon remains, it could be any number of thousands who were crucified at the time. Science isn't magic, and skeletons don't talk.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gary Sheldrake
Member
I like direct conversation, so why don't you tell me where you think the remains of Jesus of Nazareth are? Your tag says you are Catholic, so if you are, you don't have much say in the matter, whereas article 6 of your catechism tells you precisely where you are required to think they are.
All the best,
Gary
The OP was being rhetorical.
Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
In other words, you made it up.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I have previously stated in this thread that I believe Jesus rose from the dead just like the Apostles said He did. I also believe He is in heaven at the Father's right until His Father makes His enemies His footstool, also scriptural.
My purpose for the thread is just to see what everybody else thinks. I'm not here to argue about it.
For virtually everybody in antiquity, our manuscripts date from after ~1000 CE. And we have maybe half a dozen. As for when the autographs (the "originals") were written, usually there is anywhere from a 100 to 500 years separation between the "biographies" of ancient persons like Jesus, Pythagoras, Apollonius of Tyana, Euripides, Alexander the Great, etc. (still less for the famous biographers themselves! We don't know who the gospel authors were, when the great biographer Diogenes Laertius wrote, and there are countless historical works that start with English titles like "Pseud-" because they weren't written anonymously like the gospels and then later attributed to persons but written like the forged epistles in the NT (claimed by the author to be written by persons they weren't).
To get a quick and simple sense of the value of NT evidence, consider that the gospels are some of the few and are perhaps most important sources for Pontius Pilate, the NT is an invaluable and central source for the practice and nature of the Pharisees and 2nd-temple Judaism more generally, textual critical methods used in classics, Near-Eastern studies, medieval studies, and elsewhere can be tested using our NT sources because there is no text from antiquity or even the medieval period that has as much textual attestation as do any of the NT books. I'm eagerly waiting for the official publication of a new scrap of Mark found in mummy wrapping that is supposed to date from the 1st century. Currently, p52 is the earliest NT manuscript attestation we have, and it is unbelievably close to the time of composition (it's a scrap of John that dates from the first half of the 2nd century CE). To have a scrap from the century written would be mind-blowing.
Like most of my areas of study, NT studies and historical Jesus studies are a hobby. But as an undergrad one of my actual majors was classical languages. Which meant that I had to read Greek texts which included, at the bottom of each age, something called a "critical apparatus" that the editor uses to inform you what the variants are among the manuscripts used to produce the edition. So I was used to critical apparati that listed 5 or 6 variants at most because that's how many manuscripts were available to the editor to construct Caesar's The Gallic Wars, Plato's The Republic, Plutarch or Livy's biographies/"lives", etc. The critical apparatus to the UBS Greek NT? Not only does it have to ignore all but a comparatively tiny number of manuscripts, but there are so many manuscripts that are important Metzger (one of the great textual critics of the 20th century) wrote an entire textual commentary to accompany the critical apparatus.
Most authors from antiquity survive in one or two manuscripts of texts in which something these authors wrote was quoted in.
Gary Sheldrake
Member
Thank you for the reply First Baseman. As for what I think, I simply don't know where they are. I suppose it all vectors in on whether or not one believes in the resurrection and the ascension, and I don't know either way about that either. I do know that the resurrection and the ascension are fantastic events that are predicated on some very unlikely prerequisite events, such as the Romans allowing for the deposition of a crucified seditionist, which is not likely at all. Sedition was the only crime for which the Romans crucified people. They did not crucify for any other crime. Seditionists were crucified in public view and left to rot and be eaten by birds and animals as a warning to anyone who might have ideas about challenging Rome. They didn't allow anyone to take down or entomb the remains of seditionists. I don't know either way, but I base my opinions on such things on likelihoods, and it isn't likely that the Romans would have allowed it. Just my point of view.
All the best,
Gary
Last edited: