NYT: Jesus Married? Ancient Papyrus Says So

[Dan T.]

A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife
By Laurie Goodstein
September 18, 2012

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”

The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/ZS/esq-jesus-wife-papyrus-091812-xlg.jpg

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies by Karen L. King, a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church, where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday.

She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.

But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.

“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” she said. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”

Dr. King first learned about what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.

Rest of article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all

[twa]

"debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex"

I know which side I'm arguing

[HogNose]

Over the years I have come to believe that Mary Magdalene was his wife and that they had children. Possibly twin daughters? :whoknows:


Did Jesus have descendants?
http://www.perillos.com/gimenez.html

[Jumbo]

The words "...my wife..." may just have been part of an ancient joke he was telling to a crowd...everyone stole from Dangerfield, but Dangerfield stole from the originals...

---------- Post added September-18th-2012 at 08:46 PM ----------


"debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex"

I know which side I'm arguing

Me too, even as a non-Christian, given how otherwise shrinks the pool dramatically (though I'm big on the "marry" part being totally optional). :)

[thebluefood]

I will say that, as a Christian, I have considered the possibility that Christ did marry while he was on Earth. While I'm still on the fence about it, I've come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't make much of a difference to me if he was. It doesn't really affect any major tenants of the Christian faith (as I understand it at least).

[Dan T.]

I will say that, as a Christian, I have considered the possibility that Christ did marry while he was on Earth. While I'm still on the fence about it, I've come to the conclusion that it really wouldn't make much of a difference to me if he was. It doesn't really affect any major tenants of the Christian faith (as I understand it at least).

It affects basic tenets of the Catholic Church regarding priesthood. Vatican strictures against priests marrying and women serving as priests are based on the belief that Jesus was unmarried and celibate.

[thebluefood]

Edit: never mind. No use in starting a Protestant/Catholic debate.

[Jumbo]

To be more serious this time, I think it would have huge implications if such were ever accepted. My default is to regard this as another one of 'those" stories that has little likelihood of being even half-way credible, of course. But if such were ever so, the impact would include calling much else into question, veracity-wise, if such a HUGE matter could be incorrectly held as so for so many centuries. I would expect, however, that most people would say it wouldn't change, or lessen, their belief in any other way (that's part of the nature of such beliefs).

[Kosher Ham]

I really don't get what the big deal is if he was married or not. I certainly don't believe that he was celibate.
I understand why some would be up in arms about it, but I don't understand why it ultimately matters. Perhaps some people can move forward into the brave new world that we live in today.

[elkabong82]

So that really is a woman sitting next to Jesus in "The Last Supper," and she's his wife.

This news will be difficult to prove given that seemingly no other disciple made reference to Jesus having a wife. Maybe, though, such was kept secret by them so as to avoid the Romans going after the wife, or children if she bore any. Or maybe it was Magdilan, and the churches back then simply omitted it when deciding what would and would not go in the NT b/c they didn't want their savior to be known as married to a woman of "ill-refute" or maybe it was to suit their desire of keeping women out of priesthood. But that's all just speculation on my part.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The scrap is from the 4th century, nearly 300 years after the New Testament was written, some other heretical Gnostic "gospels" have made similar and bogus claims, nothing to see here. I don't get to write whatever I want to write about George Washingon and have it taken seriously, and I'm closer in time to George than the author of this scrap was to Jesus. Let's get some perspective.

[10fttall]

The scrap is from the 4th century, nearly 300 years after the New Testament was written

Absolutely. The same way (even though it's pure fiction) I never got why DaVinci's painting would be evidence of anything. I mean Leo lived a mere FIFTEEN HUNDRED years after Christ. Which makes him practically an eyewitness, right?

While it's not impossible, a lot of believers would reject the assertion because it is not a fact that made it into the canon of Scripture. Heck, it even mentions Peter was married, so why wouldn't Jesus' marriage be mentioned. It would kind of put a damper on the priest thing, but then again, the total absence of New Testament modeling of priests/confession/penance; also makes it kind of superfluous in my opinion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Absolutely. The same way (even though it's pure fiction) I never got why DaVinci's painting would be evidence of anything. I mean Leo lived a mere FIFTEEN HUNDRED years after Christ. Which makes him practically an eyewitness, right?

While it's not impossible, a lot of believers would reject the assertion because it is not a fact that made it into the canon of Scripture. Heck, it even mentions Peter was married, so why wouldn't Jesus' marriage be mentioned. It would kind of put a damper on the priest thing, but then again, the total absence of New Testament modeling of priests/confession/penance; also makes it kind of superfluous in my opinion.

All of which will be ignored because we love a scandal whether or not it has a shred of merit.

I think I'm going to write "George Bush was married to a man" on a piece of paper and put it in a time capsule to be opened 300 years from now and laugh as people freak out when they read it.

[endzone_dave]

We just recently found texts that show Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

[thebluefood]

The scrap is from the 4th century, nearly 300 years after the New Testament was written, some other heretical Gnostic "gospels" have made similar and bogus claims, nothing to see here. I don't get to write whatever I want to write about George Washingon and have it taken seriously, and I'm closer in time to George than the author of this scrap was to Jesus. Let's get some perspective.

This is where I stand on it, but you said it much better than I could, ASF. This was written well after Christ left this world.

[pjfootballer]

...and Jesus had an accent. A very THICK accent.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We just recently found texts that show Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter.

Wut! Ermahgerd no wai!!!!!

[Thiebear]

So 1: It proves Jesus was real and changed the World.
okay there's no 2 really.

Lincoln the Zombi killer was better than Lincoln the Vampire killer, but give him another thousand years and we shall see.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is where I stand on it, but you said it much better than I could, ASF. This was written well after Christ left this world.

And well after the authoritative documents were written, and well after the Gnostics began to try and hijack the faith.

[HogNose]

...and Jesus had an accent. A very THICK accent.

I grew up thinking he had a British accent after seeing Jesus Christ Superstar in London. :pfft:

[thebluefood]

And well after the authoritative documents were written, and well after the Gnostics began to try and hijack the faith.

I still stand by my previous statement that says it wouldn't matter all that much if we found definitive proof that Christ married since it isn't crucial to Protestant theology, but maybe I'm off base and missing something.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I still stand by my previous statement that says it wouldn't matter all that much if we found definitive proof that Christ married since it isn't crucial to Protestant theology, but maybe I'm off base and missing something.

I would suggest that Jesus is pointing to himself as a self made eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.

Jesus’ disciples then said to him, “If this is the case, it is better not to marry!”
“Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:10-12 NLT)

[SnyderShrugged]

Does it change anything in terms of Christian faith is Jesus was found to have married?

[Kosher Ham]

Likewise there is no evidence that he wasn't married.

He was likely bi-sexual also as many people were back then...or is that equally a myth ?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Does it change anything in terms of Christian faith is Jesus was found to have married?
It becomes pragmatically problematic in that Jesus would have knowingly/intentionally widowed a woman to whom he would have been commited to in union.


Likewise there is no evidence that he wasn't married.
None, except that one would think that such an event in the life of Jesus would have been recorded by at least one of the New Testament writers and wouldn't have taken 300 years to begin to circulate. This is one place where the argument of silence is convincing, in the same way we can safely assume that Jesus didn't have a third arm.


He was likely bi-sexual also as many people were back then...or is that equally a myth ?
:ols: Only for the fact that that would be a sin....seriously, I know it is early but I think we can do better than this.

[10fttall]

Does it change anything in terms of Christian faith is Jesus was found to have married?

It's complicated, but there are a couple things, like ASF mentioned. On a more big-picture level, If you take belief and faith from an Evangelical POV, the accepted Scriptures represent God's word to us. Most believe that the writings we have in the Bible, are what we were meant to have.

On the other hand, if you think of Christianity as a quaint old belief and the Bible as a partial record, then I guess it wouldn't change too much about Christianity as viewed from the outside.

[Koolblue13]

Growing up, he always looked like a white 17 year old kid with a strangely overgrown, but well kept beard. Turns out he was an old black married guy with a slew of kids. Go figure.

[Kosher Ham]

ASF, I was being a little silly, but the point is still valid. It was deemed a sin by a book not written by him.

By that we can assume he didn't really walk on water too right ?

[techboy]

I was wondering if this story was going to make it here. It's not as sensational as most, so I thought perhaps people might let it slip. Here are some key points.

1. This document, if legitimate (and it looks like it might be), is kind of important in one sense. Until now, there have been precisely zero writings from the first several centuries that explicitly stated that Jesus was married. Not one. The texts people like Dan Brown generally point to don't actually explicitly say he was married. One has to make huge leaps of "reasoning" (and fill in blanks in the text, literally in one case) to reach that conclusion. So it's interesting from that perspective.

2. Is this useful to talk about the historical Jesus? Absolutely not. It is, however, very useful in examining the way certain groups thought about Jesus in that time, a few centuries later. *EDITED*- I was getting crossed up about the dating. There's no evidence it dates back to the second century, even.

If you read the article, for instance, the scholar behind this is very careful to note that this doesn't "prove" that Jesus was married, just that someone at some point hundreds of years later might have thought so (perhaps for theological reasons).

3. Major Kudos to Dr. King, by the way, for doing this the right way. Instead of splashing this to the media first, and surfing on the hype as we see in so many of these types of stories, she presented her findings to an academic conference and is calling for peer review, while cautioning the media not to go crazy (good luck :ols:). Refreshing, to say the least. :)

4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was not married, because if he was, the other texts would say so. There is no theological reason Jesus could not have been married, and marriage was so important in those times that it would certainly have been mentioned. Peter's is, for instance.

Some might argue that the authors of the New Testament might have left it out to downplay Jesus' humanity, but this argument doesn't hold water, because they left in many anecdotes showing Jesus' humanity (growing in knowledge, getting angry, not knowing parts of the future, asking to have the cup of suffering taken from him, etc.), even when they were potentially embarrassing to their other teachings, so there's no reason to think they'd leave this out, especially since Christian doctrine emphasizes Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity.

5. In that sense, it wouldn't really be an issue if Jesus had been married. It would just be one more sign that he was human as well as divine.

One of my go tos for issues like this is Dr. Michael Heiser's blog, Paleobabble, and he has an article about it, Ancient Coptic Fragment Has Jesus Alluding to His Wife (http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2012/09/ancient-coptic-fragment-jesus-alluding-wife/), so those that are interested in the opinion of a qualified scholar can go there for more. I do want to quote this part to avoid confusion, though:


Now, to be clear, this discovery isn’t PaleoBabble — at least not yet. Karen King is a good scholar. She teaches on the history of early Christianity (which would include Gnostic sects) at Harvard. I don’t believe for a minute she’s faking anything. However, the text is unprovenanced, which is a problem.

[wantarace17]

Where is Dan Brown when you need him...

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, I was being a little silly, but the point is still valid. It was deemed a sin by a book not written by him.
Fine, I just don't take things like that for granted as others have seriously tried to make that case before...:doh: :peace1:


By that we can assume he didn't really walk on water too right ?
Dunno, why you'd automatically assume that? :whoknows:

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:10 AM ----------

BTW, what happened to the thread title?

*edit...ahh it's back

[Koolblue13]

Dunno, why you'd automatically assume that?

:ols: I wonder :ols:

[AsburySkinsFan]

:ols: I wonder :ols:

I can see why some would automatically dismiss miracles, but I don't see that the fact that his story was written by others is proof that the miracles didn't happen.

[SnyderShrugged]

Interesting article on the subject

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/the-bible-refers-to-jesus-wife-too/262545/

The Bible Refers to Jesus' Wife, Too

The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church.

Christ calls himself a bridegroom throughout the New Testament. When the finger-wagging Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples don't fast, he answers:

How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.
In other words, Christ is the groom and his disciples are his friends—and it would be rude of them to abstain from eating while they're in the presence of the groom.

Later, as Jesus foretells the coming of God's kingdom, he also refers to himself as a groom: "The kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Again, Christ is the groom and his followers are the groom's friends—there to celebrate the wedding with him.

more at link

[alexey]

I can see why some would automatically dismiss miracles, but I don't see that the fact that his story was written by others is proof that the miracles didn't happen.
It is impossible to prove anything about miracles.

We have to judge between two possibilities:

1) 2000 years ago Illiterate people in rural iron age location witnessed suspension of natural laws.
2) 2000 years ago people were telling each other stories of miracles in order to try and convert each other.

We know for a fact that 2) was as common as dirt (and still is, in many places), and we do not have a single documented case of natural laws being suspended.

So this is not a matter automatically dismissing miracles but a matter of not having good evidence for them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Interesting article on the subject

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/the-bible-refers-to-jesus-wife-too/262545/

The Bible Refers to Jesus' Wife, Too

The Bible itself refers to Jesus' wife, repeatedly. Only that wife is not Mary Magdalene or any other earthly woman. It's the church.

Christ calls himself a bridegroom throughout the New Testament. When the finger-wagging Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples don't fast, he answers:

How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.
In other words, Christ is the groom and his disciples are his friends—and it would be rude of them to abstain from eating while they're in the presence of the groom.

Later, as Jesus foretells the coming of God's kingdom, he also refers to himself as a groom: "The kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom." Again, Christ is the groom and his followers are the groom's friends—there to celebrate the wedding with him.

more at link
Yeah. but that's metaphorical....'cause I ain't wearin' no dress!!!! :D

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:33 AM ----------


It is impossible to prove anything about miracles.

We have to judge between two possibilities:

1) 2000 years ago Illiterate people in rural iron age location witnessed suspension of natural laws.
2) 2000 years ago people were telling each other stories of miracles in order to try and convert each other.

We know for a fact that 2) was as common as dirt (and still is, in many places), and we do not have a single documented case of natural laws being suspended.

So this is not a matter automatically dismissing miracles but a matter of not having good evidence for them.

#1 You make the invalid assumption that the people 2k years ago were all illiterate or even the authors of the NT who were learned, and that they couldn't tell when something was out of the norm of natural occurence...i.e. resurrection, they knew that people didn't come back to life after they died.

#2 You forgot to add that you do not have a "single documented case of natural laws being suspended that would satisfy an Enlightenment minded observer."

[alexey]

#1 You make the invalid assumption that the people 2k years ago were all illiterate or even the authors of the NT who were learned, and that they couldn't tell when something was out of the norm of natural occurence...i.e. resurrection, they knew that people didn't come back to life after they died.

#2 You forgot to add that you do not have a "single documented case of natural laws being suspended that would satisfy an Enlightenment minded observer."
#1 Miracles were very common back then. People were way too good at telling when something was out of the norm.

#2 I built that into the "documented case" language :)

[PeterMP]

#1 Miracles were very common back then. People were way too good at telling when something was out of the norm.

#2 I built that into the "documented case" language :)
What would you consider a "documented case" of natural laws being "suspended"?

If not telling other people, how does one go about documenting such things?

[SnyderShrugged]

It is impossible to prove anything about miracles.




Maybe you should listen to yourself when trying to "DISprove" them then?

[Unforgiven]

#1 You make the invalid assumption that the people 2k years ago were all illiterate or even the authors of the NT who were learned, and that they couldn't tell when something was out of the norm of natural occurence...i.e. resurrection, they knew that people didn't come back to life after they died.

It's impossible to know the exact literacy rates of the time, but the generally accepted number is that 90+ % of the population was illiterate and could not read or write. So his assumption that the vast majority that the people witnessing 'miracles' were illiterate is a very valid one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What would you consider a "documented case" of natural laws being "suspended?

If not telling other people, how does one go about documenting such things?

See, as one who wishes to employ the Enlightenment standard the most you can say is, "we have no way to verify these professed miracles to satisfy our non-universal standard of proof."

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:48 AM ----------


It's impossible to know the exact literacy rates of the time, but the generally accepted number is that 90+ % of the population was illiterate and could not read or write. So his assumption that the vast majority that the people witnessing 'miracles' were illiterate is a very valid one.

Yet, the books of the Bible were not written by the 90%.

[Unforgiven]

See, as one who wishes to employ the Enlightenment standard the most you can say is, "we have no way to verify these professed miracles to satisfy our non-universal standard of proof."

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 10:48 AM ----------



Yet, the books of the Bible were not written by the 90%.

They also weren't all written by people who witnessed these things themselves.

[alexey]

What would you consider a "documented case" of natural laws being "suspended"?

If not telling other people, how does one go about documenting such things?
Things not always falling down when dropped.

[AsburySkinsFan]

BTW, if the scrap in the article is to be considered authoritative then so must this recent discovery.



Amazing Discovery that Reveals George Washington to be in Homosexual Union with John Knox
213 years after his death a recent discovery reveals that George Washington may have actually been a homosexual. When asked, the person who discovered the document fragment said, "It is genuinely a remarkable find which may well lend credibility to the lifestyles of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, certainly it is not definitive, but it should add nicely to the debate."
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8031/8003194515_0cd1f63c5a.jpg

Somehow I doubt that this document fragment will be taken seriously by the historical experts, even while it dates to a time much closer to its subject in comparison than does the fragment in the original article. BTW, I have this parchment in my possession if any wish to test its authenticity and accuracy of its dating. :pfft:

[PeterMP]

Things not always falling down when dropped.
How about things producing heat when they aren't suppossed too?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289080009U

How does one document a suspension of natural laws?

I "dropped" my book off my desk. It didn't fall, but instead rose and settled on shelves above my desk.

How do I document that?

[AsburySkinsFan]

They also weren't all written by people who witnessed these things themselves.

Most of history isn't....what's your point?

[alexey]

Maybe you should listen to yourself when trying to "DISprove" them then?
Default state is not to believe things until there is good evidence for them. I do not need to disprove anything.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Default state is not to believe things until there is good evidence for them. I do not need to disprove anything.

That's your default state...and yet the vast majority of human beings do not live by that standard, it is far from being universal.

[SnyderShrugged]

Default state is not to believe things until there is good evidence for them. I do not need to disprove anything.

I see, so you really didnt mean it when you said "It is impossible to prove anything about miracles.".

[PeterMP]

That's your default state...and yet the vast majority of human beings do not live by that standard, it is far from being universal.
I actually don't think that's an unreasonable position. The issue becomes what constitues evidence.

What evidence do I (or any of us) have that our physical world is real?

Is that evidence "good"?

How do we decide? What happens if some set of people decide that it isn't "good" evidence and therefore don't "believe" it is real?

And therefore things like morality and good and evil have no purpose or meaning?

Initially he used the word documentation. What is documentation? What is good?

Is the information in this link, not docuementation?

Why or why not?

Is it "good" evidence? Of what?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289080009U

**EDIT**
Note, there are several pretty recent threads where this would be more on topic. Including, the last thread I started. Generally, IMO, it would be better if this thread were left to the historical importance of this document and its potential religious implications.

Can I politely suggest that this conversation thread be taken to one of those threads?

[alexey]

How about things producing heat when they aren't suppossed too?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289080009U

How does one document a suspension of natural laws?

I "dropped" my book off my desk. It didn't fall, but instead rose and settled on shelves above my desk.

How do I document that?
Set up some video cameras and drop more books.

You are right in that we do not have a good approach for studying suspensions of natural laws. It may be fundamentally impossible to do so, in some cases, but possible in others. We could study suspensions of natural laws that are triggered by praying, for example, and it would be AWESOME if such suspensions happened when praying to one God but not another God. Alas this is not something we actually observe.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:22 AM ----------


Most of history isn't....what's your point?
I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for historians. In case of Jesus we have neither.

[Unforgiven]

Most of history isn't....what's your point?

That most of the people that witnessed the miracles were illiterate people who didn't have nearly the understanding of the natural world that we have today. (Even our understanding today is quite limited)

Sure, someone intelligent may have written the story down later but that doesn't give it more validity.

In the end it's not worth arguing over anyways. Miracles are something that requires faith, you aren't going to argue people into believing in them just like if someone truly believes you aren't going to argue them out of believing. If someone believes Jesus is who he said he is, then him having a child shouldn't really matter. I get why people are against it but the entire religion isn't based on proof, it's based on faith. You can't mock the lack of proof that he had a child meanwhile defend the lack of proof of a large majority of the rest of it.

[alexey]

That's your default state...and yet the vast majority of human beings do not live by that standard, it is far from being universal.
I disagree. Vast majority of human beings break this standard for their supernatural beliefs of choice, but otherwise they very much adhere to it.

[JMS]

I actually don't think that's an unreasonable position. The issue becomes what constitutes evidence.
What evidence do I (or any of us) have that our physical world is real?

This papyrus is clearly evidence Jesus was married. Just not convincing evidence. First off it's from several hundred years after Christs death, 4th century. Second off the sentence where Christ is perhaps introducing his wife, is on a scrape of paper which is not in any context. The Catholic Church has been referenced by early Christians to be the wife of Christ. Could this text be referring to that? Who knows, certainly not us.

But just on the face of it.. This script is from a previously unknown gospel. Even if this gospel was saying Christ was married; we literally have a hundred other gospels which say otherwise. This is literally the only gospel which reports this....

It's an interesting piece of a puzzle. But taken in and of itself it's really not determinative of anything.

[techboy]

I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for historians.

Your understanding is incorrect (at least in the implications). Ancient historians recognize that there was no such thing as the modern "unbiased" historian we hold as a standard today (quite the opposite, really), and so have developed a set of historical criteria to verify and establish facts from the writings we have. I kind of alluded to one, the criteria of embarrassment.

If ancient historians limited themselves to only "disinterested sources", we'd have to pretty much throw out all history prior to relatively modern times. Our primary source for Caesar crossing the Rubicon, for example, is his own biography, which he wrote primarily as political propoganda. This does not prevent historians from concluding that the event actually happened, though.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I disagree. Vast majority of human beings break this standard for their supernatural beliefs of choice, but otherwise they very much adhere to it.

You have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be wrong. People in general do not sit around all day and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, you may...but that makes you an exception not the rule.

[alexey]

What evidence do I (or any of us) have that our physical world is real?


If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for modern historians. In case of Jesus we have neither.
If we used the standard of modern historians for everything then we wouldn't be able to believe anything written historically that occurred more than 100 years ago, good luck with that.

BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny.

[alexey]

Your understanding is incorrect (at least in the implications). Ancient historians recognize that there was no such thing as the modern "unbiased" historian we hold as a standard today (quite the opposite, really), and so have developed a set of historical criteria to verify and establish facts from the writings we have. I kind of alluded to one, the criteria of embarrassment.
I was talking about modern historians.

For some reason all these suspensions of natural laws failed to make it into contemporary non-Christian sources.


If ancient historians limited themselves to only "disinterested sources", we'd have to pretty much throw out all history prior to relatively modern times. Our primary source for Caesar crossing the Rubicon, for example, is his own biography, which he wrote primarily as political propoganda. This does not prevent historians from concluding that the event actually happened, though.
Are there other sources that describe this event?

[Unforgiven]

BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny.

It's a thread that involves religion, it always goes downhill fast. :)

[alexey]

If we used the standard of modern historians for everything then we wouldn't be able to believe anything written historically that occurred more than 100 years ago, good luck with that.

BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny.
That is why we should not believe it. Believe is not the right word for it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's a thread that involves religion, it always goes downhill fast. :)

Without a doubt, I didn't even realize how fast we got side tracked until just a moment ago. BTW, I can't believe no one commented on the article of the George Washington document fragment...I worked really hard on that...errrrrr.....I mean lots of scholarship went into that research. :pfft:

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:36 AM ----------


That is why we should not believe it. Believe is not the right word for it.

So, believe nothing that happened more than 100 years ago....got it.

[PeterMP]

Originally Posted by Ludwig Wittgenstein
If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.
So does that mean you have decided that you don't have the ability to doubt things?

[Jumbo]

<edit>
Miracles are something that requires faith, you aren't going to argue people into believing in them just like if someone truly believes you aren't going to argue them out of believing.

As I always say, this is so. And the committed atheist is of a countering view but fundamentally similar on any basic dynamic of faith v skepticism on any such matter. And I'm not "insulting" or demeaning either.

Referring back to my earlier post and about belief, a thought I've long held, having a background that was diverse but included a heavy dose of devout Catholics and Protestants in it (well, and being a sci-fi fan since pre-teen) was that I have always thought that aliens :D could land and tell us they know all about us, and prove it, and then state there is no God as we frame it, and give all sorts of "evidence", and most believers would find a way to work around it and keep their faith (I can think of many ways to do it were I one).

That's not intended as any kind of negative comment, just noting a reality of the dynamics of such beliefs.

And most committed atheists would do similar if beings looking for the world like angels right out of the Bible descended with a Jesus-looking ("classic" image) figure claiming to be Jesus and did all kinds of angel and Jesus miracle things (not is an End of Days sense, just a sort of "see, we're real" sense) and announced basically it was just like you'd been told by Christianity. The CA would be be more likely to suspect it was advanced aliens or a secret organization's hi-tech plot :D doing it for some reason. :D

A few folks in either camp would "defect" in each scenario, but most would find a way to keep thinking what they think already on this matter no mater what was presented as countering evidence and no matter in what form. Our minds, properly willed to do so, can work around anything if it's important enough to us.

[techboy]

BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny.

The endless rehashing of argument about standards for establishing a miraculous event is completely off topic. It would not be miraculous for Jesus to have been married.

The discussion of the historical method is not off topic at all, I don't think, because part of the story is how we would determine the utility of this text, should it be established.


I was talking about modern historians.

So was I. Perhaps I should have used the more precise phrasing "modern historians of ancient history". These modern historians recognize that there was no such thing as disinterested histories in ancient times, and so rather than anachronistically applying modern standards to ancient people, they instead developed various criteria that work to cut through the problems of bias and so on, and help us determine what can be established historically.

If they only accepted information from disinterested sources, there would be no ancient history.



For some reason all these suspensions of natural laws failed to make it into contemporary non-Christian sources.

1. That's not strictly true, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

2. This is something of a silly argument, anyway. Anybody that records a miracle would be automatically classified by you as a Christian source, so you have set up an impossible standard.



Are there other sources that describe this event?

I am unaware of any contemporary sources, other than the biography itself, of course, that describe this event. There are later sources, but they aren't "disinterested" either. They all had agendas, such as the glorification of the Roman state, or the deification of Caesar, or whatever. There simply was no conception of the "disinterested" source.

To demand such is to destroy vast swaths of historical knowledge, unreasonably.

[alexey]

So, believe nothing that happened more than 100 years ago....got it.
Yes. Believe nothing, think about history in terms of available evidence.


So does that mean you have decided that you don't have the ability to doubt things?
In other words, doubts about whether reality is real are meaningless. You have to stand on something in order to doubt something else.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 12:12 PM ----------



...
And most committed atheists would do similar if beings looking for the world like angels right out of the Bible descended with a Jesus-looking ("classic" image) figure claiming to be Jesus and did all kinds of angel and Jesus miracle things (not is an End of Days sense, just a sort of "see, we're real" sense) and announced basically it was just like you'd been told by Christianity. The CA would be be more likely to suspect it was advanced aliens or a secret organization's hi-tech plot :D doing it for some reason. :D

A few folks in either camp would "defect" in each scenario, but most would find a way to keep thinking what they think already on this matter no mater what was presented as countering evidence and no matter in what form. Our minds, properly willed to do so, can work around anything if it's important enough to us.
...

I understand that this hinges on a definition of a "committed atheist", but I would generally disagree with this.

If praying to Jesus and only to Jesus would reliably cure cancer, for example, I think atheists would find it very convincing.

I think atheism is fundamentally based on a lack of mechanism to compare validity of supernatural claims made by different religions. People who see no good reason to pick one religion over another tend to see no good reason to pick one religion at all.

(other than going with their cultural heritage while dropping beliefs in supernatural claims)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes. Believe nothing, think about history in terms of available evidence.
Like I said....very very few people actually live like this, you may think they do...but they don't.

[alexey]

So was I. Perhaps I should have used the more precise phrasing "modern historians of ancient history". These modern historians recognize that there was no such thing as disinterested histories in ancient times, and so rather than anachronistically applying modern standards to ancient people, they instead developed various criteria that work to cut through the problems of bias and so on, and help us determine what can be established historically.

If they only accepted information from disinterested sources, there would be no ancient history.

Makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

How about, natural human biases make it impossible to have a disinterested historical source... so modern historians would generally want a story corroborated by multiple sources that are interested in different things.




1. That's not strictly true, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

2. This is something of a silly argument, anyway. Anybody that records a miracle would be automatically classified by you as a Christian source, so you have set up an impossible standard.

I am unaware of any contemporary sources, other than the biography itself, of course, that describe this event. There are later sources, but they aren't "disinterested" either. They all had agendas, such as the glorification of the Roman state, or the deification of Caesar, or whatever. There simply was no conception of the "disinterested" source.

To demand such is to destroy vast swaths of historical knowledge, unreasonably.
I would like to think that I would not dismiss a contemporary Roman source that describes some Jesus guy going around and doing funky things.

Since there is no such source, I do not think it is useful to discuss whether I would properly handle evidence that does not exist.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 12:33 PM ----------


Like I said....very very few people actually live like this, you may think they do...but they don't.
You may be right... it seems natural to accept things which one sees no good reason to doubt.

[Botched]

Big deal. It's not like one mis-translated piece of papyrus is going to result in a new controversial religion or anything.

[pjfootballer]

You have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be wrong. People in general do not sit around all day and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, you may...but that makes you an exception not the rule.

Sorry to interject in here. My disclaimer is, I am not well versed at all in arguments of religion, so I'll make this brief and if you counter my post, I may not be able to respond correctly to it.

I agree that the majority of people do not sit around and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, but as humans have evolved and new technology surfaces, I think more and more, people 'are" starting to question things they believed or didn't believe in before. I think society has actually started to shift into a "show me" state of mind. I was brought up Catholic, but the older I've got, the less faith I have. I'd have to say I'm agnostic as of now and I'm in the "I want to see it before I believe it" state. I want proof these things exist before I believe someone who wrote it down in a book hundreds of years ago.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Sorry to interject in here. My disclaimer is, I am not well versed at all in arguments of religion, so I'll make this brief and if you counter my post, I may not be able to respond correctly to it.

I agree that the majority of people do not sit around and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, but as humans have evolved and new technology surfaces, I think more and more, people 'are" starting to question things they believed or didn't believe in before. I think society has actually started to shift into a "show me" state of mind. I was brought up Catholic, but the older I've got, the less faith I have. I'd have to say I'm agnostic as of now and I'm in the "I want to see it before I believe it" state. I want proof these things exist before I believe someone who wrote it down in a book hundreds of years ago.

I see that a lot when it the discussion is in terms of Jesus and the early church etc, however I see it much less on non-religious historical topics. Which might suggest a particular bias. For instance, very few people have the same level of "lack of faith" in the existence of Marco Polo or other non-religious historical figures as they do in Jesus.

[Predicto]

I am interested in this discovery from a scientific/historical point of view, and I will be interested to see what develops in the future about this subject. I agree with techboy that this scholar appears to have taken the responsible approach in how she presented her finding and asked for the academic community to weigh in. As an agnostic, I always want to learn more, not to prove or disprove anything, but to help me come to a more firm conclusion either way.

I am a little disappointed to see so many Christians automatically "circle the wagons" on this subject, but I guess it is understandable when you are dealing with a central pillar of people's deeply held faith, and it is not like alexey doesn't like to poke the bear with a stick whenever he can :ols:

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 09:51 AM ----------


I see that a lot when it the discussion is in terms of Jesus and the early church etc, however I see it much less on non-religious historical topics. Which might suggest a particular bias.

Or it might suggest that the subject is more important to many people (on both sides) due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Or it might suggest that the subject is more important to many people (on both sides) due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society.
It may well suggest that, but the point still stands.
What's more is that you wrote "due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society", first I'm not seeing a difference between the "influence of Christianity" and "dominance of Christians", second am I hearing that such increased suspicion (which is not normal for other historical figures) is then being applied to Jesus from biased motivations?

[China]

More follow-up:

Reality check on Jesus and his 'wife' (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13945001-reality-check-on-jesus-and-his-wife?lite)

[PeterMP]

In other words, doubts about whether reality is real are meaningless. You have to stand on something in order to doubt something else.
I understood what your point of the quote was, but I don't see why I have to stand on "reality" being "real".

And I certainly don't see why I have to be certain about anything to have doubts about everything.

*EDIT*
And if you are going to claim that you have to certain to doubt, I'd be curouis to know how you are certain.

[10fttall]

I am a little disappointed to see so many Christians automatically "circle the wagons" on this subject,

Yes what a bunch of backward rubes, huh? Clearly they should've taken a look at this scrap of paper of unknown origin, partial sentences, and immediately renounced their faith.

[pjfootballer]

I see that a lot when it the discussion is in terms of Jesus and the early church etc, however I see it much less on non-religious historical topics. Which might suggest a particular bias. For instance, very few people have the same level of "lack of faith" in the existence of Marco Polo or other non-religious historical figures as they do in Jesus.

Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes what a bunch of backward rubes, huh? Clearly they should've taken a look at this scrap of paper of unknown origin, partial sentences, and immediately renounced their faith.

"Circle the wagons" must be code for "looking at a small inconclusive document that post dated the New Testament writings by 300 years and disregarding its contents based on the fact that they are non-authoritative, inconclusive, and of extreme variance from the most authoritative texts of the Christian faith". :D

[alexey]

I understood what your point of the quote was, but I don't see why I have to stand on "reality" being "real".

And I certainly don't see why I have to be certain about anything to have doubts about everything.

*EDIT*
And if you are going to claim that you have to certain to doubt, I'd be curouis to know how you are certain.
I do not have any formal philosophical training and did relatively little reading in it, but I did read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" a few years back and I felt like I kind of understood it a little bit... I do not think that I am in position to provide a proper account for it, and besides it would be a significant deviation from the topic at hand.



4. "I know that I am a human being." In order to see how unclear the sense of this proposition is, consider its negation. At most it might be taken to mean "I know I have the organs of a human". (E. g. a brain which, after all, no one has ever yet seen.) But what about such a proposition as "I know I have a brain"? Can I doubt it? Grounds for doubt are lacking! Everything speaks in its favour, nothing against it. Nevertheless it is imaginable that my skull should turn out empty when it was operated on.
...
425. It would not be surmise and I might tell it to someone else with complete certainty, as something there is no doubt about. But does that mean that it is unconditionally the truth? May not the thing that I recognize with complete certainty as the tree that I have seen here my whole life long - may this not be disclosed as something different? May it not confound me? And nevertheless it was right, in the circumstances that give this sentence meaning, to say "I know (I do not merely surmise) that that's a tree." To say that in strict truth I only believe it, would be wrong. It would be completely misleading to say: "I believe my name is L. W." And this too is right: I cannot be making a mistake about it. But that does not mean that I am infallible about it.
...
515. If my name is not L. W., how can I rely on what is meant by "true" and "false"?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Needless philosophical circles.

[alexey]

Needless philosophical circles.
Attempts to dismiss other, even more more needless philosophical circles :D

Don't blame me, I did not bring up the meaningless question about reality of reality ;)

[PeterMP]

I do not have any formal philosophical training and did relatively little reading in it, but I did read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" a few years back and I felt like I kind of understood it a little bit... I do not think that I am in position to provide a proper account for it, and besides it would be a significant deviation from the topic at hand.

"But what about such a proposition as "I know I have a brain"? Can I doubt it? Grounds for doubt are lacking! Everything speaks in its favour, nothing against it. Nevertheless it is imaginable that my skull should turn out empty when it was operated on."

This if fairly straight forward logic. You appear to be human. Other humans appear to have brains. It is likely that you will appear to have a brain. Is it possible you don't? Yes.

You have clolsely related outside expreinces that you can use for evidence.

That isn't necessarily the case for us being real:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

This is one fo the links on that page:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/barrowsim.pdf

"In this kind of situation, logical contradictions will inevitably arise and the laws in the simulations will appear to break down now and again. The inhabitants of the simulation - especially the simulated scientists - will occasionally be puzzled by the experimental results they obtain. The simulated astronomers might, for instance, make observations that show that their so-called constants of Nature are very slowly changing7."

(Note, reference 7 is to a paper in the peer reviewed scientific literature.)

Or they might obtain results indicating that fusion is happening under circumstance where it should be impossible based on the laws of Nature.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Attempts to dismiss other, even more more needless philosophical circles :D

Don't blame me, I did not bring up the meaningless question about reality of reality ;)

Yeah, those discussions are so pointless IMO, in my world you accept the premise that you're alive and what your senses tell you is relatively sufficient to inform you on the reality that you exist as part of. (yeah, I just dangled that sentence, but I don't have time to clean it up)

[alexey]

...That isn't necessarily the case for us being real:...
If we know nothing, then we really do not know anything at all. Like, in that case we really totally know nothing about anything. We cannot even meaningfully talk about anything. So I suggest we stop talking about it.

[Predicto]

It may well suggest that, but the point still stands.
What's more is that you wrote "due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society", first I'm not seeing a difference between the "influence of Christianity" and "dominance of Christians", second am I hearing that such increased suspicion (which is not normal for other historical figures) is then being applied to Jesus from biased motivations?

If it came across that way, it was not what I intended. I was just trying to include Christianity as a broad concept along with the fact that so many of the individuals in the discussions happen to be Christians as well, making them personally more interested in the subject.

To put it another way, if an ancient document was unearthed that suggested that Zoroaster was or was not married, people in the USA would probably not care very much. But in the Parsee community of Mumbai, it would be a really big deal.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:01 AM ----------


Yes what a bunch of backward rubes, huh? Clearly they should've taken a look at this scrap of paper of unknown origin, partial sentences, and immediately renounced their faith.

Again, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm not asking or expecting anyone to immediately (or ever) renounce their faith.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:04 AM ----------


I do not have any formal philosophical training and did relatively little reading in it, but I did read Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" a few years back and I felt like I kind of understood it a little bit... I do not think that I am in position to provide a proper account for it, and besides it would be a significant deviation from the topic at hand.

derail - Wittgenstein was the one philosopher I never was able to grasp. Not one bit. I had to write a long paper on The Blue Book and I don't think I understood a single word I wrote. I think I broke my brain.

[PeterMP]

Attempts to dismiss other, even more more needless philosophical circles :D

Don't blame me, I did not bring up the meaningless question about reality of reality ;)
Well, in an inferrential manner you did.

When you claimed you had to have good evidence to believe things, where you are essentially defining good evidence as broadly repeatable scientific evidence.

The reasonable extension of that idea is why should we act like we believe a large number of things that we don't have broadly repeatable scientific evidence for- including our reality being "real".

**EDIT**
You want to set a burden with respect to belief and religion, but you don't want to apply that same burden with respect to a good number of other things, including science and you being real.

[alexey]

derail - Wittgenstein was the one philosopher I never was able to grasp. Not one bit. I had to write a long paper on The Blue Book and I don't think I understood a single word I wrote. I think I broke my brain.
I think I was aided by not learning about it in an academic environment and being generally ignorant of traditional problems in philosophy. L.W. seems to really step outside of those. He seems to have some recurrent themes, some of them seem to lie along the lines of rendering traditional philosophical problems as meaningless.

I remember feeling some dots connecting for me after running into this entry in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam#Neopragmatism_and_Wittgenstein

For a time, under the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein, he adopted a pluralist view of philosophy itself and came to view most philosophical problems as nothing more than conceptual or linguistic confusions created by philosophers by using ordinary language out of its original context.

---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 02:24 PM ----------


The reasonable extension of that idea is why should we act like we believe a large number of things that we don't have broadly repeatable scientific evidence for- including our reality being "real".
Reality is "broadly repeatable" and belief itself is fundamentally something that is etched into your brain by repetition.

no repetition = no belief

[PeterMP]

Reality is "broadly repeatable" and belief itself is fundamentally something that is etched into your brain by repetition.
Only if you define reality as things that are broadly repeatable.

Only if you say things like Pons and Fleischmans experiments don't represent reality.

[Zguy28]

4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was not married, because if he was, the other texts would say so. There is no theological reason Jesus could not have been married, and marriage was so important in those times that it would certainly have been mentioned. Peter's is, for instance.

Some might argue that the authors of the New Testament might have left it out to downplay Jesus' humanity, but this argument doesn't hold water, because they left in many anecdotes showing Jesus' humanity (growing in knowledge, getting angry, not knowing parts of the future, asking to have the cup of suffering taken from him, etc.), even when they were potentially embarrassing to their other teachings, so there's no reason to think they'd leave this out, especially since Christian doctrine emphasizes Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity.

5. In that sense, it wouldn't really be an issue if Jesus had been married. It would just be one more sign that he was human as well as divine.I'm not sure I agree with it not being an issue given who He was.

For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7 about marriage and celibacy and how it is best to be celibate.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion... The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

I look at it with the view to Jesus being the ultimate example in His life of what is best and most Godly. In this case, that would include not being married and therefore not divided in attention. What did Jesus say about a kingdom divided?

I don't know, maybe a stretch, maybe its out of context, but it seems to me a plausible explanation.

[alexey]

Only if you define reality as things that are broadly repeatable.

Only if you say things like Pons and Fleischmans experiments don't represent reality.
I am fine with the dictionary definition of reality. Only repeatable things can be confirmed to be a part of it.

[Rocky21]

Was this written on rolling papyrus?
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://cineplex.media.baselineresearch.com/images/344619/344619_large.jpg&sa=X&ei=QRJaUOS2OO2J0QHE6YGgAw&ved=0CAwQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGbyLD8DULLzwt65ISlbuzmSQ4lcw

[techboy]

How about, natural human biases make it impossible to have a disinterested historical source... so modern historians would generally want a story corroborated by multiple sources that are interested in different things.

You're getting closer, but you're still far overstating the situation. It is absolutely true that multiple attestation is one of the historical criteria used to suggest that a particular piece of a text is more likely to be true. And, it is also true that attestation by those with different (or even better, enemy) views also strengthens a particular case.

The kind of case you are talking about, though, can be pretty rare. To go back to Caesar, the very best source we have is his own (obviously biased) journals. The rest of the sources are much later, and have their own agendas. We don't (as far as I know) have a competing journal from one of his political enemies, for instance.

Historians don't, though, say "Well, I guess we can't know anything about Caesar! Forget it!" Instead, they use a variety of historical criteria that have been shown to work in the ideal cases where we do have multiple contemporary sources from different angles. A.N. Sherwin-White (here's his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._N._Sherwin-White)) was an eminent historian of ancient Rome at Oxford University. He wrote Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (http://books.google.com/books?id=aE36PAAACAAJ&dq=roman+society+and+roman+law+in+the+new+testamen t&hl=en&ei=79xnTea4LovegQfn1IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA), among other works. On page 186 of that book he writes:


Subtle techniques of source-criticism have been evolved for the detection and elimination of various types of bias and anachronism, whether of the intermediate or of the original source, or of the writer who actually survives and transmits his work to us. To judge by what is so freely published, we are satisfied with our methods, and believe that a hard core or basic layer of historical truth can be recovered from even the most deplorable of our tertiary sources- be it Diodorus or Florus or even the Epitome de Caesaribus. The basic reason for this confidence is, if put summarily, the existence of external confirmations, and the working of the synoptic principle. From time to time external contemporary evidence of a sort less warped by the bias of personalities- e.g. the texts of laws and public accounts- confirms the conclusions drawn from the critical study of literary sources. Hence we are bold to trust our results in the larger fields where there is no such confirmation. Equally, the criticism of sources tends to reveal the existence of a basic unitary tradition beneath the manifold divergences of detail in rival narratives, which is often the product of their particular bias.

Of course, historians would want a situation such as you describe. That doesn't mean they need it.



I would like to think that I would not dismiss a contemporary Roman source that describes some Jesus guy going around and doing funky things.

You already have. ;)

Paul was a Roman citizen, and a contemporary of Jesus. He was also a Pharisee who persecuted Christians. Although he was not a witness to the events in question, he spoke at length with people that were, like Peter and James (who also began as hostile to Jesus' ministry).

Of course, you will now dismiss Paul because he became a believer in Jesus. But again, since you'd likely reject any report of miracles as the work of a believer, it's an impossible standard.

Also, for what it's worth, Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum) almost certainly has Christian interpolations, but even if we look at the "fixed" versions that attempt to pull this out, there's still some reference to Jesus as a miracle worker.

The larger issue is that Palestine was a remote backwater of the Roman Empire, of very little interest apart from the trouble they kept causing (mostly the Jews refusing to bow to the Roman gods, leading to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE), and when Jesus or Christians are written about by Romans, that's what we see discussed (such as Tacitus discussing putting down the "superstition"). The dearth of other writings is about what a reasonable person would expect. Jesus' ministry was contained to a very small area and to a very select group of people, and only later was it expanded.

Frankly, the number and variety of texts we do have regarding Jesus is pretty much unparalleled in ancient history. It's a treasure trove.

But, the reason I said it was irrelevant is that the text we're talking about in this thread just says that Jesus was married, which is hardly a supernatural claim.


I agree with techboy

Naturally. :D



I am a little disappointed to see so many Christians automatically "circle the wagons" on this subject, but I guess it is understandable when you are dealing with a central pillar of people's deeply held faith,

I don't see any "circling the wagons" here, and I'd reject that it's a central tenet in any case. The only branch of Christianity I could see even somewhat effected by this is Catholicism, because they'd lose a justification for keeping the priesthood exclusive to men, assuming this held water (which it doesn't).

What does tick me off is how the media is handling it. I had CNN on at lunch, and they had a "story" where they basically said "There's an ancient gospel that says Jesus was married! Was he? The debate is reignited!"

No mention of the fact that the document was written centuries after the events.

Though they had a quote from Dr. King, no mention of the fact that she herself is saying that this is only evidence of what some believed, not that Jesus was actually married.

It was completely sensationalistic and irresponsible. And unsurprising.


More follow-up:

Reality check on Jesus and his 'wife' (http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13945001-reality-check-on-jesus-and-his-wife?lite)

Great article. Here's one excerpt I really liked:


Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, voiced similar caution. However, if the document proves authentic, it would represent an important advance in scriptural scholarship, he said.

"It's certainly not reliable for saying anything about the historical Jesus," Ehrman told me. "But what it is important for is that this would be the first time we have any Christian authority or Christian group indicating that, in their opinion, Jesus was married." Like King, Ehrman suggested that such claims might have figured into early Christian debates over the comparative merits of marriage vs. celibacy.

Like I said earlier, I find this text fascinating because despite the implications in the media breathlessly talking about debates "reigniting", this would be the first text (out of hundreds) from the first several centuries that explicitly stated that Jesus was married.

[alexey]

...
Paul was a Roman citizen, and a contemporary of Jesus. He was also a Pharisee who persecuted Christians. Although he was not a witness to the events in question, he spoke at length with people that were, like Peter and James (who also began as hostile to Jesus' ministry).

Of course, you will now dismiss Paul because he became a believer in Jesus. But again, since you'd likely reject any report of miracles as the work of a believer, it's an impossible standard.
...

As you may know, I have an interest in psychology... so I have a general idea about how easily people can make mistakes, come to believe all kinds of things, and so on. Anecotal evidence pointing at suspension of natural laws does very little for me.

The evidence is so thin and we know so much now about inner working of human brains... I find it mind boggling that modern highly educated people can actually believe that these miracles took place. I doubt that people really believe this stuff. I think Daniel Dennett is right and people actually believe in "belief in belief"... but that's another discussion.

[Predicto]

Like I said earlier, I find this text fascinating because despite the implications in the media breathlessly talking about debates "reigniting", this would be the first text (out of hundreds) from the first several centuries that explicitly stated that Jesus was married.

Well, the first SURVIVING text. As I understand it, a lot of heretical texts were deliberately destroyed during the early formation of the Church (or so some claim, anyway). :whoknows:

[techboy]

Anecotal evidence pointing at suspension of natural laws does very little for me.

Then why did you ask if any exists? :ols:

You're shifting the topic so fast it's making my head spin. :)

You were right about one thing, though. It's all a matter of another discussion, although...


I think Daniel Dennett is right and people actually believe in "belief in belief"...

An interesting perspective. What is your general reaction when a Christian tells you that you're not really an atheist, just in rebellion against God?

Me, I prefer to take people at their word as to their thoughts and motivations (in most cases at least), but maybe that's weird. :)


Well, the first SURVIVING text. As I understand it, a lot of heretical texts were deliberately destroyed during the early formation of the Church (or so some claim, anyway). :whoknows:

That sounds more conspiracy theory than sound scholarship. The Church didn't have the kind of clout necessary to pull that kind of operation off until the 4th century, at which point such documents would have had the chance to spread, to say nothing of the fact that even Constantine's Rome didn't reach everywhere. Even then, they weren't so good at it. Nicea was supposed to stamp out Arianism, but it took 60 years, and in the mean time, Constantine ended up being baptised by an Arian!

I've certainly never seen any evidence of a coordinated attempt to stamp out certain texts, and ironically, many are preserved to our memory by early Church fathers who wrote against them, so if there was a conspiracy, they weren't very good at it! :ols:

Besides, a lot of the hundreds of texts I was referring to were heretical, such as the Gnostic gospels.

But yes, it's the first text we know about (if it's legit). We can only draw conclusions based upon what we know, leaving room of course for modification given future evidence. Maybe some shepherd is crashing through a sink hole into a long lost cave even now...

[Predicto]

Then why did you ask if any exists? :ols:

You're shifting the topic so fast it's making my head spin. :)

You were right about one thing, though. It's all a matter of another discussion, although...



An interesting perspective. What is your general reaction when a Christian tells you that you're not really an atheist, just in rebellion against God?

Me, I prefer to take people at their word as to their thoughts and motivations (in most cases at least), but maybe that's weird. :)



That sounds more conspiracy theory than sound scholarship. The Church didn't have the kind of clout necessary to pull that kind of operation off until the 4th century, at which point such documents would have had the chance to spread, to say nothing of the fact that even Constantine's Rome didn't reach everywhere. Even then, they weren't so good at it. Nicea was supposed to stamp out Arianism, but it took 60 years, and in the mean time, Constantine ended up being baptised by an Arian!

I've certainly never seen any evidence of a coordinated attempt to stamp out certain texts, and ironically, many are preserved to our memory by early Church fathers who wrote against them, so if there was a conspiracy, they weren't very good at it! :ols:

Besides, a lot of the hundreds of texts I was referring to were heretical, such as the Gnostic gospels.

But yes, it's the first text we know about (if it's legit). We can only draw conclusions based upon what we know, leaving room of course for modification given future evidence. Maybe some shepherd is crashing through a sink hole into a long lost cave even now...

Fair enough. As I've said before, I'm no expert in this area.

[alexey]

Then why did you ask if any exists? :ols:

You're shifting the topic so fast it's making my head spin. :)

You were right about one thing, though. It's all a matter of another discussion, although...
I'm just trying to explain where I am coming from... If there were more evidence, there would be more to explain. A bunch of people telling each other miraculous stories and coming to believe something is easily explained without miracles.

Humans have a tendency to attribute things to supernatural forces. Look at Muhammad's military victories, which I understand were considered to be miraculous, but are also easily explained without involving the supernatural.

All religions offer stories and "proofs" that are not very convincing. I do not see them offering enough evidence to even begin a conversation about the supernatural.



An interesting perspective. What is your general reaction when a Christian tells you that you're not really an atheist, just in rebellion against God?

Me, I prefer to take people at their word as to their thoughts and motivations (in most cases at least), but maybe that's weird. :)
I cannot take people at their word because I do not understand what the word "God" actually means. Its properties are self-contradictory and Abrahamic religions define it as incomprehensible by definition :whoknows: Do you understand what the word "God" means?

A person says "I believe in God". What are they saying? What does that mean?

[PeterMP]

I am fine with the dictionary definition of reality. Only repeatable things can be confirmed to be a part of it.
How about this.

There is no repeatable evidence you are not part of a computer simulation.

There is no repeatable evidence that the assumptions underlying science are true (i.e. no conformation to use your word).

Yet, I don't see you going around pointing out to people that are making arugments that essentially require that they aren't computer simulations or that different scientific "facts" are real that they have reached conclusions w/o good evidence.

Yet do the samething w/ respect to a belief in God on a regular basis.

[alexey]

There is no repeatable evidence you are not part of a computer simulation.

There is no repeatable evidence that the assumptions underlying science are true (i.e. no conformation to use your word).

Yet, I don't see you going around pointing out to people that are making arugments that essentially require that they aren't computer simulations or that different scientific "facts" are real that they have reached conclusions w/o good evidence.

Yet do the samething w/ respect to a belief in God on a regular basis.
Think of repeatability as a line between what we can know and what we cannot know (which is another way of saying that repeatability is an assumption underlying science).

We cannot know whether we are a part of a computer simulation and we cannot know whether there is a God.

[PeterMP]

Think of repeatability as a line between what we can know and what we cannot know (which is another way of saying that repeatability is an assumption underlying science).

We cannot know whether we are a part of a computer simulation and we cannot know whether there is a God.
And we can't know if the assumptions underlying science are valid.

Therefore we can't know if science itself is valid.

[alexey]

And we can't know if the assumptions underlying science are valid.

Therefore we can't know if science itself is valid.
I agree....

[techboy]

I'm just trying to explain where I am coming from...

Trust me. I am well aware of where you're coming from. We've been over this well-worn ground before, much as you and Peter have done the "unprovable assumptions/nature of science/etc." dance several times.

I'm starting to feel like every engagement of conversation is just an excuse to shift the topic to hammering away at the rationality of belief. In this case, for instance, you asked about contemporary Roman sources, and even suggested that you wouldn't ignore such reports should they exist. Of course, since you are not shy about expressing your opinion, I knew you actually would reject them, and I knew why, but I pointed out two (though I will admit that Paul is not traditionally thought of as Roman, he was), and you just used it as a springboard, again, to change the subject, again, to why you think the evidence for God sucks.

And so, you attempt to shift the topic from how historians attempt to draw historical data from sometimes poor and always biased ancient sources (relevant, since the document in the OP is an ancient source from which the idea that Jesus was married is a possible historical claim), to why you personally think that no intelligent person could rationally believe in God, so they must just "believe in belief", and if someone says otherwise, we must logically conclude, I assume, that he or she is stupid, deluded, or lying.

As far as I know, that wasn't and isn't the topic here.



I cannot take people at their word because I do not understand what the word "God" actually means.

Then you should ask the person using the term at the time what it means to him or her.

Personally, though, I think it's perhaps a bit presumptuous to tell others what they actually think.

You didn't answer the question, but that's okay. I already know you'd be offended if I told you you weren't actually an atheist, just in rebellion against God.

[alexey]

Trust me. I am well aware of where you're coming from. We've been over this well-worn ground before, much as you and Peter have done the "unprovable assumptions/nature of science/etc." dance several times.

I'm starting to feel like every engagement of conversation is just an excuse to shift the topic to hammering away at the rationality of belief.
…
As far as I know, that wasn't and isn't the topic here.
…
Then you should ask the person using the term at the time what it means to him or her.

Personally, though, I think it's perhaps a bit presumptuous to tell others what they actually think.

You didn't answer the question, but that's okay. I already know you'd be offended if I told you weren't actually an atheist, just in rebellion against God.
I know that a great number of people think that I am in rebellion against God and that I will be tortured for eternity (eternal punishment) for not believing (finite crime). I think that is wicked, but I am not offended by it. I try to get offended sparingly.

I find it difficult to discuss other things if we have an unsettled disagreement about something. Hopefully I am not the only one enjoying this discussion.

[techboy]

I know that a great number of people think that I am in rebellion against God and that I will be tortured for eternity (eternal punishment) for not believing (finite crime).

Except that's not the scenario. There are people that would tell you that despite your claims, you're not actually an atheist, just willfully denying what you deep down know to be true, that God exists. They might be kind enough to grant that you aren't consciously aware that this is what you are doing. Perhaps you're just deluded. (This isn't a hypothetical, either. There are really people that think this way).

You have practically gone to war more than once on this board for your absolute right to call yourself an atheist, so I know you would not be pleased with such a person telling you what you really think.



I find it difficult to discuss other things if we have an unsettled disagreement about something.

It is true that we have a fundamental philosophical difference about whether or not it is appropriate to reason from logic and naturally established facts to supernatural conclusions, but I fail to see how this disagreement prevents discussion of topics that don't touch on that disagreement. Recall that this discussion started with you making this statement:



I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for historians.

I objected to this, not as someone who believes that the supernatural is possible, but as someone that understands that this is an inaccurate and unreasonable imposition on the methodology of those that study ancient history.

Everything I have written from that point is wholly consistent with methodological naturalism, especially since the idea that Jesus might have been married is hardly supernatural, and neither is the idea that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

There is no reason that any philosophical disagreement we have on issues of the supernatural need have any bearing here, other than it's what you really want to talk about, to the point that you seem to twist every comment in that direction.

It's feels like I've entered a thread to argue that Joe Gibbs is still worthy of being a Hall of Famer despite his less successful second run with the team, and you keep demanding I discuss his views on Young Earth Creationism.

Just for the record, though, if you really need that disagreement resolved before you can discuss anything else, you might as well give up the hope of discussion, because that particular difference is fundamental, foundational, and pretty much inarguable (which is the point Peter is trying to get you to see when he points out that science can't be proven either).

[PeterMP]

Just for the record, though, if you really need that disagreement resolved before you can discuss anything else, you might as well give up the hope of discussion, because that particular difference is fundamental, foundational, and pretty much inarguable (which is the point Peter is trying to get you to see when he points out that science can't be proven either).
I'm amazed by the faith people put into studies based on analyzing appearantly repeatable processes, when such studies are based on assumptions that can't be studied via a repeatable process as compared to their faith on things that are not directly repeatable.

Somehow that one degree of separation seems to make a HUGE difference in many people's minds.

---------- Post added September-20th-2012 at 05:51 AM ----------


I agree....
So in terms of you standing on something to doubt something else, what are you standing on?

[alexey]

Except that's not the scenario. There are people that would tell you that despite your claims, you're not actually an atheist, just willfully denying what you deep down know to be true, that God exists. They might be kind enough to grant that you aren't consciously aware that this is what you are doing. Perhaps you're just deluded. (This isn't a hypothetical, either. There are really people that think this way).

You have practically gone to war more than once on this board for your absolute right to call yourself an atheist, so I know you would not be pleased with such a person telling you what you really think.

What's the point of getting offended at reality? :) People are entitled to think whatever they like.

I expressed a strong position on attempts to deny atheists means of self-identification because I see that as an attempt to oppress atheists.

Thinking is different from doing. For example, people may think that gay people are actually confused straight people. Contents of their minds is their own business. However, they cannot oppress gay people and deny them civil rights.



It is true that we have a fundamental philosophical difference about whether or not it is appropriate to reason from logic and naturally established facts to supernatural conclusions, but I fail to see how this disagreement prevents discussion of topics that don't touch on that disagreement. Recall that this discussion started with you making this statement:


I objected to this, not as someone who believes that the supernatural is possible, but as someone that understands that this is an inaccurate and unreasonable imposition on the methodology of those that study ancient history.
...
Just for the record, though, if you really need that disagreement resolved before you can discuss anything else, you might as well give up the hope of discussion, because that particular difference is fundamental, foundational, and pretty much inarguable (which is the point Peter is trying to get you to see when he points out that science can't be proven either).

I entered this discussion in reply to a statement about "automatic dismissal" of miracles because I thought that it is incorrect to present a position based on lack of evidence as some kind of a sinister presupposition. We started talking about evidence, and the rest is history.

The fundamental, foundational, and pretty much inarguable difference is between me and ASF, who simply has faith. You, on the other hand, are trying to justify your faith with historical and scientific evidence.


So in terms of you standing on something to doubt something else, what are you standing on?
Depends on what I am doubting... but I do not take seriously doubts about the reality of reality. It's fun to think about these things, but I do not see what else you can do with them.

[PeterMP]

Depends on what I am doubting... but I do not take seriously doubts about the reality of reality. It's fun to think about these things, but I do not see what else you can do with them.
I don't really see what you can do with them has to do with taking them seriously. If they are likely true, then we should take them seriously.

Over time, I suspect, that will drive people to discover, understand, and/or come to a personal understanding of what that means in terms of what we should do. In fact, if you look at the link I posted before, there are some very smart people already considering the implications of what people should do if we are part of a simulation.

To me this, would seem to introduce a huge bias. I'm not going to take them seriously because I don't know what to do with them. I'd argue that you'll never know what to do with them, if you don't take them seriously.

And I'd make the same argument with respect to scientific knowledge. If you don't take the possibility of the exsistence of a Higgs-Boson seriously, you'll never know what you can do with it because you'll never really think about it.

I doubt few would argue because we don't know what to do with a Higgs-Boson that we shouldn't (have) seriously consider(ed) its exsistence.

Generally, you seem to be willing to essentially ignore large amounts of human knowledge and possibilities because you don't know what to do if they are true. I'd suggest it is possible that it isn't so much you don't know what to do if they are true, but you don't want to think about the consequences of what to do if they are true.

Because let's be realistic, you don't really know what to do if there is no god and you aren't part of a computer simulation (or any relevant possible combination of the relevant possibilites).

Either way, you are guessing.

(And realistically, we all are.)

[alexey]

I don't really see what you can do with them has to do with taking them seriously. If they are likely true, then we should take them seriously.

Over time, I suspect, that will drive people to discover, understand, and/or come to a personal understanding of what that means in terms of what we should do. In fact, if you look at the link I posted before, there are some very smart people already considering the implications of what people should do if we are part of a simulation
...

I hope these very smart people are also considering whether simulation-running aliens prefer peanut butter and jelly sandwiches over turkey sandwiches for lunch.


There is an infinite number of untestable/unverifiable/unfalsifiable theories. Yes we should take very seriously ones that are true. Which ones?



Generally, you seem to be willing to essentially ignore large amounts of human knowledge and possibilities because you don't know what to do if they are true. I'd suggest it is possible that it isn't so much you don't know what to do if they are true, but you don't want to think about the consequences of what to do if they are true.

Because let's be realistic, you don't really know what to do if there is no god and you aren't part of a computer simulation (or any relevant possible combination of the relevant possibilites).

Either way, you are guessing.

(And realistically, we all are.)
You have a point there, we have to think about consequences of all possibilities. We should offer both peanut butter and jelly, as well as turkey sandwiches to our alien overlords. Let's include a jar of mayo for good measure. Everybody loves mayo.


I am not willing to ignore anything. I am just drawing a distinction between evidence-based knowledge and pure speculation. I am all for discussing pure speculation. It's fun. It can even lead to actual testable theories, and those theories could end up tested and verified... but I am not going to treat pure speculation as something other than pure speculation.

[PeterMP]

I hope these very smart people are also considering whether simulation-running aliens prefer peanut butter and jelly sandwiches over turkey sandwiches for lunch.


There is an infinite number of untestable/unverifiable/unfalsifiable theories. Yes we should take very seriously ones that are true. Which ones?



You have a point there, we have to think about consequences of all possibilities. We should offer both peanut butter and jelly, as well as turkey sandwiches to our alien overlords. Let's include a jar of mayo for good measure. Everybody loves mayo.


I am not willing to ignore anything. I am just drawing a distinction between evidence-based knowledge and pure speculation. I am all for discussing pure speculation. It's fun. It can even lead to actual testable theories, and those theories could end up tested and verified... but I am not going to treat pure speculation as something other than pure speculation.
Can you derive "evidence-based" knowledge if you start by assuming some fundamental underlying assumption related to your "pure speculation" is true?

[alexey]

Can you derive "evidence-based" knowledge if you start by assuming some fundamental underlying assumption related to your "pure speculation" is true?
Yes you can, but if you want to admit thoughts, feelings, and anecdotes as knowledge, you will have a hard time keeping out the garbage.

I see our inability to weight competing supernatural claims as one of the strongest arguments for atheism.

[brandymac27]

What I find MOST interesting in all of this is (article in OP, responses in thread, etc) are the responses in this thread. If, hypothetically, it were ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was married (and ...I'll even go so far as to say that if it were ever proven he wasn't God incarnate as well), some of the responses in this thread have absolutely shown that the extent that some will go to to defend their position is fascinating.

I say this not to piss anyone off, but because for some reason, while reading the thread, I had this epiphany that no matter what evidence is proposed, (or proven to the contrary of many religious individual's beliefs) they will go to hell and back to prove that the evidence is bunk (not that I'm saying this (the OP) is some sort of proof of (or not) Jesus' divinity or the existence of God, etc).

IMO, regardless of my own personal beliefs, debates on this are a complete waste of time.

[brandymac27]

Dup post...........

[PeterMP]

Yes you can, but if you want to admit thoughts, feelings, and anecdotes as knowledge, you will have a hard time keeping out the garbage.

I see our inability to weight competing supernatural claims as one of the strongest arguments for atheism.
Do you realize that is what science has done though?

IF the natural world is repeatable, then we have this knowledge.

If the underlying assumptions are true, then we can say X, Y, and Z.

The "evidence-based" knowledge is true, if untested underlying assumptions are true.

Of course I can flip it on its head.

If the the assumptions aren't true (e.g. the natural world is NOT repeatable), then do we have "evidence-based" knowledge for that?

The answer is yes. We do see astronomers that find evidence that "constants" aren't really "constant". We do see things like experienced and generally pretty well respected scientists saying that systems that should not produce heat, do produce heat.

[alexey]

Do you realize that is what science has done though?

IF the natural world is repeatable, then we have this knowledge.

If the underlying assumptions are true, then we can say X, Y, and Z.

The "evidence-based" knowledge is true, if untested underlying assumptions are true.

Of course I can flip it on its head.

If the the assumptions aren't true (e.g. the natural world is NOT repeatable), then do we have "evidence-based" knowledge for that?

The answer is yes. We do see astronomers that find evidence that "constants" aren't really "constant". We do see things like experienced and generally pretty well respected scientists saying that systems that should not produce heat, do produce heat.
There are things we know, things we can know but do not yet know, and things we cannot know.

We could be wrong about things we know. Realization of this requires new evidence.

We could be wrong about what we can and what we cannot know. Realization of this requires a new system of knowledge.

Are you offering a way to find new evidence? A new system of knowledge? No, but that would give something to work with. Are you offering a possibility that everything is wrong? A possibility that some unspecified thing could be wrong? That maybe at some point somebody will come up with a new system of knowledge? These offerings do not seem useful.

[PeterMP]

There are things we know, things we can know but do not yet know, and things we cannot know.

We could be wrong about things we know. Realization of this requires new evidence.

We could be wrong about what we can and what we cannot know. Realization of this requires a new system of knowledge.

What are you offering? A way to find new evidence? A new system of knowledge? A possibility that everything is wrong? That something unspecified can be wrong? That maybe at some point somebody will come up with a new system of knowledge? These are not useful at all.
I'm offering the reality of the situation. That much of our "knowledge" is based on assumptions that might not be true.

What are you offering?

An approach that is inherently a lie?

[alexey]

I'm offering the reality of the situation. That much of our "knowledge" is based on assumptions that might not be true.

What are you offering?

An approach that is inherently a lie?I agree that knowledge we have may not be true. But this knowledge is allowing us to do things that would be more than magical but entirely unthinkable 2000 years ago. I am offering that we drop an antiquated notion that we can get knowledge about reality by reading texts written by ancient people who knew less about reality than an average high schooler.

[brandymac27]

The thing is...we're NOT talking about science in and of itself here. IMPO, the only "truth" we'll ever really be able to comprehend or know is Mathematics.

[PeterMP]

I agree that knowledge we have may not be true. But this knowledge is allowing us to do things that would be more than magical but entirely unthinkable 2000 years ago. I am offering that we drop an antiquated notion that we can get knowledge about reality by reading texts written by ancient people who knew less about reality than an average high schooler.
1. I'd suggest that this post will be intereperted by most and I'd guess is even meant in a manner that implicitly requires an approach based on a lie (i.e. defining reality in a manner that requires that we know more about it than people did several thousand years ago).

2. When I read, Aristotle, Plato, and Darwin I see knowledge. When I see Euclidean geometry, things like Roman arches and the "knowledge" and "phycis", that they were based on, I see knowledge. When I see things that are based on even older ideas, like the wheel, the lever, the pulley, and love I see knowledge.

Now, admittedly, I've decided to live my life based on sets of assumptions that seem to make sense to me (though so has everybody else that I know of) and those assumptions that make sense to me then affect what I see as knowledge.

I STRONGLY suspect that you don't discount ideas or knowledge based on the original date of the information or idea.

I suspect, you are discounting sets of ideas not explicitally as a function of the date of its origin, but because it is in conflict (i.e. not consistent) with the set of assumptions that you have decided to live your life by (not necessarily decided in a concious manner) and not the orgin of their date.

Then based on what we "know" about evolution and psycology, it is not suprising that you view the ideas that are consistent in the assumptions you live by as "good" and "right" and those that are in conflict with them as "bad" and "wrong".

I'm done in this thread. Though, I would ask that you consider the points in the last few post carefully.

You've indicated that you enjoy such conversations. Personally, I don't enjoy having to go through a slightly different process to make essentially the same points, and I don't enjoy having people misrepresent what science is and what it can do, any more than I enjoy people that misrepresent what the scientific evidence we have is or what it supports.

[alexey]

1. I'd suggest that this post will be intereperted by most and I'd guess is even meant in a manner that implicitly requires an approach based on a lie (i.e. defining reality in a manner that requires that we know more about it than people did several thousand years ago).
I am not basing my position on a particular definition of reality. I am basing it on a fact that ancient people thought that stars were painted on a blue canvass and we went to the freaking moon.




2. When I read, Aristotle, Plato, and Darwin I see knowledge. When I see Euclidean geometry, things like Roman arches and the "knowledge" and "phycis", that they were based on, I see knowledge. When I see things that are based on even older ideas, like the wheel, the lever, the pulley, and love I see knowledge.

Aristotle thought that all things consisted of 5 elements: earth, water, air, fire, and aether. When you read about that, you are getting knowledge. This knowledge is not a correct knowledge about relaity. It is correct knowledge about what Aristotle thought, however, so it is knowledge that way.

You are again misrepresenting my position. I am not rejecting any knowledge. I am saying that knowledge grows on trees and you cannot just take knowledge from one tree and put it on a different tree.




Now, admittedly, I've decided to live my life based on sets of assumptions that seem to make sense to me (though so has everybody else that I know of) and those assumptions that make sense to me then affect what I see as knowledge.

I STRONGLY suspect that you don't discount ideas or knowledge based on the original date of the information or idea.

I suspect, you are discounting sets of ideas not explicitally as a function of the date of its origin, but because it is in conflict (i.e. not consistent) with the set of assumptions that you have decided to live your life by (not necessarily decided in a concious manner) and not the orgin of their date.

Assumptions that make sense to you do not necessarily lead to a coherent system of knowledge.


Ancient approach of making things up and claiming they "make sense to me" is antiquated.



Then based on what we "know" about evolution and psycology, it is not suprising that you view the ideas that are consistent in the assumptions you live by as "good" and "right" and those that are in conflict with them as "bad" and "wrong".

I'd prefer to keep value judgement language good/bad out of this. Let people make their own good/bad determinations.

Personally, I do think that correct ideas are good and incorrect ideas are bad.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is why I love ES.
The content of this topic was depleted by page 3...and yet 5 pages later there is a substantive debate regarding something else entirely going on. :ols:

[PeterMP]

I am not basing my position on a particular definition of reality. I am basing it on a fact that ancient people thought that stars were painted on a blue canvass and we went to the freaking moon.
You know that stars weren't painted on blue canvass?

Or are you making the assumption that the natural world is consistent and repeatable and that the nature of stars haven't changed?

**EDIT**
Last post.

[Corcaigh]

You know that stars weren't painted on blue canvass?



Yes. We know that. We have been down this road before.

There are some ideas that may be little more than an educated guess, but this is not one of them.

Can you offer any evidence for when the painted canvas was removed, and by whom, making the actual universe visible to Earthly observers? :)

If you are going to make such arguments, it would be more interesting if you picked better ideas. :2cents:

[PeterMP]

Yes. We know that. We have been down this road before.

There are some ideas that may be little more than an educated guess, but this is not one of them.

Can you offer any evidence for when the painted canvas was removed, and by whom, making the actual universe visible to Earthly observers? :)

If you are going to make such arguments, it would be more interesting if you picked better ideas. :2cents:
I know that. And sometimes, you seem to know that, but based on that post (and his history of posts), he doesn't seem to know that.

(Go back and read some of the pages of the thread for some better ideas. That was just the one that was presented so I took it.)

**EDIT**
Actually looking at your post again, what are you claiming we know?

Are you claiming that you can speak to the nature of stars in ancient times?

[alexey]

You know that stars weren't painted on blue canvass?

Or are you making the assumption that the natural world is consistent and repeatable and that the nature of stars haven't changed?

**EDIT**
Last post.
Hopefully a possibility that starts were painted in a blue canvas 2000 years ago does not play an important role in your mental life.

[Corcaigh]

Are you claiming that you can speak to the nature of stars in ancient times?

Yes. Based on what we can currently observe, detailed knowledge of stellar physics, and the appearance of ancient star maps, we can infer a lot about the nature of the night sky a few thousand years ago.

Frankly I don't get the point you are trying to make here. For someone who has spent countless hours explaining the case for climate change, evolution, vaccination science and many other topics, it seems surprising that you want to just ignore overwhelming evidence for some philosophical point.

[techboy]

Last post.

Has this ever, in the entire history of the internet, ever actually worked? :ols:

[Corcaigh]

Has this ever, in the entire history of the internet, ever actually worked? :ols:

I usually take it as my cue to jump into the fray. :evilg:

Feeling fresh, from not participating in the argument, and also "untainted" by actually reading what's been posted before.

[Jumbo]

Has this ever, in the entire history of the internet, ever actually worked? :ols:

Not that I've seen from anyone who's actually typed it and posted it. :pfft:


I usually take it as my cue to jump into the fray. :evilg:

Feeling fresh, from not participating in the argument, and also "untainted" by actually reading what's been posted before.

I have been reading since my early post, but only in deliberately brief and well-spaced doses.

However, I have been sitting on a something for several days that I need to express, and just haven't seen the right moment since things got into the....uh..."flow", if you will.

But since it's bursting inside, yet again, I claim this interlude as my opportunity. :D

"Jesus loves me this I know,
cuz ancient papyrus tells me so"

:silly:

[PeterMP]

Has this ever, in the entire history of the internet, ever actually worked? :ols:
It would have worked THIS time if it weren't for you and Jumbo posting, and I had to see what you had to say.

It is ALL YOUR FAULT :ols:

Realistically, what I really mean in these threads when I say that is I'm tired of going in circles with alexey, and I'm going to quit responding to his posts.

If somebody else actually made a reasonable post worth responding to, I'd come back.

And it does work for me- after saying it a few times.

[ClassAdaGlance]

I, as a Christian, feel the same!! I don't think it makes a difference concerning whether he was actually married or not... He's still the fabulous, self-sacrificing, Son of God!!
I'm fulfilled...
Class

[Jumbo]

And it does work for me- after saying it a few times.


Click your heels when you say it, goofy. Didn't you read the manual?

[PeterMP]

Yes. Based on what we can currently observe, detailed knowledge of stellar physics, and the appearance of ancient star maps, we can infer a lot about the nature of the night sky a few thousand years ago.

Frankly I don't get the point you are trying to make here. For someone who has spent countless hours explaining the case for climate change, evolution, vaccination science and many other topics, it seems surprising that you want to just ignore overwhelming evidence for some philosophical point.
I can't help, but notice that you've switched words form infer to know.

The evidence is over whelming if we start with certain assumptions, which I'm willing to start with when living my life.

However, this doesn't mean that there aren't assumptions and limits. It doesn't mean that science is ALL that there is.

There are people that would essentially try to raise science to that level. Long term, that isn't good for science nor human civiliation/society.

(With that said, do you really need me to construct a scenario where your inference would be wrong.)

[Predicto]

It would have worked THIS time if it weren't for you and Jumbo posting, and I had to see what you had to say.

It is ALL YOUR FAULT :ols:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPDwQwM1cLU

[Jumbo]

Scooby is my animal spirit-guide and Shaggy is my soul brother. Just because I don't ascribe to a big-time religion doesn't mean I lack a spiritual center.

[Corcaigh]

I can't help, but notice that you've switched words form infer to know.

The evidence is over whelming if we start with certain assumptions, which I'm willing to start with when living my life.

However, this doesn't mean that there aren't assumptions and limits. It doesn't mean that science is ALL that there is.

There are people that would essentially try to raise science to that level. Long term, that isn't good for science nor human civiliation/society.



Of course some knowledge is inferred. Of course there are assumptions and limits.

Science as absolute dogma is no better than religion as absolute dogma.

But without offering something concrete this is all empty philosophical punditry.

---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 01:13 PM ----------


spiritual center.

I have a crunchy frog at my center. It says so on the bottom of the box, right after Monosodium Glutamate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy6uLfermPU

[Burgold]

Really nice conversation with Asbury on my radio show that will run nationally today (well, in DC, NYC, and Miami anyway)

http://ed.ruvr.ru/enf/radio_broadcast/72430379/88982619.html

[zoony]

Despite being the Son of God, He still couldn't win an argument

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really nice conversation with Asbury on my radio show that will run nationally today (well, in DC, NYC, and Miami anyway)

http://ed.ruvr.ru/enf/radio_broadcast/72430379/88982619.html
Thanks for that opportunity!

Odd, I get prompted for a password on that link Bur.
http://voicerussia.com/radio_broadcast/72430379/88982619.html

[Burgold]

Thanks for that opportunity!

You're most welcome. Thanks for participating and hopefully, I did right by you.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You're most welcome. Thanks for participating and hopefully, I did right by you.

Very much, editting can even make a dope like me sound good. :D

[Burgold]

It might have been the only interview ever about the marital status which ended with the statement that Dallas sucks and that Mara deserves worse than Purgatory for his cheating in capgate.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It might have been the only interview ever about the marital status which ended with the statement that Dallas sucks and that Mara deserves worse than Purgatory for his cheating in capgate.

:ols: I so wanted to interject an HTTR!

[wysknz1]

There are many references to the "church"being called the "bride" of Christ. Without the entire manuscript who knows what the context is of the comment. Just like many people who pull or have pulled out scriptures to force them into a belief system which all Christian religions do to fit their doctrinal beliefs. Some not so drastic, others to the point of heretical.

That being said, so what? If Jesus did have a wife, what does it matter?

[AsburySkinsFan]

There are many references to the "church"being called the "bride" of Christ. Without the entire manuscript who knows what the context is of the comment. Just like many people who pull or have pulled out scriptures to force them into a belief system which all Christian religions do to fit their doctrinal beliefs. Some not so drastic, others to the point of heretical.

That being said, so what? If Jesus did have a wife, what does it matter?

I hear tell those very questions have been covered in a recent interview. :pfft:

[twa]

http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/holb_c10362220120921120100.jpg
http://floppingaces.net

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

Now British scholar pours water on 'fake' papyrus text that claimed Jesus had a wife

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207038/British-scholar-says-papyrus-claiming-Jesus-married-fake.html#ixzz27KWGy200
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here is an article from the United Methodist News Service (yes we have such a thing).

It is affirming to hear the same conclusions being drawn by some professors whom I have a great deal of respect for and have studied under (Witherington, Green).

See Burgold, I'm not a loon!
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5259669&ct=12195965&notoc=1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[AsburySkinsFan]

More trouble for Dr. Karen King.
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-harvard-publishing-jesus-wife.html

She's getting some pretty heavy criticism right now from the academics who are accusing her of everything from jumping the gun before the papyrus could be authenticated to being self serving, to doing all of this in order to get more money for the university. Her credibility is being questioned pretty seriously by some pretty heavy hitters.