Missing resurrection verses

[Cablebandit]

When you see that mark 16:9-20 are missing from our earliest texts and manuscripts, how do you reconcile that with the resurrection story?

[TheFinalWord]

When you see that mark 16:9-20 are missing from our earliest texts and manuscripts, how do you reconcile that with the resurrection story?

 

The same content is verified elsewhere: Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18

[Cablebandit]

Luke 8:2New International Version (NIV)

 

2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out;

 

So NOPE on that one

[Cablebandit]

My understanding is that a strong majority of scholars (including conservative scholars) take the position that the long ending of Mark was not in the original and was not written by the same author as the rest of the text, but nonetheless was added very early on (probably in the early 2nd century). However, the evidence is not as overwhelming as for the Comma Johanneum or the Pericope Adulterae, in part because the long ending of Mark is significantly older than the those two.

 

The main arguments are as follows. Certainly people dispute some of these arguments, but on the whole each of them is a strong argument, and taking several together gives an even stronger argument.

 

The long ending does not appear in several of our earliest and best manuscripts, most notably Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (although it does appear in Alexandrinus).

Many early manuscripts which do contain the long ending nonetheless contain indications marking it as disputed.

The existence of manuscripts containing a different ending entirely (the "short ending") also suggests that the original contained no ending.

The author of Mark has a distinctive Greek style, and the long ending does not match this style.

The author of the long ending appears to be familiar with possibly Matthew, probably Luke, and possibly Acts, while the author of Mark was not.

The authors of Matthew and Luke do not appear to have had the long ending in their copies of Mark.

The textual evidence, which covers the first three arguments, as found in Nestle-Aland is summarized ably at the end of the Wikipedia article under "Summary of manuscript evidence." At any rate all of these are largely undisputed facts, though there are some interesting features of that part of Mark in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are worth noting (explained thoroughly with images, though also with a bit of an agenda, here).

 

A quick summary of the argument from style and vocabulary is given by Bruce Metzger in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament excerpted online here. A much more in depth examination is given in a paper of Travis Williams.

 

For the last point, you want to first notice many similarities between the long ending and Luke/Acts (as well as a small overlap with the great commission in Matthew), and then you have the trickier point of arguing that it's the long ending taking from Luke and not vice-versa. Wikipedia lists the overlaps (I haven't found a good scholarly resource for this point, though of course you can compare the passages yourself). I haven't found a good reference for arguing in which direction the borrowing is going, but if you want to argue the other way you'd need to explain why Matthew drops almost all of it (despite containing 94% of Mark) and why Luke substantially rearranges it (despite usually following Mark's order reasonably well).

 

It's worth noting that unlike with say the Comma Johanneum, I don't think it's been conclusively proved that the long ending of Mark is not original. Assuming it was added, it was added earlier than any copies of the text that we still have! All sorts of things are unlikely but possible. Nonetheless it seems the evidence is pretty solidly on the side of inauthenticity.

[TheFinalWord]

My understanding is that a strong majority of scholars (including conservative scholars) take the position that the long ending of Mark was not in the original and was not written by the same author as the rest of the text, but nonetheless was added very early on (probably in the early 2nd century). However, the evidence is not as overwhelming as for the Comma Johanneum or the Pericope Adulterae, in part because the long ending of Mark is significantly older than the those two.

 

The main arguments are as follows. Certainly people dispute some of these arguments, but on the whole each of them is a strong argument, and taking several together gives an even stronger argument.

 

The long ending does not appear in several of our earliest and best manuscripts, most notably Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (although it does appear in Alexandrinus).

Many early manuscripts which do contain the long ending nonetheless contain indications marking it as disputed.

The existence of manuscripts containing a different ending entirely (the "short ending") also suggests that the original contained no ending.

The author of Mark has a distinctive Greek style, and the long ending does not match this style.

The author of the long ending appears to be familiar with possibly Matthew, probably Luke, and possibly Acts, while the author of Mark was not.

The authors of Matthew and Luke do not appear to have had the long ending in their copies of Mark.

The textual evidence, which covers the first three arguments, as found in Nestle-Aland is summarized ably at the end of the Wikipedia article under "Summary of manuscript evidence." At any rate all of these are largely undisputed facts, though there are some interesting features of that part of Mark in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are worth noting (explained thoroughly with images, though also with a bit of an agenda, here).

 

A quick summary of the argument from style and vocabulary is given by Bruce Metzger in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament excerpted online here. A much more in depth examination is given in a paper of Travis Williams.

 

For the last point, you want to first notice many similarities between the long ending and Luke/Acts (as well as a small overlap with the great commission in Matthew), and then you have the trickier point of arguing that it's the long ending taking from Luke and not vice-versa. Wikipedia lists the overlaps (I haven't found a good scholarly resource for this point, though of course you can compare the passages yourself). I haven't found a good reference for arguing in which direction the borrowing is going, but if you want to argue the other way you'd need to explain why Matthew drops almost all of it (despite containing 94% of Mark) and why Luke substantially rearranges it (despite usually following Mark's order reasonably well).

 

It's worth noting that unlike with say the Comma Johanneum, I don't think it's been conclusively proved that the long ending of Mark is not original. Assuming it was added, it was added earlier than any copies of the text that we still have! All sorts of things are unlikely but possible. Nonetheless it seems the evidence is pretty solidly on the side of inauthenticity.

 

You may want to check the responses here

 

textual criticism - Is the ending of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) original? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

[joystickd]

When you see that mark 16:9-20 are missing from our earliest texts and manuscripts, how do you reconcile that with the resurrection story?

 

Roman corruption. Christians might as well worship Jesus from the walking dead

[jasmineb]

Is anyone requiring you to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If you would prefer not to believe it, then do not believe it. It is not complicated.

[TheFinalWord]

Is anyone requiring you to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If you would prefer not to believe it, then do not believe it. It is not complicated.

 

Textual criticism is a field that is very important to Christians. If we want to know what the bible said originally, we need textual criticism to compare all the manuscripts and identify textual variants. The OP's question is good, its just he should write the questions/arguments in his own words and not copy and paste from other discussion boards (at first I thought OP was either a genuine biblical scholar or he is getting his arguments from somewhere else; very easy to check with google!)

[katiegrl]

Why are there so many different *versions*?

 

Have the facts changed?

 

Why is the Book of Thomas omitted from the Bible?

 

As well as many others that don't shed a positive light on Jesus and Christianity?

 

Why do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say different things?

 

I wish I could be a believer but with all these different versions of the events and contradictions ...it is extremely difficult to do so.

 

Please help me understand these things.

 

I would actually like to believe as it all sounds quite beautiful but again difficult to do so with so many contradictions, etc.

 

Also, Mary and Joseph were in love and went traveling.

 

Mary returned pregnant and was shunned and cast out by her own family! The whole town!!.

 

It was only *then* she told everyone God had spoken to her while on this trip with Joseph telling her she would give birth to His son, Jesus. She told everyone that she was still a virgin .... and everyone accepted her again.

 

Why did she wait until she was shunned and cast out to disclose this?

 

I mean such exciting news! Why not share it immediately upon her return?

 

Because maybe it didn't happen, that what happened was she and Joseph had sex, she got pregnant, but after nearly being cast out by her own family and town, came up with this outrageous story about God speaking to her so as to avoid be shunned and cast out.

 

I believe Jesus existed. He was a prophet the son of Mary and Joseph.

 

But the son of God?

 

I believe HE believes he is the son of God, because that is what Mary and Joseph told him. They had to tell him that to maintain their original story.

 

Can someone please answer all these questions for me????

 

Please???

 

Thanks!

Edited April 13, 2016 by katiegrl

[joystickd]

Why are there so many different *versions*?

 

Have the facts changed?

 

Why is the Book of Thomas omitted from the Bible?

 

As well as many others that don't shed a positive light on Jesus and Christianity?

 

Why do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say different things?

 

I wish I could be a believer but with all these different versions of the events and contradictions ...it is extremely difficult to do so.

 

Please help me understand these things.

 

I would actually like to believe as it all sounds quite beautiful but again difficult to do so with so many contradictions, etc.

 

Also, Mary and Joseph were in love and went traveling.

 

Mary returned pregnant and was shunned and cast out by her own family! The whole town!!.

 

It was only *then* she told everyone God had spoken to her while on this trip with Joseph telling her she would give birth to His son, Jesus. She told everyone that she was still a virgin .... and everyone accepted her again.

 

Why did she wait until she was shunned and cast out to disclose this?

 

I mean such exciting news! Why not share it immediately upon her return?

 

Because maybe it didn't happen, that what happened was she and Joseph had sex, she got pregnant, but after nearly being cast out by her own family and town, came up with this outrageous story about God speaking to her so as to avoid be shunned and cast out.

 

I believe Jesus existed. He was a prophet the son of Mary and Joseph.

 

But the son of God?

 

I believe HE believes he is the son of God, because that is what Mary and Joseph told him. They had to tell him that to maintain their original story.

 

Can someone please answer all these questions for me????

 

Please???

 

Thanks!

 

Why is the Book of Enoch not in Bible that Protestants use?

[joystickd]

Is anyone requiring you to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If you would prefer not to believe it, then do not believe it. It is not complicated.

 

Oh! The attitude not so Christian

[katiegrl]

Why is the Book of Enoch not in Bible that Protestants use?

 

Why are you asking me?

 

I am the one seeking answers..... I don't have the answers.

 

I would like to have answers though because I am going through a difficult period in my life right now and would like to have something to hold on to, to seek support from ..... spiritually.

 

But I can't fake it... hence my seeking answers... I want to be a believer.

 

Apparently no one has the answers either though.

 

Just their faith which is fine... personally I need more. Some sort of tangible evidence.

 

Or something anyway.

 

None of it makes any sense to me.... no offense to anyone who believes.

 

Thanks for reading anyway.

 

Night.

Edited April 14, 2016 by katiegrl

[BetheButterfly]

Why are there so many different *versions*?

 

Hi Katiegrl!

 

I'm not an expert, but I'll give my opinion. You can of course ask a Biblical scholar. One of my favorite Biblical scholars is Dr. Michael Brown. If it's ok with you, can I ask him your questions and see if he replies? Or, you can ask him if you'd like.

 

There are so many different versions in English because English has a lot of different ways to express the same idea.

 

Another version of the above: Various phrases in the English language can be used to convey the meaning of the text. This brings about diverse versions.

 

Have the facts changed?

No. Translation is difficult sometimes because it's hard to translate literally while retaining the meaning. I translate from English to Spanish, but I always have to ask my hubby or a native Spanish speaking friend to go over my translations and correct them. Why? Some things that make sense in English make no sense in Spanish, and visa versa.

 

So, it's not that the facts have changed, but rather that the translators find different ways of conveying the meaning of the text. Remember, the original manuscripts included in the Old Testament were in Hebrew. Most scholars believe that the original manuscripts included in the New Testament were Greek.

 

While I personally use the NIV most, the ESV is possibly one of the most literal English translations of the Bible.

[BetheButterfly]

Why is the Book of Thomas omitted from the Bible?

The following gives some reasons:

 

 

As well as many others that don't shed a positive light on Jesus and Christianity?

Many were not quoted by the early Christian scholars.

 

Why do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say different things?

People are diverse and relate different details. Luke's account is possibly the most scholarly one. While he didn't walk and talk with Jesus Christ, he did interview some people who did. Please remember that in that time period, most people used word of mouth and memorization as they told other people what Jesus Christ said and did.

 

I wish I could be a believer but with all these different versions of the events and contradictions ...it is extremely difficult to do so.

Understood. If I didn't know Jesus Christ personally, I would be an Atheist. The only reason I'm a Christian is because of my personal experience with Jesus Christ!

 

Please help me understand these things.

 

I would actually like to believe as it all sounds quite beautiful but again difficult to do so with so many contradictions, etc.

Personally, I wish that God had waited until the computer age to send Jesus Christ, but He didn't ask me lol. He wants people to have faith in Him. Also, according to Daniel 9:24-27, the Messiah had to come when Jesus did.

 

Daniel 9 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

 

 

Also, Mary and Joseph were in love and went traveling.

 

Mary returned pregnant and was shunned and cast out by her own family! The whole town!!.

 

It was only *then* she told everyone God had spoken to her while on this trip with Joseph telling her she would give birth to His son, Jesus. She told everyone that she was still a virgin .... and everyone accepted her again.

 

Why did she wait until she was shunned and cast out to disclose this?

 

Could you please give evidence for the above claim? Thanks.

 

I mean such exciting news! Why not share it immediately upon her return?

 

Because maybe it didn't happen, that what happened was she and Joseph had sex, she got pregnant, but after nearly being cast out by her own family and town, came up with this outrageous story about God speaking to her so as to avoid be shunned and cast out.

What is the evidence for the above?

 

I believe Jesus existed. He was a prophet the son of Mary and Joseph.

 

But the son of God?

If you research why he is called the son of God, it's good to go back to where the prophet Nathan conveyed the promise of God to King David concerning the Anointed One: (I boldened some.)

"And it shall come to pass, when thy days are fulfilled that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will set up thy seed after thee, who shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build Me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever.

 

I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee; but I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be established for ever.'

 

According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David." - 1 Chronicles 17:11-15

 

1 Chronicles 17 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

 

I believe HE believes he is the son of God, because that is what Mary and Joseph told him. They had to tell him that to maintain their original story.

Lol that's funny.

 

I disagree with you.

 

Jesus Christ knew the Tanakh, which includes the promise of the son of God. Jesus did sincerely believe he is the Mashiach (Anointed One/Messiah/Christ). He deliberately fulfilled prophecies concerning the Messiah.

 

For example, Jesus knew this prophecy:

 

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass."

http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2309.htm

 

Jesus deliberately fulfilled this prophecy, accounted in Matthew 21:1-11 and John 12:12-15.

 

While most Jewish people reject his claim of being the Messiah, he did claim to be the Messiah and some Jewish people followed him. Today, more and more Jewish people are choosing of their own free will to accept Yeshua/Yehoshua (Jesus) as the Mashiach (Messiah/Christ/Anointed One).

 

One of the most evil and horrible atrocities in human history is the violence and forced conversions of other people into the "Christian" faith when really, following Jesus Christ is a choice to be made of one's own accord. That's why Jesus Christ did not call for punishment of apostates when some of his disciples left him (John 6:64-69). Jesus commanded his followers (who at that time were all Jewish) to love their neighbors as oneself and love enemies. He did not stipulate what religion, so that means we are to love people no matter their beliefs!

 

Messiah means nothing without the promises of God. Jesus' Jewish followers (all of his apostles were Jews) accepted him as the Messiah. They were pleasantly surprised when they learned that Gentiles could follow Jesus the Messiah too (Acts 10, 15).

 

Can someone please answer all these questions for me????

 

Please???

 

Thanks!

If you want, you can also see about what Jews for Jesus say.

 

http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/an-introduction-to-the-names-yehoshuajoshua-yeshua-jesus-and-yeshu

 

It's important to remember that the claims of Christianity in its pure form is an interpretation of Judaism's promise of the Anointed One. Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ.

 

Christ after all is not a last name; it's a title for the King.

Edited April 14, 2016 by BetheButterfly

[katiegrl]

Thanks for taking the time to respond Butterfly.

 

Re the story of Mary and Joseph, my pastor (when I was studying Christianity) gave me the book "The Navitity" to read so that is where I learned about the story of Mary and Joseph, the birth of Jesus, etc.

 

That Mary and Joseph traveled together and when they returned and she announced she was pregnant, her family and the town shunned her and cast her out.

 

It was *then* she told them that God had spoken to her.

 

My Christian friends also confirmed that this is what they were taught as well.

 

The rest of it (she and Joseph having sex) was my own conjecture.

 

I think it is all about FAITH! Either you have it or you don't cuz you gotta admit, when you think about it all logically, and there are so many things to think about, much of it makes no sense and very contradictory.

 

And I see a lot of hypocrisy among many (not all) Christians too.

 

Many Christians at least the ones I know pick and choose what they will follow and then claim "I'm not worried, Jesus will forgive me "

 

That is their justification for not behaving "Christisn-like.". Jesus will forgive them?

 

BtB, YOU are a beautiful person. You are the epitome of what being Christian means.

 

In fact reading your posts on all these threads is what sparked my interest in wanting to believe.

 

But sadly, I simply don't possess the faith one needs to be a believer and I cannot just fake it.

 

That said, I always try to as compassionate and empathetic as I can be.

 

I think one can emulate Jesus (as he was obviously a great man) without believing he is the son of God.

Edited April 14, 2016 by katiegrl

[BetheButterfly]

Thanks for taking the time to respond Butterfly.

 

Re the story of Mary and Joseph, my pastor (when I was studying Christianity) gave me the book "The Navitity" to read so that is where I learned about the story of Mary and Joseph, the birth of Jesus, etc.

 

That Mary and Joseph traveled together and when they returned and she announced she was pregnant, her family and the town shunned her and cast her out.

 

It was then she told them that God has spoken to her.

 

Ah ok. Is there historical evidence in the book "The Nativity" that points to these allegations? I will read the book, but I don't think it's historically accurate.

 

A Christian pastor gave it to me.

Wow.

 

My Christian friends also confirmed that this is what they were taught as well.

That idea goes against the ancient manuscripts that detail Jesus' birth.

 

I think it is all about FAITH! Either you have it or you don't

Amen!

 

cuz you gotta admit, when you think about it all logically, and there are so many things to think about, much of it makes no sense and very contradictory.

Understood. I think though that humans have a hard time grasping the big picture because our lives on earth are temporal.

 

And I see a lot of hypocrisy among many (not all) Christians too.

True. I am guilty of hypocrisy sometimes too.

 

Many Christians at least the ones I know pick and choose what they will follow and then claim "I'm not worried, Jesus will forgive me "

 

That is their justification for not behaving "Christisn-like.". Jesus will will forgive them.

Jesus does forgive, but he demands repentance and obedience, which many Christians leave out because repentance and obedience can be hard sometimes. For example, it's so easy to say love love love, but it's a lot harder to do, even among family.

 

I was guilty of not loving one ofmy own flesh and blood sisters because she said something mean. It took my Mom rebuking me in order for me to ask her forgiveness and reconcile with her. I asked God for forgiveness too because I was not obeying Jesus Christ when harboring bitterness against my sis. My sister by the way asked for my forgiveness for what she said after I asked for her forgiveness.

 

That reminds me; I need to call her! We are good friends today, and I'm so thankful for my Mom's rebuke based on Jesus' command to forgive, and for the beautiful healing and blessing it brings to obey that command!

 

I so much rather having a peaceful and loving friendship with my sister than not!!!

 

BtB, YOU are a beautiful person. You are the epitome of what being Christian means.

Aw thanks. Any compliment that has to do with Jesus and Christ(ian) is the most amazing way anyone could ever compliment me.

 

I'm not writing for people to give me compliments though but because I truly love Jesus Christ and believe his commands do make a positive difference in the world!

In fact reading your posts on all these threads is what sparked my interest in wanting to believe.

Really??? That's awesome!

But sadly, I simply don't possess the faith one needs to be a believer and I cannot just fake it.

It's ok. Never fake it. Sometimes faith grows. Have you asked God to help you believe? Remember, it's your free choice. Nobody should ever force you to believe or make a decision to follow Jesus or believe in him.

 

That said, I always try to as compassionate and empathetic as I can be.

This is very important and I have noticed that.

 

I think one can emulate Jesus (as he was obviously a great man) without believing he is the son of God.

True.

Edited April 14, 2016 by BetheButterfly

[katiegrl]

BB, please read my modified post.

 

The book does not say Mary and Joseph had sex....that was my own conjecture.

 

It reads that Mary and Joseph went traveling and when she returned and announced she was pregnant, she was shunned. It was then she announced God had spoken to her.

 

It could have happened that way and the pastor obviously believes it happened that way...that God spoke to her.

 

I just have a different time believing that.

 

That's all.

 

Thanks again for responding!

[BetheButterfly]

BB, please read my modified post.

 

The book does not say Mary and Joseph had sex....that was my own conjecture.

 

Oh, I see now! Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

By the way, I do believe Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born, due to this verse:

 

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.

- Matthew 1:25 b (NIV)

 

and this verse:

 

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. - Mark 6:3 (NIV)

 

While Jesus is the firstborn of Mary and I believe the conception of Jesus is a supernatural miracle, he was not the only child of Mary. I do believe Joseph is the biological father of Jesus' brothers and sisters, conceived later on in the normal way.

 

It reads that Mary and Joseph went traveling and when she returned and announced she was pregnant, she was shunned. It was then she announced God had spoken to her.

Mary was in Nazareth when the angel Gabriel told her and then she traveled to see her relative Elizabeth (Luke 1). Elizabeth was possibly one of the first people who knew about Mary's pregnancy.

 

Luke, who was a doctor, goes into the most detail about Mary, the mother of Jesus, whereas Matthew goes into more detail about Joseph:

 

Matthew doesn't tell when Joseph learned about Mary's pregnancy but does detail how Joseph thought about divorcing her. He wouldn't have thought about divorcing her if he had thought the baby was his.

 

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. - Matthew 1:18-19 (NIV)

 

It could have happened that way and the pastor obviously believes it happened that way...that God spoke to her.

 

I just have a different time believing that.

I believe the testimonies accounted in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke are both true.

 

That's all.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Thanks again for responding!

No problem. It is an interesting topic.

 

It definitely takes more faith to believe that Jesus is born of a virgin than believing that Jesus was born due to sexual reproduction, that's for sure!

 

One cause for debate for a long time in Christian circles are the 2 different genealogy accounts. In order to be the Anointed One on the throne of King David, Jesus has to be from King David's ancestry.

 

Personally, I believe Joseph's ancestry is the genealogy found in Matthew and Mary's ancestry is the genealogy found in Luke. While I believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, I do believe that Joseph's ancestry is included.

 

The difference between the genealogy in Matthew versus Luke is that Matthew follows King David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6) whereas Luke's follows King David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Edited April 14, 2016 by BetheButterfly

[BetheButterfly]

Why is the Book of Enoch not in Bible that Protestants use?

 

Because it's not a part of the Tanakh.

 

"The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) consists of a collection of writings dating from approximately the 13th - 3rd centuries BCE. These books were included in the Jewish canon by the Talmudic sages at Yavneh around the end of the first century CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, there are many other Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period which were excluded from the Tanakh; these are known as the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha."

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

 

The Book of Enoch belongs in the Pseudepigrapha category.

 

"The term Pseudepigrapha (Greek, "falsely attributed") was given to Jewish writings of the same period, which were attributed to authors who did not actually write them.

 

This was widespread in Greco-Roman antiquity - in Jewish, Christian, and pagan circles alike. Books were attributed to pagan authors, and names drawn from the repertoire of biblical personalities, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Baruch, and Jeremiah.

 

The Pseudepigrapha resemble the Apocrypha in general character, yet were not included in the Bible, Apocrypha, or rabbinic literature. "

 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

[katiegrl]

She (Mary) was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. [/i]Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, he did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

 

 

I modified your post a bit ONLY to reflect what the book speaks to. That her pregnancy did become disclosed, and that is when she was publicly disgraced.

 

I read the book many years ago, I might read it again.... perhaps now I will have a different interpretation of the events....

 

That said, I do recall very vividly reading that Mary and Joseph did go traveling (I cannot recall why), and that Mary was shamed, shunned and cast out when she returned due to her pregnancy.... but I will go back and read the book again for clarification.

 

At the time I read it, it seemed unbelievable to me that (1) her own family would shame her/shun her (but I suppose it was a reflection of the times), (2) that she and Joseph didn't have sex while traveling, and (3) that a woman could be impregnated by a holy spirit.

 

But I suppose if one has faith .... it would be easier to believe.

 

Since I am more open to it now... perhaps like I said my interpretation will be different.

 

Thank you so much again for explaining this to me!

 

You are one beautiful lady BB....

 

God Bless!

Edited April 14, 2016 by katiegrl

[BetheButterfly]

I modified your post a bit ONLY to reflect what the book speaks to. That her pregnancy did become disclosed, and that is when she was publicly disgraced.

 

It is very possible that people assumed she was carrying Joseph's baby and that she suffered a form of public disgrace, but she would have endured far greater public disgrace if Joseph had accused her of infidelity. She could have even been stoned, if he had accused her of having sex with another man.

 

Since according to Matthew's account, Joseph had thought of divorcing her, I don't believe he had sex with Mary until after Jesus was born.

 

I read the book many years ago, I might read it again.... perhaps now I will have a different interpretation of the events....

I'm interested in reading it. Thanks for suggesting it.

 

If you'd like, this is interesting:

 

 

 

That said, I do recall very vividly reading that Mary and Joseph did go traveling (I cannot recall why),

They traveled to Bethlehem, but that was after Joseph found out, had a visit from an angel, and decided to continue with the plan of marrying her.

 

and that Mary was shamed, shunned and cast out when she returned due to her pregnancy.... but I will go back and read the book again for clarification.

It's possible she was shunned after going to see her relative Elizabeth, once she started showing. However, it's also possible that people decided Jesus was the son of Joseph, since the idea of a virgin birth is very illogical for most people.

 

I mean, if I got pregnant before having sex with my fiance (before getting married), he would have a very hard time believing my claim of being a virgin, hmm? It would take a visit from an angel to get him to believe me!

 

While I believe Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, I don't believe she went out trying to convince everyone that she had been a virgin. Most logical people would simply not believe her. It doesn't sound like Joseph was convinced by her claim until an angel told him.

 

At the time I read it, it seemed unbelievable to me that (1) her own family would shame her/shun her (but I suppose it was a reflection of the times),

Aye.

 

(2) that she and Joseph didn't have sex while traveling,

Why is that unbelievable?

 

She was pregnant while they were traveling to Bethlehem. After he was born, she laid him in a manger, since they had just arrived to Behlehem and couldn't find room in an inn. He was not born in Nazareth, where Mary lived before she and Joseph went to Bethlehem.

 

Jesus being born in Bethlehem is a requirement for the Messiah too!

 

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. - Micah 5:2

 

Micah 5 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

 

 

and (3) that a woman could be impregnated by a holy spirit.

This in my opinion is the hardest thing to believe. I understand why many people don't believe it. However, I see it as a form of "artificial insemination" implanted by God because the Holy Spirit is not sexual by any means.

 

Personally, I wonder if God took Joseph's DNA and Mary's DNA without any sexual activity taking place, in order to "artificially implant" Jesus in Mary's womb? I don't know. God does.

 

It is interesting the idea of Jesus' DNA... was it different from other people's DNA? If in nowadays time we could test his DNA, would his DNA be linked to both Mary's and Joseph's, or just Mary's? Or neither's DNA??? Did God take out of Joseph's body without his knowledge sperm, and did God use an egg from Mary's body? Or, did God simply plant Jesus in Mary's womb without using anything???

 

I have so many questions to ask God!!!

 

But I suppose if one has faith .... it would be easier to believe.

True.

 

Since I am more open to it now... perhaps like I said my interpretation will be different.

 

Thank you so much again for explaining this to me!

It's interesting to discuss it, and I totally understand your point of view.

 

You are one beautiful lady BB....

You are a beautiful lady too Katie!!!

 

God Bless!

God bless you too! Edited April 14, 2016 by BetheButterfly

[TheFinalWord]

Interesting questions katiegrl. Some of these may have already been answered so I apologize if I am repeating. I'm in a bit of a time crunch right now, but I hope this provides some content for you.

 

Why are there so many different *versions*?

 

Have the facts changed?

 

My guess is by versions you are talking about English versions? Versions are English translations of the bible from Greek and Hebrew. Why are there so many? That's a bit of a complicated question. One reason is book publishing is a profitable industry. A lot of people don't want to take time to study the bible and want a "watered down" version, like the Message version. Some of the versions like English Standard Version are updated due to the discovery of new biblical manuscripts. For example, if you think of the Classic King James Version, Erasmus used the Textus Receptus as the main document to translate the bible into English. Since then, we have found many thousands of more manuscripts which provides a more accurate picture of the original text written by the authors of the various books of the bibles. We also have a better understanding of the Greek language. For example, the Granville-Sharp construction. Since its discovery some English translations have been improved to provide more clarity.

 

Why is the Book of Thomas omitted from the Bible?

 

Many reasons. But one is that the writing style of the author corresponds to the writing styles of authors 300 years after the passion of Christ. So the writing style is out of step with the writing style of the first century. If the book was written 300 years after Christ, it's pretty obvious the author is not the apostle Thomas.

 

Why do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say different things?

 

That's a bit more complicated. There are a lot of parallels between the synoptic gospels. The hard part is figuring out which, if any, were used as source documents.

 

I wish I could be a believer but with all these different versions of the events and contradictions ...it is extremely difficult to do so.

 

I guess we would have to look at which contradictions you are referring to.

 

Also, Mary and Joseph were in love and went traveling.

 

Mary returned pregnant and was shunned and cast out by her own family! The whole town!!.

 

It was only *then* she told everyone God had spoken to her while on this trip with Joseph telling her she would give birth to His son, Jesus. She told everyone that she was still a virgin .... and everyone accepted her again.

 

Why did she wait until she was shunned and cast out to disclose this?

 

I mean such exciting news! Why not share it immediately upon her return?

 

Because maybe it didn't happen, that what happened was she and Joseph had sex, she got pregnant, but after nearly being cast out by her own family and town, came up with this outrageous story about God speaking to her so as to avoid be shunned and cast out.

 

I believe Jesus existed. He was a prophet the son of Mary and Joseph.

 

But the son of God?

 

I believe HE believes he is the son of God, because that is what Mary and Joseph told him. They had to tell him that to maintain their original story.

 

Can someone please answer all these questions for me????

 

Please???

 

Thanks!

 

Mary was not shunned by her family. The only one that knew she was married out of wedlock was Joseph. He only accepted it after he was given a direct message from an angel that Mary was pregnant via the Holy Spirit.

[katiegrl]

 

Mary was not shunned by her family. The only one that knew she was married out of wedlock was Joseph. He only accepted it after he was given a direct message from an angel that Mary was pregnant via the Holy Spirit.

 

Thanks for responding FWord.

 

As I said, the story of Mary and Joseph I read from the book The Nativity given to me by my pastor (many years ago when I was interested in learning about Christianity).

 

However since BButterfly's postings I did some additional research and learned from various sources that both she and you are correct, Mary did not get shunned and was not disgraced by either her family or the town.

 

So why was it written in the book? (Rhetorical question).

 

Could it be the author who is a Christian and believes Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit misinterpreted what the Bible says?

 

It's so fascinating how different people interpret different things because I clearly recall reading about her being shunned and disgraced when she returned pregnant with Joseph.

 

THIS was a huge part of why I rejected the notion that she was impregnated by the holy spirit.

 

Anyway, I will be pondering all this new and fascinating information.

 

Much of it still doesn't make sense, but perhaps after a few prayers, the answers will come to me.

 

I will keep you posted on my journey!

 

Thank you again!

[joystickd]

Because it's not a part of the Tanakh.

 

"The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) consists of a collection of writings dating from approximately the 13th - 3rd centuries BCE. These books were included in the Jewish canon by the Talmudic sages at Yavneh around the end of the first century CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, there are many other Jewish writings from the Second Temple Period which were excluded from the Tanakh; these are known as the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha."

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

 

The Book of Enoch belongs in the Pseudepigrapha category.

 

"The term Pseudepigrapha (Greek, "falsely attributed") was given to Jewish writings of the same period, which were attributed to authors who did not actually write them.

 

This was widespread in Greco-Roman antiquity - in Jewish, Christian, and pagan circles alike. Books were attributed to pagan authors, and names drawn from the repertoire of biblical personalities, such as Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Baruch, and Jeremiah.

 

The Pseudepigrapha resemble the Apocrypha in general character, yet were not included in the Bible, Apocrypha, or rabbinic literature. "

 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html

 

I always thought it was because the Council of Nicea didn't want it in the Bible for Christians

[TheFinalWord]

Thanks for responding FWord.

 

I will keep you posted on my journey!

 

Thank you again!

 

Anytime! Im not sure abt that book (never heard of it).

 

My personal recommendation is to spend 6 months reading the bible on your own without any external resources. David said to hide the word in your heart. That will also give you a foundation so when you hear various teachings (there are a lot of false teachings out there) you will have a backdrop of knowledge to bounce the ideas teachings off of.

 

Best of luck with your journey!