Jesus family tree?

**Pontifex Rex** · 03-01-2006, 19:51

Like you I do not profess to be an expert on the inner workings of the early Christian church (east or west) most of my impressions are drawn from the more secular elements of history between about 300 and 1000 AD.

What has become evident to me over the years as I have read more and more on the history of late antiquity and post-Roman Europe was how utterly disrupted western sociaty had become and how much information was lost in the period mentioned above. The barbarian invasions, the rise of Islam and loss to Europe of the great eastern libraries, then the Norse and so on. Throw in a few pandemics, tribal warfare among the new arrivals and the Huns and it is little wonder that the west survived at all.

Through all of this warfare and chaos what has caught my attention was how sociology played a role in almost all the events (not really a surprise when one thinks about it). The way the Byzantines, Franks, Goths and others saw the world had a direct influence on events and their culture was more often than not the driving force behind events, far more than the actual movements of armies and the battles fought here or there.

Oh, my. We seemed to have completely hijacked this thread. Apologies to all.

**Puzz3D** · 03-01-2006, 20:51

Originally Posted by Kraxis

On the other hand women in early christianity lost more and more of their position in society, to the point that they lost their soul (it was only in 320 something in Nicea that they got it back in the eyes of the church).

I found this reference about how that belief got started: http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/object.html

Wikipedia has a good page on what was decided at the First Council of Nicea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

**Puzz3D** · 03-01-2006, 21:33

Originally Posted by hellas1

Ultimately, here's what archaeology has proven:
1. Jesus was a real dude.

Actually, this has not been proven. Jesus could be the amalgamation of more than one messianic figure.

Originally Posted by hellas1

3. Luke's Gospel and Acts are VERY historical.

The two places where the gospel tries to insert Jesus into the historical record are preposerous events: the massacre of the innocents by Herod and the assembling of the Jewish church leaders on passover to judge Jesus. The first is base on stories in existence about mythological figures, and the second simply never would have happen on passover.

Originally Posted by hellas1

5. There are extra biblical sources that talk about Jesus! Wow!
Such as: The Toledoth Yeshu/Yeshua (NOT christian), Josephus (in the commonly published text it makes him out to say Jesus IS God's son, a Muslim version exists that says:"he was perhaps the son of god" or something to that effect, and other Rabbinical texts.

The Flavius Josephus (c.37 AD/CE - c.100) quote about Jesus from his Antiquities of the Jews (c 93 - 94) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Antiquities is questionable. The style of the writing doesn't match Josephus' style. This entry could have been altered or wholly inserted at later date since we don't have the original document but only copies of copies. Even if we had the original, it wouldn't be a first hand account about Jesus. There is quite a bit of info about him at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Although neutrality and factually disputed, wikipedia has an article on the existence of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...f_Jesus_Christ

**Kraxis** · 03-02-2006, 01:56

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

The Flavius Josephus (c.37 AD/CE - c.100) quote about Jesus from his Antiquities of the Jews (c 93 - 94) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Antiquities is questionable. The style of the writing doesn't match Josephus' style. This entry could have been altered or wholly inserted at later date since we don't have the original document but only copies of copies. Even if we had the original, it wouldn't be a first hand account about Jesus. There is quite a bit of info about him at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Although neutrality and factually disputed, wikipedia has an article on the existence of Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...f_Jesus_Christ

While I never jumped into this, my lecturer during my Bachelor project was dead sure that Jesus was real. He is a Roman lecturer mind you, and he claimed he was mentioned in imperial court proceedings as a rebelrouser. You know one day the Emperor has his bi-monthly (whatever timeperiod) imperial update, then people from the various regions chimes in what has been going on. Apparently the update from Judea contained a mention of a guy that fooled around preaching peace and all kind of foolishness.
But I never looked this up though as my project was 'Why it took so long to subjugate Hispania'. But during the 'classes' we did read a number of similar proceedings, though they were rather decayed. In fact it was a compilation of later interpretations and what was deemed to be the original. Quite fun...

And P. Rex, yeah I guess we have said what we wanted to.
Save one thing... You are right the west suffered a quite significant number of upheavals, while the east was far more stable. But that only underlines my argument. Social structures change whenever everything else does, during stable periods it remains.

**Pontifex Rex** · 03-02-2006, 15:49

Originally Posted by Kraxis

And P. Rex, yeah I guess we have said what we wanted to.
Save one thing... You are right the west suffered a quite significant number of upheavals, while the east was far more stable. But that only underlines my argument. Social structures change whenever everything else does, during stable periods it remains.

I would have liked to get into some more detail but I am without my sources (1 am away from home on a project) and I won't have access to them for at least another month. Once a discussion gets involved enough I like to be able to back up my statements with references to professional scholarship. This way I do not have to rely solely on memory (fallable at the best of times) and can back up more controversial statements.

Cheers.

**orangat** · 03-03-2006, 01:50

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Actually Catholic doctrine doesn't even assume Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It says that Mary was without 'the burden of sin caused by Adam and Eve'.

It's one of those little aspects of Catholicism they don't really talk about much.

I'm certain you're incorrect here. Catholic's believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 03-03-2006, 11:26

Originally Posted by orangat

Catholic's believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.

I believe they do so indeed.

doc_bean makes an important point though about a perpetual mistake. The mistake that 'immaculate conception' means Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. It refers not to any immaculate or 'virgin' conception of Jesus, but to the conception of Mary - who was free from hereditary sin.