# Jesus Had a Wife Gets Coverage on CBS and ABC



## longknife (Apr 11, 2014)

But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why? 

Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters

And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery


----------



## Gracie (Apr 11, 2014)

Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 11, 2014)

It's like find a scrap of paper...Barack...gay


----------



## Gracie (Apr 11, 2014)

And then we will always have the deniers and close minded that think He lived 33 years as a man but without knowledge of all that Man experiences.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 11, 2014)

The Mormons taught for a long time that Jesus was married.


----------



## Antares (Apr 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Mormons taught for a long time that Jesus was married.



You Mormon Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 11, 2014)

Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 11, 2014)

A mormon friend once sent me their bible to read. I sent it back. It was confusing.


----------



## Amelia (Apr 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Mormons taught for a long time that Jesus was married.




I didn't learn it as doctrinal, but many people believed it to be so.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 11, 2014)

IN the NT, Yeshuah was addressed more than once as "Rabbi".  At that time in history, a person was addressed as Rabbi if he had a wife and children. It was rare to find a single Rabbi, and Rabbis who were widowers did not stay that way for long.  If I recall, Yeshuah was addressed as "Rabbi" at least 16 times within the four Gospels at the beginning of the NT. "Rabbi" was not a title that people threw around loosely or lightly. Not only that, the Mishnah clearly describes the stations in young man's life needed to become a "Rabbi" and the sparse description of Yeshuah's youth pretty much parallels that. Plus, the Sanhedrin had some pretty heavy punishments for people who abused titles back then.

So, either Yeshuah could very well have had a wife and a child (or two or more), or the the writers of the Gospels were not telling the truth when they called him "Rabbi". Take your pick.

It should also be noted that Yeshua's way of speaking in parables was a very common technique among Rabbis for many, many centuries. In fact, even today, many Rabbis still teach using numerous parables.

The entire legend of the Merovingian Dynasty is a claim that Yeshuah's children were spirited out of Israel after his crucifixion and landed on the southern coast of today's France. But there is no real evidence for this. Some even believe that the founding of the Templar Knights actually had nothing to do with the "Holy Grail", but rather, to protect this secret. Were that the case, then it would be theoretically possible that direct blood descendants of Yeshuah lived in France for many, many centuries, perhaps even till today. But for this, there is also no conclusive evidence. 

What IS fascinating is that one gospel did not make it into the NT, namely the Gospel of Miryam Midgal (Mary Magdalena). Could she perhaps have been his wife? Who knows for sure?

Jewish archeologists believe they may have found the family grave-cave of Yeshua's family. They found stones in the same "vault" with the names Jusef, Miryam, Yeshuah, at least one of his brothers (I believe it was Simon), and Miryam Migdal. The names Jusef and Miryam were pretty common, Yeshuah was a less common name. You can google this if you like.

The question is: would his having been married in any way affected his divinity, according to Christian doctrine and/or dogma? Not a question I am qualified to answer, but it is an interesting one.


----------



## Amelia (Apr 11, 2014)

^^ That's what one of my Sunday School teachers told me about the implications of the title Rabbi, but since he was LDS and not  Jewish I wasn't certain enough to say it here.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 11, 2014)

Why would he have a wife when he had such a great girlfriend in Mary Magdalene? 

Nope. No way.

He screwed around with MM but he didn't get married. 

But hey, who cares?


----------



## Indofred (Apr 11, 2014)

If Jesus was married, a load of Catholic priests are going to be really pissed off.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 11, 2014)

Indofred said:


> If Jesus was married, a load of Catholic priests are going to be really pissed off.




Actually, you may not know this, but until around the 14th century, Catholic priests DID marry and they DID have children.

The Church's decision to make priests chaste had nothing to do with anything sacred. It had to do with money. The Church did not want to have to pay any form of compensation to widows. And so, priestly chastity was invented.


----------



## Amelia (Apr 11, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > If Jesus was married, a load of Catholic priests are going to be really pissed off.
> ...




I thought that marriage of priests was theoretically prohibited early on but that it took centuries to get the priests to more or less universally follow the rules.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 11, 2014)

longknife said:


> But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> 
> Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters
> 
> And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery



If only there was some law that forced broadcast media to show "both sides"...


----------



## Amelia (Apr 11, 2014)

theDoctorisIn said:


> If only there was some law that forced broadcast media to show "both sides"...





Good thing there's not.  Having two and only two official sides?  Who would get to decide what the two sides were on religious subjects, historical subjects, scientific subjects, etc.?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 11, 2014)

Amelia said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > If only there was some law that forced broadcast media to show "both sides"...
> ...



It was a sarcastic reference to the Fairness Doctrine.


----------



## Amelia (Apr 11, 2014)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...




I got it.


----------



## CaféAuLait (Apr 11, 2014)

longknife said:


> But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> 
> Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters
> 
> And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery



Okay, I don't know if he had a wife or not, I do wonder how this means anything if not in context. Its a tiny scrap of a writing, perhaps he was relaying a story? Who knows?


----------



## Amelia (Apr 11, 2014)

Somewhere on one of those links it was suggested that the sentence could have been "my wife is the church" or something like that.

Yeah, more context is needed.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...




I did some research on that because, of all things, a bet with a colleague who really wanted to know why Rabbi's are not chaste. lol. That was about 22 years ago.

So, I dug. And there is indeed some validity in your statement, I believe: that parts of the church tried to prohibit priestly marriage - but failed pretty miserably. And for good reason.

From it's infancy to the days of the first Church fathers, through the incorporation of the Roman Empire slowly but surely into Christianity ("The HOLY Roman Empire"), the Church was hardly a unified organization until about 700-800 AD and as with most big organizations, it took a long time for it to get a firm grip on power. There are literally reams of reported cases of priests who were officially told to not marry and then they married - and their upper-ups looked the other way. And priests found all sorts of inventive ways to keep their wives and mistresses close to them, sometimes even within their cloisters. Priests are a pretty inventive crew. Remember: it was priests who invented beer. 

You can google this stuff, but there is also very good material to be found on this in most university libraries. I even made an appointment with a Monseigneur (as I understand, a position between Priest and Cardinal) in NE Ohio once to talk about this very topic.

I would put it this way: until the Church put out a specific edict calling for excommunication of married priests and actually started excommunicating en masse, it was pretty much a free for all, and more so the farther away from Rome that one was, for there were less people to watch over priests in the more far-flung parts of the Empire.  Xanthen, Aachen and Köln are the three most northerly former outposts of the Roman Empire and as Christianity came into the land of the barbarians, all sorts of wild and wolly stuff happened within those outposts, mostly because any communications from Rome to Xanthen took a very long time to get there, and due to barbarian attacks being par for the course, many of those communications never made it at all. Plus, in order to make peace with the "barbarians", those outposts engaged in trade with those who weren't trying to kill them and so a lot of "barbarian" customs found their way within the protective walls of an outpost.

BTW, the stone "highway", built during Roman times, between Köln, Aachen and Xanthen still exists. I've walked about 50 Kilometers of it. And in Xanthen, they have rebuilt the Roman village as it once was, including the thermal baths.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is also a liturgical element in this that complicates both the issue of Yeshua / family and "priestly marriage", and that has to do with the Jewish Friday Night service. Shabbat is celebrated from sundown on Friday evening until sundown on Saturday evening, with a number of services.  The Friday Service has as it's introductory prayer a prayer called "l'cha dodi likrat kallah" ("come, my beloved, to welcome the Sabbath bride") - where the "bride" is envisioned to walk down the aisle of the Synagogue toward the bima (pulpit) so that Shabbat can begin. Now, that prayer is not old, it is relatively new, meaning, it is 500+ years old. But as with most all prayers in Judaism, it had a forebearer from Yeshuah's day, a prayer that was similar and eventually, was replaced by this prayer. This helps to explain why the pressure was so strong for Rabbi's to have married and also have children. How can a Rabbi preside over a service welcoming a Sabbath bride when he himself has none?  I can imagine that that thought was unbelievably anchored in the minds of people back then. I cannot prove it, but I can imagine it as being very likely.

By extension, the vast majority of the Christian worship service is an alteration of Jewish liturgy. At least four of the six parts of the mass have roots in Jewish brachot (prayers) so it is also extremely likely that the first Christians also welcomed their own Sabbath "brides" for a long time. And by extension, it would be logical that the first "priests" assuming the role of Christian "Rabbis", if you will, also married and also had children.  It's not only logical, it's human nature.

I only came across this stuff because of a bet.... funny how life sometimes throws a person a curveball...


 [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]


----------



## Politico (Apr 12, 2014)

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Know one knows either way and who freaking cares.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2014)

Gracie said:


> Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
> But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.



Jesus was a Jewish man in his 30s.  Of course he had a wife


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

longknife said:


> But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> 
> Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters
> 
> And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery



the new testament says that both mary's attended the body of jesus after the crucifixion  under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a male would have been his mother and wife. that is evidence enough (to me, at least) that she was his wife.

also, a 30 year old unmarried religious jewish male would have been so odd as to have been noteworthy.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> IN the NT, Yeshuah was addressed more than once as "Rabbi".  At that time in history, a person was addressed as Rabbi if he had a wife and children. It was rare to find a single Rabbi, and Rabbis who were widowers did not stay that way for long.  If I recall, Yeshuah was addressed as "Rabbi" at least 16 times within the four Gospels at the beginning of the NT. "Rabbi" was not a title that people threw around loosely or lightly. Not only that, the Mishnah clearly describes the stations in young man's life needed to become a "Rabbi" and the sparse description of Yeshuah's youth pretty much parallels that. Plus, the Sanhedrin had some pretty heavy punishments for people who abused titles back then.


What a load of crap. Rabbi meant/means 'teacher', not marital status. What difference does it make how many times Jesus was called Rabbi? When was that in dispute? You also fail to take into consideration the words of Jesus himself:

Matthew 19.10:
His disciples said to him, If that is the relationship of a man with his wife, its not worth getting married! 11But he said to them, Not everyone can accept this saying, except those to whom celibacy has been granted. 12For some men are celibate from birth, while others are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

So Jesus couldn't fall into the later category? Seriously?


> So, either Yeshuah could very well have had a wife and a child (or two or more), or the the writers of the Gospels were not telling the truth when they called him "Rabbi". Take your pick.


LOL. Truth by assertion! Your own statement is senseless. He could have had a wife or the disciples were liars? 


> It should also be noted that Yeshua's way of speaking in parables was a very common technique among Rabbis for many, many centuries. In fact, even today, many Rabbis still teach using numerous parables.


Another meaningless point.


> What IS fascinating is that one gospel did not make it into the NT, namely the Gospel of Miryam Midgal (Mary Magdalena). Could she perhaps have been his wife? Who knows for sure?


Not you, that's for sure. There were many gospels that didn't make it into the canon.


> Jewish archeologists believe they may have found the family grave-cave of Yeshua's family. They found stones in the same "vault" with the names Jusef, Miryam, Yeshuah, at least one of his brothers (I believe it was Simon), and Miryam Migdal. The names Jusef and Miryam were pretty common, Yeshuah was a less common name. You can google this if you like.


All common names and would likely be found in generations of a family. Archeologists believe they may have found...means nothing. Beliefs aren't evidence.


> The question is: would his having been married in any way affected his divinity, according to Christian doctrine and/or dogma? Not a question I am qualified to answer, but it is an interesting one.


It would take away from the self sacrifice and non stop dedication to the spiritual realm instead of pursuing Earthly pleasures. Sort of an important theme in the New Testament. And the fact that he knew he'd be leaving a widow (and kids?) behind so it would be even more contradictory to his nature as portrayed in the Bible. Whether one chooses to believe the Bible or not is up to them but it makes no sense to twist it into a different story.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 12, 2014)

jillian said:


> the new testament says that both mary's attended the body of jesus after the crucifixion  under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a male would have been his mother and wife. that is evidence enough (to me, at least) that she was his wife.
> 
> also, a 30 year old unmarried religious jewish male would have been so odd as to have been noteworthy.


Where did you get the info on those two points?


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the new testament says that both mary's attended the body of jesus after the crucifixion  under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a male would have been his mother and wife. that is evidence enough (to me, at least) that she was his wife.
> ...



mark 16.1



> When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.



Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

as for the issue of marriage, he would have been married off young. that is simply a matter of jewish culture at the time and today.

and you can fee free to look up the subject of who can prepare a jewish body for burial and the rules regarding that.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 12, 2014)

The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.

If Jesus was married with children, then many people today might be direct biological descendants of God!  Wonder how that would be woven into theology.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.
> 
> *If Jesus was married with children, then many people today might be direct biological descendants of God!*  Wonder how that would be woven into theology.




That sounds like it could be a very compelling reason to cover up any evidence that his family would have sailed the to southern coast of France and would have started the Merovingian dynasty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 12, 2014)

Some of the Holy Grail and Rosicrucian literature focuses on the supposed descendants of Christ being the 'holy grail' of His blood in the the latter days.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > IN the NT, Yeshuah was addressed more than once as "Rabbi".  At that time in history, a person was addressed as Rabbi if he had a wife and children. It was rare to find a single Rabbi, and Rabbis who were widowers did not stay that way for long.  If I recall, Yeshuah was addressed as "Rabbi" at least 16 times within the four Gospels at the beginning of the NT. "Rabbi" was not a title that people threw around loosely or lightly. Not only that, the Mishnah clearly describes the stations in young man's life needed to become a "Rabbi" and the sparse description of Yeshuah's youth pretty much parallels that. Plus, the Sanhedrin had some pretty heavy punishments for people who abused titles back then.
> ...



*You completely missed the point.* Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> *You completely missed the point.* Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.


YOU missed the point. Your post was bullshit, backed up by assertion and supported with opinion. The people calling him Rabbi were everyday folks. Obviously he was not a member of the Sanhedrin, in fact criticized it soundly. You are an asshole, you don't have the power to make me angry, I doubt anyone else either. And why would your incorrect opinion make someone angry? It makes no sense.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.



I'm Mormon.....don't remember anything like that.

Bet you think we eat babies too..


----------



## FJO (Apr 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Mormons taught for a long time that Jesus was married.



Maybe that is why so-called Christians voted for Obama by staying home and NOT voting for Romney.

If you need to thank anyone for the curse of Obama, the curse and the pestilence of his second term, thank the evangelical, so-called Christians, who never realized that having a half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.


----------



## Amelia (Apr 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.
> ...





I'm Mormon, and I do.  As I said above, not taught as if it were doctrine, but as something which made sense historically and within the context of other LDS beliefs about the importance of marriage.


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.
> 
> If Jesus was married with children, then many people today might be direct biological descendants of God!  Wonder how that would be woven into theology.



The "church" did not exist at the time of Jesus. The only "metaphorical bride"  he'd have know was Shabbat. 

Which still is irrelevant to him calling anyone his wife.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > *You completely missed the point.* Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.
> ...



You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.

In the NT, in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Yeshua is referred to as "Rabbi" at least 16 times. Now, unless you are willing to say the NT is not infallible, there must be a reason for why all four of Yeshua's disciplines who penned the gospels made sure to include this fact. In fact, they themselves called Yeshua "Rabbi". The word "Rabbi" is a title of respect spoken for one who is learned and who teaches or has taught in the Synagogue. Case closed. That is what the title "Rabbi" means.  One did not go around in Yeshua's day calling a person a "Rabbi" just because he told a joke in the street or something like that.

The very fact that "everyday folk" called Yeshua "Rabbi" actually supports my argument. Thank you for your help in this matter.

And being a Rabbi in those days carried with it two practically inexorably extra actitivities: having a wife and children.

Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be. No one is trying to demean Yeshuah or diminish what he did,only, it is highly likely that he had a wife and family. This has been stuff for discussion for many, many years now.

Having taken a wife would not have made Jeshua any less G-d, just as G-d the father impregnating Mary did not make G-d the father any less G-d. You do realize that the story of Yeshua's birth therefore also backs up my argument, right?

Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you.  Otherwise, calling a person an "asshole" on a religion thread where nothing hateful or insulting has even been discussed only makes you look very, very small. Why do that to yourself?


----------



## Amelia (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




Thanks for the explanation.  Mostly I wanted to address the suggestion that priestly chastity was invented in the 14th century for miserly, nonsacred reasons.  It's at least "complicated".


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.
> ...




The Mormons I have known personally and am friends with are good, upstanding, kind people. They accept me, and I accept them. Case closed.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Jesus was called Rabbi because of is knowledge of the Gospel.

He never was an official Rabbi in a synagogue. I don't believe anyone of authority ever officially gave him the title. Besides, one doesn't become one as soon as you pick a wife. It is simply expected of you to pick one eventually, but Jesus never stayed around long enough to find one. They say Mary Magdalene might have been his wife, but who really knows for sure.

BTW, what difference does it make anyway if he had a wife and a family as long as they were married in the eyes of God.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...




I agree with you entirely about that point, based on what I've researched. I suppose that no one can be a real expert on this, and in the truest sense of the word, only G-d knows.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.
> ...



I heard that they are really tasty and tender.  Is it true?


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.
> 
> In the NT, in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Yeshua is referred to as "Rabbi" at least 16 times. Now, unless you are willing to say the NT is not infallible, there must be a reason for why all four of Yeshua's disciplines who penned the gospels made sure to include this fact. In fact, they themselves called Yeshua "Rabbi". The word "Rabbi" is a title of respect spoken for one who is learned and who teaches or has taught in the Synagogue. Case closed.


There's no evidence that he was trained as a rabbi, he was self taught, seeing as well, he was God in the flesh. Being trained as a rabinical Pharisee or Sadducee or Essene would sorta defeat the point, no?


> That is what the title "Rabbi" means.  One did not go around in Yeshua's day calling a person a "Rabbi" just because he told a joke in the street or something like that.
> 
> The very fact that "everyday folk" called Yeshua "Rabbi" actually supports my argument. Thank you for your help in this matter.
> 
> ...


Calling you an asshole just means that I think you're an asshole. It doesn't mean that I felt insulted. Why would I? Jesus (and Paul, Saul if you prefer Jewish names, for that matter) taught that the higher calling was to stay unmarried and focus on the spiritual. Jesus wasn't what one considers an orthodox rabbi, then or now. 


> Having taken a wife would not have made Jeshua any less G-d, just as G-d the father impregnating Mary did not make G-d the father any less G-d. You do realize that the story of Yeshua's birth therefore also backs up my argument, right?


Bullshit. Mary's role was to be his mother. Jesus' role was not to procreate. You don't know what you're talking about. You ignored my other points, leaving a wife and kids behind, etc. because you have no argument for them. It would make no sense. Everything he did was for a purpose, what purpose would taking a wife have been? And leaving her? It makes no sense. 


> Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you.  Otherwise, calling a person an "asshole" on a religion thread where nothing hateful or insulting has even been discussed only makes you look very, very small. Why do that to yourself?


You are full of shit. Talking down to people like you do makes you a hateful asshole. You fooled no one, you had nothing substantive to offer and you hoped to cover it up with a bunch of bluster and condescention. No sale.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 12, 2014)

I don't see him talking down, iceweasel. I see him sharing his thoughts just like everyone else. Personally, I read everyones opinions and am the better for it because I am learning things and/or things I never really thought about, are becoming more clear. Not just from one person either. From everyone discussing this topic. I hope I can continue to read without it turning into a slugfest.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 12, 2014)

Gracie said:


> I don't see him talking down, iceweasel. I see him sharing his thoughts just like everyone else. Personally, I read everyones opinions and am the better for it because I am learning things and/or things I never really thought about, are becoming more clear. Not just from one person either. From everyone discussing this topic. I hope I can continue to read without it turning into a slugfest.


You skipped a few words then. 

"You completely missed the point." 

"You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry."

"Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be."

"Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you."

That's just from a couple of posts. We call those assholes where I come from, not sure about you. And then he claims the moral high ground? WTF?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.
> ...





There was no official training to be a Rabbi 2,000 years ago. There was no Rabbinical School 2,000 years ago. I think that a large part of your problem is that you are taking a 20th/21st century image of Judaism and applying it to the 1st century AD. But that doesn't work.

I think you also truly missed the point that Yeshuah himself was a Jew and fully aware of the 613 commandments in the Tanakh. He himself said "I have come not to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it."

You are free to call me or anyone else here an asshole if that is really what you need as part of your therapy, but I assure you, it tells the membership much more about YOU than it does about me.

But since you obviously don't want to exchange information and instead, you take umbrage at every word, it's just not worth it with you. There are people of good will out there who do not fly off the handle like you do.


So, ciao.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see him talking down, iceweasel. I see him sharing his thoughts just like everyone else. Personally, I read everyones opinions and am the better for it because I am learning things and/or things I never really thought about, are becoming more clear. Not just from one person either. From everyone discussing this topic. I hope I can continue to read without it turning into a slugfest.
> ...




You think that is insulting? I mean...REALLY????
Geez. I don't know what else to say. But geez fits.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 12, 2014)

Stat, this is an informative thread. Do not stop discussing. If iceweasel finds it too much for him to handle (I guess he will consider that an insult too?), that's his prob.
Many of us are enjoying the discussion. One person shouldn't ruin it. Don't let him. Just ignore him.


----------



## Howey (Apr 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
> ...



Huh. I always thought he was ghey, what with the dress, long hair and stuff.



Question: Is the OP claiming that only liberal networks brought up the story?


----------



## Howey (Apr 12, 2014)

Gracie said:


> geez fits.



Grilled Cheezus!

Sorry, Gracie.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> There was no official training to be a Rabbi 2,000 years ago. There was no Rabbinical School 2,000 years ago. I think that a large part of your problem is that you are taking a 20th/21st century image of Judaism and applying it to the 1st century AD. But that doesn't work.


I didn't say so. Those are your words. A Rabbi could have been schooled by the best, or not. On the one hand you say it's informal and on the other hand you're convinced Jesus was married because he was considered to be a Rabbi. Seems like a wide range to be staking a large claim to.

In Regard to Jesus of Nazareth by Rabbi Baruch
Prior to Jesus beginning His teaching a new branch of spiritual leaders surfaced in Israel. These leaders were called rabbis. Rabbis were teachers that for the most part travelled from place to place providing spiritual assistance to the Jewish population expecially outside Jerusalem. It was to this relatively new movement that Jesus belonged. It must be pointed out that rabbis ranged from those who received training from some of the greatest minds in Judaism to those who were formally uneducated and whose teaching were most simplistic. 


> I think you also truly missed the point that Yeshuah himself was a Jew and fully aware of the 613 commandments in the Tanakh. He himself said "I have come not to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it."


How did I miss that point exactly? That wasn't your point and it isn't relevent. There was no law for a Rabbi to be married. In fact the traveling lifestyle wouldn't favor it well so I don't know where you come up with it being standard paractice. Let alone the fact that Jesus, according to the Bible, was hardly just a Rabbi.


> You are free to call me or anyone else here an asshole if that is really what you need as part of your therapy, but I assure you, it tells the membership much more about YOU than it does about me.


I quoted you above, people can draw their own conclusions. Calling it my therapy is exactly my point.


> But since you obviously don't want to exchange information and instead, you take umbrage at every word, it's just not worth it with you. There are people of good will out there who do not fly off the handle like you do.
> 
> So, ciao.


I did exchange information. It's still there. There is simply no support for your assertion and talking down to people doesn't help make the case.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Gracie said:


> Stat, this is an informative thread. Do not stop discussing. If iceweasel finds it too much for him to handle (I guess he will consider that an insult too?), that's his prob.
> Many of us are enjoying the discussion. One person shouldn't ruin it. Don't let him. Just ignore him.




Working on some other stuff right now, multitasking between USMB and my business, but I will come back later


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > There was no official training to be a Rabbi 2,000 years ago. There was no Rabbinical School 2,000 years ago. I think that a large part of your problem is that you are taking a 20th/21st century image of Judaism and applying it to the 1st century AD. But that doesn't work.
> ...



No. *You just lied.* I said that in the NT, in the 4 Gospels, Yeshuah is called "Rabbi" at least 16 times.

I then said that a Rabbi was called that if he was a learned man who either preaches or had preached at the Synagogue. I never once mentioned a formal education, not even once. 

If you think you can put words into my mouth, think again.

Are you are Christian? Did you know that Yeshuah himself condemned deviousness as a sin? Why are you being so devious? Shame on you.


----------



## skye (Apr 12, 2014)

Fascinating thread! 

May be  Jesus was married,   married  to Mary Magdalene, who was never a fallen woman.

Mary Magdalene was considered one of Christs main followers, not only given the honor of discovering his resurrection, but also being one of those who didnt desert him in the end. 

Nothing wrong with Jesus being married, but of course it does not go well with the Church narrative.... 

Who believes in The Church of Lies anyway.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 12, 2014)

Howey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...



His long hair and dress was according to the needs of his time.

The long flowing robes were necessary because of the heat. His long hair because you couldn't go to a barber any time you want, especially when you're walking around from town to town.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 12, 2014)

skye said:


> Fascinating thread!
> 
> May be  Jesus was married,   married  to Mary Magdalene, who was never a fallen woman.
> 
> ...



It doesn't make a pastor any less holy being married.

It might end the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church if they knew Jesus was at least married.


----------



## skye (Apr 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating thread!
> ...



and who is saying that it makes a pastor any less holy? on the contrary.

celibacy has meant the downfall of the Church....I agree with you.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Apr 12, 2014)

I'm Pagan and my girlfriend is Christian. We have theological discussions without arguing and I often tell her things about the bible that she did not know.

Jesus most definitely had a wife. Her name was Mary Magdalene.

You can read more about it in the scriptures that were omitted from the bible called the apocrypha.

THE LOST GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALEN

By the way - Jehovah had a wife as well. Her name was Sophia. 

Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom & God's Bride


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating thread!
> ...






Spot-on.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 12, 2014)

I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.

I would like to know if they had children, and if those children had offspring, etc.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 12, 2014)

I like the idea he was married and had kids. Or..Mary was preggers when he was murdered. He was God...but He also was here as Man, to die for us. And to be Man, He also had to live as one.
He loved Mary. In one of the gospels didn't somene complain that He kissed Mary on the mouth and supposedly loved her more than his disciples? Jealousy at its finest, seems like.

And Howey? How about a little respect here, for those who want to discuss Jesus without the insults on his sexuality. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Apr 12, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.
> 
> I would like to know if they had children, and if those children had offspring, etc.



While I believe that he did, I have never seen any pertinent scripture to support this hypothesis. 

Jesus bloodline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

At the risk of repeating myself, I think the bulk of the argumentation for this is here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...gets-coverage-on-cbs-and-abc.html#post8920570

And even none of that proves anything, but maybe gives a little insight into how things were likely done and seen 2,000 years ago in everyday Israel.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.
> ...




If. however, Miryam Migdal was either his wife or concubine and Yeshuah's followers wanted to quash that in codifying a book that would later be called the Bible, it would then make sense that they would deliberately leave out the Gospel of Miryam Migdal.


 [MENTION=3135]jillian[/MENTION] made an excellent point in reminding that there were two women with Yeshuah once his body was taken down from the cross: Miryam (his mother) and Miryam Migdal (this second person would usually have been the wife).

Were I a Christian, I would fail to see how any of this either way would challenge or undermine Yeshua's divinity. Many Christian preachers go out of their way to remind people that Yeshua was a complete human and part of G-d, all rolled into one. Well, part of being a complete human, and an adult one at that, is sexuality.


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



That is false. There was no gospel during Jesus' time. The first book of the gospel wasn't  written until between 40 and 70 years after jesus' death.

he was never a rabbi with a synagogue. in jesus' case, i believe the title was given him by the apostles who saw him as a teacher. but he did not teach any gospel.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 12, 2014)

jillian said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




The NT reports that Yeshuah indeed did preach in the Synagogue, leading to the use of the title "Rabbi".

But "gospel", I believe that mud means the good news that he was intending to spread.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 12, 2014)

The book;

The Last Temptation of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The movie;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film)


This is well trod ground. I guess CBS and ABC need more eyeballs.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 12, 2014)

Might be well trod, but still fascinating to discuss.


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



if one looks at the gnostic gospel of mary magdalen, which many believe to have been intentionally stripped from the gospels by the council of nicea, there seems to have been a great jealousy of mary on the part of peter. he even asked why jesus loved her more than the apostles. so they turned her into a harlot.... instead of the wife she probably was.


----------



## longknife (Apr 12, 2014)

The OP had very little to do with all this fascinating discussion of rabbis and old church customs. 

IT WAS ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS ITEMS LIKE THIS!!!!

Can we perhaps get back to talking about that?


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

longknife said:


> The OP had very little to do with all this fascinating discussion of rabbis and old church customs.
> 
> IT WAS ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS ITEMS LIKE THIS!!!!
> 
> Can we perhaps get back to talking about that?



no. that's what you want it to be about because apparently the thought of jesus having a wife upsets you. the rest of us are more interested in jesus' wife

i'm sorry if actual discussion offends you. but most of us seem to be finding this interesting.


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.
> ...



that wouldn't be dispositive. scripture isn't history.


----------



## Amelia (Apr 12, 2014)

longknife said:


> But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> 
> Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters
> 
> And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery




So why do you think the skeptics weren't reported on?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2014)

Why s there so much fear that Jesus may have had sex? Or that Mary may have had sex?


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Why s there so much fear that Jesus may have had sex? Or that Mary may have had sex?



I think it has something to do with Pontius Pilate not providing free birth control.


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



i would ask that he clarify then. b/c to me, gospel has a specific meaning.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 12, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



They are once you remove their hooves, tails, and horns.

The LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, Bob, are sects of Mormons who follow the Joseph Smith and Book of Mormon narrative.  If you are mainstream LDS, even if active, don't be surprised you don't know about them; the church does its level best to keep that away from the members.

No, I don't hate or dislike or spurn Mormons.  I have liked almost everyone of the many, many Mormons that I have met in my life.

And it does not matter if Jesus was married or not.  He who follows the Lord is just fine.


----------



## Antares (Apr 12, 2014)

Here is the funny thing, EVERYBODY has chosen what they want to believe.

The key word there is "chosen".

The funny part is that NOT one of you can prove that your "chosen" belief system is any truer or anymore "valid" than anyone else's. 

There is NO reason to think that ANY of the Gnostic's or any of the other "extra biblical" shit is any truer than what the Bible or the Church teaches.


----------



## Antares (Apr 12, 2014)

Jake is Jillian's belief as valid as yours?


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> Here is the funny thing, EVERYBODY has chosen what they want to believe.
> 
> The key word there is "chosen".
> 
> ...



are you saying that there was no council of nice? or that constantine didn't cobble together a bunch of belief systems to make sure he didn't have an unruly public?

that said, people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others or hurt anyone with them.


----------



## Antares (Apr 12, 2014)

jillian said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the funny thing, EVERYBODY has chosen what they want to believe.
> ...



I am saying that EVERYONE has their own belief system and that you or Jake or anyone can pick and choose what parts of  all of the councils....and gospels  and everything else but in the end it is what it is.....YOUR belief system.

Can you show that yours is ANYMORE valid than anyone else's ?


----------



## jillian (Apr 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



more valid? everyone thinks their belief system is more valid than any other or they wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

so yes, while people are free to believe as they wish, there are certain historical truths... like jesus never preached anything that conflicted with jewish belief. he preached against corruption among the high priests and roman occupation of judaism.


----------



## Barb (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > If Jesus was married, a load of Catholic priests are going to be really pissed off.
> ...



The earlier Popes were married - Borgia, for one.


----------



## Antares (Apr 12, 2014)

jillian said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



*what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.*

Jewish mysticism is no more relevant or true than other belief system.
Because one was always "taught" something does not mean that what was "taught was true.....or untrue.

The point here is that everyone is judging everyone else's belief system.

A relativist can never accept an absolutist....and an absolutist can NEVER accept a relativist......but who is correct?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 12, 2014)

Antares said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Excellent post.


----------



## Barb (Apr 12, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Why s there so much fear that Jesus may have had sex? Or that Mary may have had sex?



THANK you! I've always been a little pissed off about the insistence on the "virgin" birth. For one, biology, but beyond that, why couldn't he have been a plucky little bastard like me? 

And the answer is social control - keeping the high and mighty both high AND mighty, and plucky little bastards like me under heel.


----------



## Barb (Apr 12, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> IN the NT, Yeshuah was addressed more than once as "Rabbi".  At that time in history, a person was addressed as Rabbi if he had a wife and children. It was rare to find a single Rabbi, and Rabbis who were widowers did not stay that way for long.  If I recall, Yeshuah was addressed as "Rabbi" at least 16 times within the four Gospels at the beginning of the NT. "Rabbi" was not a title that people threw around loosely or lightly. Not only that, the Mishnah clearly describes the stations in young man's life needed to become a "Rabbi" and the sparse description of Yeshuah's youth pretty much parallels that. Plus, the Sanhedrin had some pretty heavy punishments for people who abused titles back then.
> 
> So, either Yeshuah could very well have had a wife and a child (or two or more), or the the writers of the Gospels were not telling the truth when they called him "Rabbi". Take your pick.
> 
> ...



The Da Vinci Code touched on all of that. It was an interesting premise, that the church would find a direct bloodline of the man they worshipped as divinity so threatening that the family would have to be shielded from them by generations of a secret society dedicated to that one purpose. Not that far fetched.


----------



## Antares (Apr 12, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Well Jake.....that made me hard.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Gracie said:


> Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
> But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.



Exactly.  In the time and place he lived he would have stood out if he was NOT married.  It's what his community and his religion would have expected.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's like find a scrap of paper...Barack...gay



Uh ---- yeah OK, thanks for uh, clearing that up...


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

BDBoop said:


> I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.
> 
> I would like to know if they had children, and if those children had offspring, etc.



It's been suggested that Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner exchanged with the Romans after the temple riot, was his son.  Bar Abbas = "son of the master" or "father" (anyone remember Abba Eban?)  -- so this prisoner's name might be read as "Jesus Junior".


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 13, 2014)

longknife said:


> The OP had very little to do with all this fascinating discussion of rabbis and old church customs.
> 
> IT WAS ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS ITEMS LIKE THIS!!!!
> 
> Can we perhaps get back to talking about that?





 [MENTION=39846]longknife[/MENTION] - it was not an intention to derail, but the entire them of whether Yeshua may or may not have married is inexorably linked to the title of "Rabbi" having been accorded him by your own NT.  You can't have an honest discussion about one without at least considering the other, imo.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 13, 2014)

Gracie said:


> A mormon friend once sent me their bible to read. I sent it back. It was confusing.



Mark Twain called the BOok of Mormon "Ether in Printed form".


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 13, 2014)

Since Jesus was a mythical figure, it's probably just as likely his wife was.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 13, 2014)

Sam Kinison had a different opinion.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Gracie said:


> Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
> But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.



 John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

We are not worshiping anything other than G-d himself.

No, there is nothing scary about Jesus marrying, because He didn't.

There were numerous people named 'jesus' in that day.  The Jesus of Nazareth did not marry.   But certainly other 'jesus' named people, did.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Since Jesus was a mythical figure, it's probably just as likely his wife was.



Just like that myth of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Code of Hammurabi.

We sure do have a ton of myths in the modern world.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.
> ...



Might have read as Johnny Depp, but wasn't Jesus Junior then or Johnny now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 13, 2014)

"The Jesus of Nazareth did not marry" has no more evidence than if he did.

Your belief is not evidence, Androw.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

Antares said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



except that there was never anyone named adam and eve.

i'm not quite sure why you keep missing the point.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Since Jesus was a mythical figure, it's probably just as likely his wife was.
> ...



the code of hammurabi is a myth?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


----------



## Antares (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I would hold that it you who are missing the point.

You can't prove that there was never an Adam or Eve, you can only say that you don't believe there was and that's fine, it's just that YOUR beliefs are no more valid than anyone else's.

That's it, that's the only point being held out there for you to see.

I am not denigrating what you believe, but I am saying that it is patently silly for you are anyone else here to judge anyone else's beliefs.

You choose NOT to believe in Biblical literalism but you cannot prove it isn't a valid belief system.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 13, 2014)

MOst of the early Popes were rich married men that bought their way into the Papacy and it's leadership roles...


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 13, 2014)

I knew about Jesus and his wife that fled the Middle East and fled to Southern France...before this announcement of the latest discovery...


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



No idea what this means....   Johnny Depp?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Antares said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



We can't prove the negative, but then we don't need to; the point is there's no evidence for their existence.  The burden of proof is on the asserter; absent such proof, existence is not... proven.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> are you saying that there was no council of nice? or that constantine didn't cobble together a bunch of belief systems to make sure he didn't have an unruly public?



There was a Council of Nicaea.   However, some people have blown this out of context.

The early Christian church, was fairly consistent in it's doctrinal belief system.   In 138 AD, Aristides wrote to the Roman government:



> The Son of the most high God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, descended from heaven, born of a Hebrew Virgin. His flesh he received from the Virgin, and he revealed himself in the human nature as the Son of God. In his goodness which brought the glad tidings, he has won the whole world by his life-giving preachingHe selected twelve apostles and taught the whole world by his mediatorial, light-giving truth.
> And he was crucified, being pierced with nails by the Jews; and he rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He sent the apostles into all the world and instructed all by divine miracles full of wisdom. Their preaching bears blossoms and fruits to this day, and calls the whole world to illumination.



This was before Constantine was born, and long before the Council of Nicaea.

Now when I say fairly consistent, I don't mean perfect uniformity.  Obviously the letters written to the various churches in the new testament, were written primarily to fix doctrinal differences.

But the fundamentals... where we came from... who is G-d... who is Jesus.... why he died... did he rise from the dead.... all of these basics were settled in the early church, long before Constantine, or the Council of Nicaea.

Pliny the Younger a Roman governor, wrote this letter to the Emperor saying:


> I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished.
> 
> However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal



This was written in 112 AD.  They sang hymns to Christ, as to G-d.

*So what was the purpose of the Council of Nicaea, if the early church had this well established?
*
Well quite simply, when Constantine converted to Christianity, and then converted the armies to Christianity... the entire Roman empire began to "christianize".  All these people of Rome, wanting to be in the good graces of the Emperor, and the Armies, were walking around saying "Hey we're Christian too!".

Keep in mind, many of these same people, were the people who 50 years prior, were feeding Christians to lions.

So of course with this sudden mass Chistianization, there were many people running around going well... we're Christian.... but..... we don't really believe in X Y and Z.

The Council of Nicaea, was created by Constantine, for this purpose.   All of these pagans, that suddenly Christianized, but rejected established early Church doctrine, were causing problems.    The Council of Nicaea was meant to basically set in stone, what the Early Church had been practicing and believing since the death of Christ.

The Council of Nicaea did not suddenly decide that Jesus was G-d.

No, Jesus was established as G-d by the Early church for several hundred years.   The Council of Nicaea merely set in stone, what they had already been teaching.

*Now going back to the actual Council, even there it was fairly established that Jesus Christ, was G-d.*

From the records that were kept, only 3 bishops, of all 220 that attended, even hinted that Jesus was not G-d.  That would be Arius, who was priest in Alexandria, Egypt.

Arius claimed that G-d the Father had divinity over G-d the Son (Jesus), and that there was in fact a time before G-d the Son existed, and it was only G-d the Father alone.

The Council decided to vote on whether Arius could remain in the Church.  Out of 220 attendants, 2 abstained, and the rest voted him out.

Does that sound like there was a huge discussion on Jesus being G-d?  One guy questions it, and only two abstain from voting him out.   That's pretty clear cut in favor of Jesus being G-d.

*Bottom line is, yes Constantine effectively 'christianized' Rome.   And yes there was a Council of Nicaea.*

But the fact is, Christianity was firmly established long before either happened.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Oh I don't know...  I think if you could conclusively find the tomb of Jesus, and conclusively show the body of Jesus, I think that would qualify as proof Christianity is false.

Alternatively if the Jews were wiped out, didn't come back to their ancient home land after several thousand years, and still have a distinctive race of people, and a unique language, and all the rest of the prophesies, I think I would find that convincing.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

> The Council of Nicaea did not suddenly decide that Jesus was G-d.



Uh -- yeah, it did.

Christian belief wasn't consistent at all.  That's why the Council was called and all the previous bibles destroyed.  Doctrine, and even dogma, varied from one region to the next.  Nicea had to settle whether Jesus was the Son o' God.  And by a majority (but not unanimity) on a ballot, the Council decided he was.  Prior to that, three centuries of speculation and variant versions.

So Jillian's absolutely correct, Nicea was all about establishing political control -- politics and religion being two sides of the same coin in that time.

Needles to say, here in our enlightened world today we all know better and have totally stripped out religious influence from politics.

(/sarc)


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> "The Jesus of Nazareth did not marry" has no more evidence than if he did.
> 
> Your belief is not evidence, Androw.



Equally my belief the queen of England has not been replaced by space aliens impersonating her... is also not evidence.

I guess we should give as much credence to that, as Jesus being married then.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yeah, just like Jesus.  Don't you know that?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Number one, why would it prove that?  Number two, the question was about Adam and Eve, not Jesus.



Androw said:


> Alternatively if the Jews were wiped out, didn't come back to their ancient home land after several thousand years, and still have a distinctive race of people, and a unique language, and all the rest of the prophesies, I think I would find that convincing.



  Can I get that in English?


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> It wasn't consistent at all.  That's why the Council was called and all the previous bibles destroyed.  Doctrine, and even dogma, varied from one region to the next.  Nicea had to settle whether Jesus was the Son o' God.  And by a majority (but not unanimity) on a ballot, the Council decided he was.  Prior to that, three centuries of speculations were all over the place.
> 
> So Jillian's absolutely correct, Nicea was all about establishing political control -- politics and religion being two sides of the same coin in that time.



Do you really think ALMIGHTY GOD would have a problem having only GOD inspired men to choose only GOD INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED) books to be included in His Holyword???? THINK!!!


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> > The Council of Nicaea did not suddenly decide that Jesus was G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well the evidence suggests otherwise, and I posted several citations which show as much.

I'm not going to argue it with you.   Believe whatever you want.  But spare me your theory that the evidence suggests otherwise.  You are wrong.  Period.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "The Jesus of Nazareth did not marry" has no more evidence than if he did.
> ...



Maybe less, since there's no reason to expect Queen Elizabeth to be replaced by space aliens, and there's every reason to expect a grown male in first century Judea to be married like everybody else.

Then there's the kissing thing, the jealous apostles, Jesus Barabbas... 

Meanwhile we have no reports of a UFO landing on the Buckingham Palace helipad, nor do we have a likely motive.  We actually have a more credible case for Paul McCartney being killed in 1966 and replaced by a lookalike.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > > The Council of Nicaea did not suddenly decide that Jesus was G-d.
> ...



So you're saying only your position is valid huh?

That was easy, thanks for playin' ...


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I thought it was fairly clear.   I'll try and spell it out.

The Bible makes numerous specific prophesies about the Jewish people.

Even before Rome destroyed the Temple, the Bible clearly stated that the nation of Israel would be completely wiped out, and it's people spread to the corners of the Earth, where they would remain until a set time.

At that time, the Jews would be regathered to their ancient homeland of Israel, and Israel would be reborn.

This has all happened.   Further, the book of Revelations makes it clear that Israel will be the key nation at the end times.

To the point....  if all the Jews were killed and wiped out, instantly the entire Bible is completely proven false.

Additionally, the Bible says that Jesus was raised from the Dead.   There is no body of Jesus.   There is no tomb, with his remains.

This is fundamental to the entire Christian belief.  If you can find his body, the Bible is completely proven false.


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



GOD AND GOD'S WORD has been under attack from sin loving GOD rejecting little men for thousands of years most of whom are long dead and in hell today!!!! WILL YOU JOIN THEM????


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't consistent at all.  That's why the Council was called and all the previous bibles destroyed.  Doctrine, and even dogma, varied from one region to the next.  Nicea had to settle whether Jesus was the Son o' God.  And by a majority (but not unanimity) on a ballot, the Council decided he was.  Prior to that, three centuries of speculations were all over the place.
> ...



"Holyword"?  Interesting -- at first glance it looked like "Hollywood".  And eerily appropriate.

Here's your problem, and it's as old as theism itself:


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.     and.... I'm right.

That was easy, thanks for playin'


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 13, 2014)

Jesus Christ was not God. If he was why would he pray to himself???


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Androw said:
> ...



How does that prove the "entire bible" false?

If I predict today's baseball scores and I get one wrong, that means they're all wrong?



Androw said:


> Additionally, the Bible says that Jesus was raised from the Dead.   There is no body of Jesus.   There is no tomb, with his remains.
> 
> This is fundamental to the entire Christian belief.  If you can find his body, the Bible is completely proven false.



See above.  Why would disproving the Resurrection take everything else with it?  Why does this concept of resurrection necessarily involve the physical body?  What use is a corpse in heaven?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 13, 2014)

The Roman Catholics went to war against the Gnostic sect of Christians since they have always known that Jesus Christ was married....
The Roman Catholics had a a chasm from the Eastern Orthodox church because the Eastern Orthodox church stated that the Catholics were worshipping idols as part of their religion...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I personally think that circular breathing is far more productive than circular reasoning. Just ask Roger Bobo or Toby Hanks.


----------



## Antares (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



How convenient for you


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 13, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



HERE IS YOUR PROBLEM FOOL!!!! The fool has said in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity. Psalm 53:1


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Or any digeridoo player.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't consistent at all.  That's why the Council was called and all the previous bibles destroyed.  Doctrine, and even dogma, varied from one region to the next.  Nicea had to settle whether Jesus was the Son o' God.  And by a majority (but not unanimity) on a ballot, the Council decided he was.  Prior to that, three centuries of speculations were all over the place.
> ...



seek help.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You're still stuck in that same traffic circle with no exit.

Yawn.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > > The Council of Nicaea did not suddenly decide that Jesus was G-d.
> ...



your "evidence" isn't anything i'd find acceptable.   the "evidence" IS that constantine wanted to put together his christians and his pagans.... and control them so constructed a piecemeal gospel while leaving out anything that addressed jesus' humanity or the fact that he was an anti-roman insurrectionist.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw, you posted a false equivalency for reasonable belief: step off.

GISMYS, there is no evidence that Jesus was not married: step off


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.

How do you know Ohm's Law is true?

Well... I was taught it in school.    Who taught it?   My teacher.  Where did my teacher get it?    He read it in a book.   Who wrote the book?   Georg Simon Ohm.    Where did he get it?    Well he tested it, and it worked.    How do you know?   Because Georg Simon Ohm said so, and no one has been able to prove it wrong.

In all knowledge there is an ultimate authority.   When you trace knowledge back to the ultimate authority, you automatically end up with a circular logic scenario.

How do you know Newton's laws of motion, are true?  Because Newton tested it, and it was right.  How do you know?   Because he said so, and no one has proven it wrong yet.

Similarly, I believe in Jesus Christ being G-d, that came to Earth as a human, preached for 3 years, was killed for our sins, came back from the dead, and is now in Heaven awaiting His return.

Where did I get that?  From a book.  Who wrote the book?   A number of people.   Where did they get that from?    They lived it, and were with him at the time.    How do I know?   Because they wrote it down, and no one has been able to prove it false yet.

Circular?   Yup.   But no more circular than people who believe The Code of Hammurabi exists.     There is an ultimate authority at some point, for all knowledge.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Androw, you posted a false equivalency for reasonable belief: step off.
> 
> GISMYS, there is no evidence that Jesus was not married: step off



It's ok Jake.  You can believe whatever you want. I'm not mad at you.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



There were no pagans that I am aware of at the Council of Nicaea.

As for what evidence you do, or do not find acceptable.... I'm not sure G-d cares.     I sure don't.  You can believe whatever you want.  It's ok with me.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 13, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Not a corpse.  He came back to alive.  He's alive in Heaven.  Not dead.

The whole old testament is pointing forward to a coming savior.  Dead people can't save anything.   Without a savior, the old testament is meaningless.

1 Corinthians 15:29


> Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I face death every dayyes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
> 
> Let us eat and drink,
> for tomorrow we die.



If Jesus is not raised from the dead, then we're all doomed to this meaningless life.    That's sad.

Way back in Genesis, G-d made promises to Abraham, about his people, and the land.

If the Jews were killed off, that would make G-d a liar.    If G-d is a lair, how can we trust anything in the Bible at all?

Well of course we can't.   If we can't trust it all, we can't really trust any of it.

I find that odd that you would question this.   If your spouse was screwing a someone in your own bed, and you found out.... what level of trust would you continue to place in everything else she says?  Wouldn't that destroy pretty much.... everything else?


----------



## longknife (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > The OP had very little to do with all this fascinating discussion of rabbis and old church customs.
> ...



I have always believed that Jesus had a wife - AND children!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 13, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I think your little gizmo thingy is kaputt: it keeps saying the same stuff over and over and over...


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

longknife said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...




then i stand corrected and misunderstood your comment.

apologies.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




oh he is just pissed of he got left behind.......


----------



## syrenn (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




you would think that they would want to prove he was married to a woman now....

or you may be able to prove he was gay.


----------



## RosieS (Apr 13, 2014)

The  Frankish kings had some strange explanations of their origins. One proclaimed descent from a giant sea serpent.

So ruling by divine right due to descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene is comparatively hardly far fetched.

Both Southern France and Northern Spain have feasts celebrating the two Marys together. Celebration of a Grandmother and Mother would be an appropriate religious activity.

Not coincidentally, in  the correct geographical region, as well.

As a former Catholic, I find that it is an interesting and neglected practice by pious people. 

Regards from Rosie


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 13, 2014)

But did Jesus have a dog?


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 13, 2014)

longknife said:


> But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> 
> Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters
> 
> And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery



Jesus' "wife" is the Church.  

*Ephesians 5:25*_*, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"*_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Androw, you posted a false equivalency for reasonable belief: step off.
> ...



No one is mad at you, my friend.

Your attempt at equivalency missed the mark.

It's OK.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 13, 2014)

That's OK, drifting sand, no one is mad at you.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> ...



jesus didn't know of any "church". he knew a temple.

try again.


----------



## Gracie (Apr 13, 2014)

I don't get it. Why is Israel so important? After watching Passion of Christ, was that not Jews who were demanding Jesus to be scourged and crucified...and then the temple was jolted with an earthquake? So what is this fascination with Israel and Jews as the chosen people when they turned their backs on their own and killed him? (IF the bible is to be believed, mind you). No offense meant to Jews. Just confused as usual. 

 I still just flat don't get it.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2014)

Gracie said:


> I don't get it. Why is Israel so important? After watching Passion of Christ, was that not Jews who were demanding Jesus to be scourged and crucified...and then the temple was jolted with an earthquake? So what is this fascination with Israel and Jews as the chosen people when they turned their backs on their own and killed him? (IF the bible is to be believed, mind you). No offense meant to Jews. Just confused as usual.
> 
> I still just flat don't get it.



no... it was not "jews" who demanded anything. it was rome who killed jesus because he preached revolution against rome. the sandhedrin didn't much like him because the high priests were appointed by rome at that time.... which was actually one of the things jesus and every other insurrectionist who called himself messiah preached in those days.

what earthquake in the temple?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 13, 2014)

The veil was ripped in twain at the passing of Jesus.


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 13, 2014)

GET OF THIS STUPID POST  TOPIC ,YOU SILLY TARDS!!! You are allowing satan to use you as his tool and fool!!! WISE UP!!!


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get it. Why is Israel so important? After watching Passion of Christ, was that not Jews who were demanding Jesus to be scourged and crucified...and then the temple was jolted with an earthquake? So what is this fascination with Israel and Jews as the chosen people when they turned their backs on their own and killed him? (IF the bible is to be believed, mind you). No offense meant to Jews. Just confused as usual.
> ...



Jesus preached revolution against Rome?


----------



## Gracie (Apr 13, 2014)

Well, I am no expert and only have passing knowledge of the bible but Jesus said he could tear down their temple and rebuild it in 3 days. So I am presuming the destruction of the temple after he gasped his last was the destroying part...and he rising within 3 days is rebuilding it?


----------



## Gracie (Apr 13, 2014)

And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

Androw said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



Pfft.  Absolutely clueless.

What circular reasoning is actually expressed right in the image.  Let me reduce it to a simple common example:

Q "Who wrote the bible"?
A "'God'" (or those speaking for "God") wrote the bible".
Q "And how do we know "God" exists?"
A "Because it's in the bible".

Rhetorical traffic circle.  No exits, goes nowhere.


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 13, 2014)

WHAT SHAME AND GUILT YOU MUST CARRY= to know the GOD of all creation says about you==The fool has said in his heart,
&#8220;There is no God.&#8221;
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity psalm 53:1


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

jillian said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I did too.  Longknife, if you think the spouse is credible then.... what's your point with this thread?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> But did Jesus have a dog?



Does dog exist?

Logic time.  Can't touch this.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yCW-Fpirf4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yCW-Fpirf4[/ame]


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> ...



No, you can't do that.  Analogy is not equation.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...



Whether directly or indirectly (and doing it indirectly would keep you alive a lot longer), of course he did.  That's why he was executed.  The Jews were in the midst of a period of 300 years of being under the Roman thumb.  Of course there were insurrections, overt and covert.  And Rome had a special penalty for those who rose against the State, and that penalty was .... crucifixion.

The Romans certainly didn't give a shit about religious preaching.  What they were concerned about was earthly kings in earthly kingdoms, not abstract ethereal ideas of the hereafter.  Some of Jesus' words (if we are to believe the reporters thereof, which is very dicey) can be heard as not-so-subtle allusions to political uprising, e.g. establishing the "kingdom of heaven".  _Heaven_ is not what wets the Romans' whistle; _*kingdom*_ is.  That's also what's behind the bizarre cat-and-mouse questioning with Pilate.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Apr 14, 2014)

Androw said:


> The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.
> 
> How do you know Ohm's Law is true?
> 
> ...



Mad Cabbie says that the North Star is made of string cheese. He read it in a book. Who wrote the book? Mad Cabbie.

So, this being the logic - until someone proves that the North Star IS NOT MADE from string cheese - Cabbie is right.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.
> ...



Also known as Russell's Teapot.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 14, 2014)

and I have a dick!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...




Yes, or to put it better, the Roman Empire considered what he was saying to be quite dangerous to their authority.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

Gracie said:


> And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.




Because according to our interpretation of Tanakh, he was not Moschiach (Messiah). And so, in according with the law of the day, heresy was to be met with death. One of the first commandments.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, you don't realize that all knowledge is based on ultimate authority, which is circular reasoning.
> ...





It's called the String Cheese theory. Very popular among mice in Wisconsin.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 14, 2014)

Gracie said:


> And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.



Well, kind of.  

You see, because Jesus is a fictional character, the story gets rewritten.  

The first gospel written was the Gospel of Mark, which was clearly written by someone who never had been to Judea and gets things about the culture and geography clearly wrong. 

the Gospel of Matthew, which heavily plagarized Mark, was written to try to appeal to the Jews, so there is a whole bunch of citation of "Prophecy" in Matthew, which either make up old testament verses that aren't actually there, or completely gets them out of contex. 

then you get the gospel of JOhn, which is pretty trippy, and written at a time where the Schism between jews and Christians were clear and pronounced.  So you will not in John that John constantly talks about "The Jews" being against Jesus and instigating his crucifixion. Meanwhile, Pontius pIlate is recast as a softy who was reluctant to crucify Jesus. (When in fact, Pilate was kind of ruthless and had no problems killing people who got out of hand without trial.)  

Or to put it another way.  Mark and Matthew are the ROddenberry version of Captain Kirk, and John is the JJ. Abrams version.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



There is quite a difference between the two.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...




The effect is absolutely the same.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...



you really don't know that he wanted jerusalem for the jews and wanted the roman occupiers gone?

interesting given that's why rome wanted him dead and the san hedrin thought him dangerous.

rome killed many so-called messiahs in that day and age.

jews did not see the messiah as only a "spiritual" being, but as a messianic king who would restore control of judea, particularly jerusalem, to jewish control. jesus existed in THAT context, not in the context written about decades later

list of claimants to being messiah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants

now granted, jesus has a particular charisma and resonance.... but to ignore that the crux of what he said was to end the corruption of jerusalem by rome is to ignore history.

you might also want to look at this article. it's certainly not dispositive and there are probably better examples. but this is history there beyond the religious dogma.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/jesus.html

again, i'm not saying you shouldn't believe what you believe. but there are other perspectives that are certainly valid and not based in faith but in research.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

jillian said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...





lol...


So, somehow we go from an OP about a film that poses the question as to whether Yeshuah maybe had a wife and kids to someone getting upset, thinking that Rome didn't want to get rid of him?

Funny.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



The effect is not what I questioned.

I have trouble reconciling messages such as love your neighbor as yourself and the meek shall inherit the Earth as Jesus preaching for the overthrowing of Rome.  I know of no such instances in the bible inwhich he did this.  Of course most people posting on this thread give little credibility to the bible.

I did not question that Rome saw him as a theat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand is not offering an analogy.  DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority."  If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand is not offering an analogy.  DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority."  If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.





Which is all the more proof that literally 98% of the Christian service in it's infancy was a take-away, almost word-for-word from the Jewish Avodath Hakodesh (Sacred Service), and the Sabbath Bride became the Bride of Christ.

Which would even more support the theory that had man addressed Yeshuah as "Rabbi", knowing the context of how it was allowed to be spoken under Halakha (Jewish Law), then must just as literally assume that Yeshua married and had offspring.

There is not one single sentence in the NT that states that he did NOT marry. Not even one.

Of course, Yeshuah himself made it very clear that many of the things he said were parables and intended to only be parables.


Food for thought.


----------



## guno (Apr 14, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > And wasn't the guys screaming for his head, jews? Rome ruled, yes. But the Jews were also denying him as Son Of God.
> ...



The two gods of Christianity.

The church admitted that vital elements of proceedings at Nicaea are ´strangely absent from the canons´30 and the suspicion exists that documentation recording the true nature of the creation of Jesus Christ was later suppressed or destroyed. However, using records that endured, Bishop Eusebius ´occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural addresson the emperor´s behalf´.31 Documentation available revealed that there were no British churchmen in attendance at the Council, for most delegates were Greek. ´Seventy eastern bishops´ represented Asiatic factions32 and small numbers came from other areas. Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa; Paphnutius from Egypt, Nicasius of Die from Gaul and Dommus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia. It was at that puerile assembly, and under cult conditions, that two thousand and forty-eight ´bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists´ gathered to debate and decide on a unified belief system that encompassed only one god. By that time, a huge assortment of´wild texts´33 circulated amongst presbyters, and no list of´accepted´ or canonical writings existed. Many of those Gospels, Epistles and Revelations are listed in the ´Lost Books of the Bible´ later in this book, and some still carry the names of a great variety of Eastern and Western divinities.

The men argued violently among themselves, expressing various personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special god. When speaking of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, the Bishop of Hereclea, said in an account of the proceedings:

Excepting Constantine himself, and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing.

Dr Richard Watson, a disillusioned Christian historian and previously Bishop of Llandaff in Wales, referred to them as ´a set of gibbering idiots´. After a lifetime of research into church councils he concluded that ´the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were nearly all under the power of the devil and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble, and patronized the vilest abominations´.34 

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new Roman religion and the subsequent creation of Jesus Christ.

A Libyan presbyter named Arius, in attendance at Nicaea, expressed concern that ´the bishops shall develop two gods´35 and that ancient statement caused confusion in the church for centuries. Pious Christian historians confessed that they ´didn´t understand its meaning´ and ascribed it ´to the peculiar interposition of heaven´ ,36 However, in light of current understanding from particularly the Vatican scroll discovery, it is now possible to determine what Arius meant, and it provides major conflictions with the church´s presentation of Jesus Christ.

Selecting a god.

Up until the Council of Nicaea, Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods, Apollo and Zeus, but the great bulk of common people idolized Julius Caesar. Excluding the first letter in Caesar´s name, the remainder of the word had great significance in the community, ´namely AESAR is the Etruscan for ´god´...C being the Roman numeral 100´.37 Because of that godly connection, Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate five days after his death (d. 15 March 44 BC) and was subsequently venerated as the Divine Julius. Because he was Roman and ´Father of the Empire´, he was the most popular god among the rabble for more than 400 years. His followers were called %%WORD773%8 and so revered was the Divine Julius that at least three ancient provincial cities were named Caesarea in his honour; one each in Palestine, Northern Africa and Cappadocia. 

At the Palestinian Caesarea, Josephus described a massive structure built and dedicated in the first century to the honour of the Divine Julius:

Directly opposite the harbour entrance, upon a high platform, rose the Temple of Caesar, remarkable for its beauty and its great size. In it stood a colossal statue of Caesar, not inferior to Zeus at Olympia ... and one of the goddess Roma, equal to the Argive statue of Hera.39

The Temple of Caesar stood until around mid-sixth century, indicating that the inhabitants proudly preserved their ancient edifice, perhaps as a revered relic to the Divine Julius. Some time later, a Christian church was built on the northwestern flank of the site of Caesar´s Temple, directly over the Temple foundation and using some original stones. Archaeologists at the site were puzzled by the chronological discrepancy between what they believed was the Christianizing of the Roman Empire with Emperor Constantine and the construction of a Christian church some 300 years or so later. They wondered how the most imperial and Roman city in Palestine, the Episcopal see of Bishop Eusebius, could preserve and honour a so-called Pagan temple for so many Christian centuries. 

Clearly, archaeologists were accepting the orthodox presentation of Christian development and were yet to realize that there was no Christianity until well after the Council of Nicaea. 

It is probable that Constantine sited the summit at Nicaea because it was the original home of Julius Caesar´s clan, the Ulius (hence Julius). Remains of a temple structure exist there today and the probability is that it was originally built in honour of the Ulius family, or Julius Caesar himself. Some archaeological evidence suggested that Nicaea was called Caesarea in the fourth century but principal Catholic author and celebrated Doctor of the Sorbonne in Paris, Lewis Du Pin (d.c. 1725), claimed that it was called ´Number 1 Caesar´ (Nl Caesar) and that was later vocalized as Nicaea.* Part of the Caesar name is still carried in the word today and enhances Du Pin´s reasoning.

Because the general Roman populous adored the Divine Julius, he was the most fashionable god in Western presbyters´ texts but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings. Constantine´s intention at Nicaea was to create a new god for the Empire that would unite all religious factions under one deity and presbyters were permitted to debate and decide upon who the new god would be. Throughout the meeting, the howling factions were immersed in heated debates in attempts to promote their own divinity and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion; ´As yet, the new God had not been selected by the council, and so they balloted, in order to determine the matter. For one year and five months the balloting lasted´.41

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a short list of five prospects, namely, Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, and Zeus. Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and ultimately decided the new god for them. 

He determined that the names of his two first century descendants Jesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus be joined as one, Jesu Khrestus, and that would be the official name of the new Roman god. 

A vote was subsequently taken and it was with a majority show of hands that both men became one God ...161 votes to 157. Following longstanding Heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman Apotheoses Decree to legally deify the new god for the rabble and did so by democratic consent and with the blessing of presbyters in attendance. A new Roman god was proclaimed and´ officially´ ratified by Emperor Constantine.42

That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Yesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus among the Roman gods as one individual composition today called Jesus Christ and lent earthly existence in two forms to the Empire´s new deity. 

At that time, historical records revealed that the Christian religion had not yet developed and the few church documents that refer to an established Christian god previous to the Council of Nicaea are ´later forgeries, written retrospectively´.43 Bishop Taylor´s assertion is supported in later chapters.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

I find it interesting that Jesus Christ takes constant "heat" from so-called "atheists" while Buddha, Allah, Thor, Dryghten, etc. hardly get honorable mention.  There must be great power in the name of Christ that His detractors fear.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



Same thing, looked at from two different directions really.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Duplicate post.  Disregard.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand is not offering an analogy.  DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority."  If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.



That's correct.  If the Bible can't be trusted as fully true then it can't be trusted at all (in my opinion).  So, as a Christian, I put full trust in God's ability to reveal His will and Word to His followers.  The Bible speaks of "the marriage supper of the Lamb" which speaks of the marriage between Christ and His followers.  Since Christ is opposed to adultery He wouldn't marry more than one wife for He says that a leader of the Church should be married to "one wife."


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand is not offering an analogy.  DS believes the Bible is literal, so DS is offering you "proof" based on "authority."  If the scripture is literal and true, then the Church is his wife.
> ...




You do realize that that is meant allegorically, right?

Yeshuah was never physically a lamb.

But I respect your right to interpret it literally, if you so desire.

You argumentation was interesting.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The Bible is full of allegory, metaphor, simile, and parable.  But not all of the Bible is spoken in parable.  It's up the reader with the help of the Holy Spirit to determine how the Bible is interpreted.   Christ is called a "Lamb" because of His sacrifice -- a Lamb without blemish.  The "wife," too, is allegorical but the entire 12 tribes of Israel has been referred to as a "she" or "her" which indicates that, as a whole, they are a bride.  Jeremiah speaks of God "divorcing" Israel because of her harlotry.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Interesting.  Are these pronoun genders assigned in the original, or just in the translation to English?  Because different languages, unlike English, do assign "genders" to nouns which are not genders in the sexual sense but simply how the word-sounds flow (e.g. German _das Mädchen_ (the little girl) is neuter, but it doesn't mean she's not physically a girl...

Second point, seems to me if you're going to say the bible is full of allegory, metaphor, etc (which makes perfect sense), then you can't simultaneously claim it's to be taken literally.  You can't have it both ways because whenever some literality presents as inconvenient it's just easily excused by "allegory".


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Parables, etc. are used to more clearly express an idea to "them with the eyes to see and the ears to hear."  God explains particular truths by comparing them to situations that may be hypothetical or that may be literal.  However, the truth (or point) that God is trying to express is always to be taken literally.  

For example, He compares the "seeds" of the seed-sower to the Gospel message.  Obviously, He isn't saying the the Gospel will land on rocky soil but He is saying that not everyone who hears the Word will be willing to accept it.  So, the "rocky soil" likely refers to a hardened heart that isn't ready to hear God's message.  So ... I don't take literally that we are to spread literal seed but I DO take literally that we're to spread His Gospel message.


----------



## Howey (Apr 14, 2014)

Did Longknife ever answer my question? Does he think only two networks carried this story?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point, but rarely are people 100% in agreement over the interpretation.

And G-d never divorced Israel, btw.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



The Bible will always be seen from different perspectives depending on the reader's ability to understand what he's reading.  I started studying the Bible in earnest in 1985.  I saw things then that were pertinent to my maturity (from a spiritual perspective) level at the time.  Today (almost 30 years later) I see things from a whole different perspective.  Therefore, you're likely right that folks won't see everything eye to eye on every issue but folks who are seeking the truth should find what they need for that particular moment in life.  But many of the things I found true back then are still true today -- namely, Christ's blood sacrifice.

Adding to the confusion is the myriad of various versions of the Bible that actually contradict each other from time to time.  Some of the newer versions actually omit large chunks of Scripture.  That's why I prefer to read Bibles from the Textus Receptus family of Bibles.  More complete!!!  Interestingly, the NIV is starting to literally add portions of Scripture that the KJV has always had.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...





Thanks for adding your viewpoint and some information. I like it alot when a fellow member does that. Alot.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Thanks for adding your viewpoint and some information. I like it alot when a fellow member does that. Alot.



Thanks. It's a fascinating topic.  My wife and I used to host a Bible study group at my home in California.  We generally had 6 to 20 folks show up.  We all considered ourselves Christians but often had friendly debates on this topic or that.  I always allowed myself to be "wrong" even if I felt I was right.  Most of disagreements revolved around non-salvific issues so it never really mattered to me who was right or wrong. I just liked being with other Christians.


----------



## Barb (Apr 14, 2014)

Amelia said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?
> ...



Because the skeptics already have centuries of church canon reporting for them?


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Not the same.  Say my next door neighbor dies in the night due to being shot.   Suppose that the police arrest me.  There is a major difference in me being arrested and I am guilty of shooting my neighbor and in me being arrested and I did not shoot my neighbor.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



That analogy is absurd.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Yes, indeed, I am still scratching my head over that one.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



you also can't use the bible to prove or disprove historic or scientific fact.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



exactly.

not only did rome not care about religious preaching, rome demanded that the high priest make sacrifices in honor of rome... most jews thought that was sacrilege  it inflamed the populous.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus' "wife" is the Church.
> ...



I don't consider what's said in the verse I quoted to be analogy.  I believe that Christ will be a Husband to the Church *in the sense* that He will love and protect His followers just as a man will protect and love His wife.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



again... there WAS NO CHURCH. there was a TEMPLE


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

jillian said:


> you also can't use the bible to prove or disprove historic or scientific fact.



I believe that you are incorrect.  I believe that the Bible contains much historical fact and that it also touches on science.  Actually, the word "science" literally means "knowledge."  Since I believe God to be the Creator and Author of all knowledge then I believe that the Bible is an important source of knowledge.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > you also can't use the bible to prove or disprove historic or scientific fact.
> ...



the bible, even if it contains "some" historical information is not history... 

the first gospel wasn't even written for 40 to 70 years after jesus' death


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

jillian said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Nor was it intended to be history -- it's ad copy to sell a religion.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



indeed.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



Simple!  I have taken issue with the statement that "Jesus preached revolution against Rome".  This is because The Jesus of the bible did not preach revolution against Rome.  When I questioned this statement the response I receive was that Rome perceived Jesus as a threat.  So what I am trying seemingly unsuccessfully to demonstrate is that the two statements are not the same because it is possible that Rome felt treated by Jesus without Jesus preaching revolution against Rome.  The two statements are not the same.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 14, 2014)

having read the bible three times, I do not recall it saying anywhere that Jesus was not married. That is Catholic doctrine, along with a whole lot of other stuff the Catholics made up to suit their agenda. Baptists are good at this too. they told us that Jesus only drank and served non-alcoholic wine.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> having read the bible three times, I do not recall it saying anywhere that Jesus was not married. That is Catholic doctrine, along with a whole lot of other stuff the Catholics made up to suit their agenda.



while you may be right.... they were pretty much there first.... 

and they think the protestants made things up.


----------



## jillian (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



there was an analogy in there?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Here's why that fails: the two compared ideas are:
(1) Jesus preached revolution against Rome
(2) the Romans considered what he was saying to be dangerous to their authority

In BOTH cases Jesus is saying _something_.  The only question is interpretation.  The same thing ("what Jesus says") looked at by either us, or by Rome.  Of course there's the little problem of unreliable and polluted sources for exactly what it was he said; we mostly have to rely on what the results were. And we do know from history that crucifixion was a penalty Rome meted out specifically for the purpose of insurrection.  So we have that for a pretty good indication.

You and your neighbor's shooting (weird thing to think of but whatever) have nothing in common to be looked at two different ways.  It just doesn't begin to work.


----------



## Howey (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...





The greatest novel ever wrote.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



In the case of Jesus and Rome:  Rome May have perceived Jesus a threat because he was preaching in support for revolution against Rome.  Thus Rome is correct and the statement that Jesus preached for revelation is true.    

On the other hand, Rome may have perceived Jesus as a threat while Jesus did not preach in support of revolution against Rome.  Thus the statement that Jesus preached in support of revolution against Rome is false.

Perception is not necesseraly reality.  

And if you don't understand my analogy,that's your problem.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 14, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



I _do _understand what you attempted as analogy, and it's absurd.  *You* don't understand that, and _that_'s the problem.

Your cockamamie idea of shooting your neighbor has zero to do with perceiving something in two different ways.  I just said that, and you just repeated it back correctly, and you _still_ don't get it.   Oh well.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

Pogo said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Well, I Guess by what you are saying, if the police arrest me for shooting my neighbor then it is a fact that I shot my neighbor.  End of story!  I understand that something can be perceived two different ways. But I also understand that perception is not the same thing as fact.  Just because the police perceive that I shot my neighbor does not necessary mean that I shot my neighbor.  Likewise, just because Rome perceived that Jesus was a threat does not necessarily make it a fact that Jesus preached in support of revolution against Rome.

My issue to begin with, which preceded your comments about perception, was that I was taking issue that the statement that Jesus preached in support of revolution against Rome was fact.  You injected the argument about perception.  Perception is not the same thing as fact.  And if something is perceived in two different ways, it is likely that at least one of the perceptions is incorrect.


Now go ahead a keep rambling about perception if you like.  My issue is with establishing something as being a fact, not with perception.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 14, 2014)

jillian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



I know you're not serious.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

jillian said:


> again... there WAS NO CHURCH. there was a TEMPLE



You are aware that a "Church" is a "Congregation."  Christ says that where two or three are gathered together in His name there He is on the midst of them.  Also, under the New Covenant, the body of the believer is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Old Covenant temple was destroyed not long after the death of Christ. So "the Church" began at the time of Christ when He gathered His sheep (believers).


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 14, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> having read the bible three times, I do not recall it saying anywhere that Jesus was not married. That is Catholic doctrine, along with a whole lot of other stuff the Catholics made up to suit their agenda. Baptists are good at this too. they told us that Jesus only drank and served non-alcoholic wine.



Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Christ didn't shoot heroin but I'm confident that He didn't.  

The Bible does list Christ's genealogy and mentions His brothers and mother and stepfather, Joseph.  If the Bible is open about those members of Jesus' family then why would it be so silent concerning a marriage and a wife?  The answer is that no marriage ever took place.  

The Bible mentions who was present at His crucifixion (his mother, Mary, some of the Apostles, his uncle, etc.) but nowhere does the Bible state that His "wife" was present.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > again... there WAS NO CHURCH. there was a TEMPLE
> ...



According to the bible in Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus commissioned his followers to spread his message.

Then Jesus came up and said to them, * All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.   Therefore go * and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, *   teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, * I am with you * always, to the end of the age. 

These disciples are the church, the bride of Christ.  Of course this is theology based on an interpretation of the bible.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > having read the bible three times, I do not recall it saying anywhere that Jesus was not married. That is Catholic doctrine, along with a whole lot of other stuff the Catholics made up to suit their agenda. Baptists are good at this too. they told us that Jesus only drank and served non-alcoholic wine.
> ...



I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning. Since the bible is silent on whether or not Jesus was married, then, you consider this is evidence that he was NOT? Do you realize just how lame that argument is? I mean, Jesus  talked about how the children should come unto him, so doesn't that imply that he had children?

I'll go even further. I am silent on whether or not I am married. So, Am I?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > again... there WAS NO CHURCH. there was a TEMPLE
> ...




It is pretty obvious to me that what [MENTION=3135]jillian[/MENTION] meant was that, during the time that Yeshuah was founding his Church, the only template that his followers, who initially were only Jews, had to follow, was the Avodath Hakodesh (the Jewish Sacred Service) and so, wherever they met, they would have considered it a "Temple".

About the 2 or more thing (in the Greek he also said 2 or more, not 2 or 3), that is ALSO based on Judaism, but scaled down. In Judaism, in order to have a group prayer service, you need a group of at least 10 (a "minyan"), but there were many parts of Judea where there were not yet enough converts to Christianity to even form a group of 10 and so Yeshuah scaled down the requirement from 10 to "2 or more". That is the only logical explanation for why he did this and it makes total sense, but that still has nothing to do with use of the term "Church" or "Temple" - at that time, certainly, new Christians in Judea used the word and thought of "Temple". Now, those who became Christians outside of Judea, for instance, in Greece, would have been free to include a new word for the building or area in which they chose to worship. The very fact that at least three apostles of Christ _admonished_ the Churches in Greece about incorporating any pagan rites into their services tells you right there that the apostles, who themselves were first Jews (save Paul, if I remember correctly), still very much had the Avodath Hakodesh in mind when addresses such issues and they could see their new religion changing before their very eyes, due to, surprise, surprise, geography.

Not only that, the "Church" as we know it (or think that we know it) was founded ca. 200-300 years after Yeshuah himself, with the Council of Nicea, or?

So here, the two of you are arguing semantics. No need for that.


----------



## jillian (Apr 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



thank you for that Statistikhengst. those things are certainly true.

but the discussion was about his claim that jesus' bride was the "church". that would have been false regardless of whether he called it a temple or not.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




I believe he took exception to your use of the word "Temple", which is why I decided to contribute. Hope I didn't step on anyone's shoes.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > again... there WAS NO CHURCH. there was a TEMPLE
> ...



You are stretching your argument, which tumbles.  There was no Church, only congregations.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



And likewise you are arguing samantics.  There are various definitions of the word church and we are not in agreement to the definition used when referring to the church as the bride of Christ.  

That being said, the main topic of this thread is that Jesus may of had a wife, and this wife was a woman, not a church using whatever definition of church we may select.  I don't beleive the Christian bible that is commonly used today supports the notion that Jesus had a wife.  However, other sources do support that Jesus had a wife.  I don't think we currently have evidence that proves one or the other at this time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 15, 2014)

Fragment from the Gospel of Barack

...Mao...redistribute....Starkey...


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning. Since the bible is silent on whether or not Jesus was married, then, you consider this is evidence that he was NOT? Do you realize just how lame that argument is? I mean, Jesus  talked about how the children should come unto him, so doesn't that imply that he had children?
> 
> I'll go even further. I am silent on whether or not I am married. So, Am I?



I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning. Since the Bible is silent on whether or not Jesus was a heroin addict then you consider this evidence that He was NOT? Do you realize just how lame that sort of reasoning is?

See ... I can do it to.

Jesus calls his followers sheep but that doesn't mean that they are so your argument that He uses the term "children" to represent His followers doesn't mean that He literally fathered them.  Using that logic would mean that His "wife" gave birth to everyone on planet earth who believes in Him!  Don't be so silly.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Actually, I was just clearing up the difference between use of Church and Temple.

But I certainly respect your view.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I realize that you are touching on the beliefs and practices of the Hebrew Roots/Messianic Judaism.  I reject the idea that Christians are bound by the laws of the Old Covenant and believe we've been set free under the teachings of the New Covenant.  We can NEVER be perfect under the Old Covenant regulations for if we even break one law we've broken them all (James chapter 2).  Christ and Paul both emphasize how we are to live: avoid backbiting, lasciviousness, murder, theft while being charitable, patient, and considerate (paraphrased and abbreviated).

Christ and Paul DID enter the temples of that day but not because they were practicing Judaism. They went to spread the Gospel message.  What better way to reach a lot of people than to go where they were congregated. 

Romans 8:2, "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

Galatians 6:2, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."

Galatians 5:14, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Matthew 7:12, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Romans 13:8, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

Throughout the New Testament we see this theme.  Love fulfills the law.  Abstaining from pork or resting on Saturday are not required under the New Covenant.  Christ nor His Apostles ever command it.

Our rest is in Christ:

"Matthew 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Our rest can take place at any time on any day.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




If by "hebrew roots" you mean Judaism, why sure, I agree with that sentence.

As for rejecting the Tanakh, I cannot agree with you for Yeshuah himself said "I have come not to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it".

"The Law" is this case is quite obviously the Old Covenant.

But I respect your opinion on this.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Resect is good.  I respect your view also.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 15, 2014)

BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!




Oh, go stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, you twerp. No one believes your schtick here. NO ONE.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...





> Strong's Greek:  Church/Ekklesia #1577
> 1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see'-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious *congregation* (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):--assembly, church.


Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
> ...



PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you???


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 15, 2014)

Grüß Gott


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Grüß Gott




Grüß Gott, alle miteinander!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...




You need more exclamation marks and more caps in all of that, I think. Maybe after your lobotomy?


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 15, 2014)

BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you??? JESUS SAYS TO BELIEVERS=  If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.John 15:18-19


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



P.S.  Read Revelation chapter 2 for more information about the "Churches" (plural).

Revelation 2 KJV - Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus - Bible Gateway

*Matthew 18:17, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Ephesians 5:27, "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."

Philemon 1:2, "And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:"*

These verses indicate that a "church" was both collective (meaning all believers in Christ, universally) as well as local (meaning individual gatherings of local believers).


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
> PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you??? JESUS SAYS TO BELIEVERS=  If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.John 15:18-19



More caps, many, many more caps. And as many exclamation points as you can squeese in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And boldeds, yes, boldeds often help. If you increase the font size, that also assists your batshit crazy. 



Carry on.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I want to make sure that I understand your reasoning. Since the bible is silent on whether or not Jesus was married, then, you consider this is evidence that he was NOT? Do you realize just how lame that argument is? I mean, Jesus  talked about how the children should come unto him, so doesn't that imply that he had children?
> ...



No, sir. The fact that the bible is silent as to whether Jesus was heroine addict is evidence of absolutely nothing, which is, of course, my point, exactly. Silence on anything does not even_ imply_ anything. You are silent as to whether or not you are typing your messages from Folsom prison, which means that I have absolutely no idea whether you are, or are not.


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 15, 2014)

YES!!! YOU GOT MY MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR!!! ==BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you??? JESUS SAYS TO BELIEVERS= If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.John 15:18-19


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
> PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you??? JESUS SAYS TO BELIEVERS=  If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.John 15:18-19



Brother. When Christ was confronted with naysayers He handled things with a sense of self-control and even-handedness. 

He later told His disciples that if folks weren't willing to hear His message that they were to kick the dust from their shoes and move on.  

One thing I've learned over the years is that I can't bludgeon folks into believing what I believe.  The parable of the seed sower suggests that we plant and allow the Holy Spirit to water.  It's the best we can do.  Becoming too emotional over these discussions serves little purpose and will likely be an exercise in futility.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

Vandalshandle said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




By the same token ... silence on the issue of Christ's "wife" doesn't indicate that He was married either.  So I guess we've just wasted each other's time.  Have a good one.


----------



## GISMYS (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
> ...



OH REALLY??????????  exalted.

13-14 Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders. Hypocrites! For you wont let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven and wont go in yourselves. And you pretend to be holy, with all your long, public prayers in the streets, while you are evicting widows from their homes. Hypocrites!  15 Yes, woe upon you hypocrites. For you go to all lengths to make one convert, and then turn him into twice the son of hell you are yourselves.  16 Blind guides! Woe upon you! For your rule is that to swear By Gods Temple means nothingyou can break that oath, but to swear By the gold in the Temple is binding!  17 Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifies the gold?  18 And you say that to take an oath By the altar can be broken, but to swear By the gifts on the altar is binding!  19 Blind! For which is greater, the gift on the altar, or the altar itself that sanctifies the gift?  20 When you swear By the altar, you are swearing by it and everything on it,  21 and when you swear By the Temple, you are swearing by it and by God who lives in it.  22 And when you swear By heavens, you are swearing by the Throne of God and by God himself.

23 Yes, woe upon you, Pharisees, and you other religious leadershypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important thingsjustice and mercy and faith. Yes, you should tithe, but you shouldnt leave the more important things undone.  24 Blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

25 Woe to you, Pharisees, and you religious leadershypocrites! You are so careful to polish the outside of the cup, but the inside is foul with extortion and greed.  26 Blind Pharisees! First cleanse the inside of the cup, and then the whole cup will be clean.

27 Woe to you, Pharisees, and you religious leaders! You are like beautiful mausoleumsfull of dead mens bones, and of foulness and corruption.  28 You try to look like saintly men, but underneath those pious robes of yours are hearts besmirched with every sort of hypocrisy and sin.

29-30 Yes, woe to you, Pharisees, and you religious leadershypocrites! For you build monuments to the prophets killed by your fathers and lay flowers on the graves of the godly men they destroyed, and say, We certainly would never have acted as our fathers did.

31 In saying that, you are accusing yourselves of being the sons of wicked men.  32 And you are following in their steps, filling up the full measure of their evil.  33 Snakes! Sons of vipers! How shall you escape the judgment of hell?
MATTHEW 23


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > GISMYS said:
> ...



You're quoting the actions and words of Jesus Christ. He was discussing issues of false doctrine with the religious rabbis of the day.  I doubt that He got very overly-emotional and I doubt that He screamed (all CAPS indicates yelling or screaming in Internet-Land).

You're certainly free to spread His message in whatever manner you wish but I believe that He indicated that we should do it with a sense of love and heart-felt concern.  Bludgeoning folks into submission likely won't be very fruitful in the long run.  

*Matthew 10:14, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet."*

I believe we should attempt to be charitable in all that we do.  I certainly fall short more often than I want to admit but it's still our calling as Christians.

*1 Corinthians 13:13, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."*


----------



## longknife (Apr 15, 2014)

One can argue all day long on this subject and never come to an agreement.

Jesus either was or was not married - but what's the big deal about it?

The center of Christianity is that God sent His son to this earth to live and suffer like the rest of us. He also had freedom of choice and, when the time came, chose to do as He felt His father wanted Him to do - to sacrifice Himself so the rest of us would have resurrection. 

What else matters?


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

longknife said:


> One can argue all day long on this subject and never come to an agreement.
> 
> Jesus either was or was not married - but what's the big deal about it?
> 
> ...



I agree for the most part.  People will either accept Him or reject Him.  It's out of our hands.  I believe in Him and give Him full credit for changing the direction of my hands and life.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 15, 2014)

Not really a question of accepting or rejecting him.... it's a matter of accepting or rejecting a story _about_ him, written down decades after he was gone, and edited centuries later, by entities that stood to gain (power) from that writing and editing.

And one might add, writing and editing about which by then he was powerless to do anything about.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Not really a question of accepting or rejecting him.... it's a matter of accepting or rejecting a story _about_ him, written down decades after he was gone, and edited centuries later, by entities that stood to gain (power) from that writing and editing.
> 
> And one might add, writing and editing about which by then he was powerless to do anything about.



You have a right to that opinion but I accept Him as a literal, living, historical personality and I also accept what the Bible says about Him.  Truth and history don't change just because a lot of years have gone by or because we terribly want it to change.  But ... like I said, you either accept or reject Him and it's totally out of my hands.  I'm not going to try to convince someone of something when that person has already made his or her mind up and has shut his or her mental door.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

jillian said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.
> ...



I thought church meant the PEOPLE not necessarily the formally recognized official church.

Collectively the Bride has been used to refer to Israel, the people, the church or body of Christ, which are all metaphors or symbols of the "whole of humanity"
for which the sacrifice of Christ brings salvation and peace by restoring
Justice, which the Return of Jesus represents.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

Pogo said:


> Not really a question of accepting or rejecting him.... it's a matter of accepting or rejecting a story _about_ him, written down decades after he was gone, and edited centuries later, by entities that stood to gain (power) from that writing and editing.
> 
> And one might add, writing and editing about which by then he was powerless to do anything about.



Like the Bible, you can make a total mess of the Constitution, abuse it to justify all manner
of self-serving interpretations that even contradict the original purpose of the laws,
and still not defile the SPIRIT of the laws and true meaning of the principles it represents.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



Exactly. The word "church" literally means a congregation of people (at least 2 or 3 in number).  Paul wrote to several churches under different leadership so it wasn't organized under a single head other than Christ, Himself.  The Book of Revelation discusses "the seven churches" which indicates that there was not a single one that held leadership or a superior position over the others.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Thank you for clarifying this. 

My understanding of the passages in Matthew 18 about "2 or 3 gathered in the Lord's name" 
is that whenever 2 or 3 agree in Christ (or in the spirit of Truth and Justice, agreeing by Conscience), then whatever is agreed upon "locally" is multiplied "globally" --
whatever we agree upon among ourselves in this spirit is "done by our Father in Heaven"

So collectively it also represents the same process for all humanity.

We are a "microcosm" of the larger church body.

Just like the people are collectively the government, and whatever we "consent" to locally in our contracts or agreements should ideally be reflected in our government laws for all.

Thank you, and I pray that our agreements and insights we share here do inspire collective change and positive collaboration on a larger scale to help others seeking better solutions.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 15, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Not really a question of accepting or rejecting him.... it's a matter of accepting or rejecting a story _about_ him, written down decades after he was gone, and edited centuries later, by entities that stood to gain (power) from that writing and editing.
> ...



Really doesn't address the point, does it?


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Yeah ... I would agree with that.  I believe that the Church-universal should be in one accord on the basic tenets of Christianity.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion in the Church today. I think, in part, because of the numerous, Bible variants and because man's tradition has crept in which sometimes poses as God's will.  But the Bible promises that there would be a great "falling away" near the end.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Do you agree with correcting the problem (over conflicts with the written scriptures)
by seeking agreement on the true meaning?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 15, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Not really, I think it's pointless.  I think we already know the true meaning, as I said before, ad copy to sell a religion.  Which wasn't my point here anyway; the point was the distinction between the actual words and actions of Jesus, versus what we're _*told*_ are the words and actions of Jesus -- as told by third parties with agendas.  The source is important.

In the case of the Constitution, there's no doubt what the words say.  We have the original, written down.  And it's not selling anything.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Indeed, and that's a big difference.

As for the other quote about correcting problems with scriptures, would that not automatically imply or infer that the scriptures are NOT infallible?

I usually get a little nervous over the phrase "true meaning", [MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] - how many wars in our planet's history have been started because one side was just soooooo convinced that it and it alone knew/had the truth???


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> > BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
> ...





You are being far too kind to him. He's probably not even a human, may be a bot placed here to test our reflexes, for all I can tell....

No sane human being spouts the crap he spouts.


----------



## DriftingSand (Apr 15, 2014)

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It boils down to a trust or distrust in God's ability to fully reveal His truth and His will to His creation.  If you don't believe that an all-powerful God is able then the conversation is over.  What else can anyone say?  The alternative is to believe that God IS able to reveal His will and that He did so regardless of all the obstacles that would hinder His goal.  I believe He did exactly what He wanted to do.

As for "selling" a religion, the same can be said of ANY religion. But, as we all know, the only religion today to receive constant and emphatic frontal attacks is Christianity.  But who's to say that Judaism wasn't "sold" in a similar manner?  What makes Judaism more acceptable than Christianity?  Who's the authority that determines or reaches that conclusion?


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 15, 2014)

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


He actually said his work would be carried on by the church, and he appointed St. Peter to begin the task along with his teaching disciples. Part of a belief system is trust in the Word of Christ, and he passed his Word onto his immediate followers to carry it everywhere they went to share the cup of his salvation. Believers know that his yoke is easy and his burden, light. The approach is to be reinforced by trust in God's goodness, love, and salvation, to do our best and to leave to heaven the rest. It's a faith thing. As a believer, I have faith in the principles of Jesus Christ, who taught God's ways by his recitations and examples of the understanding of Godly things that people seemed to be missing out on through misunderstanding and disobedience. It's only human to review introspectively and to repair  human mistakes we make by loving justice, doing what is right, and walking humbly. He seemed to have faith in people that we would know what to do when confronted if we pray for each other and channel our thinking through the Holy scriptures our early church fathers assembled as the most important things to know in a comprehensive book that was easy to understand in layman's terms.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 15, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Hi Stat
A. with the Bible/Christianity/Jesus/God
what I mean by true meaning is that it is Universal where everyone already agrees, freely and naturally, by the very nature of being universal truth. So it is not forced, it is not something where one person or group has the right answer and everyone follows them. The process of reaching universal truth and understanding is a collaboration, where everyone contributes and comes to their own understanding and realizes it is the same. So it is universal, inclusive, without coercion. Everyone's knowledge is part of that body of truth, so there is no competition to make one group right and exclude others.

With Christianity I posted before, that Christ Jesus means "Restorative Justice" or "Justice with Mercy" -- there is no monopoly on that concept, it is universal and brings peace and justice to all who receive and follow that spirit regardless which laws we relate under. by "Restorative Justice" all relations are made whole, and good faith is restored. There is no violence, bullying, or other abuse, no coercion needed.

B. As for the Constitution
No, we do not all agree on the spirit of the laws, even though we have the original.

Look at the conflicts over
* the Second Amendment where people still do not agree who has what authority
* the First and Fourteenth Amendment where people do not respect each other's beliefs.
We still do not respect or include each other or 'all people' equally regardless of CREED.

We still discriminate by voting against people we disagree with, seeking to censor or exclude,
so we do not respect due process of laws or equal protection of laws; but our
political system is abused to bully over others and compete for dominance.

That is NOT respecting including or protecting "other people of other views" EQUALLY.

Similarly people of different denominations do not always treat and include
all people as "equal neighbors" under those laws either!

So both church and state have the same problems.
Which is no surprise, since the PEOPLE make up the church
as the PEOPLE make up the government. The same problems
would affect both realms, both made of the same people.

Either way, we need to reach agreement on how the laws apply to us
and how we are supposed to enforce the laws, in order to unite as
a harmonious body of people, whether under church laws or state laws.

the people and the government are supposed to be one.
not one party or one side of each issue trying to overrule the other.

You are right to be WARY of people trying to impose "one right way"
but unfortunately we have this going on now with political parties using
majority rule for that very purpose. We should all be aware this is against 
Constitutional principles and ethics, and seek to enforce equality under law.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



The problem with this is -- our source isn't God.  It's Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, working from a distant memory, and the editors at Nicea.  That's very different.



DriftingSand said:


> As for "selling" a religion, the same can be said of ANY religion.



Of course.  If you're marketing an organized religion that depends on a quasi-spiritual tax base, it's essential.



DriftingSand said:


> But, as we all know, the only religion today to receive constant and emphatic frontal attacks is Christianity.



Speak for yourself; I don't know that.  Check out Islam and Hinduism around the border between India and Pakistan for one.



DriftingSand said:


> But who's to say that Judaism wasn't "sold" in a similar manner?  What makes Judaism more acceptable than Christianity?  Who's the authority that determines or reaches that conclusion?



The end user.


----------



## Pogo (Apr 15, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Again, we don't know that; we don't know any of it.  We know that certain people have *told* us that.  Long after he was there to speak for himself.

My point that you keep avoiding is: "consider the source".


----------



## Statistikhengst (Apr 15, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




The bolded: I can buy that.

Thanks for taking the time to write those thoughts. Interesting and thought provoking.


----------



## longknife (May 2, 2014)

How the "Jesus' Wife" Hoax Fell Apart

Jerry Pattengale, Wall St. Journal



> In September 2012, Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King announced the discovery of a Coptic (ancient Egyptian) gospel text on a papyrus fragment that contained the phrase "Jesus said to them, 'My wife . . .' " The world took notice. The possibility that Jesus was married would prompt a radical reconsideration of the New Testament and biblical scholarship.



I still personally think he WAS married and this doesn't change my mind. Read more @ How the "Jesus' Wife" Hoax Fell Apart


----------



## GreenBean (Jun 23, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



The "scriptures"  are merely a rag tag collection of books that were circulating durring the time of Roman Emperor Constantine [Centuires after Jesus was alleged to have lived ] and they most certainly are fallible and contradictory.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2014)

Jewish men were expected to have a wife and kids.


----------



## Barb (Jun 30, 2014)

Matthew said:


> and I have a dick!



opinions vary


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jun 30, 2014)

GISMYS said:


> BEWARE!!! REPEATING BLASPHEMOUS LIED FROM THE pit of hell is NOT a smart thing to do,best you count the cost!
> PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! = A SIGN OF GUILT AND SHAME!!! and you??? JESUS SAYS TO BELIEVERS=  If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.John 15:18-19



What if Jesus REALLY DID have a wife? What if evil men hid this from you and then in heaven you learned the truth? 

That would make me very sad to have denied the truth when I could have just said - "I don't know everything that there is to know, nor _can_ I."


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jun 30, 2014)

Barb said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > and I have a.....
> ...




Really????


In a thread about god? 





Let's try to be a tad more respectful.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jun 30, 2014)

If Jesus had a wife and if Jesus and his wife had children and Jesus was the son of God then, if we follow the rules used by ancient Greeks who kept track of such things, wold not Jesus have been a Demi-God and anyk offspring with a mere mortal Semi-Demi-Gods?

Instead of just one Bible we could have a series!

Remember the radio soap opera "One Man's Family"?  What could TV do with it!

Wait, maybe that's why the networks are so hot on the subject.


----------



## Barb (Jun 30, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Nice scold from the guy whose tag is a chick squirting 2 cans of whipped cream from her boobs


----------

