# Did Jesus have a wife?



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Do you think Jesus had a wife? There's all this stuff on the news today about the ancient piece of document that indicates Jesus may have had a wife. And there's discussions about how the picture of The Last Supper with Mary of Magdalene sitting at his right hand is another indication of her status as his wife and disciple. The Vatican say "No!" but there's other Christians who believe Mary was his wife.

So what do you think, do you think he would have had a wife at his age, or that he was single and celibate or that he might even have possibly been gay? If you think that he had to have been single and celibate what is your reason for believing that?

Personally I've always thought that Mary M. was his wife because of the important role she played as a companion in his last days and when she and his mother wrapped his body to be entombed and then later when he appeared to Mary M. when he arose from the tomb. It only makes sense to me that his wife would have been the very first one that he appeared to.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-jesus-wife/IusII8b4eI86HgDTKipLhN/story.html



> ........ professor Fecht had examined the papyrus and thought it could be the only text in which Jesus speaks of having a wife.
> 
> The fragment appears to be cut from the middle of a larger document; it contains just eight partial lines, written in a crude hand, one of which says, &#8220;And Jesus said to them, &#8216;My wife,&#8217;&#8201;&#8221; The next says, &#8220;She will be able to be my disciple.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## That'll Do Pig (Jan 23, 2014)

Old news. You'd first have to admit he's real.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

That'll Do Pig said:


> Old news. You'd first have to admit he's real.


The document isn't old news. It was only presented one year ago, and it was only this week that it was confirmed by experts that it is not a modern forgery but is indeed from an ancient document, possibly from circa 200 A.D.

I believe that Jesus was a real man who existed at the time. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe that Jesus was a Christ, a god or that he was the son of God but I do believe he was a real person who was born, lived and died.

But none of that is important to me and I don't think it's relevant to my question. What I want to know is if other people who believe that Jesus existed believe that he would have or would not have had a wife, and why they believe that. I'm not even asking if anyone thinks he was 'married' because it would not have been necessary for him to have been officially married to have had a wife. A true wife/husband is not contingent upon a marriage ceremony.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm not a Christian either, but it would only make sense to me that if Jesus was supposed to have been God come down to live as a man that he should experience the whole gamut of humanity, wife and all.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

Dont you think its "odd" and "coincidental" that all these stories supposedly disproving some facet of Christianity always pop up around Christmas and Easter? Every year there are more and more. 
No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ, but nowhere and in no context does it refer to Jesus having a wife, being married, etc.
People need to read their bibles.
As to why I believe it, I believe it because the bible doesnt say it. Think about it- Noah's wife is mentioned, Abraham's wife, Isaac, all these important people's wives are mentioned, if not by name, then by the term wife. Jesus is the MOST important person in the bible, if he was married, wouldnt that be a pertinent/relevant piece of information? And why then would the body of believers be called the Bride of Christ if he already had a bride?


----------



## badsanta (Feb 6, 2014)

Does it matter? You either beleave or you dont. Marriage or dinosaurs does not change anything and is of no importance


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

InTownForNow said:


> Dont you think its "odd" and "coincidental" that all these stories supposedly disproving some facet of Christianity always pop up around Christmas and Easter? Every year there are more and more.
> No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ, but nowhere and in no context does it refer to Jesus having a wife, being married, etc.
> People need to read their bibles.
> As to why I believe it, I believe it because the bible doesnt say it. Think about it- Noah's wife is mentioned, Abraham's wife, Isaac, all these important people's wives are mentioned, if not by name, then by the term wife. Jesus is the MOST important person in the bible, if he was married, wouldnt that be a pertinent/relevant piece of information? And why then would the body of believers be called the Bride of Christ if he already had a bride?


I think it's normal for there to be discussions and controversies about Jesus around Christmas and Easter time. As for the rest of your comments and your reasons for them, thank you and I'll accept that as a very definitive no.

So have you ever given any thought to Jesus' relationship with Mary? If so, what do you think their relationship was?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Having remained unmarried for a long time myself, I can attest that it is not that hard or unusual to do. When I did find a wife, I was well in my 40's.
It did give me the chance to observe everyone else's trials and tribulations, which was a valuable education.

Unfortunately, I think you'll find Paumon, that His divinity is extremely relevant to those that choose to answer, particularly if they contemplate why they answered a certain way.
I understand that a non believer wouldn't rate the relevance that high, but then again, no one would care about Jesus and His life at all, if people didn't believe in who He was.

I'd have to say "no" to being married.
3 reasons.

1) Something that important would have been mentioned. Although after writing this, I could concede a possible short marriage in His 20's, when nothing was written, and ending with Him as a widower......._possibly_.

2) He wouldn't have had time for a wife.
Not an airtight reason, because the apostle's had wives, but His calling was much higher than theirs.

3) Even though said in jest, this one may be more compelling than the other two.
He was a perfect man, in every way, flawless.

............

............

............

Ladies?

:umno:

Nope, me either. I can't see being married and never hearing how I said or did something wrong or stupid.:hammer:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

badsanta said:


> Does it matter? You either beleave or you dont. Marriage or dinosaurs does not change anything and is of no importance


Yes, it matters to me. I wouldn't have asked the question if it didn't matter to me. I agree with you that marriage or dinosaurs doesn't change anything but I'm the only one that can determine what's important to me.

Do you wish to answer the question?


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

So have you ever given any thought to Jesus' relationship with Mary? If so, what do you think their relationship was?

No, I havent ever thought of it. The bible says they were friends. So I believe they were friends. There isnt really any reason to think it is anything other than that in my opinion because hey a man and a woman can be friends right? He was her Lord and Savior. To make it out to be something more than that would be inappropriate.


----------



## badsanta (Feb 6, 2014)

Sure. I don't know.. Doesn't matter to me. If it is important to you, why? What would it change?


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

badsanta said:


> Does it matter? You either beleave or you dont. Marriage or dinosaurs does not change anything and is of no importance


what do dinosaurs have to do with it?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

InTownForNow said:


> So have you ever given any thought to Jesus' relationship with Mary? If so, what do you think their relationship was?
> 
> No, I havent ever thought of it. The bible says they were friends. So I believe they were friends. There isnt really any reason to think it is anything other than that in my opinion because hey a man and a woman can be friends right? He was her Lord and Savior. To make it out to be something more than that would be inappropriate.


Thank you. Do you believe Mary was a disciple then?


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Thank you. Do you believe Mary was a disciple then?


No, as the 12 disciples were all men ( as men in the church are supposed to be leaders- and the passage that says "I do not permit a woman to teach or be over men" ) So not in the same sense that they were. Im sure she probably helped spread the word about him and everyone knew she was a follower of Jesus. But no, I dont think she was an actual disciple. I pretty much take the bible for what it says, and not try to make things what they are not, not saying that you are.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

badsanta said:


> Sure. I don't know.. Doesn't matter to me. If it is important to you, why? What would it change?


The past can't be changed and I'm not inclined to explain why the question is important to me. I'm only interested in sticking to the topic at hand, which is asking if you think Mary could have been his wife or something other of importance beyond mere friendship. If you have no thoughts on what their relationship was and their relationship doesn't matter to you then that's a good enough answer for me and there's probably no need for me to discuss it further with you.


----------



## badsanta (Feb 6, 2014)

Nothing with Jesus or marrige. It's just in the same vein of what if man and dinosaurs played together. What if I had hair, would I be happier? No, because it changes nothing. Just my looks not what I feel. Somethings will never be proven and if they were would we still decorate trees to celebrate Christ. I am not trying to insult anyone and you won't change me I just feel alot can never be proven and how would that change the teaching of Christ.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

badsanta- well I think "happiness" and our feelings arent really part of it. Either you believe who Jesus is or you dont, either you believe the bible is the Word of God or you dont. I know it to be true because I have seen it become true in my life. Whether or not dinosaurs and people were together can be explained in the first part of Genesis (land animals, people being created) even though the term "dinosaur" wasnt coined until the 1800s I believe. But they are obviously land animals, so it makes sense that they were created with all the other land animals. It doesnt have to be proven by a guy in a labcoat or with a bunch of letters after his name, to be true. God is the creator, and we are the created trying to prove he is real? thats a little silly to me. and as for the hair thing, Hair or no hair, He loves you just the way you are


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Badsanta - Okay, that's fine. The question isn't about how people or the teachings of Jesus might change if Jesus were proven to have had a wife.

But never say never. Everything is possible.

I'll just leave it at that for now and see what other folks have to say over the weekend if they care to respond.


----------



## badsanta (Feb 6, 2014)

Thats what I said. Almost. I never said happiness and well you still missed the point. But thats ok. My feelings say you win. And I am no mistake. Where did you get that belief? Still taking it out of context you are.


----------



## Squeaky McMurdo (Apr 19, 2012)

Yes I do. I also believe God himself has a wife and that they are not mentioned because they are so special to their husbands that they desired to protect them from the same slanderous talk afronted to God and Jesus.

In my particular belief system singles cannot enter the highest kingdom of heaven...but can once they find their eternal companion in this life or the hereafter, so it makes perfect sense to me. I suspect Mary M was Jesus' wife but that remains to be seen.


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

I was raised Catholic although I no longer believe any of it except the fact that Yes Jesus lived. he was most probably a great man also.
But he was Jewish, Especially Orthodox Jews would be married at a relatively young age. for a Jewish man to be 33 and have no wife and children would have been very unusual to say the least. 
Since we know almost nothing of the man until he was 33 it seems more than probable that he had a wife and children.
Also as the story goes, when Jesus rose from the dead he was met by Mary Magdalene, she approached him as to hug him. He told her not to, as he was no longer of this world. No Jewish woman would think to hug a man she was not married to!


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

No. 200 A.D. is not close enough to the events. 100 AD or earlier would pique my interest, but even then there were wild legends starting to roll. Even in the 1st century, Paul went on a rant about some forms of false doctrine that were catching fire. Use modern history as your guide, here. How much do you really know about the forefathers of our country? How much has our history been re-written in just 200 years? Questioning the authenticity of scripture is a healthy process. The stakes are high when it comes to the souls of men, so don't let the gentle breezes that crop up this time of year blow you over.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

JillyG said:


> I was raised Catholic although I no longer believe any of it except the fact that Yes Jesus lived. he was most probably a great man also.
> But he was Jewish, Especially Orthodox Jews would be married at a relatively young age. for a Jewish man to be 33 and have no wife and children would have been very unusual to say the least.
> Since we know almost nothing of the man until he was 33 it seems more than probable that he had a wife and children.
> Also as the story goes, when Jesus rose from the dead he was met by Mary Magdalene, she approached him as to hug him. He told her not to, as he was no longer of this world. No Jewish woman would think to hug a man she was not married to!


We pretty much think along the same lines. I was raised Catholic also.

I always wondered the same thing, the times were different and certain actions just don't make sense, that being Jesus was not married at his age. In reading history I was under the impression that being Jewish a man that wasn't married by a certain age could not be considered for any leadership roles.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

There is no actual proof that Jesus himself even existed. It is a point of great historical contention. No Roman records have proved his existence....so how can you expect a definitive answer to whether or not this man ( who may never have existed ) had a wife?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Twobottom said:


> There is no actual proof that Jesus himself even existed. It is a point of great historical contention. No Roman records have proved his existence....so how can you expect a definitive answer to whether or not this man ( who may never have existed ) had a wife?



You could say the same for nearly every human being that lived 2,000 years ago, couldn't you?
After all, will archaeologists find any proof that you existed at all, 2,000 years from now?



InTownForNow said:


> No, as the 12 disciples were all men ( as men in the church are supposed to be leaders- and the passage that says "I do not permit a woman to teach or be over men" ) So not in the same sense that they were. Im sure she probably helped spread the word about him and everyone knew she was a follower of Jesus. But no, I dont think she was an actual disciple. I pretty much take the bible for what it says, and not try to make things what they are not, not saying that you are.



If you were raised and taught this doctrine by your church, whatever you do, do NOT look in the Old Testament book of Judges, Deborah would not fit neatly into that mold..........:hrm:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/Book-of-Judges/a/012511-CW-Deborah.htm

Granted, most people don't read carefully or in context, and that particular passage has been used and misused quite a bit, as a way of justifying the demeaning of women.

*But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.*

Notice it is talking about "usurping" authority, as in undermining it. The context of the whole "don't let women speak in church" sermon is a misreading of the historical context opf the times.
He (Paul) was talking about idle conversation during the teaching of a sermon. Men and women sat separately in church. Sometimes the women got to talking amongst themselves rather than listening, thus the admonition for them to be "silent". If you didn't know this, you'd think he meant what is generally (and ignorantly) taught from the pulpit today.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

As a Catholic, it wouldn't matter to me if Jesus was found to have been married or not -- it doesn't change his divinity in my eyes one iota. 

I also dont' find it odd if he was not married, even if most Jewish men of his time got married at a young age. He knew who He was and what plans were for Him. I doubt He would think it proper to have a wife and kids suffer that fate or lifestyle.

When a man and woman marry, their number one priority should be their spouse and any children they might have. This is one of the lesser known reasons why the Church demands priests be celebate and not marry -- their priority should be their ministry and, further, to properly care for the flock any family priorities would necessarily suffer and it would be unfair and wrong to any spouse/children, not to mention sinful, since marriage is a Sacrament.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Everything about Jesus was different than the mainstream. Just because jewish men of that era got married young, does not mean an iota about what Jesus did. When he was twelve, he made the high priests marvel at his knowledge. He hung out with drunkards, with hookers, with sinners. He claimed to be the Son of God. He claimed to be THE ONLY WAY. He claimed that whoever believes in him shall be saved.

I mean, no one else made these claims, no one else dared. This is what sets him apart from any other religion, and other leader of all time. His uniqueness, sinless nature, and claims of divinity, tells us it is not strange for him to have not been married. Everything about him was strange for the time and era he lived in.

No, he was not married. If he had been, being a perfect, sinless human, he sure was a deadbeat dad and or hubby, wandering around preaching and healing for weeks on end. His very nature precludes marriage. If he was a mere human, sure, he could have been married. BUT he WAS NOT a mere human. He was faultless. Can you imagine having a sinless husband? He would have not been Jesus if he were tied down to a wife and family, because how would he have wandered preaching, making claims no one else has ever made? 

The Jesus I know, was certainly not married to a human lady, it makes Zero sense. To those who hold him in contempt, as a mere human preacher dude, a basically good man, his being married would be interesting to them, because it would prove his lack of divinity. And we all know how certain folks go around trying to cast doubts in weak minded/new christians heads. 

It comes down to who you think Jesus was, so I think the question is strange. One first has to believe he exists. 

He was so set apart from the typical person. He was sinless. He was unmarried. He died for us. He gave a free gift to be received. The Jesus I know personally, was certainly not married.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Those last two posts changed my mind.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've always found the New Testament and the early history of the Roman Catholic Church interesting. Since time immemorial , organizations have marketed themselves. Co-opting common beliefs, practices and human nature for your own ends is still the basis of promotion today.

Christianity was extremely varied until the Roman Catholic Church standardized it. Assembling the New Testament, deciding what was dogma and what was anathema generally revolved around the Church and its quest for power. It certainly didn't hurt to include the Old Testament in the Bible as a way of officially underscoring their claim that the new Church was the successor of God's chosen, the Jews.

Somewhere I have a genealogy of religion which shows the origins of Christian groups. With everyone going off in different directions over perceived differences, the ones existing at the time of the early Church have been mostly forgotten.

Who is to say who is right? From a marketing point of view it's interesting and revealing. Did Jesus have a wife. Yepper! Of course that fact would be extremely disruptive for the Roman Catholic Church and its marketing campaign which includes Christ's divinity as a centerpiece.

The importance is in the message which isn't all that different from many other religions with one major exception. For some reason I'm reminded of the movie Dogma and George Carlin who invented Buddy Christ as the focus of his campaign to revitalize the Church.

Many marketing campaigns are centered on a spokesperson whether it's a guy screaming at the top of his lungs or Scrubbing Bubbles. What better spokesman than a divine being? Having a wife wasn't something the Church wanted to publicize since in the Church's mind that would incorporate an element of impurity.

You always have to dress, and that includes the story line, for success. There's no doubt in my mind, even with the Reformation, the Church did an excellent job of promotion.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

InTownForNow said:


> No, as the 12 disciples were all men ( as men in the church are supposed to be leaders- and the passage that says "I do not permit a woman to teach or be over men" ) So not in the same sense that they were. Im sure she probably helped spread the word about him and everyone knew she was a follower of Jesus. But no, I dont think she was an actual disciple. I pretty much take the bible for what it says, and not try to make things what they are not, not saying that you are.


Forgive my ignorance, but I thought all of his followers were disciples, and the 12 men you refer to were apostles. Is there not a difference between these terms?


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I thought all of his followers were disciples, and the 12 men you refer to were apostles. Is there not a difference between these terms?


Im not sure. I thought they were interchangeable


----------



## That'll Do Pig (Jan 23, 2014)

InTownForNow said:


> Dont you think its "odd" and "coincidental" that all these stories supposedly disproving some facet of Christianity always pop up around Christmas and Easter? Every year there are more and more.
> No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ, but nowhere and in no context does it refer to Jesus having a wife, being married, etc.
> People need to read their bibles.
> As to why I believe it, I believe it because the bible doesnt say it. Think about it- Noah's wife is mentioned, Abraham's wife, Isaac, all these important people's wives are mentioned, if not by name, then by the term wife. Jesus is the MOST important person in the bible, if he was married, wouldnt that be a pertinent/relevant piece of information? And why then would the body of believers be called the Bride of Christ if he already had a bride?


The bible was edited to exclude such details. You seriously think you have and read the first draft?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

InTownForNow said:


> No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally.


But then the Catholic Church had complete control over the Bible, right down to choosing what went into it for 10 to 14 centuries, plenty of time to excise anything that did not fit what they want their believers to believe.

I personally think no, but it would not affect me in the least if he was married. 
It has nothing to do with our salvation.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> When a man and woman marry, their number one priority should be their spouse and any children they might have. This is one of the lesser known reasons why the Church demands priests be celebate and not marry -- their priority should be their ministry and, further, to properly care for the flock any family priorities would necessarily suffer and it would be unfair and wrong to any spouse/children, not to mention sinful, since marriage is a Sacrament.


Let me just give you another line of thought, something for you to ponder - the family is (or should be) the basic unit of the Church.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I don't think Jesus was married... he and God both knew the terrible fate that was coming and there was no need to add to his misery.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Personally, no.
Why?
Because he would have known how much pain his life and death would have caused her. Being a loving savior he would not have put a woman through that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> Personally, no.
> Why?
> Because he would have known how much pain his life and death would have caused her. Being a loving savior he would not have put a woman through that.


That too


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

I think people try to justify their own depiction of who God is, of who the Savior is, they try to form him ( create ) him to be in their own image- instead of understanding that God created us in his image. We are finite, we are sinful, we make mistakes and are messy and emotional. God is infinite, he is not like us. You can try to make excuses as to what the bible says or doesnt say, why it is this way and not that way, but really, it starts with who you believe Jesus is. And if you don't believe that he is the Savior, who is fully man, fully God, sinless, died on a cross and resurrected for the sins of the world, to tear the veil between a righteous God and a sinful creation, then you will never believe what the bible says about anything, because any lesser view of God is a view of God as a man, or of man as God.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Awnry Abe said:


> No. 200 A.D. is not close enough to the events. 100 AD or earlier would pique my interest, but even then there were wild legends starting to roll. Even in the 1st century, Paul went on a rant about some forms of false doctrine that were catching fire. Use modern history as your guide, here. How much do you really know about the forefathers of our country? How much has our history been re-written in just 200 years? Questioning the authenticity of scripture is a healthy process. The stakes are high when it comes to the souls of men, so don't let the gentle breezes that crop up this time of year blow you over.


 except that radioisotope dating (carbon dating in particular) is least accurate with the newer the item and usually has a range of several hundred to a thousand years when dating things less than 5000 years old. so the accuracy of the dating depends very much on how it was dated. additionally the scripture as we know it was ASSEMBLED by a COUNCIL of MEN. i challenge you to show me one thing assembled by a council that is NOT replete with flaws.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

InTownForNow said:


> Im not sure. I thought they were interchangeable


 they are not. being a disciple simply means to follow a specific teaching (or discipline) being an apostle means having specific responsibilities. evey apostle is a disciple but not every disciple is an apostle.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

For me it's obvious. I was raised in a cultish atmosphere. Stories of gods and their wives were a presence in my childhood intertwined with some far out version of Christianity that was mostly to please the community. I've since become a Real Christian. I can tell you that there are some in this world with an agenda to water down and/or pervert the truth simply because the Truth sets us free and they are not lovers of truth or freedom.

The Dan Brown line of propaganda just needed a refresher for them. They know how well it works. I have a personal bone to pick with that trash story line but that's not a topic for here. Messiah didn't come here to do the human nature thing. He came here as God's only begotten Son to give us the Only hope we have of eternal life.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

No, I do not believe that Jesus had a wife. 

Jesus came for a purpose, to die. If you read 1 Corinthians 7:32, 33 (KJV) it says, But I would have you w/out carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, he he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. So a having a wife would not fit into why he came to die.

Now look at John 19:25-27. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, Behold they son. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold they mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

As the oldest son, he was responsible for taking care of his mother. He made sure she was cared for. But, there's no mention of his telling anyone to take care of Mary Magdalene. She is the one that most people come up w/as a possible wife.

Plus as has already been mentioned, the Church is the bride of Christ. So, if he had a wife, he would be a bigamist. Marriage is supposed to be a picture of Christ's relationship to the church. Marriage, as instituted in the Garden of Eden was one man, one woman for life.

While on the earth, Jesus was both fully God and fully man. So, if he had children, would that have not made them half god? This in itself is not going to happen.

So no, I don't believe that Jesus had either a wife or children.


----------



## JamieCatheryn (Feb 9, 2013)

Wasn't this wife thing a claim of the gnostics, too? And that was pretty much the earliest organized heresy that strongly contrasted to the canonical version of The Way, this document could be involved with that. They also claim Jesus wasn't exactly flesh really, and that the saving knowledge is a secret, a mystery to be revealed to the select. Doesn't fit with the "if anyone hears my voice and will open the door I will come in" and "go into all the world and make disciples" and such, though the folks not getting the parables might support the mystery aspect. Anyhow, nope I don't believe he was married, except in the sense of the Church being the bride of Christ. Some people think if he was intimate with a wife even inside marriage he would have been made impure...not sure I buy that it's too near what the Cathars claimed, and sex inside marriage might make one unclean for a time by Jewish law but not sinful - and Jesus had no issue with touching the unclean to heal people. But it would have distracted from His ministry and tied him to worldly issues instead. He did have many disciples beyond the twelve and Mary was a close one (Martha and Lazarus, too). Modern western culture can't really get the kind of agape and phileo love between people of whatever gender that ancient documents describe, if it's between men they start yelling "gaaaayy" and a man and woman "well there must have been somethin going on there if you know what I mean". These people were exhorted to greet one another with a holy kiss, to love one another as brothers and sisters. Middle Eastern folks today still are very expressive about emotions. Women had important roles in His ministry as well as in the early church as deaconesses and benefactors. The Roman world was ostensibly run by men but certain women had a good deal of power, wealth, and freedom of their own. No, they weren't meant to teach over men or mixed groups, but they weren't to hide meekly in the corner or just fix lunch either.


----------



## Zapthycat (Jan 7, 2014)

Jesus didn't have a wife. Nothing like revisionist propaganda to fetch a news story...


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

InTownForNow said:


> Dont you think its "odd" and "coincidental" that all these stories supposedly disproving some facet of Christianity always pop up around Christmas and Easter? Every year there are more and more.
> No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ, but nowhere and in no context does it refer to Jesus having a wife, being married, etc.
> People need to read their bibles.
> As to why I believe it, I believe it because the bible doesnt say it. Think about it- Noah's wife is mentioned, Abraham's wife, Isaac, all these important people's wives are mentioned, if not by name, then by the term wife. Jesus is the MOST important person in the bible, if he was married, wouldnt that be a pertinent/relevant piece of information? And why then would the body of believers be called the Bride of Christ if he already had a bride?


I believe Mary was a very strong follower of Jesus and was close but not married to Him. I believe if she had been a man she could have been an 
disciple.

I believe that when Jesus mother and brothers had came looking for Him, He brought up that He considered His followers including Mary His Mother and Brothers ( His family) 

big rockpile


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

JamieCatheryn said:


> Wasn't this wife thing a claim of the gnostics, too?


Exactly. It's a teaching of the mystery religions


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

Pops2 said:


> except that radioisotope dating (carbon dating in particular) is least accurate with the newer the item and usually has a range of several hundred to a thousand years when dating things less than 5000 years old. so the accuracy of the dating depends very much on how it was dated. additionally the scripture as we know it was ASSEMBLED by a COUNCIL of MEN. i challenge you to show me one thing assembled by a council that is NOT replete with flaws.


Well, yeah, I want even going to go there (dating methods)--given that the 200 AD guess was so weak to begin with.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> I'm not a Christian either, but it would only make sense to me that if Jesus was supposed to have been God come down to live as a man that he should experience the whole gamut of humanity, wife and all.


 
..............No wonder he left so quick ! , lol , fordy


----------



## BigM (Mar 22, 2008)

I find it hard to accept that Jesus would state provisions for His mom but not His wife from the cross. I don't believe He was married, but honestly, why would it matter? Would it change who He was and the sacrifice He made for us? If anything, it strengthens what He did.

I can't imagine what it must have been like to have been His sibling, let alone His wife! lol


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I think that Jesus is the son of God. But, I have doubts about all his history being known yet. That could include being married to Mary. From about 12 to 33 we hear very little of his background in the official Bible.

I wonder about the Gnostic books that have been found, and have no problem accepting them as books that would flesh out his background. And then there is a LOT of African/Mediterranean area that there may be more history hidden that we don't know. (I'm at least curious)

Also, there is that question of what people know, and when we know it. What's to say there is not a master plan to reveal layers of history/truth as society can accept it?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Zapthycat said:


> Jesus didn't have a wife. Nothing like revisionist propaganda to fetch a news story...


The question is, who put out the revisionist propaganda? That's where the early history of the Roman Catholic Church and the standardization of the dogma is revealing. Somethings are quite revealing when examined in association with the events of the time. Ever wonder where the phrase, "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." came from and why? The early Roman Catholic Church did what it had to in order to solidify its power. That includes the dogma. The New Testament is an extremely interesting piece of work. It took awhile but the Roman Catholic Church did an excellent job that has weathered the ages.

Ever wonder why Western religion is so different from Eastern religions? It wasn't always the case.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I was raised strict Christian with the analogy that those who are saved will be lifted up to heaven as the bride of God. Even the alleged first humans, Adam and Eve, were paired together as a couple. I don't think it's past any stretch of the imagination to think that Jesus was married.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Zapthycat said:


> Jesus didn't have a wife. Nothing like revisionist propaganda to fetch a news story...


Please offer some proof of your statement.

Like I said before; I doubt He did, but to make the claim with as much certainty as your statement above, I'd like to see your proof.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

jtbrandt said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I thought all of his followers were disciples, and the 12 men you refer to were apostles. Is there not a difference between these terms?


Yes, there is a difference. Disciples are ambassadors who follow or spread the Word. The apostles were the inner circle and were "set apart for the gospel of God." (Romans 1:1) All had physically seen Christ. Judas, one of the original 12, was not considered an apostle after/because he betrayed The Lord. Paul became an apostle because he met Him on the road to Damascus.

If you read about John the Baptist you'll notice that he also had disciples. After Christ's ministry started he asked his followers to follow Jesus. The term saint has been somehow hijacked to refer to some sort of special, good person who has performed miracles after their death. The Bible calls believers saints and prohibits us from praying to people. 

No, I do not think Jesus was married. There is nothing that Biblically even hints at it. In fact, 1 Corinthians says that it is better to remain single. Chapter seven talks about it being better for widows to remain unmarried. People should be married if they are unable to control sexual urges. "For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (Verse 9) 

I've never understood why people have suggested Jesus had a relationship with any of the Marys or anybody else. There's no Biblical hint of it.

In verse 28 Paul says, "Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, andI would spare you that." Paul didn't say that you might have problems. He said you WILL. I cannot understand why God would set His Son up for trouble. 

The Bible does not say that there are levels of heaven and it certainly doesn't say that marriage puts a person at a higher heaven. How could that be if you look at 1 Corinthians?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> Please offer some proof of your statement.
> 
> Like I said before; I doubt He did, but to make the claim with as much certainty as your statement above, I'd like to see your proof.


There will be no 2,000 year old links, there will be no proof offered.
There is no proof, only faith. Faith, the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> In verse 28 Paul says, "Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, andI would spare you that." Paul didn't say that you might have problems. He said you WILL. *I cannot understand why God would set His Son up for trouble.*


Well he did send him to earth to die, right? And the whole testing him in the desert thing. The way I understand it, that was all necessary for his purpose. After all, if he wasn't tempted at all, being sinless wouldn't be such a big deal. Maybe being married would be the only way to experience certain temptations. Or maybe not. I'm looking at the whole thing from a different angle than most, but I'm fascinated by all sides of the debate.

ETA: To those of you who are Christians, please don't take any of what I say as an insult or anything about your faith. When I am wrong it is out of ignorance, not malice.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

AngieM2 said:


> I wonder about the Gnostic books that have been found, and have no problem accepting them as books that would flesh out his background. And then there is a LOT of African/Mediterranean area that there may be more history hidden that we don't know. (I'm at least curious


The tricky bit about gnosticism is, it does not worship the same God as we would know through the scriptures. The messiah they promote is at odds with the Father who is deemed to be an inferior deity who created matter but who is not the Author of all. Their Messiah is presented (very subtlety) as "the light bearer" or otherwise named Lucifer.

This rather sneaky counterfeit originated in a event described in Genesis 6 where fallen angels married human women and begot hybrid "demi-gods". They worship the leader of fallen angels, not the Christ Christians worship.


----------



## MNBobcat (Feb 4, 2011)

Have you ever done the exercise where you tell something to someone and then they tell it to someone else on down the line and so on? And by the time it gets to the end the story has changed? Imagine how polluted the whole story of Jesus became over the many years before it was written down? 

Many documents written closer to the time that Jesus was thought to have lived, never made it into the bible because the church preferred later documents over those documents that said things that the church didn't like.

Religion today is made up of fabrications that the churches came up with over the centuries. There was so much corruption in the churches over the years that I don't know how anybody can believe anything the church says.

I think true religion is what you feel in your heart and soul and has nothing do with what the church or the bible says. 

So on the question of if Jesus was ever married, from everything I've learned I'd say that he was. I wouldn't put any stock into what the bible or the church says on that matter. They'll spin it however they think bests fits their interests.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

But we can Feel a lot of ways that don't line up with reality. We can believe anything we want really, including pure fantasy, if we like how it feels to believe it. Something is absolutely wrong and something is absolutely right no matter what we feel.
*
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9*

God asked us to come reason with Him. Religion IS about what you feel, but the truth is known by our logic. Faith is logical.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

farmrbrown said:


> There will be no 2,000 year old links, there will be no proof offered.
> There is no proof, only faith. Faith, the evidence of things not seen.


Then the statement should have read "I do not believe Jesus was married" rather then "Jesus didn't have a wife."


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

PricklyThistle said:


> The tricky bit about gnosticism is, it does not worship the same God as we would know through the scriptures. The messiah they promote is at odds with the Father who is deemed to be an inferior deity who created matter but who is not the Author of all. Their Messiah is presented (very subtlety) as "the light bearer" or otherwise named Lucifer.
> 
> This rather sneaky counterfeit originated in a event described in Genesis 6 where fallen angels married human women and begot hybrid "demi-gods". They worship the leader of fallen angels, not the Christ Christians worship.


Interesting. I don't believe the veracity of thr information you present but something to check out.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Read the Apocrypha and the Gnostic books before reaching any conclusions.
Find out where they came from and what you can about their authorship if possible.
Information and knowledge isn't a bad thing, it's what you DO with it........


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

Some excerpts from Wikipedia, whom, as we all know, has no bias in favour of Christianity:
_
"Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: &#947;&#957;&#8182;&#963;&#953;&#962; gn&#333;sis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions that taught that people should shun the material world created by the demiurge and embrace the spiritual world...

In Gnosticism, the world of the demiurge is represented by the lower world, which is associated with matter, flesh, time and more particularly an imperfect, ephemeral world. The world of God is represented by the upper world, and is associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable, and time doesn't exist there. To rise to God, the Gnostic must reach the knowledge, which mixes philosophy, metaphysics, curiosity, culture, knowledge, and the secrets of history and the universe...

In most of the systems, this demiurge was seen as imperfect, in others even as evil. Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Ahriman, El, Saklas, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh."_ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

See, the "demi-urge" in Gnostic tradition is YHWH (Yahweh), whom they also name the devil. YHWH according to the Bible is the One True creator and Father God.

Gnosis means knowledge. At its root is the Tree of Gnosis (Knowledge)...the one God told Adam and Eve not to touch in the Genesis account, but Gnostics would say that He was the evil one for withholding knowledge and Lucifer set men free.

Knowledge itself is not evil, but the pursuit of knowledge in this case was knowledge that the devil told man would make him "like a god". Gnosticism still seeks salvation by knowledge but God says that we must become like humble little children in accepting His Son, not mystical scholars seeking to have godlike wisdom (which is in the end only knowledge of destruction). What makes Messiah unique is that His Grace and Mercy saves us, not our own worthiness.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> If you were raised and taught this doctrine by your church, whatever you do, do NOT look in the Old Testament book of Judges, Deborah would not fit neatly into that mold..........:hrm:
> 
> http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/Book-of-Judges/a/012511-CW-Deborah.htm
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting the above link to the story about Deborah the prophetess and judge of Israel. I found that very interesting and it makes me wonder how many other powerful women there were who were rulers and judges but whose names and deeds never made it into the bible because they were independent women. Also interesting was the part about Jael the Bedouin wife who took matters into her own hands and gained fame for killing Sisera and diminishing Barak's fame for his victory over King Jabin's army, as Deborah had predicted.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Did Jesus have a wife??

Yes!
He was a rabbi and all rabbis had to be married and have children.
If you couldn't govern and guide a household, they considered you unfit to govern and guide a community.

For Jesus to carry the title of rabbi, he would have to be married.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

That'll Do Pig said:


> The bible was edited to exclude such details. You seriously think you have and read the first draft?





mnn2501 said:


> But then the Catholic Church had complete control over the Bible, right down to choosing what went into it for 10 to 14 centuries, plenty of time to excise anything that did not fit what they want their believers to believe.


 Could you please explain how hundreds copies held by people in various parts of the known world (and who didn't know one another) could all have been edited to say the same thing? 



jtbrandt said:


> Well he did send him to earth to die, right? And the whole testing him in the desert thing. The way I understand it, that was all necessary for his purpose. After all, if he wasn't tempted at all, being sinless wouldn't be such a big deal. Maybe being married would be the only way to experience certain temptations. Or maybe not. I'm looking at the whole thing from a different angle than most, but I'm fascinated by all sides of the debate.


Christ was sent to die as payment for our sin. Without His sacrifice there would be no hope of anything but hell. There was no reason He needed to be married. I guess that one of the things I was trying to say is that the Father wouldn't put Him in a position where He would have to focus on worldly things. Paul's advice in 1Corinthians is to what I am referring. 



MNBobcat said:


> Have you ever done the exercise where you tell something to someone and then they tell it to someone else on down the line and so on? And by the time it gets to the end the story has changed? Imagine how polluted the whole story of Jesus became over the many years before it was written down?
> 
> Many documents written closer to the time that Jesus was thought to have lived, never made it into the bible because the church preferred later documents over those documents that said things that the church didn't like.
> 
> ...


MNBobcat, what is the basis for your assertions? (Bible diluted, other documents were better suited for the Bible, religion is fabrication)

If true religion is nothing more than what a person feels in heart and soul then couldn't one say that sexual attraction, hatred, and a myriad of other emotions be considered religion? If religion is a fabrication then how is it possible that true religion is what you feel in your heart and soul? How do you define soul? 

The church isn't a building or a particular denomination. The church is the body of Christ. The term "Christian" wasn't coined by early Christians. They called themselves "The Way."

Somebody made a comment about God the Father being married. Christ was fully man while being fully God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Father is made of flesh and blood. John 4:24 says, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." In Luke 24:39 Christ says that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones. These are just two of many verses supporting that the fact that the Father isn't made of flesh and blood. 

Just because some guy writes a story in 2214 about how I looked like a 20 year old blonde bombshell well into my 90s doesn't make it so. The same thing goes for the words of one guy 200 or so years after Christ's death and resurrection. 

Chicken, Jesus went by his name. His followers called Him rabbi (as in teacher) in a different sense than we now use. At His time, disciples called their masters rabbi. A few decades later the term started being used to refer to religious leaders. If He was married, why didn't He ask the disciple He loved to care for His wife as well as His mother?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Squeaky McMurdo said:


> Yes I do. I also believe God himself has a wife and that they are not mentioned because they are so special to their husbands that they desired to protect them from the same slanderous talk afronted to God and Jesus.
> 
> In my particular belief system singles cannot enter the highest kingdom of heaven...but can once they find their eternal companion in this life or the hereafter, so it makes perfect sense to me. I suspect Mary M was Jesus' wife but that remains to be seen.


Having no other guide but experience and intuition, this has come to be my basic understanding/expectation, as well.

You laid it out nicely.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Joshie said:


> Could you please explain how hundreds copies held by people in various parts of the known world (and who didn't know one another) could all have been edited to say the same thing?


The hundreds of copies did not exist. Different versions of the Old Testament do exist depending on origin. It wasn't until 140 AD that a Bible came to exist. So when was the Bible and its current canon standardized? It wasn't until sometime after 140 AD. Between that date and a later date, different books were used including some that did not end up in the New Testament. It was centuries after Jesus that the New Testament became what we know today. 

As for editing, the Roman Catholic Church had the greatest influence in assembling the Bible hundreds of years after the Crucifixion. Until that time other books were used. Some became anathema. Others were simply left out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon


----------



## MNBobcat (Feb 4, 2011)

Joshie said:


> Could you please explain how hundreds copies held by people in various parts of the known world (and who didn't know one another) could all have been edited to say the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I was getting at is religion is all fabricated nonsense made up to give the church power over the people. What better way to have power over a king than to claim you (as the priest) speak for God?

Read up on how the holy trinity came about. They locked themselves in a room and when they came out the holy trinity became part of religion.

Religion is created by man not by god.

Don't get me wrong...religion does a lot of good for a lot of people and for those people who need it its wonderful. But I think the truth is way different than what religion depicts.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Joshie said:


> Chicken, Jesus went by his name. His followers called Him rabbi (as in teacher) in a different sense than we now use. At His time, disciples called their masters rabbi. A few decades later the term started being used to refer to religious leaders. *If He was married, why didn't He ask the disciple He loved to care for His wife as well as His mother? *


Why would Jesus ask that when he had siblings?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

This article was written by a liberation theologist and former Roman Catholic Priest. He presents a convincing argument for why wealthy Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and the financial supporter of Jesus' work.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Case-for-and-Intimate-by-Mike-Rivage-Seul-120922-304.html


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Joshie said:


> Could you please explain how hundreds copies held by people in various parts of the known world (and who didn't know one another) could all have been edited to say the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 do you not see the inconsistancy in the two bolded parts? you presume to know more 2000 years later than some one 200 years later.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What we are seeing from the early Church forward is gilding the lily characterizing Christ's message as the lily, and the intervention of the Roman Catholic Church as the arbiter of that message, gilding, to the exclusion and sometimes execution of those who believed differently, while its progeny, no matter what failings or differences are claimed, still hew to the primary message. 

The creation of a powerful organization to its own benefit and the power struggle to maintain and enhance that power prove that human nature often prevails. The golden rule is really all you need. The rest of the trappings especially the usual us vs. them and the use of dogma to exclude and differentiate unbelievers should be obvious. 

It's interesting that the Jews have had a somewhat different approach. I suspect Jesus would have a lot of heartburn over what religion has become especially his designation as divine and the attendant worship. It's the message that's important.


----------



## kindergarter (Apr 4, 2014)

Hello!
I think Jesus had no wife.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> This article was written by a liberation theologist and former Roman Catholic Priest. He presents a convincing argument for why wealthy Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife and the financial supporter of Jesus' work.
> 
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Case-for-and-Intimate-by-Mike-Rivage-Seul-120922-304.html



An interesting read. Most of us who study deeply have heard or read the writings of Thomas and Mary along the way. That's part of why I said to read and research all of the material before coming to any conclusions, especially hasty ones.
I was going to add something to this discussion in this post, but your link already brought that to light - namely that Mary Magdelegne wasn't a prostitute or former one, as is commonly misinformed.
This is like many other "mistakes", intentional or otherwise, that get repeated until they become accepted by the mainstream.




Darren said:


> What we are seeing from the early Church forward is gilding the lily characterizing Christ's message as the lily, and the intervention of the Roman Catholic Church as the arbiter of that message, gilding, to the exclusion and sometimes execution of those who believed differently, while its progeny, no matter what failings or differences are claimed, still hew to the primary message.
> 
> The creation of a powerful organization to its own benefit and the power struggle to maintain and enhance that power prove that human nature often prevails. The golden rule is really all you need. The rest of the trappings especially the usual us vs. them and the use of dogma to exclude and differentiate unbelievers should be obvious.
> 
> It's interesting that the Jews have had a somewhat different approach. I suspect Jesus would have a lot of heartburn over what religion has become especially his designation as divine and the attendant worship. It's the message that's important.



Good post. I don't always agree with your conclusions but I like the way you think.
The other thing I was going to add when I woke up at this untimely hour of the morning coffee::huh that another poster pointed out how these stories often pop up around Christmas or Easter. I tend to agree.
I do certain studies on certain subjects at certain times of the year, and at this time, I've been researching that one instance of the use of the word Easter in the book of Acts.
I've known for some time that the real word in the manuscripts was Passover and that Easter as we know it today couldn't have possibly existed then. That's why its use is so strange and bothersome to me. 
The odd thing I noticed this year was the language that was used, Chaldean.
There are 4 main languages that the Bible was translated from - Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic and Greek.
Everywhere else the word Passover is Hebrew, this one verse translated as Easter, the word Passover was written in Chaldean.
Why is this strange?
History I guess. I'll have to dig deeper, but as far as I know, most of the Chaldean language is used around the book of Daniel and the time of the Babylonian captivity, which makes perfect sense.
Most of the New Testament is in Greek, with some Aramaic. For a Chaldean word to just pop up and be a mistranslation on top of it, should make one suspicious of its origin. That, and the knowledge of who the name of the fertility goddess is on the Gates of Babylon......Ishtar.
So I thought I'd try to learn a little more about where this may have come from.........
http://www.chaldeansonline.org/chald.html


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> An interesting read. Most of us who study deeply have heard or read the writings of Thomas and Mary along the way. That's part of why I said to read and research all of the material before coming to any conclusions, especially hasty ones.
> I was going to add something to this discussion in this post, but your link already brought that to light - namely that Mary Magdelegne wasn't a prostitute or former one, as is commonly misinformed.
> This is like many other "mistakes", intentional or otherwise, that get repeated until they become accepted by the mainstream.
> 
> ...


You do know that only in English is the word "Easter" used. In the rest of the Christian world the holy day is called Pascha or a derivation. Even in the Catholic churches in the U.S. we use the word Pascha or an adjective with things concering "Easter," i.e., paschal mystery, paschaltide, paschal lamb, paschal candle, and so forth. The word Easter doesn't have anything to do with Ishtar. It's derived from the Germanic languages, and it's meaning is closer to "east" or perhaps "white."


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Joshie said:


> Could you please explain how hundreds copies held by people in various parts of the known world (and who didn't know one another) could all have been edited to say the same thing?


The New Testament did not exist in any form, other than individual letters until Irenaeus put together his canon in the 2nd century, which is much different than the modern canon which was not fixed as we know them until the 1600's. and that there are dozens of books that at one time or another were a part of the Bible that now are not, and there are a number of books quoted in the Bible itself that are claimed as scripture that are not found in the Bible?



> The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons, no two of which are alike, were fixed by modern councils. The Council of Trent (1645-1563) determined the Roman Catholic canon. While a majority were in favor of the canon of Augustine they were not agreed in regard to the character and classification of the books. There were four parties. The first advocated two divisions of the books, one to comprise the acknowledged books, the other the disputed books. The second party proposed three divisions-- the acknowledged books, the disputed books of the New Testament, and the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The third party desired the list of books to be named without determining their authority. The fourth party demanded that all the books, acknowledged, disputed, and apocryphal, be declared canonical. This party triumphed.
> 
> At a council of the Greek church held in Jerusalem in 1672, this church, which had always refused to accept Revelation, finally placed it in the canon. The Greek canon contains several apocryphal books not contained in the Roman Catholic canon.
> 
> Both divisions of the Protestant church, German and English, declared against the authority of the Apocryphal books. The Westminster Assembly (1647) formally adopted the list of books contained in our Authorized Version of the Bible.


Also remember: History is written by the winners, not the losers, thus the modern Church can claim the Gnostics were heretics, but had the Gnostics won out they would be claiming the orthodox were the heretics.

The History of the Bible is amazing once you start to study how, when and by whom it was put together.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*Many things are not what they seem.*


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Neither God nor Jesus has a wife.

They are without faults, so don't really need anyone around trying to point them out.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Oggie said:


> Neither God nor Jesus has a wife.
> 
> They are without faults, so don't really need anyone around trying to point them out.



You summed it up perfectly. That is the story in a nutshell of what the Roman Catholic Church had to do.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Q. Did Jesus have a wife?

A. I have a feeling he did.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Oggie said:


> Neither God nor Jesus has a wife.
> 
> They are without faults, so don't really need anyone around trying to point them out.


Now see, if this were the main criteria by which to make a determination, then polygamy would not only be acceptable, but mandatory..... :lookout:


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Forerunner said:


> Now see, if this were the main criteria by which to make a determination, then polygamy would not only be acceptable, but mandatory..... :lookout:


I think that perhaps you underestimate the almost-infinite ability of a woman to find multiple faults.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

And polyandry too!


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

Paumon said:


> I think it's normal for there to be discussions and controversies about Jesus around Christmas and Easter time. As for the rest of your comments and your reasons for them, thank you and I'll accept that as a very definitive no.
> 
> So have you ever given any thought to Jesus' relationship with Mary? If so, what do you think their relationship was?


I am a Christian and believe that Jesus is the Savior- but I also believe that the powers that be- those who house who knows what in the underground of the Vatican- also have the hidden books of the Bible they didn't think would serve their purpose for what ever reason-there is alot that they don't think we should know- 
I do believe Jesus was married-and that info is buried deep in somewhere in a writing under the Vatican-


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

The following has been taken from the Religious Tolerance website (link below).

*Origins of the name "Easter"*

The name "_Easter_" originated with the names of an ancient Goddess and God. The Venerable Bede, (672-735 CE), a Christian scholar, first asserted in his book _De Ratione Temporum_ that Easter was named after Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). She was the Great Mother Goddess of the Saxon people in Northern Europe. Similarly, the "_Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility [was] known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos._" Her name was derived from the ancient word for spring: "eastre." Similar Goddesses were known by other names in ancient cultures around the Mediterranean, and were celebrated in the springtime. Some were:



Aphrodite, named Cytherea (Lady of Cythera) and Cypris (Lady of Cyprus) after the two places which claimed her birth; 

Ashtoreth from ancient Israel;

Astarte from ancient Greece;

Demeter from Mycenae;

Hathor from ancient Egypt;

Ishtar from Assyria;

Kali, from India; and

Ostara a Norse Goddess of fertility.
 
An alternative explanation has been suggested. The name given by the Frankish church to Jesus' resurrection festival included the Latin word "_alba_" which means "_white_." (This was a reference to the white robes that were worn during the festival.) "_Alba_" also has a second meaning: "_sunrise_." When the name of the festival was translated into German, the "_sunrise_" meaning was selected in error. This became "_ostern_" in German. Ostern has been proposed as the origin of the word "_Easter_".

More here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

I have only been studying the bible for 17 years and still have much to learn...but nothing I have found/studied to this point would lead me to believe he was married.

To say he was married or had a wife would require me to speculate.


Tim


----------



## LettucePatch (Jan 9, 2013)

I believe that Jesus was NOT married. Why?
1. My first rule when reading the Bible is that Jesus the Christ is always God, never not God. 
2. In Genesis 6, the angels came down and took wives and they bore children which are the Nephilim (angel/human hybrids). God destroyed all of mankind (except Noah and 7 of his family members because they were pure in their generation&#8212;no angel/human blood) with a worldwide flood. 
3. If God flooded the earth to cause the death of angel/human hybrids back in the beginning, why would it be okay for Jesus God to marry and create God/human hybrids? Wouldn&#8217;t this make God evil and contradict himself?


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

LettucePatch said:


> I believe that Jesus was NOT married. Why?
> 1. My first rule when reading the Bible is that Jesus the Christ is always God, never not God.
> 2. In Genesis 6, the angels came down and took wives and they bore children which are the Nephilim (angel/human hybrids). God destroyed all of mankind (except Noah and 7 of his family members because they were pure in their generationâno angel/human blood) with a worldwide flood.
> 3. If God flooded the earth to cause the death of angel/human hybrids back in the beginning, why would it be okay for Jesus God to marry and create God/human hybrids? Wouldnât this make God evil and contradict himself?


except god didn't flood the world because the niphilim existed, he flooded it because the nephilim and regular people were wicked


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Paumon said:


> The document isn't old news. It was only presented one year ago, and it was only this week that it was confirmed by experts that it is not a modern forgery but is indeed from an ancient document, possibly from circa 200 A.D.
> 
> I believe that Jesus was a real man who existed at the time. I'm not a Christian and I don't believe that Jesus was a Christ, a god or that he was the son of God but I do believe he was a real person who was born, lived and died.
> 
> But none of that is important to me and I don't think it's relevant to my question. What I want to know is if other people who believe that Jesus existed believe that he would have or would not have had a wife, and why they believe that. I'm not even asking if anyone thinks he was 'married' because it would not have been necessary for him to have been officially married to have had a wife. A true wife/husband is not contingent upon a marriage ceremony.


Why would you care?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Tabitha said:


> Why would you care?


Why would you ask? 

I'll need to know the following distinctions before I can respond appropriately to you so I will ask you to elaborate and tell me, are you asking me "Why would _*YOU*_ care?" or are you asking me "why would you _*CARE*_?"


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Here is a good article that explains quite a bit. It is interesting that even Professor King doesn't know what the fragment is talking about:



> In her major article released last week, Professor King defended the fragmentâs authenticity, but acknowledged that â all previous sensationalism aside â âIt is not entirely clear, however, how many women are referred to [in the fragment], who they are, precisely what is being said about them, or what larger issues are under consideration.â


http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/04...uss-wife-and-the-state-of-modern-scholarship/


----------



## HerseyMI (Jul 22, 2012)

Is there "proof"? Imperical proof... if there is then believe it.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to discuss Blood Moons, Jewish history and biblical prophecies. Imperical proof of Jesus being real may be at hand afterall?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Speaking of Jewish history how do we know Jesus didn't have more than one wife?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> Speaking of Jewish history how do we know Jesus didn't have more than one wife?



Again, based solely on the faith of those that believe He was who He was, He was perfect.
Not being stupid would certainly fall into that category.........eep:


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

From 1 Timothy, chapter 3:2
 
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of _one wife_, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;"

From Titus 1:6

" If any be blameless, the husband of _one wife_, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."

Conclusive ?

No....

Just compelling evidence supporting the Celestial preference toward _one wife_.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Hi Paumon!

I think it would be wonderful if he did have a wife, or even better, a lover  he lived as a man, experiencing all things men do, and loving a lover is certainly a big thing for humans to experience in their lives, and personally I would be disappointed if Jesus missed out. 

Jesus is about Love. So it makes sense to me that he loved with all his heart. it is VERY significant to me, that he appeared first to Mary mag after he rose from the dead. Perhaps he appeared first to the one he loved most in this world...I know it sounds heretical to suggest jesus loved some one "most". but as jesus becomes the Lover of each one of us, how can he be this perfectly without experiencing the Lover/Beloved first?

And as far as it NOT being noted in the "official" bible...such things WOULD scare the powers that be. I'm like, GO JESUS!

It is deeply meaningful to me that Jesus appeared to mary, even more so a wonder that this bit of information survived.

As far as putting a woman through the horror of his suffering and death? how many women through time have shared in this fate? I have in my own way. the only way you get through is love.

Am I being "biblical" or truw to doctrine blah blah? I really dont' care. I think the important message is love, and loving my beloved in the fullness of what can be. WWJD?!!!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

vicki in NW OH said:


> You do know that only in English is the word "Easter" used. In the rest of the Christian world the holy day is called Pascha or a derivation. Even in the Catholic churches in the U.S. we use the word Pascha or an adjective with things concering "Easter," i.e., paschal mystery, paschaltide, paschal lamb, paschal candle, and so forth. The word Easter doesn't have anything to do with Ishtar. It's derived from the Germanic languages, and it's meaning is closer to "east" or perhaps "white."


No, sorry, I know none of that.
What I do know about the 4 main languages used to translate from, I posted.
None of the 4 are Germanic, and neither is the later version that is sometimes used, the Latin Vulgate.
Since Chaldean predates Germanic, Chaldean is one of the 4 languages the bible is written in, Ishtar is the Chaldean fertility goddess (or Babylonian or Mesopotamian even), the Chaldeans have been closely aligned with the Catholic Church since its beginning, and the Chaldean word for Passover is the one mistranslated as Easter.......to conclude that it is actually from a different, later culture, would not seem wise.
What I also didn't know because I'm not Catholic and have never been to a Catholic service, is the Pascha adjectives used in Easter references. 
Pascha is of course, the Greek word, Paceach is Hebrew.
But I do find that info a little disturbing because it confirms what I've suspected about much of the confusion found in today's churches. 
The confusion isn't entirely the fault of the students, some of the teachers are intentionally creating the confusion.

ETA

This is another explanation that might be more readily accepted and is also logical. Basically that the word in Acts 12 IS supposed to be Easter, as Herod refers to his pagan celebration and it usually occurs about the same time as passover, but the days of unleavened bread (a week's worth) are referenced in verse 3 prior to the mention of Easter in verse 4.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_02.asp


----------



## bloogrssgrl (Jan 20, 2008)

Of course I have no idea but I kind of hope we was, for many of the same reasons pointed out by Wyld Thang.

And to echo her point about not sparing a woman suffering, his mother witnessed his death. She was not spared that suffering by any means. 

I imagine the wife of Jesus to be equally enlightened enough to accept that she could not change what happened, but still be at peace through her love and forgiveness.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> No, sorry, I know none of that.
> What I do know about the 4 main languages used to translate from, I posted.
> None of the 4 are Germanic, and neither is the later version that is sometimes used, the Latin Vulgate.
> Since Chaldean predates Germanic, Chaldean is one of the 4 languages the bible is written in, Ishtar is the Chaldean fertility goddess (or Babylonian or Mesopotamian even), the Chaldeans have been closely aligned with the Catholic Church since its beginning, and the Chaldean word for Passover is the one mistranslated as Easter.......to conclude that it is actually from a different, later culture, would not seem wise.
> ...


The Chaldeans have never used the word "Easter." "Easter" is a secular word. Look in your dictionary. It is derived from Old English, which is derived from Germanic. 

In Chaldean the word used is Qyamta, or Resurrection. 

The word "Easter" was not used until many centuries after the early Christians celebrated the feast of the Lord's Resurrection or Pascha.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Easter does not even show up in the Bible until later translations. The original writings had Passover because Easter wasn't a holiday in those times. Yes, the KJV has Easter but it is a mistranslation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Again, based solely on the faith of those that believe He was who He was, He was perfect.
> Not being stupid would certainly fall into that category.........eep:


You got me thinking. What is perfect? Who defines what perfect is? Off hand there are religions that wouldn't regard Jesus as perfect. Perfect in this sense seems to come from a western civilization point of view. Considered from other points of view or belief systems, Jesus was not perfect.

So where did that come from? More Roman Catholic dogma invented on the fly? If you have a new religion or product, it helps that it be special. Divinity is special. *What if Jesus was an ordinary man who had an extraordinary message? *Isn't the message the most important aspect? Does Jesus need to be prefect for the message to be embraced? Is it of any less importance if Jesus was not divine? After all we're all God's children.

What if we discover in the future that Jesus did have a wife and possibly children? Would that end Christianity as we know it? Religion has evolved and gotten mired in details and difference deemed highly relevant by the adherents. The basic message is still be the same.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> You got me thinking. What is perfect? Who defines what perfect is? Off hand there are religions that wouldn't regard Jesus as perfect. Perfect in this sense seems to come from a western civilization point of view. Considered from other points of view or belief systems, Jesus was not perfect.


I admit to a little play on words there with "perfect".
Once again, study, study, study.
Perfect is better translated as "mature" or "complete", as in spiritually complete. I'd have to look thru scripture to verify that Jesus was indeed referred to as perfect, just to make sure. He is usually referred that way by tradition, which can of course lead to trouble if not verified, lol.




Darren said:


> So where did that come from? More Roman Catholic dogma invented on the fly? If you have a new religion or product, it helps that it be special. Divinity is special. *What if Jesus was an ordinary man who had an extraordinary message? *Isn't the message the most important aspect? Does Jesus need to be prefect for the message to be embraced? Is it of any less importance if Jesus was not divine? After all we're all God's children.


On that point I have to disagree. His divinity and purpose are the foundation of Christianity. If that part isn't true, the whole thing is a fraud and a sham.




Darren said:


> What if we discover in the future that Jesus did have a wife and possibly children? Would that end Christianity as we know it? Religion has evolved and gotten mired in details and difference deemed highly relevant by the adherents. The basic message is still be the same.


No, it would make no difference as having a wife and/or children does not constitute a sin.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I admit to a little play on words there with "perfect".
> Once again, study, study, study.
> Perfect is better translated as "mature". I'd have to look thru scripture to verify that Jesus was indeed referred to as perfect, just to make sure. He is usually referred that way by tradition, which can of course lead to trouble if not verified, lol.
> 
> ...


 I agree that Jesus having a family wouldn't have automatically been sinful.

Just because the advertising is false, doesn't necessarily mean the product isn't worthwhile. Why gild the lilly meaning the purpose? There were obvious reasons in the early days of the Church. Now, not so much.

Would the message lose its importance if Jesus was not divine? Is that why people have a problem with the possibility that Jesus had a wife? If he had a wife does that mean he could not be divine?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> I agree that Jesus having a family wouldn't have automatically been sinful.
> 
> Just because the advertising is false, doesn't necessarily mean the product isn't worthwhile. Why gild the lilly meaning the purpose? There were obvious reasons in the early days of the Church. Now, not so much.
> 
> Would the message lose its importance if Jesus was not divine? Is that why people have a problem with the possibility that Jesus had a wife? If he had a wife does that mean he could not be divine?



I'm not sure about your last question, I don't know, probably not.
Although one poster brought up the Nephalim from Genesis, so maybe not.
But I'm also not sure what you know or don't know or have or haven't been taught about Jesus.
He wasn't here to bring a message of salvation as much as to BE the salvation. That was His purpose, to be the true Passover Lamb to save us from spiritual death. If anyone else or anything else could have done it before, He wouldn't have any purpose at all.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Darren said:


> Would the message lose its importance if Jesus was not divine? Is that why people have a problem with the possibility that Jesus had a wife? If he had a wife does that mean he could not be divine?


I don't think that the message would lose its importance for most people but I think for some people it would be a terrible problem if Jesus was proven to have a wife. To them it would mean he was not divine, no longer perfect and pure, that he would have become unclean.

I was reading some of the stuff by Opus Dei and what they have there as their reasons for denouncing the possibility of Jesus having a closer relationship with Mary M, and about the uncleaness and lasciviousness of all women ..... it made me want to take a long, hot, disinfecting shower. I think that if it were proven that Jesus had a wife all of the folks involved with Opus Dei would be blown away and immediately commit harakiri.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That is where the history of the Roman Catholic Church is interesting. I found a history of Judaism that I started reading the winter before last. It's interesting in its treatment of the Talmud and the corresponding development of Roman Catholic dogma including how, when and why the development occurred.

I can understand the viewpoint of Opus Dei simply because of the profound investment in their belief. It's sort of like making sausage. You may not want to know how was made. The same goes for Western religion. How it was made explains how it got where it is today. At some point the history became irrelevant for believers in the divinity of Jesus. In fact the history could be disturbing for some even though it's an interesting insight into power and the control it provided.

For me whether Jesus was married is irrelevant. It doesn't change the message.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> and about the uncleaness and lasciviousness of all women .....


Well I'm certainly doing MY part! :nanner:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> > and about the uncleaness and lasciviousness of all women .....
> 
> 
> Well I'm certainly doing MY part! :nanner:


Well maybe you are but if you are then I imagine it's by choice, not due to the circumstances of your birth. Just to be clear about it, uncleaness and lasciviousness were the words used in the writings of Opus Dei, they weren't my choice of words. And what they were indicating is that all women are born that way because ..... well because they are women and women are apparently some kind of inferior, not-quite-human beings that are born unclean, sexually sinful and corrupt and possessing the power to corrupt men. That if Jesus were to have had an intimate relationship with a woman he would have been corrupted because of it so of course being a supposed deity he would not be permitted to have a relationship with a woman. The very idea is unthinkable. Shocking and blasphemous to even think of it. 

Unfortunately Opus Dei hasn't been the only religious group that holds women in such regard attributing them with powers of vile corruption over men and it's from these other preceding religious groups that Opus Dei even came up with the idea. So I think it's this fear of women that caused the church to omit any information in the bible about Jesus relationship with a wife and to further the suppression of women in both the church and in society and in some sects that attitude is still rubbing off onto adherents.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

Paumon said:


> That if Jesus were to have had an intimate relationship with a woman he would have been corrupted because of it so of course being a supposed deity he would not be permitted to have a relationship with a woman. The very idea is unthinkable. Shocking and blasphemous to even think of it. .


He would not have been unclean to have touched a woman, He would have been unclean to have become "one flesh" with a sinful human.

The act of marriage has the spiritual effect of merging two souls into one.

_"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." _- Genesis 2:24

He could not become one soul with any human being because all were flawed and all had sinned. His sinlessness and spiritual cleanness were necessary to fulfill the requirements of being the "lamb without spot" given for the sins of the world.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> ..... because all were flawed and all had sinned. His sinlessness and spiritual cleanness were necessary to fulfill the requirements of being the "lamb without spot" given for the sins of the world.


Okay, that's what you believe and I can accept that you are comfortable in believing that. 

The concept of humans being born into sin is not acceptable to me though. I don't believe that all are flawed and all have sinned, I don't believe in sins of the world and I especially don't believe that women are born more sinful than men. It all sounds like a cop out, like some kind of lame excuse for ..... well I don't know what it's an excuse for but there's something unstable and unreasonable, not right or realistic about it. I think it's a preposterous notion that makes no sense to me and frankly I don't understand how anyone else can believe that let alone _want_ to believe it. :huh:

But then - I believe in invocations, in magic and the power of crystals, astrology, metaphysics, the power of the mind, telepathy and other mystical things of that ilk - and I accept that there are people who don't understand those things and could never permit themselves to believe in them because of their own religions and belief systems - so I guess that makes us even.

I'm still positive that Jesus had a wife, that she was Mary Magdalene, and I think Jesus believed in a lot of the things I believe in and he would have not believed that all people were born into sin.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

Don't we all believe "nobody's perfect", even if we're not Christian? I've never met anyone who never did anything wrong. Certainly not me. I sin every day. We have a hard time admitting that we aren't "good enough" on our own, but if we had a standard and thus a Creator who was less than perfect, there would be no justice for anyone in the end. I can't think of a greater mercy than a sacrifice of that which is perfect to make those of us who aren't, able to partake in a future without evil.

The bible never talks about women being more sinful than men. In fact Jesus was born of a woman but without a human father because original sin is passed down by the man, not the woman to their offspring. Though both are equal partakers in human fallen nature, the woman does not pass on the fallen nature, only the man does.



Paumon said:


> But then - I believe in invocations, in magic and the power of crystals, astrology, metaphysics, the power of the mind, telepathy and other mystical things of that ilk - and I accept that there are people who don't understand those things and could never permit themselves to believe in them because of their own religions and belief systems - so I guess that makes us even.


I Believe those things exist and have power also. I've been on that side of things. I just know a Greater Power now.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Did Jesus have a wife? Probably and possibly even more then one which was the marital custom of the time for Jews - as it was absolutely the custom and duty for all men to marry and marry at a young age with arranged marriages as the norm. 

The difference between the Jewish culture of the time and what has become the Christian culture (don't forget Christianity did not exist before this) is that the Jewish marriage was not based on procreation. Procreation was a duty but not the sole nor main basis of marriage. Sex was considered very important to the point that it was included in marriage contracts for both the wife and the husband. 

And since Jesus was a mortal man (sent to experience life on earth according to those who believe he is the son of god) he would probably have followed the customs of his time. And those who think women are impure - how ridiculous.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

PricklyThistle said:


> Don't we all believe "nobody's perfect", even if we're not Christian? I've never met anyone who never did anything wrong. Certainly not me. I sin every day. We have a hard time admitting that we aren't "good enough" on our own, but if we had a standard and thus a Creator who was less than perfect, there would be no justice for anyone in the end. I can't think of a greater mercy than a sacrifice of that which is perfect to make those of us who aren't, able to partake in a future without evil.
> 
> The bible never talks about women being more sinful than men. In fact Jesus was born of a woman but without a human father because original sin is passed down by the man, not the woman to their offspring. Though both are equal partakers in human fallen nature, the woman does not pass on the fallen nature, only the man does.


No, as I mentioned above I don't accept that concept, especially not the part about sacrificing something that is perfect. I think it's an unhealthy line of thought. It makes me feel very sorry for Jesus. Don't get me wrong, I really like Jesus but I don't like a lot of what the Christian religion has done to him and tried to make him out to be. I feel sad for him that in having perfection and deity imposed upon him the poor guy has been deprived of his humanity. And deprived of a wife and family.

Original sin = concupiscence https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-....0...1ac..34.heirloom-hp..0.1.313.AZco93GI4Ow



PricklyThistle said:


> I Believe those things exist and have power also. I've been on that side of things. I just know a Greater Power now.


I know the one and only greatest power. That is God. The one God. All things that exist are tools that God created for a purpose, and all people are one in God. Even those who don't know it and use different tools from each other.

Here's a little bit of trivia about God and perfection. This is something I learned about artisans over the years in my studies of different religions and cultures.

Many artisans of all cultures around the world have a tradition which continues from thousands of years ago and on up to this day. It is the belief that no artisan can create a perfect work of art and that to try to do so would be the same as trying to be like God, which would be a human conceit and an affront to God. So, to honour God's perfection and to show that they understand they can never match God's perfect creations these artisans will always ensure that there is some deliberate small imperfection showing in their own creations. Very often the imperfections are so un-noticeable that one has to look for them but if the work is examined closely and long enough eventually the deliberate imperfection will be found and it will be very evident that it was a deliberate imperfection created by the artisan.

This tradition is common in many cultures and it goes so far back in the past to times long before people of different civilizations had any contact with other people of other civilizations. The tradition is as globally common as God is no matter which name God is known by or what religion people may practise (or not practise).


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

God was there with the first people and they learned from Him. His interaction with humanity predates all written tradition and I agree that people everywhere still retain some of that knowledge of Him. Our own souls resonate a need for Him and He calls out to our spirits even in our most imperfect states of being just because He loves us.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

A couple of people have mentioned 'original sin', to me it would be a laughable concept if it were not so ingrained in many denominations.

I defy anyone to look at a newborn infant and explain in a rational manner what sin its guilty of.

I don't believe its possible for a child to sin until it knows right from wrong, even Jesus said to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must become as a little child.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

If you plant a tree, when does it become a certain type of tree? Is it that type of tree from the getgo, or when it bears fruit? (Or acorns, pine cones, etc) Same w/people. We do not become sinners when we sin, that just proves that we are sinners. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, the first word both of my kids learned was no. And when told to do something, they said NO! We don't need to teach our kids to do wrong, they do it all on their own.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

dizzy said:


> If you plant a tree, when does it become a certain type of tree? Is it that type of tree from the getgo, or when it bears fruit? (Or acorns, pine cones, etc) Same w/people. We do not become sinners when we sin, that just proves that we are sinners. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, the first word both of my kids learned was no. And when told to do something, they said NO! We don't need to teach our kids to do wrong, they do it all on their own.


Comparing a type of tree with sin - sorry, I said "rationally"


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

You're missing my point. This is something that most people can understand and makes sense to them. An apple tree does not become an apple tree when it gets apples, but the apples only prove that it is an apple tree. We do not become sinners when we sin, that only proves that we are sinners. If you choose not to accept that, that is your right.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Darren said:


> Why would Jesus ask that when he had siblings?


The "disciple Jesus loved" was Lazarus, and they were not related as far as I can tell.

This is the same Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead. John was not with Mary at the cross. That inner circle was momentarily scattered.

I know, I know...tradition says the "disciple Jesus loved" was John. But I am convinced otherwise...and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :spinsmiley:


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> A couple of people have mentioned 'original sin', to me it would be a laughable concept if it were not so ingrained in many denominations.
> 
> I defy anyone to look at a newborn infant and explain in a rational manner what sin its guilty of.
> 
> I don't believe its possible for a child to sin until it knows right from wrong, even Jesus said to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must become as a little child.


Well, I could throw some Paul at you, but I know how you fell about him! :catfight:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dizzy said:


> If you plant a tree, when does it become a certain type of tree? Is it that type of tree from the getgo, or when it bears fruit? (Or acorns, pine cones, etc) Same w/people. We do not become sinners when we sin, that just proves that we are sinners. I'm sure I'm not alone in this, *the first word both of my kids learned was no. And when told to do something, they said NO! We don't need to teach our kids to do wrong, they do it all on their own*.


I don't know if that's a good example of sin in children. To me that's more like a kid trying to exercise free will and independence. All babies are born with free will. Sin is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder ..... in this case the parent is the beholder. If a parent perceives sin in a young child who doesn't know better but is trying to exercise free will, then the sin is the perception of the parent only, not the child. To the child, they are just trying to exercise free will as an independent individual. Children are born without sin and as they grow they learn sins from their parents and their peers.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

mnn2501 said:


> A couple of people have mentioned 'original sin', to me it would be a laughable concept if it were not so ingrained in many denominations.
> 
> I defy anyone to look at a newborn infant and explain in a rational manner what sin its guilty of.
> 
> I don't believe its possible for a child to sin until it knows right from wrong, even Jesus said to enter the Kingdom of Heaven you must become as a little child.


Original sin does not equate to guilt. It is the inborn predisposition to sin which becomes evident when the child reaches such an age that they understand right from wrong and make that first decision to do wrong. Anyone who at least makes it to that age Will do wrong. We all have.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

Paumon said:


> Sin is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder .....


We humans have differing ideas of right and wrong, but if there is no Absolute and Perfect measure of right and wrong, which can not be disputed, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, it's all opinion. 

If there is no moral standard then we exist in a universe where there will never be justice and there is no point in what you consider "wrong" to ever cease because it's all subjective.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> We humans have differing ideas of right and wrong, but if there is no Absolute and Perfect measure of right and wrong, which can not be disputed, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, it's all opinion.


Which is exactly the case. The opinions that prevail are codified into law or social mores. People who disagree with the laws or mores (in a free society, at least) usually protest and plead their case in the marketplace of ideas. Sometimes they are successful having standards changed in their favor.



> If there is no moral standard then we exist in a universe where there will never be justice


Now, why would you say that? Because we do, in fact, live in a universe without an objection moral standard, and sometimes justice does prevail. Not always -- not as often as we'd like it to, perhaps -- but sometimes humans do get it right. 



> and there is no point in what you consider "wrong" to ever cease because it's all subjective.


It_ is_ all subjective, but that doesn't stop people from taking extreme measures -- in some cases, even losing their lives -- to stand up for what they believe is right. And so it has been down through the ages, and it probably will continue until the end of time. Morality will either be imposed by despots, or hashed out in the court of public opinion, and it will change over time. I'm an optimist, so I'd like to believe a certain man was correct when he said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Religion is something that holds the ultimate promise. That promise has been the basis for a lot of good and bad in the world. But if you believe in a religion's dogma you've bought insurance, in a manner, of speaking for that part of your existence after your sojuorn here.

The last time I was in a church I found myself getting angry. The people were nice and outwardly friendly. It was the fire and brimstone sermon that riled me up. I left thinking if the man was right, hell must be constantly expanding. After all if you didn't believe as he did, that's where you were headed. A lot of people back in history must have gone to hell according to him

That got me wondering about all the people who walked this Earth and ultimately died without the benefit of modern religion. Are some still standing in line waiting to get into hell? At this point it must be standing room only. Religion is faith. You can't look up reviews from those who have permanently left the material plane on the internet.

Religion is an anchor for those that need that type of assurance in order to live their material lives and believe in an ultimate reward. I have no problem with that. It seems odd that a life that lasted less than an eye blink in the existence of the universe determines the soul's destination for eternity.

Man is good at categorizing. We've cataloged plants, animals, rocks, etc. You name it and we've pigeon holed it. It gives us a sense of understanding and control over our environment. Classifying actions as good or bad is similar. If you're bad, you go to hell. If you're good, you go to heaven. That works for a lot of people. The fine print eases the minds of many.

I liked the movie What Dreams Will Come. I think the writer got one part correct. Some day I'll know for sure. Until then, I'll continue studying the development of the Roman Catholic Church's product marketing plan. It's an eye opener. It's also a best seller.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Darren said:


> That got me wondering about all the people who walked this Earth and ultimately died without the benefit of modern religion. Are some still standing in line waiting to get into hell? At this point it must be standing room only.


That would be unfair of God.
You should look into LDS beliefs on the subject.
Its the only religion that has, in my opinion, a logical answer to the above question.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I don't know if that's a good example of sin in children. To me that's more like a kid trying to exercise free will and independence. All babies are born with free will. Sin is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder ..... in this case the parent is the beholder. If a parent perceives sin in a young child who doesn't know better but is trying to exercise free will, then the sin is the perception of the parent only, not the child. To the child, they are just trying to exercise free will as an independent individual. Children are born without sin and as they grow they learn sins from their parents and their peers.



I cannot agree w/this. The Bible states otherwise, specifically in Psalm 51:5. Here's a link to a bunch of different translations. http://biblehub.com/psalms/51-5.htm

The problem that many face w/trying to understand things from the Bible is because they reject the very notion of God. To them, the teachings from the Bible are foolishness. http://biblehub.com/parallel/1_corinthians/2-14.htm And that is one reason that you will not normally see me participating in this type of thread, or if I do, it's very little. The Bible talks also about not casting your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dizzy said:


> ....... The Bible talks also about not casting your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


That's probably really good advice. In this age of internet everyone's a religious philosopher and pious pearls are cheaper than dirt on forums these days. Then the philosophers get in a snit when others disagree with them. So why bother, eh?

This here old sow with rubies in her eyes prefers gold and diamonds to trample underfoot anyways.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Whenever I read or hear discussions like this (here on HT or elsewhere) it makes me wonder if the Bible and organized religion are actually the Devil's tools introduced to divide up humanity. People spend so much of their time trying to decide which verse/paragraph/word means what based on some translation(s) from some ancient language(s) and each basing the moral path of their lives based on what they think is right. Christianity (and I assume other religions) have fractured into so many different divisions and denominations with each controlling the lives of their followers according to their own convictions and most believing they are "the way". This is generally harmless until it starts pitting people against each other, breaking up families and marginalizing and oppressing people who don't believe as they do.

Personally, I"m fascinated by discussions like this on a historical basis. I believe a lot of the events happened although I don't believe in the divinity of the characters. However, I think many people don't see the forest for the trees, bickering about exact meanings of words and phrases while losing sight of the basic message of treating others as we would like to be treated and show compassion and love to everyone regardless of a difference of opinion.

Did Jesus have a wife? I think it's completely within the realm of possibility but I don't think it changes his message one bit. I would be very interested to find out if he did, though.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's a big difference in history from the time of mostly oral traditions to now when books are commonplace. Seeing the great cathedrals of Europe is an education. Why would a labyrinth be included? Why were stories from the Bible carved in wood? The cathedrals and aspects of religion co-opted pagan practices as a means of transition. Cathedrals were teaching tools. That message is mostly lost today when we have almost universal literacy.

While it looks pretty today and many would have no idea of its importance long ago, it was an essential aspect of the Roman Catholic Church's quest. We're the beneficiaries or victims, if you will, of a long ago power struggle. The Church won in the West. Unfortunately not understanding the development of the legacy has blinded many to how we got to where we are.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Darren said:


> Religion is something that holds the ultimate promise. That promise has been the basis for a lot of good and bad in the world. But if you believe in a religion's dogma you've bought insurance, in a manner, of speaking for that part of your existence after your sojuorn here.
> 
> The last time I was in a church I found myself getting angry. The people were nice and outwardly friendly. It was the fire and brimstone sermon that riled me up. I left thinking if the man was right, hell must be constantly expanding. After all if you didn't believe as he did, that's where you were headed. A lot of people back in history must have gone to hell according to him
> 
> ...



I'm saddened but not surprised. That kind of ignorance is still rampant today in spite of the fact the Bible clearly states more than once that no one has yet been judged ....... to anywhere.
Oh well, all we can do is try.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

So what if Jesus was not divine? Let's move on from Jesus as husband and maybe even father to the question of when did he become divine. If he was never divine does that mean his message has no meaning?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...god-with-book-on-how-god-became-jesus-118486/


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

Well, it would make His message not unlike a modern lunatic shouting in the streets that he was god and the only way anyone could be saved, so I'd say He was either Truly who he said He was, or He was insane. 

If you want to believe the Bible misrepresents Him then you really have no idea who this guy was, what He said and if you'd have agreed with any of it so any message He'd have had would be a moot point.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Now, why would you say that? Because we do, in fact, live in a universe without an objection moral standard, and sometimes justice does prevail. Not always -- not as often as we'd like it to, perhaps -- but sometimes humans do get it right.


"Right" according to whom? You or me?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

lessons learned from my kids...first off I was raised Christian and that has been my framework to hang things on, but as always the things I hang are my own and where I choose to hang them is my choice. AS I've journeyed through life the labels needed or the need to use the right labels have fallen away as the thing the labels try to name has become more real to me. 

I chose to not raise my kids "in" my Christian faith. When asked I would tell how I was raised and how I made choices on my actions based on my faith. As far as teaching them right and wrong, I would create and build on their positive healthful qualities and actions, and point out where negative and unhealthful actions led to not so nice consequences. If they asked me a question about "religious" things I would answer from my heart and from what I think, myself, not the dogma. I also said when they are grown and ready to think through such things they can follow their heart and choose their own path, and that I would be proud of them WHATEVER path they choose(well except something like murderer of course--or judgemental control freak that is entirely sanctified, I confess that would be a heavy cross to bear...). I told them that every culture has their own search for "God", so this question is part of what makes us human.

So, heavy on "be kind and compassionate" --which btw the brunt of that message lies in the example of the parent MODELING this value! and really non existant on the brimstone. just plain ol consequence and "you break it you fix it" worked great for hard knocks.

My kids have come through hell (not of their own making, mostly, of course there were some things they made harder for themselves by their choices, and one of them I get on my kneed every day and thank Jesus he is not in a fed penn for stupidity!). I can't tell you how proud I am of them. They have come through knowing, deep through their whole being, how strong and powerful REAL love is, how strong they are themselves in making their own choices, and they value other people and strive to care for them with kindness and compassion. One kid had a profound encounter with God/the All One/Universe that he will never forget and that has enlightened him years beyond his years--and I will say it came through the iffy choice of a mushroom trip in an extremely stressed and anguished mental state, but I'm in awe of how that experience changed him. Looking at his transformation from my growing up churchness perspective most folks would say he found jesus and is full of the spirit etc. but those church folks would totally denounce it because it came from a mushroom trip (or as I would say God chose to use the mushroom trip to say "hey! I am here with you!")--not the formulaic jesus prayer and hoops to jump to prove salvation.

all that is to say, I have tried to live my life with eyes wide open, without judging, to see things as they are, and while that sight comes with a tremendous cost(YES it does, dont' ask for it unless you can take the beating), everything is just WOW. AND I am SO glad I gave my kids the freedom to make their own way. Again, I am utterly proud of them. And honestly I can look at our story together and I can see how if I had pounded Jesus into them the regular way they would have been very ill prepared and had a lot more damage.

There are a lot of cultures that discipline their children through modeling positive behavior and giving attention and praise to positive behavior, that for the most part negative behavior fades away because positive behavior is productive and healthy, and biologically, nature is set up to "reward" a thriving organism--the non thrivers get recycled.

And the mushrooms? my kid said he saw God so hard that he doesn't need another trip. That one was both satisfying and terrifying enough he'll leave them alone. Yay for touching the stove . And ... next time he'll be sure to take his shoes off before he steps into the burning bush .


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

PS, I so see the wonderful qualities in innocent, naÃ¯ve (in the best sense of the word) children. Out of the mouths of babes. They are a most wonderful link back to The Garden, when man walked with God in pure friendship and intimacy. That is why we must become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Children are innocent of the Knowledge of Good and Evil until we beat it into them. I believe a lot of badness we perceive in children is really a result of our unmindfulness and laziness as an adult that has learned the knowledge of good and evil. We can un-eat the apple from the tree in becoming a child. Follow the wonder and joy and puddle stomping and slug eating.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

God Willow I love your mind


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Darren said:


> So what if Jesus was not divine? Let's move on from Jesus as husband and maybe even father to the question of when did he become divine. If he was never divine does that mean his message has no meaning?
> 
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...god-with-book-on-how-god-became-jesus-118486/


That is exactly what it would mean. He claimed to be God.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> PS, I so see the wonderful qualities in innocent, naÃ¯ve (in the best sense of the word) children. Out of the mouths of babes. They are a most wonderful link back to The Garden, when man walked with God in pure friendship and intimacy.


I have always thought the Genesis story of Adam and Eve in the Garden was a wonderful allegory of man's journey from infancy to adulthood.

We start out as babes in a paradise where all things are provided to us by a loving parent, but we aren't content to remain there, in childish passivity. Ultimately, we reject eternal childhood -- we want to be adults, too, and eat from the Tree of the Fruit of Forbidden Knowledge! We want to be independent and, yes, sexual beings, so we reject the parent, and are cast out of the paradise of childhood forever, into a hard and cruel world.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yeah, it's called growing up and becoming independent and responsible for oneself. But just because a kid is growing up and learning independence and responsibility doesn't mean it's turned into a sinful being.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I think I'm going to convert to Willowism...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yeah, it's called growing up and becoming independent and responsible for oneself. But just because a kid is growing up and learning independence and responsibility doesn't mean it's turned into a sinful being.


But it's necessary for religion to promulgate the message that mankind is sinful and in need of savior. After all, it's hard to sell someone something unless they feel a deficiency, hence a need for your product.

If a woman already thinks she's beautiful, you're going to have a tough time getting her to buy wrinkle cream! On a similar note, if my soul is already at peace, what need have I for your religion (and, heh, its collection plate)?

So the first job of any proper religion is to convince the pagan that there's something wrong with him.

(Me? I'm not buying it.)


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Truckinguy said:


> I think I'm going to convert to Willowism...


BTW, my first name IRL is Judy, so you could call it ... "Judyism." ound:


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

As newborn babies desire the sincere milk of the Word, that you may grow with it

And if in so doing you have tasted that the Lord is gracious

To who in coming, as a Living Stone, *rejected indeed of men but chosen of God and precious.* - 1 Peter 2:2-4


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

PricklyThistle said:


> As newborn babies desire the sincere milk of the Word, that you may grow with it
> 
> And if in so doing you have tasted that the Lord is gracious
> 
> To who in coming, as a Living Stone, *rejected indeed of men but chosen of God and precious.* - 1 Peter 2:2-4


What does that mean? Call me dense but I have read and reread it still have no idea.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> BTW, my first name IRL is Judy, so you could call it ... "Judyism." ound:


Ok, I'm in! Can we keep the fasting to a minimum and I need my bible in large print please. :grin:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

You won't even need a Bible, my friend, as the entire creed can be summed up in a single sentence ... one you probably know already!

It is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That's pretty much all there is to it. 

I don't even have a collection plate. ound:


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

no really said:


> What does that mean? Call me dense but I have read and reread it still have no idea.


It simply means that God sent Jesus into the world knowing that the world would reject Him and that human nature hates to face its own failure, thus hates to face the need for the remedy. 

If we give Him the chance to open our eyes...we will experience His love and mercy for what it really is, so even though he is an offense to the world at large...to God the Father and to all of us who call on the Name of Jesus...He is precious.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

no really said:


> What does that mean? Call me dense but I have read and reread it still have no idea.


Don't feel bad, that version didn't make sense to me either until I read some different versions. Try this, http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-4.htm and scroll down to the parallel commentaries as well. 

It offers several bible versions and explanations of that verse but the verse in reality is not actually saying anything meaningful or meaty to non-Christian believers (in a nutshell it's that Jesus is honoured by God and is the foundation stone of Christianity to Christian *believers* only, starting from infancy onwards). To anyone who is not a Christian believer it doesn't apply to them and would be just more rhetoric that isn't saying anything with meat on it.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Truckinguy said:


> Whenever I read or hear discussions like this (here on HT or elsewhere) it makes me wonder if the Bible and organized religion are actually the Devil's tools introduced to divide up humanity. People spend so much of their time trying to decide which verse/paragraph/word means what based on some translation(s) from some ancient language(s) and each basing the moral path of their lives based on what they think is right. Christianity (and I assume other religions) have fractured into so many different divisions and denominations with each controlling the lives of their followers according to their own convictions and most believing they are "the way". This is generally harmless until it starts pitting people against each other, breaking up families and marginalizing and oppressing people who don't believe as they do.
> 
> Personally, I"m fascinated by discussions like this on a historical basis. I believe a lot of the events happened although I don't believe in the divinity of the characters.* However, I think many people don't see the forest for the trees, bickering about exact meanings of words and phrases while losing sight of the basic message of treating others as we would like to be treated and show compassion and love to everyone regardless of a difference of opinion.*
> 
> Did Jesus have a wife? I think it's completely within the realm of possibility but I don't think it changes his message one bit. I would be very interested to find out if he did, though.


I think this whole post just needed to be repeated, and I think I'll convert to Truckinguyism. :happy2:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Don't feel bad, that version didn't make sense to me either until I read some different versions. Try this, http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-4.htm and scroll down to the parallel commentaries as well.
> 
> It offers several bible versions and explanations of that verse but the verse in reality is not actually saying anything meaningful or meaty to non-Christian believers (in a nutshell it's that Jesus is honoured by God and is the foundation stone of Christianity to Christian *believers* only, starting from infancy onwards). To anyone who is not a Christian believer it doesn't apply to them and would be just more rhetoric that isn't saying anything with meat on it.


Thanks for that link, it is more informative.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Paumon said:


> I think this whole post just needed to be repeated, and I think I'll convert to Truckinguyism. :happy2:


Thank you. I think you'll find it's surprisingly similar to Judyism (Or Willowism if you prefer). :happy2:

I do find discussions like this very interesting as I love history and finding out how people lived a long time ago. However, it does bother me that people guide their lives by words that are always up for debate and interpretation and the meaning can change based on someone's view on the original language.

Most Christians I know don't have the knowledge to do their own interpretation from the original manuscripts, let alone the time and access to them so have to rely on others for the end product. They may all follow the same basic gist but I have read a couple of different Bibles and the wording is slightly different.

What if some new manuscripts were discovered or some archeological evidence was discovered that proved Jesus did have a wife? Would that shake Christianity to it's foundations? Would it cause people to question their entire spiritual path? Hopefully they would find that fact incidental and continue to follow his messages, which, quite frankly, were very positive and contained a lot of good advice for living well. He spent a lot of his time with the lower end of society who, I assume, weren't highly educated so I doubt he meant for his message to be torn apart and discussed word by word and phrase by phrase. He spread a simple message of love, compassion and forgiveness and I think modern organized religion in general has lost sight of that for the most part.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

One would think that if a Bible were so fundamental to correct thinking, Jesus would have written it himself, and not left it to be assembled by chance, via committee, a couple hundred years after the fact. No?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> One would think that if a Bible were so fundamental to correct thinking, Jesus would have written it himself, and not left it to be assembled by chance, via committee, a couple hundred years after the fact. No?


That makes you wonder if Jesus was literate. Was he able to read and write Aramaic? Since it's accepted he was a carpenter, that would have been a trade taught by apprenticeship meaning he did not necessarily need to be able to read. I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that people in those times were mostly illiterate. 

It still comes back to the message which the early Church apparently felt was not good enough to gain the support they needed especially from rulers and a society that followed a religion that was the antithesis of Christianity. The Church's proscription of reincarnation is something that should raise questions. Jesus was resurrected not reincarnated although he looked different. 

You have to wonder about the Christian sects that retained a belief in reincarnation along with the Jewish sects that believed the same. By ridding themselves of reincarnation which promised do overs, so to speak, the Church forced people into an either or situation with heaven or hell. You have a choice boy. What's it going to be? Let me think on it doesn't work in that situation. 

Purgatory is another oddity to answer questions from folks who wondered how the answer to life's central question had to be black or white. The Church had to accommodate the gray areas.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You have a choice boy. What's it going to be? Let me think on it doesn't work in that situation.


Didn't turn out so great in this situation either! ound:
[YOUTUBE]C11MzbEcHlw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Marthas_minis (Jan 28, 2014)

I think it's entirely plausible that Jesus had a wife. 
There are some great books out there that were written originally as academic papers regarding the role of women in Christianity and the agreement with all of them was based on what was verifiable & historically known about followers of Christ during that time. It was illegal to be a Christian & it was known that the Romans would slaughter entire families if they were found to be Christian. Makes sense these men would either not marry or hide the fact they were married to protect their families.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> One would think that if a Bible were so fundamental to correct thinking, Jesus would have written it himself, and not left it to be assembled by chance, via committee, a couple hundred years after the fact. No?



Some of us know that He did..........


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Now, if the next accusation is that EVERYTHING is supposed to be written and explained in the Bible, John 21 addresses that too.

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.






Darren said:


> That makes you wonder if Jesus was literate. Was he able to read and write Aramaic? Since it's accepted he was a carpenter, that would have been a trade taught by apprenticeship meaning he did not necessarily need to be able to read. I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that people in those times were mostly illiterate.


Forgot about Him reading from Isaiah in Luke ch. 4 and teaching at the age of 12 in the Temple in Luke ch. 3?



Darren said:


> It still comes back to the message which the early Church apparently felt was not good enough to gain the support they needed especially from rulers and a society that followed a religion that was the antithesis of Christianity. The Church's proscription of reincarnation is something that should raise questions. Jesus was resurrected not reincarnated although he looked different.
> 
> You have to wonder about the Christian sects that retained a belief in reincarnation along with the Jewish sects that believed the same. By ridding themselves of reincarnation which promised do overs, so to speak, the Church forced people into an either or situation with heaven or hell. You have a choice boy. What's it going to be? Let me think on it doesn't work in that situation.
> 
> Purgatory is another oddity to answer questions from folks who wondered how the answer to life's central question had to be black or white. The Church had to accommodate the gray areas.



Again, if you read the book and listen to the Spirit, all those questions are answered.
However don't be surprised if those answers don't match the teachings of a particular church or denomination. Traditions of men are very powerful to overcome.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Again, if you read the book and listen to the Spirit, all those questions are answered.


The problem with listening to "the Spirit," otherwise known as "That Little Voice in Your Head," is that it seems rather unreliable, IMO.

I mean, "the Spirit" calls one man to devoting his life to revealing God's love to slum-dwellers, which is all well and good, I suppose. But what are we to make of the man who hears God telling him to invade Iraq? Or the woman who believes she's been instructed to drown her children in the bathtub? 

We can say that some of those people misunderstood the message, and perhaps should have stuck to trying to decipher the lyrics to "Blinded by the Light." Some might argue that the voice they heard perhaps didn't originate from God, but from Satan (or schizophrenia). But how can we be sure, really? It's all subjective.

Now, the Golden Rule may not provide sufficient guidance in every case, but generally speaking, it seems a bit more reliable than the ol' "Voice in Your Head." I think I'll stick with it ... thanks.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> The problem with listening to "the Spirit," otherwise known as "That Little Voice in Your Head," is that it seems rather unreliable, IMO.
> 
> I mean, "the Spirit" calls one man to devoting his life to revealing God's love to slum-dwellers, which is all well and good, I suppose. But what are we to make of the man who hears God telling him to invade Iraq? Or the woman who believes she's been instructed to drown her children in the bathtub?
> 
> ...




I never said listen to the "little voice in your head", that was an attempt to twist my words into something entirely opposite from what I said. You are welcome to follow whatever or whomever you wish, but please don't try to misguide others with deceit and then give the credit to me.

Those other "voices" you refer to are demonic, and NOT the Holy Spirit.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> One would think that if a Bible were so fundamental to correct thinking, Jesus would have written it himself, and not left it to be assembled by chance, via committee, a couple hundred years after the fact. No?


Problem is, that many people think it was written and assembled by God, inerrant, perfect, historical, and says exactly what God wants it to say.

Don't get me wrong here, I am a Christian who loves the Bible, but i understand how it was put together and by whom. There are many good lessons on life inside its covers, its just *not* perfect/historical/inerrant, or preserved by God, and it does not have to be.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Darren said:


> That makes you wonder if Jesus was literate. Was he able to read and write Aramaic? Since it's accepted he was a carpenter, that would have been a trade taught by apprenticeship meaning he did not necessarily need to be able to read. I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that people in those times were mostly illiterate.


Yes, Jesus could read and write and do figures, in all likelihood he also spoke other common dialects and languages of the regions. Jesus was the son of Joseph, a carpenter _by trade_ (think in terms of a builder and contractor) but Joseph was never a poor man and he was a well educated person. The family was quite wealthy, in part because of the great wealth bestowed upon the family when Jesus was a baby. That alone would have been enough right there to set the whole family up in luxury for life even if Joseph had been a spendthrift, which he was not, he was a very frugal and cautious man. But even before Jesus was born, Joseph was already an old man in his 90's, a widower with grown adult children and grandchildren and he had a position of respectability and high standing in the town where he lived and he wasn't uneducated or poor by any stretch of the imagination. Someone in his position would have naturally ensured that his own children were well educated.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I never said listen to the "little voice in your head",


I'll grant you that, but ...



> that was an attempt to twist my words into something entirely opposite from what I said. You are welcome to follow whatever or whomever you wish, but please don't try to misguide others with deceit and then give the credit to me.
> 
> Those other "voices" you refer to are demonic, and NOT the Holy Spirit.


How can you tell, though? My first example was imaginary, but evidently George W. Bush and Andrea Yates sincerely believed they were following orders from headquarters! Who's to say they were wrong?

Actually, it's fairly common for people to believe that God has spoken to them, isn't it? It's only when they become too abrasive or bizarre in their behavior that we lock them up and give them Thorazine. ound:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Paumon said:


> Yes, Jesus could read and write and do figures, in all likelihood he also spoke other common dialects and languages of the regions. Jesus was the son of Joseph, a carpenter _by trade_ (think in terms of a builder and contractor) but Joseph was never a poor man and he was a well educated person. The family was quite wealthy, in part because of the great wealth bestowed upon the family when Jesus was a baby. That alone would have been enough right there to set the whole family up in luxury for life even if Joseph had been a spendthrift, which he was not, he was a very frugal and cautious man. But even before Jesus was born, Joseph was already an old man in his 90's, a widower with grown adult children and grandchildren and he had a position of respectability and high standing in the town where he lived and he wasn't uneducated or poor by any stretch of the imagination. Someone in his position would have naturally ensured that his own children were well educated.


I'm curious as to your source for this information.

Since Jesus only figures in a handful of contemporary secular accounts, I'd assume that references to his Joseph -- who seems to have led an unexceptional life, other than being God's stepfather ound: -- would be even scarcer.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> I'm curious as to your source for this information.


God told me so. :happy2:

Seriously, because I've spent many decades doing research about myriad things and my research has been guided in mysterious ways. You can take that any way you want. 

If anyone is genuinely curious and interested and cares to devote time to doing open-minded research without referring only to the bible, the information is out there and there's a lot of it - 2,000 years worth of scholarly work. I know a lot of things about Jesus and his circumstances that most Christians don't know and wouldn't want to know about it simply because it's not in their bible and if it's not in the bible then that means the church doesn't want them to know about it and so it's not important to them.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> One would think that if a Bible were so fundamental to correct thinking, Jesus would have written it himself, and not left it to be assembled by chance, via committee, a couple hundred years after the fact. No?


It was more than a couple of hundred years. Maybe if he hadn't been executed at such a young age he would have written or more likely dictated and supervised an autobiography about his life and ministry when he was an older man. You know the old saying - "publish or perish" - his ministry was cut short early and he never had the time needed to accomplish such a thing before he perished.

However, I doubt that he would have thought that a bible was fundamental to correct thinking. And even if he had, would it have been accepted and become the foundation of a religion and the Christian church as we know it today? I think not as it wouldn't have suited the purposes of the church. Research and reading of the bible by laymen was strictly forbidden on pain of death by the church until the 1500's.
&#12288;
According to the prevailing myth of biblical origins, the Old Testament was supposed to have been translated from Hebrew to Greek by 72 translators sent to Ptolemy by Eleazar, a Jewish high priest, in the 3rd century BC, hence its name Septuagint. Ptolemy was said to have locked the scholars in individual cells on the island Pharos where each one made his own Greek version in exactly 72 days. Each translation agreed exactly, in every word, with the other 72 translations.
&#12288;
Of course none of that actually happened. The Bible's real history was far less tidy. A collection appeared in the first century BC and again in the first century AD to be accepted by the Jews of the Diaspora as sacred, and was passed on to Christians. In both Jewish and Christian hands the papyri underwent many changes. In the 4th century AD, St. Jerome collected some Hebrew manuscripts and edited them to produce the Latin Vulgate, a Bible of considerable inaccuracy, differing markedly from Jerome's stern texts.
&#12288;
The King James Bible relied mostly on a Greek text collected and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century AD, which in turn relied on a Byzantine collection assembled gradually at Constantinople between the 4th and 8th centuries AD. A few older texts have been discovered: the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Alexandrinus, and the Chester Beatty papyri. All are fragmentary, all differ from one another and from the King James version. *There are no known portions of the Bible older than the 4th century AD.*
&#12288;
The revised version of the New Testament published in 1881 tried to correct some of the more glaring errors. It erased the spurious final 12 verses of Mark, which were late interpolations including the words that caused centuries of suffering: "He that believeth not shall be damned" It eliminated the fraudulant translation "Joseph and his mother", intended to preserve the dogma of the virgin birth, and restored the original "his father and his mother". It omitted the forged interpolation intended to preserve the dogma of the trinity: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." These words appeared nowhere before the 15th century AD. However, the Catholic church insisted on retaining the forgery. Churchmen's argument was: "How, if these verses were an interpolation, could the Holy Spirit, who guides and direct the Church, have allowed her to regard this lofty affirmation of the Trinity as authentic, and permitted its insertion in the official edition of the sacred books?" In 1897 the Congregation of the Index, with the approval of Pope Leo XIII, forbade any further research into the origins of this text.
&#12288;
As mentioned above, traditionally right up until the 1500's, the church forbade not only research but even the reading of the bible by laymen. Throughout the Middle Ages possession of a bible written in the vernacular was a crime punished by burning at the stake. With the Reformation came bible-reading in search of a new basis for faith; but in the process were found many new grounds for skepticism.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> Yes, Jesus could read and write and do figures, in all likelihood he also spoke other common dialects and languages of the regions. Jesus was the son of Joseph, a carpenter _by trade_ (think in terms of a builder and contractor) but Joseph was never a poor man and he was a well educated person. The family was quite wealthy, in part because of the great wealth bestowed upon the family when Jesus was a baby. That alone would have been enough right there to set the whole family up in luxury for life even if Joseph had been a spendthrift, which he was not, he was a very frugal and cautious man. But even before Jesus was born, Joseph was already an old man in his 90's, a widower with grown adult children and grandchildren and he had a position of respectability and high standing in the town where he lived and he wasn't uneducated or poor by any stretch of the imagination. Someone in his position would have naturally ensured that his own children were well educated.



Not to mention, His uncle, Joseph of Arimathea.
Made a lot of money in tin mines don't ya know, or so legend has it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I'll grant you that, but ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you already know that answer, but maybe you don't?:shrug:
Those that want to hear from the Holy Spirit can and do.
Those that don't believe in it don't and won't hear from Him.
As far as being able to tell WHICH Spirit it is, that's an easy one to answer too.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> ...the Bible clearly states more than once that no one has yet been judged ....... to anywhere.
> Oh well, all we can do is try.


Can you tell me where? I'd like to read it.

thanks,


Tim


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I think you already know that answer, but maybe you don't?


I have no clue! I'm not a very spiritual person. I figure it's generally safer to stick to reality. Reality can be challenging enough to figure out sometimes without throwing invisible sky beings into the mix ... :teehee:


> Those that want to hear from the Holy Spirit can and do.


_That _I can believe! Although I've noticed that when someone feels they're being led by God to do something, or espouse a particular viewpoint, it generally coincides precisely with their own beliefs or preferences. Why does God never seem to tell people, "That's a really terrible idea. Better head back to the drawing board, son"? 



> Those that don't believe in it don't and won't hear from Him.


Well, that kinda makes sense, doesn't it? If you didn't believe, you wouldn't be expecting to hear from a supernatural being, and you'd probably write off any paranormal communication as being the product of too much tequila, or eating a jumbo burrito just before bedtime, or something. :shrug:

Of course, it's also possible there really _is_ no God, and the people who claim to hear him just have overactive imaginations, while those who don't believe would be less likely harbor such fantasies. 

No way to be sure, really. :shrug:



> As far as being able to tell WHICH Spirit it is, that's an easy one to answer too.


Apparently not, or one would think Andrea Yates (or the host of other people who believed God told them to kill their children ... Google it! ... it's really sad/amazing!) would have said, "What? Drown (bludgeon, stab, slash, dismember, etc.) my kid(s)? ARE YOU OUTTA YER FREAKIN' MIND? Get thee behind me, Satan," or some such. No?


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

tarbe said:


> Can you tell me where? I'd like to read it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> ...


Revelation 20:11-15 describes the great judgement at the end of the age which is still future:
_
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire._


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Well, that doesn't make any sense! 

If there were no prior judgment, but Hell existed and there were people in it, why were they there?

Either they already had been judged and were found to be Hell-worthy, or perhaps God assigns people randomly to Hell? Maybe they drew short straws? "Don't worry, son, enjoy your stay, and we'll sort things out in the _next_ judgment a couple of millenniums from now!"

See, this is why I generally stick to reality. This sort of speculation about things that may or may not actually exist makes my brain hurt! :facepalm:


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I think there are quite a few instances in the Bible of God telling people to do some pretty heinous things. Invade that land, kill every living thing, women, children, animals, etc. Until God told Abraham that he was only kidding, he was actually going to kill his son on God's say so. Identifyinig whether some spiritual command is from God or Satan is a pretty subjective thing, depending on the commandee's point of view.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Well, that doesn't make any sense!
> 
> If there were no prior judgment, but Hell existed and there were people in it, why were they there?
> 
> ...


If you want to make any sense of Revelations you'll have to refer to the original source that it was plagiarized from but understand that Revelations isn't about the future, it's actually about the past.

Everything, and I mean absolutely everything that is in the Book of Revelations, and that is all the characters, all the symbolism, all the events, all the sayings and prophesies, all the arcana, even right down to the florid and metaphorical, allegorical style of writing, was taken from the writings of the Egyptian philosopher, prophet and priest/king Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus (ca. *3150 BC - ?? BC*) and then slightly altered. Hermes was the most prolific writer that has ever lived (nobody to this day has surpassed him yet in his thousands of texts) and everything in the New Testament's Book of Revelations is Hermes work plagiarized and altered to slightly change the meaning to make it look like a book of prophesy for the future. 

The truth is, there is more compassion, reason and sensibility in the unplagiarized versions of Hermes texts and in his spiritual explanations about god and the universe and the coming into being of humankind and all of nature on earth than there ever has been in any other holy books and texts produced by any other cultures or religions. The texts of Hermes were respected by learned philosophers and scholars of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc. for centuries before Jesus was born but unfortunately the works of Hermes were suppressed for centuries afterwards from about 3rd - 4th century A.D. right up to around the early 1800's A.D. So not many people today know about him or his works and texts so they don't know that Hermes' texts were the true source that Revelations was taken from, and taken out of context.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Well, that doesn't make any sense!
> 
> If there were no prior judgment, but Hell existed and there were people in it, why were they there?
> 
> ...


Just because people are used to hearing about going to "heaven" and "hell" after death doesn't mean that's what the bible talks about. I suppose it might depend upon what word from the bible one decides is supposed to translate to "hell". There is what the bible calls the grave - which is a temporary situation - and a place that the bible calls "the lake of fire" which is a permanant situation, but no one is currently there now.

It has nothing to do with sticking to reality versus the bible if your idea of what the bible says has come from what I call the "urban legend" translation of what's in it. In other words, most opinions of what the bible says comes from some traditionally accepted and circulated ideas, not from people who actually read it.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Well, this has been interesting to say the least  I can't speak for others, only myself when I say, it makes no difference to me at all what unbelievers think about what is written in the Bible. They're unbelievers. Just felt the need to say that  Carry on...


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

PricklyThistle said:


> Revelation 20:11-15 describes the great judgement at the end of the age which is still future:
> _
> And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
> 
> ...


But, the Revelation was written to 7 specific, named churches in Asia Minor, and they were told that the things written therein were to occur soon...says so in the very first verses of the book! Not to mention again in the last verses.

If I wrote you a personal letter like this and told you that the things I was writing about were to happen soon, wouldn't I lose all credibility with anyone if these things had not happened nearly 2,000 years later?

Not exactly meeting the qualifications for a prophet?


Tim


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Tim brings up a good point.

Paul evidently believed the world was going to end soon, too -- so soon that he advised people not to bother getting married, as it was kind of a moot point.

1 Corinthians 7



> 25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lordâs mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
> 
> 
> 29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.


Oops. Wrong! :teehee:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

BTW, I notice hardly anyone pays attention to Paul's advice that even married people ought to be celibate. 

Well, there were the Shakers, but they kinda died out after awhile! ound:


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Tim brings up a good point.
> 
> Paul evidently believed the world was going to end soon, too -- so soon that he advised people not to bother getting married, as it was kind of a moot point.
> 
> ...



It is not the end of the world he is talking about. It is the end of the age. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Matthew 24 and parallel passage in Luke 21. The Roman siege of the Holy City and the eventual destruction of the Temple.

Jesus told the believers that when they saw the abomination that maketh desolate (as Luke says...when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies) get out!

Unfortunately the KJV translated aeon as world instead of age.... ooops!

So, what I am saying is...Jesus and the Apostles were not wrong. Christians (and non-Christians for that matter) have largely misunderstood what they were claiming.


Tim


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> BTW, I notice hardly anyone pays attention to Paul's advice that even married people ought to be celibate.
> 
> Well, there were the Shakers, but they kinda died out after awhile! ound:


You are failing to apply audience relevance, and therefore are missing the point completely!


Tim


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> I think you already know that answer, but maybe you don't?:shrug:
> *Those that want to hear from the Holy Spirit can and do.*
> *Those that don't believe in it don't and won't hear from Him.*


I believe that is true. I wouldn't go so far as to asign gender or name to holy spirit but definitely believe that those who sincerely want to hear will hear.



farmrbrown said:


> As far as being able to tell WHICH Spirit it is, that's an easy one to answer too.


I don't think that is always so easy. True discernment depends on a lot of factors, not just on one's belief, and sometimes a person needs other people (like a pastor or holy man, for example, or even a physician) to be discerning intercessors _for_ them and be able to verify for them that what they're hearing is really holy spirit. There are some people who genuinely hear holy spirit and there are some who just imagine they do and only hear what they think they should or want to be hearing - and there are some who are grievously mentally ill or afflicted by or in _spirit(s)_, and there's no accounting for what they will hear, whether they want to hear it or not.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes, I stopped trying to explain any further about it. I had said all that was really needed to those that understand and the ones that didn't I get the feeling really don't want to. I can find plenty of examples of people who are mistaken or deranged, but that was my point.
It's easy to tell the difference.......by the fruits,

There is so much to say and so much to know, but it will only be received and used by believers.
To non believers it's just a fairy tale not worth their time.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I stopped trying to explain any further about it. I had said all that was really needed to those that understand and the ones that didn't I get the feeling really don't want to. I can find plenty of examples of people who are mistaken or deranged, but that was my point.
> It's easy to tell the difference.......by the fruits,


Yes.



farmrbrown said:


> There is so much to say and so much to know, but it will only be received and used by *believers*.
> 
> To *non believers* it's just a fairy tale not worth their time.


I have something to say about the terms _believers_ and _non believers_ now and it's a bit of a personal rant. I hadn't been going to say anything at first (considering the source) but It's something I've been thinking about since this morning after reading this: _"....._ _it makes no difference to me at all what unbelievers think about what is written in the Bible. They're unbelievers....."_ My first thought when I read that was _"My goodness, how belittling that is!"_ - so although this comment is NOT directed specifically at you or anyone else farmrbrown I'm using your above quote about believers and non believers too because you did say it and it fits in with what I've been thinking about ever since reading today's posts.

Rant being turned on now: :hobbyhors

I don't like to see people applying inappropriate or mocking labels to other people so they can fit them into some little box in the label makers mind and try to make other people feel like they are inferior and inconsequential. Everybody, bar none, believes strongly in something and everybody, bar none, is an unbeliever / non believer about something. If we're talking about a religion or any other belief system at all, then I think the polite and appropriate way to refer to adherents of such religion/belief system is by the correct name of what they believe in, not _"unbeliever"_ because of whatever they don't believe in. 

Time and time again I see many Christians referring to non-Christians as unbelievers as if those Christians think they are superior and have some kind of monopoly on belief and everybody else and their beliefs are unbelievers and therefore of no consequence.... they are nothing. _Unbeliever_ ..... it is so belittling and undignified. It really frosts my butt every time I hear it or see it written. But I never see non-Christians referring to Christians as anything other than Christians, which grants dignity and is the polite and appropriate thing to do. Why is that?

I call Christians _Christians, _and Muslims are _Muslims_, Jews are _Jews_, Pagans are _Pagans_, Buddhists are _Buddhists, _Wiccans are _Wiccans_, atheists are _atheists_ and agnostics are _agnostics_, etc. etc. I don't call any of them unbelievers or non believers just because they don't believe in the same things that I believe in. None of them are inferior to me, all are equal and all deserve the dignity and respect of being acknowledged for who they are and what they believe in.

On that note I will also say I don't like to see non-Christians mocking Christians because of what Christians believe. That also frosts my butt. I think it's ignorant and it makes the mockers look small and petulant. Everyone is entitled to believe in what they know feels right to them, whether it's right or wrong in the eyes of others. Nobody deserves to be mocked because of their beliefs, whether it's belief in Christ and the bible or belief in something else, it is something that makes them feel good in mind, body and spirit, that gives them peace in their hearts and gives them something wonderful to look forward to. It is cruel and pointless to try to take that happiness away from people.

We've had 6 pages here of reasonably polite discussion about a controversial subject without people getting nasty or denigrating and I'd like to see it stay that way with everyone on an equal footing being accorded equal dignity and respect and nobody feeling afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being mocked or belittled.

Rant off and off my soap box now. :soap:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are certainly free to be offended by the terms unbeliever/non-believer. I'm not offended by anything wrote in this thread, I simply accept we all have our beliefs and should be free to express them and should be free to say if we care or not. By the same token any other religions should not care if I believe them or not and are free to call me a non-believer. As my sig says, being offended does not mean you're right.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I have something to say about the terms _believers_ and _non believers_ now and it's a bit of a personal rant.


I certainly cannot speak for anyone else, but in my mind, the term unbeliever simply means one who does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.

It does not imply that they are inferior, or somehow do not believe in anything.

I think this might be similar to the term "infidel" being anyone who does not hold to the central teachings of any particular religion? That one certainly has some serious negative connotations these days...more so than unbeliever, I think.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see where that would be offensive/insulting.
The more tired I get, the shorter my explanations are, lol.
While there are some that dismiss an entire group en masse, I was thinking of a very specific type of person when I wrote that particular post.

If you're not a Christian, but have some questions because you're curious, I'm usually happy to answer if I can.

If you're not a Christian, but are interested in contrasting and comparing it to your beliefs, I'll usually oblige, even if only briefly.

If you're a lost soul who isn't sure who or what to believe, I'll try to lend a compassionate ear or a hand. 

All of those would technically qualify as a "non believer" in Christian terms.....but not exactly who I had in mind when I said, "I've said enough" already.

More along the lines of a few who don't believe in God or the bible now or maybe never did, and are more interested in trying to make those of who do, seem foolish for doing so. 
I also don't like being mocked.

I was thinking about a detailed explanation of listening to the Holy Spirit, the many examples I've had including both doing or not doing something, yeses and no's. 
And then I thought better of it and decided it was thread drift anyway. 
Discernment comes in many forms and levels of acuity.:hrm:

Your original question was a sincere one and open to different answers from a variety of beliefs.
good for you, I hope you learned a little something in the process.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A-freakin-men!

This is (part) why I love the concept and intention of NAMASTE.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

questions arise about 'jesus's wife' papyrus provenance

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/gospel-jesus-wife_n_5206932.html


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

Willow Girl you sound like you have read a lot of Ayn Rand.

I do like your way of thinking.

I have read this thread with a mixture of interest and amusement. My mother taught me from the time of being old enough to know what she was talking about that there are three things you never argue with people.

1) Religion
2) Politics
3) Sex

I'm glad to discover that she knew what she was talking about.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

badlander said:


> Willow Girl you sound like you have read a lot of Ayn Rand.
> 
> I do like your way of thinking.
> 
> ...


well, actually those subjects are actually fun to wrangle with *some* folks, the hard part is finding them ha! I've found that if there is a base of being a truly happy, thankful, creative, respectful and humble person this sort of wrangling is fuuuuuun!


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> well, actually those subjects are actually fun to wrangle with *some* folks, the hard part is finding them ha! I've found that if there is a base of being a truly happy, thankful, creative, respectful and humble person this sort of wrangling is fuuuuuun!


Yep, especially #3,,,,uh,,,when it comes to wrangling,,,

:buds:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So, what I am saying is...Jesus and the Apostles were not wrong. Christians (and non-Christians for that matter) have largely misunderstood what they were claiming.


Ahh. Preterist?


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdr...-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> I believe that is true. I wouldn't go so far as to asign gender or name to holy spirit but definitely believe that those who sincerely want to hear will hear.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is always so easy. True discernment depends on a lot of factors, not just on one's belief, and sometimes a person needs other people (like a pastor or holy man, for example, or even a physician) to be discerning intercessors _for_ them and be able to verify for them that what they're hearing is really holy spirit. There are some people who genuinely hear holy spirit and there are some who just imagine they do and only hear what they think they should or want to be hearing - and there are some who are grievously mentally ill or afflicted by or in _spirit(s)_, and there's no accounting for what they will hear, whether they want to hear it or not.


As in many times past, the topic was the subject of our study today.
The passage in John I, ch. 4 is more detailed than mine and relevant to the original question asked in this thread.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4

What you believe about Jesus IS relevant to the rest of what yo believe, say and do.
And it isn't something to be explained in a few lines on the internet,
They don't make an "app" for that, lol. It takes study and dedication, that's why I said what I said about non believers.
If it isn't immediately apparent or given with tangible indisputable evidence, hen it is usually dismissed as just a good story with a bad ending or possibly delusion of the masses.
To those of us who take the time and effort to learn and understand, it's very real and while not quite as easy as picking up a phone call, it's pretty close.:rainprf:


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> Ahh. Preterist?


Until I come up with a better explanation. :lookout:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If it isn't immediately apparent or given with tangible indisputable evidence, then it is usually dismissed as just a good story with a bad ending or possibly delusion of the masses.


You make it sound like that's a bad thing. :hysterical:

See, here's the problem with spiritual "wisdom": it's totally unverifiable. 

If you tell me you know the best way to plant an apple tree, I have a number of means at my disposal to evaluate your claim. I might consider the source -- whether you're a Rutgers professor or a city-dweller who has never seen an apple outside of the supermarket. I can compare your technique to that of others. I can even obtain multiple trees, plant them using different methods, and compare the results. 

In short: there are ways I can verify whether you are, in fact, correct.

That's usually not possible with theological arguments, which have no basis in what we commonly regard as fact or reality. It's all subjective. One might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!

At the same time, it's a free country, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, no matter how strange or foolish they may seem to others. My only objection is when organized religions seek to incorporate their tenets into the secular law that governs nonbelievers as well. As long as Christians, Muslims, etc., keep their beliefs within their own homes and congregations, we have no argument.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And this is usually the response..........


willow_girl said:


> You make it sound like that's a bad thing. :hysterical:
> 
> See, here's the problem with spiritual "wisdom": it's totally unverifiable.



On the surface, that seems to be a fairly logical and indisputable statement.
Of course this is exactly why I said what I did earlier.
A discussion of Faith, the definition being evidence of things not seen, is totally useless to someone that has none.

Of course if I point out how often we take for granted everyday, things we have no proof of, each example would be dismissed as "not the same thing" so I won't.
Y'all are intelligent enough to think of your own examples.

I mean I'm not dead yet, I even feel great!
If I said, "I'm immortal, I won't die", who could prove me wrong today?
Or tomorrow?
Of course I believe one day my body will give out, but there's no evidence of that now.:whistlin:





willow_girl said:


> If you tell me you know the best way to plant an apple tree, I have a number of means at my disposal to evaluate your claim. I might consider the source -- whether you're a Rutgers professor or a city-dweller who has never seen an apple outside of the supermarket. I can compare your technique to that of others. I can even obtain multiple trees, plant them using different methods, and compare the results.
> 
> In short: there are ways I can verify whether you are, in fact, correct.
> 
> That's usually not possible with theological arguments, which have no basis in what we commonly regard as fact or reality. It's all subjective. One might as well argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!



Hmmmmm......good analogy with the apple trees.
I seem to remember saying the proof is in the fruits..........:thumb:



willow_girl said:


> At the same time, it's a free country, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, no matter how strange or foolish they may seem to others. My only objection is when organized religions seek to incorporate their tenets into the secular law that governs nonbelievers as well. As long as Christians, Muslims, etc., keep their beliefs within their own homes and congregations, we have no argument.



And yet, you'd be hard pressed to find secular law that doesn't mirror religious laws, because that's where they come from.
Oh well, chalk it up to more of that irrelevant, illogical, mysterious, intangible thinking.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> A discussion of Faith, the definition being evidence of things not seen, is totally useless to someone that has none.


Exactly. A belief in Christ (other than as a historical figure) has no more significance for me than a belief in Santa Claus. Either way, you're welcome to your belief, but don't expect me to think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread! Actually, in either case, I'd suspect your grip on reality leaves something to be desired -- albeit more in the second case than the first! -- and I'd take that into account in any dealings I had with you. 


> Hmmmmm......good analogy with the apple trees.


I have a new apple tree here to plant. 



> And yet, you'd be hard pressed to find secular law that doesn't mirror religious laws, because that's where they come from.


Funny, isn't it, that so many religions have come up with roughly equivalent prohibitions against things like murder, stealing, and the like? Does that mean that all those religions are valid? 

Or could it be that societies that adopted certain orderly principles tended to outperform ones that didn't? Their numbers increased; they conquered nearby less-orderly tribes and promulgated their values? Think of it as natural selection on a social level. That seems a more likely explanation to me than one involving stone tablets handed down from On High ...


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I think Christians calling those who don't follow their path "unbelievers" is on the same level as someone who doesn't believe calling Christians "believers" with an air of derision or contempt as being some sort of whack-a-doodle who should be locked up in the looney bin for actually believing such a far out story. However, that's not fair on either end. It also insinuates that things are black and white, that there is "our way" and "the wrong way". To say that we are all unclean/lost/unworthy unless we are "saved" by Jesus illustrates this perfectly, as if there is only one path. It's very elitist. Islam apparently wants to take over the world, convert everyone to Islam and kill anyone who doesn't want to. I have a problem with that.

There are Pagan gods, Greek gods, Nordic gods, Mayan gods, the list is endless. Over the course of history there have been so many spiritual paths that people have followed, who is to say which one is right? Each one, of course, believes their way is the right way. The difference is how they interact with others and society in general.

I don't judge people by what spiritual path they follow, to each their own and I wish peace and happiness to all. I do, however, judge people by the way their spiritual path affects the everyday lives of the rest of us. 

As for "it makes no difference to me at all what unbelievers think about what is written in the Bible. They're unbelievers." I think we should all be interested in other people's spiritual journeys and the paths they took to get to where they are today. We can grow as human beings if we can understand what others believe what they believe and why they do so. To just dismiss others points of view because they are different from one's own is to deny oneself the opportunity for compassion, tolerance and personal growth.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Even God once had a wife.
Her name: Ashera

Did you know?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Berwick said:


> Even God once had a wife.
> Her name: Ashera
> 
> Did you know?


LOL. Your raised up a 14 years old dead thread .......... yes, I knew that some people in the past believed that a fertility goddess named Ashera was the wife of a god.

My interest had been in the possibility of Jesus taking Mary of Magdalene to wife because they were both living, substantial, corporeal people in history who _could_ and possibly _might_ have produced offspring.

.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

InTownForNow said:


> Dont you think its "odd" and "coincidental" that all these stories supposedly disproving some facet of Christianity always pop up around Christmas and Easter? Every year there are more and more.
> No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ, but nowhere and in no context does it refer to Jesus having a wife, being married, etc.
> People need to read their bibles.
> As to why I believe it, I believe it because the bible doesnt say it. Think about it- Noah's wife is mentioned, Abraham's wife, Isaac, all these important people's wives are mentioned, if not by name, then by the term wife. Jesus is the MOST important person in the bible, if he was married, wouldnt that be a pertinent/relevant piece of information? And why then would the body of believers be called the Bride of Christ if he already had a bride?


THIS^^^ Why wouldn't they say so if MM was his wife? No logical reason why they would hide it. And, YES, I have noticed that these types of stories supposedly disproving or casting doubt on Christianity always seem to surface before Christian holidays. I dont see the same propaganda coming out about Judaism or Muslims before their big holidays. Why do you think that is?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Shouldn't this thread be in the "Dark Rooms (Politics, *Religion*, Debate and Controversy)" section?

I don't really care, but I am not sure what the rules are. (I also see LOTS of politics---sometimes controversial politics---debated in the General section.)


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

NRA_guy said:


> Shouldn't this thread be in the "Dark Rooms (Politics, *Religion*, Debate and Controversy)" section?
> 
> I don't really care, but I am not sure what the rules are. (I also see LOTS of politics---sometimes controversial politics---debated in the General section.)


This thread is older than the dark room. Older than my time here.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

mreynolds said:


> Older than my time here.


And also older than mine! 
Btw: I am quite old. Born on the 4th of June 1946. 
In numbers - European style: 4-6-46
So I like looking into old threads


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Berwick said:


> And also older than mine!
> Btw: I am quite old. Born on the 4th of June 1946.
> In numbers - European style: 4-6-46
> So I like looking into old threads


I saw a movie about you.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Berwick said:


> And also older than mine!
> Btw: I am quite old. Born on the 4th of June 1946.
> In numbers - European style: 4-6-46
> So I like looking into old threads


Yeah this thread wouldn't have been in the dark room when it was first posted. The dark room is younger than my time here.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

mreynolds said:


> I saw a movie about you.


So did I 






Here it is.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

NRA_guy said:


> Shouldn't this thread be in the "Dark Rooms (Politics, *Religion*, Debate and Controversy)" section?
> 
> I don't really care, but I am not sure what the rules are. (I also see LOTS of politics---sometimes controversial politics---debated in the General section.)


I think if the topic was started at the present time it probably would be required to be posted in whatever passes for a religion forum if there is one. This thread was started 14 years ago when there was no religion forum, no dark room and the majority of discussions or debates of a religious or political nature got posted in General Chat. So it got buried and forgotten in General Chat.

.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

I have asked Google - and I found this interesting:



> Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. Canaanites associated Asherah with sacred trees, an association also found in the Israelite tradition. Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees is repeated over thirty times in the Bible; many of these citations are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous worship, implying that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel and improper for followers of YHWH. Despite these and other references associating Asherah with apostasy, contemporary discoveries have further indicated that, at least in the opinion of some ancient Israelites, YHWH and Asherah were appropriately worshipped as a pair.








Asherah/Asherim: Bible | Jewish Women's Archive


Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess.




jwa.org




.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Paumon said:


> I think if the topic was started at the present time it probably would be required to be posted in whatever passes for a religion forum if there is one. This thread was started 14 years ago when there was no religion forum, no dark room and the majority of discussions or debates of a religious or political nature got posted in General Chat. So it got buried and forgotten in General Chat.


I am a newcomer - so everything is new to me.
I found this topic interesting - so I re-vived it.
I can't see any reason for fighting here - but of course on never knows.

Let's wait and see.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Back at that time, if the conversation was polite and didn't need to be edited, it was often allowed in General Chat. IIRC you had to be over 18 or a liar to access General Chat.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Danaus29 said:


> Back at that time, if the conversation was polite and didn't need to be edited, it was often allowed in General Chat.


So let's be polite about it!
For Goddess Ashera's sake!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Don't be surprised if someone has to come along and mess it up. I've seen it happen too many times. 

I intend to be polite. I'm getting ready to head out to the garden.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Adirondackian said:


> THIS^^^ Why wouldn't they say so if MM was his wife? No logical reason why they would hide it. And, YES, I have noticed that these types of stories supposedly disproving or casting doubt on Christianity always seem to surface before Christian holidays. I dont see the same propaganda coming out about Judaism or Muslims before their big holidays. Why do you think that is?


The reason there are stories disproving or casting in doubt on Christanity is that many of the Christian holidays were already holidays before there were Christians.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Chief50 said:


> The reason there are stories disproving or casting in doubt on Christanity is that many of the Christian holidays were already holidays before there were Christians.


A case of so-called church leaders trying to "fit in" with the existing culture?

Does not usually work out so well for the purity of the doctrine/faith/church.

Truth be told, humans have not done too keen a job handling the truth (and this goes for secular as well as ecclesiastical).


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Chief50 said:


> .... many of the Christian holidays were already holidays before there were Christians.


I am completely OK with that. Why not?
The so-called pagans were human beings also.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Danaus29 said:


> I'm getting ready to head out to the garden.


Enjoy the garden! So do I!


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

I respectfully hope your faith is in something higher that "The Divinci Code". Gnosticism would lead you to believe a great many things not in scripture. You have free will, and what you choose to believe is totally up to you. I don't want to cross any lines or be accused of proselytizing so I'll leave it at that.

(BTW: Is the dark room a real thing, or just code for topics that are banned?)


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

NEPA said:


> I respectfully hope your faith is in something higher that "The Divinci Code". Gnosticism would lead you to believe a great many things not in scripture. You have free will, and what you choose to believe is totally up to you. I don't want to cross any lines or be accused of proselytizing so I'll leave it at that.
> 
> (BTW: Is the dark room a real thing, or just code for topics that are banned?)


It's a real thing but it's very dark in there. They don't waste money on lights for that room.


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

It sure is! Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

> *Did Jesus have a wife?*


I am not so much interested in that question.

More in this question: "Did God YHWE have a wife - by the name of Ashera?"
And the answer is: "Yes, of course!"


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Twobottom said:


> There is no actual proof that Jesus himself even existed. It is a point of great historical contention. No Roman records have proved his existence....so how can you expect a definitive answer to whether or not this man ( who may never have existed ) had a wife?


Actually, there is enough evidence of Jesus’ existence, including the reliability of first century writing of John’s. You might find this interesting since it appears you’ve research he topic a bit: Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability. Also, here are some extra-Biblical references to Christ’s existence: Extra-biblical references to Jesus and Christianity. Interestingly, as a Christian, I have also studied Arabic. To study a foreign language requires a bit of additional research into the culture and religious beliefs in order to better grasp idioms, and the like. Arabic (like Hebrew) is unlike English, in that often the same word can mean different things depending on context, inflection, etc. So… consider that Christ is mentioned in three different religions by name. Also, He is identified as performing miracles in two of them, and called a magician in the third (Hebrew). Not all were favorable towards Him (Judaism was clearly hostile towards Him). In the Muslim religion, Jesus (Isa in Arabic) is considered roughly the third most important prophet. Though Muslims do not consider Him holy, he is the only one of the prophets credited with performing miracles. It is HIGHLY unlikely that three separate religions would have made up the same name, attributes, and lifespan of a fictitious person. It is more likely that that He was real, made a significant impact upon those who saw or heard Him speak, and others copied these characteristics for their ‘religion’. His impact can best be identified in the first link I mentioned (the statistical accuracy of the known copies of the New Testament). Since you have an opinion and have given it some real thought in the past, it’s worth a look.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

NEPA said:


> (BTW: Is the dark room a real thing, or just code for topics that are banned?)


Yes. The dark room is a real section of the forum. You have to get special permission to enter. The only light is from flaming posters. Many innocent threads were moved there after posters decided to start a war on them. 

I've never been there. It sounds kind of like the dark alleys in the bad part of town. The difference is that your wallet won't get stolen in the dark room.


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

if you think we are not being polite in this thread so far you have one heck of a lot to learn. i can see this drifting downward already in the couple days since it's been brought back. religion and politics is usually a no-no here especially religion.jmo and then the topic of jesus having a wife. sure i wouldn't even mention that to my bros they would lose their minds. not to mention what they would do if i said god had one. ~Georgia


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

newfieannie said:


> sure i wouldn't even mention that to my bros they would lose their minds. not to mention what they would do if i said god had one. ~Georgia


Oh, you should totally do it! Get it on video for the rest of us to see!😁


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Berwick said:


> I am not so much interested in that question.
> 
> More in this question: "Did God YHWE have a wife - by the name of Ashera?"
> And the answer is: "Yes, of course!"


LOL!!!


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Were Jesus and God really married to these women or was it just a shack up?
Are they sure both were women?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Chief50 said:


> Were Jesus and God really married to these women or was it just a shack up?
> Are they sure both were women?


God is the original biologist.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

Chief50 said:


> Were Jesus and God really married to these women or was it just a shack up?


I do not know about Jesus.
But it seems that God was actually married to Ashera once upon a time.
But then he turned Macho and divorced her.
Not nice, if you ask me ....
But he did not ask.
Else I would have recommended not to ....


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

you people can't be talking about the jesus and god that i grew up with cause i never heard the like before. must be some other gods cause there's supposed to be many


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Berwick said:


> I am not so much interested in that question.
> 
> More in this question: "Did God YHWE have a wife - by the name of Ashera?"
> And the answer is: "Yes, of course!"


Nonsense. God did marry Jerusalem and He divorced both the House of Judah and the House of Israel. Those are written of in the Bible and therefore true. Anything not written about it in the Bible is purely nonsense.


----------



## Berwick (11 mo ago)

poppy said:


> Anything not written about it in the Bible is purely nonsense.


Uuuuuuiiiiiiii - thou art very strict about it, aren't thou? 
Peace be with thee - per saecula saeculorum!


----------



## cjennmom (Sep 4, 2010)

You KNOW whole books were removed from the Bible early on, right? They like to pass them off as irrelevant texts, gnostic origin scrolls, etc. 



InTownForNow said:


> Dont you think its "odd" and "coincidental" that all these stories supposedly disproving some facet of Christianity always pop up around Christmas and Easter? Every year there are more and more.
> No, He wasnt married. The bible does not mention anything related to him being married personally. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ, but nowhere and in no context does it refer to Jesus having a wife, being married, etc.
> People need to read their bibles.
> As to why I believe it, I believe it because the bible doesnt say it. Think about it- Noah's wife is mentioned, Abraham's wife, Isaac, all these important people's wives are mentioned, if not by name, then by the term wife. Jesus is the MOST important person in the bible, if he was married, wouldnt that be a pertinent/relevant piece of information? And why then would the body of believers be called the Bride of Christ if he already had a bride?


----------

