E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNew questions are being raised after Karen King, a professor at Harvard Divinity School, found an ancient papyrus with text that quotes Jesus referring to "my wife." NBC's Anne Thompson reports.
A fourth-century fragment of papyrus that quotes Jesus telling his disciples about "my wife" has set off a buzz among scriptural scholars — but this is no "Da Vinci Code" come true. Rather, the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" is just the latest discovery to suggest how the early Christian church took shape.
Fans of the Dan Brown thriller are already familiar with the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a husband-and-wife relationship. The basis for such speculation lies in Gnostic gospels that came out in the second, third and fourth centuries, but were left out of the standardized scriptures — texts such as the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary and the recently reconstructed Gospel of Judas.
Even though only a few phrases can be read on the papyrus fragment that's just come to light, those phrases are consistent with the Gnostic view of early Christianity — which tended to give a more prominent role to women, and particularly to Mary Magdalene. The text, written in the Sahidic Coptic dialect, includes the phrase "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" as well as references to a woman named Mary being "worthy of it," and to a woman who "will be able to be my disciple."
The marriage debate
Karen L. King, the Harvard Divinity School professor who received the fragment from an anonymous owner, emphasized that the discovery does not serve as evidence that Jesus was married. Rather, it suggests that there was a debate within the early Christian church on the status of women, and that Jesus' relationship with women figured into the discussion. Revisiting that debate may be unsettling to some believers, but to scriptural scholars, it just comes with the territory.
Four words on a previously unknown papyrus fragment appear to provide the first evidence that some early Christians believed Jesus had been married. This video from Harvard Divinity School discusses the find.
"Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim," King said in a news release from Harvard Divinity School. "This new gospel doesn't prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus' death before they began appealing to Jesus' marital status to support their positions."
Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at the Asbury Theological Seminary, noted that the latest find fits King's perspective on scriptural scholarship. "She does have a dog in this hunt," he told me. "She's an advocate for the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas, telling us of early Christian experiences of various kinds, particularly of the Gnostic kind."
The fragment that King calls the Gospel of Jesus' Wife could well contribute to the study of Gnosticism in the second or fourth century, but Witherington said it's not a game-changer for our view of the first-century Jesus. "While this fragment is interesting, if you are interested in the historical Jesus, this is much ado about not very much," Witherington said via email.
Witherington noted that experts who have gotten a close look at the papyrus say it's genuine, but he cautioned that "we cannot be absolutely sure of its authenticity or origins" as long as scholars can't track down the details surrounding how, when and where it was discovered.
Bart Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, voiced similar caution. However, if the document proves authentic, it would represent an important advance in scriptural scholarship, he said.
"It's certainly not reliable for saying anything about the historical Jesus," Ehrman told me. "But what it is important for is that this would be the first time we have any Christian authority or Christian group indicating that, in their opinion, Jesus was married." Like King, Ehrman suggested that such claims might have figured into early Christian debates over the comparative merits of marriage vs. celibacy.
Monks and 'sister-wives'
Witherington said the text could be open to alternate interpretations. "In view of the largely ascetic character of Gnosticism, it is likely that we are dealing with the 'sister-wife' phenomenon, and the reference is to a strictly spiritual relationship, which is close but does not involve sexual intimacy," Witherington said.
During a follow-up phone call, he explained that "during the rise of the monastic movement, you had quite a lot of monk-type folks and evangelists who traveled in the company of a sister-wife." The fellow travelers looked after each other, but celibacy was part of the deal, he said.
"The other question about this is ... were these 'fractured fairy tales' that helped monks in the desert while away the time, or were they serious religious texts?" Witherington said.
Gnostic works proliferated in Egypt's Christian monasteries until Athanasius of Alexandria drew up what became the "official" list of books in the New Testament and condemned the rest in the year 367. Scholars believe that the best-known collection of Gnostic texts, the Nag Hammadi library, was bundled up and buried in the desert as a result.
The debate over the papyrus fragment's authenticity and the meaning of the Gospel of Jesus' Wife is likely to play out for a long time among scriptural scholars — and among "Da Vinci Code" fans as well. For now, here are links to background material and the initial blog reactions:
- The news release from Harvard Divinity School points to a Web page about the papyrus and to the manuscript that King has prepared for publication in January's issue of Harvard Theological Review.
- James Tabor, a scriptural scholar at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the co-author of controversial books about Jesus and his family, notes King's research — and says Witherington and other scholars should "reconsider the question" surrounding Jesus' marital status.
- Michael Heiser, a scholar specializing in biblical languages, says on his PaleoBabble blog that he tends to agree with the view that church leaders have "manipulated the testimony of Mary Magdalene" — but he warns against reading too much into the discovery.
- Jim West, a biblical scholar at the Quartz Hill School of Theology and pastor of Petros Baptist Church in Tennessee, says on the Zwinglius Redivivus blog that "without more context, both historically and archaeologically, the snippet is valueless."
- James McGrath, a New Testament scholar at Butler University in Indianapolis, also voices caution on the Exploring Our Matrix blog but adds that there's no reason why people should find the idea that Jesus was married "inherently unbelievable."
Update for 9 p.m. ET: Some observers have pointed out that the New Testament contains multiple allusions to Jesus as a bridegroom, and the church or the collective people of God as his bride. This report from The Atlantic catalogs the references. However, Witherington said the Coptic papyrus appears to refer to a different kind of relationship. "A bride is one thing, and a wife is another," he told me. The fragment's additional references to "Mary" and a prospective woman disciple also argue against attaching a purely metaphorical meaning to the word "wife."
For what it's worth, here are all the translated bits from the papyrus:
"'... not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe] ...'"
"The disciples said to Jesus, '..."
"deny. Mary is worthy of it" (Or: "deny. Mary is n[ot] worthy of it")
"...' Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'"
"... she will be able to be my disciple ..."
"Let wicked people swell up ..."
"As for me, I dwell with her in order to ..."
"an image"
"my moth[er]"
"three"
"forth which ..."
More about scripture and history:
- Artifacts reveal history behind David and Goliath
- New find revives flap over 'Tomb of Jesus'
- Help scientists decipher a lost gospel
- Is the Bible full of 'forgeries'?
- All about apocryphal gospels
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Mary was the 13th Apostle.She was the goodwife of Jesus.If this all comes about and the 'source' does sell the rest of his collection to Harvard,there may be more answers.What will the Catholic Church do if more bits and pieces arrive?Bury them as they have done in the past or does this answer the question of 13 Apostles,that Jesus hd a son Juda and a daughter? And that Mary Magdalene was the 23th Apostle?
Important point in this article, "fourth century." There were all kinds of crazy things being written about Jesus by then. They can't all be true because they would be contradictory. The accepted New Testament books are attested to by thousands of documents and fragments in Greek (far more than any other ancient documents). The earliest fragment is a section from the Gospel of John from the early second century, less than 100 years after the events.
Why give credence to this fourth century coptic fragment which is unattested to by any other extant copies, over documents that are attested to by thosands of copies?
Uhm the the first council of Nicaea was in the 4th century... That is where the New Testament ... in the bible comes from, there were many versions of scripture that didn't fall in line with what the council wanted to represent. Didn't mean they weren't closer to the truth.
Jesus is deity, God in the flesh. God created all things. Jesus being God in the flesh, would not have had relations with His own creation. He knew his purpose in his coming, to die for our sins. He being sinless, would not have joined himself and become one, with sinful flesh. Paul even encouraged men who were able to, to serve God without marrying, so as to be more wholly devoted to serving God. If Jesus were married, it would have been mentioned by his disciples, especially because by his crucifixion, it would have made her a widow, then after he was resurrected, she would not have been widowed. Then when he ascended to heaven, no mention of him leaving his wife behind, alone.
A small remnant of papyrus from the 4th century, can't over ride scripture.
Out of 12 disciples do you really believe that only 4 went on to write/tell of their experiences with Christ? I am more willing to believe that a select few decided what the many should follow of Jesus' teachings.
I am a Christian, but I am not a narrow-minded Christian. I have no problem with the idea of Jesus being married. He was completely human and marriage is a human experience, so it would stand to reason that he may have entered into a marriage. Furthermore, according to Christian teaching the sacrament of marriage was instituted by God, so when God appeared in human form, why would he have not partaken in this institution, just like he instituted the sacrament of Baptism and then was baptized. People have a difficult time with the idea that Jesus was married because they have a difficult idea with the idea that he was sexually active. Jesus was fully human. Humans are sexual beings. Therefore Jesus was a sexual being. He had a sex drive and experienced sexual desire. His being married would confirm that he acted upon these desires. Many people have a problem with this. I do not.
4th Century may sound late, but actually, it's pretty early. We have no artifacts of Jesus or Christianity at all prior to the 2nd Century. Tradition tells us the gospels were written in the 6th decade and revelations in the 9th, but since we have only copies of copies, we don't know for sure.
I think "justsayingisall" is absolutely right. This was written in the 4th century. What about those from the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 or otherwise known as the "St. Johns Fragment". Studies shown it was dated before 100 CE to 150 CE; much earlier than this fragment.
Again, I would have to agree.
I think it's entirely probably, and very much in line with Jewish culture, that Jesus WAS married. It would have been much odder had he NOT been married.
As to the scrap being from the fourth century, that is actually quite contemporary with a lot of writings ... mostly second generation "copies" of originals.
And, the Council of Nicaea is definitely a good point. That was the true beginning of the eradication of all who did not follow the "party line" of the "new Church". Gnostics and other sects were denounced as heresy and writings scattered, copied, hidden, etc. in order to protect them. It's likely this fragment is a copy of one of those writings.
Remember, what we know as the New Testament is a group of writings that a small group of people (men) decided would be the basis of the "True Church". It's very disingenuous to think those are the only writings concerning Jesus.
For those who study theology or the Bible, Christ having a bride is of no surprise. The church is the bride and Christ is the groom. Often it is those who are minimally knowledgeable of scripture who get excited. As far as some big Hollywood or book story, such has been a matter of supposition for centuries by various groups, but then some groups also have Christ as really being a female or suggest that he didn't actually die on the cross.
They took out references to reincarnation at the Council of Nicaea. The Bible has been tainted by men over the centuries.
Beth: I happen to disagree. John the Baptist( Jesus' cousin) was not married and he was presumably a few months older. Therefore, he should have been married first.
There are single people everywhere, in every time period. I don't think that it was a requirement back then just like it is now.
This is an interesting story, but the whole controversy is a little like someone claiming King Arthur was really left-handed or Robin Hood had red hair. All we know is that a chap named Jesus may have lived in the Palestine area 2,000 years ago, or probably did, and maybe was some kind of religious leader, but nothing we know about was written about him at the time by folks who purportedly knew him. Many of the things said and claims made about him echo elements of other cultures' mythologies. So people will believe about him what they like, usually some variation of what they were taught as impressionable children that they are now comfortable with. The debate over his sexual history, if any, does say rather a lot, not about him, but about the comfort levels with sexuality and gender relations among his followers over the centuries.
If somebody wrote it down centuries ago AND it's now then the Internet - it MUST be true.
You can't get more reliable information than that.
The lies Satan will spread are just as stupid as the lies the Da Vinci Code spread. Jesus was the spotless Lamb of God. He never has sex with women, he was never married.
You sound as if Sex is a sin. In the beginning God created the Earth for Adam and Eve. The intention was that Adam and Eve were to care for and populate the Earth. Thus God created Sex, how is it a sin? Furthermore, the spirit came up the mother of Jesus, and inseminated with child. Why fore, is it such a strange concept that Jesus did not conform to the original intent and marry, have sex and produce a child? This parchment remnant could also have been written by inspiration of God.
Outside Marriage Sex is a sin. Jesus never married so if he would have had sex it would have been a sin.
The glorious conception of Jesus was not sex.
I was brought up catholic and have always believed Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married . Mary was from a very wealthy family and not a prostitute like Peter said he was jealous because he wanted to lay with Jesus the way she did. If it is true that Jesus cured her of one of the deadly sins as many people believe I believe it was epilepsy . if you look at it as if he signed a contract before he came to earth to be crucified for the people that is all he had to do. to die on the cross took days and he was removed after 3 hours brought to the stone building whatever they called it was cleaned and readied for travel. he was then moved to what is France now and Mary stayed behind to make it look good soon joining him later to live out the rest of their lives. It would have been normal to do what he did he was human and had human emotions . to think otherwise is nonsense . Rabbis married he was a rabbi . they went on to have 2 children a boy and a girl . The church has lied to us for so long even they believe their lies . they want religion to be a man thing knowing that the first priest were generally women . the church has degraded all women throughout the centuries except Mary the mother of Jesus . the bible was written by men for men and burying all the work of the women of the early church, then they began perverting the word of Jesus to bennefit them. BTW from what I was taught and many of you also that their is only 1 God . Jesus was the son of God yet he is worshiped like a God also ..... that never made sense to me and still does not . this is what I believe and I guess we will have to wait till the man comes back and tells us the truth unlike the church ! Or just wait till the rest of what is out there is found . the truth always comes out :-).
Hello Devlyn13, if you read the Bible you will see that Jesus Is God. I don't understand it I just accept it and believe it. Jesus says John 10:30 I and the Father are one.
John 14:6-10
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
If Jesus did not say in the Holy Bible that He was married it is a lie from satan that a man would say this. I'm so sorry to hear that you have heard these lies. Mankind cannot make Jesus what they want Him to be. He is God, the Son of God and no one can change that. He has no children other than those who have accepted Him as Lord and Savior. We are called the children of God.
Debora; I suggest you read the story of the wedding at Canaan. There is real evidence there that Jesus was truly and literally the bridegroom, not just in the figural sense.
Secondly, it is a verifiable fact that the writers of the Gospels were not who they claimed to be...they were using the names of others to promote their own agendas, such as the writer of 1Timothy, claiming to be Paul, and using that authority to diminish women. If they lied about who they were, what else did these writers lie about?
Lastly; everything you seem to believe, from your words, are only fragments of a greater truth, one that none of us will ever see, due to the zealousness of the early Church to keep the populous in line, through fear and threat. The reason there is 'only one God' is because that is the story these men needed to keep themselves in power. Anything else is completely delusional.
N.N. paddywhack that story is not true. Jesus could never have been the sacrificial Lamb if he would have gone against what He was here to do. The wedding at Canaan is a lie, it is just a story put together so people will doubt Jesus diety.
Boy all of you - I have a book Mary Magdalen - Myth and Metaphor - by a Professor who has studied all of these writings
Debora - what is your problem Jesus was a Jew and in the Jewish tradition they were married before the age of 34
Plus - when John said to Jesus - Lord why to you love her more than us - he said because she knows my heart
Mary Magdalen was not a prostitute as the Catholic Church tried to portray her but as a woman of means
Deborah - who the devil supported these poor fisherman but women who came to their aid and supported them
And little Deborah sex is not a sin it is a natural meeting of love between a man and a woman
In France and Italy - I have visited churches that were named St Mary Magdalen
Peter was furious that Jesus put Mary above him and Paul was a total woman hater - no surprise that these men tried to delete her
And still today the Catholic Church denies her - why? You answer that
Barbara; You are so right...I have read similar things as you. Much has been written about the prevalence of Mary Magdalene in France, and that possibly she lived there after Peter essentially cast her out. Thank you for the reminder of this book I wanted to read.
And Debora: you have to be a sham...or really really vapid. You sound like a recorded message without a soul. That is not a good 'testimony' for your beliefs, it is merely dogma regurgitated. How sick, pathetic and sad.
So a bloodline of Christs does exist? [what is that like in these times? Jacki Christ? Earl Christ? Betty James Christ?] Hmm.. Indeed.
And Christianity is based on lies and unheld truths? Does this mean all those who have followed the Catholic church in particular did it all for not and are damned to hell? Honest question. ; ] Furthermore are those early popes still canonized? Or will the "church" if that is its real name continue to blaspheme? If this is all true mind you.. ;]
ANYHOO...
Cheers
Cheers
I never said sex was a sin. I sex before marriage is a sin. I don't care what you folks have read outside God's word. God says Jesus was the Spotless Lamb of God.
You know like the 144000 that is talked about in Revelations,they were virgins.
Revelations 14: 1-5 Then I looked, and behold, a[a] Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having[b] His Father’s name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps. 3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed[c] from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no deceit,[d] for they are without fault before the throne of God.[e]
"God says Jesus was the Spotless Lamb of God."
Precisely where does "He" say this? Just curious...I've read the Bible in several versions and have discussed it at length with scholars of various beliefs, and have never ever seen, or heard of that passage. I doubt you further because you use the past tense "was": is Jesus not alive, according to your beliefs?
And by the way, Debora...your Freudian slip is showing. " I sex before marriage..."
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... " if it was written it must be true" ... so many believe that ..
What a insightful piece ...well written, .... a plus for this site ... '
For all that are familiar with the Nag Hammadi library, this is no surprise ... and represents just another piece of a immense puzzle that surrounds early Christianity.
Regardless what we believe individually to be the facts ... Christ has had a major social impact on humankind for two thousand years ... in any mans language .. that's success!
@
lib50
They took out references to reincarnation at the Council of Nicaea. The Bible has been tainted by men over the centuries.
Source please...
@ Barbara Adams Jackson
So was John the Baptist also married?
Source please...
Other than the fact that this is attributed to hearsay which in court would be inadmissible, this is sort of interesting from a historical perspective.
This sex thing really has you religious people messed up.
What is it with religion and sex?
You'd think it was a flesh eating virus the way the various factions treat it. Literally nothing seems to be more important. Just weird.
Vince-545056, if only more Christians were like you....
@Carl: While I don't have a particular source for you, it is my understanding that Jesus was a Rabbi, and John was not. (John 1:4, i.e.) Therefore it would not be as socially necessary or likely for John the Baptist to be married, whereas for Jesus it was. As per source, Hebrew history and social custom would verify this.
I have been saying for years that he was married. Stupid not to be in those days. Likely arranged while he was very young even. Now maybe that didn't work out. But for sure Mary Magdalene was no whore. Bet she was even hot by today's standards and if Jesus was not married that would make him gay. So all you nut jobs that believe he had to have never gotten laid to be the savior of a some people are full of it. I just bet the crappers in the vatican are overflowing with people crapping their pants over this. Might even stop some from molesting altar boys. No reason why priests have to be men. Other than some sick delusion of power. Good that this comes out. Will make more pople see how full of shiite the pope is and the red buzzards that surround him. Early popes had wives, mistresses, and got lots of tail. This just explains how they felt justified in doing that. Go Jesus, wax that behind!
And paddy is right. Rabbi's screw like rabbits.
n.n.paddywhack
Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Why, did this part of the world and the early church, endeavor to subjugate woman kind?
1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Without Spot means Spotless
Thank you Tether, I didn't see before I posted.
tinto, Women are not Subjugate. We are all to be submissive, Men to God and Women to their husbands first and then to God. This is a willing submission to do what God knows is best for us.
No not at all, Read the book Song of Solomon. The greatest sex is found in the Bible. Teaches men how to love their wifes.
I can't believe someone would say this. Shouldn't we be rioting and burning Muslim flags and killing
Muslims? No one can speak of Christ like that!
Like what? That he was married. If that is what you are talking about it has been going on for years. That does not change the fact that they are wrong.
Debora, chill out there girlfriend. You do know the New Testament was written by men HUNDREDS of years after Jesus was executed, right? And that in the fourth century the Catholic Church held a big meeting and decided what would be included in the New Testament and what would be left out, you're up on that, right? You also know that both the Old and New Testaments have been translated many, many, many times to Greek, to Latin, to English and many other languages in between and the wording has been significantly changed with each translation. You know that don't you? Those are just historical facts and no slight is intended to you or your beliefs.
I'm sorry, but a great big heavenly hand did not come down and take up a pen and write the Old and New Testaments. Men did that and men decided what would and would not be included. Jesus was a man who was born, lived and died by command of Pontius Pilate. He may very well have had a wife and children, we don't know. But the possibility of his marriage and children does not in any way impair the value of his teachings.
Many scriptures were tossed aside by the Catholic Church as heretical and were not included in the New Testament. Some, but not all, found there way into the Coptic scriptures. Some of those discarded scriptures reportedly dealt with Jesus' wife, and the possibility that Mary Magdalene was a disciple just like the men.
So, if you find all that upsetting, I am truly sorry because that was not my purpose. But I strongly recommend that you NOT read THE DA VINCI CODE or see the movie starring Tom Hanks. It will only upset you.
If you believe, you believe, no proof is necessary because you have FAITH. And if you have true faith then nothing can take that away from you. You do not need to feel defensive or outraged because you have your faith.
This ^
Hi skip Nicholson. No man did not write it of their own mindset. It was the breath of God that wrote this, it was placed there by God. The fact that so many people believe the Bible is not the blessed work of God goes to folks like you who have been lied to and all of these lies will be dealth with one day. How sad that you would out and out lie to people.
As for the Da Vinci code, that is truly the work of satan, Just as are all other lies.
As for chilling, I couldn't be cooler. I feel so bad for people who believe the lies; like the ones in this article, that are told to people who really don't know the truth. People who will die and spend eternity separated from Jesus because of people who lie.
Sorry, that's wrong. Regardless of what was in the screenplay for the 'The Davinci Code', in reality the Council of Nicaea had literally nothing to do with the Bible canon. In fact, that council didn't even discuss the Bible canon, which had already been established and referenced centuries earlier.
what a bunch of crazy people - yeah of course the version of the "story " they kept in the bible is the one that was spread and became a religious cult - BUT that is exactly the point, the info was censored and edited by similar crazies of their time to fit what they wanted to believe - the fact that this text and countless others ( not to mentioned the ones that were destroyed or will never be discovered ) is proof enough this is a man made- cult - nothing more - it is definetly not based on truth or reality - with all this evidence of many alternate possiblities you need to be delusional to think otherwise - but alas- delusion- the motor oil of any religion
I've often wondered what Jeseus would think of the fact that we turned his wife into a prostitute. All because the people who have ALWAYS been in control of "the church", men, didn't want women to think they were equal. If Jesus had a wife, it would mean that he himself, had accepted another as a "part of him", a partner, a "better half"?
I heard it explained once that Jewish tradition held that when a man died, his body was to be annointed with oils. This job was to be done by his WIFE, if he had no wife, the job fell to his mother. Who was it that discovered the body of Jesus missing...what was she on her way to do?
Actually no, there isn't. I suggest you read the account as well, for John 2:2 clearly states that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the feast, which would make no sense if it was Jesus' wedding feast. (Also, the feast took place in Cana, not Canaan.)
Again, no. There is only speculation by some Bible critics along those lines. Opinions, but not facts.
I guess the real question is: In the Bible, why does Jesus go from a 12 year old kid teaching the Rabbis in the Temple to a 30 year old wandering the streets raising dead people without any details in between...what was he boosting cars as a teenager or something? Did he just get out of prison and start healing and preaching again?
I don't think this article will change anyone's mind though. Most of the people in church can't get their head around the fact that Mary and Joseph were Jewish also. If you ask them...most will think they were Christians and not even realize the irony.
Also, it would be good for the Catholic Church to hide this since it would mean that for all those centuries priests could have been married. Kinda throws a wet blanket on the party.
Gnostic belief systems relied heavily on sexual experience as being symbolic of spiritual experiences particularly in reference to the "Holy Spirit." It was condemned by the greater church as having a carnal component inconsistent with biblical purity in relation to the sexual. Gnostic belief systems compete today - and can be seen heavily in the Mormon belief system - with the sexual union in marriages - whether monogamous or plural being repeated in the heavenlies complete with offspring. It is rejected by traditional Christianity and is viewed as heretical. The council of Nicea attempted to quell the proliferation of this belief system and ensure people where properly indoctrinated with a New Testament that was complimentary to the Jewish tradition put forth in the old testament.
Good Morning Debora and thank you for the response. Please re-read my communication. I did not say anything against your beliefs. All I stated were historical facts, you can believe them or not, but they are facts none-the-less.
Faith isn't about facts, it's about belief. As I said, if you believe (which you apparently do) then you believe and therefore you have FAITH. Nothing can take that away from you and I would never even try.
If you can't see the facts for what they are that's you're problem to deal with in your own way.
DA VINCI CODE Satan's work? No, it's another work of man and a best-selling work at that.
Debora, have you considered the possibility that your "faith" and I use the small "f" intentionally, borders on the same fanaticism that we all find so disturbing in the Muslims in the Middle East? (Please no cards, letters or Fatwah's, I'm not making a judgement, just a point) Your rhetoric and your intolerance of opposing opinions not to mention historical facts is worrisome. If you'll allow me to say so your beliefs verge on "superstition" and "myth" and you cling to them much too tightly to be entirely healthy.
have a good day.
Everybody loves a good story. In my tribe we have all sorts of stories about the creation of the world, first people and so on. We know they are important stories that relay the message our Ancestors left for us. We are not trying to beat anybody over the head with the story, but have them reflect on the message. The truth is the message, not the story.
Debora,
If you believe the the wedding was a lie - but then you also believe that the bible is the breath of God, well how does that work out? They were allowed to have one lie in the breath of God?
I don't need faith--I've had experience. And there is nothing re: Jesus being married that contradicts my experience of him.
Deborah--god bless you--but interesting how you pick and choose parts of the Bible in which to believe. Canae was Jesus' first "miracle" and he turned water into wine. A man after my own heart!
Truth is there are LOTS of "books of the bible" (many were "lost" and/or excluded) and MANY different translations. Man wrote it--it was never meant to be cast in stone. It was meant to be a living breathing thing--much like the Jewish Torah. Pity we don't have an up-to-date version that might mean more and help more in today's modern world.
Beckala--BRILLIANT! You're right! The breath of God lies! Spot on!
Acutally Maxwell I believe it all, and I show what needs to be shown. I would rather speak with people who are willing to research the truth but I find that there are tiime I don't do the research I should on other subject matter. When it comes to God's word I read it daily and try very much to keep it close to my heart.
Wow no Christians calling for riots and killings over this..
Debora,
I actually admire your faith but I think that faith is placed in the wrong part. I have faith in God and what he believed... helping others, standing by the weak. I believe that God truly would rather every person treat others well and like a friend at all times rather than berate their own beliefs.
I think that the Bible was written by men and there are too many inconsistent parts for it to be a complete truth.. which you have stated yourself. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that a man may push their own agenda because they truly believed it was the right thing to do.
God granted us free will so there is no guarantee that this book is complete truth because he allowed the men to write it. If you believe that it is the breath of God, well then God took away each of those men's free will.
I do my research, I have read the bible and I even read it to my son... but I also know that I have made too many mistakes in my life - even when the right way was clearly laid out for me... to believe that the Bible was written in pure truth without any personal attributes.
Roadrunnero - We are more civilized here in the West...
We only riot, burn cars, and loot stores when our local sport team wins a championship....or when they lose. See the difference
it all comes down to the intelligence of the participant....kinda like reading the same book every day of your life...that's not crazy at all.
Ok folks, move along, move along, there's nothing to see here. Let's keep moving.
Have a nice day Debora, you certainly livened up the morning for some of us and I thank you for the lively discussion.
Where is this wedding I keep hearing so much of? All these people keep saying that it was Jesus' wedding?
Please give your references. If not, your argument means nothing. There is talk of a wedding in John 2: 2, but it says Jesus and his disciples were the guests because they were " invited". A bridegroom doesn't need to be invited to his own wedding.
Assuming Jesus was a real historic person, he was an Orthodox Jew. My understanding is that Jewish men (and women) married early, and had children (in that order) and that NO ONE would give credence to a teacher who did not practice the faith. It is almost certain Jesus was married, and probably fathered children, or no one would have paid him any attention.
And, if he existed, he probably looked a lot more like Mr. Arafat than he did in the WASP drawing above.
Chem, in the gospel of matthew he describes going to the temple, which was destroyed in a.d.70. this implies that it was written prior to the destruction of the temple. it would be like if in 200 years somebody finds a document that describes going to work at the world trade center every day, and never describes plane crashes. this would cause the reader to conclude that it was written before 9/11/01. mark's is, by tradition, older than matthew's. both luke and john can also be dated to within a century, john's being the oldest, between 80 and 120. paul's letter to the corinthians was within a decade of the crucifixtion.
The bible also tells us that talking snakes and donkeys are real. Also, it is true that Jesus would have seemed more than a little strange in those days as a 30 year old, single man. I feel sorry for people that blindly follow the bible. You are really sealing yourselves off from a larger world. At elast read more than one translation (which many christians sadly never do). Don't take my word for it though. Ask the talking donkey.
I wanna get with you...........and your sister............I think her name's Debora-389330
It's my understanding that in the times of Christ, the words for wife and woman were interchangeable. That said, since there are obviously no references to Christ being married except for some "scholars" interpretation from this minute piece of parchment, it seems it seems his interpretation may be pathological. People will believe what they want to believe.
So, Austin, if someone writes a story 100 years from now that describes going to work at the WTC but never mentions 9/11, that proves that this someone actually wrote the story before 2001?
I recently read a history of the beginning of WWI. The writer wrote through to September of 1914, but wrote nothing of what followed. Does that mean it must have been written before the end of WWI?
give it a rest people. no one will know until they die.
Knights Templar and today's Masonic orders all have evidence that Mary Magellan was the wife of Jesus of Nazareth; she fled to Northern Spain, and then to southern France with their daughter after his death; the daughters children became as the Pope in Rome said in the 7th century, Kings in their own tight as descendants of the King of Kings, the Gnostic's(called heretics), were a threat , they were invaded by the Church and French army's and destroyed, their writings were burned, however, a few copy's survived , , it is well known in Southern France that the offspring of Jesus still live in that area; the Church has suppressed the information for 1500 years, since it did not fit with their teaching's; Jesus lived as a man, brought the people of the earth a message from God, problem is no one wants to follow his message, but his message was clear !
Gilamonster: You're understanding is wrong. My father grew up an orthodox jew and became a christian later in life. There are many men who are rabbis who are not married and have never been married. Although it is common for men to be married, much like today, it is not an impossibility. Again, I speak from first hand knowledge.
It's possible that Jesus was married. I actually kind of like the idea. It humanizes him more to me. There is not a lot of evidence for it though, but the idea of it doesn't offend me at all.
That being said the whole argument that it would have been "odd" for him not to be married is simply not true.
John the Baptist was likely an Essene. They were asetics. Generally they were celibates. Philo says that they banned marriage "because women were selfish, jealous, deceitful, seducing, and leading the sovereign mind into bondage to her and the care of children." and Josephus said "that marriage was important for the continuation of the race; therefore, there were Essenes that married and had sexual intercourse only for the purpose of procreation.25 Josephus is probably correct because he lived with the Essenes for three years, and Philo seems to be turning the information towards Greek philosophy."
Now remember that Jesus asked John to baptize him. He vocally condemned Pharisee and Sadducee theologians. This could be an indication that Jesus was more in tune with Essene philosophy than Pharisee or Sadducee. So it would not be unreasonable to take from that the assumption that his views on marriage were similar. We also see that Jesus asked his disciples to leave their wives and families to follow him. Would it not seem odd for him to tell his followers to leae their wives behind only to later take a wife for himself?
So as much as I like the idea that Jesus was married and may have had children, historically there is just as much evidence against the idea as for it. We'll likely never have a definitive answer on the topic.
http://youtu.be/W-Nc166bIh8
This is the 100% TRUTH on this story, no spin, just the facts.!
debero: your a goof ball: Your the same people that think the earth is only 6000 years old and there was no Dinos....Your just as bad as the Musliums..
Sheesh... reading some of this makes me extra, extra proud to be an atheist.
I do hope that this document is validated as another piece to the puzzle that allows women to have the same standards as men. Priests having wives, women being priests, etc. This is a wonderful, modern direction compared to the misogynist doctrine cobbled together as the current bible.
I bet Deb is faithful enough to vote for Obama because Mormonism is an affront to her faith.
Good grief are people really this dense? Jesus refers to the Church as his bride and himself as the bridegroom many times in the scriptures. This is probably just an example of that.
Anything for a good controversy these days! The media loves to start stories to divide our Country on religious, political, moral, and phylisophical beliefs.
Was written by Paul. Paul changed God's words just enough so that Hebrew followers recognized the words but didn't know enough scripture to recognize the changes that were made to fit Paul's teachings of Jesus. Paul is the anti-Christ that the bible warns us about. Remember that the anti-Christ will rule for thousands of years after Christ and Paul already has lead Jesus followers for over a Thousand years. Paul doesn't teach Jesus' teachings; just his own.
skepical: maybe she'll vote for Obama becasue he's for 100 % of the people and not 53 %....
Whether or not Jesus was married is hearsay. It doesn't change his teachings. This "controversy" only serves to distract people from what really matters and gives ammunition to people who want to find fault with the Christian faith. The idea of him actually being married is not as bad as the long standing idea that the two were just "hooking up". If you think about it the Bible does make clear a few things:
- The Sacrificial Lamb (Jesus) was to be spotless.
- Sin starts in the mind.
- It is better for a man of God to be married if it means that it will help him to stay on the Godly path (ie. not thinking about doing the deed with Mary M when theyre not married).
Do I think that they were married? I'm not sure. I believe that Jesus was/ is next to God in perfection. But that doesnt mean that He couldnt have been married because that would imply that people who marry are living in sin. A "spot" is a spot Deborah so you cant say that the Lamb was spotless because he wasnt married and then turn around and say marital sex is not sinful.
We have to remember that interpretation of the Bible can be skewed when you pick and choose segments out of context. While it was written by multiple authors over hundreds of years it was Divinely inspired so the essence of God's word is cohesive. No one disputes that there were books left out but that doesnt mean that there is a conspiracy or coverup (except when it comes to Catholic Church...no offense, but youre doing it wrong) it just means that some just didnt make the cut...they are out there for you to read, if you so choose. I mean, I've got some great stories that I think would be a great fit in between Exodus & Leviticus ( I call it Exodus 2.0: Moses Doubles Back For A Sneak Attack), but I dont think it will make it into the any new Bible addition....
Let's all calm down, and we'll ask him when we get there.
Huskergal - I agree that Paul was likely a false prophet. Much of what he says seems to contradict what Jesus taught. Too bad his followers were the ones to survive.
"Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim..."
People who believe Christ was married, have no understanding about Him, His life, or why He came to the earth. But please, continue to grapple with divine truth, and pull it down so some can feel better about not living according to His teachings...
jeez just what the world needs, another story about these stupid invisible men.
haven't we wasted enough time on this nonsense already.
Actually, and I'm sure I"ll be corrected if wrong, I think the Bible only speaks of "sexual immorality" and doesn't say specifically that sex before marriage is a sin. It says that even lusting in the heart is a sin, without actually having sex - but, as has has been made very clear - the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. Obviously, the founders of the Catholic Church had huge hangups over sex and of course, they added their own thoughts in the writing of the Bible. The original manuscripts have been shown to be altered from what they said and what ended up in the Bible.
Take the fact that the Catholic clergy is supposedly celibate - well, we all know what a joke that is. I guess they think celibate means its OK to molest and rape young boys. But, before that became common knowledge, archbishops, bishops, etc. throughout history would have "housekeepers" who bore illegitimate children while serving in the house of the Church official - yet, still, they kept these "sinful" women employed and they continued to bear children. Hmmm - wonder who sired those children, especially in the case of when a woman lived with that man throughout his adult life, and was his companion to the end of his or her life.
When your Christian (or Catholic) identity is based on a lie, then stop throwing your religion at people. Even in Christian churches, I've heard married preachers say that it's better to remain celibate and unmarried and serve God with all your heart - so, that's best, but they couldn't do it, so just MAYBE sex and marriage have nothing to do with serving God.
jeez, just what the world needs, another comment from someone being ignorant.
haven't we wasted enough time with these people already?
and just for the record, check the archeological and historical records pertaining to the bible. you just might be in for a surprise. otherwise, you are just talking in ignorance.
Sorry, but I believe you have been led away from God and that you have no understanding about Him, His life, or why He came to the earth. How could this have happened? Probably because you have no understanding of the OT which is very important to the understanding of the NT. Remember Jesus was a Hebrew. God's command was to "Go forth! Be fertile and fill the earth." Jesus was living and teaching God's word. That is why He was sent. It makes sense that he was married and at age 33, had children. He was sent to put the laws into our minds and write them on our hearts so that nobody would have to teach them anymore.
Please understand that the Pharisees and teachers of the law were teaching their own interpretations of the word, not God's word, and were passing their laws down from generation to generation. The same thing is happening today; the clergy of all religions are teaching tradition rather than God's Commands, Laws, and rules.
hambone, you misunderstood the analogy. it only applies when the event left out would have an impact on the overall message. if someone were to write about american history and desribes going to the world trade center without mentioning 9/11, it would be reasonable to conclude that it was written prior to 9/11. if the thing you read was about the beginning of ww1, only going through 1914 would't have an effect on the message. obviously, matthew would have written about the destruction of the temple had it already been destroyed, because it directly applies to his overall message.
Jobo nelsbo 1.75
You're partially correct as Obama is 100% for Obama.
I was raised Catholic and believed everything I was told and read in the Bible until I reached my mid 20s. Then I started to wonder if everything I was told and read was really true and could have really happened. I started to read other points of view, and I came to the conclusion that if Jesus really existed, he was a man, and a very remarkable man, but still just a man. I think it is very possible that he was married, and would have no problem with that. I do believe in his message, that we should love one another, and treat one another as we would like to be treated. I also believe that the New Testament was written by men, for men, and that the Church suppressed anything that did not fit into their view of what the Church should be. I also respect the views of people who disagree with me, and uphold their right to practice their faith as they see fit. I believe this is what Jesus would do.
Thank God for all the people in the world who are considered weird or a goof ball. We will be in heaven because Jesus loved us enough to die for us. The spotless Lamb of God.
Priests commonly married until Pope Benedict stopped it around 1030 A.D. so the church would inherit priests land. It was a business decision.
That idea is not uncommon, but it is also incorrect. Remember that Paul was comissioned by the resurrected Christ himself.(Acts 9:3-19) A careful study of Paul's writings shows that they do not contradict Jesus' teachings at all. In order to understand what Paul wrote and why, it's vitally important to remember two things: He preached during the time when the ministry was expanding to the gentile nations (as Jesus foretold), and, unlike Jesus himself, Paul was preaching after the Mosaic Law had been accomplished and ended by Christ's propitiatory ransom sacrifice.
No, Paul was not an antichrist, of which there are many according to the scriptures.(1 John 2:18) The idea that Paul contradicted Jesus' teachings is generally based on confusion about one or both. Some more (and better) study may help to alleviate that. Consider that such an idea would require that Paul managed to either outsmart or overrule God himself, since Paul's writings are included in the canon of the inspired scriptures--the collection of which God surely would have directed. Please take a moment to meditate on that.
Very true, and thank you, DaveB001,
C.S. Lewis agreed with you.
"In every rebellion, the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself. In the same way, the attack on St. Paul is really only a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men are not ready in large numbers to attack Christ himself. They make the normal first move - that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they dislike in Christianity is therefore attributed to St. Paul. It is unfortunate that their case does not impress anyone who has really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention, but apparently, few people have, and so the first victory is won. St. Paul is impeached and banished and the world goes on to the next step - the attack on the King Himself."
(Note: beware of poster named huskergal. Although you have a strong conviction and knowledge of the Christian faith, huskergal's posts mix truth with lies and are meant to confuse and mislead Christians who are not confident in their beliefs. A sampling of his/her posts are evidence of this.)
Was he? What proof do you have? Were you there? We have his word on that only. Nobody around him saw or heard anything. If you check out his background, he was a Hebrew named Saul and his main goal was to kill all of Jesus's followers. Do you remember this part of the story? What method would you use to accomplish this goal? Paul used a fake vision to lead Jesus's followers away from God into spiritual death. Jesus led his follower towards the throne of God and everlasting life.
No one can be saved unless they follow Jesus. He was sent to be the savior and to lead the people to the throne of God. If one is under Jesus' protection then one is under God's protection.
Please be aware that the poster of the above is judging and gossiping about a person he does not know. (S)he is going on his/her own interpretation of this person says. He is intentionally committing premeditated murder, though (s)he is unaware of his transgressions, and the punishment for this is spiritual death. I state what the Bible says, but only God can judge him/her.
Let's take a look at the account and see what it says.
Acts 9:7 "Now the men that were journeying with him were standing speechless, hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man."
So the men that were traveling with Saul also heard the voice and so could collaborate that part of his account. Later, the disciple Ananias receives a vision related to Saul.(Acts 9:10-16)
Of course. In fact, Ananias raised some of the same concerns you did concerning Saul:
Acts 9:13-14 "But Ananias answered: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name."
Yet note the response he was given:
Acts 9:15-16 "But the Lord said to him: 'Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.'"
Thus, Ananias' vision and experience serve as independent collaborating proof concerning Saul/Paul's commission from Jesus.
Good references, DaveB001,
Another interesting passage confirming the authority of Paul's witness is in Acts 19: 11-16:
"God did amazing miracles through Paul. Even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to those who were sick. When this happened, their sicknesses were healed and evil spirits left them.
Some Jews went around driving out evil spirits. They tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus to set free those who were controled by demons. They said, "In Jesus' name I command you to come out. He is the Jesus that Paul is preaching about."
Seven sons of Sceva were doing this. Sceva was a Jewish chief priest. One day the evil spirit answered them, "I know Jesus. And I know about Paul. But who are you?" then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on Sceva's sons. He overpowered them all. He gave them a terrible beating. They ran out of the housed naked and bleeding."
Did they now? According to the "Believer's Bible Commentary Acts 9:7-9 The men who journeyed with him were in a thorough daze by this time. they had heard a sound from heaven, but not the articulate words which Saul heard (22:9). They had not seen the Lord; only Saul had seen Him and had been called to apostleship at this time. Therefore we are still left that we only have Paul's word for it. It is hearsay.
From the same source;
19: 9-10: When some of the Jews were hardened (as to their intellect) and disobedient (as to their wills), when they began to agitate the multitudes against the way, Paul left the synagogue and withdrew his disciples from the Jews there. He took them to the school of Tyrannus, where he had freedom to teach them daily. It is generally thought that Tyrannus was a Greek who conducted classes in philosophy alead the way.nd rhetoric. For two years, the apostle made disciples of them and then sent them out to teach others also. As a result the whole province of Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks., Thus the great door and effectual was opened to Paul, even though their were many adversaries (1 Cor 16:9)
Right here it tells you that Paul was teaching his disciples. However he as not teaching Jesus teachings but his own. He had to teach them for two years. Why so long? Everyone should have had Jesus teachings in their mind and written on their hearts.
I challenge you both to read the bible for yourselves and let the Holy Spirit lead you. It takes time, lots of it, but then you will "See" and "hear."
I have to eat. I'll do more later. I only wish you would do it for yourselves.
While eating, I thought this whole thing over. I believe that I am wasting my time. I wish you both well. However, my challenge still stands if you ever want to take me up on it.
The scripture says they did, and that is good enough for me. If you do not share that level of faith in the scriptures, that is your choice.
You previously raised the concern that "Nobody around him saw or heard anything." I responded scripturally to help you understand that those travelling with Saul did indeed hear a voice. What I don't understand is why you are conspicuously ignoring Ananias' vision and experience? If your interpretation of the scriptures requires you to literally ignore much of their content, perhaps you should seriously reconsider what you have been lead to believe. If what you believe is the truth, it will be consistent with the inspired scriptures--even the ones describing what happened to Ananias.
The Holy Spirit does not lead people to ignore what they read in the inspired scriptures. Please carefully consider not just what you have been lead to believe, but also what is actually leading you to believe it.
DaveB001,
Another good reference to the authenticity of Paul's witness is the fact that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were both written by Luke, the physician who knew Jesus' disciples and also traveled with Paul. Wonderful first-hand accounts written by someone who was not only highly educated for that time in history, but also somone who obviously interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus, and wrote of the early years of Jesus' life.
It is fine with me, if it is good enough for you. You fit what Isaiah propecized about the people and Jesus talked about.
I feel I had to answer you even though I know that it will fall on blind eyes and deaf ears because i must ask you a question.
I ill leave you both with something to think about
http://christiandeistfellowship.com/4gospels.htm
This came to my knowledge at 8:02 Am September 22/2012 when I awakened and came to the computer. It is new to me.
You may be asking, where did Paul change God's word. I willingly show you.
Jesus tells you that:
Since we are waiting for Jesus to return, not everything has been accomplished and we know that because heaven and earth are still here! Paul and John tell us the only way to heaven is through Jesus whose blood washes away our sins. The question here is How? How does Jesus blood wash away the sins iof people who never met Him?
The Hebrews used the blood of the unblemished lamb or the sacrifice to purify the alter before they cooked the offering for God. The offering to God was the smell of the unblemished lamb cooking, but the people who made this sacrifice got to eat the meat. Did a drop of Jesus's blood fall on you to cleanse you?
In Deuteronomy God says,
Paul writes it this way.
Do you now see? Have your eyes opened so that you can look and see? Paul inserted Jesus as Lord and is leading you away from the Lord your God. Jesus as sent to fulfill by showing how to live the word so that nobody would have to teach it to us anymore.. God said the words are near, nobody has to impart them to us, but since we are born evil, God sent someone to show us how to live. God is still the Lord. He is our Heavenly father. We are saved if we follow Jesus teachings and follow him to the throne of God.
I could go on, but this is long enough as it is. Peace and God Bless.
DaveB001,
I think the lengthy post made by huskergal should prove more than enough of an example as to his/her intent to confuse new believers and thwart those who might become believers. The most perfect example among many of his/her inconsistencies is the claim that we are saved by following Jesus' teachings, yet at the same time asserting that Jesus was not the Messiah, that he never "spoke" any of the words in the NT, and that other writers erroneously wrote them. There are many other conflicting ideas resulting in chaotic reasoning when compared to the holy scriptures, it prophecies, testimony of the disciples, etc.
At first, I assumed this was a devout Christian with a different philosophy and more than a little misguided, and this was not troublesome. Different churches often put their own spin on scriptural interpretation. However, the sarcastic and passive aggressive remarks sounded more akin to underlying hatred of the Christine faith than a logical analysis of it. When this was pointed out to huskergal, immediately a "loving, I-forgive-you-and-may-God-bless-you" attitude was adopted to the point of condescension.
Upon further reading, I assumed huskergal is a person of the Jewish faith who wishes to keep this fact hidden, and prefers to compel nominal or new Christians to that doctrine in a round-about way. But, even that philosophy does not quite fit upon further study.
I am now of the belief that that this is all an intentional and very cunning approach to undermine the message of Christ in its totality from someone who has absolutely no faith or respect for God at all, but is merely a poser. Not an atheist, but one who believes God exists, yet hates Him. It is reminiscent of C.S. Lewis' book, The Screwtape Letters, the satirical writing where the Christian faith is viewed from the reverse point of view of Satan.
An interesting case, but disturbing as well.
I must apologize because I have just learned that I am confusing or just can't not make myself clear. Everything that I have said is what I believe, but I also advocate that people read the bible for oneself and let the Holy Spirit guide each upon the path. The Bible is a blueprint for living and each of us will have our own interpretation and each interpretation is correct for each person. From this thread, I have learned that arguing the bible is not a wise thing to do.
As for you Silverton, I forgive you for your sins so that God will forgive mine.
Perhaps you didn't realize it, but your pasted information if rife with 19th century "higher criticism", which is very unfortunate. For instance, it claims that Matthew, Mark and Luke must have been written after 70 C.E. because they mention the destruction of Jerusalem which occured in that year. This claim originated with secular higher critics that were hoping to explain away Jesus' prophetic statements in those gospel accounts regarding Jerusalem's destruction. Thus, such critics are essentially calling the inspired Bible writers liars, and that Jesus was incapable of such prophecy. I have no interest in entertaining such speculative attacks on Christianity and the Bible. Whether you will choose to embrace them is your choice to make, but please note that pasting them in a discussion directly implies that you do.
If there was any question about the true nature of your pasted information, the following exerpts leave no doubt:
huskergal, the information you pasted reflects a belief that the Bible was written by liars, and plainly declares a denial of Jesus being the promised messiah. Do you also believe that? If so, it would appear that we have very little in common concerning our beliefs, as I have a strong faith in both Jesus and the inspired scriptures. Or perhaps you simply didn't read what you pasted carefully enough. I sincerely hope you will grow to be more discerning concerning what teachings you are willing to accept when it comes to the Bible.
The term "Lord" in Romans 10:9 is translated from the Greek "kyrios" and has a variety of meanings. It is applied both to God and to the Messiah in the Bible:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2962
Thus, by no means was Paul substituting Jesus for God. Note how in that same verse (Romans 10:9) Paul mentions "that God raised him from the dead". Clearly Paul recognized the distinction between God and God's son. It's important that we do as well.
Beyond that, I continue to encourage you to meditate on the account of Ananias in the book of Acts. If you have something to offer related to that, I would be glad to discuss it.
For now, I am still holding out hope that huskergal is sincerely attempting to explain her beliefs. But if she is being sincere, the contradictions in her posts tend to indicate that the details of her beliefs may be as unclear to her as they are to the rest of us. Many sincere individuals start out that way until further study helps them to progress spiritually with accurate knowledge.
Dave, I began studying the bible in 1981. In all the years that I have been studying, I know that the more knowledge I gain, the less I really know. I recognize that no one knows all and that if I want to expand my knowledge, I must keep asking, seeking, and knocking for there is more out there to be discovered.
As far as your not understanding me, well, you are not the first, nor will you be the last. As for you and Silverton knocking me and/or try to discredit what I say, expect that the same measure to be used on you. For all you others, I tell the truth as I know it to be; I never said anything different though I may have come off as a know it all because you are reading what I am saying without the benefit of seeing my face or body language. We all have that disadvantage when we communicate with people through the written word. I do not ask you to accept my word for what I say, but I do sincerely hope that you will study the bible for yourself. Belief in God is an individual thing as is one's relationship with Him. Sometimes it is better to think outside the box. From the beginning of this thread, I have only been advocating individual study; nothing more.
That's an important attitude to have. But when you ask and receive an answer, are you willing to listen? In this case, you asked about the validity of Paul's claim and were provided with the answer directly from the scriptures:
Acts 9:10-16 "There was in Damascus a certain disciple named An·a·ni′as, and the Lord said to him in a vision: “An·a·ni′as!” He said: “Here I am, Lord.” The Lord said to him: “Rise, go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man named Saul, from Tarsus. For, look! he is praying, and in a vision he has seen a man named An·a·ni′as come in and lay his hands upon him that he might recover sight.” But An·a·ni′as answered: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” But the Lord said to him: “Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.”
The account is right there for you to read, yet you've now spent several posts ignoring those scriptures. Having studied the Bible for 30 years, one would expect that you've been aware of Ananias and what happened to him for quite some time. Yet your comments do not reflect this. Sadly, if you are unwilling to accept what the scriptures themselves state, all the Bible study in the world is not going to help you.
Yes, I certainly do listen. I do not listen to men but to the Holy Spirit. He has not steered me wrong yet. My advocating people to study the Bible on their own comes from my on experience. After 30 years, I still do not know it all and I will continue my journey to learn, by asking, seeking and knocking; not man, but the Holy Spirit.
I'm curious, is the only way religeous folk can argue by using their own religeous document? Please do yourselves a favor and read up on the history and creation of your "holy bible". Find out when all of the stories were collected and formed into a cohesive format, why, and by whom. Find out if there are any previous manuscripts written from the time or any secular or judaic sources that corraberate any of the information. The point I'm trying to make is an argument stemming from a source that isn't backed by any imperical evidence isn't a valid argument. The earliest documents we have are from hundreds of years after the events of Jesus. Even the document is question in the article is dated to hundreds of years after Jesus. There is no mention anywhere else aside from the bible's new testament of Jesus or his "works". There is no mention of the life of Jesus before he started his ministry or even of his ministry in any other area of the worlds collected history. There wasn't even a single cohesive belief until the Roman conversion. Also, in a world that has historical accounts from all across the globe, its rather arrogant to believe that the one true god wouldn't care about all his people enough to send his good message to all of them. I mean with all that power it wouldn't be too hard right? Yet it was widely regionalized to a single area until Rome spread it throughout their kingdom. In the Americas, China, Russia, Brittania, Australia, and pretty much everywhere else the world at the time, these faiths were non existant (all were inhabited at this time). Were these people not good enough to save? Did your god not care for them enough to save them until much later? Were the mediterranean people somehow special? And why would the Jewish people not write a single word about Jesus? They didn't, not even in denial of his ministry and they were and are well known for their histories.
Lastly, the reason so many christians are up in arms about the whole Jesus being married business is because if he was then that whole "without sin" clause goes right out the window doesn't it. How can he be sinless and what is the point of a virgin birth if he was married and had kids which was very much expected of all jews at this time period because of the commandment "go fourth and multiply". How could he save you from your sin then? The more likely of the two and the reason you don't here about those first 30 some odd years is because he was married and so on and that disagrees with the rest for him to be a savior.
It is my belief that religion is man-made and for each religion the clergy has passed down their own interpretations from generation to generation. If he was married he wasn't committing any sin. If he had a thing with Mary Magdalene, if only lust in his mind, he was committing a sin. He was sent to teach us to live by the word. The Jews were supposed to follow his example in order to get to the throne of God. However, as they did what was prophesied and rejected Him. He did fulfill the prophesy when he was crucified. The crucifixion was the sign that He was the Messiah coming to the Jews. The important thing is not whether he was married or not, but His teachings.
Lust is a sin whether you are married or not. Lust is defined as the strong desire to have sex with another or simply sexual desire. I've yet to meet a person that has been able to not lust for their mate. And you're a bit confusing there huskergal. You fight both sides of the argument. If your belief is religeon is man made than why do you care about the prophesies or crusifixtion? The entire reason Jesus was able to save the world from sin was because he was supposedly sin free. NO SIN. NONE. He wouldn't get away with a dash of lust and a sprinkle of lie, he had to be sin free, which, if you read the old testament, was a major requirement for the coming messiah, hence, the virgin birth which meant that he was born without original sin, or the sin passed to him from the lust shared by his mother and father during conception. If he had a wife and potentially children, he sinned. That is a fact that you can check with any of the clergy. Were that to be true, there is no way he could be the messiah as the entire faith of Christianity is built upon. This, in turn, leads me to agree with your first sentence that all religion is man made and used and interpereted for the benifit of the clergy who derive purpose, and originally power, from them. Because the most powerful beings in the world have always held dominion over your eternal soul.
I do not fight both sides of the argument. I am beginning to understand why people are confused. I do not believe in religion, but I do believe in God and that Jesus is our savior. I advocate that people read and study the bible for themselves and to let the holy spirit guide them; not the clergy. If the bible is the word of God, then let His spirit show you the way for His spirit knows the meaning of the scriptures. Also if the Bible is God's word, then his word does not change and there is only one way and that is His way. Jesus teaches that not everyone that calls him Lord is going to heaven, only the ones that do what His father in heaven wants will get there.
Ahh that explains it better and thank you for the clarity. I am in the same outfit as you when it comes to spirituality. I believe in a God or creator or whatever label another wishes to place on it, but I don't believe or agree with the religeous doctrine that typically follows. I think that the bible and other religeous works offer many great examples of how to live a peaceful life through which you can give glory to your creator of choice by the beauty your spirit offers the world but but I don't think they are entirely factual or represent truth past the wisdom offered. I think they all offer society a way to live civilized with one another in a fair way that honors all humanity. For you, and this is an assumption I'm working with, you grew up in a christian home, Jesus is the name you give your god and relate to closest because thats the demographic you grew up with so, even through you don't follow the doctrine, the name in your thoughts is the same. Again I relate with this, but I can't call my god Jesus because I also grew in a enviroment that put a lot of emphasis on proof and for me there is none. I'm kind of curious though if you or I would call our god by a different name in different circumstances. Either way I wrote this as a generalization for my religeon;
"Often it's asked 'what is God'. There are many varieties of answers, but none all inclusive or without inconsistancies. What if God is everything, every possibility, the summation of all possibilities that could ever happen, the original thing that started it all through variation. We have never discovered one completely identicle thing in nature, ever. They say God is everywhere and everything, what if that statement is fully true? What if the human experience, the creation experience, is God trying everything, every when, every how, and every way?" RMM
Exactly, God is the unknown. He lives inside us and if we listen, we are guided down the right road, the one that Jesus tells us to enter through the narrow gate and walk the narrow road, the one only a few will find.
You misinterpreted what that quote meant friend. It didn't mean God was inside of us, but that God is us, is everthing in the universe, is everything that ever was and ever will be at every time ever. That God is all of these things because that allows God to experience every thing every when every how. It's the ultimate most intimate knowledge, that of experience. And why wouldn't the creator of everything want to experience everything, to know everything in every possible condition?
I am afraid that I didn't misinterpret you quote. God is everywhere, but when studying the bible it is important to listen to the God inside of us. Sorry that I narrowed down your quote because it is an excellent quote.
Yes that is a problem for us of us; working on assumption. No, I didn't grow up in a Christian home. The only God I know is God Almighty, but I have known the Messiah, Jesus, since I was a little girl. So let us further clarify things. I started exploring religion as a young child. I had to "sneak" away to go to different Churches. At least I thought I was sneaking, but my folks never even realized I was gone. However it wasn't until I was 37 that I first read the bible; any version. I have been studying and learning ever since. It is my journey and I am trying to fulfill it. Each one of us has a journey in life and to find blessing, one must find his/her own journey.
You're speaking of communication and I am talking about the nature of God. If the nature of God is everything then you communicate simply by living. The value placed on your life is yours alone to define by the life you choose to live. Fairness, judgement, sin, love, happiness, good, evil, ect are all human words used to describe a person's experience based on the way that individual defines what these things are. They have nothing to do with God and neither do all those teachings in the Bible or any religeous document for that matter. Those teachings are merely things that wise men and women wrote to promote a peaceful society, foster civilization, but mostly and almost always purposefully to create power. It's interesting to note that any of those words 'Fairness', 'sin', 'love', 'happiness', can have vastly different meanings depending on who you ask. That is actually one of the reasons the bible is such an interesting document, it was written ambiguously such that the meaning and interpretation can grow and be manipulated depending on what demographic reads it at what time period.
This is actually why I assumed you grew up in a christian home, because you only mention the bible in your arguments as if you've never heard of the other great religeous works. Would it surprise you to know that there isn't a lot of difference between books like the Torah, the Quran, ect? Would you be enthralled to know their messages are much the same with different interpretations of events? All show how to live a life according to the ideals of their God, much the same as the Bible, yet you don't seem to think they are as deserving of your study. And I wasn't wrong with my statement about you growing up in a christian demographic. I was actually spot on given your response. You snuck away to churches. Regardless of the type of church (methodist, mormon, catholic, non-denominational, ect) you still were met with Jesus. Had you said any other word, perhaps synogouge, mousque, temple, my assumptions would be different, but regardless of your home life you still gravitated towards Jesus. In America, Christian denominations are a vast proportion of the religeous enviroment followed by judaism and a much much smaller proportion is given to the other religeons. There was prayer in school until the mid 80's, Christian related prayer. Were you born in a region where the dominant religion was different, perhaps Hindi, do you think you'd relate to a different god or religeon as fiercly as christianity?
If all your information comes from a single book, you are woefully, or perhaps blissfully, ignorant. Would you accept a cancer diognosis from a single doctor without ever getting a secon opinion? Would you believe all the articles on wikipedia and think them accurate? Would you read a single book written in Nazi Germany on politics and assume it was correct? Would you ever believe any information given to you from a third-hand account? I'd like to think you wouldn't. Yet you would believe the entire contents of a book that can be physically proven to not even have been compiled into it's final format or religeous belief until hundreds of years later by a non-believing Roman emporor who is the only reason the faith reads the way and has the message it does today? Perhaps study other works and broaden your horizon. I don't think Jesus would mind.
No it doesn't surprise me since Christianity came out of Judaism, and so does Islam. The interpretations is what makes the religions all different and is what makes them man made. You are making way to many assumptions and that is getting you confused and allowing you to jump to false conclusions. It is not surprise to me that there isn't a lot of difference between books like the Torah, the Quran, etc?
Would it surprise you to know that I have read the Torah and I have the Jewish study Bible, I have numerous copies of the Christian Bible and study guides, I have read the Qu'ran. I know about Buddha and the enlightenment and I also know about Hinduism. When I snuck away to Churches, I was also enrolled in study at the temple. I have stated that I am not Christian, was not raised in a Christian home and that the only God I know is God Almighty. After all that it shouldn't surprise you to know that I am from a Jewish home. I had a relationship with the teacher, Jesus, since I was a child. I snuck away to Churches, or Holy Places of the other religions to learn. It was quite easy as I grew up in the melting pot. I do not look at Jesus the way Christian's do. I do not believe in the blood, but I believe that by following Jesus, doing what he does and says that he will lead me to the throne of God; heaven here on earth.
This thread is about the possibility of Jesus being married and I stated that it is possible and I also stated that it doesn't matter because what really matters are his actions and his teachings. That's why I advocate learning the word on your own. My beliefs are more in line with the Torah and Qu'ran than with the Christian Bibles as Jesus teachings come from the word of God Almighty.
Honestly everything you say surprises me. I can't seem to get past your contradictory double speak to understand your belief structure. You say you don't believe in the man-made religeous aspect of religeon, yet you fight in the name of one of their dieties. You say you studied several religeons and this was your conclusion, but speaking with you tells me worlds different. You can't be both black and white at the same time. Or maybe you can who knows, but someone as studied as you claim should understand the difference in what you're saying. You say you don't beleive in 'man-made' in the same breath you say what matters are His actions and teachings which are man-made as you've already agreed. I asked Why Jesus? Why beleive in him and not also his religeon and whats the point? They are pieces of the same body. The teachings are the religeon and the actions portrayed within are there to give creedance to the words. What is the point of beleiving in Santa Clause but not in the spirit of gift giving? They coincide. So you do believe in and follow religeon because you suscribe to Jesus.
Now I offered you many intriguing scenerios as to why your last statement is beyond believable, as well as why beleiving in a Jesus mate ruins the religeon, and by proxy why no religeon can be trusted as you yourself repeatedly agreed to... IT'S MAN MADE!! ALL OF IT! Just like you keep saying you believe! That means no scripture ANYWHERE is "God Breathed". None of it was written first hand, or even second hand for that matter. Not a piece or scrap from any of Earths 1400 religeons world wide can boast that claim.
This where I'm confused. If you are just mainly a fan of the teachings, they are the same regardless since society itself began. There are very many great reasons for the relationship all religeons have with one another. And there have been many who have done it just as well, and some cases better, then Jesus. The message never changes only the pulpit and puppet and occasionally the hat. It's a good message don't get me wrong, humanity today in our billions is the most obvious result of the equation and how well religeon in general fostered the bonds of civilization and humanity to work together and conquer all.
Consequencially, as admirable as this is, it can still be chalked up to a genius idea on the level of Einstein in our own age and not much more. I mean just look how scientists are popping out with their very own beleif structure based on their obsevations in this day and age just as the Greek or Romans in their ages. What makes them any different? One looked at the surrounding world, dazed and in wonderment, and thought the heavens and earth to be controlled by invisible gods of unimagable forces and powers who allowed them to harness their creation for their benefit. The other looked at the heavens and earth, just as dazed and in wonderment, and thought them to be controlled by invisible forces and powers that were observable, measurable, and understanbly able to be forged to work for human benefit, yet still their purpose, origin, and simple reasonings like why gravity works, elude us all so are just as mysterious and god like. There is no difference just a different age. Just a different interpretation of the human experience.
Yet, as I look and peer around I see such splendor as can not be ignored, such beauty and wonder and flawlessness individuality, such incredible spirits of all shapes and sizes and functions and purposes, such simple perfection that can not near be matched. Never have the dice rolled such a beautiful game, not once has lady luck's grin been so wide, nor are the statistics possible for more then one perfect roll. Yet more then one is needed for this I'm sure, more than chance made this wonder I see, feel, hear, taste, and touch. Are these very things manifestations of god? Am I?
At this point I am tired of answering you. The bible is a group of books combined into one and is a blueprint for living. I use the book as my guide. Jesus is an important character in this book. It does not matter whether the character of Jesus is married or not, it is his actions and his words that are important. Let me make something very clear-I advocate that people read the book on their own and let the voice inside of you lead and guide. The voice is the Spirit. Religion is man made but spiritually comes from everywhere. I believe in a higher being who I call God Almighty or my Father in Heaven.
If you do not understand I am sorry but forgivable. It is OK to believe in whatever you want. The bible is open to interpretation but there is only one interpretation that really matter and that is for within. We, you and I do not believe or think the same way. I understand where you are, but you do not fathom where I am. It is confusing for you because it is a new idea.
No, it is confusing for him because you are the Great Confuser.
I recognize you.
The bible you know and read today looks nothing like it did originally and is the sole result of a Roman Emporer deciding to adopt the religeon and make it cohesive. Jesus and all his works are not mentioned anywhere else in history aside from within this book and most of the New Testament is relatable to other well known stories within other religeons. Example; virigin birth = Mithradir, Humanities guardian from evil = Hurcules, water to wine = Hera, being a carpenter = Hephaestus, walking on water = Poseidon, raising people from the dead and also satan in newer belief structures (not an original idea for Christianity) = Hades or Osiris if you want to go Egyptian. The reason you never read or probably even heard of the many non-cannonical books that also tell of Jesus and his works is because they don't jive with the religeon that Constatine and the other voting members at the council of nicea created. Yes there are quite a few and they don't tell the same tale that your used to reading and studying, hence, why they aren't included. For those of us who study history, these things make sense. All religeon is modeled of its predecessors with a tweak here and there to make it seem new and fresh. This has been shown to happen many times throughout history. When a warring nation is defeated the victor almost always iimposes their religeon on the loser. This can even be seen relatively recently in history if you study native americans or even the south american peoples who had christianity forced apon them and were considered heathens by their christian conquerors. The contact with native america resulted in the formation of a new sect of Christianity called Mormon as well. For you to say anything about religeon is a new idea is silly. Nothing and I mean absolutely nothing about any religeon is in any way new. I can prove that fact to you whenever you'd like.
But you are right. It is wrong of me to force my beliefs, no matter how logical, on another. You are free to believe as you please. I understand where you are as well. I have quite a few friends who believe as you do too. They get frustrated with me when I knock holes in their beliefs structures just the same. It's interesting to note that the less education a society has, the stronger they believe in the paranormal and religeon. In fact education has almost always been the mortal enemy of religeon up to and including the point of religeous murder. Examples of this fact; Gallileo, Da Vinci, Newton, Aristotle, Benjamin Franklin, ect. "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it." Always remember that.
RMM,
For somone who claims to know history, I am surprised you are not aware of Flavius Josephus (37 A.D. - 100 A.D.), the Jewish historian, who wrote two volumes, The Jewish War (75 A.D.) and Antiquities of the Jews (94 A.D.). He was not a Christian, but his writings recorded the background of early Christianity, Jesus, and first century Judaism. His accounts are considered authentic even by secular historians because he was not a follower of Christ.
And btw ... belief in a Supreme Being is a personal choice and does not require scientific evidence.
Oh I am aware of him. However, that just continues to prove my point. 1) Flavius Joesephus was born 4 years after the latest proposed date of Jesus's crusifixtion, 2) There are only three known references to this "Jesus" within all of his histories, 3) Jesus was actualy a very poppular name at the time these antiquties were written, 4) Almost all scholars agree to the fact that any reference to Jesus as christ are obvious christian interlopes as there is no way Flavius, a Jewish historian, would ever refer to Jesus in that fashion, not to mention it doesn't correspond with the surrounding text or meld with his previous works, none of which mention Jesus or christ, 5) There are no surviving copies of any of these works written by Flavius's hand to translate original text from and the earliest known translations come from the 14th century, 6) Given that Flavius was born after the ministry of Jesus, there is no way he could provide a first hand account to write a history of the facts, 7) since he was not there for first hand experience, someone must have been, yet not a single scrap is to be found anywhere from any of the known historians of the time, 8) you would think that someone as profound as the new testament makes Jesus out to be would be deserving of more then three mentions in a history broken down in to more then 18 parts or in any history for that matter.
I don't know if you've ever taken notice of the way humanity tends to "exagerate", maybe you aren't a fiction reader or have never played "whisper down the line", but I can tell you with some assurance that we humans are quite good at "make-believe". We have created entire epics devoted to gods we have never seen and entire lands which could never exist. It's human nature to wish for a better place or an escape from the monotony of average life, or even above average life. To think that someone or something somewhere is greater than us and will protect us, much the way a child views their parents when they are young. You are right though and belief in a supreme being is a personal choice and doesn't require scientific proof. That was never my argument. My argument is and was that religeons are in no way based in fact. You don't need Jesus, Muhammed, Yaweh, Shiva, Confucious, Bhudda, Apollo, Zues, Ra, or any of the other multinous "gods", to be factual or even relavent to believe in a supreme being. They all share similarities and teach around the same message to humanity.
Yet still the question lingers. Is there a god or supreme being? And if there was would it matter to them what rituals I performed or what way I prayed? Would it matter to them if I accepted their sons or daughters as children of god or the words written by men as "god breathed". Or would it only matter singularly that I believed and led my life respecting the creation that god created around me? Is god so petty as to only gift this people or that people with knowledge and forget about the rest of creation? Would a loving god ever want to be parted from their love? Does a parent dismiss a child and all of that childs decendants forever for one infraction? Were you to create something, would you require you creation to sacrifice everything including existance for you? Would any parent require that of their child?
You don't need scientific evidence to believe in a supreme being or creator, but you do need it to believe in the doctrinated religeons that surround all of these beings. Believing in god is far different then believing in religeon. Religeon tries to fool you into believing it is the only one and the only path towards an afterlife by basing itself historically and geographically to make itself factual and seem as if it always was. This is why there are so very many differing creation myths and stories and why each these has a central location. Also, it is why the ridiculous debate of the age of the Earth rages, because how can this god or that have created the world at this time or that if there was a world before that date?
Belief in a supreme being differs in the sense that it doesn't really matter what name you give this being or what attributes or what have you. A "supreme" being would not be relagated to what my or your mind comprehends them as or they wouldn't be "supreme". They wouldn't care about the rules and regulations men place on their world because they are above them. They wouldn't care about anything more or less then simple aknowledgement, if even that. And why would they? How would you or I affect thier existance in any way? How would your or my prayers, beliefs, values, or religeous structures shape them? The answer to all of these questions in a human aspect is puzzled out in the religeous doctrines we created, but, regardless of these works, they still don't hold god in prison to them or god wouldn't be a "supreme being". So then any and all religeon could and should be the right one given that we are talking about a "supreme being" capable of anything and that cares for their creation. If this is true then what would it matter what doctrine you followed? You see it isn't a war over the existance of a supreme being, it is about the fact that any being worthy of being considered as "supreme" could never be confined to any specific religeon or doctrine and still remain "supreme". In this, it doesn't matter what historical or scientific evidence we find because they all return to the same apex, the beginning, and there is no going before that point whether we talk of god or science. Both require something coming from nothing and just as much faith to believe. For me, I believe in a creator, a shaper of all things. I'd much rather believe in that and find myself wrong then believe otherwise and find myself just as wrong.
I shall answer more later, but my first suggestion to you is that if you wish to appear to be educated in the area of religion, then you should learn how to spell it.
Religion.
More later.
Where to begin?
Well, first off, Josephus lived during the time of early Christianity when the first generation of Christians lived. Indeed when he referred to Jesus as the Christ, some debate whether this phrase was added by someone else at a later time, but NO ONE with any credentials believes Josephus was referring to anyone
other than the man named Jesus who was referred to by his followers as the Christ, the Messiah, etc., hence their name “Christians.”
And I did not say that you had to believe in religious doctrine to believe in a Supreme Being.
I said that belief in a Supreme Being is a matter of personal choice, and does require scientific evidence. Nor does it require a believer to prove or disprove anything.
Even C.S. Lewis, considered one of the greatest philosophers of modern times, a great logical thinker, and former atheist, said that he became a Deist first, and was then brought “kicking and screaming” to
Christianity. He did not wish to believe it, but finally came to the conclusion after studying it, that it was true. His books “Mere Christianity” and “Surprised by Joy” explain this in a very logical and philosophical way. You may enjoy reading some of his work.
The problem with Christianity is not what the scriptures say, for they are straight-forward and easy for even the common man or woman to read and understand (although the King James version is written in the old English and can be as tedious as Shakespeare to many modern readers), but the problem is that so many religions and churches put their own spin or doctrine on the scriptures. That’s where the confusion and misguidance comes in. The original scriptures, old and new testaments, no matter the translation, repeat the same message and teachings of Jesus Christ.
I recommend to anyone who wishes to know the teachings of Jesus to get a NIV Bible that has Jesus’ words printed in red, and just read the red words alone. A real eye opener to what Jesus was all about.
And please forgive me if I sounded abrupt about the spelling of religion. Sorry. Blame it on my love of the English language, and a long day at work.
You are forgiven about the spelling comment, we all have long days. Thank you for apologizing and realizing spelling errors aren't equivalent to intelligence... Well unless they are plentiful and make the whole statement seem nonsensical... then it means your dumb lol.
On to the other part. Joesephus simply living in the same era as the early christian beginnings in no way makes his statements on Jesus any more factual. I wasn't alive when Elvis was rocking and rolling, I know he was just a man who made great music, yet there are sightings of him to this day and people refer to him as "the king". Am I to assume that he has conquered death if someone wrote about their experience with Elvis? Would it make this claim any more valid if I was a historian and refered to this as truth well after the fact given simple second hand accounts?
There are actually many sources with credentials that validate the claim that any statement from Joesephus referring to Jesus as Christ are later additions, but the most obvious one doesn't need validation. A Jew would never refer to Jesus as Christ, especially one from the time period, because they did not believe he was and wouldn't want to offer any source of validation to the new sect of believers that sprang up and started pulling from their collection plates. They won't even validate that claim now so why would any then? Even now when you talk to someone with Jewish beliefs the most you will get out of them is acknowledgement that he may have been a prophet, why then would Joesephus make such a claim at such an early part of christian history?
But say that he did make that claim in his original works, does it make Jesus truely the "Christ"? Or was it simply a reference to a man that people followed and named their group after? Seeing as the reference wasn't even made about Jesus personally but about his brother James it pushes one logically towards the later of the two scenarios. I'll give a related example of this mechanism working, Lady Gaga calls all her fans her "Little Monsters" and they, the fans, allow the non-fans to associate that name with them to show their support for a influential person they follow. Does this make Lady Gaga any more then a women if someone were to write a history and mention this fact?
The books you mentioned from C.S. Lewis seem like an interesting read and I will give them a shot, I've read The Chronicals of Narnia when I was younger and always liked the way his mind created. I will say that what I know about him leads me to believe his regression back to christianity had a lot to do with how he grew up, where he grew up, the time period he grew up, and the friends he surrounded himself with. I made this point earlier that the first religion a person encounters tends to shape their view on god greatly. A person who grows in up in a demographic that is widely christian almost always tends to relate to those belief systems easiest. It's not often a christian grows up and becomes bhuddist. And even if they did, their vision of god wouldn't sway too far from what it was originally. So Lewis grew up Catholic, thought catholicism to be too mundane and lost interest becoming an atheist, got christian believing friends and held council with them, then reverted back to christian beliefs later. Makes sense really when you see how the brain is influenced by outside stimuli.
"If Christ were here now there is one thing he most certainly would not be - a Christian" Mark Twain. Now why not? Well, you have actually already answered this. So many religions and churches put their own spin on things that the original message has been lost. But, to be honest, the original message was lost long long before. The bible you read today, King James, NIV, American Study, Church of Latter Day Saints, Episcopalian, Anglo Saxton, ect... None of these carry the original message no matter how much anyone wishes to believe such. There are so many extra-biblical non-cannonical books its crazy and even the cannonical ones disagree on all the facts. Half the reason we have so many different sects of Christianity instead of one unified one is because we still, 2012 years after the fact, can't agree on the facts. I've already shown why these books, any of them, can't be trusted to be factual given their inception, by whom, and for what purpose. So it really doesn't matter what version of the bible you read because none of them are factual historically. Would you believe me if I told you that early Christians didn't believe Jesus rose from the grave? Would it bother you to know that they didn't think him any more then a miraculous man, but a man none the less and it wasn't until the Roman adoption that Jesus was attributed the powers associated with him today, and that the pupose of this was to make the religion acceptable to all the current religions at the time to speed along conversion and end the wars plaguing the region? Yet all of this is historically accurate and can be looked up at anyones conveinience.
I'll end with this thought, a man becomes more then a man when others accept his words without argument or factual evidence to back it up. A man becomes a God when these words are used to attain power and dominion over others regardless of the message. A God is destroyed when their words mean nothing to the masses. Someone who is more then a man becomes only a man as followers lose their way and no longer can hear the message. A message is only as powerful as the followers who repeat it but the message changes and grows in repetition. And the followers are only brothers as long as they can agree.
Again, as I stated before, that small phrase about "he was the Christ" in Josephus' writing does not question Jesus' existence as a man on earth. Of course, he lived and died. Whether you believe he was the Christ or Messiah, is one's choice.
It has always been amusing that people will accept tiny scraps of parchment and stone with fragmented pieces of information from antiquity as being authentic and absolute proof of the truth of past history -- as long as it does not pertain to Jesus or the Bible. Volumes of writings have been written and preserved pertaining to Jesus' life and teachings, and archeological evidence in vast quantities discovered to back the writings up as authentic, but because these volumes pertain to Christ and a way of life that some people do not want to acknowledge, they shout that these writings just cannot be true or authentic.
But, oh! If it has to do with Alexander the Great or Socrates, even a piece of rock with mark on it is considered enough evidence to refute any doubt and hailed as solid proof.
Also, amusing, yet incorrect, is the statement that none of the original gospels or the epistles of Paul are original, for indeed there are originals, and most updated translations (not paraphrased ones, of course) go back to the original documents to insure authenticity. Actually, the epistles of Paul were written before the gospels and were letters written to those who were already believers. The gospels came later when the first generation was beginning to die out and it was decided the original followers of Christ should record (whether by scribe or by themselves) the life of Jesus and his teachings for future generations.
Later, the early church leaders discarded the gnostic gospels and books that were written after this generation that were not considered to be authentic. Unfortunately, some of those writings are still used by certain denominations, Catholic among them, who not only included books that are questionable, but also put their own spin - dogma - on things as well.
Do indeed check out C.S. Lewis. Your statement that he just surrounded himself with Christians is not so, as you will find when you read his work. Yes, his friend, J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was a devout Christian, but many of the others that Lewis engaged daily were scholars that did not share his views and were disappointed when he became a Christian, some even disparaging his work because of it.
Another writer that you will mostly likely enjoy reading is Lee Strobel, an investigative reporter with a law degree and an atheist, who set out to prove that his wife's new-found Christianity was a lot of baloney. He questioned the foremost Christian experts with the toughest questions that skeptics ask, and wrote two books, The Case for Christ, and the The Case for Faith. In the end, as oftens happens, Mr. Strobel concluded after those years of research, that it would be harder to disbelieve than to believe. He has become an outspoken Christian since. The fasincating interviews are documented in each book.
And finally, it seems that the path that you are on is a familiar one that many tread. But, it is like trying to learn a new language without learning the alphabet first.
To understand the holy scriptures, one should read the gospels first and start with the basic message of Christianity, then gradually move on to understanding in the rest of the New Testament. Then, when one goes back to the Old Testament, you will see how wonderfully it all fits together.
The path to God seems rocky to those who do not wish to truly travel it, but to those that are willing to risk a discovery and a joyous change of life, it is not hard to find.
Millions of people, from brilliant scholars to the most uneducated poor, have done it.
The question of whether or not he lived and died is put into question with this passage of Joesephus if it was misrepresented. Jesus was a popular name at the time and Josephus actually talks about multiple Jesus charecters in his histories. The addition of the reference to christ gives his living and dieing an extra-biblical source to add relevance to the existance of Jesus. Intriguing enough the scholars that decipered the texts were all christian apologetics from much later that would have an obvious reason to add such a line. Sadly its really a mute argument either way given the lack of source information to validate it either way as all of the original texts have been lost to time.
The same is true with all original biblical texts as far as I know. I have yet to stumble on any information saying that there are any surviving texts from this period. Many were burned by the Romans or in later times during this war or that war leaving us with perilously little to go on for validation. We are left with the honesty of men and women from much later periods and their claims to authenticity which can either be believed or not depending on ones own structures for validating information given them. We are left with faith.
One can see this in a scientific point of view and say that it simply is a bunch of malarchy because of the complete lack of any validating information, or one can see it spiritually as the truth given that the bible itself says "blessed are those who believe and have not seen." It's a tough concept either way to stomach because the human mind seeks validation of such detrimental notions. So again the world is left in a stale mate of faith in the unknown or knowledge of the known combined with the faith that what is still unknown will one day have answers. Faith is the answer in either order as far as I'm concerned.
You mention Paul and artifacts left behind from him. I'd actually be really interested in getting a look at these things. Again I was under the impression that there weren't any surviving artifacts from the time. I will caution you when you say this would in any way validate the claim of Jesus's actual ministry on earth and the miricles done by Jesus because Paul's ministry was much later in the times of the early christian movement as he was initially a persecuter of them. He never knew Jesus in life, but he met him after he supposedly was raised from the grave. He knew Jesus as a spirit that spoke to him and led him from his old life to his ministries. As to why Paul endured all the pains he did in the name of a man he never met, I am at a loss for words, except that they are all mostly alledged accounts written to churches of the time by Paul. From what I know, Paul's accounts are also the oldest known accounts of the ministry of Jesus which is interesting to note. They predate all the other books. How could that be I ask myself? How could someone who never met Jesus in life write more then those who had? And done so before them? Any answer to these questions is only conspiracy such as he did it because of the wars being fought with the Jews at the time becuase the christian movement split the ranks of the Jews and caused derision in their ranks softening them up for their Roman conquerors (Paul was a Roman and the only evidence to his persecution was from himself). Again its a decision of faith.
I will check out the books you mentioned though. And I do hope you can offer further information into the surviving letters from Paul because I really do study this stuff a lot. Spirituality is not a joke to me, but I have never found anything in my searches that could sway my belief that, while religion is a wonderful example of how to live a fruitful life of peace, it is no more true or real than any fiction one can read today. I said earlier this example; the idea of religion can be attributed to a genius idea of an age that led to the population and conquering of the world by man by allowing humanity to create a set of rules that must be followed by all that then promoted civilization and society, but it is still just a genius idea on the same level that Newton's and Einstein's laws of later ages promoted growth and advancement in society and civilization.
I still don't believe that the religion matters. As there is just as much proof for others as there is for Christianity. I do believe that god is very real even if I don't believe in the limits man places on god. I hope that one day I can settle on a single belief system because not having one leaves me rather lonely. Not because of lack of God though. Because lack of companionship in my walk on this world with my creator.
Lastly, and again, there are over 1400 religions in this world. Don't you believe that just as many people find those gods acceptable as well? Does popularity trump that? I'll paraphrase what Huskergall said earlier; "many will find the road to hell, but only a few will find the path to heaven". This can be taken in many ways and doesn't only relate to christianity when you can see all the other ways that god can exist. It's one thing to study a religion and decide this must be correct, it's quite another when you study all religion and the symbology they represent, see the patterns and the reuse of ideas, and make your decision based on this data. It gets harder the more you explore not easier. Sometimes it's just easier to admit defeat at the worlds views then to walk alone. And death is one scary S.O.B.
I perceive you are a seeker as well as a skeptic. Excellent -- it is good to ask questions and God invites us to do so. "Ask ... seek ... find."
As a seeker, I think you will find Mr. Lewis' writings of extreme interest for his books have addressed skeptics for years now. His philosophical writings are unlike the Narnia books or science fiction literature he wrote. They are written in the language of a scholar, and not for the average reader, but as you are obviously an intellectual person, you should find them stimulating as well as informative.
You are right. God is very real. And not only is He real, we can have a personal relationship with Him. That's the Gospel in a nutshell and that's the good news. I don't care much for organized religion either, but I do enjoy meeting with other believers on a regular basis in small group studies and have found the Christian faith to be tried and true, although often I agree with Gandhi who once said, "I like Christ, but I don't like Christians."
And one more quote from Einstein:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In the early church they took a number of votes on this type of thing, whether Jesus was divine, whether or not the Virgin Mary was divine, show of hands, please. This is probably a rough draft that was voted down. No, not married. Next on the theology agenda... Most people don't realize the completely arbitrary origins of their most closely cherished beliefs.
I'm sorry, but that is a really bad history lesson. If you don't accept Christianity, that's fine, Jesus said that the majority of people would not. But you should invest in an education that would allow you to make these types of statement. Even liberal scholars would tell you that the New Testament books were accepted and used by most of the early church long before the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. There were only a few books that were debated and they are well known and easily found today.
The OP is correct, particularly in early history, there was a lot of debate about what doctrine would actually survive. Catholic and protestant tradition is familiar to us in the west, but it is not alone. Gnostics, Coptics, and Orthodox branches of Christianity had their own interpretations and many or these are very different than you'd expect. Yes, Nicaea set some standards, but there was a lot of contention there as well before those standards were set. People were arguing over 4 centuries with few clues. (We have even fewer clues today. Nothing survives earlier than 200 A.D.)
How about that we just accept the fact that someone called Jesus was ordinary man and not son of some supreme being, except if that was being from far away planet and he wanted to mingle with local women.
The books that were debated disagree everywhere. Those copies of copies of copies of copies were not taken from original sources - we don't have any autographs. There is NOTHING abut Jesus's life that isn't debatable. The assertion that we have "lots of copies" means absolutely nothing because none of them from the first 300 years after Jesus's life agree. Entire passages were forged or invented, fabricated based on nothing. We don't get "consistent" versions of the "gospels" until a thousand years later, after a thousand years of hand copying by questionable copyists. There is no authority, so there is no "truth" that is not disputable.
Just one example - apparently the author of Matthew (and we don't know who the author was, but it most certainly was NOT someone named "Matthew") tried to make Jesus appear to fulfill a prophecy in Isaiah. The problem was that the person who miscopied Matthew several centuries later was obviously reading from the Septuagint, wherein the passage in Isaiah in the original Hebrew used the word "almah", which meant a "young woman who had started her period and could now bear children", got mistranslated into the Greek of the Septuagint as "parthenos", or "virgin". Ergo we have the myth of the "virgin birth". Such a reference only appears in one single textual variant, that was clearly slanted by the copyist.
The fact is, we have no facts. No one knows what Jesus said; no one knows what Jesus did; no one knows anything at all about Jesus. And certainly the question of Jesus's marriage is open to debate.
Are you catholic? Because that idea has been discussed thoroughly in protestant churches for years. This is not new. The term "virgin" refers to young woman. It even says that in the bible in the footnotes so that when you read the bible you get the actual translation in Hebrew. Don't you read those?
Secondly, I don't think Jesus would have read the prophesies of Isaiah, of David,.... just to say he fullfilled some prophesy. It would mean he could read from BEFORE the time he was born.
That's just too coincidental.
History students going through old Roman Army records, about four years back, found the personnel files on the unit that crucified Christ. turns out they were sympathetic towards him. They didn't mock him about being "king of the Jews". They didn't put a crown of thorns on his head. They didn't make him carry his own cross on his back. They didn't whip him. They didn't nail him to the cross, they used padded ropes and tried to make him as comfortable as they could within their orders.
Unlike the Bible, the soldiers version of the Crucifixion was written down the day it happened. I imagine the rest of the Bible is just as wrong. So Christ and Mary were no doubt married. According to some records found in a clay pot, in Egypt fifty years ago, which the Bishops had ordered destroyed, she wasn't the 13th apostle she was the leader of the 13 apostles. During the first three hundred years of Christianity, women held the priesthood and administered sacraments. The change to women in the church having second class status was purely political.
Wow folks!! Great stuff!! Really pertinent to today's world. I guess American Idol isn't on tonight.
Actually, blueinnm, it is relevant. Though I often question the intent of MSNBC's articles on Biblical archaeology, for once the discussion on a thread regarding the life of The Christ and the Catholic Church is respectful, and quite a few of the posters are presenting interesting points. It is relevant, because many of us have a desire to understand our common religion. It is a shared interest. This is a far cry better than many of the devisive articles in the past in which people have used the thread to slam God and religion as a whole.
JCPcali: Nor do most people realize that the 'H.' in the phrase Jesus H. Christ stands for 'haploid'.
If Jesus was married that doesn't really change his message. But, I think if he had been married, his wife would have been with him at his crucifixion, just like his mother and the other women were. And Jesus would have told John to look after his wife, too, not just his mother.
Also, some of the disciplies wives are mentioned in scripture. Surely, Jesus' wife would have had a mention somewhere, anywhere, in the gospels if there had been a wife.
Mary Magdalene was there:
John 19:26
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Yes, Mary Magdalene was there, and if she had been his wife, I would think they would have mentioned it. She would have been an important character.
And I think Jesus would have told John to look after his wife standing there, too.
silverton- If she fit in with the "leaders'" message, yes she would have been mentioned, if it didn't well...
Sure they did... would you like to offer a source for that claim?
Heads throughout Vatican Inc. are exploding. Not because Jesus was married and had kids, but because these wealthy, unmarried misogynist child-hating pedophiles draped in gold and dresses increasingly can't control the information flow as they did when most of the population was illiterate or just too dumb to question outlandish superstitions. Or, perhaps, they won't care one iota, if it doesn't hurt their bottom line. At least the guy wasn't gay; that ought make the Pope happy. That's one group Catholics can still throw on the trash heap, even if those numbers give 'em a lot fewer to discriminate against than 3.5 billion females. Probably sending shock waves throughout all the other religions and cults built on rampant misogyny and ignorance. Maybe the human race can now get on with being more self-aware instead of violent, angry and homicidal in the name of the endless invention of "prophets". Islam and Mormon cults must be buzzing.
Unhappy: "Secondly, I don't think Jesus would have read the prophesies of Isaiah, of David,.... just to say he fullfilled some prophesy. It would mean he could read from BEFORE the time he was born."
Jesus didn't have to read the prophesies. All that had to be is that the writer of that passage of the Bible KNEW the prophesy (could be an oral knowledge--in other words the writer had heard of the prophesy) and then bent the details of Jesus' history to comply with the prophesy.
That's all.
Still no calls for censorship, riots and beheadings?? Isn't that the way the devout and lovers of peace act.. OOPS confused you Christians with a Muslim..
Maxwell's Silver Hammer: So your saying that all the writers made up that story in order for Jesus to become the messiah? Writers who were willing to die as martyrs later? Not very likely..... All of the disciples of Jesus died as martyrs except for one who barely escaped with their lives.
No one would be willing to give up their lives for a "made up" story.
DennO'Synn: I would have to agree with DaveB001. I went looking for that story and it is obvious that you made it up. I see no references to that whatsoever. Four Years back? There should have been some record of it.
I can't believe stupid people on this site fell for it.
Unhappy-1583758
Maxwell's Silver Hammer: So your saying that all the writers made up that story in order for Jesus to become the messiah? Writers who were willing to die as martyrs later? Not very likely..... All of the disciples of Jesus died as martyrs except for one who barely escaped with their lives.
1. NO! I am NOT saying anything was "made up"--I'm saying the writers of the Bible were telling a story about Jesus--and very often used former prophesies to bolster Jesus "credentials." That's all. The bible was never meant to be carved in stone. After all, we have many translations which change the meaning of sentences and details. That to me is unimportant.
2. Myths are like the Star Wars movies--important tales that may not be individually factual--but pertain to human experience and therefore are more true for humanity than any individual story details. Myths are bigger than that. Myth does NOT mean "lie."
3. Yes there are people who are willing to give up their lives for a "made up" story. All you have to do is take a look at the "martyrs" of today's Middle East suicide bombers.
I am not insulting the Bible or Christians. I have experience of Jesus (not "faith"") -these details do not take away from my experience. I'm sorry if your faith depends upon them.
God (dess) bless you!
I don't think the writers of the original gospels would have had a problem with Jesus being married. BUt, I still think she would have been mentioned as his wife somewhere in the writings, no matter who she was or what her name was. Many of the disciples had wives and that was not a problem.
You know, there's just as much "evidence" of Jesus being gay as there is of him being married....
Not that I beleive that, I'm just pointing it out.
No, that is not what he said. He told his disciples to go out and teach the Gentiles because the majority of the Hebrews would no listen. He fulfilled the prophecy by the prophets. God knew this and also told us that we would recognize the messiah because he would be hung on the cross and be crucified.
Jesus said that many would look but not see and listen but not hear. Many would not understand. He taught the the road to hell was wide and many people would find it, but the gate was small and the road narrow that led to true life.
In other words, he warned that not everyone who calls Him Lord would go to heaven only those that do what His Father in Heaven wants will.
Some of you people just don't get it! How do we know that references to his wife were in the writings, and the powers that be decided to remove all references to said wife so as to promote their misogynistic views, that women did not belong in the church. It is entirely possible that Jesus did not ask John to take care of his wife because she did not need to be taken care of. If the Gospels can be changed to make Mary Magdalen out to be a whore, they can certainly purge all references to her as his wife.
I must not have stated myself very well, Brian.
I don't think Jesus had a wife. If he did, I think she would surely have been mentioned in the gospels as his wife. I also think she would have been an important character. Would not bother me if he had a wife, but I feel comfortable saying there was no wife.
We are talking of times when women were revered but were not in the loop. Women have always been separate from the men. In Temple, the men sat downstairs and the women upstairs and they weren't allowed to say anything or make any contributions to the religious services. Under these conditions, Jesus's wife would be unimportant to his message.
Actually, women were not revered in biblical times. Women were more or less like chattel or property. Jesus shocked many of his day by openly conversing with women and treating them as equals.
Apparently, his mother was important enough to be a part of his message. Mary and Martha, sisters to Lazarus, were important enough to play a key part in his message. Mary Magdalene, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, the Samaritan woman at the well, the disciple Peter's wife, Jesus' great-aunt Elizabeth who was John the Baptist's mother -- all these women, and more, are quoted throughout the New Testament, and many more are mentioned.
Yes, I am quite confident that if Jesus had had a wife, there would have been a reference to her at some point. Jesus spoke about marriage several times, about a man leaving his parents and becoming one with his wife, etc.
Doesn't bother me if he did have a wife, but when you have read through the New Testament as many times as I have through the years, you will find it hard to imagine a wife would be left out of all of these writings.
Jesus spoke, he didn't write. The Apostles and disciples wrote and they mentioned His mother and Mary Magdalene. So your confidence is founded on nothing. Jesus did not talk about his private life; just about how to live God's word.
Oh, but you are so mistaken. Jesus did speak about his private life. There is the story of his turning water into wine when his mother came to him at the wedding in Canaan, and he spoke to her. Later, when the disciples came to him and said his mother and brothers were outside, Jesus said, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" And when he was twelve and was in the temple with the elders, when his mother and father found him, he said, "Did you not know I would be in my Father's house?" When he spoke to his mother from the cross, and said, "Woman, behold thy son" (indicating John the disciple). He spoke about marriage several times. His words are easy to find if you look in a bible that has the words Jesus spoke all in red print.
Another incident that would dispute the theory of Mary Magdalene being Jesus' wife, is the part where she exclaims "Rabboni!" (meaning "Teacher!) when Jesus reveals himself to her after the resurrection. At such a moment of surprise, if she had truly been his wife, she would have exclaimed his name or a term of endearment, instead of addressing him with a title.
Oh, and how do we know that? Did you hear him speak or did you read his "talking" through the writing of those who heard him? We really do not know exactly what he said because all the accounts different in some aspect or other. It is all hearsay. The fact that the words were divine is that they are in the OT. Jesus was here on a mission and that was to put the law and the words of the prophets into our minds and write them on our hearts so that nobody would have to teach us how to live. Jesus's mission as to end the clergy and have people follow God's commands, laws and rules.
Jesus took all 614 commands, laws, and rules and made them only two:
How many wives do you know that refer to their husband as something other than my husband? I know quite a few.
Well, I have never heard a woman call her husband "Teacher." And in a moment of revelation of finding out the husband you thought was dead was actually alive, one would think the wife would exclaim something other than "Teacher!"(Like maybe call him by his given name, or by a term of endearment.)
But, nevertheless, there are countless incidents recorded in the New Testament of the women in Jesus' life. His friend, Lazarus, had two sisters, Mary and Martha, who were mentioned frequently, and much was told of his interaction with that family. Countless writings about his mother and interaction between throughtout the gospels. Even obscure women like a servant named Rhoda, Simon Peter's wife and his mother, a woman named Joanna, the wife of Chuza, and a lady named Susanna whom Jesus healed. And many more women that came into contact with Jesus are mentioned and recorded.
Seems strange that not once in all the New Testament, reference to a wife does not exist.
However, as I have stated previously, I have no problem with Jesus having a wife if he did indeed have one. Marriage is not a sin (and I have always felt that priests should be able to marry if they so choose), and sex within the boundaries of marriage is a good thing, too.
There just isn't enough evidence to prove he had a wife, period.
huskergal,
I finally figured you out.
I was puzzled reading your posts since they contain, not opinions or interpretations, but conflicting information regarding the OT and the NT. This was especially odd since you claim to be so educated about the material. And also, your tone is belligerent and sarcastic, not a genuine Christian attitude, nor hostile like a fanatic evangelical, but more passive aggressive.
Then, after reading some of your further postings, such as the one claiming that Paul was the anti-Christ, I understood much more clearly.
You are not a Christian at all, but a very clever unbeliever that is attempting to mix truth and lies - an age old deception that the Adversary uses to confuse and manipulate people.
As C.S. Lewis said, people that attack Paul are using the same strategy used by enemies of earthly kingdoms for centuries. This is nothing new. Attack the messenger (Paul), then attack the King (God).
You pretend to be a solid-thinking believer, but send out information to cause doubt among others that do believe or might come to believe.
Very clever.
You haven't gotten around a lot, have you? I have heard many a wife call her husband "Rabbi." I have heard many a doctor's wife call her husband "Doctor."
Yes you do, but only to a point. I am a believer in God. I do not believe in religion because religion is man made. There is only one way and that is God's way. I am not mixing anything. I always speak the truth as it is to me.
Not very clever, just truthful. The holy spirit lives within each of us and he will reveal to those who believe and study for themselves with him. Jesus taught to ask, and you will receive, seek and you will find, and Knock and the door will be opened for you. All I ask of anyone is to study and learn by themselves. Let the Holy Spirit guide you.
You need to study more and not make up things about people you do not know. That is gossip and gossip is a sin; gossip is one of the ways you can murder someone. So please remember for every time you point a finger, three are pointing back at you.
Yes, scripture says that even Satan and his demons believe in God. This does not surprise me to hear you say the same.
I have taught ecumenical Christian Bible studies for many years with participants that were Southern Baptist, primitive Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Church of God, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, even had a Mormon and an atheist join us one time. I have discussed the scriptures with staunch atheists who rant and rave, cool atheists who reasoned and pretended to have great knowledge of the bible, new Christians who were searching for answers, curious people who had no clue about faith, intelligent Christians who have a deep understanding of the Bible, doubters who understandably question things, people who have fallen away from the faith, those who have been wounded by other Christians, ... the list goes on.
But, you are the first of your kind that I have come into contact with. You are cunning and devious in your method and will undoubtedly fool many. But your pride will be your downfall.
I do not accuse you, but there is One who will.
Perhaps you are not so clever after all.
Believe what you want, but remember that there is someone higher than you who is judging you using the same measure as you use to judge me. I am advocating that you study the bible for yourself and let the Holy Spirit be your teacher.
I see you have exchanged your hostile tone for a more mild and controlled one since being unmasked.
Now, that I recognize you and who controls you, I will no longer debate, although I generally enjoy a good discussion about such things.
And how interesting that your user name translates to "Remember Wrong."
Fitting.
I see that you can not answer me nor are you willing to take me up on my challenge.
What my moniker means is that I am from Nebraska and am a husker fan; nothing more, nothing less.
"Maintains a high level of respectability, and lies incessantly in order to do so."
M. Scott Peck, Phd., American Psychiatrist, Author, and Christian
People of the Lie: Hope for Healing Human Evil
Very interesting, Silverton. You do maintain a high level of respectability, burt since you have never met me, and interpret my tone, my words, etc, and say that I am a liar, you must look at yourself in the mirror. Therefore, in ignorance, you are lying about me. What a pity. You forgot that when yuou point a finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you. However, I forgive you, for you know not what you are doing.
"Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others."
M. Scott Peck, PhD
People of the Lie: Hope for Healing Human Evil
Good to see that you do some research. I guess I should be happy for that. May God bless you.
I agree. The earliest physical proof of Christianity at all dates to no earlier than 200 A.D. (although recently one team of archaeologists claimed to have found Christian writings on a tomb from before 100 A.D. - though most scholars disagree with their assertion.)
The oldest writings come from about the same time 200-250 A.D. and these are very tattered and incomplete. Our current scriptures come from generations of translations and copies.
An interesting article from the Biblical scholars side of this:
The link is missing. Please insert as I would like to read the article.
C. S. Lewis, considered one of greatest theologians, philosophers, and scholars of modern times wrote:
"The epistles of Paul are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. Paul was martyred around 67 A.D., so we know all of his letters were written before that. His letter to the Christians in Rome was written just prior to his death. The Gospels came later.
The epistles of Paul were not the "gospel", or the statement of Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted the "gospel." They leave out much of the theology because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it.
Then, when the generation who had actually known Jesus was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord's sayings."
Jesus was a Jew, was speaking to the Jews, living a Jewish life, and by that alone would lead one to believe that he was married. It would have been odd for a Jewish man of the time to have not been.
You are correct, the Jews thought Jesus to be very odd. So odd that they turned him over to Roman authorities to be crucified, a fact attested to by non-Christian Roman historians.
FlyOverMe is correct. It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have reached his 30's without being married.
"...a fact attested to by non-Christian Roman historians." Really? Could you please provide your source for that claim?
I suppose it is possible that the papyrus is actually an account of a stand-up routine he did during one of the lighter moments and this text is really where that old joke originated. "Take my wife, Please!"
Humor aside, I really can't see why this is such a controversy. I really don't care one way or another and it has no implications whatsoever on his teachings. We are taught to believe that Jesus was really both God and Man at the same time. Why is it unacceptable for the Man to have a relationship with a women? You have to draw a variety of conclusions to find some flaw in this. Conclusions that are based on speculative interpretations. It just seems to me that if he were somehow, by his God/Man persona, incapable of having a relationship with a women, that just says he wasn't really man. My point is that it should be entirely possible and it takes nothing away from his legacy and his teachings. Doesn't change anything about what they mean. Maybe even makes his examples even more true.
Really? Because John the Baptist was not married either and he would have been a few months older than Jesus; and John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin.
There are plenty of people nowadays who remain unmarried; even orthodox jews. I have even met some of them. Single people have been around since the beginning of time.
And you know John the Baptist was unmarried? You were there? We have ZERO original sources for ANYTHING related to Jesus (and that wasn't even his name). The same can be said for John.
We have enough copies to conclude that Jesus was unmarried and so was John. Remember, this papyrus was from the 4th century. The St. John's fragment was from the 1 st century.
Which has more credibility?
The question of credibility will always be there for every text regarding the Bible. Certainly the general public isn't privy to everything - if we were then there would be no reason for the Catholic Church to sequester away the "forbidden scrolls". As to why it matters in regards to his teachings, I don't think it makes a difference. However, if Mary was his wife, then the composers of the Bible instead chose to portray her as a woman afflicted with the "7 demons". Other than the general disrespect to his chosen mate, it didn't do much for the status of women in the Christian church either. To admit that he had a wife, and that he saw her as worthy to be his partner would be giving a woman a lot more credit and power than they were willing to do at that point in history. Many policies in Christianity, specifically the Catholic church, have built on this perspective. From an academic viewpoint when taking the history of the church into consideration, it makes a difference.
Which has more credibility? neither.
The John fragment is about the size of a credit card and came from a book instead of a scroll because it was printed on both sides; it is quite ragged and torn. And it was from the second century (NOT the first), from about 180 years after Jesus' life. And that's the very earliest fragment we have. It contains almost nothing, just a few words. Early intact "complete" copies of the "gospels" are very few and date from quite near the 4th century - and none of them agree on ANYTHING.
Most of them simply do not mention Jesus's marital status. But many gospels (other than the 4 canonical ones) were around, and men decided some of them were not true. How did they know? They weren't there any more than you or I were. This was hundreds of years after the fact.
If the word of God is "decided" by men, what validity can it be said to have?
Jesus the Christ was jewish. He was man, but more than man. He is God. "... and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ..."
John the Baptist was not married, either. The apostle Peter was married. It depends upon God's will for your life. Not the time period, country, or lineage.
Hey, maybe Jesus was banging John...I mean, you never know, right? They were both unmarried, as so many of you seem to be fighting to prove, and they traveled around together and lived together...really, what's that sound like to you if two 30 something year old guys, live together, travel together, don't have any history of being with women...
@American01
"Could you please provide your source for that claim?"
Thallus, who wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world around AD 52, was quoted by Julius Africanus as claiming that the darkness that accompanied Jesus' crucifixion was related to an eclipse of the sun.
Josephus, a Jewish historian (who Origen stated was not Christian) writing around 93-94 AD, recorded both the crucifixion of Christ under Pilate and his disciple's claim of his resurrection. The unadulterated version of this text can be found in the Testamonium Flavianum.
Both Tactius (c. 56-after 113) and Suetonius (c. 120) refered to Christ. Mara Bar Serapion (c. 73) wrote concerning the death of the Christ, "For what advantage did... the Jews gain by the death of their wise king?" "Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching he had given."
Pliny the Younger (c. 110) sought the emperor's approval of his handling of Christians who gathered before dawn on a particular day to chant hymns "to Christ as god" and to partake of a meal togther.
Lucian of Samosata (c. 115-200) wrote a satire of Christians that spoke of Christians "worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws."
Justsaying: Thank you for the references! I enjoy learning more re: Jeus history--especially from sources who lived closer to his time. I appreciate your taking the time to list these pertinent sources.
silver hammer, you're a true Gentleman and Scholar!
Yes, thank you Justsaying. I knew about Josephus and Tactius, but not the others. I'll have look up the reading on them.
Non-believers tend to think that the history within the Bible begins and ends with the writings in the Bible. They don't look any further.
The Hebrew Bible speaks of Nephilim which was mis-translated into the Greek as Giants. In the Hebrew it means "Lost ones" or "Forgotten ones". Archaeologists have proved that early humans and Neanderthals co-existed in what is now Israel.
Were the "Forgotten ones" Neanderthals? We may never know.
OK, you're comparing 1st century Judaism to modern orthodox Judaism. There were 4 main sects of Judaism at the time: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and Zealots.
Throughout the New Testement Jesus did not hold the Pharisees or Sadducees in very high regard. The Zealots mainly were defined by a desire for a military solution to Rome, they believed that the messiah would lead them in a rebellion, an idea that Jesus clearly rejected. So that leaves us with the Essenes, an asetic sect that lived like monks in the desert. John the Baptist was an Essene. Jesus fasting in the desert for 40 days was something more in line with Essene culture than any other Jewish sect at the time. They also were largely celibate and did not often marry except in rare instances for procreative purposes only. In this sect it would not be unusual for an Essene to be unmarried.
Now Jesus was likely branching out on his own, clearly his teachings were not 100% in line with any of the 4 sects completely. His goal at the time was a reform of Judaism as in his opinion it had been corrupted by greed and lust for power. Essentially he was bringing some Essene ideas into the mainstream culture of Pharisidic Judaism. I think there is a 50/50 shot that he was married. In the end it doesn't really matter. Any family tree of his descendants is long gone. If it helps you feel connected to him, ga ahead and regard him as married. It doesn't change what he preached or the message he wanted to convey.
Pharisee, Sadducee , Essene and Zealot are the clergy and the very extreme religious people. Religion is man made. It is the interpretation of the clergy and has been passed down generation after generation. It doesn't reflect the actual divine words. In the bible there are no Kosher Laws, just a list of Foods that God says that we should not eat in order to stay healthy. The bible is just one of the blueprints for living. The Hebrews did not accept Jesus because he "changed things." If you follow His teaching, He will lead you to the Throne of God! (Prophecy)
Just as a clarification, in regards to non-Christian verification of the New Testament.
We don't have autographs of Tallus' work. We only even know his name from Eusebius quoting Africanus who allegedly read a work by a man named Tallus which refers to the a strange darkness. Further much of the work being accorded to Tallus would suggest he wrote around 100 BC. Then there is an apparent nod towards the darkness found in the Gospels. At best Tallus' work would have to be be considered as an unverified account removed by three degrees from the autographs.
Josephus was a Jewish historian who's famous history "Antiquities of the Jews" was used by Christians as evidence that Christ rose from the dead. Within the 18th volume of the Antiquities we come across a passage that has become known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Sounds pretty good. However many have taken issue with the passage, and upon consideration with good reason. According to Origen the famous Early Church Father and robust apologist, and known scholarship about Josehpus indicates that Flavius Josephus was a Pharasaic Jew. Is it not odd that a practicing Jew would directly call Jesus "the Messiah"? Either Josephus was actually a Christian or this passage was added later. If Josephus was a Christian then this testimony loses validity as a non-Christian source. Or if he was a Jew then this passage was clearly not his words.
Tacitus' passage:
Considered to be authentic. However, its not clear if this passage may simply be him describing what Christians told him they believed. Probably the best quote of the bunch though. Assuming this was not a later addition, then it at least points towards Christians holding belief in Christ rising from the dead in the early century. So significant if true.
Suetonius wrote of the disturbances by Jews in Rome:
Many Christians have assumed Chrestus is a misspelling of Christ the issue here is that Chrestus is a legitimate Greek name. So there is not necessarily a reason to assume that Suetonius wasn't actually speaking of man named Chrestus who was in Rome causing trouble. However, if we assume this is referring the Jesus. All this really does is confirm that Christians were in Rome by the early part of the 2nd century.
Finally as to Pliny he did indeed write to Trajan about Christians. However nothing he says is about eye witness accounts of Jesus nor does he independently confirm the events of the New Testament.
Huskergal - get the impression from most of your posts that you have not formally studied 1st century palestinian history but instead get your information from some other source outside of academia... Am I correct? Because I don't want to waste time correcting you on the myriad of errors in your last comment if you are not even remotely interested in fact.
The thing that most people don't think to take into account is a lot of the copies of religious documents have been copied over and over and over as paper/materials deteriorate, ink fades, translations are made from copies of copies of copies, documentation of important writings were destroyed but copied as best as possible from memory of those who may have seen the documents prior to their destruction, as well as many documents being destroyed beyond saving by civilations that wanted to be sure to rule over people by using one's belief to instill fear and obedience. We have all these documents that give a lot of detail on things, but we don't know without a doubt that many of the documents state that, word for word, these things literally happened. Many of this has to be followed on faith alone, but it is gullible to say that without a doubt copies and translations of events were never recorded wrong. It may very well have been mistranslated due to a number of factors mentioned above, including the material it was all originally written on deteriorating from travel, exposure to elements (weather, fire, flooding, etc) and dangers that may have been happening in the world. I'm not saying everything written in the bible and documents recording such times are true or not true, but the possibility that some of the information may have been copied/translated incorrectly should be kept in the back of peoples minds. And remember that these documents are being altered as new information is found that is supposedly proven authentic or voted as being true by whomever feels they have the authority to have that role.
Depends on what you call academia. I have studied the bible; both old and new for 30 years now. I use all bibles; not just one. I also have study guides and many different literature books. I have studied by myself and learning has more of a revelation than academic. Also, 1st Century Palestinian History plays no real role in the Torah or the teachings of the prophets. This small bit of history is unimportant to the bible. One must understand the OT before they can understand the NT and "see" where the NT runs off course.
Actually, the New Testament fits very well with the Old Testament, especially when it comes to prophecies in the Old Testament that came to pass in the New Testament. Frankly, it is remarkable when you think about how many thousands of years transpired before the prophesies were recorded in the OT and the writings in the NT.
The disciples and Paul pointed out many of these connections.
Actually they didn't. The OT sections of the bibles that Christians use are not quite the same as the Torah. Also, the bible OT and NT were not combined or written until the 1600's. Yes there are footnotes in the NT that point to a verse in the OT. One verse doesn't make a scripture; one has to read the entire section of said scripture to get a meaning from it. Also there are writings of Paul, that are taken directly from the OT, but are changed to fit Jesus.These are not footnoted in any bible. Why? Because if they were footnoted and cross referenced people would learn for themselves that Paul has changed God's word.
I challenge you to study both the OT and the NT by yourself and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and teach you. Experience the revelations for yourself, my friend, Silverton.
huskergal,
As has been pointed out, you are an adversary of God and not a Christian, so you could not possibly understand the Holy Scriptures. You may memorize parts of them, and "study" as you prefer to call it, but you mix the truth with lies to confuse and mislead those who are followers of Christ. Your attempts are crafty and shrewd, but your sarcasm and passive-aggressive remarks expose your hatred for God.
You are very clever and so is the Confuser that you follow.
I recognize you.
I see that you are gossiping. You words enter my body but pass right through, while the words you speak come straight from you heart and mind and make you unclean. Check out Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:18-19. and while you are at it read Matthew 7:1-5 and 7:7-8.
"An evil person commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others."
M. Scott Peck, PhD., American Psychiatrist, Author, and Christian
People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil
So you hate me but are warning people against me. Who is the evil person here. All I am doing is advocating that people read the Bible for themselves and let the Holy Spirit show them the way. You degrade me instead of taking me up on my challenge. You are an interesting specimen.
My God bless and keep you. I hope the Holy Spirit inside of you will be allowed, by you, to show you the way.
Dr. Peck is a man and what he writes is how he interprets things. He is not the Holy Spirit.
As I said from the beginning I do not believe in religion because it is man made. I live by God's word and follow Jesus' teachings. They are the same.
Most evil people realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on others. Evil is an extreme form of what Scott Peck, psychiatrist, Christian, and author of The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.
Says a man. Evil is not Loving the Lord your God, heeding his commands, and keeping Him close to you; sayeth the Lord your God.
Again I will say:
Interesting that you quote God ("sayeth the Lord your God) from the OT even though they are words written down by a man, and yet you say that the words spoken by Jesus (Jesus saith ...) from the NT are not really words that Christ spoke, but only words written down by a man.
Once again, you contradict yourself and you have proven that you are an imposter bent on confusing people with a mixture of truth and lies.
One has only to peruse your postings to see that are not a lover of God, but a poser intent on driving away those who seek the truth.
I recognize you and the Confuser that you follow.
For it is written "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." Matthew 24:11
Why does this 'science' blog keep discussing religion?
Because it sells to the delusional masses.
For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
Brothers, consider your calling: not many are wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen the world’s foolish things to shame the wise, and God has chosen the world’s weak things to shame the strong. God has chosen the world’s insignificant and despised things—the things viewed as nothing—so He might bring to nothing the things that are viewed as something, so that no one can boast in His presence.
1 Cor 1:18-29 (HCSB)
Well, the history of the time is still history, and archaeology is still archaeology. Regardless of if there is any 'divinity' or not, scientist and historians and archaeologists still need to study the time period.
Yes, I'm interested in this stuff in the sense of archaeology and historical scholarship. Kinda like the stories we've had on the Maya culture and the Popol Vuh:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/03/12/4350634-maya-myth-revealed?lite
... or the historical Buddha:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47722249/ns/technology_and_science-science/
But I acknowledge that we've had a lot more on studies related to Christianity and Judaism. For our readers, that seems to have more resonance.
That's not surprising. I'd imagine that most of your audience is American, and Christian / Jewish history is much more relatable than, say, Mayan culture.
People create their own artificial walls between science and religion where none should exist. God supposedly works in mysterious ways and is therefore a mysterious entity, so makes a prefect subject for scientists to explore and ponder. God gave us the minds and the imagination to explore and inquire into our surroundings and what might lie beyond what we can see and quantify. The two don't necessarily have to be at odds with one another, we just choose to make it so.
rjkardo, why are you even in this comment board if it bother you?
I come here to try to read about science.
And to Alan, why not try to resonate with your readers about science instead of this sort of nonsense.
rjkardo, I'm sure Alan wouldn't mind one less reader. There are plenty of people who are constructively debating this article rather than whine that they don't like the fact that it's on the web. I've never understood people who read articles clearly about Christianity then complain that it's pushed in your face. No one demanded that you come and read this article, that was your choice. Don't want to read about it? Well don't, you're the only one controlling where the mouse points and clicks.
Reality check on Jesus and his wife is science?...ooook
Thank you, Alan.
Yes, it's science. It's history. It's archeology. And considering so many people call themselves "Christians" and/or "Jews"--or are simply interested in the Middle East--yes, it is pertinent and important to us today.
If you don't like it--don't read it. Problem solved.
More power to you Alan Boyle!
It is not science...History? Yes....I wasnt the one that was whining or complaining about this article like Alan...
Alan is the writer--he was not complaining--and it was Alan I was thanking for writing this article.
You were the one who said: "Reality check on Jesus and his wife is science?...ooook"
"OOOOK???!" Perhaps you did not mean to sound as though you were complaining. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, dgal. And yes, Archeology is a "science." History's good too.
God bless you!
Ooops my bad I meant to say rjkardo, not Alan (sorry Alan) and oooook is not a complain....it just being sarcasm....oooook? Have a good week my friend :)
I couldn't care less. It's all ancient fiction designed to fill in human ignorance.
For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
Brothers, consider your calling: not many are wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen the world’s foolish things to shame the wise, and God has chosen the world’s weak things to shame the strong. God has chosen the world’s insignificant and despised things—the things viewed as nothing—so He might bring to nothing the things that are viewed as something, so that no one can boast in His presence.
1 Cor 1:18-29 (HCSB)
> Crucie Fiction I couldn't care less. It's all ancient fiction designed to fill in human ignorance.
Yes, but that is a separate issue from the science of the study of the time period, the history, the people. The study of religion and the study of religious events, is not religion in itself. Regardless of if you are a Christian or an Atheist, this article is about the study of the archaeology, religion and history of the people and the time.
.... blah ... blah .. blah ...
Why are Christian evangelists always so verbose? And employ arcane syntax? Faulkner is easier to read than @JustSaying's postings. A good editing by Reader's Digest might make the religion more attractive to young people.
Barry, have you ever stopped to think about what is being said Christians and their God these days? Do you think such things are easy to read? Think for moment about something or someone you would do almost anything for, like your family or something else that's very precious to you... How would you feel if you read an article in which that someone or something was denigrated, or in the case of religious personages, continuously degraded, mocked, and even blasphemed?
This is how Christians feel when the glory and holiness of their Lord, Jesus, is discussed, denigrated, slandered and tossed about as if in some sleezy tabloid! To a true Christian, not the money grabbing, polyester suited televangelist hucksters who call themselves Christians, but those who actually live their religion... To them Jesus is Holy, precious, and is the Son of God, our Creator. It is not a light thing to slander Him or throw around stories about him that are not based upon fact, but only loose speculation, and yet is eagerly accepted as fact, despite all the reams of evidence to the contrary.
Jesus is not just a man, and never was. Christians know that he wasn't married by many verifiable historical and Biblical facts, but mostly because to have been married would have been contrary to everything that Jesus taught, lived and died for. It would have been antithetical, and unpractical, for him to have taken a wife, and would have nullified all that He was and is. Jesus, himself, said what he was born for. It was not to live his life on earth for himself, but to lay down his life, for the sake of mankind (if you don't understand this, read the Gospel of John). Either people believe this or not, and if not, then why try to add meanings and purposes to Scripture that simply are not there in any form or respect, and are in fact refuted throughout Scripture! People try to reinvent Jesus to fit what they're most comfortable with, but that doesn't make their inventions the Truth. Jesus Christ is either everything he said he was, and was recorded by other to be, or he is not. Scripturally, there simply is no middle ground concerning who He was and is.
Whether you understand this, agree or disagree, isn't the point. The point is that this article, like so many others these days, is attempting to undermine the Biblical Truth about Jesus, who is to the Christian, their Lord and Savior. Is it so difficult to understand why we would use the very Scriptures that relay His truth, to defend what we believe? If He is the Son of God, as we know Him to be, then this article is a blasphemous attack against not only Jesus, but also against God, Himself.
The article above is deliberately insinuating something with absolutely no evidence to back what it's suggesting, and is ignoring reams of evidence to the contrary! A court of law wouldn't even hear a case with such flimsy "evidence" as what this ariticle is tossing around. In fact, they'd laugh the lawyer out of court if he tried to build such a case! Yet what are we seeing in most of the comments here? Belief that Jesus was married! Based upon nothing but spurious speculation.
Someday, Barry, hopefully you'll understand "arcane syntax" better. In the meantime, just try to understand where Christians are coming from.
Crucie stated "I couldn't care less. It's all ancient fiction designed to fill in human ignorance."
I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal LORD and savior. I believe in the Bible. I have went to college and gotten a degree. I try to encrease my knowledge daily. I do not think that this is ancient fiction and I am not ignorant. I do not understand why you would run someone else down because they do not think like you do.
I think he just thinks differently than you do. Do you think that is alright for him to do that?
Speculating that Jesus might have been married is slander? Whatever happened to free and open inquiry? This find opens up interesting questions. Of course it isn't definitive. But, why should one fear the truth, no matter what it is?
I agree Barry-NJ sometimes Christians need to use simple words to express what they are trying to say so here goes: the work that Jesus did on the cross seems like foolishness to those that are dying or dead but to those who get it, it is eternal life! God's wisdom is totally the opposite of man's wisdom, what is foolishness inf God's eyes is greatness in the world and what is what is wisdom in God's eyes is foolishness to those who are dead. Does that sound better you can mock the language but dont mock the message.\
BTW no one fears the truth because we already know it, we don't like the cheapening mocking of that which is Holy and Pure and True this is nothing new they have been doing this for ages its nothing new, and btw that would be the devils work.
All Christians are saying is that if this was true we would have heard about it in the Bible. Yes it is true that Jesus does have a Bride and it is the "Church" or the body of believers both male and female and He just can't wait for His wedding day when He comes for Her
How would you feel if you read an article in which that someone or something was denigrated, or in the case of religious personages, continuously degraded, mocked, and even blasphemed?
Spare me. Christianity is the overwhelming majority in the US, and vocal to the point of trying to rewrite laws to favor that religion. Try following a different faith in the US and see how you are treated. If you say you don't believe in my gods, no one will jump all over you for it or tell your 2nd grade child she's going to die and burn in hell. Even so, most people of my faith genuinely have no issue with Christians (even when they take exception to us).
What I don't understand though, is that it is a well known and non-debatable fact that the Bible was written by a group of men. Between size constraints and just the perspectives and attitudes of the day it's no secret that every word written about Jesus and the Christian god were not included in the Bible. Why are you afraid of new revelations about your faith? Unless it turns out that Jesus was a complete sham (and I'm not saying he was, using that as an example only), how could new information bring anything but a greater understanding of your faith? Yet, we see information repeatedly repressed because it doesn't "fit" into this cookie cutter mold of what people have been told Christianity should be.
Religion is for weak minds.....it's just a way, when they are confronted with new information, for them to say-----the bible says different, I don't want to hear it....Intelligent people take new information and analyse it, trying to find out where it fits with what is already known......I just don't understand how people can say it's the word of god, when it's been retranslated so many times----I think we all know it's possible for a preist(or whatever) to be capable of almost anything, like anyone else.....you can't discount the possibility that some may have altered the translations for their own/the church's benefit
You posters who say "I couldn't care less" "religion is for weak minded" etc., WHY then do you bother to read such articles?
Seems that whenever there is an article about religion they feel a NEED to expound their own theories on a topic they CLAIM to not believe and have no interest in.
Makes me wonder who they are trying to convince. Us or themselves.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't, no proof will ever be enough.
Grandpa, I think that it is fine for him to think differently than me. God gave us free will to be able to think different than others. I think he is also right for voicing his opinions.
Ella, AtThough I am not grandpa, but huskergal, I thank you for what you say for it is very true.
May God bless and take care of you.
Ultimately, evil arises out of free choice, too.
You are so right here.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20, but please read from verse 11. This is what Jesus meant by the Most important Command. This what Jesus came to do. He came to put God's words in our minds and in our hearts so that no one would have to teach us anymore. He was the end of the teachings as after His crucifixion nobody was to teach anymore.
Sounds funny coming from someone who said, "Jesus never spoke, other people just wrote that stuff."
You are more than a little confused.
I believe that either you have it wrong or I misspoke. Jesus did speak, that was why He was sent; to teach. He didn't write anything or there is no known evidence of his writing anything.
We talk about this creation myth as though it was different from the rest of them.....
For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish? For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
Brothers, consider your calling: not many are wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen the world’s foolish things to shame the wise, and God has chosen the world’s weak things to shame the strong. God has chosen the world’s insignificant and despised things—the things viewed as nothing—so He might bring to nothing the things that are viewed as something, so that no one can boast in His presence.
1 Cor 1:18-29 (HCSB)
Oh, you mean like the Darwin MYTH! You mean the theory that mankind evolved from a speck of slime in some primordial soup, then, somehow, became a living, breathing, thinking, moving animal (ape) which then formed into a highly intelligent being, capable of emotion, love, beauty, spiritual perception, etc...whose beginning was a mere speck of slime? That myth? The myth that takes far more faith to believe in than to believe in an intelligent, all powerful, all mighty, all loving God... Who is our Creator? If this is what you're referring to than I have one last thing to say...
To borrow from Shakespear's Puk in Midsummer Night's Dream "Oh what fools these mortals be!"
KaKel, Who actually claimed that man came from a speck of slime, and then turned into an ape, then finally became a man again?
I think you should learn what the theory of evolution actually is. Wouldn't an intelligent, well supported argument get your point across better? Making blatant and ludicrous mockery merely exposes your own ignorance and fear.
Anyone who refers to a "Darwin myth" has no credibility and therefore cannot be trusted. There is more evidence for Evoluton than there is for gravity. Get over it.
And quit misrepresenting a scientific discipline about which you have absolutely zero knowledge.
Americano1 and Jim-I have studied Darwinism, as well as all the other theories and "disciplines"out there, and was deliberately mixing them to make a point. If "science" is so correct, why are there so many, mixed up theories? Was it Big Bang, a speck of slime, were we apes, why are apes still apes...? What about the missing link? Where is the continuity of all this science, and why are evolutionists so angry at those who promote "intelligent design" such as Ben Stein's "Expelled"? Anyone?
As for proving it, no one has yet proved Darwin's evolution nor the Big Bang, and neither do they claim they have... That's why they're called "theories" rather than fact. But, they're taught as fact.
It was Kathryn Sullivan (above) who referred to the "creation myth" not a theory, just a myth... And she likened it to "all the other myths." It was to her that I was responding.
KaKel, if you did study the various theories and Darwin then you would know that Darwin never says that humans came from apes. We have a common ancestor, yes but apes did not turn into humans. A lot of Christians (and I am sure other religions..just used Christians because of the flow of conversation) believe that because that is what they have been told. I suggest you (re)read Darwin again.
KaKel: "Oh, you mean like the Darwin MYTH! You mean the theory that mankind evolved from a speck of slime in some primordial soup, then, somehow, became a living, breathing, thinking, moving animal (ape) which then formed into a highly intelligent being, capable of emotion, love, beauty, spiritual perception, etc...whose beginning was a mere speck of slime? That myth?"
I never understood why humans insist on decreeing how "God" must have created the Earth and life. Why couldn't "God" have "created" evolution? After all, you must admit if "God" is eternal--7 days, 7 million or 7 hundred million years to create this Earth--all could be equally true, couldn't they? Why must it be YOUR way (7 days)??? Why?
I find it terribly arrogant when humans decree how "God" must create. Time would be meaningless to an "eternal" "God"--would it not?
I gotta agree with mmhaq on this one. KaKel, you're listing the big bang theory and Darwin's thesis on evolution as if they are alternate theories to explain the same thing. Big Bang theory is about what started the universe's expansion, and how the various elements were created, and spread throughout space. It's about what started various astrophysical processes (like the life cycle of stars, the burning of hydrogen and helium to make heavier elements), and how the processes that created the natural abundances of the various isotopes that exist today got started. Darwin's theory starts after the Earth was formed, and is trying to explain how there is this wide variety of life-forms today that started from simple single-cell organisms.
I think that evolutionists get frustrated because they present all the evidence in a logical way, try to dispel the misconceptions (like "if evolution's true we should see fossils that are half one animal and half another, and we don't so it's totally false"), and all they get back from intelligent designers/creationists is "well the bible says this, so that's what happened end of story." It's like talking to a wall-zero desire to think critically, repetition of the same points that have been rebutted time and time again.
And why couldn't "God" have created the big bang and evolution? I see no contradiction.
As stated above if proven that Jesus had been married it would only further confirm that while on earth he was fully human which includes sexuality. It wouldn't change anything from my perspective. It would be nice if the catholic church would allow those in the priesthoods to also be fully human and not deny them this part of life. I understand it is so they will place full focus on God. However, as we've all seen....thats not always what happens when they are denied access to their full humanity. Allowing priests to marry would make for a happier healthier catholic church in my opinion. I doubt people would flee in droves if marriage were instituted. They might flee or have been fleeing for many other other reasons though.
All you people are chasing your own tails!
Maxwell- I don't see a problem either with God/God-like being having given the two processes a starting push. That is a facet of the debate we can never prove/disprove.
from KaKel
Your statement proves that you have NOT studied any science whatsoever. Be honest and admit it. Gee, why are there several different scientific theories? Maybe its because gravity is not like electricity... you know - stuff like that.
KaKel asks, "If we came from apes, why are there still apes?" That is just like saying, "If Americans came from British people, why are there still British people?" IF you knew anything at all, you'd know that evolution does NOT say we came from apes. Oh, and about those missing links - we have TONS of them. In fact, they are not even "missing" in any sense of the word.
"Intelligent design" has been thoroughly and irrevocably disproved for all time. It is a disgrace to humanity, a blatant attempt to promulgate lies by appealing to severe ignorance. What about the optic nerve? Piss-poor design, huh? The human breathing apparatus? Horrible design.
Why do humans have only 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) while chimps have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs)? There was a fusion between DNA base pairs 114,455,823 and 114,455,838 in humans that fused 2 chromosomes together. This put 2 telomeres together and the fused chromosome had 2 centromeres. One of the centromeres was deactivated by timing triggers during methylation. And the site of the fusion means human chromosome number 2 contains a fused and deactivated chimp chromosome number 13. Pretty stupid for a "creator", huh?
ID is not even a valid idea, much less a "super fact" like a full scientific theory.
Why wouldn't Jesus have been married?
Why are people that decry the validity of this discussion participating in this discussion? That seems the very definition of hypocrisy to me. Don't care? Don't comment.
Another attempt to discredit the Bible and the Scripture therein which continues to withstand the test of time.
It dates to centuries after Christ was crucified. It dates to centuries after the last person who knew Him as a man died.
It is a 4th century DaVinci Code. Eagerly greeted by those wise in their own eyes, such "discoveries" never stand the test of scrutiny or time. They serve only to add a moment of sanctimonious arrogance and false superiority to the unlearned thinking it "proves what they already (dis)believe.
Read real church history starting with Acts.....or better yet "In the beginning......"
The "accepted" bible dates from the 4th century. This is interesting because it was probably part of the debate as to what the "accepted" bible would be.
Very interesting.
It would be better for you to Google "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" and see the undisputable truth for yourself. A tour de force of science working hand and hand with humanity in the search for truth. Time to put aside childish things.
Many books and manuscripts were written but they were not inspired. Only what is recorded in scripture is inspired or God breathed, " ... but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The bible is the word of God.
The earliest references to the Bible canon we recognize today actually date to back centuries earlier than that. The Catholic councils that came later did indeed put their rubber stamps of "approval" on it for the purposes of the Roman Catholic church, but do a little research and you'll find that the established Bible canon predates both that church and its councils.
"The bible is the word of God."
Now perhaps you may understand Muslims a bit better--this is EXACTLY how they view the Koran--the word of "God" aka "Allah". And the Jews view the Torah.
It's all good.
Lucille- but how does one know what was inspired after the fact? Anybody can write something down and tell you it was inspired, but there isn't a way for anyone to know whether that's true or not. If I have two contradictory manuscripts in front of me, both of which are assured to me to be inspired, how would I determine which (if either of them) actually were? If the authors are dead, I certainly can't ask them about it, and even if they were alive, how would I trust they were telling me the truth?
Where are the Christian riots and uprising over this portrayal of Jesus? Can't help but draw a comparison here...
We are not muslims.
The reality check should be that its all a myth! Look at the logical conclusion and realize that a myth is a fable. A made up story. That's all the Jesus story is to begin with. Forget about the wife. We dont need god anymore. We know how everything was formed and why we are here etc. We dont need fables.
Got that spot on. Jesus and Allah are both fables and should be taught as such. If the truth were know we would have less people killed while burning embassies.
Yes, but this article isn't about religion; it's about archaeology. :) There's no reason to be defensive or afraid of the STUDY of the history of religion.
The Mayans and Incas and Egyptians and Rapanui all had superstitious religious myths, but that doesn't invalidate the science of studying them, or invalidate the significance of an artifact that is discovered. Just because this artifact happens to be Christian, there's nothing to be defensive about.
Why do humans become superstitious or religious? Maybe we are built that way. In a strong magnetic field many people have the feeling that someone is watching them when there is no one else in the room.
Would superstition or religion cause us to do things we wouldn't do? Well, yes. See what happens in the world from religious people persecuting others of another religion or no religion. Maybe it is a darwin selection process.
Erin D
We? Speak for yourself. I need God everyday for comfort in knowing that one day the problems of this world will no longer matter. What WILL matter is how you lived your life while in this world.
We know why we are here? ok enlighten me. I don't think we have any scientific evidence on why we are here. I am one that truly believes in both science and God and continue to be baffled why people believe the two cannot coexist.
I have no clue as to why we're here but I am amazed at the magnificent earth we live on. I am also amazed at the creator of this earth and the creatures that exist thereon.
It's also difficult to imagine a creator that could make this happen of which most folks reject this notion.
I often think of it like this, if it were complete darkness on this earth and someone said God would light up this earth, I would think they were a complete fool. But, you know what, he made it happen, along with the sunrise, sunset, tides of the oceans, well you get the picture. This did not happen as a result of some "big bang" as many have suggested.
Put your trust in God and your rewards will be many.
AlterEagle1... it's simple. One is MYTH, one is REALITY. The don't even exist in the same plane. Reality and myth cannot co-exist because they contradict one another.
Erin, even those that deny the existence of God should be curious as to some of the mysteries of creation. Isn't it strange that so many cultures have a creaton story, and many of them cite there being nothing, and then there was light? I'm not just talking about the Biblical creation story which the Sumerians etc also share with us. I'm talking about the very first sentence of Genesis. Out of nothing came everything. Isn't it interesting that so many diverse peoples have a shared notion of an event which occurred perhaps up to 15 billion years before there was even an oral tradition? So we humans (perhaps even our pre-human ancestors) have had this "spark" of knowledge. We carry a subconscious memory of something that happened eons ago.
AlterEagle1 touched upon this as well. Science doesn't cancel God out, nor does God cancel science. Some of the most brilliant scientists have been and are believers.
Denying the existence of God is your choice, but the manner in which you phrased it sounded rather dark. "We don't need God"...Perhaps you don't realize what a powerful statement that that particular phrase is. Chapters could actually be written on it, because it has many levels. It reminds me of the anecdote about Satan's greatest victory being in convincing people that he didn't exist. At the same time, saying that we don't need God is the ultimate act of Pride...To say that humans are better (or smarter) than God is to follow down the same path which Lucifer did. I know, you see this as all a fairy tale, so I'm not going to argue from a purely religious standpoint. Even the famous "God is dead" statement of Nietszche's madman does not have the same weight as "we don't need God".
Humanity (especially modern Western culture, e.g. USA) is in desperate need of heroic myths to help teach us values pertinent to every day life (in my opinion)
A myth is not a "lie" (although that IS one meaning of the word). However, a myth, in the case of the bible, is a moral fable which teaches us something re: human nature and experience (e.g. the Star Wars movies). Look up Joseph Campbell.
A myth is a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms (e.g., a bible story--a movie--a work of art, etc.)
And yes, I believe we are in need of spiritually uplifting myths in today's world--more than ever.
kkwilson: " This did not happen as a result of some "big bang" as many have suggested."
Maybe "God" made the big bang...why not?
Gemini: "Reality and myth cannot co-exist because they contradict one another."
With respect, I totally disagree!
Myth can be bigger than any detailed "reality." A myth can be a "representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms." A myth may teach us about human nature, speaks to all human experience--and help to show us the better, moral way to live our lives.
Look up the great author, Joseph Campbell. He explains the concept of myth FAR more eloquently than I.
Padre Pio is one example of a saintly person who lived during our lifetime whose entire existence was managed by the hand of God. Yet plenty of folks know nothing about him despite the fact he carried stigmata (the wounds of Christ's crucifixion) for many years.
That many scientific and medical experts were provided the opportunity to investigate his medical mysteries and were not able to explain them is certainly notable. As is the fact that those in search of tangible evidence of the existence of God would not find this guy somewhat important.
That a man of Earth with unhealed wounds for decades - that not only are unexplainable by medical science - but that actually contradict all of the natural laws we all accept - should be kind of a big deal to all of us.
That this circumstance could actually exist in the 20th century - and not be front page news everyday - is more than ample evidence that really big things can readily be minimized by man, even today.
So if you are a non-believer - it's not by chance, it's by choice. And you might do well to taken a second look at all that stuff out there you think is bunk.
Rick 307058; Padre Pio, was a person who lived during most of our life time; he was a Mystic, a priest and did many miracles; he once met a young Polish Priest after WW 2, and told him he would become the Greatest Pope since Peter(John-Paul); if a person wants to mock God, then if they study about Padre Pio, they will quickly change their minds; his last warnings need to be taken very seriously, he spoke of the coming crisis facing the world today, the outcome is very scary, during the Spanish civil war even the Communists had orders not to go near his church or village, they were aware of his powers !
The bible has been so chopped up that it is hard to believe anything.
if this piece of paper were correct, would that make anyone believe now that Jesus christ were the Son of God? NOPE! if he were married or not had no bearing on his teachings. it would be like me saying that we found a piece of paper that said jesus liked the color blue and now we can believe he's the son of God the Christ. so what? its like the whole world of da'vinci worshipers are waiting for a sign, so if they have it now what does that mean? some person in 2012 said that this half written paper from the garbage text proves this. how is she correct? faith is defined as not having seen but believing. throw it in the fire.
How is she correct?
That's the point, she is not. There is a difference between the wisdom from above and the wisdom from below. "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish . . . the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, ..."
;^)
Just another attempt by ancient unbelievers to discredit the Holy work of Christ. Nothing new. In fact, it started the day of His resurrection when the guards at His tomb were ordered to claim his disciples stole the body while they slept. Yeah. They saw it all while they slept. If they had been caught sleeping on duty, they would have been put to death. Here's the bottom line for me and all believers who have experienced the depths of Jesus Christ. He is risen today just as He was three days after His physical death. When He was crucified, His disciples were scattered...completely freaked. The Bible recounts how John denied him...they didn't understand how He could die. They all ran. Yet, three days later, something happened to radically change all of them to the point they all died martyrs deaths, preaching the Gospel of the resurrected Christ. If it didn't happen, one or more of them would have cracked. Period. Faced with death, more than one of them would have given up anything, the body, etc., to save his skin. Peter even demanded he be crucified upside down, not feeling worthy to die in the same manner of his Lord. No, I believe his is more junk that is flooding the world through every avenue possible. If Jesus existed, then so did His enemy, the devil, and he's more clever than any human. He's been working for hundreds of years to achieve the level of hate towards Jesus' message of love and salvation that exists now. Here in America, we put Christians in the same category as those who believe it is ordained of their 'god' to kill for eternal glory. Pure, undefiled Christianity consists of the tow commandments Jesus gave: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength - and love your neighbor as you love yourself. That is the whole of the law which any REAL Christian holds dear.
BD Dan: Learning more about Jesus does not descredit anything about him for me. But then again, I am blessed with experience of JC and need not depend on "faith."
...umm... were you "probed"?
There is no proof that this paper is discrediting what we know now. This finding is only showing that there was a discussion, not proof, by early Christians regarding Jesus possibly having a wife, not proving that he did. Just like finding recordings during the time of Jesus jumping from 12 to 30 would not be discrediting what we know, only that information has come up that may provide more insight on discussions of what may have happened during those years.
Glory to God, who prevails in all of His will, which will come to pass,
because He is the same yesterday, today and in the eternity to come. There is
hope still, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, to this dieing
world. It is all summed up in "John 3:16."
He will come again in the glorious splendor of His righteousness, brighter
then the sun. "All eyes will see Him", even the blind who's eyes will
then be opened in answer to His promise.
His judgement will fall and those that have rejected Him, they will drop to
their knees in acknowledgement of the everlasting life they have rejected. "There
will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".
The free gift of salvation is given to this world by the grace of God. All
the world has to do is "Believe" and except Jesus Christ's sacrifice as
atonement for their sins. This simple salvation by God's grace is being rejected
by most. The Scripture says wide is the path to destruction and narrow is the
path to eternal life.
Paul and the disciples expected this to happen in their generation. Supposedly Jesus told him so. It didn't, so how can John's scripture be correct for today. You can tell a false teacher or prophet (Apostle) if what they prophesied did not happen. Those who believe in religion are still waiting the Messiah to come or to return. Remember "the time is near but we do not know the day or the hour."
You are the false prophet. You mix truth with lies in order to confuse and mislead others that might come to faith in Christ.
I recognize you.
This is great news. Now we can lay to rest the question, Was Christ gay? Should make all red-necks breathe a sigh of relief.
Hmm ... a choice between gay and married? I'm not sure which would bother the rednecks more.
Just think if it was both and Jesus was a married bi-sexual.
Nobody knows what is true and what isn't. For all we know the bible could have been written as a fictional book that the author intended to use to teach people how to treat one another and how to behave. The simple fact is, none of us were alive then so all we know is what has been passed down from generation to generation. Just like the "Telephone" game you used to play in elementary school, the story changes from person to person until the original is twisted beyond recognition.
The bible is unique. Christ said, "...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life..." No other book can transform a life the way the bible can. There are good books and bad ones. The bible contains the words that can change a life for all eternity, "... thou hast the words of eternal life..."
Dr. Seuss said "I do not like them in a box, I do not like them with a fox, I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am" We can all quote books lucille, doesn't add anything to a debate
How is the Bible unique, exactly?
Because it says it is?
No, no;
This is obviously the first discovery of an ancient gnostic blogger. And everyone knows how accurate, reliable and factually informed bloggers are...
Who cares? All religion is made up drivel.
OMG. Just had to read what people might say about this story. OMG. I am always shocked by the truly strange, perverse and downright creepiness of "devout" unflagging following of almost incomprehensible nonsense. There are people. They generally aren't that wonderful to one another. They like to band into groups and throw rocks at one another. Lands get settled, wars happen regularly. Brutality. Barbarism. Mixed in with some art, innovation, cool discoveries. Religions are created. A ton of them. They start off as cults. Then get enough people to "join" and persist over time long enough to be "mainstream," a "real religion." And the religions are part of the wars, sometimes the cause of the wars, often the justification. More brutality. More ignorance. And yet, also art, innovation, cool discoveries and love too. Along with the hate. And of course each one truly and completely believes that only their "belief" their "god" their "way" is the right one. The others are wrong. Not just wrong but damned. Worthy of death perhaps. By crucifixion or stoning or some other form of "let's just get rid of them all." It's not about love. It's about power, and using hate to get and keep the power. And fear. And money.
Wow! OMG Libby!
A blessing on you Libby.
Libby, true people have been and are cruel to one another over religious issues and the need to be proven "right", but the same is true of atheist thought, and even more so, Stalin, Mao, etc., are responsible for more cruelty and death than the history of religious strife accounts for. It was thier distinct lack of fear or belief in God and the supremacy of self that allowed them to sear their consciousness to the point of complete amorality. Atheism is a huge lie, and an evil hoax perpetrated by a small number of self righteous bigots who in effect have made themselves the gods of culture.
Frank Zappa
2 Timothy 4: 3 says that "for the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around thema greaat number of teachers to say what their iching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away fromthe truth and turn aside to myth."
At last - a sensible person.
I cannot believe that after 2,000 years people still believe - word for word - the nonsense that is the Catholic religion.
Jesus was a human being, and he was most likely married and probably fathered a child. He was born of normal means in the traditional fashion.
It was the church that created the myths that surround him. They saw an opportunity to literally put the fear of God into people and they took it, and I must admit it has been very successful.
In order for Jesus to truly be effective as a tool for the church, he had to be completely above human imperfection. He had to be born to a virginal mother, he had to never marry or father children or any other Earthly habits. These are stories created by the church, plain and simple.
I can see the motivation behind the church's decision to do this, as most humans - left to their own devices - run amok. It was a way to control the masses, and it has been very effective.
Indigo Kid: Agree with you 100%. Religion has always been used to control the masses. It has also always been about power. Look how the early church did it's best to write out any significance women may have played in the early days of what is now Christianity. The Catholic Church went so far as to vilify Mary Magdalene and label her as a whore. They wanted to make sure Catholicism stayed a male dominated belief system. A policy that still rings true today. Catholicism doesn't ban birth control because God wants it that way, they did it to make sure there were as many Catholics in the world as possible, so as to make sure they always outnumbered other religions. But, as you said, humans need leadership and control. Some used religion to scare the masses into order... others have used good old hardcore intimidation and fear as tools for control. Religion has proven to be much more effective (fear of eternal damnation).
Not everything about religions in general and Christianity specifically is bad. The second 5 Commandments established a reasonable list of morals: Don't kill, don't steal, don't boink the neighbor's wife/husband, don't be a slut/horn dog, don't be jealous of what others have. Not a bad set of standards to live by.
Indigo, I could not possibly have explained it better!
At the same token religions do seem to calm down people who are oppressed and have no footing or standards of freedom (unless religious, using that standard) (unsafe feeling like most in USA), instead of having a social system that takes care of all without fear of government watching your cell phone or chasing you all over or having to beg, or pray for anything or feel like a well fare recipient when you need assistance.--That would be like Denmark--USA is now # 12 in living standard on this globe as of last week, I wish we could change, but having the religions here, people are then comfortable with that pacifier, and most then become introverts and do not actually get involved.!
Belief in a Supreme Being is a personal choice and does not require any scientific evidence.
I believe we each have a soul and I assume atheists would not believe this.
I am not fond of organized religion, but I do think Jesus is who he said he was and I don't have any problem with him being married, but I just think it would have been mentioned by the disciples somewhere in the gospel. Doesn't matter either way to me. I am not Catholic, but I have respect for the the Catholic Church for standing up to its beliefs (whether I agree with them all or not). I don't blame present-day Catholics for the abhorrent crimes of the Church in the past, any more than I blame present-day Americans for over 200 years of black slavery.
I will say that the trouble with the Christian religion comes from too many different people/churches trying to put their own spin on the teachings and message of Christ.
It's easy enough to read his words in the New Testament (especially if you have a version where all of his words are printed in red) and come to your own conclusions.
Belief, no. Claims made for a supreme being, yes!
You're correct: atheists don't believe in souls.
Why? His claims are empty ones.
Maybe it was omitted in one of the many revisions and edits in the bible.
False. You confuse their political and social policies with a lack of religion or belief. They didn't do what they did based on some atheist ideology.
That statement is a huge lie and a sweeping generalization too!
Why? Jesus said he was the son of man. We know that is true. He also said he was God's son. That is also correct as we are all considered as God's children by those that believe. What is most important is Jesus's teachings and since they match what Moses and the prophets wrote we know that the accounts as written are true to believers.
Atheism is as much a belief as every religion is a belief. Are they both lies? We do not know because all we really know is that there was nothing then there was an infinite Universe and one planet with life on it. We know that all life on this planet can be traced back to a cell or group of cells. That is it. We do know that science has given us some answers based on what was known at the time and growing with our own expanding knowledge. As we continue to expand our universe of the mind, we will change or add to theories and it may be possible to learn the real truth, but e do not know that yet.
Again, an empty claim, and a rather big boast too. There is no evidence to back it up.
Belief doesn't equal fact, nor does it make a claim automatically correct. You can believe that if you wish, but belief does not lend any credibility to the claim.
See my previous statement.
And not smoking is a vice.
And religion/god is just an intellectually lazy means to explain or understand that.
And as science continues to grow and discover, god might become less important or necessary to explain or be used as an explanation formthe unknown.
It is getting late and I am really getting tired os saying the same thing over and over again. So I am saying goodnight. I hope all of you sleep well.
You do not fool me, huskergal.
Nor do you fool others that are firm in the faith and knowledge of the scriptures.
Your words are only meant to mislead and confuse those who are marginal Christians or might possibly come to faith in God and Christ. Every conversation you have in this forum has proven this.
I recognize you.