“Jesus Had a Wife” Gets Coverage on CBS and ABC

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

See ... I can do it to.

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

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

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

 

[GISMYS]

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

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

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

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

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

13-14 “Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders. Hypocrites! For you won’t let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven and won’t go in yourselves. And you pretend to be holy, with all your long, public prayers in the streets, while you are evicting widows from their homes. Hypocrites! 15 Yes, woe upon you hypocrites. For you go to all lengths to make one convert, and then turn him into twice the son of hell you are yourselves. 16 Blind guides! Woe upon you! For your rule is that to swear ‘By God’s Temple’ means nothing—you can break that oath, but to swear ‘By the gold in the Temple’ is binding! 17 Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifies the gold? 18 And you say that to take an oath ‘By the altar’ can be broken, but to swear ‘By the gifts on the altar’ is binding! 19 Blind! For which is greater, the gift on the altar, or the altar itself that sanctifies the gift? 20 When you swear ‘By the altar,’ you are swearing by it and everything on it, 21 and when you swear ‘By the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God who lives in it. 22 And when you swear ‘By heavens,’ you are swearing by the Throne of God and by God himself.

23 “Yes, woe upon you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders—hypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important things—justice and mercy and faith. Yes, you should tithe, but you shouldn’t leave the more important things undone. 24 Blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

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

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

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

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

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

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

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

13-14 “Woe to you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders. Hypocrites! For you won’t let others enter the Kingdom of Heaven and won’t go in yourselves. And you pretend to be holy, with all your long, public prayers in the streets, while you are evicting widows from their homes. Hypocrites! 15 Yes, woe upon you hypocrites. For you go to all lengths to make one convert, and then turn him into twice the son of hell you are yourselves. 16 Blind guides! Woe upon you! For your rule is that to swear ‘By God’s Temple’ means nothing—you can break that oath, but to swear ‘By the gold in the Temple’ is binding! 17 Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold, or the Temple that sanctifies the gold? 18 And you say that to take an oath ‘By the altar’ can be broken, but to swear ‘By the gifts on the altar’ is binding! 19 Blind! For which is greater, the gift on the altar, or the altar itself that sanctifies the gift? 20 When you swear ‘By the altar,’ you are swearing by it and everything on it, 21 and when you swear ‘By the Temple,’ you are swearing by it and by God who lives in it. 22 And when you swear ‘By heavens,’ you are swearing by the Throne of God and by God himself.

23 “Yes, woe upon you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders—hypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important things—justice and mercy and faith. Yes, you should tithe, but you shouldn’t leave the more important things undone. 24 Blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[longknife]

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

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

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

What else matters?

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

What else matters?

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.

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

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

Which still is irrelevant to him calling anyone his wife.

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

 

[DriftingSand]

The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.

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

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

Which still is irrelevant to him calling anyone his wife.

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Which still is irrelevant to him calling anyone his wife.

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

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

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

Thank you for clarifying this.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

Really doesn't address the point, does it?

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

Thank you for clarifying this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

Really doesn't address the point, does it?

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

 

[Pogo]

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

Really doesn't address the point, does it?

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

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

Really doesn't address the point, does it?

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

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

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

Indeed, and that's a big difference.

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

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

No sane human being spouts the crap he spouts.

 

[DriftingSand]

Really doesn't address the point, does it?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[freedombecki]

Really doesn't address the point, does it?

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

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

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

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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

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

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

Indeed, and that's a big difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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