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

[jillian]

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

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

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

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

indeed.

 

[BobPlumb]

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

That analogy is absurd.

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

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

 

[jillian]

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

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

and they think the protestants made things up.

 

[jillian]

Same thing, looked at from two different directions really.

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

That analogy is absurd.

there was an analogy in there?

 

[Pogo]

That analogy is absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Howey]

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

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

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

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

The greatest novel ever wrote.

 

[BobPlumb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perception is not necesseraly reality.

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perception is not necesseraly reality.

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

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

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

 

[BobPlumb]

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

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

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

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

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

Perception is not necesseraly reality.

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jesus' "wife" is the Church.

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

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

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

I know you're not serious.

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

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

 

[BobPlumb]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jillian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

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

 

[BobPlumb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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