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

[jillian]

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

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

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

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

except that there was never anyone named adam and eve.

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

 

[jillian]

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

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

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

the code of hammurabi is a myth?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

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

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

the code of hammurabi is a myth?

 

[Antares]

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

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

except that there was never anyone named adam and eve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Moonglow]

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

 

[Moonglow]

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

except that there was never anyone named adam and eve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished.

However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal

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

So what was the purpose of the Council of Nicaea, if the early church had this well established?

Well quite simply, when Constantine converted to Christianity, and then converted the armies to Christianity... the entire Roman empire began to "christianize". All these people of Rome, wanting to be in the good graces of the Emperor, and the Armies, were walking around saying "Hey we're Christian too!".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andylusion]

except that there was never anyone named adam and eve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

Uh -- yeah, it did.

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

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

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

(/sarc)

 

[Andylusion]

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

Your belief is not evidence, Androw.

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

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

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

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

the code of hammurabi is a myth?

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I get that in English?

 

[GISMYS]

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

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

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

 

[Andylusion]

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

Uh -- yeah, it did.

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

Your belief is not evidence, Androw.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

Uh -- yeah, it did.

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

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

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

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

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

That was easy, thanks for playin' ...

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

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

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

Can I get that in English?

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

The Bible makes numerous specific prophesies about the Jewish people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GISMYS]

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

Your belief is not evidence, Androw.

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

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

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

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

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

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