Was Jesus Married?

[LayDominican]

I am New Jersey borned and breeded.

[Cedars]

It is your post that sparks so many angry responses from hardline Catholics/Christians.

 

Nothing in my post suggests you cannot continue to believe what you choose to, nor does it suggest you shouldnt be allowed to believe what you choose to. As far as provoking anger? Thats a personal problem and not my responsibilty to resolve.

 

you do not believe in the 4 Gospels but if any work comes along that may disprove them for certain you and others like you jump all over them. Jesus would kiss Magdalene fully on the lips, so says Phillip. The Apostle John, who may have known Jesus better than anyone never mentions anything of the kind. Luke, who many believe got his information from Mary the Mother of Jesus, never mentions it.

 

It doesnt disprove anything, what the find of the Hag Hammadi library does is offer further insight into what was occuring around 100-200 ad (the approx age of the Hag Hammadi library writings), inspite of the churches efforts to erradicate the records and erase the memory of this time and the peoples who believed this thru fire and/or bloodshed. Whether you agree with the content of this discovery does not negate its relevance, nor its historic significance.

 

You can put 12 people in a room and ask them later to write a story of what they saw. You will get 12 stories, some parts the same, some parts different. This does not automatically mean the different parts are incorrect. And this is part of the trouble with all of the Bible (NT) record. I know for sure the records of 12 different people should have variables. I also know none of it was wrote down even close to the time it occured and much of the 'venerated writings' were written by people who were not there in the minimum and quite possibly were 3-4-5th ... party relays of the events proclaimed 'divine'. Rather than thinking it disproves, one could view these things as adding to the story.

 

Once again, I would ask you to look to the great minds of the Church and again none of them mention anything at all about Jesus being married or having somekind of affair with the Magdalene or anyone else. I will take the traditions and teachings of the Church which is over 2,000yrs old.

 

To include works/ideas that appeal to the convictions held by people who existed 200-300 years after the events is not unusual, but its completeness and objectivity is suspect. I find it highly suspect that the words of many who were the apostles are stricken from the record, and conversly, so many of the words of the people who came after (including those who never met jesus in life) are included as absolutes.

[LayDominican]

I think what we forget, is that the Gospels were written to give a day by day account of Jesus' life. Nothing could be more false than that. The Gospels, the purpose of their existence is to show us how to get to God and away from the pains of Hell.

 

So if Jesus kissed the Magdalene, or was married, does nothing for our salvation and as such should not have been written. Maybe, just Maybe, they were written to give credence to the new ways of thinking about Jesus, like the gnostic and agnostic.These writings prove what they preach to a T. That is my point. These writings do not pave the way to salvation. But what they do serve is to add confusion to the way of salvation, and I reject them out of hand.

[InfiniteNow]

...and I reject them out of hand.

Another happy cleaned cortical customer...

 

 

Keep your mind open to other possibilities, LD. I'm not trying to change your faith, but make it more robust.

[catholiboy]

To further demonstrate the gullability of people on this forum.

 

Did anybody try to look up Pyro's supposed scripture?

 

I remember this joke that goes something like this.

 

A priest finishes his sermon and just before the congregation gets up to leave he asks them to do one more thing. He tells them for next weeks sermon he wants them to read John chapter 29. The next Sunday he asks his congregation for a show of hands of who read John 29 and what they thought of it. 90 % of the congregation raised their hands. So he pointed to a man way in the back who did not raise his hand and asked why he didn't read the chapter.

The man replied, well sir, I went to read it like you asked, but when I couldn't find it I figured I come back to see what you could tell me it said.

The priest smiled and thanked him for his honesty.

 

Interesting that Catholiboy did the same here. He praised Pyro and the verse, which is not a Bible verse. There are 4 books in the canonized Bible beginning with H. Hosea, Habakkuk, Haggai, and Hebrews. Hezekiah was a king, but there is no book bearing his name.

 

If you wish to find true answers, don't listen to those who don't know their own foolishness.

 

 

Wow. I'm an idiot.

 

Then again, you have to stop railing against me. If youy go and look up these bible texts, I suggest that you get a life.

[InfiniteNow]

Then again, you have to stop railing against me. If youy go and look up these bible texts, I suggest that you get a life.

catholiboy,

 

Use the merits of your own position to show it's validity. Oddly, in the post you made in another thread immediately previous to this, you asked this same thing of another member. Treat this as a warning.

 

What is it specifically about cwes' post that you wish to counter?

[LayDominican]

Once again, you are taken writings, that may or may be true and defending the right for them to be accepted by the Catholie/Christian religions. I would ask you why? What do they offer that makes the 4 Gospels weak or worst wrong in their teachings of Christ?

[InfiniteNow]

Once again, you are taken writings, that may or may be true and defending the right for them to be accepted by the Catholie/Christian religions. I would ask you why? What do they offer that makes the 4 Gospels weak or worst wrong in their teachings of Christ?

 

They may or may be true? Talk about a high quality Freudian slip of the unconscious variety. Anyway, to whom are you addressing this?

 

Regardless, the "wrong" in their teachings is your understanding of them as absolute truth.

[Turtle]

Once again, you are taken writings, that may or may be true and defending the right for them to be accepted by the Catholie/Christian religions. I would ask you why? What do they offer that makes the 4 Gospels weak or worst wrong in their teachings of Christ?

 

I defend the right for 'them' to be read and considered by everyone regardless of religion or creed. Given the scarcity of old texts, any we have provide valuable insights into the ancestors. It is only in the wide distribution and reading of such old texts as these that 'we' come to the understanding of what they offer, whether in regard to Jesus and his cohabital habits or not.

[LayDominican]

Infinite now

 

 

Sorry about the mistake. Of course I meant may or may not.

 

Turtle,

 

I donot wish to prohibit anyone from reading anybook book. However, it must be proven truthful. With the books that have been founded are already seen as truthful and that is where I have a problem. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

[Turtle]

Turtle,

 

I donot wish to prohibit anyone from reading anybook book. However, it must be proven truthful. With the books that have been founded are already seen as truthful and that is where I have a problem. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

 

I understand it well enough, I just don't agree with it. Consider for a minute the book of Enoch and how some sects still include it in their Bible and others not. While there may be truthfull historic content in ancient writings, religious or otherwise, none of them prove anything about a deity or deities, which is afterall simply an article of faith.

 

I 'believe' Jesus is an authentic historical figure who may have been married, may have been bi sexual, and most likely was a talented stage-magician, scholar, and all around rougue and thespian.

:)

[InfiniteNow]

Were there other woman in Jesus' life? This and more, Sunday evening on the National Geographic Channel:

 

National Geographic Channel TV Schedule - Explorer: Secret Lives of Jesus [TV-PG]

 

National Geographic Channel TV Schedule - Week of December 17-23, 2006

 

 

Please note, I don't work for them. :)

[LayDominican]

Saying Jesus was a rogue, talented magician and all of the other nice things that were said, brings me to why I dont bother to read such nonsense. There were many a Christian sect that wanted their point of view sealed in the teachings of the Church. Why is it not possible that these sects wrote these so-called "Gospels" to give them more of a true religious feeling? I believe that God governed all concern with the Bible, the Gospels, and the early teachings of the the Early Fathers of the Church. Period. Call me what you will. That is how I see it. I will watch this National Geographic pc to see what they know about a time in a person's life that will not matter much to us.

[InfiniteNow]

I will watch this National Geographic pc to see what they know about a time in a person's life that will not matter much to us.

So you are already presenting yourself as the expert by whom the shows presentation should be judged?

 

When one is blind, they cannot see the light, despite how brightly it is shown on them and how forcefully they ask to be shown.

[LayDominican]

to InfiniteNow

 

I am sorry for my rather rash words concerning the upcoming National Geographic tv special. I had read Turtle's post #79 and I was angry at his last paragraph and spoke out against the special and you, when I should have addressed myself to Turtle.

 

I am not that blind that I think I know all there is to know, and no one can tell me anything more. Part of living is learning just how little you really know.I am humbled by your words, IN, and I hope will accept this reply as a note asking forgiveness for my angry words. I do look forward to discussing the special with you and the others on this site. I am sure there will be a lot to talk about.

Humbly yours,......†Lay†:)

[Turtle]

to InfiniteNow

 

I am sorry for my rather rash words concerning the upcoming National Geographic tv special. I had read Turtle's post #79 and I was angry at his last paragraph and spoke out against the special and you, when I should have addressed myself to Turtle.

 

And yet, you have still only addressed me indirectly. I said in post #79, last paragraph:

I 'believe' Jesus is an authentic historical figure who may have been married, may have been bi sexual, and most likely was a talented stage-magician, scholar, and all around rougue and thespian.

 

While I intended to make you (et al) angry, you are angry for the wrong reason. I meant to engender anger for having been duped. There is far more evidence for my contention than yours. The Bible clearly describes a myriad of effective and striking magical tricks in Exodus, performed by Moses and the Egyptian priests, and Jesus would have been familiar with these inasmuch as he was a well studied Jew. That Moses went one better with tricks than the Egyptian priests surely made them angry, but only because they didn't know the trick, not because their faith was shaken. Think David Blaine meets the Amazing Randy. Magicians are notoriously jealous of their tricks.

 

I'm looking forward to the show on Sunday as it may give us some new aspects of Jesus to debate. Thanks for the heads-up Infinite. :shrug:

National Geographic Channel TV Schedule - Explorer: Secret Lives of Jesus [TV-PG]

[LayDominican]

Turtle,

 

I am tired of reading that because of some lost manuscripts that mention Jesus was married or Jesus was bi- or Jesus was somekind of magician. These books could have been written to discredit the new religion and not to enhance it. As a Roman Catholic I tire of all of this dirt being kicked on my Faith and the teachings of my Church. You ending paragraph may have made you laugh, but to me it angered me. However, I respect the rules of this site, and will not preach. I will not answer you lewd charges towards Jesus. Believe whatever you may, but at least have some respect for what someone might believe.