Another Evidence that Jesus Was a Married Man.

[patrick jane]

No. That's why I am trying to share with Christians what they do not understand from the lying words of Paul.

May you be blinded from the glorious gospel of Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV -

 

[OCTOBER23]

Another Evidence that Jesus Was a Married Man
----------------------------------------------------
hahahahahahahahahahahah
:rotfl::rotfl:

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO ISRAEL BEFORE SEPT 23, 2017
--------------------
JESUS AS THE LORD GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

WAS THE HUSBAND OF THE HEBREWS.

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers

in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;

which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW HE IS MARRIED TO THE CHURCH

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:

for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

718 ἁρμόζω harmozo har-mod’-zo

AV-espouse 1; 1

1) to join, to fit together
1a) of carpenter’s, fastening together beams and planks to build houses, ships, etc.
2) to betroth a daughter to any one
2a) to join to one’s self, i.e. to marry the daughter of any one
2b) to betroth, to give one in marriage to any one

 

[Ktoyou]

Another Evidence That Jesus Was a Married Man - I Timothy 3:2

A Bishop, Teacher, Deacon aka a Rabbi MUST be blameless and the husband of one wife. He shall be able to rule his own house and keep his children in submission, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of his church?

...

Probably because of the metaphorical Christian doctrine that Jesus was married with the Church. An absurdity all the same because the Church was risen about 30 years after Jesus was no longer around.

Jamie, the only other option to deny that Jesus was not married is to acknowledge that he was a liar. Do you remember what he said in Matthew 5:17-19? That he had not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it down to the letter.

Now, do you remember the first commandment in the Torah? It is found in Genesis 2:24. A man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife to be of one flesh with her. And, mind you, that's a commandment upon the man to make the first move by proposing. If Jesus came to fulfill the Law down to the letter, do you prefer that he was a liar rather than a married man? I am serious, lady! What do you say?

Is this the same TOL, a fundamentalist Christian forum? These posts are not Christian, let alone conservative nonsecular Christian.

I think the thread should be closed.
Ben Masada, whatever the active moderators think best.

 

[heir]

May you be blinded from the glorious gospel of Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV -

He's blinded because he believes not.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.


He can recover himself to the acknowledging of the truth (2 Timothy 2:24-26 KJV), but he most likely won't. His mind has been corrupted (2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV).

 

[Lon]

Most of his life is a complete blank, what's one more detail? (What you mostly just covered is that he felt some basic emotions, not any kind of biographical tidbits.) As for no good reason to hide it--well, actually there was a tremendous reason to hide it. The role of women in the early church was suppressed, written out of the story, and largely ignored and or whitewashed. This isn't any kind of Dan Brown nonsense, that's just fact.

Sure, and Paul didn't talk to deaconesses or prophetesses who were part of his ministry, or Timothy's mother and grandmother Lois :noway:

For me it's an interesting phenomenon and curious peek into Christian thinking, from the outside looking in, but there's no reason for either side to be too dogmatic here. If anything, the possibility that he may have been married should make believers wonder why specifically the idea doesn't sit very well.

First because His bride was the church. Second, because He had no place to lay His head, Third, because He was going to the cross, Fourth, because there is mention of the other Apostles wives who had them, Fifth, because He was God, Sixth disinterested speculation is generally not entertained within our walls because there is no vested interest or sincerity in it, and more often than note isn't speculated but to rock the boat and/or line a few coins with it, with perhaps naïve curiosity behind some odd conjecture.

 

[Lon]

Source?

9:6? Google messianic prophecy, theophanies, and compare Genesis 1 with Colossians 1, etc.

 

[Danoh]

Is this the same TOL, a fundamentalist Christian forum? These posts are not Christian, let alone conservative nonsecular Christian.

I think the thread should be closed.
Ben Masada, whatever the active moderators think best.

Consider that this is the Religion section and Christianity is not a Religion; it's a Person.

Thus, whatever his religion, he'd be in blasphemy anyway. Just as the Apostle Paul relates he was when He was enmeshed "in the Jew's religion" Gal. 1:13, 14 (apostate Judaism, Is. 8:20).

 

[Granite]

We know his name and his profession. And we know of Christ's family. Not a whisper of a hint of a wife. That's the point.

The point being we know next to nothing of his life based on the gospels. Nothing. No childhood, teen years, or his first decade of adulthood, for that matter. No inner dialogue, for that matter, until the very end. If you guys want to speculate on what he was doing until he was thirty, the rest of us can what if too.

Yes, he went to the toilet.

Not where I was going with it. Honest.

 

[Town Heretic]

The point being we know next to nothing of his life based on the gospels. Nothing. No childhood, teen years, or his first decade of adulthood, for that matter. No inner dialogue, for that matter, until the very end. If you guys want to speculate on what he was doing until he was thirty, the rest of us can what if too.

Never said anyone couldn't. I'm simply disconnecting the non-dots and questioning the point of the particular inquiry.

Not where I was going with it. Honest.

Biology is biology.

 

[Granite]

Never said anyone couldn't. I'm simply disconnecting the non-dots and questioning the point of the particular inquiry.

And that goes back to my earlier point: Christians should ask specifically why they don't care for the idea.

Fundamentally, the idea of a married Jesus--a man who fell in love, who was indeed fully man--humanizes him too much for the taste of fundamentalists. There are certain lines the divine is unable to cross, in other words (if you'll excuse the pun).

Now, an argument from silence is really no argument at all, which is why I've said neither side's got a real case to make. John 21:25's the most open-ended teaser in scripture but again, isn't persuasive in this case. And at the end of the day I'm talking about the possible marital status of a man whose historicity I find highly questionable--but it is an interesting look at Christian thinking and its underpinnings.

The assumption for most casual believers is that "he just couldn't be...you know...because."

 

[Lon]

The assumption for most casual believers is that "he just couldn't be...you know...because."

:sigh: Post #87 though your 'doubt He historically existed' is well beyond reasonable ability to address because it is unreasonable and casts shadow on these other concerns as well. In effect, you come to TOL to pass judgement and are seldom open to dialogue and discussion. I generally think you here to cast judgment as for some past injury and then you move on as if the gavel wave was sufficient or important or meaningful.

 

[Town Heretic]

And that goes back to my earlier point: Christians should ask specifically why they don't care for the idea.

The Bible is fairly strong on adding to scripture, altering it. And I think that's at the heart of much of the response.

Fundamentally, the idea of a married Jesus--a man who fell in love, who was indeed fully man--humanizes him too much for the taste of fundamentalists. There are certain lines the divine is unable to cross, in other words (if you'll excuse the pun).

I don't see it as making sense within the narrative and the mission. And again, the humanity of Jesus is hard to miss if you look for it in what's set out for our consideration in scripture. So moving beyond that, in contravention of Biblical instruction, smacks of an agenda that isn't in the interest of either the faith or the subject.

Now, an argument from silence is really no argument at all, which is why I've said neither side's got a real case to make.

I don't see where there are two cases here. There's what scripture reveals and a speculation. There's no real obligation to rebut a thing that hasn't been established.

 

[Granite]

The Bible is fairly strong on adding to scripture, altering it. And I think that's at the heart of much of the response.

The ancient church missed that memo.

Let me put it this way: Doctrinally, there's no major disruption a married Jesus would necessarily cause--no more, say, than belief in extraterrestrial life.

I don't see it as making sense within the narrative and the mission.

Why not?

And again, the humanity of Jesus is hard to miss if you look for it in what's set out for our consideration in scripture.

Miss, no--I would say that generally Christians do (at least by implication) significantly limit his humanity, or prefer to think of him as something of a monk, in every sense of the word.

So moving beyond that, in contravention of Biblical instruction, smacks of an agenda that isn't in the interest of either the faith or the subject.

Well, again, the only thing limiting the discussion are your own assumptions. Which goes back to my point: Asking why the idea of a married Jesus is something most believers avoid or dismiss out of hand without putting too much thought into it. The narrative? The mission? None of this is threatened by a bride. Something might be, sure. But not the incarnation or Calvary.

I don't see where there are two cases here. There's what scripture reveals and a speculation. There's no real obligation to rebut a thing that hasn't been established.

I'd say much of theology's speculation in dinner clothes.

 

[Lon]

Well, I liked her username. Perhaps because I have just lost Mama sheli. That's the way I used to call her.



That's not the point. The truth is that we find too fallacious to appeal to authorities for every thing. We like to think of our own and teach others from first hand. What other authorities have, they have usually learned from the same source. Don't we have a mind of our own to go straight to that source?

The problem is, this was a rookie mistake. A concordance and a bit of your own little time given to actually doing a little work, would have answered this for you in a matter of moments.

I am not discussing the restriction but the requirement. Jesus was required to marry to officiate as a Rabbi. He did not need restrictions to prevent exaggeration with the number of marriages.

He wasn't called 'rabbi' in any official sense, but rather was referred to as teacher. He was not part of the Pharisees or Sadducees. Again, this is all rookie observance.

There is more suffering during persecutions when we are alone than with a wife. We must consider the feelings of a woman, especially if she is related to us qua wife.

Not true at all. You must be single to say such a thing.

 

[Lon]

The ancient church missed that memo.

Let me put it this way: Doctrinally, there's no major disruption a married Jesus would necessarily cause--no more, say, than belief in extraterrestrial life.



Why not?

I can't imagine what kind of Christian you ever thought you were. I really can't. Your ideas aren't even seated in Christianity. You seem to have been agnostic, even then, in Christian clothing.

Miss, no--I would say that generally Christians do (at least by implication) significantly limit his humanity, or prefer to think of him as something of a monk, in every sense of the word.

It actually signifies a lack of understanding of the complete OT and NT history. God had a single-purposed mind that led immediately to the cross. We know when Jesus died, Joseph wasn't in the picture. Speculation, rather, would better support Jesus, as the oldest, helping take care of the family until He was 30.

Well, again, the only thing limiting the discussion are your own assumptions. Which goes back to my point: Asking why the idea of a married Jesus is something most believers avoid or dismiss out of hand without putting too much thought into it. The narrative? The mission? None of this is threatened by a bride. Something might be, sure. But not the incarnation or Calvary.

I just don't see enough 'time' for this to have occurred nor does it seem likely given He knew He was going to the cross. I would not get married knowing I wasn't going to be around to take care of my responsibility.

I'd say much of theology's speculation in dinner clothes.

Such may have merit, and with some more than others. For me, it makes the least sense of the text and the Gospel.

 

[Town Heretic]

The ancient church missed that memo.

But you're not speaking to the ancient church when you note a present response. You're speaking to mostly Protestants and that's our tradition.

Let me put it this way: Doctrinally, there's no major disruption a married Jesus would necessarily cause--no more, say, than belief in extraterrestrial life.

I differ for reasons I'll likely touch upon in a moment, but it isn't about how disruptive it would or wouldn't be. It's about a speculation that simply isn't confirmed in the source material.

On the value of the consideration.

Why not?

Unlike some of the apostles who would be caught up in Christ's mission well into their maturity, Jesus knew what was going to happen. It would have been selfish and even a bit cruel for him to take a wife with that clarity of foresight. And that's before you reach his nature and how that could have informed him.

Miss, no--I would say that generally Christians do (at least by implication) significantly limit his humanity, or prefer to think of him as something of a monk, in every sense of the word.

I don't know if that's true. A common recognition among evangelicals is that Christ was criticized for spending time among the less than upstanding members of Jewish society. And given the starting point for some of those monks, that's not necessarily a comfort if the thing being sidled away from is human sexuality.

Well, again, the only thing limiting the discussion are your own assumptions.

True of anyone with a bias, which is anyone, I think. The question then goes to the reasonableness of the bias and/or the willingess to set suspicion aside when given good reason.

Which goes back to my point: Asking why the idea of a married Jesus is something most believers avoid or dismiss out of hand without putting too much thought into it. The narrative? The mission? None of this is threatened by a bride. Something might be, sure. But not the incarnation or Calvary.

And isn't that really an expression of your own bias? Consider the words you've chosen, avoid, dismiss, the notion of thoughtlessness as though a serious mind would be obliged to consider a thing not found in the narrative and the even stronger "threatened".

There's no need for anyone objecting to the speculation to feel threatened or to respond in fear or from some internal struggling, or avoidance of more than an idle notion within the context of our Protestant tradition and understanding on the point. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one. Protestants resist adding to the narrative as a matter of principle.

I'd say much of theology's speculation in dinner clothes.

I don't know how to respond to that adequately, not being a theologian...I suspect you'll meet resistance to the notion from them. For my part, beyond the salvific I'm interested but not compelled to speak very often publicly. I read and listen and consider mostly.

 

[Granite]

I differ for reasons I'll likely touch upon in a moment, but it isn't about how disruptive it would or wouldn't be. It's about a speculation that simply isn't confirmed in the source material.

If you're going to keep appealing to the Protestant tradition it's worth pointing out a tremendous element of the Protestant tradition involves speculation and challenging conventional wisdom. Kind of part and parcel.

Unlike some of the apostles who would be caught up in Christ's mission well into their maturity, Jesus knew what was going to happen. It would have been selfish and even a bit cruel for him to take a wife with that clarity of foresight. And that's before you reach his nature and how that could have informed him.

By that standard befriending the apostles in the first place was pretty devious of him as well, as was keeping them in the literal dark as to his fate the night before, to say nothing of the agony they endured for three days following. And then there's the unique horror experienced by his mother.

I don't know if that's true. A common recognition among evangelicals is that Christ was criticized for spending time among the less than upstanding members of Jewish society.

Recognized, yes. I'll leave it at that. Seem to be out of fresh potshots at the moment.

And given the starting point for some of those monks, that's not necessarily a comfort if the thing being sidled away from is human sexuality.

Ahhh, Augustine.:chuckle:

And isn't that really an expression of your own bias? Consider the words you've chosen, avoid, dismiss, the notion of thoughtlessness as though a serious mind would be obliged to consider a thing not found in the narrative and the even stronger "threatened".

Not quite sure what you're going for here. I'm reporting to the response I've seen to the speculation you dismiss on the basis that it's speculation. Unless speculation has no place inside your own hula hoop, which is fine and all--but it's slightly absurd to insist the grand "Protestant tradition" naturally excludes speculation.

 

[Town Heretic]

If you're going to keep appealing to the Protestant tradition it's worth pointing out a tremendous element of the Protestant tradition involves speculation and challenging conventional wisdom. Kind of part and parcel.

Challenging what it believed had gone wrong in and with the Catholic church, which had elevated traditions and considerations outside of scripture into equality. So it's consistent with the refusal to accept what isn't present in scripture...that said, it isn't an appeal, but an explanation. We aren't debating, are we? I don't see how we could on the topic.

By that standard befriending the apostles in the first place was pretty devious of him as well, as was keeping them in the literal dark as to his fate the night before, to say nothing of the agony they endured for three days following. And then there's the unique horror experienced by his mother.

He prepared the apostles as best they could be and his mother understood his origin and aim. There's nothing necessary and a good bit to object to, as I did, in involving a wife.

Recognized, yes. I'll leave it at that. Seem to be out of fresh potshots at the moment.

Sounds good. One of the things that I found appealing about Christ when I lacked faith was his willingness to move among the people religious authority (then and sadly too often in my day) wouldn't be caught supping with.

Ahhh, Augustine.:chuckle:

:chuckle: First thing that came to mind.

Not quite sure what you're going for here.

Nothing nefarious, only noting we all carry our bias around with us. Only that.

I'm reporting to the response I've seen to the speculation you dismiss on the basis that it's speculation. Unless speculation has no place inside your own hula hoop, or which is fine and all--but it's slightly absurd to insist the grand "Protestant tradition" naturally excludes speculation.

I'd say speculation can be a healthy and necessary pursuit. But it should be grounded in more than imagination when it comes to serious matters and here it doesn't appear to be.

 

[Granite]

Challenging what it believed had gone wrong in and with the Catholic church, which had elevated traditions and considerations outside of scripture into equality. So it's consistent with the refusal to accept what isn't present in scripture...that said, it isn't an appeal, but an explanation. We aren't debating, are we? I don't see how we could on the topic.

I wouldn't limit it to rejection of the gaudy Roman popery. Put another way, where do you see sprawl, debate, and ever-widening not-so-organized chaos? It's not the mother church, all things considered. The guesswork, the speculation, the back and forth, is largely to be found in the elbow-knocking strife and utter confusion seen in the Protestant world.

He prepared the apostles as best they could be and his mother understood his origin and aim.

By misleading them or at best being opaque. Not a man jack of them seemed to know what the heck was going on before during or after.

As for Mary: Did she.

There's nothing necessary and a good bit to object to, as I did, in involving a wife.

If we're working strictly on the basis of necessity there's an awful lot about what he said and did (or didn't) that could be reasonably dismissed as objectionable.

Sounds good. One of the things that I found appealing about Christ when I lacked faith was his willingness to move among the people religious authority (then and sadly too often in my day) wouldn't be caught supping with.

As I've said before if Christians actually did as they were instructed the world would be a very different and, yes, better place.

I'd say speculation can be a healthy and necessary pursuit. But it should be grounded in more than imagination when it comes to serious matters and here it doesn't appear to be.

Seems pretty dour. My Scots-Irish forbears would be pleased though.:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

I wouldn't limit it to rejection of the gaudy Roman popery. Put another way, where do you see sprawl, debate, and ever-widening not-so-organized chaos? It's not the mother church, all things considered. The guesswork, the speculation, the back and forth, is largely to be found in the elbow-knocking strife and utter confusion seen in the Protestant world.

Where I'd say each church is as certain as the Holy See and all of them disagree on one thing or the other. Thankfully, the salvific nature of the cross remains as the unifying center of a common understanding.

By misleading them or at best being opaque. Not a man jack of them seemed to know what the heck was going on before during or after.

Well, many a thing is hidden for a season. How often did they have to ask him what he meant by a thing? And even his full nature was hidden for most of their time together.

As for Mary: Did she.

She did. She knew his origin and nature and began his ministry.

If we're working strictly on the basis of necessity there's an awful lot about what he said and did (or didn't) that could be reasonably dismissed as objectionable.

That depends on your context. If you accept the reality of the Christ then that criticism isn't sustainable. If you don't then it hardly matters.

As I've said before if Christians actually did as they were instructed the world would be a very different and, yes, better place.

I couldn't agree more, though I'd answer that as in everything men attempt, if we get it right half the time it's an argument for the miraculous.

The best hitter in the history of baseball missed more than he made contact with, after all.

Seems pretty dour.

I like that, though no one I know would ever use the word on me.

My Scots-Irish forbears would be pleased though.:chuckle:

A cigar is a cigar and meant for smoking. And the fellow who thinks to apply imagination to it is only courting troubles.