Jesus was married

[Monster]

You know, I try to stay away from insults, but since you don't afford anyone else the same courtesy, I'll just say what I really think, and that's you really are an asshole. I didn't put any words into anyone's mouth, you did that when you said Monster's mentioning was "just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible."

And I never said those were the only reasons, I just listed them as what I believe are the main reasons. And sure, the books of the bible have lasted a long time, probably because for centuries upon centuries anyone who cast any doubt on them was branded a heretic and burned, beheaded, hanged, drawn and quartered.....yeah, you get the drift.

Also, wise up to the fact that maybe when someone disagrees with your beliefs, it's not necessarily an attack on those beliefs, just someone saying what they believe themselves, funny how that's not a 2-way street.

wow...well done, sir.

I also want to let it be known that I am not a Christian hater nor am I a deity hater. I am a bible hater. The content of the bible, much of which offends me as a human being. I do not hate Christians who have filtered out the negative stuff in the bible, but I do not like the ones who cling to misguided ideals that should have been erased from civil society.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Short summary: 8th Century Egyptian papyrus fragment containing a quote from Jesus where he refers to his wife, Mary, was declared genuine. Link.

He was saying "Take my wife... please!" it was a joke. he was actually the first one to use that line.

I wanted to see where this thread started and in skimming the beginning read this joke in light of the "Christ is married to the Church" teaching and all the stuff that's been wrong with the Church. Weird combination of dark history and light-hearted joke...

Power corrupts, take my wife...please!

 

[byco42]

Being Holy Week, and for some reason having read some of the comments here, I indicate is MT 7:6. I continue to pray for the conversion of sinners, which, like it or not, we all are. I judge no one and accept no judgement from people. My singular goal in this life is to spend eternity with God in Heaven and for all of mankind to do the same. I believe there is nothing else ultimately worth aspiring for. Jesus, our brother, is the spouse of the Church, which was formed and established on the Cross. He was not married to any woman on earth. That's our inaccurate and incomplete attempt to diminish his role in history. There is a Hell; it is a place, and I don't want to spend eternity there. Someday my faith will evolve to loving God more than fearing Him, but I will continue to work on that. The world has striven to ridicule and deride Jesus from the moment he established his public ministry and it is no surprise that it continues to this very second in time. It will continue to until he returns in glory. When we die, we are all subject to particular judgement and I'd ask you all to consider that, at least.

 

[KAWDUP]

Yes, I do know the reasons the books were not included in the bible. I know the stated reasons, but most of those stated reasons could apply to just about every book in the bible.

I'd argue that even though it isn't important to you, it is extremely important. Eve, the woman who brought sin to man, has been blamed for all of the world's problems since the story was first told. God gave command to men over women because woman came from man. He gave pain to women in child birth because of Eve. If Jesus was married and had children, there may be actual proof of God in his descendant's DNA.

I'd also add that if the church or a king can edit book at will, the text you read is nowhere close to being the original word of God (if that's what it is). So yes, I think it is very important.

What if Adam and Eve was just a story, and they actually represent groups of people?

Not sure why it is important there be an Eve at all. The important part is that sin was brought to man because they turned away from God. It could be that simple - not that it is, but it makes as much sense as denigrating it for what it isn't.

 

[KAWDUP]

You know, I try to stay away from insults, but since you don't afford anyone else the same courtesy, I'll just say what I really think, and that's you really are an asshole. I didn't put any words into anyone's mouth, you did that when you said Monster's mentioning was "just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible."

And I never said those were the only reasons, I just listed them as what I believe are the main reasons. And sure, the books of the bible have lasted a long time, probably because for centuries upon centuries anyone who cast any doubt on them was branded a heretic and burned, beheaded, hanged, drawn and quartered.....yeah, you get the drift.

Also, wise up to the fact that maybe when someone disagrees with your beliefs, it's not necessarily an attack on those beliefs, just someone saying what they believe themselves, funny how that's not a 2-way street.

As usual you are out in left field. You try to stay away from insults? What a fucking liar.

But I'm sure you will have some lame excuse for how I'm just a "hater", and can never understand why the attempt to suppress the other gospels was actually what Jesus wanted, hundreds of years after his death.

What the hell is that asshole, a blessing for me?

See I can swear at you too - does it help you understand things better?

You never said those were the only reasons?

Either they were omitted to hide something, or because they contradicted some other belief.

This is an either/or construct of a sentence. Shall I explain to you the grammar and logic of such a construct? Sure seems like logically you are saying those were the only reasons.

. . . and since I never called you a hater or even attempted to give you a lame excuse (or any excuse for that matter) about what you might or might not understand - if that isn't putting words into my mouth - what is?

Let's take a board vote to see if others don't think that is trying to put words into someone's mouth.

I certainly did not attack Mitch. You are objecting to this as an attack?

If not then you are just spitting back what some Christian hater has informed you of to cast aspersions on the Bible.

Not sure I am specifically attacking him or really making a statement about how views that start with these statements:

"Monarchies decided which were appropriate."

". . . but most of those stated reasons could apply to just about every book in the bible. "

". . . if the church or a king can edit book [sic] at will, . . ."

"the text you read is nowhere close to being the original word of God"

are pretty superficial and don't show a very deep understanding of what went into determining the importance of any given book written down from that era.

Where does one get these notions - are they from a deep reading of the subject matter, or opinions based on something other detractors have said?

Maybe you are objecting to the verbiage "spit back" as a negative thing to say - I suppose I could have said parroted back, or just repeated, but chose a more flowery way to say it on a politics message board.

. . . and something you have no problem whatsoever doing yourself. I didn't call him a Christian hater or someone who casts aspersions on the Bible. Did you even read it?

So since you decided to butt into the conversation, don't get all butt hurt when you don't receive a welcome response.

 

[KAWDUP]

And sure, the books of the bible have lasted a long time, probably because for centuries upon centuries anyone who cast any doubt on them was branded a heretic and burned, beheaded, hanged, drawn and quartered.....yeah, you get the drift.

So you think that I (or the current papacy for that matter) believe that all the non-believers on this board should be burned, beheaded, hanged and drawn and quartered? Even if I did . . . pagans and atheists, as there were then, and are now, still exist, true?

Persecution went both ways during the early church - you got an exact count of how many Christians (starting with the Apostles) were burned, beheaded, hanged, drawn and quartered, and fed to the lions as entertainment?

. . . and yet they still believed. Funny how you are the one complaining about the non-existence of a two-way street when it comes to these discussions.

 

[Monster]

Not sure I am specifically attacking him or really making a statement about how views that start with these statements:

"Monarchies decided which were appropriate."

". . . but most of those stated reasons could apply to just about every book in the bible. "

". . . if the church or a king can edit book [sic] at will, . . ."

"the text you read is nowhere close to being the original word of God"

are pretty superficial and don't show a very deep understanding of what went into determining the importance of any given book written down from that era.

Where does one get these notions - are they from a deep reading of the subject matter, or opinions based on something other detractors have said?

opinions based on something others have said? What? Of course many things that I have said are not original. Of course! Look at your opinions that you give. Most of them will be unoriginal as well. I can only tell you what I know and base my opinions off of those things.

You blindly believe in this book and disregard anyone who disagrees with your faith. You may see stories as symbolic, but a lot of Christians don't. We have morons in congress trying to ban abortion because of their Christian faith. They are against gay marriage because of their Christian faith. You have Christian nutjobs that believe the end is near because of the blood moon tomorrow. How are we supposed to take your book seriously when it spawns this nonsense?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...od-moon-eclipse-signals-the-end-of-the-world/

 

[Thumb]

as usual you are out in left field. You try to stay away from insults? What a fucking liar.



What the hell is that asshole, a blessing for me?

See i can swear at you too - does it help you understand things better?

You never said those were the only reasons?



This is an either/or construct of a sentence. Shall i explain to you the grammar and logic of such a construct? Sure seems like logically you are saying those were the only reasons.

. . . And since i never called you a hater or even attempted to give you a lame excuse (or any excuse for that matter) about what you might or might not understand - if that isn't putting words into my mouth - what is?

Let's take a board vote to see if others don't think that is trying to put words into someone's mouth.

I certainly did not attack mitch. You are objecting to this as an attack?



Not sure i am specifically attacking him or really making a statement about how views that start with these statements:

"monarchies decided which were appropriate."

". . . But most of those stated reasons could apply to just about every book in the bible. "

". . . If the church or a king can edit book [sic] at will, . . ."

"the text you read is nowhere close to being the original word of god"

are pretty superficial and don't show a very deep understanding of what went into determining the importance of any given book written down from that era.

Where does one get these notions - are they from a deep reading of the subject matter, or opinions based on something other detractors have said?

Maybe you are objecting to the verbiage "spit back" as a negative thing to say - i suppose i could have said parroted back, or just repeated, but chose a more flowery way to say it on a politics message board.

. . . And something you have no problem whatsoever doing yourself. I didn't call him a christian hater or someone who casts aspersions on the bible. Did you even read it?

So since you decided to butt into the conversation, don't get all butt hurt when you don't receive a welcome response.

tl;dr

 

[Monster]

Persecution went both ways during the early church - you got an exact count of how many Christians (starting with the Apostles) were burned, beheaded, hanged, drawn and quartered, and fed to the lions as entertainment?

Did Atheists kill these Christians? Did anyone do it in the name of there being no God? No, other idiots from equally stupid religions did it. I'm not a history buff, though, so I don't know everything that has happened in the past few millennia. maybe you know of a time where this did happen?

 

[zyxt9]

As for the bible being written incorrectly, I will add this little historical FACT...

In medival times, when the Jewish language was translated into Italian/Latin/Roman the person who did the translation did not accurately translate the word now used, "halo"...instead translating it as "horns".

As a result, the works of The Master Artists of that time,ike Michaelangelo, depict biblical figures like Moses as having horns on their head. It was hundreds of years before the inaccuracy of the translation was corrected.

Which brings to question whether the Devil actually has horns...

And why did the translators not identify The Last Supper as a Passover Seder? Could it be the early editors wanted to distance Jesus from Judaism as much as possible??? Thankfully that has been reversed in recent history, and since we are now in the midst of Passover, may I wish every Christian a Happy Last Supper remembrance and invite you to experience a Passover Seder at least once in your life, not to convert you, but to provide some insight into Jesus's Jewish life, that there may continue to be a strengthening of the Jewish-Christian relationship that people long ago attempted as much as possible to permanantly sever, but thankfully failed through perseverance and courage of people from both sides.

 

[zyxt9]

Did Atheists kill these Christians? Did anyone do it in the name of there being no God? No, other idiots from equally stupid religions did it. I'm not a history buff, though, so I don't know everything that has happened in the past few millennia. maybe you know of a time where this did happen?

You mean like Lenin, Stalin, and others who massacred people on genocide levels while squashing religious practices as much as possible, with exceptional focus on Jews??? Look up the Pogroms and how Jews were treated in Russia by the Atheist leaders.

All categories have had historical people in power do some really bad things. Ancient Jews did their own share of genocidal practices, so no...I'm not trying to proclaim Atheists as being above nor beneath any other group. All have had their share of bad blood. I'm just trying to make sure we don't try to place one group on a pedestal of superior morality.

Power corrupts, that's all there is to it. An unfortunate fact of human nature.

 

[Monster]

You mean like Lenin, Stalin, and others who massacred people on genocide levels while squashing religious practices as much as possible, with exceptional focus on Jews??? Look up the Pogroms and how Jews were treated in Russia by the Atheist leaders.

All categories have had historical people in power do some really bad things. Ancient Jews did their own share of genocidal practices, so no...I'm not trying to proclaim Atheists as being above nor beneath any other group. All have had their share of bad blood. I'm just trying to make sure we don't try to place one group on a pedestal of superior morality.

Power corrupts, that's all there is to it. An unfortunate fact of human nature.

have we not covered this already? Those assholes didn't kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of power. They destroyed religion in the name of power. Nothing they did was in the name of atheism. Of course atheists can be bad people. We're all human and all have the same flaws. But no atheist ever killed a christian in the name of our disbelief. If you can find an example, I'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

 

[Monster]

As for the bible being written incorrectly, I will add this little historical FACT...

In medival times, when the Jewish language was translated into Italian/Latin/Roman the person who did the translation did not accurately translate the word now used, "halo"...instead translating it as "horns".

As a result, the works of The Master Artists of that time,ike Michaelangelo, depict biblical figures like Moses as having horns on their head. It was hundreds of years before the inaccuracy of the translation was corrected.

Which brings to question whether the Devil actually has horns...

And why did the translators not identify The Last Supper as a Passover Seder? Could it be the early editors wanted to distance Jesus from Judaism as much as possible??? Thankfully that has been reversed in recent history, and since we are now in the midst of Passover, may I wish every Christian a Happy Last Supper remembrance and invite you to experience a Passover Seder at least once in your life, not to convert you, but to provide some insight into Jesus's Jewish life, that there may continue to be a strengthening of the Jewish-Christian relationship that people long ago attempted as much as possible to permanantly sever, but thankfully failed through perseverance and courage of people from both sides.

Interesting. I had no idea about the halo-horn connection. I'll have to look into that.

 

[tinselwolverine]

But no atheist ever killed a christian in the name of our disbelief. If you can find an example, I'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

One of the marquee stories of Columbine was that either Harris or Klebold asked this one girl if she believed in God; she answered "yes" and then whichever one it was killed her.

Now he probably was gonna kill her no matter what her answer was; and it doesn't mean those two screwballs were killing anyone specifically in the name of disbelief; but your request for an example reminded me of that story.

 

[tinselwolverine]

One of the marquee stories of Columbine was that either Harris or Klebold asked this one girl if she believed in God; she answered "yes" and then whichever one it was killed her.

Now he probably was gonna kill her no matter what her answer was; and it doesn't mean those two screwballs were killing anyone specifically in the name of disbelief; but your request for an example reminded me of that story.

Check that; apparently the story was originally misreported, according to the Wikipedia account of the Columbine massacre. The article says that the girl who was asked if she believed in God ended up not getting shot.

So there you go.

 

[Thumb]

Check that; apparently the story was originally misreported, according to the Wikipedia account of the Columbine massacre. The article says that the girl who was asked if she believed in God ended up not getting shot.

So there you go.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Yes.

Jesus Benoit; the son of a Mexican immigrant to Canada and a native Canadian has been getting quite a bit of notoriety as a goalie in the junior league of Hamilton, ONT.

The Wings are amongst a number of NHL teams scouting him.

 

[byco42]

have we not covered this already? Those assholes didn't kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of power. They destroyed religion in the name of power. Nothing they did was in the name of atheism. Of course atheists can be bad people. We're all human and all have the same flaws. But no atheist ever killed a christian in the name of our disbelief. If you can find an example, I'll gladly admit i'm wrong.

The "Anti-Religious Campaigns" in the Soviet Union, sponsored and carried out by the state in the name of atheism, targeted clergy and believers from 1922-1941 in varying degrees of severity, from harassment to execution. The Soviet Union was an avowed ideological atheist state, with a primary objective of eliminating all forms of religion. That's not debatable.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

 

[Thumb]

The "Anti-Religious Campaigns" in the Soviet Union, sponsored and carried out by the state in the name of atheism, targeted clergy and believers from 1922-1941 in varying degrees of severity, from harassment to execution. The Soviet Union was an avowed ideological atheist state, with a primary objective of eliminating all forms of religion. That's not debatable.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

In this context it is debatable.


As Monster pointed out, that was not really due to atheism, it was that the Politburo wanted nothing worshiped above the state, which was why the USSR was anti-religion in the first place. It was about power not religion/lack thereof.

 

[Gulo Blue]

In this context it is debatable.


As Monster pointed out, that was not really due to atheism, it was that the Politburo wanted nothing worshiped above the state, which was why the USSR was anti-religion in the first place. It was about power not religion/lack thereof.

It's always about power.