It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New tests say Jesus DID have a wife. There goes celibacy!

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


one could also argue that eunuch could be interpreted as being gay...

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I doubt 'eunuch' could be interpreted as 'gay'.... Because it has been scientifically proven(tm) that gays were ''born that way''... and not ''made gay''. As for the last option...I hope you seriously don't think Jesus taught men to ''become'' gay for the kingdom of heaven.




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Akragon
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


one could also argue that eunuch could be interpreted as being gay...

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I doubt 'eunuch' could be interpreted as 'gay'.... Because it has been scientifically proven(tm) that gays were ''born that way''... and not ''made gay''. As for the last option...I hope you seriously don't think Jesus taught men to ''become'' gay for the kingdom of heaven.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



I doubt 'eunuch' could be interpreted as 'gay'.... Because it has been scientifically proven(tm) that gays were ''born that way''... and not ''made gay''


perhaps a link to said scientific study?



As for the last option...I hope you seriously don't think Jesus taught men to ''become'' gay for the kingdom of heaven.


Somehow I doubt it can be taught...LOL

so that is obviously not what im saying




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
It can be deduced that the claim that Jesus had a wife, appeared much after Jesus' exit.


So you are saying that because the story appeared hundreds of years after Jesus died, then it is unreliable? Hmmm .... what other stories about Jesus appeared at about the same time? Those must be unreliable as well. Glad to see you finally agree that - the further you get from the event, the less reliable the 'new' stories are.

Bottom line -
Stories made up about Jesus in the 600s and 700s AD don't match the gospels and are obviously unreliable.

edit on 4/12/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
It can be deduced that the claim that Jesus had a wife, appeared much after Jesus' exit.


So you are saying that because the story appeared hundreds of years after Jesus died, then it is unreliable?
No. I'm saying if the story in question claims Jesus was married when the gospels say he was single, then that story can be dismissed. Though the gospels contradict each other in many matters, they all agree one thing... that Jesus was single. Further, any story in the gospels that contradicts Jesus' own Israelite religion can be dismissed as unreliable.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

@ Akragon...

perhaps a link to said scientific study?

I was being sarcastic. Given the way some activists insist science has ''proved'' gays are born that way.




Somehow I doubt it can be taught...LOL

so that is obviously not what im saying

Yeah, so ''eunuch'' is better interpreted as abstaining from sex for the sake of the kingdom of heaven...and not as ''gay'' as you claim.
edit on 12-4-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Mary was not a prostitute. She was a very wealthy woman, ie from a wealthy family, and partially paid for his ministry. That has been written about for decades, in fact ever since I was a child and talked about in many Catholic Homes for ages. I'm 50.

But then we weren't an Oral Roberts and tv evengalist generation, knew that tv evangelists were pandering to the lowest IQ's. Though only some of them considered her his wife, like many of the catholics in our close family speculated. You do realize they discuss things like this all the time and have many varied opinions on it, and rarely are the ones the pontiff orders them to have.

As a side note, none of the long standing traditional Church's, ie catholic, anglican, lutheran, united, presbyterianism, teach as official policy that Mary was a prostitute. That is the opinion of low lives. There were many Mary's in the bible. It was a very common name.

Christ Yeshua, if not a metaphorical story from start to finish, married wealth.
edit on 12-4-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
I'm saying if the story in question claims Jesus was married when the gospels say he was single, then that story can be dismissed.

So when a story, written hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years after Jesus life, contradicts the gospels and says that He didn't die on the cross .. then that story can be dismissed just like this story about him being married can be dismissed. Okay ... got it.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

The history channel did a show on Mary of Magdala. The town was a very prosperous fishing town. It was all fishing industry, and prostitutes to service the fishermen. The scriptures say Mary of Magdala had seven demons driven from her by Jesus. It was an interesting TV documentary.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
It can be deduced that the claim that Jesus had a wife, appeared much after Jesus' exit.


So you are saying that because the story appeared hundreds of years after Jesus died, then it is unreliable? Hmmm .... what other stories about Jesus appeared at about the same time? Those must be unreliable as well. Glad to see you finally agree that - the further you get from the event, the less reliable the 'new' stories are.

Bottom line -
Stories made up about Jesus in the 600s and 700s AD don't match the gospels and are obviously unreliable.

edit on 4/12/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)


And there is no book in any other Orthodox church that in their Bibles that mention Jesus being married. Eastern and Russian Orthodox as well as Coptic and Ethiopian Churches are not Roman Catholic, but still considered Catholic, have some other books not found in Roman Catholic.

FlyersFan,

I don't think people realize that the most common idea of Catholics is a stereotypical image of Roman Catholics, they think Roman Catholic is what Catholic is. I am sure you are Roman Catholic, but there was a long history of schismatic divisions.

All

Byzantine Catholic came from the Byzantine and where Constantine was emperor of -- The Byzantine Empire, or the Church of the East. And it wasn't even Constantine who made the Byzantine Church as the state religion, it was his successor, Theodocian.

It's really a shame that people fall for the "Constantine conspiracy" when they don't even know the difference in Roman or Byzantine. Before people fall off the wagon again about Constantine, he WAS NOT Roman Catholic and HAD NO control over what is in the Roman Catholic Bible, that was chosen by THEIR bishops represented at the Nicean Council, AND that Nicean Council included representatives from the Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian AND other churches, INCLUDING the Greek Orthodox.

They are ALL Catholic as in the definition of Catholic but not Roman Catholic. The current pope you know, is Roman Catholic, but all the other churches have their own popes as well. Now before going off on FlyersFan because she is Roman Catholic and has a Roman Catholic Bible, remember that her Bible might not have the same exact books as the Byzantine or Coptic or Ethiopian. HOWEVER, not one single book in the other churches have ANYTHING relating to Jesus being married, and those books were ALREADY used PRIOR to the Nicean Council. And not only that, the "Lost Gospels" of the Gnostics, which came much later than the books, were summarily rejected. Even in the beginning, the Gnostics, which were as many different branches as Catholic, were schismatics who WROTE THEIR OWN Gospels to pass them off as legitimate, but they really were just Neo-Gnostic philosophies that had nothing to do with the veracity of real scripture.

This idea that Jesus was married came from the Gnostics living much later and based on nothing more than their own misunderstanding and rejection of the letters of Peter, Paul and James. Which those three are the basis for Roman Catholicism.

And to become a eunuch means that one had their thingy cut off, and there was an account of Philip meeting with the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace, who had gone up to Jerusalem for a festival. He was reading the Book of Isaiah and asked Philip if Isaiah was speaking of himself or another.

Islam was influenced by Nestorian Christians, who were rejected by every other Christian group, because they made up their own philosophies that weren't based in the Bible, but legends from the Gnostics.

The one thing that has remained consistent since the Gospels were written in the first century is that Jesus was not married. This was well before the Nicea Council. Not even the early Sanhedrin documents claim that, and neither does Paul who WAS a Pharisee and in the Sanhedrin. You would think Paul might have mentioned that in his early feud with Peter, but Paul wasn't married either, so this whole idea of "one must be married" was NOT even a concept back then. Priests were married until the Middle Ages and them not being married came about because Benedict of the Benedictine Order thought it was a great idea. And if you read the list of popes, they didn't all come from the same order. There were Franciscans, Benedictine and Jesuits. Even St. Patrick's father was a priest who was married.

Catholic means universal, Roman Catholic is one branch but the most well-known.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
any story in the gospels that contradicts Jesus' own Israelite religion can be dismissed as unreliable.

Nope. Jesus said just the opposite -

John 16:12 - Jesus said - ""I still have many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now."
John 14:26 - Jesus said - 'The Holy Spirit will teach you all things ... '

Jesus Himself said that He hadn't taught all there is to teach.
Jesus Himself said the Holy Spirit will come and teach the rest.

Romans 8:11 "If the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The Holy Spirit, Who dwells inside those who believe in Jesus, teaches 'the rest'.

Obviously if there was more truth to teach, then it was OUTSIDE of the Israelite religion.
Otherwise, the Jews would have already known it and Jesus wouldn't have to be teaching it.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

WarminIndy
before going off on FlyersFan because she is Roman Catholic and has a Roman Catholic Bible,

I have a pre-vatican II Catholic bible (without the modern 'inclusive gender neutral language')... a protestant KJV bible (pre-inclusive language) ... a modern Catholic bible (printed in the 1990s with 'inclusive language'), a Hawaiian bible that I can't read but is fun to have, and the big fat 'The Other Bible' (Gnostic readings). Oh, and we've got the Navarre Bible Commentaries one of them here . We've got tons of stuff here.


ETA .. oh, and a few different kid/teen bibles too.
edit on 4/12/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

FlyersFan

WarminIndy
before going off on FlyersFan because she is Roman Catholic and has a Roman Catholic Bible,

I have a pre-vatican II Catholic bible (without the modern 'inclusive gender neutral language')... a protestant KJV bible (pre-inclusive language) ... a modern Catholic bible (printed in the 1990s with 'inclusive language'), a Hawaiian bible that I can't read but is fun to have, and the big fat 'The Other Bible' (Gnostic readings). Oh, and we've got the Navarre Bible Commentaries one of them here . We've got tons of stuff here.


ETA .. oh, and a few different kid/teen bibles too.
edit on 4/12/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)


And they are all consistent in context



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

sk0rpi0n

@ Akragon...

perhaps a link to said scientific study?

I was being sarcastic. Given the way some activists insist science has ''proved'' gays are born that way.




Somehow I doubt it can be taught...LOL

so that is obviously not what im saying

Yeah, so ''eunuch'' is better interpreted as abstaining from sex for the sake of the kingdom of heaven...and not as ''gay'' as you claim.
edit on 12-4-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Back to my quote...

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Eunuchs born from their mothers womb... Now the OT says anyone who genitals have been injured can not approach the temple... which would mess up their religious life because all males must go to the temple if they are able...

And clearly we're not talking about a male born without his testicles... that would be a deformity, and if im not mistaken, children with deformities were disposed of just after birth...

A eunuch born from his mothers womb is figuratively saying a man who will never have children... which is a man who will never sleep with a woman... sounds pretty gay to me...

Also notice he said specifically... "he who is ABLE TO RECIEVE IT let him receive it"

Meaning not everyone will accept what he saying... but some will understand...

Jesus had no problem with gay people... and I believe this is what he was saying in his own way... he said it in a way that people wouldn't grasp the idea he was getting at and try to stone him for even mentioning the idea...




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Annunak1
 


1) This is not proof that Jesus was married. Your own source acknowledges that. It was written in 7 or 800 AD.

2) The vatican's stance on celibacy is not the Christian stance on celibacy. Christian churches allow their pastors to marry. That debate has nothing to do with this papyrus (personally, I find the catholic position on celibacy for priests to be ridiculous).

Oh, and there is already a thread on this with a much less sensationalistic title here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 11-4-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)


Protestant pastors are not priests.

The New Covenant ministerial priesthood follows Christ. They are in persona Christi. Our Lord was never married, He is God, second person of the Blessed Trinity.

The discipline of celibacy, a priest's parish, his flock are his family. He can devote his full time to them.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Akragon

sk0rpi0n

@ Akragon...

perhaps a link to said scientific study?

I was being sarcastic. Given the way some activists insist science has ''proved'' gays are born that way.




Somehow I doubt it can be taught...LOL

so that is obviously not what im saying

Yeah, so ''eunuch'' is better interpreted as abstaining from sex for the sake of the kingdom of heaven...and not as ''gay'' as you claim.
edit on 12-4-2014 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


Back to my quote...

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Eunuchs born from their mothers womb... Now the OT says anyone who genitals have been injured can not approach the temple... which would mess up their religious life because all males must go to the temple if they are able...

And clearly we're not talking about a male born without his testicles... that would be a deformity, and if im not mistaken, children with deformities were disposed of just after birth...

A eunuch born from his mothers womb is figuratively saying a man who will never have children... which is a man who will never sleep with a woman... sounds pretty gay to me...

Also notice he said specifically... "he who is ABLE TO RECIEVE IT let him receive it"

Meaning not everyone will accept what he saying... but some will understand...

Jesus had no problem with gay people... and I believe this is what he was saying in his own way... he said it in a way that people wouldn't grasp the idea he was getting at and try to stone him for even mentioning the idea...



Or maybe if you are able to receive the cutting off the thingy, then let him do it.
And do you really think so when He said himself that if God does not punish the generation that engages in it, that Sodom would rise in judgement? God will not apologize to Sodom.

I think Jesus was very clear in His attitude about it.

Luke 17: 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.


That's just one reference.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


The sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality it was rape...

It wasn't a city of gay people despite what Christianity teaches... read about it for yourself... Homosexuality is not mentioned at all

The whole sodomy thing was fabricated by the church hundreds of years later because of their hatred of gay people




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
What does the text say.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WarriorOfLight96
 


It doesn't say the people of Sodom were gay...

IF one looks into the history of Sodomy, theres various references through out history to Sodom... They lusted after each other, and children... and anyone who came into their city... they were violent rapists and pedophiles, not gay people




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I meant the original post sorry, but I will come back to this after.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join