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

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

JudgeEden
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I am well aware of the Biblical definition of "knew."

However, God had decided to destroy the city before they stated that. Furthermore, God had specifically mentioned that their wanting of "strange flesh" was part of their offenses. Strange flesh alludes to the Angels they lusted after. Also, you'd notice that they planned fully to take them by force if need be. So that part of scripture you specifically pointed out is irrelevant to this argument.

Also, you are aware that Biblical marriage was induced by the sex act, are you not? Abraham didn't go through any wedding ceremony to be considered married to his wife. Adam didn't need to have a ceremony with Eve for them to be considered "one flesh."

So, knowing this, what does it mean to have sex outside of marriage? As far as I can tell in a Biblical context, fornication means to sleep around; not necessarily sex outside of marriage.

At best, homosexuality is a gray area. You cannot definitively say that it is wrong. The only thing biased Christians can do is twist scripture and use some out of context.
edit on XAprpmvAmerica/ChicagoMon, 14 Apr 2014 22:32:47 -0500322014-04-14T22:32:47-05:00k by JudgeEden because: (no reason given)
edit on XAprpmvAmerica/ChicagoMon, 14 Apr 2014 22:34:56 -0500342014-04-14T22:34:56-05:00k by JudgeEden because: (no reason given)


First of all, you don't know the marriage ceremony traditions from where Abraham and Sarah came from. That's a huge assumption that they had no ceremony at all. And since then all Jewish weddings have been based upon Abraham and Sarah and the canopy they are married under.

The sex act means consummation, which all legal marriages today are based on that anyway, null point.

Fornication means to sleep around...does that only mean within marriage, because the marriage definition of sleeping around is adultery.

So they were lusting after MALE angels? What exactly in the definition of HOMO (meaning same) and SEXUALITY (attraction to) don't you understand? And the men of Sodom didn't know they were angels, they thought they were just men.

The MEN of Sodom asked Lot to send out his MALE visitors so they could have sex with them. Lot didn't even know they were angels. But you assume they were angels, so go back and read Genesis 18, it is very clear they were not angels and not messengers. This thing about assuming they were angels comes from a contrived and purposely misconstrued interpretation.




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by WordsAreAvenues
 


Jesus was a Jew. And as a Jewish male, he was required to marry by the age of 30. Even as a rabbi he was required to marry.

I think a lot of these ancient texts have been scalped by the Church to fit their model of Jesus as "God" and, therefore, celibate. The crowd at the Council of Nicea saw to that. Any hard evidence would have been destroyed long ago in my opinion.

No one knows where the body of Jesus lies so any scrap of DNA evidence isn't available. The story of Jesus has changed so many times and has been used in so many ways to control the "flock", that the real truth may never be known.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom423
 


Jewish marriages are sometimes planned or planned for some later date or earlier, so if Mary knew of his divine nature and so did his father both he and she know that he had a greater purpose, 30 is also the year of maturity and when a jewish teacher can begin the his ministry. The jewish people live and breath day to day life with faith and the gospel and Yeshau was no different and the times leading to his thirtieth year of life he was learning and I'm sure his mother and father told him of his nature.


Matthew 3:13-17
New International Version (NIV)
The Baptism of Jesus

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

So if you are saying he was to be married before he was thirty and he met the woman at the age of 31 or 32 as he had disciples already and wouldnt that throw your logic out the window, if his bride is the body of Christ and people who believe in his ministry and they are all his bride and she was allowed to teach because his ministry allows it. Soon he will return for his bride but not before the the trials happen and he will not take anyone of this earth till all is done and NO pre tribulation rapture.
edit on 15-4-2014 by WarriorOfLight96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by WarriorOfLight96
 


Well it isn't really my logic. It's just the tradition. And I'm really referring to the reality, not the mythology. As a Jewish male, the tradition was to marry before the age of 30. Rabbis and priests were all married at the time. The concept of celibacy didn't even appear in Church documentation until the 4th century. So it seems reasonable to me that Jesus was probably married and that the Church simply covered it up for the sake of convenience. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Phantom423
as a Jewish male, he was required to marry by the age of 30. Even as a rabbi he was required to marry.

I have never heard that. I'm looking at the info and not seeing that requirement.
Judaism 101 - Marriage
Jewish Views on Marriage

Could you link to a reliable source that shows that there was a 'requirement for marriage by age 30' ???
Thank you.

ETA .. okay .. your next post said 'TRADITION" ... that's different from 'REQUIREMENT".
Which is it? Thanks.



edit on 4/15/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Phantom423
reply to post by WarriorOfLight96
 


Well it isn't really my logic. It's just the tradition. And I'm really referring to the reality, not the mythology. As a Jewish male, the tradition was to marry before the age of 30. Rabbis and priests were all married at the time. The concept of celibacy didn't even appear in Church documentation until the 4th century. So it seems reasonable to me that Jesus was probably married and that the Church simply covered it up for the sake of convenience. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.


If you recall, Paul wasn't married and addressed this idea. He said it was much better not to marry if you in the ministry, but if you feel you must marry, then marry.

Not all rabbis and priests were married, the only legal requirement was that if they were to be married, the Levites were not allowed to marry outside the faith or from outside of one of the tribes of Israel.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Okay .... so the poster really meant 'TRADITION" and not 'REQUIREMENT'. That makes more sense.
And considering that Jesus came with full knowledge of his mission and early death,
He wouldn't be getting married knowing full well that he'd be leaving a young widow behind.

Okay. Got it. Just 'tradition'. So nothing binding.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


"Requirement" may be too strong a word - it was really a tradition.

From the Talmud:

"The Talmud recommends that a man marry at age 18, or somewhere between 16 and 24."

www.jewfaq.org...

And it was frowned upon if a man was still single by the age of 30. Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Also this:

"Every man is obliged to marry in order to fulfill the duty of procreation, and whoever is not engaged in propagating the race is as if he shed blood, diminishing the Divine image and causing His Presence to depart from Israel" (Sh. Ar., EH 1:1).

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

As the beginning of the text says, celibacy, or the deliberate act of renouncing marriage was alien to Judaism.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

FlyersFan
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Okay .... so the poster really meant 'TRADITION" and not 'REQUIREMENT'. That makes more sense.
And considering that Jesus came with full knowledge of his mission and early death,
He wouldn't be getting married knowing full well that he'd be leaving a young widow behind.

Okay. Got it. Just 'tradition'. So nothing binding.


And really, of all the disciples, we only know about two who were married and that was Peter and Philip. We don't know anything about the families of the others.

And another law in the Torah was that if a man got married, he was not allowed to join the army for a year. The purpose was for the wife not to be widowed immediately but to get set up financially. And we don't even know the ages of all of the disciples.



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Really? They weren't angels? What ever gave you that idea? You realize they blinded the men outside, are you not? What regular people can do that?


Genesis
19 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.


It specifically mentions them as ANGELS, does it not? It said they were two angels. Lot DID know they were angels as he bowed to them and called them "lords."

The scriptures also made it a point that these angels had the ability to eat food later on in the passage.

How you come away with the extremely faulty notion that they weren't angels is beyond me. You need to study more.

As for the homosexuality argument, the fact that these angels were masculine has nothing to do with the offense of the people of Sodom.


Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


You see the "going after strange flesh" line there, right? The men of Sodom didn't know they were angels, but that didn't matter. Scripture names it as an offense anyway.

The fact of the matter regarding this whole argument is that you have barely any proof to demonize homosexuality. I used to think there was, but I was simply letting popular Christian bias take hold. You are doing the same.

No one is going to be damned for being a homosexual. Mainly because salvation isn't based on works, and to insinuate one must rid themselves of their sexuality (which is impossible) one makes salvation hard to obtain; which is utterly repugnant.

Anyway, I forget why we're even talking about this. I refuse to derail a topic. Just know that you're ignorant on this subject.
edit on XAprpmvAmerica/ChicagoTue, 15 Apr 2014 17:27:46 -0500272014-04-15T17:27:46-05:00k by JudgeEden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   

JudgeEden
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Really? They weren't angels? What ever gave you that idea? You realize they blinded the men outside, are you not? What regular people can do that?


Genesis
19 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.


It specifically mentions them as ANGELS, does it not? It said they were two angels. Lot DID know they were angels as he bowed to them and called them "lords."

The scriptures also made it a point that these angels had the ability to eat food later on in the passage.

How you come away with the extremely faulty notion that they weren't angels is beyond me. You need to study more.

As for the homosexuality argument, the fact that these angels were masculine has nothing to do with the offense of the people of Sodom.


Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.


You see the "going after strange flesh" line there, right? The men of Sodom didn't know they were angels, but that didn't matter. Scripture names it as an offense anyway.

The fact of the matter regarding this whole argument is that you have barely any proof to demonize homosexuality. I used to think there was, but I was simply letting popular Christian bias take hold. You are doing the same.

No one is going to be damned for being a homosexual. Mainly because salvation isn't based on works, and to insinuate one must rid themselves of their sexuality (which is impossible) one makes salvation hard to obtain; which is utterly repugnant.

Anyway, I forget why we're even talking about this. I refuse to derail a topic. Just know that you're ignorant on this subject.
edit on XAprpmvAmerica/ChicagoTue, 15 Apr 2014 17:27:46 -0500272014-04-15T17:27:46-05:00k by JudgeEden because: (no reason given)


Read Genesis 18.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   

WarminIndy

Phantom423
reply to post by WarriorOfLight96
 


Well it isn't really my logic. It's just the tradition. And I'm really referring to the reality, not the mythology. As a Jewish male, the tradition was to marry before the age of 30. Rabbis and priests were all married at the time. The concept of celibacy didn't even appear in Church documentation until the 4th century. So it seems reasonable to me that Jesus was probably married and that the Church simply covered it up for the sake of convenience. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.


If you recall, Paul wasn't married and addressed this idea. He said it was much better not to marry if you in the ministry, but if you feel you must marry, then marry.

Not all rabbis and priests were married, the only legal requirement was that if they were to be married, the Levites were not allowed to marry outside the faith or from outside of one of the tribes of Israel.


Exactly...WarminIndy is right. Plus, important, this is the New Covenant, do not forget and...

I shared already, a major reason a discipline of the ministerial priesthood is celibacy, a priest can devote his time fully to spiritual needs of souls in his care. Here 's more, Paul says it and see, from Our Lord Himself, celibacy is a higher state.


+ + +

"Paul’s basic concern is that to be married is to be distracted from the spiritual:

The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband (1 Cor. 7:32-34).

Though he is concerned about that division of heart, Paul denies that marriage is a sin. He merely insists that it is a lesser state in life than consecrated celibacy: “So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Cor. 7:38).

Paul gets this thinking neither from the Dark Ages nor as the result of repression but from a consecrated virgin named Jesus of Nazareth. He, like Paul, was unmarried and commended consecrated celibacy as a gift of God. That’s what he’s getting at in this incident from Matthew 19:9-12:

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Note how similar Paul’s thinking is to Jesus’. Marriage is a good thing but a difficult thing, to the degree that, when Jesus describes what Christian marriage really entails, the apostles blanch and declare it is not expedient to marry. The summary of this passage: NOT everyone can choose to be celibate, but those who can should, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. It’s exactly the same admonition as in 1 Corinthians: Marriage is good, BUT celibacy is better.

Since Jesus is celibate, and since, as Paul says, celibacy for the sake of Christ is a higher state than marriage, and since a priest is an alter Christus (“other Christ”) when he is standing in the place of Christ to celebrate the Eucharist (i.e., the marriage supper of the Lamb), we should not be surprised that in antiquity the discipline grew up (spontaneously, from the grass roots) of more and more priests likewise choosing to be celibate.

The discipline was lived out in different ways, depending on where you were in the Church. In the East, priests but not bishops may marry. In the West, priests and bishops are celibate. But much the same spirit was at work in both “lungs” of the Church. The idea was that celibacy is a higher calling, as well as a superior practical arrangement, given the responsibilities of the priesthood."...

www.catholic.com...


GBU,


colbe



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annunak1

Just because a document is really old, does not mean its accurate.

If a scientist found a National Enquirer a 1000 years from now would that mean everything in it was true? They don't even know who wrote this. Plus translations from other languages is tricky business. Many times words are not translated correctly. Sometimes the language which its being translated into does not have the same words or usage.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
How the 'Jesus' Wife' Hoax Fell Apart





"Two factors immediately indicated that this was a forgery," Mr. Askeland tells me. "First, the fragment shared the same line breaks as the 1924 publication. Second, the fragment contained a peculiar dialect of Coptic called Lycopolitan, which fell out of use during or before the sixth century." Ms. King had done two radiometric tests, he noted, and "concluded that the papyrus plants used for this fragment had been harvested in the seventh to ninth centuries." In other words, the fragment that came from the same material as the "Jesus' wife" fragment was written in a dialect that didn't exist when the papyrus it appears on was made.

Mark Goodacre, a New Testament professor and Coptic expert at Duke University, wrote on his NT Blog on April 25 about the Gospel of John discovery: "It is beyond reasonable doubt that this is a fake, and this conclusion means that the Jesus' Wife Fragment is a fake too." Alin Suciu, a research associate at the University of Hamburg and a Coptic manuscript specialist, wrote online on April 26: "Given that the evidence of the forgery is now overwhelming, I consider the polemic surrounding the Gospel of Jesus' Wife papyrus over."

Having evaluated the evidence, many specialists in ancient manuscripts and Christian origins think Karen King and the Harvard Divinity School were the victims of an elaborate ruse.


online.wsj.com...?mod=yahoo_itp&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2 Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304178104579535540828090438.html%3Fru%3Dyahoo%3Fmod%3Dyahoo_itp





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join