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.

 

So what if jesus was married with a wife and kids

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Darkseid
And by the way Jak the feminazi. I don't read u2u's because
they have potential viruses on them.


Oh boy. I predict implosion and banning ... should we have
a countdown?? Naaaaaaaaaah ... I don't think he's going to
last long enough to even post a watch clock.


I don't know what the current ATS record is for the fastest banning but I believe we have a contender for the title!




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkseid
Saying you have doesn't mean you have. You clearly show that you haven't by saying they were fake?

Considering that pretty much everyone except gnostic fanatics agree that the gnostic gospels weren't written by any of the apostles, seems an odd thing to say.



So what makes Thomas fake, because it has Buddhist ideology in it?

Becuase it was written by an armenian pesudo-bishop-prince who wanted to create his own gospel????


Or maybe Thomas, Judas, and Mary Magdeline both kept close to Yeshua's teachings. While the others kept with their own Hebrew ideology.

Or maybe thomas, judas, and mary never wrote any gospels or letters to churches and paul, peter, etc, did.


Yes you answered with trash.

FF disagreed with you, and therefore the conclusions are trash? How can you possibly claim that someone else hasn't lived up to the mainstream christian ideal, when you clearly have no clue about what a real gnostic would behave as? I mean, thats hypocritical no?


To speak to intelligent people

Intelligent people tend to prefer to talk to other intelligent people, so you might have a bit of a problem.


dgtempe
Stop it right now, Darkseid. Just what is your agenda???

Well, apparently its NOT to had an open discussion, learn, help others, gain knowledge, or deny ignorance.

flyersfan
So .. you don't take people seriously unless they agree with you?

No no no, you aren't getting it Mrs. Feminazi, if someone doesn't agree with DS then they aren't intelligent, and because of that DS won't take them seriously.



desert
Fully Human, fully Devine, like Rawiea said. Seems like Jesus's message of loving oneself and others is once again taking a backshelf to a mundane argument.

However there is a big difference, if jesus isn't fully divine, or not even partly divine, then his 'message' merely becomes a sensible, though completely human message, one that is entirely unrelated to salvation or the existence of the immortal soul. ALso, the divne aspects, to us, in our modern contexts, its not important, but at the time, it was vitally important in so far as it related to hebrew prophecy and the perception of their fufilment. THe jesus movement didn't exist in a vacuum, it was a submovement within judaism and its references and justifications are built upon that. So the divine status does become important because of that context.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
In response to the original post, I'm not sure why it would be such a big deal if Jesus married and had offspring. What would be the tragedy to find that out?

I don't understand why Jesus being divine, yet human (according to the story, he was born of a woman, he did have to eat, drink and he did bleed and die) would have to mess up the whole story of salvation.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
How does the devinity of Jesus, or the lack of the same, alter the message he brought to us?

Assuming you've not been banned yet, DS, a word of advise. Calling a moderator names isn't considered to be...well...polite. You will find that being polite will get you further than being a rude little...

(what would Skippy do?)(what would Skippy do?)

...person. Please try it.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I think everyone here is forgetting how hard that would be on the kids.

My dad's succesful and it's been tough enough living up to his success. Son of the son of god, that's a tough one to follow.

"Name?"

"Gary."

"Gary What?"

"Gary um Christ, yes of the Jerusalum Christs."

"Oh I see well Mr. Christ what is it you think you bring to the team here at Masada Muffins and Coffee?"

"Well I am a people person. No I can't turn water into wine. I turned a beer into tequila once. References? Well my father did die for all of mankinds sins...no I haven't done anything like that yet. Fine, I look foward to hearing from you."

That's gotta be tough.

Spiderj



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Yeah, that is true enough, but the perk of being able to win that playground argument with a simple "My grandpa can open up a can of whupass better than yours. Does Soddom and Gommora ring any bells?", would surely be satisfying.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I'd REALLY like to hear an answer to the question posed in this thread title.

What effect would Jesus being married and producing offspring have on religion?
What would it mean?
Why?

Is it the idea of him having sex that everyone is so opposed to?
Is it the mortal desire to marry and have a family?
Is it the fact that it's not mentioned in the (current) bible?

What's the deal with divinity? What does it mean? Why would having a family change his divinity?

Jesus was mortal. What the 'sin' or 'crime' in having him marry and have kids?

Thanks in advance to anyone who's willing to answer these questions.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
BH, I guess my post got lost in the troll attack. I'll reprint:


Originally posted by darkelf
Jesus is espoused (engaged) to the true believers (the church). As an engaged bridegroom, he could not have been married. His pupose on earth was a spiritual one. He had to come as a human (corrupted seed of Eve) for the sacrifice to be meaningful.


Isaiah 61
10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

Matthew 9
14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
2 Corinthians 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.

For more information.


If Jesus is espoused to the Christian believers, then a marriage would be considered adultry. He even calls Himself the Bridegroom, so I think it may be more than just a spiritual thing.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Thank you, darkelf. I had seen your post, I just didn't understand it.

I guess I argue that 'espoused' also means to take up a cause or simply have an attachment to... not necessarily to be engaged to.

And that the scriptures you quoted obviously use "as a bridegroom" in semile form. Meaning Jesus wasn't actually a bridegroom, but like a bridegroom (in adornments). He also says he is "as a bride", so I can't really buy that that chapter makes out Jesus to be a groom any more than a bride.

And it was in the context of Jesus rejoicing in God's actions, not at all talking about the Church as the bride.

The Matthew chapter, again, uses the word 'bridegroom' in an analogy. He's making an analogy to John's deciples about fasting, not at all talking about being engaged to the Church.

The Corinthian verse does make some sense as Paul is talking to the Corinthian Christians about presenting them to Christ.

But does it say, anywhere in the bible, that Jesus was not to be married? Does it say anywhere that he didn't have kids? Or is it pretty much these questionable scriptures which you have listed above? Is this something the people have inferred from the usage of the words 'bridegroom' and 'espoused' (which I'm clearly not buying) or is there any concrete scripture about Jesus' marital or paternal status?

Thank you again.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
From your link:



There is a unique and very special relationship that exists between every Christian and Jesus.

That very special relationship is called "espousal."


Then why is it ok for Christians to marry (but not Jesus) if every Christian is 'espoused' to Christ?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I don't recall Jesus giving out a lot of marital advice in the New Testament. Maybe I missed that part. He comes across as more of a "big ideas" philosopher type, explaining to people about the mysteries of the Universe and life after death, rather than a marriage counselor.

Worried Man: "Rabbi, I think my wife might be cheating on me with my best friend."
Jesus: "The Kingdom of Heaven is as a fig tree, with its sweetest fruit often falling on the ground."
Worried Man: "Uh... okay..."




posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Then why is it ok for Christians to marry (but not Jesus) if every Christian is 'espoused' to Christ?


Good question BH. Marriage was instituted, among other thing, as a prophetic picture of the marriage of Christ to His church. There are a lot of comparisons between Jewish wedding customs and the wedding of the Bride of Christ.

I'll have to check my documents and get back with you on those comparisons.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He came down from heaven to do a job. A wife and children
weren't part of that.


With all due respect, you don't know that. You didn't send him on that mission, did you.



His only mission was to save humanity.
Having children wouldn't have contributed to that mission
therefore He didn't have any.


Again, you simply don't know. Maybe he needed to experience the typical life a mortal human being (including fathering a child) before he could effectively relate to us.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
... you don't know that. You didn't send
him on that mission, did you.


From John - For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son
that whoever believed in Him would be saved.'

THAT is why Christ came. That's a mission. The fact that He came
on a mission is all through scripture. It's even foretold in the O.T.

Marriage and children are a vocation. Christ had three years of
ministry. There wasn't time for Him to save humanity and indulge
in having a wife and children. Besides ... he knows us each so
intimately that marriage would be of no 'added value' for him.


Maybe he needed to experience the typical life a mortal
human being (including fathering a child) before he could
effectively relate to us.


He's God. He knows us intimately. He created us. He knows the number
of hairs on each of our heads. He doesn't have to get married to relate
to us. He understands us better than we understand ourselves.

... with all due respect.



[edit on 5/19/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I think the furora concerning possible marriage and children is what else it could lead to......

Pulling on this thread could lead people to question other areas, thus unraveling the myth completely.

Admitting 'Jesus' was married with children makes him more human, and thus separates the mythological element of the Solar allegory of the birth-life-rebirth deity from the (possible) real person, presumably a rabbi called 'Yesu ben Yoseph' (or a similar variation on that name - one I've seen used when refering to the real man behind the Solar allegory myth).



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Dark Elf. Forgive my ignorance here, but it was my understanding (and I will admit that my understanding of this subject is rudimentary at best) that the Christian church as an entity was formed after his death and resurrection. So the claims of his espousal to the early Christian church comes to us through the various gospels? The early writers of the gospels were nothing if not politically aware. Could this not be an attempt to diefy the leader of their movement? Or an effort to curb the obvious influence at the time of the Roman Empire? His apparent demise on the Cross has had little effect on the Jewish faith, other than give bigots a reason/excuse for their hatreds. If he was/is the Messiah of prophecy than I would expect to see more of an effect historically speaking on his own faith. Or am I more ignorant of this subject than I even realize, and I just don't see the forest for the trees?

I am curious how whether he was mortal or not changes in any way his message?



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
firstly I must voice my agreement with George Bernard Shaw,




Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!




Marriage and children are a vocation. Christ had three years of


Secondly I must ask, what of the years between ca. 5ad( the 12th birthday of Jeshua
and the likely earliest date of his Bar Mitzpha and the time of the beginning of his ministry? Many traditions of that time and subsequent times show men starting their
lifes work after their 30th birthday, having already fathered and raised children.
( remember that after passing their Bar Mitzpha or Bat Mitzapha for girls they became members of the adult community and eligable for marraige. Given that this event could have taken place for Jeshua anytime between 5 CE and 18 CE depending on the calender adjustments. That leaves between 12 and 15 years unaccounted for.
( 30 - 33 CE). More than enough time to marry and Father several children. It is
possible for any or all( presuming multiple children) to have atained adulthood (by Jewish standards of the time) before he began his minestry. It would also give possibility to the theory of bar-Abbas ( who incidently in the bibles of my youth was
identified as Jesus bar Abbas) being the son of Jeshua. The choice of bar Abbas then
takes on a new light, the people saving the crown Prince and not the King.
The King is dead. Long live the King.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He didn't.

He came down from heaven to do a job. A wife and children
weren't part of that.

[edit on 5/16/2006 by FlyersFan]


Hmm... but how do any of us KNOW that having a wife and children wasn't part of his plan (or 'job' as you put it)?

This is a perfect example of how shamelessly arrogant we all are to assume we know EVERYTHING about Christ's plan.



[edit on 20-5-2006 by jupiter869]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I still have yet to understand this. Why does marrying and having children necessarily take away from Jesus' divinity? Why does it necessarily mean he was 'just some dude'? Could he not still have been just as impactful, divine and an incarnation if he had married and fathered children?

I mean, he had to eat, he bled, he got angry, he wept, he loved, he had bodily functions (I'm assuming - although that's not in the bible either) he was a man. What is it about marriage and fathering children that so defines him as a common man? Why does that particular trait bring him down to the level of 'dude'?

What is it about marriage and children than sullies a person from being divine? Surely the lack of a family is not what made him "Jesus". That's not the only difference between him and common man. He would still have been the son of God, he would still have performed miracles, he would still have died for man's salvation... That's what makes him Jesus. NOT whether or not he had a family. What about family would make him unfit to fulfill his destiny?
............

FF - I hope you don't mind that I brought this quote of yours to this thread.



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Evangelicals are upset with that because it is unscriptural.


By unscriptural, do you mean it wasn't mentioned in the (current) bible?



Catholics are upset with ... well .. blowing apart Catholicism
and Sacred Tradition which is held dear.


How? How specifically does Jesus marrying and having a family blow apart Catholicism? What is it that they teach that is against family? (I thought they were all for it)



You hit at the heart of why Christ came to earth.
God sent Him to earth to die for our sins. He had a mission.
A wife and children would have taken away from that mission.
He wouldn't have had time for them and the sacred mission.


That's your opinion. And that's fine. It doesn't really answer my question, though. It's your presumption on the subject. And while I respect you, I can't take your opinion as the real and solid reason. I don't mean any offense.

People have time to have jobs and a family. His mission didn't take 24/7. He had time to have his feet oiled, to play with the children, ot eat, sleep, preach, to live a life. In fact there are many years of his life that aren't even notated in the bible. All the stuff he did during that time wasn't part of his mission or scriptural, either, but it happened.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Jesus is espoused (engaged) to the true believers (the church). As an engaged bridegroom, he could not have been married. His pupose on earth was a spiritual one. He had to come as a human (corrupted seed of Eve) for the sacrifice to be meaningful.


Isaiah 61
10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

Matthew 9
14 Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?
15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.
2 Corinthians 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.

For more information.



All I have to say to that is....


You have voted darkelf for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Not only did you do the job, I think you did it better than I could.


[edit on 22-5-2006 by saint4God]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join