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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
By unscriptural, do you mean it wasn't mentioned in the (current) bible?

I'm not evangelical however if I have read what they have to say
correctly then, YES, because it isn't mentioned in the bible.

How? How specifically does Jesus marrying and having a
family blow apart Catholicism? What is it that they teach that is
against family?

Not against family ... but that would go against Sacred Tradition
that has been handed down for 2,000 years. Absolute truths of
the faith ... that sort of thing. Nothing against family.

His mission didn't take 24/7.
Ahhh .. now that's
YOUR opinion.
Many theologians say it did. I agree.


In fact there are many years of his life that aren't even notated in the bible.

Sure. Between the ages of 12 and 30. (Or thereabouts)
Theologians say that he was living in obedience to his parents
and preparing for his mission to save the world. I agree
with this. Saving the world is a big thing. (agree?)
Prayerful preparation and perfect timing so he can 'take
on the sins of the world'. That's a big weight ...

Scripture says Christ came specifically to save the world.
He came specifically to die for us. He didn't come to indulge
in a family. He didn't come to leave a widow and orphans
behind. He came for the spiritual, not the carnal.


[edit on 5/22/2006 by FlyersFan]




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Again I find myself in agreement with Benevolent Heretic. In what way does having a family impact negatively upon not only the devinity of Christ, but his message as well? I simply don't see how that occurs.

It simply doesn't, in my mind, change his message, or the character of the man. Except possibly for the better. Imagine the following. A mere mortal reaches enlightement, does that not mean we all can? I think that a Jesus who was a father is a much more touchable person.

Being a father, and a husband, in no way takes away from the message he brought to us.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
but how do any of us KNOW that having a wife and
children wasn't part of his plan ?

1 - because the bible doesn't discuss it.
2 - because he came from heaven to save us, not to
indulge in the physical pleasures.
3 - because he wouldn't have taken a wife and made
children knowing that in a few short years he would
just be leaving them a widow and orphans. That's
rather 'ungodly' and unnecessary.


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


that's a tad bit snotty.

It isn't shamelessly arrogant to read scripture; to understand Christ's
mission; and to not see ANY references to him having a wife and
children in scripture. As far as knowing everything about Christ's
plan .. we certainly do. He even said so -

1 - Scripture says that God sent Christ to save mankind. His death
on the cross was even foretold. This was his mission. That's it.

2 - Christ said to the apostles that he wouldn't call them slaves because
a slave doesn't know the master's business. He would call them
friends because He has told them everything.

I'll see if I can find that exact quote w/chapter and verse.

Edited to add - okay, I found it, here it is.

John 15:15 - I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth
not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: becaues all things,
whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.




[edit on 5/22/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
In what way does having a family impact negatively
upon not only the devinity of Christ, but his message as well?


I don't see that it would. But it just simply isn't there.
I'm not saying that it would be 'bad' if Christ had a
family. He just didn't, that's all. If He did, it would
have been in scripture. His other personal family
facts were there - Mary; Joseph; the flight into Egypt;
the finding at the temple by his parents; the virgin birth.

If he had a family .. fine .. but it's just not there.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If he had a family .. fine .. but it's just not there.


Actually it's not fine. That means he was unable to resist temptation, that he was a hypocrite for telling his followers to leave their family behind in order to follow him while he was on earth, and would also mean that he had left behind kids without a father. Does any of this make Biblical sense? Nope, not at all. Let's go around testing DNA to see who has God's DNA, because you know it ain't gonna look like the rest of us.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by FlyersFan
If he had a family .. fine .. but it's just not there.

...and would also mean that he had left behind kids without a father.


Yes .. I said he wouldn't come here just to make orphans and a widow of
his 'wife'. I understand that. What I ment was that if it were in the bible
then I wouldn't be fighting it. But it's just not there. And when you look
at his mission, which is clearly spelled out, then Christ wouldn't have the
time or the desire to temporarily take a wife and make kids .. who would
just quickly end up a widow and orphans. It isn't in His nature or His
mission.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Gotcha FlyerFan, and wasn't necessarily meaning to aim those comments to you. It was more or less to the thinking of "if Jesus had a family, what would be the big deal?" kind of thing. There are many, many problems with this line of thinking...none of which have been sufficiently addressed by the so-what mindsetters.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
According to the Talmud, marriage was not just for procreation but for love and companionship. The espousal normally lasted about a year. During this time, the bridegroom would be preparing a home for his new bride. The father would not let the son collect the bride until he had prepared a suitable home for her. So why do I believe that Jesus didn’t marry?

Matthew 8:
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Had He married before He began His ministry, He would most certainly have a place to lay His head. He could not have been married during His three-year ministry. He was constantly traveling and would not have had the time to prepare a home for His bride. If Jesus were to have had children by MM, they would have been bastards. This would prevent Him from being a sinless sacrifice and would make Christianity the sham that so many people are vying for.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
There are many, many problems with this line of thinking...none of which have been sufficiently addressed by the so-what mindsetters.


That's probably because we haven't gotten a good answer to our "so-whats".

The answers darkelf gave have begun to scratch the surface, but the other answers:
"Because it wasn't in the bible"
"Because he would have left a widow and kids behind"
And so on make no sense to me.

He went to the bathroom and that wasn't in the bible. He left an entire following behind mourning him and he arose 3 days later. Your answers don't make sense to me. I'm sorry.

I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't all abou sex. The nasty, vile view of sex that religions sometimes have.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's probably because we haven't gotten a good answer to our "so-whats".


Please use the "scroll up" bar on the right-hand side. There's also a "page back" button as well.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The answers darkelf gave have begun to scratch the surface, but the other answers:


Good, then lets start there.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Because it wasn't in the bible"


You do not think this would be an important detail to include in the Bible?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"Because he would have left a widow and kids behind"


You think that this would be an appropriate action for God, the son?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And so on make no sense to me.


No problem, it's why we're here. Here's some further material from a thread that's amazingly similar going on right now (which is usually the case at ATS):

Attack on divinity

To say Christ was "more human than human" (Rob Zombie) is a fundamental defiance of what is what is written, what Christ said, what God said, and what many have witnessed. There is no better way to destroy someone who believes or sway someone who is unsure than by persuading them that he was just a man (and not the son of God, God the son). If someone said the movie had Muslim, Jewish, Bhuddist, Hindi or other non-believer backers, I would not be surprised. I would be surprised if anyone said that the movie had Christian financial backers, because they should know better and I hope to God they see why this is a problem. To the authors of such "works" *cough cough* write whatever fiction you want, don't expect me to buy it or care. Even in pop-media (tv, movies, radio) this was a documentary on tv long before it became a book, and before that it was pretty much a similar story from The Last Temptation of Christ, so there's really nothing new to see here. Give points for creativity if you like, but originality gets a 0 in my book. This argument is 2,000 years old.


...what I'm saying is Jesus isn't "just man" per the following:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

Relevant quotes from John 1:1-15. No need to interpret, it's pretty clear. It's not out of context, read the whole chapter to verify.

To answer your question, those who believe in God and accept His son (per John 3:16) has eternal life, this is certain. However, the epistles do warn of falling away. Jesus tells a parable of a seed growing among thorns. Paul tells us to guard our spirits. 1 John advises us not to listen to false teachers. Etc. etc. etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He went to the bathroom and that wasn't in the bible.


Do you think going "to the bathroom" is an important detail and should be included in the Bible?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He left an entire following behind mourning him and he arose 3 days later.


You do not see a difference between 3 days and an entire lifetime of a spouse, children, and grandchildren? Also, he told his disciples this would happen. They didn't "get it" until that time had past.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Your answers don't make sense to me. I'm sorry.


You're oversimplification examples in this post make no sense to me.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't all abou sex. The nasty, vile view of sex that religions sometimes have.


God sanctioned sex, "And the two flesh will become one". That's in Genesis, so you don't have to read far to get to it. Nevertheless, don't stop there, there are rules against adultry in the next book too.


[edit on 23-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Please use the "scroll up" bar on the right-hand side. There's also a "page back" button as well.


Sarcasm and snottiness will get you nowhere. Already, I don't want to read what you have to say because of your attitude. But I will anyway.



You think that this would be an appropriate action for God, the son?


I have no idea. Who am I to judge the actions of "God, the son"? Who are you? This is my point. I make no judgments about Jesus. What I think is irrelevant. I don't want opinions, I want answers. Your opinions and your judgments mean no more to me than any others, including mine, on this matter.



To say Christ was "more human than human" (Rob Zombie) is a fundamental defiance of what is what is written, what Christ said, what God said, and what many have witnessed.


I'm not saying or implying that Christ was "more homan than human". I'm going on the assumption of divinity. I'm just asking why can't a divine being, who was here in human form, and performed many human tasks, including dying, also have married and had kids.

I'm not trying to say that Jesus was "just a man" or not the son of God. You're misinterpreting my question. I'm asking what about marriage and kids automatically makes him "more human than human" or "just a man and not the son of God"? Why do people assume that having a family impacts his divinity any more than eating or bleeding or crying or dying?

I asked it best on page 2 of this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Do you think going "to the bathroom" is an important detail and should be included in the Bible?


Again, that's not for me to say. It doesn't matter what I think. And maybe having a family wasn't important enough for the writers to put in there. Maybe they thought it wasn't relevant to his mission so didn't bother. I'm just saying it's a possibility that he had a family and it doesn't have to change anything.



You do not see a difference between 3 days and an entire lifetime of a spouse, children, and grandchildren?


Again, you missed my point entirely.



God sanctioned sex, "And the two flesh will become one".


I know what He said about it, but the religions of today don't exactly have a healthy attitude about sex. And the people of today are the ones who are so upset about the thought of Jesus having a family. Too bad I can't ask him about it personally.



That's in Genesis, so you don't have to read far to get to it.


I have read the bible and studied religion for a good part of my young life. Again, your sarcasm really draws the people in...




Nevertheless, don't stop there, there are rules against adultry in the next book too.


And that has what to do with this conversation?

Here's the kind of answer I'm looking for (and maybe it doesn't exist)

Question: Why does marrying and having children necessarily take away from Jesus' divinity?

Answer(s): Because in some book, chapter and verse it says "Jesus had no children" or "Jesus' divinity would have been sullied by a family" or "Jesus didn't take a wife because it would detract from his mission" or "Only mortal man takes a wife. Jesus in his divinity lived alone"

I'm looking for something in the bible that you guys are basing your opinions on. Only the "bride of the Church" stuff that darkelf explored earlier in this thread comes even close, but does not fully play out, because church members are allowed to get married.

If you don't want to answer the question saint4God, or deal with my "oversimplification examples", than don't. But I haven't gotten the answer I'm looking for. I'm not saying it's your failing. I don't believe there is an answer. I believe that people like you and FF and darkelf have your own opinions on it but really don't have the scripture to back them up. And that's ok.

Lacking a scriptural answer, I'm asking you to explore what you're basing your opinions on. Nothing in the scripture you quoted said anything about why Jesus couldn't have a family. To me.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
He was married when he was 20 and his wife, Meneske, died in childbirth a few years later. He was heartbroken, and it triggered his spiritual quest to discover the reason for the apparently unbreakable link between love, suffering, salvation and renewal. It took him all the way from Alexandria, where he was raised, to Lhasa, Tibet, to seek out the authors of some of the many philosophical books he read at the famous Library.

Or something like that.
All the records of his young adulthood,
when he might have been married,
have been hidden away or lost.

P.S. - There's no historical evidence to indicate that "Jesus" ever really existed. So it's kind of like debating what effect having a wife would have on Batman.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Sarcasm and snottiness will get you nowhere.


What I'm saying is it has in fact been stated, so I'm not sure why you want it re-stated. Apologies if you had taken this as "snottiness", that was NOT the intent.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Already, I don't want to read what you have to say because of your attitude.


What is my attitude? I'm always interested in learning more about myself.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I will anyway.


Your choice, please do not feel obligated.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have no idea. Who am I to judge the actions of "God, the son"?


Neither of us are to judge.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who are you?


One who listens to what he has said and done.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is my point. I make no judgments about Jesus.


Good! And neither should I. Rather, we should listen to what he did in fact say and did.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What I think is irrelevant.


I disagree.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't want opinions, I want answers.


Surely, as do we all.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Your opinions and your judgments mean no more to me than any others, including mine, on this matter.


Good! This is as it should be.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not saying or implying that Christ was "more homan than human". I'm going on the assumption of divinity. I'm just asking why can't a divine being, who was here in human form, and performed many human tasks, including dying, also have married and had kids.


This has been answered many times and many ways on this thread.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not trying to say that Jesus was "just a man" or not the son of God. You're misinterpreting my question. I'm asking what about marriage and kids automatically makes him "more human than human" or "just a man and not the son of God"?


Christ is already married to "the Church" as it is repeatedly stated in the Bible. What does it mean if Christ has 2 brides? There's a word for it that starts at the 10 commandments and also goes against what he states and does. (Revelation 21:9)


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why do people assume that having a family impacts his divinity any more than eating or bleeding or crying or dying?


The problem isn't having a familiy, the problem is going against what he says and does. He says and does one thing, to say he had a family here goes against both. In fact, you should hear what he has to say about his brother and mother when they came to visit while he was teaching.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Again, that's not for me to say. It doesn't matter what I think. And maybe having a family wasn't important enough for the writers to put in there.


In two gospels it explains the lineage of Christ. Why do you think it does this? Where is the lineage AFTER him? There was a census that is required by law at that time.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Maybe they thought it wasn't relevant to his mission so didn't bother. I'm just saying it's a possibility that he had a family and it doesn't have to change anything.


It changes a lot actually.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


You do not see a difference between 3 days and an entire lifetime of a spouse, children, and grandchildren?


Again, you missed my point entirely.


Your point was that he did leave other people. But the difference is 3 days versus many lifetimes, and he told the disciples he would return after 3 days and did.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know what He said about it,


Good, there's hope for progress yet.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
but the religions of today don't exactly have a healthy attitude about sex.


Not sure how this is relevent to Jesus being married. A different topic for a different thread.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And the people of today are the ones who are so upset about the thought of Jesus having a family.


I see, where was the poll taken of the people asked in 30 - 1900 A.D?.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Too bad I can't ask him about it personally.


Patience.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have read the bible and studied religion for a good part of my young life. Again, your sarcasm really draws the people in...


For your studies I am greatful, though some responses seem to omit the better portions of the Book. I don't mind reminding, but I have no intention repeating the whole Book as it is already in print. Why anyone would come to me instead of God for answers I'll never know, but I'll do the best I can.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And that has what to do with this conversation?


See the "bride" comment above.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here's the kind of answer I'm looking for (and maybe it doesn't exist)

Question: Why does marrying and having children necessarily take away from Jesus' divinity?


By saying he's divine means he's part God. Jesus is God the son, and the son of God as stated in the Bible. By saying he violates God's own laws, statements and actions is hypocrisy, the very same thing he spoke out against.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Answer(s): Because in some book, chapter and verse it says "Jesus had no children" or "Jesus' divinity would have been sullied by a family" or "Jesus didn't take a wife because it would detract from his mission" or "Only mortal man takes a wife. Jesus in his divinity lived alone"


If you look to yourself for answers, they may be without progress. Maximum reached, one moment.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm looking for something in the bible that you guys are basing your opinions on. Only the "bride of the Church" stuff that darkelf explored earlier in this thread comes even close, but does not fully play out, because church members are allowed to get married.


As I'd stated in Revelation. Actually the whole book paints a much better picture. And yes, Paul does describe the relationship of our marriage should be like the relationship that Christ has with the church. I will do more research to get you more.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you don't want to answer the question saint4God, or deal with my "oversimplification examples", than don't.


Thanks.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I haven't gotten the answer I'm looking for.


Maybe I'm not presenting it in an effective way for you.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not saying it's your failing. I don't believe there is an answer. I believe that people like you and FF and darkelf have your own opinions on it but really don't have the scripture to back them up. And that's ok.


Which is it, use the scripture or not use the scripture? Be advised, if I do start using more scripture, there should be no complaining about me doing so.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Lacking a scriptural answer, I'm asking you to explore what you're basing your opinions on. Nothing in the scripture you quoted said anything about why Jesus couldn't have a family. To me.


Let's start with the Revelation one above and this one:

Ephesians 5:22-32

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.


[edit on 23-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
The difficulty with the Bible is that they are stories written by man. The Word of God is interpretated by man, and that interpretation changes as society changes. Things are VERY different when jumping over 2000 years later. Do you honestly think our outlook on religion and science will be the same 2000 years from now? God... How primitive will we look in that future?

About Jesus having a family... I believe (and that doesn't make it true, because everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to) that one of the most important aspects of the Word of God is love. I don't know about anyone else, but being in love, and knowing that you are loved back, is the most important thing in life. It really is the purpose of life... to experience love. Jesus' teachings upheld the unconditional love of everyone... including the sick and disabled. He loved them all.

If he "made woopie," then awesome for him, because instead of putting a taboo on sexual energy (like catholics like to do) we should be embracing it, and channeling it properly. So, why should that exclude Jesus?

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Mouth]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Ephesians 5:22-32


That is the best so far. Thank you. It's clear that Paul intended that the Church was the wife of Christ just as a woman is the wife of a man. Is he the only one who speaks about this relationship?

I find it strange though that the purpose of marriage (according to 1 Corinthians 7:7, also authored by Paul) is to keep from fornicating.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

I wonder why the marriage of Jesus to the Church was necessary. But that's another subject.

Thanks again for answering.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe that people like you and FF and darkelf have your own opinions on it but really don't have the scripture to back them up. And that's ok.


Ummm, Benevolent Heretic, I don’t see anywhere I have given an opinion in this thread where I haven’t given the scripture of reference to back that opinion. I don’t expect you to change your beliefs or agree to my interpretation of the scriptures. But please don’t accuse me of something I haven’t done.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Why would Religion be sooooooo against procreation if it is the progressing of our race? The WHOLE point of us, I think for us, is the CONTINUATION of our race. This is one of the reasons why I do not understand hatred towards other people. The fact remains that millions of years from now, the sun, our sun, will swallow the entire solar system. That being said, we need to get off of this rock sooner or later. So why the heck are we not working together? because there is no immediate danger (save an asteroid hitting us). I mean, what do we care? We aren't gonna be around for that, so whatever, right?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
No need to get testy here, darkelf.
First of all, I said "I believe". That does not constitute an accusation. Secondly, on page 2 of this thread, you said you were going to check some documents and get back to me on what you said was a "good question". You never came back and addressed it. I believed that indicated you didn't have or couldn't find the scripture to back it up. ("It" being Christ was married to the Church in the same way a man is married to a woman)

I have questions. I'm curious. But sometimes, people get so defensive. I'm not trying to prove anything or anybody wrong. I don't have a personal belief about the bible, Jesus and God, anyway. My beliefs run in a totally different vein. I'm just curious. So I ask. I'm not here to attack anyone's belief or accuse them of anything.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The world would be a much better place if we all accepted each others freedom to believe in God
without condemnation of others who accept certain teachings of their individual denominations.

It is far too well known that mankind in general, has an extremely difficult time
thinking for themselves.
For the most part, we accepted what we were told as truth.

With all due respect for individual beliefs, we must also consider the motivation of organized religion and the role of the clergy in early civilization.

The collective works of the Bible were hotly disputed and edited to focus on an ideology with
a central message.
That central message being that there was ONE God.

This was a tremendously revolutionary concept in itself back in those days.

A human being such as Caesar or an Emperor would like to have been accepted as
a God, but the church had finally dispelled that notion.
Therefore no man on earth could be a God.

For Jesus to have a normal human life would have gone against everything the church
was trying to change.

This is probably the founding motivation behind the concept of virgin birth to Mary and the sudden divinity of Jesus.

Any ideology that did not follow this concept was written off as heresy.

How could the Messiah be human? How could the Son of God be subject to all the
weaknesses of normal men?

As we see even today, it is very difficult for many people to grasp the possibility that
Jesus was mortal.

I wasn't there, I do not know.

I do know that the message he tried to deliver made him worthy of our highest respect.

As far as a normal life and marriage,

For the most part women were treated not much better than cattle by the majority of
influential leaders. Even today we still see this on a grand scale.

The idea that any women could be equal to a man intellectually was unheard of.

We already know what happened to the first born sons simply on a rumor of a coming
Messiah. They were slaughtered mercilessly

Try to imagine what would have happened to any woman carrying the legacy
of Christ's bloodline and the power that would have given her.

The collective holy scriptures of ALL faiths were meant as guidebooks to humanity.
Even if we accept that they were published with the best intentions, we must also
consider the probability that much was left out for what was considered socially acceptable
at the time.

If we follow the Word Of God there would never be holy wars.

That is where we have ended up by following the church.









Collectively, organized religion was founded to control the masses and explain the unexplained.

We can have faith in God without falling prey to the self serving motives of men.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join