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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Mouth
If Jesus' teachings encompassed the unconditional love to everyone,
to experience love from God, then how is he therefore denied the right to
experience it himself?


John - In the beginning was The Word; and the Word was with God;
and The Word was God.

Christ was there at the creation of everything. He already created us.
Everytime someone is concieved he has the experience that you
described. He has no need to have the joy of seeing his DNA
continued through offspring. His joys are far above that.

He knows us all better than we know ourselves. He knows us all
intimately. All of us. Our births; our lives; our deaths. Intimately.
He doesn't have to be alive in human form to 'get a feel' for
these things. He already feels these things for all of us at all times.

He hasn't been denied anything. He's experiencing it all.


How are we to know? From my experience in life so far, the most climatic experience I have ever had in my life involves my intimate relationship with my soon-to-be wife. Why would God or Jesus be so "above" an experience like that? What is so wrong about the possibility of Jesus wanting to be intimate with another human? There are years taken out of the Gospels (or missing or whatever.) Anything could of happened during those years.
Again, we shall never know for sure. It is all about what you believe. If you feel that you experience God in your own ways, then awesome, because that is what is most important. To each his own.




posted on May, 24 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Have you ever read Conversations with God?


In Conversation with God?? By Francis Fernandex?

AWESOME!! 7 volumes. ISBN - 0-906138-19-1
I highly recommend them for everyone. Ask your
library to get them in. Amazing daily meditations
and scripture. Miles above the rest.

OOOPS .... edited to add ... just noticed that it's a different
set of books than the one you mentioned.

I still recommend them though. Awesome.

[edit on 5/24/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Why would God or Jesus be so "above" an experience like that? What is so wrong about the possibility of Jesus wanting to be intimate with another human?


He already is intimate with each of us. He knows the number of the hairs
upon our heads (to quote Scripture) He is more intimate with each of us
than any husband and wife on this planet are with each other.

I'm not jesus-sex-phobic. It's just that the nature of Christ is such that
sex just wouldn't be the big 'connection' for Him like it is for many of us.

That's all.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Mouth
Why would God or Jesus be so "above" an experience like that? What is so wrong about the possibility of Jesus wanting to be intimate with another human?


He already is intimate with each of us. He knows the number of the hairs
upon our heads (to quote Scripture) He is more intimate with each of us
than any husband and wife on this planet are with each other.

I'm not jesus-sex-phobic. It's just that the nature of Christ is such that
sex just wouldn't be the big 'connection' for Him like it is for many of us.

That's all.


Fair enough FF. I understand your point very well. I may not fully agree, but that is just my choice. But, I like the way you think, and am looking forward you what you post in other threads.

Quick question, were you being sarcastic about CWG books? I couldn't tell in the first reply you gave. I hope not, but if there are other authors with other volumes with that title, I would be more than excited to read them. I was talking about the Neale Donald Walsch volume,

www.amazon.com...



[edit on 24/5/06 by Mouth]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
were you being sarcastic about CWG books?


Oh goodness no. I saw the title of the books you posted and I got
all excited and thought that you had read the same books that I did.
When I went back and thought about it, I saw that they were different.
The titles are very close.

I LOVE my In Conversation with God books. 7 volumes. Awesome.
When my husband and I had more time (before our daughter came
along) we would read them together in the evenings and then talk
about them. They were very thought provoking.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Oh goodness no. I saw the title of the books you posted and I got
all excited and thought that you had read the same books that I did.
When I went back and thought about it, I saw that they were different.
The titles are very close.

I LOVE my In Conversation with God books. 7 volumes. Awesome.
When my husband and I had more time (before our daughter came
along) we would read them together in the evenings and then talk
about them. They were very thought provoking.





Thats what I do!!! Glad to see other people so the same stuff my fiancee and I do. Thought provoking is the perfect term for books like these.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I LOVE my In Conversation with God books. 7 volumes. Awesome.
When my husband and I had more time (before our daughter came
along) we would read them together in the evenings and then talk
about them. They were very thought provoking.


Be advised though, the god the author is talking about isn't the same God you and I know. No need to believe me, feel free to look up what the author has to say about the god in his book. It's more like an "inner self". I started reading them myself until some red flags started going up and did some digging.


Excerpts:

"In the introduction to your book you say, "This book contains the most exciting news of the past 100 years." What's the news?

That humanity is going to create a new God for itself in the next 25 to 30 years, that this new God will result in the emergence of a new spirituality on the planet, and the new spirituality will in turn result in, at last, a movement toward that time of peace and harmony for all humankind, which has been so long predicted and so long awaited.

Could you describe the difference between this new understanding of "tomorrow's God" and the understanding that we have right now?

[Our] biggest fallacies about God are:

1. God needs something.
2. God can fail to get what God needs.
3. God has separated you from God because you have not given God what God needs.
4. God still needs what God needs so badly that God now requires you, from your separated position, to provide it.
5. God will destroy you if you do not meet God's requirements.

[Whereas] this is what God is actually like:

1. Tomorrow's God does not require anyone to believe in God.
2. Tomorrow's God is without gender, size, shape, color, or any of the characteristics of an individual living being.
3. Tomorrow's God talks with everyone, all the time.
4. Tomorrow's God is separate from nothing, but is Everywhere Present, the All in All, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Sum Total of Everything that ever was, is now, and ever shall be.
5. Tomorrow's God is not a singular Super Being, but the extraordinary process called Life.
6. Tomorrow's God is ever changing.
7. Tomorrow's God is needless.
8. Tomorrow's God does not ask to be served, but is the Servant of all of Life.
9. Tomorrow's God will be unconditionally loving, nonjudgmental, noncondemning, and nonpunishing.

Taken collectively, those differences will produce a strikingly different form of spirituality, which in turn will produce a strikingly different form of life, a different way of being with each other.

What is the message you say is missing from the world's religions?

"The missing message" is that we are all one. That is, that we are one with God, no separation between us and God whatsoever. That message is not being sent to the world by the Islamic faith, by the Christian faith, or by the Jewish faith—the world's major exclusivist organized religions. None of them say, "God and we are one." In fact they teach quite the opposite. Not only do they fail to bring that message, they actually teach a message which opposes that message.

What will make followers of these religions adopt this new spirituality in the next 20 or 30 years?

The leaders and the figureheads of the world's largest exclusivist organized religions will not suddenly wake up one morning and say, "You know, we've got it all wrong." Or "We have been incomplete in our understandings, therefore we have to offer a new encyclical or a new proclamation." It will not happen that way. It will happen exactly the way political changes have occurred on this planet in the past 20 years that no one would have ever thought would occur. It will happen from the ground up. Just as communism fell in Eastern Europe. Just as political changes have happened all over the world in the past 30 or 40 years. From the ground up, not from the top down.

And what I'm suggesting is that one of two things is going to happen. Either the religions themselves will find themselves shifting and changing, enlarging their belief system to include the missing message, or those religions that fail to do so will simply disappear. "


beliefnet.com...

[edit on 24-5-2006 by saint4God]

[edit on 24-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Be advised though, the god the author is talking about
isn't the same God you and I know.


Thanks for the link. It was interesting.
Those are for the books that MOUTH
was talking about. My books are different ones
by a different author.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
History books are lies, this isnt any better and the fact the media is giving it so much attention tells me meh



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Thanks for the link. It was interesting.
Those are for the books that MOUTH
was talking about. My books are different ones
by a different author.


My bad. Thought it would be a bit out of character if you were to advocate those.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I think we have two schools here.

1. School of thought and contemplation. the "maybe I don't know it all" school

2. School of rhetoric and rehashing the same old story. the "I know what Jesus and God did and thought" school.

Whose to say that Jesus didn't come here for whoopi? Did Jesus explicitly state this? He ate food and made wine. Why not make love? I think we have too many folks going around saying they know what Jesus thought.

I have a question for all the know-it-alls... What day is the sabbath. Should we observe it on the day Jesus did or the day the Church tells us to?

Paul didn't know Jesus any better than I do, yet he was the only "Apostle" that actually wrote any of the books of the bible. So are you telling me that if I have a drunken vision I can rewrite christianity?

just my 2 1/2 cents... Peace



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by passengername
Whose to say that Jesus didn't come here for whoopi?


Christ. Of course you'd have to read the Bible to know that or otherwise have communication with him.


Originally posted by passengername
Did Jesus explicitly state this?


He did explicitly state his purpose.


Originally posted by passengername
He ate food and made wine. Why not make love?


This has been answered over and over again. Care to address any of these answers or does repeating the question help denial?


Originally posted by passengername
I think we have too many folks going around saying they know what Jesus thought.


He said what he thought and we have the record.


Originally posted by passengername
I have a question for all the know-it-alls... What day is the sabbath. Should we observe it on the day Jesus did or the day the Church tells us to?


Christ already addressed this too. I doubt the moderators would approve of me teaching a class on it here. It's not really my job either.


Originally posted by passengername
Paul didn't know Jesus any better than I do,


Paul and Jesus would mostly likely disagree given what you've stated here.


Originally posted by passengername
yet he was the only "Apostle" that actually wrote any of the books of the bible.


Prove your proofs please. I have mine but you first.


Originally posted by passengername
So are you telling me that if I have a drunken vision I can rewrite christianity?


Give it a shot. We'll see if it lasts 2,000 years.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hopefully you will agree that God gave us the ability to reason and think for ourselves and explore
new possibilties.

Even if you believe that every word in the Bible is true, you have not given any credit to the
possibility that the church might have left a few things out or manipulated texts to their liking because they thought it might be for our own good or that it didn't fit into their agenda.

I'm certain there were many heated discussions among church leaders on what should and should not be included in the final draft.

As with any book, the final results were then published.

If mankind had always followed the Word Of God, there would never have been holy wars.
The problems and the bloodshed have come from following the word of the church.

I'm sure your faith is genuine, but when I read comments about throwing pearls to swine,
I find it offensive.

The possibilty that Mary might have been more than Jesus' closest companion, does not in any way lessen the value and goodness of his message.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Hopefully you will agree that God gave us the ability to reason and think for ourselves and explore
new possibilties.


Since I'm the last poster, I guess the statement is for me? Yes, I agree that God gave us the ability to reason and think for ourselves and explore new possibilties.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Even if you believe that every word in the Bible is true, you have not given any credit to the
possibility that the church might have left a few things out or manipulated texts to their liking because they thought it might be for our own good or that it didn't fit into their agenda.


My approach was like this. I went to God. God directed me to the Book. A decade later of reading that, I'm in a church. I can say that the church has occasionally said some things that made me go back and look it up. I can say I've disagreed on a few points. I cannot say that the church is intentionally leaving a few things out, nor manipulated texts to their liking because they thought it might be for our own goood nor that there were things in the Bible that didn't fit into their agenda.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I'm certain there were many heated discussions among church leaders on what should and should not be included in the final draft.


The Council of Nicea is well documented. Yes, there were heated discussions, no, no major revelation nor "secrets" left out.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
As with any book, the final results were then published.


For example the Gospel of Thomas was left out. In reading that book, there's no "shock and awe" in that sermon, nor anything that isn't already in the final product.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
If mankind had always followed the Word Of God, there would never have been holy wars.


Post-Christ, I do not see why there would be any wars.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
The problems and the bloodshed have come from following the word of the church.


In a few cases this is may have been true, but would be an incorrect blanket statement as the motivators for war are and have been money, land, politics, status, and power. The church, when involved in these earthly things, fell into this trap for a brief period in time, but does not even come close to accounting for humanity's history.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I'm sure your faith is genuine, but when I read comments about throwing pearls to swine,
I find it offensive.


Um, did I say this? I do not recall and believe you have a right to be offended. Also, if I felt I was "throwing pearls to swine", why would I bother? My words are not pearls, but I know what Word is...and we are all swine. I'm in that pen too.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
The possibilty that Mary might have been more than Jesus' closest companion, does not in any way lessen the value and goodness of his message.


It sure does for every reason that has been given on this thread as to why. The only way it does not is if a person does not believe what Christ said anyway, which is that He is the son of God. God too said this in a voice that many heard it. God is still saying this in different ways and many hear it.


[edit on 24-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it the fact that it's not mentioned in the (current) bible?



Those who might want to explore things that were taken out of the Bible by Constantine, among others, would be well advised to read a book titled...

The Great Controversy, by E.G. White, printed by Remnant Publications, Inc.

copyright 1888, 1907, 1911, 2001.

-



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
like the title of this thread said so what if he was married, what difference would it have made? it is well known and documented that jewish men were married in those days it was expected of them. To me if he was married then that makes him more human. im not goin to get into the whole jesus debate, as its not relevent to this subject but really would it have made a whole lot of difference to anyone if he was? its not going to change the things he taught, the people he helped or the many who listened to his sermons everyday. Him being married or not married doesnt change anything

[edit on 25-5-2006 by ronishia]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Saint4god...

You are very knowledgable of the Bible, there is no doubting that. I just can't agree with people who use "holy scriptures" (The same ones that describe men living for 900 years) as proof and evidence to back up what they think happened 2000 years ago. The Bible is a collection of stories, to help guide people to God, and should not be taken (I feel) literally.

The fact remains is that no one will ever know (save time travel
) what happened back then. To say anything with absolute confidence is ridiculous.

Show me something that is written by Jesus Himself, and is authentic, that he did not have a spouse, and I will believe what you claim.




[edit on 25/5/06 by Mouth]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Hello, Benevolent Heretic. I liked your questions. Might I offer some possible answers of my own?


Benevolent Heretic
What effect would Jesus being married and producing offspring have on religion?

1. It would result in the existence of literal "sons and daughters of God" with a claim to a portion of their father's divinity. This would have created all kinds of succession problems, rather like those that affected Islam after the last of the "rightly guided Caliphs" died.

2. Given the rate and spread of human genetic mixing, it would mean that by now a very large proportion of the Earth's population would be direct descendents of Jesus Christ. What fun!

3. Christianity was founded by a man who regarded chastity as the ideal state of being (for his own doubtless good and sufficient reasons) and who suffered the existence of matrimony only on the grounds that it was "better to marry than to burn". Thus his ideal of perfection, Jesus, could never be anything but chaste. The character of Christianity reflects the character of St. Paul; it would be very different -- far more tolerant, worldly and, dare I suggest, wise -- if Christ had been thought to have married and fathered children.

Incidentally, the reason why no-one did claim to be Jesus's offspring (in the immediate aftermath) is that Jesus was, in the judgement of his age, a failure: to wit, a provincial lunatic whose Messianic project had ended with him being nailed to a tree and his followers scattered in hiding. There was no percentage in scraping relationship with such a loser. A couple of hundred years afterwards, things were different, but by that time it was already too late. Or rather, there were probably far too many claimants for anyone's claims to be taken very seriously.


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

As I'm sure you're aware, it didn't affect the Graeco-Roman pantheon one tiny bit. But the Christian God is a Neoplatonic concept: the One, the Ultimate Being, perfect. For such a Being to feel desire or share its substance with another entity except in very carefully limited and circumscribed ways (such as the Immaculate Conception) would be to compromise its perfection. Jesus, participant in that Godhead, could not possibly feel lust or -- heaven forfend -- ejaculate his Godly substance. Remember the fuss the New Testament makes about the person who touched him without his knowing it, causing his "virtue to go out of him"?


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

That would have been a little too mortal for Uncle Saul. That's probably all there is to it.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mouth
Saint4god...

You are very knowledgable of the Bible, there is no doubting that.


Thank you
but I have A LOT to learn.


Originally posted by Mouth
I just can't agree with people who use "holy scriptures" (The same ones that describe men living for 900 years) as proof and evidence to back up what they think happened 2000 years ago.


I can understand that as I had felt that way myself too. I'm not encouraging people to read a book and believe. I'm encouraging people to go to God directly, but be not surprised if He directs you the Book as well.


Originally posted by Mouth
The Bible is a collection of stories, to help guide people to God, and should not be taken (I feel) literally.


Some people can find God through the Book. To that I have great admiration, but the skeptical mind, like I have, probably will not. Even as a believer, there were many things that I hadn't taken literally that I've now been shown I should.


Originally posted by Mouth
The fact remains is that no one will ever know (save time travel
) what happened back then. To say anything with absolute confidence is ridiculous.


If you know someone is a teacher, can you say, "I know someone who is a teacher" with confidence? I should hope so.


Originally posted by Mouth
Show me something that is written by Jesus Himself, and is authentic, that he did not have a spouse, and I will believe what you claim.


I don't want you to believe me. I'm interested in you believing Him and will be working towards that goal. God did not come to me and say, "Go and prove I exist to all you meet" because this is not my job. That job is His. If He uses me in a way to make that happen, great! But I will not be the one dictating proofs.

[edit on 25-5-2006 by saint4God]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I think we see eye to eye on this subject, S4G.

The more I read stuff that you (and a select few others) write, the more inclined I am to do more reading and research.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join