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.

 

If Jesus Was Married.........

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
So many new thoughts since I posted to this thread. In general they reflect either the soteriological or the epistemological points of view. The former cannot be swayed to believe anything other than what they have been told to take for granted.

I have read the DaVinci code, and while I find it held information I already knew, the resolution was less than satisfying. Brown preferred to not take the leap that he could not support. While it is possible that Christ has descendants, it is also possible that it was with Miriam to whom he was supposedly married, or Mary Magdalena. Someone mentioned the Gnostic texts, but did not make the distinction between the two women, and from what sources we learn this. Another ponders the gender duality of God, (a hybrid) which too seems to have merit, but is kept from the prying eyes of the public, along with his relationship with the lesser creatures. These are engendered in the Essene texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and their other artifacts.

Imagine the hysteria, the total collapse of Christian and Hebrew faiths, were the whole truth surrounding these 66 books to come out, or the possibility of Christ's descendants.

Another speaks of December 25th as not being his birthday, this has been corroborated by documents in the Vatican archives. A date in fact agreed to well after his death, by a council.

Another, LadyV, speaks to the King James Version being devoid of some gospels, which is true, but it in fact has a few more Apocrypha than most, including the Roman Catholic Vulgate. However, I respectfully disagree with LadyV on a couple of her positions; her rendition of the polytheistic Jewish philosophy, and to the definition of; And God said, Let us make man in our image, Emphasis on, our.

LadyV does raise a rather interesting question regarding the lack of mention of lesbianism in the bible, as it along with paedophilia, is not mentioned at all. I venture to say from what I have come to know of the various issues with the bible, that it was purposely edited for misogynistic reasons. While relative to her question on the sacrificing of animals, is the why that ritual is along with the majority of the laws of Moses, no longer adhered to in Judaism.

Amadeus asks whether Jesus was considered a Rabbi during his life, and yes he was, John 1:38 is one example, although it appears that along with teacher, it was also taken to mean, my master or my lord. He wonders if Jesus held two wives simultaneously, the answer to which is no, since Miriam left him a widower, prior to his resurfacing at age 30.


[edit on 8/5/04 by SomewhereinBetween]




posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Amadeus,

That was very nice indeed you had it in better words that I possibly could.
Is somewhat confusing for some people that has only knowledge of the Jesus of the English bible to understand that can be other version of him besides the one they were brought up with.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   
For an alernative take on the life of Jesus of Nazereth, take a look at The Urantia Book



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Do you guys feel that, Jesus being married, and maybe having children affects his image as the son of God?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Hi there SomeWhere In Between...

YOU WROTE:

QUOTE: Amadeus asks whether Jesus was considered a Rabbi during his life, and yes he was, John 1:38 is one example, although it appears that along with teacher, it was also taken to mean, my master or my lord. He wonders if Jesus held two wives simultaneously, the answer to which is no, since Miriam left him a widower, prior to his resurfacing at age 30. UNQUOTE

Be careful of stating your opinions as fact without documentary backup of any kind...

The Greek we read today in the 4th (John's) Gospel, for example, was written down sometime AFTER AD 100, so it was 30 YEARS AFTER the Destuction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem when the Saduccean priests were killed off, and the term RABBI was more popular since they filled the power vaccum (a process which has extended Rabinnic (i.e. non sacrificial non-Torah abiding) Judaism to this day)

My question was actually whether or not the term RABBI/RABBONI was a RETROJECTION of a LATER TERM into an earlier narrative when the gospels circulated AFTER the destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70.

Let me know your SOURCE for a pre 70 usage of the term Rabbi, if you happen to have come across on in the literature.

I do not know of any confirmed written documentary sources for the specific use of this specific term RABBI before AD 70 (i.e. 35-40 years after the execution of R. Yehoshua for armed rebelllion against Rome) and the earliest Gospels circulated around AD 75-80 (e.g. Mark) and the so called Gospel of John the Elder (whoever he was) did not hit the streets until about AD 110, so cannot be used as evidence of an early use of the term, RABBI.

However I do suspect that the 4 "canonical" Gospels may in fact bear witness to the term being used before AD 70 (the gospel may have inadvertently/unconsciously retained a more ancient usage of the term) since the gospels on the whole tended to proceed in the opposite direction when it came to using technical Hebrew-Jewish terminology:

The gospels (circulating AFTER the 1st Jewish Revolt, which made the Jews persona non grata in the Empire) tended to de-Judaeise or de-Hebrewise Jesus (even giving him a Greek name, IESOUS, from the Aramaic R. Yehoshua bar Yosef) and they tended to introduce Greek ideas INTO the narratives (e.g. Virgin births and gods changing water into wine) rather than adding Aramaic or Jewish material to it---since after the failed revolt against Rome, Jews were regarded as a conquored race of no importance or worth among the Greeks, to whom the early Church was "selling the message" which is why Paul uses Stoic and Mithraic language to sell the new saviour god IESOUS to them...rather than INTRODUCE cumbersome and foreign Jewish technical terms (e.g. Rabbi or Moreh) into their "working vocabulary" beyond the most basic ones which they had to use as a bare minimum for Old Testament Link purposes (i.e. making "Iesous" as Messiah to fulfill certain required Old Testament prophecies was only done by the early Christian missionaries to show the connexion and "ancientness" of the "new religion" to the older Jewish faith, answering those who sneered that "Christianity" was a new invention without "pedigree" etc.)

A class of teachers known as "Rabbis" were a growing religio-political force (Pharisees = "Pharasim" = "separated ones") during the later part of the so-called Persian Period (531-531 BC) after the Babylonia Exile destroyed all the old northern kingdom cults of YHWH, and brought them all under a single cult-center in Jerusalem under Nehemiah after 480 BC. Before that, there were dozens of cult centres scattered around Palestine (BC 1200 to BC 621) where YHWH and other gods were worshipped side by side ("Yahweh, Baal and his Asherah" is a common inscriptions on these cult centres in the noth such as Shechem, Shiloah, Beth-El, Gilgal, Beer-Shebaq, Meggido, Carnayim, Dan, Ashkelon etc.

During the pre-Exilic Period (1200 BC to BC 587) , the Kohenim "levitical" priests of these various Canaanitish based cult centre-shrines in the north were destroyed by some of the later fervent Yahwistic kings of Judah (caving into pressure from the growing Yahweh priestly lobby, read the stories of Elijah!) despite some of them being later rebuilt by later Baalite kings under their own "priestly pressure" from rival priestly groups with different gods to represent, but the taunch Yahwistic king Josiah (building on Hezekiah's reforms before him to destroy non Yahwistic temples) in the late 7th century BC tried to centralise the worship of YAHWEH in Jerusalem after having claimed to have found a book of the Torah of Moses during rennovations to the precincts (II Kings 22:8 ff etc.) which might have been a (forged?) proto-book of Deuteronomy with a "central sanctuary"...

At this time, many of the rural northern Levite Priests were therefore literally "put out of business" when Josiah closed their cult centre shops up north (Jeremiah's father was one rural priest who was put out of business by Josiah's reforms: the rural northern priests who wrote the E and D strands of the Torah, were housed in a town called Anatoth near Jerusalem, all plotting revenge no doubt!).


But much later, it was AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem (i.e. AFTER AD 70) that Rabinnic Judaeism actually became "normative";while the 2nd Temple still stood---no priests any more because NO TEMPLE ANYMORE---and for centuries before there grew up a king do remote rabbinnic culture outside of Jersualem built around the hundreds of Synagogues scattered around Palestine and the Greco-Roman Empire, which were not temples in that they did not perform ritual blood sacrifices.

When the Jerusalem's Temple was destroyed in AD 70 the power of the ruling priestly elite class (alligned with Rome who appointed their high priests as political "puppets") was destroyed, and the Rabbis filled in the power vaccuum, to this day.

Jews today have no high priests but only "chief Rebbes", e.g. in Jerusalem which perform some of their functions.

Also I don't think we can say whether or not the historical "Jeeezzuzzz" had one wife, or two wives or three wives since there is no documentation either way.

We also do not know if the earliest traditions which UNDERLAY the Gospel material tried to make "Iesous" typologically "echo" his namesake (David v. Son of David) since in other places in the gospel traditions, "Jeezuzz" is said to have performed in a way so as to re-echo his progenitor to some degree, possibly with some kind of 1st century Daviddic Messianic typology parallels (e.g. Jonathan being David's lover and in John's Gospel, "the disciple whom Iesous loved leans on his breast at a last supper meal of sorts, or the "the betrayer" being "ONE OF THE 12" based on a Psalm of David "even he who ate of my bread has lifted his heel against me, e.g. in the Absolom context).

Since the "original King David " was said to have had many wives (and lots of sons who were half brothers to each other) perhaps the "Son of David" in the Last Days (i.e. "Iesous who was called the Messiah") was thought originally to have had some kind of harem--and "Iesous" was apparently no stranger to women touching him in intimate places (e.g. the Spikenard Incident in Luke's curious gospel where a :sinner" woman rubs her long wet hair into his feet in some kind of Messianic Annointing Ceremony in the "house of Shimeon the JarMaker", sometimes erroneously translated as "Simon the leper..." etc.

At any rate, the Daviddic line rested its survival on sons "who would sit upon the throne of their father David in the last days", so there would have been a great pressure placed on "Iesous" to beget sons to re-establish the Davidds on the throne of Israel (and over-throw the Levetical Hashmoneans who from about 104BC began to call themselves KINGS as well as PRIESTS, who interpreted the Torah verse as "thou shalt become a Kingdom OF priests" rather than the more ancient rendition in the SamPent, "a Kingdom AND priests" etc.

I don't know where you get the idea of Miryam leaving "Iesous" a Widower however.

Again, give us a document to work with to substantiate this bogus claim (and generically citing "Vatican documents prove..." is far too vague a reference to take seriously)...

Polycarp seems to think (based on what he had allegedlty heard from the circle of the so-called disciple Phillip) that "Iesous" died at the age of nearly 50 which would have made him substantially older than Luke's "around 30 " when he "resurfaced" and we have the curioius phrase in John's gospel: Thou art not YET 50 YEARS OLD, yet Thou hast seen Abraham? which would make little sense if the man was barely 30 at the time...

So..... "Somewhereinbetween".... please explain your claims a little if you would please...for extraordiinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they saying goes...!!



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
To believe that Jesus could not have married is to believe that the Mary truly experienced the Immaculate conception. I would believe that articfical alien insemination occured before the God coming to her in a dream to tell her she was pregnant with the son of god.I was raised Irish Catholic so i was taught the teachings of the Church


The Immaculate Conception is NOT a term that is used
to describe Jesus or His conception. The Immaculate Conception refers
to MARY's CONCEPTION. Not Christ's. It implies that she was concieved
without sin ... yes, by two human parents, but without the stain of
original sin.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MKugs

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jazzerman
PS- I haven't read "The Da Vinci Code", but I have heard its a great read


Again - www.davincihoax.com...


I think all of those idiots dont know what they are talking about

That's fine. I think they, (scripture scholars - not idiots) DO know what they are talking about. They are much better read on the subjects of
history and theology.

[edit on 8/6/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
All I have to say is:

Jesus did it for the chicks.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
It is interesting how Christianity has been accepted all over by Christians without any question as if the holy bible is real and trustworthy, in this days I believe the bible is more of a symbol of what is should be right from wrong that the actual accounts to be believe.

I had friends that are very religious and when I ask if they believe really believe everything as truth in the bible and Jesus being of virgin birth most of then will straight out said they don't but the bible is still a good teaching of values books others will get offended of just thinking anything else out of it.


I do not understand how some intelligent people will take something as face value when every lawyer will tell you never sign a contract without reading the fine lines.

I translated these lines into: you have the bible and then comes the alternative views of the history of the times and it makes sense to be skeptical.

If you tell me that the sun is orange but I see it yellow should I believed it because you have power and tell me to do so, I think not.

I leave all my thoughts to your own interpretations.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
yep thats it

jesus was married



had kids


but his father in heaven G O D just left that out the bible just as a little joke

even though JESUS CHRIST AND GOD existed before the universe did, and JESUS never lied...G O D felt it would be a great idea to send his son to die for the universe and then leave out a massive fact that his son had children and was married.

JESUS didnt come to make a family settle down and get a mortage, he came to DIE FOR YOUR SINS. Either you believe in the gospels or you DONT but please dont sow lies about the son of God, i know id get into alot more trouble and debate if i started even questioning other religious leaders like Mohammed.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Flyers Fan- Sorry, I was typing to fast. You're correct. It seemed out of context how I was writing.

In 200 AD, if you stated you had visions, you may be a prophet, or a story teller. If a young women was to concieved or be concieved with "no stain", then it could be a miracle.

In 2000 AD if a young girl came home and stated that she was pregnant, yet never had sex, or that she was having visions, she very well could have an abortion or be put in an institution by her parents. How does God make sure that does not happen? How does God make sure that the son of god comes to full term?

Jesus was a real man, and I beleive that his descendants stil inhabit the earth.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Do you think the people who wrote the bible and the priests and monarchs that taught the bible in the early centuries, left things out? If so, what?



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzerman
All Rabbi's are teachers whether they have a synagogue or not. Thus, for Jesus to become a Rabbi he had to be married. Why is this so hard to understand? It seems pretty clear cut to me...


It's hard to accept because it's completely untrue.
There were many Jewish sects in existence in Jesus' time. Some promoted marriage. Some didn't. The Essenes (which some claim Jesus was a part of) comprised of two branches and even they had different views on marriage.
It all depended on which branch of Judaism you practiced.
Orthodox rabbis were required to be married, but the Bible clearly shows us that Jesus was anything but Orthodox.

The truth is, there is no hard evidence to point to Jesus being married. I'm swayed by some of the circumstantial literature that he was, but even that doesn't proove anything either way.

Incidentally. To those who point to the DaVinci Code and the Holy Blood, Holy Grail as evidence? Those books are complete bunk. Entertainment they may be, but as factual references they are worthless. They base their whole theories on the Priory of Sion - a complete hoax created by an anti-semetic Frenchman who colluded with the Nazis. The Priory of Sion was Plantard's political tool. The fact that the authors of both books swallowed his fabrication and that nobody even bothers to check on the veracity of the Priory makes every theory surrounding it, baseless.
The DaVinci Code and HBHG cannot be used as a source of evidence for Jesus being married.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
None of its facts, no one was really around to tell the truth, its like a game of "telephone," the facts change over time.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
In response to Amadeus.


Be careful of stating your opinions as fact without documentary backup of any kind...

The Greek we read today in the 4th (John's) Gospel, for example, was written down sometime AFTER AD 100, so it was 30 YEARS AFTER the Destuction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem when the Saduccean priests were killed off, and the term RABBI was more popular since they filled the power vaccum (a process which has extended Rabinnic (i.e. non sacrificial non-Torah abiding) Judaism to this day)


Two arguments in your rebuttal; that you challenge the gospel as it was written, and the nomenclature used in same at the time it was supposedly written. I chose to base my statements on the verse as it is written, without challenging that which was not raised. However, to address both: Although the Gospel itself suggests that it was not self written, There is no evidentiary proof as to when the Gospel according to John was in fact written. You have chosen the minoritys (slim as it is) side that it came after the temple was destroyed in 70 A.C. The politics of which resting on being correct is partially found in your stated defense, i.e. John 11:48 "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" Just as there is debate as to the Gospel of Mark being the source of the other three, (e.g. Q) the jury is out, and therefore your definitive statement is worth no more than mine.


My question was actually whether or not the term RABBI/RABBONI was a RETROJECTION of a LATER TERM into an earlier narrative when the gospels circulated AFTER the destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70.


I am uncertain of the meaning of the word retrojection as used, but in deciphering what you say, I refer back to my above statement on dating the written word.


Let me know your SOURCE for a pre 70 usage of the term Rabbi, if you happen to have come across on in the literature.


They would be innumerable, and well include years of research into religion and mythology, and hopefully many more to come. There is no shortage of pundits on either the Christian or Hebrew side, to irrefutably argue one or the other is akin to arguing that Christ is or is not the Messiah. Hence I have noted both the soteriological and epistemological approaches to religious belief. Note, neither of the Gospels mention the destruction of the temple. By chance or by design?


I do not know of any confirmed written documentary sources for the specific use of this specific term RABBI before AD 70 (i.e. 35-40 years after the execution of R. Yehoshua for armed rebelllion against Rome) and the earliest Gospels circulated around AD 75-80 (e.g. Mark) and the so called Gospel of John the Elder (whoever he was) did not hit the streets until about AD 110, so cannot be used as evidence of an early use of the term, RABBI.


There is obviously overwhelming agreement that they were written decades after Christ, but with dates as early as 55A.C. I am not familiar with a Mishnah law requirement that matrimony be a pre-requisite to obtaining Rabbinical stature. But, I do know that the Pharisees were the originators of same, and who are directly linked to the tanakh.


The gospels (circulating AFTER the 1st Jewish Revolt, which made the Jews persona non grata in the Empire) tended to de-Judaeise or de-Hebrewise Jesus ...


Another debate altogether, one that I can argue both, for or against without showing my hand. But that is irrelevant in this thread. Forgive me for not responding to the rest of your post, as I do not see the relevance to this thread. I mean no offense, but theology, Christian, Judaic, and Islamist ancestry, along with their ritualistic and doctrinal growths, are too inextricable entwined to attempt a convergence via a forum topic, particularly when they veer off topic. Each is best defined and first debated on its own.


Also I don't think we can say whether or not the historical "Jeeezzuzzz" had one wife, or two wives or three wives since there is no documentation either way.


Actually, we can. I note that you lean toward the Hebrew teachings, but I lean toward none, which is not to say that I am not a believer in an Almighty. It is okay for you to call the man, Jesus, or Christ, btw. I will simply say this in rebuttal; Beginning with the second verse in Genesis, and with the first in Matthew, two opposing sides have sought to impose their will on the masses, based mostly on blind faith, After 5,000 years for one, and 2,000 for the other, we know that what we see is not necessarily the truth, but the doctrines have become so ingrained that the rare finds questioning those two have been met with bullish attitude. You argue one side, I seek to understand the nuance.


I don't know where you get the idea of Miryam leaving "Iesous" a Widower however.


An open mind has directed my ongoing search.


Again, give us a document to work with to substantiate this bogus claim (and generically citing "Vatican documents prove..." is far too vague a reference to take seriously)...


Bogus? Based on what we are supposed to believe, either the Torah, the Talmud, The Vulgate? The thousands of documents held within the Vatican archives that we are not privy to? The pillaging of the M.E. by Constantine and his absconding of records, or the destruction of some? The Jerusalem Council; the Nicene Council; The submission of the masses to the crimes of the Inquisition? The denial of Christ being the messiah by the Jews? What quote is it that you want? Whatever I have come to understand, is far more plausible than anyone explaining to me:

The proof that the times before Noah were as they are represented?
The proof that a timely recording and understanding of events after the fall of the Tower of Babel, were as they were?

And those are my easy questions.


So..... "Somewhereinbetween".... please explain your claims a little if you would please...for extraordiinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they saying goes...!!


I refer you back to my opening response, and my closing questions.

Thank you for your response.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Jesus wasn't married. Jesus is complete as the second person of the Holy Trinity, he does not need a women to "complete" him, he was perfect.

If there was such a women that the Son of God chose to marry, do you not think such an event like this would have been documented in the bible?

This so called merovingean bloodline is nothing but heresy, and falsehood, and outright lies.

Name one person that can prove they are a descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdelene....there is no one making that claim.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
The ideas in the Bible have been manipulated by church leaders over the centuries in order to gain more control over the population. To find out the truth about anything, one has to become an independent thinker, do some research and be objective. One learns that the Bible is neither the word of God nor the final authority in anything! It contains some good wisdom but is fragmented and incomplete in its spiritual and metaphysical understanding, as well as its take on history.

For example...

Most or all early Christians believed in the doctrine of reincarnation. In 533 AD, Roman emperor Justinian decided to have all references to reincarnation omitted from the Bible. Henceforth, anyone caught teaching reincarnation would be prosecuted by the government. That is why most Christians today do not accept the doctrine of reincarnation; they blindly follow the bias of a long-dead Roman emperor who decided for them what they now believe -- and they would rather cry blasphemy than do the research and come to the conclusion that reincarnation was widely accepted in Jesus' time.

Most people prefer to let others do the thinking for them. It takes the responsibility off their shoulders. That is why they let church leaders dictate to them what they should believe.

It is the same situation with nutritional supplements. There is an abundance of evidence that points to vitamins preventing and even reversing cancer, heart disease, etc., but you still have most people prefer to ignore all that and just blindly take drugs furthered by pharmaceutical companies and prescribed by traditional western doctors. Drugs that never cure anything but just mask the symptoms.

If you want to learn the Absolute Truth on any topic, you have to become an independent thinker. There simply is no other way.

Another example...

Mary Magdalene came from a wealthy family and traveled with Jesus to India AFTER the purported crucifixion. Single women (especially from a wealthy family) traveling with a man that was not a family member was a disgrace much more so then than now. The only way that Mary could travel with Jesus is if she were married to him. His being a Rabbi confirms that he had to have been married and there are references to Jesus and Mary being close in passages that were omitted in the latest versions of the Bible.

The story of Mary Magdalene being a prostitute was a fabrication from early Christian leaders who were threatened by her influence on the new church. There is also evidence that she was the "Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel and, therefore, the founder and leader of what has come to be known as the Johannine Community."

Mary Magdalene was never a prostitute; she was a spiritual teacher in her own right, the closest disciple to Jesus, and also his wife! Jesus was known as a great prophet who went by the name, Yuz Asaf, and he traveled to the areas of Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan. Mary, as his wife, traveled with him to India (after the purported crucifixion) and they both settled and eventually died in Kashmir. Jesus' tomb was traced and found in Khanyar Street, Srinagar.

Some reference links:

Christian Reincarnation, The Long Forgotten Doctrine

Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?

Another Good Mary Magdalene Site

Jesus Lived In India (A German Scholar's Findings)

Jesus Lived In India (A Muslim Scholar's Findings)

Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? The Bible offers proof of it.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene: The Sacred Marriage in Gnosticism


[edit on 7-8-2004 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
This stuff never ceases to amaze me.

First of all, any side of any argument can be defended depending on what THEORY you chose to believe or argue. None of it can be proven either way. It all happened too long ago for anyone to prove the truth.

Who is to say that the writings of anyone 2000 years ago, or those more recent, which really have to be considered even more of a stretch, are any more credible than any others?

I just don't understand why so many people consider those that believe the Bible, or the teachings of their churches, can honestly think there is any difference between that, and their beliefs of theories that contradict the church.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
One of the reason we still have so much interest in the bible is because is still alive and well in the western civilization even in this days.

Before you even could have been put to death for even hinting that the bible teachings were not true.

Now a days the bible is the topic of the day because it can be question and challenge without repercussions but the alienation by peers.

The bible is an amazing book in wish a whole religion is base on it to this times, that the church care if can be challenge? No actually, it does not because the roots of its teachings are already part of society.

That Christians will stop believing in it? Not it will not, but as new generations are born the more skeptical it becomes, but the hold that the Church and the bible has in humanity will always be there but with a different view of the facts, people is more educated now and they can make their own interpretacions if they wish.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That Christians will stop believing in it? Not it will not, but as new generations are born the more skeptical it becomes, but the hold that the Church and the bible has in humanity will always be there but with a different view of the facts, people is more educated now and they can make their own interpretacions if they wish.


Agreed, people can make their own interpretations, but if you are implying that the more educated one is, the more skeptical they will be about the Church and the Bible, I take exception.

What's to say that those who are skeptical about the these things have just not chosen to educate themselves more on one side of the debate. Granted, there are many who defend the Church and the Bible soley without any real knowledge of the other side of the issues, but there are plenty who have educated themselves on both sides of the argument and still have choosen to believe their truth to lie in the Church. This is no reflection on any level of education about the subject.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join