Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Jesus’ Wife: What’s The Big Deal?

September 21, 2012 by  

Jesus’ Wife: What’s The Big Deal?
PHOTOS.COM

In the eyes of some people, Jesus got married this week. Elated liberals and cantankerous conservatives both decided to attend the wedding.

Karen L. King of Harvard announced her discovery of a fragmented text at the International Congress of Coptic Studies. The text reportedly conveys the idea that Jesus was married. Since then, the media has been ablaze with commentary about this mysterious woman and the implications to Christianity.

I didn’t pay much attention to the story until I was driving home in the afternoon and the story was on a conservative radio talk show. The program was trying to get an additional hour on the air because there were so many callers.

Liberals and conservatives alike have looked like fools in their analysis of the issue. Jesus’ purported wife has been turned into a political football (surprised?) which is being kicked back and forth between the two camps. Some liberals are heralding the text, saying that it destroys the concept of traditional marriage and gender roles. Somehow, they reason, if a fourth century writing says that Jesus had a wife, then we should all be able to shack up with someone of the same gender. On the other half of the field, conservatives are pointing to the text as proof of the liberal’s devious plan to chip away at traditional Christianity one belief at a time.

Both sides are showing their ignorance.

Huffington Post has blown up with posts about the revolutionary find and its implications.

Michael D’Antonio wrote: “The implications of professor King’s discovery are profound.” No, they aren’t.

Rebecca Pahle wrote: “this particular discovery is pretty interesting (to me, anyways) in that it challenges the traditional Biblical view of woman’s relationship to man.” No, it doesn’t.

Conservatives have attacked King, saying she is just another liberal academic trying to dismantle Christianity. King is probably not your typical Sunday morning country churchgoer; but, in my limited experience, most of the people who work in Ivy League divinity schools aren’t trying to destroy your grandma’s beliefs.

The text simply shows what a group in the fourth century believed or what they were trying to convince people of. That’s what writing does. If the world spins for another 2,000 years, people will be able to read FOX News and MSNBC and see what they were trying to push in 2012.

There’s nothing revolutionary about this text, there’s plenty of ancient writings in which you could find something that might not line up with a traditionally held belief about the Old or New Testament. This latest text is just the flavor of the week.

Why aren’t we talking about the writings that bear the names of Enoch, Baruch, Esdras and the Maccabees? Or how about Gabriel’s Revelation, which supposedly cast doubt on the resurrection story? What about the Testament of Abraham? And where’s Huffington Post’s coverage of the Gospel of Thomas? There’s plenty of good material in there for the Bible basher.

If you were to regularly attend conferences like the International Congress of Coptic Studies, you would encounter this sort of thing quite frequently. Yes, this was a revolutionary find in the field of biblical studies, but it’s not worth all the media fuss. It doesn’t make King an enemy of traditional beliefs, it doesn’t redefine sexual roles and it doesn’t even mean that Jesus was married. It’s just something a person wrote in the fourth century. It shows what they believed or wanted others to believe. Just because a person jots something down doesn’t make it authoritative. Imagine if all the blogs today were treated as historically authoritative 1,500 years from now. What a mess!

Biblical scholars come across this type of thing on a somewhat regular basis. It helps them understand how the ideas and writings of ancient communities evolved.

As they teach you in preaching class, no discussion of a text should conclude without a personal application, so here’s how the text applies to you:

If you don’t believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God, then this ancient text tells you that somebody in the fourth century wrote that Jesus had a wife.

If you do believe the Bible is the inspired, authoritative word of God, then this ancient text tells you that somebody in the fourth century wrote that Jesus had a wife.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Jesus’ Wife: What’s The Big Deal?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jon Walser

    Jesus probably did have a wife. He was a Jewish Rabbi of age 30 when he began his ministry. The fact that she is not mentioned in the Bible would not be surprising. None of the Apostles’ wives are mentioned either, and it is unlikely in the extreme that none of them were married. Jewish men of that era commonly married early, but there was a strong separation of family life and business or synagogue.

    In point of fact, if we relied on the Bible’s mention, there were only a half dozen women in all of Judea at that time, most named Mary. ;D
    What confuses me, is why this matters to anyone. In this I agree with Mr. Nash. Whether He was married or not doesn’t change His message, His sacrifice or His resurrection, or finally His status as my Savior.

    • Thor

      “On the other half of the field, conservatives are pointing to the text as proof of the liberal’s devious plan to chip away at traditional Christianity one belief at a time.”

      This is the larger point here: if the document has been authenticated, but if it does not say what King says it says but she’s using it to make the ‘nontraditional’ argument, then she is not an objective authority and has no place in academia.

      Conservative Christians are not showing their ignorance by addressing such matters. If they do not address them as they emerge then there is a slow acceptance which results in a shifting and relative ontology–the very thing which feeds relativism!

      • http://stellairene.wordpress.com stellairene

        These are demonic and those who believe it is crazy and don’t believe The Bible. There will be a wedding in Heaven someday at God’s choosing. We will be A Spiritual being not as we are now. We are not entirely Scriptural until the new birth. The New Birth in its fullness.

      • Carol J

        I have always heard that he was probably married, and that was told to me by more than one Pastor. What’s the big deal? Considering the number of years that have passed since that time, we’ll never know for sure unless someone finds some more Dead Sea scrolls.

        • http://stellairene.wordpress.com stellairene

          Jesus came to die for unsaved souls not to marry and have kids. He is and was God man. This is just more nonsense from the devil and unlearned people fall into a ditch of stupidity where God and Jesus is concerned.

      • LC

        Surely I couldn’t be the only one to correlate that the women in Jesus’ time and culture were treated the same as what we all appall today of the Islamic or Muslim socities. Yet the more popular biblical example from Jesus to end ‘unfair’ treatment was to stop Mary Magdelene from being stoned for promiscuity? Not based on gender at all. Interesting, perhaps our ideals of society are not biblically sound. Now some are going to use a supposed missed point that Jesus might have been married and push their own agenda to further pervert our already Godless society? I guess since we are the most powerful nation, we can suppress the rest of the world to live and believe our satanic ways. How very ignorant and pompus of US to think God agrees with our society. GREATEST doen’t mean Godly!

        • Jeff

          The primary reason we have progressed to the point we have is our ability, as a society, to listen to religious “leaders,” politely smile, and completely ignore them. Until the Muslim World attains that ability, it will remain hobbled in its attempt to join the Modern World. That being said, we need to engage the Muslim World in order to encourage those moderate, business-oriented elements. If we are constantly in a confrontational mode with them, the radicals end up the victors.

      • Gordon

        Jeff, islam is a totalitarian political-religious system whose sole purpose is to conquer all the land and either kill or dominate all the infidels. period. study islam. Patting them on the back and trying to be their buddy will not change their agenda.

        • Jeff

          What is the alternative to encouraging the moderate business elements in the society? Occupation is not going to work.

          What you say has some validity in the past couple of hundred years, but what about before that? In the Middle Ages, the same Koran was apparently interpreted differently because the Muslim World was more advanced than was the Western World. I know that back then Jews fared far better in Muslim lands than in Christian. What has changed over the past 2-300 years?

          This is not like the Cold War where a change in regime made a big difference. There are a billion Muslims in the world. We’re not going to kill or occupy them all, so cooperation is essential. Clearly, we need to encourage secular parties and politicians, but if we attempt to dictate what we want, it will backfire. The only thing that will curtail extremism and terrorism is for such ideologies to be denounced by the vast majority of Muslims. That will not happen if they see the world in terms of Islam v. The West.

      • Gordon

        “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation.” Barrack Hussein Obama, United States Senator

        “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Barrack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America

      • Gordon

        JEFF, you don’t get it, you’ll never get it. To a muslim there is only islam and everybody else. period. (insert favorite insult here)

        • Jeff

          So, what does that mean – perpetual war?

    • ArkansasRebel

      Peter’s is, indirectly. Scripture refers to Peter’s mother-in-law being sick with what was likely the flue. Hence, peter had a wife.

      • Fred Agnir

        The flue did not come into being until they started building chimneys. And you did not get sick from it unless you were Santa Claus on Christmas Day and you did not wear a mask.

      • TIME

        Dear Fred,

        Thats really quite funny, but I think that at least AR is thinking, and thats a truly Great thing.

        Peace & LOVE be with you all.

      • ChristyK

        The statement says something about Jesus having a wife. The scripture says the church is the bride of Christ. Could it be wrongly translated, or could later people have misunderstood what the bible said because many people were unable to read original scripture? Much scripture was passed through word of mouth. Anyone who has ever played “telephone” knows how the exact wording and even meaning can change after being passed on a couple of times. Because of dating, they had at least 300 years to mess it up.

      • deerinwater

        Well, I certainly hope so! ~ I don’t have anytime in common with any man that can ignore the pleasures of a woman. ~ That man ain’t right! or he’s gay or proud cut.

      • Gordon

        ChristyK….. the Christian premise is that GOD directed the conversations and text writing and that no error exists in the verbal or written text because of Divine Intervention. Furthermore the name we translate as Jesus, was as common back then as Bill or Jim is now. I bet lots of Jesuses were married.

        • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

          Gordon: Have you ever looked under ‘churches’ in the yellow pages of a mid-size city? You will probably find over 100 different denominations and several hundred churches. Christians can’t agree on the story of Jesus. Most of the books in the new testament were written two or three generations after the death of Christ. We’re not sure exactly what Bill Clinton said or didn’t say, and that was only twelve years ago. If it matters to Jesus that I know whether or not he was married, he can send me an e-mail.

          • Jeff

            Those who disagree with Gordon are simply wrong. It’s the definition of “didactic.”

      • Gordon

        MIKE R. I hear ya, really. All those so called christian churches in the yellow pages AREN’T. The #1 premise of Chrisitianity (big C) is that Jesus Christ IS GOD. Like the First Commandment in the Ten Commandments… ONE GOD, not 3…… Call all those churches and see how many will tell you that they believe that exactly….. very few. Start with the mormons and Jeh. Witnesses since they are positive they do not. While your on the phone ask about #4…. Do they have church on the Sabbath, or Sunday?

    • http://keith@paintballpartyz.com keith

      allah, god, ra, zeus, saten, take your pick , or maybe if your a scientoliges or kwansa beliver just make up something new. we know from digs in europe that neandertalls buried thier dead in flowers truly an act of belief. the only reason we don’t half-to believe in whatever thier miths were is because our forefathers killed them all. I know the majority consertive jury reading these reviews should find a way to filter out types like me–that way you would feel beter within your own choir, and life is short ,,,,truth probally is over-rated…if you truly want to believe that the tooth fary is goint to deliver you salvation …great ! but how about we never use belief to promote another WAR !

    • John

      Does the ms say “Jesus of Nazareth”? If not, I ask how many men have been named “Jesus”. What makes anyone think this scrap of paper is about the Son of God?

      • Gordon

        AMEN. And who would give credence to a fragment of obscure text as authoritative? Maybe it was somebody writing a fictional story about a hypothetical situation. It is all BS, why waste time on it.

      • vieteravet

        It was written 400 years after Christ died. If it were from the 1st century, it would have a hell-of-a lot more meaning!

        • Jeff

          Colonel:

          I think it was written by the same guy who “forged” Obama’s birth certificate.

          • RichE

            LMAO; That’s bad, get Sheriff Joe on it.

      • Ron Brown

        thats true even today many are named Jesus and what would a novelist name a person they wanted to write a story about.

      • nc

        John. Me and Mitt believe that Jesus married, had children and brought the family to America,probably to the mountains of up state New York where the other Jews congregate.While there he decided to start the Morman Church. The Church then moved to Utah which gave them a tax brake all the wives they wanted which sounds a little Muslim to me! If Romey is elected will he take the oath on the Book of Morman? Just asking because it makes no difference to me! It’s the Republican platform that bothers me more!!

      • Gordon

        Why not. The muslim president took his mis-spoken oath on the Christian Bible….. of course, muslims are suppose to lie to deceive the infidels.

      • Gordon

        “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Barrack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America

        “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation.” Barrack Hussein Obama, United States Senator

    • Jeff

      Strictly as an observer, my understanding is that it matters in terms of Catholic Church traditions and in terms of the “inerrancy” of the New Testament. I understand editing played a big role in putting together what was, essentially, a political book opposing Rome. There are “gospels” that were left out because they did not square with the ones left in. For example, the Gospel of Thomas I believe made reference to Jesus saying God is in everyone – very different from the more simple-minded message the editors desired. Read Elaine Pagels and Karen Armstrong.

    • Hedgehog

      I agree, this confuses me too. Unless I am greatly mistaken, Jesus has/had, hundreds, if not thousands of wives, all of them real people. Some of them are still living. They are called Nuns, or “Brides of Christ”. Check with the Pope if you don’t believe me. In any case, who cares? Christ’s marital status is irrelevant to his message.

      P.S. I am not a Christian, I am an Erisian/Discordian.

      • Rebecca

        “The Bride of Christ” refers to the body of believers in Christ. Read Revelations.

      • Gordon

        There is no book of Revelations….. try reading The Book of Revelation (no S) which was not accepted Scripture for many many centuries.

    • Ernest T.

      I always believed Jesus was married why not? 1. he turned water to wine at his wedding it was the groom’s family’s responsibility to provide the wine at the wedding. So when they ran low his mom ask him to get more. 2. as pointed out before here a Rabbi had to be married and Jesus was a Rabbi. 3. just like Jesus was baptized to fulfill righteousness he was married to fulfill rightness marriage is a required ordnance.

      • MJB

        AGREED!!!

      • http://bryannashpl.wordpress.com Bryan Nash

        Mr. Bass,
        1. How does turning water into wine imply marriage?
        2. Jesus was referred to as “Rabbi” but the word simply means teacher, it does not denote a title.
        3. How is marriage a required ordinance when Paul wrote that it would be better not to marry?

      • Gordon

        Brian, prophecy and text indicate that Jesus Christ was in fact an ordained rabbi, and went about teaching as such. Most notably is when HE was asked by the authorities to teach in temple… something a NON official rabbi would have ever been allowed to do. Follow HIS years with rabbinical teachings and chronology and you will see where HE was those missing years and why HIS ministry began at age 30. Understanding Christianity is easier if you understand the Jewish religion.

    • http://none Scott

      Very true and the BIBLE does say the HE was TEMPTED in ways or matters or manners common to MAN, so IF HE was not married, then there are and were WAYS in which HE was NOT TEMPTED and so HE could not in that regard have been THRU all the ways that a MAN (HUMAN) may sin and thus HE could NOT be the true SAVIOR of us or of the entire world…. but what the folks who argue that HE was not married, are DOING, is making HIM a LESSER SAVIOR then what HE REALLY WAS and IS!!!! They have once again thrown logic out the window, with the baby and the bathwater!!!

      • MJB

        AMEN!!!

      • http://bryannashpl.wordpress.com Bryan Nash

        Scott,
        He was tempted in all ways. What temptation is found in 21st-century marriage that is not found in ancient cultures? Anger, jealousy, lust, etc., etc., etc. He faced them all even if he wasn’t married.

      • Gordon

        Well, ya gotta admit…… females have a way of making it worse.

    • jamp

      No, no Mr. jon according to the bible God’s holy word, Jesus Christ did not marry anyone, At the end of Revelations it states no one should add to or take away from this book which means the whole bible.

      • RichE

        Wasn’t that added by King James?

      • John J.

        RichE, the King James Bible is the most ridiculed book by the ecumenical movement including the founder of the movement, the Vatican.

      • Gordon

        The King James Version is a protestant Bible. That’s why the Roman Catholic version differs in several verses and adds books in the middle.

        • http://none Scott

          SO WHICH version of the Protestant one or the Catholic one should WE buy and use?, as one of them has to be WRONG and a LIE and to go even farther, which one by date should we use, one from way back when? or one from 2012?

          • Jeff

            The answer should be obvious – Gordon’s is the correct one.

          • Scott29223

            WHO is Gordon? As the Strong’s Concordia is the BEST word for word translation and transliteraltion out there and IT is built on the KJV of 1611….

      • Gordon

        Here’s who Gordon is…..
        Jesus said in red letters…. “Unless you come as a little child you will in no wise see the Kingdom of God.”
        and
        “My sheep hear MY voice and they follow Me.”

        Then, read whatever you want and see if His voice within you speaks truth to you.

        Most religious discussion is a waste of time.

    • al

      I would think that the Gospel of Mary would be a pretty good place to look to find out if Jesus of Nazareth was married. But whether or not he was has no bearing on anything concerning his life on earth and who he was or how he died.
      It always bothered me that the Gospel of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not included in the Bible.
      Does this bother anyone else? Or am I just to inquisitive for my own good? BTW I have now read the Gospel of Mary or at least what is passed off as the English translation of the Greed translation that still exists. No mention of Jesus being Married…..

      • deerinwater

        Undermining the voice of woman was simply a part of early male dominated cultures. And if God was or is what everyone seem to believe ~ this demeaning is pure male ego at work and not the work of any God.

        The social culture of the times is written into and reflected in the bible offering us a strong male bias. So you can believe whatever you wish to believe and I will defend your right to believe it~ but God didn’t write the Bible, righteous, scholarly men with time on their hands, a powerful conviction and a ego to match wrote the bible at a point in a time where few people could read or write. My grandfather was born in 1891 and by 1955, he couldn’t write anything but his name. Just saying, reading and writing was left for scholars to do back then.

        And this man they called Jesus was my kind of guy and I doubt very seriously if he could leave the beauty of a woman left not addressed in manly fashion. My guess is Jesus had children. In fact ~ there are stories written along that line that are pretty entertaining.

        This getting carried away with the spirit of righteousness can make you think silly thoughts in your attempt to elevate the characters portrayed in the Bible.

        The Jews was a Waring tribes that always had God on their side ~ (sound familiar ?) and the Jews were not all being held in slavery and bondage in Egypt while it’s know that some were as acquiring slaves was standard booty of conquest for the times. They was mostly “employed” while denied the right to organize as devoted skilled craftsmen lived a modest but comfortable life and worked their way above a serfdom existence.

        And all standing Armies run on their bellies, it’s a bad idea to beat or starve an army. It a bad idea to “dismiss” an army if you have one. They must be fed, must find work and be engaged in protecting and conquest of new territories. The Jews didn’t just hang around the old campfire, sing songs, praising the Lord and raising sheep and goats.

        This glamorizing the exploits of the Jews is really quit a one sided story. While I too love these stories and teaching and insights that they afford us, ~ I’ accepting the fact, I’m read the story from a Jewish viewpoint and surly the only good people around wasn’t just Jews.

        What is omitted in this Jewish story, I think we’d all love to know.

        • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

          deerinwater: No rational, clear-thinking person could believe most of what is written in the bible, the koran, the book of mormon, or the torah. If a large part of earth’s civilization is destroyed by nuclear war, the fires of war will be at least partially fueled by a dispute over whose prophet (or imaginary friend in the sky) is superior,

      • tim orner

        Deerinthewater, I would be very careful with your false opinion that GOD did not write the Bible. The arrogance of people with this opinion, is astonishing to me, in that GOD says he wrote the Scriptures. So GOD is a liar in your stated opinion. I would be very careful in whom you are calling a liar, there are consequences. Also to suggest that GOD is powerless to control mans writing of the Bible, and also powerless to see to it that it will remain as it always has been “unchanged and inspired” is setting yourselve up as a god, but man has done that since the beginning of time. Mans “your” biggest problem is understanding that the sin committed by our first parents, has been passed to all humans, and that sin is what brought GOD to this earth in the person of Jesus Christ to die in your place, so that upon your acknowledgement that you are a sinner in need of a saviour you could experience the only salvation that will provide to you, eternal life. As far as Jesus being married is simply absurd, but Jesus is engaged. In fact when all “born again christians” leave this earth in the next prophetic event, there will be a marriage take place in heaven, when the true church will be married to Jesus Christ. The Church is the bride of Christ.

      • Gordon

        al…….. we’re making too much out of this whole thing…. Jesus said in Red Letters….. “Unless you come as a little child you will in no wise see the Kingdom of God”…. and…… “MY sheep hear my voice and they follow ME.”……

        Stop making a big deal out of the Bible things.
        It just ain’t that tough people……. it just ain’t that tough.

    • msbets

      Look at the pervert mohomodity, this freak of nature had several wives, plus babies, boys and girls, and men, this lunatic had sex with what ever it wanted, hell he’d probably have screwed a snake if some one held it for it and they probably did, look at all the the brutality that arises when those pukey muzzie’s don’t like some thing that is said, shown or written about this worthless piece of scum. this is nothing new about Jesus being married, what difference does it make, at least it was a FEMALE, not a child I believe Mary was 16, in those days that would make her almost middle aged, it does not defer my feeling towards the Bible

      • SJJolly

        Msbets: You might at least get the name right: “Mohammed.”

      • Gordon

        Giving false dignity to muslims and islam by proper spelling is not required. IMO

    • Rebecca

      AMEN Jon! Whether he had a wife matters not. The fact that he is God’s Son, He died for my sins and is RISEN is good enough for me.

      • deerinwater

        I just fail to grasp the connect ~ or why you continue to sin ~ especially if it calls for someone to die for.

        That you do , is all that matters. I suppose?

        • RichE

          It’s kind of like Obamacare, it’s there to save you just in case.

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        Rebecca: You are obviously smarter than me, because you understand why Christ had to die for your sins. Can you explain it to me? God sent his only son to die for your sins. Why didn’t he just kill you? Wouldn’t that have been more just?

        • Scott29223

          THIS IS GOD, I CAN”T DO THAT, as then I would not have any one in Heaven but me, my wife and my son!!!!! I would be lonely!!!

      • Gordon

        DEER….. it does say “repent”….. which means do your best to STOP sinning, and if you fail, grace covers you.

        Those who deliberately sin are ……..

    • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

      Impossible. Yeshua was a Jewish Rabbi (Jewish means of the tribe of Judah) and His mission to earth had nothing to do with marrying and raising a family on earth. His mission was clearly stated, exclusive of any earth marriage, and He fulfilled it perfectly. As a secondary issue, a “Jewish” man, before his marriage to a wife, betrothed his bride and then returned to his father’s house to prepare a home for the bride before completing the ceremony. Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled that entirely, by “betrothing” Himself to the Bride of Christ, believers, returning to His Father’s house to prepare a place for us, as He said.
      He will return for His Bride when that task is completed.
      A Jewish man never married until the home situation was settled. Yeshua stated, “the birds and animals have homes, but I have no place to lay my head. Bottom line: He never married on earth, period. End of matter. Read and understand Scripture, and make no assumptions based on error. You will be glad you did.
      Erlene

      • p.cauch

        Erlene,
        Beautifully put. Apples of Gold in Pitchers of Silver.

    • SJJolly

      The Coptic Christian text is like someone tossing a pebble into a pond, the fish and other creatures scattering in all directions in panic, then getting back together to fight over what it might mean. IOW: Nonsense arguments.

    • Paul McGowan

      Amen!!!!!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Your a athiest liar, at best, Jesus had no wife, He was and is God come in the flesh and those who want to believe a scroll that has been proven a fake just hate God and His message of salvation and have no idea of God and His Word, get a life, one everlasting and give God His Glory or have a everlasting vacation in a dark place with a lot of heat?

    • Butch

      You need to read your more Bible more often. The Apostle Peter was married.
      KJV Matthew 8:14
      “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever”. How does Peter have a mother-in-law if hes not married? The Catholic church hides this because its one of the many lies they tell in their tradition.

      • Gordon

        you don’t know what you are saying when you criticize Catholics. shut up

    • SamFox

      Jon, & every one, it is not possible for Yeshua [Jesus] to have had a wife.

      One of Yeshua’s titles is Emmanuel, which means God with us. He was the only person to have ever been Divine & human, God in a human form. That means He did not have what Christianity calls a ‘fallen’ [into sin/separation from Elohim] nature.

      If Yeshua married a woman who was descended from Adam & consummated the relationship sexually, He would have been joining Himself to a nature that is contrary to His own. Any children would from such a union be a mix of her ‘fallen’ nature & His divine nature. Father would never have allowed the commingling of ‘fallen’ & divine natures & for sure Yeshua would never ‘stoop’ to such a mix. The Divine nature of the Anointed One cannot mix with that of ‘fallen’ humanity. Yeshua was sinless. He had no inborn propensity for sin like the rest of us. That is why He is the only One who could pay our price for sin as the Lamb of God & set us free from the nature all humanity has that is central to our inner most being. This nature we all inherited from Adam, according to the Book.

      You all are free to think & believe what ever you want. But I would say tread very carefully…

      SamFox

  • eddie47d

    “It’s just something a person wrote in the 4th Century” Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. The whole Bible was written over a period of time and much from the 4th Century. Numerous pages were written than never made it into the Bible so this could be one of those side notes or maybe there just wasn’t room for it. Maybe they had censors back then who thought those notes would upset their agenda and make it harder for this new church to govern? This may also have made Jesus too human and the forces that be thought it to be too controversial to be included. That note also implied that Mother Mary was considered as one of Jesus’s Disciples. Now we can’t have that now can we!

    • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

      What is your problem with Mary being a disciple of her son, Jesus? I certainly would hope she was, otherwise, she is as lost as anyone. Abandon the catholic doctrine and live.

      • Larry K.

        if he was married at least it was to a woman not like all these queers and lisbans.

      • eddie47d

        Erlene obviously didn’t get the jest and I never said she couldn’t have been. Then Larry “contributes” with the same old Conservative Republican slander and cheap “words of wisdom”….. Hardly!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Eddie, I have researched it for years and find no faults in it and evey spade of sand over turned agree with the Bible, some weren’t excepted because they weren’t inspired but, since your a little god know it all, you won’t give up your godhood, your like obozo who thinks he can tell God what to do and that just won’t happen, dumber then a rock.

      • Jeff

        Ever heard of projection?

  • http://personalliberty.com Amelia

    So after 300 years from the time of Jesus birth, death and Resurrection, comes a fragment of the text suggesting He was married. I don’t buy it. If Jesus had been married, the Gospels would have said so, after all, marriage and divorce were discussed a lot in Scripture. The men and women who walked with Him day in and day out don’t make any mention or suggestion of it.
    The fragment, if real, may have been intended to support marriage in a society that was falling part about because of immorality. Sound familiar. It wouldn’t be the first time history was re-written. Liberals do it all the time.

    • Ted Crawford

      Those are just the Cannonized scrolls Amelia. Hundreds of other scrolls have been found, many in the big find that were labeled as ” The Dead Sea Scrolls” , Many were proported to have been written by other Disciples, Judas, Thomas, even one by Mary.
      while they are said to have Not actually written by those under who’s name they are presented, the same is true of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John !

      • http://www.terribleterry.net Howard Terry

        T scripture is clear that in the last days things of this nature will be brought forward and that there will be a GREAT falling away. Now hear this Jesus was known in His time that he was the Son of God as He said “Before the world was I am” now He wasn’t sent to us for anyother reason than to save as many souls as possible. He wasn’t sent to get married or have sexual relations with woman If He was Married He would not have the time to do what He was supposed to do and that was to bring humanity back to OUR God. He knew why he was here. He walked amoung us. God was made flesh and dwelt amoung us. Over 5 hundred saw and talked with him for 40 days after He arose from the dead. Now you ether have a Holy Bible or a Bible full opf holes

      • a j foster

        Jesus is not mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls

      • Charlie Tall

        @Howard Terry

        “He would not have the time to do what He was supposed to do…”

        Translated: God would not have been able to do what He set out to do if he was married.

        What would stop Him? Honey-do’s? Nagging? “Oh, Jesus, not tonight. I have a headache”?

        Howard, your god is a rather timid little fellow isn’t he?.

      • SamFox

        Ted & every one,

        Most of what was left out of the Bible was written by the Gnostics. They did a lot of speculation & their thinking was more along the lines of ‘we can do it on our own’ regarding salvation. Plus Gnostic works were written much later than the Gospels & Paul’s epistles & other New Testament letters.

        The Gnostic ‘gospels’ were not included in Biblical cannon because they contradicted the Gospels written by real followers of Yeshua [Jesus], the Anointed One & many times went against what even Yeshua Himself said.

        The Gnostic writers badly misrepresented Yeshua, His life & totally missed His message of “repent & believe on Me”. They committed fraud by assigning names of real Apostles to many of their writings that were NOT written by the purported authors.

        http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gnostics.html

        http://www.gotquestions.org/Gnostic-gospels.html

        SamFox

      • SamFox

        TedC,

        Gordon, your practicing Jews miss a lot themselves. Not condemning them, but they need to turn to the Messiah that came from Israel as predicted in their own Book. That would be Yeshua Messiah [Jesus Christ]. His message was 1st spread by Orthodox Jews…how do you Jewish folks miss all that? Do you have blinders on or what? :-)

        We Christians do not have 3 Gods. There is only One. “The Lord your God is One!” Your Jews miss this one & have misconstrued what the New Testament teaches.

        BUT :-), the Godhead is comprised of 3 Persons, Father [Elohim the I AM that I AM], Son, [Yeshua Messiah the Anointed One] & the Holy Spirit.

        There are many times that each is individually mentioned in the Book. “In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth.” “Let Us make man in Our image.” Elohim is a plural word. ‘Our image’ would be for us, body, soul & spirit., 3 in 1. At Yeshua’s baptism by John the Baptizer we find a primo example of a/the ‘trinity’. Yeshua [Son] was baptized, The Holy Spirit descended on Him as [like, similar to] a dove & the voice of Elohim [Father] spoke, saying “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased!”.

        It is true that the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Book. But examples of Elohim being 3 in 1 [a triune Being] are all through the Bible.

        That Christians make idols is sometimes true. Not good. We do make lots of mistakes. But saying there is a Father, Son & Holy Spirit is not an example of them.

        Sabbath to Sunday. That is true. The legal Shabbat is still Saturday, was not changed, as the Sabbath, to Sunday. But followers of Yeshua are not bound by legal ordnances any longer. The whole Old Testament religion was fulfilled by Yeshua who then sat it aside. We can only truly fulfill the Law & Prophets by being in Him. That is easy to prove.

        Sunday was celebrated & used as a meeting day because it’s the 1st day of the week, the day that reminds us of when our Master was raised back to life. We should be in our Sabbath rest every day! Every minute of every hour! Read Psalm 91.

        Also we are NOT bound by law to Saturday only. Elohim Himself changed that when Yeshua was raised from death. Yeshua Himself is now our rest. Not a day of the week. Though it’s perfectly fine to use Saturday in the physical realm, we are not now bound by law to do so. The book of Hebrews makes this clear. Plus Peter, in Acts, calls the OT system “A yoke that neither we nor our forefathers were able to bear!”. Then there is the fact that the Law & Prophets were not given to Gentiles, but only to Israel.

        If Jews are so high & mighty, :-) I’d like them to ask one Q: Why was the Year of Jubilee never kept? :-) That’s a big one to miss keeping…why was it never kept? If, if, IF, the acceptable year of the Lord was ever kept, the OT does not record it. Why?

        SamFox

    • Ernest T.

      They did say so if you know Jewish law and tradition. They do not write more out of respect. See how they use Jesus’s name and title with disrespect. They disrespect his mom they would do the same with his wife if they discussed her more.

      • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

        All this is peripheral. Lose the garbage, read the Holy Scriptures, abandon all “church doctrine” that does not totally agree with Scripture, and leave all confusion to the uneducated to sort out as best they can. We should always pray for the lost, for truth to be revealed, and after that, forget it. It is all garbage proffered by satan in attempt to confuse. Refuse confusion. Truth is in the Bible.

      • Gordon

        Earline, someday if you can, sit down with a real practicing Jew and find out why they won’t accept Christianity.
        Go right down the “Moses list” ……. The Ten Commandments
        1) Christians have 3 Gods
        they make idols
        2) They changed the Sabbath to Sunday

        should I go on?

    • eddie47d

      The Bible is a sacred book written by man and hundreds if not thousands of pages were written to be included within the Bible. Not all were accepted so who is to say this page or note wasn’t one that was rejected. It could have been untrue or too sensitive to be included for that time. Authors today write hundreds of pages before the final story is told. In order to condense a book some parts have to be rejected.

      • Gordon

        Eddie…. lots of things were written.. maybe not with the intent to be in a Bible.
        But with divine guidance the right ones did make it.
        Now if Christians actually understood the Jewish religion correctly interpreted what their Bible says…… then we’d have something besides the whore of Revelation.

    • MJB

      you are a fool to think that just because it did not make it into Constantine’s Canon that it did not happen… What about the time from when Jesus was 12 till he started his ministry? I guess he did not exist during that time because it isn’t in there… FOOL!

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        MJB: Wow! You Jesus followers really have tempers! Lighten up! Jesus must have had a dynamic personality to convince so many people to follow him. People with dynamic personalities usually have a sense of humor. I like to think of Jesus as George Carlin married to Shakira.

      • http://none Charlie

        MikeR,,,
        With heathen nerds such as you, might cause any true Christian to grab a wipe and chase you out of the Temple… Most on this site know little or nothing about “sexless love” ,,,or,,, the difference between fear and /or respect ,,,this article is close to blasphemous to the Almighty God and His Son who has the same Authority as His Father. See that at Matthew 28:18… Honor The King of America, King Jesus, at all times
        for He has The Power to Bless or Curse… So,,,
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing … Acts 2:38 is salvation…
        Isaiah 54:5 and Jeremiah 32:32 gives some hints as to who the future Bride of King Jesus will be,,,but,,, The Bible does NOT even hint that King Jesus was married while on
        planet Earth the first time in the flesh…

        • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

          Charlie: Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was (is) King of America? If Jesus wasn’t married, why not?

      • http://none Charlie

        MikeR,,,
        What was and still is the number one Law Book in America??? What was the battle cry at
        the bridge when the Minute Men fired at the Red Coats, the bloody brits???
        NO KING BUT KING JESUS!!!
        Who saved the USS Liberty from sinking ? King Jesus…
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      • Gordon

        MIKE you need to understand that Jesus the Christ was not a mamby pamby milk toast kind of guy. HE kicked asses in the temple when they defiled it. HE stood up for correct thinking without fear before the masses or the authorities….
        HE won people by compassion and fair judgement, and withstood the onslaughts of the enemies bravely.
        NO, Jesus Christ was not an emasculated man.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Amen sister, the Word of God is always right and those who dispute it will suffer for not accepting the true. God Bless those who believe and are saved.

      • Gordon

        Prophecy says the today’s church will embrace heresies. There are several that dominate almost every “Christian” denomination extant. Jesus said that HIS sheep would hear HIS voice and follow HIM…..

        Start with the Ten Commandments….. start with 1 and 4, then figure out what 3 really means.

    • Gordon

      Real fragment? You mean not a fake? or not about Jesus the Christ?…… Jesus was a very common name back then (=Joshua, like Bill, or Bob, or Jim today)

      Who wants to believe that this small fragment is about THE Jesus Christ?
      Think about it.

      • p.cauch

        Gordon, You must stop. You are making a fool out of yourself, dude. You are missing a few chapters of The Bible for Dummies. Where did you get these ideas, Buddy?
        John3;16 states, For GOD so loved the world that HE gave his only Begotten Son That who so ever believes in Him shall not parish but have ever lasting life.
        Do you have children, Gordon? If you do, wouldn’t you do anything for you kids? Even put yourself in the line of danger to protect them? When GOD told Abraham that he was going to be the father of nations and then tested Abraham, telling him to sacrifice his son. (Sounds contradictory, doesn’t it.) But he was willing to sacrifice his son. So then our FATHER sacrificed HIS Son so that we can claim the Name of Jesus and been seen in the eyes of GOD. Read HIS word, Gordon with sincerity and an attitude to want to learn…as if your life depended upon it. HE will never leave you or fail you. HE is a ABBA (DADDY) . May GOD richly bless you in your study of HIS word.
        Oh,yes, Gordon the fragment saying, that Jesus had a wife, was proceeded by a fragment that said, “Its very doubtful…”.

        • MikeR

          p.cauch: I assume from your comments that you think if was admirable that Abraham was willing to kill his son when asked by god. I think it’s reprehensible and disgusting. What kind of a vile god would ask a man to do that? What kind of a vile, cowardly man would agree to do it? The crucifixion of Christ is equally disgusting. I am asked to believe that god sent his son to earth to die for our sins. What sins? Adam and Eve’s sins? Why is that my responsibility? My sins? Why was it necessary for Jesus to die in order for god to forgive my sins? Isn’t the god who allegedly created the universe powerful enough to forgive my sins without torturing and murdering Jesus? One more question for you p.cauch. Why didn’t you see the absurdity in this story when you became old enough to think for yourself?

  • Ted Crawford

    Has anyone else heard of the book, “The Other Bible”? It’s comprized of most of the ancient scrolls that were also discovered along with those “found acceptable” by Constantine and his Council of Nicaea! More than one of these ancient scrolls imply the same thing! Many are contemporarys of the Cannonized Scrolls. Some however are just plain idiotic!

  • Larry H

    As a novice Christian Church Historian i can almost guarantee you that the Church knew of this writing centuries ago and had already condemned it just as the so called Judas Gospel was rejected as Gnostic writing 1800 years ago.The only way the Church would not have known about the writing is if the group or person who wrote it were some obscure sect that was living in the desert with no outside contact.The enemies of Christianity depend on this type of information or stories being believed by our secular society and the all to many Christians that bow down to it.

    • Vigilant

      Be so kind as to inform us what is to be gained by the “enemies of Christianity” in divulging this information.

      While “The Da Vinci Code” was a work of fiction, its references to passages in the Apocryphal and Intertestamentary works are valid.

      Jesus was depicted in at least one of these as kissing Mary Magdalene.

      Celebacy was an invention of Paul, as I recall, and was a construction of the Catholic Church, lifted from Plato’s Republic. Paul never recommended celibacy to those who had other inclinations.

      Is your faith so weak as to imply that a lack of celibacy on Christ’s part is somehow heresy?

      • Larry H

        Jesus did teach celibacy even tho that was not his main intention for coming here. Read his statement about those who become enuchs for the kingdom of God.And historically until the 12th century celibacy was voluntary. Then there was a lot of corruption in the clergy with the Church at the Lateran council making celibacy a requirement for the western Church.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Not to worry, the United Nations and World Council of Churches and all the Ecumenical Councils and the Divinity Schools of Major Universities are all preparing a Religion which will be palatable to people across the whole world. All you folks who don’t like the God of the Holy Scriptures will have a perfect god created for you, any old allah, buddha, krishna, witchcraft,Marianism, icons, any and all eastern religions,the stars, UFOs,etc., etc.. Those groups will only have two problems, Jews and Christians, but these will only be remnant faithful so you won’t care.

      • TIME

        Dear Vigilant,

        On this point I concur with you 100%.

        The Christ was “Beautiful” Man in fact he was more than likly Married.

        His role was the “RE~Birth” of a new form of thinking for all humans to follow. That was by expressing both “Peace and Love.”

        On that note; Peace and Love Be with you.

      • Vigilant

        Thank you, TIME.

        Peace and Love Be with you too.

      • http://none Charlie

        TIME,,,
        What did King Jesus say and /or mean at Matthew 10:34 ??? Also , what’s your take on
        Luke 19:27??? Anyway,,,,
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Thank you Larry H. I became a believer about 24 years ago, studied the Bible from Gen to Rev, hours a day and asked God to help me learn and know. You are right 44 men never contradict one another, can’t even get two to agree to day, so they had to be inspired but, those who hate God and His control over the world hate him because like Eve they fall for the last tempation of you’ll be just like God and man loves to play God, kill the unborn, life and death at their will, divorce out of selishness, and have terrible sex because they want what they want. This nation is soon to fall but, I pray many will wake up and cry out to the God they rejected and be saved, if not? It is truly a free will chosen course.

  • Jim

    The turmoil about this issue shows the lack of depth in the study of ancient religion. The Gnostic bible relates this story and many others about the life and times of Jesus. When the current edition of the bible was chosen by the priests for the King James version, many passages were left out. So?!

    • Thor

      The King James version was not ‘chosen by priests.’ It was chosen by Anglican scholars under the auspices of King James, circa 1603, and used the Latin Vulgate largely as a guide to translate the Nicea cannon into the language of Shakespeare.

      • Robert

        What foolishness to think the Anglican Church chose the books of the bible. These texts were selected and mentioned by name by Polycarp, Origen, Ignatius, Papias, Claromontanus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius of Alexandria and others. These were long established as accepted by the Christian community long before Constantine and the Latin Vulgate which were over 1000 years before the King James version was printed. Before passing on as fact, please study your historical evidence.

      • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

        You do understand that the original Scriptures were written by Hebrews to Hebrews, and later included Gentiles. The original languages of the Scriptures were in the Hebrew language, parts in the Aramaic, and later translated to Greek. Make no mistake, the Scriptures are from the Hebrews as spoken through the ordained prophets inspired by the Almighty Himself. He needed no help from “church” translators into Latin.

      • http://none Charlie

        Erlene,,,
        Abraham was a Hebrew, Isaac was a Hebrew, Jacob, was a Hebrew…These three are the
        founding fathers of the children of Jacob Israel ,aka The Chosen of God…
        Jews and Gentiles did NOT come along until way after Jacob Israel’s boys grew up…
        Even Jews and Gentiles were of Hebrew Lineage … See all of Paul’s words on this Jew
        Gentile thing ,because ,Paul claimed to be ,a Jew, a Benjamite , a Roman … Paul covers
        the lineage thing in the book of Romans and Hebrews …

        • Scott29223

          IF there are truly Hebrews left in today’s world, then THEY are members of the only two known tribes that could possilbly be classified in today’s world, as the only two tribes in the land now called Israel (and at that time it only would have been the area that is NOW called the West Bank, as the mts. and NOT the plains were the part originally given to the Hebrews by GOD!! Those two tribes in the land then and in Jesus’s day were the tribes of Benj. & Judah…. all the others (10) were gone, lost in history!! (AND DON’T argue the point that a few might have been left behind. God’s WORDS says the Assyrians & the Babylonians took ALL of them away in their conquests) (And even if a few did get away into the hills they were not enough to be counted as “tribes” in Jesus’s day) SO the ones in “the land” in Jesus’s day were called JEWS and they did or do have Hebrew blood lines, or Semite blood lines even today, AND that is how the terms Jews and Gentiles came along much later! OF COURSE everyone? knows? that “gentile” does mean “dog” or “heathen” or “pagan” or “infidel”; the same VIEW as the Muslums of today see the WEST!!! That is no change in perception on or of the “rest” of humanity, outside of those two religions!!!

          • david@davidwine.net

            God’s everlasting promise to Abraham was to make his seed the majority on this earth. It is a provable fact that this promise was fulfilled.
            He is the father of a multitude of nations as promised.

            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            david: Abraham was commanded by god to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham, obviously a cowardly fanatic, was willing to do it. How can you get on your knees and pray to a god who would command a man to kill his own son? How can you accept such a cruel, sadistic bastard as your god?

          • david@davidwine.net

            Isaac was a type of what was the story of Jesus Christ. Anyway God did not allow it to happen. Abraham, while not perfect, was the friend of God.
            I feel sorry for you my friend and pray that some light will come into your bleak world.
            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • John

            Mike, your ignorance about the sacrifice of Isaac is astounding. If you will bother to actually read the account, you will find that it was never the plan of God to kill him. The purpose was to prove Abraham’s obedience.

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            John: Yes, I understand that. Clearly, you did not accurately read my comment. Abraham was willing to kill Isaac, but the angel stopped him. My point is exactly as I previously stated. What kind of a coward would be willing to kill his own son to appease a god? Why would you kneel before such a cruel and ruthless god who would test a man’s obedience in such a vile and perverted manner? I think you need a new god. Or no god.

          • Scott29223

            Sorry but that statement is as ‘silly’ as the Muslims saying THEY will be the world’s majority.. what GOD promised Abram was that his seed would be “believers of GOD” or “in GOD” and that they would out number the sands of sea or stars in the sky! NOT that they would be the majority race (human flesh persons) on this planet….. Get it right or not at all, I guess???

          • david@davidwine.net

            Genesis 15;4_6. God said,”out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.”
            This is what Abraham believed when God counted him righteouss.
            In Isaac shall thy seed be called. The scythians, the sakai, the skutoi, etc all were descendants of the ‘lost tribes of Israel.
            Josephus even named them uncountable numbers across the Euphrates river.
            Language, tradition, methods of weaving, hybrids of cotton, for instance all point to God keeping His word to His friend
            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            david: We are still not certain what Richard Nixon said to Spiro Agnew, or what Bill Clinton said to Monica Lewinsky. Nixon and Clinton were both investigated by hordes of investigative reporters, and we still don’t have all the facts. Jesus and god were not followed by reporters, no written record was kept, and all quotes from that period are heresay at best, and probably totally fabricated. However, you have a First Amendment right (until Obama’s next term) that guarantees religious expression NO MATTER HOW STUPID IT IS.

          • david@davidwine.net

            Mike the height of stupidity is to reject a thing without having knowledge of it.
            Whether you believe God or not, the world populations came from somewhere. A careful study of a variety of disciplines show that indeed the Hebrew race, and in particular the Isaac branch have spread over the earth. Language alone is a strong indicator of Hebrew influence.
            The Bible does declare that the Israel branch would be covered and forget who they were until the latter days.
            The Judah side would not forget who they were.
            These are some ‘fables’ that just happened to coincide with the biblical declaration.
            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            david: Of course the world’s population came from “somewhere”. We no longer have to believe myths and bullsh%t. We can purchase, through National Geographic, a DNA swab kit that will trace your DNA to the parts of the globe with the highest concentrations of similar DNA. It’s called the Genographic Project. I suspect that your DNA will be traced to an area with a large population of lemmings.

          • david@davidwine.net

            There is a professor at Duke University that took dna samples from Rabbi Cohen of New York and has tested in many parts of the earth.
            He has been shocked at the findings, including many tribes in Africa.
            North, south, east, and west was the promise of God.
            How many coincides does it take for you to at least be willing to take an honest look?

            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            david: Take a look at what? I have no doubt that someone born two or three thousand years ago would probably have descendants spread throughout the world. It wouldn’t matter if it were Abraham or Joe the camel jockey.

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            david: You didn’t answer my question. How can you get on your knees and pray to a god who would sadistically and cruelly ask a man to kill his own son? If your answer is that it was a test of Abraham’s faith, my question remains the same.

      • SamFox

        Mike, Abraham took Issac to the alter with the mindset that Abe would see Issac raised from death. Abe thought that Issac could be the promised Redeemer, the Messiah that Adam & Eve were told would come.

        The Apostle Paul makes this clear in the New Testament.

        Issac was a prefigure, a type/illustration of the Messiah who is Yeshua the Anointed.

        Thanks.

        SamFox

    • http://none Charlie

      Scott29223,,,
      Check out the lineage split at Esau and his twin brother Jacob,,,the lineage of these two Guys is very much here on earth … The 10 lost tribes were never lost ,,,JUST,,,lost track of for a while,,,
      all the nordic people are the lineage of Jacob Israel ,maybe somewhat bastardized now,,,but,,,still “Supremacist” type people on earth…………

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        Charlie: You’re as nutty as Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Jim you speak as the unlearned, King James wanted the best translation and wouldn’t allow notes to come into the hall where he had 5000 scriptues from the time of Christ, his guard would remove anyone try to put in what wasn’t it the scriptures, he wanted the best translation and is the best today but, if your not Born Again, from above, you have no idea of what God said and wanted, sorry friend you need a good class in real history other wise your a unwise leaders of the blind and both fall into a ditch.

      • Jeff

        Fortunately, we have you to tell us what God wants plus the real version of history. How did we ever get so lucky?

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        Benjamin Fox: I love it when you religious nuts insult each other. It’s very entertaining.

      • Gordon

        MIKE, I often disagree with you, but listening to two people who have their version of their truth argue is somewhat entertaining, though I’d rather be flying.

        Grandpa often said, “Never argue with an idiot, someone watching might not be able to tell the difference.”

        • Jeff

          Grandpa was right, except one of the idiots is sure he’s right about everything.

      • Gordon

        That is an accurate statement.

  • DaveY

    What kind of twisted logic indicates that if Jesus were married (to a woman, no less!) it means that same-sex marriage is OK? …….oh yeah, liberal logic…..never mind.

    • dcjdavis

      They’ll take whatever they can get…lol

  • Wanda Fox

    There is a reference in the bible to Peter praying for healing for his mother-in-law (so he did have a wife). She was healed. Of course, Jesus did not have a wife. All true Believers know that.
    Wanda Fox

    • Vigilant

      “Of course, Jesus did not have a wife.”

      Care to cite book, chapter and verse that says that?

      That’s what I thought.

      • randall

        of couse, jesus did not have awife, the bible not say it, it would be unatural to be married. cheeze, people, lets face it, we know very little about this guy. google the following: The story of the savior created through immaculate conception along with special healing powers, who dies and is resurrected is shared by Chrishna, Himdoo Sakia, Thammuz, Hesus, Adonis, Alcestos, Atys, Crite, IAO, Indra, Aeschylus, Bali, Mithra, Quexalcoate, Quirinius, Thules, and Wittoba. Christ was attempting to imitate them.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Vigilant, you have quite a good mind except you are wrong on this point. Moses and the Prophets never mentioned a Messiah that would have sins of his own. A Sacrificial Lamb without Blemish was not a Ram who had collected scars and bruises, dirty wool with grass bits, twigs,and poop.
        A married man no matter how good a wife he had would always find a way to get in conflict with her, such is called Sin.

      • Vigilant

        Nadzieja,

        There are few on this forum for whom I have more respect than you. We have found ourselves in “raging agreement” too many times for me to find fault with you.

        You know I’m a Deist, which means that I believe in God. I find myself in synch with Thomas Jefferson when it comes to the Bible. I also find myself in agreement with the Founders who felt that fostering Christian principles is absolutely necessary to the survival and prosperity of the nation.

        In this one area, I hope we can cheerfully agree to disagree. My respect for you is undiminished, and I may very well be wrong on this point, as you mentioned. My search for knowledge continues, and I’m honest enough with myself to know that I have but few if any answers to the mystery of life. I’m sure you can respect that.

      • http://navigatingthroughprophecy.net Erlene

        Hold it with the insults. Study to show yourself approved, then respond with truth and respect, not insults.

      • http://none Charlie

        Vigilant,,,
        Did you ever read between the lines? that’s where that scripture is… It’s called thinking about what is, to figure out what ain’t…. Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing,,,
        ain’t in the scripture either ,,,,but,,,it’s between the lines……………

      • Gordon

        Nadzieja Batki= Conflict is NOT sin… Jesus had a conflict with the money changers in the temple and physically kicked them out…. Jesus even said in red letters, “Anger, but sin not”.

        • Jeff

          “Of course, Jesus did not have a wife.” Care to cite book, chapter and verse that says that? That’s what I thought.

          Vigilant:

          Can you cite the book, chapter, and verse that says the Earth revolves around the Sun? If you think all the answers are in the Bible, you don’t have the imagination to ask the right questions.

      • Gordon

        Jeff, Jesus didn’t have a Harley either, but that ain’t in there to read.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Amen to a believer who has my same last name, see you in heaven and have all eternity to see if we were ever related? Until then God Bless Sister:

  • cawmun cents

    Crackpot Science…….thats what it is.
    To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
    People looking to make the word of God intto a lie.Eventually they may get to see how that works out for them,but that is not for me to judge.
    These people are like Global Warming fanatics….they just dont get that its all part of the plan.And they perceive themsleves as being able to change the direction.
    They are too foolish to know that it is not possible.
    Cheers!
    -CC.

    • Vigilant

      The word of God will not be made into a lie unless and until you can quote book, chapter and verse in the Bible that claims Christ was a bachelor.

      • randall

        the word of god is not found in some book or building, but inside yourself, science supports this goldenmean.info

      • Vigilant

        So “inside yourself” your are positive Christ was a bachelor?

      • cawmun cents

        Abraham…had a wife,it(the Holy Bible) mentions Her.
        Moses,had a wife,it mentions Her.
        David,Solomon,the list goes on.They all had wives,and they are duly mentioned.
        If Jesus had a wife,arent you smart enough to deduce that it would mention her also?
        If He was to be led like a lamb to the slaughter(as scripture would support,having read it unlike you),then how could God put a woman other than His mother,through the trauma of losing Him?Additionally though there are several hundred old testament scriptures pointing to Jesus coming and dying for humanity,there are none speaking of His wife.That is because He never was going to have one…He was a sacrificial person.God intended Him to be a sacrifice for everyone,so He could not have been anything less than a virgin…unspoiled by the worldly desires of humanity.But that just goes to show how twisted the minds of todays people have become.They cannot understand what spotless is because they have never encountered it before.So saying that Jesus had a wife is like saying that God is a liar.
        It just doesnt make sense.
        It would defy logic.
        The science that breeds this type of contemptuopus blather is just as suspect as what I have just iterated(in regard to making any sens of why every other Biblical protagonists’ wife is mentioned,yet not Christs’.)
        It doesnt seem to add up to scrutiny does it?
        Neither does the science that proports to be worthy of bringing you this story.
        It is mere conjecture,with no backing at all.
        I know there will be those of you who state that the same reasoning applies to the entire Bible.Yet there is basis in fact to support the stories in the Bible.
        Just not this one.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • Ernest T.

        There where many letters, stories and other documents that did not make it into the Bible created by the Universal Church. I suppose most of these documents where taken back by the delegates that brought them to Nicene. Bottom line just because its not in the Bible doesn’t mean Jesus the Christ and his Apostles did not teach and write about it. Many truths where lost due to compromise , mistranslation, or just omitting them. I for one would love to read all of the documents and pray about them I’m sure many questions would be answered. Not only about marriage but about everything.

      • http://norman@cates-family.com Norman F.

        OK Vigilant, soetimes I agree with you and sometimes I don’t. I think that is common in all writing. As hard as i try to make my views understandable, I can’t succeed with everybody. As for this question Jesus is the common translation of the Hebrew word “Yeshua”, commonly translated in other instances as “Joshua”.

        Now as to His mentioning a wife: When he was on the cross and preparing to give up his earthly life, he called to John and said for him to be a son to his (Jesus) mother, but made no provisions for a wife. In addition, it was a common occurence for the brother of the deceased to marry the widow. No such record exsists as his brothers were active in the new Church.

      • Vigilant

        Norman F., you may be entirely correct. There may be evidences and logical assumptions to bolster your point, and I would tend to accept them.

        Please understand that my whole drift is that faith in the NT and Jesus should not be so weak and tenuous as to require some assertion of bachelorhood or married status, one way or another. Whether He was married or not, in my opinion, has no bearing on His teachings, nor should anyone’s faith in His divinity be shattered if the argument is resolved one way or another.

        It is that point, and that point alone, that I seek to convey.

      • http://none Charlie

        Vigilant,,,
        Read Psalm 119:160 , it says “the sum of God’s words are truth”,,,that’s called Harmonizing Scripture to arrive at Truth… The sum of God’s words , indicates that King Jesus ,in the flesh was not married on planet earth… IF you can’t understand the above
        then do what King Jesus said at Matthew 6:9—13………………..

      • http://none Charlie

        Cawmun cents,,,
        Your Logic and reasoning is good,,,but,,, have you noticed that logic, reasoning , and Bible knowledge is grossly missing in many comments on Bible subject matter??? Anyway,,,
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38… Is salvation…

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Don’t have to prove it, unless you can show a chapter and verse that says he was married. The Jew looks for a sign and the Gentiles after knowledge but God uses the foolish things of the wise to confound them.

      • Gordon

        Vigilant… It seems that God didn’t think it was important enough to mention…. kinda like Jesus not having a Harley…… So why are we mentioning it….. Think about it.

  • http://msn David

    Small wonder the world’s populations spins off into hell bent trajectory. Jesus was God come to earth that He might be the perfect sin offering for man. He took on human form even as we are created in God’s image. He did not come to be a part of the human race, i.e., to marry and reproduce upon the earth – He created us, so why would He need to marry?
    This is the reason why Jesus disdained religion – mankind is continually attempting to bring God down to their pitiful station in life.

    • Larry H

      David Jesus did not disdain Religion only the Hypocrites. If you read the New Testament and the Gospels Jesus sent out Apostles and disciples to follow his teachings. In the Epistles the Apostles are ordaining Bishops and encouraging the Churches. Read Jesus parables in a organized Church mind set instead of a individual Jesus is speaking to me and it all becomes to make sense.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Amen Brothe David, wise words. God Bless Brother”

  • Larry H

    For those who want to believe Jesus was married one simple question why is there no mention of a wife at his crucifixion or of his ressurection. I noticed thanks to the History channels willingnest to show any alternative view or conspiracy story that it seems by comments i’ve read that more and more people seem to believe everything traditional is a conspiracy with ulterior motives. To those who jump at any alternate therories of Christianity i suspect 99% do not attend Church or belong to one. As the old country western song went, if you do not stand for something you’ll fall for anything.

    • Vigilant

      “For those who want to believe Jesus was married one simple question why is there no mention of a wife at his crucifixion or of his ressurection.”

      Mary Magdelene.

      • cawmun cents

        Rather than asking us if there is a scripture denoting that Christ was a bachelor,why dont you provide a reasonable one showing thet He was married?
        Dont you think that there would be a noted scripture showing where the Messiah had a marriage ceremony if the union were to be blessed by God?
        -CC.

      • http://none Scott

        THE WEDDING in CANA was HIS WEDDING, you silly person!!

      • Ernest T.

        Right on!! There where a couple of Mary’s always there.

      • Vigilant

        CC says, “Rather than asking us if there is a scripture denoting that Christ was a bachelor, why don’t you provide a reasonable one showing that He was married?”

        CC, I have no interest in proving either one, as it’s immaterial to faith. It was not I who said, “of course Christ was a bachelor.” I merely challenged the poster to provide evidence behind the bald statement.

        I said, “The word of God will not be made into a lie unless and until you can quote book, chapter and verse in the Bible that claims Christ was a bachelor” in reponse to your assertion that calling Christ a married man was somehow a “lie.” It is not.

        In this case, it’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of logic and plain reading ability. Since the Bible makes no definitive statement regarding Christ’s marital status, one way or another, it’s a fruitless exercise to argue for one or the other position. It is speculation, pure and simple.

  • LoB

    A lot of fanaticism is arising out of the modern-day liberal thinking. How can any one tie in the remote possibility of Jesus being married with reasoning of today’s pervasive gay lifestyles? The enemies of Christianity, and they seem to be coming out of every sewer around us, will stop at nothing to erode our belief in Christ as our Savior. Christians; Stand fast and fight back!

    • deerinwater

      Oh! I see, God is being attacked requiring you to defend. Why must your creator require your assistance in defense?

      That make no sense what so ever Sir.

      Perhaps it is you that is coming under attack and not God at all or have you mistaken the two?

    • Gordon

      If today’s Christians and christians were humble and trusting as a little child, heard HIS voice and were following HIM (as HE admonished)….. then our enemies would be unable to stand before Our GOD, as HE would be the ARK carried before us. AMEN.

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        Gordon: If there is a god, she is responsible for giving us a brain. I assume she expects us to use it. Would she want us to be “trusting as a little child”, or would she want us to question everything?

  • dekriley618@yahoo.com

    I agree with David…and if Jesus would have had children, they would be one-forth God…liberals don’t just have a liberal mind-set…they just don’t use their brains. Look at Pilosi for a good example…she makes no sense almost all the time.

    • Larry H

      If jesus had married and had children the children would only have had Jesus human features as he was both GOD and Man.

      • http://google rose

        There is only one problem with if he had children. If Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, then that seed that he was concieved from would of passed from him to his offspring. Christ could of lived in the body he had forever, had he not gave up his spirit out of that body. So I think the same would of been for any offspring he would of had. If he had of been married and had children, I think he would have been more like Abraham, Moses, Jacob, etc.. I can’t help but believe that he could not be bothered with the needs of everyday man, because he had a mission here on earth. There are also some writings that say he walked the earth for 400 years after he rose from the dead and then he dinally ascended into heaven. And also the four gospels don’t all say that he ascended into heaven either. So how convenient that this piece of writing would pop up when the world is in such turmoil. A person just needs to hash through the Blble, history, and seek God’s guidance through prayer that He will show you wisdom and knowledge on the truth.

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        LarryH: I’m not so sure about that. I am certain, however, that Jesus would have opposed same-sex marriage, he would have been abbhorred by abortion, and he would have considered ‘redistribution of wealth’ stealing. Therefore, he would not be a Democrat.

      • Gordon

        GOD destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah primarily for their deviant sexual behavior….. GOD says that HE is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Think about it.

      • Gordon

        Please allow me to expound on that thought. GOD destroyed everybody and everything in Soddom and Gomorrah….. man, women, children, animals, buildings, etc…. everything. Follow the stories about those who bugged out knowing that all would be destroyed. Think about it.

  • sesame

    Something that dates from the 4th Century is too remote from the time of Christ to have any credibility.

    • Vigilant

      As were the Gospels, written long after his death.

      • Nobody’s Fool

        The gospels were written by people who were WITH Jesus, so please don’t try to say that someone 300 years later was WITH Jesus and wrote as witnesses to his ministry. BTW, the church is the bride of Christ.

        • RichE

          The first three gospels are believed to be written by people that knew people that knew Jesus. The authors most likely didn’t know Jesus directly, but were scribes in the movement. The structure of the three is similar and like a story teller. Much like three different people telling the same story. Similar to you asking three people to recant the story of George Washington and his cherry tree. The gospel of John is believed to be by John or some very close to John. It has a personal tone.

      • Vigilant

        Sorry, it is by no means certain that any of the Gospels was written by the Apostle which bears it name. It was fairly common practice to ascribe a document to a famous person (pseudepigraphical attribution of authorship). It was especially common with religious texts.

        Biblical scholars have placed the writing of the first gospel (the Gospel of Mark) around 65-70 A.D, even though it was placed second in the order in the NT. It is likely that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark.

      • http://bryannashpl.wordpress.com Bryan Nash

        Vigilant represents a view in more liberal scholarship. Some do think that although the original writing was penned in the first-century, the documents were redacted, or edited/enlarged until later in history when they arrived at their completed form.

        As for the point of pseudonymity, this did take place, but to my knowledge it was largely used with ancient apocalyptic and prophetic writings. They would write of things that had already happened as though they were yet to come, thus making themselves out to be a prophet. For a modern day example, I could write under the name George Washington and predict that a socialist named Barack Obama would destroy the U.S.A. Years later people could find it and think it was prophetic. It’s called ex eventu prophecy.

      • deerinwater

        “Some do think that although the original writing was penned in the first-century, the documents were redacted, or edited/enlarged until later in history when they arrived at their completed form.”

        Hmmm?~ 65 year after such an event is a little late I would think. That would make them 90 years old, ~ and too these disciples were not all scholars, today’s fisherman and carpenters are not exactly learned readers and writers, why would we think that they would be back in 65 AD? Mathew was a tax collector so I would believe he was an educated man.

        After having your mentor nail up on a cross and the towns people looking for the rest of your bunch , it was time to get out of town, split up and lay low for a while, but 65 years?

        This was traumatic times and these men went off the radar while every retelling of the story it got bigger and bigger.

        All I can say, it took a lot of time and one heck of a skilled Editor to craft this book we refer to as “The Word” ~I’d love to have read the omissions and out-takes.

      • Vigilant

        Deer, 65 A.D. means 65 years after the birth, not the death, of Jesus. He would have been crucified in the mid-30s AD.

      • Gordon

        One overlooked item.
        In centuries past because few could read or write, stories were memorized in detail and told in exacting manner to the listeners. It was mandatory that the stories be verbatum in every detail so that the true meaning was not lost. Writers compiled text of generational stories so that exact verbage would be maintained as well as recorded for posterity.
        This is tradition in most all ancient cultures regardless of geographic locations, etc. Note the heiroglyphs of Egypt and the those of the Mayans, etc.

      • Gordon

        Note =it was a position of honor and esteem in all societies to be a scribe of the words.

      • Gordon

        I guess I should have said, “a teller or keeper of the words”

    • Ernest T.

      It also said this was a translation of a earlier Greek document. But yes, the Bible was compiled long after Christ’s death and some of the writings where written long after his death also.

  • Bev

    After reading the comments on this blog I can tell this is a hot subject. The books of the bible were chosen and translated. Did the translator get all of the subtle meanings of the words or did they interpret what they wanted. I would love to be able to read the scrolls in Hebrew. I would really like to see all of the scrolls, not just the ones others have picked out. I am not so much a religious person as I am a spiritual person. I do believe there is a God and that there is something much greater waiting for us when we die.
    What if Jesus had a wife? Would it make any difference in his teachings? It seems that common knowledge proclaims that Mary of Magdalene was a protitute. I say she was an important person, and probably not a prostitute at all. The town from which a person came was added to the person’s name if they were considered important, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth.
    I think religion has been used for a very long time to control people. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but in the case of Islam it is downright dangerous. In the end we all have to make up our minds to have a relationship with Christ or not.

    • Vigilant

      “Did the translator get all of the subtle meanings of the words or did they interpret what they wanted?”

      Mistranslation did indeed occur. There is nothing that predicts a virgin birth. The original Hebrew word for “maiden” or “young woman” was purposely mistranslated as “virgin” by the Greek Septuagent translators.

      There is a specific Hebrew word for “virgin” and it was NOT used in the original works.

      • John J.

        Where are the original works? They don’t exist, do they? I know, the “scholars” are diligently trying to find out what was in the originals. Meanwhile, they are making a whole lot of money. Either God preserved His word like He said, or not. People who use all the Bible perversions don’t believe they have God’s perfect word. Even the Muslims know that is ridiculous – using Bible versions one knows are corrupt.

        • Scott29223

          True, there ARE NO “original” originals left today, and IF there are?, THEY have NOT YET been found…. all we have are original copies of original copies!!!!!

      • Gordon

        What “original” works?….. there are NO “originals”. Only text of the verbal stories.

    • p.cauch

      Bev, Religion can be controling, but personal relationship with Him is far beyond religion.

  • Arthur Fonzarelli

    Whether or not Jesus was married isn’t the question…
    How did HOMOSEXUALITY come to be respected, admired and maybe even desirable behavior in modern times? I don’t believe homosexuality is a ‘choice’ but rather a ‘genetic defect’. While I don’t feel people should be hurt because they are genetically defected….I don’t see why we have put homosexuals on a pedestal? Homosexuality is not NORMAL…

    • Ernest T.

      Living the life style is still a choice.

    • Gordon

      And like any genetic deformity, it dies out. Two same-sex homosexuals cannot make a baby. If it were a genetic deformity, then sooner or later it would be self eliminating….. sure some homos marry and have kids, but sooner or later it would be self eliminating. Think.

  • http://none Carter

    Im not making the connection,that because Jesus got married to a woman,it means he supported gay marriage?The purpose of celibacy is to retain energy.In a man his vitality is in his gland atop the kidneys.When he over does sex,it depletes his energy.Sperm is energy.Why do you think it can create life out of a dorment egg? Marriage is a sacred bond in the masculine and feminene ritual.In the vow it states do dont enter lightly in a relationship.Casual sex is lust.Energy is depleted and wasted.Some people can have sex and not have a physical orgaism.Yogi s and people who study Doaism retain vitality by not secreting fluids but experience a much more satisfying love.Sex means S(sacred)E(energy)X(eXchange)

    • Elda

      Sorry Carter, the life force is in the EGG. It is called the mitochondria. Sperm do not have a mitochondria. It is the life force of all cells in the body.

      • deerinwater

        very good. ~ nurse or doctor or just knowledgeable? The mitochondria permeable membrane hold many things including a DNA string some 47 feet long when stretched out , must be tiny stuff!

        So does this make woman the host of life?

      • SamFox

        To those who believe in evolution–

        Regarding evolution, I sure would like to know how an organism could live long enough for DNA to form & physical changes take place in the organism to take it to the ‘next level’. How did DNA come to be? Chemical soup struck by lightning? Wouldn’t DNA have to be present in the 1st forms? How did DNA get in the life form? A lucky stroke of coincidence?

        How did early ‘life forms’ live long enough to ‘evolve’ say a defense mechanism? Or brains, eyes, a nervous system, lungs, legs, wings, digestive system or what ever? If the 1st form[s] managed all that, how did they know what to eat? Trial & error? At what point did mutation become negative after 1st being a positive process that helped life ‘evolve’?

        How did birds figure out that their wings had to curved just so so the could fly? What did birds know about the required dynamics for flight? How did any flying creature know that they had to over come gravity & drag with lift & thrust? They just did it on their own? Early life forms must have a heck of a strong will…

        How did the 1st single cell know what to do next? It just did it? Would not there have to be an evaluation by the form that something had to be done? How did the 1st life form[s] conceptualize what it would have to do to bring about the changes it would have to decide upon if no higher intelligence was there to guide it?

        I do know that there is no action upon an object with out some outside influence. So if there was no out side action by a higher mind way back when, how is it possible for life to exist? Or change?

        Also we are told the earth is billions of years old. We are also told that the sun is losing mass over time. So how big would the sun have been back then? It would have had to be large enough to turn our solar system to ashes.

        It sure takes a lot of faith to believe in the Darwinian hypothesis. Waaayy more than it takes to believe in a higher power creator.

        SamFox

        • http://none Scott

          Good points, Sam, and IF the world and its “things” evolved then WHY don’t we see a continuing evolution…. THEY never answer that ??…. and IF WE (humans) evolved, then WHY are WE de-evoluting to a lower and lower species…. we are becoming more wild, less knowledgeable, less and less of a what a HUMAN should be….. WE ARE de-evoluting with each generation born… just look around the world and in the USA!! THEY never answer that WHY either!!!!!!!

          • Jeff

            I assume you understand the changes you reference have nothing to do with biological evolution as such evolution would require hundreds, or at least dozens, of generations for natural selection of the stupid over the intelligent to take place. The question for you is if God directs it all, why is He directing that people become stupider and less refined as you imply?

          • http://none Scott

            HE’S not, it’s evolution’s doings, and it does not take hundreds of yrs. or any thing else, HUMANS are de-evoluting so fast to the animal state that that is why HE has to send Christ back, to save what few humans there will be left by then, or else the human factor in creation won’t exist…… IT is really very simple, if one will only LOOK!!!!!!!!

          • Jeff

            Speak for yourself and your fellow right-wingers. The rest of us have not devolved to the point of believing an obvious fraud and liar like Romney!

          • http://none Scott

            Guess what?? I’m not a Republican, not a right winger, not any of the negatives that you would like to apply to me…. sorry just a saved sinner, known as a CHRISTIAN who at 70 yrs. of age, knows what the lay of the land and the future is…… SORRY JEFF, you are WRONG on this one!!!!!!!

          • Jeff

            Certainly not the first or last time. So, you’re not a Romney supporter?

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            Jeff: You leftist losers have devolved to being big-spending socialist, muslim brotherhood supporting cowards.

          • Jeff

            Mike, I think it is extremely partisan for your posts to be so stupid that you make George W. Hoover appear almost intelligent by comparison.

          • MikeR

            Jeff: I don’t know anyone named George W. Hoover. I assume that he is your father.

          • Jeff
          • 124andmore

            Jeff: What happened to Leslie Gore? She looks and sounds like a transvestite. You referenced three dumbass comments by Republican politicians. What about Obama’s comment about 57 states, or his comment about his white grandmother being a racist, or his comment that “Under my administration energy costs will necessarily skyrocket”? How about every word that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth?

          • MikeR

            Scott: De-evoluting? I guess that would explain why 48% of our population are still going to vote for Obama.

  • oldbill

    Jesus has a wife. The Bride, the Church.

    • http://none Scott

      THE BIBLE does not say that…… WE (the church), the saved ones, the saints, ARE THE BODY of CHRIST. The Bride of Christ is still in heaven waiting to come down. Read your BIBLE correctly….. NEW JERUSALEM is the BRIDE of CHRIST as IT is OUR BRIDE too, cause we saved ones are HIS BODY and as such we are awaiting our BRIDE too….. DO NOT take the words of some preacher, priest, pastor who TELLS you that you are to be the Bride of Christ, THEY are preaching, teaching a LIE, a Falsehood…. READ YOUR BIBLE…. LET IT interpret itself’ to you!!!!!! IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN YOU ARE PART OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, both literally and figuratively!!!!!!

      • SamFox

        Scott, the Body of Christ & the Bride of Christ are the same. Body & Church refer to ministering to the world, Bride is relationship. Two aspects of the same group.

        In John’s Gospel Yeshua [Jesus] prayed that all who ever believe on Him be one. So there is not a separate body/church & bride.

        Thanks.

        SamFox

        • http://none Scott

          Sorry Sam. my 1611 KJV says different…. U are only putting out the same old tired doctrine that far too many have preached for far too yrs…. as you would say to me, go read your bible and open your mind to truth, and while you are at it, GO buy a Strong’s and use it to learn the true word meanings of both words, body & bride!!! Thanks!!

  • Jim Crawford

    Mr. vigilant…I’ll pray for you because you live in the dark with no faith. Jesus was God made flesh and He came to do His father’s will. There was no need nor time for any earthly distraction and the only marriage was Christ marrying His church of believers. His disciples were his closest friends and it would have been mentioned in the Gospels. Besides, Jesus asked, “Who is my mother, who are my brothers?” indicating that his family was everyone, not any one certain person. If you are a Chrisitan and accept the Bible and Jesus on failth, then you take it as it is (the inspired word of God) and don’t add or subtract from it. There is no reason to prove Jesus wasn’t married since this ancient writing is only speculation from someone or some group that lacked faith and instead, finds refuge in questioning the Word of God.

    • Ernest T.

      On the cross he sure did recognize his mother. His wife was there also. Get over it he did everything he expects us to do he is our example. He wants us to marry and have children. So he would have done it also.

    • Vigilant

      Mr. Crawford says, “Mr. vigilant…I’ll pray for you because you live in the dark with no faith.”

      Feel free to pray for me, by all means. I am neither offended, nor will I insult you by saying that “you live in the dark with no faith.”

      I have a deep and abiding faith in God. Whether or not Jesus was a married individual has no impact on my faith, nor should it for anyone. I am not a Christian in name, but I am more of a Christian in thought and action than are many who profess to be so.

      I find no fault with anyone following their innermost religious convictions, and I believe it admirable to do so. Saying that I live in the dark with no faith is certainly less of a Christian position than I would ever maintain.

      Farther down n this thread you’ll find an excellent commentary by Kim, in which is said, “What is really lacking in this country, the very essences of what so many are trying to destroy even in today worlds is …true FAITH, COMMON SENSE, LOVE, RESPECT for the RIGHTS of OTHERS PERSONAL RELIGIOUS FAITH BASED CONVICTIONS.”

      • Gordon

        Agreed. If teachers and preachers would start teaching and preaching RESPECT and what it actually is….. things would begin to change….
        all problems boil down to lack of self-respect and respect for others. think about it.

  • john j

    ANY TRUE FOLLOWER OF JESSUS CHRIST CAN SEE RIGHT TROUGH THIS . THIS IS THE DEVILS WORK ONLY NON BELIVERS WOULD GO ALONG WITH SUCH GARGAGE .REMENBER WHAT THE BIBLE STATE GALATIANS 1,8 BUT THOUGH WE,OR ANY ANGEL FROM HEAVEN PREACH ,ANY OTHER GOSPEL UNTO YOU THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED LET HIM BE ACCURSED YOU CAN PILE THIS ON THE HEAP WITH EVOLUTION AND SAME SEX MARRAGE AND ABORTION FALSE GODS AND ALL OTHER NON BIBICAL TEACHINGS

  • Ed R

    Does it matter? So what if Jesus was, or was not married? Does that change the gospel story? Many things are not specifically addressed in the Bible. UFOs, dinosoaurs, life on other planets. It isn’t that those things are not interesting, but they do not address the base issue. We are fallen creatures in need of a saviour. Jesus is that saviour. All else is window dressing.

  • Elda

    I have always believed Jesus had WIVES. Those women that were always with Him could only be there if they were sisters or wives. He made water into wine at HIS wedding. His mother Mary was in charge of it. To me it makes His message all the more powerful because He did suffer as we do. He forgave His own wife for cheating on Him. How else could He be a true example of love to us? He had children and though we don’t read of them that we know of He must have struggled just like the rest of us with them.

    • Elda

      Remember, He followed all the laws of His time and one was men MUST marry by age 18 and he was called Rabbi and to be called that He must be married. If you just read the Holy Bible you too must acknowledge he was married. Nothing ever says he never married.

      • http://bryannashpl.wordpress.com Bryan Nash

        Nor does it say that he was married. An argument from silence is a weak argument.

    • Ernest T.

      Right on!! I always knew he was married it make since.

      • http://bryannashpl.wordpress.com Bryan Nash

        Mr. Bass,
        You’re hurting your argument. Or could we say, it doesn’t make “since.”

    • Chief

      I believe the Bible states he (Jesus) was at A wedding not his when he trurned the water into wine. Married or single makes no difference He still died for OUR sins and is the only way to the Father.

      • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

        Chief: I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that god created a son so that the son could come to earth and die for our sins so that god wouldn’t send us to hell? Wouldn’t it have been much less violent and sadistic if he had skipped the part about his son dying, and simply agreed not to send us to hell? If I have the story wrong, please explain.

        • http://none Scott

          Hmm, I too have wondered abt. that?, but according to the STORY, God could not do that, as old Satan had so messed up the human DNA with his lies and their following his lies, that IT was or would be impossible for God to take that “mess” out of HIS human creation, without killing them off. So God decided that IF HE could get or keep a “pure” human bloodline, that at some point He could send a “pure male son” thru that bloodline and that that “pure” SON could then die for all the ones who were made sinful by Satan, and that that would get God out of His predicament. I mean how would IT look to the rest of then created creation (angels, Satan, etc.) if God had to totally kill off His human creation! I mean it would show that God screwed up, (either in the creating or in controlling what Satan could do) and that could not allowed. BUT an even greater question is, just what part of humankind is screwed up? IT must be only the males, since that is where the “SEED” comes from, so by having a plan that would put GOD SEED into a human female, God could then have an original pure male human, just as He intended to have when He created Adam! So that would mean that the “female” human is not screwed up, that SHE is not sinful and thus would NOT pass any of that Satan mess on to a SON born thru HER!!! Thus the need for a “virgin” human female!! BUT then one has to wonder WHY did GOD wait for 4,000 yrs. to pick a “virgin” to do that process thru, would not or such not He had done that thru the “next human female” to be born! The one who would come along right after Eve…..!!!! Lots of questions in this man? made? story?….

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            Scott: I think most of the bible stories, starting with Adam and Eve, are a big steaming pile of bravo sierra. I think Jesus actually lived, and he was probably a very charismatic rabbi. Beyond that, I have doubts about everything. I know that probably offends a lot of people, and I never bring up the subject of religion. However, if someone else brings up the subject, as in this forum, I express my opinion.

      • Gordon

        Mike R….. the basis is repentance. When the knowledge of sin is revealed, ask forgiveness, and determine to NOT sin again. When we do we are covered by grace. Repent means try not to sin. Scripture says, without repentance there is no forgiveness. look it up.

  • RichE

    That’s why I like Eastern religion, beliefs are internal not external, not what someone else believes you should believe. You are what you can and do believe. Not what you should and shouldn’t believe.

    Question: Why does the Christian Bible need to be the authoritative word of God? If you didn’t have the ability to discern right from wrong then what good would the authoritative word of God be to your ears? Perhaps those of you in worry should converse with God, “Ask and you’ll receive”. Ask for guidance, ask for understanding. God doesn’t need defending, he can defend herself. Also, your conversation needs to be two way, but you already know that don’t you.

    It amazes me how quickly Christians think God needs defending. They are not defending God, they are defending their beliefs. Ergo the controversy. Why are your beliefs better’n mine? Please, just believe in God and not the beliefs. You really don’t need them. All you need is the first commandment which will eventually put you in a constant, “two way” conversation with God.

    • a j foster

      As the Bible states when Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit they received the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. That was a good thing. Can you imagine a world without that knowledge. Think of the crime rate ,the propensity for destruction that exists today in just a small percentage of people. Now imagine life without the knowledge that these actions are evil. Not a good sight.

      • RichE

        The KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL makes us non-robotic.

        Also, the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’; ‘knowledge’ implies to know or experience. In order to have ‘knowledge’ one must experience.

      • Deerinwater

        Several ways to look at this story and what it’s attempting to convey to us. It seems that man has managed separated himself from the rest of Gods creations but how?

        Deifying God’s request to not consume apples? That the apples gave us special powers to past judgement? The ability to be a god and past judgement?

        I think it’s a cleaver story to explain the unexplainable to a people that attempt to understand their existence and purpose.

        So now we are left to take this knowledge and apply it to the many meaning such a story offers us.

        Some would walk away with the belief that Eve really got us in trouble and deffer their weakness in character on to her. I would call such a man a Republican. After all, God has made Eve as a gift for Adam and now look what “she” has done, got me in trouble! It’s not my fault!

        Some would see Eve as a temptress of beauty and wonder if God really knew what he was doing in offering Man such a complicated wonderful “gift” because life is not getting any easier and it was never really about apple but choices !

        A democrat might think, Oh Hell baby, let’s get out of here, we’ve obviously over extended our welcome. Grab a few more of those apples and let’s blow this joint, maybe he’ll cool off later.

        • david@davidwine.net

          The Bible doesn’t say apples
          Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            david: You’re right, it doesn’t say apples. But it’s still a stupid story that only an idiot could believe.

          • david@davidwine.net

            Every ancient culture has a very similar story about the fall of man.
            Also, all around the world, the pyramid is a holy building, including south america. Israel’s history agrees that Seth and his sons built the great pyramid on “the border of Egypt and in middle”. Isaiah 19.
            This speaks of the dispersion at the tower of Babel. How else could these ancient traditions have found there way all over the world?
            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • Jeff

            The Bible was written by very intelligent men and contains a lot of wisdom. Unfortunately, it is read by morons who insist on taking every metaphor, allegory, and parable literally. Read the Bible for its folk wisdom, history, and importance to western literature and thinking (like the Greek Myths), but don’t expect the details to make sense in terms of 21st century science.

          • david@davidwine.net

            Science takes various models and try to fit their ‘facts’ into it. Ego makes it hard for some to admit their mistakes. My model is the Bible, for science, history, law and government.
            23 of the college disciplines taught today were founded by believing christians or jewish men.
            Newton, greatest of all, wrote more on theology than science. He saw God in the precision of the creation.

            Sent from my BlackBerry® by Boost Mobile

          • Jeff

            Those believing individuals who started scientific disciplines are not the same people who persecuted Galileo and Scopes; they would not subscribe to the Bob Jones/Jerry Falwell philosophy; and they might actually consider the research saying rising CO2 levels can be destructive to the planet.

            But really, many of them were not believers. Marx and Freud were not believers. Einstein made references to God but they were more metaphoric than worshipful (e.g. God does not play dice with the universe).

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            Jeff: Most Christians, including most of those commenting on this site, take the Bible literally. That doesn’t leave much room for debate.

          • Jeff

            That’s true but there are some believers who are capable of thought.

          • Scott29223

            True and if TAKE the original words meanings or as close as we can get to them, from today, IT does tell a story and it’s not silly or stupid. IT tells us that Satan, the Devil, the Deceiver, the Snake, the Prince of Light, whatever you wish to call him (it) that Eve was tempted to learn things that in her pure state did not KNOW! ie.. the “know” was to discover the joy or pleasure of SEX, which apparently Adam & she had not yet had the pleasure of “knowing” in their pure state, as they had yet to be told to GO and Multiply, which of course means “children” and which of course means SEX!!

            So Satan talked her into accessing that “knowledge” which in his disguise and which in her way of thinking was to “access knowledge” that only GOD had, which was true, as that knowledge had not yet been given to them! But Satan KNEW that in their and (her) innocent that she (they) would think, believe, that GOD had withheld something…(His Knowledge) from them. So SHE said yes, and IT WAS GOOD. In FACT so good that she got Adam to do it too, probably with herself, probably with both her and Satan AND since it was so good, Adam had SEX with Satan, a male entity and THUS “male to male” sexual relations came into the “PURENESS” of the Garden and while it was GOOD while doing IT ALL, IT soon became a bitter taste in their LIVES as THEY realized much MORE then just what Satan had promised!!! AND IS THAT not the way with “things” that seen “good” in man’s eyes and pleasing to the eyes!!!!! THE EARLY fathers did not want or did not think humankind, or their “sheepie” could handle THAT TRUTH so in King James’s time THEY made the “know” into an APPLE and so we have millions of Christians who have grown up believing not ONE LIE, but TWO LIES…… that IT was eating an apple and that sex is good!!!! All SEX is for, IS TO MAKE BABIES…… now IT can be used for other things and IS, but that does not take away the ORIGINAL MEANING!!…. to MAKE BABIES!!!!!!!!!

            Now WE and YOU have to decide, discern, IF any of the OTHER THINGS are ok, good, right, etc…… so decide, but don’t let some old man or woman TELL YOU what to believe or do, GO READ THE BIBLE and ASK FOR KNOWLEDGE!!!!! DON”T Just Go OUT there in the Garden and TAKE IT FOR YOURSELF!!!!!! THAT IS SIN FOR SURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

            Scott: You obviously take the bible literally. When I read the word SATAN, I hear the voice of the Church Lady (Dana Carvey). To a nonbeliever, such as myself, the talk of satan, the snake, Adam&Eve, and the forbidden fruit is absurd and laughable. I stopped believing at about the same time I stopped believing in the easter bunny. At least there was some evidence (the easter basket) that there was an easter bunny.

      • deerinwater

        It’s a benign “teaching story” that works rather well until someone can come forward with a better one. You need to bare in mind this story was told to children of roaming tribes over evening campfire light before their bedtime to give then something to thing about while mom and dad had some quality time.

      • Gordon

        MIKE R= taking the bible literally IS the problem…… most of them believe they are doing so,,, but really are not in many ways because they are deceived into heresies…….

        OH,ya?……. How about
        #1 Have no other Gods before me…… trinity?
        #4 Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy……. Sunday sabbath?…..

        there are many heresies in the whore church…

        “And they said, we did all these things in your name….. And HE said, depart from me I never knew you.”

    • Gordon

      RichE I agree. Jesus taught that it is IN you. Christ in you the hope of glory. God in you. The Spirit within you…… He came to explain it to the Jews/Hebrews who had bumbled into the “external religion” of religious works.

  • a j foster

    We would do well to go back to the oldest scrolls that mention Jesus. It is not the church’s partial scrolls in Vulgate ( Latin) which dates back about 1100 years but rather the Nag Hammadi scroll which is the oldest mention of Jesus at about 1800 years. It is written in Coptic ( the language of the Coptic Christians)__ Their thoughts were at odds with Rome and they were eventually overcome.
    The original manifests as well as the books in the Library at Alexandria were destroyed by Rome. There were 3 in existence until the mid 40′s when a farmer in Egypt discovered more scrolls in a sealed jar.They now are known to scholars and historians. The church was strong 65 years ago but not enough to bring about their destruction so the still exist a prized history of the beliefs of early Christians that are at odds with what has morphed since the scrolls were written into modern customs,mores and teachings . This is history not belief.

    • MJB

      EXACTLY!

  • http://N/A Charles ( aka Moby )

    If my memory serves me correct their were also more than one man in that time period named Jesus.

    • Gordon

      Wow you are old.

  • DocBobalus

    Does it matter?
    Does this change my beliefs?
    If my personal beliefs can be changed by this “Discovery” then my beliefs are very weak.
    I think this is another one to hang on the shelf of “Media Excitement”

    Keep your inner strength, and maintain it. Don’t feel attacked.
    You will descend to the level of the street rioters incensed by a stoopid film…………

    • MJB

      AMEN!!

  • david wine

    For years there has been discussion regarding the ‘Megolovian Dynasty.”. The supposed lineage of Jesus. They are descendants of King David, but not necwssarily through Jesus. Anything beyond this is pure speculation. It doesn’t affect my faith in my Saviour. He died for me and rose again and that’s what’s matters.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Frank

    For nealy 300 years there was no unified or uniform Bible as we now know it. Each Christian sect had it’s own set of what it considered to be sacred writing originating with the apostles. Finally, a group of men, sat down and decided, out of these hundreds of writings, what was official Bible and what was not. Maybe this entire group was divinely inspired or maybe they were motivated in part by political and personal pressures. Regardless, it is always interesting to study the writing considered to be sacred during that period of time. We can learn from the writings of the time and by finding out what early Chrisitans believed.

    • MJB

      Amen Frank!!!

    • Scott29223

      ONE thing one can count on is that the creation of what was to become the 1st. FORMAL Bible was DONE for both political and religious control……. and since the group that no doubt had grown to be the largest decided it was time to that, and thusly we have the modern day “Catholic” church. And because they were IN with political power of the day and took on THAT NAME and wished to increase in size and control, THEY needed to have a standard and thus the BIBLE came to be! Thus we have what we have until old Martin Luther came along and cause a “split” and NOW we have a real mess!!!

      PS> old PETER who would have DIED in the 1st. century, well “tradition” has it that the Roman Emperor had him crucitfied, but Peter is say to have requested that it done upside down as he did not want to die UP on a cross as had HIS LORD!!! Tradition or history or fact, you decide!

  • Kim

    Once again, Christianity is on the chopping block! When I think of Old and New Testament scriptures…, there were so many that came before us over the centuries that were killed and slaughter for their religious beliefs. Guess a lot hasn’t changed in these “modern” times.

    Really folks….to this very day! Christian are still being attacked in the hopes of dismantling Judeao-Christian beliefs and believers. A rouse to digest, to demoralize and set off fears of doubts in someone’s else personal faith. Attacking the Bible, God and Jesus which is others rights to religious beliefs and worship. Now, that is true ignorance. Protect these fools for the themselves and the others that they do harm who hold to a personal faith.

    I am not a religious theologian, nor minister, rabbi or priest. I don’t question or doubt my faith convictions or the love of the Lord. I love the Lord above all with all my heart and soul. He guides me, not fools of mankind of their foolishness to seek to answer all power trips. That doesn’t make me weak, but makes me strong in spirit, mind and heart.

    I could care less whether or not Jesus was married. Makes no difference to me what-so-ever. This doesn’t test my faith at all. Doesn’t change the deep truths of bible that no “human” will ever be able to tangible have all the answer too. For Faith is believing what is not tangible. Takes true love, guts and discipline to live that daily in this country, in this world in these so called “modern times.” I beginning to think we are not any more modern in thinking then when Jesus walked the earth. He battled the lost, ignorant and greedy then….that’s still playing out today.

    Sad, isn’t what is truly lacking in this country isn’t politics. Lord knows there’s more then plenty of that. I don’t worship false God’s but God. What is really lacking in this country, the very essences of what so many are trying to destroy even in today worlds is …
    true FAITH, COMMON SENSE, LOVE, RESPECT for the RIGHTS of OTHERS PERSONAL RELIGIOUS FAITH BASED CONVICTIONS.

    Ask a dying patient sometime….what their regrets or worries are. Many will tell you…I wish I would have believed more, loved more, spent more time with my wife, my children.

  • Pawhoo

    Since Jesus hung out with 12 men all the time, maybe he was gay. Also there were many other men at the time claiming to be saviors. Oddly, none of Jesus’s miracles were reported in the then equivalent to the local newspaper.

    Finally, in the original text, the phrase at the beginning is “And the gods created. . . . Plural, not singular. So much for monothestic Christianity.

    Read Robert G. Ingersoll’s The Gods to get enlightened.

  • Jeff M.

    Hold on, didn’t the bible say “Jesus loved Peter?” There’s more than a few gay men, and straight women, who make that claim….

  • Shirley

    Absurd! If Jesus had a wife, wouldn’t we have known. Where are the stories coming from?

  • KingKen

    This story is a crock of shi9t calculated to disparage the Christian message. It only proves the age of darkness which we have entered. Quite clearly, God has departed from a people who have departed from Him.

    I’m sure God is about to give us a wakeup call as we form our own circular firing squad around a degenerate society.

    • TIME

      Dear Ken,

      Would it not be highly possible that The Christ was married?

      What form of dammage would there be in The Christ’s having a wife?

      Would that some how diminish his message of his Love of Human kind?

      Peace & Love be with you.

      • deerinwater

        Not Ken, ~ but I’d say none at all, in fact it makes the Jesus story only more believable.

        This omission I suspect is to protect any descends of Christ. Obscurity offering more protection then an army.

        Plus to not “Go There” has a germane expedience about it. The Jerry Springer fodder offered by such revelations would be endless.

    • nc

      King Ken, do you have any idea how old your story of some soon “coming of Christ” ? Graveyards are full of people who went to their graves 2000 years ago just as sure as you that the “Coming” was just around the corner! Some went by their own hand BECAUSE they missed the date and were embarrassed!!

  • MJB

    My question is: “SO WHAT?” Why is it a big deal either way? Other than the fact the Catholic Church would have egg on their face concerning why the priests cannot be married as it is based on the premise that Christ was not (although we know it was a financial decision not a biblical decision to establish the “rule”).

    It just doesn’t matter IMHO… If he was married, GREAT! For those who think it is some kind of blasphemy or is messing with the “Word of God” because it was not in the Canon, give me a BREAK! The Canon was put together by a political monster (Constantine), NOT by God! Anyone who believes otherwise is a simple fool…

  • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

    A wife makes the Jesus story more interesting. In my mind she looks and dances like Shakira. Do you think she told him to brush the toilet and take out the trash?

    • Gordon

      HE was GOD, so HE already knew HE was suppose to…… omniscience.

  • By George

    I don’t understand the problem. Jesus was a rabbi of the Essene sect, as was his brother James. That sect expected, indeed demanded, that their rabbi’s be married and family men. End of question. Only the Catholic and Orthodox church’s, in the very beginnings of their creation, when they sat around discussing what would and what would not be in the official gospels, eliminated the idea that women should have any authority at all. Kind of like Obama today. If it doesn’t fit the plan, ignore it. There is more than sufficient evidence of women’s role in the church. Redefines Mary’s role, doesn’t it?

    • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

      George: If Jesus’ wife starts hanging out with the Kardashians he’s in big trouble.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kimberly.boldt.12 Kimberly Boldt

    The real problem is people don’t read the Bible anymore, especially the Old Testament. The Bible itself does say Jesus/God is married…. but figuratively or metaphorically to his people Israel. In the Old Testament God divorces Israel after they anger him and disobey him. (Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.) Therefore logic says, if God divorced Israel, then he was married to her in the first place.

    In the New Testament, the “husband dies”. Jesus, who is God, dies according to the law upon the cross, therefore, “the woman, Israel” by law is free to marry again.” Note: The parable of the 10 Bridesmaids (5 were not allowed to go in to the marriage supper of the Lamb), Rev: 21:2 Jerusalem “a bride adorned for her husband”, Then we see “Israel adorned as a bride for her husband,” Rev. 19:9, “marriage supper of the Lamb”, Jesus, who is the Bridegroom; Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19-20. etc, etc.

    Therefore, If Jesus figuratively marries or re-marries the Bride who is Israel, then why would he marry an earthly woman or have need to?

    Next point: If Jesus’ purpose for becoming flesh was to lay down his life for his people and pay the penalty of death, why would he have need to marry an earthly woman?

    Next point: The Bible is full of metaphor and figure of speech. That’s how they communicated back then. Jesus spoke in parables, symbolic stories with hidden meanings that only the wise could see and understand. Therefore, using that rule, we must approach ALL scripture this way whether it was included in the 70 canonical books or not.

    Furthermore, this piece of ancient writing has already been declared fraudulent by many other ancient history scholars, some of which are not Christians.

    Just because you are “Harvard scholar”, doesn’t mean you don’t have a bias. People believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see.

    • http://bryannashpl.wordpress.com Bryan Nash

      How does presenting a fragmented text represent a bias? It’s a presentation at a scholarly conference.

      Last I checked there are 66 canonical books. As you said, “The real problem is people don’t read the Bible anymore.”

      • TIME

        Dear Bryan,

        I think the term should be; That many { fail to Comprhend.}

        In todays world most folks want to compress everything to this moment in time.
        Thus they loose that very thread in the mix, rather than working from the cosmology of that era.

        Non the less nothing can diminish the beauty of The Christ nor his message of “Peace & Love.”

        Peace and Love be with you.

        • RichE

          “…the cosmology of that era” would imply a multiplicity of cosmologies. Maybe that’s the reason people don’t get it.

      • deerinwater

        Quote; “Next point: The Bible is full of metaphor and figure of speech. That’s how they communicated back then. Jesus spoke in parables, symbolic stories with hidden meanings that only the wise could see and understand.”

        There is a reason for that, then and now , philosophy fails to make rational sense until one day, after thinking and searching long and hard ~ “You Get It!” and only then does it start making rational logical sense and all confusion lifts and goes away like an early foggy morning dew. It’s a powerful feeling to experience and can make you glow with humble, blissfulness, love and be at peace.

        Why is this ? because “enlightenment” does not come in a bottle, can’t be bought nor can it be “given” but for you to work for! If your belly is empty, me eating will not fill your belly. It is you that must “eat” to fill your stomach. It’s “your personal hunger” that you must satisfy.

        “Welcome confusions as it is a precursor to “Enlightenment”

        Confucius

        • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

          deerinwater: I like that Confusius quote. It sounds like something Mr. Miyagi would say, grasshopper. I think I will ‘borrow’ it.

  • http://personalliberty.com Ed Weber

    Well,,,I’m offended! Let’s have a peacefull riot. “Get a rope”!

  • e1313ruth

    Karen King made a comparison between this fragment and similar info in the gospel of Thomas…The Gospel of Thomas was written by gnostics and all of the gnostics gospels are lies …Islam also incorporated Gnostcs beliefs into their doctrines….I find it of no small coincidence that this fragment which corresponds with the Islamic lie that Jesus was married is of no small coincidence…Satan has long range plans to safeguard his lies….
    The gnostics belieived in a god called ABRAXAS…Each letter represents one of the seven planets of the astrology lore…..The ABRAXAS god had a cock’s head and a serpent body….How demented can it get???…You can believe the Bible or you can believe satan’s versions of truth…

  • testament

    what was Gods first comandment to man kind ? Be fruitful and multiply !!! therefore Jesus would have complied to that comand. Only religions have a problem with it, not the word of God.

  • michaeljbeglinjr

    “Jesus was Caesar” by Francesco Carotta. Tells you all you need to know about the founding of christianity, with the evidence to prove it. It’s amazing how many people refuse to hear the truth, simply because it shatters their illusions. This book should be required reading for every student.

    • Smithkowitz

      And this is truth because? There is a saying that I imagine has been made more than once throughout history, that goes something like this: The only truth is that which one experiences themselves.

    • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

      michael: ….”required reading”? I assume you mean in a parochial school. It doesn’t belong in a public school curriculum. You have time after school, on weekends, and during summer months to teach your children any religious doctrine you want. I would say the same thing to muslims, scientologists, mormons, or any other person who wants their religion taught in public schools.

      • deerinwater

        My feeling as well. Any “personal savior” is just that ~ personal. Public education is an government institution.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Is the religion of Secular Humanism being taught in public school classrooms?

        http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html

        • Jeff

          You mean in math class? I don’t think Jesus gets much mention in geometry. Should he? Should the teacher say, this proof works as long as Jesus allows it to?

        • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

          Jay: Not in my son’s school. They are focused on math, science, and writing skills.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Don’t be so silly, Jeff. Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview. Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”

        Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as “religious,” because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education. To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists’ main vehicle for the propagation of their faith. And it is a faith, by their own admission. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

        “These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith.”

        What are the basic beliefs of Secular Humanism? What do Secular Humanists believe?

        Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.” Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”

        Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”

        Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.” Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

        Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment. If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings “may, and do, make up their own rules… Morality is not discovered; it is made.”

        Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg. Secular Humanist worldview can be found in each of ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history.

        You may have noticed i did not include math in the list of disciplines, Jeff!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        R.J. Rushdoonys’, The Messianic Character of American Education, chapter 27, “Education as a Religion.” He writes,

        The state school is a religious institution. As pointed out in Intellectual Schizophrenia, the public school is the established church of today and a substitute institution for the medieval church, dedicated to the same monolithic conception of society.

        Some years ago, Dewey very candidly discussed “Education as a Religion” (John Dewey, “Education as a Religion,” The New Republic, August, 1922, p. 64f.) As Whitehead observed, “The essence of education is that it be religious.” (Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education, NY: Mentor Books, 1952, p. 26)

        The public or state schools have thus been inescapably religious. Their “common faith” has been described as “made up of elements provided by Rousseau, Jefferson, August Comte, and John Dewey. ‘Civil religion’ is an apt designation for this faith.” (G.H.
        Williams, Harvard Divinity School Bulletin, 1948-1949, p. 41.)

        John Dewey described Humanism as our “common faith.” Julian Huxley called it “Religion without Revelation.” The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was “the new religion” was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850.

        In the 1950′s, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.

        But then Christians began to challenge the “establishment of religion” which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is “scientific.”

        In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court’s assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere “dicta,” here is a memorandum prepared “[a]t the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor” by Congressman John B. Conlan.

        The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath “invades appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.”

        The Court declared in Torcaso that the “no establishment” clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief.

        Actually, the Court in Torcaso rested its decision on “free exercise” grounds, not the “Establishment Clause.” Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.

        The Court stated:
        We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to “profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11

        Footnote 11 concerning “religions founded on different beliefs” contains the Court’s citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states: Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

        It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.

        The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.

        The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society’s application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.

        The Court Stated,

        The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a “church” or a “religious society” . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since “religious” and “worship” require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as “a religious corporation or society” . . . .

        It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the “no-establishment” clause of the First Amendment.

        But many who favor a secularist “separation of church and state” will contend that fundamentalists invented the idea that Humanism is a religion. Like most Americans, these secularists do not understand the legal issues involved here.

        The Humanist-dominated Court is permitting Secular Humanists to have their cake and eat it too.

        Secular Humanism is a religion
        “for Free Exercise Clause purposes.”

        The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion “for free exercise purposes.” When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them.

        Tax Exemption. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. The Torcaso quote cited the cases.

        Conscientious Objection. Even though Congress originally granted conscientious objector status only to those who objected to war for religious reasons (i.e., because of a belief in God), the Supreme Court turned around and said that Humanists who don’t believe in God are “religious” for C.O. purposes. U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 183, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, 746 (Holding that belief in a “Supreme Being” is not a necessary component of “religion,” quoting a Secular Humanist source, “Thus the ‘God’ that we love . . . is . . . humanity.”)

        So Secular Humanism is emphatically and undeniably a religion — “for free exercise purposes.” Any claim that “the clear weight of the caselaw” is against the proposition that Secular Humanism is a religion is a misleading claim. Secular Humanism is a religion (“for free exercise clause purposes”).

        Secular Humanism is Not a religion “for Establishment Clause purposes.”

        But when Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools, then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their faces and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion “for establishment clause purposes.” This is slimy deceitful legalism at its worst.

        But it explains why so many are confused about whether Secular Humanism is a religion.

        Here is the rule: When Secular Humanists want the benefits of religion, Secular Humanism is a religion. When Secular Humanists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion. If that sounds insane, it is; but all insane people are still rational. This insanity is cloaked in the rational-sounding rhetoric of constitutional law. Remember:

        Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”

        Here’s how it works. In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:

        We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are “religions” for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act”).

        Note 5: See Smith v. Board of School Com’rs of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684, 690-95 (11th Cir. 1987) (refusing to adopt district court’s holding that “secular humanism” is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes; deciding case on other grounds); United States v. Allen, 760 F.2d 447, 450-51 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting Tribe, American Constitutional Law 827-28 (1978), for the proposition that, while “religion” should be broadly interpreted for Free Exercise Clause purposes, “anything `arguably non-religious’ should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause”).

        Thus a teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break, while Secular Humanists are allowed to teach the tenets of the religion of Secular Humanism from the blackboard during class.

        Peloza alleges the school district ordered him to refrain from discussing his religious beliefs with students during “instructional time,” and to tell any students who attempted to initiate such conversations with him to consult their parents or clergy. He claims the school district, in the following official reprimand, defined “instructional time” as any time the students are on campus, including lunch break and the time before, between, and after classes:

        You are hereby directed to refrain from any attempt to convert students to Christianity or initiating conversations about your religious beliefs during instructional time, which the District believes includes any time students are required to be on campus as well as the time students immediately arrive for the purposes of attending school for instruction, lunch time, and the time immediately prior to students’ departure after the instructional day.

        Complaint at 16. Peloza seeks a declaration that this definition of instructional time is too broad, and that he should be allowed to participate in student-initiated discussions of religious matters when he is not actually teaching class.

        The school district’s interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation trumps Peloza’s right to free speech.

        While at the high school, whether he is in the classroom or outside of it during contract time, Peloza is not just any ordinary citizen. He is a teacher. He is one of those especially respected persons chosen to teach in the high school’s classroom. He is clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom. His expressions of opinion are all the more believable because he is a teacher. The likelihood of high school students equating his views with those of the school is substantial. To permit him to discuss his religious beliefs with students during school time on school grounds would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Such speech would not have a secular purpose, would have the primary effect of advancing religion, and would entangle the school with religion. In sum, it would flunk all three parts of the test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1056-58 (10th Cir. 1990) (teacher could be prohibited from reading Bible during silent reading period, and from stocking two books on Christianity on shelves, because these things could leave students with the impression that Christianity was officially sanctioned), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3025, 120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992).

        Secular Humanist teachers and school administrators (who are protected by the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment as members of tax-exempt religious organizations and religious conscientious objectors) are free to propagate their views in schools, but Christians are not. If Christians propagate their views, it is an “establishment clause” violation, but not if Secular Humanists propagate their views.

        Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”

      • Gordon

        Jay= too long, stuff it.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        MikeR says: Not in my son’s school. They are focused on math, science, and writing skills.

        Really? If only that were true, Mike.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Gordon says: Jay= too long, stuff it.

        Gordon=attention span of a flea.

      • Gordon

        Come on JAY, you can be more disrespectful than that. Suck it up and spew forth all the hate and anger inside your soul. Show us who you really are.

      • SamFox

        Mike & every one.

        Some one said something about math. Ever notice that all the universe is based on math? What a coincidence that every thing is based on numbers. Where did math come from? Some human made it up? Or did they discover what was already there?

        Some one also mentioned [the hypothesis of] evolution. Ever notice that no one ever explains First Cause? One dodge is “It was aliens who seeded life on earth.” I heard Steven Hawking put out that thought on a TV program.

        I have yet to see any one who can explain First Cause…you know, the stuff that the ‘big bang’ exploded from…where did THAT stuff come from?

        I put in ‘hypothesis’ because there is not enough evidence for evolution to raise it to a theory.

        SamFox

  • http://www.facebook.com/Byrrni Brenda Wilson

    It certainly makes more sense to think that Jesus was married than to think that a Jewish man, in that day and age, was allowed to gain his 30s without marriage.

  • Paul Yaekel

    Another blog freely acknowledged that Jesus has a wife, but she is the many membered Assembly of the Firstborn. John’s second letter is addressed to the ‘eldress’ or ‘old lady’ and it has been suggested that refers to the church he was writing to. The point that Bryan makes is worth noting; the writing of some group in the fourth century is simply expressing an opinion and nothing more.

  • Diane Mruzik

    For Keith – someone needs to teach you how to punctuate and spell words.

  • Wyatt

    Interesting idea here both Pro and Con . My question does it really matter ? Who does it matter to and why does it matter at all ? Jesus was Rabbi at age 30 . To be a Rabbi , at least now , one must be married . Of course this was some 2070 years ago that Jesus lived and preached and it may have been different then but I do not really think so .
    As the Bible is Gods word in the Old Testament , and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament . I find no surprise at the lack of mention of a wife . I don’t know why anyone should doubt that he was married . But to get all excited about a scrap of paper that may or not be referencing Jesus , the Son of God . A scrap of paper (papyrus) that was written 400 years after the death of Christ , and may well be about someone entirely different . Is there proof or is the finder speculating ? It would be wonderful if we knew for sure . I find it disgusting that liberals trumpet it as a call for gay marriage . I remind them that in the old testament , God Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sinful ways and practices .

    So , Here Endith The Lesson !

  • http://n/a scott MacInnes

    and just what difference does it make to those who are believers?

  • Grammy

    Jesus Christ is God. He did not marry while on earth. How foolish. He took on flesh to be the blood sacrifice for sin (John 1:1-14). If we repent and accept his sacrifice for our own sins, we will be forgiven. The record of those sins is destroyed forever when you are baptized in the name of Jesus, and God will live in you if you will allow Him to, which is the new birth spoken of in John 3:1-8 and Acts 2:38.

    • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

      Grammy: You wrote “Jesus Christ is god. He took on flesh to be the blood sacrifice for sin. If we repent and accept his sacrifice for our own sins, we will be forgiven.” I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that god sent himself to earth to die so that he would be able to forgive us? Isn’t that masochistic? If he’s really god, doesn’t he have the power to forgive us without sending himself to earth to die?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        MikeR says: Are you saying that god sent himself to earth to die so that he would be able to forgive us? Isn’t that masochistic?

        Would you consider the action of a fellow human being who sacrifices his life to save another’s, masochistic, or an action motivated by love? If we humans have the propensity for such actions, why would you suggest that God would be devoid of the same? Would you not spare/sacrifice your life to save the life of a loved one, if it became necessary? And if so, are/were you being masochistic, or was your sacrifice motivated by love?

        MikeR says: If he’s really god, doesn’t he have the power to forgive us without sending himself to earth to die?

        If you were, God, you would know the answer. But because you are not, God, you ask the question. You also do not seem know the first thing about God, for if you did, you would know that He is a God of justice. When you are wronged, do you not demand that justice be done? What is justice? Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with the nature and principles of justice before you go off spouting what is clearly your anti-religious bias. Perhaps then you will have a more clear understanding of the subject you seem scarcely able to comprehend, much less contribute anything of benefit; other than caustic and inane comments. Don’t you think so?

        • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

          Jay: Most people are born into their religion. There are some conversions, of course, but the percentage is small. To question your religion is to question your heritage. Most people aren’t willing to accept the family repercussions.
          “God of justice” you wrote. Really? How do you explain cancer, devastating hurricanes, or babies born to child abusers?
          You wrote that god died for our sins. I’ve heard that story explained many ways, and they all are totally illogical. People say “You must have faith”. Faith is a word used to describe belief in something that no reasonable person would believe.
          Yes, I have an anti-religious bias. It is a sub-category under my anti-bullsh%t bias.

          • Jeff

            Being anti-religious does not mean disregarding all the wisdom in the Bible. Like Shakespeare or any great literature that has lasted through the ages, there are reasons beyond superstition for reading it. The problems arise when people insist on reading it literally to the exclusion of actual science. Adam and Eve is a wonderful allegory that inspires thought, but nothing contained in Genesis should be a reason to doubt Galileo, Newton, Darwin, or Einstein.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        MikeR says: Most people are born into their religion.

        Yours would be a true statement if religion/Christianity indeed was/is the predominant worldview. Clearly, it is secularism humanism that trumps religion/Christianity, and most people are born into it.

        MikeR says: There are some conversions, of course, but the percentage is small. To question your religion is to question your heritage.

        Having read most of comments on the issue of my religion, it is clear that you do not question my religion, but rather, you belittle and disparage my religion/heritage.

        MikeR says: Most people aren’t willing to accept the family repercussions.

        Most people do, as a matter of fact. But for the majority, its a non-issue.

        MikeR says: “God of justice” you wrote. Really? How do you explain cancer, devastating hurricanes, or babies born to child abusers?

        How do you explain good health and living to a ripe old age well into the 80′s and 90′s? Some have lived to a 110.

        As for hurricanes, that is simply a natural phenomena, and given our advancement in technology, we are now able to determine places where man should not build their communities. Incidentally, would you build your home next to a volcano? And if so, should God be held responsible for your stupidy?

        And to your third question, how do you explain babies born to loving and nurturing parents?

        MikeR says: You wrote that god died for our sins. I’ve heard that story explained many ways, and they all are totally illogical.

        That is for you to come to terms with, or not.

        MikeR says: People say “You must have faith”. Faith is a word used to describe
        belief in something that no reasonable person would believe.

        What is your understanding of Faith? And what do you mean by, reasonable person?

        MikeR say: Yes, I have an anti-religious bias. It is a sub-category under my anti-bullsh%t bias.

        This is good. As there is much that is wrong with organized religions, and you do well to question the craziness that comes out of them. All i’m suggesting is that you do not throw out the baby with the bath water.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Jeff says: Like Shakespeare or any great literature that has lasted through the ages, there are reasons beyond superstition for reading it. The problems arise when people insist on reading it literally to the exclusion of actual science.

        Jeff, your statement is totally absurd.The Bible is often described as a book that includes many ideas that are scientifically inaccurate. The truth is that what many Christians (and non-Christians) have misinterpreted the Bible in such a way as to make it seem to be at odds with the reality of our world. For example, the Roman Catholic Church promoted geocentrism (the idea that the earth is the center of the universe) for many years. This concept is not found in the Bible, but stems from the idea that since humans are the center of God’s attention, that the place where they live must be the center of God’s universe. This is neither a logical nor biblical inference. In fact, the Bible states that the heavens “fix their rule over the earth,” demonstrating that the heavens control the earth and not the other way around. The early proponents (Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei) of heliocentrism (the earth revolving around the Sun) were all Christians. In fact, Isaac Newton, in his famous scientific work, Principia, stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”

        Of course, the Bible was not written as a work of science nor was its purpose to describe the workings of the physical world. It was written to explain spiritual principles – the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God. However, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate.

        Here are some of the remarkable examples of scientific principles described in the Bible hundreds to thousands of years before they were proved to be true by science:

        Cosmology/Astronomy

        Scientific Principle: Time had a beginning

        Biblical Reference: Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, 1 Corinthians 2:72

        Scientific Principle: The universe had a beginning

        Biblical Reference: Genesis 1:1, 2:4, Isaiah 42:5, etc.3

        Scientific Principle: The universe was created from the invisible

        Biblical Reference: Hebrews 11:34

        Scientific Principle: The dimensions of the universe were created

        Biblical Reference: Romans 8:38-395

        Scientific Principle: The universe is expanding

        Biblical reference: Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:16

        Scientific Principle: Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory)

        Biblical Reference: Genesis 2:3-47

        Scientific Principle: The universe is winding down and will “wear out” (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to “heat death”-maximum entropy)

        Biblical Reference: Psalm 102:25-278

        Scientific Principle: Describes the correct order of creation

        Biblical Reference: Genesis 1 (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation)

        Scientific Principle: Number of stars exceeds a billion

        Biblical Reference: Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:229

        Scientific Principle: Every star is different

        Biblical Reference: 1 Corinthians 15:4110

        Scientific Principle: Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups

        Biblical Reference: Job 38:3111

        Scientific Principle: Light is in motion

        Biblical Reference: Job 38:19-2012

        Scientific Principle: The earth is controlled by the heavens

        Biblical Reference: Job 38:331

        Scientific Principle: Earth is a sphere

        Biblical Reference: Isaiah 40:2213 Job 26:1014

        Scientific Principle: At any time, there is day and night on the Earth

        Biblical Reference: Luke 17:34-3515

        Scientific Principle: Earth is suspended in space

        Biblical Reference: Job 26:716

        Earth Sciences

        Scientific Principle: Earth began as a waterworld. Formation of continents by tectonic activity described

        Biblical Reference: Genesis 1:2-9, Psalm 104:6-9, Proverbs 3:19, Proverbs 8:27-29, Job 38:4-8, 2 Peter 3:517

        Scientific Principle: Water cycle described

        Biblical Reference: Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10, Job 36:27-2818

        Scientific Principle: Valleys exist on the bottom of the sea

        Biblical Reference: 2 Samuel 22:1619

        Scientific Principle: Vents exist on the bottom of the sea

        Biblical Reference: Job 38:1620

        Scientific Principles: Ocean currents in the sea

        Biblical Reference: Psalm 8:821

        Scientific Principle: Air has weight

        Biblical Reference: Job 28:2522

        Scientific Principle: Winds blow in circular paths

        Biblical Reference: Ecclesiastes 1:623

        Biology

        Scientific Principle: The chemical nature of human life

        Biblical Reference: Genesis 2:7, 3:1924

        Scientific Principle: Life of creatures are in the blood

        Biblical Reference: Leviticus 17:1125

        Scientific Principle: The nature of infectious diseases

        Biblical Reference: Leviticus 13:4626

        Scientific Principle: Importance of sanitation to health

        Biblical Reference: Numbers 19, Deuteronomy 23:12-13, Leviticus 7-927

        The Bible is not a science book, Jeff, yet it is scientifically accurate. I’m not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. Perhaps you could list some.

        The purpose of my comment to you is not to explain what a great science text the Bible is, but to show you that it is consistent with scientific facts. Still, the Bible mentions some things that we can not explain. Yet, if God is really God, He should have the ability to do some things we can not explain.

        In the last 100 years (and especially in the last ten) scientists discovered many proofs that confirm the Bible’s accuracy. Since these proofs support the accuracy of the text we can understand scientifically, it makes sense to trust the Bible’s text that we can not yet understand. For example, how many people knew what hydrothermal vents were 30 years ago? Yet this scientific principle is found in Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13, and Job 36:27-29.

        • Jeff

          Whether the Bible “contradicts” science depends on how you interpret the Bible. I suggest you make these arguments to fundamentalists who believe every word in the Bible is the literal truth. What I am saying is that literal truth is no more important in reading the Bible than it is in reading “War and Peace” or “Hamlet.”

          In your list, I didn’t notice (maybe I missed it) a reference to perhaps the most controversial of all scientific-religious questions, evolution. Is there Biblical support for the concept that Adam and Eve evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms? That one may be harder to square.

      • Gordon

        Jay, stop pasting schtuff into blogs. See if YOU can actually say something in 3 sentences.

  • jim

    As of today…Sept. 29, 2012…it has been declared these documents are a forgery and not to be accepted as truth!!! That should quiet all the brain damaged!!!

    • Jeff

      That finding was made by the Vatican. Until there’s some independent confirmation, that’s about as credible as Donald Trump declaring Obama’s birth certificate a forgery.

      • C

        Donald Trump was not the one who revealed that Obama’s BC was a forgery, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the one. Mr. Trump simply re-stated a fact that had been revealed by Sheriff Joe.

        • Jeff

          I guess you’re the expert on the minutae of the birther nonsense. I know Sheriff Joe Mussolini had declared Honolulu part of his jurisdiction. I’m waiting for the charges against him to come to a head. I just hope he’s still young and healthy enough to spend time in his jail and model the pink underwear!

  • http://twitter.com/Tweet4_Life K.G. Smith (@Tweet4_Life)

    Liberals love the idea of a married Jesus because it makes him look more like a mere mortal and not at all like God — and if he were married then he was a brazen hypocrite for recommending celibacy (in his eunuchs-for-the-kingdom talk in the Bible) to the apostles who as mere non-divine beings would have found it far more difficult. Besides that the idea of children would raise the specter of half-human minor deities that would make the whole idea of incarnation sound like Ancient Roman mythology. There are all sorts of ancient texts out there and some were judged authentic and selected for inclusion in the Bible by those who were close to the source in time and sacrifice — none of which can be said about our modern liberal scholars.

    • Jeff

      Don’t get so high and mighty. The Catholic Church started the “celibate priest” rule so it could inherit the priests’ property. Burning heretics at the stake is costly.

      • C

        I beg to differ with you, but Paul is the one who advocated for celibacy…on the grounds that if you were going to do God’s work, you needed to be single-minded in your work, and having a wife and children would divert you from your mission. Plus, in order to do God’s work, a man needed to be free to travel to far-away places, and having to move an entire family around the countryside was as inconvenient then as it would be now.

        • Jeff

          Paul recommended celibacy but it was at least 400 years later before the practice became common and it was not until the 11th century that formal rules were adopted.

        • SamFox

          C, Paul also said that marriage was perfectly acceptable.Yeshua [Jesus] also said that celibacy was a choice, an individual choice. There is NO New or Old Testament command that Father’s ministers must not marry.

          The ‘you can’t marry & be a priest’ ideal came from Catholic heresy, NOT the Bible. You need to do more research. In fact, Paul said that church leaders should be the husband of one wife, which means one wife at a time, as sometimes wives died & men remarried. That means that polygamy was not acceptable in church leaders. If church leaders were voluntarily celibate, like Paul was, that was OK as well.

          You said “I beg to differ with you, but Paul is the one who advocated for celibacy…on the grounds that if you were going to do God’s work, you needed to be single-minded in your work, and having a wife and children would divert you from your mission. ”

          Like you say, Paul did advocate for celibacy, but he never commanded it. Nor does, as I said, the Bible.

          SamFox

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    The left’s fiery obsession with removing Ten Commandments monuments from public property throughout the United States may seem odd and irrational but actually reflects the deepest values of contemporary liberalism.

    In the last five years alone, the tireless fanatics at the ACLU have invested tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of legal time in lawsuits to yank the Commandments from long-standing displays in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Montana, Georgia, Iowa, Washington State, Nebraska, Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida. In one of the most recent battles, they delayed their litigation in Dixie County, Florida, because they couldn’t find a single local resident to lend a name as plaintiff in a drive to dislocate the tablets from the local court house.

    Even for militant separationists like the ACLU, this ferocious hostility to innocuous and generally uncontroversial monuments looks excessive, even self-destructive. The overwhelming majority of Americans instinctively accept the Commandments as a timeless, cherished summary of universal moral precepts. A closer look at the specifics of the Decalogue, however, suggests that it makes good sense for leftists to hate The Big Ten: each one of the commandments contradicts a different pillar of trendy liberal thinking.

    For the purposes of this discussion of these conflicts, I’ll cite translations from the original Hebrew in the excellent Stone Edition of the Biblical text (Exodus 20; 2-14), and I’ll use the traditional numbering favored by Jews and Protestants. (Catholics group Commandments 1 and 2 together, and make two separate Commandments–9 and 10– out of the prohibition on “coveting” that Protestants and Jews identify solely as number 10.)

    First Commandment: I am the Lord Your God, Who has taken you out of the Land of Egypt, from the house of slavery…..

    This one makes liberals obviously and instantly uncomfortable. According to political correctness, it’s rude and insensitive to proclaim God’s existence in public—and especially not in public schools! Faith is supposed to remain a private matter, an individual habit or quiet commitment, leaving plenty of room for doubt and uncertainty. Secularists therefore resent the notion of an open, out-of-the-closet Deity who shows off in such a noisy, flashy way, staging the Exodus from Egypt with all its plagues and sea-splitting, then announcing himself in a voice from the mountaintop heard by hundreds of thousands of people. For those who worry about too much religion in the “public square,” it doesn’t get much more public or communal or unequivocal than this opening proclamation.

    Second Commandment: You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence. You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the water beneath the earth. You shall not prostrate yourself to them nor worship them…..

    Talk about intolerance and judgmentalism! This commandment denies the very essence of multiculturalism and diversity: by what right do we dismiss and disrespect the gods of others? Didn’t that wild-eyed, bearded guy who went up the mountain realize that it’s a demonstration of wrong-headed cultural imperialism to express such cruel, callous contempt for deities like the Aztec Quetzcotal or the Canaanite Moloch? Moreover, when it comes to worshipping idols, twentieth century leftists continued the noble traditions of the ancient cults of Baal or Astarte: in the old Soviet Union, every town boasted monumental statues of Lenin or Stalin (usually both) and to this day, the image of the divine Fidel graces every pathetic hovel in Cuba. Refusal to “prostrate yourself” and to “worship them” can lead to big trouble in such enlightened societies.

    Third Commandment: You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not absolve anyone who takes His Name in vain.

    For liberals, this rule highlights the right wing’s eternal, ****-retentive obsession with proper language and dirty words. Isn’t old Moses here sounding a little bit like the benighted FCC with its seven words you’re never allowed to say on the air? Cutting edge artists and entertainers love using holy names in shocking and disrespectful ways. Liberals supported the National Endowment for the Arts almost unanimously in its funding for the controversial Andres Serrano collage “Piss Christ,” and activists on the left are always more eager to defend any divine designations (like “God Almighty!” or “Jesus Christ!”) if they’re pronounced as curse words (protected speech) rather than with reverence (violating separation of church-and-state).

    Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it. Six days shall you work and accomplish all your work but the seventh day is Sabbath to the Lord your God….

    Most liberals are okay with the Sabbath stuff, but they squirm over that part of this directive that says, “Six days shall you work….”?!! What kind of exploitative boss would dare to demand a six day work week from today’s unionized laborers? In enlightened nations like France, they’re working to get it down to a three day week–which ought to be enough to keep every citizen well-stocked in snails and frog legs. This commandment fairly reeks of the old-fashioned, restrictive Anglo-Saxon work ethic. In the Twenty First Century isn’t it time we moved beyond that outmoded notion that people should prefer labor to leisure?

    Fifth Commandment: Honor your father and your mother….

    And ignore the scintillating and liberating ideas of the younger generation? Are you kidding? The expectation of honoring your elders burdens youthful free spirits with the dead, oppressive influence of tradition and the past. Progressive thinkers understand that in defining proper standards of dress, grooming, music, entertainment and sexual mores , it’s kids (and particularly adolescents), not parents, who really know best.

    Sixth Commandment: You shall not kill

    On the surface, this sounds reasonable enough to liberals, but they can’t stand the context: just one chapter later in the same book of the Bible (Exodus, 21:12),God and Moses give orders to break their own rule: “One who strikes a man, so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.” The next verses stipulate capital punishment for a wide variety of causes (like “cursing your father and mother”) so the no-kill commandment really begins to sound like no-murder. In other words, the Bible makes a clear distinction that liberals emphatically deny. The left loves slogans that declare that that execution is murder, war is murder, meat is murder, and so forth, but the God of Exodus who emphatically bans murder also specifically authorizes execution, war and meat.

    Seventh Commandment: You shall not commit adultery

    To which the post-modern left would quickly add: unless you really, really love her. It’s not just Clinton apologists who have a problem with this inconvenient taboo on extra-marital involvement: when people take their vows by pledging to remain committed “as long as our love shall last,” the Seventh Commandment begins to look incurably outmoded.

    Eighth Commandment: You shall not steal

    For lefties, this prohibition smacks of the right’s selfish emphasis on private property. Back in the glory days of the 1960’s, the beloved hippie hero Abbie Hoffman penned a liberationist manifesto called “Steal This Book.” Radicals and revolutionaries have always devised comfortable euphemisms to describe the act of theft: “liberating” or “boosting” or “collectivizing” or “nationalizing” private property, or simply “taxing the rich.” If you believe it’s virtuous for government to seize by force the majority of an individual’s earnings (remember the pre-Reagan, top income tax rate of 70%?), you ought to feel somewhat uncomfortable with an absolute ban on stealing.

    Ninth Commandment: You shall not bear false witness…

    Some liberals may endorse this commandment, but only when it’s applied to Scooter Libby. Otherwise, there’s a problem with the ancient Jewish understanding of the deeper meaning of this verse. Our sages suggest that a secret to understanding each one of the Big Ten involves the parallel structure of the two tablets. In other words, the first commandment corresponds to the sixth, the second to the seventh, the third to the eighth, and the fourth to the ninth. That means that this “no false witness” order connects to the imperative of keeping the Sabbath. The association relates to the basis for Sabbath observance stipulated in the text: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and the sea and all this is in them, and He rested on the seventh day.” In other words, the Sabbath bears witness to God’s role in creation, and the Rabbis say that the denial of divine creation represents the ultimate in bearing false witness. On this basis, today’s libs insist on false witness, the whole false witness, and nothing but false witness. The very idea of questioning a random, materialistic origin of the universe makes them crazy with rage and contempt: they strenuously condemn the mere notion of suggesting in schools that it was an Intelligent Designer who must have “made the heavens and the earth”

    Tenth Commandment: You shall not covet your fellow’s house. You shall not covet your fellow’s wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow.

    Among many other problems, this commandment outrages PETA with its unacceptable suggestions like animal companions like oxen and donkeys can ever “belong” to their human friends. Meanwhile, the ban on coveting involves a restriction on a feeling, a desire, and it’s politically incorrect to suppress or deny or stifle authentic emotions, Blaming yourself for coveting can only undermine self-esteem, and the emergence and liberation of your precious inner child. Moreover, the entire leftist project is largely based on covetousness: resenting the “filthy rich” for what they’ve earned, rather than feeling grateful for your own achievements. The implacable liberal focus on the “gap between rich and poor” – as if impoverishing the wealthy worked in any meaningful way to actually enrich the poor – represents covetous attitudes at their irrational worst. The sacred leftist goal of “redistribution of wealth,” mandating heavy taxes on “haves” for the purported benefits of “have-nots”, depends on coveting for its energy and rationale. On the other hand, the Bible’s unmistakable emphasis on the sanctity of private property (“You shall not covet your fellow’s house”) clearly contradicts the left’s emphasis on a communitarian and collectivist outlook, in which the state becomes the ultimate owner of everything.

    Reviewing the Ten Commandments one by one exposes their irreconcilable conflict with the demented and dysfunctional philosophy of today’s left.

    In other words, in contrast to most aspects of Twenty First century liberalism, the implacable hostility to the Biblical Big Ten actually ends up making perfect sense.

    • Jeff

      No one can prevent you from carrying the Ten Commandments with you at all times. Some of us would prefer that a courthouse feature Lady Liberty or the Constitution rather than a religious symbol or religious material.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        I’m not an advocate for religious symbols be displayed in public places, as i consider them to be of little value with respect to faith. What i’m curious about is, why do some advocate for the removal of religious symbols from public place? What is it about religious symbols they find so threatening? Since they believe its all nonsense to begin with, why then do they take such issue with religious symbols? It begs the question; who is the superstitious one; the theist or the atheist?

        • Jeff

          I don’t know that “threatening” is the correct term, but if you are Jewish you might feel out of place if crosses are prominently placed in a public building like City Hall or a courthouse. Religious symbols just don’t belong there. We do not have a state religion and the number of Christians in the country does not change that.

    • http://gravatar.com/124andmore MikeR

      Jay: You make the same assumption that most very religious people make. You assume that all ahteists are liberal. That is absolutely not true. Some atheists are extremely conservative. They are anti-abortion. They believe that abortion is murder. They arrived at that conclusion logically, not religiously. They are loyal to their spouses. They don’t steal. They are patriotic. Some atheists are as liberal as the catholic Nancy Pelosi. Some are as liberal as the jew Chuckie Schumer. Atheists are as different from each other as Barry Goldwater was different from Anthony Weiner. Or as Mother Teresa was different from Nancy Pelosi. Or as Mitt Romney is different from Harry Reid. Some people describe atheists as ‘god-haters’. That’s absurd. How can you hate something or someone you don’t believe exists?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        MikeR says: Jay, You make the same assumption that most very religious people make. You assume that all ahteists are liberal. That is absolutely not true. Some atheists are extremely conservative. They are anti-abortion. They believe that abortion is murder.

        I stand corrected. Thank you, MikeR.

        MikeR says: Some people describe atheists as ‘god-haters’. That’s absurd. How can you hate something or someone you don’t believe exists?

        Perhaps, but you do seem to exhibit a great deal of hate towards those who do believe, God exists. Why?

    • Gordon

      Jay= ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    • SamFox

      Jay, good post & points.

      Lotta peeps do NOT want to be reminded that lying, stealing, murder & coveting the neighbor’s wife are sin. They just can’t stand the prick of conscience they get when they see the 10 C’s. ”Like Yeshua said, they love darkness rather than light. He is that light, the light of the world.

      Most politicians, indeed, also many people, don’t wanna see the 10 C’s because they don’t like Nature’s God telling them not to lie, cheat, fornicate, steal & murder our youth in wars fought mostly to enrich the military industrial complex.

      SamFox

    • SamFox

      Jay, as I said, a very good post. I got a smile from the way you expressed yourself on libs & progs. What you said about them is right on!

      I offer one correction. The 6th Commandment should read “You shall not murder” rather than the broad term ‘kill’. Murder is much more specific.

      Thanks for a great read. I very much enjoyed what you wrote.

      SamFox

  • Hopingforbetter

    Jesus Christ is Lord & Savior. He is incarnate & divine. He is the Trinity three in one, Father Son & Holy Spirit. He came down from Heaven as a baby to grow up into a man to voluntarily climb onto the cross & die for us. He could have called 10,000 angels to get him down. All these so-called “scholars” who doubt him & don’t believe in him will one day know HE is who HE said HE is. That will be when they look into His eyes while they are in everlasting hell. The unbelief &
    Rejection of Him is the unforgivable sin. Then it is not ever reversible. Eternity is a long time.

    • Gordon

      1st commandment….. “I AM ONE GOD, THE GOD..

      2- Don’t make statues of somebody on a cross. I’M jealous, don’t mess with me- keep my commandments.”

      3- “Don’t use my name to reinforce your integrity and ethics to someone else. Mean what you say or I’ll slap you down.” (for the LORD will not hold him guiltless.)

      4- “Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.” (Sunday?)

      5- Honor your father and mother if you want to live a long time.

      6- Don’t do civil murder.

      7- Be faithful in your marriage vows.

      8- Don’t steal people’s things, nor their dignity nor reputation. Have respect for everybody.

      9- Don’t lie .

      10- Don’t covet anything or anybody.

      Bottom line.
      R E S P E C T yourself and everybody else.

      The biggest problem in the world today is NO RESPECT.

  • Mario

    Jesus was married with a misterious woman? Nah, she wasn’t misterious at all. She was Mary Magdalene. Watch the documentary “The lost tomb of Jesus”. They actually prouve it with facts was her!

    • SamFox

      Mario, Yeshua [Jesus] was never married. Lost tomb? If there was one, it had to be empty.

      How do I know He was raised from death? Because when I asked Him to forgive my sin & come into my heart, He did. I experienced HIM! By way of the Holy Spirit Elohim [Nature's God] placed into my being that night in 1969.

      I would not have even heard of Yeshua if He were dead.

      People need to realize that those of His followers who spread His Gospel were in a position to KNOW if He were still dead & they were spreading a lie by saying He was alive if indeed He were not.

      When His people spread His Word they were putting their life on the line & that of their families. If they knew Yeshua were dead why would they do that?

      His story was spread because those sharing it were eye witnesses to His being alive after the cross & the tomb.

      In a previous post I addressed WHY Yeshua could have not possibly married while here on earth. There is absolutely no way He could have been married.

      SamFox

      • Mario

        Blah, blah! Get your head out of the sand Sam! What you’re saying are hopes ,whishes and suppozitions. I’m talking about proofs and facts. Watch the documentary I told you about!

        • SamFox

          Sorry for ya Mario. What I said is not wishes & suppositions.

          I have experienced the living Christ for myself. That was not a wishful thinking/hoping evening. What He did in me that night & continues doing is proof & factual. You can choose to think I am nuts, I don’t care.

          But what happened to me, in me & continues is something I will lay my life on the line for if need be. Poppa giving me grace & strength in my time of need of course.

          I don’t need a documentary. I met the Messiah. I have watched enough History Channel to know what the doc is more than likely all about any way. Still, when I get a chance I’ll look it up. Doesn’t hurt to know what satan is up to…:-)

          It’s been said “A man with an experience is not at the mercy of one with a theoretical argument.” I had such an experience. Millions & millions of us have had the same encounter with Yeshua Messiah through out the centuries. That’s why the Gospel message of a living Yeshua can’t die. He is not dead.

          If He were dead, we would not be having this discourse. The original propagators of His message would have gone back to Orthodox Judaism & would not have risked their lives & families to spread what they knew was a lie. They would not go around bearing false witness that Yeshua is alive if He were really still dead. That was against their 1st religion.

          I find it very entertaining when peeps on the out side are trying to look into Jesus Christ & the Bible. They often come up with the weirdest & some times very funny stuff. Jesus being married one of them.

          As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is NOT possible for Yeshua to have married a ‘regular’ [sinner] human woman. He could have only married a woman conceived by the Holy Spirit, as He was. For Him to have been married in this fashion is also impossible, as Yeshua is the ONLY person EVER conceived by the Holy Spirit of Elohim, thus He is a divine human, God with us.

          Sorry Catholics, but the Bible does not teach Mary, Jesus’ Mom, was of divine conception. To bad, ‘Jesus was married’ believers. Mary Magdalene was not born of the Holy Spirit the way Yeshua was either.

          With respect & prayers for you,

          SamFox

          • MikeR

            SamFox: I don’t share your religous beliefs, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe. As long as your religion doesn’t cause you to blow up buildings and saw off heads, I have no problem with it.
            Now, as long as I still have my First Amendment rights (which will be diminished under a second Obama administration), let me say this: Muhammed was a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a pedophile, and an illiterate thug. Islam is a stupid, misogynistic, violent religion. It is a fast-spreading cancer on civilization.

          • SamFox

            Hiya Mike. No worries. My Book says a murderer does not have eternal life [Elohim's presence] in them. So I won’t be blowing up anything or choppin heads. YUCK!! I believe in self defense, but not starting stuff.

            You got Islam nailed down real nice. VERY TRUE.

            As far as religion goes, I don’t like it. Jesus did NOT come to give us another one. He came to set us free form religion as well as our sin nature. He did come for us to have relationship with Poppa based on love, not rules. Following Yeshua is not about rules & regs. There are only a 2 major ones. Love Elohim with all our heart & love our neighbor as our self. I know many denominations have lotsa rules & stuff, but that leads to legalism & ‘you gotta do it this way or else’ kinda thinking. Not good.

            If a person is truly one of His, there should be no problem with keeping the Ten Commandments. In the New Testament all of them are in effect, except for Saturday only ‘going to church’. I have found that with Yeshua in my heart I have more strength to resist my inborn lust, greed, selfishness & so on.

            Ever have to teach a child to misbehave? That’s what I mean about ‘inborn’ sin. Sin is just there. On our own there is nothing much we can do about it. I am so very thankful that now I am not on my own…

            Read this chapter from 1st Corinthians. I try to live it. “Love” in the chapter means “God’s love in us”.

            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2013&version=ESV

            SamFox

  • Rebecca

    The Bride of Jesus Christ is the Church which is the Body of Christ both here on Earth and in Heaven.

  • SamFox

    Mike, Father did not give us those things. He had to allow them because of Eve & Adam’s choice to disobey the only thing Poppa told them not to do. Sin & it’s consequences, some of which you listed, are a result of disobedience, not a direct action by Nature’s God.

    Where all those in your list came from is satan, who works on earth to destroy the lives of mankind. Oft times the devil uses people to spread his misery. If you knew the Bible you would know that Old Testament Judaism teaches against your list & calls them sin, as does the New T.

    Father allowed the current state the world is in & has been since the Garden of Eden. He did however, take responsibility for what He allowed when He paid the price for our sin when Yeshua [Jesus] became the Passover Lamb who came to take away the sin of mankind.

    Why such a price was required I am not fully certain. Must be very deeply serious. But I do know that Poppa does not play games. If such a sacrifice were necessary there are good reasons. I don’t know them all. Allowing for free will is in there.

    People can say “The situation of the earth is God’s fault! He started it all. He knew that Eve & Adam would sin. It’s all His responsibility!” Which is true. True because for this to be real, people had to be able to truly choose who they will follow. Note that in the very beginning after Eve & Adam sinned, Father made a provision for them with an animal sacrifice & promised a future Redeemer. In His promised Messiah/Redeemer, Yeshua the Anointed, Father totally vindicated Himself. Now it’s up to each individual to take Yeshua’s sacrifice for their personal salvation so they can be made able to again walk with the Creator of all things.

    Here is one thing Yeshua said regarding His coming & why He is rejected by many: From the Gospel of John chapter 3–

    17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

    18 He who believes in Him [who clings to, trusts in, relies on Him] is not judged [he who trusts in Him never comes up for judgment; for him there is no rejection, no condemnation—he incurs no damnation]; but he who does not believe (cleave to, rely on, trust in Him) is judged already [he has already been convicted and has already received his sentence] because he has not believed in and trusted in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [He is condemned for refusing to let his trust rest in Christ’s name.]

    14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert [on a pole], so must [so it is necessary that] the Son of Man be lifted up [on the cross],
    15 In order that everyone who believes in Him [who cleaves to Him, trusts Him, and relies on Him] may not perish, but have eternal life and [actually] live forever!

    16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

    17 For God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

    18 He who believes in Him [who clings to, trusts in, relies on Him] is not judged [he who trusts in Him never comes up for judgment; for him there is no rejection, no condemnation—he incurs no damnation]; but he who does not believe (cleave to, rely on, trust in Him) is judged already [he has already been convicted and has already received his sentence] because he has not believed in and trusted in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [He is condemned for refusing to let his trust rest in Christ’s name.]

    19 The [basis of the] judgment (indictment, the test by which men are judged, the ground for the sentence) lies in this: the Light has come into the world, and people have loved the darkness rather than and more than the Light, for their works (deeds) were evil.

    20 For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the Light, and will not come out into the Light but shrinks from it, lest his works (his deeds, his activities, his conduct) be exposed and reproved.

    21 But he who practices truth [who does what is right] comes out into the Light; so that his works may be plainly shown to be what they are—wrought with God [divinely prompted, done with God’s help, in dependence upon Him].

    When I took Yeshua’s sacrifice into my life He made Himself real to me. I know that like I know the sun shines daily. You choose for yourself.

    Thanks,

    SamFox

    • http://none Scott

      ALL good points and true, Sam is on the beam……. I suspect that some how the “allowing” that GOD allows IS to prove beyond a doubt that without GOD’S ways there was and is no hope for any of creation, from the Angels to US. Also probably to prove to all of creation that Satan’s ways and thoughts are NOT the WAY to go… In order to work all that out to the “beyond a doubt” point, is why we and creation are still going on. I suspect that even the 1,000 yrs. under Jesus Christ’s RULE here on this planet and the final temptings by Satan, will be to prove that even MAN, ruled by Christ, taught by Christ, will be to prove that without the CHANGE in the soul of MAN, WE cannot continue on as we are or would, even under THAT one condition. THE sin nature of MAN will NOT obey even the CHRIST when it is placed in that situation.>>>>>>>!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.