Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Jesus married?

Posted by Roughseas none (My Page) on
Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 16:55

New Research!

it wouldn't be surprising given his religion & his age.

the link takes you to the news article.
in the comment you can find the link to the actual
research

(comments are pretty funny)

Here is a link that might be useful: Did Jesus have a wife?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Jesus married?

also mentions female disciples , but that is semi common knowledge in the rejected gospels

Here is a link that might be useful: female disciples too


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I've heard and read about some speculation on this issue... however, I don't think enough actual evidence exists to support with certainty either view. It would not surprise me to find out he was not celibate, or married... but as an atheist, it's really neither here nor there.

I think Jesus might have been a real human being, existing at one time in earth's history, who tried to spread peace and love and understanding through his own logical, common sense ideas on humanity and how we should be acting toward one another. Beyond that, I do not refer to religious texts as factual, or as supportive of much more than a bit of history.

The basic idea, though, is not that far fetched.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 17:42

I wouldn't be surprised, had heard that he was quite a catch.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

If you didn't mind being left alone while he went about his Father's business for weeks on end. What wife wouldn't want to witness her husband turning water into wine after walking on the water first?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Chicks dig guys with beards and sandals, so I wouldn't be surprised.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

It's actually the long hair and sleek physique some of us go for, though personality and a good, liberal soul don't hurt!


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Chicks dig guys with beards and sandals, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Don't forget he was a carpenter! He could build cabinets and put up molding! What woman wouldn't love that?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Do you think he would have worn socks with his Birkenstocks?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 20:38

A single 30 year old man in a small Jewish village would have been highly suspect. And you know what (Jewish) mothers are like - he would have had no peace at all.

He would have been married.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Do you think he would have worn socks with his Birkenstocks?

Mid-calf, white, from Hanes.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Look ma! High water pants.

Here is a link that might be useful: At least it's not madras shorts


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I've heard that too, not surprising to me. And this is to be a discussion of....?

I mean, what is the significance?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I mean, what is the significance?

*

No significance at all, Elvis.

I suspect an impotent attempt to rile up Christians, as though this could do that.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Right. Bless their hearts.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Che Dio ci benedica!


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I like research & science.
I wouldn't expect the right wingers to understand either of those two things.

the two articles I linked go to the research & have links to wonderful photographs of the writings.

Your loss.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I wish posters would please stop acting like you own jesus or christianity.

& it comes from among the least Christ like posters on the board.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

suspect an impotent attempt to rile up Christians,

Or its simply a legitimate topic posted to discuss the newly unveiled ancient papyrus that has made international headlines today.

The world is discussing this. Why not on Hot Topics? That is what this board is for.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 23:18

Does this mean that in the Mormon version he had multiple wives?

...rut row


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I think a lot of people may have heard of the idea of Jesus having been married before, but the significance of that is clearly very different than a text that is earlier than or contemporary to the Gospels which states the same thing.

OTOH, while I find this sort of thing interesting, I don't think it should be all that earth shattering to Christians either. Marriage isn't some morally abject act, its the first commandment noted that the Abrahamic God ever gave to humanity ... its astonishing to me any Christians would even consider interpreting discussion of this info as an attack on their faith.

I was raised and schooled Roman Catholic, drifted as a cheerful but unfulfilled agnostic for some years, and now attend regular Quaker meetings. While it would greatly impact certain traditions of the faith of my childhood, this doesn't really pose any major theological contradictions iirc, nor will I feel any discomfort speaking about this at my local meeting should the topic come up.

I would find it very unfortunate if my will and faith were so weak that a further insight into the life of Christ "riled me up". I don't posess arrogance enough to claim I could understand or know everything about that great man enough to shut down to potentially new knowledge about him.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I would find it very unfortunate if my will and faith were so weak that a further insight into the life of Christ "riled me up". I don't posess arrogance enough to claim I could understand or know everything about that great man enough to shut down to potentially new knowledge about him.

*

Exactly. I would venture to say that most posters here, particularly Christians, have read and heard this before.

It is of no consequence to those of faith--their faith is not shaken by supposition, or in the event there were some proof, it has nothing to do with one's faith and why they believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Its all over the news, and is a subject entertained at Harvard because of a fragment of writing and all you can come up with is it about pissing you guys off brain surgery 101 as usual.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 23:52

If he was married then why did the wise old elders who selectively cobbled together their favorite gospels delete this seemingly unavoidable information? Maybe they thought that a married God didn't look very good or sell well? That it made him seem more human than God like? The God marrying a mortal concept hadn't survived past civilizations very well so omitting this part of his life could have elevated his persona a bit more. After 2,000 years this revelation probably wouldn't have the same negative effect today as it might have had in the past. Maybe next they'll find out he had kids too?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on Tue, Sep 18, 12 at 23:52

"Maybe next they'll find out he had kids too?"

Maybe. Didn't you read "The DaVinci Code"?

;D


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Perhaps I wasn't clear labrea, but this doesnt piss me off.

Nor do I have any reason to think that posting about it was intended to piss me or anyone else off.

It's undoubtedly a major find.

vgkg, I'm not certain of the diversity of motives that the early church fathers might have had for rejecting any text referencing Jesus having a wife, but ceasing the spread of adoptionistic heresies must have surely be one of them, maybe a main one.

BTW, even though the article suggests that he is closed to the idea of Jesus and bride, Bart Ehrman who is referenced in the article has written several really understandable and even handed explorations of why and how the New Testament was edited to be the book it is today. Just read "Misquoting Jesus" and really enjoyed it, for any who might be interested in a similar topic.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I'ts Gnostic if it's real! Gnostics weren't always concerned with historical story lines rather than an internal meeting with a transcendent Christ (Manifested God) rather than a historical Jesus who was a man.
The Gnostic God is ineffable. They were at first followers of a Roman theologian who didn't get to be First among equals AKA Bishop of Rome. So of course he was declared heretic (well not of course but his teachings & followers were denounced as heretics) it was still early in the Christian Church history. So Trinity battles & Mother of God wars hadn't erupted yet.
This stuff's beginnings are almost 200 years before any of those boys got together and started slugging it out a east & west bishops.
The Empire wasn't yet Christian so the Government had no use for controlling the story lines that made it down through all the other digression s that wind up as modern day collection of digressions known a Christianity.

Church histories are interesting & time consuming and full of battles & some of those battles full information no longer exists as winners got to destroy the losers texts & sometimes their membership.
Even with the Nag Hamadi texts we only have a glimpse of regional Gnosticism. So seemingly esoteric that a lot of new agey christoseekers mish mash it all together with a bunch of other traditions. (sorry just how I see a lot of them)


 o
RE: Jesus married?

His Mother-In-Law wasn't very happy, she wanted her daughter to marry a doctor.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

At least she did'nt bring home a Roman oy!


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Before Karen King wrote about this subject there was Elaine Pagels from Princeton who wrote "The Gnostic Gospels" in the 1970's also based from the Nag Hammadi library manuscripts.

Here is a link that might be useful: Wiki - Elaine Pagels


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I've read the gnostic gospels. This research subject is not believed to be part gnostic movement ( not sure of the term)
It's a wonderful & amazing find whether or not you identify as christian.

For those who"know it all" , well, that's just a continuous trait of your posts.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I like Elaine Pagel's books! They should be easy enough for an average forum person to read without spewing green bile or running to build a bonfire.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

That's part of the problem for me, Vgkg... there are too many versions.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

These ideas have been around now for some time. I've also read Elaine Pagel's "Gnostic Gospels." Being a Jew, it would have been strange indeed for Jesus NOT to have been married.

To vgkg's point, if you read the Pauline writings, there is a definite anti-feminine subtext going on. I suspect that the early church fathers downplayed any linkage to any female due to their misogyny, which is obvious in their writings.

I am interested in the effect that the anti-feminist attitude had historically on the priesthood. e.g. early Christian priests were allowed to marry. It was only after some centuries that they were forbidden. (I forget which Pope ruled against it). But Orthodox priests in the Greek church have always been allowed to marry. (Part of the schism between East and West).

Were I believer in the Divine Jesus (I view him as a historical figure), it would make it easier for me to relate to his example had he been married.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Elaine Pagels Gospel of Thomas is one of the only non fiction books I go back and reread entirely, instead of just skimming to source particular information.

As to whether this is gnostic or not, well, the answer is sort of. Among pre-Christians, some of what we would call heretics believed Jesus was only a man, divinely inspired, which this text might support. Others believed he was really a god alone, but in the appearance of a man, which this text would contradict. Gnostics were a third group which believed he was both, but in two completely seperate beings. Still, in my opinion, formed from study, gnostics seemed to have believed in a much more full humanity for Jesus than Trinitarians tend to do, so to me, this supports that viewpoint as well.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

rough, My work is in scientific research. And I'm a right-winger (although I dislike the "name", it's meant to demean). And a Christian. Generalizations do not become you well.

Even if Jesus had a wife, what would that mean? Why would anyone consider him being celibate as the utmost for God's highest? Being married and sex go together. If He was married (which he considers "the church" to be His "bride" and it could be another one of those less than literal things, as a possibility), why wouldn't it be another example of how to live? He came to show us how to live, right? Why not there too? And why doesn't the fact that men have wanted to twist everything to be what they think it should be not factor in? It's disturbing to see blonde haired blue eyed Jesus pictures. Men construe things to be what they think is right. I'm sure he surrounded Himself with men and women. The women just didn't count to the men who wrote things down. His own disciples eshewed children in His midst. And condemned other men until the finally figured it out what was important. They were men of their day, and who was important to record, was up to men. There were probably women, but not in affair type of way, is my point. It still doesn't matter. It makes Him no less holy and no less the Son of God.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Oh it's an age old conundrum hammered out with excommunications & being driven from power Mono or Dyophysite, did the divine subsume the human. Were they always one yadda yadda, yadda important suff a divine Christ who obliterated a human Jesus would make the anxiety of the agony in the Garden kind of strange.
A very human Jesus with a very human life open up that whole line of thinking that we all can achieve divinity if we would just recognize it as we are all one substance with the father. That kind of destroys dying for sins though & redemption through pain & suffering of a human.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Rob, I don't think anyone was suggesting that a married Jesus is some kind of proof that he was not "holy" and "the Son of God."

You are over-reacting. I have never heard an agnostic or atheist claim it was the marital status (or lack thereof) of Jesus that turned the agnostic/atheist into an agnostic or atheist.

I too am interested in Pagel's writings--fascinating insights into the early politics and squabbles in the formative centuries after the death of Jesus. They become understandable human figures, especially the supposed rivalry between Mary Magdalen and Peter. I wish someone would make a thoughtful but interesting movie or novel, based on solid historical research, about those early days. It is about time Hollywood's 1950s "technicolor" version got updated and corrected, not only technologically but historically.

Kate


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Over-reacting? What?! Your comments are completly offbase. Just because I suggest alternate theories doesn't mean I'm reacting to the whole marriage thing. You are still looking for things Kate. Please, find someone else to battle. Do your ignoring thing when it comes to me (ignoring means you do NOTHING, not even comment). If, however, you wish to discuss my theories with me, leave off the characterizations. I am happy to discuss why someone thinks he has to be celibate or unmarried. That is interesting to me. Or that it could even be a symbolic wife. If not, let me alone.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Not at all... marital status or celibacy don't influence me, at all. His message was a sound one. That's all that matters.

What turned ME against the whole concept of organized religion is how twisted the message of Jesus has become in human hands over the centuries. I just can't buy that everything went down the way it's told, and I can't see that original message shining through in a lot of what humanity has done and are doing in the name of religion.

I could care less if Jesus, the human man, had a wife, a husband, a passel of children... what difference would that make? It's the message he gave that should be held up in the highest of esteem... no?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Rob, I have no idea why you are reacting in such a hostile manner. My post was not meant to be hostile. If anything, it was trying to be factual and explanatory in an attempt to defuse hostilities. Sorry you interpreted my tone as aggressive -- I meant it to be factual. However, your reaction shows that I was right--you are over-reacting. And that is not meant as an insult, but rather a simple statement of fact. I was not attacking you, no matter what you think.

Kate


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Who Would Jesus Marry?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Exactly Jodi! I wish someone who finds it important that he was married (or not, either way, truly) would tell what it was of any importance. I totally agree with what you've said. It's a "yea-so what?" kind of thing.

_____________________________________________________
You had nothing to diffuse???? Never existed. Why you perceive that is beyond me, but no need to explain further. Seems you and I don't speak the same language. No need to point it out any more in the future. Just realize you're not hearing me as intended, nor I you.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Hmmm--I still am not trying to be hostile. Why do you persist in making hostile responses rather than apologizing for taking my comments wrong?

Kate


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Kate, I'm not hostile. You're 100% wrong. It must be hard for your to hear that you're wrong, but you are. Please, do not dissect any more of my answers here or on any other threads? Please? I'm begging you.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I guess, Robin, that I am able to separate what might have been a human being that lived long ago and tried to spread a message of love and peace, from the concept that he was placed here by an immaculate conception as the son of a god. That simply flies in the face of logic, from my point of view. But that doesn't mean I find his message less worthy.

I think, quite honestly, that if we dropped all the hullabaloo surrounding the message, we might have something to work with. But that is nothing more than my opinion as an atheist.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Can't promise that--depends on what you post--but I am not stalking you or trying to start an argument with you.

If you do not want others to respond to your posts, you might consider not posting in the first place. Then there would be no response.

Kate


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I can see that fully jodi. And respect your opinion.

I think, and I'm probably stepping on some toes saying this, the hullabaloo is the reason He came. That is, what He came to dispel. The more I read what He said, it sounds like an unraveling of what people had come to interpret as God's law. But it still goes on. The message is fairly simple, so I don't see how some can get so bogged down in what He meant. It's funny, we've been studying his last days on Earth and so often, He'll say (OBVIOUSLY paraphrasing... it's from Mark), Do you not have eyes? Ears? haven't we already been over this? He sounds confused as to how they were thinking what they were thinking. He's not angry, but I too get a good laugh at how the humans are messing it up when it's so easy to understand. It's not easy to live, don't get me wrong, it's hard as can be to live it. But understand it? A child could get it. It's the rituals that people kept putting on that cause the problems. He wasn't into rituals. He died for committing a sin against one of man's rituals. He worked on the sabbath. And yet, he was here to show us how to live. Reconcile that, and one gets the picture.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

None of which has anything to do with the OP. I wish we could still talk about the historical Jesus and why it might matter (or not) that he was married. If you listen to reponses on other venues, there are lots of people out there really upset with this possibility. Myself, I'm not sure why, but it does occur to me that perhaps Catholics would need to re-examine the priestly celibacy concept if it were true that Jesus was married. That would have many traditionalists upset, I guess. For protestants, agnostics, and atheists, I'm not sure why any of them should be upset.

However, I do wish more attention were paid in this day and age to some of the gnostic gospels and the indications of several hundred years of bickering and power struggles in the early church--before the "church fathers" finally came to the conclusion (hundreds of years later) that the misogynistic Pauline strand was the TRUE strand. Why did they pick the misogynistic strand rather than all the others available to label as the "correct" version? Seems like such a strange choice--to link Jesus' teachings up with Paul's misogyny.

Kate


 o
RE: Jesus married?

"Myself, I'm not sure why, but it does occur to me that perhaps Catholics would need to re-examine the priestly celibacy concept if it were true that Jesus was married. That would have many traditionalists upset, I guess."

Now that is I was trying to get at, I think. If I am reading you right. Why do you think this is Kate? Because I think what I posted just above your comment would have everything to do with what you're saying, not off topic at all. Why do you guess it's upsetting them? Because I just see it as another of those man-imposed ideas that was never intended. Right? Does where I am coming from make sense?


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I wish we could still talk about the historical Jesus and why it might matter (or not) that he was married.

I agree Kate. This doesn't have to be a religious subject. It can be educational if some would allow the conversation to take that route and don't derail the discussion.

What makes this find newsworthy is that these words have never before been seen in a piece of scripture. I too read a lot about the subject as history and I will be interested to see the upcoming Smithsonian documentary on this as well. There still needs to be more testing done to verify its authenticity but there will always be questions worth discussing.

This papyrus is not a vindication or proof of anything but it could show that even early Christians were debating this long ago.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

This find is interesting for sure. But! Not a new idea, and certainly not an offensive idea to this Roman Catholic-raised person. Too bad there's not more. Or is there? What does it say, word for word, I wonder.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

robb, i do not understand what you mean...but am on my way back to sea so we won't have time to work it out.
I should begone for several months.

perhaps we could talk then

happy trails
everyone

I will post for the next hour ,but then gone


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Safe sailing Roughseas.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I look at it from a purely practical point of view rather than spiritual teachings or beliefs. A non-celibate deity introduces significant complexity to an organized religion based on monotheism. A married deity may have been sexually active and produced children. Would that make the offspring of the deity and human spouse demigods as in the ancient Greek religions? If so, how does that fit monotheism? Even if you get around the problem of demigods, would it set up a class of people who claim special privilege or power based on genealogy? I can't imagine that anyone in a leadership role in any of the Christian denominations would enjoy the prospect of having to deal with things like that. The whole quagmire is avoided if the deity was celibate.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

safe passage Rough!

_________________________________
Removing spritual issues from anything surrounding Christ makes no sense. None. Not even if I wasn't a follower.

yoga, out of curiosity, do you not think it possible for her to be infertile? Or maybe he was just gone so much? If he was married? Just curious. I think it could happen that He was married, but since I've never thought about it too deeply (I never think about Mary Todd Lincoln when I think of issues surroundind Abe, so it's not that odd, for instance). Of course, if offspring were produced, that'd be a whole nuther ball of wax. Seems those issues do surround Muhammad, Peace be upon him.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

It makes total sense, from a non-belief point of view, Robin.

It's much like scientists of a few decades ago trying to tell the oil and coal corporations, and governments, and the people, that climate change is a real thing, and if we don't change our greedy ways, the world won't be here for future generations. And now, those predictions of a few decades ago are here. They've come to pass.

I see Jesus as just that sort of man... one of reason and logic... who looked around and said, "this way of greed and disrespect and war won't do". And so, he set about trying to change the way people treated one another, to get his message across, to spread it around... that we don't have to fight, or treat each other poorly or differently... that we can all get along, if we try.

I think mankind usurped his message, and turned it into a 3 ring circus. Look at religions in general... of today, and what they've done over the centuries. We think of religious war as an oxymoron, and most of us realize that you can't hide murder, war, or other trespasses against one another behind the cloak of religion. With that thought in mind, why is it that the church does that very thing?

I think the message... the real message... is a great one. I just don't buy all the ceremony involved. It's what human beings have done to it, through additions, changes, and organizations, that have truly ruined it.

In the end, none of us were there those few thousand years ago... so none of us know for certain. If all we have is the basic message, hidden among other writings, done by human hands, to go by... then we can't really say anything for certain... except that the message is a timeless one.

Personally, I think mankind took it, embellished it, thinking to use it all to their own ends... and this is what I see when I look at it all.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I guess I just see it like talking about sailboats, but not letting wind or water enter the discussion.
;)

I can see what you're saying, as I do love what Rumi and Ghandi have to say; also timeless. It doesn't matter from whom I get the message. I do agree man has turned the message on its head. Yet again. He was talking to the religious leaders of His time, but it could still be said now.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

Sorry I temporarily dropped out. I'm sick in bed with sore throat, etc. Been sleeping a lot.

But let me add belatedly that many traditional Catholics would be very upset about abolishing the celibate priesthood. A number of decades ago there was a big push --in America (but not elsewhere)-- to allow priests to marry. The Vatican got quite upset about that idea and cited all sorts of biblical passages that support, indeed, REQUIRE a celibate priesthood. To hear them argue against it, it would seriously mar Church doctrine if priests were to marry.

You need to remember that American Catholics have some lax attitudes on a number of doctrines/practices that the Vatican and global Catholics strongly support. In fact, American Catholics/priests have been known to irritate the Vatican with their "liberal" American ideas at times.

Another reason why Jesus being married to, let's say, Mary Magdelen (and there is a long Gnostic tradition claiming that) could be upsetting is that there is some suspicion that Mary Mag. was also into goddess worship and, according to some traditions, was herself worshipped as a goddess. If those ideas are brought to the forefront again (they were popular in the 100s of years after the death of Jesus), that would mean we might have both a God the Father/Jesus and Goddess the Mother. Many protestant ministers and followers will have a major stroke over such a possibility.

Kate


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I totally agree. But much of what He said and did upset the leadership, so I can't see that stopping Him even now. I can't but help wondering if He did some of the things he did, just to shock people awake. Sometimes I think that. Like the first person to be in heaven was from the cross, best friends (and maybe more!) with a woman who was also a disciple who was, gasp!, a former prostitute... He truly befriended and helped the weakest on purpose.

Get well!


 o
RE: Jesus married?

But Kate, and others, in the early Christian church, the early church fathers were married. At least, marriage was not forbidden by canon law. It was the first Lateran Council in 1123 which began to set the new standard against marriage. And the Pope was Gregory. My point is that the Catholic church has been inconsistent on this point throughout its history. Thus celebacy is relatively new, historically speaking. (And obviously, many of the early disciples were already married, just after the death of Jesus.)

Women were put down in the early centuries and thus it was that Jesus' message was radical for its time: he was inclusive, not exclusive, in his message, which was for Jews, Gentiles, slaves, and women.

Jodi, I agree that it is mankind over the centuries that has distorted the fundamental message of peace and good will on earth.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

If the painting of The Last Supper is a true depiction of the happenings before Jesus was crucified, the person to His left sure looks female.

Here is a link that might be useful: picture


 o
RE: Jesus married?

I think the Church could eventually (say, five hundred years yuk-yuk) maybe work the idea that Jesus just might have been married, especially if his wife was never in town at the same time he was - but children? Never. I don't ever see the Church accepting this as a possibility.

Think of it. Jesus, the Son of God had children?
That would make them GRANDchildren of God.
And hey - where are the decendants??


Maybe Ireland? Ireland has always been a friend! But, they could do better don't ye know. Too much whiskey, not enough wine.

Perhaps the U.S. if we ban birth control and certainly abortion, but the U.S. is so goofy so maybe not...

Even Poland might be nice. Poland has been represented well in the Vatican - Hey! How many Poles does it take to remove a lightbulb?
.....no no, won't do, after all.

For SURE not in Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq or any middle eastern country..... they CANNOT be Muslims or Islamics or Hindus. That simply would not do.

There are no real Jews for Jesus, certainly, so Israel is out of the question.

Nor Protestants (for pete's sake!)

England kicked us out long ago! Forget England!

Nor even peaceful Buddhists. We want them to display a little spirit, it makes for good advertisments!

Well......that's it then.
They ALL have to be nice Italian Catholics located within two miles of the Vatican ......... or they simply won't exist.
Period!
Finis!

___________________________________________________________

Just having fun, except for Jesus having children, I very much doubt the Church could ever accept that as fact, ever. It would make things far too messy, a little too human, not enough God like.

Jodi said:

".......he set about trying to change the way people treated one another......"

To me, this was Jesus's greatest gift and most important teaching. He had such vision, if only we could develop the eyes in which to see it.

I think it so much more miraculous that Jesus didn't have to be the Son Of God - that he was a simple human being just exactly like the rest of us - and still so remarkable, compassionate and charitable a man would be most wonderful of all.

Of course, it would also remove the excuses we allow ourselves regarding our general indifference to the plight of our fellow man.


 o
RE: Jesus married?

"To me, this was Jesus's greatest gift and most important teaching. He had such vision, if only we could develop the eyes in which to see it."

And this is the main reason why I can't follow the organizations that call themselves churches, or believe in all the extras. Not much of it makes sense, beyond the true message. And one does not need all the extras to practice the real message, to apply it to one's own life.

I think the church hates the fact that it has such old, open wounds... or that they keep racking up more wounds through the ousting of their own duplicity. And I think that from the very beginning, it has been humans with ugly human characteristics that have tried so hard to personally manage religion and the message brought forth. Jesus was a fly in the ointment.

Jesus didn't seem to mind befriending the poor, the sick, the married or unmarried, the prostitutes, thieves or any other human beings, regardless their circumstances. He was totally inclusive, and not at all selective.

The idea that he may have been truly human after all is a notion the church can't deal with. It's male dominated, and has always pushed the idea that women are not quite as equal, and have little to no place within the hierarchy of the church. The farce of celibacy has been largely a farce.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here