| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Truth Hunter" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2005 03:33:09 PM |
| Object: |
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation fro=ADm his own
wrath!(Author unknown)=20
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 04:24:53 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations by
people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
..Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:59:47 AM |
|
|
<christian@fiberpipe.net> wrote in message
news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@4ax.com...
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations by
people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
in Christ Jesus where?
As a matter of fact there is no evidence Jesus existed much less married,
particularly if you define Jesus as someone who was born of a virgin.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 05:07:49 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@
4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations by
people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been mentioned
in he were not married.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a Space
Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 09:06:14 PM |
|
|
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com>, posted this little
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@
4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations by
people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been mentioned
in he were not married.
Pure speculation, no substance at all, thin air. You may speculate if
you wish, but I will base my fath on EVIDENCE, not mindless
speculation.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:59:49 AM |
|
|
<christian@fiberpipe.net> wrote in message
news:rgaim1phti4gt9j477570qpp661f26dj35@4ax.com...
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com>, posted this little
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@
4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations by
people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned
in he were not married.
Pure speculation, no substance at all, thin air. You may speculate if
you wish, but I will base my fath on EVIDENCE, not mindless
speculation.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Mindless evidence even.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 09:41:15 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:rgaim1phti4gt9j477570qpp661f26dj35@4ax.com:
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com>, posted this little
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
wrote in
news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@ 4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit
of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians
regard it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies
sexuality. The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject,
it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader
denied that Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were
married and had children that they would be a divine race, so
therefore, He could not have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations
by people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but
air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He
was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned in he were not married.
Pure speculation, no substance at all, thin air. You may speculate if
you wish, but I will base my fath on EVIDENCE, not mindless
speculation.
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Rock Is Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 05:11:17 AM |
|
|
Joshua Calvert wrote:
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in
news:rgaim1phti4gt9j477570qpp661f26dj35@4ax.com:
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com>, posted this little
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in
news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@ 4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit
of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians
regard it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies
sexuality. The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject,
it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader
denied that Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were
married and had children that they would be a divine race, so
therefore, He could not have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations
by people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but
air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He
was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned in he were not married.
Pure speculation, no substance at all, thin air. You may speculate if
you wish, but I will base my fath on EVIDENCE, not mindless
speculation.
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
Another selective standard.
I'm sure you completely reject Plato then, correct? After all the
earliest copies we can produce of Plato's Tetralogies are about 1200
years after Plato supposedly wrote the original.
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death, that's still not close enough, I guess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 05:17:19 AM |
|
|
"The Rock Is Peter" <TheRockIsPeter@jesusanswers.com> wrote in
news:1130994677.887086.106150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Joshua Calvert wrote:
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in
news:rgaim1phti4gt9j477570qpp661f26dj35@4ax.com:
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com>, posted this little
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in
news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@ 4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little
bit
of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians
regard it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage
implies
sexuality. The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the
subject,
it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian
leader
denied that Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were
married and had children that they would be a divine race, so
therefore, He could not have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would
be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild
speculations
by people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but
air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed
case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He
was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married -
something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned in he were not married.
Pure speculation, no substance at all, thin air. You may speculate
if
you wish, but I will base my fath on EVIDENCE, not mindless
speculation.
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
Another selective standard.
I'm sure you completely reject Plato then, correct? After all the
earliest copies we can produce of Plato's Tetralogies are about 1200
years after Plato supposedly wrote the original.
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death, that's still not close enough, I guess.
No selective standard.
Whether Plato existed or not is irrelevant. It is the philosophies and
writings attributed to Plato that are important, and they stand on their
own.
If Jesus never existed, then everything about him other than some of the
attributed philosophy collapses, and that includes all the made up
theology.
Which NT fragments are dated 25 to 30 years after his supposed death?
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a
Space Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's
fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J. Brandt" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 09:29:11 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C5E09C.173386E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"The Rock Is Peter" <> as usual spouts his garbage...
=20
Another selective standard.
I'm sure you completely reject Plato then, correct? After all the
earliest copies we can produce of Plato's Tetralogies are about 1200
years after Plato supposedly wrote the original.
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death, that's still not close enough, I guess.
Your problem is that you fail to mention that Plato never claimed to =
raise people from the dead!!
You make extraordinary claims, you should be prepared to offer =
extraordinary proof.
See Plato never threated anyone with HELL!!
And you have made the following claim -
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death,=20
I certainly hope you have a reference for that!! Or are you just blowing =
hot air once again??
I'm betting on the hot air!!
Smile.
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C5E09C.173386E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"The Rock Is Peter" <> as usual =
spouts his=20
garbage...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR>> Another selective =
standard.<BR>> I'm=20
sure you completely reject Plato then, correct? After all the<BR>> =
earliest=20
copies we can produce of Plato's Tetralogies are about 1200<BR>> =
years after=20
Plato supposedly wrote the original.<BR>> Even though we come up NT =
fragments=20
only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'<BR>> death, that's still not close =
enough, I=20
guess.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Your problem is that you fail to =
mention that Plato=20
never claimed to raise people from the dead!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You make extraordinary claims, you =
should be=20
prepared to offer extraordinary proof.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>See Plato never threated anyone with=20
HELL!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And you have made the following claim=20
-</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Even though we come up NT fragments =
only 25 to 30=20
years after Jesus'<BR>> death, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I certainly hope you have a reference =
for that!! Or=20
are you just blowing hot air once again??</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm betting on the hot =
air!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Smile.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C5E09C.173386E0--
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Rock Is Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
06 Nov 2005 11:45:35 PM |
|
|
J. Brandt wrote:
"The Rock Is Peter" <> as usual spouts his garbage...
Another selective standard.
I'm sure you completely reject Plato then, correct? After all the
earliest copies we can produce of Plato's Tetralogies are about 1200
years after Plato supposedly wrote the original.
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death, that's still not close enough, I guess.
Your problem is that you fail to mention that Plato never claimed to raise people from the dead!!
What about all your own screamings about "red herrings"? (oh yeah, do
as I say, not what I do, right?)
You make extraordinary claims, you should be prepared to offer extraordinary proof.
See Plato never threated anyone with HELL!!
There's those red herrings again! "Red herrings don't work,
remember!!" -- Zadok, Nov. 4, 2005
It's obvious you don't really understand that fallicy, anyway.
But let's face facts, if someone is going to be one of great fathers,
creators, and influences of the thought process of all Western
Civilization (Plato), then requesting the same standard originally
thrown out is not only anything but unreasonable but quite fair!
And you have made the following claim -
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death,
I certainly hope you have a reference for that!! Or are you just blowing hot air once again??
Nope, but I was wrong when trying to remember a source I referenced a
long time ago instead of having it in front of me when I wrote and
scrambled the numbers. The NT fragments I was recalling are dated 125
-130 AD (not 25-30 years after his death). Still stands firmly against
1200 years between Plato and any copies of his work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
07 Nov 2005 12:37:03 AM |
|
|
"The Rock Is Peter" <> wrote in message ...
But let's face facts, if someone is going to be one of great fathers,
creators, and influences of the thought process of all Western
Civilization (Plato), then requesting the same standard originally
thrown out is not only anything but unreasonable but quite fair!
Plato was a philosopher!! IE discussion of ideas.
He did not make hard and fast rules, and threaten people with hell if they
did not obey.
He did not come up with things like a virgin birth, a dead man rising,
raising people from the dead, and other assorted mythical happenings.
You see Rock, I was in the delivery room when my son was born.
And you know what that does to your inane virgin birth.
That is the difference between Plato and your book of religious myths.
Now you may not see any difference, but most people can!!
Like I said, extraodinary claims, require extraordinary proofs.
I can read a Summerian clat tablet, that tells me Inanna, arose from the
dead after three days in the underworld!! Notice the three days, (does that
ring any bells?). Inanna had to supply two people to take her place.
Ooops, wasn't Jesus crucified with two thieves??
I guess it is just what muth, you want to believe!!
And you have made the following claim -
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death,
I certainly hope you have a reference for that!! Or are you just blowing
hot air once again??
Nope, but I was wrong when trying to remember a source I referenced a
long time ago instead of having it in front of me when I wrote and
scrambled the numbers. The NT fragments I was recalling are dated 125
-130 AD (not 25-30 years after his death). Still stands firmly against
1200 years between Plato and any copies of his work.
I think you might have trouble proving that 125-130AD date also. I find
200AD is the cut off.
But it's the same old story. I can go to the catholic encylopedia, and the
range of dates for Matthew's gospel run about 36AD - 136AD, so what's a
hundred years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Rock Is Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
07 Nov 2005 02:00:47 AM |
|
|
Zadok wrote:
"The Rock Is Peter" <> wrote in message ...
But let's face facts, if someone is going to be one of great fathers,
creators, and influences of the thought process of all Western
Civilization (Plato), then requesting the same standard originally
thrown out is not only anything but unreasonable but quite fair!
Plato was a philosopher!! IE discussion of ideas.
He did not make hard and fast rules, and threaten people with hell if they
did not obey.
He did not come up with things like a virgin birth, a dead man rising,
raising people from the dead, and other assorted mythical happenings.
Once again, what about the complaints of red herrings?
You see Rock, I was in the delivery room when my son was born.
And you know what that does to your inane virgin birth.
I know theres a difference between conception and birth. I'm sorry you
don't.
That is the difference between Plato and your book of religious myths.
Now you may not see any difference, but most people can!!
Like I said, extraodinary claims, require extraordinary proofs.
I can read a Summerian clat tablet, that tells me Inanna, arose from the
dead after three days in the underworld!! Notice the three days, (does that
ring any bells?). Inanna had to supply two people to take her place.
Ooops, wasn't Jesus crucified with two thieves??
Eisenman style thought at its best!
I guess it is just what muth, you want to believe!!
And you have made the following claim -
Even though we come up NT fragments only 25 to 30 years after Jesus'
death,
I certainly hope you have a reference for that!! Or are you just blowing
hot air once again??
Nope, but I was wrong when trying to remember a source I referenced a
long time ago instead of having it in front of me when I wrote and
scrambled the numbers. The NT fragments I was recalling are dated 125
-130 AD (not 25-30 years after his death). Still stands firmly against
1200 years between Plato and any copies of his work.
I think you might have trouble proving that 125-130AD date also. I find
200AD is the cut off.
The John Rylands Papyri; and there's plenty you should find on it. Go
ahead, write and ask the experts to prove their date. And let me know
their reaction when you tell them they're wrong.
In relation, this may help you along as well:
http://www.ccojubilee.org/resources/biblestudy/herman/5.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Rock Is Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
09 Nov 2005 11:09:30 PM |
|
|
Zadok wrote:
Have you disproven the date of the papyri yet?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
06 Nov 2005 11:53:30 PM |
|
|
"The Rock Is Peter" <TheRockIsPeter@jesusanswers.com> wrote in
news:1131320735.788985.135390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
But let's face facts, if someone is going to be one of great fathers,
creators, and influences of the thought process of all Western
Civilization (Plato), then requesting the same standard originally
thrown out is not only anything but unreasonable but quite fair!
As you've already been told, that is crap. It doesn't really matter to
anyone whether Plato was the author of his works or not. They stand on
their own.
Jesus being the son of god pretty much collapses when a similar standard is
applied because if he didn't exist, what was said by him and about him is
crap.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a Space
Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 04:57:00 AM |
|
|
Joshua Calvert wrote:
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in
news:rgaim1phti4gt9j477570qpp661f26dj35@4ax.com:
Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com>, posted this little
bit of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in
news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@ 4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit
of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians
regard it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies
sexuality. The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject,
it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader
denied that Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were
married and had children that they would be a divine race, so
therefore, He could not have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations
by people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but
air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He
was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned in he were not married.
Pure speculation, no substance at all, thin air. You may speculate if
you wish, but I will base my fath on EVIDENCE, not mindless
speculation.
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
Sadly, the bible is all the "evidence" they need. It boggles the mind...
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 10:09:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:41:15 GMT, Joshua Calvert
<joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote:
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
That's what faith is, if you have proof, it's no longer faith.
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael james" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 11:45:29 PM |
|
|
Last of All wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:41:15 GMT, Joshua Calvert
<joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote:
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
That's what faith is, if you have proof, it's no longer faith.
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
for some of us , that is the definition of blind faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:42:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:45:29 -0500, michael james <adlib@videotron.ca>
wrote:
Last of All wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:41:15 GMT, Joshua Calvert
<joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote:
You base your faith on complete speculation. There are no writings of
him dating to when he was alive.
That's what faith is, if you have proof, it's no longer faith.
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
for some of us , that is the definition of blind faith.
that's redundant:
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen. and...
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to
face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am
known.
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 08:52:01 PM |
|
|
"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned
in he were not married.
That's probably false.
Most Jewish men at the time were of course married, but there were sects
(Nazirites, Essenes) who practised celibacy.
Also you always get a few men who don't find partners for whatever reason.
Jesus probably wasn't a formal rabbi. We can't be sure about this, but it
fits the general pattern of clashes with the Jewish authorities better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:59:48 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dkb8th$8le$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned
in he were not married.
That's probably false.
I'm sure it is. BTW what is?
Most Jewish men at the time were of course married, but there were sects
(Nazirites, Essenes) who practised celibacy.
Also you always get a few men who don't find partners for whatever reason.
Jesus probably wasn't a formal rabbi. We can't be sure about this, but it
fits the general pattern of clashes with the Jewish authorities better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 04:43:14 PM |
|
|
In <dkb8th$8le$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, on 11/02/05
at 08:52 PM, "Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> said:
"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned
in he were not married.
That's probably false.
Most Jewish men at the time were of course married, but there were sects
(Nazirites, Essenes) who practised celibacy.
Which were groups outside the mainstream of jewish daily life, &
therefore, not a good example of what Jews of the first century expected
from their rabbis'.
Also you always get a few men who don't find partners for whatever
reason.
It was not a request, it was a requirement.
Jesus probably wasn't a formal rabbi. We can't be sure about this, but it
fits the general pattern of clashes with the Jewish authorities better.
You realise of course, that your whole routine was noting but a fallacy of
special pleading. There is no other rabbi that was not married & attested
to, but you want everyone to allow a deviation from the requirements for
your missing messiah. Demand denied here.
walksalone who wonders, could he make a living as an apologetic, would he
be able to stoa\mach himself if he could? I hope not.
--
In Italy, the Inquisition was condemning people to death until the end of the eighteenth century, and
inquisitional torture was not abolished in the Catholic Church until 1816. The last bastion of support
for the reality of witchcraft and the necessity of punishment has been the Christian churches.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 413
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 10:08:20 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:52:01 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned
in he were not married.
That's probably false.
Most Jewish men at the time were of course married, but there were sects
(Nazirites, Essenes) who practised celibacy.
It may be a different group, but those who took the Nazarite vow were
not required to be celibate.
As to the Essenes, the last I heard, their celibacy was in dispute -
the last thing I read was that it was believed that those at Qumran
were celibate, but that there were also Essenes who lived in the
cities who were not - there may, of course, been additional
information since.
Also you always get a few men who don't find partners for whatever reason.
Jesus probably wasn't a formal rabbi. We can't be sure about this, but it
fits the general pattern of clashes with the Jewish authorities better.
Yeah, likely.
We know Peter was married, but information on Jesus is non-existent.
Terrell
http://www.lastofall.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:59:47 AM |
|
|
"Joshua Calvert" <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97025D9844C57joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6...
christian@fiberpipe.net wrote in news:fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@
4ax.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com>, posted this little bit of
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.baptist :
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
The only thoughts about such a marriage have been wild speculations by
people who like to play speculation games based on nothing but air.
It is not a "taboo subject" at all. It is an open-an-closed case. .
.Jesus was never married. Not one shred of evidence indicates He was.
So you may play speculative games if you want. But don't pretend
stuff is somehow "taboo." That is dishonest.
It would have been extremely unusual were he not married - something
necessary to be a rabbi, which he was, and would surely have been
mentioned
in he were not married.
Rabbits don't need to get married, unless I missed something in Natural
History class.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 04:46:53 AM |
|
|
Reply to article by:
Date written: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:24:53 -0700
MsgID:<fqphm19tp2bad8p77jsqjj8jcg0f28ho93@4ax.com>
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
No, we don't bother talking about Jesus being married because
Scripture does not indicate anywhere that He was married, would be
married, or should have been married.
Neither does Scripture indicate anywhere that he wasn't married or should not be
married. It also doesn't say that Jesus masturbated or had to take a number two.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnonMoos" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 10:27:14 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Because it never existed except in the crackpot nonsense of the "Grail
bloodline" kooks. I think you have far more to be ashamed about with
respect to marriage than Christians do, Abu Truthhunter, since Muhammad
forbade ordinary Muslims from marrying more than four wives at once,
but received a special convenient "revelation" which permitted him to
marry an indefinite number of women at once! (And in fact, Muhammad
had nine or more simultaneous wives.) I'll never accept Qur'an verse
33:50 as any kind of supposed "revelation" -- it's far more Satanic
than divine!
--
المتبرجة خير
من الإرهابي
المنتحر
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 10:42:28 PM |
|
|
AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in news:43693D42.BFEEC4C9@io.com:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Because it never existed except in the crackpot nonsense of the "Grail
bloodline" kooks. I think you have far more to be ashamed about with
respect to marriage than Christians do, Abu Truthhunter, since Muhammad
forbade ordinary Muslims from marrying more than four wives at once,
but received a special convenient "revelation" which permitted him to
marry an indefinite number of women at once! (And in fact, Muhammad
had nine or more simultaneous wives.) I'll never accept Qur'an verse
33:50 as any kind of supposed "revelation" -- it's far more Satanic
than divine!
So is the entire book of Revelation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 07:08:15 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
And if he wasn't married and just budied with his 12 diciples he must have
been qeere.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!(Author unknown)
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Torch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 04:07:26 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
But it was ok for his father (who was actually himself) to ***** the virgin
mary (who was actually married to someone else at the time) so that she
could give birth to him.
The word incoherent doesnt even get close.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:59:46 AM |
|
|
"Torch" <Torch@torch.com> wrote in message
news:dkao7n$47n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
But it was ok for his father (who was actually himself) to ***** the virgin
mary (who was actually married to someone else at the time) so that she
could give birth to him.
The word incoherent doesnt even get close.
There is no evidence that actual fucking took place. Thge videos have been
lost, along with the Holy Grail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
02 Nov 2005 06:50:48 PM |
|
|
on 02 Nov 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Torch (Torch@torch.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians
regard it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies
sexuality. The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject,
it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader
denied that Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were
married and had children that they would be a divine race, so
therefore, He could not have been married.
But it was ok for his father (who was actually himself) to ***** the
virgin mary (who was actually married to someone else at the time) so
that she could give birth to him.
Nope, that was Ghosty, who went inside and planted a human spermatazoan.
Where Ghosty got a human spermatazoan is beyond me, but not beyond the
Christians, I guess, who'll believe anything they're told.
The word incoherent doesnt even get close.
Such is the concept of the holy trinity...
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 08:30:24 PM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
Maybe he and his twelve diciples were homosexuals!
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!(Author unknown)
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 01:51:33 AM |
|
|
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Mostly because it is a lie.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Truth Hunter" <hunter1234222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945589.538614.181680@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? Because most Christians regard
it as an impious suggestion mainly because marriage implies sexuality.
The New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not
until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that
Jesus was married. Others thought that if Christ were married and had
children that they would be a divine race, so therefore, He could not
have been married.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org
Bumper Sticker
DIVINE INSANITY
God killed himself on the cross to save his own creation from his own
wrath!(Author unknown)
One God, father-son-ghost?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why? |
03 Nov 2005 12:44:29 PM |
|
|
Jesus marriage is a taboo subject. Why?
It is no subject at all - unless you mean Jesus instituting the sacrament of
marriage.
BAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
