Posted on 06/20/2016 11:26:12 AM PDT by Olog-hai
She probably got it from the same Kinkos store that Dan Rather uses.
I’ve asked that question before-it does not diminish the divinity of Jesus to me-and I’ve been called a heretic, gotten blank stares-but at least a few people have said it didn’t change their thinking, either. That makes sense to me-I don’t get why it matters, if you believe in who Jesus is...
Lies get front-page 60 point headlines, retractions get 4 point blurbs buried on page 18 below the fold in section B. File under “Did you ever have a doubt?” [I didn’t]
Essentially all other gospels and references to Christ never speak of it. It is well established Christ was single. If things like this are allowed to fester, it will lead others astray.
Why? It would not be unreasonable for a 30 year old Jewish man in those days to have a wife. I cannot point to one in the bible, but I don’t think there is outright statement that he did not have a wife at some time.
In fact, in those days it would not be unusual to have a wife that died in childbirth.
Of course, it be hooves the Roman church for him to never have been married. Think of all f the land and goodies the church would have lost if “their guy” could be married and have heirs.
It doesn’t matter to me, not does it make a difference in his message.
It re-writes the Bible for one thing.
No, this is not about the Roman Catholic Church at all. And Jesus was far more than a mere “Jewish man”.
Not to mention that Paul eschewed marriage so that he could perform his work, specifically. But he never preached that ministers of God’s work ought not be married; the exact opposite, rather.
Which has happened before-just about every time it was translated into a new language-I prefer the new Greek translation myself-and the Dead Sea scrolls are still not all translated, so who knows what may be revealed-it still makes no difference to me-faith is something I have had as long as I can remember-my family was very good at teaching us to have and keep faith in God...
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? / Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.Paul is not a liar. The Masorah and the Received Texts have nothing lost in copying or translation.
— Romans 3:1-2
I was simply positing that his being 30 years old and unmarried would have been unusual.
I mean, he was not a Millenial living in his parents basement! ;-)
At that time being *20* and unmarried would be highly unusual, indicating some physical or mental defect. Judaism had and has individuals and groups with ascetic inclinations, but unmarried? Unlikely.
Sam Kinison pretty much explained why Jesus couldn’t have been married.
DUH! Jesus never had a wife, everyone knows that. No secret love child either. He was WITHOUT SIN, get it?
If the Bible is so edited as you think, which God do you believe in? The One that can create a universe but not control what is in His Bible, or a Harvard skank's delusion?
EXCELLENT question... :)
I believe in the God I was taught about-God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth-and all the rest of the universe-as the Nicene Creed teaches-the one most of Latino ancestry believe in. I was educated in Catholic schools, graduated from a Catholic university, I was married by a priest, etc. My point was that no matter what the marital state of Jesus, and no matter who edits the Bible or why-He is still the Son of God-that simply is. I’m not going to call someone a skank just for their opinion, whether I agree or not, either...
He most likely had brothers and sisters as well - since the Bible tells us as much (Mark 6:3) and would also be incredibly unlikely for a family to only have one child.
Celibacy was not an absolute rule for Roman Catholic priests until the mid-11th century, and it had something to do with the idea of divided loyalties-it had been proposed in the early 4th century by some clerics from Spain, but was rejected at the time.
Pardon me-my co-worker says celibacy became mandatory in the mid 12th century, not the 11th-and he’s usually right...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.