PDA

View Full Version : The Jesus had a wife thing...



Bluesky
05-02-2014, 10:35 AM
A forgery.. but some were oh so eager to believe it...

http://on.wsj.com/1koR1zy

Anapeg
05-02-2014, 11:51 AM
Why is it such a big deal whether He was or was not married? Does religion as we know it fall apart with the wrong answer?

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 01:17 PM
They have to hang on to the idea that Jesus was supernatural. To have a wife would make him too human, and they don't want that.

That's what the Crusades were all about. Get into the Holy Land, clean up any loose ends, and make sure history will reflect the narrative that keeps you in power.

Barry Morris
05-02-2014, 01:26 PM
They have to hang on to the idea that Jesus was supernatural. To have a wife would make him too human, and they don't want that.

That's what the Crusades were all about. Get into the Holy Land, clean up any loose ends, and make sure history will reflect the narrative that keeps you in power.

If you want to turn Jesus into a liar, then, yes you might agree with this.

Sorry, makes no sense.

Bluesky
05-02-2014, 01:31 PM
Why is it such a big deal whether He was or was not married? Does religion as we know it fall apart with the wrong answer?

He was never ever portrayed as having been married. It's not the Christians who make this a big deal. It's the deniers of Christ who want to portray Jesus in any way that contradicts what Christians have held to as truth for 20 centuries. If the Bible says Jesus had 5 fingers on each hand, the antagonists will find m****cript evidence that he had six on each hand.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 01:41 PM
If you want to turn Jesus into a liar, then, yes you might agree with this.

Sorry, makes no sense.

It wouldn't be Jesus that would be turned into a liar, based on this. It would be the people who wrote the Bible a hundred years later, or those who manipulated it throughout the ages, who would be guilty of dishonesty, in that case.

Anapeg
05-02-2014, 01:44 PM
He was never ever portrayed as having been married. It's not the Christians who make this a big deal. It's the deniers of Christ who want to portray Jesus in any way that contradicts what Christians have held to as truth for 20 centuries. If the Bible says Jesus had 5 fingers on each hand, the antagonists will find m****cript evidence that he had six on each hand.

This is all well and good but what does it matter should He have married or not? Does the fact He may have been henpecked make Him anything less than what the Christians claim? I had assumed it had more to do with Catholicism and celibacy than anything else. I have seen debates as to the validity of Mary Magdalene as his wife and whether or not she was a working girl or not discussed heatedly as though His choice would have had a world impact. How does any of this colour what Christians believe?

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 01:45 PM
"He was never ever portrayed as having been married. It's not the Christians who make this a big deal."

Well, the next time you start a world religion, may I suggest that you actually chronicle the life of your deity, instead of only including details of his birth, and last three years of life?

That would help a lot, to weed out the 'deniers' out there.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 01:54 PM
Countless millions of lives have been ruined, and others victimized, to sustain the idea that celibacy is somehow linked to holiness.

To go back now, and admit the possibility that Jesus might have in fact been married, would render the Church the most monstrous entity in all of human history.

So, I think they are going to defend their idea that Jesus was a virgin, until the bitter end.

The Berean
05-02-2014, 02:16 PM
It wouldn't be Jesus that would be turned into a liar, based on this. It would be the people who wrote the Bible a hundred years later, or those who manipulated it throughout the ages, who would be guilty of dishonesty, in that case.

So little logic.

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 03:30 PM
Really? That's it, that's all you have?

If Jesus was a real person, he either got married, or didn't. Jesus didn't write the Bible, other people did, roughly a hundred years later.

So, if the Bible was edited or altered to reflect a different truth than the one that really occurred, how could that possibly make 'Jesus a liar'?

You should really check out what logic means, before trying to quantify it. Perhaps some old episodes of Star Trek would help. Focus on the bits where Spock shares his wisdom.

Aristotle
05-02-2014, 03:32 PM
Countless millions of lives have been ruined, and others victimized, to sustain the idea that celibacy is somehow linked to holiness.


Do you have a source for this? That's quite a statement.

Aristotle
05-02-2014, 03:34 PM
Countless millions of lives have been ruined, and others victimized, to sustain the idea that celibacy is somehow linked to holiness.



Celibacy (brahmacariya) is the practice of abstaining from sexual intercourse. Buddhist monks and nuns must be celibate as are lay people during the time they practise either the eight or the ten Precepts. During the Buddha’s time some of the more serious lay men and women chose to be celebate while still living with their spouses (M.I,490). While sex can give a great deal of pleasure and emotional fulfilment, it can also stimulate excessive fantasizing, intense desire, frustration and physical and emotional turbulence.

A person trying to develop mental calm and clarity through meditation may find this a hindrance to their practise and choose to minimize it by becoming celibate, at least for certain periods. The Buddha would have agreed with the Bible where it says that sex even within marriage can be a distraction to spiritual pursuits. `I desire to have you to be free from cares. He who is unmarried is concerned for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife.' (1 Corinthians 7,1-35).Thus, Buddhism’s advocacy of celibacy is not because it sees sex as dirty, animalistic or sinful, but for purely practical reasons.

- See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=71#sthash.lzfrW3Ej.dpuf

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 03:35 PM
There have been a plethora of threads dealing with abuse by Catholic priests. Consult any one of those for proof of my claim.

Aristotle
05-02-2014, 03:36 PM
There have been a plethora of threads dealing with abuse by Catholic priests. Consult any one of those for proof of my claim.


The Shocking Scandal at the Heart of American Zen

Even Zen masters can be deviants. Inside the new book that unearths a disturbing pattern of affairs at the top of one of the largest Buddhist communities in the U.S.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/14/the-shocking-scandal-at-the-heart-of-american-zen.html

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 03:40 PM
Yeah, the Buddhist position on celibacy is a guideline. It is a personal choice, based on how far you are willing to go toward enlightenment.

They aren't goofy enough to suggest that people must abstain from sex their whole lives, in order to be considered holy.

The Buddha himself was married. Buddhist history doesn't try to hide or distort this fact, and it has done nothing to diminish those who adopt Buddhist beliefs. And ironically, all 80 years of the Buddha's life are clearly chronicled. It isn't just a birth scene, with a three year nugget tagged on to the end.

Anapeg
05-02-2014, 03:55 PM
There have been a plethora of threads dealing with abuse by Catholic priests. Consult any one of those for proof of my claim.

Catholic Priests, carpenters, boy scout leaders, cops, every walk of life. The reason Catholicism gets a bad rap is for fighting against the allegations in the face of so much undeniable proof. The moving and enabling the pedofilic Priests to prey on kids in a variety of Parishes. This is wherein lays the venom. I do not deny others tried the same or similar tactics but not to the depth or for the extent of time of the Pope and his boys.

Igor
05-02-2014, 04:05 PM
Countless millions of lives have been ruined, and others victimized, to sustain the idea that celibacy is somehow linked to holiness.

Celibacy is not hereditary!

The Left Sock
05-02-2014, 06:09 PM
Don't think I said it was.

Traditional, yes - hereditary, no.

Anapeg
05-02-2014, 06:43 PM
As a young man when experiencing a stretch of "celibacy" my ability to focus seemed so greatly diminished as to be non existent. Hallucinations were a definite possibility but have one stuck in the chamber did nothing for me meditatively.

Barry Morris
05-02-2014, 09:29 PM
Hilarious!!! And I am guilty on this one too!!!

It is totally obvious that no one, including me till now, actually read the article!!! Go and see what I mean!!

I think our resident scholars might have had the intellectual courage to condemn a hoax, even from their own camp!!!

Bluesky
05-03-2014, 08:28 AM
It wouldn't be Jesus that would be turned into a liar, based on this. It would be the people who wrote the Bible a hundred years later, or those who manipulated it throughout the ages, who would be guilty of dishonesty, in that case.

Unless you can provide reasonable evidence of exactly when the Bible was written, you need to stop propagating and using myths as evidence of an argument that you want to win. Give some facts. Ar at least some strong attestation. or at least a semblance of a fact.

Vague generalizations only appeal to non-thinkers who swallow their own presuppositions again and again without analysing what they are swallowing.

Not a single book in the Bible was authored after 100 A.D. Try to disprove that.

dancingqueen
05-03-2014, 12:39 PM
Unless you can provide reasonable evidence of exactly when the Bible was written, you need to stop propagating and using myths as evidence of an argument that you want to win. Give some facts. Ar at least some strong attestation. or at least a semblance of a fact.

It seems you are creating a logical fallacy here, when the Bible was written is irrelevant to the discussion here. The phenomenon of information changing through various channels is a well established occurrence. That being said, saying Jesus had a wife makes the whole Bible irrelevant is a similar logical fallacy.

Frankly, I feel that the discussion of Jesus having a wife is only relevant in so much as how relevant what color of skin Jesus had, or what color where his eyes. Interest sake, and interest sake alone. As such, I have never bothered with the discussion around such things.

The Left Sock
05-03-2014, 01:48 PM
60 years, 70 years, a hundred years, the fine details do not change the fact that the Bible was written many years after Christ was executed. Further to that, it fails to chronicle the majority of his life. The point is, Jesus wasn't around when the Bible was written, so he wasn't there to validate what was documented.

If the writers of the Bible thought it would make Jesus look less pious if he had a wife, they could just leave it out of the story. Jesus wasn't around to say, "Hey, how come you never mentioned anything about my wife?"

Get the picture?

The Berean
05-03-2014, 01:57 PM
Vague generalizations.

The Left Sock
05-03-2014, 02:20 PM
Well, since no one knows exactly what years the Bible was written in, vague generalizations are all we have to work with.

theShadow
05-03-2014, 03:39 PM
... saying Jesus had a wife makes the whole Bible irrelevant is a similar logical fallacy.

Frankly, I feel that the discussion of Jesus having a wife is only relevant in so much as how relevant what color of skin Jesus had, or what color where his eyes. Interest sake, and interest sake alone. As such, I have never bothered with the discussion around such things.

Best response in the thread

The Berean
05-03-2014, 05:33 PM
Well, since no one knows exactly what years the Bible was written in, vague generalizations are all we have to work with.

And there's another.

Anapeg
05-03-2014, 05:52 PM
And there's another.

Speaking of generalizations? You have some definitive hard facts we can go with? This is where you use your "Sometimes you just have to believe (to have faith)" interchangeable. You have said in the past you don't do this,....... see! You do! The belief and faith you say we need to lean on is missing in us and here is where we get left behind as christians fall short in this area. You have faith, you believe, we do not. I do wish I had the faith to know my life would be rewarded, my choices were true but I have myself and those around me and from here there is dirt.

The Berean
05-03-2014, 08:12 PM
Speaking of generalizations? You have some definitive hard facts we can go with? This is where you use your "Sometimes you just have to believe (to have faith)" interchangeable. You have said in the past you don't do this,....... see! You do! The belief and faith you say we need to lean on is missing in us and here is where we get left behind as christians fall short in this area. You have faith, you believe, we do not. I do wish I had the faith to know my life would be rewarded, my choices were true but I have myself and those around me and from here there is dirt.

When I have accused the atheists of having more faith than I do, it seems pretty unlikely I would spout "Sometimes you just have to believe (to have faith)" !!!

And no, the Christian life is not about being rewarded. Doesn't that sound, even to you, a bit selfish?? Hardly a desireable Christian trait!!

Re the bible, the more people yap about the changes since it was first written down, the more I marvel at how little they really know about the bible.

The Berean
05-03-2014, 08:13 PM
PS, I also get tired of it, so I quit talking.

Anapeg
05-03-2014, 09:15 PM
When I have accused the atheists of having more faith than I do, it seems pretty unlikely I would spout "Sometimes you just have to believe (to have faith)" !!!

And no, the Christian life is not about being rewarded. Doesn't that sound, even to you, a bit selfish?? Hardly a desireable Christian trait!!

Re the bible, the more people yap about the changes since it was first written down, the more I marvel at how little they really know about the bible.

Yet again my reasoning is proven wrong. I thought being good here and worshiping God got you the reward of entering Heaven. Is it not worded just that way, rewarded? As to the Bible being absolute truth I had thought we had agreed prior that humans, the exact same race that copied the Bible and transcribed were humans. Prone to error and of a defiled nature. Remember the post where God is good and man in inherently flawed, not to be trusted? We had also discussed words that did not lend themselves to translation from one tongue to another at times. The words would be close but not spot on. So allowing for human error, human nature to skew things in their favour and a propensity for indefinable words, error or misunderstandings would crop up. As I have witnessed prior my memory is a fleeting, delicate piece of equipment, prone to lapses and down right failures.

The Berean
05-03-2014, 11:21 PM
Yet again my reasoning is proven wrong. I thought being good here and worshiping God got you the reward of entering Heaven. Is it not worded just that way, rewarded? As to the Bible being absolute truth I had thought we had agreed prior that humans, the exact same race that copied the Bible and transcribed were humans. Prone to error and of a defiled nature. Remember the post where God is good and man in inherently flawed, not to be trusted? We had also discussed words that did not lend themselves to translation from one tongue to another at times. The words would be close but not spot on. So allowing for human error, human nature to skew things in their favour and a propensity for indefinable words, error or misunderstandings would crop up. As I have witnessed prior my memory is a fleeting, delicate piece of equipment, prone to lapses and down right failures.

If there is one ancient book that has been researched more than any other, it is the bible. There has been more study put into this book than any other, probably hundreds of man-lives more. When ancient copies are discovered, like the Dead Sea scrolls, they agree very closely with the modern available m****cripts. It is said there are over 30,000 m****cripts or portions of the bible dating to within 100 years of Christ, and that, using reputable scholar's rules of interpretation as applied to ancient manu$cripts, these writings are all extremely consistent.
As to language translation problems, these are simply exaggerated by those who wish to discredit the bible. Those who create bible dictionaries clearly explain the differences in words, and where a passage might be difficult, they offer explanations. Certainly a one word for one word translation might lead to issues, but these problems are not a great as you might be led to believe.
Without correction and input, communication CAN be distorted over many transmissions. But such is not the case, considering how MUCH of this one ancient book has been preserved. Those who claim there have been major changes simply don't understand the processes involved.

The Left Sock
05-04-2014, 12:15 AM
It is said there are over 30,000 m****cripts or portions of the bible dating to within 100 years of Christ, and that, using reputable scholar's rules of interpretation as applied to ancient manu$cripts, these writings are all extremely consistent.

Yet when I said that, I was blown off for making 'vague generalizations'.

Nice!

The Berean
05-04-2014, 08:35 AM
It is said there are over 30,000 m****cripts or portions of the bible dating to within 100 years of Christ, and that, using reputable scholar's rules of interpretation as applied to ancient manu$cripts, these writings are all extremely consistent.

Yet when I said that, I was blown off for making 'vague generalizations'.

Nice!

You said, "Well, since no one knows exactly what years the Bible was written in, vague generalizations are all we have to work with."

Quite a distance between our statements, in my opinion.

This is a book whose veracity has been doubted by many honest men, whe went and tried their level best to find out the real truth of it. And they have changed their minds.

It's easy to sit in an armchair and spout the worlds opinion on the bible.

Aristotle
05-04-2014, 08:42 AM
The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

That makes Protestants just a tad uneasy :)

The Berean
05-04-2014, 01:02 PM
The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

That makes Protestants just a tad uneasy :)

In fact it was the catholic church.

Aristotle
05-04-2014, 05:26 PM
In fact it was the catholic church.

Nope.

It was based out of Rome. The Council that convened to pick the books to be put in the Bible was appointed by the Pope.

The Roman Catholic Church gave you the Bible.

Ouch!!

The Left Sock
05-04-2014, 06:13 PM
You said, "Well, since no one knows exactly what years the Bible was written in, vague generalizations are all we have to work with."

Quite a distance between our statements, in my opinion.

This is a book whose veracity has been doubted by many honest men, whe went and tried their level best to find out the real truth of it. And they have changed their minds.

It's easy to sit in an armchair and spout the worlds opinion on the bible.

No, my exact words were, "60 years, 70 years, a hundred years, the fine details do not change the fact that the Bible was written many years after Christ was executed."

That was the statement that elicited your 'vague generalization' retort.

The response you quoted, came after that.

It's hard to carry on a conversation with someone who is too emotionally charged to keep the record straight.

The Berean
05-04-2014, 10:25 PM
Or with the intellectually dishonest.

The Left Sock
05-04-2014, 10:26 PM
Is that a confession?

The Voice
05-05-2014, 10:33 PM
Or with the intellectually dishonest.
Be verwy verwy quiet, we are hunting Wabbits.:)

Bluesky
05-07-2014, 02:30 PM
No, my exact words were, "60 years, 70 years, a hundred years, the fine details do not change the fact that the Bible was written many years after Christ was executed."

That was the statement that elicited your 'vague generalization' retort.

The response you quoted, came after that.

It's hard to carry on a conversation with someone who is too emotionally charged to keep the record straight.

Actually I was responding to this:

If Jesus was a real person, he either got married, or didn't. Jesus didn't write the Bible, other people did, roughly a hundred years later.



Only the Apostle John wrote in roughly 90-95 AD. Most of the other new Testament books were written between 40-75 AD. I won't bore you with the evidence.

The Left Sock
05-07-2014, 06:16 PM
Actually Bluesky, it wasn't you who made the 'vague generalization' comment, it was Berean, so I don't know why you are responding at all.

Unless, of course, Bluesky is actually now Berean, and you just got confused about who said what, and when.

Bluesky
05-07-2014, 09:52 PM
I am picking up where I let off. I do not have two id's. And I like turtles.

The Left Sock
05-07-2014, 11:25 PM
A book is not written, until it is complete.

'90-95' years, compared to my statement of 'roughly 100'.

You have no point, and therefore didn't need to bother intervening.

Bluesky
05-08-2014, 01:21 PM
No bother. Unless I bother you.
My point is, individual books of the bible were considered books (or rather epistles) and all of them were completed and circulating before 100 AD. most of them were written before the first generation of CHristian died out. That is highly significant.

The Left Sock
05-08-2014, 01:29 PM
Circulating? You mean, like one guy read it, then passed it on to another fella?

On account of printing didn't exist yet. Amazon wasn't even dreamed of.

Oh yeah, and most people couldn't read back then.

But other than all that, I'm right with you. It was highly popular!

Aristotle
05-08-2014, 02:24 PM
On account of printing didn't exist yet. Amazon wasn't even dreamed of.

Still doesn't negate the fact books existed back then

Oh yeah, and most people couldn't read back then.

which is why oral tradition was so important

The Voice
05-08-2014, 08:16 PM
A book is not written, until it is complete.

'90-95' years, compared to my statement of 'roughly 100'.

You have no point, and therefore didn't need to bother intervening.

Sorry can't help intervening. Looks like your a little off base by say 267 years.

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/

The Berean
05-08-2014, 09:35 PM
Sorry can't help intervening. Looks like your a little off base by say 267 years.

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/

Wrong. The canon does not refer to when the books were written.

The Berean
05-08-2014, 09:39 PM
Circulating? You mean, like one guy read it, then passed it on to another fella?

No, Sock, like they were read in the churches to all the people.


On account of printing didn't exist yet. Amazon wasn't even dreamed of.

Well writing was!!


Oh yeah, and most people couldn't read back then.

Most of the early Christians were Jews, and it's pretty likely they could read.


But other than all that, I'm right with you. It was highly popular!

Finally, something right!!!

Bluesky
05-09-2014, 03:39 PM
Circulating? You mean, like one guy read it, then passed it on to another fella?

On account of printing didn't exist yet. Amazon wasn't even dreamed of.

Oh yeah, and most people couldn't read back then.

But other than all that, I'm right with you. It was highly popular!

You need to read up on Biblical texts, their transmission and how they were handled and circulated.
They were expensive to produce and thus handled with great care. And because they were auditory learners due to the high illiteracy rate in those days, much of the text was committed to memory.

The epistles and gospels were circulated and copied by scribes in the various churches that received these gospels and epistles from messengers, officials delegated by the churches to do this. This was not like passing a comic book around in a schoolyard.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 03:44 PM
During the first generation after Christ's execution, His followers were being hunted and executed. So, there wasn't a lot of 'circulating' going on, except in small trusted groups, and in secret.

See, I do know something about biblical history, despite the relentless suggestions that I am ignorant. But hey, I understand why some people do that. It helps maintain a sense of superiority, to compensate for all that deep down insecurity, that must arise from buying into fantastic ideas, and holding onto the idea that they are real.

Barry Morris
05-09-2014, 05:43 PM
During the first generation after Christ's execution, His followers were being hunted and executed. So, there wasn't a lot of 'circulating' going on, except in small trusted groups, and in secret.

Check the Scriptures to see what Peter and the others did. They went back to fishing. Not to thing to do if one is being hunted down.


See, I do know something about biblical history, despite the relentless suggestions that I am ignorant. But hey, I understand why some people do that. It helps maintain a sense of superiority, to compensate for all that deep down insecurity, that must arise from buying into fantastic ideas, and holding onto the idea that they are real.

Insecurity?? Not after comments like that.

dancingqueen
05-09-2014, 06:51 PM
Check the Scriptures to see what Peter and the others did. They went back to fishing. Not to thing to do if one is being hunted down.

Translation:
"Check the scripture, the scripture says the scripture is legitimate"

The Berean
05-09-2014, 08:15 PM
Translation:
"Check the scripture, the scripture says the scripture is legitimate"

Not what this was about at all. Left Sock made a statement about what was happening to Christians after Christs execution which is not borne out by the text, and then had the gall to say he knew something about it!!!

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 09:42 PM
Were any of the Apostles executed after Jesus was crucified?

A simple yes or no will do.

The Berean
05-09-2014, 09:52 PM
Were any of the Apostles executed after Jesus was crucified?

A simple yes or no will do.

Did a study on the apostles years ago. Tradition tells us about what probably happened to them. But they were not hunted and executed. Tradition says that Thomas went all the way to India. and John of course, died in exile.

No, the simple fact is that the apostles preached all over the place, INCLUDING in Jerusalem, some 50 days after the crucifixion and resurrection, and "3000 were added to the church". That would hardly happen if the church was as harried as you make believe.

The Left Sock
05-09-2014, 11:35 PM
Sigh.......

http://www.about-jesus.org/martyrs.htm

The Berean
05-10-2014, 09:17 AM
Sigh.......

http://www.about-jesus.org/martyrs.htm

"It should be understood that these non-Biblical sources might vary greatly in terms of their accuracy."

Which is why I said "tradition".

Your statement, basically, was that the early church was hunted and running for their lives, and therefore the early letters that became part of the bible could NOT be disseminated. That is obviously wrong.

Tidbit. Bartholomew was probably egyptian royalty.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 01:36 PM
"Your statement, basically, was that the early church was hunted and running for their lives, and therefore the early letters that became part of the bible could NOT be disseminated. That is obviously wrong."

I said no such thing. I merely objected to the suggestion that the Bible was widely circulated or accepted within a generation of Christ's execution. It was a clandestine operation, being pieced together by people who could very well pay for participation with their lives.

If the Bible was assembled shortly after Christ's execution, and if the information was being shared and collaborated upon, then the final result wouldn't be a book missing the vast majority of Jesus's adult life, now would it?

The Berean
05-10-2014, 01:48 PM
We are talking past each other.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 01:57 PM
Not at all. You think the Bible is a well organized, complete account of God's word, totally accurate and verifiable.

I think your Bible is hodgepodge of snippets, thrown together by people on the run, missing large pieces of information, and written well after living witnesses could verify the information.

What was the average life expectancy of humans 2000 years ago? 40? 50? Anything written 60 years after the execution of Jesus was written by people who weren't even born when it happened, let alone old enough to have been adults when it happened.

Barry Morris
05-10-2014, 02:00 PM
Yet another warping of historical fact. Life expectancy. How old was John at his death?

And you show again how little you know about what you disparage.

The Left Sock
05-10-2014, 02:31 PM
I don't 'disparage' the facts. I look for them.

The Berean
05-10-2014, 03:02 PM
I don't 'disparage' the facts. I look for them.

Sorry.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 08:26 PM
Yet another warping of historical fact. Life expectancy. How old was John at his death?

And you show again how little you know about what you disparage.

Can you substantiate John's lifetime?

The Berean
05-10-2014, 10:23 PM
Can you substantiate John's lifetime?

I had heard previously that he lived to about 85. Wiki says 94.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeoplenewtestament/p/JohnApostle.htm
The gospel texts offer no information on how old John might have been when he became one of Jesusí disciples. Christian traditions have it that John lived until at least 100 CE (which likely would have been quite old) in Ephesus.

http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q6_apostles_die/
John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD - See more at: http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q6_apostles_die/#sthash.JlmomBlY.dpuf

The latter site also lists what is known about the deaths of the rest of the apostles, ALL of whom died years after the crucifixion.

dancingqueen
05-10-2014, 11:24 PM
I had heard previously that he lived to about 85. Wiki says 94.

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeoplenewtestament/p/JohnApostle.htm
The gospel texts offer no information on how old John might have been when he became one of Jesus’ disciples. Christian traditions have it that John lived until at least 100 CE (which likely would have been quite old) in Ephesus.

http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q6_apostles_die/
John: No death date given by early writers. Death date is by conjecture only and is variously assigned as being between 89 AD to 120 AD - See more at: http://amazingbibletimeline.com/bible_questions/q6_apostles_die/#sthash.JlmomBlY.dpuf

The latter site also lists what is known about the deaths of the rest of the apostles, ALL of whom died years after the crucifixion.

Not a very credible source.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 02:42 AM
Not a very credible source.

Then YOU look it up.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 10:17 AM
Then YOU look it up.

Not my claim to prove.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 12:48 PM
Not my claim to prove.

But you put down any source that shows it. Hmmm.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 02:37 PM
But you put down any source that shows it. Hmmm.

Yes, it's called critical thinking, you should try it sometime.

The Berean
05-11-2014, 04:46 PM
Yes, it's called critical thinking, you should try it sometime.

OK, I can accept that. Now, use your critical thinking and tell me how I can prove to you how long John lived.

dancingqueen
05-11-2014, 06:49 PM
OK, I can accept that. Now, use your critical thinking and tell me how I can prove to you how long John lived.

By using credible sources such as birth and death records.
lets start by not using a book someone decided to write...

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:44 AM
So, if Jesus did take a wife, would that make him not the Messiah?

Would that mean he wasn't God's son?

Would that mean he wasn't God?

I don't get it. If Jesus took a wife, would that be the end of Christianity? I don't think so, but some people seem pretty bent about it, whenever it gets suggested. Why is that, exactly?

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 08:48 AM
So, if Jesus did take a wife, would that make him not the Messiah?

Would that mean he wasn't God's son?

Would that mean he wasn't God?

I don't get it. If Jesus took a wife, would that be the end of Christianity? I don't think so, but some people seem pretty bent about it, whenever it gets suggested. Why is that, exactly?

God does not need a wife, it is a human need. God does not need to procreate.

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 08:58 AM
But Jesus came down to earth and did all kinds of human things. He had to eat, just like humans. He had to sleep. He cried out in pain.

But he wasn't human enough to experience love between a man and a woman?

Seems like a pretty arbitrary line to draw in the sand, all things considered.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 09:10 AM
But Jesus came down to earth and did all kinds of human things. He had to eat, just like humans. He had to sleep. He cried out in pain.

But he wasn't human enough to experience love between a man and a woman?

Seems like a pretty arbitrary line to draw in the sand, all things considered.

I get it. Sex as love. Too bad.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 09:11 AM
By using credible sources such as birth and death records.
lets start by not using a book someone decided to write...

Records state how long Julius Caesar lived. Do you doubt those, too, and about the life of ANYONE from ancient times??

The levels of proof you ask for are just a deflection.

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 09:57 AM
Really? I said something about sex?

Funny, don't remember that.

Even funnier, that you would take it to that level, without provocation.

The Berean
05-12-2014, 10:09 AM
Really? I said something about sex?

Funny, don't remember that.

Even funnier, that you would take it to that level, without provocation.

Couldn't believe you'd think of any other reason Jesus would need to be married.

Obviously, He didn't need to be married. That was not part of His mission. Especially in a culture where the woman had a lesser place, and He knew He would not be around to care for her, and to take care of any children.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 10:10 AM
Really? I said something about sex?

Funny, don't remember that.

Even funnier, that you would take it to that level, without provocation.

If Jesus was married is it a stretch to believe sex would be part of the marriage? If so, why?

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:38 AM
You boys are failing to answer the basic question: if Jesus was indeed married, would he cease to be the son of God?

A simple yes or no will suffice, without all the extraneous obfuscation.

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 10:39 AM
You boys are failing to answer the basic question: if Jesus was indeed married, would he cease to be the son of God?

A simple yes or no will suffice, without all the extraneous obfuscation.

No, even though it's a non-sequiter

The Left Sock
05-12-2014, 10:40 AM
I said a simple yes or no - not a qualified response.

Nice try, though!

Aristotle
05-12-2014, 10:50 AM
No

(I have to type more, because two characters are not allowed)

dancingqueen
05-12-2014, 06:09 PM
Records state how long Julius Caesar lived. Do you doubt those, too, and about the life of ANYONE from ancient times??

The levels of proof you ask for are just a deflection.

I would consider the methods used to maintain the records of Caesar, I don't just take things at face value.

KDawg
05-12-2014, 07:25 PM
You boys are failing to answer the basic question: if Jesus was indeed married, would he cease to be the son of God?

A simple yes or no will suffice, without all the extraneous obfuscation.
I think there is a bigger question here that is being overlooked.

Jesus came to earth as a man to show all humans how we should live and how we can be saved (this is basic to Christianity). If He were married, then by definition that would mean that His wife should enjoy a higher status above other humans.

As far as I know, ALL have sinned and Jesus is not biased against ANY person, therefore this line of thinking doesn't make sense when compared to the rest of scripture.

The Voice
05-12-2014, 07:34 PM
Records state how long Julius Caesar lived. Do you doubt those, too, and about the life of ANYONE from ancient times??

The levels of proof you ask for are just a deflection.

The Romans pretty much invented census. Julius Caesers life is public record per say. There is ample evidence written during his life to support his existence. The level of proof is a lot different here. (Just Saying).

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 12:59 PM
The Romans pretty much invented census. Julius Caesers life is public record per say. There is ample evidence written during his life to support his existence. The level of proof is a lot different here. (Just Saying).

So show DQ the actual proof, something he will accept.

dancingqueen
05-16-2014, 05:13 PM
So show DQ the actual proof, something he will accept.

Nice try moving the goalposts. I am not discussing the life and times of Caesar, nor is anyone else in this thread.

Anapeg
05-16-2014, 05:39 PM
Typing faster that I am capable of thinking, sorry.

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 06:03 PM
Nice try moving the goalposts. I am not discussing the life and times of Caesar, nor is anyone else in this thread.

Neither am I. I'm discussing the proof you will accept for the time of death of a historical figure.

dancingqueen
05-16-2014, 06:35 PM
Neither am I. I'm discussing the proof you will accept for the time of death of a historical figure.

Bah, never mind, I grow weary of your simple mind.

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 09:30 PM
Bah, never mind, I grow weary of your simple mind.

Of course you do, since it's easier to insult and ignore than to tell us how to satisfy your demands.

The Left Sock
05-16-2014, 09:53 PM
Couldn't believe you'd think of any other reason Jesus would need to be married.

Obviously, He didn't need to be married. That was not part of His mission. Especially in a culture where the woman had a lesser place, and He knew He would not be around to care for her, and to take care of any children.

Let's see:

- Jesus loved mankind enough to sacrifice himself to save man from their sins.
- Jesus risked his life to intervene when a woman was being stoned to death.
- Jesus put himself among lepers, cripples, and castaways, because he loved them.

So, it's okay for Jesus to love mankind in all kinds of ways, but somehow if you suggest that perhaps he fell in love with a woman, then that somehow crosses a line; becomes dirty, unholy, a negative thing.

Do you have any idea how whacked-out that position seems to someone sitting on my side of the religious fence?

Barry Morris
05-16-2014, 11:15 PM
Let's see:

- Jesus loved mankind enough to sacrifice himself to save man from their sins.
- Jesus risked his life to intervene when a woman was being stoned to death.
- Jesus put himself among lepers, cripples, and castaways, because he loved them.

So, it's okay for Jesus to love mankind in all kinds of ways, but somehow if you suggest that perhaps he fell in love with a woman, then that somehow crosses a line; becomes dirty, unholy, a negative thing.

Do you have any idea how whacked-out that position seems to someone sitting on my side of the religious fence?

Do you have any idea how whacked out what you just said seems?? Dirty?? Unholy?? Negative??

Let me quote Billy Graham, when asked by a reporter what he though about sex. "Sex is the greatest thing on earth, when God is in it. Sex is the worst thing on earth when the devil is in it".

I suggest you re-read what I actually said, stop trolling, and also read what Paul the apostle said about being and staying single.

The Left Sock
05-16-2014, 11:38 PM
You call what I just posted 'trolling"? Really?

Christian organizations, and many individual members of same, get offended, react defensively, even get hostile, when someone suggests that Jesus might have been married. Why is that?

And now you respond with hostility, when I point out the negativity Christians transmit, when the subject is raised. You kind of completed your own circle here, didn't you? Proved my point entirely.

Let me take it on another tract, see if anything resonates. What does being human entail, exactly?

- It involves growth, learning, decay, disease, loss, suffering, commitment, intimacy, passion, desire, sacrifice, doubt, disappointment, joy.... you get the idea.

You want your God to have all the things you think are appropriate to 'being human', yet you want to keep him separate and distinct from the human experience. So, you cut your God in half as a human, in an attempt to prove his superiority over humanity.

It's really quite sad and twisted, when you step back and really look at it. According to Christians, Christ came down to live as a human, to suffer alongside us, to face the perils we all face, to be in mortal form. But you stop short at admitting he was a real man, who could develop a loving and intimate relationship with one other, the single-most cherished goal in human experience. How does that make him superior? In what way?

Besides, is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus openly declares that he was celibate, that he never took a wife, that he never knew intimacy with a woman? Does it say those things directly, anywhere? Or are those the parts of the Bible that ended up on the cutting-room floor in the Third Century? Is that why there is a huge gap in his life history, with nothing reported until age 30?

I was raised a WASP until I was old enough to know it wasn't right for me. Sex is dirty. Even among married couples, sex is not an open subject. It is hidden from people, and treated as a forbidden thing. So, don't try to get up on your high horse and pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. The idea that Jesus might have been a full man in every sense of the word shocks, offends, and horrifies many Christians.

You can dance around the elephant in the room until the cows come home, but just don't try to pretend that I'm the one out of touch here. I'm not the one dancing around taboos - I'm the one hitting them head-on.

The Berean
05-16-2014, 11:50 PM
'But you stop short at admitting he was a real man,..."

I ain't arguing this with a single, non-christian, with sex on his mind, who really doesn't know what a real man is.

See ya!!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
05-17-2014, 12:35 AM
"Besides, is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus openly declares that he was celibate, that he never took a wife, that he never knew intimacy with a woman? Does it say those things directly, anywhere? Or are those the parts of the Bible that ended up on the cutting-room floor in the Third Century? Is that why there is a huge gap in his life history, with nothing reported until age 30?"

Thought I would give you another shot at the elephant in the room.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 01:02 AM
"Besides, is there anywhere in the Bible where Jesus openly declares that he was celibate, that he never took a wife, that he never knew intimacy with a woman? Does it say those things directly, anywhere? Or are those the parts of the Bible that ended up on the cutting-room floor in the Third Century? Is that why there is a huge gap in his life history, with nothing reported until age 30?"

Thought I would give you another shot at the elephant in the room.

You think this "elephant" proves something. It doesn't.

You think that "parts missing" proves something. It doesn't.

You think the "gap' proves something. It doesn't.

it's a simple principle. Absense of evidence is not evidence.

Paul was probably married, Chase him.

The Left Sock
05-17-2014, 03:36 AM
In other words, you can't refute a single thing I said.

Fair enough. Got the message.

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 11:17 AM
In other words, you can't refute a single thing I said.

Fair enough. Got the message.

The REAL message was that I didn't care to bother.

The Left Sock
05-17-2014, 02:58 PM
I don't find blind faith very comforting. To each his own.

Aristotle
05-17-2014, 03:50 PM
I don't find blind faith very comforting. To each his own.


Do you believe in Evolution?

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 05:23 PM
I don't find blind faith very comforting. To each his own.

Of course you do.

The Left Sock
05-17-2014, 06:25 PM
Of course you do.

Thank you for correcting me on who I am.

I guess superiority based on mythology has its privileges!

Barry Morris
05-17-2014, 08:58 PM
Thank you for correcting me on who I am.

I guess superiority based on mythology has its privileges!

So you are what you believe. Interesting thoughts.