Was Jesus married?

Originally posted by mikromarius

Originally posted by Tyriffic
67. I have problems like everyone else under the sun. Yet, thankfully, I have none like yours. One, I try very hard not to bash anyones belief. I will respond to threads that are offensive to Christianity though. And, I do know that you may fiegn innocence in this latest post of yours, but I see clearer.

No you don't. This thread is not offencive to Christianity. If it ios offensive to anyone, it will be the Babylon you call church and your own ignorance. Deny ignorance is the payoff for this group, and to me you and your like are among zealots who fight for a lost case and blindly without ever thinking of rejecting part of your whore's doctrines, because it is these doctrines that has misled the sheep of God for ages. Your mother is sleeping with wolves, dining with snakes and commits adultary wherever she goes. Your mother is a harlot, and you accuse them who dare to stand up against her as satans?

Jesus had several parables prepared for people like you and the age in which we live: Luke 18:9-14+19:11-27 are two of them

Blessings,
Mikromarius

You sir, are off the proverbial hook.

...I think, Mikro, you are confusing my post with another posters.

I also think you are confusing me with another church-

...you need some rest fella!

Mike, let me help you out a bit, Christ's mission on Earth the first time was not to marry and rear children. Such a lifestyle would have been actually counter-productive to the mission. He was the Son of God as well as the Son of Man, as well as referred to by other titles. Regardless, he wasn't here for procreation. Bloodline is very important as a race was even set aside from which Christ was to come, I can't imagine Christ creating a new line of people whose biological forefather would be Christ himself. Sounds like the makings of a cult. There's a fella in Australia that might be interested in that angle!

Originally posted by helen670

Illmatic how can you say Jesus Christ was married.......He was not a prophet ..........He was the Son Of GOD........

Jesus was THE PROPHET AND TEACHER (RABBI) LIKE MOSES WHOM THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WITNESS ABOUT. Jesus was THE SON OF GOD, THE KING/MESSIAH OF ISRAEL-JUDAH. Jesus was THE LAMB OF GOD THAT WAS SACRIFICED BECAUSE OF THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE, A FULFILLMENT OF THE PASSOVER LAW, Jesus WAS THE SON OF MAN, Jesus WAS THE WORD OF GOD MADE FLESH. Now which part was it you didn't understand?

To put your ignorance in context I would like to quote Jesus own words where he openly says he is a prophet:
Matthew 13:57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."

Doesn't prophet describe Jesus here? Or was there someone else Jesus had in mind here?

Hey even the people recogniced him as a prophet at his entrance into Jerusalem:

Mt 21:11 And the crowds were saying, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee."

And the enemies of Jesus feared him because he was a prophet:

Mt 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.

Now, I could continue like this for ages, but I guess I'd be speeking for deaf ears. You've been around too many false prohets to know a real one when he stands in front of you. Be gone now, repent! And treat your wise neighbour (Illmatic67) with the love and respect he deserves!

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by mikromarius
The Gospel of John is the only Gospel written by an eye-witnesse, the beloved disciple, whom Jesus at the cross even grant the honour (or perhaps remind of his duty) of caring for his Mother Mary. The Gospel of John has as the only Gospel within the Catholic canon to be believable as to the events around the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus of Nazareth. While the three others that was written much later and by second and third hand writers, somehow don't seem to support the idea that Jesus was married, at least not to Mary Magdalen.

The oldest Gospel is Mark. And that's pretty much accepted across the board in both secular analyses and theological analyses of the Gospels.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Netchicken, your whole entire post was terrible.

Read my first post. Jesus was called a rabbi, he was a respected rabbi and he had to follow the code of rabbi's to be called a good teacher, so he did.

I will restate what I stated in the OTHER thread that is currently discussing this same topic...which leads me to ask why this thread was initiated in the first place...

And then on the subject of using the fact that Jesus was called "rabbi" by his followers:

It appears that Christ himself rejected the title "Rabbi" as used by his followers. First off, I think it a bit disingenuous to even use this particular point in your argument. If there was ever any one that was deemed teaching heretical views as far as the Jewish religious beliefs at that time...it's got to be Christ! He got murdered for it! HELLO!

Here are the words of Christ on this very issue...and I think his words should be the end all of any particular discussion on him:

Matthew 23:

Jesus speaking of the scribes and the Pharisees:

"They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi (NOTE: greek word used here is literally translated rabbi). But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one TEACHER (NOTE: greek word used here is literally "teacher" - NOT rabbi), and you are all students." (I take this to mean that if there was NOT another Hebrew word for teacher, other than "rabbi", then Jesus intentionally chose a GREEK word to use here that differentiated him from the label "rabbi". In other words, he was a teacher NOT of the Jewish Law, but of a new message.)

verses 6 - 8

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NO!!!

If he was, he would never have turned out the way we did.

Anyone who really is or has been married knows how having a wife changes a man.lol

Even the most compassionate caring man will become hardened and hatefull after being chained to a woman throughout his life.lol

Mikro, I think the hangup is tha tsome want to say he is merely a man that was a prophet and nothing more. Certainly he prophesied.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Mike, let me help you out a bit, Christ's mission on Earth the first time was not to marry and rear children. Such a lifestyle would have been actually counter-productive to the mission. He was the Son of God as well as the Son of Man, as well as referred to by other titles. Regardless, he wasn't here for procreation. Bloodline is very important as a race was even set aside from which Christ was to come, I can't imagine Christ creating a new line of people whose biological forefather would be Christ himself. Sounds like the makings of a cult. There's a fella in Australia that might be interested in that angle!

Jesus was here for one thing only to prepare the Way for his Son, called Yisre'el in the Book of Hosea, him who will fulfill Jesus' kingship and (re)establish it on Earth. This is difficult for you to swallow, for Jesus has enemies, and they seek to copy everything he does, though twisting it just a little so that it all ends up in missery.

Jesus called himself the Son of Man in order to show that he was nothing more than a man, a descendant to Adam whose name means literally Man. He was called the Son of God, simply because he was the king he was. Every king on this Earth who is chosen by God to rule, is a son of God, nothing more nothing less. How many times must I tell this again and again?

The Church with her multitude of spirits and gods is misled. They don't know the Spirit of God and they never did. For the Spirit of God says "Leave her! Leave Babylon! Flee from her unless you'll suffer the same fait as her! Her lovers, the kings of perdition, will fulfill God's plan with her and come and destroy her. For her iniquity has risen up to the highest Heaven and her adultary and falseness is distasteful, so God will spit her out of his mouth!"

When was the last time a priest, "vicar of God" healed anyone? When did they ever speek in languages they never learned? These two signs are the two signs in which we shall know who is of God and who isn't. Their so called exorcism is nothing more than a deal with Satan. One word should be efficient if you are a man of God. One single word. Not a bunch of crosses and robes, "holy water" and all the other gadgets the Church loves so much.

Tell me about ONE king who ever lived without being married and having children?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Mikro........
Jesus may have called himself the Son of God..............but be assurd, that Jesus was called the Son of God by God Himself! Read the what is said in 4 of the gospels after his baptism.......I have been over this very same topic with Illmatic....largely ignored but applicable to this discussion, none-the-less.
There IS a major difference between "son" and "Son" as there is between "angel of the Lord" and "Angel of the Lord"........
regards
seekerof

[Edited on 27-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by mikromarius
[
Jesus was here for one thing only to prepare the Way for his Son, called Yisre'el in the Book of Hosea, him who will fulfill Jesus' kingship and (re)establish it on Earth. This is difficult for you to swallow, for Jesus has enemies, and they seek to copy everything he does, though twisting it just a little so that it all ends up in missery.

Jesus called himself the Son of Man in order to show that he was nothing more than a man, a descendant to Adam whose name means literally Man. He was called the Son of God, simply because he was the king he was. Every king on this Earth who is chosen by God to rule, is a son of God, nothing more nothing less. How many times must I tell this again and again?

The Church with her multitude of spirits and gods is misled. They don't know the Spirit of God and they never did. For the Spirit of God says "Leave her! Leave Babylon! Flee from her unless you'll suffer the same fait as her! Her lovers, the kings of perdition, will fulfill God's plan with her and come and destroy her. For her iniquity has risen up to the highest Heaven and her adultary and falseness is distasteful, so God will spit her out of his mouth!"

When was the last time a priest, "vicar of God" healed anyone? When did they ever speek in languages they never learned? These two signs are the two signs in which we shall know who is of God and who isn't. Their so called exorcism is nothing more than a deal with Satan. One word should be efficient if you are a man of God. One single word. Not a bunch of crosses and robes, "holy water" and all the other gadgets the Church loves so much.

Tell me about ONE king who ever lived without being married and having children?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Okay, I have been visiting on the backside with a number of christian believers about certain "false secrets" that could be the very things that will initiate the "great apostasy" spoke of in the bible. And that this very topic (Jesus was married and had children), is one of the possible "false secrets" that could be used.

For any one who thought I was full of cheese-whiz...please reread Mikro's words above.

Need I say more???

[Edited on 27-7-2003 by Valhall]

Originally posted by helen670
Christ and the Father are One (John 10:30),
and Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father (I John 2:23).
Christ Himself is the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father except by Him (John 14:6). In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9).
Our faith in Christ and His words is supported by numerous prophecies, by the evidence of miracles, by His divine Incarnation of a virgin, His Resurrection and ascension, and by countless manifestations of His love for mankind.


"No man hath seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," (John 1:18) and "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He Who is of God, He hath seen the Father" (John6:46).

Illmatic how can you say Jesus Christ was married.......He was not a prophet ..........He was the Son Of GOD........

Muhammed's life cannot even compare to the life of Jesus Christ.........he does not even come close to the love that Jesus Christ showed to people .......Jesus Christ taught forgiveness and love for all mankind.......

God is love (I John 4:8,16).
Although Muslims believe Allah to be loving, merciful, and just, he is more frequently revealed in Muslim scriptures to be stern, demanding and retributive:
"Those that disobey Allah and His Apostle shall abide forever in the fire of hell" (Sura 72).


Hope you have not taken any offence Illmatic !
I am just stating the truth as a Christian ..........

A true Christian will forgive but where is the forgiveness and the Love of which Muhammed speaks of???

helen

It is wrong to compare the messangers of god, because they are equal in every way and they are equal to us, in fact Jesus(pbuh) name was used in the Qur'an 25 times and Muhammad name was used 5 times in the holy text!
So that just tells you alone that Muslims know alot about Jesus(pbuh) and have the most respect for him.
I will be honest with you, but i must say i havent read the Qur'an yet to say anything about love, but im sure it must say something about love, as know one can live without it. Right?
But the only evidence i have about a Muslim and his love to his wife is the Taj Mahal: Monement Of Love

No, Mikro, I do not buy that for a minute. You are correct that Jesus has enemies, and they are all led by Satan. But Christ has the greatest Ally of all - His Father.

You ask when have I ever heard of a king not taking a wife and having children. I ask you, when have you ever heard of a king laying down his life so that all can have eternal life, and then arising after three days, conquering death and Hell? The King of Kings is not like any king we've ever known.

I cannot seem to find "Yisre'el in Hosea. Where would I find that, and in what translation?

Originally posted by Valhall
The oldest Gospel is Mark. And that's pretty much accepted across the board in both secular analyses and theological analyses of the Gospels.

You may have the board on your side, but not the archaeologists and the scholars. The oldest Gospel fragment that exists is a piece of the Gospel of John and dates back to AD 125, but the Gospel is of course even older, it was originally written sometimes during the first century AD. The below quote is from scriptorium.lib.duke.edu...

"Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars."

I believe you mix the first written Gospel, with the first written of the synoptic gospels, which is Mark, though Mark too is based on another source that is gone today, the mystery Gospel of Q (from German, Quelle which means source).

It is beyond doubt that the Gospel of John is the oldest among the four Gospels. The Gospel writer witness of it himself in the end of the book and it also contains a mystery, for who is this beloved disciple? Is it John who was the only one among the disciples who died naturally in old age? Or is it a disciple we have yet to hear the name of? Perhaps his brother-in-Law or perhaps even his very son? Anyway, here's the quote that clearly states that the Gospel of John is written by an eye witness, even the beloved disciple:

John 21:19 ....And when He had spoken this, He said to him (my comment: to Peter), "Follow Me!"

20�Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21�So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22�Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23�Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24�This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Netchicken, your whole entire post was terrible.

Read my first post. Jesus was called a rabbi, he was a respected rabbi and he had to follow the code of rabbi's to be called a good teacher, so he did.

I will restate what I stated in the OTHER thread that is currently discussing this same topic...which leads me to ask why this thread was initiated in the first place...

And then on the subject of using the fact that Jesus was called "rabbi" by his followers:

It appears that Christ himself rejected the title "Rabbi" as used by his followers. First off, I think it a bit disingenuous to even use this particular point in your argument. If there was ever any one that was deemed teaching heretical views as far as the Jewish religious beliefs at that time...it's got to be Christ! He got murdered for it! HELLO!

Here are the words of Christ on this very issue...and I think his words should be the end all of any particular discussion on him:

Matthew 23:

Jesus speaking of the scribes and the Pharisees:

"They love to have the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have people call them rabbi (NOTE: greek word used here is literally translated rabbi). But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one TEACHER (NOTE: greek word used here is literally "teacher" - NOT rabbi), and you are all students." (I take this to mean that if there was NOT another Hebrew word for teacher, other than "rabbi", then Jesus intentionally chose a GREEK word to use here that differentiated him from the label "rabbi". In other words, he was a teacher NOT of the Jewish Law, but of a new message.)

verses 6 - 8

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Valhall. Using the palace of Odin, the hethen Norse viking king, miracle man and false prophet for your name, you amuse me when you try to explain what Jesus of Nazareth is all about: I have told you this several times: RABBI is Hebrew, and means litterally TEACHER. This is even specified in the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 38: "Rabbi means Teacher" and I didn't see Jesus reject these two first disciples, on the contrary he brought them in to his house and showed them great honour for accepting him.

Jesus is indeed the greatest Rabbi who has ever walked on the Earth.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

PS: Forgive me for being irritated, zealous and angry, but how many times must I tell you these basic things? Would 1000 times be enough? I can't immagine that 1000 times 1000 times would make you understand.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
No, Mikro, I do not buy that for a minute. You are correct that Jesus has enemies, and they are all led by Satan. But Christ has the greatest Ally of all - His Father.

You ask when have I ever heard of a king not taking a wife and having children. I ask you, when have you ever heard of a king laying down his life so that all can have eternal life, and then arising after three days, conquering death and Hell? The King of Kings is not like any king we've ever known.

And this somehow prooves to you that Jesus wasn't able to get children. Children which he loved above anything? Children which is the result of marriage? And marriage that Jesus uses all the time in his parables of his second comming? Even Jesus' relationship to the Ecclesia, the elect, the mystical Messianic body, the Kingdom of God is likened with a marriage. I mean. How can you fail to see these things? It's right there before your noses!

I cannot seem to find "Yisre'el in Hosea. Where would I find that, and in what translation?

How about King James Version (though they use a different translitteration than mine): Hosea Chapter 1, verse 4:
"And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel."

Yisre'el or Jezreel is Hebrew and means "God sows". It was often used as the name for the "new" Israel, the Israel of the Great Messiah that would replace the old kingship of Israel, and yet again gather both Jewish kingdoms into one. The Great Messiah is him who should gather the Jews from all over the world and settle them in the Reformed Promiced Land in the end times. "Who has ever heared of such? Can a Nation in one day? And a people be born in the blink of an eye".

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Ok, Jezreel I see and am aware of. This isn't what I'd call proof that Christ had a son and is the bigger story than Christ else what you are saying would be very clear in the Bible, and I don't see it as being that clear.
Prophesies of Christ's coming were many and very specific and clear. It doesn't seem to be the case here, and I'd expect it to be as such.

Sure, he loved the children, they came to Him with open arms and hearts easily, unlike us adults who are jaded and hardened by the world, but I never saw that as proof that Christ was married and had children.

Originally posted by Tyriffic
...I think, Mikro, you are confusing my post with another posters.

I also think you are confusing me with another church-

...you need some rest fella!

Yes, probably. Sorry for the inconvenience I may have brought you. My fault. You were just on the same barricades as those other guys. Man you people can really piss me off. Hehe. Well I hope you all understand that this isn't personal from my side: It is what you have been taught that I challenge, and with good reasons and a with sincere faith in God, and Jesus of Nazareth (not Jesus of Athens and Rome), the Law of God and filled with the Spirit of God who leads me wherever I go, who teach me the secrets in the Tannakh, the Gospel and Revelation, for that is my calling. I have been on the cross with Jesus and I have seen him suffer and he has touched me with his hand leaving wisdom and scars.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by mikromarius

Valhall. Using the palace of Odin, the hethen Norse viking king, miracle man and false prophet for your name, you amuse me when you try to explain what Jesus of Nazareth is all about: I have told you this several times: RABBI is Hebrew, and means litterally TEACHER. This is even specified in the Gospel of John, chapter 1, verse 38: "Rabbi means Teacher" and I didn't see Jesus reject these two first disciples, on the contrary he brought them in to his house and showed them great honour for accepting him.

Jesus is indeed the greatest Rabbi who has ever walked on the Earth.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

PS: Forgive me for being irritated, zealous and angry, but how many times must I tell you these basic things? Would 1000 times be enough? I can't immagine that 1000 times 1000 times would make you understand.

Yeah, Mikro, I was wonder the same thing. How many times will people have to throw the same facts down in front of you...and then watch you completely ignore it.

RABBI is both a PROPER NOUN and a COMMON NOUN. Jesus REJECTED THE WORD AS ANY TITLE TO HIM WHETHER IT WAS THE PROPER OR COMMON NOUN, AND INSTEAD CALLED HIMSELF A TEACHER WITHOUT USING THE WORD RABBI.

Can't say it any plainer than that.

Concerning my username. STICK IT IN YOUR LEFT EAR! I chose Valhall because it is representative of a sanctuary for martyred fighters of good. If you think you can insinuate that because I didn't pick "The Virgin Mary" as my username, I have no authority to speak on this, you better get ready for me to come at you like Rooster Cogburn...reigns in my mouth and both guns a blazin. That's totally HORSE HOCKEY.

I'm going to use the words of Ignatius here. Because, even though he was talking about the ignorance and folly of the DECEIVER, it darned sure seems to apply to you:

CHAP. IV.--THE MALIGNITY AND FOLLY OF SATAN.
And indeed, before the cross was erected, he (Satan) was eager that it should be so; and he "wrought" [for this end] "in
the children of disobedience."(1) He wrought in Judas, in the Pharisees, in the Sadducees, in the old, in the young, and in
the priests. But when it was just about to be erected, he was troubled, and infused repentance into the traitor, and pointed
him to a rope to hang himself with, and taught him [to die by] strangulation. He terrified also the silly woman, disturbing
her by dreams; and he, who had tried every means to have the cross prepared, now endeavoured to put a stop to its
erection;(2) not that he was influenced by repentance on account of the greatness of his crime (for in that case he would not
be utterly depraved), but because he perceived his own destruction [to be at hand]. For the cross of Christ was the beginning
of his condemnation the beginning of his death, the beginning of his destruction. Wherefore, also, he works in some that they
should deny the cross, be ashamed of the passion, call the death an appearance, mutilate and explain away the birth of the
Virgin, and calumniate the [human] nature s itself as being abominable. He fights along with the Jews to a denial of the
cross, and with the Gentiles to the calumniating of Mary,(4) who are heretical in holding that Christ possessed a mere
phantasmal body.(5) For the leader of all wickedness assumes manifold(6) forms, beguiler of men as he is, inconsistent, and
even contradicting himself, projecting one course and then following another. For he is wise to do evil, but as to what good
may be he is totally ignorant. And indeed he is full of ignorance, on account of his voluntary want of reason: for how can he
be deemed anything else who does not perceive reason when it lies at his very feet?

***

P.S. I'm done with you. You have proven yourself unworthy of discussion on this matter. Regards and best wishes on your journey.

Originally posted by helen670
Muhammed's life cannot even compare to the life of Jesus Christ.........he does not even come close to the love that Jesus Christ showed to people .......Jesus Christ taught forgiveness and love for all mankind.......

God is love (I John 4:8,16).
Although Muslims believe Allah to be loving, merciful, and just, he is more frequently revealed in Muslim scriptures to be stern, demanding and retributive:
"Those that disobey Allah and His Apostle shall abide forever in the fire of hell" (Sura 72).


Hope you have not taken any offence Illmatic !
I am just stating the truth as a Christian ..........

A true Christian will forgive but where is the forgiveness and the Love of which Muhammed speaks of???

helen

Here's another one.

What does this post have to do with Islam and Muhammad?

Why are we comparing Jesus to Muhammad? Is this post about Muhammad or Jesus?

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Hell must be full of Muslims like you. Poor Satan....

Yea, I'm sure Jesus liked that one a lot.

Tyriffic, why are you asking me to search through threads to see whether or not you've bashed Islam when you just did it on this thread?

I don't care if you dislike Islam. Don't bring it up here because this thread has nothing to do with islam or Muhammad. This thread is about JESUS.. Keyword here is JESUS.

------------------

Jesus was called a good teacher in the NT, meaning he was a Rabbi..

He was loved... meaning he had to be married.

Christians bring up the letters of the apostles like it means something because it doesnt because those letters were written by mere men... Jesus is not.