Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I say again.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus Wife Evidence
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Jesus and God are still distinct individuals. Jesus is seen as an entity of the Trinity, separate but equal to God. So what may be true for God really does not translate over to Jesus, as Christians do acknowledge that there is a distinction. So your argument fails as it completely ignores what Christians actually believe.
So again, I do not feel like discussing this issue in this thread as it detracts from what is actually being discussed. If you want, copy and paste your statement and create a new thread, and I will address all of your points. However, it really has no true relevance here.
Just to sum up, Jesus and God are still distinctly different personas. What may be true for God is not automatically true for Jesus, and vice versa, as they are still seen as distinctly two different beings.
So, in order to speak about the possible wife of Jesus, one has to focus on Jesus, as God simply does not play a part here. To suggest otherwise only shows a lack of understanding of the Trinity doctrine.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Originally Posted by Storm
"Common knowledge" is usually better described as "common ignorance."
I don't know or care who's right here, but I do know that if you're going to argue for absolute historical certainty, you need much better sources than Wiki and appeals to popularity.
Come to think of it, how many people on the street ever even heard of Asherah?
Hi again! OK..... ignorance is me..with this... I'm afraid. No... I never heard of Asherah.
Questions:- Please, I know I'm going to get shouted at by all the trinitarians, so save me!
1. Is the Da Vinci Code film/book a complete load of bull, or is some of it correct? Did Jesus love Mary Magadelene and she flee to Gaul with a girl child? I mean.... the author must have got that from somewhere?
2. Is there a Book of Mary?
I don't think this damages Jesus at all. I'm not a full-christian but I totally believe in Jesus as per Gospel-of-Matthew
"Common knowledge" is usually better described as "common ignorance."
I don't know or care who's right here, but I do know that if you're going to argue for absolute historical certainty, you need much better sources than Wiki and appeals to popularity.
Come to think of it, how many people on the street ever even heard of Asherah?
Hi again! OK..... ignorance is me..with this... I'm afraid. No... I never heard of Asherah.
Questions:- Please, I know I'm going to get shouted at by all the trinitarians, so save me!
1. Is the Da Vinci Code film/book a complete load of bull, or is some of it correct? Did Jesus love Mary Magadelene and she flee to Gaul with a girl child? I mean.... the author must have got that from somewhere?
2. Is there a Book of Mary?
I don't think this damages Jesus at all. I'm not a full-christian but I totally believe in Jesus as per Gospel-of-Matthew
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I actually plan on creating a thread regarding this general idea, but I will respond here more shortly.
The Da Vinci Code, in general, is bull. It is an enjoyable (at least for me) read, but it is best to just understand it as a novel, and leave it at that.
Dan Brown's main sources were works that were not very credible. His largest used source was Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was using documents that were known to be either forgeries, fakes, or simply incorrect (the authors seem not to have realized this, but their main source had even claim that he was making it all up).
Now, there were myths that had circulated about most of the individuals in the Gospels. There is one interesting one that speaks of Joseph of Arimathea (who, according to this myth, was the uncle of Jesus), took Jesus as a young child to Britain. But most of these myths are very late, and partly had to do with a need to connect with these figures, as well as for tourism.
So really, there is no actual evidence regarding what happened to Mary after the Gospel accounts.
Now, for Jesus being married, this is a possibility, that really isn't too far out there. Mary would be the most likely candidate, but it is something that lacks real evidence.
There are certain suggestions within the Gospels that could possibly allude to Jesus being married. Also, it would have made sense. But at the current point, a definite answer really can't be given.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Thankyou for that. I look forward to any expansion you might produce on this theme. All the best.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Don't sweat it! And thanks for proving my point.
Never read it, but I generally don't ponder historicity of plot points in the fiction section.
I think so, not 100% sure. That goes for at least 2 Marys, actually: Mama and the not-really-a-whore.
Eh, I don't think any of it damages Jesus. But I'm not Christian at all, and they're probably grateful for that, lol.
outhouse
Atheistically
False
jesus "is" god
jesus "is not" the father
christians view jesus as god, not a god. they view him as being one with god, a part of god.
because as the trinity states "jesus is god"
false again
jesus is not the father
jesus is god
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
So they are distinct. Jesus is not the Father, the Father is no Jesus. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father. There are distinctions here.
Just because something may be true for the Father, does not mean it is true for the Son (as in Jesus).
But they also make a distinction between God the Father, and God the Son. As in, the Father (God) is different from the Son (Jesus), but they are of the same substance.
It is much more complicated then that.
Jesus is God as the Father is God. However, if you really try to understand the Trinity, you have three different individuals. You have God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct beings. At the same time, they are all one. Jesus is God, but he is not "God" of the Old Testament (the Father). Jesus is still understood as being different from God (the Father), as Jesus is still fully human.
So there are distinctions here. If you want, I can make a new thread explaining what the Trinity is. Actually, I will do that anyway, as well as giving some history.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Please, for the love of migraines, don't try to argue with a concept that eludes you.
You don't get the triune deities. That's ok, but please, don't try to use your confusion as an argument.
outhouse
Atheistically
excuse you, stop talking down to me from a stance of ignornace
back your statement with something other then a illfounded opinion
show me where i was in error
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Whatever you say, Pot.
You completely ignored the distinction between God the Father and God the Son.
It's like arguing that Clotho cuts the thread because she's one of the Fates. She doesn't, Clotho is the spinner. The entire point of having three manifestations is that they AREN'T interchangeable.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Uh huh. Explain how that doesn't ignore the distinction between God the Father and God the Son.
outhouse
Atheistically
Nicene Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
this states there was no time when he was not, and that he is the substance as god [jesus is god] and those that do not follow this are condemned
im not talking about the father, im talking about god
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Jesus is God the Son. Not the Trinity. One aspect out of THREE. The fact that you're trying to make one aspect all the aspects IS THE PROBLEM.
Again, it's like saying that Clotho cuts the thread of life, because Clotho is Moirai. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
That's before we even address the inanity of applying the Trinity to the debate of Asherah in the first place.
outhouse
Atheistically
you wouldnt be the first person who failed at trying to rationalize the trinity. keeping one god concept and maintaining monotheism is contradictory.
please make a coherent sentance as we are working in details here, due to your inane arguements
if i can get to the jest of this, you have a problem with the Nicene councils definition not mine.
try and realize, there is only 1 god
please make a coherent sentance as we are working in details here, due to your inane arguements
if i can get to the jest of this, you have a problem with the Nicene councils definition not mine.
try and realize, there is only 1 god
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Did you seriously just criticize MY sentence construction? You REALLY want to go there?
outhouse
Atheistically
take it up with christianity and how it applies faith.
there is only 1 god, you understand what monotheism means do you not????
god was married, this applies in theism
if you want to debate reality that is another game alltogether, quit mixing the two to get your personal desired results