Jesus did not have a wife.

[_Franktalk]

Nightlion,

The Kingdom of God will not be established on the earth until Christ return. This is shown in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. The statue which represents a timeline for this age ends when a stone cut without hands will smote the statue and break it to pieces. Then a Kingdom will grow and fill the whole world. The stone is clearly Christ and the Kingdom will only come to fill the earth at His return. Until then there will be prophets and Holy men to warn the people of the earth but no Kingdom will be established. We can try on an individual basis but those who spread the word will suffer just like all the prophets before. They will be killed or imprisoned. Certainly they will be cast out of any group of men. I find it interesting that you feel that the Church should make you a leader. You must know the Church has morphed into a wide net to catch people as fishers of men. In doing so they have dumbed down the message. But what you expect is not part of scripture. There will be a falling away and then shall He come. Now it is possible for there to be short periods of spiritual awareness. Is this what you are trying to do?

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion,

The Kingdom of God will not be established on the earth until Christ return. This is shown in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. The statue which represents a timeline for this age ends when a stone cut without hands will smote the statue and break it to pieces. Then a Kingdom will grow and fill the whole world. The stone is clearly Christ and the Kingdom will only come to fill the earth at His return. Until then there will be prophets and Holy men to warn the people of the earth but no Kingdom will be established. We can try on an individual basis but those who spread the word will suffer just like all the prophets before. They will be killed or imprisoned. Certainly they will be cast out of any group of men. I find it interesting that you feel that the Church should make you a leader. You must know the Church has morphed into a wide net to catch people as fishers of men. In doing so they have dumbed down the message. But what you expect is not part of scripture. There will be a falling away and then shall He come. Now it is possible for there to be short periods of spiritual awareness. Is this what you are trying to do?

First off let me clarify. IF the LDS had not been so proud and filled with hypocrisy enough to recognize the power of godliness when they saw it, THEN I in all likelihood would have become a Church Leader.
Today I will accept no position with them. They are welcome to come learn from me and seek Zion which I will agreeably assist any and all. But the abomination of LDS Mormonism is already on the trash heap of spiritual history.

I am not certain which scripture you value.

D&C 45
65 And with one heart and with one mind, gather up your riches that ye may purchase an inheritance which shall hereafter be appointed unto you.
66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a bland of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God;
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.
71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy.

Zion will be established before the end of the world and before Christ returns in his glory unto all the world.

With whom do you suppose that the Lord will establish his kingdom with if there are not true believers?
If he finds no faith when he comes the earth will be utterly wasted.

Luke 18: 8
8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

I contend that the stone cut out of the mountain without hands is NOT Christ.

When the Lord makes anything that will be eternal such as a kingdom that will continue forever it must be done by the word of his power and not by the hand of angels as was the case with Joseph Smith.
A kingdom will be built up upon a foundation of Spirit and commanding words alone.

For whatsoever is of him and by his power shall be shaken and destroyed.

[_Franktalk]

Nightlion,

There will be places of refuge on the earth. These will be a place where the evil of the world will not be allowed to enter. Petra is another place reserved as a refuge for the Jews in Jerusalem. There the angels will administer to the needs of the people.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Christ is referred to as a stone and it fits that in the end times it is Christ who comes to wipe away and make clean. If you have someone else in mind I would like to know who that is?

If it is your job as dictated by God to take over the church then you would have. If you are then to make a new church then do that. In the test of time the things of God grow and the things of man fall to dust.

Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

There are many men of God now and in the future. They are here to maintain the balance until the day when the falling away happens. Even then there will be people of strong spirit to help with others on the earth.

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion,

There will be places of refuge on the earth. These will be a place where the evil of the world will not be allowed to enter. Petra is another place reserved as a refuge for the Jews in Jerusalem. There the angels will administer to the needs of the people.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Christ is referred to as a stone and it fits that in the end times it is Christ who comes to wipe away and make clean. If you have someone else in mind I would like to know who that is?

If it is your job as dictated by God to take over the church then you would have. If you are then to make a new church then do that. In the test of time the things of God grow and the things of man fall to dust.

Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

There are many men of God now and in the future. They are here to maintain the balance until the day when the falling away happens. Even then there will be people of strong spirit to help with others on the earth.

Could have started a new thread back a few. Christ being the chief cornerstone was established in his mortal ministry. Peter is another cornerstone and I dare say Joseph Smith another and yes there is a fourth cornerstone before the actual kingdom will arise that shall stand forever. It will be that stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Cut out by the commanding Spirit of God alone. And like you say that guy will succeed and the kingdom will grow until it does fill the earth..................by the end of the Millennium that is.

If it is your job as dictated by God to take over the church then you would have.

I cannot say that I care for how you put this. When I was in the church they could have believed my witness and that would have led them out of their gross hypocrisy. Or prove them utterly reprobate.
If a good number or great souls had repented and got the power of the gospel I would not have to lead anything. I could have remained and done the best I could. I never insisted that I was meant to lead. Such was never in my heart. Still not.

[_Franktalk]

Nightlon,

The story of Jonah the reluctant prophet tells us that when God makes up His mind on something it will happen. The will of man will be swept aside for one reason or another. He will not take away our free will He will instead line up events in such a way that we are guided to the path that He wants us to be on. So I say again that what ever your path is it will happen. This is in line with accepting God's will like you say you do. Jonah was angry about his task but it was done none the less. We all own our own attitude.

[_Gaia]

GAIA:

Hello everyone -- hope nobody minds if i jump in here --

There is considerable evidence for the marriage of Jesus to at least Mary Magdalene, if not also Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus:

1. No adult Jewish male could reach age 30 and be single, without attracting a great deal of negative attention. Many things were used by Jesus' detractors, many accusations were made against him, but this was NOT one of them.

2. It would have been (culturally) so unusual for him to remain unmarried at that age that it would have been commented upon.

3. At the time, marriage was virtually a REQUIREMENT to be acknowledged as "rabbi" (and he *was* acknowledged as such, even by such sticklers for rules as the Sanhedrin) .

4. In that era and culture, no respectable man would have been "followed around" by women as he was, and served by women, as he was -- UNLESS he were married to them.
In that era, and in that culture, It would have been absolutely SCANDALOUS for (for example) Mary Magdalene, and the sisters Mary and Martha, to have the kind of close relationship which they evidenced, even from the scriptures, unless they were married to him.

5. The wedding at Cana was almost certainly his marriage. His mother Mary's behavior as reported in scripture is very strange for anyone other than someone responsible as a hostess -- or an extremely inappropriate busy-body.

6. The Gnostic Gospels present some interesting evidence:

From the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene):
** And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] by
it [and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another.
When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (NHC II.3.63.32ff) (Robinson 1977: 138).**

Another passage from the Gospel of Philip reads as follows:
**There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary (NHC
II.3.59.6-11) (Robinson 1988: 145).**

The Gospel of Mary (referring to the Magdalene) says the following: (From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /mary.html
**Peter said to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember -- which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them." Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you." (NHC BG 8502.1.10.1-8) (Robinson 1988: 525).**

There is such evidence that Biblical scholars now recognize that Mary Magdalene was MUCH more than just a "friend" of Jesus --

She behaved every bit as an Apostle, and perhaps wife. She *anointed* the Christos (remember, "Christ" *means* "Anointed One").

It was a feature of both religious and political life throughout the Middle East for a male leader to be both a King and a Priest. It was traditional for the sacrificial God-man to be anointed by the High Priestess in preparation for his ritual sacrifice. (John 12:3-8.)
There is evidence that Mary Magdalene (whose name may have been a corruption of a word for "Priestess") may have been an initiate and High Priestess of Isis.

Mary acted as "apostle to the apostles" -- the one specifically chosen to be the first to bear witness of the Resurrection -- at a time and in a culture in which it was not LEGAL for women to be witnesses. This could not have been "coincidence".

There was clearly a historical effort by the Catholic church to denigrate Mary Magdalene, to strip her of her very real, God-given power and authority, while retaining her as an image of a penitent; therefore the myth was perpetuated -- (and it is only a myth, there is absolutely NO scriptural evidence) -- that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or "fallen woman."

The entire plot of the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (and several others) is that Mary was married to Jesus and bore him a daughter, possibly named "Sarah". Supposedly, she was smuggled out of the country to somewhere in the south of France, and the daughter was referred to in secret as the "Holy Grail" which carries the blood of Christ.

This bloodline supposedly became what ultimately developed into (at least some of) the Royalty of Europe. This would have been the basis for the idea that developed into the "Divine Right of Kings" -- that they ruled by virtue of a biological relationship to the "King of Kings".

I think it's important to note that this is not just a wild, popular theory. It stems from persistent historical material, stories, folklore, and beliefs that have circulated around all of Europe, affecting its politics, history and culture, for nearly 1500 years, and is based upon some very intriguing evidence detailed in the following books:
"Jesus and the Lost Goddess" by Freke and Gandy,
"The Templar Mysteries," by Picknett,
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Leigh and Baigent,
"The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail" by Margaret Starbird)

LDS TEACHINGS:

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

– (Journal of Discourses - Orson Hyde, Vol. 4, p.259. (See also Jedediah M. Grant, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 346; Journal of Discourses, Orson Hyde, Vol. 4, p.259; Vol. 2, p. 210)

ONLINE RESOURCES:
http://www.magdalene.org/contents.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusi ... alene.html
http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel-magdalene.htm


I hope that's helpful -- Blessings --
~Gaia

[_Tobin]

Hi Gaia,

The problem with your argument is that Paul was unmarried and it doesn't answer the question, if Jesus was married, why hide it and not say it.

1. Paul was a Jewish male over 30.
2. No one commented upon Paul being unmarried, except Paul himself preaching the merits of being celibate.
3. Paul was a teacher, ie rabbi.
4. Paul certainly interfaced with women and had some not so nice things to say about them.
5. The wedding of Cana doesn't say it was Jesus's marriage. Why would that be?
6. The earliest Gnostic Gospels have been designated as 2nd and 3rd century texts. They certainly can't claim the early dates and authorship of many of the other books in the New Testament and that is why they are dismissed. Although, to be fair, some of the books in the New Testament have this problem as well.

So overall, I find the cultural argument not that compelling. However, I do find the fact that Paul holds himself up as the best example of being celibate instead of Jesus Christ as being VERY compelling. The reason is, IF Jesus were celibate (and Paul would know if he were married or not), he would have used him as the ultimate example of that type of lifestyle. The fact is he does not and his silence about it is deafening.

[_Gaia]

I see your argument, but the early Church went through some very difficult (and divisive) times around the 2nd-3rd centuries (and thereafter) -- and the question of "to marry or not to marry" was a major problem. Many Christian women were favoring celibacy and thereby igniting the resentments and even ire of men....It was a hot topic that caused a lot of trouble for the early Christian Church.

Biblical and early Christian scholars have long noted the actions of redactors and editors, so I consider it certainly possible that references to the marriage of Jesus were removed during that period.

Blessings - Gaia

[_jo1952]

Hi Gaia,

The problem with your argument is that Paul was unmarried and it doesn't answer the question, if Jesus was married, why hide it and not say it.

1. Paul was a Jewish male over 30.
2. No one commented upon Paul being unmarried, except Paul himself preaching the merits of being celibate.
3. Paul was a teacher, ie rabbi.
4. Paul certainly interfaced with women and had some not so nice things to say about them.
5. The wedding of Cana doesn't say it was Jesus's marriage. Why would that be?
6. The earliest Gnostic Gospels have been designated as 2nd and 3rd century texts. They certainly can't claim the early dates and authorship of many of the other books in the New Testament and that is why they are dismissed. Although, to be fair, some of the books in the New Testament have this problem as well.

So overall, I find the cultural argument not that compelling. However, I do find the fact that Paul holds himself up as the best example of being celibate instead of Jesus Christ as being VERY compelling. The reason is, IF Jesus were celibate (and Paul would know if he were married or not), he would have used him as the ultimate example of that type of lifestyle. The fact is he does not and his silence about it is deafening.

Hi Tobin,

Why do you automatically assume that Paul was hiding information about Jesus by not coming out directly and saying Jesus had been married as though this is some type of confirmation that Jesus had NOT been married? Sometimes things which are common knowledge are simply not spoken about. Sometimes things that are not talked about are for reasons not immediately apparent. For instance, could Mary's life, or the lives of any children born of a marriage between Jesus and Mary been in danger if knowledge of their status became part of what was preached?

Also, we only know about Paul's status AFTER we are introduced to him. We do not know of a surety that he was never married. He could have been a widower or have been divorced. Certainly, it comes through his writings that he is not very fond of women. What we don't know is why. Did he suffer from a broken heart? What WAS the thorn in his side? What we DO know is that even Prophets of God are effected by their own personal experiences, and that they are NOT perfect in their words or in their actions. Look at Jonah as an example.

At any rate, Paul's celibacy may not have been a choice he had made as much as it was just the circumstances we find him in when we meet him. If this was related to the thorn in his side, or if he suffered from a broken heart (from whatever the cause), he could very well have become bitter towards women. If that was the case, why wouldn't he then take advantage of his celibacy and make the most of that circumstance? We all are prone to make lemonade out of the lemons we are given in life. As I see it, we just don't have enough information about Paul to come to conclusions which are close-ended.

Blessings,

jo

[_Tobin]

Jo,

All the authors of the New Testament are silent about the marital status of Jesus. This is why people believe he wasn't married because the scriptures don't explicitly state he was married when they mention other prophets like Abraham were married. I also think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying about Paul and imposing a view that he was married and divorced that is completely unsupportable. If you've read the writings of Paul, if anything comes through clearly is that he liked to preach about the merits of celibacy and had a rather poor view of women. Now, this is where you fail to understand what I'm saying so I'll repeat it.

Paul is the champion of the gospel of "celibacy" in the New Testament. However, this champion, the one who preaches and teaches this gospel, when searching for the ultimate example of why celibacy is such a good idea can't come up with anyone but himself as that example. Really?!? If Jesus Christ were celibate, I would think that Paul would say that we should be celibate as our Lord Jesus Christ was celibate. The FACT he does not do this is staggering and a devastating argument that Jesus was married. And Paul would known if Jesus were married or not.