Jesus did not have a wife.

[_Quasimodo]

Hello Quasi

Please forgive my brief intrusion between you and Tobin.

To me he is a little like John of Patmos (the guy that wrote Revelations). Many people assume he was the apostle John, but he actually was just a Greek hermit that lived in a cave.

To suggest that "he actually was just a Greek hermit" is not entirely true, friend.

Indeed, there has been many scholars (past and present), as well as a few ECF's that can be found on either side of this "John of Patmos/Apostle John" debate.

But to be sure, it is, it has been, and I would suggest that it will continue to be a very heated and highly debated subject.

With that said, carry on my good friend!

Strawberry Cheesecake ice cream rocks!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hey bud!

Yeah, I've read a little on both sides. I think I lean towards the theory that he was not the John that Jesus named an apostle. If John the apostle had written Revelations he would have to have been very old (100). Not too many folks reached that age in those days.

I'm very glad to see you are coming around on Strawberry Cheesecake!

[_Ceeboo]

Yeah, I've read a little on both sides.

Me too.

I think I lean towards the theory that he was not the John that Jesus named an apostle.

I would suggest that you lean with many at your side (And many modern scholars as well). As for me, I don't lean either way on this one (Hurts my back when I lean too much and that messes with my golf game)

If John the apostle had written Revelations he would have to have been very old (100)

This might explain some of the content!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_jo1952]

It's possible that I am overstating. It's very hard to know what really happened two thousand years ago. There is some dicey evidence that he did chat with Jesus's relatives (they didn't like him much, apparently). I don't think there is much evidence that he communicated with the apostles. Paul is often called an apostle, but I think that title must have been self endowed.

To me he is a little like John of Patmos (the guy that wrote Revelations). Many people assume he was the apostle John, but he actually was just a Greek hermit that lived in a cave. Why Revelations made it into the Bible is a bit of a mystery to me.

Hello Quasimodo!

I'm glad you brought up the issue of who wrote the Book of Revelation. I believe it was John the Beloved who received the Revelation. However, I think the reason it DID make it as canon is because the RCC didn't understand it. They were very careful in choosing which books should be canonized; very careful to make sure that only those things they wanted the people to know would make it. However, since they didn't understand Revelation, it was canonized.

Since that time, you can find evidence that the RCC has considered methods of justifying why how they can remove Revelation from the Bible. However, if they were to use the reasoning they have come up with, they would unavoidably cast doubt on most of the other books in the New Testament. So they are pretty much stuck at this point; choosing for now to embrace Revelation while promoting their own twist on the words recorded there in order to minimize their regrets.

As a note of interest, the RCC has had similar contemplations about the Book of Daniel. Now, it just so happens that both Daniel and John are known as "beloved" by God; and both were given a great deal of information about the end times.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

Yeah, I've read a little on both sides.

Me too.

I think I lean towards the theory that he was not the John that Jesus named an apostle.

I would suggest that you lean with many at your side (And many modern scholars as well). As for me, I don't lean either way on this one (Hurts my back when I lean too much and that messes with my golf game)

If John the apostle had written Revelations he would have to have been very old (100)

This might explain some of the content!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hello Ceeboo!

John 21:20-23 (KJV)

20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

The above is speaking about John the Beloved. He is really old by now.

Blessings,

jo

[_Gaia]

[quote="Nightlion"]

I holding my breath hoping that Ancient Alien Theorist weigh in.

You see, regardless of Orson Hyde and the divine right of kings or brother Brigham who said that when Isaiah spoke of his 'train filled the temple' that was the following of the many wives of Jesus.

Polygamist certainly had a motive as did uppity European Royalty.

Problem is Jesus was God at the time and God does not take wives neither indeed can they procreate by seed.


GAIA:

Hi there, Nightlion; nice to "meet" you.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion (though i'd feel a bit more comfortable with it if you'd acknowledge it as *opinion* ) -- But that view is both an assumption on your part, and inconsistent with LDS doctrine. (I'd be happy to present a number of quotes from LDS sources if necessary).


Blessings - Gaia

[_jo1952]

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.
~Gaia

I holding my breath hoping that Ancient Alien Theorist weigh in.

You see, regardless of Orson Hyde and the divine right of kings or brother Brigham who said that when Isaiah spoke of his 'train filled the temple' that was the following of the many wives of Jesus.

Polygamist certainly had a motive as did uppity European Royalty.

Problem is Jesus was God at the time and God does not take wives neither indeed can they procreate by seed.
The body of God came without father without mother having neither beginning of days nor end of years to it. That is the patriarchy of God and his honor and authority being of himself and not of another. And there is a greater mystery that includes three in one God.

Mary upon changing the swaddling cloth of Jesus would have noted NO scrotum (not a seed bearer) and probably not much to circumcise. No male nipples on his chest. These marks told the prophet and prophetess at his being taken to the temple that this was Emmanuel, God with us, and they rejoiced to see the day. If he were married then why were his friends and neighbors so hateful of him and sought to kill him and take him up to the brink of the hill to cast him down headlong.....why? Because he never returned the affection of the daughters of Nazareth who no doubt were smitten at him.

Hello! The entire point of the atonement is is to enable Christ to conceive his seed by having power to wrought upon us a new creature and give us a new heart from God and making us sons and daughters unto God. Okay!

The Jews were nothing if not fully incensed at him. A freak of nature (they heard the rumors) obviously born in sin, (in their minds) teaching them and calling down upon them in anger for their hypocrisy.

Hi Nightlion,

I doubt that God would have had His Son be born in an image inconsistent with other men, or not be able to be tempted as other men because He didn't have all of the "equipment" for that temptation to hold any real significance over Him. Also, the differences you describe would have been noticed by others - especially at Jesus' crucifixion. Father wants us to have faith that Jesus Christ is His Son; Father is not going to give us physical differences to point to as though His Son was some kind of freak of nature in order to draw attention to Him as being Divine. Indeed, we are made in His image. Why would God's Son come in the flesh in a different image than other men?

I believe that Melchizedek is the aspect about Father which manifests the Priesthood through which Father's Divine powers are accessed and exercised; that they are NOT one and the same with His Son. In fact, Jesus did have a physical mother; Mary. I do agree that there is much mystery to a trinity of God. Mankind can receive this unfolding as more and more parts of All Truth are revealed to us individually.

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

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.

Hi Tobin,

It certainly was to the advantage for the RCC to not canonize anything written by the Apostles which DID mention Jesus' true relationship with Mary Magdelene.

I am not failing to understand what you have written. I am adding more possibilities to ponder and consider concerning Paul because we simply do not have more information about him. Paul WAS celibate by the time we meet him. That does not mean that he was always celibate; nor does it mean that he was necessarily celibate by his own choice. Did he champion celibacy? Yes; we just don't know why. We also do not know why he disliked women. I think the two things are connected. Can your argument be used to support the idea that Jesus WAS married? I think it can support the argument. But I'm not so sure that it can sell the idea by standing on its own. Most of mainstream Christianity does not want to accept the idea that Jesus could have married. They will not see things the same way that you see them.

The same is so for all of us. We all see what we want to see and hear. Unless we see and hear with our spirit's eyes and ears opened, we will only see and hear what the physical world sees and hears.

Many blessings my friend,

jo

[_Nightlion]

Nightlion!

What happened to the Apocalrock link you used to have?

Peace and thanks,
Ceeboo

I think somebody paid my webmaster who also kept the servers in his house big bucks to let it fryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Recently I opened a new service agreement with a company but I sorely need a webmaster to help rebuild the colossal and rich
site I used to have.

[_Nightlion]

Hi Nightlion,

I doubt that God would have had His Son be born in an image inconsistent with other men, or not be able to be tempted as other men because He didn't have all of the "equipment" for that temptation to hold any real significance over Him. Also, the differences you describe would have been noticed by others - especially at Jesus' crucifixion. Father wants us to have faith that Jesus Christ is His Son; Father is not going to give us physical differences to point to as though His Son was some kind of freak of nature in order to draw attention to Him as being Divine. Indeed, we are made in His image. Why would God's Son come in the flesh in a different image than other men?

I believe that Melchizedek is the aspect about Father which manifests the Priesthood through which Father's Divine powers are accessed and exercised; that they are NOT one and the same with His Son. In fact, Jesus did have a physical mother; Mary. I do agree that there is much mystery to a trinity of God. Mankind can receive this unfolding as more and more parts of All Truth are revealed to us individually.

Blessings,

jo

Sorry I get tuff when speaking to things nobody but me understands. God is the only being who was not born of a mother. That is a sign for who he is. He does have a body but the signs or seed progeny do not show in him. Jesus Christ was a "CLONE" of the DNA of that body of the Father that sits upon the throne of his power. Eve's first ovulation in the Garden after her seed was replenished and multiplied unto her was designated as "Christ" whom the serpent had power to bruise his heel but Christ would have power to crush his (the serpent's) head.

I hope you can appreciate the bio/science God utilized to furnish a body for his son (one who IS born of a woman and therefore a lesser God as Jesus admitted). VIRGIN BIRTH folks. Have we understood this. Brigham was an idiot who knew nothing about it.
The power of the Holy Ghost which overshadowed Mary implanted a CLONED fertile ovum into the virgin womb of Mary. We are made in the image of God so we are compatible enough for this clone to take.

Christ was in the express image of the Father. Hence. If the FAther did not come by way of seed procreation and would not carry seed in himself to procreate accordingly........then.........Jesus' body would be exactly like that of the FAther without male nipples or scrotum or sex drive.

Okay he was not lured by sex. But he was God Almighty who craves worship of all creation. That is no doubt a bit greater of a temptation to be resisting and putting off for thirty three years than celibacy ever could be.

Questions?

[_Nightlion]

Hi there, Nightlion; nice to "meet" you.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion (though i'd feel a bit more comfortable with it if you'd acknowledge it as *opinion* ) -- But that view is both an assumption on your part, and inconsistent with LDS doctrine. (I'd be happy to present a number of quotes from LDS sources if necessary).


Blessings - Gaia

Hey newguy knock yourself out.
My doctrine is the strictest of Mormon Doctrine that Bruce had no clue about.

hint: I have over forty years of an unblemished track record for confounding LDS hypocrisy and making them shut their mouths.

But don't let that keep you from sallying forth.......................