Am I the only member who believes Jesus had kids?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackGuardXIII
since roman numerals dont work well for algebra.

never thought of that, thats very smart..

Thanks Burbot, it means a lot to me too. And Atropine, I watched a documentary that showed how European Crusaders captured Muslim libraries, and then scholars translated the 0 - 9 number system and began to learn higher math. Zero was hotly contested as to whether it was actually a number. Many opposed it, by correctly pointing out that it is nothing, so then how could it be a number?
Ancient Egypt and Greece had mathematicians like Pythagoras who taught a more advanced math than Europe had 1000 years later.

 

Jesus certainly had self-control. Jesus was the only human being who could ever honestly say that. Therefore, it cannot properly be said that Jesus ever "burned" in the sense of sexual desire. Being tempted, and "burning" with desire are two different things. Since it cannot be said that Jesus ever sinned, it also cannot be said that he ever "burned" with desire, or committed lust. He was never married, so wouldn't this mean He didn't have children. His purpose was to come to earth to pay the price for our sins.

 

I interpret my study materials' to say Jesus married,
5 of my source supportive statements are from the bible.
I admit the ambiguity of the bible describing the wedding at Canaa in such a manner that my chosen conclusion is that Mary Magdalene and Him wed that day. There is another place where it says Jesus was invited to the wedding, but my choice of which conflicting conclusion has more merit is Jesus & Mary wed.
I feel that He and Mary are described as being so close the disciples queried Him on why, showing their envy. She, in my view, has her character totally assassinated by the later biblic scholars. I see zero reasons for why they could not have been enjoying passionate lovemaking regularly, nor for why they could not have bore children. In fact, I have read much that points to them having kids, two sons.
If He wants me to let Him pay the price for my sins, which I don't believe, but if so, I refuse to. How could I? I feel it is only ethical to pay the price, and take the responsibility for my fuck ups.
If eternal damnation in the fiery bowels of Satans torture chamber is that price, I will pay it willingly, if only to absolve Him from having to take them on his load. It sounds like he has enough sins to deal with that others are willing to pass on to him.

Sex is good.
Lust is good, in that context.
Anger, Violence, Harming others, lust 4 power............that is bad.

Jesus and Mary fucking like rabbits and mutually cumming.......is good.
that is my view.

 

John 2:1 - On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus's mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had been invited. When the wine was gone, Jesus's mother said to him, "They have no more wine."

skip down to verse 9: "And the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine." He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside."


Jesus is a guest at this own wedding?

 

I said that. Why bother just redundantly echoing the exact thing I just mentioned.
Then, where is the verse that refers to Mary taking charge of the responsibility for supplying the wine?
Mary is a guest who, without explanation, takes over the groom's family's tradition?
Then, at least you paste the evidence to support that the bridegrooms family did indeed supply it......now who was it that took that task on? Oh yeah, Mary......hmmmm.
It is of course, clearer when all the relevent info. is presented, not just the stuff that supports your opinion.
I already have to deal with rebuttals over the Rabbi status of Jesus, somehow finding a way to rationalize away three references to that effect as being....wrong?

 

um actually.. check the pronouns here:

"When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."

it is clear that the master of the feast is NOT the groom (this is not uncommon at a wedding. this is the feast AFTER the wedding, not the actual wedding). soooooo - the groom would have been invited. and also, the master of the feast is pointing out how the groom gave up the best wine at the end, and it was jesus who brought forth the wine, and so this portion of the text would logically lead ME to conclude that the groom was jesus.

again, this is a text that can be interpreted more than one way. kind of hard to argue to a definite truth

 

In Jewish wedding customs, the marriage feast was held at the Bridegroom's house. Why would Jesus be invited to his own home for his own wedding celebration if it was being held at his house? Furthermore, why would his mother be invited to her own home? Not to mention the fact that Jesus, by trade, was a carpenter. Servants were reserved for royalty.

 

Were there even Jewish royals during the time of Roman Imperialization?

 

I won't claim my interpretation as being the definitive one. You continue on your path, it is the right one for you. My reading of the verse is that Mary takes the replenishing of the wine upon herself, and then asks her son to help out. He supplies it, and then the groom is thanked for saving the better wine. It does say they knew not the source of the wine, and that He was invited.

So we can either accept to choose which one seems to us the correct version or we can trust another person to choose for us. I know that my interpretation appears eccentric. In my view, the popular version is harder to accept.

I am glad that we do not all hold the same view. It is healthy.

 

Yet, the Bible is not meant for interpretation. God didn't say, "I will give you my word and you decided what you wish to believe." Blame the age of self proclamation for all the different demoninations and interpretations because that is not how it was intended to be. That is why he says one faith, one baptism and one Lord God. Not my version, your version, his version, their version, and everyone else's version.

 

God's word isn't open to interpretation, but the words of Mark, Matt, Luke, John, Bubba Gump, and allll the other folks who wrote the bible are.

 

there won't be defimnitave truth until Jesus' return...if there is one...

 

epiphany - i definitely see both ways as possible. i think it can be interpreted either way. but that's just me, i can tell you take the bible very literally. i don't. and that's ok.

 

the bible is not meant for iinterpretation, but it has to be interpreted cause no one who wrote it or was hanging around is still kickin today...

 

I kinda chuckled when I thought about your post. I can see what you mean about taking it literally. I guess I compare what it says with what it doesn't say, with what different non-Christian opinions. So, after wading through all that, I still have to decide what sounds right to me. I find much of the earliest OT stuff to be very close to other faiths creation stories and legendary events. After reading the flood stories from a number of different cultures, I read about a global catastrophe, around 11 500 years ago, that could be the common source of them. Or not. But...my belief that this all connects plausibly and is the most reasonable explanation is just my belief. I don't know. Many other people seem to. In a way, I envy them. Other aspects of my life make me feel very lucky. How many people don't have to have faith about Spirit existing becuz they have been convinced over years of seeing and experiencing events that I could not using scientific theories. As some have said, maybe someday they will be able to be.
No matter, I feel it is not mandatory that I know. I am just curious.
It is the wonder of life.

 

The fifth Apostle.......Bubba.
He just toured with them the one year, and there has always been debate over who is the 'real' fifth Apostle.
But we know......its Bubba.

 

What so UnChristian about Christ being in love with a woman?

 

One will never understand what the words means without the Spirit of Christ.

 

You know what, i have asked all my christian friends what feeling the Holy Spirit feel like cause i have felt that i have felt God througout my soul, and they neer have been able to give me a answer i can equate to what i feel...one says you feel like everything is good and that you just love everyone and everything...

So if you wish to try to explain it in a different way, i do feel in my heart i have felt the presence of whatever God is out there...so ya, i may not understand as much, but oher than your faith, how can you be sure what is right?

 

Do any of those people speak in tongues? That is what God has given as physical evidence. See, today's Christianity has strayed from the original teachings. They tell you that you feel good and all, and that means you are saved. But, if you look at scripture, that does not line up. Everyone who was filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues.


The idea of speaking in another language does seem strange when you are first exposed to it. Once you do it, it's overwhelming. It is hard to describe the feeling because it is different for each person.