Jesus had a wife

[th1b.taylor]

so Jesus could not have married being as a woman would have been full of sin, but its ok for Jesus to be born of a mother full of sin.
im not sure i agree. it has to do with those children. Jesus said until we become like them we cant entire heaven. i dont think He meant until we become full of sin like the children.

I'm gonna risk getting into trouble again just to give you this instruction but here it is. The Prime Directive for Hermeneutics, understanding the scriptures reads something like, "No scripture, passage of scripture, nor any collection of scriptures can ever be fully understood without the light of all scripture shinning on it."

When you jerk a scripture away from the context it was written in, you are raping the scriptures. People should always be able to read a few scriptures ahead and behind your key scripture means what you are claiming it does. Jesus was speaking in reference to children's ability to believe what they are instructed in without question.

 

[jaybird]

I'm gonna risk getting into trouble again just to give you this instruction but here it is. The Prime Directive for Hermeneutics, understanding the scriptures reads something like, "No scripture, passage of scripture, nor any collection of scriptures can ever be fully understood without the light of all scripture shinning on it."

When you jerk a scripture away from the context it was written in, you are raping the scriptures. People should always be able to read a few scriptures ahead and behind your key scripture means what you are claiming it does. Jesus was speaking in reference to children's ability to believe what they are instructed in without question.

i didnt pull a scripture out of context. are you suggesting Jesus is teaching us never to ask questions? the disciples asked questions all the time, Jesus asked questions when making points in His teachings. of course the children believe what Jesus says, no one said different. why do they believe? this is what you are missing. let the scriptures speak for themselves, dont bend and twist them to fit your theology.
this born with sin theology goes back to Adam and Eve, their judgment is taught right there in Geneses after they disobeyed, theres no mention of sin being passed down to every generation. however we do have scripture teachings a fathers sins are not passed to the son, but im sure you would black out those passages as well claiming they are out of context. you realize this "out of context" philosophy pretty much means we can make the bible say what ever we want it to say. its mind boggling.

 

[KevinK]

The Karen King thing is not the only story of Jesus marrying. There is a tiny mountain hamlet in Northern Japan that claims to be the final resting place of Jesus Christ ("Kirisuto"). Supposedly He survived the crucifixion (by having His brother actually undergo the execution), and eventually journeyed to Japan where He took a farmer's daughter for His wife, sired 3 children, and died at the ripe age of 106. He is buried there in a special tomb next to a grave containing His brother's ear. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-little-known-legend-of-jesus-in-japan-165354242/

The trouble with this account is that it negates a central tenet of Christianity, i.e. the Resurrection. No, I don't believe the Shingo story, certainly not in full.

 

[redemption79]

and i have a million dollars

 

[reba]

The whole idea of Jesus having a wife is one rabbit trail after the other ....

 

[OzSpen]

ESV, KJV say born in iniquity not sin

is there a scripture that says that?


a child can understand these kingdom principles IMO because they have not conformed to this world and not full of sin. the kingdom belonging to those full of sin make little sense.

Iniquity is sin. Take a read of the synonyms for iniquity HERE. 'Sin' is the first example given.

1 Peter 2:22 (ESV) states, 'He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth'.

Since you don't want to accept the clear teaching of Scripture on the sinlessness of Jesus, my conversation with you is over.

Bye, bye
Oz

 

[jaybird]

Iniquity is sin. Take a read of the synonyms for iniquity HERE. 'Sin' is the first example given.

1 Peter 2:22 (ESV) states, 'He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth'.

Since you don't want to accept the clear teaching of Scripture on the sinlessness of Jesus, my conversation with you is over.

Bye, bye
Oz

5771. avon
Strong's Concordance
avon: iniquity, guilt, punishment for iniquity

iniquity, guilt, punishment for iniquity
NASB Translation
blame (1), guilt (21), guilty (1), iniquities (46), iniquity (143), punishment (12), punishment for the iniquity (3), punishment for their iniquity (3).

i dont see sin mentioned anywhere in strongs definition.

psalm 51 is dealing with David and Bathsheba. the sin mentioned would be referring to david having a man killed over lust.
i accept scripture just find but i am not willing to manipulate it so my theology works and im not going to run and bury my head in the sand just to avoid a subject i cant deal with.

 

[Mike]

jaybird you really need to include scripture to support you opposition here in the A&T. Also, you've tried to connect Matthew 18:3 to the main point of this discussion. They are two separate issues. Besides that, Jesus wasn't implying that children are sinless. His point was that they believe in simple ways and give themselves over without fighting against Him.

Also, while not citing the scripture, I assume you were referring to Matthew 19:26 in asking if all things are possible... That verse is referring to our being granted salvation in spite of our human condition. You can't use that verse to support your acceptance that Jesus could have married. Ample scriptural evidence has been given to say why He did not.

Putting on my mod hat. Please, enough with the rabbit trail about children being sinless. Stick to the topic. Start another thread if you insist on exploring that.

 

[th1b.taylor]

i didnt pull a scripture out of context. are you suggesting Jesus is teaching us never to ask questions? the disciples asked questions all the time, Jesus asked questions when making points in His teachings. of course the children believe what Jesus says, no one said different. why do they believe? this is what you are missing. let the scriptures speak for themselves, dont bend and twist them to fit your theology.
this born with sin theology goes back to Adam and Eve, their judgment is taught right there in Geneses after they disobeyed, theres no mention of sin being passed down to every generation. however we do have scripture teachings a fathers sins are not passed to the son, but im sure you would black out those passages as well claiming they are out of context. you realize this "out of context" philosophy pretty much means we can make the bible say what ever we want it to say. its mind boggling.

This is A&T and debate is not allowed. I used scripture, as required to make my point and except you return to scripture, and in context, This discussion is resolved.

 

[WIP]

How about we get back on the topic of this thread. Also, this thread is full of posts that do not include the Scripture references to support viewpoints as required. If you are not familiar with the rules of this forum, please read the stickies at the top.

 

[Deborah13]

• How can the God-man be an example to human beings when there is zero possibility we can ever achieve Godhood?
  
• He was perfect and sinless. We are not and can never be.
  
• Who are the ones getting into 'an outrage' over the subject of Jesus being married?
• As I've tried to demonstrate in #41, it is a big deal if the sinless God-man conceives a child with his sinful wife in marriage. I'm speaking of sinful in the sense of having original sin and committing acts of sin in her life. Joining the God-man with a sinful human being in the sexual act has enormous ramifications spiritually and theologically.

Oz

Would Jesus have been a perfect man if He had taken a wife and had children knowing that He would die leaving behind a widow and children? Would this be an act of self-indulgence or weakness in the flesh?

Paul said,
1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1Co 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Had the OP given any scriptural basis for the claim that Jesus had a wife we could have a good discussion so I challenge OzSpen to give us a scripture that even mildly can support that claim; mildly can support not fanciful interpretation.......

 

[OzSpen]

Had the OP given any scriptural basis for the claim that Jesus had a wife we could have a good discussion so I challenge OzSpen to give us a scripture that even mildly can support that claim; mildly can support not fanciful interpretation.......

Why don't you deal with the information I provided in the OP? I was raising a topic that was promoted by Karen King - Jesus had a wife - and Dr Albert Mohler's (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) response.

If you understood what I was asking, you wouldn't be responding in this pejorative way to me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Would Jesus have been a perfect man if He had taken a wife and had children knowing that He would die leaving behind a widow and children? Would this be an act of self-indulgence or weakness in the flesh?

That is argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why don't you deal with the information I provided in the OP? I was raising a topic that was promoted by Karen King - Jesus had a wife - and Dr Albert Mohler's (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) response.

If you understood what I was asking, you wouldn't be responding in this pejorative way to me.

Oz

You did read post #70, right? So I am asking for scripture to support your OP. Responses with supporting scripture are difficult to make when there is no scripture to support the OP; I was simply asking for scriptural support (or refutation) of the OP. Now if you take that as 'responding in a perjorative way' to you then you must not understand the meaning of 'perjorative'.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Why don't you deal with the information I provided in the OP? I was raising a topic that was promoted by Karen King - Jesus had a wife - and Dr Albert Mohler's (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) response.

If you understood what I was asking, you wouldn't be responding in this pejorative way to me.

Oz

Oz, your snapping at people as you flaunt the rules of this Sub-Forum. This is Apologetics and scripture is required, perhaps you should request it be moved to a Sub-Forum that does not have that requirement and doe not have the rule against the debate you are looking for.

 

[reba]

Why don't you deal with the information I provided in the OP? I was raising a topic that was promoted by Karen King - Jesus had a wife - and Dr Albert Mohler's (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) response.

If you understood what I was asking, you wouldn't be responding in this pejorative way to me.

Oz

Reminder:

Christian Theology is by definition the study of God through His word, the Holy Bible. Apologetics goes hand in hand with theology as it is the branch of Christian theology which attempts to give a rational defense of the Christian faith. That makes the Apologetics and Theology forum unique from many of our other forums in that this is a place specifically for these types of discussions.

With this in mind, the following must be followed when posting in the Apologetics & Theology Forum.

• Above all, focus on the issue being debated. Do not direct your comments toward the member and make the discussion personal if you disagree with what's been said.
• Original posts should reference specific scripture and what it is the member wants to say or ask about that scripture.
• Do not make the unsupported claim that another member's position has no basis in scripture. If you believe that someone is in error you must respectfully cite scripture to support your assertion.
• Do not use phrases such as, “You’re wrong.” or any other similar phrase. This is insulting and inappropriate and there are nicer ways to disagree without being insulting.
• Do not insinuate that another member is joking or being laughable unless they specifically state that they are. Assume they have interpreted scripture in an honest attempt to understand the Word of the Lord.
• Once you have made a point, refrain from flooding the forum with numerous postsmaking the same point over and over withnothing new to support it.
• You may ask a member questions as to what they believe on certain topics relative to the subject of the thread, but keep in mind the member is under no obligation to answer. Do not speak for other members by declaring what they believe or make leaps and draw your own conclusions. Let them state their own theology or doctrine. Assume other members have understood what they are responding to unless they state otherwise.
• Failing to answer someone’s question doesn’t necessarily amount to an admission of error or surrender but keep in mind that in any debate if you refuse to or can not answer a reasonable question, it may weaken your position and do not badger other members about not answering attempting to guilt them into it.
  
• Violations of these A&T forum rules are subject to the same disciplinary consequences as failing to adhere to theToS.

 

[OzSpen]

You did read post #70, right? So I am asking for scripture to support your OP. Responses with supporting scripture are difficult to make when there is no scripture to support the OP; I was simply asking for scriptural support (or refutation) of the OP. Now if you take that as 'responding in a perjorative way' to you then you must not understand the meaning of 'perjorative'.

When you say this to me, 'mildly can support not fanciful interpretation', you are responding in a pejorative way to me. I apologise for my incorrect earlier spelling of pejorative.

In the OP I was raising the issue of Jesus' wife that Prof Karen King is promoting, based on a later MSS, and Dr Albert Mohler's response to that claim.

There is no biblical evidence for Jesus having a wife. However, when we are on a forum of Theology & Apologetics, it is legitimate to raise matters of public interest - a leading professor promoting the view of Jesus' wife.

That's what I did and a leading advocate of evangelical Christianity, Dr Mohler, challenged her views.

Oz

 

[th1b.taylor]

When you say this to me, 'mildly can support not fanciful interpretation', you are responding in a pejorative way to me. I apologise for my incorrect earlier spelling of pejorative.

In the OP I was raising the issue of Jesus' wife that Prof Karen King is promoting, based on a later MSS, and Dr Albert Mohler's response to that claim.

There is no biblical evidence for Jesus having a wife. However, when we are on a forum of Theology & Apologetics, it is legitimate to raise matters of public interest - a leading professor promoting the view of Jesus' wife.

That's what I did and a leading advocate of evangelical Christianity, Dr Mohler, challenged her views.

Oz

Oz,
All of your posts in this string have violate ToS 3.2 as well as not using Scripture to build your assertions on.

 

[Free]

Oz,
All of your posts in this string have violate ToS 3.2 as well as not using Scripture to build your assertions on.

How about you let the mods do the moderating.