My disagreements with other people about the teachings of Jesus

[badger]

Muhammad. How do you know that Jesus was never married within his lifetime? You may very well be right, I am just asking out of curiosity.

Thanks you.

Very good question.
I think that most Jews in their late twenties would have been married, even widowed and remarried.
The Christian idea that Jesus might have been asexual is most strange.

Magdalene seems to emerge from the mist more and more, maybe.

 

[Firedragon]

Very good question.
I think that most Jews in their late twenties would have been married, even widowed and remarried.
The Christian idea that Jesus might have been asexual is most strange.

Magdalene seems to emerge from the mist more and more, maybe.

what's that got to do with Magdalene. I respect your post badger, but magdalene just means someone from the town called Magdalene.

Also, Paul was known to be unmarried at what ever age. So the proposition that everyone has to be married at a particular age is a very elementary proposition, but not found in solid historic grounds.

What i am asking is for the source of information. Where do you get your information from? that's the question. Though it might not be relevant to you. Your statement is valid badger, but that's not my grounding in this question. I hope you understand k???

Cheers.

 

[badger]

what's that got to do with Magdalene. I respect your post badger, but magdalene just means someone from the town called Magdalene.

Magdala........ somebody from Magdala..... I suppose so.
But since G-Mark is quite possibly based upon the memoirs of Cephas, and its author possibly a partial witness, my mention of Magdalene seems reasonable to me.

Also, Paul was known to be unmarried at what ever age. So the proposition that everyone has to be married at a particular age is a very elementary proposition, but not found in solid historic grounds.

Not 'has to be'..... but certainly 'most' Jews. Paul may have been gay, he sure ranted on about it all.
'Methinks he dost protest too much'...... ?

What i am asking is for the source of information. Where do you get your information from? that's the question. Though it might not be relevant to you. Your statement is valid badger, but that's not my grounding in this question. I hope you understand k???

Cheers.

You were asking Muhammad about possibilities of Jesus marrying in his lifetime.
So all I have to work with is mostly from G-Mark. Without G-Mark I don't have any information to guess much about Jesus at all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muhammad. How do you know that Jesus was never married within his lifetime? You may very well be right, I am just asking out of curiosity.

I assume it.
Historically, we have no reason to believe that he was married.

 

[Thomas]

Just thought I'd revisit these points:
- the gospel of Jesus is about His kingdom, not about any salvation doctrine of Christianity.
Please find a biblical index and check the references to Kingdom in the NT.

- the kingdom of Jesus is here and now ...
The references speak of the Kingdom of God/Heaven.
Yes, here and now, but then ...

- the Creator Himself has never entered into His creation, to be a part of it.
Who's to say what the Creator has or has not done, what He can or cannot do?

And if that is so, then Jesus is delusional.

- the way that Jesus was conceived is not what makes Him the Son of God.
Are you reading 'son' literally, ie biologically?

- the Holy Spirit is like a person in some ways, and not like a person in some other ways.
Yes. 'Person' is always analogous. The same applies to the Son and the Father.

- there aren't any belief requirements for salvation, and there aren't any beliefs that can save a person.
So Jesus got it all wrong?

- the baptism of Jesus is not with physical water.
It never is. It always has a spiritual dimension. It's not the water.

If you mean, the occasion on the Jordan as recorded in Scripture, then that's something else. Personally, as you know, I regard the two, the physical act and the spiritual meaning, as unitary.

- people do not always need to believe that anything in the gospels ever actually happened, or that they are about a real person, or that God exists, to enter the kingdom of Jesus and/or to be saved.
I find that rather illogical. "Actually, I don't believe in you, but I'd like to come in."

- the reason for the miracle stories in the gospels is not for people to believe that they really happened physically, but to teach some lessons, like the kingdom parables.
I happen to think otherwise.

 

[Thomas]

I think that most Jews in their late twenties would have been married, even widowed and remarried.

But not necessarily all. There are enough instances, I think ...

The Christian idea that Jesus might have been asexual is most strange.

I've never heard of that one.

Magdalene seems to emerge from the mist more and more, maybe.

I rather think she's shrunk back in more recent times ... she's had her moments in Christian history.

But she's certainly been used and abused over time ... personally I think the church missed a trick, but that's patriarchy for you.

 

[Firedragon]

Magdala........ somebody from Magdala..... I suppose so.
But since G-Mark is quite possibly based upon the memoirs of Cephas, and its author possibly a partial witness, my mention of Magdalene seems reasonable to me.

I don't understand your point badger. But maybe you could explain.

Not 'has to be'..... but certainly 'most' Jews. Paul may have been gay, he sure ranted on about it all.
'Methinks he dost protest too much'...... ?

Sorry badger. I still understand your point. It maybe my fault.

You were asking Muhammad about possibilities of Jesus marrying in his lifetime.
So all I have to work with is mostly from G-Mark. Without G-Mark I don't have any information to guess much about Jesus at all.

Not at all. I never asked anyone about the possibility of Jesus marrying. I asked why he believes Jesus was unmarried. I was asking for his sources of knowledge. Not "the possibility of Jesus marrying". Hope you understand.

So until the person I asked this question gives his source, I am not going to guess on behalf of him.

 

[Firedragon]

I assume it.
Historically, we have no reason to believe that he was married.

Okay. So your reasoning is that historically there is no reason to believe something, thus it would not have happend. Like historically there is no reason to believe Jesus was anything but a man, so you believe he was nothing but a man.

Historically is there a reason to believe Jesus did miracles? Or are there reasons to believe he did not? Is that how you make your faith?

Nice.

 

[badger]

But not necessarily all. There are enough instances, I think ...

I've never heard of that one.

I rather think she's shrunk back in more recent times ... she's had her moments in Christian history.

But she's certainly been used and abused over time ... personally I think the church missed a trick, but that's patriarchy for you.

I did say 'most'.
Although it's not going to be known, I reckon that Jesus was probably married before the times mentioned in Mark. That's just a guess.

But I definitely think that he wanted a full return of the old laws, possibly for full provision for all, which those laws did provide for .

 

[badger]

Okay. So your reasoning is that historically there is no reason to believe something, thus it would not have happend. Like historically there is no reason to believe Jesus was anything but a man, so you believe he was nothing but a man.

I would prefer to read about your reasoning about things, Firedragon.

Historically is there a reason to believe Jesus did miracles? Or are there reasons to believe he did not? Is that how you make your faith?

Nice.

Miracles? No.
Amazing healings? Maybe.
I don't have a faith, Firedragon.

Maybe it would be best if you would tell what you think, eh?

 

[badger]

I don't understand your point badger. But maybe you could explain.

Sorry badger. I still understand your point. It maybe my fault.

I'm really sad about that, Firedragon.
Sometimes I just find it difficult to make points, I guess

Not at all. I never asked anyone about the possibility of Jesus marrying. I asked why he believes Jesus was unmarried. I was asking for his sources of knowledge. Not "the possibility of Jesus marrying". Hope you understand.

So until the person I asked this question gives his source, I am not going to guess on behalf of him.

Of course .

 

[Firedragon]

I would prefer to read about your reasoning about things, Firedragon.

Miracles? No.
Amazing healings? Maybe.
I don't have a faith, Firedragon.

Maybe it would be best if you would tell what you think, eh?

Brother. That was not a response to you badger.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Okay. So your reasoning is that historically there is no reason to believe something, thus it would not have happend. Like historically there is no reason to believe Jesus was anything but a man, so you believe he was nothing but a man.

That is not the case.
The Qur'an is claimed to be Divine revelation.
As yet, I have seen no reason to doubt that it is indeed true.

 

[Firedragon]

That is not the case.
The Qur'an is claimed to be Divine revelation.
As yet, I have seen no reason to doubt that it is indeed true.

That's because you don't know the Qur'an or follow it.

I would recommend for this topic of "divine revelation" you study the subject of Balagha.

Cheers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's because you don't know the Qur'an or follow it.

I don't claim to be a scholar, if that's what you mean.
You would be right, that I have relatively little knowledge, and have difficulty following Islam.
satan is our enemy. he comes from every side.

We can but try. Death cannot be averted eventually.

 

[RJM]

Magdalene seems to emerge from the mist more and more, maybe.

what's that got to do with Magdalene. I respect your post badger, but magdalene just means someone from the town called Magdalene.

@badger is obviously talking about the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels. His meaning is clear.

@Firedragon I don't understand the probem? What's your issue with this? IMO you are being very cryptic. Can't you be more clear?

 

[Firedragon]

@badger is obviously talking about the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels. His meaning is clear.

@Firedragon I don't understand the probem? What's your issue with this? IMO you are being very cryptic. Can't you be more clear?

Please ask your question specifically and I will respond as best as I can. This is someone elses post so I cant remember if it was a question or a statement. If someone makes a statement as if they are absolutely sure of some fact as if it's Gods word or established by empirical evidence or something of that sort, I will not give a full answer because it's just not a question.

But you can give me your true question. I will respond to the best of my ability. Ask your question.

Cheers.

 

[RJM]

But you can give me your true question. I will respond to the best of my ability. Ask your question.

Who do you think @badger meant when he referred to 'Magdalene'?

 

[Firedragon]

Who do you think @badger meant when he referred to 'Magdalene'?

As you said, it must be Mary Magdalene. Now that you have said it. what is Badher referring to really? Is it the Pericope?

Please just ask your question directly RJM.

 

[RJM]

As you said, it must be Mary Magdalene

I've no idea what you mean by the periscope? Would you like to explain the meaning of this obscure reference? Whatever ... now we accept that it's about the Mary Magdalene of the Gospels, the discussion can progress?