Chuck, based on your Christianity quote...

[Rerun]

Are you saying you believe Christ was married or am I missing the point?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I think it has something to do with the Da Vinci Code. I'm a non-Christian (but I do believe in God; I just "belong" to one specific religion) but I watch Christian programs on occasion, and Jack Van Impe was tearing into it, and mentioned something about the book saying Christ was married (and sounded very angry when he said that).

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Let me be clear about this:  I've not read the Da Vinci Code or seen the movie, so I have no positive or negative criticism to offer concerning  either.

The quote is something someone else said.  I found it to be an interesting quote, as I found it to be saying, if you can't accept the possibility that Christ may have had a wife during his adult life on earth, if you think that theory is an attack on Christianity, your Christian faith is weak. 

I believe there's absolutely no evidence Jesus had a wife or children.  I don't find the theory He did have them to be an attack, just unfounded speculation.  I don't believe saying He did not have a wife or children is the sign of a small or closed mind.

However, He has a bride:  the Church, all those who have answered His call to salvation.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Since we are discussing this, let me say this as well:  the popular notion that Jesus was an all right kind of guy, that the "basic system for living espoused in the Bible" is acceptable as long as you can strip them of the parts you don't like, is absurd.  Take it or leave it, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are smart or wise enough to figure out the good and bad parts of the Bible.  Either take the whole thing, or reject it.  But understand:  to take it means work on your part.  It takes research and thinking that never ends.

[b.dfzo]

If Jesus is supposed to be an example to people, what is wrong with the idea of him having a wife?  John 20:16.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.  But he's not going to have two of them, and his bride is the Church.

[I. Spaceman]

Totally agree with all you said, Chuck.

[Beckner]

Since we are discussing this, let me say this as well:  the popular notion that Jesus was an all right kind of guy, that the "basic system for living espoused in the Bible" is acceptable as long as you can strip them of the parts you don't like, is absurd.

Yep CS Lewis once wrote (paraphrase) "He was either crazy or the Son of God." Because he was making claims to the former when he was alive.

[Rerun]

There's nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife.

I have to disagree.  To think that God, taking the form of man, with the sole purpose of creating a following of truth and a salvation to allow for entry into heaven, would find a romantic love in a woman with sin at the same time he is carrying out his mission is pretty ridiculous.  Why would God need that same satisfaction that a marriage would bring when he was only here for the above reasons?

Just seems like people try to take human thoughts and emotions and apply them to Christ, which is wrong-minded.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Rerun, what I meant was:  He's going to have a wife, and the bride is the Church.  He did NOT have a wife during His earthly ministry.

[b.dfzo]

I'll speak contextually here.  Mary was "a sinner", definitely (he "cast seven devils" out of her.)  Who, besides Jesus, is not in her category?  "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."  To say the "Church" that Jesus is supposed to marry is going to be "without sin", unlike Mary Magdalene...who are the qualifying members of it, if it is supposed to be sinless?

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Jesus's suffering and death on the cross was the balance, the payment, the necessary demand of the law, for our sins.  Without it, no one would be able to spend eternity with God in Heaven, as there is no room for sin there. 

Yes, here, despite our adoption into the family of God, we still sin.  But God's children will not always have to fight the desires of the flesh.

[wind chime]

So perhaps the marriage of Christ to His bride is the ultimate [truer?] meaning of marriage and that our physical earthly marriages and unions here on earth are actually shadows...of the real thing... I mean sometimes we can say that Jesus missed out on something just like a Catholic priest who is single and celibate, but Jesus is actually waiting for his bride...Adam and Eve were create by God and married by God himself...

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

A nice way of putting it, yes.  Though I don't think of our marriages here to be shadows of the real thing, but types of the ultimate marriage.  They are important in helping us understand the marriage of Jesus and the Church.

[donald]

[Old Rake]

The quote is something someone else said.  I found it to be an interesting quote, as I found it to be saying, if you can't accept the possibility that Christ may have had a wife during his adult life on earth, if you think that theory is an attack on Christianity, your Christian faith is weak.

Did I *miss* something, Chuck? Are you still banned from the Smile Shop? Did I delete you from my blog? 'Cause I don't see any reason why you should be talking about that over here, when you're specifically referring to things that I wrote ON MY BLOG and ON THE OTHER BOARD.

The quote is something someone else

Namely me...

said.  I found it to be an interesting quote, as I found it to be saying, if you can't accept the possibility that Christ may have had a wife during his adult life on earth, if you think that theory is an attack on Christianity, your Christian faith is weak.

You "found" wrong. As per usual, you totally misinterpreted what I said, or managed to twist it to suit your own needs. What I said was: if you find that the entire idea of salvation through Christ vanishes or feels "under attack" based on speculation that Christ is married, then your faith wasn't based on much -- I mean, honestly, think about that statement for a minute. The minute you add a possible wife or children, suddenly Salvation is negated?? Why on earth would that possibly be? Jesus still died for your sins, whether or not he was married. And he still rose again from the dead.

The basis for my faith isn't based on whether or not Christ was celibate or married or whatever. Its based on him dying for my sins. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I personally don't care either way -- I find it an intriguing and compelling idea, Chuck, but I dont' think it matters one way or another. What I'm saying is: IT DOES NOT IMPACT THE FINAL MESSAGE OF CHRIST in any way to say that he's married. And when people paint The DaVinci code as an "attack on religion," that's what they're essentially saying.

Its just fine to disagree. I don't necessarily agree myself. What I'm saying is that the words themselves are not tantamount to an attack on the faith.

Since we are discussing this, let me say this as well:  the popular notion

Meaning "from me..."

that Jesus was an all right kind of guy, that the "basic system for living espoused in the Bible" is acceptable as long as you can strip them of the parts you don't like, is absurd.

Again, Chuck, did I ever say that? You're again totally twisting my words around. I don't think Jesus was just "an all right kind of guy." Dude -- if I thought Jesus was just an "all right kind of guy" and not the Messiah, why would I bother being in a Christian church? What would be the bloody point? Wouldn't I essentially be a Jew, or possibly an atheist who reads the Bible a lot? You want my beliefs? They are this: I believe Christ is the Son of God, sent to earth to die for our sins. Good enough for you?

When I was writing on my blog, I was trying very hard to not be specific. I was hoping that perhaps my writing would spur folks to think about their relationship to their faith -- ANY faith. I have a lotta Jewish readers who are close friends of mine. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to ram my beliefs down their throats. So I was writing very generally in the hopes that maybe it would spur them into thinking and maybe return to THEIR faith. That's IT. It doesn't mean I think Jesus was a "pretty neat guy."

I don't feel I've stripped the Bible of any part I don't like. What I was talking about in my blog post  was that I finally realized that it was okay if I didn't agree with PARTICULAR DEMONINATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS TO HOW THE BIBLE IS INTERPRETED. In other words: if I don't subscribe to the same system belief as you right-wing fundies do, its perfectly alright with God. It was a personal writing about how I came to return to the Church. It had nothing to do with "taking or leaving parts of the Bible."

Take it or leave it, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are smart or wise enough to figure out the good and bad parts of the Bible.

Nor should you, Chuck, fool yourself into thinking that your interpretation of the Bible and its teachings are the only possible correct ones for Christians to have.

Either take the whole thing, or reject it.  But understand:  to take it means work on your part.  It takes research and thinking that never ends.

I do plenty of research and thinking, Chuck.

And I also take GREAT EXCEPTION to having my faith questioned.

[wind chime]

My comment is that the theory that Christ was married with children does not jive with the history of the New Testament...he died and rose again...he was single and celibate by most accounts in scripture...I mean I am just writing this from the top of my head, I have no particular verse to quote but I am also not offended by Davinci Code. I mean I have never read anywhere in the Bible that Jesus got married or had kids...he did attend a wedding, he said suffered the children to come unto me...but not himself married. Of course I agree that him being married or not doesn't take away from the sacrifice of the cross. But he was fully dedicated to his heavenly Father and not the things of this world (marriage etc...)....

[b.dfzo]

So, marriage is just a thing of this world?  Wha...?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

. What I said was: if you find that the entire idea of salvation through Christ vanishes or feels "under attack" based on speculation that Christ is married, then your faith wasn't based on much -- I mean, honestly, think about that statement for a minute. The minute you add a possible wife or children, suddenly Salvation is negated?? Why on earth would that possibly be? Jesus still died for your sins, whether or not he was married. And he still rose again from the dead.

Jon,  I think you're reading WAY  more into it than is necessary. I think your problems with Chuck are causing you to read what he said differently than what was actually stated. He didn't say *you*; there are those in fact who do believe that, sad to say. I know of several personally.

Did I *miss* something, Chuck? Are you still banned from the Smile Shop? Did I delete you from my blog? 'Cause I don't see any reason why you should be talking about that over here, when you're specifically referring to things that I wrote ON MY BLOG and ON THE OTHER BOARD.

Right...him being banned there affects what he can and cannot say here. Am I following you correctly? So, say I were to ban you here (I'm not; I'm trying to prove a point). So then, if you were to take something I said in a different thread on this site (let's use the Kurt Cobain thread for an example), and mention it (without using my name) in a thread over at the shop based on the same topic, then that would be wrong? Is that what you're trying to say?

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

So, marriage is just a thing of this world?  Wha...?

I have no reason to think we will be anything but brothers and sisters in the afterlife.

[wind chime]

So, marriage is just a thing of this world?  Wha...?

Well, yes and no...Christ is waiting for his bride [the church]...

But being married with children is a very time consuming occupation [and a very honorable one] and the apostle Paul advises believers to stay single if they can so that they can devote more time to serving God, obviously very few ever choose this [myself included ]. Paul also says if you really want to get married, then go ahead, you have not sinned...

Actually, in the kingdom of God, there will be no more marriage between man and woman, the church will all be married to Christ...

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

The minute you add a possible wife or children, suddenly Salvation is negated?

No.  Nothing you or I do, whether it be speculation or anything else, can negate what Jesus did.  I do believe adding or subtracting from God's Word is a slippery slope.  I did not and do not accuse you of that or anything else, nor did I mean to slight or question your faith by treating you like a second class Christian, as people sometimes do by referring to groups of Christians with intended insults like "right wing fundies."  I simply answered someone's question.

Thanks for participating on this board.

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Since it's been raised, by me and others, here are some differences I have with my brothers and sisters in the Catholic church:

I don't think Mary either lived a sinless life, nor was she born in a special state regarding sin so that she could birth Christ.
I don't think there's any value in praying to Mary, hailing Mary, or asking her to pray for us. 
I don't believe communion is "morally necessary for salvation."
I don't believe in transubstantiation.

I'm sure more will come to mind later.

[Rerun]

Since it's been raised, by me and others, here are some differences I have with my brothers and sisters in the Catholic church:

I don't think Mary either lived a sinless life, nor was she born in a special state regarding sin so that she could birth Christ.
I don't think there's any value in praying to Mary, hailing Mary, or asking her to pray for us. 
I don't believe communion is "morally necessary for salvation."
I don't believe in transubstantiation.

I'm sure more will come to mind later.

Sounds like we're on the same...lePage...hahaha!....yeah...

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

Guess what they say is right, then, I'm a right wing fundie PIG.

[Beckner]

I don't believe in transubstantiation.

Im not Catholic but I believe that one. I'm Lutheran.