The debate "Was jesus married to Mary magdalene" was started by
December 22, 2016, 5:29 am.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 35 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
harshita posted 1 argument, Radhikadhawan posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
harshita, Rajat, Radhikadhawan, Blue_ray, ProfDoke and 10 visitors agree.
ChancellorCalahan, harley_quinn123, Yajur_Bhatia, thereal, HellaJeff, roasting4days, HeavenlyPanda, redeemed, shuhel_2005, UnderdogMike, human and 24 visitors disagree.
Also, the Bible explicitly says suffer not a witch to live. It doesn't make a lot of sense considering the Catholic Church has both persecuted witches and protected people by saying witches don't exist. If they don't exist, as several Popes said, why does the Bible say to kill them?
Yes, knowing go exists does not remove faith. Throughout the Bible, people have faith even though God shows his presence. Job maintains his faith while God tortures him, Moses doubts but had faith after talking to God. Jonah relieves instructions from God and doesn't have enough faith to follow them until God has him eaten by a whale. Each knew God existed because he acted around them. Each had varying levels of faith.
I am going to make a pretty safe assumption and guess that your parents love you. Do you know they love you by their words and actions, or do you have faith that they love you but they have refused to care for you or speak to you since birth? I would hope the former. God's love is supposed to be infinitely greater than any human love, but he can not only stand by and watch us suffer and die, he can directly cause it through natural disasters. I wouldn't be able to watch someone I love slowly starve to death knowing I could prevent it, but God does every day.
All it would take is one person manifesting a miracle to feed the poor in Africa and not only would the church be reinvigorated, but lives would be saved. Why will God not do this considering Jesus explicitly says if we ask in his name a mountain will pick itself up and move. I don't want to rearrange the landscape, I just want to feed the needy and heal the sick. If God sends such a person, I would certainly be swayed and it would renew my faith.
It may surprise you to know that I was very religious when I was younger and debated becoming a minister. I lost a great deal of my faith by watching what people did in God's name, and the remainder when I got to university and looked at the condition of the world.
true but if u have read the Bible u will see that Jesus did not like greedy people. I remember a story where he sat outside a current church making a whip and welcomed the priest until they were all in and he was done with the whip and beated all the corrupt priest out.
God wants 10? of ur money as a show of faith and to help everyone. churches are probably the biggest donators around.n ever be wrong? I'm often wrong. God set that land to be theirs long ago. he loves them like all sinners. burn witches? I don't remember that one. I know people did that world wide Christian or not. agreed with first but not second.
that's why I'm not Catholic(sorry rogue) I trust only God not man. man can lead u into temptation. God cannot.
let u ask another question. after all that did it help? sure to an extent it did but the Jews became whiny people who ask God to do everything and not pick up the tools and do it themselves also it eventually lead to Jesus dieing. and would that still be faith?
So they decided to by committee which scriptures God said and which not. That sounds rather suspect. When a group of powerful men, or men who want to be powerful, sit down and decide what God wants, it is amazing how often God wants exactly what they want.
God wants you to donate to the church and believe we can never be wrong. God wants you to claim the Holy land in his name. God hates gay people. God wants you to burn witches. God says life begins at conception and that condoms are evil.
I would have a lot more faith in organized religion if just once God had appeared to a Pope and said "You are doing it wrong, I want you to do this!" that would demonstrate that they are following God's will, not passing their own off as His.
God used to appear to shepherds and kings, prophets and priests and perform miracles for those who ask in His name. Throughout history God proved his power. He struck down the Egyptians, he destroyed sinners and spoke through burning bushes. He healed the sick, raised the dead, and did many other feats both before and after Jesus. But now we should trust without proof. Why has God gone silent?
close. if the church wasn't made though they believed it needed to be then as any organization they came together to see what God wanted.
They had looked at them, but hadnt compiled them. It wasnt an easy period to have open deliberations on scripture.
So no one looked at the scriptures being used to speed God's word until then? That seems like a poor way to run a church.
There had never been movements to develop a final Canon until they held councils. They studied manuscripts written before them.
What relevance does that have to religious leaders not knowing for hundreds of years which texts were divinely inspired and which not? How could they not know for hundreds of years, then suddenly know beyond any doubt when they sat down to decide what they wanted the Bible to include? Do you have any response, or will you evade the subject?
And if someone refuses to open themselves to the word of God, they diminish the Church?
So God is all powerful but incapable of speaking clearly? If they are the inspired word of God, how was there confusion? You skate around it but either the Bible if definitely true, or there was confusion for hundreds of years, introducing doubt into the truth of the texts they decided were true. You can't have it both ways. Either they knew what was true, or they didn't.
there is very little writing from them on existence. so they did exist. but no one really knows what they actually taught or believed.
So the apostles never existed?
the church didn't have a tradition at the time. they were still in the process of making up what the church was going to be.
if God had actually given people the word of God then there wouldn't have been any need to edit the Bible. the reason they had to was because they were making it up as they went along.
dude this shook people's faith to the core. think about what Jesus was. he is literally the son of God. also a lot of his idea went agaisnt the church. then of course is the actual death of Christ which was insane. if u put urself in that situation I bet u would be wondering what was right and wrong as well.
The Church had tradition.
if God had actually sent a message I don't think it would have taken hundreds of years to decide what he said. the church decided what they wanted their religion to say cut out anything that they didn't like.
it was a confusing time I bet. I mean put urself in their shoes. would u be calm and relaxed? with no questions?
if it was the word of God they should have been cannon from the very beginning. it took decades and even centuries for the church to decide what they wanted the word of god to be.
How else would canon come about?
You are aware who dictated what because official Canon, right? The church leaders decided which books suited the narrative they wanted and that became Canon.
None of these were ever official Canon.
Here is a list of books the early church used but didn't make the list when deciding which books were Canon.
I intentionally picked a source that was religious since many articles focus on demonizing the church, which is not really my intent.
I do find it interesting that 1 Clement was rejected for mentioning a phoenix, but mythological creatures are found in many places in the Bible.
Give me an example.
That is blatantly untrue. Try again.
they had questions. think about it from this point. here u have a man doing great miracles all his life. then towards the end he tells u he is God's son and he will die for u. so he gets crucified and then three days later his body is missing and people are saying he came back to life. don't u think u would want to talk about it too?
The catholic church has never removed books from its bible. The same logic keeping the Quran out keeps others out.
If by faith, we may assume these men were in constant prayer and their faiths strong. Nonetheless, to many the opinion was ubiquitous that Jesus was divine.
Pick a church, any church. Each has its own interpretation of the Bible and many modified it to suit themselves, like a certain king of England who didn't like the Pope.
Whether or not the Quran should be included depends on whether you believe it is divinely inspired or not. If so, it should be. If not, then obviously it should not be taken as the word of God. Bear in mind that any attack on its divinity could almost definitely be leveled at the Bible, and any acknowledgement of its divine inspiration could just as easily be applied to the scientologist scriptures or the Book of Mormon.
They put Jesus divinity to a vote. Do you suppose God voted? Where is the divine inspiration if there is legitimate debate about the relevance and position of Jesus?
The Quran has further revelation of God. It would seem foolish to not include it into the bible.
that's not what I'm saying. look at the Bible as a history book. now there are a ton of events in it and the book gets bigger and bigger. eventually it would be to big obviously. so u would need to simplify it. so a group of men came and looked at all this stuff to see what was important. why would that not make it in God inspired.
I'm not sure where you think you are going with this argument. The Quran was written significantly later than the Bible, so how would it be included?
The point that was made is that church leaders have systematically edited the Bible to suit their wishes for hundreds of years. Scripture is added or removed based on how well it suits them. This means that either humans decided which of God's messages should be spread and which suppressed, or the scriptures are not the word of God. Either way, you cannot claim they did not remove any scripture since there are church records of them doing exactly that.
So some of God's words aren't important? Good to know that you feel you can ignore your God when it proves convenient.
or they simply saw how big the Bible is and decided to stick with the important stuff
So everything ever written should be im the bible? Even the Quran
there are literally dozens of Scriptures that could have been included in the Bible. they got excluded because they didn't fit the narrative that the "church" wanted. they slowly evolved what Christianity was to suit themselves and they eliminated any scripture that didn't fit their version of Christianty.
Nonethless I dont believe the Catholic church ever removed books from the bible.
So if a book didnt belong in the bible it is wrong to keep it from it?
no it absolutely was not. that is why there are lots of books of the Bible they cut out because they didn't like them. if it had been clear they wouldn't have needed to edit the Bible.
It's clear and faith and prayer reveal.
so god didn't make it clear what he wanted. people just got together and said "yeah that sounds right". and you think the Bible is someone accurate?
If we look specifically at the council, there was for the most part ubiquity in thought. Grievances were primarily from small dissenting groups.
There was consensus among the bishops present at, if we are still speaking of the Nicene Council, that event.
So if God didn't make it clear, how did they decide which side was right?
Interpretations differ. From the same book, the idea of Christ's divinity were argued.
So some leaders of the church hadn't read the Bible? Or were there multiple versions that they had to decide which was correct?
some questioned everything. which is good. so they sat down and takes about it. it's like if I questioned if we came from eggs or not. then u say down with me and we told each other our sides. either way it won't change the fact. but it gives us a better understanding.
If the Bible is the unadulterated word of God, why was there debate in the first place? Why was there debate on the subject of something so important as the divinity of Christ?
Also, if you believe men in positions of power wouldn't change rules to benefit themselves, you are either being dishonest or are hopelessly naive.
If you make conjectures and use them as the frame of an argument, that is intellectually dishonest. Historic documents suggest Constantine had little to do with actual deliberations. The word of God hasnt been changed -- if you consider translations change, well then they have. Why can the Church not use biblical texts to decide which others are true and which are false. Again, you conjecture and falsify what happened. The main debate at Nicaea was the divinity of Christ. It had nothing to do with the politics of Constantine. The Church needed to reconcile that fundamental difference. Also, Constantine was convinced to call the convention by the bishops.
so your defense of the Bible is what? there is no question they decided what the word of God is by committee. so it isn't the word of God, it is the word of Constantine. are you going to actually try to make an argument? if not you should just concede.
So you make the conjecture that the words were revised
When you find a peer reviewed scientific article decided by popular vote, let us know. Until then, you cannot claim that the Bible is the unchanged word of God since there are historical records of the church changing it.
That isnt really true either. Constantine was more of an instrument to get the council going. The bishops of the time were quite distraught under fundamental differences in what the beliefs of the Church were. The goal was a catholic church; such couldnt exist if the foundations were not ubiquitous. Therefore, they held their ecumenical council to find what was right. It was a meeting of the greatest theologists -- those with grand knowledge of the bible were summoned to deliberate on known contradictions between various people.
The parallels are quite similar to scientific investigation. If contradictions are found in science, you determine what is the issue with the original belief -- not the idea itself -- son that an incontrovertible opinion may be reached. Casting out their conclusion in the name of the original inconsistencies is a serious conjecture.
So by the very nature of determining what is true and standard, it must be false? Contradictions exist in everything, but we dont discard the prevailing view as false.
the fact that the council was necessary would lead me to believe the Bible isn't true. there was loads of untrue books and they picked out the ones they liked and called it the word of God. and anyone who disagreed with their interpretation was called a heretic.
Will you admit the necessity of the council though?
I have a post secondary education in history. though it is not my profession.
by editing I mean the council of nicea, amount others. there was no agreement on what Christianity was for centuries. different bishops believed different things and had different religious texts that supported their beliefs. the Roman empire wanted a more unified Christianity so he could control it more easily. so he forced them create a single Bible. to do that they had to declare alot of people heretics and force their beliefs on people. it at this point that Christianity was moulded to be what the emperor wanted it to be.
Im not haha
I would like to ask you.. Are you any historian or what??
I dont know what you are referring to with editting. Are you claming that the bible was rewritten? Words completely altered to am entirely new meaning beyond translation
They have transcripts from as early as 100ish AD of some sections I believe.
you have no idea what the other books said. they destroyed anything they didn't like. you have no idea what Jesus said either since the church changed the Bible to suit them.
It wasnt editted from the original meaning. The bible is an arrangement. If story A contradicts story B, C, and D, then there should be concern.
it's a bit like asking me if I believe in Thor's marriage. it's kind of a rediculous question. I can't even say for certain if he was born, let alone married.
wow. you are awake. Do believe in jesus's marriage?
my argument was not that he did not exist. it was that there is absolutely no credible evidence of his life. he probably lived. no one can say anything else with any degree of certainty.
the other books may or may not have disagreed with the message they wanted the Bible to have. it doesn't really matter what they said. they edited the Bible. as soon as it is edited by men, 300 years after Jesus' death, then there is absolutely no chance these men knew what Jesus actually said or did. the Bible is now what those men wanted it to be, it almost doesn't matter if Jesus was the son of god or not. the Bible is not what he wanted.
historybuff's sleeping. :)
What if the core philosophy of the books is contrary to ones they removed; if one does not align correctly with the other books. Many other histories are discarded for not aligning with trustworthy sets of beliefs.
i guess the debate demanded the answer for jesus's marriage with mary. It wasnt meant to debate about his existence.
i mean the church decided what parts of the Bible they liked and what parts they didn't. they decided what the "word of God" was by committee vote. and then punished all the leaders of the church who refused to go along with what they decided.
What do you suggest by heavily editting?
the Bible is a historical document. however it is an extremely unreliable one as documents go for the reasons I have discussed before.
1) it was written 40-100 years after the events took place.
2) it was not written by people someone who witnessed the events.
3) it was an oral legend for a long time before being recorded
4)it was heavily edited by the church at various councils to suit what they wanted it to say.
there is limited evidence Jesus existed. but he very likely did. I'm not making the argument he never existed. but we have no reliable evidence of any part of his life. so debating whether he was married makes no sense.
kind of. I would say one of two things is possible. either they wrote it down when it happened and timed destroyed it by now.(very likely) or it wasn't there in the first place. so what do u do if that happens?( top scenario)
hey dude (historybuff), been a long time.... Hope everything is well with you.
Anyway, to jump into the argument....
Would the Bible not be considered history? I mean the Bible is considered Jewish history. The council of Jerusalem united the Gentiles and Jews of the Christian faith. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote about the life of Christ. Yes the Dead Sea Scrolls were written around 318 A.D. and 400 A.D., and yeah it's many years after Christ. But you have to remember The Dead Sea Scrolls were a collaboration of Christ. I would wager the four Apostles did write about Christ somewhere along the way. The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ and the persecution of Christians; that is Roman records, that is history. I'm not saying that the Bible is perfect history (not all history is fact, many historians write the way they perceive it) but the way the Bible is written a good bit of it is factually based. I mean consider some of the stories and the way it's written; such as, how the letter of the law was carried out upon people who did wrong. Going off what y'all were talking about.... David and Goliath. Goliath was six and half feet tall, the average person was much smaller compared to what we are now. [not to get off subject; but neveralone, I disagree on the idea of a regular sized gene. Homo sapiens have the exact same animalistic instincts as we did when we first walked this earth. We have not evolved yet.] At the time a six and half foot person would look like a monster. I mean in antiquity the average person didn't eat as well as we do now.
All I'm saying is if a Roman historian wrote about Christ and the same Israelite's who recorded their own history in The Old Testament has to have some factual base in The New Testament. So their is proof Christ existed. We can't prove everything Jesus did because at one point the Catholic Church was very corrupt and controlled absolutely everything; maybe there's a chance they changed things. No way of knowing for certain, all we can do is speculate
that seems to be an argument against the Bible being true. ie. if the stuff in it actually happened someone would have written it down, but they didn't for decades.
I'm guessing that isn't what you meant though.
maybe. but if such events did happen would u not write about them immediately? especially at that time. I mean if I saw somone kill a giant with a slingshot I'm going to tell people and wrote it down.
Jesus very likely was a real person. and some people believed he was the son of god. that is all we can say with any real certainty.
the stories about Jesus were oral legends by the time they were written down. decades of telling and retelling the stories makes it impossible to say what actually happened. they undoubtedly evolved in the telling prior to being written down.
true but no matter what the mugging still happened. we may get some false details but the general idea is still there. if u want to look more into put the facts agaisnt the event. like with David and the giant. back then people were midgets vs now. what if the giant was one of the first people to get the today's regular size gene? that went off topic but let's say we found Babylon and it looks destroyed like the Bible says it happened. does that not give it some credit?
think of it like this. you are walking home from the store and you get mugged. which is more likely to be accurate? a statement to the police the next day or so statement 40 years later?
add to this the fact that if it is 40 years later it is highly unlikely to be the actual person who was there writing it. it will be someone who you told about it, or someone they told about it or someone else who heard about it in passing. at this point it is no longer a witness account, it is a story which may or may not be even remotely accurate.
the Bible was written 40-100 years after the death of Christ. at best the authors heard it second hand. more likely they heard it far more removed than that.
the amount of time that has passed between when the event occured and when it was written down is very important.
why does the time when they wrote matter?
there is a Babylonian royal diary that discusses him. there is a Bactrian administrative document that records Alexander's arrival in Bactria chasing the murderer of Darius.
we have contemporary accounts of his life and death. the only documents about Jesus were written decades after his supposed death by people who has never met him.
there is vastly more evidence for the life of Alexander than for Jesus.
Where is the definitive proof that Alexander existed?
u can still speculate.
any mention of Jesus having a wife as far as I know only says his wife was the church.
no one can definitevely prove he was a real person. trying to debate whether he was married is impossible since there is no evidence of his life.
is this true