Mrs Christ

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Wolfgang,
You and I don't have bible evidence that Christ was married to a human woman. So, we don't have to demand that Christ was married such.

Likewise there is no evidence he was single.

Given that his ministry didn't start until he was
(30 ish??) it is fair to assume he was married.

If he wasn't married then surely that would have
been mentioned in gospel (because of its rarity)

Now I have no real interest as to whether he was
married or not (since we shall never know) but I
am interested in why (most) Christians support him
not being married. Some quite passionately.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Wolfgang,
Were you the one who asked me why Christ worked as a carpenter if His kingdom was not of this world, or was that someone else?

Pretty sure it was not I.

Wolfgang,
Perhaps the 2 usual reasons why Christians do not like someone claiming that Christ was married to a woman is because

1) Christ was God in human flesh. He was God.
2) Christ would never enter a one-flesh relationship that combined him with sin in any form.

Mixing Christ with sin before God would never be done unless it was to offer mankind eternal life. Even then, Christ's taking on the sins of the world did not destroy Him spiritually or humanly, and did not separate Him from God permanently.

King James Version
=============
Mark 15: 34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Acts 2: 27
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Ephesians 1: 20
Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

Wolfgang,
Why do you think that in the culture of Israelites, it was unusual for a man not to marry? If so, why did Paul recommend to other believers not to marry when he was once a Pharisee?

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Wolfgang,
Perhaps the 2 usual reasons why Christians do not like someone claiming that Christ was married to a woman is because

1) Christ was God in human flesh. He was God.
2) Christ would never enter a one-flesh relationship that combined him with sin in any form.

1.
So what?

2.
OK that is based upon sex being a sin?
Did JC ever advocate celibacy?
Did he preach against marriage?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
1.
So what?

2.
OK that is based upon sex being a sin?
Did JC ever advocate celibacy?
Did he preach against marriage?

Wolfgang,
For the 2nd reason. . .

"Christ would never enter a one-flesh relationship that combined him with sin in any form."

it isn't that sex is sin. The one-flesh relationship is a special way that God joins a man to a woman when married.

It is that a woman's human body is damaged because of sin. The human part of man is sinful and must die unless God intervenes. Christ died and shed his blood in a human way. Christ also was sinless as God, so, both the human part of Christ and the spiritual part of Christ were together when atoning for men, women, boys and girls. And also, a human body will not be with God. The Christian's human body will be changed into an incorruptible body.

King James Version
==============
I Corinthians 15: 50-54
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
it isn't that sex is sin.

It is that a woman's human body is damaged because of sin.

I am not going to agree with your premises ... just trying to understand your logic!

Can you present your argument in a more coherent logical form?

Thanks

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Likewise there is no evidence he was single.

Given that his ministry didn't start until he was
(30 ish??) it is fair to assume he was married.

If he wasn't married then surely that would have
been mentioned in gospel (because of its rarity)

Now I have no real interest as to whether he was
married or not (since we shall never know) but I
am interested in why (most) Christians support him
not being married. Some quite passionately.

I'm thinking JC was a player. Just think of it - he would have had his choice of groupies. Back in the day, you had to keep it on the down-low, but that doesn't mean it never happened.

Originally posted by googlefudge
We don't. The whole concept of "original sin" is immoral and illogical.
The idea that children can [and should be] punished for the 'sins'
of their parents is morally repugnant.

Also the idea that an infinite being of such immense power and intellect
as you believe would care whether people have sex or with whom is
totally ludicrous.

The concept of original sin is total bs... so it's not important at all.

from the good old book of right on

Originally posted by Suzianne
There's my point.

You can't see it because you do not believe.

you can't see because you believe.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Right. You don't believe. We get it.

You think it's all hogwash. We get it.

Why do you bother posting here then, when the topic is Christian beliefs?

No, you don't get it.

You asked us [atheists] why it was important the JC was born from original sin...

Why should WE consider it important at all?
It's your religion, why not tell us why YOU think it was important.

Wolfgang59 asked a question, presumably because he wants to know what you think,
not so that he can make something up.

And declaring that you can't see it unless you put on faith goggles and believe it first
is basically just announcing that you have no good reasons and just can't admit it.

Reality doesn't care if you believe it or not.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I understand why the Virgin Birth is important. I don't understand why not all Christians believe in the Immaculate Conception. Surely Christ's marriage is on a par with the Immaculate Conception?

Any answers?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Don't have to believe in order to understand.

I understand why the Virgin Birth is important. I don't understand why not all Christians believe in the Immaculate Conception. Surely Christ's marriage is on a par with the Immaculate Conception?

I understand why the Virgin Birth is important.
I'm calling bull chips.
Go ahead and esplain.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I understand why the Virgin Birth is important.
I'm calling bull chips.
Go ahead and esplain.[/b]

I'm not claiming to be expert - .......

My understanding is that JC had to be born free of "original sin"
and therefore his conception could not be a sin.

Catholics go a step further by demanding Mary be free of "original sin"
too so came up with the "Immaculate Conception".

Suzianne's position (I think) is that Jesus could not have been married as
that would have been sinful.

Now I can see that being a Catholic argument since they
support Immaculate Conception. But Protestants do not
believe in the Immaculate Conception so I see no reason
why they have a need for Jesus to be single.

How do you see it?

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, you don't get it.

You asked us [atheists] why it was important the JC was born from original sin...

Why should WE consider it important at all?
It's your religion, why not tell us why YOU think it was important.

Wolfgang59 asked a question, presumably because he wants to know what you think,
not so that he can make something up.

And de ...[text shortened]... have no good reasons and just can't admit it.

Reality doesn't care if you believe it or not.

No, wrong. I asked Wolfgang. Not other atheists, not you. There's a distinct difference between you and Wolfgang. As you said, he wants to know what I think. You don't give a rat's ass.

BTW, reality is in the eye of the beholder. YOUR reality says faith is useless. MY reality says faith is important. Pardon me if I don't subscribe to your "reality". I said you can't see it because you do not believe. Your ignorance, as well as your acceptance of that ignorance as your "reality", is what is keeping the truth from you. Blame yourself, not me.

"Reality doesn't care if you believe it or not." First thing you've said right in a long time.