DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

No.

If you don't believe me, see Toa's post above. B)

No. Jesus was a pure being and in stories of Jesus and Mary Magdalene getting married they also have children! So Jesus wouldn't be considered pure anymore if he did get married to her.

How do you all know for sure? Were you all there.

I believe he was married but the Catholic Church did so much and completely concealed everything.

EPH 6:12.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,
Boy….You got so much to learn.
But Discernment is a gift and not a virtue.
Should you be trusting your everlasting soul to any church you had better be researching the foundation of that church……and I dont mean just the “good thats what I wanted to hear parts you read.”
I mean if you’re going to stand up for that church you better be ready to listen to the bad parts about it..ergo,
The amount of catholic priest sexually abusing children is staggering., The Jesuit Priest of the Vatican make the OSS, CIA, KGB, MI6, Mossad and all else look like boyscouts……they infiltrate and make or break governments on an unbelievable scale.
And all the corruption that goes with it.
They get thier powers straight from the source = The Devil.
DONT JUST DRINK THE MILK OF A HALF HEARTED RESEARCH GO FOR THE MEAT.
IF YOU TRUELY WANT TO KNOW, I MEAN REALLY, REALLY WANT TO KNOW THGE TRUTH THEN ASK GOD FOR HELP IN YOUR SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AND BE PREPARED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A BEHIND THE DOORS, UNSEEN BATTLE TAKING PLACE BETWEEN THE ANGELS AND DEMONS ( and i dont mean anything about that silly movie) FOR THE TRUTH AND LIES BEING PLACED BEFORE YOU.
And If God is for you, who can be against you?

And If this sounded like scolding…………why yes it was.

Jared, I have a son who has two Doctorates in Theology and is currently working on his third (for teaching theology), and he tells me that in all his studies nothing concrete has ever been brought to light about those rumors. He says that the Atheists of the world have been trying to discredit the name of Jesus ever since the Christian movement began, but they only have lies and rumors in their attempts. Neither I nor my son are Catholic, and even though my son is a Theologian I am not an overly religious man. I do not even belong to any organized religion as my personal religious belief is that religion is between an individual and God (much to my son's dismay) and no one else.

Even if this was the conception/invention of atheists, I don't follow how this thesis, if true, at all discredits Jesus.

It would seem like any means for people of faith to relate more fully with their perceived god or messenger of that god would be a good thing. Jesus having an earthly love/lover would definitely make it easier to relate to the challenges involved.

So, you take the Atheist side of the argument. And here I thought you based your beliefs on actual proof offered.

Christ having a "lover" among mere Humans denotes favoritism towards a single human from God. This would also prove a weakness of God thereby giving Satan strength over God.

You disappointed me, I thought you more read than that.

That's not actually what I said. Try reading comprehension 101.
1) I still don't see how this is an atheist invention or trick necessarily. So it's not like I'm taking this side of the argument on those grounds. But even supposing it is our fault somehow, I don't think that's relevant to the argument.

2) "…this thesis, if true, …". What I directly and actually asked is how it would be a bad thing if it was, as a thought experiment. I still don't see, even with your purported disagreements with it, that it would be a bad thing for people who believe in christ or god to also have this situation along side their beliefs. The worst that seems to happen is the elevation of the status of women in the bible. And oh for shame, what a terrible idea that would be….

That said, given that there are large chunks of Jesus's life missing from the bible, I'm not sure that anybody knows one way or the other what was going on and can thus positively, or negatively, claim that he had a lover or a wife. I just don't see that it makes Jesus less pure and less noble as a role model for Christians. Love, even for a single individual, is not a bad and impure thing, a weakness or a frailty that is giving "satan strength" (if of course one believes in that sort of thing either). Love is always a strength, not a weakness. Often that love reinforces our affections for others by giving us hope and sustaining our energies and exertions on their behalf. It also demonstrates personally and as directly as human beings can our passions and goals in our existence. If the story of Jesus is that of god taking on a human form, this could naturally be part of this story, and would, to me anyway, seem like it increases rather than diminishes his actions.

Whether or not it was part of the story is not my concern. But the people who believe that it is not
a) seem to be awfully emotionally attached to that belief and aggressive in their disdain for the thought that they might be wrong
b) don't have any more evidence to rely on than people who do. All they really have is "Jesus was what I say he is". Which is both a rather un-Christian notion however popular it has become for any number of reasons (this included, but by no means the most important, see the revisionist "conservative bible" with "free-market" economics in it, as though they have any idea what market economics is in the first place…), and a rather poor model for providing proof that they are in fact right.

If that's what they want to believe, fine. But it doesn't strike me as very important to believe that or not relative to other things within your religious teachings. For one thing: it's not like you're expected to follow this example in your own life is it?

God is not the author of confusion.
There is no ARGUMENT.
If you do not understand the spiritual concept of the words of God then any answer an atheist gives is moot.
When questions like this appear proverbs say ” a wise man holdeth his peace and a fool is known by the multitude of his words.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

YEA, BUT IT’S SOOOOOOOOOOO TEMPTING TELLING AN ATHEIST WHERE TO GET OFF!

Like the Disciple Peter,……….He carried a sword with him where ever he and the others went…he wasn’t messing around…..you offend the lord he’ll take off an ear and that’s exactly what he did. He wasn’t playing games you wanna argue foolishly,… NO!…. better I take that silly, stupid, babbling head off so we all dont have to hear.
Peter was not exactly what God had in mind for his work but his righteous anger against the atheist,
His non faltering belief that the Lord is the Son of God.
was workable.

Just to clear up the air, so far as I know there is no "official" atheist position on most matters religious. If there are atheists involved in this thesis, so be it, but this looks a lot more like a concoction of biblical/historical scholars and other Christians more so than an atheist attempt to sow discord in some manner. I'm sure people love to find atheists at the root of all "evil" thoughts, but this one doesn't look like we were involved in its distribution and invention. Most websites dedicated to the idea appear to be quite genuinely Christian in their themes and examination of it for example.

The main logical conclusion that atheists draw is that there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. There's the word of the official church doctrines on one hand and there's historical factors on the other (ie rabbis and the institution or marriage within Judaism during the Roman times). Neither of these is necessarily the actual history of Jesus' life itself. They are both conjectures rather than evidence. One of these conjectures has major political/social ramifications, supposedly (that of official church doctrines), though I'm not convinced that it should matter if the church's version is wrong. (for reasons listed above)

The other is merely scientific inquiry using historical tools and supposition to form a reasonable thought experiment and ask questions that demand evidentiary support to affirm or deny them. You have offered no evidence (all you did was repeat church doctrines, which are political statements but not facts). And neither did I, nor did I claim to.

Phhhhh,…………… tsk,tsk,tsk

and a fool is known by the multitude od his words.

stop arguing with words without knowledge.

Wow, sounds like Peter was not a fun guy to hang around with, everyone was like “Whoooooooa go easy bro.”
Or like “Lord can we take a break, we be walking fo miles”
DUUUUUUCK……sword swing, step back,………..whoooooa go easy bro!

Does it sound better that Jesus got laid or no?
To me, yes. You can ask if they were marrried, but terms like such are meant only to symbolize the love that is present by saying, we are married.
Whether if they had a wedding, it would be no more important then if they got it in, or not.
To be honest with you, Im not a know it all. but I am someone who knows.
What i know is that i would rather have Jesus with a female only to show that whether if your Enlightened or not, it is alright to love another in that way.
And by being pure, how would having kids and expressing Love to a woman be "unpure" ?
Maybe if humans had a better understanding of Love and relationship, they wouldnt see it as sinful. The word sin is only an act that is not out of Love. If Jesus was sinless, It would mean that He knows only Love.
So instead, a relationship with Mary would have been a blessing. They didnt argue.
The Love that we know in fairytales, and question if its real or not, They'd understand it.
If you havent noticed companionship is amazing. Why would Jesus not want to experience it?

No dont believe everything you watch on movies