Jesus ate only 3 times, never bathed, and never used the bathroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter gelsbern
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cute.

So, let’s extrapolate.

Jesus could have fathered a child. It’s not in the bible, and the bible even says it’s not the only source of information. There is no mention of Him in his 20’s. If someone knew someone who knew someone who told them about it, well good enough for me. Especially if that person knew someone who knew someone who knew Peter.

Granted, Jesus having a child would have been an IMPORTANT detail that someone would have written down. But I will trust a verbal tradition that is 2000 years old. Well, maybe 1700 years old anyway.

No disrespect. Just trying to illustrate a counter point.

.
 
Bill Connors:
Not one word in our Bible was written by Jesus. He came into this world not to write a book, but to Create His Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
Yes and (thank God/the Holy Spirit) after she completed and compiled the bible, the Catholic Church did not simply disintegrate into oblivion.

But, there were few Scriptural loopholes to fill, until Protestants became actively creative with interpretation, and applied scientific analysis to the discipline of religion, from the sixteenth century onwards.
 
40.png
ruzz:
Cute.

So, let’s extrapolate.

Jesus could have fathered a child. It’s not in the bible, and the bible even says it’s not the only source of information. There is no mention of Him in his 20’s. If someone knew someone who knew someone who told them about it, well good enough for me. Especially if that person knew someone who knew someone who knew Peter.

Granted, Jesus having a child would have been an IMPORTANT detail that someone would have written down. But I will trust a verbal tradition that is 2000 years old. Well, maybe 1700 years old anyway.

No disrespect. Just trying to illustrate a counter point.

.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the analogy is merely intended to be “cute”.
In any case, you seem to have answered your own counter-point. As you say, tradition is one perfectly valid source (among others) stating He did not have children. And no, verbal tradition was not suddenly discovered circa 300 AD by some giant Catholic Church that popped into existence out of nowhere replacing nothing prior.

But, applying your extrapolation logic, you would also have to argue that citizens of the year 4000 AD could look back on a copy of the American constitution and tell themselves how our generation (and those prior) understood it all wrong. The absurdity continues.
 
Dear friend

I hate to tell you this but Jesus did not only eat three times as you state as recorded in Sacred Scripture . He ate with Martha, Mary and friends, He ate at the last Supper, He ate a Pomegranite and He ate when He visited Simon the Pharisee, He invited Him to dinner. He was accused of being a glutton, this shows He clearly ate and drank everyday and a reasonable amount of food too. He ate with tax collectors Mark 1:15 ‘Why does He eat with Tax collectors and sinners?’ and Luke4:29 ‘Why do you eat and drink with sinners and tax collectors?’ He ate with His apostles after His ressurection.He was bathed when He was Baptised. Jesus speaks of the Latrine when He preaches that all food is acceptable,…

Now comes the verse …

‘Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men’ Luke

Not only has Christ Jesus been at the mercy of His executors and murderers, but He is also delivered into the hands of humanity ever after. In that Christ Jesus is handed to humanity as Saviour and Brother and we see what people do with Him and His Holy name.

Don’t worry about the Scripture you missed dear friend, your intention is wonderful and true, your defence is a mercy to Christ Jesus delivered into the hands of humanity.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
Lost&Found:
I don’t believe the analogy is merely intended to be “cute”.
In any case, you seem to have answered your own counter-point. As you say, tradition is one perfectly valid source (among others) stating He did not have children. And no, verbal tradition was not suddenly discovered circa 300 AD by some giant Catholic Church that popped into existence out of nowhere replacing nothing prior.

But, applying your extrapolation logic, you would also have to argue that citizens of the year 4000 AD could look back on a copy of the American constitution and tell themselves how our generation (and those prior) understood it all wrong. The absurdity continues.
Click to expand...
The story was cute and written to make a point. But one could equally use it to make a case against tradition. Suppose tradition of men claimed that Jesus fathered a child. If that tradition came from a source you respect, you will include it in permanant tradition even though it was flawed. We are then stuck with false tradition forever because of one man starting a “rumor”.

The church has many traditions that are of MEN that were not practiced by Jesus. (infant baptism, etc.) They are not the word of God but of men, so we must go on faith that they are valid. The bible is not a biography of God. But it is certainly God’s word and much more valid than the word of men.

To subscribe to these traditions of men, you must have faith in the men who developed them.

So, do we rely on early sources of written and validated word of God as a more accurate source? Something that we have from the original author’s pen. Do we put man made tradition on a high or equal level because we trust those men?

I have more faith in the word of God than the word of men.

The bible, although doensn’t describe Jesus’ eating habits, has to be something that we cannot dispute, whereas men can be.
 
👋 Ruzz,
If you wish to discuss this it certainly would be another thread, but please go take a look here about infant baptism. While not explicitly down in the Bible, it was done by those who walked and talked with the Apostles.

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

**I would love to dicuss who has the “tradition of men” as concerns infant baptism on another Thread. Start one and I and others will glady pipe in. **

God Bless,
Maria
 
A much better question for everyone is “Is that contrary to anything in the bible?”.
 
40.png
ruzz:
The story was cute and written to make a point. But one could equally use it to make a case against tradition. Suppose tradition of men claimed that Jesus fathered a child. If that tradition came from a source you respect, you will include it in permanant tradition even though it was flawed. We are then stuck with false tradition forever because of one man starting a “rumor”.

The church has many traditions that are of MEN that were not practiced by Jesus. (infant baptism, etc.) They are not the word of God but of men, so we must go on faith that they are valid. The bible is not a biography of God. But it is certainly God’s word and much more valid than the word of men.

To subscribe to these traditions of men, you must have faith in the men who developed them.

So, do we rely on early sources of written and validated word of God as a more accurate source? Something that we have from the original author’s pen. Do we put man made tradition on a high or equal level because we trust those men?

I have more faith in the word of God than the word of men.

The bible, although doensn’t describe Jesus’ eating habits, has to be something that we cannot dispute, whereas men can be.
Click to expand...
Ruzz - Thanks - I agree with your revision - cute, but makes a point! And you are genuine and not just trolling me.

You’ll need to be more specific on the traditions you disagree with, and learn when they took written form. The only one you mentioned is infant baptism. There are many reasons for this and as MariaG mentioned you may wish to become better informed by either searching for the many threads that have already addressed this, or feel free to start a new thread.

You must realize it was MEN who penned the bible. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote. And equally, there was a process whereby the church had to decide the canon from the many versions/writings floating around, and here too the church was guided by the Holy Spirit.
And clearly many people written about in the bible were also filled with the Holy Spirit, yet they did not pen the bible.
So the Holy Spirit didn’t just swoop down and manoeuvre men’s wrists, and swoop back up and stay there.
From even before those writers, until today, it is a stream of imperfect people in our church, whom the Holy Spirit prevents from teaching error. But never a squeaky-clean process. Not now, nor then.
 
40.png
cbp07:
I wonder if God is sorry that the “bible” ever got put together? Like He is sorry for ever creating man, I can’t remember the passage but I’m sure you understand. I’m sure that all of this seperation on part pf people who whole heartily love the Lord Jesus is causing Him much pain and suffering! Because all he wants is for us to love Him and each other! Not to get into arguments over what He did or didn’t say! All of this only causes is hurt, confusion, anger, pride, self-rightousness, hate, malice, splitting up of families and more of the like. All of which are only pointing to one thing.The devil! As long as he has got all of us fighting over " He said " and " He meant this " we don’t see the one who is causing all of this division! So before the " bible " was put together what did the early christians have to go by? Think about that one? Since the early church didn’t have the " bible " to go by and only teachings and traditions does that mean they are all in hell? You tell me.
Click to expand...
Wow, that was so sweet and tender. 🙂
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
I have a feeling, with the absurdity of Sola Scriptura, that people who follow this heresey would refer you to John 21:25:There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

PF
Click to expand...
This is one of my favorite verses in the Bible. Yes, if what Jesus did in your life and mine and everybody else’s life were written down, then the verse becomes more literally and convincingly true.

We might do a better job picking spouses and friends, for example, if we knew what was in their books of life.
 
Not everything is written in the Bible,It is written only the most important things that happened.Eating,taking a bath,going to the bathroom etc,are regular actions that have no importance to be mentioned in the Bible.Juat like the movies,they never tell you how many times the good guy uses the bathroom,why? Because it is not important.
 
You’re not much on,”ENLIGHTENMENT,” I see. There not a whole to extrapolate or interpret from your argument(s).

For example, i.e., I could say: “The mother/mater of all and any real TRUTH is/are WISDOM,” the arc of the covenant, the flower of Sharon, the Song of Songs, ONE who is worthy, a ,”SHOOT Of JESSE,” and you could ,”run with that,” and extrapolate more than I did…

Knowledge is quite different from WISDOM. Knowing things may or may not affect one’s HAPPINESS/DISPOSTION/CONSTITUTION, but WISDOM will always affect disposition.

11:1 The poor man’s wisdom lifts his head high
and sets him among princes.

11:2 Praise not a man for his looks;
despise not a man for his appearance.

11:3 Least is the bee among winged things,
but she reaps the choicest of all harvests.

SIRACH 15:17 Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him.

15:16 There are set before you fire and water;
to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.
😉
 
Going to the potty is a pegan invention, traditions of men if you will.
 
This is indeed a humorous and interesting post. Would I want to read, “And it is written, Jesus went out to deficate”? Well, no. We all know he did, hunger, expel bodily waste, and bathed(although probably not as much as we do). Bathing wasn’t common until the last couple centuries. In Jesus day they would use perfume to cover their body odor. The reason we know all this is because he was on the earth completely man and completely God. He was tempted as we can be tempted, he suffered as we can suffer, yet without sin. We also know he hungered specifically after a 40 day fast. The Bible truly could have been written to fill up the whole world and then some. God is infinite.
Why is their not more written in the Bible? Well we have all we need…

John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 21:24-25

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect(means complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I ask you what answer about God or His things is not answered by the Bible, but found elsewhere? His Word is truth. When the Bible speaks of tradition(except when condemning the Pharisees for their tradition) it is of the apostles and always in the past tense. Look it up if you doubt me. 🙂
 
Truthinlove, you are 100% right, the Bible is all we need and tradition is simply the handing down of a truth (such as the death and resurection of Christ) and NOT a private individuals own veiwpoints. God Himself could have made the Bible crystal clear on doctrines such as original sin, the immaculate conception of Mary, the Trinity, abortion, homosexuality, controceptives, etc, etc. But He INFALLIABLYwrote through FALLIABLE MEN everything He wanted to say in the scriptures to mankind. So why then are there so many denominations and splits of Christianity? I truly believe that mourns the heart of God. Christ prayed to the Father for us to be ONE just as His Father and He are one. Do you think they differ on Truth?

It is said that scripture is perspicuous (clear) and you only have to compare scripture with scripture, but there are different WAYS of doing that. There is the Lutheran way, the Calvinist way, the Church of Christ, the Baptists, the Arminian, the Methodist, the Christian Missionary Alliance, the 7’th day adventist, the Plymoth Brethern, the Presbyterian, the Mennonite, the Anglican, etc, etc. Each division believes to be guided by the Holy Spirit yet are themselves in dissagreement with one another.

Where is this all Truth that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would bring “But the Comforter the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said to you” John 14:26. Has this not happened yet? “I have yet MANY THINGS to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.” John 16:12. Where are these “Many things?” Perhaps in Acts 1:2-3: “To He presented Himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and SPEAKING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”

John 20:30-31 and 21:25 simply tell that Christ DID IN FACT do other things that were not recorded in Holy Scripture but the most important things that WERE recorded were about Christ being the Son of God, the Messiah! But perhaps the diciples did infact pass down ORALY those other things they wittnessed Christ perform or teach. Who is to say what’s true and what’s not? Nevertheless, Most of Catholic doctrines are well within scripture and the few that’s not (which is very few) is at least grounded in scripture.

One unified Church is much more believable to the world than literaly thousands of churches arguing amongst one another. And The Catholic Church regards Tradition as a Holy Sacred Divine Tradition and not “human” tradition. This too is well within scripture and the church Fathers. And the Catholic Church is the ONLY Church to my knowledge that can literaly on documented paper trace back it’s apostles and Popes to the diciples of Christ. The Church is the guardian of the Truth of Christ and His Word. For an infalliable Bible, you need an infalliable interpreter. That is FAR less a gift than the gift the FALLIABLE HUMAN men God chose to INFALLIABLE record his Word.

I would rather have a heart of compasion than a mind of a genuiess
God give you peace:)
 
There is a quote in the Scriptures where Jesus says that we don’t have to wash our hands before meals. I tried that one on my mother when I was a kid but never got very far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top