The Wedding of Jesus

[rinnie]

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Church condones it. Just that homosexuals probably have a history of gravitating toward the priesthood (and hiding the fact that they were gay).

Having homosexual feeling’s is not a sin. It is something you cannot control. Reacting on those feelings is the sin. Just like any other sin. So what a priest would feel inside would not matter. IT is the business of no one. What a person feels is not a sin, its what they do about it. Many people may be gay and not react on it. When a person is called to the Priesthood it is a calling from God. Not because they have homosexual feeliings. So you make no sense to me.

 

[rinnie]

This hardly serves as proof and since you are requiring proof, it is only fair that the same should be required of you.

The concept of why what you have given is not proof is something that we have learned from an early age. I am sure you have played the game “pass on the secret.” By the time it makes it to the last person, never have I seen it fail that the original secret has been warped, most often severely.

David Koresh taught that he was the messiah. Did it make it the truth? So, your church teaching that Jesus was not married is not reason enough to believe it. The church at one time not only taught that the earth was flat, but killed those who opposed and labeled them as heritics. The church has proven itself not to be the authority on truth just because they are the church.

What do you mean that is not proof. God is our proof. The church was here long before the bible. There would be no bible without the Church. So again I have no idea where you get your information. But you may want to read up on our faith, and try to understand Sacred, and Oral scripture before you even try to discuss it. Because like all else you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Valke2]

Having homosexual feeling’s is not a sin. It is something you cannot control. Reacting on those feelings is the sin. Just like any other sin. So what a priest would feel inside would not matter. IT is the business of no one. What a person feels is not a sin, its what they do about it. Many people may be gay and not react on it. When a person is called to the Priesthood it is a calling from God. Not because they have homosexual feeliings. So you make no sense to me.

But surely there are those who enter the priesthood who do so for reasons other than because they receive the calling.

 

[William_M]

Ben Masada:

I just read your original post. Very interesting and well written. I have always hoped that Jesus was married and had children so that he could know that love which cannot be experienced in any other way. Your post has touched my hope.

I have not read this whole thread so, if you have been asked this before, I apologize for the redundancy. Have you done any study of whether Jesus married, at Cana, not only Mary but also Martha? Such a theory has been around since at least the 19th Century. Are you familiar with it?

Thanks

William

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ben Masada:

I just read your original post. Very interesting and well written. I have always hoped that Jesus was married and had children so that he could know that love which cannot be experienced in any other way. Your post has touched my hope.

I have not read this whole thread so, if you have been asked this before, I apologize for the redundancy. Have you done any study of whether Jesus married, at Cana, not only Mary but also Martha? Such a theory has been around since at least the 19th Century. Are you familiar with it?

Thanks

William

Oh, Lord.

Talk about the blind leading the blind…

 

[simplynoone]

Oh, Lord.

Talk about the blind leading the blind…

Geez! Why is it that only those who see sense in what the maker of this thread says have to show proof for each and every thing they say and those opposed not only do not have to, but feel they have a free pass to be dogmatic in their view? And you wonder why so many find the Catholic church, and really the Church in general, to be hypocritical

As for those asking proof for what I stated earlier, I was thinking about the sun going around the earth theory. That did indeed invoke forcible “shutting ups” (even by death in some cases) by the church (though I speak generally here). Still, the church was quite opposed in the beginning to the idea of the earth not being flat. This is well documented and why don’t, for ONCE, you all get out and actually face a bit of reality rather than buying into the dogmatism that makes you feel like you are right in what you believe. Feeling right and BEING right are two different things.

 

[simplynoone]

Having homosexual feeling’s is not a sin. It is something you cannot control. Reacting on those feelings is the sin. Just like any other sin. So what a priest would feel inside would not matter. IT is the business of no one. What a person feels is not a sin, its what they do about it. Many people may be gay and not react on it. When a person is called to the Priesthood it is a calling from God. Not because they have homosexual feeliings. So you make no sense to me.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a weird view of homosexuality:

newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm

So while they see it to be an objective disorder, a tendency, a condition, those who follow through on such tendencies/conditions are sentenced to damnation.

Basically this means that God screwed up and that for one to go with the feelings of that mistake of God’s is punishable for them and God can not be held accountable. No wonder so many Catholics either end up not being practicing or a bit on the cu-koo side.

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada
THE WEDDING OF JESUS

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7; John 1:38; 3:2; 20:16. The point is that a Rabbi in Israel had to be a married man. Then, according to Judaism, after the proper procedures, the Jewish prospect would undergo the ceremonial “mikveh” or immersion in waters before ordination.

**For Ben Masada, William M and simplynoone, please consider the following. It will support the marriage of Jesus theory, I hope. I humbly request all friends to consider my suggestion.

1. Most part of Jesus life is not recorded. He was a Rabbi and may have been married at very early age of say 14 or 16.
2. That wife may have died or been divorced. He being a Rabbi, continued his duty fairly well as a single person.
3. The condition for a Rabbi to be married was satisfied. He had been married. So there was no objection to his being a Rabbi.
4. This affair with Mary Magd may be a second affair, second marriage. The marraige at Cana may be with Mary Magd or not be the marriage of Jesus at all.
5. It would not be possible that the loving mother Mary would not care to marry her son Jesus. She must have planned and got him married.
6. There is a complete blackout on the life of Jesus. Nobody knows what he was doing, how he was living until the age of 30. How bad for such an important person ! In my opinion.
7. Please consider any thing connected that may surface with Mary Magd as a second effort or second marriage of Jesus, not the first marriage.
8. That is my opinion. You may disagree. But I have come to the conclusion that there is no other way. If Jesus cannot be a Rabbi without being married then he must have been married at a very early age of which there is no record.**

 

[simplynoone]

**For Ben Masada, William M and simplynoone, please consider the following. It will support the marriage of Jesus theory, I hope. I humbly request all friends to consider my suggestion.

1. Most part of Jesus life is not recorded. He was a Rabbi and may have been married at very early age of say 14 or 16.
2. That wife may have died or been divorced. He being a Rabbi, continued his duty fairly well as a single person.
3. The condition for a Rabbi to be married was satisfied. He had been married. So there was no objection to his being a Rabbi.
4. This affair with Mary Magd may be a second affair, second marriage. The marraige at Cana may be with Mary Magd or not be the marriage of Jesus at all.
5. It would not be possible that the loving mother Mary would not care to marry her son Jesus. She must have planned and got him married.
6. There is a complete blackout on the life of Jesus. Nobody knows what he was doing, how he was living until the age of 30. How bad for such an important person ! In my opinion.
7. Please consider any thing connected that may surface with Mary Magd as a second effort or second marriage of Jesus, not the first marriage.
8. That is my opinion. You may disagree. But I have come to the conclusion that there is no other way. If Jesus cannot be a Rabbi without being married then he must have been married at a very early age of which there is no record.**

Friend, I agree with you. You all have won me over through reason the viewpoint that he had to be married, of course the details of marriage matter little to me in honesty; reason for such given at the end of this post. Those opposed have not used anything but sheer “I’m right and you’re wrong” to support their views. Only question that remains for me is, can we prove that Jesus even existed?

 

[adrift]

Geez! Why is it that only those who see sense in what the maker of this thread says have to show proof for each and every thing they say and those opposed not only do not have to, but feel they have a free pass to be dogmatic in their view? And you wonder why so many find the Catholic church, and really the Church in general, to be hypocritical

As for those asking proof for what I stated earlier, I was thinking about the sun going around the earth theory. That did indeed invoke forcible “shutting ups” (even by death in some cases) by the church (though I speak generally here). Still, the church was quite opposed in the beginning to the idea of the earth not being flat. This is well documented and why don’t, for ONCE, you all get out and actually face a bit of reality rather than buying into the dogmatism that makes you feel like you are right in what you believe. Feeling right and BEING right are two different things.

Did you read the thread? Proof is given against your accusation that the Church opposed the earth not being flat. When you make a statement you should be able to back it up. Why would it be hard for you to provide documentation if what you say is true? I asked for proof of people being executed for holding a belief that was not flat earth. I would happily provide proof that it didn’t happen accept you can’t ever prove a negative. You are making the claim. It become your burden to prove it. Saying something without proof is the same as saying something because you feel it is right. You say it is well documented? So produce that documentation.

 

[adrift]

**

1. That is my opinion. You may disagree. But I have come to the conclusion that there is no other way. If Jesus cannot be a Rabbi without being married then he must have been married at a very early age of which there is no record.**

An opinion does not make fact. It has yet to be reliably established that a rabbi HAD to be married. The evidence so far produced establishes that a rabbi DID NOT have to be married. There is NO record of Jesus being married. There is no mention that He had a wife.

Those opposed have not used anything but sheer “I’m right and you’re wrong” to support their views. Only question that remains for me is, can we prove that Jesus even existed?
Reply With Quote

You wouldn’t seem so foolish if you would actually read the thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

Friend, I agree with you. You all have won me over through reason the viewpoint that he had to be married, of course the details of marriage matter little to me in honesty; reason for such given at the end of this post. Those opposed have not used anything but sheer “I’m right and you’re wrong” to support their views. Only question that remains for me is, can we prove that Jesus even existed?

Hi friend simplynoone!

Quran mentions that Mary , Jesus and Moses existed; this lone witnessing from GodAllahYHWH, the Creator, the All-Seeing and All-Observing is sufficient for the proof . Otherwise most historians don’t believe they ever existed.

It might interest you that the historians certify that Muhammad existed.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Moses and Krishna

Thanks

 

[simplynoone]

You wouldn’t seem so foolish if you would actually read the thread.

I have already said that I have been following this thread (in other words, I have read through the thread). Does this make me seem less foolish to you now? Way to show the love of God man!

Hi friend simplynoone!

Quran mentions that Mary , Jesus and Moses existed; this lone witnessing from GodAllahYHWH, the Creator, the All-Seeing and All-Observing is sufficient for the proof . Otherwise most historians don’t believe they ever existed.

It might interest you that the historians certify that Muhammad existed.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Moses and Krishna

Thanks

I would have to say that along with a few others in this thread, you are amoung my favorites! I am not opposed to Muhammad. I am also not opposed to Jesus. The case with the Jesus is only that I have not seen anything to prove his existence. I have my ideas about his being mentioned in the New Testament and so I do not count him or his teachings out altogether. Does God require my acknowledgement of either of them though or is it my heart and recognition along with obedience of his ways that he is requiring? From what I understand, it is the recognition of him and his ways and to further that obedience of his ways that is required.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Geez! Why is it that only those who see sense in what the maker of this thread says have to show proof for each and every thing they say and those opposed not only do not have to, but feel they have a free pass to be dogmatic in their view? And you wonder why so many find the Catholic church, and really the Church in general, to be hypocritical

As for those asking proof for what I stated earlier, I was thinking about the sun going around the earth theory. That did indeed invoke forcible “shutting ups” (even by death in some cases) by the church (though I speak generally here). Still, the church was quite opposed in the beginning to the idea of the earth not being flat. This is well documented and why don’t, for ONCE, you all get out and actually face a bit of reality rather than buying into the dogmatism that makes you feel like you are right in what you believe. Feeling right and BEING right are two different things.

Your refusal to believe the proof of truth given does not mean it is not given.

 

[swariffin]

**For Ben Masada, William M and simplynoone, please consider the following. It will support the marriage of Jesus theory, I hope. I humbly request all friends to consider my suggestion.

1. Most part of Jesus life is not recorded. He was a Rabbi and may have been married at very early age of say 14 or 16.
2. That wife may have died or been divorced. He being a Rabbi, continued his duty fairly well as a single person.
3. The condition for a Rabbi to be married was satisfied. He had been married. So there was no objection to his being a Rabbi.
4. This affair with Mary Magd may be a second affair, second marriage. The marraige at Cana may be with Mary Magd or not be the marriage of Jesus at all.
5. It would not be possible that the loving mother Mary would not care to marry her son Jesus. She must have planned and got him married.
6. There is a complete blackout on the life of Jesus. Nobody knows what he was doing, how he was living until the age of 30. How bad for such an important person ! In my opinion.
7. Please consider any thing connected that may surface with Mary Magd as a second effort or second marriage of Jesus, not the first marriage.
8. That is my opinion. You may disagree. But I have come to the conclusion that there is no other way. If Jesus cannot be a Rabbi without being married then he must have been married at a very early age of which there is no record.**

1. The Jewish leader and some other Jews, including our friend Ben, don’t believe that Jesus was a Rabbi. So, forget about saying Jesus was a Rabbi. You are not sure that Jesus was married at the age of 14 or 16, so you are saying “may”. So, your opinion is based on assumption only.
2. Jesus against the idea of divorce and does not teach divorce (See Mat 19:1-9). So, Jesus could not do what he teach others not to do.
3. The Jewish leaders at that time as even Ben does not believe in Jesus, so Jesus could not be a Rabbi under their criteria.
4. Please proof the affair of Jesus to Mary Magdalene from the bible. Even in Quran you must have at least 3 witnesses for a serious accusation you made. Don’t run away if you can’t answer any question.
5. Jesus in his service among human being, was an adult and can be held responsible for His own conduct. Why would Mary must enforce marriage to Jesus.
6. The Jewish consider any man below the age 30 is not considered adult to be held responsible. So, whatever Jesus did would not matter and may be waived off or disregarded. So, the life of Jesus below 30 (except during the 12th age) is irrelevant.
7. Again, if you accuse someone, please provide the proof.
8. You are correct. In the eye of the Jewish leaders and some other Jewish like our brother Ben, Jesus was no Rabbi. So, forcing the situation that a Rabbi must be a married mad is absurd.

 

[simplynoone]

Your refusal to believe the proof of truth given does not mean it is not given.

And the proof for Jesus not being married has been given… … … … … … where exactly?

You contradict yourself by the way. Is the truth, in your opinion of course, a given or a proven? Go ahead and clear this up for me please.

 

[swariffin]

Friend, I agree with you. You all have won me over through reason the viewpoint that he had to be married, of course the details of marriage matter little to me in honesty; reason for such given at the end of this post. Those opposed have not used anything but sheer “I’m right and you’re wrong” to support their views. Only question that remains for me is, can we prove that Jesus even existed?

If you believe Jesus was not exist, it is ridiculous to discuss his marriage at all.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have already said that I have been following this thread (in other words, I have read through the thread). Does this make me seem less foolish to you now? Way to show the love of God man!

I would have to say that along with a few others in this thread, you are amoung my favorites! I am not opposed to Muhammad. I am also not opposed to Jesus. The case with the Jesus is only that I have not seen anything to prove his existence. I have my ideas about his being mentioned in the New Testament and so I do not count him or his teachings out altogether. Does God require my acknowledgement of either of them though or is it my heart and recognition along with obedience of his ways that he is requiring? From what I understand, it is the recognition of him and his ways and to further that obedience of his ways that is required.

First of all Jesus said that " I and the Father are one, No one come to the father except through the Son." So yes it is required to believe in Jesus the Christ.

 

[swariffin]

But surely there are those who enter the priesthood who do so for reasons other than because they receive the calling.

The topic of this thread is the Wedding of Jesus. Why would homosexuality has anything to do with that?

 

[simplynoone]

If you believe Jesus was not exist, it is ridiculous to discuss his marriage at all.

Well, geesh! Santa Clause not existing has never stopped many in the Catholic religion from telling (#coughs# or is that lying) to their children about his home being in the north pole and being married to Mrs. Clause, now has it? There is more reason for believing Jesus existed and so why should I be shut out of the speculating discussion?