Making the case for atheism...can it be done?

kwsteve

Egypt: Mummy mask found to contain 'oldest known gospel' from first century AD

Milo

Troubling to say the least . . .

kwsteve

I wonder if it will confirm if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Can't wait to read the 'study.'

Milo

He wasn't . . . hope that clears it up for you.

kwsteve

That's not been proven.

Milo

While a couple of the Gnostic gospels mention Jesus having a close relationship with Mary Magdalene, none of them specifically state that Jesus was married to her or to anyone else. Ultimately, it does not matter what the "Jesus' wife papyrus" or Gnostic gospels say. They have no authority.

The Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Bible specifically because of their unreliability, their contradictions (within their own texts), and their outright misogyny.

Also . . .

Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence

Finally, no where in the Bible does it mention Jesus being married which, on the whole, would be a pretty big part of his life to leave out.

kwsteve

Jesus was a Rabbi. They are obligated to marry. If Jesus was unmarried that would have been a sufficiently unusual situation that someone would have mentioned it in a gospel somewhere. Yet, all we have are gospels saying he was married.

And the Bible has been scrubbed of all references to the married Jesus because it did not jive with the celibate Pauline church.

Easy, sensible, reasonable explanation.

Milo;389010 wrote The Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Bible specifically because of their unreliability, their contradictions (within their own texts), and their outright misogyny.

Nope. They were left out because they often contradicted the established Pauline tradition.

Furthermore, the early church viewed the Old Testament as both authoritative and inspired, as 2 Timothy 3:16 shows. This is an important point in regard to Gnosticism. The earliest churches had already recognized the Hebrew Scriptures as canon, a set of authoritative and divinely inspired texts. Notice how much of the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament books—all written to edify churches across the ancient world. Gnosticism fundamentally rejected Jewish theology about the goodness of creation, and especially the idea that all the nations could be blessed through Abraham and his faith. When the church accepted the Hebrew Scriptures, it implicitly rejected Gnosticism before it had a chance to get started. Thus we are already at a watershed moment in the development of early Christianity, one that could not allow Gnosticism to ever be regarded as a legitimate development of the Christian faith.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/june/7.26.html?start=2

Milo

kwsteve;389018 wroteJesus was a Rabbi. They are obligated to marry.

False . . . it was customary at that time period, but not mandatory.

And the Bible has been scrubbed of all references to the married Jesus because it did not jive with the celibate Pauline church.

Or, perhaps, because He was never, in fact, married . . .

Easy, sensible, reasonable explanation.
[URL="http://"][/URL]

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses . . . main reason for no mention of a married Christ is because he wasn't.

kwsteve

I love the way you make claims without ever giving any evidence.

http://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1987-2/1987-2-02.pdf

Anyways, I respect your right to hold any beliefs you want. But there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Milo

The Talmud never states that a man is REQUIRED to be married, only that his life is improved by the marital state.
There is one reference to unmarried men not being allowed to teach children, but that is generally accepted to be more about the appearance of impropriety.

The marriage issue is primarily based on readings and inferences surrounding two of the Gnostic Gospels, namely that of Mary and Phillip. In both it is written that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than even his 12 disciples but, interestingly enough, not even in these two books does it say that Jesus was married to her. It does mention Jesus kissing her, but even that is not evidence of marriage as it is only the type of kiss bestowed in greeting a close friend, as He would have done with one of his disciples.

So, sorry, but I am quite confident that you can produce no evidence that refutes two millennia of accepted fact that Jesus of Nazareth was not married.

Milo

kwsteve;389018 wroteJesus was a Rabbi.

Forgot this part . . .

While Jesus is referred to on multiple occasions as "Rabbi" by His disciples he was not, in point of fact, a Rabbi. At least, not in the sense of the Judaic Faith, which is what you are referring to when you say that He was obligated to marry for this reason.

ddmilcan

Today's Short Reading from the Bible...
From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the earth."
Then He made the earth round...and He laughed and laughed and laughed

Milton Not so!

The Prophet 22

ddmilcan;389266 wroteToday's Short Reading from the Bible...
From Genesis: "And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the earth."
Then He made the earth round...and He laughed and laughed and laughed

Milton Not so!

I can honestly say I didn't laugh.

The Prophet 22

kwsteve;389018 wroteJesus was a Rabbi. They are obligated to marry. If Jesus was unmarried that would have been a sufficiently unusual situation that someone would have mentioned it in a gospel somewhere. Yet, all we have are gospels saying he was married.

And the Bible has been scrubbed of all references to the married Jesus because it did not jive with the celibate Pauline church.

Easy, sensible, reasonable explanation.

Nope. They were left out because they often contradicted the established Pauline tradition.

Why the 'Lost Gospels' Lost Out | Christianity Today

You know I watched an hour documentary on this subject with Karen King from Harvard. Just wondering why this topic is so important to non believers? What do you think it will prove?

As far as the first point, not quite what Paul is getting at, there isn't a conflict with what Christ taught on marriage and what Paul taught. If you really believe this, you really don't understand the science behind textual criticism.

kwsteve

It isn't that it's important to non-believers. It is very important to believers that Jesus was celibate, for some reason.

Corinthians 1:7

Paul tells his followers that it is good for a man to NOT have sexual relations with women. And he holds himself up as the best example of celibacy. Why not Jesus? If Jesus was celibate why wouldn't Paul cite him as the best example of a celibate life? It's because he wasn't.

It's the whole basis for priests being celibate today. And there is no reason for it.

Milo

Paul's preference for celibacy in the priesthood is to prevent the distraction that marriage/sex would provide from the necessary devotion to the spiritual.

Why a Celibate Priesthood? | Catholic Answers

DrTyore

Everyone try to find a way to watch this..

"Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" The Vatican (TV Episode 2009) - IMDb

It's a little out of date already after only 6 years.... but still,

/thread

Mark

Milo

Two minutes in and the errors start. Vatican did not deny/condone the Holocaust. Even ISRAEL says that Pius XII was righteous in his condemnation of the Nazis.
8:30 Bullshit stat about numbers of Gay Priests . . . citation?

As for the comedian broad, seems like she has had her career enhanced immeasurably by this little controversy she stirred up. You don't think she might have done so knowing that this would be the result, do you? That would be bullshit . . .

The Prophet 22

GOD, SCIENCE AND THE BIG QUESTIONS

La Mirada, California
Live Tonight from Biola University!
**Free Live Stream Available

God, Science & The Big Questions: Leading Christian Thinkers Respond to the New Atheism

Leading Christian Thinkers Respond to the New Atheism

Friday, January 30, 2015

Starts 10:30 PM EST - Ends Jan 31 at 12:30 AM

Join us for this fast-paced, wide-ranging and supremely stimulating discussion among some of the finest thinkers in the Christian world. Nothing is off the table as they discuss science vs. Christianity, arguments for God, the decline of Darwinism, radical Islam and the Gospel, responding to skeptics, the problem of consciousness, mathematics and the cosmos, the nature of knowledge, and much, much more.

FEATURING:

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, Ph.D., D.Theol.
Research Professor of Philosophy
at Biola University

HUGH HEWITT, JD.
National talk radio host and
Professor of Law at Chapman University

JOHN LENNOX, Ph.D., D.Phil.
Professor of Mathematics
at Oxford University

JP MORELAND, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy
at Biola University

As an alternative to the video Mark posted by Penn Jillette.

Would be interested in a review of this live stream in the way I did the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate last year. What is good, what is bad, questions that still need answers to them. (If someone has some time to kill)

Brent

DrTyore

Fun things..

Prophet's post of various D-bags offering pro-Catho-Christi-Religio stances... equivalent to Goebbels and Göring saying... "no no no.. the Jews aren't at all targeted.."

And.. despite the fact that more people should know what I'm saying... Milo is just highlighting the minimal failures of an argument to pro-religion shit.... and still confirming his "bitches be crazy second class"... (try to guess when Milo.. no no.. don't) just rest assured that "I believe in God... get over it" isn't what we're looking at.. Myself, Nic, et al are are arguing that any reasonable / rational person is not a religious person is our premise... clearly doesn't apply to you.

Super fun that you picked like.. the two things that aren't the main part... maybe the document of "current (then) pope was all don't doubt our raping document."

Fun times.

Mark

« Previous Page Next Page »