Jesus Married? Scholar Unveils Ancient Script That Allegedly Quotes Christ Referring to ‘Wife’
This Sept. 5, 2012 photo released by Harvard University shows a fourth century fragment of papyrus that divinity professor Karen L. King says is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife. King, an expert in the history of Christianity, says the text contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to "my wife," whom he identified as Mary. King says the fragment of Coptic script is a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the second century. (Credit: AP)
BOSTON (TheBlaze/AP) — A Harvard University professor has unveiled a fourth century fragment of papyrus that she says is the only existing ancient text that quotes Jesus explicitly referring to having a wife.
Karen King, an expert in the history of Christianity, says the text contains a dialogue in which Jesus refers to ‘‘my wife,’’ whom he identified as Mary. King says the fragment of Coptic script is a copy of a gospel, probably written in Greek in the second century.
King unveiled the fragment of the ‘‘Gospel of Jesus’s Wife’’ in Rome on Tuesday. She says it doesn’t prove Jesus was married but speaks to issues of family and marriage that faced Christians.
King says on a Harvard website that the dialogue includes the disciples discussing whether Mary is worthy and Jesus saying ‘‘she can be my disciple.’’
“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” King told The New York Times. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”
(Photo Credit: FILE)
King claims she received an email in 2010 from a private collector who requested she translate the ancient text. King, 58, has reportedly written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.
The man who actually made the discovery asked not be be identified because, “He doesn’t want to be hounded by people who want to buy this,” King said.
Though many questions still remain, the discovery could again bring up theories that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’s wife and whether he had a female disciple.
Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.
Popular Stories
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 453 Comments
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 401 Comments
Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 361 Comments
This Could Be the Most Haunting Statistic You’ll Ever See 275 Comments
Group of Thugs Target Seemingly Defenseless Woman — They Had No Idea She Had Been Frequenting the Gun Range 263 Comments
Faith
-
Priest Gunned Down by Italian Mobsters Now Beatified
Read More
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
401 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 361 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
169 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
102 Comments
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
105 Comments
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
121 Comments
Technology
-
‘My Life Is Full of Blessings’: Flesh-Eating Bacteria Victim Who Lost All Limbs Smiles as She Shows Off New Bionic Hands
Read More
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
134 Comments
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (570)
Amos37
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:55pmI thought Jesus’ wife was the church?
Report this comment
The Jewish Avenger
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:22pmIt is…
I remember when PBS had a “professional” talk about the Bible, SuperLesbo was all they could find, every time she mentioned about the “misled and how they thought of his miracles” you weren’t sure if she was having a stroke or a coniption fit for every positive mention of Jesus on peoples lives, she had her eyes rolling in the back of her head or she would do that half-squint eye flutter….
Oh and lets not forget PBS’s insistance stance that the books written by that heterophobic guy… you know… the ones they made them into some Tom Hanks movie… where they claimed that Peter was a woman?
ya… that was about 60 seconds of my life I’ll never get back.
But even PBS couldn’t deny the hint they “perhaps” the “wife” was really the Church…
But you know… they’ll keep attempting to feed us deceptions and lies… but we…we are teaching and they’ll be teacher others. Most importantly we’ve read the end of the book…
We win.
Report this comment
ashestoashes
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:23pmIt is Amos
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:30pmThe mormon one, right?
Report this comment
ShyLow
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:58pmJCPenny Jesus Christ Penny You have to open the box to see if the cat is alive or dead
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:21pm‘We win.’
I couldn’t have distilled the infantile nature or organized religion any better myself.
Report this comment
Raging_Waters
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:59pm@AMOS, it is the Church. Check out the Song of Songs.
@ SHYLOW & ANDYETITMOVES:
Show me your wisdom and understanding…
“Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” -Proverbs 17:28
Report this comment
just my opinion maybe not yours
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:55pmOpen you hearts and minds and think about it, why wouldn’t he have taken a wife, they did so at very young ages at that time in history! Also there are many things that we don’t know because the powers that be won’t allow it out in the real world, meaning the Catholic Church! There are many stories around about a wife and child and so what if he had a wife and child as he was HUMAN, he was born and died as a HUMAN!
Report this comment
javasport
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:25pmIts not like he didn’t seek out John the Baptist get baptized, which was previously a Jewish ritual before it became a Christian ritual, or anything.
Report this comment
ThriCeSLewis
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:56pmI understand what you’re saying but I think it’s shortsighted. A few years ago, thanks to the death of my grandpa that set my mind on eternity followed by the challenging jest of my atheist cousin who asserted that Jesus is no more than a recycled pagan deity, I began a 6-month agnostic venture into the Jesus question. Long story short, I found Jesus as He is revealed in the New Testament. Anything more is a red herring swimming in the ocean of human imagination. Unfortunately we are far too ready to hitch a ride from pop-culture hysteria rather than journey on foot through the rigorous terrain of presuppositional discernment. Historically, this manuscript (and it’s apparent kin) are far too distant from the time of Jesus in contrast to what we already have. Theologically, Jesus (if He is God in the flesh) could not join in sexual union with another human being – whom He created…for the obvious reason that it would be incest. His mission was to serve not to be served. I highly recommend browsing http://www.apologetics315.com . Furthermore, since Constantine conspiracy theories tend to go hand in hand with this stuff, I recommend viewing this video on the Council of Nicea: http://youtu.be/WSKBGdv07nQ #peace
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:53pmAnything to pervert the word of God. Cowards wouldn’t dare do that to Islam.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:32pmPeople who use the word ‘perversion’ in reference to books are uniformly unintelligent.
Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 5:59amGo ahead and believe the 400 year old ‘after the fact’ drivel .
Project much.
Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 9:31amWho made you the arbiter of intelligence Andy?
Report this comment
WEBWITHDEB
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:45pmThe WORD of God is TRUTH. Anyone who perverts the TRUTH is a liar. Anyone who perverts the WORD of God, by the very definition of being adversarial to God, is SATANIC.
That being said, The TRUTH shall set you free people. How liberating it is to live in the TRUTH!
Report this comment
P8riot
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:52pmI’m curious why everyone seems to be so opposed to the idea of Christ being married?
Seriously, why and/or how would that detract from His role as Savior?
Personally, if he was or was not married, it wouldn’t change my love for Him.
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:00pmI agree, it’s irrelevant. Who he was and what he did is in no way watered down by being married or not.
Report this comment
booger71
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:02pmI agree. I don’t know why it would be so terrible or faith shaking if Jesus had been married.
Report this comment
RLTW
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:43pmI’ve read and some believe it would complete the trinity making it a quaternity and adding the feminine aspect (The Mother)
See the book of Enoch.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 7:31amWhat matters is it’s NOT TRUE and truth IS Jesus.
Give and inch take a mile …
Scripture … “do not swerve to the left or to the right”.
Report this comment
4truth2all
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 7:38am“Detract” … it makes Him more human, less God. It takes away from His divinity and purpose.
And, no disrespect … but that you don’t “see” that, is concerning!
Report this comment
P8riot
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 12:55pm@4TRUTH2ALL
In order to be our Savior, he must have atoned for all our sins… in order to do that he must be perfect. Thus, you imply that marriage is a sin??? With all due respect, that’s silly. PS. there is a difference between love and lust – a BIG difference.
Report this comment
TEARS FOR AMERICA
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:52pmIt is a pile of gnostic dung.
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:51pmPATTY……….Those that hate God are getting uglier with their insults. I’ve noticed it all over the web.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:59pm@MOMRULES. if they had any concept of WHO He REALLY was they would never say what they say about Him.
Report this comment
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:34pmHave to agree with this one, considering you don’t either.
Report this comment
NHwinter
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:38pmPATTY HENRY – I agree, they don’t know who He is. They will someday.
Report this comment
ShyLow
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:23pmGod is controlling my fingers to type this…and I will literally bet my soul on it
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:26amAnd it will get progressively worse MOM, as it was prophesied.
Report this comment
Niruba
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:40pmI what we know is true and Jesus of Nazarus was from a Jewish family, He had to be married.
Report this comment
MODEL82A1
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:49pmSo THAT’S where my daughter’s 4th Grade project went! Been looking everywhere for it!
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:49pmThis is just another attempt to smear Jesus’ Name.
It would have been a big event but the Bible says nothing about Jesus getting married.
Getting married does not fit in with Jesus’ purpose or mission, and He would have left an unsupported wife behind.
Too many “if’s.”
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:31pmWould you agree the part of Jesus’ mission was to “fulfill all righteousness”? Why was he baptized? He surely didn’t need it, but he showed us the example by following the commandments of His God (see John 20:17). It would make sense for Him to show us the example of marriage as well, unless you are liberal and don’t agree marriage is a divine and sanctified ordeal.
Report this comment
tonyloaf
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:45pmHow is being married a smear on Jesus’ name? And the gospels don’t mention anyone getting married by name except Mary and Joseph. I can think of reasons why Christ’s marriage wouldn’t be mentioned in the gospels. And in what way wouldn’t it fit with his purpose and mission?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:57pmJoey8 and tonyloaf, I will answer your question if you will answer one of mine.
Joseph Smith’s first vision in which he claims to have seen God, conflicts with the Bible, which says, “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18, I John 4:12). In Exodus 33:20, God also says, “There shall no man see me and live.” Men cannot see God because He is Spirit (John 4:24), and spirit is invisible (Col. 1:15, I Tim. 1:17). Therefore, anyone who claims to see God, contradicts the Bible. I Tim. 6:16 also says He “dwells in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen nor can see.”
Since Joseph Smith was a man, did he see God?
Report this comment
louie louie
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 10:28pmTo THEOTHERBEREAN, the Bible reports several instances of men seeing God. Adam walked with God. Moses spoke face to face with God. Jacob wrestled with God. Stephen saw Christ sitting on the right had of God in a vision. Joseph Smith’s First Vision was just that, a vision. The verse you quote is consistent with the rest of the Bible if you take it to mean that man, while in the flesh, cannot see God and live. He must first be transfigured like moses, be out of the body, or see him in a vision like Stephen or Joseph Smith. If nothing is impossible with God, then he can certainly find a way to show himself to man if he chooses.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 10:52pm@theother
Sure I’ll answer that is an easy one. Exodus 33:11 (you were close enough to that scripture with your reference, why’d you skip it”, And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend…” I believe the Bible. The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, just like a man speaks with his friend. Even my child can understand that one. Also, Stephen in Acts of the Apostles, as he is being stoned to death, looks and sees Jesus Christ at the right hand of God. Acts 7:55-56 ” And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”. Isaiah also saw God, Isaiah 6:5: “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts”. If you want to argue between seeing God with spiritual eyes or having a vision and actually physically being in the presence of God, that would be a good discussion. I don’t understand how people confuse the Lord speaking with Moses FACE TO FACE, not face to hand, not face to back, but face to face, like a man speaks with his friend. . Now, the way I understand the scripture you used in John. See how it works with this one phrase put rightfully back in it “No man hath seen God at any time; EXCEPT HE HATH BORNE RECORD OF THE SON, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father”.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:07pm@louie louie
Haven’t seen you on the boards before. If you’re new, you’ll enjoy all the chances you’ll get at debunking false teachings and interpretations. Just a heads up though, if you served a mission or have been a member for a while, there’s nothing new coming from people here. It’s the same washed up talking points that have been used for decades. I still take the time though mostly for the chance that an honest truth seeker happen to read.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:13pmLOUIE, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Smith insists that Jesus and the Father had bodies of “flesh and bone” and official Mormon literature says “Joseph went into the woods near his home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.”
That’s not what you describe above.
And BTW, which “official” version do you feel is the correct one? Was Smith visited by Jesus and the Father, or by an angel? And was it Nephi or Moroni? Several different accounts of Smith’s first vision are published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. I, Autumn, 1966, p. 29.
Adam was with God before the fall, and that is what now separates us from “seeing” the Father, so it’s not consequential that Adam saw God.
God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, not face to face.
I just checked, and 14 Bible versions all say that Jacob wrestled with “a man,” not God.
Many saw the “incarnate” Christ, but no one other than Smith has claimed to “see God” and that is because He is Spirit.
And finally I do not take the Bible to mean anything other than what it says, and it clearly says man cannot see God.
Would you care to discuss Smith’s false prophecies with me?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:18pmJoey8, the problem for your argument is that the Scriptures still say that man cannot see God, so obviously your interpretation is wrong.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:21pmIs there a way to edit a post?
I should have said that Moses may have talked with God but he did not “see God.”
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:25pmJOEY8 said “there’s nothing new coming from people here. It’s the same washed up talking points that have been used for decades. I still take the time though mostly for the chance that an honest truth seeker happen to read.”
Great, how does your belief system deal with Joseph Smith’s false prophecies and the fact that the Bible says the false prophet and those who follow him will end up in the lake of fire for eternity?
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:34pm@theother
Your problem is that you can’t read the scriptures for what they actually say because it would not fit what you want it to fit. You have to rationalize and say “like a man speaks with his friend doesn’t mean face to face like I talk with my friends”. Your other problem is that you believe the Bible to be infallible, so if there is any contradiction at all, the entire Book falls apart. I recognize the Bible to be correct as far as early Catholics organized and interpreted it. There is no scriptural basis to the Bible being an infallible perfect book (ever read the songs of solomon? how did that make the cut?). Also, to me, Joseph Smith telling different versions of what happens means that he didn’t make it up. What would you say if he repeated word for word the same story every single time? Honestly, ask yourself would you criticize him if that were the case? If so, search your heart. What’s keeping you from believing his story? Is it because he was just a boy? How about Samuel? Why wouldn’t you want a prophet on the earth now? Would it be so bad for Moses to be here to clear up some misunderstandings in the Bible and the thousands of different Christian denominations?
You said “God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, not face to face” but i don’t know how more clear Ex 33:11 can be when it says he DID speak to Moses face to face. Do you not see that you are being forced to say that this verse is wrong?
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:39pm@Theother
The fact that they are all answered on the FAIRMORMON site usually indicates they’ve been around for a while http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies. If you want to be lazy with talking points, ill be lazy with them too, but I enjoy searching the scriptures too much so here’s my, MY actual thoughts on this. I believe false prophets will burn. Here’s something to consider. Why did Jesus warn of false prophets in our time? Why not just say “beware of anyone claiming to be a prophet”? Why does he teach us how to tell a true prophet from a false one if there are to be no more? Why did he teach us “by their fruits ye shall know them”?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:39amJOEY8
You just need to do your homework and look beyond the Mormon influence. They may not be telling you all you need to know.
For example, on your site, the explanation that the temple prophecy being fulfilled in “this generation” can mean a century or more, is not what was believed at the time the prophecy was given. By February 7, 1875, Orson Pratt was teaching that only a few of those who were driven from Jackson County would return to receive their inheritances: “There will be some that will live to behold that day, and will return … according to the promise” (J of D vol. 17, p. 292).
In 1900, Lorenzo Snow was still hoping that the prophecy would be fulfilled when he affirmed at a special priesthood meeting in the Salt Lake Temple that ‘there are many here now under the sound of my voice, probably a majority, who will live to go back to Jackson County and assist in building that temple’ ” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p. 74).
The 1890 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants carried a footnote which read: “a generation does not all pass away in one hundred years” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1890 ad. section 84, p. 289). This footnote has been deleted in more recent editions.
And this is not an isolated incident. This type of deception is rampant throughout Mormon history.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:46am@theother
Do you always jump around from point to point like this? You still havent commented on my first question which you said you would answer. I show you a scripture that says “face to face” and you say “it wasn’t face to face”, then you bring up talking points that you think are new and I show you that they’ve been answered over and over again over many years. Learn to stay on topic. I think you’re more stuck on the “Mormon influence” than I am. Something has your panties all in a twist over my religion. What’s next? Jesus and Satan are brothers, we get out own planets? How about you read the Book of Mormon(hopefully better than you read your Bible)
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:19amJOEY8 If the message board were not so amaturish, it would be possible to conduct a proper discussion, but the way it is structured replies don’t always show up in the order they are submitted. It’s not my fault, deal with it.
And yes I did comment on your first question, when I said: “I should have said that Moses may have talked with God [face to face] but he did not “see God.”
Again, if the board were more robust, there would be a way to edit posts.
My talking points only expose the fact that much of the “inconvenient” evidence has not been considered when the answers were provided. You have to look outside the Mormon box to find that, but since you’re taught not to look, it has to be spoon fed to you.
You said: “How about you read the Book of Mormon(hopefully better than you read your Bible)”
I thought Mormons were supposed to avoid insulting people and making condescending remarks? I’ve read the standard works several times and the Bible perhaps several dozen times. So not only are you insolent, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and especially when you attack me for pointing out the fact that Mormonism was built on lies and deception. If you ever finally figure that out, you might be thankful instead of indignant.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:14pm@theother
LOL, its always entertaining to expose the seemingly innocent “I’ll answer your question if you answer mine” honest guys for what they really are. Why are you so bitter against my religion? Did we hurt your feelings somehow? If we did, I don’t really care. Not all Mormons are alike and I don’t take BS as readilly as my more righteous companions. All you have are talking points that have been refuted and your “maybe it was face to face but without seeing a face” lol at that. Good luck with that logic. With that kind of rationalizing, I wouldn’t trust your understanding of any part of the Bible
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:22pmAnd your definition of “read” seems to be different from mine. You “read” exodus 33:20 but not 11. I readthe entire chapter, so iI can only imagine what you mean by you “read” the standard works. Fail to the max. And I do try to avoid insulting, but man, the devil does tempt me with certain people. I’m pretty far from perfect but I do know that without the gospel of Jesus, I’d be a lot worse. I need to get back to my microbiology homework but I’ll entertain myself with your reply later
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:53pmJOEY8 said: “its always entertaining to expose the seemingly innocent “I’ll answer your question if you answer mine” honest guys for what they really are. Why are you so bitter against my religion?”
Why the attacks on my character? Out of valid arguments? I answered your question, while my original question goes unanswered by you. Moses may have “spoken” with God face to face but did he actually “see God?”
JOEY8 said: “Did we hurt your feelings somehow? If we did, I don’t really care. Not all Mormons are alike and I don’t take BS as readilly as my more righteous companions.
Who’s bitter now? But I do have to admit, you certainly seem less righteous, but as for not accepting BS, I’ll have to take your word for it.
May I quote you again? JOEY8 said: “With that kind of rationalizing, I wouldn’t trust your understanding of any part of the Bible”
Hey there slippery slope, do you know what logical fallacies are? Do a search.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:21pmJOEY8 said: I readthe entire chapter, so iI can only imagine what you mean by you “read” the standard works. Fail to the max.
You’re a Mormon and you don’t know what the 4 standard works are?
JOEY8 said: “And I do try to avoid insulting, but man, the devil does tempt me with certain people. I’m pretty far from perfect but I do know that without the gospel of Jesus, I’d be a lot worse.”
Well, maybe if we both pray for your patience and enlightenment, God will bring you to the knowledge of the truth, and then lightning bolts won’t have to shoot out of your underwear when the truth challenges your belief system.
But we digress… did Joseph Smith really “see” God?”
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:34pmLet’s go back to the beginning, your first question. The Bible says nobody can see God, Joseph Smith claims to have seen God, did he see God? The answer was given,there are many instances of people seeing God in the Bible, including Moses who spoke with God how you speak with friends. So when you speak with friends face to face, do you not see them? So yes, Joseph Smith did see God. You also mentioned that Joseph described the Father and Son having bodies as tangible as men. Do you remember an instance in the New Testament where Jesus appeared to people after His resurrection? Why couldn’t He do that again? Did Jesus ditch His resurrected body that the disciples were able to touch? It Doesnt say that in my Bible, and as most evangelicals believe, “if it doesn’t say it in the Bible, it didn’t happen”. So staying on this point of men seeing God, I pointed out that I am not restricted in the same way as you are because I don’t believe the Bibile is flawless. I believe inspired men of God wrote it, but uninspired men (from the same organization your church claims to “protest”) organized and compiled it. Hence, the need for an additional witness. Since nobody besides us is reading this now, I’ll invite you to email me to continue since these boards are terrible. I apologize for insulting you and do enjoy these encou tears because it supplements my scripture study. Out of the 10 or so evangelicals I’ve had religious discussion with here, not one has emailed me. Wrastler8
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:42pm…wrastler8(at)juno
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 1:47pmDoesn’t seem to want to post. Wrastler8 is the screen name and juno is the domain. These comment sections are terrible
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:00pmJOEY8
You keep saying I’m not answering your first questions, and I thought I had, but perhaps not, so here goes:
JOEY8 said: Would you agree the part of Jesus’ mission was to “fulfill all righteousness”?
Part, yes, but what does that have to do with marriage?
JOEY8Why was he baptized? He surely didn’t need it, but he showed us the example by following the commandments of His God (see John 20:17).
So? Marriage is not a commandment of God. Or did I miss the memo?
JOEY8It would make sense for Him to show us the example of marriage as well, unless you are liberal and don’t agree marriage is a divine and sanctified ordeal.
You really should learn about logical fallacies before you jump into these debates.
My answer rests on your definition of “divine and sanctified ordeal” and whether marriage is an example or a commandment. If it is an example, then your argument fails because there is no Biblical example that Jesus ever married, and if it is a commandment, well, quite frankly your argument fails then too because there are no commandments in the Bible for marriage.
Perhaps you’re confusing the Bible with the teachings of Joseph Smith? He taught that God revealed to him that polygamy is a requirement to enter the celestial kingdom, but God changed His mind about that later on, shortly after man made it illegal.
You know, sometimes God is so confused. It’s a good thing we have these Mormon prophets to sort out the truth for we apost
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:22pmI’ll be the first to admit that it doesn’t mention in the Bible that Jesus married and I really don’t advocate that He was. My faith in Him wouldn’t be shattered if I found out He was though, NIR would my faith in the Bible. Again, you are pretty limited by your own unbiblical belief that the Bible is a flawless collection of books, so much so that if it didn’t say it in the Bible, it didn’t happen. I mentioned part of Jesus’ mission was to set the example in obedience. I considered marriage to be a commandment from Genesis 2, leave your father and mother and cleave unto your wife. Again,I don’t advocate that Jesus was married because nobody knows, but my faith and testimony of my Savior wouldn’t be shattered if it was true. Still waiting on your email. Why are you still using these garbage comment boards. Are you going to jump to another topic now? Didn’t seem like you enjoyed ex 33:11
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:36pmHey JOEY8, apology accepted. No harm, no foul.
I agree the board is a hassle, but I think we should keep it here.
JOEY8 said: “there are many instances of people seeing God in the Bible, including Moses who spoke with God how you speak with friends. So when you speak with friends face to face, do you not see them? So yes, Joseph Smith did see God.”
When people are face to face we “may” be able to see each other but not necessarily. I have a blind friend so your argument is not conclusive, nor does it offer practical evidence. Do you have any more?
Regardless, the bible clearly contradicts the notion when it tells us in so many places that no man can “see God” and live.
You mentioned that the Incarnate Jesus has appeared to humans in the past but ignored the fact that Joseph Smith certainly claimed that he “saw God” as well as the Incarnate Christ. So that argument doesn’t address the real question.
JOEY8 said: So staying on this point of men seeing God, I pointed out that I am not restricted in the same way as you are because I don’t believe the Bibile is flawless. I believe inspired men of God wrote it, but uninspired men (from the same organization your church claims to “protest”) organized and compiled it. Hence, the need for an additional witness.
Quite frankly there is a plethora of historical and archeological evidence which disproves the restoration theory entirely. But you have to do your homework and look beyond the Mormon inf
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:45pmAnd n
obody had to prove the Joseph Smith story to me and I didn’t expect them to. In the end, the only person who could convince me was God, and He did through His Spirit. Good enough for me
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:06pmJOEY8 said: I‘ll be the first to admit that it doesn’t mention in the Bible that Jesus married and I really don’t advocate that He was. My faith in Him wouldn’t be shattered if I found out He was though, NIR would my faith in the Bible. Again, you are pretty limited by your own unbiblical belief that the Bible is a flawless collection of books, so much so that if it didn’t say it in the Bible, it didn’t happen.”
Your own 4 standard works teach that the implications are vitally important to your salvation.
Genesis 2 is not a commandment to get married.
And I never said the Bible is a flawless, but it is infallible. The Mormon teaching that Jesus is the offspring of a physical mating of a mother god and a father god, is supported by the Mormon teaching that Jesus also married and had children, however, none of these teachings appear in the Bible and there is no evidence that they were ever taught or practiced by Christians. The Bible actually contradicts them. The Mormon response to this is, well, the Bible must be flawed then, but they offer no evidence other than Joseph Smith’s declaration that it “must” be flawed because God told him it was so.
You are accusing me of jumping from topic to topic, but there are several topics going in this thread.
And why do you keep harping on Ex 3:11? Moses speaking with God is not the same as Moses seeing God
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 3:16pmJOEY8 “And nobody had to prove the Joseph Smith story to me and I didn’t expect them to. In the end, the only person who could convince me was God, and He did through His Spirit. Good enough for me ”
Why did “God’s Spirit” have to “convince” you that Smith’s story is true? Weren’t the facts sufficient?
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:08pmwhy did God’s Spirit need to witness it?
Recall when Jesus asked Peter “whom say ye that I am?”. How did Peter answer? What was Jesus’ response to that? You can’t count on flesh and blood to witness God’s truth that Jesus is the Christ or that the Bible is true or that the Book of Mormon is true. I don’t believe the teachings of the Bible are true because of some artifacts or ancient writing found somewhere in the desert, it’s because the Holy Ghost, which is the comforter, teaches all things. I rely on God for my wisdom, not other people’s findings. I’d hope, even though we don’t share the same faith, that your belief in Jesus is not because of physical evidence. Reminds me of Jesus showing Himself to Thomas.
“Jesus is the offspring of a physical mating of a mother god and a father god” you have to know you are being dishonest when you say things like that. For someone that has claimed to read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as well as the Bible, you have no idea what my religion teaches other than what your evangelical church puts on its website.
You still seem to be stumbling with the “face to face” thing and I don’t blame you. To you, it is completely incompatible with “no man can see God”. Recognizing that these verses seem to go against each other would make the Bible capable of being infallible. How could Stephen describe that Jesus was on the right hand of God when he saw them if God was invisible.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:15pmAlso, since I’m assuming you consider yourself an evangelical since you haven’t denied it when I said earlier (and you extremely false assumptions on what my religion believes), I’m assuming you believe in the whole trinity doctrine (not biblical, nowhere in the Bible). If so, wouldn’t Jesus showing himself to people after His resurrection be the same as God showing himself to people? On the road to Emmaus?
Final thought, if you want to know official doctrine of my church, look at the standard works which you seem familiar with, LDS.org, or a General Conference address. Members of the church are allowed to have their own opinions on issues but stating an opinion does not make it doctrine, just as I don’t hold your opinion on the “face to face” scripture to mean that all evangelicals believe as you do. I have my own share of personal beliefs as well. Which church do you belong to, I’ll see what shows up when I google “false teachings of the………… church”. I’m sure it would be a fair objective website.
Report this comment
Darren
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:28amThe other;
“Joseph Smith’s first vision in which he claims to have seen God, conflicts with the Bible, which says, “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18, I John 4:12).”
This may help. “30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Genesis 32:30). Not only did Jacob *see* God ‘face to face’ but apparently doing so *preserved* his life. (That means he did not die from *seeing* God). “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:5). Isaiah says he saw God as well.
These Old Testaments seem to contradict your assertion of the meaning behind John 1:18. However, these Old Testament passages make perfect sense when one reads John 6:46, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” That passage, which i believe speaks of the exact same doctrine as John 1:18 but with more detail. So, yes, there have been men who has seen God…literally. These were men of God and thus the Father showed Himself unto them…literally.
You’re quite welcome for my post. :>)
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:35pmJOEY8 said: “You can‘t count on flesh and blood to witness God’s truth that Jesus is the Christ or that the Bible is true or that the Book of Mormon is true.
John 10:37If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. 38But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
The test for the Book of Mormon can be found in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
JOEY8 said: “I’d hope, even though we don’t share the same faith, that your belief in Jesus is not because of physical evidence.
Only if you don’t consider the Bible physical evidence.
JOEY8 said: “Jesus is the offspring of a physical mating of a mother god and a father god” you have to know you are being dishonest when you say things like that.
Teacher, teach thyself.
http://tinyurl.com/8o2uzzl
11. The concepts of husband and wife becoming gods, sharing in their kingdom, and continuing to bear children are delineated in Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 132:19–20. These things suggest the cocept of an exalted Mother. Eliza R. Snow’s poem “O My Father,” written in 1843, establishes that the doctrine was known early in Church history. For further information, see the 1909 First Presidency message “The Origin of Man,” in Messages of the First Presidency, comp. James R. Clark, 6 vols., 1965–75, 4:203–5.
But don’t despair. John 8:32And you shall know the truth, and the truth
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:40pmJOEY8 said: You still seem to be stumbling with the “face to face” thing and I don’t blame you. To you, it is completely incompatible with “no man can see God”. Recognizing that these verses seem to go against each other would make the Bible capable of being infallible. How could Stephen describe that Jesus was on the right hand of God when he saw them if God was invisible.”
If you can find a real and valid contradiction in the Bible, with no plausible explanation other than it is a blatant contradiction, I will convert to Mormonism. That’s how confident I am.
Your “face to face” argument, still does not prove that Stephen actually “saw” God, and certainly not in the flesh, as Smith claims to have. Look at the context. Acts 7: 54 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
This is not indicative of a physical reality, this was an anthropomorphic expression of a “vision.” Do a search; To sit at “God’s right hand” demonstrates exaltation, power, prestige, honor, and strength. Stephen describing God in human terminology for the purpose of understanding aspects of God that could not otherwise be expressed in finite human terms. God does not have a body, thus He cannot have a right hand. The language is only figurative.
Psalm 16:8 demonstrates this well. Was the Lord actually set at David’s hand?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:49pmJOEY8 said: “Also, since I‘m assuming you consider yourself an evangelical [...] I said earlier (and you extremely false assumptions on what my religion believes), I’m assuming you believe in the whole trinity doctrine [...] If so, wouldn’t Jesus showing himself to people after His resurrection be the same as God showing himself to people?
I consider myself a member of the body of believer’s in Jesus Christ.
I believe that the Bible clearly demonstrates the Godhead to be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Who are three persons in One God.
And no, the Incarnate Jesus showing Himself to people is not the same as God showing Himself to People.
I believe that in Jesus can be found all the divine attributes of the Father, but He is a “manifestation” if you will, of that same God in the person of Jesus Christ, who is both God and man.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:51pmBTW JOEY8, the following pretty much destroys your “face to face” argument:
Ex 33:17Yahweh said to Moses, “I will do this thing also that you have spoken; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.” 18He said, “Please show me your glory.” 19He said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of Yahweh before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” 20He said, “You cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live.” 21Yahweh also said, “Behold, there is a place by me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22It will happen, while my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; 23then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:55pmJOEY8 said: Final thought, if you want to know official doctrine of my church, look at the standard works which you seem familiar with, LDS.org, or a General Conference address. Members of the church are allowed to have their own opinions on issues but stating an opinion does not make it doctrine, just as I don’t hold your opinion on the “face to face” scripture to mean that all evangelicals believe as you do. I have my own share of personal beliefs as well. Which church do you belong to, I’ll see what shows up when I google “false teachings of the………… church”. I’m sure it would be a fair objective website.”
As you should know by now, I spend a lot of time on LDS.org. and there is no doubt in my mind I know more about Mormonism than you do.
And I see you’re back to insults. I’m pretty sure I could shred you if I wanted to play that game, but I have the truth so it’s not necessary. A man with the truth is never at a disadvantage.
And don’t forget that we give respect, “then” we get respect.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 3:59pmDARREN Thanks for your comments.
See my reply to JOEY8. What you see there is also figurative speech.
As we see in Ex33, Moses saw God “face to face” but he could not “see” God’s face.
Report this comment
Darren
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 5:27pmTheOther;
“What you see there is also figurative speech. ”
Huh? That’s a pretty subjective interpretation, no? John 6:46 says men have seen God, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.” That’s strikingly similar to Joseph Smith’s Bible Edition which interprets John 1:18 as, “And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.” (Joseph Smith Edition; John 1:19. The KJV of John 1:18 reads, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”). In Joseph Smith’s version, man may definitely see God the Father through the [justification of] the Son. These are they who are “of the Father”, no?
I believe Jacob and Isaiah saw God literally with their eyes because, well, the Bible says they did. There is nothing unbiblical about saying that these two men and thus Moses as well, saw God’s face. There seems to be nothing symbolic or hypothetical about seeing God according to the Bible. The only way to say that these passages of theophanies are figurative speach is to inject the interpretation that they are figurative. A plain ans simple reading of these passages clearly declare that certain men literally saw God with their eyes. Again, there is nothing unbiblical about Joseph’s First Vision.
Good luck with your case.
Peace in our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Report this comment
Darren
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 5:45pmTheOther;
“and there is no doubt in my mind I know more about Mormonism than you do.”
LOL. I needed some comic relief. Thanks for providing it.
Eternal peace, my friend.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 6:15pmDARREN said: Huh? That’s a pretty subjective interpretation, no?
No. It’s an accurate interpretation. If these verses are to be taken literally then God must have large feet that He rests on the earth (Isaiah 66:1), innumerable eyes (Proverbs 15:3), a big nose (Exodus 15:8), and feathers on His wings (Psalm 91:4). Obviously these are not literal descriptions of God.
DARREN said: John 6:46 says men have seen God, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.”
Understood in the context of the next 10 verses or so, Jesus is clearly teaching that it is “He Himself ” who is from God, and therefore He is the one who saw God. Not men.
DARREN said: That‘s strikingly similar to Joseph Smith’s Bible Edition which interprets John 1:18 as, “And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; SNIP!
Interprets! Smith out and out changed the Bible to match the story of his first vision. Otherwise his theology doesn’t work.
Once you tell a lie you have to keep telling lies and eventually they catch up with you.
more…
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 6:28pmDARREN lovingly said: “I believe Jacob and Isaiah saw God literally with their eyes because, well, the Bible says they did. There is nothing unbiblical about saying that these two men and thus Moses as well, saw God’s face.
Chapter and verse that says they saw God literally with their eyes, please.
DARREN said: “The only way to say that these passages of theophanies are figurative speach is to inject the interpretation that they are figurative. A plain ans simple reading of these passages clearly declare that certain men literally saw God with their eyes.”
Again, if these verses are to be taken literally then God must have large feet that He rests on the earth (Isaiah 66:1), innumerable eyes (Proverbs 15:3), a big nose (Exodus 15:8), and feathers on His wings (Psalm 91:4). The Bible simply does not anywhere say that men literally saw God with their eyes. That is your interpretation, and it contradicts what the Bible “does” teach about man’s ability to “literally see” God.
According to the Bible, Joseph Smith could not have seen God, and especially the “god of flesh and bones” that he claims to have seen, since that one doesn’t exist.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 11:49pm@the other
Your back still trying to rationilze the “face to face” lol. The only problem with the verses that “smash” my very false interpretation that “as a man speaketh with his friend” means how normal people talk with friends, is that those verses come after ex 33:11, so after the fact that God spoke with Moses “face to face”(I still get a laugh at your blind person comparison lol). God showed His glory after that, but not His face.
So since you claim no congregation with pastors or teachers, by what authority are these interpretations of yours coming from? I can’t assume that you know the scriptures aren’t for private interpretation since you didn’t know Moses spoke to God face to face.
Why did God complicate the scriptures so much?if Jesus is a manifestation of the Father, why does the manifestation pray to itself? Why did Jesus say our God is His God? Why put in the phrase “as a man speaketh with his friend” if that’s not what it means? You spend all your time trying to explain to me what I believe, but Idont think you know what you believe. So do you believe in Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, some new megachurch pastor, king henry? Who baptized you and by what authority? Why is your interpretation right as opposed to catholics, baptists, methodists?
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 12:16am@the other
Ohhhhh I see why didn’t want to email me now. Just saw that link to an article in the ensign that you put. hoping to sneak that guy in lol. Did you manage to see the authors of that article? Lolololol. Like opinion pieces much? You really are something man.
“If you can find a real and valid contradiction in the Bible, with no plausible explanation other than it is a blatant contradiction, I will convert to Mormonism. That’s how confident I am.”
Now I really see where your foundation is. Not on faith in Christ, but by whoever has the most plausible explanation.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 12:26am‘anthropomorphic “, stand back everyone, this Guy has a degree in theology! No wonder you confuse thecrap out of yourself when reading the Bible, you want it to be confusing and difficult so you can show everyone how deeply you think. That’s not even original, the early Catholic church did it as did the pharisees.God is not some unknowing unformed blob of everything and nothing who is everywhere and nowhere who manifests himself as a man that speaks back to itself and says it’s its own God. Life eternal is knowing God, and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw them and in one morning, dispelled the great lie of the union eagle and unseeable God
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 12:35am“Unknown God” not “union eagle” lol. Don’t know how my Xoom figured that
Report this comment
Darren
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 1:07amDARREN
Posted on September 20, 2012 at 11:10pm
TheOther;
“A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form. Some of the theophanies are found in these passages:”
http://www.gotquestions.org/theophany-Christophany.html
And when Jacob says he saw God “face to face” than I interpret that as seing God face to face. When Isaiah says that his eyes saw “the King, the Lord of hosts”, I interpret that to mean that Isaiah literally saw the Lord (YHWH). When I rerad in John 6:46 that thse who are f the Father the Father has shwn Himself to them, than I interpret that to mean that Jacob and Isaiah were of the Father. When I read the next ten verses I take them to mean that it is thrugh the Son which man receives life. It is also through the Son which man may come unt the Father. So those ten verses are 100% harmonious to John 1:18 and particularly to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.
I appreciate your arguments but the bottm line is that Joseph Smith’s theophany is not at all incompatible to biblical teachings.
(I originally posted this in the wrong string)
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 5:46pmJOEY8 whined: Your back still trying to rationilze the “face to face” lol. The only problem with the verses that “smash” my very false interpretation that “as a man speaketh with his friend” means how normal people talk with friends, is that those verses come after ex 33:11, so after the fact that God spoke with Moses “face to face”(I still get a laugh at your blind person comparison lol). God showed His glory after that, but not His face.
Well, I would get a laugh at your pitiful attempts to turn the discussion away from the inconvenient facts, if it weren’t so intellectually dishonest.
But you’re (not your) Correct. Not His Face. And unfortunately for your argument I might add. Here it is again for your enjoyment 23then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”
It’s just sad there are people who believe what makes them “feel good” rather than the truth)
BTW, I said “destroyed, not smashed. There is a difference. Look it up. And then please stop twisting my words. If you are going to quote me, then please “quote” me.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 5:47pmJOEY8 the straw man opined: “So since you claim no congregation with pastors or teachers, by what authority are these interpretations of yours coming from? I can‘t assume that you know the scriptures aren’t for private interpretation since you didn’t know Moses spoke to God face to face.”
We’re not talking about “interpretations” we’re talking about facts. See Scripture above.
Unlike you, the only “Authority” in my life is the Word of God, and that can only be found in the Bible. And unlike you, the Holy Spirit is my teacher rather than a subjective “feeling.” Romans 10:17So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I can see your manners haven’t improved, nor have you learned about logical fallacies. At least look up straw man. You may even find a picture of yourself there.
I was thinking of Abraham and I admit the mistake. Mea Copa. Do whatever you feel you need to distract from the fact that your arguments aren’t working.
JOEY8 said: “Why did God complicate the scriptures so much?if Jesus is a manifestation of the Father, why does the manifestation pray to itself? Why did Jesus say our God is His God? …[yada yada yada]
You arrogantly chastised others for asking stupid washed up questions that were answered 100 years ago, so here are your answers http://www.gotquestions.org/
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 5:48pmJOEY8 apologetically slobbered: Ohhhhh I see why didn’t want to email me now. Just saw that link to an article in the ensign that you put. hoping to sneak that guy in lol. Did you manage to see the authors of that article? Lolololol. Like opinion pieces much? You really are something man.
I don’t want to email because unlike Mormons who like to hide the truth, I like everything out in the open for all to see.
You denounce the words of Joseph Smith, your Church’s founder and Prophet of God? He’s the one who gave you all these heresies. Why try and hide the facts with straw men?
I said earlier and JOEY8 accurately quoted for once “If you can find a real and valid contradiction in the Bible, with no plausible explanation other than it is a blatant contradiction, I will convert to Mormonism. That’s how confident I am.”
JOEY8 nervously vomited: “Now I really see where your foundation is. Not on faith in Christ, but by whoever has the most plausible explanation.”
Go ahead and claw at the wind, straw man. The offer still stands.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 5:49pmJOEY8 ranted: ‘anthropomorphic “, stand back everyone, this Guy has a degree in theology! No wonder you confuse thecrap out of yourself when reading the Bible, you want it to be confusing and difficult so you can show everyone how deeply you think. That’s not even original, the early Catholic church did it as did the pharisees.God is not some unknowing unformed blob of everything and nothing who is everywhere and nowhere who manifests himself as a man that speaks back to itself and says it’s its own God. Life eternal is knowing God, and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw them and in one morning, dispelled the great lie of the union eagle and unseeable God “Unknown God” not “union eagle” lol. Don’t know how my Xoom figured that
And your point is? I’ve already shown you how that cannot be true. Straw man.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 5:56pmDARREN said: “A theophany is a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form”
I don’t disagree. Just because God appeared to someone in some “form,” doesn’t “necessarily” mean what they saw was “God.” What they saw was a manifestation of God, the same as the example given in Ex 33, and for the same reason.
Smith describes God as being a man of flesh and bones. The Bible clearly says God is Spirit. Of course you could see God if he was a man of flesh and bones as Smith describes, but He is not.
The Bible clearly says man cannot see God and live, so consequently any act of “seeing God,” cannot be understood literally without a contradiction. If your interpretation indicates a contradiction, then your interpretation is simply wrong, not the intended meaning.
DARREN said: “I appreciate your arguments but the bottm line is that Joseph Smith’s theophany is not at all incompatible to biblical teachings.”
And I yours, as well. I appreciate the kind demeanor. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
But both Joseph Smith’s “theophany” and his “theology” are incompatible, because the notion that God was once a man as we are now and we too can become God’s is most definitely incompatible with Bible teaching. Smith obviously rewrote the Bible to get it to comply with his theology.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 21, 2012 at 10:28pmall those thousands of words you’ve been writing here, still unable to explain “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” As a man speaks with his friend. Do men speak to each other in visions? In dreams? In manifestations? I found this in Numbers while I was studying more on this subject:
“6And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”
If there be a prophet among them, God will make himself known in dreams or in a vision. But that wasn’t so with Moses (or as a newer modern translation puts it, “Not so, with My servant Moses”). So God didn’t talk with him in a vision or manifest himself in a dream, he spoke with him “mouth to mouth”, “face to face” and not in darkness.
Also, that last part of the Numbers scripture goes perfectly with Mormon theology, since we believe that Jesus, a separate being from His God and Father(see john 20:17), speaks in behalf of the Father since the Father only speaks to introduce the Son. It makes complete sense that Moses spoke to Christ who is the similitude of the Lord. Your ignorance led me to those verses. Thanks!
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 22, 2012 at 8:52amJOEY8
Speaking with someone face to face, is not the same as “seeing” someone. You can dance around that all you want, but the Bible clearly says man cannot “see” God and live. If you think you have found a verse that teaches differently, then that would be a contradiction. Since God does not contradict Himself, the problem is with your interpretation, which is wrong.
Report this comment
christos
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:45pm.Fake an attempt to discredit that +JESUS+ is +GOD+.
Report this comment
NOT A CRAZY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:33pmExactly. It doesn’t even look authentic in the picture. I call fake too.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:37pmDoes the Bible lie? Doesn’t Jesus have the same God as us? See John 20:17
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:29amCHRISTOS… this is something we most certainly agree upon.
Report this comment
team1blazer
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:44pmSam, please never get within 100 feet of me – I’m terrified of lightning, and God will not be mocked.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:08pmYOU SAID IT FAR BETTER THAN ME! :) I cannot believe the total misunderstanding of who GOD is as exhibited on this blog. I’m so sorry for these folks. !
I recognize that only 5% of people who have ever lived in the world have lived in FREEDOM and I’m so grateful to our FATHER-GOD FOR THAT…BUT BEING ALIVE WITH THIS FREEDOM TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND THEY ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING… HOW MISERABLE!! HOW SAD!!1
Report this comment
DeavonReye
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:47amPatty, I took that freedom and put it towards finding god, . . . but after ~20 years, it came back void. And yes, I did so completely honest and sincere [it was well before I had doubts that led to discoveries that eventually caused me to qualify myself as agnostic].
Report this comment
Witness1974
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 4:38pmDeavonreye: Have you read Stephen Charnock’s The Existence and Attributes of God? It’s not an easy read, but if all of your doubts aren’t erased after reading it, then sitting in God’s lap wouldn’t convince you.
Report this comment
DeavonReye
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 5:16pmNever heard of it. Have you read Karen Armstrong’s A History Of God?
Report this comment
Witness1974
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 6:32pmNo, but I would be willing to if you will read Charnock. By the way, I read the Bible the first time on a dare and started thinking that i would be able to de-bunk it. The Holy Spirit had other plans.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:15pmFar better than “I” ;)
Report this comment
Jezreel
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:42pmFools. Jesus does has a wife and it is his church, his body. “A man will leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh, but I speak about the mystery of Christ and his church”. This is what the apostle Paul said. His wife is NOT a particular denomination. It is those he has died for on the cross. Even though he died for the sins of the whole world, those who are truly HIS are his bride.
Report this comment
NHwinter
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:42pmJezreel – well said, thank you.
Report this comment
tonyloaf
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:48pmAnd how or why does having the Church as his symbolic bride prevent Him from having a real bride?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:59pmThat would be polygamy and unlike Joseph Smith who is a false prophet, the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Report this comment
Claudius
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 10:55pmReal clearly theotherberean,
Didn’t you ever read about Abraham and Jacob? Abraham had three and Jacob had two. The Lord has sanctioned polygamy at certain times in history (obviously it’s not sanctioned now but who knows, maybe in the future).
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:10pm@claudius
Can’t expect most people to know that without having read the entire Bible before, and not just what the pastor points out.I’m still baffled at how protestant churches still claim the Bible to be flawless and perfect while knowing that the church they “protested” and claimed had no authority was the one that collected the books and organized them
Report this comment
louie louie
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:20pmTHEOTHERBEREAN, where does “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” condemn polygamy in the Bible? Jesus is the son of David through Solomon, both of whom had many wives. The Lord condemned David for Bathsheba for obvious reasons, but he didn’t condemn him for his other wives. In fact, in 2 Samuel 12:8 he says he gave wives (plural) to him. Apparently, there have been times when God has approved of polygamy:
“And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:32pmClaudius, no, God never “sanctioned” polygamy, (chapter and verse please) He tolerated it, yes, sanctioned it no.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:37pmLOUIE, I think you’re confused. 2 Sam 12:18It happened on the seventh day, that the child died. The servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, “Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he didn’t listen to our voice. How will he then harm himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?”
Nothing about God “giving” plural wives to anyone there that I can see.
Report this comment
Joey8
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:51pm@theother
Another way that evangelicals like to attack the Mormon church is by trying to show that our Prophets were infallible, made mistakes. If you believe that polygamy is and was so terrible then and now, how could God allow a prophet to have sex with these women and still be His mouthpiece? Does God have different standards for prophets in different times? Will you hold ancient prophets to the same standard that you hold our prophets too? Then would you admit, maybe God tolerated Brigham Young to have more than one wife, and never try to use that to attack Mormon prophets again?
Report this comment
Critters58
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:42pmIt looks too perfect to be ancient. Compare it to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:24pmIt looks like it was written on a feed sack.
Report this comment
noland
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:42pmAnd here they go again!
Report this comment
KangarooJack
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:42pmIt is my understanding that Jesus was put upon this Earth to experience being Human. Marriage would be a VERY Human experience. He got the raw end of the deal- no matter how you view it. Sacraficed to take OUR sins upon his shoulders -I HOPE he was married. I hope he got to have one moment when he looked upon another human face and SHE smiled and said “Let’s go home”.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:02pmOMGOSH. You really need to know about CHRIST. REALLY. You are at the PARTY but you are missing all the joy from it. We were totally created by GOD whose SON is JESUS. There is NOTHING we know, think, experience that surprises HIM!!! YOU really don’t know the scope/power/ majesty of GOD and you cheat only yourselves if you don’t!
Report this comment
Totally Domestic
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:28pmJesus came to earth for the soul purpose of dieing on the Cross so that the world through
him might be saved. That meaning: Cleanse ppl of their sins by his shed blood if they will
ask him to be their Lord and Savior and repent of their sins and give him their lives.
Report this comment
Cesium
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 2:58pm@patty.. I really wish you would take down the Star of David Icon you have.. You are not remotely Jewish. Jesus was a Rabbi. Rabbi’s have wives.
Report this comment
Critters58
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:41pmComes from Harvard?
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:41pmI heard there is a youtube video out showing Jesus married her and had 12 kids, come on people, they aren’t talking about Jesus Christ, they are talking about Jesus Rodriguez. He is the trouble maker that got Mohammad drunk and caught him with that goat. The scroll is talking about Jesus Rodriguez’s girlfriend Marie, they got married, had 12 kids, the kids went awry and created a gang called the Apostles, caused a lot of problems, and they pulled pranks, usually involving loaves and fishes. They idolized their dad and kind of made a “Messiah” figure out of him. And the Apostles did start the fued between the Shites and the Sunni’s, it seems they started the rumor about Mohammads goat, and the fact the offspring were related to the Sunni’s, the Shites stated they were the goats true offspring, and boom, 1600 year war. The best prank they pulled, getting them to dress their women in burkas, that was the only way the Apostles could pass off their really ugly cousins in marriage, they acutally were getting 60% more goats in dowry’s. So, here again, it’s just the antics of Jesus Rodriguez popping up again, what a character, and his kids, whoa nelly. Someday I will tell you the story of his first fishing trip with the boys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JPniTm1muw
Report this comment
usermark
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 12:23pmAfter viewing this story and the You Tube video in your comment, I don’t understand why the state dept. and the Obama admin aren’t apoligizing to christians. I also don’t know why there has not been an angry mob marching on Harvard to capture and kill this “professor” and the dean who allowed this blasphemy angainst Jesus. Oh, wait – the bible does not teach us to kill all who do not adopt our religion or insult our savior…
Report this comment
Critters58
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:40pmThis will prove to be forgery or fraud! Just look at it! It obviously has been made to look old!
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:46pmIf you look closely, I think it’s on staples paper stock.
Report this comment
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:53pmCould just be a translation error, like that whole camel and eye of the needle thing.
Report this comment
darkknight91
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:05pmDarmok, that’s Dunder Mifflin stock. I’m pretty sure Dwight was the salesman.
Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:12pmI wonder if the parchment smells like beets?
Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:55pmCRITTERS58, Been watching Pawn Stars. They’ll teach you to spot all of that fake Civil War stuff too.
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:39pmSAMTREE: Apologize now. HOW dare you try to insult the only reason you’ll have a shot at eternal life? HOW dare you try to insult the SON of GOD who came down from HEAVEN to die for YOUR sins?
You are just cheap.
I wonder how many of these hotshots have watched a THUNDER STORM recently. YOU are messing with the CREATOR of all the POWER you know…wanna keep it up. Tah Tah.
Report this comment
guitarspook
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:09pmYou were at the consulate in Libya weren’t you? Sure sound a lot like those nut jobs too. Hapless idiot…Go riot in the streets if it makes you feel better.
Report this comment
DeavonReye
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 10:10amHis post must have been deleted because the only one from Samtree that I see is hardly malevolent. I guess I’ll have to remain in the dark about what he said.
Report this comment
cookcountypatriot
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:39pmnonsense!…pure progressive folly
Report this comment
samtree
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:38pmThat papyrus looks awfully fake to me. Hardly any wear and tear for how old it is and did they really use the English alphabet back then. The first word is “giant” and the first word on the last row is “angry”.
Pat, I’d like to buy a vowel.
Report this comment
Chet Hempstead
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:13pmΕίστε ένας ανόητος.
In case you’re wondering, that’s not English, though it has a lot of letters that look like ours.
Report this comment
MaltedCheese
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:38pmWhy wouldn’t He have been married?
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:40pmHIS focus was to be upon all of us. He was not here to “LIVE” but to die.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:50pmJesus came to Earth, to experience the Human condition, and to atone for our sins. Unless He (and through him, God) truly walked a mile in Man’s moccasins, the price Christ paid would be without context and bereft of a lot of true meaning.
You cannot live the Human experience, without at some point loving someone, marrying and having kids. Point blank. Asserting that Christ was put here in order to die, is farcical. He was sent here to LIVE with us, to LEAD us, and to TEACH us. And he could not do these things, AS one of us, unless he WAS, IN FACT, ONE OF US.
All this scrap of paper tells us is that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son …
Report this comment
P8riot
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:56pmgreat question… I’ve asked the same question… the Bible is completely silent to the issue – so who is it that one day decided that He wasn’t married?
Report this comment
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:04pm@ NORM: WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE come from? Have you never read the BIBLE? Have you never studied anything about the CREATOR of the UNIVERSE. NOTHING you said is accurate. Except Jesus is God’s Son.
Report this comment
Tigress1
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:04pmIf Jesus was sent here to die, then that would create a whole new argument for predestination wouldn’t it?
Report this comment
NHwinter
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:02pmTigress1 – Yes, His death was predestined. When Jesus was lost to his parents and they looked for three days only to find Him in the Temple preaching, He said to them “I must be about My Father’s business”. Also, when Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus to the Temple, Simeon said to Mary: Behold this child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; and thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.” Luke 2: 34-35. The Prophet Simeon foretold of Jesus Passion and death. When dying on the cross, Jesus said, It is done. His mission was complete.
God’s way are far above ours, what we see as behind a veil now, will one day be clear.
Report this comment
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:38pmIt also says something about supporting Barack Obama.
Report this comment
john vincent
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:38pmThis is an easy one:
Either the reference is to ‘another’ man named Jesus, or this is a simple assault on HE who is the ‘way, the truth, and the life…’
In addition, if an alleged ‘scholar’ actually tried to promote this fanciful idea of the son of GOd having a wife, he is worse than an infidel.
Report this comment
Norm D. Plume
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:45pmOr, it’s not an attack at all.
It could be referring to the real Jesus, who was a RABBI, and who was referred to as such in the Scriptures.
Rabbis were then, and are now, MARRIED MEN.
All this text makes clear is that Jesus could indeed have been a Rabbi. Also, it says that the minds and hearts of women are important.
Why would a scrap of paper which could give us more insight into the life of a man that many of us call “Savior”, necessarily be an attack? Because it disagrees with CHURCH doctrine? I find little value in church doctrines, personally, preferring to read the text of the scriptures for myself and making up my own mind — the one God gave me, for just this purpose.
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:47pmI vote an assault. Anything to insult the Savior these days seems to creeping out.
Report this comment
burningsodium
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:50pmthe dialog includes his disciples asking….or do all people named Jesus have disciples? The Nicene in the 4th century finalized a lot of dogma whether it was historically correct or not.
Report this comment
TEARS FOR AMERICA
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:58pmAnd we should all converge on Harvard and burn it to the ground, right? They are offending me as a Christian and blaspheming the sinless Lord…sound like the radicals that killed the Ambassador and our guys?
Report this comment
john vincent
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:00pmnorm-
u say u are all for ‘doctrine?’ well, the onus is on u to find, IN THE SCRIPTURES, evidence that the Saviour u speak of, had a wife. The warp and woof of scripture speaks to the rather stentorian point that he was ‘man of sorrows;’ when asked by one where he was he answered, ‘i must be about my father’s business,’ the lamb of GOd had no wife my friend, he id GOd.
Rabbi? you say well, for many called him rabbi, maybe you forgot he went to a wedding, not with his wife, but with his mother, and when turning that water into the very best of wine, it was not to perform a miracle, but ‘that his glory may be manifested…’
Ye do greatly err, not knowing the scriptures.
MOm-
another vote
Report this comment
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:19pmNORM D. PLUME
“All this text makes clear is that Jesus could indeed have been a Rabbi.”
You think this scrap of parchment makes it CLEAR? Talk about overreaching and wishful thinking – you win the prize.
Report this comment
tonyloaf
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 8:51pm@ momrules: How is having a wife an insult?
Report this comment
momrules
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 9:45pmTonyloaf……….It implies that Jesus deceived us. Deception is a lie. Jesus came as a teacher, servant and sacrifice. He taught us all we needed to know about Him and what He was here for. If Jesus had been married He would have told us. If Jesus did not say it and if the Apostles who were with Him during His ministry did not say it then it did not happen.
Jesus does not lie or hide the truth and to accuse Him of such is an insult.
Report this comment
louie louie
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 10:52pmMOMRULES said “If Jesus did not say it and if the Apostles who were with Him during His ministry did not say it then it did not happen.”
-
May I refer you to the last verse in the Gospel of John?
“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.”
Obviously, there were many things that Jesus did that were not recorded in the Bible. (Unless you don’t believe John.) They recorded the things they thought were most important. Leaving out much of what Jesus did does not make them “liars”. We only know that some of the Apostles were married because Paul mentions it in passing. There is no record of their weddings in the Bible but that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. God married Adam and Eve and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. I don’t know if Christ was married, but he would not have violated his father’s 1st commandment to man unless he was “cut off” from the land before doing so.
Report this comment
john vincent
Posted on September 19, 2012 at 8:23amlouie louie I say unto you….
ye greatly err not knowing the scriptures nor the powert of GOd.
You did not follow MOMS logic. TO say there was no biblical flood, nor admit there was a vessel called an ark, is to call the LORD Jesus Christ a liar, for he spoke of it as a hisrorical certainty.
Having a wife is not the issue here, it is the integrity of GOd, his word, and His Christ. Husbands and wives are for NOW, (do u not know the scripture that says angels do not marry?) how much more does the son of GOd not marry?
THis ASSAULT on scripture and its facts are age old, and it would not surprise me if this new doc. was forged by a heretic, unbeliever, or apostate. Doesnt matter. THe ‘many other things’ you referenced and chastised MOM for not seeing, is simply acts and things he did that spoke to his ‘well of giving, serving, and loving’
Scripture is certainly silent on things in which there is liberty; there is no liberty to assume, pretend, or teach that the creator had a wife. It is absurd to a spiritual mind.
Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:35pmSilly.
Report this comment
NewLife56
Posted on September 18, 2012 at 7:31pmCan you say, Fake?
Report this comment