[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 01:00:05 04/01/06 Sat
Author: MyLadyBanshee
Subject: Re: Was Christ married?
In reply to:
Lord Veritas
's message, "Was Christ married?" on 17:29:43 02/07/06 Tue
Wow… It’s been a while since I visited here and how nice to find a great debate going on. Where do I start?? I believe, LV, that you are referring to the statement I made to Rev N P Robbins; “The idea that Christ was married is one subject I am well prepared to debate with you should you wish to discuss it more!!” So I did not in fact state that I had information to “prove” Christ was married, simply that I was prepared to debate the subject!
It seems I am a bit behind in this discussion so I will try to address and add to the things that caught my attention the most.
I would like to first start by stating that, to me, whether Christ was married or not makes no difference. It does not affect my faith in Him or the things He came to accomplish. It is, however, an area of interest. I am aware that since “The DaVinci Code” by Dan Brown came out and has now been made into a film, the subject has become a great area of interest for many people. I would like to point out that this book is a work of fiction. Mr. Brown clearly states this in his book and states that his plot was developed using several sources, also listed in his book. These sources, including the ever popular “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” should not be discredited simply for their association with Dan Brown’s work of fiction. Many of their theories are well researched and intelligent theories. Though I disagree with many of their (the authors of such books on the subject of the Holy Grail, etc) findings, I cannot say the theories are foolish and discredit them in any way.
Reading over the posts, I might point out LV (and Unbiased), that in a debate, each side is required to back-up or support their argument. Your entire argument is “There’s no proof!” Have you sought any? You stated in a reply to Quiznos (Have we established that this is Mormon 210?? I’m confused..:-) ) that;
“Since the plausibility of Christ getting married does not answer whether or not he was actually married, your logic was a complete waste of time that could have been better spent researching his life, to create an argument that actually had some merit”
First of all, this entire discussion is technically on the “plausibility” that Jesus was married, since there is no physical proof or direct statement in Scriptures, that He was or wasn’t married (to our knowledge, so far). You require proof that He was married, how about you try proving He wasn’t (I say this respectfully, of course ).
Quiznos’ formula on research principles, is in fact one we also use in the study of History. You see, History is not an exact science, simply an interpretation of “available” data. It would in fact be more historically correct to assume He was married since Hebrew customs would have made it a dishonor, even a curse not only to himself but to his entire family should He have been unmarried. Also, Jesus is referred to several times in the scriptures as “Rabbi” and it is mentioned that He taught in the Temple (See; Matt. 26: 55, Mark 12: 35, John 7: 14, 28, John 8: 20 John 1: 38, Just a few references). He could not have been permitted to teach in the temple, thus holding the office of Rabbi, had He been considered a dishonored (or cursed) member of the Hebrew society.
There is more I have to add in regards to scriptural reference to Jesus being married but I will do so in a later post. I would like to address already posted issues first.
In regards to the meaning of the word “commandment”, I would just like to point out that it matters not in this discussion how we interpret the word. What is important is how the Hebrews interpreted the word and how it affected their belief system and culture.
Next, to Unbiased. You did not, in fact, blow up Quiznos’ formula since a paradox does not exist in this equation. Christ could not exempt Himself in this case since He was providing an example for men. What purpose would exempting Himself serve in this. Every parent knows that “do as I say and not as I do” always backfires in the end!!
There! I’ve said my piece to what has thus far been said!
Cheers!
Banshee
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [>
Re: Was Christ married? -- Quizno210hopper, 15:51:33 04/03/06 Mon
No response...means they are fed up with me. I am either to dense for their greatness or they simply have no patience for miniscule things like the truth.
As for being Mormon210 - that is true, but since I haven't participated in so long I did not remember my online name. So I used Quizno's since that was what I was eating at the time. Finally, I was being indoctrinated by LV, so I said that I would just bow down to his/her greatness and become the humble Grasshopper (teachable and eager). Now in order to assume all those identities I just take a little of each thus - Quzno210hopper
Finally, I think the debate is still on in that if Christ is to remain perfect both in the flesh and in the Spirit (the paradox developed by LV) then He would have to obey the flesh commandment and the spirit commandment. I also think your "what would be appropriate in the culture" argument was excellent.
Most of all, if Christ weren't married, I simply won't drop my faith and all the sudden become a lipservice religionist. I still believe that I have made covenants that are beneficial to myself, my family, and my community. I won't diminish these covenants at the expense of my ego. In other words, I would prefer to be labeled dumb, blind and illogical than to break the covenants I have made such as fidelity to my wife, honesty in my dealings with my fellow man, zealous in my love for my Eternal Savior, give all I have to building up the kingdom of Zion on this earth, etc.
Quizno210hopper.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Was Christ married? -- MyLadyBanshee, 23:22:56 04/03/06 Mon
Well...I do seem to have the knack of jumping into things late... Ah well...Thanks for the compliment and for clearing up the name game!!
I have noticed that many people forget that when they read scriptures, be it Old Testament, New Testament, Book Of Mormon, Kabala, etc., that we are dealing with 3 worlds (meaning cultures or points of view);
1) The world behind the text (the author’s world),
2) The world within the text (the characters’ world) and
3) The world in front of the text (that would be the reader’s world).
This can cause so much confusion in interpreting old documents, such as the scriptures, since many people know little about cultures (worlds) outside of their own. By that I mean that they interpret what they read by their own point of view, such as the debate on the meaning of “commandments”. Knowing the background of the world behind and within the texts, helps us better interpret and understand the meaning of the texts. It gives us a three dimensional view, if you will.
Anyway…just though I’d add that!
Hope the others join in again! What happened to everyone? This board used to be so active!
Banshee
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Interesting...argument... -- Lord Veritas, 19:54:00 04/12/06 Wed
>Wow… It’s been a while since I visited here and how
>nice to find a great debate going on. Where do I
>start?? I believe, LV, that you are referring to the
>statement I made to Rev N P Robbins; “The idea that
>Christ was married is one subject I am well prepared
>to debate with you should you wish to discuss it
>more!!” So I did not in fact state that I had
>information to “prove” Christ was married, simply that
>I was prepared to debate the subject!
LV: Isn't that convenient? Since you deny affirming that you have information to prove Christ was married, there are two major possibilities:
1) You actually don't have any information at all, and are using this as a safety net in case your ignorance is unveiled.
2) You do have the information, in which case, why cover your tracks?
Either way, your argument will reveal the truth.
>I would like to first start by stating that, to me,
>whether Christ was married or not makes no difference.
> It does not affect my faith in Him or the things He
>came to accomplish. It is, however, an area of
>interest. I am aware that since “The DaVinci Code” by
>Dan Brown came out and has now been made into a film,
>the subject has become a great area of interest for
>many people. I would like to point out that this book
>is a work of fiction. Mr. Brown clearly states this
>in his book and states that his plot was developed
>using several sources, also listed in his book. These
>sources, including the ever popular “Holy Blood, Holy
>Grail” should not be discredited simply for their
>association with Dan Brown’s work of fiction. Many of
>their theories are well researched and intelligent
>theories. Though I disagree with many of their (the
>authors of such books on the subject of the Holy
>Grail, etc) findings, I cannot say the theories are
>foolish and discredit them in any way.
LV: Your personal opinion on the DaVinci Code has nothing to do with whether or not Christ was married.
>Reading over the posts, I might point out LV (and
>Unbiased), that in a debate, each side is required to
>back-up or support their argument. Your entire
>argument is “There’s no proof!” Have you sought any?
LV: Why do you think this thread was started?
>You stated in a reply to Quiznos (Have we established
>that this is Mormon 210?? I’m confused..:-) ) that;
>
>“Since the plausibility of Christ getting married does
>not answer whether or not he was actually married,
>your logic was a complete waste of time that could
>have been better spent researching his life, to create
>an argument that actually had some merit”
>
> First of all, this entire discussion is technically
>on the “plausibility” that Jesus was married, since
>there is no physical proof or direct statement in
>Scriptures, that He was or wasn’t married (to our
>knowledge, so far).
LV: Even IF there is no physical proof/direct statement in scripture about this, you fail to remember that other reliable historical, archaelogical, and scientific evidence
is also allowed in the debate. So this discussion remains about actuality, not plausibility. If you cannot even make that simple distinction, it is no use to debate with you.
> You require proof that He was
>married, how about you try proving He wasn’t (I say
>this respectfully, of course ).
LV: Because the opposition is doing such a good job of sabotaging their stance (by not even addressing the question) that there is no need for me to put all my cards on the table, yet. Why box with someone when they are already hitting themselves in the jaw?
>Quiznos’ formula on research principles, is in fact
>one we also use in the study of History. You see,
>History is not an exact science, simply an
>interpretation of “available” data
LV: Any credible historian looks at the data and draws the conclusion from that. They do not use rhetoric try to prove that something is logically possible, then sit down and pat themselves on the backs, like Quiznos did. Otherwise, they would not be historians-they would be logicians and philosophers. They look for evidence, carefully, and then make accurate conclusions from that, instead of just "guessing". Furthermore, history is an exact science, because it adjusts when new data is discovered. Needless to say, your failure to realize this, as well as to stay on subject, does nothing for your argument.
>It would in fact
>be more historically correct to assume He was married
>since Hebrew customs would have made it a dishonor,
>even a curse not only to himself but to his entire
>family should He have been unmarried.
LV: Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath (Mark 2:23-24), accused of using occultic powers to cast out demons by using the power of the devil (Mark 3: 22), and hated by the Pharisees so much that they conspired to destroy him with the Herodians (Mark 3: 6). This is all only within one page of one of the gospels. He was hardly a stranger to being dishonored by the Hebrew leadership of his day. Due to this, your claim that it would be "historically correct" to assume he was married because otherwise, he would be dishonored,is rather weak.
>Also, Jesus is
>referred to several times in the scriptures as “Rabbi”
>and it is mentioned that He taught in the Temple (See;
>Matt. 26: 55, Mark 12: 35, John 7: 14, 28, John 8: 20
>John 1: 38, Just a few references). He could not
>have been permitted to teach in the temple, thus
>holding the office of Rabbi, had He been considered a
>dishonored (or cursed) member of the Hebrew society.
LV: See the above rebuttal. Jesus was considered being in violation of the law, a sorcerer, and an enemy of the Hebrew leadership (the Pharisees). He was also ridiculed to being a friend to sinners (Mark 2: 15-16), and almost stoned for blasphemy because he claimed to be God (John 8:58-59). He was already considered a dishonored member of the community, so using that to try to infer his marital status is a really poor tactic.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Interesting...argument... -- Mormon210, 09:33:14 04/14/06 Fri
LV you criticize both Banshee and I because, as you say, we are trying to prove what is "plausibile" and not "actual". However, your original challenge was, which I quote directly, "To my knowledge, there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, or anyone else, whatsoever. However, since I am always open to hear arguments, feel to try to make a case for it. Historical and scriptural evidence only please (i.e. no "Da Vinci Code" quotes)". So your actual contention is that we must prove to you that there is evidence.
I will state (for the second or third time) without equivocation that I agree with you that I don't know of any "historical evidence" pertaining to the marriage of Christ either. Next, I hav e written a couple of times that since I don't have any written documentation of any marriage of Christ, I opened the discussion further with "possibilities" to answer the question of whether Christ was married or not.
Secondly, Banshee asked you to prove that Christ wasn't married or provide "written documentation" that He wasn't. Stop sitting there and criticizing us because you can't make the nexus between plausibilty and actuality. Give us plausible reasons why He wasn't married or give us proof that He wasn't. Science accepts "plausibilties". In fact the whole notion of the evolution of man from lower forms is not historically proven it is solely based on the connection to probablilities.
So here is my question: What is the hang up for you? Does your whole faith depend on whether or not Christ was married? Do you have perfect evidence sustaining your religious creed? I will add this, for me, and I would guess with Banshee, I am not concerned about the actuality of Christ's marriage. I believe that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His son. I believe in the existence of His church on the earth. That it is organized and not willy-nilly convolusion of dogma. That if He wanted Apostles when He established His church originally, He must want it today. Plausible - Actual, who knows. So if Christ wasn't married, so be it.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Interesting...argument... -- MyLadyBanshee, 19:31:05 04/17/06 Mon
LV you are too funny…where did you get your brilliant debating skills. The notion of just telling your opponent that 1) They are off topic, 2) They are ignorant, and 3) Use derogatory statements like “fail to realize” and “fail to remember” is really quite interesting! What’s the secret? Irritate and annoy them until they give?? Okay…uncle! LOL
LV: Isn't that convenient? Since you deny affirming that you have information to prove Christ was married, there are two major possibilities:
1) You actually don't have any information at all, and are using this as a safety net in case your ignorance is unveiled.
2) You do have the information, in which case, why cover your tracks?
Either way, your argument will reveal the truth.
Ooooh I pick 1 and 2…let’s “unveil my ignorance” as I “cover” my “tracks” shall we?? Sounds exciting!! Ahhh…the suspense and mystery of it all!! You’re so dramatic…how cute! Are you in High School?? It's okay if you are...I'm just curious.
See the thread entitled Beware of the mormonist cult by Reverend Nathaniel P. Robbins, with my reply to him, to read what I actually said or you can keep claiming I said something I didn’t. A grown up would just apologize for his misunderstanding and move on, but I forgive you anyway!!
LV: Your personal opinion on the DaVinci Code has nothing to do with whether or not Christ was married.
You’re absolutely right but since you brought it up I thought I’d give my opinion anyway. If you don’t want to read it, you can just skip over it…that’s why I try and divide all my thoughts into paragraphs….:-)
LV: Even IF there is no physical proof/direct statement in scripture about this, you fail to remember that other reliable historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence
is also allowed in the debate.
Okay…re-read your statement please…I’m sure you’ll agree…it’s quite funny!! But just incase you don’t see it, let me clarify what I find funny; Historical proof would be gathered from scriptures or other written sources. Physical proof would be gathered from Archaeological (including scientific) evidence.
LV: Any credible historian looks at the data and draws the conclusion from that. They do not use rhetoric try to prove that something is logically possible, then sit down and pat themselves on the backs, like Quiznos did. Otherwise, they would not be historians-they would be logicians and philosophers. They look for evidence, carefully, and then make accurate conclusions from that, instead of just "guessing". Furthermore, history is an exact science, because it adjusts when new data is discovered. Needless to say, your failure to realize this, as well as to stay on subject, does nothing for your argument.
So what you’re saying is, you disagree with my statement. You could have just said; “I disagree.” Lighten up grumpy-pants!!!
LV: Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath (Mark 2:23-24), accused of using occultic powers to cast out demons by using the power of the devil (Mark 3: 22), and hated by the Pharisees so much that they conspired to destroy him with the Herodians (Mark 3: 6). This is all only within one page of one of the gospels. He was hardly a stranger to being dishonored by the Hebrew leadership of his day. Due to this, your claim that it would be "historically correct" to assume he was married because otherwise, he would be dishonored,is rather weak……Jesus was considered being in violation of the law, a sorcerer, and an enemy of the Hebrew leadership (the Pharisees). He was also ridiculed to being a friend to sinners (Mark 2: 15-16), and almost stoned for blasphemy because he claimed to be God (John 8:58-59). He was already considered a dishonored member of the community, so using that to try to infer his marital status is a really poor tactic.
What He was accused of by the Pharisees and Sadducees is after the fact. My argument stands. He was already a Teacher/ Rabbi when He was accused of heresy. They can overturn His standing but He was still in this position ( of Teacher/ Rabbi)!
Now, LV, not that I don’t enjoy reading your little insults but I would rather debate with someone respectful! Why so derogatory in your arguments? It gives one the impression that you’re insecure. You remind me a bit of Mars (Mars Attacks). Anyone else remember him? Anyway, lighten up on the insults…no-one wants to debate with someone who continually disrespects them. If you hold no value for my opinion and remarks (as a Historian, a Teacher or a fellow debater) why should I carry on with you? I mean I love the topic but politeness is nice too!
Hope you all had a great Easter Week-End!!!
Cheers!
Banshee
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Unacceptable -- Lord Veritas, 12:42:20 04/19/06 Wed
>LV: Isn't that convenient? Since you deny affirming
>that you have information to prove Christ was married,
>there are two major possibilities:
>1) You actually don't have any information at all, and
>are using this as a safety net in case your ignorance
>is unveiled.
>2) You do have the information, in which case, why
>cover your tracks?
>Either way, your argument will reveal the truth.
>
MLB:>See the thread entitled Beware of the mormonist cult
>by Reverend Nathaniel P. Robbins, with my reply to
>him, to read what I actually said or you can keep
>claiming I said something I didn’t. A grown up would
>just apologize for his misunderstanding and move on,
>but I forgive you anyway!!
LV: This is what you said in your reply to RNPR
"The idea that
Christ was married is one subject I am well prepared
to debate with you should you wish to discuss it
more!!”
In your reply to me answering your challenge, you elaborated further with this statement:
"So I did not in fact state that I had
information to “prove” Christ was married, simply that
I was prepared to debate the subject!"
You yourself denied that you stated that you had information to "prove" Christ was married, so there was no misunderstanding. Needless to say, you do not deserve an apology for anything, nor do you have any right to give forgiveness.
>LV: Your personal opinion on the DaVinci Code has
>nothing to do with whether or not Christ was
>married.
>
MLB:>You’re absolutely right but since you brought it up I
>thought I’d give my opinion anyway.
LV: That's like giving your opinion to a martial arts competition referee upon jump kicks when jump kicks aren't allowed in the competition: just a waste of time.
>LV: Even IF there is no physical proof/direct
>statement in scripture about this, you fail to
>remember that other reliable historical,
>archaeological, and scientific evidence
>is also allowed in the debate.
MLB:>Historical
>proof would be gathered from scriptures or other
>written sources. Physical proof would be gathered from
>Archaeological (including scientific) evidence.
LV: Your tangent here is a weak attempt to dodge the objection to your assertion that whether or not Christ was married is "technically" a plausible argument, which is quoted here:
"this entire discussion is technically on the “plausibility” that Jesus was married, since there is no physical proof or direct statement in Scriptures, that He was or wasn’t married (to our knowledge, so far)."
The rebuttal to this, which you ignored completely, is included in my first response to you on this thread.
>LV: Any credible historian looks at the data and
>draws the conclusion from that. They do not use
>rhetoric try to prove that something is logically
>possible, then sit down and pat themselves on the
>backs, like Quiznos did. Otherwise, they would not be
>historians-they would be logicians and philosophers.
>They look for evidence, carefully, and then make
>accurate conclusions from that, instead of just
>"guessing". Furthermore, history is an exact science,
>because it adjusts when new data is discovered.
>Needless to say, your failure to realize this, as well
>as to stay on subject, does nothing for your
>argument.
>
MLB:>So what you’re saying is, you disagree with my
>statement. You could have just said; “I disagree.”
LV: Saying "I disagree" is not debating. It's arguing. You really do not seem to be very skilled in this matter.
>LV: Jesus was accused of violating the sabbath
>(Mark 2:23-24), accused of using occultic powers to
>cast out demons by using the power of the devil (Mark
>3: 22), and hated by the Pharisees so much that they
>conspired to destroy him with the Herodians (Mark 3:
>6). This is all only within one page of one of the
>gospels. He was hardly a stranger to being dishonored
>by the Hebrew leadership of his day. Due to this, your
>claim that it would be "historically correct" to
>assume he was married because otherwise, he would be
>dishonored,is rather weak……Jesus was considered being
>in violation of the law, a sorcerer, and an enemy of
>the Hebrew leadership (the Pharisees). He was also
>ridiculed to being a friend to sinners (Mark 2:
>15-16), and almost stoned for blasphemy because he
>claimed to be God (John 8:58-59). He was already
>considered a dishonored member of the community, so
>using that to try to infer his marital status is a
>really poor tactic.
>
MLB:>What He was accused of by the Pharisees and Sadducees
>is after the fact. My argument stands. He was
>already a Teacher/ Rabbi when He was accused of
>heresy. They can overturn His standing but He was
>still in this position ( of Teacher/ Rabbi)!
LV: This was your argument, as anyone who has read your previous post can see:
"It would in fact be more historically correct to assume He was married since Hebrew customs would have made it a dishonor, even a curse not only to himself but to his entire family should He have been unmarried"
You were shown that "being dishonored" was insufficient motive for Jesus to be married because the Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawgivers, the most powerful members of the Hebrew community, already considered him dishonored and cursed. Taking this into account, your argument stands as well as a man who has had his legs chopped off.
Also, if you reread your own post, you will notice that your argument that he was a Rabbi, in addition to being irrelevant to the debate topic, was based on the argument quoted above, which was shown to be false, with no sufficient rebuttal by yourself.
You know your argument is poor when your own words can be used to disprove you. Normally, I give three strikes to people I debate with, but since you could not even own up to statements that you made yourself, you have already used up two. You said you were prepared to debate, but so far, you only seem like you have "prepared" to make a fool out of yourself. I sincerely hope that your next rebuttal does not show this much incompetence.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Unacceptable -- Mormon 210, 15:43:02 04/19/06 Wed
Your arguments are hyperbolic and full of logical fallacies.
Appeal to the People: You think that your some great debater although I see this as a guise to your real intent which is to prove that the LDS faith is wrong (which in and of itself injects bias into your analysis). Your purpose is not to find an answer to the question. In fact you explicitly state, that you want us to prove you wrong, sort of challenging our skills of debate and research.
Argue in circles: You base your arguments on issues not yet determined acceptable this way you can argue in circles to make us appear to be weak defenders of our position.
You appeal to logic fallacies of relevence so that your position may seem strengthened (I am such good debater you are stupid therefore you are wrong).
You inject red herrings so that participants can be diverted from the actual argument you presented (plausible is not relational to actual proof - so He was not married).
You constantly use the fallacy Argumentum Ad Ignorantium basically stating that since we are not able to provide you evidence we are not able to argue the case.
I submit to you, this question again - Prove to me He was or wasn't married based on acceptable forms of reference and I will bow down to your majesty the Lord Veritas.
The tool here is that we are debating, not building soap boxes from which to stand. The bottom line is that you are full of hot air. You are a simpleton in my opinion, your arguments are ill formed, you create greater problems and you don't realize transition. But, I am not going to cut you from the debate. I feel the question at hand is much more important than my ego.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
