She was clearly not His wife, there is plenty of manuscript evidence in the science of textual criticism to demonstrate that He was never married, nor did He engage Himself in any sexual activity of any kind.
[Reminder to self: need to look into that Gospel of Mary Magdalene that the church decided was irrelevant at some point. Sounds interesting.
Within the closed set of assumptions of Christianity, this would have been beneath Him to engage in a earthly practice that was temporary and meant for procreation. (once again, this is within the closed set of assumptions of a particular belief structure which has not been substantiated in an open system without assumptions).
Oh, why? Because it was impossible that a good catholic boy would do something so basically yucky? Or because Paul hated the idea of sex altogether? Or because he obviously knew he was god and didn't need the come-down? Or because he was an apocalyptic preacher who knew that the end was coming, possibly as late as next week?
The reason she did not recognize Him was because He was in a glorified
body (an eternal body that many Christians believe does not have blood
but is transcendent and can pass through walls and various matter and
is eternal), a body that they some day believe that they will be raised
in also, to fellowship and worship Jesus in heaven for the rest of eternity.
Say again? Doesn't have blood - is that a requirement for transcendency? Does that mean ghostly? "a body that they some day believe that they will be raised in also"? Who's on first here?
Within the closed set of assumptions of Christianity, there are several
reasons why Christians believe in Jesus, and believe that He is clearly
the only time God became a man. 1. Who is it that should logically
rule Israel? Who should be King over Israel except God Himself. This
is why Messianic Jews believe Messiah will be not only King, but God
Incarnate in human flesh.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, a king. That is what they obviously all were waiting for, and what they tried o accelerate, until he Romans put the quietus on that in 79 CE. Then it was reinterpretation and catch-up time for the Christians, if not for he stiff-necked Jews.[/quote]
2. Often the most ironic things in life in up
being true. For instance, everything in life teaches us that there are
consequences for our actions. Why should there not be consequences
for our actions in the next life? Accountability, to the Owner of the
Universe? The greatest paradox is to have the unthinkable. That there
are billions who will have to be separated from God because of logical
imperfection which was never logically taken care of cosmically, and
that there will only be millions who actually receive forgiveness and
remain for the rest of eternity in awe that they did not receive the
separation and punishment of the billions.
And then again, maybe the irony is better after a couple of thousand years. Perhaps it was all a put-on that just happened to be at the right place at the right time. What could be more ironic than that? Perhaps the Ownership is vacant? "That there are billions who will have to be separated from God because of logical imperfection"? But he can't do that, can he? Make a logical imperfection? Oh, wait - it's all their fault, isn't it, having such bad bloodlines and all.
3. Some will equate not
being a Christian to the ultimate form of gambling. IOW, if you study
all of the religions of the world and find the one with the absolute
worst consequences for not accepting it, you will find that born-again
Christianity is even worse than fundamental Islam. The claim is, however,
that not only do you have the worst consequences, but you also have
the greatest demonstration of LOVE from God to humankind in the
assertion that God indeed became a Man and died in the place of His
children (us.) {If you say this is based on fear like many cults try
to use to control people: argumentum ad consequentiam is easily
shown to be a fallacy for rejecting}
What a miserable excuse for a reason to do anything. You are using an argument to consequences to sell us Christianity (positive and negative, forsooth), then you cite it as a fallacy. Some irony there.
4. Besides all of the historical
evidence (shroud of Turin, the Talmud, writings of Flavias Josephus,
etc. etc. etc.) you also have thousands of NT texts to choose from
that validate each other. In addition, you have all of time in calendar
years based on AD and BC which you can 'induce' fullness of time (but
this really has to do with the Roman Empire and the states of actualities
which existed for the gospel of Christ to be spread throughout the world).
Not even the Catholic church (outside he bishopric of Turin) stands behind the shroud; only some nut cases in Colorado Springs. The Talmud is definitely not history, except in outline. All those texts that support each other, none of which - zero, as far as scholars can find, were written before 30 years following Jesus' death) including the apocryphal and other early gospels, the writings of he church fathers, including the heretics - how about the ones that conflict? Is cherry picking allowed in your church?
5. The major difference between true Christianity and all other religions
is that with Christianity, you can not save yourself, you can NOT work
for it, you are helpless as a child, instead "God" had to become a Man
and die in your place. In all other religions of the world, they have
some sort of works related soteriological system (and this would include
the non-Christian cults like JW's or WatchTower).
Hmmmm... sounds a lot like down-home Calvinism, or Zwingli, to me. Martin Luther made a statement I read yesterday about someone performing mass murder and blasphemy, but if he
really believed,
real hard, he could be saved. Not ask forgiveness, mind you - just believe.
You do realize, I suppose, that both as a former RC and more lately as an atheist, you look like a cult to me, don't you?
]
6. Christians pray
for people to be saved and regularly get down on their hands and knees
and beg God to work miraculously in someone's life to change them. Other
religions do not do this to the same degree because they believe people
must perform "works."
Oh? St. Paul would have been surprised that perhaps his most strident teaching should be discarded. I never understood how Protestantism stood against him on that.
Finally, point
number 7. IF there is a God, then it would be logical to acknowledge Him
in their daily lives, and it would be foolish NOT to acknowledge the Creator.
There is a Father/Child relationship that is fulfilled in creation that is brought
to fruition at the point of salvation (out of this temporary world and slavery
to it, like the Hebrews were delivered out of Egypt). Often Christians will
claim that this temporary world (certainly the sun will burn out) is like a
testing ground with One Question.
Or perhaps a creator/creature relationship, or a master/slave one? Or, perhaps, something more capitalist, like boss/janitor?
The question that is often asked over and over again: WAYGTDAJ?For the rest of everyone's lives the question will exist whether they
themselves ask the question, or whether someone else asks them the
question:
Translation: What are you going to do about Jesus?
This is based on a biblical premise that Christ said that people are
either for Him or against Him, and IF they do not believe that He is
uniquely God and that He alone died for their trangressions, THEN
they will die in their sins.
I guess, if you put it that way, I'll have to pass. Sorry. I don't suppose you'll just let me be, now, will you?
