What's new
By:

Jesus May Have Been Married

franklin said:
No birth control, no calendar method, no pulling out, no sheep skin sheath. Aren't Catholics supposed to feel guilty for violating these commandments?


As a tangent, those of us into Mayanism believe in genital blood letting (right before getting drunk off our asses in the literal ***** consumption sense). Would Catholics consider this a type of bodily penance akin to Pope Paul II whipping himself?
Click to expand...

1) There is Natural Family Planning which is similar to "the calender method," but I've heard it is more advanced. I honestly have never sat through a NFP class yet, so I do not know. I honestly have no idea what "sheep skin sheath" is, and I don't want to google it on the seminary computer :)

2) Bodily penance like the pope whipping himself is a form of mortification. You should think of it as a more extreme form of fasting. This kind of relates because NFP requires the married couple to abstain from sex when the wife is fertile. However, I would like to emphasize the word extreme. I personally don't know any Catholics that practice that type of mortification, and even if I did, I doubt they would brag about it. Pope John Paul II didn't brag about it while he was alive. Mayanism, on the other hand... well I got no idea. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Sirkickyass said:
So the church believes it but doesn't actually say it's part of the doctrine.
Click to expand...

It's too strong to say that "the church believes it". Some in the church may believe it, but I don't even think this particular item rises to the level of folk doctrine like you were talking about.
 
WhiskyPriest said:
1) There is Natural Family Planning which is similar to "the calender method," but I've heard it is more advanced. I honestly have never sat through a NFP class yet, so I do not know. I honestly have no idea what "sheep skin sheath" is, and I don't want to google it on the seminary computer :)
Click to expand...

Thanks again. I guess I've always heard an incorrect version of the doctrine.
 
PKM said:
Funny that a fragment the size of a business card holds something controversial that is found nowhere in the bible.
Not saying it isn't true, just very ironic, if it is.
Click to expand...

You do realize the early church made an active effort to hnunt down and destroy documents that portrayed Jesus differently from their preferred narrative, and that such documents would never have been selected for the Bible, right?
 
One Brow said:
You do realize the early church made an active effort to hnunt down and destroy documents that portrayed Jesus differently from their preferred narrative, and that such documents would never have been selected for the Bible, right?
Click to expand...

Um, the bible is the word of God...
 
franklin said:
No birth control, no calendar method, no pulling out, no sheep skin sheath. Aren't Catholics supposed to feel guilty for violating these commandments?
Click to expand...

The "calendar method" would fall under natural family planning, as allowed by the RCC, at least as of the time I was in Bishop DuBourg High School.
 
Sirkickyass said:
So the church believes it but doesn't actually say it's part of the doctrine. In other words, it's lay doctrine. That almost uniquely mormon set of doctrines that's entirely unofficial so it can be denied in the instances where it's embarassing.

You know, since Brigham Young and other General Authorities believed all kinds of other racist things too, and those things were much more officially codified into church policy. But those totally don't count for some reason.

IMHO, the church would be much better served if it cracked down on this kind of lay doctrine.
Click to expand...

Every religion has differing opinions and beliefs from member to member and even Pastor to Pastor. The LDS church has a core belief of doctrines but just like any church different leaders will have different theories and beliefs on varying subjects. You see this in every religion. Not just Mormonism.
 
I dont know if he was married or not.
BUT he was not a weak-kneed, ***** carpenter.
He was a dominating and charismatic Jewish King, who had power and balls.
I.N.R.I
 
PKM said:
Funny that a fragment the size of a business card holds something controversial that is found nowhere in the bible.
Not saying it isn't true, just very ironic, if it is.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that a lot of folks are so blinded with what they want to think they will do whatever it takes to ignore the Bible. Pastors, especially, are prone to this sort of thing.

Why would you imagine that a man living in a culture and a time where marriage was a basic commandment, as well as a rite of passage towards being considered an adult, would not be married? Among the Jews, unmarried men of that time lacked the status required to speak in the synagogues. Jesus is reported in the Gospels as speaking in the synagogues.

this "blindness" is a holdover from a phase of "faith" holding a premium value on self-denial, when the positive command of marriage and propagation in Genesis was perhaps relegated to some shameful connotations.

In the Bible, Jesus had a friend named Lazarus who was a brother to two gals, Mary and Martha. There are some references to these women that I would maintain prove they are his wives because of the nature of the issues they presented to Jesus. Things no women would bother a man about unless he was their husband. Especially when a lot of other people were treating him with more respect. . . . .
 
Jesus gets into a spat with the wifey

Jesus "Hey hun, I'm gunna go out with my boys for some proselytizing"

Wife "That whore isn't going with you is she."

Jesus "oh come on babe she's good peeps." (peeps easter get it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top