:confused: I think you've been reading Dan Brown too long. :lol:

 

Where did you get that James story? You do realize that there were English translations before the King James Version, don't you? FYI, the NT was first written in Greek (not German???).

 

As for the Council of Nicea did not meet to choose a Canon of Scripture but to address heresies in the church. (Marcion to be exact if my memory recalls)

 

 

Been reading Dan Brown for less than a week...been a Christian for probably 12 years or so now, lol. But as for King James adding his name into the King James Version of the Bible...that is fact. There was never a disciple named James until this version.

 

And I didn't say what they debated at the Council of Nicea...just said there definitely was one.

I know that's what we are taught. I guess my question is, why would it have been such a bad thing and would it have been mentioned? What if the person writing this part of he Bible, felt it was best to leave this out? Could it be possible?

 

Or who says that it was part of the story and had been removed?

 

P.S. I am just playing devil's advocate with a lot of this arguement. I agree with the Christian side of the arguement, I just think it's interesting. And like RebelK said...does it make Jesus any less miraculous if it were true?

That depends on whether or not you believe the Bible is a literal historically accurate account.

 

Yes...and if you believe that everything there IS to be known was included.

Jesus didn't come into the world to populate it, but to save it. If there was a bloodline it would have been mentioned in the word.

 

:thumb:

Been reading Dan Brown for less than a week...been a Christian for probably 12 years or so now, lol. But as for King James adding his name into the King James Version of the Bible...that is fact. There was never a disciple named James until this version.

 

And I didn't say what they debated at the Council of Nicea...just said there definitely was one.

 

I would love to see a reference to that James story. It's the first time I've ever heard of that fact.

 

The Greek word for James is hard to publish here (at least for me) but it existed in the New Testament texts. The English translation and/or derivitive was James (not because of the king but because it was). Check out a Nestle-Aland New Testament and see how close the two are. Much in the way that Petros translates to Peter in English.

But like the book suggests, what if it was mentioned and removed at the Council of Nicea (This meeting really did happen, I am not saying the left things out of the story...but the meeting happened). I mean the bible has definitely changed over the years, a small but perfect example...

 

Jesus had 12 disciples and as far as we know one was named James. However, before the King James version of the bible was ever written there was not a disciple named that (of coarse the names were in German, or another language, but nothing translates to James). King Jame wanted his name in the bible, so he omitted one of the disciples and now we have a disciple name James. Small, but just a small example.

 

MJ, I am not knocking you, but you really need to brush up on your biblical scholarship. For instance, there were a dozen Councils of Nicea that took place over 100 years. I am also not sure where you got the tidbit about King James.

I will just stop talking, lol...the King James tidbit is something my mother had always told me when she did a lot of research several years back when she was looking into the Jewish roots of Christianity. I will just stop talking, lol.

 

I don't have enough intelligence to be in this forum anyway, lol.

I will just stop talking, lol...the King James tidbit is something my mother had always told me when she did a lot of research several years back when she was looking into the Jewish roots of Christianity. I will just stop talking, lol.

 

I don't have enough intelligence to be in this forum anyway, lol.

 

That is not what I meant at all, and I am sorry for having come off as unreasonably harsh.

 

Your thread is a good one, and you are excited about the Dan Brown books that you are reading, and I probably squelched that by saying what I said, and I did not intend to.

 

It is I who should keep my mouth shut.

That is not what I meant at all, and I am sorry for having come off as unreasonably harsh.

 

Your thread is a good one, and you are excited about the Dan Brown books that you are reading, and I probably squelched that by saying what I said, and I did not intend to.

 

It is I who should keep my mouth shut.

 

You are fine Hearsay, no need to apologize. I just realized that I couldn't contend with you two on this type of topic because you obviously know much more than I do. The comments you gave are what I wanted for this thread. I just find the topic interested and I very much agree with you are saying. I just enjoy a good conspiracy theory (P.S. Love that movie with Mel Gibson and Julie Roberts). So please don't keep your mouth shut, lol.

MJ, this is a nice question so please keep on posting. Last verse in John mentions that if recorded the things Jesus did that was not written about would fill several rooms.

 

At one time Jesus's Mother/Brothers came to see him and he turned them away, because he had important work to do.

 

Jesus has several encounters with females in his age group, and Mary was a special friend. Jesus knew the future and knowing he was gonna be killed he might not wanted to have a woman bear the torment of seeing a mate on the cross.

 

Jesus would also be worried that the folks who killed him would come after his mate/child.

 

Again MJ, thanks for making us think during the Obama/etcs posts.

MJ, this is a nice question so please keep on posting. Last verse in John mentions that if recorded the things Jesus did that was not written about would fill several rooms.

 

At one time Jesus's Mother/Brothers came to see him and he turned them away, because he had important work to do.

 

Jesus has several encounters with females in his age group, and Mary was a special friend. Jesus knew the future and knowing he was gonna be killed he might not wanted to have a woman bear the torment of seeing a mate on the cross.

 

Jesus would also be worried that the folks who killed him would come after his mate/child.

 

Again MJ, thanks for making us think during the Obama/etcs posts.

 

I agree hugely with that last part, AL. I am tired of all of the "dirt" in those posts. :thumb:

I will just stop talking, lol...the King James tidbit is something my mother had always told me when she did a lot of research several years back when she was looking into the Jewish roots of Christianity. I will just stop talking, lol.

 

I don't have enough intelligence to be in this forum anyway, lol.

 

 

If I can participate in this forum, anyone can participate in in this forum. :lol:

You are fine Hearsay, no need to apologize. I just realized that I couldn't contend with you two on this type of topic because you obviously know much more than I do. The comments you gave are what I wanted for this thread. I just find the topic interested and I very much agree with you are saying. I just enjoy a good conspiracy theory (P.S. Love that movie with Mel Gibson and Julie Roberts). So please don't keep your mouth shut, lol.

 

I have learned that the key is to never let them know that. :lol:

 

I just pretend to know more than I do during discussions in the P&R forum.

I've always believed that Jesus was single. Every detail of Scripture indicates this. When he was in ministry, there is no mention of a wife. When he was tried and crucified, there is no mention of his having a wife. After his death, there is no mention of a wife. Whenever Jesus' family is referred to, it is his brothers and sisters who are mentioned, but never a wife. Nor is there any indication that he was widowed.

 

The example of the call to be 'eunuchs for the kingdom' appears, in part, to be rooted in Jesus' own commitment and example not to be married (Matthew 19:10-12). In Scripture there is no hard evidence that Jesus was married.

 

So I guess for me that it would make a difference if he had married because he wouldn't be practicing what he preached. So why remain single? What advantage is there to this? In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul elaborated on Jesus' theme about 'eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.' Paul expressed his preference that people remain single. Paul explained that the present time of distress, by which he meant the difficulty of life until Jesus returns, made being single better when it came to serving the kingdom. The married person must worry about the affairs of earth: how to care for his wife and, by implication, his family. The unmarried person can serve the Lord without such distraction (1 Cor. 7:27-35).

 

Paul also made it clear this was a choice, not a command: "But if you marry, you do not sin." (7:28). Paul himself chose to remain single, probably for the very reasons he suggests in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood, as Jesus did, that others were not called to be single (1 Cor 7:1-7).

 

As AL has already alluded to, Jesus had a singular focus on preaching the kingdom of God, and his choice to be single underscored that calling.

^ That's funny because when I am single I become very easily distracted compared to when I am in a relationship, lol Sorry I know I shouldn't joke, but it is true and I couldn't resist myself.