Active Users:1149 Time:22/11/2024 02:29:26 PM
It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical. Joel Send a noteboard - 20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM
You're not reading some heretical work, like the Scofield Reference Bible, are you?

Maybe the Greek Orthodox? I do not know enough about them to know what translations they accept as canonical. I would think even the Roman Catholics recognize a translation commissioned by a fellow Catholic (though they may take exception to it not being written in Latin,) at least until his successors removed the Apocrypha.

Anyway, you have established the original text need not (and probably does not) rule out progeny (though "have nothing" could be interpreted that way,) so that answers my question; thanks.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
The text on which I (and many others) was raised.
This message last edited by Joel on 20/09/2012 at 11:24:18 PM
Reply to message
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds... - 19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM 1225 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM* - 19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM 552 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church. - 19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM 856 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride" - 19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM 825 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God? - 20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM 818 Views
BRIDE - 20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM 795 Views
Two things why it is important - 20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM 795 Views
Did someone hit you over the head? "Two things why it is important"? Really? - 20/09/2012 03:50:02 PM 871 Views
Something I forgot to ask you about last night: What is your take on Daniels messianic prophecy? - 20/09/2012 09:21:32 PM 789 Views
I don't get that at all. "And will be no more", or "And will have nothing" is better. - 20/09/2012 10:13:20 PM 755 Views
It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical. - 20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM 825 Views
There is a very good reason no one dismissed the illegitmate gospels as illegitimate until 180 AD: - 20/09/2012 09:15:05 PM 736 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD. - 20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM 745 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it? - 20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM 817 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies - 21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM 726 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course. - 21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM 797 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point. - 21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM 765 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD. - 22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM 777 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors. - 22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM 706 Views
Not even Mark or Luke? - 22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM 733 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek - 22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM 685 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition? - 22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM 819 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago. - 22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM 765 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well - 22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM 907 Views
Let's not get started on Funk - 22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM 704 Views
So true - 22/09/2012 10:23:08 PM 816 Views
don't these people have anything better to do? - 20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM 743 Views
Clearly not. - 22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM 655 Views
then i'll escape this thread before anyone twigs - 22/09/2012 08:12:37 PM 817 Views
Too late, I have already twigged, branched and treed. - 22/09/2012 08:58:39 PM 799 Views
I know! - 21/09/2012 06:48:33 AM 926 Views
See, Tom, you made a mistake. - 22/09/2012 10:25:22 AM 778 Views

Reply to Message