Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Holly Cheng (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 2 April 2012 (upcoming POTD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Christianity: Jesus Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

This could really use some clean-up. I'm not sure how to set things in motion to do so.

Agreed, particularly this part: Paul calls this a mystery because marriage between a man and a women is a prophetic act of the depth of our relationship with Jesus. This love surpasses our knowledge (Ephesians 3:18). --124.170.162.165 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Contraception

I have heard this doctrine being used to justify opposition to contraception, this should be looked up or double-checked. 67.68.65.192 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wat. How it can? JosiahHenderson (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about eh contraception argument, but I agree with the first comment that this could use some clean up. The part that's pointed out above is, though an orthodox opinion, it's not a fact but speculation as to Paul's intent. Also, when referencing "Ekklesia" (sp?): it does directly translate to "called out ones" however, that is not its use. If you look at the usage in Josephus and other first century works, you'll find that a better rendering is "congregation" or "assembly."

Barclay-Newman give this definition: evkklhsi,a, aj f church, congregation; assembly, gathering (of religious, political, or unofficial groups) Obviously "church" is not the best rendering since it's origins are from the German "Kirke" meaning "Lord's house" (I think... that should be checked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeoflier (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Origen and Bernard

I think this article could benefit by some mention of Origen and Bernard of Clairvaux as these two figure pretty centrally to concepts of sponsa christi in my opinion, as does the Song of Songs. I will try and draft something up when I have time, but some coverage of this would give this article more depth. Lots of references for this stuff too DRosin (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Church is NOT the Bride

You are giving undo weight to one POV. World Mission Society Church of God has another definition for the Bride as God the Mother coming from Matthew 9:15 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

Mark 2:19 Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. Both pointing to God's people as Guests which is distinct from the Bride

Revelation 22:17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. Revelation 21:9-10 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." 10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. Galatians 4:26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother

Also, if were going to put incorrect interpretation like the Church, some Catholics think the Bride is Mary and shepherds Chapel preaches that it is the 144,000--99.201.24.216 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not POV, it is theology. If you do know a theolologic school of thought which challenges the common understanding that the church is the bride, please feel free to add that and the respective references also. Simply stating "but this is not correct" is no argument.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has deteriorated since a year ago. /Expatinsweden (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

Part of my edit was removed considering Mary Magdalene they said gnostics do not believe she is the bride, however whenever I met someone who was gnostic they have said she was. I don't want to enter into an edit war over this, but I think we need some sort of consensus over whether this is Dan Brown/Lewis Perdue make believe.-174.45.184.184 (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Someone I met" is not verifiable, and not a reliable source. Please present any reliable sources, instead of ill-researched hearsay someone who read The Da Vinci Code and nothing about historical Gnosticism. If you look over the Gnosticism article, you will see that the Gnostics taught that the flesh was inherently evil, which means that Jesus having children would have been more offensive to the Gnostics than to orthodox Christians (who generally approved of having kids, and would have used this issue to further argue with the Gnostics if it was ever a historical consideration). Also, the verse from the Gospel of Philip that was quoted, if blindly accepted as historically accurate, only shows that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were not married: otherwise Jesus's disciples would considered it natural for Him to kiss her. Furthermore, the original text is damaged after "her," it is only speculation that He kissed her on her mouth.

The idea that Jesus had kids cannot be found before Holy Blood, Holy Grail came out. The authors of that book (who later sued Dan Brown) admit that it's not properly researched and that it's based on a hoax. Here is a source, and a second one by Bart D. Ehrman. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say one I said every single last one--174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Further more I said they were gnostics not that they studied historical Gnosticism. but maybe they all just read Dan Brown agreed and decided to call themselves Gnostic --174.45.184.184 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 8, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles