Was Jesus married?

[granfire]

http://www.freep.com/article/20120919/NEWS07/120919009/jesus-wife-ancient-papyrus-fragment

On the small fragment of ancient writing Jesus speaks of 'my wife'

Personally I find it mildly interesting, but the short phrase with little context has no deeper impact.

of course other people have a different take, since much of their believes are grounded on the assumption tat the historical figure was single and celibate.

On the other hand, Early Christians debated if they should even get married and have sex at all (I suppose they understood pretty quickly that by avoiding that the community won't survive long, as the Shakers have proven)

Not sure who it was who threw it into the discussion a while ago, but it seems fair enough to assume that Jesus, the historical figure, was a Rabbi and as such expected to marry and have children.

 

[elder999]

Not sure who it was who threw it into the discussion a while ago, but it seems fair enough to assume that Jesus, the historical figure, was a Rabbi and as such expected to marry and have children.

Of course, that was me.:lol:

[h=3]John 2:1-11[/h]King James Version (KJV)

2 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Jesus's first miracle, performed at the behest of his mother, as though they were the hosts.

Likely, it's His wedding.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't know. It's an interesting question, though. I don't suppose there will ever be anything resembling proof one way or the other. I find it all very fascinating.

 

[granfire]

Of course, that was me.:lol:



Jesus's first miracle, performed at the behest of his mother, as though they were the hosts.

Likely, it's His wedding.

:lfao:

I am sure you did at one point...I am actually thinking it was my mom, or the authors of the book about the Qumran scrolls. :lol:

But you dug out the fun thing about how the church preferred gay marriages if it could not be helped, so they would not have babes that could inherit the farm...

 

[WC_lun]

I don't think it matters much either way in the big picture of Christiandom. Being married though, I can only imagine how arguments in thier household went if Jesus were married. How do you argue with the son of god who can do miracles?! "Shhh wife, you are mute now."

 

[granfire]

well, actually the piece says something about 'my wife' and 'she can be a disciple' the latter is probably the more troublesome, as many have a problem with females taking a more active and vocal role in their congregations.

The Gospel of Mary was conveniently omitted from the bible...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman] Peter said to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than all other women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, the things which you know that we don't because we haven't heard them."
Mary responded, "I will teach you about what is hidden from you." And she began to speak these words to them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman] Then [M]ary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what are you imagining? Do you think that I have thought up these things by myself in my heart or that I am telling lies about the Savior?"
Levi answered, speaking to Peter, "Peter, you have always been a wrathful person. Now I see you contending against the woman like the Adversaries. For if the Savior made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her more than us.[/FONT]

Was prob. Mary.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc). I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot. Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so. Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.

In other words, I don't find the opinions of non-Christians about Christianity terribly compelling, since it certainly appears to me that many of them have an ax to grind, whether they see it that way or not. Much love all y'all, but your biases are a bit too obvious in this area. Leaving this thread now before I let myself get angry again.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm not versed in Gnostic texts but don't they hint at Mary Magdalene being a bit more than your average disciple

 

[elder999]

I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc). I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot. Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so. Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.

It's not rumor, innuendo or anti-Christian to state the fact that there are records of "Same Sex Union" and orders "For the Uniting of Two Men" that date back to the 10th century , and throughout history right up to the 18th century. What does it mean? Not so much.

 

[oaktree]

So when Jesus died or ascended to heaven does his
Wife get half of heaven or is there a prenup?

 

[granfire]

I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc). I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot. Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so. Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.

In other words, I don't find the opinions of non-Christians about Christianity terribly compelling, since it certainly appears to me that many of them have an ax to grind, whether they see it that way or not. Much love all y'all, but your biases are a bit too obvious in this area. Leaving this thread now before I let myself get angry again.

Sadly, when your facet of Christianity is put under the microscope your responses are less than rational.
it is no secret or conjecture that there were numerous books of religious text not included in what is now known as 'the Bible', some to the detriment of context.

Considering what all is out in religious doctrine and texts that fly in the face of commonly accepted teachings, I can only imagine what is locked away in the library of the Vatican....and no, I do not put any stock in the DaVinci code.


I love you anyhow, even if you call me 'the lot of you' :angel:

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm going to leave this thread now, because we've been here before, and I've refuted some of the silly statements made (the Church approved of gay marriages as an alternative to celibacy, etc). I want to note just one thing, but I fully suspect it will be completely lost on you lot. Please note, if you can, that if a piece of information or rumor or innuendo or gossip is anti-Christian or tends to damage or go against Church doctrine, teaching, or tradition, then many non-scholars who know nothing about it other than what's being currently bandied about are QUITE willing to believe it - even eager to do so. Information that tends to support Church teaching is seen much more skeptically by the mainstream.

In other words, I don't find the opinions of non-Christians about Christianity terribly compelling, since it certainly appears to me that many of them have an ax to grind, whether they see it that way or not. Much love all y'all, but your biases are a bit too obvious in this area. Leaving this thread now before I let myself get angry again.

And of course you leave without any bias on your part...... :asian:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sadly, when your facet of Christianity is put under the microscope your responses are less than rational.
it is no secret or conjecture that there were numerous books of religious text not included in what is now known as 'the Bible', some to the detriment of context.

Considering what all is out in religious doctrine and texts that fly in the face of commonly accepted teachings, I can only imagine what is locked away in the library of the Vatican....and no, I do not put any stock in the DaVinci code.


I love you anyhow, even if you call me 'the lot of you' :angel:

The Vatican has a rather large library that is not open to the public and of course there are multiple reasons given for that ranging from historical preservation to conspiracy theory

And yes there are a lot of books that were not put in the Bible and the decisions as to what went in and what did not was decided by a group of guys in a room no divine intervention necessary

But let us not forget that it was Attila the Hun the Catholic Church has to thank for its popularity… so good or bad... the current situation is.....all Attila’s fault

 

[Instructor]

I am gonna go with the GotQuestions answer:

Jesus Christ was definitely not married. There are popular myths today that
speak of Christ being married to Mary Magdalene. This myth is absolutely false
and has no basis theologically, historically, or biblically. While a couple of
the Gnostic gospels mention Jesus having a close relationship with Mary
Magdalene, none of them specifically states that Jesus was married to Mary
Magdalene, or had any romantic involvement with her. The closest any of them
come is saying that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene, which just as easily could be a
reference to a “friendly kiss.” Further, even if the Gnostic gospels directly
stated that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, they would have no authority,
as the Gnostic gospels have all been proven to be forgeries invented to create a
Gnostic view of Jesus.

If Jesus had been married, the Bible would have
told us so, or there would be some unambiguous statement to that fact. Scripture
would not be completely silent on such an important issue. The Bible mentions
Jesus’ mother, adoptive father, half-brothers, and half-sisters. Why would it
neglect to mention the fact that Jesus had a wife? Those who believe/teach that
Jesus was married are doing so in an attempt to “humanize” Him, to make Him more
ordinary, more like everyone else. People simply do not want to believe that
Jesus was God in the flesh (John
1:1, 14; 10:30). So, they invent and believe myths about Jesus
being married, having children, and being an ordinary human being.

A
secondary question would be, “Could Jesus Christ have been married?” There is
nothing sinful about being married. There is nothing sinful about having sexual
relations in marriage. So, yes, Jesus could have been married and still be the
sinless Lamb of God and Savior of the world. At the same time, there is no
biblical reason for Jesus to marry. That is not the point in this debate. Those
who believe Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was
the Messiah. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, “For even the Son of
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom
for many.”

Recommended Resource: Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus
and Mislead Popular Culture.

 

[elder999]

I. Those
who believe Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was
the Messiah. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, “For even the Son of
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom
for many.”

Recommended Resource: Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus
and Mislead Popular Culture.

This makes an altogether false value statement-many people who believe Jesus was married believe he was the Messiah-and it misses a larger point: God sent Jesus to live as a man among us-if you are following the Gospel narrative-and part of a man's life in that time was to be married-that's a life that might be seen as worthy of sacrifice, rather than one solely devoted to that sacrifice.

More to the point, as Gran has pointed out, one word that survives the numerous translations is rabbi: his disciples called him rabbi, meaning "master," which was not, typically, an honorific applied to unmarried men.

 

[WC_lun]

Wouldn't Jesus being married increase the enourmity of his sacrifice? Wouldn't it also increase the ability to relate with Jesus the man? How would Jesus being married change the importance of his message of compassion? It confuses me when some people seem to resist change, even if that change might have positive conatations.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Wouldn't Jesus being married increase the enourmity of his sacrifice? Wouldn't it also increase the ability to relate with Jesus the man? How would Jesus being married change the importance of his message of compassion? It confuses me when some people seem to resist change, even if that change might have positive conatations.

:flammad: Change Bad :enguard:

:disgust: Blind, unquestioning adherence to accepted history and/or dogma good :uhyeah:

 

[cdunn]

Given the... paucity of contemporary sources corroborating the events of the New Testament, verification one way or the other of any personal detail is entirely impossible. We can see, though, that the idea of a bride of Christ or female disciple would be very inconsistent with the writings attributed to St. Paul, and probably therefore would have been rejected in the sects and cults that formed the fountainhead of modern Christianity.

After all, women are not to be allowed to teach, or to have authority over a man, and it is good to remain unmarried and abstinant.

 

[Instructor]

Wouldn't Jesus being married increase the enourmity of his sacrifice? Wouldn't it also increase the ability to relate with Jesus the man? How would Jesus being married change the importance of his message of compassion? It confuses me when some people seem to resist change, even if that change might have positive conatations.

It might have positive connotations if it happened to be true.