Was Jesus married?

[Tez3]

All this would make sense if you think that Jesus was simply a "man"...who had to bow to social mores.

There's also a lot of "Jews did that..." talk here from people...please forgive...that I'm not convinced are experts on the subject. The "Jews were expected to have married back then argument" presents facts based on what evidence?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

being Jewish?

 

[Tgace]

being Jewish?

So that makes you an expert on Jewish traditions and society from over 2K years ago?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Xue Sheng]

:anic: oh man...now there a can-o-whoopass I don't think I would open

 

[Tez3]

So that makes you an expert on Jewish traditions and society from over 2K years ago?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Funnily enough, yes. I have a very good Jewish education because if you don't understand your history, you cannot understand your present and cannot go forward into your future.

 

[granfire]

:anic: Oh man...now there a can-o-whoopass i don't think i would open :d

:boing2::boing2:

 

[CanuckMA]

So that makes you an expert on Jewish traditions and society from over 2K years ago?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Our history is tradition. Passed on. Jews are one of the cultures that are the most closely tied to their history and tradition. We have oral and written tradition going way before 2,000 years ago. I know it may be hard to fathom for some whose history only goes back 200 years. We pass on things. My synagogue regularly reads from a Torah scroll that is nearly twice as old as the US.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Our history is tradition. Passed on. Jews are one of the cultures that are the most closely tied to their history and tradition. We have oral and written tradition going way before 2,000 years ago. I know it may be hard to fathom for some whose history only goes back 200 years. We pass on things. My synagogue regularly reads from a Torah scroll that is nearly twice as old as the US.

Not hard for me to fathom...my wife is Chinese and she'll take you all the way back to Qin

 

[seasoned]

Weren't Adam and eve his kids.................... Which would make their mother (nature)............ Just saying.

This was me making light of things as I some times do. When I first read the OP, and the text provided, I didn't think much of it and really didn't give it much mind.

There wasn't much written about the early years of Jesus as a boy or young man. His trials and tribulations as he matured and became a man are in my opinion not important. Whether he married or not is insignificant and takes away from the big picture of the "why".

In his early 30's when his ministry began, it was to reveal a plan of salvation for all of mankind. He was preordained to be a sacrifice as he took on our sin, as that sin died with him on the cross, it opened the door of salvation for all that would except this simple deed.

The OP talks about this Jesus being married, and for comments, and my comment is, that it is just not that important.

 

[jks9199]

"Was Jesus married?"

Who cares? Really.

It is immaterial to my Faith, His teachings, the teachings and doctrines of His Church, or my personal faith and beliefs. The Church teaches that he was fully God and fully man, subject to all the temptations of the flesh. He simply never succumbed to them.

 

[arnisador]

I saw an article earlier saying that Jesus was often referred to as a bridegroom (implicitly, of the Church) so the "wife" was the Church. I'm unconvinced.

We still lack solid evidence for an historical Jesus--this fragment is tantalizing but what can you learn from so little?

 

[Buka]

Remember, bedsides being the Son, Jesus was a man. Hey, you know. Really.

 

[granfire]

This was me making light of things as I some times do. When I first read the OP, and the text provided, I didn't think much of it and really didn't give it much mind.

There wasn't much written about the early years of Jesus as a boy or young man. His trials and tribulations as he matured and became a man are in my opinion not important. Whether he married or not is insignificant and takes away from the big picture of the "why".

In his early 30's when his ministry began, it was to reveal a plan of salvation for all of mankind. He was preordained to be a sacrifice as he took on our sin, as that sin died with him on the cross, it opened the door of salvation for all that would except this simple deed.

The OP talks about this Jesus being married, and for comments, and my comment is, that it is just not that important.

well, that is pretty much my take.
it is not really that important.

but then, we live in a world where the 'not so important' aspects of human life take center stage in political campaigns...
And - judging by Bill's reaction, to some it is important. Again, I don't really see it but I suppose he is entitled to his POV.

 

[Tez3]

"Was Jesus married?"

Who cares? Really.

It is immaterial to my Faith, His teachings, the teachings and doctrines of His Church, or my personal faith and beliefs. The Church teaches that he was fully God and fully man, subject to all the temptations of the flesh. He simply never succumbed to them.

The union between a man and a woman in this respect isn't a 'temptation of the flesh', it's something that is good and actually holy, something to be encouraged not disparaged, this stuff about sex and by implication women being 'temptations' leads down a road where women are the sufferers.

 

[jks9199]

The union between a man and a woman in this respect isn't a 'temptation of the flesh', it's something that is good and actually holy, something to be encouraged not disparaged, this stuff about sex and by implication women being 'temptations' leads down a road where women are the sufferers.

Sorry, that didn't come out quite as clear as I might have wished. Were Jesus to have been married, of course any sex would not have been sinful. And, in the sense I meant, "man" is "human", not simply male. So Jesus was tempted, I'm sure, to be lazy and sit around and do nothing. He may have been tempted to drink too much, or eat too much, or by a shapely female form, or to play practical jokes, or what have you -- but, being fully God as well, he would never have given in to those temptations in a sinful manner. I'm probably still clear as mud... but that's kind of why the Church calls this sort of thing a Mystery.

 

[punisher73]

Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity

There was a religious sect of the Jewish people called the Essenes. They used baptism as part of their practices and also a form of communion. It would not be far fetched that John the Baptist and Jesus were familiar with them and used those practices also.

 

[punisher73]

The hard part about the personal life of Jesus is this. There is no biography of Jesus. Many people point to the New Testament gospels as biographies of Jesus and they were NOT. They were sermons that were written for a specific target audience. In the case of Matthew, we see MANY references to the Old Testament and how Jesus fulfilled prophecy and traced his lineage to King David because it was written for the current Jews. If we look at the book of John, it seems a little different because it was written for the Greek audience and used terms and examples relavant to them. For example, "In the beginning was the Word (logos)..." was a very hellenistic idea and established a reference point for them.

When people point to the writings of Paul, we see a similiar problem. His letters are like playing Jeopardy, we have the answers but don't know the question. His letters were written responses to questions from churches he went to or corresponded with. They wrote their concerns and he gave them advice on how to run things. Later the churches started to pass the letters around to each other and collect them. There are letters mentioned in other letters that we don't have. So, one of the things to do with Paul's writings is to look at the theological threads that don't change and are repeated vs. the "advice" type things that only appear in specific letters to deal with a specific issue.

 

[elder999]

For starters, the canonical Gospels don't say that Jesus was married, and they don't say that he wasn't.

As a matter of faith, it's likely immaterial, or not really relevant.

Culturally, taking into account what we know about Hellenized Hebrews of the region through archaeology and anthropology , it's likely that Jesus was married. His being called "rabbi" is an indication of this, though not necessarily a sealed deal-the term didn't even mean the same thing that it does to Jews of today.
The reasons for the Christian teaching of his being unmarried are widely varied, and have less to do with what the Gospels (that men chose ) say and more to do with what men thought-still does today: no one can offer a verse that definitively states that Jesus was unmarried, and no one can offer any definitive proof from any of the canonical Gospels.

It is, like so much of this business of religion, a matter of faith, for those who believe-and the best and shortest definition of faith is choosing to believe.

So, if it's important to you as a Christian that the Son of Man was.....well, more than a man, but a man, you can choose to believe he was married-it shouldn't effect how you practice or behave as a Christian one iota, though...


If it's important to you as a Christian that the Son of Man was, well, more than a man-and only more than a man, you can choose to believe he was unmarried,and it shouldn't effect how you practice or behave as a Christian one iota.

If you're a scholar of religion, or the period, or Christianity, or Judaism of the period, or all of the above, well, it's not necessarily a matter of belief as much as it is what the evidence says-and of that there is very little, in the Gospels, canonical or otherwise......

 

[elder999]

When people point to the writings of Paul, we see a similiar problem. His letters are like playing Jeopardy, we have the answers but don't know the question. His letters were written responses to questions from churches he went to or corresponded with. They wrote their concerns and he gave them advice on how to run things. Later the churches started to pass the letters around to each other and collect them. There are letters mentioned in other letters that we don't have. So, one of the things to do with Paul's writings is to look at the theological threads that don't change and are repeated vs. the "advice" type things that only appear in specific letters to deal with a specific issue.

I think Paul has been misinterpreted for 2000 years-if you look at his intended audience, the period, what was said, and how he said it,-"as a Jew, or, more importantly, asa Pharisee, a lot of what he said turns out to have meant just the opposite of what people have believed.....it's kind of fun.

 

[punisher73]

I think Paul has been misinterpreted for 2000 years-if you look at his intended audience, the period, what was said, and how he said it,-"as a Jew, or, more importantly, asa Pharisee, a lot of what he said turns out to have meant just the opposite of what people have believed.....it's kind of fun.

I agree, lots of church doctrine that was/is Psuedo-Pauline Theology that missed the boat.

 

[Xue Sheng]

WAIT!!!!!


This just in

He was married

Or are you calling Leonardo da Vinci liar