1
   

Was Jesus Married?

 
 
RedOct
 
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2007 08:55 am
Hiiiii
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,328 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Aug, 2007 03:28 pm
@RedOct,
Red, I think you have it wrapped up pretty well. The evidence is there, but there is a distinct possiblity that no historical Jesus ever existed. He could very well be (1) an amalgamation of several Jesuses of the 1 century BCE and 1 century CE (2) totally made up to "put a face" to Paul's totally spiritual Jesus (3)an obscure rabbi that taught a version of Judaism and never performed any miracles, never formented dissention with Temple Judaism, and never was executed by the Romans, instead living to a ripe old age (45 was considered a ripe old age back then) and being interred in the family tomb. :patriot:
0 Replies
 
rugonnacry
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 04:20 pm
@RedOct,
Jesus the man probably did exist, however there were others claiming the whole virgin birth blah blah blah.
0 Replies
 
missdixy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 10:03 am
@RedOct,
I like to believe that Jesus did exit, and I do beleive he was married. #1 from your indirect evidence just makes a lot of sense to me.
0 Replies
 
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 11:06 am
@RedOct,
Why wouldn't he have been married? God the father is a firm believer in the family unit so it is only common sense that his Son would believe that way as well.

Why wasn't it shouted on the mountain tops?

Consider the fact that he was persecuted and maybe didn't want his personal family treated as badly as he was. His enemies could abuse his wife as leverage against him. Again common sense.
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 11:25 am
@RedOct,
Quote:
Consider the fact that he was persecuted

We have only the word of the NT that he was persecuted and the NT has been shown to be full of errors...so we have no way of knowing that he was persecuted and this was the reason for hiding the fact that he was married. Besides the Jews of that period had arranged marriages that were agreed on while the subjects were still children and if Jesus had a spouse, it would be common knowledge among his relatives and neighbors. :patriot:
0 Replies
 
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 11:32 am
@RedOct,
Do you keep a daily journal? Do you write about the people you work with or associate with? Do you always include their family when writing about them? These writings in the NT left many details out. Consider the fact that about 18 years of his life was left out. That could have been part of the time when he married and had children.

Why is it so hard to believe he wouldn't have led a fairly 'normal' life?

But, first you have to believe in Jesus the Christ to except any of this!
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 11:44 am
@RedOct,
Quote:
These writings in the NT left many details out.

"These writings" were composed at least a century after the supposed happenings by non-witnesses who had no access to witnesses. Suggest you get and read the Evangelitical Christian Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman's new book "Misquoting Jesus" which shows how the gospels (and other NT writings) have been altered over and over again to the point that we don't know what Jesus said or did! When you have finished that, I will provide a list of other books by renowned scholars (many of them Christians) to read. :patriot:
0 Replies
 
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 11:56 am
@RedOct,
I also have a book that I have read concerning the NT but it is an "inspired" version so you wouldn't give any credit for that one! I too think that so much has been mis-translated, left out, written from stories handed down, etc that without supporting evidence cannot put my total faith and trust in the KJV. Of course supporting evidence to a person such as I is read, ponder, and pray....
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 12:02 pm
@RedOct,
Good for you...you have found your path and I wish the best for you but as far as history goes, Christianity has no evidence of validity. :patriot:
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 12:13 pm
@mako cv,
mako;30878 wrote:
Good for you...you have found your path and I wish the best for you but as far as history goes, Christianity has no evidence of validity. :patriot:


But don't you think that there has to be something to it? Or do you think we are all like sheep and just follow what everyone else does?

Even if it all turns out to be a big hoax we couldn't have had a better role model! And isn't that really all he is? Sure, I believe in the attonement and the sacrifice for sins but most people don't understand that and can't even relate to it. So even if they just believe in Christ as a role model it's better than Brittany Spears and Micheal Vick!
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 12:36 pm
@RedOct,
Quote:
But don't you think that there has to be something to it? Or do you think we are all like sheep and just follow what everyone else does?

Truthfully? No I don?t. It would be the same as asking if there was something to Mithraism or Krishnaism (two much older resurrecting savior sons of gods). I wouldn?t say you were like sheep, just that you found your path, a path that I could never follow, nor want to follow.
Quote:
Even if it all turns out to be a big hoax we couldn't have had a better role model!

Actually, he is too violent for me?many of the things he taught about selling your coat and buying a sword, forsaking your family, that he comes to bring a sword, not peace?then too, as a part of god, he is as guilty as Jehovah for all the atrocities of the OT?really, I would rather have Brittany or Mike as role models?they are just stupid, not violent!
Quote:
I believe in the attonement and the sacrifice for sins

Reminds me of the old saying?He had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to appease himself so that he would not condemn us his beloved creations to enternal damnation and fire. Now that is what I call truly Amazing Grace! :patriot:
0 Replies
 
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 12:50 pm
@RedOct,
But, I believe that God the Father and Jesus the Christ were two separate beings so he didn't sacrifice himself for himself.

I am not as well read as you and so can only debate those things as well.

Violence didn't come from God. It came from man.
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 01:09 pm
@RedOct,
Quote:
Violence didn't come from God. It came from man.

Just one little example of God?s violence:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

God?s instructions to the Israelites after the conquest of the Midianites.

Incidentally, you are doing a pretty good job of debating me, Ma?am. Don?t sell yourself short.
:patriot:
0 Replies
 
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 01:43 pm
@RedOct,
I agree that this account in the OT seems to portray a violent God. But I still wonder at the accuracy in the translation. And, I also would like to point out that God has always given a consequence for every action. Good or bad.

It's too bad we don't do so now. I watch my 3 year old granddaughter show disrespect to everyone around her because "it's not good parenting" to swat her little butt when she mis-behaves. Time out is only good for so much.

Yeah, I'm a violent old grandma! But, guess what? When I swatted her bottom and set her out in the garage when she was throwing her tantrums her mom was telling me that my granddaughter would never like me again. So, when it was time for dinner I brought her in and sat her at the table and she was doing everything she could to make Grandma like her!
0 Replies
 
mako cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 03:16 pm
@RedOct,
Quote:
Yeah, I'm a violent old grandma! But, guess what? When I swatted her bottom and set her out in the garage when she was throwing her tantrums her mom was telling me that my granddaughter would never like me again. So, when it was time for dinner I brought her in and sat her at the table and she was doing everything she could to make Grandma like her!

Since those young'uns won't do what is necessary, it is up to us old codgers (I'll admit to 65 summers and counting) to teach the very young what is right and what is wrong. Y'know, what we went through as discipline would be considered child abuse today, thanks to these high falutin' doctors with more alphabet letters behind their names than can be pronounced, but as a generation (this is from WWII to Vietnam) we all turned out pretty good for the most part. We may have our short comings, but we try to respect others and their possessions. Good for you! :patriot:
0 Replies
 
westernmom
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 03:45 pm
@RedOct,
It's amazing how our philosphies can be so different but our standards so close to the same.

As I read your posts I see that you seem to dwell on the hell-fire and damnation aspect of the gospel. Instead I like to look at the opposite end of the spectrum. Having a belief in Christ and a loving Heavenly Father brings rewards into my life.
0 Replies
 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 03:50 pm
@RedOct,
Yes Jesus had sex...oh my god.. I said it.. he had sexual intercourse with a women and I guess he would have to be married because you know a 34 year old hypicrite just could not be the savior of human kind. Really now.....
0 Replies
 
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 01:33 am
@RedOct,
RedOct;28914 wrote:
SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE

1. The marriage of Jesus Christ is a taboo subject because most Christians regard it as an impious suggestion. They think this way because marriage implies sexuality, and sexuality is defiled in Christian dogma. A married Christ is rejected for theological reasons, not because of historical facts which may disprove the thesis.

2. While the New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that Jesus Christ was married. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria believed that a married Jesus was inconsistent with His role as the Savior of the world, not that marriage would have Him sinful, but rather, that His mission was too demanding and heavenly to allow him the opportunity for marriage.

3. All later references in the Patristic writings show the Church Fathers following the same pattern: They deny that Jesus was married based upon the supposed silence of the Scriptures and doctrinal problems which were inconsistent with the Church's dogma (e.g. a celibate priesthood, the ritual defilement of seminal emissions, etc.).

4. There was a 2nd Century tradition among various "heretical" sects which taught that Jesus was married. Clement and others may have been reacting to those movements.

5. Although he didn't say one way or the other, Irenaeus' Doctrine of Recapitulation supports the notion of a married Savior. With a style similar to the Druids, Irenaeus, another 2nd Century leader, taught that Jesus Christ symbolically entered every critical stage of human existence and sanctified it. Since family life, including sexuality, is central to our lives, it seems logically consistent with the mission of a Savior to redeem and sanctify this aspect of our experience, as well.

6. In their dispute with Augustine, the Celtic Pelagians argued that the Atonement of Christ cancelled Original Sin. If Original Sin was, as Augustine argued, a sexually transmitted disease of the soul, then Christ has reversed the process and made it a transmitter of healing, health, and virtue.

7. In keeping with the Creeds of the Church, the offspring of Christ would not have represented a "divine race". The Creeds teach that Christ had two natures: one human and one divine, without mingling and without confusion. Since procreation is a human function, we can reasonably say that the children of Jesus would have been just as human as any other human being.

INDIRECT EVIDENCE

1. Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis. Unmarried men were considered a curse to Jewish society. Jesus would not have had much credibility as a leader had He not been married. Although Jesus was a non-conformist and had many conflicts with Jewish tradition, His parents, Joseph and Mary, were not. The Bible says that they were careful to perfectly obey the laws of their people. It also says that Jesus was "subject unto them". Since Jewish culture practiced arranged marriages and early marriage, as well (a Jewish boy was marriageable at age 16), it is reasonable to assume that Jesus' parents would have performed their parental duties faithfully and arranged a bride for the young Jesus. There are 18 silent years in His life (12 - 30). The Gospel of John tells us that there were many other things which Jesus did which have not been recorded.

This point is important because it shifts the weight of presumption. Given the cultural milieu in which Jesus lived and the supporting Biblical evidence, the burden of proof lies with those who do not believe Jesus was married. They must show why Jesus and His parents would have been derelict in their civic responsibilities and not contracted a marriage.

2. According to Josephus, descendants of the House of David felt a moral obligation to perpetuate their line, never knowing which one among their descendants would be the chosen Messiah. Jesus may or may not have known who He was, but regardless, He lived as a normal person until called by the ministry of John the Baptist.

DIRECT EVIDENCE

1. Hippolytus, a Christian leader from the late 2nd Century, was followed by Origen in the 3rd Century in saying that the Song of Solomon was a prophecy of a marital union between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Although they believed Mary was symbolic of the Church, nevertheless, the notion presupposed a real, albeit a spiritual (meaning non-sexual), marriage between Mary and Jesus.

2. There are hints scattered in the Gospels of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary. If she is the same Mary of Bethany in John 11, then we can explain why Martha arose to greet Jesus and not Mary. Some scholars say she was sitting shiva according to Jewish custom. "Shiva" was when a woman was in mourning. Married women were not allowed to break-off from their mourning unless called by their husbands. In this story, Mary does not come to Jesus, until He calls her.

? At the Resurrection, when Mary meets Jesus in the Garden, there is a degree of intimacy (see the Aramaic here) which one would expect between lovers, not friends.

? The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife".

4. The story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus is cited by some scholars as the most direct witness to their marriage. It is in all four Gospels and was a story in which Jesus gave express command that it be preserved. This ceremony was an ancient one among many royal houses in the ancient world, which sealed the marital union between the king and his priestess spouse. We find it mentioned briefly in the Song of Solomon. Although we may not understand its significance, Jesus and Mary knew exactly what they were doing. To be the valid Messiah, He had to be anointed first by the Bride. They were by-passing the corrupt Jewish establishment.

There is more support for the marital status of Jesus. However, it involves a discussion of the Old Testament prophets which would be too tedious to undertake, here. It is important to realize, however, that belief in a married Jesus does not require any more faith than a resurrected Jesus. And if you know where to look, you can find just as much biblical evidence for both.


I find it funny how some will say there is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed, but now these same people can tell you He was married and even how many children He had. Jesus was called a rabbi, but was never a student of the temple, the fact was at the age of 12 He knew more than the teachers of the Temple. And at the age of 12 He pretty much told His earthly father joseph that He, (Jesus) must be about His Fathers business. Another words, customs and traditions were not going to control the life of Christ. Even as early as 12 years old, Jesus knew He was special. He did not have to wait for John the Baptist to point this out to Him.
0 Replies
 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2007 10:06 am
@RedOct,
Jesus was a radical of his time.. hmm funny really...how one person got abused in public for thinking for himself and not listening to everyone else hogwash.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Was Jesus Married?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 11:52:36