Some Christians are terribly offended by the thought of Jesus possibly being married and having sex (I think it's the sex part that offends the most). A church I used to attend did a whole series on why The Da Vinci Code could not possible be true. The church even bought a movie theater so we could see the movie. It was a cool movie but I didn't take as being true. It was a good story of a possibility. I still don't get why some are put out about the possibility. Did God do a bad thing by making humans sexual and wouldn't his human son also be sexual?
The way I see it Jesus must have had a wife at some point
by sabastious 55 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Awen
I would have to disagree about the origin of Mary's last name. It most likely refers to the area where she was from, Magdala.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdala The provided link tells the reader exactly what Magdala means both in the Hebrew and the Greek. It does NOT mean Magician. THAT word is the anglicized form of the latin word Magus. In it's plural form we know it as Magi (like the astrologers /astronomers who came to visit Jesus after his birth).
A discussion of the Kabbalah from a Jewish perspective can be found here: http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm and helps the reader to know what it is and is not.
Interesting discussion though.
-
sir82
If Jesus had been married, there would have been NO REASON to omit that from any Gospel or writings we have in the NT.
I can, without much effort, think of plenty of reasons.
-- Women were considered of little to no importance in 1st century palestine, especially in a religious context. Why bother to write about women in books primarily dealing with Jesus' life & teachings? Heck, Peter was married, but the only way we know that is because his mother-in-law is mentioned in passing. It's quite likely that at least some of the apostles were married - but none of thir wives are mentioned either.
-- The early church was misogynistic and patriarchal. If there were any early writings mentioning Jesus' wife, they could have been suppressed or at least heavily edited.
-- An never-married Jewish man in his 30's would be viewed as extraordinarily weird. Maybe it was just such an obvious fact that Jesus was married that the gospel writers didn't think it was necessary to include it? Nowhere in the gospels does it say that Jesus had 5 fingers on each hand, either.
I'm not saying the historical Jesus was or was not married - I have no idea (and neither does anyone else). But to say "it's impossible that he was married because it isn't mentioned in writing" is not a good argument - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
PSacramento
Sac, how can you conscientiously say that? Jesus' alleged statement was quite clear and concise. Adultery, especially within the Bible, is not up to interpretation and that's exactly what's you are doing by saying Jesus was only refering to the preliminary thoughts before the action. You can't hide from the clear language in that verse. Adultery is adultery, right?
Now YOU interpreted what I said how YOU wanted to, LOL !
I said that Jesus was making it clear that the sin BEGINS with the intention, hence the were though of adultery IS adultery.
He could of as easily made the same point about THINKING of stealing as stealing or thinking of killing as killing.
Christ was making it clear that the intention is already a sin.
-
PSacramento
sir82,
Peter was married and it was mentioned.
If Christ had been married it would have been quiet accetable for the writers to have said so.
They mention his brothers and sisters, a perfect time to have mentioned His wife ( since she woulkd have been with them if not accompayning Jesus).
If Jesus had been married and she had died, that he was a widower probably would have come up at some point.
My point is that there is no reason think that if He had been married that it would have been hidden for any reason.
-
sir82
Peter was married and it was mentioned.
In passing - reread my 1st point.
How many other apostles' wives are mentioned - in passing or not? (also mentioned in my 1st point)
My point is that there is no reason think that if He had been married that it would have been hidden for any reason.
Of course there is - see my 2nd point.
They mention his brothers and sisters, a perfect time to have mentioned His wife ( since she woulkd have been with them if not accompayning Jesus).
I don't follow - why would that be a "perfect time"? Why would she have been with his brothers and sisters?
If Jesus had been married and she had died, that he was a widower probably would have come up at some point.
Really? Why? How many widowers are mentioned in the NT?
-
breakfast of champions
"Adolescence to 30 is a huge hole in the Jesus timeline."
There is an excellenct song that explains all of this called "Jesus--The Missing Years" by John Prine. I highly recommend it.
-
PSacramento
In passing - reread my 1st point.
Well, unless there was a specific reason to mentionit, yes it would be in passing.
How many other apostles' wives are mentioned - in passing or not? (also mentioned in my 1st point)
Since there was no reason to mention them, none.
Of course The families of most of the apostles aren't mentioned either.
Of course there is - see my 2nd point.
The writers of the Gospels were not misyognistic, they certainly had no issues mentione Mary and her sister or that Mary was the one that first Saw Christ.
I don't follow - why would that be a "perfect time"? Why would she have been with his brothers and sisters?
Well, if she was not accompanying him she would be with his family, like any Hebrew wife.
Really? Why? How many widowers are mentioned in the NT?
I really don't see that train of thought panning out, like I said, IF Jesus had been married there is no reason for the Gospel writers NOT to mention it.
They mentioned his mother, Father, brothers and sisters, why not wife if He had one?
-
sir82
Well, unless there was a specific reason to mentionit, yes it would be in passing.
Thank you for emphasizing my 3rd point. If there is no particular reason to mention it, it's not mentioned.
The writers of the Gospels were not misyognistic,
<Sigh>
Please re-read my 2nd point. I said nothing about "gospel writers". The church fathers of the late 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, century could have suppressed or edited such writings. Dan Brown has become a rich man by expanding on that very idea.
Ah well. We could go round and round all day. It's about as moot a point as you can get. Here's a
-
Awen
Also it must be remembered that the only canonical gopsles we have are the ones authorized by the RCC. There are many other writings that aren't included for one reason or another. Also what is contained in the Vatican library that the Vatican refuses to reveal to the public?
The Gnostic texts (which are older than any copy of the gospels) imply that Jesus and Mary were married.
So we might never know unless the Vatican opens it's archives. I suspect it keeps those records secret because destroying them would be sacriligeous but revealing them might topple the church. Lots of thing to consider.