It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If Jesus Was Married.........

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:10 AM
Forget research...common sense tells you

For those wanting the research, it is there, as mentioned, and also especially in Reinnes, France in addition to Egypt, and other texts seen unfit to include in the "official" Bible.

The Rabbi statement is correct as I know it as well, never really thought of that angle, but it certainly reinforces what common sense tells us.

We know Mary of Magdelene wasn't exactly "pure", hehe... yet she's travelling around with a bunch of guys, while basically worshipping their charismatic leader....and you think nothing happened?
Now THAT is blind faith....
(Dogma, though a comedy, summed it up remarkably well, hehe....)

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:21 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I think everyone here is missing the spiritual aspect of this. Christ knew
why he was here. Marriage and kids would have detracted from his
mission. He devoted his entire life to ... his death. I'm sure I can't change
any minds. Just pray about it.

You are not understanding...spirituality aside...if he was a RABBI he HAD to get MARRIED. It simply was not a matter of choice. One could not achieve the status of a Rabbi if they did not get married. You cannot deny what is FACT. It also does not matter if it would have distracted him or not, the truth is the truth!

I will repeat this once more in case people are missing the point:


posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:26 AM
Ahh the puretans come out.

Listen, Who cares if Jesus had a wife? Honestly, does it make his message less meaningful? Does it make your faith any less real?

I think in all honesty that Jesus was a real man, not a god or the son of god. I believe he was a very spiritual person who spread a wonderful message to all those who would listen. Do I think he was married? Probably. Do I think he had children? Probably. Do I think that makes what he accomplished in his lifetime any less? Certainly not.


posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Lukefj
Ahh the puretans come out.

Listen, Who cares if Jesus had a wife? Honestly, does it make his message less meaningful? Does it make your faith any less real?

I think in all honesty that Jesus was a real man, not a god or the son of god. I believe he was a very spiritual person who spread a wonderful message to all those who would listen. Do I think he was married? Probably. Do I think he had children? Probably. Do I think that makes what he accomplished in his lifetime any less? Certainly not.


I agree with everything you say....I think what bothers many people, myself included, is that most Christians...and I am saying "most" not all...don't even know their own bible, and do no digging into facts about their religion, or Jesus and accept what they are told, which has been manipulated and changed so many times through history. Many believe such nonsense as Jesus had long hair, light eyes and hair, born on Dec 25th and most forget that he was Jewish and did not even have any idea of starting a religion in his name....that all came after his death by others. If Jesus were to walk the earth today and see what they have done to his teachings.......he would be horrified.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:48 AM

Many believe such nonsense as Jesus had long hair, light eyes and hair, born on Dec 25th and most forget that he was Jewish and did not even have any idea of starting a religion in his name....that all came after his death by others. If Jesus were to walk the earth today and see what they have done to his teachings.......he would be horrified

Excellent points.

Common sense would tell us that he probably had fairly dark skin (like other Biblical Jews of his time), curly black hair, dark eyes, etc. If we're to accept the reasons stated for Mary and Joseph being in Bethlahem, then it would put his birthday more in November than December (forgot the reason they chose Dec 25th...but I knew this once). Many of Jesus' teachings denounce organized religion, so yes, I'd bet he wouldn't be happy that "Christianity" centers around him...

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:58 AM
Here's some info:
It is fairly well agreed that the name "Jesus" is the English rendition of IEsous, which is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew "Joshua" or "Yehoshua," meaning "Yahweh saves."2 (To avoid any confusion, we shall use "J" here to refer to "Jesus.") However, scholarly literature seems to be devoid of any discussion of the scriptural evidence indicating that J's name may not originally have been Jesus or Joshua. The question should have risen immediately upon realizing how strong the evidence is that soteriology is not a teaching originated by J.3 To the same extent that soteriology is to be questioned as having been an authentic part of J's teachings, the soteriological name "Jesus" should likewise be questioned as having been J's original name. As explained in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:21), by the time it was written the name was meant to be interpreted with the view that God or J will save his people from their sins. Thus the name came to embrace the concept of soteriology.


The December 25th celebration of Christmas was instituted by the Catholic Church. Christmas originated from a pagan festival that celebrated the winter solstice. The winter solstice marked the first day the sun seemed to intensify. So from the winter solstice onward, as the nights became shorter and the day longer, pagans would have grand ceremonies in honor of the sun . The worship of the sun was customary in ancient Rome. The Catholic Church adopted Emperor Constantines suggestion that pagan customs be Christianized, to allow ease of conversion to pagan converts, i.e., making them feel at home as Christians. Pagans regarded Christ as the great sun of the human spirit, so they chose December 25th to celebrate Jesus birth.

Jesus did not want to form a new religion. Sheesh! Most folks can't even remember the fact that Jesus was Jewish, let alone not a cult leader. Christianity was not founded until after his death, hence the name. All of his teachings and parables and lessons were created to try and get Judaism back to the peaceful laws of god. Unfortunately, most wankers still are under the impression Jesus actually started Christianity.

The Bible is the Abridged Version. There have been close to fifty versions or translations of the bible throughout history and there are actual large volumes of gospels that were omitted from the ultra-popular King James version. Essentially, as soon as someone found a disparity, which was invariably, they would excise a chapter that didn't agree with their version of Christianity. This led to the formation of God's Beatles - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - whose gospels were chosen as the definitive volumes.

That God is the only God. This one is my favorite because it's used to denounce other religions. These people are naive, foolish and misinformed thinking the Christian god is the only god! Actually, most of the early Jews and Christians didn't believe their god was the only God, they just thought theirs was better, much like a Japanese car owner prefers Toyotas over Fords. Heck, even the Holy Trinity is a well disguised form of polytheism. The creation of the trinity was a turn-the-tables, we'll-steal-your-platform-from-under-your-noses-and-
disguise-it-as-ours, maneuver that would make a political strategist salivate.

The Elohiym:
Genesis 1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

If the Elohiym made man in their image and their likeness, then an Elohiym must have a body a head, arms, legs, nad other similar parts to men. How close that similarity is can not be determined here but is made more clear in the descriptions of John in the Revelations

Why did God require Jesus' sacrifice? God is omnipotent, he could have removed this requirement. If he can't be in the presence of sin, then he could remove it. All through the Old Testament, God tells the Israelites that they are special, above all other nations. Jesus first says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" before changing his mind to heal a sick Canaanite. (Matthew 15:22-28) How do we know that Jesus' message was meant for all people, as opposed to just the Jews?

How come there is NO mention one way or another concerning lesbianism in the Bible?

Why were there animal sacrifices in the Old Testament? For what possible reason does God being all powerful and omnipotent, need to have an animal killed in his name? We are told that there needed to be blood spilled to pay for our sins....why? For that matter, why did Christ need to die for our sins? On this point, none of it makes sense!

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 10:08 AM
Hey Jazzerman:

Don't forget the Talmidic laws about Rebbes being "at least 30 years of age" and "married" were not actually codified in writing until about 250AD - 300 AD during the Tanaaitic period, long after R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Iesous" in Greek) was executed for armed sedition against the Majesty of the Divine Tiberius (c. 36 AD) read: Luke chapter 22:18-25 etc.

The question of the day is: Did these "married and age related" hallakhik Rabinnic laws about marriage apply to all Rabbis, and did they apply to Rebbes in the 1st century AD?

The term "Rabbi" does in fact occur in some of the Gospels e.g. Mark in the so-called Transfiguration Pericope in chapter 9 etc. , but we do not know if this was an actual technical term used when R. Yehoshua was actually alive:

The term Rabbi was more common AFTER the destruction of the 2nd Temple by Rome in April of AD 7--in other words, we do not know if this term RABBI (lit. "my great one" i.e. teacher or guru) was a RETROJECTION back into the lifetime of "Jeezuzz" by the later gospel writers. Mark was thought to have been written around AD 70 when the original disciples (e.g. Shimeon bar Yonah ha Kephah, or "PETER" etal.) had begun to die off and they needed some "testimony" in writing to "read in the churches" every week until the "end of the World" came and killed off all non believers (i.e. non Jewish Christians)

Since they believed after al that the Parousia, (or Second Coming of the Messiah) was going to happen "any second" until way into the beginning of the 2nd century AD when this kind of "imminent parousia idea" was beginning to wear off and the believers settled in for the long haul, as it were, codifying their belief systems and fighting about the meaning of terms to describe "Iesous" etc.

But was the "historical Iesous" (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) ever married?

Well...he was allegedly DAVIDDIC (i.e. descended from king David according to blood or legal lineage) and thus he would have been expected to produce sons "to sit on the Throne of his father David" and usher in the Kingdom of God on earth.

But remember....not ALL Judeans/Galileans were married in the 1st century AD (despite the erroneous claims of the ponderous author of "The da Vinci Code" (a Mr Brown) who seems to be unaware of the Ossim (Essenoi, or Essenes) or at least the very "Essenoid" Dead Sea Scroll Community who were divided into TWO groups: A. Married B. Celibates (or ex-married men).

So celibate unmarried Jews did exist during Jesus' lifetime, and they were accorded a higher status than married ones ("angels in heaven niether marrying nor given in marriage...).

The celibate monastic core of the Community which they called The Way (and 24 other titles, e.g. Sons of Rightoeusness, Sons of the Covenant, Sons of Light etc.) whose central organization was located at Seccacah ("Damascus" as they called it) which is present day Qumran, in the Judaen desert, some 14 miles NW of Jerusalem.

These CELIBATE 1st CENTURY JEWS ("sons of Zadok" i.e. priests) were called "angels" because they "served in the Heavenly Temple of YHWH" because of their spiritual purity and lack of "fleshly inclinations", having broken away from the "ritually polluted" Sadducees (Heb. "Zadokim" or sons of Zadok the Priest) after the Maccabean Revolt (c. 167 BC)

The other group who were the lower-rated married "Apocalyptic" Essenoids lived in scattered communities all around Palestine in the 1st century waiting for their 2 Messiahs (one Priestly, opne Kingly) to appear (until the War against Rome killed most of them off) some 4,000 in number.

These married Essenes were the second rate types that had families and children.

We do not know if "Iesous" was a married or celibate Essene himself once, or whether or not John the baptist (i.e. Yohananon bar Zechariah the Levite) was an Essene: he seems to have preached in the "wilderness of Judaea" which is the area around Seccacah-Qumran, so at any rate, there was some physical linkage with the dead sea community and Iesous through John the Baptist.

All we know is that most of what is placed into the mouth of "Iesous" in the Greek gospels (and the words placed into the mouth of John the Baptist) are very Essenoid in content---e.g. sharing a similar belief in the Resurrection, a belief in dualist sons of light and sons of darkness, a belief in Angels and a belief in the End of Days Judgment coming any second = Apocalypticism...

The socalled "Gospel of Phillip" was discovered in a really bad Coptic mis-translation (it appears to be random Sermon notations which might go back to the written notes from the disciples of Phillip who was among the "followers of Iesous") out of an original Greek version (which was in turn must have been originally translated out of Hebew or Aramaic) in 1945 (the Coptic MSS dating from about 380 AD)

Here is what the loose Coptic has to say about Iesous and his relationship with Miryam the Megedelleh ("hairdresser" in Aramaic):

"... the CONSORT of the [Savior is] Mary the Magedelleh. [And Yeshua loved] her more than [all] the disciples, and used to kiss her [often] on her mo[uth?).

The rest of [the disciples were oten] offended by this act... They said to him, "Rabbi, Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as (I love) her? Behold, O my seeds, Great is the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber..."

and from there is a ponderous group of sayings about the Mysteries of Sex and the Bridal Chamber of the Messiah in the Last days...

It seems that the early church after the temple was destroyed in AD 70 tried to coverup not only the militancy of Iesous (who was after all executed for armed sedition against Rome as a Daviddic pretender, and was executed as such), but also the role of women in the early Nazorean movement when the Pauline churches grew in Power

(Paul's anti-female pro Gentile churches were scattered around the Roman Empire, and were untouched by the Revolt in Judaea, and survived to pass on their own contorted theologies (aul never met "Iesous" and foughtwith the first disciples, see Acts chapter 15 and Galatians chapter 2) which flew in the face of Jesus original teaching and that of his Brother James who took over the Nazorean movement after his brother's execution, despite not being a disciple) based on blood Daviddic lineage...

So if "Iesous" was actually physically married to the Magedelleh woman (or had more than one wife which was legal in Judaea at the time) this fact was covered over by the paulinists who eschewed marriage "in the last days" as a last resort only "if they could not refrain from carnal lust with each other"...

Food for thought anyway...but of course there's lots more to talk about on this subject...

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 10:11 AM
Fourth paragraph above should read "April AD 70": sorry I type too fast it seems...

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:02 AM
Very good posts Amadeus

Thanks for the information.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:16 AM
Those who win the wars, write the history...and edit the bible.

To believe that Jesus could not have married is to believe that the Mary truly experienced the Immaculate conception. I would believe that articfical alien insemination occured before the God coming to her in a dream to tell her she was pregnant with the son of god.I was raised Irish Catholic so i was taught the teachings of the Church, but thank god I opened a history book and was able to decipher for myself how I beleive religion has been twisted to the means of the Empire in control at the time of our existence through the centuries.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:35 AM
Who gives a sh1t if Jesus was married or not? Surely the basic principle that he said was "be nice to others" and very little else. Humanity has spent too much time debating what authority he spoke with; whether he was man, God, etc, and too little time actually just looking at what it was that he was saying...

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:36 AM
As an atheist, I obviously don't believe Jesus was a god. But for those of you interested in evidence that Jesus was married or had kids, have a look at Barb Thiering's book, Jesus the Man. Her thesis is that Jesus died in Rome sometime after AD 60, possible as part of Nero's persecutions in AD 64. Theiring also believes that Jesus was married twice and had several children.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:47 AM
Wait a minute.... Jesus was a Rabbi? Did I miss that part in the Bible????? Can someone show me the biblical reference?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:14 PM
Mynaeris.... here are some links to your queston:

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Jazzerman]

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:38 PM
The word Rabbi like Guru means teacher. Not Priest. So once again this is all just speculation at no point in the bible is Jesus attached to any synagogue

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 01:01 PM
Jesus was a Rabbi. I dont know what more proof your asking for as I just gave you quotes directly from the Bible. JESUS WAS A RABBI

All Rabbi's are teachers whether they have a synagogue or not. Thus, for Jesus to become a Rabbi he had to be married. Why is this so hard to understand? It seems pretty clear cut to me...

...just accept it. You are not going to be able to argue your way out of this one

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jazzerman
PS- I haven't read "The Da Vinci Code", but I have heard its a great read

Again -

I think all of those idiots dont know what they are talking about, I love how quick they are to debunk someone's theories or oppinions. Even one of his reviews is by an archbishop, of course the archbishop is going to agree with him.

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 02:00 PM
No he was not a Rabbi - the apostles and followers called him Rabbi/Guru because he was their teacher, he did not conform to the strict rabbinical rulesas he was not a Rabbi in the religious sense but in the spiritual sense, ergo had no need to be married. And he married Mary Magdalene just before his crucifixion? Get real kids - one minute she is a ho the next the bride of Christ?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 02:12 PM
Ok people lets go back to the thread,

We have to characters one is the man Jesus and the second the church myth Jesus.

In history Jesus the man was not very well known yes, he was a Jew and against the rulers of his time and the way, the ruling empire treated his people.

This Jesus was human with human desires and probably married.

The church Jesus the son of god is the Jesus in the bible this Jesus was the son of a God and for that reason the church will never have him associated with unclean acts.

So depending what your believes are you chose either or

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 05:53 PM
Hi Marg 6043:

You have hit upon the debate entitled "The Jesus of History v. the Christ of Faith" which as you point out are TWO different concepts.

The "Rabbi Yeshua of history" was not particularly amenable to Gentiles (read Matthew chapter 15 for example) and thus the early church had to re-invent him in order to dress him in a more acceptable apparell to sell to the goyim after the Jewish War against Rome (which the Palestinian Jewish Christians lost along with their non-Messianic cousins)

R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (and yes, R. does stand for Rabbi) was a Jewish "teacher" (Aramaic: "Moreh") wth Talmidim ("disciples")---and disciples are exactly what RABBI's have around them.

He was not a "priest" (Kohen) like his own Rabbi was (e.g. John the Baptist, Yohananon bar Zechariah, the Levite) and thus was not attached to the temple in Jersusalem: the heads of the synagogues spread througout Palestine and the Roman empire had "scribes" (sophrim) at their head, not priests, who had to serve in the cult ceremonies in Jerusalem approx 2 times a year as part of their legal duties....

Rabbi (i.e. teacher) and Kohen (priest) are different terms with difrerent functions in the first century AD.

However we do not know what title R. Yehoshua bar Yosef actually used to refer to himself during his own lifetime, except perhaps the apocalyptic "Bar Enasha" (Aram: Son of Man, referring to Daniel 7:14ff) .

In the Colt-stealing episode (Entry into Jerusalem Pericopes in the gospels), he tells his disciples, "tell the owner that THE TEACHER (Aram. Ha Moreh) has Need of it...and will return it soon...")

And that is the term that the Testimonium Flavium of Josephus uses as a term to describe him ("a teacher of Parables/Wisdom who surrounded himself with Judeans and God fearers who were gleefully expecting the miraculous...")

The Transfiguration pericope in Mark chatper 9 has the title "Rabbi" placed into the mouth of Shimeon bar Yonah ha Kephah (Peter or "rock") when he volunteers to build three Tents during a "vision" on a mountain during a thunderstorm...

In the final chapters of "John's" gospel (writen contributively by one Yohanon the Elder, whoever he was---but Bishop Papias in the 4th century AD seems to have heard that he lived to be something like 98 years old, and had been at one time in his early life a disciple or acquaintance of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean in the flesh, though possibly (like "Aristion") not listed as one of the "12") may have known more about the historical nuances than the text seems to reveal:

see: John chapter 20---where we have the strange scene with Miryam ha-Meggedelleh ("the hairdresser") using a curiously initimate term in Aramaic to address the "risen Jesus" when she "sees" him in the tomb after the execution--it makes one wonder if he survived the ordeal! ): for in it, she cries out: "Rabbouni !!" and tries to hug him .... ("Woman, stop clinigng to me!", he tells her), "I have not yet ascended the hill..." presumably to offer thanksgiving in the temple for his miraculous escape from execution....

The term Rabboni ("my very own great one") is a word derived from the term Rabbi ("my great one") related to "Rab" (meaning great or many = hence, "rabbim" is a "crowd of people" etc.) but "Rabboni" (with the added suffix "ani" ("my very own") suggests something more intimate than just plain old "teacher" ... almost as if it seems to have connoted "dearest one" or some term of affection which crosses some kind of romantic/initmate line (possibly meaning something like "dearheart" etc.)

But something even MORE intimate is used in the Greek of the same chapter, during the scene with the "gardner" the words placed into the mouth of the Megedellah:

Miryam cannot find the corpse to oil and asks the "gardner": "Sir they HAVE TAKEN AWAY THE BODY OF MY HUSBAND (Greek: Kuriou Mou) and I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THEY HAVE LAID HIM OUT...." (the King James Version translates it like something out of Romeo and Juliet: "Sir they have taken the body of my Lord away..." where Husband and Lord are interchangeable.

What is the author of John's gospel trying to say exactly? is there a hint of some earlier tradition that Yeshoshua and the Magedelleh were somehow married?

After all, the "next of kin" in the family of Yeshua would naturally have "first dibbs" on oiling the body after death---it is curous that Miryam the Megedelleh would have stepped up to the plate so fast to perform this function in a leading role unless there was some good reason for it:

Remember also that her name may have been a title further complicating the matter ("Miryam" ="princess" in Hebrew, one of many "princesses" that apparently attended the "court" of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef, who was allegedly of the Royal line of David, and thus would have had many of these "miryams" (or variant cognates of the title) in his family or around him---like Herod the great's Hashmonean Levetical family did (e.g. two of his wives were called Mariamne), forming a "rival" kingly line to the Davidds...

But most modern day Christians who have no nuanced knowlege of 2nd Temple Judaeism, know nothing at all about the contents of the Dead Sea Scroll material, are for the most part completely oblivious to all the "marriage" hints buried in the text of the gospels, and are quite happy to believe SOLEY in their imaginary "Christ of Faith" as if iborn in a cloud of perfumed smoke wafting down from the sky....rather than a historical man who lived and died and possibly married and procreated, who had real solid flesh and real flowing blood who armed his real disciples with real swords on a real hill, and was really executed with real nails by a very real Roman Empire who were busy celebrating the 100th anniversary of their invasion of Palestine that year.....which explains why R. Yehoshua went about screaming "Now is the Day of Vengeance of our god...The Times of the Gentiles is Fulfilled...Repent now, and Believe the Good News of the approaching Kingdom of God.." which is the "historical" CORE of his message...

but then again, of course, look how that turned out...

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in