New Early Christian Text, Indicates Jesus May Have Been Married

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the concept of celibacy , is a roman addendum , that has no biblical foundation .

Really? I find that rather bizarre as the Romans were well known for their debauchery. Even the Legions had hookers to keep the boys entertained.

No worries Mon.
From what "I" understand "The Dude" was always Right on time.

Originally posted by Jansy
The simplest answer is usually the correct one. A man during the time of Christ that WASN'T married would be unusual enough to warrant a mention in the Gospels. Following both the customs of the time and the Jewish faith, a man would normally marry.

It's just logical. And NORMAL. Celibacy is NOT usually normal human behavior.

Very correct, and no only that, it was his own wedding when he turned water into wine, for it was the Groom's responsibility to provide the wine at such gatherings. In the Old and New Testament worlds, weddings were happy, festive occasions just as they are today. The marriage ceremony was considerably longer, during which time there was feasting and celebration, with much drinking and revelling. Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is at the wedding, and curiously her role seems to be more than that of a simple guest. Well into the festivities, Jesus’ Mother becomes aware of a most embarrassing situation—the wine has run out, and there appears to be no solution. Either no more wine is available, or there is no money to buy more wine. Now follow logic here. If Jesus were a guest at the wedding, why did his mother ask him to produce wine? Keep in mind also if it were an act of High Magick, Jesus would have been stoned almost immediately, same as if he became a grown man of 30 and was not yet married. Jesus even asks Mary the question, “Why are you saying this to Me? as if it is an unexpected request.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by hdutton

 

John 2:1-11 should be read before making a statement regarding it. Hint: It was not Jesus hosting.......

Jesus, when told that the wine was running low said to his mother..... "What have I to do with thee woman? My time is not yet come." (KJV) Doesn't really sound as if he cared to much about the wedding.
Jesus had brothers, perhaps one of their weddings?

Means naught to me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were probably written by the same author, and there is some evidence it was a woman who wrote them. Not to be taken literally as true Historical documentation.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by adjensen

 

Hello there, my old friend and opponent. I would like to ask you why it is so important to you that Jesus should have been a bachelor. I know you haven't said that's important to you, but your earnest activity on this thread indicates (to me, at least) that it is.

No, it isn't all that important, theologically. I think that it would be for some people, and I think that it's fine to think it important, though it isn't for me. To your quote, while there was definitely a movement towards total abstinence for all Christians in the Third Century (witness the tale of poor Thecla in The Acts of Paul,) I don't think it was considered an orthodox belief. Clement, rule maker that he was (one has to admire someone who writes a whole chapter on the subject of wearing shoes, eh?) still has a reasonable mind on marriage.

We ask if we ought to marry; which is one of the points, which are said to be relative. For some must marry, and a man must be in some condition, and he must marry some one in some condition. For every one is not to marry, nor always. But there is a time in which it is suitable, and a person for whom it is suitable, and an age up to which it is suitable. (Source)

I think here, Clement is clearly making the statement that marriage is neither a duty, nor is it something to be avoided. For some, marriage is fine, for others, being single is fine, but his underlying message is that sex, outside of marriage, is not fine, and that the purpose of sex, within a marriage, is for pro-creation, not recreation. Does that make him a prude? Well, yeah, a bit of a killjoy, but it doesn't make him a hater of marriage.

No, my issue with this "discovery" is not whether I think it matters if Christ was married, or not, but because I'm going to spend the next five years replying to people who say "Christ was married, it's been proven!" and then use that as the basis for no end of Dan Brownisms, misstatements of history and misrepresentations of Christianity.

My perspective is that we have a fairly wealthy amount of documentation that is silent on the matter of whether Jesus was married or not, which tends towards the assertion that he was not (it is not, for example, silent on whether the founder of the church, Peter, was married.) This is contrasted with a scrap of papyrus the size of a business card, with an incomplete saying that could be anything, found in a region, in a language and from a time that plants it right in the middle of Gnostic Christianity.

And yet, any number of people will use said scrap as evidence in an argument that doesn't really need to happen.

- It's not 'gospel' ..
- It's just an incomplete scrap of paper ...
- It was written HUNDREDS of years after Christ.

It could be a fictional story.
It could be about a different Jesus (there were a lot of them).
It could be about anything.

reply to post by thetiler

I think Jesus is a being that set the greatest of all examples for human kind and if so it would only be natural that he would be married because he is male. I think Jesus stood for the highest elevated level.

A star for that, I totally agree with you. There were other highly intelligent people who were sent here to teach humankind how to live and love, and most people took what they said to heart. Some, however, made their human teacher into a God and began to worship him as such. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus is a God, and he didn't say it either, in fact, he prayed to his Father, which clearly indicates his own position and status. Christians remind me of the Cargo Cults of WW2 when it comes to this. I have even had Christian people tell me to my face that Jesus created everything and wrote the Bible himself. My neighbour lady, a lady of advanced years, said those very things to me last year. And she believes it too.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Your post has 'ignorance' written all over it. Remember that geologist from Harvard, who said that even if science itself proved beyond a doubt that scripture was false, he would choose scripture because that's what he'd been taught?

The man who mentioned the geologist called him a disgrace to mankind. To deny truth for the sake of tradition and comfort...

reply to post by silo13

so in the space of one week.....we have managed to disrespect both jesus and muhammed.

its irrelevant if he was married or not.....if he had children and grandchildren...then NO they are not gods, and cant rule the global empire



BTW did you know that paul was crucified upside down??...deep

reply to post by thePharaoh


why would a pagan roman emperor aquiese to such request ?

reply to post by FlyersFan


what is " gospel "

reply to post by ignorant_ape


So as to ensure the survival of paganism when Christianity was clearly winning the battle of religions.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

why would a pagan roman emperor aquiese to such request ?

those days christianity was in its formative periods in rome......the senate and the priests compromised and came up with Catholicism.

sorry youv confused me....was paul an emperor or a preist???

reply to post by silo13


Jesus was a Jew, and a rabbi. His peers would have expected him to be married. It would have been seen as odd if he wasn't. This has been discussed before, and will be discussed again. Good find OP.

S+F

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


Do you have proof that he was a rabbi?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

Do you have proof that he was a rabbi?

Never mind that. He was a carpenter and fisherman from Judaea. It would have been highly unusual for him not to have been married. Probably from a fairly young age too, considering the region and history associated there.

reply to post by Flavian


Which would mean that he was married between the time of his mysterious disappearance and equally mysterious reappearance, yes?

You know, the time he was off getting spiritual training from other countries? This gives a whole new credence to the theory regarding the "Holy Grail" - San Greal - Sangreal - Sang real - "Royal Blood". You know, Jesus's child? His line of offspring?

Which, to me, is much more likely considering the symbology involved. After all, there's more evidence to support the symbology of Dan Brown's theory than the Bible's skewed version of history. But as they say: what is history, but a fable agreed upon?

Why wouldn't Jesus concieve a child, I thought God promise Davidic lineage that they will be multitudes of offspring

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

Do you have proof that he was a rabbi?

Jesus was called Teacher which means rabbi

reply to post by autowrench


Why did Jesus mother asked Jesus about wine? Probably way before that time she believed in him as the Messiah. Virgin birth, other miracles from other sources (none-bible)

Don't throw me the rome-soilder-rape-mary story either

But doesn't the ability to sire a child omply a certain degree of mortality, as in mortal and physical flesh?

I'm a little confused at how many Christians are accepting this without batting an eye, when the Church fought for so long to deny any possibility of Jesus fathering a child or having relations with a woman. Isn't that how Mary Magdelene was painted as a prostitute, in order to discredit her connection with Jesus?