Jesus of Nazareth..and his lovely wife.

andy1972

tsingtao

andy1972
As a rabbi, and lets not foget he was jewish, Yeshua ben Yosef would have been obliged to marry and have kids, as the job doesn't allow otherwise.
The wedding at Cana where he performs the 'water into wine', was probably his own.

yeah, for a regular joe rabbi, maybe.

His wife and kids would be getting sick of wine and fish.

"why can't you make some T-bones or chicken!!?"

"a couple brussel sprouts even!"

"get a real job!"

i don't think you have to be married first, to become a rabbi.

Do some research. If you were a rabbi you HAD to get married, it was a job requirement. The mishnaic law is quite explicit on the fact - 'An unmarried man may not be a teacher'. Kids were a certainty, as the Torah commands 'be fruitful and multiply'.

fairly friggin weak, ya think?

we talking about Jesus, right?

sorry but He went against every grain, didn't He?

being married was a minor/moot point for Him.

like the truth for the obama admin.

reply to post by tsingtao


I haven't got a clue what you're on about honestly...

You people who?

Talliostro

andy1972
As a rabbi, and lets not foget he was jewish, Yeshua ben Yosef would have been obliged to marry and have kids, as the job doesn't allow otherwise.
The wedding at Cana where he performs the 'water into wine', was probably his own.

This is my believe, too. He was a Rabbi and marriage was a must for this "job".

Second thing is, the wedding at Cana describes wonders done by Jesus without mentioning the name of the couple, which is highly unusual for the Bible. In fact, it reads as if it got censored really badly, as it doesn't really fit into the normal writing style of the gospel and the other accounts of wondrous things Jesus did.
So I think we read a part of the story of Jesus marriage, but the full story and implications that Jesus could have kids was deemed to dangerous to the people who decided what should be written down in the official 4 Gospels.

I don't want to say, who he married. But the person, who took him off the cross, washed him afterwards and wanted to visit him in his grave is a good candidate, as this "deeds" would normally fall on his wife or another close familymember.

edit on 11/4/2014 by Talliostro because: (no reason given)

taking Him down from the cross was explained in another thread.

who cares who's wedding it was, it was the first miracle written.

could have just come across it. lol, crash the wedding with his homies!

so you people still doubt His divinity?

only a what, regular dude would get married and have kids, which would send up some red flags, ya think?

this is Jesus! wtf?

nice to see that people read He walked on water but insist He had to be married to be a rabbi.

Akragon
reply to post by tsingtao

 

I haven't got a clue what you're on about honestly...

You people who?

too bad. you are missing a lot of good stuff.

why are you here?

yeah, yeah, show me where i questioned the divinity of Jesus in my post?

I question the official written story, because we are told what someone 200 A.D deemed right or wrong and not, what was the truth or the full story. You can be a christian but doubting the truth being told. But I know the type of poster who feels the need of capitalizing anything Jesus involved. Makes no sense trying to discuss with you.

Talliostro
yeah, yeah, show me where i questioned the divinity of Jesus in my post?

I question the official written story, because we are told what someone 200 A.D deemed right or wrong and not, what was the truth or the full story. You can be a christian but doubting the truth being told. But I know the type of poster who feels the need of capitalizing anything Jesus involved. Makes no sense trying to discuss with you.

edit on 11/4/2014 by Talliostro because: (no reason given)

then take your ball and go home.

you don't like capital letters?

what are you questioning, then?

tsingtao

Akragon
reply to post by tsingtao

 

I haven't got a clue what you're on about honestly...

You people who?

too bad. you are missing a lot of good stuff.

why are you here?

Doesn't look like im missing anything...

I try not to feed the trolls... they do get hungry though

Talliostro

andy1972
As a rabbi, and lets not foget he was jewish, Yeshua ben Yosef would have been obliged to marry and have kids, as the job doesn't allow otherwise.
The wedding at Cana where he performs the 'water into wine', was probably his own.

This is my believe, too. He was a Rabbi and marriage was a must for this "job".

Second thing is, the wedding at Cana describes wonders done by Jesus without mentioning the name of the couple, which is highly unusual for the Bible. In fact, it reads as if it got censored really badly, as it doesn't really fit into the normal writing style of the gospel and the other accounts of wondrous things Jesus did.
So I think we read a part of the story of Jesus marriage, but the full story and implications that Jesus could have kids was deemed to dangerous to the people who decided what should be written down in the official 4 Gospels.

I don't want to say, who he married. But the person, who took him off the cross, washed him afterwards and wanted to visit him in his grave is a good candidate, as this "deeds" would normally fall on his wife or another close familymember.

edit on 11/4/2014 by Talliostro because: (no reason given)

There's apart at the wedding where his mother says to the waiters "Do whatever he tells you"..for an guest at a wedding its a bit much, however if he were the groom that woud make it a lor clearer.

Akragon

tsingtao

Akragon
reply to post by tsingtao

 

I haven't got a clue what you're on about honestly...

You people who?

too bad. you are missing a lot of good stuff.

why are you here?

Doesn't look like im missing anything...

I try not to feed the trolls... they do get hungry though

yeah, they do don't they?

seems like you are trolling a religion thread.

like the others.

andy1972

Talliostro

andy1972
As a rabbi, and lets not foget he was jewish, Yeshua ben Yosef would have been obliged to marry and have kids, as the job doesn't allow otherwise.
The wedding at Cana where he performs the 'water into wine', was probably his own.

This is my believe, too. He was a Rabbi and marriage was a must for this "job".

Second thing is, the wedding at Cana describes wonders done by Jesus without mentioning the name of the couple, which is highly unusual for the Bible. In fact, it reads as if it got censored really badly, as it doesn't really fit into the normal writing style of the gospel and the other accounts of wondrous things Jesus did.
So I think we read a part of the story of Jesus marriage, but the full story and implications that Jesus could have kids was deemed to dangerous to the people who decided what should be written down in the official 4 Gospels.

I don't want to say, who he married. But the person, who took him off the cross, washed him afterwards and wanted to visit him in his grave is a good candidate, as this "deeds" would normally fall on his wife or another close familymember.

edit on 11/4/2014 by Talliostro because: (no reason given)

There's apart at the wedding where his mother says to the waiters "Do whatever he tells you"..for an guest at a wedding its a bit much, however if he were the groom that woud make it a lor clearer.

so you are an expert on ancient wedding etiquette?

the waiters were probably slaves, dude, not expecting 15% lol.

i bet the sommelier was pissed.

The biggest point of discussion at Nicea was whether to make Jesus a God or a man. Christianity has been created to what an Emporer and Fathers in frocks wanted (a). to hold both the east and west of the roman empire together and (b) to give the men in frocks state authority over religion so those who disagreed with their dictates could be seen to be going against the Emporer's authority and duly got out of the way.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and its been milked and milked and milked, especially when one looks at the wealth in the vatican!

Jesus had to have been married if half the stories about him teaching the Temple were true.

parad0x122
and as of now there's been no signs of modern forgery.

It's from the 8th century Egypt. That was 700 years after Jesus walked the Earth.
It's not a historical document. It's probably what we'd call 'historical fiction' today.
Bits of a true story with lots of imaginative filler ...

FlyersFan

parad0x122
and as of now there's been no signs of modern forgery.

It's from the 8th century Egypt. That was 700 years after Jesus walked the Earth.
It's not a historical document. It's probably what we'd call 'historical fiction' today.
Bits of a true story with lots of imaginative filler ...

kind of like the ATS of the eighth century? Bits of truth with bits of bs?

reply to post by rickynews


True if we have the gospel as written. May not be true if the gospel has been edited. We don't know because the bible was edited for content. We have no way of knowing what was lost or left out. We really don't have any way of knowing. No one can claim otherwise. No one.

windword

rickymouse
Does it really matter if he was married or not? I wonder how many children he had? Where did his kids go to?

It matters. If Jesus was born of a virgin, and was fully man and fully a god, then his DNA would be special, one would postulate, and his lineage would be "royalty".

That is an extremely valid and important point. I read a book quite a few years ago that discussed how Royalty pushed the idea that Christ was married and had decedents and then claimed that ancestry for themselves to reinforce their divine right to rule.

parad0x122


With that, let the flood gate opening commence:

What are your thoughts ATS'ers?

Verily, verily I say unto you, what thou seeketh is not in a mans life or wife, not in a church or religion or in any other pontification offered up by the multitude. Behold, it is in the parables that this Being offereth, that we may find truth.

reply to post by havok


I agree with you believers are the bride....and at the end will be the wife.

7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” 8 It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the [c]saints.

9 Then he *said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he *said to me, “These are true words of God.” 10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

www.biblegateway.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.biblegateway.com... ASB

reply to post by windword

TextSince we have no information on the life of Jesus before the age of 30, we have to assume that he would have married, as any good Jew would. Unless, of course, he was an Essene. Otherwise, he would have looked pretty suspicious and probably wouldn't have been accepted as well as he seemed to have been, by his fellow Jews.

Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Jesus had no home and there is nothing to suggest that He had a wife tagging about with Him.

Matthew_8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Luke_9:58 And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

This is clear to me that Jesus was not a married man. Also consider that He was not a member of the Sanhedrin, seventy rabbis of Jerusalem, and therefore not subject to the doctrines of the temple authority. Even though He was subject to Torah, the fact that Jesus' doctrine was far different than that of the temple Sanhedrin was the basis of the charges against Him.

Then consider Saul of Tarsus (Paul) who sat under the tutoring of the great Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin and was licensed to have a school of selected pupils and was also the president of the Sanhedrin at that time in Saul's life. In fact Saul was believed to be next in line for presidency of the Sanhedrin. Why does all this matter? Simply because Saul, the rabbi, was not married either.

Now when you compare a rabbi of modern day with a rabbi of ancient days you must consider exactly what the difference is. In Jesus' day they had Sadducee rabbi's and Pharisee rabbi's who controlled the authority of the Jerusalem temple. Between these two factions the Sadducee doctrine was that there was no afterlife such as the Pharisee claimed. Today you have three mainstream factions of Judaism which are the Orthodox, Conservative and the Reformative divisions. You will find vast differences between all three today just as you find vast differences in Jesus' day. By this I believe Jesus was never married and was far above any need for sex.

reply to post by parad0x122


Marriage is a Holy union created by God.

There is no sin involved in marriage.

Jesus Christ lived a life without sin.

No where is scripture does it claim Jesus Christ was unmarried.

None of these claims effect anything found in the Bible, only assumptions found in the minds of men.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

Text Marriage is a Holy union created by God. There is no sin involved in marriage. Jesus Christ lived a life without sin. No where is scripture does it claim Jesus Christ was unmarried.

Are you saying all marriages are honored and considered holy by God? Can a disbeliever of God be honored by God? Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus was unmarried? What if I say that nowhere in scripture does it say that He was married?

2Corinthians_6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what Communion (light) has the unbeliever (darkness) have with God? Would God tell you to honor anything that He will not honor? Not in my understanding of the bible.