Jesus of Nazareth..and his lovely wife.

reply to post by Seede

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.

That's not to say the Jesus never had a home or that he wasn't welcome to "come home" at any time. The Bible doesn't mention Jonah carting a wife around either. Neither does it mention Ezekiel's wife, Isaiah's wife, Jeremiah's wife, Were all prophets bachelors? I don't think so.

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.

Saul of Tarsus, AKA Paul, wrote that he was avidly doing everything he could to become a member of the Sanhedrin. As the son of a tent maker, without the family influence that would lend to be easily adopted by the Sanhedrin, he would have married early to get that mandate out of the way, not avoid it. Most biblical scholar agree that Paul was most likely a widower.

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.

The Jewish requirement of men to marry wasn't about a bunch of horny men. It was required to fulfill the First Commandment that God gave to mankind "Be fruitful and multiply".

You forgot to mention the Essene. Jesus didn't shirk off his duties as a Jew, and wouldn't have shirked that one off either, unless he was an Essene. The Essene didn't require their people to marry or have children. Hints to Jesus' affiliation with the Essene are littered throughout the New Testament.

There was an article in the BAR.

Is it spiritual or is it a real marriage?

In the Gospel of Philip Mary Magdalene is referred to as Jesus' Koinonos and hoitre, translated neutrally both words can mean companion. Yet often depend on the context they can imply marriage or sexual intercourse.

In other passages the Greek word, erkoinonei clearly refers to heterosexual intercourse.

still another word, "hotr" ( join unite) general referred to sexual intercourse and marriage.

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

No where does it claim that He was. And if He were, the gospels would have said.
That's not exactly something that they would leave out of a biography about their leader.

reply to post by windword

Text That's not to say the Jesus never had a home or that he wasn't welcome to "come home" at any time. The Bible doesn't mention Jonah carting a wife around either. Neither does it mention Ezekiel's wife, Isaiah's wife, Jeremiah's wife, Were all prophets bachelors? I don't think so.

You could be right. We do believe by scripture that Jesus did have a home with mom and pop at one time but here we are talking about the time while He was ministering His doctrine. Matthew and Luke have made it a point to show that Jesus had no place to call home whereas in the accounts of Ezekiel and Isaiah there was no mention either way. I think that does show a purpose that both Matthew and Luke are emphasizing that Jesus has left the care of parents and job as a carpenter to dedicate His life to the ministry. Emphasizing the fact that He,Jesus, has no property or home is telling me that He has no wife in that if He did have a wife then His duty as a Jew would be to minister to the needs of His family above all else. Otherwise He would have been in violation of customs in that day and been considered a dog.

If you recall in Matthew 8:14 that Peter had a wife and yet Peter was a dedicated apostle of Jesus. Just because a man was an apostle or disciple does not mean that they did not go to work in their profession. Most were fishermen, physician, tax collector, etc. but most all had an occupation. But Matthew and Luke made a special point to tell us that Jesus had nothing; not even a place to lay his head, meaning to call His home.

Another showing that sticks with me is that in His death as a malefactor, He had a mother who was of great concern to Him and the scriptures make a point to show that He asked John to care for His mother. Now this shows me that if He had a wife why would He not have done the same with her? Does not a good Jew leave father and mother and cling to his wife and they become one? The scriptures make no mention of His having a wife but they do make a point to show that mother was alive and father was assumed dead or unable to support mother. So all along in the new testament I see nothing that even suggests that Jesus was either married in the past or in the present.

Now after reading the NT what would make anyone believe that Jesus was married? What is the purpose in trying to plant this seed in the minds of the unlearned? I am not implying this to you but only asking a question. Do you think that accusations without evidence suggests dishonesty? The secularists would be delighted to depict Jesus as a nothing but a fraud and a bum and this would be one more feather in their hat. Why would His being married show Him to be a bum? It would suggest that that the Christian God would have to have sex and would therefore be corporal would it not? And if the Christian Messiah were corporal then He would not be of this Christian God but just another guy down the block. In other words the atheists would eventually us this as their billboard and platform of lies and deceit. What do you think?

reply to post by Seede



Just to be clear, I personally don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a married man. I think that he was an Essene master.

I know that's an unpopular opinion among a lot of Christians, which is why I put forth the argument that if we wasn't Essene, then he would have been married.

If you believe that Jesus would have been unevenly yoked if he would have taken a wife, I can appreciate that. However, given the cultural climate, wouldn't God have foreseen that and provided Jesus with an environment where his bachelor status wouldn't be questioned, like in an Essene community?

reply to post by windword

Just to be clear, I personally don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a married man. I think that he was an Essene master.

Yes it is possible but then one thing bothers me in that thought. If you recall Jesus told His Apostles to go and prepare the passover feast. Would an Essene do this very same thing in killing an animal? I have heard the argument that Jesus ate a vegetarian passover but that is of course an opinion. It is believed that an Essene did not sacrifice animals and it is believed that the Jerusalem church of the Apostles did not sacrifice either. But I do agree with you in that I have also thought that very same theory.

reply to post by Seede


Yes, well I believe that the Essene also needed reeducation. I think it was the Essene that gave Jesus the authority to re-interpret the "Law", and it was the Essene who were the first Christians.

The Essene had some pretty uptight rules. But, they also thought that the Law had been corrupted and that the temple priests were evil to the core. Jesus reiterates that ideology this again and again. They were expecting the return of their "Teacher of Righteousness" and in my opinion, Jesus fit the bill.

The birth of the Mary Magdelene-Yeshua marriage was a simple phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved" in the New Testament. I have wrote this before in another thread. Seems proper for this one also. Seeing as this is the exact phrasing which was used to generate this theory, let us look at John, in which the disciple in question is addressed directly by Yeshua:

25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

Notice the "disciple took her into his home". Was Mary Magdalene a man and Yeshua a homosexual as well? If that does not compute, than neither does this theory.

Again, I will ask, if He in fact was married, what exactly would that add or subtract from the body of His message? Why would one find it necessary to hide this information? What exactly would happen if the laypeople would find out this is true? Nothing really. Nothing at all would have been changed. I have heard He couldn't have been a rabbi if He wasn't married. Well then, logic dictates that they would have lied and said He was married to ease the scandal. None of these things happened. Logic is contradictory and illogical. Therefore there are other motivations to this coming to light. "Well it's because women were treated like owned property in the Bible and they had to hide it to appease the people in power" Yeshua was killed by the people in power. His whole entire ministry flew confrontationally in the face of people in power. And please point out where women were treated as property. What is this Bible you are reading? If you can't see the illogical contradictory nature of your supporting arguments, that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Solomon referring to his "property":

Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.
Descend from the crest of Amana,
from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon,
from the lions’ dens
and the mountain haunts of leopards.
9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
is like the fragrance of Lebanon.
I don't know about you, but I like my PS4. It is my property. But I don't love it like this. I imagine if I truly felt this way about a women, I don't think she would feel like my "property".

reply to post by pleasethink

Again, I will ask, if He in fact was married, what exactly would that add or subtract from the body of His message? Why would one find it necessary to hide this information?

If the was that Jesus was actually married, what would the implications be?

1) That the church lied and that the bible has deliberately altered HIS story.

2) If he had a wife, followers might divert their myopic obsession with Jesus, and also worship his wife his children.

3) If he had children, that would put some of the ideology of a magic god man, born of the virgin, into question.

4) That celibacy is really not necessary to be a holy man.

5) the status of women and their role in ministry has been wrongly and deliberately suppressed.

Otherwise, it shouldn't effect his teachings at all, in my opinion.

reply to post by windword


I will address your statements:

1) Not really beneficial nor detrimental to His story, as Christians believe Him to be the Son of G-d, whether he married or not is inconsequential so the need to lie about it is suspect.

2)Many Christians do not even worship Mary. So that theory goes out the window. I think you are taking the Catholic church and applying it to Christianity as a whole. Not really accurate or definitive.

3)How exactly would this put His status in question? The whole of His message was to reunite man with G-d as His children, as was intended by creation and ruined by sin. If you read the Bible, this is the underlying message in totality. So Him having children would have no effect to those who found salvation through His work.

4)Where was that ever mentioned in the Bible? Please tell. There are portions which refer to marriage as a difficulty in achieving closeness with G-d, which is a true and wise teaching. When one spends his life in dedication to what G-d would have for them, everything else is only a distraction from that goal. Paul taught this. In Psalms it talks of the fruit of the womb is blessing from G-d, and a good mans wife and children honor him. So it really is what you feel YOU want out of life. If a spiritual walk with G-d your only desire, than seek it out wholeheartedly. If a love for a woman catches you, there is no penalty but reward.

5)The role of women in ministry has not at all been suppressed by the Bible, I can name many instances where Yeshua himself used them as a means for humbling and teaching His word. In the Old Testament many women are held in high esteem and used in the same way, just as men were.

I am sorry. Your argument still doesn't seem sensical. Is it the Catholic church or the Bible? If they are suppressed then why is Mary venerated in the way she is? Almost at a level above Yeshua. After confession do you say 20 Hail Yeshuas? And please show the passage in the Bible where women are suppressed. If you cannot than admit your argument is nonsensical and not based upon facts, but on "this guy told me so". Read. Think. Then come back from an informed position.

reply to post by pleasethink


I'm not arguing with, I'm merely answering your hypothetical question.

The historical accuracy of the new testament is far better than any other history book ever written because it was written from 50-250 years later. All other history books, whatever, are written thousands or many hundreds of years after the events happened.

There were a lot of witnesses that were there when Jesus was traipsing around, and they say this so called find is just not true.. because they said he never took a wife.
He did have offers though, which he declined because of his work.
I expect there will be many many more attempts to make a lot of claims and all of them will try to paint the new testament and old, all fantasy, but then it is the only book of history that is called a fantasy because if it is true then people would have to become accountable to themselves.
It is more convenient in today's world to just do whatever the 'f you want. Our politicians all agree too..

There have been a lot of claims over the years from "newly found ancient manuscript" says yada yada yada.. is that Hebrew or Jewish?

I was recalling my younger days and thought I remembered reading some of what I said above. Now though I see it might not have been so cut and dried..
I still get the impression from all the apostles that he was not married.

reply to post by windword


Neither do I argue, only debate what you have described.

1 Corinthians 9:5 seems to provide evidence that at least Paul did not think Jesus was married.

He was defending the apostles in having the right to travel with their wives, which some did, but Jesus is never mentioned in that way. The passage does lend credence to him not being married though.. Needs more study.

reply to post by alienreality

because they said he never took a wife.

The Bible is definative as to whether or not Jesus had a wife.

He did have offers though, which he declined because of his work.

Things didn't work that way back then. Marriages were arranged by the parents early. Boys were usually married between the ages of 18 to 21. Jesus didn't start his ministry until he was around 30, after his baptism and vision quest in the dessert.

reply to post by windword


Being annointed does not equal Messiah. Lots of individuals in the bible were anointed of God. Being the son of God, born of a virgin, the promised one of Israel spoken of prophetically throughout the bible is a different thing altogether. Saul and David were anointed to serve, they were not Messiah.

reply to post by windword


Why I Don't Except The Story Of Jesus.

Point one - You mean to tell me earth is the Centre of the universe. 7 Billion Asians, Africans, Cocasions and other races of people evolved from Adam and Eve and did not currupt the gene pool from a mass of in breeding?

Point two - so you mean to tell me god made earth in 7 days and that we are the only intelligent species through out a Google plex of universes.

Point three - so you mean to tell me that if I don't believe in Jesus and give my time and money to the church in the name of God to listen to a priest tell me lies about the past and brainwash me with brainwashing religious propagenda that I will not go into a place somewhere in the clouds on earth were the suppose creater of the whole entire Google plex of universes lives. And instead I will go to a place in the Centre of the earth to be poked with a cattle prod and tortured even long long after the extinction of our universe.

Right!!!!!!!
Is the human race really this gullible?

Abavs
reply to post by windword

 

Why I Don't Except The Story Of Jesus.

Point one - You mean to tell me earth is the Centre of the universe. 7 Billion Asians, Africans, Cocasions and other races of people evolved from Adam and Eve and did not currupt the gene pool from a mass of in breeding?

Point two - so you mean to tell me god made earth in 7 days and that we are the only intelligent species through out a Google plex of universes.

Point three - so you mean to tell me that if I don't believe in Jesus and give my time and money to the church in the name of God to listen to a priest tell me lies about the past and brainwash me with brainwashing religious propagenda that I will not go into a place somewhere in the clouds on earth were the suppose creater of the whole entire Google plex of universes lives. And instead I will go to a place in the Centre of the earth to be poked with a cattle prod and tortured even long long after the extinction of our universe.

Right!!!!!!!
Is the human race really this gullible?

1) oh, yes! the gene pool is most corrupt!

2) tell it like it is, brother!

3) that's the way it works for some, especially the unbelievers and anti-christians.

i suggest you do a little more research on this subject.

you have an interesting view on christianity, i guess you don't believe Jesus had a wife?

reply to post by tsingtao

Jesus is nothing more then a figure head to control the masses to have spiritual faith in a religion that puts boundaries on the mind heart and soul and to prolong true spiritual evolution.