Was Jesus married?

[Justice 0]

Almost every fable, aspect and story of the Judeo-Christian mythos have been usurped or derived from other mythologies. This is nothing new and certainly not exclusive to this religion. Every single religion has taken it's ideas from others and changed them to their own.

However, the Romans were a largely military and secular society, they gave little more than lip services to their gods; also they kept meticulous census records.

There are records of Jesus of Nazareth's life, and before anyone repeats the 'How do you know he existed at all? He supposedly lived over 2000 years ago!" I'll just point to the ancient Egyptians. Ramses II lived many millenia before Christ, yet no one doubts he existed.....or do you?

Then again, we lack any definitive proof of the existance of Alexander the Great, yet he's accepted into historical fact.

 

And, well, Ramses was a Pharaoh. Jesus was a carpenter for most of his life. See the diff?

 

The point is there's nothing to make you think he existed.

 

Except for 3 major religions telling me he did. The argument is pointless because there's no way you can prove one way or another he did or didn't. No one can be proven in the right unless we were actually able to go back then and look.

[Justice 0]

Personally, I don't see the point in this argument besides people trying to push each others' opinions on one another (And yes, I'm guilty of this as well). For something 2000 years old, we'll never likely never to have definitive proof to whether he existed or not; it's like trying to guess the picture behind a 2,000 piece puzzle with only a few dozen pieces. Kahran is right: the only real deciding fact is what we believe to be true.

What I'm getting at is why believe it? If you're going to believe something at least believe Mythra. It's the same story, but he was around first.

 

It's one thing to wonder about if he was telling the truth, its another to think he might've not even have existed at all.

Indeed. It's all choice. But to act as though there's no logic behind it when even you can't prove that he didn't exist is subsituting one leap of faith for another. Again, it's all faith and one's personal choice to believe or not. You can't claim to be right or wrong here.

[chaosrage 0]

You can't prove that anyone not even Santa Claus doesn't exist. We can't prove that a spaceship wasn't hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet.

 

What I'm asking is what would make you put faith in that particular story?

[Justice 0]

You can't prove that anyone not even Santa Claus doesn't exist. We can't prove that a spaceship wasn't hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet.

 

What I'm asking is what would make you put faith in that particular story?

First off, wasn't Santa Claus based off a Scandinavian Saint?

 

Why shouldn't I? Does it make a difference to you if I believe that there's a higher power or not?

[Guest JMA]

All myths have some basis in reality.

 

EDIT: This was not directed at anyone or anything said. It is just a statement I feel should be said.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Exactly. Some 2,000 year old book is considered concrete evidence now? When was it proven that he existed?

Several 2000 year old books written by different sources. The Bible is just a collection.

Kahran, you're an insanely intelligent guy, perhaps you could provide some proof that Jesus existed?

Aside from the Gospels there isn't any account of his actual life. There are writings from his followers. There is no archealogical evidence of Jesus having actually lived (at least nothing that can be proven, there are holy relics and whatnot). In a way it is similar to the search for the real King Arthur. There is no direct evidence of him either, although there are several written sources that refer to either Arthur or someone who could very well be him. Most historians seem to agree that Jesus did exist, but it isn't proven by any means, only likely.

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that King Arthur was based, in part, from a 5th Century Briton warrior known as Artorius became Arthur over time. He was known for his zeal in fighting Irish and Scottish hordes and was christened by those who worked his land as "the Duke of Battles" or something which translates closely to it.

[Justice 0]

Zsasz, you are very correct. I've saw stuff about that a while ago.

 

Honestly, this is just dumb. Do you believe Socrates existed? There are serious doubts to that. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? There are major doubts that he did as well. Hell, aren't there doubts on Hannibal himself existing? Seriously, if you accept those, what should Jesus matter? Just because some people believe he's the son of God means nothing to the argument since both the Jews and Muslims acknowledge his existence but they don't recognize him as their savior. He could just as well been a normal man, so that argument lacks point outside of the circular argument "Do you believe he is God?". It's pathetic to think that evidence could support one side more than the other when there isn't enough to even point in a direction.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Zsasz, you are very correct. I've saw stuff about that a while ago.

 

Honestly, this is just dumb. Do you believe Socrates existed? There are serious doubts to that. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? There are major doubts that he did as well. Hell, aren't there doubts on Hannibal himself existing?

I think in Alexander's case the evidence in favor of is far greater of then against. He's mentioned in everything from Persian records to the Bibles.

[justsoyouknow 0]

Well, consistently asking if we believe in other historical figures is kind of a weak argument, as well. I don't recall any religions popping up based around riding Elephants through the mountains. But we're supposed to have this blind following for this man who apparently was the son of God, despite no evidence to back up that he existed? Sure, there's shady info surrounding Alexander the Great. But Alexander the Great doesn't have an entire book based around his life and teachings, does he? Are there millions worldwide that follow the teachings of Alexander the Great? It all boils down to that there's no proof that he existed, therefore there is no validation in anything that he supposedly said. Let's say that he never existed. Would you still have faith in what he said, despite the fact that he wasn't around to say it? It would be a huge work of fiction, similar to someone believing in the philosophy of Fight Club.

[Justice 0]

Well, consistently asking if we believe in other historical figures is kind of a weak argument, as well. I don't recall any religions popping up based around riding Elephants through the mountains. But we're supposed to have this blind following for this man who apparently was the son of God, despite no evidence to back up that he existed? Sure, there's shady info surrounding Alexander the Great. But Alexander the Great doesn't have an entire book based around his life and teachings, does he? Are there millions worldwide that follow the teachings of Alexander the Great? It all boils down to that there's no proof that he existed, therefore there is no validation in anything that he supposedly said. Let's say that he never existed. Would you still have faith in what he said, despite the fact that he wasn't around to say it? It would be a huge work of fiction, similar to someone believing in the philosophy of Fight Club.

Bullshit. We are only questioning whether the man himself existed, that he was a historical figure. That's the whole flaw: You believe that it being part of religion somehow seperates it from history, but we are talking the historical "Not the son of God" Jesus, which is completely possible. I do like, however, that despite the doubts with the others, you completely accept them as historical figures.

 

What does it matter that he has a whole book based around him? How does that have any bearing on whether he existed any more than Socrates or Alexander when the same doubts exists with these figures as well? What if everyone believed that Alexander was the Son of God instead of Jesus. Would you say the same thing? Your whole argument hinges on the fact that there's a religion based around one and not the other, which has absolutely NO BEARING on whether he existed or not.

 

There's no proof that he didn't exist. You have nothing that can say that right now definitively. I have nothing definitively that can say he does. It's a stalemate: Neither of us have the evidence to prove our stances beyond a reasonable doubt without putting a massive amount of faith into it.

[Firestarter 0]

There's no proof that he didn't exist

You can't prove that someone or something never existed. That's nonsensical. You can only prove that we have ZERO records of Jesus or anyone like him ever having existed.

 

Also, for everyone saying that it's the philosophy, not the man which is really important (and I agree), I trust you are all aware that your opinion is completely contrary to Christian doctrine? It's straight out of Jesus Christ Superstar, and we all know how much the Church loved that.

 

"You've begun to matter more than the things you say!"

- Judas, Heaven On Their Minds

 

Hell, where's SP hiding when his input might actually be of some use? He's made this exact point before, and he's right. Christ's divinity is fundamental to the Christian faith. If you just want the philosophy, you might as well call yourself a Socratian.

Edited November 4, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Justice 0]

There's no proof that he didn't exist

You can't prove that someone or something never existed. That's nonsensical. You can only prove that we have ZERO records of Jesus or anyone like him ever having existed.

Well, my beef was more with the argument that the ideas behind his teachings were invalid because he "didn't exist", which I find to be straight BS. Ideas are ideas no matter how you look at them. Okay, so let's go with the theory that Jesus didn't exist. Does that mean that his teachings are suddenly wrong? No. The ideas there are still a fantastic moral base for mankind, whether created by a group of Christians or the man himself. I find that foolish and childish. If a brilliant quote or tenet is put forth but its creator remains anonymous, does that immediately make what he said wrong? No, because the idea is still there and it still has power.

 

Also, for everyone saying that it's the philosophy, not the man which is really important (and I agree), I trust you are all aware that your opinion is completely contrary to Christian doctrine? It's straight out of Jesus Christ Superstar, and we all know how much the Church loved that.

 

"You've begun to matter more than the things you say!"

- Judas, Heaven On Their Minds

 

I believe in Jesus, but I believe in the ideas he set forth more. It's wrong to carry out stuff in his name that directly contradicts what he says (Much of the Catholic Priesthood crisis of simply hiding the problem rather than addressing it). Like the Constitution, the words and the meaning behind those words far more valuable in life than those who spoke or wrote them. So I believe in him, but I believe I'll please him far more by living out what he asked rather than just praising him for being who he is. It's not all the philosophy for me, but it plays a greater part in my life than he does.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Was Jesus married?

 

In my opinion, no. Being a Chrstian myself (but not a religious freak or bible thumper), I was taught that Jesus never fell in love therefore he died a virgin.

[Firestarter 0]

my beef was more with the argument that the ideas behind his teachings were invalid because he "didn't exist", which I find to be straight BS...

It's not all the philosophy for me, but it plays a greater part in my life than he does.

Oh, I agree. Just wanted to clarify the point.

[Damaramu 0]

*sits back*

I love history and historical debates......they just get so interesting. Plus it is very hard to prove something from history.....because records can be tampered with...none of us were actually there.

But........continue.......this is interesting........

[Justice 0]

*sits back*

I love history and historical debates......they just get so interesting. Plus it is very hard to prove something from history.....because records can be tampered with...none of us were actually there.

But........continue.......this is interesting........

Yeah, truly. We should get a history board. I'd absolutely love it.

[chaosrage 0]

[Well, my beef was more with the argument that the ideas behind his teachings were invalid because he "didn't exist", which I find to be straight BS.

Okay. Who was arguing that?

[Justice 0]

[Well, my beef was more with the argument that the ideas behind his teachings were invalid because he "didn't exist", which I find to be straight BS.

Okay. Who was arguing that?

justsoyouknow, or so I thought.

[Firestarter 0]

Eh. People actually read his posts? I'd rather kill my brain cells with vodka.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

You gotta believe!

 

[Vern Gagne 0]

I watched the special. Alot of it seemed about disproving the belief Mary Magdaline was a prostitute and played a much greater role in Jesus's life. However, going from prostitue to being married to Jesus and having kids with him was a stretch.

Wanting embrace a risen Christ, doesn't imply they where married or a couple. She was a follower of the man, and just saw him die on the cross a day earlier. Wouldn't your reaction be to want to hug, or embrace him?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Well, you never know. Supposedly, the guy touched lepers and healed them, and provided fishes and loaves for a whole mountainful of people. To say that he fell in love with a woman involved in the world's oldest profession doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.

 

Powerplay, I'd also like to know what you meant by this contradiction:

 

It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter

 

a few posts later...

 

You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Personally, I don't see the point in this argument besides people trying to push each others' opinions on one another (And yes, I'm guilty of this as well). For something 2000 years old, we'll never likely never to have definitive proof to whether he existed or not; it's like trying to guess the picture behind a 2,000 piece puzzle with only a few dozen pieces. Kahran is right: the only real deciding fact is what we believe to be true.

What I'm getting at is why believe it? If you're going to believe something at least believe Mythra. It's the same story, but he was around first.

 

It's one thing to wonder about if he was telling the truth, its another to think he might've not even have existed at all.

Lawrence Iannaconne is the foremost leader in Economics and Religion in the United States, and I just so happen to study with him. Why believe in Jesus and not Mythra? Believing in Jesus must grant more benefits than believing in Mythra. He's got a very interesting take on why polytheism all but died out and monotheism seems to be more sustainable. If you really want to know, read up on him

 

For a history of monotheistic religion and why it seemed to developed, check out a book called "One True God" It is not an endorsement of religion, but a history of them.

 

<--Your Friendly TSM Economist

[Guest Just Looking]

Maybe we should spend time unravelling the mystery about whether or not Jesus even existed.

 

This whole thing is stupid. Are we supposed to go, "OMG! That Theologan can't disprove this!" and tell all of our friends?

It's proven that he did exist.

 

EDIT: Also the Bible didn't demonize sex. All it talked about was waiting until marriage and a few health issues.

I didn't mean the Bible did. I meant the Catholic Church did. Read The Da Vinci Code. It's worth your time.

[Ace309 0]

Well, you never know. Supposedly, the guy touched lepers and healed them, and provided fishes and loaves for a whole mountainful of people. To say that he fell in love with a woman involved in the world's oldest profession doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.

 

Powerplay, I'd also like to know what you meant by this contradiction:

 

It shouldn't matter if he exists or not, it should be the substance of what he 'supposedly' taught and said that should matter

 

a few posts later...

 

You really can't seperate the man from his teachings.

If I can field this one...

 

Powerplay phrased what he said badly, and with a healthy dose of out-of-context, there appears to be a contradiction. However, what he was trying to say, if you read the posts and take the statements in context, was that the fact that Jesus may not have existed is not a valid way of calling into question his teachings.

 

There are, of course, teachings which are dependent on his being the existent son of God, but these are mainly related to "proving" that he fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. The vast majority of what he taught - for example, see the Sermon on the Mount, which is cited at the Atheists For Jesus site that I can't remember the link to right offhand but which can be easily found at Google - was simple philosophical/moral/social teaching. If Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, did not exist, it doesn't matter. That has no bearing on the truth or falsity of this category of the teachings credited to him.

[Justice 0]

Danke for the backup, Tom .

 

Edit: And on the OMG ORIGINAL TOPIC, yes, I don't see it as being too far off. It's completely possible and the church could have easily modified the records and pages without us knowing. Again, the problem is we weren't around and how easy it is for records like those to be tampered with makes it really tough to tell us yes or no.

[Guest BobbyWhioux]

It's impossible to prove one way or the other, based on the limited evidence we have.

 

I mean, all we've really got to go on are the accounts of Jesus' life in the bible (which only covers birth and his 30's, so far as he got through them. There's a big and conspicuous gap where his teen years and early 20's ought to be *wink*). And we can, judging by the limited record we have, conclude either way.

 

A) He couldn't have been married. She never would have let him get away with spending all that time hanging out with the guys [the disciples] and going on the road preaching and stuff. She would've pussywhipped him into taking over Joseph's carpentry business, and denied all our souls the prospect of salvation through him just to satisfy her own selfish needs to be the center of someone's attention and have her man buy her shit.

 

OR

 

B) He must've been married, why else would he hang out with the guys so much and go around preaching except to stay out of the house and away from her constant nagging and bitching?

[Guest BDC]

Okay, a few things I wanted to toss in.

 

First off, you're not going to find the name "Jesus Christ" in the records. Christ is the title for the Messiah and Jesus is something of a corruption of the name. Jeshua Ben Joseph is what I've read to be closer to the accurate name.

 

Second, as for his miracles, why wouldn't they have been written down? Well, think about the society you're dealing with. It wasn't Roman or even clerical Jewish, it was Aramaic. We're dealing with common people who, in those days, didn't write. The disciples did write, thus, those books in the Bible, and a good deal was carried on in oral tradition. Why? Because, when Christ ascended, He had said He'd return. The disciples figured it'd just be a few years and didn't really bother writing a whole lot down, they just focused on getting the Gospel out ASAP.

 

Third, with Christ brought up on charges for being a revolutionary against the Romans (which is basically what the Pharisees did), why would they leave records? Pilate 'washed his hands of the affair' and you wouldn't want a name lying around for people to rally to, right? All the more reason to strike it from the record. The people of the time were hungry for a savior. That's what the entire point to the Monty Python movie, Life of Brian was about: how starved people were for a savior. Thus, it would make sense that common practice would be to strike them from the record. Christ was, markedly, a very special case. If they made standard practice of striking out crucified messiahs, well, Jesus had the followers that persisted the Gospel.

 

I hope I made sense.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Would you still have faith in what he said, despite the fact that he wasn't around to say it?

 

Yep. Although I wouldn't worship him anymore. Almost everything he said was correct, whether 'he' was an actual person or not. Yoda gives good advice too and he isn't real.

 

It's straight out of Jesus Christ Superstar, and we all know how much the Church loved that.

 

The Church would have to change if it was proven wrong. Also keep in mind that some Christian sects are more liberal than others. It is easier to convince Calvinists to accept change than Catholics.

[Guest SP-1]

The canonical Bible was put together through a series of sessions and meetings, and done so based on a series of standards that each book or writing had to meet. There really wasn't a chance for the church to singlehandedly edit the Bible for it's own gain or profit.

 

 

There's really little need for me to say much else. I don't believe Jesus had a wife for a second. There's nothing biblical to support it, and a novel claiming to be "rooted in fact" just doesn't do it for me.

 

but that's me.