Was Jesus married?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Atheist for Jesus? How is that possible?

[Guest JMA]

Atheist for Jesus? How is that possible?

Obviously, they support Jesus' teachings but don't believe him to be the Son of God (or believe in God at all).

[The Metal Maniac 0]

This may be a bit late, but going back to earlier...someone asked what'd be the problem if Jesus had kids, and someone else said that it'd throw everything out of wack, because that would mean that people who WEREN'T the son of God would have God's blood in them...or something.

 

Anyway, there's apparantly some Gospels, not recognized by the Catholic Church, which claim that Jesus DID have kids. And there's also some whole big conspiracy theory which basically states that some groups want to restore all the monarchies of Europe, with the Merovingians - Jesus' living descendants. (This makes me wonder about The Matrix Reloaded even more, by the way)

 

And no, that doesn't really mean anything - Just thought I'd toss that out there for something to think about, for no real reason.

 

Also, I believe (though I'm not sure) that there is a slight bit of evidence in the Bible to say that Jesus married Mary, depending on how you look at it. From what I was told, there's some part in the Bible somewhere involving some wedding, and at this wedding, both Mary and Jesus are directing people - something that just wasn't done by anyone but the bride and groom. I dunno how much truth there is in that, though.

[Guest BDC]

If you're referring to the water-to-wine miracle, I think that was pretty much him saving the day for the bride and groom. Give me some time to ask some seminary friends of mine.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I don't think I am. But hey, it has been a little bit since I heard about it.

 

I'll have to ask that dude again to clarify stuff for me...

[Guest SP-1]

They weren't directing people. As I recall, it was Mary, his mother, who asked Him to perform the miracle. He was hesitant but honored his mother's wishes. Different Mary. Not his bride.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

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.

Please, please don't use The Da Vinci Code as an historical source or a guide to Catholic theology.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

John 2: 1-3

 

"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."

[Guest SP-1]

Bingo.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The Church would have to change if it was proven wrong.

 

You've got to be kidding.

[Ace309 0]

So is Da Vinci Code the new Dogma that disaffected college students are going to start citing when they discuss religion?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I haven't read it, but Dogma's a hoot whether you're religious or not.

[chaosrage 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?

No, I don't hug zombies.

 

Uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Brains........

[chaosrage 0]

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

Mythraism was monotheistic.

[chaosrage 0]

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.

The disciples didn't write those books, they were probably dead. A lot of people think they were written by different groups and the names just got assigned to them about 100 years later. There were thousands of religious manuscripts circulating through the area 70-200 years after he supposedly died, so some of the people could write, but nobody can trace any one of them back to his time.

 

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.

 

That's sorta ridiculous but alright. It's still a lack of evidence to us though, no matter what the reason for it is. It all comes to down to there's no evidence to support him existing and lots of evidence against it (Mithraism).

[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.

Please, please don't use The Da Vinci Code as an historical source or a guide to Catholic theology.

I'm not using it as a historical guide. I merely said it would be worth your time. It's very interesting and thought provoking.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Good/great fiction. Shouldn't be a catalyst for anything.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

So how exactly would Leonardo know about it? It's not like he lived in the time of Christ either.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The disciples didn't write those books, they were probably dead. A lot of people think they were written by different groups and the names just got assigned to them about 100 years later. There were thousands of religious manuscripts circulating through the area 70-200 years after he supposedly died, so some of the people could write, but nobody can trace any one of them back to his time.

 

And what evidence would you have to even suggest this?

[Guest SP-1]

If you do any digging, you'd know that the Jewish historian Josephus documented Jesus, Pliny the Younger did as well, and there are probably others I'm forgetting about but I can find again when I'm not pressed for time.

 

There's actually quite a bit of historical, extrabiblical, non-theological evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified.

 

Then there's the time frame of the writing of the gospels, of Paul's letters, etc. which offer a great deal of credibility when you consider how quickly they were written in comparison to other documents that are trusted for accurate history yet written hundreds of years later.

 

I'd recommend reading The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. At least, if you're not afraid that there's more evidence than you're willing to acknowledge.

[chaosrage 0]

From the links on page 1 and 2

 

"Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate. Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian."

 

---

 

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus was born in 37 C.E., after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

 

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birthday puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

 

---

 

"Dr. Lardner, who wrote about A. D. 1760, says:

 

It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works, except the testimony above mentione, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

It interrupts the narrative.

The language is quite Christian.

It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text.

It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.

But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. "

[Justice 0]

So someone can insert Jesus into text, but it's not possible for Jesus to be erased from text?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think it's hilarious you totatally accept that people inserted his name here and there but when someone brings up how his trials most likely were removed from public record you completely dismiss it.

 

Here's a little bit of history for you. The way the Jewish leaders tried Jesus was illegal. You weren't supposed to have trials in the middle of the night and they had already sentenced him before they had it. So do you really think such a trial is going to be recorded? On the same note Pilate washed his hands of the whole deal meaning he removed his responsibility and placed it soley on the Jews. This means he never really pronounced a sentence and I would imagine he had the whole deal removed from public records since he wasn't responsible for it.

[chaosrage 0]

I think it's hilarious you totatally accept that people inserted his name here and there but when someone brings up how his trials most likely were removed from public record you completely dismiss it.

Okay, everyone with a brain gather around. My point is there's no evidence for him existing.

 

People removing his name from public record still isn't evidence of him existing.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not people inserted his name in the text because Josephus was born AFTER the death of Jesus. And there is the thing of course everybody is dismissing, Mythra.

 

On the same note Pilate washed his hands of the whole deal meaning he removed his responsibility and placed it soley on the Jews.

 

That's something else. If Jesus was *really* performing miracles left and right like the bible says, why would the jews have rejected him? They were there afterall, why should we think we know more than they did at the time?

 

This means he never really pronounced a sentence and I would imagine he had the whole deal removed from public records since he wasn't responsible for it.

 

It's only a possibility. That's why I dismissed it. You imagine it, that's great. There's still no evidence for it. For Christians inserting Jesus stuff into the text, you can actually point to people before and after Eusebius that quoted him and left that one part out, including Christians. And no one else made mention of him saying it, although some said he didn't say anything about Christ. It's not proof but it's evidence that he might not have said it. In any case, it doesn't really matter because like I said Jesus was dead before he was born, and he wrote it about 50 years later.

[chaosrage 0]

And what evidence would you have to even suggest this?

BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

That's something else. If Jesus was *really* performing miracles left and right like the bible says, why would the jews have rejected him? They were there afterall, why should we think we know more than they did at the time?

 

Well for starters he was a threat to the whole power structure of the religious leaders. They were looking for any reason to disprove him b/c if he was who he said, they were going to lose power.

Also many expected the Messiah to deliver them from the Romans. They were expecting this great military leader that would rise up and crush their oppressors. So when they got a man who told them "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar" many were disappointed.

Read Julius Ceasar to better understand the point.

 

It's only a possibility. That's why I dismissed it. You imagine it, that's great. There's still no evidence for it. For Christians inserting Jesus stuff into the text, you can actually point to people before and after Eusebius that quoted him and left that one part out, including Christians. And no one else made mention of him saying it, although some said he didn't say anything about Christ. It's not proof but it's evidence that he might not have said it. In any case, it doesn't really matter because like I said Jesus was dead before he was born, and he wrote it about 50 years later.

 

So your dismissing what I said, but saying something very similar with as little possibly less proof. Nice.

[Guest SP-1]

Actually, if you want to get truly technical, the only language that is widely believed to be inserted into the account of Josephus is . . . two half-sentences or so. There are actually references to jesus that are not what a Christian trying to enhance the work would have left unchanged or inserted themselves. You can tell what might have been added and what wouldn't have been.

 

if you'd really like, I can go through the account of Jesus written by Josephus (as I have it here), with an argument from Edwin Yamauchi. Yamauchi being a respected man awarded eight fellowships, studied twenty-two languages including Arabic, Chinese, Egyptian, Russian, Syriac, Ugaritic, and Commanche. Having delivered 71 papers before learned societies, lectured at over a hundred seminaries, universities, and colleges (including Yale, Princeton, and Cornell). Among other things he also served in the first excavations of the Herodian temple in Jerusalem. With bachelors in Hebrew and Hellenistics, and Masters and a Doctorate in Mediterranean Studies . . . he's fairly qualified to make his determinations about the writings of Josephus.

[Guest SP-1]

Also, an argument against something based on it being written 50 years later is kind of poor considering most historical material deemed trustworthy is written quite a while longer after the fact.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

It doesn't matter whether or not people inserted his name in the text because Josephus was born AFTER the death of Jesus.

You're using Jesus' death to disprove his existence?!

[Justice 0]

It doesn't matter whether or not people inserted his name in the text because Josephus was born AFTER the death of Jesus.

You're using Jesus' death to disprove his existence?!

... Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha!