Another Evidence that Jesus Was a Married Man.

[Granite]

Well, not for me. But it seems like something fairly important to omit. We know Jesus had brothers and sisters. We know he had a temper, could be moved to weeping, had a sense of humor, if a dry one. A wife would be a fairly important thing to leave out, especially as he moves from his normal life and toward the cross. And there'd be no reason to hide it, especially given the customs of his day.

Most of his life is a complete blank, what's one more detail? (What you mostly just covered is that he felt some basic emotions, not any kind of biographical tidbits.) As for no good reason to hide it--well, actually there was a tremendous reason to hide it. The role of women in the early church was suppressed, written out of the story, and largely ignored and or whitewashed. This isn't any kind of Dan Brown nonsense, that's just fact.

For me it's an interesting phenomenon and curious peek into Christian thinking, from the outside looking in, but there's no reason for either side to be too dogmatic here. If anything, the possibility that he may have been married should make believers wonder why specifically the idea doesn't sit very well.

 

[Traditio]

Well, not for me. But it seems like something fairly important to omit. We know Jesus had brothers and sisters.

"Brothers and sisters" should be understood as "cousins."

 

[Traditio]

For me it's an interesting phenomenon and curious peek into Christian thinking, from the outside looking in, but there's no reason for either side to be too dogmatic here. If anything, the possibility that he may have been married should make believers wonder why specifically the idea doesn't sit very well.

There are compelling reasons to think that he wasn't:

1. St. Paul explicitly tells us that the unmarried life is superior to the married life. Since Jesus was God, he must have lived the superior life.

2. The purpose of marriage is twofold: 1. it allows for the production and education of offspring (the parents thereby attaining some form of animal "immortality" through the continuity of the species) and 2. sacramentally, it acts as a symbol and pre-figuration of the mystical union of Christ and the Church in Heaven.

That God Himself should have not have participated in such a thing (a mere imitation of a higher reality) should be obvious.

3. Even granted that He might have, what would have been the point? It would have been a sheer superfluity.

4. It would run contrary to the basic Christian theme that all baptized persons are adopted children of God.

 

[theophilus]

"Brothers and sisters" should be understood as "cousins."

Brothers and sisters should be understood as brothers and sisters...

Matt. 12:46-50

 

[Granite]

Brothers and sisters should be understood as brothers and sisters...

Matt. 12:46-50

I wouldn't let that particular snake in the grass bog you down.

 

[theophilus]

Doesn't bog me down.

Thank you!

 

[Traditio]

Brothers and sisters should be understood as brothers and sisters...

Matt. 12:46-50

I'm aware of the text. I'm simply pointing out that there's no reason why we should read "brothers and sisters" as indicating literal brothers and sisters. The conventions of the original languages, the historical context, etc. permit us to understand those persons as being his cousins.

 

[theophilus]

The plain sense of the text says brothers and sisters.

I'll stick with that.

 

[Traditio]

The plain sense of the text says brothers and sisters.

The plain sense of the text...when read in English (a translation) and through your own modern, Western interpretational lens. :idunno:

Do you have compelling historical evidence that when the ancients of Jesus' time said "brothers and sisters" they always meant literal brothers and sisters?

 

[theophilus]

I have compelling evidence from my "cradle Catholic" husband that this "disagreement" MOST LIKELY isn't going to change my mind or yours.

 

[Caino]

In my religion, from the Urantia Book, Jesus was given pre-incarnate instructions about what he could and could not do as a human. He was forbidden from marrying and leaving offspring for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[Town Heretic]

Most of his life is a complete blank, what's one more detail? (What you mostly just covered is that he felt some basic emotions, not any kind of biographical tidbits.)

No, I noted that his family is mentioned, from mother to siblings. We know the name of his father. But a wife isn't whispered at? Doesn't show up at the cross or pop up in a reference at any point or in any gospel? Doesn't seem likely.

As for no good reason to hide it--well, actually there was a tremendous reason to hide it. The role of women in the early church was suppressed, written out of the story, and largely ignored and or whitewashed. This isn't any kind of Dan Brown nonsense, that's just fact.

You think Mary got a bum rush? Deborah, Esther, Ruth, etc. But a wife of the central figure would be a concern?

For me it's an interesting phenomenon and curious peek into Christian thinking, from the outside looking in, but there's no reason for either side to be too dogmatic here.

I don't see it as being dogmatic. It's a bit like someone suggesting anything about Jesus that isn't supported in scripture. I immediately question two things: what would prompt the suggestion factually and what would motivate someone to promote a notion that doesn't have real support.

If anything, the possibility that he may have been married should make believers wonder why specifically the idea doesn't sit very well.

I think you're reading something in that just isn't there for most of us, supra.

 

[Granite]

No, I noted that his family is mentioned, from mother to siblings. We know the name of his father.

We know next to nothing about his father, or siblings. The Koran features more of his mother. Scripture covers virtually nothing about his life except for the last three years, and those don't feature tremendous detail. I don't think this is a huge stretch.

But a wife isn't whispered at? Doesn't show up at the cross or pop up in a reference at any point or in any gospel? Doesn't seem likely.

Or doesn't she.:think:

I don't see it as being dogmatic. It's a bit like someone suggesting anything about Jesus that isn't supported in scripture. I immediately question two things: what would prompt the suggestion factually and what would motivate someone to promote a notion that doesn't have real support.

If he was fully man and fully God it is worth asking, at some point, how far a believer is willing to take this thinking. Given the current quality of my standing here (such as it is) that's as far as I think I can safely take that particular sidebar.

 

[glassjester]

No. That's why I am trying to share with Christians what they do not understand from the lying words of Paul.

You say that Paul implied that Jesus was married. You're now saying that Paul lied about this.

So... you don't believe Jesus was married. Why the thread title?

 

[chair]

... but Jesus Christ was not just a man, but God-in-the-flesh, just as Isaiah and the prophets said He would be...

Source?

 

[Town Heretic]

We know next to nothing about his father, or siblings.

We know his name and his profession. And we know of Christ's family. Not a whisper of a hint of a wife. That's the point.

Or doesn't she.:think:

:chuckle:

If he was fully man and fully God it is worth asking, at some point, how far a believer is willing to take this thinking.

Yes, he went to the toilet. lain: Anyone who contemplates the garden scene and the cross and doesn't realize his humanity isn't reading well enough to begin with.

 

[Ktoyou]

............. share with Christians what they do not understand from the lying words of Paul.

You better behave, or you have to in stand in the corner. :dunce:

 

[Danoh]

Another Evidence That Jesus Was a Married Man - I Timothy 3:2

A Bishop, Teacher, Deacon aka a Rabbi MUST be blameless and the husband of one wife. He shall be able to rule his own house and keep his children in submission, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of his church?

A Bishop aka a Rabbi or Teacher MUST be the husband of one wife. Nicodemus, a famous Pharisee went once to Jesus and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a Teacher." (John 3:2) So, Jesus was a Rabbi and Teacher akin to the position of a Bishop. Hence according to Paul, it was a MUST that a Rabbi, Teacher or Bishop be the husband of one wife. If not by any other reason, to keep himself blameless of any unnecessary temptation.

According to Paul, a syllogism is built to illustrate the facts above:
1. First premise: A Teacher must be married;
2. Second premise: Jesus was a Teacher;
3. Resultant premise: Therefore, Jesus was married.

As Paul never married he must have made of himself the exception to the above syllogism because he was of the kind to teach: "Do as I say but not as I do because I am a sinner too."(Rom. 7:25)

Regrettably, the logic your posts are mired in often reminds me of a toddler playing under a sink when; upon encountering a liter sized bottle of Clorox, it right off concludes "this looks like my milk bottle. And it has liquid in it; just like my bottle does! And I'm thirsty, and mommy said that liquid takes away thirst - gulp, gulp, gulp!"

The best to you in that...

Sincerely

 

[heir]

No. That's why I am trying to share with Christians what they do not understand from the lying words of Paul.

You're the liar.

as for Paul

1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

 

[heir]

I'm not sure why this site tolerates the likes of Ben Masada in his constant blasphemy and consenting not to wholesome words...