Another Evidence that Jesus Was a Married Man.

[servantofChrist]

The opening syllogism in this thread and all the arguments about Jesus being fully human, therefore He would have the same need as other men and that is a wife... are sophistry.

Jesus was fully human, but He was also something that made Him unique and set apart from all other men who will ever have lived on this earth -- HE WAS ALSO THE SON OF GOD. HE WAS DEITY AND THAT WAS, BY FAR, HIS TRUE ESSENCE AND TRUE SELF. He took on being human to show His great love, by allowing Himself to experience temptations, trials, and suffering so that He could truly say that He knows what the rest of us go through in this life.

IMO, anyone who believes that Jesus had a wife, or even believes that He may have had one, has been listening to the anti-Christ media more than he has been giving attention to what the Bible says about this subject.

 

[eddie17]

this guy knows his stuff and gives his answer very good indeed
jump to 1:08:00 ,puts this thread to a end i think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxeKunPwmp4

 

[Granite]

Where I'd say each church is as certain as the Holy See and all of them disagree on one thing or the other. Thankfully, the salvific nature of the cross remains as the unifying center of a common understanding.

About the only thing agreed on is the cross. Who why and how are all up for debate.

Well, many a thing is hidden for a season. How often did they have to ask him what he meant by a thing? And even his full nature was hidden for most of their time together.

And so it could've been with the missus.

She did. She knew his origin and nature and began his ministry.

On very shaky ground here.

I couldn't agree more, though I'd answer that as in everything men attempt, if we get it right half the time it's an argument for the miraculous.

Just like the rest of us.

 

[Town Heretic]

About the only thing agreed on is the cross.

A tongue in cheek exaggeration, but were it the literal truth it would be a wonderful truth and sufficient. We're clear on the reason for the existence of the New Testament, the identity of Christ and the relation of both of those things to us and our lives. John the Beloved would be grinning like the Cheshire cat.

And so it could've been with the missus.

I don't agree it's consistent for the reasons give prior and to which I'd add the explanation came for those things, because those things actually happened.

On very shaky ground here.

Luke 1:26-45 paints a pretty clear picture that Mary and then Elizabeth knew. Matthew 1:20 tells us that Joseph was given the news as well. This beginning is why leaving for Egypt isn't met by the Moses like resistance to upheaval. And it hints (if speculation is your meat) at other interactions, which you might expect given. So that by the time Jesus' ministry in full begins we see Mary opening the door for the first miracle.

Just like the rest of us.

I thought "men" was all inclusive to begin with...what separates the Christian isn't his worth or any particular of his person. What separates the Christian is grace, the unmerited favor of God. And even that is open to anyone, so it's not a thing to boast about, but to be grateful for and to desire for each and for every.

 

[Granite]

A tongue in cheek exaggeration, but were it the literal truth it would be a wonderful truth and sufficient. We're clear on the reason for the existence of the New Testament, the identity of Christ and the relation of both of those things to us and our lives. John the Beloved would be grinning like the Cheshire cat.

On its own it doesn't mean much. Requires an awful lot of context, which leads to the sprawl I mentioned.

I don't agree it's consistent for the reasons give prior and to which I'd add the explanation came for those things, because those things actually happened.

Again, the same kind of objection that speaks against speculation simply because of speculation's own sake. Given the broad imagination inherent to much of Christianity this seems selective and somewhat disingenuous.

Luke 1:26-45 paints a pretty clear picture that Mary and then Elizabeth knew. Matthew 1:20 tells us that Joseph was given the news as well. This beginning is why leaving for Egypt isn't met by the Moses like resistance to upheaval. And it hints (if speculation is your meat) at other interactions, which you might expect given. So that by the time Jesus' ministry in full begins we see Mary opening the door for the first miracle.

Vague and opaque messages that must be granted greater depth because of your assumptions and speculation. The possibility of a married Jesus is one place you simply won't go. This isn't surprising and kind of just makes my point.

 

[Town Heretic]

On its own it doesn't mean much.

It means everything to the Christian. To the rest? It's not for them if they don't want it so...

Requires an awful lot of context, which leads to the sprawl I mentioned.

It didn't to save the thief. That's good enough for me.

Again, the same kind of objection that speaks against speculation simply because of speculation's own sake.

Not my objection, which is that sort of speculation sans support is fruitless. The lack of support is rather important. Else, what's the point of the speculation? What, if true, is altered to the good?

Given the broad imagination inherent to much of Christianity this seems selective and somewhat disingenuous.

It's not less than genuine for or from me.

Vague and opaque messages

Couldn't disagree more. No idea why you think they're vague. Elizabeth couldn't have been clearer if she'd set it out as Pictionary.

that must be granted greater depth because of your assumptions and speculation.

What assumption/speculation? I'm resting on the words as presented.

The possibility of a married Jesus is one place you simply won't go.

There's no place to go and less to go on, before we get to the point of the journey, which is what?

This isn't surprising and kind of just makes my point.

It shouldn't be surprising and it depends on what you believe is the point.

Is there something objectionable about Jesus marrying? :think: I think there would be unless you considered Jesus to simply be a man. But it's a moot point given the lack of reason to consider the proposition.

 

[Granite]

There's no talking to a closed mind. I'll leave it at that. Go Pats.

 

[Town Heretic]

There's no talking to a closed mind.

You mean closed to considering the possibility that people can object to imaginary inclusions in scripture without being fearful or objectionable themselves in any reasonable fashion?

I'll leave it at that.

Ah, the generosity of a Pats fan. :chuckle:

Go Pats.

That's not the question. The question is where to.

 

[Ben Masada]

The problem is, this was a rookie mistake. A concordance and a bit of your own little time given to actually doing a little work, would have answered this for you in a matter of moments.

He wasn't called 'rabbi' in any official sense, but rather was referred to as teacher. He was not part of the Pharisees or Sadducees. Again, this is all rookie observance.

Not true at all. You must be single to say such a thing.

Lon, I think you will do good to review your own NT. Take it to read five to ten pages every day and try to count the times Jesus was called a Rabbi, not only by his own disciples but also Pharisees like for instance Nicodemus in John 3:1-3.

 

[Bright Raven]

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)

You presume that a teacher had to be married. That is not true. Show the requirement scripturally where teacher Had to be married.

 

[beameup]

Moses:
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,
of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken - Deuteronomy 18:15

Yeshua came as a Prophet. When He presented Himself 4 days prior to Passover,
and "examined" by the religious authorities for 4 days, He was "rejected" as King.

 

[Ben Masada]

Moses:
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee,
of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken - Deuteronomy 18:15

Yeshua came as a Prophet. When He presented Himself 4 days prior to Passover, and "examined" by the religious authorities for 4 days, He was "rejected" as King.

Wrong again, my friend. Jesus was not a prophet and he could no longer be because he was born too late. The prophetic system of Israel ceased to exist soon after the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah in the days of the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon. (Daniel 9:24) If Jesus had been a Christian, you could claim him as a prophet but, as a Jew, no, he was not. I am sorry! The prophet who replaced Moses was Joshua. (Deuteronomy 18:18).

 

[Ben Masada]

You presume that a teacher had to be married. That is not true. Show the requirement scripturally where teacher Had to be married.

My gosh! And I have just given you the text from Paul himself! I can't believe it! Just above in post #112.

 

[Bright Raven]

Wrong again, my friend. Jesus was not a prophet and he could no longer be because he was born too late. The prophetic system of Israel ceased to exist soon after the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah in the days of the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon. (Daniel 9:24) If Jesus had been a Christian, you could claim him as a prophet but, as a Jew, no, he was not. I am sorry! The prophet who replaced Moses was Joshua. (Deuteronomy 18:18).

And when was the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 made with the house of Israel? Was not Jesus asked if He was the Prophet?

John 1:21 American Standard Version (ASV)

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.

 

[Bright Raven]

My gosh! And I have just given you the text from Paul himself! I can't believe it! Just above in post #112.

That is just plain stupid. Are you saying that it was a requirement for a teacher to be married? The passage means that if not married they must be a husband with only one wife, not more than one. My gosh, you got it?

 

[Ben Masada]

And when was the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 made with the house of Israel? Was not Jesus asked if He was the Prophet?

John 1:21 American Standard Version (ASV)

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.

BR, when the New Covenant was made with the returnees from Babylon through Ezra, Jesus had approximately another 400 years to be born.

 

[Ben Masada]

That is just plain stupid. Are you saying that it was a requirement for a teacher to be married? The passage means that if not married they must be a husband with only one wife, not more than one. My gosh, you got it?

Yes, even during the NT time in the First Century. Read I Timothy 3:2. Paul himself said so although he was not of the married type of a man. He was of the kind of the preacher that says, "Do what I say, though not what I do for I am a sinner too."