NationStates Jolt Archive


Was Jesus married?

Iraqestonia
03-12-2004, 03:48
After reading several books on the subject, including "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", I have realized a number things:

1. Given the time period in which he lived, it would have been seen as highly irregular if Jesus wasn't married to a woman he was noted to have liked (Mary Magdalene). In fact, there would have been almost no logical reason at this time to not practise this, seeing as how ancient Jewish law states this very clearly, and Jesus was the Anointed One of the Jews.

2. If Jesus was married, it was almost certainly to Mary Magdalene, and he almost certainly would have had kids.


So what's the deal? Was this a massive cover-up by the Roman Catholics? Was Jesus a father? If so, wouldn't his kids have also been the Sons of God? That is, unless Jesus wasn't the Son of God to begin with. Or was he?
Our Earth
03-12-2004, 03:50
Looking at the evidence logically it seems that Jesus was very likely married to Mary Magdaline. What this means in terms of Christian theology is another story entirely.
Gosheon
03-12-2004, 04:00
Well, in most Christian sects, to have anything to do with a lady of the evening is negative, and Mary Magdelene was a lady of the evening. :rolleyes:
Ravea
03-12-2004, 04:12
There's quite alot of theories that the Church is covering up most everything about Jesus.

I personally think it's quite possible Jesus was married, and had kids for that matter.

1,300 Post! W00T!
Utonium
03-12-2004, 04:14
Judging from His life, I highly doubt that the Christ-meister was married. He was always on the go, unable or unwilling to settle down and raise a family. A wife would have slowed or halted His wandering ministry, and He didn't want that. Besides, if He did have kids, they would have made themselves very well known, and Christianity would have incorporated that fact from the get-go.
Atheistiania
03-12-2004, 04:16
Yes he was married probably had kids and was black. The more we think about it the more we see Christianity being turned into a religion based on false historical beliefs. It might just be better to not worry about it and let Christians think the way they want, there is no point in pissing them off because some of us have moved on realizing there is much more to the world.
Iraqestonia
03-12-2004, 04:20
Besides, if He did have kids, they would have made themselves very well known, and Christianity would have incorporated that fact from the get-go.

Would you want to be identified with someone who the ruling government crucified? Theories abound (some based on solid historical evidence) that Jesus's heirs and Mary Magdalene escaped to Spain and Britain to avoid persecution from the power-crazed Roman Catholic Church (who, at one time, claimed Jesus was never the Messiah at all, and the the "saviors" of the Jews were in fact the ruling emperors)
Sarandra
03-12-2004, 04:23
If you look at it biblically.

Marriage was a covenant set by God between and Man and a Woman. This convenant was set because God knew the evil in men's hearts, and marriage was a way for men to control their sexual needs. Marriage was to keep men from commiting sexual sin.

If you look at Jesus. He was the Son of God. He was holy. He was pure. He didn't need to be protected from sexual sin. He didn't need marriage.
Prycon II
03-12-2004, 04:29
No, he was not. If he was, we would have known about it.


I really don't see the relevance or even the purpose of some of your statements, besides to smear Christianity.

Jesus was the Anointed One of the Jews.
But the Jews didn’t accept him as the king of the Jews. Remember, they were the ones who crucified him.

Was this a massive cover-up by the Roman Catholics?
That would be nearly impossible. They wouldn’t be able to destroy all knowledge of his marriage, especially since the Jews would know about it.

if He did have kids, they would have made themselves very well known, and Christianity would have incorporated that fact from the get-go.
Exactly

The more we think about it the more we see Christianity being turned into a religion based on false historical beliefs. It might just be better to not worry about it and let Christians think the way they want, there is no point in pissing them off because some of us have moved on realizing there is much more to the world.
Hmmm… I get the feeling that someone doesn’t like Christians or the evil white man, does he?

Frankly, I don’t see your point. Every religion is based on such ‘false historical beliefs.’ Do you feel some need to say that religion is ‘archaic’ and not fit in the ‘real world?’ Or does that only apply to Christianity? Either way, me and a couple billion people like me feel differently.
Arragoth
03-12-2004, 04:30
I don't see why people care. If he was married, it wouldn't mean anything.
United Freedoms
03-12-2004, 04:31
If you look at it biblically.

Marriage was a covenant set by God between and Man and a Woman. This convenant was set because God knew the evil in men's hearts, and marriage was a way for men to control their sexual needs. Marriage was to keep men from commiting sexual sin.

If you look at Jesus. He was the Son of God. He was holy. He was pure. He didn't need to be protected from sexual sin. He didn't need marriage.

Not necessarily. It was only decided that Jesus was actually the son of God (or more specifically, a devine being of some kind) at the council of Nicaea, began by the Emporer Constantine. It was decided by a vote (a rather close vote at that) that Jesus was not merely a man, along with other aspects of Christianity which had proved to cause much disagreement (such as the true date of Easter).
Ogiek
03-12-2004, 04:33
Except for the issue of Catholic priests and marriage, whether he was or not makes absolutely no difference to the message.
Rasados
03-12-2004, 04:35
jesus was jewish.a jewish religous law states men should get married and have kids.jewish religous law is the word of god(at the time if your a christian).jesus would not go breaking his fathers laws right?
Iraqestonia
03-12-2004, 04:36
If you look at it biblically.

Marriage was a covenant set by God between and Man and a Woman. This convenant was set because God knew the evil in men's hearts, and marriage was a way for men to control their sexual needs. Marriage was to keep men from commiting sexual sin.

If you look at Jesus. He was the Son of God. He was holy. He was pure. He didn't need to be protected from sexual sin. He didn't need marriage.

Stepping aside from the huge oversight that Yahweh had a female counterpart in the Jewish religion long before Jesus was around, and that the aim of that was to practise unity between male and female, including sex, Jesus was likely not the Son of God. He was a great guy and all, he was the Saviour of his people, he was martyred. I have no problem with people starting a religion around a guy that did great things, but here's the thing: With the exception of Paul, none the testaments in the Bible (and none in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, I might add) touch upon his heritage as the Son of God. The Bible was compiled and edited from a grand total of over 80 gospels for the New Testament, and I have no doubt that more than a few of those directly say that he was NOT divine. Does this detract from his greatness? No. So why do Christians care so much?
Iraqestonia
03-12-2004, 04:49
That would be nearly impossible. They wouldn’t be able to destroy all knowledge of his marriage, especially since the Jews would know about it.

But they didn't. Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or the Scrolls of Nag Hammandi? A few of those passages hint VERY strongly at his relationship with Mary. And there have been countless references to the Holy Grail (or Sangreal, which means Holy Blood, as it is sometimes known) over the years. Do you really think they were being literal when they say it is the blood of Christ? Isn't it more likely they meant blood in the sense of bloodline? If that were true, what would happen to the Catholic notion of Jesus's divinity? The Catholics tried to destroy this information, which they suspected existed, by destroying the Knight's Templar, who, according to legend, found it. But the Knight's Templar was an offshoot of another society called the Preure Notre Dame of Sion, which is still in existence today (most likely because the Church never found out about the connections between the two).
Blue Viper
03-12-2004, 04:55
Jesus amy or may not be married, but he was a pie. See:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/theblueviper/boredom7.bmp
Utonium
03-12-2004, 05:03
Does this detract from his greatness? No. So why do Christians care so much?
An interesting point, one I neglected to answer in my first post. Really, Christianity needs only three things in order to work:

1) Jesus was without sin.
2) He was sacrificed.
3) He was resurrected.

Anything else serves only to muddy the waters. Why then do some Christians get up in arms over the meaning of the title "Son of God?" I don't know and I don't want to know.
Faithfull-freedom
03-12-2004, 05:45
There's quite alot of theories that the Church is covering up most everything about Jesus.

I personally think it's quite possible Jesus was married, and had kids for that matter.

1,300 Post! W00T!

The only way I could see them logically covering anything up is to protect info on the future coming of christ. Must be some hidden prophecies out there to explain (understand) the signs that will appear.
Andaluciae
03-12-2004, 05:51
How would I know, it was 2000 years ago!
The Black Forrest
03-12-2004, 07:07
Yes he was married probably had kids and was black.


Black? I doubt that. Now an arab tan or brown. Most likely......
The Black Forrest
03-12-2004, 07:10
Judging from His life, I highly doubt that the Christ-meister was married. He was always on the go, unable or unwilling to settle down and raise a family. A wife would have slowed or halted His wandering ministry, and He didn't want that. Besides, if He did have kids, they would have made themselves very well known, and Christianity would have incorporated that fact from the get-go.

Well there are/were nomadic people that seem to have wifes and children just fine. So why not him?

It's interesting that the deeply Religious seem to get offended that he may had feelings.....
New Astrolia
03-12-2004, 07:18
There's quite alot of theories that the Church is covering up most everything about Jesus.

I personally think it's quite possible Jesus was married, and had kids for that matter.

1,300 Post! W00T!

Come back when you get 1337
Kwaswhakistan
03-12-2004, 07:31
Not necessarily. It was only decided that Jesus was actually the son of God (or more specifically, a devine being of some kind) at the council of Nicaea, began by the Emporer Constantine. It was decided by a vote (a rather close vote at that) that Jesus was not merely a man, along with other aspects of Christianity which had proved to cause much disagreement (such as the true date of Easter).

I find it quite stupid that people are voting on whether Jesus was Jesus... I don't like the religion[s] where they vote on things like that...


cough catholicism cough
DemonLordEnigma
03-12-2004, 07:36
In the end, does any of it matter?
New Granada
03-12-2004, 08:26
No, she wasnt married, she was a lesbian.

And besides, they didnt let black people get married in the middle east back then.
Matalatataka
03-12-2004, 08:48
Come on! Jesus was a freakin' party animal. That whole water into wine thing, hanging out with a hooker, his father only knows what else he was up to during that whole wandering-amongst-the-indians road trip to America he went on. Married? I highly doubt anyone having that much fun would actually get married.

But like others have said, Wasn't there so can't say for sure. Maybe Mary was able to straighten his long haired, sandal wearing, hippy ass out and make an honest mensch out of him. (Did I spell 'mensch' right? Anyone?)


Seriously though, a lot of the new and heretical (I love heresey) study about Christ does seem to support the idea that he probably did wed Mary and have kids. Isn't there something about Rabbi's having to get married and Jesus was considered a Rabbi by his fellow Jews, or something? Saw it on the History Channel I think, and if I saw it on TV it must be true! Kind of like the Internet.
Greedy Pig
03-12-2004, 09:52
An interesting point, one I neglected to answer in my first post. Really, Christianity needs only three things in order to work:

1) Jesus was without sin.
2) He was sacrificed.
3) He was resurrected.
.

Correct.


Anything else serves only to muddy the waters. Why then do some Christians get up in arms over the meaning of the title "Son of God?" I don't know and I don't want to know.

Because being the "Son Of God" shows that God loves us that he sent his beloved best down for us. That God is a caring God. Not some angel, or Moses or some other thing.

But at the same time, God is a strict legalist that have to judge all sin. And Jesus is his loophole.

Christians don't believe Jesus came down to as a good teacher only, he came down as a saviour for our sins.


Except for the issue of Catholic priests and marriage, whether he was or not makes absolutely no difference to the message.


Actually when it comes to celibacy for priests, their usually quoting Paul, saying that he would *prefer* those in service to not marry (not that CANNOT marry). Which I believe Catholism got it wrong. (but it depends on translation).

-------------------------------

As to Jesus getting married. No Idea.. Probably not. Know however his ministry was within 3 years, in which he travelled around alot. I think he met Mary only twice. (have to double check).
Frisbee Seppuku
03-12-2004, 10:10
But they didn't. Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or the Scrolls of Nag Hammandi? A few of those passages hint VERY strongly at his relationship with Mary. And there have been countless references to the Holy Grail (or Sangreal, which means Holy Blood, as it is sometimes known) over the years. Do you really think they were being literal when they say it is the blood of Christ? Isn't it more likely they meant blood in the sense of bloodline? If that were true, what would happen to the Catholic notion of Jesus's divinity? The Catholics tried to destroy this information, which they suspected existed, by destroying the Knight's Templar, who, according to legend, found it. But the Knight's Templar was an offshoot of another society called the Preure Notre Dame of Sion, which is still in existence today (most likely because the Church never found out about the connections between the two).

Or: the references to the blood of Christ connected with the grail could refer to the fact that the grail was suppossed to have held the wine that Christ said was his blood during the Last Supper. Of course Christ had a relationship with his followers, they were all his children and he loved them dearly; if Mary Magdaline had any non-platonic feelings for him, so what. The truth is that there is really no evidence at all that Christ was married and significant evidence that he wasn't.

PS: the Church did not destroy the Templars, the King of France did, the Church just looked the other way for political reasons.

PPS: This issue does matter, it goes toward the character of all early Christians; for if Christ was married it would mean that thousands of people engaged in a random cover up for absolutly no reason, from which no one could derive any benefit, and which was so complete that no actual evidence of it exists today.
Ankher
03-12-2004, 10:55
Judging from His life, I highly doubt that the Christ-meister was married. He was always on the go, unable or unwilling to settle down and raise a family. A wife would have slowed or halted His wandering ministry, and He didn't want that. Besides, if He did have kids, they would have made themselves very well known, and Christianity would have incorporated that fact from the get-go.You are talking only about the last three years of his life. There is just NO information on what he did before.
And one cannot say if his kids "would have made themselves very well known", when even his brother could not manage to build Yeshua's church after his will, while Paulus gave the whole thing a completely new direction. But then of course it would put into question the authority of any church if Yeshua had any kids and thus heirs to his mission.
Torching Witches
03-12-2004, 11:01
In the end, does any of it matter?
It will at the Final Judgment, when the fire is reigning down from above, and God asks you five, no, three questions, which you must answer correctly in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Don't forget your passpart either, one other form of identification, and proof of address. If I were you, I'd apply for a visa now, before a queue builds up.
Neo Cannen
03-12-2004, 11:01
I agree it would have been extremely odd that he wasnt married at his age. Whats even more odd is that he didnt sin at all. People forget Jesus was like us and yet not like us.
Greedy Pig
03-12-2004, 11:02
He was a carpenter. Probably took over his dad's business being the eldest in his family.

IMO, Jesus probably looked very different from picture paintings of Jesus in cathedrels and stuff.

Jesus was probably a very burly muscular man, becausse being a carpenter during those days, carrying logs and stuff without modern equipment.. No joke. :p Imagine him going to the rough tough rude fishermans, and saying two words commandingly "Follow Me", and they followed. :D
Silthrim
03-12-2004, 11:11
look even if Jesus did have someone to love and had kids with doesn't matter. he was a the son og god yes but he was also human. thats what people sometimes do, you know get married and have kids. its a fact of life and jesus was a like a representive of god in a way but he was also one of us humans. so does it really matter he was just a tad normal? :confused:
Miriamana
03-12-2004, 11:22
Looking at it from a PURELY HISTORICAL prospective, the fact of the matter is that everything RELIABLE points to Jesus not being married. Yes, all silly conspiracy theories aside. The Da Vinci Code is great fiction, but very pure history. Why is this so? Because Dan Brown left out very important things when he spoke of the Gnostic Gospels. Begining with when they were written. Looking at the New testament HISTORICALLY, not theologically, we HAVE to give them more weight than the Gnostic Gospels merely because they were written CENTURIES earlier. It's one thing if it had been decades earlier...but Centuries cannot be ignored. Dan Brown makes it sound like they were written at the same time by competing faiths. Nope, sorry. Orthodoxy was well established by the time the Gnostic Christians came onto the scene. That being said, there is a book in the New Testament where the author complains about the fact that he was unable to marry. Probably because he was too busy working for the Christian Church. He mentioned all the apostles and Church leaders that were married and served God very well. Bringing up Jesus' marriage would have been a great argument in his favor, but he didn't bring it up. A large clue that Jesus remained celibate.
Another point against Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene comes from the Gnostic Gospels themselves. Historically speaking, we need to know who Jesus was. He was a jew. A VERY devout jew. This is something noone can intelligently deny. And this is all we need to prove the Gnostic Gospels were not very reliable sources on Jesus' life. Not just because they were written too late, but because the Gnostic Gospels spoke of things that would insult any jew in ANY point of history. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the very gospel at the center of this little controversy, states three things that a jewish Jesus would NEVER say. That a) There is more than one god. That b) The Old testament God is an evil God, and that Jesus is a good God. and c) That because the world was created by the Old Testament evil God, everything he created is also evil. Namely, the physical world. So here we see where Dan Brown's arguments fall apart. At the very source he uses as his prime bit of evidence for his theory. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was not JUST written too late, but any devout jew like Jesus would be insulted by its tenets. Including jews of today.
My request to everyone is this. When you read about this theory, PLEASE consider the source before you give too much weight to the persons words. Most people who are proponents of this theory don't seem to have the CREDENTIALS to make the claims at all. Dan Brown has a Bachelor's in English for instance. He has no right to be claiming this stuff is true by his own authority. From what I have seen, the people who are writing books against it have PHD's in the area of Ancient History. Alot of them also have Degrees in the area of theology. Obviously the ones with degrees in theology shouldn't be talking either, as the issue is historical not theoligical. If the person writing the book doesn't have at least a Masters degree is Ancient History, don't bother.
BackwoodsSquatches
03-12-2004, 12:08
Im an atheist, so the following opinion may be taken for what its worth.

I find the idea that Jesus wasnt married, rather silly.
Jesus never preached celibacy to my knowledge, and while not exstensively well read in matters biblical, I have had considerable exsposure.

If the Gospel of Mary is even half right, then Jesus was probably marrried to Mary Magdeline.

What I wonder is why the thought of Jesus as a man with sexual desires, or human needs, so impossible to understand.

Jesus had to crap now and then too.
Stripe-lovers
03-12-2004, 12:41
PPS: This issue does matter, it goes toward the character of all early Christians; for if Christ was married it would mean that thousands of people engaged in a random cover up for absolutly no reason, from which no one could derive any benefit, and which was so complete that no actual evidence of it exists today.

Not thousands, after Christ's death the Christian Church was really only the disciples and a few others. Most of the other "converts" walked away, whistling an innocent tune. Kind of understandable, given the situation.
Mekonia
03-12-2004, 12:44
You've been reading th Davinci code? Which led you on the trail of the Holy grail. It's interesting. Who cares if he was?! The great thing about the Da Vinci code is it could be true........
And God is a woman
Mickonia
03-12-2004, 12:49
A few points to remember, here.

1) Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. The Catholic Church started a huge smear campaign to make people think she was the Mary mentioned in the Bible that IS a prostitute, but they are two different women.

2) Dan Brown wrote a fictional book. He does not claim that everything in it is true. Accusing Dan Brown of believing his own fiction is like saying that
J. K. Rowlings is a witch. Both of their books are fictional! The reason so many people are writing books "debunking" The Da Vinci Code is that it is so well written, blending fact with fantasy, that it convinces a lot of people that it is ALL real. This is a testament to Dan Brown's writing skills, but hardly an indictment of him as someone trying to rewrite history. If The Da Vinci Code bothers you so much, go look up the pertinent facts for yourself. He actually has many of the TRUE ones on his website. So, read between the lines and you'll see the parts that are fictional.

3) Lighten up, folks. :p
Mickonia
03-12-2004, 12:52
What I wonder is why the thought of Jesus as a man with sexual desires, or human needs, so impossible to understand.

If I had to guess, I would say it is because American Christians are, in general, so sexually repressed. And yes, I know this is a very broad generalization, and it doesn't apply to everyone. But all the people I know who freak out over this are so uptight, that when they start talking about sex in any way shape or form, I'm afraid their eyes are going to pop out of their heads. I had a friend who almost went into apoplexy when I suggested that a teenage Jesus probably had nocturnal emissions like every other teenage boy.
Lunatic Goofballs
03-12-2004, 12:56
"Jesus couldn't have been married. What wife lets you come home after being gone for three days and your excuse is; 'Honey, I was dead!' "-Sam Kinison.
United Freedoms
03-12-2004, 21:54
Give 'er the old....

*BUMP*
My Gun Not Yours
03-12-2004, 21:57
Lunatic, I think more accurately it's:

Jesus couldn't have been married. No woman would have bought the Resurrection. You disappear for three days with 12 unemployed friends after a party on Friday night, and then you come home and she says, "So, where were you, for three days, Mr. Winemaker?"
Killer Ties
03-12-2004, 22:13
Who cares if he was married... He's old.
Necroptelion
03-12-2004, 23:01
i personaly dont beleive in any religions the only thing i can beleve in is paganism but does it realy matter if jesus had a son or daughter or not :confused:
Fnordish Infamy
03-12-2004, 23:41
You've been reading th Davinci code? Which led you on the trail of the Holy grail. It's interesting. Who cares if he was?! The great thing about the Da Vinci code is it could be true........
And God is a woman

Not just a woman: a crazy woman. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com)
Austrealite
04-12-2004, 00:22
jesus was jewish.a jewish religous law states men should get married and have kids.jewish religous law is the word of god(at the time if your a christian).jesus would not go breaking his fathers laws right?

He wasn't Jewish, he was an Israelite who followed the true Hebrew Religion, not Judasim
Fairly
04-12-2004, 01:37
Jesus was never married and never had kids. Mary Magdeline was a friend.
Fat Rich People
04-12-2004, 02:09
Lunatic, I think more accurately it's:

Jesus couldn't have been married. No woman would have bought the Resurrection. You disappear for three days with 12 unemployed friends after a party on Friday night, and then you come home and she says, "So, where were you, for three days, Mr. Winemaker?"

You sir just made my day! Ahhahahaha!

Anyway, I think I'd agree with most of the other posters. I think Jesus probably was married and had kids. I imagine it'd be a good idea for those kids to stay a secret at the time, considering the whole crucifixition thing. Get them away from a dangerous past so they may live, that kind of thing.
Nadkor
04-12-2004, 02:13
i remember BBC4 showing a documentary suggesting that Jesus went to India after the crucifiction...having survived in a state of near death and recussitating a few days later (that still happens today). it said that the 'wise men from the east' were buddhist (i think) monks who followed the star believing he was the next reincarnation of buddha, and in the years where the bible doesnt tell us where he was, he was in the east receiveing buddhist training, he then came back and did his teaching/healing. IF this is true, then his body is buried in a tomb somewhere in india, cant remember where. it also says that the man in India had an arab version of the name Jesus and claimed to have survived crucifiction. make of this what you will
ThePhimoticRing
04-12-2004, 02:33
i remember BBC4 showing a documentary suggesting that Jesus went to India after the crucifiction...having survived in a state of near death and recussitating a few days later (that still happens today). it said that the 'wise men from the east' were buddhist (i think) monks who followed the star believing he was the next reincarnation of buddha, and in the years where the bible doesnt tell us where he was, he was in the east receiveing buddhist training, he then came back and did his teaching/healing. IF this is true, then his body is buried in a tomb somewhere in india, cant remember where. it also says that the man in India had an arab version of the name Jesus and claimed to have survived crucifiction. make of this what you will

I've heard the same things.

PROSTITUTE:
There is a misconception in the Bible about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. There is no textual evidence to be found that supports the idea that she was a prostitute. Mary was with a group of women, among which one was a "lady of the evening", Mary was the woman that was possessed by demons (Luke 8:2.16).

SCRIPTURE:
The Gospel of Mary was written by Mary Magdalene, and was one of several lost books of the Bible (such as The Gospel of Thomas) that is missing from the current translated versions. In these scriptures were a story telling of the close relationship between Jesus & Mary, claiming that she was the "favored apostle".

Some of this has been brought into theories such as "The Da Vinci Code".

CODE:
The Da Vinci code comes from the idea that Leonardo Da Vinci was granted secret information about the Christ; such as Jesus and Mary having a child together. A little girl named, Sarah who was gifted with the powers of God, through Jesus. Sarah was thought to be what we have currently titled as the Holy Grail.
Austrealite
04-12-2004, 03:20
i remember BBC4 showing a documentary suggesting that Jesus went to India after the crucifiction...having survived in a state of near death and recussitating a few days later (that still happens today). it said that the 'wise men from the east' were buddhist (i think) monks who followed the star believing he was the next reincarnation of buddha, and in the years where the bible doesnt tell us where he was, he was in the east receiveing buddhist training, he then came back and did his teaching/healing. IF this is true, then his body is buried in a tomb somewhere in india, cant remember where. it also says that the man in India had an arab version of the name Jesus and claimed to have survived crucifiction. make of this what you will

That is a load of rubbish
Iraqestonia
04-12-2004, 03:59
Looking at it from a PURELY HISTORICAL prospective, the fact of the matter is that everything RELIABLE points to Jesus not being married. Yes, all silly conspiracy theories aside. The Da Vinci Code is great fiction, but very pure history. Why is this so? Because Dan Brown left out very important things when he spoke of the Gnostic Gospels. Begining with when they were written. Looking at the New testament HISTORICALLY, not theologically, we HAVE to give them more weight than the Gnostic Gospels merely because they were written CENTURIES earlier. It's one thing if it had been decades earlier...but Centuries cannot be ignored. Dan Brown makes it sound like they were written at the same time by competing faiths. Nope, sorry. Orthodoxy was well established by the time the Gnostic Christians came onto the scene. That being said, there is a book in the New Testament where the author complains about the fact that he was unable to marry. Probably because he was too busy working for the Christian Church. He mentioned all the apostles and Church leaders that were married and served God very well. Bringing up Jesus' marriage would have been a great argument in his favor, but he didn't bring it up. A large clue that Jesus remained celibate.
Another point against Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene comes from the Gnostic Gospels themselves. Historically speaking, we need to know who Jesus was. He was a jew. A VERY devout jew. This is something noone can intelligently deny. And this is all we need to prove the Gnostic Gospels were not very reliable sources on Jesus' life. Not just because they were written too late, but because the Gnostic Gospels spoke of things that would insult any jew in ANY point of history. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the very gospel at the center of this little controversy, states three things that a jewish Jesus would NEVER say. That a) There is more than one god. That b) The Old testament God is an evil God, and that Jesus is a good God. and c) That because the world was created by the Old Testament evil God, everything he created is also evil. Namely, the physical world. So here we see where Dan Brown's arguments fall apart. At the very source he uses as his prime bit of evidence for his theory. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was not JUST written too late, but any devout jew like Jesus would be insulted by its tenets. Including jews of today.
My request to everyone is this. When you read about this theory, PLEASE consider the source before you give too much weight to the persons words. Most people who are proponents of this theory don't seem to have the CREDENTIALS to make the claims at all. Dan Brown has a Bachelor's in English for instance. He has no right to be claiming this stuff is true by his own authority. From what I have seen, the people who are writing books against it have PHD's in the area of Ancient History. Alot of them also have Degrees in the area of theology. Obviously the ones with degrees in theology shouldn't be talking either, as the issue is historical not theoligical. If the person writing the book doesn't have at least a Masters degree is Ancient History, don't bother.


First of all, the reason the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Scrolls gain so much credence is the fact that they are the OLDEST original documents on the matter that exist today, centuries older than any surviving document of the 4 Gospels. You see, while they may not have been written earlier, they are at least as credible as the Gospels because we simply don't have hard evidence that the Gospels were written at the same time as Jesus. Many of the events portrayed in one Gospel contradict the same event in another; for example, there is conflicting evidence about who was present at the Ressurection.
You may also note that I never used the Da Vinci Code as the sole reference for my claims; in fact, I would point you to the excellent The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which, although speculative, is quite the read. Before you denounce its use of speculation, you must realize that when no records exist for a particular time and place, speculation is all you have.
And one more thing: Long before the Roman Catholic Church was around, most deities (including Yahweh/Jehovah of Jewish fame) had female counterparts to signify the unity between man and woman. The notion of a sole male God without this unity would likely be blasphemy to the ancient Jews.
Superpower07
04-12-2004, 04:02
I would not be surprised if Jesus was married
Ninjadom Revival
04-12-2004, 04:07
Jesus was celibate, and under Protestantism, Jesus as God's 'son' is figurative. Most Protestants believe that Jesus is God in human form, and that the Trinity is three manifestations of Jehovah: the same being.
ExCathedra
04-12-2004, 04:55
I cannot believe I just sat and read through all of these secular fanatic posts. I couldn't expect anything different from people so intent on having their view of the world become a reality that they spend their time playing a game about it. I could launch into a 12 page diatribe on the subject if I had more time, but suffice it to say that no one has provided any substansial evidence to support these ludicrous opinions. If this persist, I will be forced to get involved in another debate that saps time, energy and quickly bores people to death. I will however make a few points.

Though there might have been other religions with female counterparts to seemingly male divinities, but ancient Judaism didn't have one. I assume you are making reference to the lady wisdom refered to in the old testament. In reality, she is a metaphor. I don't see why some women are so offended by having a father like figure for God, even though God is without a gender, being a spirit. Christian women have Mary to look to for a role model. Although some women see Mary as less than God and an image as subservience to men, she is the most powerful human being to have ever existed that was not divine. Look up the role of the Queen mother in Jewish society.

What is the deal with all of the Catholic bashing? The Catholic church is the embodiment of the true church founded by Christ himself. Some of what I have seen brought forward in argument against it is falsified information or distorted truth created by those who took issue with the church for not bending the God-given rules when it came to giving consent to their favourite vices or changing to suit their whims. As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, not 10 people in america hate the Catholic church, but thousands hate what they believe the church to be.

Being a Nazaarine in the literal as well as figurative sense of the word, Jesus would not have been a party animal in any sense. If you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up.

Chastity has always been a sign of giving oneself wholely to God and separating oneself from the things of this world, even the greatest things it has to offer. As an undoubtedly pious and holy man, Jesus would have committed himself in the same way showing that he really was not from this world, but the next.

Oh yes, and Jesus had no brothers as is proven through his entrusting of his mother to his 'cousin' John the beloved disciple.

Sadly I've used up all my time.
Newest
04-12-2004, 05:09
After reading several books on the subject, including "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", I have realized a number things:

1. Given the time period in which he lived, it would have been seen as highly irregular if Jesus wasn't married to a woman he was noted to have liked (Mary Magdalene). In fact, there would have been almost no logical reason at this time to not practise this, seeing as how ancient Jewish law states this very clearly, and Jesus was the Anointed One of the Jews.

2. If Jesus was married, it was almost certainly to Mary Magdalene, and he almost certainly would have had kids.


So what's the deal? Was this a massive cover-up by the Roman Catholics? Was Jesus a father? If so, wouldn't his kids have also been the Sons of God? That is, unless Jesus wasn't the Son of God to begin with. Or was he?

1. It is a waste of everybody's time, to ask unanswerable questions.

2. If you want to exchange uninformed opinions, please do not pretend that you are conducting a "factual" survey.
Newest
04-12-2004, 05:09
After reading several books on the subject, including "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", I have realized a number things:

1. Given the time period in which he lived, it would have been seen as highly irregular if Jesus wasn't married to a woman he was noted to have liked (Mary Magdalene). In fact, there would have been almost no logical reason at this time to not practise this, seeing as how ancient Jewish law states this very clearly, and Jesus was the Anointed One of the Jews.

2. If Jesus was married, it was almost certainly to Mary Magdalene, and he almost certainly would have had kids.


So what's the deal? Was this a massive cover-up by the Roman Catholics? Was Jesus a father? If so, wouldn't his kids have also been the Sons of God? That is, unless Jesus wasn't the Son of God to begin with. Or was he?

1. It is a waste of everybody's time, to ask unanswerable questions.

2. If you want to exchange uninformed opinions, please do not pretend that you are conducting a "factual" survey.
Newest
04-12-2004, 05:15
After reading several books on the subject, including "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", I have realized a number things:

1. Given the time period in which he lived, it would have been seen as highly irregular if Jesus wasn't married to a woman he was noted to have liked (Mary Magdalene). In fact, there would have been almost no logical reason at this time to not practise this, seeing as how ancient Jewish law states this very clearly, and Jesus was the Anointed One of the Jews.

2. If Jesus was married, it was almost certainly to Mary Magdalene, and he almost certainly would have had kids.


So what's the deal? Was this a massive cover-up by the Roman Catholics? Was Jesus a father? If so, wouldn't his kids have also been the Sons of God? That is, unless Jesus wasn't the Son of God to begin with. Or was he?

1. It is a waste of everybody's time, to ask unanswerable questions.

2. If you want to exchange uninformed opinions, please do not pretend that you are conducting a "factual" survey.
Newest
04-12-2004, 05:19
1. It is a waste of everybody's time, to ask unanswerable questions.

2. If you want to exchange uninformed opinions, please do not pretend that you are conducting a "factual" survey.

Sorry, the site was clogged; apparently I (accidentally, true) posted 3 times.
A Memory
04-12-2004, 05:53
Oh yes, and Jesus had no brothers as is proven through his entrusting of his mother to his 'cousin' John the beloved disciple.


I can't let this go past.

"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.


Please, research before you type. If you make that basic of a biblical mistake you immediately prove that nothing you say can be trusted without substantial research.
Ashmoria
04-12-2004, 05:58
since it is impossible to know for sure, i will of course take the church's postion that jesus was single.

but since i am an atheist i can WONDER......


going back to ... well darn, his post isnt on this page but <whoever> pointed out that good jewish sons were expected to marry and have children...

he would have gotten married sometime between his 16th and 20th birthdays. LONG before he knew any of his buddies in the bible including mary magdalene.

so i guess what he did was ABANDON his wife and children to take up preaching. perhaps she didnt care for his declaring his godlike stature anymore than his brothers and sisters did. who knows, it just seems likely to me.
Seamus McCaffrey
04-12-2004, 05:59
Who really cares if Jesus was married or not? It doesn't matter, it still doesn't change his teachings and parables. He WAS Jewish, no doubt about that, and Jewish law encourages marriage.
New Granada
04-12-2004, 06:00
She Didnt Get Married.

She Was A LESBIAN.

And For CHRISTS SAKE Read A History Book,

They **DID NOT** Let Black Africans Get Married In The Middle East Back Then.
A Memory
04-12-2004, 06:19
going back to ... well darn, his post isnt on this page but <whoever> pointed out that good jewish sons were expected to marry and have children...

he would have gotten married sometime between his 16th and 20th birthdays. LONG before he knew any of his buddies in the bible including mary magdalene.

so i guess what he did was ABANDON his wife and children to take up preaching. perhaps she didnt care for his declaring his godlike stature anymore than his brothers and sisters did. who knows, it just seems likely to me.

True, Judaism encouraged and still encourages marriage as does Christianity. It is considered a blessing to both parties and a gift of true communion from God.

The part I most strongly disagree primarily on is the fact that you assume that Jesus would have gotten married between 16 and 20. It is true that women in Jewish culture at that time got married young (read 12-14) but boys didn't become men and most likely old enough for marriage until closer to 30.*

Finally even if Jesus was married a likely reason for him to begin preaching would have been the death of his wife.

Sources in general tend to indicate that Jesus was not married. Would Paul have said that it is more pure not to marry if his master had been married? Probably not. However, I will not deny that it is possible.

*Unable to find a source easily. I apologize, my only source is a lecture on the topic. Unfortunately sourcing lecture notes is very difficult in any authoritative way.
ExCathedra
04-12-2004, 06:24
I can't let this go past.


Please, research before you type. If you make that basic of a biblical mistake you immediately prove that nothing you say can be trusted without substantial research.


I'm sorry sir, but it's you who should research before you type. If you look back to the original rendering of the verse in the aramaic in which it was written you'll find that there is no word for cousin in that language. Back then people could say 'the son of my mother's sister', but that being rather awkward prompted the use of brother and sister instead. There are also many more factors that come into play, such as the one I described before. If Jesus had any brothers, be would be committing a heinous offence in entrustin the care of his mother to John, who was his apostle and cousin as opposed to his brother. He would not have neglected his family ties.

For more on the subject, take a look at this site. It has answers to many different questions. If you continue to question my authority on the subject wihtout taking a look at it, I may be forced to make long posts on the matter that involve a copious amount of copy/pasting. I've been through many of these religious 'wars' and I'm not inclined to start another one right now. Take my information for what you will, but don't simply disregard it with a closed mind.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
A Memory
04-12-2004, 06:34
If you look back to the original rendering of the verse in the aramaic in which it was written you'll find that there is no word for cousin in that language. Back then people could say 'the son of my mother's sister', but that being rather awkward prompted the use of brother and sister instead. There are also many more factors that come into play, such as the one I described before.

Strange, why would a rendering in aramaic matter when the verse was originally written in Greek and all the oldest copies are also written in Greek. An attempt to render into aramaic to guess what was originally said is rather inaccurate.

If Jesus had any brothers, be would be committing a heinous offence in entrustin the care of his mother to John, who was his apostle and cousin as opposed to his brother. He would not have neglected his family ties.

That never bothered Jesus.


hen Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

For more on the subject, take a look at this site. It has answers to many different questions. If you continue to question my authority on the subject wihtout taking a look at it, I may be forced to make long posts on the matter that involve a copious amount of copy/pasting. I've been through many of these religious 'wars' and I'm not inclined to start another one right now. Take my information for what you will, but don't simply disregard it with a closed mind.

I looked over the site and I saw some interest, but I disagree with the basic premise. Try this site. Aramaic for cousin (http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/ARTICLES/CommonMisconceptions.html)

Thank you for a civil exchange. Goodnight.
Ashmoria
04-12-2004, 06:34
True, Judaism encouraged and still encourages marriage as does Christianity. It is considered a blessing to both parties and a gift of true communion from God.

The part I most strongly disagree primarily on is the fact that you assume that Jesus would have gotten married between 16 and 20. It is true that women in Jewish culture at that time got married young (read 12-14) but boys didn't become men and most likely old enough for marriage until closer to 30.*

Finally even if Jesus was married a likely reason for him to begin preaching would have been the death of his wife.

Sources in general tend to indicate that Jesus was not married. Would Paul have said that it is more pure not to marry if his master had been married? Probably not. However, I will not deny that it is possible.

*Unable to find a source easily. I apologize, my only source is a lecture on the topic. Unfortunately sourcing lecture notes is very difficult in any authoritative way.

i have a hard time believing that the average age of marriage for a man was that old. life expectancy and all. how old was joseph supposed to be in the christmas story? seems like he was around 20 but i dont remember.

ok ok so she might have DIED. as good a speculation as any.

paul never MET jesus. personally i find many of the things he said to be way outside the spirit of the things jesus said. and he had his own issues.
Eridanus
04-12-2004, 07:24
Judging from His life, I highly doubt that the Christ-meister was married. He was always on the go, unable or unwilling to settle down and raise a family. A wife would have slowed or halted His wandering ministry, and He didn't want that. Besides, if He did have kids, they would have made themselves very well known, and Christianity would have incorporated that fact from the get-go.

They could have been executed, or ignored as false prophets.

I think Christ could have been married.
Austrealite
04-12-2004, 07:29
For those who go on about Judaism law about getting married I say - Yahsha didn't follow Judaism, he followed the one true Hebrew Religion, he knew the laws far better than even the High Priests.

He was not married as it mentions nothing of it in the Torah, none of the Apostles mention it and he came to earth not to be married but to save the lives of the TRUE ISRAELITES!
Miriamana
04-12-2004, 08:52
This is a post about the claim that the Catholic Church created a "smear campaign" against Mary Magdalene to discredit her. This is purely false. From a historical point of view. Why? Because the beliefe that Mary Magdalene was a woman of ill repute predates the Catholic Church. The story is this.
The town of Magdala was for some reason taxed FAR more than other towns of Palestine. I know it was a Roman punishment of some kind, but I can't recall why they deserved it. What happened is that the peasants of the town couldn't work hard enough to pay the whole tax and still eat. Its hard to imagine, but what people in the town ended up doing is pimping out their daughters. Yes, the whole town became a sort of Bordello because the people didn't want to starve. Now the rest of Palestine was no doubt VERY scandalized by the whole issue, and anyone who came from the town was immediately either a pimp, or a whore. And so even though Mary of Magdala may not have been a prostitute, she was most definitely a woman of ill repute. Again the reputation may not have been warranted or fair, but she probably had it nontheless. The idea that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute did not come from the Catholic Church. It came from HER VERY NAME. When the Pope openly said Mary Magdalene was a prostitute all those centuries ago, he was repeating something that was already believed by most. Not starting a new tradition.
I hope this helps some people seperate fact from fiction. I have read many of you talking about the Da Vinci Code doing a great job meshing fact and imagination to make a great book. This is absolutely true! The problem is that the line between fact and fiction is getting blurred. By the time Catholicism hit the scene, Gnosticism was very much decline if not dead already, and there was no movement to do Mary Magdalene any harm because she was never a threat of any kind. Honestly guys, if your looking for why Christianity didn't allow females in positions of power, the answer is very easy. IT WAS A MOVEMENT BORN OF JUDAISM, A PATRIARCHAL FAITH. Helloooooooo! The answer is THAT simple. No conspiracy theories or evil lying Popes. Please please please people! OPEN A DAMN HISTORY BOOK.
Dakini
04-12-2004, 08:57
Well, in most Christian sects, to have anything to do with a lady of the evening is negative, and Mary Magdelene was a lady of the evening. :rolleyes:
no she wasn't. she was actually confused with another mary in that respect.
Branin
04-12-2004, 09:01
She Didnt Get Married.

She Was A LESBIAN.

And For CHRISTS SAKE Read A History Book,

They **DID NOT** Let Black Africans Get Married In The Middle East Back Then.
*moves as far away from NG as possible in an effort to avoid the lightining bolt.*
Miriamana
04-12-2004, 10:34
I'd also like to add this. The Nag Hammadi books, and the Dead Sea Scrolls only share one category together. That of great Archealogical discoveries. They are not from the same time periods. While it is true that the Dead Sea Scrolls were both written and hidden before the time of Jesus, the same cannot be said of the Nag Hammadi library. The books of the Nag Hammadi library were written centuries after both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospels used as canonical by Orthodox Christians. Because the dead Sea Scrolls were written and hidden before the time of Jesus, they cannot possibly do Christianity any harm. Because the Nag hammadi books were written centuries AFTER the time of Jesus and the Gospels used as canonical, it too cannot be given much weight.
I have come to notice this. People seem to give credence to books that were written centuries after the books that they are rejecting. Its ridiculous. Books that are written in the late 200's C.E. are given more authority than books written before the end of the very first century C.E.. What does that tell you? People are mostly more interested in the controvercy it could cause, than the truth.
As for Holy Blood Holy Grail. It has been debunked several times by Archeologists and Historians since it was printed in the 80's. Look at that. Printed in the 80's and it take a decade and a popular novel to makes its point known. Why didn't it cause a stir back in the 80's during it's first printing? Because Historians and Archeologists think this book is laughable, not historical. I expect that once the Da Vinci Code craze is overwith, this theory will once again be forgotten like it was before.
Sarandra
04-12-2004, 14:53
Not necessarily. It was only decided that Jesus was actually the son of God (or more specifically, a devine being of some kind) at the council of Nicaea, began by the Emporer Constantine. It was decided by a vote (a rather close vote at that) that Jesus was not merely a man, along with other aspects of Christianity which had proved to cause much disagreement (such as the true date of Easter).

Show me Proof.
Sheilanagig
04-12-2004, 14:54
Well, in most Christian sects, to have anything to do with a lady of the evening is negative, and Mary Magdelene was a lady of the evening. :rolleyes:

Not so. That was a smear campaign by the church and not in keeping with the bible itself. There are a few unnamed women in the story, and people simply associated Mary Magdalene with the prostitute, while she might have been another woman described. Jesus may have described her as a sinner, but he thought everybody was a sinner, and that didn't immediately mean that she was a prostitute any more than calling you a sinner means that you are one.

The basic aim of the church was to minimize the role and importance of women. What better way than to say that Eve was the cause of the downfall of all mankind, and Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, and Mary had never sullied herself with sex, because that set her apart from normal women, and made her better according to the church than almost any woman could live up to.
Sarandra
04-12-2004, 14:55
Stepping aside from the huge oversight that Yahweh had a female counterpart in the Jewish religion long before Jesus was around, and that the aim of that was to practise unity between male and female, including sex, Jesus was likely not the Son of God. He was a great guy and all, he was the Saviour of his people, he was martyred. I have no problem with people starting a religion around a guy that did great things, but here's the thing: With the exception of Paul, none the testaments in the Bible (and none in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, I might add) touch upon his heritage as the Son of God. The Bible was compiled and edited from a grand total of over 80 gospels for the New Testament, and I have no doubt that more than a few of those directly say that he was NOT divine. Does this detract from his greatness? No. So why do Christians care so much?


What does your response have to do with mine?
Sarandra
04-12-2004, 15:00
The reasons why Christians care about this issue is merely self defence of the religion. People use the possibility of Jesus being married as a way of discrediting the religion. That is why we care.

If you argue the idea that it was a Jewish law set by God for the Jewish people and that Jesus would have to have followed this law, the truth is God did not make this law. God's people did. This law was made to insure that sexual sin was not commited. That's why there are so many laws. They all stem from the major ones God had created for his people. Like I've said before, Jesus was pure and could not commit sexual sin, therefore he didn't need marriage.

Also. If he was married and that was part of the law, why would that discredit him and the Christian religion?
Sheilanagig
04-12-2004, 15:14
http://www.stpauls-episcopal.org/Sermons/DaVinci_Code.pdf

Here's a historian's take on The DaVinci Code.

It's pretty interesting, if nothing else.
Sladgrad
04-12-2004, 15:26
If Jesus was married, I wonder what his family would be like...

THE MESSIAH BUNCH

Bill Ben-Jesus : Pa, why do people get diseases?
Jesus: Hahaha! There sins of course! Now go have some nice manure pie with the rest of your brethren, or God will smite your soul to Gehenna for looking at Mummy's face!
Neo Cannen
04-12-2004, 15:37
because we simply don't have hard evidence that the Gospels were written at the same time as Jesus

However we do have evidence that the Gospels were written in the times of the contemporys of Jesus, so people who saw him and knew and heard of what he did read the Gospels and had seen the same things so they knew it wasnt lies.
Sheilanagig
04-12-2004, 15:37
For the “missing” Mary Magdalene had been no less than the Risen Christ’s first witness and the
“Apostle to the Apostles,” until she was deep-sixed by Pope Gregory the Great’s homily in 591
C.E. blending the Magdalene together with the other 5 Mary’s of the New Testament, so that
thenceforward until the Second Vatican Council in the late 1960’s she was reduced to being
merely a prostitute redeemed by Jesus’ exorcism – an “appropriate inheritor of the sinful legacy
of the original temptress Eve” [Susan Haskins in Burstein, p. 24]. “Let’s not continue the
relentless denigration of Mary Magdalene by reducing her only importance to a sexual
connection with Jesus,” says John Dominic Crossan, professor emeritus of religious studies at
DePaul University in Chicago. “She’s not important because she was Mrs. Jesus. That’s like
saying Hilary Rodham Clinton is only important because she’s married to Bill Clinton. Both
women are important in their own right” [Newsweek on December 8, 2003]

This is from the PDF document. To me, it sounds valid. Mary Magdalene was an amalgam of the Marys around Jesus. There were more than just two of them.
Frieden88
04-12-2004, 15:51
just in the response about having no evidence about the gospel being written in the "time of Jesus" we actually have proof that Mark and Lukes section were written some 200+ years after the time.
Pffft, no offence but i rekon religion is a sham
Iconoclia
04-12-2004, 16:23
I don't see how it matters if he was married or not. IF he was married it isn;t a sin so that makes him no less perfect than he was. People lose their faith over stupid books like the Davinci code. IT's absolutley ridiculous. The only people who are appauled (sp) by this theory are the catholics for some reason. They also seem to think that MAry stayed a virgin her whole life but that's another issue for another time
Stripe-lovers
04-12-2004, 16:34
Show me Proof.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
Iraqestonia
04-12-2004, 20:39
As for Holy Blood Holy Grail. It has been debunked several times by Archeologists and Historians since it was printed in the 80's. Look at that. Printed in the 80's and it take a decade and a popular novel to makes its point known. Why didn't it cause a stir back in the 80's during it's first printing? Because Historians and Archeologists think this book is laughable, not historical. I expect that once the Da Vinci Code craze is overwith, this theory will once again be forgotten like it was before.

Where have you been? It caused a HUGE stir when it was printed. It was, like the Da Vinci Code, a #1 international best-seller. It also wasn't the first book to make similar claims about Jesus; in fact, theories about his supposed marriage have been around for centuries. It would be ignorant to assume that everything in that particular book is a complete fabrication.
Miriamana
04-12-2004, 22:37
The stir I was talking about was amongst scholars and historians. People with the credentials to confirm or reject this theory. You see its actually QUITE easy to cause a stir amongst lay people who have no idea about the background of a particular issue. For example, right now in Europe and Canada there are books on best sellers lists that claim that the 9/11 attacks were not commited by al-Qaeda but by the Unisted States itself! The books claim that the U.S.A. killed 3,000 of its own people to have an excuse to attack the Middle-East. Obviously this is ridiculous, but people ARE buying these books. The authors of these books are also making alot of money on the lecture circuit speaking of their theories. My point is that how succesfull a book is has no bearing on how much truth is contained within. If its crazy enough people will want to read it. Another point is that if it insults people one already hates, one will be more inclined to believe it.
For example, I will bring up the supposed document by the Priory of Sion that is prominent in books that promote the "Da Vinci Code" theory. For lack of a better term. The document by the Priory is the one that lists people like Da Vinci and even Isaac Newton as members of this secret society. Its one of the big pieces of evidence cited by proponents of the theory. There's one problem. Scholars have already proven it to be a forgery, and the person who forged it and planted it in the library where it was "discovered" has already come forward. None of the books that propose the Da Vinci Code theories have included this bit of fact in either reprints or in sequels. There is a clear agenda here. And telling the truth is not that agenda. I think making money is the real agenda.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written AND hidden before the birth of Jesus. They do not contain ANYTHING that does Christianity harm.
Siljhouettes
04-12-2004, 22:52
I heard once that Jesus was gay.

Yes he was married probably had kids and was black. The more we think about it the more we see Christianity being turned into a religion based on false historical beliefs. It might just be better to not worry about it and let Christians think the way they want, there is no point in pissing them off because some of us have moved on realizing there is much more to the world.
The Church is based more on the authoritarian beliefs of St Paul (or is it Peter?) than on those of Jesus.
United Freedoms
05-12-2004, 02:19
I heard once that Jesus was gay.


The Church is based more on the authoritarian beliefs of St Paul (or is it Peter?) than on those of Jesus.

Peter.
Hontah
05-12-2004, 02:31
He probably was though

OC: The reason its short so i can make sure i can post again, was having problems for awhile
Straughn
05-12-2004, 03:30
It will at the Final Judgment, when the fire is reigning down from above, and God asks you five, no, three questions, which you must answer correctly in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Don't forget your passpart either, one other form of identification, and proof of address. If I were you, I'd apply for a visa now, before a queue builds up.
Five is right out.
And he shall snuff it.
Mickonia
05-12-2004, 16:29
However we do have evidence that the Gospels were written in the times of the contemporys of Jesus, so people who saw him and knew and heard of what he did read the Gospels and had seen the same things so they knew it wasnt lies.

Even though their accounts differ in several places?
Mickonia
05-12-2004, 16:33
There is a clear agenda here. And telling the truth is not that agenda. I think making money is the real agenda.

Um, the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Therefore, telling the truth wouldn't be indicated, would it?
Sarandra
05-12-2004, 18:11
just in the response about having no evidence about the gospel being written in the "time of Jesus" we actually have proof that Mark and Lukes section were written some 200+ years after the time.
Pffft, no offence but i rekon religion is a sham


Where is this proof?
Catholic Europe
05-12-2004, 18:23
No Jesus did not marry. It is nowhere mentionned in the Scriptures and, to be frank, it's highly offensive to sugest that he did.
Sarandra
05-12-2004, 18:24
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

If you read closely into the issue, the reason it was brought up to a counsel was because one man opposed the idea. The man who opposed it was not fully brought up with Christian beliefs but was actually exposed to many pagan or otherwise beliefs. Also he was taught through translation through Greek philosophical means.
Jerry Lawler
05-12-2004, 18:28
Jesus wasn't amrried even though there was a lot pointing to him being married. Jesus as son of God realised that he was going to die on the cross, so he wasn't going to put Mary through that. Mary loved him and Jesus may of loved her, but he was too sensible to marrk her, he was too busy wandering through the kingdom to think about marriage..
Superpower07
05-12-2004, 18:29
No Jesus did not marry. It is nowhere mentionned in the Scriptures and, to be frank, it's highly offensive to sugest that he did.
I wish not to anger you CE, however there is a Gospel of Philipp that says otherwise.

I do realize, however, that this "gospel" could be totally uncredible
Catholic Europe
05-12-2004, 18:31
I wish not to anger you CE, however there is a Gospel of Philipp that says otherwise.

I do realize, however, that this "gospel" could be totally uncredible

I've never heard of this Gospel before.
La Terra di Liberta
05-12-2004, 18:35
No Jesus did not marry. It is nowhere mentionned in the Scriptures and, to be frank, it's highly offensive to sugest that he did.



Why is it offensive? Most men in that society at that time would have gotten married by his age. And for it not mentioning anything, well it doesn't mention every person he talked to or every time he prayed to God.
Winooski
05-12-2004, 18:37
There's quite alot of theories that the Church is covering up most everything about Jesus.

I personally think it's quite possible Jesus was married, and had kids for that matter.

1,300 Post! W00T!


Actually there is nothing in scripture to support that. There is no tie between her and the women taken in adultery. It was a myth developed later by the church to suppress Mary Magdalene in the process of building of the adoration of Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Catholic Europe
05-12-2004, 18:39
Why is it offensive? Most men in that society at that time would have gotten married by his age. And for it not mentioning anything, well it doesn't mention every person he talked to or every time he prayed to God.

But getting married is quite something....that would've been mentionned without a doubt.
United Freedoms
05-12-2004, 18:39
I've never heard of this Gospel before.

There are several gospels that never made it into the New Testament. The four that did were essentially hand picked from a list of over eighty.
Winooski
05-12-2004, 18:40
No Jesus did not marry. It is nowhere mentionned in the Scriptures and, to be frank, it's highly offensive to sugest that he did.

Why. Ity would be the norm for a teacher to be married. One who was not married was not considered mature enough to teach. It was mandated that a rabbi be married and Jesus was refered to as rabonni in scripture which means the speaker was presuming he was married.
Catholic Europe
05-12-2004, 18:41
Why. Ity would be the norm for a teacher to be married. One who was not married was not considered mature enough to teach. It was mandated that a rabbi be married and Jesus was refered to as rabonni in scripture which means the speaker was presuming he was married.

He was not married because it's not mentionned in scripture. Jesus remained a virgin all his life and died one.
La Terra di Liberta
05-12-2004, 18:43
But getting married is quite something....that would've been mentionned without a doubt.



Why wouldn't he though? I don't wnat that its not in the scriptures, I would like to know why he wouldn't get married in the course of his life. What would have been so wrong with that?
United Freedoms
05-12-2004, 18:43
But getting married is quite something....that would've been mentionned without a doubt.

Also not necessarily. Christ taking a wife and possibly having children would have proved problematic for the early churches drives to maintain itself as the sole route to salvation, which largely depended on the divinity of Christ. Something that would have been challenged had Christ been married to a mortal woman and had children.

Also, as has been mentioned, it has been hinted at rather strongly in some of the other gospels outside of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Nothing Special Really
05-12-2004, 21:14
There are several gospels that never made it into the New Testament. The four that did were essentially hand picked from a list of over eighty.

i don't think that 'hand-picked' is the best choice of words to describe the process of canonization. these men were the religious scholars of the day and spent much time debating the authority of these gospels.

as was said previously, the dead sea scrolls were written before the time of Jesus, and make no mention of him at all. in fact, there are references to them in the New Testament.

to the post concerning the differences in stories about the same incident in the gospels...how is that a problem? common sense dictates that 2 people telling you about the same incident will not tell you the exact same thing in the exact same way. also, there are different literary devices that can be used in the telling of a story. the actions of one can be generalized as the actions of the whole (thieves on the cross) or differing lists of people present at a certain occasion (the crucifiction: one mentions many women present, following his style in the rest of his gospel (luke, if i remember correctly), others mention fewer and different people). differences don't always cause problems, they allow you to see more of the story.
DuQuesnia
05-12-2004, 21:35
Enough arguing OK? Somebody read The Da Vinci Code and took it a bit too seriously.
FACT: Nobody will ever know if Jesus was married or not
FACT: There are cranks, morons and respectable historians on both sides of the debate.
Those are ALL the facts extant, so there's not much point arguing.
United Freedoms
05-12-2004, 23:49
Enough arguing OK? Somebody read The Da Vinci Code and took it a bit too seriously.
FACT: Nobody will ever know if Jesus was married or not
FACT: There are cranks, morons and respectable historians on both sides of the debate.
Those are ALL the facts extant, so there's not much point arguing.

This particular person has read several books on the subject, and knows quite well that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, loosely based on real, more credible historical theories. Why is it that everybody seems to think that this theory started with the Code?

As for your second "FACT", half of all threads on Nationstates are for the purposes of arguing over unanswerable and/or rhetorical questions, so there's really no point in coming into this thread just to tell people not to bother talking about it. We're just trying to have a debate like civilized people over a likely unanswerable question, so spare us your presence here unless you'd like to contribute to the actual discussion at hand.
Mickonia
06-12-2004, 06:52
to the post concerning the differences in stories about the same incident in the gospels...how is that a problem? common sense dictates that 2 people telling you about the same incident will not tell you the exact same thing in the exact same way. also, there are different literary devices that can be used in the telling of a story. the actions of one can be generalized as the actions of the whole (thieves on the cross) or differing lists of people present at a certain occasion (the crucifiction: one mentions many women present, following his style in the rest of his gospel (luke, if i remember correctly), others mention fewer and different people). differences don't always cause problems, they allow you to see more of the story.

This is true, and I freely admit it, but for those who believe the Bible is inviolable and completely accurate in every way, the fact that there are contradictions of specific details is problematical. That being said, I am well aware of the "observer" bias.

Neo Cannen and I have had this discussion before. I must admit to a bit of baiting here.

My apologies to all.
Catholic Europe
06-12-2004, 20:38
Why wouldn't he though? I don't wnat that its not in the scriptures, I would like to know why he wouldn't get married in the course of his life. What would have been so wrong with that?

Because that was not His purpose. To say that He got married is to say that God married because Jesus is God.
Jerry Lawler
06-12-2004, 20:42
Jesus didn't get married because not only was he the sone of God, but he had a bigger purpose in life than to live the life of a human. He was going to die on a cross and his disciples were goin to be stoned. If he had been married it would of been a dishonest and uncompassionate act because Jesus knew that his wife would of been killed. Plus, jesus was/is God..How can a mortal be married to an immortal?? Jesus couldn't love just one person, as son of God he loves everyone and agian it would unfair to of been married in that sense...Jesus was travelling around the counrty with his discpiles, do you really think he had time for a wife??
Poania
06-12-2004, 21:33
Personally, I always thought that one of the best arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary was made by St. Jerome back in 383 AD, in his tract written against the charges made by Helvidius. What I find most fastinating is that Jerome was actually hesitant to respond to the charges that Mary had other children, not on the grounds that it was a hard case to make, but rather that it seemed so farfetched to him that it did not merit the extra attention a rebuttal would bring.

One cannot claim that Jerome was ignorant of Scripture. He was responsible for translating the Bible from Greek to Latin and was very familiar with both languages.

His work can be found here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Stripe-lovers
06-12-2004, 22:08
Because that was not His purpose. To say that He got married is to say that God married because Jesus is God.

So God has urinated, then?
Sarandra
07-12-2004, 00:23
So God has urinated, then?


What's that suppose to mean?
Sarandra
07-12-2004, 00:27
Jesus didn't get married because not only was he the sone of God, but he had a bigger purpose in life than to live the life of a human. He was going to die on a cross and his disciples were goin to be stoned. If he had been married it would of been a dishonest and uncompassionate act because Jesus knew that his wife would of been killed. Plus, jesus was/is God..How can a mortal be married to an immortal?? Jesus couldn't love just one person, as son of God he loves everyone and agian it would unfair to of been married in that sense...Jesus was travelling around the counrty with his discpiles, do you really think he had time for a wife??

It wasn't an issue of an uncompassionate act but more of the fact that Jesus was holy and pure.

I will repeat again. God brought about the idea of marriage because he knew men's hearts were evil and desired sexual sin. Marriage was a way to control that sin. Jesus couldn't commit sexual sin. He didn't need marriage.
Ankher
08-12-2004, 16:58
jesus was jewish.a jewish religous law states men should get married and have kids.jewish religous law is the word of god(at the time if your a christian).jesus would not go breaking his fathers laws right?He wasn't Jewish, he was an Israelite who followed the true Hebrew Religion, not Judasim1. Israelites are not true Hebrews: after the Exodus the Israelites themselves as well as their rituals were almost entirely Egyptian. In that time the true Hewbrews were the Kanaanites, the Midianites, and the Hyksos. 2. the true (original) Hebrew religion is the polytheistic beliefs of Mesopotamia, i.e. Sumerian/Akkadian religion.
Torching Witches
08-12-2004, 16:59
Jesus couldn't commit sexual sin.
Poor chap. They have medicines for that, nowadays, you know.
Ankher
08-12-2004, 17:02
To say that He got married is to say that God married because Jesus is God.And? Since Jesus is god, he is also responsible for drowning mankind in the Flood, and for the slaughtering of the Kanaanites by the Israelites. And since Jesus is god he also created the Enemy in the first place. So why would anybody worship a mass murderer and a supporter of mass murder?
Beloved and Hope
08-12-2004, 17:04
Jesus didn't get married because not only was he the sone of God, but he had a bigger purpose in life than to live the life of a human. He was going to die on a cross and his disciples were goin to be stoned. If he had been married it would of been a dishonest and uncompassionate act because Jesus knew that his wife would of been killed. Plus, jesus was/is God..How can a mortal be married to an immortal?? Jesus couldn't love just one person, as son of God he loves everyone and agian it would unfair to of been married in that sense...Jesus was travelling around the counrty with his discpiles, do you really think he had time for a wife??

Did he have time for casual sex though? Wham bang and all that.Surely.And what about his missing years??
Ankher
08-12-2004, 17:09
Jesus didn't get married because not only was he the sone of God, but he had a bigger purpose in life than to live the life of a human. He was going to die on a cross and his disciples were goin to be stoned. If he had been married it would of been a dishonest and uncompassionate act because Jesus knew that his wife would of been killed. Plus, jesus was/is God..How can a mortal be married to an immortal?? Jesus couldn't love just one person, as son of God he loves everyone and agian it would unfair to of been married in that sense...Jesus was travelling around the counrty with his discpiles, do you really think he had time for a wife??Greek gods had dozens of kids with mortals. So, where's the problem? And Yahweh already had a kid with a mortal (allegedly). Remember?
BTW: you seem to imply that Yeshua knew of his immortality. What value would his death then have as a sacrifice to Yah? Of course: none.
Iztatepopotla
08-12-2004, 17:20
He was not married because it's not mentionned in scripture. Jesus remained a virgin all his life and died one.
The Bible also doesn't say what he did every day of his life, before he was 12 and from then until he started to preach at 30. Was he out of existence all that time? Was it unimportant? Did he have a job? What happened to Joseph?

There are many things that are not in the Bible, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. Being married back in those days was something that was just as natural as eating, just like having children. In fact, for people in that culture it was mandatory to do so, and as far as we know he followed the customs of this community very closely, and it would have been mentioned very prominently if he hadn't.
Sarandra
09-12-2004, 02:48
Poor chap. They have medicines for that, nowadays, you know.

Was this suppose to be funny? Because I find it very unnecessary and quite frankly very offensive.
Sel Appa
09-12-2004, 02:54
It is quite possible. the first Christians corrupted, skewed, and distorted his ideas.
Xenophobialand
09-12-2004, 03:34
It wasn't an issue of an uncompassionate act but more of the fact that Jesus was holy and pure.

I will repeat again. God brought about the idea of marriage because he knew men's hearts were evil and desired sexual sin. Marriage was a way to control that sin. Jesus couldn't commit sexual sin. He didn't need marriage.

Thank you, St. Augustine. Now, if you look to the time of Jesus, you'll see that only one group of people actually had anywhere close to this line of thinking: the Essenes. They were a group of wacky warrior-priests who refused sex because it made them ritually impure, and you can't be ritually impure if you want to fight for God. Needless to say, most of them bought it during the Judean revolts in 73 A.D. (most of the fighters at. . .dammit, the name escapes me at the moment, but it was the massive fortress on a plateau that took the Romans several legions and several years to crack, only to find all the occupants dead by suicide, but nevertheless, most of those occupants were Essenes), and the rest died out soon thereafter. When they were in existence, they were widely considered to be a bunch of goofy idiots by more mainstream Judaism; think of them as militant Hare Krishnas, and you have the general idea. What is the moral to this story? Jesus probably didn't think of himself like this, whatever modern Catholicism would like to say on the subject.

As one other side note, most modern scholars on the subject date the Gospel of Mark at about 65-70 A.D. Q (the unknown and lost work from which Matthew and Luke got their common quotations not found in Mark) came somewhat after, followed by Matthew and Luke in about 100-110 A.D. The Gospel of John comes last at about 135-150 A.D. Oddly enough, the Gnostic Gospel of Philip dates to roughly the same time as Mark, although many other Gospels come long after. Gnostic Christianity came about only just after the beginnings of true Christianity itself. They died out when they were labeled heretics for not holding to the tenets of faith adopted at Nicea and either shunned or destroyed. It should be noted that IIRC, the oldest current copy of any part of the Gospels is a partial copy of John dating to about 350A.D., but much other historical literature suggests the time for the Gospels as posted above.

Edit: Ha Ha! The name of the Essene fortress was Masada. Just remembered (I knew it had to have an M in it).
Sarandra
09-12-2004, 04:04
Thank you, St. Augustine. Now, if you look to the time of Jesus, you'll see that only one group of people actually had anywhere close to this line of thinking: the Essenes. They were a group of wacky warrior-priests who refused sex because it made them ritually impure, and you can't be ritually impure if you want to fight for God. Needless to say, most of them bought it during the Judean revolts in 73 A.D. (most of the fighters at. . .dammit, the name escapes me at the moment, but it was the massive fortress on a plateau that took the Romans several legions and several years to crack, only to find all the occupants dead by suicide, but nevertheless, most of those occupants were Essenes), and the rest died out soon thereafter. When they were in existence, they were widely considered to be a bunch of goofy idiots by more mainstream Judaism; think of them as militant Hare Krishnas, and you have the general idea. What is the moral to this story? Jesus probably didn't think of himself like this, whatever modern Catholicism would like to say on the subject.

As one other side note, most modern scholars on the subject date the Gospel of Mark at about 65-70 A.D. Q (the unknown and lost work from which Matthew and Luke got their common quotations not found in Mark) came somewhat after, followed by Matthew and Luke in about 100-110 A.D. The Gospel of John comes last at about 135-150 A.D. Oddly enough, the Gnostic Gospel of Philip dates to roughly the same time as Mark, although many other Gospels come long after. Gnostic Christianity came about only just after the beginnings of true Christianity itself. They died out when they were labeled heretics for not holding to the tenets of faith adopted at Nicea and either shunned or destroyed. It should be noted that IIRC, the oldest current copy of any part of the Gospels is a partial copy of John dating to about 350A.D., but much other historical literature suggests the time for the Gospels as posted above.

Edit: Ha Ha! The name of the Essene fortress was Masada. Just remembered (I knew it had to have an M in it).

Do tell me. How do these scholars date these things?
Iztatepopotla
09-12-2004, 05:53
Do tell me. How do these scholars date these things?
Many clues in the document itself, like the material with which it's made, the ink, the degree of deterioration, plus other destructive methods, like radio-dating. All those together give a good idea about when the document was produced.

Indirect methods, like references from other documents, help determine when they were first written. None of these methods are perfect, but the issue has been studied heavily for a very long time now, so the accuracy is pretty good.
Nothing Special Really
09-12-2004, 19:21
if i'm not mistaken, the oldest text of the bible known to exist now is dated to around AD 120. i'll do some checking to see which one exactly it is, but i know for sure there are older documents than the ones dated around AD 350.

also, there is one other way to determine and manuscripts age, the actual writing itself. certain styles of writing were done at certain times, along with certain uses of phrases, words and spellings. the handwriting itself can also be a tell to the age. comparing these with other documents is a near sure-fire way to date, with little error.
Kybernetia
09-12-2004, 19:46
Thus far as I know the old greek tests are speaking about Jesus having brothers and sisters.
This was changed ("falsely translated") to aunts and cousins.
Well - that version certainly fits better to the theory of the untouched pregnancy.