Bunyip
pro scapegoat
There is good reason to be doubtful about everything we think we know about the ancient world. There is always doubt.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do we have evidence to show that Jesus never got married, nor had any children or descendants
- Thread starter XIII-Legion
- Start date
There is good reason to be doubtful about everything we think we know about the ancient world. There is always doubt.
...Except for when it's a waste of time.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't his wife and child be mentioned if he had them?
If he is Gods son, wouldn't his son be Gods grandson?
Hardly something not important enough to be in the Bible or Non Biblical text about him and other scripture, such as the quran.
muhammad pretty called Jesus a fraud, so why would he not have further belittled him if Jesus was not as pure of a man as the bible claims him to be if he had sex and a child?
His child would be much more important of a figure than Mary was and yet she is discussed and so is his brother, yet his own son and wife were left out?
Heck, the one who married them would be an important figure, as well as the in-laws.
Even after Jesus was crucified, it would have been his own wife who went to the tomb with Mary.
She would have also been a huge part of the church too.
In my opinion, those who try to claim Jesus had a wife, and cant even offer real evidence to support it, are only doing it to try to belittle Jesus.
Odd how non religious people claim they only believe things proven to them and that goes right out the window when subjects like this come up and they seem to have no problem just making it up as they see fit and cant offer any evidence.
There is not one line of scripture that can even be twisted into suggesting that Jesus had a wife and kid, so who started this and where did they get their evidence from?
The irony in it is so thick, one can cut it with a knife.
If he is Gods son, wouldn't his son be Gods grandson?
Hardly something not important enough to be in the Bible or Non Biblical text about him and other scripture, such as the quran.
muhammad pretty called Jesus a fraud, so why would he not have further belittled him if Jesus was not as pure of a man as the bible claims him to be if he had sex and a child?
His child would be much more important of a figure than Mary was and yet she is discussed and so is his brother, yet his own son and wife were left out?
Heck, the one who married them would be an important figure, as well as the in-laws.
Even after Jesus was crucified, it would have been his own wife who went to the tomb with Mary.
She would have also been a huge part of the church too.
In my opinion, those who try to claim Jesus had a wife, and cant even offer real evidence to support it, are only doing it to try to belittle Jesus.
Odd how non religious people claim they only believe things proven to them and that goes right out the window when subjects like this come up and they seem to have no problem just making it up as they see fit and cant offer any evidence.
There is not one line of scripture that can even be twisted into suggesting that Jesus had a wife and kid, so who started this and where did they get their evidence from?
The irony in it is so thick, one can cut it with a knife.
We have little evidence that Jesus even existed. What he might have done that the gospel writers didn't mention would fill books much larger than the New Testament.
Tom
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Being married would not be.impure in that society. Rabbi's married. Being married would not have reduced Jesus in any way. The motivation for covering up the marriage however would be that the bloodline of Jesus would constitute a threat to the European aristocracy.
There is not one line to the contrary either though.
Except, it was only in the medieval, post-Roman Western Europe that this dynamic of a clerical aristocracy existed. In the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, in Africa, in Persia, in India, in China, this was far from the case. There is absolutely no reason to hide Jesus' being married when defending His humanity was the Church's main theological concern in the first, second and third centuries of Christianity.
Sorry to jump into the debate but I wish someone recorded if Jesus was any good at building like one of my favorite comedian's James Gafigan said "I wonder if people were like after the resurrection 'Good thing that messiah career worked out. He built a shed for me two months ago that collapse the next day'"
That was cute. Lol.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, but you are forgetting that the Bible as we know it today emerged in that post-Roman Western Europe, not the middle east.
The books were preserved, copied and propogated exclusively by the Western European monastries for centuries.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
Considering the evidence we do have, real historians are in complete agreement that Jesus did exist.
Plus, if he was made up, muhammad would have said that, instead of saying other things about Jesus to belittle him.
You can believe what you wish, but the evidence says he did exist.
That doesn't even make sense, so to even give an account of his marriage and the birth of his child, would take up too much room in scripture?
Two lines of text?
And all the letters Paul wrote to the church and others while he was in prison asking how things are going with them, not one mention of how Jesus's wife is handling the loss of her husband?
So, she wasn't even invited to the last supper either?
What about when Jesus came back from the dead?
His wife wasn't important enough to see, nor his own child?
He went and seen just about everyone and gave final instructions to them, yet not his own wife?
This is what people almost have to be suggesting to claim Jesus had a wife and or kid too.
Oh the irony that Jesus's own son grew up and not one word was ever written about him, ever, as an explanation to his existence, yet all the stuff written about Jesus is not enough evidence to his existence
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No. Historians are generally in agreement that the historicity of Jesus is the best explanation of the evidence. That is a rather different proposition.
Plus, if he was made up, muhammad would have said that, instead of saying other things about Jesus to belittle him.
You can believe what you wish, but the evidence says he did exist.
That doesn't even make sense, so to even give an account of his marriage and the birth of his child, would take up too much room in scripture?
Two lines of text?
And all the letters Paul wrote to the church and others while he was in prison asking how things are going with them, not one mention of how Jesus's wife is handling the loss of her husband?
So, she wasn't even invited to the last supper either?
What about when Jesus came back from the dead?
His wife wasn't important enough to see, nor his own child?
He went and seen just about everyone and gave final instructions to them, yet not his own wife?
This is what people almost have to be suggesting to claim Jesus had a wife and or kid too.
Oh the irony that Jesus's own son grew up and not one word was ever written about him, ever, as an explanation to his existence, yet all the stuff written about Jesus is not enough evidence to his existence
There is barely two lines about Jesus entire life from childhood to the last year. It tells us almost nothing about the vast majority of his life. You say that there is not one wprd written about his wife, but there is not one word written about his teens or his twenties either.
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
Yeah, I can't prove ghosts do not exist. What could I do, produce a non ghost as evidence?
XIII-Legion
Member
But we know that Jesus travelled with Mary Magdalene; and it would be unremarkable for Jesus to be married to anyone who belonged to the same ethno-religious group as he was; that would be so unremarkable it would go unmentioned.
Which begs the obvious in regards to the Second Coming of Christ: If Jesus would be married to a different ethno-religious tribe in the age of apocalypse, his prophesied return would be so remarkable it's very likely to be mentioned in the Book of Revelation: The Bride, The Lamb
Therefore, I contend that the Lamb's wife is a figurative noun to describe Christendom; but it's also a metaphor to describe the Bride of Christ in a literal sense. Such a bride would symbolically represent the Church of Christ & Body of Christ (or Christendom), as she would issue from the European line of Christendom.
Hence, the Bride is both literal and symbolic.
Consequently, we know that Jesus' race & ethnic identity cannot be European at the time of the Second Coming; otherwise, marriage of the lamb would be so unremarkable, it would go unmentioned in the Book of Revelation: The Book of Revelation: The Seven Dooms: 2. The Marriage of the Lamb
Therefore, Jesus and his bride will belong to different races & ethno-religious identity at the time of the Second Coming.
However, such a threat could well be mitigated by hiding Jesus' marriage; and such a threat can be null and void, if Jesus' line were to be amalgamated with the "established aristocracy across the entire known world".
But assuming the Church had good reason to cover up Jesus' marriage in the 1st century CE (assuming our theory is correct), one can only conclude that the purpose of Jesus' mission was NOT to establish a dynasty on earth (at least not in a conspicuous sense); but instead, we know his mission was to establish a spiritual kingdom, which is the religion called Christianity.
However, if Marriage of the Lamb is to figure prominently in the Book of Revelation, such an event would be so remarkable we must therefore conclude the Second Coming of Christ would have express purpose to establish a DYNASTIC foundation on earth; a dynasty which would reign for a thousand years according to Zechariah 14:9 & Revelation 20:6:
Zechariah 14:9 KJV - And the LORD shall be king over all the - Bible Gateway
Revelation 20:6 KJV - Blessed and holy is he that hath part - Bible Gateway
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
XIII-Legion
Member
But why is the Bride of Christ so prominent in Revelation, unless it's so remarkable it will most certainly catch one's eye?
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What has revelation got to do with anything mate?
We are talking about Jesus life, not the Old Testament.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
I skimmed though the posts, someone said something about them not mentioning anyone going to the bathroom in the Bible.
I made that mistake once, and yes, there is scripture of such event.
If the actual way it was worded comes to me, I will google for the scripture.
I tried and got nowhere, but did find this, someone asked on yahoo if jesus ever went to the bathroom
, its pretty funny on the replies, specially the chuck norris one
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070420011029AAXEeU7
But yes, there is an actual scripture of someone who was not there because he was doing his business, so they waited on him to return or something like that.
Some please find it, it there
I made that mistake once, and yes, there is scripture of such event.
If the actual way it was worded comes to me, I will google for the scripture.
I tried and got nowhere, but did find this, someone asked on yahoo if jesus ever went to the bathroom
, its pretty funny on the replies, specially the chuck norris one
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070420011029AAXEeU7
But yes, there is an actual scripture of someone who was not there because he was doing his business, so they waited on him to return or something like that.
Some please find it, it there
Last edited:
XIII-Legion
Member
But I'm talking about the Book of Revelation, which is the New Testament.
Based on what we seem to 'know' about Jesus' life in the Gospels (which happened in the 1st century CE), what do you think one should infer about his future life in the age of apocalypse (which will happen at some point in the future)?
Can you not see the parallels of history in this example; and how Jesus' life in the 1st century CE can be compared to the Second Coming of Christ? And how the Gospels might be compared to Book of Revelation to infer what could well happen in a future sense; namely, the Second Coming of Christ would in some respects be similar to Jesus' life in the 1st century CE?
Whether or not Jesus had a wife and child in the 1st century CE is also relevant to the Second Coming of Christ (which will happen in a future sense), and the events surrounding the age of apocalypse.
By conjecture, such comparison between Jesus' life in the 1st century CE and the Second Coming is a relevant point, which no righteous person can deny.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I skimmed though the posts, someone said something about them not mentioning anyone going to the bathroom in the Bible.
I made that mistake once, and yes, there is scripture of such event.
If the actual way it was worded comes to me, I will google for the scripture.
I tried and got nowhere, but did find this, someone asked on yahoo if jesus ever went to the bathroom
, its pretty funny on the replies, specially the chuck norris one
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070420011029AAXEeU7
But yes, there is an actual scripture of someone who was not there because he was doing his business, so they waited on him to return or something like that.
Some please find it, it there
That's hilarious, thanks for that.
The Bible didn't come from the West, you know. The first person to enumerate the list of the books of the New Testament that matches perfectly what we have today was St. Athanasius of Alexandria, in Egypt. The Romans weren't the first ones to have the NT as we have it today. Assuming that every Christian development happened in Western Europe and in the Roman Church is exceedingly naive and uneducated. All the heavy lifting and debate and developments were happening in the East, not in the West. The Ecumenical Councils never had more than a tiny handful of Western representatives in comparison to the dozens and hundreds of bishops and representatives from the East, and every single one of these Ecumenical Councils were all held in the East.
You act as if the Byzantine Empire was pagan or Muslim. It wasn't. The Byzantines produced just as many Bibles as the West, if not many more. Further, the Byzantine laypeople were actually able to understand the Bible, since it was written in a language they could understand, as opposed to Western Europe being almost wholly unable to understand the Latin translations of the Bible beyond the 500's.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Thanks, your are correct. It is not always easy to see past our own ethnocentricities. I was indeed lookingat it from the perspective of Catholicism, rather than the broader diaspora.