Jesus was ever married?

[Awoon]

It is hinted he was in Matt. 8:14:yes:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Three times.

 

[outhouse]

ex wife wanted half his divinity in the divorce.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

ex wife wanted half his divinity in the divorce.

*****

 

[Awoon]

She probaly died.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

She probaly died.

Ya think!

 

[Awoon]

Ya think!

Yep. You got anything other then that for an answer?

Instead of trolling?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yep. You got anything other then that for an answer?

I already told you.

Jesus was married three times.

 

[Awoon]

Well give the scriptures.

 

[outhouse]

It is hinted he was in Matt. 8:14:yes:

peters wifes mother

 

[Awoon]

peters wifes mother

The hint is, it could be Jesus' Mother in law also.

 

[Breathe]

I heard it on History channel (I think, can't remember) that there was an opinion that the wedding in Canaan was Jesus' own. Whether or not this is a widely held view, I don't really know. I thought it was an interesting idea, but if so, why would they write Jesus was invited? He would have obviously been invited to his own wedding.

However, I believe he would have been married. An unmarried Jewish male at 30 years old in the first millennium (who wasn't an Essene) would probably have drawn a few eyebrows. It would raise a few eyebrows today for someone to be a single virgin at 30 years old in today's society.

I have no idea how you (Awoon) get Jesus being married from Matthew 8:14 though.

The hint is, it could be Jesus' Mother in law also.

How did you get this idea?

 

[doppelganger]

peters wifes mother

There's an ambiguous use of pronouns in the KJV. There's no explanation why Jesus's mother-in-law would be in Peter's house. So it seems more reasonable to interpret autos (translated "his" in KJV) penthera (wife's mother, mother in law) to refer to Peter, since his is the more recent noun used in the sentence prior to the pronoun "his" pertinent to the possession of a mother in law.

 

[outhouse]

There's an ambiguous use of pronouns in the KJV. There's no explanation why Jesus's mother-in-law would be in Peter's house. So it seems more reasonable to interpret autos (translated "his" in KJV) penthera (wife's mother, mother in law) to refer to Peter, since his is the more recent noun used in the sentence prior to the pronoun "his" pertinent to the possession of a mother in law.

thats what I said peters mother in law


jesus mother in law would have been edited out if it was so.

 

[doppelganger]

jesus mother in law would have been edited out if it was so.

That's pretty speculative. More likely there wouldn't have been the development of the creepy fascination with having to imagine Jesus as forever chaste had one of the authors written a wife into the story, and thus no arbitrary agenda that would require editing it out.

 

[Awoon]

There's an ambiguous use of pronouns in the KJV. There's no explanation why Jesus's mother-in-law would be in Peter's house. So it seems more reasonable to interpret autos (translated "his" in KJV) penthera (wife's mother, mother in law) to refer to Peter, since his is the more recent noun used in the sentence prior to the pronoun "his" pertinent to the possession of a mother in law.

Many scriptures in the Bible just start off on a subject or introduce characters without explaining any past.

 

[outhouse]

That's pretty speculative. More likely there wouldn't have been the development of the creepy fascination with having to imagine Jesus as forever chaste had one of the authors written a wife into the story, and thus no arbitrary agenda that would require editing it out.

well its pretty obvious if yashua was married it was not included.


Its obvious they never intended to write history but theology

 

[Awoon]

I heard it on History channel (I think, can't remember) that there was an opinion that the wedding in Canaan was Jesus' own. Whether or not this is a widely held view, I don't really know. I thought it was an interesting idea, but if so, why would they write Jesus was invited? He would have obviously been invited to his own wedding.

However, I believe he would have been married. An unmarried Jewish male at 30 years old in the first millennium (who wasn't an Essene) would probably have drawn a few eyebrows. It would raise a few eyebrows today for someone to be a single virgin at 30 years old in today's society.

I have no idea how you (Awoon) get Jesus being married from Matthew 8:14 though.



How did you get this idea?

The Aramaic scholar George Lamsa said that it was hinted by the language of Aramaic that Jesus could have been married. And like you said, a 30 year old unmarried Rabbi in the 1st millenium would have raised a few eyebrows.

 

[doppelganger]

Many scriptures in the Bible just start off on a subject or introduce characters without explaining any past.

True, but the grammatical convention of using possessive pronouns to refer to the most recent person mentioned before the pronoun supports that it is probably meant to be a reference to Peter and not Jesus.

I took my dog over to see Dr. Williams and his x-ray machine.

It's probably safe to assume that I did not intend to state my dog has an x-ray machine, and having interposed another entity before using the possessive pronoun "his" I would probably write "my dog's x-ray machine" to avoid ambiguity.


That's not to say I have an opinion one way or the other as to whether the character of Jesus was married in any of the stories about him. Just that Matt. 8:14 isn't a very good argument for the position that he did.

 

[outhouse]

Many scriptures in the Bible just start off on a subject or introduce characters without explaining any past.

doesnt matter, you know your reading into something that flat isnt there.

why your pulling this is beyond me :slap: