Was Jesus Married? It's either yes or no.

[Katzpur]

Or it is evidence that they have not bought into the Watchtowers version of Jesus....

Bingo! We have a winner.

 

[Katzpur]

Why would you try to humanize Jesus. You see How could you make the pure un-pure like us so you can make yourself feel godly

I've always been of the opinion that Catholics believe Jesus to be both fully God and fully man. We can neither humanize or deify Him beyond what He actually is.

 

[Peter Stone]

Jesus shows you how to be true love. Most living in true love can feel pain, very alone and empty. In our society we call this a disorder cause we are so scared of true love and it is so hard to accomplish on our own. That is why he built his church to look like heaven and have statues of the saints as they are in heaven we ask them to join us in prayer to guide us on how to do as he did through his apostolic succession appointed by him. The beast like instincts accepts our desires and emotions as our way. We always fulfill our desires and allow our feelings of our body to manipulate our minds that it is true love and it becomes a false nourishment for our lives. In fact this animal instinct inside us destroys lives without any regard to anything but our own self wants. This is what Jesus teaches us is sin. Not to feel guilty about sin. But to use sin as the dirt that needs clean and as a guideline to correction. Like I believe I go to heaven if I stay as close to this path of true love

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

At that time you would be on very strong ground to believe a teacher like Jesus would be married.
There is nothing in the bible that establishes that he was certainly single.
Mary Magelene is a very strong candidate for the role if he was indeed married.
As he journeyd arround preaching , teaching and healing, he effectively took a household with him which included more than one woman. Were he married there would be no difficulty having other women accompanying his "wife".
However as a single man, and religious teacher, it would have been difficult to have unmarried women in his entourage with out stirring up no little comment.... and we have no record of any at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am amazed at how much some folks pretend to know about the practices and taboos governing early 1st century Jewish sect leaders.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am amazed at how much some folks pretend to know about the practices and taboos governing early 1st century Jewish sect leaders.

Even on the ground that human nature has not changed that much over time. I can not imagine any sect leader going around preaching against sin, and taking with him a bevy of females, would be taken very seriously, 1st century jewish or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even on the ground that human nature has not changed that much over time. I can not imagine any sect leader going around preaching against sin, and taking with him a bevy of females, would be taken very seriously, 1st century jewish or not.

Never knew that Jesus traveled with a bevy of females but, then again, I've never believed in the authenticity of much that was proclaimed in the epistles and gospels.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

No links? I figured. You blow a lot of hot air, you know that?

For someone who speaks English, he has the simplest trouble digesting simple English words it seems.
The simplest ones!
But then again someone who believes rape n murder to be moral could go to any lengths to protect his religion that speaks to eating live men.

 

[Katzpur]

I am amazed at how much some folks pretend to know about the practices and taboos governing early 1st century Jewish sect leaders.

I'm sure you're right, Jay. Seriously, I'd appreciate your educating us. All I know is the little I've read, but there really isn't a lot of information out there, so your insights would be worthwhile to hear.

 

[Deeje]

I not saying he denied that mission, just the opposite, I'm saying he invented it.

On what basis can you make such a claim? How does Paul invent Jesus' mission when Jesus himself declared it? (Matthew 20:28)

Paul said whatever was expedient. To wit:

But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath.
--- Romans 4:4

How can you take a grab like that out of context (and from a poor translation) and attribute a completely different meaning to it. Read the whole chapter and the one before. Paul is not saying what you think he is saying.

Rom 4:2-8:
"...if Abraham was declared righteous as a result of works, he would have reason to boast, but not with God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the man who works, his pay is not counted as an undeserved kindness but as something owed to him. 5 On the other hand, to the man who does not work but puts faith in the One who declares the ungodly one righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness. 6 Just as David also speaks of the happiness of the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Happy are those whose lawless deeds have been pardoned and whose sins have been covered; 8 happy is the man whose sin Jehovah will by no means take into account.”

Paul is here speaking of lawless (ungodly) ones (Gentiles) being able to have their sins forgiven on the basis of their faith in the blood of Christ. They could not earn this free gift, but could show their appreciation for it by how they conducted themselves. It wasn't an excuse for the "once saved always saved" mentality.
His mention of Abraham (a man who lived before there was a law) shows that bedience to the law is not what saves a person....it is "faith" backed up by works that means salvation.

James also wrote that our faith is what prompts works. It is a natural consequence of faith to act in harmony with it at all times.
James 2:
"Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?"
"Nevertheless, someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
"You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone"
"Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Paul did not contradict this, but highlighted that salvation was not for Jews only. People of the nations could also put faith in Christ and have their sins forgiven. Salvation cannot be earned, but it cannot be taken for granted either.

The number of the beast, "six-hundred threescore and six" (NOT the number in anachronistic arabic numerals, 666) is Jewish Gematria for Tarsus. "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast". And I didn't arrive at this myself, rather it came from a group of modern day Ebionim--the name taken by some of the early Jewish followers of Jesus, who like Jesus' brother James and the Jewish Jerusalem Church, were in opposition/enmity with Paul--one of whom I'm sure wrote that portion of Revelation.

Is this your personal view? Do you know how many interpretations there are of this intriguing number 666? God will let us know soon enough, because we are getting ever closer to the situation that Noah found himself in....immorality and violence are everywhere. Jesus said it would be just like the days of Noah when he would come again. (Matthew 24:37-39) Who is listening?

Yes. And btw, sainthood is a sham, at least those determined by religious bureaucracies. That said, certainly some were.

I actually agree with you on this one. Where does it say that humans can lobby God for someone to be made a 'saint'? God is the one who chooses them, he doesn't need any help from us.

 

[Brian Schuh]

No one has answered my question yet, which is the best question yet-- what does any of this have to do with the price of condoms in a Korean brothel?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Mary Magdalena was the wife of Jesus. If she wasn't, then Jesus sinned by allowing her to wash his feet with her hair and anointing his head. Judas Iscariot did not object to her touching him, but objected to the "waste" of expensive perfume. If they weren't married, he would have objected to her touching him. Any woman, try to shake the hand of a rabbi. He will flip out. It is common knowledge, no woman touches a rabbi except his wife and only at right time of month.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sure you're right, Jay. Seriously, I'd appreciate your educating us. All I know is the little I've read, but there really isn't a lot of information out there, so your insights would be worthwhile to hear.

I doubt it.

I think that one of the better works is by Lawrence Schiffman's From Text to Tradition but, even here, information is sketchy and focuses heavily on theological differences. The problem is that we tend to have, at best, a binary view of 2nd Temple Period Judaism -- one is either a prototypical Sadducee or a Prototypical Pharisee, with both prototypes being mere caricatures. Closer to the truth would be to envision an apocalyptic cacophony, with multiple sects bemoaning the end of times and with each sect convinced that it held the key to salvation. The idea of some normative rabbi reflecting rabbinic traditions (only to be found half a millennium later in the Talmud) is both simplistic and anachronistic.

So, was Jesus married? I don't know. Neither do those who claim otherwise.

 

[blue taylor]

No Y'shua ben Yoseph was not married in the traditional sense,
he was partnered with his boyfriend James ... John 19:26,

According to King James the 1st, John was the lover of Jesus.

 

[Katzpur]

The idea of some normative rabbi reflecting rabbinic traditions (only to be found half a millennium later in the Talmud) is both simplistic and anachronistic.

That's too bad. I was hoping for something more definitive, but I guess it that were the case, this matter would have been laid to rest a long time ago.

So, was Jesus married? I don't know. Neither do those who claim otherwise.

True, but as you know, a lot of people on this forum like to insist that there's an answer to every question, and more often than not, they have it and nobody else does.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

How can you take a grab like that out of context (and from a poor translation) and attribute a completely different meaning to it. Read the whole chapter and the one before. Paul is not saying what you think he is saying.

So, not only do you declare that the Bible is the revealed word of God, because the Bible says it is, but you declare which translation is the "correct" one. Look at all the people going to hell because God didn't prevent all those mistranslations. That's just one of the many problems with the revealed word--the first being is that it was written by men. I don't believe that God is the sadist the idea of hell makes God out to be. But I believe that the men who invented it are.


“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”

—Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

 

[Deeje]

So, not only do you declare that the Bible is the revealed word of God, because the Bible says it is, but you declare which translation is the "correct" one.

Yep, I believe that the Bible is the word of God and I don't think that the being who authored it (with the power to create the universe) allows men to tamper with his message.

Look at all the people going to hell because God didn't prevent all those mistranslations. That's just one of the many problems with the revealed word--the first being is that it was written by men. I don't believe that God is the sadist the idea of hell makes God out to be. But I believe that the men who invented it are.

Guess what? I kind of agree with you again. I don't think there are a heap of mistranslations, just some really poor ones....but the message is still there even in them.

“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”

—Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Beautiful! What a shame most people are blind.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I was hoping for something more definitive, but I guess it that were the case, this matter would have been laid to rest a long time ago.

Yep.

... as you know, a lot of people on this forum like to insist that there's an answer to every question, and more often than not, they have it and nobody else does.

To once again paraphrase H. L. Mencken: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yep, I believe that the Bible is the word of God and I don't think that the being who authored it (with the power to create the universe) allows men to tamper with his message.

But you said it was a poor translation (Living Bible BTW). Do I need to come to you from now on to determine which translations in which languages maintain divine inerrancy? And how do you know which? And how do I know to believe you instead of Joe Blow who says different than you.

Guess what? I kind of agree with you again. I don't think there are a heap of mistranslations, just some really poor ones....but the message is still there even in them.

So God allows "really poor" translations? But one mistranslation could mislead millions to eternal hellfire

Beautiful!

Exactly. In fact, one could even say divinely inspired.

What a shame most people are blind.

Well as you know, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Jesus said to judge not lest you be judged. But then in the next sentence warns us not to cast our pearls before swine. True enough, but how do we know who the swine are unless we make judgements?

 

[Deeje]

But you said it was a poor translation (Living Bible BTW). Do I need to come to you from now on to determine which translations in which languages maintain divine inerrancy? And how do you know which? And how do I know to believe you instead of Joe Blow who says different than you.

I use Biblegateway.com personally. I determine how all the various translations render a verse or passage, and then I go to Strongs to determine whether the words have been rendered correctly and in keeping with their original meanings. I love to study and this is all part of my own spiritual journey.

So God allows "really poor" translations? But one mistranslation could mislead millions to eternal hellfire

I have no belief in hellfire. The Bible does not teach this at all. There is only life and death, not heaven or hell. That is Christendom's idea...it is no teaching of Jesus.

And most Bible translation published by Christendom's scholars are "poor" translations in many cases. Bias towards their own doctrines has them rendering some words in ways that support the lies that were introduced centuries ago when the church fell into apostasy. This was foretold by Jesus and the apostles, so its no surprise.
It is God who draws people to the truth. (John 6:44) Those who love the lies are permitted to keep their delusion. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Exactly. In fact, one could even say divinely inspired.

LOL I wouldn't go that far. But it was well written.

Well as you know, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I couldn't agree more. But there are those who are "blind" who are walking around "seeing" all sorts of things that aren't there....what do you call that? Delusion?

Jesus said to judge not lest you be judged. But then in the next sentence warns us not to cast our pearls before swine. True enough, but how do we know who the swine are unless we make judgements?

Yep, we are not to make personal judgments about other people, but that doesn't mean we don't need to judge between what is true and what is false about our beliefs. In order to make an informed decision about anything, we need to hear all points of view and then we will have the tools to make those life and death decisions. After all, there are only "sheep" and "goats" in the world when Jesus comes as judge, so our decisions really are 'life and death'.