Was Jesus a regular Jewish Man Complete with Wife?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

New documentary fragment.

Hard lines, perhaps, on some Christian believers, but early Christian bishops were clearly married. St. Augustine was bishop of Ephesus and was married with nine children. Probably had a well known example.

In the article, some protestant clergyman in the U.S. seems to be affronted. Why, I cannot imagine.

[Meg 368]

Apparently the reasoning goes something like this:

"If Jesus had a wife, then there is nothing extra Christian about male privilege, nothing spiritually dangerous about the sexuality of women, and no reason for anyone to deny himself or herself a sexual identity."

It seems to me all of those things are true whether Jesus had a wife or not.

[Jim14409 448]

The article is just another of many attempts down through the centuries to try and invalidate the Bible so that sinful people can be free of the pricks of their conscience. Discerning Christians know truth from error and most words put forth today in the name of Christian are just the opposite.

Things we don't understand don't put us in our best light when commented on. Spiritual things are not comprehended with a carnal mind.

[hym 358]

How is this in anyway invalidating the Bible?

[krbe 193]

Probably because people become scared this might unsettle the guilt regime.

Real Christians know that the passages about sin are far more important than any mention of "love".

[Meg 368]

How is this in anyway invalidating the Bible?

i was wondering the same thing. But I'll take a go at it . . .

If Jesus was married and the Bible doesn't mention it, that means that the political committee that assembled the Bible left out something important. If they left out something like that, what else did they leave out?

hmm . . that doesn't make sense to me because I don't see what difference it makes whether he was married or not.

I'll leave it to someone else to explain.

[krbe 193]

We've known this for a long time (I think one of the apocryphical or Gnostic gospels have been talking about this already). The problem is not so much what's in the Bible or not, but if we are to accept that Jesus walked upon this Earth, which texts are authentic? The Bible itself must rather be likened to a school curriculum or a national cultural canon; there will be plenty left out and what's left will be riddled with the largest group's bias and on the whole it'll be the lowest common denominator between every group with a vested interest in its content.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem is that nothing was written down about Jesus while he was still alive. As such, there are naturally going to be conflicting tales about him since when you rely on oral tradition everyone who tells the story is going to spin it to suit themselves, even if the reason is as simple as "because the story sounds cooler that way". This is how you get stories about a man literally "walking on water" when it would be far more logical to take that phrase as a figure of speech, and other such supernatural tales.

This sort of stuff is, of course, studied out of academic interest. There really are no spirtual implications unless you are a biblical literalist.

[Meg 368]

The problem is that nothing was written down about Jesus while he was still alive. As such, there are naturally going to be conflicting tales about him since when you rely on oral tradition everyone who tells the story is going to spin it to suit themselves, even if the reason is as simple as "because the story sounds cooler that way". This is how you get stories about a man literally "walking on water" when it would be far more logical to take that phrase as a figure of speech, and other such supernatural tales.

This sort of stuff is, of course, studied out of academic interest. There really are no spirtual implications unless you are a biblical literalist.

I wouldn't go that far. Parables, for instance, can convey a "moral to the story" just like Aesop's fables can.

Once I got into an argument about whether the story of Jonas and the whale comes from the bible or from Aesop. I was saying it's from Aesop but I suddenly realized I was arguing with a man who knows the bible a whole lot better than I do. I stopped arguing.

[Cockatoo 2,257]

The article is just another of many attempts down through the centuries to try and invalidate the Bible so that sinful people can be free of the pricks of their conscience.

I'd like to know your definition of "sinful" in the context of this situation.

Although I don't subscribe to the concept of "sins" myself, I can't understand how pricks on a person’s contentious, or perceived "sins", could be removed by invalidating (in their mind) a particular part of a book.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I dare say we've 'pricked' at least one fundamentalist. Sin is very hard to do. It is not casual and takes intention and planning.

Let him who is without sin cast the first aspersion.

[hym 358]

Sin is very hard to do. It is not casual and takes intention and planning.

This is one opinion on the issue. To many:

-Sin can be committed intentionally

-Sin can be committed unintentionally (and is just as serious as when it is committed intentionally)

-Sin is a state of existence. Even if you follow the Bible perfectly, you are still a sinner.

[Alejandro24 575]

If Jesus had a wife is nothing surprising. Actually, isn't surprising to know if He had sons. It was the life of the people in that time.

But all this investigations of the historical Jesus shouldn't affect the perception of the religous Jesus. As a catholic/christian you're following his teachings, not his way of life. The objective of the gospels are to pick all that teachings and spread it to the world, not other thing.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Quite true. One has to realize that the "word of God" was carefully selected by religious scholars, and none of it is verbatim, even of the authors. Because it is written in ancient Greek and some of the original text may have survived, the Gospel According to St. Luke is probably the most reliable, but it was written many years after the Crucifixion.

If it comes to reading scripture, I prefer the original King James rendered uninterpreted into 19th century English. More recent editions take liberties with the translation from the Vulgate that I don't care for. But then, I like Shakespeare, too.

The issue raised by these scholars on the family life (or not) of Jesua bar Josea is not relevant to Christianity except as an example of the life of a devout Jew. St. Augustine's persuasion of the Church for a celibate priesthood was, in my humble opinion a great mistake. It certainly lead to the current cases of paedophilia and other obscenities. Augustine was married and had nine children, so one wonders if he was a little hen-pecked.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how you can sin unintentionally? I know it is doctrine, but I have a hard time with the idea. Knowing scripture has nothing to do with ethical behaviour. You certainly cannot commit a "mortal" sin by accident.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Time to rewatch "The Last Temptation of Christ." I remember that controversial 1988 movie creating a public firestorm and even a theater bombing because it dared to depict Nordic Jesus as being tempted by Satan's offered vision of a long, peaceful life married with children to Mary Magdalene, and watching helplessly as the early disciples manufacture a grandiose myth out of his own humbly accidental image. I also remember David Bowie as a particularly cynical yet cool Pontius Pilate dryly conveying a Roman variation of Metternichian realpolitiks: "You’re just another of these religious revolutionaries making difficulties....it simply doesn't matter how you want to change things; we don't want them changed." That mindset continues to sound ironically familiar...

Forunately for filmmaker Martin Scorcese, he did not have to go into permanent hiding alongside author Salman Rushdie, who drew a Iranian death fatwa for depicting Mohammed in The Satanic Verses as almost being tricked by Satan into slipping in a dangerous set of poison pill verses into the Koran, which would have altered it's meaning along with world history. Nowadays, for religious excitement and incitement, we have poorly-made movies on YouTube.

[hym 358]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how you can sin unintentionally? I know it is doctrine, but I have a hard time with the idea. Knowing scripture has nothing to do with ethical behaviour. You certainly cannot commit a "mortal" sin by accident.

If I were to be driving along and suddenly had to swerve to avoid hitting an obstacle in the road, and my action caused some other person to start swearing as a result, that would be an unintentional sin. I would have sinned by inducing another to sin.

But all this investigations of the historical Jesus shouldn't affect the perception of the religous Jesus. As a catholic/christian you're following his teachings, not his way of life. The objective of the gospels are to pick all that teachings and spread it to the world, not other thing.

The historical Jesus is of significance. Christianity holds that Jesus was both God and man. If Jesus had children, those kids would literally be half-gods.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, Venial sins are committed accidentally all the time.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@hym: You can only cause someone else to sin by counselling him/her to do so. Your belief is very close to Jainism.

[hym 358]

@hym: You can only cause someone else to sin by counselling him/her to do so. Your belief is very close to Jainism.

I used the first hypothetical example that happened to come to mind. As far as I'm concerned, the feasibility of unintentional sin is a non-issue.

[JanYpe 17]

Perhaps someone can explain to me how you can sin unintentionally? I know it is doctrine, but I have a hard time with the idea. Knowing scripture has nothing to do with ethical behaviour. You certainly cannot commit a "mortal" sin by accident.

If I were to be driving along and suddenly had to swerve to avoid hitting an obstacle in the road, and my action caused some other person to start swearing as a result, that would be an unintentional sin. I would have sinned by inducing another to sin.

But all this investigations of the historical Jesus shouldn't affect the perception of the religous Jesus. As a catholic/christian you're following his teachings, not his way of life. The objective of the gospels are to pick all that teachings and spread it to the world, not other thing.

The historical Jesus is of significance. Christianity holds that Jesus was both God and man. If Jesus had children, those kids would literally be half-gods.

By what reasoning would they be half-gods? I mean if this was like the Greek pantheon then fine, god + mortal= demigod. Always room for more gods in polytheism, just pull up a chair. Even if you're holding to a very literal Jesus and the historical guy matters as much or more than what made it into the New Testament, God would still be God and not grandpa YHWH.

[Alejandro24 575]

But all this investigations of the historical Jesus shouldn't affect the perception of the religous Jesus. As a catholic/christian you're following his teachings, not his way of life. The objective of the gospels are to pick all that teachings and spread it to the world, not other thing.

The historical Jesus is of significance. Christianity holds that Jesus was both God and man. If Jesus had children, those kids would literally be half-gods.

No, the historical Jesus has no siginifcance in the faith and religious issue. Again: If Jesus had a wife and sons is nothing surprising because that was the life in that time.

Now, if his sons were half-god's isn't outstanding, that concept doesn't exists in the christianity, so his sons were simple mortals in the eyes of God.

  Edited September 21, 2012 by Alejandro24  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If there are sons of Jesus it doesn't matter. The Christian definition of God is that the presence resides in the individual and is not passed on. According to scripture, this has only happened once. One should look into the properties of the Soul/Spirit.

[hym 358]

By what reasoning would they be half-gods? I mean if this was like the Greek pantheon then fine, god + mortal= demigod. Always room for more gods in polytheism, just pull up a chair. Even if you're holding to a very literal Jesus and the historical guy matters as much or more than what made it into the New Testament, God would still be God and not grandpa YHWH.

Despite the fact that such an argument would have virtually no logical basis, and would be rejected by most, if not all, Christians, that would not stop the argument from being made.

No, the historical Jesus has no siginifcance in the faith and religious issue.

For the large part, the daily life of Jesus is of no relevance to religious issues concerning Jesus. However, there is not a complete disconnect between the two. Some things, like whether Jesus actually rose from the dead, do matter to the religious Jesus. Some things, such as whether he was married, have no significance to the religious Jesus. Some things, such as whether he had children, shouldn't matter but very likely would become an issue.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The only issue would be His issue. Beyond that, I think they would likely be Jewish boys and girls.

[Easy Bakes 253]

If there are sons of Jesus it doesn't matter. The Christian definition of God is that the presence resides in the individual and is not passed on. According to scripture, this has only happened once. One should look into the properties of the Soul/Spirit.

Besides Jesus was born from the immaculate conception,which no one has mentioned yet,He was a man/human for what ever reasons God chose when he was born, and if he did have a family you would think they would be normal people,another messiah would have a special birth as well.

[Duke87 1,070]

Christianity holds that Jesus was both God and man. If Jesus had children, those kids would literally be half-gods.

And if you mated him with a Ditto, then the children woud be full gods!

  Edited September 22, 2012 by Duke87  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Speaking of the Immaculate Conception introduces yet another mystery. A parthenogenic human could only be female. The male chromosome comes from the father. Christians accept a lot of stuff that makes no sense in science, but faith is always faith. The two are not incommensurate if you accept that mysterious things happen.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Was Jesus married, well Mary Magdalene is the person believed to be his wife.

Were there female disciples, it is generally believed to be so.

Is the bible the truth, probably not. The men that wrote it probably put in it what they wanted people to read.

Does any of this matter, not really.