Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Nova]

This is all as silly as saying He was capable of sin because of his humanity.

Well, some of the early gospel writers didn't think that question was silly at all. Whether Jesus was free from sin was a subject for debate.

The Gospels weren't just randomly selected in the 4th Century, they were chose in part because they were in widespread use in Christian communities from the very beginning.

Yes, and they were chosen because their message was the one preferred by the Nicaean Council. Nobody says their inclusion was random.

The Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit, who came upon them as "tongues of fire." The Gospels are God inspired, there is no human error.

So you're saying God couldn't remember whether Jesus spent three hours on the cross (Mark) or six (John)?

You cannot find even a loose translation claiming Jesus was married with children.

Not in the NT. But there were other gospels. Don't some of them suggest he was married to Mary M?

Skeptics and non-believers will give credibility to anything that can justify their belief system.

Thanks to you and Maral, I have read many, many websites over the past two days. The "cherry-picking" accusation works just as well for discussions claiming the NT gospels are historical fact.

Saying He wasn't resurrected is blasphemy, however, and Christians shouldn't have to like it.

Of course you don't have to like it, but Christians far closer to Jesus in time and place than you and I also doubted the resurrection. In fact the resurrection doesn't even appear in Q, the lost gospel upon which most of the synoptic gospels were based.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

His public ministry was all that mattered, and that was pretty well covered by God-inspired writers.

It seems obvious that his public ministry mattered less than his birth, death, and resurrection. He was accepted as the Christ not because of his miracles (the apostles later performed the same miracles) but because of what was interpreted to be fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning birth and death of a future messiah.

His Mother was more of a companion to Him than any other woman throughout scripture.

What do you base that statement on? His mother traveled with him some, and visited him some, but so did other women who apparently weren't related to him by birth. Do you have a scripture that you depend on for saying that Mary was his closest female companion?

In Jesus day a married man could have brought his bride into his parents' home and lived together there with extended family.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, some of the early gospel writers didn't think that question was silly at all. Whether Jesus was free from sin was a subject for debate.



Yes, and they were chosen because their message was the one preferred by the Nicaean Council. Nobody says their inclusion was random.



So you're saying God couldn't remember whether Jesus spent three hours on the cross (Mark) or six (John)?



Not in the NT. But there were other gospels. Don't some of them suggest he was married to Mary M?



Thanks to you and Maral, I have read many, many websites over the past two days. The "cherry-picking" accusation works just as well for discussions claiming the NT gospels are historical fact.



Of course you don't have to like it, but Christians far closer to Jesus in time and place than you and I also doubted the resurrection. In fact the resurrection doesn't even appear in Q, the lost gospel upon which most of the synoptic gospels were based.

I think Q was from His Mother. Only she would have known the things that are in scripture, such as being lost in the temple, His birth, etc. Scripture says she kept all of these things that happened to him close to her heart and made note of them. Only she could have. So she is Q in my opinion, FWIW.

 

[PaperDoll]

Really? Cool. Please fill us in on what Jesus was doing from age 12 to age 30. I've never encountered anyone who could do that.

You must have misread my post.. I said we don't have all the details of his life on earth.. The way I view why Jesus was here is that God sent him to die for our sins and to point the way to Him.. If people want to believe that Jesus was a married man, so be it.. I personally don't believe it.. Like I said, he was a smart man..hehe...

 

[Nova]

I think Q was from His Mother. Only she would have known the things that are in scripture, such as being lost in the temple, His birth, etc. Scripture says she kept all of these things that happened to him close to her heart and made not of them. Only she could have. So she is Q in my opinion, FWIW.

Interesting theory, DK, and I like your rationale. Whether His Mother was literate doesn't matter because she could have dictated her account to a scribe.

 

[Nova]

You must have misread my post.. I said we don't have all the details of his life on earth.. The way I view why Jesus was here is that God sent him to die for our sins and to point the way to Him.. If people want to believe that Jesus was a married man, so be it.. I personally don't believe it.. Like I said, he was a smart man..hehe...

LOL.

Paper, I thought you were saying that everything about Jesus could be deduced from his purpose. I was just pointing out that we still have that gap...

As I've said, I don't care if Jesus was married (or even whether he was resurrected bodily). But I'm not going to think of him as married without better evidence than The Da Vinci Code.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Are you just as disappointed with all ancient manuscripts where we only have copies of the originals?

I think you are asking me about all the world's ancient manuscripts and not just the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, so I'll answer in that vein.

I've not studied about all ancient manuscripts but I have studied about those whose copies have been included into the New Testament. Not all the world's ancient manuscripts or their surviving copies are claimed to be the inerrant, inspired word of God, as I'm sure you well know. The modern NT is claimed to be inerrant.

I was surprised and disappointed to find that there are no original NT documents that have survived, and that there are others mentioned in the NT that are missing entirely (such as the Laodocean letter and the first letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians). I was further disappointed to learn that the first NT canon wasn't collected for 200 years after the death of Jesus, and that it was produced by Marcion who was later declared a heretic for Gnosticism. A canon put together in Rome in response to Marcion's wasn't identical to the one we have today, either; it left out Hebrews, 1&2 Peter, 3 John but did include the Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

I was also disappointed to learn that both errors and intentional editings were made when NT documents were copied over the centuries.

 

[narlacat]

LOL.

Paper, I thought you were saying that everything about Jesus could be deduced from his purpose. I was just pointing out that we still have that gap...

As I've said, I don't care if Jesus was married (or even whether he was resurrected bodily). But I'm not going to think of him as married without better evidence than The Da Vinci Code.

Try the Book of Urantia (least that book gives him a bit of a life)

 

[PaperDoll]

LOL.

Paper, I thought you were saying that everything about Jesus could be deduced from his purpose. I was just pointing out that we still have that gap...

As I've said, I don't care if Jesus was married (or even whether he was resurrected bodily). But I'm not going to think of him as married without better evidence than The Da Vinci Code.

LOL :blowkiss: hehe, I agree, I'm not going to believe the evidence that the Da Vinci Code is protraying.. There is a gap that we don't know about.. But I'm going to believe it's not important for me to know otherwise God would have inspired someone to write about it ... Jesus didn't start his mission until his adult years... He died at 33 of age?? (I think??) hum..

 

[Maral]

Thanks to you and Maral, I have read many, many websites over the past two days. The "cherry-picking" accusation works just as well for discussions claiming the NT gospels are historical fact.

Nova, where is the "cherry-picking"? The vast majority of ancient historians and scholars agree that the events in the NT are factual. It is considered a historical fact that a man named Jesus was born and died. It is considered a fact that this man claimed to be the Son of God. Whether or not one chooses to believe this claim is a matter of faith. But it is a fact that this claim was made. It is considered a historical fact that His tomb was empty and He appeared to many people after His death. It is a matter of faith to believe that He was resurrected.

 

[Nova]

LOL :blowkiss: hehe, I agree, I'm not going to believe the evidence that the Da Vinci Code is protraying.. There is a gap that we don't know about.. But I'm going to believe it's not important for me to know otherwise God would have inspired someone to write about it ... Jesus didn't start his mission until his adult years... He died at 33 of age?? (I think??) hum..

That sounds about right.

And as we know, married men live longer!

 

[Dark Knight]

LOL :blowkiss: hehe, I agree, I'm not going to believe the evidence that the Da Vinci Code is protraying.. There is a gap that we don't know about.. But I'm going to believe it's not important for me to know otherwise God would have inspired someone to write about it ... Jesus didn't start his mission until his adult years... He died at 33 of age?? (I think??) hum..

Exactly. (And yes, he died and resurrected at 33.) And via Apostolic succession, the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit as well at the Council of Nicea.

 

[Nova]

Nova, where is the "cherry-picking"? The vast majority of ancient historians and scholars agree that the events in the NT are factual. It is considered a historical fact that a man named Jesus was born and died. It is considered a fact that this man claimed to be the Son of God. Whether or not one chooses to believe this claim is a matter of faith. But it is a fact that this claim was made. It is considered a historical fact that His tomb was empty and He appeared to many people after His death. It is a matter of faith to believe that He was resurrected.

First, with regard to whether a man named Jesus was born and died, here is an interesting discussion on the problems with considering that a fact:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/review1.htm


As for the "vast majority of ancient historians and scholars" agreeing that the events in the NT are factual, I have to ask which events? If you mean the reign of Herod, sure. But if you mean the shepherds visited by angels, I think not.

Here's another site that looks at what we DON'T have with regards to a historical Jesus (i.e., any accounts from his time):

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


As for the cherry-picking of apologist sites to which I referred, I didn't keep all the links. Let me find some of them and I'll post again.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I think Q was from His Mother. Only she would have known the things that are in scripture, such as being lost in the temple, His birth, etc.

Jesus was "lost in the temple" for 3 days before he was found by his parents who had turned back from their company of relatives and friends returning home from the Passover in Jerusalem. Everyone who was amazed at Jesus' teaching in the temple would have known that story. Everyone who was related to Jesus would have heard it, too, and so would the friends traveling with him & his parents.

His birth, according the gospel writers, was known to the families of Mary & Joseph, to the shepherds who told spread the word of what they'd learned, to the wise men who visited 2 years later, to Herod who was told by the wise men, to the army that Herod sent out to kill all the male children in Bethlehem, etc.

Oral traditions about Jesus were repeated for years before any gospel was written down.

Scripture says she kept all of these things that happened to him close to her heart and made not of them. Only she could have.

I'm not familiar with the "made not of them" part. Which translation do you refer to?

 

[Dark Knight]

First, with regard to whether a man named Jesus was born and died, here is an interesting discussion on the problems with considering that a fact:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/review1.htm


As for the "vast majority of ancient historians and scholars" agreeing that the events in the NT are factual, I have to ask which events? If you mean the reign of Herod, sure. But if you mean the shepherds visited by angels, I think not.

Here's another site that looks at what we DON'T have with regards to a historical Jesus (i.e., any accounts from his time):

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


As for the cherry-picking of apologist sites to which I referred, I didn't keep all the links. Let me find some of them and I'll post again.

You're taking a page from the WOVC Book of Sources! You are referring us to a website of "freethinkers?" for unbiased information on Jesus??????????

 

[Dark Knight]

Jesus was "lost in the temple" for 3 days before he was found by his parents who had turned back from their company of relatives and friends returning home from the Passover in Jerusalem. Everyone who was amazed at Jesus' teaching in the temple would have known that story. Everyone who was related to Jesus would have heard it, too, and so would the friends traveling with him & his parents.

His birth, according the gospel writers, was known to the families of Mary & Joseph, to the shepherds who told spread the word of what they'd learned, to the wise men who visited 2 years later, to Herod who was told by the wise men, to the army that Herod sent out to kill all the male children in Bethlehem, etc.

Oral traditions about Jesus were repeated for years before any gospel was written down.



I'm not familiar with the "made not of them" part. Which translation do you refer to?

"Q" is a single source, if it/they exists, not a multitude of sources. "Q" may VERY well have been Christ, Himself! You don't think He sat around telling stories about His growing up to the Apostles once in awhile? At least what He felt was relevant?

 

[Nova]

You're taking a page from the WOVC Book of Sources! You are referring us to a website of "freethinkers?" for unbiased information on Jesus??????????

Sorry, DK, I don't now what "WOVC" means. (ETA: Never mind. I got it. Personally, I'm all for "freethinking.")

I didn't say these sites were "unbiased," I said they raise interesting problems re the historicity of Jesus.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

"Q" is a single source, if it/they exists, not a multitude of sources. "Q" may VERY well have been Christ, Himself! You don't think He sat around telling stories about His growing up to the Apostles once in awhile? At least what He felt was relevant?

Quelle ("Q") may have been a single source, but that doesn't mean Q didn't gather information from many sources.

I don't know if he told stories about his growing up to the 12 or not, but if he did the stories aren't recorded in the gospels. In the same light, do you think he might have been married but those stories aren't recorded in the gospels, either?

Remember, too, that Jesus had brothers who became believers and leaders of the Church, James foremost among them. His brothers would know stories about him, stories which were oral before they were recorded by Q, or the other gospel writers.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

Scripture says she kept all of these things that happened to him close to her heart and made not of them. Only she could have.

What scripture says that Mary "made not of them"?

 

[Nova]

Question to DK or Maral: what does the Catholic church make of Jesus' brothers? I know the church doesn't think them the biological children of Mary.