• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christ Married?

maquiscat said:
The authors, yes, but what about the early church? We now know that there were many scriptures and gospels that the Niceed(SP?) Council didn't include. Why not edit as well?
Click to expand...

They rejected stuff that was not legit, and is known today to not be legit (stuff that was not written during the time claimed). They didn't "invent the canon". Paul's writing was Scripture when Peter wrote. That stuff is canon, always has been and always will be. The Council merely rejected a bunch of additional stuff that was up for consideration. Iirc, the council was more about doctrine than canon.

Let's not pretend like books and canon have changed since the early church. We have OT manuscripts from 300bc and confirmation of canon regarding the NT as early as the writing of Peter. The last person to write, John, completed his work around 100ad and it was canon upon entry. We have manuscripts of John and other canon as early as 200ad.

There are several 'mother lodes' of Scripture that date prior to the council, both OT and NT. At this point, the only questionable section (translation aside) is in John (and sometimes it's in Luke): 'let he who has not sinned throw the first stone'. That story's the only thing likely added to original/early manuscripts.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
The authors, yes, but what about the early church? We now know that there were many scriptures and gospels that the Niceed(SP?) Council didn't include.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is because they were not from the early church, but were rather written much later by the Gnostics. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, was written about two centuries later, and argues that women must "make themselves male" in order to be worthy of entering heaven.
 
So what if He was married to Mary Magdalene ....so what!

That doesn't change anything.
 
Mya said:
So what if He was married to Mary Magdalene ....so what!

That doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point but to many Christians who are engaged in blind faith it makes them have fits.
 
maquiscat said:
There is no reference to any part of his life between about 8 and 30. For that period that is more than enough time to have married and had kids and to have even lost them to sickness or tragedy.



For the full human experience. If you have a full direct God=Jesus, then why would you even bother to have the temptation in the desert or the whole issue of fear on the eve of his death? You also make an assumption that there was a widow or child to be left behind. If such an event(marriage) had occurred, why couldn't he be the widower? You also leave out the equally valid assumption that Jesus is not a fragment of the God Entity, but the very first of his creations, even before Lucifer and the universe. Thus all the more reason to fully experience being human including love, the temptations of lust and the loss of family. After all if God would do that or allow it to be done to Job, why not allow it also to Jesus?
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, Jesus had a 22 year period (starting when he was 8 years old) that he could have used to get married and start a family.....and then lose his children? Jesus losing his children would have been an interesting story.
 
American said:
Let me get this straight, Jesus had a 22 year period (starting when he was 8 years old) that he could have used to get married and start a family.....and then lose his children? Jesus losing his children would have been an interesting story.
Click to expand...

I agree, but that doesn't mean that someone recorded it. There are many interesting stories that happen in the lives of many people I know, but neither I nor others have bothered to record it. To be quite honest, I'm rather surprised that we even have the temple story.
 
maquiscat said:
I agree, but that doesn't mean that someone recorded it. There are many interesting stories that happen in the lives of many people I know, but neither I nor others have bothered to record it. To be quite honest, I'm rather surprised that we even have the temple story.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure someone would have mentioned that he had a wife and kids. It's a very significant detail.
 
Lokiate said:
Pretty sure someone would have mentioned that he had a wife and kids. It's a very significant detail.
Click to expand...

In the time, place, and culture in which Jesus lived, it would have been very, very unusual for a man to reach his age without being married. Unusual enough that if Jesus had failed to marry, then surely that would have been deemed worthy of mention.

Were any of his apostles married? Does the Bible tell us anything about that? Not directly. We know that Peter was married, only because there is an event involving his wife's mother; if not for that, many people today would probably assume that he was not, since no mention was otherwise made of it.
 
His cousin John wasn't married either.
 
And Jesus wasn't just a very, very unusual man; he was a unique man.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
In the time, place, and culture in which Jesus lived, it would have been very, very unusual for a man to reach his age without being married. Unusual enough that if Jesus had failed to marry, then surely that would have been deemed worthy of mention. Were any of his apostles married? Does the Bible tell us anything about that? Not directly. We know that Peter was married, only because there is an event involving his wife's mother; if not for that, many people today would probably assume that he was not, since no mention was otherwise made of it.
Click to expand...
Why was his wife never mentioned, then? All the key players in the Bible had wives who were mentioned. Abraham was married to Sarah, Lot's wife is mentioned, but not named in the Bible, but is believed to have been named Edith. Moses was married to Zipporah, Job's wife also mentioned, but not named. David was married to Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, and Bath Sheba, his son Solomon had 700 wives, and 300 concubines. The list goes on, even Zachariah's wife, Elizabeth, is named.

No mention of a wife for the pivotal figure of Christianity, though. We know about his mother, Joseph, his brothers and sisters, but no mention of any wife or children. I find it odd that they would have been excluded from mention, if he were married an had children.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
Why was his wife never mentioned, then?....
Click to expand...

is it not possible that the writers of the NT chose to leave out Christ's wife, so as to protray Jesus as single & a virgin, vindicating & promoting their view that a life of abstinence is the holier one?
 
Thunder said:
is it not possible that the writers of the NT chose to leave out Christ's wife, so as to protray Jesus as single & a virgin, vindicating & promoting their view that a life of abstinence is the holier one?
Click to expand...

Is it not possible that he just wasn't married, for whatever reason?
 
Lokiate said:
Of course, there's also 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, where Jesus states Just saying.
Click to expand...

Um dude that was Paul who said that not Jesus. Come on, really? ALL the letters are written after the resurrection by many years and mostly by Paul.
 
Thunder said:
yes, its possible that he chose a life of preaching & teaching, and felt marriage & fatherhood would just get in the way.
Click to expand...

So such an omission could mean that he wasn't. I don't question that the Bible has been altered throughout the ages, there's clear evidence of this, but erasing the family of who they believed to be God incarnate? That's pretty damn huge.
 
The accounts we have of Jesus' life were written down years after his death.

Could be a lot of things were altered, left out, and added to the account.
 
I think that he was married with children... didn't he write "love and marriage"?... that song?

I think that reality is somewhere between the Da Vinci Code and the story we always hear...
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that reality is somewhere between the Da Vinci Code and the story we always hear...
Click to expand...
He has a "baby mama" that he didn't marry?

Jesus could have been married and had children. Nothing that he did or said would have to change. The only change that may come is the Paul's perspective of women.
 
When he return's he will get married.
 
Thunder said:
yes, its possible that he chose a life of preaching & teaching, and felt marriage & fatherhood would just get in the way.
Click to expand...

Except that even more than the expectation that a Jewish man be married, for a Rabbi it was even more of a requirement.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Except that even more than the expectation that a Jewish man be married, for a Rabbi it was even more of a requirement.
Click to expand...

Jesus was never a Rabbi in the sense that the title was used back in that time. Yes he followers called him that, but he was never "ordained". In modern day terms, he would be like a lay person who spoke and taught the word, but never went to seminary nor was ever officially recognized by any religion as one of the clergy, but was still called "pastor", or "Father" or whatever by his followers. So the expectation of marriage that was placed upon actual Rabbis would never have been placed upon Jesus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom