• 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.

Did Jesus Get Married & Have Kids?

maquiscat said:
The bible contains nothing to indicate this. A lack of mention of any sexual activity is not an automatic indication of the lack of it. Even if it was as far as the reported period, there is that whole period unreported between the temple incident and getting baptized. What toys and/or games did Jesus play when he was a child? None since it wasn't mentioned in the bible. The bible doesn't mention his voice cracking as a teenager so it must not ever have happened.
Click to expand...

The doctrine of sola scriptural is unbiblical. Apostolic tradition conclusively proves that he was celibate.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, if we're talking about this from the academic perspective of Jesus as a historical figure, there's a number of problems.

1. One is that the source of information for this is no better than the traditionally accepted sources implying he was celibate. These are all supposedly post-humous and second-hand accounts that give heavily conflicting stories. The collection of works that we know from the bible is simply what was decided upon for political reasons -- we don't have a reason to weigh one or the other more heavily. So really, all this is showing is that there are sharp contradictions in early Christian writing as pertains to Jesus' life. Well, we've known that for a long time. That doesn't answer whose account we should take.

And given the issue above, we first have to come to a conclusion about whether historical Jesus as a single entity ever actually lived in the first place. That still hasn't been settled, and the academic opinion is getting more and more fragmented as more of this research is being done by people who aren't personally invested in the answer. So without an consensus on that, talking about whether or not he had a family is a little bit cart-before-horse.
Click to expand...

Not really the case, yes they are all post humous, and the stories are conflicting in some areas in the details (as one would expect), the books were not chosen for political reasons, we see them quoted by Church fathers as authority before any Church Council .... the Church Council just recognized officially what had already been acceptied.

And yes, we have reasons to, for example, take Mark as more historical than the gospel of Peter ... there are real historical reasons that mark is more historically reliable, if you'd like I can list some reasons.

Yes it has been settled, almost everyone believes that Jesus was a single historical figure, yes you can find an outliar here and there that question it, but in historical achademia, no one doubts Jesus was a historical person and that there are Things we can say about him.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
A young Jewish man in first-century Palestine was practically required to marry and have children. There were a few celibate ones, but that was very unusual. (And there's nothing written to indicate that Jesus was one of these.)

Some theologians theorize that Mary Magdalene may have been Jesus' wife.
Click to expand...

it's unusual for anyone in any society to be celibate.

The New testament talks about many People in Jesus' Family, had he had a wife it would be reasonable to expect that it would have mentioned her.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I don't see a connection. If God wanted his son to have the full range of human experiences during his life on earth, why wouldn't Jesus have been married and fathered children?
Click to expand...

Because Jesus will receive his bride on Judgement Day.
 
RGacky3 said:
it's unusual for anyone in any society to be celibate.

The New testament talks about many People in Jesus' Family, had he had a wife it would be reasonable to expect that it would have mentioned her.
Click to expand...

Unless it was edited out, either by the Council of Nicea or at some other point.
 
Sounds like a great idea for a book !

Now what girl would be up for a life wandering around with a dozen buddies and no visible means of support ?

And a pack of rug rats to boot ?

Just not seeing it.
 
dogtowner said:
Sounds like a great idea for a book !

Now what girl would be up for a life wandering around with a dozen buddies and no visible means of support ?

And a pack of rug rats to boot ?

Just not seeing it.
Click to expand...

In those days, it wouldn't have been such a bad situation. :mrgreen:
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Unless it was edited out, either by the Council of Nicea or at some other point.
Click to expand...

We have copies of the NT from before the Council, and many many manuscript lines, as well as quotes from the NT before the Council, in order to edit it out, someone would have to travel to all the countries and edit out all the manuscripts, and dig up the older ones and edit those too.

So no, that's basically impossible.
 
RGacky3 said:
We have copies of the NT from before the Council, and many many manuscript lines, as well as quotes from the NT before the Council, in order to edit it out, someone would have to travel to all the countries and edit out all the manuscripts, and dig up the older ones and edit those too.

So no, that's basically impossible.
Click to expand...

Of course, just because we haven't found a manuscript that mentions Jesus' having a wife doesn't mean that none existed.
 
nota bene said:
Raise your hand if you've read the book or seen the film The Last Temptation of Christ.

The Apostle Peter was married and probably Matthew, Andrew, Bartholomew, and Judas. Maybe Phillip too. Anyway, I think if Jesus had been married, this would have been known and referenced.
Click to expand...

There are other possibilities. Most marriages were arraigned, and happened when someone was in the teens. There also was very high maternal mortality rates back then.

Unless someone is the offspring of a forbidden sexual union, they would have gotten married. .. due to an arraignment from their parents. However, if Jesus was a widower, he could have been married. Or, he could be a mamzer, which would have precluded him from getting married.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Unless it was edited out, either by the Council of Nicea or at some other point.
Click to expand...

People are so quick to go along with conspiracy theories when it comes to religion, but nothing else. It's interesting.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
One is that the source of information for this is no better than the traditionally accepted sources implying he was celibate.....
Click to expand...
Well, I'd say that a gospel completed in 560 CE probably isn't going to be as solid as one written in 75 CE.

The Synoptic Gospels actually leave out huge swaths of Jesus' life, and (afaik) had some minor redactions early on. As such, I don't think we can look to them to definitively state whether or not he was married.


And given the issue above, we first have to come to a conclusion about whether historical Jesus as a single entity ever actually lived in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is much doubt on that point.

Whether he was a supernatural being, well, no text can truly prove or disprove that. But I think it's broadly accepted that there was, at a minimum, a Jewish preacher who wandered Judea, made a bunch of speeches, and was executed for causing trouble in Jerusalem during Passover.
 
Paleocon said:
The doctrine of sola scriptural is unbiblical. Apostolic tradition conclusively proves that he was celibate.
Click to expand...

Tradition by its very definition can prove nothing. There is nothing out there that proves whether or not Jesus was celibate. It is not something that anyone bothered to record, or if they did, it was destroyed because it was believed such a fact would undermine the church's position, although for the life of me I can't see how.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Of course, just because we haven't found a manuscript that mentions Jesus' having a wife doesn't mean that none existed.
Click to expand...

but it's very good evidence that he didn't have one .... because had he had one, it's extremely likely it would have been mentioned, as his brothers and parents and sisters were mentioned.
 
RGacky3 said:
but it's very good evidence that he didn't have one .... because had he had one, it's extremely likely it would have been mentioned, as his brothers and parents and sisters were mentioned.
Click to expand...


How is it good evidence?? That is the argument from silence. How about if she died?
 
RGacky3 said:
but it's very good evidence that he didn't have one .... because had he had one, it's extremely likely it would have been mentioned, as his brothers and parents and sisters were mentioned.
Click to expand...

A lack of mention in the bible does mean that it didn't happen. Cain went off and married a woman, but there is no mention where those people came from. Either God created more than Adam and Eve, or they are the product of generations of incest. Neither is mentioned yet one or both had to of occurred. For all we know Jesus may have told his mother (she's really the only one mentioned in any detail after the temple incident at age 8) to not say anything about his wife and kids and then never told his followers.
 
maquiscat said:
A lack of mention in the bible does mean that it didn't happen. Cain went off and married a woman, but there is no mention where those people came from. Either God created more than Adam and Eve, or they are the product of generations of incest. Neither is mentioned yet one or both had to of occurred. For all we know Jesus may have told his mother (she's really the only one mentioned in any detail after the temple incident at age 8) to not say anything about his wife and kids and then never told his followers.
Click to expand...

But it means it's VERY unlikelt for it to happen.

We know almost nothing about Cain, and the purpose of the cain story was not a historical biography.

Now my reason why it not being mentioned means it probably didn't happen is pretty solid, the writers talked freely about his Family, had he been married it's very very unlikely they wouldn't have avoided mentioning her, there would be no ideological or theological reason to avoid that.

Why would he tell his mother not to tell anyone? Remember he preached in galilee, People knew him, many of his followers came from John the Baptists followers, of whome Jesus was one previously, they would have known him, had Jesus been married it's impossible that no one but his mother would have known, and it's extremely unlikely that it wouldn't have been mentioned at all.

I mean if you want to say that he probably fooled around when he was younger fine .... but to say he was married is just historically extremely unlikely.
 
RAMOSS said:
How is it good evidence?? That is the argument from silence. How about if she died?
Click to expand...

His father died, he was mentioned, had she died People would have known about her in the areas where he preached .... in Galilee, since they did know him as the son of the carpenter.

Now of coarse it IS possible that he was married for a short time and his wife died, and no one ever mentioned it ... but it's a pretty ad hoc theory, and unlikely still that no one would mention it.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
I sure hope so. Btw how many lost books of the bible are there? I mean really.
Click to expand...
They were never 'lost', they were just never cannon. Originaly there were several sometimes contradictory versions of the same book.

That's why the bible was made in the first place.
 
RGacky3 said:
But it means it's VERY unlikelt for it to happen.

We know almost nothing about Cain, and the purpose of the cain story was not a historical biography.

Now my reason why it not being mentioned means it probably didn't happen is pretty solid, the writers talked freely about his Family, had he been married it's very very unlikely they wouldn't have avoided mentioning her, there would be no ideological or theological reason to avoid that.

Why would he tell his mother not to tell anyone? Remember he preached in galilee, People knew him, many of his followers came from John the Baptists followers, of whome Jesus was one previously, they would have known him, had Jesus been married it's impossible that no one but his mother would have known, and it's extremely unlikely that it wouldn't have been mentioned at all.

I mean if you want to say that he probably fooled around when he was younger fine .... but to say he was married is just historically extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

We have large period where we know nothing of what happened or where he was. Heck for that matter he could have left the area, gotten married, had a kid and lost both before returning home to get baptized. There is a freaking giant blank space in his history where anything could have happen short of sinning.

RGacky3 said:
His father died, he was mentioned, had she died People would have known about her in the areas where he preached .... in Galilee, since they did know him as the son of the carpenter.

Now of coarse it IS possible that he was married for a short time and his wife died, and no one ever mentioned it ... but it's a pretty ad hoc theory, and unlikely still that no one would mention it.
Click to expand...

It was still a time where one could go to other places and make claims that were not verifiable. It's far enough back that we could be missing evidence of it, or there was a cover up for some reason, much later in the church's history. I have never advocated that he was married. Only that it is a possibility and that he could have done so and still be a perfect sinless sacrifice.
 
maquiscat said:
1. We have large period where we know nothing of what happened or where he was. Heck for that matter he could have left the area, gotten married, had a kid and lost both before returning home to get baptized. There is a freaking giant blank space in his history where anything could have happen short of sinning.


2. It was still a time where one could go to other places and make claims that were not verifiable. It's far enough back that we could be missing evidence of it, or there was a cover up for some reason, much later in the church's history. I have never advocated that he was married. Only that it is a possibility and that he could have done so and still be a perfect sinless sacrifice.
Click to expand...

1. It could be possible, but it would be strange that no one knew about that ... also where would they have gone? They could have died, but then it would make sense that someone would have mentioned it ... it's extremely unlikely.

2. a cover up would have been impossible, the manuscripts and oral traditions are to early and to wide spread.
 
RGacky3 said:
His father died, he was mentioned, had she died People would have known about her in the areas where he preached .... in Galilee, since they did know him as the son of the carpenter.

Now of coarse it IS possible that he was married for a short time and his wife died, and no one ever mentioned it ... but it's a pretty ad hoc theory, and unlikely still that no one would mention it.
Click to expand...

Again , that is an argument from silence. Custom has it that any eligible man would have an arraigned marriage. While yes, his father died, the purpose of mentioning his father was in the genealogies attempting to link Jesus to the house of David (never mind that not being Josephs actual biological son eliminated that connection). Having Jesus be a widower would not be needed to fit in the narrative Mentioning the genealogy of his father would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom