• 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?

RAMOSS said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not only an argument from silence, but from context.

Silence can mean something significan in certian contexts ...

What's the Source for arranged marriages? I don't doubt it, I'm just wondering what the Source is so I can look it up.

You also didn't need Jesus's Brothers and sisters and mother's mentioned .... They wern't necessary to the marrative.

Celibacy was rare in 1rst Century Judaism (as it is in any society), but there is a precident for it, in some of the Old Testament prophets, in some of the Essenes, in some Pious Groups and so on, John the Baptist was Celibate, so it's wouldn't be suprising if Jesus was to.

Now is it possible that Jesus was a widower? Absolutely, is it likely? Not really ... remember men married older and women married younger, so it wouldn't have been that much before Jesus' ministry that he was married, and his wife would have died Young, had that been the case it would seam to be very significant, and People would have known about it, but he was known as the Carpenters Son, not the husband of so and so, Jesus' Brothers and sisters were mentioned, no wife, one would think that had he been a widower, it would have been known, and thus would have been addressed.

Is it possible? Yes, but I just dont think it's likely, the unmarried escatalogical prophet was not unkown, it had definate precident, as did the non married pius Jew, such as certain People in the essene community.
 
RGacky3 said:
It is not only an argument from silence, but from context.

Silence can mean something significan in certian contexts ...

What's the Source for arranged marriages? I don't doubt it, I'm just wondering what the Source is so I can look it up.

You also didn't need Jesus's Brothers and sisters and mother's mentioned .... They wern't necessary to the marrative.

Celibacy was rare in 1rst Century Judaism (as it is in any society), but there is a precident for it, in some of the Old Testament prophets, in some of the Essenes, in some Pious Groups and so on, John the Baptist was Celibate, so it's wouldn't be suprising if Jesus was to.

Now is it possible that Jesus was a widower? Absolutely, is it likely? Not really ... remember men married older and women married younger, so it wouldn't have been that much before Jesus' ministry that he was married, and his wife would have died Young, had that been the case it would seam to be very significant, and People would have known about it, but he was known as the Carpenters Son, not the husband of so and so, Jesus' Brothers and sisters were mentioned, no wife, one would think that had he been a widower, it would have been known, and thus would have been addressed.

Is it possible? Yes, but I just dont think it's likely, the unmarried escatalogical prophet was not unkown, it had definate precident, as did the non married pius Jew, such as certain People in the essene community.
Click to expand...

Here is one source.. but if you want, I can give a couple dozen more.

Ancient Jewish Marriage - My Jewish Learning
 
RAMOSS said:
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).
Click to expand...

You err because you do not believe the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus.

The fact is, the Messiah was to be the Son of God, and even ancient Jewish rabbis understood this.

From the link below:

Let us look at the passage in question,

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

From what is said in this passage, we see that this portion is specifically Messianic in content. This is seen both from the term "Branch" (tsemach - jm^x#), and from the Davidic ancestry of the King who was to be raised up.

The name "Branch" is almost universally accepted as Messianic, both by Jews and Christians alike. This term is a metaphor, literally meaning "shoot" or "sprout", and signifies the new life that Messiah was to bring to the Davidic monarchy, which was presumed dead. Further, the implications of the name were that Messiah would bring new life to all mankind, not just to His people Israel. This description as "Branch" appears several times in the Hebrew scriptures. It appears in Isaiah 4:2, where the Messiah's presence in the coming Kingdom is described as "beautiful" and "glorious". In Isaiah 11:1, the Branch is said to come from the "stem of Jesse", and is filled with the Spirit of God. In Jeremiah 33:15, the Branch again is said to come from the royal line of David. Yet, this same Branch from the royal line is termed God's servant in Zechariah 3:8, and is described as a man who will carry out God's work in Zechariah 6:12.

The rabbis recognised that Branch was a name for the Messiah. R. Y'hoshu'a notes this as a name for Messiah from Zechariah 6:121. Rav Huna also refers to this as a Messianic name2, with Buber concurring in his commentary notes on that statement3.

Likewise, the instances in Jewish rabbinical literature in which the Messiah is explicitly understood to be descended from David are too numerous to list more than a sampling here. Moses Maimonides pointed to the statements of Numbers 24:17 when he wrote,

"And there he says: 'I see him but not now', this refers to David; 'I behold him but not nigh', this refers to King Messiah; 'A star shall step forth out of Jacob', this refers to David; 'and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel', this refers to King Messiah."4

More in link below.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
You err because you do not believe the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus.

The fact is, the Messiah was to be the Son of God, and even ancient Jewish rabbis understood this.

From the link below:

Let us look at the passage in question,

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

From what is said in this passage, we see that this portion is specifically Messianic in content. This is seen both from the term "Branch" (tsemach - jm^x#), and from the Davidic ancestry of the King who was to be raised up.

The name "Branch" is almost universally accepted as Messianic, both by Jews and Christians alike. This term is a metaphor, literally meaning "shoot" or "sprout", and signifies the new life that Messiah was to bring to the Davidic monarchy, which was presumed dead. Further, the implications of the name were that Messiah would bring new life to all mankind, not just to His people Israel. This description as "Branch" appears several times in the Hebrew scriptures. It appears in Isaiah 4:2, where the Messiah's presence in the coming Kingdom is described as "beautiful" and "glorious". In Isaiah 11:1, the Branch is said to come from the "stem of Jesse", and is filled with the Spirit of God. In Jeremiah 33:15, the Branch again is said to come from the royal line of David. Yet, this same Branch from the royal line is termed God's servant in Zechariah 3:8, and is described as a man who will carry out God's work in Zechariah 6:12.

The rabbis recognised that Branch was a name for the Messiah. R. Y'hoshu'a notes this as a name for Messiah from Zechariah 6:121. Rav Huna also refers to this as a Messianic name2, with Buber concurring in his commentary notes on that statement3.

Likewise, the instances in Jewish rabbinical literature in which the Messiah is explicitly understood to be descended from David are too numerous to list more than a sampling here. Moses Maimonides pointed to the statements of Numbers 24:17 when he wrote,

"And there he says: 'I see him but not now', this refers to David; 'I behold him but not nigh', this refers to King Messiah; 'A star shall step forth out of Jacob', this refers to David; 'and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel', this refers to King Messiah."4

More in link below.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God
Click to expand...

Well, the term 'Branch' of David does mean 'from the house of David'. To be from 'the house of David, you have to be a direct male from an unbroken male line. .. no adoptions, no leveriite marriages.. .. in modern terms that decedent would have to be carrying the David 'Y' chromosome.
From the Jewish perspective, that would eliminate Jesus, because, according to the stories, he wasn't Joseph's biological son

But, that isn't what we were discussing. It seems like there are just key words that provoke responses from no, no matter how inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Well, the term 'Branch' of David does mean 'from the house of David'. To be from 'the house of David, you have to be a direct male from an unbroken male line. .. no adoptions, no leveriite marriages.. .. in modern terms that decedent would have to be carrying the David 'Y' chromosome.
From the Jewish perspective, that would eliminate Jesus, because, according to the stories, he wasn't Joseph's biological son
Click to expand...

That's your spin. I've demonstrated otherwise in my previous post to you.

You'll probably even contend the Messiah would have to come through the line of Solomon.

RAMOSS said:
But, that isn't what we were discussing. It seems like there are just key words that provoke responses from no, no matter how inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Hey - I was responding to your quote, i.e.

Originally Posted by RAMOSS: "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)."
 
Logicman said:
That's your spin. I've demonstrated otherwise in my previous post to you.

You'll probably even contend the Messiah would have to come through the line of Solomon.



Hey - I was responding to your quote, i.e.

Originally Posted by RAMOSS: "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)."
Click to expand...


And, nothing in that link addressed that issue of what Jewish law and bloodlines are. Of course, that doesn't matter to you. Why bother have quality of arguement when you can have quantity of non-relevant and inaccurate information.. (On your part)
 
RAMOSS said:
And, nothing in that link addressed that issue of what Jewish law and bloodlines are. Of course, that doesn't matter to you. Why bother have quality of arguement when you can have quantity of non-relevant and inaccurate information.. (On your part)
Click to expand...

The information I presented was accurate. And you are consistent at sweeping the truth under the rug.
 
Logicman said:
You err because you do not believe the Old Testament prophecies about Jesus.
Click to expand...

The Old Testament prophecies were about an abstract Messiah, not necessarily Jesus. Only the goyim ended up believing that Jesus was that messiah.

And that belief has its basis on shaky ground at best - for many reasons...
 
Logicman said:
The information I presented was accurate. And you are consistent at sweeping the truth under the rug.
Click to expand...

Except, it is, quite inaccurately, misrepresenting or misinforming what Jewish law is about blood lines. Sorry, but you are very much misinformed.

Of course, you have to go to an Evangelist Christian to get to know what Jewish law and tradition are, those Jews don't know their own culture and religion, right?
 
Dragonfly said:
Which would suggest a possible direct blood line to "god" wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
That reminds me of a book that a girl who lived with me for a couple years back around 2000-2001 bought. Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

She was intrigued by it so I read it too.

We would play sex games with the storyline. I would play Jesus. With my long hair I kinda look like a sterotypical Jesus. And she would play Mary Magdaline. Jesus' wife. She was a rich Sicilian and had those loose curly dark locks and perfect body. She had some serious Mediterranean sexiness going on. Just as I imagine Mary M would have had too.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Except, it is, quite inaccurately, misrepresenting or misinforming what Jewish law is about blood lines. Sorry, but you are very much misinformed.

Of course, you have to go to an Evangelist Christian to get to know what Jewish law and tradition are, those Jews don't know their own culture and religion, right?
Click to expand...

If certain Jews were so up on what actually is from the Lord they wouldn't have spent 40 years walking around Mt. Sinai; and they wouldn't have killed their prophets and rebelled against God and His Messiah.

And don't take that as me hating the Jews. I don't, and I support Israel. But I'm also relaying to you what the Bible says.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The Old Testament prophecies were about an abstract Messiah, not necessarily Jesus. Only the goyim ended up believing that Jesus was that messiah.

And that belief has its basis on shaky ground at best - for many reasons...
Click to expand...

History records a very real Messiah coming to his people at the time appointed in scripture, and doing the things numerous OT prophecies foretell.

Here's a good read on that issue:

Why Israel Missed its Messiah « The Righter Report
 
Logicman said:
History records a very real Messiah coming to his people at the time appointed in scripture, and doing the things numerous OT prophecies foretell.

Here's a good read on that issue:

Why Israel Missed its Messiah « The Righter Report
Click to expand...

Ah yes.. The good old 'righter report', which shows how someone can feel so threatened by people who don't accept their nonsense. Do you haev a source that isn't paranoid schizophrenic?
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah yes.. The good old 'righter report', which shows how someone can feel so threatened by people who don't accept their nonsense. Do you haev a source that isn't paranoid schizophrenic?
Click to expand...

I doubt it's the link that has the problems.
 
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...


Raise your hands if you saw George Burns in the movie, "Oh God!" God came out of hiding. Exposed himself to certain people, and in the end, he took the stand in a courtroom to prove that he was really god. Everybody was pretty wowed by it all. But then...poooooffff, god erased the memory of his presence in all who got to see him. Ordinary people...back to square one about not really knowing if god existed or not. Very clever ending.

Perhaps if Jesus was god, was married, had kids...when he was ready...poooofffff, Jesus (aka god) erased that part of his life from all who was aware that he existed.
 
Logicman said:
I doubt it's the link that has the problems.
Click to expand...

No, it is the lack of reality on the essay on the other side. For example, it has a list of 'quotes' from Rabbis. Some of those quotes are out of context. Others are pure forgeries. It even has a quote about the Messiah from a karsite, and karsites don't believe in that concept at all!

The list is a cut /paste from a very badly put together Evangelistic site, and no real understanding of the source of information is shown in that horribly written piece of garbage.
 
It is not irrelevant (Islamically) whether or not Christ Jesus married but we do know that in his second coming he'll have a happy marriage of 40 or so years after destroying the anti-Christs and the cross.

Its also interesting to watch how Christian evangelicals play the whore with Israel and supports its oppression of the Palestinians when they and only they could be the living descendants of the family of Christ.
 
RAMOSS said:
Here is one source.. but if you want, I can give a couple dozen more.

Ancient Jewish Marriage - My Jewish Learning
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could, thanks.

But my argument still stands, there was plenty of precident for celibacy in the ancient Jewish world, and it would be very unlikely that a marraige and Death of the wife would go completely unmentioned.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, it is the lack of reality on the essay on the other side. For example, it has a list of 'quotes' from Rabbis. Some of those quotes are out of context. Others are pure forgeries. It even has a quote about the Messiah from a karsite, and karsites don't believe in that concept at all!

The list is a cut /paste from a very badly put together Evangelistic site, and no real understanding of the source of information is shown in that horribly written piece of garbage.
Click to expand...

Yada yada yada...

Get a new dog. This rubbish of yours above isn't worth the cyberspace it took to relay it.
 
Repentance96 said:
It is not irrelevant (Islamically) whether or not Christ Jesus married but we do know that in his second coming he'll have a happy marriage of 40 or so years after destroying the anti-Christs and the cross.

Its also interesting to watch how Christian evangelicals play the whore with Israel and supports its oppression of the Palestinians when they and only they could be the living descendants of the family of Christ.
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear you have ever read the Bible. Jesus has a 40 year marriage at his second coming and destroys the cross? Got a couple of scriptures on that to back up your claim?

The second line of your quote is equally nonsensical.
 
It is Oh So Convenient that the believers and the faithful can pretty much willy-nilly pick and chose which parts of the bible are literal and which parts are not, which parts are historically accurate and which parts are not, which parts are anecdotal and which parts are not, and which parts are "true" and which parts are "completely open to individual interpretation".
 
Logicman said:
It doesn't appear you have ever read the Bible. Jesus has a 40 year marriage at his second coming and destroys the cross? Got a couple of scriptures on that to back up your claim?
Click to expand...

In spite of the fact that the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) can have no theological objections to the prophethood of the Seal of the Prophets, they wouldn't accept Islamic Scripture and revelation, but would switch off their critical mind while swallowing the words of Paul, a man who never met Yeshua, who gives contradictory accounts of the beginning of his self-appointed mission - the man who snatched the Messiah of Israel and gave him to the dogs (gentiles).
 
RGacky3 said:
I'm sure you could, thanks.

But my argument still stands, there was plenty of precident for celibacy in the ancient Jewish world, and it would be very unlikely that a marraige and Death of the wife would go completely unmentioned.
Click to expand...

Yes. there is. Many of the Essene were celibate, which is one reason they died out I suspect. However, that does not stop that most of them probably were married at one point, because that was the custom. However, since there is extremely little written about Jesus from the time before his ministry, it is just going to be the source of speculation, and 'biblical fan fiction' for later writings. If there was a historical Jesus (something I am not totally convinced of), it is basically unknown the details of his life. It is obvious many of the stories in the gospels are just that.. stories. .. the Christian version of Mishnah
 
RAMOSS said:
Yes. there is. Many of the Essene were celibate, which is one reason they died out I suspect. However, that does not stop that most of them probably were married at one point, because that was the custom. However, since there is extremely little written about Jesus from the time before his ministry, it is just going to be the source of speculation, and 'biblical fan fiction' for later writings. If there was a historical Jesus (something I am not totally convinced of), it is basically unknown the details of his life. It is obvious many of the stories in the gospels are just that.. stories. .. the Christian version of Mishnah
Click to expand...
So people died for their beliefs in a work of friction? I mean the early Christians? How do you explain the many accounts of persecution (torture and murder) of the early Christians in established history?
 
Repentance96 said:
So people died for their beliefs in a work of friction? I mean the early Christians? How do you explain the many accounts of persecution (torture and murder) of the early Christians in established history?
Click to expand...

Yes, people get sold lies all the time. As for the 'many accounts of persecution (torture and murder) , a lot of it is myth, and just because someone believes fiction doesn't mean the fiction is true.


Modern example.. the heaven's gate cult. Those people died for a lie. They didn't believe it was a lie but it was a lie never the less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom