oh yeah... (re: Was Jesus married, etc.)

Bullpuckie! Can you provide any evidence of this whatsoever? fixed formatting - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-06-2003]

If Jesus was married why is his marriage (and thus, wife) not mentioned in the bible? Surely it would be a significant point? I believe all three of Mohammed's wives are mentioned in the Koran. All of the prior biblical characters who were married have their wives mentioned in the bible (if only in passing). Why omit such an important factor from the biblical story? If as you claim, Rabbi's were required to be married, would not Jesus marital status lend credence to his claims?Even if Jesus is married, why do you consider Mary Magdelane the likely candidate? If Jesus was married, why did he have no Children? Or if he did have Children, what happened to them?

You're getting it."If Jesus was married, why did he have no Children? Or if he did have Children, what happened to them?"How do we know he had no children? Someone is actually wanting to discuss this at face value. Thank you Mr. Jack.

And you, apparently, are "actually wanting to discuss this" by means of unsubstantiated assertions. You said:

• Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis.

I know of no such requirement. Again, please substantiate your claim.

Jesus said once that he came to fulfill the Law: the first positive commandment of the Bible according to rabbinic understanding (Maimonides, Minyan ha-Mitzvet, 212) is that dealing with the propagation of the human race (Genesis 1:28); thus it has been considered the duty of every member of the House of Israel to marry at an early age. The late rabbis set 18 as the age for marriage (Ab. v.24); and anyone, they maintained, who remained after 20 without was cursed by God Himself (Kid. 29b). Earlier traditions, however, persistently encouraged children to marry as soon as they reach the age of puberty (Sanh. 76b) and many important Jews are known to have been married at such an early age. Indeed, so important was marriage regarded in ancient Israel that frequently men who had passed 20 without marrying, were compelled by the courts to take a wife (M. Zvi Udley, Th.M., Ph.D).Celibacy is by no means a virtue among the Jewish people. Indeed, it is for this reason that many Jews cannot accept Christianity.1997 Chavurah Bekorot, Arvika, Sweden
P.O.Box 120, S-671 23 ARVIKA, Sweden[This message has been edited by Rubten, 11-08-2003]

Rubten, it is clear that you have little capacity for detecting sophomoric nonsense. Sadly, it is also apparent that you are fraudulent enough to supplement your blather with wholesale plagiarism. You might wish to consider adopting a more honest approach to discussion and, perhaps, spend some time reading up on the Essenes.

Rubten,If, as you say, Tradition required young men to marry as early in life as possible (and I don't necessarily disagree with this), then Jesus would have been married with children before he had met Magdalene.The bible doesn't say anything about his wife but if it were true that he had one, you would expect to find something of that nature in the gnostic writings. They had no reason to leave it out and yet there's nothing there.

I do not this it was necassarily omitted on purpose. I think it was not mentioned because it was accepted as fact, during those times. I truly believe that if it had been different it would have been mentioned.As far as Christ having been married as soon as possible and having children at a young age, that is a good question. I have not completely thought it through, but here goes a quick reactionary answer, my answer at this point. I will have to investigate it further.I am not sure that Jesus was married prior to emerging from the wilderness at the ripe age of 30. I can only assume, that Jesus was married once in September, then again in the spring. It all points to Mary Magdalene as far as I am concerned.(How was that for right off the cuff?)

"I do not this it was necassarily omitted on purpose. I think it was not mentioned because it was accepted as fact, during those times. I truly believe that if it had been different it would have been mentioned."But Peter and Paul, among others, were mentioned as married men. Were their marriages not accepted as factual? :-)

Touche! I wonder if my basis is held to the fact that jesus was an essene? I will have to investigate your response. That is a good point and I must ponder it.Thank you for the lively discussion without personal attacks.

quote:

---

But Peter and Paul, among others, were mentioned as married men. Were their marriages not accepted as factual? :-)

---

However, Peter and Paul are not supposed to be the Son of God or God himself. It seems to me that having Jesus be a mere mortal (with a wife and child[ren])hurt the Christian agenda, so anything that made Jesus appear mortal was *erased* from history.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-18-2003]

This strikes me as trying to have it both ways. I have heard more than once that NOT mentioning a wife for Jesus shows that he must have been married because it was such an expected thing that it wouldn't be considered worth mentioning unless he wasn't.Then it is noted that some diciples are spoken of as married so mentioning it IS done. Which to me weakens the claim made above.Now we have "absence of evidence" as being "evidence" for something being *present* since it must have been erased? I'm sorry but I don't get it.It appears to me that the fact that wives of some diciples is mentioned suggests that Jesus was not married. It is odd that no mention is made of why though.

I have to agree with Rox on this one. Rox has a point. The divinty factor cannot include a marriage and if stating that Christ was married in any way detracts from his divinity, then it stands to reason that this would have been eradicated from the original text or "omitted".

Since we know nothing of Jesus life from the ages of 12-30, what is to say that he wasn't married during that time, perhaps his wife died before he began his ministry?Xians would like us to believe that Jesus was 100% human and 100% God, now if he was 100% human it would be natural for him to feel the need to reproduce, and being a good Jew he would marry first.Xians, at least the ones I have spoken to, also claim that Jesus never had sex, tell me one 100% male aged 30+ who has never had sex, or who has never masturbated. I once got banned from a Christian chatroom for suggesting that Jesus must have masturbated and/or had sex, if he was a 100% man.Not that I masturbate of course.Brian.

However, as I mentioned the disciples are not the Son of God. What would be the implications of Jesus having a wife and children? Jesus would have had to have << g a s p >> SEX, which is a sinful act. Would the children also be gods? Imagine the logistics involved with that!!The fact that there are a lot of missing years in Jesus' that go unexplained is enough for me to wonder why? Did no one know where the Son of God had run off to? How do they know he wasn't married? Why would a Jewish man NOT marry? It was Jewish tradition that a man marry by twenty.The fact that the NT was assembled many years after Jesus lived and by men with an agenda (promotion of Christianity), points to the liklihood of creative editing, imho.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-18-2003]