Was Jesus married?

[Tgace]

I'd be more interested on the facts surrounding the discovery of this small piece of papyrus. Such as where it was found, who found it and has it been tested for authenticity?

Not to mention, how accurate is the translation?

 

[WC_lun]

...and what happens if it is true? If proof that he was married keeps showing up. Does it really change anything in the message of Christ? Would it effect your faith? If not, then why is him being single be such a big deal?

 

[granfire]

I'd be more interested on the facts surrounding the discovery of this small piece of papyrus. Such as where it was found, who found it and has it been tested for authenticity?

Not to mention, how accurate is the translation?

If you believe the article, the person translating it is one of the top, if not the authority on these types of texts. They are reasonably sure it is authentic. Given the small sample they won't carbon date it, but do some other tests to determine the approximate age.
the owner has remained anonymous so far, and given the nature of the text, I can't blame the individual.

 

[Tgace]

If you believe the article, the person translating it is one of the top, if not the authority on these types of texts. They are reasonably sure it is authentic. Given the small sample they won't carbon date it, but do some other tests to determine the approximate age.
the owner has remained anonymous so far, and given the nature of the text, I can't blame the individual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=2

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

And no..it wouldnt change my beliefs one bit. But to me, one bit of papyrus of unknown origin doesnt quite outweigh all the centuries of Church Cannon for me quite yet.

 

[granfire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=2



And no..it wouldnt change my beliefs one bit. But to me, one bit of papyrus of unknown origin doesnt quite outweigh all the centuries of Church Cannon for me quite yet.

well, it's not the first time it came up, even long before the DaVinci Code.

but then again, I am a rebel. I can see the man behind the curtain quiet clearly.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm not versed in Gnostic texts but don't they hint at Mary Magdalene being a bit more than your average disciple

yup.


Which books are included and excluded was decided by committee. Revelations was also considered a questionable inclusion, and there are well documented contradictions in the books that were included. Given political consideration at various points in history when the Christian Bible was 'updated', and current variances between the sects, a 'definitive' work doesn't seem likely. The Gnostic texts vary from the redundant to the outrageous in claim. Gospel of Mary puts Mary as 'very close' to Jesus. Gospel of Judas paints a much different picture of the arch traitor, one where he's a brother and closer than the others.

I think based on the culture at the time, and the oft forgotten fact that Jesus, if he existed at all, was a Jew, and would have obeyed the Jewish laws and social norms. In which case, he was probably married and had children, and had a 'day job'.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdr...-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/

A Pragmatic Reason for the Singleness of Jesus
Well, a little Google surfing turns up proof that Jesus was married. Quite a good looking couple too, though I don’t think this is what Dan Brown has in mind. (Note: I did not doctor this picture, other than to blur the names to protect the innocent.)
Some have argued that Jesus remained single because He knew that He wouldn’t be able to fulfill His marital and parental obligations adequately. If Jesus knew, even years before His itinerant ministry began, that He’d be roaming around the Galilean countryside preaching and healing, then He might well have determined that this wasn’t a good basis for family life. Moreover, if Jesus knew that His ministry would lead to confrontation with the authorities and ultimately death at the hand of Rome, then He might have thought that this was not suitable for a husband and/or father. I believe this pragmatic reason is heading in the right direction, but still hasn’t hit the bull’s eye.
A Theological Reason for the Singleness of JesusIn Matthew 19 Jesus is asked about the circumstances in which divorce is lawful. His answer makes it clear that He holds marriage in the highest regard, and that divorce is therefore legal in rare circumstances only (vv. 3-9). In response to Jesus’s “hard line” on divorce, His disciples say, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (v. 10). Jesus responds:
​

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (vv. 11-12)

Most commentators believe, and I agree, that Jesus is not speaking here of literal eunuchs, but of those who are celibate, and, in most cases, unmarried. Some people, Jesus explains, choose to be celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 12). To put it differently, some people might choose to devote all that they are to proclaiming and living out God’s kingdom. They would find earthly responsibilities, such as those that go with marriage and parenting, a hindrance to their kingdom calling. This is similar to the situation of the disciples who were called away from their professions (fishermen, tax collectors, etc.) in order to follow Jesus with singular purpose.
So, in light of the coming of God’s kingdom, and in light of Jesus’s commitment to announce and inaugurate the kingdom, He might have chosen to remain single so that nothing would distract Him from His primary calling and purpose. Although Jesus does not say specifically, “The agenda of the kingdom explains why I am not married,” I believe that this passage from Matthew 19 provides a theologically satisfying reason for why Jesus remained single. Thus it covers the objection of Robert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code: “If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible’s gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood.” The explanation, in Jesus’s own words, is that the kingdom of God calls some people, including Jesus Himself, to a wholehearted commitment and investment that precludes getting married.​

 

[Tgace]

yup.


Which books are included and excluded was decided by committee. Revelations was also considered a questionable inclusion, and there are well documented contradictions in the books that were included. Given political consideration at various points in history when the Christian Bible was 'updated', and current variances between the sects, a 'definitive' work doesn't seem likely. The Gnostic texts vary from the redundant to the outrageous in claim. Gospel of Mary puts Mary as 'very close' to Jesus. Gospel of Judas paints a much different picture of the arch traitor, one where he's a brother and closer than the others.

I think based on the culture at the time, and the oft forgotten fact that Jesus, if he existed at all, was a Jew, and would have obeyed the Jewish laws and social norms. In which case, he was probably married and had children, and had a 'day job'.

Was his older cousin John married? The guy wandering the desert??

 

[Sukerkin]

I'd be more interested on the facts surrounding the discovery of this small piece of papyrus. Such as where it was found, who found it and has it been tested for authenticity?

Not to mention, how accurate is the translation?

Those are important questions I do agree. For reasons best known only to those for whom collecting things and making money are their reason for being, there is a trade in artifacts that is worth quite a pile of cash. So initially determining if this is a fake or not is a vital first step and then making sure that the translation is as accurate as it can be is the next one.

That's me with my ex-historian/museum curator hat on.

To everyones relief no doubt, my anti-religion hat I shall leave in it's box. I've said a few things about Islam these past few days (not here) that I deeply wish I hadn't because of how small-minded they made me sound and how unfair they were to millions upon millions of followers of Islam that are not like the scum who have been killing and rioting. That self censorship had better buy me some leeway when I die if it turns out there is a God after all :lol:.

 

[Tez3]

When Jesus was alive there wasn't any such thing as Christianity, it was Judaism and as Gran pointed out as a Jewish male he would be expected to marry (a good Jewish girl of course), whether he was or not is a matter of conjecture but it isn't anti Christian to wonder whether about it. He was, after all, of his time and his religion. I think sometimes people forget Jesus?Joshua was Jewish, and quite fervently by the sound of it.

 

[granfire]

When Jesus was alive there wasn't any such thing as Christianity, it was Judaism and as Gran pointed out as a Jewish male he would be expected to marry (a good Jewish girl of course), whether he was or not is a matter of conjecture but it isn't anti Christian to wonder whether about it. He was, after all, of his time and his religion. I think sometimes people forget Jesus?Joshua was Jewish, and quite fervently by the sound of it.

Also: They all were expected to be married, I suppose it would not be of any notable importance to mention it specifically.

Kind of like breathing and eating and going behind the bush.

 

[Xue Sheng]

When Jesus was alive there wasn't any such thing as Christianity, it was Judaism and as Gran pointed out as a Jewish male he would be expected to marry (a good Jewish girl of course), whether he was or not is a matter of conjecture but it isn't anti Christian to wonder whether about it. He was, after all, of his time and his religion. I think sometimes people forget Jesus?Joshua was Jewish, and quite fervently by the sound of it.

Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity

 

[elder999]

Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity

Ritual bathing was a pretty big part of Judaism during that time.

 

[Tez3]

Not refuting any of that because it is likely true, but is baptism part of Judaism? The reason I ask is because Jesus was allegedly baptized by John the Baptist and it was my understanding that baptism was first used in early Christianity

If he was baptised it wasn't because it was used in early Christianity, it would be the other way around, early Christians would have done it because John and Jesus did. There is the Mikveh which I imagine is where this came from. Obviously I am not an expert in early Chrisitanity but from what I've seen and heard there's little that's original in it, that's not a bad thing, http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Mikveh.shtml

 

[Bob Hubbard]

People will argue that if it's not in the Bible it didn't happen, which when taken to an ludicris extreme could lead to a cult that never poops because no where in the bible does it say "and yeah verily did our lord goist behind the tree of the palm, and there liftist the cloth of his loin, and verily drop the holy chalupa. Then having done so, he looketh at it and saw that it was good, for it was a steamer. Satisfied, the Lord then washed his hands, and driest them on the leaf of the fig, for cleanliness is next to godliness. So ends the reading". (read in Michael Pallens voice for effect)



(Of course the Bible does contain instructions for pooping, 25 paces out side of town, wooden shovel, and all that)

 

[elder999]

(Of course the Bible does contain instructions for pooping, 25 paces out side of town, wooden shovel, and all that)

That's 25 paces out side of camp. Just for context. :wink:
(It's a good rule!)

 

[granfire]

If he was baptised it wasn't because it was used in early Christianity, it would be the other way around, early Christians would have done it because John and Jesus did. There is the Mikveh which I imagine is where this came from. Obviously I am not an expert in early Chrisitanity but from what I've seen and heard there's little that's original in it, that's not a bad thing, http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Mikveh.shtml

That would be a satisfactory explanation.

Especially if you consider that after the dip, good old Jesus goes on a tear.

 

[seasoned]

Weren't Adam and eve his kids.................... Which would make their mother (nature)............ Just saying.

 

[granfire]

That's 25 paces out side of camp. Just for context. :wink:
(It's a good rule!)

as long as it's down stream....

 

[Tgace]

All this would make sense if you think that Jesus was simply a "man"...who had to bow to social mores.

There's also a lot of "Jews did that..." talk here from people...please forgive...that I'm not convinced are experts on the subject. The "Jews were expected to have married back then argument" presents facts based on what evidence?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk