Was Jesus married?

An opinion piece in the NY Times by Fr. James Martin, S.J....

What if corroborating evidence of marriage is found from an earlier date? What if scholars unearth a first-century papyrus with additional lines from, say, the Gospel of Mark, which states unequivocally that Jesus was married? Would I stop believing in Jesus, or abandon my vows of chastity?
No and no.
It wouldn’t upset me if it turned out that Jesus was married. His life, death and, most important, resurrection would still be valid. Nor would I abandon my life of chastity, which is the way I’ve found to love many people freely and deeply. If I make it to heaven and Jesus introduces me to his wife, I’ll be happy for him (and her). But then I’ll track down Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, who wrote so soon after the time of Jesus, and ask them why they left out something so important.
Click to expand...
 
Xue Sheng said:
WAIT!!!!!


This just in

He was married

last_supper.jpeg


Or are you calling Leonardo da Vinci liar :D
Click to expand...

gonna have to call "photoshop" on that one. It is interesting in the painting that a woman is present, and one of the 12 disciples is missing.

What is also interesting is that in "The DaVinci Code", one of the main books to provide "historical evidence" about the theory/plot was Holy Blood Holy Grail, which based all it's support on an old text that was known to be a fake and not real at all.
 
punisher73 said:
gonna have to call "photoshop" on that one. It is interesting in the painting that a woman is present, and one of the 12 disciples is missing.

What is also interesting is that in "The DaVinci Code", one of the main books to provide "historical evidence" about the theory/plot was Holy Blood Holy Grail, which based all it's support on an old text that was known to be a fake and not real at all.
Click to expand...

I was not serious..much the reason for the ":D" and the DaVinci code is a work of fiction
 
Last edited:
punisher73 said:
gonna have to call "photoshop" on that one. It is interesting in the painting that a woman is present, and one of the 12 disciples is missing.

What is also interesting is that in "The DaVinci Code", one of the main books to provide "historical evidence" about the theory/plot was Holy Blood Holy Grail, which based all it's support on an old text that was known to be a fake and not real at all.
Click to expand...

Fiction.

With just enough historical facts strewn in to make things interesting on the 'what if' level.

(just for argument's sake tho: If Mary was a disciple, there was non missing in the picture. What is missing is the goblet He was drinking from)

Funny tho...the posture of this person makes more sense in the photoshopped position....interesting. (I had not seen that one before)
 
stalker!
I was looking at the same picture.

(plus I stand corrected, the glasses are on the table)
 
http://www.sonofman.org/last.htm

"The most historically accurate rendition of the Last Supper is
two of Nicholas Poussin's paintings. In terms of superb color and the mood
depicted, the one in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinborough is superb.
It is worth a special trip, if you really want to see the glory of what it was
like during the Last Supper.

This painting from Olga's Gallery
(http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin35.html ) seems to be an earlier
rendition, almost a practice. Nevertheless, this as well as the other in
Edinborough accurately describes the furniture (tricline) and posture of the
Apostles. Tricline is a Roman, squarish U-shaped divan or sofa. On the exterior
of all three sides (hence tri) dining guests recline (hence cline). The open
side is for servants to serve food, and in this painting the servant is leaving
the room on the left side of the room."
 
Instructor said:
http://www.sonofman.org/last.htm

"The most historically accurate rendition of the Last Supper is
two of Nicholas Poussin's paintings. In terms of superb color and the mood
depicted, the one in the National Gallery of Scotland in Edinborough is superb.
It is worth a special trip, if you really want to see the glory of what it was
like during the Last Supper.

This painting from Olga's Gallery
(http://www.abcgallery.com/P/poussin/poussin35.html ) seems to be an earlier
rendition, almost a practice. Nevertheless, this as well as the other in
Edinborough accurately describes the furniture (tricline) and posture of the
Apostles. Tricline is a Roman, squarish U-shaped divan or sofa. On the exterior
of all three sides (hence tri) dining guests recline (hence cline). The open
side is for servants to serve food, and in this painting the servant is leaving
the room on the left side of the room."
Click to expand...

LOL

The occasion was probably a lot less grand than this.
I mean, they all paint what they thought the scene might have looked like.
 
Xue Sheng said:
I was not serious..much the reason for the ":D" and the DaVinci code is a work of fiction
Click to expand...

I got it was a joke, should have put in my smiley too. I just thought it was a good point to elaborate on, that there are ALOT of people that view "The DaVinci Code" as all facts woven through the book everytime that they talk about the painting or the plots etc.
 
Instructor said:
LOL...hey Tez how would your pronounce my town Gloucester, VA?
Click to expand...

However the locals pronounce it, it's only polite.
It might seem trivial but this thread is about something that has been written down so a little accuracy wouldn't go amiss.
 
granfire said:
Fiction.

With just enough historical facts strewn in to make things interesting on the 'what if' level.

(just for argument's sake tho: If Mary was a disciple, there was non missing in the picture. What is missing is the goblet He was drinking from)

Funny tho...the posture of this person makes more sense in the photoshopped position....interesting. (I had not seen that one before)
Click to expand...

Assumption is that DaVinci didn't include Judas Iscariot in the painting. It is also assumed that it is Mary in the painting. The posture is very unique in that they are leaning away from each other though. It definately reflects some views that DaVinci held though when re-creating the scene.
 
$last-supper-detail-john-wc-pd.jpg

In the painting, it is very hard to tell if it was an actual woman or an effeminate man. On the retouch, it looks more like a female though.
 
Tez3 said:
However the locals pronounce it, it's only polite.
It might seem trivial but this thread is about something that has been written down so a little accuracy wouldn't go amiss.
Click to expand...

Locals say it like: gloss - tur. ;)
 
punisher73 said:
I got it was a joke, should have put in my smiley too. I just thought it was a good point to elaborate on, that there are ALOT of people that view "The DaVinci Code" as all facts woven through the book everytime that they talk about the painting or the plots etc.
Click to expand...

Well THIS one is real :D

Wheres-Waldo-art-3.jpg
 
It's less about pronounciation than being accurate, a lot of what Christians see in their Bible is stuff that has been translated so many times it's really lost a lot, not to mention political translations. Writing 'Edinborough' ,might mean nothing other than a misleading spelling mistake but what if the word instead was something else like the word 'maid' describing a young girl? And that word 'maid' was translated as 'virgin' instead? So you have the original ... a maid who is pregnant being described as a virgin who is pregnant and you have yourselves a whole different kettle of fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Unarmed Policing

Previous Thread

I need your help

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top