Evidence That Jesus Was Married (2)

Ben Hur

Interfaith Forums
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ben, I do not know anything about you at all, so I cannot determine whether I like you or not. In fact, this is the only thread that I read anything you’ve written that I can remember, so I don’t even know you through your writings except for this one.

I do not recall to have asked if you like me, but if my fast way to detect contradictions is what you don't like about me. That's quite different.

If you could have a new perspective about God – God of all dimensions and universes beyond the physical universe, then you’d be able to better understand what I mean. God is God of all beings in all worlds in the physical universe, in all universes, and in all dimensions. Within the physical realm alone, there are intelligent beings who are very much different from human beings: their appearances, emphases in life, focuses of their activities, perspectives about themselves and others, ways of thinking, ways of communicating, philosophies, cultures, levels of technological advancement, social structures,…..


The process to learn new perspectives about God is the one of a lifetime. Give me time, I still have a few years to live. Bzrat haShem!

So, all religions are initiated by God. However, religions have become changed by the desires of individuals, a group of people, or institutions with means and motives to gain power over others. Some religions have become altered even drastically.

I am sorry Dena, it does not matter how beautiful you write, I can't agree with you on that one. IMHO, no religion at all is initiated by God. If you want to repeat that statement, at least precede it with a metaphorical term to prevent a literal interpretation. Because, as far as my mind can conceive, "All religions are initiated by men."

So, considering all of the above, are the rituals, laws, and doctrines of any religions important? Not to God. Those are not the essence of any religions, but merely structures and forms that people have created around religions. To emphasize them would more than likely draw them away from God, than near God.

See what I mean? If all religions are initiated by God, how could religious rituals not be important? Why should He initiate something He does not care about it? Evidence that religions are initiated by men.


I'm going to interpret the phrase “choosing God” to mean that you have chosen to follow God’s Will. Then as you mentioned, you’d, indeed, understand that God would not prefer one group of people over another or even one race in the universe over another.


More than that. To identify myself with my ideal.

We (you and I and everyone else) live in a state of separation and we’re all on our journey back to God.

We are rather on our journey back to the dust. (Eccl. 12:7) The only time to be with God is while we live. The Lord is God of the living and not of the dead.

If everyone would stop attempting to argue over whose religions are more correct or more “pleasing” to God, and focus and follow what they know deep within themselves, then the attempt to denigrate or defend any religions, or elevate any religions among others as more superior would cease.


None of the above pertains to my case. I am rather trying to defend Judaism from being replaced. We have lost too many Jews with that policy.

I meant Jesus’ teachings since you were speaking of the possibility that Jesus might have been married, but really any teachings that resonate deep within all of us because of their true wisdom.

Jesus was a Jewish man known and addressed to by many as a Teacher and a Rabbi. Being a married man would never denigrate his position but rather enhance his credibility. Moreover, his teaching would not be affected. If he had been a Greek, I would not be wasting my time with this discussion.
 

Ben Hur

Interfaith Forums
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi Brethren,

Jesus being the Second Adam, could not create generation against the First Adam. So, He was not married otherwise there would have been his Tomb like Abraham.

In that case every man who dies without children is a second Adam who could not create a generation against the first Adam. Moreover, every man whom a tomb is not found to be like Abraham was not married. Please, Nijjhar, spare me the balderdash! Otherwise, translate what you are trying to say in more legible words.
 

NiceCupOfTea

Pathetic earthlings
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In that case, would you please show me a book which is evidence of something? See where your statement above has taken you to? Into a dead-end alley.

yeah i see what you mean, although some books are more credible as evidence than others. if we talking history then if Jesus was married where is the historical evidence for this ?

the the bible is a collection of stories, there maybe some historical truth but its not gospel :rolleyes: and its not impartial therefore to my mind is not historical evidence of anything really. certainly not of Jesus being married.
 

Ben Hur

Interfaith Forums
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Points
0
yeah i see what you mean, although some books are more credible as evidence than others. if we talking history then if Jesus was married where is the historical evidence for this ?

the the bible is a collection of stories, there maybe some historical truth but its not gospel :rolleyes: and its not impartial therefore to my mind is not historical evidence of anything really. certainly not of Jesus being married.

The evidences that Jesus was a married man, are all in the context of his culture. They probably must have been literally on the orginal paper but the Church did not find them to be good for the business and cleared them out.

Again, by saying that the Bible is not an impartial historical book, you are inviting the same question back: Can you show me a book of impartial history? History is never impartial as it is usually written according to preconceived notions.

Biblical reality is found only in the archetype the type points to. But to get that you must show some expertise in metaphorical language.
 

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
22,912
Reaction score
2,567
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
The language of the bible is a collection of stories, that was metaphor people who need those stories to fulfill there lives.

It may or may not be metaphor you. But it was metaphor many, and metaphor me.
 

Sheena

Interfaith Forums
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I do not recall to have asked if you like me, but if my fast way to detect contradictions is what you don't like about me. That's quite different.
Ben, someone’s “fast way to detect contradictions” in what I say is not one of my criteria for liking or disliking him/her.


The process to learn new perspectives about God is the one of a lifetime. Give me time, I still have a few years to live. Bzrat haShem!
Yes, so by all means, take your time then.

I am sorry Dena, it does not matter how beautiful you write, I can't agree with you on that one. IMHO, no religion at all is initiated by God. If you want to repeat that statement, at least precede it with a metaphorical term to prevent a literal interpretation. Because, as far as my mind can conceive, "All religions are initiated by men."
So try to expand your mind. (By the way, who’s Dena?)
See what I mean? If all religions are initiated by God, how could religious rituals not be important? Why should He initiate something He does not care about it? Evidence that religions are initiated by men.
If you consider what I’ve told you in the previous post, you could perhaps see that the essence of religions is not rituals, laws, or doctrines of religions. Our bodies are born of biological processes. We have created our surface minds since we were born. However, the part of us that is the Creation of God, the essence of all religions, is permanent; it is unchangeable; it cannot be influenced or manipulated; it transcends all barriers that separate individuals, groups of individuals, or worlds. Yet, many religions have become changed so much to the extent that this essence seems absent entirely, and rituals, laws, and doctrines became their focus. Then people of different faiths end up defending their religions which have now become a shell without any substance, because they cannot find the common ground, with what they focus on.
We are rather on our journey back to the dust. (Eccl. 12:7) The only time to be with God is while we live. The Lord is God of the living and not of the dead.
If we believed that, then we wouldn’t be able to accept realities beyond the physical realm. The holy spirit within you, the permanent part of you, does not die with your body and surface mind. It existed before you came into the world, and it will continue to exist after your body and mind are no more.

None of the above pertains to my case. I am rather trying to defend Judaism from being replaced. We have lost too many Jews with that policy.
Yes, humanity has made many errors, some very tragic, indeed, throughout its history. Judaism or any religion for that matter does not need to be replaced. However, all of us do need to expand our perspectives and reconsider many things now, for the Great Waves of Change have been occurring and will worsen in the coming years, we’re emerging into the Greater Community of Worlds, and the Extraterrestrial Intervention has been going on in our world unbeknownst to humanity at large.
 

NiceCupOfTea

Pathetic earthlings
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The evidences that Jesus was a married man, are all in the context of his culture.

thats not evidence, thats your belief.

They probably must have been literally on the orginal paper but the Church did not find them to be good for the business and cleared them out.

Again, by saying that the Bible is not an impartial historical book, you are inviting the same question back: Can you show me a book of impartial history? History is never impartial as it is usually written according to preconceived notions.

the various versions of the Bible are all myth and legend with a smattering of history,. and contains no evidence to back your opinion, show me one piece of credible evidence to backup your claim.

as for showing you another book that is impartial, if we are talking history then we would be comparing various historical sources to make an informed opinion, can you do the same ?

Biblical reality is found only in the archetype the type points to. But to get that you must show some expertise in metaphorical language.
 

A Cup Of Tea

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
566
Points
108
The evidences that Jesus was a married man, are all in the context of his culture.

I think this quote is relevant.

While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will be up to, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant. So says the statistician. ~Arthur Conan Doyle
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,475
Reaction score
2,687
Points
108
Evidence That Jesus Was Not Married

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it" Matthew 19:12
Bit of a hypocrite to say that, then go home to the missus ...

"And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting" (Matthew 19:29)
Bit of a hypocrite to say that, then go home to the missus ...

"Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake" (Luke 18:29)
Bit of a hypocrite to say that, then go home to the missus ...

"And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives"
(Luke 24:34-35)

"And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 8:23)

There are numerous texts which, had Jesus been married, would have led His audience to scoff Him ...

God bless,

Thomas
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
Interestingly enough, I remember a while ago reading another claim that this was Jesus' wedding - the argument being that there was no wine served because the wedding would not have been "kosher" (for whatever reason) - and that Jesus bring wine to the wedding (physically, not by magic) was a big issue, because he was flaunting - or changing - existing Jewish law on the matter.
 

moonbeam

Member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well so far, neither of the two incidents that Ben Hur cited (Mary the sister of Martha and the wedding at Cana) even remotely point to the idea of Jesus being married.

In the case of Mary - part of what was so revolutionary about Jesus was precisely that his treatment of women was astoundingly different than what his culture dictated at the time. Mary was certainly not the only woman recorded to have approached Jesus in public, and not a single time did he respond negatively to any woman who did speak to him. So, far from Mary's washing of Jesus's feet being an indication of marriage, I would say that incident was just one of many in which Jesus encouraged his followers to treat women with respect - contrary to what their culture supported.

Interesting interpretation of the wedding at Cana, but that is really assuming a lot that just is not found in the text. That does not automatically mean your interpretation is wrong - it just means that it can't be used as "proof" that Jesus is married because that's not what is actually found in the text.

It doesn't say it was his wedding, and in fact goes so far as to say he and his disciples were "invited." If he was the groom, then he'd be the one doing the inviting - not the other way around. When Mary went to Jesus about the wine, he said, "Why do you involve me?" which indicates to me that her going to him would be viewed as unusual - again indicating that it was not his wedding. Like, "WTF, this isn't my wedding, why are you telling ME about the wine?" Why, indeed, was she telling him? She clearly expected him to DO something. What can I say? A mother knows her child, which is why she knew to go to him.

None of this proves that he WASN'T married, of course. But it certainly cannot be used as proof that he WAS. If you are trying to use scriptural texts to prove something, you won't convince anyone else if you play fast and loose with what is actually said IN the texts.

I really would be far more interested in archaeological or other ancient sources myself...

ETA: Also, if Jesus really was married, then why did he go out of his way WHILE HE WAS DYING ON A CROSS to make provision for his mother after his death, yet he didn't even bother to mention a wife (who would also need to be cared for)? That doesn't seem in character with him, particularly when you consider his attitudes towards women.
 

donnann

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Well so far, neither of the two incidents that Ben Hur cited (Mary the sister of Martha and the wedding at Cana) even remotely point to the idea of Jesus being married.

In the case of Mary - part of what was so revolutionary about Jesus was precisely that his treatment of women was astoundingly different than what his culture dictated at the time. Mary was certainly not the only woman recorded to have approached Jesus in public, and not a single time did he respond negatively to any woman who did speak to him. So, far from Mary's washing of Jesus's feet being an indication of marriage, I would say that incident was just one of many in which Jesus encouraged his followers to treat women with respect - contrary to what their culture supported.

Interesting interpretation of the wedding at Cana, but that is really assuming a lot that just is not found in the text. That does not automatically mean your interpretation is wrong - it just means that it can't be used as "proof" that Jesus is married because that's not what is actually found in the text.

It doesn't say it was his wedding, and in fact goes so far as to say he and his disciples were "invited." If he was the groom, then he'd be the one doing the inviting - not the other way around. When Mary went to Jesus about the wine, he said, "Why do you involve me?" which indicates to me that her going to him would be viewed as unusual - again indicating that it was not his wedding. Like, "WTF, this isn't my wedding, why are you telling ME about the wine?" Why, indeed, was she telling him? She clearly expected him to DO something. What can I say? A mother knows her child, which is why she knew to go to him.

None of this proves that he WASN'T married, of course. But it certainly cannot be used as proof that he WAS. If you are trying to use scriptural texts to prove something, you won't convince anyone else if you play fast and loose with what is actually said IN the texts.

I really would be far more interested in archaeological or other ancient sources myself...

ETA: Also, if Jesus really was married, then why did he go out of his way WHILE HE WAS DYING ON A CROSS to make provision for his mother after his death, yet he didn't even bother to mention a wife (who would also need to be cared for)? That doesn't seem in character with him, particularly when you consider his attitudes towards women.
Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus' close companions. Jesus also cared especially for her by, for instance in one occasion, driving out 7 demons from her Luke 8:2http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_kissed_mary_magdalene.htm This is an interesting read. If Jesus was married I do not know why it would not be mentioned frequently in mainstream religion.
 

donnann

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Well so far, neither of the two incidents that Ben Hur cited (Mary the sister of Martha and the wedding at Cana) even remotely point to the idea of Jesus being married.

In the case of Mary - part of what was so revolutionary about Jesus was precisely that his treatment of women was astoundingly different than what his culture dictated at the time. Mary was certainly not the only woman recorded to have approached Jesus in public, and not a single time did he respond negatively to any woman who did speak to him. So, far from Mary's washing of Jesus's feet being an indication of marriage, I would say that incident was just one of many in which Jesus encouraged his followers to treat women with respect - contrary to what their culture supported.

Interesting interpretation of the wedding at Cana, but that is really assuming a lot that just is not found in the text. That does not automatically mean your interpretation is wrong - it just means that it can't be used as "proof" that Jesus is married because that's not what is actually found in the text.

It doesn't say it was his wedding, and in fact goes so far as to say he and his disciples were "invited." If he was the groom, then he'd be the one doing the inviting - not the other way around. When Mary went to Jesus about the wine, he said, "Why do you involve me?" which indicates to me that her going to him would be viewed as unusual - again indicating that it was not his wedding. Like, "WTF, this isn't my wedding, why are you telling ME about the wine?" Why, indeed, was she telling him? She clearly expected him to DO something. What can I say? A mother knows her child, which is why she knew to go to him.

None of this proves that he WASN'T married, of course. But it certainly cannot be used as proof that he WAS. If you are trying to use scriptural texts to prove something, you won't convince anyone else if you play fast and loose with what is actually said IN the texts.

I really would be far more interested in archaeological or other ancient sources myself...

ETA: Also, if Jesus really was married, then why did he go out of his way WHILE HE WAS DYING ON A CROSS to make provision for his mother after his death, yet he didn't even bother to mention a wife (who would also need to be cared for)? That doesn't seem in character with him, particularly when you consider his attitudes towards women.
this is another interesting read:
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jesus came from a certain geneological line. The jews always look at the mother for that line instead of the father. My question would be did Mary his mother have other children after her and Joseph were married to continue that line? Did Mary Have Other Children? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
 

donnann

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Re: Evidence That Jesus Was Not Married

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it" Matthew 19:12
Bit of a hypocrite to say that, then go home to the missus ...

"And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting" (Matthew 19:29)
Bit of a hypocrite to say that, then go home to the missus ...

"Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake" (Luke 18:29)
Bit of a hypocrite to say that, then go home to the missus ...

"And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives"
(Luke 24:34-35)

"And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 8:23)

There are numerous texts which, had Jesus been married, would have led His audience to scoff Him ...

God bless,

Thomas
They shall be neither married or take wives is because everyone has only one opposite and each of us will be with that opposite. We marry here and divorce. We are all looking for that partner that makes us whole. Plato made some mention of this. Look at the marriage of the lamb. There are 10 seal openings. The last two take place when the resurrected body (made one with soul and spirit) are brought together with their opposite sex partner. That is the marriage. 101010 is consummation of the marriage. Sex is very sacred and keeps the two one while also feeding the energy of the two to keep it an infinite being. The phrase about the woman has two aspects to in in revelation 12. Manchild means human child. In the beginning the HUMANCHILD was two: one male and one female that even though two were also one as well as well as being three. A very complex entity that is the infinite life entity.
 

donnann

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
2
Points
36
EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS MARRIED (2)

This is about the Wedding at Cana. Matthew says that after Jesus was baptized, he came directly out of the water and was led into the desert where he fasted 40 days and 40 nights. (Mat. 3:16; 4:1)

Mark says that immediately, on coming out of the water, the Spirit sent him out toward the desert where he stayed 40 days. (Mark 1:10,12)

Luke says that, full of the Holy Spirit, Jesus returned from the Jordan and was conducted by the Spirit into the desert for 40 days. (Luke 4:1,2)

John says the next day after Jesus was baptized, John the Baptist watched Jesus walk by and recommended two of his disciples to follow him. (John 1:35)

On the third day after Jesus' baptism obviously, Jesus and his disciples, as well as his mother Mary were in a wedding at Cana. (John 2:1)

At a certain point of the celebrations, they ran out of wine and Jesus' mother immediately reported the incident to Jesus. Why Jesus and not the groom? According to a certain tradition the groom was the one in charge to provide the wine. I got married in Israel and was reminded of that tradition myself.

Mary could not think of a miracle because that would be the first of Jesus' signs. (John 2:11) The logic is that Mary reported the lack of wine to Jesus because Jesus was the groom and she needed to spare him the embarrassment. The waiters knew what Jesus had done. The one in charge called on Jesus aka the groom to congratulate him for the later wine which proved to be better than the first one when the normal procedure was the opposite. (John 2:9,10)

Now, if after the above evidence the wedding at Cana was not Jesus', how to explain his being in the desert fasting and being tempted to change stone into bread, according to the prior three gospels and now John reports him feasting in cana while being tempted to turn water into wine?

If what happened in Cana was indeed Jesus' wedding, he was married and the issue is over; if not, we have got either to get rid of the first three gospels or the fourth one because, Jesus was not fasting in the desert but feasting in Cana. Then, we have in our hands an ugly contradiction to solve.
I do not see how mary magdelene would have fulfilled prophecy. The casting out of 7 demons of mary magdelene would have to be 7 seal openings and bindings beginning at conception. The Aramaic word Magdala means "tower" or "fortress." In Hebrew, the word is spelled mgdl and migdol. The title "Magdalene" implies greatness, exaltation, elevation, and pre-eminence. And in fact, on seven of the eight lists in the New Testament that mention women who followed Jesus, Mary "the Magdalene" is mentioned first. In Matthew 28 we read that on the morning after the Sabbath Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" went to see the sepulcher. Who is "First Lady" here? Clearly it is Mary Magdalene who has pre-eminence in the early community whose stories are recorded in the Gospels. http://www.margaretstarbird.net/mary_called_magdalene.html
Did anything happen to show that Mary Magdelene was fulfillment of prophecy? It is only noted that JESUS was an incarnated being that came to earth by seal openings and bindings starting at his conception. Mary Magdelene was not.
 

donnann

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,294
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Re: Evidence That Jesus Was Not Married

They shall be neither married or take wives is because everyone has only one opposite and each of us will be with that opposite. We marry here and divorce. We are all looking for that partner that makes us whole. Plato made some mention of this. Look at the marriage of the lamb. There are 10 seal openings. The last two take place when the resurrected body (made one with soul and spirit) are brought together with their opposite sex partner. That is the marriage. 101010 is consummation of the marriage. Sex is very sacred and keeps the two one while also feeding the energy of the two to keep it an infinite being. The phrase about the woman has two aspects to in in revelation 12. Manchild means human child. In the beginning the HUMANCHILD was two: one male and one female that even though two were also one as well as well as being three. A very complex entity that is the infinite life entity.
Maybe I should explain this. Each of us has a spirit. That spirit is unbreakable and unchangeable. There is a pattern to the spirit and codes in that pattern. Each of us true opposites and they are an exact pattern to those codes in their own personal holy spirit coming from god but are opposite. A heavenly being even though incarnated into the human egg wont have an earthly being as their one true opposite. The same goes for a human being. A human being will not have a heavenly being as their one true opposite. JESUS took on a human body and can appear in that human resurrected body but it not revealed until he raises up that human body to his prehuman self. Each to its own origin. When the earth is made immortal and perfect(I refer to the whole universe) there are earthly spheres and heavenly spheres....abodes that are compatible to each ones kind. A human being will reside on a heavenly earthly sphere while heavenly beings do reside in heavenly spheres. The heavenly spheres already exist outside this universe but are like ships and can travel here if they want to. Kinda reminds me of that song..Michael row the boat ashore. This place is known as beyond. GOD resides there as well as the archangels and angels and each has a counterpart. This universe is in the exact likeness of that universe but the heavenly spheres consist of more light . A heavenly sphere would not be compatible for permanent residence unless the being is a heavenly being just as a perfect earthly sphere would not be compatible for a heavenly being to permanently reside in. This can get very complex. JESUS taking on a human body made it capable for him to reside here as well as for salvation purposes.
 
Top