Ok I have another question....Why is it said that if there was a Jesus he was celebit? After looking up how things were in the past it would come to reason that a man of his age would have at the very least taken a wife....right? so why didn't Jesus? because the bible's said he didn't? Is that completely logical? as far as we know the books were written by who God? then why are there so many missing years? And if they were infact written by man then it would come to reason that they would exclude a wife for the basic reason that they wanted male rule which is painfully obvious throughout the book. What are the odds that there really was Sarah? And going on the hypothetical that there was what happened to her after his death?

The bible doesn’t say that Jesus was married nor does it say that he wasn’t. If you took the time span of each story of him in the gospels (and this includes the birth stories and the visit to the temple at the age of 12) you will only have covered about 8 weeks total, so a lot is not said (another reason to doubt their validity). It was considered by the Jews of that period to be a sin for a man not to marry. Jesus was supposedly a Jew (he wasn’t a Christian as many think, they didn’t exist during his lifetime) and preached up holding the law and custom of Judaism, so he probably was married, but to whom – well my guess would be Mary Magdalene, but that is only my opinion.

Yes Mako I agree too. I mean like you say at the time as a Jew you must marry. Why wouldn't he. He was a man. My guess is also Mary Magadalene.


But others say he didn't need a wife because his sole purpose was to spread good news.

I want to vote also for Mary Magdalene.

Well if that is true, and IF he did have a child, his bloodline would still be around....Do you think that his direct decendents are special? Do you think that they are known? Or would he churchs if they had found out "extinguished" them to hide things about Jesus that they didn't want anyone to know?

Im 90% sure Jesus had somekind of a relationship with some woman in his life. The Roman Catholic order just censured Bible to its liking. I just dont get it what's the big deal with Jesus being married or something.

You're right, its not really that big of a deal.

It's just that there are no texts of any kind that would imply enough that Jesus had a wife. Now, if I am wrong about this statement then forgive me, but at least show me some credible sources that would help prove me wrong.

Think of it as a fireman running into a burning building with people screaming but stopping along the way to have a smoke break, or dinner. There is simply no time to do these things. Also, there would be no reason to do such a thing (considering there is nothing to show a reason as to why Jesus would take a wife). Even if he did have a wife, I highly doubt any of his followers would think he was the son of God. He had enough trouble in convincing people of this, why would he want to complicate matters by having a wife? Jesus came to earth for two things....to save the human race, and to preach the word of God. Getting married to a whore would probably not be on the list.


Yes, but in turn, is it completely logical that Jesus was born to a virgin and that he is the son of God?

A whore? isn't that something that is being disputed? Was she not actually daughter of nobility or whatever their like was at the time? land owners or what not? As for being born to a virgin? that doesn't make sense either...if Mary was a virgin what would have made Joseph marry her? God? come on if he would have come out saying that my wife is pregnant but its ok cause it's God's child he would have been considered a lunatic and to marry a woman who was not a virgin at the time of marriage? just as bad she was spoiled, tainted! So how about Jesus actually had 'wordily' parents the only logical explanation.....how is this wrong?

she was a prostitute.

He did just as you say. However an angel of the lord appeared to him and explained. So, he was cool with it.

Yeah, it's not a big deal. People don't care that David Blaine's married...

Amalagamut, can you tell me the passage in the bible that states that Mary Magdalene was a whore?


And, why is it easier for you and other believers to accept the virgin birth/son of god premise, but next to impossible to consider that the man may have been married? Remember, he was Jewish, and according to the traditions of the Hebrews, was considered a man at the age of 13. Also, consider the fact that at that time, people were wed at a much earlier age than they are today in the developed nations.

Jmpd,

from a non-believer evaluation i think it is all part of the idolization/deification process.

think of it this way: look at how teenagers will idolize whatever celeb is the "in thing" of the day. the celeb gets turned into something far beyond a normal person.

now lets apply that to a less educated, more superstitous mindset. jesus the man-god who gave all for his followers just sounds good. if you start mortalizing him though it looses its edge (in a mystic sense - which is important here). jesus the guy who worked as a carpenter, fell in love, got married, had a child, and in his spare time perfomed miracles and taught philosophy.... well, that leaves him amungst a crowd of influential men, but fails to create something spectacular.

thus i see it as anything that takes away from the idolization of a man-god (man created that is) is not accepted.

there is always away around an issue: "thalt shall have no gods before me", but then they decided to call a man a god. the way around that is to say he is god, the same god. more realistically jesus was a man falsely proclaimed a god!

Wouldn't it be easier to believe in a man with whom you at least thought was human? I mean if you were looking for a "GOD" then sure fine whatever. But didn't they believe him to be a man? Someone to idolize and believe in? Wouldn't also knowing that he had human wants and desires being him at least to a level that the average man could understand and relate to? There are things with in the bible that does put mary magdalene above the other apostles, wouldn't it be man's own issue with superiority that made her to be less then she was, man's fear of women in general....Not to be funny or anything but I personally know more men who have issues with women then those who don't....what would make men of the past any different. And with in the church it seems obvious that men had a true hatred of women, all you have to do is read the book or know anything about the book to see and understand that....Just by being a woman you are cursed with sin, who knew? geez there seems like there is nothing that a woman can do to redeem herself, do you really think that it was Jesus who did that? or perhaps it was the simple fact that he actually did love a woman more then he loved his male "followers" and in turn they simply resented the fairer sex so much that they did everything in their power to demonize her and the whole sex......just my opinion

It does't directly say "she is a whore," but there are a few things that may suggest this. Keep in mind, I have about as much evidence as to suggest she was a whore, as to you having as much to suggest she was married to Jesus.

"Now, one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table.
When a women who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them."(Luke 7:36-38 NIV)

Now, I highlighted a few words here that may suggest her being a whore.

A SINFUL LIFE- Now, we can't automatically assume this means "she was a whore," however this is a somewhat nicer way of putting it. Of course, this could mean any sin, or a specific sin, or perhaps all sins. We really don't know exactly what sins she was commiting, but it is somewhat hinted here.

ALABASTER JAR OF PERFUME- Many prostitutes had various perfumes, and oils. This is a indicator, even though it is very weak as to automatically dismiss her as a whore. It could mean nothing at all.

But as we continue...

"When Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is-that she is a sinner" (Luke 7:39)

Obviously, Jesus would have knew this woman had some problems (and probably was a sinner) by her crying at his feet and her reactions to seeing him. Pharisee is pointing out something here....some kind of sin that is made by a woman. Now, what exactly comes to your mind here? That she is just an everyday sinner that maybe says a few cuss words here and there? Or, in relation to her actions towards Christ, she was maybe a whore and knew this was a very bad sin and was begging for forgiveness? It's fairly obvious that she was commiting a sin that wouldnt be classified in your everyday type of sin. It seems as if she was doing something much more (such as prostitution).

And as we continue on....

"Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you." "Tell me teacher," he said."
"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denaril, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
The he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house.
You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.
Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven-for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." Then Jesus said to her, You sins are forgiven." (Luke 7:40-48)

Jesus is using the comparision of the men with the denaril to the sins of the woman. She had many sins, whereas the man with the much debt would be most greatful. He used her actions to make a point. It is obvious that this woman endulged in many sins compared to Simon.

[Luke 8:2.16] and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,

SEVEN DEMONS HAD GONE OUT- seven is always the number of completion. This woman was completely filled with demons. I know this doesn't say anything directly, but it leans more to my opinion as to her being a prostitute. I mean she had all kinds of demons in her what would keep her from doing so.

Again this is just my view on this matter. But I think that Luke 7:39 pretty much confirms this belief, even though it doesn't come out and say it.


1) For my reasons on a previous post.
2) Because the bible says that Mary was a virgin mother, and that Jesus was born to her.
3) It doesn't say anywhere that they were married.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Jesus being born unto a virgin, or him marrying Mary Mag.

But the Jews (who wrote this down) believe in a messiah as well, and as him being the son of God.

edit//i dont mean they believe that jesus is the son of god, but they do believe that "a son of god" will save them.

Please. In the bible it also talks about a woman who "had been unclean for 7 years'. Was she a prostitute as well?

And, he last sentence of mine you quoted has nothing to do with the virgin birth directly. Instead it is an illustration of how a believer (of anything, not just religion), can accept such limit-of-the-imagination stuff, but completely ignore or discount a humble, human action, such as marriage.

And, as you pointed out, no where does it specifically point to Mary M being a prostitute: rather it is YOUR interpretation of the passages.


edited because I really, really know how to spell, its just this damn sensitive keyboard.

Again, this is just my view. And where are you getting the line "she had been unclean for 7 years?"

what passage is this from, and I may have the same outlook.


Because there is nothing to suggest that Jesus was married! Show me where it says this.

Now, does it say that Jesus was the son of God? And that he was born unto a virgin mother?

And I fail to see your point here. So you mean to tell me that you think Jesus was married to Mary, but it doesn't say they were? The same thing applies to you. And I already said this is the way that I SEE IT. I could be wrong, but so could you. She could have been the biggest whore on earth. She could have been able to suck a golf ball through a straw. Or she could have been a pretty little virgin flower. We really don't know. Then again, I guess it doesn't really matter if she was a whore or not (considering all sins can be forgiven). But it just seems highly unlikely that Jesus would have been married, and if so he would have married to someone who is described as such above.

Also, when you read the passages does the thought of her being a prostitute even remotely cross your mind?

Just a fleeting thought, not meaning to offend anyone & if anyone should be offended it should be Jesus. I'll put it as nicely as I can....
...only about 8 weeks of J's life covered in the bible, courtesy of Mako
...god/demi-god (Jesus) in a MAN's body constantly followed by 12 other MEN who adore him
...when they stop for the night, in those days you don't get a room EACH, they lodge together on a bail of hay (or similar - there's proof of how people lived in those days)
...he (J) and his disciples go around spreading the word which includes 'love each other', 'love thy neighbour'
...some priests nowadays?

I've been told to read between the lines to get the full meaning, I do - and this is what jumps out at me In case you don't get it, it starts with G just like god, has three letters, ends in Y and has first letter of the alphabet in the middle.

No wonder there's no mention of a wife

Peace

of course I could be wrong. I wasn't there, was I? Were you? And, why is it so unlikely that he could have been married? Whether to Mary M or some local lass, why is it so outrageous an idea?


No, it doesn't. Where is your mind at that you think she is?

As to the 'unclean' woman, I do not recall the exact verse, but the passage reads "..And as jesus walked through the crowd, there was a woman who was unclean for 7 years who reached out and touched the hem of His robe. And Jesus turned and said "Who hath touched me?"

Sound at all familiar? I am not at my residence, and don't have handy access to a bible.

Not bad for a 'non-believer', hey?

The same thing could be said about any christian soilder, are you implying they are gay as well?

Also, if Jesus were gay, he would be contradicting his words. Not to mention you are implying that his followers were all gay as well.

And on top of that, you are implying that all christian men that may sleep in the same room are gay. Please, lets show a little respect.

ai... i have had similar thoughts on the issue but refrain from refering to all the "man-love".

It doesn't really matter really. Its just that there is nothing to suggest it. This really isnt a subject I like to talk about because there really is nothing to suggest he was, and when I try and show for the obvious reasons as to why (he more than likely wasnt married to mary mag), it never gets properly understood.

"When Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is-that she is a sinner" (Luke 7:39)

This is a fairly clear indicator that the scripture is dying to tell you "she was a whore." Because why would Pharisee be so concerned about this woman touching him? Prophets are suppose to counsel the sinful. Maybe he was just pointing out how sinful she was.

"What kind of woman she is" To me, that leans towards the possibility.


Not bad at all.

It could mean anything. Its impossible to tell. And again, i suppose it doesnt really matter. Either view could fit with the bible. If Jesus were married, i suppose it wouldn't make him any less credible.

However, normally when a woman is called "unclean," it means just that.

When i read that quote about he would know a sinner, to me it implies that it made no difference to him....If he had no relationship with her other then a common place hello, goodbye...why make the comment in the first place, why should she have made the "good book" in any way shape or form. It is obvious that this woman was very special....why?

maybe she was the epitome of sin at the time (in terms of a woman).

maybe jesus wanted to show that all can be forgiven, and that all can be redeemed.

...some may be, are you implying that none are?
...the bible was written way after his death by those that didn't want to discredit him (perhaps it was their little secret )
now you're reading between the lines - between the lines, I said no such thing, have a little respect

I know, I would normally refrain too, but there's a discussion about J's wife and I thought it just may be fitting since there may not even have been any interest in one.

Sure, but the way you are implying it is that every person who loves Jesus is gay.


Yes, and perhaps yellow cows give birth to pink dinosaurs.


You are the one who is saying Jesus is gay. If Jesus were gay with his apostles, wouldnt this mean that christians that sleep in the same room are gay? (for the reasons you stated above)

Would you not consider this disrespectful? What if I said Einstein was gay? or that scientists that study in labs with other men are gay? It would be a rather silly assumption now wouldn't it?


Hardly fitting, unless you think that being married to a woman is gay.

THE DA VINCI CODE!!!!!!!!!!

That's credible, isn't it .............................

hehe, all the best,

We don't find it impossible to believe. Well I don't at least.

What we find impossible is how people can make such a big issue out of it. Seriously, it's not that important.

Who knows, and here's a wild theory which I just came up with, so go easy on me, k: If Jesus did marry and have children, perhaps what he meant by saying he will return one day, was that one of his descendants would rise up.

NB: I don't agree with this, because the prophecies in the Old Testament point to something else, but it's still worth considering.

All the best,

oh snap! i forgot about that one!

You have misunderstood Amalgamut, I am not saying that christianity implies that one must be gay, no way at all, what I was getting at is perhaps the men that started it all were gay (not that they were preaching for others to be gay).

...no, exactly for my reasons above

...you've misunderstood

...what the? There's a discussion whether J had a wife or not. I'm saying he might not have had interest in having a wife for just those reasons. Your comprehension really astounds me.

the same thing could be said about the fathers of modern science. we both have no real proof in these assumptions, therefore they are pretty silly dont you think?


i dont think i have. you clearly said that jesus could possibly be gay. ok, i will entertain you. what (other than what you said) would lead you to believe that he was gay?

i dont have interest in having a wife. does this make me gay?

No, I don't think it's any more silly than saying 'J had no wife, he was never married' or 'J was married & did have a wife, it's just no one ever wrote about it' or 'J never cared to have a wife because perhaps he was gay'. Isn't an assumption that he was not married/had no wife? I mean, the fact that nothing is written is NOT proof that it was so.

And you have misunderstood. You keep on implying that I am implying that everyone who believes in christianity is gay, or any man who hasn't a wife is gay.
I'm saying PERHAPS the reason he didn't have a wife (if he didn't) is that he may have been gay. There, simple, no?

...just like I said about J, PERHAPS you are. If you tell me you're not then that's the end of it. But J is not saying so (he can't) so the speculation stands.

Again, I ask, other than you opinion what leads you to belive that Jesus was gay?

I have no quarrel with you, and I know you have a good deal of intelligence. Matter of fact I don't even know why I'm arguing. It doesn't really matter....
These entire threads really dont matter....

I tire of arguing sometimes, dont you? It seems pointless. Oh well..

Well, some gnostics writing did implied that he was married or had sexual relationship with women. References that include Jesus having a sexual relationship are also found in some gospel text that were not included in the final cut. These are no big secret, unclean woman could be implied for a menstruating woman.

yes but surely this woman was not constantly menstruating for 7 strait years.

...I don't have any other proof. I wouldn't really call it arguing & sometimes it is pointless, but this time, not (for me)....thanks Shai_hulud for that info....
...now I'll concede (for the time being) and say perhaps he was not gay I use 'perhaps' because of 'some gnostics writing did imply' - this is not conclusive (actually nothing is) AND the references in gospel text re J having sexual relationship - well why weren't they included in the final cut I wonder this implies that someone selectively put the bible together

Cheers

Or it could mean that someone got bored and wrote another part of the gospel.... without a source of these "cut" gospels, it's hard to say what it is. But, as far as I know, you must have a very dirty mind to find a verse relating to Jesus having a sexual relationship Pervs!

Good point(s) Tainted.

Pfff. I think these "lost gospels" were from a book of FICTION known as The Da Vinci Code. Link For You! WARNING: LONG ARTICLE!!!! If this doesn't clear anything up, sorry, abnd I'll look for something else.

I've never read the Da Vinci Codes but the lost gospels does exist, they are the Apocryphal texts or "hidden" because they are considered to be non canonical by the catholic Church. This is usually because they are too fantastical or they contradicted the main doctrine. The article to your link verified the authencity of those text, the main point of contention is wether this text can be considered canonical. Btw although they are called "hidden" this doesn't imply that the vatican hide them from knowledge, their contents are not secret.

Surely this is an absurdity, she would have bled out and died. Its much more logical to assume that a human could walk on water, raise the dead, feed the multitudes, rise from the dead. Or that a god could wipe out armies, part seas, kill the firstborn, send plagues, etc, etc.

In a book filled with all manner of logical improbabilities, what is one more?

But it could imply that she had been menstraiting for seven years. once a month like normal but for seven years and that could simply be to imply her age. If the normal age to start is say 13 then that would say she is now 20.

or perhaps years refers to days...

Although I have always assumed that he was married to Mary Magdalene, it has always given me the willies about him sitting with a group of men saying "take, eat, this is my body". the homosexual imlications are way too weird. maybe he was bi? john says he was the disciple who "clung" to jesus's bosom...hmmm.

If he was in fact married, to mary mag or anyone, she was obviously not included in the bible, at least not in her true meaning of importance. So what makes you think that all the other stuff is true? These men were obsessed with him right? so perhaps they took all the things that he was doing with his wife and put themselves in that role while writing the book. Or perhaps at the time since things were so very different what was written can't at any point have a meaning that we would ever understand and it does say in there this is a book of fiction! Perhaps based off a living person perhaps? perhaps not. But either way the what if he was married and what if he does have a direct bloodline somewhere? should we be worshiping them? Or how about this the book says that he was the only son of God right? did God have any daughters? Is it possible for Jesus to have had siblings?

Well as others have sort of said.

Jesus could have been married. But he also was very different. The instance where he touched a child who was presumbly dead. A priest wasn't allowed to touch the dead. Well Jesus did. He is different,whether married or not does it matter. Jesus did things different.

He doesn't have to have proof he was married in the bible because why would this pertain to his ministry at all. God didn't want a Danielle Steele novel. lol.

Hate to break it to you 101, but the book already reads like a bad soap opera. Incest, adultery, murder, suicide, betrayal, war, death, and birth. The only part missing is where Jesus turns up with amnesia.

LOL. I know but I think that adding explicit sex scenes with him and mary mag would be a bit much.

That is funny though. All true. I really like reading the Bible it is a good read even if one doesn't follow it.

He even wakes up from the dead
Scary stuff that episode was