Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (1)

169 posts in this topic

Where does it say this is Mary Magdalene - it says "woman of the city" In 7.00 Jesus entered Capernaum, following this in Luke 7:11 he entered the town of Nain. Mary does not originate in any of these places and the "woman of the city who is a sinner" is not mentioned at all by name. Therefore, you have yet to prove your point

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the next chapter. There is no induction that this person and the "sinner" from the previous chapter are the same person. However, such a belief seeped into tradition and therefore some people find it hard to separate tradition from what the text actually says.

~ PA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the next chapter. There is no induction that this person and the "sinner" from the previous chapter are the same person. However, such a belief seeped into tradition and therefore some people find it hard to separate tradition from what the text actually says.

~ PA

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that a fully-fledged Christian community can be identified historically in the mid-1st Century AD strongly implies that at the very least there was a person on whom the Jesus-narrative is based. Add in to that writings as early as ten years after Jesus' alleged death, and most historians (secular as well as Christian) believe that there was a person on whom the gospel stories are based.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all historians believe everything written in the New Testament about Jesus. Most historians (especially secular and non-Christian historians) see much embellishment in the stories, but do not see such embellishment as cause to doubt the historicity of the character known as Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph).

Putting it another way - it is far more likely that the Christian movement was started by a man who's story was embellished and passed on, rather than the Christian movement started by a man who never existed at all.

~ Regards,

well argumented.... but what about the fact that a lot of occurences in Jesus' life are told in other, sometimes way older myths already, like the virgin birth, being the "son of god" and similar stuff? Let's say he WAS a real person once, even an influential prophet, but the myths attributed to him kinda got out of hands? Or were partly fabricated to make that young startup religion called christianity more appealing to possible new followers? Anyway, in my opinion (and it's MY opinion alone which i don't feel the urge to convince anybody of) the OP's question is as important and meaningful as to ask who the parents of Donald Duck's nephews are.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

There are many; albeit not reputable, as I do not trust their preconceived notions in the interpretation of Jewish characters. If we are discussing the Tanach or the NT, let us do it based on our understanding of what is written. To appeal to suthorities is a fallacy.

First, let's be clear. "Appeal to authority" is called a fallacy because it can play no part in a mathematical or other tautological demonstration. The word does not connote that an appeal to authority is false. To confuse the word fallacy with the word falsehood is a performance failure in reading comprehension.

Which, by an amazing coincidence, is what we are discussing here, another failure in reading comprehension. However, since you acknowledge that those who share your reading aren't reputable scholars, then that avenue for advance has been explored and found useless.

Well, why don't you use the NT to prove my misreading of it?

The burden is on the teacher to teach. It is the student's prerogative to say "Show me where that is written." It's not my OP, Ben. Do the math.

minera

What exactly is the big deal if Jesus was married or not. He was after all a man. Not one word in the bible about him being celibate or having other interests than females. It is insulting to all women that we are referred to as something not important and hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time is acceptable. But then the Catholic church is a great example of that. Whether he was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and who he represented.

Yes. It is far more important whether Mary of Magdala was the first Apostle, as she was according to John 20, then whether she was Jesus' wife.

You mentioned the Catholics, and might have mentioned the Orthodox as well. Their theory for excluding living women from holy orders and consecration is that Jesus chose only men for his emissaries. Uh huh. So what's the Gospel According to John? Fanfic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well argumented.... but what about the fact that a lot of occurences in Jesus' life are told in other, sometimes way older myths already, like the virgin birth, being the "son of god" and similar stuff? Let's say he WAS a real person once, even an influential prophet, but the myths attributed to him kinda got out of hands? Or were partly fabricated to make that young startup religion called christianity more appealing to possible new followers? Anyway, in my opinion (and it's MY opinion alone which i don't feel the urge to convince anybody of) the OP's question is as important and meaningful as to ask who the parents of Donald Duck's nephews are.....

I suppose it would depend on what you meant when you said that other events in Jesus' life are told in other stories. If you're appealing to the Christ-myther argument that Jesus is a "copycat" of other saviours (eg, that Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra etc) all had virgin births, 12 apostles, death and resurrection then I would simply ask that you do more research and don't rely on conspiracy websites (eg, find a site that outlays the story of Krishna or Horus without trying to parallel to Jesus, and see if you find any information).

On the other hand, if you're being less specific then some similarities may crop up (eg, Hercules was also the son of God, though not in the same way and much of the rest of their life bears no similarity; I'd have to see your reasoning on other arguments such as a "virgin birth" before I addressed it) then I'd wonder if it's even possible to construct an entirely unique saviour. Take the birth, for example - if not a virgin birth, then what? Entirely natural human birth - mythology had they covered. Transformation from an animal or out of solid rock - mythology had that covered too. Divine incarnation directly as a unique entity - mythology has that one covered also.

I honestly can't think of a unique birth or a unique death or any such, so if Jesus' birth happened another way, I suspect we'd still have the same argument, just with different mythologies.

But as I said, this is referring to passing similarities only, the argument of the Christ-myther is entirely unfounded. I'm not sure to which argument you refer, so I'll leave it at that for now. To the question of the OP, I'll reiterate what I said in my first response - we have no evidence that Jesus married, but even if he did it really doesn't affect a Christian understanding of the gospels. It just isn't an issue to me (though I understand that some Christians do believe it important to think of him as not being married).

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one wonder why there was so much emphasis on Mary Magdalene, if it was not she that was the frist women Jesus had saved from stoneing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pychic had said ,Jesus brought her to her home to untie with her family of lazarus who Jesus became good friends with and Mary called him when lararus became ill with typhiod fever

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Da Vinci Code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it would depend on what you meant when you said that other events in Jesus' life are told in other stories. If you're appealing to the Christ-myther argument that Jesus is a "copycat" of other saviours (eg, that Horus, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Krishna, Mithra etc) all had virgin births, 12 apostles, death and resurrection then I would simply ask that you do more research and don't rely on conspiracy websites (eg, find a site that outlays the story of Krishna or Horus without trying to parallel to Jesus, and see if you find any information).

On the other hand, if you're being less specific then some similarities may crop up (eg, Hercules was also the son of God, though not in the same way and much of the rest of their life bears no similarity; I'd have to see your reasoning on other arguments such as a "virgin birth" before I addressed it) then I'd wonder if it's even possible to construct an entirely unique saviour. Take the birth, for example - if not a virgin birth, then what? Entirely natural human birth - mythology had they covered. Transformation from an animal or out of solid rock - mythology had that covered too. Divine incarnation directly as a unique entity - mythology has that one covered also.

I honestly can't think of a unique birth or a unique death or any such, so if Jesus' birth happened another way, I suspect we'd still have the same argument, just with different mythologies.

But as I said, this is referring to passing similarities only, the argument of the Christ-myther is entirely unfounded. I'm not sure to which argument you refer, so I'll leave it at that for now. To the question of the OP, I'll reiterate what I said in my first response - we have no evidence that Jesus married, but even if he did it really doesn't affect a Christian understanding of the gospels. It just isn't an issue to me (though I understand that some Christians do believe it important to think of him as not being married).

~ Regards, PA

Ah, i'm sorry. I shouldn't have joined the discussion in the first place, since i am an agnostic with a tendency to atheism. I just got slightly agitated by the threads' headline. In my understanding, there is a thinking mistake when you start pondering on topics that base more on mythology than on scientific proof. Let me explain that with a more obvious example: Once i read a headline in this forum saying "is there a heaven for pets, too?". While this might be an interesting practice in philosophy or argueing, you just can't SERIOUSLY ask yourself that when you have absolutely NO PROOF that something like an afterlife even exists....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

First, let's be clear. "Appeal to authority" is called a fallacy because it can play no part in a mathematical or other tautological demonstration. The word does not connote that an appeal to authority is false. To confuse the word fallacy with the word falsehood is a performance failure in reading comprehension.

Which, by an amazing coincidence, is what we are discussing here, another failure in reading comprehension. However, since you acknowledge that those who share your reading aren't reputable scholars, then that avenue for advance has been explored and found useless.

The burden is on the teacher to teach. It is the student's prerogative to say "Show me where that is written." It's not my OP, Ben. Do the math.

minera

Yes. It is far more important whether Mary of Magdala was the first Apostle, as she was according to John 20, then whether she was Jesus' wife.

You mentioned the Catholics, and might have mentioned the Orthodox as well. Their theory for excluding living women from holy orders and consecration is that Jesus chose only men for his emissaries. Uh huh. So what's the Gospel According to John? Fanfic?

Mary of Magdala is the key. From biblical and other texts she was the messenger, companion and confidant of Jesus but what were they being so confidential about? Did it relate to her town Magdala on the Sea of Galilee? Next to Magdala is a mountain called Mount Abel and Jesus had a special mountain in this area which Mary of Magdala directs the Apostles to. (Matthew 28). What was so special about this mountain that Jesus chose as a meeting place? It is a special location and the reason must have been known to Jesus and Mary of Magdala.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, i'm sorry. I shouldn't have joined the discussion in the first place, since i am an agnostic with a tendency to atheism. I just got slightly agitated by the threads' headline. In my understandings, there is a thinking mistake when you start pondering on topics that base more on mythology than on scientific proof. Let me explain that with a more obvious example: Once i read a headline in this forum saying "is there a heaven for pets, too?". While this might be an interesting practice in philosophy or argueing, you just can't SERIOUSLY ask yourself that when you have absolutely NO PROOF that something like an afterlife even exists....

You don't need to apologise for sharing an opinion, that's what this board isfor. The title of this board is Spirituality vs Skepticism, and it would really defeat the purpose of this entire section if debate was stalled just because we don't know for certain if heaven exists or if Jesus' story is exactly as said in the gospels.

At the very least, I would think discussion and debate would be fun even if the things we debate turn out to be false. For example, think about people that get together to discuss fiction novels, suggest motives for characters, hypothesise about story lines and offer theories about characters and events (Lord of the Rings, for example, is one of the more popular and elicits heated debate among hardcore fans). It doesn't matter to them that Middle Earth didn't exist, or that there was no War of the Ring, they just love debating the mythology of a fictional world.

Why can't the same outlook be used with real mythology as well as fictional universes?

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to apologise for sharing an opinion, that's what this board isfor. The title of this board is Spirituality vs Skepticism, and it would really defeat the purpose of this entire section if debate was stalled just because we don't know for certain if heaven exists or if Jesus' story is exactly as said in the gospels.

At the very least, I would think discussion and debate would be fun even if the things we debate turn out to be false. For example, think about people that get together to discuss fiction novels, suggest motives for characters, hypothesise about story lines and offer theories about characters and events (Lord of the Rings, for example, is one of the more popular and elicits heated debate among hardcore fans). It doesn't matter to them that Middle Earth didn't exist, or that there was no War of the Ring, they just love debating the mythology of a fictional world.

Why can't the same outlook be used with real mythology as well as fictional universes?

~ Regards,

If we look at our world today the impact of beliefs in spirituality rather outweigh the impact of Lord of the Rings etc so will be taken rather more seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look at our world today the impact of beliefs in spirituality rather outweigh the impact of Lord of the Rings etc so will be taken rather more seriously?

Though I see your point, the end result is that we are not referring to "our world today" when we post in a random section of a random forum. Especially if you don't live in the United States of America. Yes, beliefs about Christianity impact us more than beliefs on Lord of the Rings, but for the purpose of the discussion I was having with Jacques Terreur, I was pointing out that one can intellectually consider a proposition without actually believing in that proposition.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I see your point, the end result is that we are not referring to "our world today" when we post in a random section of a random forum. Especially if you don't live in the United States of America. Yes, beliefs about Christianity impact us more than beliefs on Lord of the Rings, but for the purpose of the discussion I was having with Jacques Terreur, I was pointing out that one can intellectually consider a proposition without actually believing in that proposition.

~ Regards, PA

Does that make you a lawyer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that make you a lawyer?

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

Sorry I was not very clear. Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters. The Gospels and other texts that have come to light were not apparently meant to be works of fiction and the consensus of opinion seems to be that they are based on a real historical person. All the more reason to look carefully at all these documents to try and establish what truths can be gleaned from them. Christianity did not exist at the time of Christ and is built on the interpretations made of some of these ancient texts, interpretations that may be very different from the original events that may have inspired them. The role of Mary of Magdala is a prime example as it was clearly a much more important one than many 'churches' have portrayed over the years. Lawyers, and say politicians, often present arguments that they know are not true, but suit the 'case' or 'party line'; this does not advance the search for truth which must surely be the main quest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I was not very clear. Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters. The Gospels and other texts that have come to light were not apparently meant to be works of fiction and the consensus of opinion seems to be that they are based on a real historical person. All the more reason to look carefully at all these documents to try and establish what truths can be gleaned from them. Christianity did not exist at the time of Christ and is built on the interpretations made of some of these ancient texts, interpretations that may be very different from the original events that may have inspired them. The role of Mary of Magdala is a prime example as it was clearly a much more important one than many 'churches' have portrayed over the years. Lawyers, and say politicians, often present arguments that they know are not true, but suit the 'case' or 'party line'; this does not advance the search for truth which must surely be the main quest.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Just to highlight a key part, though:

Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters.

Is this different to how we approach the Gospels? Surely a group discussion Internet forum talking about the Gospels are working out what the author intended to convey when they wrote what they did, including whatever messages they were intending to convey And sometimes there may even be different interpretations that are equally valid (note, some interpretations are NOT valid, if they do not contextually fit the text).

I cannot see why the debate must end at "Did Jesus *insert hypothetical scenario*", if the response comprises only "A better question is did Jesus exist in the first place". It's counter-productive and lazy. My opinion.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Just to highlight a key part, though:

Surely the Lord of the Rings group discussion is based on trying to work out what was in the authors' mind when writing the book and what messages he may have included, as we would with say Shakespeare, and there will be no doubt many different interpretations hence a debate although in both cases we are talking about fictional matters.

Is this different to how we approach the Gospels? Surely a group discussion Internet forum talking about the Gospels are working out what the author intended to convey when they wrote what they did, including whatever messages they were intending to convey And sometimes there may even be different interpretations that are equally valid (note, some interpretations are NOT valid, if they do not contextually fit the text).

I cannot see why the debate must end at "Did Jesus *insert hypothetical scenario*", if the response comprises only "A better question is did Jesus exist in the first place". It's counter-productive and lazy. My opinion.

~ Regards, PA

I agree that we have to discuss some issues on the assumption that say Jesus existed as a given, or any debate would grind to an immediate halt. If someone is so ardently opposed to the idea that Jesus could ever have existed then just saying so won't help the debate but would remind us that some people may have this point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we have to discuss some issues on the assumption that say Jesus existed as a given, or any debate would grind to an immediate halt. If someone is so ardently opposed to the idea that Jesus could ever have existed then just saying so won't help the debate but would remind us that some people may have this point of view.

I know such people exist. But as I said, it sounds counter-productive to simply post a response such as "a better question to ask is whether Jesus existed in the first place". It's dismissive and adds nothing to the discussion. At the very least it derails current discussion and causes people to move away from whatever the topic is and debate Jesus' existence.

That's my view of it, as far as I have been able to internalise it after seven years posting on internet forums such as UM.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know such people exist. But as I said, it sounds counter-productive to simply post a response such as "a better question to ask is whether Jesus existed in the first place". It's dismissive and adds nothing to the discussion. At the very least it derails current discussion and causes people to move away from whatever the topic is and debate Jesus' existence.

That's my view of it, as far as I have been able to internalise it after seven years posting on internet forums such as UM.

~ Regards, PA

Point taken. On the issue of whether Jesus was married and therefore might have had children this would have profoundly affected how Christianity has developed over the last 2000 years, so it must be a very interesting and significant idea. In the Gnostic gospels the close relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala is recorded as causing great tensions and divisions in the group largely we are told because Mary was a confidant and a woman. If it were to be established that Jesus was in fact married the impact on many parts of Christianity would have to be considerable and with incidents like the Samaritan lady at the well cast Jesus in a very different light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken. On the issue of whether Jesus was married and therefore might have had children this would have profoundly affected how Christianity has developed over the last 2000 years, so it must be a very interesting and significant idea. In the Gnostic gospels the close relationship between Jesus and Mary of Magdala is recorded as causing great tensions and divisions in the group largely we are told because Mary was a confidant and a woman. If it were to be established that Jesus was in fact married the impact on many parts of Christianity would have to be considerable and with incidents like the Samaritan lady at the well cast Jesus in a very different light.

For me as a Bible-believing, Conservative Evangelical non-denominational Protestant Christian my understanding of God would not in any way at all be affected if Jesus were to be married to Mary Magdalene. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is no evidence Jesus ever was married to Mary. The Gnostic gospels are actually pretty silent on the issue, but Dan Brown (yes, I went there) basically made it popular to think otherwise.

For me, my idea of Christianity would be identical whether Jesus was married or ended up single.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was a rebel then much like the liberal of today, new principles and ideas, he love and accepted all as equals.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me as a Bible-believing, Conservative Evangelical non-denominational Protestant Christian my understanding of God would not in any way at all be affected if Jesus were to be married to Mary Magdalene. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is no evidence Jesus ever was married to Mary. The Gnostic gospels are actually pretty silent on the issue, but Dan Brown (yes, I went there) basically made it popular to think otherwise.

For me, my idea of Christianity would be identical whether Jesus was married or ended up single.

~ Regards, PA

Ok. But in the hypothetical case that Jesus and Mary were man and wife as well as confidants this would surely have changed the course of Christianity over the years and led to a different religion to the one we have today. Women are a very important part of the story of Jesus, even in the Gospels, not reflected in the attitude of some churches over the centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was a rebel then much like the liberal of today, new principles and ideas, he love and accepted all as equals. :)

This may well be the case but if this extended to women it would have been totally against the thinking of the Jerusalem authorities of his day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. But in the hypothetical case that Jesus and Mary were man and wife as well as confidants this would surely have changed the course of Christianity over the years and led to a different religion to the one we have today. Women are a very important part of the story of Jesus, even in the Gospels, not reflected in the attitude of some churches over the centuries.

With so many variants to Christianity as it already stand, another denomination or two wouldn't make a difference. Though a married Jesus may be interesting to some groups, the theological understanding of it makes zero difference. My opinion, of course,

~ Regards, PA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.