If Jesus had a wife

[Avatar4321]

Im not following how Jesus having a wife makes His statements for marriage between a man and a woman any clearer than they are if He doesn't have one.

I also think it's very likely He was married. After all He was perfectly obedient and the first commandment given to man was to cleave to his wife and multiply and replenish the earth. Could Jesus have been perfectly obedient if He did not keep that commandment? I find it unlikely.

But it really doesn't matter. What matters is that we use the Atonement in our lives and repent of our sins.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Disir]

CHAP. XII.--THE MONTANISTS; PRISCILLA AND MAXIMILLA THEIR PROPHETESSES; SOME OF THEM NOETIANS.

But there are others who themselves are even more heretical in nature (than the foregoing). and are Phrygians by birth. These have been rendered victims of error from being previously captivated by (two) wretched women, called a certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they supposed (to be) prophetesses. And they assert that into these the Paraclete Spirit had departed; and antecedently to them, they in like manner consider Montanus as a prophet. And being in possession of an infinite number of their books, (the Phrygians) are overrun with delusion; and they do not judge whatever statements are made by them, according to (the criterion of) reason; nor do they give heed unto those who are competent to decide; but they are heedlessly swept onwards, by the reliance which they place on these (impostors). And they allege that they have learned something more through these, than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them a something superior to Christ. These acknowledge God to be the Father of the universe, and Creator of all things, similarly with the Church, and (receive) as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. They introduce, however, the novelties of fasts, and feasts, and meals of parched food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by women. And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under generation, and suffering, and death. Concerning these I shall again offer an explanation, after a more minute manner; for the heresy of these has been an occasion of evils to many. We therefore are of opinion, that the statements made concerning these (heretics) are sufficient when we shall have briefly proved to all that the majority of their books are silly, and their attempts (at reasoning) weak, and worthy of no consideration. But it is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention (either to their volumes or their arguments).

Hippolytus: Refutation of All Heresies - Book 8

^^^

This is what drove Iranaeus over the edge. First that the Montanists believed that they had direct contact with God. Big no-no. Second that there were two notable women in the ranks. Third that heaven would descend on Pepuza in Phrygia. It is Iranaeus that is responsible for pulling the four gospels that you have today. Now, you see a push for control/authority.

 

[DGS49]

The best discussion of the "Jesus was married" hypothesis is in the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." It uses very convincing negative inferences to conclude that Jesus was married to Lazarus' sister, Mary, who was also the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears after repenting for her sins.

Initially they note that then, as now, Jews consider that for a healthy man to be unmarried is undesirable and almost scandalous. It is apparent that Jesus was a respected rabbi, and for a rabbi to be single in his 30's was unheard of. Indeed, if he had been single it would have been so unusual that it would have had to be mentioned in the scriptures. Thus, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, Jesus must have been married.

Why would the wine stewards have come to Mary at the wedding at Cana if she were just a guest? It makes no sense. Clearly, she was the hostess of the festivities, and not just some woman who happened to be there. It was the wedding of her son.

And the conduct of Mary and Martha at the death of Lazarus makes more sense if Mary was the woman of the household where she, Martha, Lazarus, and presumably Jesus dwelt.

The book goes on to suggest that "Bar-abbas" (meaning, "son of the Rabbi") was Jesus' son, whose blood line continues to this very day.

Wierd shit, but interesting speculation.

 

[Smilebong]

Notice the pig standing by the house?

 

[Amelia]

It took a good 8 centuries to develop a Christology. I don't see anything remotely close to a condemnation of homosexuality in that scrap of papyrus. It does, however, raise other interesting questions concerning clerical celibacy and the role of women in the church. Those were (and still are) hot topics for a good couple hundred years.

Further, now your dealing with Gnostics. So, if you discounted the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary before, do you reconsider your stance?

I do see a condemnation, mainly in the fact that if proven true, Jesus was married to a woman, not another man. Such a communion would make clear what his views were regarding it.

Moreover, I haven't discounted either of those non canonical books, but I also believe the Bible we have today is the divinely inspired word of God. If God wants to add to his word, he would do so... but it doesn't appear likely.

No, Jesus being married to a woman instead of a man would not say anything about how he felt about homosexuality -- other than that his own personal preference was for being married to a woman.


When I acknowledge that I am a heterosexual, that does not say anything about how I feel about homosexuals.

 

[idb]

If this manuscript (previously considered a forgery) which shows that Jesus had a wife is in fact true, it would destroy and debunk every argument which homosexuals and gay rights advocates use to say that "the Bible doesn't forbid homosexuality" or "Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality." Just by him being married to a woman, it would end all debate about what Jesus himself thought of homosexuality.

Though, there is a lot of mystery surrounding this manuscript, it should still be considered a bad sign for those who participate in, or advocate homosexual activity/equality. The days of trying to use the Christian faith to justify this behavior would be over. I myself don't care what homosexuals do in their own time or with one another; but they will have to accept (if this is in fact true) the fact that Christianity--and the central figure of the faith--did not condone or accept homosexuality.

This is an observation, as such it is not a statement of fact.

Is this what passes for logic in your mind?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If Jesus had a wife

He'd have to sneak around to see Mary Magdalene.

 

[Smilebong]

If Jesus had a wife

He'd have to sneak around to see Mary Magdalene.

That was not funny. Wait. Ah crap. It was hilarious.

 

[rightwinger]

If Jesus had a wife

He'd have to sneak around to see Mary Magdalene.

He was trying to save her. They were just good friends

Wives will buy that one

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Serious question -

"if Jesus had a wife ... "

Can anyone answer that question?

(Please, no bible verses. Just a simple answer. TIA)

 

[The Irish Ram]

If Jesus had a wife the Catholics would have a statue of her, so.........

 

[Avatar4321]

Serious question -

"if Jesus had a wife ... "

Can anyone answer that question?

(Please, no bible verses. Just a simple answer. TIA)

You'd have to ask a question first. Just quoting the title of the thread isnt a question.

 

[strollingbones]

there is zero logic in the op post.......


is this not like saying....jesus had a cat therefore he hated dogs???

 

[BDBoop]

there is zero logic in the op post.......


is this not like saying....jesus had a cat therefore he hated dogs???

Exactly. There's a debate term for that - 'false equivalency?' I think?