“Jesus Had a Wife” Gets Coverage on CBS and ABC

[Amelia]

Somewhere on one of those links it was suggested that the sentence could have been "my wife is the church" or something like that.

Yeah, more context is needed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If Jesus was married, a load of Catholic priests are going to be really pissed off.

Actually, you may not know this, but until around the 14th century, Catholic priests DID marry and they DID have children.

The Church's decision to make priests chaste had nothing to do with anything sacred. It had to do with money. The Church did not want to have to pay any form of compensation to widows. And so, priestly chastity was invented.

I thought that marriage of priests was theoretically prohibited early on but that it took centuries to get the priests to more or less universally follow the rules.

I did some research on that because, of all things, a bet with a colleague who really wanted to know why Rabbi's are not chaste. lol. That was about 22 years ago.

So, I dug. And there is indeed some validity in your statement, I believe: that parts of the church tried to prohibit priestly marriage - but failed pretty miserably. And for good reason.

From it's infancy to the days of the first Church fathers, through the incorporation of the Roman Empire slowly but surely into Christianity ("The HOLY Roman Empire"), the Church was hardly a unified organization until about 700-800 AD and as with most big organizations, it took a long time for it to get a firm grip on power. There are literally reams of reported cases of priests who were officially told to not marry and then they married - and their upper-ups looked the other way. And priests found all sorts of inventive ways to keep their wives and mistresses close to them, sometimes even within their cloisters. Priests are a pretty inventive crew. Remember: it was priests who invented beer.

You can google this stuff, but there is also very good material to be found on this in most university libraries. I even made an appointment with a Monseigneur (as I understand, a position between Priest and Cardinal) in NE Ohio once to talk about this very topic.

I would put it this way: until the Church put out a specific edict calling for excommunication of married priests and actually started excommunicating en masse, it was pretty much a free for all, and more so the farther away from Rome that one was, for there were less people to watch over priests in the more far-flung parts of the Empire. Xanthen, Aachen and Köln are the three most northerly former outposts of the Roman Empire and as Christianity came into the land of the barbarians, all sorts of wild and wolly stuff happened within those outposts, mostly because any communications from Rome to Xanthen took a very long time to get there, and due to barbarian attacks being par for the course, many of those communications never made it at all. Plus, in order to make peace with the "barbarians", those outposts engaged in trade with those who weren't trying to kill them and so a lot of "barbarian" customs found their way within the protective walls of an outpost.

BTW, the stone "highway", built during Roman times, between Köln, Aachen and Xanthen still exists. I've walked about 50 Kilometers of it. And in Xanthen, they have rebuilt the Roman village as it once was, including the thermal baths.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

There is also a liturgical element in this that complicates both the issue of Yeshua / family and "priestly marriage", and that has to do with the Jewish Friday Night service. Shabbat is celebrated from sundown on Friday evening until sundown on Saturday evening, with a number of services. The Friday Service has as it's introductory prayer a prayer called "l'cha dodi likrat kallah" ("come, my beloved, to welcome the Sabbath bride") - where the "bride" is envisioned to walk down the aisle of the Synagogue toward the bima (pulpit) so that Shabbat can begin. Now, that prayer is not old, it is relatively new, meaning, it is 500+ years old. But as with most all prayers in Judaism, it had a forebearer from Yeshuah's day, a prayer that was similar and eventually, was replaced by this prayer. This helps to explain why the pressure was so strong for Rabbi's to have married and also have children. How can a Rabbi preside over a service welcoming a Sabbath bride when he himself has none? I can imagine that that thought was unbelievably anchored in the minds of people back then. I cannot prove it, but I can imagine it as being very likely.

By extension, the vast majority of the Christian worship service is an alteration of Jewish liturgy. At least four of the six parts of the mass have roots in Jewish brachot (prayers) so it is also extremely likely that the first Christians also welcomed their own Sabbath "brides" for a long time. And by extension, it would be logical that the first "priests" assuming the role of Christian "Rabbis", if you will, also married and also had children. It's not only logical, it's human nature.

I only came across this stuff because of a bet.... funny how life sometimes throws a person a curveball...


[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

 

[Politico]

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Know one knows either way and who freaking cares.

 

[rightwinger]

Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Jesus was a Jewish man in his 30s. Of course he had a wife

 

[jillian]

But ignore the skeptics. Wonder why?

Read more @ CBS, ABC Tout Document Claiming Jesus Had a 'Wife' But Ignore the Skeptics | NewsBusters

And these say it's not a forgery @ Scientists: 'Jesus's Wife' Papyrus Fragment No Forgery

the new testament says that both mary's attended the body of jesus after the crucifixion under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a male would have been his mother and wife. that is evidence enough (to me, at least) that she was his wife.

also, a 30 year old unmarried religious jewish male would have been so odd as to have been noteworthy.

 

[Iceweasel]

IN the NT, Yeshuah was addressed more than once as "Rabbi". At that time in history, a person was addressed as Rabbi if he had a wife and children. It was rare to find a single Rabbi, and Rabbis who were widowers did not stay that way for long. If I recall, Yeshuah was addressed as "Rabbi" at least 16 times within the four Gospels at the beginning of the NT. "Rabbi" was not a title that people threw around loosely or lightly. Not only that, the Mishnah clearly describes the stations in young man's life needed to become a "Rabbi" and the sparse description of Yeshuah's youth pretty much parallels that. Plus, the Sanhedrin had some pretty heavy punishments for people who abused titles back then.

What a load of crap. Rabbi meant/means 'teacher', not marital status. What difference does it make how many times Jesus was called Rabbi? When was that in dispute? You also fail to take into consideration the words of Jesus himself:

Matthew 19.10:
His disciples said to him, “If that is the relationship of a man with his wife, it’s not worth getting married!” 11But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this saying, except those to whom celibacy has been granted. 12For some men are celibate from birth, while others are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

So Jesus couldn't fall into the later category? Seriously?

So, either Yeshuah could very well have had a wife and a child (or two or more), or the the writers of the Gospels were not telling the truth when they called him "Rabbi". Take your pick.

LOL. Truth by assertion! Your own statement is senseless. He could have had a wife or the disciples were liars?

It should also be noted that Yeshua's way of speaking in parables was a very common technique among Rabbis for many, many centuries. In fact, even today, many Rabbis still teach using numerous parables.

Another meaningless point.

What IS fascinating is that one gospel did not make it into the NT, namely the Gospel of Miryam Midgal (Mary Magdalena). Could she perhaps have been his wife? Who knows for sure?

Not you, that's for sure. There were many gospels that didn't make it into the canon.

Jewish archeologists believe they may have found the family grave-cave of Yeshua's family. They found stones in the same "vault" with the names Jusef, Miryam, Yeshuah, at least one of his brothers (I believe it was Simon), and Miryam Migdal. The names Jusef and Miryam were pretty common, Yeshuah was a less common name. You can google this if you like.

All common names and would likely be found in generations of a family. Archeologists believe they may have found...means nothing. Beliefs aren't evidence.

The question is: would his having been married in any way affected his divinity, according to Christian doctrine and/or dogma? Not a question I am qualified to answer, but it is an interesting one.

It would take away from the self sacrifice and non stop dedication to the spiritual realm instead of pursuing Earthly pleasures. Sort of an important theme in the New Testament. And the fact that he knew he'd be leaving a widow (and kids?) behind so it would be even more contradictory to his nature as portrayed in the Bible. Whether one chooses to believe the Bible or not is up to them but it makes no sense to twist it into a different story.

 

[Iceweasel]

the new testament says that both mary's attended the body of jesus after the crucifixion under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a male would have been his mother and wife. that is evidence enough (to me, at least) that she was his wife.

also, a 30 year old unmarried religious jewish male would have been so odd as to have been noteworthy.

Where did you get the info on those two points?

 

[jillian]

the new testament says that both mary's attended the body of jesus after the crucifixion under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a male would have been his mother and wife. that is evidence enough (to me, at least) that she was his wife.

also, a 30 year old unmarried religious jewish male would have been so odd as to have been noteworthy.

Where did you get the info on those two points?

mark 16.1

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

as for the issue of marriage, he would have been married off young. that is simply a matter of jewish culture at the time and today.

and you can fee free to look up the subject of who can prepare a jewish body for burial and the rules regarding that.

 

[BobPlumb]

The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.

If Jesus was married with children, then many people today might be direct biological descendants of God! Wonder how that would be woven into theology.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.

If Jesus was married with children, then many people today might be direct biological descendants of God! Wonder how that would be woven into theology.

That sounds like it could be a very compelling reason to cover up any evidence that his family would have sailed the to southern coast of France and would have started the Merovingian dynasty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the Holy Grail and Rosicrucian literature focuses on the supposed descendants of Christ being the 'holy grail' of His blood in the the latter days.

 

[Statistikhengst]

IN the NT, Yeshuah was addressed more than once as "Rabbi". At that time in history, a person was addressed as Rabbi if he had a wife and children. It was rare to find a single Rabbi, and Rabbis who were widowers did not stay that way for long. If I recall, Yeshuah was addressed as "Rabbi" at least 16 times within the four Gospels at the beginning of the NT. "Rabbi" was not a title that people threw around loosely or lightly. Not only that, the Mishnah clearly describes the stations in young man's life needed to become a "Rabbi" and the sparse description of Yeshuah's youth pretty much parallels that. Plus, the Sanhedrin had some pretty heavy punishments for people who abused titles back then.

What a load of crap. Rabbi meant/means 'teacher', not marital status. What difference does it make how many times Jesus was called Rabbi? When was that in dispute? You also fail to take into consideration the words of Jesus himself:

Matthew 19.10:
His disciples said to him, “If that is the relationship of a man with his wife, it’s not worth getting married!” 11But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this saying, except those to whom celibacy has been granted. 12For some men are celibate from birth, while others are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

So Jesus couldn't fall into the later category? Seriously?

So, either Yeshuah could very well have had a wife and a child (or two or more), or the the writers of the Gospels were not telling the truth when they called him "Rabbi". Take your pick.

LOL. Truth by assertion! Your own statement is senseless. He could have had a wife or the disciples were liars?
Another meaningless point.
Not you, that's for sure. There were many gospels that didn't make it into the canon.

Jewish archeologists believe they may have found the family grave-cave of Yeshua's family. They found stones in the same "vault" with the names Jusef, Miryam, Yeshuah, at least one of his brothers (I believe it was Simon), and Miryam Migdal. The names Jusef and Miryam were pretty common, Yeshuah was a less common name. You can google this if you like.

All common names and would likely be found in generations of a family. Archeologists believe they may have found...means nothing. Beliefs aren't evidence.

The question is: would his having been married in any way affected his divinity, according to Christian doctrine and/or dogma? Not a question I am qualified to answer, but it is an interesting one.

It would take away from the self sacrifice and non stop dedication to the spiritual realm instead of pursuing Earthly pleasures. Sort of an important theme in the New Testament. And the fact that he knew he'd be leaving a widow (and kids?) behind so it would be even more contradictory to his nature as portrayed in the Bible. Whether one chooses to believe the Bible or not is up to them but it makes no sense to twist it into a different story.

You completely missed the point. Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.

 

[Iceweasel]

You completely missed the point. Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.

YOU missed the point. Your post was bullshit, backed up by assertion and supported with opinion. The people calling him Rabbi were everyday folks. Obviously he was not a member of the Sanhedrin, in fact criticized it soundly. You are an asshole, you don't have the power to make me angry, I doubt anyone else either. And why would your incorrect opinion make someone angry? It makes no sense.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.

I'm Mormon.....don't remember anything like that.

Bet you think we eat babies too..

 

[FJO]

The Mormons taught for a long time that Jesus was married.

Maybe that is why so-called Christians voted for Obama by staying home and NOT voting for Romney.

If you need to thank anyone for the curse of Obama, the curse and the pestilence of his second term, thank the evangelical, so-called Christians, who never realized that having a half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.

 

[Amelia]

Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.

I'm Mormon.....don't remember anything like that.

Bet you think we eat babies too..

I'm Mormon, and I do. As I said above, not taught as if it were doctrine, but as something which made sense historically and within the context of other LDS beliefs about the importance of marriage.

 

[jillian]

The Church is metaphorically described as the bride of Christ.

If Jesus was married with children, then many people today might be direct biological descendants of God! Wonder how that would be woven into theology.

The "church" did not exist at the time of Jesus. The only "metaphorical bride" he'd have know was Shabbat.

Which still is irrelevant to him calling anyone his wife.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You completely missed the point. Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.

YOU missed the point. Your post was bullshit, backed up by assertion and supported with opinion. The people calling him Rabbi were everyday folks. Obviously he was not a member of the Sanhedrin, in fact criticized it soundly. You are an asshole, you don't have the power to make me angry, I doubt anyone else either. And why would your incorrect opinion make someone angry? It makes no sense.

You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.

In the NT, in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Yeshua is referred to as "Rabbi" at least 16 times. Now, unless you are willing to say the NT is not infallible, there must be a reason for why all four of Yeshua's disciplines who penned the gospels made sure to include this fact. In fact, they themselves called Yeshua "Rabbi". The word "Rabbi" is a title of respect spoken for one who is learned and who teaches or has taught in the Synagogue. Case closed. That is what the title "Rabbi" means. One did not go around in Yeshua's day calling a person a "Rabbi" just because he told a joke in the street or something like that.

The very fact that "everyday folk" called Yeshua "Rabbi" actually supports my argument. Thank you for your help in this matter.

And being a Rabbi in those days carried with it two practically inexorably extra actitivities: having a wife and children.

Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be. No one is trying to demean Yeshuah or diminish what he did,only, it is highly likely that he had a wife and family. This has been stuff for discussion for many, many years now.

Having taken a wife would not have made Jeshua any less G-d, just as G-d the father impregnating Mary did not make G-d the father any less G-d. You do realize that the story of Yeshua's birth therefore also backs up my argument, right?

Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you. Otherwise, calling a person an "asshole" on a religion thread where nothing hateful or insulting has even been discussed only makes you look very, very small. Why do that to yourself?

 

[Amelia]

Actually, you may not know this, but until around the 14th century, Catholic priests DID marry and they DID have children.

The Church's decision to make priests chaste had nothing to do with anything sacred. It had to do with money. The Church did not want to have to pay any form of compensation to widows. And so, priestly chastity was invented.

I thought that marriage of priests was theoretically prohibited early on but that it took centuries to get the priests to more or less universally follow the rules.

I did some research on that because, of all things, a bet with a colleague who really wanted to know why Rabbi's are not chaste. lol. That was about 22 years ago.

So, I dug. And there is indeed some validity in your statement, I believe: that parts of the church tried to prohibit priestly marriage - but failed pretty miserably. And for good reason.

<snipped>

Thanks for the explanation. Mostly I wanted to address the suggestion that priestly chastity was invented in the 14th century for miserly, nonsacred reasons. It's at least "complicated".

 

[Statistikhengst]

Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.

I'm Mormon.....don't remember anything like that.

Bet you think we eat babies too..

The Mormons I have known personally and am friends with are good, upstanding, kind people. They accept me, and I accept them. Case closed.