Was Jesus Married?

[Southtown]

The whip! The whip! :lol: A qualified no. The preference is innate, be it straight, gay, or bi; however it may be a choice to act on a preference. :cup:

How about bi-curious? :D

[LayDominican]

This question, along with did Jesus have brothers and sisters, are question asked not by people with a honest desire to know, but are asked to trip up or to anger honest Christian people. Some say that in order to be called Rabbi, Jesus would have to be 30yrs and married. and in the same post we find that St.Paul was gay. Then someone says that Jesus was Bi-sexual.

 

The above paragraph is just so much hot air. Only in books that the early Church Fathers deem heretical. I would suggest you read what some of the Church Fathers had to say on the matter.Who is telling the Truth. Read with an open mind and you will find all the answers you seek. But do so again not with the morals of a 21st century man, but with the understanding of one seeking the truth. Be honest to yourself, and the answers will leap off the page.

[Spiked Blood]

Christ is gay.

 

 

Clearly. So when he says "turn the other cheek", you have to ask yourself to what is he really referring.

[LayDominican]

I am new this site, so I don't know you very well. I will assume that your reply was a feeble attempt at humor and leave it at.

[TheFaithfulStone]

This question, along with did Jesus have brothers and sisters, are question asked not by people with a honest desire to know, but are asked to trip up or to anger honest Christian people. Some say that in order to be called Rabbi, Jesus would have to be 30yrs and married. and in the same post we find that St.Paul was gay. Then someone says that Jesus was Bi-sexual.

 

The above paragraph is just so much hot air. Only in books that the early Church Fathers deem heretical. I would suggest you read what some of the Church Fathers had to say on the matter.Who is telling the Truth. Read with an open mind and you will find all the answers you seek. But do so again not with the morals of a 21st century man, but with the understanding of one seeking the truth. Be honest to yourself, and the answers will leap off the page.

 

Methink you misseth the point. About half of this stuff is tounge firmly in cheek.

 

But this I mean seriously - would it somehow diminish Christ's teachings if he were married? Would it diminish them if he were gay? Or Black?

 

Jesus hung out with the unclean and the downtrodden during his day - why not now? Why should these question "trip up" people?

 

I do in fact have an honest desire to know the answer to this question.

 

Why does this topic "anger honest Christian people?" Why would it matter?

 

TFS

[Cedars]

It has been noted that Mary (mother of Jesus) was ordering the servants around at this wedding. Some have said this wouldnt be normal ettiquete at a wedding for a guest to undertake.

 

From this website: The Christ Conspiracy The Marriage of Jesus Chapter 10

 

"It is also of note that Jesus, although he already had disciples, did not begin his ministry untle after he had been "called" to this marriage on the "third day." According to ancient Jewish tradition, a man cannot become a teacher or a priest, until he is married."

 

and another quote

 

"Thus, after Jesus makes the wine which is then served to the guests, "the govenor of the feast called the bridegroom, and said unto him... thou hast kept the good wine until now."

 

The bridegroom is never identified, though it is clear that Jesus in fact provided the wine, and thus, logically, he is the one to be thanked."

 

There is also the issue of annoiting the body after the crucifiction and that being the responsiblity of family. If Jesus was unmarried, it would have fallen onto his mother or other family members for that part of the ritual. Being as it was Mary Magdalene who was going to undertake that endeavor, alone as I remember it, it does make it quite possible that Jesus had taken her for his wife.

[Cedars]

This question, along with did Jesus have brothers and sisters, are question asked not by people with a honest desire to know, but are asked to trip up or to anger honest Christian people.

 

And others would say its actually an honest attempt to know what is true and what is heresay. If Christians get angry, so what? I am pretty sure there is no requirement for Christians to read this website (free will). But theres a whole bunch of people who are not Christians and have no obligation to ensure Christians do not get angry over text. Free speech and all.

 

Some say that in order to be called Rabbi, Jesus would have to be 30yrs and married. and in the same post we find that St.Paul was gay. Then someone says that Jesus was Bi-sexual.

 

As I understand it to be called rabbi during that time period the man did have to be married. The age of marriage was 18 but there was no requirement that they be 30, 35, 22, or any specific number other than at least 18. So if Jesus had become married at 24 he could have been called rabbi. The estimate is that Jesus was around 30 when the wedding occured.

 

The above paragraph is just so much hot air. Only in books that the early Church Fathers deem heretical. I would suggest you read what some of the Church Fathers had to say on the matter.Who is telling the Truth. Read with an open mind and you will find all the answers you seek. But do so again not with the morals of a 21st century man, but with the understanding of one seeking the truth. Be honest to yourself, and the answers will leap off the page.

 

 

Yes, who is telling the truth? You have faith, I prefer proof. If God doesnt like that approach, hes just gonna have to get over it. And you cant say he wont (divine authority, and questioning the mercy of god and all those built in safeguards for sinners).

 

I prefer to use the morals of the 21st century than the morals of a people who owned slaves. You question the honesty of the people here when you should be questioning the honesty of the people who decided to toss out a number of books used as religious text (including several disciples of Jesus himself), narrowing the bible down to 66 books from the 130 or so that were offered for review. Dont you wonder what it is that the church doesnt want you to know? I mean, if your honest with yourself, the answers will leap off the page. Just read it with an open mind.

[cwes99_03]

Look at this. Immediately, Pyro has found a text which should solve all the problems.

But no, because so many of my catholic brethren are SO GODDAMN IGNORANT of the Bible.

 

Return to topic commencing in 5...

 

To further demonstrate the gullability of people on this forum.

 

Did anybody try to look up Pyro's supposed scripture?

 

I remember this joke that goes something like this.

 

A priest finishes his sermon and just before the congregation gets up to leave he asks them to do one more thing. He tells them for next weeks sermon he wants them to read John chapter 29. The next Sunday he asks his congregation for a show of hands of who read John 29 and what they thought of it. 90 % of the congregation raised their hands. So he pointed to a man way in the back who did not raise his hand and asked why he didn't read the chapter.

The man replied, well sir, I went to read it like you asked, but when I couldn't find it I figured I come back to see what you could tell me it said.

The priest smiled and thanked him for his honesty.

 

Interesting that Catholiboy did the same here. He praised Pyro and the verse, which is not a Bible verse. There are 4 books in the canonized Bible beginning with H. Hosea, Habakkuk, Haggai, and Hebrews. Hezekiah was a king, but there is no book bearing his name.

 

If you wish to find true answers, don't listen to those who don't know their own foolishness.

[Pyrotex]

...Only in books that the early Church Fathers deem heretical. I would suggest you read what some of the Church Fathers had to say on the matter. Who is telling the Truth. Read with an open mind and ...the answers will leap off the page.

Hello, LDom,

sorry if our posts upset you that badly. You know, it was only 500 years ago that if you found us saying these kinds of things, you could have reported us to the Jesuits, and the Inquisition would have put a stop to it. Personally, I think it is a big improvement in Society, Law and Morality that folks are no longer punished for disagreeing with, or even making light of, RELIGION.

 

The "church fathers", bless their hearts, were doing what they thought best at the time, but they were products of their time and culture. They all had their opinions as to which books were heretical and which weren't, and in the end it was not evidence or truth or facts or logic that prevailed, but the chaotic forces of history and empire.

 

And I am sorry to say, but truth does not "jump off the page". Truth is, like Beauty, in the eyes of the beholder, in all matters concerning RELIGION.

[cwes99_03]

Yah, but as you know, many aren't just making light. While it may seem that way to some, it is also viewed as intentionally inflaming others for their viewpoints. Saw a couple examples of it here on this thread, I'm sure you understand that idea, after all it's mentioned in the forum rules.

[LayDominican]

If Jesus was black, no it would not matter to me, and I can only answer to me. it is said that Augustine was black. And I still find Augustine's works wonderours( I think I just made up a new word!) works of love and faith. However, if Jesus was gay or bi, I would have to give his teachings and who exactly Jesus is more of a deep thought.Could the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity be gay or bi? I dont think so. And as much as it would pain me to say, it would hurt much of the teachings of the Catholic Church. God is a spirit and as such does is genderless. Jesus called him Father so that we, with our weak minds, could better understand who God is. Remember, all that we know about God came from God, and God has not revealed much.

 

As far as the wedding feast goes, if you recall, Jesus answered his mother when she informed him of the wine,"What is it to you and me. My hour has not yet come".It was then that Mary spoke to the steward and told him to do whatever he says.First, if there was trouble about the wine, why go to Mary?The steward would have gone to bridegroom, but instead he goes to Mary. I could go on, but then I am preaching a certain religious belief, and I cannot, according to the rules here. But Jesus was not the groom, and Jesus was never married. In fact, the only Apostle that we know was married was Peter.And she is not mention by name but by his mother n law, do we know he is married. Jesus had no job, nor did he ever go home but once to see his mother before he was to die.The Magdalene was a very important disciple of Jesus, but not as important as his Apostles.And Mary Magdalene did not go to the tomb alone, but had two others with her.and when Jesus did rise from the dead, it was she who he spoke to first, though the Catholic Church has always taught that he appeared first to his mother to ease her pain.But it is not a matter of salvation if you believe that or not.And when Mary Magdalene, reconized Jesus, she did not yell out Husband, but Rabboni, or teacher.Jesus did many things that a Jew would not do. Healing on the Sabbath,teaching, forgiving sins, and so on, things that only God could do.But a Husband, I dont see it. He once made the comment that there was no place for him to rest his head. He often slept in the desert with his Apostles and disciples.

 

And one more thing comes to mind. If Mary, the mother of Jesus was in such searing pain, and there were no sons or brothers or sisters to care for the body of Jesus, maybe the Magdalene did it out of love for the mother of Jesus, as she knew how much pain she was in.

Many Many answers to many different questions. Which is the truth and which are not. I have put my trust in the teachings of the Church and the great minds that have peopled the Church.

[LayDominican]

Pyrotex,

 

No your questions do not upset me that much. it is just that I have just gone thru this on my own site and it lasted 3 or 4 days, and I come here and here sits all the same arguments.

 

I understand that you are glad that the Jesuits are no longer running the Inquisition. However, as much as it pains me, it was my Order, the Order of Preachers or Dominicans that ran the Inquisition. And I will not get suck into that argument ever again. It happen, it is a black mark on my Order, and so we move on.But is you want to spread the rumor that it was the Jesuits, well, hey you know.......!!

[cwes99_03]

Remember, all that we know about God came from God, and God has not revealed much.

 

Says the man. Thanks for identifying that you do not know much because God has apparently not revealed much to you.

[Tormod]

Yah, but as you know, many aren't just making light. While it may seem that way to some, it is also viewed as intentionally inflaming others for their viewpoints. Saw a couple examples of it here on this thread, I'm sure you understand that idea, after all it's mentioned in the forum rules.

 

Says the man. Thanks for identifying that you do not know much because God has apparently not revealed much to you.

 

You are good at proving your own points, mister.

[Pyrotex]

...However, as much as it pains me, it was my Order, the Order of Preachers or Dominicans that ran the Inquisition......!!

Woops, I stand corrected, LDom! Thanks for setting me straight. And yes, it is old history. I will throw no stones.

[cwes99_03]

You are good at proving your own points, mister.

 

TY. I get a lot of help.

[Freddy]

There is no record of Jesus being married by law. But he may have been married via love and in the eyes of God. Since Jesus was the son of God, it could have been a closed ceremony with the Big Guy.

 

Mary Magdeline appears to be the logical choice if Jesus was married in spirit. She was healed of seven demons. The number seven is connected to old testament seven days of creation and the seven mounts and gods of Rome. The demons being expelled got rid of the two darksides of these two sevens, i.e., knowledge of good and evil. What was left was an ideal bride for Jesus.

 

The second bible data was the fact that Mary Mag, went to the cave where Jesus body was kept. She went there to annoit his dead body. In Jewish tradition this was the job of the wife. If there had not been a strong bond Mother Mary would have done it.

 

Another reason Mary Mag was a good choice by God was that she had been a temple priestest who was well connected. Even with her obvious connection to Jesus, she was untouchable since she could call in favors. She could come and go without fear of harm or blame.

Never heard this before. Could you cite where this comes from?