Political Crossfire Forums

[garyd]

We have texts going back to the time of Jesus and even earlier none of them mention such a marriage and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't come on the scene and start lousing things up untill a hundred years after Constantine with coming of Pope Leo the first.

[mattwa33193]

garyd wrote: We have texts going back to the time of Jesus and even earlier none of them mention such a marriage and the Roman Catholic Church doesn't come on the scene and start lousing things up untill a hundred years after Constantine with coming of Pope Leo the first.

Why would it matter to you, personally, if He was married?

[garyd]

It would mean sir that he was no different from any other man and therefore unworthy of worship. You see he wasn't just a man. He was both God and Man and in fact from a metaphysical perspective has to be...

[eynon]

ideal wrote: That's not really fair. The only real reason to assume that Christ never married is the fact that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. That in mind, there's nothing irrational about the possibility that the church may have excluded it from the Bible. The church has been, at different times in history, a manipulative force and Christ never marrying suits their goals.

eh? how would it suit manipulative goals.....seems that if I wanted to manipulate things I would've had Jesus a.married and with kids(so I could claim decent from him) and b.married to not one, but many women(so I could do likewise).........now there's some nice manipulatin for ya 8:)

[ideal]

That's what you can see in your favor. The church, however, can use his not being married to prevent clergy from marrying thereby a.having more control over said clergy and b.preventing the need to support the children of said clergy.

Clearly more suited to the church's goals(at different times in history).

[garyd]

Trouble is, ideal, the Roman Catholic Church only goes back to about four hundred AD we have texts and manuscripts that predate the RC Church as currently constituted and the only one that mentions anything like that is the Gospel of Phillip which does not appear to have been written until the the late second or early third centuries and rather than being the work of the Apostle Phillip isgenerally attributed to Valentinus or the heretical church he founded.

It only mentions that Jesus Kissed Mary Magdalene and this made othe Disciples jealous. It doesn't actually state that they were married.

I might also add that no other main line Christian sect insists on Pastors being celibate.

[ideal]

I realize this. Bear in mind I'm only arguing for the possibility, not that it's actually the case.

[garyd]

One could also make a similar Case that Ceasar never Conquered Gaul but it would also be historically inaccurate.

[mattwa33193]

garyd wrote: One could also make a similar Case that Ceasar never Conquered Gaul but it would also be historically inaccurate.

Big difference here. We know that Caesar conquered Gaul because many sources tell us he did. You maintain that Jesus never married because no sources tell us He did.

We also know, because many sources tell us, that Christianity made it policy to destroy any writings that disagreed with them (Library at Alexandria, for example), wage war with those who held different beliefs (Crusades in the Holy Land and against the Cathars, for example) and destroy pr take anything that pleased them, or resort to out and out murder to stop alternate ways of thought (Spanish Inquisition - they named an order of priests after the monster that was in charge of that one).

Lack of evidence can never logically prove anything - Logic 101. So lack of evidence that Jesus was married in no way proves that he wasn't. Factor in that the Christians actively tried to destroy any evidence that could have opposed them, and the lack of evidence means even less. But the fact that they pursued a strategy of destroying writings and killing those who spoke out against them is very telling in itself. Not proof in itself, but the motives raise a lot of questions.

[garyd]

To be sure sir but lack of evidence cannot prove that he was married. If one wisdhes to postualte that Christ was married then one needs more than mere conjecture to demonstrate that it is the case and that is all you've got.

[mattwa33193]

garyd wrote: To be sure sir but lack of evidence cannot prove that he was married. If one wisdhes to postualte that Christ was married then one needs more than mere conjecture to demonstrate that it is the case and that is all you've got.

Ah, but all you have is conjecture that He was not married. Your conjecture is based on what a book doesn't say. My conjecture is based on the fact that it was, in fact, quite uncommon for a Jew not to get married in that era (it was actually viewed as a sin, a violation of God's command to be fruitful and multiply) and Jesus was nothing if not a devout Jew.

[psholtz]

mattwa33193 wrote: garyd wrote: To be sure sir but lack of evidence cannot prove that he was married. If one wisdhes to postualte that Christ was married then one needs more than mere conjecture to demonstrate that it is the case and that is all you've got.

Ah, but all you have is conjecture that He was not married. Your conjecture is based on what a book doesn't say. My conjecture is based on the fact that it was, in fact, quite uncommon for a Jew not to get married in that era (it was actually viewed as a sin, a violation of God's command to be fruitful and multiply) and Jesus was nothing if not a devout Jew.
Then I guess Jesus was nothing.

Jesus may have been "racially" a Jew, born into a Jewish family and so forth, but there's not a single instance of Jesus observing the Jewish religion or doing anything even the slightest bit "Jewish" in the New Testament. He certainly never sacrifices any animals in the Temple the way the other Kohen Gadol do, he flagrantly flouts any and all Jewish dietary laws and he never even bothers observing a Sabbath.

I guess my point would be, if Jesus did observe this Jewish "rule" to get married and have children (if there is or was such a rule), it would be the *first* Jewish law that he would be on record as actually observing. It would be an exception in the case of Jesus, not the rule.

[garyd]

And as I pointed out much earlier in this thread it was quite often the case that Jewish men did not marry until latter in life when they were fairly secure financially or had established themselves in a trade. Women married young because for them at that time and place the important thing was the ability to bear live healthy children men however were responsible making sure that said child could be raised in a decent environmnet where there was enough to eat and the father could provide the proper sacrifices. Joseph was likely in His thirties when he married Jesus' mother.

[mattwa33193]

psholtz wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: garyd wrote: To be sure sir but lack of evidence cannot prove that he was married. If one wisdhes to postualte that Christ was married then one needs more than mere conjecture to demonstrate that it is the case and that is all you've got.

Ah, but all you have is conjecture that He was not married. Your conjecture is based on what a book doesn't say. My conjecture is based on the fact that it was, in fact, quite uncommon for a Jew not to get married in that era (it was actually viewed as a sin, a violation of God's command to be fruitful and multiply) and Jesus was nothing if not a devout Jew.
Then I guess Jesus was nothing.

Jesus may have been "racially" a Jew, born into a Jewish family and so forth, but there's not a single instance of Jesus observing the Jewish religion or doing anything even the slightest bit "Jewish" in the New Testament. He certainly never sacrifices any animals in the Temple the way the other Kohen Gadol do, he flagrantly flouts any and all Jewish dietary laws and he never even bothers observing a Sabbath.

I guess my point would be, if Jesus did observe this Jewish "rule" to get married and have children (if there is or was such a rule), it would be the *first* Jewish law that he would be on record as actually observing. It would be an exception in the case of Jesus, not the rule.

Jesus observed the Sabbath. Only one documented instance of Him or His followers breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus successfully argued the law that they what they did was legal.

He honored the dietary laws. The perception that He did not is due to mistranslation and amplification by the writers of the Gospels (http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/pronounce_foods_clean.htm). He did say that violation of dietary laws was a relatively minor sin.

A lot of what we believe now is the result of anti-Pharisaic sentiment at the time the NT was compiled. This is shown by the increasingly anti-Pharisaic slant to the stories as you move from the oldest to the newest Gospels. And partly is is due to a misunderstanding of the Pharisees role as lawyers. The Pharisees were the supreme authority for the Jews in matters of the laws of man. They never claimed to be the supreme authority in matters of the laws of God. Jesus was a Pharisee. One of the central tenents of Pharasaic philosophy was that no man could truly know the will of God, and therefore no theological belief could be proven wrong. While I'm sure that there were Pharisees who were ready and willing to attack any viewpoint that was contrary to their own, just as there are in any group, most Pharisees would see Jesus' teachings as an equally valid way to God. Many of the wrongs directed towards Jesus that have been blamed on the Pharisees were actually commited by the Saducees, including His execution.

Jesus was a devout Jew within the framework of Pharisaical philosophy.

[psholtz]

mattwa33193 wrote: Jesus observed the Sabbath.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Only one documented instance of Him or His followers breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus successfully argued the law that they what they did was legal.
Legal as per God's Law, but illegal per Jewish and Pharisaical Law.

Quote: He honored the dietary laws.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: He did say that violation of dietary laws was a relatively minor sin.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Jesus was a devout Jew within the framework of Pharisaical philosophy.
What ever gave you that wild idea?? :lol:

Again, produce some references and maybe I'll believe you.

For starters, I'd like to see some references to Jesus slaughtering animals in the Temple. This was, after all, something that "devout" Pharisaical priests were expected to do.

[mattwa33193]

psholtz wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Jesus observed the Sabbath.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Only one documented instance of Him or His followers breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus successfully argued the law that they what they did was legal.
Legal as per God's Law, but illegal per Jewish and Pharisaical Law.

Quote: He honored the dietary laws.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: He did say that violation of dietary laws was a relatively minor sin.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Jesus was a devout Jew within the framework of Pharisaical philosophy.
What ever gave you that wild idea?? :lol:

Again, produce some references and maybe I'll believe you.

For starters, I'd like to see some references to Jesus slaughtering animals in the Temple. This was, after all, something that "devout" Pharisaical priests were expected to do.

I did include a reference for the dietary laws - http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/pronounce_foods_clean.htm

Sabbath - http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/sabbathViolationQuestion.htm

Sacrifice was expected by Saducaical priests. We know this because all priests were Saducees. Pharisees viewed the term priest as derogatory.

[psholtz]

mattwa33193 wrote: psholtz wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Jesus observed the Sabbath.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Only one documented instance of Him or His followers breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus successfully argued the law that they what they did was legal.
Legal as per God's Law, but illegal per Jewish and Pharisaical Law.

Quote: He honored the dietary laws.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: He did say that violation of dietary laws was a relatively minor sin.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Jesus was a devout Jew within the framework of Pharisaical philosophy.
What ever gave you that wild idea?? :lol:

Again, produce some references and maybe I'll believe you.

For starters, I'd like to see some references to Jesus slaughtering animals in the Temple. This was, after all, something that "devout" Pharisaical priests were expected to do.

I did include a reference for the dietary laws - http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/pronounce_foods_clean.htm

Sabbath - http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/sabbathViolationQuestion.htm

Sacrifice was expected by Saducaical priests. We know this because all priests were Saducees. Pharisees viewed the term priest as derogatory.
Give me references to chapter and verse in the NT, and use them to back up your arguments.

What I'm looking for are Biblical references for:

* Jesus observing a Sabbath
* Jesus observing Jewish dietary laws
* Jesus killing animals in the Temple

Don't just use someone else's argument (more esp since your Web page "references" are not arguing the same things you're trying to argue here).

[mattwa33193]

psholtz wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: psholtz wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Jesus observed the Sabbath.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Only one documented instance of Him or His followers breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus successfully argued the law that they what they did was legal.
Legal as per God's Law, but illegal per Jewish and Pharisaical Law.

Quote: He honored the dietary laws.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: He did say that violation of dietary laws was a relatively minor sin.
Can you produce a reference?

Quote: Jesus was a devout Jew within the framework of Pharisaical philosophy.
What ever gave you that wild idea?? :lol:

Again, produce some references and maybe I'll believe you.

For starters, I'd like to see some references to Jesus slaughtering animals in the Temple. This was, after all, something that "devout" Pharisaical priests were expected to do.

I did include a reference for the dietary laws - http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/pronounce_foods_clean.htm

Sabbath - http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/sabbathViolationQuestion.htm

Sacrifice was expected by Saducaical priests. We know this because all priests were Saducees. Pharisees viewed the term priest as derogatory.
Give me references to chapter and verse in the NT, and use them to back up your arguments.

What I'm looking for are Biblical references for:

* Jesus observing a Sabbath
* Jesus observing Jewish dietary laws
* Jesus killing animals in the Temple

Don't just use someone else's argument (more esp since your Web page "references" are not arguing the same things you're trying to argue here).

Didn't say there were verses documenting that He honored the Sabbath, just that when questioned He successfully argued that He (or more correctly His followers) was not violating the Sabbath which indicates that this was something He cared about. Mark 2:23-27.

Same for the dietary laws. Mark 7:18-20.

There is no biblical documentation that He did most things that Jews did at that time. There also isn't biblical documentation that he defecated, breathed, actually ever made anything out of wood, or got married. Doesn't mean it never happened. But how could he possibly have been thought of as a rabbi if He didn't observe Jewish customs?

[cap'n queasy]

airo wrote: connermt wrote: airo wrote: Would it really matter if Jesus took a wife and had kids? It doesn't really change anything.

Some people (specifically on here) believe it does. Interestingly enough, I have seen many priests say, while they don't BELIEVE He did, it really doesn't matter one way or the other because IT DOESN'T MATTER!
It is taught that Jesus was full God & full man. If that's the case, why wouldn't he be able to marry (or want to marry) if he is indeed full man? If he is ONLY full God, then he probably had other things to worry about. I think this speaks to the church's fear of sex & sexuality in a larger sense, that has been adopted (unwittingly) by many current christians.

I don't think it would either.

If he did have a kid, it's obvious that his blood doesn't carry any mystical God-power, as we don't have Jesus' great-to-the-X-power-son running around putting mud on people's eyes and healing them. So therefore, the only REAL thing they get is to say "Oh, i'm related to Jesus" and pull a Paris Hilton, living of the family name for the rest of their natural lives.

More like a "Henry the VIII". :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: He certainly never sacrifices any animals in the Temple the way the other Kohen Gadol do, he flagrantly flouts any and all Jewish

That's because He wasn't a Levite, and thus not a priest. Cohen are Levites. Rabbis are not priests. They are teachers.

Plus, He wasn't a sinner.