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

[jillian]

Here is the funny thing, EVERYBODY has chosen what they want to believe.

The key word there is "chosen".

The funny part is that NOT one of you can prove that your "chosen" belief system is any truer or anymore "valid" than anyone else's.

There is NO reason to think that ANY of the Gnostic's or any of the other "extra biblical" shit is any truer than what the Bible or the Church teaches.

are you saying that there was no council of nice? or that constantine didn't cobble together a bunch of belief systems to make sure he didn't have an unruly public?

that said, people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others or hurt anyone with them.

 

[Antares]

Here is the funny thing, EVERYBODY has chosen what they want to believe.

The key word there is "chosen".

The funny part is that NOT one of you can prove that your "chosen" belief system is any truer or anymore "valid" than anyone else's.

There is NO reason to think that ANY of the Gnostic's or any of the other "extra biblical" shit is any truer than what the Bible or the Church teaches.

are you saying that there was no council of nice? or that constantine didn't cobble together a bunch of belief systems to make sure he didn't have an unruly public?

that said, people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others or hurt anyone with them.

I am saying that EVERYONE has their own belief system and that you or Jake or anyone can pick and choose what parts of all of the councils....and gospels and everything else but in the end it is what it is.....YOUR belief system.

Can you show that yours is ANYMORE valid than anyone else's ?

 

[jillian]

Here is the funny thing, EVERYBODY has chosen what they want to believe.

The key word there is "chosen".

The funny part is that NOT one of you can prove that your "chosen" belief system is any truer or anymore "valid" than anyone else's.

There is NO reason to think that ANY of the Gnostic's or any of the other "extra biblical" shit is any truer than what the Bible or the Church teaches.

are you saying that there was no council of nice? or that constantine didn't cobble together a bunch of belief systems to make sure he didn't have an unruly public?

that said, people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others or hurt anyone with them.

I am saying that EVERYONE has their own belief system and that you or Jake or anyone can pick and choose what parts of all of the councils....and gospels and everything else but in the end it is what it is.....YOUR belief system.

Can you show that yours is ANYMORE valid than anyone else's ?

more valid? everyone thinks their belief system is more valid than any other or they wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

so yes, while people are free to believe as they wish, there are certain historical truths... like jesus never preached anything that conflicted with jewish belief. he preached against corruption among the high priests and roman occupation of judaism.

 

[Barb]

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.

The earlier Popes were married - Borgia, for one.

 

[Antares]

are you saying that there was no council of nice? or that constantine didn't cobble together a bunch of belief systems to make sure he didn't have an unruly public?

that said, people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others or hurt anyone with them.

I am saying that EVERYONE has their own belief system and that you or Jake or anyone can pick and choose what parts of all of the councils....and gospels and everything else but in the end it is what it is.....YOUR belief system.

Can you show that yours is ANYMORE valid than anyone else's ?

more valid? everyone thinks their belief system is more valid than any other or they wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

so yes, while people are free to believe as they wish, there are certain historical truths... like jesus never preached anything that conflicted with jewish belief. he preached against corruption among the high priests and roman occupation of judaism.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

Jewish mysticism is no more relevant or true than other belief system.
Because one was always "taught" something does not mean that what was "taught was true.....or untrue.

The point here is that everyone is judging everyone else's belief system.

A relativist can never accept an absolutist....and an absolutist can NEVER accept a relativist......but who is correct?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am saying that EVERYONE has their own belief system and that you or Jake or anyone can pick and choose what parts of all of the councils....and gospels and everything else but in the end it is what it is.....YOUR belief system.

Can you show that yours is ANYMORE valid than anyone else's ?

more valid? everyone thinks their belief system is more valid than any other or they wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

so yes, while people are free to believe as they wish, there are certain historical truths... like jesus never preached anything that conflicted with jewish belief. he preached against corruption among the high priests and roman occupation of judaism.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

Jewish mysticism is no more relevant or true than other belief system.
Because one was always "taught" something does not mean that what was "taught was true.....or untrue.

The point here is that everyone is judging everyone else's belief system.

A relativist can never accept an absolutist....and an absolutist can NEVER accept a relativist......but who is correct?

Excellent post.

 

[Barb]

Why s there so much fear that Jesus may have had sex? Or that Mary may have had sex?

THANK you! I've always been a little pissed off about the insistence on the "virgin" birth. For one, biology, but beyond that, why couldn't he have been a plucky little bastard like me?

And the answer is social control - keeping the high and mighty both high AND mighty, and plucky little bastards like me under heel.

 

[Barb]

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.

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.

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.

The entire legend of the Merovingian Dynasty is a claim that Yeshuah's children were spirited out of Israel after his crucifixion and landed on the southern coast of today's France. But there is no real evidence for this. Some even believe that the founding of the Templar Knights actually had nothing to do with the "Holy Grail", but rather, to protect this secret. Were that the case, then it would be theoretically possible that direct blood descendants of Yeshuah lived in France for many, many centuries, perhaps even till today. But for this, there is also no conclusive evidence.

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?

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.

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.

The Da Vinci Code touched on all of that. It was an interesting premise, that the church would find a direct bloodline of the man they worshipped as divinity so threatening that the family would have to be shielded from them by generations of a secret society dedicated to that one purpose. Not that far fetched.

 

[Antares]

more valid? everyone thinks their belief system is more valid than any other or they wouldn't hold to those beliefs.

but that is true of both religious and political beliefs.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

so yes, while people are free to believe as they wish, there are certain historical truths... like jesus never preached anything that conflicted with jewish belief. he preached against corruption among the high priests and roman occupation of judaism.

what i will say is that my view of the bible is that it was never intended to be taken literally. iI was always taught it was allegorical. so i'm not trying to say there were 2 people named adam and eve. in fact, adam kadmon is another way of saying "man" as taught in the kabbalah.

Jewish mysticism is no more relevant or true than other belief system.
Because one was always "taught" something does not mean that what was "taught was true.....or untrue.

The point here is that everyone is judging everyone else's belief system.

A relativist can never accept an absolutist....and an absolutist can NEVER accept a relativist......but who is correct?

Excellent post.

Well Jake.....that made me hard.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Exactly. In the time and place he lived he would have stood out if he was NOT married. It's what his community and his religion would have expected.

 

[Pogo]

It's like find a scrap of paper...Barack...gay

Uh ---- yeah OK, thanks for uh, clearing that up...

 

[Pogo]

I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.

I would like to know if they had children, and if those children had offspring, etc.

It's been suggested that Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner exchanged with the Romans after the temple riot, was his son. Bar Abbas = "son of the master" or "father" (anyone remember Abba Eban?) -- so this prisoner's name might be read as "Jesus Junior".

 

[Statistikhengst]

The OP had very little to do with all this fascinating discussion of rabbis and old church customs.

IT WAS ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA REPORTS ITEMS LIKE THIS!!!!

Can we perhaps get back to talking about that?

[MENTION=39846]longknife[/MENTION] - it was not an intention to derail, but the entire them of whether Yeshua may or may not have married is inexorably linked to the title of "Rabbi" having been accorded him by your own NT. You can't have an honest discussion about one without at least considering the other, imo.

 

[JoeB131]

A mormon friend once sent me their bible to read. I sent it back. It was confusing.

Mark Twain called the BOok of Mormon "Ether in Printed form".

 

[JoeB131]

Since Jesus was a mythical figure, it's probably just as likely his wife was.

 

[JoeB131]

Sam Kinison had a different opinion.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

We are not worshiping anything other than G-d himself.

No, there is nothing scary about Jesus marrying, because He didn't.

There were numerous people named 'jesus' in that day. The Jesus of Nazareth did not marry. But certainly other 'jesus' named people, did.

 

[Andylusion]

Since Jesus was a mythical figure, it's probably just as likely his wife was.

Just like that myth of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Code of Hammurabi.

We sure do have a ton of myths in the modern world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not so much caring about the wife, except indirectly.

I would like to know if they had children, and if those children had offspring, etc.

It's been suggested that Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner exchanged with the Romans after the temple riot, was his son. Bar Abbas = "son of the master" or "father" (anyone remember Abba Eban?) -- so this prisoner's name might be read as "Jesus Junior".

Might have read as Johnny Depp, but wasn't Jesus Junior then or Johnny now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The Jesus of Nazareth did not marry" has no more evidence than if he did.

Your belief is not evidence, Androw.