PDA

View Full Version : Clue to if Jesus was married?



Gerarddm
09-18-2012, 02:45 PM
Yadda yadda yada, but:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?hp

seanz
09-18-2012, 02:53 PM
I wonder if the translation is correct? I suspect the quote might be "Take my wife......". This, at the very least, helps us date the origin of one of the World's oldest jokes.

BrianY
09-18-2012, 03:06 PM
I wonder if the translation is correct? I suspect the quote might be "Take my wife......". This, at the very least, helps us date the origin of one of the World's oldest jokes.

I guess that shows just how old the tradition of Jewish stand up comedians is.

George.
09-18-2012, 03:27 PM
Score one for half of humanity, and one less for Paul and the misogynists... I myself have been long convinced by all the medieval Last Suppers with a pretty girl right next to JC.

switters
09-18-2012, 03:31 PM
I thought the gospel according to Biff explained this already.

TomF
09-18-2012, 03:48 PM
My New Testament prof, decades ago, said that it was truly bizarre in Jesus' time that he was a single, never-married man. That in the culture pretty much no man was by the time they were 30-ish, and it would have been unusual enough to probably have eroded Jesus' credibility as a teacher.

Though he had nothing on which to base his speculation, he speculated that perhaps Jesus had been married, and his wife had died. The gospels of course have no record of anything at all between Jesus at 12, and then Jesus at the start of his teaching. Interesting if there may be some extra-biblical reference ...

Peerie Maa
09-18-2012, 04:11 PM
Dan Brown turned a pretty penny by suggesting just that.

Bob Cleek
09-18-2012, 04:31 PM
Naw, never married, but I think it can be concluded from the Scriptural record that Jesus was a very eligible bachelor. You figure no wife would ever put up with a guy who wandered all over the countryside with a bunch of buddies doing absolutely nothing to make money. Never home. No job. It doesn't figure that he'd have been able to keep a wife.

On the other hand, Jesus and his crew seem always to be welcomed into people's homes and fed. Women are always serving him food, washing his feet, anointing him with oil... all that good stuff. They were probably all hoping, "Pick me! Pick me!," right? As said, most all Hebrew guys back then were married by age 30 and Jesus was somewhere around that during the time described in the Gospels If he were married, I don't think his wife would stand for any of that massage oiling, feet washing and drying with the ladies' hair. (Hair was a big "come on" in the Middle East back then and still is. Hence the Muslim thing with women wearing scarfs outside the home.) He probably was on the "most eligible list" at that time, but never married. If he'd been married when he died, he wouldn't have done the "Mother behold your son. Son behold your mother." thing with John while he was hanging on the cross. The big deal for guys back then was to make sure their mothers and their wives were taken care of when they died. (No Social Security then, of course.) If they had children, the kids took care of that. If they didn't, it fell to a close male friend to undertake the obligation.

I'd guess Jesus was more like George Clooney than Henny Youngman.

Flying Orca
09-18-2012, 04:41 PM
I seem to recall some interpreting the story of the marriage at Cana (sp?) as being about his own wedding... which would explain why he was responsible for the wine.

elf
09-18-2012, 06:16 PM
She's a beard.

Flying Orca
09-18-2012, 06:21 PM
She's a beard.

I thought I'd heard it all, but apparently not. :D

epoxyboy
09-19-2012, 02:26 AM
I find it hard to understand how something written 400 years after the fact has any credibility whatsoever. If somebody can quote something I said ten years from now I would be amazed, unless they go trolling through the WBF archives. In an age of oral tradition and limited written material, the chances of some " off the record" conversation being accurately reported 400 years later strikes me as wishful thinking at best.

Pete

fishrswim
09-19-2012, 02:49 AM
I find it hard to understand how something written 400 years after the fact has any credibility whatsoever. If somebody can quote something I said ten years from now I would be amazed, unless they go trolling through the WBF archives. In an age of oral tradition and limited written material, the chances of some " off the record" conversation being accurately reported 400 years later strikes me as wishful thinking at best.

Pete
So...then that could be applied to pretty much the entire bible??

epoxyboy
09-19-2012, 03:11 AM
So...then that could be applied to pretty much the entire bible??
Yep. Ever notice how the "new testament" seems ever so slightly at odds with the "old testament". Do you think that might be slightly related to the fact that one MAY have been written within living memory of Jesus being alive, while the other is based on regurgitated rumour, hearsay and manipulative wishful thinking several lifetimes after the fact?

Pete

skuthorp
09-19-2012, 05:20 AM
Over 30 and never married? With a Jewish mother? What was she doing!

Kevin T
09-19-2012, 06:43 AM
Maybe he was, how did they say it in the 40's, 50's, & 60's , "a confirmed bachelor" wink, wink.

Look at the evidence, overbearing mother, hung out with a bunch of young guys some of whom were sailors, :-)

Flying Orca
09-19-2012, 09:22 AM
...hence Emily's beard comment.

TomF
09-19-2012, 09:23 AM
Bishop John Spong famously wondered in one of his books if homosexuality could have been St. Paul's "thorn in the flesh," but I've never heard the musing applied to Jesus.

Kevin T
09-19-2012, 09:39 AM
Okay my post was slightly tongue in cheek, but the issue was raised above on how the norm was to be married.

Perhaps the issue had never been raised because to the true believers, the thought itself is anathema.

How could so many of the faithful square up the thought when so much of what comes out of many pulpits is that homosexuality is wicked and sinful. The savior himself gay, god forbid.

But remember the big JC hung with the hookers and the thieves and the lepers, who could be more accepting of that lot other than a fellow outcast?

skipper68
09-19-2012, 09:48 AM
Think about it, in the book it said 4990 bc,was the year of the flood. Noah was 600 years old also. If this was true, we are decedents of Noah. Why don't we live 600 years? Why would he NOT have a wife? Shouldn't he have practiced what he preached-"Go forth and multiply"? That's why I don't believe the 400 year old gossip of bitter old men. Popes married until the 10th century. Almost all the religious holidays are based on the Wicca calender, to be clear.{Q How long has Wicca been around?
A The Wiccan religion, sometimes called the old religion, also known to many as "Witchcraft", has
existed since pre- Christian times.
In order to help facilitate the in bringing of Pagans to Christianity, the Christians adopted many Pagan
holidays, such as what is celebrated as Easter, named after Eostre (one of the Wiccan Goddesses) in
March, and of course, Christmas. Wiccans celebrate the birth of the sun, not the son. December 21st,
the day the sun comes back to life, is called Yule. All of the non-religious items usually associated with
Christmas, such as a tree, yule log, and so on, were Pagan first.} So, when the Christian faith was adopted, many were killed in the name of a new religion. It is still around, and recognized as a real religion. They can follow their ancestry and history back much farther than the Man made religions. Weird.

hanleyclifford
09-19-2012, 09:53 AM
The year of the Flood was 2370 BC.

elf
09-19-2012, 10:10 AM
It's actually quite easy to construct a narrative for a carpenter with a pretty common name among Jews taking refuge in hard-to-access places to enjoy the company of a small group of like-minded people of the same gender. Once he was able to consolidate his small group so none of them ratted each other out, he could be pretty safe, especially because of the sanctioned restrictions on womens' lives within his religious community.

How hard is the evidence that Judas was really only interested in the gold? What facts do scholars really know about the lives of all the Jeshuas of the Hebrew tribes around that time?

And Paul? Paul's life was riven with so many angers and incompetences, constantly on the move promulgating a socially unacceptable story line, vanishing from the story in the middle, a couple hundred years after the time of the idolize Jeshua.

You really gotta be gullible to swallow this stuff.

skipper68
09-19-2012, 11:02 AM
Think about it, in the book it said 4990 bc,was the year of the flood.
The year of the Flood was 2370 BC. Not that anyone can really confirm it..
http://davelivingston.com/flooddate.htmProblems with an Early Date (10,000 BC)

If the Flood occurred as early as 10,000 BC, where is the 7000 year gap (10,000-3000 BC) in Scripture or, for that matter, in any of the literature of the Ancient Near East?
The descendants of "Cush" built actual cities (Genesis 10) whose foundations date less than 3000 BC in most cases. Cush was the grandson of Noah.
The ziggurats (the Tower of Babel?) are later than 3000 BC. There is no trace of anything like them in earlier civilizations. A little time obviously elapsed between the Flood and when they were built. But 7000 years? That is longer than the entire history of man. Look at the accomplishments of man and the population growth in only 5000 years! We have no basis for imagining a 7000 year gap.
The genealogies of Genesis 10 may be "stretched" one or two generations, but 7000 years makes them meaningless for genealogical purposes. They cease to be genealogies if huge gaps exist. Interesting reading. It always is, when science tries to prove the Bible.

skipper68
09-19-2012, 11:31 AM
The forum wont let me edit.:( What was the approximate time in years (B.C.) of Noah's flood?
The Bible places it around 2300 BC, which is likely an error. The Sumerians placed it around 4100 BC, which is unreliable. Here is a interesting scientific view of the earth from 6000 bc.
http://saturniancosmology.org/polar.php [Starting from Chaos] [An Unexpected Flood] [The Egg] [The Creation] [The Eye of Ra] I prefer science.

pefjr
09-19-2012, 11:52 AM
You really gotta be gullible to swallow this stuff.:dhook, line , and sinker.

Tom Montgomery
09-19-2012, 03:05 PM
The year of the Flood was 2370 BC.
You appear to state this with complete confidence. On what authority are you relying? Certainly not the Bible. It gives no date for the Flood.

Flying Orca
09-19-2012, 03:17 PM
As if the Bible is an authority on anything...

skuthorp
09-19-2012, 04:06 PM
Bishop John Spong famously wondered in one of his books if homosexuality could have been St. Paul's "thorn in the flesh," but I've never heard the musing applied to Jesus.

I've always thought that Paul was 'uncomfortable' with women at the very least. Spong was interesting on many 'sacred' biblical concepts.

Interesting reference Skipper, thanks.

pefjr
09-19-2012, 04:52 PM
As if the Bible is an authority on anything...Blasphemy

Flying Orca
09-19-2012, 05:13 PM
Blasphemy

Oh, and how. I've plenty more where that came from - you should hear me deny the "holy spirit".

pefjr
09-19-2012, 05:42 PM
Oh, and how. I've plenty more where that came from - you should hear me deny the "holy spirit".Blasphemy is still on the books in Canada. Ian don't think so, but I found it just a week or so ago. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/14/why-does-canada-still-have-a-law-against-blasphemy-2

"How can we justify our criticism of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other countries, while our own blasphemy laws remain part of our Criminal Code? "

Flying Orca
09-19-2012, 05:51 PM
I'll worry about it when someone is charged. Our Supreme Court would toss it out in a heartbeat.

skuthorp
09-19-2012, 06:01 PM
A protestant church here attempted to bring one of it's clergy to an internal blasphemy 'trial'. He laughed at them and ignored it. They had no standing even internally except as an employer.

Boston
09-19-2012, 09:07 PM
always an interesting subject

my personal take is that its far more likely that he was married than not, there also seems to be some indicators that he engaged in homosexual relationships, whether before or after marriage would be the harder question since homosexual relations were common at the time, or at least no less so than today.

Its interesting to note that it was the Pauline Christians that rioted through the streets in about 390 burning libraries and demolishing temples. The effort being to destroy competing beliefs. A major competing belief would have been the Ebonites/church of Jerusalem which were made up of the descendants of the original apostles and relatives of Jesus. Which is one reason why we have such poor records of Jesus life and of what he actually said. The new testament being almost entirely a construct of Pauline influences, there are a rare few actual quotes that can be attributed to Jesus. Pretty sure the Vatican study concluded that only about 17 lines could be confirmed as being spoken by Jesus and most of that, the lords prayer.

So its small wonder these simply issues remain a mystery, but the likelihood of his being married is higher than not. Absolutes are hard to come by in historical studies.

Cheers
B

fishrswim
09-20-2012, 01:15 AM
always an interesting subject

my personal take is that its far more likely that he was married than not, there also seems to be some indicators that he engaged in homosexual relationships, whether before or after marriage would be the harder question since homosexual relations were common at the time, or at least no less so than today.

Its interesting to note that it was the Pauline Christians that rioted through the streets in about 390 burning libraries and demolishing temples. The effort being to destroy competing beliefs. A major competing belief would have been the Ebonites/church of Jerusalem which were made up of the descendants of the original apostles and relatives of Jesus. Which is one reason why we have such poor records of Jesus life and of what he actually said. The new testament being almost entirely a construct of Pauline influences, there are a rare few actual quotes that can be attributed to Jesus. Pretty sure the Vatican study concluded that only about 17 lines could be confirmed as being spoken by Jesus and most of that, the lords prayer.

So its small wonder these simply issues remain a mystery, but the likelihood of his being married is higher than not. Absolutes are hard to come by in historical studies.

Cheers
B
Yep, it's tough trying to prove something without any proof. That's why religious belief is based on faith.

Boston
09-20-2012, 01:36 AM
its not like there's no information from which to base our ideas about history on. Its just that proof is a very strong word and when considering events of thousands of years ago, its kinda silly to be thinking in terms of proof. What we should be discussing is whats most likely and whats less likely.

For instance, a Jewish rabbi, which Jesus certainly appears to have been would almost certainly have been married as procreation seems to have been considered an obligation, particularly in royal family.

Also the idea of celibacy was a construct of the Pauline mythos and doesn't appear to have been even remotely addressed by Jesus.

leikec
09-20-2012, 01:40 AM
You appear to state this with complete confidence. On what authority are you relying? Certainly not the Bible. It gives no date for the Flood.


It was a Tuesday--hot and dry that day, right up until it rained....


Jeff C

Meli
09-20-2012, 02:00 AM
A question?

All these theories gleaned from little scraps of parchment on which we base our lives.
Just how many blokes called Jesus got married between say 11 and 32 AD.?
It's prolly based on the family heritage research of some old biddy back in 400 AD trying to impress her friends :D

purri
09-20-2012, 02:28 AM
Maybe the word had gone out amongst the sisterhood that he had "special talents" and was "exceptionally gifted".
Naw, never married, but I think it can be concluded from the Scriptural record that Jesus was a very eligible bachelor. You figure no wife would ever put up with a guy who wandered all over the countryside with a bunch of buddies doing absolutely nothing to make money. Never home. No job. It doesn't figure that he'd have been able to keep a wife.

On the other hand, Jesus and his crew seem always to be welcomed into people's homes and fed. Women are always serving him food, washing his feet, anointing him with oil... all that good stuff. They were probably all hoping, "Pick me! Pick me!," right? As said, most all Hebrew guys back then were married by age 30 and Jesus was somewhere around that during the time described in the Gospels If he were married, I don't think his wife would stand for any of that massage oiling, feet washing and drying with the ladies' hair. (Hair was a big "come on" in the Middle East back then and still is. Hence the Muslim thing with women wearing scarfs outside the home.) He probably was on the "most eligible list" at that time, but never married. If he'd been married when he died, he wouldn't have done the "Mother behold your son. Son behold your mother." thing with John while he was hanging on the cross. The big deal for guys back then was to make sure their mothers and their wives were taken care of when they died. (No Social Security then, of course.) If they had children, the kids took care of that. If they didn't, it fell to a close male friend to undertake the obligation.

I'd guess Jesus was more like George Clooney than Henny Youngman.

fishrswim
09-20-2012, 11:45 AM
Blasphemy

So now it's confirmed that puffy is living in the 17 th century.

Peerie Maa
09-20-2012, 11:57 AM
So now it's confirmed that puffy is living in the 17 th century.
No, you misunderstand. Pefjr thinks that the rest of us are, and does not like it. The problem is that Pef sees blasphemy prosecutions where none exist.

fishrswim
09-20-2012, 12:01 PM
What I don't understand is ... If Jesus was Jewish why did he have a Mexican name??

Kevin T
09-20-2012, 12:26 PM
What I don't understand is ... If Jesus was Jewish why did he have a Mexican name??

Maybe through the wonders of time travel this is the Jesus everybody has been talking about. Caution: make contain language some find offensive, although as Dentsu would tell you or our American expert, it's all in good fun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmNr5eh35iQ&feature=related