Was Jesus Married?

[MatthewDuggar]

[align=center]she would not have a way of earning a living for herself.

Why not?

[PennySycamore]

I read this morning that Sue Monk Kidd, author of The Secret Life of Bees and The Invention of Wings about Sarah Grimke is writing a new novel about the wife of Jesus. Ms Kidd used to be a fundamentalist, but is now a sacred feminist.

[nolongerIFBx]

[align=center]she would not have a way of earning a living for herself.

Why not?

[julie paradox]

Why not?

Women were property, not allowed to own property, dependent upon men for every thing. It is why the early church were urged to care for widows; someone needed to.

[albanuadh_1]

There really isn't any evidence that the myth of Jesus was based on one person who lived a life slightly similar to what was in the Bible.

1) I merely was asking if she ever read the book,

2) The author doesn't claim Jesus was anything like Jesus of the bible; rather an itinerant preacher,

3)undoubtedly, there were many men named Jesus - but the % with that name, son of woman named Mary, with brothers ( who are named), who hung out with 12 apostles,who are named, and who was crucified, which reduces the possibilities,

and

4) it is a matter of faith.

[formergothardite]

It is a matter of faith, which is why there is no proof there is a historical Jesus. There is no proof that an itinerant preacher named Jesus with a mother named Mary and who hung out with 12 disciples existed either.

[Foudeb]

Why not?

Prostitution was frowned upon in those times.

[Eleemosynary]

Holy Blood Holy Grail is entirely bullshit. It's a hoax. They got much of their information from Pierre Plantard, who was an admitted con man. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh wrote later, even more fanastical, Holy Blood Holy Grail-esque books but the third author, Henry Lincoln, did not. Why? Because he knew the whole thing was a lie.

My belief in the possibility that Jesus was married (to Mary Magdalene or someone else) is why I don't necessarily consider myself "Christian" today. This is a belief that predates Dan Brown/Da Vinci code and goes back to a book titled Holy Blood/Holy Grail (note - I think the authors of that book made some monumental leaps but the overall theory isn't necessarily all wet).

I find Jesus more relate-able as a married man. And historically it makes more sense in that culture for him to be married and not stand out. Besides the whole notion (to me) of Jesus as single and celibate feels like it makes sex, even inside of marriage, to be a sin - and last time I checked it was not.

[Foudeb]

Why not?

Women were property, not allowed to own property, dependent upon men for every thing. It is why the early church were urged to care for widows; someone needed to.

[nolongerIFBx]

Women were property, not allowed to own property, dependent upon men for every thing. It is why the early church were urged to care for widows; someone needed to.

What about the women who followed Jesus and provided out of their own funds?

[2xx1xy1JD]

In a writing forum for a site I work for, my post about common core got turned into religion. I guess it is partly my faulty mentioning all the flak against the Islam unit. I mentioned how while some churches like Catholics have become more accepting of gays etc, single people often feel isolated. They forget Jesus never married. An LDS woman sent me a pm saying they believed Jesus was married and we were created to marry blah blah. Mormons beleive marriages No offense to anyone Mormon but there's no concrete proof one way or the other Jesus married. And it shouldnt matter anyway.What do you think?

I guess I'm wondering what the purpose is of the question?

If you are making a theological argument to Christians for the acceptance of single people, then mentioning a Christian belief about Jesus makes sense. It only works, though, if that belief is shared.

LDS belief is apparently different than other Christian beliefs. Fine - it is what it is.

There's not much solid HISTORICAL evidence regarding the existence of Jesus. Most of the sources came along afterward, so they could have been commenting on either the historical Jesus, or on the stories that arose. There is also the possibility that there was more than one Jesus. Yeshua was actually a pretty common name at the time, and with the political tensions in Judea under Roman rule, there was a desire for salvation from the situation. There is a Jesus-like figure described in the Dead Sea Scrolls, who would have existed 100 years prior.

So, no actual 100% concrete evidence for historical Jesus obviously means no 100% concrete evidence for a wife.

What we are left with, from a historical POV, is asking a hypothetical: IF the historical Jesus existed, is it likely that he had a wife? If he identified primarily with the Pharisees, that group encouraged marriage. If he was involved with the Essenes, that group had members who were celibate. It's also possible to look at various scriptures, official canon and otherwise, and look at when the various doctrines around his celibacy and Mary's continuing virginity developed. One other technique is to see if these doctrines closely parallel any teachings from other religious traditions, which could happen in the process of transmitting the teachings to the various gentile groups that had previous pagan beliefs involving celibacy/virginity.

[albanuadh_1]

It is a matter of faith, which is why there is no proof there is a historical Jesus. There is no proof that an itinerant preacher named Jesus with a mother named Mary and who hung out with 12 disciples existed either.

I should have said that it is 'a matter of faith' with regard to biblical Jesus. Got me there! I still think if someone is going to make up a personality, it's better to keep it simple. When you start adding names, locations, the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate, it does narrow the possibilities, and it would make it easier to refute.

Historical proof as we know it today? No but the layers do 'speak.'

[formergothardite]

It is still a matter of faith with a historical Jesus. My feelings after reading lots and lots about it is that the Jesus myth was created around more than one "Jesus". Ideas and teachings were taken from several sources. You can find some of Jesus' teachings in other Jewish writings that came long before Jesus was supposed to have existed. I was always raised to believe that there was proof Jesus existed and it was really shocking to me when I found out that there is, like 2xx1xy1JD said, no actual 100% concrete evidence Jesus existed. I also always thought that Jesus was unique and it ends up he isn't. Everything written about Jesus was written well after he died and it isn't like today when you could Google to check facts. So creating a myth about a Messiah who came to earth, was killed and came back to life and also adding details like names and locations doesn't mean that any of it was real.

On another note, last time the discussion of historical Jesus came up we also ended up discussing the Flood story and I brought up the Ark Before Noah. I am still trying to get through the book, but it does shed some light on how these stories get started and get passed on. Yes, a large local flood happened and some people got on a boat with animals to survive, but that even the book says that the flood in the Bible is just a myth. The biblical flood didn't happen. A flood happened, probably more than one, and the story grew and changed until it became what we know now. Just my opinion, but I think that is most likely what happened with Jesus too. Yes there were more than one person wandering about claiming to be a messiah and then being killed, over time these people were combined, magical parts were added, and it became the Jesus myth we know today. To me that makes more sense than there just being one person who all this was based on.

[JenniferJuniper]

1) I merely was asking if she ever read the book,

2) The author doesn't claim Jesus was anything like Jesus of the bible; rather an itinerant preacher,

3)undoubtedly, there were many men named Jesus - but the % with that name, son of woman named Mary, with brothers ( who are named), who hung out with 12 apostles,who are named, and who was crucified, which reduces the possibilities,

and

4) it is a matter of faith.

There is no actual evidence that an historical Jesus existed. No one from the time period he was alleged to have existed ever wrote about him. And there were plenty of writers around at the time whose writings still exist who presumably would have made some sort of mention of him. Further, there is no one on record who actual claims to have known the man himself.

Jesus's story parallels those of many prior mythical heros. A few are listed here, but there are more. liberalamerica.org/2015/03/17/5-near-identical-jesus-christ-myths-that-predate-jesus/

If you are trying to convince a non-believer that Jesus was real, probably the last thing you want to argue is "faith". That translates to "magical thinking" to most of us.

[albanuadh_1]

:) Yes, I have read about prior mythical heroes, which explains a lot about the biblical Jesus, which I did edit later.