Joy and Austin: Back in Arkansas?

[Bad Wolf]

If Jesus was married, then there would be no reason for RC priests not to marry.

[SapphireSlytherin]

Just now, OyToTheVey said:

Yes someone else that thinks Mary Magdalene was his wife! I really think so too. I always feel like a conspiracy theorist when I say it. But I really think she was, as you said, made a prostitute to make him look unmarried. And I don't understand what was so sinful about Jesus being married. It was normal for that age period. At 33, it would have been unheard of for men or women to be single unless their spouse died. 

Yep, I believe he was married, too. I think people get upset about it because (atheist speaking here) they'd have to change their minds about what they'd been programmed to believe by their parents/their family/their preachers/their friends.

Further:  the catholic priests could then get married.

Further:  the Pope could get married!!!!111!!1!!

Further:  If the church (all of them) was "caught out" in the lie that "Jesus wasn't married," the whole religion thing would be exposed as fake.

Again - my opinion, as an atheist. Again - I've been a long-time student of this stuff.

Peace.

[Buzzard]

If catholic priests married there would be inheritance issues that would interfere with the church's money and property.  Its as simple as that.

I wonder if Jesus sidehugged.

[justoneoftwo]

4 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

If Jesus was married, then there would be no reason for RC priests not to marry.

I could be wrong but I believe that priests used to be able to get married and it was changed so that the church would keep their assets when they died.  

 

I expect the reason it is so important to people is that it would make him more like everyone else, and his divinity is basically the point.  Also, if he is G-d and was married, he probably had children, and then they would be the children of G-d (and grand children) and you would have to deal with that, which would be complicated. 

If people only thought he was the messiah then children wouldn't be a problem, but he wouldn't be divine, and then it would all fall apart.  

[melon]

My grandmother was another opinionated person.She said that as a married woman,I should use Mrs.____ Melon...insert Mr.Melon's first name..both of our names start with the same initial so,I guess for the bills I mail and any letters I mail,I get around it.I have had problems t our bank,because he is considered the primary account holder,even though I have been on his account for 37 years.

 

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, melon said:

My grandmother was another opinionated person.She said that as a married woman,I should use Mrs.____ Melon...insert Mr.Melon's first name..both of our names start with the same initial so,I guess for the bills I mail and any letters I mail,I get around it.I have had problems t our bank,because he is considered the primary account holder,even though I have been on his account for 37 years.

 

What problems does that cause?  Do you not have the same access?  Do they have an option to not have a primary?  Just curious how it all works for different people.  I assume H is the primary on all our accounts, but I have never had any problems because of it.

[Exposedknees]

There will be endless debates over Jesus' marital status. You can Google lots of debates about Mary Magdalane and "Divine Feminine;" and read The Da Vinci Code for some salient points as well. ( albeit a book of fiction). The book was viewed as quite scandalous when it came out, and banned in some areas. 

A true fact is that Paul's effect on early Christianity framed the early church as patriarchal and that influence has taken thousands of years to change. Paul was a misogynist who downplayed women's roles in the early church. Paul's views can be framed in his time period AD 30ish; but it's too bad many evangelicals still "live" his world view and teachings. Paul's Jesus would not have been married or polluted by vaginal contact. 

[justoneoftwo]

5 minutes ago, Exposedknees said:

There will be endless debates over Jesus' marital status. You can Google lots of debates about Mary Magdalane and "Divine Feminine;" and read The Da Vinci Code for some salient points as well. ( albeit a book of fiction). The book was viewed as quite scandalous when it came out, and banned in some areas. 

A true fact is that Paul's effect on early Christianity framed the early church as patriarchal and that influence has taken thousands of years to change. Paul was a misogynist who downplayed women's roles in the early church. Paul's views can be framed in his time period AD 30ish; but it's too bad many evangelicals still "live" his world view and teachings. Paul's Jesus would not have been married or polluted by vaginal contact. 

Paul seemed, to me anyway, misogynist even for his time.  But I could be wrong on that.  

[Exposedknees]

3 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Paul seemed, to me anyway, misogynist even for his time.  But I could be wrong on that.  

Lol, I  agree.....trying to be diplomatic I guess. Some really credit him for his widespread evangelism and spread of Christianity. 

[Snarkle Motion]

2 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I'm not Jewish, but my study of history tells me that an unmarried person at that age was almost unheard of. I'm also fairly certain Mary Magdalen was his wife, she was made to look like a prostitute in the early church to avoid the appearance that Christ did indeed marry.  

But what I don't understand is if he was married what is the big deal? The Bible says he was without sin, but having a wife isn't sinful and having sex during marriage isn't sinful, so him being married doesn't take away from his sinlessness. Why do people get upset at the idea Christ was married?

Then his bloodline would be sacred and that would potentially take away power from the church/pope. Any one purporting to be his child or his descendent would automatically be highly influential. From my understanding, debate over Muhammad's successor is essentially what divided the sects of Islam. It was in the interest of the church and its leaders to make sure no possible evidence of children exist. Even though, from a rational/historical perspective a Jewish man of that age was likely married and had children.

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Exposedknees said:

Lol, I  agree.....trying to be diplomatic I guess. Some really credit him for his widespread evangelism and spread of Christianity. 

As far as I know:

There were two camps in early Christendom following the crucifixion. One was headed by Paul, who preached extensively throughout Greece and whose teachings are the basis for modern Christianity. The other was helmed by James the Just, described as brother to Jesus, and was based in Jerusalem. His camp would have included the people who would have known Jesus, like Peter. I can't remember what they believed, but it was vastly different than Paul's views. I don't think they believed in Jesus' divinity. Regardless, they did NOT get along and some of Paul's letters apparently allude to his dealings with James and Peter - he was pretty bitter.

There was an uprising in Judea against the Romans. The Jews eventually wound up losing and were forced from their lands (this is the Diaspora.) Because James' group was based in Jerusalem, they were treated like the rest of the people and dispersed far and wide. The early Christians who had followed Paul in Greece, however, saw what happened in Judea and did their best to distance themselves from the Jewish people and the followers of James by order to avoid angering the Romans. Thus, early Christians picked Paul in order to avoid sharing the Jews' fate and we're still feeling the results 2,000 years later.

[Bad Wolf]

When there is a gospel reading where Paul says something misogynistic, our priest will start his sermon by assuring us that Jesus wouldn't have said that.

Glad I'm an agnostic Episcopalian. I pick and choose, just like the Duggars. Hopefully with a little more compassion.

[SamiKatz]

My family almost had kittens when I said if I ever married, I wouldn't change my last name.  I like my last name and it's been my identity for a long time.  They were all appalled though.

[HarryPotterFan]

1 minute ago, SamiKatz said:

My family almost had kittens when I said if I ever married, I wouldn't change my last name.  I like my last name and it's been my identity for a long time.  They were all appalled though.

KITTENS??? WHERE???!!! 

Oh.

 

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, SamiKatz said:

My family almost had kittens when I said if I ever married, I wouldn't change my last name.  I like my last name and it's been my identity for a long time.  They were all appalled though.

People are so weird about this.  H was thinking of taking my name and my mom flipped out.  When we decided I would take his I had friends say the most horrible things to me about it, one of which then asked me advice on the same topic years later when she was making the same decision for the same reasons I did.  Its not anyone else's name but the couple, and everyone should back the F off.

[Fatuhiva]

I think it's entirely possible Jesus was married.  I don't see a problem if he was married and had kids.  Who's to say that his divine side could be passed onto any children he fathered?  His progeny  might have been completely human, no more special than anyone else.  Also, 2000 years later his DNA would have been so diluted thru the generations that any of his descendants alive today might have very little of his DNA anyway.

Or maybe he was gay.  Being  human it's likely that he had sexual urges, and if he really wasn't married, maybe he was attracted to men.

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Fatuhiva said:

I think it's entirely possible Jesus was married.  I don't see a problem if he was married and had kids.  Who's to say that his divine side could be passed onto any children he fathered?  His progeny  might have been completely human, no more special than anyone else.  Also, 2000 years later his DNA would have been so diluted thru the generations that any of his descendants alive today might have very little of his DNA anyway.

Or maybe he was gay.  Being  human it's likely that he had sexual urges, and if he really wasn't married, maybe he was attracted to men.

Wouldn't any males he fathered have to have divine DNA?  I accept if he only had daughters they could have only Mary's DNA . . . 

[Greendoor]

OK I am going to get slaughtered for this, but here goes.

The Bible is a book made in about the year 300.  Lots of books got in, and even more didn't make.  Yes, the Apocraphy are a part of those books, but there were a whole lot of other Gnostic and otherwise. 

The authorities, yes MEN, chose what books when in.  We know that they summed up all the Mary's with two archetypes.  Mary the mother of God (all decent women - virgin no less) and Mary Magdelan, all who were not so good.  For the record the woman caught in adultery was not named.  

Just because the bible doesn't say it's so doesn't mean much.  Eg: Dinosaurs.

Who made his clothes, washed and repaired?  Who did the cooking and cleaning, he didn't hit the road til 30.  Rabbis study and teach, certainly Jesus did that.  His wife would have handled all the day to day stuff freeing him up for that life.

I would like it if our Jewish Fj'ers would weigh in.  Your commentaries go way back, were those writers married?  

 

 

 

[ItsMeY'all]

I remember asking my childhood minister about this when I was about ten. He said it would make the most sense if Jesus was married but then people would start wondering about his kids and that is where things would have gotten messy. Also, if he had kids people might end up worshiping his descendants and miss out on his purpose and sacrifice.  Plus of course that would mess with all previous held ideas of royalty, rulers, inheritance, and eventually $$$ becomes the main problem.  So in his mind it was easier to just assume Jesus was married but remember that whether he was single or not really had nothing to do with his purpose and message.  That explanation worked for me then and pretty much still works for me. 

Admitting 2,000 years of purposely hiding the truth would be a disaster at this point for the Catholic Church!

[justoneoftwo]

4 minutes ago, Greendoor said:

OK I am going to get slaughtered for this, but here goes.

The Bible is a book made in about the year 300.  Lots of books got in, and even more didn't make.  Yes, the Apocraphy are a part of those books, but there were a whole lot of other Gnostic and otherwise. 

The authorities, yes MEN, chose what books when in.  We know that they summed up all the Mary's with two archetypes.  Mary the mother of God (all decent women - virgin no less) and Mary Magdelan, all who were not so good.  For the record the woman caught in adultery was not named.  

Just because the bible doesn't say it's so doesn't mean much.  Eg: Dinosaurs.

Who made his clothes, washed and repaired?  Who did the cooking and cleaning, he didn't hit the road til 30.  Rabbis study and teach, certainly Jesus did that.  His wife would have handled all the day to day stuff freeing him up for that life.

I would like it if our Jewish Fj'ers would weigh in.  Your commentaries go way back, were those writers married?  

 

 

 

My understanding is that the vast majority of the writers were married.  I agree with you about it being a book and a combination that leaves things out, but its not my religion . . . 

[singsingsing]

There were definitely differences of opinion between Paul and the other group, but it seemed to be mainly about whether Gentiles who converted to Christianity should also have to observe Jewish law. The majority of early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ, but that meant different things to different people. You have to remember that it took centuries for certain Christian doctrines (like the Trinity) to be formalized. It took decades even for the gospels to be written down. That's part of the reason why Biblical literalism is so antithetical to Christianity, but that's a post for another day...

Paul was definitely a misogynist by today's standards. By his day's standards? Eh. There's a reason so many of the early converts to Christianity were women. It definitely wasn't worse, generally speaking, than the other alternatives, and may very well have been better. There's also some debate about whether Paul actually even wrote the more anti-woman sections of his letters. He certainly seems to respect a number of women and hold them in very high regard, specifically naming them, greeting them and praising them, speaking of them as leaders in their communities and churches. There were obviously several very influential and respected women in early Christianity. So who knows. I'm not Paul's biggest fan myself, but I would definitely not be surprised if proof came to light that his letters had been doctored in later years to make sure the women in the churches were 'kept in their place' and to bring Christianity more into line with the rest of society, once it became the official state religion.

I personally don't believe that Jesus was married, but it's not an outrageous claim to make. If you don't believe in the divinity of Christ and think he was just a mortal teacher/leader/preacher, why couldn't he have been married? But if you believe that he was the son of God who performed miracles and rose from the dead, it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to also believe that he never had a wife. There's nothing in the Bible to explicitly prove it one way or the other, so I respect both views.

2 minutes ago, Greendoor said:

The authorities, yes MEN, chose what books when in.  We know that they summed up all the Mary's with two archetypes.  Mary the mother of God (all decent women - virgin no less) and Mary Magdelan, all who were not so good.  For the record the woman caught in adultery was not named.  

If you actually read the Bible, Mary Magdalene was not presented as 'not so good'. The only bad thing about her was that she was demon-possessed, but once Jesus cured her of that she became one of his most devoted and influential followers. She was slandered in later centuries. Not in the Bible itself. There were several other women in the gospels besides Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned by name, including multiple other Marys, Elizabeth (Mary's cousin and mother of John the Baptist), Martha (sister of Lazarus), and others. And it was women who first found the empty tomb and announced the resurrection of Jesus to the apostles. 

[Fatuhiva]

I'm new and haven't figured out how to quote yet...

Justoneoftwo - to me I think of DNA as a human/animal thing so any children he might have would have his human DNA, hence they would be human.  I have no idea what a god could pass on to his kids?!?!?  Maybe there is divine DNA?!?!?

 

Greendoor - I couldn't agree more!  That's one of my main problems with biblical literalists.  How can you say it's the "unerrable word of god" when it was written by imperfect humans.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

My mother HATES St. Paul. She feels strongly that Jesus believed in the equality of women, and Paul ruined that for everyone.

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, Fatuhiva said:

I'm new and haven't figured out how to quote yet...

Justoneoftwo - to me I think of DNA as a human/animal thing so any children he might have would have his human DNA, hence they would be human.  I have no idea what a god could pass on to his kids?!?!?  Maybe there is divine DNA?!?!?

 

Greendoor - I couldn't agree more!  That's one of my main problems with biblical literalists.  How can you say it's the "unerrable word of god" when it was written by imperfect humans.

I'm inclined to agree that DNA is animal, and divine DNA doesn't make sense, so could he reproduce?  If he passed on his human DNA it would only be one side, so from a DNA perspective those children would be Mary's direct children (having her DNA exactly as their mothers) because that would be all the DNA he would have . . . at least thats my thought on this very odd topic.

[ItsMeY'all]

9 minutes ago, Greendoor said:

OK I am going to get slaughtered for this, but here goes.

 

Eh, no jumping on you from me. Everything you said is stuff that I was raised on. Of course it was one of the more liberal denominations and my Sunday school teacher had either a PhD or ThD in Old Testament from Princeton so and his wife, our minister, went on to head the denomination so I get it might have been unusual....  But my hubby is the grandson of an Oklahoma Southern Baptist preacher and raised in that church and was taught the same as I was. Really depends on the individual church but history of the time, geography, and such were the kinds of things we learned in Sunday school. Theology was not possible without understanding the environment these old events happened in and Bible study was a totally separate class.  My hubby actually learned Biblical Greek and Hebrew to help better understand the languages used and problems that developed with translations.