Was Jesus married?

[Fandango 1,439]

The original author of the article appears to also have faith. His faith tells him something different than your faith does. Without getting into major semantics or doctrinal issues, I think what's being asked of you LisaD, is not to keep repeating that your faith gives you answers, but HOW it gives you answers.

Just like the original author gave reasons for his belief (supported by faith), people are asking you how you can be sure. "Faith" in the way you describe it seems "blind" (i.e. someone told me and I believe, end of story). The Bible tells Christians to continually test their faith...that doesn't just mean to test whether you have it, it also means to test whether or not you can speak to it.

I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable question either. When one considers that it's known that there are Bible books that were written but removed from the canon, when one considers that there's been at least 2 languages involved and 2000 years of imperfect humans rewriting the text (assuming that no one had it deliberately changed for political reasons), even just basic error could occur.

It's highly implausible you were there and witnessed Jesus' time on earth; it's also highly implausible that you speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek (the original languages of the scriptures). So you're getting the building blocks of your faith from somewhere.

But that's the thing, Cerise....questions of faith cannot be explained by simple logic. That's my point.

See, everyone can believe what they want, and I'm not here saying otherwise...I respect everyone's right to their own conclusions.

But I do feel that answering 'hey, this is what I believe, and there's no real basis in proof one way or another' lends iteself to people automatically assuming it's a belief based on ignorance, or just spouting regurgitated ####### like a sheep without question. No one here knows my basis for forming the opinions that I have....for all anyone knows here, I could be a lifelong student of Theology. No one here knows the path which took me to believe what I do. And I shouldn't have to explain it either. I don't understand the rationale of people who don't believe certain things (they have every right to), but feel the need to try to tear down the opinions of those who do. I am well aware of the opposing theories of how the Bible was written, how the text translation might factor into things,etc....but I have come to my opinion anyways.

In matters of religion, people will have to make a leap...to either create a belief system based in faith....ie absence of tangible proof, or not. And anyone who does create a belief based on faith does not have to automatically agree verbatim with everyone else who has faith either. It's all supposition no matter what one believes. No one here can have any tangiblel proof as to whether HE was married or whether HE wasn't. It cannot be explained away as fact in a post on a messageboard, a bestseller novel, or a movie. My reasons for coming to the belief system that I have are my own, and personal...a question was asked, and I put my answer forward. It doesn't need to be justified or validated by strangers to make it any more real or legitimate.

Edited March 5, 2006 by LisaD

[Fuzzness 2]

No, he wasn't.

It's all supposition no matter what one believes. No one here can have any tangiblel proof as to whether HE was married or whether HE wasn't. It cannot be explained away as fact in a post on a messageboard, a bestseller novel, or a movie.

[Fandango 1,439]

Wanted to add (couldn't edit it for some reason)....I'm certainly not advocating faith without question...I don't begrudge anyone that right. Faith without question is how you get nutters who kill people in the name of God. Karl Marx was somewhat right when he said religion is the opiate of the masses. I think it has that potential if you don't go down your own path & form your own beliefs.

Furthermore, just out of curiosity...how anyone can say that it's improbable that I speak Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek? You only know things about me that I choose to divulge...other than that I am a complete stranger to everyone here. To make sweeping generalizations like that seems a bit odd considering I could be anyone.

I did not come here to get into a slinging match with anyone here...but wow! talk about everyone getting on a bandwagon! Twice today I've been asked if I was there...which is a ridiculous question, really...because obviously that's an impossibility. But I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Neither does anyone else, for that matter. The difference is, I don't sit here in judgement of anyone here saying 'you believe HE was married???? Were you there??? You don't know for sure!!!! yadda yadda yadda'

All I ask is the same in return.

[ceriserose 1]

The original author of the article appears to also have faith. His faith tells him something different than your faith does. Without getting into major semantics or doctrinal issues, I think what's being asked of you LisaD, is not to keep repeating that your faith gives you answers, but HOW it gives you answers.

Just like the original author gave reasons for his belief (supported by faith), people are asking you how you can be sure. "Faith" in the way you describe it seems "blind" (i.e. someone told me and I believe, end of story). The Bible tells Christians to continually test their faith...that doesn't just mean to test whether you have it, it also means to test whether or not you can speak to it.

I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable question either. When one considers that it's known that there are Bible books that were written but removed from the canon, when one considers that there's been at least 2 languages involved and 2000 years of imperfect humans rewriting the text (assuming that no one had it deliberately changed for political reasons), even just basic error could occur.

It's highly implausible you were there and witnessed Jesus' time on earth; it's also highly implausible that you speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek (the original languages of the scriptures). So you're getting the building blocks of your faith from somewhere.

But that's the thing, Cerise....questions of faith cannot be explained by simple logic. That's my point.

See, everyone can believe what they want, and I'm not here saying otherwise...I respect everyone's right to their own conclusions.

But I do feel that answering 'hey, this is what I believe, and there's no real basis in proof one way or another' lends iteself to people automatically assuming it's a belief based on ignorance, or just spouting regurgitated ####### like a sheep without question. No one here knows my basis for forming the opinions that I have....for all anyone knows here, I could be a lifelong student of Theology. No one here knows the path which took me to believe what I do. And I shouldn't have to explain it either. I don't understand the rationale of people who don't believe certain things (they have every right to), but feel the need to try to tear down the opinions of those who do. I am well aware of the opposing theories of how the Bible was written, how the text translation might factor into things,etc....but I have come to my opinion anyways.

In matters of religion, people will have to make a leap...to either create a belief system based in faith....ie absence of tangible proof, or not. And anyone who does create a belief based on faith does not have to automatically agree verbatim with everyone else who has faith either. It's all supposition no matter what one believes. No one here can have any tangiblel proof as to whether HE was married or whether HE wasn't. It cannot be explained away as fact in a post on a messageboard, a bestseller novel, or a movie. My reasons for coming to the belief system that I have are my own, and personal...a question was asked, and I put my answer forward. It doesn't need to be justified or validated by strangers to make it any more real or legitimate.

And you misunderstand me completely. Personally, I don't care how you got to your faith, how you maintain it or whether or not you feel the need to justify it to others. However, this is a discussion, which generally includes a little more explanation to be understood and clear.

I have reasons for what I believe in as well, and don't offer up explanations readily either. However, if I make a blanket statement about XYZ, and it's a definite opinion, I would expect people to question me and as part of that discussion, I would also be somewhat obliged to respond IF I want people to take me seriously. No, you don't have to do so, but your opinion/commentary/whathaveyou loses water really fast if you just leave it laying there.

The author of the piece gave reasoning for why he believes the way he does.. You state something completely different and give no "argument" about it, leaving it as "faith". My only point was that people who are looking to DISCUSS this issue will likely not accept that as any sort of a valid argument.

I think matters of faith (i.e. the building blocks that get people to their faith) can be discussed in a logical manner with allowance for faith. I guess that's where we differ. But you made a comment about your stance perplexing people...maybe because it's basically a "I'm right because I know I'm right" type of argument. Good on ya if that's all you want out of the discussion; others may want more.

[Melo 1]

But I do feel that answering 'hey, this is what I believe, and there's no real basis in proof one way or another' lends iteself to people automatically assuming it's a belief based on ignorance, or just spouting regurgitated ####### like a sheep without question. No one here knows my basis for forming the opinions that I have....for all anyone knows here, I could be a lifelong student of Theology. No one here knows the path which took me to believe what I do. And I shouldn't have to explain it either. I don't understand the rationale of people who don't believe certain things (they have every right to), but feel the need to try to tear down the opinions of those who do. I am well aware of the opposing theories of how the Bible was written, how the text translation might factor into things,etc....but I have come to my opinion anyways.

I do not think I was tearing down the opinions of those who believe... I merely question how you arrive at your conclusions...

[Fuzzness 2]

Oh this is getting good now

[Fandango 1,439]

The original author of the article appears to also have faith. His faith tells him something different than your faith does. Without getting into major semantics or doctrinal issues, I think what's being asked of you LisaD, is not to keep repeating that your faith gives you answers, but HOW it gives you answers.

Just like the original author gave reasons for his belief (supported by faith), people are asking you how you can be sure. "Faith" in the way you describe it seems "blind" (i.e. someone told me and I believe, end of story). The Bible tells Christians to continually test their faith...that doesn't just mean to test whether you have it, it also means to test whether or not you can speak to it.

I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable question either. When one considers that it's known that there are Bible books that were written but removed from the canon, when one considers that there's been at least 2 languages involved and 2000 years of imperfect humans rewriting the text (assuming that no one had it deliberately changed for political reasons), even just basic error could occur.

It's highly implausible you were there and witnessed Jesus' time on earth; it's also highly implausible that you speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek (the original languages of the scriptures). So you're getting the building blocks of your faith from somewhere.

But that's the thing, Cerise....questions of faith cannot be explained by simple logic. That's my point.

See, everyone can believe what they want, and I'm not here saying otherwise...I respect everyone's right to their own conclusions.

But I do feel that answering 'hey, this is what I believe, and there's no real basis in proof one way or another' lends iteself to people automatically assuming it's a belief based on ignorance, or just spouting regurgitated ####### like a sheep without question. No one here knows my basis for forming the opinions that I have....for all anyone knows here, I could be a lifelong student of Theology. No one here knows the path which took me to believe what I do. And I shouldn't have to explain it either. I don't understand the rationale of people who don't believe certain things (they have every right to), but feel the need to try to tear down the opinions of those who do. I am well aware of the opposing theories of how the Bible was written, how the text translation might factor into things,etc....but I have come to my opinion anyways.

In matters of religion, people will have to make a leap...to either create a belief system based in faith....ie absence of tangible proof, or not. And anyone who does create a belief based on faith does not have to automatically agree verbatim with everyone else who has faith either. It's all supposition no matter what one believes. No one here can have any tangiblel proof as to whether HE was married or whether HE wasn't. It cannot be explained away as fact in a post on a messageboard, a bestseller novel, or a movie. My reasons for coming to the belief system that I have are my own, and personal...a question was asked, and I put my answer forward. It doesn't need to be justified or validated by strangers to make it any more real or legitimate.

And you misunderstand me completely. Personally, I don't care how you got to your faith, how you maintain it or whether or not you feel the need to justify it to others. However, this is a discussion, which generally includes a little more explanation to be understood and clear.

I have reasons for what I believe in as well, and don't offer up explanations readily either. However, if I make a blanket statement about XYZ, and it's a definite opinion, I would expect people to question me and as part of that discussion, I would also be somewhat obliged to respond IF I want people to take me seriously. No, you don't have to do so, but your opinion/commentary/whathaveyou loses water really fast if you just leave it laying there.

The author of the piece gave reasoning for why he believes the way he does.. You state something completely different and give no "argument" about it, leaving it as "faith". My only point was that people who are looking to DISCUSS this issue will likely not accept that as any sort of a valid argument.

I think matters of faith (i.e. the building blocks that get people to their faith) can be discussed in a logical manner with allowance for faith. I guess that's where we differ. But you made a comment about your stance perplexing people...maybe because it's basically a "I'm right because I know I'm right" type of argument. Good on ya if that's all you want out of the discussion; others may want more.

But again, that's my point. I cannot sit here and PROVE to anyone why I feel the way I do. I can't pick up a phone & be all 'Hey, Jesus, can you back up what I'm sayin?" There is no way anyone of us can prove this point to any degree with any tangible proof. There is no concrete logic in religion...which is why it's such a hard topic to debate.

I'm not saying I'm right, someone else is wrong....I'm saying I believe no, HE wasn't.....question asked & answered. It' wasn't 'what do you feel and prove to everyone else why you feel that way' (unless I missed that bit, heh)

I'm repeating myself here, so that's it for me. I gotta go to work!

[ceriserose 1]

Furthermore, just out of curiosity...how anyone can say that it's improbable that I speak Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek? You only know things about me that I choose to divulge...other than that I am a complete stranger to everyone here. To make sweeping generalizations like that seems a bit odd considering I could be anyone.

I did not come here to get into a slinging match with anyone here...but wow! talk about everyone getting on a bandwagon! Twice today I've been asked if I was there...which is a ridiculous question, really...because obviously that's an impossibility. But I don't have to prove anything to anyone. Neither does anyone else, for that matter. The difference is, I don't sit here in judgement of anyone here saying 'you believe HE was married???? Were you there??? You don't know for sure!!!! yadda yadda yadda'

All I ask is the same in return.

*sigh* Not attacking. Not slinging anything. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE. Might be easier if you 'got' where I was coming from, but instead of realizing you don't know me either, you choose to see it as an attack.

Let's recap.

This is what I said:

The original author of the article appears to also have faith. His faith tells him something different than your faith does. Without getting into major semantics or doctrinal issues, I think what's being asked of you LisaD, is not to keep repeating that your faith gives you answers, but HOW it gives you answers.

Just like the original author gave reasons for his belief (supported by faith), people are asking you how you can be sure. "Faith" in the way you describe it seems "blind" (i.e. someone told me and I believe, end of story). The Bible tells Christians to continually test their faith...that doesn't just mean to test whether you have it, it also means to test whether or not you can speak to it. wink.gif

I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable question either. When one considers that it's known that there are Bible books that were written but removed from the canon, when one considers that there's been at least 2 languages involved and 2000 years of imperfect humans rewriting the text (assuming that no one had it deliberately changed for political reasons), even just basic error could occur.

It's highly implausible you were there and witnessed Jesus' time on earth; it's also highly implausible that you speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek (the original languages of the scriptures). So you're getting the building blocks of your faith from somewhere.

In context, my comments about studiying the languages and being on earth were only there to show you WHY someone might be unsure as to how you derived your information. You're right, I don't know you at all, and have no clue as to your background or how you come to your conclusions. Those were 2 things that I could state with a reasonable reassurance that you probably don't have under your belt. Hey, I could be wrong. I don't know though do I?

Here's how I *logically* came to those conclusions. Re the witnessing Jesus time on earth, most humans don't live past 120 so 2000 years ago is a pretty safe bet that you weren't around. I could be wrong (but you said youself it was obvious that you wouldn't be). The study of Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek with specific understanding of scripture is a pretty intensive area of study, not usually found in the average joe. I go by the concept that most people on this message boards are for the most part average joes. I could be wrong. You're more than welcome to challenge me on that without getting your knickers in a knot and seeing it as an attack.

See? When you put your stuff out there and people are trying to figure it out and you won't talk about it, all there is, is speculation. If you don't like it, don't open it up, or be more forthcoming about your whys. Pretty simple.

And to be perfectly clear with you, I don't really care one way or the other how you choose to deal with this message board, what information you do or don't put out there. I was merely trying to help out a situation where I saw what could be a communication breakdown. I'm very happy your faith gives you this answer...other people need a little more. Stating you "know" because you "know" won't wash with others. *shrug*

For the record, I have no idea if Jesus was married. I wasn't there. I don't read the Bible languages. I don't have access to original texts. Anything I'd learn is second hand and unprovable. So I don't know.

I'm out.

The original author of the article appears to also have faith. His faith tells him something different than your faith does. Without getting into major semantics or doctrinal issues, I think what's being asked of you LisaD, is not to keep repeating that your faith gives you answers, but HOW it gives you answers.

Just like the original author gave reasons for his belief (supported by faith), people are asking you how you can be sure. "Faith" in the way you describe it seems "blind" (i.e. someone told me and I believe, end of story). The Bible tells Christians to continually test their faith...that doesn't just mean to test whether you have it, it also means to test whether or not you can speak to it.

I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable question either. When one considers that it's known that there are Bible books that were written but removed from the canon, when one considers that there's been at least 2 languages involved and 2000 years of imperfect humans rewriting the text (assuming that no one had it deliberately changed for political reasons), even just basic error could occur.

It's highly implausible you were there and witnessed Jesus' time on earth; it's also highly implausible that you speak/read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek (the original languages of the scriptures). So you're getting the building blocks of your faith from somewhere.

But that's the thing, Cerise....questions of faith cannot be explained by simple logic. That's my point.

See, everyone can believe what they want, and I'm not here saying otherwise...I respect everyone's right to their own conclusions.

But I do feel that answering 'hey, this is what I believe, and there's no real basis in proof one way or another' lends iteself to people automatically assuming it's a belief based on ignorance, or just spouting regurgitated ####### like a sheep without question. No one here knows my basis for forming the opinions that I have....for all anyone knows here, I could be a lifelong student of Theology. No one here knows the path which took me to believe what I do. And I shouldn't have to explain it either. I don't understand the rationale of people who don't believe certain things (they have every right to), but feel the need to try to tear down the opinions of those who do. I am well aware of the opposing theories of how the Bible was written, how the text translation might factor into things,etc....but I have come to my opinion anyways.

In matters of religion, people will have to make a leap...to either create a belief system based in faith....ie absence of tangible proof, or not. And anyone who does create a belief based on faith does not have to automatically agree verbatim with everyone else who has faith either. It's all supposition no matter what one believes. No one here can have any tangiblel proof as to whether HE was married or whether HE wasn't. It cannot be explained away as fact in a post on a messageboard, a bestseller novel, or a movie. My reasons for coming to the belief system that I have are my own, and personal...a question was asked, and I put my answer forward. It doesn't need to be justified or validated by strangers to make it any more real or legitimate.

And you misunderstand me completely. Personally, I don't care how you got to your faith, how you maintain it or whether or not you feel the need to justify it to others. However, this is a discussion, which generally includes a little more explanation to be understood and clear.

I have reasons for what I believe in as well, and don't offer up explanations readily either. However, if I make a blanket statement about XYZ, and it's a definite opinion, I would expect people to question me and as part of that discussion, I would also be somewhat obliged to respond IF I want people to take me seriously. No, you don't have to do so, but your opinion/commentary/whathaveyou loses water really fast if you just leave it laying there.

The author of the piece gave reasoning for why he believes the way he does.. You state something completely different and give no "argument" about it, leaving it as "faith". My only point was that people who are looking to DISCUSS this issue will likely not accept that as any sort of a valid argument.

I think matters of faith (i.e. the building blocks that get people to their faith) can be discussed in a logical manner with allowance for faith. I guess that's where we differ. But you made a comment about your stance perplexing people...maybe because it's basically a "I'm right because I know I'm right" type of argument. Good on ya if that's all you want out of the discussion; others may want more.

But again, that's my point. I cannot sit here and PROVE to anyone why I feel the way I do. I can't pick up a phone & be all 'Hey, Jesus, can you back up what I'm sayin?" There is no way anyone of us can prove this point to any degree with any tangible proof. There is no concrete logic in religion...which is why it's such a hard topic to debate.

I'm not saying I'm right, someone else is wrong....I'm saying I believe no, HE wasn't.....question asked & answered. It' wasn't 'what do you feel and prove to everyone else why you feel that way' (unless I missed that bit, heh)

I'm repeating myself here, so that's it for me. I gotta go to work!

No one asked for proof. They asked for explanation. Faith for most is not a good enough explanation. That's where you're still misunderstanding me.

[Melo 1]

No one asked for proof. They asked for explanation. Faith for most is not a good enough explanation. That's where you're still misunderstanding me.

That is exactly it... I cannot accept faith as an explanation.

[ceriserose 1]

No one asked for proof. They asked for explanation. Faith for most is not a good enough explanation. That's where you're still misunderstanding me.

That is exactly it... I cannot accept faith as an explanation.

A lot of people can't.

I think sometimes (speaking in general terms from my experience, not about any one person here), people don't know why they believe, they just do. So when asked how they got to point C from point A, they can't explain, and sometimes see it as an attack on their faith (a phrase I've heard on this message board numerous times in the past). I don't think questions about faith are bad, nor is asking someone to clarify why they believe the way they do. Christians are told to have an answer to those who question: 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

Matters of faith include the belief in Jesus and how that impacts a person's life. Different sects of Christianiaty have different takes on parts of the Bible, differing over how a scripture here or there should be interpreted. A comment about Jesus being married or not would seem to me to be more of a scriptural question versus a faith question anyway. Proving it is impossible for anyone without the original texts or being there. The only way faith would be involved to a heavy degree is if it were a scriptural matter of such doctrinal importance that to not believe it would be considered blasphemous (i.e. did Jesus exist).

In short, however, it still comes down to believing what you're told, not what you see first-hand and a lot of people don't work that way. Myself included.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No one asked for proof. They asked for explanation. Faith for most is not a good enough explanation. That's where you're still misunderstanding me.

That is exactly it... I cannot accept faith as an explanation.

A lot of people can't.

What amazes me is how people get all defensive if asked nothing but to discuss their point of view after they decided to enter a discussion and offer that point of view. Why even bother entering a discussion if you don't want to take part in it?

[Kajikit 65]

Personally, since Jesus was a man as well as the son of God, and he lived life as a man, the odds are extremely high that yes he was married - most young men back in those times married at about 15! And there's nothing in the bible about God saying to Joseph and Mary 'don't let your son do normal human things because he's above them...' Of course there's no way to tell but I think it was likely... and there's no way to tell whether he had descendants, but I think he probably didn't or somebody would have said something about them somewhere... being the 'son of Jesus' would surely have been something worth noting?

[I'm Gone 60]

Having read the bible from cover to cover I have to say there is nothing in the bible that says Jesus was married. However, as a one time Catholic I think allowing priest to marry is a good idea. Now that I'm older and all the stuff that has come out about priests I kind of wonder about a guy that has given up women.

[ceriserose 1]

Having read the bible from cover to cover I have to say there is nothing in the bible that says Jesus was married. However, as a one time Catholic I think allowing priest to marry is a good idea. Now that I'm older and all the stuff that has come out about priests I kind of wonder about a guy that has given up women.

I too have read the Bible cover to cover and agree that it isn't in there. (FWIW, I also agree on the not marrying problem with priests.)

What I wonder, and I brought it up before, is just what kind of information is in the books written but not deemed "necessary" by religious leaders so long ago when setting up the Bible canon. Seems to me that the historical record of Jesus the man has a leap of almost 2 decades of "unimportant" information. Considering he only lived until he was 33, that's quite a chunk of time unaccounted for.

[flipside 0]

Well.. as the old saying goes... "History is a story agreed upon."