So once again, the claim that Jesus was married has surfaced...

[mmksparbud]

I've mentioned this before, sorry for the repeat--


According to scripture, a man had to build a home for his wife first, then he had to spend that first year at home with her--making her happy--and not working!

Christ said He had no home--nothing of His own. He stayed with others. His ministry lasted only 3 1/2 years---He would have had to take the time to build her a house and spend that 1st year with her--considering all the things He did during the ministry, which were too many to even write down all of them according to scripture----He couldn't have had the time for it!

If they are saying He married before He started His ministry then He would have left them to do His ministry and left them without means of support which is not biblical. She and the children would have had to go back to her fathers house, providing she still had one living. Besides what has already been mentioned that not a single word of such is thing is mentioned anywhere. If Christ had fathered children, would not then His children have been regarded as Holy, and his wife also, (if the angels could breed with humans and produce these Nephiim, then Christ would have produced half breeds also?) I mean, it's honor enough to be the mother of God, but to be His wife--yah, that would have been automatic sainthood!-- and the Roman church would have made His wife and children saints and have statues of them everywhere--and these part divine children would then have passed on their partial divinity to their children---my, my, there'd be a whole lot of saints by now.

Don't these people think even about the obvious?

(Deu 24:5) When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

 

[lesliedellow]

...and also that he had biological children, and many nonbelievers are eager to accept the "news" as a fact.

How do you feel about it or what's your attitude on it?

I think it is sensationalist nonsense; possibly coming from an atheist looking to stir things up.

If Jesus had been married, it is not the sort of minor detail that might have escaped mention anywhere in the NT.

 

[RDKirk]

I think it is sensationalist nonsense; possibly coming from an atheist looking to stir things up.

If Jesus had been married, it is not the sort of minor detail that might have escaped mention anywhere in the NT.

Moreover, if Jesus had been married, there would have been no reason to hide it...because it would not have been wrong to be married if He had been married.

There would not have been a reason to hide Jesus' marriage. If there is a concept of "too holy to be married," that's only because there was never any indication that Jesus was married. After all, Moses was married. David was married--so there was no prior indication that marriage was a theological difficulty.

 

[kala83]

that might very well be true but your kind of forgetting Jesus symbolically did not follow Jewish law or custom to a key all of the time. And some even debate that he does this....to prove he has to come to change old ways to new.

an example of this is communion of the last super it was Jesus and disciples were taking part in the Jewish ritual of pass over. But if you know anything about Jewish custom the way Jesus did so on that particular evening was not the same as how it had been before. I am forgetting the exact details but there are I think four different cups that are drinking out of in pass over and biblically Jesus only uses two of these cups in the last super.

a lot of Christians kind of pass over, these details but Jesus did this for a reason he went against the way that things had been done because he wanted to show them that things were changing and changing for the better.
so again I must make the statement if that is true of Jesus why is it so far fetched or bad to think Jesus took a wife doing so differently then others in that time?

and I am sorry i am not trying to be rude here but historically and scientifically it has been shown......that the bible has been re written and edited had certain bits ripped out of it several time over in years upon years.
so how do you know that what you all have as the bible is the actual truth? I respect the word of god yes...but I question the bible content for the reason of that the bible was not written by god or by Jesus it was written by men or say we claim that it was.

I mean even the bible says it self....there are false prophets in the word...and you should take heed of them. Well, is it not too far fetched that.....maybe some of the info in the bible that is written by human beings. Sin induced human beings...is not logically possible that maybe just maybe they did not get all the info they wrote down exactly correct.

I've mentioned this before, sorry for the repeat--


According to scripture, a man had to build a home for his wife first, then he had to spend that first year at home with her--making her happy--and not working!

Christ said He had no home--nothing of His own. He stayed with others. His ministry lasted only 3 1/2 years---He would have had to take the time to build her a house and spend that 1st year with her--considering all the things He did during the ministry, which were too many to even write down all of them according to scripture----He couldn't have had the time for it!

If they are saying He married before He started His ministry then He would have left them to do His ministry and left them without means of support which is not biblical. She and the children would have had to go back to her fathers house, providing she still had one living. Besides what has already been mentioned that not a single word of such is thing is mentioned anywhere. If Christ had fathered children, would not then His children have been regarded as Holy, and his wife also, (if the angels could breed with humans and produce these Nephiim, then Christ would have produced half breeds also?) I mean, it's honor enough to be the mother of God, but to be His wife--yah, that would have been automatic sainthood!-- and the Roman church would have made His wife and children saints and have statues of them everywhere--and these part divine children would then have passed on their partial divinity to their children---my, my, there'd be a whole lot of saints by now.

Don't these people think even about the obvious?

(Deu 24:5) When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.