What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Evidence That Jesus Was Married to Mary Magdalene? (1 Viewer)

jon_mx said:
butcher boy said:
Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?
Click to expand...
The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.
Click to expand...
Is it the atheists who are insecure, or is it the Christians who jump on and dismiss any idea or suggestion that the Bible is at all incorrect?

 
butcher boy said:
jon_mx said:
butcher boy said:
Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?
Click to expand...
The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.
Click to expand...
Is it the atheists who are insecure, or is it the Christians who jump on and dismiss any idea or suggestion that the Bible is at all incorrect?
Click to expand...
:shrug:

I am a christian who does not believe the Bible is factually accurate. I can believe in the big picture, without being bogged down by the minutia - which has been translated, from translations of translations, which were were not written contemporaneously with the subject matter, etc.

 
butcher boy said:
jon_mx said:
butcher boy said:
Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?
Click to expand...
The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.
Click to expand...
Is it the atheists who are insecure, or is it the Christians who jump on and dismiss any idea or suggestion that the Bible is at all incorrect?
Click to expand...
Assuming this imaginary point was somehow true, what about it would render the Bible incorrect?

 
jon_mx said:
butcher boy said:
jon_mx said:
butcher boy said:
Why would it be considered a bad thing if it turns out Jesus was married? Is it because the church expects him to be celibate? Is it because Mary Magdalene was supposedly a prostitute?
Click to expand...
The only people who seem to be invested in this topic are atheist who must harbor some insecurity in their faith.
Click to expand...
Is it the atheists who are insecure, or is it the Christians who jump on and dismiss any idea or suggestion that the Bible is at all incorrect?
Click to expand...
Assuming this imaginary point was somehow true, what about it would render the Bible incorrect?
Click to expand...
I assume by this you mean that the Bible never covers Jesus' marital status. Fair enough I guess. Maybe the correct way to put it is the interpretation of Jesus then. Why is it so bothersome to Christians if it turns out Jesus was married?

As a non-Christian, it doesn't bother me one way or the other if he was. The subject in no way creates any insecurities in my own beliefs like you suggested. I never considered the bible to be factually accurate anyway and I don't think it needs to be to validate a belief in Christianity.

 
IMO, Jesus was most likely married, as that was the religious/legal norm among Jewish men at the time and there are enough indications of it. I dont think it changes his message or the New Testament in any manner, although it certainly changes some people's interpretations of them.

But I am a follower of Jesus, not a follower of Paul/Saul.

 
mr roboto said:
The Commish said:
mr roboto said:
That's exactly what I said. What are we going on about?
Click to expand...
I guess nothing if when you say "quite an omission" you mean "doesn't matter all that much"
Click to expand...
Please read my first comment on the matter. Theologically, not really. But it would be quite an omission in the Biblical record.
Click to expand...
I did read it. That's why I asked you what you meant. What's the distinction you are attempting to make between the theology and the Bible?

 
"Jesus, we're having Abraham and Norah over for dinner tonight with all their kids, brothers, and sisters. Here's 2 fish and 2 loaves. How about some help?"

 
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)

 
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
Lust for your wife is not a sin, neither is having sex.

It goes against what people have been taught their whole lives so it angers them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
The obvious joke there is if he was married, obviously he wasn't having sex.

Seriously though, Catholic dogma would take a huge hit if it was proven that Jesus would be married. It is the foundation of their school of thought to keep priests celibate (despite the definitely non-celibate lifestyle Popes at the very least enjoyed for most of Catholic history). Because of that, they really can't play the Protestant card of "it doesn't matter." It would rock the foundations of what they base their belief system on.

Being an agnostic, it would just be another piece of evidence that the Bible is far from historically accurate. Many Christians differ on the supposed historical accuracy of the Old Testament, and even parts of the New Testament. But, it would be a hard argument to make that even though there are four Gospels dedicated to the life and teachings of Jesus, that failing to mention the fact that he was married is a significant exclusion.

Heck, his words and actions at the last supper is the foundation of the most significant part of the Mass for Catholics. It would be reasonable to infer the manner he was married should have been the foundation for the way Catholics were married as well.

 
Bull Dozier said:
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
The obvious joke there is if he was married, obviously he wasn't having sex.

Seriously though, Catholic dogma would take a huge hit if it was proven that Jesus would be married. It is the foundation of their school of thought to keep priests celibate (despite the definitely non-celibate lifestyle Popes at the very least enjoyed for most of Catholic history). Because of that, they really can't play the Protestant card of "it doesn't matter." It would rock the foundations of what they base their belief system on.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Catholic, but in fairness to them, nobody considers the celibate priesthood to be the foundation of the Catholic belief system. They could allow priests to marry tomorrow while leaving the rest of the church completely unchanged otherwise.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Bull Dozier said:
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
The obvious joke there is if he was married, obviously he wasn't having sex.Seriously though, Catholic dogma would take a huge hit if it was proven that Jesus would be married. It is the foundation of their school of thought to keep priests celibate (despite the definitely non-celibate lifestyle Popes at the very least enjoyed for most of Catholic history). Because of that, they really can't play the Protestant card of "it doesn't matter." It would rock the foundations of what they base their belief system on.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Catholic, but in fairness to them, nobody considers the celibate priesthood to be the foundation of the Catholic belief system. They could allow priests to marry tomorrow while leaving the rest of the church completely unchanged otherwise.
Click to expand...
Also, Jesus wasn't a priest. (Catholics don't think everyone should be celibate.)

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
'timschochet said:
'Claydon said:
'timschochet said:
'Claydon said:
Parts are similar because the authors of Matthew and Luke used the book of Mark for certain stories.
Click to expand...
How do you know this?
Click to expand...
Because most all bible scholars regard it as the earliest gospel.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't mean the other guys copied it. In fact, what you're writing now contradicts your earlier argument. If the later Gospel writers were all about copying the first Gospel, why would they only copy part of it? Why not copy the whole thing? Why would there be contradictions?
Click to expand...
There aren't really contradictions between Mark and Luke or between Mark and Matthew. There are elaborations in the new material. 3/4 of what's in Mark is in all three synoptic Gospels. Another 18% of Mark appears only in Matthew. And another 1% appears only in Luke. Which means that only 3% of Mark appears elsewhere. As between Matthew and Luke there is an additional 25% or so of shared content that is not derived from Mark (which is why scholars hypothesize about "the Q Gospel" and the "two source hypothesis"), as Matthew takes a bit more of Mark, Matthew has a little less unique content than Luke. As might be expected, it is between this "unique" content that Matthew and Luke contradict each other.
Click to expand...
Is there any way to read the parts of Matthew and Luke that are unique to those books?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Bull Dozier said:
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
The obvious joke there is if he was married, obviously he wasn't having sex.

Seriously though, Catholic dogma would take a huge hit if it was proven that Jesus would be married. It is the foundation of their school of thought to keep priests celibate (despite the definitely non-celibate lifestyle Popes at the very least enjoyed for most of Catholic history). Because of that, they really can't play the Protestant card of "it doesn't matter." It would rock the foundations of what they base their belief system on.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Catholic, but in fairness to them, nobody considers the celibate priesthood to be the foundation of the Catholic belief system. They could allow priests to marry tomorrow while leaving the rest of the church completely unchanged otherwise.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm not attempting to be anti-Catholic. My wife is Catholic and we are raising out kids Catholic.

That said, from the Catholic point of view, the priesthood is taking the place of Jesus on earth. I don't mean to say that whether or not priests are celibate is a foundational issue, but anything that revolves around priests is a big deal. From my point of view, they could allow women to become priests tomorrow and nothing would have to change otherwise, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that would be a major change within the church.

Catholic dogma is that it is actually clear in scripture that Jesus was unmarried, thus why they base their structure on an unmarried priesthood. The priesthood tells Catholics how they should interpret certain scripture. If they are proven wrong on one of their interpretations, they (at least in my opinion) lose their credibility to be able to interpret other parts of scripture.

 
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
DIdn't see the movie, but if he were depicted having sex and wasn't married, that answers your question, right?

 
Bull Dozier said:
IvanKaramazov said:
Bull Dozier said:
timschochet said:
If, according to many of you here, Jesus being married would have no theological connotations, then why did The Last Temptation of Christ cause so much of a ruckus? If I recall correctly, Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) were angered that Scorcese would depict Christ as having lust (and sex). Presumably if Jesus was married, he would have sex, right? (Or maybe not?)
Click to expand...
The obvious joke there is if he was married, obviously he wasn't having sex.

Seriously though, Catholic dogma would take a huge hit if it was proven that Jesus would be married. It is the foundation of their school of thought to keep priests celibate (despite the definitely non-celibate lifestyle Popes at the very least enjoyed for most of Catholic history). Because of that, they really can't play the Protestant card of "it doesn't matter." It would rock the foundations of what they base their belief system on.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Catholic, but in fairness to them, nobody considers the celibate priesthood to be the foundation of the Catholic belief system. They could allow priests to marry tomorrow while leaving the rest of the church completely unchanged otherwise.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm not attempting to be anti-Catholic. My wife is Catholic and we are raising out kids Catholic.

That said, from the Catholic point of view, the priesthood is taking the place of Jesus on earth. I don't mean to say that whether or not priests are celibate is a foundational issue, but anything that revolves around priests is a big deal. From my point of view, they could allow women to become priests tomorrow and nothing would have to change otherwise, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that would be a major change within the church.

Catholic dogma is that it is actually clear in scripture that Jesus was unmarried, thus why they base their structure on an unmarried priesthood. The priesthood tells Catholics how they should interpret certain scripture. If they are proven wrong on one of their interpretations, they (at least in my opinion) lose their credibility to be able to interpret other parts of scripture.
Click to expand...
That's reasonable. Also, I didn't intend to suggest that you were being anti-Catholic -- sorry if it came across that way.

 
Is there a copy of the actual text/translation somewhere? It's kind of frustrating to read people drone on and on about it and not being able to "read" it yourself...

 
Jesus was too smart a guy to get married anyway. Being the son of a god, he could have had quite a harem. Why tie yourself down?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paddington
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2
8 9 10
Replies
461
Views
6K
Paddington
Paddington
Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
2 3
Replies
105
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Senor Schmutzig
Does anyone else regress when wife/partner/spouse is out of town?
2 3
Replies
146
Views
2K
nirad3
nirad3

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top