The Wives of Jesus - a.k.a 'There's Something About Mary'

There is no statement in the Gospels that Jesus was married. Of course there isn't. But having said this, there is also no statement in the gospels that he was NOT married – which is a lot more significant than it might at first appear.

Dr Geza Vermes of Oxford University eloquently deals with this anomaly when he says that:

“There is complete silence in the Gospels concerning the marital status of Jesus....Such a state of affairs is sufficiently unusual in ancient Jewry to prompt further enquiry”

- Vermes, Jesus the Jew

Many of Jesus' other disciples were married and at no point does Jesus advocate celibacy, which means that there is no reason to suppose he practised it either. In fact, Judaic custom at the time was such that a man who was unmarried (especially a man of Jesus' age) would have been highly unusual, even condemned.

As one scholar notes:

“Granted the cultural background as witnessed...it is highly improbable that Jesus was not married well before the beginning of his public ministry. If he had insisted upon celibacy, it would have created a stir, a reaction which would have left some trace. So, the lack of mention of Jesus's marriage in the Gospels is a strong argument not against but for the hypothesis of marriage, because any practice of advocacy of voluntary celibacy would in the Jewish context of the time have been so unusual as to have attracted much attentionally comment.”

There is also the fact that Jesus, as a Rabbi (a title which is used for Jesus many times in the Gospels) would have to be married, as Jewish Mishianic Law states that “an unmarried man may not be a teacher.” Of course, whether Jesus was a Rabbi in the strictest sense is still up for debate, but it is certainly true that this was a title that he was given numerous times.

Others have made reference to the marriage at Cana, the event at which Jesus performs his first miracle – turning water in wine. Some have argued that the wedding in question was Jesus's own wedding citing the fact that at the behest of his mother, Mary, Jesus refills the empty waterpots – a job that is by custom only performed by the host. They have also argued that when the master of the feast congratulated the bridegroom on departing from the custom of serving the best wine first by serving it last, that he was directing his comment at Jesus. This however does not seem to be the case. Also worth mentioning is that John 2:2 states that: "Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding", and one does not get invited to his own wedding.

The Anointment

Although the gospels do not agree on the who's, why's and where's? of this event they all do agree that at some point Jesus was anointed by a woman. Luke calls her a “fallen woman” and a “sinner” (leading some to believe the woman to be Mary Magdalene) whilst John names her as Mary, and the text assumes her to be Mary, a sister to Lazarus, as it also identifies her sister Martha. This was not the anointing of a new King or Messiah, but rather an anointing done out of affection, which Jesus stated was to prepare him for his burial.

So now we have two suspects: Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany.

Mary Magdalene

Contrary to popular belief, Mary Magdalene was not a harlot or a prostitute. When she is first mentioned in Luke, she is described as a woman “out of whom came seven devils.” This alludes to a scenario in which Mary was 'possessed' and perhaps Jesus was the one who performed the 'exorcism.' But the phrase may also refer to some sort of conversion and/or ritual initiation, perhaps with one of the goddess cults of the time, Astarte/Ishtar being the most obvious culprits. This could also be the reason why Magdalene became associated with prostitution, for these cults included rituals of sacred prostitution.

She was also a woman of means. For example, Luke mentions that her friends included the wife of a high dignitary at Herod's court and that she supported Jesus with financial resources. This fits in with the anointment scene because only a wealthy, well to do individual could afford Spikenard, the perfume used to anoint Jesus.

According to the Gospels she was a follower of Jesus's ministry from it's humble beginnings in Galilee and was with him throughout his ministry until his crucifixion, of which she was a witness. Then, of course, she was the first person to whom Jesus revealed himself after his resurrection, which, in this context, could speak volumes. It is obvious that she had become a figure of immense significance.

In Gnostic writings Mary Magdalene is seen as one of the most important of Jesus's disciples whom he loved more than the others. The Gnostic Gospel of Philip names Mary Magdalene as Jesus' companion. Gnostic writings describe tensions and jealousy between Mary Magdalene and other disciples, especially Peter.

Pistis Sophia, possibly dating as early as the 2nd century, is the best surviving of the Gnostic writings. Pistis Sophia presents a long dialog with Jesus in the form of his answers to questions from his disciples. Of the 64 questions, 39 are presented by a woman who is referred to as Mary or Mary Magdalene. Jesus says of Mary:

"Mary, thou blessed one, whom I will perfect in all mysteries of those of the height, discourse in openness, thou, whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren."

Gospel of Philip, dating from the 2nd or 3rd century, survives in part among the texts found in Nag Hammadi in 1945. In a manner very similar to John 19:25-26, the Gospel of Philip presents Mary Magdalene among Jesus' female entourage, adding that she was his koinônos, a Greek word variously translated in contemporary versions as partner, associate, comrade, companion.

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister, his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

Others' irritation from the love and affection presented by Jesus to Mary Magdalene is claimed in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip. The text is badly fragmented, and speculated but unreliable additions are shown in brackets:

And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"

Gospel of Mary is usually dated to about the same period as that of the Gospel of Philip. The Gospel was first discovered in 1896. The Gospel is missing six pages from the beginning and four in the middle.

The identity of "Mary" appearing as the main character in the Gospel is sometimes disputed, but she is generally regarded to be Mary Magdalene. In the Gospel, Mary, presented here as one of the disciples, has seen a private vision from the resurrected Jesus and describes it to other disciples.

Peter said to Mary, "Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them."

Mary answered and said, "What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you." And she began to speak to them these words: "I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision."

Unfortunately, almost all of Mary's vision is within the lost pages.

When Mary had said these things, she fell silent, since it was up to this point that the Savior had spoken to her.
Mary is then confronted by Andrew and Peter, who do not take for granted what she says, because she is a woman:

"Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"

Then Mary grieved and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart or that I am lying concerning the Savior?"

Mary is however defended by Levi:

"But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Savior knew her very well. For this reason he loved her more than us."

The repeated reference in the Gnostic texts of Mary as being loved by Jesus more than the others has been seen as supporting the theory that the Beloved Disciple in the canonical Gospel of John was originally Mary Magdalene, before a later redactor made changes in the Gospel.

Indeed, a great case can be made for Mary Magdalene being "the Beloved Disciple", something that only adds credence to Jesus's apparent favouritism to Mary Magdalene.

After reading this it becomes apparent how the reputation of Mary Magdalene was distorted and dragged through the mud by the early church leaders. Her role seems to have been deliberately obscured and hidden from the masses. Could the reason for this be her marriage to the Messiah?

Lets not get carried away, for there is still another Mary with a claim for Jesus's heart...


Mary of Bethany

Like Magdalene, Mary of Bethany is from a wealthy family. We can ascertain this by the fact that it is mentioned that her family have their own private vault (something only the very wealthy could afford) and that they were of a high social class. This instantly tallies with Mary being able to afford expensive perfumes.

Although not mentioned as much as Mary Magdalene there are still a few clues that could lead one to believe there is more than meets the eye in her and Jesus's relationship.

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

For Mary to sit at Jesus' feet, and for him to allow her to do so, was itself controversial. In doing so, as one commentator notes, Mary took "the place of a disciple by sitting at the feet of the teacher. It was unusual for a woman in first-century Judaism to be accepted by a teacher as a disciple."

Straight away we have a show of favouritism towards Mary of Bethany by Jesus.

Upon hearing that Lazarus (Mary's brother) has fallen ill, Jesus returns to Bethany and is greeted by a distraught Martha (Mary's sister). However, Mary is notable by her absence...why had she not come to meet Jesus with her sister, Martha? It turns out that Mary is sitting in the house and does not emerge until Jesus explicitly commands her to do so.

It is plausible that Mary would be sitting indoors, in accordance with Jewish custom she would be "sitting shiva" - sitting in mourning. By the tenets of Judaic law at the time, a woman "sitting shiva" would have been strictly forbidden to emerge from the house except at the express bidding of her husband. Therefore the behaviour of Jesus and Mary of Bethany conforms to that of a traditional man and wife.

And once Mary does eventually emerge from the house we are again given an insight into her preferred status by Jesus...

When Mary meets Jesus, she falls at his feet. In speaking with Jesus, both sisters lament that he did not arrive in time to prevent their brother's death: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."[Jn 11:21,32] But where Jesus' response to Martha is one of teaching calling her to hope and faith, his response to Mary is more emotional: "When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.."

Another clue lies in the anointment scene discussed earlier. When the expensive Spikenard perfume is used on Jesus some of the onlookers are angered, as to is Judas Iscariot, who asks why this expensive perfume "worth a years wage's" wasn't sold and the money given to the poor? Jesus defends Mary and as one commentator notes:

"Mary seems to have been the only one who was sensitive to the impending death of Jesus and who was willing to give a material expression of her esteem for him. Jesus' reply shows his appreciation of her act of devotion." The accounts in Matthew and Mark adds these words of Jesus, "I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her".

When Two Become One

In many traditions, such as Roman Catholicism, Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are viewed as one and the same person. This is an understandable conclusion (which many scholars agree with) to come to as they do both share some obvious similarities. It also leaves us with a more wholesome array of evidence, not two separate, competing women, but one woman, Mary...the wife of Jesus.

Sources for external links:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Additional:
The Hiram Key
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
The Second Messiah
The Templar Revelation
The Jesus Papers

And of course...The Bible

reply to post by LiveForever8

Could Jesus have been gay? It would explain a lot.

Leonardo seems to have thought he was, but then Leonardo was gay too.

reply to post by Astyanax


I was actually going to include that in my OP, but opted against it.

However, there are some references that could be seen as allusions to that very idea, one such reference can be found in the Secret Gospel of Mark:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[3]

The second excerpt is very brief and is to be inserted, according to Clement, in Mark 10:46:

And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them.

This bares a striking resemblance to the raising from the dead of Lazarus, who some writers believe to have been the "Beloved Disciple."

Other believe that John the Apostle would have been the most likely partner.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by LiveForever8

 

Could Jesus have been gay? It would explain a lot.

Leonardo seems to have thought he was, but then Leonardo was gay too.

And was the immaculate conception really true? Or could a jewish minx tell a lie?

Groupies -

Actually there WAS (contra Geza Vermes !) a group of celibate males in 1st century Palestine which are to-day known as The Dead Sea Scroll Zadokite Covenanters (they called themselves 22 different names e.g. the Sons of Light, or 'The Sons of Zadok' or 'Sons of the Everlasting Plantation', or 'Followers of the Way' etc.) that were housed in a Zionist Priestly 'End of Days' Monastery near the present day town of Qumran (the often built-destroyed-re-built and ancient fortress of Seccacah, which they themselves called "Damascim' in the plural).

These Dead Sea Scrolls Copyist Monk Ceilibates were branched off of the 'Ossim (Gk. Essenoi) i.e. 'doers' (of the Law) who totally eschewed marriage or any contact with 'female flesh' and thus were male celibates (see Rev. chapter 14:4 'these are undefiled by the filth of female flesh - for they are virgin males ' - although it is possible several of 'virgin celibates' at Qumran-Seccacah-Damascus HAD PREVIOUSLY been married and later widowered etc.

Other 'Ossim' running around in those days (i.e. Essenes or Essenoid types) lived in the 'camps of Yisroel' (i.e. scattered all around Eretz Yisroel in neighbourhoods) WERE married and bore sons, often used as a recruitment device for the Monastery at Seccacah (i.e. their monastery of Damascus).- these married Ossim also called themsleves 'sons of light' etc. but it was the CELIBATE ossim ('essenoi') at Seccacah/Damascus who held higher spiritual authrority - and were called 'angels of the Most High' because of their abstenance of the carnal.

R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (Gk. 'Iesous) was a blood member of the exiled family of the Davidds (since BCE 587) - which demanded marriage and sons 'to sit upon the throne of Yisroel forever' etc. It was their hope that in the Last Days they would overthrow not only the Kittim (i.e. the Romans) but also the Hashmonean high priests who had siezed 'the throne' in BCE 167 under the sons of Matathias ben Hasmon (during the socalled Maccabbean revolt against the Syro-Greek overlords in Jerusalem c. BCE 163.

Since the time of John Hyrcanus (the 'tiger') in 105 BCE, these Zadokite Jerusalem High Priest descendants of Matathias ben Hasmon ('the Hashmoneans')) began to call themselves KINGS as well -- justified with a verse they often mangled-quoted from the Torah as their excuse to do so (cf: thou shalt be unto me a KINGDOM of PRIESTS, a holy nation...'). These Hasmonean priest-kings were also 'the sons of Zadok' (aka Zadokkim - just like the name of the exiled splinter group 'the Zadokite' priestly Qumran Covenanters aka the Dead Sea Scroll Community) which the NT calls 'Sadduccees' for some reason...

The problem is that many MSS say 'thou shalt be unto me a kingdom AND priests' (!!) so there was a tug of war for power at Jerusalem even during the lifetimes of the 'disciples' in the first century AD in Palestine.

This Rabbi Yehoshua ('iesous') once was purported to have said that celibacy is only for those who can accept it, i.e. the inner circle of the most devout

('There are those among the sons of men who are born already castrated from their mother's womb, and there are those who are deliberately castrated by others (i.e. to make boy-soprano singers) and there are also those who castrate themselves ('make Eunuchs of themselves') for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven - let he WHO IS ABLE TO DO SO, do so !" - see the 1st canonical Greek gospel ('according to matthew' whoever he was) chapter 19: verse 12.

Apparently the great scholar Origen (and Tertullian as well !) took this verse literally and, well...did the deed on themselves...but I ddoubt if it made them any more spiritual !!

But as for the Davidds getting married - it certainly would have been demanded of him to produce sons for the coming Kingdom on earth-

So it is NOT suprising to read in the canonical gospels of persons such as 'Miryam ha Gedolah' (literally 'Mary the Great', sometimes written as 'Mary-Magdelene') following he good Rebbe around town like the main person (i.e. always listed FIRST, even before his own mother in the canonical (council approved) Greek gospels !) among a group of OTHER demented little flunky 'Marys' in the gospels

(Miryam means 'princess' in Egyptian and Hebrew),

and Mary the Great is even called 'his Consort' in the non-canoncai Greek (and later Coptic) Gospel of 'Phillip' (''with whom Iesous often kissed right on the mo[uth]' to the Shock & Awe of 'his [male] disciples who said amongst each other in dismay, 'Why does he do that? can it be that the Teacher loves HER more than US?')

Also in the 4th gospel we have a very embarrasing scene in chapter 20:15-18- 'and thinking him to be the gardener, she said to him, Sir, they have MOVED THE BODY OF MY HUSBAND AWAY and I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THEY HAVE LAID IT OUT....' etc.

To which this 'Mary the Great of the Tomb' personage (who is allowed access to the tomb to pay wifely respects)in the 4th canonical Greek gospel ('according to Yohanon' whoever he was) blurts out, Rabbouni ! ('my very own great one !') which is an Aramaic title of 'extreme emotional closeness' for any woman to use with respect to a man in those days...followed by her grabbing his ankles (!!) or other (ahem.) 'body parts[' and resulting in a rebuke from the Teacher -

'But he pushed her away, saying, Do not touch me like that - I have not ascended [the Temple] to give thanks to my Father [i.e. for my deliverance] yet .' In other words, he wanted to be 'ritually clean' as he ascended the temple precincts to offer his thanksgiving tributes etc.

It does seem (along with that notorious 'Hair-rubbed-right-into-the-groin' Scene ('and a woman who was profligate came into the rooom and...) with the 'annointing (Meshiaq) of the Spilled Unguents at Bethany' that something intimately (ahem... shall we say) overtly sexual was going on...

The phrase 'and then she began to rubb her hair into his feet' is of course a sexual euphemism with 'feet' representing the phallus in ancient Egyptian & Hebraeo-Aramaic literature....which most Christians are NOT told about !!

Suffice it to say, there is ALOT more to these stories of intimacies with Mary the Great than meets the ear wwhen read aloud 'in the churches' !!!!

Originally posted by LiveForever8


The repeated reference in the Gnostic texts of Mary as being loved by Jesus more than the others has been seen as supporting the theory that the Beloved Disciple in the canonical Gospel of John was originally Mary Magdalene, before a later redactor made changes in the Gospel.

Yes,the Gospel of John the Beloved, is the Gospel of Mary(Magdelene).Mary translates/means beloved.The Cathar of France new this and disregarded all other gospel's(post Constantine).They should know as they were taught by Magdelene herself and were given gaurdianship of the Lords body and secrets.Hence their persecution,during the crusades.

Gospel of John,
One give away is Christ's conversation with the woman at the well,when all Apostle's were sent into town and were not there to wittness or record it.Exception John, being Mary,being the woman at the well.

Yes they were married.

I can't contribute to this thread as I for one think that jesus never existed .
I mean the personify idol that has been perceive as the son of man in the bible...never existed .
You can debate until the cows come home about the celibacy of a fabricated idol, this will not lift the fact that someone had lived a great life.
This great life as been the tool of TPTB for many century now.
And remember one ancient pope acknowledge the fraud of the character name Jesus.

reply to post by LiveForever8


Jesus and Paul considered celibacy as a higher spiritual state than marriage for a person devoted to service. Jesus bride is the church. Since he cannot commit adultery, marriage would be out of the question until the end of the age. The marriage supper of the lamb is a picture of Jewish marriage where the husband departs to build the home. The bride does not know the hour of his return, only the season. In Hebrew root morphology, the root of maiden also makes up the words horizon, eternity, secret and hidden.

The bride gazes out the window at the horizon looking as far as she can. Eternity is hidden in the haze. The return of the husband is a secret. So, as for Jesus being married, I say it is not possible.

John 14:2

In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Please can you give reference to the bellow:
Jesus and Paul considered celibacy as a higher spiritual state than marriage

Biblical reference not interpretation...

1Corinthians 7:8-9, 27, 32-35, 38; Matthew 19:3-12; Revelation 14:3-5

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

"Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that." (1Corinthians 7:1-7, NKJV)

"For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb . . . and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Matthew 19:12)

"But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1Corinthians 7:8-9)

Matt 19
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Originally posted by kacou
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Please can you give reference to the bellow:
Jesus and Paul considered celibacy as a higher spiritual state than marriage

Biblical reference not interpretation...

I while back, when I watched "The Secret Lives of Jesus" it mentioned other written gospels of jesus involving relations with Mary Magdalene that didn't get included in the final bible revision.

It was BBC though, so they couldn't have any conclusion besides neutrality, even if their research showed it to be correct or incorrect. It'd be interesting to look into those more in depth.

Originally posted by NeverForget

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by LiveForever8

 

Could Jesus have been gay? It would explain a lot.

Leonardo seems to have thought he was, but then Leonardo was gay too.

And was the immaculate conception really true? Or could a jewish minx tell a lie?

Funny, but it's the wrong question. The immaculate conception is the doctrine that Mary was free from Original Sin from the moment of her conception-not the "virgin" birth thing.
catholicism.about.com...
Religion--too weird for me.

reply to post by NeverForget

Could a jewish minx tell a lie?

If Greek minxes could – and it seems they were forever being put in the club by Zeus – why not Jewish ones?

reply to post by LiveForever8


I am curious. Why is this important to you? Are you a follower of Christ? I get the point you are trying to make, even though you do error in many areas of the facts but more importantly what is your agenda? Is it to help others ? Is it to discredit ? Only you and I know.

I don't dignify half truths mixed with lies and deceptions usually but in this case I will make an exception or two.

#1 He was called Rabbi not by the Religious Leadrers in the Synagogues, but by those who saw him as a teacher because he PREACHED !! By the way, He was also called MASTER by many but he didnt own slaves!!

#2 Anyone with common since would assume that if he had been married, His Wife WOULD HAVE BEEN TAGGING ALONG AND BE MENTIONED !! I dont see a wife with Him and 12 Disciples day and night!! That would have been a sin in its self and no one would have followed him or listened to him!!
His enemies said "You Make Yourself To Be Equal With God" So if he been married, they would have had a field day with this in his trial !!

#3 As for Biblical Scholars? They are nothing more than human beings at work with opinions of Scripture!!
That means they can be Atheists at times !! But in anycase, they are human beings and foulable !!!

So I ask, Are you trying to interpret Scipture to improve your walk with God ? Or is it to Discredit and wound with doubt those who believe in GODS WORD and The Deity of Christ?


With respect I hope your at peace !!

I have read that when Jesus was 13 (the age Jews of the time traditionally got married), he left home, making his way to India / the mountains of Tibet where he attained enlightenment. Thus the 'missing years'

Google stories of 'Issa', it's quite a curious read

reply to post by CherubBaby

I am curious. Why is this important to you? Are you a follower of Christ?

Does he have to be? Jesus is a world figure of great, possibly unparalleled importance. The religion that grew up around him has shaped two thousand years of Western civilization and through it, the world. The details of his biography are of critical interest to everybody. Jesus Christ does not belong only to Christians, you know.

What is your agenda? Is it to help others? Is it to discredit? Only you and I know.

If you know, why ask these questions? Why not come out and expose the OP’s agenda right away?

Now, let’s see about these claims you’re making.

#1 He was called Rabbi not by the Religious Leaders in the Synagogues...

Jesus is reported to have been called ‘rabbi’ by a Pharisee (John 3:1), a ‘teacher of the law’ (that is, a man who was a rabbi himself) (Matthew 8:19) and a group of Sadducees (Matthew 24:24).

#2 Anyone with common since would assume that if he had been married, His Wife WOULD HAVE BEEN TAGGING ALONG AND BE MENTIONED !! I dont see a wife with Him and 12 Disciples day and night!! That would have been a sin in its self and no one would have followed him or listened to him!!

Do you think social mores in first-century Palestine were the same as in your little corner of the West? Women didn’t go tagging after their husbands in the ancient world, they stayed at home, out of sight, and cooked, cleaned and sewed! If you want to imagine what life was like in that time and place, you’d do better to imagine a modern Arab or Muslim country, where women are traditionally kept out of sight and rarely seen on the streets.

It is the presence of women in Jesus’s entourage that was unusual and, by the standards of the society of his time, reprehensible. The man didn’t just sit down with criminals and tax gatherers, he broke bread with women. Clearly a subversive hippie type.

#3 As for Biblical Scholars? They are nothing more than human beings at work with opinions of Scripture!!
That means they can be Atheists at times !! But in anycase, they are human beings and foulable !!!

Yes, a Bible scholar can be an atheist, and some are. Your own Biblical scholarship seems pretty lousy (even a godless swine like me could point out at least three instances where establishment figures addressed Jesus as ‘rabbi’), so I really have to ask whether you are in any condition to judge the scholarship of others.

Have you ever asked yourself where your Bible, the one you have at home, comes from? The answer is that it was assembled from literally thousands of ancient manuscripts, most of which disagreed with one another or even with themselves. There’s no one Bible that’s been passed from hand to hand, or mouth to mouth, down the ages. There were many Bibles, or rather many versions of the different Books of the Bible, and the book that sits on your bedside table is a compromise between them. Who decided the terms of that compromise? Who decided which version should go in and what should be cut out? Powerful, worldly men of the Roman Church. And to whom did they turn to for advice? Bible scholars.

The Scripture whose authority you deem superior to that of human scholarship was in fact assembled by human scholars.

So I ask, Are you trying to interpret Scipture to improve your walk with God? Or is it to Discredit and wound with doubt those who believe in GODS WORD and The Deity of Christ?

Why can’t his motive simply be a desire to find out the truth about an important element in the life of a key world figure?

reply to post by Astyanax


You make a great set of points. I salute you. I mean it with respect.
And even though I could debate this all year long, I won't.

I will say this. Jesus, according to The Bible, was sent to Die for the sins of the world and give the message of the hope of salvation through Faith ..

He had no formal education and the reference you make, "a man who was a rabbi himself) (Matthew 8:19) and a group of Sadducees (Matthew 24:24.) Said in those verses "Rabbi we know you are from God for no man can do the things you do unless God is with him. (HE HAD NO FORMAL EDUCATION) .The bible also says that he had "All the Fullness of God and the Spirit was not given by Measure to Him..

Like I said I respect your opinions but I know Jesus didnt come to get married !! I guess it's a question of what we have faith in...

reply to post by SuperiorEd

Jesus’ reported statement in Matthew 19:12 can just as well be read as an offer of comfort to eunuchs and others who are sexually dysfunctional. Jesus is merely pointing out that not everyone can be heterosexually active, as Jewish society encouraged everyone to be, and that it’s okay not to play if you can’t, or don’t feel like it.

Paul, like most religious fanatics, passionately hated and feared sex. His famous assertion that it is better to marry than to burn clearly displays his prejudices in that line.

reply to post by CherubBaby

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I am curious. Why is this important to you?

I wouldn't say it is important to me, as a lover of history it interests me.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Are you a follower of Christ?

No, I am not. I have studied Christ and from a historical viewpoint, I am interested in Christ, but I do not believe he was the Son of God who died for out Sins.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I get the point you are trying to make, even though you do error in many areas of the facts but more importantly what is your agenda? Is it to help others ? Is it to discredit ?

No agenda other than delving into history and offering an alternative time-line of events.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#1 He was called Rabbi not by the Religious Leadrers in the Synagogues, but by those who saw him as a teacher because he PREACHED !! By the way, He was also called MASTER by many but he didnt own slaves!!

I grant you, there is debate about whether Jesus was a Rabbi, as we know them today as It was only after 70 AD that we find numerous religious teachers who had the title, 'Rabbi'. Because of this, modern day scholars refer to the era after 70 AD as “the rabbinic period” and speak of teachers in this period as “the rabbis.” Religious teachers who gathered disciples prior to 70 AD are called “sages,” so Jesus technically was a “sage” rather than a “rabbi” by modern definition.

However, it is obvious from the Gospels that Jesus was a scholar, learned in the Scriptures and religious literature of the period, which was vast and varied. He is stated numerous times to have "authority" and advanced "wisdom" beyond the normalities of the time, something that many scholars put down to his advanced training in several schools of thought. Much like Moses - "Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action."

We could argue about semantics all day long but to call it a "lie" or a "deception" is unjust.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#2 Anyone with common since would assume that if he had been married, His Wife WOULD HAVE BEEN TAGGING ALONG AND BE MENTIONED !! I dont see a wife with Him and 12 Disciples day and night!! That would have been a sin in its self and no one would have followed him or listened to him!!
His enemies said "You Make Yourself To Be Equal With God" So if he been married, they would have had a field day with this in his trial !!

Well, as my OP showed, Mary Magdalene was very much by Jesus's side throughout his ministry and was obviously the focus of favouritism, much to the annoyance of his fellow disciples, especially Peter. So yes, Mary is mentioned, a lot.

What you need to consider is the historical and political context of what happened to the Gospels after they were written. The early church butchered the truth so that it could present a sanitised and politically correct version to the masses. The New Testament is not the truth, it is their truth.

One need only look at the so called "lost" Gospels, which were no more lost than purposefully hidden and suppressed.

It all depends on how you interpret the Bible. I see it as an invaluable historical source, you plainly see it as an invaluable religious source, which is why our viewpoints will probably never match.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#3 As for Biblical Scholars? They are nothing more than human beings at work with opinions of Scripture!!
That means they can be Atheists at times !! But in anycase, they are human beings and foulable !!!

Well I sure hope they are human beings!

Yes, scholars come from all different backgrounds. What is your point?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
So I ask, Are you trying to interpret Scipture to improve your walk with God ? Or is it to Discredit and wound with doubt those who believe in GODS WORD and The Deity of Christ?

Not trying to discredit and wound with doubt (although that second part sounds healthy), I am merely applying an alternative interpretation of the scripture.

Take from it what you will

reply to post by Astyanax


Gay? rut ro, I think you just gave the evangelicals a nasty case of indigestion. a star for you ............