Was Jesus Married? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Was Jesus Married?


FCoulter
06-09-2012, 07:37
http://www.cbcg.org/was_jesus_married_text.htm


Another great article on this topic

http://www.cbcg.org/was_Jesus_really_married.htm

JBnTX
06-09-2012, 08:10
NO!

The transference of sin, from mankind to Jesus, would have only worked if Jesus was without sin and totally sinless.

...And we know that ALL married men have sinned.:rofl:

Tilley
06-09-2012, 09:15
You have way too much time on your hands Fred. How long did it take to write that paper?

steveksux
06-09-2012, 11:11
NO!

The transference of sin, from mankind to Jesus, would have only worked if Jesus was without sin and totally sinless.

...And we know that ALL married men have sinned.:rofl:
At least they're all guilty of bigamy, which is a sin.

Assuming you use the common definition of bigamy as having one wife too many...

Randy

Woofie
06-09-2012, 13:23
Bazinga!

G23Gen4TX
06-09-2012, 15:26
No but I'm pretty sure he was banging a hooker.

Kingarthurhk
06-09-2012, 15:34
You have way too much time on your hands Fred. How long did it take to write that paper?

He didn't. The actual Fred did.

juggy4711
06-10-2012, 04:49
33 year old virgin :tongueout:

Dyerbill
06-10-2012, 09:02
Bazinga!

Stop it Sheldon!

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 09:35
Bazinga!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rpTGOd37yF8/TCqXFxkOfGI/AAAAAAAAAg8/RhJNaMYYMyA/s1600/bazinga_by_arselife.jpg

Kingarthurhk
06-10-2012, 09:43
Stop it Sheldon!

http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/sheldon-and-leonard-sick.jpg

Geko45
06-10-2012, 10:19
No but I'm pretty sure he was banging a hooker.

Aren't we all?

:whistling:

GAFinch
06-10-2012, 21:59
Meh. I saw Da Vinci Code and stopped reading. That book is the Catholic equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

juggy4711
06-11-2012, 21:08
Christ could not have been married because falling in love, getting married and fornicating with one's wife is a sin. :faint:

GAFinch
06-11-2012, 21:25
Jesus:
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Paul:
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).


Why would Jesus recommend celibacy if he himself didn't practice it? Why would Paul be celibate and recommend celibacy if Jesus was married instead of celibate?

Woofie
06-12-2012, 12:29
Jesus:
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

Paul:
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).


Why would Jesus recommend celibacy if he himself didn't practice it? Why would Paul be celibate and recommend celibacy if Jesus was married instead of celibate?

Why would a religion recommend celibacy it all? Kind of prevents the birth of future worshipers.

juggy4711
06-12-2012, 20:10
I think Paul and Jesus might have been getting it on together :whistling:

steveksux
06-12-2012, 20:33
Why would Jesus recommend celibacy if he himself didn't practice it? The voice of experience....

Why would Paul be celibate and recommend celibacy if Jesus was married instead of celibate?Paul liked to learn from other people's mistakes...

Randy

Woofie
06-13-2012, 05:58
The voice of experience....

Paul liked to learn from other people's mistakes...

Randy

Marriage and celibacy are both mistakes.

AlexHassin
06-13-2012, 06:58
No but I'm pretty sure he was banging a hooker.
i knew hookers and blow was devine

GeorgiaGlocker
06-13-2012, 13:26
Why would a religion recommend celibacy it all? Kind of prevents the birth of future worshipers.

Why does the Catholic Church requie celibacy for their priests? It seems very odd since Peter (who the Catholics consider their first pope) was married.

steveksux
06-13-2012, 17:03
Why does the Catholic Church requie celibacy for their priests? It seems very odd since Peter (who the Catholics consider their first pope) was married.
I think it had to do with some scandalous behavior in the middle ages. They originally had married Priests, Popes, didn't they?

They finally came to the conclusion that they couldn't be trusted with the poonani...

Randy

DaBurna
06-13-2012, 17:24
<===== running away before lighting strikes this room!!!
:couch::couch::outtahere:

Woofie
06-13-2012, 18:36
Why does the Catholic Church requie celibacy for their priests? It seems very odd since Peter (who the Catholics consider their first pope) was married.

From what I understand it has to do with priests trying to leave Church property to their wives at death at some point in history.

Why would a religion expect celibacy from its followers?

Vic Hays
06-13-2012, 19:05
From what I understand it has to do with priests trying to leave Church property to their wives at death at some point in history.

Why would a religion expect celibacy from its followers?

Actually I believe it is because if a man is single he can be fully for the church.

The Bible teaches that a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon should be married and have his household in order.

I Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
3:4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

jakebrake
06-14-2012, 19:44
no way...no wife lets you dissappear for three days, and you tell her "i was dead"

speaking only for myself, i won't try that one.

well, not since i taught the better half to shoot. before that, i could outrun her.

Schabesbert
06-19-2012, 16:15
Actually I believe it is because if a man is single he can be fully for the church.
Thanks, Vic :wavey:

The Bible teaches that a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon should be married and have his household in order.

I Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
3:4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
No, it does not. What Paul MEANS is that the man should have ONLY one wife.

If you take YOUR interpretation, then it would exclude St. Paul and Jesus Himself from being qualified. Them's pretty harsh standards! :whistling:

Ummagumma
06-21-2012, 16:26
I think it had to do with some scandalous behavior in the middle ages. They originally had married Priests, Popes, didn't they?

They finally came to the conclusion that they couldn't be trusted with the poonani...

Randy

This is a purely Catholic invention - there's no celibacy requirement in Greek Orthodox Church, and there wasn't any in the first several hundred years of Roman church, either. AFAIK the priest celibacy became mandatory in the early middle ages, and it was mainly due to the Western European inheritance laws of the time - a 2nd son of the noble family (who was often sent off to become a priest or a monk) could inherit the estate if the oldest son died childless, and if this priest was prevented from having legitimate children of his own, the inheritance would then become property of the Church upon his death.

Ummagumma
06-21-2012, 16:30
From what I understand it has to do with priests trying to leave Church property to their wives at death at some point in history.

Why would a religion expect celibacy from its followers?

The religion didn't. The Church management did. And it was a fairly late invention. Before the Great Schism of 1054, the Catholic and Orthodox churches were (at least nominally) the same. And Orthodox priests are still allowed to marry.

Schabesbert
06-21-2012, 16:41
This is a purely Catholic invention
That is true.
but you must remember, St. Peter & the rest of the Apostles, and St. Paul, etc., were Catholics.

- there's no celibacy requirement in Greek Orthodox Church,
Check your facts. While it's true that their priests are not required to be celibate, their bishops are chosen from (celibate) monastic priests.

and there wasn't any in the first several hundred years of Roman church, either.
Source?

AFAIK the priest celibacy became mandatory in the early middle ages, and it was mainly due to the Western European inheritance laws of the time - a 2nd son of the noble family (who was often sent off to become a priest or a monk) could inherit the estate if the oldest son died childless, and if this priest was prevented from having legitimate children of his own, the inheritance would then become property of the Church upon his death.
Source? Besides urban legend, of course.
I know you said AFAIK, but that's a poor excuse to repeat things which are not true.

Schabesbert
06-21-2012, 16:48
The religion didn't. The Church management did. And it was a fairly late invention. Before the Great Schism of 1054, the Catholic and Orthodox churches were (at least nominally) the same. And Orthodox priests are still allowed to marry.
People really should do research before pretending to know the answers.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)) (at least the very minimum of research):

The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the Council of Elvira and the later Council of Carthage. According to some writers, this presumed a previous norm, which was being flouted in practice.[8]

Council of Elvira (c. 305)
(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.

Ummagumma
06-21-2012, 17:07
That is true.
but you must remember, St. Peter & the rest of the Apostles, and St. Paul, etc., were Catholics.

In that sense, the Eastern Orthodox are also "Catholic":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

Many individual Christians and Christian denominations consider themselves "catholic" on the basis, in particular, of Apostolic Succession. They fall into five groups:
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, considers full communion with the Bishop of Rome an essential element of Catholicism. Its constituent particular Churches (Western and Eastern) have distinct and separate jurisdictions, while still being "in union with Rome."[10]
Those, like the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, that claim unbroken Apostolic Succession from the early Church and identify themselves as the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox, but not the Oriental, see themselves (along with the See of Rome) as part of a patriarchal first-millennium structure that developed in the East into the theory of the five patriarchal sees, but not in the West, which preferred the theory of the three Petrine sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.[11][12][13][14] The title, "Patriarch of the West", was rarely used by the popes until the 16th and 17th centuries, and was included in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 to 2005, being dropped in the following year as never very clear, and having become over history "obsolete and practically unusable".[13][14]
Those, like the Old Catholic, Anglican, and some Lutheran and other denominations, that claim unbroken Apostolic Succession from the early Church, and see themselves as a constituent part of the Church.
Those who claim to be spiritual descendants of the Apostles but have no discernible institutional descent from the historic Church, and normally do not refer to themselves as catholic.
Those who have acknowledged a break in Apostolic Succession, but have restored it in order to be in full communion with bodies that have maintained the practice. Examples in this category include the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada vis-à-vis their Anglican and Old Catholic counterparts.



It is obvious, however, that I was talking about the "modern" definition of Roman Catholic church. Which didn't take shape until much later after the time of the Apostles.

Check your facts. While it's true that their priests are not required to be celibate, their bishops are chosen from (celibate) monastic priests.

I poorly worded it, agreed. I was thinking about rank and file priests. Basically, my point is, Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't see celibacy as a requirement for most of their clergy.

However, the Wiki article says it's a "new and relaxed" rule brought about by realization that priests were still having sex. So it sort of proves your point. OTOH,

"Some Catholic scholars, such as Peter Fink and George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America, have argued that we cannot know if priests in early Christianity practised sexual abstinence. Dennis says "there is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century".[6] Fink says that a primary book used to support apostolic origins of priestly celibacy "remains a work of interpretation. There are underlying premises that seem to hold firm in this book but which would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[7]:"

Brasso
06-22-2012, 07:22
Fred did hit on an important point. I don't agree with all of that article, but it did bring out a major point about the Messiah's mission:

"I've come only for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel"

It was the House of Israel that He divorced. Not the House of Judah. They remained in covenant. It's not the New Covenant, which they also need, but they are still in covenant. (Don't believe me, explain the nation of Israel?) It's the House of Israel, the Northern Kingdom, that was divorced. Read all about it in the Book of Hosea. Hosea also prophecies that in the same place they (we) were declared "not His people" Lo-Ami, that we would be called the children of God.

Here's the twist that Fred alluded to. God's own Torah forbids a divorced man and woman to remarry. Can't do. They are bound together till, get this, death. Only when they die are they free to remarry. Do you see where I'm going? God is like a celestial McGyver.

What do you think Paul was talking about when wrote of divorce? He wasn't talking about the Torah. He was explaining a spiritual reality.

By dying on the stake, and us dying to ourselves, and being raised with Him at baptism, we are new creatures free to enter into marriage. Free from out past. And it's the House of Israel that needs to be re-married to their God. Judah, the Jews, are still married to Him. Their problem is the wedding vows. They were only promised physcial blessings. They need to renew they vows and enter a new covenant for the better promises and blessings of eternal life.

Our Maker is our Husband. We are in a betrothal period though. In Hebrew fashion, our Husband is gone to "prepare a place for us". He will return and collect us. This is when the Wedding Supper of the Lamb takes place. (Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement) The Feast Days really are a shadow of things TO COME.

Schabesbert
06-22-2012, 08:31
[B]

In that sense, the Eastern Orthodox are also "Catholic":
Agreed.

It is obvious, however, that I was talking about the "modern" definition of Roman Catholic church. Which didn't take shape until much later after the time of the Apostles.
This is false. The Catholic Church is organically the same Church, having an unbroken line of succession from the very Apostles who were commissioned by Jesus Himself.

Does it look different? Yes, just like your baby pictures look different than you do now.

I poorly worded it, agreed. I was thinking about rank and file priests. Basically, my point is, Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't see celibacy as a requirement for most of their clergy.
Here's a relatively unknown fact: neither does the Catholic Church see it as a "requirement." We do, in fact, have married priests (although they are rare). Clerical celibacy is acknowledged to be a discipline, and not a dogma. As such, it can be changed by the Church under their authority. It could be abrogated tomorrow if they thought it prudent.

muscogee
06-22-2012, 10:04
Why would a religion recommend celibacy it all? Kind of prevents the birth of future worshipers.

It makes sense if the World is going to end in your lifetime. Anyone who really believed that would give up everything and and spend the time they had left spreading, "The Good News (i.e., the World is ending and if you don't agree you're going to Hell) . Then there won't be a next generation of worshipers anyway. If one tries to divorce the New Testament from the belief that Jesus was coming right back, it's unworkable and makes no sense. If you read it in the context that Jesus said he was coming right back, then Jesus was mistaken about his return, about taking people to Heaven with him, and the World ending. Either way, believers loose. Of course there's always the third option of believing what you want to believe and twisting the Bible to make it agree with you.

Brasso
06-22-2012, 13:19
That is true.
but you must remember, St. Peter & the rest of the Apostles, and St. Paul, etc., were Catholics.

It still cracks me up everytime you assert that.

Schabesbert
06-22-2012, 15:14
It still cracks me up everytime you assert that.
Yeah ... you do tend to laugh at the truth.

Brasso
06-22-2012, 18:02
Do you really think anyone here who's not a re-wrapped sun worshiper believes the Apostles were Catholic?

They were Jewish. If I didn't know you really believed what you believe I would be rolling on the floor in derision at such a stupid notion.

GAFinch
06-22-2012, 22:29
This is a purely Catholic invention - there's no celibacy requirement in Greek Orthodox Church, and there wasn't any in the first several hundred years of Roman church, either. AFAIK the priest celibacy became mandatory in the early middle ages, and it was mainly due to the Western European inheritance laws of the time - a 2nd son of the noble family (who was often sent off to become a priest or a monk) could inherit the estate if the oldest son died childless, and if this priest was prevented from having legitimate children of his own, the inheritance would then become property of the Church upon his death.

It didn't appear out of nowhere. Celibacy for priests was championed as an ideal in various writings (footnote (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)) in the very early church repeatedly, it just took a while for it to become mandatory. Before becoming mandatory, many clergy chose to be celibate, were only allowed a wife if already married before being ordained, were allowed to keep a wife but only if taking a vow of celibacy when ordained, or were in limited cases allowed to be married afterward. Priests in some areas did later on take to having children for inheritance issues and that's when the Church began to crack down on this corruption and insist on non-married celibacy.

steveksux
06-23-2012, 09:53
It didn't appear out of nowhere. Celibacy for priests was championed as an ideal in various writings (footnote (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm)) in the very early church repeatedly, it just took a while for it to become mandatory. Before becoming mandatory, many clergy chose to be celibate, were only allowed a wife if already married before being ordained, were allowed to keep a wife but only if taking a vow of celibacy when ordained, or were in limited cases allowed to be married afterward. Priests in some areas did later on take to having children for inheritance issues and that's when the Church began to crack down on this corruption and insist on non-married celibacy.I think the ones allowed to keep a wife would be better served by a vow of silence rather than one of celibacy if they want to stay married... :whistling:

Just sayin.... or rather NOT sayin.... :cool:

Randy

Schabesbert
06-23-2012, 11:54
Do you really think anyone here who's not a re-wrapped sun worshiper believes the Apostles were Catholic?
Anyone who's knowledgeable and honest believes that the Apostles were Catholic.

They were Jewish.
Yes, they were, in the sense that Catholicism is Judaism, fulfilled. They were fulfilled Jews.

If I didn't know you really believed what you believe I would be rolling on the floor in derision at such a stupid notion.
Yes, since mockery is the last resort for those who don't have honesty and factual evidence, I certainly believe this.

Brasso
06-23-2012, 15:28
Yes, they were, in the sense that Catholicism is Judaism, fulfilled. They were fulfilled Jews.


I really wish you could understand.

clancy
06-24-2012, 18:04
Instead of arguing whether any of the Apostles were Jewish or Catholic, can anyone affirm that Jesus was married? Wouldn't he have to be married, if he was indeed a Rabbi?

steveksux
06-24-2012, 18:52
Jesus was crucified and died for our sins. Isn't that punishment enough? Did he really have to be married as well????? :whistling:

Randy

DanRoid
06-24-2012, 19:23
He was never married.

The Bride of Christ is the church. The church has not been raised to be with Jesus until the Rapture accrues.

Brasso
06-25-2012, 17:59
Bingo!

Ummagumma
06-28-2012, 19:46
Jesus was crucified and died for our sins. Isn't that punishment enough? Did he really have to be married as well????? :whistling:

Randy

My (2nd) marriage is the 1st best thing that ever happened in my life, kids are the second.

If you look long enough, hard enough, and are careful enough, and lucky enough, it may just work out.

steveksux
06-29-2012, 22:48
My (2nd) marriage is the 1st best thing that ever happened in my life, kids are the second.

If you look long enough, hard enough, and are careful enough, and lucky enough, it may just work out.
That's why I got married at 39, after dating her on and off for around 12 years, and ended up happily married going on 13 years now... :supergrin:

Complaining about marriage is my schtick, just like Rodney Dangerfields was not getting any respect.

For example, we got married Sep 16, 2000. So we went to church for our anniversary, which happened to be the first Sunday after 9/11.

So Father Dan greets us on the way out "What, does it take a disaster to get you guys back in church???" I said "Well, she can be pretty ornery at times, but I'm not ready to call our marriage a disaster yet, we came to church for our anniversary".

On our honeymoon, they had a little tour, showing traditional Tahitian tattooing, making baskets, etc. The tour guide pointed to a large rock and said "They used that for an altar. They used to perform marriages and human sacrifices there". I raised my hand and said "How did they tell the difference?"

Luckily, my wife has a heck of a sense of humor, and knows I love her... :rofl: Really luckily....

She does tell me if I keep it up she'll make me breakfast in bed. She got a great grits recipe from Al Green.... :wow:

Randy