Was Jesus Married?

No, it would challenge the truthfulness scripture.

 

The "foolish" idea of Jesus being married is totally unscriptural. The Church is the Bride of Christ according to the Word of God.

Challenging my faith? That is another "foolish" statement.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)

 

I am not going to engage in this ridiculous heresy. But it doesnt surprise me coming form one who sees scripture as "A book of words".

 

This coming from one who is not sure what parts of scripture is true. Referring to the Bible as a book of words was your attempt to emphasize experience over it. And no one who holds the Word of God as dear would refer to it in such a cavalier manner.

You have no idea what I am afraid of and have no evidence to assume I am afraid of anything. Such characteristics are tactics used by libs to demean those who oppose their heresy. Christians who are filled with the Spirit do not bother with such foolishness not found in scripture.

 

Well, this aroused my curiosity...you said the Bible contains truth. Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God written? Or do you think the Bible has errors or the mixture of human ideas and thoughts?

Your sentence about Christians also struck me as odd. It is as if you speak of them as different or separate from yourself. Is that what you meant? What do you think a Christian is? Are you a Christian?

 

Crabtownboy,

I had a fairly good (I thought) reply earlier. What did you think about it?

 

First of all, the Bible just doesn't "contain" truth, it IS TRUTH! Jesus said:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (John 17:17)

When you say the Bible "contains" truth, which part of the Bible is truth and which part are just "words"? There is only ONE interpretation...not many, as you say.

The canon of Scripture is complete...there is NO extra-biblical revelations...i.e. that Jesus was married. Wherever you got this "foolish" idea, it was NOT from Scripture. You are delving outside of Biblical revelation and that is heresy.

 

It owuld serve you well to keep that in mind prior to assigning emotion to others.

 

Hold it there. Luke 7 does not identify that "woman, who was a sinner," as Mary of Magdala. I skimmed the article cited in this thread, and I will at least give it credit for pointing that out.

And I will also point out that this is an emotional topic-- surprisingly or not-- and one of those that few people think about objectively. We have already seen here how some think that to even consider that Jesus had a wife 'in the flesh' is near, if not in fact, blasphemy. And those who wish to discredit the gospel put out all kinds of garbage, not only about Mary M., but all the women who followed and supported Jesus to be his "groupies." On the other hand, though, the pastor who taught that class I was in years ago (who, as I have mentioned, I sometimes took exception with) when talking about Mary said, "Some people tell you that before she met Jesus she was an 'immoral woman'-- oh no, folks!" That's also an emotional reaction with no basis. She probably was not the 'sinner' mentioned in Luke 7; but being possessed by 7 demons and all, I doubt if she was a "goody-2-shoes."

 

Incidentally, Luke 7 does have what I consider a troublesome verse-- 28. Jesus said, "I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John;..." If you are a literalist, that must include Jesus himself, since he was born of a woman; therefore John is greater than Jesus. And if Jesus is greater than John-- as John himself made an emphatic point about-- literalism here must be canceled, or 'lessened' to something like "scripture is literally true, except where it is self-evident and skips some details"... and how might that apply to the question of Mrs. Mary Magdalene Christ?

However, the verse continues, "...yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." Perhaps the verse means, then-- but again omitting detail-- that John is not yet in the Kingdom, but Jesus is; therefore presenting an implied dichotomy, which is really what Jesus was teaching.

 

No.

As far as the Jewish requirements of the day, Jesus was not the only single itenerant rabbi of his day. There were many others. No one seems to question whether John the Baptist was married. He wasn't. The ideas of these people is to perpetuate an early gnostic belief. You may want to consider looking at En Gedi Resources.

 

Please make long links tiny at tinyurl dot com because your long link has messed up our screens. Will someone please edit these post with a tiny url? Thanks.

 

When the Word of God is not your sole standard for Faith and practice then you are free to and almost have a need to rely on experience and intellect outside of scripture. This is the problem Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 1:

1 Cor 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:


2Ti 2:23 - But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Tit 3:9 - But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain

 

Still waiting for that answer. A simple "yes" or "no" will do just fine. :thumbs:

 

What are you kidding?