Christian 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!

Jesus had a wife

When you say this to me, 'mildly can support not fanciful interpretation', you are responding in a pejorative way to me. I apologise for my incorrect earlier spelling of pejorative.
Thank you for correcting my spelling; I had it wrong also.......
 
Would Jesus have been a perfect man if He had taken a wife and had children knowing that He would die leaving behind a widow and children? Would this be an act of self-indulgence or weakness in the flesh?
It would have been a deviation from the purpose which he was sent to accomplish.
Luk 19:10 “for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Jesus said and did nothing on His own but only what the Father gave Him to do and say.
Jhn 14:24b "...the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me."
Jhn 5:30 “I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."
Jhn 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.
Jhn 14:10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.
 
Not truly an argument to begin with, Oz, just a question and an explanation of why I thought that question might be relevant to the conversation.
But please excuse me, I am not in your class as a debater. I leave you to your lecture.

Actually the "error of your question" is that it is not based upon evidence; it is speculation.
In a similar manner the question of Jesus having a wife is likewise not based upon evidence; it is speculation.

That Peter had a wife is well-attested, in the Synoptic Gospels. The healing of the mother of Peter's wife is one of the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, reported in Matthew 8:14–15, Mark 1:29–31, and Luke 4:38–41. Additionally, the Physician Luke was also the Historian of the Life of Jesus, as his prologue to Luke demonstrates

Luke 1:
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, ... ESV

So Luke starts with the birth of Jesus and in Acts, he continues his narratiive
Acts 1:
1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,
2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
3 To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Therefore, it stands to reason that this well-trained observer, a trained physician and a historian would have listed something on his Gospel, as well as the other synoptic Gospels had Jesus had a wife. To state that is an argument from silence is to dismiss the fact that EACH of the Synoptic Gospel writers had no hesitation in mentioning that Peter had a wife. As a result, it is highly unlikely that Jesus had a wife. Oh yes, I forgot the most compelling argument is the fact that the Primary Sources, the autographs have no mention of them

Additionally in what the poster from Australia wrote about is not even tertiary sources. These come from books having no linking to the Gospels, and in some cases are works of people in the 5th and 6th centuries, falsely attributing their fakery to Thomas.

The only thing close to that in today's world is for someone who has "evidence" that George Washington painted his toe nails purple. But all this is a long-winded explanation of what Jim Parker stated above:
It would have been a deviation from the purpose which he was sent to accomplish.
Luk 19:10 “for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

So now you have it two ways. Hope that helps!
 
The Bible says that we will all meet God during our lives, and many Saints over the years have reported meeting Jesus, they make better witnesses than an old document, when many such documents written about Jesus at the time are patently made up. There were many groups who claimed that Jesus was a part of their group, in a similar way that many Gurus claim to be Jesus today, the Bible predicts them. Saints who have met Jesus testify that He is non practicing.
 
The Bible says that we will all meet God during our lives, and many Saints over the years have reported meeting Jesus, they make better witnesses than an old document, when many such documents written about Jesus at the time are patently made up. There were many groups who claimed that Jesus was a part of their group, in a similar way that many Gurus claim to be Jesus today, the Bible predicts them. Saints who have met Jesus testify that He is non practicing.

Andy,

Please provide the biblical evidence that we will all meet God during our lives.

Are you suggesting that these 'witnesses' who met God are better witnesses than those in Scripture?

Oz
 
The Bible says that we will all meet God during our lives, and many Saints over the years have reported meeting Jesus, they make better witnesses than an old document, when many such documents written about Jesus at the time are patently made up. There were many groups who claimed that Jesus was a part of their group, in a similar way that many Gurus claim to be Jesus today, the Bible predicts them. Saints who have met Jesus testify that He is non practicing.
An interesting perspective. It might have more impact if in your avatar you were not wearing an upside down broken cross though. To conclude that you might be correct though one must; a. conclude that Jesus lies to us when we read He will not set foot on the earth again before He returns to rule for a thousand years or b. conclude that He was talking out of His rear end when He had that included in the scriptures.

Your witness' are not at all in alignment with Revelation 19. Now note, please, God is all knowing a.k.a. Omniscient, 1 Cor 2:10,11, Omnipotent, Isa 44:24 and is love, the book of John, and of wrath, Eph 5:6. How do I know these things are true? In Duet. 4:2 and Rev 22, at the end of the chapter, God is promising these ancient old documents will not be perverted. And without faith neither I, you, nor any man will go to Heaven.
 
The Bible says that we will all meet God during our lives, and many Saints over the years have reported meeting Jesus, they make better witnesses than an old document, when many such documents written about Jesus at the time are patently made up. There were many groups who claimed that Jesus was a part of their group, in a similar way that many Gurus claim to be Jesus today, the Bible predicts them. Saints who have met Jesus testify that He is non practicing.
Your post seems to have what I consider "elements of Mormonism" in it.
Are you a LDS poster?
 
The Bible says that we will all meet God during our lives, and many Saints over the years have reported meeting Jesus, they make better witnesses than an old document, when many such documents written about Jesus at the time are patently made up.
So do you reject the authority of the New Testament?
Do you believe it is just "made up" stories?
If so, on what do you base your Christianity? (I am assuming you believe you are a Christian.)

iakov the fool
 
The Bible says that we will all meet God during our lives, and many Saints over the years have reported meeting Jesus, they make better witnesses than an old document, when many such documents written about Jesus at the time are patently made up. There were many groups who claimed that Jesus was a part of their group, in a similar way that many Gurus claim to be Jesus today, the Bible predicts them. Saints who have met Jesus testify that He is non practicing.
When the member's complete post is quoted the reference he makes to the Bible makes it clear he is talking about other writings then the Bible .. to me any way..
 
When the member's complete post is quoted the reference he makes to the Bible makes it clear he is talking about other writings then the Bible .. to me any way..
Jumping to unwarranted conclusions is not just a Olympic event in track and field!
:lol2
 
Professor Karen King of Harvard Divinity School is promoting the view that Jesus was married and had a wife, based on a fragmentary document from the 4th century. I recommend the reply to her by Dr Albert Mohler, The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship.

If you want Prof King's view, see this article in the Boston Globe, 'Harvard professor identifies scrap of papyrus suggesting some early Christians believed Jesus was married'.

What are the errors in Professor King's thinking regarding this information about Jesus' alleged wife? Could Dr Mohler be wrong in his assessment? If so, how?

Oz
 
It seems so rediculous that such an idea would be put forth based upon one tiny fragment,, yet ignoring the thousands of ancient parchments and writings attesting that Jesus never married.
 
It seems so rediculous that such an idea would be put forth based upon one tiny fragment,, yet ignoring the thousands of ancient parchments and writings attesting that Jesus never married.

I expect that from liberal Christianity that has a low view of the authority of Scripture.
 
Back
Top