I hope Sam doesn't end up becoming a no-good two timer! I remember there was some question about wheter he was sweet on some gal with a boufant from their bowling league. 

HUFFPOST
James D. Tabor
Author, 'Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity'

A Married Jesus: Here's the Best Historical Evidence
Posted: 11/14/2014 1:37 pm EST Updated: 11/14/2014 1:59 pm EST

If you ask most New Testament scholars whether Jesus was likely married the mantra is a firm and dogmatic "no" -- there is not a shred of historical evidence that he was ever married or had children. The very idea is baseless speculation at the best and cheap Holy Blood, Holy Grail/Davinci Code sensationalism at the worst.

The argument most cited is that if Jesus had been married we would have surely had traditions, both within the New Testament and the so-called "Church fathers" that such was the case. The silence therefore is deafening. Jesus lived a celibate non-sexual life. Most are quick to add -- at least the more "liberal" minded-- that they don't care a shred if he was or wasn't -- just that they don't think there is any evidence that he was.

This of course ignores the strongly dogmatic theological reasons the church clings to this day to an Ever-Virgin Jesus, parallel to a non-sexual Virgin Mary. The Holy Divine Son of God, and surely his virginally pure mother, never had sex. How could a Divine Jesus possibly leave a bit of his "DNA" behind, which would be the case with any son or daughter he might have had.

There are two problems with this view. First the argument from silence simply does not work when it comes to women and wives of Jesus' leading followers in the New Testament. We don't know the names of any of the wives of the Apostles, nor James the brother of Jesus, even though we surely can assume, based on the Jewish culture of the time, that they were married. Wives are seldom mentioned and never named, even though marriage is the norm.

Second, and more telling, there is strong textual evidence that at least hints if not affirms that Jesus was married -- and most likely to Mary Magdalene.

First, there is the apostle Paul -- who is our earliest literary witness to any form of "Christianity," who strongly advocates and encourages celibacy or the non-sexual life -- but only mentions himself -- not Jesus -- as an example thereof. And this in a section of 1 Corinthians, where he mentions other apostles traveling with their wives (even though these "phantom" wives are never named in any of our texts), and quotes Jesus to support his views on forbidding divorce. If Jesus had been celibate Paul would surely have appealed to him as his main example.

Second, in our earliest record of Jesus' burial in Mark, the mysterious Mary Magdalene shows up out of nowhere, not only listed with Jesus' own mother and a group of Galilean women, but clearly given first place and prominence. It is Mary Magdalene -- above even Jesus' mother or sister --who takes the lead in the Jewish burial rites for the corpse of Jesus -- both washing and anointing his naked dead body. This is not the position of an outsider, or even a close "insider," in terms of disciples or followers. This is an intimate honor and a duty reserved for ones closest relatives --particularly ones wife, mother, aunt, or sister. She appears and then disappears -- though in John she is clearly the lone "first witness" to Jesus' resurrection as well. Her disappearance is as strange as her sudden appearance. But then Mary Magdalene surfaces again in some of our second and third century gospels, as a prominent female leader, intimate companion of Jesus, and bearer of "secret" revelations. How is this to be best explained?

What one must always bear in mind is that the documents of our New Testament are overwhelmingly written in the second generation of the movement, a decade or even several decades after Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans in 70 CE -- after the original followers of Jesus are either scattered or dead -- including Peter, James, Mary Jesus' mother, presumably Mary Magdalene, and even Paul.

What we get in the case of Mary Magdalene are hints of her prominence, but also a muting of her status and role. A similar phenomenon occurs with James, and the Jesus family more generally and their dominant leadership in the movement for its first 40 years. If all we had were the N.T. gospels were would hardly know James or his mother and brothers existed after Jesus' death, much less the prominent position the family had in Jerusalem Even the author of Luke-Acts fails to name the brothers of Jesus (ignoring Mark 6:3 which was his source for Luke 4), and only reluctantly mentions them in Acts 1 but not by name -- and finally implies James is in charge of the entire movement in Acts 15 and 21 -- but never makes it explicit. Something is clearly going on here in terms of muting the influence and prominence of Jesus's family in these Gospel accounts that were written after 70 CE.

We also have much more about Mary Magdalene and her prominence in later Gospels that was not included in the New Testament, see "There's Something About Mary"


-------------------------
Dora Hates You

'1,400-year-old manuscript points to Jesus' wife and kids, authors say Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and had two children, a new book says.

....But religious scholars say this interpretation of an ancient manuscript holds 'no credibility.'"

I am now to assume (by the morons on this thread and by what they post) that religious scholars have no credibility at this point either!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Religous scholars.  Like on that Holy Ghost thread, haha?  That circus taught me a lot about human nature and it seems not over yet.

My beloved Textus Recptus, which agrees with a stout 98.02% of the ancient manuscripts describing the life of Jesus, states that he wasn't married and lived as the New Testsment says he lived. The gnostics, like Origen and many others, were desperate to tear down - or water down - the beautiful orthodoxy that is in the NT regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Hmmm. I wonder why everyone goes after Jesus, despite the overwhelmingly consistent and contemporaneous historic record of His love and power? Some being doesn't want people to follow him.

On another note: Tables was pretty sweet this AM. Jesus made that clear green ocean, the schools of translucent silver needlefish, that light(very light) offshore wind, and those weak but clean and fun chest high wedges.

Edited: 11/16/2014 at 01:50 PM by ummm

I'm not sure there is any such thing as a Textus Receptus.  The published Greek New Testaments that the King James translators relied on were fairly sloppy.  It seems Erasmus was more interested in creating an improved Latin text than in accurate Greek, and the KJV translators did some picking and choosing--someone later published a Greek text based on the way the KJV read. Check Wiki for "textus receptus."  Or check for "King James Only."  I think at least one major church has pronounced the KJV to be the official Bible.  But the KJV got tampered with.  

Yes ... there is, though many hate it. It's a big and complicated battle - and those who hate the Receptus have defamed it from the beginning. You and me can find numerous articles affirming the Receptus or destroying it. The bottom line is that, whether you like it or not, it agrees with 98% of ancient manuscripts. Even the detractors admit that. What Erasmus did was to prepare his own painstaking translation against Jerome's Vulgate to show how the Catholic Church added their doctrines - such as purgatory and indulgences - that weren't actually there. The Catholic Church hated him and never used his work, banned his books and moved his bones out of one of their cemeteries after his death. 

I am not a KJV guy and never have been. I don't enjoy reading it. But ... after my wife noticed some serious differences between the kjv and the other five translations she read straight through, she spent months researching it, going far beyond the biased online sources(biased on both sides) and became fully convinced of the Receptuses vast superiority. The deletions and additions to the other versions are absolutely shocking and real. I've seen em, and as an attorney I spent a long time actually comparing texts. I currently read the new Receptus based MEV (Modern English Version) but I was always an NIV 84 guy with chapters memorized in that version - so it is against my interest to realize I could do much better. I truly have no dog in the hunt but for knowing the word of God in its purest form.  

it's interesting to see the vitriol and lies spit at Erasmus, King James, and some of the kjv supporters(many of whom are way too obnoxious about it). Erasmus was considered one of the preeminent scholars of his age by those who weren't dogmatic catholics or anti-catholics. Neither side should be rude about it. But...the things we found when researching the authors of the 1881 Greek which underpins every single new version were eye opening and even shocking. The translators were open about their disagreements with orthodox biblical views and in their letters they discuss their desire to commit, in their translation work, what most believers would consider heresy. It ain't a secret because their children, not anticipating the controversy a century later, published their letters posthumously.  

Lucifer works quite brilliantly in all things, trying to deceive and water down truth and pull hearts away from the one and only God. If you ever want a brief summary of my wife's research pm me. 

Edited: 11/16/2014 at 04:15 PM by ummm

Manuscript texts seem very like DNA.  Mutations show up and get copied, so it's often possible to determine what's descended from what.  I'm inclined to accept that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are pretty much the best available, considering that they were obviously elaborate and expensive projects. 

One of the big historic decisions was made by Jerome, who insisted on translating the Jewish scriptures from Hebrew to Latin with the help of rabbis.  The alternative was to translate from the Greek version that had been quoted by New Testament authors.  

Edited: 11/16/2014 at 05:05 PM by ww

0/5 . holy block of text i did not read and... what part of NSR do you not grok? it appears you cant follow rules. thats not good.continue,

-------------------------
Water dissolving...and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean

B3 - it's all about surfing...and tales of joy, like the Bible and spinning fables at picnic tables....1/1, discuss  

ww - I respect that. I was on that team before my wife researched when Sinaticus and Vaticanus were found, where they were found, under what circumstances, who edited them, where they originally came from, and then, from their own mouths...what Westcott and Hort did to them. That, plus the fact that they only agree wit 1.8% of ancient texts vs. 98.02 for Receptus and I moved on over. Interestingly, Vaticanus and Sinaticus contradict each other over 3,000 times in the New Testament alone. Of course many are insignificant...but many are substantial.

I don't want to make anyone get a new Bible. I just wanted to put out there the fact that one of the greatest plans of the evil one has been to bring in new Bible translations that minimize sin, the unity of the Godhead, the blood of Christ, the holiness of God, who Lucifer was/is, and many more Biblical principles. When you see them side by side...it jus be cray.

Edited: 11/16/2014 at 05:37 PM by ummm

Weren't the original books of the Bible written in the dialects of those who wrote them?

Is it true that none of those original texts still exist?

-------------------------
I was right.

trying to make NSR SR is NOT what this section of the forum is about. Don't y'all like to follow rules? -5 /5

-------------------------
Water dissolving...and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean

Some do, you however, do not.

-------------------------
Specializing in sarcasm and condescending rhetoric since 1971.

I don't need credibility...that's exactly why I post the scholars findings...to make people like you to be the idiots that you in fact are!

...and as for your 'some do' comment...that's a flat out lie!

It doesn't matter which scholars findings are posted...the likes of you will attempt in any way you can to do whatever you can to trash it. Not that any of whats posted isn't the 100% actual truth, but just your hatred for Jesus consumes you so much that you will do anything to trash Christ any way you can!

Fool!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Mission accomplished. In fact you lack so much credibility, you take away the credibility of legitimate arguments, just by being on the same side.

I don't hate Jesus, I play soccer with him every other sunday. As far as Christ, I haven't seen anybody on here trash him, they're usually trashing your EFFED up and skewed interpretation of his teachings.

Have a great day fishbeater. May the force be with you.

-------------------------
Specializing in sarcasm and condescending rhetoric since 1971.

Isn't it nice to take a comment out of context.
Prog democraps like you do it every day on this forum.
How do you live with yourself?

"I don't need credibility...that's exactly why I post the scholars findings...to make people like you to be the idiots that you in fact are! "

"I AM IGNORANT of absolute truth" worksuxgetsponsered

There you go!

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

...but I am humble before my ignorance and therein lies my honor and my reward.

Think about what that statement really means, it may actually do you some good, beater.

-------------------------
Specializing in sarcasm and condescending rhetoric since 1971.

I was reading the last few chapters of the book of John this morning where it covers Jesus' crucifixion and his final interactions with Mary Magdalene and the disciples before his death and resurrection. I had forgotten about this thread, but as I read John, it struck me that Jesus would have likely treated Mary Magdalene differently if he had in fact been married to her.

If Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, his closest disciple John (who was writing the account) wouldn't have had any reason to hide that fact. There wouldn't have been any shame or sinfulness about it. If it was something they were trying to hide, Mary Magdalene wouldn't have been allowed to follow them everywhere, and the gospel writers (including John) certainly wouldn't have written so openly about her.

Yet when Jesus is hanging on the cross, about to die, John stands before him at the foot of the cross with the three Mary's (must have been a popular name!): Mary, Jesus' mother; Mary the wife of Clopas (which was her sister); and Mary Magdalene. Jesus spoke to John from the cross and asked him to take care of his mother as his own mother from that time forward. And John writes that from that very day, he took Jesus' mother home to be his own mother:



So if Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, and especially if he had kids, it seems strange to me that he wouldn't have given any instructions to John to watch after them also. Or at least give some kind of instructions that the other disciples should take care of them from that point forward. Or say something...anything about them.

The second thing that stood out to me as strange was how Mary Magdalene interacted with Jesus directly:



After his resurrection, Mary doesn't even recognize Jesus when standing face to face with him there in the garden. She instead mistook him for the gardener! It wasn't like Jesus was unrecognizable after the resurrection...he soon appeared to the other disciples and they knew exactly who he was. And when Jesus told Mary, "Hey, I'm not the gardener...I'm Jesus!", she didn't respond by saying, "oh my Bubby!...oh my precious husband!...oh my beloved!...or even "my Lord, my Master (kyrios)" as she had been doing up until that point. She responded by saying, "Teacher!" ("Rabboni"). That is not the response I'd expect from a woman who suddenly realizes that her dead husband is actually alive and standing right before her very eyes!

That sir ^^^^ is a very good point...

-------------------------