Was Jesus Married?

[DaPastor]

Face,

Doctrine comes from direct statements, approved examples, and necessary inference (from provable implications). This is nothing more than speculation. There isn't even a single "implication" to discover a "necessary inference" out of what is presented concerning Jesus.

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/re ... arried.htm

http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/histo ... arried.htm

 

[Doc]

Thanks for that Randy. It has always been my conjecture that if Jesus WERE married, that would be worthy of much more than silence from the Scriptures. Also, I understand that Jesus probably was not an official 'rabbi', though his disciples addressed him as that. In that day, it would have been highly unusual to have been a Rabbi without your father being one.

 

[^_^]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to make a doctrinal statement, just noting some interesting observations that run counter to popular teaching that is taught by some as doctrine.
That was the point of my "Nobody can say with 100% certainty one way or another, because the record doesn't specifically say." statement.
So I'm not saying he was, just saying there is possibility. And if he wasn't, I've no problem with that either. Since the record states neither way, then we should be as silent as Scripture on this, but I've run into so many who say he most certainly wasn't, then how can I keep totally silent. Would not my silence then be considered consent?

 

[Mark C]

I don't have a strong opinion on this one; as the articles make repeatedly note, it is essentially an argument from silence. At the limit, the Bible might imply that the question was not important enough to answer, or was somehow obvious.

After some study (after all, any of us here who recognize the truth of Biblical polygyny have by now demonstrated a willingness to study the Word, for what it actually says, rather than what some 'church' tell us it should say... :roll: ) I tend to think the argument from silence goes to the "must have been married" side on points. Had He NOT been married, those who continually attempted to trip Him up, trick him, etc, would almost certainly have made an issue of an unmarried man who claimed to be a teacher of Torah. I would not only have expected to see it mentioned, but probably dealt with via multiple witnesses.

I have become a bit of a cynic about what the Gnostic-influenced "church" has chosen to pervert - from marriage to the Sabbath - anyway...


Oh - the other argument (it may be in the series, but I didn't see it) that occurs to me is one I have generally NOT seen elsewhere, although after two millenia I don't claim credit for it. That is this:

Paul made a point of talking about celibacy, and noting specifically that it was he, and not God, who so advised. He choose this path himself.

So - if he was trying to make the point, why not use His Savior as the example, rather than himself. After all, he makes the point repeatedly elsewhere that the Savior is not only our King and Redeemer, but the example we should follow.

THIS is the argument from silence that I find most compelling. It Paul knew that Yeshua was celibate, he almost certainly, it seems to me, would have taken that opportunity to say so!

 

[^_^]

LOL, that was the funniest yet thought provoking post I've read in a while :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Here's my take on whether Jesus was married:

http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/i ... cle&sid=48

God bless your Bible studies.

 

[sixth_heretic]

Whe it concerns whether or not jesus was married I refer to the last chapter in revelations.
Rev.22
[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
No where does it say that jesus had a wife. So Jesus doesnt have a wife.

 

[^_^]

sir, then you just blew your own litmus test
it doesn't say he wasn't either, so you can't add that to the text either
all we can say is that we aren't told, and that we are simply left to wonder

 

[sixth_heretic]

No this is where I messed up.

2Tim.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.

Saying because it was not stated it is a possibility is like saying because It doesnt say that jesus wasnt gay that it is possible he could be.

How do you like that litmus test?

 

[Mark C]

Your reducto ad absurdum wasn't blatant enough, ^_^ -- try this:

No where does it say that Jesus didn't have a wife. So Jesus did have a wife.

Saying because it was not stated it is a possibility is like saying because It doesnt say that jesus wasnt gay that it is possible he could be.

How do you like that litmus test?

Not at all. It demonstrates an ignorance of Scripture, and of His character, since He changes not, and did not do away with His own commandments, much less violate them.

Such a question, unlike that 'litmus test', is neither "foolish" or "unlearned", because it would naturally be asked by one knowledgeable of the culture of that time -- where an unmarried rabbi would have been, at a minimum, questioned. And finally, we know He will certainly be married in the time to come.

 

[^_^]

that litmus test fails because homosexuality was forbidden
being married even to multiple women was not. so it's a straw man arguement.

I'm not saying he was or was not, just considering possibilities. And telling other people who declare one way or another to stop it. So stop it.

 

[sixth_heretic]

I have no problem with jesus getting married. The problem I have is that it says not to add to scripture.
To say that jesus was married adds to scripture
To assume that he wasnt married doesnt not add to scripture or take away from scripture.
To discuss it becomes a foolish and unlearned question. a unprofitable conversation. since there is nothing in the bible about it.

 

[^_^]

so if it's foolish, unlearned and unprofitable, and you know this, then why do you continue.
considering the tradition of the Jews that one had to be married to be a rabbi, it's no more foolish for me to assume he might have been than for you to assume he wasn't. But many try to portray this assumption as fact. I think that's wrong.
What is profitable about a discussion like this is that people need to open their minds up way past what they've been taught in church. What comes over the pulpit is generally safe according to christian tradition and the teachings of theological schools. Not all that comes out of a preacher's mouth is fit to be heard.

 

[sixth_heretic]

1. so if it's foolish, unlearned and unprofitable, and you know this, then why do you continue.
I continue because I am a very stubborn person with many faults one of those being I love a good fight.
2. considering the tradition of the Jews that one had to be married to be a rabbi, it's no more foolish for me to assume he might have been than for you to assume he wasn't. But many try to portray this assumption as fact. I think that's wrong.
As you said before (or someone else did) Jesus was not a true rabbi because he was a carpenter.
3. What is profitable about a discussion like this is that people need to open their minds up way past what they've been taught in church. What comes over the pulpit is generally safe according to christian tradition and the teachings of theological schools. Not all that comes out of a preacher's mouth is fit to be heard
I believe that the scripture says
1Thes.5
[21] Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
But we can not add to or subtract from scripture. But we are not to cast a stumbling block infront of our brother either.

 

[^_^]

As you said before (or someone else did) Jesus was not a true rabbi because he was a carpenter.

So you think rabbis back then were paid professional preacher type people?
Absolutely not true!
They had regular jobs, Hillel and Shammai both had jobs, one was a carpenter, I think it was Shammai. Both of them were shortly in history before Yahushua and were the two main schools of thought in Yahushua's day. Shaul/Paul learned from Hillel's grandson Gamaliel.

 

[sixth_heretic]

I know they had jobs. They followed jesus not because of his rabinical background or his status as married rabbi. They followed him because he knew and believed the word of God. They would not have cared if he was married or not.

 

[^_^]

right, and I don't care either.
that doesn't mean it's not fun or wicked to discuss it

 

[sixth_heretic]

I think I just like to Argue. Especially with people that are able to push back and are not push overs.

 

[Mark C]

They would not have cared if he was married or not.

Based on what evidence? Certainly not any understanding of the culture, history, or "traditions".

(Hint: these were people who got bent outta shape about handwashing and Sabbath minutia. Marriage was enough of an issue that Paul, the tent maker, addressed it multiple times, including for "bishops" or "elders". )

Opening your mind is good, and that IS what these discussions are about. But be willing to back up assertions with facts, and don't fall so easily into culturally-biased assumptions.

 

[sixth_heretic]

Like you are backing up your arguments with facts. Niehter of us have facts that is why this arguement is so ridiculous. It is like trying to prove the exsistance of God to an atheist. There is no evidence that the Athiest will except.