Was Jesus Married? No, But He Will Be.

Was Jesus Married? No, But He Will Be. October 12, 2015

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the question of whether or not Jesus was married. A Gnostic fragment quotes Jesus as saying “my wife.” And Dan Brown’s international bestseller, The Da Vince Code, alleges that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that the church purposely hid this information when it decided on what gospels should be in the New Testament. But Brown’s book is so full of historical errors its ridiculous. He is either a sorry researcher or deceptive, and I think it’s the latter.

And now, Emmy award-winning film maker and bestselling author Simcha Jacobivici, with Professor Barrie Wilson, has authored The Lost Gospel: Decoding the Ancient Text that Reveals Jesus’ Marriage to Mary Magdalene (November, 2014) that probably will become a movie. This idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is gaining ground. (See HuffPost’s “Jesus’ Marriage to Mary Magdalene is Fact, Not Fiction,” posted on November 26, 2014.)

Was Jesus married–no way Hosea, that is, if you believe the Bible. For it never says Jesus was married, even the several times it mentions Mary Magdalene. These proponents of Jesus being married to Miriam of Magdala argue that there isn’t anything in the New Testament gospels that says Jesus wasn’t married. Well, there isn’t anything in them that says he was married, either. I think the burden of proof falls on the opposing side on this issue. Why? It is far more likely that if Jesus was married the NT gospels would say so rather than them being silent on the issue.

Read patheos.com blogger and pastor Mark Roberts’ excellent post on this entitled “Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Evidence.” My only contention with Mark about this is that he mentions that some of the advocates of a married Jesus claim the church denies this to bolster its belief that Jesus is God, and Mark opposes this by saying Jesus is indeed both man and God, to which I do not subscribe.

Then Mark Roberts raises an interesting, hypothetical question that I don’t remember hearing discussed during my education about the hypostatic union. It is this: If Jesus had been married and had children, would they have been only human, only divine, or both? Isn’t it bazaar the questions that can arise when we get off track from what the Bible says. For it never says straightout that Jesus was God nor does Jesus say this about himself in his New Testament gospel sayings. If Jesus was God, it seems far more important that the apostles in Acts and the NT in general would declare this axiom more than its constant proclamation that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Israel.

So, Jesus was celibate. He seems to have chosen this lifestyle in order to maximize his mission God gave him to travel about as an itinerate preacher, spreading the message of the promised kingdom of God. But even more so, Jesus foreknew that the primary feature of his divinely-ordained mission was to die an early death on a Roman cross for our sins. This was the greatest mission the world has ever seen, and being married and having children seems incompatible with it.

Moreover, the church has never sufficiently acknowledged Jesus’ free will choice he made to undertake his sacrificial mission God gave him of going to the cross. In fact, the church sometimes has distorted it. A key biblical text where this has been done is 2 Corinthians 8.9. The Apostle Paul writes therein, “For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (NRSV and throughout). My pastor decades ago would always begin his Bible teaching sessions by quoting this text as if it indicated the Incarnation.

In 2 Cor 8.9, Paul cites Jesus as the ultimate example of giving your life in service for others or making a financial gift to brethren in poverty. So, the context requires that Paul does not mean in this text that Jesus preexisted as God and gave up this supposed royal status in heaven by becoming a human being. This notion cannot be found in Paul’s NT letters. Rather, he means that Jesus enjoyed rich fellowship with his family members at home in Nazareth, which included several siblings, and he gave all that up to die on a cross. The same can be said about Jesus giving up the right to be married and having a family.

But when God’s people give up something that is their right to have and to enjoy in life, and they do it for the glory of God and his kingdom, God will surely bless them beyond all that they can imagine. And that is how it will be for Jesus in the future. He will have a wife, and she will be far more than anyone could have ever imagined her to be if they had not been told about it.

But we have been told, mostly in the last book in the Bible. For John says in Revelation about a vision he had, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…. Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb [Jesus].’ And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God” (Revelation 21.1-2, 9-10).

Then John describes the magnificant city the angel shows him, a city that is the bride of Christ. How this city is related to earth, we are not told. Many assume it will come down and become part of the earth, but I doubt it. We read, “The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width; and he [the angel] measured the city with his rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal” (v. 16). Most scholars interpret this as the city being cube-shaped with each side being fifteen hundred miles in length. [I have blogged about this before.]

On the contrary, that will not fit earthly Jerusalem. Besides, ancients measured cities by circumference. Accordingly, this squared-shaped city will be 375 miles on each side and 375 miles high. And rather than being cube-shaped, I think it will be the “great, high mountain” mentioned in v. 10, so that that “mountain” is “the holy city Jerusalem.” And I think it will hover just above the Promised Land of Israel, which will be that approximate size (e.g., from the Euphrates River to “the river of Egypt,” which is the Wadi el Arish), and that the two will be connected by Jacob’s Ladder that symbolized Jesus himself (Genesis 28.10-17).

This city, the bride of Christ, will also be “the house of God” that Jacob dreamed about, and the ladder/ramp will symbolize Jesus as “the gate of heaven” (Genesis 28.17). In that city, “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him; they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Revelation 22.3-4). So, “God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eys. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more” (21.3-4). This is the bride Jesus gave up wife, family, and life itself to get.

 

"Trump never gives specifics it's always "I Heard, you all know" never tells where he ..."

“The Enemy of the People” Is ..."
"you do know that Hillary paid for information to get dirt on Trump ? She ..."

“The Enemy of the People” Is ..."
"So, I find Trump repulsive. I could never and will never vote for him. But ..."

“The Enemy of the People” Is ..."
"Well Harvard did just rescind it's acceptance of a student for something he said two ..."

“The Enemy of the People” Is ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Greg

    The more we discard the ability of God to protect the Bible, the more personal and cultural agendas twist truth.

    • Carlton Kelley

      There are so many errors in reasoning and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and theology that any comment would be pointless.
      Fr. Carlton Kelley

      • Greg

        It is not what we don’t understand in the Bible that should give us pause, it is what we do understand but can’t explain it’s presence.

        Such as this: Many of the ‘errors and reasoning’ are in the Law, which not only accurately predicted the presence of the Jews today, but also is the result of their profundity as a culture.

        http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

        How do you explain that?

        • 1Myles1

          Which god in which version of which holy book do you think is more credible?
          For sensible people the answer is none of the above.

          • Greg

            Please be specific. Smile.

          • 1Myles1

            Since no gods exist and all religion is a cheap scam,based on lies and greed,what did you want me to be specific about?

          • Greg

            You made the claim, now you run from the stupid claim? How funny.

            There are countless gods through history and religious writings, true or not, what’s the problem? SMirk.

          • 1Myles1

            As you are aware no gods are real and religion is the most disgusting thing ever invented by man,the root of all evil.
            What claim am I running from?

          • Greg

            In all of the vast universe, there are NO superior beings?

            And religion is the root of all evil? Does your conscience bother you when you say such hateful, evil things?

          • 1Myles1

            Does your conscience bother you when you try to defend the greatest evil humanity will ever have to fight?
            Religion is a cheap scam based on lies and greed.The only people to ever benefit from it are the leeches who get to live the good life by stealing from the weak-minded.
            If their is other life in any universe,you can be sure that no imaginary god had anything to do with its creation.

          • Carlton Kelley

            Greg, It would be pointless to argue as you understand the Bible as something that I do not. It is a record of God’s dealing with his people and our response to his love.

          • 1Myles1

            Was murdering all the first-born in Egypt an act of love?How about teaching people to rip open the bellies of pregnant women to more easily murder their babies,was that love?How about that imaginary flood where he murdered everyone and every thing on the planet except a select few.Was that love?Was it love or some other sick emotion that he decided beating a slave until they were near death was no crime since the slave was nothing more than property.Was that love?

          • Asmondius

            er, ‘murder’ is specifically the unjust killing of one human being by another. For example, wolves do not ‘murder’ sheep.
            .
            God does not ‘murder’ people.

          • 1Myles1

            Since no gods exist,of course not.
            Religious leaders teaching intolerance and hate are responsible for most wars and most atrocities ever committed.
            The leeches will never be of any benefit to anyone but themselves.

          • Asmondius

            Then your original comment was unfounded hyperbole – thanks for debunking yourself.
            .
            ‘Religious leaders teaching intolerance and hate are responsible for most wars and most atrocities ever committed.’
            .
            Ahistorical rubbish. Please explain the religious motivation for the war of 1812. Spanish-American war? Falklands War? World War I? The Peloponnesian wars?

          • lorasinger

            Try “Victims of Christianity” – pages and pages of it, As – but I think we’ve done this before, haven’t we? Christianity got to the top of the pile by censorship and murder.

          • 1Myles1

            Don’t you agree that nationalism and racism have religious roots?

          • Asmondius

            No, I do not.

          • 1Myles1

            Of course not.Anything with a hint of truth is anathema to you.
            Belonging to your death-cult has rotted your mind.

          • Asmondius

            You don’t offer only truth – just some jaded opinions accompanied by puerile insults.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            The role of religion during the War of 1812 – Christianity was front and centrer during the early 19th century. Episcopal/American Methodists were the church of the frontier and the primary church of the people in Upper Canada who were 80% American. 2500-3000 people at these religious camp meetings. There was a lot of disdain for them by the Anglican Church for such overtly showy and republican demonstrations of belief. – See more at: http://www.thewarof1812.net/expel-faithless-foe-role-religion-war-1812/#sthash.V0ScEwhT.dpuf

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            The role of religion during the War of 1812 – Christianity was front and centrer during the early 19th century. Episcopal/American Methodists were the church of the frontier and the primary church of the people in Upper Canada who were 80% American. 2500-3000 people at these religious camp meetings. There was a lot of disdain for them by the Anglican Church for such overtly showy and republican demonstrations of belief. – See more at: http://www.thewarof1812.net/expel-faithless-foe-role-religion-war-1812/#sthash.V0ScEwhT.dpuf

          • Asmondius

            No, I’ve had quite enough of your google-sourced dribble.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Try reading “The Cross of War: MathewwMcCullough’s New book on Christian Nationalism in the Spanish-American War.

          • Asmondius

            Why should I?
            .
            You certainly didn’t. All you did was google fish. If you had read it you would know that the book concerns the rise of American nationalism on the world stage, not critiquing Christianity as the cause of wars.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            While messianic interventionism had various precedents before 1898 and became especially prevalent during World War I, McCullough argues that its “emergence and codification” was a direct result of the events and context of the Spanish-American War.

          • Asmondius

            How nicely you copied and pasted that hit Google gave you – congratulations!
            .
            Explain to us all, please, how two Christian countries fighting over colonial possessions amounts to a religious war.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            They’re christian aren’t they! 🙂

          • Asmondius

            The majority are right handed as well. Hand preference leads to war!!

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            I’ve never heard of a war that started over atheists wanting to slaughter people because their beliefs differed.

          • Asmondius

            Try the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Do the Peloponessian wars even count, since Jesus (if he existed at all) had not even been born yet. Thus, christianity had not reared its ugly head…

          • Asmondius

            The comment I responded to made this global claim:
            .
            ‘Religious leaders teaching intolerance and hate are responsible for most wars and most atrocities ever committed.’

            .
            Hmmm – no mention of a specific period or even a specific religion.
            .
            That statement is now debunked and you are out of order.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            I don’t believe so. For heaven’s sake, please try reading the below.
            “Fear and Loathing in Ancient Athens: Religion and Politics During the Peloponnessian War” by Alexander Rubel and Michael Vickers (Routledge)
            “Athenian Religion
            and The
            Peloponnesian War” Michael A. Flower (Cambridge University Press)

          • Asmondius

            No, I’m not reading something merely because you found an hit for ‘Peloponnesian War’ + ‘religion’ on Google. Either explain your reasoning or go away.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Don’t you get it? Theocracy dominated governments up until the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. Theocracy WAS politics!! Different belief systems were at war with each other from the beginning of time.
            Intolerance and hatred were the weapons of these wars.

          • Asmondius

            Utter pap.

          • Jeff Grant

            But you can’t blame Jesus for that – married or unmarried. He said to render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which is God’s. The blueprint for separation of Church and State.

          • lorasinger

            Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
            .
            Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.”….”The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
            .
            He sends others out to do it.

          • Asmondius

            Tell that to Noah.

          • lorasinger

            Another fabrication.

          • Asmondius

            I appreciate your honesty, by why continue posting then?

          • Asmondius

            Another meaningless response.

          • Greg

            Apparently a vast number of sensible people through the ages have cast aside countless gods and writings to choose Christianity. Which is the largest belief system in the world.

            No doubt ‘rational atheist’ oxymorons would assert that atheism has existed from the beginning. Since they have yet to break single digits, it seems sensible people have rejected ‘none of the above’ AND your position and selected one. Smile.

            Now do you have an answer for the question you responded to?

          • 1Myles1

            Brain-washing and brow beating children from birth with tales of talking snakes and great floods and eternal torture in hell if they fail to believe that stupidity has that effect everywhere,
            All are born atheist.Enough foolishness,beaten into your head,makes you believe anything you are told.
            That is why where you are born determines what imaginary god you believe in.
            With the decline of ignorance,the future looks promising.Your god will die the death of all the other gods before it.Let’s hope it won’t take too long.
            Good riddance.

          • Greg

            Are you really suggesting that children should not be subjected to fiction or supposed fiction?

            Are you really suggesting that children can grow as adults to know Santa Claus doesn’t come down the chimney but are incapable of discerning how to handle the Bible?

            The only thing you have confirmed is your ignorant hate and bigotry.

            The demise of God and Christianity has been predicted for hundreds of years. Smile.

          • 1Myles1

            In the past,millions of people believed in their foolish religions and their sick gods just as fervently and just as stupidly as you believe in yours.
            If your god is any different from any of the others,it is not detectable.
            As a matter of fact,no gods have ever been detectable.No event of a supernatural nature has ever occurred.Is your god bashful,impotent or non-existent?
            Smile,your god is watching you,you poor fool.

      • Asmondius

        Hypocrite!

    • Andrea Fitzgerald

      Greg Why do we need to protect the bible?

      • Greg

        “ability of GOD to protect the Bible”.

        • Andrea Fitzgerald

          Greg What does that mean exactly? “ability of god to protect the bible?”

          • Greg

            2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)
            16 All
            Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
            correction, and for training in righteousness,
            17
            that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            OK when you quote that stupid book of myths, your argument just flies out the window.

          • Greg

            Are you one of those ‘rational atheist’ oxymorons?

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Greg I love you with every inch of my practical/pragmatic atheist body.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Please see Fr. Kelley’s response below.

          • Greg

            Then see mine.

          • Greg

            You are cynical on two levels:

            First, the character of God who spoke incredibly bluntly to the woman who touched his garment & the woman at the well.

            Who both experienced it as love by the way…

            Second, to me as a man who you truthfully hate.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Greg I don’t hate you. I don’t hate anyone. I do, however, feel incredibly sorry for someone who builds
            their life around a book of myths.

          • Greg

            Now you lie again. You clearly are not engaging this because ‘you feel sorry for someone’.

            I suppose you deny your anger too.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Greg First you call me a liar then you tell me I’m angry? Why do you say such hurtful things?

          • Greg

            I’m a redeemed cynic who remains barbarian.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Greg HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOOD ONE!

          • Asmondius

            As someone else may feel sorry for those who seek attention by mocking the beliefs of others.

          • 1Myles1

            Believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe.The only thing that matters is truth and beliefs have little to do with reality.

          • Asmondius

            ‘..truth and beliefs have little to do with reality.’
            .
            From your perspective, that seems certain. Perhaps you can explain how the United States became a reality without beliefs.

          • 1Myles1

            Perhaps you could explain how your attempting to create smokescreens will help you deny basic truths.
            Dead monkeys will find ice cubes on the surface of the Sun long before anyone finds any truth in any religion.

          • lorasinger

            Re: Perhaps you can explain how the United States became a reality without beliefs.”

            Certainly – It took a belief that they could escape the persecutions of state religion in their countries of origin.

          • Asmondius

            ‘Certainly – It took a belief…’
            .
            Next!

          • lorasinger

            Hold it right there. I was referring to a belief in self preservation and the escape from those pesky inquisitors of the church.

          • Asmondius

            Next!

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Greg Careful! Your christian love is way too overwhelming!

          • Greg

            Stop whining, I simply noted reality. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.

          • Asmondius

            Ah, another cry for attention.

  • lorasinger

    To Jews of Jesus time, one of the foremost duties of a Jewish father was to find his son a wife by the time he was about 20. If, in fact, Jesus was a rabbi, even more so since a rabbi MUST be a married man. The only way Jesus could have avoided marriage was to go to the Essenes who took a vow of chastity. Jesus/James later followers were the Ebionites and no such vow of chastity was required. As well, some of the apostles were also married which isn’t characteristic of Essenes.

    • Asmondius

      Jesus’ earthly father Joseph is thought to have died well before He began his ministry.

      The reference to Jesus as ‘rabbi’ refers to the word ‘teacher’ – the position of a modern-day ‘rabbi’ did not exist in Jesus’ time.

      • lorasinger

        “Talmud records that during the days of the Second Temple, thr Sanhedrin became increasingly corrupt. Only a very few such men bore the title Rabban, the leader of the Sanhedrin, within a generation of Jesus. Prior to the title Rabbi, the members of the court were called dayanim, not Rabbis.”
        ..
        Joseph was written out of the scenario certainly but this provided the base for the church’s stance that Mary was a perpetual virgin although the word to describe Jesus brothers and sisters means “from the same womb”. Even the role of James, his brother, was minimized for that reason.

        You are probably right in that Jesus, the man, wasn’t a rabbi or a learned teacher. “The Sanhedrin certainly did not confer to either Jesus or Paul this title of leadership of the Sanhedrin. There is also no record of either them in the many writings of the Pharisees of that generation”

        • Asmondius

          ‘You are probably right in that Jesus, the man, wasn’t a rabbi or a learned teacher. ‘
          .
          I said no such thing – lying just makes your claim appear to have no merit at all.
          .
          I wrote simply that Jesus was not a ‘rabbi’ in the modern sense of the word.
          .
          Once again, you are confusing the New Testament with the term ‘rabbi’ as it was used long after Jesus left the Earth. During His time it was a common Aramaic term of respect. For example, in Luke 19:39:
          ‘But some of the Pharisees among the crowd said, “Teacher, rebuke your followers for saying things like that!” ‘.

          .
          We can safely assume that the Pharisees were not addressing Jesus as a formal member of the Sanhedrin.

          • lorasinger

            You wrote: “the position of a modern-day ‘rabbi’ did not exist in Jesus’ time.” I was agreeing with you so where is the lie?

            ………..
            I’m giving you history. PERIOD. You are giving me what was written by Paul’s anonymous followers at least a generation and likely more after the fact. There was no Christianity of the man god belief until well after 50 AD and likely not until after 70 AD when Paul’s writings which came before the gospels even surfaced. There are no man gods in Judaism.

    • plantman13

      Actually, Essenes were married. Men and women, however, lead separate lives and came together only during certain prescribed times for procreation. Close scrutiny of burials at Qumran have shown half the occupants to be female including some children. Read “The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls” by James C. VanderKam. Its somewhat dry but is a well spring of info about the scrolls, who wrote them, when and where and for whom. It is hard to come away not suspecting Yeshua had at least a connection with the Essenes. I’m sure he had split with them as no self-respecting Essene would have been caught dead at the Temple in Jerusalem. Further evidence is the fact Yeshua speaks of the “mystery” of the kingdom of heaven. The Essenes were the only mystery cult in Judaism at that time. Plus they regarded their desert community as heaven on earth and everything else as “of the world.” So when Yeshua speaks of his “father in heaven” he refers to the high priest at Qumran. He also says his kingdom is not “of the world.”

      • lorasinger

        Every Jew has always considered himself to be a son of God and speaking of “my father in heaven” is not unusual, plantman. There are no god men in Judaism and Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish world.

        • plantman13

          Indeed. Don’t forget, one of the titles of the king was “son of god” because he was allowed to enter the holy of holies and communicate directly with the diety. This also explains why the Romans were present in Jerusalem during that particular passover. They usually stayed in Caesarea because their legion eagles were considered a graven image by the Jews and a supreme insult to be within the holy city, especially during passover. Pilate was already in trouble with Tiberias because he had ordered the slaughter of Jews in Caesarea over religious differences (Tiberias liked a nice quiet empire) so his presence was exceptional and meant he suspected sedition was brewing. Somebody getting called the son of god and causing a brew-ha-ha in the Temple (which had been the opening salvo in the last five insurrections) would have set Pilate’s hair on fire. The “my father in heaven” thing is only one of multiple lines of evidence Yeshua bar Yusef was at the least a former Essene. You should join me in dropping the name “Jesus”. There was nobody named “Jesus” in the first century of the common era. His name was Yeshua. “Jesus” has two millenia of associations with godhood and conceeds the argument before it has begun. “Yeshua bar Yusef” cuts this PR giant down to size and makes him a real person as opposed to god-on-earth.

          • lorasinger

            Exactly. This is the explanation I have, that is similar to yours: “It is most proper to call Him Yeshua; only in Hebrew does this name have any meaning. In Hebrew Yeshua means both “Salvation,” and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, is “Lord who is Salvation.” The name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever. Yeshua is a Hebrew name which has been transliterated into Greek as Iesous (IhsouV: pronounced ee-ay-SUS or ee-ah-ZOOS). The English “Jesus” comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus.
            ..
            This is what I was given for the “son of god” meaning according to Jewish thinking: “People are called “son of God” in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), yet no-one,
            believes that they are God. In these cases, the term is interpreted metaphorically, to mean someone who is close to God. A clear example of the term “Son of God” being used in Jewish scripture is that Prophet Solomon is called “Son of God” in the Hebrew Bible and is even quoted by God as saying he is His Son, in the book 1 Chronicles.
            .
            EXODUS 4;22-And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

      • lorasinger

        Just an added thought. I believe that its Eisenman (of the DSS) who believes Essenes and Ebionites are one an the same. If Essenes actually did marry, that would be a point in favor of the Ebionite story.

        • plantman13

          Dr. Robert Feather of the UK, formost metalurgist and translator of the copper scroll, and Dr. Barbara Thiering at the Univ of Sidney, Aust. also agree with this scenario. Thiering has some interesting books on the subject although I find many of her conclusions a stretch. Dr. Feather has stated so in our personal correspondence.

  • Arch Lightener

    Any consideration that Jesus was married must arise from a presumption that a Biblical, Christian Jesus did exist, a long shot presumption not verified by evidence.

    • Anthony Martinez

      So why did ancient historians write of Jesus? Jewish historian Josephus mentioned him at length. Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus also refer to Jesus….and they certainly weren’t followers. Not to mention that if He never existed, what do you do with those who were alive during the crucifixion and heard/read the teachings of the Apostles? There would be an uproar because it would be a false narrative. But this never happened. Also, why would Christ’s followers suffer martyrdom over Jesus if they knew it was a lie? You might do a lot of things for a falsehood, but knowing die for it? Come on.

      • 1Myles1

        There is more verifiable evidence that the Easter Bunny exists than Jesus.
        P.S.
        His chocolate tastes great as well.

        • Anthony Martinez

          Intelligent response.

          • 1Myles1

            You probably accept Exodus as truth as well despite the fact that the Egyptian historians of that time wrote everything down and no Jewish people were ever written about as slaves or anything else.Of course god dividing the Red Sea to let his people escape their non-existant prison is also a verifiable fact.
            I prefer the zombie walking on water and changing water into wine.They are much more newsworthy and yet historians of that time never even noticed.
            Don’t you think,food falling from the sky would rate at least one headline?

          • Asmondius

            ‘..the fact that the Egyptian historians of that time wrote everything down ..’
            .
            Please do tell us where we can find the complete papyrus library of everything Egyptian historians ever wrote.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Please do tell us where we can find the complete papyrus bible of everything god said.

          • Asmondius

            Egyptians were not monotheists.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Try reading about the Amarna Period and Pharoah Akenhaten aka Amenhotep IV.

          • Asmondius

            First, selection of one god from among an existing pantheon is not monotheism.
            .
            Second, the reign of one Pharaoh hardly represents the sum of Egyptian civilization.
            .
            Try again.

          • Marcus Rhodes

            Dead men tell no tales. The parts of Egypt that survived the Late Bronze Age Collapse were a) hardly the same people they were before, and b) too busy surviving to worry about writing much more than, “God, please help me!”, and “I managed it so that no one in all upper Egypt died of starvation this year.” Hmmm… Hardly a word on foreign affairs and political machinations. As for the Hittites, Minoans, and many others, the lights just went out forever.

            For a better understanding of it all, look up the Thunderbolts Project’s excellent feature-length videos on youtube.

          • Anthony Martinez

            Since manna dropping from heaven only occurred after leaving Egypt and involved only the Hebrew people, naturally they would be the ones to record it. Nothing significant in that is there?
            You are wrong regarding historians not recording events that showed a Semitic people in Egypt. Archeologists have excavated an entire community of folks who were not Egyptian, who built houses differently, who buried their dead differently, and had different cultural artifacts. Not all agree that these were the Hebrews of the bible, but many are concluding this is indeed a ‘possibility’. This major find was in Tell El Darr, South of the ancient city of Ramseses, where archaeologists have found another ancient city called Avaris, which existed hundreds of years before Ramseses.

            Thus far they have excavated about 250 hectares (620 acres), and have found another development Southeast of Avaris called Kahun with much the same properties….not Egyptian but with indicators of Semitic and Bedouin ancestry.
            Why is this significant? It demonstrates another culture that was in the area, that evidently had special status, flourished, prospered. David Rohl, a noted Egyptologist and agnostic, and Charles Aling, an Egypt historian both agree that this significant find has the archaeological world scratching their head. Also significant is a canal, or waterway, that stretches from the Nile back to the Fayum Basin that is still in use today. It is called the Waterway of Joseph. Could it be that this was the means that helped this area flourish during a time of famine, and was named in commemoration of the one who designed it?
            Since what has been discovered is the “largest cities of foreigners” in the Nile Delta, and evidence supports a flourishing population (and there are 20 more sites yet to be examined) what happened to these foreigners? One clue comes from an Egyptian document called “Brooklyn Papyrus” which is housed in the Brooklyn Museum. Of significance it gives details of a time when these people fell from abundance into slavery. The papyrus shows a list of 100 domestic servants in a prominent Egyptian household. The names are very interesting in that of the 100 names 70 are not Egyptian, but are Hebrew names; Issachar, Sipah, etc. Another ancient manuscript “The Admonition of an Egyptian Page”, which is housed in a museum in Europe documents strange happenings to the land of Egypt…..such as “Egypt’s water turning to misery, blood water from the Nile”, “Gone is the barley of abundance, nobles hunger and suffer, cattle gone, “Wailing throughout the land, woes are for the death that comes upon us”, etc. No ancient linguistic disputes these writings. However many say they are too early (Middle Kingdom) to be associated with the biblical Exodus. Subsequent diggings have found interesting ‘puzzles’. Mass graves of infant burials, predominantly male infants, from areas mostly Egyptian. What happened to these infants?
            Another interesting fact is that Egyptian history there is one time in 1000 years when foreigners invaded and conquered the land. Happened only once. How could this have occurred? Remember, Egypt’s army was destroyed according to the biblical account, and Moses said the effects of the plagues and destruction of the Egyptian army caused great calamity to Egypt for many years. following.
            I have just scratched the surface. Again, there are things happening now that are causing many to wonder about the Egyptian Chronological Timeline, which is somewhat cast in concrete. But it does conflict with many other culture’s historical timelines. Perhaps in the future we’ll have more to say on this. But bottom line, there has never been any archaeological find that counters what the Bible has said. In fact, just he opposite has occurred. Within the past 70 years many findings have affirmed biblical accounts that before have been questioned. Many. For example, historians have always disputed that there ever was a Gallio who was proconsul of Achaia that Paul writes about in Acts 18:12. Yet, 20 years ago digging in a Tell archaeologists found a sign, evidently posted on a building or door, which read “Gallio-Proconsul of Achaia”. Time and space prohibits further evidence to be given in this posting.
            I have given two postings in response to your question/statement that are factual. Your postings are what you consider cute quips with no factual information whatsoever. I can only surmise that you are a person who does not want to even consider any evidence that goes contrary to your views. If this description fits you, I am sorry for you. You see, I too was once a spiritual skeptic and did all I could to discredit the Bible and Christianity. At a point in my life I decided to really examine the Bible, and especially the claims of Jesus. In the words of C.S. Lewis, you have no other choice but to conclude that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Truth. No other options exist….except the one you hold and that seems to be He is a total myth, but history demonstrates otherwise. And your decision affects your life on earth and your eternal destiny…….according to the Bible.
            No need to say anymore on this subject, I’ve spent far too much time on it as it is. The only reason I responded was to somehow put something in your mind that would cause you to really investigate your worldview.
            Regards, Anthony.

          • dhrogers

            Right! See my posts further above also to 1Myles1.

          • 1Myles1

            Distorting historical data to support your fairy tale bible has long been used by “biblical scholars”.
            I await your explanation of the division of the Red Sea,the talking snake,the burning bush and all the other bullshit in your bible.
            I do believe religious freaks are capable of teaching people to rip open the bellies of pregnant women to more easily murder their unborn children.
            Intolerance and hate,followed by massacres of anyone who gets in their way;is the only”benefit” humanity has ever gained from that evil scam.
            Take your false gods and your fake histories and put it on your garden.Maybe some good will grow from your shit.

          • Anthony Martinez

            Regarding my previous post, I don’t think I am distorting anything. I am just reporting facts found in archaeology. Some have different interpretations of the findings and I acknowledged that.
            I have enjoyed reading this thread as it brings to bear different viewpoints. There are some…no, many… interesting submissions. Yet I find it interesting that you cannot seem to make a point or articulate yourself without using profane speech. Now, I am not one offended by this, as I spent many years on the hangar deck of an aircraft carrier. But this could well be a character indicator. Nuff said.
            There have been comments made about contemporary secular writers of Jesus time not mentioning him. This is a point, but not one that is in any way a ‘deal breaker’. Jesus lived a short life. His time of public ministry even shorter, and the time of great controversy came toward the end of his public ministry. It is not far-fetched to me that these secular writers/philosophers never heard of Jesus, being in the lower echelon of society in an obscure Galileean province, or just dismissing information about him as another anti-Roman zealot. And, previously mentioned, Jesus’ notoriety/works/sayings came into print after his death by those who were eyewitnesses, and later by those who were schooled by these eyewitnesses. But the verbal things about him were undoubtedly handed down until dye went on parchment, or skins. I don’t see anything out-of-the-ordinary about this. In fact, it is the reading of these accounts, and the wisdom therein, that has caused this carpenter from Nazareth to be admired…even worshiped. Even one who is bent on denying the deity of Christ, can admire what was written about him. His sayings have changed hearts and minds for the better through the ages.
            There is much mud added to the water after 325 AD when Constantine made Christianity the state religion and forms of pagan worship were included. But this is another issue, and it continued to grow like a hydra through the centuries. The mixing of church and politics, control of the masses, a wealthy church hierarchy, and the use of force was never the intent of the Apostles teaching. This is a problem for the church and Truth needs to be separated from man-made dogma and tradition. These actions also allowed for criticism from outside the church (and within), and there is much collateral damage that has occurred.
            To further respond, there are a few ‘hard’ passages in Scripture. I have a graduate degree in Biology and I cannot give a response that explains them without saying that “God intervened”, which on this forum will not be accepted. But these passages are few. The history, the background, the lineage details, the human failure, even the ‘scientific’ references before data was known all point to a unique piece of literature. Even if you are an atheist, the uniqueness of the Bible stands out among all other writings. Written over a 1500 year timeframe, 40 different authors from different eras/backgrounds, written in 3 languages, written from 3 geographical areas, different forms….history, narrative, poetry, prophetic, and all focusing on one theme: The redemption of mankind.
            More to the point, I see myself in the pages of Scripture, especially in the failures and stumbling of many that are highlighted. And when I read the Epistles written in the New Testament, I learn from them, and I strive to be a better man, husband, father, and neighbor. Granted, there are other means to do this, but this book has ‘transformed’ me and I am the ‘better’ man for it. My wife would agree.

          • 1Myles1

            There has never been a greater evil foisted on humanity than religion.
            Nothing could possible justify its existence.
            Nothing could ever prove that any gods exist or have ever existed.
            To try to promote religion,in any way,is sick and immoral.
            Besides having no commonsense and no decency,don’t you even care that nothing exists that could or would be used to prove your points?
            Honesty,to yourself at least,should force you to see the foolish stupidity of your subject.
            In this case you unite inanity and evil.

          • Anthony Martinez

            Well, I tried make some points in my first two posts. However, I didn’t really think they would be read positively. I can’t PROVE that God exists, but the evidence that he does exist seems clear. In other’s minds it may be Intelligent Design, or a Creator of some sort. The laws of nature, physics, cosmology all point to order and not randomness. I suspect many in this thread have heard all this. From a personal standpoint, my life is one of purpose and abundance. Others with other world views may experience this also, but I attribute it to a spiritual transformation. Foolish stupidity? No way. Certainly a different take on a very important issue….that’s all.

          • 1Myles1

            Having delusions and being unable to accept facts as truth indicate you are mentally challenged.
            The operative word is “seems” .
            Supporting a philosophy that teaches hate and intolerance as the be-all and end-all is sick and immoral.That you choose to believe that that foolish and evil stupidity gives you purpose and abundance and excuses your cupidity is another sign of mental incompetence or lazy morality.
            The evil perpetuated every day on innocents in this world doesn’t bother you?Have you no shame?

          • Anthony Martinez

            I guess you would have to enlighten me as to which facts are indeed true. To assert I’m ‘mentally challenged’ because I have a different viewpoint speaks volumes of you. Somewhat ‘intolerant’ I would surmise.
            I challenge you to pick up the Bible and read the New Testament’s account of Christ in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and provide me with verses that demonstrate hate and intolerance that I am supposed to emulate as a follower of Christ. Read it as fiction if you like, but do read it.
            Then read the Epistles and tell me where it says who I am to hate.
            Waiting your response.

          • 1Myles1

            It is your evil god and your sick book of fairy tales.Defend it yourself.
            Try Matthew 5:17 10:21 10:34 11:20 15:4-7 19:29
            Mark 4:11-12 4:25 5:12-13 11:13
            Luke 12:47
            According to that evil bastard,he is what he is because he learned the ropes from the old testament.
            Search in your own stupid fairy tale to see if there is any truth anywhere near it.If you find none,do as I do when I run short of toilet paper;grab the nearest holy book.

          • Marsing83639

            Pfet! Even Satan can quote scripture. Remember your words as you gulp for your last breath on this planet. See then just how strong of a believer you are then in your immoral lying god satan knowing where you will most likely end up with not having repented while you were alive and begged for forgiveness to the one and only True LOVING God.

          • 1Myles1

            Your true loving god supposedly murdered everyone and everything on this planet with an imaginary flood.Now he will come back to murder everyone with fire.
            Such a loving god you have.
            By-the-way heaven and hell,like your god and his morals,don’t exist.
            Even your bible says that your god is your satan.

            You are just another victim of your death-cult.
            Jonestown took five or six years but the rest of you are really dragging it out.

          • Marsing83639

            God is great. We were told about you immoralists a long long time ago. It’s great to see this all unfold just like he said it would.

            18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.
            Jude 1

            “Even your bible says that your god is your satan.”

            Without documentation your word is like steam coming out of a vent. Worthless!

          • 1Myles1

            Isaiah 45:7
            To a psychologist your delusions are priceless.

          • Jeff Grant

            Why are you so angry about something you don’t believe happened? The context and placement of the original post invites a discussion of a particular in the life of Jesus from the viewpoint that Jesus was indeed a historical figure. All these rants by people against Paul, Christianity and even religion in general are way off topic.

          • 1Myles1

            Nothing has ever been more harmful or done more damage to humanity than the stupid foolishness of religion.
            Trying to make fictional characters authentic only adds to the evil religious creeps are able to accomplish.
            If Jesus ever existed,how is it that no contemporary historian or writer ever noticed him.Zombies that walk on water would merit some attention,surely.How about all those”Miracles”?Nobody witnessed them or if they did,they never told anybody else for hundreds of years.
            Many other contemporary figures from that time period made a lot of news but your Jesus was only named in three or four fabricated tales years later.Biblical scholars,with no axe to grind,are well aware of this.

          • Anthony Martinez

            I suspect in looking for biblical references that encourage me to hate and be intolerant, you opened a Bible, closed your eyes, ran your fingers over some pages, and then wrote the above verses down. Oops, no, that couldn’t happen. You’ve already used all the pages in the Bible, right?

            Nothing in what you provided as anything to do with a Christian adhering to intolerance and hatred toward another.
            The Matthew verses you quoted ran the spectrum from Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, to His followers being rejected (even by family) by others (even by family) due to following Jesus, to rebuking the Pharisees, who were the Jewish religious leaders of the day. The majority of the Mark passages you cited dealt with the ‘parables’ Jesus told, which are stories with a dual meaning that included being ready and faithful, to an admonition not to be lazy or slothful. You also quoted a passage on demons and a fig tree. The one verse you mentioned, a hard verse (but I don’t know why you referenced it) is Matt 15:4-7. It has to do with the religious Pharisees not taking care of or honoring their parents when they got old. They had a tradition that if they said something was “corban” or “corbit” then that was God’s, and they wouldn’t have to give it to their parents. It was also tradition that they could “un-corban” something and take it back from God and use it themselves after their parents died. This was against the commandment to love and honor your parents, and Jesus rebuked them for it.

            So at your suggestion let me give you some verses that are the antithesis of what you asserted about the Bible advocating intolerance and hate. I will keep this to the New Testament since this thread is about Jesus:
            Matt 5:4- Love your enemies
            Matt 22:39- Love your neighbor as yourself
            Eph 5:2- Walk in love as Christ loved you
            1John4:8- The one who does not love does not know God
            1Tim1:5- But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a pure faith

            There are myriads more but for time sake I will reiterate that many biblical principles and admonitions go against human nature. We are not to take revenge on others, we are to ask forgiveness when we offend others, we are to help others in time of need….even to those who have hurt us. These are not intolerant or hateful admonitions, and if everyone adhered to them, including Christians, we would certainly be better off.

            Would you agree to that….at least?

          • 1Myles1

            Nothing has ever done more damage and ongoing harm to humanity than religion.Seeking to justify what an imaginary Jesus did,or was supposed to have done, doesn’t begin to mitigate the evil religious freaks are responsible for.Have you no shame?
            You are proving only that you lack any sense of morality or decency as well as commonsense.

          • Anthony Martinez

            Well sir, your comment above shows you either didn’t read anything I wrote, or you don’t have the ability to respond in meaningful dialog.
            Re-reading your many comments, is suspect the latter.
            But no matter. Have a good day.

          • kzarley

            Anthony Martinez, great testimony. God bless you.

      • lorasinger

        And not one of them was contemporary to Jesus time and therefore can be constituted as hearsay. As well Josephus two short accounts are already known to be partially or wholly forged.
        ..
        Why didn’t contemporary historians write anything if there was something to write about? This is a list of historians who
        lived at THE VERY SAME TIME who said absolutely NOTHING about Jesus. Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD)
        …………..
        Jesuit priests called Bollandists investigated the martyrdom cases over a period of 300 years and found that only a handful of them were bona fide. Your martyrdom stories have been vastly over exaggerated. In fact, there is no reason for Jesus followers, all practicing Jews (of the circumcised party) to die in the Christian cause. The apostles split with Paul and his Christians at Antioch in about 59 AD. Christianity grew in Rome – not Israel.

      • dhrogers

        Yes. That’s right. See my post to 1Myles1 further above.

    • Asmondius

      What ‘evidence’ is there of Socrates?

      • Andrea Fitzgerald

        Are you kidding me!? You need to pick up some books other than the bible. And I’m not “seeking attention by mocking the beliefs of others.” You, however, seem to be doing that exact thing. How very christian of you.

        • Asmondius

          There are plenty of books about Jesus as well. If that is your simple criteria, then you should start believing in Him.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Oh OK then!

    • dhrogers

      Not true. See my posts to 1Myles1 above.

    • kzarley

      You depart far from the scholarly consensus on this, and I’m talking about secular as well as biblical scholarship.

  • Crowtalk

    “It is far more likely that if Jesus was married the NT gospels would say so rather than them being silent on the issue.”

    This supposition assumes that the gospels, which were written two and more generations after the death of Jesus, contain facts.

    • Asmondius

      Sorry, the earliest known fragment of a Gospel dates from the 1st century.
      .
      The first formal biography of Alexander the Great was not written until about one hundred years after his death – I suppose that means that it is not factual.

      • Crowtalk

        The accepted dates of composition of the Christian gospels have nothing to do with earliest known fragments.

        Claims made about Alexander can be supported by other sources. Nothing in the gospels is supported by other sources.

        • Asmondius

          ‘The accepted dates of composition of the Christian gospels have nothing to do with earliest known fragments.’
          .
          yah, someone created a fragment of a Gospel before it was even written!
          .
          ‘ Nothing in the gospels is supported by other sources.’

          .
          Pontius Pilate, crucifixion, Nazareth, the Sanhedrin – all a myth, eh?

          • lorasinger

            Pontius Pilate – There was never a custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover by the Jews, nor by the Romans. This is a fabricated event. It’s interesting though that the name given to the released prisoner is Barabbas since it means “son of God”.
            …..
            Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for sedition and treason – used by them for 700 years. Unless Jesus was tied into a rebellion or insurrection, The only Jesus, son of Miriam, who was hung for practicing magic was from about 150 BC.
            …..
            Nazareth didn’t exist in the time of Jesus.

            Sanhedrin? There is an Africa but that doesn’t mean there is a Tarzan.

          • Asmondius

            Neither the New Testament or anyone else has said that the Jews had such a custom – you made that one up on your own.
            .
            No one has said that it was a ‘Roman’ tradition, either. Considering that Judea was always a hot bed of revolt and that Pontius Pilate had precipitated a number of incidents which inflamed the populace of Jerusalem, it is quite likely that the practice was limited strictly to Jerusalem or to Pilate. To know it is a ‘fabricated event’ would require you to have some solid evidence from each and every Passover during the Roman occupation, so we can ignore your statement as an unfounded opinion – not fact. Incidentally, ‘Barabbas’ means ‘son of the father’ in Aramaic. The name ‘Bar Abba’ does appear in Talud.
            .
            According to the Gospels, Jesus was tried and sentenced for sedition – the Romans would not have executed him for religious reasons. Your definition of how crucifixion was applied is conveniently too narrow – for example, it was also a punishment for desertion.
            .
            As for Nazareth, once again you are making a claim without any supporting evidence. This is an old saw from atheist sites that you are merely parroting. I’ll remind you that Troy was taken to be a mythic place – until it was finally discovered.

          • lorasinger

            Pilate hated Jerusalem and was known to have made only one trip there, for the Viaduct scandal where he embezzled the money for it. When the Jews complained, he killed hundreds of them all at once. He was finally recalled to Rome for his cruelty. He had full power up to that time and since he hated the Jews, he would hardly ask them who to release for a custom that never existed. His camp was some 120 miles outside of Jerusalem. Consider that Jesus was arrested one evening and by noon the next day, Pilate was supposed to have been there. Now consider that messengers would have covered 120 miles getting to him, and he would have made another 120 miles to be there for a trial the next day. Consider that horses were the only available method of transport.
            .

            Absolutely, the Romans wouldn’t have killed Jesus for religious reasons. They only stepped in in cases of sedition and treason. It might have been a punishment for desertion but that was for their own ranks.
            .
            Josephus who was governor over the area listed the towns and cities in the area. Nazareth wasn’t among them and yet its location would have been in his jurisdiction.

          • Asmondius

            You are just another person who is under the mistaken impression that we know everything there is to know about ancient times.

          • lorasinger

            http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
            .
            The Romans and Greeks had many writings and were advanced in medicine, science, philosophy, and such, while the Jews were fairly primitive and had very little of the same Rome was well advanced compared to other countries around it. Of course, after 385AD, when Christianity became the state religion, Rome fell very quickly into the dark ages as a result. The surviving thinking people fled to Arab countries where the sciences and medicine thrived, however.
            .
            By the way, Christianity didn’t develop in Israel. Paul split with the apostles after about 60AD and went back to Rome. THAT is where Christianity grew and developed.

          • Asmondius

            And so….?

          • lorasinger

            I will leave your weak reply to speak for your position.

          • Asmondius

            And so….?

          • Asmondius

            Please take some history courses at your local community college and get back to me. For starters, do some reading on the Eastern Roman Empire and the dates through which it existed.

          • lorasinger

            Already have, As.

          • Asmondius

            Yes, but this time try to get a passing grade. Your ‘historical’ comments are embarrassingly false. I suppose ancient Greek civilization fell due Christianity as well and that all the Christians in Europe ‘fled’ to the Middle East.

          • lorasinger

            Straw men don’t prove anything, As. YOU may be embarrassed but that is because you’ve been had by preachers masquerading as historians.

          • Asmondius

            Prove to me that all of the best educated Roman citizens fled from Europe to the Middle East.

          • lorasinger

            Read “Rise and Fall of the Roman empire”.

          • Asmondius

            If you had followed your own advice, you would not be making hysterical claims.

          • Jeff Grant

            The people of modern day Nazareth have a different idea of their own history.
            http://www.nazareth-israel.com/nazarteh-history
            I hope you haven’t been relying on sites that are designed to debunk Christianity. That would hardly be an objective approach… just sayin’.

          • lorasinger

            It’s been my experience that if you go to sites that are questionable, you will almost always be called on it and make yourself look foolish. Better to stay with reputable sites and be proven wrong. I note that the link you gave me comes from a “Tour Guide” site which would promote anything that brings in tourists and for that reason I would go to a historical site instead.

            Josephus listed all the cities of his time which were under his administration while with the Romans, the site of present day Nazareth being nearby, but didn’t mention it. Either it was only a loose camp with few families or didn’t exist in his time -the second half of the first century. I’m inclined to think it wasn’t a city at all but rather described a direction “north” or in the north. It seems that the word “Notzrim” signifies something akin to up north.
            .

        • dhrogers

          Not true. See my posts above to 1Myles1. There is substantial historic confirmation outside the bible that Jesus was an historic person who actually existed and other bible persons are also confirmed outside the bible. Few scholars or historians doubt the existence of Jesus. Again. See some details with citations to scholarly works in my above posts to 1Myles1.

          • lorasinger

            No, there isn’t. If you can come up with some who were contemporary to the time of Jesus and were not documenting hearsay 50-100 years later, please list them.

    • kzarley

      I disagree. The synoptic gospels are based mostly on oral tradition formed between the Christ event and their writing, and authorative scholars says that oral tradition continued to supersede in importance the written gospels in the church communities for many years afterwards because most people were illiterate. Furthermore, I believe there is ample internal evidence in the NT indicaating that all of its documents were written and began circulation prior to AD 70.

  • Tom Nyman

    Regarding the comment, “But Brown’s book is so full of historical errors its ridiculous. He is either a sorry researcher or deceptive, and I think it’s the latter.” Mr. Brown intentionally writes fiction not theology. And, The Revelation is not intended to be literal.

    • kelly qld

      I came here to write the same thing. Totally agree.

    • kzarley

      He purposely based that fiction book on what he thought was historically true. Thus, it is a historical novel.

  • 1Myles1

    All the facts of the time indicate that Jesus was imaginary and came to life hundreds of years later when christians needed new input to keeps the money coming in.
    How many new versions of the bible will be justified by these foolish revisions?
    Leave the fairy tale alone.I really enjoy the zombie walking on water and I wouldn’t be very happy to see much change.

    • Asmondius

      ‘All the facts of the time indicate that Jesus was imaginary…’
      .
      Such as….?

      • scarf77

        You don’t really expect an exhaustive answer to this question, do you? Should you be interested, the books and articles on the subject are openly available, and peer reviewed.

        • Asmondius

          In other words, you are talking out of your hat.

          • 1Myles1

            Choosing to remain ignorant is the last resort of the faithful.

          • Asmondius

            But the first resort of those who mock others.

          • 1Myles1

            If you don’t enjoy being mocked,perhaps you should try to defend or justify your beliefs,or find beliefs that are more sensible or realistic.
            All you do is deny basic facts and offer none of your own.
            The world has suffered long enough from religious intolerance,hate and wilful ignorance.With more education,scams like religion will become obsolete.

          • lorasinger

            It doesn’t take volumes of writing to support that fact that there are absolutely no writings contemporary to the time to support even the existence of the central figure of Christianity. All there is are the writings of Paul of Tarsus who pulled the man god figure right out of an anal aperture and presented it to his followers. All we really have are the writings of early church fathers (Especially Epiphanius) who criticize Ebionites -Jesus early followers and inadvertently describe their beliefs. Those beliefs are nothing like those of Christianity.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Ignorance, built around a wall of arrogance, does not a scholar make.

          • Asmondius

            I’ll accept your experience in that respect.

          • scarf77

            Nope, I don’t talk out of my hat, and definitely isn’t a subject to answer in a couple of comments. It is your choice to remain ignorant, or read peer-reviewed literature on all the opinions, so you may judge for yourself.

          • Asmondius

            Once again – if you can’t explain your position in a few concise statements, you either can’t support your argument or have a very poor memory. Saying ‘it’s too complex to explain so go read some books’ may serve as an excuse for your adolescent friends but it’s quite useless in this forum. I doubt your posts are going to remove anyone’s ‘ignorance’ because you essentially have nothing to add to a conversation.
            .
            I am your peer, and you have been reviewed.

    • Palamas

      “All the facts of the time indicate that Jesus was imaginary and came to life hundreds of years later when christians needed new input to keeps the money coming in.”

      Don’t believe everything you hear on the History Channel or read in Dan Brown novels. Among reputable secular historians, the claim that Jesus never lived has as much credibility as the claim that the moon landings never happened.

      • 1Myles1

        If a biblical Jesus existed,how is it that no historians of his supposed time ever heard or seen anything at all about anybody even vaguely similar to that character?
        Walking on water would merit some attention while changing water into wine would create a new star.Rising from the grave would certainly be noticed.
        Nobody of that time noticed anything.Were they all blind or is that character imaginary.
        Next you will offer an explanation for Jonah in the belly of the whale or Daniel burning in the furnace.

        • Palamas

          Try to focus on the subject. Jonah and Daniel have nothing to do with the question of Jesus’ historicity. You can argue with certain elements of the accounts. As for the contemporary historians, you do know the Internet hadn’t been invented yet, right?

          • lorasinger

            Myles was grouping all the myths together, Pal.

          • Palamas

            I know he was. My point was that there’s no reason from a historical perspective to do so.

          • lorasinger

            There is no historical “perspective” to support Jonah (I’ve seen flesh subjected to gastric acids), Daniel or Jesus.

          • Palamas

            Ah, another anti-historical History Channel devotee (at least as regards Jesus, which was the original subject of 1Myles1’s post and the only one I’m addressing). Do you reject the moon landing, too?

          • lorasinger

            Not really since I haven’t watched the Historical Channel for a long time. I do read the writings of people like Eisenman of the dead sea scrolls, MacCoby and Ehrman, however, How does the moon landing have anything to do with this?

          • 1Myles1

            Will there ever be any truth in religion?

          • Palamas

            There is, if your mind is open enough to see it. If not…

          • 1Myles1

            This death-cult follower claims there is truth in religion.It is too bad his mind is so warped that his truths are just another fairy tale,told badly.

            If you are able to find truth,show the world your great discovery.

        • dhrogers

          Gary Habermas’s works “The Historical Jesus” [1] and “The Case for the Resurrection”[2] walk through some 120 facts from sources outside the Bible which corroborate the existence of Jesus. Another book which does the same thing is “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” [3]. A belief in Jesus, or at least his historic reality, is founded in real evidence and so it is the more rational position. Another source of documentation for the historic Jesus is Lee Strobel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus” [4].

          There are 42 extra-Biblical sources on Jesus within the first 150 years. These includes Roman sources, Jewish sources, Christian sources, and even pagan source. There are also those sources which opposed him. Even these attest to his reality. All of these attest to the actual existence of the Biblical Jesus and all these sources tend to confirm the Biblical story of Jesus. Only a few scholars question the existence of Jesus.

          Other people in the New Testament are also attested in sources outside the Bible. This shows the consistency and accuracy of the Bible as an historic document. John the Baptist is mentioned by the Jewish Historian Josephus. James the brother of Jesus, Herod the great, Pontius Pilate, Agripa and others are confirmed in historic sources outside the Bible. In just the first several verses of Luke chapter 3 eight people are mentioned who have been corroborated outside the Bible. Thirty people in the New Testament are corroborated in outside historic sources [5].

          What about the reliability of the Bible? We have only 7 copies of Plato. We have 49 copies of Aristotle. The New Testament has between five and six thousand copies. Not only are we looking at the number of copies but we also look at the time period from whence those copies come. How close to the events are the copies? The writings of Josephus or Plutarch are 800 years after the events.

          Ceasar existed between 100 to 44 BC and we have 10 historic documents that attest to his existence that were written 1000 years later. Plato existed between 427 to 347 B.C. and we have 7 documents on him written 1,200 years later. Yet the existence of these people is not questioned. The New Testament was written between about 40 to 100 A.D. and documents begin in 125 A.D. That’s within about 50 years of the events.

          The story of William Ramsay is an atypical example. Ramsay was a scholar and archeologist and an atheist. He set out to prove the Bible false using archeology. He ended up consistently affirming the accuracy of the Bible with archeology and as a result he became a Christian. He demonstrated how Luke got 32 countries right, 34 cities right, 9 islands, and 29 kings from 10 nations right [6].

          Eighty four eye witness details from the second half of the book of Acts have been confirmed. [7]. In the Gospel of John 59 historic details have been confirmed or identified as historically probable [8] and in light of so many confirmed details the Bible emerges as a history book to be relied on.

          1. Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus, Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996. 250.
          2. Habermas, Gary & Michael Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004. 233.
          3. Turek, F. & N. Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004. 270.
          4. Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
          5. Turek, F. & N. Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004. 270.
          6. Ramsay, William M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915. 222; Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1982. 8.)
          7. Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Last 16 chapters.
          8. Bloomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 69-281.

          • 1Myles1

            You poor dear.Of course Jesus is real.He really rose from the dead and really rolled away his own gravestone.Of course he walked on water and made food fall from “heaven”. Have you been drinking too much of his blood.
            How moronic does someone have to be to believe bullshit like that?Being mentally challenged and being religious seem to be the same thing.
            Aesop’s Fables are more historically accurate than your fairy tale bible.

          • lorasinger

            Re: There are 42 extra-Biblical sources on Jesus within the first 150 years.

            But NOT ONE is contemporary to the time. The telephone game takes only 7 re-tellings of a story – literally to be done in one day – to change the story entirely, not to mention that men gods are a product of paganism that don’t exist in Judaism.
            …..

            This is a list of historians who lived at THE VERY SAME TIME who said absolutely NOTHING about Jesus. Philo
            (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD)

        • dhrogers

          Bart Ehrman is a highly respected and influential Biblical scholar. Another highly respected Biblical scholar whose credentials rival Ehrman’s and who deals with the same evidences as does Ehrman is Daniel B. Wallace. Wallace created CSNTM (The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) and has been consulted on a lot of Bible translations. Using the same historic data Ehrman and Wallace reach completely different conclusions. So here we have two highly qualified and respected scholars reaching different conclusions. Why? Because evidence means something to us only if we want it to mean something to us. Often our conclusions are based on the leanings we started with. Thus, two people, even two trained experts, can look at the very same evidence and interpret it in entirely different ways. We can and, indeed, must learn a very important lesson from this. Nothing can be proved using evidences if the person does not want to believe it. There is an old saying: “He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

  • scarf77

    As the myth theory is gaining ground and is increasingly scientifically demonstrated, for the religious anything is better than a non-existent Jesus. Even a married Jesus. Does anyone remember all the fuss around the Last Temptation of Christ movie? This only proves – again – that evolution is true and it works: the evolution of religion is as real as it gets.

    • Asmondius

      ‘…is increasingly scientifically demonstrated….’
      .
      Do tell, in what way?

      • scarf77

        You may start by reading the books of Mr. Richard Carrier. An engineering background and an understanding of probabilities would help, but they are not mandatory.

        • Asmondius

          Spare me the smokescreen. If you can’t answer questions about your claim, you shouldn’t be making it.
          .
          The only real probability here is that you engineered a falsehood.

          • scarf77

            This is such a typical comment from someone unwilling to read opposing arguments – even the ones very well presented. Read the books, and then come back. In the mean time, I have nothing to gain debating people stuck in their self-imposed limitations.

          • Asmondius

            You’re only fooling yourself by gracing your comments with the word ‘debate’ – you didn’t present any argument at all. If your only defense of your statements is ‘read the books’, I suggest you go home and call it a day. Because that is quite useless.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Why won’t you read the books?

          • lorasinger

            Because it threatens his already established belief, Andrea, and that means, with loss of faith (the only thing required in Christianity) the loss of that carrot of “eternal life”. Christians, unlike the Jews who they claim as their “roots”, don’t achieve eternal life by earning it by good behaviour. They believe they must only believe and this is what is being challanged here. No evidence will be enough.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            lorasinger You’re absolutely right! Thank you. All he does he try to “debunk” anyone who does not agree with him. It’s so sad…

            BTW just googled, yes, googled Asmondius…closest it came to was deuterocanonical Book of Tobit, in which he is the primary antagonist. Aka known as “King of the Nine Hells.” Aka known as one of the Seven Princes of Hell. Aka known as the demon of lust.
            Now I understand, we’re in a debate with the devil!!

          • Asmondius

            I have no need to.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Why not? Afraid you might learn something?

          • Asmondius

            I already have the knowledge.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            What knowledge?

          • Asmondius

            It will be obvious to anyone reviewing this exchange.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Apparently not. You appear very unpleasant and unwilling to leave your comfort zone. That is not an insult. Just stating what I read.

          • Asmondius

            I’m unwilling to play your game, yes.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Pray, tell. Where did this immense knowledge come from?

          • Asmondius

            From a ifetime of learning.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Please tell me how old you are.

          • Asmondius

            Old enough to spot a phoney.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Don’t go much for that book “larning,” huh?

          • Asmondius

            The trick is, you have to read more than one book on any given topic.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            You say you don’t even have to read books, so you don’t even follow your own “trick.”

          • Asmondius

            Well, since you are now speaking for the both of us there is no need for me to continue on. Hope you win the debate.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            No, I’m speaking to you. There is no debate here. Just stating facts. Too bad you gave up, el diablo.

          • Asmondius

            You’re correct in that there has been no debate. Whenever you are challenged you either dodge off to another issue or you throw out references to a book. You don’t seem to have the ability or motivation to think on your feet and defend the statements you present. This is typical of those who let others do their thinking for them. I am attempting to debate because I am interested in what your personal opinion is and the reasoning behind it – I’m not interested in a list of books.
            .
            If you wish to claim an empty victory go right ahead, and I wish you the best.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            asmondius Hey, a victory is a victory. Thanks!

          • Asmondius

            Victorius in a non-debate – congratulations on your null victory.

          • Andrea Fitzgerald

            Thank you!!!!!!

  • Asmondius

    2000 years later, and they’re still trying to crucify Him.

    • lorasinger

      Are we still having a problem with Roman occupation anywhere, As? Crucifixion was a roman punishment for a crime against Rome, in Jesus case, that of sedition. The only other reason would be for treason but Jesus was a Jew, not a Roman and treason charges don’t apply.

    • Andrea Fitzgerald

      Good answer!

  • Thinking outside the religious box, Jesus being married makes perfect sense. One can hardly doubt that God has a vested interest in humanity getting the principle of Love right. Thus an anomaly of the Judeo/Christian’ tradition is this: If our Fall from grace came from within a spiritual union of a man and woman created and joined by God,[the right Love] and by a single disobedience, [the wrong Love] man lost that original insight, one might imagine, even expect that our return to the grace and favour of God would be by the obverse path, by the yet unknown,original single command to a single Law and obedience which re-establishes the divine union, which was once the foundation of a Covenant, Command, Law and direct knowledge of God. I have to wonder if that is not what the Incarnation was supposed about. Thus Jesus must be married to be the example of this original spiritual union.

    Of course the existence, ‘as in the beginning’ of such a single Law and command would be heretical to the established religious orders, for in practical terms, it would make them all instantly redundant, changing and replacing the very nature of religion itself from the top heavy, institutional temple/church traditions we observe in the world today, to an individual spiritual-virtue ethic conception, founded within the marriage of one man and one woman and without the need of a self ordained, theological priesthood or any other mumbo jumbo at all! Just integrity and fidelity to new moral purpose. Sounds like revolutionary stuff. Maybe that’s what sent Jesus to be crucified on the Cross?

  • plantman13

    Of course Yeshua bar Yusef was married. To begin, in Jewish tradition one cannot become a rabbi, which Yeshua is called in several instances, unless one is married. Be that as it may, the first “miracle”, changing water into wine, is at a wedding party. Mary asks Yeshua to help with the problem and he asks why she wants him to do something about it. This question goes unanswered, probably because the answer was edited out soon after the gospel was written. Either that or it was so obvious to those alive at the time, it didn’t need to be answered. At Jewish weddings during the first century of the common era, the groom was required to provide the wine. Thus, it was Yeshua’s wedding. The new testament is filled with such hints missed by the editors and interpolators who came later because they were unfamiliar with accepted practice of the time and did not know what to edit.

  • The only book with more inaccuracies than Dan Brown’s Davinci Code is the bible itself! Read Bart Ehrman.

    • plantman13

      Indeed. Using a fiction book for a factual reference is bizarre. Kind of like using the bible itself.

      • lorasinger

        I think that what most Christians believe is that the MAN Jesus and the MAN GOD Jesus are one and the same and that Messiah, to Jews, was to be anything more than a totally human male.
        .
        In fact, the man Jesus died in 32AD but the man-god Jesus wasn’t invented by Paul and his gospel writers until generations later. To Jews of the old (eternal) covenant who were “under the Law (Torah)”/”circumcised”, it was a deal between them and God. If they worshipped him and followed Moses law, He would protect them. That covenant was eternal and could only be renewed but never supplanted.
        .
        Paul invented a “new” covenant for his Christians and “faith and grace” was substituted for “Moses law, righteous and charitable living”. Christians were no longer under “the law” and Paul also told them that by trying to redeem themselves by living under the law, they would be cutting themselves off from Christ. Christianity became a new and separate religion at this point.

        • Kyllein MacKellerann “

          Indeed: Saul of Tarsus deserves to be honored as the
          “Greatest Counterfeiter of all times” for having counterfeited an entire religion.

          • lorasinger

            Guess where he got his ideas? Or from some other pagan mad god.
            .
            Dionysus was a God man, born of a mortal mother, in a stable. He traveled about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurred the wrath of the religious authorities, who were appalled that he referred to himself as the son of god. He allowed himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy- a willing self-sacrifice. He was found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later.

          • plantman13

            Don’t forget Mithra…born on Dec. 25th.

          • lorasinger

            And the rest of them too. He didn’t have to even go far to invent one.
            .
            Horus (Egypt – 3000 BC): Born on Dec. 25th, born of a Isis (the great virgin), star in the east, adorned by 3 kings, teacher at 12, baptized/ministry at age 30, 12 disciples

            Attis (Greece – 1200 BC): Born of a virgin, born on Dec 25th, crucified, dead for 3 days, resurrected
            .
            As you said, Mithra (Persia – 1200 BC): Born of a virgin, born on Dec 25th, 12 disciples, performed miracles, dead for 3 days, resurrected
            .
            Krishna (India – 900 BC): Born of a virgin, star in the east, performed miracles, resurrected
            .

        • plantman13

          I have seen evidence Yeshua was not crucified but had someone take his place (Simon of Cyrene). Thus his “miraculous” reappearance after supposedly being killed. You’re right about Saul/Paul. He definitely hijacked the new Jewish sect and turned it into a separate religion. The destruction of the Temple also solidified the split between Judaism and the christians as, with its demise, the last point of common interest between them was gone.

          • lorasinger

            Exactly right.

          • McJakome

            The problems with this is that there is no reliable Roman [i.e. not a self-serving] record of the Crucifixion, the disagreements within the gospels about the Crucifixion, and the obvious addition of new non-factual details in each new gospel, and in succeeding versions of the Bible.

          • plantman13

            Good point. Of course there are no Roman documents of crucifixions as Romans only documented important stuff and execution of seditious provincials was not important. Some things can be infered. While the bible has certainly been edited, interpolated and redacted, these things were all done by gentile christians who had little or no understanding of Jewish culture during the last 200 years of the existence of Judea…so some things leak through the editing. Yeshua speaks of the “mystery” of the kingdom of heaven and christians think it means something unknowable. They did not know “mystery” refers strictly to a mystery religion or that the only mystery cult of the 30 or so factions of Judaism at that time was the Essenes. Yeshua asks Mary why she is bothering him about the wedding party running out of wine and she does not answer, nor does she need to because everyone alive at that time knows the groom supplies the wine. Catholics added the scene of whipping, falling down, whipping, falling down, etc. until Yeshua has no more strength to carry the cross and it is handed off to Simon. But the gospels contain no such account. They state unanimously (and they agree on very little) the cross was given to Simon immediatly upon leaving the trial to the extent of remembering the real victim’s name. Yeshua, already shown to be a master of disguise, disappears into the crowd. Later Mary mistakes him for the gardener because he is dressed like a gardener…not like a rabbi. I could go on for the length of a rather thick book…not possible here. Read the latest translations of the Dead Sea scrolls for cultural background. Check out James VanderKam’s scholarly The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls for deeper understanding of the scrolls, who wrote them, where and for whom. Why was Pilate in Jerusalem for the passover when the Romans usually stayed in Caesarea and the Jews would be offended by the bringing of legion eagles (graven images) into the holy city at such a sacred time? Why did Peter deny he knew Yeshua when he had been willing to assault one of the arresting party only a few hours before despite overwhelming odds? And who was the boy who ran naked into the night during the arrest despite evidence it was a cold evening? The bible supplies the questions and history supplies the answers.

    • dhrogers

      Not so. See my posts below to 1Myles1.

  • Kathy Ruth

    Your entire post indicates a woeful ignorance of the history and culture at that time!

    Jesus was referred to as “Rabbi” many times. ONLY married men could have that title!

    Jesus also referred to Mary of Magdala as “the Beloved Disciple” (NOT John!).

    ALL men at that time were married, they HAD to be to be respected! Even those who remained celibate were married for that reason, so using celibacy as proof of Jesus NOT being married is wrong.

    • kzarley

      Kathy Ruth, you are not conducting civil discourse by saying that my “entire post indicates a woeful ignorance of the history and culture” in Israel during the time of Jesus’ public ministry, especially since you do not provide any documentation for your subsequent assertions. Yes, Jews have a long history of encouraging marriage based mostly on the text, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1.28). But there was no requirement that “rabbis” be married until the later development of Rabbinic Judaism, which occurred in the second through the sixth centuries in relation to the creation of the Talmud. Thus, there was no Rabbinic Judaism until after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in AD 70.

      As for Mary Magdala being “the beloved disciple” in the Gospel of John, that gospel does not expressly identify that person. That is why there has been much discussion among scholars in modern times as to his/her identity. Church fathers were pretty unanimous in identifying that “beloved disciple” as the Apostle John, and I think that is still the predominant opinion among modern New Testament scholars.

  • lorasinger

    Quote: “According to the Gnostic Gospel of Philip:

    But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’ The Saviour answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you as I love her?’.

    Later in the same Gospel it says ‘There are three who always walked with the Lord;Mary his mother, his sister, and Magdalene, who is called his companion. His sister, his mother, and his companion were all called Mary. And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene’.

    Where companion implies colleague or friend, the original Greek word actually meant ‘consort’ or ‘sexual partner’.

    It was actually written between 180-250 C.E. and is not French.

    The actual lines from The Gospel of Phillip are:

    59. The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels. (Ph 40) And the Consort of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth].¹ The other [women] saw his love for Mariam,² they say to him: Why do thou love [her] more than all of us? || The Savior° replied,² he says to them: Why do I not love you as (I do) her?

    36. There were three Mariams who walked with the Lord at all times: his mother and [his] sister and (the) Magdalene°— this one who is called his consort°. Thus his (true¹) Mother and Sister and Mate is (also called) ‘Mariam’.

    Edit:
    The above writer is correct. It was part of Nag Hammadi. Dating information is at my link. It could be anywhere from the second to forth centuries.
    Source(s):http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/go

    • 1Myles1

      Arguing about the life and times of a fairy tale character and not about his existence as a character must be very confusing.
      Do you accept the fact that his father Joseph or Eloi or whatever you call it also never existed?
      Is it possible to find any honesty in any religion?

      • lorasinger

        Is it possible to find any honesty in religion? Absolutely not. It was built on a pagan story, further enlarged on lies and then ensured its existence by killing off its opponents. What is honest about that?

      • dhrogers

        Two respected scholars, Bart Ehrmanand Daniel B. Wallace examined the same evidence and the same historic data regarding the historicity of the Bible and reached two completely different conclusions. This teaches us an important lesson. Evidence means something to us only if we want it to mean something. Nothing can be proved through evidences if the person does not want to believe it.

        • lorasinger

          However, MacCoby and Eisenman (of the DSS) agree with Ehrman, so we have a preponderance of biblical scholars who take the position that Ehrman does. The DSS have a great deal of information that agrees with the claims of the Ebionites who considered Paul to be a heretic in his invention of the Christian religion. Shocking? Yup. BUT Paul’s Christians who became the RCC, killed off the Ebionites after discrediting them, in order to stay at the top of the heap.

          • McJakome

            But who was the “real Paul” [a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus]? Many scholars have found credible evidence through analyses of the content that all of the epistles were not written by one person.

            I asked, “Who was Paul,” but I should have asked “What was Paul?” because Paul is the necessary link in the “Apostolic Succession” which the Papacy claims makes the Pope the legitimate successor to Jesus from Peter through Paul to the Popes. This is probably about as genuine as “The Donation of Constantine,” a document forged by the RCC to give the Papacy legitimate successor status to imperial rule in the Western Roman Empire.

          • lorasinger

            Quote: “The idea that St Peter had been the first Bishop
            of Rome seems to have been invented around AD 220. Tentative efforts were being made by bishops of Rome to establish themselves as special. In the middle of the same century Pope Stephen I developed an ingenious argument to support his claim to pre-eminence. His argument was later developed by other popes, and is now enshrined in canon law.219 It may be summarized as follows: The apostle Peter had enjoyed pre-eminence among the apostles. Peter had been Bishop of Rome. Subsequent bishops of Rome were successors to Peter and so enjoyed the same pre-eminence that he had.
            ….
            The Peter of the Clementines is, in speech and mode of living, a Jew. ). He lays all possible stress upon the Law, while the Prophets are secondary. On the other hand,
            he calls Paul “an enemy” of the Church, who acted in the interests of the high priest while pursuing the faithful.
            .
            “After the death of Jesus, Peter, James and John (the brothers James and John, sons of Zebedee) did not claim pre-eminence because Jesus specifically
            honored them BUT CHOSE JAMES THE JUST AS
            BISHOP OF JERUSALEM.”.
            .
            Peter, remained a practicing Jew, by his own word, a follower of James, not Paul.
            .
            Quote: “Some have attempted, while I am still alive to distort my word by interpretation of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the Law … But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For He said: `For heaven and earth will pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law.'” Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 (presumed 92 A.D.)
            ,
            That means that he didn’t follow Paul and his converts who became the later RCC, nor was he the first pope. Again this is church tradition only and it’s quite nicely explained in the greater scheme of things, that being that the importance of James was hidden by the church (to preserve belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity) and Peter was elevated in order to squelch the actual Jewishness of the James group and that of Jesus. The James group, the actual followers of Jesus, meanwhile became known as Ebionites and were declared heretics while Paul’s pagan based religion went on to become Christianity.

          • lorasinger

            ‘They (Ebionites) declare that he (Paul) was a Greek….He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daugher of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte [through the Saducee movement, hence his working for the Temple police] and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against cirumcision and against the sabbath and the Law’ – (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16-9

      • dhrogers

        See my post to yourself further down in these comments.

  • Kyllein MacKellerann “

    Hmm: Dan Brown is a writer and one thing a writer does is to “build a world” for his story to happen in. In Mr. Brown’s world, Jesus’ descendants were probably working in shops, running businesses, all hiding behind the name “ben David”.
    Now: WAS JESUS MARRIED? It depends on whether he was a Rabbi or not. Rabbis are 99% married, it sort of comes with the job. So, if Yeshua ben Yushif (ben David) was a Rabbi, he was married. If he was a religious reformer, he may have been married or he may have simply been “living with” Miriam ha’ Migdala.
    Why would Paul say Jesus was not married? Because he, Saul of Tarsus, was an openly misogynist Jewish “agent” with the job of getting these heretics calling themselves “Christians” back into established Jewish means and modes. His “Christ” would have been celibate and would have tolerated women only if they were useful objects in his life. We see this in the contradictions between Saul/Paul’s version of Christianity and the Apostles’ version of the religion. The destruction of Jerusalem and the Christian church of Jerusalem gave him all the room he needed to re-write Christianity.
    Then came Constantine, another person who had little use for women, especially after his Queen shamed him in a riot by refusing to leave his City of Constantinople. He had no great love for the female, even after his wife and Queen died (abandonment issues). Constantine was the Editor of what we call the New Testament these days.
    Finally: why isn’t Jesus’ wife mentioned? Look at the society he lived in. Wives were frequently property as much as housekeepers. Jesus’ wife would be a non-entity in the society of the time outside of their home.
    We also have some serious issues with the politics of the time, the early Church organizers ran into congregations who had female priests and teachers and said organizers had hissy-fits over the matter as did Paul himself.
    Jesus having a Wife would mean children who would be the inheritors of the Church, its power and its authority… SO… Of course Jesus was celibate: too many jobs depended on it.

  • McJakome

    …Jesus is indeed both man and God, to which I do not subscribe.

    This statement is a clear rejection of the Nicene Creed, and also of the Trinity. I had not realized that the Evangelical movement rejected both concepts which were considered fundamental to Christianity for 1600 years [or at least since the Council of Nicaea in 325]. Thanks for this astounding revelation. I assume that you subscribe to non-Trinitarian True Monotheism™.

    • kzarley

      I have no idea what you’re talking about. First, I am not “the Evangelical movement.” I call myself an Evangelical because I’ve been one since 1954. But I changed in 1982 to believing only the Father is God, so that Jesus is Savior and Lord but not God. Most Evangelicals think that is not only not Evangelical but also not Christian. I disagree.

      Why do I keep on calling myself an Evangelical? The main tenant of Evangelicalism is that the Bible is the final arbiter of faith and doctrine. I now claim that the Bible does not say Jesus is God, and I studied this for 28 years and wrote a 600-page book on it. So, I think the Protestant Reformers were too scared to scrutinize the Catholic church doctrine of the Trinity because they were already being hunted down by the Inquisitors for believing in justification by faith alone and such things that they didn’t want to add any more to Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis.

      As for you assuming I subscribe to True Monotheism TM, what’s that? Sean Finnegan’s ministry? “Biblical Unitarians” and I believe alike about these matters, and some of their leaders are my friends. But I call myself a “One God Christian,” and I think a person definitely can be a Trinitarian and be a devout Christian. I was before I changed. So, this issue has nothing to do with being a Christian, just being a more informed Christian.

      • McJakome

        Thank you for your reply. You are pretty much where I thought you might be. Your reading is pretty close to my own. The Bible was put together by one of the most corrupt regimes in history [the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire]. I have been reading the history of that regime and the Bishops and other bureaucrats at Nicaea were even more corrupt than our congress.

        The Trinity is an interpretation which was foisted upon the body of Christianity together with other false teachings during the centuries when the Roman Catholic Church was in charge of the legacy. Persecution of the original monotheist Christians was done by the Imperial and Ecclesiastic authorities for centuries.

        I wrote to you because my brother is a TEA Party Evangelical, he won’t listen to my Jesus quotes about helping the poor and not showing off your faith in public like hypocrites and pharisees. I was just surprised that Evangelicalism as practiced by those I have known, included the beliefs set you seemed to be referring to.

        I suppose you may have read Bart Ehrman’s works on this subject. In any case I am happy to have made your acquaintance.

  • hanhgoldman

    Yes. he will be. Because his single-hood and meddle with only males disciples all his life can’t stand on the way for the religious Institution to blast LGBT.