Jesus Had a Wife?

[AxelAnnie]

At best it might prove the writer believed Jesus was married.

Since the church didn't exist in his time, how could Jesus refer to the church as his wife. He was a good Jew as best is known, and quite frankly, it was (and still is) a mitzvah to be married and have children. So I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was. Since there is dearth of contemporary historical references to Jesus, anything is possible.
There are a bunch of non-canonical gospels out there. Coptic was the vernacular of Egypt then, so a lot of them are in Coptic.

That is my take on the matter, also. Jesus, as I understand it, wanted to reform some aspects of Judaism.....he did not set out to start a Church and certainly not a new religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Christianity

For centuries, the traditional understanding has been that Judaism came before Christianity and that Christianity separated from Judaism some time after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Starting in the latter half of the 20th century, some scholars have begun to argue that the historical picture is more complicated.[1] In the 1st century, many Jewish sects existed in competition with each other. These sects are detailed in the article on Second Temple Judaism. The sects which eventually became Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity were but two of these. Some scholars have begun to propose a model which envisions a twin birth of Christianity and Judaism rather than a separation of the former from the latter. For example, Robert Goldenberg (2002) asserts that it is increasingly accepted among scholars that "at the end of the 1st century CE there were not yet two separate religions called 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'."[2]

Although Jesus could have been a member of one of the many and competing sects of Judaism that then existed, an that sect could have espoused celibacy the reverse is equally plausible.

[PrincessLeppard]

As far as I can tell, there is no true historical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone had a wife.

I thought the issue was whether on not he was the son of God, not whether or not he existed. Aren't there records showing his arrest and crucifixion? (I'm not an expert, by any means. I am willing to be corrected.)

Islam, for example, regards him as a great prophet, though not the son God.

[IceAlisa]

Another non-expert but I thought the fact that Jesus existed is not disputed.

[Artemis@BC]

I have always asked the question - what difference does it make if Jesus had a wife and/or children? We know that he had to have participated in other basic human needs - like food, water (at the time wine), why not sex and physical love. Does not make him less of a teacher or someone who shared wisdom.

The Catholic church obviously has the most at stake here -- their rationale for requiring priests to be celibate (and male) is their assertion that that model is what's most "Christlike."

Never made sense to me either, though. How is abstaining from sex -- not to mention loving relationships, which they're supposed to be promoting -- make them better church leaders?

[numbers123]

Another non-expert but I thought the fact that Jesus existed is not disputed.

I think that there are many people who do not believe that Jesus existed, even on this board. I also believe that there are references in different religions to believe that Jesus was a great teacher, but not necessarily the Son of God and the Savior. As an example, see the reference on Buddists and Jesus.

[IceAlisa]

I was interested in what experts think has the most supporting evidence. IIRC, experts say that Jesus' existence has very strong supporting evidence.

[milanessa]

Never made sense to me either, though. How is abstaining from sex -- not to mention loving relationships, which they're supposed to be promoting -- make them better church leaders?

I thought they explained it by saying that the distractions of a family/dating life could take the focus away from their parishioners.

[Vagabond]

As far as I can tell, there is no true historical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone had a wife.

The only early "historical evidence," if you want to call it that, consists of Gospels (canonical or apocryphal) -- hardly a reliable, objective source of information. The earliest non-Gospel account of Jesus is in the writings of Josephus, dating to the 90's and relying on oral and written traditions.

[Rex]

I thought the issue was whether on not he was the son of God, not whether or not he existed. Aren't there records showing his arrest and crucifixion? (I'm not an expert, by any means. I am willing to be corrected.)

Islam, for example, regards him as a great prophet, though not the son God.

I read this somewhere too. In Islamic religion, is there someone else considered to be the son of God, or just Mohammed?

[Vagabond]

I read this somewhere too. In Islamic religion, is there someone else considered to be the son of God, or just Mohammed?

Islam considers Mohammed to be the last prophet, not the son of God.

[MacMadame]

I have always asked the question - what difference does it make if Jesus had a wife and/or children?

It makes a great deal of difference to the Catholic Church as it's why their Priests are not allowed to marry.

I thought they explained it by saying that the distractions of a family/dating life could take the focus away from their parishioners.

That's a rationale but the main reason given is that Jesus wasn't married and they are following in his footsteps.

I thought the issue was whether on not he was the son of God, not whether or not he existed. Aren't there records showing his arrest and crucifixion? (I'm not an expert, by any means. I am willing to be corrected.)

That is what I was taught. Turns out it's not true.

The only early "historical evidence," if you want to call it that, consists of Gospels (canonical or apocryphal) -- hardly a reliable, objective source of information. The earliest non-Gospel account of Jesus is in the writings of Josephus, dating to the 90's and relying on oral and written traditions.

^^THIS.

[Vagabond]

I thought the issue was whether on not he was the son of God, not whether or not he existed. Aren't there records showing his arrest and crucifixion? (I'm not an expert, by any means. I am willing to be corrected.)

That is what I was taught. Turns out it's not true.

Where were you taught this, MacMadame? I'm always fascinated about what is and is not taught in schools, both secular and parochial.

I distinctly remember being taught about the lack of independent, corroborating evidence in ninth grade.

[znachki]

I have always asked the question - what difference does it make if Jesus had a wife and/or children? We know that he had to have participated in other basic human needs - like food, water (at the time wine), why not sex and physical love. Does not make him less of a teacher or someone who shared wisdom.

This reminded me of my confirmation class many years ago. One of the points our minister stressed was that Jesus was human. It's what made the whole "he died for our sins" thing work - if you will. Made sense to me, but man, the reactions of some of the other kids in the class...

[agalisgv]

The only early "historical evidence," if you want to call it that, consists of Gospels (canonical or apocryphal) -- hardly a reliable, objective source of information. The earliest non-Gospel account of Jesus is in the writings of Josephus, dating to the 90's and relying on oral and written traditions.

Actually, none of the above is accurate.

While people tend to read biblical texts today in faith contexts, there are ways to read them from a scholarly perspective. Using Hebrew Bible as an example, there are ways to read the text to determine historicity of some portions of the text. Ditto with New Testament.

For example, there isn't much historical data available on Marcion, but we've nonetheless determined he was an actual person. There's much more available on Jesus, so his existence isn't really a debate amongst scholars.

[euterpe]

That is my take on the matter, also. Jesus, as I understand it, wanted to reform some aspects of Judaism.....he did not set out to start a Church and certainly not a new religion.

Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Peter is considered to be the first Pope.

[Vagabond]

Actually, none of the above is accurate.

While people tend to read biblical texts today in faith contexts, there are ways to read them from a scholarly perspective. Using Hebrew Bible as an example, there are ways to read the text to determine historicity of some portions of the text. Ditto with New Testament.

For example, there isn't much historical data available on Marcion, but we've nonetheless determined he was an actual person. [B]There's much more available on Jesus, so his existence isn't really a debate amongst scholars.

Can you be specific about to what "historical data" you are referring? AFAIK, there isn't anything written by any contemporary who could possibly have known the facts except for the works of believers. While that could be evidence, I wonder what specific writings you consider to be "historical data."

And let's stick to the issue at hand -- Jesus -- without getting into whether any other people (other than Jesus' wife) existed or if any other events occurred. Otherwise, it gets too far removed from the issue to be enlightening.

[Rex]

Islam considers Mohammed to be the last prophet, not the son of God.

Ahhh, I didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Who was the first prophet?

[Vagabond]

Ahhh, I didn't know that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Who was the first prophet?

Adam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet#Islam

[agalisgv]

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote an extensive history covering that period, relying on Roman records available at that time. He names Jesus and covers his life and death from a Roman context. Tacitus wasn't Christian.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

[Vagabond]

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote an extensive history covering that period, relying on Roman records available at that time. He names Jesus and covers his life and death from a Roman context. Tacitus wasn't Christian.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Tacitus was writing after Josephus. As far as I know, it isn't at all clear that Tacitus had any "records" available to him other than Gospels and similar materials. If he did, he didn't cite them, and there is no contemporary account written by a non-believer that corroborates the accounts given in the Gospels. The fact that Tacitus was not a believer and was not sympathetic to early Christian beliefs does not mean that his reliance on earlier accounts was valid.