Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?

[Brassmask]

Prove a negative?  How about showing us where exactly does it say they were?

That's not technically "proving a negative".  You could prove your point that they never were married by pointing a verse in the bible where it states that Jesus never married or specifically states that Jesus and MM were never married.  It could even be spun around to a positive, thusly:  Jesus was a confirmed bachelor all his life.

You are slipping, sirs.

The bible is not the be all, end all authority on Jesus.  While he is not historically catalogued, there is some information available to historians on how people of his time behaved.  One of them was that rabbis married.  Another is that men of Jesus' age rarely, if ever, remained bachelors.

Another source is the Gospel of Phillip.  This is merely the first site I found on a Google for "Mary Magdaline kiss Jesus".

The Gospel of Philip has caused quite a stir for several reasons. It says Jesus' companion (also translated as "consort") was Mary Magdalen, and that he "loved Mary more than the rest of us because he used to kiss her on the ____ [hole in the text]." Philip also speaks of a "stainless physical union" which has great power. Early scholars translated the 'union' phrase as "undefiled intercourse," which would mean that the text advises, "Understand/seek the undefiled intercourse, for it has great power." However, in recent years orthodox scholars have tended to translate the phrase as "pure embrace" or "marriage." Attridge claims that it is a reference to an early Christian practice of offering one's fellow worshipers a kiss, known in some circles as "passing the peace."

http://www.reuniting.info/wisdom/jesus_mary_magdalen_sex_gospel_of_philip

[Amianthus]

While he is not historically catalogued, there is some information available to historians on how people of his time behaved.  One of them was that rabbis married.  Another is that men of Jesus' age rarely, if ever, remained bachelors.

"This argument overlooks the fact that there were already exceptions to this sort of rule in early Judaism. The descriptions of the celibate Essenes in Josephus (Antiquities 18.1.5.20-21; Jewish War 2.8.2) and Philo (Hypothetica 11.14-17), and the paucity of female skeletons in the cemetery at Qumran, which many scholars identify as an Essene settlement, may all attest to the fact that some early Jews felt a calling to celibacy. There is no reason why Jesus could not have been one of them. In fact, it would appear that his cousin John the Baptist set such a precedent for his kin group, and there were earlier prophetic figures (Samuel, perhaps, and Hosea, until God commanded him to marry Gomer) who may also have remained single. Many scholars, probably rightly, see Matthew 19:10-12, which states that some have chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and presents this as a viable alternative to marriage, as Jesus’ own justification for remaining single. The Kingdom was coming and it was appropriate for him and his disciples to remain single and focus on their call to ministry."
http://www.landmark-lakewood.org/davinci_code.htm

[sirs]

Prove a negative?  How about showing us where exactly does it say they were?

That's not technically "proving a negative".  You could prove your point that they never were married by pointing a verse in the bible where it states that Jesus never married or specifically states that Jesus and MM were never married.  It could even be spun around to a positive, thusly:  Jesus was a confirmed bachelor all his life.....

Apparently you missed my question.  Where in the Bible does it claim Jesus was married to Mary.  Ball in your court, as that is largely the end all to Christian doctrine.  Your speculation as to what he should have done, given his age doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid

[Brassmask]

While he is not historically catalogued, there is some information available to historians on how people of his time behaved.  One of them was that rabbis married.  Another is that men of Jesus' age rarely, if ever, remained bachelors.

"This argument overlooks the fact that there were already exceptions to this sort of rule in early Judaism. The descriptions of the celibate Essenes in Josephus (Antiquities 18.1.5.20-21; Jewish War 2.8.2) and Philo (Hypothetica 11.14-17), and the paucity of female skeletons in the cemetery at Qumran, which many scholars identify as an Essene settlement, may all attest to the fact that some early Jews felt a calling to celibacy. There is no reason why Jesus could not have been one of them. In fact, it would appear that his cousin John the Baptist set such a precedent for his kin group, and there were earlier prophetic figures (Samuel, perhaps, and Hosea, until God commanded him to marry Gomer) who may also have remained single. Many scholars, probably rightly, see Matthew 19:10-12, which states that some have chosen to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and presents this as a viable alternative to marriage, as Jesus’ own justification for remaining single. The Kingdom was coming and it was appropriate for him and his disciples to remain single and focus on their call to ministry."
http://www.landmark-lakewood.org/davinci_code.htm

Point taken but certainly proves nothing if my sighted text proves nothing.

[Brassmask]

Apparently you missed my question.  Where in the Bible does it claim Jesus was married to Mary.  Ball in your court, as that is largely the end all to Christian doctrine.  Your speculation as to what he should have done, given his age doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid

I certainly agree that the bible is the end all to christian doctrine, but it is the end all to nothing else.  In fact, it is really about as "real" as The Divinci Code which I might add is far more a page-turner.

The point is that while it may be true that the bible does not emphatically say that Jesus and MM were married, it in no way spells out that they definitely WEREN'T married.  So, then it becomes like one of my son's "make your own story" books.  You prefer to think of Jesus as some kind of magical being who felt that marriage and intercourse were something of a distraction from his duties as a demi-god (which is crazy by any standard) and I prefer to think of him as a normal, nice guy a la Jimmy Carter who was married, study eastern philosophy, tried to blend it with his own Jewish faith and ran afoul of the Romans and the Jewish powers of the times and paid a heavy price. 

The idea that some believe a man could walk on water, heal the sick by laying on of hands, pulls loaves and fishes out of basket, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven 2000 years ago but don't believe in global warming or stem cell research in our age of enlightenment is kind of proof of my prescient and increasingly accepted stance that "faith" in a diety is a form of delusion.

If someone was going around stating he had done the things that Jesus is said to have done in the bible, people would call him crazy or a showman.  If he actually did that stuff in front of them, they would instantly be looking for the "trick".  Where are the wires?  What's behind that curtain?  And so forth.

Don't you agree?

[_JS]

I certainly agree that the bible is the end all to christian doctrine

That is absolutely not true. The largest organized religious body in the world (of any religion) is the Catholic Church and we believe in the Sacred Scripture as well as the Sacred Tradition. Even Protestant traditions use the Sacred Tradition, though they may not be quick to admit it (the Holy Trinity for example is never found explicitly in scripture, there is no concept of the Bible in the scriptures). So the Bible is not the "end all" of Christian doctrine. Far from it, in fact for most Christians.

As for the gnostic Gospels, which you mention, they haven't really caused as much of a stir as you might think. They also aren't as recently discovered as Dan Brown and others claim. The Church Fathers knew of them well, but discounted them when organising the 73 books of the Bible (changed to 66 for Protestants). Gnosticism is relatively easy to recognise and clearly did not belong - though makes for interesting reading if you like to know more about gnostic beliefs.

[Amianthus]

Point taken but certainly proves nothing if my sighted text proves nothing.

Proves that Jesus didn't have to be married.

I actually agree with you, it would make sense that Jesus was married. But it is not documented that he was, and it would not be that unusual for him to not be.

It's one of those things that no one will ever know.

Apparently Jesus' publicist was better at keeping his private life out of the press than those of modern celebrities.

[Brassmask]

Proves that Jesus didn't have to be married.

I actually agree with you, it would make sense that Jesus was married. But it is not documented that he was, and it would not be that unusual for him to not be.

It's one of those things that no one will ever know.

Apparently Jesus' publicist was better at keeping his private life out of the press than those of modern celebrities.

Holy crap!  More consensus.

Would you also agree that simply because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married, doesn't prove that he necessarily WASN'T MARRIED?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The various books of the New Testament were written decades after the death of Jesus, and significantly, after the Jews found another temporal Messiah, who organized them into a military force and threw the Romans the Hell outta Jerusalem.

The Romans, of course, would not and did not stand for this, and came back like gangbusters (or gangsters) and wiped out all jewish resistence, ending at Mossada, killed the men, raped the women and enslaved the children, burned Jerusalem to the ground and destroyed all of the Temple except for the famous Western Wall. It was probably at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem that the Ark of the Covenant disappeared, perhaps destroyed by the Romans, perhaps squirred away to be guarded for centuries by the secretive,  illiterate and possibly deranged Ethiopian priests we have seen on a couple of PBS specials.

All this happened between the crucifixion of Jesus and the writing of the NT, but very curiously there is not a peep about these utterly monumental events in any part of the Bible.

Jesus' birth date is not mentioned in the Bible, either. But Mithra, a competing deity who was worshipped by many Roman soldiers,  and was considered to be the Son of the Sun, also born of a virgin, was allegedly born on Dec. 25th.

I think that Mani, the leader of the Manichaeists, also was reported to have survived a crucifixion. Assuming that the story of Jesus in the NT is entirely accurate is like assuming that I could write an entirely accurate history of Pretty Boy Floyd.

 

[Amianthus]

Would you also agree that simply because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married, doesn't prove that he necessarily WASN'T MARRIED?

I think you intended to say "doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WAS married".

In the real world, more than likely (since it's what I have already said.) However, regardless of my personal opinion, there is no evidence that he was or was not married. It's wholly unknown.

The closest you can come to documentary evidence is a line in Isaiah, where the Savior is said to "see his own seed" which can generally be taken to mean that he saw his children before he died.

Of course, it could also mean that he masturbated.

[Brassmask]

Would you also agree that simply because it doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married, doesn't prove that he necessarily WASN'T MARRIED?

I think you intended to say "doesn't say in the bible that Jesus WAS married".

In the real world, more than likely (since it's what I have already said.) However, regardless of my personal opinion, there is no evidence that he was or was not married. It's wholly unknown.

The closest you can come to documentary evidence is a line in Isaiah, where the Savior is said to "see his own seed" which can generally be taken to mean that he saw his children before he died.

Of course, it could also mean that he masturbated.

WHAT?!?!  What is that verse?

And yes, I did mean to type what you said.

[Amianthus]

WHAT?!?!  What is that verse?

Isaiah 53:6-10

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

==================================================================
This sounds, well, deeply weird.

Very, very deeply weird.

[Brassmask]

WHAT?!?!  What is that verse?

Isaiah 53:6-10

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

And that's referring to Jesus?

[Xavier_Onassis]

And that's referring to Jesus?

-------------------------------------------
Yes. This is the chapter in Isaiah where the Messiah is predicted.
If Jesus was the Messiah, then this does refer to him.

The thought occurs to me that there is more proof for the guilt of OJ than there is for the divinity, and even the existence of Jesus.