How Likely Is It Jesus' Got Married

"The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ (Messiah/Anointed One), the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy." -Matthew 26:63-65Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Then value Christ for what was attributed to Him. Why? What difference does it make that I believe in Jesus Christ and Plato? Why such an aversion unless it poses a threat?Why would anyone want to spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to refute Jesus, if they simply disbelieve the stories concerning Him?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

NJ, have you studied the Talmud? Have you read it or are you just going by what some apologetic site is telling you? The reason I ask is that I have read the Talmud, and what you are quoting is taken totally out of context. That particular section of the Talmud is a discussion on what constitutes evidence, what constitutes defense, who bears the costs in a trial, what can be used as defense. It is not a history of Jesus, was never even meant as some assertion that Jesus lived, and in context, is but one example of many being discussed. Many of them a just names used at random and have no particular referenance to any one living or dead. They are examples. Nothing more and not even pertinent to the discussion being held.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

are you sure? the first commandment that god gives man in the bible, other than "don't touch my tree," is "be fruitful and multiply." why not?

quote:

---

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

---

quote:

---

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

---

quote:

---

Hbr 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

---

quote:

---

1Jo 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

​

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

---

more over: adam (the father of all mankind) is called "the son of god" by luke:

quote:

---

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

---

this happens anyways. the merovingian dynasty of france claimed to be from christ's lineage -- and pierre pettard ("priory of sion") forged a few documents to make himself the heir to the merovingian throne, as part of an underground and utterly failed political movement 20 years ago in france. (this is why i haven't bothered reading the da vinci code, btw) no.absolutely not.the jews have claimed for well over 2000 years to be god's chosen people, separated by god himself. the bible makes this claim directly countless times. i won't quote them here (even though i COULD have quoted one with the above set of quotes) but i'm sure you've read them.jews are not the only group that sees themselves as more holy than others. christians and muslims do too. and many sub-groups of these major religions see themselves even as more holy than other groups WITHIN that religion. *shrug* i collect vinyl records. i have nearly every variation of every vinyl release by this one band -- but i know a few people that collect everything to do with them. stickers, posters, books, cd's, cassettes, even stuff they KNOW is fake.people just like collecting stuff. we like having things, and religion is no different. people want something solid to hold on to of their god, and their faith. it's part of human nature. the implications of how jesus reacts to and regards mary of magdala is a good hint. for instance, she's the first person he appears to, after being resurrected.he's also called "rabbi" and to the best of my knowledge, rabbis (until recebtly) had to be married. i could be wrong. anyone know jewish tradition better? why would it bring jesus into disrepute?it's like middle school: "you're gay!" well, if you are, so what? is it really an insult? the da vinci code is a work of fiction. something even the author has lost sight of. yes, as i went over above, the claims really have been made. the merovingians really DID claim to be descended from christ. if you go to small villages on the southern shore of france, you WILL find traditions honoring the arrival of mary of magdala and her daughter in a boat. what does being married have to do with whether christ was a real person or not? actually, i think it makes him more believable. fixed. "the last supper" is actually suprisingly inaccurate. i can go into the details, if you'd like, but the most obvious one is the presence of levened bread. being passover...(also, the "woman" to jesus's right is john.) leonardo was a very subversive kind of guy. apparently, he really disliked the catholic church, and maybe religion in general. i would imagine he might, after the "madonna of the rocks" debacle. they made him completely re-paint it, because he made the infant john the baptist larger than the infant christ. nevermind that jonh was older, jesus had to be bigger because he was more important.there's actually an interesting idea that leonardo was responsible for the forgery of the image on the shroud of turin, involving a very large camera.

---

which translation is that?mine says: "you have said"also, christ ("annointed one") and "son of god" are both apparently ways of refering to a KING. for instance, david was annointed when he was made king, and his coronation psalm (number 2) calls him the son of god.

---

How do you know this? He could hardly be human then if He didn't have Adam's seed, considering what the word Adam means. Where is the logic in this? There are more Jews in the world now than there were in Jesus' time, so how could He have shot it down?The Hebrew Bible does shoot down Jesus messianic claims though.Brian.

why don't we question plato... well. he founded a school, a physical building with his name on it, that operated for a thousand years after his death. there are people who have written about him, and, more importantly, there is a series of work allegedly produced by him with a common voice (ie, they were in fact written by the same person).jesus has no writings of his own, jesus didn't do anything physical, and as to writing about him, all you could come up with was 6 little quotes that happen to contain discussion of a bunch of loonies who believe that someone actually raised from the dead. there's more in historical text about the existence of sirens.you're going to tell me that 6 quotes is sufficient record of something that happened in clear view? jesus was supposed to have cause countless scenes at temples, on beaces, on hilltops. jesus was supposed to have had a MOB proclaim he should die. a mob. and you want me to think that no one but these 6 dudes mentioned it? i'm not talking about james of john or ananias. i'm talking about jesus. i think this is a far more important quote. but then i'm a dirty hippie and not a real christian.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

depending on which vowels you choose to add, "adam" can also be "edom." the word, most literally, means the color "red," as in red earth (soil, "adamah") or red blood (as in the marduk creation story in babylon). there was also another prominent character in the bible named edom, who was named for his red hair.a little less literally, "adam" means man or mankind, yes. without being a son of adam, one is not human. "sons of adam" is actually a somewhat common figurative way to say "mankind" although just "adam" (without an article) might mean this as well in genesis 1.jesus would certainly have been at least partially related to adam, even by christian claims. his mother was human. the whole bit about "seed" however literally refers to sperm. the idea is that original sin was passed down, carried in semen. and as no human semen went into making jesus, no original sin. you can thank st. augustine for that.

---

miracles and such. he's about on par with isaiah, though. a prophet who didn't do his own writing. people usually had scribes, or their students recorded it. this was true even for plato. the problem with jesus (as well as isaiah) is that the earliest confirmed document containing their words is quite some time after their death.

---

...don't leave any permanent, demonstrable, recorded evidence. i was refering to founding a school or church with a building or writing something down himself or some other such thing.

i agree. semen is all kinds of evil.

quote:

---

In other words, how could such a magnificient personage spring out of thin air? It seems, given the fact that Jesus is the most widely discussed figure in human history, that there is on some level, veracity to support at the least, His existence.

---

Odysseus was the most widely discussed figure in ancient times,
therefore he existed -
according to your argument.

quote:

---

Why is that people challenge the historicity of Christ, but not Plato? Is there corroborating evidence that Plato ever lived? Why does everyone take Plato's existenece for face value, but challenge Jesus?

---

Because we have evidence for Plato - including writings from his own hand.
Because we have no evidence for Jesus - just legends based on the OT and pagan themes.The evidence you cite for Jesus does not stand up to scrutiny - none are contemporary, none are certain.JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)The famous Testamonium Flavianum in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers were reviewed Josephus. Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot TerbesarIn short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.TACITUS (c.112CE)Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
Online Library of LibertyTHALLUS (date unknown)We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
Richard Carrier Thallus » Internet InfidelsSo,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
Pliny the YoungerTALMUD (3rd C. and later)There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.LUCIAN (c.170CE)Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

quote:

---

But for the time being, I would like to eradicate the notion that He never existed.

---

Of course you would, because that is what you believe.But,
there is no contemporary EVIDENCE for Jesus.Iasion

I wouldn't say that I've studied it. I've lightly perused through some of it. Its quite volumous.
Sotah Which one? The name 'Jesus,' is the Greek equivalent of Iesous, which is a derivative of Yahshua, which literally means, 'Yahweh is our salvation'. The term was synthesized and shortened to Yeshua or Yeshu - similar to what Kim is to Kimberly or Danny is Daniel. Many people have claimed that Yeshu was a very common name in Israel in those days, which very well may be true. However, given the year it was written (33 AD) and the historical data concerning it, that means that another man named Yeshu was extremely controversial in that land and was crucified the exact year that Jesus was said to have as well. The odds against it not being Jesus, dwindles significantly. Now, lets look at the text again, along with some new ones:Sanhedrin 43ahttp://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.htmlAs well, there is the Sanhedrin 107b, Sotah 47a, and Gittin 57a that further support Jesus' existence, and His (in their eyes), infamy. Rosh Hashanah 17a, Sanhedrin 90a, and Shabbath 116a speak specifically about followers of Jesus and their ultimate destiny. The bulk of the Talmud concerns the Mishna, which is the Oral Law attributed to Moses. This apparently what you are describing. However, the specific verse I provided is unambiguously about a specific man and his alleged crime on the basis of the Mishna. Given the sources I have provided, there is credible evidence that no other person fits the profile quite like Jesus Christ. Therefore, He existed. Whether or not you want to believe that He still exists is a matter of informed faith. That part is up to you with you personal walk with God.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Well, let's look at your own source. It specifically says "AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught:"it was taught"it was taught"All they are doing is pulling an example from literature, it is not a statement of historical significance. Note that it is also being used as an example in contrast to the firts example. The discussion is on the law, on procedure, not about whether or not Jesus was an actual historical character, much less whether or not he was married.As to which Talmuds I've studied, the Jerusalem and Babylonian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jesus was God, indwelt in the form of man taking on all of our weaknesses and temptations. I'm not sure why this presents such a problem philosophically. Well said. I think you are confusing Genesis 1:28. God was not directing Jews, as there was no such thing as a 'Jew' in those days. God was speaking about all of mankind. God was specifically speaking to Abraham (Abram) concerning his seed. It was a covenant for his righteousness. This verse isn't concerning Jews, but literally, Abrahams seed and how would relate to the awaited Messiah. Again, there was no such thing as a Jew in Abrahams day. That came through his line shortly after, but at that time there was nothing distinguishing what a Jew was. I disagree.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15