Mr and Mrs Christ ? Did Jesus marry Mary Magdalene?
Regards the Bear
Many think so. Some think he never existed at all. The majority believe the official biblical version and Musilms believe the official bibiical version apart from the whole "Son of God" thing. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice...
He certainly held her in high regard - so it is possible - especially given the culture into which he was born. No-one can say definitely one way or the other as no contemporary records exist and the little we do know about him was written years after the event by those who had their own agenda.
Good link, waffler. I would have thought that, had Jesus been married to anyone, there would have been some reference to the fact, given that just about everything else is reported.
He couldn't claim infallibility with a wife - we all know how much they like to point out their husband's failings...
None of the authors of the four gospels ever knew Jesus personally they only wrote on hearsay from the people who did and this would not be admissible in a modern court as evidence jmb
The authors did claim first hand knowledge. What we have, though, are copies of the original documents. A copy, or a copy of a copy, and so on, in times when there were no photocopiers, however, may not be exactly as originally written.
For a change of pace. If you have no head for heights, this is not for you!
The gospels were written around 70 Ad Jesus died in 33 AD there is no proof of the authors being contemporaneous with Jesus, any how in my opinion which is about as valid as any one else's on here it all opium for the masses, jmb
Those who wrote the Gospels did NOT know Jesus personally. None of them were eye witnesses: they did not wander around with Jesus with pens and paper
writing down everything he said and did! Instead, they came to believe in Jesus through hearing others speak about him. So, when they came to write
down what they had come to believe, they used the oral stories they had heard.
hearsay evidence , not admissible in a modern day court
Sorry Scholar all your teachings are just hearsay and your own personal belief, not fact at all just smoke and mirrors. I just find your blind
faith unconvincing and quoting every man jack in the world does not make one differences as they are all shooting in the dark with no convincing
proofs what so ever as stated, hearsay and blind faith and supposition
Well ... I quite like the idea of Jesus being married - makes him seem more of a real person.
Whilst you may not believe in the Biblical account, John, that does not negate the evidence that many of the events as described occurred. Scholars point that the is more evidence for Jesus having done what is claimed is correct. We have far less evidence for the fact that Christopher Columbus "found" America, or that Captain Cook "found" Australia, but these are accepted as fact. Did Gengis Kahn really exist? What about your great great grandmother's maiden Aunt?
If it makes a person happy to go through life believing unfounded facts so be it, there is quite a difference between historical written fact than quoted hearsay and if a person thinks it will attain eternal happiness in some happy here after well and good, but what I don't like is some bible puncher quoting numerous passages from an old Jewish tome as though it is concrete fact and quoting such as some type of proven truth of which it patently isn't
The John you are referring to lived in Domitian's reign way after Christ also he lived on the island of Patmos he was not the john who stood at the foot of the cross under the reign of Tiberius Ad 33, the John who wrote Revelation was living in 96Ad under the rule of Domitian. I don't mind Bible scholars as long first they get their facts right and what they say can be verified by contemporary Thinking and not quoted as a panacea to everything, Also I don't have the temerity to hold my self aloft and proclaim to world I am a Scholar, brass trumpets come to mind,
OK , curved ball here, if the gospels were written 40 years "after the event" how do we know some were/not written by people suffering from what we call now "old age problems? "
The most satisfactory way of telling is to research more than one source and not to rely too heavily on other peoples opinions, use common sense to evaluate any answers as one persons slant on things are not another's.
Whilst you make a valid point, DW, would you consider many of is (who are approaching/in old age) as suffering from "old age" problems? Remember,
the disciples may well have been much younger than Jesus, there is no mention of how old the disciples were. Given your time frame, they may well have
been only in their late fifties, or early sixties when they wrote them. I can certainly remember events of 30 years ago with a fair degree of
If we find a copy of an article that was printed in a newspaper on the day that JFK was assassinated, even though that copy was made some years later, it will not negate the veracity of said article if there are other supporting, independent, documents, also manufactured some time after the event. That is how "evidence" is gathered to support or deny the "facts".
Don't believe you. You cant go to court without concrete evidence Hearsay is not enough