Did Jesus marry and had children?

[Through_Him]

Hi

Perhaps the phenomenon of not marrying a woman started with Paul; if he was incapable of that, that would be best known to my Catholics friends here.

Muhammad was not the first man in the human history who married more that one woman; I think it started with Abraham or much before him; and Judaism, Christianity and Islam are called Abrahamic religions you know.

Kindly read the OTBible and you would know as to how many women did David marry; and Jesus was from his line, so it should not be surprising that he would have married more than one at least. There is no evidence that Jesus did not have (I take refuge from God Allah to discuss it) the sexual organs; if he did not have them, his mother never mentioned it from the very childhood. We don’t find any mention in NTBible that he lost them afterwards in some grave accident, so most probably he must be full of youth, a strongman of 6 feet at least with full vigor.

If he had them and could not use them; then why he had them in the first place, whose mistake was it, or he was provided with them uselessly, and that is impossible. Nature doesn’t usually provide things uselessly.

I don’t want to go further in details; as my Catholic friends whom I love so much may or may not like it. I would however say that marrying a woman legally was not a sin for Jesus or for anybody in any religions. Jesus was an innocent person, so my guess is that he must have married in all probability.

Marriage is an occasion for merry making. If one could celebrate his birth day the world ove; one should not mind merry making for his marriage also.

This is only my opinion; others are not bound by it. They are free to believe what they think is truth or suits them most but with logical reasons like me. No disrespect is intended to anybody past, present or future.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

This is nice that you are sharing all this but the difference is that ABraham was proud of his family and took care of them and you are stating that Jesus was just going about with his mother not caring about his children if any? I don’t mean any disrespect to you either. I Believe Paul was married but that is for another thread and is disputable and is not really something that has to be proved. The speculation is that Paul was high ranking official and Jew and in order to be that he had to be married and with a son, as I think is true as to the Jewish Law. But wife left or son died don’t know:shrug: and why is it important anyways.
I agree no disrespect.
They had a lot of disease in those days no antibiotics so the life expectancy was low. So many may have been sterile, meaning try but no can do. I’m just explaining words as I have spoke with a person in Brazil and I know it is hard to understand our terms and meanings sometimes.
Have a new beginning to a new year and may we have better understanding. I don’t think we should get to personal this is just a forum.

 

[Through_Him]

Hi

I think you get me wrong. I wouldn’t mind if Jesus would have been a woman; then of course even without a ‘torpedo’ he would have been a hu-man and a complete one. I am not against woman; they are as human as a man. Without the regeneration/reproduction instrument/s a man or woman is impaired; it is an abnormality, not a normal with a human.

A man or woman must have the capabiltiy of having legal sex and marrying with the opposite sex only then they could be complete. You know the woman are said to by the best half of the two. **I can’t resist this BRAVO not trying to make fun of you oh well I have to cook the rest of the day have a good one. **
A man not capable of marrying is in my opinion, therefore, less than half of a human.

Kindly therefore let Jesus be a fully man at least, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

 

[block]

Hi

But I never said that Bible is false. Did I ever say that? No , I never said it.

I said that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could only give a partial third person view of accounts faced by Jesus and Mary while they were in Judea. When they went to India, they did not take Matthew, Mark, Luke and John along, perhaps they were not trusted by them.

So these people could not tell about the full life account of Jesus and Mary, naturally and logically. They present only a partial view which was also never dictated by Jesus; and Jesus never authorized anybody to write anything on his behalf, in my opinion.

So this is as it is.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

You make me laugh, you say that the bible is not false but then you say that the gospels are of third person views not authorized by Jesus. How then can you say that the bible is not false if this is what you believe? You are not finding your information from the bible, I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, but may God be with you my friend and hopefully you will be able to differ fairy tales from the truth one of these days. Until then, I will pray for you. Peace.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

The same is true for the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; all with contadictions. You have to extract truth from them; it is not ready made there also. The only remedy is to make search and research.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

You can create a specific thread discussing each one of them. We will be happy to discuss it. But, don’t ignore answers.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I have already read the Catholic Bible from cover to cover. It mentions only an incomplete accounts of the life of Jesus; and they could not not present the full life accounts of Jesus and Mary logically. Matthew, Mark , John and Luke don’t mention in the NTBible that they accompanied Jesus and Mary on their journey to India, in my opinion. Did they?

I love Jesus and Mary.

Thanks

Of course, because in Catholic Bible there is no such thing that Jesus went to India. The problem is, you are reading the bible as a legal document. You will not get anything by doing so.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Do you mean that Jesus was an “incapable” man, as we are discussing about Jesus here only ? I don’t think so. He was just a normal man; and no Son of God or God, in my opinion.

That is why I say that let Jesus remain a man at least; and God he never was in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

I have quoted Mat 19:12 that a man is allowed not to marry of he is willing to do so for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Did you read that? It is your sick definition that a man is not full human if unmarried. Did you read my posting asking you what will happen to you in your society if i cut your torpedo so you cannot perform your duty as a husband? No you don’t. You are just throwing out shots but disregard answers or explanation. That is no way of discussion of you just want to throw your idea one sided only.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

Church was not yet formed when Jesus walked in Judea, in fact he never formed any church, in my opinion. When Jesus went to India, the left over might have formed it without his approval, so logically church could not mention it.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

Nope, the church begin when Jesus call all the deciples. What is your definition of a church?

 

[swariffin]

Hi sister swariffin!

I never said that. I think you expand my post too much in your imagination.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

Because you said that a man who does not marry is not fully human. You said it yourself, not my imagination.

 

[swariffin]

paarsurrey, where in the world do you get the land of India? Please quote me the Scripture since you say you read the bible from cover to cover. You should be an expert on the life of Christ, then why do you ask?

Yep, and my dear brother Paar, show us from the Bible that Jesus went to India.

 

[planten]

Don’t take offense but I am trying to understand your point. If Jesus had been in India at anytime in his life, it was not in the gospels. Right. But what ever he did then if he had children he would have spoken of them to the disciples. The children would have been very young and do you think Mary would have left her grandchildren behind? Jesus started his ministry at age 30 so if he had children the oldest would maybe be 10 do you think he wouldn’t have mentioned them to anyone, as it was important to who beget who in those days. And they knew of Jesus, since he was first talking in the temple, so there would have been no way to cover up.
You say you love Jesus and Mary but you sound like you want to defame them both. You are trying to paint a picture of a man who was like a “deadbeat dad”, meaning just going about and traveling not taking care of his wife or kids letting the rest of the world to do it. Do you know what I mean? And Mary not caring is so opposite of love. If you think Jesus did not tell because he was ashamed there would have been some kiss and tell going on as he was very investigated by the pharisees, it would have come out some where.
Can I ask you if you are having problems getting married and having children? I am not trying to offend but just being caring as there seems to me to be a deeper rooted problem to this.

**Barbara, your this post #61 and the next one. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Paarsurrey is mentioning or inquiring about the marriage of Jesus, not in Kana’an (Palestine) but later when Jesus moved to India. Surely nobody believes that Jesus was married while he was in his native country.

You are right. If he was married in home country, every one would have known about it. We hope not that any one should try to dishonor Jesus and his mother. We all Muslims honor Jesus and his mother. It is not any false honor. It is real all the way**.

 

[swariffin]

**Barbara, your this post #61 and the next one. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Paarsurrey is mentioning or inquiring about the marriage of Jesus, not in Kana’an (Palestine) but later when Jesus moved to India. Surely nobody believes that Jesus was married while he was in his native country.
**.

Are you saying that Paarsurrey has the proof that Jesus was married in India?

 

[planten]

You make me laugh, you say that the bible is not false but then you say that the gospels are of third person views not authorized by Jesus. How then can you say that the bible is not false if this is what you believe? You are not finding your information from the bible, I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, but may God be with you my friend and hopefully you will be able to differ fairy tales from the truth one of these days. Until then, I will pray for you. Peace.

**Dear block, it is difficult to discuss bibleNT. There have been Catholics here who have told us that Jesus never had a bible and did not leave any bible and did not give us any bible. The bible is the later creation of the church.

While we Muslims do believe that Jesus was given the book (bible, called Injeel) from God. That was his teachings which he left though may not be in the form a book then. His followers later compiled his works and prepared the book. No harm. That is good enough for all of us. We believe in that bible (injeel). And we are looking for that bible.

But look at the bibleNT. It is full of non_Jesus stuff. There is more from Paul and others in the bibleNT than there is from Jesus. Jesus is teaching and preaching only in the four gosels (Could be considered as One Gospel only). There are very few words from Jesus in the 4 gospels. But that is the end of Jesus after the incident of the cross and good-bye to him very soon at the age of 33.

Later, people manipulated (added and subtracted) in the works of Jesus. We only object to that work by unauthorised persons. That cannot be religion. That is not from Jesus. He had come to tend to the sheep of Israel, specially the “Lost sheep of Israel”.

There were only two sheep in palestine. Where were the other 10 sheep? Jesus knew about them. he said that he knew about his sheep and that it was necessary for him to go to those sheep too.

So the discussion continues.**

 

[swariffin]

What is your definition of “Church”?

 

[planten]

Yep, and my dear brother Paar, show us from the Bible that Jesus went to India.

** It would be difficult to find India in bible NT. bible NT deals with two sheep of Israel only. After Jesus left the two sheep behind, who had not dealt well with him, he did not look back and went away.

There cannot be any mention of Jesus having gone to India in bibleNT. But there is no mention that he did not go there. In fact there is a will of Jesus and earnest desire of Jesus to go to “the Lost sheep of Israel”. He said he knew his sheep and would go to them.

That is a good enough indication that Jesus went to the place where were the Lost sheep of Israel. I hope we can mean that to be part of eastern countires Iran. Afghanistan, India.

Now swariffin, if you love Jesus then please go, look for him. It is your duty because of your love for Jesus. At least check up.
**

 

[pete_29]

**Dear block, it is difficult to discuss bibleNT. There have been Catholics here who have told us that Jesus never had a bible and did not leave any bible and did not give us any bible. The bible is the later creation of the church.

While we Muslims do believe that Jesus was given the book (bible, called Injeel) from God. That was his teachings which he left though may not be in the form a book then. His followers later compiled his works and prepared the book. No harm. That is good enough for all of us. We believe in that bible (injeel). And we are looking for that bible.

But look at the bibleNT. It is full of non_Jesus stuff. There is more from Paul and others in the bibleNT than there is from Jesus. Jesus is teaching and preaching only in the four gosels (Could be considered as One Gospel only). There are very few words from Jesus in the 4 gospels. But that is the end of Jesus after the incident of the cross and good-bye to him very soon at the age of 33.

Later, people manipulated (added and subtracted) in the works of Jesus. We only object to that work by unauthorised persons. That cannot be religion. That is not from Jesus. He had come to tend to the sheep of Israel, specially the “Lost sheep of Israel”.

There were only two sheep in palestine. Where were the other 10 sheep? Jesus knew about them. he said that he knew about his sheep and that it was necessary for him to go to those sheep too.

So the discussion continues.**

:nope: :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope:

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you saying that Paarsurrey has the proof that Jesus was married in India?

Hi

I think there are person in the world who claim they are from Jesus lineage; and that is sufficient for me. If Jesus or Catholics said he was from the line of David; I won’t doubt that. Why should I?

It is a normal thing for a human being to get married, if one has the vigour, and children also. If Jesus was a normal person, as some Catholics have admitted here; then I think the onus of proving that Jesus got married and had children like a normal person is on the Catholics? Please

Kindly, therefore, submit your proofs that Jesus did marry and had children also.

Please don’t mind we are just understanding the truth in the things.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

 

[wanner47]

Hi

I think there are person in the world who claim they are from Jesus lineage; and that is sufficient for me. If Jesus or Catholics said he was from the line of David; I won’t doubt that. Why should I?

It is a normal thing for a human being to get married, if one has the vigour, and children also. If Jesus was a normal person, as some Catholics have admitted here; then I think the onus of proving that Jesus got married and had children like a normal person is on the Catholics? Please

Kindly, therefore, submit your proofs that Jesus did marry and had children also.

Please don’t mind we are just understanding the truth in the things.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

All right then.

I am a direct descendant of Mohammed.

My statement should be sufficient proof to you that my statement is true. Therefore, I think all Muslims should now revere *me *as a prophet.( I will accept tithes through PayPal. )

If someone claiming something is sufficient proof for you, then when we claim the the Catholic Church is the only true Church, why do you disbelieve it? Shouldn’t our claims be sufficient evidence?

 

[paarsurrey]

All right then.

I am a direct descendant of Mohammed.

My statement should be sufficient proof to you that my statement is true. Therefore, I think all Muslims should now revere *me *as a prophet.( I will accept tithes through PayPal. )

If someone claiming something is sufficient proof for you, then when we claim the the Catholic Church is the only true Church, why do you disbelieve it? Shouldn’t our claims be sufficient evidence?

Hi

It is not our belief that all the persons from Muhammad’s lineage have to be Messengers of God Allah YHWH; though they could become if God Allah YHWH appoints any from them.

Thanks

 

[wanner47]

Hi

It is not our belief that all the persons from Muhammad’s lineage have to be Messengers of God Allah YHWH; though they could become if God Allah YHWH appoints any from them.

Thanks

Well, I say that I am. Isn’t that sufficient evidence for you?

 

[pete_29]

Hi

I think there are person in the world who claim they are from Jesus lineage; and that is sufficient for me.

Thanks

I once knew a 350 lb. inmate that said he was God and that he was going to float over the fence and leave the prison. By your reasoning I should have believed him. He never made it, by the way.