Poll of the Day > Do you think Jesus was married or had kids?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If he existed I think he was probably gay or at least bi

i mean he literally went around with a pride parade

---

UnMead posted...

If he existed I think he was probably gay or at least bi

i mean he literally went around with a pride parade

He was just chilling with the boys. Even Jesus Christ knew that dudes rock.

He probably never had a bagel

---

UnMead posted...

He probably never had a bagel

Well seeing as how the Jews didn't invent bagels until the middle ages, I doubt he had one!

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Well seeing as how the Jews didn't invent bagels until the middle ages, I doubt he had one!

show some respect they boil the dough

---

UnMead posted...

show some respect they boil the dough

I know I love it. Bagels were literally the only thing I ate when I had COVID. Slathered those bad boys up with so much Jalapeno cream cheese just to feel something spicy to make up for the fact that I couldn't taste it.

I'm starting to think Jesus never existed... I mean, supposedly there's a secular source of an execution record, but I can't find it

---

There isnt any historical evidence that he existed, only a generally agreed upon view by modern historians that he likely existed.

Honestly from what we know tales from many different individuals in those times and Saul/Paul was the first to start claiming things about Jesus, and this was decades after his death. Theres no record of anything about him prior to that, not that there necessarily would be.

---

There are numerous references to Jesus in ancient writings, such as the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.

---

I wonder whatever happened to Jesus's brother.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

Slathered those bad boys up with so much Jalapeno cream cheese just to feel something spicy to make up for the fact that I couldn't taste it.

Reminds me of iZombie...
---

shadowsword87 posted...

I wonder whatever happened to Jesus's brother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus#Jesus'_brothers_and_sisters
---

captpackrat posted...

There are numerous references to Jesus in ancient writings, such as the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.

were these written during the time that he lived or shortly after? I have been led to believe that the first historical mentions are when Paul begins spreading the word

---

bump

I doubt he'd have been married, since there'd be no point hiding that. These silly conspiracies are a Da Vinci load of crap.

---

Doubtful he ever existed imo. Jesus is likely loosely based on some political dissident around that time period though I'm sure

LinkPizza posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus#Jesus'_brothers_and_sisters

Seems to me this reads like a lot of "weeeelllllll"

I'll bet his wife got fed up with that weird "wash my feet with your hair" fetish pretty soon after the wedding.

---

I mean, he could totally turn water into wine, dude probably had a whole buncha kids after getting all the ladies drunk on dat water.

---

Lokarin posted...

I'm starting to think Jesus never existed... I mean, supposedly there's a secular source of an execution record, but I can't find it

captpackrat posted...

There are numerous references to Jesus in ancient writings, such as the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus.

from what I've heard, something like there's no record of Jesus's execution despite Roman's keeping thorough records of that kind of thing, and the one Roman that does mention him is referring to him as a phenomenon or concept not an actual record of someone. like us talking about a famous person. we could be talking about George Clooney or George Jetson, it's just evidence of the idea not of the historical person.

though, I think I would say he probably existed (maybe, who knows). it's much easier to imagine the way things went if it was spawned from an actual set of events rather than just made up from scratch. also, if you read the new testament, to me parts of it paint a pretty clear picture of the sort of "scam" operation that you would run in those days.

"magic" in ancient times was the same sleight-of-hand tricks that we know today, and that's exactly the kind of parlor tricks that he went around doing (water to wine, bread and fishes, walking on water, "healing", etc.etc., exactly the kinds of things you would do to convince ancient people (and some modern people) of magic).

(and then, after he was executed, and supposedly resurrected, they have a guy that no one recognizes (not even people who knew him), and waltz him around telling people that even though they don't recognize him it "must" be him just because of similar injuries he has. (it's easy to imagine him with impossible wounds or something (which is why this can be convincing), but it's also easy to imagine him with mundane "wounds" that still convince ancient people despite not actually being impressive.))

(the point here is, IMO the NT inadvertently describes this whole thing as the scam operation that it would have actually been. I see that as evidence that it's really describing (to some degree) what they were doing since a purely fantastical story "shouldn't" have that and could be way more far fetched. another way to say it is that it does seem to be grounded in some reality despite trying to be a magical story.)

---

I think we can all agree that he never had a smartphone, or a favorite pokemon

something to think about

---

At no point has there been anything to suggest that Jesus married or had kids.

from what I've heard, something like there's no record of Jesus's execution despite Roman's keeping thorough records of that kind of thing, and the one Roman that does mention him is referring to him as a phenomenon or concept not an actual record of someone. like us talking about a famous person. we could be talking about George Clooney or George Jetson, it's just evidence of the idea not of the historical person.

Pilate did wash his hands of the incident. As far as the Roman's may have been concerned it was just some matter handled by a subjugated people and not an 'official' Roman execution worth recording. Not to mention that, for something so long ago, the records may simply no longer exist due to time.

if he existed, he was just a regular human
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if he existed, he was just a regular human

no such thing as a regular human

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if he existed, he was just a regular human

No shit that was kind of the whole point of him.

Well, except for the parts where he walks on water and turns water into wine.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

No shit that was kind of the whole point of him.

Well, except for the parts where he walks on water and turns water into wine.

he also had the power of flight and could heal leopards

---

I don't think he ever existed. I'm not convinced. I have this theory that maybe he is based on an amalgamation of several people. Apparently there were a lot of prophets running around Judea then. Possibly a bunch of individuals had their stories mixed up, combined and exaggerated until one legendary figure was invented

I dont think it matters if he existed or not. Because he exists now in the minds of so many. He exists to them more than most humans that actually existed. So who is more real in the end?

---

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

I think he very much existed and was very likely to be married (it was very rare for a rabbi of his age to not be married back then), but might not have had kids.

I also think Mary Magdalene was likely his wife. Also I think higher ups in the church know this and have tried to keep it under wraps for centuries, if not a millenia.

Y'know, this is an interesting subject. Someone should write a book about it. Maybe it can even be turned into a movie someday.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Y'know, this is an interesting subject. Someone should write a book about it. Maybe it can even be turned into a movie someday.

they could call it The Great Bible Mystery Adventure

---

Zikten posted...

I don't think he ever existed. I'm not convinced. I have this theory that maybe he is based on an amalgamation of several people. Apparently there were a lot of prophets running around Judea then. Possibly a bunch of individuals had their stories mixed up, combined and exaggerated until one legendary figure was invented

You know what baffles me about this? A lot of people staunchly refuse to believe that, at the very least a human being who believed he was the son of God and went around preaching and was named Jesus, actually existed. But if I started to talk about Princeps Ioannes and how he ended up losing all his clothes in a swamp while fleeing; or how the chinese astrologer Bsh mngz proved that the Earth revolved around the sun in 12 A.D. before being executed for hearsay; only a scarce few of you would even question if the people I was talking about existed outside of this context. Yet we have four different, first-hand, accounts in the most printed book of all time which has had centuries for scholars to either disprove Jesus existed or, alternatively, fabricate evidence that he did and, suddenly, a lot of people question if he possibly could have? The simplest solution to me, that makes the least amount of assumptions, is that he really did exist. I'll leave the question as to if he was the Son of God or just a man up to others, but in so far as existing, seems like the logical answer that he did.

MeadCore posted...

they could call it The Great Bible Mystery Adventure

I'm leaning more towards The Michelangelo Code, personally.

Unbridled9 posted...

You know what baffles me about this? A lot of people staunchly refuse to believe that, at the very least a human being who believed he was the son of God and went around preaching and was named Jesus, actually existed. But if I started to talk about Princeps Ioannes and how he ended up losing all his clothes in a swamp while fleeing; or how the chinese astrologer Bsh mngz proved that the Earth revolved around the sun in 12 A.D. before being executed for hearsay; only a scarce few of you would even question if the people I was talking about existed outside of this context. Yet we have four different, first-hand, accounts in the most printed book of all time which has had centuries for scholars to either disprove Jesus existed or, alternatively, fabricate evidence that he did and, suddenly, a lot of people question if he possibly could have? The simplest solution to me, that makes the least amount of assumptions, is that he really did exist. I'll leave the question as to if he was the Son of God or just a man up to others, but in so far as existing, seems like the logical answer that he did.

The Bible is not a historical book. It's a religious book.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

four different, first-hand, accounts

"Firsthand"

---

The Bible is not a historical book. It's a religious book.

*sigh* NO. It's neither.

The Bible is divided up into a series of multiple, smaller, books (you may have noticed that). Each one having a different origin and purpose. For example, a lot of the New Testament consists of Paul's letters to the various churches that were being established. Psalms is, quite literally, just a song/poem book written by David. Song of Solomon is basically a compellation of love letters/poems shared between Solomon and a lover (I forget who). Saying that they're religious or historical is like saying all video games are RPGs'/Shooters. While there may be some that fit the criteria (like Genesis being religious) others simply are not that. They may all have a religious PURPOSE but that's not the same as being a religious BOOK.

We have four books that exist which detail first-hand accounts with the person. Multiple people who were directly antagonistic to Jesus though not once doubting that he exists (remember: Saul was antagonistic to the new religion and did his best to undermine it before being converted). The Catholic Church was founded by Peter who was Jesus's BFF.

I can understand doubting that Jesus was the son of God. But doubting that he EXISTS? We know more about him than we do some kings. And I don't see how it's not hypocritical to say that some other figure from ancient history, like Leonidus, existed but then IMMEDIATELY nope out when someone implies Jesus did. That seems utterly hypocritical and non-sensical to me.

Unbridled9 posted...

*sigh* NO. It's neither.

The Bible is divided up into a series of multiple, smaller, books (you may have noticed that). Each one having a different origin and purpose. For example, a lot of the New Testament consists of Paul's letters to the various churches that were being established. Psalms is, quite literally, just a song/poem book written by David. Song of Solomon is basically a compellation of love letters/poems shared between Solomon and a lover (I forget who). Saying that they're religious or historical is like saying all video games are RPGs'/Shooters. While there may be some that fit the criteria (like Genesis being religious) others simply are not that. They may all have a religious PURPOSE but that's not the same as being a religious BOOK.

We have four books that exist which detail first-hand accounts with the person. Multiple people who were directly antagonistic to Jesus though not once doubting that he exists (remember: Saul was antagonistic to the new religion and did his best to undermine it before being converted). The Catholic Church was founded by Peter who was Jesus's BFF.

I can understand doubting that Jesus was the son of God. But doubting that he EXISTS? We know more about him than we do some kings. And I don't see how it's not hypocritical to say that some other figure from ancient history, like Leonidus, existed but then IMMEDIATELY nope out when someone implies Jesus did. That seems utterly hypocritical and non-sensical to me.

I mean, you're assuming that people like Paul and Peter are real people though. I would dispute that and say that potentially none of these first hand accounts are actually by these so called individuals

Who would want to be Paul though.
Dude never even met Jesus and claimed to be an apostle.

It's well known the gospels were written centuries after Jesus's time

They aren't actually written by the people they are named after. And of course we know more about Jesus than a random king. Just like we know more about the life of Luke Skywalker than we do about the life of a farmer in Mesopotamia, 5 thousand years ago

I dont believe Jesus as a man, ever existed. I think its all bullshit. Fictional stories can be well detailed in their lore

he was poly and in a relationship with mary magdalene and judas. all of mary's children were fathered by judas.

---

The Bible is literally just the official code of conduct for people assembled at the Council of Nicaea for the Romans after Constantine converted the nation to Christianity.

They picked all sorts of morality tales from all over the world and trimmed them and altered them as needed. They omitted things they didnt want. And yes they likely fabricated some events. What was there to stop them from doing so?

Religion exists as a method to control people. Make them more manageable.

---

---

Suppose he did, what kind of father was he? There are several references to God, the father, in the new testament. But the Bible also says God's regretted making humans. There are some interesting implications if Jesus was a better parent, as well as some interesting implications if Jesus was just as bad a parent as anyone else.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

could be stand up

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Suppose he did, what kind of father was he? There are several references to God, the father, in the new testament. But the Bible also says God's regretted making humans. There are some interesting implications if Jesus was a better parent, as well as some interesting implications if Jesus was just as bad a parent as anyone else.

it seems that if he was he was most likely an absent figure in the childs life

---

MeadCore posted...

it seems that if he was he was most likely an absent figure in the childs life

We can't really say for sure. I think it was the Nicean Council which decided what would go into the Bible. There are a few instances where it seems like they thought something was such common knowledge that they didn't need to go into any more detail.

One example is "suffer a witch to live." It seems like they thought everyone already knows what that is and why.

Another is the Oath of the Nazarite. It's just mentioned without being introduced anywhere else as if everyone should already be familiar with it.

It may be that 300 years later the identities of Jesus' children and how they were raised was so well known that they couldn't image it would be forgotten over time. Meanwhile they had two conflicting accounts of how David became king and had to sort out why Saul didn't recognize the boy who would play a flute for him at night.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

We can't really say for sure. I think it was the Nicean Council which decided what would go into the Bible. There are a few instances where it seems like they thought something was such common knowledge that they didn't need to go into any more detail.

One example is "suffer a witch to live." It seems like they thought everyone already knows what that is and why.

Another is the Oath of the Nazarite. It's just mentioned without being introduced anywhere else as if everyone should already be familiar with it.

It may be that 300 years later the identities of Jesus' children and how they were raised was so well known that they couldn't image it would be forgotten over time. Meanwhile they had two conflicting accounts of how David became king and had to sort out why Saul didn't recognize the boy who would play a flute for him at night.

There's a lot more that happened at those councils and they were arguably more political than religious. I'd rather not get into the question of early Christian schisms though right now unless I see how it plays a point.

OhhhJa posted...

I mean, you're assuming that people like Paul and Peter are real people though. I would dispute that and say that potentially none of these first hand accounts are actually by these so called individuals

At this point I'd ask you to prove to me I actually exist and am not either a robot or five babies in a trench coat pretending to be a poster on Gamefaqs.

Unbridled9 posted...

five babies in a trench coat pretending to be a poster on Gamefaqs.

That was a good episode of Rugrats

---

MeadCore posted...

it seems that if he was he was most likely an absent figure in the childs life

He wanted to teach his son how to drive a stick shift, but the holes in his hands made this a difficult task

---

Unbridled9 posted...

There's a lot more that happened at those councils and they were arguably more political than religious.

Oh, I imagine it was. I just don't see how that supports one way or the other whether he did. The only thing it does bring to mind is the possibility someone would claim to be important due to being the great, great grandson of a sibling of Jesus so they kept any blood relations vague for that reason.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

At this point I'd ask you to prove to me that I actually exist and am not either a robot or five babies in a trench coat pretending to be a poster on Gamefaqs.

Well, you are currently posting and your posts are definitely beyond the A.I. tech that exists for bots. But as far as ancient texts go, especially religious texts, it's safe to assume none of these people were real. I know it's cliche and "edgy" but these texts were used to control populations with limited education