The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Norman Humann]

But it wasn't THAT unusual was it? Paul for a fact wasn't married, so you cant just "insinuate" something because you think of it as unusual...

No, not THAT unusual. THIS unusual.

A rabbi being celibate would have been so unusual that some modern writers have argued Jesus must have been gay.

Sure. We can state it was highly unlikely, though, which is precisely what the article does.

[Huggy Bear]

Paul was not married when he wrote his portion of the epistles but we don't know if he was always single. He might have had a wife at some point.

More insinuations...

1 Corinthians 7
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

You realize the reason Paul no longer continued to write letters is because he was BEHEADED right?

So no, Paul never married.

[Nope]

Paul was not married when he wrote his portion of the epistles but we don't know if he was always single. He might have had a wife at some point.

More insinuations...

1 Corinthians 7
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

You realize the reason Paul no longer continued to write letters is because he was BEHEADED right?

So no, Paul never married.

Yes, I realize that Paul was beheaded.

Nothing in the verses you quote in Corinthians says that Paul didn't once have a wife.

I honestly don't understand why a formerly married Paul or Jesus should be such a big deal among Christians.

http://www.dennyburk.com/was-the-apostle-paul-married/

Here is a site that suggest that Paul might have been married.

The cumulative case, therefore, strongly suggests that Paul was a widower. He was once married. But in calling him to Christ, God gave Paul the gift of celibacy (“a genuine gift of freedom from sexual need,” Fee, 287). Paul desires for everyone with this gift to use it as he has for the sake of the kingdom.

[Norman Humann]

I'm starting to think Huggy either has me on block or purposely ignores my posts.

[Minimalist]

Calm, rational, solidly-based demolition of their stupid jesus shit.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/9-thi...bly-wrong/

"Calm, rational, solidly-based demolition" you say?
Let's address the very first point of your article.

1. Married, not single. When an ancient papyrus scrap was found in 2014 referring to the wife of Jesus, some Catholics and Evangelicals were scandalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_Wife

The "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" is the name given to a papyrus fragment with a Coptic text that includes the words, "Jesus said to them, 'my wife...'".[1] The text was alleged to be a fourth-century Coptic translation of what is said to be "a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century."[2] The current consensus among scholars is that the fragment is a modern forgery.[3]

In April 2014, a careful analysis of the papyrus and the ink showed that the papyrus itself is ancient and dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries.

So evidence created 700 years after the fact is good enough for you in this instance, how convenient.
Talk about being Gullible...

Didn't read the rest of it did you? About how Jewish men were expected to be married and someone who wasn't at the age of 30 would be regarded as a flaming faggot.

For myself, there's no fucking evidence for any jesus at all so trying to rationalize his place in history seems pointless but there are plenty of people who do it without drinking gallons of the fucking kool-aid like you.

[Nope]

But it wasn't THAT unusual was it? Paul for a fact wasn't married, so you cant just "insinuate" something because you think of it as unusual...

No, not THAT unusual. THIS unusual.

A rabbi being celibate would have been so unusual that some modern writers have argued Jesus must have been gay.

Sure. We can state it was highly unlikely, though, which is precisely what the article does.

[Cato]

2000+ years and Jesus is still missing in action. It only took 32 minutes for Min's thread title prediction to come true.

[Minimalist]

"Paul" seems to be as phony as 'jesus.'

[Foxaèr]

Looks like huggy is losing his shit because one myth contradicts his myth.

[Huggy Bear]

Yes, I realize that Paul was beheaded.

Nothing in the verses you quote in Corinthians says that Paul didn't once have a wife.

I honestly don't understand why a formerly married Paul or Jesus should be such a big deal among Christians.

http://www.dennyburk.com/was-the-apostle-paul-married/

Here is a site that suggest that Paul might have been married.

The cumulative case, therefore, strongly suggests that Paul was a widower. He was once married. But in calling him to Christ, God gave Paul the gift of celibacy (“a genuine gift of freedom from sexual need,” Fee, 287). Paul desires for everyone with this gift to use it as he has for the sake of the kingdom.

One question..
Do you consider this article sufficient "evidence" that Paul was married?

---

Didn't read the rest of it did you? About how Jewish men were expected to be married and someone who wasn't at the age of 30 would be regarded as a flaming faggot.

According to who? provide your source.
Should I list all the prophets who were unmarried? Being unmarried was not an uncommon thing, especially since marriages were arranged and a dowry paid.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Rel...iage.shtml

As a rule, the fathers arranged the match. The girl was consulted, but the "calling of the damsel and inquiring at her mouth" after the conclusion of all negotiations was merely a formality.

In those days a father was more concerned about the marriage of his sons than about the marriage of his daughters. No expense was involved in marrying off a daughter. The father received a dowry for his daughter whereas he had to give a dowry to the prospective father-in-law of his son when marrying him off.

Not to mention Jesus was homeless, how could he have taken care of a wife?

For myself, there's no fucking evidence for any jesus at all so trying to rationalize his place in history seems pointless but there are plenty of people who do it without drinking gallons of the fucking kool-aid like you.

Why waste time trying to "debunk" something for which you don't believe there is evidence for?
Trolling?