Christ Married?

Surtr said:

I don't think anyone is horrified by it, but the claim that he was married needs to have some evidence to back it up. Christ's mother, father, and siblings were documented, so why wouldn't a wife and child if he had them? Seems like a pretty huge omission to me, especially since they believed him to be God.

Click to expand...

Your statement brought me back to the original point of the thread and of my outside conversation that sparked it. The fact of whether or not Jesus was married is irrelavant. The whole theological point was that Jesus could have gotten married had kids and STILL been the perfect sinless sacrifice for the sins of man. For some reason most Christians have an apoplexy (I think that's the word I'm looking for) at the very idea.

Also do you have a reference to Jesus' siblings. While I have no doubt that Mary and Joseph had other children, I don't remember any specific biblical reference.

I don't think anyone is horrified by it, but the claim that he was married needs to have some evidence to back it up. Christ's mother, father, and siblings were documented, so why wouldn't a wife and child if he had them? Seems like a pretty huge omission to me, especially since they believed him to be God.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is change the translation, and the meaning of the text is obviously changed. The "Church", not The True Church, more than likely altered the text to get more power. Perfect disguise right? People showing themselves as Lambs of God, yet they are true Satanists.

24107 said:

That's because she was his mother, and she loved him. If you are trying to imply anything else, that is blasphamy and disrespect for the messiah.

Click to expand...

Actually, an of honest questioning of the events and the people involved is not the least bit blasphamist (is that a word?) or disrespectful. Truth prevails. Truth will always stand the test of scrutiny. Unless man/women fear the truth, why would they fear question of what it held to be true? They should welcome it.

Was Jesus married? Would it matter? Those are legitimate questions. There are also more than a few people who believe that Jesus travel north around the age of 9 and became a Buddhist monk. In truth, if you know any thing about Buddhism the Jesus lived in India theory makes a lot of sense on many levels. Is it true? Who knows? It's interesting. As a Buddhist, do I need it to be true? It doesn't matter. Just as I shouldn't matter to Christians. There is genetic evidence that one of the lost tribes of israel may be in India. If discovering truth strengthens your religious beliefs it cannot but help to valid one's beliefs.

If Jesus married a prostitute and had kids, would that change your faith in Jesus? Why should it?

If Christ having a wife is strange, then why is he a son and God called the father? Isn't a father a procreator and head of a family? Why use terminology associated with marriage and families, like the Mother of God. I think we all know the problem here for people is the implication of the "sexual relations" concept. But didn't God create sex and say "be fruitful and multiply"? I think, like anything good that the abuse of sex is where the problem lies, not in the notion that God disapproves of it in general. I don't believe God created anything that isn't good, just the choice to misuse things in destructive and selfish manners.

maquiscat said:

Also do you have a reference to Jesus' siblings. While I have no doubt that Mary and Joseph had other children, I don't remember any specific biblical reference.

Click to expand...

Matthew 13:55-56

Bob Blaylock said:

It is well-documented that Mary Magdalene and he were quite close. It was she to whom he first appeared after his resurrection. It doesn't come out and say that she was his wife, but to me, this seems like a very clear possibility.

None of the Apostles' wives are directly documented either. The only mention of any of them is indirect, we know that Peter was married, because there is mention of an event involving his wife's mother.

It was the normal situation in that culture for a man to be married. It was, in fact, very unusual for a man not to marry in his early teens.

Lacking any clear evidence one way or the other, it certainly does not make sense to assume that the lack of evidence supports a highly-unusual and highly-unlikely conclusion.

Click to expand...

I've seen the bold part in this thread a lot, but Jesus was not just a usual, ordinary guy.

maquiscat said:

Your statement brought me back to the original point of the thread and of my outside conversation that sparked it. The fact of whether or not Jesus was married is irrelavant. The whole theological point was that Jesus could have gotten married had kids and STILL been the perfect sinless sacrifice for the sins of man. For some reason most Christians have an apoplexy (I think that's the word I'm looking for) at the very idea.

Also do you have a reference to Jesus' siblings. While I have no doubt that Mary and Joseph had other children, I don't remember any specific biblical reference.

Click to expand...

The original point was the question of whether it was possible, and the discussion has moved on from there which has made the issue relevant. It doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I haven't seen anything of credible value that points to him being married, so there you go.

Matthew 13:53-57 tells us of his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and his sisters. His brother James is also mentioned in Galatians 1:19.

maquiscat said:

Jesus was never a Rabbi in the sense that the title was used back in that time. Yes he followers called him that, but he was never "ordained". In modern day terms, he would be like a lay person who spoke and taught the word, but never went to seminary nor was ever officially recognized by any religion as one of the clergy, but was still called "pastor", or "Father" or whatever by his followers. So the expectation of marriage that was placed upon actual Rabbis would never have been placed upon Jesus.

Click to expand...

Actually he was, and was called such by his followers several times in the Bible. The role has evolved since then, but the term began as an informal honorific for a teacher and leader. It evolved into the formal present day scholar, teacher, and religious judge.

Manc Skipper said:

Actually he was, and was called such by his followers several times in the Bible. The role has evolved since then, but the term began as an informal honorific for a teacher and leader. It evolved into the formal present day scholar, teacher, and religious judge.

Click to expand...

Allow me to rephrase:

Jesus was never a part of that group that were called "Rabbi" and required by law to be married. The expectation for him to marry would be the same as any other common man. Better?

maquiscat said:

Allow me to rephrase:

Jesus was never a part of that group that were called "Rabbi" and required by law to be married. The expectation for him to marry would be the same as any other common man. Better?

Click to expand...

In that culture, all men were expected to marry.

Bob Blaylock said:

In that culture, all men were expected to marry.

Click to expand...

In that culture the men were expected to marry. The clergy were required to marry. Do you comprehend the difference there? Jesus would have been in the former category and not the later.

maquiscat said:

In that culture the men were expected to marry. The clergy were required to marry. Do you comprehend the difference there? Jesus would have been in the former category and not the later.

Click to expand...

If Jesus hadn't fulfilled the expectations of society of his time, wouldn't that have been noted somewhere in the writings about him?

maquiscat said:

In that culture the men were expected to marry. The clergy were required to marry. Do you comprehend the difference there? Jesus would have been in the former category and not the later.

Click to expand...

Jesus wasn't an ordained Rabbi.

Surtr said:

Jesus wasn't an ordained Rabbi.

Click to expand...

Hence this post from me:

maquiscat said:

Jesus was never a Rabbi in the sense that the title was used back in that time. Yes he followers called him that, but he was never "ordained". In modern day terms, he would be like a lay person who spoke and taught the word, but never went to seminary nor was ever officially recognized by any religion as one of the clergy, but was still called "pastor", or "Father" or whatever by his followers. So the expectation of marriage that was placed upon actual Rabbis would never have been placed upon Jesus.

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

If Jesus hadn't fulfilled the expectations of society of his time, wouldn't that have been noted somewhere in the writings about him?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Being expected is not the same as being required and there were many bachelors. Being the "odd one out" in that manner was not necessarily note-worthy.

maquiscat said:

From a RL discussion: Could Christ have been married and had children and still been the perfect sinless sacrifice required for the forgiveness of all sins?

I'll let others comment before putting in my views.

Click to expand...

I believe he could have, however it is of faith that Christ was celibate.