Was Jesus Married?

A new novel forces people to confront a biblical puzzle. Was Mary Magdalene Mrs. Jesus?

MikeLondon

01/05/2008 12:26:52 AM

What if there was no virgin birth? What if Jesus never walked on the water, never turned water into wine, or rose from the dead? What if he was a man, a prophet not a diety, but married and maybe had a child? Would that give 'His Word' any less meaning? Im very surprised at many people I've known, that I had thought were deeply religous and spiritual, who become so emotional and antagonized over what was written about Him 300 years after His death, that has nothing to do with The Word, his teachings. I want to know and understand the True Word of God, to distill away everything that is not directly related to spirituality. Who would benefit and who would lose something if Jesus was married?

Reuniting

06/04/2006 05:30:01 PM

The more interesting question raised by the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels is, "What was the Sacrament of the Bridal Chamber?" It was some kind of sacred union of male and female that gave rise not to physical children, as Dan Brown suggests, but to Christhood. I suspect it is a reference to the same practice that the ancient Chinese Taoists recorded, by means of which lust-free, affectionate sexual union without climax could lead to the spirt of a spiritual child, or "holy fetus." The Gospel of Philip claims that procreative sex lead to an alienation between Adam and Eve, which Jesus returned to heal because it is at the root of mankind's spiritual blindness. He achieved this in the Sacrament of the Bridal Chamber. Perhaps Mary Magdalen was a good deal more than a mere wife. For more, have a look at [www].reuniting.info/wisdom/nag_hammadi_sacrament_bridal_chamber

marthamary

05/20/2006 07:34:45 PM

yes we are all gods children. Are we not all sons of god, children of god? People think Jesus was the only son of god , but i think he was teaching us ,we are all sons of god. As to weather he was married, does it matter? Apparently you did have to be married to be a Rabbi,but that is not the real issue.Dont judge , its not up to us. He wanted to pass on his teachings,and to show us not one is better than the other , we are made the same , we die the same,we are all gods children.

windbender

04/26/2006 03:29:23 PM

"He certainly experienced all the hardships undeservingly so." Within the context of Christianity, that's like saying that the grief Windows ME gave Bill Gates wasn't his fault.

lovegoddess2007

04/20/2006 06:06:12 PM

It would have been nice if he had have been. I mean all that suffering he did and was indeed a great role model for all. What woman would not have wanted a man like him? He had all the great caring qualities and so much more. But given his life, he would have at least deserved great companionship. Also the joys of marriage. He certainly experienced all the hardships undeservingly so. He had a great mother and was well loved, why not have a great wife too? Just say if he was not married that was a great loss to the woman that would have been his wife.

knitwit46

12/03/2005 11:06:40 PM

I believe that Jesus was never married. There was no reason for him to be married, since he is the Son of God. In Mark 12:25, he says that when the dead rise, they are not married anymore. So why would he marry if his purpose was to save the lost souls and rise to heaven? He predicted his death, he performed numerous miracles, he was no ordinary man on earth. Mary Magdalene followed his ministry because he cast seven demons out of her (Luke 8:2). Many other women followed his ministry because they believed he was the Messiah. They referred to him as "teacher." I don't know how anyone can think he was married. It is so obvious to me. Read through the scriptures and you will get to know Jesus, not as some human that married someone, but the Son of God who saved many people with his parables and miracles.

tiggergreen

10/14/2005 06:49:05 PM

Of course Jesus was married. He wouldn't be able to fulfill His destiny as the Savior of the world without going through everything that is required of all of us in this mortality. Everyone must follow the true path: Faith, Repentance, Baptism by immersion, sacrament and marriage. There is no other way we can attain our highest level of glory without these steps. Man without the woman or a woman without the man cannot hope to obtain the highest rewards without each other. In order to understand all of us and undergo all the pains and joys of this life, He would definitely need to experience marriage. I know that Mary Magdalene was His wife. When He appeared unto her first, He told her not to touch Him as He had not yet ascended to His Father. But later, before ascending, He met another group of people and they touched Him. Therefore, that signifies that Mary wanted to greet her husband with a kiss (only natural) and He could not do that just yet until He had finished His mortal ministry.

notfadeaway325

02/05/2005 07:21:12 PM

Also, I noticed in a previous posting a common misconception concerning the "Immaculate Conception". Jesus's birth is referred to in the Catholic Church as "the virgin birth". The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who was conceived "immaculately", i.e., without the taint of original sin, in anticipation of her role as Jesus's mother.

notfadeaway325

02/05/2005 07:19:51 PM

I just finished The DaVinci Code (later than most people, I guess) & find the issues raised, particularly the marriage of Jesus, mind-boggling. I understand it was the custom of Jewish men of that time (actually, ANY men of ANY time) to marry & I have no problem reconciling my view of Jesus to that idea. It just brings up the very huge question: does this mean that the Priory of Sion considers Jesus to have been just a man (a great prophet, but still just a man) and not God? I'm well aware of how ALL churches, at least until very recently, relegated women to a lesser role & I have no problem believing that Mary Magdalene could have been an apostle or even the wife of Jesus, but I would have a very hard time believing in a non-divine Jesus.

blondywinterbear

05/07/2004 12:16:28 PM

It's true that it was the norm for First Century Hebrew men to be married. Their parents would see to that. However, there is a special consideration in the case of Jesus, and that was, no matter what the circumstances about Immaculate Conception, he would have been considered illegitimate. After all, the neighbours didn't see the Angel, and you can imagine what they thought when Mary became pregnant before she was married. As a result, it might have been hard for Jesus' family to arrange a marriage for him. This is just speculation, but worth considering I think.

DNVigerJr

05/04/2004 09:42:21 PM

To be called "Rabbi" you had to be married. I think Jesus was married. If God ordained marriage as sacred and centered his universe around it, as well as procreation when he had all the options open, then why would he frown on it, or think it a lesser state of being or have his Only Begotten Son not partake of this earthly and eternal principal of His Gospel?

lthornton

05/04/2004 03:29:01 PM

I agree with MBTOC. Whether Jesus was married does not minimize the things he taught us while here. It does not make him less a gift from God (to those of us who believe that). If that is part of the whole story, I would just as soon know it. The real message is much bigger than whether he was married or not.

MBTOC

05/01/2004 04:42:53 PM

The idea that Jesus could have been married actually does not offend me. But I just don't believe that marriage was part of his earthly mission. ----<--<@

WolfShaman

04/29/2004 08:31:30 AM

Why do people who say that Jesus might have been married have to go straight to lust? Forgive my attempt at levity. It just gets a little too serious here sometimes.

Dovidl

04/28/2004 04:27:24 PM

Why do people who say that Jesus might have been married have to go straight to lust? Marriage is about a lot more than that. And in any case, let's face it, no-one would have listened to a man in his thirties who was not married and travelled with a group of other men, if you get my drift.

calliopy

04/28/2004 03:49:14 PM

We are all of us God's children.

WolfShaman

04/27/2004 08:58:21 PM

I truly belive that Jesus was blazing Mary Magdelene.

BlueVase

04/15/2004 03:04:18 PM

... where someone might read it and understand, Looking again at the painting of The Last Supper, people now seem to accept that "John" may in fact be the Magdalen. Whether they give the Nag Hammadi texts equal weight with the Nicea Gospels tells if they believe in the Sacred Marriage. Another element of DaVinci's painting that runs the same crisis of assigning meaning to symbol is the "disembodied" hand holding the dagger. I see a mental block to accepting that Leonardo shows St. Peter brandishing a knife at his brother Andrew with one hand while with the other, he motions slicing the neck of Mary. Since the painting is of the moment where Jesus reveals that one of the Disciples will betray him, and we are seeing their reaction, it seems all too clear that DaVinci is showing us that he believed that it was not Judas, but rather Peter who betrays Jesus' teachings. Reading the Nag Hammadi library, we see that the Magdalen was threatened by Peter, and it seems he did effectively cut her throat.

supersweet

03/15/2004 05:27:09 AM

May I ask one question... Just out of curiousity... If Jesus was married, does that mean he would have descendants? Would those descendants be the grandchildren of god? Thanks!

tap_bird

02/03/2004 04:25:38 AM

If Jesus was married, then He certainly deserved to receive someone to physically hold Him, comfort Him, treasure him and tell Him face to face, "I love you," in preparation for what He was about to face. More than anyone else on earth. It's what every one of us searches for all of our lives. Seeing how He gave me life, and died to give me eternal life, IF He did marry Mary Mag., I'm happy He experienced physical love. He's God. He should get to do what ever He wants to do, after all that He did for us. Maybe He didn't "favor" her over all the other women, maybe she was made special just for Him, and we weren't told about it, because it wasn't any of our business. By the way, if you want a interesting and thought inducing fictional read, try Two From Galilee and Three From Galilee, both by Marjorie Holmes. These two books are an imagined account of Mary's and Joseph's courtship, and Jesus'growing up years 14 - 32. Love One Another Part Four

tap_bird

02/03/2004 04:24:30 AM

I believe that as both a man and God, His love for Mary Mag. would have if anything, kept Him FROM marrying her. Because He knew enough to know that whatever His fate was, it would end in the ultimate sacrifice, and only cause her and any child much greater suffering than not allowing themselves to be lovers or marry would have. And, besides, I think as much emphasis as we put on physical pleasure in this life, sex may just not be the most wonderful thing God has in store for us in the afterlife. He created it as a precious gift between two loving people, but we have allowed our culture to make it so perverse and vulgar, that most people don't consider it or marriage precious. You can't watch TV or listen to the radio without a sensor! And now, it is invading and involving our church families. More and more denominations are in the paper every day, reporting immoral acts. Part Three

tap_bird

02/03/2004 04:22:34 AM

And, keep in mind, Satan had already tempted Him with the entire city - all the physical pleasures anyone could desire. Jesus refused. He was perfect. No, He didn't know everything, but He knew He had a mission, that He was chosen, that He was God's Son. I don't know what Mary told Him during that time period. Maybe she told Him about His miraculous birth, His cousin John's, and about how Joseph had stood by her, protected them, loved them both. She was His earthly Mother, Joseph his adopted earthly Father. However, I think that the rest of us, Mary Mag. included, were His children. I believe it's possible that He could have loved her or been attracted to her as a man. But, ultimately He was God's Son. I think God the Father would have spoken to His heart, as He does with all of us, through the Holy Spirit. Jesus would have known that He was more than a Man, more than a Rabbi.

tap_bird

02/03/2004 04:20:17 AM

I've always wondered about the time between when Jesus was found teaching the elders in the Temple at 13, and when He began His ministry at 33. I thought it would have been so great to be Him as a kid. You'd always win at Hide & Seek, you could warn your mother about dangerous situations, protecting family members. Replenish food/supplies. Just think of the things He could have done. But, as I grew and studied my Bible & other religious texts, I began to see that even though Jesus was God (as part of the TRINITY), it appears that He did NOT know everything. Clues in these texts show that He asks God on many occasions to, "Show me..." or asks people/his disciples, "where is ..." Even at the very end, when He KNOWS that He MUST die, He still asks, "Father if this cup may be passed from me...never the less, not My will but Thine..." So, the point is, Jesus was a man AND also God. But it looks like God the Father let Jesus know things a little at a time. Part One...

kallisen

02/01/2004 10:33:49 PM

One of the gnostic texts has Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene full on the lips. Others note the rest of the apostles annoyance that Jesus seems to love her more than them. If they were not married, and Jesus kissed her on the lips, that was a pretty degrading thing to do to a woman in 1st century Palestine wasn't it?

kallisen

02/01/2004 10:31:44 PM

Was Paul married? John? Does the bible consider a mans marital status to be particularly relevant? If it's not considered a relevant point, why would the bible mention that Jesus was married, or not married? It would be, well, irrelevant.

corvette1960

02/01/2004 12:01:09 PM

The Da Vinci Code appears to be a good work of fiction loosely based on "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh. As for me I believe that Jesus, being the a direct decendant of David was indeed a royal Hebrew person. That having been said, is it too far fetched of a notion that Jesus would have been expected to continue the royal bloodline of David by marrying a wealthy woman namely Mary of Magdala? Men of that time were generally afraid to admit that women were people too hence the denial of the bride would be expected. What about the destruction of the Temple? Records pertaining to the life of Jesus would surely have been destroyed or stolen by the Roman pilagers. Official records and those who control them are important. Yes I believe that Jesus was married to the Magdalene.

simplytrusting

01/27/2004 09:10:50 AM

Why are we so threatened by the fact that Jesus is really the Son of God and that all he came down to do was to give His life to save our sorry souls? Who cares if He was married or not? Is that the most important thing? Are we so shallow-that we cannot see beyond certain beliefs and necessities? Why do we fight so hard to just believe that He was real and He came with a mission and accomplished that with elan. His purpose in being here was not to start a family or carry on a bloodline-He came to give US all another chance at salvation. Is it so hard to simply trust?

pkhaddock

01/27/2004 08:34:13 AM

The Church is referred to as the "bride of Christ" in scripture. And I don't remember Jesus advocating poligomy. If Jesus had married - then upon His death John or one of Jesus other "earthly" brothers would have been expected to either marry His wife or take care of her. Widow's were even sadder things to be in those days as evidenced by the many accounts of Jesus intervening on behalf of widows - "take care of the widows and orphans" I can't imagine it being part of God's plan that HIs own son create a widow and orphan. Furthermore - any child that Jesus "the man" potentially fathered would be just a biological child - nothing supernatural. And since when does having intercourse with a man make you a goddess?

harpist4him

12/02/2003 12:42:39 PM

"Christ was addressed as Rabbi, and all rabbis had to be married." LindaLDS... I think you may be confusing the requirement of being a married man with one wife in order to be a priest in the temple with being called "rabbi". These are two different titles. The word rabbi is often translated as teacher, however its correct meaning is, "great one". Not all priests are great and not all priests are teachers in ancient Judea. Shalom

Medicrick

11/29/2003 11:37:31 PM

I thought that part of what Jesus became flesh for was to live as a man among us. He was circumcised. He had a Bar Mitzvah. He taught in the temples. He was Jewish through and through. One of the laws governing who could teach in the temple was that adult men (those who had been admitted as adults to their societies had to be married men to teach in the temple. Jesus the law abiding Jew would not have violated such a basic law. If Jesus taught in the temple and we are told that he did then he was a married man. His marriage further sanctifies the sacrament of Marriage.

steppen0410e

11/20/2003 12:55:25 AM

What's all this nonsense about 'Was Jesus Married'? Not only was he married, he is married! He lives only a few doors down from me and is the father of five children.

cacciacarro

11/19/2003 12:44:24 AM

The union between men and women throughout the bible has always been held sacred. The speculation that Jesus may have been married doesn't affect my faith, but it does present another perspective on his life in which to entertain. It would answer a lot of questions, as well as raise hundreds more. Would it challenge the validity of the gospels? Weren't all the gospels hand picked by the early Catholic church anyway? Isn't the Catholic church under fire for multiple sex and financial scandals? Can Christians accept the fact that the Catholic church has been an institution of politics and legalism instead of a place of faithful servanthood for hundreds of years? As quoted from Brown's 'Da Vinci Code', the bible may not have been the greatest story ever told, but the greatest story ever sold.

LindaLDS

11/10/2003 10:06:47 AM

free4all:"Even if Jesus was married, would that change anything about what He tried to bring to the world?" I don't think so. inkywhip:"I'd like to point out that the Gospels never mention Jesus or the disciples going to the bathroom, either. Does that mean they never did???" ROFL!!! Good point!!

LindaLDS

11/10/2003 10:03:34 AM

"but as a husband, he would have been hopelessly sidetracked from his true mission...to save the world from sin!" Back in Biblical times, most men were married and starting a family by the age of 18. If they were still single at age 18, people would think that there was something seriously wrong, either with the young man, or his father. Christ was addressed as Rabbi, and all rabbis had to be married. He didn't start His ministry till He was 30 years old. By that time, IF He had had any children, not only would they have been as mortal and human as their mother and any other relatives, they would also be grown or almost so, and starting families of their own. Mary Magdalene accompanied Christ on His travels. Like any good wife would have. Mary, the sister of Lazarus, might have been His wife. She had a home with her brother and sister. So, Jesus would not have had to worry about her being taken care of. He would not have been HOPELESS as a husband.

LindaLDS

11/10/2003 09:58:36 AM

"Therefore, if God can make us perfect later, could He not simply use imperfect man to write perfect Scripture? Can God not do anything?" God CAN do anything, but WILL He? He will not interfere in the agency of man. I think that the Bible is INSPIRED by God, but God will not FORCE a man to be perfect. I think God realizes this and "good enough" is the best He does. IF there are mistakes, WE are not accountable for them. Not if we are ernestly and sincerely seeking His will in our lives. I don't think that the Bible HAS to be PERFECT. But then, I don't think it's complete, either.

LindaLDS

11/10/2003 09:34:45 AM

"I would have to disagree with LindaLDS on the inerrancy issue of the Bible...His work was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit; thus, his writings, in number, are greater than other apostles' writings." Even Paul's letters mention epistles that he wrote that are not included in the Bible. Why would that be? There are many books of scripture mentioned in the Bible that are not included in the Bible. There are prophecies that came to pass that were not recorded in the Bible. Many of the early church fathers disagreed on what should or should not be included in the BIble. Many felt that Revelation should not be included. Martin Luther disputed that, the letters of anyone but Paul, and even the book of Esther. And since no man is perfect, the Bible is only as perfect as the men who wrote it and the men who translated it, and the men who put it together.

LindaLDS

11/10/2003 09:24:26 AM

"Very unlikely Jesus was married" The Bible doesn't say one way or the other. It is silent on the issue and to try to argue this from the Bible is to argue from silence. IMHO, there is more evidence that He WAS married than that He wasn't. For one thing, the Pharisees were ready to jump down His throat for every little thing He might have done against the Law and one of those laws that they would have faithfully kept was the law that they had to marry. And of all the things that the Pharisees persecuted Him over, that was NOT one of them.

inkywhip

11/10/2003 09:07:49 AM

Hmm, in response to: "Most mainstream biblical scholars do not believe Jesus was married to anyone, because the Gospels don’t mention it." I'd like to point out that the Gospels never mention Jesus or the disciples going to the bathroom, either. Does that mean they never did??? Incarnadine

Praise_God_Im_Saved

11/07/2003 08:27:52 PM

I'll meet you there sunshine2777. Jesus lived to die and be resurrected. He paid a debt He didn't owe for sinners who owed and couldn't paid. The minute details of His life were of no consequence to the mission, thus God left them out of the NT.

rroberts5

11/07/2003 01:41:46 PM

Most of the life of Jesus is not even mentioned in the Gospels. Isn't it reasonable to assume he had a life outside of the story of his birth, passion, death and resurrection? Why was so much of his life ignored by the gospel writers? If you were an apostle, wouldn't you at least be curious? Jesus grew up not as a Christian but as a Jew. He taught as a rabbi according to his knowledge and beliefs of Mosaic law. That is what got him executed as an adult when he threatened the Jewish heirarchy. Jesus spoke and lived as a rabbi trying to lead by example. As a rabbi custom dictated marriage. Whether he was or was not is not important. His message was.

free4all

11/07/2003 06:25:33 AM

This is a very fundamental debate in Christianity, as seen by what people have written. Jesus said a man should leave his mother and cleave to a woman and become one with her. This would have been Jesus' only teaching that he actually did not follow himself. The great thing about Jesus was that he led by example and not by directive. So why didn't Jesus get married? Because he was the Son of God? Well, if God is Love, then we are all the sons of God and according to scripture, Jesus was a Love child in that his parents were not married. My view is that the contents of the Bible have been chosen by people with far-raching political agendas. Let's not forget its about faith. Even if Jesus was married, would that change anything about what He tried to bring to the world?

winternest

11/07/2003 12:18:55 AM

As Jesus is, and was, divine, it is absurd to suggest that he was ever married or would even consider marriage. He was, and is, the Son of God. By marrying, he would have created a huge three-way problem. One, he, as God's Son would be procreating a type of super-race of divine-carnal children; two, as God in the flesh, he would be having sexual relations with humans(see the problem in Genesis with the giants)and three, he would be showing favoritism and partiality towards one individual person in the form of his wife..and then later yowards any children. Jesus showed by his life impartiality and fairness, love for all and equal concern for all. I'm sure, Jesus the man would have loved to have married and perhaps to Mary Magdalene too, but as a husband, he would have been hopelessly sidetracked from his true mission...to save the world from sin!

Spoder

11/06/2003 12:29:12 PM

Who was Mary Magdalene ? She would seem to have been minimized from a more significant character in an older more complex version of the story. None of the apostles give a very full account of Christ's life.

Infidel_Jim

11/06/2003 01:16:44 AM

Was Jesus married? No, of course not. You have to have existed to have been married!

nehi01

11/05/2003 11:20:00 PM

The inerrancy topic does include some qualifications, however. If anyone wishes to hear these, please let me know. And, btw, to believe the Bible is inerrant does not mean I worship it. Men are indeed not perfect; this is obvious by our state as of now. Yet, if God takes any man, He, if the man is willing, can make him perfect. If one does not believe this, then we will not receive a new body when we enter heaven, nor will our sinful nature leave. Therefore, if God can make us perfect later, could He not simply use imperfect man to write perfect Scripture? Can God not do anything?

nehi01

11/05/2003 11:19:38 PM

So how would a perfect God use imperfect man to write? There are several views. The first is dictation. This would mean God dictated, word-for-word, what man should write. I personally don't agree with this view because there are a lot of different styles in each writing. For example, one can look at the Epistle of I John and see it is quite different from Romans, which was written by Paul. The next view, of which I hold, is the plenary verbal view. This basically means that God gave the writers the basic idea of what He wanted to say, and made sure they did not word their writings so as to convey the wrong message. Therefore, the Scripture is "God-breathed".

nehi01

11/05/2003 11:19:10 PM

I would have to disagree with LindaLDS on the inerrancy issue of the Bible. Paul, as accounted for in Acts, did indeed see Jesus, and was also comforted by Jesus (Acts 18:9). He wrote and preached to the Gentiles, which includes most of the Christians in America (I am not a Jew by blood, nor do I follow the Law.) His work was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit; thus, his writings, in number, are greater than other apostles' writings.

sunshine2777

11/05/2003 10:00:30 PM

Actually, Jesus does have a bride... His bride is the church of believers and one day, she will be with Him... what a wonderful day that will be and what a celebration!!:-) I can't wait!

Spoder

11/05/2003 07:45:34 PM

Jesus was a rabbi, rabbis normally marry. The old covenant was circumcision: [Gen 17:6] I will make you very FERTILE, Jesus brought a new covenant: Matthew 19:12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[ 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Very unlikely Jesus was married.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:35:12 PM

Sorry, stupid computer!

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:34:22 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve? And if you believe that the Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant or complete, you DO worship the Bible, because only GOD is perfect. The Bible was written by MEN, who are not perfect, no matter how inspired they are by God.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:34:19 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve? And if you believe that the Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant or complete, you DO worship the Bible, because only GOD is perfect. The Bible was written by MEN, who are not perfect, no matter how inspired they are by God.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:34:17 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve? And if you believe that the Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant or complete, you DO worship the Bible, because only GOD is perfect. The Bible was written by MEN, who are not perfect, no matter how inspired they are by God.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:34:10 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve? And if you believe that the Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant or complete, you DO worship the Bible, because only GOD is perfect. The Bible was written by MEN, who are not perfect, no matter how inspired they are by God.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:33:04 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve?

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:32:38 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve? And if you believe that the Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant or complete, you DO worship the Bible, because only GOD is perfect. The Bible was written by MEN, who are not perfect, no matter how inspired they are by God.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:32:24 PM

"Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible.." Two good points. Half the NT is written by Paul, who never walked with Christ or witnessed His ministry, death, resurrection or ascension. I have no problem with him being an apostle of Christ, but why not include more of the writings of the Twelve? And if you believe that the Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant or complete, you DO worship the Bible, because only GOD is perfect. The Bible was written by MEN, who are not perfect, no matter how inspired they are by God.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:28:51 PM

"(Although in the Christ's situation, Plato would have strongly voiced against it based on the Repulic...a book used to further the spread of Christianity). I hope that makes sence." It does seem as tho today's Christianity is based more on Greek Philosophy than on the Bible, or Judaism. Greek Philosophy is more into the spirit and flay the body. Judaism is much more down to earth. The creeds (Nicene and Athanasian) are based on Greek Philosophy. They should be based on the Sermon on the Mount.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:25:05 PM

" Jesus was God in human form; SINLESS-He would have seen sex as useless in the eternity of being King of all for all time." So, sex and sexuality is a sin? Why would sex to Him have been useless? He DID have feelings like any other man, otherwise, He would NEVER have been able to be our sacrifice for our sins.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:22:28 PM

"Jesus didn't marry because he simply didn't have enough time." During Biblical times, Jewish males married by their 16th birthday. Girls married as soon as they started puberty. By the time JEsus started His ministry, He would have been a grandfather, or well on His way to being on. IF He had had any children.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:19:19 PM

"the bible is very clear, jesus was not married." Where does the Bible say ANY THING about Jesus being married, one way or the other? I've never seen it.

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:17:27 PM

"The assertation that Jesus was married is RIDICULUS!" Why? Perhaps some people can use this as an excuse to NOT get married. "Look, Jesus wasn't married, He was dallying with Mary Magdalene, so why can't I?"

LindaLDS

11/05/2003 04:09:18 PM

"If Jesus had been married, it seems that one of the Gospels would have mentioned His provision for his wife at his crucifixion," Perhaps it's because He didn't have to make any provisions for his wife, she had her family to take care of her. Mary didn't. Perhaps it was just never included in the Bible, taken out by those who didn't want people to know that He WAS married.

angelT56

11/05/2003 01:59:21 PM

In answer to wiccanproudjs; The Bible does NOT tell us to HATE Homosexuals & Gay people at all. We are to hate the sin but love the sinner. God hates the SIN of Homosexuality. Not the person. So that is not a contradiction at all.

sunshine2777

11/05/2003 01:38:01 PM

peggyat40: The idea of getting people to believe that Jesus was married is part of satans strategy. Its more of the dumming down of people to take away from Christ's divinity. Its a simple strategy but it works. Make Him more man and you'll have people believing He wasnt God incarnate. He had one purpose for coming to this place and it wasnt to be married, etc. You'll see people buying into all sorts of satans deceitfulness... his ways may seem lame to some but they work... slowly over time.... even believing such things as "satan is not real"... yea, he's pretty good at what he does. Take care.

cino128

11/05/2003 01:11:13 PM

I forgot that the discipkes in which he chose were also married

cino128

11/05/2003 01:06:46 PM

good afternoon Why is it that just because there is a marraige that there has to be sex in it. When jesus was concieved mary and joseph was married but did not have sex. Marraige is a symbolic form of unity and love not sex. as a christian we do love our neighbors and strangers but there are special people in our life that we love more than a stranger such as our wife/husband or children. So why there is evidence and proff that jesus loved mary more than his disciples. In addition, there is nowhere in the bible that says marraige to a person is a sin. In fact, mostly jesus talks about in the bible is family and marraige lessons relating to christianity.M oreover Jesus was not participating in Jewish law but his own religious requirements. If that was the case that he was following jewish law there wouldn't be a group called christians after a jewish follower. Peace and god be with you all.

donal

11/05/2003 10:56:52 AM

PeggyAt40: Why is it that you feel that sex, within the marriage as decreed by your God, is sin? It seems to me that you have a fundamental problem there with your worldview. Your God commanded you to go forth and multiply. Did you think he intended you to do it by osmosis? The truth is, sex and the Church has always been about control and power over, not holiness or God. Admit it. If you can command people to not do something they want to do, and use a higher power as your cudgel to get them to obey, then you have power over them. Blessed Be

Medicrick

11/04/2003 10:26:12 PM

Jewish law required adult males be married to teach in the temple. Jesus taught in the temple. So I think its very possible he was married. Whether he was married as we think of marriage or not is another question. Part of His mission from the Father was to live as a human man but also remain fully God. In a way if he was married his obedient self sacrifice would even more compelling He knew what he was giving up to complete his mission. For Jesus to be married and even a father does't diminish in the slightest His divinity in fact in a way this might enhance it. Some seem to think that engaging in sex would impunge his divinity this imputs that there is something inherently wrong with sex and for me within marriage exactly the opposite is the case. Marrital sex is holy.

TheSecondRebel

11/03/2003 11:18:02 PM

The reality of this whole situation is -- there is no evidence either way to say if He was or wasn't married. I think it's as possible as can be. I also accept the notion that it wasn't possible. Either way, it doesn't make a difference. Whether He was married or not, whether He had sex or not, He is still Jesus. I don't know why people get so upset at the notion tho. Is that thought of Jesus having a loving, healthy and spiritually bonded sex life so disgusting that it provokes such anger and dissention? If so, what does that say about our conceptions about sex and marriage?

peggyat40

11/01/2003 09:00:34 AM

I had to respond to the comment from "myallinall", in regard to what he/she said about the spiritual love and that if one believes the true Word of God, then we need not bother to ask silly questions, because God's love is all we need and He has provided us, with all we need to know and understand.

peggyat40

11/01/2003 08:53:22 AM

It not only angers me, but saddens me too, even though we live in a,"free speech" and "religious freedom" country, how ANYONE, could believe that Jesus Christ, was married, or even thought of engaging in a sexual relationship! Jesus WAS, IS and will FOREVER be without sin! He was tempted with sin, as stated in the Holy Bible, but NEVER gave in to anything, as we do as humans and that's why He WAS, IS, and will FOREVER be perfect! Not to be misunderstood, marraige is not a sin, but to even suggest, that the Son of God was married or had sex, is a complete false statement and just another lie made up by someone, who obviously, doesn't know or either doesn't believe the Word of God!

myallinall

11/01/2003 08:51:14 AM

The only reason people believe He was married is because they do not understand Spiritual Love. I have such a love for one that is married to someone else. Is it wrong to love someone else spiritually? One that is of the opposite sex. Oh My can it be? Pauls love for Timothy does that mean Paul was Gay I think not. Yet Paul also lived with 2 women in the winter in Rome Geesh was he having an intimate relationship? I just want to know what the worlds facination is with sex. If you really know the Lord you would never ask these silly questions nor would you need to know anymore than his love and knowlege provides amen.

wiccanproudjs

10/28/2003 12:41:42 PM

I also strongly believe that mary magadalene had to been a disciple but man (of course) would not allow that. Because it would make them look wrong. Along the way of the bible being translated we got the wrong message about a lot of things of the bible. And it WAS definately changed to suit "man's " way of life. We as women weren't considered at all. And till this day we still aren't.

wiccanproudjs

10/28/2003 12:36:27 PM

I don't neccessarily believe in the bible. To me it a set of rules that are meant to keep us in line. To keep us from doing things that are "not allowed". And the fact is that in the bible it states that we should love everyone but then it contradictes itself by condeming gays and lesbians. Which i feel is not right. Think about it. And you will see.

all4one

10/18/2003 01:27:54 PM

Consider that any translation that says.. He.. when refering to the Spirit is a mistranslation.. this is true and easily proven..

all4one

10/18/2003 01:08:25 PM

Further, Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene were with Jesus till the end.. Paul never met Jesus.. don't fall into the fundie trap paganpriest has pointed out.. do not trap yourself into making an idol of the Bible..

all4one

10/18/2003 01:04:56 PM

find out about the Spirit.. and the seven spirits.. follow the history of the black maddonna.. consider what it means to the interior freedom of women and the recipricol blessings upon men.. Jesus was and IS married.. What does it mean to personify the divine.. no one has seen God any more then anyone has seen Wisdom.. but both are God and both have their personifications.. male and female..

all4one

10/18/2003 12:59:00 PM

The deception lies at a latter point in time.. by the gentile scribes of a roman christianity.. Find out what other christians believed in the early writings.. Jesus was married.. seek and you will find.. it is true.. pray about it.. ask and you will recieve..

JSTR808

10/15/2003 06:03:40 AM

what I ment by deception on the part of the deciples, is in that they would have KNOWingly left out an important point that Christ was married. There is no harm in a man taking a wife (Although in the Christ's situation, Plato would have strongly voiced against it based on the Repulic...a book used to further the spread of Christianity). I hope that makes sence.

JSTR808

10/15/2003 06:00:30 AM

Based on historical text, my answer is no. One, there is no Jewish writtings that Christ was with wife, although there is text that claims he was a healer and performed miracles, but with a sorcer's edge. Second, the 4 Gospels (Thomas was written far too late to escape fairy tale problems) have NO indication that Christ was with wife. Third, having a wife would not have provided a parallel to prophecey based on Old Testiment text. Fourth, if the Christ did have a wife, that would indicate deception on the parts of the deciples...sin is like yeast, it makes the WHOLE dough rise...there would have been more deception within the Biblical letters, meaning these men would face death based on stories laced with lies. Paul would have mentioned it. The list goes on......

all4one

10/10/2003 01:32:32 AM

Also, I think you do not fully realize the magnitude of the sacrifice of our King and Queen who loved and lost each other.. to be reunited beyond death in the garden.. the original says" do not contine holding on to me" NOT "touch me not" but that is what ahppens to the Bible by people who have no respect for women or their love..

all4one

10/10/2003 01:24:03 AM

Further, you disrespect the Creator(s) "let us create them in our image" when you say there could be no woman GOOD ENOUGH for Jesus..

all4one

10/10/2003 01:19:05 AM

yea.. in your homosexual version of the gospel, however, if you spent the time to discover the truth you would see the reality of our King AND Queen.. You disrespect all women by your attitude, and it is NOT Biblical.. and making love to a woman is not a waste of time.. or there would be no such thing as precious little children.. Think with your heart..

lizarosier

10/08/2003 01:13:20 AM

Mary Magdalene was not a queen, not Jesus's wife and certainly NOT Jesus' soulmate. Just as the Apostles followed Jesus, so did Mary Magdelene and some other woman whom Jesus cured of evil spirits and diseases(Joanna the wife of Cuza, Susanna, etc). Jesus was God in human form; SINLESS-He would have seen sex as useless in the eternity of being King of all for all time. He saw her as a daughter or a precious little child.He created her! If he was able to resist temptation by the devil himself, I think he could resist one simple human. Quit thinking in your little boxes, people!Jesus had no time to bother with selfish desires such as sexual immorality, greed, malice, and deciet. No woman ever born in the history of time would have been nearly good enough for Jesus. People needed forgiveness and that's what He came to do,to be muredered for us. He wouldn't waste his time making a woman love him when he knew he was meant to die. That would just make a woman suffer, not feel loved.

all4one

10/04/2003 02:00:31 PM

The useage of "cast out seven devils" in reference to mary magdalene proves she is queen.. figure it out.. it is true.. but you must seek the truth..

religionsmajorWU

10/02/2003 01:41:58 PM

By the way, I do agree that Mary Magdalene and lots of other women had to have had important roles in the early church. Otherwise, given the fact that Hellenistic culture didn't like "uppity" women, why would there be so many references left in Acts and the Epistles to female prophets, deacons, and church leaders?

religionsmajorWU

10/02/2003 01:31:34 PM

For me, as a Christian, it doesn't matter that much if Jesus was married or not. There are almost thirty years missing from his life - might he have been married during that time? Why not? God was in human form to experience human life. It could have happened. The gospels, however, say nothing about it, so he either wasn't married (and considered a big loser by his family), or his wife had died long before he began his ministry.

Norm_uk

09/30/2003 02:43:50 AM

An unmarried 30 year old, Hebrew carpenters' son in 2000 years ago is highly unlikely given what we know of the culture and people. Aside from the New Testament and a few highly ambigious documents and fragments there is no real information about this person, "Jesus" (The only Hebrew man in Israel with a Greek name)

ruachtov

09/25/2003 10:19:27 PM

With the current literature, it is not possible to know for sure if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that they are soul-mates. One doesn't necessarily have to be married to their soul-mate. That is why it doesn't really matter whether or not he was married.

Carolus

09/16/2003 03:11:19 PM

Jesus didn't marry because he simply didn't have enough time. Any cursory reading of the gospels gives an impression of mass crowds, rushed teaching, rushed healing. Plus the scriptural Jesus(the gospels being, IMHO)explicitly rejected any political role for himself.

SeekingKen

09/15/2003 01:26:58 PM

Given that Jesus is what we Christians think he is, I can understand hoopla over discovery of any new relationships in his life. But why do we get so worked up over any attribution of sexuality in Jesus? After all as man, he must have felt all the passions of humankind. But as God, he was better prepared to resit evil passions. I think Christians are uncomfortable with sexuality in Jesus because we have been taught that sex is evil. But is it? We were created in the image of God and are therefore also creators. And there is no greater creation by humans than the birth of a human baby. It follows therefore that the sexual act which produces this creation is a highly spiritual and deivine act. If we can acknowledge sex as Godly, we should not have much difficulty accepting that Jesus may have engaged in sexual acts, whether with Mary Magdalene or someone else.

Evofairy

09/11/2003 02:48:44 AM

I believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene met, talked, saw eachother, in one another. Fell in love, made passionate,unforgetable,sacred love, before Jesus was compelled to travel, and try to change the world. I am sure Jesus came back every couple of years to see her. Jesus didn't need to sleep with her, to love her so deeply, so unconditionally, so consistently. Mary wasn't written about, didn't care to be known, because she was not a role model. She was complicated to explain, and understand. Jesus knew and loved, all aspects of her though, and that was enough for both of them. Spiritually, through their dreams, they kept in touch. Friends word of mouth. Undieing, secret love. Not meant for marriage in that life time. Celibacy was a blessing for Jesus.

izzibelle

08/29/2003 02:09:59 AM

Really, I don't know what to believe! The Traditional Bible has been compiled mainly by men, Leaving women by the wayside. Should Mary Magdalene be important... Yes, she was mentioned by name where other women were not. But how to classify her?? Wife? Reformed whore? There are many things we will never know. How do we make sense of these writings that may have been heavily edited. We have to classify them as historical and remember the position of women at the time of the writing. As a Spiritual guide, I must say that I have to examine the literature in two lights, as a spiritual guide and as a historical writing. Tryingto justify the two is my own personal difficulty and that will be best served by seeking other opinions here. So let your understandings fly, and Show me the light.

fufu_gina

08/26/2003 01:36:11 PM

the bible is very clear, jesus was not married. through out the gospels and the epistles it clearly states that wedding feast of the lamb has not yet happened, and the church is named as the bride of christ. the other reason we know that christ was not married is that he was diety and humanity. he set a code for personal responsibilty that was far higher than the mosiac law. if he had married a mortal woman, he would have deprived her of being married to her complete soulmate, as his is the church. although there are no rules against it, it would have been an injustice to his wife. the big reason for trying to give jesus a sex life is to undo the damage done by st augustine. before he became christian, he was a huge sex addict. because he had so much trouble restraining himself, he used his political influence to force extremist rules on everyone else. he is the idiot whoo came up with the "only missionary position for only procreation" nonsense. that is NOT biblical.

AthenaMSB

08/24/2003 08:49:14 PM

I find the possibility of the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene quite refreshing. A large group of men decided which books to put in and which books to leave out of "The Word of God," not God. At the time, men had it pretty good. If you consider, for instance, the role of men and women in society, it makes sense for any book showing a woman to have importance to be removed from circulation and marked as heresy. In later centuries it was even believed that women did not have souls. Women have come a long way to where we are now. If it weren't for the inferiority associated with being a woman at the time of Nicea, the bible might read quite differently.

Sabre2n

08/20/2003 08:05:24 PM

thetruthteller wrote on 8.18.03 "The assertation (sic) that Jesus was married is RIDICULUS! (sic)" Funny thing, the church said that Galileo and Copernicus' assertions that the earth and planets revolved around the sun were ridiculous, and heretical to boot. Moreover, it took the church over 300 years to admit they were wrong and Galileo was correct. Such closed-minded, blind obedience to faith only results in the loss of credibility on the part of the believer. A heliocentric model of the solar system did nothing to diminish the divinity of its creator, why would the marriage of Jesus diminish the importance of his message and sacrifice?

thetruthteller

08/18/2003 04:24:48 PM

Know why people come out with books and articles like this? THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO! OR, maybe they aren't getting enough attention at home or something. The assertation that Jesus was married is RIDICULUS! Why aren't Christians out soul-winning instead of writing garbage like this? It is a sad state of affairs.

CelticLass

07/27/2003 06:48:11 PM

Fromoz: You seem to have a very narrow and prejudiced view of Christianity. In many of your postings you misinterpret what the Bible is actually saying about a subject. The Bible is not an obsolete book, but hopefully, those with your perspective on the Bible will eventually become obsolete. Your views on the teachings of Paul are totally inaccurate - to say the least. Perhaps you might do well if you actually read the Bible, instead of holding on to your so obviously indoctrinated point of view.

hopeunseen

07/24/2003 02:06:59 PM

Just a thought...If Jesus had been married, it seems that one of the Gospels would have mentioned His provision for his wife at his crucifixion, instead of making a point to mention that He told John to take care of His mother. Marriage would have reversed the priority, making any wife his focus. "A man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24)

kingson100

07/22/2003 11:43:37 PM

siege, Sorry, serious typo, should read "...SHE was mightily used in Italy..."

kingson100

07/22/2003 11:41:56 PM

siege, My comments are from a Biblical view point. I have not bought the argument that Peter had a bief with Mary Magdaline. Information from the Orthodix show a tradition that he was mightily used of God in Italy BEFORE Peter arrived there, even witnessing to the Emperor. The bad talk about Mary for the most part came centuries later along with other serious departure from the faith delivered to the saints. I'm still open on this question. The bride of Christ is still the Church though and I'd have to see some expanation of this to be convenced otherwise.

siege

07/22/2003 08:44:21 PM

Kingson, Have you read any of the Dead Sea Scrolls? There is one passage in particular the would explain Peter's views on women, especially Mary. First off, he was raised in strict Jewish belief, while you must be of Jewish bloodlines through the mother, the teaching was done by the father, and the religion itself is very biased towards women. Secondly, knowing he posessed these views, don't you think he would have been mad with rage that a WOMEN was chosen over him to take the church? That would explain the hatred he felt, and the term used by him to call her a whore, when in fact she was the tribe of Benjemen. Looking at this fact from another stand point, Christ carried the tribe of David and Solomon. All that was needed to make him the actual King of the Jews, litteraly, was a wife that held the other tribe. Just food for thought.

kingson100

07/19/2003 07:47:43 PM

Come to think of it, If Jesus was married to Mary Magdaline, Why does Paul claim that the Church is the bride of Christ? Polygamy? nay. Paul also is one on the epistles to Timothy stated that a Bishop was (at least typically) to be the husband of ONE wife. Jesus being the Chief Shepherd would no doubt limit it to one wife. The bride of Christ, the Church, would then have to be the first wife or the picture would be seriously flawed.

kingson100

07/19/2003 07:34:37 PM

To Blessedbeyondbelief: On 6/12 you posted that Eve and Satan deceived Adam. Actually Adam was not deceived. The woman was deceived. Adam knew full well what he was doing. He was separated from his bride. Rather than wait on God for the solution, he sinned deliberately to be back with his bride. God did a very good work when he invented sex. He chose to illustrate his relationship with Israel as the wife of God. He chose to illustrate the relationship of the Church to Christ similarly. The Church is the bride of Christ. Matrmony is Holy and sanctified. I don't know if Jesus was married or not. I do know that Jesus was fully human, made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. To deny the humanity of Christ is the spirit of anti-christ that John warned us about. As Adam chose to sin to be with his bride, Jesus chose to enter human flesh and take in his own body the guilt of the sin that he might redeem His bride the Church.

allisonm

07/14/2003 10:43:28 PM

It's always been my belief that Mary is a Goddess in Christianity. Acutally, two, Mary Mag the consort and Mary the Mother. With all the saints and angels as well, I believe Christians are in denial of their polythieism. :d Argue all you want against me, it's my firm belief. You pray to too many things to be monotheistic.

abbe4012

07/12/2003 08:57:51 AM

Jhoulgate, I seem to recall that unitl rather recently (church history speaking) many Popes had families....there are portraits of them with the 'wife' and kiddies

abbe4012

07/12/2003 08:15:44 AM

I'm glad that the myth of Mary Mag as a whore is dying out. OF COURSE Mary Mag was a disciple, Jesus' Most Beloved Disciple'...the boys' whining about it caused one of the few displays of sharp-tongued temper Jesus allowed himself. Some folks enjoy speculating that Mary Mag was the teaching head of her own twelve, learning directly from Jesus while a few of the many other women took care of the domestic duties inherent in life on the road, and teaching them later. These women financially supported and traveled with 'The Thirteen', but it seems they took turns, most likely from town to town, taking them in when they got to your town, then traveling with them to the next, handing the group off from sister to sister...but it appears Mary Mag had the gig full time, PLUS spending her allowance from Daddy on keeping them fed and clothed and oiled, even if she didn't do much of the hands-on cooking or mending or laundry.

bkflorida

07/05/2003 07:43:18 AM

There is a lot of good religion-based FICTION available. The DaVinci Code is one. I just wish people would also recognize that the LEFT BEHIND series is also fiction! Don't they understand that no one knows what will happen at the end times (or even if there will be such a thing as physical end times - maybe it is just the end of the Christian Era)

lorelei

06/30/2003 04:56:53 PM

I finished the book and it was great. Of course, I rushed to a Da Vinci book to check out "The Last Supper" and darned if it wasn't true. (Not a spoiler.) Very cool book.

jpoet

06/21/2003 03:17:59 PM

i just finished reading the Da Vinci Code and i found the book to be very enlightening to paganism found in Christianity and to the reference of paganism symbols... a very well researched and thought out book! if its true or not, well we will probably speculate for a long long time but its an interesting thing to keep in mind

jhoulgate

06/19/2003 02:48:00 PM

LindaLDS, If you read the entry on Celibacy in the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/) you'll find some very interesting information about the early Christian Church and the development of the Celibacy requirement. It was not so cut and dried during the founding years (4th Century). Many married men were allowed to be priests and bishops. However, they were required to separate from their wives and children so they could be free to pursue their vocations and prevent Church property from falling into the hands of family members. In some cases rural priests were allowed to live with their wives for practical reasons. Rather, there was not total enforcement of the celibacy requirement. I don't think it had anything to do with emulating the perceived celibacy of Jesus.

LindaLDS

06/18/2003 07:57:17 AM

Dhona says "If Jesus were married, the word of God would have told us so." But the word of God says nothing on the matter, for or against. And just because what we have of the word of God today doesn't say that He was or He wasn't does not mean that it's not important. There are several reasons why the men who put the Bible together didn't want it known if Jesus was married. There's no reason to believe that they put in the Bible EVERYTHING that God intended. There was every reason to believe that they would have left out this very important piece of information, if they wanted their priests to remain celebate and their parishiners to think that sex was somehow evil or wrong.

Dhona

06/17/2003 05:17:48 PM

If Jesus were married, the word of God would have told us so. I can't even believe this is an issue or a question up for dicussion among believers.

jenandew7

06/17/2003 03:20:41 PM

That sounds fascinating, jhoulgate. I'll have to look those up. I'm sure those aren't the titles of the book I gave up on. A.

jhoulgate

06/16/2003 06:16:00 PM

Regarding books on the Holy Grail, I started with Holy Blood/Holy Grail by Baigent, et al... What I found interesting was the authors' ability to keep themselves open to new information they would uncover in their research. In Baigent and Leigh's second book, "The Messianic Legacy" they practically made an about-face on their portrayal of the "Priory de Sion." In their first book, they pictured them as this wise and wonderful brotherhood of men, who had obtained a great status. In the second book they were found to be a bunch of rich and fraudulent nincompoops with a fantasy of making a king. It was laughable.

jhoulgate

06/16/2003 06:10:03 PM

Brigid, I am currently reading the DaVinci Code. It is very interesting and exciting, but I have to agree, it is fiction, but good fiction.

jhoulgate

06/16/2003 06:07:56 PM

annafleur, I tend to agree with you. I've been reading a growing number of books on the subject of the Holy Grail and it seems like this tradition was giving certain families some claim to royal status. It started with the Merovingians and continued with the Carolingians. Later the House of Stewart got into the act. None of this is based on good history, unless the real secret still remains a secret. I'm sure if it ever came out, it would seem so fantastic no one would believe it and then just return to business as usual.

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/16/2003 05:11:58 PM

I know, and there should be no other interpretation on this, that when you're set free, posting here and all areas of your life become opportunities to give others a taste of Christ.

JMWhite

06/16/2003 04:59:13 PM

There are so many things that have been covered up so as not to destroy the Christian belief system. The Bible has been translated so many times that things could have been added, deleted, or just plain mixed up. When it comes to religion, no one will ever know anything for 100% sure. Religion is based on beliefs and ideas, not on facts.

brigid

06/16/2003 12:16:30 PM

I read the book "The DaVinci Code" It was interesting, but so is most of the fiction I read. The point is that it was fiction. Mr Brown took a well researched group of facts and wove a story out of them with what I think was a bit far-fetched ending. Like he was reaching for a conclusion. If Jesus liked Mary Magdalene more than the other women that doesn't mean that Jesus had relations with her any more than he had any relations with John bar Zebedee who was "the apostle who Jesus loved". There are too many people who want to read things into scripture that was never meant by the divinely inspired authors.

jenandew7

06/15/2003 04:23:17 PM

Just wondering--how do you know this about the forty days and nights business? Yes, I've read about the Holy Grail. It seems to me, however, that the myths wouldn't be so misleading if they had in fact been looking for people. Just my humble opinion. I wonder how the mistake between looking for a cup/bowl/chalice vs a bloodline could ever be made. And then they were searching in Britain--not France, I believe. And then there was the whole Glastonbury *sp?* business, especially the spring. And there seems to have been something about the lance, too? All of this was included in the Camelot myths and the stories that have been passed down. It seems to me that I bought a book that was a religious text based on this whole thing about Mary M. and Jesus. I immediately cast it aside because of its extreme bias against women *LOL* and gave it to my son. I can't even remember the name of it now.

annafleur2001

06/15/2003 02:40:24 PM

While true that most Jewish men of Jesus' time were married, there is significance to Jesus starting his ministry at the age of 30: That was the traditional age at which Jewish men announced their life's vocation by either marrying or remaining single. If they were going to remain single, they usually went on a pilgrimage or alone into the desert -- as Jesus did, for 40 days. This was the way of declaring their intentions to the world.

annafleur2001

06/15/2003 02:34:54 PM

My surname is Fleury, making me a direct descendant of Jesus the Christ ... if you believe the Magdalenic myth. Personally, I don't -- but I know the story, & how it was used by European Royalty in order to claim Divine Decree to their positions as Rulers following the return of the Knights Templar from the Crusades.

annafleur2001

06/15/2003 02:34:46 PM

The Arthurian search for the "Holy Grail" is a result of distortion in translation -- "Sangreal" being "Holy" or "Sanctifed Blood" in Spanish, with the English keeping the "grail" but translating "San" to the Germanic-derived "Holy." Those knights weren't looking for a Cup of Blood, but for the children of Jesus & Mary Magdalene. In the Magdalenic Myth, Mary had 3 children, being pregnant with the 3rd at the time Jesus was crucified. She fled to southern France, to a town now called Fleury, named after the surname given to her children & their descendants ever after. So if you believe Jesus & Mary were married, then you of course must believe that I'm their descendant. I don't believe it's true -- I think it was just political.

jenandew7

06/15/2003 11:27:49 AM

Right! Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." Obviously, there is no harm in questing for truth--it is even encouraged. But these people like to hound us with their narrow minded, black and white appraisal of the scriptures. BTW, I was absolutely FASCINATED by the Gnostic site last night. I read the Gospel According to Mary; The Exegisis on the Soul; The Thunder, Perfect Mind and The Sophia of Jesus Christ. I'd never seen anything like this before and yet, to me, there is truth! What amazed me, esp. The Sophia, is that I had already envisioned God, if you will, in this way! Without the names and not quite that complexity, but this has to be the truth--I can't understand why it was suppressed!

dharmalord

06/15/2003 04:44:13 AM

jenandrew7: We're SUPPOSED to interpret everything. That's what the brain is for. It is our right as human beings and our duty as Americans NOT to blindly accept what we're told, but to think for ourselves. For many people, the main tenet of Christianity seems to be, "Don't ask questions, don't think for yourself, just shut up and believe what we tell you." That is the way you treat children, not adults. And it is one of the main reasons why so may people are leaving the Christian church for something better.

jenandew7

06/15/2003 12:43:58 AM

I have some questions for some of you. How come we must always interpret everything we read and think we know about Jesus according to our own day and as though he taught the gentiles(us) instead of placing him in his own day among his own people? He was a Jew teaching Jews. Would it be so impossible for him to have followed the ways of his own people? And, did he not tell those who would follow him to leave behind all they had, including their families? Did he not profess to follow the law and the prophets? Jesus was a practicing Jew. Did those laws not include marrying a woman if a man laid with her? So--would he have a wife with him if she chose to follow him? Would he be with a woman that he had not married? What you know you know by your faith and what you wish to believe. None of us can definitively say no, that he was not married. What if M. Magdalene was indeed as important to him as Peter and efforts have been made to relegate her to a lower status?

blessedbeyondbelief

06/14/2003 05:48:37 PM

To all who were offended and Especially fish, i would like to ask forgiveness for my apparent display of anger in my post on the 12th .I am first to admit I am a work in progress(as we all are)and was totally offended and angered at the post referring to God as clueless and perhaps gay. It was kind of like calling your mother a bad name, only it was my Father.Again, I have fallen short, missed the mark, sinned, or whatever else you'd like to call it, but because He does dwell in me and I do have love,(even tho some days it doesn't show)(another fault He's working on) I can forgive and ask forgiveness, and can rest assured HE has forgiven me, and pray you all do the same.Be blessed :-)

blessedbeyondbelief

06/14/2003 04:30:37 PM

To Ernon: Isn't the Bible referred to as Our Sword, to repel all firey darts.And as for learning all the lessons, i'm afraid i've fallen short of the glory now, before, and i'm sure again.If I offended anyone, I truely am sorry and will repent during my evening devotions.Being a Christian, doesn't make us perfect or even free from sin, it does however give us the ABILITY to be free from it.It gives us a direction and example to follow to try and become more like the Perfect one, & I'll be the first to admit that I'm a far cry from there.But I also know God isn't finished with me.And the work He's started in me he promises to complete..Praise the Lord is right!!Be blessed:-)

rbt_austin

06/14/2003 04:01:05 PM

"John 2:25 - because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. "

petofi

06/14/2003 03:50:08 PM

Yes, of course Jesus was married and probably to Mary Magdalene. I guess this threatens the idiot fundies out there who still believe that sexual passion (even in marriage) is wrong. I even believe that Jesus had children. That is the mystery behind the "Holy Grail."

dolphin7

06/13/2003 01:00:20 PM

sonofmilton, Thankyou for the true discernment. With all the information out there we need to focus on what is most important.I also believe our relationship to God and His creations is the most important aspect of our faith. I also believe we have God-like potential. When we to examine our life, what will stand out? What will be our guiding lights? What will be the highlights of our life? What will be our most joyful moments? Most peaceful? Most patient? Most loving? Most spiritual? Most forgiving? Most tolerant? Most graceful? Most cooperative? Most merciful? Most just? Most healing? Most helpful? Most self-disciplined? Most supportive? Most fair? Most giving? Most nourishing? Most creative? Most idealistic? Most happy? Most harmonious? Most balanced? Most respectful? Most kind? Most generous? Most faithful? Most civilized? Most respectful? Most virtuous? Most reverent? Most attuned to God? Most God-like? If we could only live our life actively seeking and creating those moments?

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:24:10 AM

rboylern says "As to making her into a goddess, I don't think so. It would be far more likely to make Mary the mother of Jesus into a goddess" I think this is a different subject to be addressed on another board, but I think that Mary was elevated as she was to win pagans who worshipped the Goddess over to patriarchal Christianity. I think she was made a perpetual virgin to win over the Greek philosophers who believed that the body and all it's functions was dirty, and this included sex. I think this is why some Christians think that for Christ to have had a normal married life is somehow demoting Him from what He was, the Son of God.

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:24:00 AM

see above Sex is not dirty; between a man and woman who are united in Holy Matrimony and are sincerely in love and wanting to create a life together, then sex is just one of the things that God created to bring them closer to each other than they could ever get to anyone else not related by blood. Sex was such a powerful energy that this is why, I think, that the law of Moses was very careful to show that sex between ANYONE besides a husband and wife was a grievous sin.

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:17:10 AM

pdiana says "So that would nix the idea you had to be married to teach in the temple unless he was betrothed at that time." I don't know that He was teaching as other rabbis teach, He was talking to the priests there, telling them things that they had never heard before. But I don't think He was teaching as a rabbi teaches in the synagogue. THIS is what one had to be married for, to teach in the synagogue, to be a rabbi. Many people back then referred to Him as Rabbi, even those who didn't quite believe Him to be who He said that He was.

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:13:33 AM

aimeesclan asks "How many celebates' hands did the bible manuscript go through before we obtained it in its current form?" VERY good question, very good observation!, gives one something to really think about!

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:11:13 AM

longwolf says "I'm not sure about how GOD is going too look at people who has the abilities too read the true gospel, and to understand the true Gosel and then still publish such rubbish about the true GOD." What rubbish? That Jesus might have been married with all that marriage entails? What's so rubbish about that? It would only make Him seem more accessable to me to know that He's been where I am and knows what I'm going thru!

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:08:54 AM

bravo88 also says "All the speculation on His life in the more "personal" aspects seems rather tawdry and beneath respectable persons. It seems that some people want nothing better than to "drag" Him down from whom He truly is." Sex is only tawdry if it is spoken of outside the holy bonds of marriage. If He married, He would have to "know" His wife in the Biblical sense, and it would NOT be tawdry, at least no more so than for any other man and woman who marry because they sincerely love each other, and want to build a life together.

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:08:25 AM

bravo88 says " believe He would've been unmarried as His calling as the Lamb of GOD would've required special sacrifice on His part." It DID require a sacrifice on His part, but not the sacrifice of going without the love of home, wife and family. The biggest problem I have with Catholic priests is how does one accept advice on marriage from one who has never married and never will?

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:08:04 AM

see above I like to think that Christ DOES know EVERYTHING I'm going thru, even marriage.Not to mention the fact that He probably would have been really looked down on by the Pharisees if He had never married, like all good Jewish boys did back then. He would have married at about age 15 or 16, so by the time He started His ministry at age 30, He would have been married for about half His life. Any child(ren) He and His wife might have had would be grown or nearly so, since you were considered an adult at age 13 for males, and at puberty for girls.

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:07:07 AM

see above Not to mention the fact that He probably would have been really looked down on by the Pharisees if He had never married, like all good Jewish boys did back then. He would have married at about age 15 or 16, so by the time He started His ministry at age 30, He would have been married for about half His life. Any child(ren) He and His wife might have had would be grown or nearly so, since you were considered an adult at age 13 for males, and at puberty for girls.

LindaLDS

06/13/2003 11:05:52 AM

see above bravo88 also says "All the speculation on His life in the more "personal" aspects seems rather tawdry and beneath respectable persons. It seems that some people want nothing better than to "drag" Him down from whom He truly is." Sex is only tawdry if it is spoken of outside the holy bonds of marriage. If He married, He would have to "know" His wife in the Biblical sense, and it would NOT be tawdry, at least no more so than for any other man and woman who marry because they sincerely love each other, and want to build a life together.

KathyHL

06/13/2003 11:01:35 AM

Why are people so obsessed with sex? Out of all the aspects of Jesus' life...out of all the things that he supposedly did and said...nothing raises so much clamor as the question of whether or not he had sex! Sex is just one facet of a person's life. Why is it not possible for humans to emphasize it no more and no less than any other facet of life?

mysticael7

06/13/2003 10:22:01 AM

Why do we question so much about God and our faith. If everyone knew that God was married do you not think that people may have gotten the wrong message. At this time erra people crucified others for very sensless things we would inact uponhere today. I think it does not matter. It has never affected us so why should we allow to now. I walk in light and by faith. I believe in all things not some things.

rboylern

06/13/2003 01:53:20 AM

It is God's own mercy that the faith of Christians does not hang on whether or not Jesus was married or had sex or what kind of relationship he may or may not have had with Mary of Magdala. As to making her into a goddess, I don't think so. It would be far more likely to make Mary the mother of Jesus into a goddess because of her unique role in the incarnation. In certain Christian secs Mary has just about achieved that status -- at least in popular piety.

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/12/2003 10:47:19 PM

Has anyone else reading this found that that all things work in harmony for good? Romans 8:28 explains it, saying that we know this fact to be true BECAUSE we love the Lord. I haven't found anything in this world to bring me as much joy as the word of GOD......... and I've been a bad girl -- Thank God for God!!!!!!!! p.s. I also believe the people reading this ARE seeking GOD's kingdom and HIS righteousness... Even if they don't know it :) and THAT warms me inside. p.p.s. blessedbeyondbelief, I would like to have a private conversation with you if possible, you can contact me if so, via my profile. p.p.p.s. there's an open invitation for any of you to contact me privately too!

jhoulgate

06/12/2003 08:18:33 PM

blessedbeyondbelief, This is a website for believers of all faiths and no faith at all.

ERNON

06/12/2003 07:24:16 PM

To sonofmilton: Good post. I agree completely, His message is what is important. To blessedbeyondbelief: Those who use the Bible as a sword are in for a rude awakening on Judgement Day, for they have failed to learn the lessons they purport to hit us all over the head with. Go in peace, Ernon

sonofmilton

06/12/2003 06:21:03 PM

The issue of the nature of Jesus has become more important to many people than thier relationship with god and how that relationship can benifit everyone. If Jesus was a man that ended up "representing god on earth" rather than "is god" should not change the fundamental nature of man's belief and relationship with god. Jesus as Man or Diety, Jesus as Married or Single. These questions are as relevant as "How many angles dance on the head of a pin?" Jesus as a beacon to show the way. Would that change if he where married? NO! ... "As I do so can the least of you do!" This expresses that either was man or that we have god like potential.

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 05:11:48 PM

To Siddhi7; Sorry about the shouting, but i thought i was on a website for BELIEVERS, not blasphemers, my bad!!

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 05:08:42 PM

To pdiana: Way to go girl!! You search it out!! Jesus says to SEEK and you shall find!!Understanding will be given to those who seek the TRUTH, not speculation!!Be blessed!! :-)

Siddhi7

06/12/2003 05:04:28 PM

To: blessedbeyondbelief Though I do not necessarily agree with some of your statements and assertions, I respect them as yours and hence, valid. But, please, avoid SHOUTING at others who display differing points of view. Indeed, one of the greatest gifts that the Divine has given all of us is the ability and the choice to question. Isn't that what these forums are for? >>Thank you.

pdiana

06/12/2003 04:47:59 PM

questions: How old was Jesus when he began following in His heavenly father's footsteps? When did he meet Mary Magdalene? Did he allow his disciples to bring their wives in this sojourn? He was how old when he stayed behind in the temple to teach and was lost by his parents? 12 WASN'T IT. So that would nix the idea you had to be married to teach in the temple unless he was betrothed at that time.

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 04:31:14 PM

To longwolf: In Revelations it tells us that in the end times there will be "mockers" and "scoffers". Now I understand :-) Be blessed!!

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 04:28:06 PM

To Aimeesclan: HELLOOOOOOOO. Jesus was a LEADER, not a follower!! Jewish law was just that, Jewish law. He came because he knew we couldn't live or be saved by Jewish law!! and man am I thankful!!! Be blessed :-)

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 04:22:42 PM

To Bravo88: Really!! The WORD warns us not to get caught up in crazy arguments.Bottom line is "EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND EVERY TOUNGE CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD" No matter who thinks what!! Be blessed!! :-)

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 04:15:07 PM

The bible CLEARLY states that there is no temptation known to man that Jesus hasn't already been through, and conquered.If there's a sin, there's a way around it.Just because the bible doesn't go in to detail about EVERY sin the devil tempted him with doesn't mean he didn't experience it and overcome it.To OVERCOME is to be victorious and perfect.That is what HE is...PERFECT!! and that is what he wants for our lives.Unfortunately it's a package deal. You either BELIEVE the whole thing ,GOd, JESUS, and THE BIBLE ( which is the INSPIRED word of God, written by man, given to man to write, or you don't. This is one thing that has no GRAY areas.Your either IN or your OUT!Your HOT or your COLD, your either FOR HIM or AGAINST HIM!!He asks us to BELIEVE, by Faith not UNDERSTAND everything here and now.He says UNDERSTANDING will be given to those who seek HIM.I believe we will be enlightened with understanding when we meet him face to face. Be blessed!! :-)

aimeesclan

06/12/2003 03:58:09 PM

The idea that Jesus would not have followed in the cultural footsteps of his fathers is absurd. Even he who debunked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees was purely Jewish in his practice. Of course there is no scriptural references to his married status. How many celebates' hands did the bible manuscript go through before we obtained it in its current form?

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 03:54:27 PM

In response to The Fish's post dated 6/6/03.The bible clearly tells us that "THE POWER" is in the SPOKEN word of God. That's how HE created everything.Through studying the greek and hebrew texts, I believe we were to procreate(that means make little humans) by the spoken word as did God. Only until Adam and Eve sinned against God did the original plan for procreation change.The punishment for perverting this plan was "MUCH PAIN" in childbirth because it was Eve who along with Satan deceived Adam. Just food for thought.And regardless, we are not here to scrutinize HIS life, but HIM ours.Who are we the "Creation" to ask the "CREATOR" anything? Be blesed!!

Medicrick

06/12/2003 03:40:12 PM

Jesus said I came not to do away with the law but to complete it. It was cultural law for an adult male to teach in the temple he had to be either married or a widower. Jesus was an adult male who was devoutly Jewish it would never have occured to him to blithely ignore the Jewish Law. He came to complete it not do away with it. I think Jesus the man who lived as one of us was married. So what! He was also fully divine. Fully man and fully divine?? I don't know how that works or for that matter if it really matters. I believe He is the Son of God sent by God to live as one of us and to die for us so that his sacrifice for our sins would hold out the sure and certain hope of life eternal for believers. Because of His perfict obedience to the Father we sinners can stand justified before the Lord God. Was Jesus married I don't know but I think he must have been is it that important I don't know that either and you know, thats ok too.

blessedbeyondbelief

06/12/2003 03:34:37 PM

To KathyHL:The bible clearly states how& why women were created.Skillfully, handcrafted to be a help-mate.Therefore requiring a heart of obediance and servitude.Get a grip on WHO you are,WHY you were created and you'll find a life worth living..with or without what you call THE FAMILY life.We were all created to serve HIM and bring HIM joy and pleasure, not ourselves.But HE promises if we live our lives pleasing to him, HE will reward us by giving us an earthly life exceedingly & abundantly above all we could wish for.I pray that you will search out for yourself what God has to say about the woman and her role. Be blessed!!

longwolf

06/12/2003 03:31:54 PM

I believe that simle-mindedness, feebile-mindedness or just plain being born stupid will be over looked by GOD. However, I'm not sure about how GOD is going too look at people who has the abilities too read the true gospel, and to understand the true Gosel and then still publish such rubbish about the true GOD.

Siddhi7

06/12/2003 02:58:15 PM

(Part 3)-- Also, Jesus was a great proponent of following Jewish Law, and it would certainly have been a stretch for him to NOT be married. Yet, amid all of the controversy, it seems to me that focusing on such details is minor when compaired to our inability to comprehend and practice some of his most basic teachings: Love one another, Judge not lest ye be judged, Do unto others as you would have others do unto you...

Siddhi7

06/12/2003 02:57:52 PM

(Part 2)--That said, it seems to me, as has been pointed out by some already, that if the mission of Jesus included being and experiencing humanity in order to be able to "save" humankind, then marriage, or at the least, sexual, erotic awareness would have to be a part of his human experience. Otherwise he would not "know" that aspect of being human...

Siddhi7

06/12/2003 02:57:26 PM

(Part 1)Hello all. This is my first post, so please forgive if I cross the line at any point! I read the article by Deborah Caldwell on the issue of whether Jesus was married. In it she states that in the film "The Last Temptation of Christ," there is a sex scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. If this is the case, then I've missed it during each of the many times I've seen the movie. There is a scene where Jesus visits her in her room, basically to ask her forgiveness for not being "more of a man," and then there is the 20 minute or so "last temptation" where Jesus is shown and tempted by "a normal life." In the end, he realizes that he WANTS to sacrifice himself for humanity and the temptation dissolves back into the reality of his death on the cross...

Bravo88

06/12/2003 02:57:00 PM

I pray that the people doing such idle speculation would turn away from such ugly activity; that they would come to know Jesus, Himself and ask forgiveness for their foolishness and for their sins.

Bravo88

06/12/2003 02:54:22 PM

According to the Bible, there is no indication that Jesus married and furthermore, I believe He would've been unmarried as His calling as the Lamb of GOD would've required special sacrifice on His part. All the speculation on His life in the more "personal" aspects seems rather tawdry and beneath respectable persons. It seems that some people want nothing better than to "drag" Him down from whom He truly is. This speculation is no better than that of people suggesting He is gay because they have no capacity for understanding how words were used in His time.

Bravo88

06/12/2003 02:49:30 PM

Was Jesus married? That question ranks up there with: Was Mary a perpetual virgin? Why? Because to a Christian, neither question has any positive reflection upon our faith. Mary's virginity is not an issue as she is the mother of Jesus; she was a virgin when having Jesus but whether she remained a virgin is of no spiritual importance to a Christian and quite frankly is none of our business.

brmacke

06/12/2003 02:07:17 PM

After I waded through all the posts here, I find it not at all surprizing that Islam is a growing religion and Christianity has trouble holding onto its flock. Muhammad's teachings come from a fully human man; Jesus's teachings are twisted into the pronouncements of, at best, a demi-god. Jesus himself probably would be appalled that his story was paganized and he was deified.

daddybear41

06/12/2003 01:52:46 PM

Of course it matters! Everything about Jesus matters. If he was married, then he knew about marriage - if not, he was just as the rest of the singles... clueless. It is just as important as the quesation "was he gay?" awhile back... if so, one thing applies, if not, another.... to say it doesn't matter is to slap Him in the face!

gnossis

06/12/2003 01:03:36 PM

PS More on the topic: as for whether Jesus was married.... to whom could it possibly matter?

gnossis

06/12/2003 01:01:33 PM

I have read in (not all) of the modern versions of the bible as well as translations from the Aramaic. The god who runs things is not a very admirable character in my estimation. I especially like the story of god killing a guy for picking up sticks on the sabbath. The stories about cutting open pregnant women and killing the unborn has its modern day counterpart and I am surprised that god orders it is not used as a defense.

CatSansNom

06/12/2003 12:49:36 PM

I can see no reason why Jesus would not have been married. He was human. He was a Jew. At that time, human, Jewish men married. It is just so threatening for some people to think that this man whom they have deified might actually have had sex, as if having sex would make him less than what he was. *Jesus* never put marriage down, never said it was the only appropriate outlet for the lustful. *Paul* said that. (Many "Christians" I know could more accurately be labeled "Paulists" as they follow the teachings of Paul, not of Christ.)

LindaLDS

06/12/2003 10:12:26 AM

sinsonte You have a point, although I do have one little disagreement. I do not believe that Paul and Jesus were woman-haters, and they DID have many positive things to say about marriage and family. But I do agree that it was the early church fathers who were the ones who didn't have anything good to say about marriage or family. They took much, I think, from the Greeks, who did believed that the FLESH was sinful and that it should be denied any sort of pleasure or happiness in order to get closer to God. You ARE right, when you say that it would have been good for the WEstern world if the canon and theology had been given to us by happily married woman-affirming fathers. I think that the canon WAS written by such men, but that later men decided to down play that part of it, and make it LOOK like Paul and Christ were not like that. It IS confusing.

LindaLDS

06/12/2003 10:06:54 AM

fromoz, why is it that marriage is ONLY for the lustful? Like I said before, to marry just because you lust is one of the WORST reasons to marry anyone! I think you are TOTALLY misinterpreting what Paul was saying! Not to mention what CHRIST was teaching! GOD said, in the Garden of Eden that it was NOT good for MAN to be alone and that was when He created Woman and then said that what GOD joined together, let not MAN put asunder, that a man should leave his family and CLEAVE unto his wife. PAUL said that man was not without the woman nor was woman without the man, in the Lord. Man and woman were CREATED to be TOGETHER. And why would CHRIST be any different than any other man, except for who His Father was? Why would Christ not be subject to the same laws as His Father? Why would His Father not want His Son to be subject to the same laws as He gave to His other children?

gehez126

06/12/2003 10:01:17 AM

It's silly because it's an idea dreamed up by someone with an overactive imagination. There's absolutely no evidence of any kind to support it--nothing in Scripture or other historical records.

LindaLDS

06/12/2003 09:58:46 AM

stephenmontverde Why is the idea that Christ was married by so silly?

rbt_austin

06/12/2003 09:50:19 AM

> fromoz > 6/11/03 11:30:35 PM > rbt austin > So you have no qualms that your > god rejects children because of > their illegitimacy? Your blasphemy is tiring. I'll pray for you though. You're projecting your own hurts onto God when what you need to be doing is surrendering your hurts and sins to God.

CSLewisFan

06/12/2003 09:07:05 AM

Dear Fromoz, God does not reject children or punish people for other's sins or omissions. YOu are unfortunately a victim of indoctrinatory misinformation passed out by various christian denominations. Try actually reading it yourself in the most modern versions that clarify language and principles as were understood while the various books of the bible wer written, and you will see the distortions that have been thrown in by mistaken or controlling christian leaders over the years. As to the claim that God visits sins on the offspring, read the Book of Daniel, which refutes this. The Bible is a collection of writings about God and the history of the Jewish and early Christian people from the point of view of those people. Properly understood in that context, it tells us a lot about God as well as the people who have tried to follow him through the years and is still very relevant.

fromoz

06/11/2003 11:30:34 PM

rbt austin So you have no qualms that your god rejects children because of their illegitimacy? And surely the injustice of punishing someone for the sins of others was demonstrated in the murder of David’s son for sins committed by his father and in the murder by god of Jesus for sins committed by others? It has not so much to do with Christians - because surely (for example) the world knows of the injustice of “saved” men of god raping children? My post had more to do with an obsolete book called the Bible - and it’s failure to be relevant in this day and age is being demonstrated by Christians themselves who are now rejecting the law of god - and amongst other things the world is seeing not so many bastards being punished for their illegitimacy, women preaching from the pulpit and homosexual bishops. It seems that not even Christians have the stomach for some of the atrocities committed by their god as well as the unjust and cruel Biblical laws?

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/11/2003 10:53:38 PM

I also see "heaven" as an association with GOD, "walking with GOD"... and back to the grafting of the branches onto "the vine" - the vine, in the Bible is Jesus, or the faith in Jesus being the perfect, blameless, spotless sacrifice that was the only acceptable payment for our lack of faith (sin) - is what allows us to be grafted to the vine, and fed. In the Bible, the "body" of believers are described, among other things, as individual parts of Christ's body... to make the point that we all are defined by the whole, not by the part that we are. A toe cut off from the body does very little :) little food for thought there... The Bible also says, in various places, that GOD uses everyone in his plan whether they know it or not, which includes the "good" and the "bad", and HIS plan is beyond our understanding... making faith Necessary :)

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/11/2003 10:39:26 PM

re-reading what I wrote, I hit "submit" too fast... I meant to say that because I see faith as increasing, I see there being levels of "heaven" sorry! :)

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/11/2003 10:33:48 PM

I consider, at least for now, HELL, in GOD's eyes, to be a mental state that we experience when we dissociate with GOD. Which is interesting, because the definition of "dissociate" in biological terms means: "To mutate or change morphologically, often reversibly" and when you become a believer you "become a new creature" - and you can lose your place "on the vine" at any time based on your faith! - and at any time you can be grafted back in based on your belief. And hell, also, to me, is where there is no justice, there is no hope, there is no reason, etc. Heaven, of course, is almost a bad term to use because the Bible uses the plural version of the word, which I'm still jiving with, because putting my faith in GOD is "Heaven" to me, and I believe the more faith I get, which increases when I have the opportunity to use it (GOD's economy!). Whew! Hope that helps everyone, I know it helped me! And I believe to GOD goes the glory!

baskinginHisGrace

06/11/2003 08:13:11 PM

alpha2 I agree completely except for one small point: Everyone has eternal "life". Everyone will exist in some form or fashion for eternity once that person is born here in this life. The difference, and I'm sure you realize this, is WHERE each of us will spend that eternity. Some of us will spend it in the most indiscribably perfect place, in constant communion with God, worshiping and adoring him for eternity, without an un-met want or desire. The rest of will spend it eternally speperated from God, in a place which is indiscribably horrid where suffering never ends, where no want or desire will ever be met, a place called Hell. It's important to make this distinction since so many "demoninations" don't want to speak of Hell...

ALPHA2

06/11/2003 07:51:32 PM

Hello Jhoulgate Just a point read the Book of revelation, the book speaks of a tribulation coming, and the Return of Jesus Christ the Alpha and the Omega. God Knows the future,Witthout Jesus we can do nothing, Jesus said He and the Father are one and the same. In John 1:1 In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God He was in the beginning that without Him nothing would come to exist. With some it is hard to see the truth with the old man { sin nature}that you are still in the dark, Let Jesus in and then understanding will begin. Born again believers have ticket into eternal life, do you know where you are going when you die? Give Jesus a chance before it to late. We MUst Read the word It is Gods Word and It is all Inspired. alpha 2

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 06:21:38 PM

"In the 1950’s I’d be assaulted and spat on by Christians as punishments for my illegitimacy –" Where do people get the idea that Christians are somehow immune from flaws and errors? Newsflash - people make mistakes. Get over it. Stand up for what you believe (and for justice) but give up the notion that any church is going to be filled with "perfect" people!

jhoulgate

06/11/2003 06:11:03 PM

Hi Fromoz, I believe it is important for many to follow the teachings of Spiritual masters - those who live, move and have their being in God (The undescribable). When we get into this we are talking about something that goes beyond the perceptions of the mind, its attitudes and all the knowledge it stores up. I say for myself that the Bible contains some pretty outdated notions about God, like the old man with the white beard sitting on a throne. Again, this is my belief; I'm not on a mission to persuade others they have to believe as I do. I fondly think of God as the plus factor, there's always one more step. Otherwise we would become frozen, perfect but frozen with no more possibility for growth.

fromoz

06/11/2003 05:10:36 PM

Jhoulgate It was wonderful after reading elsewhere that man was created in the image of god to read your post and find someone with a similar belief to mine - that “God” cannot be described? Would it be stretching the point to ask if you believe as I do that it is relevant to follow the teachings of Jesus and other masters and in order to find “God” that we must loose our minds and come to our senses? I hope you don’t mind – but I write “God” to distinguish the indescribable from the common perception of an old man sitting on a throne in heaven – is there a more appropriate word that could be used?

fromoz

06/11/2003 04:38:02 PM

BaskinginHisGrace Surely proof that the Bible is outdated is there in the rejections that most modern Christians demonstrate towards at least parts of the Bible. In the 1950’s I’d be assaulted and spat on by Christians as punishments for my illegitimacy – but most churches now would publicly (at least) find those actions inappropriate. While the Catholic Church seems to be holding onto the law against women in the pulpit - many churches these days ignore Bible teachings in that regard. And I believe in the US that openly homosexual men are being appointed to significant positions in some churches? Surely it’s the actions of Christians themselves who are demonstrating that the Bible is no longer relevant in these times - where thankfully secular standards of love and justice dominate - and have been adopted by many Christians?

jhoulgate

06/11/2003 03:17:56 PM

Part II: The Bible is a collection of writings, much of it is inspired by the workings of this divine sound current that originated from the heart of God. However, the words that poured forth into writing, did so by human hands. Also the works that became Scripture, came about by a vote among men nearly four hundred years after the supposed events the writings describe took place. Everyone, concerned, is doing the best they can do. God calls each Soul according to their state. I answered the call, which led me to work in partnership with the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. I cannot say the Bible is dated material for you or anyone else. I was only speaking for myself.

jhoulgate

06/11/2003 03:13:02 PM

Basking, I believe the true Word of God is the Holy Sound Current. All scriptures derive from this source. The New Testament speaks of it in the beginning of John's Gospel and in the Pentecost narrative in Acts. However, this sound is not exclusive to Christians. The Hindus knew of it long ago as did many other spiritual traditions. I believe that God is beyond all thought and description. We humans use descriptions to get some kind of clue, but God is much more than that. It cannot be known by mental comprehension, but it can be experienced and this experience leads to the greatest love, wisdom and freedom for Soul. (Continued)

godlovesus-jkts

06/11/2003 02:57:14 PM

Jesus' bride was the Church. It's repeated over and over again in the bible. He was "married" to saving us from our sins, bringing us to God, teaching us about God's love for us, and the ways God wants us to live our lives. God loved us so much he gave his one and only son that whosoever believes in him will not parrish but have ever lasting life -- Jesus loved us so much that he committed his life to living out God's plans and purposes. He gave his life for his bride, the Church (that's us). In doing so he asks us to do the same for our brothers and sisters, which we all are through Jesus Christ. God Bless!!

baskinginHisGrace

06/11/2003 02:56:13 PM

jhoulgate, Do you believe in a Perfect, Holy, Righteous, Sovereign God? If so, then that perfect God would be timeless, would He not? That being said, would a timeless God create "dated material"? The Word of God is inerrant and timeless. It is as relevent today as it was the day is was the moment God inspired it's writer to put quill to parchment...

jhoulgate

06/11/2003 02:48:04 PM

Alpha, Not anymore than God existing in you and me. I don't take the Bible as the literal word of God. I respect your choice to believe that way, but for me it was written for a people of a different day. Besides, I wouldn't get so worked up over "The Da Vinci Code." It's a fiction novel, not a Scripture.

Kimrdhbsms

06/11/2003 02:21:48 PM

The Bible is not a violent and unjust book, it's just misunderstood by people that refuse to acknowledge the TRUTH GOD put in their heart. I have Experienced God directly. In your terms, God spoke to me. It was indeed a life-changing Experience! However, he said something very different to me than my impression of what he said to you. Perhaps God allows, or even recommends, different things for different people.

KathyHL

06/11/2003 12:10:06 PM

fromoz said, "And in the teaching of Paul - that if a man cannot control his lust that it’s best for him to get married - do we see something of the attitude of god towards women? Surely this teaching relegates a woman to the status of blow up doll or a prostitute - something just to relieve a man’s sexual frustrations?" Or as simple brood mares, baby-making machines, walking wombs. The attitudes towards women are a large part of why I left Christianity behind. If that's what God and the Christian religion think of me, then they can just do without my obedience and worship.

rbt_austin

06/11/2003 11:54:55 AM

My belief is that had Jesus Christ taken a wife, it would have been mentioned in the Gospels. I don't think that such a detail would have just been left out as insignificant, because the covenant of marriage is important and heavily documented in other scriptures in regards to other persons. The notion that "the disciple that Jesus loved" in the Gospel of John is anything but a reference by the author to himself is unteneble. It sounds better than saying "He said to me..." etcetera. Besides, Jesus loved everyone, with a love greater than any husband for a wife, so the question is beyond moot. But if it gets people thinking and praying, I don't think its a bad question.

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/11/2003 11:18:15 AM

fromoz: in the first chapter of Romans, it says: that which is known about GOD is evident within them; for GOD made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world HIS invisible attributes, HIS eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. The Bible is not a violent and unjust book, it's just misunderstood by people that refuse to acknowledge the TRUTH GOD put in their heart.

mykal100

06/11/2003 09:40:32 AM

I am not sure why it matters if Jesus was married or not. It seems likely that he was, as I imagine most people were married. He had to eat food, sleep, walk, etc like the rest, so why not marriage too? The Bible gives as much indication that He was married as it does that he was not married. What I don't get it, why is it so important to maintain Jesus reputation as unwed?

abw8008

06/11/2003 08:51:32 AM

Why not? However, if one wants to look to texts for justification, then it appears much source material would be in the Nag Hammadi Codex & one's viewpoint would be affected by how much creedance one gives to such sources as compared with Biblical canon.

ALPHA2

06/11/2003 02:53:16 AM

hello jhoulate Do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh? 1Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience. Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called in the grace of christ, to a different gospel which is not another; but there are those who trouble you want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven {or the pope from rome} preach any other gospel to you , let him be accursed. This rumor weed that is spreading lies of Jesus. satan trying to get those on his side and some are foolish. this novel by da vincia is a lie from the pit of hell.... where is the evidence? the Bible Gods Holy word recorded for all. to be continued alpha2

fromoz

06/11/2003 01:34:01 AM

TRUTHchangesYOU Do you mean ignorance is bliss? Surely the notion that you need special understanding from god to understand the Bible is the ultimate cop-out - and something that many Christians resort to when they run out of excuses? The Bible is such a violent and unjust book that people have a right to understand the reasons before they get involved?

jhoulgate

06/11/2003 12:54:16 AM

Ah we know the Bible doesn't confirm that Jesus was married, but is there anywhere it says point blank that he wasn't? Many people here think that is not important, but perhaps it is in light of the fact that throughout history, many have taken up his ministry with a vow of celibacy. By the way, has anyone gone to the website about "Da Vinci Code" given in the article?

wvwriter

06/11/2003 12:43:21 AM

There is another interesting book out called "And Time Stood Still." It is about the midwife who delivered the Christ Child and follows the ministry through Pentecost. It is also based on information from the apocraphal Gospel of Mary, as well as historical information related to ancient midwifery. It is published by Infinity Publishing.

aquaman

06/11/2003 12:18:18 AM

Amen Damian! The greatest person came to you and you felt bad that He was married? First of all, does it matter? Secondly, does marriage make a person less holy? Thirdly, there's no proof that Jesus was married anyway. Fact is, who He is doesn't depend anyway on what other people say and what we believe in.

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/10/2003 10:01:41 PM

Fromoz, and the world: I believe,and I would gladly give my life because this is true, that when you truly KNOW the truth, and you have saught the kingdom and HIS righteousness, you will not be questioning GOD because you have peace that transcends understanding. Seek first the kingdom and HIS righteousness. If anyone agrees with me, PLEASE say so, if you're still reading these comments!

fromoz

06/10/2003 09:43:03 PM

And in the teaching of Paul - that if a man cannot control his lust that it’s best for him to get married - do we see something of the attitude of god towards women? Surely this teaching relegates a woman to the status of blow up doll or a prostitute - something just to relieve a man’s sexual frustrations? In the Bible god is a man and women are not allowed to preach. Many churches have demonstrated that the Bible is not fit for the standards of modern society by actually placing women in the pulpit – but surely from a Biblical perspective women are not thought very highly of at all?

jhoulgate

06/10/2003 09:15:34 PM

Alpha, Sorry, I couldn't resist. However, many thousands have died over believing in the Jesus/Mary Magdalene marriage story at the hands of people, who believe as you do. In spite of that the story still persists in one form or another. I'm sure the Vatican wishes the story would just go away, but it can't and it won't. The best thing, short of the end of the world, that you could hope for is that it remains a marginal idea.

jhoulgate

06/10/2003 09:03:51 PM

See what I mean about blowing gaskets?!

ALPHA2

06/10/2003 08:56:17 PM

SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST WHACKED WAS JESUS MARRIED? NO NO NO NO NO AND AGAIN I SAY NO. WHY DO YOU PEOPLE WANT TO PUT HIM IN OUR CATAGORIE, RUMOURS ARE BAD THEY SET OFF THE WRONG MESSAGE, PEOPLE STOP IT. MARY MAGDALENE WAS A SINNER JESUS CASTED OUT SEVEN DEMONS FROM HER. how then can she be divine? Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. John 14;6 Jesus said that He is the Way the Truth and the Life no one man or woman can go to God without going through Jesus first, For He is the ONLY way. As we all know that all on planet earth are SINNERS, we must be born again if you want to enter the kingdom of God. there was only one who is without sin and that Person is non only than Jesus Christ. God is still in control that will never change To be continued ARE YOU BORN AGAIN!!!!! ALPHA2

sinsonte

06/10/2003 07:40:34 PM

I agree that Jesus and Paul had little positive to say about family and marriage, but it is Judeo-Christian misogyny that prohibts so many from even imagining Jesus as a sexual being. The Christian anti-sexual ethos finds it roots in Jesus' virgin birth, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, and the supposed celibacy of Jesus Himself. These traditions come down to us through the woman-hating writings of Paul, the Early Church Fathers, and Aquinas to name a few. How much happier the Western world would have been if the canon and subsequent theolgy had been written by happily married, women-affirming, fathers.

jhoulgate

06/10/2003 07:11:15 PM

Interesting points Fist. Would you please give us some references. It would be interesting to read them.

Fist_of_God

06/10/2003 06:48:10 PM

Fromoz, You continue to amaze me, quite happily, I must add. You are hitting the nail on the head when you charge others with following Pauls mis-conceptions as if they are truths. Paul, when he is first introduced to us was introduced as a slave. First as a slave to the tribe of Judea, then as a slave to Jesus, he never was freed from that slavery and he railed against this all the time. Even when he brings up this marriage to Jesus issue he admits that its his own opinion. Do others see this admittance as what a jealous nature produces? No, for they do not understand the concept of being free themselves. I am beginning to think that people do not understand that God is teaching us constantly throughout the Bible. With every event there is a lesson as to how we should understand love, and only his Son was able to do it perfectly. Do you see this also? Fist

jhoulgate

06/10/2003 05:29:11 PM

Well, someone has to care enough to go through the trouble of uncovering the evidence.

AliciaButterfly

06/10/2003 05:22:46 PM

Who cares? Don't you think it's really missing the whole point of his life? I do agree that it would very much shake up the ideas of Christ and sexuality, but until we have concrete evidence, who cares?

jhoulgate

06/10/2003 05:14:17 PM

What makes this topic so controversial is that it challenges so many people's beliefs about people and things that are most sacred to us. People blow their gaskets and have a difficult time letting go of opinions they cherish. Do you think its possible that the Jews who swore not to eat, drink nor sleep until Paul was dead were aligned with James the Just? I'm sure that would blow a few gaskets, too.

clif

06/10/2003 05:09:46 PM

Whether you are married or single you can still search for God and attain oneness with God in my opinion? The reality is…reality in itself gets in the way of that oneness. The opposite is true as well…reality fosters that oneness. You could say the same for a woman. Jesus was able to (without a doubt in my mind) attain oneness with God. I presume he did it with the help of a loving father, mother, brothers, sisters and most likely a great significant other. His connection to people in general is beyond anything any of us can describe in words or a marriage license. Lust for me, is ANYTHING that you MUST have NOW and it takes up all of your brain functions until you get that desire thus taking your being away from the presence of God. We all know Jesus went without food, sex, and probably many other things. Does that mean he always went without? Perhaps it just means that Jesus understood his body very well.

fromoz

06/10/2003 03:44:44 PM

Revwilliamfitz Is your post another example of what an imprecise book the Bible is – or perhaps it’s another example of how Christians like to pervert its teachings? I know many Christians who hang on every word that Paul write – but it seems the teaching of Paul that it’s best for a man not to marry unless he is unable to control his lust is offensive to the Reverend - who perhaps rejects this teaching because he doesn’t want to control his own lust? Jesus rejected his own family and looked favourably on men who had become eunuchs for the kingdom. He taught that we must be like infants to enter the kingdom – and are infants married or know anything about lust? Surely infants have not yet developed their critical capacities for thought and are open and accepting - and part of the journey is for people to loose their minds and come to their senses so they may accept the indescribable? If after teaching against marriage Jesus was married he would surely be condemned as a hypocrite?

RolfS

06/10/2003 02:06:39 PM

The idea that Jesus was married is an interesting question obviously i don't have the answer, but if Jesus was married it would not contradict any of his teachings,philosophies and message. However if you look at the Gospels it seems that Jesus was in a terrible hurry, because he knew that he did not have much time but still had a lot to do.

revwilliamfitz

06/10/2003 01:50:42 PM

I know this would mean reading much more than the conons, But the non canons are worth looking at here. Jesus is to be fully devine and fully human, thus was sexual. If we are to believe that this Man was the Christ, Than he would have to fulfill all the prophets. Then Micah and the desendant of the Christ has not come(been produced). Yes Jesus was married and be careful of pauls message about this marriage for lustfull. He was falling into gnostic thought here. He was almost departed from the Jesus cult for it. Remember that Paul gets into trouble many times with peter and James in ACTS. My last question is why does it matter? The early priest were married, Both the men and women were able to marry. So what does this have to do with the important message of Jesus. His being married affects us knowing Godde, HOW? rev william

stephenmontverde

06/10/2003 12:02:13 PM

Jesus was not married. This is silly.

KathyHL

06/10/2003 09:33:31 AM

aliveinthespirit said, "...without marriage, there are no children." I guess you didn't learn the truth about how babies are made! [g] Also, "Jesus never prefered unmarried people." But fromoz says, "Paul teaches that marriage is only for those who cannot contain their lust." So, did Paul misquote Jesus? Frankly, that wouldn't surprise me. And, as I noted earlier, a person can have a perfectly good life without being married - and also without being celibate.

LindaLDS

06/10/2003 09:20:10 AM

imablevr says "He lived 33 short years and had so much to accomplish for the eternal Kingdom, it is absurd to think that He married." Back then, Jewish males married about age 16. That would have given Christ about 15 years of marriage when He started His ministry.

LindaLDS

06/10/2003 09:16:26 AM

fromoz says "Paul teaches that marriage is only for those who cannot contain their lust.** I don't see that, myself. God Himself ordained marriage, He was the one who married Adam and Eve. My interpretation of that verse would be that if two people are so much in love with each other that they can't concentrate on their mission for Christ, then they should marry and raise a family for the glory of God, rather than yearn for something that they are denying themselves.

LindaLDS

06/10/2003 09:16:14 AM

from above Those who can't control their lust are the LAST ones who should be getting married, since they will never make proper husbands and/or wives. Lust is not a proper basis for marriage. Love is. And for anyone to say that lust is the reason to get married, or that Paul even taught this twisted doctrine is to besmirch the teachings of Jesus Christ. I doubt that Jesus ever gave in to LUST. If He married, He did it right, the way God would have wanted. Sex between two people who are in it for the long haul, who truly love and respect each other, is beautiful and sacred.

jhoulgate

06/09/2003 09:40:19 PM

Fromoz, Do you not think that a man or woman can express his or her devotion to God by raising a family? I don't believe the answer is the same for all people. Families provide some of the most fertile ground for spiritual growth in ways that celibacy can never approach and I'm sure the same can be said for celibacy versus marriage and family. I think what gets in the way is an attitude that insists it has to be one way or another for everyone.

fromoz

06/09/2003 09:12:41 PM

aliveinthespirit Did Jesus say that he loved children - more than adults? Certainly he said to let the infants be bought to him because the kingdom of god belonged to people like these. Surely the emphasis of this teaching is not his love of children - but the principle that we must have the minds of infants to enter the kingdom? And surely this relates to a lot of the other teachings of Jesus such as the one that we must give away everything to follow him? It's hard to deny that the emphasis is devotion exclusively to god - and a person couldn't do that in a state of marriage?

aliveinthespirit

06/09/2003 08:41:33 PM

Jesus never prefered unmarried people. He loved children, and without marriage, there are no children. I belive that marriage is not below or above celibacy. God made us sexual people. For this reason people leave parents and cling to one another. How can one say that any person of God discourages marriage? As far a Jesus' being married, it doesn't really matter. However, I do believe that the role of women was downplayed by the men who wrote the Bible. In their societies, women were lower than dirt, so recounting the religious experiences and offerings of such insignificant beings would be silly to those men. However, it is clear, even from the texts we have that Jesus treated women as the equals of men. He did not send them out as apostles, only b/c the world at that time would not accept, not b/c he thought that they are/were incapable of any/all ministries in His Church.

jhoulgate

06/09/2003 05:31:19 PM

I find the fact of discussing this topic to be very interesting. Whether anyone cares to believe it or not, many have died over the centuries for believing that Jesus was married and had children. This story began as a variant of Gnostic teaching. The real truth of it is probably only able to be substantiated by very few individuals. However, the notion of the Desposyni (blood relatives of Jesus) has served the aims of some royal bloodlines like the Merovingians, the Carolingians and the House of Stewart over many generations. The real blessing for me here is that it can be openly discussed and debated without the likelihood that someone won't get burned at the stake for believing in it. It speaks volumes about how far we've come spiritually. The worst thing that can happen to a believer in the Holy Grail story is that they would get laughed at and ridiculed by those who strictly follow the Christian canon.

imablevr

06/09/2003 05:01:15 PM

I'm surprised this is even a debate topic. The Lord's first preference is that none of us marry so that we can dedicate our lives to praising him. So it seems to reason that Jesus, being the Son of God, or God Himself as in the Trinity, would most certainly not have been married. He lived 33 short years and had so much to accomplish for the eternal Kingdom, it is absurd to think that He married.

jchero2

06/09/2003 04:35:58 PM

Another thing I've noted is that Jesus cried when Mary ran out to him during the time of Lazarus death. He had no need to cry because he knew he was bringing Lazarus back to life. He didn't cry when Martha ran to him. Another thing Mary was hysterical when she thought they took the Lords body somewhere on the day of resurection. Were these acts of Love or was there reasons for this behavior I am unaware? In what way I'll never understand, we don't have enouth information.

jchero2

06/09/2003 04:21:45 PM

fromoz, If you think about it Jesus's temptations had nothing to do with women. He was tempted by satan for things such as a power. Women weren't even a temptation for him. I think we are too wraped up in worldley things and worldley thinking.

fromoz

06/09/2003 03:43:20 PM

Paul teaches that marriage is only for those who cannot contain their lust. If Jesus was married - surely he gave into lust - which would demean him in my eyes when so much was made of him not being tempted in the wilderness.

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/09/2003 12:42:03 PM

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul discusses marriage & celibacy, marriage & divorce, marriage & Christian service and marriage & remarriage. I do know we're to be of the same mind on these issues. Romans 15:5 (now may the GOD who gives perseverance & encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus) Philippians 1:27 (only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come & see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel) Philippians 2:2 (make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose)

Damian921

06/09/2003 12:13:23 PM

nevermind that it doesnt matter. unless of course youre one of those who needs to put blocks in front of anything that might help them or one of those who needs to define everything they allign themselves with as approved by their own moral code god forbid something should be good without that approval get over yourselves, all of you. either married or not, either real or not, what the hell gives you all the idea your evaluation even matters? lol

KathyHL

06/09/2003 11:36:36 AM

abaren..etc. said, "Jesus Christ chose to live an unmarried and celibate life in order to 'break the courtship-marriage-kids-family cycle' that the power of sin had enslaved male-female relationships in." Well, I agree that the marriage-kids-family thing stinks. That's why I'm divorced and childfree. I like having a serious boyfriend, without the hassles of kids and a family. And no, I don't spend my "extra time" that I have because I'm unmarried and childfree, on spiritual matters. I have a pretty active non-spiritual life, and I'm happy the way I am. YMMV. Why am I telling you all this? Because if you don't want to be a soccer mom (or dad), you aren't condemned to being celibate and religious all the time. There are now more than two lifestyle options. Isn't it great to be alive in the 21st century?

mom52777

06/09/2003 11:16:50 AM

It is a beautiful day to be alive!!! I applaud you xcelfitpat!!!!!!!!!!! It is refreshing to see......!!! Someone get's it!!!! Have a most wonderful.... You sure made mine!!!! ps...Please keep up with your knowledge! It is insightful!!!!! Love and Peace

enaid1

06/09/2003 09:32:35 AM

Dear friends in Christ....Mary was not your conventional soulmate...She followed her Lord, after she saw what appeared to be divinity, and infinity in His eyes. She mostly accompanied Him, as much as she could on His ministry, or she waited in bethany if that was not possible. When they were together, she unassumingly basked in His Holy Light...mostly at His feet, her heart burnng in rapture...and love, words were not very necessary...He knew Her eternal, and internal presence, and she knew His. He knew that she was sent by His Father to love, comfort, and console Him in His most desperate hours. When He baded her to come to Him..she fled to His side..Where every believer wanted to be in those days.

LindaLDS

06/09/2003 08:02:42 AM

steve3927, are you taking into account that Christ didn't start His earthly ministry until He was 30 years old, and at that time, most Jewish males married at about age 16 or so? I don't see how a marriage would have interrupted Christ's ministry at all.

LindaLDS

06/09/2003 07:59:08 AM

ormondtron says "Atleast the "Left Behind Series" was based on an an historical (meaning that it has been around for a long time)existing text." Just because an idea has been around for a long time does not make it historical or even true. Not everyone sees the Rapture theory as in the "Left Behind" series when they read the Bible. It is no more or less fiction than if Christ was married or not.

LindaLDS

06/09/2003 07:56:57 AM

arthra999 says "Jesus' father Joseph likely died very soon after Jesus birth and may not have arranged any marriage for Him... Secondly, the family being largely without support could have been too poor to afford a marriage..." How do you come to the conclusion that Joseph died soon after Christ's birth? The Bible speaks of Christ having brothers and sisters, I think, so who was their father? Wouldn't that father have arranged a marriage for Christ? And as for being too poor, I dont' think that this was an excuse for someone not to be married. Joseph was a carpenter, and trained Jesus in that trade. They were likely no poorer than anyone else of that time.

LindaLDS

06/09/2003 07:54:11 AM

HopeAndDevotion says "This book about Jesus being married doesn't stay true to what the Bible says" The article is right when it says that the idea of Jesus being married is, from a Biblical perspective, arguing from silence. Nothing in the Bible says that He WAS married and nothing really says that He was NOT married. I don't know why Christians feel so threatened by the thought that Jesus had a married family life like any other man while He was on the earth. I really don't find that the Left Behind series is any more or less Biblical than if Jesus was married. The Rapture theory is based on someone's personal interpretation of scripture, and to say that the Rapture as described in "Left Behind" is so clear in the Bible that anyone should see it is trying to push their interpretation on others. I myself don't see it. Does that mean I don't read my Bible? No, it just means that I don't interpret the Bible the same say you do and that does not make me wrong, just different.

LindaLDS

06/09/2003 07:35:22 AM

steve3927 says "Jesus didn't come to earth to raise a family, He came to save mankind and He spent His life devoted to the things of God in order to do so." Why wouldn't He want to raise a family? If you were a good Jewish man of that day, you got married and raised a family. Back then, most Jewish males marriedin their mid-teens, from what I understand, so by the time He started His ministry, any children from taht marriage would be close to being on their own. So, I think it's possible.

LindaLDS

06/09/2003 07:35:08 AM

see above I also read, somewhere, that when you look at those ancient Jewish customs, and compare them with stories in the Bible, it would seem that He was married to Mary, the sister of Lazarus. When Christ finally came to Mary and Martha after He heard of their brother's death, Martha came out to meet Him, but Mary waited at the house. Jewish custom said that when the husband returned from a journey, the wife would not go out to meet Him unless and until the husband called for her to come to him. Mary waited at the house until Martha came and told her that Christ was calling for her to come to Him.

TRUTHchangesYOU

06/09/2003 01:31:19 AM

Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I believe GOD causes all things to work in harmony for good so no matter what happens or doesn't happen or what you or I believe, GOD causes all things to work in harmony for good. (see Romans 8:28) If that weren't true, I wouldn't love GOD and I certainly wouldn't be sane.

johnbog

06/08/2003 10:12:57 PM

Quite right, ogirl. We are all atheists when it comes to any god(s) other than the one(s) we choose to believe in.

ogirl

06/08/2003 10:00:24 PM

to the person who said that zeus, aphrodite did not exist, how dare you. just because you are not a believer, does not make them any less real than the god you believe in. there were stories about them passed from person to person and finally written down, and people worshipped and believed in them. people passed stories from person to person, and finally wrote them down in a book called the bible. there are people who worship and belive in god as written in there as well. so how do you figure that just because YOU believe in one and not the other, it makes that one "real" and the others "fictional"?

comparelite

06/08/2003 08:42:17 PM

he is a myth

thefish

06/08/2003 08:06:49 PM

cont... Something very strange has been happening the past 2 years, I seem to be "in on" everything going on...like I have a knowing about all this...9-11 is my husband's birthday...2-26-93, mine, they bombed it, my 33rd BD. On April 9, our wedding anniversary, Saddam fell. I could go on, but what would be the point, all those who seem to think they "KNOW" everything wouldn't listen to me anyway, so I keep asking God, what now. Now, do you think the world will listen to me or will they write me off as nuts?

thefish

06/08/2003 08:06:31 PM

On June 5, 2001, I died and came back to life. The moon was full that night, A June moon, Strawberry moon, a Red moon. Afterward, I spent 3 days in a psychiatric unit, even though I knew I was perfectly sane and that God had had something to do with it. I have been shown in no uncertain terms that I have a message for the world...and it has to do with the Divine Feminine...you see, I am a woman. I am Pisces, the fish, ruled by the feet...I was born in a small wood home on Feb. 26, 1960...I "died" on June 6...Physically born in winter, spiritually born in Spring...On my birthday, 2-26-02, the moon was full with a "Halo" around it. cont...

abarenboshogunvi

06/08/2003 06:24:07 PM

[part 2] This effort, while noble, even heroic, will ultimately prove to be futile. Bottom line, the course of Christianity was irrevocably set when the early Christian theologians resolved the question of the divine feminine within the Godhead in favor of the answer "No". From then on, Christianity developed using that as a foundation. What is done can no longer be undone. Too much time has passed. Those who sincerely and from the bottom of their hearts are convinced that the divine feminine exists will, in the end, have to step outside of the entire Abrahamic divine paradigm to find it. There's no way around it, I'm afraid.

abarenboshogunvi

06/08/2003 06:23:44 PM

wvwriter, I found "The Jesus Mysteries" to be a very compelling and thought-provoking book; "Jesus and the Lost Goddess", much less so. There's currently an enormous effort going on among Christian theologians and historians to find and then "shoehorn" some kind of female divine person into Christianity so that the Trinity will have a clearly and unambiguously recognizable "divine feminine" presence within it (as it now has a clearly and unambiguously recognizable "divine masculine" presence). [con't in part 2]

fromoz

06/08/2003 05:00:41 PM

sweetlmt2 In Biblical times I'm not quite sure what the punishments were for people partaking in sex outside marriage - death I think - but I do know the children that resulted were rejected from society. Deuteronomy 23 2: A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. In my country an enquiry is to be held into the treatment of children in institutions - and I’m hoping it will cover church orphanages where I believe many bastard children were tortured as punishments for their illegitimacy. Jesus definitely would not have had sex out of marriage and would not have had any children - who surely would have been related to god through the divinity of Jesus and would have blurred the distinction between heaven and earth?

wvwriter

06/08/2003 03:48:15 PM

There are two books written by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, both from England, that are interesting reading along this same topic. I'm surprised the author of the article didn't include them. One is titled "The Jesus Mysteries" and the other is titled "Jesus and the Lost Goddess." They are researched historically through various other cultures, documented with footnotes and references, and very thought provoking.

sweetlmt2

06/08/2003 02:50:26 PM

I'm no scholar - nor am I an expert on the Bible _ but didn't Jesus come to be a bridge between Divinity and humanity? Didn't he incarnate - became flesh - so that we had an advocate that KNEW the struggles of being human? If theis is true, then why would he NOT have had sex? Why would he AVOID one the most complex and confusing parts of being human? AND, why do we assume that sex was equated with being "bad"? Was sex outside of marriage "evil" in Jesus day in his Essene culture? Just because the Bible doesn't report it doesn't mean that it didn't happen - just that it's not part of the NEWS - not part of what made His messages noteworthy in that day.

steve3927

06/08/2003 10:53:19 AM

As humans we tend to think "sex, sex, sex" instead of at a higher level.

steve3927

06/08/2003 10:51:50 AM

"Did you notice the implication of steve3927's post that being devoted to one's wife, husband, or family is apparently not included in the roster of 'spiritual things'." Non sequitor, your facts are uncoordinated. I made no implications at all concerning the holiness and spiritualness of marriage should a man and woman enter into it. It is certainly not something to be entered into lightly as we are told repeatedly in scripture. My entire statement was directed at whether Jesus came to teach about God and fulfill the purpose that He was incarnated for, or go off a tangent of falling in love with a woman and marrying her, whereas He would then be required to devote His time to HER and not God, or at least only 50% to God's work. (The very reason some religious leaders don't marry today - because they feel they are called to serve God and Him alone.) I won't argue whether I agree with this within the human arena or not. (see below)

steve3927

06/08/2003 10:51:44 AM

(from above) But there is another side no one has considered (at least completely). If it was customary to for a man and woman to be betrothed in Jesus' time, by their parents or other relatives, perhaps Jesus told Mary that He couldn't marry her and they remained close friends anyway. Why must it always be assumed that if a man and woman (or woman and woman or man and man for that matter) are friends and hang around to gether all the time that they are involved in a sexual relationship? Furthermore, no one seems to have pointed out that perhaps Mary was so grateful at having be forgiven by Jesus that she simply decided to stay around Him, or that she might have been the first female desciple.

peri_shumard-craig

06/08/2003 10:47:24 AM

First, I do not believe it matters one whit whether or not Jesus married or had children. What matters is not Jesus (the man) but Jesus (the Christ). That said, I have always believed him (notice the small "h" ... talking here about Jesus the man) was married to Mary (of Mary and Martha). The Bible does not state in so many words "Jesus was married," but the scene in which Mary washed his feet with her hair says it for us. Such an act, unlike the ordinary foot-washing done for the exteemed, is PURELY indicitive of an INTIMATE married relationship within the cultural confines of their society and social construct of their times. Now, whether or not THIS Mary was Mary of Magdala or another Mary (though probably not his mother), does it matter? Really? Has Jesus the man become more important than Jesus the Christ? Have we strayed so far that his sexual self has become more than his teachings?

vdavisson

06/08/2003 10:31:59 AM

This Harvard professor (like many liberal professors) uses fake logic: it's like saying, "the vast majority of women are not the Queen of England, therefore Elizabeth is not the Queen of England." They are ready to believe the "Book of Mary" means Jesus was married because it says Jesus loved Mary; but it dismisses the passage in First Thessalonians because Paul didn't use the modern term "rapture." Forgive me if I don't understand liberal theology. As Jesus said, they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

ormondron

06/08/2003 09:28:37 AM

Get a grip!!! The book is FICTION! Just like "The Pelican Brief". Atleast the "Left Behind Series" was based on an an historical (meaning that it has been around for a long time)existing text.

arthra999

06/08/2003 02:18:19 AM

I think it's possible Jesus could have been betrothed to someone as this was a regular practise in those days among families.... however there are two other issues that would affect this... Jesus' father Joseph likely died very soon after Jesus birth and may not have arranged any marriage for Him... Secondly, the family being largely without support could have been too poor to afford a marriage... As to Mary of Magdala you have a fascinating and enigmatic character. She was associated with Mary the mother of James in Mark 16:1 and had seven demons cast out of her by the Lord...She also conveys the news to the disciples that "she had seen the Lord" in John 20:18. I doubt very much there was anykind of sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and that those who propose this are perhaps trying to tie in some link to a European blood line... Also the idea panders to Hollywood phantasies and the lack of morality of todays relationships.. .

HopeAndDevotion

06/08/2003 01:27:07 AM

The Left Behind series were written by christians trying to imagine what future events will be like. In doing so they stay true to what the Bible says. This book about Jesus being married doesn't stay true to what the Bible says, it's just someone's imagenation making up events that didn't happen inorder to foster a belief that isn't true. It's not the same at all. To compare it to the Left Behind Series is like comparing apples and oranges. One uses the Bible to guide their imagenation; the other leaves the Bible behind and invents new scripture.

valco

06/08/2003 01:07:12 AM

THIS IS SUCH A CURIOUS PAGE! Wonderful to b able to debate on line! I am enjoying it so much I don'y know where to start! My first impreaaion is....Thse that don't believe in a "Christ" .....why spend the enegy to deface him? Rather Curios too me. Evereyone seems to be very well read;):):):)This is fun!THE MAG

johnbog

06/08/2003 12:30:58 AM

Did you notice the implication of steve3927's post that being devoted to one's wife, husband, or family is apparently not included in the roster of 'spiritual things'. Strange, wouldn't you agree, considering that emphasis in Christendom on the sanctity and sacredness of marriage and family. Also, Jesus' ability to relate empathetically to our weaknesses, because of his own apparent susceptibilty to temptation, does not include, because of his 'spiritual' busyness, the ability to relate to that most different of all relationships, the one of marriage and fatherhood!? Agnostic or religious, all the humble are materialists, but the latter call materialism spirituality.

Fist_of_God

06/08/2003 12:12:30 AM

If you had eternal life, would you marry a shrew? Where would be the peace? I am afraid Jesus would spend a lot of time down at the corner cafe if he did. Oh wait, the women portrayed in the Bible were are prime examples of servitude thus are worthy of our idolization? I don't know, how many women do you know who are posessed by seven demons? How many men do you know today who would rather speak out from behind their wives skirts before they would risk anything for anybody else? I know only one. How many do you know who are willing to witness without first checking in with the honey cups? I meanlife saving help. FoG

steve3927

06/07/2003 03:59:28 PM

Jesus spent His life on earth "going about His Father's business", i.e., taking care of the things of God. He was doing this at 12 years old in the temple. He clearly tells us why He came into the world and why the purpose was established BEFORE the foundation of the world. Paul speaks about not marrying (if anyone can accept it) because if you are married, you must spend time devoted to your wife (or husband) and family and not taking care of spiritual things. ("You cannot server two masters") Jesus didn't come to earth to raise a family, He came to save mankind and He spent His life devoted to the things of God in order to do so. But, He was tempted in every way we are, (which is why He understands our weaknesses and is the perfect substitution for them), so I am sure He knew a beautiful woman when He saw one. The difference is, He didn't give in to the desires of the flesh, if He had, He wouldn't have been perfect. (see below)

steve3927

06/07/2003 03:59:22 PM

(from above) Paul says if we cannot control our sexual desires, we are to marry, so that they are fulfulled with ONE person, in a loving relationship, without sin.

abarenboshogunvi

06/07/2003 10:44:20 AM

idbc writes, It is not clear wether he [Jesus] was an offical rabbi or wether the term was honorific. The term was almost certainly honorific. If Jesus had studied at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the New Testament writers would have told us.

idbc

06/07/2003 10:29:03 AM

The only thing that I see to support the thoery that Jesus was married is that he is reffered to as Rabbi at least once. It is not clear wether he was an offical rabbi or wether the term was honorific. IF he were an offical rabbi then he would have to be married. Because being married was required to be a Rabbi. To the best of my understanding of course.

abarenboshogunvi

06/07/2003 12:53:25 AM

[part3] Jesus Christ chose to live an unmarried and celibate life in order to "break the courtship-marriage-kids-family cycle" that the power of sin had enslaved male-female relationships in. The chains of sin being broken, the possibility of these relationships serving as conduits for divine favor and power is restored, with the final goal, achieved at the latter day, being the complete restoration of the Father's original intent of procreative union and communal life. But the process of healing and restoration is a gradual one.The unmarried, celibate life is a necessary part of this process. It leads people to move away from the "marrying / giving in marriage" cycle of this present world and focus instead on pressing toward the mark for the prize of full restoration. It is also one of the "first fruits" of the Spirit, a sign of the coming harvest, a harbringer of a new earth and a new Jerusalem. That's the basic idea, anyway.

abarenboshogunvi

06/07/2003 12:53:06 AM

[part 2] After being enslaved by sin, the world turned inward unto itself and away from God, and so it became dim, suspicious, and began functioning according to different physical laws, laws that now subjected the world to sharp limitations. These changes twisted and distorted all of existence. As a result, everything became a dim shadow or faint echo of what it was before sin. Courtship, marriage, having children, and family life are thus seen as distorted and twisted shadows of the kind of procreative union and communal life that the Father originally intended for men and women. [con't in part 3]

abarenboshogunvi

06/07/2003 12:51:57 AM

thefish writes, How, exactly, were we suppose to make new little humans if we didn't have sex? Well, this gets a bit involved, so bear with me. The early Church dealt with this issue by postulating that the world was a fundamentally different place before sin enslaved it. The world was light, trusting, not subject to limitations, and fully open towards God. It didn't operate according to the same kind of physical laws that we're used to. Neither did procreation. Supposedly, physical bodies weren't heavy, dense and opaque, but light, gauzy (transparent?) and capable of completely interpenetrating each other. Procreative union between male and female was thus a total physical, mental and spiritual communion. Picture the flames of two separate candles coming together to form a united flame that results in the lighting of a third candle. [con't in part 2]

xcelfitpat

06/07/2003 12:08:32 AM

(PART 4) Finally, for those of you who would like to compare Christ to Theseus, Heracles, etc., I hate to tell you, but these characters are widely accepted by most scholars to be purely fictional characters and there are no historical documents whatsoever that actually show the existence of Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, etc. There are several historical documents, along with the Bible that are verifiable and historically accurate. You're not a believer, though, so I forgive your apparent ignorance on this issue. By the way why is it abnormal to not get married? How silly to base an argument on such a supposition that if one is normal, one must be married. Oh, well. This is why I avoid most of these discussions.

xcelfitpat

06/07/2003 12:02:13 AM

(PART3)Being a Christian of a Protestant/Reformed background, there's a great deal that I don't agree with from the traditions/doctrines of the Roman Catholic church so their dealings with the issues of both of the Mary's doesn't surprise me at all. As mentioned by some of the quoted experts, there is no historical evidence that links Mary and Jesus in marriage. I think you folks kind of missed the boat on why Jesus was here in the first place. Don't feel bad if you can't imagine life without sex; none of you happen to be God, either. As for celibacy being a God-preferred way of life - show me that somewhere in scripture if you can. Paul was certainly not a hater of women; he supported several women as fellow Christians with much love. He did, however, know the distraction that sexual involvement, just like a preoccupation with money, would cause his ministry.(COMING PART 4)

xcelfitpat

06/06/2003 11:54:22 PM

As for sex and sin, Christ never claims this to be so although He, His apostles, and many prophets in the Old Testament(try SONGS OF SOLOMON for starters), give some pretty clear-cut guidelines for these issues. As for trusting Christ for advice on family/sexual/intimacy issues based on whether or not he actually experienced these acts directly - give me a break. Do you have to be a murderer to counsel someone about the rights and wrongs of killing; have all coaches/therapists/doctors/etc experienced all of the various things that they give advice on? Of course not, and to argue this point is plain silly. (PART2)

xcelfitpat

06/06/2003 11:48:39 PM

Why is it that a completely fictional novel is being debated as some sort of factual, historical document? You folks must be getting really bored. It's kind of like the democrats praying that the economy doesn't recover just so that they can get GW out of office. The funny thing is the result of such ridiculous thinking is that it strengthens the position of those that are being attacked. For those who don't believe/get the concept of Christ as both God and man - this topic is a waste of your time. This is one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity and there is no way one can claim to be a (CHRIST)ian without recognizing the deity of Christ.(PART1)

thefish

06/06/2003 09:49:04 PM

How, exactly, were we suppose to make new little humans if we didn't have sex? I wish someome would please explain to me WHY it is OUR FAULT we have sex because of sin. And if sex is a "punishment" for not following orders, then it is the most pleasant punishment I've ever received.

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 08:58:13 PM

[part 2] Jesus chose not to experience courtship, marriage, having children, and family life because he believed that all those things were, in one way or another, sinful distortions of the Father's original intent for human male-female relationships. For Jesus, entering into the experience of an unmarried, celibate life freed human male-female relationships from slavery to sin, and restored the possibility of such relationships serving as conduits for divine favor and power. Conclusion: The unmarried, celibate life is the Father's original intent for humanity. Sexual intimacy, marriage and family life is the distortion, a distortion that came about due to the entry of sin into the world. Christianity of all types has been living with the consequences of this decision ever since.

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 08:56:56 PM

purpleku69 writes, Well, if sex and marriage are "good," and given by God, why would the denial of sexual pleasure, enthronement of celibacy, and persecution of women be the hallmark of the early Church? This is one of the major questions the early Church was struggling with. If sexual intimacy and marriage are "good", and given by God, why was Jesus unmarried and celibate? The answer they finally came up with was that Jesus was telling humanity that, ultimately, living an unmarried, celibate life was the preferred state for humanity to live. [con't in part 2]

purpleku69

06/06/2003 08:26:55 PM

Well, if sex and marriage are "good," and given by God, why would the denial of sexual pleasure, enthronement of celibacy, and persecution of women be the hallmark of the early Church? Could it be that Jesus really wasn't married, and Paul (who hated women) wanted to emulate his hero, thereby condemning us all to 2000 years of perverted sexuality? I think Jesus was married, because of the fact that he wasn't a Deity. If he is really the Son of the Deity, then he is equivalent to Theseus, Perseus, and Heracles (all Sons of God/Zeus). As a mere mortal, he would have no reason NOT to be married.

drafty

06/06/2003 08:14:47 PM

My final analysis of Mary Magdalen is that Jesus Christ preferred to die rather than marry her.

drafty

06/06/2003 08:11:46 PM

The point, I think, in the Bible is that Jesus couldn't marry Mary Magdalen. If he was to be considered rabbinical, he had to marry a virgin from an approved family. Mary Magdalen is lying down in every scene she is in in the Bible. I believe she unwittingly betrayed Jesus by lying down in the Pharisee's house where women were in the background serving food. I believe women crucified Jesus because he let Mary believe she could flatter him to get to heaven and let the other women work. Mary Magdalen had her charms but she wouldn't cook dinner and that was a problem for Jesus Christ.

mom52777

06/06/2003 07:42:30 PM

Believing that Jesus Christ is not our Savior is the first mistake. Can we say Lord and Savior... This married concept is obsurd.... Keep reading and studying the Word of God.... Blessed is he who sees the things that you see.... Grace is given freely... The enemy has his hands in this book!!! If you know the Father... Than you know the Son.... They are the same.... Relationships.... God so Loved us that He gave His only begotten Son...so We might be saved... Have Faith and believe Do not rely on your own understanding..... You just might be wrong... Love and Peace

ogirl

06/06/2003 06:34:59 PM

priam-- afraid the atheists are out to get you? enaid1-- glad to see someone else thinks that way about jesus and mary magdalene.

kruschman

06/06/2003 06:14:43 PM

I believe all thia talk about Jesus is ridiculous. He wasn't sent down to Earth to have children and other stuff. He was sent here to save us from sin. All sins including mrital and relationship sins. And yes Jesus did know about relationships. Read the Sermon on the Mount and you will see he will speak of that also.

KathyHL

06/06/2003 05:28:04 PM

I'd be more likely to believe advice coming from someone who had been married, had intercourse, or at least had a romance, than I would to believe advice coming from entities who supposedly did none of those things. (And if I don't answer for awhile, I'm not blowing you off - it's Friday, 5:30 p.m., and I rarely go online on weekends. See you Monday.)

KathyHL

06/06/2003 05:26:52 PM

So, we've got an asexual spirit impregnating Mary without intercourse; and we've got a half-god, half-human Jesus who (according to church-approved thought) was celibate all his life. So, why do we believe that the Biblical god and/or Jesus is qualified to give advice about love, sex, and marriage? That's like taking medical advice from someone who's never been to med school.

WillSea

06/06/2003 04:54:10 PM

So, jchero, you're saying that his history doesn't matter?

jchero2

06/06/2003 04:48:36 PM

will, As a christian I recognize that we are saved through Gods good grace. ephesians 2:3-10

cdave

06/06/2003 04:36:57 PM

"Does your faith depend on the history of Jesus (virgin birth, asexual life history, etc), on the miracles attributed to him (walking on water, etc) or does your faith come from his teachings and the Truths that he expounded? " oooohhhh. Good one. I think, if you'll pardon the expression, the devil's in the details. Does this or that fact really change what he was talking about? I don't think so.

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 04:36:35 PM

[part 2] Jesus' historically documented neglect of the human experiences of sexual intimacy, marriage and family life is a fundamental, and I believe, insurmountable, problem for Christianity (of all types). It is also the reason why Jesus of Nazareth cannot be "the Christ"--the Savior of the world (though interestingly enough, he could conceivably still be the Jewish Messiah, but that's something that only those who currently sit "in Moses' seat" have the competence to determine).

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 04:36:17 PM

jchero2, According to Christian tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant), Jesus "saved" humanity because he was without sin, and therefore, could intimately and literally enter into every part of human experience, from birth to death and everything in between, and live each and every one of those experiences in a manner that was without sin. By experiencing them in the way they the Father originally intended, he freed those experiences from slavery to sin and restored the possibility of those experiences to serve as conduits of divine favor and power. The fundamental problem is that Jesus neglected to enter into the experiences of courtship, marriage, having children, and family life. Consequently, and unlike other human experiences that Jesus did enter into, these experiences were not freed from slavery to sin. As such, they cannot serve as conduits of divine favor and power. [con't in part 2]

fromoz

06/06/2003 04:19:58 PM

willsea I'm not a "Christian" which these days includes people who mostly follow Moses, Abraham and David. As a bastard I am in fact condemned by the law of god passed down through Moses. However Jesus was also condemned by some under the same law and I look to him as a great teacher along with many others who said roughly the same sort of things. Jesus rejected his own family and said his true family were those who also worshiped god. He asked his disciples to leave their families and follow him. There were a lot of eunuchs around at that time in history and it was a eunuch who took Christianity to Ethiopia. There were eunuchs around Jesus and he looked favourably on those people for renouncing marriage for the kingdom. If Jesus said one thing but then did another surely he would have to be perceived as a hypocrite? But to my mind it didn't happen.

WillSea

06/06/2003 03:58:28 PM

One single question to the Christians here: Does your faith depend on the history of Jesus (virgin birth, asexual life history, etc), on the miracles attributed to him (walking on water, etc) or does your faith come from his teachings and the Truths that he expounded?

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 03:49:00 PM

marilynyvonne writes, It is very, very dangerous to confuse the masses...with this gunk. Ah yes, those ignorant masses. Always becoming confused and getting into trouble. How will we keep them under control?

jchero2

06/06/2003 03:45:55 PM

Abar, Because he missed out on falling in love, getting married, having children, being committed, etc., Jesus did not heal or restore these aspects of being human, for the simple reason that he never experienced them. He never really understood what they were about. I disagree. Jesus was Love... a perfect example of Love. He taught us how to love. I believe he doesn't restore it...... not because he is incapable or inexperienced.... but because Love is subject to free will. He layed out the rules for marriage and unfaithfulness but he gives us the freedom to choose who and what to love.

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 03:43:09 PM

jpoet writes, aint nothing exposed... this kinda thing was mentioned in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." See also "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner. Many of the followers of "British Israelism" (the belief that the English / Scottish / Welsh (but not the Irish) peoples are the direct living descendents of the Ten "Lost Tribes" of Israel) are into the Jesus - Mary Magdalene wedding thing. As I recall, one (maybe the?) pretender to the Scottish throne actually claims to be a living descendent of the two. "GREAT Britain. And that, she truly is!" -- the United States and Great Britain in Prophecy by Herbert W. Armstrong :-)

babyjayne

06/06/2003 03:38:12 PM

jpoet wrote: 6/6/03 3:09:39 PM dude, this debate is old... the beliefnet front page says "and also exposes a debate about his relationship with Mary Magdalene." aint nothing exposed... this kinda thing was mentioned in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Yes!! It IS "old news," isn't it... But what do you expect? Like my pastor says: "You can't expect godly thoughts or behavior from ungodly people."

babyjayne

06/06/2003 03:35:10 PM

marilynyvonne wrote: 6/6/03 11:57:54 AM It is very, very dangerous to confuse the masses. There is NO way you can get or even entertain the thought that there was anything "sexual" or "marriage" between Our Precous Saviour and Mary Magdalene. Get a life. May God Have Mercy on your Soul for trying to confuse His people with this gunk. And to that I say: very well put!! AMEN!!!

jpoet

06/06/2003 03:09:38 PM

dude, this debate is old... the beliefnet front page says "and also exposes a debate about his relationship with Mary Magdalene." aint nothing exposed... this kinda thing was mentioned in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

archon149

06/06/2003 03:09:14 PM

deacon777: I know it's a good yarn, because anything that challanges christian orthodoxy is in vogue but like the article says...it's a "novel". I agree entirely. With all due respect to Muslims, if Muhammad were subjected to such bizarre and disrespectful speculation, there would be an outrage amongst the far-left intelligentsia and hippie die-hards as being politically incorrect. Go Figure. I'm, surprised all the granola New-Age types don't recognize that celibacy is a powerful way of life, also practiced in ancient Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism. But hey, when it comes to Christianity...hmmmph. Some say Jesus should have been married at 30, but that is not true. Most men married at later ages; Isaac wed Rebecca at age 40 (Genesis 25:20), as did Moses with Zipphorah (Exodus 2:20). What we now call middle age was considered a good time for marriage.

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 03:05:09 PM

jchero2, When I think of marriage I think the experience of falling in love, having children, being committed and I wonder....... did Jesus miss out on so much of our human experience? The answer is basically yes. He was here to be our messiah, to save mankind, to heal and teach as a servant. Because he missed out on falling in love, getting married, having children, being committed, etc., Jesus did not heal or restore these aspects of being human, for the simple reason that he never experienced them. He never really understood what they were about.

jchero2

06/06/2003 02:38:11 PM

When I think of marriage I think the experience of falling in love, having children, being committed and I wonder....... did Jesus miss out on so much of our human experience? The bible teaches that Jesus was here as a servent to God the Father. He wasn't here for self gratification, falling in love or getting married. He was here to be our messiah, to save mankind, to heal and teach as a servant. There is no supporting evidence in biblical scripture that Jesus was married and if he were It wouldn't take anything away from his message. It is clear that Jesus loved Mary as he loved all of his friends and deciples And I love him all the more for it.

bardmountain

06/06/2003 02:37:39 PM

While that may occasionally be true, it's overly cynical. Most of the time people are just trying to find the truth, and are unwilling to settle for blind assumptions or cultural traditions. In a lot of cases, especially in the US, thinking about religion is counter-intuitive. Religion is something we learn and follow, but not something we think about much. Nor do we care to. As a consequence, critical thought about religion is often shelved as intrusive anti-religious propaganda. I haven't read anything by James Hitchcock, but on the face of that quote I would suspect that may be the case there. It's unfortunate. Critical thought is not the antithesis of religious faith. It enriches it rather than detracts from it.

Priam

06/06/2003 02:29:04 PM

Part II In a way it is a testimony to Jesus' Resurrection. People keep producing new theories to discredit the historical Jesus because, for some reason, his power and authority never die. Almost the whole work of "demythologizing" was completed by l850, so that what the churches say about Jesus need no longer be taken seriously. Yet somehow his power continues, and even increases. The purpose of each new book is to weaken the spiritual authority of Jesus, as mediated through Christianity, to make the world safer for unbelief. Such authors are not really interested in what may have happened in Palestine two thousand years ago, but they are very interested in what is happening right now.

Priam

06/06/2003 02:28:53 PM

As historian James Hitchcock writes: One difficulty with distinguishing the respectable from the crackpot is that, if one decides that the Gospels are not really historical documents, there is not much left to rely on with respect to Jesus. Outside explicitly Christian sources there are only a few bare mentions of his name in the first century.

lorelei

06/06/2003 01:25:53 PM

First, okay I have seen Jesus Christ Superstar so many times, I can't count-- both the movie and 3 stage productions. I never got the idea that they were conveying a sexual relationship between the two. It has hints of her being the prostitute, but that is about it. I find it interesting that the conservative scholar just completely dismisses her, interesting but not surprising. I personally don't care whether or not Jesus and MM were married. If one reads the gospels, she was clearly extremely important--it is the later church and tradition that relegated her to nothingness. Women used to lead church, especially in the early home churches, try and get a woman to be able to lead a home fellowship in some of the staunch evangelical churches nowadays. How far we have slid back.

WillSea

06/06/2003 01:24:39 PM

To think that Jesus came to earth and donned a human body and then think that he never even had a night-time erection, is beyond ludicrous. Ohmigod, I bet he even went to the bathroom! Jesus spoke to the full enjoyment of Life, not just the next one, but this one! And one of God's gifts of this life is the gift of sexuality. And whether he expressed his humanity in this way or not, doesn't mean a thing. Again the point of deifying Jesus had nothing to do with what he did with his body. The holy part of Jesus was his message and the full and unblocked flow of Spirit in and thru him.

monotheist

06/06/2003 12:44:59 PM

I think Jesus was married--as to be a Jewish male in his time and not be married at the age of 30 would have been unthinkable. It would have surely been remarked upon in the Bible. Most likely he would have been married by his twentieth birthday. Was it to Mary Magdalene? Who knows... I honestly don't think it's relevant. And I don't think Jesus's being married takes away from his message... which was the Grace and Love of God.

abarenboshogunvi

06/06/2003 12:22:45 PM

KathyHL writes, But if I understand correctly, God the Father (the creator of Heaven, earth and all living creatures) impregnated Mary to make Jesus. How is this not incest? According to Christian tradition, the Father did not impregnate Mary. The Holy Spirit did. And not through sexual intercourse. The procedure used was basically something like cloning.

KathyHL

06/06/2003 12:12:04 PM

GinnaRM said, "As God, the creator of Heaven, earth and all living creatures, Jesus would not have had sex with one of His own children. It would have been incest." But if I understand correctly, God the Father (the creator of Heaven, earth and all living creatures) impregnated Mary to make Jesus. How is this not incest?

marilynyvonne

06/06/2003 11:57:54 AM

An important reminder..........Lean NOT to YOUR own understanding. And remember this also.........And if ANY many shall take AWAY from the words of the book of THIS prophecy, God shall take away HIS part OUT of the book of life, and OUT of the holy city, and FROM the things which are written in this book. It is very, very dangerous to confuse the masses. There is NO way you can get or even entertain the thought that there was anything "sexual" or "marriage" between Our Precous Saviour and Mary Magdalene. Get a life. May God Have Mercy on your Soul for trying to confuse His people with this gunk.

GinnaRM

06/06/2003 10:53:01 AM

Either Jesus Christ was Divine, the begotten Son of God, or He was not. As God, the creator of Heaven, earth and all living creatures, Jesus would not have had sex with one of His own children. It would have been incest. Forget the marriage and sex bit.

KathyHL

06/06/2003 10:42:44 AM

It's a cool story, and certainly makes Jesus seem more likeable and human than the standard stories where he just seems like another cold, distant god. I wish that it could be proven beyond any doubt that Jesus was married. That would cause some upheaval in the world of Christianity - and IMHO, it needs upheaving. But, I doubt if anything can ever be proven one way or the other.

Priam

06/06/2003 10:38:09 AM

As historian James Hitchcock writes: One difficulty with distinguishing the respectable from the crackpot is that, if one decides that the Gospels are not really historical documents, there is not much left to rely on with respect to Jesus. Outside explicitly Christian sources there are only a few bare mentions of his name in the first century.

Priam

06/06/2003 10:38:05 AM

Part II In a way it is a testimony to Jesus' Resurrection. People keep producing new theories to discredit the historical Jesus because, for some reason, his power and authority never die. Almost the whole work of "demythologizing" was completed by l850, so that what the churches say about Jesus need no longer be taken seriously. Yet somehow his power continues, and even increases. The purpose of each new book is to weaken the spiritual authority of Jesus, as mediated through Christianity, to make the world safer for unbelief. Such authors are not really interested in what may have happened in Palestine two thousand years ago, but they are very interested in what is happening right now.

gloprice

06/06/2003 10:33:34 AM

Who CARES if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers/married?? Does it in any way either boost or make less important Jesus's teachings?! No! No matter what, most Christians are never going to see past the end of their noses enough to even consider the possibility that The Bible was put together by mere men and is therefore intrinsically flawed. Most will never accept even the possibility that books were left out, changed, etc. That said, even if a text was discovered that said OUTRIGHT: Jesus and Mary M. were married, had children, etc... Only the most liberal of Christians will accept it. If Christians won't accept the FACT that The Bible has been interpreted and re-interpreted SO many times that the original meanings have certainly been skewed, if not lost entirely... what makes anyone think they would accept the idea that Jesus was anything other than the man described (and not even WELL) in the KJV?! Respectfully, GDP

deacon777

06/06/2003 10:01:40 AM

Logical?? This is old news. It's been talked about and debated for at least over 500 years. It's always somebody "uncovered an ancient secret", a lost document, or a forgotten gospel. In the end they wither under critical analysis. I know it's a good yarn, because anything that challanges christian orthodoxy is in vogue but like the article says...it's a "novel".

b-baggins

06/06/2003 09:56:39 AM

Sorry. I meant Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha.

b-baggins

06/06/2003 09:55:51 AM

Bardmountain's right, though he described it rather tastelessly. This is fun for speculation, but it's too easy to get sidetracked into the discussion and forget the central message. Personally, I suspect this is why the gospel writers didn't say a whole lot about Jesus' youth. We'd all be looking at details of his life as a kid, and totally forgetting the central message of his teachings. Having said that, I think it is logical to assume the Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, probably at Cana. I wouldn't be surprised if he was also married to Martha of Bethany and he sister Mary as well, but it's nothing more than pure speculation.

b-baggins

06/06/2003 09:53:06 AM

Lady T_NT, The census records would. Unfortunately, that was close to 2000 years ago and not a lot of stuff remains to look at.

b-baggins

06/06/2003 09:52:02 AM

jhoulegate, The Secret Gospel of Mark discusses a different person that Jesus raised from the dead, not Lazarus.

enaid1

06/06/2003 09:46:20 AM

Mary of Magdeline was truly our Lord's soulmate. He saved her from a certain death. He loved her, and she longed to be in His presence. He bade her to come to His tomb, and spoke to her alone in her desperate search for His body..She responded Rabboni...when she heard His voice. Only a married Rabbi's address. They have an eternal, indwelling presence of one another. They have a love that is above, and beyond anything that any two people have ever known....

zoe7

06/06/2003 09:43:23 AM

I do not think Jesus was married. He came here for purposes greater than to procreate a family for himself. Mary was probably more important as far as early Christianity has protrayed her. She was the "first" one who was given the commission ...go tell...and she was obedient. And I think it is well to be remember when he was dying at Calvary-the women did not desert him. As far as scholars changing things to suit themselves about men and women--that is very is easy to be believed. After all, look at how many translations of the Bible there are and how the wording is changing--not all for the better either. think of it this way...if translations of a translation keep evolving what kind of Bible will we see in another twenty years and what kinds of valuable information will br lost?

LadyT_TNT

06/06/2003 08:48:10 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't everyone have to register for taxes? Wouldn't some kind of census record detail his family?

rbethell

06/06/2003 07:39:21 AM

Secret shmecret. There is no early evidence that Mary of Magdala was involved in this way with Jesus. Not even the apocryphal Thomas gospel suggests this (its purpose with Mary seems to be to give her equal rank in a circle of bright and intelligent disciples whose main engagement with Jesus was to ask him Socratic questions.) Much of this is fantasy that emerged out of much later suggestions that the sorrowful woman anointing Jesus' feet with tears was Mary of Magdala, and that she must have been a prostitute. Once this new and "fallen" Mary Magdalene had been created, people immediately leaped on a romatic tie to Jesus, to sully him with a tie to a reconstructed Mary who never existed.

Wrldtrvlr

06/06/2003 02:20:36 AM

I believe that point of not having sex is that when a person is not having sex they are learning more about themselves and the world around them that they might have the wisdom to live a better life. Jesus is the perfect example because he denied himself more that anyone else could so that he had an enormous amount of wisdom and self-discipline (making his death that much more tragic) We cannot attain this degree of perfection because we were not set aside for this task and are free to live our lives and can in the light of his beautiful example.

fromoz

06/06/2003 01:34:01 AM

Damian921 Why do you write that Christs words were always "gentle in nature"? I doubt that he would have spoken gently to the traders in the temple - and certainly he had some nasty things to say about the Pharasees that would have required more than a gentle tone? I'm sorry that you thought I was correcting you in my last post - I was in fact trying to build on your writing with which I agreed. Perhaps it's a cultural difference in the way people write? I'm also sorry if you find my writings spiteful - they certainly aren't intended to be - it is perhaps due to the frustration I feel when my questions such as the ones I posed to you aren't answered - and also to a certain extent it's fear based from the violence I've experienced from Christians as punishment for my illegitimacy and for being born left handed.

jhoulgate

06/06/2003 12:28:16 AM

Chilly, I've read that the oil, used in that Gospel episode was not Alabaster, but Spikenard. During that time Spikenard was a very expensive oil. Some researchers say it was a pre-wedding ritual among royal Jewish families for the bride to wash the feet of her intended with Spikenard. So this story plus some of the dialogue between Jesus and his mother, Mary at the wedding feast were indications of his own marriage. The only problem is the text doesn't make it explicit. I would be interested if there would be any discussion of the secret passage of the Gospel of Mark. It concerns the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

jhoulgate

06/06/2003 12:22:34 AM

Al Assad, It was not the Carolingian kings who were storied as descendants of Jesus, but their predecessors the Merovingians. However, the Carolingians married members of that family, so they could participate in the Desposyni bloodline.

Damian921

06/05/2003 11:33:48 PM

its a story fromoz... an analogy... why use my name and an unnecessary correction to begin ones own statement? especially when in the next line it seems you actually got it? its that same need to correct others, even when unjustified, that personifies a lot of what is wrong with organized religion in the first place. Anyone or anything that NEEDS to push off of something or someone else in order to feel it can stand on its own, is automatically discrediting itself as any thing or person I would want to listen to. Spite is no form of guidance when happiness and contentment is where everyone wants to go. No, as silly as it is to have to explain that simple story, no, he didnt whisper, ok? But he didnt scream either, so the analogy that he whispered, when his words were always gentle in nature, carries the story's meaning since the POINT was that because of being distracted, the message was lost. Thanks for picking something simple apart in order to serve your own selfish need.

JRT

06/05/2003 11:24:43 PM

I did a sermon a few years back that covereed a great many of the same points as in the article. My conclusion is that Jesus was married to Mary (likely at Cana). The question of children is far less certain.

Vorpal

06/05/2003 10:36:37 PM

So even If Jesus was married, would Debs care? (And people get paid for this dross?)

Vorpal

06/05/2003 10:31:03 PM

Oh! another lame attempt to sell books - good luck to Beliefnet...lol

Vorpal

06/05/2003 10:23:19 PM

Yes, Jesus was 'married', but it's not in any book that bnet can sell. Sorry - copyright.

sweetness4life

06/05/2003 10:17:00 PM

Celibacy was actually introduced as a requirement for priests rather late; in the 11th century, I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong). A lot of it had to do with the church not wanting priests producing heirs who could inherit Church property. It also has a lot to do with the anti-sex ideology of the Church since Augustine: sex bad, celibacy good. As for Jesus and Mary Magdalene, I would love it if it were true--even if Jesus were not married to her. Jesus was more of a radical in his time than people give him credit for. And we all know that the canonical New Testament doesn't tell the whole story--look at all the books they censored out of it. Mary Magdelene was obviously important in Jesus' movement; and since some of the texts imply that she and Jesus had an intimate relationship, the possibility cannot be ruled out, unless we have definitive proof otherwise.

Ndvmpslayr

06/05/2003 09:36:20 PM

gehez126: I'm interested in your comment "...celibacy is tied to the eschatological goal of the kingdom." I disagree. I believe the idea of celibacy was introduced by the early church as way to control the sexuality activity of the early leaders of the church (namely, the early Popes). Men may have voluntarily decided that celibacy was to be a part of their lifestyle, but I don't think it "is (was) tied to the eschatological goal of the kingdom." How did you arrive at this conclusion?

al_assad

06/05/2003 09:28:57 PM

I cannot believe they did not mention holy blood holy grail which explains how the carolinigian kings of france were actualy descendents of Jesus

bardmountain

06/05/2003 09:13:13 PM

Barring some actual evidence popping up one way or another, this falls under the broad heading of intellectual masturbation. A fun but ultimately fruitless endeavor. We end up not with truth, but with how we each prefer to think of the matter. Some of the gnostic texts actually describe Jesus as kissing Mary Magedalene on the mouth. But that's fairly meaningingless - using a passage in an old book to prove something merely proves it was written in an old book. To me, it isn't particularly important. Jesus' worldview is utterly independent of his sexuality, or lack thereof. Wisdom is wisdom, regarless of where it originiated. "Thou shall not kill" is wisdom whether it comes from a non-sexual deity or an ordinary child.

fromoz

06/05/2003 09:03:15 PM

Damian921 I think Jesus was doing more than whispering in people's ears. But like so many other great teachers it seems that whatever amplification he used people still will not listen? And now it seems his role has been reduced by many Christians to that of just a Lamb to be sacrificed? Surely Christ rejected his own family - and looked favourably on men who had become eunuchs - rejecting marriage for the kingdom. And out of the teachings of Jesus we now have Christians who should be following the example set by Jesus jumping up and down about "family values". Was Jesus married - if he was he surely must also be seen as a hypocrite?

gehez126

06/05/2003 08:59:43 PM

Jesus wasn't married because he came for a unique mission: to redeem the world through his suffering, death and resurrection. He was a divine person and knew what he had to do. Marriage wasn't part of the plan because that would imply he was tied to this world in a way that he was not. What is completely missing in this whole discussion is an appreciation of how celibacy is tied to the eschatological goal of the kingdom.

Capacious

06/05/2003 08:21:58 PM

Facts? (To paraphrase a famous quote) we don't need no stinking facts! We can just "vote" on whether or not Jesus was married, just like they "voted" on whether or not Jesus was divine back in the 4th Century. Yeah, that's it, just vote on it, that'll make it true ;)

chilly

06/05/2003 07:45:35 PM

I have understood the woman who anointed the feet of Jesus with alabaster, washed them with her tears and dried them with her hair in Matthew 26:6-13 and Luke 7:36-50 was Mary Magdalene. The most profound verse is Matthew 26:13 - "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this pospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her." God must have felt her love, devotion and sacrifice significant enough to spread to the ends of the earth as the gospel message. She became the first ambassador - even before Peter was designated the head of Christ's Church.

archon149

06/05/2003 07:40:45 PM

Should I finish reading this article, or should I watch Jesus Christ Superstar to entertain historical questions? Neither.

Damian921

06/05/2003 07:28:04 PM

I remember one sunny day a person approached me as I walked along, they leaned over and whispered the meaning of life in my ear... and all I could think of was where they got their cologne. If you asked me the meaning of life today, I couldnt tell you. Maybe I should have just listened. Who cares if he was married or not. What made him Jesus is what he was whispering in our ears.

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook