ABC asks (but in the wee hours): Was Jesus married? (Christianity takes another hit.)

AP News ^

[karen999]

The critical passages are in John 2:1-12. The suggestion is that the wedding was Jesus' because his mother was there and appears to be responsible for providing the wine. She gives directions to the servants to do what Jesus tells them. She would have been in charge at her son's wedding and would have given directions to servants. But the strongest suggestion that Jesus was the bridegroom at the wedding is here: "They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, 'Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.'

Not in the weensiest bit convincing.

a) Jesus was both God AND man.

b) "Onanism" was a sin, and Jesus wouldn't have practised it...and that would have been about the only birth control method then.

c) Therefore, if Jesus married, he'd also very likely have had children...natural processes being what they are (there's that God AND man bit again)

d) If you are physically born of God, then what does that make you?

e) He was NOT "just like other men" going down to the office for a day's work and coming back to kick his feet up on the couch.

from the text you seem to forget that Mary (his mother) said "look, THEY have no more wine." Not "WE have no more wine." (it's quite likely that the wedding party were related to Mary... and she said this out of sympathy.)

And given this wedding was in Cana...didn't customs back then dictate that the wedding be held on the GROOM'S home turf? Jesus's home turf at the time was Nazareth....I could be mistaken on this last point, but I believe I am correct.

And forgive me, but wouldn't a male have been "in charge" of overseeing such a feast at that time...and not Mary?

All this "Jesus was married" hoo-ha is simply to bring Him down to mere mortal.

[nightdriver]

"Please cite the scripture you have in mind."

See post #100.

[karen999]

It would have been unusual for a 1st century 30 year old Jewish man not to have been married

That may be so...but THAT occurrence would have happened jillions of times more often than a 1st century 30 year old Jewish man also BEING God.....

[karen999]

I don't get those who believe that Jesus was basically a "saint" who was seperate from his flock. By being married, having human hungers, thirsts, desires, then being told to give it all up, and suffer on the cross, it is more powerful a sacrifice than being told that Jesus could do no wrong, was perfect, and basically wouldn't have anybody to miss back on earth.

Thought 1) you don't have to be married to have human hungers, thrists, etc. (single people don't have it easy either)

And yes, believe it or not Christians (ALL CHRISTIANS) DO believe that Jesus could do no wrong (being BOTH man AND God, by definition he did no wrong) and God IS perfect.

By definition being a Christian means believing Jesus was both God AND Man. So your statement ONLY makes "sense" if it comes from a non-Christian. I'm not knocking you if you aren't a Christian (each to his own and all) but it is an odd statement if you are a Christian.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

This theory is discussed in this book, which I've found to be a fascinating read:

Holy Blood, Holy Grail

[StupidQuestions]

Your assertion that ALL of the 'Jesus was married discussion is an attempt to bring Jesus down is a bit conspiratorial. There is a real interest in the historical figure that is separate from the religious figure.

It appears your religious objection is related to sexual activity so I wonder whether you believe Jesus experienced normal sexual desire. If not, then was he really a man? If so, then how did he deal with it?

[Happy2BMe]

The reviewers saw it for what it is (a hoax to make money):

I first read this as a credulous 15-year-old, but even then I found the claims to be entirely unsupported by the evidence cited. In the years since then, I am amazed that I could have been that generous.

This is a classic case of conspiracy theory and pseudo history: cite a few plausible assertions as proven fact, and then pile loads of implausible claims and speculations on top of those supposed proven facts. It makes for a gripping narrative, but rapidly departs from what we know as reality.

This is not to say that this isn't an extremely entertaining book, but only if you approach it entirely as a work of fiction. It is a fantastic yarn, and lots of fun, but please don't take it seriously at all.

and . .

"The book's reasoning is based mostly on 2 presumptions: a poor priest has found something in Rennes-le-Chateau, and this something is a proof that Priory of Sion has some secret knowledge. Both of them are just eleborate hoaxes - everywhere in Internet you can find who, when and why concocted them (just look, for example for "Rennes-le-Chateau hoax". Priory of Sion was just a club of friends, some of them wrote the "ancient" parchments, and Mr. Plantard has never been a "St.Clair", and priest Sauniere received his wealth from illegal selling of masses, and died in poverty, after Church investigation. I recommend reading "The Unknown Treasure: the Priory of Sion Fraud and the Spiritual Treasure of Rennes-le-Château"

finally . . .

"I first read this garbage over 30 years ago and it is very depressing to see it make a comeback. Knowing someone in the supposed Priory of Sion makes me even less convinced - this really is gobbledygook of prime order."

Hint: I wouldn't stake my eternity on it.

[Ogmios]

-- Jesus married and had children.

No, he didn't. Sorry. There is no evidence of this claim.

Yes, there is....

[Catholicguy]

If you go through the day not experiencing sexual temptation are you abnormal?

Extend that to two days...now three....

Now, extend that thought to every day of the life of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour, and your thoughts will resonate with the Truth.

Concupiscence. The propensity of human nature to actual sin as a result of the original sin, which darkened our intellects and weakened our wills.

Me and thee have weakened human natures and we are prone to sin due to consupisence. Jesus' took on Human Nature free from the deficiencies of original sin - therefore, no concupiscence.

Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were, similarly, free from concupisence and sexual temptation

[Catholicguy]

Our calendar is based on the birth of Christ; all years before Christ's birth have traditionally been designated B.C. (before Christ) and those after his birth as A.D., an abbreviation for the Latin term anno Domini which means "in the year of the Lord."

Some historians have adopted an alternative dating system, referring to B.C. as B.C.E. (before the common era), and to A.D. as C.E. (common era). The change was made to mask the Christian basis for the dating system and presumably make it more palatable to non-Christians.

The new designation is unsatisfactory on several levels. In the first place, no "common era" exists. It can't be found in history books or the dictionary. It was just made up. If there is a common era, it didn't begin in the year one; it probably began around 1500 A.D. when ocean exploration connected the world in a global trading network.

On a cognitive level, B.C.E. and C.E. repeat the same letters in the same order making the distinction between them harder for the eye and mind to grasp than the traditional system that uses all different letters. To understand the meaning of dates, readers may have to stop and consciously translate the letters.

The politically sensitive thinkers who developed the new terminology were not so bold as to identify a new, logical, non-Christian basis for dating time such as the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago or the beginning of civilization five thousand years ago. Instead, they kept the Christian system but attempted to obscure its historical origin, a curiously anti-historical act.

As it now stands we have two competing dating systems: the system used by some academics and the system used by most everyone else. Students are caught in the middle, forced to translate between their history textbooks and the dates they encounter in other classes and outside of school. History education should work to facilitate understanding, not interfere with it.

If historians wish to remove echoes of Christianity from the dating system, there are easier ways than making up confusing new terminology. They can simply consider B.C. to stand for "before common dating" and A.D. to stand for "after common dating." While there is no common era in history, common dating clearly does exist. It would be sensible to have a common terminology to describe it.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Well, trot it on out.

[StupidQuestions]

Where in the Bible do you find a statement that Adam and Eve had no sexual desire before original sin? It seems pretty evident that sexual desire is not only wholly natural, but is essential to the survival of the species. You are certainly free to believe whatever you want but this notion that sexual desire is unnatural or inherently evil seems silly to me.

[LadyDoc]

the attack is not on Jesus, but on the truth of Christianity...

the Jesus seminar is trying to insist the gospels were not historical, and then they posit their 3rd century gnostic gospels are accurate.

But there is a lot of historical and societal accuracy in the Gospels whereas the gnostic gospels are more highfalutin tomes on how you too can meditate etc. and that mary magdalen was an apostle and that the evil church bishops got rid of the story because they were patriarchal bigots who hated independent women (i.e. the same stuff that is taught in pc universities)

I've lived in primitive countries, and the gospels make sense to peasents. The gnostic gospels are so higfalutin that I have trouble undestanding them...

[Ogmios]

Not my job, it'll surface soon enough, just letting him know that his information is wrong.

Christians need to psychologically prepare themselves for some shocking revelations in the coming years, because it is almost time.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Not my job, it'll surface soon enough, just letting him know that his information is wrong.

In other words, you have zip, zero, nada, and zilch.

[karen999]

Your assertion that ALL of the 'Jesus was married discussion is an attempt to bring Jesus down is a bit conspiratorial. There is a real interest in the historical figure that is separate from the religious figure.

I'll grant that as an intellectual exercise it's one thing to ask the question. However, logically, if you believe that Jesus is also God, the speculations fall flat on their face and don't merit serious consideration.

It appears your religious objection is related to sexual activity so I wonder whether you believe Jesus experienced normal sexual desire. If not, then was he really a man? If so, then how did he deal with it?

re: involuntary physiological reactions, He would have had same reactions. HOWEVER, believe it or not, not everyone THINKS with his pecker. It's called "Self control" when something greater is at stake. His mission to die for our sins on the cross outweighted ANY other consideration.

[Ogmios]

LOL, whatever you want to think....

[iconoclast]

for starters.

I hope you've got something better than that for "finishers".

[nightdriver]

I hope you've got something better than that for "finishers".

Don't need it. I know His story.

I'd invite you to learn it too.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

What I think is not relevant. What is reality, however, is reality.

And the reality is that you made an outrageous claim and have provided nothing, not even half a piece of quarter-baked evidence to back it up to back it up. Just like ABC.

Until you can provide such evidence the conclusion must be reached by all concerned that you have nothing.