Was Jesus Christ A Married Man? (NYPost Review – “a tad confusing – pretty pictures”)

NY Post ^ | November 3, 2003 | Adam Buckman

[Oztrich Boy]

Nostradmus would be too ashamed to claim those prophecies.

[mtbopfuyn]

It's simply amazing how Christianity is the only religion that encounters such scrutiny, while other religions are off-limits.

Ain't it the truth. What's the big deal if He were married? He'd be able to relate more to his fellow man and it'd put an end to the homosexual theories. Folks can argue till the cows come home over Mary M., or on the third day skipping off to raise a family of French kids, or the dozen other theories but we'll never know for sure about any of it. It's all theory (doning flame suit). We weren't there and can only read the accounts of a handful of men whom are credited to be telling the absolute truth and not fudging about anything.

[CobaltBlue]

The verses in Matthew about M'HAIMNA should be read in the context of the entire passage.

A Pharisee asks Jesus whether it is legal to divorce?

Jesus says no, not unless the wife has been unfaithful. Because God created man and woman to be one flesh and bond together, and what God has bonded, no man should separate.

Then the disciples say, well, in that case, it's better to never marry.

Clearly, the disciples were saying that sticking to one woman is hard to do, so better to fool around than be bound to only one woman through matrimony.

They were not talking about celibacy.

Christ, in response, talks about M'HAIMNA, which is an Aramaic word which can mean eunuch, or it can mean believer, faithful.

[Oztrich Boy]

What's the big deal if He were married?

It might be that one particular sect would be in the position of having to explain "Archduke Franz Ferdinand found alive. World War I a mistake"

[capitan_refugio]

The tradition that Jesus was married goes back to the primitive church and the Gnostics. Certainly, in the passage concerning the wedding at Cana, the actions of Jesus are consistant with those of a bridegroom. Also, the Jewish traditions of the day frowned upon unmarried men, as a sin against the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply."

I don't plan on watching the show, in any case.

[AD from SpringBay]

Will I get flamed if I say that I am looking forward to watching this?

Only if the movie Magdalene isn't a cutie. Shows like this tend to cast her as a hottie.

[Taliesan]

I read it. Enjoyed it. Fun mystery.

Of course, the goddess stuff is a bunch of hooey. But it's FICTION.

[Chants]

I just finished reading Brown's book, "The DaVinci Code."

The theory upon which it operates is this. Jesus was married to Magdaline. The Catholic Church, however, wanted a male dominated church and felt threatened by having Magdaline paired up with Christ. In their attempt to cover any reference to Magdaline, they initiated a conspiracy campaign against everything feminine. Evidence of this campaign is illustrated through great works of art, language, and tarot cards. Only by denigrating the feminine could the church hold power.

Brown aserts that women were essentially equal to men prior to the church's conspiratorial campaign. And that women only slipped behind men in rights and status after the church started slandering them and covering up the truth.

That assertion is simply false. Women have unfortunately been second class citizens from time immemorial, across nearly every culture, and the church had absolutely nothing to do with it. The chuch did not control China, had no influence over Hindus, yet women were porrly treated in those cultures as well. The church was a product of the prejudices which existed at the time of it's creation, and altough it may have been a vehicle to perpetuate those prejudices, it can't be said that it created those prejudices.

Some of the examples of this conspiracy were less than compelling for me. For example, the author claims that women were associtated with the left (sinister) and men were associated with the right (dexterity) because the church wanted women to be percieved negatively. No proof was provided about just how the church orchestrated such a linguistic manipulation, in several languages mind you, to achieve the desired result. Brown just left the reader to assume the chuch did it (because he said so) and then assume that the association helped support his overall theory: Magdaline was married to Christ.

Brown essentially uses the old UFO technique to prove his case. The absence of actual facts serves to prove the cover-up, and the cover-up serves to prove the absent facts.

Nevertheless, Brown does write an exciting murder-mystery, if one can get over the rather silly premise. He weaves in his theory deftly in a page-burning plot which makes it hard for the reader to put the book down. And while the premise is silly, it is also very interesting.

Other than a good read, the book struck me as an awfully elaborate explanation for something which, even given the prejudices of the time, seemed inconsequential in comparison.

[nightdriver]

"Nostradmus would be too ashamed to claim those prophecies."

Oh well, you asked.

[Some hope remaining.]

A friend of mine, who is Catholic, told me about a theory on the celibacy thing. Some people claim that because early popes, bishops, etc. tended to accumulate a lot of wealth the church didn't want them to have families to pass their wealth on to. If they were celibate it would go back to the church when they died. He wasn't saying he believed that theory, just that it was one he had heard.

[The Iguana]

But it's FICTION.

No question.

[Some hope remaining.]

This show must be generating a bunch of demand for that book. I just checked the online catalog for our local library and there's an eight-deep waiting list for the book. LOL! :^)

[Oatka]

I'll have to check that book out, mainly because of the authors.

They wrote "The Turin Shroud". When I first read their claim that daVinci most likely created the Shroud I was hysterical with laughter.

Doggone it, they made a pretty fair case. The real miracle of the Shroud, IMHO, is that it IS the world's first photograph.

Old daVinci probably stumbled on a way to "fix" the image during his alchemy experiments.

If Clive and Pickins are as detailed in the Templars book, it will be interesting reading.

Thanks.

[gcruse]

It's simply amazing how Christianity is the only religion that encounters such scrutiny, while other religions are off-limits.

The Protocols of Zion isn't chicken feed.

And I've seen a lot of anti-Mormon screed, even
here on this forum.

[HarleyD]

"Clearly, the disciples were saying that sticking to one woman is hard to do, so better to fool around than be bound to only one woman through matrimony."

While this discord leads from a discussion on divorce, the disciples weren't saying it would be better to "fool around". They were astonished that Jesus would not be sympathetic to divorcing for "any reason"

Matt 18:3 "Some Pharisees came to Jesus testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

The disciples are especially astonished at Jesus' answer since Moses permitted it and He seems to contradict what Moses said.

He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce you wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Jesus said it is because of man's failings that we fail in many areas-marriage included. As you probably are aware, not divorcing is supported in other scriptures. (I Co 7:12)

For the disciples, as with many of us, this answer is clearly a problem and the disciples come to a natural conclusion, that it is better not to marry than to make a marriage vow to a spouse and God and break it. Jesus knew that he would not be able to keep a vow to a spouse and would not dishonor God by breaking it.

[sphinx]

A friend of mine, who is Catholic, told me about a theory on the celibacy thing. Some people claim that because early popes, bishops, etc. tended to accumulate a lot of wealth the church didn't want them to have families to pass their wealth on to.

Actually, the early popes, bishops, etc. tended to be martyred. It didn't become safe to be a Christian until somewhat later.

Your friend is correct, however, that the property question was one (not the only) consideration touching on celibacy. The church -- not the priest, bishop, or pope -- accumulated great wealth through bequests, and the institutional Church wanted to avoid the temptations of benefices becoming quasi-heriditary.

As I understand it, however, the ideal of celibacy was honored in the western church from a very early period, long before property would have been much of a consideration and certainly before the rule became mandatory. The personal example of Jesus was central to this. The idea current in the early church that the Second Coming was imminent also played an important role.

Perhaps one of our house experts will be good enough to weigh in on this.

[Some hope remaining.]

Actually, the early popes, bishops, etc. tended to be martyred. It didn't become safe to be a Christian until somewhat later.

Fair enough, although one could argue that celibacy didn't become established until that same "later." :)

[FNU LNU]

and how do we know that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?

[Bohemund]

One thing I learned which I thought was very interesting. Take a look at the recently restored "Last Supper" by Leonardo da Vinci. The figure on His right clearly is a woman, and if you take her out of the count, there are only 11 disciples in the painting. Then in the group of disciples on your left of the painting, Jesus's right, floating in the middle is a disembodied hand holding a knife. Weird.

Not to be a party pooper, but that's no woman--it's the Apostle John, who was traditionally portrayed as a youth. And that "disembodied hand" belongs to the guy in pink. No knife, either.

[Bohemund]

and how do we know that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?

We don't, of course. Pope Gregory the Great conflated three different women into "Mary Magdalene," confusing the sinner of Luke 7:35-50 with Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus with Mary Magdalene.