[af_vet_rr]

So you believe Jesus must have been married because a rabbi would have mentioned it if not.

I don't mean this as an insult, but it appears English is not your first language. I apologize for not making it clear and implying that you couldn't comprehend what I was saying. I'll try to make my friend's point a little more clear.

My friend's point was that because Jesus was a Rabbi, and Rabbis were bound by law, history, traditions, and customs, to be married, there is no reason why Jesus wouldn't have been married.

Because it would be common knowledge to people back in the first and second centuries that Rabbis were married, then there would be no need to mention it in in the Gospels.

Because marriage these days is not as highly regarded as it was during those times, people are not going to automatically assume that certain types of people were married, because they don't have that knowledge.

And, the fact we are even discussing whether He was married or not is because the theories proposed in the stupid movie brought it up.

Just because Brown decided to try and stick a little bit of historical perspective into a movie doesn't render that historical perspective false. There is nothing wrong with looking at Jesus as a historical figure, in fact you can understand a lot more about him when you look at his life, death, resurrection, and teachings against the backdrop of the Roman/Jewish conflict and against the backdrop of having been raised and lived as a Jew and a Rabbi of that time.

And, many will therefore believe the Bible to be wrong.

The Bible does not say that Jesus wasn't married, so it can't be wrong if he happened to have been. In my view, Jesus being married or not is a much smaller problem (and not even really a problem) than some of the inconsistencies between some of the Gospels.

But, a rabbi would not care about the life message of Jesus because a rabbi never accepted Him as the Savior. So, of course, they tend to believe He was only a good man and therefore, of course He was married.

I'm sorry I've confused you - the point my friend made was that because Jesus was a good Rabbi, he could have been married.

Well, this is the Lord's Son who was put here on earth for a purpose. Raising a family was not His purpose.

Which is why I think that even if he was married, he would not have had children - King David's line would have continued through one of Jesus' siblings (or cousins depending on your point of view).

[ClancyJ]

Look, I am not a punching bag for your comments on my intelligence.

I may not understand where you are coming from as the posts here do tend to run together.

Here are my points and I am not judging your views or even know them.

- Whether or not Jesus was married has absolutely nothing to do with what His life was all about. That is a deflection into areas that will lead to diminishing Jesus into not being here as the Savior but as merely a good man.

- If we were not told in the Bible, it is not needed for our understanding. We also do not know what happened to Joseph since he was not mentioned during the cruxification. Possibly he died.

- We are given the lineage of Jesus - but, a fact hardly ever mentioned is that the lineage did not actually give birth to Jesus because it lead to Joseph. We don't have the lineage of the birth mother, Mary (or I don't). So, therefore, the genes were not through the lineage of David but through Mary because this was a virgin birth and Joseph was not involved in it other than to marry Mary and raise Jesus. But, does this matter? No. Joseph was married to Mary and raised Jesus although his genes were not involved.

Now that is according to our understanding of things. God can do anything, he created His Son, so if He wished genes from the lineage of David, He would surely be able to accomplish it. The Bible mentions the lineage continually but never speaks of the lineage of Mary, the mother. So, we could even conclude that though Mary was the birth mother, her virgin birth of God's Son did carry the genes of the lineage God mentioned all through the Old Testament - otherwise, why mention it as a promise?

God is not limited to our world view of how things work - He is God. We come along and use our human reasoning to figure out what happened, how it happened and we can lead ourselves into error because we are looking at events through human eyes in our framework.

- Jesus was a Jew but His purpose here was not to be a rabbi to bring forward the Jewish law of the Old Testament. His purpose was to bring the new law - the New Testatment, to serve as the one time sacrifice for the sins of each of us. This was not just for the Jews but for gentiles and any that accept Him as the Son of God and follow him.

- If you will note, the New Testament does not teach we are required to follow any of the Jewish regulations and prior laws. Why?

- The Jews were God's chosen people, but they, chosen though they were, always failed to follow God, and as the final travesty failed to acknowledge His Son as the Savior. How do you think that makes God feel - his own chosen ones refute His own Son given to serve as the one time sacrifice for man's sins so that man can be perfect enough to be in the presence of God in eternity?

Therefore, I am always leery when a rabbi, or a Jew starts determining the validity of Jesus. The marriage issue is a prime example. They are looking at Jesus as a good man - not the Savior generally. Some will or do accept Jesus but, on the whole, they are still waiting for their Savior.

Which, to me, is such an insult to God who has chosen them as His people. Why are they always resistent to God? Who in the world could be more worthy of their adoration and their honor - yet, they deny that Jesus is the Son of God.

Right or wrong - that is where I see it.