Posted on 04/10/2014 8:26:11 PM PDT by NYer
Thanks. But Jesus was not only Divine. He was also fully human. And we know his human nature could express itself quite naturally or normally. We are taught that His human nature spoke the famous Lament (Father, why have You forsaken me? — a question that would have made zero sense if Jesus were solely Divine on His mission of self- sacrifice, as per John) Also, the institution of marriage is a Divine prescription, one without sin. Indeed, it would have violated God’s law for the human Jesus to not marry ( And be fruitful). And Jesus assured us he came to fulfill the Law not abrogate it. That alone would have cast doubt on him/his mission.
All in all, I think it would have made a lot of sense if Jesus were married, especially in that place and time and culture. Marriage would be consistent with his teaching mission, indeed a social prerequisite or expectation for it, too. Conclusion: my personal bottom line on this right now is that I still can’t see any Insurmountable problem (that God couldn’t have solved) had Jesus been married — and that it would have been the thing for him to do especially if he wanted to successfully attract the most followers But again I have no particular pony in this race and was just picking up on the original poster’s article. Just as scripture doesn’t tell us he stayed single ( a status that would have been a natural cause of critical comment - and scripture tells us there were some people who did question or criticize him on far lesser matters) , certainly also scripture doesn’t record that he ever married. So I can’t answer this one. It’s an interesting chat. Thanks.
“...I think that the Creator of the entire universe could handle any problem...”
I think this also, because it is true that God is all powerful; however He did create human nature with certain natural laws and order that follows from the laws He Himself set up - if He suddenly changed it all up, (He certainly could), there would be a lot of chaos; God is a God of order and logic - Satan presides over chaos.
Thanks for you insights, however.
The other very important point to consider is where these new "revelations" are coming from, and why. They are coming from non-believers who want to chip away at the divinity of Jesus. Their motivation is not only highly suspect, it's transparent.
Rather than idly speculating how cool it might be if Jesus had a wife and children, your time would be better spent in Bible study about the actual details about his life. This is not a casual read but something that can take years. [At my church we are going through the gospel of John verse by verse. It will probably take 2 years.] Because, frankly, idle speculation without Bible study is intellectually lazy.
Well, We are taught that God arranged the immaculate Conception and the. Virgin Birth ( all within about 15 years). So, yes, He could have ( if He wished) arranged for human children of the fully human Jesus, too, without any problem or chaos. And certainly without any satanic involvement! But, He did what He did ... And He has given us Scripture and tradition and faith to inform us as best we are able to understand. Thanks !
And the way to know that you are being intellectually lazy is when your comments are filled with “I think” and “I feel.” There is so much richness and information about the life of Jesus that there is no need to idly speculate. Study it. Then your comments can be filled with “I know” and “I learned.”
I think the Late Sam Kinison put it best why Jesus couldn’t have been married.
“The guy never had a wife, no, was never married, cause no wife would buy this story in 100 years.”
I write in this soft manner to indicate respect for other people and their opinions, and in hope of minimizing or even if possible avoiding some of the personal invective of some FR posters. I acknowledge I don’t know it all. I hope to learn more by reading what others care to share with us here. Thanks.
And for Easter 2015, some researcher will find the divorce decree between Jesus and his wife!
And for Easter 2016, some researcher will find a document that says Jesus left his wife for another man!
Yours pis the belief of pantheists, not Christians.
“...idle speculation ...”
Referring to my post #63 where I used the phrase “I think...”
Don’t automatically assume that the use of the phrase “I think” means the person is lazy and hasn’t studied scripture. My own point about God being all powerful is specifically based upon Matthew 19:26 “With God all things are possible”. The points about God creating order in the universe and the natural law are specifally found in Genesis where God created earth with a specific order and plan in His mind: the sun, moon. etc. out of chaos.
Just don’t assume someone is lazy and hasn’t studied the bible as a matter of course.
Let me get this straight they found after all Mary Mageline marry Jesus OH OKAY WHATEVER ROFL
Is that Cheech and Chong joke there LOL!
I think I’ll go with Paul’s clear statement regarding his marital status over your opinion.
I am not trying to judge but when, presumably, sincere Christians start throwing up trial balloons that are sheer speculation then I wonder whether they really have studied the Bible, ever, especially when their comments are filled with "I think" and "I feel." Because to me they are not intellectually curious about our faith, they just want to hear themselves talk. They don't want to learn and they aren't looking to teach with their comments. They are also, in a sense, violating the Word of God with their speculation.
I am especially sensitive to this as I was raised Catholic and never cracked a Bible until I was 25 years old - just believed what the priests said. Once I became an evangelical Christian, I came to know the joy of studying the Word - a lifetime journey, to be sure. The Catholic church says that understanding the Bible is the duty of priests, and they'll tell you what you need to know. Bull honkey. I am studying it in a group every Sunday and every week I get goosebumps at what is revealed.
Christians should take heed of Acts 17:11, where the Paul cited the Bereans, who "searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." This does not leave room for idle speculation. If someone says Jesus married, then search the Scriptures. It's that simple.
Another example: the NT says in many places that "Jesus loved" someone. If a woman, was it sexual? If a man, was it homosexual? Well, don't spend time reading posts on FR idly saying, "Sure, I think Jesus could've ..." GO READ THE BIBLE ITSELF. Open up a few commentaries and check those as well. Then, you can post on FR something like this: "I was stimulated enough by the post about what it meant when the Bible says 'Jesus loved' so I checked it out. There is no evidence that Jesus engaged in any sexual relationships." NOW you have made a contribution.
Also, in both the OT and NT Christians are cautioned, quite severely, against misleading other Christians. I frankly believe that threads like this one do just that. To wit:
* Romans 16:17-18: "Watch out for people who ... teach things that are contrary to what you have been taught. ... Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests..."
* Proverbs 30:6 "Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you, and you will be found a liar."
* 2 Timothy 4:3 "A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear."
That last citation should make every Christian pause who says, "I think" about Jesus.
To all Freepers who aren't in a detailed Bible study -- do it. Find a couple friends and meet for breakfast once a week, or join a Bible study at your church. Or, if a woman, join Community Bible Study (CBS) somewhere in your city; one equivalent for men is Bible Study Fellowship (BSF), which is nationwide.
Sorry but I am going to bow out of this conversation now.
I do not believe it is productive of truth, nor is it now assisting in the challenge of discernment.
It appears you assume people who do not hold to your beliefs or doctrines are either not reading the Bible or else have evil motives.
There are definitely such people, they seem to abound all around us at times these days.
But, it is unfair to assume that everybody who posts on FR falls into those two undesirable categories.
Some of us have prayerfully studied scripture and theology for years and years. This does not prove any one of us are correct on any single question. But, it does distinguish us from the types of people you complain of.
Now then,
the Bible does NOT tell us if Jesus was married or not.
So it is open to discussion.
Without repeating, there are several reasons to suggest that maybe he was married. But again, I do not know (and neither does anybody else). So, we discuss.
Note that some FR folks posted theological positions they believe in, and that they believe would be adversely impacted if Jesus were married. And, that we had some theological reasons to believe that those concerns would not have posed any significant difficulty to God (and that in some ways at least they would be in harmony with received teachings). Again, none of this proves his marital status one way or the other. I do not claim anything contrary to your reading of scripture, I was only asking a question consequent to the originally-posted article, is all.
I am out of this one, folks. It was fun. I hope all the other people here who participated will continue to do so, (and please everyone do not cast stones, it is at least as unfair to the caster as it is to the castee).
or something like that.
Thanks !
Iirc, the parchment in question was dated to the 9th or 10th Century AD.
So all it really proves is that someone from that time period was considering that Jesus may have been married. Nothing more, nothing less.
Facts and common sense say that if this is truly “evidence” of Jesus being married, and represented knowledge that had persisted for nearly 1000 years, there would be a heck of a lot of other evidence out there that Jesus was married as well.
However, this IS an important document, but is only relevant to how Christ was perceived and interpreted in the 8th-9th centuries.
Well put. If Jesus had been a fraud, or married, or sinful, there would have been many historical tidbits, not necessarily biblical, that would have amplified such.
Even the Jewish historian Josephus had nothing negative to say about Jesus, other than the fact that he claimed to be the Messiah. Had there been other eyewitnesses with contrary stories this would have been recorded somewhere.
“The Catholic Church says that undersanding the Bible is the duty of priests.”
This is absolutely incorrect. The Catholic Church encourages bible study. If you never cracked a Bible until you were 25 years old as a Catholic you must have never been to mass because the entire mass is composed of the bible - especially the 1st and 2nd readings and the Gospel.
The canard that the Catholic Church discourages bible reading and bible study is simply not true.
Saying "I think that Jesus could have been married because it would uplift traditional marriage" is a lovely sentiment but that's all it is. A feeling. Saying that the Bible doesn't say whether Jesus is married, so he might have been is just the work of someone who's never read the Bible, or at least not understood it.
The Bible is also silent as to whether Jesus was a Democrat or a Communist. But that doesn't mean there is the slightest chance that he was.
Someone who understand the Gospels would know that the omission of any mention of a wife to Jesus would not be an oversight or an irrelevant detail.
At the cross, Jesus asks John to care for his mother, Mary. He did not ask John or anyone else to care for a wife or a child. This is very good evidence, prima facie, that there was no wife, or child.
Elsewhere, in the Gospels and NT letters, specific reference is made to Jesus' brothers and sisters, in particular James. Okay, so we know his mother had additional children, not born of the Holy Spirit.
So, it appears that the Bible authors pretty much round out Jesus' family. His genealogy is mentioned in the Book of Matthew, his parentage is mentioned in all four gospels, his siblings are referenced in several other places in the NT. His cousin John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb and baptized Jesus. Bible authors took care of all familial details. So it is highly likely that Jesus had no other relatives, at least significant ones, including a spouse.
This is amplified by the fact that there are many non-biblical sources of history from that time, most notably the Jewish historian Josephus. If there were any scandals, sin, fraud, or hypocrisy in Jesus' life these would no doubt have been captured in these historical records. That includes a marriage, especially to a woman of ill repute (when this matter comes up, Mary Magdalene's name is usually offered up). And, these would have been big problems for we Christians.
But there are none. It has always been a wonderful surprise that none of the historical records of the time were able to disprove what we know to be the gospel story -- Jesus' life, his ministry, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. Not one. And we know that the ruling Jewish leaders, and the Roman leaders, certainly had good reason to document said disparaging facts, if they existed. But they didn't because there were none.
Another reason that an earthly wife poses problems for we Christians is that a marriage would have produced children. Fine. But given Jesus' standing among his disciples, had he died his children would have been viewed as the next in line for his Kingship. This would have dramatically weakened the story of Jesus as Son of God, because earthly children would have meant there were grandchildren of God, part divine. [This starts to sound like Greek mythology.] Jesus' genealogy had to end with him because he died, rose, and ascended, and the veneration of any earthly descendant would weaken the fact that Jesus is the only path to God, and that "no one comes to the Father except through me."
And, a final and even larger point is that, symbolically, Jesus' bride is the church. This is made ever so clear in the Book of Revelation, and hinted at throughout Scripture and in the gospels. Some people like to ignore that fact, because it seems creepy, but the symbolism equates to the fact that he gave his life for his bride, which is a very understandable symbol. And if Jesus had had a real wife, this notion of the bride of Christ would not work anymore.
To me, the mere fact that the apostle John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes of the Bride of Christ in Revelation is proof positive that Jesus did not marry.
Someone who studied the bible would recognize some or all of the above. Many freepers no doubt know more.
Now, the earlier commentator, upon seeing this, might say: "Gosh, I never knew some of this. I'd better crack my Bible and follow up on some of this."
But only an airhead posing as a FR commentator would, upon seeing some of the facts, continue to write about her feelings that "wouldn't it be lovely if Jesus had married" and act hurt when she is exhorted to look things up.
Sheesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.