Did Jesus marry and had children?

[dianaiad]

Dianaid,

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The thing is, there is some evidence to support the idea that He was married; for one thing, he was a Jew, and He did actually SPEAK in the synagogue and read from the scriptures there, and according to the Jewish laws and traditions of the time, He had to have been married in order to do so.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

So the evidence that He WAS married is strictly cultural–according to the traditions of the Jews of the time; what would normally have happened to a young Jewish man. The evidence that He was NOT is simply a lack of anybody telling us that He was.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Well Quran implies/hint that Jesus did marry and had children.

[13:37] وَالَّذِيْنَ اٰتَيْنٰهُمُ الْكِتٰبَ يَفْرَحُوْنَ بِمَاۤ اُنْزِلَ اِلَيْكَ‌ وَمِنَ الْاَحْزَابِ مَنْ يُّـنْكِرُ بَعْضَهٗ‌ؕ قُلْ اِنَّمَاۤ اُمِرْتُ اَنْ اَعْبُدَ اللّٰهَ وَلَاۤ اُشْرِكَ بِهٖؕ اِلَيْهِ اَدْعُوْا وَاِلَيْهِ مَاٰبِ‏
[13:37] And those to whom We have given the Book rejoice in what has been revealed to thee. And of the different parties there are some who deny a part thereof. Say, ‘I am only commanded to worship Allah and not to set up equals to Him. Unto Him do I call, and unto Him is my return.’
[13:37] اور جن لوگوں کو ہم نے کتاب دی وہ اس سے جو تیری طرف اتارا جاتا ہے خوش ہوتے ہیں۔ اورمتفرق گروہوں میں سے بعض ایسے ہیں جو اس کے بعض حصوں کا انکار کردیتے ہیں۔ تُو کہہ دے کہ یقیناً مجھے یہی حکم دیا گیا ہے کہ میں اللہ کی عبادت کروں اور اس کا کوئی شریک نہ ٹھہراؤں۔ اسی کی طرف میں بلاتا ہوں اور اسی کی طرف میرا لوٹنا ہے۔

---

[13:38] وَكَذٰلِكَ اَنْزَلْنٰهُ حُكْمًا عَرَبِيًّا‌ ؕ وَلَٮِٕنِ اتَّبَعْتَ اَهْوَآءَهُمْ بَعْدَمَا جَآءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِۙ مَا لَـكَ مِنَ اللّٰهِ مِنْ وَّلِىٍّ وَّلَا وَاقٍ‏
[13:38] And thus have We revealed it as a clear judgment. And if thou follow their evil desires after the knowledge that has come to thee, thou shalt have no friend nor defender against Allah.
[13:38] اور اسی طرح ہم نے اُسے ایک فصیح و بلیغ حکم کے طور پر اُتارا ہے۔ اور اگر تو ان کی خواہشات کی پیروی کرے بعد اس کے کہ تیرے پاس علم آچکا ہے تو تجھے اللہ کی طرف سے کوئی دوست اور کوئی بچانے والا نہ ملے گا۔

---

**
[13:39] وَلَقَدْ اَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلاً مِّنْ قَبْلِكَ وَ جَعَلْنَا لَهُمْ اَزْوَاجًا وَّذُرِّيَّةً ‌ؕ وَمَا كَانَ لِرَسُوْلٍ اَنْ يَّاْتِىَ بِاٰيَةٍ اِلَّا بِاِذْنِ اللّٰهِ‌ؕ لِكُلِّ اَجَلٍ كِتَابٌ‏
[13:39] And, indeed, We sent Messengers before thee, and We gave them wives and children. And it is not possible for a Messenger to bring a Sign save by the command of Allah. For every term there is a divine decree.
[13:39] اور ہم نے یقیناً تجھ سے پہلے بہت سے رسول بھیجے اور ہم نے ان کے لئے بیویاں بنائیں اور ذرّیّت بھی۔ اور کسی رسول کے لئے یہ ممکن نہیں کہ کوئی ایک آیت بھی اللہ کے اِذن کے بغیر لا سکے۔ اور ہر مقدر وقت کے لئے ایک نوشتہء تحریر ہے۔ **​

[13:40] يَمْحُوْا اللّٰهُ مَا يَشَآءُ وَيُثْبِتُ‌ۖ ‌ۚ وَعِنْدَهٗۤ اُمُّ الْكِتٰبِ‏
[13:40] Allah effaces what He wills and established what He wills, and with Him is the source of all commandments.
[13:40] اللہ جو چاہے مٹا دیتا ہے اور قائم بھی رکھتا ہے اور اس کے پاس تمام نوشتوں کا منبع ہے۔

---

[13:41] وَاِنْ مَّا نُرِيَـنَّكَ بَعْضَ الَّذِىْ نَعِدُهُمْ اَوْ نَـتَوَفَّيَنَّكَ فَاِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ الْبَلٰغُ وَعَلَيْنَا الْحِسَابُ‏
[13:41] And whether We make thee see the fulfilment of some of the things with which We threaten them or whether We make thee die, it makes little difference, for on thee lies only the delivery of the Message, and on Us the reckoning.
[13:41] اوراگر ہم تجھے ان اِنذاری وعدوں میں سے کچھ دکھا دیں جو ہم ان سے کرتے ہیں یا تجھے وفات دے دیں تو (ہر صورت) تیرا کام صرف کھول کھول کر پہنچا دینا ہے اور حساب ہمارے ذمہ ہے۔

alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=13&verse=36

Since Jesus was immidiately before Muhammad, so the verse hints that Jesus must have married and had children. It is now on the Catholic, in my opinion, to prove it that Jesus in fact did maary and had sons and daughters. Otherwise the Catholics should not insist that Jesus was a 100% man or a fully man.

This is my opinion, others could believe diffrently if they like; no compulsion, but with good reasons.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

aaa

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

 

[kellie]

Hi

I think I mentioned in one of my posts that Jesus might have married three wives. As people from his lineage are mentioned in different lands. If that is so horrible for the Catholics; they should make a serious research in my opinion.

Thanks

I’m sorry but I always seem drawn to answering paarsurrey’s threads. Only because they are so illogical.

paarsurrey, as a Catholic, I don’t need to research anything, All that I have needed to know has been handed down for me from the Catholic Church. Jesus died on the Cross, He came back to life, He passed on the keys to Peter, He ascended into Heaven, and St Peter became leader of the Ministry that Jesus started. St.Peter, the 1st Pope, then led the Catholic Church, and over time the Bible was collated, the Bible was interpreted through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and from Pope to Pope we have all we need to know about the Truth from Scripture and Tradition.
The only “knowing” we need to do now is the teachings of our Church, as in the Catechism etc, and also getting to know a personal relationship with Jesus.
All of this is why we know Jesus wasn’t married. His stories, from Peter who was with Him (and why would Peter not have passed on that He was married), to Paul, who wasn’t a follower but then believed, have been passed down through time to today.

We don’t believe Jesus has lineage, so it is up to the people that do believe that to give proof.

So can you please stop bombarding this forum with posts that tell us Catholics to do research? Thanks

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad;

 

[dianaiad]

Because of nonsense like this: “Therefore it is not logical to assume that NOT telling us that He was married is proof that He was not, when we aren’t given information about the wives of any of His followers either.”

 

[dianaiad]

paar,
I usually don’t bother with questions of this nature.
Jesus is God. What makes you think he would marry?
Did your god marry anyone?

jean8

Jesus was also ‘fully man.’ Why wouldn’t He marry?

So far, all the arguments I’m getting come to…“well, He just wouldn’t!”

Which isn’t helpful.

 

[Jerusha]

It was important that He have no descendants. Take a look at the wild beliefs of

The Merovingian kings perpetuated myths concerning their being of “divine descent,” as demonstrated by their continued military successes. The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code run with this myth, and concoct a connection between Jesus’ supposed marriage to Mary Magdalene and their supposed descendants. The hypothesis is that Jesus’ descendants intermarried with the Merovingians, giving the line of kings a divine authority.gotquestions.org/Merovingian-dynasty.html

Can you imagine people who encourage others that they have God’s authority in all things because they are descendants of Jesus? :bigyikes: Given human nature, that would authorize all sorts of abuses of power.

(Wondering of the descendants of Mohammed were worse than himself.)

 

[planten]

Very good discussion, all pointing to the fact that Jesus was married. the mormon friend has good logic and support from original Jewish theology.
I see that there is no mention of any of the wives of the apostles too. It seems that the bibleNT is Male-book, nothing for the ladies (or wives) in it.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Jesus was also ‘fully man.’ Why wouldn’t He marry?

So far, all the arguments I’m getting come to…“well, He just wouldn’t!”

Which isn’t helpful.

BECAUSE HE DIDN’T COME FOR THAT REASON NOR ANY OTHER REASON BUT TO DIE ON THE CROSS FOR YOU AND FOR ME! JESUS WAS DIVINE AND IF ANYONE KNOWS HE IS THE MESSIAH MUST STOP THINKING THESE RIDICULOUS THOUGHTS! REALLY!

 

[Jerusha]

Here is another discussion of the consequences of such a possibility:

Ultimately, the notion that a person living millennia ago has a small number of descendants living today is statistically improbable.[42] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins, published an article in Nature demonstrating that, as a matter of statistical probability:
f anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet.[43]

Historian Ken Mondschein ridiculed the notion that the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene could have been preserved:
Infant mortality in pre-modern times was ridiculously high, and you’d only need one childhood accident or disease in 2,000 years to wipe out the bloodline … keep the children of Christ marrying each other, on the other hand, and eventually they’d be so inbred that the sons of God would have flippers for feet.[44]

Chris Lovegrove, who reviewed The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail when first published in 1982, dismissed the significance of a Jesus bloodline even it were proven to exist despite all evidence to the contrary:
If there really is a Jesus dynasty - so what? This, I fear, will be the reaction of many of those prepared to accept the authors’ thesis as possible, and the book does not really satisfy one’s curiosity in this crucial area.[45]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_bloodline

 

[FCEGM]

. . .That aside, while I appreciate your posting of the article, and it does indeed help explain a bit, it doesn’t really address the question;

Or, perhaps, it does. Basically it comes down to this; the idea that Jesus could be born physically of a woman, grow from childhood to adulthood with all the stuff that goes along with that, and that he could suffer enormously and feel incredible pain at His death: that He could smile, feel joy, sorrow, cry–all these things that go along with being mortal; that’s fine. It’s the whole idea.

But there is something so inherently evil about actually having sex that the thought of His participating in THAT aspect of mortal life, even with his lawful wife, that the thought of Jesus engaging in it makes you go eeeuuww?. . .

There is nothing inherently evil about sex and no Catholic here has said or implied any such thing. What I originally presented in my post makes clear that for Jesus there was no need for Him to enter into a marriage since as God Incarnate He was already intimately involved (and more fully so than is possible within any marriage) with the Bride He was forming for Himself - His Church.

I guess that is simply something I don’t get.

And it is impossible for you to “get” as long as you hold to the gravely erroneous belief that God has a Body and a wife (wives).

 

[Jerusha]

He was already intimately involved (and more fully so than is possible within any marriage) with the Bride He was forming for Himself - His Church.

We are ALL as Christians, and most particularly as Catholics, descendants of Jesus, through the sacraments of the Church. There is no need for there to have been descendants of Jesus, since we all equally His.

 

[Jay53]

Hi

Since Jesus was immidiately before Muhammad, so the verse hints that Jesus must have married and had children. It is now on the Catholic, in my opinion, to prove it that Jesus in fact did maary and had sons and daughters. Otherwise the Catholics should not insist that Jesus was a 100% man or a fully man.
Thanks

No offense, but would you please stop with the “only real men marry and have kids” concept? I still haven’t figured out if this is just your own strange view or if all Muslims hold this belief as no one else has answered my other thread either way. I also pointed out that John the Baptist never married and never had kids. Does that make him not 100% man? I honestly just don’t get this view.

 

[pete_29]

Very good discussion, all pointing to the fact that Jesus was married. the mormon friend has good logic and support from original Jewish theology.
I see that there is no mention of any of the wives of the apostles too. It seems that the bibleNT is Male-book, nothing for the ladies (or wives) in it.

Peter had a mother-in -law. I’d say he probably had a wife too.

 

[MHalsey]

Peter had a mother-in -law. I’d say he probably had a wife too.

That’s not proof!! His wife could have died. Therefore that’s evidence Peter was not married either.

And now, The Paar Argument:

I believe Jesus secretly went to India, got married, had children, continued to pray (like a good Jew), then eventually died.

My only proof for this “opinion” (Paar’s word, not mine) is the word of several people who claim descent from Jesus, and I take their word for it.

Now, all you Catholics out there, you must prove to me that Jesus was not married. I will NOT take your word for it. You must use your scripture to prove it.

Over the course of the past couple of years, Paar has used the same argument, usually followed by no compulsion, or I love Jesus and Mary, etc.

I used to not get offended by this, but it did annoy me, which is why I simply stopped responding. But the more I think about it, the more insulted I get. This is simply a way of saying, your are stupid and narrow minded to think Jesus is God, but hey, no offense, right?

The reality is that it is simply impossible to have a healthy debate with a person who insists you use something he considers from the outset to be corrupt and incomplete. All the while he expects you accept his position based on unsubstantiated claims.

 

[pete_29]

That’s not proof!! His wife could have died. Therefore that’s evidence Peter was not married either.

So she died, He still had to have a wife at some time, didn’t he.