Jesus Did Not Have Sex!

[Sherlock]

Penny Plain:

Are you saying I should give a lot of thought to the question of Jesus’s owning a pet parrot named Zarathustra? I never viewed it as a particularly important question, to be honest, but I’ll put it on my list.

Sherlock, you’re missing the point. Really. Here is my mindset: One poster wrote that the Bible definitively states that Jesus wasn’t married. I didn’t remember seeing that, so I asked where it was stated.

You gave me an answer that showed “implicitly” (I’m quoting you, here) that He wasn’t. That’s fine. I have no doubt that it admirably mirrors Church teaching on the subject, and I do not dispute a word of it. But it wasn’t what I was talking about. I was looking for the “definitive statement.”

You are correct in surmising that this is where I will tell you that “definitive” does not equal “explicit”. Nor do I present this as definitive because it “mirrors Church teaching”----you have got it backwards. The Church’s teaching on this subject mirrors the definitive teaching from the Bible.

 

[Sherlock]

Penny Plain:

Are you saying I should give a lot of thought to the question of Jesus’s owning a pet parrot named Zarathustra? I never viewed it as a particularly important question, to be honest, but I’ll put it on my list.

I’ll actually try to explain to you why this ludicrous concept can, in fact, be shown to be destructive of our understanding of Jesus, and why it’s not wise to entertain novel ideas just because of their novelty: Jesus eschewed property as an expression of total self-giving. The concept of “owning” a creature that He had made would have been a redundancy on a certain level, and a practical bother on another. Jesus as cage-cleaner; Jesus as a buyer of bird seed to feed His “pet”; Jesus getting someone to do pet-sitting duties while He went into the wilderness; Jesus giving His pet to John at the cross. So, do you see how even ludicrous ideas that aren’t explicitly addressed in Scripture end up making a mockery of Our Lord at worst, and a distortion of His identity at best? And this is what happens on a minor level—serious theological distortions occur when “harmless” ideas such as Jesus marrying are introduced.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Sherlock:

I’ll actually try to explain to you why this ludicrous concept can, in fact, be shown to be destructive of our understanding of Jesus, and why it’s not wise to entertain novel ideas just because of their novelty: Jesus eschewed property as an expression of total self-giving. The concept of “owning” a creature that He had made would have been a redundancy on a certain level, and a practical bother on another. Jesus as cage-cleaner; Jesus as a buyer of bird seed to feed His “pet”; Jesus getting someone to do pet-sitting duties while He went into the wilderness; Jesus giving His pet to John at the cross. So, do you see how even ludicrous ideas that aren’t explicitly addressed in Scripture end up making a mockery of Our Lord at worst, and a distortion of His identity at best? And this is what happens on a minor level—serious theological distortions occur when “harmless” ideas such as Jesus marrying are introduced.

Do you understand what “truce” means, Sherlock, dear? I don’t think you do.

Are you seriously espousing the concept that suggesting that Jesus may have owned a pet at some point in his life is heretical?

 

[StCsDavid]

Sacred Tradition. That is one element that is missing from this thread. The Bible was never intended to be a complete biography of the life of Christ. Using the logic that the bible is silent on Christ’s marital status prior to the beginning of his ministry is about as flawed as saying Christ preferred Spam and eggs for breakfast. The Bible is silent on that, too.

Don’t forget this whole concept of Sacred Tradition which for everyone (except Dan Brown and his clan) holds that Christ never married.

Also, remember that the sacrament of marriage is the joining of man and woman into one for the glory of God. If Christ had married we would bless our selves in the name of the Father, Son & His wife, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sherlock]

Penny Plain:

Do you understand what “truce” means, Sherlock, dear? I don’t think you do.

Are you seriously espousing the concept that suggesting that Jesus may have owned a pet at some point in his life is heretical?

Sorry, but our messages crossed—my computer chokes up at times.

But, since you choose to keep this alive: Considering it a viable possibility that Jesus owned a pet parrot named “Zarathustra” because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say He didn’t, strikes me as stupid, demeaning, and smacks of a desire to drag Jesus down off of that “God” perch (the better to elevate oneself). As for pet-ownership being a heresy, I don’t know what doctrine it might contradict.

 

[trogiah]

CatholicChef:

My family and I were discussing new movies coming out and I expressed my disappointment in the fact that the divnci code is soon to be released (or has already been released?). The subject of Jesus having children came up and one family member, who has really studied the bible, but has no religous affiliation, commented that it’s no big deal to think Christ had sex!! This person also commented that they had discussed this with others who feel the same way. They believe that Jesus was human, so what would be wrong with Him having sex. I disagreed saying He was divine, but the come back was, “He was also human, so it would not affect the way we feel about Christ if we knew He had had sex”.
No one seemed offened by this at all, but I was deeply offended. All I could say was, “No! He did not have sex.”
We grew up Catholic, but most are now Baptists. I was out numbered and really had no answer. When I got home and talked to my husband about this it came to me that Christ never sought pleasure for Himself.
Help! What else can I say to defend my Lord??
God Bless!

I have read the Da Vinci Code and thought there were parts that constituted a good mystery novel and was wondering how it was going to attack the Catholic faith, but once I understood what the “Holy Grail” was supposed to be (a physical descendant of Jesus) I did not take it as a serious threat, at least to my understanding of Catholic Christianity.

The gospels record that Jesus mother and “brothers” (I know there is debate about that too regarding whether it means brothers the way we understand it or simply extended family) went to see Jesus and he clearly stated who his family was - Those who hear and follow the word of God. The idea that some physical descendant of Jesus would matter is mistaken - even if such a descendant actually existed. Those who hear and follow the word of God are the family of Jesus. Period.

I know that this does not constitute explicit proof that he was never married and that he didn’t have children but I don’t see how a person with integrity could define family in this way and still have a physical union producing physical family.

The idea of a full life without a spouse is difficult for some people to imagine. Jesus spells that out in Matthew as has been earlier quoted. Those who feel that way will have a hard time imagining Jesus having a full life without having been married. The problem is their lack of imagination and efforts to change their mind will likely be fruitless.

Good luck

peace

-Jim

 

[CatholicChef]

Thanks to all of you and SOME of your comments have been helpful.

Pla(name removed by moderator)enny? I understood your point from the beginning. :yup:

Your are right Jim and I will add that there are many people who can’t imagine a full life without sex either.

God Bless!

 

[Sherlock]

trogiah:

The gospels record that Jesus mother and “brothers” (I know there is debate about that too regarding whether it means brothers the way we understand it or simply extended family) went to see Jesus and he clearly stated who his family was - Those who hear and follow the word of God.

You’re mistaken–there is no debate on this question, as Jesus had no siblings that were born of his mother Mary and Joseph. There is some question as to whether or not Joseph had some children of his own prior to wedding Mary (which is what some Eastern churches believe), but it’s not a doctrinal issue. However, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS a doctrine. The debate’s over, whether you realize it or not.

trogiah:

The idea that some physical descendant of Jesus would matter is mistaken - even if such a descendant actually existed.

You need to provide some sound theological basis for this assertion. I would think it VERY important if Jesus had offspring: for example, do they share in His divine nature? Are they demi-gods, or part of the Trinity? (If so, then it isn’t a Trinity anymore.) If they’re demi-gods, this represents a new kind of creature that God has created—how odd that it isn’t mentioned, this truly remarkable new creation! If they don’t share in His divine nature–why not?

Sorry, but this is just relativism and fairy-tales.

trogiah:

Those who hear and follow the word of God are the family of Jesus. Period.

I won’t argue with that, but earlier you speak of a physical descendant—that’s a different meaning of the word “family” then what is contained in your quote here. Words mean things.

trogiah:

I know that this does not constitute explicit proof that he was never married and that he didn’t have children but I don’t see how a person with integrity could define family in this way and still have a physical union producing physical family…

Ok, now I’m confused because you seem to be contradicting yourself: first you say that it wouldn’t matter if Jesus had offspring (I disagree, of course), and now you say you can’t see how he could have a physical union producing physical family.

trogiah:

The idea of a full life without a spouse is difficult for some people to imagine. Jesus spells that out in Matthew as has been earlier quoted. Those who feel that way will have a hard time imagining Jesus having a full life without having been married. The problem is their lack of imagination and efforts to change their mind will likely be fruitless…

I agree with you here----people who can’t imagine Jesus not having a spouse are forgeting that we’re talking about God here—are they saying that God is incomplete without a human to marry?? And they really don’t understand what marriage is about either.

 

[reen12]

quote: Penny Plain, addressing another poster:

Are you saying I should give a lot of thought to the question of Jesus’s owning a pet parrot named Zarathustra?

Thanks for providing me with the heartiest laugh
of the day, Penny Plain.

Not to mention ! :

quote: Penny Plain

Perhaps I am simply not as informed as you are on the ornithology of the middle east 2000 years ago, or on the pet-keeping habits of working-class Jewish families, or, for that matter, whether they tended to name pets after Zoroastrian prophets.

Does Nietzche fit in here, someplace?

Thus Spake Zarathustra] - speaking of
talking parrots…not to make a triple pun !

quote: Penny Plain

Are you seriously espousing the concept that suggesting that Jesus may have owned a pet at some point in his life is heretical?

I laughed so hard that my sides ached! I’m sure glad that
you’re on the forums at CAF, Penny Plain.

Best wishes,

reen12

 

[Eliza10]

CatholicChef:

My family and I were discussing new movies coming out and I expressed my disappointment in the fact that the divnci code is soon to be released (or has already been released?). The subject of Jesus having children came up and one family member, who has really studied the bible, but has no religous affiliation, commented that it’s no big deal to think Christ had sex!! This person also commented that they had discussed this with others who feel the same way. They believe that Jesus was human, so what would be wrong with Him having sex. I disagreed saying He was divine, but the come back was, “He was also human, so it would not affect the way we feel about Christ if we knew He had had sex”.
No one seemed offened by this at all, but I was deeply offended. All I could say was, “No! He did not have sex.”
We grew up Catholic, but most are now Baptists. I was out numbered and really had no answer. When I got home and talked to my husband about this it came to me that Christ never sought pleasure for Himself.
Help! What else can I say to defend my Lord??
God Bless!

I thought of writing the very same question here once, because I had the same expereince. And your frustration is just like what I experienced. I did not feel I defended Christ properly. I still feel bad that I didn’t do better - but I still don’t know how I could have done better!

If you are Baptist, and don’t have sacred tradition, and are not open to learning about what it is because your wall is up against anything Catholic, you just can’t bring use that as a point of argument. There must be another way to approach the topic.

But my conversation was with a friend who is kind of New Age, kind of Oprah Winfrey, Astrology, Reincarnation in her belief system. Kind of a mismash of things from here and there all parts of our popular culture -that truly speak “truth” to her so she is hanging on firmly. , She knows where I am coming from (everything Catholic) and she dismisses it in her mind, and is not open to much conversation about it.

Sex is also big to her - to her, a reawakening, what life is really about. He feels in a way like she has “arrived” at some plateau that I haven’t arrived at. So, to her, I seem, I know, a bit of a prude. That hurts! It shouldn’t, but sometimes I feel the judgement, and the superiority she feels.

Why do I have a friend like this? Well I do genuinely like her, and she has been in and out of my life a long time. I have a history with her. I pray for her at Mass A LOT, always hoping some day to be thre for her if she ever opens her mind to Christ.

She also read DaVinci code, with the annoying sense of superiority its readers often have, that they “know” about the Catholic Church now. In answer to my comment about my offense that Jesus had sex, she said the same thing yur family did. With superiority, "I don’t think its a big deal that Jesus had sex? So what? Big deal!" This was said in a tone that there must be something wrong (perhaps - sexually repressed!)* about a person who had a problem with this. I said soethitng about it beign against everyting that he is. It was not a strong enough argument and won’t that willnot make an impression.

I wish I had a more compelling argument. I thought Sherlocks arguement for why Jesus did not have a pet bird very compelling. I would like to see a more compelling argument for why Jesus did not have sex - something that explains why that would make Him not who we know He is. Because I think there is a compelling argument - I just haven’t thought of it.

***Reflecting on this converstaion - my being offended and her reaction - the problem I have is that I was truly offended for Jesus being mis-portrayed, and therefore misleading those who don’t know Him. But I feel my friend was looking at our different attitudes towards sex, and feeling superior because she felt my very offended reaction had more to do with me being very sexually repressed (because in her world view sex is so neccessary). I would like the moment to have been an opportunity for an explanation on the nature of Christ, rather than what she felt it was about.

 

[Sherlock]

reen12:

Does Nietzche fit in here, someplace?

Thus Spake Zarathustra] - speaking of
talking parrots…not to make a triple pun !
reen12

The pun was intended…I’m glad someone remarked on it.

 

[Tom]

CatholicChef:

My family and I were discussing new movies coming out and I expressed my disappointment in the fact that the divnci code is soon to be released (or has already been released?). The subject of Jesus having children came up and one family member, who has really studied the bible, but has no religous affiliation, commented that it’s no big deal to think Christ had sex!! This person also commented that they had discussed this with others who feel the same way. They believe that Jesus was human, so what would be wrong with Him having sex. I disagreed saying He was divine, but the come back was, “He was also human, so it would not affect the way we feel about Christ if we knew He had had sex”. No one seemed offened by this at all, but I was deeply offended. All I could say was, “No! He did not have sex.” We grew up Catholic, but most are now Baptists. I was out numbered and really had no answer. When I got home and talked to my husband about this it came to me that Christ never sought pleasure for Himself. Help! What else can I say to defend my Lord??

First of all the contention of the book that Jesus had children is ludicrous, think about it for just a tenth of a second. “If” He were married His disciples and followers would have known of His children, they believed He was God, don’t ya think after His death and resurrection the children and wife would have been a big, I mean, really big deal??? So where is the great hoopla? And please don’t try the evil Church kept it from us, the Church in that day was NOT powerful, they were persecuted, they had no political clout. There would have been a gazillion stories written about His children, where are they?

Paul, in 1 Corinthians, refers to the other Apostles having “a woman, a sister”
And asks if he is able to have a wife, sister, as the rest of the Apostles, and the “brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” isn’t it strange that he would leave out Jesus Himself, if He had a wife? I mean wouldn’t that be the {“ultimate” proof? Maybe he just forgot…
DRBrg:

1 Corinthians 9. 1 Am not I free? Am not I an apostle? Have not I seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? 2 And if unto others I be not an apostle, but yet to you I am. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defence with them that do examine me is this. 4 Have not we power to eat and to drink? 5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

DRBrg:

Matthew 19,4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.

So the wife and Jesus were “in one flesh”… Gee she must have been God also!!! NOT!!!
DRBrg:

Matthew 19,6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

DRBrg:

Matthew 19,11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

You think He is calling men to forgo wives for the sake of heaven but He Himself couldn’t resist? Maybe He just wasn’t able to “take it”. NOT
DRBrg:

Matthew 19
29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

So here He tells us if we leave a wife for His names sake we shall possess life everlasting. Hmmm ya think maybe someone would have said WAIT a second Jesus, you have a wife !!! NOT

 

[barsapp]

CatholicChef:

They believe that Jesus was human, so what would be wrong with Him having sex. “He was also human, so it would not affect the way we feel about Christ if we knew He had had sex”.

precisely, they believe in nothing…

 

[Tom]

DRBrg:

1 Corinthians 7
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

So His wife had power over God? She must have been a super God, or maybe even my wife…

 

[Tom]

DRBrg:

1 Corinthians 7
32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

So was God divided or not?

 

[Tom]

Rev 21,9 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. 10 And he took me up in spirit to a great and high mountain: and he shewed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,

There is the bride of Jesus

 

[Tom]

DRBrg:

Ephesians 5
23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.

How much clearer do we need?

 

[reen12]

quote: Sherlock

The pun was intended…I’m glad someone remarked on it

Did you get the triple pun?[post #29] Honestly, Sherlock,
your employing “Zarathustra” got a big laugh out
of me. :yup: I thought it quite witty.

And I did so appreciate Penny Plain’s wit, as well.
Thanks to you both, for an enjoyable read. :tiphat:

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

[contd.]

Reminds me of St. Thomas More:

"But man He made to serve Him wittily…

reen12

[Words spoken by More, in the play, A Man For All Seasons.]

 

[trogiah]

Thank you for your specific and thoughtful response.

Sherlock:

You’re mistaken–there is no debate on this question, as Jesus had no siblings that were born of his mother Mary and Joseph. There is some question as to whether or not Joseph had some children of his own prior to wedding Mary (which is what some Eastern churches believe), but it’s not a doctrinal issue. However, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS a doctrine. The debate’s over, whether you realize it or not.
.

It is not as though I debate this with anyone. I just thought I saw some serious discussion about the issue recently. I will take your word for it.

Sherlock:

You need to provide some sound theological basis for this assertion. I would think it VERY important if Jesus had offspring: for example, do they share in His divine nature? Are they demi-gods, or part of the Trinity? (If so, then it isn’t a Trinity anymore.) If they’re demi-gods, this represents a new kind of creature that God has created—how odd that it isn’t mentioned, this truly remarkable new creation! If they don’t share in His divine nature–why not?
.

The theological basis was the scripture quote. The true family of Jesus are those who hear and keep God’s word. I maintain the relationship that mattered most to Jesus is the one between him and those who hear and keep God’s word. That extends even to his mother who did hear and keep God’s word and also happened to be related to Jesus.

Sherlock:

Sorry, but this is just relativism and fairy-tales.
.

Well, yes,The Da Vinci Code is a fairy tale. I guess in addressing the issues it raised I had to enter into that fairy tale and take its premise seriously for a moment. Perhaps that was my mistake.

Sherlock:

I won’t argue with that, but earlier you speak of a physical descendant—that’s a different meaning of the word “family” then what is contained in your quote here. Words mean things.

I think I addressed that above.

Sherlock:

Ok, now I’m confused because you seem to be contradicting yourself: first you say that it wouldn’t matter if Jesus had offspring (I disagree, of course), and now you say you can’t see how he could have a physical union producing physical family.
.

The contradiction goes back to my assuming that the fairy tale of the Da Vinci Code was, for the sake of argument, true.

To set the record straight, I don’t believe Jesus had offspring

Sherlock:

I agree with you here----people who can’t imagine Jesus not having a spouse are forgeting that we’re talking about God here—are they saying that God is incomplete without a human to marry?? And they really don’t understand what marriage is about either.

I have been married over 20 years and am still a long way from understanding marriage clearly… but that is not the subject of this thread.

peace

-jim