Jesus Did Not Have Sex!

[Sherlock]

trogiah:

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.

The debate may have been between a Catholic and a Protestant—some Protestants deny the Perpetual Virginity. When I say that the debate is over, I mean that it is settled doctrine among Catholics (and the Orthodox too, I believe). That some Protestants disagree does not mean that it is an open question and the possibility exists that Catholic doctrine is going to change—it won’t.

trogiah:

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.

I think I expressed myself badly—sorry about that. I guess what I was trying to say that it DOES matter to theology whether or not Jesus had children (and by this I mean biological sons and daughters). It is of tremendous significance because it would possibly stand the concept of the Trinity (as we understand it) on its head—if Jesus had kids, wouldn’t they share in His divinity? If so, then that would mean multiple Incarnations, and the Trinity is no more. If they only partly share in Jesus’s divinity, then they would be an entirely new creation, a demi-god. That’s a new one for Christianity, eh? And if they did not share in their father’s divinity, why not? Enquiring minds want to know.
I’m not really commenting on Jesus’s description of “family” as including those who believe in Hima nd do His will: that’s a given. But I am making a distinction between that and a biological family. It is NOT unimportant, and Dan Brown’s Jesus has been distorted as a result.

trogiah:

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.

No, I understood what you meant—I wasn’t trying to jump on you, but on the novelty ideas about Jesus that Dan Brown and others like to play with. Their understanding of theology is shallow, so for them—hey, what’s wrong with Jesus having sex? What’s wrong with Him being married? Actually, I think Dan Brown might know what he is doing—he’s no friend of Jesus’s.

trogiah:

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

OK, that makes sense to me.

trogiah:

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.

It’ll be 20 years for me this spring. May I suggest a 10 audio-CD course by Christopher West on the Theology of the Body? It helped me understand marriage more than I did before. It is an unbelievable $3.90—I forget what shipping is, but hey even with shipping this is CHEAP. The outfit that offers it at that price is called the “Gift Foundation”, if I recall correctly. Go to: nakedwithoutshame.com. I have gotten a number of sets and have given them away.

 

[CatholicChef]

Yes, Eliza, I do feel so bad that I did not defend Him better than I did. More than anything I was shocked and like you said there was much arrogance in the air. In their view I’m Catholic, so what do I know about the bible? These are people who have left the Church and have done so because they have found “the truth.” I try my best to never get in to these types of conversations with them because I’m greatly out numbered. I just try to set a good example and pray.

Anyway, thanks for all the help you guys. (Tom had some very good points and scripture references)

Keep posting if you think of some good one line come backs!

 

[CatholicChef]

Speaking of the bible, have any of you heard of Scott Hahn’s web site? For those of you who haven’t it’s

www.salvationhistory.com

Great place to study the bible.

 

[AquinasXVI]

CatholicChef:

I’ll second one of the early responses. Invest in getting every single one of your Baptist relatives the CD set of Christopher West’s Naked Without Shame (synthesis and explaination of the Theology of the Body). It’s down to $3.90 per set and will help them have a broader understanding of the Incarnation of God.

In regard to the belief that it’s not wrong for Christ to have had a wife…some things need to be considered like vocation. Christ clearly stated several times that his vocation was to follow the will of God and that brought him straight to Calvary. For him to marry would have been totally irresponsibility to a human wife knowing he has to completely invest himself for all humanity. Many non catholics cannot comprehend this because they don’t have celibate priests (which by the way Christ is addressed -the Eternal Priest). Secondly, he spoke of being eunochs for the kingdom. Apparently he was alluding to his life and the life that his representatives were going to have to live out.

Lastly, kindly ask them for any proof other than that trash DaVinci Code that Christ had children. There’s none because he didn’t.

in XT.

 

[VociMike]

As has been mentioned, Jesus was not married. What your family members were saying is that it would not change the way they think about Christ whether He was sinless or had sinned. Whether He was perfect or imperfect. Whether He did the will of the Father or went against it.

I wonder if that’s really what they think?

 

[sententia]

Christ already has a bride- his church.

If he were to “become one” with another, would that not be adultery?

 

[Chele]

sententia:

Christ already has a bride- his church.

If he were to “become one” with another, would that not be adultery?

And Thus we bring in Polygamy yay!!!

Seriously though, if Christ did get married she may not have had Children, and being married to his church sounds suspiciously like being married to your work. I believe a man is able to do both without sin

 

[Angainor]

Sherlock:

You’re missing the significance of marriage, and what a marriage by Jesus would imply. Marriage is meant to be a total, complete, self-giving, fruitful relationship with one another, a kind of shadow of what the Trinity is and of our eventual union with God. We are to help our spouses reach this union with God, as instruments in His hand, within the sacrament of marriage. So: Jesus’s spouse is going to help Him achieve His salvation and union with Himself----how? Since He doesn’t need help in that direction, what is mutual about the exchange? Wouldn’t Jesus, since He has nothing to gain from such a union, only be married for selfish reasons? Is Jesus selfish?

I’m not so sure Jesus had nothing to “gain” from marriage, but even if that is true, is that really a reason not to be married? Did Jesus have anything to “gain” from a mother/son relationship? No? Does that mean Jesus didn’t behave as a son to Mary? Did Jesus have anything to “gain” from friendship relationships? No? Did Jesus never have any friends?

I’m having a little trouble understanding you. You describe a marriage as “self-giving”. I don’t understand why lacking a capacity to “get” something from your partner makes you selfish. Jesus could self-give to his spouse and she could self-give to Jesus. The fact that Jesus lacked the capacity to “gain” from his wife’s giving shouldn’t diminish the giving one iota.

Sherlock:

The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus had a pet parrot named Zarathustra, either. Are we to conclude from this fact that He did?

The New Testament authors did not write “Jesus was married”. They also did not write “Jesus was never married”.

I just don’t know why the NT writers would necessarily go out of the way to tell us that a 30 year old first century Jew was married. It wouldn’t be news. It was the norm for men to be married. On the other hand, it seems that if Jesus never married, that would be a point they would want to clarify.

If they had a good reason not to emphasize the fact that Jesus had a wife and maybe kids, then it wouldn’t take much away from the salvation story to simply leave the information out their correspondences. What reason might the NT writers have for not wanting to emphasize his family? Jesus was killed by Roman authorities for being “the King of the Jews.” How long would the expected lifespan of the King’s wife and kids be if people kept talking about them?

If Jesus was married, then I don’t think there was any ill intent by the Church to “supress” that information. I think the information would have gotten left out of the written record and gradually forgotten about.

Just for the record, I’m about 80% sure that Jesus was not married. However, I think that Jesus being married would fit well with his mission of living as a human.

 

[ReflectHim]

easy.

Jesus wasn’t married. He never sinned.

And intercourse is ONLY for those joined in holy matrimony.

Since he wasn’t…and he didn’t sin or break the law of the Bible…

umm…than he was a virgin.

 

[javelin]

I think it is important to note that Jesus, while on the cross, did not entrust the care of his wife and children to anyone, only his mother to the Apostle John.

It wasn’t an oversight – he simply didn’t have a wife or children to care for other than his spiritual wife and children, who He came back for ;-).

Peace,
javelin

 

[Angainor]

Good points, but let me try to pick them apart, just for mental exercise.

Tom:

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?

Paul is speaking of taking wives with them while evangelizing. My translation (NIV) says “Don’t we have a right to take a believing wife along with us…?” Jesus’ alleged wife would naturally not be included in the list.

Tom:

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

The key word is “flesh”. Not “one soul” or “one person” or anything else. Jesus had a fleshy nature. The husband remains himself and the wife remains herself. They are made one flesh. Jesus fleshy nature would be made one with his wife’s fleshy nature. That would not make his wife God.

Tom:

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.]

The context here is divorce (verses 8-9). I think Jesus is saying “If you don’t think you can say married, don’t get married.” I think Jesus could stay married. I certianly don’t think Jesus is calling on nobody to get married.

Tom:

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

Again, I don’t think Jesus is advocating everyone to leave their wife and kids. Rather Jesus is saying he that leaves his wife or kids “for my sake” will receive a hundredfold. Why would you leave you wife “for Jesus’ sake”? If your wife is exceedingly sinful and unrepentant and you think you could simply not follow Jesus under her influence (for example).

 

[Angainor]

javelin:

I think it is important to note that Jesus, while on the cross, did not entrust the care of his wife and children to anyone, only his mother to the Apostle John.

Good point, but of course, if Jesus did have sons, they could have taken care of their mother. The oldest would have been quite young (15 at the oldest probably) but maybe that is not too young in those days.

You still have an excellent point. My point may be far-fetched.

 

[Petergee]

Of course Jesus had sex! Jesus was male in sex.

He never had sexual intercourse though.

 

[Kristina_P]

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!

There were BAPTISTS who had no problem with this?! I’m not sure I can get over the shock. If someone tried to convince my family that Jesus had had sex, they might end up with a black eye.

Obviously, Jesus was never married. That would’ve been something that showed up in the gospels. And, since he was sinless, he wouldn’t have had sex outside of marriage; that would have been immoral. Besides, the sheer magnitude of the problems that would’ve been caused by God having sex and children… ever read the Greek myths? This is a bunch of theologically liberal hooey designed to weaken the doctrine of Christ’s divinity and weaken people’s faith.

 

[steve99]

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 think this has been well covered, but I would like to add a point about Dan Brown’s silly suggestion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (that she was just his mistress is too outrageous to even address).
If Jesus married Mary Magdalene it would have been after he had started his public ministry - we know that because he drove seven devils out of her and he would hardly have married her and lived with her in that state for many years until he started his ministry. If he had married her it would have been a big public event (no sloping off the Gretna Green or Las Vegas or wherever). Hardly something that would have been overlooked by the gospel writers.

 

[Ahimsa]

Jesus: no sex.

Christianity: plenty of sects.

 

[steve99]

Ahimsa:

Jesus: no sex.

Christianity: plenty of sects.

Classic, I must remember that one

 

[Angainor]

steve99:

I think this has been well covered, but I would like to add a point about Dan Brown’s silly suggestion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (that she was just his mistress is too outrageous to even address).
If Jesus married Mary Magdalene it would have been after he had started his public ministry - we know that because he drove seven devils out of her and he would hardly have married her and lived with her in that state for many years until he started his ministry. If he had married her it would have been a big public event (no sloping off the Gretna Green or Las Vegas or wherever). Hardly something that would have been overlooked by the gospel writers.

You are probably right, Jesus was probably not married to Mary Magdalene. Luke would probably have given her a different introduction than simply a “woman who was cured of a disease.”

But, I don’t think simply being possessed would disqualify her. What better person would devils want to possess than Jesus’ wife (she could have been possessed after they were married)?

 

[Sherlock]

Angainor:

I’m not so sure Jesus had nothing to “gain” from marriage, but even if that is true, is that really a reason not to be married? .

Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner–I didn’t see that you had responded. Angainor, I really think you would benefit from studying the theology of the body, as it would dispel some of your confusion about the purpose of marriage. Marriage is meant to show us something of the Trinity—a fruitful, total self-giving. Our spouses and our marriages are meant to help us get to heaven by showing us how we can become “perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. Jesus didn’t need any help getting to heaven, nor to understand the Trinity. His vocation was to do the will of the Father.

Angainor:

Did Jesus have anything to “gain” from a mother/son relationship? .

Yes. Jesus was fully human as well as fully divine. Humans need the nurturing love of a mother and a father. Marriage is a vocation: it is not essential to our existence and well-being. Being nurtured is not a vocation.

Angainor:

No? Does that mean Jesus didn’t behave as a son to Mary? .

Since I don’t accept “no” as the answer, obviously your question is pointless.

Angainor:

Did Jesus have anything to “gain” from friendship relationships? No? .

Again, I don’t accept your “no”. It is not good for humans to be alone (read Genesis).

Angainor:

Did Jesus never have any friends?.

Yes, he did.

Angainor:

I’m having a little trouble understanding you. You describe a marriage as “self-giving”. I don’t understand why lacking a capacity to “get” something from your partner makes you selfish. Jesus could self-give to his spouse and she could self-give to Jesus. The fact that Jesus lacked the capacity to “gain” from his wife’s giving shouldn’t diminish the giving one iota.The New Testament authors did not write “Jesus was married”. They also did not write “Jesus was never married”…

Again, I think that an understanding of the theology of the body would make you understand the meaning and purpose of the vocation of marriage better. Your comment shows that you aren’t understanding the necessary mutual self-giving that marriage should be.

Angainor:

I just don’t know why the NT writers would necessarily go out of the way to tell us that a 30 year old first century Jew was married. It wouldn’t be news. It was the norm for men to be married. On the other hand, it seems that if Jesus never married, that would be a point they would want to clarify…

Jesus was hardly your typical first-century Jew. He was God, and the most important human that has ever walked the face of this planet. To suggest that the NT writers just forgot to mention his marriage, especially given the theological importance of marriage, is ludicrous. The important women around Jesus are named and mentioned, but not his wife? Not plausible, and not in keeping with the understanding of vocations.

Angainor:

Just for the record, I’m about 80% sure that Jesus was not married. However, I think that Jesus being married would fit well with his mission of living as a human.

But God apparently did not see it your way.

 

[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?
God Bless!

They need to review the book, it tells us that Jesus was not God, simply a man, so of course there’s no problem with him being married. at this point bells should be ringing in your head. it isn’t about Him being married, it’s about Him being God. the book tries to imply that Mary was the Goddess, not Jesus. The “DC” states that “the Bible is a product of man, NOT the Word of God. That it was established by a pagan emperor. It is an attack on Christianity, not just the Catholic Church. According to Brown until the 4th century Jesus was viewed as a mortal prophet, NOT as God. If Jesus isn’t God there is no Christianity.