Jesus married -- any evidence?

[Maddie26]

I don’t see a theological reason why Jesus should not have married. As Fully Human ge could have given us a wonderful example of marital love.

Perhaps Jesus stayed unmarried out of love. If you knew you would die a young, painful, public, shameful death would you want your wife to suffer a)the shame, b) the financial ruin of widowhood, c) the grief? Wouldn’t it be more loving to stand back a little?

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Absolutely none.

Jesus is the pure, spotless Lamb. Just what does pure & spotless mean exactly?
He is married to His Bride the Church which is US! Our Lord overcame each and every temptation & in my estimation it was infinitely difficult to endure especially when He was on the cross in utter agony. Think during His life on earth He was focused on lust, adultery or as some sects believe He was a Polygamist? Think He could violate His own commandment & be unfaithful to His Bride the Church?

HUH? Is that beyond crazy or what? :hypno:

Here is something to think about: Jesus asks of each of us: Who do YOU say I AM?

The secular media is a mess awash with confusion & lies - sadly, many souls in pitiful ignorance (ex: including some of my own family members from reading the DUH Vinci Code) deny the Divinity of Our Lord & believe such rubbish.

This is no accident. It’s designed to separate as many souls as possible from the love, beauty, peace and security our Lord offers us, not to mention grace administered through the SACRAMENTS and ultimately SALVATION. We have many soldiers down & out of commission that drank the Kool-aid. The father of lies who was a LIAR from the beginning still prowling around will stop at nothing to confuse & neutralize as many victims as he can. :stretcher:

 

[gntlmnr]

The secular media is a mess awash with confusion & lies - sadly, many souls in pitiful ignorance (ex: including some of my own family members from reading the DUH Vinci Code) deny the Divinity of Our Lord & believe such rubbish.

This is no accident. It’s designed to separate as many souls as possible from the love, beauty, peace and security our Lord offers us, not to mention grace administered through the SACRAMENTS and ultimately SALVATION. We have many soldiers down & out of commission that drank the Kool-aid. The father of lies who was a LIAR from the beginning still prowling around will stop at nothing to confuse & neutralize as many victims as he can. :stretcher:

Satan is EXTREMELY powerful, but he is not more powerful than our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

In addition the other other excellent points raised:

1. Why were Jesus’ other relatives named and not any purported wife?
2. “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Mt. 8:20) Does this sound like the words of a married man?
3. “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Mt. 19:11-12) If Jesus is setting up the condition of celibacy (or continence) in ministry as the highest ideal, why would He, as the Son of God and the sole Mediator of the New Covenant, not hold Himself to that ideal?

 

[gntlmnr]

In addition the other other excellent points raised:

1. Why were Jesus’ other relatives named and not any purported wife?
2. “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Mt. 8:20) Does this sound like the words of a married man?
3. “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Mt. 19:11-12) If Jesus is setting up the condition of celibacy (or continence) in ministry as the highest ideal, why would He, as the Son of God and the sole Mediator of the New Covenant, not hold Himself to that ideal?

Excellent, excellent, excellent,…

 

[Augie70]

I don’t see a theological reason why Jesus should not have married. As Fully Human ge could have given us a wonderful example of marital love.

With all due respect, if you don’t understand this, you gravely misunderstand either Jesus’ relationship to His church, the meaning of the Sacrament of Marriage, or both.

He DOES give us a wonderful example of marital love-- by his relationship to the Church.

 

[gntlmnr]

I don’t see a theological reason why Jesus should not have married. As Fully Human ge could have given us a wonderful example of marital love.

To add a little more to what has been said before. Yes, there would be serious theological problems if Jesus Christ were to be married.

That marriage would have had to produce offspring(s), and that in itself would raise some serious questions. What would have been the nature of those offsprings? Wouldn’t they have inherited “deity” from their father Jesus? If that’s so, then what would happen to the main principal of Christianity, which is the Trinity? Would the Trinity become the Father, the Son, the grandson, the great-grandson, the great-great-grandson, etc… , and the Holy Spirit? If Jesus had children, then why would He appoint Peter as the rock where Jesus was going to build his church on? Jesus is the King of the World. That means his firstborn would be a king or a queen, and traditionally the firstborn of the king replaces his/her father in the kingdom, like in the case of King David and King Solomon, for example. So that means there would have been no need at all to appoint peter as the leader of the church after Jesus. Another important question would have to be raised, and that is: what happened to the lineage of Jesus Christ? Presently, who are the great-grandchildren of that lineage?

 

[Pepband_Mom]

With all due respect, if you don’t understand this, you gravely misunderstand either Jesus’ relationship to His church, the meaning of the Sacrament of Marriage, or both.

He DOES give us a wonderful example of marital love-- by his relationship to the Church.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

To add a little more to what has been said before. Yes, there would be serious theological problems if Jesus Christ were to be married.

That marriage would have had to produce offspring(s), and that in itself would raise some serious questions. What would have been the nature of those offsprings? Wouldn’t they have inherited “deity” from their father Jesus? If that’s so, then what would happen to the main principal of Christianity, which is the Trinity? Would the Trinity become the Father, the Son, the grandson, the great-grandson, the great-great-grandson, etc… , and the Holy Spirit? If Jesus had children, then why would He appoint Peter as the rock where Jesus was going to build his church on? Jesus is the King of the World. That means his firstborn would be a king or a queen, and traditionally the firstborn of the king replaces his/her father in the kingdom, like in the case of King David and King Solomon, for example. So that means there would have been no need at all to appoint peter as the leader of the church after Jesus. Another important question would have to be raised, and that is: what happened to the lineage of Jesus Christ? Presently, who are the great-grandchildren of that lineage?

:newidea: Great point!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

To add a little more to what has been said before. Yes, there would be serious theological problems if Jesus Christ were to be married.

That marriage would have had to produce offspring(s), and that in itself would raise some serious questions. What would have been the nature of those offsprings? Wouldn’t they have inherited “deity” from their father Jesus? If that’s so, then what would happen to the main principal of Christianity, which is the Trinity? Would the Trinity become the Father, the Son, the grandson, the great-grandson, the great-great-grandson, etc… , and the Holy Spirit? If Jesus had children, then why would He appoint Peter as the rock where Jesus was going to build his church on? Jesus is the King of the World. That means his firstborn would be a king or a queen, and traditionally the firstborn of the king replaces his/her father in the kingdom, like in the case of King David and King Solomon, for example. So that means there would have been no need at all to appoint peter as the leader of the church after Jesus. Another important question would have to be raised, and that is: what happened to the lineage of Jesus Christ? Presently, who are the great-grandchildren of that lineage?

Well, you’ve hit the real reason behind a lot of these claims. They were attempts by a French forger to claim royal lineage for his bloodline, based on a French forgery that was deposited in the Bibliothèque nationale de France on 27 April 1967 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dossiers_Secrets). The forgery was designed to prove that one of the forgers, Pierre Plantard, was a lineal descendent of the Merovingian king Dagobert II. These documents, which were dismissed as forgeries (and bad ones at that) were in turn the basis for a whacked-out conspiracy theory that was promoted in 1982 for the French book “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” which added the detail that Plantard was a lineal descendent of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, which was the source for Dan Brown’s even more whacked-out novels. The Wikipedia entry gives a good summary of the craziness of this book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

The Holy Blood book also borrowed theories from two conspiracy books that were popular at the time: “The Jesus Scroll” in 1973 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Scroll) and “The Passover Plot” in 1965: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passover_Plot. No one in their right mind takes any of these books seriously, but they all fed the post-JFK assassination desire to construct elaborate conspiracy theories, which was quite profitable for hack writers.

 

[gntlmnr]

Well, you’ve hit the real reason behind a lot of these claims. They were attempts by a French forger to claim royal lineage for his bloodline, based on a French forgery that was deposited in the Bibliothèque nationale de France on 27 April 1967 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dossiers_Secrets). The forgery was designed to prove that one of the forgers, Pierre Plantard, was a lineal descendent of the Merovingian king Dagobert II. These documents, which were dismissed as forgeries (and bad ones at that) were in turn the basis for a whacked-out conspiracy theory that was promoted in 1982 for the French book “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” which added the detail that Plantard was a lineal descendent of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, which was the source for Dan Brown’s even more whacked-out novels. The Wikipedia entry gives a good summary of the craziness of this book: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

The Holy Blood book also borrowed theories from two conspiracy books that were popular at the time: “The Jesus Scroll” in 1973 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jesus_Scroll) and “The Passover Plot” in 1965: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passover_Plot. No one in their right mind takes any of these books seriously, but they all fed the post-JFK assassination desire to construct elaborate conspiracy theories, which was quite profitable for hack writers.

There are plenty of wackos in this world, and I guess Pierre Plantard was definitely one of them, and the people who believed him are even worse. Did he perform any “miracles” at least to support his claim?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

There are plenty of wackos in this world, and I guess Pierre Plantard was definitely one of them, and the people who believed him are even worse. Did he perform any “miracles” at least to support his claim?

Nope. He died in 2000. He never claimed to be the descendent of Jesus (that was worked in to make “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” more salable), just the descendent of a king, but he seems to have been an anti-Semite - ironic, in one who is supposed to be descended from a Jewish carpenter.

 

[gntlmnr]

Nope. He died in 2000. He never claimed to be the descendent of Jesus (that was worked in to make “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” more salable), just the descendent of a king, but he seems to have been an anti-Semite - ironic, in one who is supposed to be descended from a Jewish carpenter.

In today’s world, anti-Catholicism surpasses anti-Semitism by far. At any rate, I read the links that you provided, and the only book that I was somewhat familiar with was the “Da Vinci Code”. Thanks for the links. I just read them. They are pretty interesting.