Jesus was married? What are your thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brierpatch1974
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
markeverett49 said:
No, it doesn’t, but it’s something we should know about. Here’s Jimmy Akin’s take.

Does New Document Prove That Jesus Had a Wife?

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-new-document-prove-that-jesus-had-a-wife#ixzz26xyJTZra
Click to expand...
As the historian who has been working on it explicitly states, “It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married”.

The whole bit about it being ‘proof’ that Jesus had a wife is journalists’ misrepresentation.
 
Jimmy_B said:
HERE WE GO AGAIN

Why is it that whenever there is allegedly “new evidence” that “Jesus had a brother”, or that “Jesus was married”, the main stream media jumps all over it and so do protestants. However when this same "new evidence " is determined to be false or a fraud, there isn’t so much as a peep from these same media outlets or from protestants?

The most recent example is the supposed papyrus that claims that, “Jesus refers to having wife, named Mary”.

Most scholars have already discredited this “evidence” and yet a major cable news outlet reported one side of the story… that it’s real and left out the other, namely that it has been discredited by exports.

Another example is the “Ossuary of James” that was inscribed- “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. This turned out to be a fraud and the person creating it went to prison.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would be surprised to see any mainstream Protestants jump all over this as it also makes a mockery of their beliefs.
 
The subtext might be this is a solicitation of funding from some Harvard-ite to pay for the balance of the pricely collection by tantalizing the worldly world with some anti-Christian Gnostic drivel. We forget that Gnosticism predated Christianity, and was highly, uh, male-oriented. One Roman school of philosophy openly despised Gnostics for things like faking “ancient” texts. Like the Gnostic text where “Jesus” raised a boy from the dead and entered in to the house and “knew” him…Oy vey!

Let’s suppose it’s real. Here’s what could be in the missing parts with special thanks to the anti-female “Gospel of Thomas.”

*Then “Jesus” said, “My wife can’t get to Heaven without a special miracle which I may or may not perform because, you know, she is after all a female; but she can be a disciple. Honey, I mean “Disciple,” get us some sandwiches.” *
 
centurionguard said:
Thanks for quoting the Jimmy Akin article…enjoyed it.

Makes me think how many people including some Catholics get wrapped up in the book writings of Dan Brown and all the movie spin-offs like the Da Vinci Code etc.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Maybe now Ron Howard and Tom Hanks can make a movie all about Jesus’s married life.
 
tomarin said:
Indeed. Maybe now Ron Howard and Tom Hanks can make a movie all about Jesus’s married life.
Click to expand...
Dude, don’t say that, It is most certain that it will happen for real… :o

Just not sure who the cast will be, though… 😉
 
Hi everyone,
I am not trying to start another thread over whether or not Jesus was actually married to a human woman; I see no good evidence that He was, and quite good evidence against. I do not believe He was married to a human woman.

However, is it a matter of our Catholic Faith (a defined dogma or a dogmatic fact, something Sacred Tradition teaches or something that requires assent or some other such thing) that Jesus was not married?

And yes, I understand that The Church is the Bride of Christ, so in a sense He is certainly married; but does this mystical marriage to The Church preclude a non-mystical human marriage?

Thank you for any help you could provide in answering this question.
 
FYI: there is some newly recent discovered data that may shed light on Jesus’ maritial status. In short, new evidence may suggest that Jesus was married. However, it will be some time before this claim is proved. The historians will need to massage the data.
 
edwest2 said:
Here’s a good answer:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/does-new-document-prove-that-jesus-had-a-wife#ixzz26xyJTZra

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I’ve read Jimmy Akins insightful article on the matter already, I see him note the Bride of Christ metaphor, the “eschatological wedding” of Revelation and Matthew, as well as St. Paul’s teaching and Christ’s endorsement of celibacy;

I appreciate your reply, but my question isn’t how likely it is, or how much it seems to clash with with the metaphorical/mystical marriage of Christ and His Church or the endorsements of celibacy found in the gospels; I’m trying to determine whether we are obligated to believe, as a matter of Faith, that Christ is unmarried (to a human woman).

This doesn’t have implications for what I personally believe, as I do not think Christ was married; this has implications for how I need to work with anyone who I speak with who does believe Christ was married; whether I must correct them (respectfully and appropriately) or whether I can say “well, you can believe either way”. The latter option would be much more comfortable.
 
Birdmanman said:
Hi everyone,
I am not trying to start another thread over whether or not Jesus was actually married to a human woman; I see no good evidence that He was, and quite good evidence against. I do not believe He was married to a human woman.

However, is it a matter of our Catholic Faith (a defined dogma or a dogmatic fact, something Sacred Tradition teaches or something that requires assent or some other such thing) that Jesus was not married?

And yes, I understand that The Church is the Bride of Christ, so in a sense He is certainly married; but does this mystical marriage to The Church preclude a non-mystical human marriage?

Thank you for any help you could provide in answering this question.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if Jesus’ celibacy requires the ascent of faith but, since the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section on “Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom,” paragraph 1618, describes Jesus Christ as “the model” for men and women who renounce the great good of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, it probably requires at least religious ascent.
 
Todd_Easton said:
I am not sure if Jesus’ celibacy requires the ascent of faith but, since the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section on “Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom,” paragraph 1618, describes Jesus Christ as “the model” for men and women who renounce the great good of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, it probably requires at least religious ascent.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response, Todd Easton; if anyone is able to find whether or not this requires assent of Faith, I would be grateful.
I will inform anyone who speculates about the possibility of Christ having a human marriage to a woman that it probably requires religious assent that He did not have such a marriage.
 
Todd_Easton said:
I am not sure if Jesus’ celibacy requires the ascent of faith but, since the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section on “Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom,” paragraph 1618, describes Jesus Christ as “the model” for men and women who renounce the great good of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, it probably requires at least religious ascent.
Click to expand...
What is religious assent, vs. assent of faith??
 
universityprof said:
FYI: there is some newly recent discovered data that may shed light on Jesus’ maritial status. In short, new evidence may suggest that Jesus was married. However, it will be some time before this claim is proved. The historians will need to massage the data.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t shed any light on Jesus’ marital status. All it can show is that a 4th century Gnostic group believed he was married. It will be no different than the countless other heretical texts that have been discredited already. Pure media sensationalism.

Given that it dates probably no earlier than the 4th century and the New Testament writings all date to the 1st-early 2nd century, I think I know which writings I trust. In any case, to emphasize the point, the professor who is publicizing this discovery has stated, quite correctly, that this is not evidence of Jesus’ being married. It is evidence that a small sect may have believed so. Nothing more. The rest is all hype–typical behavior of the sensationalist media: take an inch and stretch it for a mile. :rolleyes:
 
prodigalson2011 said:
It doesn’t shed any light on Jesus’ marital status. All it can show is that a 4th century Gnostic group believed he was married. It will be no different than the countless other heretical texts that have been discredited already. Pure media sensationalism. Even the professor who has acquired it has been stressing that she is not claiming that the contents of this discovery have any bearing on the actual life of the historical Jesus. All it shows is that there was a fringe Christian sect who believed as much.

Given that it dates probably no earlier than the 4th century and the New Testament writings all date to the first-early second century, I think I know which writings I trust.
Click to expand...
Hi Prodigalson and Universityprof; I’m happy you’re responding to this thread :), but just to inform anyone who may be commenting in the future, my purpose in posting this thread is to discuss:

Whether it is a matter of our Faith that Christ remained unmarried to a human woman.

We seem to have found that it probably requires religious assent due to the Catechism speaking of Christ as a model for those pursuing a life of celibacy, now we wait for someone who hopefully has waded through this issue before and has found if it requires assent of Faith as well.
 
universityprof said:
FYI: there is some newly recent discovered data that may shed light on Jesus’ maritial status. In short, new evidence may suggest that Jesus was married. However, it will be some time before this claim is proved. The historians will need to massage the data.
Click to expand...
Weve known the truth for 2,000 years, so ill just give a big yawn and pursue something useful.

That baloney is in the same league as the claim that Mary had other children, a claim St Jerome called “a novel, wicked and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.”
The same description applies here, and to all of the other, earlier “Jesus was married.” claims.

Jesus is married to the Church: His only Bride.
 
However, is it a matter of our Catholic Faith (a defined dogma or a dogmatic fact, something Sacred Tradition teaches or something that requires assent or some other such thing) that Jesus was not married?
Click to expand...
We must believe that Christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He was God.
He is perfectly happy with Himself, He is Perfect in Himself. He does not need us we need Him, so why would He need a wife or want one. It is Catholic teaching that Jesus did not experience concupiscence, he suffered from no sexual temptations or desires, do why would he want a wife?

These reasons added to the lack of any Scriputral evidence, the lack of evidence in the Traditions of the Church, the teachings of the Fathers, the Saints, or any comment by the Magisterium, I would say amounts to a Doctrine proved by the absence of any proof to the contrary. And that it would demand the Assent of Faith at the very least. I don’t see how you could be Catholic and believe any thing else. But that is my personal opinion only.

👍👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top