M
Marie5890
Guest
Historically speaking, marriage was not based in the idea of love. That was what that particular of mine was replying to.
- Status
L
Lochias
Guest
Jesus wasn’t one to stick to established cultural norms, though.
The impossibility of Jesus’ marriage would have nothing to do with His humanity, though, but His mission here on Earth.
I think that focusing on the humanity of Jesus, like my brother does (“He was a man, and all men have sexual urges! He totally would have given in!”) is simply a result of our modern society. Doesn’t apply.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Um, sorry, but no. We do have examples of particular subcultures, especially the ruling castes, for whom love-matches were impracticable, but we also have the consistent evidence of marriage being about love through people’s standard images of it, from Paris and Helen to Daphnis and Chloe to Romeo and Juliet to Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. Love matches have been a central preoccupation of humans throughout history.
Precisely how successful people have been in finding love is another question, and one as well worth asking in the present tense as in the present perfect.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I think marriage as a human experience is about a lot more than sex.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
There are a couple of issues which could come into play.
One of them is Tradition. From around the year 200, the date which King claims for the fragment, the Church Fathers tell us about arguments for celibacy which are predicated upon the fact (as they understand it) of Jesus never having married.
Another is Scripture. The Bible talks frequently about the Church being the Bride of Christ, and already having a wife would make him a polygamist, something not considered acceptable in NT times (q.v. 1 Tim 3:2).
As for having a consort, no, that would fall afoul of Jewish rules about sex before marriage (Deut 22:13-29).
Apart from the debate over the authenticity of the fragment itself, someone claiming 170 years later that something significant happened despite none of the earlier witnesses having mentioned it is hardly what we call a reliable historical source.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Absolutely! There are also the dishes, the vacuuming, taking the rubbish out, visiting the in-laws, and choosing which movie to watch.
R
runningdude
Guest
He’d have to receive a dispensation from the Father to remove the impediment of his earthly mission!
T
tabycat
Guest
I can not think of one reason why Jesus would be married.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
Having read all of the responses in this thread, I have come to the conclusion that you all missed the point of this hyped up “event”!
As usual, the sensational secularist press has jumped on another opportunity to debunk traditional religious beliefs while ignoring historical knowledge.
I am quite sure that the professor involved sought out publicity for her own private agenda-perhaps in an attempt to attract grant money.
Texts such as these have been known for hundreds of years and have been de-bunked at least during the 20th century by reputable scholars. These date from about 2 to 3 hundred years after the death of Christ and were written by the Gnostics, a heretical sect that had to be supressed because they became a major threat to the established Church. In addition to denying the Trinity, they re-wrote biblical texts to accomodate their political/social agenda. In areas where they had a majority of numbers, they suppressed the orthodox Christians by force.
Like all of the early heresies, they were all but forgotten by mainstream scholars until a treasure trove of their documents was discovered in the late 1940’s, which renewed interest in them. The fact remains, that just because a document or fragment is ancient does not mean the information on it is true.
And there are those today who will use such false information to try to discredit the true believers.
NEVER FORGET: Sensation sells newspapers and attracts advertisers to TV!
As usual, the sensational secularist press has jumped on another opportunity to debunk traditional religious beliefs while ignoring historical knowledge.
I am quite sure that the professor involved sought out publicity for her own private agenda-perhaps in an attempt to attract grant money.
Texts such as these have been known for hundreds of years and have been de-bunked at least during the 20th century by reputable scholars. These date from about 2 to 3 hundred years after the death of Christ and were written by the Gnostics, a heretical sect that had to be supressed because they became a major threat to the established Church. In addition to denying the Trinity, they re-wrote biblical texts to accomodate their political/social agenda. In areas where they had a majority of numbers, they suppressed the orthodox Christians by force.
Like all of the early heresies, they were all but forgotten by mainstream scholars until a treasure trove of their documents was discovered in the late 1940’s, which renewed interest in them. The fact remains, that just because a document or fragment is ancient does not mean the information on it is true.
And there are those today who will use such false information to try to discredit the true believers.
NEVER FORGET: Sensation sells newspapers and attracts advertisers to TV!
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Karen King actually states, in the second sentence of her paper on the fragment, that “It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married”. The sensationalism in this case was the fault of the press, not of the historian.
As for all of the rest of us having missed the point which is evident only to you, it might be worth considering that we are simply not as bothered by it as you seem to be. Since people have been fabricating holy scriptures for about as long as such scriptures have existed, the Church have a lot of experience and expertise dealing with the issue of textual reliability, which was actually how we got the Bible canon in the first place.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Because he never had one. The rest of the questions are moot.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Well, i’d just like to thank those who made the effort to answer my question.
Some of the respondents seem to have realized I wasn’t asking about the accuracy or historicity of the issue (but then again such people are so apt to debate at a moments notice it seems…which really isn’t the point of the thread) - just whether it somehow violated some particular understanding of who or what the Messiah as conceived in Christian terms should be.
It seems i’ve not necessarily fallen upon a single answer…but a spectrum.
Some of the respondents seem to have realized I wasn’t asking about the accuracy or historicity of the issue (but then again such people are so apt to debate at a moments notice it seems…which really isn’t the point of the thread) - just whether it somehow violated some particular understanding of who or what the Messiah as conceived in Christian terms should be.
It seems i’ve not necessarily fallen upon a single answer…but a spectrum.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Probably because it is never really a question but merely hypothetical. You would expect many answers to this type of question. If you have asked specific question probably you would get specific answer, like, is Jesus God?
T
TheAtheist
Guest
I am always dependent upon the kindness of strangers Linus.So you see, he was not just a Son of Man, he was also the Son of God , indeed God Himself. You have to be familiar with the Theology to understand the insult offered by those who suggest he had a wife.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
We are clear about what is the Messiah.
As for whether Jesus was married or not, well, he did not. Is it objectionable if he was married? Well, no it is not if really he was married. After all Jesus was true God and true man. We would not know, what would happen if he had married.
Guess question like yours is being asked all the time by curious people but I do not think you will get the answer you want if you already have a perceived mind on this issue. If you are a child, those type of answers probably should satisfy you.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Ah! Scholarship. Much more akin to what i am seeking.
Always in your debt for your analysis Mystophilus.
R
Rence
Guest
I can’t even tell you what a nonissue this is to me and it doesn’t make a difference at all. He’s still God the Son, and it wouldn’t change anything. Someone made an odd comment to me one day, that if God was married and had a child, He couldn’t be God. I have no clue why a possible married Jesus would shatter this person’s whole world, but evidently it would
I think people just can’t get over the fact that they are putting human limits on God, and that’s not possible. Married or not, it doesn’t change anything.
B
BrianGular
Guest
If Jesus Christ had a wife it would change everything. It would call into question his identity, his very being. Jesus Christ is God’s Word–co-eternal and co-existent with the Father and the Spirit from eternity past. It is through this Word that the universe was created. It is through this Word that God became man and died on the cross, only to rise again to prove his deity. It is through this Word that the sins of men have been forgiven. It is through this Word that God will ultimately redeem the universe–with the new heaven and the new earth. It is silly to think that God personified taking a wife would be no big deal or that he would take a wife because it was customary. Jesus was never shown to be afraid of a little controversy while doing the will of the Father.
The accusation of having a spouse is an attack on who Jesus Christ is, not on what he has done.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
With due respect, that is a personal opinion. It is a hypothetical question. We wouldn’t know what could have happened if Jesus was married. The Bible might be written differently and there would be changes in certain doctrine.
We cannot know the mind of God other than what he revealed to us and we cannot limit what God can do.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The only known condition of Jesus being a man is that he is without sin.
- Status