Here it comes: They're claiming Christ was married

[Achilles6129]

No, I don't agree with anything you just posted, Harry. To keep the thread on topic - Christ was not married. There is no evidence that he ever was, and I disagree with your assertions about Mary Magdalene. However, I am sure the secular world would love to believe Christ was married - that's why they always sensationalize these stories (see the DaVinci Code, etc.).

 

[Archivist]

No, I don't agree with anything you just posted, Harry. To keep the thread on topic - Christ was not married. There is no evidence that he ever was, and I disagree with your assertions about Mary Magdalene. However, I am sure the secular world would love to believe Christ was married - that's why they always sensationalize these stories (see the DaVinci Code, etc.).

There is also no evidence that He was not married.

In any event--and as I said earlier--it appears that this fragment is a forgery.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

it appears that this fragment is a forgery.

Exactly. And as for evidence He was NOT married.......I think the Holy Spirit has revealed it to enough of us to consider it evidence, just IMO.

 

[Achilles6129]

There is also no evidence that He was not married.

I believe the idea of God married to a human woman is theologically unsound and could probably be philosophically proven false.

 

[Philip C]

As for the time between his being found in the temple and his public ministry, we now know that since Herod the Great was still alive at the time of Jesus' birth, and lived for at least two years afterward, the timespan is not 18 years between the age of twelve and his beginning his public ministry, but instead is at least 24, and probably as long as 30 years.

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry." (Luke 3:23)

 

[Archivist]

I believe the idea of God married to a human woman is theologically unsound and could probably be philosophically proven false.

I have always thought of Jesus as having never married, but the fact is that there is no proof either way.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Given the reverence the Apostles and those that followed them obviously showed Mary, I would think if our Lord God had a wife and descendents they would have showed similar respect for them. Not so much because such people would automatically be any different than the rest of us, but out of respect for their human Father. As we have not a single credible record (tales hundreds of years later) of these descendents being mentioned, I think it is a huge stretch. We would have for example several Churches each claiming to have the remains of His first born son. That we do not have such claims, or at least the ones we do have our dubious and uncommon, it is doubtful that any such children or wife exist.

 

[Archivist]

Given the reverence the Apostles and those that followed them obviously showed Mary, I would think if our Lord God had a wife and descendents they would have showed similar respect for them. Not so much because such people would automatically be any different than the rest of us, but out of respect for their human Father. As we have not a single credible record (tales hundreds of years later) of these descendents being mentioned, I think it is a huge stretch. We would have for example several Churches each claiming to have the remains of His first born son. That we do not have such claims, or at least the ones we do have our dubious and uncommon, it is doubtful that any such children or wife exist.

Of course this assumes that the marriage would have produced children or that his wife--assuming such a person existed--was still alive when He began his ministry.

 

[Achilles6129]

I have always thought of Jesus as having never married, but the fact is that there is no proof either way.

Though there is no verse that specifically says that Christ was never married, one could essentially philosophically prove that he was never married. Imagine if God were married to a woman he created - doesn't this sound a little philosophically unsound to you? Perhaps a little bit shady?

So I think there is no doubt: We can say definitively that Jesus Christ was never married.

 

[Archivist]

Though there is no verse that specifically says that Christ was never married, one could essentially philosophically prove that he was never married. Imagine if God were married to a woman he created - doesn't this sound a little philosophically unsound to you? Perhaps a little bit shady?

So I think there is no doubt: We can say definitively that Jesus Christ was never married.

And as I previously said, I don't believe that He was married. However, there is no absolute proof that He was not. Your "philosophical proof" is an interesting theory, but it is not proof.

 

[Achilles6129]

And as I previously said, I don't believe that He was married. However, there is no absolute proof that He was not. Your "philosophical proof" is an interesting theory, but it is not proof.

In my opinion it is proof. The idea of God having physical relations with a member of his creation raises some extremely scary philosophical ideas. So scary that I think we can plainly assert that it never happened. If Christ was married, I think the world would use that to prove that he was not God. Of course, we know Christ was not - but that is why the media always covers these stories.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Of course this assumes that the marriage would have produced children or that his wife--assuming such a person existed--was still alive when He began his ministry.

Well now that this is mentioned am not sure it is true or that I was making such an assumption.

I would think any person Jesus had a such a personal relationship would be venerated by all the early Christians and we would have a record of people claiming to know or have relics relating to those individuals.

 

[usexpat97]

I think this "archaeological finding" is just someone's get-rich-quick scheme.

 

[Archivist]

In my opinion it is proof. The idea of God having physical relations with a member of his creation raises some extremely scary philosophical ideas. So scary that I think we can plainly assert that it never happened. If Christ was married, I think the world would use that to prove that he was not God. Of course, we know Christ was not - but that is why the media always covers these stories.

Your point is logical, but it doesn't prove that Jesus wasn't married. There is no absolute proof that He was not married.

Again, I don't believe that He was married. I take that view on faith not based on any proof.

 

[Archivist]

Well now that this is mentioned am not sure it is true or that I was making such an assumption.

I would think any person Jesus had a such a personal relationship would be venerated by all the early Christians and we would record of people claiming to know or have relics relating to those individuals.

Perhaps, but again there is no absolute proof in Scripture that He was not married.

And, again, I don't believe that He was married.

 

[Archivist]

I think this "archaeological finding" is just someone's get-rich-quick scheme.

I would agree.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Perhaps, but again there is no absolute proof in Scripture that He was not married.

And, again, I don't believe that He was married.

Well, I agree but I think that goes without saying.

Scripture does not say He was not an Olympic beach volleyball player either, but I do not believe or even suspect He could have been. If a scrap of paper claimed otherwise I would still not believe it.

But back to does it matter either way - I agree with those saying not. It would be hard to logically say being married and having children is sinful or wrong for a man. Would also be hard to argue that being a man, Jesus could not do all that and still be perfect.

As to what Saint Paul implies regarding celebacy, I would agree only that "better" means easier; as in easier to live a righteous life with fewer distractions, stresses, emotions.....etc.

 

[Achilles6129]

The document has now been judged a fake:

Gospel Jesus wife

News flash: Jesus’ Wife fragment judged a fake. Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King's paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.

 

[David Brider]

Why on earth would I want to read any more of your junk.

How do you know it's junk without reading it?

Got to be honest, personally I think this is one of those issues that it's best to keep an open mind about. No, there's nothing in Scripture that explicitly states that Jesus was married. OTOH, as others have said, Jesus was considered to be a rabbi, and it would have been (according to one argument) unremarkable for a rabbi to have been married, and remarkable for one to be married; so Scripture's silence on the matter could be taken as implying that he was married. Personally, whenever I read the account of the wedding feast at Cana, I find it difficult to reach any conclusion other than that Jesus was the one getting married. But that might be just me.

All things considered, Jesus' marital status makes no difference, positive or negative, to my faith.

 

[Archivist]

Scripture does not say He was not an Olympic beach volleyball player either, but I do not believe or even suspect He could have been.

The difference is that Scripture does tell us exactly what Jesus did before He began His ministry and, for the record, He did not have a job as a beach volleyball player:

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?" Mark 6:3

However Scripture does not say whether He was married; it is silent on that issue.

If a scrap of paper claimed otherwise I would still not believe it.

And I do not believe this particular scrap of paper; evidence seems to indicate that it is a fraud. In fact, I think I have said many times that I do not believe that He was married. My point is that Scripture does not comment on whether He was or was not married.