If Jesus were married would it change any of his teachings?

It would b/c he is perfect, blameless, and righteous and COULD NOT marry a sinful person who is not perfect, blameless, and righteous. And also, God's bride is the church...so that means that he CANNOT marry a human.

Why is important to you that Jesus was married? Don't you think God knows all about marriage, and how exactly we feel about it anyway?

God knows our deepest desire.

Psalm 139:1-7
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.

4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

You will notice that the bible does not say that he was or was not married, nor does it say that he did or did not have children.

Soul Searcher said:

You will notice that the bible does not say that he was or was not married, nor does it say that he did or did not have children.

Click to expand...

Thats correct and why would it really matter if Jesus was married and had a wife and children?
Would that make his pain and suffering anyless?
I wonder why this bothers some people?
I hope I am not considered a heathen for these words.

DrFate said:

If Jesus were married would it change any of his teachings? I do not think it would.
[FONT=&quot]Most people will get married and became a householders so for a prophet of God to show that it is possible to love and serve God and be a husband and parent would a be very good teaching example.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Jesus having married would have demonstrated hands on involvement in the most difficult human relationships of all. I especially find it odd that he did not marry and have children since Jesus has such a life-affirming message.



[/FONT]

Click to expand...

the only teaching it would maybe draw into question i wonder about is Christ's teaching on the individual life in a non-married mindset. forgive me for not remembering the verse, but i remember reading in the Gospels where Jesus mentioned that if a person could, to not marry. i tried looking for it in my Bible right now and i can't find it. i know Paul sends those sentiments. not that it is wrong to marry but to remain unmarried if it is possible for the person. and with that, if Jesus would have been married, that would possibly go against this teaching.

other than that, i see nothing wrong with the idea of Jesus being married and having children. i mean it seems the Gnostic groups had a reason to think that this is a very real possibility, and the only refutation of this would be on a theological process. of course maybe the Gnostics were more in tuned with fables and stories. that i do not know. but i'm not going to go on and on about this possibility of confliction, because i can't quote myself of where i read that in Gospel. until then, i just leave this in speculation

Becky153 said:

It would b/c he is perfect, blameless, and righteous and COULD NOT marry a sinful person who is not perfect, blameless, and righteous. And also, God's bride is the church...so that means that he CANNOT marry a human.

Click to expand...

while i see your point clearly, i don't believe it is that simple.

you mentioned sin. Jesus was tempted, so the ability of Christ sinning must have been there for even temptation to be done and i don't see how this really adds some worries with marriage. possibly the confliction with being fully human and fully divine because "God" cannot be lead into temptation but yet Christ was (i hope any response to this is not making Christ look like He had a multiple personality disorder.) any perfection/rightousness that we see attributed to Christ seems to be in the accumulation of Christ's life on this earth (ie the writings of the Epistle which were written after His ascension.)

so sin isn't the issue as far as i'm concerned, nor can it really be proven that it is an issue, because of the temptation that Christ went through.

Becky153 said:

It would b/c he is perfect, blameless, and righteous and COULD NOT marry a sinful person who is not perfect, blameless, and righteous. And also, God's bride is the church...so that means that he CANNOT marry a human.

Click to expand...

The church is far from perfect, blameless, or righteous, so he either can marry such a thing, or he can't. Both your statements can't be true.

Also, the whole church-as-bride thing isn't literal, so I don't see how that applies.

I don't think Jesus was married or had children -- it doesn't mesh with what his life is illustrated as. However, had he been married, I don't see how that would change his message any.

I do think that it'd be important theologically for him to not have children as then there'd be little demi-gods running around all over the place, and that'd just get confusing.

Jesus was mentioned growing up as a boy, included his lineage, and then later his ministry and his actions during that time, including where he traveled. But it forgot to mention he got married? Wouldn't this be used to show various points of what marriage would mean?

The books that mentions anything about Jesus that are not of the gospels do not mention Jesus was married either. So, at this point, are people just assuming Jesus was married because it suits them?

How does one forget to mention they are married? Even Peter is spoken of being married. But Jesus wasn't?

Lastly, it was pointed out that the bride of Jesus is the church.

knightlight72 said:

Jesus was mentioned growing up as a boy, included his lineage, and then later his ministry and his actions during that time, including where he traveled. But it forgot to mention he got married? Wouldn't this be used to show various points of what marriage would mean?

The books that mentions anything about Jesus that are not of the gospels do not mention Jesus was married either. So, at this point, are people just assuming Jesus was married because it suits them?

How does one forget to mention they are married? Even Peter is spoken of being married. But Jesus wasn't?

Lastly, it was pointed out that the bride of Jesus is the church.

Click to expand...

Well I would say you are 1/2 right.

Failure to mention marriage certianly does not mean that one is married. However it does not mean one is not either. All it really means is that we do not know one way or the other.

Jesus can not get merried becaouse GOD is ONE.
Only we glue together whyle expecting descendants.

"Do not separate what GOD has glued in one"

knightlight72 said:

Jesus was mentioned growing up as a boy, included his lineage, and then later his ministry and his actions during that time, including where he traveled. But it forgot to mention he got married? Wouldn't this be used to show various points of what marriage would mean?

The books that mentions anything about Jesus that are not of the gospels do not mention Jesus was married either. So, at this point, are people just assuming Jesus was married because it suits them?

How does one forget to mention they are married? Even Peter is spoken of being married. But Jesus wasn't?

Lastly, it was pointed out that the bride of Jesus is the church.

Click to expand...

Strangely, we hear about Jesus as a boy, yet we hear nothing further until he turns 30. We have no idea of his teenage years or his 20s. While the Gospels mention Peter being married, it is in the context of Christ healing Peter's mother-in-law; if I recall correctly it does not mention the marital status of the other apostles or their names (even with Peter, his wife is referred to only as "Peter's wife").

Further, looking at the Old Testament, it is rare for women to be mentioned. In most cases, unless the woman has a direct bearing on the story (such as with Abraham and David), the wives are not mentioned and we only know most of the marriage of most men mentioned in the Bible because of genealogy (which typically lists the males) or because his sons are talked about.

We do know from history that betrothals typically occurred during childhood in Jewish culture. It was rather scandalous for a family if a child was in their late teens and not married. It is possible the reason it Christ's wife wasn't mentioned was because it was normal -- it wasn't mentioned because they thought the reader would assume Christ was married.

Last, if Christ is married to the church, does that make married members of the church bigamists?

Personally, I do not see where it makes any difference whether Christ was married.

DrFate said:

You were thinking of Paul's statement that he wished all men were like him and not married, but it is better to marry than be feverish.

Somone mentined demigods running arround if Jesus Had kids. The demi gods thing brings up a good reason to deny Jesus ever got married or had children. They would have been a challenge to the power of the established church. Maybe it would have developed into something like the descendents of Mohammed have developed into. Interesting line of thought for another thread.

Click to expand...

i was for sure i read something in the Gospels that fit into what i was trying to say. i will research more, and if i find it, i'll post it here, if not then yes, i still agree that it was Paul.

i think the demi-god thing is a good reason for denying that Jesus had children.

my personal opinion tho?

i think people have a confliction with their Savior possibly having sex.

DrFate said:

Would it change any of his teachings if he had been married?

Click to expand...

Well since I do not know if he was or was not married I am really not in a position to say. If I had to guess I would say his teachings would have remained pretty much the same either way. After all truth is truth, love is love and mercy is mercy. Those who are parents can understand the father child relationship better than those who are not but that does not make it any more or less valid.

tattedsaint said:

i was for sure i read something in the Gospels that fit into what i was trying to say. i will research more, and if i find it, i'll post it here, if not then yes, i still agree that it was Paul.

Click to expand...

I think you may be thinking about Matthew Chapter 19. I see it as open to interpretation but it could be read that way.

knightlight72 said:

Jesus was mentioned growing up as a boy, included his lineage, and then later his ministry and his actions during that time, including where he traveled. But it forgot to mention he got married? Wouldn't this be used to show various points of what marriage would mean?

The books that mentions anything about Jesus that are not of the gospels do not mention Jesus was married either. So, at this point, are people just assuming Jesus was married because it suits them?

How does one forget to mention they are married? Even Peter is spoken of being married. But Jesus wasn't?

Lastly, it was pointed out that the bride of Jesus is the church.

Click to expand...

The Bible also leaves out most of his childhood and from 12-30 years old. That argument of if not mentioned did not happen, vanishes!

Did he spend most of his life not doing God's work!?