So once again, the claim that Jesus was married has surfaced...

[Anna the Seeker]

...and also that he had biological children, and many nonbelievers are eager to accept the "news" as a fact.

How do you feel about it or what's your attitude on it?

 

[RDKirk]

{shrug}

What non-believers believe is not a problem for believers.

 

[branchofthevine]

hm... that's disappointing, but somehow not too surprising since it seems a lot of people today are willing to believe any unsubstantiated thing, and reject any verified fact about the Christian religion

 

[Anna the Seeker]

I think nonbelievers are not content in God's truth, so they're using their own methods instead. And I have my suspicions that by the time they get to the research, they're already biased against the Bible and dismiss the evidence that supports it.

Once again, who really knows better about Jesus and the spiritual realm? Human or God? The truth (many) was written all along in the Bible.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

[Jesus was married] ... and also that he had biological children, and many nonbelievers are eager to accept the "news" as a fact.

How do you feel about it or what's your attitude on it?

I am always amazed at the self-contradictions of non-believers.

The Bible texts are the only purported eye-witness accounts of the life of Jesus. But most non-believers do not believe what is said about Jesus.

For the sake of consistency in thought, if one doesn't believe the authenticity of the gospels, quit [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-footing around and just deny the existence of Jesus. If the gospels aren't reliable, there's no reason to believe Jesus ever lived.

(Just to clarify, I do believe the gospels are accurate, eye-witness and inspired. I'm speaking as a third party witness to a discussion in this.)

The gospels tell about many things that transpired in Jesus' life. A good deal of Jesus' life is excluded - the time between Jesus at twelve years old and the beginning of His ministry, about thirty years of age. It is excluded because those years don't contain anything of importance to who Jesus is, His mission or His teaching.

(My autobiography will not detail all the boring periods of my life. Presuming I write an autobiography.)

In my not so humble opinion, the bare facts of Jesus' marriage would be an 'important' detail. I would presume the gospel writers to record some bit of information IF such an event occurred. So I interpret the 'absence of information' as 'evidence of absence' in this case, in this matter.

One other thing. Why would God on Earth father children? There is no point in doing so. Of course, that is probably the reason the rumor crops up regularly. If Jesus had children in the normal course of living, one could doubt His Divinity.

 

[Anna the Seeker]

I've actually encountered some arrogance from the non-believers when I've followed the discussion. They claim that the believers know nothing about His life, but as you said... the Bible is a major source about His life. Everything else is just a speculation.

They behave like human knows Jesus better than God does...

In my not so humble opinion, the bare facts of Jesus' marriage would be an 'important' detail. I would presume the gospel writers to record some bit of information IF such an event occurred. So I interpret the 'absence of information' as 'evidence of absence' in this case, in this matter.

One other thing. Why would God on Earth father children? There is no point in doing so. Of course, that is probably the reason the rumor crops up regularly. If Jesus had children in the normal course of living, one could doubt His Divinity.

Besides, the Bible repeatedly tells with wedding stories that Jesus is coming to get His bride around the time of Rapture, and that we should have oil in our lanterns for the arrival of the bridegroom. Why would He say that if He was already married to an earthly woman? It doesn't make any sense.

Or why would He spend so much time with His disciples until His death if He was married with children? Why would He willingly endanger His family life if He knew what was coming? It doesn't make any sense either. He knew better.

But... I believe Jesus has children. Millions! He adopted us all.
And He's great with (His) children. As someone said: if we lose our parents, always remember that we have a Father in Heaven.

 

[Albion]

I agree with the general drift that's been expressed so far. What non-believers and the uninformed have to say, we will always have with us...but so what. The important thing is that there is no shred of evidence in Scripture that Jesus was married or engaged or had children of anything of that sort. It's all based upon presumptions about how the typical Jewish man would or should act, and the last thing that Jesus was was a "typical" Jewish man.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree with the general drift that's been expressed so far. What non-believers and the uninformed have to say, we will always have with us...but so what. The important thing is that there is no shred of evidence in Scripture that Jesus was married or engaged or had children of anything of that sort. It's all based upon presumptions about how the typical Jewish man would or should act, and the last thing that Jesus was was a "typical" Jewish man.

I like the way Ann Rice (in her novel "Jesus the Christ: The Road to Cana") expressed the social aspect. In her novel, she speculates that by age 30 Jesus would have been experiencing a peak in social pressure to "get on with life" and get married, even from those such as His mother who knew He was destined for something special in God. After all, David and Moses were both married. In her novel, the tiny community of Nazareth had long determined even who Jesus should marry--and everyone, including the young woman herself, knew it.

A large part of the entertaining novel was how Jesus extricated Himself from the social tapestry that His culture had woven Him into...and neatly repaired the hole He left behind.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I usually like to point out that, strictly speaking, a married Jesus isn't a problem for Christianity. If Jesus had been married, and did have children, this wouldn't have been a problem for the early Christian movement, and we would expect someone, somewhere, to have mentioned it, at least in passing.

Remarkably nobody makes any mention of Jesus being married. It's not found in any of the earliest Christian writings--those of Paul and the canonical Gospels--it's not found in any of the writings of the ancient fathers.

It's not even found in any of the writings of various heretical sects. While some today have attempted at claiming that Gnostic writings mention Jesus being married, none of them do. The Gnostic Jesus wasn't married either. And I don't know why we would expect the Gnostics to have a married Jesus in their theology, they generally regarded Jesus as either an incorporeal spirit or as an aloof teacher totally detached from any and all concerns pertaining to this earthly life.

It's simply something that's never mentioned, not even on the fringes of Christianity.

If Jesus was married, we would have no way to know, nobody wrote anything to suggest it for us.

The modern fascination and obsession with a potentially married Jesus doesn't seem to have any basis in legitimate historical examination, but is largely a response to a false sense that Christianity is anti-sex; though last I checked all of mainstream Christianity holds to the sanctity of marriage and the blessing of procreation. So why a married Jesus should be scandalous is something I don't quite understand, but apparently some people think it is, and thus it is enticing to them to romanticize over.

Christianity doesn't hold to the idea that Jesus remained single and celibate because marriage and procreation are "icky", but because everything in the Gospels, the writings of the fathers, and the historic tradition points to the fact that Jesus didn't have a wife and didn't have children. The Church has always valued marriage and celibacy as two equal paths of sexual expression for the individual, the celibate life is no more noble than the married life; neither is the married life more noble than the celibate life. Both are expressions of Christian life in the community of the Church, the Church has valued and rejoiced in both.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ricker]

I usually like to point out that, strictly speaking, a married Jesus isn't a problem for Christianity. If Jesus had been married, and did have children, this wouldn't have been a problem for the early Christian movement, and we would expect someone, somewhere, to have mentioned it, at least in passing.

Remarkably nobody makes any mention of Jesus being married. It's not found in any of the earliest Christian writings--those of Paul and the canonical Gospels--it's not found in any of the writings of the ancient fathers.

It's not even found in any of the writings of various heretical sects. While some today have attempted at claiming that Gnostic writings mention Jesus being married, none of them do. The Gnostic Jesus wasn't married either. And I don't know why we would expect the Gnostics to have a married Jesus in their theology, they generally regarded Jesus as either an incorporeal spirit or as an aloof teacher totally detached from any and all concerns pertaining to this earthly life.

It's simply something that's never mentioned, not even on the fringes of Christianity.

If Jesus was married, we would have no way to know, nobody wrote anything to suggest it for us.

The modern fascination and obsession with a potentially married Jesus doesn't seem to have any basis in legitimate historical examination, but is largely a response to a false sense that Christianity is anti-sex; though last I checked all of mainstream Christianity holds to the sanctity of marriage and the blessing of procreation. So why a married Jesus should be scandalous is something I don't quite understand, but apparently some people think it is, and thus it is enticing to them to romanticize over.

Christianity doesn't hold to the idea that Jesus remained single and celibate because marriage and procreation are "icky", but because everything in the Gospels, the writings of the fathers, and the historic tradition points to the fact that Jesus didn't have a wife and didn't have children. The Church has always valued marriage and celibacy as two equal paths of sexual expression for the individual, the celibate life is no more noble than the married life; neither is the married life more noble than the celibate life. Both are expressions of Christian life in the community of the Church, the Church has valued and rejoiced in both.

-CryptoLutheran

Great post. I have wondered myself what the fuss is all about. I haven't seen any evidence that Jesus was married, but even if He had been what difference would that mean to me as a Christian? He was both human and Divine.

 

[RDKirk]

I usually like to point out that, strictly speaking, a married Jesus isn't a problem for Christianity. If Jesus had been married, and did have children, this wouldn't have been a problem for the early Christian movement, and we would expect someone, somewhere, to have mentioned it, at least in passing.

Remarkably nobody makes any mention of Jesus being married. It's not found in any of the earliest Christian writings--those of Paul and the canonical Gospels--it's not found in any of the writings of the ancient fathers.

It's not even found in any of the writings of various heretical sects. While some today have attempted at claiming that Gnostic writings mention Jesus being married, none of them do. The Gnostic Jesus wasn't married either. And I don't know why we would expect the Gnostics to have a married Jesus in their theology, they generally regarded Jesus as either an incorporeal spirit or as an aloof teacher totally detached from any and all concerns pertaining to this earthly life.

It's simply something that's never mentioned, not even on the fringes of Christianity.

If Jesus was married, we would have no way to know, nobody wrote anything to suggest it for us.

The modern fascination and obsession with a potentially married Jesus doesn't seem to have any basis in legitimate historical examination, but is largely a response to a false sense that Christianity is anti-sex; though last I checked all of mainstream Christianity holds to the sanctity of marriage and the blessing of procreation. So why a married Jesus should be scandalous is something I don't quite understand, but apparently some people think it is, and thus it is enticing to them to romanticize over.

Christianity doesn't hold to the idea that Jesus remained single and celibate because marriage and procreation are "icky", but because everything in the Gospels, the writings of the fathers, and the historic tradition points to the fact that Jesus didn't have a wife and didn't have children. The Church has always valued marriage and celibacy as two equal paths of sexual expression for the individual, the celibate life is no more noble than the married life; neither is the married life more noble than the celibate life. Both are expressions of Christian life in the community of the Church, the Church has valued and rejoiced in both.

-CryptoLutheran

I think there is some retro-logic applied by clergy over the years that there must have been a particular reason Jesus did not marry (after all, Moses and David married), but retro-logic on such things that scripture is silent about (that being the reason Jesus was not married) is always something to be circumspect about.

 

[Anna the Seeker]

I think there is some retro-logic applied by clergy over the years that there must have been a particular reason Jesus did not marry (after all, Moses and David married), but retro-logic on such things that scripture is silent about (that being the reason Jesus was not married) is always something to be circumspect about.

It goes to my logic that if Jesus knew the way He was going to die and that He would then spend thousands of years in Heaven before His return (which He did) then He also knew that it was best not to marry and leave your wife and children in shambles in such a way.

He was a wise man after all, He knew better than that. That His destiny was elsewhere.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I think there is some retro-logic applied by clergy over the years that there must have been a particular reason Jesus did not marry ...

Jesus Christ was (still is) God in the flesh. Why would God marry and sire 'human' children?

I cannot see any reason for pursuing the question further.

 

[RDKirk]

It goes to my logic that if Jesus knew the way He was going to die and that He would then spend thousands of years in Heaven before His return (which He did) then He also knew that it was best not to marry and leave your wife and children in shambles in such a way.

He was a wise man after all, He knew better than that. That His destiny was elsewhere.

Jesus Christ was (still is) God in the flesh. Why would God marry and sire 'human' children?

I cannot see any reason for pursuing the question further.

As I said, "...but retro-logic on such things that scripture is silent about (that being the reason Jesus was not married) is always something to be circumspect about."

 

[kala83]

I usually like to point out that, strictly speaking, a married Jesus isn't a problem for Christianity. If Jesus had been married, and did have children, this wouldn't have been a problem for the early Christian movement, and we would expect someone, somewhere, to have mentioned it, at least in passing.

Remarkably nobody makes any mention of Jesus being married. It's not found in any of the earliest Christian writings--those of Paul and the canonical Gospels--it's not found in any of the writings of the ancient fathers.

It's not even found in any of the writings of various heretical sects. While some today have attempted at claiming that Gnostic writings mention Jesus being married, none of them do. The Gnostic Jesus wasn't married either. And I don't know why we would expect the Gnostics to have a married Jesus in their theology, they generally regarded Jesus as either an incorporeal spirit or as an aloof teacher totally detached from any and all concerns pertaining to this earthly life.

It's simply something that's never mentioned, not even on the fringes of Christianity.

If Jesus was married, we would have no way to know, nobody wrote anything to suggest it for us.

The modern fascination and obsession with a potentially married Jesus doesn't seem to have any basis in legitimate historical examination, but is largely a response to a false sense that Christianity is anti-sex; though last I checked all of mainstream Christianity holds to the sanctity of marriage and the blessing of procreation. So why a married Jesus should be scandalous is something I don't quite understand, but apparently some people think it is, and thus it is enticing to them to romanticize over.

Christianity doesn't hold to the idea that Jesus remained single and celibate because marriage and procreation are "icky", but because everything in the Gospels, the writings of the fathers, and the historic tradition points to the fact that Jesus didn't have a wife and didn't have children. The Church has always valued marriage and celibacy as two equal paths of sexual expression for the individual, the celibate life is no more noble than the married life; neither is the married life more noble than the celibate life. Both are expressions of Christian life in the community of the Church, the Church has valued and rejoiced in both.

-CryptoLutheran

I do agree if there is no written evidence that has been mentioned I would find it debateable.
I do believe myself to be a believer...but the way i believe has proven different from others and I know sometimes I appear to be rude or disrespectful towards other due to my differences which I certainly do not aim to do.

just I believe that it might be a possibility that Jesus could have possibly been married....not that I deny what Jesus was. But Jesus was sent to earth as an extension of god, because god in his holiness and purity could not be near to human due to their sin.

So he came to the earth as a man, if Jesus was a man...why is it rude to think he would have lived like any man of that age and became married? If he did it by the Jewish laws of that time which he said countless times in the bible that he kept and respected the laws set down at that time.

But as I said before if there is no evidence in the bible it self ...Gnostic texts that may or may not suggest this possibility then it begs to suggested or just factual that Jesus was not married.

if I have said anything here that anyone takes offense to I deeply apologize and do not have any intent to insult anyone.

 

[RDKirk]

I do agree if there is no written evidence that has been mentioned I would find it debateable.
I do believe myself to be a believer...but the way i believe has proven different from others and I know sometimes I appear to be rude or disrespectful towards other due to my differences which I certainly do not aim to do.

just I believe that it might be a possibility that Jesus could have possibly been married....not that I deny what Jesus was. But Jesus was sent to earth as an extension of god, because god in his holiness and purity could not be near to human due to their sin.

So he came to the earth as a man, if Jesus was a man...why is it rude to think he would have lived like any man of that age and became married? If he did it by the Jewish laws of that time which he said countless times in the bible that he kept and respected the laws set down at that time.

But as I said before if there is no evidence in the bible it self ...Gnostic texts that may or may not suggest this possibility then it begs to suggested or just factual that Jesus was not married.

if I have said anything here that anyone takes offense to I deeply apologize and do not have any intent to insult anyone.

Well, we see scripture being careful to note that Jesus transferred care of His mother to John. So what did he do for his widow and orphaned children?

 

[ebedmelech]

Satan's imps are and will be in the details. Tampering with Christ divinity is a key area he wants mis-information to intrude on.

Just one of the many ways of the "prince of darkness"!

 

[Anna the Seeker]

Satan's imps are and will be in the details. Tampering with Christ divinity is a key area he wants mis-information to intrude on.

Just one of the many ways of the "prince of darkness"!

Even back in the days, it seems.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, we see scripture being careful to note that Jesus transferred care of His mother to John. So what did he do for his widow and orphaned children?

I think that's a very valid point (and also a fairly good argument for the possibility that Jesus' siblings weren't blood related, but probably the children of Joseph from a previous marriage). Jesus is concerned with the well-being of His mother and transfers her care to "the beloved disciple", we would think that the Lord would also be at least as concerned about His wife or possible children.

It's not perfect evidence, but it definitely begs the question that if Jesus was married why such a thing simply does not exist in any of the writings about Him in the first century--e.g. the Gospels.

While silence isn't conclusive, I think we should regard it highly suspect that if Jesus were married that every single person in the ancient world who ever bothered to write about Jesus, either orthodox or heretic, failed to mention this. At the very least it means that the "Jesus was married" argument lacks any and all evidence. There is as much evidence that Jesus was married as there is evidence that Jesus was the coach of a Nazareth-based Little League baseball team.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Anna the Seeker]

There were false gossips about Jesus back in His days on earth anyway. "Jesus is a Samaritan with en evil spirit," remember that one?