...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?
How do you feel about it or what's your attitude on it?
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Anna the Seeker said:[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?
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.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.
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 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 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
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.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.
RDKirk said: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 ...
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.
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.
Even back in the days, it seems.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"!
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?