Listen, I'm no expert on the subjects of theology or doctrinology or all that seminary hypthetical debate stuff. I haven't spent years of my life studying the semantics of the Holy Trinity or the deeper meanings of the Godhead. Many of my personal viewpoints about God or Christ or the Bible have often been labeled as being very unorthodox or, at times, even bordering on the sacreligious. I am no expert, I only express things the way I see them and the way I feel about them. You can either read what I write and accept it, or believe that it contradicts your personal beliefs and reject it. I am not trying to convince or convert anyone.
Whenever the subject of whether Jesus was married or not arises, some people become very, very hostile and offended. Because Christ's divinity is expressed in the idea of God taking on human flesh and becoming a man, people are very disdainful of the idea of Jesus marrying a human woman or even the possibility that He might have sired children. There is also the element of chasity and virginity that the Church has placed such emphasis on and reverence for over the past 1,500 years or more.
But the offense that people feel over the idea of Christ being married goes much deeper than the implication that Jesus may not have remained chaste during His lifetime. I think it primarily has to do with the conviction and belief that Christ was literally God. Because, once you make the person of Christ not just representative of God, but actually and utterly God, it becomes almost blasphemous to even imply that Jesus might have lived His life like any other decent human being.
Marriage, as a human institution, is revered and, many times, considered to be a very sacred and almost holy contract between a man and a woman. Yet, what I find very ironic, is the fact that even though Christianity teaches that marriage was given to us by God and that God honors and blesses the institution of marriage, it is the exact opposite when it comes to the idea of Jesus being married. To most Christian believers, the notion of Jesus taking a human woman as His wife is repulsive and unpleasant and, even ungodly.
This viewpoint confuses me to no end. The same people who say that intimate or sexual relations between a husband and wife in marriage are honored and approved of by God are the same ones who say that those same relations are ugly and unacceptable when it comes to Jesus. Why is the idea of Jesus being married such a hideous and deviant concept in the minds of so many people??
Something that makes this issue even more ironic is the fact that most believers do not mind the idea of God supernaturally inseminating a young teenage girl, but at the same time find the notion of Jesus enjoying all the pleasures of marriage to be disgusting and unthinkable. I believe there is a very interesting and curious psychology behind the reason why believers want to keep Jesus as the epitome of chasity and virginity. And this reason has very little to do with the supernatural divinity that so many place upon Him.
As for me, I have no problem with it. I see no way in which marriage could have prevented or annulled the redemptive power of Christ's death upon the cross or the final defeat of death through His resurrection. If, somehow, I were to find out tomorrow that Jesus really had been married, it would not reduce one iota of my faith in Him, nor would it do anything to decrease the reverence and love I have for Him. He would be no less my Savior or my Redeemer simply because He was not a virgin.
But, like I have already said, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind about this, nor am I trying to convince anybody that I am right and they are wrong to believe as they do. If it helps someone's Christian walk or their relationship with and faith in God, then they should go right on believing that Jesus carried His cross to Golgotha as an unmarried man. I just don't see how it really makes any difference either way.
Seeing Jesus as a husband, and possibly even a father, actually helps me in my personal relationship with Him. I imagine the tenderness and love He showed to His wife. I imagine Him laughing as He bounced His baby on His knee. I imagine His faithfulness and provision for His family. But, mostly, I imagine the joys and the blessings that He experienced through having a family, which are perhaps the greatest that any human being can ever know in this world.
But, I am not stating unequivocally that any of this is true. In fact, I don't even know if I am actually saying that any of it is even probable. All I am really saying, I guess, is this is what I imagine. And, in the end, what I imagine, shouldn't mean anything to anybody else except me. Afterall, it is only what I imagine and not necessarily anymore than that.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 133
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
This is yet another case of inconsistency in Christian belief. Believe it or don't, but don't try to reason it out, because that path leads you to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then what's all the fuss about?
When Lazurus died Jesus weeps openly with his friends and relatives. So much that those around say, "Look how much he loved him."
So Jesus being God and knowing he was going to Calvary wouldn't put his wife & children through such pain. Also it's just not in keeping with what the bible says.
He is God and we are all his children, brothers, sisters, mothers & fathers.
We who accept him into our hearts become one with him and he with us.
Read the bible and do not lean on your own understanding.
When Jesus returns from the grave he doesn't go find his wife and kids, it just doesn't say that in the bible. That's a very big point to leave out of the book and if you think that well okay, maybe someone left it out, then you bring doubt into the word of God.
Again, read the bible and you will find the answers you seek.
Peace be with you and God bless!
I think one of the reasons Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ" was so derided by religious groups was the temptation -- to live as any other man, married (presumedly to Mary Magdelene), and not have to face the cross. They focussed on the fact that, though it is disproven, there has still been much teaching that the Magdelene was a prostitute, and Christ would never have married someone of that profession (see Hosea, and his marriage to Gomer).
Maybe if we knew whether there was sex before the Fall (in Eden), that question would be solved -- if it existed before Original Sin, then it would not be an issue for a perfect Christ. If it only entered the world for the purpose of procreation after the Fall, then it would be problematic (might create children -- would they be human or divine?). [consider discussion of the Nephilim Gen 6:4 ... sons of god, little "g"].
Good subject to discuss ... one we won't solve.
You said that having Jesus be a loving father and spouse helped you imagine the tenderness he had with his child. I imagine him having that tenderness with every child. I know he has that tenderness with me each day. I feel that.
You mentioned that you imagine his faithfulness and provision for his family. Aren't we his family? Doesn't he provide for us?
And you said, "But, mostly, I imagine the joys and the blessings that He experienced through having a family, which are perhaps the greatest that any human being can ever know in this world." I think that when we're at our best (which is still soooooo far from perfection), he has that same joy. :-)
Another point and most importantly because Christ's reason to come to earth as God in the flesh was to be an example to all mankind that the Christian lifestyle was obtainable and do-able - His ministry here was brief, about three years - He lived about 33 years - and was constantly on the road, making it near impossible to develop any kind of relationship yet alone consider marriage and a family.
In the Bible God mandates that men serve as the heads of their households and be responsible as husbands, parents, good examples of the Christ like lifestyle and good providers to their children - with His ministry Christ would have not been able to fulfill these requirements of God the Father therefore I believe He would have chosen not to marry rather than forsake or distract from any part of His preordained responsibility to the ministry He came to earth to do.
You raise good and interesting points berf, very refreshing, I look forward to seeing more from you. You deserve a 10.
I would tend to believe he had brothers and sisters and since Joseph was not around when he was crucified that he was helping his mother raise his brothers and sisters by working as a carpenter until he was 30. Of course people believe Mary stayed a virgin and Joseph and her never had sex. All I can think is poor Joseph. I don't see how that would affect anything as it was the "Virgin Birth" and she did that. What followed after was her business.
I doubt he would have married and had children knowing that he was to do his ministry and be sacrificed. I think dying would have been even harder on him if he was leaving a family. Marrying and having children would not have been a sin, so he still could have died on the cross.
As far as him having powers of God, he said he could do nothing of is own accord, the power was from his father. I don't think if he had descendants they would have "powers"
If he had children I don't think they would be any different than any other children but I would believe any descendants would be dangerous and in danger. If they were to claim some sort of entitlement for being his descendant, that would be dangerous. If they were to be publicly exposed, they would be in real danger of being murdered by someone seeking to be infamous.
I think if everything was included in the Bible, there would be no time to read it all. I think there is enough to learn from, from what is there.
There are just some things we might never know.
Personally, I see the possibility of married Roman Catholic priests coming back, but they will need to work at other jobs, too just as Orthodox Catholic priests and deacons do now.
The Da Vinci Code nonsense has regurgitated this heresy and has deservedly raised objections from Christians from many denominations.
Jesus stated repeatedly that he came to Earth for a singlular purpose: to serve God's will. He did not own a home, never wrote a book, did not sell anything, and was an itinerant teacher until his death. To suggest otherwise is entertaining a different Jesus than the one spoken about by a host of witnesses.
Was Jesus human? Absolutely. For years, skeptics tried to assert he was a fictional character, until evidence of his existence was located. Was Jesus God? That is a matter of faith. The New Testament authors believed he was and many were martyred for their beliefs. The Old Testament predicted in great detail his coming in just the manner the New Testament outlines.
Lots of interesting points and lots of chuckles.
Being the actual biological Son of God, Jesus must have also had the WILL of God and would not have been tempted by the things that we are tempted by, like sex and the need for intimate companionship. I am not at all surprised that other sexual alligations about Jesus haven't surfaced. He spent nearly his entire adult life, according to the Bible, with men. Gee, maybe that means He was really gay. Is that going to be the next movie??? The next big subject for debate??? Jesus was a man, no doubt, but to assume that He was as weak and uncontrolled as we are, in my opinion, removes His Godliness. Having the mind and will of God, I seriously doubt that He very troubled by the weaknesses of His humaness.
Whether He was married or not, or had kids, means nothing to me, but I must say that I like the debate! Something to ponder concerning these debates is Deuteronomy 29:29, which says: "The SECRET things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever..." Loosely translated, I think that means there are things that WE shouldn't worry so much about, and there are things about God that we don't need to know. That in itself answers a lot of questions for me. But I still love to wonder and speculate, like you do Berf. We just shouldn't let our wonderings and speculations cloud what HAS been revealed as truths through the Bible's renderings.
In my view, the meaning behind the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge has to do with comparative self-awareness - you have something I don't have - not sexuality.
If you read the passage that mentions Mary Magdelene, you see that it follows a story about a prostitute that Jesus saves, but does not refer to Mary Magdelene as the woman in question. In fact Mary Magdelene was a wealthy woman that had demons that jesus drove out. She spent the rest of her life helping Jesus and his group with her money and resources. She was mentioned as being around Jesus from that point on in the Bible, right up to the end. There is evidence that she was active in the early Christian Church, but was pushed out in a Powerplay by the Men that did not want to share power.
I don't know if all this time with Jesus and Mary Magdelene together led them both to fall in love and get married, but it is apparent that she was in love with him.
But most people blindly accept the Bible as THE WORD OF GOD ! when in actuality it was written by men that may or may not have actually even met Jesus in his lifetime.
Stories handed down from one to another lose parts and are influenced by the writer's points of view. Keep an open mind , study all religions, there is beauty in all.
I think the problem some people have with the idea of Jesus being married, having sex, fathering children is very basic. The sexual act isn't neat, clean and pristene. There is that prudish, Puritanical idea that sex is something nasty. The idea of Jesus participating in something that base and "dirty" bothers some people. Also, I think it was a way to encourage people to become members of the religious orders and remain chaste. If they can hold Jesus up as an example, then they have more authority to say, "This is what you should do. Be more like Jesus."
That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it!
"If he were married; I think it probably would have been in the Bible, given everything else that was said."
I have to disagree. So much has been edited out of the Bible, changed or ignored, that we can't readily account for it. I don't mean to be argumentative. It's just that I had a friend who was part of a group doing a translation of Biblical texts from the original documents, and he found out a lot of interesting things. Not the least of which, how much the Bible had been edited to suit the needs of the church or the whims of the individuals in charge of the prior translations.
I don't see how it would matter one way or another.
While Dellani is correct that different translations of the Bible have different interpretations depending on the scholar doing the translation and whether he is working from the original text or the previously translated into something other than english text but I don't think, given the plethora of different translations that agree in all major respects, that you can say it has been edited to suit the whims of the Church. The differences are over the meaning of words and phrases not over the presence or lack thereof of certain events.
"I was never led to believe that the marriage idea was a possiblity for Christ because he was always portrayed as human but not to the church "
I can't figure how being human excludes the possibility of marriage?
Wilka
He may well have been married, although it is not mentioned and there probably would have been some mention of it, although we don't learn of the marriages of most of the 12 apostles and other followers except in passing -- and the rarely.
Did he have a relationship with Mary Magdalene? Perhaps. Does is it change who he was or his message or my belief in him as the Savior of mankind? Not one whit. One of my very learned friends indicated her contention that he probably did not have children, due to the "purpose" of his life. Again, that probably would have been mentioned, though not necessarily.
I am neither learned nor am I an unthinking, naive believer in the absolute and literal words contained in the Bible. I believe in their power and in the impact they have on those to whom the truth is divinely revealed.
Anyway . . . that's my 2 cents worth!
Thanks for keeping things lively!
But what I do have a problem with is all this mis-interpretation of history and the Gnostic writings The Gospel of Mary does not refer to Mary Magdelene by name; it simply metions the name Mary. And Mary was a very common name. Do some historic research on the subject of the Gnostic Gospels and you will find some interesting facts.
And by the way The Da Vinci Code was Fiction. And badly researched, hackeyed fiction at that.
Christopher Cole
author of
The Closer's Song
Great conversation!
Leave the words at home, and BE who you want your children to be.
Wilka
Besides, for me it doesn't add to my faith to even consider; I see him as a Savior for all of us...is, was, and always will be...
Z'
Jesus was also considered to be married to the church. The Bible tells men to love their wives as Christ loved the church. It doesn't say as Jesus loved his wife!
According to Scripture, Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is his bride. So, to assert Jesus was married as a human being, once again, is heresy. God is not unfaithful. He is not an adulterer. For Christ to have married an earthly bride, when his role is to be the groom of the holy Church, is completely contrary to whom God represents himself to be in Scripture, whom Jesus proclaimed himself to be, and the very nature of Jesus as the atonement for our sins.
Just because the Bible was written by men does not negate it as the truth, or as reliable. The Holy Scriptures were God-breathed, meaning the Spirit of God inspired faithful people to keep a record of God's interactions with Mankind. Everything anyone here has learned through one or more human beings, who wrote things down. How many evolutionists would be willing to be executed for their faith in the gospel of Darwin?
What is important for believers is how well the record of Scripture has been preserved over thousands of years. The Bible remains the most reliable book of antiquity. The Dead Sea scrolls and other finds confirm this.
What each of us chooses to with this information is left to us in faith or unbelief.
The fact is; original texts that we get the Bible from have not been edited. If Jesus marriage had been reported; I think that point would have stood out and been included. The first ancient texts I have heard of Jesus marriage being reported was the suspect Gnostic Gospels.
I don't know that I would go so far to say that entertaining this question is heresy; as Gregory says; but I think it is an irrelevant debate and distracting when it comes down to where salvation comes from. I also agree with Gregory that Christ's only bride is the church.
Sex is the manner of human reproduction designed by God and given to humanity in his explicit instructions to go forth and multiply. It is by definition holy and sacred.
Sex is the greatest physical expression of love, thus we call it 'making love'. Love it the greatest of God's teachings, thus sex is one of the highest expressions of God's message.
Jesus was "God made flesh" to knows the joys and suffering of the flesh. He could not know these without knowing sex.
How this all got twisted around to a celibate, virginal, unmarried Christ is kind of bizarre.
I suspect Jesus married around the age of 20 and had several half grown children at the time of his death.
The answer is in any end-times prophecy you can find in the bible. There are numerous references to the end of time being the marriage feast of Christ. Not to mention the very intimate conversation Jesus had with his disciples at the last supper -- did you know that in Jewish customs of the time, he basically proposed to them? Does that mean that Jesus is a gay polygamist? The idea is laughable. We seem to think we have to pigeon-hole Jesus into simple human terms, forgetting he is also fully divine.
So, we've established that Jesus is the Groom and the end of time is his Wedding. Who's the bride? We are -- "we" being the faithful who have given our hearts to him. This collective is a composite bride sometimes called the Church (with a big C, not small c -- this is a spiritual unity, not a temporal institution.) We are waiting on Jesus' promise to return for his bride (us) and bring her back to his Father's house.
In conclusion, if Jesus had married a single human woman, he would have been cheating on his intended bride. And as for sex, I think sex is a shadow and a symbol of the eventual union between us and Christ in Heaven -- not a mere carnal thing, but a spiritual union. It's just our simple, narrow, human minds that can't take this in without debasing it to merely human, fleshly terms.
Was He God? Yes - and not just at the point of death on the cross as taught by the Gnostics but ALWAYS (John 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. He was with God in the beginning.") Note that "the Word" John refers to is Jesus and He was
As far as changes and editing to the Bible is concerned, the sections left out were teh Apocrypha - the Gnostic gospels that were not written by their namesakes & did nto match the Biblical description of Jesus and His mission. These primarily reduced Jesus to a man who just became God only because He had something special about Him (as a human). This goes directly against the doctrine of Grace that is the basis for Jesus and His ministry, death & resurrection.
But Isaiah 53: 10 goes on to say, "...when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days..." We, who believe on his name are his seed.
Another thing you have to remember is that God is not like the devil. When he does something, he doesn't sneak around and do it. He does it openly, so that if any man chooses to know about it he can know about it. If Jesus had a wife and hid it, that would make him sneaky or devious, which he is not.
I agree with you that him having a wife would not have been a sin. It would have merely been a distraction from his purpose.
In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus disciples asked him about his saying that a man should never put away his wife. They said, Lord, if this is the case it's not good to marry.
He goes on to tell them that all men can not receive that saying except those to whom it was given. That some men make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. I think if any man sacrificed in this area, Jesus did, because it would only have made sense. His entire purpose was to bring the kingdom of heaven to earth.
He did have siblings, however, because in another place it tells the story where Mary and Jesus' brethren were standing outside the crowds wanting to see him. He looked around at his disciples and the crowd around him and said, "Who is my mother? Who is my brethren, but they that do the will of my father?" Not that they were not his mother and his brethren, but just, at that moment, their flesh was trying to get in the way of God's work.
To me, it doesn't particularly matter either way,
because it does not change the words of wisdom that Jesus himself spoke.
If indeed he was married I would not be surprised if they chose to omit it from history.
NEVER, in my entire life, even before I became Christian, have I put any credibility into the notion that Jesus was married.
In 1 Corinthians 7 we find the author (sorry, can't remember if it was Peter or Paul) says, "I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." He found that being single helped him be able to focus only on the work God needed him to do. Maybe it was the same for Jesus? Maybe not?
I think the unwillingness to even entertain the thought for many Christians is that we don't understand how to treat each other sinlessly. Especially when seeking out who we want to marry. I personally feel that it is highly improbable that he had a wife, being that in those times arranged marriages were the norm and Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, making him an undesirable match for the time. However the Bible only tells us that He was obedient to his parents (Luke 2:51). There is very little that is in the Bible about his life before his 3 year ministry. I find it interesting that such a simple and pure element of life when applied to Jesus can alter some people's faith.
Berf you truly understand what it is to have faith and to "wrestle out your own salvation" like the Word instructs us to do as Christians. We have to know what the word says and seek God for answers that aren't in black and white. I love that you bring such controversial topics up, you do it in such a non-offensive way too! Keep it up!!!
HE was GOD, so if HE wished to be human for a time.
I see nothing wrong with HIS doing what the humans did. Marriage
is very sacred to the Jewish folk, & Rabbi's did marry.
Jesus was born, lived & died a Jew. Thus obeyed
the Rules & Laws of HIS Chosen people.
Sharon P.
However the whole da vinci code thing... I don't believe that God would marry an ex prostitute no matter how reformed...
"If he were married; I think it probably would have been in the Bible, given everything else that was said."
I have to disagree. So much has been edited out of the Bible, changed or ignored, that we can't readily account for it. I don't mean to be argumentative. It's just that I had a friend who was part of a group doing a translation of Biblical texts from the original documents, and he found out a lot of interesting things. Not the least of which, how much the Bible had been edited to suit the needs of the church or the whims of the individuals in charge of the prior translations.
Dellani O., Dec 5, 2007, 9:05am EST
My two cents, there is nothing wrong about Jesus being married. Marriage is ordained of God (and that includes sex), in fact is was the first commandment given in the Garden of Eden. We just don't have evidence one way or another.
As to not putting his wife and family through the pain of his death, He was born to come to that great moment of giving the gift of the resurrection to all mankind. He would have prepared them to rejoice in the great gift of God to mankind--including them. They would have known that the separation would not be forever, but only for a small moment.
He was literally God, the Son of God, here with the purpose of making it possible for all mankind to return to our Father in Heaven. Trying to find fault with what he may and may not have done only demonstrates how base we are and how far we have to go to become like him, which is what he commanded us to do.
I like Montaigne's take on the matter: "Supercelestial thoughts breed subterranean conduct." How better to explain the extreme hipocrisy often displayed by the so called most holy leaders of all religions not just Christianity.
If one wishes to imagine how Jesus would have experienced complex "down and dirty "mundane reality I suggest you read D.H. Lawrences' The Man Who Died."
gibbs williams, Dec 5, 2007, 9:59pm
No credible evidence exists that any "gospel" was written by anyone alive at the time of Jesus.
I was taught the 'Jesus was married' concept long before the Da Vinci Code was written. It is a long time Mormon doctrine that Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute... she was Jesus' wife. After all, she was the first one he showed himself to after he resurrected. Who would be the most important mortal to Jesus that he would show himself to first after having spent three days in Hell? If it were a woman and not one of his twelve, then the woman must have been closer to him: his wife.
Mormon's concur with the idea that it would have been highly unusual for a 30 year-old jewish male would have been unmarried. Not in itself concrete proof, but the fact that it wasn't mentioned is significant. If he had been unmarried, THAT would have been unusual and warranted mentioning in the accounts. After all, the gospels talk about the unusual things about him - like being the Son of God - but not so much that he wore regular clothes and ate a regular diet.
Mormon's also believe that marriage is sacred and, in fact, necessary to achieve the highest kingdom of heaven. Those married in the temple are not married, 'til death do you part', but for all time and eternity. Mormons believe that you cannot enter into the highest kingdom of heaven without this eternal marriage.
Mormons believe that Christ not only was the saviour, but also the perfect example of what we should live. After all, he was without sin, yet was baptized... a ritual that cleanses us of our sins. That ritual cleansing is necessary for the imperfect mortal and so he gave us the example.
So it is with eternal marriage. It is necessary to enter into that highest kingdom and so he fulfilled that requirement.
As for sex outside of marriage, I can tell you that Mormons can be as uptight and repressed about it as any fundamental christian religion. But only outside of marriage. Within marriage, they believe that sex isn't bad, but wonderful. It is our way of participating in God's creation by procreating. But, that power has great responsibility and should be used only within the proscribed context of husband and wife.
They also view that sex is God's way of helping to keep a husband and wife together. The sexual attraction isn't the work of the devil, but the work of God. What makes it a sin is practicing it outside the bounds of marriage. But married couples? HAVE FUN!
That having been said I think there are a lot of loose ends and bad stuff if we assume that Jesus was married. It's a nice excuse for a monarch to claim a divine right; after all you can't claim godhood as did the Roman Emperors, so having a divine bloodline is the next best thing. If Jesus was married, the situation between the young apostle John and Mary just doesn't make sense. The lack of any situation between his wife and children (especially when it is mentioned that Peter was married) and the early church doesn't make sense considering that James the younger is often considered a close relative of Jesus and he had some standing in the early Church.
So in the end I generally would think that he was not married. My faith would not be crushed if it were proved that he was (well for history to prove anything might be an interesting thing in and of itself) but history would have a lot of explaining to do.
Secrets of the Magdalene Scrolls. I chose to write my research information in the form of a novel because if it were non-fiction, women wouldn't read it. Jesus was born a human and came through the womb of his mother. Duh! Why wouldn't he act like a human? If he was the only son of God, then what does that make us? Are we the orphans of the universe? One only has to reason it.
Many theologians do believe Jesus was married and may have had children as the early church did allow priests with families.
To Which I reply (TWIR):
Who are these "many theologians"? Certainly you won't find many Catholic or Orthodox who will agree. Only Protestants and 'theologians' who aren't even Christian will agree with this. But then what it the point in refering to them as "many theologians", as if the -many- gave weight to the opinion?
Heather C. says:
This changed when the Vatican decided that it was too costly for them to support the families,
TWIR:
It _did_ change? Then somebodyforgot to tell the Greeks, Romanians, Egyptians, Georgians and Russians, who _still_ have married priests;) Indeed: outside of the Roman sphere of influence, this is the norm. Parish priests are married men, they have to be married at the time of their ordination. It is only bishops and monk-priests who must be celibate -- and remain so after ordination.
Heather C. says:
and that is also when celibacy became the preferred style of church devotion.
TWIR:
This is true only in the Roman sphere of influence. And of course, this is now fading wherever Protestant influence has since taken over. Throughout the Christian East, it has always been recognized that not everyone is called to celibacy, which in turn is really natural in monasticism, not in the life of a layman, who is expected to be married.
Now of course, in modern day chaos, it is no longer reasonable to expect every layman to get married and stay married. But that doesn't change the basic fact: sex outside of marriage is not without sin, since the marriage bond is an image of the bond between Christ and the Church.
But this, of course, bring me back to the topic of the article: no Christ did not marry because His bride is the Church. Indeed: the very idea of any _other_ marriage conflicts heavily with His mission of salvation for us all. But unfortunately, both the article and the majority of comments on it obscure this fact.
The article that I have written is not an attempt to obscure any "facts".
It was not written to address Christ's "mission of salvation for us all".
It was written to debate the subject of whether or not Christ ever married.
Had I set out to write an article that specifically dealt with the subject of
Christ's "mission of salvation for us all", then that would have been
precisely what the article would have been about.
You obviously have not heard of John D. Crossan
an eminate Christian scholar. Read a couple of his many books, and try "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, another well respected biblical scholar.
Like everything else about religion, the musings about Jesus, his divinity and humanity, his sex or no-sex, are all reflections of desperate efforts to find out who we are, why we are, individually and collectively.
Jesus the historical man probably lived, we only have hearsay. But Jesus the mythical character of religion is decorated with all the human dreams and doubts that can be imagined.
Like other prophets and heroes, real and fictional, we use them to express who we are and want to be, and who we want not to be. And, more importantly, the parts of us that we are not sure about, afraid of, ambivalent about.
Laying them out on a Jesus, or another figure we choose, somehow gives us relief. When we accept a shared created hero, we have company in our doubts, fears and aspirations.
I could not help being amused at some of the struggles in comments. Was there sex before sin in Eden???? When you discover the great collection of mythologies that humans have created, it is immensely liberating to know that they all have symbolic value but no historical value, except as comparative literature. They are all amazing, creative, poetic, inspiring -- but all come from humans in their evolution as thinking animals.
Sex inside and outside of marriage, alone or with others, is an appetite for pleasure. It is an act that can procreate, and when it does, it takes on more meaning. I add this opinion because it makes all the business about sin seem silly. The only sin in sex is the same sin of excess in any appetite: when someone else is abused or exploited to get our own pleasure, whether sex, food, money, power, whatever.
So if I am going to make a Jesus to lay my dreams and fears on, I am going to think of him as sexually active whichever way he chooses, just as I will think of him as enjoying food and wine, doing woodwork, listening to music, having doubts, character disorders, being lazy, getting pissed, exploring Karl Marx and wondering about gods.