NationStates Jolt Archive

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

Okay, fine, I'm an atheist, but I'll answer anyway.

I don't really think it matters, but I find it perfectly possible. After all, there are possibly thousands of scrolls/gospels that didn't make it into the Bible that the Vatican wanted destroyed. However I'm sure that Jesus probably didn't marry, but there was definitely something going on.

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

I can't claim to be a Christian, but I have never bought into the whole idea that Jesus must have been 'ideal'. I've seen his 'sinless nature' argued even to the extent that some believe he never evacuated his bowels - an argument I believe they base in the quote about it being 'what comes out of a man' that defines him.

To some people, the idea of a married Jesus, is the idea of one flawed in the flesh - as though that were somehow wrong. Personally, I don't see how one can argue that God chooses to incarnate in human flesh, and then ignore that flesh. To me - that would seem faintly redundant. You'd be left with a body-snatcher, something that looked like a human, but never felt what being human is like.

Most likely - since the Bible doesn't make express mention of Jesus being a single Jewish male in his thirties, Jesus would have been 'normal' in that regard - married, a couple of kids. I certainly don't see how it would be inconsistent with his earthly ministry.

Why are we dishing on the Dan Brown movie, anyway? Compare it to the next biggest contender in that 'genre', and you are standing this movie up against... "National Treasure"? I know which one I thought was the better film.

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children?

None for me.

God said, go forth and multiply. Why would this not be so for Jesus?

Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

It wouldn't.

I can't claim to be a Christian, but I have never bought into the whole idea that Jesus must have been 'ideal'. I've seen his 'sinless nature' argued even to the extent that some believe he never evacuated his bowels - an argument I believe they base in the quote about it being 'what comes out of a man' that defines him.

To some people, the idea of a married Jesus, is the idea of one flawed in the flesh - as though that were somehow wrong. Personally, I don't see how one can argue that God chooses to incarnate in human flesh, and then ignore that flesh. To me - that would seem faintly redundant. You'd be left with a body-snatcher, something that looked like a human, but never felt what being human is like.

Most likely - since the Bible doesn't make express mention of Jesus being a single Jewish male in his thirties, Jesus would have been 'normal' in that regard - married, a couple of kids. I certainly don't see how it would be inconsistent with his earthly ministry.

Why are we dishing on the Dan Brown movie, anyway? Compare it to the next biggest contender in that 'genre', and you are standing this movie up against... "National Treasure"? I know which one I thought was the better film.

One, I wasn't bagging on the film. Loved the actors and the storyline wasn't particularly bad, but I've read the book and Dan Brown IS a hack.

However, that's what I don't get. There is nothing sinful about marriage according to nearly all Christians. And procreation within marriage is completely expected. I wonder if they're caught up on who He would have been married to, much like the Pharisees were when they saw them together.

He would have been a good catch for a woman. Most women where I live would love a guy who could turn water into wine, do mass catering and cure lepers

*OK, not really many lepers where I live, but still a cool trick*

He would have been a good catch for a woman. Most women where I live would love a guy who could turn water into wine, do mass catering and cure lepers

*OK, not really many lepers where I live, but still a cool trick*

I can turn water into wine.

Hey, I don't have to get all of you to believe me -- just 12 of you. ;)

I will see your Dan Brown, and raise you a Nikos Kazantzakis.

If you look at The Last Temptation of Christ, the central theme is that the scarifice of Jesus was not his death on the cross, but the events that encompassed his whole life and ministry.

He is portrayed as a man who would rather marry Mary Magdalene, be a simple carpenter, and stay out of the way of the Romans.

But God does not want that. If Jesus were to do that, there would be no salvation for humanity, so God drives Jesus to his godhood and his ministry, and Jesus is forced to make a far greater scarifice than his death: he sacrifices his entire life.

One, I wasn't bagging on the film. Loved the actors and the storyline wasn't particularly bad, but I've read the book and Dan Brown IS a hack.


He writes fiction. Fairly decent fiction, if not the best I've read. As long as you go into it looking at it as fiction, I'm not sure I see the problem.

My dad told me he saw something, where they were trying to get a religious scholar to come explain what was wrong with The De Vinci Code. The guy refused. He said it would be like getting a marine biologist to explain what's wrong with Finding Nemo.

It doesn't matter worth a damn. It doesn't degrade him, it doesn't hurt his image. And knowing from the time period he's from, it doesn't surprise me. It would have been Joseph's duty as his "father" to ensure that he had a wife.

In fact, the only place where there might be oddness is if he had descendents, because lunatics would put them up on a pedastal and make them king or something.

There was this religious movement (I cant remember the name) way back (cant remember exactly when but assume its 100 ad or relatively recently after the death of christ) which believed that Jesus was hitting up Mary Magadelene. He was portrayed as a much more human character who laughed and had sex by them, than the interpretation which ultimately prevailed. Im atheist but if there were a god it wouldnt matter if Jesus had a wife cause it wouldnt be sinful.

Come on... take a guy who goes traveling around the country with 12 other guys, wears his hair long, preaches equality and acceptance, was executed in a manner highly similar to that in which perceived sexual deviants were in ancient Rome, even exchanged a public kiss with one disciple...

You get what I'm sayin' here?

'Tis only a problem if he wasn't married.

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

I can answer that. Because if Jesus had a wife, then everying in the current version of the New Testament would contradict. Which in turn would prove Christianity to be a false religion. People get pissy over Dan Brown's works because it actually puts their faith to the test and challenges their beliefs to the very core. It's about damn time I say.

I can answer that. Because if Jesus had a wife, then everying in the current version of the New Testament would contradict. Which in turn would prove Christianity to be a false religion. People get pissy over Dan Brown's works because it actually puts their faith to the test and challenges their beliefs to the very core. It's about damn time I say.

I'm not a Christian. I only get pissy about Dan Brown's "works" because they're poorly written tripe.

He writes fiction. Fairly decent fiction, if not the best I've read. As long as you go into it looking at it as fiction, I'm not sure I see the problem.

My dad told me he saw something, where they were trying to get a religious scholar to come explain what was wrong with The De Vinci Code. The guy refused. He said it would be like getting a marine biologist to explain what's wrong with Finding Nemo.

I'm not talking about historical content. The plot contained NOTHING original. His writing was terrible, dry, unimaginative. If not for the controversy, you'd have never heard of that book. You likely never heard of Angels and Demons until this book became a scandal. If Dan Brown is the best fiction you've read then you need to start reading more.

I can answer that. Because if Jesus had a wife, then everying in the current version of the New Testament would contradict.

No, it wouldn't, because as far as I know it never said, "And lo, Jesus Christ (the son of our LORD) hadst neither wife nor children" or anything like that.

I think the whole "Jesus can't be married" thing goes back (forward) to Paul's comments about being married and how "if you really love God you would control your flesh and not get married but if you are weak find a wife" thing. (not a direct quote)

I got into a discussion about this with someone once and pointed out that God must have wanted us partnered up because he did create a help meet for Adam, and they popped out a few kids.

I think Paul just threw a sissy fit about "being strong and not getting married" because he was a jerk a lot of the time and couldn't find a chick stupid enough to hang out with him.

If I remember correctly they called me a heathen or something and stomped off.

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

It wouldn't affect everything that he taught and his status as a saviour. The principle tennant of christianity is that Jesus was both MAN and GOD. The "Plan of Salvation" only works if Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world -and I think anyone would have hard time pushing that if he was husband and father...

*If* Jesus was married, Christianity pretty much goes out the window (which is the tennant of Dan Brown's book - i.e. the Catholics know that, so that's why they tried to "hide" the story of Mary Magdalene). Of course the flipside is that the story of Magdalene being married to Jesus *wasn't* true - and this is why it was excluded from the canon.

I'm not talking about historical content. The plot contained NOTHING original. His writing was terrible, dry, unimaginative. If not for the controversy, you'd have never heard of that book. You likely never heard of Angels and Demons until this book became a scandal. If Dan Brown is the best fiction you've read then you need to start reading more.

QFT!

I'm not a Christian. I only get pissy about Dan Brown's "works" because they're poorly written tripe.

It's fiction. It doesn't offend me as a Christian, it offends me as a writer.

If Jesus were married, it would make the pope a hypocrit.

It wouldn't affect everything that he taught and his status as a saviour. The principle tennant of christianity is that Jesus was both MAN and GOD. The "Plan of Salvation" only works if Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world -and I think anyone would have hard time pushing that if he was husband and father...

*If* Jesus was married, Christianity pretty much goes out the window (which is the tennant of Dan Brown's book - i.e. the Catholics know that, so that's why they tried to "hide" the story of Mary Magdalene). Of course the flipside is that the story of Magdalene being married to Jesus *wasn't* true - and this is why it was excluded from the canon.

How would having a wife and children make him less perfect? Is marriage to a woman sinful? Is having kids sinful? What part of Christianity rests on Jesus being single?

It's fiction. It doesn't offend me as a Christian, it offends me as a writer.

Same here. It's horrid.

I don't think it matters in the slightest. And I agree it's quite likely he did (though possible he didn't). I quite enjoyed the film. I wasn't expecting the "Teacher" to be who he was.

I think the whole "Jesus can't be married" thing goes back (forward) to Paul's comments about being married and how "if you really love God you would control your flesh and not get married but if you are weak find a wife" thing. (not a direct quote)

My point exactly. Here is the actual verse...

"8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."-1 Corinthians 7:8-9

I can see it now...

James: "Hey Paul! Did you hear Jesus married Mary Magdalane? LOL!"
Paul: "WHAT?! WHEN?! O_O"

The Bible states that Jesus has a wife...somewhere in the section about his return to Earth for us...not a big Bible reader, but that is what I learned in Church. However, the Bible doesn't say whether or not he got married before he was crucified or if he was married while in heaven. If Jesus had children here on Earth, and he still has relatives living in real life, that would screw up the Bible...and the Vatican would fall apart, because they could no longer preach the word of God if there were relatives living in present time.

But on the other hand...do recall that the father of Jesus (God) created us as well, and in a real sense, Jesus was God. And in that fact, we are in fact relatives of God himself.

The Bible states that Jesus has a wife

Um... I have read through all of the gospels in multiple translations. (KJV, NIV, NAB) I didn't see even a hint of him being married. Where exactly does it say this?

The Bible states that Jesus has a wife...somewhere in the section about his return to Earth for us...not a big Bible reader, but that is what I learned in Church. However, the Bible doesn't say whether or not he got married before he was crucified or if he was married while in heaven. If Jesus had children here on Earth, and he still has relatives living in real life, that would screw up the Bible...and the Vatican would fall apart, because they could no longer preach the word of God if there were relatives living in present time.

But on the other hand...do recall that the father of Jesus (God) created us as well, and in a real sense, Jesus was God. And in that fact, we are in fact relatives of God himself.

The Bride of Christ is usually understood to refer to the church.

A lot of people get riled up when someone suggets that He could have been married. I guess it's because for many centuries sex was considered impure and evil, and the idea of Jesus being married and participating in that was anathema to what a lot of people's ideas.

Frankly, I believe He was. I read an interesting book a few years ago that pointed out that while the Bible doesn't specifically state that He was, there are very strong hints, like:

-Jesus was 33 at the time of His crucifixion, and a Rabbi. In the culture of the time, to not be married even at the age of 30 was unheard of, and nobody reached the status of Rabbi otherwise.

-At the wedding of Cana, He was asked to get involved in the problem of insufficient wine for the party. In that culture, if would have been terribly inapropriate for Him to do so, unless he were the groom.

-Also, Mary seemed to play a major role in the management of the party, which was the role of the groom's mother.

-Before the wedding, it says that Jesus and His brothers were called to the wedding. This phrase was commonly used to refer to the groom.

-The first person to see Him after His resurrection was Mary Magdalene, who called him "Rabonni" which can mean "Great Master" or "Husband," depending on context.

-It says that Jesus often stayed over at the home of Mary Magdalene and her sister when He traveled to Jerusalem. This would not be apropriate unless they were family, or she was his wife.

There were also a lot of historical writings, like those of Josephus that refered to Jesus and his marriage. Some even suggested that He had more than one wife, although none of the Scriptural hints seem to indicate this.

Either way, I have no problem with it. Doesn't everyone need someone like a spouse to talk to, to confide in? He was God, yes... but He was also human, with human feelings and emotions. Why is this a bad thing? I think it is not.

The Bride of Christ is usually understood to refer to the church.

It is fair to say that it is something taught to us by a Church who claims he is unmarried. It's not clear in the text itself that Jesus was unmarried nor that any references are not to an earthly bride.

Before PW shows up, let's make it clear that this has nothing to do with what I believe. I don't believe Jesus was married or had children. I also don't believe he was unmarried and had no children. I simply don't know and don't care because it really has no bearing on my faith, since there is nothing sinful in marriage or children according to the command of God.

I think the whole "Jesus can't be married" thing goes back (forward) to Paul's comments about being married and how "if you really love God you would control your flesh and not get married but if you are weak find a wife" thing. (not a direct quote)

I got into a discussion about this with someone once and pointed out that God must have wanted us partnered up because he did create a help meet for Adam, and they popped out a few kids.

I think Paul just threw a sissy fit about "being strong and not getting married" because he was a jerk a lot of the time and couldn't find a chick stupid enough to hang out with him.

If I remember correctly they called me a heathen or something and stomped off.

Paul was writing specifically to those who were actively out on missions preaching the Word. This was not meant for the Church body as a whole.

It is fair to say that it is something taught to us by a Church who claims he is unmarried. It's not clear in the text itself that Jesus was unmarried nor that any references are not to an earthly bride.

Before PW shows up, let's make it clear that this has nothing to do with what I believe. I don't believe Jesus was married or had children. I also don't believe he was unmarried and had no children. I simply don't know and don't care because it really has no bearing on my faith, since there is nothing sinful in marriage or children according to the command of God.
In the end I really don't think it matters either way

Paul was writing specifically to those who were actively out on missions preaching the Word. This was not meant for the Church body as a whole.

I am aware of that, most of the people who argue idiotic crap are not in the habit of trying to put Paul into context.

I am aware of that, most of the people who argue idiotic crap are not in the habit of trying to put Paul into context.

Ah gotcha. Agreed :)

In the end I really don't think it matters either way



I am aware of that, most of the people who argue idiotic crap are not in the habit of trying to put Paul into context.

Yes, exactly. Instead they often use Paul to directly contradict the expressed words of Jesus and then bastardize the meanings of both Paul and Jesus to make this contradiction work. It's the craziest thing. But I suppose if you want to justify things like judgment, pride, arrogance and a complete alteration of the purpose of Jesus' ministry then I suppose that you have to really change what Jesus said or you're not going to be able to justify such things.

A: Jesus said "do not judge"
B: Ah, but Paul said that we should so Jesus must have really meant...

A: Jesus said "I come ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."
B: Ah, but Paul said that Gentiles were saved by Jesus so he must have really meant...

A: Jesus said the sum of the Law and the Prophets is to love God and to love everyone else.
B: But Paul said it was more than that so Jesus must have really meant...

A: God said that man and woman were made for one another and that we should be fruitful and multiply.
B: But Paul said being fruitful and multiplying is weak so God must have meant something else.

It's all just nuts. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. People do. Jesus made his words clear, concise and often fairly blunt. He supported those words with stories to explain them or only the stories when he couldn't be more blunt. He made a strong effort to clearly express the principles of God even going so far as to summarize them twice for us, making it clear that love and tolerance were the ultimate goals. The idea that people could use that ministry to justify the level of hatred and pride that exists today is amazing to me.

*snip*
It's all just nuts. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. People do. Jesus made his words clear, concise and often fairly blunt. He supported those words with stories to explain them or only the stories when he couldn't be more blunt. He made a strong effort to clearly express the principles of God even going so far as to summarize them twice for us, making it clear that love and tolerance were the ultimate goals. The idea that people could use that ministry to justify the level of hatred and pride that exists today is amazing to me.

I agree 100% with everything you said except one thing, I'd substitute the word compassion for tolerance. Jesus taught people to show compassion for sinners and for their enemies, not necessarily tolerance. (I only make an issue because often times people use tolerance as an enabler, which can be unhealthy.)

I agree 100% with everything you said except one thing, I'd substitute the word compassion for tolerance. Jesus taught people to show compassion for sinners and for their enemies, not necessarily tolerance. (I only make an issue because often times people use tolerance as an enabler, which can be unhealthy.)

He said treat others as you would like to be treated. That's not compassion, that's tolerance. It doesn't mean that they are right in their behavior or beliefs. It only means that it's not your business to do anything about it. You are directed explicitly to tolerate as you would have your Christian behavior and beliefs tolerated.

i had the same problem when i saw the movie.

sure if this secret were revealed NOW there would be quite a fuss. it would indeed be a huge problem since it would have been supressed for close to 2000 years and that would have to be explained.

but other than that its all a matter of SPIN. there is no way it would change the power of the catholic church throughout the ages. there is no way it would ruin the basis of christianity. there is no way it would have precluded the idea of the heirarchy of the church.

it might have enhanced the reputation of the french monarch is suppose.

i listened to a couple of radio shows on the background of the book back when the movie came out. it turns out that there ARE papers in the french archives about the knights templar and the ...priory of scion?....

they were put there in the 70s(?) by a man who wanted to use them as a basis for his claim to the french throne. complete forgeries but they were found in the french archives.

A lot of people get riled up when someone suggets that He could have been married. I guess it's because for many centuries sex was considered impure and evil, and the idea of Jesus being married and participating in that was anathema to what a lot of people's ideas.

Frankly, I believe He was. I read an interesting book a few years ago that pointed out that while the Bible doesn't specifically state that He was, there are very strong hints, like:
<snipped for size>
.

thats a very interesting perspective. i had never read an analysis like that before.

The biggest issue that most Christians really have with the book/movie isn't that it claims he was married, more that it claims he wasn't divine. You can understand how that would worry us a little bit...

i had the same problem when i saw the movie.

sure if this secret were revealed NOW there would be quite a fuss. it would indeed be a huge problem since it would have been supressed for close to 2000 years and that would have to be explained.

but other than that its all a matter of SPIN. there is no way it would change the power of the catholic church throughout the ages. there is no way it would ruin the basis of christianity. there is no way it would have precluded the idea of the heirarchy of the church.

it might have enhanced the reputation of the french monarch is suppose.

i listened to a couple of radio shows on the background of the book back when the movie came out. it turns out that there ARE papers in the french archives about the knights templar and the ...priory of scion?....

they were put there in the 70s(?) by a man who wanted to use them as a basis for his claim to the french throne. complete forgeries but they were found in the french archives.

Much of what the movie, and of course the book, says (save the mystical groups that have survived unscathed since the beginning of the first millennia) is not really that much of a stretch. There is much to suggest that Jesus could have been married to Mary not the least of which the absense of a statement to the contrary, which when talking about a 30+ year old rabbi is obviously necessary. It's like suggesting Jesus did not have long hair which also would have been unusual of someone of his position. If something that unusual were true, one would think (again, this isn't a conclusion) that it would mean there was nothing to say.

And were he married to Mary, that has no bearing on his place in Christianity. Worst case scenario it makes celibacy among priests a bit odd. There is no scriptural or religious reason for Jesus to have been celibate other than the Church claiming it was so.

In the end, though, it simply doesn't matter as much as they pretend in the movie. There would be no reason for such an elaborate effort to squash that knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with a marriage between a man and a woman. God made marriage so that we could go about reproducing the right way, or so that we could have sex without getting into trouble...

As for Jesus being married, well there is as far as I know no evidence to suggest that he was. Would his marriage necessarily be wrong? No. But the way I see it is that marriage is a shared responsibility where you are meant to serve each other as equals. If Jesus were married then wouldn't he, in a way, be sharing his divinity with an ordinary woman? I mean, he was not conceived through sex but was conceived by means of the Holy spirit - not normal - so wouldn't having sex himself be sort of contradictory? I mean we can all use the excuse of 'well we came into the world that way', but not Jesus.

Besides, Jesus was aware that he'd die rather young, and I doubt that he'd knowingly enter into a marriage to abandon his wife (and possibly children). And he'd also have an obligation to support his family, and it seems as though he was only getting enough to survive on. I guess that a married man would have extra responsibilities that Jesus probably wouldn't have bothered with. If he was married, then he probably would've been a lousy husband - away all the time, constantly under threat of death, disliked by many people. Let's face it, Jesus didn't come to earth to live a 'normal' life, so why should he have been doing the 'normal' thing by marrying? Were his disciples married at the time either? It mightn't have been that abnormal then.

The Church will always come into some sort of controversy, Dan Brown's novels just happen to be the newest ones. Do I agree with him? No. Have I read "The da Vinci Code"? Yes, because I'd rather formulate my own opinion instead of basing it off hearsay. Did I like the book? No; not because of the subject matter, only because it was a trashy novel with no originality in terms of plot or narrative, that people will read if they want to appear smart, because it has lots of information that non-cultured people might not know. I really can't fathom the hype behind that book. Perhaps because it's deliberately controversial people will buy it? That's probably the only reason...

The biggest issue that most Christians really have with the book/movie isn't that it claims he was married, more that it claims he wasn't divine. You can understand how that would worry us a little bit...

No, it makes no such claim. It only says that a human Christ was an idea held by many early Christians. It never concludes that Jesus was not divine. That's the reason for the argument between the teacher and the main character, because the teacher claims the divinity was made up by the Council when really it was simply a matter of dispute. Both ideas existed before and after the Council and the movie does not make claims of who was right.

There's nothing wrong with a marriage between a man and a woman. God made marriage so that we could go about reproducing the right way, or so that we could have sex without getting into trouble...

As for Jesus being married, well there is as far as I know no evidence to suggest that he was. Would his marriage necessarily be wrong? No. But the way I see it is that marriage is a shared responsibility where you are meant to serve each other as equals. If Jesus were married then wouldn't he, in a way, be sharing his divinity with an ordinary woman? I mean, he was not conceived through sex but was conceived by means of the Holy spirit - not normal - so wouldn't having sex himself be sort of contradictory? I mean we can all use the excuse of 'well we came into the world that way', but not Jesus.

Besides, Jesus was aware that he'd die rather young, and I doubt that he'd knowingly enter into a marriage to abandon his wife (and possibly children). And he'd also have an obligation to support his family, and it seems as though he was only getting enough to survive on. I guess that a married man would have extra responsibilities that Jesus probably wouldn't have bothered with. If he was married, then he probably would've been a lousy husband - away all the time, constantly under threat of death, disliked by many people. Let's face it, Jesus didn't come to earth to live a 'normal' life, so why should he have been doing the 'normal' thing by marrying? Were his disciples married at the time either? It mightn't have been that abnormal then.

The Church will always come into some sort of controversy, Dan Brown's novels just happen to be the newest ones. Do I agree with him? No. Have I read "The da Vinci Code"? Yes, because I'd rather formulate my own opinion instead of basing it off hearsay. Did I like the book? No; not because of the subject matter, only because it was a trashy novel with no originality in terms of plot or narrative, that people will read if they want to appear smart, because it has lots of information that non-cultured people might not know. I really can't fathom the hype behind that book. Perhaps because it's deliberately controversial people will buy it? That's probably the only reason...

You ignore the fact that if Jesus was married it was likely to Mary who was often by his side. She traveled with him relatively often. Your arguments assume that she does not have any say in the matter, i.e. that she can't choose to take a husband not long for this world, and that she must stay at home. Neither argument is supported by anything other than assumption.

Meanwhile, he was hardly abandoning her. God clothes the animals in the fields, would he do any less for the bride of the Christ?

Jesus is a composite character, like Robin Hood or Andy McNab. It don't think the question has any meaning.

Much of what the movie, and of course the book, says (save the mystical groups that have survived unscathed since the beginning of the first millennia) is not really that much of a stretch. There is much to suggest that Jesus could have been married to Mary not the least of which the absense of a statement to the contrary, which when talking about a 30+ year old rabbi is obviously necessary. It's like suggesting Jesus did not have long hair which also would have been unusual of someone of his position. If something that unusual were true, one would think (again, this isn't a conclusion) that it would mean there was nothing to say.

And were he married to Mary, that has no bearing on his place in Christianity. Worst case scenario it makes celibacy among priests a bit odd. There is no scriptural or religious reason for Jesus to have been celibate other than the Church claiming it was so.

In the end, though, it simply doesn't matter as much as they pretend in the movie. There would be no reason for such an elaborate effort to squash that knowledge.

its not the part where he might have been married that i find ODD in the whole book/movie thing. i dont care about that one way or the other. the implications of a married jesus are theological issues that i have no stake in.

its the part where the wife of an itinerant street preacher who had never travelled farther than from gallilee to jerusalem moves to FRANCE after his death.

and begets the beginnings of the french royal line.

and creates the only actually traceable lineage from 33AD to now IN THE WORLD

and has followers who never went public in 2000 years no matter how easy and wise it would have been do to so

and has intractable enemies trying to kill off her decendants for the past 2000 years

and that even the power of the catholic church cant get the job done.

its not the part where he might have been married that i find ODD in the whole book/movie thing. i dont care about that one way or the other. the implications of a married jesus are theological issues that i have no stake in.

its the part where the wife of an itinerant street preacher who had never travelled farther than from gallilee to jerusalem moves to FRANCE after his death.

and begets the beginnings of the french royal line.

and creates the only actually traceable lineage from 33AD to now IN THE WORLD

and has followers who never went public in 2000 years no matter how easy and wise it would have been do to so

and has intractable enemies trying to kill off her decendants for the past 2000 years

and that even the power of the catholic church cant get the job done.

No wait. You forgot, until suddenly it could get the job done, since they suddenly knew who the grandmother was and the children and the children's children (but only wasn't chasing the girl because they thought she was dead). Amazing how they can be fully aware of the location of the line and be capable of reaching that line and willing to kill off that line, but don't until suddenly they decide they can find the holy grail and then suddenly killing off the line makes sense when it wouldn't matter anymore. Bizarre and stupid.

Jesus is a composite character, like Robin Hood or Andy McNab. It don't think the question has any meaning.

Then I'm certain there are other threads you'll find more interesting.

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

what happened if he had a husband?
or they found out he was a pederast?

He writes fiction. Fairly decent fiction, if not the best I've read. As long as you go into it looking at it as fiction, I'm not sure I see the problem.

If you think Dan Brown writes "fairly decent fiction," you really need to rethink your literary choices. His characters appear to be made of cardboard, his plots are formulaic and riddled with holes one could drive a truck through, his diction is stilted, and the purportedly challenging puzzles in The Da Vinci Code could be solved by a brain-damaged toddler. (I think my favorite scene in the whole book is the bit where two of Brown's OMG-so-brilliant characters stare at a piece of ordinary mirror writing for several minutes in complete bafflement. That cracks me up every time.)

As for whether or not Jesus was married - eh, does it really make a difference? He preached the same things either way.

Does it matter if Jesus had a wife ?

Yes. It would explain why he let himself be crucified.

what happened if he had a husband?
or they found out he was a pederast?

Depends what you believe really. I know of know Christians that believe marriage is a sin.

Most likely - since the Bible doesn't make express mention of Jesus being a single Jewish male in his thirties, Jesus would have been 'normal' in that regard - married, a couple of kids. I certainly don't see how it would be inconsistent with his earthly ministry.

I seem to remember, probably at Sunday School, someone once asking if Jesus was married. I think the reply was that he was too busy to marry.
The Bible may not make express mention of Jesus being single, but there are some things (leave your family and follow me) which imply he might have been.
However, if he were married, then that is not inconsistent with the gospels either, as women were considered unimportant. Jesus and his 12 apostles may have travelled around with a group of wives and children, it's just that, like those present at the feeding of the 4000 and 5000, they were not considered worth mentioning.

In short, we don't know, and will almost certainly never know.

If it's proven that Jesus was Married to Mary, realize that Fundies will use that as proof that Marriage is supposed to be One Man and One Woman.

As for me, It don't matter one way or another...

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

Well in the first place if he did then the whole Holy Grail - Divine power of Kings - thing would be true and the whole democratic overthrowing of the European Kings was a terrable offense to the sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, and so forth of the Son of God. We would have to repent and find the nearest surviving monarch and make them king or queen of the United Nations or something silly like that.

That and being adopted (through baptism) I would have to start worrying about whether or not I have a second class childhood status compared to his regular children. But other than that I don't have any problems with it in general, other than the simple fact that it's not true.

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

Doesn't matter to me.

But I can prove he didn't have a wife.

He quits his job, and roams around with 12 other unemployed guys for three years. Parties a lot, drinking wine. Has a few outdoor concerts with a big crowd. Gets arrested in Jerusalem (or so he says) after spending the night out with his loser friends. Then, he's missing for three days, and comes back with a story that he came back from the dead.

Yeah, any wife would buy that story. Riiiiight.

Well in the first place if he did then the whole Holy Grail - Divine power of Kings - thing would be true and the whole democratic overthrowing of the European Kings was a terrable offense to the sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, and so forth of the Son of God. We would have to repent and find the nearest surviving monarch and make them king or queen of the United Nations or something silly like that.

That and being adopted (through baptism) I would have to start worrying about whether or not I have a second class childhood status compared to his regular children. But other than that I don't have any problems with it in general, other than the simple fact that it's not true.

that would be a good reason that if the dan brown story were true it might end up changing a few things.

like maybe we should bring back the french monarchy as a testatment to our faith. the french probably wouldnt like that and the US would HATE having our christian population fawning of the french.

but one can believe that jesus was married without believing the all too disproven notion that mary magdalene moved to france with the kids.

Doesn't matter to me.

But I can prove he didn't have a wife.

He quits his job, and roams around with 12 other unemployed guys for three years. Parties a lot, drinking wine. Has a few outdoor concerts with a big crowd. Gets arrested in Jerusalem (or so he says) after spending the night out with his loser friends. Then, he's missing for three days, and comes back with a story that he came back from the dead.

Yeah, any wife would buy that story. Riiiiight.
Hey, Joseph aparently bought the whole, "It was a magical spirit that got me pregnant! Honest!"

Hey, Joseph aparently bought the whole, "It was a magical spirit that got me pregnant! Honest!"

hell he must have been Stoned all the time

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

Well, if nothing else, it would put into question the 'infallibility' of the bible. :p

Yes. It would explain why he let himself be crucified.

Badum Tsh! :D

Well, if nothing else, it would put into question the 'infallibility' of the bible. :p

Why? It does not claim that Jesus was single or childless. It doesn't even imply it.

Hey, Joseph aparently bought the whole, "It was a magical spirit that got me pregnant! Honest!"

You will note that Joseph was not a woman.

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

It really doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that Jesus was considered to be an extraordinary man of the people.

Does him having a wife make him any less divine? Maybe we should instead consider the possibility that human is divine. But ultimately, what matters is what you believe.

Why? It does not claim that Jesus was single or childless. It doesn't even imply it.

Because if true, it was clearly concealed. The canon of the New Testament would be revealed to have been deliberately chosen to conceal certain events of Jesus' life. What else was left out?

He said treat others as you would like to be treated. That's not compassion, that's tolerance. It doesn't mean that they are right in their behavior or beliefs. It only means that it's not your business to do anything about it. You are directed explicitly to tolerate as you would have your Christian behavior and beliefs tolerated.

I guess we're going to have to a gree to disagree.

Maybe it's because I see "tolerance" as a nother word for "permissiveness." I agree that we aren't to force anyone's behavior, and to respect their right to decide as we would want them to respect ours, but "tolerance" is a word that I think gets overused.

I think questions like "Did Jesus actually exist?" or "Did he really say all that stuff?" are somewhat more important than "Was he getting jiggy in between healing the sick?"

You will note that Joseph was not a woman.

:confused:

To me, if he did have a wife and kids that would just further his teachings...you know, practice what you preach.

I don't think it matters; it wouldn't be a sin if he did because he had children with his wife, and God never said that he could not procreate within marriage.

It might be a little irresponsible given that he was destined by his Father to die on the cross at a young age, but I guess if that was God's will it wouldn't really matter. Besides, just because Jesus had kids wouldn't mean that those kids would have divine attributes or anything like that.

Because if true, it was clearly concealed. The canon of the New Testament would be revealed to have been deliberately chosen to conceal certain events of Jesus' life. What else was left out?

Conceal? It's simply not pertinent. Some people could easily argue and have that his wedding and spouse are clearly referenced in the Bible. It's not explicit, but why should it be? Being married or having children is hardly unusual for a rabbi.

I guess we're going to have to a gree to disagree.

Maybe it's because I see "tolerance" as a nother word for "permissiveness." I agree that we aren't to force anyone's behavior, and to respect their right to decide as we would want them to respect ours, but "tolerance" is a word that I think gets overused.

Ha. The arrogance of suggesting that your opinion of what is and is not permitted matters. God's opinion is all that matters. Yours is simply to follow the direction of Jesus in loving your fellow man and doing unto others (tolerance and love). It is for God to permit or not permit. You have no such right or power. If God allows some people to place every penis they come across in their mouth or jump from buildings without parachutes what business is it of yours? God will judge their actions and I don't know that he needs your help. In fact, I'm quite certain that Jesus said He didn't.

Conceal? It's simply not pertinent. Some people could easily argue and have that his wedding and spouse are clearly referenced in the Bible. It's not explicit, but why should it be? Being married or having children is hardly unusual for a rabbi.

How pertinent that information depends on why it wasn't mentioned. Was it not mentioned because it didn't matter? Considering how much the Bible says about marriage, children and family, It's surprising that Jesus' teachings on the matter weren't pertinent.

On the other hand, if it was concealed as a political power play between some of the Apostles(Peter, John, Luke) and others(Thomas, Mary Magdalene), then I'd say the concealment is very pertinent. Is the Bible a subjective political manifesto?

How pertinent that information depends on why it wasn't mentioned. Was it not mentioned because it didn't matter? Considering how much the Bible says about marriage, children and family, It's surprising that Jesus' teachings on the matter weren't pertinent.

On the other hand, if it was concealed as a political power play between some of the Apostles(Peter, John, Luke) and others(Thomas, Mary Magdalene), then I'd say the concealment is very pertinent. Is the Bible a subjective political manifesto?

There is no evidence it was concealed and much that it wasn't concealed. The personal marital status of Jesus was not really pertinent to his teachings. And Jesus is not the Bible. Jesus did not really say that much about marriage other than against adultery and divorce (though the latter was acceptable if the former already happened). It simply wasn't a cornerstone of his teachings.

My girlfriend and I watched the movie by that hack, Dan Brown. Afterward she asked me if I believed that Jesus could have had a wife and possibly children. My answer was "who cares if he did or didn't".

To other Christians, what difference would it make if Jesus had a wife and children? Why would that take away from anything he taught and/or his status as savior?

I'm an atheist, but I'll say this: It would make him less pure, and some people wouldn't be able to handle that.

There are way too many fucking Jesus threads.

I'm an atheist, but I'll say this: It would make him less pure, and some people wouldn't be able to handle that.

There are way too many fucking Jesus threads.

How does that make him less pure? Sex is not immoral in marriage according to the beliefs of most Christians (we can debate about outside of marriage all day). What is unpure about following the command of God to be fruitful and multiply?

As to the Jesus threads, they get a lot of responses, so they stay. They are probably created with equal frequency to any other popular topic. Staying power, baby.