Gingerbread Man on 21/5/2006 at 19:53

---

thats because everyone else had two eyes try to pay attention :mad:

ignatios on 21/5/2006 at 20:07

---

Because a wife isn't mentioned anywhere.

People are born not married. It takes an act of will (among other things) to marry. Since nothing is mentioned about marriage one way or the other, the assumption is that Jesus was not married.

edit: The above fails at logic; I'll say a little more:

The life of Jesus is important in the Christian faith. Christ being married would be important or pervasive enough to include at least in a passing manner, if not addressed directly, by people trying to record such a narrative.

OnionBob on 21/5/2006 at 20:14

---

STRONTIUM DOG

COMMCHAT

THE INTERNET

Printer's Devil on 21/5/2006 at 20:18

---

So you support the "magic sperm" theory? Confirm/deny.

fett on 21/5/2006 at 20:40

---

So I obviously have to run my mouth about this a bit.

1) If Jesus was married, there is not a hint or shred of evidence that mentions it either in the Bible, early church writings, or 'normal' historical documentation. This is agreed on by both christian and non-christian scholars. In fact, evidence of early church writings seem to confirm that he was not.

2) There was an abberant teaching that drifted from time to time through the first century church that christians should not be married. Paul addresses this issue in several letters to local churches, using Peter's marriage as an example of why marriage is ok (even 'good') for christians. If Jesus was married, why would Paul have not simply pointed to his example and rested his case?

3) If Jesus had been married, the church until the 3rd century would have celebrated this - not hidden it. The early church was primarily Jewish, and marriage is considered honorable, sacred, and joyous in that culture - they would have advertised this from the rooftops, written about it, and certainly used it as examples in doctrinal treatisies on marriage.

4) Theologically speaking, it makes no sense for Jesus to be married. From Genesis chapter 3 forward the 'seed of the woman' (Mesiach) - is portrayed both figuratively and literally to marry a collective Gentile 'bride' - a term seized upon by the disciples in thier writings to refer to the church of Acts (Jews and Gentiles intermingled). Jesus is spoken of over and over as the 'bridegroom' in the tradition of the Jewish 'kinsman redeemer.' If he had married literally, it doesn't necessarily destroy the christian theology, but it certainly would run afoul of every typology, pre-figure, and archetype found in the Jewish scriptures concerning the Messiah.

5) I'm sure Dan Brown is a nice guy, but he tends to come off as a smug pseudo-intellectual who's getting rich off of people's ignorance concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic Gospels, and basic church history. His grasp of anything touching christian theology, catholic tradition, and Leonardo DaVinci is laughable at best.

He's also a mediocre writer, but I like Ron Howard and Tom Hanks so I'll probably see the movie. The book was meh.

edit:


Good point StD - in fact, in the pharisaic tradition of which Jesus was most defintely a part, a rabbi was *required* to be married. Most christian scholars believe that the only reason he wasn't a card carrying Pharisee is because he was not married.