Nice link. Those are good reasons to think he probably wasn't married but there's nothing there that I can see about it being in the Law or Prophets that he couldn't be.
When did Ephesians and Revelation end up in the Law and Prophets?
They didn't. But, according to both the citations previously given, he is married. His bride is the Church.
If the gnostic claim was true, it would make him an adulterer. And adultery is mentioned more times than I care to discuss in both the Law and the Prophets.
(And of course the implication would be that He would no longer be the Lamb without spot or blemish and therefore incapable of redeeming us through His sacrifice)
Your implication that Jesus would not be without blemish if he were married is a slap in the face to anyone in the bonds of holy matrimony.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Read what I wrote again, really slowly, OK?
Let me try it one more time:
Jesus is married. Read that one more time: Jesus is married.
His bride is the Church
If he had relations with another, he would be an adulterer
If he was an adulterer, he would not be without spot or blemish.
Therefore, his sacrifice on the cross at calvary would not have met the criteria of a passover sacrifice.
What part of the above are you having a problem understanding? If you can tell me with which of the above statements you are having a problem, I can explain a bit more (quoting scripture rather than just citing it)and would be happy to do so, but it appears, for now, that you are not reading what I wrote.
(Oh, btw, I am married...and I didn't slap myself in the face)
Revelation says Jerusalem will meet Him as a bride adorned for her husband.
Is He, therefore, an allegorical bigamist?
The Church is considered a singular entity. And Revelation says the new Jerusalem, not the old Jerusalem. There is a difference. Please note Galatians 4:22ff:
Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.
Gal 4:24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26
But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married."
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.
Gal 4:30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
Gal 4:31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
I would think that "IF" Jesus had been married to a woman, Mary Magdalene for example, then the alegorical marriage to the Church would not have worked.
That's the thing Goey, to me it's not a deal breaker.
markomalley,
You seem to be saying that the Jerusalem in Galatians is the same as the one in Revelation but in Galatians it says THAT Jerusalem is a mother and in Revelation THAT Jersusalem is the bride of the lamb.
Re:"His bride is the Church..If he had relations with another, he would be an adulterer."
Oh? Even if he were legally married to Mary Magdelene? Where does it say you can't be legally married to several brides? Someone already mentioned that a requirement for some offices in the church is to have only one wife but is that not because that if the office holder had several wives then he wouldn't have time enough to fulfill the obligations of his office? You're thinking there's another reason he should have no more than one wife? Maybe... like its immoral to have more than one wife?
Are there scriptures that say having more than one wife is immoral? Didn't good God fearing men in the Old Testament have more than one wife? And what about King David's concubines? Is that OK, too? And why is it that its primarily the Catholics that are having such a problem with this movie? The Da Vinci Code? Here in Memphis there were some protesters at one of the movie houses on opening night and they were Catholics. Down on their knees saying their rosaries.
That's the thing Goey, to me it's not a deal breaker
Ok then, what is the deal maker? -- I mean what good evidence is there that is sufficient to suggest that Jesus was married and had kids?
Don't you think that if Jesus were married to Mary Magdelene or anyone else, that there would be at least a hint of it in the scriptures?
Why do you suppose that Jesus' wife and kids were not mentioned in Mark 6:3 but only his mother and siblings?
Don't you think that the early church fathers would have written at least something about it if Jesus had been married? Yet not a word along those lines.
What about church tradition? Nothing at all.
What we have is a few modern writers speculating on this, some gnostic writings that speak of Jesus realtionship with Mary Magdalene, and a couple of modern fiction novels. Yet no ancient writing, gnostic or otherwise says or claims that Jesus was married or had children. Nada. Nothing.
Yet some folks want to speculate that Jesus was married with children.
It seems to me that some folks just simply "want" Jesus to have been married and have kids, because it somehow makes him and more human.
Ok then, what is the deal maker? -- I mean what good evidence is there that is sufficient to suggest that Jesus was married and had kids?
NONE
Don't you think that if Jesus were married to Mary Magdelene or anyone else, that there would be at least a hint of it in the scriptures?
Yes, that's the way I think.
Why do you suppose that Jesus' wife and kids were not mentioned in Mark 6:3 but only his mother and siblings?
I don't suppose He had a wife and kids.
Don't you think that the early church fathers would have written at least something about it if Jesus had been married? Yet not a word along those lines.
Ditto to my "I think" line above.
What about church tradition? Nothing at all.
No siree, none whatsoever.
What we have is a few modern writers speculating on this, some gnostic writings that speak of Jesus realtionship with Mary Magdalene, and a couple of modern fiction novels. Yet no ancient writing, gnostic or otherwise says or claims that Jesus was married or had children. Nada. Nothing.
You are correct, sir!
Yet some folks want to speculate that Jesus was married with children.
They sure do.
It seems to me that some folks just simply "want" Jesus to have been married and have kids, because it somehow makes him more human.
Recommended Posts
Cynic
Here's a link to some stuff on this at a site sponsored by Westminster Theological Seminary.
http://thetruthaboutdavinci.com/was-jesus-married.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
He is married. His bride is the Church. Eph. 5 and Rev 19:1-7, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
When did Ephesians and Revelation end up in the Law and Prophets?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Cynic,
Nice link. Those are good reasons to think he probably wasn't married but there's nothing there that I can see about it being in the Law or Prophets that he couldn't be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
They didn't. But, according to both the citations previously given, he is married. His bride is the Church.
If the gnostic claim was true, it would make him an adulterer. And adultery is mentioned more times than I care to discuss in both the Law and the Prophets.
(And of course the implication would be that He would no longer be the Lamb without spot or blemish and therefore incapable of redeeming us through His sacrifice)
Hope that clears it up a bit for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Clear as mud.
Your implication that Jesus would not be without blemish if he were married is a slap in the face to anyone in the bonds of holy matrimony.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Edited by lovemattersLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Read what I wrote again, really slowly, OK?
Let me try it one more time:
Jesus is married. Read that one more time: Jesus is married.
His bride is the Church
If he had relations with another, he would be an adulterer
If he was an adulterer, he would not be without spot or blemish.
Therefore, his sacrifice on the cross at calvary would not have met the criteria of a passover sacrifice.
What part of the above are you having a problem understanding? If you can tell me with which of the above statements you are having a problem, I can explain a bit more (quoting scripture rather than just citing it)and would be happy to do so, but it appears, for now, that you are not reading what I wrote.
(Oh, btw, I am married...and I didn't slap myself in the face)
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
You're talking about a New Testament allegory.
Revelation says Jerusalem will meet Him as a bride adorned for her husband.
Is He, therefore, an allegorical bigamist?
Edited by lovemattersLink to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
If a bishop of the Church can both have a wife and be "blameless" why can't the Church's founder?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The Church is considered a singular entity. And Revelation says the new Jerusalem, not the old Jerusalem. There is a difference. Please note Galatians 4:22ff:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Lovematters,
I would think that "IF" Jesus had been married to a woman, Mary Magdalene for example, then the alegorical marriage to the Church would not have worked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
That's the thing Goey, to me it's not a deal breaker.
markomalley,
You seem to be saying that the Jerusalem in Galatians is the same as the one in Revelation but in Galatians it says THAT Jerusalem is a mother and in Revelation THAT Jersusalem is the bride of the lamb.
Shotgun marriage?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Mark,
Re:"His bride is the Church..If he had relations with another, he would be an adulterer."
Oh? Even if he were legally married to Mary Magdelene? Where does it say you can't be legally married to several brides? Someone already mentioned that a requirement for some offices in the church is to have only one wife but is that not because that if the office holder had several wives then he wouldn't have time enough to fulfill the obligations of his office? You're thinking there's another reason he should have no more than one wife? Maybe... like its immoral to have more than one wife?
Are there scriptures that say having more than one wife is immoral? Didn't good God fearing men in the Old Testament have more than one wife? And what about King David's concubines? Is that OK, too? And why is it that its primarily the Catholics that are having such a problem with this movie? The Da Vinci Code? Here in Memphis there were some protesters at one of the movie houses on opening night and they were Catholics. Down on their knees saying their rosaries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
lol...lol...lol...gotta love it.....lol...
there was this bar and there was a protestant, a catholic and a atheist...
ok, ok ,ok, stop! stop! stop!
you're making me laugh too hard! :) :) :).....
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I'm not laughing at you lovematters, or anyone else,
it just struck me as very funny. :)
As to the question-I don't know?! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Ok then, what is the deal maker? -- I mean what good evidence is there that is sufficient to suggest that Jesus was married and had kids?
Don't you think that if Jesus were married to Mary Magdelene or anyone else, that there would be at least a hint of it in the scriptures?
Why do you suppose that Jesus' wife and kids were not mentioned in Mark 6:3 but only his mother and siblings?
Don't you think that the early church fathers would have written at least something about it if Jesus had been married? Yet not a word along those lines.
What about church tradition? Nothing at all.
What we have is a few modern writers speculating on this, some gnostic writings that speak of Jesus realtionship with Mary Magdalene, and a couple of modern fiction novels. Yet no ancient writing, gnostic or otherwise says or claims that Jesus was married or had children. Nada. Nothing.
Yet some folks want to speculate that Jesus was married with children.
It seems to me that some folks just simply "want" Jesus to have been married and have kids, because it somehow makes him and more human.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Mission accomplished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
100% agreement.
Nice work, Goey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Yuck yuck yuck.
Should have suspected as much.
Fool me once...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coupcake
I find it pretty difficult to believe that Jesus, knowing what he was facing in his future would have chosen the marriage and family path.
Edited by coupcakeLink to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
coupcake,
My question was whether anyone knows of any Old Testament prophecies that proclaim that the Messiah would never marry.
markomally,
My “mission statement” was referring to a joke I made at your expense NOT that this thread was started as a gag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Fool me twice...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
oops
Sorry, markomalley, for misspelling your name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Are there some that said He would??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.