Was Jesus married?

[pax 0]

Agreed on the Trinity part, although I've never had anyone explain the Trinity to me in such a way that made it make sense to me from the standpoint of the sacrifice (i.e. if Jesus is God and vice versa then how much of a 'sacrifice' was it when he ostensibly knew he could pass the tests and resurrect himself?) (Note that was an example of why it's confusing to me, I'm not looking for the answer here nor am I challenging the concept as a whole, just saying that because it has holes for me, means I tend to not use that as a way to explain it for myself.)

I think, Cerise (and I'm only an amateur theologian, so bear with me), that it is the very divinity of Christ that makes the "test" of the crucifixion remarkable. I don't actually believe that the crucifixion was a "test" of anything anyway (the "testing" of God being politely discouraged throughout the Scripture), but I'll give this a shot...

Anyway, as I said earlier, most Christian denominations will, I think, put forth the idea that Christ was both fully human and fully divine. As such, Christ was given one earthly life to live, as we all are. Christ sacrificed his one and only earthly life to the sacrifice of his ministry and crucifixion--not to test the idea that God in Heaven would raise him from the dead (as Christians believe happened), but to demonstrate to humanity what the godly life would actually look like. Christ lived a life that deconstructed entrenched power structures in both subtle and overt ways. He sided with the poor, the unloved, and the otherwise "unclean" time and time again to demonstrate God's care for all people. And he willingly gave up his earthly life in an untimely, painful, and humiliating manner as a redemptive and demonstrative act. It was the price that Christ paid, on behalf of all humanity, for the sin that was perpetuated in his own time and is still being perpetuated in ours: chiefly the sins of lust for power and idolatry (i.e. the priests and the earthly church being exalted above the actual God).

Think about it: Christ willingly gave up his earthly life, which, again, is a one-shot deal. Throughout this thread, it has been postulated that perhaps Jesus married, had children, maybe followed in Joseph's footsteps as a carpenter and had dinner with the in-laws on weekends. Not a bad life, right? Maybe that's what Jesus was doing until the Gospels catch up with his story, when Jesus decides he has to "be about his Father's work," so to speak. It's a very human dilemma, and Jesus was fully human, after all. It's not surprising that God would have wanted Christ to experience the good aspects of human life--after all, there are many, many good aspects of human life, from the gifts of marriage and family to the gifts of pizza, beer, and Yankees games. Why would you want to bother suffering the life of an eccentric outcast and dying a criminal's death if you didn't think there was anything on Earth or in heaven worth dying for?

So anyway, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that Christ's death was a human death, freely chosen on his part in cooperation with God, and suffered to basically show the world that a lot of the systems we put in place are very very bad ideas, and that God has a better plan for us.

Does that make sense?

[Mand 1]

Plus, Mary Magdalene's whole role has been completely distorted by the Church throughout the ages. Only recently have they publicly stated their error in painting her as the worst sinner of the times.

Isn't there something about the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene?

::swooshes off to google::

There is a Gospel that has been accredited to Mary Magdalene, although there are large chunks of some of the pages missing and some of the translations have been patchy at best. This and other Gospels not found in the Bible (i.e. the Gospel of Thomas) hold Mary in a much higher standing than is generally known.

Mary was considered as a key Disciple of Jesus in these Gospels, (even in the accepted Bible, Jesus choose to "appear" to Mary first after his death). Inaccuracies in translations have led to various thoughts on how close Mary was to Jesus...friend or more? I don't know to be honest, either possibility holds weight.

I put "appear" in quotes, as this translation can also be taken as he literally appeared to her...or she felt the presence of his spirit.

I am not an expert on these Gospels at all, but I do think that if you put your faith in one religion, then you owe it to yourself to be curious about your choice. Be open to various possibilities, explore them and turn them around in your head to obtain a better understanding of your faith.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I am not an expert on these Gospels at all, but I do think that if you put your faith in one religion, then you owe it to yourself to be curious about your choice. Be open to various possibilities, explore them and turn them around in your head to obtain a better understanding of your faith.

Too true....otherwise how do you know if it's right for you? Just because that's the way your family believed? I wonder what the percentage is of people who follow the religion of their parents just for the sake of tradition?

Isn't there something about the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene?

::swooshes off to google::

Your swooshes are quite cute! LOL

Edited March 7, 2006 by Frances

[ceriserose 1]

Agreed on the Trinity part, although I've never had anyone explain the Trinity to me in such a way that made it make sense to me from the standpoint of the sacrifice (i.e. if Jesus is God and vice versa then how much of a 'sacrifice' was it when he ostensibly knew he could pass the tests and resurrect himself?) (Note that was an example of why it's confusing to me, I'm not looking for the answer here nor am I challenging the concept as a whole, just saying that because it has holes for me, means I tend to not use that as a way to explain it for myself.)

I think, Cerise (and I'm only an amateur theologian, so bear with me), that it is the very divinity of Christ that makes the "test" of the crucifixion remarkable. I don't actually believe that the crucifixion was a "test" of anything anyway (the "testing" of God being politely discouraged throughout the Scripture), but I'll give this a shot...

Anyway, as I said earlier, most Christian denominations will, I think, put forth the idea that Christ was both fully human and fully divine. As such, Christ was given one earthly life to live, as we all are. Christ sacrificed his one and only earthly life to the sacrifice of his ministry and crucifixion--not to test the idea that God in Heaven would raise him from the dead (as Christians believe happened), but to demonstrate to humanity what the godly life would actually look like. Christ lived a life that deconstructed entrenched power structures in both subtle and overt ways. He sided with the poor, the unloved, and the otherwise "unclean" time and time again to demonstrate God's care for all people. And he willingly gave up his earthly life in an untimely, painful, and humiliating manner as a redemptive and demonstrative act. It was the price that Christ paid, on behalf of all humanity, for the sin that was perpetuated in his own time and is still being perpetuated in ours: chiefly the sins of lust for power and idolatry (i.e. the priests and the earthly church being exalted above the actual God).

Think about it: Christ willingly gave up his earthly life, which, again, is a one-shot deal. Throughout this thread, it has been postulated that perhaps Jesus married, had children, maybe followed in Joseph's footsteps as a carpenter and had dinner with the in-laws on weekends. Not a bad life, right? Maybe that's what Jesus was doing until the Gospels catch up with his story, when Jesus decides he has to "be about his Father's work," so to speak. It's a very human dilemma, and Jesus was fully human, after all. It's not surprising that God would have wanted Christ to experience the good aspects of human life--after all, there are many, many good aspects of human life, from the gifts of marriage and family to the gifts of pizza, beer, and Yankees games. Why would you want to bother suffering the life of an eccentric outcast and dying a criminal's death if you didn't think there was anything on Earth or in heaven worth dying for?

So anyway, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that Christ's death was a human death, freely chosen on his part in cooperation with God, and suffered to basically show the world that a lot of the systems we put in place are very very bad ideas, and that God has a better plan for us.

Does that make sense?

What you say makes sense, and I probably worded my thoughts on it badly. I wasn't negating the sacrificial aspect of Jesus' life, or reducing the enormity of it. Unfortunately I don't know if I can explain it without volumes.

Essentially to me it's a catch-22. If one believes God to be all-knowing and all-powerful, it follows that the outcome of a lot of events is, if not foreordained, then fore-known. So that means that while God may not have created Satan, he knew Satan would exist. That means that while he didn't make the Jewish nation turn from their covenant with him, he knew they would (and had the solution in place, Jesus to create a new covenant that became bigger than the Jewish one and open to Gentiles...Jesus as the Messiah was foretold for a good long time before the Jews turned from God). So while Jesus faced those tasks as a man, and admirably so, if he was God as the Trinity describes, he would have known what the ultimate outcome would be. I suppose it's reasonable to think that he could limit the knowledge from himself...but that just seems weird to me (how does one part of a godship not know what the other parts are doing?).

What you say makes more sense to me if you take Jesus as the son of God, not part of a Trinity. So again there's my sticking point! hehe

Thank you for taking the time to explain...I enjoyed reading your thoughts.

Edited March 8, 2006 by ceriserose

[pax 0]

Thanks.

You're right; I don't think my earlier post accounted very well for Christ's co-equality with God and the Holy Spirit. I think I've been on a kick for quite some time with exploring Christ-as-fully-human, and that probably explains it, but nevertheless it's not the whole story.

It's a question--why does an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God seem to allow suffering, particularly suffering of a divine/human being purported to be the Son of said God--that actual theologians haven't answered successfully. There's a whole field of theology called theodicy that does nothing but deal with the problem of evil coexisting with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. And I think that the only way the Trinity "succeeds," if you will, as an explanation of God, is through Christ's existence as a human being. Which is going to sound weird. But I'm going to attempt to explain what I think about it.

As I said, we're assuming a fully-human Christ; that is, a human being like us in all respects except sinlessness, a human being with needs and wants and desires and with only one shot at the earthly life. As well, we can go ahead and assume that as Christ grew as a human, he became increasingly aware of his divine nature and mission. That is, we can assume that Christ had some foreknowledge of everything that was going to happen, and some foreknowledge of his role in it. But we can also assume that, being co-equal with the God in Heaven, Christ could have called it all off.

Which brings me back to the 15-20 "missing years" from the Gospel. The movie Dogma, of all things, makes an interesting point about these years: Wouldn't you think that dying a miserable death to save the entire world is the kind of thing that a person would need some time to come to terms with? Maybe, say, a decade or two? It does make sense. Jesus goes off and lives the earthly life--again, maybe including a wife, some kids, what have you--and thinks this over for a while. Does he want to use his divine power to stop it all, or does he want to fulfill God's plan? And eventually--maybe where the Gospels meet up with him again--he decides he's ready to deal with it. Much Christian art and theology, as well as the Gospel of John in particular, emphasize Christ's awareness, willingness, and eventual triumph over the circumstances of his life and death. Jesus isn't a pawn; he knows what he's doing. He could, theoretically, stop it. But his willingness to live and die in the manner that he did makes his sacrifice all the more remarkable and humbling.

I know there's probably still a hole in there somewhere...let me know where it is!

[Satisfaction 1]

I was in catholic school when I was little, unfortunately I don't remember much of what I learned.... I don't recall anything that said that Jesus was married, and I think it is very unlikely. My conception, very personal and very arguable, is that Jesus was only one "messia" or "messenger" or "prophet" among others, human in form but not in essence, who was created or choosen by God so that he could preach to people and enlighten the world. I am convinced that there were others before him and that there were and will be more after him. That's my concept though....

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

of course Jesus was married. he married Graciela from down the street. we called him Chuy.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Satisfaction 1]

of course Jesus was married. he married Graciela from down the street. we called him Chuy.

Daniel

:energetic:

I know him too!

[almaty 19]

of course Jesus was married. he married Graciela from down the street. we called him Chuy.

Daniel

:energetic:

i know him..we call him chewie...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay, here's a picture of Jesus with wife and family.

That ought to be proof enough. Can we put this to rest now?

[Satisfaction 1]

Jesus was born in the Bronx, not Betlehem, folks. This what he looks like:

[almaty 19]

Okay, here's a picture of Jesus with wife and family.

That ought to be proof enough. Can we put this to rest now?

hey, the women looked like they may have been muslim

[Mirorgate 0]

Okay, here's a picture of Jesus with wife and family.

That ought to be proof enough. Can we put this to rest now?

hey, the women looked like they may have been muslim

What? are you lind man? thats a russian head-scarf! He's orthodox!

and a little to blonde to be jewish too... may he really IS mormon?

[almaty 19]

Okay, here's a picture of Jesus with wife and family.

That ought to be proof enough. Can we put this to rest now?

hey, the women looked like they may have been muslim

What? are you lind man? thats a russian head-scarf! He's orthodox!

and a little to blonde to be jewish too... may he really IS mormon?

yeap, heard it on south park..was Mormon

[Cassie 8]

BTW, thanks for responding without thinking I'm trying to slam your beliefs. I also don't think the question of Jesus being married or not is particularly crucial in light of the more important aspects of his life and purpose. But that's just me.

Questions/arguments/opinions presented respectfully in my mind deserve a respectful response. I appreciate a thoughtful discussion which prompts me to examine why I believe what I beleive, which I find you usually provide. So it's all good.

Pax, those were some really interesting posts about the Trinity -- thanks for those!