Replies

It would have been highly bizarre for Jesus to not have been married. Not only at age 29 or so when he began his ministry, but by age 19.

It's kind of a joke now, with bar mitzvah's at 13, but it was serious back then. You started taking on adult responsibilities at age 13.

Rabbis were married men. Women were most often ignored. Jesus could very well have been married, and not to Mary Magdalene. Even though he was the messiah, his wife would not have been important. Mary, his mother was, because of the virgin birth, but the name of his wife, the disciples wives, were simply considered fluff basically. It would be like describing a sporting event's big play, then commenting about the color of the seat you were sitting at. Just not important enough to mention.

Jesus was flesh. I don't think it diminishes him in any way to have been married. It elevates him. If Jesus was not bound to the world in every way, it lessens the sacrifice.

I don't get those who believe that Jesus was basically a "saint" who was seperate from his flock. By being married, having human hungers, thirsts, desires, then being told to give it all up, and suffer on the cross, it is more powerful a sacrifice than being told that Jesus could do no wrong, was perfect, and basically wouldn't have anybody to miss back on earth.

If I was told that God made me, I was infallible, and I could hang out for 33 years, in exchange for spending a day on the cross, then I would go to Heaven and be all powerful again, forever, sure, that is suffering, but it's not a supreme sacrifice. Being human, fearful, able to feel pain, loss of seperation makes the act deeper. Having a human wife, who he could never again touch physically, not just sexually, but in a corporal state, for example, just holding hands, and being told to get up on the cross and leave it behind, that hurts.

Was John the Baptist married?

I will ask you the same question Walter Mondale asked Gary Hart "Where's the beef?"

I am sorry you think the suffering of a mere man would be more sacrificial than God becoming man (Jesus is BOTH God and man; two natures, wills ect. Please do some research re Hypostatic Union) and dying for your sin. GOD died on the Cross. For YOU.

Exactly. Good work.

I don't get those who believe that Jesus was basically a "saint" who was seperate from his flock. By being married, having human hungers, thirsts, desires, then being told to give it all up, and suffer on the cross, it is more powerful a sacrifice than being told that Jesus could do no wrong, was perfect, and basically wouldn't have anybody to miss back on earth.

Thought 1) you don't have to be married to have human hungers, thrists, etc. (single people don't have it easy either)

And yes, believe it or not Christians (ALL CHRISTIANS) DO believe that Jesus could do no wrong (being BOTH man AND God, by definition he did no wrong) and God IS perfect.

By definition being a Christian means believing Jesus was both God AND Man. So your statement ONLY makes "sense" if it comes from a non-Christian. I'm not knocking you if you aren't a Christian (each to his own and all) but it is an odd statement if you are a Christian.

the attack is not on Jesus, but on the truth of Christianity...

the Jesus seminar is trying to insist the gospels were not historical, and then they posit their 3rd century gnostic gospels are accurate.

But there is a lot of historical and societal accuracy in the Gospels whereas the gnostic gospels are more highfalutin tomes on how you too can meditate etc. and that mary magdalen was an apostle and that the evil church bishops got rid of the story because they were patriarchal bigots who hated independent women (i.e. the same stuff that is taught in pc universities)

I've lived in primitive countries, and the gospels make sense to peasents. The gnostic gospels are so higfalutin that I have trouble undestanding them...