[WackyKat]

It is if it's not within marriage. And I think there's no doubt that if our Lord had married it would have been mentioned in the Bible.

The Gospels provide no basis for that assumption. They say nothing about Jesus between the ages of about 13 and 30. They also say very little about what Jesus said and did between the Resurrection and the Ascension. These are huge and unaccountable omissions; obviously the Gospels did leave out a great deal, which certainly could have included Jesus being maried.

[independentmind]

These are huge and unaccountable omissions; obviously the Gospels did leave out a great deal, which certainly could have included Jesus being maried.

Don't most people consider marriage (along with birth and death) to be one of the most significant events in a person's life? The Bible certainly speaks highly of the institution.

[BlessedBeGod]

Oh, please. If our Lord had married it would have been considered a MAJOR event in his life and would have been documented.

[JesseHousman]

I can see why you're called Wacky Kat.

I'll bet someone else suggested that handle to you.

[Campion]

The Gospels provide no basis for that assumption.

St. Paul says that the love of man for his wife images that of Christ for the Church. Doesn't sound like there's room for a "Mrs. Christ" in there, does it?

And we know from the Gospels that St. Peter was married, at least at one point. Do you seriously think they would have mentioned Peter's marital status and neatly avoided mentioning Jesus'?

As near as I can tell, you aren't a Christian. At least I haven't observed you self-identify as one. If I am correct, why is any aspect of this issue any of your business?