[ClancyJ]

So you believe Jesus must have been married because a rabbi would have mentioned it if not. Well, change all the teachings - a rabbi would have mentioned it.

Well, I don't believe He was married, I don't believe He had children. He was about His Father's business, He had only three years to teach.

And, the fact we are even discussing whether He was married or not is because the theories proposed in the stupid movie brought it up. And, many will therefore believe the Bible to be wrong. And, rather than all of us discussing whether or not He was married, it might be better to study the Bible to find out what His teachings and words said.

But, a rabbi would not care about the life message of Jesus because a rabbi never accepted Him as the Savior. So, of course, they tend to believe He was only a good man and therefore, of course He was married.

Well, this is the Lord's Son who was put here on earth for a purpose. Raising a family was not His purpose.

[af_vet_rr]

So you believe Jesus must have been married because a rabbi would have mentioned it if not.

I don't mean this as an insult, but it appears English is not your first language. I apologize for not making it clear and implying that you couldn't comprehend what I was saying. I'll try to make my friend's point a little more clear.

My friend's point was that because Jesus was a Rabbi, and Rabbis were bound by law, history, traditions, and customs, to be married, there is no reason why Jesus wouldn't have been married.

Because it would be common knowledge to people back in the first and second centuries that Rabbis were married, then there would be no need to mention it in in the Gospels.

Because marriage these days is not as highly regarded as it was during those times, people are not going to automatically assume that certain types of people were married, because they don't have that knowledge.

And, the fact we are even discussing whether He was married or not is because the theories proposed in the stupid movie brought it up.

Just because Brown decided to try and stick a little bit of historical perspective into a movie doesn't render that historical perspective false. There is nothing wrong with looking at Jesus as a historical figure, in fact you can understand a lot more about him when you look at his life, death, resurrection, and teachings against the backdrop of the Roman/Jewish conflict and against the backdrop of having been raised and lived as a Jew and a Rabbi of that time.

And, many will therefore believe the Bible to be wrong.

The Bible does not say that Jesus wasn't married, so it can't be wrong if he happened to have been. In my view, Jesus being married or not is a much smaller problem (and not even really a problem) than some of the inconsistencies between some of the Gospels.

But, a rabbi would not care about the life message of Jesus because a rabbi never accepted Him as the Savior. So, of course, they tend to believe He was only a good man and therefore, of course He was married.

I'm sorry I've confused you - the point my friend made was that because Jesus was a good Rabbi, he could have been married.

Well, this is the Lord's Son who was put here on earth for a purpose. Raising a family was not His purpose.

Which is why I think that even if he was married, he would not have had children - King David's line would have continued through one of Jesus' siblings (or cousins depending on your point of view).