Trying to keep this out of GD territory but the context for this question was that my friend claimed Jesus never had sex.
I asked how she knew, and she said because he was never married, and sex before marriage is a sin. And Jesus was apparently sinless (also not sure on this - do Christians believe he never sinned, or that he fully atoned for his sins?), therefore Jesus never had sex.
Anyone who knows their way around a Bible know if there is any reference to this issue?
Er, a bible scholar will be around soon, I expect - I’m not one - but a quick answer or two.
The Bible simply doesn’t say, one way or another. We’re only left to wonder why, if he was married, that this was not mentioned anywhere. His mother is mentioned as being at the scene of his crucifixion, but not any wife?
That said, there’s a long-standing tradition of the church that Jesus never married. Further, given his reported strong views about the sanctity of marriage, it would be that much more odd that he never mentioned any direct experience with it, and it would be extremely difficult to reconcile those views with any skirt-chasing - or the First Century equivalent. Hence the presumption of his virginity.
It is a major point of Christian theology that Jesus Was (Is) God, was (Is) as perfect as God, and never sinned. His death was no atonement for his own non-existent sins, but - in some way that somehow set things Right - for ours.
IANAE, but the issue of whether or not Jesus was married is quite complicated and very involved. Having a large number of Catholic relatives, in my predominantly Protestant family, I have heard both sides of this argument in rather thorough detail.
The apostles often referred to Jesus as “rabbi”
In accordance with Jewish custom, if Jesus was indeed a rabbi, he would have be married. The argument that I have heard against this is that the apostles used rabbi in order to address him as their teacher, not because that was necessarily his title. Interestingly, the few (3) Jewish scholars that I have spoken to concerning the issue all believe that Jesus was indeed an actual rabbi.
[/QUOTE]
If you read from the beginning of this chapter , however, you may interpret the message entirely differently.
Ultimately this argument comes down to how you interpret the New Testament. Maybe someone a little more knowledgeable, with a few more passages, can shed some more light on this issue.
What does that mean? Now marriage is a sin too? Or is he saying… nope, I can’t think of what else he might be saying. Unless it’s just a typo or poor translation and “marriage” is supposed to be “pre-marital sex”.
I think the King James version clears it up (something was lost in the translation in the above link, I think)
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
I think the King James version clears it up (something was lost in the translation in the above link, I think)
19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
Could that passage maybe refer to people (such as priests) who refrain from marrying because of the belief that it distracts them from worshipping God?
On preview, it looks like TellMeI’mNotCrazy is right. That version makes a lot more sense.
It seems important for the church to distance Jesus from any relatives. Presumably because to make him a close relative with any one makes him less divine and more human.
When it comes to the idea of Jesus having a brother, wife or children, there is little evidence either way - but with an open mind I would say it is possible, whereas the church (or at least the early church) refuse to countenance the idea. So, any evidence of his brother or children seems to be either ignored or re-interpreted.
Even his parents are distanced from him: he is born of a father (God) and a mother who herself was born of immaculate conception.
Presumably, if Mary had other children after Jesus, it would have made her less pure and therefore tainted her status as the virgin Mary, even though she was (if you believe the bible) a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth.
Umm… aren’t brothers, (or half-brothers at any rate) mentioned in one of the gospels?? They come and find Jesus when he’s in Nazareth speaking with some of his early disciples, and say that he should come and visit mom, because she misses him. He waves at the disciples and tells the brothers “THESE are my brothers and my mother.”
Just thought I’d throw that in because I remembered the line.
James the brother of our Lord ( Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:18, 19). Jesus had three other brothers in addition to James. They were Joses, Simon and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Lord’s sisters are also mentioned, but not by name (Matthew 13:56).
James, the brother of Jesus became one of the apostles.
How about that? There it is plain as day. You are correct in that some Roman Catholics in order to perpetuate their vision of Mary as the virgin Mary claim that these passages refer to cousins or step brothers and sisters. I suppose we really don’t know since there’s no mention either way, but it’s not very likely that Joseph and Mary had no other children after Jesus.
Cecil on Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene lovers? and Did Jesus have siblings?
You may also want to take a look at the Great Debates thread Christians: is the idea that Christ married and/or had kids blasphemous to you?
“Custom” does not in this instance equate to law. Nor does it explain why the accounts of his life fail to mention the rebbetzin, if she did indeed exist.
“Actual rabbi” is an interesting phrase. Did yeshivas exist then that granted formal smicha?
You are making a common mistake in what “immaculate conception” means. It does not mean “virgin birth”. The Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception holds that Mary was conceived by normal biological means, by a human mother and father, but with a soul “immaculate” of original sin.
Actually, some of the early Christians renounced worldly things such as marriage in a belief that the Second Coming / End Of The World was arriving Real Soon Now. The more mainstream Church, obviously, turned away from such notions.
Bear in mind, if Jesus was without sin, then he also was never guilty of lust. He could have been so focused on teaching that he trained his mind never to “go there.” That being the case, he wouldn’t have much desire to marry.
Bricker:
Of course there were; many Rabbis named in the Talmud were contemporaries. Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel were active yeshivos of the time. The smicha then was even better than the ordination that modern yeshivos confer, as they had (obviously, this would be disputed by non-believers, but certainly Jews of that era believed this) an unbroken line of laying-on-hands since Moses.
However, the Rabbis of the Talmud were all Pharisees, a group whose relationship with him was, shall we say, antagonistic. I won’t claim it’s impossible that he was a genuine Rabbi with Smicha and then at some later point turned anti-Pharisee in his philosophies, but I don’t think contemporary Jews would have considered that man, in the phase of his life described in the Gospels, to be a Rabbi.
And according to some of the early christian stuff I’ve read, ANY sex appeared to be a sin, unless I read it wrong. There’s at least one example where a woman converts to christianity and then refuses to have sex with her husband after that.
Well, maybe they did mention her. Who was the “beloved Disciple?” Who was Mary Magdalene?
If Jesus was married, it would not necessarily have been considered remarkable enough to comment on. It actually would have been more remarkable for any man to be unmarried, much less a Rabbi. A case can be made that Jesus actually came from Pharisaic tradition- especially from the Bet Hillel school which lived in tension with the more literalistic, legalistic Bet Shammai school. The portrait of the Pharisees in the Gospels is distorted, to say the least and may actually reflect what was originally an intermural rift between the two main schools of Pharisees (a rift we know existed). What later became simplified as “Jesus vs. the Pharisees” may well have started as the Hillel vs. the Shammai.
Anyway, the absolute GQ answer to this question is that the New Testament is silent on Jesus’ sexuality and marital status. It would have been unsual for any grown man to be unmarried but not impossible. Male celibacy was not viewed as particularly virtuous but some ascetics like the Essenes did practice it.
This is arguably the sort of thing that Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5:
Maybe not in the phase of his life as described in the Gospels, but what about that decade or so that the gospel fails to detail? Besides, if he was a rabbi at one point, I am fairly certain that he would have faced excommunication, or more accurately cherem. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.
Thanks TellMeI’mNotCrazy . The King James Version is much easier to understand. I would have thought that the New International Version would be somewhat easier to digest, but I was wrong.
I understand why its important for some Christians to have believed that Jesus was unmarried and had no children. The potential for there to be a direct bloodline that could be traced back to Jesus would have been very unsettling when it came to power and control throughout history. It is not difficult to imagine perpetual holy wars between the descendants of Jesus, vying for control of Christian kingdoms.