That’s my take on it as well.
Add to the problem of Jesus’ succession, which, given that he was thought divine would probably have been hereditary, and it’s just wasier for him to have been umarried and childless.
Jesus was respectful to women (for the time) and liked kids. Doesn’t mean he had any wife or children himself, though. As a Catholic, the model of the Holy Family is Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and I don’t see why we’d have a problem if it was Jesus and Martha and little Moishe or whatever if that were true. We were taught to consider Jesus’ love life as much his hair color–who cared? Like our priests, his family was the human race instead of an earthly one, and all humans were his children.
However, in a way, there is a major practical reason I’m glad it didn’t happen; consider what sort of problems Islam has had over the years over the succession (nephew vs. son-in-law, right?) to Muhammed. Christians have their own schisms and wouldn’t need blood relatives to fight over too.
There was still a tradition of certain teachers ("rabbis’) who were sought out for their wisdom and learning to explicate matters of law. These people were the templates for what became modern rabbinic tradition. Because, even in the 1st century, such people were expected to exemplify the law. Because they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, they were expected to be married. There was no tradition for celibacy among religious leaders or teachers in ancient Judiasm and, in fact, it was seen as a defiance of the law. While there is some evidence that it may have been a voluntary (not mandatory) practice for some Essenes, in the mainstream an unmarried religious teacher would have been seen as extraordinary enough to at least engender comment if not outright demands for justification.
Another vote for improbable but not blasphemous.
I have a problem with the idea of Jesus abandoning His wife and/or children in that particular society to go bumming around to go bumming around the country for three years on a road trip with His buds and later leaving them without support after He ascended.
Christ as deadbeat dad - I have a hard time seeing that as “sinless.” Or, what mutliple people have said in the thread already.
The conspiracy theory, though, is ridiculous.
Luke 10:38-42. The link is to the whole book of Luke. Scroll to the end to read 38-42.
I seem to recall that some Presbyterian minister wrote a book in which he supported the idea that Jesus had been married.
Blasphemy is an act or idea insulting or irreverent towards God. This is not. In myy view, it’s not blasphemous.
It is, however, completely without Scriptural support, or support in any major Christian tradition.
I agree 100%.
Actually, that does make me wonder where the division between the two is.
Heresy=Something that contridicts Dogma?
Blasphemous=Something offensive to faith?
Heresy means something which is contrary to doctrine. It isn’t necessarily a sin to have heretical beliefs since many times a given Church or dnomination will see an erroneous belief as being rooted in innocent misunderstanding or lack of education in the faith.
Blasphemy denotes an intended insult or defamation of God (this can include denial of God’s existence).
So, while a married and procreative Christ is a heterodox notion in the context of most Christian teachings, it is also not patently insulting, defamatory and does not represent an attempt to negate or deny anything essential about God (at least not automatically), hence it is not really blasphemous.
I wouldn’t say he say Jesus was sexless, but it’s highly unlikely he did have a wife or children. No record we have notes a wife or descendants - and this would hardly have been secret knowledge after his death (and ressurection). Jesus was known personally by a number of people in the region, and we have some written records from their followers.
of course, to hear the tabloids say it, the man must have been busy with about half the women on the planet.
Depends what’s by asexual. If He was tempted in every way that we are, presumably He had a sex drive and had to remain sinless in the face of that temptation. I would agree with the other interpretations above that He was about His Father’s business and wouldn’t have married or had children.
Quite so. 
Cite?
I’ll point out that think that Jesus’s teachings were very Essene-like, and thus having Jesus be Essene-like isn’t much of a stretch. Besides- John the Baptist wasn’t married, AFAIK. And, how about Isaiah?
You’re reading into the 1st century CE what was common practice much much later.
True, it was the general practice then for most men to get married. But some were & some weren’t. It doesn’t seem to be a remarkable thing either way. Can you show me writings from the time of Jesus that mention as worthy of comment the fact that a Jewish holy man* wasn’t married?
If Jesus had children they would likely have been either part of the early Church leadership or similar. We know that Jesus’s brother James was an important figure in the very early Church because he was the Brother of Jesus. Thus- ipso facto- Jesus had no (surviving) children.
It is unlikely he was married, but it *is *possible. I’d say that being a Widower would be more likely, as he began his Teachings (as far as we know) quite late in life. Jesus could well have taken a wife when he was 18, had her die in childbirth (quite common) and we’d never know, since we know almost nothing of his early life. I’d have to say that if he was still actively married at the time of the Gospels his wife would be at least mentioned. Unless you want to belief in vast conspiracies :rolleyes: , she isn’t- thus ipso facto- he wasn’t.
If someone came up with evidence Jesus was married during his final years, I’d be very suprised.
- and not a member of the Preistly tribe.
And by this, I mean something along the lines of a quote from Josephus like “And what was even more shocking about this so-called John the Baptist- is that he remained unmarried all his life, in direct contravention to accepted custom and practtices”. You won’t find it, though.
The whole myth of “Jeus was a rabbi, and Rabbis were expected to be married” is a myth started by the “Mary Magdalene wa the secret wife of Jesus” tinfoilhat crowd. Anyone who knows much about the 1st Century AD (and DtC does know quite a bit about that period, I might add) should know that there really weren’t “Rabbis” until somewhat after the death of Jesus, and more likely- until the destruction of the Temple.
Oh sure- as Judaism spread, there started to be early Synagogues possibly before Christ. And- sure, there were teachers- “rabbis”- at those. But per The Oxford History of the Biblical World (pg 438) “but in the earliest centuries of the rabbinate and the synagogue they functioned largely indepentdent of each other” and …“that the synagogue… existed … before 70 CE…”. But really- while there was the Temple- there was the Priesthood. What we think of as a “Rabbi” wasn’t around until CE 200- and many of the trappings and traditions came much later.
Trust me- if you know anything about Paul-if Mary Magdalene had been married to JC, Paul would have mentioned it. Far better than have Jesus running around with a unmarried woman! :eek: In fact, rather than supress a “secret marriage” Paul would more likely have made one up. The fact Paul never mentioned Jesus as married- while the fact that Jesus did “consort” with an unmarried woman is mentioned- should be evidence that Jesus wasn’t married.
Christ was sinless so obviously would not have had children or sex outside of marriage. The problem with that is that marriage is shown as a practice because there is so much immorality; of which Christ has none.
There is ample rabbinic commentary on this.
There are some similarilties with the Essenes but also some notable differences, especially with regards to ritual purity. The Essenes were far more ascetic and isolationist than Jesus was. Jesus even drank wine which was a big no no for the Essenes. It could be argued that Jesus actually had more in common with the Pharisees than with the essenes (in fact, there are some who argue that he was a Pharisee). In any case, he didn’t follow any of the other ascetic proscriptions or purity rituals of the Essenes so there is no reason to extropolate celibacy just because he may have shared some other values with that sect.
There is no evidence that John the Baptist wasn’t married and some of what we know about Ancient Jewish ascetic practices suggests that its practioners separated from their wives only after they had fullied their obligation to procreate.
Isaiah was married and had two sons (Isa. 7 and 8). Perhaps you were thinking of Jeremiah? He was ordered by God not to take a wife or have children because God was about to punish Israel…includiing the children (Jer. 16:3-4)
There was never a time when celibacy was considered a virtue in Judaism and marriage and procreation have always been perceived as being mandated by law. It’s one of 613 Mitzvot. (#63 on the linked list).
I haven’t asserted, nor do i believe that Jesus had children.
It would have been more unlikely for him to have been celibate than to have been married.
Sure, that’s possible. Or he could have left his family behind behind as he urged others to do.
Why would she be mentioned? The authors of the gospels knew next to nothing about Jesus’ life and family and would not have thought that a wife was noteworthy enough to write about even if they had been aware of one. There was also a struggle for authority going on and it is not particularly outre to believe that a wife or consort would have simply been excised from the myths (or obscured by a depiction as a mere follower rather than a spouse).
If someone came up with solid evidence that Jesus existed at all, I’d be very surprised. It’s not as if we have any real information to begin with. The Gospels are not factual biographies.
Re: the “tinfoil hat” Magdalene theory. I don’t subscribe to the Holy Blood/ Holy Grail theory (I read that book years before Dan Brown stole the idea for *The DaVinci Code and dismissed it out of hand) but it’s not automatically crazy to say that she (or somebody else) may have been married to Jesus. It’s not impossible or even unlikely.
With regard to Paul, it’s no surprise that he wouldn’t mention it, he didn’t say anything about the human Jesus. He didn’t even mention such things as the virgin birth or the empty tomb or any of the miracles besides the resurrection. If he was not moved to talk about such momentous things as those (or more likely, had simply never heard of them because those stories hadn’t been invented yet) then why should he be expected to mention something as mundane and irrelevant to Paul’s conception of Christ as a wife for the human Jesus?
that Jessica Simpson!
All of which dates to 150+ years after Jesus’s death.
You’re right- Jeremiah, not Isaiah.
However, John the Baptist “lived alone in the wilderness”.
The Talmud was written down after the diaspora but existed as oral law for centuries before that (Jewish tradition is that it was given to Moses along with the commandments). All of the rabbinic commentary which we have says that marriage has always been a mandate not an option- one of the 613 commandments. The earliest extant rabbinic commentary makes this claim and there is no early Jewish literature to contradict it.
Which does not mean that he had not previously been married or procreated.