Back when HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL & such nonsense was popular, I was discussing the possibility of Jesus being married with some church friends. One lady snapped “Well, if Jesus was married that means He was no better than I am.” I was pretty astounded (tho this lady was kinda warped anyway). So here is a thought experiment- especially for my fellow Christians-
the Vatican, the World Council of Churches, the Patriarch of Constantinople AND a global representation of conservative,
evangelical & charismatic churches make an announcement-
they have found what may be original documents of the New Testament- with everything the same as the present one- except the information that, in his 20s, before His public ministry started,
Jesus was married & his wife had died in childbirth.
These church authorities make it clear that no Christian need believe Jesus indeed was married but that similarly it can not be
ruled out & in any case does not violate any essential Christian
doctrine.
Soooooo- does this in any way affect your faith?
What IF these documents stated He was married DURING His ministry (either to Magdalene, Mary or Martha of Bethany, or perhaps someone who was not mentioned in the NT for her protection) and/or He HAD CHILDREN who did go on to keep the family going?
It would certainly give a whole new dimension to the “fully human” aspect of Christ. Before I can say more than that, I’ll need to think about this some more. I will reply, though.
While it would be interesting, from an academic perspective, to know more about the ‘historical Jesus’, including if he was married or not, I don’t think it is particularily important to the sprititual perspective.
Jesus’ ‘draw’ is not the historical minutae of his life; It is what is represented by his life, be it historical or fictional.
To actually answer the OP, it would in no way affect my faith.
What about Jesus being married would change anything? Or are you directing the question primarily towards Catholics?
For the most part, Protestants do not believe that sex is sinful in and of itself. I suppose there is the ‘ick’ factor, but I expect most of us got over that when we realized that even our parents did - well, you know.
For those who react, what is the issue? For those who don’t, what might it be?
actually, Greeley is definitely Catholic & I think Burgess was also.
Neither Catholicism nor Protestantism see sex as sinful OFFICIALLY but in practice, both C & P sexual ethical teaching are popularly distorted in this way, and since most of my contacts are in the Evangelical Protty world, I know that distortion has some adherents here also. Tho may I hasten to add that I know of no well-known Evangelical Protty who does condemn sexuality as sinful- even at his worst condemnatory preaching before the scandal, Jimmy Swaggart championed the idea of a regular & active MARITAL sex life (tho he did condemn oral & anal even in marriage).
I don’t believe there was a Mrs. Jesus, but it wouldn’t bother me in the least if there had been.
There’s absolutely no compelling reason to think that Jesus was married, that he was bald, that he was 6 foot 7, that he had blue eyes, or that he had a high voice. ANY of those things is (I suppose) possible, NONE of them is bad, and NONE of them would make Jesus less divine or a less admirable figure… but there’s absolutely no reason to believe any of those things is true.
If some sort of proof surfaces that Jesus WAS married (or bald!), I’ll shrug and say, “Okay, that’s interesting,” and immediately move on to thinking about something else. Jesus’ mission was important- his love life (and his hair) wasn’t.
There is nothing that is immoral about marriage. It would be kind of weird to think that Jesus was married, after all this time of thinking he wasn’t. But, once again, marriage obviously isn’t immoral! It wouldn’t be as if he were “found out” in some dreadful evil sin, or something. I dunno.
Considering how many of Jesus’ parables, miracles and life experiences deal with marriage, weddings, brides and bridegrooms, if he didn’t have personal experience with marriage, he was clearly obsessed by the thought of it.
It’d be a nifty (additional) filter to separate out those who worship God from those who worship the Bible. The former would adjust; the latter would retreat further into the idea echo chambers they tend to inhabit and continue to dwindle.
Theologically, it’d be…well…weird if Jesus were married. I say this to the extent that the whole Church itself is meant to be Christ’s bride, and that’s fairly apparent from the metaphorical language that he and Paul use. (Christ refers to the himself as the bridegroom in some of his end times discussion, Paul instructs Christian men to love their wives as Christ did the Church.) In the Christian tradition, marriage is meant to mirror God’s relationship to the church in terms of purity and protection.
Hence, it’d be odd if Christ, assuming arguendo that he was God-made-man, chose an single woman as his bride, when he has equal love for all of humanity.
For all I know, Jesus could have been gay, could have been married, could have had dark skin, could have had many undocumented attributes. Whatever the case, it does not affect the way I feel about Jesus. He was a wonderful individual, and a wonderful indivual to be the basis of a religion.
Of course the ultimate book to deal with this is Kazantzakis’s LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.
Jesus was the oldest son of his mother (though in some accounts Joseph had children from a previous marriage), so wouldn’t a marriage have been arranged for him? The main argument I can think of for him not having children is that his descendants would probably have been traipsed to the forefront, willing or otherwise, once Christianity gained momentum, rather like the descendants of Muhammad. (OTOH, he definitely had brothers and sisters and their descendants are long forgotten.)
Personally it wouldn’t alter my views on him or his message at all, any more than if I discovered he was black or that he was fat.
So if Jesus ever experienced self-doubt, did that make him an atheist?
I agree, Sampiro - considering Jesus’s attitude to organised religion, and His adjuration to “call no man master”, I think He’d be very reluctant to create any sort of dynasty to come after Him.
As for the original question… conventional Christians such as myself believe that Jesus was fully human, as well as fully divine. Sex and marriage are part of the human condition, He would have known about them, and made whatever accomodation for them He could in His life. It’s entirely possible, of course, that He felt His mission on earth precluded normal married life - there have been (and are still) many entirely mortal people who’ve felt the same way.
Isn’t there a book that purports to say Jesus was married and had children and that they (the supposed children) are some Holy Bloodline? destined to take over the world someday?
I know I’ve heard of this. Anyone?
that was the book HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL by Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln I mentioned in the OP. They also wrote a sequel THE MESSIANIC LEGACY. Other writers have taken up the theme- mainly Laurence Gardner- who is affixed to some members of the Scottish royal pretender House of Sinclair, who of course claim to be of the Bloodline. LG’s first book is BLOODLINE OF THE HOLY GRAIL & he’s written several others- which includes connections to the Annunaki Extraterrestrials from ancient Sumeria & Vlad Dracula & Vampire lore.
the standard theory is that the Bloodline emerged in the French pre-Charlamagene Merovingian dynasty, which was betrayed by the
Vatican in favor of the Carolingians & went underground to inspire Grail lore & work thru secret societies such as the Knights Templar,
Freemasonry & the Prieurie de’Sion & are active in the creation of the European Union.
I find the idea of Jesus being married very comforting somehow. It definitely reinforces the idea that he was fully human. I like the idea of a Jesus who felt a specific love for his wife, who had jokes and squabbles and a life with her. However, since I don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, it wouldn’t affect my faith one way or another.
Speaking from a fundie upbringing (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches)…the idea of Christ being married would not pose a big problem to basic fundie doctrine…people are very much encouraged to get married.
What would REALLY cause a problem is there being a change to the “Infallible Word of God”. No changes are allowed to that.
Its nice to think of Jesus being married. I get this idea of him suffering through a crucifixion and then dying thinking…“and I never even got laid”. I mean really. If I were God Incarnate the first two things I’d do was 1) have a good steak and 2) have sex, but not necessarily in that order.