The ever infamous was Jesus married debate

[Church Punk]

I have recently engaged in discussion with my roommate’s good friend who is a history major at the University. The discussion went from politics to religion. She seems to have a good grasp on much of the history of the Church. However the discussion changed when she stated she believed that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

First I asked where she came with this, she stated that it was in the Dead Sea scrolls, also according historical culture at the time she states that it was un-heard of for people not to be married. We also discussed the book the DaVinci Code.

My response for this was that Jesus was not an ordinary man, he was the God-Man, Besides in all the traditions of the Church would you not think that Peter or someone would have even mentioned that they were married? Also in the scriptures they state of his rites of passage into the Jewish faith (circumcision, etc). As for the DaVinci Code I explain many of the untruths written in this, like Opus Dei, the Knight Templars etc.

However I am not really familiar with the Dead Sea scrolls. Can anyone help me out with what these are and what is contain in them? Also I was wonder if there would be any other points I can bring up next time this discussion comes about?

Thanks

[Nathan]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a bunch of written documents found in caves at Qumram in 1947, documents which belonged to an ancient Jewish community. Some of the documents found were fragmentary copies of Old Testament books -- Jewish Scripture.

I may be wrong -- I'm not familiar with the non-biblical Scrolls -- but I don't think Jesus was even mentioned anywhere in the DSS. I have heard rumors of writings about a "prophet" in the DSS supposedly written around the time of Christ, but who knows...

Anyone?

[phatcatholic]

well, i don't know much about the dead sea scrolls, but maybe it doesn't matter. afterall, the burden of proof is on him to prove that they actually contain such a thing as the marriage of Jesus. also, it was not in fact unheard of for certain men to remain celibate so as to completely devote their life to the Lord and the study of his Word. there are many examples of rabbis in the OT adopting this lifestyle, either for a time or for their entire lifes. so, the claim that it would have been "unheard of" for Jesus to remain single is erroneous.

furthermore, when we look at the purpose of marriage we see that it is incompatible with Christ. on a theological level, marriage is meant to give man a taste of the trinity. it is the closest thing we have to experiencing the love that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. afterall, in marriage the love between two persons (the married couple) results in a third person (the child), much like the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. we also know that sexual intercourse within the bond of marriage is, ideally, the most perfect act of love and intimacy in which two become one. of course, the most perfect love is shared between the Father and the Son, who are two persons, but one essence. finally, it is through marriage that we cooperate w/ the Lord and share in his role as Creator of mankind.

Jesus has no need for all that. he already experiences the perfect love of the Trinity. he is already at the heart of all things that are created. there is simply no need for him to be married. there is no purpose in it. he didn't come to raise an earthly family and perpetuate his blood line. he came to raise [i]spiritual[/i] sons and daughters and to perpetuate [i]his grace[/i]. an earthly bride? how ridiculous. the Church is his bride!! he marries himself to Her so as to present Her to the Father without spot or wrinkle.

anyway, those are just a few points i was able to come up with off the top of my head. others may be able to provide more.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Church Punk]

Those are great, I was on the same path that you were Phat. I pains me to see these people with such great educations but absolutly no sense of the truth. They would rather tear apart the Church instead of listening to what Her teachings have to say.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:43 AM']I have recently engaged in discussion with my roommate’s good friend who is a history major at the University. The discussion went from politics to religion. She seems to have a good grasp on much of the history of the Church. However the discussion changed when she stated she believed that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

First I asked where she came with this, she stated that it was in the Dead Sea scrolls, also according historical culture at the time she states that it was un-heard of for people not to be married. We also discussed the book the DaVinci Code.

My response for this was that Jesus was not an ordinary man, he was the God-Man, Besides in all the traditions of the Church would you not think that Peter or someone would have even mentioned that they were married? Also in the scriptures they state of his rites of passage into the Jewish faith (circumcision, etc). As for the DaVinci Code I explain many of the untruths written in this, like Opus Dei, the Knight Templars etc.

However I am not really familiar with the Dead Sea scrolls. Can anyone help me out with what these are and what is contain in them? Also I was wonder if there would be any other points I can bring up next time this discussion comes about?

Thanks
[right][snapback]806833[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's funny that she asserts that celibacy was unheard of back then and in the same breath mentions the dead sea scrolls, considering that these scrolls belonged to the Essenes, who we know praticed celibacy. Just a funny irony.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Another funny irony is that if you apply the kind of criticisms that are used to undermine traditional beliefs about Jesus and the early church to the assertions of the revisionists, they look like foolish hypocrites.

It seems like if you are suggesting something radical, like Jesus never existed at all, or Jesus was married, or Jesus was homosexual, or Mary Magdalen was the feminist leader of the early Church, suddenly the rules of good scholarship fly out the window. It's a double standard to put it mildly.

If we were to use documents as unreliable as the gnostic gospels, and bizzare conspiracy theories to support our beliefs, we'd be laughed off as mindless geniuses. Sadly, much of what these people base their stuff on falls into such categories.
They have an agenda and a desire to rewrite history accordingly.

If it is valid to refer to wild speculations about Da Vinci to learn the truth of Jesus Christ, then I'd say its even more reasonable to refer to the hundreds of saints throughout history to learn the truth about Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry, but all this recent hype is nothing more than slander, controversialism and sensationalism. It is popular in the same way that Howard Stern is popular, because it is shocking and strange. They have the burden of proof, not us. And from I've seen, their arguments are idiodic.