Could Christ Have Had A Wife Or Child While On Earth?

[I'm Mr. Snikkers]

I'd say no.

[Socrates]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1153261' date='Jan 1 2007, 12:26 AM']
Ok, the answer is yes. Its more than could be, and closer to more than likely.

I've spent 5 years researching this area and while the evidence is still shakey, there is a couple of points that need to be thought about.

1st- To read from the scroll of law as Jesus did, a man needed to be a Rabbi and even then Rabbi's needed to be married, as they do now.

2nd- Mary Magdalene....there is enough non-canon evidence that shows that her and Jesus' relationship "may have" been more than friendship/teacher.

Without causing a flame war I would recommend for those interested to use a search engine and look under Mary Magdalene and see for yourself.

Belinda
[/quote]
Don't fall for that "Da Vinci Code" nonsense.

There is absolutely nothing in the Gospels nor in the writings of the early Church Fathers to indicate that Christ had been married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else.

The only "non-Canonical evidence" even implying such a relationship were Gnostic texts written hundreds of years after the four canonical Gospels. Such Gnosticism (which preached salvation through "hidden knowledge") was clearly condemned in the writings of the early Church Fathers, particularly by St. Iranaeus.
([url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea1.asp"]Article on Gnostics[/url])
And if you're going to use the Gnostics as your source of the "real truth" concerning Jesus Christ, you'll have to end up believing a lot of weird stuff about Jesus. (Such as that He did not have a real human body, left no footprints when He walked, etc.)
Gnosticism was a pagan-influenced movement at odds with the orthodox Christian Faith handed down from the Apostles, and should not be taken by the Christian as truth.

The fact is that there is no solid evidence that Rabbis were required by law to be married at the time of Christ. In fact, evidence shows that there were in fact Jewish traditions of religious celibacy existing at the time.

This disregarding the Gospels and Tradition of the Church by using the example of the "typical 1st-century Jewish rabbi" is bogus scholarship. Such folks similarly claim the Resurrection never happened because "the bodies of the crucified were usually thrown to the dogs." It is simply disregarding what was in fact written about Christ by contemporary witnesses, and substituting one's own opinions.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea1.asp"][b]Here's a good short article on this topic.[/b][/url]

For a more detailed debunking of claims surrounding Christ and Mary Magdalene, etc., I'd recommend the excellent book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/Da-Vinci-Hoax-Exposing-Errors/dp/1586170341"][i]The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code[/i], by Carl E. Olson, Sandra Miesel[/url].

Edited January 1, 2007 by Socrates

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1153261' date='Jan 1 2007, 12:26 AM']
Ok, the answer is yes. Its more than could be, and closer to more than likely.

I've spent 5 years researching this area and while the evidence is still shakey, there is a couple of points that need to be thought about.

1st- To read from the scroll of law as Jesus did, a man needed to be a Rabbi and even then Rabbi's needed to be married, as they do now.

2nd- Mary Magdalene....there is enough non-canon evidence that shows that her and Jesus' relationship "may have" been more than friendship/teacher.

Without causing a flame war I would recommend for those interested to use a search engine and look under Mary Magdalene and see for yourself.

Belinda
[/quote]
You aren't serious?

[Aloysius]

the religion in place at the time was not rabbinic judaism as we know it today. that came into existence after the destruction of the temple, namely at the council of Jamnia.

there was no requirement of marriage for a rabbi. I defy you to show some source from pre-rabinnic Judaism which says there was.

it certainly was not unheard of for a man to be not married and in his thirties. women, unless they were consecrated virgins, were expected to be married in early teens; but men were not. there were many sects in judaism at the time, like the essenes, who did not marry. there was an aesthetic movement brewing in Israel at the time: John the Baptist was clearly part of this it being considered likely that he had ties with the Essenes in some way. It is therefore very historically consistent and possible that John the Baptist, and many of those who followed his baptism of repentence in the desert, joined the essenes in renouncing relations with women. John the Baptist's movement was basically bringing the extreme aestheticism, repentence, and denial of the body known within Essene communities to ordinary people (which would include carpenters who were baptised in the river jordan)

your "5 years of research" sounds like five years of google searching and second hand resources... sounds like your sources are one: the discovery channel two: the history channel three: dan brown four: google. hardly scholarly. real scholarly research reveals all texts which remotely hint Mary Magdalen having such a relationship with Christ are at their very earliest written in the fourth century by Gnostics, who in fact were not Christians, had absolutely no connection to the time of Christ, had absolutely no interaction with any apostles of Christ or anyone who was taught in some indirect way through the centuries by the apostles, but merely included Christ in their mixing of any and all religions they could find and twist to use in their ritual orgies.

oh, and Christ was fully human and thus had the full physical capability of marrying and conceiving a child, but from the theological perspective He clearly had no purpose and from the archaeological perspective there is a clear context for a man following an essene-esque movement to not marry. and when archaeology provides a context which is verified by the overwhelming independently verified traditions of history passed down, archaeologists call that an argument by [b]convergence[/b] which places it as most plausible and most likely that the traditions are correct. barring any actual indication against that tradition, a good archaeologist has no reason or grounds to disagree with that tradition. seeing as all sources indicating anything opposing the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was a celibate following the lead of John the Baptist Essene-esque movement, one concludes it to be most plausible and likely that Jesus did not take a wife. and then topple that on with our theological belief in Christ as God and we can have an absolute certitude of faith supported (but not, of course, 100% which could never be done without a time machine) by all of the facts and all of the archaeological context of the time period.

[bmb144]

*sigh*

You know what this research pre-dates Mr Brown's load of rubbish by 50 odd years.

If I was feeling 100% I would argue you under the table, but I'm not.....
I only read good scholarship, not rubbish. I won't look at a book if the author is not at least a master of theology or divinity.

So I will bow out here......

Belinda

[Socrates]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1154081' date='Jan 1 2007, 10:07 PM']
*sigh*

You know what this research pre-dates Mr Brown's load of rubbish by 50 odd years.

If I was feeling 100% I would argue you under the table, but I'm not.....
I only read good scholarship, not rubbish. I won't look at a book if the author is not at least a master of theology or divinity.

So I will bow out here......

Belinda
[/quote]
And Mr. Brown didn't come up with that rubbish about Mary Magdalene on his own - it was all pulled from older sources, none of which has any actual historical grounding.

And Church Tradition predates 20th century "research" by about 1900 years - you've still proven nothing.
Simply having a theological degree in itself proves nothing. There are plenty with doctorates of divinity who spout nonsense contrary to Christian teaching, including many who deny the divinity of Christ, and claim the Gospels were mere fables or fairy tales. That does not mean such claims have merit, nor that they have not been refuted by those qualified.

And if I was feeling 100% I could win the heavyweight champion title, but I'm not . . .

Edited January 2, 2007 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

I may or may not have been mistaken as to your sources... the fact remains you have not shown that it was "required" for jewish teachers at the time to be married in their thirties, and I provided examples of movements within judaism at the time of men renouncing all relations with women.

if all the tradition which flows from the historical apostles and Christ himself says Christ was celibate, and there's a context in which he could have been celibate, the it is most plausible that He was. if, as you say, to be thirty and not married at the time would have made Him a laughing stock, that would make it all the more likely that the story told by the connected traditions which makes Him celibate was true (why would they lie to make their savior a laughing stock?). of course it is not the case, as the Essenes did not marry and Josephus certainly didn't laugh at them for it in writing about them to the greeks. John the Baptist's similarities to the Essenes make it about an iron-clad assertion that Jesus was involved in some sect of Judaism at the time which revered male celibacy.

[KnightofChrist]

I would just like to point out, Jesus Christ is married and does have children. Holy Mother Church is His bride and we are His children.

Ps, Christ could not have had "real" wife and children, because this would have made Christianity a form a Paganism. If God, Christ, took a wife and reproduce with her then the offspring would in fact be gods as well, and their offspring would also be gods. There is only One God as we know, this is a fact, there can be no other gods but God. This is why Christ DID NOT and COULD NOT have a wife and children.

Edited January 4, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[heavenseeker]

ok so how would it have really made any difference did or didnt? what is in question has no real importance

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='heavenseeker' post='1155796' date='Jan 4 2007, 02:32 AM']
ok so how would it have really made any difference did or didnt? what is in question has no real importance
[/quote]

The difference would have been HUGE if Christ had children. As stated if Christ had offspring they would have themselves been gods, and their children as well. The first born child of Christ would probably been head of the Church not Peter. There would have been less need to focus on Christ in heaven because we would have His children here on earth with us. Why call on Christ to save you when you can get Jesus Jr next door? Many problems arise if we argue Christ was married. Like a can of endless worms...

The question is of real importance, it does matter. Its a question people ask, its a question that needs and has an answer.

[heavenseeker]

ok i call tht last post of mine back because it's late and i wasnt thinking of what was in full question so go on as if i didnt post this or my one before it.

[bmb144]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1154093' date='Jan 2 2007, 01:17 PM']

And if I was feeling 100% I could win the heavyweight champion title, but I'm not . . .
[/quote]

I wonder how you would feel if 4 of your close friends were murdered on Christmas day.......and you wonder why I cannot put up a fight on this.......its people that act like you that make me re-think why I became catholic, and btw that thread is in transmund......I simply don't have the strength to fight anymore.

Belinda

[Aloysius]

please, you can't assume folks over a faceless medium like the internet to know your situation. if you post on a debate thread people will inevitably respond to your post expecting you to debate it, they will not know anything about what's going on.

socrates is a person who doesn't know you personally and acts like a debater in the debate table, nothing more. he should have absolutely no impact on your faith crisis: if you do not feel up to debating, it is perfectly respectable for you to bow out and not debate. but your assertion of facts will be challenged in the wake of your absence because many lurkers read these posts and us phatmassers won't just let a claim go unchallenged.

phatmass debaters don't really take personal issue with people; they want their thoughts and responses to all challenges published on a public phorum so that all readers can read both sides and make up their mind.

may your friends and all the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1152138' date='Dec 30 2006, 10:55 AM']
I said 'could have' simply because He is God and God can do anything He wants :

That said, Jesus also COULD have, during His time on Earth, invented Velcro. started a basketball team, opened a fitness center, etc....but he didn't.

The question is a little silly, methinks :
[/quote]

I concur.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I maintain that Christ could not have had a wife or child while on Earth.

Being fully human and fully divine, Christ was the "firstfruits of creation" and was himself the perfection of mankind. Now the perfection of mankind is nothing other then the state of man with the Beatific Vision, that is, man in heaven. Christ then, even in his humanity, possessed heaven even while He was on earth. His perfected humanity was revealed alongside the perfect glory of His Divinity in the transfiguration. We know from Christ's own words that in heaven there is no marriage. As such, the perfect humanity of Christ is incompatible with marriage, which is by its very nature a pointing towards that perfection that is to come while not being that perfection.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[FullTruth]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1153390' date='Jan 1 2007, 04:13 AM']
Firstly, the religion of the times that Jesus was subject to was Judaism.
Mother Mary under went the required purifications under the law, presented Jesus at the Temple aka living under that law! The scripture says so.

Secondly, it is well known that Rabbi needed to be married and still do! Any jewish man unmarried at 30 was a laughing stock! The role of the wife of a rabbi is well known to be a caring role for the women of the community, both then and now. Ask any orthodox follower and they will tell you the same.

St John's role was prophet not Rabbi and his links to the Essenes are well known in good biblical scholarship. So that holds no water.

St Mary Magdalene [b]WAS NEVER[/b] a whore and the church withdrew that claim many years ago. There have always been three Mary's and none of them were whores. I would suggest you check your information

The fact that you don't know that the church withdrew its claim on St Mary years ago when that is common knowledge makes me wonder....

Do me a favour prove it.....

Belinda (BTh early church history major and current student!)
[/quote]

Gives a thumbs up for this.

I would recommend to everybody not to listen to this person anymore.

My hat goes off to In His Light.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1158350' date='Jan 7 2007, 06:52 PM']
We know from Christ's own words that in heaven there is no marriage. As such, the perfect humanity of Christ is incompatible with marriage, which is by its very nature a pointing towards that perfection that is to come while not being that perfection.

[/quote]


Werent Adam and Eve together before the fall? Jeff, I have some other questions regarding this. PM me, it doesnt fit well here.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1151958' date='Dec 30 2006, 01:42 AM']
Could Christ have had a wife and/or child while on earth? He of course, as the Church offocially teaches, did not, but could He have?
[/quote]

[mod]personal attack[/mod]

Edited January 9, 2007 by homeschoolmom

[Jesus_lol]

well, history has been altered before. and many accounts in the bible were written centuries after the events. is possible i think, if not likely.

oh and could all the people that have just signed up and are calling everyone satanic please leave and come back when youve matured a little? this is a debate thread about a hypothetical situation

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1158769' date='Jan 8 2007, 02:40 AM']
well, history has been altered before. and many accounts in the bible were written centuries after the events. is possible i think, if not likely.
[/quote]
That theory was started in the 19th century by "rationalists" who did not believe that the events in the Gospels really took place, so they claimed they were legends which developed over time and were written down much later.

However, all the lastest evidence shows that the four Gospels were all written within living memory of Christ, which is what Catholic tradition has always taught. Fragments of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark have been found which date to the mid first-century, and a fragment of John, the last gospel written, was found in Egypt dated to the early second-century, showing it was already in wide circulation at that time.

And it is rather foolish to assert something based on the assumption that the earliest written records about it (the gospels) were lying!

Edited January 9, 2007 by Socrates