1 - 10 of 36 Comments

1. Thomas Ryan

   7 months ago

   The Church has had real problems with carnality of any kind. It seems to me a great reach of that historical anti sexuality thread to stomp on the possibilities in any discovered text. Just because it is old also doesn't make it false, either. Also, it should occur to many older Catholics that celibacy has indeed been "a meaningless charade" for a great many, possibly a majority(?), of priests. Who are you Dr. to limit what God might do?

2. Jeffey Stone

   7 months ago

   From a theological viewpoint, Jesus was both human and non-human simultaneously. The fact that he could "die" on the cross, showed his humanity. The fact that he could be resurrected and walk the earth again in physical form after his death, shows his divinity. From a historical perspective, at the time that Jesus lived, it would have been deemed very strange for a man his age to not be married. As a human I would surmise that it would have been physically possible for him to have physical relations, however as the son of God it would have defeated his purpose to do so. Therefore I would assume that he did not have relations because it would have prevented him from completing his earthly tasks, however it is possible that he made a pretense of marriage simply to avoid unnecessary difficulties in the formative years that led to the teachings and miracles that make up the New Testament.

3. KarlVDH

   7 months ago

   Brad- excellent point! Jesus had a great turn of phrase for it... (or, for something equally gymnastic from an intellectual perspective.) He said "You strain ata gnat... to swallow a camel."
   some people will believe the most picayune source available if they can construe it to say something about the Bible, but the Bible in its enormity they discount out off hand.
   Good post, Brad.

4. Sylvester Kajiam

   7 months ago

   This kind of attack/blasphemy is not new to the church. No matter what anybody (within or outside the church) would say, we will always Love the church more and more till we can breath no more and by His grace, to eternity. Because it is the spirit, it is christ and indeed it is God so it(church) will never be wrong nor fail. Love you (Jesus) Catholic church.

5. Dr. Dom

   7 months ago

   Damian you're right that we ought not to let faith controversies or disputes (particularly if they are idle disputes) rob us of our peace or our faith. But theology does indeed advance often from these disputes when they are resolved by the Church, with the help of theologians faithful to her (as it has throughout history when disputed ideas were advanced, e.g., when Ephesus resolved the Nestorian heresy). This is the very first public discussion about whether Jesus COULD HAVE MARRIED (and not merely about whether He did historically marry). That could lead to a theological advance if resolved adequately.

6. KarlVDH

   7 months ago

   Dr. Dom- thanks for a rational discussion! Let me couch this by first stating- again- that I think the idea of JEsus being married is silly for a number of reaasons. My argument is timply that it isn't all that important anyway; if he WERE, does it change the Cross? the Resurrection? The significance of our Mother? Nope. Not at all. Such a thing doesn't hange ANYTHING but a traditional VIEW of Jesus; it doesn't change who he ISat all.
   I see your point, but I disagree, because Jesus also says we are one in the spirit, and as marital relations are NOWHERE in scriptre called "sin," (Original sin is NOT the parental act of sex, though some haf tried to simplify it to such,) there's no problem with what you're calling her carnality. And since in First Centry Jewish culture, a woman couldn't BE "head of household," there's no way he'd have given Mary to a woman to care for; even his spouse...she wouldn't have the means to do so, under either Israelite OR Roman occupation laws. The days of Ruth and Naomi were long gone by then... and even THEY needed a man to provide.
   As John was the only one of the twelve who stood loyal, and he was the one who apparently had the closest personal relationship with Jesus and his extended family, he's the logical choice.

7. Kit

   7 months ago

   I think it means he was married to the church, Not a flesh and blood women.
   

8. Damian

   7 months ago

   It is a pity that some people went about bordering their brain over something that is indisputable. If Jesus married as claimed, who was the wife? Why did Jesus hand over His mother Mary to his beloved apostle John alone on good friday? Because in marriage two becomes one, so Jesus could have been much attached to His said or claimed wife instead of His mother. Master writer or researcher who are His sons and daughters or is there no issue?
   Brethen lets focus on what God wants us to do to be save instead of indulging in blind argurment/blesphemy of this nature.

9. Brad

   7 months ago

   What I find interesting is that skeptics will scramble at the chance to believe a 3x5 parchment with a small phrase on it before they believe the Bible. Also, people don't realise: Just because it's old, doesn't make it true.

10. Dr. Dom

    7 months ago

    Karl VDH I didn't mean "osteogenesis offspring", but "ostensibly", as in "ostensibly the offspring...."; sorry!

Leave a Comment