A scholar from Harvard has delivered a paper at a conference in Rome announcing that she has been examining a papyrus piece of five lines of text that has the statement that Jesus says, "My wife..." I have no idea how authentic this piece is. The scholar claims she and others have been very careful and they believe that it is a fourth century A.D. papyrus. So maybe 300 to 350 years after his death, we have a piece of writing that is supposed to quote Jesus saying something about a wife.
How would that change our understanding of the Christian message? As I ponder the implications of that papyrus, I kept trying to find a place where the fact that Jesus was married would make any difference.
We already know that Jesus had dealings and conversations with women, and that he treated women with respect and integrity that was not always offered to them. The four Gospels have a number of stories where Jesus is very supportive of women. So it would not be surprising that women would respond to him.
But what difference would a married Jesus make? Think about the Christian apostles creed. Is there anything there that would have to change if he were married? He could still be "born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried. Descended into Hell, and on the third day He arose from the dead and ascending into heaven and sits on the right hand of God from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." All of those affirmations could still be affirmed about a married Jesus.
Certainly some traditions would find a lot of their justifications for many of their rituals and rubric disappearing if Jesus was married. The whole celibate thing for priest might take a serious hit if Jesus had been married. Would it make Jesus more human to be married and less special in the minds of people? Or would it increase his identification with humanity and make he more real for us?
Max Lucado: God As Heart Surgeon (EXCERPT)
Gregory A. Prince, Ph.D.: Mitt Romney Is Not the Face of Mormonism
Pierre R. Berastaín: The Importance of a Theological Education
The other point I would like to make is that if a scrap of very old paper is found how do we authenticate the finding to the level that over throws all tradition. People say and write almost anything today but it does not mean it is true. The same is true of ancients. Now if we were to go into the libraries of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome and find hidden away some ancients texts that are almost two thousand years old and that support this scrap of paper. May then we would have something new.
One can got to New Advent Webpage and read some of the early Christian writing that did not make it into the Bible. There were many of them that were more substantial than the scrap of paper.
And, beyond everything else, THIS is what I believe is the central issue of those who find it so infuriating to suggest that Christ was married or, heaven forbid (no pun intended), actually had sex just like any other normal person.
Because it evens the playing field and erases the pointless perception that Christ was a step above humans because he was free from carnal desire, was never married and never had sex; something that countless men have used to reinforce the notion that a MAN is better suited to positions of power in the Church rather than a woman.
Quite frankly, I think that's just an outright stupid reason to consider Christ as being the enigmatic, revered figure that he is. And my apologies if I came across as being too frank, but let's just get this issue out in the open right here and right now.
Such a proposition is "blasphemy". That proposition does not "humanize" Jesus, it "desacralizes" Christ. It places carnal desires within Jesus, and in so doing makes it impossible for Him to be without sin. If you think it doesn't make any difference, then you need to step down from the pulpit because you are not fit to minister.
Anyway, I don't see what difference it should make for a believer as the good minister writes and it sure make no difference to non-believers, like me.
Rev Brand must surely know of these theories and the fact that he doesn't mention them vis-a-vis his question of how Jesus' marriage would effect Christianity can only be because he doesn't want to consider the potentialities.
Granted, but not until centuries into Christian tradition. The rough timeline of Christian history includes the first 1-2 centuries of "the early church" followed by a more formalized Christian history that literally WAS the Roman Catholic Church until Luther came along, and from which tradition Christianity today remains primarily informed. I don't see how you get around that vis-a-vis my comment implication that Christianity, as a credible religion, is therefore quite vulnerable to developing historical and archeological discoveries.
Frankly, the scrap is interesting but really proves nothing.
There is no independent, contemporary evidence of any of Jesus' ministry, let alone his existence. Strange when you consider the miracles he was meant to have carried out and resurrecting himself from the dead.
To add to the above statements about the Gospels is that there are different versions. The oldest Christian writing is the The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. This dates from around 70 AD. Translations can be found online. This document predates the Gospels.
I ALSO QUESTION A LOVING GOD WHO WOULD GIVE HIS ONLY BELOVED SON TO BE
CRUCIFIED FOR THE "SINS" OF OTHERS. IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL, WHY WOULD THIS
BE NECESSARY? IF I WERE GOD, AND "SIN" WAS A BIG CONCERN OF MINE, I WOULD
LET EACH INDIVIDUAL PAY FOR HIS OWN TRANSGRESSIONS.
JUST SAYING
In fact Christ does have a bride, its his church that he will return for one day.
The only hint that I can find is if Christ took these men away from their homes, who was supporting the families when they were away? Again a question with no answer.
I know that this just doesn’t sound right but Like the 10 Commandments often makes a person sin,( its due to the contrarians in us ..we rebel against what it stands for) being married to Jesus would make the imperfect and finite woman increase her sinning.
You can say that this is a situation where the product (negative times a negative ) of two negative will yield a positive. Recall the product of a positive times a negative, yields a negative.
…Jesus is perfect. Marriage-besides procreation is a mechanism to leads to "perfecting" the spouse. Jesus didn’t need Perfecting and His desire to help others would have no doubt upset a finite and imperfect woman into saying, "There you go again worrying about others and not caring about me!" Taken to its logical conclusion, there is noting that a woman could have done for Jesus to "perfect “Him or bring joy to Him. Again, the goal in a marriage blessed by God if for two imperfect people (a normal man and a normal woman) to become :"perfected" with His Love so that they can follow the path leading to perfection. Jesus was about all inclusive (mature love) as opposed to exclusive (immature) love. The irony in this hypothetical situation is that if a woman was married to the Jesus of the Bible, she would increase her sinning. If a woman was married to a regular Jesus, both would increase their sinning.
Besides where, in your view, is the Jesus who was a man in every way and yet perfect...apparently without sexuality? What you appear to describe is such a man....without sexuality. He was asexual?! If so, then he wasn't a man in every way. The very ideas contradict each other.
Good question and my answer will probably not please the theologians of the world but I believe that I'm correct. Jesus came as the Son of Man and is also known as the Son of God. Jesus was the ONLY person on this planet with a dual nature-Devine and human. we know that in order for Him to identify with mankind, He had to suffer(1 Peter 3:18) and that included urges and desires...that included sexual drives. We also know that he did not sin.( Hebrew 7:26) Now I'm saying that even though Jesus DID NOT sin, I believe that as a full human being, He, indeed, had the CAPACITY( my theory) to sin. Sin seems to imply a verb status. Now when one sits down and thinks about what Jesus pulled off, John 3:16 really should bring tears to your eyes.
End part 1…
What an act of love to suppress the urges that he most certainly had! If one can understand that, it’s easy to see that marriage Sexual does not make a man. In review, Jesus suffered to with mankind; that was His Son of Man status. While he did not sin ( the verb) he had the capacity to sin. This is the reason why the Devil came to tempt Him(Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12,13: Luke 4:1-4) and also the reason why the Devil's Advocates tempted Him (Matthew 27:39,40:Mark 15:29,20;Luke 23:36; I do not believe that would have been put in the Bible if He simply couldn't sin. What would be the point? Now as a human that could identify with the pains, temptations and suffering of mankind, He then could stand in front of God as our representative known as the Son of Man. I also believe that since Jesus was our "sin eater/catcher" the suffering of absorbing mankind sins was becoming unbearable as was illustrated in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39;Luke 22:41-44;Mark 14:35. His Love prevented Him from sinning. Jesus was on a mission to save us. I simply do not understand why that is so hard to comprehend. As for those spurious “gospels”, I consider them the same way I consider tabloids. They’re like Rodney Dangerfield to me- I give them NO respect. Good question and good night!
But the real answer of why marriage would have been IMPOSSIBLITY for the Jesus of the Bible is because romantic and exclusive love is SELFISH. If one studies 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 we see the characteristics of true love. Romantic love-especially in marriage-many time falls short of that Perfection. Now this is a difficult concept to grasp but if an infinite woman were married to the Jesus of the Bible, she would actually sin more out of sheer frustration! This paradox is he result of not being “perfected” by another imperfect person bound to Jesus.
End part 1…
Let's not get into an argument on the semantics of the word "bride," shall we? It's not going to help anything.
"The physical union of Jesus and a woman (necessarily under the curse of original sin) would have precluded Him giving His body for us. "
If I understand correctly, you're saying that Christ having sex would have prevented him from being the perfect sacrifice for humankind's sins, correct? Why is this?
When all's said and done, I think you believe this because you believe that purity has an intrinsic value that demands that we OUGHT to value it; and so, by extension, we ought to see Christ as the most fitting sacrifice for all of humankind's sins because he was the purest, sinless existence there ever was.
I argue this point in that purity, as a matter of course, is NOT valuable. We tend to value purity not for the purity itself, but for the uncertainty and possibility it reflects. We don't grieve a stillborn child's death because of the purity of its existence, but because it never had the chance to make any mistakes or learn what it means to really live a life.
Having said that, it makes MORE sense, not less, for Christ's sacrifice to be revered as it was and is because of the choice to be sacrificed for people he cared about, not because of some ideological notion of purity.
But let's recall the theme of Hebrews: better things. He was required to be better, to be qualified to be the high priest of His sacrifice for our sins. He was required to be better, to be qualified to be the sacrifice He offered. He was required to be God to complete the unity of the acceptance of the sacrifice (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9).
The teachings of Jesus are profound so profound and threatening that 2000 years later they are still little understood and rejected by the masses.
When Jesus stated one must take up the cross to follow him he was not kidding. His teachings repeated and lived out, as actions would get any follower in deep trouble with organized religions and the gov.
After 9/11 how many Christians followed the teachings of Jesus? How many, really?
A nation that calls itself a Christian nation that has a war machine so large that the world has never known such a massive industrial and military war complex.
I know I know Christians in America think and say they know the teachings of Jesus but their evidence and culture and ideologies says otherwise.
Example: Never met a preacher that understood Matthew 6: 6 to pray in silence and not in public or in church. I know I know preachers say it was not about them not to pray in silence or in public but those that lived 2000 years ago.
When one prays in church or in public the focus is on them not God, and preachers like it that way. The human ego is that deceptive.
Another example: never met a preacher that understood Matthew 11: 11. Most leave it out of their sermons. The Baptists have to leave it out for obvious reasons.