Name:Kurgan •
Title: My observations •
Date posted: 03/01/07 17:39
Q: With my experience talking to hundreds of people about the Da Vinci Code on IMDB.com, I can tell you that the average Christian (nominal or not) doesn't have a big problem with the possibility that Jesus was married (to Mary Magdalane or to any other woman) and had a child or several children.
Sex within marriage is not a sin. Having children isn't a sin.
In Christian belief, since Jesus is both God AND man (having two natures, not some "part God" or "part man" hybrid like the demi-god Hercules, but FULLY both), only his human nature is passed on via procreation.
Thus his children and wife would not be anymore "divine" than you or me.
If Jesus of Nazareth was not celibate, it would diminish the power of what he said (ie: let he who can accept this teaching should accept it... referring to the practice of sexual continence, ie: chastity).
After all, why listen to Jesus about the celibacy ideal if he himself didn't practice it?
Now, let me tell you I'm a skeptic about this whole Jesus tomb business. I feel "burned" after the whole "James Ossuary" thing, and I'm convinced that the Shroud of Turin and the alleged tomb of Jesus in the Kashmir are hoaxes.
Certainly this is an important discovery, but is it really the tomb of the historical Jesus? (and his family, the Biblical characters we think they represent)
I'm doubtful. I'll watch the doco when it comes out though of course, and do further study, but from the outset those are my feelings.
Getting that out of the way, one "clue" if you will, from the extremely late (and therefore not very historically reliable) "Acts of Philip" (I couldn't find any mandate for assuming that it was promoting vegetarianism... the phrase "bread and water" refers to fasting, and the same document specifically proclaims Jesus promoting "all meats" as clean though of course "meats" can refer to any nourishing food)... that is, in the story Philip and Mariamne (I'm not sure who it is first claimed that Mariamne was Mary Magdalane's first name, the text itself makes no such claim), both are teaching that husbands and wives should seperate and avoid sexual intercourse with each other.. instead, taking up a life of ascetical piety.
This is similar to the message in the Apocryphal "Acts of Paul and Thecla."
Well, to make a long story short, if this 4th/5th century text accurately reflects the teachings of Jesus (though his apostle Phillip), it's conceivable that Jesus WAS married, but, sometime after conceiving their son, agreed mutally that he and his wife would still live together but as "brother and sister" (NOT to be confused with divorce, which was permanent legal seperation, which Jesus only allowed on the grounds of adultery) and not as husband and wife (that is, they would avoid sexual relations, taking a life of sexual continence for the sake of holiness).
Of course this would disagree with the teachings of Paul (in the 50's-60's CE, hundreds of years before the Acts of Phillip was composed), who proclaimed that while celibacy was best, a married couple should stay married and only put off sex with each other temporarily (for prayer and fasting), but to "come together again" to avoid either falling into greater temptation. Paul also advocated people who found it impossible to maintain sexual purity to be married as an escape valve (rather than commit sins like fornication or prostitution, presumably).
So in this theoretical (but far fetched) scenario, perhaps Jesus was "converted" to the idea of chastity within marriage and then spread this to his followers. Of course it would be surprising that none of his opponents said "Oh, but secretly Jesus still has sex with his wife, the hypocrite" Or Paul might reference the wife of the Lord when he's arguing that he has the RIGHT to get married and take his wife with him on his journeys if he wants to (even though he chooses not to). He uses the example of Peter and other disciples who are (or were) married, but not Jesus himself (which would seem like the ultimate trump card, why did he leave it out?).
The Gospels of Philip and Mary may seem to give Mary Magdalane a greater role, but none of them point to Jesus as being her husband.
IF Jesus was married to anyone (whether Mariamne was Mary Magdalane or somebody else), it would seem that this is unprecedented. No ancient Christian text we know of refers to it. It seems nobody for at least a thousand years even speculated that Jesus was a husband or a father.
His fellow Jewish opponents called him a sorceror, none of them alleged sexual immorality, or his wife in any of their stories (ie: Toledoth Yeshu other references to "Yeshu" in the Talmuds, etc).
So a married Jesus isn't really that much of a problem for Christians or theology.
It is a problem for the New Testament, since it raises questions about Jesus' infallability (if he had to be "converted" to a new philosophy, that implies he didn't have all knowledge, or that he was once mistaken about theology and had to change his views, or at worst it implies hypocrisy on his part).
Incidentally, Paul could be interpreted as allowing divorce if the "non-believing spouse" left the other. However he urged converts not to leave their non-Christian spouse, just because the other person wasn't a member of the Church (hoping that by their example, the non-believing spouse would be "sanctified" and converted by their example). Some say this still leaves room in Paul to say that a Christian should not voluntarily marry a non-Christian. But that's another topic for another time.
Anyway, if Jesus was a married father, it raises questions about the accuracy and sufficiency of the New Testament. It also makes the theological views of the family and celibacy a little more gray (or in need of revision).
The real "problem" in the Jesus Tomb thing for Christians is the bodily resurrection.
I don't buy what the folks were saying about how Jesus COULD have resurrected 30+ years after his death or something after his body was reduced to bones and dust. By that time all the apostles would have died off and who would follow a movement like this with no resurrection? Paul talks about the resurrection as early as the 50's CE (a mere 20 years after Jesus' death). Who would believe him if they had Jesus' ossuary?
Why didn't people venerate this ancient tomb and instead focus on the Holy Seplechure or the Garden Tomb?
If Jesus rose in three days, why would his body COME BACK? Finally, if he simpy "survived" the crucifixion, clawed his way or was rescued out of the first tomb and then died naturally years later, again, why the belief in the early Church? Why not mention his second death.. how about more teachings after his "survival" of the cross? I would think that would be pretty important, yet nobody, not even the Gnostics mention these things.
The Gnostics seem hung up on the idea that Jesus HAD no physical body.
Comments welcome!
Name:BlessedYou •
Date: 03/05/07 8:06
A: Simple history was re-written 30 generations later. in 400AD
As they say the winners always get to re-write history,
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 8:44
A: Blessedyou,
Objection, facts not in evidence. This is a common theory, but it doesn't have any direct evidence, so it can't be passed off as established fact. Also, the New Testament gospels were all written before the close of the first century.
Kurgan, you are the first person on this site that seems to have even an inkling about the underlying material, and isn't arguing on the basis of supposition with little basis in fact.
Name:BobInBpt •
Date: 03/08/07 17:14
A: Kurgan wrote: "If Jesus rose in three days, why would his body COME BACK?" Good point; why WOULD his body come back? If he had offered up his physical body as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, then how could he take it back again? Wouldn't that invalidate his sacrifice?
And yet if we are to take the Gospels as true and authoritative, in John 20:26,27 we are told that Jesus invited Thomas to place his fingers in his wounds so that he might believe. Also in Luke 24:39-43 Jesus tells his disciples that he is NOT a spirit or ghost, that "a spirit has not flesh and bones" as he has and he sits down and eats with them. Now are these two accounts proof of a resurrection or proof of his having survived crucifixion ? Was the miracle that made early Christians faithful to the death a belief in the resurrection or a belief that God would preserve them alive and enable them to survive torture and crucifixion also?
Church writers would have us believe that the body that Jesus displayed to his disciples after the resurrection was not the same body that he offered up at Calvary, but rather a "glorified body". As Kurgan states, the Gnostics didn't seem to believe that Jesus had a physical body at all and various sects of Christians believed that he was half man, half divine. Yet the Gospel of John distinctly tells us that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John1:14. The Gospel does not state that he became half flesh, half spirit.
What would be the purpose of appearing before his disciples in a new physical body and yet a new body displaying the wounds of the old body? Are we to believe from this that Christian amputees and the wounded are resurrected to heaven with missing limbs and wounds? Might he not just as well have appeared as a spirit or a vision as he did in the "Transfiguration" reported at Matt 17:2 ? And why in the Gospel accounts do none of his disciples recognize him until he displays his wounds? And if he did indeed ascend to heaven with this new physical body is this not a contradiction of I Cor. 15:50 which states that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God"...? There is certainly a lot of conflicting and contradictory information found in the Gospels so what are we to believe?
To me, the reports that he himself claimed to be "flesh and bones" and not a spirit(Luke 24:39) and that he ate and drank with his disciples three days after his death, is proof positive that he survived the crucifixion and THAT was the miracle that inspired faith, not a physical resurrection after death. The Apostle Paul claimed that Jesus was the "first fruits" of those who have "fallen asleep"(in death). If that is the case and Jesus' resurrection was a pattern for those believers who would follow him, then why do we not all get a new physical body three days after our death, visit with our families and friends and then ascend to heaven afterward as he did?
Name:mark •
Date: 03/10/07 7:52
A: I think that the biggest problem with all of this is that the vast majority of christians believe the Bible is infallible and essentially have made it the 4th member of the Godhead.
