Does Jesus Marriage Negate His Deity

Are you a sincere seeker who has questions about Christianity, or a Christian with doubts about your faith? Post them here to receive a thoughtful response.
The edge
Established Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:20 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Does Jesus Marriage Negate His Deity

#1

Post by The edge » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:28 am

1st I know there are no evidence to support Jesus marriage. Yet there are also no direct scriptural reference that says He was not married. Thus, in the court of law, neither position can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Now let's suppose He has. Does it impact Christian theology or His deity 1 bit?

Josh McDowell wrote:
If Jesus had been married it won't touch the theology 1 bit. His marriage would reflect His engagement with His humanity

But here's some argument that it will
1) It is explicitly stated that the church is the bride of Christ - how can he have a wife, and that every born-again believer is a child of God - how can Jesus have a child

2) Marriage is an institution (Oxford definition of institution-an established custom or practice) in which Jesus has no need to participate in to prove his humanity. Marriage is sacred but it instituted for man and not for God.

3) The love that Jesus gives to us is not the "eros" love between husband and wife, but "agape" love, the highest form of love. Unfortunately, the English language word "love" does not distinguish between the three types of love reflected in the Greek counterpart. To say or even to hint that he has "eros" love for MM hits at the core of the "agape" love that Jesus has shown to us on the cross. A marriage by Jesus will greatly demean, degrade and diminsh His love for all mankind.

What's the response to the above.

Iggy
Recognized Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:05 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Germany
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#2

Post by Iggy » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:35 am

see, this is the crap that gets me.... bringin up pointless stuff!

User avatar
bluesman
Established Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:50 am
Christian: No
Location: Canada
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Davinci Code

#3

Post by bluesman » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:55 am

There will be some shows coming out that show that this Dan Brown Davinci code, Holy Grail book, theory of MM married to Jesus is a bunch of bull.

I hope it gets the coverage that the movie gets so the world can see the truth.

The fact that the four gospels don't mention Jesus being married is a good indication that he was not. The writers of the four gospels knew wether Jesus was married or not and they believe in Jesus divinity. Why would you hide something Jesus did when you believed he was perfect?

The gnostics I believe also knew Jesus was not married. Why? Because they believe sex , was an necessary but evil thing. Yet they worshipped Jesus in their own way.

This Gospel of Phillip I hear has a piece missing where its was guessed to be talking about some kiss Jesus gave Mary Magdalene.

Mary Magdalene husband is raised up from the dead, yet she doesn't recognize her own husband? So Jesus say " Hey Honey its me your husband ! Come give me a big hug and kiss" ?

Mike
Bluesman

User avatar
ryo dokomi
Established Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:10 am
Christian: No
Location: Mizu no kuni o kirigakure no sato
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#4

Post by ryo dokomi » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:11 am

of course there is evidence that he didnt get married, and its scripture. there are two reasons i give people, here they are:

1. Man sins. the woman was desived, and so the man was the one that did the first sin. Sin is carried down by the man, not the woman. hence the reason Jesus was born by a vergin woman, with no human man involved. So, he is without the sin nature. (he can sin, but it is not in him to.) if he married and had a child like those people believe, then there would be a child without the sin nature, a whole line of them now actually. and since Jesus is the only one without sin, (said in Prophecy) then that means that none of what they say is possible according to scripture.

2. We, the church, are the bride of Christ. he was waiting for his marriage with the bride. bottom line.
Therefore, submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. James 4:7

it is all about submitting before God, then, and only then, will we have the promise given in Luke 10:19

The edge
Established Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:20 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#5

Post by The edge » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:35 am

ryo dokomi wrote:of course there is evidence that he didnt get married, and its scripture. there are two reasons i give people, here they are:

1. Man sins. the woman was desived, and so the man was the one that did the first sin. Sin is carried down by the man, not the woman. hence the reason Jesus was born by a vergin woman, with no human man involved. So, he is without the sin nature. (he can sin, but it is not in him to.) if he married and had a child like those people believe, then there would be a child without the sin nature, a whole line of them now actually. and since Jesus is the only one without sin, (said in Prophecy) then that means that none of what they say is possible according to scripture.

2. We, the church, are the bride of Christ. he was waiting for his marriage with the bride. bottom line.
I disagree with pt 1. Adam was "born" sinless. But he fell. Jesus was born sinless, He didn't fall. When we speak of His marriage, 1st we can't even assume He has a child. Suppose He has, we also cannot assume that the child sinless by birth will remain sinless. That's the beauty of Christ humanity....born sinless & remain sinless.

As for point 2, it's no difference with the 1st point in my question. By virtue that the church is the bride of Christ does not mean He cannot have an earthly bride just like we being His spiritual brother does not disqualify Him from having physical brother ....& mother....& father etc.
I need a confirmation of my thoughts for this point though.

The edge
Established Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:20 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#6

Post by The edge » Mon May 01, 2006 9:44 am

Received another input.
The purpose of marriage is for procreation, companionship as well as for the woman to be a helpmeet.
Jesus being perfect does not need all the above. As a result, Jesus marriage will defy theology....or it would be a meaningless "exercise" for Him....Hmmm

User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5308
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#7

Post by Canuckster1127 » Mon May 01, 2006 11:03 am

The edge wrote:Received another input.
The purpose of marriage is for procreation, companionship as well as for the woman to be a helpmeet.
Jesus being perfect does not need all the above. As a result, Jesus marriage will defy theology....or it would be a meaningless "exercise" for Him....Hmmm
Off the top of my head:

Jesus' immaculate conception raises questions as to a mate. Marriage combines Husband and wife to "one flesh." Can righteousness comingle with unrighteousness in this regard? I don't think so.

No mention of a marriage ceremony anywhere. Jesus was without sin. Therefore fornication did not happen.

Jesus' marriage supper is in heaven, when the bride (the church) arrives and sin has been removed. Obviously the parallel here is symbolic, but nevertheless, there would be a conflict present within the symbolism if Jesus had married.

We had better be prepared for these types of questions.

The Da Vinci Code will raise all kinds of questions with unbelievers as well as believers who are not equipped to defend this question.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

//bartsbarometer.com/

The edge
Established Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:20 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#8

Post by The edge » Tue May 02, 2006 9:51 am

Canuckster1127 wrote:
The edge wrote:Received another input.
The purpose of marriage is for procreation, companionship as well as for the woman to be a helpmeet.
Jesus being perfect does not need all the above. As a result, Jesus marriage will defy theology....or it would be a meaningless "exercise" for Him....Hmmm
Off the top of my head:

Jesus' immaculate conception raises questions as to a mate. Marriage combines Husband and wife to "one flesh." Can righteousness comingle with unrighteousness in this regard? I don't think so.

No mention of a marriage ceremony anywhere. Jesus was without sin. Therefore fornication did not happen.

Jesus' marriage supper is in heaven, when the bride (the church) arrives and sin has been removed. Obviously the parallel here is symbolic, but nevertheless, there would be a conflict present within the symbolism if Jesus had married.

We had better be prepared for these types of questions.

The Da Vinci Code will raise all kinds of questions with unbelievers as well as believers who are not equipped to defend this question.
Hmm... I thot about this. Yes, in a marriage, 2 shall become one...but yet each is still distinct. Is there room for Jesus to be God, to be human & to be married?

The word fornication has a negative conoctation. But sex within a marraige is sanction by God & beautiful.

User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5308
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#9

Post by Canuckster1127 » Tue May 02, 2006 11:04 am

The edge wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:
The edge wrote:Received another input.
The purpose of marriage is for procreation, companionship as well as for the woman to be a helpmeet.
Jesus being perfect does not need all the above. As a result, Jesus marriage will defy theology....or it would be a meaningless "exercise" for Him....Hmmm
Off the top of my head:

Jesus' immaculate conception raises questions as to a mate. Marriage combines Husband and wife to "one flesh." Can righteousness comingle with unrighteousness in this regard? I don't think so.

No mention of a marriage ceremony anywhere. Jesus was without sin. Therefore fornication did not happen.

Jesus' marriage supper is in heaven, when the bride (the church) arrives and sin has been removed. Obviously the parallel here is symbolic, but nevertheless, there would be a conflict present within the symbolism if Jesus had married.

We had better be prepared for these types of questions.

The Da Vinci Code will raise all kinds of questions with unbelievers as well as believers who are not equipped to defend this question.
Hmm... I thot about this. Yes, in a marriage, 2 shall become one...but yet each is still distinct. Is there room for Jesus to be God, to be human & to be married?

The word fornication has a negative conoctation. But sex within a marraige is sanction by God & beautiful.
I agree, sex within marriage is a beautiful thing.

The issue of the two becoming one is germaine, in my opinion. There is a taint of sin for all humanity that comes from the original fall. That was the purpose of Christ's incarnation outside of "normal" conception.

If Sin was an issue and necessitated Christ's being conceived by the Holy Spirit, how could He corresponsingly turn around and engage in physical union when there is a spiritual element to marriage that brings husband and wife together as one "flesh".

It's inconsistent and frankly outside Christ's purpose and ministry. Knowing he was destined for the cross as He did, do you not see some inconsistency as well with entering into a marriage union knowing He would not be around for His "wife" let alone any children?

It's a hypothetical in one sense, but as you say there is absolutely no credible evidence to the contrary other than pseudopigraphal works written 200 - 300 years after Christ's resurrection.

Beyond that, I believe there is enough that we do know about the nature of Christ's humanity, divinity, conception, death and resurrection as to render any such speculation as inconsistent with what we do know.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

//bartsbarometer.com/

FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1684
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#10

Post by FFC » Tue May 02, 2006 11:16 am

1. Man sins. the woman was desived, and so the man was the one that did the first sin. Sin is carried down by the man, not the woman. hence the reason Jesus was born by a vergin woman, with no human man involved. So, he is without the sin nature.
Wait. Are you saying women don't have a sin nature? :shock:

The edge
Established Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:20 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#11

Post by The edge » Tue May 02, 2006 9:46 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote:
The issue of the two becoming one is germaine, in my opinion. There is a taint of sin for all humanity that comes from the original fall. That was the purpose of Christ's incarnation outside of "normal" conception.

If Sin was an issue and necessitated Christ's being conceived by the Holy Spirit, how could He corresponsingly turn around and engage in physical union when there is a spiritual element to marriage that brings husband and wife together as one "flesh".

It's inconsistent and frankly outside Christ's purpose and ministry. Knowing he was destined for the cross as He did, do you not see some inconsistency as well with entering into a marriage union knowing He would not be around for His "wife" let alone any children?.

However, the way I see the reason that Christ has to be conceived by the Holy Spirit is not so much because God cannot be in 1 flesh with a sinner but simply because there's no God in the flesh prior to Christ. Thus it might be more of a physical barrier than a spiritual one. If it is a spiritual one, I cannot imagine the Holy Spirit can be "exempted" from the tainting of sin.

Many persuasion Of Christ not being married also comes from the angle of His purpose & calling. However, there's still this argument that Christ could be married prior to His public ministry as well as the fact that loving a wife does not diminished His love for the human race....just as my love for my wife don't diminished my love for my parents or child.

I know that there are many thoughts & argument that scream inside me that it is inconsistent for Christ to be married. But I wonder if this is a result of people our seated impression of who & what God should be. Christ defies many traditional expectation of Him during His life time. I just want to be sure that the "No No" to Jesus marriage is not another "pharisical rule" that we impse on His humanity base on our finite mind.

User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5308
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#12

Post by Canuckster1127 » Wed May 03, 2006 5:18 am

The edge wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:
The issue of the two becoming one is germaine, in my opinion. There is a taint of sin for all humanity that comes from the original fall. That was the purpose of Christ's incarnation outside of "normal" conception.

If Sin was an issue and necessitated Christ's being conceived by the Holy Spirit, how could He corresponsingly turn around and engage in physical union when there is a spiritual element to marriage that brings husband and wife together as one "flesh".

It's inconsistent and frankly outside Christ's purpose and ministry. Knowing he was destined for the cross as He did, do you not see some inconsistency as well with entering into a marriage union knowing He would not be around for His "wife" let alone any children?.

However, the way I see the reason that Christ has to be conceived by the Holy Spirit is not so much because God cannot be in 1 flesh with a sinner but simply because there's no God in the flesh prior to Christ. Thus it might be more of a physical barrier than a spiritual one. If it is a spiritual one, I cannot imagine the Holy Spirit can be "exempted" from the tainting of sin.

Many persuasion Of Christ not being married also comes from the angle of His purpose & calling. However, there's still this argument that Christ could be married prior to His public ministry as well as the fact that loving a wife does not diminished His love for the human race....just as my love for my wife don't diminished my love for my parents or child.

I know that there are many thoughts & argument that scream inside me that it is inconsistent for Christ to be married. But I wonder if this is a result of people our seated impression of who & what God should be. Christ defies many traditional expectation of Him during His life time. I just want to be sure that the "No No" to Jesus marriage is not another "pharisical rule" that we impse on His humanity base on our finite mind.
I don't presume to have a complete handle on this in terms of the ehy's and wherefores.

Frankly, since it is clear within the gospel texts that marriage is honorable and established with God, there is no reason based on the honor and legitimacy of the institution that Christ could not be married.

HOWEVER, based on the unique nature of Christ, within an understanding of the hypostatic union, within the purpose of His earthly ministry and further the fact that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that he even married, the question is moot, and in the end a great deal of thought and effort being placed in it, is rather unfruitful as all opinions will by necessity need to be by inference.

I think some effort is worthwhile hoever, simply because of the DaVinci code claims which will be become part of many questions Christians must be prepared to answer.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

//bartsbarometer.com/

User avatar
Malach
Newbie Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:32 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#13

Post by Malach » Sat May 06, 2006 8:41 pm

The edge wrote:Received another input.
The purpose of marriage is for procreation, companionship as well as for the woman to be a helpmeet.
Jesus being perfect does not need all the above. As a result, Jesus marriage will defy theology....or it would be a meaningless "exercise" for Him....Hmmm
Jesus was also human, having human emotions and feelings. It wouldn't demean His position as God in the least bit, but rather show the full extent that He came "in the flesh"

waynes world
Established Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:20 pm
Christian: No
Location: portland oregon
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#14

Post by waynes world » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:18 pm

I don't think Jesus was necessairly single. Thats just tradition. We don't have any records of his family if he had one because it was a culture deal. Wives weren't thought of very highly in that culture. I agree with McDowell whom I had the pleasure of meeting personally.

User avatar
Canuckster1127
Old School
Posts: 5308
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

#15

Post by Canuckster1127 » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:02 am

waynes world wrote:I don't think Jesus was necessairly single. Thats just tradition. We don't have any records of his family if he had one because it was a culture deal. Wives weren't thought of very highly in that culture. I agree with McDowell whom I had the pleasure of meeting personally.
Josh McDowell?

I wasn't aware he allowed for Jesus being married in this regard. Do you have a reference for that?

Thanks.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

//bartsbarometer.com/

Post Reply