# Da Vinci and Jesus Being Married



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 22, 2006)

Let's say you have a conversation with an ignorant American who just saw Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci Code. The guy says he loved the movie. You, then, take all but 15 minutes to decrypt the stupidity of Dan Brown's novel and how Howard and Hanks made a huge error in even propagating such drivel.

After all that, the guy says to you, "Well, what if Jesus was married? How does that change anything in the bible?"

How would you answer him? 

(I'm just curious to see how people react to this question, because the logical end of all this "Da Vinci" stuff ultimately could ask this question apart from any "heretical" doctrine - like "Jesus was just a good man". Some could simply ask - could Jesus have been married, and what does that change about the Bible if anything? To me, there are some big consequences, but I'm curious to see how others take this...)

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## tdowns (May 22, 2006)

*I was just thinking the same thing...*

I'm visiting relatives, some of which are "Christians" and the topic came up--as well as evolution--and seeing as it was over dinner, I gave quick, but I think logical statements denying both the Davinci theories and the evolution theories. Later as I dosed off for sleep and as I pondered how I handled it, and wondered if I should have said more, or if I should have been more or less forceful in presenting truth; this very question came to my mind, how would that have made Jesus, less than perfect, or less than God? What if someone at the table said, "So what?"

Some thoughts I had were:

1. Sex: Well, sex is not sin inside marriage, so if Jesus was married, then, would not be sin...of course no mention of this in bible, but as a hypothetical, would it be blasphemy to say he was married? How do I explain to a non-believer that being married is a bad thing so God would not be able to participate in this human relation despite being fully human????

2. Offspring: Being mixed with a sinful beings seed, the offspring should be no different than any other genetically...sinful through Adam....but.....if Mary was able to have Jesus without sin, then, maybe his kids should not have original sin.....??????

3. It undermines the clear teaching of scripture: It is obviously not taught in scripture, and so adding such a dramatic addition to the story is very problematic.

It feels blasphemous to even engage these thoughts about our Lord, but, just wondering about the answers, these things came to mind.


----------



## Robin (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Let's say you have a conversation with an ignorant American who just saw Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci Code. The guy says he loved the movie. You, then, take all but 15 minutes to decrypt the stupidity of Dan Brown's novel and how Howard and Hanks made a huge error in even propagating such drivel.
> 
> After all that, the guy says to you, "Well, what if Jesus was married? How does that change anything in the bible?"
> ...



The best answer lies in explaining Covenant Theology and how God's promise unfolds, eschatalogically in Redemptive history.

If Christ is anything but: Prophet, Priest, King - as taught in the OT, who has fulfilled all the prophecies and the covenant that he had with the Father "before time began" -- then Christianity is useless.

Similarly, if Jesus was: a space alien; moralist; idealist, nuts, Etc., Christianity is useless. There's added opportunity to clear-up the "Jesus is my boyfriend/butler" nonsense Evangelicalism embraces. 

Like the Apostle Paul said: if "Christ is not risen, we are most to be pitied" -- and we should all go back to sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

Besides, how could the sinless Son of God ever be joined to a sinner? Ontologically, HOW can that work? This question leads to explaining the Trinity among other things. Marriage is pointless for the One who is even now at God's right hand, interceding for His bride: the Church.

There's lots of spade-work to do. What a wonderful opportunity to get the knowledge of Christ explained out there in the "Areopogus" of our time! 

Let us bear with the weakness and sin of others and take great care to be winsome, gentle and fearless in defending the Gospel. The Gospel is offensive enough. May we endeavor to not add to its offense.

At least...this is the way, I see things.

Robin


----------



## srhoades (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> Besides, how could the sinless Son of God ever be joined to a sinner? Ontologically, HOW can that work? This question leads to explaining the Trinity among other things. Marriage is pointless for the One who is even now at God's right hand, interceding for His bride: the Church.
> 
> ...



I saw this thread and had trouble coming up with an answer even though my insticts told me there was one, I just couldn't put my finger on it. I think your response hits the nail on the head. The Bible teaches that in marriage, the two flesh become one. If theoretically Jesus were to marry, how could Jesus, perfect in nature unite with a sin nature?


----------



## Average Joey (May 22, 2006)

Besides what everybody else has stated.Simply put,if Jesus was married the Bible would be proven of error.


----------



## blhowes (May 22, 2006)

Its good to use whatever resources are available. I don't think its a cop out, if you don't know all the answers to their questions, to let them listen to Matthew's Podcast, where he gives some good background information about the book/movie and, in an entertaining way, shows the seriousness of what's going on.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 22, 2006)

I believe that the greatest clue that Jesus could have been married is the greatest clue that he was not. That clue being that it was expected that a rabbi be married. It would be shameful for a rabbi NOT to be married. In fact, it was considered a curse by the culture for any jewish male not to have a wife. It was the responsibility of the parents to arrange for a wife by the time the son was 16 years old. So cultural setting tells us the Jesus should have been married. Some church fathers say he was married because it was important that Christ sanctified every facet of life. We could suggest he was married because scripture says he was tempted in every way. How could he be tempted to commit adultery if he was never married?

However, we know that Jesus was a non conformist in many ways though in all things he sought to fulfill righteousness, baptism for example.

We have to ask WHY was it so important that a jewish man be married? Answer, to perpetuate the line of David and thereby secure the imminent arrival of messiah. Jesus WOULD HAVE NO PRESSURE OR NECESSITY TO PERPETUATE THE LINE OF DAVID. HE WAS THE FULFILLMENT.

For Jesus to marry and procreate would be a denial of his messiahship.

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## blhowes (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> If Christ is anything but: Prophet, Priest, King - as taught in the OT, who has fulfilled all the prophecies and the covenant that he had with the Father "before time began" -- then Christianity is useless.


Just to dig a little deeper, one response from those who are 'excited' about the Dum Vinci phenomon, might be:


> Exo 4:20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.
> 
> Luk 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
> 
> 1Sa 18:27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.



Moses (prophet), Zacharias (priest), and David (king) were all married men, and they fulfilled their offices. Why would there be a conflict if Jesus married?

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by blhowes]


----------



## BobVigneault (May 22, 2006)

Thinking some more, Genesis tells us that in marriage we become ONE flesh. We are also told that there is one God and one mediator. Some church fathers belived that Christs human nature could have been married and not been a conflict with his divine side. However, the one flesh aspect would violate the role of ONE mediator.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 22, 2006)

I think some are missing the point... It's not about something being wrong with Jesus getting married (which never happened,) but rather that Christ's earthly ministry was part of a mission. Saying that Christ started a family, as the spurious pseudo-Gosepl storyline behind the _Da Vinci Code_ does is a denial of the Gospel claims. _The Da Vinci Code_ precludes the death, burial and resurrection, and Christ making an ascension into Heaven. It's a denial of the Gospel.

We must face C.S. Lewis' trillema... He was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord.


----------



## Average Joey (May 22, 2006)

Also remember He wasn`t here to enjoy one of life`s biggest pleasures.To marry is to put your focus elsewhere.Jesus had a mission to accomplish.


----------



## Average Joey (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I think some are missing the point... It's not about something being wrong with Jesus getting married (which never happened,) but rather that Christ's earthly ministry was part of a mission. Saying that Christ started a family, as the spurious pseudo-Gosepl storyline behind the _Da Vinci Code_ does is a denial of the Gospel claims. _The Da Vinci Code_ precludes the death, burial and resurrection, and Christ making an ascension into Heaven. It's a denial of the Gospel.
> 
> We must face C.S. Lewis' trillema... He was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> We must face C.S. Lewis' trillema... He was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord.[/size]



Lewis did not quite foresee the fourth "L" and that is Legend. The new fad is to present Jesus as a legend based on a historical figure who never claimed those things that the church said he claimed. This fourth position is the position of the Dum Vinci code.


----------



## blhowes (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I think some are missing the point... It's not about something being wrong with Jesus getting married (which never happened,) but rather that Christ's earthly ministry was part of a mission. Saying that Christ started a family, as the spurious pseudo-Gosepl storyline behind the _Da Vinci Code_ does is a denial of the Gospel claims. _The Da Vinci Code_ precludes the death, burial and resurrection, and Christ making an ascension into Heaven. It's a denial of the Gospel.
> 
> We must face C.S. Lewis' trillema... He was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord.


I obviously haven't thought it through. The ramifications of the storyline are much clearer now. Thanks for giving the proper focus.


----------



## kceaster (May 22, 2006)

For Jesus to have been married to an earthly wife, He would have been guilty of adultery, eschatologically speaking. He already has a bride; choice and pure. For Him to have married means that He would have scorned the bride God chose for Him.

Additionally, although we know that periods were left out of Jesus' life, we have a pretty good picture of His last three years. It is never spoken that He had a wife and children during those three years.

After His resurrection, He appeared for 40 days and then He ascended into heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of God, there to intercede for us. If all of this is not true, then there is no hope that anything in the Bible is true.

We should focus on the ascension if we are to confound the detractors. Jesus' ascension is nearly as important as the resurrection. If He did not ascend, then He surely cannot descend at His second coming. 

Christ is now glorifed. Would He have been glorified living in Spain with a wife and half a dozen kids?

The Apostles are silent. Acts 15 makes no sense. All of the Christians living in that day would have traveled anywhere to see Jesus. Paul would have gone to learn from Him.

There are numerous NT Scriptures that make no sense if Christ is living in Spain.

2Cor 5:6-8
1Cor 15:1-8 - spoken of being seen in the past tense, inferring that He may not be seen in the body any longer.
Col 3:1 (present tense); Heb 1:3, 1:13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; 1Pe 3:21-22

Just to name a few that are not true if Christ was married, living in Spain.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## BobVigneault (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I think some are missing the point... It's not about something being wrong with Jesus getting married ..........




That was the original question of this thread.


----------



## panta dokimazete (May 22, 2006)

> For Jesus to have been married to an earthly wife, He would have been guilty of adultery, eschatologically speaking. He already has a bride; choice and pure. For Him to have married means that He would have scorned the bride God chose for Him.



I concur - your line of thinking was my first thought as to the key to a rebuttal.

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Revelation 19:7
Let us rejoice and exultand give him the glory,for the marriage of the Lamb has come,and his Bride has made herself ready;

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott (May 22, 2006)

Matt: Darrell Bock (DTS professor and author of Breaking the Da Vinci Code) in a presentation he gave here said that he and several other theologians from accross different lines (liberal, conservative, etc.) was asked that question by NBC News, and they all responded that it does not change a single thing. In other words, if Jesus had been married, orthodox Christianity remains unchanged.


----------



## Hungus (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Matt: Darrell Bock (DTS professor and author of Breaking the Da Vinci Code) in a presentation he gave here said that he and several other theologians from accross different lines (liberal, conservative, etc.) was asked that question by NBC News, and they all responded that it does not change a single thing. In other words, if Jesus had been married, orthodox Christianity remains unchanged.



Yes but Darrell Bock also believes that the church and Israel are two completely different entities.   kceaster has it right, if Jesus was married then he could not remarry the bride of Christ later with his original bride still living. Further, if sin descends from Adam, since from a Jewish perspective then it is the seed that is corrupt then Jesus' children would be born without original sin... from a Jewish perspective. I fell for the line about Jesus possibly being married 20 years ago when I first read HBHG, and even as a 12 year old it didn't take too long to figure out how that wouldn't work.


----------



## py3ak (May 22, 2006)

If He was married He was a rotten husband, and thus not sinless.


----------



## blhowes (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Christ is now glorifed. Would He have been glorified living in Spain with a wife and half a dozen kids?


Let me get this straight. In the story, instead of his death, burial, and resurrection, he married Mary M., settled down in Spain, and raised a family? Is this the gist of it?

In the story, is He still living in Spain? Did Mary die?


----------



## Scott (May 22, 2006)

> Yes but Darrell Bock also believes that the church and Israel are two completely different entities.


True, but he is still orthodox. And his understanding of Christology, trinitarianism, and church history is excellent.


> kceaster has it right, if Jesus was married then he could not remarry the bride of Christ later with his original bride still living.


It is not the same thing (the relation to the church vs. a relation to a woman). Besides, had polygamy been repealed at that point? 



> Further, if sin descends from Adam, since from a Jewish perspective then it is the seed that is corrupt then Jesus' children would be born without original sin... from a Jewish perspective.


Bock was responding to a question about what effects, if any, marriage by Jesus would have. He was not addressing a question of what effect his having children would have on orthodoxy. 

BTW, Bock overwhelming discredits the notion that Jesus was married. 

Scott


----------



## Scott (May 22, 2006)

> Let me get this straight. In the story, instead of his death, burial, and resurrection, he married Mary M., settled down in Spain, and raised a family? Is this the gist of it?
> 
> In the story, is He still living in Spain? Did Mary die?


He had children and his descendants eventually founded the Merovingian Dynasty in France. Don't remember any reference to Spain in Dan Brown's book, but it could be there.


----------



## kceaster (May 22, 2006)

*Bob...*



> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



I haven't read the story, but as I understand it, they moved to somewhere in Europe during the NT era where the children were born. I'm not sure where the story places Jesus now. I'm guessing DaVinci's Jesus died again.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by kceaster]


----------



## kceaster (May 22, 2006)

I don't know, but for some reason, I find it utterly appalling that Christ would have engaged in human intercourse.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Hungus (May 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > Yes but Darrell Bock also believes that the church and Israel are two completely different entities.
> ...


Actually, I understand any form of dispensationalism to be at least on the verge of heresy, I will give PD some latitude as I have yet to find anyone who can tell me exactly what it entails (I have spoken to Drs Bock and Blaising and they differ on the matter) So for the time being I will simply refer to it as serious error rather than heresy.. Bock's view of history is also subject as he attempts to claim that dispensationalism is the understanding that the apostles had, rather than being effectively invented by Darby. Now I will say that the advent of PD moves it dispensationalism closer to orthodoxy than CD, MD or RD and that these moves are a good thing, however I still understand it to be in violation of Nicene creed lines 24,25 and 30 and thus not orthodox. But this is not a dispensationalism discussion and so I apologise for rambling.

If anyone really wants to know what Dan Brown proposes then take a look at Holy Blood Holy Grail, it is an amazing piece that every history student should read as it shows in every way how one should not do research. It is worth the time to read however if you want to apologise Christianity to TDVC readers.

You may also want to look at James White's entries on TDVC here : http://www.aomin.org/tdvc.html




> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by blhowes_
> ...



According to HBHG and TDVC Christ never died on the cross and so He just died the one time of old age... Of course that makes all of Christianity a foolish endevour. His descendants became the Merovingian line (as represented as half fish men from the sea being 1/2 Christ thus half fish ) and became a divine ruling people. Of course the BBC wonderfully exposed that the priory of scion was just a political move by a french politician in an effort to get elected to Parliament If I recall correctly.

This is all I can say publicly about the situation. Forgive me for not continuing but everyone of us has our weak points and mine was a deep exposure to Gnosticism and mystery religion at a young age and so I really cannot talk about such matters to any depth without dredging up old things better left dead.

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by Hungus]


----------



## Robin (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I think some are missing the point... It's not about something being wrong with Jesus getting married (which never happened,) but rather that Christ's earthly ministry was part of a mission. Saying that Christ started a family, as the spurious pseudo-Gosepl storyline behind the _Da Vinci Code_ does is a denial of the Gospel claims. _The Da Vinci Code_ precludes the death, burial and resurrection, and Christ making an ascension into Heaven. It's a denial of the Gospel.
> 
> We must face C.S. Lewis' trillema... He was either a lunatic, liar, or Lord.



Ryan's got it! 

Robin


----------



## Robin (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Actually, Lewis DID consider this...he viewed it as impossible. Why? Because the textural evidence makes it so. The NT was complete within a generation of Christ's ascension - much too early to allow for myth/legend to instill. One needs over 100 years to get even the slightest legend going.... 

This means the "church of Elvis" won't really kick-in until 2070 something.

This is fun to use to disarm the DVC.



r.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> ...




Actually I wasn't thinking of TDVC as much as I was The Jesus Seminar, higher criticism and the liberal theology of the last 200 years. 

"The Jesus Seminar was organized under the auspices of the Westar Institute to renew the quest of the historical Jesus and to report the results of its research to more than a handful of gospel specialists."

Because so many have chosen 'myth' it is certainly not impossible.

The trilemma (or quadlemma) is simply the 3 or 4 different filters through which someone might process the life and teachings of Jesus. The quickened believer will always choose Lord, the unregenerate will choose from the other three. In a post modern culture an argument does not have to be logical or consistent, it only needs to satisfy and justify ones worldview.

Again, the question at hand is not 'did Jesus ascend or die in Spain?' the question is what would it change if he were married. We discuss the possibility that Paul was married though the scriptures are silent.


----------



## kceaster (May 23, 2006)

Why would Jesus get married?

1. Love for one woman?
2. Desire to have physical offspring?

These are the only two reasons I could think of off the top of my head, but I find both to be untenable. It is not contrary to the nature of the divine in Him? Why would He want to give His love to just one woman? Why would He want physical offspring when He has an entire people of physical and spiritual offspring?

I think we need to be careful here. We cannot attribute too much to His human nature. I think marriage, and particularly the consummation of marriage attributes too much to His human nature and it is unbecoming the majesty of God.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by kceaster]


----------



## gwine (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > kceaster has it right, if Jesus was married then he could not remarry the bride of Christ later with his original bride still living.
> ...


I didn't realize that polygamy had ever been condoned. Just because it was practiced doesn't mean that God approved.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 23, 2006)

"I think we need to be careful here."

I am absolutely certain that I am 99% sure that no one on the board believes for a tenth of a nano second that Jesus ever got married. Could we all read Matt's original post again?

*After all that, the guy says to you, "Well, what if Jesus was married? How does that change anything in the bible?"*

This has nothing to do with the psychology of Jesus, gnosticism, Spain, speculation. A seeking but sceptical upstart asks, "If Jesus was married, how does it change anything in the Bible?" You tell him __________.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## BobVigneault (May 23, 2006)

By the way Kevin, I thought your eschatological approach was a good one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> After all that, the guy says to you, "Well, what if Jesus was married? How does that change anything in the bible?"
> 
> How would you answer him?


I agree with Kevin's observation. Further:

1. Christ is the Second Adam. His wife would have been the Second Eve by extension.

2. What would it mean for Christ to consumate a marriage with a woman and for her to become "one flesh" with God incarnate? Such blasphemy!

3. What need has the Son of Man in a helpmeet?

4. 1 Cor 7:32-33
"But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord "” how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world "” how he may please his wife ."


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

"I didn't realize that polygamy had ever been condoned. Just because it was practiced doesn't mean that God approved."

It is embedded in the Mosaic Law. I think it was even required in cases of Levirate marriage.


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

Jesus was not married (just ot be clear). This discussion is just a hypothetical about what effects, if any, His marriage would have on orthodoxy. 


> Why would Jesus get married?
> 
> 1. Love for one woman?
> 2. Desire to have physical offspring?
> ...


Jesus is fully human. Marriage would satisfy one desire human males have. It would not be any more contrary to the divine nature than Jesus being a son of parents and having a famlial bond to his parents that he did not share with the rest of humanity. Let's revise your questions.

It is not contrary to the nature of the divine in Him to be a son to one set of parents? 

Why would He want to give His familial love to just two people (mother and father)? 

Why would He want physical brothers and sisters (and mother and father) when He has an entire people of physical and spiritual relatives? There is a sense in which the spiritual union is more important (see Matt 12:48 ff.), but that does not undermine the physical, human relation.


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

As I mentioned, and just the be clear, Jesus was not married. This is a hypothetical discussion about the consequences on orthodoxy if He had been married.



> 1. Christ is the Second Adam. His wife would have been the Second Eve by extension.


Not necessarily. Eve was the mother of all the living in a physical sense. A human bride could not do this, as so many people were living. If Adam had married a second woman (either polygamy, which is common in the OT, or after Eve died), his new wife would not have the role of Eve either.

I do believe that the visible Church is the mother of all believers, though. (Rev. 12:17). A human wife could not have that role. 


> 2. What would it mean for Christ to consumate a marriage with a woman and for her to become "one flesh" with God incarnate? Such blasphemy!


Would it be any more blasphemous than for God incarnate to be carried in the womb of a human mother? That is part of the mystery of the incarnation and Christ's humilation.


> 3. What need has the Son of Man in a helpmeet?


He was fully human. Whatever needs a human male would have of a helpmeet, He would too.



> 4. 1 Cor 7:32-33
> "But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord "” how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world "” how he may please his wife ."


This does make marriage seem inconsistent with His mission. Still, I don't think this affects orthodoxy. Some apostles had wives.


----------



## kceaster (May 23, 2006)

*Scott...*

While I do agree that the bond between parent and child is strong, that is not the ultimate picture at the heart of the gospel. In the OT and the NT, God's parentage to His people is understood. However, when they disobey or conversely, when they are fully glorified from all disobedience, the marriage relationship is described, not the parental. He was a husband to His people in the OT, and will be a husband to His people at the end of the age. Therefore, although it may be just a slight difference and I may be splitting hairs here, I think the marriage relationship is closer to the gospel than the parental relationship.

If that is the case, then I would reason that Christ being married would do damage to orthodoxy. I have already given several reasons for this, the most important being that it degrades the confidence we have in the real historical Jesus. We have to come to the conclusion that the Apostles tried to cover up the fact that He was married. And if they removed that "spot" what other spots did they remove? It undermines the whole confidence we have in who Jesus really was as a man.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 23, 2006)

Isnt the second eve the church??


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

"Isnt the second eve the church??"

yes.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 23, 2006)

Jesus married us, the Elect.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 23, 2006)

I think this comes down to what was said in the beginning.

Chirst is ontologically different than we are and mixing the two (marriage w/ sexuality) is akin to the wierdness of Greek Mythology. God would not, In my humble opinion, even contemplate it.

Also, He alreayd has a bride as KC said, and thus, He would be not only an adulterer and bad husband, but a comsic adulterer affecting the bride of Christ in every age infinitely. It would, ontologically (back to #1) be an infinite trangression.

(I'm exceedingly under the weather, but thought I'd chime in since I opened the topic. Going back to bed now.)


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

> Chirst is ontologically different than we are and mixing the two (marriage w/ sexuality) is akin to the wierdness of Greek Mythology. God would not, In my humble opinion, even contemplate it.


Same thing could be said about being born of a woman.


> Also, He alreayd has a bride as KC said, and thus, He would be not only an adulterer and bad husband, but a comsic adulterer affecting the bride of Christ in every age infinitely. It would, ontologically (back to #1) be an infinite trangression.


Marriage to the church is of a categorically different kind than marriage to an individual, even if they are analogously similar.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 23, 2006)

Scott,
I think you're doing a bang up job playing the sceptics advocate. Please tell me what you think of my 'fulfillment of the line of David' approach.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I believe that the greatest clue that Jesus could have been married is the greatest clue that he was not. That clue being that it was expected that a rabbi be married. It would be shameful for a rabbi NOT to be married. In fact, it was considered a curse by the culture for any jewish male not to have a wife. It was the responsibility of the parents to arrange for a wife by the time the son was 16 years old. So cultural setting tells us the Jesus should have been married. Some church fathers say he was married because it was important that Christ sanctified every facet of life. We could suggest he was married because scripture says he was tempted in every way. How could he be tempted to commit adultery if he was never married?
> 
> However, we know that Jesus was a non conformist in many ways though in all things he sought to fulfill righteousness, baptism for example.
> ...


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

For what it's worth, most of the arguments advanced here (by those suggesting that marriage by Christ would undo orthodoxy) are not ones advanced by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code. The exception may be Matt's argument that Christ was ontologically different than us. Brown's main contention was that marriage would prove that Christ was human and not divine. Seems to me that marriage would simply affirm his humanity, which is actually essential to orthodoxy. This was a point affirmed by Bock and the other theologians who were interviewed.

Brown's contention is that belief in Christ's divinity was a late development happening around the time of Constantine. Marriage somehow is inconsistent with divinity according to Brown.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (May 23, 2006)

> We have to ask WHY was it so important that a jewish man be married? Answer, to perpetuate the line of David and thereby secure the imminent arrival of messiah. Jesus WOULD HAVE NO PRESSURE OR NECESSITY TO PERPETUATE THE LINE OF DAVID. HE WAS THE FULFILLMENT.


There were a lot of ancestral lines that did not include David. Yet, these were under the same custom of marriage. So, I don't think that the custom of marriage was based on ensuring the survival of David's line. I also don't think that I have seen any historical evidence that this was the reason.

In his book, Bock shows that it was ok for a male Jew to not be married, BTW.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > Chirst is ontologically different than we are and mixing the two (marriage w/ sexuality) is akin to the wierdness of Greek Mythology. God would not, In my humble opinion, even contemplate it.
> ...



On #1, I believe its not. Christ was without sin. Joining himself physically to procreate with a sinful line would contradict Genesis 6 and the role of Messiah.

#2, again, following the role of the Messiah, this would not be applicable. The Messiah would be a sinner (a bad husband) for committing adultery with more than one wife, eschatologically speaking.

Brown's novel (the tale of ficition) surrounds demonsrating how Christ is not divine - an average Joe, or "good teacher" but nothing more. He mostly deals with the NT, not the OT, and thus misses a huge portion of OT texts dealing with the character and nature of the Messiah which, being the "son of Man" is a heavenly engaged being, sinless, attached tot he purity of the covenant, and not bound by earthly types (i.e. earthly marriage, earthly children, earthly possessions, etc.). He is a heavenly being, taken on the _form_ of a servant.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > We have to ask WHY was it so important that a jewish man be married? Answer, to perpetuate the line of David and thereby secure the imminent arrival of messiah. Jesus WOULD HAVE NO PRESSURE OR NECESSITY TO PERPETUATE THE LINE OF DAVID. HE WAS THE FULFILLMENT.
> ...



Ouch! I asked for it Scott. The reason I chose to use the line of David argument is because those who hold to a married Jesus myth pose his Davidic lineage as their strongest argument. They will take you to the Talmud for the teachings that it is disgraceful for a rabbi to not marry. They taught that an unmarried man will think continually of sin.

They will then take you to Josephus who does speak of the compulsion that all those who could claim descendency from David would feel regarding marriage. They believed it was incumbent on them to marry to perpetuate the messianic line. The history is there, our opponents use it, that's why I use the argument against them.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2006)

> On #1, I believe its not. Christ was without sin. Joining himself physically to procreate with a sinful line would contradict Genesis 6 and the role of Messiah.


The question concerned marriage, not procreation. Having Jesus have children may pose more problems. 



> #2, again, following the role of the Messiah, this would not be applicable. The Messiah would be a sinner (a bad husband) for committing adultery with more than one wife, eschatologically speaking.


Christ's relationship tot he church and a man's union to his wife are similar but categorically different. For example, one involves a duty to physical intimacy of a marital kind. The other does not. 

I am not sure if Christ's marriage to a wife would be any more ground for adultery than an individual man's union with Christ implies adultery against the man's merely human wife. if there is no adultery there, why would Christ's union to the Church (which is essentially the flip side of the same relationship in the immediately preceding example) be any more cause for adultery to a merely human wife. 

Again, to be clear, I do not think that Christ was married. I just don't think that Dan Brown's criticism passes the "so what" question and does not imply whhat Brown believes it implies.


----------

