Explanation Reqd to Protestants that Christ was not married

Zoxsasi

Hi

How do you explain to protestants that Christ was never married?

Thanks

ReturnOrthodoxy

I would start by asking for a reason to believe he was...

Ray

minasoliman

Unless they take the marriage to mean His Church, then ya, I can understand. But I will not take seriously anyone who says Christ was physically married to one woman.

mabsoota

what sort of 'protestants' are they?

i know of no church that teaches like this.

(was protestant Christian for about 30 years...)

Zoxsasi

Well, these are from N. Ireland. They believe that only Christ was married, but He even had kids. 

What are the spiritual implications if Christ was married? What would that change for our salvation?

minasoliman

I highly doubt then that these Christians see Christ as God made flesh coming for the salvation and illumination of all mankind, of all His creation. At best, it might be a Nestorian-esque Christ.

Christ is married to the Church, and not to one specific person. He concentrates His efforts on the goal to bring all to salvation in Him.

Marriage of a spouse is a tool of salvation for the married couple. Christ did not need salvation, but established for us these means of salvation in Himself. So yes, we are all as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church married to Christ. When we marry a spouse, it is a reflection of this divine marriage Christ established.

Furthermore, Christ came to affirm a spiritual emphasis on life, and spirits "do not marry or give in to marriage." His celibacy was a way of seeing Him and God in a much more spiritual manner, living like the angels.

mabsoota

yes, it changes everything!

are you sure they are not mormans?

maybe they need to rename their religion as it doesn't sound like Christianity.

what denomination do they think they are?

ReturnOrthodoxy

Wait, I'm seriously interested as to what reason they have for saying he was. from just a textual historical perspective. Like forget the theology of salvation for a second, what reason would they have for naming Christ married?

Ray

Remnkemi

Ray, My guess is that it is a "new" attempt to explain the "brothers of Christ". Just like many have claimed Jesus had physical brothers, he also had physical sons. Just like his brother's names were often confabulated and conflated (i.e., multiple Judases were actually all one physical figure properly called James), so too Jesus' sons would have the same conflated names. It serves 2 purposes. 1. It is a theory designed to lessen the historical validity of Jesus (something Jewish scholars have done a lot) which in turn lessens the historical validity of the Virgin Mary and in turn lessens the theological position of the Virgin Mary in intercessions. 2. It is a theory to explain who all the actual historical figures of Jesus' family were (knowing they are all conflated) which in turn lessens the historical validity of the disciples (who are all allegedly his brothers and sons) which in turn lessens the theological position of the priesthood. 

The Mormons believe Jesus was married to Mary Madelene and other Marys. They have pictures (I reluctantly call them "Mormon icons") showing Jesus as a polygamist with Mary Magdelene and the other Marys. I don't know of any other Protestant group that believe in a physical family for Jesus other than the Mormons.

Personally I think it is all one big conspiracy theory. As with all conspiracy theories, while trying to explain observations with what appears as rational thinking, ironically all rational thinking goes out the window. We all know how people love conspiracy theories. 

mcarmichael

ReturnOrthodoxy said:

Wait, I'm seriously interested as to what reason they have for saying he was. from just a textual historical perspective. Like forget the theology of salvation for a second, what reason would they have for naming Christ married?

Ray

+1

coptic_deacon

Isn't this just the plot of 'The DaVinci Code'?

Zoxsasi

coptic_deacon said:

Isn't this just the plot of 'The DaVinci Code'?

yes... 

coptic_deacon

great book btw

Remnkemi

The DaVinci Code may be a good fictional novel but it is ridiculous because David Brown portrayed it as fact and people began believing and buying into this conspiracy theory. 

I'm not sure Zoxasi's original question was answered. Here's my attempt. 

Basically, it is not plausible to claim Jesus was married with sons, if there is no historical evidence. One could argue, like many Jewish scholars have, that there is no historical evidence for a historical Jesus exists either (other than the New Testament and the NT is filled with conflated names and historical inaccuracies). The difference in believing Jesus existed historically versus Jesus married is that non-NT evidence does exist that claim Jesus existed historically (foremost is a long standing oral tradition). But the historical accuracy of Jesus' marriage cannot be corroborated by any source, Christian or not, oral or written. It becomes the responsibility of the person making the claim to validate its accuracy, not the person who believes in a priori (self evident deductions) against it. 

In the case of David Brown, he made the claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene based on wrong information. "The Gospel of Philip says that “‘the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth.  The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” ’…As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion in those days, literally meant spouse.'  (Da Vinici Code page 246)"

David' Brown's explanation for Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene is based on a misrepresentation of the Gnostic Gospel of Philip. Even the Gospel of Philip did not say they were married. It only said the disciples didn't like Mary Magdalene. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas ends with the disciples asking Christ to make Mary Magdalene a man so she can enter heaven. No gnostic writing ever said Jesus was married. He wants us to believe marriage is nothing more than bridal chamber intimacy (public display of marriage sex). His claim that any Aramaic scholar will corroborate Jesus entering a bridegroom chamber understanding of marriage doesn't even merit an answer. It is his duty to provide an Aramaic scholar (expert witness) to validate the linguistic meaning of love. He also needs to show why a question of "Why do you love her more than all of us?" implicitly suggests a marriage and not simply favoritism. There are so many holes in David Brown's claims that it is really ludicrous to attempt an intellectual discussion with him or anyone who believes his claims.

The same is probably true with the Protestants of North Ireland that make similar claims. It is not our duty to prove why Jesus didn't marry and have sons. It is their duty to prove it against a total and complete absolute silence from any credible ancient historian, sermon, oral tradition, Roman legal documents, (I'll even take Gnostic or Jewish sources), anything before the 19th/20th century Mormon claims. (If you need specific reasons why I wouldn't consider Mormon claims as evidence, I can work on that). Secondly, if such evidence does exist, it must be coherent and logical to even consider a discussion. Late antique science fiction, Hollywood style imagination, or plain old heretical teachings (like Gnosticism) cannot be considered coherent and logical. 

coptic_deacon

"The DaVinci Code may be a good fictional novel but it is ridiculous because David Brown portrayed it as fact and people began believing and buying into this conspiracy theory."

yeah thats what i meant