Da Vinci code - does it generally matter to people whether Jesus was married or not? He can still be a god?

Question

I am trying to understand why it is a big deal if he is married. In many religions, god are married and have families and so on. Why is ithat him being married such a big deal?

Answer 1

It's not scriptural and, therefore, a lie.

Answer 2

I'll tell you why I don't believe that Jesus was married.
1) The Bible does refer to at least one disciple's mother in law, but nothing is ever mentioned about Jesus having an in-law in the Bible.
2) Something this significant as Jesus having been married would have been mentioned. In fact, many of the Old Testament Prophets were not married.
3) Also, when Jesus was on the cross in John 19:25-27, why would Jesus only have been concerned about the welfare of his mother and say nothing about his wife? Especially since in Matthew 19, Jesus talks about in marriage, that the two become one flesh? That just simply doesn't make sense that Jesus would have no concern for a wife, especially if she was standing there.

So, going back to the original question, why so many of us do not accept the doctrine of the DaVinci code is for many reasons.
1) It simply does not back up scripture as it's been taught in the 66 books of the Bible.
2) With our new computerized technology, it's fairly easy to unearth "new" information, archaeological findings and report that these are new discoveries. Because we don't have training in the actual verification procedures, it's easy for the masses to be mislead about what is real evidence (for that reason I trust evidence that has been accepted by Biblical scholars for several centuries now).
3) In light of "new evidence" such as Jesus so-called tomb. Ever consider that either its fraudulent or the fact that Jesus and Mary were well known names in those days? Also, that tomb contradicts the "teachings" found in Dan Brown's book where Jesus had a daughter named Sarah. In the case of the tomb, it's a son, isn't it? Why would the son not be listed in the "scriptures" that are the basis of Dan Brown's book?
4) The teachings of Dan Brown's book can cause confusion and distrust of the Bible teachings. Which I ultimately believe is the whole idea behind the book. That we've discovered the so-called "real truth" that has been kept from us for centuries. The book is based on manuscripts that are not recognized by mainstream Christianity for a very good reason. When the Bible was canonized, many of the books were debated and discarded from being in the final 66 books because the teachings did not line up with scripture.

Hope this helps to explain why so many of us do not take Dan Brown's book as more than just a person trying to discredit the Bible. What concerns us is that so many people will believe his theories.

Answer 3

Christians don't want to believe that their "god" could be tainted by having married, had sex and had a child. Fact is though, that Jesus was never a god. He was the SON of god. So if god could have children, why couldn't Jesus? He was a human being, after all. There are writings that exist that show that it was possible. The Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judah, the Nostic Scrolls, and so on. But the church refuses to recognize these writings, because they go against what the men in charge want. There is nothing that makes these unrecognized gospels less credible than the ones that are in the bible, except for the word of the church. Unfortunately for the church, their word is fallable. They've been wrong about many things before, and they're wrong about this now. True, the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, but even fictional writings are based somewhere on truth. I believe that Jesus was married, and had a child. That doesn't make him any less the man he was though. Just because it's not mentioned in the bible doesn't mean a thing. Man wrote the bible. The Counsel of Nicea voted on what to keep in the bible and what to throw out. Man changed the bible to fit his political agenda.

Answer 4

Probably to the average person it does not matter but to believers who follow the Bible it does for the most part. It would be a misrepresentation from a Biblical view to say that Jesus was married. The Apostle Paul wrote that a person who is single could serve God better than one who is married because of the extra concerns there are for the married. Jesus came specifically to fulfill the ultimate mission from the Father in Heaven and He would not distract Himself with a marriage especially when that would mean he would be knowingly leaving a wife behind and possibly even children since He knew He was going back to the Father after his death. "If one does not provide for his own then he is worse than an unbeliever" the Bible state, so there is another reason why Jesus would not have left a family behind.

Answer 5

If Jesus were in fact "god" who came to earth to experience life as a man, then indeed, he would have been married. Especially according to Jewish tradition and law. He was referred to as Rabbi, which at the time was a married teacher. The Magdalene referred to him as Rabboni, a very intimate term. The Magdalene also was at his crucifixion, a presence reserved only for immediate family members. She also went to the tomb to annoint his body... again, a wifely duty. And to dispel the rumors that we've all heard, the Magdalene (whose name was Miriam btw, not Mary) was not a prostitute. Pope Gregory the Great in 591 made the claim that the Magdalene was the same women who annointed Jesus' feet with oil and their hair (Mary of Bethany and the unnamed sinner woman) and somehow, she became labled a prostitue. The Catholic church retracted this erroneous statement and brand in 1969 when they realized there was no Biblical evidence that the three woman were even remotely related in any way.

At the wedding at Canaan, the body of men "called him out," which is a Jewish tradition reserved for the groom. His mother Mary was in charge of the wedding... why? Who's wedding was it?

Was Jesus and the Magdalene married? Who knows? Who cares? Why not? I don't have a problem with it; the idea that he may or may have not been married does not change who or what he may have been. Man or god, it doesn't matter.

It's not a big deal if he were married or not, but people are afraid that it would take away from his divinity when in fact, it should add to it. Why is it such a threat to consider (when there is plenty of Biblical evidence to support such a consideration if one is familiar with Jewish culture, tradition, and law of the time) that he may have been married and enjoyed the companionship of a loving wife, which is what god intended for his creation in the first place?

Consider that had Jesus NOT been married, then that would have been odd and out of place and most certainly would have been mentioned in the Bible. The Magdalene supported Jesus both financially and emotionally. She was his companion. He kissed her on the lips. He favored her. So what? He was as human as he was god, remember? But enough is there to suggest that he was in fact married, and it shouldn't be a threat to anyone's faith, regardless.

As for being scriptural, the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus, no writing available has ever been attritubed to Jesus. When Paul spoke of Scripture, one must consider that he was not only a Jew, he was a Pharisee and knew the law quite well. Scripture was the Torah, the NT didn't even exist. And who determines what is scriptural and what is not? Constantine and the Council of Nicea had a big hand in it, then Martin Luther decided to remove a few books, then they were put back in, then taken out again in the late 1800's when the "official" Christian Bible was presented to the Protestant congregations in favor of King Jame's original version that contained the Apocrypha (which still remains in the Catholic Bible).

God gave the people a simple law to live by on two stone tablets on Mout Sinai and from then on... mankind has continued to revise, versionize, and translate it to suit his needs. Unfortunately, people forget about the god they claim to serve, and serve a little book but have yet, to obey it completely and unquestioningly.

Peace,

Beki

Answer 6

It's not a problem. Fictional fairy tale characters can have the sex life whoever fantasies.

As for Jesus more specificaly here is an intersting resume:
"Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. Following a star would lead you in circles. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin. That idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses."

Answer 7

I don't understand why people get in such a tizzy about it. You have to live the human condition in order to minister to it. If the Christ was married, I don't think it negates his divinity, and it enhances his humanity. DaVinci code is a work of fiction. There are other sources of research out there that indicate the Christ could have been married though....

Answer 8

everyone seems to forget that The DaVinci Code is a novel and therefore fiction, as in not true. I don't care if Jesus was married. God, His Father, wanted Jesus to experience being a human and that's part of it, being married and having children. I guess people don't want him to have had carnal knowledge of a woman.

Answer 9

It would not matter to me at all if Jesus was proved to be married and have a child. In fact I would consider it more normal for a man of that era if he was married.

Really people get so worked up about what is factual and not factual. I totally believe that plenty of things in religious history have been changed / covered up to suit / written by men not God, so it would stand to reason that the men who wrote the texts about Jesus' life would write it in a way that suited them.

A lot of things in the Bible are physical impossibilities and written as obvious metaphores [eg: the universe being created in 6 days, adam and eve being the 1st humans (who did their sons marry??), creation of eve from adams rib, lots wife turning into a pillar of salt, fitting 2 of every animal onto Noah's arc etc...]

It stands to reason that the whole bible and style in which it was written can be taken with a really large grain of salt. It was written as a guide in story style so that people could relate to what was being represented. People of the time could learn moral lessons from each story. Now, as modern scientific people we can interpret it all in a different way and learn without necessarily believing what was actually written as stone cold facts.

Answer 10

You are exactly right. Every one has their own ideas one way or the other, including myself. But, when you really think about it; does this knowledge get you closer to God if that's your goal. No, not really. What really matters is that Jesus was on earth and at the very least was a great teacher and example, and he atoned for our sins. If he was more (i.e. a God, married, etc.), great no problem. But it doesn't change what he taught and the example he is.

Personally, I think it is very possible he was married, why not? the Scriptures in fact support the idea, after all who's wedding was he at when he changed the water to wine? But, if he wasn't married, it doesn't change my faith in him in the least.

Answer 11

Lazy time: Democracy is not scriptural. I guess democracy is a lie.

Well it is a lie but I'm trying to illustrate something.

It has no bearing on anything. It is just that the people who decided what went into the Bible and what didn't had an idea of who Jesus should be and what the religion should teach before they even started putting the book together. Things were included and excluded based on that.