Do we have evidence to show that Jesus never got married, nor had any children or descendants

[Shiranui117]

Thanks, your are correct. It is not always easy to see past our own ethnocentricities. I was indeed lookingat it from the perspective of Catholicism, rather than the broader diaspora.

It's cool, I don't blame you. Such ways of looking at the history of Christianity are deeply engrained in Western culture. I'd say it's one of the greatest success stories of Catholicism, that even atheists and anti-Catholic Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses believe their version of history! My apologies if I came across as crass or unneccessarily harsh.

 

[Bunyip]

It's cool, I don't blame you. Such ways of looking at the history of Christianity are deeply engrained in Western culture. I'd say it's one of the greatest success stories of Catholicism, that even atheists and anti-Catholic Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses believe their version of history! My apologies if I came across as crass or unneccessarily harsh.

No worries mate.

Cheers

 

[XIII-Legion]

Being married would not be.impure in that society. Rabbi's married. Being married would not have reduced Jesus in any way. The motivation for covering up the marriage however would be that the bloodline of Jesus would constitute a threat to the European aristocracy.

History repeats itself of course?

On that basis, Reverend Moon's bloodline would also constitute a 'threat' to the European aristocracy.

Oh yes, I'm sure the European aristocracy are really scared of Moon's family; as they are Korean migrants in America who can hardly speak a word of English.

But how can Moon's family be the true olive tree as spoken in Romans 11?

How can Moon's family be the true lineage of Christ?

 

[Bunyip]

History repeats itself of course?

On that basis, Reverend Moon's bloodline would also constitute a 'threat' to the European aristocracy.

But I'm sure the European aristocracy are really scared of Moon's family; as they are Korean migrants in America who can hardly speak a word of English.

Dude, I have no idea how you thought that comment made any sense at all.

 

[1prophet]

JESUS ABSOLUTELY DID NOT HAVE CHILDREN AND DID NOT MARRY. HE NEVER HAD SEX WITH A WOMAN OR HE WOULD HAVE COMMITTED A MINOR SIN UNDER TORAH LAW. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. IF HE VIOLATED TORAH LAW THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHO HE SAID HE WAS.

 

[Bunyip]

JESUS ABSOLUTELY DID NOT HAVE CHILDREN AND DID NOT MARRY. HE NEVER HAD SEX WITH A WOMAN OR HE WOULD HAVE COMMITTED A MINOR SIN UNDER TORAH LAW. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. IF HE VIOLATED TORAH LAW THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHO HE SAID HE WAS.

You are wrong buddy. Having sex with a woman is not a violation of law at all if he was married. Not being married would be a violation of a social and religious obligatiom, but having sex wasn't.

 

[1prophet]

BUNYIP...MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEX LAWS...NOTHING! MARRIAGE IS SIMPLY AN AGREEMENT. AND I HAVE HEARD CHRISTIANS LIKE YOU BEFORE THAT SAY ,"THIS IS MY WIFE AND I WILL DO WITH HER WHATEVER I WANT TO". THAT IS TOTAL BS AND IS CHRISTIAN DOGMA.

THE SEX LAWS ARE FOR SEX REGARDLESS OF MARRIAGE OR NOT. PLEASE GO READ THE SEX LAWS. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE MARRIED TO HAVE SEX. AND SEX IS NOT MARRIAGE.

 

[1prophet]

ALSO, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT STUDIED THE LAW OF GOD CALLED TORAH. YOU NEED TO READ WHAT THE LAWS ARE ON DEFILEMENT. JESUS NEVER WAS DEFILED AND NEVER DEFILED ANYONE. HE DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH ANY WOMAN...

(570)The seed of copulation defiles. “If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.” (Leviticus 15:16-18) Proving once again that being “unclean” is simply indicative of the human condition (not “sin,” but necessitating purification anyway), here we see that an emission of semen defiles both the man and the woman he has lain with. It is significant that God’s very first recorded command to mankind was to “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) It’s axiomatic that without the “emission of semen” and without menstruation (see Mitzvah #572), this fruitfulness would have been impossible. Yahweh, having designed us, knew that. Thus His command required us to become “defiled,” even before our fall into sin.

(572)A menstruating woman is unclean and defiles others. “If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days

 

[Bunyip]

BUNYIP...MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEX LAWS...NOTHING! MARRIAGE IS SIMPLY AN AGREEMENT. AND I HAVE HEARD CHRISTIANS LIKE YOU BEFORE THAT SAY ,"THIS IS MY WIFE AND I WILL DO WITH HER WHATEVER I WANT TO". THAT IS TOTAL BS AND IS CHRISTIAN DOGMA.

THE SEX LAWS ARE FOR SEX REGARDLESS OF MARRIAGE OR NOT. PLEASE GO READ THE SEX LAWS. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE MARRIED TO HAVE SEX. AND SEX IS NOT MARRIAGE.

Dude.........your caps lock is stuck on. There is no 'sex law' that prevents a man from having sex with his wife buddy.

We know barely anything about the life of Jesus, we do not even know where or when he was born - or even if he existed at all.

 

[1prophet]

Bunyip...For your reading benefit I will turn off the caps lock. There ARE several sex laws that tell a man to not have sex with his wife. Did you read them? A marriage license does not give you "license" to sin.

What do you mean we know nothing of his life? The ENTIRE bible is about him.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip...For your reading benefit I will turn off the caps lock. There ARE several sex laws that tell a man to not have sex with his wife. Did you read them? A marriage license does not give you "license" to sin.

What do you mean we know nothing of his life? The ENTIRE bible is about him.

You should read the bible. It speaks of Jesus birth and a couple brief incidents in his infancy - and then nothing at all until a year or so before his death. So from infancy to his final mission the bible tells us nothing. I'm amazed you did not notice.

 

[1prophet]

Tell me "buddy", what was Jesus doing before he was born?

 

[1prophet]

You don't even realize who Jesus is do you? And you do not understand the Laws of God.

Are you a Christian? Atheist. For the record what dogma to you follow?

 

[roger1440]

During his life his marriage would have been so pedestrian as to be unremarked upon, and centuries later the Church would have had every reason to edit it put.

What would be the reasons?

 

[1prophet]

This guy is all over the place. He has no answers.

Jesus did not have sex or he would have violated the Law. I posted the Laws. It is that simple. There is nothing else to argue about.

Also, that is why he was born of a virgin. He was not born of a defiling act. People do not study the law.

 

[Bunyip]

You should read the bible. It speaks of Jesus birth and a couple brief incidents in his infancy - and then nothing at all until a year or so before his death. So from infancy to his final mission the bible tells us nothing. I'm amazed you did not notice.

Tell me "buddy", what was Jesus doing before he was born?

How can he do anything before he was born?

 

[Bunyip]

What would be the reasons?

Well primarily because if Jesus had a wife, then Christian priests and Bishops could have wives,- which would enable them to pass on their wealth and power through their descendants and therefore threaten the power, wealth and influence of the established nobility. Celibacy for the clergy was an essential concession to tue European nobility.

 

[Bunyip]

This guy is all over the place. He has no answers.

Jesus did not have sex or he would have violated the Law. I posted the Laws. It is that simple. There is nothing else to argue about.

Also, that is why he was born of a virgin. He was not born of a defiling act. People do not study the law.

Mate, Jesus could have had sex with his wife without any law being breached. You need to study the laws yourself a little harder.

 

[roger1440]

Well primarily because if Jesus had a wife, then Christian priests and Bishops could have wives,- which would enable them to pass on their wealth and power through their descendants and therefore threaten the power, wealth and influence of the established nobility. Celibacy for the clergy was an essential concession to tue European nobility.

During the early Church years the priests did have wives.

 

[roger1440]

Well primarily because if Jesus had a wife, then Christian priests and Bishops could have wives,- which would enable them to pass on their wealth and power through their descendants and therefore threaten the power, wealth and influence of the established nobility. Celibacy for the clergy was an essential concession to tue European nobility.

"The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all"bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics" were to"abstain completely from their wives and not to have children." A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics". - See more at: History News Network | When Did the Catholic Church Decide Priests Should Be Celibate?​