These are just a few historical facts I remember learning and discussing within my classes and amongst other students. The possibility of the Christ being married was was always there, but it was never a crux to one's faith, mereley points that were interesting in realizing the Christ may have been even further emersed into a mortal life (and it's understanding than many might give him credit).
There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for Jesus having been married. Here are a few that I don't see or hear in the debate.
Two issues that even the political/religious "enemies" (Pharisees and Sadjucees - who actually looked to nit-pick even the smallest "sins") of Jesus did not dispute:
1) No male Jew could enter, much less teach, within the Temple unless he was at least 30 years of age and MARRIED.
2) The Pharisees and Sadjucees were recorded often as addressing Jesus as "Rabbi" when questioning him or striving to set him up with "trick" questions. A rabbi must, by Jewish law, be married to be considered such, much less be so addressed in a public venue.
Other circumstantial evidence...
At the wedding, in which Jesus' first miracle is mentioned, where He turns water into wine, Jesus chastises his mother for the lack of refreshment. At the wedding of a Jewish male the GROOM and his mother are soley responsible for providing these to the guests. Jesus, as a guest, wouldn't be the least bit concerned, but it would be a major faux paus if he were the groom who had just been MARRIED.
Any male Jew over 30 who had not at least been betrothed would be a major social anomaly and a figure of suspicion. It would be equivelant to some homeless guy seen to be hanging around a schoolyard trying to give little kids candy from a dirty paper bag. His words in the community would carry little weight and gaining a "following" without the gravitas of being a HUSBAND would be highly improbable if not impossible. He would have no "base" upon which to place his words or understanding to those who might listen.
No proof or even mention of his wife, marriage or such would be thought of as important enough to "write" about as they were a "given" in Aramaic society. A sports writer would not bother to mention cheer leaders, a band, trainers or water boys were in attendance at the Big Game simply because everyone reading the story would already KNOW this.
Why any of this, much less the suspense fiction of Dan Brown might put a true Christian (no matter his denomination) in a crises of faith is rather beyond me. Christ came to be an example to man in ALL things upon the earth and in our lives. The possibility of being married or even having children would only enforce and add to such an example, in my opinion, rather than detract.
Besides, I know of thousands of nuns who considered themselves married to Jesus and wear wedding bands openly to "prove" this. This doesn't seem odd or bother most people. So why would having a true wife do so?
There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for Jesus having been married. Here are a few that I don't see or hear in the debate.
Two issues that even the political/religious "enemies" (Pharisees and Sadjucees - who actually looked to nit-pick even the smallest "sins") of Jesus did not dispute:
1) No male Jew could enter, much less teach, within the Temple unless he was at least 30 years of age and MARRIED.
2) The Pharisees and Sadjucees were recorded often as addressing Jesus as "Rabbi" when questioning him or striving to set him up with "trick" questions. A rabbi must, by Jewish law, be married to be considered such, much less be so addressed in a public venue.
Other circumstantial evidence...
At the wedding, in which Jesus' first miracle is mentioned, where He turns water into wine, Jesus chastises his mother for the lack of refreshment. At the wedding of a Jewish male the GROOM and his mother are soley responsible for providing these to the guests. Jesus, as a guest, wouldn't be the least bit concerned, but it would be a major faux paus if he were the groom who had just been MARRIED.
Any male Jew over 30 who had not at least been betrothed would be a major social anomaly and a figure of suspicion. It would be equivelant to some homeless guy seen to be hanging around a schoolyard trying to give little kids candy from a dirty paper bag. His words in the community would carry little weight and gaining a "following" without the gravitas of being a HUSBAND would be highly improbable if not impossible. He would have no "base" upon which to place his words or understanding to those who might listen.
No proof or even mention of his wife, marriage or such would be thought of as important enough to "write" about as they were a "given" in Aramaic society. A sports writer would not bother to mention cheer leaders, a band, trainers or water boys were in attendance at the Big Game simply because everyone reading the story would already KNOW this.
Why any of this, much less the suspense fiction of Dan Brown might put a true Christian (no matter his denomination) in a crises of faith is rather beyond me. Christ came to be an example to man in ALL things upon the earth and in our lives. The possibility of being married or even having children would only enforce and add to such an example, in my opinion, rather than detract.
Besides, I know of thousands of nuns who considered themselves married to Jesus and wear wedding bands openly to "prove" this. This doesn't seem odd or bother most people. So why would having a true wife do so?