News-Record.com

this is a hokey question imo. Jesus came and did God's will in all things, take a few moments and read john 17. it is a report from Jesus to the Father of what he has accomplished on earth. if it was God's will that Jesus would have married, then the answer to this question would be - yes b/c many new and different things would have occurred. since it was not God's will for Jesus to be married then the answer to the question would be - no b/c it wasn't God's will.
imo this type of question does nothing to bring about anything positive by way of discussion but does open the door to nothing more than mere speculation and where is God served in that !? as a Christian i have more than a lifetime worth of studying, learning and practicing, without worrying about such questions that lead nowhwere.

could we not just as easily ask "if Jesus was gay would it matter to you"....it is just a bated question hoping only to draw controversy and really brings nothing to the table (imo).

Recent archaeological finds are raising very real evidence the early Jews themsleves believd YHWH had a wife/female counterpart.

Maybe the meat of the question is not whether it would matter if Jesus were married and had children, but whether one could ever imagine believing in a god, who was good and wise and loving, and all other attributes one associates now with one's own god, AND who also was "married"? Is there anything inherently distasteful about a married god?

Freddy Niche I think we ask the same question, only you give it more texture. If the Bible was selectively written/censored/etc., as some would claim, would it matter if Jesus did not ascend into heaven right away -- if he had more of a daily walk like the rest of us. Buz, I'm not saying that I buy into the Mary Magdalene story, but a lot of open-minded Christians have.

fn,
"Recent archaeological finds are raising very real evidence the early Jews themsleves believd YHWH had a wife/female counterpart."............

could you possibly provide a link to this, i would very much be interested in looking into it. thanks in advance.

Actually, Nancy, only empty minded Christians would buy into such absolute nonsense. The idea of a god with consort is deeply rooted in the fertility cult religions of the world, from animism to Hinduism. It is utterly alien to the Bible from cover to cover.

The only aspect of biblical theology that talks about the subject of God's wife or Christ's bride realtes to the intimate, covenantal relationship that exists between the elect of God and their hevenly Bridegroom. Ephesians 5.

The Marian cult within RCism is just one of the pagnistic elements that crept into the RCC, perhaps because of the powerful influence of the anthropomorphic fertiltiy images so ingrained in the cultures of the Mediterranian world and beyond.

For all of Islam's errors, at least, to their credit, they would never countenance such nonsense. It just shows how hungry people are for spiritual reality, that they would stoop to such totally unbiblical fantasies. you're right, Buz. It leads nowhere.

recent issue of Archaeology Magazine. An earlier (summer, spring) issue in Smithsonian had equally revelatory things about the Israelites being likely fellow Canaanite nomads, rather than arriving from Egypt with Moses.

And of course, wouldn't we all love to be as misogynistic as some Muslims who would never countenance such radical ideas as the possibility god might have dual "gender"-like natures?

Everyone knows that archaeological data can be, and have been, interpreted in numerous different ways. It's all conjecture based on limited evidence. Were they there? Would evidnece of the biblical data be preserved? Where are their footprints, thier clothes, etc.? Plus. they are anti-Christian humanists, biased and intent on skewing the data against the Bible. Nothing new.

I knew someone would toatlly and intentionally miscontrue what I said about the Muslims. My point was simply that the orthodox Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition of theology has never countenanced the fertility cult ideas of pagan religion.

This whole preoccupation with Jesus and Mary Magdalene is connected to the ubiquitous effort of liberal and radical theologians to dis Christianity and re-energize pagan religious ideas and practices - from sexual perversion and promiscuity to syncretisitic theologies. It's political arm is called "progressivism."

And what is the political arm of good hearted, intelligent Christians?

I don'tknow about "good hearted,intelligent Christians," but theolgoically orthodox, biblically consistent Christians really have no political home today. The GOP has catered superficailly to fundementalist groups - to get votes primarily - but the GOP and the DP are just polarized humanism, dressed up in different garb.

There are some positions that many Republican politicians support - such as anti- abortion and gay marriage - that resonate with biblical Christians, but they are just less liberal on many other positions. So there really isn't a poltical arm that truly expresses Christian positions today. That is the dilemma of Christians generally with the political scene; they vote where they personally feel most in sync. But American culture is not Christian at this point, and politics follows the culture.