11 - 20 of 36 Comments

1. Dr. Dom

   7 months ago

   Karl VDH thanks. Let me share just one thought about how this makes a difference. Say it is alleged authoritatively that Jesus married, and say, had children. Osteogenesis offspring would truly be sons of God and truly "begotten" by God. Yet the Scriptures say that Jesus is God's only begotten Son. See the problem? Now salvation came about through God's only begotten Son except that He wasn't that? Or, see how Jesus says "the Father and I are one", but now, He is also "one with a carnal woman". See the issue?
   
   So it isn't trivial, and affects many things in the economy of Revelation, in my opinion.
   
   Peace.

2. Dr. Dom Pedulla

   7 months ago

   DLL no we mean earthly carnal marriage; we say it is not possible for Jesus to have had an earthly carnal wife.

3. KarlVDH

   7 months ago

   I think the idea is silly, myself, but I also think we get too worked up about it. I mean... if we all take a deep breath, and clear our emotional heads before we react, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jesus DID mary Mary Magdalene. I know, it's ridiculous. But for just a moment, let's say there was conclusive proof; he did.
   ...what in the world does it change about Christ, his mission, his sacrifice?
   -nothing. Not really. Nothing at all.
   
   so how about if we put this one to bed and worry about actually LIVING the Gospels we KNOW we have rather than fretting about what ancient writings that AREN'T scriopture suggest?
   I don't know about anyone else, but living the Gospel we DO have is a full time job for me. I'll let Jesus worry about his own martital status... because whether he was or wasn't, HE didn't deem it important enough to include in the canon of Scripture... so it's basically none of our business. Let's worry about real life instead of speculating about what's NOT in the Bible.

4. Jorge dela Selva

   7 months ago

   In light of this startling revelation being passed off as nearly factual, I can’t help but wonder if Catholics and other Christian Communities are now at liberty to: (a) riot in the streets, (b) murder the innocent, (c) burn down Harvard, (d) demand the current administration to profusely apologize and outlaw things like this, and (c) its leaders issue the equivalent of an Islamic Fatwa on the life of Karen King?!?
   
   Get the point? Why is Islam treated so differently and the world cowers in fear to even comment on Islam. Yet, when it comes to Judaism, Christianity and numerous other religions despite when outright grotesque blasphemy’s are published and/or supported as “Art” using U.S. tax dollars, everyone remains relatively calm and the ACLU says it’s a matter of free-speech! I’m not condoning murder and riot, just pointing out that Western Democracies and citizens need to stop kowtowing to Islam and take a firm stand in telling them to grow up or pay the price as it will not be tolerated. Talk about Temper Tantrums!
   

5. DLL

   7 months ago

   Of course! Christ is married. He has many who call him their Spouse. Think about all of the Catholic Nuns that call him their spouse.

6. Dr. Dom Pedulla

   7 months ago

   Friends first of all I am pleased by the kindness of your questions; I appreciate very much the tone. It would perhaps have been better for me, in making my overall arguments, to have gone out of my way a bit more in emphasizing the full humanity of Jesus, as several comments I got afterward thought I was downplaying the full humanity of Him when I said Jesus was never a human person. But in orthodox Catholic Christology Jesus was not, was never, a human person, and the Church in 1973 through the CDF even had to correct the theologianSchilleebeckx on this. This is well covered in Father James O'Connor's classic work on Christology entitled "The Father's Son". This is not at all to downplay the full humanity of Jesus Who we know was and is "fully God and at the same time fully man". But the assertion that He is a Divine Person and not a human person is crucially important. The demigod argument was here not so much a theological argument as rhetorical flourish, so you'll forgive me if I don't spend time arguing over that.
   
   Now just because I prove that Jesus, despite His full humanity, is nonetheless not a human person doesn't mean in and of itself that I'm right in the overall argument that He couldn't (and not merely didn't or chose not to) marry carnally. I might still be wrong and if the true theology of the Church proves that then I submit. But, remember what I've contended:
   
   
   1) Jesus was a Divine Person not a human person (yet was and still is and will ever be fully human)
   
   2) marriage in the carnal human sense is reserved to human created persons, for 2 reasons: one is that in carnal human marriage between created human persons the marriage is the image of the personal self-gift in the trinity but not the same as that personal trinitarian self-gift. In other words one cannot be said to be both the created image of something and simultaneously also actually that same thing. But reason number 2 is more important, and that is that Jesus as a purely Divine uncreated Person (not human person) cannot enter into carnal marriage with a created human person. Marriage is the union of 2 created persons who by entering in, can image most suitably for created persons the personal self-gift that occurs between the Person of the Blessed Trinity (Adam found for himself a 'suitable helpmate". so the "desecration" isn't by virtue of marriage being somehow beneath humanity, which it isn't. And were it enough in order to marry that one merely have a body this wouldn't be so. But it is indeed necessary that one also be a human person, so in the sense developed by John Paul II. Jesus would not meet this criterion).
   
   3) Therefore, it isn't just that Jesus merely took a vow of celibacy or deliberately chose to remain celibate even though he could have married (as happens with the consecrated for example), but rather that He never could marry. This may be, but I'm not sure, aided by the observation that the ordained cannot receive the sacrament of matrimony, but the married may be ordained. This needs to be developed further.
   
   There is, for the theologians among you, a more substantive and weightier argument against what I have written -- though I don't think it disproves my argument overall -- and it is this: how is it that a mere created woman can be the mother of God but not the wife of God?
   
   While traveling in a different city one time where they like to use inclusive language during the Mass, the priest reached the point of the Eucharistic prayer where priests normally would say, referring to Jesus, "...a Man like us in all things but sin", and instead said "a Person like us in all things but sin", and right away, I knew he had to be corrected, because in this case it was not an innocent change in the words, but was an erroneous statement. The reason is that as a Man, Jesus can be said to be like us in just about every way except that He doesn't sin, but as a Divine Person, He is infinitely different both by degree, and essence because He is all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful, etc.
   
   

7. Charles Beard

   7 months ago

   There are serious Christological problems with this article. In attempting to debunk the so-called Gospel of Jesus' Wife, the author goes way too far in the other direction. For full comments, please see my blog: http://catholicinthecountryside.weebly.com/1/post/2012/09/of-jesus-wife-and-the-demi-gods-they-did-not-spawn.html.
   
   Charles
   Fellow Okie

8. Patrick

   7 months ago

   As we waste much of our time focusing on some writing that puts many negative aspects into our lives we tend to forget the teachings of love, hope, forgiveness, charity and peace by Christ in such a positive way. We need more focus on what we can do to stop all that is going on in the world than a small peice of paper from the fourth century. When he died at the foot of the cross, He said My peace I leave with you. What else do we need? The turmoil created by some who feel their opinion and self righteousness are doctrine and expressed in the media many times create a battleground for mankind. How shallow we are.

9. Harold Olsen

   7 months ago

   Since there is nothing in the Bible about Jesus ever having a wife it will take a lot to convince me that He did. I view this as just one more attempt by the left to debunk the Bible.

10. Mathew Thankachen O.Praem

    7 months ago

    Mr. and Mrs.Jesus Christ of Karen L King appears ridiculous, denying the very 'Divinity' of the prestigious Institute 'Haward Divinity School' she is attached to. The argument leveled against the veracity of the content of the article in the Catholic on line is commendable. what baffles me is the time and tone of the revelation of the parchment, besides its mysterious source at this point of time. The fact that the 'parchment' written in coptic language states Jesus' saying," My wife....she will be able to be my disciple" seems to have some 'hidden agenda' for Karen King. In the past, she authored 'Gospel of Mary Magdeline ' and 'Gnosticism and Women in the antiquity'. Her writings thus indicate her hard core stand for ' Women's Ordination and the so called Liberation' that is prevalent today in the Protestant Church. I remember someone putting up a " pregnant Bishop or Pope" some times back. Secondly, the present move of the Pope to ' deepen the faith through New Generalization' might be a threat to some historians and theologians who wants to fight against ' celibacy' in the Church. The very fact that the Catholic Bible adopted many a 'apocrypha' and the 'relation of Mary Magdeline' with Jesus, despite knowing she as a " sinful woman' is being truly presented in the gospel indicates and vindicates the 'veracity' while selecting and codifying the Bible. So, for a reasonable man can never accept the content of the parchment as historically related to Jesus Christ.
    Mathew T. O.Praem.

Leave a Comment