michael writes:
Why wasnt jesus married. Surely a jewish man at this point in history would have been. ...Perhaps this is another example of the bible's revisionism of the role of women in society. Would the admittance of jesus's union with a woman raise the fairer sex to a point of equality with man, and lower jesus from deity to man/philosepher. ...Surely this is a more acceptable truth, that men collated the bible (selecting which gospels to include), and elevated mans importance in order to increase both influence and power.
MexicanHotChocolate writes:
if Jesus was sent to Earth to live as a human being and suffer as a human wouldn't part of that include learning to love as a human including all the pain and heartache associated with that? Isn't part of being human falling in love?
Jesus DID fall in love as a human...He fell in love with all of humanity.
NIV writes:
Luke 19:41-43 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace-but now it is hidden from your eyes.
brennakimi writes:
the greatest show of humanity is the search for another to complete you.
John the Baptist writes:
John 3:28-30='I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete
John knew, as a single man, that the ultimate goal was for humanity to "marry" God. This is the mystery of Holy Communion. There was no one person that would complete Jesus. All whom He called who responded would become the Bride.
brennakimi writes:
we are made to serve another utterly.
Humans are made to serve God. Jesus came to "save" His Bride.
ABC News special writes:
As was noted in the ABCNEWS special, we can contrast the marital status of Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, then there was no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul's case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it, because Jesus had not been married. ... One of the most interesting facts about the discussion about whether Jesus was married (and then whether this marriage was to Mary Magdalene) is that the vast majority of liberal and conservative students of the Bible agree that he was not married. This is one of the few points where there is such substantial agreement among biblical scholars.
Another good point was:
Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one. The apostles addressed him as such to say he was their teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish office. The Jews asked Jesus "by what authority" he did certain things because he did not hold any kind of formal office within Judaism. He did not have an official position that would have permitted him to do things like act within the temple (Mark 11:28). As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had no recognized role within Judaism.
™ Version 4.2