If I have read correctly the Old Testament, God (Jehova) would have had the jewish community lapidate a man who was unmarried at the age of thirty. Worse, yet, the jewish people would not have consented to his being gay. Although, as is natural, there MUST have been many of them. Why is it that religion INSISTS on Jesus never getting married?\nEnlighten me, Please.
124929
It is highly unlikely an unmarried adult male would have been respected, followed or referred to as "rabbi" in ancient Judea.\n\nThe Jesus story created by the Roman Empire was intended as an insult to Jews.
515294
Interesting but contrary to Scripture. I understand the problem you're considering and offer this as a possible solution...\n\nAdam and Eve were perfect and it took several generations before the degenerating gene pool became severe enough to forbid incest.
479130
Not at all! I back them up actually. If God wanted to promote homosexuality, then he would allow man-man woman-woman realationships, but he doesn't. He actually destroyed 2 cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) with a rain of fire because they were practising homosexuality.
124705
Well, assuming that we knew he had consummated the life choice/marriage I expect they would be shocked equally by each statement, since they (and other Christians, don't forget us!) believe that Jesus was celibate, and each statement would equally contradict this belief.\n\nThis is quite a question! Presumably he wouldn't have been gay AND married (although he may have been in your hypothetical question!) so it actually concerns two alternative realities!
320144
YOUR "FACT" is completely flawed, I keep hearing so-called experts on television say that, and it's complete rubbish.  In Ancient Judaism there were always so-called "priests" that served as the religious leaders of Jewish society.  Many of them never married as they remained free of anything secular (including family life), often traveling into the wilderness and building entire communities that were similar to what we know as monasteries.  Research the term "Qumran" on yahoo or google as it is one of the most popular and well-researched Jewish monasteries that actually existed during the lifetime of Jesus.  In fact, Qumran was located very close to the caves that held the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is probable that the very UNMARRIED Essene monks at Qumran authored the scrolls, as many of the scrolls outlined the lifestyle of the Qumran inhabitants in detail.\n\nFurthermore, if you read any of the writings of Paul in the New Testament of the bible, you will see that only a few years/decades after Christ religious men were clearly encouraged NOT to marry, as families would serve as distractions from God's service, and do you really think that in a few decades habitual tradition concerning religious men changed that rapidly? \n\nBut I DO agree with you that it wouldn't be so bad if Jesus did have a wife and children.  It's just that it doesn't fit at all with how we know Jesus lived. Therefore, it's just not true.  \n\nAnd as far as "The DaVinci Code" controversy, I seriously doubt anyone feels threatened by the novel and movie because they are "insecure" in their own faith.  THATS NOT THE CONTROVERSY.  I know that on TV the media is talking it up, and I know that some, not most, but SOME Christians have been complaining about the movie.  But it has NOTHING to do with their own faith.  It is the duty of any good Christian to have compassion for the non-believer.  The Great Commission according to the Bible is to go and teach the world the Good news that Jesus Christ is Lord.  That is something that should be held close to the heart and sacred for any Christian.  \n\nSO, I don't think ANY Chritian opposes "The DaVinci Code" because he is afraid for his OWN faith, but because of the damage it does to the possible or POTENTIAL faith of the non-believer.  It is hard enough in this world to spread the Word and to share the Gospel without these multi-billion dollar enterprises like "The DaVinci Code" working directly against you.  In other words, the Christian believes that he is already informed of the Good News, and so of course he does not feel personally threatened by a novel and movie.  But any Christian or layperson should be intelligent enough to also realize that there are plenty of weak-minded people out there that will be duped into believing the book and movie are fact, and in believing such a tale it is that much harder for them to become a believer; to become a Christian.\n\nThe DaVinci Code story is passed off as fact.  And it just isn't at all.  It's fiction.  Yet because people believe it, there literally are those among us now in this world that believe Christ was not divine at all, but a man that married, had children, and that such children prove Jesus was NOT the Son of God.  That's the danger of this story and movie that you see some clergymen talk about on TV.\n\nThat said, I am a Christian and I WILL be seeing the DaVinci Code, as any story relating to church history attracts me greatly.  I can't wait to see the movie after church this Sunday!
266509
The law was given to the Jewish people, not to everybody. God chose the Jews to be His people. He wanted to be their king and the law was their constitution, so to speak. The only true theocracy in history! Later, the people asked for an earthly king but the law remained and is still a part of God's covenant with the Jewish people today.\nwhen Jesus came, He observed the law and even more, He fulfilled it. Does that mean it is no longer valid? \nNo, it's still valid. But it's still a covenant between God and the Jewish people. \nWhen the gospel was first preached to Gentiles, some Jewish believers taught, that all Gentiles have to become circumcised and follow the Mosaic law if they want to be followers of Christ.\nThe whole matter is discussed extensively in Acts 15. In the end, the apostles agreed, that Gentiles should not be subject to the law, but that they should be given the following guidelines: abstain from blood, from animals that have been strangled or sacrificed to idols and from sexual immorality. So why do Christians not follow these rules? Because they were not given as a law by God but rather as guidelines by the apostles. \nSo, yes the mosaic law still stands but Gentiles are not required to keep it.
611898
I don't think it's that big of a deal either. Whether Jesus was married or not changes nothing for me. And it seems to make more sense that he was with Mary all the time if she was his wife, I always found it odd that he hung out with a prostitute. I think Catholics see sex as "sinful" so Jesus can't have any part of that. But then why is called Holy Matrimony? How is it wrong with your spouse? i don't care either way, there are more important issues for people to argue over!
231859
i'm pretty sure you know the Christian view... this is something i've been thinking about a good bit lately - Genesis talks about 'when a man leaves his parents and basically takes a wife... they live together and become one.. sorry - paraphrasing i dont like... i'll add more as i research\nI'm curious more because of the jewish prophecy concerning the messiah; of a virgin, yet of the line of David. \n& my head hurts.
539309
Jesus never condoned sex outside of marriage and is believed to have been celibate for his entire unmarried life. I think he would be closer to the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.\n\nThe Catholic Church believes there is nothing sinful about being homosexual. But homosexuals like all unmarried people are called to celibacy.\n\nThe Church specifically says that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."\n\nWith love in Christ.
95290
Jesus as we know was Jewish, and in those times a Jewish Rabi had to be married in order to be listened to.  The Bible depicts him as being a bachelor, so that he would represent a divine being, and we know that over the centuries many things of the bible have been changed or added or removed.
661973
I dont think the Bible specified an age when to get married.
584603
This is one of the major criticisms of the DaVinci code.  It's been debated ferevently in many ciricles.  \n\nPersonally, my feeling has always been the same as what you said.  It's very weird for Jewish man in his 30s at that time not to be married.  I think Mary Magdelane may have been the wife but it's by no means clear and the keepers of the knowledge won't ever divulge this since it'd imply something about the mortal nature of Jesus.
427653
The only way a man can legally have sex (by Biblical standards) is to do it in the institution of marriage. All other sexual encounters outside of marriage is sin. Promiscuous sex is not condoned by God. We have many in this country that are living together, having sex, families, etc. without being married. The Bible clearly defines this activity as an abomination. Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook, but you asked. I am 60 years old, and I have been married to the same woman for 35 years, and have never had sex with anyone else. God's rules work if you let them. I am proud of marriage, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Thank you for asking - it allowed me to respond!!
311326
Yes! And according to the NT Jesus was a Rabbi [Mark 9:5], so he was married. That's why NT doesn't mention it, it's understood lol
403709
No to your first question. The idea of formal same-sex marriage is very recent. It certainly did not exist in Biblical times.\n\nYes to your second question. It demonstrates the depth of love that is possible between two people of the same sex. However, we have no way of knowing whether this love took on a physical dimension as would occur between two gay men today. David later had many wives and concubines and lusted after Bathsheba, so he must have been either heterosexual or bi-sexual in today's terms.
587429
You make some very good points. The bible was written in a time when homosexuality wasnt very common, people read into it much too far and take something out of it that could very well be not true.
323619
Excellent observation. They could "fulfil" many prophesies (ie. riding into town on a donkey), but they couldn't change his name. Yeshua was not the Messiah. Ask the Jews, they know better what their own scripture says than the Romans.