I realise I may have missed the boat on this one, but allow me to play catch up (as they used to say on cult 80's daytime telly - 'Going for Gold' - ahhh student life..).The basic premise of the Da Vinci Code plot is that the church has been guilty of covering up a secret that, if discovered, would rock the very foundations of Christianity. And the secret? That Jesus was married and fathered a child.
Now, whilst wanting to make absolutely clear that I don't believe Jesus was married or fathered a child, what exactly would be the theological problem if he had?
I mean, he was fully human - no debate there (any more) - so where is the theological conundrum (another game show reference - sorry!) if he had??
Obviously, if he had and it had been left out of the gospel records then that would throw up interesting questions about the reliability of the scriptures, but leaving that aside for a moment - where exactly is the problem here?
5 comments:
A few thoughts:
- considering how much emphasis conservatives put on marriage and family values (especially in USA) it's interesting to consider than neither Jesus nor Paul were ever married and had kids (at least, according to their bible)
- i think there's still a leftover hang-up of sex and sexuality being 'dirty' (even within marriage) and the thought of Jesus 'doing the deed' (or rather, Mary Magdalene) is just too much for some to even begin to handle
- the gospels say themselves that Jesus said and did many more things than what is recorded -- now granted that would be a big thing to leave out, but it's conceivable, if unlikely...
Heretic... burn him... BURN him...
Only kidding...
I guess there are issues of fidelity and faithfullness in marriage (or so I've heard), which makes me think that perhaps Jesus wouldn't have been able to marry as how faithful could he have been in his vows? But I guess (in turn) that depends upon your views of Jesus knowledge of his destiny and when that came into focus for him.
thanks Chris and Jim. Without wanting to be blasphemous, can we actually conceive of Jesus the man having sex? I'm not saying he did!! But if the notion is completely unthinkable what does that say about our dualistic attittude towards the erotic and the sexual?
Are we taling about Jesus being married while he was alive or after the resurrection, or (as the book tells it) after he didn't really die and wasn't really resurrected? Marraige after resurrection would be interesting: "honey, I know you died, but would it kill you again to take out the trash?"
http://www.sarcasticlutheran.typepad.com
One other thought.
If the church is the bride of Christ, then wouldn't Jesus already being married create a bit of what Frank Spencer might call "a pickle"?
Post a Comment