And while we're on the subject

Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to have taken Jesus to the West Country, posssibly Glastonbury. Hence 'Did those feet.......'.

The myths abound,
The myths abound....

And Dan Brown ripped off the whole idea from may have been influenced by a book called 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. Some people think it would have been strange if Jesus hadn't been married by the age of 30. On the other hand, there's no mention of John the Baptist being married either. So who knows?

Who knows, indeed? I expect there were quite a lot of things in their lives that have never been mentioned.

Good heavens, Lily, what are you suggesting?

Oh, Greatnan

The theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene has been around for ages – long before Dan Brown wrote that appallingly third-rate book. His being married is not a big deal, but would, of course, upset some, but the idea that he might have fathered children would almost certainly be.

Why Joseph of Arimithea would have anything to do with Glastonbury is difficult to understand – or is Arimithea in the West Country?

No, he was Jewish but he is said to have had business in the tine mines of Cornwall.

Lilygran you're right; some Christians probably don't mind at all if Jesus was married. I should have said 'some'.

However, it is suspicious to me that the issue of Jesus's sex life is never mentioned by the Church. Similarly, nothing is ever said about the relationship between Joseph and Mary which is likely to have been sexual at least some of the time.

Not to mention the fact that God chose a 14 year old to bear his child.

I suppose that last remark was a bit naughty but I've often wondered.

I get a lot of my information on Christianity from a good friend of mine who is not only a committed Christian but also an Anglican priest.

We are never short of something to argue about!

I heard somewhere that the word which is generally translated as "virgin" was in fact one which, at the time, meant a girl who had not yet seen a period. I suppose that at a time when girls were married as soon as they reached that age the two meanings merged into one.

Life expectancy would have been very limited 2,000 years ago, so 14 would not have been an unusually young age to be married. Juliet was 13.
I asked my Dad what 'Sez you' meant when I was about 8. He replied that it was what Joseph said to Mary!

Greeting cards in a shop window yesterday. On the front of one was:

'What if the hokey cokey IS what it's all about'

Petallus

As a Christian it certainly wouldn't bother me if it were proved that Jesus was married - as for his fathering children, wouldn't it be wonderful if somewhere in this world there were people whose DNA contained some small remnants of His DNA?

Of course Joseph and Mary had a sexual relationship, what I think is forgotten is that the Bible was written by men, interpreting the word of God as it fitted in with their existing beliefs, which is why women are only now being given positions in the established churches. (Not before time in my opinion)

I recall reading an article some time ago in which the theory was put forward that Jesus had intended for Mary Magdalene to carry on his church rather than Peter but because the men of that time couldn't contemplate a woman running the church they decided it had to be Peter. Another topic for discussion!

I try to look past the input of men and to reach the real meaning.

One of our RE teachers leaned towards the theory that the word 'virgin' in those days meant a girl whose periods hadn't yet started, so that Jesus would in all probability have been Joseph's son - the Son of God story being invented only after his healing abilities became well known.

greatnan now we know where you got your sense of humour from.

Jesus' brothers (and sisters) are referred to in the Gospels although I think the Romans explain this as meaning closest followers. I think many of the interpretations referred to above as being possibly upsetting to Christians would not be news to most churchgoers and would only upset anyone who interprets every word of the Bible literally. And if they can manage that, good luck to them! I can't find any reference to Mary's age either but as she was unmarried, it seems likely that she was in her early teens.

The virgin birth does not really matter does it, it is not central to his teachings, only to those who codified them for the "organisation" that developed, which needed a coherent doctrine, with all the references to earlier Jewish prophecies in place and fulfilled. Neither does it matter if his earthly begetter was not even Joseph - in fact it would make him an even more remarkable success story. If he was married, his wife would have had to be either extremely long-suffering and patient, or part of his work - as Mary Magdalene was, which makes her a prime candidate.

As for the "Son of God" description, a non-conformist lay preacher who led the group where I went to Sunday School (a "mission" to a poor part of a city) said that we were all the children of God, and that Jesus was the supreme representative example of a Son of God and we should all model ourselves on him. No mystical bullshit, just matter-of-fact practical morality.

Absolutely, Elegran!

Many religious leaders have claimed to be born of virgins - it stems from the total lack of understanding of the process of reproduction. Men, in their egos, thought that the man planted a homunculus, a tiny, complete human being, in the woman and she simply acted as an incubator. Therefore, if he was born of a virgin he had no earthly parentage.
Similarly, the ban on artificial contraception stems from the story of Onan, who 'spilt his seed on the ground' rather than impregnate his dead brother's widow, whose children would then have taken precedence over his existing chidren.
See, all that religious education did me some good (except I learnt all this by studying Christianity after I became an atheist. I thought it would be interesting to nail all the myths the nuns had taught me.)

With regard to joining some group because we feel the need to belong - I joined Wirral Humanist group on purely practical grounds. We needed an organisation to lobby parliament about schools being forced to offer RE (and only RE before the introduction of the national curriculum.) I thought more could be done in a group than by individuals. The fact that I found many friendly and like-minded people (as I have here) was just a bonus.

Two thousand years ago, people found explanations for what they didn't understand. We do the same today - it's just that we find different things difficult. It is possible to rationalise all the mystical aspects of Christianity and I expect people take that as far as they need to until they feel comfortable with it. But if you rationalise the mystical too far, it ceases to be mystical. Quite a lot of what's in the Gospels relates back to the Old Testament/Jewish Bible in terms of fulfilling prophecies.

I am a rational human being - I can live without mystical! There is still very much we don't know about the universe and ourselves. I wish they had spent as much researching the human mind as they spent on landing a man on the moon. Science is so exciting and mysterious - who needs religion?