Christianity with a married Jesus

I've never heard that the Apostles were married. Where did you read that?

There are several passages that allude to this. Here are two examples: (from the New International Version):

Matthew 8:14: "When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever."

1 Corinthians 9:5: "Do we not have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [i.e., Peter]?
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree with you here. The Sunni-Shiite split was a direct consequence of there being legitimate heirs of Muhammed, and this would not happen if not for Muhammed being married.

It wasn't between his children though, I don't think. One claimant was his uncle and the other was his brother, right?
 
The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with married Anglican clergy converting to Roman Catholicism; allowing them to be ordained as priests and remain married. These days clerical celibacy is more custom than dogma.

There are several passages that allude to this. Here are two examples: (from the New International Version):

Matthew 8:14: "When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever."

1 Corinthians 9:5: "Do we not have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas [i.e., Peter]?

Part of what really got the ball rolling on clerical celibacy was the churches wanting to keep their land, and not have their holdings parceled out amongst potentially secular offspring who could claim an inheritance right. Wink-wink bastards are one thing, legitimate heirs, potentially with some real familial support from a landed mother's family, is quite another.
 
It wasn't between his children though, I don't think. One claimant was his uncle and the other was his brother, right?

Well, chaos did not erupt for almost a generation after Muhammad's death, so it is questionable to even talk about "claimants" in relation to him.
His immediate successor was Abu Bakr, his father-in-law*, followed by Umar and Uthman, both distant relatives of the same larger tribal group with hardly any sort of claim based upon family relatedness to the Prophet. In both cases, their selection was based upon widely acknowledged merit, which includes a lot of closeness to Muhammad. Uthman could also boast a pretty impressive network of tribal connection, although those connections were mostly to people that had been opposed to Muhammad during most of his lifetime. Uthman style of rule, however, discontented a lot of people. He was assassinated. It seems that it was at this point that conflict within the community arose. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, was Uthman's successor, but his legitimacy was tarred in the eyes of many by the fact that he had taken the position as a consequence of assassination, and that he refused to prosecute Uthman's killers (as he probably agreed with their grievances, if not their acts). Thus, the conflict arose between Ali's supporters and the family of 'Uthman, which, as a family had not claim on the Caliphate as a result of a relatedness to the Prophet. Other claimants were the Zubayrids, who likewise never based their claim upon family links.
Point is, the conflict was not just about who should succeed the Prophet, but more about what kind of succession.
The claim from the line of Muhammad's uncle al-'Abbas emerged somewhat later. It began in alliance with would-be Shiites as an attempt to set forth a unified claim in the name of the Family of the Prophet, except that, by that point, the different lines in that family had different claimants and agendas.

I will also note that Muhammad's wives, of many of them at least, were not at all stay-at-home types without influence on his action and message. This is critically notorious of Khadija. Another of Muhammad's wives, A'isha, famously rode a camel in battle. They are also recorded as critically important sources of transmission of Hadith.

*His accession seems to have been acquiesced by Ali at the time, although later reports, written when Shiite doctrine had given Ali a more central place, regard his rule as illegitimate in a Shiite perspective.
 
Top