While you make a good point, it is still all in interpretation and your beliefs, not in actual historical fact. If you could show me a passage in which someone said, without any doubt "Jesus is a bachelor" - that is the ONLY way I would accept that there was no chance of him being married.
This is a ridiculous standard.... like saying that you refuse to believe that George Washington never walked on the moon unless someone specifically said that the never walked on the moon.
Now on the flipside, according to the movie and the book, it was the early Church who decided what went into the Bible and what was left out. If their motive was to portray Jesus as unmarried, among other things, who knows what was left out. Now I know you would totally disagree with my implying there is any truth to that and I don't even claim to believe there is much truth in that. What I do believe to be a fact is that SOMEONE other than God decided what the Bible would say and I don't think we can think of it as flawless. Some would argue the Bible is not proof either. Not that I think that, or that I think Dan Brown's ideas are proof. I'm just throwing out ideas...
Huh? Orthodox Christian belief holds merely that the Bible is 'inspired', we do not, and never have, believed that God 'wrote the Bible and compiled it' himself, the actual writing and compilation was by human beings. God's role in the process was to make sure that no mistakes were made along the way.
If Dan Brown wants to think that there is something suspicious or scandalous about the fact that the Bible did not simply fall out of the sky, in a leather bound volume, with the 'words of Christ in red', and that it is the work of human beings, then he is barking up the wrong tree.
The only way that what you are trying to argue here actually makes sense is if we assume that the men who wrote and compiled the Bible were just automatons, slavishly, mindlessly obeying God at every turn, their freewill and human identity extinguished, the 'drones' of the beehive of God. Christians do not, and have never believed this. This is what Muslims believe about the Koran, this is what Mormons seem to believe about the Book of Mormon, but Christians have never thought this way aboutt the Bible. The fact that the writing and compilation of the Bible was done by men, is not a revelation that any halfway informed Christian is going to find at all shocking. The fact that so many Christians apparently are shocked to discover this, is a sign of just how much ignorance of basic Christian principles there is out there, among both Catholics and Protestant Christians.
Still yet, there may be reason for it to have been said and still no evidence but as far as I'm concerned that is not concrete evidence. Still I would love to know why it bothers you so to think of it.
I believe you have received sufficent explanation on this point, thank you.
Logic, reasoning, proof and evidence aside, why is it appalling to you to think of Jesus as being married and a father?
This has been explained sufficiently I think.
We both seem to agree he is both human and divine. You say he couldn't marry a human due to the differences between them, but that contradicts your saying he is fully human too.
No, it does not contradict anything. Do you REALLY think that is is appropriate for the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent God of the universe to have sexual intercourse with one of his creatures? And what would the offspring of such a union be? A 'half God half man', like Hercules? Are we talking here about Zeus or are we talking about Yahweh? Is this Greek mythology or Christianity?