did martin luther think jesus had a sex life?
84392
No of course not. What kind of a question is that? It's 100% false and Jesus was perfect and did not sin at all. Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation and wanted to put into practice what the Bible(God's Word) says. If Martin Luther were alive today, he would be apalled by what you said.
670111
I believe Christ was truly God and truly man, so yes it is very possible that he had a carnal relationship. It does not bother me if it is proved he had a wife.
80732
it is from the time of lamps an the chuch saying that sex was for makeing babies only you where not to look on your lover with lust
1147331
Sometimes he jingled the change in his pocket and would sing, "Shekel, shekel, I've got a shekel."  Apparently he had the song stuck in his head.\n\nJesus also liked to count his steps, and he washed his hands incessantly.  I think he had O.C.D.\n\nOn the Sabbath, Jesus was known to frizz his hair out after services and pretend to be God talking to Moses.  It was a great sketch, everyone loved it.  He'd bug his eyes out and use a voice like Reverend Jim from Taxi, and he'd say, "Moooses... MOSES!  Ya gotta take these tablets down.  Don't break 'em, kid."  Brought the house down every time.\n\nOh yeah, and Jesus loved the water to wine thing, but he could reverse it, so sometimes he'd play pranks and turn people's wine to water and then sneak off and tell the disciples for a laugh.  He was a pretty funny guy.
449796
This is something that has been debated for centuries . . . even before the Protestant Reformation.  Catholic scholars argued about it too, though the consensus remained that the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ.  And Luther NEVER argued against the Real Presence.  However, some Protestants after Luther did. . . and as Protestantism spread, so did the idea that this was only a symbolic act.  Check out this link . . . and search at the site for other articles.  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
934017
You can not tell me you really think your going to make a difference when you have a active sex life, and that God cares?\nGod gave a book to read, he gave us messages to obey, and dude, you have no clue, \nnone about what God wants, he is not flesh, nor blood, he could care less about sex, he has no sex parts.\nGet over yourself
685805
Priory of Sion and Da Vinci notwithstanding, of course it is possible. Remember that there are many years in the life of Jesus not accounted for in the Bible. Anyone who thinks that he did not have relations during this time period is being a little naive. I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy, just that we need to look at him as a man. Now...what would Jesus do?
554746
Sorry, I just think it's not true.  Jesus had a good message.  Martin Luther King had a better one.  I don't believe in supernatural things.
121052
It's actually from St. Paul. In his letters, Paul describes celibacy as the ideal human existance, but leaves a clause for those who are too weak to maintain a celibate lifestyle. Thus, in the early Church, many people chose to remain unmarried, even those who were not ordained ministers.\n\nOnly much later, when it became clear that if Christianity was going to survive, it needed to start making Christian BABIES, did married-and-family life take on the sacramental tone that it has today.\n\nYet the belief that sex BEFORE marriage is evil is rooted in that early belief that sex is AT BEST a forgivable evil. Today, we adopt a more holistic theology - that sex is part of the blessing of human relationships, which are most fulfilling in the covenant bond of marriage.
629928
It still is a pack of lies about Jesus Christ. He was never married and had no children. If he had done either, these would have been special events in his life that would have been recorded in the Gospels of the bible. Just like when he attended the wedding at Cana where he turned water into wine.
217569
lol . . . Jesus mean . . . if you believe the bible . . . Jesus was straight forward and to the point.  He did not pussyfoot around . . . and treat people with kid gloves.  He tell things they way they are . . . no sugar coating.\n\nDo you think Jesus should have been kissing the apostles a**?  Hell no, they were too busy trying figure out who will take the lead after Christ . . . fighting for position half the time.\n\nJesus was a man . . . whether he was god's son (who know . . . who cares) . . . he did not back down on what he believed was right.
1101211
Jesus may or may not have been married.\n\nMary certainly was.
279301
its a valid question.  i don't think it is sick or inappropriate.  it seems unlikely that, being male, he wouldn't have ever.  on the other hand, people claim that mastrubation is a sin and jesus committed no sins.  i guess it basically boils down to whether you believe only in the historical jesus (as i do), or believe in the literal truth of the bible and a divine jesus.  \n\ni'm afraid that the discussion is going to have to end with each group simply asserting the belief of their camp, unless there is any further evidence one way or the other - bible passages, historical testimony, archaeological evidence, etc.
825547
"The age of martyrs also produced a great number of writers who wrote about Christianity and what they believe in order to dispel some of the myths about Christians (some said they were cannibals because they ate the “body and blood”) These writers became known as “The Apologists” and they were able to help clarify Christian theology to the pagans, leaving us with some of the greatest explanations of the Christian faith."\n\n\nWhat you teacher tells you is true.  Christians were deemed to be cannibals because of the whole blood host thing with communion and they were martyred by mass murders.\n\nThis is an important lesson in not taking the time to really learn about something and just assuming that rumors are true - like what you hear on TV - \n\nBig spin off in the Catholic religion when King Henry VIII of England wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope said NO.  So, Henry got out of the Catholic religion, made himself the King of Religion in his country and tried to make all the Catholics in England convert to the Church of England - a lot of people were murdered for not changing over as it was deemed treacherous not to obey Henry.\n\nThe irony of the whole protestant England thing was that in Germany a monk name Martin Luther was trying to lead reforms in the Catholic Church too.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther\n\nIt is a strange thing that ofter two or more people will arrive at the same idea in different ways by different methods but almost simultaneously\n\nNow we have Protestants because a man wanted a divorce - which would have been better because Henry usually cut off their heads after that and his first wife was, in a way lucky to have got away with her head.\n\nYou have a very good teacher
718231
Mark: You think the pseudopigraphical gospels would make Christianity more loving? Here's a quote from the one you mentioned, the Gospel of Thomas:\n\n(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." \nJesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."\n\n\nSo women are not worthy of life, Jesus agrees. But He'll make her a man (as all women should) so she can be worthy!\n\nDo you know what Pseudopigraphal means? It means someone wrote it, and stuck someone else's name on it. That's what almost all the extra Gospels did. Gospel of Thomas was NOT written by Thomas. Gospel of Philip was NOT written by Philip. Gospel of Judas was NOT written by Judas. They were written by gnostics 200 years after the events (or more). \nIn contrast, the gospels the early church accepted were known to be written by the Disciples themselves, in the lifetimes of the disciples.That's why they're considered reliable, not because of some vast white male christian roman conspiracy. But because of use of plain old logic and unstoopid-ness.\n\nLet's use an example. If we were to talk about Abraham Lincoln, we could investigate books written by people who hung out with Lincoln himself. That would correspond nicely with the New Testament. Or, we could read a book written by the guy at the local new age bookstore  yesterday who called it "The Autobiography of General Grant." That corresponds nicely with the gospels everyone who doesn't know what they're talking about wants to say represents early christianity. Written 140 years after the fact, or written by eyewitnesses. \nTell me folks, which source would you trust for your info on Abraham Lincoln?\n\n-Stephen\nAs for the extra books:\n\nFor forever, the church had a section of writings called the Deutero-Canon (which means '2nd canon.') and they were esteemed writings but not quite on the level as the rest of the Bible.\nWell, when the Protestant Reformation took place, alot of reformers (especially Martin Luther) said "What do we have this crap around for?!?!? Either it's Bible, or it's not!" which sounds perfectly logical to your average person today, but at the time (and even now, if we stop to weigh things) it was a pretty contreversial thing to say.\nSo Luther cut that stuff out.\nSo the Catholic Church responded by saying "Fine, then IT IS Bible!" and put it in with the rest of the Bible, exactly the same. So it didn't have a 2nd tier of authority right behind the regular Bible, it became part of the regular Bible.\n\nThis is (part of) what Protestants call the Apocrypha.\nSo now you understand the debate.\n\nVery few major doctrines are based on the Apocrypha (although the idea of Purgatory finds it's strongest support there), but there are various works of various merit.
1158249
Nope.  I believe that it's more likely that he was married.  It was far more common in those days for a Jewish man of his age to be married.  The major reason that the bible doesn't mention it is because the authors believed it would be assumed.  The bible makes no reference to Jesus being single either.  However, there is mention that Peter was single.  Why would it be important to mention his singleness, but not Jesus'?
1030309
I think that was Jesus...I could be wrong...I'll google it later