If it's ok for Mary....

...then does the fact that Jesus was a bastard mean that it's ok for me to have premarital sex?

Ok, I know that was inflammatory. And it was meant to be. Because the Bible's definition of marriage can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It deserves realistic discussion; discussion based on LOGIC not on some omniscient God-factor which doesn't make a lick of sense no matter how you twist it or turn it inside out. Cocking your head to the side and looking at something sideways doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumb and people are going to ask if you have whiplash or if you need to sit down.

Book of John 4:6-26 is a perfect example of why the definition of marriage needs to be discussed.

Jesus and his disciples are traveling and they stop in a town. The disciples leave to go the the market and Jesus sees a woman at a well. He asks her to draw him some water to drink. She is astounded he is talking to her at all because of the different regions they come from. (The commandment to love thy neighbor hasn't kicked in. And quite frankly, has it ever? I'm anxious for it.)

Verse 11 is clearly indicative that the woman has not a clue what Jesus is talking about in the beginning. "The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou has nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then has thou that living water?"

Only when Jesus indicates after the fact that he was talking about a different well of water than the physical one before them does she understand that he is talking in metaphors.

Why then is it so difficult for us to understand that the entire Bible is meant to be read metaphorically? Why do people insist on reading it for a literal interpretation and then end up being Younger Earthers and all sorts of other nut jobs who cast contemptuous eyes on science?

Anyway, getting back on point: Jesus tells the woman that the type of water he is speaking of isn't the type of water which leaves you thirsting for more. It is the type of spiritual 'food' or substance of which one takes and never thirsts again because the soul is content with truth and knowledge of God.

To prove that he is not some wandering, raving lunatic he points out that instead of having only one husband she actually has five. At that point the woman is shocked with his statement, calls him a prophet, and then states that she'd heard Jerusalem was The Place to be in the presence of holy people and to learn godly ways. What Jesus says next at verse 21 and 22 is truly prophetic in a gnostic sense:

"Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet, at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

(Remember, the Jewish Mystery religions were the very heart of what we now call the Gnostic Bible codices and tracts. Kabballah is a cousin of this range of Mystery teachings.)

The woman at the well is not rebuked by Jesus. Not condemned and told that she is going to hell for sleeping with five different men. Jesus simply acknowledged her actions in order to show her that he knew of her intimate secrets.

Verse 17 and 18:

The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou has well said, I have no husband:
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly."

There are a few ways to interpret this statement of Jesus'.

1. She is a widow five times over and is now on her sixth husband but has not consummated the marriage yet.
   
2. She has had a marriage-like bond(emotional) with and/or slept with five men but this sixth man is not one with whom she has a marriage-like bond with and so is not counted by Jesus as being a current husband.
   
3. The author of the verse was drunk and miscounted/miswrote what was meant to be: "For thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now has is also thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Bringing her total husbands up to six.

Conclusion: judging from any of these proposed interpretations anyone you have a sexual relationship with and/or a 'marriage-like' bond with is counted as a spouse.

I find it interesting that the only time the Bible speaks of segregating women from the men is during menstruation. And Jesus talked to women as he would men. There was no favoritism. No coddling of the 'gentler sex.' Many gnostic sects have taken this to mean that a true platonic love was possible between men and women as equals. To love in the Platonic sense was to direct one's mind and soul to the divine, to reach toward love itself. This profoundly unbiased emotion has been examined since before Plato's dialogue in the Symposium. It's an idea which is as old as humanity's first couple.In the fifteenth century Platonic love even became fashionable.

Wiki on marriage:

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."^[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"^[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.^[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.^[6]

(Keep that 'circular logic' bit in your mind by Mr. Bell as you keep reading.)

Now here's an interesting quirk of Roman Catholicism:

"Divorce is not recognized, but annulments predicated upon previously existing impediments may be granted. Offspring resulting from annulled relationships are considered legitimate. The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion.^[80]"

<sup>Going back to our woman-at-the-well scenario, if she had divorced her five(or six) husbands and then remarried then that means she could be baptized but not receive communion. How much sense does that make in relation to Jesus' words to her; an offering of knowledge and direct communion with God? It doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

Book of Mathew 16:6 "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."</sup>

And yet the Catholics will recognize an annulment. God made the bond but man is willfully separating it under the guise of Peter's divine patronage.

Why is it that children from an annulled marriage are considered legitimate? If the marriage "didn't exist in the first place" as what is necessary to agree upon for an annulment to take place, then how can the children be legitimate?

I have to agree with Duran Bell's statement concerning sexual access being the basis of marriage restrictions and legitimacy issues being called "circular logic." Convenient circular logic at times. And at others a whole messy can of worms with legitimate/illegitimate children being squabbled over.

And getting back to Mary's bundle of joy-- surely Joseph felt cuckolded by God. Poor guy.