Was Jesus married?

[BCSpace]

The only evidence that Jesus was married is the LDS doctrinal necessity for it. But such could also have been accomplished between his death and resurrection. I don't think it had to have been Mary Magdalene.

[Nathair/|\]

IMO, the strongest evidence that Jesus was married is by analogy with 2 Nephi 31:6-7.

Does anyone know if the story that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a real, ancient legend or if it is a modern fiction? If it is real, that would lend a little credibility in my mind.

Yours under the evidentary oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I always thought the water into wine in John was talking about Jesus own marriage.

1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins piece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

I always took the bolded part to be his hour has not yet come for him to be married.

[rpn]

For me the best evidence is that Jesus appeared to Mary first after his resurrection. That she was his wife is the only explanation consistent with priesthood order. Otherwise he would first appeared to the apostles.

[ERayR]

The only evidence that Jesus was married is the LDS doctrinal necessity for it. But such could also have been accomplished between his death and resurrection. I don't think it had to have been Mary Magdalene.

Why not Mary Magdalene? Just curious as to your thought processes here.

[Flyonthewall]

John the Baptist was a preacher who was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

And of course if he was married, his wife would let him be caught dead in such an outfit, and would let everyone know she's a better cook than John lets on...

[Glenn101]

I do not think that Jesus was a rabbi in the traditional sense of the word. He was seemingly given that title because of the depth of wisdom and knowledge that he displayed.

As another poster pointed out, their just is not enough evidence to support a conclusion either way, at least in my opinion.

Glenn

[handys003]

Who'd of thought I would agree with RB?

My question to RB and other LDS is Christ married in Heaven? (trying not to derail RB)

[volgadon]

The marriage at Canaa

Was not, beyond reasonable doubt, Christ's own.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

There's not too much authority from a Scriptural point of view to either confirm or deny the alleged marriage of Jesus the Christ actually took place. We only receive at best ambiguous hints of either side with what we have. I follow Elder Talmage's assertion that the Gospels of Jesus Christ were not so much about the person of Christ as much as they were the teachings of Christ and the doctrine of Christ, and that the evangelists respectably guarded silence about intimate details of Christ's life.

After all, we only have three years and change of His existence detailed in the Scriptures, plus the instance of His birth and flight to and return from Egypt, the episode of the pilgrimage to the Temple at 12 years of age, and some events after His resurrection among the Apostles and among the Nephites.

[zerinus]

Was Jesus married? More specifically, was he married to Mary Magdalene? Some people think so, but I will argue that this idea should be abandoned.

If you are asking that question in the context of Mormon theology and doctrine, I don't think it is the official teaching of the LDS Church that Jesus was married; but if you are just sounding out people's speculative opinions, they are free to have whatever opinion they want on the subject.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Was not, beyond reasonable doubt, Christ's own.

I agree.

[Jason]

Does anyone know if the story that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a real, ancient legend or if it is a modern fiction? If it is real, that would lend a little credibility in my mind.

It is a modern fiction, cooked up in the mid-20th century.

[Nathair/|\]

It is a modern fiction, cooked up in the mid-20th century.

Thanks. I thought it probably was.

[volgadon]

"The biblical and extra-biblical record portray him as unmarried."

Do they portray him as unmarried, or are they silent on the matter?

[wenglund]

Aren't there not a few biblical passages intimating that Christ was married to the Church?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Thunderfire]

Was Jesus married? Of course and he still is! We are told that Jesus is the bridegroom and his bride is the "Church" (the House of Israel and covenant people).

Yet I do not believe he was married to Mary or any earthly woman. If so, this would be important enough to be recorded somewhere. The ONLY record or account we have is his earthly parents (Joseph and Mary) and having "half brothers and sisters".

[Jason]

Yet I do not believe he was married to Mary or any earthly woman. If so, this would be important enough to be recorded somewhere.

As important as telling people how to perform a baptism?

The ONLY record or account we have is his earthly parents (Joseph and Mary) and having "half brothers and sisters".

Except of course that the Bible doesn't call them half brothers and sisters.

[volgadon]

The default condition for a rabbi was marriage,

A) the office of rabbi did not exist yet.

B) marriage was not a default condition until the middle ages.

which could be argued to shift the burden of proof, but I don't think either side can reasonably saddle the other with the impossible-to-satisfy "burden of proof".

Your argument I'm afraid lacks support.

Anyway, here are my replies to Rob Bowman's points:

1. Jesus being married may have been suppressed by the early Christian church for two reasons: First, that would have given greater status to women than they wanted to concede,

Then why elevate the Virgin Mary?

and second if Jesus had descendants they would have been rivals to the Roman church as far as authority goes.

Or they would have made superb puppets.

Suppression could have initially been for protection: The Romans executed Jesus for sedition, and they might have wanted to eliminate family members who could take up the banner of the fallen "King of the Jews".

Tracking down relatives and descendants doesn't seem extremely difficult.

2. While there is no mention of Jesus being married in the apocraphal gospels, he did annoy the disciples by kissing Mary on the mouth a lot. The saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" comes to mind.

As does "blowing smoke."

4. The gospels have Mary Magdalene present at an awful lot of important events,

So are many others.

and I think she's listed first every time there's a list of women by name.

I'd have to check that.

By the way, her name is very interesting. She is not "Mary of Magdala"; in fact, there is no such place. It's a title of some kind. The root might be migdal-eder, or "high watchtower." Thus "Mary Magdalene" might imply something like "Mary the Guardian" or "Mary the Great".

Funny, you must have missed Migdal Nunia.

5. I have read that "rabboni" was a term of endearment.

Not that I've seen.

Of potentially greater interest is what happend just moments before: Supposing he was the gardener, Mary says that she will come and take Jesus' body away. My understanding is that, under Jewish law, only immediate family members could lay claim to a dead

body.

Under Jewish custom, the entire community was to drop everything to go take care of the dead unless there was an organised group dedicated to such matters.

A few other circumstantial evidences (not claiming these are proofs):

- My understanding is that under Jewish custom one of the duties of a king was to sire two sons, basically an heir and a spare. If Jesus was indeed fully qualified to be called "King of the Jews", fulfilling those requirements may well have been on his agenda.

Something else I can't say I've come across.

- The anointing of a dead body with oil for burial was something that a wife did for her husband. Mary was in that role twice, once at the tomb and once in a prophetic anointing about a week before Jesus was killed. Jesus' remarks on that occasion were rather interesting, and I don't think the Christian world has followed his injunction to relay the story of that event "whersoever this gospel shall be preached". Perhaps we've been preaching a somewhat different gospel - the gospel of an unmarried Jesus, omitting his priestess wife? See John 12:1-8 and Mark 14:3-8 (different versions of what many scholars believe is the same event).

It was something anyone could do for another.

- When Paul was extolling the advantages of the celibate life, why did he use himself instead of Jesus as the example?

When Paul talked of persecution, why did he use himself as an example?

So my position is that there's enough evidence on both sides that neither deserves to be dismissed.

stYro

There probably is, but your list isn't.

[Thunderfire]

As important as telling people how to perform a baptism?

Now that's an interesting argument! Is the bible a priesthood manuel giving all the intructions necessary for priesthood ministry or is it first and foremost instructions in how to link our lives with Jesus?

This thread is the first I have ever read where many in the LDS believe Jesus was married or that this belief is important in some way. I don't find this concept being introduced in the Book of Mormon (fullness of the gospel), the Bible, or Doctrine and Covenants. So can you share any references that the LDS use to justify the belief that Jesus was married? It does not offend me that some believe this and while I do not believe that Jesus was married, I'm interested in learning what was used to justify this belief.

Except of course that the Bible doesn't call them half brothers and sisters.

That is correct! So not to be argumentative, if we believe in the virgin birth which the Bible introduces, then in fact it does infer that the additional children of Joseph and Mary were his "half" brothers and sisters. It is in Matthew (13:55) where we are told the names of Jesus half brothers and that he had sisters (again, if a virgin birth is believed).

[Jason]

Now that's an interesting argument! Is the bible a priesthood manuel giving all the intructions necessary for priesthood ministry or is it first and foremost instructions in how to link our lives with Jesus?

Since it says baptism is necessary to link our lives with Jesus but doesn't say how to perform one we would be in trouble without extra-biblical sources.

This thread is the first I have ever read where many in the LDS believe Jesus was married or that this belief is important in some way. I don't find this concept being introduced in the Book of Mormon (fullness of the gospel), the Bible, or Doctrine and Covenants. So can you share any references that the LDS use to justify the belief that Jesus was married?

It's not an official doctrine. The idea arises from the LDS doctrines that you must be married to attain the Celestial Kingdom and that Jesus is our prime exemplar.

Certainly he attained the Celestial Kingdom, so by LDS doctrine he must at some point have been married (though we also allow that this could have been after his mortal life). And since we are all to seek to be married, it would make sense if he, as our prime exemplar, had been married.

That Mary Magdeline may have been his wife (or one of his wives) is speculation based primarily on his appearing to her first after his resurrection.

That is correct! So not to be argumentative, if we believe in the virgin birth which the Bible introduces, then in fact it does infer that the additional children of Joseph and Mary were his "half" brothers and sisters.

Right, my point was that it is an inference that they were half-siblings, not something explicitely stated in the Bible.

[toon]

Rob, how many times in the NT does it talk about the spouses of the twelve apostles?

Matthew 8:14 references Peter's mother-in-law. As it is part of a miracle story that really doesn't have much to do with Peter. In other words, I doubt that the reference was placed there to point out that Peter was married. Oeter was married, and it's almost by aaccident that the fact is included. The reference could just as easily have not been there. Failure to reference would not be significant evidence that he was unmarried.

Paul possibly mentioned his wife (and that Barnabas, Peter, Jesus' brothers and other apostles were married) in 1 Corinthians 9. But even if that is what he was saying, he wasn't writing anything close to a gospel or to what could be considered an ancient biography.

[Mark Beesley]

Was Jesus married? More specifically, was he married to Mary Magdalene? Some people think so, but I will argue that this idea should be abandoned.

In the process of considering this question, one would do well to also consider the question of whether or not we have a Heavenly Mother, something that the scriptures are entirely silent on. Perhaps some things are not recorded in the scriptures because they are simply too sacred to be put out there for the world to scorn and mock.

[Storm Rider]

Was Jesus married? Of course and he still is! We are told that Jesus is the bridegroom and his bride is the "Church" (the House of Israel and covenant people).

Yet I do not believe he was married to Mary or any earthly woman. If so, this would be important enough to be recorded somewhere. The ONLY record or account we have is his earthly parents (Joseph and Mary) and having "half brothers and sisters".

Thunder, I am curious if the marriage situation is so important to mention how many of the apostles marital situation was described in the New Testament? I have asked this already, but I did not see anyone answer it yet.

[Storm Rider]

Matthew 8:14 references Peter's mother-in-law. As it is part of a miracle story that really doesn't have much to do with Peter. In other words, I doubt that the reference was placed there to point out that Peter was married. Oeter was married, and it's almost by aaccident that the fact is included. The reference could just as easily have not been there. Failure to reference would not be significant evidence that he was unmarried.

Paul possibly mentioned his wife (and that Barnabas, Peter, Jesus' brothers and other apostles were married) in 1 Corinthians 9. But even if that is what he was saying, he wasn't writing anything close to a gospel or to what could be considered an ancient biography.

Thank you toon, I did not see your answer before I asked Thunder. There is virtually nothing said directly about any of the apostles and their spouses; it is silent. Is the silence meaningful or is there a deduction that could be made? If it is so for the apostles is it also meaningful that nothing was said about the Savior? Christ being the bridegroom does not negate his relationship with a spouse at all. Though many LDS think that there is a high probability that Jesus was married and most others think he was not married, the scriptures are silent and that silence means nothing other than it was not menioned.