Was/Is Jesus Married?

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

I am among those who believe He was married, possibly to multiple women (Mary Magdalene and Martha, and possibly her sister, Martha, as well), but have little scriptural evidence to support the assumption.

However, there is some scripture evidencing it, notably the fact that Jesus appeared to His wives before visiting His Apostles, and even before rising to meet His Father. In this short passage, Mary uses the word "Rabboni", "my master", used by I wives in addressing their husbands.

Actually, rabboni (or rabbouni) was an Aramaic form of "rabbi" and meant "my master" in the sense of a teacher. You can see this usage clearly in the only other place this form of the word appears in the Bible, Mark 10:51, where a blind man addresses Jesus as rabbouni when requesting his sight. Presumably, this man was not also married to Jesus!

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

You have to remember that at the time members of the Church were being severely persecuted.

[zerinus]

While there is no official teaching in the Church that directly says He was married. I would find it very contradictory if He was not. Christ kept the whole law, the law of the Celestial Kingdom, thus He had to obey every ordinance of salvation and exaltation in order to be exalted. He considered it essential to be baptized to fullfill all righteousness, even though He lived a perfect life and had no need of baptism, therefore if marriage is an essential ordinance as we claim it is in the Church, then He had to obey that law:So to me it is unthinkable that both God the Father and the beloved Son, the prototype for all mankind would not abide by His own covenant. It is not so appauling to anyone who understands the nature of God and Christ.

Christ was prepared from the foundation of the world to be a "sacrificial lamb". That was His mission and purpose from the day He was born. He didn't come here to get married and raise a family. He died at the age of 33, and knew it before He was born. All those who are redeemed by Him are given to Him to be His seed. If He had wives and a family, there is no reason why it should not have been mentioned in the New Testament; but there is no trace.

[TAO]

Fair article is pretty good on this topic: http://en.fairmormon.org/Was_Jesus_Christ_married

[erichard]

zerinus:

You have to remember that at the time members of the Church were being severely persecuted.

That would be my point also.

I can honestly believe there most certainly was a very deliberate conspiracy to hide any information about the children of Jesus from anyone but the most faithful. His seed would have been a particular target for the wicked, even generations later.

Of course, I can also believe that the true Saints-- including the children of Jesus-- were called to a literal gathering to England after the crucifixion under the direction of Joseph of Arimathea. Why would not the Lord provide a place of refuge for those who accepted him after clearly teaching that Jerusalem would soon be destroyed after it rejected him? Again there would have been a deliberate conspiracy to hide information about this from even the churches mentioned by Paul. It was known that there would be an apostasy.

The pattern shown to Joseph Smith was that the missionaries go and preach the Gospel and teach those who accept it to gather out to places of refuge. Those who failed to gather then suffer the judgments that come upon their land after the testimony was sealed against them. Consider the Civil War and both the World Wars as such judgments.

Richard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

England(Rather Britannia) was a Roman Provence

[zerinus]

zerinus:

You have to remember that at the time members of the Church were being severely persecuted.

Sure, but why should that lead to the obscuration of Jesus' wife and kids (assuming He had any), when it did not lead to the obscuration of His mother, His brothers, and His sisters? Was His holy mother Mary any less revered by the early Christians than his wife and kids would have been? Was His brother James any less revered? Why were they not obscured, but His wife and kids were?

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

The wife of Jesus probably lived her life in relative obscurity after the death of her husband. Her/his children would have been considered demigods and worshiped as such, or even traitors to Rome. Better to remain relatively unknown when you are a small child.

Unfortunately much has been lost in the 2 millenia since. So I'm just trying to see what is logically probable, and I may be wrong.

[zerinus]

zerinus:

The wife of Jesus probably lived her life in relative obscurity after the death of her husband. Her/his children would have been considered demigods and worshiped as such, or even traitors to Rome. Better to remain relatively unknown when you are a small child.

You are making too many assumptions. The New Testament mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters; most of whom continue to remain in obscurity in spite of the fact that they have been mentioned (except for James, who had a leadership position in the Church). Your assumptions are not only highly hypothetical, but simply do not add up given the historical detail that we already have. Having been mentioned does not mean that they would have been identified or been put on the pedestal, any more than mentioning his brothers and sisters have been.

Unfortunately much has been lost in the 2 millenia since. So I'm just trying to see what is logically probable, and I may be wrong.

I can also claim that on far side of the moon there is a city that looks just like Salt Lake, but you don't know about it because no one has gone there to find it. Prove me wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

It is often said that if Jesus would have been born in city of Roman he would have been hailed as a God. In ancient Roman paganism an offspring of a God was considered a demigod.

Actually we do have pictures of the far side of the moon. No men, or women, wearing Quaker outfits waving back at us.

[zerinus]

zerinus:

It is often said that if Jesus would have been born in city of Roman he would have been hailed as a God. In ancient Roman paganism an offspring of a God was considered a demigod.

The fact remains that He was not born in Rome, and the Romans did not consider Him a God or even a demigod. That argument is an irrelevant distraction.

Actually we do have pictures of the far side of the moon. No men, or women, wearing Quaker outfits waving back at us.

Oh, it is still there, but well camouflaged! You can't see it from a satalite. You have to go and visit the place to see it for yourself.

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

Apparently neither did some of the Jews.

[zerinus]

zerinus:

Apparently neither did some of the Jews.

And that proves what?

[David Bokovoy]

You are making too many assumptions. The New Testament mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters; most of whom continue to remain in obscurity in spite of the fact that they have been mentioned (except for James, who had a leadership position in the Church). Your assumptions are not only highly hypothetical, but simply do not add up given the historical detail that we already have. Having been mentioned does not mean that they would have been identified or been put on the pedestal, any more than mentioning his brothers and sisters have been.

In light of the fact that the Gospels are based upon oral traditions about Christ and that the first Gospel account, i.e. Mark, upon which the synoptics are based, was first written some 30 years after Jesus' death, I believe you are the one who is making too many assumptions.

I can also claim that on far side of the moon there is a city that looks just like Salt Lake, but you don't know about it because no one has gone there to find it. Prove me wrong.

Actually, there is historical evidence that Jesus had an intimate relationship with Mary. The Gospel of Philip presents the institution of marriage as a sacred mystery, and two of its passages refer to Mary Magdalene as a

[zerinus]

In light of the fact that the Gospels are based upon oral traditions about Christ and that the first Gospel account, i.e. Mark, upon which the synoptics are based, was first written some 30 years after Jesus' death, I believe you are the one who is making too many assumptions.

Whether it was written 30 years or 300 years later is irrelevant. I refer you to my post #46. In either case, the conditions with regard to mentioning His wife and kids (if He had any), and mentioning His Mother and brothers and sisters were the same. That does not answer the question of why His mother and brothers and sisters should have been mentioned, and His wife and kids shouldn't have been.

Actually, there is historical evidence that Jesus had an intimate relationship with Mary. The Gospel of Philip presents the institution of marriage as a sacred mystery, and two of its passages refer to Mary Magdalene as a

[David Bokovoy]

Whether it was written 30 years or 300 years later is irrelevant. I refer you to my post #46. In either case, the conditions with regard to mentioning His wife and kids (if He had any), and mentioning His Mother and brothers and sisters were the same. That does not answer the question of why His mother and brothers and sisters should have been mentioned, and His wife and kids shouldn't have been.

Of course oral traditions written down between 30 to 50 years after the death of Christ and all inter-dependent upon each other other as literary sources perfectly answers the question why major portions of his personal life story do not appear in the accounts, including his wife.

Note that none of these sources preserve any details regarding Jesus' personal life except that he was the son of a carpenter who had a mother. And how hard was it for these writers to imagine that Jesus had a mother who gave birth to other children? It's not as if one has to have a detailed knowledge of Jesus' life in order to recognize that Christ had a mother!

I recognize only the standard works of the Church as the official, reliable, valid and authoritative source from which to obtain information about true Christian doctrine or the life and ministry of Christ. If you trust those other sources you are welcome to them; but be it known unto you that I don't.

Of course I accept the Gospel of Philip as an ancient historical Christian source. The text preserves the beliefs and historical memory of a group of early Christians and is extremely important for understanding early Christianity. Simply because as a Latter-day Saint, I do not view the Gospel of Philip as scripture does not mean that I would simply close my eyes to the fact that historical evidence exists that Jesus may have been married.

If nothing else, the Gospel of Philip illustrates that you are wrong to assume that the idea is simply an argument from silence.

[volgadon]

The places where Jesus' brothers are mentioned serve a rhetorical purpose, such as showcasing a teaching on who can be considered his brothers.

[David Bokovoy]

The places where Jesus' brothers are mentioned serve a rhetorical purpose, such as showcasing a teaching on who can be considered his brothers.

A good point. And I would simply add that of course I agreed with your posts in this thread on the issue of Rabbi and the example of the Essenes. Jesus was clearly not a Rabbi in the later historical sense, nor did all Jewish males of his time period marry, so these arguments cannot be used to support the theory.

[zerinus]

Of course oral traditions written down between 30 to 50 years after the death of Christ and all inter-dependent upon each other other as literary sources perfectly answers the question why major portions of his personal life story do not appear in the accounts, including his wife.

Assuming that He had a wife. You arguing from conclusion to premise. That is false logic. You are assuming that He had a wife, and then trying to fit the conclusion into the evidence by finding hypothetical explanations as to why she is not mentioned. At the same time you are completely ignoring my point made in post #46 that the circumstances in which His mother and brothers and sisters are mentioned are such that would require the mention of His wife and kids if He had any.

Note that none of these sources preserve any details regarding Jesus' personal life except that he was the son of a carpenter who had a mother. And how hard was it for these writers to imagine that Jesus had a mother who gave birth to other children?

That must be the most fundamental disagreement between me and you. You regard the New Testament to be a work of fiction and a figment of somebody

[zerinus]

The places where Jesus' brothers are mentioned serve a rhetorical purpose, such as showcasing a teaching on who can be considered his brothers.

How? You need to provide context to make your point credible.

[David Bokovoy]

Assuming that He had a wife. You arguing from conclusion to premise. That is false logic. You are assuming that He had a wife, and then trying to fit the conclusion into the evidence by finding hypothetical explanations as to why she is not mentioned. At the same time you are completely ignoring my point made in post #46 that the circumstances in which His mother and brothers and sisters are mentioned are such that would require the mention of His wife and kids if He had any.

Not at all. My point is that texts written some 30 to 50 years after Jesus' death based upon oral tradition by authors who most likely didn't even know Jesus do not include almost any details regarding his personal life. So if anything, yours is an argument from silence: the Gospels don't mention a wife, so there probably wasn't one.

My point is that based upon the very nature and origins of these texts, your argument from silence is extremely weak, at best.

That must be the most fundamental disagreement between me and you. You regard the New Testament to be a work of fiction and a figment of somebody

[zerinus]

Not at all. My point is that texts written some 30 to 50 years after Jesus' death based upon oral tradition by authors who most likely didn't even know Jesus do not include almost any details regarding his personal life. . . .

My friend, I have a fundamental disagreement with you over how the text of the NT came to be. I don't believe it was based on "oral tradition". I believe that the text of the four gospels as we have them today are based on, and abridged from, written records the original of which were handed down in written form by the Apostles. The records were not transmitted orally to begin with.

For the rest of your arguments, I refer you again to my post #46. Nothing further needs to be added to that.

[David Bokovoy]

My friend, I have a fundamental disagreement with you over how the text of the NT came to be. I don't believe it was based on "oral tradition". I believe that the text of the four gospels as we have them today are based on, and abridged from, written records the original of which were handed down in written form by the Apostles. The records were not transmitted orally to begin with.

For the rest of your arguments, I refer you again to my post #46. Nothing further needs to be added to that.

Fair enough. However, in terms of the New Testament Gospels, I would refer you to what I consider to be an extremely valid point raised by New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrmann:

[volgadon]

My friend, I have a fundamental disagreement with you over how the text of the NT came to be. I don't believe it was based on "oral tradition". I believe that the text of the four gospels as we have them today are based on, and abridged from, written records the original of which were handed down in written form by the Apostles. The records were not transmitted orally to begin with.

For the rest of your arguments, I refer you again to my post #46. Nothing further needs to be added to that.

Actually, texts were usually transmitted orally in the apostles day. See Jaffee's "Torah in the Mouth". Letters were somewhat of an exception, but even then it was preffered to have a messenger relay them and provide oral information.

Even the traditions that ascribe the Gospel of St. Mark to Mark have it that he wrote down traditions he had heard. Traditions circulating orally.

[LeSellers]

Actually, rabboni (or rabbouni) was an Aramaic form of "rabbi" and meant "my master" in the sense of a teacher. You can see this usage clearly in the only other place this form of the word appears in the Bible, Mark 10:51, where a blind man addresses Jesus as rabbouni when requesting his sight. Presumably, this man was not also married to Jesus!

Maybe not "married", but "sealed", perhaps.

I didn't say it was exclusive to women addressing their husbands, but that I wives would call their husbands "rabboni". Others were free to use the title as appropriate.

It's just one data point. I made no further claim.

Lehi