Alright I am not sure if this has been discussed before. I did a search, and got no results.

Many people believe that Jesus was single. That he was never wed. But Jesus was a Jew wasn't he? In those times wasn't it wrong for a Jewish man not to be wed?

Another thing I read in a book was that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (yes, the prostitute). And that the the right of Jesus in "The Last Supper" is a picture of her seeming to be attached to the hip to Jesus.

Also, I heard that there was a Gospel that said something like "And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene"

Anybody have any more information, or thoughts on this?

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, which made him a Christian.

Groupies:

The daVinci Code not withstanding....interestingly, perhaps, in "John's" Gospel, the character of Miryam of Magdalah (or Miryam ha Megadellah, the "hairdreser" if you prefer it in Aramaic") goes to the Tomb to "oil the body" of "Iesous" and unexpectedly meets a man to whom she speaks, "thinking he is the Gardner..."

Finding no corpse on the plank, she exclaims,

"Mister, they have taken away the corpse OF MY HUBAND (Greek" Kuriou mou) and I do not know where they have moved him..."


Well, well well.....

In the King James Version of 1611, the word "lord" and the word "husband" is the same, as it is in (e.g. "Baal") several Semitic languages.

But especially in Shakespearean English, the two terms are virtually interchangeable: see: Romeo and Juliet,

"Seen you MY LORD?" Juliet exclaims referring to her new husband Romeo the morning after their "consummation"...

Curious also is the term MIRYAM (which means "princess"): if R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("iesous" or "Jesus") was of Daviddic blood (i.e. a descendant of the royal line, albeit in Exile for 600 years) naturally he would have been surrounded his whole life by "members of the Blood Royal" (also out of power, by the way), e.g. a bunch of Miryams and male members of the Daviddic dynasty like his brother James the Just who was not a disciple, yet replaced Iesous over night---based on his Daviddic Bloodline.

We can see some reason therefore why there were "three Miryams" at the tomb (Miryam the mother of Iesous, Miryam the wife of Kleophah, whoever he was, Miryam ha Megedelleh, Miryam the mother of James and Joses etal.)

Princesses of the Blood everywhere following around their mealticket Daviddic Pretender whom they believed would somehow, someday ascend to the Throne of Judaea---and bestow upon them the status of their blood line---perhaps that it why so many Miryams figure into the circle of "Iesous" as the women who tirelessly "ministrered unto the apostles..."

The Gospel of Phillip is more explicit about the Magadellah:

"And Myriam the Megedellah was known as the Consort of the Saviour, for he used to often kiss her on the [mo] uth [?] and Peter stood up and said, Does he love her more than us?!!..."

Clearly whatever role the Magedellah had in earliest Nazorean Christianty, by the late 2nd century, her original (probably more important) role was edited out [in favour of male heroes such as "Peter" and "John"], and pushed into the background where she is identified today as the "woman from whom "Iesous" cast out the Seven Devils"... etc. and basically relegated to the role of reformed "prostitute"...

In the Dialogue in the Tomb in John's gospel, she blurts out "Rabbouni" which is a peculiarly initimate way of referring to a teacher lit. "my very own great one", as opposed to the more normal "Rabbi" or "Moreh" etc.

Seems some kind of sexual intimacy is being connoted by the dialogue in John's gospel here...and one wonders how much of an 'eyewitness" is involved in these traditions (the curous marginalia phrase "this is the disciple who witnessed these things" occurs at the crucifixion where blood and water pour out...and not to claiming to being a witness to the material in the whole book--and who wrote the 2nd marginalia, one wonders, "and WE know that HIS testimony is RELIABLE...!).

Food for thought anyway....

I am a strong believer in Jesus and God, but even I wouldn't take anything from the Bible as gospel. There are simply too many variations.

I would love to think that Jesus was married and had children, but I'd have to argue that it is irrelevant to the bigger picture, which makes me doubt any kind of "smear" campaign by the Church. Who knows. Perhaps the same extremists who felt it necessary to lter the ten commandments also felt it necessary to make Jesus in their image in their Bibles.

Originally posted by deeprivergal
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, which made him a Christian.

I've always been a bit iffy on calling Christ a Christian. Is there a published sermon or rationale behind this other than being baptized?

It just seems wrong. Like saying Buddah was a Buddhist or Kafka was Kafkaesque or Hercules was Herculean.

As to the marriage thing, I'm partial to the gnostic writings about his life after resurrection, but no more or less moved by them than the "approved" writings saying he ascended and end of story.

What about this? Jesus was his own Dad.

Think on that little Father/Son Oedipal conundrum for a minute or two. Holy Ghost indeed!

I also heard somewhere that Jesus had a child, to carry on his bloodline (okay, i've been reading too much DaVinci Code) and that childs name was Sarah.

Any thought on that?

There's also the idea that the two were married, and that Barabbis (the other man that the jews were given a choice over who should be released) could be interpreted as the "Son of the Rabbi". Jesus' son. So, the choice the jews were asked to make, was weather they desired the next in the Davidic line (Jesus) to live, or his son. A book outlined this scenerio and went on to place Jesus and Mary at Masada....Barabbis had died by then.

Christ didn't have to marry, he had groupies.

Considering he knew his time on Earth was limited from about the age of 12, I don't think he married. Leaving widows, heirs, and succesors would have just diluted his message. Kids were married off young back then and he died at 32. That was upper middle age at the time, what we would consider like 50 to be now. If he'd married there would be someone in the Bible mentioning it.

Mary saw the Man and made a play. But Christ showed her kindness and not the type she was used to. Even when his disciples said she was below filth and should not be around a guy like Jesus he told them to mind their own business. Jesus could have had any girl he'd wanted but was above the temptations of flesh. While our culture has glorified sex sex sex to the point that sex is marketed and advertised into a very unnatural thing, and people who stay chaste are looked upon as freaks, or lying perverted freaks ripe for derision, it's true that there are people in the world who have passions beyond those of their hormones.

So, no, I don't think Christ was married and I think he died a virgin. At the same time he was compassionate to someone who was regarded not only to be a filthy, useless whore, but a filthy, useless, female whore. The fact that Christ did not take advantage of her but still professed his love for her as he did for all people regardless of gender or stature endeared her very deeply to him and redeemed her. That's why she's looking so admiringly at him.

Hello Taibinsuu:

If R. Yehoshua bar Yosef was NOT married, then how do you explain the curious Logion in the recently re-discovered "Gospel of Phillip" :

"And Miryam the Megedelleh was called the Consort of the Saviour , for he often used to kiss her on the m[outh].."

this from a Coptic text that was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt based on an earlier Greek document possibly from the time of the "2nd generation" apostoloi?

Or do you really put that much faith in the aribitrary voting of Bishops at all those raucous councils that decided which books were canonical and which were NOT, based on some phony pre-conceived 4t/5th century AD ideology and theological prejudice ?

Also, the Rabinnic Mishnah (codified beginning in AD 200 but hearkening back to an earlier time) specifically says:

NO MAN MAY BE CALLED RABBI (or Teacher) UNLESS HE IS AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD AND UNLESS HE IS MARRIED.

And the Gospels seem to call "Iesous" by that title among many others (cf: the Colt Stealing Incident: "Tell the owner of the she-ass, that THE TEACHER HATH NEED OF IT..." or in the Transfiguration pericope in Mark chapter 9: "And Ho Petros said, "Rabbi, behold, the Goodness of YHWH is here..." etc.)

Luke mentions the Mishnaic Rabinnic marriage-hallakhah in chapter 3 of his gospel:

"Now Iesous was over thirty when he began to preach..."

but it is curious (or maybe NOT so curious) how the 2nd and 3rd century "Roman church" seems to have deliberately supressed any details of the life of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean....

If R. Yehoshua was in fact of Daviddic stock as all indications seems to point (even Paul / Shaoul of Tarsus is reputed to have said something like: "inasmuch as I preach the Gospel of Christ, born of the seed of David...") , there would have been a great deal of pressure on him to produce physical heirs (i.e. sons) to "establish his kingdom..." i.e. the royal Line of David....to fulfill the prophecy that "there will not lack a Son of Man to Sit upon the Throne of your Father David..." who was supposed to reinstate "in the Last Days" this 600 year-Exiled Lineage

(cf: Amos chapter 9: "And I will raise again in that Day the Tabernacle of David, which has fallen...saith YHWH"....

Then of course, if you want to get canonical on me, there is that curious passage in John's Gospel with Miryam at the Tomb wanting to oil the "body of my Husband..."

Well, well, well....!!

Hi Amadeus,

Excellent post.

Originally posted by Amadeus
...the Rabinnic Mishnah (codified beginning in AD 200 but hearkening back to an earlier time) specifically says:

NO MAN MAY BE CALLED RABBI (or Teacher) UNLESS HE IS AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD AND UNLESS HE IS MARRIED.

That about sums it up.

Many people believe Jesus to be the Son of God and will simply not accept any evidence that tarnishes what they consider to have been a life-long virgin sent from God and who died on the cross for our sins.

There is no amount of evidence that you or anyone else can come up with to convince those who have formed their opinions and beliefs out of prejudice.

But it was a noble and laudable effort on your part nonetheless.

Well he was often addressed as Rabbi and mosaic law had and still does demand that men exercising that priestly office be married .

Well if that sums it up for you guys, it's all good. It's a free country and each person can have their own views.

Christ wasn't really known for going with the status quo of the time, so a lot or rules about how men should act and such, were probably of little consequence to him. He seemed to attract people with his natural teachings, not seek the official channels to become a teacher.

As far as Mary wanting to take care of the body of her husband, don't nuns often sacrifice marriage in lieu of their devotion to God?

Christ went against many laws and rules of the day. Perhaps he saw the way the heirs of famous figures often ruin the legacy of their parents, and he probably didn't have much hope of surviving while being a rabble-rouser. He knew the hammer would fall someday. Why bother getting married if you're defying the covenants of the day, and are likely going to end up dead? If he was offered uncountable material wealth in the form of a kingdom, but refused, why would marriage tempt him?

as there are several references in the NT of instances when Jesus went against
the laws or more accuratlely the teachings of the Priests, it would seem logical
at least to me , if Jesus had " gone against the marriage laws some mention of it
would have been made by someone. as it is there is little discussion either
way.

there is also a possibility that Mary was a member of a sect that included women as Priestesses, and that they were refered to as " Temple Prostitutes
or Temple Whores by others. ( cant remember where i saw this reference)

actually it wasnt a sin for jewish men not to marry. In fact it is even said that you are better off not to marry because it can take your focus away from serving God but because of human beings and sexual desire it is also said that it is better to marry under God and act out your sexual desires with one then to form a sexual bond with many and be filled with lust if that makes sense. And if Jesus is God i dont feel that he would be tied down to some stupid law that states you have to be married. he came to start a revolution of sorts in the hearts of man. And His focus was totally on doing God's work therefore it would be wrong for him to marry because if you marry you should devote yourself to your wife and if he is gone all the time spreading the word of God and knowing that later he would die, it would only cause her pain. And Jesus stood by the teaching of "love your neighbor as yourself" ok im done.

Regards,
DIGITALGRL

actually it was peter who said it....when Jesus was speaking about the sin of adultery he said something like...
If a man divorces his wife and she marries another he has caused her to commit adultery and then in one of the gospels it kind of indicates that if he marries another, he also commits adultery....

I believe the common belief then would be that a married man would only commit adulltery if the women was married...
that lead peter to say that it would be better not to marry.....than to live under the same confines as the women were traditionally confined to......

Actually the quote i was refering to was spoken by paul. But i do remembere peter talking about marriage as you said. But Paul talked about it in terms of lust.

Remember, Jesus never claimed to be a Rabbi. Many people called him that because of his teachings. Once it became clear that he was indeed the Christ, many of the laws of the OT became obsolete.

Hey DC Golf:

Actuall R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (whom you call "Jesus") called himself (according to the Greek gospels) something roughly equivalent to Rabbi in Greek (Didaskalos = "teacher") in the so called Colt Stealing Incident (Matthew 21:1-10) when he instructs a two of his own disciples to(shall we say) "lift" a she-donkey that had been tied to a post near by (=Matthew uses the source of his Midrash on Zechariah 9:9 the curous Aramaic Targum version (not the MT) with 2 animals --a COLT and a DONKEY--not one ! Must have seemed quite a Circus feat to Matthew to make his hero able to "mount two animals"--now that's what I call a TRIUMPHAL ENTRY !)

Here is a translation of the Greek text:

"And if the owner of the Colt should come up to you saying, Why are you stealing my Colt? say unto him, THE TEACHER (Ho Didaskolos) has need of him, but will return it just as soon as he has finished with her..."

The technical term "Rabbi" (lit "my Great One") may be a late 1st century post AD 70 technical term which came into vogue especially AFTER all the priests/cohenim of the 2nd temple of Herod were put out of work when the Temple went up in flames in AD 70) but we do find the term "Ha Moreh" ("the Teacher") in the Dead Sea Scrolls---whose texts were being copied out as early as BC 165-- being bandied about about their own Suffering Servant Hero...

Either way, "Iesous" seems to have indeed called himself something equivalent to the word teacher (among other titles he accepted from others like "Son of David" and possibly even Edonai: "My lord [the King]" etc.). But the King James version uses the term from 1611 (Master = as in HeadMaster of a School) to translate "Didaskalos"---quite misleading for a modern reader in English.

Feel free to consult the Greek Text of the Gospels when you get a chance (or you can read it in English translation)...it's right there...!