# Was Jesus married?



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2014)

I know there is a new book coming out about this subject and there is lots of back and forth between the authors and some scholars. One of the main points of contention is that the authors are basing their findings on ancient texts called "The Lost Gospels" and those were written too long after the events..even though all the Gospels were written after the events.

But anyway, here is some possible evidence in New Testament writings that this author seems is compelling enough to be considered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james...-the_b_6152030.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 15, 2014)

While well presented, I don't think the arguments do much more than speculate about the gaps.  I tend to think the authors of the gospels would have identified MM as Jesus' wife, given that all four of them are about his life.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> While well presented, I don't think the arguments do much more than speculate about the gaps.  I tend to think the authors of the gospels would have identified MM as Jesus' wife, given that all four of them are about his life.


Well the case was made why wives were not specifically mentioned and also why clues would lead to her having a wife's role.
She is mentioned way more than an aquaintance would get credit for in those days.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 15, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Well the case was made why wives were not specifically mentioned and also why clues would lead to her having a wife's role.
> She is mentioned way more than an aquaintance would get credit for in those days.



Yes, it is a compelling argument.  Wives are mentioned in other places in the Bible.  I'm not sure if any of the disciples were married, I never even thought about it, really.  

MM is prominent, and I have always wondered why.  I think Jesus had a lot of followers, and it would make sense that many of them were women.  MM could have been somebody's mother too.  Not sure.

As far as "lost gospels," there are reasons why certain gospels were included and others were not.  I can't remember off the top of my head, but those excluded were kept out based on specific criteria.  The ones raising these questions should be viewed in that light.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2014)

Not too many 30 year old bachelor groups hanging out in those days
There definitely was certain criteria.
The history of the religion is worth a look.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2014)

Why would MM get such privileges that were reserved for wives is a very good question.
Women were not prominent figures then but wives got some attention in those biblical stories. She received the same attention and more importantly privileges as prominent wives and prominent mothers yet was just a follower and not even a disciple. 
It seems there is more to these stories that may have been left out.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 16, 2014)

Dan brown thinks so and that's good enough for me....


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 16, 2014)

Seriously though, why wouldn't he be? If the culture of the time pushed men to marriage, wouldnt an unmarried man stick out?  This wasn't a culture with a "whatever" attitude.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Seriously though, why wouldn't he be? If the culture of the time pushed men to marriage, wouldnt an unmarried man stick out?  This wasn't a culture with a "whatever" attitude.



Those are good points.

The earliest Gospel has Jesus coming onto the scene as a man of about thirty years of age. They had the son of God living among them for 30 years and this is the first he is noticed?...albeit noticed 40 years after his death.
It is likely he led an ordinary life with an ordinary wife until he started to preach or make trouble, depending on which side it is viewed from.
Given the fact that during those times the average life expectancy of Jewish males was 29 years and only 4% of the population ever made it to 50yrs old and 2% to 70yrs( with the people in those age categories being wealthy aristocrats, politicians etc.. where an easy life led to longevity) young men got married early in order to start families because that was tradition.
It makes sense that Jesus would have been married and that his disciples would have been married.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2014)

We are told Peter had a mother in law...and that Paul mentioned his "right" to lead around a wife as others...but in reference, I believe, to his eschewing things that might in any way impede (as again, he professed as his choice) his full devotion to the ministry he was given.
I am convinced Jesus is married.
And happily so.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Nov 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> As far as "lost gospels," there are reasons why certain gospels were included and others were not.  I can't remember off the top of my head, but those excluded were kept out based on specific criteria.  The ones raising these questions should be viewed in that light.



One must also consider that the Apocrypha was contained within the KJV for thousands of years then removed in the 1800s. Does this make these texts less important?

ImHO, I would think if the "new text" had any weight there would be references to portions of the new text in other manuscripts of the period that contain the books within the New Testament.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I know there is a new book coming out about this subject and there is lots of back and forth between the authors and some scholars. One of the main points of contention is that the authors are basing their findings on ancient texts called "The Lost Gospels" and those were written too long after the events..even though all the Gospels were written after the events.
> 
> But anyway, here is some possible evidence in New Testament writings that this author seems is compelling enough to be considered.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james...-the_b_6152030.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592



I saw that in the news last week.....I think.

My first thoughts were "Just another guy trying to make a buck."  Jesus sells, and controversial Jesus sells better.

If I remember correctly, this is not this author's first questionable interpretation.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, it is a compelling argument.  Wives are mentioned in other places in the Bible.  I'm not sure if any of the disciples were married, I never even thought about it, really.
> 
> MM is prominent, and I have always wondered why.  I think Jesus had a lot of followers, and it would make sense that many of them were women.  MM could have been somebody's mother too.  Not sure.
> 
> As far as "lost gospels," there are reasons why certain gospels were included and others were not.  I can't remember off the top of my head, but those excluded were kept out based on specific criteria.  The ones raising these questions should be viewed in that light.




I think Peter was married.  Seems I remember reading somewhere both he and his wife were martyred together,  in Rome I think.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I saw that in the news last week.....I think.
> 
> My first thoughts were "Just another guy trying to make a buck."  Jesus sells, and controversial Jesus sells better.
> 
> If I remember correctly, this is not this author's first questionable interpretation.



The link i posted is a different author making points on the subject.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 26, 2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/jesus-marriage-to-mary-th_b_6225826.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 27, 2014)

First time looking into this. I accept that people, including myself, often look for what may be left out, and although I don't agree, I don't get insulted by this kind of stuff. I read it as a theory, nothing more. But I will say that proof does not exist for either side but I feel that this link is weak in making an argument. Rabbi, simply means teacher, and it could have been said of Jesus even if he were not a full fledged Rabbi. I have been called coach before and I have never had a team. If the link had provided writings found in the dead sea scrolls that told of his marriage, that would carry weight. But it spoke of rather than present. The later accusations of Jesus being married could be reverse engineering by anyone wanting to sell a shoke book. We will never know so therefore we are left to our own beliefs. Mary magdelene should be know as Mary from Magdalene. There were two Mary's. Mary "from" magdalene, a town. This Mary was likely the prostitute that Jesus drove demons from. The account of her pouring a "years worth of wages perfume" would probably only be owned by a prostitute or a perfume saleswoman. Her being freed from her life of shame, accepted into the group, I expect she whom much was given, gave much or was devoted to the cause. I realize that some may think it looks suspicious, but that would be much assumption. But, always interesting to see how the world views my faith


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 27, 2014)

This taken from Wikipedia;
] Bart Ehrman concludes that historical evidence tells us nothing at all about Jesus' sexuality—"certainly nothing to indicate that Jesus and Mary had a sexual relationship of any kind". Ehrman (a scholar of the Greek New Testament and Early Christianity) says that the question people ask him most often is whether Mary Magdalene and Jesus of Nazareth married each other. His answer: "It is not true that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained Gospels that discussed Mary and Jesus. (...) Nor is it true that the marriage of Mary and Jesus is repeatedly discussed in the Gospels that didn't make it into the New Testament. In fact, it is never discussed at all—never even mentioned, not even once. (...) It is not true that the Gospel of Philip calls Mary Jesus' spouse".[122]


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 27, 2014)

Correction, Mary of Magdala, her hometown, on the sea of Galalee


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2014)

Being that the majority of Jewish men of that time period were married well before their 30th birthday, would it make sense that since nothing is written down about the life Jesus led from infancy to around 30 years of age that none of those writers knew if he was married or not?
There are no Gospels or Dead Sea Scrolls that say he was not married either.
I am thinking  that since none of these writers witnessed Jesus and certainly never knew Jesus they probably had no idea if he was married or not.
I do not think the Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls mention whether or not the Disciples were married either. It would be hard to imagine that in a culture where marriage was an important part of that culture that twelve guys..all unmarried..all were able to find each other and travel together nonstop  in a band of merry gentlemen.
Is it possible that marriage was so common that it was simply expected and would only be mentioned if someone was not married?
I know there are wives that are mentioned in the Bible and in those cases they played a part in the story being told. Is it possible that during the periods where texts were banned and purposely destroyed that information pertaining to Jesus being married was contained in those writings but not considered important enough or fitting enough to be allowed in the Gospels?


----------



## Israel (Nov 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Being that the majority of Jewish men of that time period were married well before their 30th birthday, would it make sense that since nothing is written down about the life Jesus led from infancy to around 30 years of age that none of those writers knew if he was married or not?
> There are no Gospels or Dead Sea Scrolls that say he was not married either.
> I am thinking  that since none of these writers witnessed Jesus and certainly never knew Jesus they probably had no idea if he was married or not.
> _I do not think the Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls mention whether or not the Disciples were married either. _It would be hard to imagine that in a culture where marriage was an important part of that culture that twelve guys..all unmarried..all were able to find each other and travel together nonstop  in a band of merry gentlemen.
> ...


Matthew 8:14.
At least as far as Peter is concerned.
And, I guess one might infer it looks like their travels took them to their homes...at least on one occasion. Maybe more?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2014)

Israel said:


> Matthew 8:14.
> At least as far as Peter is concerned.
> And, I guess one might infer it looks like their travels took them to their homes...at least on one occasion. Maybe more?



8:14 Yep thanks.
She was mentioned because she played a part in the story of Jesus' powers.

onto the next 11


----------

