If Jesus was married, it's an inexplicable omission from the canonical
gospels. Fans of the DaVinci Code speculate that Jesus having a wife would have
been suppressed by the early Church. I see no likelihood of that. The gospels
matter-of-factly record Simon Peter having a wife and the Catholic doctrine on
priestly celibacy didn't emerge until Medieval times. That's why I
find the gospel's silence on the matter to be good evidence that Jesus
probably did not have a wife.
FINALLY!I've believed this my entire life.I've read the
Apocrypha and the Coptic Gospels, and they have all made mention of Jesus being
married,The Gospel of St. Philip even says Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on
the lips – something strict Jewish law only allowed married couples to do.
but since it isn't "canonized" we can't even speak of
it. [I do teach it to my children in our FHE]It’s as if
someone methodically went out of their way to hide and destroy any reference to
the obvious, hence this shred of paper, apparently torn in a uniform fashion.A Jewish "Rabbi" can not even speak in Synagogue without
being;1. Married2. Having a SonSince Jesus did speak in
Synagogue, and WAS repeated addressed and referred to as Rabbi - even by
the Sanhedrin - he obviously was both.Great news....I
look forward to even more.
LDS Liberal,I'm not dogmatic on the issue and your logic is
sound. I've read the intriguing passage in the Gosepl of Phillip and some
of the other allusions in early non-canonical sources to Jesus being married. So
I'm certainly open to the possibility.
While this scrap of paper does not prove one way or the other the marital status
of Jesus of Nazareth, as a Christian I have no problem believing the Lord
married a woman. Men and women were created to go together. God is a perfected
man and I believe if he is our Heavenly Father then certainly there is a
Heavenly Mother. The Son, being in the express image of his Father, would
certainly take after his Father and take a wife. God is not a single parent.
Many truths will be brought forward in the last days. I've always believed
that Mary Magdeline was probably his wife although we don't know for sure.
I believe that early "Church" authorities probably suppressed this
information because it didn't fit with their own interests. Catholic priests became celibut in the 12th century because the Church was
tired of clergy leaving Church property they controlled to their children in
their wills. Therefore, they were forbidden to marry and had to take a vow of
celibacy. Before that they were allowed to marry.
I have always found it interesting that of all people to see after the His
Resurrection, He came to Mary Magdalene first, even before His Father.
The prospect of Christ, married with a family, is interesting. For me it asks,
rightly, how those that hold the bible up as the steadfast, unassailable truth
can do so. It appears that it provides incomplete information. And I suspect a
lot more of it was heresay, speculation and possibly even plain fabrication
written about events which may have occurred hundreds of years before. I think
the people that want to hold up a book and scream at gay people should use the
phone book. It probably has less errors in it.
I think you would need something much closer to the actual time that Christ
lived to be of real significance. I am finding out that someone had the same
idea as Dan Brown in the fourth century is not very illuminating. But, it does
give the high paid tenured faculty something to talk about in their fall
The myth of a mormon jesus may have been married but I have great faith in the
bible and know that the true christian Jesus was not married. Funny how the
dnews picks up on this stuff.
LDS Liberal: Your claim that a man had to be a "Rabbi", married with
children, in order to speak in a synagogue, is not entirely true. While marriage
was the normal situation for someone called by the title of rabbi -
"teacher" - it was not a requirement. Jesus is called our high priest,
yet He was not of the tribe of Levi, from whence all Jewish priests came. It
must be remembered, that every time one of these so-called "gospels" is
found, they inevitably turn out to be either fraudulent or spurious. The Gospel
of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene are two such spurious works, having
been written about 400 years after Jesus lived on the earth. Both have serious
issues with historical reliability, as well as characterizing Jesus in ways
contrary to what we have in our New Testament. The one requirement for a book of
the New Testament to be canonized in the early church was, that each book had
have been written either by an apostle who was with Jesus during his ministry,
or one who was a disciple of an apostle, such as John Mark or Luke. Just food
To mightymite 11:05 a.m. Sept. 19, 2012The myth of a mormon jesus
may have been married but I have great faith in the bible and know that the true
christian Jesus was not married. Funny how the dnews picks up on this stuff.----------------------Please give a citation from the Bible
(book, chapter and verse) which specifically says taht Jesus was not married.
From my study of the Bible, I don't recall the subject being discussed at
Which Jesus is being discussed? Christ or some Rabbi with the same name? I have
a good many questions and I advise to not put too much into this. Please do not
hold this up as definite evidence. We simply do not know.
If believers wish for Jesus to have a wife and children, then why not. And if
they wish for him to have a red Corvett to truck around in, so much the better.
Why shouldn't Jesus enjoy good things in his fable, he seems like an Ok
Jewish guy: the super Super Man hero of his time.
mightymite wrote, "The myth of a mormon jesus may have been married but I
have great faith in the bible and know that the true christian Jesus was not
married. Funny how the dnews picks up on this stuff."Jesus was
niether a Mormon nor a Christian. The religion of Jesus and his followers during
his life was the Judaism of their times.
Furry1993: Having spent several years earning a degree in Bible studies, I can
assure you that nowhere in the Bible will you find anything mentioning that
Jesus was either married or not. In addition, having read the Book of Mormon
thoroughly, as well as the other Standard Works of the LDS Church, I found no
mention whatever of Jesus’ marital status. All things being equal, it is
safest to let the Bible speak for itself, and add nothing to it through mere
speculation, or take anything from it because one happens to disagree with what
God’s Word says. Howbeit, I would think that something as important as
Jesus being married would not have escaped the notice of the writers of the
books of the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus was married is really
irrelevant here; one way or the other, God has chosen not to tell us in His
revealed Word: we don’t need to know. Jesus Christ is still Immanuel
– “God with us” – and the record of His ministry extant
in our New Testament is quite sufficient for us to have what God wishes for us
@mightymite: there wasn't a "Mormon Jesus" walking around in some
parallel "Life of Brian" fashion to the "true Christian Jesus"
back in the year AD 33. Jesus was one individual, the Son of God.And
this is an AP story reprinted and compiled in the Deseret News, not a Deseret
News story. You'll notice that this paper on the "Gospel of
Jesus's Wife," was presented at the Tenth International Congress of
Coptic Studies in Rome, not some Mormon Symposium in Salt Lake City. Coptic
Christians may believe many similar things to Mormons (like Mormons, and unlike
most other Catholics and Protestants, they are monophysites, Coptics are
Trinitarians but in an almost "Godhead-not-substance" variety, and some
are outright Arians. They also accept a canon larger than the regular KJV) but
that does not make them the same as Mormons. Please do not get confused.And with 40-45 million in Ethiopia, and 10-14 million in Egypt, plus
significant numbers around the world, it is impossible to say they are a
"fringe" or "cult" that is not Christian.This is
most definitely a Christian issue. That said, it is irrelevant to my faith.
Many churches teach that Mary did not have any other children and that she had
always remained a virgin. We know of course, through the scriptures in the New
Testament that she indeed did have other children. Why wouldn't she? Does
that make her less of a woman to be honored? No Way! Jesus lived a
normal life, in a family, yet his life was filled with a purpose to do the
"work" of his Father. He was perfect. If you think being married and
having children makes you less than perfect don't forget Jesus asks us all
to be "perfect", even as his Father in Heaven is perfect. If God
thought it important to have Adam and Eve multiply and replenish the earth,
thereby creating families, I cannot see why Jesus would not have been given the
same opportunity. Jesus married??? I hope so. Marriage is wonderful and so are
jttheawesome wrote, ".....every time one of these so-called
"gospels" is found, they inevitably turn out to be either fraudulent or
spurious. The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene are two such
spurious works, having been written about 400 years after Jesus lived on the
earth."==========I respectfully disagree with you on
that. The Gospels of Thomas and Mary are neither spurious nor hoaxes. The Nag
Hammadi fragment of Thomas dates to the 4th century but there is no consensus on
the date of actual composition. Estimates range from mid-1st to mid-2nd century
CE. As with the canonical Gospels, there is no certainty of how many editorial
hands may have been involved before the texts achieved the canonical literary
forms. It’s a highly subjective study in distinguishing what came early
from what came later.The canon of scripture has been criticized down
through the centuries up to the present day. Early texts came from different
locales and interpretations, some of which came to be deemed heresies. Some of
the accounts were too fanciful to be credible. But by and large, the canon as
compiled was a responsibly done job.
" I have a good many questions and I advise to not put too much into this.
Please do not hold this up as definite evidence. We simply do not know."I gotta agree there. And I can apply those words to ALL aspects of
religion."We simply do not know."
Craig Clark: Thank you for your feedback; nevertheless, I stand firm on what I
wrote earlier. I am of the school of theology which declares the absolute
inspiration (God-breathed), inerrancy and authority of Scripture as we have it
today, meaning that we accept the original manuscripts, or autographs, if you
will, as written by their respective authors. Notwithstanding the proliferation
of translations today, some of which are admittedly questionable, (especially in
English) the reliability of Scripture, as it has been handed
down(transmitted)through the ages is to my study and that of numerous biblical
scholars, simply too solid to believe otherwise. With all the various documents
and manuscripts we do have of the New Testament, even though we have nothing
going back to Jesus' time on earth, there remains a plethora of manuscript
evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, that we indeed have an accurate
transmission of God's Word today. I do confess that no matter where one
stands on this issue, belief in the Bible as the Word of God is also an act of
faith - and faith is a gift from God. Blessings to you, brother!
Where are the verses in the KJV and the BoM that record that Jesus had a
wife?This is just more blasphemous nonsense and absurdity from yet
another worthless scrap of pseudepigrapha.
AoF 9.We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,
and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things
pertaining to the Kingdom of God.We believe in the Gospel of Truth,
whatever it's sources. ~ Brigham YoungThe 1st century believers
had an open mind and an open heart, and recognized the truth -- The
Pharisees did not, and they did not.We should be wise, and keep our
hearts and minds open to truth, from whatever it's source....
Did Jesus have a wife, we can't really know for sure based on this, it is a
matter of interpretation. But one thing we know is that Jesus is the Christ,
the only begotten Son of God. That is what is important and what matters to us
and our eternal life.
Jesus had a wife, kids and in-laws, just like the rest of us.In reality,
is is exactly just like the rest of us.
RE: LDS Liberal The 1st century believers had an open mind and an open heart,
and recognized the truth The Pharisees did not, and they did not.Test for
the inclusion in the N.T. Canon, Was it received, collected, read and used by
the people of God. Peter acknowledged Paul’s work as Scripture parallel
to the O.T. (2 Peter 3:16). Is it authentic? (The fathers had a policy of
“if in doubt throw it out”. This enhanced the validity of their
discernment of canonical books. AofF Original,#8 We believe in the Word
of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God recorded in the
Book of Mormon, and in all other good books.Re: Craig Clark,The
Gospel of Thomas? Disagrees with the Bible. (Logos, 114)Simon Peter said, to
them, Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said, I myself
shall leader her ,in order to make her male ,so that she may become a living
spirit resembling you males, for every woman who will make herself male will
enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Priests were never allowed to marry. However married men were allowed to be
priests until the people stood up and put and end to the practice because of
inheritance issues. Also family members getting special privileges. If their
spouse died they were not allowed to take a new wife. But married men could be
priests. This is similar to deacons today.Any males who have had
their bar mitzvah can read and comment on the scriptures. He taught at age 12
when separated from his parents. In the early part of the church
some gospels were written that were not inspired but full of errors. Like
someone writing today that polygamy is still okay. Some will think it's a
true thing and others won't thousands of years from now that it was okay at
this time. Why would he marry just to leave her to start his ministry? How could
he chose one woman to love when he was here to love us all? Would he have left
children fatherless? His time was short. Mary didn't have any
other children from her own issue. If you read the bible in it's original
language it's clear.
mightymite,Jesus Christ is not a myth. How other men explain Him
certainly can be as such. Your argument relies on that exact premise. The
beliefs of the LDS Church regarding Jesus Christ, his ministry, the compilation
of canonical works known as the Holy Bible, and all LDS doctrines even relating
to Jesus Christ all function and rely on the same premise.This
leaves members of the LDS Church with just as strong and logical of a claim as
yourself.I'm sure you have strong beliefs and would love to
share them, but if your sole belief is to offend, ridicule, mock, and attack the
beliefs of those who disagree with you then your belief is not even remotely in
following of what Jesus Christ taught during his ministry. I know a lot of
people who feel that they need to point out how flawed I am as a human being and
how flawed I am in my worshiping God. If "Judge not" means anything to
you at all, you ought to end such criticism and join in the celebration of our
lord and savior, not do the very thing he commanded us not to do.
Well this is interesting, what was the context? Well, we don't know the
context, we only have one short sentence.My opinion is that Jesus
was not married because he knew he was going to die young. Why would he leave a
widow and children? When he was being crucified he told John to take care of
his mother, but he didn't tell anyone to take care of his wife (in my view,
because he was not married). Earlier, when he first began preaching, the people
in Nazareth said, "He can't be a prophet. We know his mother and
father and his brothers." They could have referred to his wife and kids but
they did not. I think because there were not any.If this is that
Jesus, it could be that the wife of Jesus is the church. Jesus being married to
the church was brought up by Paul in some other places.
The idea of Jesus being married and having children fits well into his role as
an example to us of how to live our lives. His Father's command was for us
to multiply and replenish the earth and I am sure this applied to all of his
children including his most beloved Son. I think a more human Jesus is
preferable to one born of a virgin and one who lived as a celibate. Also, I
think He deserved the earthly joy of a wife and children.
Another issue that is raised by him having a wife is that, because he was the
Son of God, half-divine, he had a higher form of life in him. That meant that
he could put down his life by choice, in other words, his spirit could step out
of his body, or he could choose to stay put. For the rest of us, we can't
choose to die right now, and disease, old age or violence will end our lives
even if we want to 'stay put'. One might call this "Divine
sonship". If he had children, then we would have the issue of "Divine
Grandsonship/granddaughtership". What does that mean? If he had married
and had children, can you imagine the arguments that they would have had in the
early church about "Divine grandchildship."
From my own research;I believe that Jesus was married to Mary
Magdalene.They had children, most likely had a son.He would have
been 1/4 God, and could have also had some sort of seeds of immortality.John the Beloved sat on the right-hand of Jesus during the last passover - a
place reserved for the oldest SON.Jesus addressed John on the Cross, and
bade him to look after "his Mother" -- to whom was He refering? Mary the
Mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene...[i.e., John's Mother and Jesus's
wife]. After Jesus's death and resurrection, legend has it that
Joseph of Aramithea took MaryMagdalene and her children to the outskirts of the
RomanEmpire for safety [France or England].The Stone of Destiny under the
throne of the King of England was the same Stone from Jerusalem which King David
sat upon and brought to England by Jospeh of Arimathea. To this very day,
Kings and Queens of Europe keep the blood-line as pure as possible to protect
the Holy Blood -- the Sage Rael -- or Holy Grail.Thousand of English
converts to Mormonism due to their believing blood.My thoughts...
As mentioned in other postings, there has been speculation by many scholars of
scripture that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was married. It is not discussed widely
because it can become a subject of contention and distraction. None of us can
say for certain he that was or was not married, and it should not cause our
faith to waver or solidify. However, I personally think he was married because
he was the perfect example, and families help perfect us. I wouldn't want
to cause distress to those who don't believe he was married, but it makes
sense to me, and I think it is fascinating that we have something to support the
possibility that he had a wife.
KPriests were allowed to marry up until about the fourth century.
The practice continued (with some ignoring the canons) until the twelfth
century."Why would he marry just to leave her to start his
ministry?" Because he could see her whenever he returned home."How could he choose one woman to love when he was here to love us
all?" Loving a wife would not preclude his loving us."Would
he have left children fatherless?" If he had any. Good folks today
sometimes elect to have children knowing they have a terminal illness."Mary didn't have any other children from her own issue." Many
biblical scholars agree that Jesus had brothers. James the Just being widely
accepted as one. Yes, some would like to interpret this as cousin (and do) but
MANY non-LDS scholars believe he was a half brother to the Lord.
Or it could just be that Christ is referring to his "bride," the church.
What is wrong if Jesus were married? What would denying himself that happiness
have accomplished? I hope he was married and had a good measure of happiness in
his short life.
@jttheawesome;I suspect that most of the bible falls into the same
category as the gospels of Mary and Thomas.Fables, fantasies and
fictions. Sure, they're meant to tell a good story and even carry certain
"moral" values; but they're nothing more than that. Stories.
@ A voice of Reason, The LDS Church with just as strong and logical of a claim?
The “pale” of Christianity believes the birth of Jesus was a
unique miracle by the Holy Spirit/Ghost, same Greek word(Pneuma)”They tell us that the BoM states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy
Ghost. I challenge that statement. The BoM teaches No Such Thing! Neither
does the Bible!”( Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation." (Jesus)…born of Mary at Jersusalem … who shall be
overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost(Spirit) and bring forth
a son yea, even the Son of God. ( Alma 7:10). The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.(Luke
1:35 KJV) RE: Twin Lights,You agree with the Mormon
Apostle,Jedediah M Grant, "A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives
caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might think of them as
Mormons." Jed M Grant. (JoD v 1. P.345.)
Why is it that people can not love Jesus for what he was, a living ,functioning
human being. Jesus if real then he was a human being, a man, he lived like all
men do, he ate, he had body functions, he sweat, he bathed, he went to the
bathroom, he had natural desires. Rabies were married men, other wise who was
going to listen in public to a single Rabbi on how to deal with wife and family.
Jesus taught followers to follow his example because he lived all the good of
life, and life for man with out women is incomplete. Jesus would have to have
been complete enough to embrace the love of a wife.
RE: jttheawesomeYour statements about the Bible are, forgive me,
spurious. The Gospel of Thomas was written long before 400AD. Some scholars date
it as early as 50AD, before any of the canonical gospels, while most place it
somewhere between 80AD and 130AD. Also, the fact that it is simply a collection
of “the sayings of Jesus” and not a narrative leads many scholars to
believe it may have been used as a source for some of the gospels… like
the yet to be found Q source. Further, none of the gospels were
written by the apostles or their direct disciples, unless you count Luke written
by a physician associate of Paul (who was not one of the 12 disciples). They
were anonymous with the names Mark, Matthew, Luke & John being added after
the fact. Sounds like you went to a college that was in the business of teaching
faith, namely the orthodox faith that won the day in the early and highly
diversified church. But don’t confuse what you were taught with actual
I'm astounded at how many of you "devout" members of the Church
have no idea what Church doctrine really teaches.
Sharrona,I am confused. I can find nothing in my post that
addresses polygamy. Please reread it and let me know if I am in error.
Re: "New Christian gospel indicates Jesus may have had a wife"If it were actually important for us to know whether He did or didn't, I
suspect we'd have heard before now.In the meantime, why not
leave Him with a little privacy, and move on to important matters -- like how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin [the answer is 42].I'm supremely confident that if and when He thinks it's important
for us to know, we will.
TylerD: I am most appreciative of your feedback. You are quite correct in
assuming that I attended an evangelical Bible College here in the east, which
indeed teaches straight-up orthodox Christianity, with a high view of the Bible
as God’s Word, inerrant and complete.I have no qualms about believing the
Bible as being in fact precisely how God wishes for it to be. As I mentioned
earlier, believing in the Bible like this also is an act of faith, and faith is
a gift from God. I will not, however, get into discussions about various sources
or the mysterious “Q” or other such things; I do not need to prove
the Bible to myself. Regarding the so-called Gospel of Thomas; while there are
some scholars who favor an early date for its writing, according to my sources,
the vast majority of scholars favor the later date. With regard to your claim
of spurious authorship of the Gospels, I can only say that I respectfully
disagree. My faith in the Bible is in line with the finest and most brilliant
Bible scholars in the world, and I am quite satisfied with their research.
@jttheawesome"With all the various documents and manuscripts we
do have of the New Testament, even though we have nothing going back to
Jesus' time on earth, there remains a plethora of manuscript evidence, both
biblical and extra-biblical, that we indeed have an accurate transmission of
God's Word today."I am going to have to disagree. The
oldest New Testament manuscripts can only be dated to the third century A.D.,
unless you know of any sources that pre-date that and I am saying complete
sources not fragments of manuscripts allegedly written by an apostle. Since we
do not have anything going back to Jesus time on earth it is really presumptuous
to declare that Christ was not married just because it does not say so in the
New Testament. The Roman persecutions destroyed a large portion of early
Christian writings so we will never be able to say with certainty what
Christ’s marital status was.
RE: jttheawesomeI appreciate where you’re coming and I think
your approach of not trying “to prove the Bible” to yourself (and I
would add “to anyone else”) is a good approach. Faith and facts of
history or science should remain separate domains, lest someone’s faith
crumbles in the face of facts (as millions have since the Enlightenment Age).
I would only add that, with the exception of evangelical Bible
colleges, no mainline Christian seminaries teach that the Bible is
“inerrant” or error free. The Bible is filled with errors and
contradictions of all kinds; that doesn’t make it wrong as a tool of
faith. That said, I wish there was a distinct name for people who focus
primarily on the Bible as “the perfect book” (perhaps Biblians) as
opposed to Christians who simply treat as a nice collection of (even God
inspired) stories written by imperfect Iron Age men. If nothing else it sure
would reduce the cognitive dissonance in many people’s minds.
Another article in this very paper as a matter of fact, about Mary, states that
men were considered of marrigable age as of 18. He didn't start his
ministry until he was 30. Why wouldn't he have had a wife? Didn't he
also train to be a carpenter?