Comments about ‘New Christian gospel indicates Jesus may have had a wife (+video)’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 19 2012 7:35 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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. Married
2. Having a Son

Since 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.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

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.

MVH
Farmington, UT

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.

History Freak
Somewhere in Time, UT

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.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

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.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

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.

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

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 meetings.

mightymite
DRAPER, UT

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.

jttheawesome
Scranton, PA

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 for thought!

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To mightymite 11:05 a.m. Sept. 19, 2012

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.

----------------------

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 all.

BYR
Woods Cross, UT

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.

skeptic
Phoenix, AZ

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.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

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.

jttheawesome
Scranton, PA

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 to have.

Number6
DELTA JUNCTION, AK

@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.

cambodia girl
Phnom Penh, Cambodia

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 families.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

" 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."

jttheawesome
Scranton, PA

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!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments