Published: Wednesday, Sept. 19 2012 7:35 a.m. MDT
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!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments