Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (1)

169 posts in this topic

Ok. But in the hypothetical case that Jesus and Mary were man and wife as well as confidants this would surely have changed the course of Christianity over the years and led to a different religion to the one we have today.

Really? I wonder. Acts lightly sketches a possible power struggle between the family of Jesus, in the person of James ("brother" of Jesus), and the closer, but unrelated, pupils of Jesus, especially Peter. This is somewhat similar to the struggles following Mohammed's death, where family claims (by marriage) to succession vied with non-kin's.

The Christian solution, according to Acts and maybe actually in history, was the wholesale recruitment of Gentiles into the movement, by a second-generation leader, Paul, who was neither family nor a close associate of Jesus. The fall of Jerusalem took all the Jewish wing(s) of the church out of the picture, whether based on kinship or discipleship. Gentiles were the last folks standing, and that is the "bottleneck" from which all living orthodox Christianity descends.

A church faction headed by Mary of Magdala and her hypothetical child(ren) would be just another Jewish sect wiped out or scattered with the fall of the Second Temple. Tradition has Mary herself moving to the vicintiy of Marseilles (now in France) to live as a semi-hermit. If the tradition is true, then she was well thought of locally, but not the leader of anything, and not succeeded by anybody in her community role when she died.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrew law states only married men may be teachers. Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher. Especially if he taught religion. It was the law. If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him. I doubt people decided to ignore their laws and traditions and listen to him anyways. Most likely he was married.

Also when he was crucified.... Mary Magdalene was there. Again by law the only women allowed to anoint a man are family members. If Mary Magdalene even tried to anoint Jesus....that would have been absolutely unthinkable unless she was married to him. So again most likely he was married to her.

The writers of the bible left out a lot I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there is no record anywhere of Mary Magdalene ever annointing Jesus is noted again. But regardless of what women not his wives did annoint him at one time or another,

Hebrew law states ... It was the law.

Dude was scourged and then crucifed. Somebody must have thought that he had broken some law. All four Gospels agree that Jesus initiated violence to drive from the Temple peaceably assembled merchants whom the law permitted to do business there. That's a start.

The more you say "Hebrew law requires this, and Hebrew law requires that, and no Jew could think of doing this other thing," then the more nearly certain it becomes that some Jew saw the power and potential in raising his God-given middle finger up to the nose of convention, shouting in its face, "Now that I have your attention, ..."

Whatever else Jesus was, he was a Dionysan figure: a disruptive presence. This can be an effective strategy for changing minds, which depends on giving offense and making even supporters uncomfortable. It is also a dangerous strategy. Ask Socrates. But it is a strategy, available to all thinkers, unless your point is that Jews somehow can't think strategically, or can't think for themselves, the way Greeks can. You don't seem the type, but that is the issue.

Is a Dionysan strategy effective? Define effective. Jesus changed some, but not many Jewish minds around him. Socrates changed some, but not many Greek minds around him. The quality of the changed minds may make up for the quantity. Also, the impact may not happen, or be completed, in the lifetime of the first change-agent.

Socrates scored Plato and then Aristotle; Jesus bagged the best-selling named author of all time, Paul. Both Jesus and Socrates are admired household names, even in Gentile and unGreek households, two thousand years and more later. All men die; Jesus and Socrates accomplished something with theirs, furthering their agendas and permanently changing the cultural landscape. They didn't live on in people's minds by thinking inside the box.

If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him.

Did I mention that the gentleman was killed, taking up most of a working day to do it? Somebody paid attention to him, and what they attended to, offended them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrew law states only married men may be teachers. Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher. Especially if he taught religion. It was the law. If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him. I doubt people decided to ignore their laws and traditions and listen to him anyways. Most likely he was married.

Also when he was crucified.... Mary Magdalene was there. Again by law the only women allowed to anoint a man are family members. If Mary Magdalene even tried to anoint Jesus....that would have been absolutely unthinkable unless she was married to him. So again most likely he was married to her.

The writers of the bible left out a lot I think.

Good points and yes it would appear that some of those who compiled the bible did so with an agenda. There are some big 'grey' areas and at the centre of these is Mary of Magdala as the messenger, companion, confidant of Jesus and possibly much more. The story of Jesus and the Samaritan lady at the Well next to Shechem told in John 4 : 1-42 is also very telling not because it tells us much about whether Jesus was married but about his attitude to women in general and we know that there were women who were close followers and supporters of Christ. His disciples we hear were astonished to find him talking with a woman. In the Gnostic gospels his close relationship with Mary of Magdala is noted as having caused friction in the group, particularly with Peter, and when the 'official' accounts of the life of Jesus were decided it would appear that her role was played down and confused. Much later Rome decided that she was a prostitute but we understand that this has recently been withdrawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That there is no record anywhere of Mary Magdalene ever annointing Jesus is noted again. But regardless of what women not his wives did annoint him at one time or another,

Dude was scourged and then crucifed. Somebody must have thought that he had broken some law. All four Gospels agree that Jesus initiated violence to drive from the Temple peaceably assembled merchants whom the law permitted to do business there. That's a start.

The more you say "Hebrew law requires this, and Hebrew law requires that, and no Jew could think of doing this other thing," then the more nearly certain it becomes that some Jew saw the power and potential in raising his God-given middle finger up to the nose of convention, shouting in its face, "Now that I have your attention, ..."

Whatever else Jesus was, he was a Dionysan figure: a disruptive presence. This can be an effective strategy for changing minds, which depends on giving offense and making even supporters uncomfortable. It is also a dangerous strategy. Ask Socrates. But it is a strategy, available to all thinkers, unless your point is that Jews somehow can't think strategically, or can't think for themselves, the way Greeks can. You don't seem the type, but that is the issue.

Is a Dionysan strategy effective? Define effective. Jesus changed some, but not many Jewish minds around him. Socrates changed some, but not many Greek minds around him. The quality of the changed minds may make up for the quantity. Also, the impact may not happen, or be completed, in the lifetime of the first change-agent.

Socrates scored Plato and then Aristotle; Jesus bagged the best-selling named author of all time, Paul. Both Jesus and Socrates are admired household names, even in Gentile and unGreek households, two thousand years and more later. All men die; Jesus and Socrates accomplished something with theirs, furthering their agendas and permanently changing the cultural landscape. They didn't live on in people's minds by thinking inside the box.

Did I mention that the gentleman was killed, taking up most of a working day to do it? Somebody paid attention to him, and what they attended to, offended them.

There is little doubt that Jesus did sometimes use 'shock' tactics at particular times and places. The Temple at Jerusalem was one occasion which is strange because we hear that he told the Samaritan Lady at the Well that the time would come when worship would not be on her sacred mountain, next to where he was speaking, or in Jerusalem. Yet Jerusalem was the location that Jesus deliberately chose to end his mission. The whole recorded incident with this Lady at Shechem is also a 'shock' tactic, it clearly shocked the Samaritan Lady, others in the town and his disciples, and it would seem that Jesus was making sure that the incident would be well remembered and no doubt recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried. Your response usually takes one of two roads:

1- "Jesus couldn't have said that, therefore the New Testament is wrong/lying/pious forgery".

2- "Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who incorporated Greek mythology into his beliefs".

No matter what I say to support my view, you will dismiss either Jesus or Paul or both. And in the process you will continuously claim that Christians believe such and such, and even when Christians turn up and say "We don't believe that", you will stubbornly hold to your view and demand that we accede to your outlook. And while I agree that some Christians believe what you claim they believe, it is by no means a universal understanding.

Therefore, I wash my hands of this entire debate. There is no point in discussing with someone who refuses to listen to the other side of the debate. Best wishes,

~ Regards, PA

Well my friend, I cannot accept the opinions and views of the other side just to show good will interfaith. If something shocks with my understanding we have got to discuss further. If I disagree it is not just for the sake of disagreement. I give the proper quote to prove my assertions. Jesus was a Jewish man. To use him to promote Christianity, you must provide a reason without the shadow of a

contradiction. That's simple Logic.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the big deal if Jesus was married or not. He was after all a man. Not one word in the bible about him being celibate or having other interests than females. It is insulting to all women that we are referred to as something not important and hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time is acceptable. But then the Catholic church is a great example of that. Whether he was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and who he represented.

Minera, I agree with you up to the point: "Whether Jesus was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and what he represented." Perhaps not to you but to the the fact that he was a Jewish man, it makes a lot of a difference. A Jewish child, from age 13 or "Bar Mitzvah" he starts being mentally prepared for marriage, according to the first commandment to leave his mother and father and join a wife to be with her one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) Then, we have Jesus in Mat. 5:17-19 declaring that he came to fulfill all the laws. Obviously, he must have fulfilled the very first commandment too. Then, marriage only enhances a man's credibility, especially if he was a Jewish teacher or Rabbi whose professions one could not perform as a single man. If indeed he was not married,

it must either be stated in the text that he was NOT married or admitted that there is a contradiction.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True....Jesus was a good person, no doubt about that. What I don't like is the re-telling of the story to suit a few people hell bent on controlling the masses. Now maybe it was a necessary step to show us the way but I think we are past that stage now and don't really need those stories anymore. We are mature and we are starting to see the writing on the wall. Just like when you believed in Santa Claus, at a certain point in your life you step back and say "Hey, wait a minute".... raindeer can't fly and it's not possible a fat man can deliver all those presents in one night and he uses the same gift wrap my Mom does....hmmmm

I'm ready for the truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say this is Mary Magdalene - it says "woman of the city" In 7.00 Jesus entered Capernaum, following this in Luke 7:11 he entered the town of Nain. Mary does not originate in any of these places and the "woman of the city who is a sinner" is not mentioned at all by name. Therefore, you have yet to prove your point

And I tell you more: Both Mary's: Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus were one and the same. One is forced to admit that truth under the penalty to make the anointing of Jesus impossible to have happened. Jesus was neither a Mormon or a "Casa Nova" to be anointed by wommen wherever he was. A religious could not even be talked to by women let alone touched upon if woman was not his wife. Otherwise, Jesus was not a Jewish man.

John 12:3 - Mary of Bethany

Mark 14:3 - Mary of Bethany

Mat. 26:6 - Mary of Bethany

Luke 7:37 - A woman known in the town to be a sinner. According to Pope Gregory VII, she was a prostitute. He was talking about Mary

Magdalene.

Then, at Calvary up to the last moments of Jesus, there stood before Jesus' cross the two Mary's: Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene hand-in-hand with each other. Then, after Jesus was buried, Mary Magdalene went to see the sepulcher and, as she found it empty, she cried desperately asking someone who was there if he knew where they had taken Jesus so that she, Mary Magdalene could

take him away with her. Who would have such ideas if not his own wife? (John 20:15)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

The burden is on the teacher to teach. It is the student's prerogative to say "Show me where that is written." It's not my OP, Ben. Do the math.

And I have shown even more than several times from logical evidences in the NT that Jesus was a married man and that his wife was Mary Magdalene who was the same as Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. So, why posters struggle to contest those evidences?

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one wonder why there was so much emphasis on Mary Magdalene, if it was not she that was the frist women Jesus had saved from stoneing.

It could not have been Mary Magdalene because to be stoned to death for adultery, the woman must be married and Mary Magdalene was not married until she became to Jesus in Cana of the Galilee. And that was a parable of Jesus to sinners not to be too ready to condemn other sinners. The event never occurred in reality. Everything about it does not make sense according to Jewish culture.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary of Magdala is the key. From biblical and other texts she was the messenger, companion and confidant of Jesus but what were they being so confidential about? Did it relate to her town Magdala on the Sea of Galilee? Next to Magdala is a mountain called Mount Abel and Jesus had a special mountain in this area which Mary of Magdala directs the Apostles to. (Matthew 28). What was so special about this mountain that Jesus chose as a meeting place? It is a special location and the reason must have been known to Jesus and Mary of Magdala.

IMHO, Mary Magdalene lived two kinds of life. In Magdala according to her profession as a courtesan and in Bethany where she had her family home. Somehow, she would not allow one to influence the other. Then, after already married to Jesus, she must have been recognized by the Pharisee who invited Jesus over for dinner and criticized Jesus for allowing himself to be touched by a woman "known in the town to be a sinner." The Pharisee probably did not know that they were already married. (Luke 7:37)

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hebrew law states only married men may be teachers. Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher. Especially if he taught religion. It was the law. If he wasn't married no one would have paid any attention to him. I doubt people decided to ignore their laws and traditions and listen to him anyways. Most likely he was married.

Also when he was crucified.... Mary Magdalene was there. Again by law the only women allowed to anoint a man are family members. If Mary Magdalene even tried to anoint Jesus....that would have been absolutely unthinkable unless she was married to him. So again most likely he was married to her.

The writers of the bible left out a lot I think.

And a lot must have been screened out of context in order to safeguard Jesus so-called divinity as if being married was a moral stain

in a man. Pious forgery was very common in the 4th Century to enhance Jesus credibility.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were other Jewish sects like the Essenes that did not marry, we really don`t know what sect Jesus belong to. The frist to baptize Jesus was John the bapist and nothing was ever said that he was married.

According to Josephus, the most famous Jewish Historian in the First Century, the Essenes were composed of several subsects. Only one of them that gathered in monastery-like caves would observe celibacy. Ambulant Essenes would marry and work throughout the Community immersing Jews daily in a ritual manner and somehow propagate their Jewish way of life. It is obvious that nothing is said

about jesus as a married man because to be married was the common way to live. If he had not been a married man yes, it would by necessity be said that he was NOT a married man. That's a strong evidence that he was married.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben

So, why posters struggle to contest those evidences?

What evidence? You made up a story, and surrounded it with Gospel quotes that at best don't support your story, and at worst frequently conflict with it. When the complete lack of canonical support is pointed out to you, you stonewall. When you're asked for sources that support any part of your story, you stonewall.

That's what you did in the Carl Sagan thread, and what you've done since then more than once here and across the web, such as passing off a line from a famous fictional short story as a historical quote from Pontius Pilate. It's your thing, Ben. Enjoy the lulz.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True....Jesus was a good person, no doubt about that. What I don't like is the re-telling of the story to suit a few people hell bent on controlling the masses. Now maybe it was a necessary step to show us the way but I think we are past that stage now and don't really need those stories anymore. We are mature and we are starting to see the writing on the wall. Just like when you believed in Santa Claus, at a certain point in your life you step back and say "Hey, wait a minute".... raindeer can't fly and it's not possible a fat man can deliver all those presents in one night and he uses the same gift wrap my Mom does....hmmmm

I'm ready for the truth!

What is the Truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BenWhat evidence? You made up a story, and surrounded it with Gospel quotes that at best don't support your story, and at worst frequently conflict with it. When the complete lack of canonical support is pointed out to you, you stonewall. When you're asked for sources that support any part of your story, you stonewall.

That's what you did in the Carl Sagan thread, and what you've done since then more than once here and across the web, such as passing off a line from a famous fictional short story as a historical quote from Pontius Pilate. It's your thing, Ben. Enjoy the lulz.

Well, why don't you demonstrate to me and to all of us that my quotes do not support my assertions? I hardly see a quote here from anyone. And when I see one, it usually has nothing to do with the issue. Let us do this, show me no more than a single quote stating

that Jesus was NOT married and I am out of the issue and one with your opinion. Let us see if your evidences are any more substantious than mine.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asked and answered, Ben. Please read your own thread, that is, the version of it on this site, before making replies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could not have been Mary Magdalene because to be stoned to death for adultery, the woman must be married and Mary Magdalene was not married until she became to Jesus in Cana of the Galilee. And that was a parable of Jesus to sinners not to be too ready to condemn other sinners. The event never occurred in reality. Everything about it does not make sense according to Jewish culture.

Ben

The women to be stoned or Mary Magdalene`s marital status was`nt never given. Mary Magdalene was qouted as the women Jesus had saved from the seven deady sins. Do you think Jesus would have married a women he had saved from those sins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The women to be stoned or Mary Magdalene`s marital status was`nt never given. Mary Magdalene was qouted as the women Jesus had saved from the seven deady sins. Do you think Jesus would have married a women he had saved from those sins?

I did not think that Mary of Magdala was linked to the 7 deadly sins? She was labelled as a prostitute many years ago but I believe that this has now been withdrawn by the authorities. She is clearly lnked to the number 7 however 'the' number of the book of Revelations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not think that Mary of Magdala was linked to the 7 deadly sins? She was labelled as a prostitute many years ago but I believe that this has now been withdrawn by the authorities. She is clearly lnked to the number 7 however 'the' number of the book of Revelations.

Mark 16 -9 Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mar&c=16&v=1&t=KJV#top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark 16 -9 Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

http://www.bluelette...6&v=1&t=KJV#top

Seven "devils". That is supposed to refer to seven deadly sins???? Just curious, but from where do we even get the idea of "seven deadly sins". I thought all sins were deadly? All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and the punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23). The idea of seven deadly sins comes from history and tradition, not from the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Written by Solomon the Jewish King.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my friend, I cannot accept the opinions and views of the other side just to show good will interfaith. If something shocks with my understanding we have got to discuss further. If I disagree it is not just for the sake of disagreement. I give the proper quote to prove my assertions. Jesus was a Jewish man. To use him to promote Christianity, you must provide a reason without the shadow of a

contradiction. That's simple Logic.

Ben

Hi Ben, please allow me to try.....

Jesus was born Jewish, he was brought up a Jewish, and continues to be Jewish …therefore Christianity and the Church is a fulfillment of Judism. It says in the book of Ephesians that through Jesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles become one in body of Christ which is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The word Catholic simply means universal.

Around 100 AD the reference to the Church as being Catholic is in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. And further back than that in the ‘Book of Acts’ you can see the progression. Originally the church was a sect of Judaism and later followers of Jesus was called Christian which meant “little Christs”.

My point is that from the very beginning the Church wasn’t one …. It was many different Churches (just like today) and they all met together in councils to sort things out.

It also states in the book of Acts that the Church decided how to handle non-jews entering the church….they met in a Council in Jerusalem and the Apostles, together with Peter, decided what to do. The Apostles were the foundation of the Church and the Catholic Church today is the same Church….Peter’s successor, which is the Pope... they can trace their lineage back to 12 Apostles. No other church can make this claim. The other churches (and there are so many different ones today) …they all broke away from the Catholic Church.

Edited by sslama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.