Sign in to follow this  
MisterTypoMan

Mary Magdalene and Christ

Recommended Posts

I have heard a lot of controversy around Mary Magdalene bearing Christ's children. Is this true and any references related to your argument? I personally always thought he never had children but input is always nice. I'd love to learn more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

MisterTypoMan--great name! 

 

We (LDS) don't believe that Christ had children.  I don't have a reference, but if we reason it out...we have been taught that Christ had a human mother, which gave Him the power to die, but His Father was Heavenly Father, and this is where He got His power to do miracles and not die if He so chose.  It was part of the plan that He voluntarily give His life.

 

So if Christ had had children, they would be 3/4 human, and 1/4 God's....that was not part of the plan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

There really isn't a shred of evidence that Jesus had children or was married. If He did, it almost assuredly would be mentioned in the gospels. 

 

Mary Magdalene gets a bad reputation for no reason. It's not in scripture that she was a prostitute-that idea came from a Pope in the dark ages. 

 

I've heard people say "Well it's in the Da Vinci Code!" My response is "Thinking you are a religious scholar by reading the Da Vinci Code is like thinking you can study for for the bar exam by reading John Grisham

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to round out the discussion--one logical implication of Mormonism's teachings regarding ordinances and Christ's role as exemplar, is that He was probably married to someone. But I strongly doubt He would have had any children, for the reasons LP cites,

As for Mary Magdaline as Jesus' wife: the story of her being a reformed prostitute is, of course, spurious; but we do know that Jesus had to expel devils from her. I suppose it's possible that Jesus and Mary were in fact married; but given the Mormon view that a person doesn't become possessed unless that person has "opened the door" to such possession by their own sinful activities . . . I just always envision the Lord marrying someone with a somewhat less colorful history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the savior would have needed to be married to fulfill all righteousness.

 

The marriage of the Savior was taught more often in early church history, by leaders like President Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, President Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, Jedediah M. Grant, President Joseph F. Smith, and President Heber C. Kimball, to name just a few. In a General Conference address on October 6, 1854, Orson Hyde of the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the Savior’s wedding recounted in the Bible:

 

Quote

“…Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage, and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82, 83).

 

(Read more here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard a lot of controversy around Mary Magdalene bearing Christ's children. Is this true and any references related to your argument? I personally always thought he never had children but input is always nice. I'd love to learn more.

We just don't know, so in the absence of facts we should not to seek to establish our,own facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard a lot of controversy around Mary Magdalene bearing Christ's children. Is this true and any references related to your argument? I personally always thought he never had children but input is always nice. I'd love to learn more. 

 

Which Bible are people getting this from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We (LDS) don't believe that Christ had children.  

 

Nor do we believe he did not produce children. The Church takes no stand on whether or not Jesus was married or on whether or not such a marriage might have produced children, opinions of individual members notwithstanding.

 

As for Mary Magdaline as Jesus' wife: the story of her being a reformed prostitute is, of course, spurious;

 

Specifically, Mary Magdalene was conflated with the woman taken in adultery and with the "sinful" woman who washed Jesus' feet (whom John says was Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, not Mary Magdalene). There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was either of these, especially not the adulteress; but I understand that a Pope declared them to be so, fixing that idea as part of Catholic theology.

 

It is worth bearing in mind that Mary Magdalene was apparently the first person to witness Jesus as a resurrected man. Why she should have had this honor, instead of e.g. Peter, who was the senior apostle and leader of Jesus' Church after his death, is something of a mystery. If she had been Jesus' wife, that would make a whole lot more sense to the typical LDS mind; I suspect this is a large reason why many Latter-day Saints think that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.

 

We just don't know, so in the absence of facts we should not to seek to establish our,own facts.

 

Really, this is the final word on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall when "The Davinci Code" came out (along with all the other scholarly theories on the motion of Christ being married) and the hoopla that accompanied it. Yet the majority of the Mormons were all "Jesus was married? Sure, that's certainly a possibility, we have no issue with that".

 

I like the idea of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, but I'm certainly not about to preach it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage and family is central to LDS belief - from D&C 132:

 

 

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

 5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

….

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

….

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

Nor do we believe he did not produce children. The Church takes no stand on whether or not Jesus was married or on whether or not such a marriage might have produced children, opinions of individual members notwithstanding.

 

   In all honesty, no legitimate scholar thinks He was married or had children.  It's only the fringe that believes that. Most professors of religion (even agnostics/atheists and non believers in Jesus) place the "Jesus was married' camp in with the "Jesus never existed camp" 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Specifically, Mary Magdalene was conflated with the woman taken in adultery and with the "sinful" woman who washed Jesus' feet (whom John says was Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, not Mary Magdalene). There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was either of these, especially not the adulteress; but I understand that a Pope declared them to be so, fixing that idea as part of Catholic theology.

This is a bit incorrect.

Pope Gregory did not conflate Mary Magdalene with the adulteress that was about to be cast with stone. Rather, the term Magdalene was associated with serious sins such as adultery. Magdala was a wealthy town that was occupied by Jews. The town fell into severe moral depravity and eventually joined in the Jewish revolt against the church of the time. The Romans destroyed the town because of this. The word Magdala, therefore, became associated with serious sin, especially that of adultery. So, it is not unusual for the Talmud to refer to an adulteress as a Magdalene but Pope Gregory never associated Mary Magdalene with the adulteress mentioned in the bible. Rather, Pope Gregory associated Mary as not necessarily "from the town of Magdala" but rather that which "has serious sin" hence she is called Mary Magdalene.

What Pope Gregory presented was that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany (sister of Lazarus and Martha) is one and the same person.

The connection is made through the act of Mary of Bethany anointing the feet of Jesus with her hair. The presentation of Mary of Bethany as anointing Jesus with oil in John 11 prior to her doing so in John 12 placed Mary of Bethany as the person who also anointed Jesus in Simon's home. The narrative that Simon thought this was not acceptable as Mary is a sinner and not worthy to touch Jesus feet implies that the sin was a serious one - that of a Magdalene.

And finally, the significance of Mary being present in the crucifixion, the burial, and being the first to have witnessed Jesus' resurrection placed her firmly in very high regard - of the same regard as the person that Jesus honored with the raising of Lazarus.

Note that this exegesis by Pope Gregory was not made ex cathedra. That means, that like the journal of discourses, it is not necessary for the salvation of Catholics to believe in it. Mary Magdalene has been venerated as a Saint - the Patron Saint of the Penitent.

Also note, that this is only present in the Roman Catholic tradition. The Eastern Catholics hold Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany as two separate persons with their own separate venerations and separate feast days. The Eastern Catholics do not conflate Mary Magdalene with the adulteress either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   In all honesty, no legitimate scholar thinks He was married or had children.  It's only the fringe that believes that. Most professors of religion (even agnostics/atheists and non believers in Jesus) place the "Jesus was married' camp in with the "Jesus never existed camp" 

 

This is not exactly true.  Much of the religious (biblical) scholar landscape is dominated by Catholic scholars.  For example over 90% or the scholars directly involved in the Dead Sea Scroll society that controls who has direct access to the Dead Sea Scrolls is Catholic.  There are many ancient documents (including the DDS) that require priests and teachers to be married.  By ancient standards - it would be odd and strange that Jesus was not married.

 

I personally consider it a grand triumph of the Great Apostasy to convince the world that celibacy is what really is ordained of G-d and the actual order of divine relationship.

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   In all honesty, no legitimate scholar thinks He was married or had children.  It's only the fringe that believes that. Most professors of religion (even agnostics/atheists and non believers in Jesus) place the "Jesus was married' camp in with the "Jesus never existed camp" 

 

I am willing to bet that this is false. I bet you can indeed find a "legitimate scholar" who does not deny that Jesus was married.

 

It doesn't really matter. The phrase "legitimate scholar" is an oxymoron when applied to New Testament researchers. Their credentials, such as they are, are largely bogus, and are meaningless in any case. They have nothing of real substance to provide someone seeking to know God by studying his word.

 

There is nothing in the Bible that either states or even strongly suggests that Jesus was unmarried. That idea is nothing but a tradition, and not one I particularly care to treat with reverence. I have private speculations, but no opinions I care to announce publicly, about Jesus' potential marital state. But when someone pretends to say authoritatively that Jesus was unmarried, I immeidately know that is a person whose opinions I can safely ignore. Such is the case with pretty much 100% of those who claim to be "scholars of Jesus" or some such rot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

This is not exactly true.  

 It actually is. "The Case for the Real Jesus" is by Lee Strobel, a protestant. In it, he interviews many experts (almost all Protestants) and every single biblical scholar he interviews says "No legitimate scholar believes they (Jesus and Mary) were wed." 

 

If you tried to present the theory that Christ was married, scholars of almost all types would universally question you. It's the same as trying to say Jesus never existed. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor do we believe he did not produce children. The Church takes no stand on whether or not Jesus was married or on whether or not such a marriage might have produced children, opinions of individual members notwithstanding.

 

Really, this is the final word on the subject.

 

So before Pres. Jos, F. Smith died in 1918 it was taught but after 1918 we don't know? It hasn't been sustained as church doctrine but when it has been taught by the prophets Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F. Smith and numerous apostles of the time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

I am willing to bet that this is false. I bet you can indeed find a "legitimate scholar" who does not deny that Jesus was married.

 

It doesn't really matter. The phrase "legitimate scholar" is an oxymoron when applied to New Testament researchers. Their credentials, such as they are, are largely bogus, and are meaningless in any case. They have nothing of real substance to provide someone seeking to know God by studying his word.

 

 

  There is not a shred of evidence that He was married. There just isn't. You can try to say that He was but in 99% of academic circles it really is the equivalent of saying He didn't exist. Both are considered Pseudo-history. My former theology professor said it best "It's like looking for Noah's Ark. You are free to believe what you want but it's a lost cause"  

 

I'm not trying to sound harsh. I know of people who believed He was married after reading the Da Vinci code-but it's a fleeting thing. Once they looked into the matter further they realized that the evidence doesn't really back it up. 

 

Philo and Josephus were two historians who tell us a lot about that time period. Both men state that, contrary to popular belief, there were Jewish men who did not marry. 

 

There is also the practical question-If Jesus DID marry how come none of the gospel writers mention it? 

 

And don't discredit scholarship. Credentials are important, in particular when dealing with history. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is not a shred of evidence that He was married. There just isn't. You can try to say that He was but in 99% of academic circles it really is the equivalent of saying He didn't exist. Both are considered Pseudo-history. My former theology professor said it best "It's like looking for Noah's Ark. You are free to believe what you want but it's a lost cause"  

 

I'm not trying to sound harsh. I know of people who believed He was married after reading the Da Vinci code-but it's a fleeting thing. Once they looked into the matter further they realized that the evidence doesn't really back it up. 

 

Philo and Josephus were two historians who tell us a lot about that time period. Both men state that, contrary to popular belief, there were Jewish men who did not marry. 

 

There is also the practical question-If Jesus DID marry how come none of the gospel writers mention it? 

 

And don't discredit scholarship. Credentials are important, in particular when dealing with history.

You're missing the point, I think.

The LDS openness to the possibility of Jesus being married is not based on the Bible but rather in the restored gospel. Just as we believe in the existence of a Heavenly Mother, we also believe that to achieve Godhood, Jesus also has an eternal companion. Whether it's Mary Magdalene or somebody else has not been revealed.

In this sense, scholarship does not help if they're limited to the gospels preserved through the period of apostasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

You're missing the point, I think.

 

Fair enough. I probably did miss the point.

 

I don't discredit continuing revelation but understand you can't make a claim even with revelation-that Jesus was married without a basis in historical evidence.

 

When you claim revelation you need to be very careful. If it doesn't match up to history it can effect your credibility.

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is trying to claim with evidence Jesus was married. But I wonder how many scholars have evidence to support the idea Jesus was not married. I wager it's one of those areas with not enough proof either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

I don't think anyone is trying to claim with evidence Jesus was married. But I wonder how many scholars have evidence to support the idea Jesus was not married. I wager it's one of those areas with not enough proof either way.

No one has to prove He wasn't married, because we're not making the claim He was. If you make a claim you have to back it  up with something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I'm curious where the King James version states that Jesus had children.

 

The Orson Pratt quote I shared:

 

“…Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage, and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82, 83).

 

referenced Isaiah 53:10

 

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Edited by Average Joe

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