Was Jesus married?

[Giuseppe]

This is a very interesting topic. It doesn't really matter to know it for our salvation, and perhaps it is even better to avoid discussing it too much, but many people are intrigued by this idea.

i don't know where the following come from, but it make a lot of sense:

“In fact, there's considerable evidence that Jesus was married -- to Mary Magdalene at least, and possibly Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus) as well:

a. No adult Jewish male could reach age 30 and be single, without attracting a great deal of negative attention. Many things were used by Jesus' detractors, many accusations were made against him, but this was NOT one of them.

a. First, the idea that it "would have been commented upon" in the Bible if he had been married, makes sense from OUR perspective, but not the historical one: in fact, it's exactly backwards:

It would have been so extremely unusual for him to have remained UNmarried at that age that it would have been commented upon -- and it never was.

c. At the time, marriage was virtually a REQUIREMENT to be acknowledged as "Rabbi" (and he *was* acknowledged as such, even by such sticklers for rules as the Sanhedrin) .

d. In that era and culture, no respectable man would have been "followed around" by women as he was, and served by women, as he was -- UNLESS he were married to them.

In that era, and in that culture, It would have been absolutely SCANDALOUS for (for example) Mary Magdalene, and the sisters Mary and Martha, to have the kind of close personal relationship which they evidenced, even from the scriptures, unless they were married to him.

e. The wedding at Cana was almost certainly his own marriage. Jesus' mother Mary's behavior as reported in scripture is very strange for anyone other than someone responsible as a hostess -- or an extremely inappropriate busy-body.”…. Skipping all the quotes…

“g. There is such evidence that Biblical scholars now recognize that Mary Magdalene was MUCH more than just a "friend" of Jesus --

She behaved every bit as an Apostle, and perhaps wife. She *anointed* the Christos ("Christ" means "Anointed One").

It was a feature of both religious and political life throughout the Middle East for a male leader to be both a King and a Priest. It was traditional for the Priest-King to be anointed by the High Priestess in preparation for his ritual sacrifice. (see John 12:3-8.)

Mary acted as "apostle to the apostles" -- the one specifically chosen to be the first to bear witness of the Resurrection -- at a time and in a culture in which it was not even LEGAL for women to be witnesses (the term "testimony" comes from "testes"). Jesus' choice of Mary as the first and primary witness of the Resurrection could not have been "coincidence".”

Any comment?

[Inconceivable]

As a matter of fact, Jesus was married and to several wives.

Although there are several additional references, here are some comments by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ in our dispensation:

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great

blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last

Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary,

Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this - they

worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his

Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all

righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more

righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle

not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down

to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat

children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."

Journal of Discourses: Orson Hyde March 18, 1855 SLC

Pass on still further in their history, and look at their course and conduct, if you will believe the

writers that lived in that age. What does old Celsus say, who was physician in the first century,

whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were

burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus

was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and

their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted

Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of

others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the

example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto

the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." Again, he says, "Having many things to

write unto you (or communicate), I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you,

and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Again -"The children of thy elect sister greet thee.

" This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that

do examine me is this:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the

brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his

disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony

of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the

persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."

JD 1:346 Jedediah M. Grant August 7, 1853

[Giuseppe]

I think it make sense what you say even if it is not official doctrine of the Church. Perhaps it is not important for us to know all of these details.

[Jeny]

I believe that Jesus was married and that it was his wedding at Cana...That is why his mother came to HIM about the wine. When he said, "mine hour is not yet come" he was telling her that it wasn't time for him to reveal who he REALLY was. He preformed the miracle because it was his wedding. I have no proof of these thoughts, but they make sense to me as I understand Celestial law. Also, when Mary came to him at the sepulchre...she wanted to hug him...he wouldn't let her touch him then...she was his wife. I believe that in my heart...Again, not doctrine...but I still believe it in my heart.

[Inconceivable]

Originally posted by giuseppe;143

I think it make sense what you say even if it is not official doctrine of the Church. Perhaps it is not important for us to know all of these details.

When these apostles spoke this they stood at the pulpit at the Tabernacle, Temple square during the Semi Annual General Conference.

Even though it was (and still is) the mind of the Lord, I agree that it isn't official doctrine of His church. I agree that it's probably not particularly important to know any more about it.

But maybe there is some truth in the Da Vinci Code?

[Giuseppe]

I have not seen or read the Da Vinci Code to be honest but I am worried when certain topics are discussed without the Spirit or enough reverence.

This is what the anti-mormon like: to use and misuse a principle or historical happening, take it out of context, change it a little bit and use against the Church.

Perhaps this is the reason because certain topics need to be avoided or discussed carefully.

But I know, I started the thread....it is all my fault!

[Jeny]

You are forgiven, Giuseppe...but I am watching you!!!/wink.gif

[escott]

There is an interesting book on involving this subject called "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner.

Although it is a secular book, and there are pieces of it I don't believe is correct from a doctrinal perspective, it does have a lot of interesting information involving the Hebrew traditions of Jesus' era.

Jesus was the byproduct of a dynastic marriage, and there are certain Jewish laws specific to dynastic families which differ from even the mainstream Judaism of that time frame.

Marriage was a given. There is also information on when dynastic couples could actually co-habitate in order to have children born during certain months, etc.

The book talks about Mary Magdeline also having a dynastic line. It's really interesting stuff.

I have misplaced my book and I'm at work, so I'll try to find it and quote some info here.

I do believe that Jesus was married as well. I have similar feelings to Yediyd on the subject in her quote here:

<div class='quotetop'></div>

Also, when Mary came to him at the sepulchre...she wanted to hug him...he wouldn't let her touch him then...she was his wife. I believe that in my heart...Again, not doctrine...but I still believe it in my heart.

This is a pretty cool board! Lots of neat features!

/smile.gif

[Jeny]

I would be vey interested in that book you speak of...do you have a link to it on-line? Welcome to our site...BTY!!!!

[escott]

Originally posted by Yediyd;212

I would be vey interested in that book you speak of...do you have a link to it on-line? Welcome to our site...BTY!!!!

Thanks for the welcome! /tongue.gif

Unfortunately, there isn't a link to the entire book, but here is the link to Amazon where you can order it. The price has really come down on it. If I can't find my copy, I may order it myself! LOL

The price is $14, which isn't bad for a hardback.

Here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...process=default

[Jeny]

Thank you!!! Right now I am reading a new book I just got today: Rough Stone Rolling...and I have about three other books I am into right now, plus my scripture reading, so it may be a while before I get to it...but again, thanks for the link!!!!

[Guest Purple Smidgen]

Originally posted by Inconceivable;135

As a matter of fact, Jesus was married and to several wives.

Although there are several additional references, here are some comments by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ in our dispensation:

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great

blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last

Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary,

Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this - they

worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his

Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all

righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more

righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle

not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down

to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat

children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."

Journal of Discourses: Orson Hyde March 18, 1855 SLC

Pass on still further in their history, and look at their course and conduct, if you will believe the

writers that lived in that age. What does old Celsus say, who was physician in the first century,

whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were

burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus

was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and

their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted

Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of

others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the

example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto

the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." Again, he says, "Having many things to

write unto you (or communicate), I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you,

and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Again -"The children of thy elect sister greet thee.

" This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that

do examine me is this:

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the

brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his

disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony

of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the

persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."

JD 1:346 Jedediah M. Grant August 7, 1853

Wow! This is freaky!! I never heard of such a thing!! If Jesus was married, why wasn't that fact in the Bible? Why would he hide it? And why are Mormons so bent on this poligamy idea? I have some good questions to ask those missionaries today, at least!!

[Giuseppe]

The Bible contains a lot of truths but not all of them. However, official Mormon Doctrine doesn't teach that Jesus was married or that he even had more than one wife. I suppose we don't need to know these details for now, so that I would focus on the most important things not on these details.

The fact that Mormons practiced polygamy in the past is true but we don't need to say that Jesus practiced it to be justified. it was a commandment from the Lord and now it is not allowed anymore. End of the story.

[Juliann]

Originally posted by Inconceivable;135

As a matter of fact, Jesus was married and to several wives.

That is hardly fact and if you have to go that far back to find anybody saying it then that should be a warning sign. We are supposed to be following living prophets not dead General Authorities. I would be surprised if Jesus wasn't married and Jews were polygamous at the time but it was probably just rich ones. It seems like there has been a lot about Jesus being married lately that isn't from Mormons. I wouldn't rely on any of those Holy Grail books tho, they really take liberties.

[Juliann]

Originally posted by Purple Smidgen;246

Wow! This is freaky!! I never heard of such a thing!! If Jesus was married, why wasn't that fact in the Bible? Why would he hide it? And why are Mormons so bent on this poligamy idea? I have some good questions to ask those missionaries today, at least!!

More important, why isn't what he did for 30 years in the Bible? Don't you think that is kinda weird since he probably wasnt in a coma the whole time? I can think of a whole lot of reasons to hide the identity of Jesus's family but I can't think of a whole lot of reasons to hide things like what happened during the most important time in the history of his life or Christianity, the forty days after the resurrection. The Bible sure leaves out a lot. I wonder why?

[Inconceivable]

Originally posted by Cybermo;268

That is hardly fact and if you have to go that far back to find anybody saying it then that should be a warning sign. We are supposed to be following living prophets not dead General Authorities. I would be surprised if Jesus wasn't married and Jews were polygamous at the time but it was probably just rich ones. It seems like there has been a lot about Jesus being married lately that isn't from Mormons. I wouldn't rely on any of those Holy Grail books tho, they really take liberties.

If God had permited Grant or Hyde to live 180 years, would their testimony be any less viable. No one has ever stood and rebuked them. This was the word and mind of the Lord. It should not be a stretch to accept.

Just because it has not been spoken of much for many years doesn't make it any less "official doctrine".

The Journal of Discourses is not a Holy Grail book. It is a compilation of talks primarily given to the membership of the church during semi-annual conferences - presided over just as they are today - by a living prophet.

My ancestors attended these meetings. Their testimony is just as sound as the prophets.

So, in too many words, what I am saying is that if you are a believing Mormon, yes, Jesus was married. Apostles of the living God in this Last Dispensation testified to it.

[Jeny]

Excellent points!!! Whether Jesus was or was not married is not important to our salvation....if everything about Jesus' life alone were in the Bible...imagine how thick it would be? G-d allowed some things to be omitted because he wants us to have faith in him as well...I trust that we will learn what we need to know when the time comes.

[cksalmon]

Excellent points!!! Whether Jesus was or was not married is not important to our salvation

But it is, I'd think, important in knowing the nature of Christ. Not just was he married, but was he married polygamously? Some LDS leaders have said "Yes." Does it matter to know if Jesus was a polygamist? Why or why not?

Best.

CKS

[Aluwid]

But it is, I'd think, important in knowing the nature of Christ. Not just was he married, but was he married polygamously? Some LDS leaders have said "Yes." Does it matter to know if Jesus was a polygamist? Why or why not?

It'd be nice to know since it would resolve a lot of questions between the faiths, but I don't see how not yet knowing the answer negatively impacts our ability to follow his commandments and take advantage of the atonement that he provided.

[jadams_4040]

This is a very interesting topic. It doesn't really matter to know it for our salvation, and perhaps it is even better to avoid discussing it too much, but many people are intrigued by this idea.

i don't know where the following come from, but it make a lot of sense:

“In fact, there's considerable evidence that Jesus was married -- to Mary Magdalene at least, and possibly Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus) as well:

a. No adult Jewish male could reach age 30 and be single, without attracting a great deal of negative attention. Many things were used by Jesus' detractors, many accusations were made against him, but this was NOT one of them.

a. First, the idea that it "would have been commented upon" in the Bible if he had been married, makes sense from OUR perspective, but not the historical one: in fact, it's exactly backwards:

It would have been so extremely unusual for him to have remained UNmarried at that age that it would have been commented upon -- and it never was.

c. At the time, marriage was virtually a REQUIREMENT to be acknowledged as "Rabbi" (and he *was* acknowledged as such, even by such sticklers for rules as the Sanhedrin) .

d. In that era and culture, no respectable man would have been "followed around" by women as he was, and served by women, as he was -- UNLESS he were married to them.

In that era, and in that culture, It would have been absolutely SCANDALOUS for (for example) Mary Magdalene, and the sisters Mary and Martha, to have the kind of close personal relationship which they evidenced, even from the scriptures, unless they were married to him.

e. The wedding at Cana was almost certainly his own marriage. Jesus' mother Mary's behavior as reported in scripture is very strange for anyone other than someone responsible as a hostess -- or an extremely inappropriate busy-body.”…. Skipping all the quotes…

“g. There is such evidence that Biblical scholars now recognize that Mary Magdalene was MUCH more than just a "friend" of Jesus --

She behaved every bit as an Apostle, and perhaps wife. She *anointed* the Christos ("Christ" means "Anointed One").

It was a feature of both religious and political life throughout the Middle East for a male leader to be both a King and a Priest. It was traditional for the Priest-King to be anointed by the High Priestess in preparation for his ritual sacrifice. (see John 12:3-8.)

Mary acted as "apostle to the apostles" -- the one specifically chosen to be the first to bear witness of the Resurrection -- at a time and in a culture in which it was not even LEGAL for women to be witnesses (the term "testimony" comes from "testes"). Jesus' choice of Mary as the first and primary witness of the Resurrection could not have been "coincidence".”

Any comment?

It just seems that God put sooooo much emphysis on marriage, in the Holy Bible alone, {let alone L.D.S scripture}.

Why would he do this and then not live it. as other poster stated this is one thing we just dont know fer sure {yet}.

B)

[charity]

There are two reasons for something not to be in the Bible we have today.

1. It was something God knew we didn't need.

2. It was there, but conspiring men removed it.

[Jeny]

There are two reasons for something not to be in the Bible we have today.

1. It was something God knew we didn't need.

2. It was there, but conspiring men removed it.

I can add one more...G-d wants us to have faith. As I understand D&C 138...I believe that we will still need to have faith in him on the other side of the Vail as well...that is why there will be a need for missionaries to the dead. Faith is not something we see and know...G-d gave us what we need and we need to trust him about the rest...IMHO.

[jriddick07]

I've thought about this question numerous times since the furor over the Da Vinci Code several years ago.

The Savior was baptized by John the Baptist, despite the fact that - having never sinned - he didn't need to. However, baptism is a necessary part of our salvation, and so John baptized him. Isn't eternal marriage an important part of our salvation as well? Wouldn't it, therefore, make sense for Jesus to be married just as he was baptized in the River Jordan?

[Pa Pa]

What angers most is the old victorian belief that all sex is sin. Therefore even if married he would have committed sin. (Nonsence)

Pa Pa

[Maya]

This is a very interesting subject. I have a tendency to think He was marriedand plural marriage in those days was in practice. About him beeing crusified because of that... hmm... it was a practice amongst the Judish people... why would he be crusified for it. Then again one of the raeasons to JS martyr death was the quetion of blacks... but that either is nowhere to be seen. They feraed he will let all slaves go.

Even though it has been preached from the Tabernacle it IS NOT an official doctorine.More like reading the Liahona. It wont be a doctorine before it is taken to generalmeeting and accepted as one. I am sure no one will be salvation or denied it on behave of his/her thoughts about Jeus marriage. We need to believe what the profet says today. If it is important to know it now, I am sure God will tell us about it now!

But it is a very interesting question! I think it is important to look humbly at these kind of questions and agree on how little we know and how little we understand and that at the understanding I now posess I think He was married, but it does not deminish the possibility of me being wrong.... and that is quite ok.