oh yeah... (re: Was Jesus married, etc.)

Where was Jesus? That is a question I have wondered about for a long time. I mean he totally disappeared from the face of the bible for a long time. It is interesting that he left after (i presume) puberty kicked in and emerged after he was able to control it! (i should know, I just turned 31!)Son of God, Son of Man. That is still a tough age to be a man!

Hi,I think that Jesus birth and the story bout the temple at 12 years old, simply smack of mythology. They were more than likely added on to Jesus life story to try and give him some respect in the hood.It is easy to imagine that this wandering magician arrives in the area, does a couple of tricks, gullible people are taken in by this, the Romans are concerned because amongst his followers are a known Zealot, an assassin (Sacari),they crucify him, his followers nick the body so they do not appear as morons in their community, they make up child narratives to validate Jesus as messiah. Simple stuff really.One of the most ludicrous things in the Gospels is how Jesus' family keep denying him. Mary and Joseph have both been visited by Gabriel who tells them that Mary is having God's child, Elizabeth's baby John jumps for joy when the two women meet womb to womb, Simeon tells Mary and Jo that he can now die because he has saw the Christ, and Mary and Joseph still think that Jesus is mad LOL, yet it is they who spoke to Gabriel.How gullible can people be?Brian

Kind of makes you think that the story of Jesus was a complete fabrication, though perhaps inspired by a historical [religious?] figure, but who was far from being the Son of Man.

It is stated in the Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi) that Jesus used to kiss Mary Magdalene. This is often quoted as evidence that the two were married. But in the same gospel the apostles ask Jesus: "Why do you love her more than all of us?"
Now, wouldn't that be a realy silly question to ask of Jesus if MM was his wife?

So that is what M&M stands for! Who knew?!?It would not be silly to ask that. That is a very good question the apostles asked of Jesus. It shows that they too were battling with his divinity. If Jesus is GOD and GOD loves everyone equally, how could he love His wife more than his apostles? That is a valid theologically based question. What was his repsonse, BTW?

"If Jesus is GOD and GOD loves everyone equally, how could he love His wife more than his apostles?"But you are assuming that Jesus was married to MM. If that was the case, I would agree with you here. But as it stands, there's no evidence that the two were romantically involved.If my husband and I had a bunch of friends and these friends would ask him why he spends so much time with me instead of hanging out with them, I would consider them at least mildly retarded:-)As for Jesus, he answered:"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

sorry if i repeat what has been said, im just stating what i believe. i believe that jesus could very well have been married. there is no suggestion that jesus was NOT married. A stronger argument than that, is why would he not partake in sex, if sex is a god given gift and god says to be fruitful and multiply. why would jesus not follow one of god's statements. jesus obviously wouldnt have premartial sex, so to have children he would need a wife. why is it so hard to believe that jesus had a wife? would the fact that god shared his love with someone lessen his message somehow? couldnt it even strengthen it? also, do you not think that just because the apostles were supposed to be holy and godly, they did not have human emotion? wouldnt they be jealous and angry that jesus loved someone, his wife, more than them? wouldnt that be enough to omit her from the story of His life? wow, whoops. thats a lot of questions... BUT im too lazy to change it. so deal with it. I took care of your accidental thread for you - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 11-18-2003]

Look, the way I see it and the way most are posting here, it seems that there was a special relationship between MM and JC. Married or not married, kissing on the lips and the encouraged jealousy expressed by the apostles, and not only in the Nag Hammadi, but in the "GOSPEL" when MM breaks the alabaster jar filled with the "special" ointment, the apostles question her actions.MM, upon JC's return to the house in Bethany for the "raising" of Lazarus, does not move from her seat (sitting Shiva by Jewish Scholars) until her husband calls for her. She does not emerge until JC calls for her.They were married as far as I am concerned. I just do not see the big deal in hiding it. He was GOD and MAN. He had to obey his own rules, right? Be fruitful and mutliply says the Old Testament. So he did. Jose of Arimathea was as much to receive credit as were the others who believed he had "risen". It seems that the land where JC was crucified on belonged to JOA. In one account most folks are far away and are not privy to the goings on by the cross. In the account by "JOHN" (if you believe that one) there are four people standing by the side of the cross and they all happen to be women. In the rendition as we know it now, we are lead to believe that John was present with the insertion of "his" at the end of the verses describing the last converstion had by JC.It seems that JC is giving/presenting his mother in law to MM and asking her to take care of her in his absence. At the last minute, it states that Mary spent her days at "his" home. COuld this "his" really be "His" as in JC's house?Hmmmm...(Sorry I had to let it out!)

This doesn't make any sense. If Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married then why, in John 20, would she not recognize him when he appeared to her? And why would she call him "Teacher" when she finally realized it was him?Also, this is just plain wrong:

quote:

---

It seems that JC is giving/presenting his mother in law to MM and asking her to take care of her in his absence. At the last minute, it states that Mary spent her days at "his" home. Could this "his" really be "His" as in JC's house?

---

I assume you are referring to John 19:26-27, but that is not at all what it says. John 19:26-27 says Jesus told John (the disciple whom he loved) that Mary (as in the mother of Jesus) was to be John's "mother" and John would be her "son." From that time on John took Mary into his house (as to take care of her). These two verses make NO mention of Mary Magdalene whatsoever. The only thing implied by these verses is that Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus, was dead by this time, leaving Mary without anyone to look after her.

Pick a translation, any translation!

I've read these verses and your claim doesn't hold any water. Mary Magdalene isn't even mentioned in John 19:26-27. But if you're so sure about the meaning of this passage, why don't you enlighten us?

I just recently began hearing people talk about Jesus being married. I wonder... what is the big issue here? If the answer is found will people use this as a way to argue with each other about who was wrong? If that is the case here, you may as well make up your opinion on the matter and end it there.Regardless of the "truth" I doubt God will look negatively upon you for believing what was proven wrong as long as you are being a decent human being and not forcing others to believe what you do. That being said, I'd like to offer a few more ideas on the subject which are not proven by any scripture, just what I believe makes for good conversation and debate.I wouldn't doubt that Jesus was married at all. Even with the love of God, a human being still longs to be with another human being. Be she Mary Magdelan or someone else, it really doesn't matter much. This may not have been stated in the Bible (or other religious scriptures) because it was not written by Jesus, nor was it written by God, but by human beings. Human beings are fallible and subject to biased opinions. Perhaps those who wrote the bible believed that Jesus would not seem as great as he was if it was known that he was human like the rest of the world.I personally believe him to have been completely human. I enjoy the idea of a human being loving and caring for the rest of his kind so much at he would sacrifice his life to help the world, regardless of belief, culture, and sex. And to believe that such a man never found love with another human being is rather foolhardy in my opinion.Perhaps between the ages of 12-30 Jesus was on a quest from God? Perhaps he was to explore the world and during so he may have found the inherent good within the human race? And that may be those decisions and life-changing events that led him to do what he did. I do not believe that what happened during that time was dismissed as unimportant, maybe it was never known in the first place?And that's all I will post this time... I've a bit more I want to say but I still need to go over how I wish to present it. ^_^ Hope my idealist viewpoint didn't come off as offensive to anyone.

Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was, in Jesus' own words:"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." [John 6:38]My response to your question is: "no".

Brian wrote: IMO, Mary and Joseph simply had a lapse of faith of who Jesus really was at times.

maybe cause the people who compiled the bible didn't want to portray jesus that way? the whole bible is written and included with purpose. in spite of being huge perverts, greeks were incredibly prudish. why would they want to show their divine savior as having human appetites and carrying out the ordinary tasks of a jewish male (i.e. fathering children to add to the stars in the sky promise).