You posted:
Heath, the wording does suggest that there was birth. Beyond the animals being created.

Look at Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,



    "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

    with pain you will give birth to children.

God is saying he'll increase pain in childbirth. How would Eve know it is increased, unless she had child(ren) before.

I posted:
What version are you using?  Mine (KJV) says:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

This implies that when she does bring forth children, it will be in sorrow.  Also, the original word for "multiply" just means to "become much" or "become numerous," not necessarily a comparison.  It is probably best translated as "make great" thy sorrow and thy conception.



What I'm saying is this:  what you read in your Bible is a translation (which is probably a translation of a translation) which has been written down over thousands of years by many different people based on something someone claims Moses wrote down based on something he claims God said.

Do I believe God spoke to Moses? Yes, I think he was a prophet and had that communication.  Do I think the Bible I look at carries God's exact words?  No.  Beyond translation errors, the possibility of error in all those other areas is also great.

I never said it was or wasn't, even though I believe it may have been.  If Revelations is the Word of God, then people can change the word of God.  Otherwise, the warning isn't necessary.  The possibility is there; I never mentioned that it specifically was.

I think I am not quite so clear as to the differences of translations. It doesn't seem so different as you implied earlier.



While I can agree that the words were in hebrew, and not exactly the same when done in english, want to tell me the confusion between murder in hebrew, and murder in english? How about the hebrew word for lie, and the english word for lie? While I can understand that I cannot read hebrew, I just don't see how confusing Jesus being crucified for our sins in any language.
Certasinly people can change the Word of God. Look at the Episcopolian church? They say God wants gays to marry.

But we still have God's word, regardless of what they say. God warned us to be wary of things like this, and to use the scripture to correct, and reproof. Scripture backs scripture.

I think we actually agree on your last post for the most part.  I'm just sloppily posting today due to lack of time.

For translations, you can't pick one word out and say, "There, this word matches in both languages, so the entire work must match."  Besides, you use the term "murder," while it is usually translated as "kill."  There is a big difference between the two, requiring personal interpretation.

For another example, as I discussed a long time ago, the first sentence in the Bible is not best translated as "In the beginning, God created..."  Due to the usage of words, it is most accurately translated, "In the beginning, the Supreme God created..."  ...or else it is faulty grammar consistently through the Old Testament... or else it is someone having made changes to the Bible you believe in (one way or the other) ...or else it is the word of God and exactly true in its original format and the translation to English is just faulty due to lack of exact equivalents.

I can understand why there are differences. And I think we both agree that's not the biggest issue. Going back to the idea of scripture backing scripture. We both use a verse to show meaning and backing to other verses. You can do this with all scripture. (my understanding  is that 3 verses at a minimum will back up all points in scripture, although I haven't tested this on everything)

I have seen you use this way to show and define translations, or usage of language in the past, so I think we're on the same page for what we are talking about, just in disagreement in how we apply it.

I think I agree with you there.  Going back to the sources for the Da Vinci Code -- which are not all about Jesus' marriage, by the way -- one of the problems that comes out is the authors of the New Testament.

I previously showed a history of the New Testament showing that the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke were not prophets or other known church leaders.  To me, that casts some shade of distrust on what is written there...counteracted, of course, by faith, but still a bit of uncertainty in relying on them, especially written so many decades later.

The account of John, on the other hand, is considered the most pure.  Although we don't know the author, it is highly believed that he was an eyewitness (unlike the others, who were passing on the stories or compiling them or some other method now lost to history).  John also is historically the most accurate according to the traditions, its discussion about events, and the like, so I like it the most.

Interestingly enough, the most reliable accounts are not about Jesus at all.  They are the epistles of Paul (actually written before the first four books of the NT too).  These were written by his hand, and so they tend to be most reliable (if you consider Paul a prophet or apostle).

Bump for Query.

I saw a new program recently where a polygamist claimed that Jesus had multiple wives.  This is an argument I made earlier, much to the dissatisfaction of rogue.

The Gospel of Mary of Magdala the Gnostic Gospel text which I feel is authentic clearly places Mary in the region around Israel for her ministry. And taking into account she was a highly regarded disciple of Jesus and clearly favored in the Biblical accounts, I find the idea she and Jesus were married is not possible. And I find it unlikely no accounts in the Bible say he was wed to Mary I would think the Gnostic Text would have mentioned it. I do feel that Jesus and Mary shared a close relationship of faith and love in a manner of a teacher to a beloved student. But that would be all.

Why do you feel the gospel is authentic?  (I've never read it.  Is it worth my time?)

What I'm about to present is mostly theory. Pure speculation, so take it with a grain of salt if you will.

I don't believe Jesus ever married on two points (Digression: Although I am fairly certain he had brothers). There is absolutely no reliable eveidence suggesting Christ got married at any point in his life. If there were, than it would have been trumpeted to the planet a long time ago, and the hunt for the remains of the bloodline of God would begin.

Eliminating marriage from the equation, and that leaves adultery. If Christ commited adultery, than he was not sinless and the entire basis of the Christian faith is a lie. If proof of adultery had existed, it would have been played by the Jewish (and the Romans of that time, for that matter) a long time ago the discredit what they perceive as a false prophet.

Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in any court of law that is just (upbringing expressed here), a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

I hope you aren't saying getting married is like committing a crime!!

There may have been political reasons for intentionally covering up Jesus' marriage.  The gospels were written well after Jesus' death, and while I think it is unlikely, it is possible what was known about Jesus was intentionally concealed at some point (much like the role of the Jews and Pilate in Jesus' death was intentionally changed for political reasons).

Miscommunication on my part.

No, quite the opposite. If marriage were a crime, than why in the world would adultery by viewed in the Bible as a bad thing? That wouldn't make sense.

Not following the Pilate/Jews thing. I must have missed that part. Care to elaborate, or direct me to where you already did?

If we read through the actions leading up to Jesus' crucifixion, the behavior of the Jews was actually contrary to the rules laid out in the Torah, meanwhile the behavior of Pilate was ridiculous and politically foolish.  Why does the bible portray this incredible behavior?  Well remember the audience.  When talking to Romans, you portray the Roman characters as good and innocent, and the troublesome Jewish characters as continuously troublesome.  This background information has no bearing on the actual teachings involved with the crucifixion, it was just the factual circumstances setting up the story.

There are several points to emphasize in support of Jesus' marriage:

1)  As katisara suggested, there was a strong reason to cover up Jesus' marriage (such as protecting his family).  (Digression:  This is similar to Jesus telling Peter to deny him three times.  Most people think it was a prediction, and I have argued it was Jesus ordering him to do so to protect the future of the church.  This is why it was so hard on Peter, who was the "rock" and cut off soldier's ears for Jesus just before he died.  Surely it was contrary to Peter's nature.  In any case, a cover up of the marriage seems important for protection of Jesus' line.)

And contrary to Mentat's point, the idea of Jesus being married has been around since Jesus died.  Obviously, it was obfuscated by the time of the COuncil of Nicea and not something Trinitarians or the Catholic Church would support, so it is no wonder that the idea went dormant until the 1800s or so.

(Katisara is also exactly correct on the portrayal of the Romans.  In order to get Romans as converts to Christianity, their involvement in Jesus' death had to be whitewashed, so when the Gospels were finally written decades later, this was the spin put on the incident.)

2)  Contrary to Mentat's point, there is quite a bit of evidence within the Bible itself demonstrating that Jesus was, in fact, married.  If you start at the first post on this thread, you can see how I've pointed out many such examples.  In fact, if Jesus was not married, that would have been the thing that the writers would have pointed out because it would have been very strange to NOT be married.

3)  The books in the New Testament were not written at the time they happened.  They were written decades later, some of them over a century after Jesus' death.  To think of them as contemporaneous and therefore wonder why mention of a wife was not made throws the wrong context; the books were written to focus on those aspects related to Jesus' ministry, not his personal life.  It is not a biography.


This analogy is inapposite.  First, in law, you look at the probative value of evidence.  Therefore, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence depending on the situation.  (For example, destruction of evidence by a company results in presumption that the evidence was not helpful to the company.)  Likewise, in civil cases, the proof is whether you are swayed 50/50 one way or the other.  The innocent until proven guilty presumption is a criminal law principle.

So in this case we look at anything that is probative (meaning that it in any way acts to show one thing or another that is relevant).  In that case, lack of evidence is very probative.

For example, lack of any mention of Jesus being married or not gives rise to a presumption that he was, in fact, married.  Because all "rabbis" had to be married, the text surely would have mentioned the oddity of Jesus not being married if he wasn't.  This lack of evidence is thus good evidence.  etc., etc.

And I also should point out that, when you look at the Gospels, remember that only the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness to the accounts.  It is therefore considered to be the most reliable of all of them regarding its recitation of the facts.

It also happens to be the book that is ripe with references and examples indicating that Jesus was, in fact, married.

There is also one incident in the Bible that suggests that Jesus had more than one wife, Mary and Martha.

Unfortunately there are no full copies of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala but according to most scholars its consistant with the texts of the period, and seems to be a proper account of her teachings. But taking into account that plus the accounts of Mary of Magdala in the New Testament it seems she was a Disciple and taught privately by Jesus.

But Mary was a Gnostic and was into the spiritual aspects of the faith and in not placing in rigid laws that went beyond what the Saviour taught. As in opposed the concentration of power in the Church in a set doctrine. I'm not shocked the texts were banned by the Church as it became under Constantine.

I have to disagree.  The Gnostic texts, including the Gospel of Mary (from my recollection) include accounts of Jesus kissing her on the mouth and the apostles becoming jealous because he spends so much time with her.  I don't think he's going around kissing disciples on the lips...  And "taught privately" by Jesus?  That makes sense also only if she's his wife, especially given the culture.

Also, at the resurrection, she was the first one he spoke to, and he used a term for her that is reserved for a wife.  Why would he choose to appear to her first?  If she was his wife, it makes perfect sense.  If not, he would have appeared to his mother or the apostles.

I'm fairly confident that with Jesus kissing Mary on the lips is more to do with a book of fiction called the Divinci Code. There is no gnostic gospel that specifies a kiss on the lips.

Keep in mind, the Da Vinci Code is a thriller.  It's ideas and assertions come from the nonfiction book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."  Therefore, it is unfair to assert that the fiction book is the source of anything.  Instead, I'd urge you to read the nonfiction book, skipping over the first parts (which were later proven to be a fraud on the part of the "witness") and going to the later parts, which are more scholarly.  (The book itself is written by two journalists who investigated this issue.  The idea of Jesus and Mary being married goes back to the first century or earlier.  It just rises in popular thought from time to time.)

Back to your point:
It's in the Gospel of Phillip, where it discusses Jesus kissing Mary on the lips, in chapter 63.



(Because Philip discusses facts which would lead to the conclusion that Jesus and Mary were married, it is, of course, the book that most mainstream Christians say must be untrue and not a true Gospel.  This type of illogical reasoning -- i.e. I believe Jesus was not married so anything that says otherwise must not be true -- is an unfortunate side effect.  I don't know whether the Gospel of Philip is true or not, but I don't discount it just because it may say something I don't believe in.)

Would you like me to start enumerating the facts that show Jesus and Mary were married?  Then you can dispute them point by point if you want.  I can point to (1) the text of the New Testament itself, (2) cultures and traditions, and (3) Gnostic and outside texts and scholars, as well as possible other arguments.

Part of the problem here is that the gospel of philip does not say Jesus kissed mary on the lips. That's the reason for the word "mouth" to be in square quotes. I'm not sure if you know it was added in, or just assumed that it was a poor translation and weren't sure if that was correct. The single copy of gospel of Philip was not in great condition, and quite a few parts are missing or deteriorated. Jesus could have kissed her on the forehead, the cheek, etc.

So it is the issue is that Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code made up what it said. That or copied it from someone else who made it up

Just to confirm, does the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail discuss the gospel of Philip? Did they add the word "mouth" to the gospel of philip, or was it Dan Brown?

As it so happens, I have a translation of the Gospel of Philip and I'm not seeing the section you quoted, Heath, at least not in verses 63-64.  The forword to my copy of the translation (by Bart D. Erhman -- no, it's not me, it's a different Bart) says the following about the Gospel of Philip:

Ok, with the background in place, here's verses 66 through 68.  The ellipses show where parts of the original text are missing/fragmented.



Actually, that background was by Bart D. Ehrman, the translation was by David Cartlidge and David Dungan in Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 2nd edition, published by Fortress Press of Minneapolis in 1994.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:54, Fri 31 Aug 2007.

I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  I don't recollect any mention of the Gospel of Philip (although I wouldn't say that's especially worth anything, since I don't remember a lot of details).

Trust in the Lord, you are attributing things to Dan Brown that has nothing to do with Dan Brown or the Da Vinci Code.

The commonly accepted translation of the Gospel of Philip (from scholars) is that Jesus kissed her on the mouth.

I don't recall what Holy Blood, Holy Grail said (if anything) about Philip.  They were looking at more historical documents, as I recall, and not the religious documents such as the Book of Philip.

But even the kissing on the mouth (which, I suppose, could be one of those tattered places where the translation is assumed) is not the point.  The point is that the apostles were jealous of her.  It makes sense if they are jealous of Jesus' wife because they feel the church is more important than marriage and family, and the point is that Jesus felt marriage and family (such as with his wife Mary) was most important.  Thus, this religious document speaks to the fallacy of the apostles in misunderstanding the nature of religion and overemphasized their own roles and domination over Jesus' time.

If this is not true, then why is Jesus spending more time with some woman he is not married to than with the apostles he is grooming to run the church in his absence?  If he was not married, then the apostles are right and Jesus was wrong (and therefore not perfect).  If he was married, then the apostles are wrong and Jesus is right.

Bart, are you suggesting in v.68 that it explicitly states that Jesus was married?

I don't see it mentioned explicitly how Jesus used his time.  Jesus spent a lot of time doing a lot of things we don't see.  Presumably, just like everyone else, he used about a third of his time sleeping, yet there's little mention of that.

But that reverses the point.

It was normal and expected for all rabbis to be married (and marriage is a much more important part of life than sleeping, so your analogy is not exactly dead on here).  Thus, if Jesus was married, we don't expect it to be mentioned much.

However, if Jesus was not married (especially for some religious purpose), then we definitely expect that it would have been mentioned in the Bible.  It would be so unusual that it would practically beg to be mentioned.  "And Jesus did not take a wife, that he might..."  or something like that would surely have been in there.

The fact that it is not specifically mentioned therefore leads to a belief that he was married more than it lends to a conclusion that he wasn't.