Of course, Jesus was only called a rabbi. The jewish people did not believe or accept Jesus, never mind accept him as a rabbi, or even give him some jewish position in the church. Nor did Jesus portray himself as a rabbi.
Matthew 19:10-12 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Now Jesus was certainly for the Kingdom of Heaven. He is pointing marriage in not a neccessity. Why say this unless showing it was ok to break tradition of jewish men being usually married?

I don't understand this comment at all. It names several women who followed Jesus and his apostles. And specifies many other women too.(Does this mean they were also married to Jesus because they were mentioned?) Jesus did go against the jewish teachers be teaching women, but Jesus is a lot different than a jewish teacher, Jesus is the Son of God.

Yea, and there was another Mary, and Salome. By the reasoning that Mary Magdalene is mentioned, then the other two are married to Jesus as well?

That's not entirely true. In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus was annointed by a woman with her own tears, perfume and hair. http://www.biblegateway.com/cg...ssage=luke+7%3A36-50
Further, there was more than just Mary Magdalene going to annoit Jesus. It specifies Salome, and  another Mary went to annoint Jesus. Again, by the reasoning you used, the other Mary and Salome must mean that Salome, and the other Mary were married to Jesus then.


Actually the gospel accounts specify Mary in one case, while other accounts say appear to Mary and other women. Which makes sense, considering we have already established the women went to annoint him, and not just Mary Magdalene.  As to why one book would say Mary Magdalene saw him first, and in other accounts would say that Jesus apeared to the women, could be something simple. Such as when you and your son are off for a walk. You spot a plane in the sky, and point it to your son. You saw the plane first, but still both you and your son saw the plane at basically the smae time, and obviously you were in the same location.


You're suggesting this even is Jesus own wedding. But I cannot see due to time line. Luke introduces Mary Magdalene long after Jesus miracles are known. As it is, to run out of wine is very bad in Jewish tradition. People would have spoken about that, and considering Jesus is more thn mere man, not unusual he would take a commanding presence.


http://www.tektonics.org/jesusrudemom.html  It was not rude for him to call his mother "woman"
If? and if she's not, it's totally invalid. There are 7 Mary's mentioned in bible, it could be confusing.

Well, then the number of times Jesus used the word, woman, could just as easily been used for the other women, he called woman. Jesus could easily be married to several women, as Mary Magdalene. Why pick Magdalene as the wife?

The only problem with this, is this is written in Luke 7:36-50. What makes it unlikely , is that Mary is first introduced in Luke 8:2.  In Luke 8:1, it specifically says, "after this" (the events from Luke 7) Jesus travelled among the towns and villages., where he met Mary Magdalene, (among other women).

Oddly enough, in the english I read, I see nothing suggestive. When you ask us to look at the aramic, you provide none either.


Heath, the points you have were selected, and information purposely left out to draw a conclusion.  There is not a "strong" argument for Mary Magdalene to be married to Jesus. No stronger than Jesus being married to any woman.

First, I've never read the Da Vinci Code, and I understand it is flawed.  My points were not relevant to that (if that's what you inferred).

Second, I agree that there is no "conclusive" or "definitive" proof.  My points simply show many times which each separately might not be too persuasive.  But put them together and it becomes pretty persuasive to me.

1)  If you read the original, Jesus was called "rabbi" and accepted that title.  That is not to my knowledge even debated.

2)  What other women followed him on his ministry and in his teachings?  Of course he had women followers, but Mary accompanies him as closely as his apostles.  Of course, I wouldn't rule out the fact that he may or may not have been married to more than one woman either.  (The scene with Martha and her jealousy is one that comes to mind that may or not be indicative of this.)

3)  This is just one more fact showing their closeness.

4)  You're mixing up annointings.  Annointing the "dead body" is only done by family members.  Other annointings may be done by others.  This is extremely important and a big indication of their marriage.  (The other women who went to annoint, such as his mother, also fit into that category.)

5)  If he appeared to Mary and the women above (i.e. family) then it makes sense.  It doesn't make sense that he would just appear to some female disciple first.

6)  Are you sure about the timeline issue?  If so, it is just about Mary, not the ceremony.  Regardless, the ceremony was before his miracles and had to be his ceremony under Jewish custom.  Your point only makes me wonder if perhaps he was marrying someone besides Mary.  (And perhaps he married Mary later.)

7)  Most people believe that Mary Magdalene is Mary of Bethany.  Do you think differently?  If so, why?

8)  I wasn't saying that "woman" was a rude term.  It is exactly the opposite:  a very intimate term reserved for wives and mothers.  Hence, it makes sense he would use it for his wife Mary and his mother Mary.

9)  I think the account in John points us the way that she is the woman with the alabaster jar.  Even if she weren't, maybe it was a different woman he was married to.

10) I'll have to check this again when I have time.

To me, these all signal that he was definitely married, and most probably to Mary Magdalene, perhaps others.  It's very persuasive based on customs and language usage, but I won't say it's true with 100% accuracy.

You know what Heath, this is really twisting things. You were selective in your terms to draw one conclusion, when that was never there.

In otherwords, you had the answer first, and then went looking for things to back up your answer.

I'll reply to all of these responses today after church, but I'll be straight forward right now, and say that your putting your own words for the above, and not actual evidence. Your opinion does not make fact.

I was rebutting your remarks.  Your attacking my argument without being specific, which is not really an attack at all.  I'm also not sure what you're talking about:  "you had the answer first, and then went looking for things to back up your answer."  What answer?  What backup?  Does it matter if someone has a hypothesis and then looks for evidence to back that hypothesis?  That's the scientific method.  Your comment confuses me.

I look forward to seeing what you have.  In particular, is there anything in the Bible saying he definitely WAS NOT married?  There's plenty of suggestive evidence that he was (although admittedly not 100%), but I've seen nothing to say he wasn't.

What I'm saying Heath, is your reasoning for Mary Magdalene to be married to Jesus is zero. You actually left out information from your reasons so that it would look like Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus.

If you added to the other information that you left out, (which I showed where and who), what are you left with?

Rogue, it doesn't matter to me if I'm right or wrong.  It's not important to me or my religion whether he was married or not (whereas I understand in some Christian faiths it would seem almost heretical to say that he was married).

Those ten factors above are quite persuasive, and I didn't make them up, nor did you adequately rebut them.

I am happy for you to be right, but I don't think you've made your case.  The evidence still points more in favor of marriage than not.



I showed where you were mistaken or clarified which people I was talking about, so you really didn't rebut any of the points.  Can you be more specific?

Besides, you are still left with a lot.  Just look at all the factors put together.  They paint a picture that's hard to deny.

Maybe I didn't address your rebuttal very well.  Here's another go at it.



Was Jesus accepted as a traditional Jewish Rabbi?  Yes.

Proofs:
He was commonly called Rabbi, along with the related Rabbouni. Except for two passages, the Gospels apply the Aramaic word only to Jesus; and if we conclude that the title "teacher" or "master" (didaskalos in Greek) was intended as a translation of that Aramaic name, it seems safe to say that it was as Rabbi that Jesus was known and addressed.

Luke tells us (4:16-30) that after his baptism and temptation by the devil, he "came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read." Following the customary rabbinical pattern, he took up a scroll of the Hebrew Bible, read it, presumably provided an Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the text, and then commented on it.

It is what happens next that brands him as different, and from which the Jews started to consider him as different from a normal accepted Rabbi (some as prophet and Messiah, and some as being false).
The words he read in the synagogue after the temptation were from Isaiah 61:1-2: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." But instead of doing what a rabbi would normally do, apply the text to the hearers by comparing and contrasting earlier interpretations, he declared: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." Although the initial reaction to this audacious declaration was said to be wonderment "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth," his further explanation produced the opposite reaction, and everyone was "filled with wrath."  Thus, it seems clear that Jesus was a traditional and accepted Rabbi until this point in time.

This therefore lends support to the idea that he was married as traditional Jewish Rabbis were.



Being included is highly unusual.  The fact that she supported him financially is even more compelling in that culture.  Then add to the fact that she keeps reappearing all the way until the resurrection, while the others don't.  Doesn't this express some kind of closeness, perhaps even marriage?  (If this were the only evidence, I wouldn't even include it.  It is only here because it is one more to stack onto the evidence.)  You can disregard this if you want, as it is only of slight persuasiveness, but even without it the evidence is strong.



This is obviously not meant to be conclusive proof.  The fact she was mourning there is simply significant in proving how close they were.  Also, Mary accompanied Mary the Mother of Jesus and St. John to Ephesus where she again met the Lord in death and was buried.  This too signifies more than simple discipleship.



As noted previously, your cite refers to a different kind of anointing.

As for the second part, yes, they would have to be related.  One way to be related is by marriage.



I think you're mistaken.  He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, not the other women:

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."

(I think you're just referring to the angels that appeared, not to Jesus.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

This is also true of the anointing.  Matthew only lists Mary his mother and Mary Magdalene.  Mark lists a third woman, Salome, and we don't know if his account is accurate or Matthew's.  Which is accurate probably depends on whether Salome was actually his wife or blood relative, since otherwise she could not have gone to the tomb.



I'm not quite sure what your point is here.  I'm quoting from John, and you're referring to Luke and the other miracles.  Regardless, this suggests his marriage under their customs.



Exactly.  It is a term of endearment saved for mothers and wives.  Certainly not for a mere disciple as you claim Mary Magdalene was.

</quote>

The Roman Church has declared that she is the same person.  I think most people agree with that.  I take it you disagree?  If it was a different Mary, it still suggests he was married according to their custom.

I'm not sure what your rebuttal is.  ???



I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I think he just referred to his mother and Mary Magdalene in that way.  Was there another time he used such an endearing term to a woman?



Luke 8 does not suggest that he meets her afterward.  It uses her in the past tense, which could very well refer to having met her and cast out the devils long before.  It's simply an identifying remark.

</quote>

He called her "Mariam" and she called her Rabbouni ("Master").  This is her common, informal name, and the title of a woman to her husband, very intimate.  (This comes from a book, and so there may be more in the original language if I take a look at it.)

Rogue, I'm surprised you did not use any counterevidence.  There is some out there that would appear valid to me.  Do you want me to rebut myself?
This message was last edited by the player at 05:43, Mon 13 Sept 2004.

Also, I have been sticking to the New Testament.  There is further evidence of their marriage in non-canonical accounts which I have not included in order to stay with the same Bible that you accept as true.

I just wanted to say that I'm not sure why you included this scripture.  By leaving out the verse that comes before, you leave out the entire meaning of what Jesus was preaching (i.e. that it is better that a man not marry at all than to get divorced).  The subject is divorce and renouncing marriage, not marriage itself.  I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

(Matt 19:9:  "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.")

Maybe you'll freak out about this, but was Jesus a polygamist?  (Note that the proper term is polygyny for Biblical plural marriage.  Polygamy is commonly misused.)

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."  (Matthew 5:17-18)

If polygyny was sanctified in the OT, and we all know that Jesus honored the OT and came to fulfill it, would he not therefore partake of the sanctity of plural marriage, just as he partook of baptism, if for no other reason than to show by example and fulfill all of the laws of the OT?

I realize this is controversial, but it's an interesting point to ponder.

One other thing, at the tomb, when she sees the angels and they ask her what is wrong, she says:  "Because they have taken away my Lord.”   In the original text, this version of "Lord" was the title used for husbands.

From the LDS perspective, there is no official declaration that he was married.  However, informally it is believed that he was in fact married.  Therefore, note that the following are not official statements of church policy or belief, merely informal statements of opinions and reasoning behind them.

One reason for this is to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:10, which reads, “he shall see his seed.” ):

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.

Here is a personal belief by an LDS authority in the 19th Century:

“I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation?” But, what became of the natural offspring of the Son of God? Hyde claimed,

"They had no father to hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed one. For no doubt had they been exposed to the eye of the world, those infants might have shared the same fate as the children of Jerusalem in the days of Herod, when all the children were ordered to be slain under such an age, with the hopes of slaying the infant Savior. They might have suffered by the hand of the assassin, as the sons of many kings have done who were heirs apparent to the thrones of their fathers."

He taught that Jesus Christ was merely fulfilling all righteousness by obeying the fundamental commandment to be fruitful and multiply. The Son, according to Hyde, was merely following the practice of his own Father who physically sired him with Mary.

According to Hyde, to reject the marriage and fatherhood of Christ would be to charge the Son with sin or neglect of the Father’s command to multiply. He said,

"Was it God’s commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honour his Father’s law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Saviour with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty."
This message was last edited by the player at 07:27, Mon 13 Sept 2004.

I am just getting a little behind on starting up play on a couple games. Hopefully I'll have time tonight to get to the 2 things I have left hanging here.

I still will be replying to this.

I've written a lot, so let me narrow down the issues:

(1) Cultural Consistency:  Is it culturally consistent that he was married in the Hebrew customs of that day?  (I think it absolutely was based on the above.)

(2) Factual Consistency:  Is it factually consistent to say he was married?  (I think it was, and it also clarifies some questions that would otherwise be left hanging--such as the marriage ceremony).

(3) Scriptural Consistency:  Is it consistent with the teachings of the Bible?  (Jesus never spoke against marriage - or polygyny for that matter - and in fact refers to marriage many times throughout his ministry.)

(4) Consistent with Character:  Is it consistent with Jesus as a man and his mission?  (Considering he was there to fulfill the law, show the example, etc., as shown above, I think so.)

(5) Prophetic Consistency:  Is it consistent with prophecies?  (The prophecies, such as that he will fulfill all things and also of Isaiah that he will see his children, suggest that the prophecies would be false if he had not been married.)

Based on all these consistencies, I strongly believe he was married.

The jews never considered him a rabbi, period.

Mary does not accompany him as one of the 12 disciples. She among other women accompanied them, yes.

Doesn't matter if that same closeness is shared with several women, which was said.

Again, Jesus broke many traditions, not the least of which was to teach women.

says who?

I know the marriage was not to Mary, timeline shows this. As to marriage to another woman, show me who? Otherwise, a tradition of having wine is set forth, and even a guest would feel disgraced to have run out.

The way they are introduced are at different times. Why introduce someone twice, in different ways?

Again, he used several times, and more than just on those two mary's. That's assumption, and does not follow what it means, but what you want it to mean.

of which there is even less evidence?



I wasn't persuaded. At best, you're showing that you feel he was married to multiple women. No where does it suggest Mary Magdalene. The only sitautions where she is named, is when other women are also present.

How do you know the jews never considered him a rabbi?  I've found sources that say he was.  Are there sources that say he wasn't?

I agree that Mary was not one of the 12 apostles, but the fact that she accompanied him so closely throughout his 3 year ministry is a persuasive fact.

In 4, are you saying that Jesus taught them to anoint against Jewish principle?  But he was dead, so he didn't teach them that.  We're not talking about the actions of Jesus; we're talking about the women.  They would have followed Jewish custom.

In 6, you did not discuss the Hebrew custom, which was the main point.  It doesn't matter "who;" it simply matters that it is consistent with the custom if it was his wedding.  Otherwise, it is contrary to custom and very rude.

In 7, you will need to show your sources since your opinion goes against the vast majority of people.  Are you talking about 2 different gospels?  I need more specifics.

In 8, who else did he use the term "woman" to, as you reference?  I only know of Mary his mother and Mary Magdalene.

I realize you're not going to be persuaded based simply on the NT Gospels.  They are not exactly focused on that issue, and quite possibly avoid it on purpose to avoid persecution of his family.

I think, though, that you'd still need to address my other points and also give some specific things that would rebut these.  I really haven't seen anything substantial.  Everything still points to the fact that he was most likely married.

What about prophecy?  Didn't he fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah?  If not, was it a false prophecy?  You didn't address many questions that this raises and that need to be addressed to show he wasn't married.

I think if you want to respond to my remarks, you should begin with my "clarified rebuttal" on Sept. 13 and the remarks I made since then.  You unfortunately went back to my quick rebuttal and that ended up in a less than complete rebuttal on your part.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:47, Wed 15 Sept 2004.

The crucifiction comes to mind to show they did not consider him a rabbi

Only persuasive, if you're saying Jesus had many wives. And since that's a no no, it's not persuaive.

Just like the disciples of Jesus did? I would say Jesus led by example.

I am saying that the custom, is matched by another custom of being disgraced.

It specifically says from the same author and same book these are two different events. It specifies a time difference in between the events. What else needs be said? Could you show how they are the same?

I'll have to address this ata a later time, when I have more time. You could do a word search on the net with www.biblegateway.com and use "woman" as your search term. I'm short on time right now.

Family issues? What, and the the other disciples who were married and said so didn't care about their family's safety?

So far the only thing suggested, was he was married because woman traveled with him, and the custom said jewish men are married.

Say it one more time, I can reply yet.

I was handling first things first.

Where it is red, it would be more appropriate that it says, "and they supported him financially". Since it was not Mary Magdalene alone. Nor was she alone  up to the resurrection



I'm not sure why you feel I said Mary Magdalene didn't see him first. I gave a pretty clear anaolgy of a group together, but one of them sees something first, even in a group.



It is quite clear that 8:1 is after the events of the anointing in chapter 7. It says after this.



Next, you suggest it is the same woman, but why introduce her as the woman who who had seven demons cast out, instead of the one who anointed, as previously said?

I still have to touch more on other places Jesus uses woman.

No. This seems a no brainer that it goes against everything he taught. Hypocrite, while offensive, is still not the reason he was crucified.  I really don't see any way to come close to proving that.

In your last post above, I don't understand what you are saying.  How is it against what he taught?  Be specific.  As I read it, it is exactly in line with what he taught, and it fulfills the prophecies.


Regarding the Rabbi issue, you seem to ignore my point, which is that they considered him a traditional Rabbi until he told them he was there to fulfill the law.  He went up and stood to read in the synagogue like any other traditional Rabbi.  But then he said "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."  It is at this point that they begin to reject him and are filled with "wrath."  But he was a traditional Rabbi to that point, meaning he was married according to custom.  What happens later, including the crucifixion, is irrelevant.  (This happens after his temptations, which really starts off his ministry as being very different from mainstream Rabbis, but he was a mainstream Rabbi until that point, and was accepted as such.)

As I showed, he was commonly called Rabbi, along with the related Rabbouni. Except for two passages, the Gospels apply the Aramaic word only to Jesus; and if we conclude that the title "teacher" or "master" (didaskalos in Greek) was intended as a translation of that Aramaic name, it seems safe to say that it was as Rabbi that Jesus was known and addressed.
 

So you are saying the following:
(1) Jesus at some point showed them it is okay to break Jewish custom and anoint the dead even if they are not related and despite the punishment they would receive, and
(2) These women followed that despite the danger to themselves for no apparent reason (after all, why would they go anoint him when he had family to do so according to custom?).

I certainly would prefer family to anoint my dead body, or at least priests with the power to do so.  Mary Magdalene had none of these.  She must have been related by blood or marriage.


I don't understand this comment, nor do I see any support for it.  If he violated this custom (without reason, in this case), then it would be very rude, not just his comments, but also his mother.  Mary would have been very rude and breaking tradition.  It had to be Jesus' wedding in Cana.


Mark 16:9 is pretty clear that Mary was not in a group when he appeared to her.  You're speculating.  Also, the original for the word she says which is translated as "Lord" in the English versions is the word that is used by a wife to her husband.



You are taking 8:1 out of context.  Here it is (KJV):

1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Note the key words here:  "which had been healed."  This clearly shows that they had been healed before this passage.  Therefore, your argument is meritless on the timing issue.  He definitely did not meet her "after," as is clear by the passage.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

As for prophecies, here are some references:

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."  (Matthew 5:17-18)

One I mentioned in particular was Isaiah 53:10, which reads, “he shall see his seed.”
Isa 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."

This chapter is dedicated to discussing and prophecying about Jesus.  How can Jesus "see his seed" if he never had children?  In effect, for Jesus to understand the fullness of humanity, he had to have children.  He had to act in the role of father and husband if for no other reason than to develop empathy and understanding.

I was saying they certainly made it clear 1 wife, 1 husband.