Did Jesus Marry Mary Magdalene?

[UtahDan]

This may be wrong, but I have it in mind that he would not be called Rabbi were he not married.

[statman]

I have often wondered about the likelihood of a 30 year-old Jewish man of that era being unmarried, but that's as far as my curiosity has ever gotten me.

On that point, to become a Rabbi that anyone would give the time of day to, without being married would be essentially impossible.

Beyond that - to 'fulfill all righteousness' Christ absolutely would have had to have been married. Of anyone that we know about, Mary M is the most likely & logical candidate. Who else would he have first appeared to after his resurrection?

[Solon]

On that point, to become a Rabbi that anyone would give the time of day to, without being married would be essentially impossible.

I've heard this many times, but I wonder where it comes from. How many 1st century rabbis do we know of? How many rabbis from impoverished circumstances? I'd guess Jesus couldn't afford a wife.

There are plenty of reasons to argue for his marriage, but I don't know why this one is so routinely applied.

Anyone know where it comes from?

[TripletDaddy]

I've heard this many times, but I wonder where it comes from. How many 1st century rabbis do we know of? How many rabbis from impoverished circumstances? I'd guess Jesus couldn't afford a wife.

I had read this before, as well, but not sure where. I want to say Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, but maybe it was Millet instead.

Likewise, along these lines, I always found the Wedding at Cana theory to be interesting (and frankly, with much practical merit). Why would the mother of Jesus be so interested in whether the guests had that which to eat and drink? Of all the weddings I have attended, the only time moms seem to care about those sorts of details are when....well.....you know......

All fun speculation, to be sure.

[statman]

I had read this before, as well, but not sure where. I want to say Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, but maybe it was Millet instead.

Likewise, along these lines, I always found the Wedding at Cana theory to be interesting (and frankly, with much practical merit). Why would the mother of Jesus be so interested in whether the guests had that which to eat and drink? Of all the weddings I have attended, the only time moms seem to care about those sorts of details are when....well.....you know......

All fun speculation, to be sure.

I don't think it's really speculation to say he was married. To attain Salvation, He would have to be married. Unless, somehow, the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to Christ.

We know He was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," and, likewise, must have been married. To whom he was married is pure speculation, but there's evidence that kinda-sorta points to Mary M.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't think it's really speculation to say he was married. To attain Salvation, He would have to be married. Unless, somehow, the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to Christ.

We know He was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," and, likewise, must have been married...

I agree, but that wasn't the speculation to which I was referring.

[Solon]

I agree, but that wasn't the speculation to which I was referring.

He was referring to Jesus' first miracle happening on his own wedding night.

With all due respect, statman, your insistence on "knowing" certain things about Jesus might come across as off-putting to those who don't share your faith or belief (or 'knowledge'). "Speculation" is a very appropriate word for this type of conversation.

[statman]

He was referring to Jesus' first miracle happening on his own wedding night.

With all due respect, statman, your insistence on "knowing" certain things about Jesus might come across as off-putting to those who don't share your faith or belief (or 'knowledge'). "Speculation" is a very appropriate word for this type of conversation.

That Christ must have been married isn't speculation - it's the doctrine of the Church:

1) D&C 132 is pretty clear regarding the necessity of marriage. To inherit "thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths" from God, we make and keep temple covenants, including the "New and Everlasting Covenant" of marriage.

2) The example of Christ being baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" indicates that the same rules that apply to us, apply to Christ as well (Matthew 3:15)

Unless you're suggesting that Christ won't achieve salvation, it's pretty cut & dried...

[TripletDaddy]

there are a lot of people that get baptized that don't wind up getting married in this life.

[Fiyero]

there are a lot of people that get baptized that don't wind up getting married in this life.

Right, those who "never had the opportunity to marry in this life." Christ had women washing him with their hair for crying out loud.

[falafel]

there are a lot of people that get baptized that don't wind up getting married in this life.

Well, obviously, those people were not keeping the commandments. Getting married is just like keeping the word of wisdom - you just make up your mind and do it!

[falafel]

Right, those who "never had the opportunity to marry in this life." Christ had women washing him with their hair for crying out loud.

emotional baggage. Just because there were opportunities does not mean they were solid opportunities.

[pelagius]

That Christ must have been married isn't speculation - it's the doctrine of the Church:

1) D&C 132 is pretty clear regarding the necessity of marriage. To inherit "thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths" from God, we make and keep temple covenants, including the "New and Everlasting Covenant" of marriage.

2) The example of Christ being baptized "to fulfill all righteousness" indicates that the same rules that apply to us, apply to Christ as well (Matthew 3:15)

Unless you're suggesting that Christ won't achieve salvation, it's pretty cut & dried...

Well, maybe it actually is a doctrine in some sense but it is not a public doctrine at the very least (which makes it hard to argue with any sort of authority that it is an official doctrine):

a church spokesman said:

"The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."

see: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=266159

One can argue it is logical, one can appeal to 19th century Mormon beliefs, you can even suggest it is real doctrine but we lie about it in public I suppose (pearls before swine as Joseph Fielding Smith once said about it), but at the very least it is not quite as clear cut as you seem to be suggesting.

[Solon]

That Christ must have been married isn't speculation - it's the doctrine of the Church:.

Whose church? Not everyone here belongs to or believes in your church.

There is some evidence for a married Jesus but this line of reasoning, although persuasive to LDS, is unpersuasive to non-LDS.

[TripletDaddy]

Perhaps the LDS Church is not up to speed on clear, cut and dried LDS doctrine?

Like I said, it is fun to speculate.....