I have been wondering and thinking about this for awhile now. I know that Catholic dogma says that Mary was a prostitute and was the prototype for the women who sinned and repented. But I see no evidence in the bible that supports that belief (granted I havent read every verse in the bible). From my readings (the bible and other theological works) I have the feeling that Mary and Jesus shared a very special relationship. I have also read other books that propose that Mary gave birth to a child fathered by Jesus. I for one tend to feel that this hypothesis is could be true. Given the historical time frame and that we dont hear about Jesus until he is in is 30's, I find it very unlikely that he would of remained single and childless. It is much more reasonable that he was married and had a family before God called him to begin his ministry.

Today @ 08:01 PM post located here
D.C.:

I have been wondering and thinking about this for awhile now. I know that Catholic dogma says that Mary was a prostitute and was the prototype for the women who sinned and repented. But I see no evidence in the bible that supports that belief (granted I havent read every verse in the bible). From my readings (the bible and other theological works) I have the feeling that Mary and Jesus shared a very special relationship. I have also read other books that propose that Mary gave birth to a child fathered by Jesus. I for one tend to feel that this hypothesis is could be true. Given the historical time frame and that we dont hear about Jesus until he is in is 30's, I find it very unlikely that he would of remained single and childless. It is much more reasonable that he was married and had a family before God called him to begin his ministry.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I know enough concerning your question in order to answer it.

On your held view - are you LDS?

-God bless-

@ Ironmetro

No, I am not LDS. I am Christian and attend a non-denominational church (Heartland Vineyard Church).

I read allot and in my readings and taking the historical culture of the holy land into account for that time frame, I find it highly unlikely that Jesus woud have remained single and without a family. To be single and without famiy in that time period would of made someone stand out and they would of been viewed with suspicsion by their piers when everyone else was marrying and having children usually before the age of 20. In the bible their are references to the relationship between Mary and Jesus (again I have not read the entire bible) and from what I can gather they were extremely close and intimate. The bible tells us that Jesus began his ministrie at the age of 30, but we know almost nothing of the years preceding that. The only references to the bible that I know of are the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, which were cut out of the bible by the vatican. There is are some reference to the fact that after Jesus's crucifixtion, that Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramathia (not sure on spelling) went to what is present day France with what was termed as the Sang Royal or the royal blood. It is known that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King David of Israel, so the royal blood that Mary may have taken to France could of been an offspring of Jesus. But then again it could just be my overactive mind talking.

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here
D.C.:

@ Ironmetro

No, I am not LDS. I am Christian and attend a non-denominational church (Heartland Vineyard Church).

Thank you. I was simply curious as I believe this to be one of their teachings. Only they include both women as being His wives, if I'm right.

I read allot and in my readings and taking the historical culture of the holy land into account for that time frame, I find it highly unlikely that Jesus woud have remained single and without a family.

I wouldn't think that Christ would feel compelled to conform to society in those areas. Being the Messiah and all.

To be single and without famiy in that time period would of made someone stand out and they would of been viewed with suspicsion by their piers when everyone else was marrying and having children usually before the age of 20.

See above. I would say that Christ "stood out" quite a bit during His ministry without regret. Conforming to the image viewed highly by His peers ran a distant second to the will of the Father. Now as for remaining "single" being the "will of the Father" that is something I would have to think on if demonstrable. Anyone familar with anti-Mormon apologetics could probably provide the common arguments against Christ being a married man if you were interested in seeing both sides of the issue.

In the bible their are references to the relationship between Mary and Jesus (again I have not read the entire bible) and from what I can gather they were extremely close and intimate.

This is the same method certain liberals use to come to the conclusion that Christ was a homosexual. E.g. His relationship with the Apostle John. Needless to say, I disagree with that notion.

The bible tells us that Jesus began his ministrie at the age of 30, but we know almost nothing of the years preceding that.

We can look to Luke where Christ, as a child in the temple, calls God "my Father." Something which echos Jn5:18 etc. where Christ is accused of blasphemy for this very claim. This at least implies strongly that Jesus knew of His purpose in life. But as I stated in the above, in order to view the arguments against Christ's 'being married' you have to turn to someone familar with anti-LDS apologetics.

The only references to the bible that I know of are the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, which were cut out of the bible by the vatican.

What books are you speaking of specifically? I have an idea of what you talking about, but specifics elude me.

There is are some reference to the fact that after Jesus's crucifixtion, that Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramathia (not sure on spelling) went to what is present day France with what was termed as the Sang Royal or the royal blood. It is known that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King David of Israel, so the royal blood that Mary may have taken to France could of been an offspring of Jesus. But then again it could just be my overactive mind talking.

Sounds interesting.

-God bless-

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here
D.C.:

To be single and without famiy in that time period would of made someone stand out and they would of been viewed with suspicsion by their piers when everyone else was marrying and having children usually before the age of 20.

Obviously, Jesus was hardly an average person. I doubt He would have done something against His nature just to make Himself look good in the eyes of others. It was His destiny to begin His ministry when He was around 30 (probably closer to 35, actually), and I'd say His having to abandon his wife and children in order to have it would have been an unfortunate event. It's more likely God would lead Him not to have a family in the first place.

In the bible their are references to the relationship between Mary and Jesus (again I have not read the entire bible) and from what I can gather they were extremely close and intimate.

My feeling from the Bible was that Mary was probably in love with Jesus, but Jesus wasn't in love with her (He loved her like He loves everyone, of course, but not in the romantic sense). His meeting with her after the resurrection especially signifies that for me.

I know some skeptics have argued that the Gospel authors knew that Jesus was married, but didn't mention this because His marriage somehow conflicted with His being the pure, sinless Messiah we all know and love. But if there was such a conflict, then why on Earth did they think He WAS the messiah?

David

D.C.,
what was the name of that book?
Carl

DC:

• The only references to the bible that I know of are the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, which were cut out of the bible by the vatican.

Are you serious? It was the Vatican that put them IN!!

• There is are some reference to the fact that after Jesus's crucifixtion, that Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramathia (not sure on spelling) went to what is present day France with what was termed as the Sang Royal or the royal blood. It is known that Jesus was a lineal descendant of King David of Israel, so the royal blood that Mary may have taken to France could of been an offspring of Jesus. But then again it could just be my overactive mind talking.

Or some repressed memories of reading garbage like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail or Bloodline of the Holy Grail (see review www.tektonics.org/LG.BHG_1852308702.html ). The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books can't possibly be blamed for this, because they were between the Old and New Testaments, i.e. before Christ.

Not only does the Bible not mention any wives or children of Jesus, it's theologically wrong -- Jesus is "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Socrates,
what about the NT Apocraphyl books?
Carl

Hey Carl, how have you been? Those books generally are not called Apocraphyl. They are either Pseudepigraphal, lumped in with the Early Church Fathers or Heretical.

I saw part of a "documentary" (I use that term loosely) that was on around easter hypothesizing this very thing. They used the Gospel of Thomas as its proof. There are some problem IMO with that.

• It is Gnostic and thus divergent from Apostolic Christianity which also means it is seperated from Jesus by at least 100 years
• It is made up of sayings, i.e. it is not like the four Gospels in structure or content.
• Its misogyny would not lend itself to associating Jesus with a woman in any way other than to transform her into a male

GP

O GrayPilgrim,
I'm so busy I barely have time to spit! In addition to my full time job I'm going almost 30 hours a week to the Carson City community college police academy. If the Lord wills, I shall go into probation/parole, maybe even Juvenile Justice. So my first love (historical theology) has been reduced to almost nothing since January. the last several years before January I spent too much of my free time studying studying studying. I was kind of scary to stop that wonderful study with a screetching halt. I couldn't pull this off without my wife's help. God Bless her!

Yea, I've read Thomas' gospel. Do you think the "Jesus seminar" people are right in that they say that the earliest gospels were a collection of sayings from Christ? And then later the sayings were put together into narrative? (don't get me wrong, I respect canon!).

I see that we shouldn't use the word 'apocrapha' when speaking of these NT writings out side of NT canon. I mean some of those letters written by church fathers that were written after the original Aposltes and the like. Things like: Epistle of Barnabas, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, The letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the like. I'm no expert on these things. I've read a bit of them.

not to mention some of that other stuff in that book with the stupid name ("the Lost books of the Bible" - I really think that is a really stupid name) The Gospel of Mary, or I can't remember...descriptions of the ascension by some witnesses who weren't followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. I read part of some thing called, "the Acts of Thomas" were he goes to India because the raised Christ Jesus sells him to a carpenter or something. yadda yadda yadda.

Your right about some woman hating thing in Thomas. Something about woman must become like man? One thing I DID notice: when one is familiar with the NT, one can't help but notice how awful some of this stuff is that didn't make the list.

respectfully,
Carl

As to whether it went from sayings list-->Gospels:

I think that an argument can be made that this is so. However, I don't think that the time between is as great as the Jesus Seminar wants to make out.

Stephen T. Neil & Tom Wright's book on this subject (which I am reading) makes the following argument based upon Markan Primacy (i.e. Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written)

1. Lists are made of Jesus' sayings
2. Mark with Peter's help and writes his Gospel
3. Matthew and Luke (independently) use this list of sayings called Q ( I hate Q), Mark and Independet sources M and L respectively write their Gospels

That is the basic consensus and using this even critical schoalrs will put the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke by 80 AD at the latest. RT France in his commentar on Matthew does a good job of arguing for Matthean Primacy which negates the need for Q IMO. The idea of a sayings Gospel comes from Papias' statement that "Matthew wrote the words in Hebrew" or something to that affect in the 2nd Century

GP

Do you think "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is garbage as Socrates has indicated? I've recently regretted not finishing that book. In the early 90's I began to read it but it didn't grab me.

I must confess I have never heard of it before.

Well I wish I had finished it. But if it is clap-trap why bother? I'd like to know if there is anything reasonable about it. I should check Socrates' link.

Hey D.C.-

Here is a link someone passed along to me:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/singlejesus.html

-God bless-

JP Holding on his Tektonics website has a good article on authoriship and dates of the Gospels, which links to more specialised articles www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html He also has a healthy skepticism for the Markan priority and Q.

It's really amazing how the liberals like the Jesus Seminar crowd are so dogmatic about what Q contained even though such a thing has never been found! See also the critiques of the Jesus Seminar at www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t016.html