Did Jesus and Mary Magdelene marry?

[awalt]

There’s a lot of good reasoning discussion here that would/should convince an open thinker that in absence of perfect proof (if they don’t believe in the Catholic Church and it’s infallible truth), it makes sense.

Other than that, there are times when the non-Catholic reply is probably a good one - if someone believes that, why not just say “Prove it”? The can’t in the Bible, if they bring up any other reference now they go down a path that is no different, even less credible, than believing the authority of the Catholic Church. Or, they end up discrediting the accuracy of the Bible, which in many cases the non-Catholics believe that “only the word of the Bible counts”.

 

[Riley259]

Donna P:

I know this is not true. However, my mother saw a program on the History Channel. On it a Franciscan Friar said that it could be true. My mothers faith sways with the wind… so I need:

1. Biblical Refereces to disproove this.
2. Books or pamphlets written to disprove this with good easy to read arguments etc.
3. Did any of you see this and know who this guy is? I’d like to write him.
4. How do you argue with someone who says they heard a man of the cloth say something that is not true?

Please help.

God Bless you and God Bless our Pope - John Paul II,

Donna

Of course it isn’t true! Please read The Di Vinci Hoax by Olson and Meisel for an excellent, readable but scholarly work refuting the junk that was put out by Dan Brown a couple of years ago. Pretty soon we’ll all have to endure the sickening hype of the movie version of Brown’s book. Read the book mentioned above and you’ll be able easily refute all the silly ideas in the Di Vinci
Code because unfortunately people will be discussing it for a long time.

 

[Angainor]

Strider:

As far as what Jesus knew in his humanity, try Lk 2: 41-52. This is the “Finding in the temple.” This indicates that he knew, even at 12 years old, what he was about and who he was.

Luke teaches me that Jesus had to learn.
After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking questions. Luke 2:46

Strider:

Marriage? Try Mt 19:12 “…and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven…”

I had not heard that this was a reference to Jesus. This is a direct response to a question from the disciples about divorce. They wanted to know if it was better for a person to have never married than to have gotten a divorce. The answer was, yes it is better to never marry than get divorced. That stuff about eunuchs is like the other example: if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Jesus is not endorsing celebacy in general, unless someone thinks they will sin by adultery. Earlier in verse 4 Jesus clearly endorses marriage. I think an order of preference is outlined in Matthew 19: Marriage is best, celebacy if someone doubts their ability to stay married, and finally divorce is equal to the sin of adultery.

I have never read The Di Vinci Code. I just like to entertain the idea that Jesus might have been married. It is interesting and does not interfere with my faith.

 

[Malachi4U]

If you can believe Blessed Marry had children other then Jesus, if you can believe Jesus had siblings, then you can believe any sort of malarchy even Jesus being married.

Give Satan time, continue to be schismatic and leave or stay away from the Catholic Church. These schismatics will invent (re-form as they call it) anything they want to their own whim or fancy. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Smith, Smyth, Eddy, Baker, Wesley, Koresh, Jones, etc. all prove this. Even loyal Catholics can be missled by Satan if they fail to follow Church dogma, Faith and morals.

Jesus founded the Catholic CHurch and told us to remain united and of one Faith. To follow Jesus totally you must be Catholic and follow what the Church teaches.

 

[Angainor]

Strider:

NOTE to Angainor: If you’re Catholic, investigate your statements in the Catechism or other Catholic source before you write, “I think…” or “I don’t think…” The truth is there.
If you’re not Catholic, consider it.

Somebody had to think. The guys that wrote the Catechism had to think. Why can’t* I* think? God gave me a brain.

Am I Catholic? I don’t know. How do you know if you are Catholic? I have not rejected Catholicism. I don’t think, however that the The Catholic Church has accepted me. So, no, now that I think about it, I don’t believe I am Catholic.

 

[Angainor]

Malachi4U:

If you can believe Blessed Marry had children other then Jesus, if you can believe Jesus had siblings, then you can believe any sort of malarchy even Jesus being married.

Wow, does that mean you think the idea of Mary and Joseph having kids is even more outrageous than the idea of Jesus being married?

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

Perhaps, perhaps not. How much do you know about the family of the first Pope? There isn’t much at all about Peter’s wife in the bible, just an account of Peter visiting his mother-in-law.

I often wondered if it would be considered more noteworthy at the time if Jesus was married or if Jesus was a bachelor. Would the authors of the new testament write, “Jesus, who by the way was married…” if marriage was the normal state of affairs?

I have also heard it pointed out that Jesus was put to death at the hands of the Romans with the encouragement of the religious authorities for claiming to be the “King of the Jews”. I could understand if the new testament writers who were writing 50-80 years later would choose not emphasize Jesus’ family. No need to put them in danger. In later years the knowledge might have been lost.

If Jesus had been married then He would not be the Messiah and He would not be God. That would mean that we have been labouring under a misapprehension about who is God.

The idea of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene comes from Gnostic sources. There is nothing in the Scripture to justify such comments.

Maggie

 

[Angainor]

MaggieOH:

If Jesus had been married then He would not be the Messiah and He would not be God.

I don’t see why. I believe Jesus was perfect God and perfect man. Exactly how that works is somewhat of a mystery to me, but I don’t see why the perfect man part of Jesus being married messes anything up.

 

[Strider]

Somebody had to think. The guys that wrote the Catechism had to think. Why can’t* I* think? God gave me a brain.

Am I Catholic? I don’t know. How do you know if you are Catholic? I have not rejected Catholicism. I don’t think, however that the The Catholic Church has accepted me. So, no, now that I think about it, I don’t believe I am Catholic.

Angainor,
Check out any of the threads on sola scriptura in the non-Catholic forum.
Of course Catholics can think for themselves, but we have a base of infallible teaching to work from. As far as the Matthew 19 passage, Jesus always responds on several levels. This is not hyperbole like the eye and hand passage. The key is that those who can, do this “for the kingdom of heaven.”
I know I am Catholic because I accept all doctrine and dogma of the Church as infallible teaching from God. Period.
Even a non-Catholic can check out the catechism of the Catholic Church and see if it makes sense to him. Even the very idea of Jesus being married is unthinkable to Catholics, as you can see from the posts on this thread. It is completely inconsistent with his mission and ministry.
He came to save the world. A family narrows that scope to irrelevance.

 

[Angainor]

Malachi4U:

Give Satan time, continue to be schismatic and leave or stay away from the Catholic Church.

Hey, from my point of view, it is not me that is staying away from the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church that will not accept me.

 

[Donna_P]

Angainor:

Hey, from my point of view, it is not me that is staying away from the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church that will not accept me.

Then all I can say is that you haven’t accepted yourself as a Child of God. But He accepts you always.

That said…I appreciate those of you who tried to answer my question. Since I first posted this, I’ve looked around and found this right on the Catholic Answers Website.

What is one to make of The Da Vinci Code’s specific claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?
It is impossible to take this claim seriously.

The reason that Brown and a handful of others (chiefly New Age authors) have tried to identify Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus is obvious: She is one of the few women disciplines of Christ who is prominent, whose name we know, and whom we don’t know was married to someone else. Other female disciples of Jesus are known to be married to others (e.g., Joanna the wife of Chuza [Luke 8:3]) or are too insignificant (“the other Mary” [Matt. 28:1]) or we don’t know their names (the Syro-Phoenecian woman [Matt. 15:28]). If one wants to force Jesus into the role of being married, Mary Magdalene is one of the few prominent and (seemingly) available women to be pushed into the role of being his wife.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the New Testament that states or implies that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. According to the New Testament, Mary of Magdala was a devout follower of Christ and one of the first witnesses of his Resurrection (cf. Matt. 28:1), but not his wife. There is no evidence in the New Testament or the writings of the Church Fathers that she was married to Jesus.

Jesus also said things that indicated that he wasn’t married to anyone. He explained that some voluntarily refrain from marrying in order to be fully consecrated to God. He says that they “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matt. 19:12). He portrays voluntary abstention from marriage as the highest form of consecration, and as the spiritual leader of the Christian movement, it would be strange for him to hold up such a standard if he himself did not meet it.

Moreover, the early Church was unanimous in regarding Jesus as unmarried. This is not a later doctrine of the Church Fathers but something found in the New Testament itself. The authors of the New Testament regularly depict the Church as “the bride of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:21-33; cf. Rev. 21:9-10). This metaphor would never have developed if a flesh-and-blood “Mrs. Jesus” was living just down the street. Only if Christ was celibate would the Church have come to be depicted metaphorically as his bride.

So thank you to those who tried to answer my question. Those who believe in the possibility of this rubbish - please read the Catholic Answers Tract that this came from. God bless Catholis Answers!

Donna

 

[Jimmy_B]

Q. Did Jesus and Mary Magdelene marry?

A. NO!

 

[Mycroft]

The obvious answer to this question is: We wont ever know unless we get to heaven. There is no point in discussing it. It is a stupid question that has no factual basis and is just as meaningful as saying, was jesus gay with his disciples? All you need to worry about is what the Catholic Church teaches. Stop wondering about stupid idle questions that no-one here can answer.

 

[Angainor]

I wrote: It is the Catholic Church that will not accept me.
Donna P:

Then all I can say is that you haven’t accepted yourself as a Child of God. But He accepts you always.

[thread=42878]Click here[/thread] to see my response.

 

[Donna_P]

Mycroft:

The obvious answer to this question is: We wont ever know unless we get to heaven. There is no point in discussing it. It is a stupid question that has no factual basis and is just as meaningful as saying, was jesus gay with his disciples? All you need to worry about is what the Catholic Church teaches. Stop wondering about stupid idle questions that no-one here can answer.

God Bless your faith. I also know that Jesus was celibate. I don’t need it proved. But if you had “read” my question you would have known I was looking to help my Mother. I am not an apologist so I don’t know all of the tools to back up my faith.

That said - I found what I was looking for. Please read the question and what the person is asking for next time.

One more thing - Please read the Catholic Answer tract on the Da Vinci Code. You won’t have to wait for Heaven.

God Bless,
Donna

 

[Donna_P]

Q. Did Jesus and Mary Magdelene marry?

A. NO!

Hi Jimmy,

As a Senior Member, I guess I was looking for one like you to help me out. Sometimes if you read a persons question, you will find out just what they are asking and why.

I did find the bible verses I was looking for. Go to the Catholic Answers tract on the Da Vinci Code. It is quite good and more informative than your answer.

God Bless,
Donna

 

[Kielbasi]

What is one to make of The Da Vinci Code’s specific claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

**Its not a *claim ***at all. The Da vinci Code is a work of fiction, the marriage is part of the story that Brown is conveying.

Spending effort to “refute” this marriage is as futile as spending time refuting the claim on the West Wing that Martin Sheen is the President.

 

[hermit]

No one knows the real answer to the question. However, it is amusing to read the fools expressing their ignorance with such confidence.

 

[tradcatmel]

Jesus was prophet, priest and king…

His bride was the Church. He did not marry Mary Magdelene.

 

[FCEGM]

I think the following excerpt gives one of the best answers to the silly proposal that Our Lord was married to Mary Magdalene or any other woman:

"Jesus not only became a human being, but also a man, a person of the male sex. That is not something either accidental or arbitrary. The possibility that God could become a human being was latent only in the male sex. The man, after all, is a symbol of God’s mighty Love, the Love that redeems and saves. Whereas woman represents the humanity that God has chosen for redemption and bliss [the Church]. That is why Jesus was bound to become a man. In the male sex the profound mystery of His being was prefigured: Jesus is the very image of the Father, His Love, faithful and strong, for human beings.

"But there the symbolic value of Jesus’ masculinity stops. Or rather, it is already as complete as it could be. To take one step further and enter upon marriage here on earth with a concrete woman, that for Jesus would have been a nonsense. In the mystery of His proper nature, He, The God-Man, has received more than marriage with just one woman could give. For it is He Himself who give purpose and meaning to every marriege between human beings.

"On the one hand the fulness of God’s Love was in Him, God’s tenderness as well as His toughness, for He was Himself God. On the other hand in His twofold nature, as God and man, He was the peerless marriage, the perfect conjunction, in His own person, between the redeeming God and redeemed humanity. In His divine nature He is the gift beyond measure, and in His humanity He is receptiveness par excellence. Thus in His emotional and sexual life as a man all tension was resolved. For His love was already satisfied and sated, was deeper and wider than He could have experience in a marriage. His physical status as man-and-celibate is the token of this.

"Therefore Jesus qua man had also to remain virginal. In that virginity of His, the conscious and unconscious sexual dynamic, the masculine and the feminine pole in Him, are put wholly at the service of the spiritual reality which He is and to which He comes to bear witness: He is the Son of His Father and His image; among human beings He is the firstborn from the dead, the new man, or rather: the Man, simply the Man, Ecce Homo!

"Jesus’ unique situation did not preclude a bond with woman. He counted women among His acquaintances, intimate friends, fellow-workers. In particular He had a mother; for like all human beings He was born of a woman. What is most remarkable is that this bond with His mother soon expanded into something much broader and universal. For from the very start every woman was more to Him that she was in her concrete and limited femininity. And all that she could be for Him Jesus had already been provided with in His own person. Thus Mary was not only His mother, but still more His sister, His bride, His daughter, and eventually His most intimate companion and the mother of all people.

“We see in Jesus how sexual abstinence can bring out the profound spiritual reality of a person. It helps to lift man’s whole sexual potential on to another plane, where it can develop and be fulfilled without ceasing to be male or female. This fulfilment of human sexuality far transcends the gratification of its transient and constricted eroticism - a fact that will surprise no one who realizes how closely the whole of sex is interwoven with the image of God in man,” Teach Us to Pray, by Andre Louf, Paulist Press, 1975.