Wedding bells for Jesus..?

[connermt]

I don't recall ever seeing biblical documentation that indicated as such, but many believe he was married. Of those, most seem to believe he was married to, well, Mary M.
These individuals seem to use the relationship between him and Mary as justification for this belief.
What say you? Was jesus married? If not, why not? If so, to whom was it? What repercussion would it entail?

[His Name Is John]

In my view, Jesus never married.

But that is because I believe in the Councils of the Church, tradition, and the teaching of the fathers. It would take to long to explain it all to an atheist / agnostic / non-believer. I don't really see the point of anyone discussing it though.

Either you are a Christian, a Muslim (who believe that he was married) in which case your mind is already made up.

Or your an agnostic / atheist, in which case, what does it matter?

[Goat]

I don't recall ever seeing biblical documentation that indicated as such, but many believe he was married. Of those, most seem to believe he was married to, well, Mary M.
These individuals seem to use the relationship between him and Mary as justification for this belief.
What say you? Was jesus married? If not, why not? If so, to whom was it? What repercussion would it entail?

IF he was not considered a 'mamzer'.. then, in all probability he would have been married. They had arraigned marriages young. There of course was also high levels of death in childbirth, so he could have been a widower

Of course, if he was a mamzer, he wouldn't have been allowed in the Synagogue.

Assuming there was a historical Jesus (as opposed to the Gospel Jesus) , my opinion is that yes he was married, and was either a widower, or to married to Mary M.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Goat in post #12]

The only authority for the possibility of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene I found in Johns Shelby Spong's, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" (pg xv). He theorized that there is N/T data that supports such possibility. Magdalene was one of Jesus' FEMALE DISCIPLES who not only accompanied him on his journeys but in fact financially supported him. The difficulty lies in the traditional Jewish negative image of women during that time period. However, that did not preclude the possiblity of such a union since, again, within the Jewish tradition, for a man of thirty to be unwed would have been cause for concern. In my own view Magdalene's acknowledged significant presence in the resurrection story could certainly lend weight to an intimate if not marriage theory.

Cause for concern indeed!

A Jew in his thirtys and a Rabbi/Teacher too, not married would have been an endless cause for inquire, amazement and scandal-gossip.

A good possibility it is that Jesus wife never gets mentioned because that such a person is of course married goes without saying.

Thats not excluding the possibilitys of widower, bachelor, homosexualist (with John) or whatever.

Still; when did you hear last time about the loving wife of Rabby Loew (Guy who invented the Golem)?
Never?

Yeah, but therefore you dont automatically assume that this man lived without wife, right

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. There are several bottom lines here. One is, he should have been married. Another is, we only assert that Jesus could not have ben married if we trust the veracity of th gospels, and if atheists at least do not by now admit doubt that the gospel record in not to be trusted, then we clearly have a serious problem with a mindset that is frankly unscientfic (will not reconsider existing theories which require question) never mind about those who insist the Gospel accounts are reliable (even eyewitness) on Faith.

A third would be rather like another argument, that, even if the gospels were broadly a record of the actual events, the miracles were deliberate fakes, especially the raising of Lazarus, which shows clear signs of all being arranged beforehand - if the story is true (I don't think it is). And of course the resurrection story is actually evidence it was intended to save Jesus from death.

So, if we credited the story, there is a clear special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The striking thing about the anointing at Bethany is that Mary Magdalene does it. Pointing to some clear attempts at cover up -by the writers (and why would they do that if they didn't see a truth that had to be hidden) such as John removing the Temple dust up altogether, Mark separating that from the donkey ride to disguise the connection and Luke removing the anointing to Galilee, the point I'd argue is head or feet? If feet, why alter that to the more suspicious head? I'd argue it was originally anointing the head and it was altered to feet to turn an act of honoring Jesus as the coming messiah into an act of penitence passed of as an anointing for burial.

Apart from a debate about 'if it was true - it really means this' vs 'if it isn't true,none of it matters anyway' the figure of Mary Magdalene doing what looks an anointing of Jesus (the 'New Joshua' - not the new Moses of Matthew) takes on an even bigger significance.

"If ever I was to marry anyone, it woulda bin her."

If Jesus was married (as he shouldha bin), it would have been her.