Was Jesus married?

Question

Read this:

"The hypothesis of marriage becomes all the more tenable by virtue of the title of "Rabbi," which is frequently applied to Jesus in the Gospels. It is possible, of course, that this term is employed in its very broadest sense, meaning simply a self-appointed teacher. But Jesus' literacy—his display of knowledge to the elders in the temple, for example—strongly suggests that he was more than a self-appointed teacher. It suggests that he underwent some species of formal rabbinical training and was officially recognized as a rabbi. This would conform to tradition, which depicts Jesus as a rabbi in the strict sense of the word. But if Jesus was a rabbi in the strict sense of the word, a marriage would not only have been likely, but virtually certain. The Jewish Mishnaic Law is quite explicit on the subject. "An unmarried man may not be a teacher."

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/scripture/was_jesus_married.htm

So was he married or breaking Jewish law?

Ummm when did I mention the Da Vinci Code, you Christians really hate that book huh?

Answer 1

let's put it this way.

He's breaking Jewish law.

He was a 'rebel' to begin with. The Pharisees hated him. He created on law for Jews: Love the lord your God with all your heart and everything else will be added to you. He substituted hundreds of old Jewish laws. He declared himself savior, and he taught a whole new relationship with God that he would allow through his death.

He was the savior, teacher, counselor, conqueror, life, truth, and image of the invisible God.

Answer 2

Jesus was not married because He was in ministry and devoted Himself to that ministry. Plus He probably knew that he'd be dead at 33 and not on earth anymore so He didn't want to leave a widow behind. Also it's probably prophesied somewhere in the old Testament but I don't remember where.

Jesus was a very unconventional teacher. He said many times that He is here to either fulfill the law or do away with the law. He is saying that those old school Jewish strict laws are unnecessary. He was not educated for the service of Rabbi but He did take on disciples for his tutelage as a Rabbi would have. He was trained as a carpenter as far as we know because that was his father's vocation. But His Father instillled in Him His own wisdom without being taught by a Rabbi formerly.

Answer 3

NO i'm advantageous Jesus in no way sinned so in no way had any family members with a female and he would not have married as he knew he exchange into going to die at a youthful age and Gnostic christian in case you have been spectacular then there could be ALOT greater women preachers then there are as we communicate btw a women being a preacher is a sin as a sunday college instructor for infants effective yet women arent meant to be over adult males NO im not sexist

Answer 4

You need to read the web site you posted.

"...So is the fact that Yeshua was called "Rabbi" really indicative that he must have been married? After all, the law that requires a rabbi to be married does not come from the Torah ("Law"), but from the Mishna, or the "Oral Law". The Pharisees, in addition to their own interpretations of the Torah, had additional instructions that were first called "the Tradition of the Elders" and eventually known as the "Oral Torah". Together, the Oral Law, or Mishna, and the rabbinic discussions on the Oral Law, or Gemara, are known as the Talmud. Yeshua's (Jesus') attitude towards this "Oral Law" is amply demonstrated in the New Testament, such as in this passage from Matthew...
On that note, the second assertion is that since Yeshua "did not preach celibacy, there is no reason to suppose that he practiced it." This is, of course, a logical fallacy, but one which becomes moot in light of the fact that Yeshua did in fact advocate celibacy—at least to those who, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake", so choose it. So, while it was certainly customary for men to be married, this hardly constitutes any "evidence" that this was also true for Yeshua. I love exposing lies!!!


The article exposes more lies found in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

April 7, 2006

DA VINCI CODE TRIAL RESOLVES NOTHING

Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the London court’s ruling in the dispute between Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code:

The court’s finding today, that Dan Brown is not guilty, is totally inconsequential to the interests of the Catholic League. We regard all parties to the dispute—Dan Brown, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh—as anti-Catholic frauds. Baigent and Leigh lied in 1982 when they marketed their book,
Holy Blood, Holy Grail,
as non-fiction: we know this because in order to sue Brown they decided to rename their work ‘historical conjecture,’ thus enabling them to charge him with copyright infringement. Brown is also a fraud: The Da Vinci Code opens with three ‘facts,’ all of which are lies.
_____________________

If Holy Blood, Holy Grail is history, that means The DaVinci Code is historical fiction. Baigent and Leigh don't have any more reason to sue Brown for plagiarism than Shelby Foote, who wrote a history of the War Between the States, would have had to sue Michael Shaara for his novel about Gettysburg.

Too bad Baigent and Leigh didn't admit Holy Blood, Holy Grail is really just a comic book without the pictures, a bad practical joke they played on everyone without a brain or the education required to use one. They might have scored some bucks. While an author like Brown can't plagiarize history, he can plagiarize a silly little made-up story. Pride goeth before a fall, or a goose-egg verdict, as the case may be.

Jesus is married to His Church, and He is not a bigamist.

Answer 5

Are you kidding? The Bible teaches that the Pharisees and Sadducees hated Jesus. They knew from the first time they heard Jesus speak that Jesus was their enemy. Jesus called them hypocrits, den of vipers and white washed sepulchres. He turned over the money changer's table on the Temple grounds. Jesus said He came not to bring peace, but a sword. Jesus continually broke Temple law and the Chief Priest was the one who had Jesus arrested.

Jesus ate with sinners. Jesus kept prostitutes from being stoned.
Jesus went out of His way to visit a woman at a well that had 5 men and none were her husband. Jesus walked and touched lepers. It was forbidden for a Rabbi to do this because his clothes would be ceremonially unclean and impure. John 20:16 teaches that Rabboni means Master. Jesus kept no Jewish tradition of the Temple Rabbi and conformed not to their ways.

Think of it this way. Jesus loved Mary Magdalene too much. A mere man would have married her, but Jesus was no mere man.
Jesus loved all of the disciples too much. Look what He did for Peter. Jesus knew Peter regretted denying Him 3 times so three times He asked Peter "Do you love me?" He told Peter, "Feed my sheep" three times in reply. This is how you show love to Jesus - you love other people.

Since the Temple High Priest wanted Him dead, I would say Jesus broke their law. Jesus even told them that man wasn't made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.

Jesus was not your everyday, run of the mill, man much less Rabbi.

Answer 6

Occupation Carpenter
Married Status Single

Answer 7

Likely married in order to be conform with Judaic Law, as it was applicable during His lifetime. A good candidate would be Mary Magdalena, although her role has been downgraded by the leaders of Christianity who were mostly males, in order to justify abuses of women.

Even in the Bible, it is recommended that Bishops be married:

3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Answer 8

Jesus is referred to as Rabbi most often by the pharisees, not necessarily in the context of position, but as a description of him. This is not only the case, as his own followers also sometimes called him rabbi. This could in linguistic context refer to a position, but would not necessarily be the case. Jesus was also referred to as master many times.

Also, many people took the fact that Jesus was teaching as evidence that he must be a rabbi. So it is easy to see that possibly people called him that because they didn't know that he wasn't really a rabbi.

In the OT we can see many examples of people who taught and were not married. the Judges of Israel, who were not all married. The major and minor prophets, some of whom were married, but many we have no evidence of being married.

Now, if Jesus is not a rabbi but teaching, is he breaking the Law of God? Jesus came and condemned many practices that the pharisees had placed on people that were not necessarily Scriptural, but placed on them by men. I find no passage in Scripture that forbids a person from being a teacher because they are not married. Jesus often went against traditions that were inappropriate according to Scripture.

In addition to this, there were also exceptions to the rule, for pharisees were also teachers, however, they were not bound by Mishnaic law to be married.

Answer 9

That would be so important that it would have been mentioned in the Gospels. There is no historical evidence that Jesus was married. Only the English/French myth that the royal family descended from Jesus in order to justify breaking away from the catholic church and dethroning the pope.

Answer 10

You are correct, all evidence points to Jesus being married. The silence of the gospels argues that he led a normal life which would have included marriage. Had he been celibate, the gospels would have mentioned it or Paul, when recommending celibacy, would have added "like Christ" to his recommendation. Besides, how could a celibate 33 year old male be considered to have had a "fully human" experience?

BTW, for those who think the daVinci Code was only a recent fiction, the legend or knowledge (depending on who you believe) of Mary Magdalene's relationship with Jesus dates back to the time of the gospels.

Answer 11

No he was not married (source: Holy quran) and i do not know about breaking Jewish Law but i can say that an unmarried man may be a teacher, a very good teacher.