Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?

Question

What about the family tomb they found?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

Answer 1

Anything is possible...

Answer 2

He was most likely married. He was a Rabi/(teacher in Hebrew) and Jewish. It would have been considered very odd if he was not married. He would not have been taken seriously by the people of his time if he was so old and unmarried.

As to being married to Mary Magdalene, it is hard to say. If the scriptures on their relationship are true/accurate, then it is possible they were married. There is a passage where Mary M. rubs oil on him. This would only be done by a WIFE according to Jewish customs at the time. A Rabi would NEVER have let a woman touch him in that way unless they were married.

Also there are other Mary's that had contact with him at the time. It is hard to say for certain which Mary he was married too.

By the way, the concept that Mary M. was a prostitute did not come into common agreement until many centuries after her death. Many suggest that this misnomer is a result of trying to limit the influence of women in the new religion. The old trick, call someone a name long enough and it sticks; tell a lie long enough and people start to believe it. The victors always write history to suit themselves.

Answer 3

No. The tomb bears the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph and one of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. But scientists argue the names were extremely common during that time period, and in no way prove the Jesus buried at the site was Jesus Christ.

Another researcher whose work has focused on the Middle East, biblical anthropologist Joe Zias, has dismissed Cameron's claims as "dishonest".

"It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Jerusalem, and if the family was wealthy enough to afford a tomb, which they probably weren't, it would have been in Nazareth, not here in Jerusalem," he said.

He said the appearance of the names proved nothing. When I researched genealogy I found thousands of people with the exact three names I had that weren't even vaguely related.

Answer 4

Alea S said it best. It would have been unheard of in that culture in that time frame for Jesus to have unmarried especially at his age.

Cultures and lifestyles change so what is acceptable today that no one bats an eye at would have been a death sentence or similar back then.

Answer 5

Jesus Is married to all that accept Him.

Don't believe the things that Man puts out.
If that were true It would have been written about by
the people who walked with Jesus, and It wasn't.

Answer 6

O christians, do not spread falsehood and mischief in this world.
I wanna know the name of syrup drunken while interpolating/corrupting bible?
I want to know the name of syrup which was drunk while corrupting bibles as such I see the following in bible.
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)
How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)
How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8) (b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)
and so on..............

Answer 7

nah she was just some bimbo he found hot on the corner of Sodom and Gomorrah's and gave her 50 quid to bend over for him... she would have made him pay her 100 but after all she could give him a discount on the fact he was the son of god. he got her pregnant and disappeared after rising from the dead... and became the worlds first deadbeat dad!

Answer 8

No,He was not married to Mary Magdalene.
Do you know what the entire case of the film rests on ? DNA evidence shows that the one in the 'Jesus' casket,and the one in the 'Mary' casket,were not maternally related.Apparently,they take that to mean that they were married.There is no evidence of this,and scholars and archaeogists are seriously questioning,and criticising,the film.
It relies heavily on statistics.But,they start out with false premises and assumptions.
To come up with the statistics on the film,they had to assume 5 things.These things are:
1.That the ‘Jesus’ and the ‘Jose’ in these caskets,are brothers.
2. That the ‘Mariamne’ in the tomb, is Mary Magdalene.
Guess where the makers of the film get this idea? From a book known as the ‘Gospel of Phillip’,written by a group known as the Gnostics in the 4th century AD,hundreds of years after Jesus.It is not a reliable historical document at all.
3. That Jesus was married to Mary, and they had a son named Judah.
There is absolutely no evidence for this claim,in either credible Biblical or non-Biblical sources.None at all.Why assume something you have no proof of?
4.That the Matthew found in this tomb was somehow related to Jesus’ mother but is not her son.
The New Testament does not say anything about a brother of Jesus being called ‘Matthew’,but it does mention Jesus’ other siblings.There is no evidence of this Matthew being a brother of Jesus anywhere,and the makers of the film have to somehow provide an explanation as to why he would be in the tomb.In addition,the tomb is missing the other brothers of Jesus.
5. They also assume that the ‘James,son of Jospeh,brother of Jesus’ ossuary,discovered a few years ago,originated from the same tomb as the recently discovered caskets.That is a major piece of evidence that they use to try and back up their claims.
The problem?If the ‘James,son of Jospeh,brother of Jesus’ ossuary had originated from the tomb,it would have needed to be discovered after 1980,as that was when the recent tomb was opened.But was the James ossuary discovered after that? No,not at all.The James ossuary was discovered in the 1970’s.That puts a huge hole in the movie.How couild the ossuary have come from an un-opened tomb?

The film-makers were also choosy with what evidence thaty would use to come up with their statistics.They excluded the names of Matthew and Judah,yet kept in the name of Mariamne,based on the Gnostic book!
After this,the probability decreases dramatically.There is only a 1 in 15,000 chance that the tomb is that of Jesus’ family.

Now,onto the DNA evidence they have supposedly used.
They cannot look at the DNA they have taken from the Jesus casket,and conclude that it is Jesus’.They do not have a sample of Jesus’ DNA to compare it to.
The scientists were only able to extract DNA from two of the caskets.Just two.What did this DNA evidence prove? That the one in the ‘Jesus’ casket,and the one in the ‘Mary’ casket,were not maternally related.Hardly groundbreaking evidence.

There are other reasons why the tomb is not that of Jesus.


1.Joespeh,who was born in Bethlehem,lived in Nazerath,and died in Galilee,would not have bought a tomb in Jerusalem.He had no connections there. It is highly unlikely that he would have bought a tomb in Jeruslame,which is over 131 miles from Nazareth.
2. The two Mary ossuaries,which suppsedly prove that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene,do not even mention Migdal anywhere!

3. The tomb and ossuaries are the type which only the rich would have been able to afford.Jesus and His family were certainly not rich.

4.The names on the tomb,while sounding convincing,were extremely common in that time.In fact,21% of Jewish women in the era were named Mary,with the names of the males on the caskets also being extremely popular.

The experts:

Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. "It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's impossible. It's nonsense." “"They just want to get money for it,"

Professor Amos Kloner,"..those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE"


Prof. Kloner said there was no way the tomb housed the Holy Family.
The senior Israeli archaeologist who thoroughly researched the tombs after their discovery, and at the time deciphered the inscriptions, cast serious doubt on it.
"It is just not possible that a family who came from Galilee, as the New Testament tells us of Joseph and Mary, would be buried over several generations in Jerusalem."

Kloner said the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that "Jesus son of Joseph" inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years."There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb," Kloner said. "They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE."

"Archeological evidence shows that chances of these being the actual
burials of the Holy Family are almost nil," said Motti Neiger, a spokesman for the
Antiquities Authority.

"Simcha has no credibility whatsoever," says Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the Talpiot ossuaries. "He's pimping off the Bible … He got this guy Cameron, who made 'Titanic' or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, 'Who is this guy?' People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession."

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight. "How possible is it?" he said. "On a scale of one through 10 - 10 being completely possible , it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."


The official report written by Prof. Kloner found nothing remarkable in the discovery. The cave, it said, was probably in use by three or four generations of Jews from the beginning of the Common Era. It was disturbed in antiquity, and vandalized.

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus'' on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun.''

Professor Juergen Zangenberg, an expert on the New Testament at the Dutch University of Leiden, said the documentary's claim was unrealistic, and more likely "about money and headlines".

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site,also said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.


William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.
"The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."

Answer 9

Yes, he was. And they had 3 children.

Answer 10

they didn't find a tomb....stop believing TV ad's for a movie!!!!!

Answer 11

Most likely... he was just a man.