Christians: If jesus was married?

Question

PLEASE DONT ANSWER UNLESS YOU LOOK AT THE SOURCE LINK AT THE BOTTOM

A new archeological (well not really new it was dug up in the 1980's the significance wasent known till recently) find of the jesus family tomb indicates that not only was jesus married to mary magdeline (her remains were also in the tomb) but that they also had a child named judah.
on the childs ossuary (coffin) was the incription that read judah son of jesus.
source
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

two questions.

1 does this effect your faith in the bible to know that the "son of god" had a wife?

2 what significance do you think this will have on the christian church.

i dont want to see any stupid answers like. this is a hoax, its from the discovery channel so i doubt it

DNA taken from the remains from the ossuary of jesus and mary magdeline did NOT match. and under the law at the time only family members were buried in family tombs. which leaves the conclusion they were married

@ jesussaves
great way to ignore the evidence.

and i see no one is looking at the source.

aparently its useless to show evidence for anything around here

Answer 1

It proves that Jesus was only a man.

Answer 2

First of all, no one has confirmed the remains in the tomb, or that they are of Jesus or Mary Magdeline. No where in that brief article does it confirm or validate any finding. Not to mention that no major news organizations considered it worthwile to even mention except the Discovery network which happened to be airing a documentary on the subject. So stop passin this off as known fact, your own source doesn't even claim that, it just says it "could" be. Since when is that scientific evidence? Also the name Jesus was as common as John is today, in that region. So an inscription proves nothing. Grow up, learn to look at things with some semblance of discernment before you blindly accept fiction as fact. The vast majority of the archaelogical community has rejected the notion and did even in the eighties when it was discovered. BTW - don't ask your question and then attempt to edit the answers, the possibility that it is a hoax is stronger than the possiblity that it is real. Why do you think because it comes from the Discovery channel that somehow it must be real? Give me a break.

Answer 3

I think I saw that on the discovery channel to, but I don't remember any definites, they were all just theories with a lot of holes. How do they even know that that was Mary Madeline's tomb? I do have a question for you though. If you knew you were going to die, would you get married and start a family?
The only things going through Jesus's mind was his mission. we don't know what happened to Jesus between like 12 & 30, but the spostles were there when Jesus met Mary Magdelene. If it is Jesus the son of God the coffin is referring to, then maybe it's just a reference just like God is your father, you are God's son

Answer 4

Your link is interesting, but one thing does come to mind. The disiples had trouble beliveing that Jesus would be ressurected. So even though they found a name saying Jesus, it could have been His, but when Jesus rose from the dead, perhaps it was left, by accident or by purpose. Either way, Jesus never married. The child COULD be someone elses. Honestly, if they did have a child, it would be fine. Why? Because if they found the remains of a CHILD, then the CHILD died, and never had other CHILDREN. So Jesus married...He was a man. He would have done it in perfect law, so what's the problem?

Jesus didn't get married, at least God didn't find it important enough to mention. Stop trying to debunk the Christian faith, it happens enough around here.

Answer 5

1. Why would it matter if the son of god had a wife? He had a mother, he had a father(step father I guess), some say he had brothers(I believe he did), he had friends. Why would it be some big deal if he had a wife and child? He was a man after all, son of god, but still a man.

2. I question if it is Jesus in the tomb. There is no way they can "prove" it is Jesus Christ. Being that you would have to put your "faith" in to believing that this is the actual Jesus Christ of the Bible, I wouldn't think even Atheist could believe in this.

Answer 6

Not a Christian.

This won't change anything. Even if this is THE Jesus, there's enough reasonable doubt that we'll never know for sure-- there may have been many Yeshua Ben Yosefs, some of whom married Mariams.

Besides which, since when has Christianity ever relied on rationality to justify itself? This is religion, after all, not science we're talking about. No, the ghost of Jesus could come down from heaven and tell Jerry Fallwell he married Mary Magdalene and had a kid and no one would believe it. Those who believe will go on as they always have.

Answer 7

Don't assume that what is presented in a documentary is automatically fact.
Wait until it is cross examined before making assertions. In other words, get both sides of the argument before making judgments.
Make sure your conclusions are logical, not merely inferential
If the evidence is factual, what does it mean? Does it prove that it was Jesus in the ossuary? Not at all. Does it prove Christianity is false? Hardly. If you are eager to find contradictory evidence, don't let your eagerness blind your objectivity.
Don't jump on the band-wagon and start condemning Christianity because the findings can be interpreted against it.
There are important issues and questions to be raised as you will see in the next section. Those questions and others like them are relevant to the discussion on what the evidence means and need to be addressed before drawing "absolute" conclusions.
Don't make the mistake of concluding that if the evidence is verified under cross examination it means Christianity is false. It doesn't.
It only means that a family tomb with ossuaries containing biblical names has been discovered. This is evidence, but it can be legitimately interpreted in different ways - see below. But, is it conclusive proof that Christianity is false? Not at all. It isn't proof they have found the tomb of Jesus.

Answer 8

I personally don't see what the big deal is. Yes he was the son of God, God in the flesh. But he was a man too. Why could he not have had a wife? if he married and had a child how is that sinful? Why should it tarnish my beliefs? Why should it have any significance on Christianity? Because he had a child, does that change the things he did and the people he saved? Or how he died for our sins and was risen from the dead?

Answer 9

I watched a good bit of it when it came on. The appearance on the Discovery channel does not make it true. As Alexandra has said, there are many Spanish speaking people named Jesus. There are too many inconsistencies in that report to be THE Jesus of the Bible.

Also, it would mean the value of his sacrifice would be useless. To be unmarried and childless in order to buy back humanity from Adam was a requirement. Jesus was perfectly aware of this and having only three and a half years to get all this done did limit his available time.

Answer 10

1. I never put complete faith in the bible anyway. I believe the Bible, especially the King James version, is filled with fallacies and contradictions. And many books are missing from the Bible, as well. Has anyone besides me researched King James' life? Maybe some people should before they blindly follow someone whom they don't even know anything about. King James is the Pied Piper of faith and I would NOT trust him with my immortal soul. I have always believed that Jesus was married based on the period of time he lived in. I also knew he had a child, but I thought it was a girl.

2. This will have no effect on the church, they will disregard any new evidence that proves them wrong. The church has been living a lie since it was created, why would they change now?

Answer 11

hmm, I'm surprised the media didn't make a bigger deal about this...
Anyways, no it doesn't really affect me. B/c I don't really believe it right now. I mean once source, one time does nothing to prove anything. Like others have said Jesus wasn't the only Jesus at the time.
What Christian church are you talking about? If you mean the catholic church, well they'll deny it.
But seeing as I haven't heard about this at all and it seems they never had a second story to deal with it (besides the show in March) I don't think we can fully accept it yet either. Sciencetific research isn't without its own errors.