Is there any concrete evidence that Mary Magadalene was married to Jesus?
466226
No, there is absolutely no proof of that, but lets add things up.  Jesus is 'God the Son', part of the trinity of God.  He comes to sacrifice himself for us.  He lived a pure and perfect life and resurrected from the dead.  Now, if Jesus is God, what need or reason would there be for God to marry a woman?  God doesn't have desires of the flesh.  Yes Jesus was exposed to those desires here on earth, but the Bible tells us that he never gave in to any of those desires.  Mary Magadalene was a disiple of Christ.  She was only one of His followers and belivers, nothing more.
562431
No this is not true. I saw a documentary on Discovery channel, and the Da Vinci code is fiction pure and simple, created by three guys in France back in the seventies. All the documents were faked, and their is no evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene or fathered any children. It's just something to confuse people, none of it is true. Check your local listings for the Discovery/Times channel and they'll be playing it again, I think it's titles "the real Da vinci code" or something along those lines.
642096
Absolutely not.  Jesus was human as well as God if you believe in Christian interpretations of his life.  I think Jesus was at least a very spiritually advanced human, he knew how to love without judgment and how to forgive. It seems absurd to me that he would not have been married.
1141769
Caution, contains spoilers...:)\n\n\n\n\nIf Jesus and Mary Mag. had a baby, Jesus must have been a mortal man...the whole basis of the Catholic church is that Jesus is the immortal son of God...
565710
Good question on the evidence, pro or con.\n\nWhat about cohabiting with MM. For sure no evidence there, unless they cosigned the apartment lease agreement.\n\nWhat if their union was spiritual? Aren't most of Christian beliefs spiritual?\n\nMaybe he just liked hanging out with the guys.\n\n\nI see that the Bible thumpers are kicking in. If its in the Bible it must be true. Some of them actually believe that God wrote the Bible. Even although it is a collection of memories, stories, beliefs that were muddled together in a contradictory fashion 500 years after Christ died.\nKind of like minutes of a meeting by people who were not at the meeting.
374174
He war married.  Per Jewish tradition ONLY the groom could provide the refreshments at the wedding. In the wedding at Cana Mary went to Jesus and told him the wine had run out. Unless he was the Groom he had no reason to help nor would Mary have had a reason to inform him of the situation.  \n\nAlso has he was call Rabbi he was required to have been married to hold that title in the Jewish faith.\n\nIf it was not Mary Magdalene that he married why did he appear to her 1st after his Resurrection?  That is an action you would associate with a spouse.  \n\nAs for the Bible not mentioning it? Maybe the writers of the books that are in the Bible felt it was not important enough or else they did not want her disparaged as he is by many today, a sign of respect for her.  Or maybe when is mentioned that those books were not chosen to be in the Bible or were destroyed before the Bible was compiled.  \n\nSo if you want to know, research for yourself and pray. That is what I did. I know he was married beyond a doubt because of my prayers.
353477
Very little... \n\nIt is consistantly regarded that the "Mary" next to Jesus in "The Last Supper" is John, who was constantly portrayed as affemenant during the reformation.  There is virtually no evidence to support the fact that Jesus had offspring, nor is there any reason to believe that there is anything significant hidden in the works of Da Vinci...\n\nBut it really is a heckuva lot of fun to think about.
8255
We only know Mary Magdalena from the gospels. These are in short what they tell about her:\n- She's from Magdala\n- She is witness of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection (Mark 15, John 20), the first to meet Jesus after resurrection\n- 7 demons left her (luke 8).\nThe Bible do not identify her as the prostitute from Luke 7 (But she could be).\nAccording to the gnostic tradition she's a competitor to Peter and the one Jesus loves
600412
There would be nothing wrong with Jesus having a wife and even children. He would not have violated His perfectness because marriage then was a very sacred thing. Most marriages at that time were arranged and it is quite possible that to hold with the customs of the time Jesus may have had an arranged marriage.\n\nWhether or not He was married to Mary Magdeline is a topic that will be discussed for many years. There is some evidence in the Gospel of Mary that she may have been because Jesus told her things that He did not tell the other disciples. It also says (indicates) Jesus kissed her on the mouth, not done except to a wife at that time.\n\nThose who were chosen to assemble the Bible as we have it today had hundreds of letters and gospels to choose from. Because they wanted to make the Bible masculine they choose mainly those books that carried out this wish of the early mainly Catholic church. They required all the other writtings to be destroyed. Thank goodness they are slowly finding some of the copies that did not get destroyed such as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and now the most recent Gospel of Judas.\n\nAlthough the De Vinci Code is basically a fictional story, I beleive the reason, especially the Catholic Church is so opposed, the occurances depicted is because it is closer to the truth than they want the people to know. The church has always tried to control the people by fear; something that I have always disliked. By making many things that were not sin into sin they could make the people pay to have forgiveness of these "sins". The church was able to fill their coffers easily in this way and some churches still do this today.\n\nTo me Jesus is a very real person and He is my Savior, but I do not hold with any church because of they way they have lied to their people over the years. You don't have to go to a church to be a Christian...All it requies is a belief and a love for Jesus. there is no other requirement.
27681
The new guy has obviously been influenced by the _da_Vinci_Code_ or other, similar works that posit that Jesus was married (most likely to Mary Magdalene), and likely had children through that union.\n\nThere are a couple verses in the gospels (depending on your translation - I'm looking at the New International Version) where Jesus is referred to as having brothers; I'd look specifically at Matthew 13:54-56, which says \n\n"54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"\n\nWhile scholars have argued that "brother" might actually mean "cousin" or "other close male relative", the text wouldn't directly support that.\n\nThe wife and children thing can't be disproved Biblically - but neither can it be proven.  Some take the absense of direct reference to a wife as proof, while say that any man referred to as a rabbi/teacher would need to be married to have that status (as per the culture of the time).  Either way, there isn't anything that can be used definitively either way.
1128615
yes I do.  Not because of any novel out there.  I have believed this for years.  I base this on the Bible itself.\n\n1) In John chapter 2 Mary (Mother) goes to Jesus and tells him that the wine is gone.  According to Jewish tradition only the Groom is responsible for the wedding feast.  Unless he was the groom why would Mary care about the wine being gone and why would Christ risk offending the Groom and his family by interviening by turning the water to wine and therefore making more wine for the feast.\n\n2) Under Jewish tradition only a married man could be a Rabbi.  So unless he had married he could not have been called Rabbi. \n\n3) Mary M. helped dress his body for burrial. Unless she was a wife, sister, mother or aunt dressng a body (seeing a man nude, even dead) was not allowed.  It would have been an obseane act on her part.  Since we know she was not sister, mother or aunt that would leave wife.\n\n4) The very first person he appeared to after his reserection was Mary M. That would be an act I accociate with a spouse other wise it would have been an aposle or other family member.\n\n5) Now why was it not spelled out clearer in the Bible?  Maybe it was a given and the writers of the Gospels included in the Bible didn't think it was important enough to mention beyond what they did. Or may be it was discussed clearer in books that were not included in the Bible. Or maybe out of respect for Mary M and to avoid her being disparraged as Jesus as been they choose not to be clear about her relationship with Christ. \n\nNow did they have any children?  I have no idea, I don't think this is important to go into further. But I do think we should acknowledge what Christ taught us and follow him as he is our Savior and Messiah, that he died for us.  This is what is important not these other things.
684848
People who have absolutely no idea will scream, "LIES" without even reading the book or investigating the history behind it. From what I was able to find, here is what's true and what's not:\n\n- Gnostic Gospels: True, except the text in the Gospel of Mary Magdaline where is says, "Jesus kissed Mary on the lips" is actually, "Jesus kissed Mary on the (hole in parchment)". Brown took a liberty here. Also, there are several references in the Gnostic gospels as well as the bible itself that refer to Jesus "favoring" Mary Mag but they don't go into detail...leaving room for speculation.\n\n- Priory of Sion: A real org., however every bit of information about links it to one of 3 men in the 1950s, and there's no information or reference of the org before that. It's thought to be a hoax.\n\n- Myth of Jesus's Family: The book is correct that Mary Mag was not a prostitute. The bible makes absolutely no reference to that at all. As for the legend of Mary Mag fleeing to France, the only evidence that I know of is a reference in a 15th century book, and an old French myth. Supposedly she had a daughter named Sara, which in Hebrew means Princess. So, the conclusion could be reached that she was the child of Jesus, but its a bit of a stretch.\n\nDa Vinci: Some agree 100% that Mary Mag is in the painting of the last supper. Several art historians claim that during the Rennesaunce (spelling) John was often painted feminine.\n\nConstantine: This was about 80% true from my research. Yes, Constantine formed the Christian religon as it is now (more or less). History is a little fuzzy though as to how much involvement he had choosing which books to include in the bible (some say it was him alone, some say it was several people over several years). However, he DID remove all other religions claiming to follow another messiah, and shape the Christian religion the way he wanted it and make it mainstream. Whether that's following God's influence or a personal agenda, you decide.\n\nOver all, as for the history and theory part of the book I'd say its about 50% fact, 40% legend-theory-assumption, and 10% false. Dan Brown even admits that, "the opinions in the book are conclusions drawn by the characters". He is himself a Christian.\n\nNow...isn't that better than an angry Christian screaming "LIES" when they don't have a clue what they're talking about?
716066
Yes, according to this news story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8219384\n\nWith love in Christ.
641807
Mary and Joseph did screw around,\nJames came from them and did abound.\nHe is Jesus brother, or half-brother if you will,\nThey had sex, yes, that's the deal.
501945
The story is not true but many aspects of the book are true. There is an Opus Dei, there is a gospel of Phillip and Mary Magdalene, and a few others, almost certain Mary was not a prostitute but a disciple of Jesus, there is a Rose Line, and according to wikipedia, the Council of Nicaea DID convene to determine if Jesus was God, but the Priory of Sion was shown to be a hoax, and pretty sure Mary Magdalene is not buried at the entrance to the Louvre. It is very probably that Jesus, being a normal Jewish man, would've been married, however, there's really no way to know whether or not Jesus had a child. So believe what you will, just know that the Catholic Church has a remarkable tendency to hide the truth to suit its own needs.
250212
No way and here is proof\nhttp://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Jesus+alou&ei=UTF-8&fr=ks&x=wrt
395658
It is generally agreed that the Virign Mary was young when she gave birth to Jesus and that apocrypha claims that she outlived him dying between three and 15 years after the Crucifixion. Little is known about her personal history other than she was the relative of Elizabeth, lived in Nazareth and was engaged to Joseph. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that she was 14 when the High Priest of the Temple wanted to send her home to prepare for marriage.\n\nIt should also be noted that for much of human history, it was not unusual to be married at 15. Average life expectancy was only 30.