2) Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher. By Hebrew law only married men may be teachers. So depending on how closely Jesus followed Hebrew law this could be a sign that Jesus was married. As for teaching people about religion again he would have to be married by Hebrew law. The moment any Jews heard Jesus wasn’t married but was trying to teach them they’d all leave. UPDATE: I have found out through a response on this post and my own sources found out that to be a Rabbi a man has to be married. So while Jesus would not HAVE to be married, it would be considered bad form for Jesus to teach children. Now people have stated that Jesus didn’t follow all the laws, and quite rightly stated that people were uncomfortable at FIRST with this. Now we can take this as meaning Jesus was never married and people just stopped caring. Or we can think that at first people were uncomfortable but something Jesus did shortly afterwards made them allow Jesus to continue teaching to the children. This could have been marriage. So we have a question mark here. Did the Jewish people just decide to ignore law and tradition for Jesus, a possibility. Or did Jesus get married and people didn’t have a problem anymore. Like so much with the bible and religion in general it comes down to faith.

3) The most critical part comes about after Jesus is crucified and it shows us who Jesus may have been married to. St. Mark, Chap. 16, verse 1. “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” Now by Hebrew law the ONLY women who can anoint a man are family members. For Mary Magdalene to even attempt to anoint Jesus would be unthinkable under Hebrew law, unless she was married to Jesus. So it seems much more likely through this one verse that Jesus and Mary were married.

Now I know the bible doesn’t come right out and say Jesus was married. But if Jesus was known to be married would he be seen as pure as he is made out to be? It is very likely that Jesus was not acknowledged as being married because the writers of Jesus did not want it known. As many christians say the people who wrote about Jesus saw it from different perspectives and some were nowhere near Jesus when Jesus lived. So after the fact it would be easy to leave out certain parts that did not match up with what they wanted. And until some writing from Jesus or his disciples is allowed to come out of the vatican vaults there is always the possibility that some parts of Jesus life was left out by the known writers who were not close to Jesus.

2) Throughout the bible Jesus is called a teacher. By Hebrew law only married men may be teachers. So depending on how closely Jesus followed Hebrew law this could be a sign that Jesus was married. As for teaching people about religion again he would have to be married by Hebrew law. The moment any Jews heard Jesus wasn’t married but was trying to teach them they’d all leave. UPDATE: I have found out through a response on this post and my own sources found out that to be a Rabbi a man has to be married. So while Jesus would not HAVE to be married, it would be considered bad form for Jesus to teach children. Now people have stated that Jesus didn’t follow all the laws, and quite rightly stated that people were uncomfortable at FIRST with this. Now we can take this as meaning Jesus was never married and people just stopped caring. Or we can think that at first people were uncomfortable but something Jesus did shortly afterwards made them allow Jesus to continue teaching to the children. This could have been marriage. So we have a question mark here. Did the Jewish people just decide to ignore law and tradition for Jesus, a possibility. Or did Jesus get married and people didn’t have a problem anymore. Like so much with the bible and religion in general it comes down to faith.

3) The most critical part comes about after Jesus is crucified and it shows us who Jesus may have been married to. St. Mark, Chap. 16, verse 1. “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” Now by Hebrew law the ONLY women who can anoint a man are family members. For Mary Magdalene to even attempt to anoint Jesus would be unthinkable under Hebrew law, unless she was married to Jesus. So it seems much more likely through this one verse that Jesus and Mary were married.

Now I know the bible doesn’t come right out and say Jesus was married. But if Jesus was known to be married would he be seen as pure as he is made out to be? It is very likely that Jesus was not acknowledged as being married because the writers of Jesus did not want it known. As many christians say the people who wrote about Jesus saw it from different perspectives and some were nowhere near Jesus when Jesus lived. So after the fact it would be easy to leave out certain parts that did not match up with what they wanted. And until some writing from Jesus or his disciples is allowed to come out of the vatican vaults there is always the possibility that some parts of Jesus life was left out by the known writers who were not close to Jesus.

First, the Church did choose which books to put in the Bible and which to take out. They did this based on what was considered truth and what was heresy and it was a necessity of the editing of the book.

Second, the Bible was not written in Hebrew. Parts of it were written in Aramaic but most of it was written in Greek. In many cases, but not all, the Greek was translated to Latin, which was then translated to English.

Third, there is consensus that most of the books of the new testament were written within 2-3 generations after Jesus’s death, not 2-3 years. That being said, the books included in the Bible are more relaible than the Gnostic gospels of Judas and Thomas.

I’m not trying to shut you down, but you need to get your facts on target so you can better defend the Church. I am a member of the faith and a devout Catholic myself, but you have to acknowledge the truth before you can defend the spiritual.

First, the Church did choose which books to put in the Bible and which to take out. They did this based on what was considered truth and what was heresy and it was a necessity of the editing of the book.

Second, the Bible was not written in Hebrew. Parts of it were written in Aramaic but most of it was written in Greek. In many cases, but not all, the Greek was translated to Latin, which was then translated to English.

Third, there is consensus that most of the books of the new testament were written within 2-3 generations after Jesus’s death, not 2-3 years. That being said, the books included in the Bible are more relaible than the Gnostic gospels of Judas and Thomas.

I’m not trying to shut you down, but you need to get your facts on target so you can better defend the Church. I am a member of the faith and a devout Catholic myself, but you have to acknowledge the truth before you can defend the spiritual.

but what is the proof that this account was accurately transcribed or translated? That it was not edited/modified as the years went by, to suit the ideas someone who had enough power wanted to propagate?

Because there have been countless translations of the Bible from the original text, and all of them have been virtually identical. Hundreds of expert scholars and translators working over hundreds of years don’t colaborate and decide how they want things translated.

Did you ever play the phone game where you whisper a secret in someone’s ear and after 10 people, the last person says something different than the first person? Now try saying it in different languages.

Fun game, faulty analogy. As I said, the Bible has only been translated once- From Greek/Hebrew/other languages into English. Hundreds of scholars over the years have translated the Bible. All of the translations are virtually the same.

I’m sorry – I should be more clear. No, my faith in Jesus didn’t change. In fact, the book and some of my prior classes made Jesus seem more human, adding to my emotions during Easter. Sometimes, I think that the church is more crooked than anyone can imagine.

The “facts” in Brown’s book may not be correct, but it was effective in getting people to think in a different way – especially about the honesty of the Church.

but what is the proof that this account was accurately transcribed or translated? That it was not edited/modified as the years went by, to suit the ideas someone who had enough power wanted to propagate?

Because there have been countless translations of the Bible from the original text, and all of them have been virtually identical. Hundreds of expert scholars and translators working over hundreds of years don’t colaborate and decide how they want things translated.

Did you ever play the phone game where you whisper a secret in someone’s ear and after 10 people, the last person says something different than the first person? Now try saying it in different languages.

Fun game, faulty analogy. As I said, the Bible has only been translated once- From Greek/Hebrew/other languages into English. Hundreds of scholars over the years have translated the Bible. All of the translations are virtually the same.

I’m sorry – I should be more clear. No, my faith in Jesus didn’t change. In fact, the book and some of my prior classes made Jesus seem more human, adding to my emotions during Easter. Sometimes, I think that the church is more crooked than anyone can imagine.

The “facts” in Brown’s book may not be correct, but it was effective in getting people to think in a different way – especially about the honesty of the Church.