@ Jesus not married.

Started by Private User on Wednesday, July 14, 2010


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 1-30 of 89 posts
Private User
7/14/2010 at 5:34 PM

There is no Scripture to this account. Jesus was and is the Son of GOD. His mission on earth was to full feel prophecy. Marriage; is a defilement of the flesh and, is to "replenish the earth." Jesus being a Jew did not and could not defile His own body. He was "the lamb of God" and required by GOD His father to remain holy, undefiled, clean and just. Sin requires death. He was to be a sacrifice for the whole world and the "sin of us all was laid upon Him." Our sin (death) replaced with his holy body (life). "For the wages of sin is death." Only a holy God can cancel sin, Jesus was both holy God and sinless man (His mom was virgin and His dad God). The perfect solution. He resurrected Himself from the dead and transformed his dead body into a glorious one. ----- In the year of our Lord, 7/14/2010 J Bragg

that indeed is the Catholic tradition, but there are plenty of other versions, based on many sources, not all canonized by the Catholic Church. For the record, in Jewish tradition marriage is NOT a defilement. That again is the Catholic approach to life. The likelihood of a Jewish man of the time remaining single until the age that Jesus started his Ministry is NIL. He would have married at around 18...

Private User
7/15/2010 at 2:43 AM

i am not catholic, i am very much protestant, no catholics in my family line that i know of. bragg as i understand means prince. the version i use is the holy bible (protestant kjv). with respect it is a defilement. remember in the ot that a man was to keep from his wife before going to the priest to worship by bringing a sacrifice. also when a man came near his wife he must wash afterward and be considered to be unclean until evening. any thing that his seamen touched was unclean until washed, if on pottery it must be broken. Jesus was and is God. He was not just a Jewish man. i noticed you did not mention the last part of my discussion. Jesus died on the cross. Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus is the lamb of God. The blood He shed washes our sin away. (on a side note, jews dont follow the words of moses any more for a thousand years or so.)
also its a mystery to me why jews and catholics dont follow their religious rules or the high priest or the pope. why not just not be religious or change to a religion that reflects the persons belief. j bragg

7/15/2010 at 5:12 AM

Christ came to earth to have every human experience besides one: SIN. What's to say he is not married. and you know what? I do not even believe he is married i mean there is a book called "Marys: The Wife of Jeus, The mother of Jesus" explain? CANCEL IT IF YOU WANT BRAGG! IT SAYS "feel free to mercilessley edit this profile

Private User
7/15/2010 at 7:06 PM

i dont understand what is meant by Christ heside on : sin.
He wasnt married because His mission was to preach the gospel to the jews. He wasnt sent here to have children. He was sent by His father God to redeem the lost jews. He wasnt sent here to have a good time but to die on a cross and with the weight of mans sin. Is. the prophet said "he was a man of many sorrows". Jesus sat on the mt of olives and weeped over Jerusalem. because the jews were rejecting Gods free gift of salvation, by rejecting the "the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world." All the law and the prophets the priest would not heed. when He rose Him self from the dead that was a turning point of a new testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of the ot prophets. John was the last of the ot prophets. the Messiah was promised by the prophets and Jesus is the fulfillment of them. Adam rejected Gods word. as in the beginning so it is today. Jesus is the Word of God and being rejected by millions. one of you asked to explain Mary the mother of Jesus. there are many females that are named Mary. a young girl, a virgin, was told by an angle she would be with Child.
the Spirit of God over shadowed her so as to create the Child Jesus just as Isiah fore told. this is Mary the mother of Jesus, a virgin. this is why catholics still call her The Virgin Mary. (i dont pray to her as they do) the Mary that was crying at Jesus feet was older and been a harlot for a long time. thats why the elders were whispering among them selves saying if He was a prophet He would know what manner of woman she is.
as for me to edit your profile, why would i do that. this is america 1st amendment free press. in God we trust. what other country is like that.
j bragg

Mr. Bragg,
I ignored your comment about the claimed resurrection, because I'm not here to debate theology. This is a genealogy site. If you look around, not far from Jesus you will also find Moses, Muhammad, and many of the Greek and Norse gods.

You started this discussion saying Jesus never married. It's your right to say so. But there ARE valid GENEALOGICAL sources for this claim (mostly in the Gnostic writings, but also others). Therefore, please don't confuse theology with genealogy.

For the record, it is rather easy to disprove Isaiah foretold anything of the sort. The Young Woman he was referring to, was his own wife. There are dozen of articulate web-pages explaining this Christian massacre of the actual text. Have a look around.

7/19/2010 at 4:48 AM

Very Smart answer, Shmuel!

As I said Mr. Bragg, this tree here is SHARED by millions of Geni users, not all of whom share the exact same denomination or even religion as you do. So again, I request please don't mix your personal theology in this SHARED tree.

Jesus is once again listed as wed to Mary Magdelene, Of Magdala.

Private User
7/22/2010 at 10:21 AM

thats twice u have said that, but then u dont consider or answer my statements. however i didnt start the conversation. i responded to the conversation the 2 of u where already in dialog over. there would be no interaction if i had not seen ur writing. it was somewhat a duty to inform u of ur error in doctrine. now that i have i no longer feel responsible for ur future in this world or the next. as to me responding to this, u have written 2 times after i responded last time. in responce to Jesus and mary they did not marry. marriage is for children, Jesus did not come to earth to beget childern. in heaven there is no male and female. Jesus being the Son of God, was and is God. Jesus mission was to preach salvation to the jews, but instead they rejected him as their savior, and forced the romans to crucifi him on the cross. his mission was not to have children, but save that which was lost. as to other books, a person can go to the library chose any book and make it their religion of faith. as u know in history man has worshiped moon, stars, earth, animals (reincarnation), imagined demon/man paintings,stone statues, carved wood, sex of man, homosexuality, imagined gods of the air, satan himself (withcraft, black arts) and of course man (as in roman dictators) (and so called saints commanded by the pope). as i stated before Jesus was holy and to remain so he must and could not lay with a woman. either Jesus was a lunatic, liar or the Son of God. the jews rejected Him, salvation then came to the gentiles to those that believe, because abraham believed GOD, it was counted to him as righteousness, this how we are or can be both children of abraham and God. Jesus corrected what adam wronged.
if u reply i will, if not i will not. in any case be well.

Private User
7/22/2010 at 11:20 AM

Shmuel, I agree with you. It's a shared tree. I'd like for Mary Magdalene to stay married to Jesus due to the fact others have newer faith in that they were married.

Private User
7/22/2010 at 11:23 AM

Hell, I don't believe in Faeries and Giants, but who am I to discredit the genealogy of European Royalty. LOL

7/22/2010 at 3:00 PM

Don't you dare mess with the Frost Giants who popped up on my tree. :)

Just to add value, I was explaining the geni.com platform to a Presbyterian minister, mentioned that it shows Jesus as married to Mary Magdalene. She has no problem with it.

Private User
7/22/2010 at 3:46 PM

But someone have unlinked the children....

They are floating around somewhere.

Private User
7/22/2010 at 11:28 PM

WTF that is so rude...who took his children? Shmuel!!!! Find Jesus' kids...they are floating in Geniland.

Private User
7/22/2010 at 11:30 PM

LOL @ Erica. When I was working on the Royal tree for someone in the past, I came across the Giants and Faeries. They lead up to the Abrahamic tree, and I was stoked. At the time I had no idea they were Giants and Faeries. I just thought they had funky names.

However, once I started looking these "people" up, I was like, "I give up...Shmuel, Bjorn, someone, take over the reigns please." Plus, it was a tangled mess after so many merges.

7/23/2010 at 3:05 AM

I see Sariah Sariah as possible son of Jesus and Mary.

7/25/2010 at 9:18 AM

Could We Get Back To The Point! (CWGBTTP)

8/5/2010 at 5:41 PM


Private User
8/5/2010 at 9:27 PM

That's too bad. :(

a much better solution would have been to ask someone else (such as myself, or Mimi who's into celeb. profiles), if they wanted to take over management of the profiles. In general, if you have ANY Biblical profiles you'd like to offload, just tell me, and I'll grab them. I've gotten quite used to taking the flak from pretty much EVERY one. Christians, Muslims, Jews, you name it! As they say if everybody is angry with you, you're probably doing a great job taking the middle-road.

Private User
8/8/2010 at 7:14 AM

The main profile of Mary Magdalene and their 3 children are still out there...

Private User
8/8/2010 at 9:33 AM

Interesting reading by the way: http://www.perillos.com/gimenez.html

8/15/2010 at 1:22 PM

Well, I Guess that i could of handled the situation better.

I'll just put this tag here: St. Mary Magdalene so that people are linked to this discussion when looking at her profile.

Private User
10/14/2010 at 5:39 PM

I am open to the idea of Jesus having children. I feel a oneness with him that I would love to link biologically.
I would prefer it be documented though, without the proper documention or written record couldn't anyone say they are a relative of Jesus?

11/6/2010 at 8:15 AM


On this topic, I'm curious about your documentation. For example, there are ancient writings that say Jesus was married and others that say he was not. Are you basing the inclusion of immediate family and descendants on a preponderance of evidence? If so, I'd be interested to understand the weightings/math.

Thanks a million,


that's a good question. As I explain in the section about Sources of the Biblical Tree Project: http://www.geni.com/projects/Biblical-Tree this is a very difficult issue to deal with. There are literally hundreds of sources, canonical and not, for this period and the traditions involved. So unless I have a specific primary source that says something specific is NOT as listed in the secondary sources, then I tend to not rule it out.

I consider my main primary sources to be the KJV, Quran and the Jewish Bible. I know that it is [Catholic] tradition that Jesus didn't marry, but is this actually sourced? Are these traditions sourced in anything as near in time as other writings, such as those of the Gnostics? If not, we'd have to consider those Gnostic writings also primary sources.

I don't really think that "a preponderance of evidence" is really relevant for periods of time so far removed from the present. Especially so, due to extensive censoring and efforts to destroy all sources that did not match religious dogma of the time(s). It is obvious that even regardless of that, the "official version" would be much more prevalent. As I also said, the historical cultural likelihood of Jesus being single at his age, was about zero. The Catholic "disapproval" of carnal marriage, came at a MUCH later point in time, and many Christians would like to claim that Jesus was the perfect.... Jew.

Some years ago, I had extensive correspondence with a present-day Gnostic, who gave me references to such sources. So I have actually seen them, but not being even remotely Christian, it's a non-issue for me (so I can't recall the exact sources). I'm just doing my job to ensure that all reasonably-valid opinions that are added by people are expressed in the tree. That is also why the profile for Jesus will remain locked: Too many nutcases wanting to impose their theology on other people's genealogy.

Shmuel-Aharon Kam,
Geni Curator

11/7/2010 at 9:00 AM

Marc: I'm guilty there that Jesus-Maria marriage is there. I locked those profiles to prevent continous adding/deleting there.

Becouse there ARE different theories and sources - let they stay there together in Geni.

We can really start the discussion - this will endless. I can point in Johannes Evangelium exact evidences to improve this marriage fact. Lawrence Gardner (and many others) are pointed those facts in hes books.

That kind of discussion are interesting but resultless. Let jump for minutie in Ancient Greek. There is much more conflicting sources. Do we really need to finalize one of them?

I think there is is only one reasonable way to solve similar conflict:

People WHO KNOW EXACTLY what and when - they know.
People WHO ARE SURE that Jesus wasn't married, simply IGNORE the picture they see in geni.
People WHO ARE SURE thet Jesus was married, live peacefully.

And all the side ARE satisfied.

Or is that better we create 2 Jesus. One as son of Mary and God without family. And other as son of Joseph and Mary and with all the family?


11/7/2010 at 11:02 AM

Over the Centuries people have tried to bring God to their level of thinking and its no surprise that in this generation too they want to bring Jesus' personality or divinity to their level! Somehow, many tend to dwell on the non-essentials about Jesus rather than being focussed on the most important fact of what He really means to mankind, as THE WAY, THE TRUTH & THE LIFE!

Private User
11/8/2010 at 6:14 AM

Hi Mimi,
I know this isn't the topic of the discussion but can you give us (me) a link to the faeries & Giants area ? ; - )

I'd like to take a look around.


Showing 1-30 of 89 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion