Skip to main content

Jesus was called "Rabbi" by the Pharasees and I read Rabbis had to be married men. The Knights Templar had this knowledge that Jesus was married. The Church tried to eliminate this Order. Guess "they knew too much". Other Books of the Bible are eliminated that told the marriage feast of Cana was his wedding to Mary Magdeline. A great slander was done to Mary Magdeline making her to be a whore of little importance. To tell that Jesus was truly all human the Church could not teach he was Divine. Next followed the Oath of Celibacy.

I've read alot of gnostic texts from the link below and I personally thing he was.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest


Your history is lacking. The Church did not try to do away with the Knights Templar, the King of France, Philip the Fair, did.

Philip was the grandson of Louis I (St Louis), and was very jealous of his power. He hated the Church, for it was more powerful and richer in France than he was. That's why he levied heavy taxes (a 50% income tax) against the priests of his kingdom, fought a political battle with the Church and won, building a papal palace in Avignon in the south of France. That made him all the more powerful, because now he could say that the Pope (the one he had installed was weak and ineffectual, just to Philip's liking) was on his side.

The arrest of all the Knights Templar in France on the same day was part of this political war, as was the torture of many of them that followed from it.

Well, he got a lot of money and power out of this action, but that was his aim. He got control of the Knights Templars treasury as well as most of the French banking system, and so he was able to continue planning and fighting his wars.

It wasn't the Church that tried to eliminate them.

Now, following that, the Church held its own investigation of the Templars--they had been accused of "heresy," and a few of them actually seemed to have been guilty of that. However, the Church gave out various punishments for that sin, from fines to imprisonment. But some who confessed to heresy once and repented went back to their old ways, and it was because of their recanting their confessions that, a few years later, in 1309, 54 of the Knights were condemned and burned at the stake. Two strikes and you're out, I guess.

The general council of the Church voted to continue the Order. It was only the pope, under pressure from the king of France, who decreed that the order should be supressed. It was Philip himself who ordered that the Grand Master of the Order be burned. Later that year, Philip himself died in a hunting accident, and Pope Clement V died two years later. The legend started then that the Grand Master, from the flames of his byer summoned both of them to appear before God with him.

But it wasn't the Church fearful of any supposed "truth" that the Knights had. The Knights didn't even exist until the end of he First Crusade in the late 1100s, so they couldn't know anything about Jeus' supposed marriage.

And as for the rest of your post, it is supposition and guesswork, without any facts. Jesus is not officially known as "rabbi," he's only called one occasionally and informally, as an honorific, not as a title. The other "books of the Bible," as you call them, they were kept out of the canon--but not suppressed, as you can tell from the fact that we can still read many of them today--because they had theological problems, not because they made mention of a marriage of Jesus.

Yes, he was at a wedding in Cana, but then, so were many people from the description, and they all didn't marry the bride. You've been a guest at a wedding, right? Most people are. So was Jesus. The book that spoke of it as his own wedding is too late a book to be a reliable witness. The Bible itself says specifically that Jesus was "invited" to the wedding.
And that's all you have to say? You have no more confidence in your position than to give up when faced by a different perspective with reasons to have that perspective?

Yes, you really believe in black unity, don't you? You really want to care for others, don't you?

Or do you just want others to believe as you do without any effort on your part to help them do so?
Originally posted by Afroman:
Your response was just the blind-brother response I expected. Your types only believe in what they are taught in school by the conqueror. I might debate you later or I might not, we shall see.


Good info but.........
I don't see how that is a "blind response". She (Melesi) gave some info to despute what you have said so it only seems fair that you provide some contrasting info and let people decide what is correct or a path to research the issue for themselves.
Are the members of this board intellectually lazy to do the math for themselves? I provided links. What won't you read them for yourself? I might forward further argumentation, or I might not. It's just I don't have the time right now...Besides I don't approve most Melesi's ideas and philosophies. So what is the point debating not only a biased but an unconvincing mind?

I believe and praise Black African Unity yes. But I'm not a belligerent person. I never impose myself ideologically like you do. I'm just a forwarder of Information. I only debate subjects dear to me and the rare times I debate it's never to waste my time. Interpret it, as you want Ms. Melesi.


[This message was edited by Afroman on November 17, 2003 at 01:10 AM.]
Oh well I guess I owe comrade members of this board, further explanation..

Melesi's justification of the Knights of Templar mass assassination is to my belief romantic and false and does not take into account the fact that Catholism and Protestantism both always practice a lot of covering up just so each denomination can have its own identity so to speak or its way of teachings. The Knights of Templar have a very interesting history of the fact that when they were in Jerusalem, they learned a lot besides stealing a lot of gold from the Temple of Solomon. When an Organization wants to cover up facts what it does? It does slander and assassinations. READ what the Church did to those Knights...hummm and I wonder how the Vatican has a lot of gold and fantastic wealth?

To further support my claim that Jesus was married I say the woman sitting next to Jesus, occupying the traditional position of a wife was Mary Magdeline. Under Judaic laws of the time, Jesus could not be a ˜Rabbi' unless he was married. But Jesus marriage and his children are the secret Christianity does not want you to know, because the early Christian church leadership was based on the concept of apostolic descent, which only works if Jesus died without heirs. In the 1200s, the Catholic Church, in order to consolidate power, undertook to erase from the world the descendants of the historical Jesus, and all public record that they had ever existed. In the process, 1/2 the population of Southern France was murdered.

The Last Supper:

Originally posted by Melesi:

Jesus is not officially known as "rabbi," he's only called one occasionally and informally, as an honorific, not as a title.

Do you disagree that Jesus was a rabbi, or are you just saying that he was not called by that title frequently?

There is no passion to be found playing small, in settling for a life
that is less than the one you are capable of living. - Mandela
Originally posted by Afroman:
Are the members of this board intellectually lazy to do the math for themselves? I provided links. What won't you read them for yourself? I might forward further argumentation, or I might not. It's just I don't have the time right now...Besides I don't approve most Melesi's ideas and philosophies. So what is the point debating not only a biased but an unconvincing mind?

I believe and praise Black African Unity yes. But I'm not a belligerent person. I never impose myself ideologically like you do. I'm just a forwarder of Information. I only debate subjects dear to me and the rare times I debate it's never to waste my time. Interpret it, as you want Ms. Melesi.

You seem to be missing the point;
We can exchange links all day but all I want is a reason that I should stop following what I read and have been taught "blindly" and follow what you believe "blindly".

Contrary to what you may believe o' great one, I have read the links, but even with that, there are still questions with the entire issue.

Sure Jesus was married, in fact he had 12 wives, 11 concubines, 10 children, 9 sheep, 8 buildings, 7 deciples (don't belive that other hype), 6 tan torahs, Fiveeeeeeeee Golden rings, 4 blue blankets, 3 blind mice (that's where they orginated), two White Butlers, and 1 millllllllion dollars.

Jesus also had a great sense of humor, so I'm sure he's having a ball with this thread.


... its time for Prosperity


An African American Board Game Of Wealth & Success.


There is no evidence that Jesus was a rabbi. There is no evidence--in fact, all the evidence seems to point in the other way--that he was officially involved with the religion of Israel at all.

Some time ago--a few years, now--I ran across a Russian word for a man universally recognized as holy but who is not ordained nor has taken any vows to join any order. Not knowing Russian I do not remember the word at the moment, but I was struck by Russian having such a word and English not having one. We can describe such a person, but we cannot name one, therefore the whole idea is foreign to us. Not unthinkable, but foreign.

But the idea was not foreign to Israel. Hebrew still has an honorific that recalls such a thought, "reb." It's a short version of "rabbi," and it means almost literally what it says. "Almost a rabbi," "Not a rabbi, but honored almost like one," that sort of thing.

That is the apparent perspective that many in Israel had to Jesus. He was not a follower of any teacher, thus he belonged to no school, he was not trained in the synagogues except as an average Jew, when he began to speak in a synagogue for the first time people were surprised ("Where did he get this knowledge?") because he was not officially one of the learned men.

The Sanhedrim certainly treated him like merely another Jew and not as a "teacher" of the law.

So it isn't merely a matter of not being called a rabbi often, he simply was not a rabbi. When he was caled one, it was a sign of respect on the part of the speaker, not a title.

You are not presenting facts, only what you consider to be commonsensical possibilities.

How could the Knights Templar take a lot of gold from the Temple of Solomon when the Temple had been looted and destroyed by the Roman army a thousand years before? Remember, the Knights Templar did not exist before the end of the First Crusade.

Show us how Catholicism and Protestantism have covered up the belief that Jesus was married.

Now, see what you say about Jesus being married in your last post--

"to further support my claim that Jesus was married I say..."

Come, now, that's like my saying, "To further support my claim that Afroman is really a beagle I say that he likes dogs."

To restate your belief is not a "support" for any claim.

Look, you do a search-engine look for the Knights Templar and Philip the Fair and tell me what you find. Go to a library and look it up. Ask the Encyclopedia Britannica. Then come back and let us know what you have seen reported by authorities who are neither Catholic nor Protestant. You will find that what I have told you about the Knights Templar is historical, it really happened. What you are saying is conspiritorial nonsense based on selected and incomplete information and the gaps filled in by suspicion.

There is simply no way that the Catholic Church could have "erased" truth about Jesus. First, it didn't "erase" anything except what it believed to be heresy, and we still know about those erasures because they did them openly. Second, a very large number of documents have come to light through archeology since the 1200s, and all of them support the Biblical protrayal of Jesus as unmarried. There is no way that the Catholic Church could "erase" documents they never knew existed.

Third, apostolic succession and Jesus having heirs have nothing to do with each other. It wouldn't matter if he had heirs or not, if in fact he did. Peter is still Peter (I am not Catholic, so I do not see him as the first pope, and my apologies to any Catholics on the board, but that's the way I see it) no matter if Jesus had a Simeon and a Judas and a Rachael in his home.

But he didn't, and so far Afroman has shown no evidence that he did. Only suppositions.

And that link--isn't that Da Vinci's "Last Supper"? What does that have to do with whether Jesus was married or not?
Afroman, that's BS. First of all, there is NO evidence in the Bible that Christ ever got married.

The reason Apocryphal books and gnostic texts are not in the Bible is because they contradict the Bible BIGTIME.

In the text, the theory of the Wedding of Cana as being Jesus' wedding is not supported at all.

John 2:
[i][1] And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
[2] And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
[3] And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.

OK if it was HIS wedding, why did she say THEY have no wine? Wouldn't she say "WE ARE OUT OF WINE"?!

[4] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
[5] His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
[6] And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
[7] Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
[8] And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
[9] When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knewWink the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
[10] And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

OK now it's getting obvious...the guy who was running the feast called the BRIDEGROOM to him! IT WAS NOT JESUS!!!

The Bible says Mary Magdalene had had 7 devils cast out of her. It says NOTHING about any idea of her being a whore.

"You liberals with your conspiracy theories are starting to sound like your own version of the John Birch Society"-Rush Limbaugh
Yes I believe Ayesu (Jesus is corrupt Greek name) was married to Mary Magdalene and that they had children as well.

1. Hippolytus, a Christian leader from the late 2nd Century, was followed by Origen in the 3rd Century in saying that the Song of Solomon was a prophecy of a marital union between Christ and Mary Magdalene. Although they believed Mary was symbolic of the Church, nevertheless, the notion presupposed a real, albeit a spiritual (meaning non-sexual), marriage between Mary and Jesus.

2. There are hints scattered in the Gospels of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary. If she is the same Mary of Bethany in John 11, then we can explain why Martha arose to greet Jesus and not Mary. Some scholars say she was sitting shiva according to Jewish custom. "Shiva" was when a woman was in mourning. Married women were not allowed to break-off from their mourning unless called by their husbands. In this story, Mary does not come to Jesus, until He calls her.

At the Resurrection, when Mary meets Jesus in the Garden, there is a degree of intimacy (see the Aramaic here) which one would expect between lovers, not friends.

The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same. Translators must rely upon the context in deciding how to translate it. Sometimes, the translation is arbitrary. When Mary is referred to as a "woman" who followed Jesus, it can just as easily be translated as "wife".

4. The story of Mary with the alabaster jar anointing the feet of Jesus is cited by some scholars as the most direct witness to their marriage. It is in all four Gospels and was a story in which Jesus gave express command that it be preserved. This ceremony was an ancient one among many royal houses in the ancient world, which sealed the marital union between the king and his priestess spouse. We find it mentioned briefly in the Song of Solomon. Although we may not understand its significance, Jesus and Mary knew exactly what they were doing. To be the valid Messiah, He had to be anointed first by the Bride. They were by-passing the corrupt Jewish establishment.

Recommended reading: Was Jesus Married?, by William E. Phipps, Harper & Row, 1970

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, by Margaret Starbird, Bear & Company, 1993
And there's not a stick of truth in this idea. "If" is the big operative word here. In order to make it seem as though Jesus was married we have to read into the texts and then suppose. There's no statement that he was married, and not even any hints. That's why we have to suppose so much.

Frankly, I don't care if he was or not. It wouldn't make a lick of difference to his teaching. But some of us have to press this subject out of all proportion to make it look as though there is some big coverup in progress in order to discredit Christianity.

Thus, there is most likely an ulterior motive for much of what is posted here.

There simply is no proof that he was married. That's why people have to say, "I believe that he was..."
There is plenty of evidence that Jesus was married. The Aramaic word Jesus referred to Mary Magdalene was "wife". She washed his feet (only wives could wash the feet of their husbands), as well as the very loving Aramaic exchange between Jesus and Mary Magdalene after his Resurrection.

The people who say there is "no proof" are ignoring Jewish traditions and ignoring the Aramaic language. They are relying on the flawed English translations, and ignoring the Jewish traditions that point to Jesus being married and pretending as if Jesus lived in the 20th century Western world. Only a married Jewish man was allowed to be a rabbi. There is no way Jesus could have been a teacher if he was single.

Like I said, many Christians regard Jesus's marriage as "impious" simply on theological grounds, not anything to do with actual history.
I'm glad to see that you read the Aramaic originals of Jesus' words. How long have you done that?

Then you'll know that there is no difference between the Aramaic for "wife" and for "woman," and that it is only context that distinguishes between one use of "etssa" and the other. So just because "Etssa" appears in the text (which text do you read, anyway?) it doesn't by itself mean "wife." The same obtains in Greek and Hebrew, too.

Moreover, in Luke 7:38 a woman washes his feet and a Pharisee is "indignant" at this, for she is not related to him, yet she does it and Jesus lets her and the Pharisee doesn't stop her.

So apparently it was not only a wife who washed feet.

And Jesus was not a real "rabbi," someone trained in a school for rabbis, which is why sometimes he is called "rabboni" and when he is called "rabbi," it's an honorific, a courtesy title, more like the Russian word "starets," meaning a holy layman, one recognized for his godliness and wisdom but never ordained.

And as for the "very loving exchange," between Jesus and Mary after his resurrection, Yes, "Stop holding onto me" is very loving. "Go, tell..." is very loving. The fact that he associated more iwth his disciples than with Mary is very loving. And didn't he have loving exchanges with people who were not his wife?

No, saying that there is no proof is not a matter of ignoring the facts or relying on flawed translations (I read Hebrew and Greek, by the way). It is a result of reading the text. Many times.

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.