Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The reality is that there is not a single text from the ancient world (Christian or otherwise) that has Jesus and Mary Magdalene married.
Scholars have pointed out that it wouldn’t matter if there were. The New Testament teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh isn’t marred or overturned by the fact that he was married. It’s just that there is zero evidence he was married to Mary Magdalene or any other woman. The idea is a hoax that still has life after Dan Brown.
In 2012, Harvard professor Karen King was duped by a clever forger into believing that he had given her a Coptic text fragment that had Jesus uttering the words “my wife.” It took a few years, but Coptic experts were able to prove the forgery with conclusive evidence.
Dive deeper into this topic: fringepop321.com/mary-magdalene-and-jesus
#BiblicalScholarship #DanBrown #ChristianApologetics
The reality is that there is not a single text from the ancient world (Christian or otherwise) that has Jesus and Mary Magdalene married.
Scholars have pointed out that it wouldn’t matter if there were. The New Testament teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh isn’t marred or overturned by the fact that he was married. It’s just that there is zero evidence he was married to Mary Magdalene or any other woman. The idea is a hoax that still has life after Dan Brown.
In 2012, Harvard professor Karen King was duped by a clever forger into believing that he had given her a Coptic text fragment that had Jesus uttering the words “my wife.” It took a few years, but Coptic experts were able to prove the forgery with conclusive evidence.
Dive deeper into this topic: fringepop321.com/mary-magdalene-and-jesus
#BiblicalScholarship #DanBrown #ChristianApologetics

![We Cannot Be That Literal...
So just a few examples… This is really easy to demonstrate. Let’s go to Romans 1:13. Paul’s writing:
13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you…
What, he doesn’t want the men in the church to be ignorant of this, but it’s fine if the women are ignorant of it? The women don’t need to know that he really wanted to visit them? That just doesn’t make sense.
Romans 7:4:
4 Likewise, my brothers [adelphoi], you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
The women don’t need to do that? Just the men? It’s only the men who’ve died to the Law through the body of Christ that they may bear fruit for God? Women are included in this. I could just go on and on and on and on with these kinds of examples. I’m not going to belabor the point, but I think it’s worth bringing up.
Do not be misled, either by English translations or by the rhetoric that goes with this, that it’s always inappropriate to have a gender-neutral translation. If I were doing this, I’d say, “…to the holy ones and faithful men and women in Christ at Colossae,” because hey, there’s faithful women there, too. And elsewhere, Paul uses the very same term to obviously include women in what he’s talking about. It’s just transparently obvious.
Read the full article: https://drmsh.com/which-bible-translation-a-few-thoughts/
#BibleStudy #GreekLanguage #BibleTranslation #RomansChapter #BiblicalTheology We Cannot Be That Literal...](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ob4zqPxAmgw/mqdefault.jpg)








