Did a common law marriage exist between Mary Magdalene & Jesus Christ?
452557
No, the Bible, nor any other manuscript says that they were married. The Da Vinci Code is a lie, and attempts to undermine the Christian faith. Jesus came for one reason, to save mankind!
580625
Well, that would make him more human than divine (or, at least, in some people's minds, detract from his divinity).  For pretty much the same reason, the Catholic Church upholds the idea that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a perpetual virgin.  (They state that she and Joseph never consummated their marriage.  To have had siblings would have made Jesus too human.  People would have pointed to the mortality of the siblings as arguement that Jesus was merely a human philosopher.)\nAlso, a belief system that would have allowed for such an idea as the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene would have set up a complicated sytem of privilege.  Claimants of descent from Jesus would have caused huge political consequences, if such claims didn't otherwise doom the religion early on.\nIn short, such a belief would have complicated the religion.
69470
Get this book:\nThe Gospels of Mary : The Secret Tradition of Mary Magdalene, the Companion of Jesus (Hardcover)\nby Marvin Meyer, Esther A. De Boer \nIsbn 0060727918
643616
There are Gnostic Gospels that talk about him kissing Mary on the mouth.  There are also clues in the New Testament that may point to him being married.  For instance, the annointing would have ended in stoning for both him and the woman if they were not married.\n\nIn addition it would have been totally abnormal for a Jewish Rabbi not to be married at that time period.\n\nThere are also legends and many tales in Southern France of Mary Magdalene coming there with a child.
664647
The fact that the early Catholic church made MM out to be a prostitute (even though the Christian bible does not say this anywhere), is evidence to support that they had something against her. This tradition goes back to saint Peter who, according to the [banned] gnostic scriptures indicate that he was against "the woman". Now just look at the mindset of those Roman Catholics who burned gnostics and their writings, and imagine that these are the ones who chose the books for the bible. Do you think they were honest? No, the Magdalene was not a whore, not even demon-possessed, she was the son of man's consort.
924064
1) The love of Jesus' life was mankind, whom He came and died for, not Mary Magdalene.\n2) Mary Magdalene is never called a prostitute in the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church removed this label from her in the 6th century.
410323
The Secret Gospel of Mark (not part of the official Christian canon) implies that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Lazarus. \n\nWhether Jesus was gay, or had children with Mary Magdalene, is all just speculation. We really don't know anything about Jesus beyond what's written in the gospels...and the gospels were written long after Jesus' death.
319825
No, according to the Bible it never said Jesus was married, nor did he have a daughter. His bride is the church and he is coming back for his church soon.
1168190
No....law does not recognize a "common law" marriage.  It is thought of more like a partnership.
112680
The da vinci code basically says that jesus was married to mary magdalene and that they had a daughter who later had descendents who survive to this very day in france. It also says that the church is trying to supress this knowledge. It further says that Jesus was not divine, just a good mortal teacher. Book raises some good points but is filled with truths, half truths and rumor all mixed together.
594482
Here is some facts for you.  Although the book by Dan Brown was fiction there was alot of research behind the events they describe in the bible.  As for the marriage although the bible does not come out and say Jesus married anyone the fact remains the he was a Rabi. To be a Rabi you needed to be married. If he was not married it would have been very odd in that time and alot of people would have wrote about it.  Lets also not forget that the bible is a collection of books that man wrote.  The fact is that there were thousands of people that followed Jesus around and the Roman ruler constantine only chose the books that made Jesus appear to be the son of "God".  He had a bunch of other writings burned if they showed Jesus to be more man like.  Also Mary would have not been allowed to follow Jesus around unless she was family with someone that did follow Jesus.  It still is a strict policy today in the middle east.  To top that off the bible says right out, I think it was Matthew that says it....he asks the other people "Why does Jesus love her (Mary) more than us.  It also states that Jesus kisses Mary unlike any other.  Try this book on for size its not fiction it is historical research.....called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" very interesting read and it talks about the possible bloodline of Jesus.
1095796
In common law, if a man and woman live together as husband and wife and present themselves as such to the community, they are considered married for all intents and purposes. This typically requires them to be together for a certain period of time. Not many states now recognize common law marriage.
953523
generally......Yes......\nYou can still live by mosaic Law but\n"Live by the Law.....Die by the Law"\nOnly One has ever been perfect....Jesus.
1019817
Which story?\n\n* The story of Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu?  They're fictional characters, the invention of the author.\n\n* The story that Jesus and Mary of Magdala were married and had children?  It seems unlikely -- although the Bible doesn't specifically say that Jesus was *not* married, (1) it would be a strange thing to omit considering that even Simon Peter's mother-in-law gets a mention, (2) none of the early church historians say anything about it in their writings, and (3) the Gnostic books that imply the possibility of romantic relationships between Jesus and MM were all written, at the earliest, 120 years after the fact.\n\n* The story of the Priory of Sion?  I think it's been fairly well established that, at the very least, Dan Brown (as well as the authors of /Holy Blood, Holy Grail/, one of his major sources ) was duped by the hoax -- see Wikipedia's entry on Pierre Plantard for more details.  Based on Brown's own statements and writings, however, I get the impression he's trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this one, so I'm having a hard time imagining him as an innocent victim of Plantard's ruse.
1005878
The essential distinctions of a common law marriage are:\n\nCommon law marriages are not licensed by government authorities. \nCommon law marriages are not blessed by religious authorities. \nCommon law marriages are not solemnized. \nThere is no public record of a common law marriage (i.e., no marriage certificate). \nIn most jurisdictions, cohabitation alone does not amount to common law marriage; the couple in question must hold themselves out to the world to be husband and wife. \nIn some jurisdictions, a couple must have cohabited and held themselves out to the world as husband and wife for a minimum length of time for the marriage to be recognised as valid. \nOtherwise, the requirements are the same for common law marriage as they are for statutory marriage, i.e., the parties must mutually consent to be married, be of legal age or have their parents' permission, and so on.\n\nThere is no such thing as "common law divorce." Once a marriage is validly contracted, whether according to statute or according to common law, the marriage can only be dissolved by a legal proceeding in the pertinent trial court (usually family court or probate court).\n\nSince the mid-1990's, the term "common-law marriage" has been used in parts of Europe and Canada to describe various types of domestic partnership between persons of the same sex as well as persons of the opposite sex. Although these interpersonal statuses are often, as in Hungary, called "common-law marriage" they differ from true common-law marriage in that they are not legally recognized as "marriages" but are a parallel interpersonal status, known in most jurisdictions as "domestic partnership" or "registered partnership."\n\nCommon-law marriage can still be contracted in the following states and capital district: Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Note there is no such thing as "common-law divorce" - that is, you can't get out of a common-law marriage as easily as you can get into one. Only the contract of the marriage is irregular; everything else about the marriage is perfectly regular. People who marry per the old common law tradition must petition the appropriate court in their state for a dissolution of marriage.
780714
Mary and Martha were the sisters of Lazarus, and they along with Mary Magdalen were followers of Jesus.\nJohn was called the beloved disciple.
457976
romadgo..utter rubbish!...Nothing wrong in common law marriages, I do not live in the US, I am pagan and as a pagan I got 'wed' we had a handfastening ceremony.  Just because its not recognised by law doesnt mean it doesnt work.  Many of my friends live with their life partner, and have kids. A piece of paper doesnt keep you together, love does