I would have to say that there is more evidence to support that than there is about most other claims in the New Testament. So Yes.

I believe it's possible, yes.

i don't, but i can't exactly disprove it either.

I do. Read this book if you are interested in this. It devotes a chapter to the question of whether or not Jesus was married and if so to whom. The evidence is looked at in a strict sense of 1st century Palestine Jewish culture. Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes by Schalom Ben-Chorin (translated by Jared S. Klein & Max Reinhart) This is a scholarly book written by a Jewish scholar, not a fictional fluff piece.

Plausible, but as yet I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest it did happen.

I do. There's just too much evidence that they were married. In fact she even states so in her gospel if I'm not mistaken. By John the Baptist himself. She wasn't deemed a prostitute until the council in 530. Or was it 560? The council was trying to stamp out the worship that was developing around her that was elevating her to godess consort of Jesus. And they couldn't have that happening because they were trying to destroy Paganism. It would have also put her in a possiton in the church above not only the disciples, but also Mary of Nazerith. And since they were trying to prove his divinity they couldn't have him acting as a normal man. Until then she was described as a widow. Sometimes a put aside wife. That's why she went to her family to ask permission to be with him. They went to announced his intions to marry her and they had to get her father's permission. I never believed she was a prostitute. It wouldn't have been possible for her and Jesus to meet if she was. Let me put it to you this way if she was a prostitute she would have been a slave and barred from leaving the brothel or bath house unless accompanied by the brothel owner or an employee. She also would have been either sold to the circus as bait for the lions or killed and dumped in the trash pit if she was showing any sign of mental illness. Not taken to a temple for healing. She wouldn't have been allowed in the temple because she was a prostitute and no rabbi would touch her anyways. She could not have owned property because it was illegal for slaves, espeially women slaves, to own property so the house would not have been possible. And she wouldn't know her family because she would have been sold as a very young child. But not by Jewish parents. The Jews have always had a strong adversion to prostition and selling your daughter as one because it would put the family in such shame that they would be shunned by the community. She would have had to have been the daughter of a slave. And even then she would not have been raised as a Jew for several reasons. One of which is that Jews were barred not only by religious law, but by Roman law from running brothels which means she more then likely would have been raised the religion of the owner. And Romans were very anti-Semetic, so the last thing a brothel owner would want was for it to get out that he was using Jewish girls. His customer base would dry up in a heart beat. So she would never have been told she was even a Jew for fear she might slip up and tell a customer. I fully beleive she was a widow. It would have been the only way she could have owned property and moved as freely in socity as she did. And the treatment she was described as recieving at the temple was one for women who were widows or wives that had been put aside that wanted to be purified for remairrage. Not the insane. I think the whole part about his chasing the demons out of her had more to do with the fact that meeting him lifted her out of her grief. Not that she was possesed. Now onto her relationship with Jesus. She could not have been alone with him nor could they have touched let alone hugged or kissed unless they were married. She would have been stoned and he would have been scouraged (beaten). The only time this could have happened was if they were married. She's also called the companion of Jesus which back then meant wife. And he tretaed her as if she was his wife in all things. He even called her the Disciple's Disciple which would have put her in a place above even his most trusted followers. Plus the way they spirited her out of Jerusalem after his resurection suggests to me that she was pregnant and they were in fear for her and the baby's lives from the authorities who would have taken no mercy in killing her or the baby.

I don't and deny it. Jesus is G-d's son, and Jesus had an affection to Mary Magdeline, but not an intimidated affection, he loved her like he loved his people. Mary Magdeline was a prostitute.

There are thousands of proofs and claims saying that Marry magdaline was not Jesus' wife. However, if you wish to believe what 2-3 people claims to be truth, who can deny you?

Yes; significant eventsmay make it appear that way anyway. Let's put it this way: If you had died, and suddenly came back to life again, who would you go to first?? Despite that Jesus had spent much of His last 3 years with His apostles, who were to run His Kingdom after His death, He still appeared to mary first. Then He worried about the others.

wait a second some of these answers say that there is all this evidence...what evidence...so many people say that Jesus didn't even exist becuase there is no evidence of his existence..yet you are saying that there is all this evidence that they were and there is a blood line? Look Dan Brown wrote a great book, but it was Fiction not real made up...there is no evidence that they were married the same evidence some of you have used would be like saying that Jesus and Peter were lovers because Jesus went to Peter and asked him 3 times if he loved him We should try and use a little more logic when making claims Enough evidence that Jesus existed, none to say he was married to Mary

Just another attack by the left on Christianity yo...

It is no important if SHE was Jesus' wife. But, it is far more likely that he was married than single. A blood line COULD perfectly have been set in motion, but not necessarily Mary Magdalene's, and hardly the line mentioned by Dan Brown.

I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I can accept that I simply don't know.

It would have been very odd indeed for a rabbi in Judea to be in his early thirties without being married, don't you think?