Questions about Christ ?

[mikbone]

He had not yet attained perfection. That came after the resurrection.

Granted.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

3 Ne. 12:48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

But then again logically I can argue that it is not marriage which makes one perfect. More likely, the act of atonement and resurrection is what probably made Christ perfect.

[marts1]

I have a very good friend who lives a good life, is a temple worker and such who has said for years that Jesus must have been married during his mortal life here. As for myself, I have no idea one way or the other. I do believe it was not neccesary.

[Dravin]

He had not yet attained perfection. That came after the resurrection.

I'd like to point out for others that what is being said isn't that he was sinful. He was sinless (and thus perfect in that respect), but he lacked an immortal perfected body (it would have interfered with being crucified if that wasn't the case) until after his was resurrected.

[Just_A_Guy]

3) And furthermore, it says that after the wedding, Jesus went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, not home with His wife to consummate His marriage as was the Jewish custom.

As I understand it, at this point in Jesus' ministry, Capernaum was "home" for Him. Matthew 4 tells us He moved there after the temptations in the wilderness.

My own inclination is that Cana was not Jesus' own wedding, but I think it's important not to overplay the historical/biblical hand here.

As for Christ's "marriage" to the Church--unless you're going to tell me that He's going to consummate his "marriage" to the Church, then I don't see how the scriptures you cite rule out Christ's also being married to a woman in the traditional sense.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[SLC2002GOLD]

I'm new here, but will jump in with both feet. As I've read this thread and others, my question is simple. How does the Savior's earthly marital status affect our Salvation?

[lizzy12]

well i was just thinking- he was baptized as an example for us correct ?

So why not married as an example for us...but then it was never recorded. :)

[cassiebea]

I think he had to have been married. If marriage is necessary for Celestial Exaltation then you can use the same argument for why he was baptized. We all have to be baptized including Christ. We all have to be married including Christ.

However, I would use the same argument for the reason we don't know much about "Mother in Heaven". God wants to protect her and make sure she is not slandered. Thus, we don't talk about her. I think for the same reason there are not mentions of Christ's wife.

Angela

http://scriptures4kids.com

[JohnOF123]

As for Christ's "marriage" to the Church--unless you're going to tell me that He's going to consummate his "marriage" to the Church, then I don't see how the scriptures you cite rule out Christ's also being married to a woman in the traditional sense.

Hehe (consummation), yea well I suppose reality is setup in parallels. So we are supposed to treat our own wife as Christ treats the Church, also when the bridegroom is joined with His bride, there will be a great banquet, and the consummation part is probably there, though it will not be sex, lol. But I won't say that I know for a fact Jesus was married, but in my own theological viewpoints, I'd say it doesn't line up with them and has no Biblical support. But I do respect your views on this too.

[pyxiwulf]

Well, according to the RCC Church at least.

That's nearly all the proof I need to tell me the gnostic scriptures hold truth

I think he had to have been married. If marriage is necessary for Celestial Exaltation then you can use the same argument for why he was baptized. We all have to be baptized including Christ. We all have to be married including Christ.

That's a huge sticking point for me too. I have no problem with the idea that he was married and generally assume he was. If Heavenly Father has a partner, why wouldn't Jesus too? I've never assumed that just because it's not in the Standard Works it didn't happen. Gosh, if we went with that line of thinking, the restoration would not have happened!

It's entirely possible it's been written and is lost, that the gnostic scriptures hold truths, that we don't have anything to gain from the knowledge, or that we are not yet ready for it.

[cassiebea]

You know when I first considered whether Christ was married I was in Jerusalem with Truman Madsen. I heard people discussing it with Truman and what I heard at first upset me. Truman was of the opinion that Christ was married.

But as time went on throughout the trip, I became more and more convinced that Christ was married. There are so many things that say to me that he was. By the time the trip was over I was completely at peace with it and I had many manifestations of the spirit of why it was so: 1) Everyone, including Christ, must have all the ordinances in order to be exalted. = he was married 2) Christ experienced everything we must experience = he must have experienced marriage 3) I think the marriage where he provided the wine was Christ's 4) I think that the washing of the feet with Mary was an ordinance that was being conveyed in the scriptures.

I could keep going on. But I think that it just makes sense. If Christ really is JUST LIKE GOD then there is no question he was married.

But again, I think that God protects those things that are most sacred. I think that throwing it out there that Christ was married would have set up his wife to be discussed and treated with disrespect throughout the ages. That is just not how God works. He protects the sacred. Christ's wife is simply being protected.

Angela

Scriptures 4 Kids

[marts1]

I think it was justice who mentioned it wouldn't matter if Jesus was married or not as yet. He could just as easily have it happen during the millenium. Could even take place at a temple tonight for that matter.:)

[lizzy12]

1) Everyone, including Christ, must have all the ordinances in order to be exalted. = he was married 2) Christ experienced everything we must experience = he must have experienced marriage 3) I think the marriage where he provided the wine was Christ's 4) I think that the washing of the feet with Mary was an ordinance that was being conveyed in the scriptures.

Angela

Scriptures 4 Kids

Love your comments ! So dissucing this with someone irl. Thanks !

[cassiebea]

What does irl mean?

[lizzy12]

in real life. Sorry.

[Justice]

John 2:9

And the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.

He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.

I assuming you meant "did not know", but thought I would point that out in-case you misread something. KJV says the same thing if you'd like to check.

I don't know what version you're using, but they've made some quite liberal interpretations...

... or dare I say assumptions.

[JohnOF123]

I don't know what version you're using, but they've made some quite liberal interpretations...

Hehe, you're a goofball Justice.

I'm pretty sure they say the same thing, at least here.

Remember, your original claim was that the ruler of the feast knew.

John 2:9 KJV

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 knew;)

John 2:9 NIV

And the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.

He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.

I'd say this is pretty good evidence that you like to debate me just to disagree. If I let you hit me with that gavel a few times, can we start getting along, hehe.

Edited February 21, 2010 by JohnOF123

[Justice]

Oh... LOL... geeez...

You need to follow the whole thought I made. You confused me by not posting the whole verse... or even the next one.

John 2:

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 knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

Look, when he (the ruler) tasted it he didn't know where it came from. Obviously impressed with the quality of the wine, it appears he was curious where it came from. Those who drew the wine, or poured it and gave it to him knew. It seems as if he asked them a simple question, "Where did you get this wine?" They, obviously, got the wine from Jesus. After this exchange, the ruler 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.

The transition is that he addressed the bridegroom as he knew it was the bridegroom who supplied the wine. So, yes, before this encounter, you are correct, he did not know. But, after this encounter, his words suggest he DID know. The insert in the prior verse (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) *makes it sound as if* those servants who drew him the wine told him where they got it...

Now, he approached the bridegroom and didn't ask where it came from. He asked him pointedly why he withheld the good wine until the last. This *seems* as if he now KNEW who supplied the wine, and that person was the bridegroom.

So, briefly, since Jesus supplied the wine, and the ruler of the feast called the one who provided the wine to ask him why he saved the best for last, it *seems to* name him as the bridegroom.

I don't think it's a far reach. If "ruler of the feast" is the same as "governor of the feast" then it's possible this progression is correct. I believe it is the same person. If you read the story progression it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

As I said, possible evidence... not proof.

So, the reason the ruler of the feast called the bridegroom was NOT to ask him where the wine came from... it was to ask him why he withheld it till the last. If he still did not know where it came from, he would have asked the bridegroom where it came from. He didn't. It *NOW* appears he is addressing the one that he knew supplied the wine and asked him why he saved it until last.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Justice

[Justice]

Hehe, you're a goofball Justice.

My kids would quite agree with you on this. :)

I'd say this is pretty good evidence that you like to debate me just to disagree.

Actually, on the contrary, I have learned the best tactic in debates is to find every possible agreement first. I typically avoid disagreements until later. However, you and I seem to disagree on just about everything. :)

That's OK though.

[JohnOF123]

You have a very interesting way of reading the Bible. But if you want to believe he knew where the wine came from, that is okay by me.

I just don't see it. For some reason, I can only find that he didn't know where the wine came from. In fact, if this were a question on a test, and you put "he knew" even though it says "he did not" know, I could see you trying to talk your way out of it to the instructor as well. Or maybe everyone would get it wrong and you would get it right because you see the hidden meaning. I just can't comprehend why the Bible would ever not be clear about something spoken so clearly. Everything has always seemed clear to me, and I gotta say it still is.

We should start a poll Justice, lol. That would be funny. No reasoning, absolutely no addition info. No bold letters what we want them to see. Just make the thread poll question "QUIZ: Who knew where the wine came from?". Only list the scripture from v1 to v11, just plain, with nothing bolded or sticking out.

And the multiple choice questions could be

Jesus

Jesus and His Disciples

Jesus, His Disciples, and the servants

Jesus, His Disciples, the servants, and the Ruler of the Feast

And only complete strangers can vote.

If a majority picks the last one, I will never question your wise ways again. I will listen to what you have to say.

Edited February 21, 2010 by JohnOF123

[Justice]

Interesting, but one thing I have learned is that the majority can never decide truth. I admit it's not in black and white, but I am a bit surprised you don't see the story progression as at least interesting in this regard.

I have to ask this... are you saying you can't see where the ruler of the feast knew it was the bridegroom when he approached him; how he pointedly asked him "why did you...?" and not "where did the...?" You honestly can't see it? Not even with the exchange that surely took place between the ruler and the sevants when they served him the wine?

You're saying it has absolutely no merit?

[JohnOF123]

Interesting, but one thing I have learned is that the majority can never decide truth. I admit it's not in black and white, but I am a bit surprised you don't see the story progression as at least interesting in this regard.

I have to ask this... are you saying you can't see where the ruler of the feast knew it was the bridegroom when he approached him; how he pointedly asked him "why did you...?" and not "where did the...?" You honestly can't see it? Not even with the exchange that surely took place between the ruler and the sevants when they served him the wine?

You're saying it has absolutely no merit?

I think the wine was soooo tasty that the ruler of the feast called the groom forward

and proclaimed to the entire crowd (as a grand compliment)

"They did so, 9and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said,

Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." (crowd cheers, everyone's happy, clinks their glasses together and drinks) Lol, how you like my emphasis?

The ruler apparently thought that he was just keeping the wine until last. And then he complimented him (I think). He never investigated where it had come from. I cannot see it any other way. I tried reading it again and cannot. (Sorry about the NIV, feel free to read the KJV too)

Edited February 21, 2010 by JohnOF123

[Justice]

Fair enough.

I'll stick with the KJV.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Justice