Questions about Christ ?

[lizzy12]

Why do you think little is included about Christs teenage years ?

Do you think he ever married..(Mary Magdalen ) ?

These aren't exactly LDS based questions but still church related.

In YW a peer brought up how weird it would be to have a crush on Christ- I found it very amusing.... and just wanted to share.

[JudoMinja]

There are two possible answers to your question:

1. The scritpures include all doctrine that is important to lead to our salvation. In Christ's teenage/young adult years, he had not yet begun his ministry. While I am sure there would be much interesting information in these years of his life, whatever happened did not contain any doctrine necessary for our salvation. This is why it is not included.

2. The scriptural writings of these years of his life include doctrine we are not ready to receive and will be found with the other books of scripture we will be given when all the tribes are gathered and Christ comes again. We learn line upon line, and perhaps, his teenage years contain information that is too advanced for our current understanding of the gospel. In that case, we will receive it, eventually. When the world is ready.

[marts1]

2. The scriptural writings of these years of his life include doctrine we are not ready to receive and will be found with the other books of scripture we will be given when all the tribes are gathered and Christ comes again. .

First time I have heard this. Is there a source for that?

[pam]

I'm thinking its more that the scriptures talk about his ministry, his death and his resurrection. As he could not start his ministry until the age of 30, other than his birth and a couple of stories of his youth, the scriptures focus mainly on him from age 30 on.

[Dravin]

2. The scriptural writings of these years of his life include doctrine we are not ready to receive and will be found with the other books of scripture we will be given when all the tribes are gathered and Christ comes again. .

First time I have heard this. Is there a source for that?

I doubt she has one as she was presenting hypotheticals as to why we don't have the writings.

[marts1]

now I see says the blind man

[JudoMinja]

Yes, my answers were hypothetical and pure speculation.

[JohnOF123]

1) Why do you think little is included about Christs teenage years ?

2) Do you think he ever married..(Mary Magdalen ) ?

These aren't exactly LDS based questions but still church related.

In YW a peer brought up how weird it would be to have a crush on Christ- I found it very amusing.... and just wanted to share.

Hi there :)

1) Evidently, this is all God determined that we needed to know. There are some extra-Biblical writings which contain stories of Jesus’ youth (the Gospel of Thomas, for example). But we have no way of knowing whether any of these stories are true and reliable. God chose not to tell us much about Jesus’ childhood – so we have to just trust Him that nothing occurred which we need to know about. (Some answer huh, lol)

2) There is no reason historically or biblically that Jesus was married. While some of the Gnostic gospels mention Jesus having a close relationship with Mary Magdalene, none of them specifically states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, or had any romantic involvement with her. The closest any of them come is saying that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene, which just as easily could be a reference to a “friendly kiss.” Further, even if the Gnostic gospels directly stated that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, they would have no authority, as the Gnostic gospels have all been proven to be forgeries invented to create a Gnostic view of Jesus.

Remember, the Bible mentions Jesus’ mother, adoptive father, half-brothers, and half-sisters, but no wife.

Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came:

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” -gotquestion.org

[mrmarklin]

Since the road to exhaltation is through marraige it is logical in LDS doctrine that the Christ was married. After all the Christ was baptized so why shouldn't He have been married too?

It has been postulated that the marraige in Cana was His wedding (His mother was evidently in charge). It also strikes me as significant that the first person to see Him after the crucifixion was Mary Magdalene-even before any of the apostles!

Of course there is no scriptural evidence of His marraige, but logic says that it must be so.

[mikbone]

Logically one could argue that since Jehovah was a God prior to coming to Earth as Jesus Christ, he must have been married previously.

[JohnOF123]

Since the road to exhaltation is through marraige it is logical in LDS doctrine that the Christ was married. After all the Christ was baptized so why shouldn't He have been married too?

It has been postulated that the marraige in Cana was His wedding (His mother was evidently in charge). It also strikes me as significant that the first person to see Him after the crucifixion was Mary Magdalene-even before any of the apostles!

Of course there is no scriptural evidence of His marraige, but logic says that it must be so.

I think Jesus was definitely unique, whereas He doesn't have to be married.

Like I said, the Bible mentions Jesus’ (1)mother, (2)adoptive father, (3)half-brothers, and (4)half-sisters, but no wife.

Many other people's wives and women are mentioned.

I understand the Cana marriage idea wasn't your postulation, but I thought I should point this out.

With all respect, there is no way the marriage in Cana was Jesus's.

This can be seen easily by just reading John 2.

1) Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

2) Jesus didn't live in Cana, His family didn't, Mary didn't.

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.

Probably more reasons, but that will hopefully do.

Edited February 20, 2010 by JohnOF123

[JohnOF123]

Logically one could argue that since Jehovah was a God prior to coming to Earth as Jesus Christ, he must have been married previously.

From an LDS view, I sorta see where you are coming from. Now I understand that you believe Jesus was the first spirit child of many, and that humans were spirit children also... but does this speculation of yours mean that LDS believe Jesus was human before His birth by Mary? (a full human life where He progressed to God) Do you know what I mean, not sure if I expressed that correctly.

Since in LDS theology, Jesus would have to be human at least once in order to go from spirit child to man to exalted man. Or am I way off here?

Edited February 20, 2010 by JohnOF123

[heatwaveo8]

Logically one could argue that since Jehovah was a God prior to coming to Earth as Jesus Christ, he must have been married previously.

That's actually not correct.

Temple sealings, like any other covenants we make with God, can only be performed in a body. That is the whole reason we have temple work for the dead, because they can't perform baptisms and other covenants in the Spirit world. We have to do it for them.

Christ didn't have a body yet in the pre-earth life, and so He couldn't have been married before coming to earth. And when we do sealing work in the temple, it is only for people who have already died.

Edited February 20, 2010 by heatwaveo8

[mikbone]

Jehovah is special. Of this there is no doubt.

He is the Firstborn in the spirit. And the Only Begotten in the Flesh.

While we are struggling through this mortal life, He was able to live a sin free life and served as our Savior. He was the personage who delivered the 10 commandments to Moses. During the pre-exiestence he was described as "one like unto God" (Abraham 3:24).

I think that sometimes we get confused if we try to compare our lives to his life. And his experiences.

[heatwaveo8]

Yeah that's true mikbone.... it's actually kind of confusing me now.

For us, marriage ceremonies can only happen in a body, be it for the living or the dead. Christ could have been married to someone while in mortality. But the sealing powers were gone between the time of Elijah and the time of Joseph Smith. Therefore, if our rules applied to the people who lived between Elijah and Christ, they all would have been resurrected without being sealed, including Christ Himself. And Christ has said that in the Resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage. So with our rules, Christ would have been resurrected without ever being sealed.

It makes me think that Christ likely had an exception to our rules of some kind, and maybe the faithful who lived between Elijah's time and Christ's time have received the same exception to it as well. One of these days we'll know the answers, but more importantly, God is fair with all of His children, and everyone will have the same opportunity to receive all of His blessings.

Edited February 20, 2010 by heatwaveo8

[Justice]

Since the road to exhaltation is through marraige it is logical in LDS doctrine that the Christ was married. After all the Christ was baptized so why shouldn't He have been married too?

It has been postulated that the marraige in Cana was His wedding (His mother was evidently in charge). It also strikes me as significant that the first person to see Him after the crucifixion was Mary Magdalene-even before any of the apostles!

Of course there is no scriptural evidence of His marraige, but logic says that it must be so.

I also think this progression is interesting:

John 2:

3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no 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.

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 knew; ) 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.

If "governor of the feast" is interchangeable with "ruler of the feast" then this *can be* telling.

First of all, Jesus' mother was apparently in charge of the drink (and presumably food) at the feast. In Jewish tradition it was the mother of the bridegroom's responsibility. So, there is a good chance that this wedding is for one of Mary's sons, or possibly one of her nephews and she was helping. Also, the "servants" may have been her other sons (possibly changed to servants for certain unnamed reasons, or maybe they were called servants because they were there helping).

Then Mary has the servants do whatever Jesus tells them to do. Jesus has them prepare the water that He will change to wine. So, the servants knew where the wine came from (verse 9 makes a specific effort to point this out).

Jesus tells them specifically to give wine to the governor of the feast... probably the presiding Rabbi. Verse 9 can be read to mean that the governor of the feast asked the servants who gave them the wine where it came from, or at the very least the servants offered him the information of where it came from.

With this information, the ruler of the feast (the story seems to be saying it was the same person as the governor of the feast) called the bridegroom and asked him where the water came from, then knowing the source of the wine as Jesus.

So, if Jesus provided the wine, and the servants told the ruler of the feast where they got it, that means the ruler of the feast went to the source of the wine and asked him where he got it, which it names as the bridegroom. In a round-a-bout way this could be naming Jesus as the bridegroom.

Is it proof? No, but if you read it close it's very interesting. It very well can be understood as Jesus' wedding. There's as much evidence to suggest that it is, as to suggest that it isn't.

This, together with many other things in the Bible, it *seems* as if Jesus was married.

There used to be a coverted Jew in our ward and this man shed a lot of light on this subject for me. Like, even the fact that Jesus was called Rabbi meant He was married, because that was one of the prerequisites to being a Rabbi (much like our Bishops). Also, that He taught in the temple was another indication that He was married, for the same reason. Another story that has evidence that He was married is found in Lazarus' death. Then, as has been mentioned, Mary M. was the first person to see the risen Lord, and even more evidence is found is the story of those who prepared His body for burial.

Anyway, of course, we know the Bible isn't translated perfectly, and the Church has never issued a binding statement, but I believe He was married. I don't think He had to be. I believe He is coming back to the earth to live and reign here, so it could happen then.

[Justice]

Looking back over my notes I took with my many coversations with this man, it is also a Jewish tradition, he claims even still today, that the bridegroom supplies the wine at the wedding feast, and that could be why Mary went to Jesus when it ran out.

Again, evidence, not proof.

[Justice]

With all respect, there is no way the marriage in Cana was Jesus's.

We just need to be careful what we call "proof."

1) Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

It says they were "called" to the wedding, which doesn't have to mean invited. This actually was a custom to be called to the wedding feast when it was prepared (dinner bell, if you will).

2) Jesus didn't live in Cana, His family didn't, Mary didn't.

That this can be used as definite proof is baffling. People frequently get married in another place than where they live. I did.

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.

2 points about this one. There are a lot of details left out between verses 11 and 12. I know that must come as a shock to someone who believes the Bible is the only perfect word of God, but it's true.

Obviously, this feast lasted late into the evening. It stands to reason they didn't leave to Capernaum, at least, until the next morning. I see nothing in the text to suggest after Jesus provided the wine, they immediately ended the feast and left to go out of town.

To you Christians who believe the Bible is the complete and perfect word of God: The Bible is not meant to be a thesis on every sinlge detail of Christ's life. There are parts missing. Christ did many things that aren't written in the Bible. This belief is closing your mind to the Book of Mormon. For instance, we know He visited the America's after His resurrection, even though it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

People really need to start reading the scriptures with an open mind instead of trying to force their opinions into every single passage.

[Justice]

Also, see in verse 10 (John 2) where the ruler of the feast now seems to know where the wine came from, and addresses the bridegroom directly as being responsible (as if he was told). He did not approach him and say "where did the wine come from," he addresses him as if he knew he was the one that provided it.

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.

[JohnOF123]

I think Justice is claiming here that Jesus is being summoned, not invited, to His own wedding in Cana.

It says they were "called" to the wedding, which doesn't have to mean invited. This actually was a custom to be called to the wedding feast when it was prepared (dinner bell, if you will).

Hehe, Justice you crack me up.

And you were right about one thing, Jesus is getting married when He returns. Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is His bride.

2 Corinthians 11:2 (Paul's letter to the Church in Corinth)

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

Revelation 21:1–2

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Revelation 19:7–9

Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, “Write:‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’

In Corinthians, Paul wrote the above as a letter to the Church. He called Christ the bridegroom and the Church His bride.

In Revelations, John saw the wedding and described it. Does this sound like any wedding you've ever been to?

Probably wasn't Mary Magdeline, or any woman, unless she's described as a Holy City coming down out of Heaven, but that's just my interpretation.

What's you interpretation?

Just a reminder, I'm not trying to tell the LDS people that Christ never married in this response, though there is no Biblical or Historical support for it as I claimed earlier. In this post I am confidentially pointing out that this was clearly not Jesus's wedding in Cana. I think everyone here would probably agree with me on that one.

Edited February 20, 2010 by JohnOF123

[JohnOF123]

Also, see in verse 10 (John 2) where the ruler of the feast now seems to know where the wine came from

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.

[mnn727]

the Gnostic gospels have all been proven to be forgeries invented to create a Gnostic view of Jesus.

Well, according to the RCC Church at least.

Remember: the winners write the history, not the losers.

[mnn727]

Logically one could argue that since Jehovah was a God prior to coming to Earth as Jesus Christ, he must have been married previously.

This is my personal belief also.

but does this speculation of yours mean that LDS believe Jesus was human before His birth by Mary? (a full human life where He progressed to God) Do you know what I mean, not sure if I expressed that correctly.

Its not an LDS belief, it is however my personal belief Edited February 20, 2010 by mnn727

[mnn727]

In this post I am confidentially pointing out that this was clearly not Jesus's wedding in Cana. I think everyone here would probably agree with me on that one.

ummm No.

Can you not even conceive of the notion that your interpretation may not be the only one possible?

[mrmarklin]

Logically one could argue that since Jehovah was a God prior to coming to Earth as Jesus Christ, he must have been married previously.

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