Da Vinci Code

[Guest ApostleKnight]

If you haven't read the book or seen the movie don't read this as I discuss plot points and such. If you don't care either way, read on.

Last night I managed to get out and see the movie "The Da Vinci Code." I had read the book a year ago. From a writer's point of view I thought the book was brilliant. The plot was tight, the pace swift, the twists surprising and engaging, and the skillful blend of fact and fiction impressive. I'd give the movie five stars. The music, cinematography, acting and everything else was superb.

I was discussing the book with an LDS friend of mine awhile ago. While we both of course reject the implication in the book that Jesus was just human and that the Catholic Church "deified" the Jewish mortal in order to cement their authority, we disagreed about something else. My friend thought it possible that Jesus could have been married and had a child/children before his death. I disagreed.

My question is for LDS only at this point. Do you guys personally believe Jesus was married, and could have had kids? If you do or don't, please give me your reasons from an LDS viewpoint. In other words, using the LDS canon or writings of LDS prophets. This isn't a doctrine of salvation so it doesn't really matter, but I'm interested in how strongly people believe one way or the other about Jesus being a husband/father during mortality.

I personally believe Jesus wasn't married and had no kids before his death. Mainly because of scriptures like Isaiah 53 which I read to mean Jesus was crucified without having children, and would only see "his seed," after his atonement, referring to the fact that those who accept him and are "born again" are called his sons and daughters (Mosiah 5:7).

As far as marriage, I simply don't think it was necessary for Jesus to be married to fulfill his role as Savior. I've heard the arguments that he was an example of everything needed for salvation/exaltation and so if we need to be married to reach the Celestial Kingdom he'd be an example of that to us. My response to that is if it's so important for him to be an example of marriage, why don't the scriptures (LDS canon) teach anywhere that he was married? And I don't accept vague references such as Mary Magdelene calling him "Lord" at his resurrection, etc... Again, I'd like to hear from LDS about this.

I've attached an animated GIF I made to re-create an effect in the movie. It's supposed to show how Da Vinci really included Mary M. in the Last Supper, and how if you change "her" position "she" is leaning on Christ's arm as his wife. See for yourself--I don't think that's what Da Vinci wanted but I may be wrong...

[ALatterDaySaint]

I do not know enough about this to really have an opinion but, do I believe it was Possible that Jesus married during his mortality? Yes. Do I think he could have had kids? Yes. Do I think he actually did have kid(s)? No.

The point is that we simply dont have all the facts. We cant discount Jesus being married or being a father simply because the scriptures do not mention it...after all nearly the whole of his life's account is missing from scripture. He drops off the RADAR at age 12 or so and then only resurfaces again when he takes on his ministry at age 30. A lot can happen between ages 12 and 30.

And regarding Mary M. The Catholic church has admitted that her good name was tarnished wrongfully by the Catholic Church during the dark ages and has just in recent years admited it and stated that Mary M was not a whore after all.

What I do find interesting is that Jesus showed himself to Mary M before anyone else...before his own mother, before his apostles, before his step-father Joseph, everyone. Why? Everything he did had a reason behind it. Nothing he did was just random.

I do believe Jesus could have been married and could have had children...but I only think that he may have been married and I dont believe he had children. Why? Because His mission was to save the world and fulfill the law not to multiply and replinish the earth. With all that Jesus had to undertake, having children would have been very hard and Jesus may have looked like a negligent father being so busy.

I shall ramble no more...

[Guest ApostleKnight]

What I do find interesting is that Jesus showed himself to Mary M before anyone else...before his own mother, before his apostles, before his step-father Joseph, everyone. Why?

I've thought about this too. There's no doubt Jesus granted Mary M. a supreme privilege by showing himself to her first after his resurrection. I don't think having special feelings for her means he married her however. It's possible and of course I'm not trying to prove one way or the other. Thanks for your opinion. Any others?

[Guest Monica]

Jhn 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, [and looking in], saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. 8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. 9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, [and looked] into the sepulchre, 12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

The reason why Mary Magdeline saw Jesus first, was because she was there. She was the first at the tomb and didnt return home like the others did.

Now as for Jesus being married:

2Cr 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. 9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed [are] they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The church is the bride of Christ.

I am not too interested in Da Vinci Code cause it seems to be an anti catholic movie with all the talk of catholic churches and opus dei. Catholisism is different than what the scriptures say. And Da Vinci Code is different from what the scriptures say as well. So in essence they both cancel eachother out. In my opinion, the Da Vinci Code hype is like looking for the BIGFOOT that devoured the LOCKNESS MONSTER.

There is debate about Da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper and if the person seated next to Jesus is John the Beloved or Mary Magdeline. In the painting Judas is in there as well. So if the person is Mary Magdeline, where is the missing apostle.

Also i LOVE Da Vinci's work. He was a genious before his own time mastering art, science, anatomy, mathamatics, and astronomy and i find it insulting that his masterpieces are being misused in this way.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

The reason why Mary Magdeline saw Jesus first, was because she was there. She was the first at the tomb and didnt return home like the others did.

This seems the most reasonable explanation to me as well.

Now as for Jesus being married:

The church is the bride of Christ.

Again, I agree.

Also i LOVE Da Vinci's work...and i find it insulting that his masterpieces are being misused in this way.

Understandable. Da Vinci wasn't the greatest fan of the Catholic Church, even though he was commissioned to paint several works for it. I have no problem believing he may have included "coded" messages in his paintings that contradict Catholic doctrines. But as one character in the movie says, "Just because Da Vinci painted it doesn't make it true." Nor does it detract from his skill as an artist. :)

[Guest Monica]

[understandable. Da Vinci wasn't the greatest fan of the Catholic Church, even though he was commissioned to paint several works for it. I have no problem believing he may have included "coded" messages in his paintings that contradict Catholic doctrines. But as one character in the movie says, "Just because Da Vinci painted it doesn't make it true." Nor does it detract from his skill as an artist. :)

I have been watching all sorts of documentaries on Da Vinci all week which talk about these codes. But no one can really back it up with bible. Back to last supper where is the 12th apostle? count how many are at the table. I dont see a code in any of his work. I just see beautiful masterpieces. Its bad enough they dragged Jesus and Mary Magdeline thru the mud, but now Da Vinci too. I say instead of the Da Vinic Code they need to call it the Da Vinci defamation.

I wonder do they still teach about the real Da Vinci in schools these days? If they do, then why are people buying this story?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I have been watching...documentaries on Da Vinci...codes. But no one can really back it up with bible.

One reason may be that the codes Da Vinci allegedly left in his paintings dealt with extra-Biblical teachings. Stated another way, his supposed belief that Jesus had kids, was married to Mary M. and was "just a mortal" are teachings found in gnostic works, not canonized scripture. That's why it's never going to be widely accepted by religious folk: it's the opposite of what the Bible says. As for me, I don't care whether Da Vinci left codes or not: the paintings themselves still rock.

[Guest Monica]

<div class='quotemain'>

I have been watching...documentaries on Da Vinci...codes. But no one can really back it up with bible.

One reason may be that the codes Da Vinci allegedly left in his paintings dealt with extra-Biblical teachings. Stated another way, his supposed belief that Jesus had kids, was married to Mary M. and was "just a mortal" are teachings found in gnostic works, not canonized scripture. That's why it's never going to be widely accepted by religious folk: it's the opposite of what the Bible says. As for me, I don't care whether Da Vinci left codes or not: the paintings themselves still rock.

yes they mentioned this too. but it seemed like a weak speculation and it doesnt match his work.

This all reminds me of the hype with http://www.thecelestineprophecymovie.com/celestine/ The Celestine Prophecy.

Based on James Redfield's worldwide best-selling novel, The Celestine Prophecy is a spiritual adventure film chronicling the discovery of ancient scrolls in the rainforests of Peru. The prophecy and its nine key insights predict a worldwide awakening, arising within all religious traditions, that moves humanity toward a deeper experience of spirituality.

The deeper message in all of this mess is that people are seeking God and looking for answers wherever, even if they arent the right answers. Perhaps we can be a bit more sharing with the gospel and not take for granted that all have heard the gospel.

[kriskriechel]

My husband and were just having this dicussion the other day. I have read the book and we have both seen many documentaries about it. I thought the book was great and I am looking foward to seeing the movie.

The theory of Jesus and Mary M has been floating around out there for many years. I find it an interesting theory. But just that, a theroy. And we will never know until we are with him again. And I don't think that question will be at the top of my list of questions to ask Him.

I don't think it much matters. IF Jesus was married, does it change His teachings? Does it change the sacrifice He made for us? Does it change the Atonement in any way? I don't think so. Would it bother me in any way if somehow proof was found that Jesus was married and possibly had children? No. It does not change what He did for us. Again, I think its an interesting theory. And part of me thinks that it would have been nice for Him to know the feeling of "being in love". Than little skip your heart takes when you see that special someone. The little butterflies in your stomach when they smile at you. When I think of the suffering that He went through in the garden, I think it would have been nice for Him to experience those feelings before He died for us. I'm not saying that I think He was married, I just think that would be nice to think that he might have experienced being in love. And I feel His marital status changes nothing in His teachings or His sacrifice.

Just my humble opinion.

[Bob_oz]

I read the book some time ago and found it a great read and I am looking forward to the movie.

The biggest danger of such movies is that people see this as 100% fact and so a movie can distort history. Pure truth does not always sell so well.

That the RC church has a great wealth of undisclosed ancient material is I think taken by many as a given, material that for all seekers of truth would provide a life time of study but I don't see this material coming to us in the near future.

I have seen people make a strong case for the Lord being married in this life and find that for me it may be a likely consideration. Consider some of these points.

We have two elements in the life of Jesus, he came to this world to complete His mission and, I believe, to fulfil all righteousness, including obtaining a body, keeping the commandments and making all the covenants needed for Him to return to his Father.

In this the commandment to multiply and replenish is applicable both to keep the commandment and as a blessing for himself.

Now it is said that Jesus started his ministry at 30 to meet certain requirements/expectations of the Jews and for one to be taken seriously as a teacher/Rabi Jesus would likely have had to demonstrate qualification, maturity (age) stability and marriage, as I understand marriage was a requirement of a Rabi and most would not have taken him seriously had he not qualified.

Some regardthat the first miracle, of the wine, was actually his wedding as he fulfilled the groom’s obligation under custom to provide the wine.

I think it is correct that we don’t have any specific scriptural reference to Jesus being married but then how many references are there to God the Father being married and that we have a Mother in heaven too?

I see many good reasons that the family of Jesus would not be recognised in scripture, how many people today would flock to his family rather than his word. By contrast, how many neo-Nazi members would have a centre of focus had Adolf left the world a son!

If the Da Vinci code is seen by people as more than a good read and a distraction or recreation in life then it serves not to build up but to break down the most important episode in history and move us away from our inspired path.

There is, however, an opportunity here for inspired discussion if we have the heart to say “I know” about the mission of Jesus Christ and the restoration of his Church.

Bob

[BenRaines]

ApostleKnight, a great thread.

I have read the first book, Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code. I found them both entertaining. I have also read two of his other books, Digital Fortress and Deception Point. All entertaining.

We saw the movie last night. I felt that it followed the book closer than most books I have read and then seen the movie.

I agree with Bob_Oz on the points he made regarding Christ and common Jewish practice during and around the time of the life of Christ.

I also don't think the book or the movie were trying to portray Christ as mere mortal. The one character, The Teacher, is the one who believed that and not the rest.

I also agree with the premise that there were few true believers in Christ and he organized his church after a couple of centuries and Constantine is the one who pulled the whole Christian thing together at his time. At that time it was the church of man and not of God that was upon the earth. Authority lost.

AK, according to the movie Mary did not have her child until some time after the crucifixion.

Those are my simple thoughts.

Ben Raines

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I agree with Bob_Oz on the points he made regarding Christ and common Jewish practice during and around the time of the life of Christ.

Yet the requirement to be married before being a rabbi was not Mosaic or scriptural, but an addition to the Law of Moses. In that respect, I don't think Jesus would've felt too bound by it as a mere cultural requirement. But again, we just don't know. It's fun to think about.

AK, according to the movie Mary did not have her child until some time after the crucifixion.

Good correction, thank you.

[Guest Monica]

Now it is said that Jesus started his ministry at 30 to meet certain requirements/expectations of the Jews and for one to be taken seriously as a teacher/Rabi Jesus would likely have had to demonstrate qualification, maturity (age) stability and marriage, as I understand marriage was a requirement of a Rabi and most would not have taken him seriously had he not qualified.

Marriage wasnt and isnt a requirement for being a rabbi.

[Guest Monica]

I think it is correct that we don’t have any specific scriptural reference to Jesus being married but then how many references are there to God the Father being married and that we have a Mother in heaven too?

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18 And the building of the wall of it was [of] jasper: and the city [was] pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

[Guest MrsS]

I just have a question ~ What is getting you all so up in a lather about the possibility of Jesus possibly being married? Is is that hard of a thing to wrap your mind, your emotions around to the possibility that he had Mortal Human Relations with a Wife?

I see it this way ~

Heavenly Father has told us that Families are forever. That man and woman are to be married, have children. It is their sacred duty to. For this is also why we came to earth.

Jesus got baptised, not because he had any sins to repent of and be cleansed of (is that a fact, is that actually stated in the scriptures? Or is that just a Mortal Human saying so?) ~ to teach us that we must all be baptised. Everything Jesus did, taught, was for us to copy ~ To be like Him.

Well, why is it such a stretch for Him to be married? To have children? I do believe He was married, that He was probably married to Mary Magdeline, that they had children.

Why does it bother you all so?? Because it makes Him more Human?? Well, He was. He ate food, He drank wine and water, He bled real red blood! He cried and He laughed.

<div class='quotemain'>

I think it is correct that we don’t have any specific scriptural reference to Jesus being married but then how many references are there to God the Father being married and that we have a Mother in heaven too?

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18 And the building of the wall of it was [of] jasper: and the city [was] pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Monica ~ what is your point? Don't you have an opinion? Could you possibly sum your thoughts up at the end of one of your infamous massive quotes?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Is is that hard of a thing to wrap your mind, your emotions around to the possibility that he had Mortal Human Relations with a Wife?

I have no problems with the possibility of it, just the likelihood of it. I don't think marital relations are "dirty," and that if Jesus was married he'd be less of a God or something silly.

One problem with his having kids, though, is the genetics involved. I mean, Jesus inherited power over death from God the Immortal Father (in a physical, chromosomal (?) sense). So if Jesus had kids, would they be immortal as well? I mean, Jesus wouldn't have died without his consent...he could have lived forever without dying. He laid down his own life of his own accord. Would any potential kids have the same ability, and if so, where would that have fit in to the gospel plan?

[Guest MrsS]

One problem with his having kids, though, is the genetics involved. I mean, Jesus inherited power over death from God the Immortal Father (in a physical, chromosomal (?) sense). So if Jesus had kids, would they be immortal as well? I mean, Jesus wouldn't have died without his consent...he could have lived forever without dying. He laid down his own life of his own accord. Would any potential kids have the same ability, and if so, where would that have fit in to the gospel plan?

I don't believe that Jesus was physically, chromosomally different. I don't believe that his genetic makeup was any different than Josephs, or Malachi,Moses, Adam, or you. Yes, he could have "Translated" like the entire city of Enoch ~ but he didn't take the easy way. If He had, then He wouldn't have fulfilled the prophesy that He would Suffer and Die. I also believe Jesus didn't inherit power over death due to genetics. Just like we don't and won't inherit it by genetics. We inherit it by Obeying God's laws and covenents.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I don't believe that Jesus was physically, chromosomally different.

Really? Every person has 46 chromosomes; 23 come from their father, 23 from their mother. God was the literal Father of Jesus's physical body, as Mary was the literal mother. I'm not talking about a physical sexual relationship between God and Mary. I am saying that God and Mary both contributed to Jesus's biological make-up as all parents do for their children. In Jesus's case, 23 chromosomes came from a God, 23 from a mortal.

It seems to me that the only way for Jesus to be the same as "us" chromosomally, is if God contributed "mortal chromosomes," yet God isn't mortal. This is an interesting area to discuss, especially taking into account that resurrected beings don't have blood in their veins but spirit matter. Speaking of the resurrection, Joseph Smith wrote:

"As concerning the resurrection, I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young...all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199-200)

again...

"When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367)

So what happens when a Being with spirit in Their veins (God) contributes to a child whose mother has blood in her veins (Mary)? Nothing? Anything? Something? If so, then any children of Jesus would inherit some degree of the same "chromosomal difference." At least, it's a good theory.

[Guest MrsS]

Huh? Where did you get proof of Jesus Christ's DNA? or of Gods?

Really? Every person has 46 chromosomes; 23 come from their father, 23 from their mother. God was the literal Father of Jesus's physical body, as Mary was the literal mother. I'm not talking about a physical sexual relationship between God and Mary. I am saying that God and Mary both contributed to Jesus's biological make-up as all parents do for their children. In Jesus's case, 23 chromosomes came from a God, 23 from a mortal

OK, AK where did Adam get his chromosomes? The same place that Jesus, you and I did. There is no way for us to know exactly how Mary got impregnated. I can't find where this came from:" As we are, God once was". We are human mortals. Thus logically thinking, at one time God was mortal.

It seems to me that the only way for Jesus to be the same as "us" chromosomally, is if God contributed "mortal chromosomes," yet God isn't mortal.

Correct - God is not mortal, now. Where is it written, in stone, that God could not have put mortal chromosomes into Mary? Jesus was not immortal when he was on earth. If he had not died on the cross, he would have died a mortal death later. He was in fact mortal.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Jesus was not immortal when he was on earth. If he had not died on the cross, he would have died a mortal death later. He was in fact mortal.

Jesus absolutely was an "immortal mortal" on earth. He never would have died had he not laid down his life voluntarily. He never would have died naturally; his spirit never would have been forced to leave his body as ours are. Where do you read that Jesus was a captive of death as we are? In other words, Jesus had power to lay down his life and take it again (John 10:18); he had absolute power over life and death; nothing and no one could take life from him; he would have lived forever on earth if he hadn't laid down his life.

Consider, MrsS: Jesus had power to heal lepers on touch; heal cripples; bring Lazarus back from the dead; walk on water; go forty days without food or drink; shoulder an infinite amount of pain, sadness, sin and suffering for all sinners...yet this very Son of God in the flesh would have just keeled over at around age 70 or 80 without being able to stop it? Sorry, doesn't square with the scriptures. Where did you get this idea that Jesus was mortal or subject to death as we are? I admit I often have said, "Jesus was the only mortal who..." but by calling Jesus mortal I merely mean he lived on this earth as we do, with a physical body; not that Jesus lacked power over life and death, especially his own.

Adam and Eve were immortal before the Fall, yet they weren't resurrected beings. Jesus was immortal too; the only difference was, he got to decide when to "commend his spirit" to God as recorded in the scriptures. The crucifixion didn't overwhelm his mortal frame and force his spirit from his body. It was a conscious choice.

Does anyone else agree or disagree? Am I totally off on this (provide scriptures/quotes if you disagree please, this is a vital doctrine and a discussion should be clear and specific).

[BenRaines]

You have good reasoning on the biology and physiology of the human body and Christ's immortality. On that I agree you are right. On the point of it being vital doctrine I don't know of it having anything to do with doctrine if Christ were married or if he had children.

If was just a fictional book and an entertaining movie. Sort of like Indiana Jones but few worried if the Ark of the Covenant is really buried in a government warehouse.

Ben Raines

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Sort of like Indiana Jones but few worried if the Ark of the Covenant is really buried in a government warehouse.

Hey people worry!!!! hahaha, j/k

Also, I didn't mean it was a vital doctrine as relates to the Da Vinci Code...I simply meant that whether Jesus had power over death or not is a vital gospel doctrine to understand.

[Guest Monica]

Monica ~ what is your point? Don't you have an opinion? Could you possibly sum your thoughts up at the end of one of your infamous massive quotes?

Just read it as is. Its self explanatory.

[Ray]

Yes, Jesus did have power over life and death, as the scriptures and the Holy Ghost will assure us, but does that necessarily mean He wouldn’t have died a mortal death had He not chosen to die as a mortal?

For instance, to offer another possibility to explain how our Lord had power over life and death, suppose that means that our Lord had power to call in angels to fight for Him to prevent some people from killing Him. Or that He could have controlled the elements, even better than Storm of the X-Men (and women), by fighting His own battles against them. Or that He could have simply caused his attackers or persecutors to die by simply separating their spirits from their bodies. Or that before He died His mortal death He could have translated Himself (His body) so that He never had to taste death by dying.

Or in other words, the fact that the scriptures and the Holy Ghost will assure us that our Lord had power over life and death could mean that He could have kept Himself from being killed by people who wanted to kill Him, with His spirit never separating from His body, unless He chose to die as we do when we die by what we call our mortal death.

And remember, the scriptures and the Holy Ghost will also assure us that our Lord was both mortal and immortal, and being mortal means He was just as much of a mortal as all of us are now.

And btw, to offer something on the idea of whether or not our Lord was married on this Earth, how about somebody answering all of this:

If our Lord actually did get married, was it for time or was it for eternity? And if it was for eternity, who do you suppose would have performed that marriage? And if it was only for time, why would our Lord have done only that? And who would He have asked to perform that marriage if that was all He really wanted?

I personally believe that if He didn’t get married while living as a mortal, He got married soon after His resurrection… or if He got married before He was killed He resurrected her soon after she died… so they would never be separated, or again.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

...unless He chose to die as we do when we die by what we call our mortal death.

Yes, Jesus could've died in any way he chose. He had complete control. He could've commanded his cells to age to the point of failure; he could've consciously contracted leprosy without healing himself; he could've done a lot of things. My point was that Jesus didn't have to die if he didn't want to. You and I can buy pearl cream and HGH and drink bottled water but in the end, we will die.

My point was that Jesus was the only mortal who didn't have to die, biologically speaking. He could've renewed his body forever if he chose.

And remember...our Lord was...just as much of a mortal as all of us are now.

Yes and no. Again, the critical difference is that we can't prevent the separation of our spirit and body indefinitely. Jesus could have.