Da Vinci Code

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

...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.

Jesus had blood in His body, ApostleKnight, and a blood body doesn’t last forever, so, biologically speaking, He would have had to do something miraculous to prevent His mortal body from dying as ours will.

<div class='quotemain'>

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.

But if Jesus had done that it would have been a miracle… the same miracle He can now perform for us.

And btw, I know you do know He was immortal and divine, but it seems you don’t know He was mortal.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Jesus had blood in His body...so, biologically speaking, He would have had to do something miraculous to prevent His mortal body from dying as ours will.

Ray, I said that repeatedly. Jesus could have renewed his mortal body forever if he'd wanted to. Why does this idea require so much qualification? Jesus was a mortal capable of dying; unlike us, his body did not have to stop functioning.

But if Jesus had done that it would have been a miracle...

So what? My simple point was that Jesus did not have to die on the cross, as a result of old age or sickness, or any other cause. He chose when to separate his spirit from his mortal body. He had power over death. That's all I'm saying. Why does this require so much discussion? It's a core doctrine: Jesus rose on the third day because he had power over death.

...I know you do know He was immortal...but it seems you don’t know He was mortal.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but okay.

[Ray]

Heh.

Hello ApostleKnight.

I thought you were thinking Jesus body wasn't like ours, because His physical Father was God, so I was trying to help you understand that His body was exactly like ours, even though He had power over all of the elements.

And that's it. I thought you were confused on that issue, and I was trying to help you. :)

[juliejalago]

I thought I'd throw a thought into this discussion...

If you accept that Jesus was divine by physical/genetic inheritance, a halfway-immortal God, so to speak, then wouldn't this divine inheritance have been passed on to any children he had sired, giving such children a measure of godly power? And as literal offspring of the Son of God, would not they have first rights to the Priesthood under the Patriarchal order that was traditional in the beginning of the world?

I don't think Jesus had children. He was the ONLY begotten of the Father and I think that also means the Father had no other genetic/biological seed extending from Jesus.

As for Jesus being married, I think a marriage would have detracted from the short time of his intense ministry. He was on a mission --the most important mission of all-- and his focus had to be on the saving work he had to perform. Regarding the thought that Jesus was married to the Church, I think that is symbolic. Yes, during his ministry on earth he was wholly devoted to the Church and still is. But is that to mean he will forever be denied a flesh and bone bride? I doubt it.

[Heather]

I have always felt very strongly that Jesus was married.

Interesting reads:

Journal of Discourses 2:82, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854

"Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, are allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do... Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified."

[When Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if this meant that Christ had children, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" (Letter to J. Ricks Smith, dated March 17, 1963]

Journal of Discourses 2:210, Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855

"I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children."

Journal of Discourses 4:259, Orson Hyde

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it."

The Seer, p. 172, Orson Pratt

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."

Wilford Woodruff's Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883

"Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married."

While it is correct that several early Church leaders, primarily in the mid-Nineteenth Century, agreed with various non-Mormon Bible scholars that Jesus Christ was married, that belief has never been accepted as official Church doctrine.

Earlier brethren speculated on several topics, including the marital status of Jesus. Detractors take delight in searching out such speculations and trying to pass them off as the official Church position. Be that as it may, the opinion that Jesus was married, though held by several General Authorities, has not been accepted as doctrine, nor is it taught as doctrine by Church leaders today.

The idea that Jesus was married was taught, and still is taught by many others not of our faith, and they present a strong array of evidence in defense of their beliefs. For instance, William E. Phipps, a Presbyterian minister, wrote the book Was Jesus Married? He concludes with a resounding "yes" to the question.

Anti-Mormon critics who try to portray the concept that Jesus was married as Church doctrine have liule understanding of the canonization process of doctrine within the LDS Church. The procedure was demonstrated with the 1976 and 1978 additions to the Standard Works. They were presented to and sustained by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, then sustained by the entire membership of the Church in General Conference.

When anti-Mormon detractors allempt to represent the private views of past or present Latter-day Saints as being the doctrine of the Church, they immediately lose credibility with knowledgeable Church members who understand the Church's definitions of doctrine and recognize the necessity of the canonization process. They recognize that the designation of "doctrine" is not granted simply because of who said something, or where it was said, or in what book it was printed.

Read what President Joseph Fielding Smith explained on the subject:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. if Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, pp.203-04).

The standard works, including the Bible, do not clearly indicate whether Jesus Christ was single or married. To take either position is to speculate, and either position is beyond the present doctrine of the Church.

If marriage here on Earth is so important, why Jesus Christ was not married?

Why do you believe that Jesus was never married? The Bible does not teach that the Lord was never married, but simply makes no explicit mention of the subject. There are two possible reasons for this deficiency:

(1) The scriptures are not meant to convey all truth, but only those select things that are necessary for our salvation. For example, the Bible teaches the following:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." (John 20:30-1)

Whether Jesus was married or not has nothing to do with our personal salvation and therefore is not authoritatively covered in the text.

(2) It is clear to Latter-day Saints that the Bible is missing many important truths which were removed during the beginnings of the apostasy. The Prophet Joseph Smith noted:

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.327)

These truths were removed in an attempt to make the text match the theology, instead of letting the text define the theology. In other words, since the idea of Jesus being married was so repugnant to some people, especially those indoctrinated by the immaterialism of Greek philosophy, they eliminated any clear references in the scriptures indicating that Jesus was married. (See The Holy Bible home page)

Some Christians of other denominations believe that marriage, sexuality, and even the physical body itself are unholy and undesirable. For them, their anticipated afterlife is a sexless condition where such gross materialism will be eliminated. Latter-day Saints declare that marriage, sexuality, and the physical body are all required that we might enjoy a "fullness of joy" in eternity. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches:

"For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy" (D&C 93:33)

While some people may find the idea of Jesus enjoying all the benefits of a physical body undesirable, Latter-day Saints declare: "Jesus was no recluse, no hermit, no ascetic. He came eating and drinking, enjoying the natural, normal, and wholesome social intercourse of the day." (McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.1, p.136)

Several leaders of the Church have affirmatively taught that Jesus was married during mortality. For example, Elder Orson Hyde gave it as his belief that the marriage in Cana was in fact Jesus' marriage:

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, p.259)

While Elder Bruce R. McConkie did not draw such an explicit conclusion, he did note that:

"Mary seemed to be the hostess at the marriage party, the one in charge, the one responsible for the entertainment of the guests. It was she who recognized the need for more wine, who sought to replenish the supply, who directed the servants to follow whatever instructions Jesus gave. Considering the customs of the day, it is a virtual certainty that one of Mary's children was being married.....Jesus also had a close personal interest in and connection with the marriage and the subsequent festivities which attended it. He and apparently at least five of his disciples (John, Andrew, Peter, Philip, and Nathaneal) were "called" to attend. Since the short age of wine occurred near the close of the festivities, and since these commonly lasted from seven to fourteen days, it is apparent that Jesus' party was remaining for the entire celebration. Seemingly, also, he had some personal responsibility for entertaining the guests and felt an obligation to supply them with added refreshments." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.1, p.135)

However, the implicit evidence regarding the marital state of Jesus is far greater than the explicit evidence. Scholar Sidney B. Sperry noted:

"[W]e know that it was the custom among the Jews for their young men to marry at an early age, generally between the years of sixteen and eighteen. And secondly, it is well known that the Jews considered marriage to be a religious obligation." (Paul's Life and Letters, p.9)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie also noted:

"Men married at sixteen or seventeen years of age, almost never later than twenty: and women at a somewhat younger age, often when not older than fourteen. (The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.223)

The Bible teaches that the enemies of Christ spent their time:

"Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him" (Luke 11:54).

It is almost universally agreed among all scholars and denominations that Jesus Christ did not begin his ministry until his early 30's. If Christ were unmarried at this age, then his enemies could have proven that he did not obey the laws and customs of his day. What were the laws and customs regarding marriage among the Jews at the time of Jesus? The oral tradition of Biblical Israel is now recorded in the Talmud. According to Jewish sources:

"Marriage is vitally important in Judaism. Refraining from marriage is not considered holy, as it is in some other religions. On the contrary, it is considered unnatural. The Talmud says that an unmarried man is constantly thinking of sin. The Talmud tells of a rabbi who was introduced to a young unmarried rabbi. The older rabbi told the younger one not to come into his presence again until he was married........The Talmud recommends that a man marry at age 18, or somewhere between 16 and 24." (Judaism 101, http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm)

As noted above, the Jewish Elders looked for every opportunity of accusing Jesus of breaking tradition or committing sin. If Jesus were unmarried, would they not have simply been able to say:

"Jesus, you are many years past the age of marriage. As an unmarried man, you are always thinking of sin. Leave and do not assume to teach the truths of God until you have obtained proper marriage."

Why didn't the Jewish Elders just abruptly dismiss him for this oversight? Perhaps it was well known that he kept the marriage commandment of his Father as he had kept all other commandments?

Like Latter-day Saints, the ancient Israelites considered marriage a sacred responsibility and children a blessing. (See Family) While there is no definitive proof available that the Jesus was married, the evidence might lead one to that conclusion. (See Eternal Marriage; Is there Eternal Marriage?)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I have always felt very strongly that Jesus was married.

Thank you for the extensive material, Heather. That about sums up every argument for the proposition that Jesus was married that I've heard. I admit, it can be persuasive to hear such spiritual giants of the early restoration espouse such views (no pun intended).

I just can't square the teaching with Isaiah 53 for example. I take the part about Jesus only seeing "his seed" after he had made his soul an offering for sin, to mean that his "children" would be linked to his performing the atonement. In fact, another scripture points this out rather clearly. I am referring to Mosiah 15:10-11, which says that the children of Christ are: "whosoever has heard the words of the prophets...all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed..."

Now, Jesus having metaphorical children (those saved by him) doesn't mean he can't have literal children, I admit. I just don't "feel" that Jesus had children. I look forward to being corrected or confirmed in my views in the next life. :) Aspects such as Jesus's "genetics" and "chromosomes" do figure interestingly into the issue...as far as what any potential children would be like (one-quarter God?) etc...

p.s. I know "godhood" is a matter of priesthood and not provenance.

[Heather]

I really don't feel strongly one way or the other as to the matter of Jesus having children. It just makes sense to me that he was married.

I do think that if he did have children, I don't think they would have any special God-like powers, unless given to them by God. God created our Spirits and our Bodies, considering he created the bodies for Adam and Eve. I think it would take more than genetics.

[Guest Monica]

Jesus was invited to the wedding. Jesus wasnt the groom.

Jhn 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 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]. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 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.

[Bob_oz]

Thanks Heather for the detailed references regarding Jesus/marriage/children I found it a most rewarding read and it was good to have reviewed this again.

I see that we all have differing views, one way or the other, that is good for the enquiring mind but I like to think there are a number of reasons we don't have our answers in doctrine, some I have mentioned before and in addition I would add faith, importance for our own salvation and one other, sacred nature of the topic.

I have drawn my own conclusions I base on what I feel to be sound gospel logic, in keeping with the principles of the teachings of the Church and on comments made by those with a better understanding than I of gospel issues.

I believe Jesus was married for the reasons stated plus that he was the example of all that is right, it is right that all of Gods children marry in this life (ok, I know we can see exceptions, that is not what we have here) and where there is no recorded doctrine for us I feel sure the Lord would have demonstrated the right to his followers. Had he have been married I feel sure he would not have refused his wife(s) that which is only right, children.

I believe we have two things here, Jesus who did all that was right by the commandments and Jesus the Christ who was that one special brother who did for us what we could not/cannot do for ourselves and by so doing made a special connection with each of us who would accept Him.

If the Bible specificly stated the Lord was married the church has is custodian of the oldest records would have a big issue with its position regarding the clergy.

I don't think we should over look the sacred nature of the Lords marriage/family, is it not one of the most important eternal elements in our progress and was not Jesus perfect?

It is a wonderful discussion and maybe the Lord will release more that we may learn of the doctrine for ourselves, but there again the commandment has always been there for us.

My only regret is that I'd love to spend more time here, learning from you all

Bob

[boyando]

Here are a few toughts that keep popping into my head.

Christ held the power to "bind on earth" and gave it to Peter way past the time when Mary and Joseph would have set up a marrage for Jesus.

He could not have performed the marrage for himself. I don't think that he would have had the privacy, to produce children, once he start to preach the gosple.

just me thinking out loud.

[Sugarbay]

Doctrine and Covenants 122.

Oh Monica, you might want to delve in to the scriptures also associated with your membership into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, i.e. BoM, D&C, PofGP, too.

I think also, that since people seem to think nothing of taking his name and using it as a curse word, a good reason to not preach that he has a wife and children is that he must be very protective of his family. His personality thus demonstrated in the Bible alone (for Monica) indicates that he stuck up for and healed the sick, posessed etc. but ALLOWED himself to be crucified for the sins of the world. I'd say that is indicative of a very protective, self-sacrificing individual, as he proved himself to be.

First off, Monica, I don't believe you are LDS and so that explains alot. You remind of Just Looking as she would go off on these lengthy posts, all Biblical and nothing of the scripture you prescribe to as a supposed member of the church.

Also, (laying my sword aside)I believe the quote is: "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with anyone who is unarmed." Thank you for that great quote Mrs. S. I have always enjoyed that one.

[Guest Monica]

Here are a few toughts that keep popping into my head.

Christ held the power to "bind on earth" and gave it to Peter way past the time when Mary and Joseph would have set up a marrage for Jesus.

He could not have performed the marrage for himself. I don't think that he would have had the privacy, to produce children, once he start to preach the gosple.

just me thinking out loud.

In Hebrew culture they do arrange marriages. However, both parties involved in the marriage have to consent to it. A gentleman may decide not to marry as well as a lady may choose to decline a proposal.

Now bible states that Peter was married after all Jesus healed his mother in law from a fever, yet never mentioned Jesus being married. Hence Jesus was single. The bible stresses that the bride of Christ is the church.

Luk 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

Here are a few toughts that keep popping into my head.

Christ held the power to "bind on earth" and gave it to Peter way past the time when Mary and Joseph would have set up a marrage for Jesus.

He could not have performed the marrage for himself. I don't think that he would have had the privacy, to produce children, once he start to preach the gosple.

just me thinking out loud.

In Hebrew culture they do arrange marriages. However, both parties involved in the marriage have to consent to it. A gentleman may decide not to marry as well as a lady may choose to decline a proposal.

Now bible states that Peter was married after all Jesus healed his mother in law from a fever, yet never mentioned Jesus being married. Hence Jesus was single. The bible stresses that the bride of Christ is the church.

Luk 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

This is a minor point- I agree with everything that you say with the exception that when the Bible stress that the bride of Christ is the church, I think that it is a quasi-parable. That is not to say that I believe that Christ was married. For me the jury is still out allthough I do lean towards not. If Christ had been married, it would have been a qeustion that would have been brought up a lot sooner than two thousand years after his death, in my allmosthumble opinion.

[Guest Monica]

This is a minor point- I agree with everything that you say with the exception that when the Bible stress that the bride of Christ is the church, I think that it is a quasi-parable. That is not to say that I believe that Christ was married. For me the jury is still out allthough I do lean towards not. If Christ had been married, it would have been a qeustion that would have been brought up a lot sooner than two thousand years after his death, in my allmosthumble opinion.

God being espoused to a group of people is nothing new. Israel was refered to as being God's wife many times in the old testament.

Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time [was] the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker [is] thine husband; the LORD of hosts [is] his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.