Was Jesus Married?

[CrimsonKairos]

Glad you enjoyed that Adomini. I had the same reaction when I first learned it.

[church girl]

Dr T

Many here have been attempting to illustrate the reasons why and give evidence that Jusus was married. Can you provide Scriptural reasons or even logical ones for his being unmarried?

[ldsgal6]

Dr T

Many here have been attempting to illustrate the reasons why and give evidence that Jusus was married. Can you provide Scriptural reasons or even logical ones for his being unmarried?

Hi churchgirl. Have you found your references for Rabbi's having to be married or polygamist? I have found several site in "Google" but some say they do have to be married and others say no. I'm really curious about it all !

[church girl]

Dr T

Hi churchgirl. Have you found your references for Rabbi's having to be married or polygamist? I have found several site in "Google" but some say they do have to be married and others say no. I'm really curious about it all !

The ancient Rabbinical law required marriage to qualify to be a Rabbi. Somewhere in the 20th century certain groups or sects changed the law requiring marriage. Today some sects hold to the old ways, others do not. This may explain the opposing answeres you found. The ancient law is found in the Talmud and is presumedly there because the very first commandment given to man was to muliply and replentish the earth. At any rate, the Jewish culture was big on marriage.

[CrimsonKairos]

Do you mind providing the specific reference from the Talmud?

[Dr T]

Many here have been attempting to illustrate the reasons why and give evidence that Jusus was married. Can you provide Scriptural reasons or even logical ones for his being unmarried?

Great question Church Girl. I'll think about that a little before I give you an answer (just so I can articulate myself appropriately). :)

[CrimsonKairos]

No one has yet refuted my previous post, which I reproduce here:

If we're going on first principles, and what we know from the gospel, consider this:

The only souls who will be exalted and become gods (notice the little "g") are those who are sealed together in marriage by the authority of the priesthood. That's what D&C 132 says. Of course, they must be obedient and all the other good stuff. But they have to be married to become gods.

Well wait a second. Jesus was a God in the premortal life. If he has to be subject to the same commandments we do (and I agree he does), then he would have to have been married in the premortal life in order to have been a God.

If he didn't have to be married to be a God, then there is a different set of rules for him than for us, and if that's the case, then he didn't have to get married during his mortal life as we do. If there are no different rules for him than us, then he must have been married in the premortal life, and hence there's no need for him to get married during his mortal life.

[church girl]

CrimsonKairos

D&C does state that one does have to be married by proper authority, but that union must also be sealed by the holy spirit of promise( which is not simply priesthood authority ) to be binding or efficacious in the next life.

The way I understand Jesus progression, he was the first born of the Father in the pre-mortal sphere, our elder brother if you will. The same rules would obviously have to apply to him as us, therefore he would have to sojourn in mortality and live worthily, just like we do, in order to become a god. He obviously far exceeded any other man on earth in righteousness, but was none the less subject to the same law, as he amply demonstrated himself in the New Testament . If any of us could have become Gods in the pre-mortal sphere, what could possibly compel one to go through mortality? Furthermore, one must be resurrected to be a god. Spirit and body inseparably connected. If he where a god previous to his entering mortality, he could not have been killed on the cross. So I agree with you, but don't.

[MaidservantX]

Part of the problem, CrimsonKairos, of answering the question is in even how we can ask it. Specifically, the use of the semantic 'God'. 'God', like words like 'love' and 'freedom', we know what they mean and then we never examine them until pretty soon there are many meanings that apply to each individual that speaks them.

The etymology of the word 'God' does not arise from anything indicating a specific condition of soul (spirit and/ or body) (i.e. exaltation). 'God' is a post-biblical semantic. Actually, when the premortal Messiah gave his name in the Old Testament, it was YHWH, which if you follow that etymology is supremely interesting. When Old Testament worshippers addressed this Being, they used a less powerful name, in respect of not taking His name in vain: Adonai -- which, by the way, is plural (my Lords)!!

Of course, as Latter-day Saints, we title our deity as God freely -- but sometimes we mean the Father, sometimes we mean the Son, sometimes we mean the entire Presidency; etc. It's still a slippery title and still not indicative of a precise condition of soul. It is, rather, an honor word.

On the other hand, we are promised that we may become gods and goddesses, and we take that very literally and define that as a soul condition; god = exaltation, celestiality, resurrection, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that calling the premortal Jesus Christ by the word 'God' from our perspective in this age is NOT (necessarily) a description of the state he had reached -- it is an honor word and also, of course, Jesus did represent the Father and had authority.

Having said all this, although I wouldn't think it likely, I don't think I've been conclusive in showing that it would be impossible that Jesus would have been married in premortal life ( . . . as a spirit?). What I AM saying is that Jesus, despite his authority and termed Godhood, had not reached his final priesthood condition at that time and was in the same place of progression we all were -- only probably the star pupil. Adam and many great and noble ones also had authority and power in premortality.

[Adomini22]

No one has yet refuted my previous post, which I reproduce here:

If we're going on first principles, and what we know from the gospel, consider this:

The only souls who will be exalted and become gods (notice the little "g") are those who are sealed together in marriage by the authority of the priesthood. That's what D&C 132 says. Of course, they must be obedient and all the other good stuff. But they have to be married to become gods.

Well wait a second. Jesus was a God in the premortal life. If he has to be subject to the same commandments we do (and I agree he does), then he would have to have been married in the premortal life in order to have been a God.

If he didn't have to be married to be a God, then there is a different set of rules for him than for us, and if that's the case, then he didn't have to get married during his mortal life as we do. If there are no different rules for him than us, then he must have been married in the premortal life, and hence there's no need for him to get married during his mortal life.

Ok, I have something that might shed a bit light on that.....but, this is some stuff I have picked up, not necessarily saying this is how it is.....

Jesus was a god before the earth and the fall of man. Rules given to mortals to become one like our Heavenly Father have not been given yet.... since we havent fallen yet nor were we mortal at the time. Maybe Jesus attained perfection in the premortal existence because he was the only sinless one in our premortal state? Jesus was half mortal on earth, being born of a mortal woman. Mortal rules applied then when he was on earth. He never broke an ordinance or a law, he was that perfect. Yet...... premortal existence was before the fall, hence before redemption, hence before rules given to return back to our heavenly father. This is going out on a limb, but there was a difference before our mortality and afterwards. We lived with god in his presence before, and we need to be sealed to live LIKE him afterwards. Any thoughts? Or does some of this sound too distorted...... Adomini

[CrimsonKairos]

church_girl: Good thoughts. Overall I disagree on the definition of godhood. To me it implies priesthood authority of a given level and degree, independent of the state of the possessor (i.e. spirit, mortal, resurrected mortal, etc...). After all, the Holy Ghost is a God and he has no tangible mortal body.

xhenli: See above. I mean priesthood authority when I use the word God. I disagree in that I believe Jesus had reached perfection of character and priesthood authority before his mortal life. The only thing he "lacked" was a perfected mortal body.

Adomini: Interesting thoughts. Not sure about the accuracy, but I don't see any reason to reject them outright.

[Adomini22]

church_girl: Good thoughts. Overall I disagree on the definition of godhood. To me it implies priesthood authority of a given level and degree, independent of the state of the possessor (i.e. spirit, mortal, resurrected mortal, etc...). After all, the Holy Ghost is a God and he has no tangible mortal body.

xhenli: See above. I mean priesthood authority when I use the word God. I disagree in that I believe Jesus had reached perfection of character and priesthood authority before his mortal life. The only thing he "lacked" was a perfected mortal body.

Adomini: Interesting thoughts. Not sure about the accuracy, but I don't see any reason to reject them outright.

Crimson- thank you for your thoughts. I am not entirely sure about the accuracy either, since not much has been publicly taught. They were just some thoughts I have picked up on and thought it may be interesting, as you say.

[church girl]

Adomini

I think the rules where established long before this earth was even created. Just because the peopling of this earth had not commenced at the time, the whole plan of salvation was very much established, it being the same eternities without end. The trick here is to know and understand that plan.

[Adomini22]

Adomini

I think the rules where established long before this earth was even created. Just because the peopling of this earth had not commenced at the time, the whole plan of salvation was very much established, it being the same eternities without end. The trick here is to know and understand that plan.

Oh, that is very true. We arent the first to pass through mortality as a test. I agree with you, and apologize for not pointing that out in the beginning. Yet, are there different qualifications in the preexistence as lets say.... mortality? I was just trying to lay out some ideas. That sounds a bit apostate, yet the only reason that spark this current train of thought is that Jesus was part of Deity in the preexistence. No one else achieved that. Jesus of course had to go through this earth and get sealed, etc. But Jesus was Jehovah before going through mortality. Hence, my questions/ train of thought. Do I explain myself a little bit?

[church girl]

church_girl: Good thoughts. Overall I disagree on the definition of godhood. To me it implies priesthood authority of a given level and degree, independent of the state of the possessor (i.e. spirit, mortal, resurrected mortal, etc...). After all, the Holy Ghost is a God and he has no tangible mortal body.

xhenli: See above. I mean priesthood authority when I use the word God. I disagree in that I believe Jesus had reached perfection of character and priesthood authority before his mortal life. The only thing he "lacked" was a perfected mortal body.

Adomini: Interesting thoughts. Not sure about the accuracy, but I don't see any reason to reject them outright.

I don't disagree with what you've said. Apparently we aren't using the same definition of "god" As xhenli pointed out, there can be many ways to interpret it. Would it be unreasonable to say that it was the office of Christ, someone who had fulfilled that calling, that was speaking in the pre-meridian sctiptures( such as Ether 3)

and not necessarily the character that we know as Jesus of Nazareth? From this prospective, scriptures like Ether 3 make a whole lot more sense to me.

[Adomini22]

.......... I kinda like that, church girl.

[CrimsonKairos]

Would it be unreasonable to say that it was the office of Christ, someone who had fulfilled that calling, that was speaking in the pre-meridian sctiptures( such as Ether 3) and not necessarily the character that we know as Jesus of Nazareth?

I don't think so. The same spirit who received a physical body from the virgin Mary and became Jesus, was the being speaking in pre-meridian times. Unless I misunderstand your question, it seems you're intimating that it wasn't Jesus who was Jehovah or the one speaking in Ether?

[church girl]

<div class='quotemain'>

Adomini

I think the rules where established long before this earth was even created. Just because the peopling of this earth had not commenced at the time, the whole plan of salvation was very much established, it being the same eternities without end. The trick here is to know and understand that plan.

Oh, that is very true. We arent the first to pass through mortality as a test. I agree with you, and apologize for not pointing that out in the beginning. Yet, are there different qualifications in the preexistence as lets say.... mortality? I was just trying to lay out some ideas. That sounds a bit apostate, yet the only reason that spark this current train of thought is that Jesus was part of Deity in the preexistence. No one else achieved that. Jesus of course had to go through this earth and get sealed, etc. But Jesus was Jehovah before going through mortality. Hence, my questions/ train of thought. Do I explain myself a little bit?

Again, everything seems to flow until we try and put Jesus of Nazareth as the "God" of the old testament and early Book of Mormon. Jesus has a father who, as I understand the doctrine, had already passed through everything he sent his son to do. The only way the scriptures make sense to me is if the person we call "Father in Heaven" is also known as Jehovah, the god of the old testament. Any thoughts?

I don't think so. The same spirit who received a physical body from the virgin Mary and became Jesus, was the being speaking in pre-meridian times.

CrimsonKairos

How did you conclude that they where the same being?

[Adomini22]

That would be a negative, Ghost Rider. Jesus was/is Jehovah. Just old and new testament scriptures alone show that. There are alot of examples I could give. but to answer your thoughts, it cant be the father of jesus as jehovah. That would throw the whole law of moses and the office of Christ per se out of whack.

[church girl]

That would be a negative, Ghost Rider. Jesus was/is Jehovah. Just old and new testament scriptures alone show that.

I don't necessarily disagree, (and I am just throwing stuff out here),but just what if ...no, I better save that one for later.

There are alot of examples I could give. but to answer your thoughts, it cant be the father of jesus as jehovah. That would throw the whole law of moses and the office of Christ per se out of whack.

How so? Lets at least look at one of your references. I prefer BOM , but the Bible will do.

[Adomini22]

Very well. Let me get a couple of materials for 5 minutes.

[Dr T]

Interesting issue. I think Jesus is and has always been Jesus, one personage of the Triune God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jehovah would be a name for the Father. I don't understand why you equate Jesus as Jehovah.

[Adomini22]

Ok. Bible Dictionary under topic Jesus Christ, Creator. There are quite a few. John 1:3,10 and one I like is Heb. 1:2, which states that by the Son all things were created. Also, Jehovah gave the law of moses. Jesus completely fulfilled it. Isnt it right that the one who gave it was the one who completed it and abolished it? Jesus makes reference to himself as Jehovah, with the woman at Jacobs well, saying the term I AM, which was how Jehovah declared himself to Moses in the burning bush. Also, he states this term to the Jews in the New Testament, and declares before Abraham was, I AM(which in Hebrew is the same meaning as stated to the woman at Jacobs well aka Jehovah.) If you place the comma right, the scripture has more meaning to it.

Ex. Before Abraham, was I Am. That is why the Jews became incensed and took up stones to stone Jesus. They knew what he was saying. He was saying that he was Jehovah before Abraham was born. That was considered blasphemy, hence they wanted to stone him. There are a few more as well, and some are found in the Bible Dictionary.

Book of Mormon and D&C and Pearl of Great Price are rife with this, but I would like to stick to biblical scriptures since it is used by many, many different religions. If a Bible dictionary isnt present, sorry about that. It is just an LDS reference guide to old and new testament topics.

Book of Mormon and D&C and Pearl of Great Price are rife with this, but I would like to stick to biblical scriptures since it is used by many, many different religions. If a Bible dictionary isnt present, sorry about that. It is just an LDS reference guide to old and new testament topics.

[church girl]

Interesting issue. I think Jesus is and has always been Jesus, one personage of the Triune God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jehovah would be a name for the Father. I don't understand why you equate Jesus as Jehovah.

What are you refering to as Triune?

[Adomini22]

I think it meant the Trinity, but I am not sure either.