Was Jesus Married?

[Dr T]

Sorry for not being clear. Yes I meant the traditional Christian definition of the Trinity. One God, three personages (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)

[Adomini22]

LDS members believe that Jesus, God, and Holy Ghost are three different personages, yet the same in oneness of mind and purpose with God. Some examples that are used to illustrate such beliefs are the baptism and crucifiction(ok, I spelled that word wrong) of Jesus. Also while in the Garden of Gethsamane, Jesus states "pass the cup from me, but be done not my will, but thine." and the such. That is why on previous posts, I was talking about Jesus being the God Jehovah.

[CrimsonKairos]

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.

Allow me to reproduce a previous post of mine from another thread (when I went by ApostleKnight):

Saying Jesus is/was Jehovah is not just an LDS belief. Paul himself taught it plainly in Corinthians 10, particularly verses 4 and 9 which I reproduce here:

"And [israel] did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (v.4)

"Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." (v.9)

Paul is saying that Jesus was the God who followed Israel in the wilderness, who led them through the Red Sea, and who destroyed them with serpents after they "tempted" God. One of the Jews' name for the God of the Old Testament was Jehovah. So if the Old Testament God was called Jehovah, and if Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, Jesus was Jehovah.

There is a principle which explains why Jehovah often referred to himself as the Father, when in fact Jehovah was Jesus the Son. It is called "divine investiture," and explains how Jesus--who was indeed Jehovah, God of the Old Testament--could speak as the Father though he were but the Son. Let me break it down in small chunks so it's easy to follow.

1) Before the Fall of Adam and Eve, they lived in God the Father's presence.

2) After the Fall, they were spiritually unclean and were cast out of God's presence (spiritual death).

3) There had to be some way for unclean children to approach and deal with their perfect Father.

4) Jesus was chosen to be this Mediator, Savior, the "go-between" for man and God the Father.

5) God the Father would deliver messages to Jesus and command him to speak to Israel in His stead.

6) Jesus, thus invested with divine authority to speak for God the Father, spoke as if he were the Father when addressing Israel through prophets.

7) Hence the Son spoke as if he were the Father, fulfilling his role as Mediator between God and man.

This principle is really rather easy to understand. The prophets are able to speak in the first person as if they were the Lord...you know, the familiar, "Thus saith the Lord: I have seen your abominations..." etc... Sure the prophets are not the Lord, but when speaking for him, they speak as if they were him to convey the intimacy and immediateness of our relationship to the Lord.

Jesus was Jehovah; Jehovah was the mediator between Heavenly Father and fallen man; Heavenly Father invested Jehovah with authority to speak on His behalf; Jehovah spoke in the first person as if he were Heavenly Father; Jehovah was the God of the Old Testament; Jehovah and Heavenly Father are separate beings/Gods whose single goal is to help us return to Him/Them. Jesus was Jehovah. Here are other scriptures related to this concept.

Jesus/Jehovah was the creator of the world. (Isaiah 45:11-12; John 1:1,3,14)

Jesus/Jehovah is the Savior. (Hosea 13:4; Luke 2:11)

Jesus/Jehovah is the Redeemer. (Isaiah 43:14; Galatians 3:13)

Jesus/Jehovah will deliver men from death. (Hosea 13:14; 1 Cor. 15:20-22)

The Jews will look upon Jesus/Jehovah who was pierced. (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34,36-37)

Jesus/Jehovah followed Israel in the wilderness during the Exodus. (Ex. 13:21-22; 1 Cor. 10:1-4)

Jesus/Jehovah is the Husband or Bridegroom. (Isaiah 54:5; Rev. 19:7-8)

Jesus/Jehovah is the first and the last, Alpha and Omega. (Isaiah 44:6; Rev. 1:8)

[Adomini22]

I was wondering when Crimson was going to step in and help me out there. Seems that happens a few times when I unsuccessfully explain a few things. Thanx again Crimson (Ladies and Gentlemen, correction is a GOOD thing.)

[Dr T]

Thank you Adomini and CK :) Adomini, I'm familiar with those accounts but I don't understand how you come to those conclusions from what you mentioned.

===

CK,

Thank you for those verses. The way I read those are completely consistent with Jesus being present for eternity. From everlasting to everlasting. Creator, sustainer, redeemer, etc. God, being One God, in three personages. I still have a lot to learn and will spend some time looking into the Jehovah/Jesus topic. Thank you for the direction and something fun to look into. :)

[Adomini22]

well, lets start with Jesus baptism. 3 persons in the same place at the same time. Voice of God the Father, Holy Ghost in form of dove, and Jesus in the flesh.

Crucifiction....... who was Jesus praying to? "Father why didst thou forsake me?" Jesus wouldnt pray to himself now, would he?

Same in the Garden of Gethsemane.

That is what I tried to mean. I think Crimson has a better way of explaining some things than myself. Sorry if I am not being consistent. (It is nearly 2:30 am lol.)

[CrimsonKairos]

I made the same point once, Adomini. I was corrected by Maureen who explained that what you and I described (the baptism of Jesus problem, for example) was what modalists believe...namely, modalists view God as one Being with three expressions (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). Trinitarians, they contend, view three beings united as God so there's no contradiction.

I don't pretend to understand the Trinity. In fact I think that's the point. No one understands (supposedly). Once people start throwing words like ontology, essence, subordinationism, et al, into the mix it gets really hairy.

All I know is that I believe the Bible contains significant internal evidence to support the belief that Jesus is Jehovah, and vice versa. I hope you find some interesting things in your studies Dr. T. :)

[Dr T]

Thanks gentlemen. That is right CK.

[church girl]

OK. As a member of the LDS church, do you not have a Bishop? I do. I think it safe to say there are hundreds of them, and they are all called Bishop. All of the offices in church and priesthood have this in common, MORE THAN ONE PERSON CAN ACT IN THAT OFFICE. I believe that the LDS people have more information on the multiplicity of gods and the various offices that they assume, than any other people under the heavens. I think this understanding is critical to the understanding of who's who in the scriptures.

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

"The Son" is an office. Also, where is there a son without a father? The father of Jesus of Nazareth must have also been a Son and could just as easily act as such just as an Elder can act in an Aaronic office. In the scriptures, the character of God introduces himself as the Father and the Son. Bear in mind too that the bible dictionary and cross references were done by well intentioned, but possibly mis-informed man, not God.

Jesus makes reference to himself as Jehovah, with the woman at Jacobs well, saying the term I AM,

Not in my bible(KJV) John 4:26 He referred to himself as the Messias in conversing with the woman at the well.

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.

You are right, moving the comma helps. The title or office"Iam" does refer to God, so then, before Abraham, was God. He is not claiming to be God himself. The god of the OT and early BOM referred to himself many times as " the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end", etc. These and other titles Jesus of Nazareth never claimed/used for himself.

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.

These scriptures are indeed filled with such references. However, if you look closely,there are subtle differences. I am not saying that Jesus Christ didn't create the heavens and the earth and all things therein, I am suggesting that it was not the character you have eluded to. The office of Christ is that of creator. An unembodied spirit , such as Jesus had in the pre-mortal sphere, cannot create an earth, man, or any other tangible thing(in the mortal sense) . It requires a resurrected being that has qualified to be a god. Mortality must be a prerequisite for such exaltation, or all we do here is in vain. There would be no point to mortality. Also, if Jesus of Nazareth created man in his own image(Ether 3:15), then that makes our elder brother our spiritual father. Oh it gets better. If you follow that line of thinking, then Jesus( our "father and God")came to Mary(his mother) in the meridian of time and sired himself. I am not trying to make light of the the subject, but to put Jesus of Nazareth into the position of God in all times and places only brings confusion to my mind.

I guess if all else fails, go back to the endowment. All these things are answered therein, but I can't very well use it as a reference. This is where my understanding came from so I have a hard time proving anything.

[CrimsonKairos]

The office of Christ is that of creator.

What scriptures lead you to conclude that? On the contrary, the title "Christ" is an anglicized version of the Greek word "Christos" or the Latin "Christi" which derives from the Hebrew word "mashiakh" which means, as do all the preceding words, "Anointed." Christ is the one anointed to act as our savior from death and hell. He didn't have to be the creator of the heavens and earth (under direction of our Father) to be our savior. However, he was the creator of heaven and earth.

An unembodied spirit , such as Jesus had in the pre-mortal sphere, cannot create an earth, man, or any other tangible thing(in the mortal sense). It requires a resurrected being that has qualified to be a god.

What scriptures teach this? I have not read that anywhere, and it's actually contrary to the scriptures. John chapter one teaches that Jesus was the creator of heavens and earth, and he certainly hadn't been born before the existence of the earth (it's understandable, Mary wasn't on the scene yet). I'm not sure where you're getting your information. I'd be interested to know.

Also, if Jesus of Nazareth created man in his own image(Ether 3:15), then that makes our elder brother our spiritual father.

Whaaaaaa? Jesus was God the Father's Firstborn spirit child. After Jesus was born as a spirit, what's wrong with the Father turning to him and saying, "Let us make man in our image?" I personally believe this reference to creating man in their image deals mainly with how our mortal bodies would be organized anatomically, biologically, chemically, etc... Remember too the principle of divine investiture. In Ether 3:15, Jesus could be speaking for the Father, as if he were the Father, in speaking of the creation of man, spiritually or physically.

Oh it gets better. If you follow that line of thinking, then Jesus( our "father and God")came to Mary(his mother) in the meridian of time and sired himself.

No LDS believes that line of thinking though. Who are you arguing with?

I am not trying to make light of the the subject, but to put Jesus of Nazareth into the position of God in all times and places only brings confusion to my mind.

No one said Jesus was God the Father. We said Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, the mediator between fallen mankind and God the Father. As such, Jehovah/Jesus often spoke for the Father, in the first-person, much how prophets can speak as if they are the Lord when they say, "Thus saith the Lord: I have seen your wickedness..."

[Adomini22]

I do believe, given scriptures and temple sessions, and everything I have read on the subject, that Jesus of Nazareth is the OT god Jehovah and is referred as the Alpha and Omega of this earth. (Doctrine and Covenants, anyone?)Christ is an office, oh I agree with you there. Nothing I have said takes anything away from that. But Jesus, being the only Begotten, and the mediator for us on THIS earth, he has been in every stage that this earth has gone through, such as the creation, the teaching of the plan of salvation to different dispensations, to the second coming to the millenium until this earth is celestialized. He is in everything, so to speak. I understand your post, church girl, but when you say the office of Christ was used by another Christ during times on this earth instead of Jesus Christ, I stopped understanding. The order of heaven would forbid it. Only people who can show/act upon this earth are those who have lived on it personally, except for God. And he has only shown himself (God the Father) I think (note the words I think) 3 times period. This is the order of heaven to the angels as well. There have been millions of plans of salvations and redeemers and children of God. But each earth has its own script and actors. Every prophet, apostle, and 70 has confirmed that Christ is Jehovah. Christ himself says so in every book of scripture. Christ is an office, but Jesus has been the be all end all aka Jehovah here on this earth. I have scriptures and basically every church resource that backs this up. What do you base your opinions off of? I am not being mean, just wish to understand why you say a savior from another world would play a part on this earth.

[Dr T]

Sounds a lot like Ray-only more cordial. Christ-savior and office. Can you make a case for this idea please, Adomini

Thank you

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

Dr. T -

I think what people are saying is that Jesus is the name. Christ is His title, not His last name. Like we might say "President Bush" but whereas the title President can apply to more than one person, the title Christ does not. Only Jesus, of all the people who have ever lived or ever will live on this earth, has that title. As such, His name and His title sometimes get used interchangeably.

Interestingly, the fact that Jesus, known as Jehova in the OT, is the creator and savior of this earth is something in which we LDS agree with JWs. We also agree that God the Father's name is Elohim. I tell you, there are shards of Truth in every religion, sometimes just enough to get a really bad cut, but shards nonetheless.

[Dr T]

Thank you Mom of jcchlsm, :)

I understand about "Christ" not being his last name. :) I know it means savior/redeemer, like a role. I think the issue I am having is the term "office" is it makes me think of political office, where people are elected. Now that I'm thinking about it, I actually do believe Jesus was was chosen and had a choice to come to Earth and fulfill life, death and his resurrection. What it comes down to I guess is that I don't think someone else could have been selected because the way I see it, Jesus was God and it was part of the plan for eternity. :)

Dr. T

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I think others may have been quallified to take on the title Christ, but Jesus was chosen and He then fulfilled His role. We see situations all the time where any one of several people may be quallified for a job, but one person ends up doing it (either by being elected, by stepping forward and volunteering, by appointment, or simply by happening to be in the right place at the right time). Think of the person in a crowded restaurant who renders first aid to a fellow diner who is choking, or the untrained bystander who catches a baby tossed out the window of a burning building, or the person who becomes the leader of a group of tourists trapped in the Amazon and helps them survive and make it home. If the person performs well, we call the person a hero and wonder what we would have done if we had been the one instead. People often "step up" to a task to be done. We castigate anyone who is in a position to help and refuses or fails.

There is more than one way to score a point in baseball when you're at bat. Two different hitters may each be able to bring a runner in, but may aim to go about it different ways. I think that was the question when choosing Jesus to be the Christ: how would he accomplish the task? And certainly, not just anyone would do, but it's easy to see that many may have been considered.

[Adomini22]

quick question for you Dr. T.... who is Ray?

[CrimsonKairos]

I think others may have been quallified to take on the title Christ, but Jesus was chosen and He then fulfilled His role.

Hmmm, I'm not sure. The savior had to be a perfect sacrifice, live a perfect life, etc... and from the beginning, there was only one of God's children who was perfect: Jesus. I don't think there was ever a multiplicity of suitable "candidates." :)

As a sidenote, I pointed out earlier that the word "Christ" is the Anglicized version of the Latin word "Christi" and the Greek word "Christos" which come from the Hebrew word "Mashiakh." What other word comes from "Mashiakh" you may wonder? The English word "Messiah" does. So really we could just as accurately call the savior Jesus Messiah as we can Jesus Christ (etymologically speaking). B)

[Dr T]

Ray is a poster that comes and goes on this site. He is a devote LDS member and has/had some very similar sounding posts. The similarities are only in the words, not the tone or personality. :)

[Adomini22]

oh, ok. I hope that isnt a bad thing..... I just like giving what I have heard and studied...even if I dont do it very well.

[Dr T]

...even if I dont do it very well.

Nonsense Adomini. You express yourself well. :) It was a bad comparison on my part. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

[LionHeart]

I personally believe that God the Father, along with Jesus and all of the noble and great ones created this Earth. This being said, Jesus, being the most faithful son to our Father was placed in the position of project manager. (remember, our Father has many worlds to oversee) Although Jesus held that position, He still had to come here in the flesh and fulfill all of the rites and ordinances pertaining to the Celestial Kingdom. (including marriage) But due to his responsibility over this world, he was also the one chosen to make the atoning sacrifice.

In regards to Jesus being married, it is my understanding that it was custom for all men in Israel to marry. Although it was not law, it was expected. Although the bible does not specifically say Jesus was married, it may only mean that He fit in with the norm. For Him not to be married would have been very abnormal and likely would have been mentioned in the scripture.

L.H.

[CrimsonKairos]

Unless the apostles didn't want to draw a line in the sand and make it a "you or us" type affair. Wouldn't be very effective teaching to point out to the devout Jews that, hey, Jesus isn't married like you guys expect him to be! :)

Besides that, Jesus did lots of abnormal things that weren't common at the time. Walking on water, multiplying food to feed a multitude, and commanding the elements are a few that come to mind.

[Dr T]

Sure, use that whole "walking on water" thing...

:)