Why is marriage so important if Jesus didn't get married

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I always kind of thought Mary Magdalene was possibly his wife. 

Polygamy... was that practiced in Judaism during his time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Judaism

Yes

[estradling75]

57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. Mary Magdelene and the mother of Jesus were important enough to mention-so if He had a wife she would be as well, for sure.  

We have a marriage recorded, and we have evidence that Christ and his family attended it. All true. We no not have evidence that He was the groom.

We need to look at the evidence for both sides, not just assume He was married than look for evidence to back it up. 

Ok.... name an important man... that lived 2000+ years ago...  I am sure you can name quite a few....  Now name their spouse... who only claim to fame is that they were married...

How many do you got?    If you got more then zero you have impressed me...  The simple fact is spouses are not historically important.

 

The case against Christ being married is...

the is no 2000 year old mention of that happening...  Which is totally typical for that kind of record...

 

The case for Christ being married is... 

Sealing is a required Ordinance like Baptism... Christ did one to fulfill all righteousness but not the other?  That makes no sense

The Bride Groom is responsible for the wedding wine... Christ handled the wedding wine by turning water into wine

Jewish rabbis were traditionally married before they start ministering... Of all the accusations leveled against Christ non were of the nature that he neglected "Family duties"

When he resurrected the first person he showed himself was to a woman.... Not the apostles, not the church leaders to be, but a woman...  What kind of woman would have such a rightful claim on Jesus's attention and priorities?  It was not his mother, or any of his sisters.

 

Yes there is no direct claim that Jesus was married... but there plenty of things that suggest exactly that if you understand the historical context of what is going on.

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Even if we assume that Jesus was not married, there are a few things to consider:

1.  As I re-read 2 Ne 31:7-9, it occurs to me that maybe the point isn't just "Jesus was baptized to set an example that we too must be baptized".  Rather, it could be read as saying that Jesus is going through the entire outward process of conversion (first principles and ordinances) to "set an example" as to the conversion process specifically.  He humbleth Himself before the Father (faith), witnesseth that He Himself will be obedient (the closest a sinless person can come to repenting), is baptized in token thereof, and then receives the Holy Ghost (in the sign of the dove); and the "example" verse 9 refers to is His example of entering into the Kingdom via the proper procedural steps.  Sealing to a spouse is not part of the initial conversion process; thus, it may be outside the scope of the "example" Nephi says Jesus was supposed to be setting.

2.  The ordinance of baptism belongs to the Aaronic Priesthood and at least a variant of it was commonly practiced among the Jews in Jesus' lifetime.  The ordinance of sealing, however, pertains to the Melchizedek Priesthood (and specifically, a holder who also happens to have the sealing keys) and would have been completely foreign to post-Mosaic Israel.  If Jesus' exemplary function was primarily aimed at His Jewish audience, then they couldn't hold it against Him for not (publicly) entering into a covenant that they didn't even know existed.

3.  We routinely accept that people who didn't have the "opportunity" for marriage in this life, will be given that opportunity thereafter.  Why couldn't Jesus be deemed to have not had that opportunity, due to the trauma etc. that His ultimate demise must have inflicted on a wife and progeny?

4.  It may be that, public examples aside, Jesus' route to exaltation was slightly different than the rest of us hoi polloi.  We depend in part on the generation of seed for our exaltation; but Isaiah (and Abinadi) suggest that Jesus receives His seed when the rest of us choose to be classified in that category (Isaiah 53:8, 10-11; Mosiah 15:10.)

Edited June 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

My understanding:

Jesus may have married, Jesus may have not during his mortal ministry.  There is no record and there is no revelation one way or the other.

My take on this is that he did not marry during his mortal ministry.

Logic:

He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.  He did not need the saving ordinance of Baptism because He is already God.  He got baptized because it is a requirement for our salvation, therefore, he got baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Marriage is not a requirement for salvation.  Rather, it is a requirement for exaltation.  Jesus is already God.  This leads me to believe that he is already married in the pre-existence before he offered his atoning sacrifice to the Father.  It is, therefore, not necessary for him to get married even as he taught and preached the marital covenant and its eternal importance.

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

I don't know MG . . .atheist can say the same thing.  One man's evidence is another man's non-evidence . . . 

 I know what you mean my friend.

 

In my view, in a debate between an atheist and a believer, the burden of proof is on the believer to prove their is a God. Which I think you can do. The believer is making a claim (a claim which I believe to be correct, in the case of belief in a God) so like a prosecutor in a courthouse, he or she has to prove the case. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

You're forgetting one important thing.  The Bible revisionists would have made CERTAIN that she was taken out of the Bible.  Other faiths believe that sex is sinful no matter what.  Therefore, if Jesus were married and had sex, then he was not without sin.  Instead of understanding the obvious (that sex within marriage is encouraged, not sinful) they simply chose to take those "plain and precious truths" out to confirm the doctrines they's already decided were true.

Unfortunately, I'm not forgetting anything, and that's where we disagree. I don't think there are "bible revisionists" who took apart the bible. I don't think it's a giant conspiracy. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Unfortunately, I'm not forgetting anything, and that's where we disagree. I don't think there are "bible revisionists" who took apart the bible. I don't think it's a giant conspiracy. 

Then you refuse to agree with a very commonly accepted belief in the faith:

Quote

"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" (TPJS, p. 327).

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then you refuse to agree with a very commonly accepted belief in the faith:

 

You know me my friend, I've always been independent. 

Let me be clear: If Jesus had a wife, that part would have been recorded correctly. There. 

Edited June 7, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Let me be clear: If Jesus had a wife, that part would have been recorded correctly. There. 

Just so we're on the same page.

You said.

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I don't think there are "bible revisionists" who took apart the bible. I don't think it's a giant conspiracy. 

The OP aside, I pointed out that Joseph Smith said SPECIFICALLY

Quote

"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" (TPJS, p. 327).

And you refuse to believe it. (that some in history have deliberately taken things out of the Bible)  Is that correct?

Edited June 7, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Just so we're on the same page.

You said.

I pointed out that Joseph Smith said SPECIFICALLY

And you refuse to believe it.  Is that correct?

 We won't be on the same page. Agree to disagree. 

I do not believe that it's a giant conspiracy to remove the "wife" of Jesus (if He had one) from history.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 We won't be on the same page. Agree to disagree. 

I do not believe that it's a giant conspiracy to remove the "wife" of Jesus (if He had one) from history.

I said "OP aside".  Do you believe that things were deliberately taken out of the Bible or not?

[tesuji]

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then you refuse to agree with a very commonly accepted belief in the faith:

 

Yes, and there is Nephi's vision where he saw that plain and precious things would be removed from the Bible.

And the intro to D&C 76 where Joseph Smith says it's evident that some truths had been lost from the Bible. Plus of course AoF #8.

MormonGator, brother, it sounds like you are a victim of "presentism" - assuming that modern notions are applicable to the past. The past was very different from now.

Edited June 7, 2016 by tesuji

[The Folk Prophet]

Clearly "the internet" was the right solution.

[NeedleinA]

I have nothing helpful to contribute to this topic, but it appears you all are cooking hot over here! There I was minding my own business watching the news about a Cheeseburger Stabbing and the scroll on the bottom said "HOT!" thread so I popped over to see what was going on.

Edited June 7, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Vort]

5 hours ago, TilKingdomCome said:

So this is a question I posed to the missionaries in my most recent lesson, and they said I should just ask online to look for an answer.

Worst advice ever.

I personally disbelieve that Christ was unmarried. I challenge anyone to show me Biblical proof that he was so.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's where we will have to agree to disagree. The bible wouldn't mention His brothers/half-brothers, cousins, uncles, etc and then not mention His wife. Something that important would have been saved by history.

Why? We know that Peter was married, but only because his wife just happened to be mentioned in passing in one verse.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why? We know that Peter was married, but only because his wife just happened to be mentioned in passing in one verse.

Check your inbox my friend. 

[kapikui]

A little internet research shows that girls and boys were often betrothed at onset of puberty.  Perhaps Christ was married at 14 or so (apparently not unusual at all in ancient Judea).  Now perhaps she then died a couple of years later (also not uncommon). Since that would be in the 20 or so years of Christ's life that the Bible is completely silent on, none of that would get a mention.  There could be any number of reasons that a wife is not mentioned.

The point is, that there just isn't that much recorded either way to say historically that he was or was not married. The marriage at Cana could have easily been Christ's.  Mary and Martha fit very well as potential wives. Perhaps one or more wives does figure prominently and is simply not named specifically as a wife.  I also don't see it as particularly unlikely that such was either deliberately omitted from the account in he gospels to protect these people of removed from the bible by the Great and Abominable church referenced in first Nephi.

Either scenario makes some sense.  After all, the gospel writers knew full well that Christ had rather angered the existant power base.  Keeping saying "Hey, here's his wife/wives and some kids" would be a tactically idiotic move on their part. The those threatened by Christ would almost certainly go after any potential heirs, or anyone who might be considered an heir by the populace.  Keeping that quiet would keep those individuals safe. Possibly for generations.  

Indeed we've seen this occur one other time in scripture.  Zedekiah had his sons murdered in front of him.  The bible implies that none of them escaped, but one named Mulek did. Found his way across the ocean along with an unknown number of others and their descendants were found in Zarahemla by the Nephites. Why was this not recorded?  I would say that either the recorder left it out so that their enemies wouldn't try to follow, or Zedekiah himself kept it quiet and the recorder didn't know.  After all if someone said "now I'm going to murder all of your children in front of you" and misses one, are you going to tell them?   

Why the other scenario makes sense has been hashed out previously. 

 

[anatess2]

Okay guys...

We are the Church of the Restoration.  The question is still unanswered.  Even if Christ's marriage was removed from the Bible, as an important, nay, ESSENTIAL part of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, why was it not restored in the latter days in the same manner that the book of Moses and Abraham were restored?

So yeah, we can talk all day about how it's not in the Bible... it still doesn't explain why it is not in our scriptures of the latter days.

[LeSellers]

15 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Polygamy... was that practiced in Judaism during his time?

Definitely. It was not until the XI that some powerful Jews dictated that Plural Marriage was no longer to be part of Judaism. As late as the XII, Moshe ben Maimon ("Maimonides") said that while he objected to it, it was permissible under the Law of Moses. Even today, there are Jews who practice Plural Marriage.

There were obviously Saints in the I&II who had multiple wives, else why Paul's interdiction of Plural Marriage for Deacons and Bishops (and not others)? Further, he also lambasted one of the Stakes for tolerating a member who had had sex with his father's wife (one who was not his own mother), hinting, again, of Plural Marriage among the Saints of the Early-day Church.

There is simply nothing inherently wrong with Plural Marriage, and especially not from a religious perspective. At least not when God commands His people.

Lehi

Edited June 7, 2016 by LeSellers

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, zomarah said:

 

Not to get too far off topic, but it's interesting how we talk about plural marriage being the exception. However, considering it was authorized in the Law of Moses, there where no New Testament prohibitions*, and viewing OD1 as valid; that's a run of over three thousand years. If we add Abraham in there then that's almost four thousand years of authorized polygyny. That's far from the rare exception people think of when they talk about it. And we simply don't have information about if it was authorized or not prior to Abraham.
 

*The exception being that given to specific church officers, stating they should have one wife.

Because the Book of Mormon in the Book of Jacob we learn this

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.

 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

The Lord himself in verse 30 provides the "exception" in which multiple wives are allowed

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

There is simply nothing inherently wrong with Plural Marriage

 

Where in my asking if polygamy was a Jewish practice in the time of Christ did you get that  said something was wrong with polygamy?

[LeSellers]

20 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Where in my asking if polygamy was a Jewish practice in the time of Christ did you get that I  said something was wrong with polygamy?

You didn't, and I didn't think you had.

There are, however, a lot of people who imagine that there is, and some of them might have read my message. So, to avoid a different discussion, one that would get off the track, I added the information to support the point that there is nothing inherently wrong with Plural Marriage.

Oh, and you're welcome for the answer to your question.

Lehi

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, Vort said:

Worst advice ever.

I personally disbelieve that Christ was unmarried. I challenge anyone to show me Biblical proof that he was so.

You're so negative Vort.

[zil]

15 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

You're so negative Vort.

Don't you mean he's so not unpositive?