Jeries

Was jesus married

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Jeries said:

Was jesus married. 

Parly Pratt believed it. He refers to a place where in the garden as jesus maria magdalea was the first to address.
he said, do not hold me tight. he was very restrained there.
maria magdalena said rabbuni to jesus
Pratt said this saying was not only the highest honor, but a woman spoke to her husband at that time

Edited by goor_de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

There is no real evidence one way or the other.  There is lots of speculation, however. I've yet to hear a theory that holds up well to scrutiny.

 

 

 

there is another wedding to kana, jesu's own wedding.
The groom is responsible for the wine

Edited by goor_de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Jesus fulfilled all righteousness (kept the whole law) and seeing that marriage is a commandment and the very order of heaven (the law,) Jesus must be married. Whether it was before or after his resurrection, I don't know, but he is married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Dale Bills, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement released Tuesday:

"The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine." https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635208214/LDS-do-not-endorse-claims-in-Da-Vinci.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LePeel said:

Since Jesus fulfilled all righteousness (kept the whole law) and seeing that marriage is a commandment and the very order of heaven (the law,) Jesus must be married. Whether it was before or after his resurrection, I don't know, but he is married.

I suggest that it had to be before the resurrection.  He himself said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. . ."  Current doctrine and practice indicates that all temple work for an individual must be completed prior to that individuals resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, goor_de said:

Parly Pratt believed it. He refers to a place where in the garden as jesus maria magdalea was the first to address.
he said, do not hold me tight. he was very restrained there.
maria magdalena said rabbuni to jesus
Pratt said this saying was not only the highest honor, but a woman spoke to her husband at that time

On the other hand, under Jewish custom at the time, women couldn't be legal witnesses.  The fact that Mary was the first to witness of Christ's resurrection, and that it made it into the record, was a huge statement about the role of women in early Christianity.

 

16 minutes ago, LePeel said:

Since Jesus fulfilled all righteousness (kept the whole law) and seeing that marriage is a commandment and the very order of heaven (the law,) Jesus must be married. Whether it was before or after his resurrection, I don't know, but he is married.

There is no evidence that marriage, or entering into the sealing covenant was a commandment at the time Jesus lived.  Nor is there any evidence that the sealing covenant as we know it was a thing at the time.  This line of reasoning is speculative and makes enormous assumptions (that are unstated and unclear here).

 

29 minutes ago, goor_de said:

there is another wedding to kana, jesu's own wedding.
The groom is responsible for the wine

John 2:2 states that "both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." Why would he need to be called to his own wedding?  Wouldn't he have already been there?

14 minutes ago, person0 said:

I suggest that it had to be before the resurrection.  He himself said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. . ."  Current doctrine and practice indicates that all temple work for an individual must be completed prior to that individuals resurrection.

If I remember correctly, this was when Jesus was asked which of seven brothers a woman would be married to if she were married to the first, had no children before he died, and given to the second, etc, on until the seventh.  The issue here is that a woman was given to a brother as a wife for the purpose of producing a male heir that could inherit the first husband's property.  Jesus was rebuking that practice.  It really didn't have anything to do with "eternal marriage" so much as it was a suggestion that maybe a woman could inherit her husband's property just fine.

14 minutes ago, goor_de said:

Well, what is not church doctrine can still be true
I'm sure he knew it

I'm not denying that it could be true.  I'm only saying we have no way of knowing what is true.

And I dispute that he knew any such thing.  He certainly believed it, but that is not the same thing as knowing it.

 

So...again...the only non-speculative answer to the question is "we have insufficient evidence to determine the answer to this question."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Well, what is not church doctrine can still be true
I'm sure he knew it

8 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

 

 

Johannes 2: 2 stellt fest, dass " sowohl Jesus als auch seine Jünger zur Ehe berufen waren". Warum sollte er zu seiner eigenen Hochzeit gerufen werden? Wäre er nicht schon dort gewesen?

 

 

johannes 2,2 is not translated correctly
that Jesus, as bridegroom, was responsible for the wine is a strong argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't think Jesus was married. His mission wasn't about getting married and forming a family. He came to perform the atoning sacrifice.

Plus... I don't think he needs a temple marriage to become a God, as we know in the pre-mortal existence for some reason he was way ahead of all of us.

Edited by Chilean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, goor_de said:

johannes 2,2 is not translated correctly
that Jesus, as bridegroom, was responsible for the wine is a strong argument

Very well then, let's look at other translations:

"and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." -- NIV


"Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples." -- ESV


"and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration." -- NLT

 

So again, why invite him to his own wedding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also of note, there are four individuals described in the account at Cana.  Jesus, Mary, the ruler of the feast, and the bridegroom.  It seems odd that the author of John would use a separate term in order to name Jesus twice.  So there is a plausible argument that Jesus was not the bridegroom.

Furthermore, Jesus tries to distance himself from the problem, claiming that his time is not yet come.  You'd think that if it had been his responsibility in the first place, he'd have been more accepting of the responsibility.

Again, I can't say that he was or he wasn't.  But it isn't a slam-dunk to claim that he was just because he took over the wine.

 

On a humorous note, if Jesus was the bridegroom and was responsible for the wine, he wasn't much of a party planner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had never thought about this before, but I was recently reading in the OT where God flat-out told one of the OT prophets—I think it was Jeremiah—**not** to get married, due to the demands of his ministry and Jerusalem’s impending destruction (also:  as a symbol for the people).  

So, while I’ve traditionally speculated that Jesus was probably married for the reasons @LePeel gives; we do have scriptural precedent to the contrary.  (And of course, we have Paul advocating the single life as well.). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Very well then, let's look at other translations:

"and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." -- NIV

 

" the wedding of J

 

10 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Very well then, let's look at other translations:

"and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." -- NIV


"Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples." -- ESV


"and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration." -- NLT

 

So again, why invite him to his own wedding?

jesu wedding and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." -- NIV

Why should his younger friends be on a stoop?
if it was not his own
what half spoke to maria jesu
why did the cellar masters tell him that only the good wine will be ready

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Also of note, there are four individuals described in the account at Cana.  Jesus, Mary, the ruler of the feast, and the bridegroom.  It seems odd that the author of John would use a separate term in order to name Jesus twice.  So there is a plausible argument that Jesus was not the bridegroom.

Furthermore, Jesus tries to distance himself from the problem, claiming that his time is not yet come.  You'd think that if it had been his responsibility in the first place, he'd have been more accepting of the responsibility.

Again, I can't say that he was or he wasn't.  But it isn't a slam-dunk to claim that he was just because he took over the wine.

 

On a humorous note, if Jesus was the bridegroom and was responsible for the wine, he wasn't much of a party planner.

From what I understand of 1st century Jewish marital customs, if it were Jesus’ own wedding, he would have been doing . . . something else, . . . while the rest of the guests were eating and drinking.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From what I understand of 1st century Jewish marital customs, if it were Jesus’ own wedding, he would have been doing . . . something else, . . . while the rest of the guests were eating and drinking.  

Talk about performance anxiety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From what I understand of 1st century Jewish marital customs, if it were Jesus’ own wedding, he would have been doing . . . something else, . . . while the rest of the guests were eating and drinking.   

Maybe it was one of his brothers getting married.  That would explain Mary's involvement, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, goor_de said:

" the wedding of J

 

jesu wedding and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." -- NIV

Why should his younger friends be on a stoop?
if it was not his own
what half spoke to maria jesu
why did the cellar masters tell him that only the good wine will be ready

I feel like you're reading a different NIV than I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zil said:

Maybe it was one of his brothers getting married.  That would explain Mary's involvement, etc.

but not the much younger ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

There is no evidence that marriage, or entering into the sealing covenant was a commandment at the time Jesus lived.  Nor is there any evidence that the sealing covenant as we know it was a thing at the time.  This line of reasoning is speculative and makes enormous assumptions (that are unstated and unclear here).

every single commandment which is ever been given to man at any time existed before the foundation of the world. It is irrelevant what was expected of people at the time of Jesus, fact of the matter is Jesus must be married, otherwise he's not perfect and has not kept all the Commandments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LePeel said:

every single commandment which is ever been given to man at any time existed before the foundation of the world. It is irrelevant what was expected of people at the time of Jesus, fact of the matter is Jesus must be married, otherwise he's not perfect and has not kept all the Commandments.

Which explains why Jesus didn't drink wine...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now