Was jesus married

[Guest Scott]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, we (and the broader internet) have quite the file on our good friend Mr. Crook.

So, is he a real person?  

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 5:57 AM, Jeries said:

Was jesus married. 

Disclaimer:  I haven't read this string, other than the OP.

ANSWER:  NO.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

So, is he a real person?  

Oh, heavens, yes. 

Exhibit A.

I'm almost flattered such an epically ignominious piece of . . . humanity, deigned to visit our own little corner of the interwebs.  But the Lord loves all sorts, I suppose . . . 

Edited September 30, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, AlbanyNYLDS said:

No rational human believes Christ is or was married. 

Actually, a rational person would be governed by reason and evidence. And, if there is no evidence to judge either way, then rational people would reason that one can't reasonably say one way or the other, and would be open either way.

However, If there is some evidence either way, though not compelling or definitive, then one is free to reasonably believe or not in the direction to which the evidence points.

What would be irrational is to stake out a dogmatic position one way or another, including that Christ was not married, or that "no rational human Christ is or was married."

Just out of curiosity,  who do you believe is being referred to as the "bridegroom" in most of these scriptural passages (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 30, 2018 by wenglund

[Guest Scott]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, heavens, yes.  

I found out the answer after I asked.

Dang.  He is a real person and really is a member of the Church.  I didn't know he had been on the news either.

 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Disclaimer:  I haven't read this string, other than the OP.

That's  a good thing.   I wouldn't recommend reading it.

The only real answer is that the LDS Church has no official stance on the matter. 

I myself don't know either way, but personally lean towards that he was not.  I don't claim it as anything other than my opinion though. 

Quote

ANSWER:  NO.

Thanks for the straight up answer. 

Since you aren't a member of our Church would you mind expounding on that briefly?

It seems to me that a majority of Christians believe that he wasn't, but others believe that he was, and yet others are impartial.  

This is just my opinion/observation, but to me it seems that those who want to see Jesus as being more alike us in life and image (while still believing Him to be God) are more prone to speculate that he was married.  It's more than just things like marriage.  For example, a lot of people picture Jesus as a white European, which really wasn't the case (though we have no idea what he really looked like).  We (unintentionally) as humans want to picture God to be more like us, or so it seems.

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

No, He wasn't married. No mention of a wife during His ministry. No mention of a wife when He was crucified. After His death and resurrection, no mention of a wife. Other family members are mention. Paul doesn't mention it in his letters. No scholar taken seriously by their field (sorry, it's true) thinks He was married. Even those who don't believe in His claims of divinity.  It's a fringe theory at best. 

So no, He wasn't married. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by MormonGator

[prisonchaplain]

36 minutes ago, Scott said:

Since you aren't a member of our Church would you mind expounding on that briefly?

Sure. I suppose He could have been--it just seems so very unlikely. First, while Jesus was fully human, He was/is divine. If Jesus were to marry a human and have children, what would the baby be? The speculations of what was referred to as Nephiim (Gen. 6) comes to mind. Then too, Jesus' mission was to be sacrificed and resurrected. He knew of this early in his life. How cruel to marry, possibly have children, all while knowing He would die young, and leave them. Those two factors alone leave me pretty confident in my NO answer.

Edited October 1, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, He wasn't married. No mention of a wife during His ministry. No mention of a wife when He was crucified. After His death and resurrection, no mention of a wife. Other family members are mention. Paul doesn't mention it in his letters. No scholar taken seriously by their field (sorry, it's true) thinks He was married. Even those who don't believe in His claims of divinity. 

So no, He wasn't married. 

Just out of curiosity,  who do you believe is being referred to as the "bridegroom" in most of these scriptural passages (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, wenglund said:

Just out of curiosity,  who do you believe is being referred to as the "bridegroom" in most of these scriptural passages (see HERE)

Not Jesus. 😉

[prisonchaplain]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Just out of curiosity,  who do you believe is being referred to as the "bridegroom" in most of these scriptural passages (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You've asked this of two different posters, so I will take a stab. Generally, the bridegroom is NT scripture is Jesus, and the Church is his bride. It's a picture of his love for us--He died for us. Ephesians 6 says we men should love our wives like Christ love the church--and died for her.

[Vort]

.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Vort

[wenglund]

26 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

You've asked this of two different posters, so I will take a stab. Generally, the bridegroom is NT scripture is Jesus, and the Church is his bride. It's a picture of his love for us--He died for us. Ephesians 6 says we men should love our wives like Christ love the church--and died for her.

I believe you are correct, @MormonGator's uninformed response to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, isn't it also indicative of Christ being married, at least symbolically? Don't the notions of brides and grooms tend to suggest a wedding and marriage? 

To me, there are several parables that seem to affirm this (see HERE and HERE).

Also, isn't such a marriage necessary for us to be legitimately born of him and take upon us his name? Surely he wouldn't have us born out of wedlock.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited October 1, 2018 by wenglund

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

, @MormonGator's uninformed response

Technically, I was uninterested in responding rather than uninformed. Take notes. 

[wenglund]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Technically, I was uninterested in responding rather than uninformed. Take notes. 

Yes....right....sure. I will bold and underline it in my list of examples on how to dig the hole deeper rather than climbing out.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

Yes....right....sure. I will bold and underline it in my list of examples on how to dig the hole deeper rather than climbing out.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Just be sure to spell my name correctly. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by MormonGator

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, heavens, yes. 

Exhibit A.

I'm almost flattered such an epically ignominious piece of . . . humanity, deigned to visit our own little corner of the interwebs.  But the Lord loves all sorts, I suppose . . . 

My troll alarm rang loud  and clear for this one.  My practice is to respond to a troll directly only once, and indicate that I’ve identified them as such and never again engage them directly...no feeding of the trolls.  That said, I wouldn’t refuse to attempt to have an honest conversation with anyone, but on-line is never a forum I’d use for such an attempt with someone who’s demonstrated they’re more interested in disturbing others than in serious, thoughtful discussion.

I hope such posters aren’t common-place on this site.  I’m new, and for the most part have found the comments to be sincere and, thankfully, thought-provoking.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I hope such posters aren’t common-place on this site.

I don't think they are. Most people who ask questions do so with a sincere interest in the truth, not to be rude or troll around. 

[Sunday21]

25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Technically, I was uninterested in responding rather than uninformed. Take notes. 

[wenglund]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Just be sure to spell my name correctly. 

Since you asked so politely, I will go one step further and include your photo:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Since you asked so politely, I will go one step further and include your photo:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

hahahahahahahahaha. I used to LOVE Mad magazine as kid. You made my night my friend. Haven't thought about that in years. Alfred E Neuman! 

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

hahahahahahahahaha. I used to LOVE Mad magazine as kid. You made my night my friend. Haven't thought about that in years. Alfred E Neuman! 

Me too.

I am very glad you took it in the jovial spirit in which it was intended. You are a good sport, particularly since I left myself wide open for a knee-buckling jab to the ribs. I intend to mention this when next our Elders Quorum has a lesson on mercy. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Me too.

I am very glad you took it in the jovial spirit in which it was intended. You are a good sport, particularly since I left myself wide open for a knee-buckling jab to the ribs. I intend to mention this when next our Elders Quorum has a lesson on mercy. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I emailed my Dad asking him about Mad Magazine. He loved it too growing up. You seriously made my night. 

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

However, isn't it also indicative of Christ being married, at least symbolically? Don't the notions of brides and grooms tend to suggest a wedding and marriage? 

... Also, isn't such a marriage necessary for us to be legitimately born of him and take upon us his name? Surely he wouldn't have us born out of wedlock.

If you choose to take Jesus' metaphorical marriage to us as something beyond the depth of his love, then all those references might actually point us away from Jesus having engaged in a literal, physical human marriage. After all, that could be construed as bigamy.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If you choose to take Jesus' metaphorical marriage to us as something beyond the depth of his love, then all those references might actually point us away from Jesus having engaged in a literal, physical human marriage. After all, that could be construed as bigamy.

It gets even worse than bigamy if one follows that line of "reasoning" because, given that the Church (as you seem to interpret the term) is comprised of Jesus' children, it would mean he was married to his children, and thus construed as incest. 

However, my point can be rescued by differentiating between, A) the Church as a set of principles and a singular governing entity, versus B) the Church as a collection of individual believers, and by assuming the former ("A"). This way we avoid the rational objections associated with mistakenly assuming definition "B", and we don't have to ignore or shy away from the richer and unmistakable symbolic linkage to marriage in the noted parables, and the deeply familial language throughout the scriptures, which is more specific than the general notion of love. The relationship between Christ and his Church ("A"), as I see things, may be rightly understood as going beyond love to also include an eternal covenant bond. The Savior didn't just love his bride to be (Church "A"), he symbolically, if not literally, married her for time if not also for eternity. And, through that holy union is legitimately born the Church defined as "B". 

So, in this symbolic respect, one can reasonably and un-problematically say that Jesus was married.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-