Was jesus married


Jeries
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

 Prophets disagree. It’s a basic tenet of LDS theology.  There is no more testing. They have qualified for the Celestial Kingdom.  Mortality has a purpose for them, to obtain a body.  And as Jesus taught, through them the glory of God is made manifest.

interesting without being tested in the commanded god

for example, the ten commandments

Edited by goor_de
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very simple problem but we must first ask this question - Unless the scriptures say otherwise do we assume Jesus was married or do we assume he was not married.  Are there ancient culture clues?

I will ask a basic question - in the Jewish society in which Jesus lived - was it expected that men should marry.  Was it considered more honorable or less honorable for men to marry?

If Jesus was married - why was he not criticized for being married by his critics?  If he was not married why was he not criticized by his critics for not being married - which way did the Jewish society stand?  What was expected of honorable men?  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This is a very simple problem but we must first ask this question - Unless the scriptures say otherwise do we assume Jesus was married or do we assume he was not married.  Are there ancient culture clues?

I will ask a basic question - in the Jewish society in which Jesus lived - was it expected that men should marry.  Was it considered more honorable or less honorable for men to marry?

If Jesus was married - why was he not criticized for being married by his critics?  If he was not married why was he not criticized by his critics for not being married - which way did the Jewish society stand?  What was expected of honorable men?  

 

The Traveler

Jesus was a peasant.  In the culture of his time, you don't marry until you can financially support a wife.  Hence, it is not uncommon for honorable Jewish men to marry late into their 30's and 40's to which Jesus did not live long enough to see.

Whether Jesus is criticized or not for being married or not can't be concluded in scriptures.  Just because the scriptures did not mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  What is clear is that the restoration of the gospel did not deem it important to restore those missing scripture if they were indeed missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Jesus was a peasant.  In the culture of his time, you don't marry until you can financially support a wife.  Hence, it is not uncommon for honorable Jewish men to marry late into their 30's and 40's to which Jesus did not live long enough to see.

Whether Jesus is criticized or not for being married or not can't be concluded in scriptures.  Just because the scriptures did not mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  What is clear is that the restoration of the gospel did not deem it important to restore those missing scripture if they were indeed missing.

Jesus was called Rabbi and Master, even by his critics.  Was it common for a peasant to be called Rabbi and Master by high standing critics?

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Jesus was called Rabbi and Master, even by his critics.  Was it common for a peasant to be called Rabbi and Master by high standing critics?

 

The Traveler 

Rabbi in that era is the title for Teacher.  Remember how amazed the people were in the temple when he taught as a 12-year-old.  Then remember the criticism he received when he read from the Holy Book at the start of his ministry.  That was one of the reasons he was hated by the "learned men", deigning to teach in his standing.  The notation on the cross is another indication of this - how he is mocked for how people call him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm rather sure he was married. And I can only repeat there is, objectively,  a certain probability he was.

"Denn:  Rabbis hatten zu Lebzeiten des in der christlichen Lehre als Gottessohn bezeichneten Mannes Frauen."

("Because: For rabbis had wives during the lifetime of the man who in christian doctrine was called the Son of God.")

https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/religion/sie-fanden-5-evangelium-forscher-sicher-jesus-war-verheiratet-und-hatte-zwei-soehne_id_4264587.html

A powerful argument, I think. It's convincing me all the more each time when this question is being discussed. Jesus as an unmarried man wouldn't have found the slightest recognition among his followers.

Think just Jewish and try imagining the spirit of those times... h0340.gif

Edited by OnePassenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, OnePassenger said:

I'm rather sure he was married.

"Denn:  Rabbis hatten zu Lebzeiten des in der christlichen Lehre als Gottessohn bezeichneten Mannes Frauen."

("Because: For rabbis had wives during the lifetime of the man who in christian doctrine was called the Son of God.")

https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/religion/sie-fanden-5-evangelium-forscher-sicher-jesus-war-verheiratet-und-hatte-zwei-soehne_id_4264587.html

A powerful argument, I think. It's convincing me all the more each time when this question in being discussed. Jesus as an unmarried man wouldn't have found the slightest recognition among his followers.

Think just Jewish...

So, I used to work in an Israeli company.  My workmates (all Jews) said that the official term Rabbi (appointed as a Jewish religious leader) did not start until centuries after Christ's ministry.  The requirement to be married and later on, to be over 40 years old, came with that official title.  Before that, people who taught Jewish law or are consulted on religious matters are called rabbi.  But yes, they are respected in their community which is why they are consulted on religious matters.  So, it's not that you are married or you are old or you are rich so they call you rabbi when you are learned and teach of religious matters.  Rather, they listen to what you teach and gain respect so they call you rabbi.  The Fiddler on the Roof thing where Tevye said that if he was a rich man he could be a rabbi and people would listen to him even if he was speaking nonesense was not the thing in Jesus' time.  Jesus gained followers in the thousands who listen to his teachings and call him rabbi.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If I am not mistaken, your point is that Jesus is "married" to the church. If so, we agree.

Something for you to consider: In Latter-Day theology, the fullness of  redemption from the fall includes being restored to a sinless state, being restored to ia state of nnocence before God, a return to a state of immortality, a return to the state of living in the immediate presence of God, a restoration to full access to the tree of life, AND a return to the state of being married to a spouse for eternity under the commandment to multiply.

It appears to me that virtually all non-Latter-Day Saint Christians fail to remind themselves that when God created Adam He very significantly declared it’s not good for the man he created to be alone — not good  even though the Adam was sinless, immortal and living in the immediate presence of God. To rectify this lonely state that God himself proclaimed to be “not good (remember, everything else was proclaimed by Him to be good) God crested a female companion for Adam, Eve, who became Adam’s wife. The couple then entered the divinely-ordained union of marriage, a union that would have continued forever, never to be drawn drawn asunder, as long as they both kept God’s commandments.

To we Latter-Day Saints, the eternal marital union of Adam and Eve clearly establishes the pattern for the state of heavenly glory that we we must emulate if all is going to be proclaimed to be good while we dwell in God’s presence as glorious resurrected men and women. We believe gender is of eternal significance and that there is a wise and glorious reason why we continue to be men and women in the resurrection.

Two questions:

1) Do you agree Adam and Eve would have remained husband and wife forever if it hadn’t been for their disobedience?          

2) Do you believe when we humans are resurrected that we will continue to be men and women in eternity?                

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

So, I used to work in an Israeli company.  My workmates (all Jews) said that the official term Rabbi (appointed as a Jewish religious leader) did not start until centuries after Christ's ministry.  The requirement to be married and later on, to be over 40 years old, came with that official title.  Before that, people who taught Jewish law or are consulted on religious matters are called rabbi.  But yes, they are respected in their community which is why they are consulted on religious matters.  So, it's not that you are married or you are old or you are rich so they call you rabbi when you are learned and teach of religious matters.  Rather, they listen to what you teach and gain respect so they call you rabbi.  The Fiddler on the Roof thing where Tevye said that if he was a rich man he could be a rabbi and people would listen to him even if he was speaking nonesense was not the thing in Jesus' time.  Jesus gained followers in the thousands who listen to his teachings and call him rabbi.

Sorry, it can't convince me. Jesus was the leader of a former new sect, against those rabbis and the upper class Jews, who collaborated with the Romans. It had started with John the Baptist, at those  times of Herodes Antipas, Roman clientele king of Judaea, Galilea and Samaria, and becoming a leader of them one must have had gained recognition of his followers; not only by wise words. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but the rabbis and the majority of the Jews were denying he was - the old story.

Edited by OnePassenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OnePassenger said:

 

Sorry, it can't convince me. Jesus was the leader of a former new sect, against those rabbis, who collaborated with the Romans. It had started with John the Baptist, at those  times of Herodes, king of Judaea, Galilea and Samaria, and becoming a leader of them one must have had gained recognition of his followers; not only by wise words. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but the rabbis and the majority of the Jews were denying he was - the old story

What old story, that there are people who find what they think are good reasons to not believe in God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Rabbi in that era is the title for Teacher.  Remember how amazed the people were in the temple when he taught as a 12-year-old.  Then remember the criticism he received when he read from the Holy Book at the start of his ministry.  That was one of the reasons he was hated by the "learned men", deigning to teach in his standing.  The notation on the cross is another indication of this - how he is mocked for how people call him.

Unlike today - the title of teacher was not considered scum or low class.   It was an honored title of respect - hardly a peasant.  We also know Jesus was a skilled craftsman - skills that may seem poor by our modern standards but Jesus was not destitute for his time and place - nor was he born homeless.  Part of his criticism was that he spent time with those of lower class than himself.  I am quite sure that the assumption that he was single because he was unable to provide is simply not true. 

I must be honest - I am somewhat offended when those that understand the new and everlasting covenant that would think that family and children is demeaning and undignified - something no respectable divine being would pollute their high purpose with - and therefore argue against family unless proven otherwise - I am of a much different notion - that it is demeaning to any status to think family is itself not a divine attribute that is good and right to pursue and an act of following Jesus.   In short I do not accept that family covenants ruin the most noble from their greatest accomplishments.  So my assumption is that anyone that the Father would say he was "well pleased" - at minimum would be married.  And I do not think of Jesus as doing the minimum.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Unlike today - the title of teacher was not considered scum or low class.   It was an honored title of respect - hardly a peasant.  We also know Jesus was a skilled craftsman - skills that may seem poor by our modern standards but Jesus was not destitute for his time and place - nor was he born homeless.  Part of his criticism was that he spent time with those of lower class than himself.  I am quite sure that the assumption that he was single because he was unable to provide is simply not true. 

I must be honest - I am somewhat offended when those that understand the new and everlasting covenant that would think that family and children is demeaning and undignified - something no respectable divine being would pollute their high purpose with - and therefore argue against family unless proven otherwise - I am of a much different notion - that it is demeaning to any status to think family is itself not a divine attribute that is good and right to pursue and an act of following Jesus.   In short I do not accept that family covenants ruin the most noble from their greatest accomplishments.  So my assumption is that anyone that the Father would say he was "well pleased" - at minimum would be married.  And I do not think of Jesus as doing the minimum.

 

The Traveler

I haven't made that assumption.  I was simply giving you the culture of the time.  That it is not unusual for 32-year-old Jewish rabbis to be single in that era.

The rest of paragraph under it has no room in this discussion.

The Father saying he is "well pleased" does not indicate Jesus Christ was married in mortality.  He was already God before he was born of Mary.  If the Father is not pleased with him, he would not be God.  To say that Jesus would have to have married in mortality would indicate either of these 2 things:  1.)  Jesus was not the God of the Old Testament, 2.)  One can be God and not have an eternal companion.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

What is your personal belief about Jesus being the Messiah?

What would it have to do with the historical fact about Jesus not having been confirmed as the Messiah by the Jewish clericals...?

(cunning Jersey Boy - let me tell you it's always rewarding to answer with a counterquestion, just to win time) t1918.gif

Edited by OnePassenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

To we Latter-Day Saints, the eternal marital union of Adam and Eve clearly establishes the pattern for the state of heavenly glory that we we must emulate if all is going to be proclaimed to be good while we dwell in God’s presence as glorious resurrected men and women. We believe gender is of eternal significance and that there is a wise and glorious reason why we continue to be men and women in the resurrection.

Two questions:

1) Do you agree Adam and Eve would have remained husband and wife forever if it hadn’t been for their disobedience?          

2) Do you believe when we humans are resurrected that we will continue to be men and women in eternity?                

First, I am aware that eternal families are a doctrinal distinctive in your church, and that many non-members find it an attractive belief. Nevertheless, many members here seem to agree with me that it is unlikely that Jesus was married during his earthly sojourn.

As to the two questions--the first would be conjecture. I imagine they would have remained married. On the other hand, believing that God has foreknowledge of all that is to happen, I doubt that such was ever part of the creative plan. Secondly, most traditional Christians do not believe we will marry or be given in marriage, in the resurrection. We have much less insight into our lives to come than is given you by your church. However, based upon Jesus' retort, when asked which wife a man would have in the resurrection if he had been married to several, consecutively--and he answered that he would be husband to none, since there would be no marrying in heaven--we believe that we shall know and continue to love our earthly families, but that our love for all God's children will be far superior then--even greater than what we extended to our closest family members today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OnePassenger said:

Sorry, it can't convince me. Jesus was the leader of a former new sect, against those rabbis and the upper class Jews, who collaborated with the Romans. It had started with John the Baptist, at those  times of Herodes Antipas, Roman clientele king of Judaea, Galilea and Samaria, and becoming a leader of them one must have had gained recognition of his followers; not only by wise words. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but the rabbis and the majority of the Jews were denying he was - the old story.

Could it be that Jesus gained his respect by healing the sick--including a man born blind; by raising the dead; by driving out demons, AND by outwitting the formally trained rabbis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Could it be that Jesus gained his respect by healing the sick--including a man born blind; by raising the dead; by driving out demons, AND by outwitting the formally trained rabbis?

And, therefore, as long as one might believe all that, to give certain people in black robes a raison d'etre...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

First, I am aware that eternal families are a doctrinal distinctive in your church, and that many non-members find it an attractive belief. Nevertheless, many members here seem to agree with me that it is unlikely that Jesus was married during his earthly sojourn.

As to the two questions--the first would be conjecture. I imagine they would have remained married. On the other hand, believing that God has foreknowledge of all that is to happen, I doubt that such was ever part of the creative plan. Secondly, most traditional Christians do not believe we will marry or be given in marriage, in the resurrection. We have much less insight into our lives to come than is given you by your church. However, based upon Jesus' retort, when asked which wife a man would have in the resurrection if he had been married to several, consecutively--and he answered that he would be husband to none, since there would be no marrying in heaven--we believe that we shall know and continue to love our earthly families, but that our love for all God's children will be far superior then--even greater than what we extended to our closest family members today.

We also don’t believe people marry or are given in marriage after the resurrection. Whatever marriages there are that will continue iafter the resurrection must be performed while in mortality prior to theresurrection.

As to your second point. We believe the reason why the enemies of the Savior tried to trap him the way they did is because he was teaching that some marriages would last into eternity, hence their line of reasoning. They were trying to mock his teaching. The Saviour answered that they didn’t understand the power of God with reference to their question, which points to the fact that not just any marriages will last for time and all eternity, but only those marriages that are performed by those who possess the sealing power of the Holy priesthood of God. Additionally, the reason why the Lord said the couple in question would be unmarried, like the angels in heaven, is because couples whose marriages are not solemized by a priesthood holder vested with priesthood sealing power will be relegated to a lower state of glory. Just like many non-Latter-Day Saint Christians, we Latter-Day Saints believe the saved who receive a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory will be greater than those angels who remain single.

Another question: God said it wasn’t good for the immortal Adam (who then dwelled in the presence of God as a sinless being) to not have a wife. Why do you think it will be a good thing for immortal, sinless, resurrected men to not be married in heaven?

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

(...)

Another question: God said it wasn’t good for the immortal Adam (who then dwelled in the presence of God as a sinless being) to not have a wife. Why do you think it will be a good thing for immortal, sinless, resurrected men to not be married in heaven? 

Maybe he believes with marriage might come sin... 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

We also don’t believe people marry or are given in marriage after the resurrection. What ever marriages there are that will continue it’s after the resurrection must be performed while in mortality prior to the resurrection.

As to your second point. We believe the reason why the enemies of the Savior tried to trap him the way they did is because he was teaching that some marriages would last into eternity, hence their line of reasoning. They were trying to mock his teaching. The Saviour answered that they didn’t understand the power of God with reference to their question, which points to the fact that not just any marriages will last for time and all eternity, but only those marriages that are performed by those who possess the sealing power of the Holy priesthood of God. Additionally, the reason why the Lord said the couple in question would be unmarried, like the angels in heaven, is because couples whose marriages are not solemized by a priesthood holder vested with priesthood sealing power will be relegated to a lower state of glory. Just like many non-Latter-Day Saint Christians, we Latter-Day Saints believe tthe saved who receive a far more and exceeding and eternal weight of glory will be greater than those angels who remain single.

Another question: God said it wasn’t good for the immortal Adam (who then dwelled in the presence of God as a sinless being) to not have a wife. Why do you think it will be a good thing for immortal, sinless, resurrected men to not be married in heaven?

It was more than that.  The line was that he was teaching this idea of eternal marriage and those who were questioning him did NOT believe in eternal marriage or even marriage after death.  What's more, they did NOT even believe in the resurrection.  They were not just attempting to prove that there was no marriage after death, they were trying to prove that there was no resurrection after death, PERIOD!

Thus, they were asking from the point of the Sadducees.  As such, a man who was a follower of their beliefs would have NOT been married by the correct authority OR even under the belief that he would be married in the hereafter.  All the marriages were till death do they part.  As per the Law of Moses, any children would be heirs to the first husband, but they every marriage was therefore ONLY until death.

Thus, under the authority of the Saducees, they would not be married nor given in marriage after this life.  All marriages were to death (much like most Christian churches marry their members today).  It was a trick question.

He responded directly as per their power and ability in regards to the resurrection.  Their authority had no power to marry or give in marriage any beyond this life.

As such, the highest these could attain would be Angels in the hereafter.

The more important point was to address the teaching they were trying to prove was false.  The question itself was not actualy about marriage at all, but an attempt to prove that the resurrection was a false teaching.  The Lord, instead of being fooled or tricked by their questioning went right to the heart of what they were actually trying to do.  His discussion turned directly to the resurrection. 

He then backed up some of what he had stated about the Ressurection itself in his teachings with what they believed.  The followed the 5 books of Moses, disbelieving much of what else was believed by other Jews.  As such, he quoted them about Abraham, and Issac, and Jacob, and that God is not a God of the Dead, but of the Living.

We, as Mormons believe that those who marry in this life with the wrong authority and under the idea that they marry until death do they part will have that be true.  They are only given in marriage in this life.  In the next life they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Their marriages end at the end of this life and after that they are single.  They are not married in the hereafter and their marriages do not extend after death. Thus, they are as angels in heaven.

We too do not believe that in the next life we are able to marry or are given in marriage.  We believe that we can STAY married though, which is FAR different than being able to marry or being given in marriage.  We thus believe that if we are married under the right authority for eternity, that our sealings will endure and we can be a family forever.

This is NOT a belief that is shared by many Christian churches and they interpret the verses and discussions in the New Testament differently than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I haven't made that assumption.  I was simply giving you the culture of the time.  That it is not unusual for 32-year-old Jewish rabbis to be single in that era.

The rest of paragraph under it has no room in this discussion.

The Father saying he is "well pleased" does not indicate Jesus Christ was married in mortality.  He was already God before he was born of Mary.  If the Father is not pleased with him, he would not be God.  To say that Jesus would have to have married in mortality would indicate either of these 2 things:  1.)  Jesus was not the God of the Old Testament, 2.)  One can be God and not have an eternal companion.

You are assuming that all G-ds are equal.  It should be obvious that is not completely true.  The scriptures refer to Satan as the G-d of this world.  It is true that Jesus is the G-d of the Old and New Testament.  But we also know he is the Mediator with the Father.  In his role and under the titl,  of G-d Jesus clearly stated that he was not independent but rather served the Father and whatever he did was under the command and direction of the Father.  There are many examples that Jesus, though serving under the title of G-d, was not of the same status of the Father nor was he a Celestial being until the resurrection.  There is a reason that the Father did not atone for the sins of mankind - part of the reason is because the Father's physical body is both immortal and Celestial.

Now, I will go out a little on a limb here concerning the covenant of marriage.  That is - that even though we enter into the covenant of marriage in the temple - that does not mean we are married for eternity.  This should be obvious because there are many that end this covenant and are allowed to remarry.  I submit that once a marriage is sealed by the power of the Holy Ghost - such a covenant marriage cannot be ended.  I would also say that I am not convinced that our eternal companion was not ordained so in the pre-existence and that this life is an extension of the covenants we made before we were born and will not be completed until the resurrection.

Concerning Jesus - there is not a single revelation of anything he did between the time he was 12 and 30.  This is interesting because during the time his father Joseph died and such an event ought to be important enough for someone to record.  There are other things I could say about his father's death but this is not the time or place.  The point is that Jesus could have had children and lived an "normal" life - indeed the residents of his home town seemed to think of him as normal and not exceptional - even in a knowledge of scripture or the sacred things in Israel - thinking him not exceptional (which is a little contradictory to the adage that Jesus grew in favor with G-d and man.)

Part of the problem is what many think the notion of G-d is.  If we were to define a G-d what would anyone say a G-d was?  Hardly someone subject to Gethsemane and the Cross and yet he was.  Some would say a G-d is someone whose will is law - but Jesus submitted his will - he did not do what he wanted (hardly what we normally think of as a G-d).   I do not believe a person can be a G-d without an eternal companion.  And contrary to the belief of some - eternal goes both directions - both back and forward in time.  But now I must be careful not to go too far into speculation - but I would say that I do not believe that an event can take place in this life that was not previously known, chosen by agency and ordained to be so.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share