Was jesus married

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

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.

I'm going to just address this one.

There are only 3 persons in One God - Father, Son, Holy Ghost.  Being ONE God means they are equal in perfection.  Being equal in perfection does not prevent the Son from worshiping the Father.

The Father did not atone for our sins, not because He can't but because Jesus did. 

Satan is not God. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by anatess2

[Jersey Boy]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

While composing my post, I was fully aware of the fact that the enemies who confronted the Lord in the quoted passages did not believe in the possibility of marriage continuing after death because they didn’t even believe in life after death. This causes one to ask the obvious question: If the Sadducees didn’t believe in life after death, and if the resurrection believing Pharisees didn’t believe in the possibility of marriage continuing after the resurrection, from where did this strange and foreign idea of marriage continuing in the hereafter come?

Personally, I believe the Lord taught the principle of eternal marriage, using the potentially everlasting marriage of the immortal Adam and Eve as the paradigm. I also believe the reason why our current New Testament lacks specificity on the subject is because the principle of eternal marriage is one of those plain and precious covenants that was eliminated from the scriptures by the designing men of the great and abominable church. But at least we have the following...

3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.(Matthew19)

Edited October 2, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:32 AM, Traveler said:

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?  

When you have a controversial religious figure healing people, raising the dead, driving out demons, and claiming to be the Son of Man (a divine messianic figure, according to Daniel), claiming to be the only way to God, calling the teachers of the law white-washed tombs, then could it be that his marital status would have been considered a minor matter in light of everything else? The gospels tell us often that the rulers planned to kill Jesus. This for what he said and what his movement might result in--not whether he was hitched or not.

Edited October 3, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[jerome1232]

I'm not sure why this matters. On one hand it stands to reason that Christ was baptized to show us how it's done, that he'd also get married much for the same reason.

But you know what, Jesus was God before He had a body. Therefore he need not be married here on earth to attain celestial glory since he was already there. I'm not sure how that works.

I'd chalk this up to "I have no idea, It's possible but it's never explicitly stated." We know that we are commanded to be sealed for eternity in God's temple.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

When you have a controversial religious figure healing people, raising the dead, driving out demons, and claiming to be the Son of Man (a divine messianic figure, according to Daniel), claiming to be the only way to God, calling the teachers of the law white-washed tombs, then could it be that his marital status would have been considered a minor matter in light of everything else? The gospels tell us often that the rulers planned to kill Jesus. This for what he said and what his movement might result in--not whether he was hitched or not.

Those that sought to discredit Jesus would look for any avenue and any excuse of anything at all to discredit him or demonstrate he was not in good standing before G-d.  I find that this little detail of a posterity left out of any discussion a major concern.  Especially in light of traditions established in the Old Testament.  Not just that Jesus marriage has not mention but that there is no mention of an blood heir to maintain his legacy.  For example all covenants of G-d included the concept of an enduring seed of uncountable numbers (such as the sands of the sea) and the idea of a heir was a critical sign of someone blessed and favored of G-d.  Suddenly the universe shifts without of whisper from G-d and there is no concern?  Obviously something is missing in the narrative.   Either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. 

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

Those that sought to discredit Jesus would look for any avenue and any excuse of anything at all to discredit him or demonstrate he was not in good standing before G-d.  I find that this little detail of a posterity left out of any discussion a major concern.  Especially in light of traditions established in the Old Testament.  Not just that Jesus marriage has not mention but that there is no mention of an blood heir to maintain his legacy.  For example all covenants of G-d included the concept of an enduring seed of uncountable numbers (such as the sands of the sea) and the idea of a heir was a critical sign of someone blessed and favored of G-d.  Suddenly the universe shifts without of whisper from G-d and there is no concern?  Obviously something is missing in the narrative.   Either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. 

 

The Traveler

You raise an interesting point. There was evidently a shift in the priesthood universe from a patriarchal order to an ecclesiastical order, which may have been frustrated were Christ to have had a male heir, and indirectly argue against his being married.

For that matter, since God was Christ's Father, making him part human and part God, were Christ to have begotten children, then they, too, would be part human and part God. making it so that, among other things, their lives could not be taken.

Since begetting children is the fundamental point of marriage.....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[askandanswer]

 

This screen shot from familysearch.org suggests that someone believes that not only was Christ married but that He also had children. I have no idea where this research comes from.

[goor_de]

https://gw.geneanet.org/lelemva?lang=en&n=bat+yeshuah&oc=0&p=sarah+damaris

Edited October 5, 2018 by goor_de
on the sources there were four children.the wedding to kana would have to be earlier than jesus was about 22.That's the age where Jews marry.this closes more and more the gap from 12 years to 30 years. Jesus had the time to take care of his family until h

[HereAmISendMe]

On 10/4/2018 at 7:02 AM, askandanswer said:

 

This screen shot from familysearch.org suggests that someone believes that not only was Christ married but that He also had children. I have no idea where this research comes from.

Well, it's certainly amusing, but just remember that anyone can post anything on FS.  That being written, in my mind it's not even a debate, in the negative.

[zil]

Welcome, @HereAmISendMe!