Was jesus married

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

He was asked why he saved the good wine until last, not the new wine.

Something I learned while visiting Israel - Mt of olives and Gethsemane.  New wine and good wine is the same stuff and is the initial product of grapes.  Wine is the second and the last product (grape skin, seeds and stems crushed in an oil press) is virginal - sometimes called bitter wine. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

??? Because it’s taught.  Jesus is God.  He is the God of the Old Testament.  Gospel principles is pretty clear on the matter.

I agree that we was the G-d of the Old Testament - but he was different (subordinate) to the Father and he was not a resurrected Celestial being.  Also I would point out that he was not alone in creation.  Symbolically we are to understand that he was assisted by others.  Do you consider any of the others assisting in the creation with Jesus to also be G-ds?

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

Just now, Traveler said:

I agree that we was the G-d of the Old Testament - but he was different (subordinate) to the Father and he was not a resurrected Celestial being.  Also I would point out that he was not alone in creation.  Symbolically we are to understand that he was assisted by others.  Do you consider any of the others assisting in the creation with Jesus to also be G-ds?

 

The Traveler

This is not true.  If we are to believe that God laid out the plan of salvation that we may be God, then Jesus wouldn’t have become God without being a resurrected celestial being.  The spirits with him in the beginning were not Gods because there are only 3 persons in God.  Assisting in the creation does not make you the creator in the same manner that bishops assisting in the organization of the church does not make them prophets.

[mikbone]

24 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I agree that we was the G-d of the Old Testament - but he was different (subordinate) to the Father and he was not a resurrected Celestial being.  Also I would point out that he was not alone in creation.  Symbolically we are to understand that he was assisted by others.  Do you consider any of the others assisting in the creation with Jesus to also be G-ds?

 

The Traveler

Yes we may have assisted Him in creating the Earth...

But HE created worlds without number.  Moses 1:33.  HE predates us Vastly.  He is the firstborn.  

[MarginOfError]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

I wonder if God was telling him what He tells a lot of young men today. Don't get married, go on a mission.  But that doesn't mean to never get married.  Just that you have things to do first.

My impression is that Paul really and honestly believed that Christ's return was imminent. Consequently, there wasn't much point in marriage as there was a dire need to preach Christ to the world. I think his comments against marriage softened as it became clear to him that Christ's return might not be in the near future.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

My impression is that Paul really and honestly believed that Christ's return was imminent. Consequently, there wasn't much point in marriage as there was a dire need to preach Christ to the world. I think his comments against marriage softened as it became clear to him that Christ's return might not be in the near future.

And Jeremiah was living right before the 6th-century BC equivalent of the Holocaust.  

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true.  If we are to believe that God laid out the plan of salvation that we may be God, then Jesus wouldn’t have become God without being a resurrected celestial being.  The spirits with him in the beginning were not Gods because there are only 3 persons in God.  Assisting in the creation does not make you the creator in the same manner that bishops assisting in the organization of the church does not make them prophets.

Just to clarify: Do you believe pre-mortal Jesus was a resurrected celestial being? I ask because I don't believe I've heard that taught as Restoration doctrine.

Follow-up question: Do you also believe that the Holy Ghost is a resurrected celestial being? or do you not consider the Holy Ghost God?

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Just to clarify: Do you believe pre-mortal Jesus was a resurrected celestial being? I ask because I don't believe I've heard that taught as Restoration doctrine.

Follow-up question: Do you also believe that the Holy Ghost is a resurrected celestial being? or do you not consider the Holy Ghost God?

Do you not believe that the Heavenly Father is a resurrected celestial being hence He is God?  Would that not mean that Jesus and the Holy Ghost (and Heavenly Mother, et al) are also resurrected celestial beings, hence they are God?

Remember, we believe in One God.  The 3 persons in that Godhead are one God.  They have perfect unity.  They would have the same celestial bodies. 

[mordorbund]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Do you not believe that the Heavenly Father is a resurrected celestial being hence He is God?  Would that not mean that Jesus and the Holy Ghost (and Heavenly Mother, et al) are also resurrected celestial beings, hence they are God?

Remember, we believe in One God.  The 3 persons in that Godhead are one God.  They have perfect unity.  They would have the same celestial bodies. 

I believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.

I believe that the pre-mortal Jesus had a body of spirit which resembled, but was not, his body of flesh and bones.

And I anticipate a follow-up question, so I'll try to address that too. Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God by virtue of their being in the Godhead. I agree with the unity of will and purpose, but not in physical form. 

It may not be canonical, but in my view, Christ and the Holy Ghost were each endowed with the fulness of the Godhead (to borrow from Paul) when they were added to that governing council.

[goor_de]

10 hours ago, Suzie said:

Because as Mary stated "THEY have no wine" and she knew he could do something about it?

 

Where does it say that? The verses separate the two words: Jesus and bridegroom. The verses are not using the two words interchangeable.

 

1. we do not know the urtext
2. ancient greek knows no punctuation

[Suzie]

1 hour ago, goor_de said:

1. we do not know the urtext
2. ancient greek knows no punctuation

Then as stated on this thread, there is more speculation than real evidence.

[Suzie]

8 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

My impression is that Paul really and honestly believed that Christ's return was imminent. Consequently, there wasn't much point in marriage as there was a dire need to preach Christ to the world. I think his comments against marriage softened as it became clear to him that Christ's return might not be in the near future.

I always have the impression that when talking about Paul most people assume he was single, meaning he never got married. 1 Corinthians 7:8 does not really specify that he was unmarried: " I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I." The message seems to imply that he had no wife at the time but does not tell us that he never got married. He could have been separated, divorced or a widower. He was part of Sanhedrin, wasn't a requirement for a man to be married and have children to be part of it?

[Jersey Boy]

10 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

My impression is that Paul really and honestly believed that Christ's return was imminent. Consequently, there wasn't much point in marriage as there was a dire need to preach Christ to the world. I think his comments against marriage softened as it became clear to him that Christ's return might not be in the near future.

It appears you don’t realize the apostle Paul believed in and taught the doctrine of eternal marriage. The following verses of New Testament Scripture have been used from almost the beginning of the restoration of the gospel by the General Authorities to prove the doctrine of eternal marriage is biblical...

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Cor11)

and...

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph 5)

Very early on in his ministry the apostle Paul also taught the Second Coming wasn’t imminent but that it wouldn’t occur until sometime after a universal apostasy of the Church had occurred. Again, the following verses have been used from the beginning of the restoration by the Church leaders to prove there would be a universal apostasy and that Christ would not return until after said apostasy...

3 Let no man deceive you by any means for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be  revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2)

When in doubt, I usually exercise faith in the direction of believing the teachings of the leaders of the restored Church rather than relying on my own opinions.

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[goor_de]

7 hours ago, mordorbund said:

 

It may not be canonical, but in my view, Christ and the Holy Ghost were each endowed with the fulness of the Godhead (to borrow from Paul) when they were added to that governing council.

again demanding.
Joh 5,19 Then Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself except what he sees the Father doing;
Joh 14,28 You have heard that I have told you, I am going, and I am coming to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than me.

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.

I believe that the pre-mortal Jesus had a body of spirit which resembled, but was not, his body of flesh and bones.

And I anticipate a follow-up question, so I'll try to address that too. Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God by virtue of their being in the Godhead. I agree with the unity of will and purpose, but not in physical form. 

It may not be canonical, but in my view, Christ and the Holy Ghost were each endowed with the fulness of the Godhead (to borrow from Paul) when they were added to that governing council.

So you are saying, Jesus is God without having the need to be perfected?  Or you are saying Jesus is perfected without the need for a perfected body... and eternal marriage for that manner..., but he’ll need to get both after he is already God?

Being added to a council is not what makes you God.  Being called to the Presidency of the Church is not what makes you a Prophet.  The Holy Spirit having no body is the same as Jesus becoming mortal.  They put on the material needed to fulfill their specific missions in the plan of our salvation, not that that’s the material they’ve progressed to in their Godhood.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you are saying, Jesus is God without having the need to be perfected?  Or you are saying Jesus is perfected without the need for a perfected body... and eternal marriage for that manner..., but he’ll need to get both after he is already God?

Being added to a council is not what makes you God.  Being called to the Presidency of the Church is not what makes you a Prophet.  The Holy Spirit having no body is the same as Jesus becoming mortal.  They put on the material needed to fulfill their specific missions in the plan of our salvation, not that that’s the material they’ve progressed to in their Godhood.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that prior to being born of Mary, Christ did not have a physical body.  The Holy Ghost does not now have a physical body (whether he will / how that works is pure speculation, nothing more has been revealed).

That us imperfect folks need to be resurrected and exalted in order to become gods does not of necessity dictate that this is the only way to become a god.  (But if I ever get time, I'll hunt for the scripture wherein Christ himself explains that he will not or did not receive a fullness until after he was resurrected.)

Everyone should be careful that they don't contort revealed doctrine in order to make their speculation work.

[MarginOfError]

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

It appears you don’t realize the apostle Paul believed in and taught the doctrine of eternal marriage. The following verses of New Testament Scripture have been used from almost the beginning of the restoration of the gospel by the General Authorities to prove the doctrine of eternal marriage is biblical...

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Cor11)

and...

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph 5)

Very early on in his ministry the apostle Paul also taught the Second Coming wasn’t imminent but that it wouldn’t occur until sometime after a universal apostasy of the Church had occurred. Again, the following verses have been used from the beginning of the restoration by the Church leaders to prove there would be a universal apostasy and that Christ would not return until after said apostasy...

3 Let no man deceive you by any means for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be  revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2)

When in doubt, I usually exercise faith in the direction of believing the teachings of the leaders of the restored Church rather than relying on my own opinions.

 

Again, you are taking hold of contemporary teachings and projecting them back onto Paul. There is no documented evidence that Paul believed in, taught, or conceptualized the idea of eternal marriage in the same manner we understand it. The scriptures you cite bring no evidence to support your view, as they could just as easily be read in the context of generic, temporal marriage (which, in fact, they have been for centuries)

And I will caution you again agaimst making assumptions about what I am or am not aware of. There is a vast difference between reading the New Testament with the beneficial bias of post 1800 revelation a day attempting to understand those same writings in the limited context of what was know and understood at the time and in the culture of which they were originally written.

I genuinely don't care what you believe about the marital status of Jesus. But I do care that you not pass off your personal interpretations as The Way It Must Be (TM)

[Guest]

13 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

My impression is that Paul really and honestly believed that Christ's return was imminent. Consequently, there wasn't much point in marriage as there was a dire need to preach Christ to the world. I think his comments against marriage softened as it became clear to him that Christ's return might not be in the near future.

I find it impossible to reconcile this with 

Quote

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

-- 2 Thes 2: 1-3

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true.  If we are to believe that God laid out the plan of salvation that we may be God, then Jesus wouldn’t have become God without being a resurrected celestial being.  The spirits with him in the beginning were not Gods because there are only 3 persons in God.  Assisting in the creation does not make you the creator in the same manner that bishops assisting in the organization of the church does not make them prophets.

For clarification for you and @mikbone Anyone ordained an Elder to the Melchizedek Priesthood has as much power and authority as the President or the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And that any office to which one is set aside in mortality will not advance their status in the Celestial Kingdom.  I would also suggest that the next time you have opportunity to be involved in a temple sealing - listen carefully.  The covenant of marriage given in the temple is the very essence of presiding over a Celestial kingdom and the marriage covenant is be order by which a Celestial Kingdom exist.  That a Celestial kingdom cannot exist without such a covenant and no one presides over such a kingdom without the covenant of marriage.

The witness of Steven, following the resurrection of Jesus is critical in understanding why Jesus was very careful in teaching that he was subordinate to the Father and that he had no authority himself to do anything that was not under oversight, direction and commandment of the Father.

It appears to me that the term or title of G-d is not well defined (even in scriptures).  For example, Satan is refereed to as "the G-d of this world".   In the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as saying that to be a judge in Israel has the title of G-d.

 

The Traveler

[goor_de]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It appears to me that the term or title of G-d is not well defined (even in scriptures).  For example, Satan is refereed to as "the G-d of this world".   In the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as saying that to be a judge in Israel has the title of G-d.

 

The Traveler

the supreme court in israel is called elohim

[OnePassenger]

 

15 minutes ago, goor_de said:

the supreme court in israel is called elohim

Nope. Supreme Court:  (Hebrew בית המשפט העליון) Beit haMishpat ha'Elyon

Edited September 29, 2018 by OnePassenger

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, OnePassenger said:

Nope. Supreme Court:  (Hebrew בית המשפט העליון) Beit haMishpat ha'Elyon

Try to keep up.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Guest

[goor_de]

1 hour ago, OnePassenger said:

 

Nope. Supreme Court:  (Hebrew בית המשפט העליון) Beit haMishpat ha'Elyon

I assume that you can not speak Hebrew

ה  עליון

בית המשפט העליון  read from right to left, The court the gods (elohim)

Elyon (Biblically Hebrew עעיןן; Masoretic Elyōn) is an epithet of the God of the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible. "Elyōn" is commonly referred to in English as "God Most High" and similarly in the Septuagint as ο θεος ο ύψιστος ("God Most High").

 

elohim is the highest jurisdiction
elohim in the Bible means no other than that

elohim is an institution with several involved
therefore advise the gods

Edited September 29, 2018 by goor_de

[Anddenex]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not true.  If we are to believe that God laid out the plan of salvation that we may be God, then Jesus wouldn’t have become God without being a resurrected celestial being.  The spirits with him in the beginning were not Gods because there are only 3 persons in God.  Assisting in the creation does not make you the creator in the same manner that bishops assisting in the organization of the church does not make them prophets.

I am not sure what you are meaning here (highlighted section). Jesus did not have a "resurrected" Celestial body in our pre-mortal life. A resurrected celestial body is never separated from that body.

If you assume he was a resurrected body before his earthly ministry, then how did he separate himself from his celestial body that then would have been glorified and immortal? What I see you implying is that Christ had a perfect resurrected glorified celestial body. He then somehow took on mortality, thus removing himself from a resurrected glorified celestial body.

This doesn't add up to any doctrine specified, it actually contradicts revealed doctrine.

Remember also in scripture when asked at one point about the Father he said none are good but the Father. After his resurrection (when he actually received a glorified resurrected body like the Father) he then said he and the Father were good.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Anddenex

[Suzie]

7 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

When in doubt, I usually exercise faith in the direction of believing the teachings of the leaders of the restored Church rather than relying on my own opinions.

 

Did the Church proclaim as doctrine that Jesus or Paul or whomever was married?