Related Information to Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine - Page 6

Thank you for posting part of your article. I appreciate the point of view, although I disagree with it very strongly.

To me, it seems unthinkable that Jesus might not have been married, as marriage is a Celestial Law.

Of course, to those of us who believe in the Adam-God doctrine, and realize some of the many consequences of such a doctrine, the marriage of Jesus is a non-issue. It is a requirement, and, as a God, He would have fulfilled this very important Law.

Now, as to your article, I would suggest that you post a link to it, rather than try to post the entire thing. We do have a limit on the size of posts.

I know that I saw your article just a couple of days ago, posted on a Fundamentalist website. However, I can't find it now.

Doctrine Mormon Married Jesus

Second half

Some scholars confine Jesus to marrying that Mary, who is identified by the Roman Church as being the penitent woman, Mary of Bethany and the Magdalene rolled into one. There is no textual or historical reason to confuse the women except, perhaps, to manufacture a type of woman who, whilst inferior to Mary the Virgin mother of Christ, is identifiable with all sinful women - and apart from the "Blessed Virgin Mary" - there are only sinful women. There are no reasons apart from doctrinal necessity that indicates anything other than that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were other than upright and righteous women. Neither is there anything to suggest that Mary of Bethany was the husband of Jesus.

It is not insignificant that the appeal is again to the Fourth Gospel, the only place where the raising of Lazarus is recorded. Much is made of the fact that Mary remained in the house until she was "called" by Jesus through the voice of Martha. We do not know enough of the circumstances to determine why Mary remained in the house. It is true that a wife would not run out of the house to greet her husband until he bade her do so.

However, it is equally certain that unless Mary was aware that Jesus was outside she would remain where she was unless she had good reason to do otherwise.

Again, we must remember that we are not reading biography, although much of the content of the Fourth Gospel is historically accurate. Other parts may not be so accurate as to be taken as verbatim accounts of events. "¦ Who stayed where is of little importance and is unreliable in forming an opinion as to the marital state of either Jesus or Mary. Did she call him Lord? If she did, the word has a wide semantic range.

In Aramaic, the language of Jesus and Mary, it is baal, meaning, lord, master, or husband, or anything in between. The relationship between Jesus and the little family at Bethany was obviously such that they knew his mission and destiny. Calling him master was not unusual or inappropriate, even for those to whom he was not married. Men also called him master.

"¦ Phipps argument from silence is flimsy and easy to controvert. He writes as one who believes the Gospels to be biographical which they patently are not. Each of the Gospels was written for a particular purpose, the material in them being manipulated towards specific ends. This does not detract from their value; rather it ensures that readers understand the points of view of the believing community.

The title, rabbi, meant teacher. In the time of Jesus" mortal ministry Judaism was not yet formed.

"¦ The great age of rabbinism had neither yet dawned. "¦ Reading back present forms into ancient ones is likely to lead us further from the truth rather than toward it.

Appeal to the authority of Celsus is self-defeating. This pagan philosopher mounted a bitter attack on Christianity and would be likely to say anything that put Jesus in a bad light, such as the kissing of a woman on the lips, whether married to her or not. His True Discourse (c. 178) is the earliest known literary swipe at Christianity that we know only through fragments and through references to it in Origen's response. To Celsus, the doctrines of Incarnation and Crucifixion were repugnant. He was the first anti-Mormon author!

The Gospel of Phillip is part of that literature - of which there is a mountain - known as the pseudepigrapha, meaning writings claiming to have been written by famous people, but which are known to be spurious. It is unreliable in the extreme as anyone familiar with it has discovered. Its main use is to show what later Christians, and sometimes non-Christians or heretics, thought the Church ought to teach. Writings in the name of some famous figure from the past were more likely to be accepted as authoritative by believers. "¦ You need to be circumspect when appealing to them for they are not trustworthy. Likewise when relying on tombstone inscription to determine who was buried in them or what the inscriptions really mean. Martha and Jesus were common enough names and we need not imagine that because the location seems right, that these inscription refer to characters from the pages of scripture. "¦

Dr Udleys assertion that SimeUdley's Jesus was Bishop of Jerusalem until his death in AD 106 beggars belief. One would expect that a Master of Theology would be aware that Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Army under General Sylvius, and that the Jews in Jerusalem were either slaughtered or taken into slavery, the city ploughed up, and that was the end of the Jerusalem branch of the Church of Christ. It disappeared from the stage of history. "¦ One tends to suspect the Doctor's academic credentials!

Well, that's a pretty good hatchet job on your essay! It still does not address the question. Of whether Jesus was married. The answer to that question is, "I don't know!" I do know that we should be. Section 131 makes that abundantly clear, and we have no excuse for non-compliance once we are aware of the doctrine.

I know that Jesus will have to become married if he is not already. Could he have been married before he came to earth through the Incarnation? "And the Word was God." The scriptures are silent, and the inferences we may draw may give us comfort, but may not be reliable. The indices of his marital status are too slight to be safe. The argument from silence is never satisfactory. Silence can be understood in so many ways.

I hope that you find my response of interest and that it will spur you to a more profound study of a fascinating subject. I thank you for this opportunity to respond. It was the kick from behind that I needed to get writing again. I have been static too long. Feeling sorry for myself, I shouldn't wonder. Thank you for providing the impetus [text corrupted here] few books and brush away the cobwebs that have bound up my grey matter for far too long.

---------------------------------

Nathan then responded with a lengthy article. If anyone wishes, they can e-mail me and I will let them have it.

Captain Moroni

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine Studies Doctrine Mormon

CapnMoroni, interesting article. There are many people who claim Jesus was not married or state that the evidence provided by those who do believe he was married, is poor yet they forget that just as the Scriptures do not directly states he was indeed married, there is no scriptural evidence that indicates that he wasn't.

Edited: LDS_forever on 14th Oct, 2006 - 1:23am

Page 6 Doctrine Mormon Married Jesus

While no statement actually says Jesus was married there is a point of the law (that God gave) that he would have broken had he not been married. Also, because of this law, it is only logical that marriage would be essential for anyone wishing to be taken seriously (from a religious standpoint) in Israel. It was compulsory for the chief high priest (he that represented Christ each year by going into the Holy of Holies) to have married a virgin (also, by implication, still married to her - not divorced) (Leviticus 21:10 & 14). This command regarding leaders being undivorced, married people is also repeated by Paul in 3 places. The word "one" and "first" are translated from the same Greek word. It is optional which you use. Paul actually stated that bishops and deacons (church leaders) should be the husband of their "first" wife, not "one" wife (1 Tim 3:2 & 12, Titus 1:6). This interpretation of "first" is totally consistent with the law, whereas the interpretation of "one" instead has no doctrinal foundation.
Christ and John the Baptist honoured the law of God by waiting until they were 30 to begin God's service (Numbers 4:30 etc). So if God's law required a married high priest are we to imagine that the ultimate high priest didn't honour it? He would have broken God's law. He, as the chiefest high priest, still honoured the law, and as a leader was married to his first wife still.

Doctrine Mormon Married Jesus

I personally believe Jesus was single during mortality, and married after his resurrection. In fact, he could have been married prior to his birth. D&C 132 seems to equate godhood with eternal marriage...and we all know that Jesus was a God before his mortal birth.

I don't think Jesus would have cared for the scribal and Pharisaic cultural norms that dictated a rabbi be married before entering his ministry. Jesus walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick...he did alot of things that were uncommon, and I think he would have emphasized his divine role and special character by not doing as all the other rabbis did. An unmarried rabbi would certainly have garnered much attention, and remember that the scriptures teach us that Jesus taught and acted on his own authority, needing no permission or acceptance from the Jewish authorities of his day (see JST Matt. 7:37).

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine

You have shared your opinion, but not a reason for it. The reference about Rabbi was not as a matter of what Christ thought about the customs of the day, it was a matter of how the people perceived him - as a man in standing.

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine - Page 6

Maybe he would not have cared but how interesting it is to know the Scribes and Pharisees called him by this title only given to married men! This would have been a perfect opportunity for them to put Jesus down as a liar, a rebel who did not conform with the tradition of an honorable marriage. If he was single, definitely he would not have been called by this title by his worst enemies.

He was also allowed to preach at the synagogue and only married men were allowed to do this.

OneWhoServes, I would love to hear why you think he was single: Scriptures, quotes, thoughts, etc.

Jesus Married Mormon Doctrine Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 6

Jesus is the Christ. What does "Christ" mean? It comes from the Hebrew word "mashiakh" which means "anointed." What was he anointed for? To be our Savior. Our Savior from what? To be our Savior from death and hell. How does he save us from death and hell? He saves us through his perfect life, infinite atonement and resurrection.

Did Jesus need to be married to accomplish the atonement? No. His sole purpose on earth was to do the Father's will and become our Savior through Gethsemane, Calvary and the Aramithaean's Tomb.

Do I believe Jesus is married now? Yep.

All the stuff about Jesus conforming to Jewish law as far as the requirement to be married before being able to preach publicly doesn't carry any weight with me. That was a man-made requirement, not part of the law and gospel Jehovah (who is Jesus) revealed to Israel through prophets. Jesus consistently ignored the silly "hedge" around the law that the Jews invented (refer to picking corn on their Sabbath, etc...).

I'm not 100% certain that Jesus never married during mortality, but I don't believe he did marry. The scriptural basis for my opinion? A combination, really.

I read the phrase "Who shall declare his generation" to mean "who shall continue his lineage? who will be his children, for he had none before he died." Also, the phrase about Jesus "seeing his seed" after he has made his soul an offering for sin (I.e. atoning) meshes perfectly with the NT and BoM, as below.

We know we are the spirit children of Heavenly Father. He cannot be the one who is adopting us as his children. Who is doing the adopting? Jesus is.

These verses echo Romans 8 in that those who are led by the Spirit of God; those who are converted by the Spirit; those who experience a mighty change of heart and are spiritually reborn...these are they who become the children of Christ.

Jesus becomes their father through adoption in a symbolic sense.

All this echoes Isaiah 53 which teaches that Jesus had no natural children before he died (the "who shall declare his generation/he was cut off out of the land of the living") but that Christ would "see his seed" after offering his soul for our sins. It is because of the atonement that we can be spiritually reborn and saved from death and hell...it is because of the atonement and spiritual rebirth that Jesus becomes our figurative father and we, his figurative children.

Since the scriptures speak figuratively of Jesus as a bridegroom and a father, I take all this symbolism to mean:

(1) Jesus had no natural children during mortality; converted and saved souls are his "children" and he is the "father" of their salvation;
(2) Jesus had no wife during mortality; the converted souls who comprise his church are his "bride" and he "marries" them through the gospel covenants/ordinances.

The "Christ was the perfect example so he would have been married" argument doesn't hold water in my opinion. First, Christ's mission was to enable us to be saved and exalted; he didn't need to be married during mortality to accomplish that; second, if it was so important for Christ to be an example to us of being married, why don't the scriptures (ancient or modern) explicitly state that he was married? Not even the D&C states he was married (other than the figurative language involving Christ and his church of course).

These are my reasons for believing that Jesus was not married and had no children in this life. Perhaps the scripture passages I've shared merely mean that Jesus had no children, but could have been married. I don't believe so, but that's my opinion and I don't expect anyone to take my word for it in absence of explicit scriptural clarifications about whether Jesus was married or not.

For anyone interested, here is some information about when Jews married in Christ's day. I quote from McConkie's excellent Messiah Series. The excerpt below comes from The Mortal Messiah, Book One, page 223:

Men married at sixteen or seventeen years of age, almost never later than twenty; and women at a somewhat younger age, often when not older than fourteen. These ages applied to all, Joseph and Mary included.

There is a footnote at the end of the above passage, which I reproduce here:

Does this mean Jesus had to marry by twenty just because it was the social norm at that time? No. If he did marry, it is likely that he would have married by the time he was twenty, but again, I don't believe he ever married during mortality.

The fact that his adversaries (scribes, pharisees, et al) called him rabbi to me shows their arrogance and cynicism. To me, they address him as rabbi sarcastically, as if to show their contempt for him by applying a title to him that they did not think he deserved. In the New Testament, almost every time the Jews called Jesus rabbi, it was immediately followed by some doctrinal question intended to trip him up. The pharisees and others wanted to remain credible in the eyes of the common people, many of whom admired Jesus. To rail against and insult him in front of his followers would not have been a very effective means of discrediting him in a way that would leave them looking respectful and worthy of being followed by others.

Christ picked corn on the sabbath, which was worthy of death according to the man-made rules the Jews had added to the Law of Moses; I don't see Jesus being bashful about preaching in a synagogue without being married first, since being a single preacher wasn't punishable by death.

In addition, the only souls who will be exalted and become gods (notice the little "g") are those who are sealed together in marriage by the authority of the priesthood. That's what D&C 132 says. Of course, they must be obedient and all the other good stuff. But they have to be married to become gods.

Well wait a second. Jesus was a God in the premortal life. If he has to be subject to the same commandments we do (and I agree he does), then he would have to have been married in the premortal life according to D&C 132.

If he didn't have to be married to be a god, then there is a different set of rules for him than for us, and if that's the case, then he didn't have to get married during his mortal life as we do. If there are no different rules for him than us, then he must have been married in the premortal life, and hence there's no need for him to get married during his mortal life. Just my thoughts. Thanks for all of yours.

Message Edited... Persephone: Please use Quote tags for external sources - see our Constructive Posting Policy.