Jesus May Have Been Married
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
& I'm supposed to take your word on it as opposed to Catholics I know who adamantly disagree with you (despite their philandering youthful ways)?
Srsly, r u trolling?
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
Lets focus more on this being yet another one of the many historical documents that support the existence of Jesus.
Last edited:
Former Member
Banned
No, you don't need to take my word for it. However, I can point you towards the Catechism of the Catholic Church which speaks of sexuality in marriage.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Former Member
Banned
Thank you for the compliment. However, I prefer to write sarcastic comments that aren't picked up by others, post comic strips, and get infraction warnings because of the "potty mouth" BYU Cougars...
Religious dialogue is quite prosperous when it is discussed with empathy, however, I find that it is extremely difficult on a message forum. Normally, I stay away from topics that I feel are too complex and pastoral for broad generalizations.
Last edited:
Thank you for the compliment. However, I prefer to write sarcastic comments that aren't picked up by others, post comic strips, and get infraction warnings because of the "potty mouth" BYU Cougars...
Religious dialogue is quite prosperous when it is discussed with empathy, however, I find that it is extremely difficult on a message forum. Normally, I stay away from topics that I feel are too complex and pastoral for broad generalizations.
Wait. Did you just thank yourself for complimenting yourself?
MVP
Well-Known Member
Does not mean he was a god.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
How do we know that he wasn't speaking figuratively?
Now, it may have been a while since I studied the Bible, but I seem to remember the New Testament filled with metaphors. Christ especially, seemed to talk a lot about weddings, parties, wives, husbands, etc. Didn't he describe himself as the bridegroom?
So how do we know that this tiny piece of text wasn't describing a much larger metaphor, parable, or some other teaching?
Now, it may have been a while since I studied the Bible, but I seem to remember the New Testament filled with metaphors. Christ especially, seemed to talk a lot about weddings, parties, wives, husbands, etc. Didn't he describe himself as the bridegroom?
So how do we know that this tiny piece of text wasn't describing a much larger metaphor, parable, or some other teaching?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
No, I don't believe Talmage implied that at all at this juncture (If ever. I don't seem to recall him ever implying that Jesus was married. If he did I think it would be towards the end of Jesus the Christ..)... For one, it's super early in the ministry of the Savior. Like super early. He'd still live for another 2-3 years after this wedding miracle. It was a wedding within his household hence why his mother presented the lack of beverage to him.
Remember now, Jesus had other brothers and sisters aunts and uncles cousins friends etc.....
You are correct. I just looked in Jesus the Christ and no such implication was made. I must have read that elsewhere.
I haven't read the last two pages of the thread so I don't know if the bolded has been addressed yet but this is incorrect to LDS theology. Marriage is only requisite relative to exaltation and not simply for salvation within the Celestial Kingdom.
What I believe you're thinking of was a statement from Bruce R. McConkie.
I don't think most athiests/non-Christians dispute that Jesus was a guy who existed.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
Um, yeah, but I don't think many people doubt Jesus existed. They just doubt he was God.
In any case, I can't say this one matters to me much either way, but it's fun to see all the conservatives scream as if it's the end of world.
The real scandal, which has been going on for ages, is that the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations still won't ordain women. I mean, honestly. That is one the most laughably stubborn and boneheaded injustices that I can think of. And we tell ourselves that sexism doesn't exist anymore. For Catholics it's alive and well. Can't be a spiritual leader unless your genitals dangle!
It honestly makes me a little ill just contemplating that particular bit of patriarchal stupidity.
The Black Swordsman
Well-Known Member
You must not read Christopher Hitchens who deny's he existed, Dan Barker who says Jesus has a 15-20% chance of existing, or Richard Dawkins who defends the claim that Jesus never existed.
Right off the top, examples of some people that make the argument that Jesus never existed is not responsive to the idea that same is a minority position among non-believers.
A couple quibbles:
1) Hitchens is effectively agnostic on the question. He doesn't say that Jesus affirmative never existed. Instead, he says that there's no reason to believe he ever did exist because the Gospels don't agree about most important facts of his life and real records are difficult to track down. That's an important distinction. He says the same thing about other historical figures like Socrates.
2) Dawkins has stated that he is not fully convinced of the Christ Myth Theory.
In any event, documents from the 4th Century that reference Jesus aren't awesomely conclusive evidence that Jesus existed. They only prove that someone in the 4th Century believed he existed. I don't think that was really disputed.
Fair point. I misspoke, although it does still make sense that Jesus is married so as to have attained exaltation.