Jesus May Have Been Married

[Former Member]

No. He probably didn't read the other writings from 2000 years ago either.

Here are a few from antiquity...

If anyone is able in power to continue in purity, to the honor of the flesh of the Lord, let him continue to do so without boasting. If he boasts he is undone (I feel kinda guilty typing this one out ) - Ignatius 105 A.D.

Some women abstain from sexual relations. Some of these women have remained virgins from the beginning. Others have become celibate later in life. We also see men who remain as virgins - Justin Martyr (160 A.D)

You would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God - Athenagoras (175 A.D)

There are many who do so and seal themselves up to being eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God, spontaneously relinquishing a pleasure so honorable and permitted - Tertullian (198 A.D.)

We do not reject marriage, but simply refrain from it voluntarily. Nor do we prescribe celibacy as the rule, but only recommend it. We observe it as a good state - yes, even as the better state - if each man uses it carefully according to his ability. But at the same time, we earnestly vindicate marriage Tertullian (207 A.D.)

According to the Word of God, marriage is a gift, just as holy celibacy was a gift... - Origen (245 A.D)

 

[Former Member]

^---------- Those came from "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" - it is a wonderful collection put together by an Anglican Priest named David Bercot. I need to remember to cite some sources.

 

[nightmare3983]

Since nobody has mentioned this yet, from an LDS perspective it is very reasonable to believe that Jesus is married because we believe that you have to be married to live in God's presence. It's very possible that some church leaders or scholars have talked about the topic, but all I have read about it personally is in one of James E. Talmage's books I think. Jesus The Christ if I remember correctly. I may have to get it out and look now, but IIRC Talmage implied that the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine may have been his own wedding.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This thread is toxic.

I'mmmmmmm outtttaaa heeere.

 

[franklin]

On another note, the article mentions that this evidence will have an effect on celibacy in the catholic priesthood specifically, however, that is extremely unlikely.

1) Historically, the catholic priesthood was open to more than just celibates. In fact, Peter (the first pope in catholic tradition) was married. Celibacy and marriage were acceptable and practiced disciplines of priestly life for the first 12 centuries. It was not until 1139 that Gregory VII required priests to practice the discipline of celibacy. This discipline can be lifted at any time by Pope Benedict 16, or the next pope, or the next pope, or the next pope...

2) Currently the discipline of celibacy models two individuals, Jesus and Paul. IF Jesus were married this argument to living a celibate life would take a serious impact, but it wouldn't destroy it... because of

3) ... Scripture. The New Testament speaks about the discipline of celibacy. Specifically, Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7.

I do think that the Catholic Church will eventually reassess mandatory celibacy, however, it is not going to be because of any new information. Celibacy is a discipline... it is not a dogma.

As much as I'd love to troll the hell out of this thead (puns intended)--

Plenty of Catholics hang their hats on both reproductive sex only & no abortion whatsoever. Seems kind of worldview shattering having either crumble under knew revelation, no?

 

[Dr. Jones]

As much as I'd love to troll the hell out of this thead (puns intended)--

Plenty of Catholics hang their hats on both reproductive sex only & no abortion whatsoever. Seems kind of worldview shattering having either crumble under knew revelation, no?

How would this do that?

 

[Former Member]

As much as I'd love to troll the hell out of this thead (puns intended)--

Plenty of Catholics hang their hats on both reproductive sex only & no abortion whatsoever. Seems kind of worldview shattering having either crumble under knew revelation, no?

I'm sorry. How do you relate those two topics with "Christ being or not being married" (Which I am pretty sure is only a tradition, not dogma) and "priestly celibacy" which is only a discipline.

You are bringing up the natural law argument (Which I am not sure if it is a dogma or not, I will look it up) and the question of when life begins which has not been dogmatically stated (Thomas Aquinas believed it was three months after conception). The only thing your two topics have in common with the discussion in the thread is that they are both not dogmas. The Catholic perspective is technically open to change on them... technically.

I would love to address your concerns better, but please ask the question directly. I do not want to impose that my position is "right," I've avoided threads like this for that reason. I would be more than happy to answer questions from my perspective of faith, however, I pray the dialogue and tone is civil and empathetic.

The last part was not directed towards franklin specifically. It was just a general comment.

 

[Former Member]

BTW... if Christ was married. It does not mean that he "sinned"... sex is a beautiful thing in the context of the marriage.

 

[GoJazz]

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the LDS church:
"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

Not just married but married to multiple wives...

 

[Former Member]

Since nobody has mentioned this yet, from an LDS perspective it is very reasonable to believe that Jesus is married because we believe that you have to be married to live in God's presence. It's very possible that some church leaders or scholars have talked about the topic, but all I have read about it personally is in one of James E. Talmage's books I think. Jesus The Christ if I remember correctly. I may have to get it out and look now, but IIRC Talmage implied that the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine may have been his own wedding.

Most of the arguments that claim Christ was married point towards the Wedding Feast at Cana or when Christ was anointed on the feet with perfume by a woman before his death. Thank you for the perspective, very interesting.

 

[franklin]

I'm sorry. How do you relate those two topics with "Christ being or not being married" (Which I am pretty sure is only a tradition, not dogma) and "priestly celibacy" which is only a discipline.

Pyramid of reasoning. Christ celibate>>celibacy good, screwing bad>>procreation necessary...>>sex only for purposes of procreation>>horny kids getting some only 5 times in 15 years due to some previously incorrect doctrine (which may or may not have been altered by the inner circle & lost until the coptics resurrected it).

The abortion link was more complex, but, alas, I drink I forget. Find my genius in there if you care to think about things.

Most of the arguments that claim Christ was married point towards the Wedding Feast at Cana or when Christ was anointed on the feet with perfume by a woman before his death. Thank you for the perspective, very interesting.

I don't know. Wouldn't the curious LDS consider "only begotten" to assume an equivalent earthly life that already included marriage & a wife(s) whose names are now protected from vain cursings?

 

[Former Member]

Statement by Brigham Young, second prophet of the LDS church:
"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with "HIS TRAIN; I do not know who they were, unless his wives and children;" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13. page 309)

Not just married but married to multiple wives...

Question. What is the context of the quote? Which temple?

 

[Former Member]

Pyramid of reasoning. Christ celibate>>celibacy good, screwing bad>>procreation necessary...>>sex only for purposes of procreation>>horny kids getting some only 5 times in 15 years due to some previously incorrect doctrine (which may or may not have been altered by the inner circle & lost until the coptics resurrected it).

The abortion link was more complex, but, alas, I drink I forget. Find my genius in there if you care to think about things.

I do care to think about things. In fact, I'm currently majoring in philosophy, however, I dare not impose "your genius"... I'll let you do that.

I will attempt to contemplate your connection, however.

 

[franklin]

I do care to think about things. In fact, I'm currently majoring in philosophy, however, I dare not impose "your genius"... I'll let you do that.

I will attempt to contemplate your connection, however.

Let me know when that connection needs a jump start.

Avoiding explanation on the procreation only angle then?

 

[UGLI baby]

Well, he is quite the catch.

 

[GoJazz]

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (Journal of Discourses 2:81).

In that same talk he went on to say:

"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (Journal of Discourses 2:82).

 

[Former Member]

On October 6, 1854, Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde stated,

"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (Journal of Discourses 2:81).

In that same talk he went on to say:

"Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (Journal of Discourses 2:82).

Thank you, that is an interesting quote.

 

[GVC]

...Talmage implied that the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine may have been his own wedding.

There's a joke in there somewhere.

 

[Former Member]

Let me know when that connection needs a jump start.

Avoiding explanation on the procreation only angle then?

You can make the argument that the early church (and some contemporary members in the contemporary catholic church) believe/d that celibacy was better than marriage. However, you make a claim that "screwing is bad" which is a false position. The Catholic Church does not believe that. The Catholic Church does believe that sex should be procreative in nature and in the context of the sacrament of marriage.

If Jesus was married, he would not have been in a state of sin. Sex + Husband + Wife = Very Good within the Catholic perspective. I fail to see how this "new revelation" will effect that.

I'm sure you can dig up a lot of garbage on the Catholic Church and I'm sure somewhere along the line sex was looked at negatively, even in the context of marriage. However, those views were misguided.

 

[Former Member]

I don't know. Wouldn't the curious LDS consider "only begotten" to assume an equivalent earthly life that already included marriage & a wife(s) whose names are now protected from vain cursings?

I don't know. I haven't studied LDS theology in depth. I do remember reading a few books. "Jesus the Christ" by Talmage was one (nightmare reminded me of it)... however, my retention of what I read is pretty sketchy.