What's new
By:

Jesus May Have Been Married

The Thriller said:
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?
Click to expand...

A great point.
 
franklin said:
Thanks.

I'm still confused were the foundation of procreative sex only comes from. Seems like altering that would piss off a bunch of horny little married catholic kids who've been going without or feeling guilty for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Sex within marriage must be procreative in nature. It is not a sin to have sex that doesn't conceive a child (I know that was a double negative, but bear with me.) It stems from Natural Law Theory. St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of it in his Summa. "Procreative only" probably stems from a misinterpretation of that.

Also, married Catholics are encouraged to practice Natural Family Planning which requires the couple to show some degree of self discipline.

I cannot think of a reason why a Catholic couple would ever feel guilty for having sex within marriage. If they are, they should speak about it with their spiritual directors or pastor.

I don't want to send this thread flying off the tracks. Also, this topic will open up many more avenues that I believe are highly complex and much more pastoral, homosexuality and masturbation being the obvious two that I am thinking of. I just don't have the time to dive into these topics adequately on a message board. Maybe another time. Sorry.
 
nightmare3983 said:
Fair point. I misspoke, although it does still make sense that Jesus is married so as to have attained exaltation.
Click to expand...

From an LDS perspective, I have to point out that Christ is obviously different from the rest of us. For example, he was God prior to his birth, something that is not available for the "exaltation path" that the rest of us take. So I don't think you can say that LDS theology REQUIRES Jesus to have been married. Of course you didn't say that, you just said it "makes sense", which I think is fine. I personally don't have an opinion on it.
 
Honestly I do not see this as changing much of anything. It does not change who he was or what he stood for.

It does raise very interesting questions on did he have children and if so who are his descendants.
 
Stoked said:
Honestly I do not see this as changing much of anything. It does not change who he was or what he stood for.

It does raise very interesting questions on did he have children and if so who are his descendants.
Click to expand...

Covered in this holy book:

cover1.jpg


I don't think you'll like the answer.
 
Stoked said:
Wikipedia plot line has me even more intrigued.
Click to expand...

You should pick up the first couple volumes and see if you like it. It's generally on the short-list as one of the greatest comic series ever created. That said, it is definitely a mature audiences only comic.
 
Sirkickyass said:
You should pick up the first couple volumes and see if you like it. It's generally on the short-list as one of the greatest comic series ever created. That said, it is definitely a mature audiences only comic.
Click to expand...

Noted
 
colton said:
From an LDS perspective, I have to point out that Christ is obviously different from the rest of us. For example, he was God prior to his birth, something that is not available for the "exaltation path" that the rest of us take. So I don't think you can say that LDS theology REQUIRES Jesus to have been married. Of course you didn't say that, you just said it "makes sense", which I think is fine. I personally don't have an opinion on it.
Click to expand...

Great post. I recall a General Authority once being asked this question (I forget who it was), but I recall the answer being along the lines of, "We do not teach that Christ was not married".
 
margodydek said:
Great post. I recall a General Authority once being asked this question (I forget who it was), but I recall the answer being along the lines of, "We do not teach that Christ was not married".
Click to expand...


We don't teach doesn't mean we don't believe or that Jesus wasn't married. It means we don't teach it. I could think of a number of reasons not to teach it. As posted previously, BY believed it, JFS believed it, General Authorities believe it.
 
GoJazz said:
We don't teach doesn't mean we don't believe or that Jesus wasn't married. It means we don't teach it. I could think of a number of reasons not to teach it. As posted previously, BY believed it, JFS believed it, General Authorities believe it.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point. Not sure if you read my post correctly.
 
WhiskyPriest said:
I cannot think of a reason why a Catholic couple would ever feel guilty for having sex within marriage. If they are, they should speak about it with their spiritual directors or pastor.
Click to expand...

No birth control, no calendar method, no pulling out, no sheep skin sheath. Aren't Catholics supposed to feel guilty for violating these commandments?


As a tangent, those of us into Mayanism believe in genital blood letting (right before getting drunk off our asses in the literal ***** consumption sense). Would Catholics consider this a type of bodily penance akin to Pope Paul II whipping himself?
 
Last edited:
My take is this. Does Jesus being married or unmarried change who he was, what he taught or what he stood for? No, then ok.
 
GoJazz said:
We don't teach doesn't mean we don't believe or that Jesus wasn't married. It means we don't teach it. I could think of a number of reasons not to teach it. As posted previously, BY believed it, JFS believed it, General Authorities believe it.
Click to expand...

So the church believes it but doesn't actually say it's part of the doctrine. In other words, it's lay doctrine. That almost uniquely mormon set of doctrines that's entirely unofficial so it can be denied in the instances where it's embarassing.

You know, since Brigham Young and other General Authorities believed all kinds of other racist things too, and those things were much more officially codified into church policy. But those totally don't count for some reason.

IMHO, the church would be much better served if it cracked down on this kind of lay doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top