What's new
By:

Jesus May Have Been Married

GoJazz said:
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).
Click to expand...

Thank you, that is an interesting quote.
 
franklin said:
Let me know when that connection needs a jump start.

Avoiding explanation on the procreation only angle then?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Props to you Whisky. You've handled yourself very well. Very respectful in every way.
Regardless of the existence of God, you've harmed no one here. Here's to God being real.
 
WhiskyPriest said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

& 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)?
 
franklin said:
& 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)?
Click to expand...

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.

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Click to expand...

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
 
PKM said:
Props to you Whisky. You've handled yourself very well. Very respectful in every way.
Regardless of the existence of God, you've harmed no one here. Here's to God being real.
Click to expand...

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:
WhiskyPriest said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait. Did you just thank yourself for complimenting yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top