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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top