Jump to content

Was jesus married?


Was Jesus married?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Jesus Married?

    • No, I don't believe the Savior married in mortality.
    • Yes, I believe the Savior had a wife and was monogamous in mortality.
    • Yes, I believe the Savior had multiple wives and was polygamous in mortality.
    • The requisite OTHER option (not sure/other opinion/shouldn't speculate etc)


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I believe Jesus was married monogamously with Mary Magdalene. Mostly because she was the first to see Him as a risen person.  

Depends which gospel you read.

In Matthew it was Mary Magdalene AND the other Mary first met by the angel who then BOTH saw him on their way to tell the Apostles.

In Mark they both saw the angel but Mary Magdalene saw the resurrected Jesus.

In Luke multiple women including both Marys and Joanna met 2 angels.  But the Apostles saw him first.

In John it was Mary Magdalene alone with two angels then Jesus.

image.png.35822cd735e57120b545c3b1e7538454.png

49 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Further, I believe if He was married, that there was no issue. 

The other Mary at the resurrection is specifically identified by her motherhood of James/Joses/Salome.  Who were these children worthy of mention?  Jesus' cousins?  Siblings? Followers? Children?

But scholars can't agree on which Mary is which and how often they're conflated.

And then there is Joanna as well.

  • Like 2
Link to post

I believe Jesus was married to both Mary Magdalene and the sisters Mary and Marth, for the reasons that have already been stated here. He spent a lot of time with the Lazarus, Mary, and Martha household. 

I believe that He had children, and I don't think this would have caused a succession crisis in the Church. Peter was the head of the Church after the Ascension, and I think everyone's witness of the Spirit in this regard would have carried the day over lineal descent. I also don't see any issues from a "demi-god" standpoint with Jesus having children. He was "fully God, fully man" --- both of them, in one, and I believe that His chromosomes were unremarkable. Who He was a spirit and as the preordained Savior in the pre-existence --- together with His universally-recognized status as God in the pre-existence is what made Him God, not the fact that 23 of His chromosomes came from the Father. I don't see why fathering children would endow His children with superhuman traits; I think that they would have been fully mortal in every way. 

I think most people's discomfort with Him having children, whether they admit it or not, is sex. I think people still have a prudish sectarian notion that righteous, lawful sex with a wife or wives would somehow have "dirtied" Him and disqualified Him from being perfect. This is a very Catholic notion (the underpinnings of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, which required Mary to have undergone a virgin birth, as well as Jesus). A very important part of Him experiencing mortality would be parenthood/fatherhood, in my view, and I believe He had direct experience with that, and can thus know how to succor His people. 

Admittedly, He also understands womanhood/motherhood without directly experiencing that, so it's also possible that that isn't necessary. But again, perspectives from and experience with a wife/wives could also be helpful with this, too, if not providing direct experience. 

Edited by rongo
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

which required Mary to have undergone a virgin birth,

Immaculate Conception is not a virgin birth, but she was free from original sin from conception. 
 

There were some early ideas apparently that she was conceived without intercourse according to wiki. 

Edited by Calm
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Immaculate Conception is not a virgin birth, but she was free from original sin from conception. 
 

There were some early ideas apparently that she was conceived without intercourse according to wiki. 

Which would be a virgin birth, would it not (conceived without intercourse)? That's what I was getting at. The idea that she had to be free from original sin from conception (which, in practice, meant that no sex could be involved with her conception. Just as with Jesus). 

We have a very different view of sex, original sin, etc. through the fullness of the gospel, of course. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, rongo said:

Which would be a virgin birth, would it not (conceived without intercourse)? That's what I was getting at. The idea that she had to be free from original sin from conception (which, in practice, meant that no sex could be involved with her conception. Just as with Jesus). 

We have a very different view of sex, original sin, etc. through the fullness of the gospel, of course. 

But that isn’t the Immaculate Conception. 
 

Quote

which, in practice, meant that no sex could be involved with her conception

Don’t think so. I was told by one Catholic friend God willed that she was free of sin.

Edited by Calm
Link to post

I've also wondered about the prevalence of polygamy in the time of Jesus, and I'm not sure where academia weighs in on that. He was presented with a Levirate marriage scenario by the Sadducees, which shows that it was at least workable as a hypothetical (its use in the trap they laid for Him leads me to think it was more of a practical example known to the audience than a hypothetical, even though the particular example --- a woman having seven Levirate husbands --- was far-fetched). 

I'm completely fine with Jesus being monogamous as well, in which case I think His first appearance to Mary Magdalene indicates marriage to her. 

I wonder how common it was for men in that time and place (Jews) to not be married by 30. What kind of stigma did it have, and would it have had for Jesus in His ministry? I suppose there's no way to actually know that, but I think most people think that it was nowhere near as common to be single forever, like it increasingly is in our day. I think being single would have hurt His credibility during the three year ministry.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that isn’t the Immaculate Conception. 

It's part of it when you drill down to what the implications and ramifications of her being free from original sin at conception are. Which is why that appears in the apologia for it and ideas about Mary, as you noted. 

I think the same squeamishness is at play when people (including some Mormons) are uncomfortable with the thought of Jesus having lawful, righteous sex with His wife/wives. People act like it somehow would have disqualified Him from being perfect, without sin, and able to perform the atonement. 

Edited by rongo
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's part of it when you drill down to what the implications and ramifications of her being free from original sin at conception are.

I will leave it up to Catholics to tell me if God’s Grace needs a virgin birth for Mary as well. 

Link to post
14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've also wondered about the prevalence of polygamy in the time of Jesus, and I'm not sure where academia weighs in on that. He was presented with a Levirate marriage scenario by the Sadducees, which shows that it was at least workable as a hypothetical (its use in the trap they laid for Him leads me to think it was more of a practical example known to the audience than a hypothetical, even though the particular example --- a woman having seven Levirate husbands --- was far-fetched). 

There is some evidence that polygamy existed among the Jews but it probably was a small amount.  From the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity

Quote

"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform."

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The idea that Jesus may have had a child is a step too far for me. It just opens a big can of Da Vinci worms.😲

Several early Church leaders felt he did, and his descendants were members.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will leave it up to Catholics to tell me if God’s Grace needs a virgin birth for Mary as well. 

@3DOP and @MiserereNobis?

Am I off in thinking that Catholic thought on the Immaculate Conception entailed a virgin birth for Mary, too? Or is it simply that she was free from conception from original sin, but otherwise born of normal means?

Link to post
16 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

The idea that Jesus may have had a child is a step too far for me. It just opens a big can of Da Vinci worms.😲

Why, though? Because you think His children would have been superhumans? Or because you think they would have had an outsized influence in the primitive Church? 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

I will leave it up to Catholics to tell me if God’s Grace needs a virgin birth for Mary as well. 

I like to turn to the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Quote

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

I.e., no virgin birth for Mary.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
37 minutes ago, rongo said:

@3DOP and @MiserereNobis?

Am I off in thinking that Catholic thought on the Immaculate Conception entailed a virgin birth for Mary, too? Or is it simply that she was free from conception from original sin, but otherwise born of normal means?

Yup, rongo. You're off. One Virgin birth, not two. Y'all think we are so against marital relations. Not true. We teach it is a Sacrament! Where we really are misunderstood is consecrated virginity. The value, the sacrifice, is in giving up something lawful and good. Priests and nuns and religious do not give up something evil! You can only sacrifice what is good, and right, and holy.

Mary's parents were married and conceived in the ordinary way. 

But. I am sure we have our misconceptions about y'all too. Thanks for the question. ☺️

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 hours ago, rongo said:

Why, though? Because you think His children would have been superhumans? Or because you think they would have had an outsized influence in the primitive Church? 

Yes and yes.

IF Jesus had children, both notions seem to at least be possible, no?

Link to post
57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes and yes.

IF Jesus had children, both notions seem to at least be possible, no?

I don't believe his children would have been superhuman.  I don't believe he was superhuman in mortality EXCEPT in his perfection.  He wasn't a super hero with magical powers.  He was a fully human man with basically perfect faith and authority from the Father.  His miracles came from those, not some genetic X factor.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe his children would have been superhuman.  I don't believe he was superhuman in mortality EXCEPT in his perfection.  He wasn't a super hero with magical powers.  He was a fully human man with basically perfect faith and authority from the Father.  His miracles came from those, not some genetic X factor.

That's fine you don't believe it but there's no reason for me to think your belief is accurate ;)   In other words, we have no way of knowing if Jesus' offspring would have any special abilities. Lets face it, Jesus was superhuman.

Superhero powers of Jesus and possible posterity-

 -walking on water and controlling the elements

-healing the sick and raising the dead, making th blind see, healing the crippled etc.

- superhuman endurance- Garden of Gethsemane 

- self-resurrecting

- Turn water to wine  (this one could be popular)

Yes- he had extraordinary faith and authority but why should we dismiss the possibility that he physically was special. We can speculate, but we don't know. Has it ever been addressed by any church leader? If not, anything is possible :) 

Link to post
10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Yup, rongo. You're off. One Virgin birth, not two. Y'all think we are so against marital relations. Not true. We teach it is a Sacrament! Where we really are misunderstood is consecrated virginity. The value, the sacrifice, is in giving up something lawful and good. Priests and nuns and religious do not give up something evil! You can only sacrifice what is good, and right, and holy.

Mary's parents were married and conceived in the ordinary way. 

But. I am sure we have our misconceptions about y'all too. Thanks for the question. ☺️

 

Thanks for responding.

What is the rationale behind priest celibacy? I assume that this would extend to the thought of Jesus being married and having children, right? That is --- I assume that that thought is abhorrent to Catholics. 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fine you don't believe it but there's no reason for me to think your belief is accurate ;)   In other words, we have no way of knowing if Jesus' offspring would have any special abilities. Lets face it, Jesus was superhuman.

Superhero powers of Jesus and possible posterity-

 -walking on water and controlling the elements

-healing the sick and raising the dead, making th blind see, healing the crippled etc.

- superhuman endurance- Garden of Gethsemane 

- self-resurrecting

- Turn water to wine  (this one could be popular)

Yes- he had extraordinary faith and authority but why should we dismiss the possibility that he physically was special. We can speculate, but we don't know. Has it ever been addressed by any church leader? If not, anything is possible :) 

All of those were based in faith and authority.  Sorry, I don't believe this was genetic and they weren't "superpowers".

Peter walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead.  He was mortal as you or I.
Moses parted the Red sea.  Jonah survived in the belly of a whale.  Christ said with enough faith any of us can move mountains, heal the sick, raise the dead.
And I don't believe he "self-resurrected".  Resurrection is an ordinance.  Somebody (probably the Father) called him forth in the ordinance.

I see no reason to believe his children would be as perfect as he was and they would have to earn the authority that he held through worthiness as he did.  The only element that would be genetic would be their lineal right to that authority (as in D&C 86 and others).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's fine you don't believe it but there's no reason for me to think your belief is accurate ;)   In other words, we have no way of knowing if Jesus' offspring would have any special abilities. Lets face it, Jesus was superhuman.

Superhero powers of Jesus and possible posterity-

 -walking on water and controlling the elements

-healing the sick and raising the dead, making th blind see, healing the crippled etc.

- superhuman endurance- Garden of Gethsemane 

- self-resurrecting

- Turn water to wine  (this one could be popular)

Yes- he had extraordinary faith and authority but why should we dismiss the possibility that he physically was special. We can speculate, but we don't know. Has it ever been addressed by any church leader? If not, anything is possible :) 

I think that His power had to do with who He was and the fact that the elements obeyed Him with exactness --- not anything structural in His DNA. Even the 23 chromosomes He received from His Father would look like ours if sequenced, I think. 

There was a novel in the late 90s that dealt with recovered Jesus DNA from one of his teeth (saved by Lazarus, and perpetuated into the present by a shadowy "brotherhood"). Jesus' DNA in the book had miraculous healing power. I don't think that's how it worked. 

https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Strain-Genetic-Thriller/dp/0688155081

Link to post
3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

All of those were based in faith and authority.  Sorry, I don't believe this was genetic and they weren't "superpowers".

Peter walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead.  He was mortal as you or I.
Moses parted the Red sea.  Jonah survived in the belly of a whale.  Christ said with enough faith any of us can move mountains, heal the sick, raise the dead.
And I don't believe he "self-resurrected".  Resurrection is an ordinance.  Somebody (probably the Father) called him forth in the ordinance.

I see no reason to believe his children would be as perfect as he was and they would have to earn the authority that he held through worthiness as he did.  The only element that would be genetic would be their lineal right to that authority (as in D&C 86 and others).

For that matter, when any of us give a miraculous healing blessing, it is because of faith, authority, etc., like you mention, and as you said, we are all mortal. We represent admittedly and potentially just a shadow of the power and authority He had to command the elements, but God parts the clouds sometimes for us and we get a glimpse. 

Link to post
16 minutes ago, rongo said:

For that matter, when any of us give a miraculous healing blessing, it is because of faith, authority, etc., like you mention, and as you said, we are all mortal. We represent admittedly and potentially just a shadow of the power and authority He had to command the elements, but God parts the clouds sometimes for us and we get a glimpse. 

I wonder how many times Jesus gave a healing blessing or attempted to raise someone from the dead but was disappointed when the person wasn't healed the way he blessed or wasn't raised from the dead.  I wonder if he had to fall back on the, but God's will be done, to justify the apparent failure.

I don't recall reading of those types of experiences which means Jesus was much better at healing than any other person to ever live. Obviously he was special. Whether that specialness was innate spiritually, learned, or inherited from God, his father. 

I'm really just playing devils advocate here. I have no reason to think Jesus really had superpowers but I also don't think we have any clue about how any of this works. Remember, Jesus was the physical offspring of God. It is not unreasonable to think that there may be some inherited traits passed along.

Link to post
43 minutes ago, rongo said:

I assume that that thought is abhorrent to Catholics. 

Why?

Link to post
58 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thanks for responding.

What is the rationale behind priest celibacy? I assume that this would extend to the thought of Jesus being married and having children, right? That is --- I assume that that thought is abhorrent to Catholics. 

To begin, priestly celibacy is a rule, not a dogma. It does have the weight of over 1000+ years of tradition behind it, which makes it a mighty rule and one most likely not to change. Pope John Paul II said it would not change, and even the quite liberal Pope Francis has reaffirmed it (after asking for some discussion on the matter).

The Catholic Church is made up of 24 Churches. When people think Catholic Church, they are 99.9% of the time thinking of of the Latin Church. However, there are 23 other Eastern Catholic Churches. Think of them as Eastern Orthodox Churches that are in communion with the Pope; they recognize him as the supreme authority. However, they have their own liturgy and rules. Most of these Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests. I point this out to show that marriage and sexuality is not considered abhorrent, otherwise those Eastern priests would also be forbidden to marry.

The rationale behind it is that the priest is able to devote himself fully to God and to others.

From the Code of Canon Law (the "rules" governing the Church, similar to your Handbook of Instructions):

Quote

Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour.

I'll also reiterate what 3DOP said above. When priests and other religious (monks and nuns) take a vow of celibacy, they are sacrificing something good for something greater. It is not because marriage and sexuality is abhorrent. Marriage and sexuality is one of the seven sacraments of the Church. The sacrament of matrimony isn't complete until it is consummated, so sex is definitely part of it (one reason for annulment of a marriage is that it was never consummated, which means it was never completed and so didn't happen).

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...