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

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you for this.
I would just point out that we are seeing a dichotomy here that may not exist.
The Church that Christ loves is not an earthly organization, but what the Bible calls the Church of the Firstborn.
The Church of the Firstborn is the eternally sealed family of man, ie family.  At least in Mormonism.

So when we say Family and you say Church, it's actually the same thing.  Sort of.

Good. I am pleased if we are understanding each other better.

I recognize the expression, "church of the firstborn" from seeing it in Heb. 12. I do not think it is used anywhere else, and I confess I have not given it much thought. But I looked at up in an online Mormon Encyclopedia and also consulted a Catholic Bible Commentary that some might find interesting: 

"Here you are called to the city of the living God, (to the Christian Church on earth) and even to the celestial Jerusalem, there to be for ever happy in the company of many millions of Angels; to the church of the first-born, who are written in heaven, (ver. 23.) to be happy with those who have been chosen by a special mercy of God, and blessed with an endless happiness; to be there in the presence of God, the judge of all men, with all the celestial spirits and souls of the just and perfect in the kingdom of God." 

---photographically reproduced from an 1859 edition, of Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock's comprensive Catholic commentary, on the Douay-Rheims Bible. Published (2006) by Catholic Treasures, Duarte, CA, p.1568, entry concerning Heb. 12:22ff.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 4/1/2021 at 12:05 PM, Calm said:

Lot of inaccurate stereotypes out there. Nowadays it seems like if teaching sex is to be used in marriage only, many assume there is also a belief that sex is ‘dirty’ or if not a sin, something close to it. 
 

Even the Puritans didn’t think that way:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/2016/10/18/puritans-and-sex-myth/
 

I think it is more modern humans that have hang ups about sex than religion. 

I think humanity has always been messed up about sex.

I have spent my whole life hearing from one group how 'puritan' values mess everyone up about sex and that the repression is the issue. One would think that it now has enough 'fresh air' that any problems would have sorted themselves out. Then I have a group of people who have basically made sexual sin the ultimate bogeyman and yet their ranks are rife with people breaking the rules. I am tempted to say we should find a middle ground but I have seen middle grounds and often those people are just as messed up. Every society I have looked at has lots of problems with fornication and adultery.

Humans are just a mess.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to post
12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Jesus' immediate followers are not on record as opposing polygamy, actually. It's not passed upon as forbidden in the NT, and the only possible reference to it is Paul saying a bishop has to be married to one wife. I am not sure of the original Greek text, but if one has two wives, then one also has one wife (one source I found says the Greek means literally "one-woman man", so that seems to be a directive). If one assumes that in the verse in question a bishop is being singled out as restricting him to having just one wife, that suggests that for anyone else it's okay to have as many as desired. If the NT church was opposed to polygamy, you'd think on such a serious subject there'd be a definite rule somewhere in the NT. If Paul is going to tell them don't eat the blood of pagan sacrifices, you'd think he, of all people, would say something about polygamy. Is there anything in the early patristic writings to suggest a prohibition?

On the other hand, Paul also says that women should be silent in church. So, is the one-woman man bishop doctrinal, or Paul's opinion or advice?

All that aside, we still have the problem of multiple important personages in the OT being polygamous -- Jesus never condemned this, did he?

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that polygyny was illegal in the Roman empire, which is actually something I believed to be the case, too, but then I thought to look it up. And I found confusion.

It appears that while a Roman man could only have one official wife (at a time), as you say below. If he were sufficiently powerful he could have as many concubines as he could afford, no problemo. It appears that later Constantine made a law about it, but it was only sporadically enforced.

 

There would be a definite “rule” in the New Testament? The New Testament was not compiled as a rule manual where someone made sure nothing got left out. Outside of possibly the gospels and the Book of Hebrews everything else that was written was directed at locations and people in the Roman Empire where polygamy was illegal so why would they mention it. The “one wife” thing being about at least one wife is kind of silly. Timothy wasn’t teaching anywhere there were multiple wives. Why would Paul tell people who couldn’t practice polygamy that they shouldn’t practice polygamy? He probably only talked about the pagan sacrifice thing because someone asked or it was a problem he knew of.

That was me who said polygamy was illegal except in Judea and I stand by it. Concubines are not polygamy and the form of concubinage practiced by the Romans was not even a form of lesser marriage. The word has retroactively been used to cover variant marriages but it is Latin and its use in Rome was for any sexually cohabitating people without marriage. Christians rejected that relationship very early. Arguing that that kind of “marriage” is acceptable to God means we need to stop labeling people who just move in together without marriage as sinners. In a Roman context the word is the equivalent of “mistress”. Often an enslaved mistress.

If you need something from Paul you can go to Corinthians where he gives the advice not to marry but if you do recognize that your bodies belong exclusively to each other. Hard to squeeze polygamy in there.

The earliest church fathers we have records of speaking about it all condemned it and not in a halting way suggesting they were trying to ease people out of it. It was presented as obviously wrong. If any of them knew that early polygamy was practiced by Jesus or his early followers it is very unlikely that no one would reference such a practice.

I am not condemning polygamy as inherently sinful but I don’t see any evidence for it being around in early Christian circles. When Christian polygamy did occur it was much later in isolated regional variations or those weirdo American Restorationists.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 4/2/2021 at 9:32 AM, rongo said:

I knew at the time that he wasn't a typical, representative priest. I went to high school in Chicago, and had Catholic friends and was interested in other religions (we Mormons were a small minority). Lutheran creeds in northern Germany, on my mission, also embrace the literal resurrection, but Lutherans (to the extent they knew and wanted to talk about their faith) largely believe that those in heaven are "spirit." 

Interesting. I thought that Cardinal Ratzinger was a conservative traditionalist, and that the threat to orthodoxy came from Latin America and Africa (e.g., Mary as co-redemptrix, etc.). Where do the American bishops and cardinals rank generally in the orthodoxy pecking order?

I remember reading when I was first married (late 90s) about the looming rift over the co-redemptrix controversy (Mary as co-redeemer with Jesus), which was supposed to be heavily supported in Latin America. 

I do not think Miserere responded to your questions. You should not presume that he would see the answers in the same light as I.  

The destruction of Catholic culture in Europe and abroad has been under subtle and direct attack for parts of three centuries. There are few priests, bishops, or laity within the Catholic Church today who understand what has happened. Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) is a "conservative traditionalist", only in the sense that he believes that the liberal principles which revolutionized Europe politically and religiously in the 18th and 19th centuries, are reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. Ratzinger/Benedict is a knowledgeable historian/theologian/scholar who is one among a significant minority of Catholic prelates who try to bring about an impossible truce between Modernism and Catholic Tradition. For a Catholic 100 years ago, his positions would be neither conservative nor traditional. Benedict/Ratzinger stands out only when compared to the vast majority of his fellow bishops and the current occupant of the Vatican who, if they are even informed about Catholic teachings that conflict with modern ideas, try to put behind us what the Church believed and taught only a century ago.  

The use of the title co-redemptrix is indisputable. Sts. Irenaeus and Jerome are among those Fathers who affirm the principles which honor the Mother of God, the Second Eve, as she who cooperated in the plan of redemption by her assent to the angel at the Annunciation, by her devotion to her Son and Saviour through her whole life, by her courageous, resigned, and sorrowful role standing at the foot of the Cross, and by her loving care for the infant Church. There are the greatest reasons why all generations will call her blessed (Luke 2). These are indirect and remote cooperations with God's plan of redemption which, if properly understood, should not be troubling to anyone except those who would prefer to place an exaggerated emphasis on what the title means. I have no doubt that Pope Benedict believes in the Blessed Virgin as co-redemptrix.

The difficulty is that the modern Church cares less for developing and expounding true Catholic doctrine, than it has for upsetting strides that have been made to form a network of religions that can bring world peace. The goals of religious networking (ecumenism) are not bad, but the means are bad. We all want world peace, but it will never be helped along by Catholics who try to suppress the fullness of the Catholic faith.

Thanks for your interest rongo. 

Rory

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There would be a definite “rule” in the New Testament? The New Testament was not compiled as a rule manual where someone made sure nothing got left out. Outside of possibly the gospels and the Book of Hebrews everything else that was written was directed at locations and people in the Roman Empire where polygamy was illegal so why would they mention it. The “one wife” thing being about at least one wife is kind of silly. Timothy wasn’t teaching anywhere there were multiple wives. Why would Paul tell people who couldn’t practice polygamy that they shouldn’t practice polygamy? He probably only talked about the pagan sacrifice thing because someone asked or it was a problem he knew of.

That was me who said polygamy was illegal except in Judea and I stand by it. Concubines are not polygamy and the form of concubinage practiced by the Romans was not even a form of lesser marriage. The word has retroactively been used to cover variant marriages but it is Latin and its use in Rome was for any sexually cohabitating people without marriage. Christians rejected that relationship very early. Arguing that that kind of “marriage” is acceptable to God means we need to stop labeling people who just move in together without marriage as sinners. In a Roman context the word is the equivalent of “mistress”. Often an enslaved mistress.

If you need something from Paul you can go to Corinthians where he gives the advice not to marry but if you do recognize that your bodies belong exclusively to each other. Hard to squeeze polygamy in there.

The earliest church fathers we have records of speaking about it all condemned it and not in a halting way suggesting they were trying to ease people out of it. It was presented as obviously wrong. If any of them knew that early polygamy was practiced by Jesus or his early followers it is very unlikely that no one would reference such a practice.

I am not condemning polygamy as inherently sinful but I don’t see any evidence for it being around in early Christian circles. When Christian polygamy did occur it was much later in isolated regional variations or those weirdo American Restorationists.

Not necessarily disputing what you're saying here, but in doing a little online research (in order to confirm my own belief - which agreed with what you've written here, btw), I found a few sources that suggested that it was not quite as cut and dried as I thought. For instance, one source said that it was Constantine who, at the urging of Christian leaders, first decreed a law forbidding polygamy, but even after that it was enforced only sporadically. 

Conditions in the world 2000 years ago are not always fully documentable from contemporary records. Often writers in the period don't mention what is commonplace. Thus there is frequently wiggle room for different interpretations and interpolation.

I try to maintain an open mind, given the limitations. 

Link to post
On 4/1/2021 at 5:58 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I'm having a hard time seeing the connection. The post you linked to is about God the Father having or not having a body. My post was about the physical resurrection of Christ. What do you see as the "contrast"? One can believe that God the Father does not have a body and also believe that Christ was physically resurrected -- there is no contradiction there.

I hope you would consider the Resurrection to be Eternal (permanent joining of the spirit person with physical tabernacle).  This is the free part of the Atonement (BOTH the just and unjust WILL be resurrected [all those born into the world] except Satan and his legions [not born into the world]).  The UNFREE part is the "degree of glory" we will receive in the resurrection (see 1 Cor 15).  It is dependent on how faithfully and obediently we follow Jesus (if you love me, keep my commandments).

If Jesus is the FIRSTFRUITS of the Resurrection (which was only made possible by the POWER of His Atonement), then He must retain it forever.  If God the Father is incorporeal (as you say), then the Godhead consists of unlike beings.  Not consubstantial.  Hence the contradiction.

Jesus said in John 5:39   Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, longview said:

If God the Father is incorporeal (as you say), then the Godhead consists of unlike beings.  Not consubstantial.

This is an incorrect understanding of what it means to be consubstantial. Christ's resurrection did not change His substance. Nor did His incarnation.

It's interesting that you thought something like this would blow apart the doctrine of the Trinity, as if no Christian over the past 2000 years had contemplated the resurrection of Jesus and how it relates to the Trinity. Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, and the Trinity are, after all, core doctrines for traditional Christianity. 

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

It's interesting that you thought something like this would blow apart the doctrine of the Trinity, as if no Christian over the past 2000 years had contemplated the resurrection of Jesus and how it relates to the Trinity. Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, and the Trinity are, after all, core doctrines for traditional Christianity. 

In the previous thread I felt like we were having an awfully difficult time coming to grips with understanding the nature of the resurrection.  Calm kindly helped with clarifying terminologies.  Getting the two of you (MN and 3d) to admit the personal appearance of Jesus in His glorified resurrected state was like pulling teeth.  I will admit that I consider the answers provided are murky at best.

Link to post
22 hours ago, longview said:

In the previous thread I felt like we were having an awfully difficult time coming to grips with understanding the nature of the resurrection.  Calm kindly helped with clarifying terminologies.  Getting the two of you (MN and 3d) to admit the personal appearance of Jesus in His glorified resurrected state was like pulling teeth.  I will admit that I consider the answers provided are murky at best.

I think I am probably 3d. The nature of the resurrection? I am sorry if it was "like pulling teeth" and "murky at best" as to whether it was physical. (I am not recalling the discussion). I suspect I was holding back for some other reason. I absolutely affirm the physical resurrection of our Lord on Easter morning.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
23 hours ago, longview said:

In the previous thread I felt like we were having an awfully difficult time coming to grips with understanding the nature of the resurrection.  Calm kindly helped with clarifying terminologies.  Getting the two of you (MN and 3d) to admit the personal appearance of Jesus in His glorified resurrected state was like pulling teeth.  I will admit that I consider the answers provided are murky at best.

 

37 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I think I am probably 3d. The nature of the resurrection? I am sorry if it was "like pulling teeth" and "murky at best" as to whether it was physical. (I am not recalling the discussion). I suspect I was holding back for some other reason. I absolutely affirm the physical resurrection of our Lord on Easter morning.  

I also want to absolutely affirm the physical resurrection of Christ. I also make sure anyone reading knows that this is what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches: the resurrection was a physical historical event.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

I also want to absolutely affirm the physical resurrection of Christ. I also make sure anyone reading knows that this is what the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches: the resurrection was a physical historical event.

What are yours and @3DOP thoughts about the different degrees of glory being given to earthly mortals as explained by Paul in 1 Cor 15?  Do you understand that BOTH the just and the unjust will be resurrected with physical bodies in the next world?

Edited by longview
Link to post
8 hours ago, longview said:

What are yours and @3DOP thoughts about the different degrees of glory being given to earthly mortals as explained by Paul in 1 Cor 15?  Do you understand that BOTH the just and the unjust will be resurrected with physical bodies in the next world?

First question: For star differeth from star in glory. So yes. The Church teaches it. So yes. The Paradiso in Dante's Divine Comedy is an excellent literary tribute to this great Catholic truth about degrees of glory. No two are alike. So yes.

Everyone receives their own physical bodies at the general judgment. I have to go to work. Bye.

G'day longview.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

First question: For star differeth from star in glory. So yes. The Church teaches it. So yes. The Paradiso in Dante's Divine Comedy is an excellent literary tribute to this great Catholic truth about degrees of glory. No two are alike. So yes.

Everyone receives their own physical bodies at the general judgment. I have to go to work. Bye.

G'day longview.

Yes agree from my Catholic Boys Only High School days. ;)

Augustinian Fathers don't mess around. 😠

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

First question: For star differeth from star in glory. So yes. The Church teaches it. So yes. The Paradiso in Dante's Divine Comedy is an excellent literary tribute to this great Catholic truth about degrees of glory. No two are alike. So yes.

Everyone receives their own physical bodies at the general judgment. I have to go to work. Bye.

G'day longview.

Can you dig a little deeper and ponder what it means to have a resurrected body?  Jesus taught that He has the power of the resurrection, that He was the first to be resurrected (that Easter morning), that the righteous will follow Him and obtain resurrected bodies like Him in what is called the First Resurrection, that the wicked (unjust) will have to wait until after the First Resurrection has finished to obtain their free gift of resurrection, that this will continue until ALL that have been born into the world will obtain theirs.

Yes, there is variation among the "stars" but they are all in the lowest kingdom of glory.  The middle level of glory is the Terrestrial Kingdom or the glory of the moon (orders of magnitude greater than the stars).  The highest is the Celestial Kingdom (glory of the sun, even greater than the Terrestrial).

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He could not die even though He suffered the crushing weigh of the "Bitter Cup" (all the sins and agonies of ALL history) in the Garden of Gethsemane, the trials and humiliations and lashings at the hands of His persecutors, and finally the agony on the cross.  Only when He completed the requirements of the Atonement did He say in Luke 23:46. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

He was disembodied for 3 days.  His Spirit Person was separated from His physical body (which laid in the tomb lifeless for 3 days).  1 Peter 3:18-22 explains that during those 3 days His Spirit Person visited the disembodied spirits (the dead) who had been waiting for all history up to the time of Christ's earthly ministry.  On Easter Morning, Jesus was resurrected when His Spirit Person was joined back with a physical body even more glorious than His former earthly body.  The same will happen for every one of us.  We are spirit persons inhabiting "clay tabernacles" but in the resurrection our bodies will be more glorious than earthly bodies (2 Peter 1:14 14. Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.)

Link to post

I'm finding the poll results interesting.
Not asking anyone to explain themselves, but it is fascinating to see that the idea of our Savior as a husband in mortality has such a widespread view among members.
I also find it fascinating that the largest group believe Christ followed the current Church teachings on marriage in his path of righteousness - one eternal companion.
Naturally our local non-Mormons selected single.  And many of our more old-school tradition members (myself included) selected polygamist.

Perhaps we really do see the Savior that we want to see when there isn't conclusive evidence as to his actions.

Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

Can you dig a little deeper and ponder what it means to have a resurrected body?  Jesus taught that He has the power of the resurrection, that He was the first to be resurrected (that Easter morning), that the righteous will follow Him and obtain resurrected bodies like Him in what is called the First Resurrection, that the wicked (unjust) will have to wait until after the First Resurrection has finished to obtain their free gift of resurrection, that this will continue until ALL that have been born into the world will obtain theirs.

We believe that all will be resurrected, too, but that it will happen at the same time -- the last day when Christ returns in glory.

4 hours ago, longview said:

Yes, there is variation among the "stars" but they are all in the lowest kingdom of glory.  The middle level of glory is the Terrestrial Kingdom or the glory of the moon (orders of magnitude greater than the stars).  The highest is the Celestial Kingdom (glory of the sun, even greater than the Terrestrial).

These are of course LDS metaphors for the various degrees of glory. As 3DOP pointed out, Dante's Paradiso is an excellent literary take on the Catholic degrees of glory. Dante uses the petals of a rose as his metaphor. All of heaven is divine love as represented by the rose and each of us dwell on a petal.

4 hours ago, longview said:

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He could not die even though He suffered the crushing weigh of the "Bitter Cup" (all the sins and agonies of ALL history) in the Garden of Gethsemane, the trials and humiliations and lashings at the hands of His persecutors, and finally the agony on the cross.  Only when He completed the requirements of the Atonement did He say in Luke 23:46. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

We pretty much agree. No need to quibble over whether the atonement happened in the garden, on the cross, or both. It happened.

4 hours ago, longview said:

He was disembodied for 3 days.  His Spirit Person was separated from His physical body (which laid in the tomb lifeless for 3 days).  1 Peter 3:18-22 explains that during those 3 days His Spirit Person visited the disembodied spirits (the dead) who had been waiting for all history up to the time of Christ's earthly ministry.  On Easter Morning, Jesus was resurrected when His Spirit Person was joined back with a physical body even more glorious than His former earthly body.  The same will happen for every one of us.  We are spirit persons inhabiting "clay tabernacles" but in the resurrection our bodies will be more glorious than earthly bodies (2 Peter 1:14 14. Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.)

We pretty much agree, too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, longview said:

Can you dig a little deeper and ponder what it means to have a resurrected body?  Jesus taught that He has the power of the resurrection, that He was the first to be resurrected (that Easter morning), that the righteous will follow Him and obtain resurrected bodies like Him in what is called the First Resurrection, that the wicked (unjust) will have to wait until after the First Resurrection has finished to obtain their free gift of resurrection, that this will continue until ALL that have been born into the world will obtain theirs.

Yes, there is variation among the "stars" but they are all in the lowest kingdom of glory.  The middle level of glory is the Terrestrial Kingdom or the glory of the moon (orders of magnitude greater than the stars).  The highest is the Celestial Kingdom (glory of the sun, even greater than the Terrestrial).

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He could not die even though He suffered the crushing weigh of the "Bitter Cup" (all the sins and agonies of ALL history) in the Garden of Gethsemane, the trials and humiliations and lashings at the hands of His persecutors, and finally the agony on the cross.  Only when He completed the requirements of the Atonement did He say in Luke 23:46. And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

He was disembodied for 3 days.  His Spirit Person was separated from His physical body (which laid in the tomb lifeless for 3 days).  1 Peter 3:18-22 explains that during those 3 days His Spirit Person visited the disembodied spirits (the dead) who had been waiting for all history up to the time of Christ's earthly ministry.  On Easter Morning, Jesus was resurrected when His Spirit Person was joined back with a physical body even more glorious than His former earthly body.  The same will happen for every one of us.  We are spirit persons inhabiting "clay tabernacles" but in the resurrection our bodies will be more glorious than earthly bodies (2 Peter 1:14 14. Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.)

 

longview, hi.

Para. 1: There might be some serious difference between the resurrected body of the just, and the resurrected body of the unjust. I am not as familiar with the unjust. But yeah, I'll try to do a little digging. Thanks for your interest.

Para. 2: I will have to revisit 1 Cor. 15. Are you saying that only in the lowest kingdom are there variations of magnitude? I doubt that Catholics could go along with that.

Para. 3: Sounds good. We say that Christ only died because with His work finished, He willed to "give up the ghost". He wasn't overcome. Christ overcame, even in death.

Para. 4: I don't think that I would want to say that I will receive a glorified body. I think that would be presumptious. But that is my only caveat. I hope I do, of course. But I still fear that I could be a reprobate. Except for that, the paragraph sounds like a Catholic description of the resurrection of the just to me.

Thanks for the reply longview.

There are around four or five attributes of the resurrected body of the just according to Catholic eschatology (theology of the last things). I will try to get those up before Sunday, and maybe sooner. My weekdays are so full. But it is good. It keeps me out of trouble five days! Heh.

Happy Easter Monday!

Regards,

Rory   

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

Yes agree from my Catholic Boys Only High School days. ;)

Augustinian Fathers don't mess around. 😠

 

I don't know about ALL Augustinian Fathers. There was this the guy in Germany about five hundred and four years ago...I thought he was a "mess around" Augustinian.

But yours sound pretty solid!

Edited by 3DOP
  • Haha 1
Link to post
22 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I don't know about ALL Augustinian Fathers. There was this the guy in Germany about five hundred and four years ago...I thought he was a "mess around" Augustinian.

But yours sound pretty solid!

I had an algebra teacher who warned the class about an upcoming test that would be very difficult, and that he would kick the rear end of anyone who failed it.

Nearly every single kid failed it!!

He marched everyone row by row up to the front (all boys) and kicked each one, one after the other!!

And yes that included moi aussi.

(I  was always better at languages than math.) ;)

Those were different times, but it SEEMED like it was 500 years ago!  ;)

 

Link to post
26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Nearly every single kid failed it!!

Not a very good teacher if he couldn’t get the concepts across for most kids in the class. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 4/5/2021 at 7:57 PM, 3DOP said:

 

longview, hi.

Para. 1: There might be some serious difference between the resurrected body of the just, and the resurrected body of the unjust. I am not as familiar with the unjust. But yeah, I'll try to do a little digging. Thanks for your interest.

   As you may know, the LDS teach that Jesus was the Firstborn among spirit children in the pre-existence.  That means we were ALL intelligences (without beginnings) before becoming God the Father's children.  According to the LDS Book of Abraham, Jesus was the most intelligent of all the spirits.  From other LDS scriptures our image (personal appearance) was like the appearance of God the Father.  And all the spirits were (and still are) the same "substance".  Jesus and the Holy Ghost were distinct and independent personages who were called to serve in the Godhead under the Most High.

In both the spiritual births and earthly physical births, we were formed in the image and likeness of God the Father.  Do you recall from the Genesis account that both God the Father and Jesus (pre-mortal) worked together in forming the body of Adam?  Note the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  Image and likeness are synonyms indicating that Adam was formed with the same kind of appearance as the body of God the Father.  Therefore He is NOT incorporeal.

Para. 2: I will have to revisit 1 Cor. 15. Are you saying that only in the lowest kingdom are there variations of magnitude? I doubt that Catholics could go along with that.

No.  You did not quite grasp my statements about the glory of the Moon (Terrestrial Kingdom) and the glory of the Sun (Celestial Kingdom).

Para. 3: Sounds good. We say that Christ only died because with His work finished, He willed to "give up the ghost". He wasn't overcome. Christ overcame, even in death.

Yes.  Death became subject to Him.

Para. 4: I don't think that I would want to say that I will receive a glorified body. I think that would be presumptious. But that is my only caveat. I hope I do, of course. But I still fear that I could be a reprobate. Except for that, the paragraph sounds like a Catholic description of the resurrection of the just to me.

Maybe you should study up on the meaning of "Eternal Life".  We all have immortality as spirit beings (that will never be taken away).  How is Eternal Life different than immortality?  The LDS teach that Eternal Life is the kind of life that God the Father and His Son has.  Which is a powerfully exalted kind of existence with tremendous glory and exquisite joy.  Is that possible?  Jesus did say in Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.  The LDS teach that is not possible while we live in mortality but we certainly will have the opportunity in the next world with the Power of the Atonement.

Thanks for the reply longview.

There are around four or five attributes of the resurrected body of the just according to Catholic eschatology (theology of the last things). I will try to get those up before Sunday, and maybe sooner. My weekdays are so full. But it is good. It keeps me out of trouble five days! Heh.

Happy Easter Monday!

Regards,

Rory   

My responses in red.  @MiserereNobis may want to read this too.

Edited by longview
Link to post
On 3/30/2021 at 2:53 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

To preach in a synagogue Jesus would have had to be a certain age and married. It would have been the cultural norm for him to be married so I see no reason to think he wasn't married.

But I see no reason to believe he would have had multiple wives. Maybe this thread will help me understand why some here believe that. At first take it looks like an attempt to justify polygamy. See...even Jesus did it. It must be Godly. 

I'm not buying that unless there is some solid evidence. And a statement by Brigham Young is NOT solid evidence ;)

 

 

On 3/31/2021 at 7:48 AM, halconero said:

FWIW, the notion that rabbis had to be married to preach in the 2nd Temple era isn’t well-supported for a couple reasons:

1) The concept of a rabbi was much more loosey-goosey than it is in Rabbinical Judaism, much more akin to a spiritual “sensei” or “guru” than a position one held with a formal ordination process.

2) Marriage isn’t a requirement to be a rabbi even now. It is common and encouraged, for reasons of empathy and compassion on children and families, but not required.

That isn’t an argument against Jesus being married, just an argument against an argument.

I think the best textual evidence comes from Jesus himself, who commended the mitzvah on leaving one’s Father and Mother to cleave unto one’s wife. Circumstantially, this leads me to wonder who in the world could possibly have more claim on witnessing the resurrected Saviour first before God the Father. We know at least one person did.

As to plural marriage, likely. Aside from the opinions of past church leaders on the question itself, we have many more indicating Jesus fulfilled all ordinances.

I don't see anywhere in scripture where Yeshua "preached" in the synagogue. He spoke up to make points - much as a student would. However, it is not like He was the Rabbi of any synagogue, so I take issue with the premise from that standpoint. 

Do I believe Yeshua married in mortality? Why yes, but not in this mortality. He knew he would be leaving. To leave a wife with the burden of raising a child without a father doesn't seem too cool. It is mentioned that He would have fulfilled all law, but as you note, there was no law that rabbis had to be married. He fulfilled the Mosaic law - not the sixth seal covenant. But that doesn't mean He didn't do that when He did all that He had seen His Father do. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I had an algebra teacher who warned the class about an upcoming test that would be very difficult, and that he would kick the rear end of anyone who failed it.

Nearly every single kid failed it!!

He marched everyone row by row up to the front (all boys) and kicked each one, one after the other!!

And yes that included moi aussi.

(I  was always better at languages than math.) ;)

Those were different times, but it SEEMED like it was 500 years ago!  ;)

 

Reminds me of Roald Dahl's descriptions of his English schoolmasters. I didn't know until recently that William Golding was a schoolmaster with a very pessimistic view of human nature. That imo puts the cynicism of The Lord of The Flies in better perspective, I think.

The real-life story of six Tongan schoolboys collaborating to survive being shipwrecked on a deserted island for over a year, and doing quite a good job of it, is much more hopeful. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

I don't see anywhere in scripture where Yeshua "preached" in the synagogue. He spoke up to make points - much as a student would. However, it is not like He was the Rabbi of any synagogue, so I take issue with the premise from that standpoint. 

Do I believe Yeshua married in mortality? Why yes, but not in this mortality. He knew he would be leaving. To leave a wife with the burden of raising a child without a father doesn't seem too cool. It is mentioned that He would have fulfilled all law, but as you note, there was no law that rabbis had to be married. He fulfilled the Mosaic law - not the sixth seal covenant. But that doesn't mean He didn't do that when He did all that He had seen His Father do. 

I never stated he was the rabbi for a synagogue. I'm surprised by your statement that Jesus never "preached" in the synagogue. Perhaps "preach" means something different to you than it does to me.

Quote

Matthew 9:35   And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, ateaching in their synagogues, and preaching the bgospel of the kingdom, and chealing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Mark 1:21  And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and ataught.

Mark 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what awisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

John 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

Luke 4:15-33 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that Jesus taught and preached in synagogues. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Reminds me of Roald Dahl's descriptions of his English schoolmasters. I didn't know until recently that William Golding was a schoolmaster with a very pessimistic view of human nature. That imo puts the cynicism of The Lord of The Flies in better perspective, I think.

The real-life story of six Tongan schoolboys collaborating to survive being shipwrecked on a deserted island for over a year, and doing quite a good job of it, is much more hopeful. 

Sorry I am not aware of that story, though I am kind of a "Lord of The Flies" buff.

Is it available at Deseret Book? ;);)

 

  • Haha 1
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...