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

21 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Exactly!  Seriously I think there was only one or two kids out of -25?- that passed.  I didn't feel very bad about it because all the other boys were saying the same thing!

But the teacher was young and dynamic, good looking and "cool", dripping testosterone and somehow he got away with stuff like this.  Everybody loved him.   Except his students!  ;)

But his sermons were great- I have to admit that!

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks- I missed the revival of the story recently but now I remember it as it happened.   I have been shipwrecked for a year now, and am definitely less civilized.  ;)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post

Bumping the thread to ask for thoughts, not on the topic, but on the polling results.

Everyone's pretty much given their opinion on whether Jesus was married.
But look at the poll results.

image.thumb.png.35bb82478c1e1441bbb90033c9f7c018.png

Such a variation.
Is this because of personal preferences?  Are we basing this belief in evidence, feeling, tradition?
I kind of feel this distribution says as much about us as it does about the Savior's marital status.  (Not that this is a particularly scientific poll - but it does show how divergent our thinking can be among members on a topic).

 

Link to post

I dunno, that’s a pretty strong majority in favour of “married,” albeit with disagreement on monogamy/polygamy. A quick scan through “others” seem to be a lot of “not sure, but open to it.”

60% in believing he was married, 20% open to it, and 20% no.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 4/5/2021 at 12:50 PM, longview said:

Can you dig a little deeper and ponder what it means to have a resurrected body? 

Longview, hi again.

I was reminded on Thursday of Easter Week of our discussion here in one of my readings which was a brief essay about Catholic teaching on the resurrection of the body. Here is a sample:

"We find this article of our holy faith continual represented in the catacombs: its several symbols, together with the Good Shepherd, quite the favorite subject of primitive Christian art. I those early ages of the Church, when to receive baptism was to break entirely with the sensuality of previous habits of life, this consoling dogma of the resurrection of the body was strongly urged upon the minds of the neophytes*. Any of them might be called to suffer martyrdom: the thought of the future glory that awaited their flesh inspired them with courage when the hour of trial came. Thus we read so very frequently in the Acts of the Martyrs, how. when in the midst of their most cruel torments, they declared that what supported them was the certain hope of the resurrection of the body. How many Christians are there nowadays who are cowardly in the essential duties of their state of life, simply because they never think of this important dogma of the faith."

---Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., the Liturgical Year, vol. 7, p. 240, St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, italics are the author's, the asterisk is mine.

*The Catholic Church has customarily held her baptisms for adult converts on the Vigil of Easter. A "neophyte" is one who is newly baptized, and in the prayers and texts of the liturgy for Easter week, the Church addresses the neophytes. In ancient times, from Easter Sunday until today, the neophytes wore white robes to symbolize the purity with which they became clothed through baptism. Tomorrow's liturgy is sometimes referred to as "in albis depositis", when the newly baptized "deposit the white" (albis-think of albino) and wear their ordinary dress while assisting at the services of the Church.   

There are four attributes of the resurrected bodies of the just after being transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. I will list them longview, and you or others can ask questions or raise objections if you have any:

1) Impassibility---Literally, no possibility of suffering. You may have heard Catholic refer to Christ's Passion. When He entered the womb of His Blessed Mother, Christ took a body like unto our own that was passible, not impassible. It could and did suffer.

2) Subtilty---The matter of the body is of a spiritualized nature. This is what enabled Christ's body to pass through "thicker matter" from the holy sepulchre without the stone being rolled away and also to penetrate closed doors. (This might explain why such bodies are necessarily "impassible". Could such a body that can pass through doors and sealed tombs be stabbed by a knife or shot with a bullet?)

3) Agility---The resurrected body of the just can, in obedience to the soul, enjoy great ease of movement. The contrast with this is clearly seen in the bodies made of "thicker matter" where it takes muscles to move because of gravity. The agile body is not weighted down.

4) Clarity---This is freedom from all bodily deformation with fullness of beauty and radiance. The intrinsic reason for this is the "overflowing of the beauty of the transfigured soul on to the body". Those who have read The Paradiso will have observed that Dante understood that while there is nothing defective, or missing in anyone, the bodies of the just reflect different grades of beauty proportionate to the measure of their merits according to I Cor. 15:41 ff.  

---All Notes and quotation in #4 taken from...Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 491, 492, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Il, (1974)  (original publication in German in 1952)  

Thanks all. God bless.

3DOP

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Longview, hi again.

I was reminded on Thursday of Easter Week of our discussion here in one of my readings which was a brief essay about Catholic teaching on the resurrection of the body. Here is a sample:

"We find this article of our holy faith continual represented in the catacombs: its several symbols, together with the Good Shepherd, quite the favorite subject of primitive Christian art. I those early ages of the Church, when to receive baptism was to break entirely with the sensuality of previous habits of life, this consoling dogma of the resurrection of the body was strongly urged upon the minds of the neophytes*. Any of them might be called to suffer martyrdom: the thought of the future glory that awaited their flesh inspired them with courage when the hour of trial came. Thus we read so very frequently in the Acts of the Martyrs, how. when in the midst of their most cruel torments, they declared that what supported them was the certain hope of the resurrection of the body. How many Christians are there nowadays who are cowardly in the essential duties of their state of life, simply because they never think of this important dogma of the faith."

---Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., the Liturgical Year, vol. 7, p. 240, St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, italics are the author's, the asterisk is mine.

*The Catholic Church has customarily held her baptisms for adult converts on the Vigil of Easter. A "neophyte" is one who is newly baptized, and in the prayers and texts of the liturgy for Easter week, the Church addresses the neophytes. In ancient times, from Easter Sunday until today, the neophytes wore white robes to symbolize the purity with which they became clothed through baptism. Tomorrow's liturgy is sometimes referred to as "in albis depositis", when the newly baptized "deposit the white" (albis-think of albino) and wear their ordinary dress while assisting at the services of the Church.   

There are four attributes of the resurrected bodies of the just after being transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. I will list them longview, and you or others can ask questions or raise objections if you have any:

1) Impassibility---Literally, no possibility of suffering. You may have heard Catholic refer to Christ's Passion. When He entered the womb of His Blessed Mother, Christ took a body like unto our own that was passible, not impassible. It could and did suffer.

2) Subtilty---The matter of the body is of a spiritualized nature. This is what enabled Christ's body to pass through "thicker matter" from the holy sepulchre without the stone being rolled away and also to penetrate closed doors. (This might explain why such bodies are necessarily "impassible". Could such a body that can pass through doors and sealed tombs be stabbed by a knife or shot with a bullet?)

3) Agility---The resurrected body of the just can, in obedience to the soul, enjoy great ease of movement. The contrast with this is clearly seen in the bodies made of "thicker matter" where it takes muscles to move because of gravity. The agile body is not weighted down.

4) Clarity---This is freedom from all bodily deformation with fullness of beauty and radiance. The intrinsic reason for this is the "overflowing of the beauty of the transfigured soul on to the body". Those who have read The Paradiso will have observed that Dante understood that while there is nothing defective, or missing in anyone, the bodies of the just reflect different grades of beauty proportionate to the measure of their merits according to I Cor. 15:41 ff.  

---All Notes and quotation in #4 taken from...Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 491, 492, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Il, (1974)  (original publication in German in 1952)  

Thanks all. God bless.

3DOP

This post should be VERY interesting for LDS readers, including the white garment, and the 3 "more refined" types of material bodies.

Also one might mention the "mass of the Catechumens", a shortened version of the full "regular mass" held in a building outside the cathedral, for the newly baptized, (the Baptistry )until they  progressed in their faith enough to be admitted to the Cathedral, for the full Mass.

 This of course parallels the LDS tradition of not allowing someone newly baptized into the temple.

 The more I studied LDS practices, the more I became convinced that they derived from a common ancestor with the Catholic services.

 The different sections of Catholic cathedrals also parallel  strongly the Temple architecture which is not a surprise considering that both came from the Jewish temple originally.

 Could Joseph have  known these parallels?

No.

Again also I must mention the similarities between the Scapular and temple garments.

https://www.catholiccompany.com/content/how-to-use-the-scapular

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 4/10/2021 at 5:06 PM, mfbukowski said:

This post should be VERY interesting for LDS readers, including the white garment, and the 3 "more refined" types of material bodies.

Also one might mention the "mass of the Catechumens", a shortened version of the full "regular mass" held in a building outside the cathedral, for the newly baptized, (the Baptistry )until they  progressed in their faith enough to be admitted to the Cathedral, for the full Mass.

 This of course parallels the LDS tradition of not allowing someone newly baptized into the temple.

 The more I studied LDS practices, the more I became convinced that they derived from a common ancestor with the Catholic services.

 The different sections of Catholic cathedrals also parallel  strongly the Temple architecture which is not a surprise considering that both came from the Jewish temple originally.

 Could Joseph have  known these parallels?

No.

Again also I must mention the similarities between the Scapular and temple garments.

https://www.catholiccompany.com/content/how-to-use-the-scapular

Hey mark...let me ramble...this thread is far from its roots.

----

Obviously, I am not familiar with your garments, whether outer or inner...

If I am not mistaken, in ancient Catholicism, the newly baptized were admitted into all of the "secrets". To this day, we have what is called the Mass of the Catechumens (unbaptized)...which in the liturgy takes us up to any sermons and the Creed. This would have anciently been followed with dismissal of the catechumens for further instruction. Then would begin what is still called the Mass of the Faithful, for which one qualifies when baptized, ordinarily on the Vigil of Easter.

----

Of course, the first and I would say, last question to be ascertained, is when the early Church needed to be Restored? What was wrong? I am always angling this direction. This was why I mentioned the Acts of the Martyrs. I do not identify the true Church by its doctrine. I identify the true doctrine by the Church. By their fruits you shall know the true from the false shepherd.

Mark, God love you. I am happy for the way we are communicating these days.

If the Church that offered martyrs for Christ in the first two centuries said that the Father had a body, that is what I would believe. I don't care what they believed. Materialism is fine. I do not begin with philosophy. I just want to believe the same thing as Sts. Laurence, Cecilia, Ignatius, and countless others. Surely you can appreciate why I would wish to be associated with the Christians who braved persecution of the Emperors and worshipped in the catacombs. Whatever they believed, I want to be part of it. 

When was authority lost by the Catholic Church, or if you will, the Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints? Surely not while subduing pagan Rome and converting an empire and an emperor to Christianity? This is the question I have asked myself and LDS now for a good stretch of years.

----

I am unfamiliar with this Bp. Barron that you like. He seems like a bit of a novelty, but I am glad if he makes my faith more intelligible to LDS.  

----

I finished a book today in defense of the founding of America, and of the Constitution, and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. What an LDS issue. You guys believe the Constitution was inspired or almost. Not me. I have been an anti-constitutionalist since the 80's. I am revising and reviewing only this late. It seems to me like this book covers all of the issues that we have wrangled about over the years in regard to nature, essence, substance, and the possibility of objective reality. The author suggests that American "freedom" stems from a belief in objective reality. He takes us from Athens to Jerusalem to Rome, while talking about how society thrives or not according to whether philosophies prevail which emphasize the primary of the intellect, or the primacy of the will. It has taken me a few months to finish, and I have thought of you many many times.   

Anyway Mark, you are a beloved foil. Take care. This book has made me proud and happy to be an American for the first time since I was much younger. It has also confirmed my Catholic faith which came when I was not young. It has also helped me understand alleged the Platonism/Aristotelianism which I still do not fully appreciate, that you have accused me of over the years...It just comes with the territory I guess. I think I can concede that I am guilty!

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/america-on-trial-robert-reilly/1135129397

Happy Low Sunday (first after Easter)

Your friend,

3DOP

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
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...