The Marriage(s)(?) of Jesus

[Indy Coug]

Was Jesus married during mortality?

[TripletDaddy]

of course he was, silly Rabbi.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How could anyone know that?

[old_gregg]

already proved by the da vinci code, dummies

[Indy Coug]

How could anyone know that?

You should just paste that quote as a banner on The Foyer home page.

[UtahDan]

of course he was, silly Rabbi.

I voted yes but to some other woman based on DDD's argument here. In his culture he would have very likely been married and would note have been called rabbi were he not. But I'm not aware of persuasive evidence that he was married to anyone in particular.

[The Fourth Nephite]

I didn't vote because my option wasn't available. I would have voted "yes, but who knows to who?".

[TripletDaddy]

I voted yes but to some other woman based on DDD's argument here. In his culture he would have very likely been married and would note have been called rabbi were he not. But I'm not aware of persuasive evidence that he was married to anyone in particular.

Word.

Jewish cultural practices aside, I am not sure how Mormons can believe Jesus was NOT married.

We frequently refer to 2 Ne to explain why Jesus went through the trouble of being baptized despite being sinless...namely, to obey a commandment and provide an example.

Why would he be exempt from the equally important requisite for exaltation, which is marriage?

It makes more sense (and is more consistent) to me to assume He was married. As you stated, the identity of his wife is far less "certain," as it were.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The Church has no official declaration on Jesus' marital status. I do not believe he was married, though.

[Sullyute]

The Church has no official declaration on Jesus' marital status. I do not believe he was married, though.

Is this because the saducees and pharasees (spelling?) called him a wine bibber and a sinner but not an adulterer? As much time as he spent with women in the scriptures and as close as they seemed to be with him, that those leaders who were against him would have made the fornication charge?

It does appear strange that some many women would be named in the new testamet but his wife would not.

Also that he cared enough about his mother that while on the cross he told john to take care of her, but no mention of his wife.

[Indy Coug]

Is this because the saducees and pharasees (spelling?) called him a wine bibber and a sinner but not an adulterer? As much time as he spent with women in the scriptures and as close as they seemed to be with him, that those leaders who were against him would have made the fornication charge?

It does appear strange that some many women would be named in the new testamet but his wife would not.

Also that he cared enough about his mother that while on the cross he told john to take care of her, but no mention of his wife.

Editorial license?

[Blueintheface]

Is this because the saducees and pharasees (spelling?) called him a wine bibber and a sinner but not an adulterer? As much time as he spent with women in the scriptures and as close as they seemed to be with him, that those leaders who were against him would have made the fornication charge?

It does appear strange that some many women would be named in the new testamet but his wife would not.

Also that he cared enough about his mother that while on the cross he told john to take care of her, but no mention of his wife

Removed at the Council perhaps?

[Sullyute]

Editorial license?

Removed at the Council perhaps?

Perhaps. There is definitely precedent for this as some historians believe jewish leaders did the same thing by removing Asherah from the Old Testament.

I was just pondering on the potential reasons behind SIEQ's position.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Is this because the saducees and pharasees (spelling?) called him a wine bibber and a sinner but not an adulterer? As much time as he spent with women in the scriptures and as close as they seemed to be with him, that those leaders who were against him would have made the fornication charge?

It does appear strange that some many women would be named in the new testamet but his wife would not.

Also that he cared enough about his mother that while on the cross he told john to take care of her, but no mention of his wife.

Those are circumstantial facts, and we could speculate about them, but my thinking is based elsewhere.

I'm familiar with the "rabbi" argument and don't find it persuasive. Jesus did not hold any office within Judaism--including that of rabbi--which is why Jewish authorities asked "by what authority" he did this or that. Jesus would not have been able to officiate in the temple, for example. In my judgment, the application of "rabbi" to Jesus is generic.

[Indy Coug]

Those are circumstantial facts, and we could speculate about them, but my thinking is based elsewhere.

I'm familiar with the "rabbi" argument and don't find it persuasive. Jesus did not hold any office within Judaism--including that of rabbi--which is why Jewish authorities asked "by what authority" he did this or that. Jesus would not have been able to officiate in the temple, for example. In my judgment, the application of "rabbi" to Jesus is generic.

How would we know if he held an office or not?