The Marriage(s)(?) of Jesus

[SoonerCoug]

Listen at the 5-minute mark.

[YOUTUBE]0JFh_XoXbTY[/YOUTUBE]

[Indy Coug]

Why wouldn't he be married? Unless he was gay, of course, is the simple answer.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Blueintheface]

Why wouldn't he be married? Unless he was gay, of course, is the simple answer.

OxCoug is gay? Someone tell him, quick!

[Viking]

Why wouldn't he be married? Unless he was gay, of course, is the simple answer.

[SoonerCoug]

In his culture he would have very likely been married and would note have been called rabbi were he not.

Bart Ehrman would disagree with this.

[falafel]

I'm guessing yes. I'm also guessing that his wife got tired of him hanging around his twelve buddies so much, she got tired of him being away from home and she would ask if he really was the savior why didn't they have a larger home.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would disagree, but only in the sense that such an interpretation seemingly contradicts the popular (albeit possibly cultural) notion within Mormonism that Jesus did everything we are asked to do. At the same time, I also acknowledge that pop cultural Mormonism is often wrong.

Yes, I think that is most definitely a modern notion with a very shaky doctrinal foundation.

[TripletDaddy]

I wrestled with this very question for a long time. I think it's a productive one.

My thinking is that the ritual purification with water that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 2 Nephi describe is consistent with the OT Jewish purification rites as interpreted in 1st century Judaism by groups such as the Essenes. I think Jesus submitting to that ritual is a witness of Jesus' perfect obedience to the commandments. I do not think that means Jesus had to endure every ritual necessary for the salvation of mortals. He is the Lord and is without blemish. As Hebrews tells it, he is the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact impress of his nature. In short, Jesus is the seal (or impression, the language alludes to a king's mark in wax on a document) and has no need of being sealed.

That's as accurate a representation of my view as I can make in a few sentences.

Interesting. Thanks for typing that out.

I would disagree, but only in the sense that such an interpretation seemingly contradicts the popular (albeit possibly cultural) notion within Mormonism that Jesus did everything we are asked to do. At the same time, I also acknowledge that pop cultural Mormonism is often wrong.

Again, from a personal perspective, it makes no sense to me that he wouldnt marry. It would fit all cultural and social expectations of the time, there really is no reason to think he would NOT marry, and it would also explain why Mary was running around overly concerned about what the wedding guests were drinking.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How could anyone know that?

I was referring to the specificity of the poll (this person vs. that person, etc.). Then again, there may be mountains of evidence on this of which I am not aware.

[Sleeping in EQ]

What about the whole "fulfill all righteousness" angle?

I wrestled with this very question for a long time. I think it's a productive one.

My thinking is that the ritual purification with water that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 2 Nephi describe is consistent with the OT Jewish purification rites as interpreted in 1st century Judaism by groups such as the Essenes. I think Jesus submitting to that ritual is a witness of Jesus' perfect obedience to the commandments. I do not think that means Jesus had to endure every ritual necessary for the salvation of mortals. He is the Lord and is without blemish. As Hebrews tells it, he is the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact impress of his nature. In short, Jesus is the seal (or impression, the language alludes to a king's mark in wax on a document) and has no need of being sealed.

That's as accurate a representation of my view as I can make in a few sentences.

[TripletDaddy]

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.

What about the whole "fulfill all righteousness" angle?

[RC Vikings]

I'm guessing yes. I'm also guessing that his wife got tired of him hanging around his twelve buddies so much, she got tired of him being away from home and she would ask if he really was the savior why didn't they have a larger home.

[Blueintheface]

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

He placed 2nd in student council voting to Lazurus during the 3rd grade.

[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?

[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.