I know it's not a new thing, but pretty big nevertheless. It won't change much, because I can hardly see anyone changing their beliefs over a piece of paper.
But to Christians out there- what do you think? If that were true, if there were more and better proofs, would that change a lot? I wonder if Pope would start to think about abolishing celibacy...
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Coptic! I was baffled trying to read the text, until I saw that it was Coptic rather than Greek. According to the article, the Vatican isn't very approving.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I have not been Mormon for a while now, so I am not sure I am correct in my assessment. I don't think Mormons would be surprised by this.
Is there any doctrine in Mormon theology that would preclude Jesus being married? In fact, since marriage in a temple is a pre-requisite to get the highest degree of salvation, I always assumed that Jesus either got married or now is married. At the very least marriage was/is an option for Jesus.
I am thinking the church has no position on whether Jesus has a wife. I probably got this feeling of a potential wife from multiple conversations with religious leaders as a young adult where we just talked through what we thought was possible, not what is officially believed.
I did grow up in a small Mormon town where our young men's leader eventually moved in the desert and taught polygamy, so I am sure I had some wacky conversations.
I am really curious to see what Mormons either believe or what/if there is an official doctrine position.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yeah, I know, but what if the proof was better. Hypothetically.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am a Catholic and I would be delighted to learn that Jesus was married. He was fully human so why wouldn't Jesus have had the whole spectrum of human experience. Our general Catholic weirdness about sex does not come from the gospels.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Obviously this exposes the whole edifice of Christianity as a millennial lie, and the entire thing is about to come crashing down on everyone's heads. Time to duck and cover; the Vatican will fire its missiles (the Pope's hat, of course, is actually their equivalent of "the Football", the radio/controller that the President can use to launch the American arsenal) before it allows its power and influence to be degraded by this devastating proof.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
There is no official Mormon doctrine about whether Jesus was married during his mortal sojourn. It's not discussed, so we (edit: should) not speculate.
Mormon doctrine allows for the possibility that Jesus is married now in the next life.
Most likely to Mary, since he couldn't be bothered to help Martha with the household chores.
One of these statements is not true.
[ September 19, 2012, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Seems like people used to speculate that the wedding at which Jesus changed water into wine was his own wedding.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
One of these statements is not true.
The "we do not speculate one"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
One of these statements is not true.
The "we do not speculate one"?
Oh, good catch.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Well, as a quasicatholic, I wouldn't mind either. It'd be cool. More life-like, more real. Attractive.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am a Mormon and there is nothing at all about Jesus being married during his mortal life that contradicts any of our doctrine. In fact, many LDS people, including myself, have suspected that there was a very good chance he was married, and that records of it simply weren't preserved until today.
As far as official statements, the subject has simply been left alone. But sexuality within marriage is considered a sacred and God-given ability, so Jesus being married does not present any weirdness to LDS beliefs or diminish His divinity in any way.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
This would imply possible offspring and... maybe some of us... ?!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Dan Brown was right!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
From what I understand, in ancient Jewish culture the groom was responsible for parts of their own wedding, and wine was one of these responsibilities. It is certainly possible that the reason the people came to him regarding the problem of the wine was because he was the groom of that wedding.
I am sure there are those that are better versed in ancient Jewish culture than me, so if I am incorrect please let me know!
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It doesn't even necessarily mean sexuality. The idea of him being married and not having a sexual relationship with his wife might seem weird, but you're talking about a person/character who can walk on water and rose from the dead, so I doubt it would rattle that many people, even if it does make the belief a little more dubious.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Why would Jesus have a wife he didn't have sex with?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Maybe he chose not to.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Why would Jesus have a wife he didn't have sex with?
Ugly?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: It doesn't even necessarily mean sexuality. The idea of him being married and not having a sexual relationship with his wife might seem weird, but you're talking about a person/character who can walk on water and rose from the dead, so I doubt it would rattle that many people, even if it does make the belief a little more dubious.
In most cultures if you never have sex with your wife, you are not really married.
I just don't comprehend that with all the translations, re-writes, contradictions, additions and subtractions over the last two millennium how anyone could possibly take anything in the bible as 100% accurate (if not just tall tales and myths).
I have serious doubts as to whether the man actually existed (don't get me started on his inclusion in both world culture textbooks I have taught with).
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Usually the ceremony takes place before the bedding/honeymoon. You're considered married for the period of time in between the "i do" and the physical intimacy that usually follows. Not saying it's likely, but all things in the bible considered, I think the mere fact that he was married would be a dumb deal-breaker. There are plenty of other things in bible that make faith more dubious.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Even if it's not a forgery. Jesus fanfic was pretty prevalent by that period of time. I mean heck, the gospel of Thomas has passages saying Jesus blew away his friends for minor offenses with cosmic power.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I was under the impression that the thought of Jesus not only being married but having had a child was the source of the idea of the Divine Right of Kings in medieval Europe -- they thought they were descendants of Christ, and therefore literally Divine, and thus entitled to rule as a result.
The "groom responsible for the wine" thing as "proof" of Jesus being married has already been mentioned. I've also been told that Jesus being called "Rabbi" several times in the Gospels also is an indicator that he was married, as a requirement of being a rabbi was that the man be married. I don't know if that's the case or not, but if it is, then it would at least be an indication toward that direction.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is no requirement under Jewish law that for a man to receive semichah (rabbinical ordination) that he must be married.
I have never heard of the groom wine thing, and I skeptical of that claim as well.
In any case, if he actually existed, it is pretty clear that following the tenets and details of Jewish law was not his primary concern. So using suppositions about Jewish Law to prove anything about his life mostly makes me roll my eyes.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ....it is pretty clear that following the tenets and details of Jewish law was not his primary concern.
It sure wasn't. Good point, it made my day Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
rivka:
quote:In any case, if he actually existed, it is pretty clear that following the tenets and details of Jewish law was not his primary concern. So using suppositions about Jewish Law to prove anything about his life mostly makes me roll my eyes.
I know you've answered this question before about why Jesus couldn't have been the messiah, but do you perchance have those links again?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)