Tis a sad ending to what could have been! We don't blame the one who stayed, in instances where no abuse occurred. The fault is clearly on the one who ran off. May God discipline her and bring her to the place where she belongs.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Our story so far was a bit of a disappointment but a message to not give up
- Thread starter Jamie101
- Start date
I am quite skeptical of the notion that Jesus was married at all, but I also could see why someone like Luke, if Jesus did have more than one wife, would not have wanted to report such a thing to Theo.
Correct. The Christology of the LDS is not the same as the rest of orthodox Christian christology.
It isn't only Christology (and therefore Christianity), but the understanding of the nature of YAHWEH Himself that is totally different than that of Monotheism.
The King Follett discourse by the founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith stated that God was not always God. He became God.
(For those interested, I would suggest listening to this foundational message being read on YouTube. I have listened to it a number of times.)
This means that what man is, God once was, and what God is, man may become.
There are also believed to be many other Gods of many other worlds. They all had beginnings.
In the Bible, God defines Himself.
He says "I AM".
He always was. He always will be. He is the absolute foundation of all reality. Nothing exists before Him, or apart from Him. He created all. Everyone who ever was or ever will be will bow to The "I AM", and He bows to no one.
The Mormon view of ultimate reality is therefore more consistent with they Mystical/Gnostic/Masonic/Kabbalah/New Age understanding .than it is with the Christian understanding of Reality.
Christians believe the ultimate Reality is I AM.
I would not be so easily given to the idea that Jesus was married- that would be an inference from silence. @steve, I think you might be referring to the pharasitical tradition that marriage was an "expectation", but even that was not necessarily absolutely mandated. As far as I know, there's nothing suggests that rabbis from all Jewish Traditions during the second temple period had to be married.
The scriptures, along with all credible historical sources, have nothing to say about Jesus being married. The main grouping of texts that I'm aware of that make this claim are of gnostic origin, which as true Christians we ought to reject as scripture.
Logically speaking, he technically could have been married as there are no Scriptures denying it, but likewise there are no scriptures to confirm it.
Short of following Gnostic Doctrine or employing an inference from silence, there is no reason that a Christian should believe that Jesus was married. We need to be careful that we don't jump to any conclusions that has no evidential basis.
The scriptures, along with all credible historical sources, have nothing to say about Jesus being married. The main grouping of texts that I'm aware of that make this claim are of gnostic origin, which as true Christians we ought to reject as scripture.
Logically speaking, he technically could have been married as there are no Scriptures denying it, but likewise there are no scriptures to confirm it.
Short of following Gnostic Doctrine or employing an inference from silence, there is no reason that a Christian should believe that Jesus was married. We need to be careful that we don't jump to any conclusions that has no evidential basis.
Are you familiar with inferential logic?
I must admit, I had to look it up!
I am familiar with the concept, however. Is there anything in the scriptures that infers that Jesus was physically married? I can't think of a single instance.
The inference is based on second temple rabbinic tradition combined with inferences about the women who were close to him and attending to him.I must admit, I had to look it up!
Is there anything in the scriptures that infers that Jesus was physically married? I can't think of a single instance.
It’s not too different in my mind about the inferences of Him being a homo because of Him loving John, having John rest on his chest during the last supper and traveling around with a bunch of younger, single men.
People will infer what they want to, even without direct evidence.
Just like they do about monogamy-only. Nothing new here.
It's not the same.
One thing is to claim something is true when existing points to opposite.
Inferential logic is used to when we don't have existing evidence.
Somebody is accused of shoplifting and there are no witness and cameras are useless. So we can't prove. But we know accused has been proved to have stolen already three times, so we infer he did try again because possibility of him stealing is greater than opposite.
I am not here to argue about it, but I will point out a couple of things for your consideration.
1). Scripture doesn’t say that he wasn’t married, so that is also an inference from silence.
2). The disciples declared that deacons must be married. Where do you think they got that tradition from?
I suppose that holds weight, but I see it as a much further stretch to infer a positive from silence, rather than a negative.
That's true, I'm assuming you're referring to 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1: these passages are certainly a curiosity. If they were written by Paul, then he presumably disqualifies himself (and in my opinion, Jesus) from early church leadership.
To cut to the chase, more and more I find myself falling into the camp that these are indeed "pseudopauline"- aka Paul didn't write them, but rather someone pretending to be him did. There are a number of reasons why modern scholars think they might not have been written by Paul, and that begs the question- should they be considered as cannon? Thats a whole rabbit trail though, and this thread has already derailed pretty far off the original topic
sorry, @Jamie101.Jesus was a man on a mission, being the Savior and the Light of the world. I don't think He let things like earthly marriage (as good and blessed as it is) distract Him from His primary task. Accomplishing the Work of His Father seems to have been His sole or at least driving purpose.
Had He been married, then He would have almost certainly had children (assuming superior health as the only unfallen Man).
These children would also be unfallen like Him since they would be the seed of Christ, and biological children of God instead of the seed of Adam.
Had He been married, then He would have almost certainly had children (assuming superior health as the only unfallen Man).
These children would also be unfallen like Him since they would be the seed of Christ, and biological children of God instead of the seed of Adam.
My question would be whether Yah allowed his special DNA to be passed on.Had He been married, then He would have almost certainly had children (assuming superior health as the only unfallen Man).
These children would also be unfallen like Him since they would be the seed of Christ, and biological children of God instead of the seed of Adam.
He might have been shooting blanks.
Genesis 6 anyone?These children would also be unfallen like Him since they would be the seed of Christ, and biological children of God instead of the seed of Adam.
It would make sense that God would not be interested in perpetuating issues of "divine bloodline" that arose from deep history, rather seeking to reverse it. #eletesocietiessuckWe also have to keep in mind that Jesus did specifically affirm celebacy- Matthew 19:12
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
Not a proof text, just saying.
I think that alot of things are inferred. I have a few single women friends. Some older, some younger. All have children and if/when we are seen together the unknowing would assume we are a pair and the children are my bio offspring. But such is not the reality. I, like Michael Jackson, have to say, "that child is not my own..." The reality is PEOPLE ASSUME!
Even the scholars among us are guilty of that. Man and woman together equals sexual activity and resultant children. Whereas this is true in many cases, it is NOT referred to in any scriptural sense.
I have to add, what does the possibility of have wife and children do to the Gospel and the atonement of Jesus the Christ? Does it muddy the water of the normally crystal clear message of the gospel? Does the sexual activity taint the purity and sinlessness of the sacrifice? For those who believe that sex is sinful because it is sensual and fleshly, it could cause a whole host of issues and a shaking of their faith. For those of us a little more seasoned, I ask, Please don't shake another person's foundation without scriptural proof.
Let me add another point- sex is not sinful! It was actually a command. It is the "with whom" that pushes us off the path into the brambles that is the issue.
Even the scholars among us are guilty of that. Man and woman together equals sexual activity and resultant children. Whereas this is true in many cases, it is NOT referred to in any scriptural sense.
I have to add, what does the possibility of have wife and children do to the Gospel and the atonement of Jesus the Christ? Does it muddy the water of the normally crystal clear message of the gospel? Does the sexual activity taint the purity and sinlessness of the sacrifice? For those who believe that sex is sinful because it is sensual and fleshly, it could cause a whole host of issues and a shaking of their faith. For those of us a little more seasoned, I ask, Please don't shake another person's foundation without scriptural proof.
Let me add another point- sex is not sinful! It was actually a command. It is the "with whom" that pushes us off the path into the brambles that is the issue.
Is he affirming it, or is he just stating an observation?
Well no. He wasn't disqualifying himself from anything other than those three stated positions. Paul was an apostle.I suppose that holds weight, but I see it as a much further stretch to infer a positive from silence, rather than a negative.
That's true, I'm assuming you're referring to 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1: these passages are certainly a curiosity. If they were written by Paul, then he presumably disqualifies himself (and in my opinion, Jesus) from early church leadership.
To cut to the chase, more and more I find myself falling into the camp that these are indeed "pseudopauline"- aka Paul didn't write them, but rather someone pretending to be him did. There are a number of reasons why modern scholars think they might not have been written by Paul, and that begs the question- should they be considered as cannon? Thats a whole rabbit trail though, and this thread has already derailed pretty far off the original topic
Do we have any proof of his marital status?
I had heard that he was a widower, which would have qualified him.
It would be amusing if the man who appointed elders wasn’t qualified to be one.
Here we run into the "mia" issue again.
Is the elder or deacon?
"Wife man" meaning married
"First wife man" meaning he is/was faithful to the wife of his youth even if she is now deceased, or even if he now has additional wives along with her
"Husband of one wife" meaning not polygamous
Something else?