Posted on 09/12/2014 6:28:11 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
According to Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) President Orson Hyde, Jesus was married to several women, including Mary Magdalene, and had biological children.
"..[In John 2,] Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. ... We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. ... I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me. ... I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation?"
-- Hyde, at the Mormon General Conference, on 6 October 1854. (Printed in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82.)
Apparently, this position had support from Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Orson Pratt, and others.
The LDS organization has since denied these claims. A spokesman said, "The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine."
Still, Hyde's is an allowed position within Mormonism. That is concerning.
Of course, Christ is the figurative Bridegroom -- but He is not so literally, in a carnal sense! Also, for the record, the "seed" of His mentioned in Isaiah 53:10 refers to our spiritual relationship with Him, in the sense of John 12:24 and Galatians 3:26.
—
Follow me, Answering Protestants, and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants and Catholic Analysis to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
I feel the same way. However, I've been doing an interesting study on the holiness of God. One of the things that has been of great interest in this study is the fact that God delights in us far more than we delight in Him. So we must balance our failures in serving Him against His desire to help us in our weakness to become holy like Him.
From where we sit, Roman Catholicism has plenty of non-Scriptural, heretical beliefs. What you term "basic" Catholic doctrines - if they are genuine CHRISTIAN doctrines - are the SAME doctrines held by all genuine Christians (i.e., deity of Jesus Christ, His incarnation, the Trinity, the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for our sins, His resurrection, His immanent return) and can be proven BY Scripture as well as what was always, everywhere and by all believed by the original Christians. Some of what Catholicism has "developed" over the centuries in its bizarre doctrines and dogmas cannot be proved by Scripture and was unheard of in the early church. That's just a fact and is why you guys don't have a leg to stand on - much less three - to condemn REAL Christians as heretics!
Well said! Some of the more polemical FRoman Catholics cannot concede that GENUINE Christians exist outside of the Roman Catholic church so they will try to corral all non-RCs into one big tent so that they can assert their elitist and superior, snooty and snobbish uniqueness and proclaim, "If you aren't a Roman Catholic, you aren't a REAL Christian.". Yet, if we go by sacred Scripture and the writings of the first Christian leaders, it's easy to demonstrate that they aren't either!
Genuine Christianity has always been distinct from the cults and world religions because it's not based on what man must do to bind himself back to God (what the word "religion" means) but what God has done to bind man back to Himself. We are saved by grace through faith and not the works we do. It is a GIFT of God and is why NO ONE may boast.
Amen!
I agree, there is a long stretch in the Bible on Jesus’ life we know nothing about including if he was married or not. I would say it’s entirely possible he was not only married but had children we know noting of.
Most people may not know this but there are a number of the Gospels that were not included in the final version of the Bible. Those might shed more light on Jesus life.
Well done response. It’s only going to get through to those who are diligently seeking to know the truth. Others, who are spiritually blind, will not because they don’t and won’t.
And, ironically, of some FRoman Catholics!
Hate to break this to ya, but it’s not Daniel1212 who is saying the “really stupid things and making misjudgments”. LOL!
Well done response. It’s only going to get through to those who are diligently seeking to know the truth. Others, who are spiritually blind, will not because they don’t and won’t. | To 100 | View Replies
Thanks be to God for His grace and light. Now to walk in it ever more so diligently.
Just considering the implications of such a thing, I wonder do those who think Jesus did have a human family imagine He passed on His sinlessness to His children???
My mistake, I apologize for not including all the prots.
“I agree, there is a long stretch in the Bible on Jesus’ life we know nothing about including if he was married or not. I would say it’s entirely possible he was not only married but had children we know noting of.”
Well, no. If he was married and had children, he would be producing god-children. Of course, any mormonic heretic would like that very much. Not only was He not married. It wasn’t possible.
“Most people may not know this but there are a number of the Gospels that were not included in the final version of the Bible. Those might shed more light on Jesus life.”
These books were examined and fell short of inspired Scripture. They were largely cultic. They do not shed light on Jesus’ life. They add to it.
Like using reasoning that places Peter and Jim Jones on the same level (both sinners) and no different or worse, contradicting your own church in not making critical distinctions btwn groups, and even when faced with them and the correction of brethren, and then resorting to ad hominems with such a broad brush that additionally indicts the poster into being what he charges.
Of course the Jewish people consider Jesus more of a prophet than the Son of God. In that context then Jesus’s could have been married and had children.
Or we look at it from the point of view that Jesus came in human form and lived as such and there again you have those possibilities.
Then again we also have the fact that Zeus came in human form and sired many children also.
It’s my understanding that no mass migrations back to Israel began until 1882. Prior to that the numbers were groups of at most a few thousand and normally just hundreds.
Simeon ben Azzai is not a rabbi. The Bible is silent on John the Baptist being married. Jeremiah is explicitly told not to marry or have children in this place. That’s particularly interesting because it indicates that a people can defile a place via sin. Not good for America.
But there is - My foremost complaint is how that affects the betrothal contract He has with his Bride - While it is possible for a man to have two wives, and while one can argue that His death caused any marriage He had here to be terminated, it still impacts the whole idea of the ONE 'woman' he loves, and your proposal turns all of that betrothal stuff right on it's head. That betrothal is our contract with Him!
Very interesting and I'd not considered that. Isn't the bridegroom/bride analogy simply figurative just as the slavery or prisoner analogy often made in the NT? A man can be married to his work (but that may kill his real marriage as you have stated), but Christ as the Jehovah of the OT is God and nothing is beyond him.
Secondly, all things being equal, a married man will no doubt produce offspring - This is a can of worms that comes right out of the DaVinci Code - what a mess if there is a bloodline heir! But we need not worry about all that, because the Bible says He was cut off - That is a particular thing, meaning no blood heir - His line is ended.
Potentially and as an aside I find the DaVinci Code despicable garbage. Its purpose is to undermine Christ and to insult the Catholic Church. I'm not aware of the verse you refer to indicating that Jesus' line is cut off. Take a look at Isaiah 53:10 where it states emphatically that "[Jesus]shall see his seed" is that to be figurative or literal?
But that too suggests He was *not* married, as his brother would be obliged to take His wife and continue His heirs. Some form of the kinsman-redeemer would be enacted upon His bloodline and that bloodline would have continued in all likelihood.
On this point I am not clear as to what you are getting at.
And lastly, as a matter of form, it is an argument from silence - A position that I am usually loathe to take. There is no legitimate evidence that He had a wife, something the Bible would no doubt declare. But it does not. There is nothing, except one pseudo-documentary gnostic strain which one must read with a suspension of disbelief in order to give it any credence at all, not to mention any authority.
Here I agree with you that an argument from silence isn't a strong argument. At the same time there would be a lot of reasons for God to hide the bloodline of Jesus Christ.
My point is that His being married or even being a father doesn't change one bit his divinity or his mission. Interesting discussion and thanks.
See my reply here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3203535/posts?page=177#177
The Bible is silent on many things that we needn’t know. The NT is silent in many details on the day to day operations of the early church and its exact hierarchy.
Another more striking silence is on how Adam and Eve survived outside of the Garden. Certainly instruction must have been given to them on the rudiments of survival and perhaps much more. They were in dire need of an education from the moment of the Expulsion on.
The Bible is not a one to one map of God’s dealings with man. We know that at some future date all will be revealed, including many mysteries such as this one.
LOL. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Wrong again, indeed.
There is an ongoing attempt at revisionist history by anti-religious Zionists to belittle and minimize the earlier waves of religious settlers.
That the 1880s stands out is due to the influence of the British and French in the area, filling in the power vacuum left by the decaying Ottomans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.