charity wrote:the road to hana wrote:
Here's what doesn't fit with your assertion.
The New Testament is replete with examples of Jesus Christ either complying with existing ritual or setting the example for others. Right in scripture, one can find that he
*was taken for circumcision at the appropriate time according to Jewish law
*was baptized by John the Baptist
*observed the Passover and established the new covenant ritual at the Last Supper
It's recorded that he preached in the synagogues and that he accompanied his parents to the temple. The New Testament scriptures seem to make a point of the ordinances either being complied with, by example, or established.
1.And since He taught in the synagogues, He was most likely married. It would have been extremely rare for an adult male, referred to as rabbi, not to be married.
Again, you need to explain why the marriage isn't covered in scripture, or tradition, if other important rites of passage as example were.
2. And what do you think was happening at the wedding in Cana? Why are guests (if Mary and Jesus were only guests) so concerned about the wine? The host, the groom and his mother, for example, would have been very concerned about the wine. Jesus was the host, at His own wedding. And so, of course, He should see that there was enough wine.
I can assure you there are LDS scholars who dispute your interpretation, and agree with non-LDS scholars that Jesus was a guest at someone else's wedding. It's nonsensical to assume it was his own wedding without a mention of the bride, yet a mention of the mother. The point of the story has entirely to do with his mother talking him into performing his first miracle. If it were his wedding, it's doubtful wine would have been an issue (as you have so conveniently noted).
3. There was plenty of reason to keep Jesus'spouse and offspring in secret. After all the Jews had wanted Him dead, and the Romans didn't want anyone to stir up trouble. The way to get rid of a threat was to erdicate all of that line. They had to keep Jesus' family protected.
If he had multiple spouses, and multiple children, that would be a near impossibility.
4. And you forget that in Utah, when the Saints were free from government interference, only a small percentage of families were plural. Most were not. Why would the early Saints have not followed that pattern?
Do you have evidence of early Christians practicing polygamy following the example of their spiritual leader?
charity wrote:the road to hana wrote:Therefore, it would make more sense in support of your argument if there were any example of Jesus Christ being married. But there isn't. When he is referred to as "the bridegroom" in New Testament scripture it's always in reference to "the Church" being his bride.
The only reason an analogy has any power fo help us visualize is if there is a real world example of it.
Marriage
is included in New Testament scripture, just not any marriage of Jesus Christ. It would not be necessary for him to be married for the analogy to have meaning, or power.
charity wrote:the road to hana wrote:
Most Christians would really have no difficulty with Christ being married (at least, to one wife only, anyway). The simple fact is that in that regard, the scriptures are conspicuously silent, and wouldn't need to be, since setting an example seems to be an important part of them.
I don't know that statement is correct. I think there are a lot of Christians who have shown that they object to the idea of Jesus being married. The DaVinci Code really got people all riled up at the idea.
The reason Christians as a rule don't adhere to the belief that Jesus Christ was married has more to do with the conspicuous silence on the subject in scripture and tradition than anything else. If he'd been married, likely that would be a part of current theology and understanding. Jesus Christ asked many difficult things of his followers during his tenure; it's unlikely that his being married would have been any more of an obstacle than anything else. It's more likely it would have been held up as an example.
charity wrote:the road to hana wrote:Christ himself says in Matthew 19 that not all people should marry, so attributing that solely to Paul is flawed. As far as I understand, clerical celibacy arose several centuries later primarily in response to estate complications, and not for theological reasons.
Try telling that to your Catholic buddies.
I'm not sure which buddies you're talking about, but I expect they know that.