xjwsforChrist

QUENTIN SAID

Was Jesus a family man? Did he have a wife and children? There are any number of arguments that say yes, with a large amount of them being foolish.

My own thoughts are thus; 50% yes and 50% no. Reason...... it absolutly makes no difference one way, or the other. It does not take away from Him the purpose of his calling, nor what he came to do. Chosen directly by God and directly anontied by God as His Son. He fullfiled God's work within the context of the Creator's divine plan.

That is a general outline of what I think. What about you? How do you see the matter?
_________________
Vinegar tasts better in freedom
than honey in slavery

How can you unterstand a thing unless you know it?

LOZ SAID

Hi Quentin,
Personally no I don't think he was. If he had been I think there would've been evidence recorded certainly in the four gospels at least. To add to that, imagine him discovering from the scrolls and gradually through pray and deduction exactly WHO he was and the implications of such.

,He'd grown up in a community where he was nothing special really, a carpenter's son. During the years before his baptism and anointing he would've had to mentally and spiritually prepare himself for what followed, would've taken enormous courage and faith and dedication to his father, who as yet hadn't acknowledged him, it seemed. Being the man he was I doubt that he would've chosen to take a wife and have children that he'd have had to sideline completely for the last part of his short life, not to mention leave behind in distress at his death.

I think he was far more responsible and caring a person and chose to focus on his spiritual interests having read the prophecies relating to himself as the Messiah. Only my opinions of course.

Loz x

QUENTIN SAID

What you say makes sense. I do however take exception to this comment: He'd grown up in a community where he was nothing special really, a carpenter's son.

Carpenters were not poor, nor did they live on the fring of society being non-special. Carpenter's worked in a specialized trade that had to do with ALL wood products. Their talents would have been highly sought. Of course I'm sure some were better than orthers. The community he grew up in appears to have been Capurneum. A busy port city on the sea of Gallie(sp)
_________________
Vinegar tasts better in freedom
than honey in slavery

How can you unterstand a thing unless you know it?
How can you know a thing unless you understand it?

A THEIST SAID



Thank you justmon. This why I think is possible this could be Jesus. He gradually discovered who he really was too.

Reincarnation of Jesus and Mary thread

http://xjwsforchrist.madmooseforum.com/ ... =4466#4466

LOZ SAID

Ok Quentin I take your point. My using the word 'special' was not in reference to his secular status, I was meaning the Jewish Religious community. He would have been one of so many attending the synagogue and the annual festivals, no one to whom any religious importance had be conferred. Just Jesus, the son of Joseph, nothing out of the ordinary until John identified him as the Lamb of God. I like to think about the controversy that would have caused, and it evidently did because he found little honour with the people who only knew his physical roots?

Loz x

LOZ SAID

A theist I had a brief look at the site you linked to yesterday. Nice people they may be but similarly to other views, I KNOW Jesus is alive in spirit. He doesn't need to be in human form now. We don't need this help from the couple's to KNOW God and be "at one with God", some of already have such a relationship now.
It would be like possessing a genuine antique and putting it aside to go and hunt for a fake copy.
When Jesus returns, there will be room for error. Meanwhile we don't need to look here or there for him if we know where he is.

Loz x

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Jesus made it clear that his disciples were his family.
SInce it was not an issue for a rabbi to marry and have a family, IF Jesus had one, it would have been mentioned either by his followers OR by his critics.

AGUEST SAID

Christ didn't need to marry in the flesh, dear Q (peace to you!); in fact, he couldn't... else he would have been committing adultery. Because he was already promised in marriage to another, his Bride, New Jerusalem. Were he to take a wife in the flesh, he... by means of his flesh... would have been "anxious" as to HER needs... and thus the needs of the WORLD... and not those of God, His Father... or those of his Bride. To the neglect of both. Paul explains this pretty well, actually:

"The unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, how he may gain the Lord’s approval. (For Christ, this would be gaining the Father's approval.) But the married man is anxious for the things of the world, how he may gain the approval of his wife, and he is divided. Further, the unmarried woman, and the virgin, is anxious for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in her body and in her spirit. However, the married woman is anxious for the things of the world, how she may gain the approval of her [b]husband."

And his words were true then... and are today.

He also went on to write, though:

"But this I am saying for ​YOUR​ personal advantage, not that I may cast a noose upon ​YOU, but to move ​YOU​ to that which is becoming and that which means constant attendance upon the Lord without distraction."

So, he wasn't trying to bind them to rules or remove their freedom to BE married or act as married people, but cautioning them as to the distractions of marriage. And it CAN be difficult for the married person, because their loyalty is usually to their spouse FIRST... THEN God. It can be a very difficult balance, even when both spouses are believers.

And we can all be sure that most married men AND women experience this "conflict", and so BOTH might consider doing all they can NOT to contribute to one another's "anxiety" in this way. Both should be diligent to be aware of whether THEY are a source of conflict in this way for the other... and, if possible, work TOGETHER to overcome it.

But back to my Lord, it is not that his flesh didn't WANT to marry: his affection for Mary the Magdalene is the stuff of legends. As was his love for her brother, Lazarus. He WAS tested... in ALL respects... like us. But... UNLIKE us... HE did not give in to such temptations (hence, unlike us, HE did NOT sin - not that marriage is a sin - my point is that his ability to not give in caused him to not sin (in other ways)... as well as to not be distracted).

So, again, although he may have WANTED to marry, he knew that doing so would not only be a distraction... but "adultery" against the one to whom he was already promised, the seed of the Woman... that promise being made all the way back in the garden [of Eden]. From that time, he has maintained his anxiousness for HER "approval" (which "she" shows by coming TO him!). In turn, those who make up "her"... should endeavor to put their desire for HIS approval in the forefront.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

QUENTIN SAID

Thank you Loz for the clairification. As I said, what you wrote makes sense.

PS....Hmmm, Don't know about that. The Gospels are not history books. They are focused on His spritual ministry, not His life history. Peter had a wife and family, as did other's of his disciples. No need for his supporters to make mention, nor his critics to take issue. His critics put a lot of time and energy in refuting His ressurection.

Shelby...have never heard it explained that way. Interesting concept.

Let me make it clear, for me it does not matter. It does not take away from who he was or what he came to do. It is however a question that gets thrown at belivers more often than not, which in turn, many times, a knee jerk reaction. You guys are to smart and grounded for that...
_________________
Vinegar tasts better in freedom
than honey in slavery

How can you unterstand a thing unless you know it?
How can you know a thing unless you understand it?

PSACRAMENTO SAID

.


You just answered your own issues in your own posts.
Those that were married, their families were mentioned. Jesus' family was mentioned a few times.
There would have been no issue if He was married and to whom, none whatsoever.
That there is no mention of wife or child ( which would have been since he was killed), it means quite simply that He never was.

CHARIKLO SAID

Nicely logical, Paul

LARSINGER58 SAID

Just for the record, JW doctrine definitely requires that Christ not have any of his own children. That's because when he gave himself up in sacrifice, he gave up the right to have his own perfect children so he could adopt Adam's children.

So definitely NOT, he was not married nor had any children.

The second reason why he was not married is because John was "the disciple he loved." He was in love with John.

The reference in scripoture that he would be called a "Nazarene" is a play on the words that he was a "eunuch" (i.e. someone not attracted to women).

So those are two reasons why we know Jesus was not married to a woman nor had children. Glad we cleared that up, right?
_________________
The Bible is true and God is alive!

CHARIKLO SAID


Lars, you do realise that this is an EX-JW forum, don't you?

I can't speak for anyone else here, but for myself, telling me that JW doctrine says something is meaningless, because I do not believe at all in JW doctrine.

Having said that. I see no reason to suppose that Jesus had children or was married.

SABASTIOUS SAID

Christ was indeed married, but had no children. However there was no ceremony and it was kept secret. Many people believed that becoming married would mess with his mission, yet they are not taking into consideration his perfect nature and his free will. The secrecy was also for the protection of his female counterpart, Mary Magdalene after his death. If she was ever uncovered as the fleshly wife of Christ she would have been tortured to death. Upon his resurrection Christ appeared to his WIFE before anyone else, because he trusted her the most.

-Sab

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Why would she have been in danger as you said?