It's always seemed rather "kinky" to me that they would seem to sexualize their relationship to "Jesus christ" by using the concept of marriage - and all that marriage implies.. But then, I never could connect the dots when it came to understanding ANY religious belief system.
2007-05-11 01:51:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Lifelong virgin. Anyone who studies the bible, rather than just reads it and takes it entirely at face value can see that the bible is unclear on the existence of other children after Jesus, but leaning towards Mary having none. I believe this because: Luke 1:34, Mary says "how can this be, since I do not know man". Notice the present tense there. She was just told that she WILL have a son, and she was already engaged. If sex was going to happen, why would she even question the idea that she were going to become pregnant? Why be bothered by it? Because there was not going to be any sex. There was a rare, but not unheard of form of marriage 2000 years ago where a woman who has chosen to remain forever virgin, and a man who was married before and misses having a companion, get hitched - essentially just to have someone around. In Luke 2:41-51, when Jesus is already 12 years old, he is still the only child of Mary. In Mark 6:3 - Jesus is called "THE son of Mary", not A son. In John 19:26, when Jesus hung on the cross, he entrusted Mary's care to John, and NOT a sibling. Had Jesus actually had siblings, this would have been a shocking and rather insulting move on his part. The popular verse used to suggest that Mary had other children is Matthew 13:55-56, which mentions Jesus' "brothers". However, in Greek, the word is adelphi, which is far more broad in meaning than literal brothers. Rather, it can mean brother, uncle, nephew, a close friend, or even a fellow believer in a movement. It even gets this very broad meaning several times in scripture. If you've read the bible, you know that all throughout the NT, people are being called brothers in Christ, or just being called brothers when they can't possibly be literal brothers. Furthermore, the people outlined in the above verses are James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude, but we know from Matthew 27:56 that James and Joseph of that group are called sons of Mary, but this Mary, as shown by John 19:25, is the wife of a man named Clopas, not Joseph. So we know that at least two of them couldn't possibly be literal brothers of Jesus, and then that begs the question of proper grammatical structure. What I mean by this is why would the sentence use the same single word adelphi to describe 2 friends and 2 literal brothers? That doesn't make any sense.
2016-05-20 03:57:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by pearle 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It could be because the Bible speaks of the church as "the Bride of Christ". While this is figurative and in no way means that his servants are not allowed to be married, some might take it literally.
However, it is wrong for one not to get married if they live their life full of sexual lust. I Corinthians 7:1-3
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (meaning: do not withhold sexual affection from each other unless it is a temporary, mutual agreement to allow for fasting and such)
Debbie: If you are basing your claim that Jesus is an angel on one verse where Jesus comes with the "voice of an arch angel" when there is a verse that refers to Jesus as "almighty God", you might begin to wonder if you are making a mistake. But, then again, it would be very hard for me to prove the validity of the Trinity over Yahoo. But, I will give you this verse with an explanation.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
In their classic work Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment on the title Everlasting Father: “This marks [the Messiah]…lit. [as] ‘The Father of eternity’…” (Vol. 2, p. 594). Everlasting Father will also remind the serious Bible student of Psalm 90:2 –Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. When this verse is cross-referenced with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, we will see that we are indeed talking about the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Dr. John Martin of Dallas Theological Seminary further points out:
[The Messiah] is also the Mighty God (cf. 10:21). Some have suggested that this simply means “a god-like person” or hero. But in context it becomes clear Isaiah meant much more than that, for he had already spoken of the Messiah do-ing what no other person had been able to do (e.g., 9:2-5). Isaiah understood that the Messiah was to be God in some sense of the term” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, OT, p.1053).
This is confirmed by what Isaiah had previously written in Is. 7:14 – Therefore the Lord (adonai in the Hebrew) himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (NIV). When this verse is cross-checked with Matthew 1:22-23 we find the name Immanuel means “God with us,” and that this passage of Holy Scripture is speaking of Jesus of Nazareth.
2007-05-11 03:02:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
Where do you get your information from, MAD Magazine? Jesus is not an angel; satan is. In the symbolic sense, Jesus is indeed married. The Church of God is his bride. This is why marriage between a man and woman is so important. It symbolizes the union between Man and God (which is why satan is doing everything possible to destroy the union of marriage).
2007-05-11 01:57:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
In their minds, they follow the teachings of Jesus and run their lives like Jesus in denying earthly material goods and services.To them, poverty is a blessing in that Jesus fulfills them entirely in all their needs in this world.
2007-05-11 01:50:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ted 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No one has any absolute proof that Jesus was unmarried. The Christian church claims he was unwed, but that's totally unsubstantiated.
Historical evidence — including the fact that he was a 30 year old rabbi — strongly suggests he was.
2007-05-11 01:49:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
i think it just means that their lives are completely devoted to him just as a wife and husband are devoted to each other, only, in a spiritual way. that is why they are not allowed to be married to anyone else--they belong to Jesus and live their lives in his service.
2007-05-11 01:51:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by becki 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nuns are spiritually wedded to Christ, Jesus is the spouse and the church is His bride you should not look on this as just an ordinary union.
2007-05-11 01:47:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sentinel 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
What, nuns can't really marry Jesus. Say it isn't so.
2007-05-11 02:03:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Jesus is the groom of the church, the church is the bride.
its an illustration.
2007-05-11 01:54:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by الحقيقة 4
·
0⤊
2⤋