Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus' Wife ?
#21
MV,

I bet they saw them about like a modern Catholic. Not canonical(sacred), yet, significant.

Ron,

One thing we ought to keep in mind is, we tend to judge ancient society through our modern literary cultures and they didn't have one. They were into oral tradition.

Lots of NT researchers come up with all these various explanations for the differences in the synoptic Gospel accounts and all are based on some literary idea.

It may very well be they have differences to an extent due to the oral traditions each author was most influenced by, they had the same major issues, different on minor details. That is how oral tradition works.

Here's an example. 2 have the story of Jesus healing a man in Jericho. One says Jesus is leaving, one says He is entering town. Big point identical,minor point varies. I believe oral tradition explains the differences myself. James DG Dunn has a great work out on this issue.

The same explanation could hold for say Chronicles and Kings, they have the same, yet different explanations. Different authors held true to the oral traditions of their adult lives and documented it.

We can prove this "same big picture details, different minor details" thing because researchers have avidly been studying the 2 European oral tradition societies.
Reply
#22
A thousand years from now a scrap of the NY Times excavated from ruins might be elevated to the word of God by Leftists regarding things that happened during the Civil or American Revolutionary Wars..
Reply
#23
(04-11-2014, 07:35 PM)Palladin Wrote: MV,

I bet they saw them about like a modern Catholic. Not canonical(sacred), yet, significant.

This much is obvious, if it were not significant, why bother copying it for centuries?
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#24
Yea, they kept the apochrypha. The LXX kept it.

It makes perfect logic the Catholics kept it and the Protestants would have except the reformation included throwing the bathwater out with the baby.

For example, there is likely no other Christian intellectual as well versed in Christian theology as Thomas Aquinas was, yet he also believed some of the weirdest, least supportable nonsense. That's how people are, we can have big blind spots and also have great insights and I imagine this is true of all humanity.
Reply
#25
To me personally, it really doesn't matter one bit whether Jesus HAD a wife or not, just like it really doesn't matter whether we're celebrating his birthday on the correct DAY or not and so on and so forth. Do any of these things change my belief in him, my faith in God, my "membership" in the Lutheran Church of Sweden? No. S1
Reply
#26
This question of marriage is the very thing that contradicts the rest of the bible's attempt to emphasize Jesus' being just a plain person, like everyone else. If that is the case, then why wouldn't he have married? I don't remember any mention of his not being married. Am I forgetting something here?

Roman Catholics, and even protestants, are hung up on this celibacy thing. "If Peter did not marry, then obviously his former boss was too", right? But if Jesus was just like regular folk, then he would have pretty much the same set of drives built in to his visible means of transport.

And here's another thing. his youth and young adulthood are pretty much nonexistent, so anything is possible. And here's another thought. Perhaps he did marry in his late teens, and his wife died in child birth, or from some other means. Since all of this past is not available, who are we to know the truth?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#27
(04-13-2014, 08:39 AM)John L Wrote: This question of marriage is the very thing that contradicts the rest of the bible's attempt to emphasize Jesus' being just a plain person, like everyone else. If that is the case, then why wouldn't he have married? I don't remember any mention of his not being married. Am I forgetting something here?

Roman Catholics, and even protestants, are hung up on this celibacy thing. "If Peter did not marry, then obviously his former boss was too", right? But if Jesus was just like regular folk, then he would have pretty much the same set of drives built in to his visible means of transport.

And here's another thing. his youth and young adulthood are pretty much nonexistent, so anything is possible. And here's another thought. Perhaps he did marry in his late teens, and his wife died in child birth, or from some other means. Since all of this past is not available, who are we to know the truth?
Pretty much sums up MY thoughts on this one as well, John.

Certain things we just don't KNOW, and we will NEVER know for sure (as mentioned previously in this thread, in the old days not an awful lot was actually written down AS IT WAS HAPPENING, things were passed on by word of mouth, and just like a game of "Telephone", things might have gotten changed around quite a bit by the time someone actually WROTE it all down, and THAT person might have taken a few artistic liberties as well). Does it really MATTER that we don't always know with a hundred percent certainty whether or not an event happened the way we think it did and so on and so forth? Do we absolutely NEED to know? I'm not so sure about that one..., but it's quite fascinating to read about archeological discoveries and "stuff", and I'm sure all the people that ARE trying to figure these historical kinds of things out are having a really good time DOING so.

No, whether Jesus actually HAD a wife or not really doesn't bother me one bit (if he did, and they were happy together, good for THEM S22 ). What DOES bother me quite a LOT (pardon me if I go off topic just a liiiiiittle bit here - it's still very much related, though) are people like THESE, the "reincarnated Jesus & his wife Mary Magdalene" and the new Australian (it's branching out to other English speaking countries as well) religious movement known as "Divine Truth"..., and I don't think I'm WRONG in being worried about it, either. S17


Reply
#28
(04-13-2014, 08:39 AM)John L Wrote: This question of marriage is the very thing that contradicts the rest of the bible's attempt to emphasize Jesus' being just a plain person, like everyone else. If that is the case, then why wouldn't he have married? I don't remember any mention of his not being married. Am I forgetting something here?

Yes. The Gospels are rather clear about Jesus being a Rabbi. No such thing as unmarried Rabbi...., while a plain person may or may not have been married. Unmarried Jesus would have a been a powerful argument that he is a fake, and we have no evidence of this argument anywhere.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#29
(04-13-2014, 12:32 PM)mv Wrote:
(04-13-2014, 08:39 AM)John L Wrote: This question of marriage is the very thing that contradicts the rest of the bible's attempt to emphasize Jesus' being just a plain person, like everyone else. If that is the case, then why wouldn't he have married? I don't remember any mention of his not being married. Am I forgetting something here?

Yes. The Gospels are rather clear about Jesus being a Rabbi. No such thing as unmarried Rabbi...., while a plain person may or may not have been married. Unmarried Jesus would have a been a powerful argument that he is a fake, and we have no evidence of this argument anywhere.

I'll let the formally educated theologians rip that one apart for you.
Reply
#30
I don't think there is (or even was) anything that says that you have to be married in order to BECOME a Rabbi. Unmarried Rabbis might be a rarity, since marriage is considered a POSITIVE thing and an unmarried individual would be ENCOURAGED to get married once he/she becomes of age, and celibacy is..., well, "frowned upon" is the correct term to use, I suppose (extramarital affairs are of course A SIN, but an unmarried woman who truly DESIRES to have a child can have a child out of wedlock without being seen as having committed a sin, and the child would NOT be thought of as a "bastard" - I've done a bit of reading S5 ). A Rabbi does however not lead the congregation in worship, in order to do THAT you have to be married. A Rabbi TEACHES - and Jesus certainly can be said to have done a lot of that. S1
Reply
#31
Definitely beyond my level of understanding.... LEADING and TEACHING would seem to be closely related ?

And "frowned upon" is sufficiently strong, for someone to register a negative opinion.... which we don't see.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#32
(04-13-2014, 02:08 PM)mv Wrote: Definitely beyond my level of understanding.... LEADING and TEACHING would seem to be closely related ?
Leading the congregation in WORSHIP, that is the... *looks up word* Hazzan/Shaliah Tzibbur's task.
Reply
#33
It wouldn't have any theological significance if Jesus were married. Good or bad.

I think it's silly for 3 reasons.

1) Whether you believe in Jesus as Messiah or not, you can tell He thought He was and didn't have time for the mundane things of life. Even as a youth, He spent an abnormal amount of time studying and dumbfounded elders at the temple at 12 years old. I doubt Jesus was a typical youth, let alone adult.

2) No one ever mentioned it that is credible. It would have been perfectly fine if He had been, but, no eyewitness or interviewer of an eyewitness ever mentions it in or out of the text. Jesus' family are named, why not His wife if one existed?

3) The only mention of this is among the 2cd century AD Alexandrian Jewish gnostic texts, which have nothing to do with what Jesus did, taught or what any eyewitness testified to about Jesus in Palestine. They didn't even have the wit to use Palestinian Jewish names to fake it, they often used Egyptian Jewish names which were not in use in 1st century Palestine.

An Israeli researcher wrote a book on this issue a few years back.
Reply
#34
(04-13-2014, 02:32 PM)Palladin Wrote: It wouldn't have any theological significance if Jesus were married. Good or bad.
EXACTLY! S22

Whether or not there's "evidence" or "proof" of either ONE (married/unmarried), it really doesn't MATTER "in the grand scheme of things". Jesus is still Jesus, and God is still God.
Reply
#35
BTW, I know it's super late, but, the use of the term "rabbi" in pre 70 AD Israel would simply mean a teacher, not a man of spiritual authority. Back then, that would be a priest/high priest, king or a prophet.

I can probably be that type of "rabbi" for kids, I couldn't be a church pastor though.

The office of rabbi as a Jewish version of a Christian pastor or Muslim imam is a post 70 AD thing for religious Jews.
Reply
#36
(07-05-2014, 12:50 PM)Palladin Wrote: BTW, I know it's super late, but, the use of the term "rabbi" in pre 70 AD Israel would simply mean a teacher, not a man of spiritual authority.

I'm not sure there was any difference between the two concepts, religion (aka philosophy aka spirituality) and sciences (aka knowledge) were totally mingled.
Sodomia delenda est

Reply
#37
Formal offices in Israel were the thing in the pre 70 AD era though. Prophet, priest and king were supposed to meet certain criteria and spiritual roles.

The rabbi probably had come to mean by then "spiritual preacher/teacher of a local assembly" after the Babylonian dispersion as synagogues popped up, but, as applied to Jesus it wouldn't have a connotation of a leader of a local assembly like we see rabbis today, IMO.

He was asked to speak in synagogues especially in Capernaum and Nazareth, but, it appears as a parishioner, not as the assembly authority figure. He spoke in the temple as well, but, was no Levite priest.

In fact, there's the little passage in John where a dude stood up and asked Jesus to adjudicate the estate between he and his brother and Jesus demurred because He was not a Levite and that was their bailiwick.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)