|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why wasnt jesus married ? | |||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Most other Jewish prophets and messianic political leaders were married and sired children didn't they? yes
Are there other examples of celebate Jewish rabbis, political leaders, etc.? none that i am personally aware of. i doubt there exists any such example, due to certain jewish customs. but i'm willing to be proven wrong.
no one has revealed a solid, Judaic theologic reason why Jesus was not married there aren't any, because, and i paraphrase god here: it is not good for man to be alone.
Michael's Q#2) Is this another example of the Bible's revisionist stance on women? I'm assuming that by "the Bible" Michael is mainly referring to the New Testament, and that if we look especially to those parts of the New Testament written or edited by Paul of Tarsus, we can clearly see indeed there is an anti-feminist tone. Did Paul ever mention whether he himself was married? If Paul wasn't married, why not? He was a Pharissaical Jew of marrying age long before he experienced his epiphany on the road to Damascus. Paul's marital status might even be the more important question really, considering the degree to which Christianity is based upon Paulism rather than the traditional Judaism from which the teachings of Jesus, James, and the original apostles springs. this is a very good thought. it turns out that paul was not married, so i guess there's your celebate jewish "rabbi."
quote: i've actually heard some thoughts about paul being gay. i dunno if they hold any water or not, but it would explain several things.
Does Jesus's supposed celebacy originate in Paul's anti-feminist philosophy regarding women's role in the Church? That may be a question directly related to Michael's original message. And I did not see any response in regard to Michael's second question about "revisionism" of the feminist role in Jewish society. more importantly, pauline christianity in revisionist in general. they sought to differentiate themselves from jews in the early church, and this could be a way to do it. in pauline christianity, women appear to be quite evil, and something to be subjugated. he even goes as far as to say that their only redeeming quality is reproduction. however, as i said before, sex was also viewed as sinful in the greek and pauline traditions, so mentions of christ participating in this "unholy" act would likely have been removed. probably whole books at a time. but it's a bit of a contradiction, don't you think? how can we be fruitful and multiply if sex is bad?
Michael's Q#3a) Wouldn't Jesus's union with a woman raise women to a position of equality with men? Hmmmm. Very Coptic of you, Michael, and I don't see any response to your question among the 44 posted "replies." you mean cryptic? coptic is an egyptian dialect. anywho. you're both looking at it the wrong way. pauline traditions LOWERED women in status. in the hebrew traditions, women were more or less equal with men with a few exceptions. they just occupied different roles in society. jesus being married wouldn't have raised a woman in status anywhere, but it would have LOWERED him in the greek churches. which they couldn't do: jesus had to be holy.
Michael's Q#3b) And wouldn't Jesus's marriage to a woman lower his own status from "God" to humble "Man?" Hmmmm. Very Humanistic of you Michael, and again I don't see much in the way of response to that question either. for the record, god DOES impregnate a woman within the texts of the new testament. does that lower god? well, yes. it's an inconsistency in arguments made by the greeks. they see sex as dirty, but god does it. they see women as temptresses, but god makes their savior with one. another contradiction. st augustine's argument was that original sin was contained within semen, and that's how it was passed down the lines. jesus would not have been made with human sperm, and so would be free from original sin (but would probably also be sterile... ?). none of these arguments even come close to relating to the ancient jewish philosophy towards sex, and original sin can't be found anywhere in the bible (even in paul's words, although he hints at a similar idea).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
more importantly, pauline christianity in revisionist in general. Would you also say the same about the author of John? When you compare John to Matthew, Mark and Luke there is a very revisionist cant to the Gospel of John.
This message has been edited by jar, 09-14-2004 04:30 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Would you also say the same about the author of John? When you compare John to Matthew, Mark and Luke there is a very revisionist cant to the Gospel of John. not exactly. i think the model best fitting john is that it is of a different origin of the other three.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
I may be off base re: "coptic." I meant that some Coptic Christians seem to embrace Mary Magdelene as a primary apostle, or a spiritual companion of Jesus. Whatever.
With regard to John. I never was much into John. I cannot comment on John other that to say that "the Word" as Creator seems a little caballistic. Maybe John was proto-Kabballah, or maybe he got ahold of some ergot of rye that some lazy housekeeper failed to clean out at Passover. Peace. Abshalom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I may be off base re: "coptic." I meant that some Coptic Christians seem to embrace Mary Magdelene as a primary apostle, or a spiritual companion of Jesus. Whatever. oh, i get it. heh, now i feel stupid. sorry
With regard to John. I never was much into John. I cannot comment on John other that to say that "the Word" as Creator seems a little caballistic. Maybe John was proto-Kabballah, or maybe he got ahold of some ergot of rye that some lazy housekeeper failed to clean out at Passover. actually, it seems a little targum-istic. one of the aramaic translations of genesis has a different name for god, which, loosely translated means "Speaker" or "Word." i was under the impression that the qabala talked about SEXUAL creation...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
michael writes: Why wasnt jesus married. Surely a jewish man at this point in history would have been. ...Perhaps this is another example of the bible's revisionism of the role of women in society. Would the admittance of jesus's union with a woman raise the fairer sex to a point of equality with man, and lower jesus from deity to man/philosepher. ...Surely this is a more acceptable truth, that men collated the bible (selecting which gospels to include), and elevated mans importance in order to increase both influence and power. MexicanHotChocolate writes: Jesus DID fall in love as a human...He fell in love with all of humanity. if Jesus was sent to Earth to live as a human being and suffer as a human wouldn't part of that include learning to love as a human including all the pain and heartache associated with that? Isn't part of being human falling in love?NIV writes: Luke 19:41-43 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace-but now it is hidden from your eyes. brennakimi writes:
the greatest show of humanity is the search for another to complete you.John the Baptist writes: John knew, as a single man, that the ultimate goal was for humanity to "marry" God. This is the mystery of Holy Communion. There was no one person that would complete Jesus. All whom He called who responded would become the Bride. John 3:28-30='I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now completebrennakimi writes: Humans are made to serve God. Jesus came to "save" His Bride. we are made to serve another utterly.ABC News special writes:
Another good point was: As was noted in the ABCNEWS special, we can contrast the marital status of Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, then there was no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul's case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it, because Jesus had not been married. ... One of the most interesting facts about the discussion about whether Jesus was married (and then whether this marriage was to Mary Magdalene) is that the vast majority of liberal and conservative students of the Bible agree that he was not married. This is one of the few points where there is such substantial agreement among biblical scholars.Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did he portray himself as one. The apostles addressed him as such to say he was their teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish office. The Jews asked Jesus "by what authority" he did certain things because he did not hold any kind of formal office within Judaism. He did not have an official position that would have permitted him to do things like act within the temple (Mark 11:28). As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had no recognized role within Judaism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5218 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: Such a scholar of the biblical record you are If you had even casually decided to examine the transliterated word for "men", it can also mean female. "Men" in this context = HUMANITY. There are numerous transliterated words for "men", in both Greek and Hebrew: New Testament Greek Lexicon - Interlinear Bible Search - Interlinear Bible Search New Testament Greek Lexicon Also, the word "men" in both Hebrew and Greek is an English word that has replaced a number of feminine oriented words. One who asks a question is an idiot but for a short time, one who does not ask remains an idiot forever This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 09-23-2004 05:40 PM ~Lysimachus
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Lysimachus:
SRO2 only asked the question to infuriate christians. Please leave this room and let these barely-literate in Bible knowledge morons fall into the ditch. Where can I query you about Wyatt and Mt. Moriah ? I am serious. email me if you want: pyramidial@yahoo.com WT
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Is there a Wyatt topic open that I am not aware of ?
thanks, WT
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
if it's so great to marry god, then why are we still allowed to breed? a bit too quaker-ish for me. funny though. i'd be a quaker if i could get past the celibacy thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
As far as celibacy goes, dont' you mean Shaker? As far as I know there is no celibacy thing among Friends.
Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it" http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
um. quakers are (or at least were) celibate and only added by adoption. shakers may or may not be also. not sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Don't think you're right there. I grew up in Quaker/Amish country and those I knew were a right lusty group with very large families. Now Shakers are a different story. They were celebate.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
quakers and amish are very different...
but i could be wrong. lemme look it up. hmm no mention of celibacy... i spose you're right. ah well. maybe i should join.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5218 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: Sorry, I haven't had a chance to start one yet. Once I start it, I'll have to be dedicated to it, and I cannot do that just yet. I'm getting for a trip and will be gone one week. I'm finally walking normal once again and have been quite busy. I'm sure this forum will be here even next year, so there is really nothing to rush about. When it comes, it comes. I'm not going to let Charles Knight run my life either and tell me when I need to open a topic. I can open it when I want and he can't do anything about it. This constitution grants me freedom, and I have the right to start a topic not only whenever I am able, but whenever I like. ~Lysimachus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024