- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A recent story in the New York Times: Very interesting article. I like the caution of the professor and the way she lays out what this might mean and what it doesn’t prove. Thanks for sharing it.
There is this non doctrinal thought from BY. JOD 13 -309 Quote:Said he, when talking to his disciples: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and, “I and my Father are one.” The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children; but at any rate they filled the Temple, and how many there were who could not get into the Temple I cannot say. This is the account given by Isaiah, whether he told the truth or not I leave everybody to judge for himself.
Interesting interpretation, plural wives. Also I find it very interesting and enlightening that he says– “I leave everybody to judge for himself. Sometimes I wish I heard that still on occasion taught today.
I would say the main thing this “proves” is a higher level of indication that *some* early Christians *maybe* thought Jesus was married. Either way, it’s not very troubling to Mormon theology. We’re already very comfortable with that possibility, if it had been literally true. The whole notion of celibacy promoted in many religions always seemed very dysfunctional IMO.
How many 30 year olds would have been unmarried in those times? I think it makes perfect sense. I imagine he probably had children, too. Brian Johnston wrote:I would say the main thing this “proves” is a higher level of indication that *some* early Christians *maybe* thought Jesus was married. Either way, it’s not very troubling to Mormon theology.
So you’re saying it’s hearsay, not heresy.
Brian Johnston wrote:I would say the main thing this “proves” is a higher level of indication that *some* early Christians *maybe* thought Jesus was married. Either way, it’s not very troubling to Mormon theology. We’re already very comfortable with that possibility, if it had been literally true.
The whole notion of celibacy promoted in many religions always seemed very dysfunctional IMO.
Quite so, quite a few institutes intended all had speculation taught that Jesus was or might very well have been married to marry magnalon(wrong spelling I know). Either way they all came to the same speculative conclusion so we are in fact comfortable with it.
This has caused a huge uproar at MDDB. The Catholics are all up in arms, and the apologists are pretty well a-holes as usual. I’m glad I’m banned over there…
Brown wrote:How many 30 year olds would have been unmarried in those times?
Only those who wanted to be a menace to society. So who knows?doug wrote:Brown wrote:How many 30 year olds would have been unmarried in those times?
Only those who wanted to be a menace to society. So who knows?Jesus probably did fit that description quite well….
The wife of Jesus is an old tradition, however, this work was produced hundreds of years after he was said to have lived. The gospels are silent about whether Jesus was married or not. Traditionally, Christians have taken that to mean that he wasn’t. But that is sort of poor logic. After all, the gospels of Luke, Mark and John, along with the book of Acts and the epistles of Peter don’t say Peter was married either… but then there is that little verse… a quick reference… to Peter’s Mother-in-Law in Matthew. At the same time, it seems hard to believe that John the Baptist was married, with his lifestyle… and that at least lends credibility to the idea that a spiritual leader might forgo marriage to be dedicated to a cause.
Like so many other speculations, we can’t know.
The papyrus is interesting for its uniqueness as an independent gospel. The value of its content would be no different if it said Jesus had green hair from too much time spent at the YMCA pool. Another gospel says that Jesus was a trouble-maker as a kid, including striking an annoying teacher dead by the power of God. The existence of the story is interesting, even though nobody believes the story to be accurate.
The best argument I’ve heard is that his followers called him “rabbi”, and by tradition rabbis had to be married. SamBee, I agree that the Rabbi explanation is interesting and probably offers the strongest affirmation that Jesus might have been married… but my own feeling is that Jesus was not a Rabbi. If he was a Rabbi, he certainly was not a traditional one. The gospels tell us of others occasionally calling him “Rabbi” when they spoke to him, but the gospels also never refer to him as “a Rabbi”. In Mark 6, we are told flat-out that Jesus was a Carpenter, and that his neighbors didn’t think of him as anything more than an average guy. This is the best argument that he wasn’t a Rabbi:
Quote:And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. — Mark 6:1-3
If his followers called him “Rabbi”, it was likely more because they thought of him in that regard, rather than that he actually was. Think Bill Clinton era bumper stickers that declared, “My President is Charlton Heston”.
Hi, Could I quote something that Joseph Smith said:_ If a man gets a fulness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that is by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p 308) Also D&C 131:1 says “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees. And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage) : And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
It would be inconceivable to accept that the Saviour would not be there. Jeff Walsh
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.