I don't know why, but even though your last thread didn't do much for me, this one's giving me waves of orgasmic debating pleasure.
Quote:
Originally posted by NewWindRider~
K, so as you may have noticed, I have embarked on an in depth studying of the bible (Kinda just began) and I'm extremely interested in it, so as a bonus, I'm dragging you all into the boredome once again.
Does boredom
really have an 'e' at the end?
Quote:
On a hunch, as well as some late night boredom and perhaps a bit of inspiration of my recent reading of the DaVinci Code, I sifted through the Gospels looking for proof that Jesus was married, possibly to the Magdalen. I found quite a bit more than was expected. Keep in mind that nowhere in the Bible is there anything stating that Jesus WAS NOT or COULD NOT be married. But the Gospels remain completely silent on this affair in both directions. So silent in fact, that it goes against common ancient “Jewery” enough to suggest that I look deeper. Let us look at facts.
Well, it's not impossible. But it would seem a little odd, after all.
Quote:
The Gospels state that many of Jesus’ disciples were married, and at no point in his career does he advocate celibacy. Jesus is even quoted as saying “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female… for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?” (John 19:4-5) This can hardly be associated with celibacy. And if Jesus did not preach celibacy… well, there’s simply no reason to assume that he practiced it.
You could take that another way, too. It may not mean "You should get married" so much as it means "Man and Woman were made to compliment each other." Two halves of one whole and all that. Or maybe he's just forbidding 40-year old virgins from living at home.
Anyway, let's assume that Paul's writings are God-inspired and valid for a second.
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. "(1 Corinthians 7:8-9)
Quote:
Judaic custom at the time of Jesus dictates that it was pretty much mandatory that a man be married. Just as well, celibacy was condemned in most Jewish sects, and indeed, deliberate celibacy was, from time to time, even compared to murder.
It was also against custom to heal and or work on Sunday. I trust you know how closely Jesus followed
that.
Quote:
So far it would seem that were Jesus not married, the fact would stick out like a sore thumb, drawn attention to itself, and even been used to describe and characterize him, even identify him. If this were so, surely ONE of the Gospels would have mentioned the “Unmarried Messiah”. If Jesus were as celibate as later tradition claims, there should have been some mention of it.
You said the Gospels were written years after the fact, right?
Perhaps the writers of the Gospel didn't think it was needed or relavent any more. Or perhaps the fact would have been so well-known at the time that they felt it redundant. Plus at least one of the Gospels was written for non-Jews, so it would not have had any importance for that specific one.
Quote:
As an ironic boost to this theory, the absence of such a reference, in short, suggests that he WAS married. This alone would explain the silence of the Gospels on this matter.
See above.
Quote:
Jesus was also often referred to as “Rabbi” in the gospels. While it could, of course, mean self appointed teacher, Jesus’ literacy and display of knowledge to the temple would suggest that he, if nothing else, had the knowledge and training of a Rabi. If this is so, then a marriage becomes almost certain. The Jewish Mishnaic Law is very clear in stating that “An unmarried man may not be a teacher.”
I very much doubt that he was an official teacher.
Quote:
In the Gospel of John, there is a marriage related episode that very well may have been Jesus’ own. The Wedding at Cana. While the story is well known, there are still a few oddities which warrant consideration. From what the Gospel tells us, the Wedding at Cana seems to be a modest, local ceremony. A typical wedding, in which the bride and groom, in the Gospel, remain anonymous. Jesus was specifically “called” to this wedding. This is strange because at the time of the Wedding at Cana, he had not yet really embarked on his ministry.
Alright, say there's a man in town. Say that he
is the Son of God--whether or not he's said this out loud is irrelevant for, if true, he'd stand out no matter what--now say that whenever he speaks, he says things profound and wise. He may or may not be an official teacher, but he's probably as respected as one. Wouldn't you invite him?
His grand ministry may not have started, but there's no reason that he couldn't have had said anything to the town.
Quote:
Stranger still is that his mother just HAPPENS to be at the wedding as well. Her presence in this part of the Gospel is taken for granted, as it goes unexplained. What’s more, she in effect, orders Jesus to replenish the wine, behaving quite like a hostess. “His mother saith unto the servants Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.” (John 2:5) And the servants comply, as if accustomed to taking orders from Mary and Jesus.
My memory is failing me here, but I don't recall whether the Gospels state that Jesus and Co lived there or not. Because if they did, they may have been something of local celebrities.
Quote:
After sufficient hassle from his mother, Jesus performs his first documented major miracle. The transmutation of water into wine. While there is no reason to assume that Mary knows of his powers, and if she does, why should such a gift be reserved for an event as trivial as a common wedding? Why should Mary request such? And moreso, why should two mere guests of a wedding, take catering upon themselves? It is a responsibility commonly reserved for the host or hostess. Unless, of course, this was Jesus’ own wedding, and the wine WAS his responsibility.
This was the guy who washed the feet of his followers, when custom would have had the opposite happen. Responsibility or no, if he could help, he probably would have.
Quote:
Reinforcing my theory is that just after the miracle, the Governor of the Feast (Master of Ceremonies, or head butler kind of guy) tastes this new wine. “The Governor of the Feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.” (John 2:9-10) These words seemed to be addressed to Jesus, but in the Gospel, they are addressed to the Bridegroom, an obvious path that leads toward the conclusion that Jesus IS the bridegroom.
Version, please?
King James: When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and
knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
"And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."
NIV: "They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.
He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
Emphasis mine.