02 Dec 16
The other thread has descended into the muck that's par for this forum. So I want to put forth a question:
Jesus was called "Rabbi" many times in the bible. Rabbis believe that it is their duty to obey God's command to "go forth and multiply"; therefore, Rabbies it is a duty to marry. This idea was around even back in biblical times, as well as today.
Considering the evidence that Jesus was married that exists apart from this, can't we say it's at least a sound theological conclusion that Jesus was married?
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by vivifyIf Jesus had been married, the Bible would have told us so, or there would be some unambiguous statement to that fact. Scripture would not be completely silent on such an important issue. The Bible mentions Jesus’ mother, adoptive father, half-brothers, and half-sisters. Why would it neglect to mention the fact that Jesus had a wife? Those who believe/teach that Jesus was married are doing so in an attempt to “humanize” Him, to make Him more ordinary, more like everyone else. People simply do not want to believe that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; 10:30). So, they invent and believe myths about Jesus being married, having children, and being an ordinary human being.
The other thread has descended into the muck that's par for this forum. So I want to put forth a question:
Jesus was called "Rabbi" many times in the bible. Rabbis believe that it is their duty to obey God's command to "go forth and multiply"; therefore, Rabbies it is a duty to marry. This idea was around even back in biblical times, as well as today. ...[text shortened]... art from this, can't we say it's at least a sound theological conclusion that Jesus was married?
A secondary question would be, “Could Jesus Christ have been married?” There is nothing sinful about being married. There is nothing sinful about having sexual relations in marriage. So, yes, Jesus could have been married and still be the sinless Lamb of God and Savior of the world. At the same time, there is no biblical reason for Jesus to marry. That is not the point in this debate. Those who believe Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was the Messiah. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
https://gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-married.html
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNothing you've said addresses my point about him being called "Rabbi". You're using the old "absence of proof is proof of absence" fallacy, by implying that since it wasn't mentioned in the bible, this couldn't have been the case.
If Jesus had been married, the Bible would have told us so, or there would be some unambiguous statement to that fact. Scripture would not be completely silent on such an important issue. The Bible mentions Jesus’ mother, adoptive father, half-brothers, and half-sisters. Why would it neglect to mention the fact that Jesus had a wife? Those who believe/te ...[text shortened]... , and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
https://gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-married.html
Originally posted by vivifyThere is just one problem with this – Jesus was not technically a rabbi. His followers only referred to Him as such to say that He was their “teacher” — not that He held the formal office of rabbi. That this is the case is self-evident — that is why the Jewish religious leaders asked Him “by what authority” did He do certain things (like try to clear out the Temple in Mark 11:28).
Nothing you've said addresses my point about him being called "Rabbi". You're using the old "absence of proof is proof of absence" fallacy, by implying that since it wasn't mentioned in the bible, this couldn't have been the case.
02 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkJesus is also referred to as the "Great High Priest", even though he never formally held that title. Do we also dismiss that title as well?
There is just one problem with this – Jesus was not technically a rabbi. His followers only referred to Him as such to say that He was their “teacher” — not that He held the formal office of rabbi. That this is the case is self-evident — that is why the Jewish religious leaders asked Him “by what authority” did He do certain things (like try to clear out the Temple in Mark 11:28).
Below is a link from BibleScholars.org also showing why Jesus was indeed an actual Rabbi:
http://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/study-shows-jesus-as-rabbi.html
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by vivifyDuring the first century AD, the word rabbi was used in a more informal sense than today. In Jesus’ day, the title “Rabbi” merely signified that a person had a reputation as a wise teacher or sage. Gamaliel the Elder, who taught Saul of Tarsus and who is mentioned in Acts 5:34–40, is referred to in the Mishna as a rabbi: “Since Rabban [Rabbi] Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time” (Sotah 15:18). We learn from John’s gospel that John the Baptist was also addressed by this title: “They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him’” (John 3:26).
Jesus is also referred to as the "Great High Priest", even though he never formally held that title. Do we also dismiss that title as well?
Below is a link from BibleScholars.org also showing why Jesus was indeed an actual Rabbi:
http://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/study-shows-jesus-as-rabbi.html
So it seems undeniable that Jesus was considered a wise teacher and thus could be properly categorized as a rabbi, as the term was used in Jesus’ time. It wasn't until after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 that the title of “Rabbi” took on a more formal meaning for those who were ordained in the rabbinic movement. As time went on, the definition of rabbi continued to evolve. So, yes, Jesus was a rabbi, as defined in the first century, but today He would not hold the same title, as defined in modern-day Judaism.
https://gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-a-rabbi.html
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by vivifyWhat is the evidence that supports that Jesus was married, a scrap of papyrus? It's not in the bible. The bible does speak of marriage and multiplying, however it also does speak about remaining unmarried also, although this is mainly in the NT.
The other thread has descended into the muck that's par for this forum. So I want to put forth a question:
Jesus was called "Rabbi" many times in the bible. Rabbis believe that it is their duty to obey God's command to "go forth and multiply"; therefore, Rabbies it is a duty to marry. This idea was around even back in biblical times, as well as today. ...[text shortened]... art from this, can't we say it's at least a sound theological conclusion that Jesus was married?
I think the command to go forth and multiply is not dependent on doing so by a certain age, is it? Jesus was around 30-33 when crucified, was he supposed to be married before then?
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by leunammiThat, and biblical scriptures indicating he may have been. I also posted a link that supports Jesus was a Rabbi in more than name only.
What is the evidence that supports that Jesus was married, a scrap of papyrus?
I think the command to go forth and multiply is not dependent on doing so by a certain age, is it? Jesus was around 30-33 when crucified, was he supposed to be married before then?
Jesus' mother is believed to have been about 13. I don't know if there's much difference for the age men were typically married at, but it probably wasn't that old either.
Originally posted by vivifyWhat do you mean by 'theological conclusion'? Are we talking about theology or history?
Considering the evidence that Jesus was married that exists apart from this, can't we say it's at least a sound theological conclusion that Jesus was married?
What evidence are you referring to?
I would say that the use of the word 'Rabbi' does not, in any way, suggest Jesus was married. That doesn't mean he wasn't.
Of course my own opinion is that the historicity of Jesus is far from certain.
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by vivifyThe Bible does not say that Jesus was married.
That, and biblical scriptures indicating he may have been. I also posted a link that supports Jesus was a Rabbi in more than name only.
[b]I think the command to go forth and multiply is not dependent on doing so by a certain age, is it? Jesus was around 30-33 when crucified, was he supposed to be married before then?
Jesus' mother is believed to ...[text shortened]... ch difference for the age men were typically married at, but it probably wasn't that old either.[/b]
The Bible does not say that Jesus was single.
This issue has been interpreted by those to fit their own agenda. Priests for example would fight to have Jesus being single and sex-free, lest their mission crumbles.
I personally don't have any problems with Jesus being married. He was a human man.
02 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI also agree that Jesus' historicity is questionable. So I'm limiting this discussion to biblical or other related texts.
What do you mean by 'theological conclusion'? Are we talking about theology or history?
What evidence are you referring to?
I would say that the use of the word 'Rabbi' does not, in any way, suggest Jesus was married. That doesn't mean he wasn't.
Of course my own opinion is that the historicity of Jesus is far from certain.
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by chaney3So we should infer the norm - the norm of the time being to be married.
The Bible does not say that Jesus was married.
The Bible does not say that Jesus was single.
Certainly a single man of Jesus's age being single would be worthy of comment!
Either he was gay, married or both.
02 Dec 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59It is my belief that significant books were excluded from the Bible at the time of its creation, the council of Nicea.
So we should infer the norm - the norm of the time being to be married.
Certainly a single man of Jesus's age being single would be worthy of comment!
Either he was gay, married or both.
It is likely that documents prove that Jesus was married, and should have been in the Bible.
But, men, priests, of that era had their own agenda.
We now don't know the full story or the complete truth.
02 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyWait....wut?
The other thread has descended into the muck that's par for this forum. So I want to put forth a question:
Jesus was called "Rabbi" many times in the bible. Rabbis believe that it is their duty to obey God's command to "go forth and multiply"; therefore, Rabbies it is a duty to marry. This idea was around even back in biblical times, as well as today. ...[text shortened]... art from this, can't we say it's at least a sound theological conclusion that Jesus was married?
Jesus had a second wife?
Must have had a bad lawyer, getting nailed to a cross and all. 😞