“Jesus Had a Wife” Gets Coverage on CBS and ABC

[mudwhistle]

You completely missed the point. Yes, Rabbi does mean teacher, but in context of the Synagogue - and even 2,000 years ago there was a pretty darned strict codex by the Sanhedrin as to the usage of titles, including the word "Rabbi". A person who was adressed in public as Rabbi was a person who had taught and preached in the Synagogue more than once after the age of ascention (bar mitzvah, as it is called today). And at that time, it was entirely expected that a person carrying the title of Rabbi - meaning that people on the street addressed him as such, would be married and have kids. That is historical fact. You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry.

YOU missed the point. Your post was bullshit, backed up by assertion and supported with opinion. The people calling him Rabbi were everyday folks. Obviously he was not a member of the Sanhedrin, in fact criticized it soundly. You are an asshole, you don't have the power to make me angry, I doubt anyone else either. And why would your incorrect opinion make someone angry? It makes no sense.

You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.

In the NT, in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Yeshua is referred to as "Rabbi" at least 16 times. Now, unless you are willing to say the NT is not infallible, there must be a reason for why all four of Yeshua's disciplines who penned the gospels made sure to include this fact. In fact, they themselves called Yeshua "Rabbi". The word "Rabbi" is a title of respect spoken for one who is learned and who teaches or has taught in the Synagogue. Case closed. That is what the title "Rabbi" means. One did not go around in Yeshua's day calling a person a "Rabbi" just because he told a joke in the street or something like that.

The very fact that "everyday folk" called Yeshua "Rabbi" actually supports my argument. Thank you for your help in this matter.

And being a Rabbi in those days carried with it two practically inexorably extra actitivities: having a wife and children.

Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be. No one is trying to demean Yeshuah or diminish what he did,only, it is highly likely that he had a wife and family. This has been stuff for discussion for many, many years now.

Having taken a wife would not have made Jeshua any less G-d, just as G-d the father impregnating Mary did not make G-d the father any less G-d. You do realize that the story of Yeshua's birth therefore also backs up my argument, right?

Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you. Otherwise, calling a person an "asshole" on a religion thread where nothing hateful or insulting has even been discussed only makes you look very, very small. Why do that to yourself?

Jesus was called Rabbi because of is knowledge of the Gospel.

He never was an official Rabbi in a synagogue. I don't believe anyone of authority ever officially gave him the title. Besides, one doesn't become one as soon as you pick a wife. It is simply expected of you to pick one eventually, but Jesus never stayed around long enough to find one. They say Mary Magdalene might have been his wife, but who really knows for sure.

BTW, what difference does it make anyway if he had a wife and a family as long as they were married in the eyes of God.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I thought that marriage of priests was theoretically prohibited early on but that it took centuries to get the priests to more or less universally follow the rules.

I did some research on that because, of all things, a bet with a colleague who really wanted to know why Rabbi's are not chaste. lol. That was about 22 years ago.

So, I dug. And there is indeed some validity in your statement, I believe: that parts of the church tried to prohibit priestly marriage - but failed pretty miserably. And for good reason.

<snipped>

Thanks for the explanation. Mostly I wanted to address the suggestion that priestly chastity was invented in the 14th century for miserly, nonsacred reasons. It's at least "complicated".

I agree with you entirely about that point, based on what I've researched. I suppose that no one can be a real expert on this, and in the truest sense of the word, only G-d knows.

 

[BobPlumb]

Nope, but I have known and been around Mormons (LDS, Strangites, Community of Christ, FLDS, Restorationists, etc,) most of my life.

I'm Mormon.....don't remember anything like that.

Bet you think we eat babies too..

I heard that they are really tasty and tender. Is it true?

 

[Iceweasel]

You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.

In the NT, in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Yeshua is referred to as "Rabbi" at least 16 times. Now, unless you are willing to say the NT is not infallible, there must be a reason for why all four of Yeshua's disciplines who penned the gospels made sure to include this fact. In fact, they themselves called Yeshua "Rabbi". The word "Rabbi" is a title of respect spoken for one who is learned and who teaches or has taught in the Synagogue. Case closed.

There's no evidence that he was trained as a rabbi, he was self taught, seeing as well, he was God in the flesh. Being trained as a rabinical Pharisee or Sadducee or Essene would sorta defeat the point, no?

That is what the title "Rabbi" means. One did not go around in Yeshua's day calling a person a "Rabbi" just because he told a joke in the street or something like that.

The very fact that "everyday folk" called Yeshua "Rabbi" actually supports my argument. Thank you for your help in this matter.

And being a Rabbi in those days carried with it two practically inexorably extra actitivities: having a wife and children.

Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be. No one is trying to demean Yeshuah or diminish what he did,only, it is highly likely that he had a wife and family. This has been stuff for discussion for many, many years now.

Calling you an asshole just means that I think you're an asshole. It doesn't mean that I felt insulted. Why would I? Jesus (and Paul, Saul if you prefer Jewish names, for that matter) taught that the higher calling was to stay unmarried and focus on the spiritual. Jesus wasn't what one considers an orthodox rabbi, then or now.

Having taken a wife would not have made Jeshua any less G-d, just as G-d the father impregnating Mary did not make G-d the father any less G-d. You do realize that the story of Yeshua's birth therefore also backs up my argument, right?

Bullshit. Mary's role was to be his mother. Jesus' role was not to procreate. You don't know what you're talking about. You ignored my other points, leaving a wife and kids behind, etc. because you have no argument for them. It would make no sense. Everything he did was for a purpose, what purpose would taking a wife have been? And leaving her? It makes no sense.

Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you. Otherwise, calling a person an "asshole" on a religion thread where nothing hateful or insulting has even been discussed only makes you look very, very small. Why do that to yourself?

You are full of shit. Talking down to people like you do makes you a hateful asshole. You fooled no one, you had nothing substantive to offer and you hoped to cover it up with a bunch of bluster and condescention. No sale.

 

[Gracie]

I don't see him talking down, iceweasel. I see him sharing his thoughts just like everyone else. Personally, I read everyones opinions and am the better for it because I am learning things and/or things I never really thought about, are becoming more clear. Not just from one person either. From everyone discussing this topic. I hope I can continue to read without it turning into a slugfest.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't see him talking down, iceweasel. I see him sharing his thoughts just like everyone else. Personally, I read everyones opinions and am the better for it because I am learning things and/or things I never really thought about, are becoming more clear. Not just from one person either. From everyone discussing this topic. I hope I can continue to read without it turning into a slugfest.

You skipped a few words then.

"You completely missed the point."

"You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry."

"Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be."

"Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you."

That's just from a couple of posts. We call those assholes where I come from, not sure about you. And then he claims the moral high ground? WTF?

 

[Statistikhengst]

You still missed the point, I will try one final time with you.

In the NT, in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Yeshua is referred to as "Rabbi" at least 16 times. Now, unless you are willing to say the NT is not infallible, there must be a reason for why all four of Yeshua's disciplines who penned the gospels made sure to include this fact. In fact, they themselves called Yeshua "Rabbi". The word "Rabbi" is a title of respect spoken for one who is learned and who teaches or has taught in the Synagogue. Case closed.

There's no evidence that he was trained as a rabbi, he was self taught, seeing as well, he was God in the flesh. Being trained as a rabinical Pharisee or Sadducee or Essene would sorta defeat the point, no?

That is what the title "Rabbi" means. One did not go around in Yeshua's day calling a person a "Rabbi" just because he told a joke in the street or something like that.

The very fact that "everyday folk" called Yeshua "Rabbi" actually supports my argument. Thank you for your help in this matter.

And being a Rabbi in those days carried with it two practically inexorably extra actitivities: having a wife and children.

Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be. No one is trying to demean Yeshuah or diminish what he did,only, it is highly likely that he had a wife and family. This has been stuff for discussion for many, many years now.

Calling you an asshole just means that I think you're an asshole. It doesn't mean that I felt insulted. Why would I? Jesus (and Paul, Saul if you prefer Jewish names, for that matter) taught that the higher calling was to stay unmarried and focus on the spiritual. Jesus wasn't what one considers an orthodox rabbi, then or now.

Having taken a wife would not have made Jeshua any less G-d, just as G-d the father impregnating Mary did not make G-d the father any less G-d. You do realize that the story of Yeshua's birth therefore also backs up my argument, right?

Bullshit. Mary's role was to be his mother. Jesus' role was not to procreate. You don't know what you're talking about. You ignored my other points, leaving a wife and kids behind, etc. because you have no argument for them. It would make no sense. Everything he did was for a purpose, what purpose would taking a wife have been? And leaving her? It makes no sense.

Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you. Otherwise, calling a person an "asshole" on a religion thread where nothing hateful or insulting has even been discussed only makes you look very, very small. Why do that to yourself?

You are full of shit. Talking down to people like you do makes you a hateful asshole. You fooled no one, you had nothing substantive to offer and you hoped to cover it up with a bunch of bluster and condescention. No sale.

There was no official training to be a Rabbi 2,000 years ago. There was no Rabbinical School 2,000 years ago. I think that a large part of your problem is that you are taking a 20th/21st century image of Judaism and applying it to the 1st century AD. But that doesn't work.

I think you also truly missed the point that Yeshuah himself was a Jew and fully aware of the 613 commandments in the Tanakh. He himself said "I have come not to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it."

You are free to call me or anyone else here an asshole if that is really what you need as part of your therapy, but I assure you, it tells the membership much more about YOU than it does about me.

But since you obviously don't want to exchange information and instead, you take umbrage at every word, it's just not worth it with you. There are people of good will out there who do not fly off the handle like you do.


So, ciao.

 

[Gracie]

I don't see him talking down, iceweasel. I see him sharing his thoughts just like everyone else. Personally, I read everyones opinions and am the better for it because I am learning things and/or things I never really thought about, are becoming more clear. Not just from one person either. From everyone discussing this topic. I hope I can continue to read without it turning into a slugfest.

You skipped a few words then.

"You completely missed the point."

"You cannot get away from it just because the things I wrote appear to make you angry."

"Not sure why you are so insulted. There is not reason to be."

"Be less angry and learn to discern more, would be my friendly advice to you."

That's just from a couple of posts. We call those assholes where I come from, not sure about you. And then he claims the moral high ground? WTF?

You think that is insulting? I mean...REALLY????
Geez. I don't know what else to say. But geez fits.

 

[Gracie]

Stat, this is an informative thread. Do not stop discussing. If iceweasel finds it too much for him to handle (I guess he will consider that an insult too?), that's his prob.
Many of us are enjoying the discussion. One person shouldn't ruin it. Don't let him. Just ignore him.

 

[Howey]

Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Jesus was a Jewish man in his 30s. Of course he had a wife

Huh. I always thought he was ghey, what with the dress, long hair and stuff.



Question: Is the OP claiming that only liberal networks brought up the story?

 

[Howey]

geez fits.

Grilled Cheezus!

Sorry, Gracie.

 

[Iceweasel]

There was no official training to be a Rabbi 2,000 years ago. There was no Rabbinical School 2,000 years ago. I think that a large part of your problem is that you are taking a 20th/21st century image of Judaism and applying it to the 1st century AD. But that doesn't work.

I didn't say so. Those are your words. A Rabbi could have been schooled by the best, or not. On the one hand you say it's informal and on the other hand you're convinced Jesus was married because he was considered to be a Rabbi. Seems like a wide range to be staking a large claim to.

In Regard to Jesus of Nazareth by Rabbi Baruch
Prior to Jesus beginning His teaching a new branch of spiritual leaders surfaced in Israel. These leaders were called rabbis. Rabbis were teachers that for the most part travelled from place to place providing spiritual assistance to the Jewish population expecially outside Jerusalem. It was to this relatively new movement that Jesus belonged. It must be pointed out that rabbis ranged from those who received training from some of the greatest minds in Judaism to those who were formally uneducated and whose teaching were most simplistic.

I think you also truly missed the point that Yeshuah himself was a Jew and fully aware of the 613 commandments in the Tanakh. He himself said "I have come not to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it."

How did I miss that point exactly? That wasn't your point and it isn't relevent. There was no law for a Rabbi to be married. In fact the traveling lifestyle wouldn't favor it well so I don't know where you come up with it being standard paractice. Let alone the fact that Jesus, according to the Bible, was hardly just a Rabbi.

You are free to call me or anyone else here an asshole if that is really what you need as part of your therapy, but I assure you, it tells the membership much more about YOU than it does about me.

I quoted you above, people can draw their own conclusions. Calling it my therapy is exactly my point.

But since you obviously don't want to exchange information and instead, you take umbrage at every word, it's just not worth it with you. There are people of good will out there who do not fly off the handle like you do.

So, ciao.

I did exchange information. It's still there. There is simply no support for your assertion and talking down to people doesn't help make the case.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat, this is an informative thread. Do not stop discussing. If iceweasel finds it too much for him to handle (I guess he will consider that an insult too?), that's his prob.
Many of us are enjoying the discussion. One person shouldn't ruin it. Don't let him. Just ignore him.

Working on some other stuff right now, multitasking between USMB and my business, but I will come back later

 

[Statistikhengst]

There was no official training to be a Rabbi 2,000 years ago. There was no Rabbinical School 2,000 years ago. I think that a large part of your problem is that you are taking a 20th/21st century image of Judaism and applying it to the 1st century AD. But that doesn't work.

I didn't say so. Those are your words. A Rabbi could have been schooled by the best, or not. On the one hand you say it's informal and on the other hand you're convinced Jesus was married because he was considered to be a Rabbi. Seems like a wide range to be staking a large claim to.

In Regard to Jesus of Nazareth by Rabbi Baruch
Prior to Jesus beginning His teaching a new branch of spiritual leaders surfaced in Israel. These leaders were called rabbis. Rabbis were teachers that for the most part travelled from place to place providing spiritual assistance to the Jewish population expecially outside Jerusalem. It was to this relatively new movement that Jesus belonged. It must be pointed out that rabbis ranged from those who received training from some of the greatest minds in Judaism to those who were formally uneducated and whose teaching were most simplistic.

I think you also truly missed the point that Yeshuah himself was a Jew and fully aware of the 613 commandments in the Tanakh. He himself said "I have come not to take away one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it."

How did I miss that point exactly? That wasn't your point and it isn't relevent. There was no law for a Rabbi to be married. In fact the traveling lifestyle wouldn't favor it well so I don't know where you come up with it being standard paractice. Let alone the fact that Jesus, according to the Bible, was hardly just a Rabbi.

You are free to call me or anyone else here an asshole if that is really what you need as part of your therapy, but I assure you, it tells the membership much more about YOU than it does about me.

I quoted you above, people can draw their own conclusions. Calling it my therapy is exactly my point.

But since you obviously don't want to exchange information and instead, you take umbrage at every word, it's just not worth it with you. There are people of good will out there who do not fly off the handle like you do.

So, ciao.

I did exchange information. It's still there. There is simply no support for your assertion and talking down to people doesn't help make the case.

No. You just lied. I said that in the NT, in the 4 Gospels, Yeshuah is called "Rabbi" at least 16 times.

I then said that a Rabbi was called that if he was a learned man who either preaches or had preached at the Synagogue. I never once mentioned a formal education, not even once.

If you think you can put words into my mouth, think again.

Are you are Christian? Did you know that Yeshuah himself condemned deviousness as a sin? Why are you being so devious? Shame on you.

 

[skye]

Fascinating thread!

May be Jesus was married, married to Mary Magdalene, who was never a fallen woman.

Mary Magdalene was considered one of Christ’s main followers, not only given the honor of discovering his resurrection, but also being one of those who didn’t desert him in the end.

Nothing wrong with Jesus being married, but of course it does not go well with the Church narrative....

Who believes in The Church of Lies anyway.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why wouldn't He have a wife? What is soooooo scarey that He could love a woman and marry her? Because the bible now read and worshipped (Didn't God say something about not worshipping anything other than Himself?) left that part out, that's why.
But the question is...why leave it out? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Jesus was a Jewish man in his 30s. Of course he had a wife

Huh. I always thought he was ghey, what with the dress, long hair and stuff.



Question: Is the OP claiming that only liberal networks brought up the story?

His long hair and dress was according to the needs of his time.

The long flowing robes were necessary because of the heat. His long hair because you couldn't go to a barber any time you want, especially when you're walking around from town to town.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fascinating thread!

May be Jesus was married, married to Mary Magdalene, who was never a fallen woman.

Mary Magdalene was considered one of Christ’s main followers, not only given the honor of discovering his resurrection, but also being one of those who didn’t desert him in the end.

Nothing wrong with Jesus being married, but of course it does not go well with the Church narrative....

Who believes in The Church of Lies anyway.

It doesn't make a pastor any less holy being married.

It might end the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church if they knew Jesus was at least married.

 

[skye]

Fascinating thread!

May be Jesus was married, married to Mary Magdalene, who was never a fallen woman.

Mary Magdalene was considered one of Christ’s main followers, not only given the honor of discovering his resurrection, but also being one of those who didn’t desert him in the end.

Nothing wrong with Jesus being married, but of course it does not go well with the Church narrative....

Who believes in The Church of Lies anyway.

It doesn't make a pastor any less holy being married.

It might end the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church if they knew Jesus was at least married.

and who is saying that it makes a pastor any less holy? on the contrary.

celibacy has meant the downfall of the Church....I agree with you.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I'm Pagan and my girlfriend is Christian. We have theological discussions without arguing and I often tell her things about the bible that she did not know.

Jesus most definitely had a wife. Her name was Mary Magdalene.

You can read more about it in the scriptures that were omitted from the bible called the apocrypha.

THE LOST GOSPEL OF MARY MAGDALEN

By the way - Jehovah had a wife as well. Her name was Sophia.

Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom & God's Bride

 

[Statistikhengst]

Fascinating thread!

May be Jesus was married, married to Mary Magdalene, who was never a fallen woman.

Mary Magdalene was considered one of Christ’s main followers, not only given the honor of discovering his resurrection, but also being one of those who didn’t desert him in the end.

Nothing wrong with Jesus being married, but of course it does not go well with the Church narrative....

Who believes in The Church of Lies anyway.

It doesn't make a pastor any less holy being married.

It might end the practice of celibacy in the Catholic Church if they knew Jesus was at least married.

Spot-on.