The bible tells us all we need to know. I try to do what it says and not spend my time wondering about all the things it doesn't. It lays out a plan of salvation and how we need to live our lives to get to heaven.

I've always believed that Jesus was single. Every detail of Scripture indicates this. When he was in ministry, there is no mention of a wife. When he was tried and crucified, there is no mention of his having a wife. After his death, there is no mention of a wife. Whenever Jesus' family is referred to, it is his brothers and sisters who are mentioned, but never a wife. Nor is there any indication that he was widowed.

 

The example of the call to be 'eunuchs for the kingdom' appears, in part, to be rooted in Jesus' own commitment and example not to be married (Matthew 19:10-12). In Scripture there is no hard evidence that Jesus was married.

Except that the Catholic church had no problem 'editing' the female characters of Jesus' life.

 

For example, deliberately confusing the Marys and making it seem that Mary Magdalene and the Prostitute Mary were the same person.

 

This isn't Dan Brown- this is fact. The Catholic church admits they did that, in order to help fight women in ministerial positions. So, the fact that the NT doesn't mention Jesus' wife doesn't mean he didn't have one.

Martin Luther, by the way, believed they were married, as have other serious biblical scholars. The Gnostic gospels were downright obsessed with Magdalene, and several mention her as having a role greater than Peter and being loved most by Christ of all the disciples. The Catholic church of course traces its power from Peter, so they might be a bit unhappy with Gnostic books.

The bible tells us all we need to know. I try to do what it says and not spend my time wondering about all the things it doesn't. It lays out a plan of salvation and how we need to live our lives to get to heaven.

 

Great post! You need to be in here posting more often! :thumb:

Except that the Catholic church had no problem 'editing' the female characters of Jesus' life.

 

For example, deliberately confusing the Marys and making it seem that Mary Magdalene and the Prostitute Mary were the same person.

 

This isn't Dan Brown- this is fact. The Catholic church admits they did that, in order to help fight women in ministerial positions. So, the fact that the NT doesn't mention Jesus' wife doesn't mean he didn't have one.

:confused: I have never heard this. I have heard that Gregory the Great mentioned it in a homily to show about repentance, but purposely with malicious intent? Furthermore, the Catholic Church admitting that?

I believe that Revelation 22: 18 and 19 sums it up: "I warn everyone who hears the words of this prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone take words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book". That's all I need to know. I'm not into added to or taking away from the Holy Bible. What is written in the Holy Bible, is written and I take it as the Holy Word.

:confused: I have never heard this. I have heard that Gregory the Great mentioned it in a homily to show about repentance, but purposely with malicious intent? Furthermore, the Catholic Church admitting that?

Purposefully, yes, but I should have been more clear that they didn't assign motive but that's what a lot of people see in it. I think considering Magdalene's role in the Gnostic texts is much expanded (to the point of conflict with Peter) and the fact that merging the Marys happened at a time where there was controversy over female preaching gives pretty good weight to the explanation.

 

Does it make it any better if they did it to tell a different story? In either case, it's an illustration of why you can't just say 'well, it isn't in the canonical bible, so Jesus can't have been married.' There are other characters in the NT who were also merged or changed to tell a better story. I'm sorry, I personally believe in Christ and His Grace, but the NT as it has come to us is a HUMAN document and even if you're reading it in Greek it's still not the original, in part because we aren't even always sure what the Greek means exactly, and in part because it just isn't the same as when pen was set to paper.

Purposefully, yes, but I should have been more clear that they didn't assign motive but that's what a lot of people see in it. I think considering Magdalene's role in the Gnostic texts is much expanded (to the point of conflict with Peter) and the fact that merging the Marys happened at a time where there was controversy over female preaching gives pretty good weight to the explanation.

 

Does it make it any better if they did it to tell a different story? In either case, it's an illustration of why you can't just say 'well, it isn't in the canonical bible, so Jesus can't have been married.' There are other characters in the NT who were also merged or changed to tell a better story. I'm sorry, I personally believe in Christ and His Grace, but the NT as it has come to us is a HUMAN document and even if you're reading it in Greek it's still not the original, in part because we aren't even always sure what the Greek means exactly, and in part because it just isn't the same as when pen was set to paper.

 

Of course, you cannot show that its NOT, either.

I know I'm going to get people mad at me over this, but there's also the fact that the books of the Gospel are almost certainly not written by THE Matt, Mark, Luke and John.

 

John, for example, is believed to have been written somewhere around the first century AD. Luke and Matthew appear to have cribbed some notes from Mark (and from what theological scholars refer to as 'Q' which is derived from the German word for source, along with some oral sources termed 'M' and 'L') and most scholars place Mark first.

 

The oldest fragment of Gospel that we have is actually from a non-cannonical gospel, from the early 100's. The next oldest is from John, which is known to be the last written. Every other biblical manuscript extant comes from 300 AD or later.

Great post! You need to be in here posting more often! :thumb:

 

Thank you. I will try to add some thoughts in these forums. Looking forward to hearing yours as well.

I believe that Revelation 22: 18 and 19 sums it up: "I warn everyone who hears the words of this prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone take words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book". That's all I need to know. I'm not into added to or taking away from the Holy Bible. What is written in the Holy Bible, is written and I take it as the Holy Word.

 

Agreed! Without biblical authority, especially in matters dealing with worship and God, it is chaos. It is like the last verse in Judges. Everyman did what was right in his own eyes, for there was no king.

I know I'm going to get people mad at me over this, but there's also the fact that the books of the Gospel are almost certainly not written by THE Matt, Mark, Luke and John.

 

John, for example, is believed to have been written somewhere around the first century AD. Luke and Matthew appear to have cribbed some notes from Mark (and from what theological scholars refer to as 'Q' which is derived from the German word for source, along with some oral sources termed 'M' and 'L') and most scholars place Mark first.

 

The oldest fragment of Gospel that we have is actually from a non-cannonical gospel, from the early 100's. The next oldest is from John, which is known to be the last written. Every other biblical manuscript extant comes from 300 AD or later.

 

The 'Q' document research is hardly authoritative. While the surviving manuscripts are as you have dated, most competent research places the writing of Luke and Mark at approximately 30-60 A.D., based upon both internal and external reference material in the manuscripts themselves. The Oxford Annotated Bible has an excellent research piece in this regard.

The 'Q' document research is hardly authoritative. While the surviving manuscripts are as you have dated, most competent research places the writing of Luke and Mark at approximately 30-60 A.D., based upon both internal and external reference material in the manuscripts themselves. The Oxford Annotated Bible has an excellent research piece in this regard.

Four source theory is the most widely accepted by theological scholars. I'm not exactly throwing conspiracy theories out here. I think that most competent research places Mark around the year 70.

Hearsay, you're going to get me in trouble with my professors. :irked:

 

I have to go to class- I'm supposed to have written about a page to turn in at 11:20. :lol:

Do your schoolwork. BGP should be turned off during class.