Of course, Jesus was only called a rabbi. The jewish people did not believe or accept Jesus, never mind accept him as a rabbi, or even give him some jewish position in the church. Nor did Jesus portray himself as a rabbi.
Matthew 19:10-12 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Now Jesus was certainly for the Kingdom of Heaven. He is pointing marriage in not a neccessity. Why say this unless showing it was ok to break tradition of jewish men being usually married?

I don't understand this comment at all. It names several women who followed Jesus and his apostles. And specifies many other women too.(Does this mean they were also married to Jesus because they were mentioned?) Jesus did go against the jewish teachers be teaching women, but Jesus is a lot different than a jewish teacher, Jesus is the Son of God.

Yea, and there was another Mary, and Salome. By the reasoning that Mary Magdalene is mentioned, then the other two are married to Jesus as well?

That's not entirely true. In Luke 7:36-50, Jesus was annointed by a woman with her own tears, perfume and hair. http://www.biblegateway.com/cg...ssage=luke+7%3A36-50
Further, there was more than just Mary Magdalene going to annoit Jesus. It specifies Salome, and  another Mary went to annoint Jesus. Again, by the reasoning you used, the other Mary and Salome must mean that Salome, and the other Mary were married to Jesus then.


Actually the gospel accounts specify Mary in one case, while other accounts say appear to Mary and other women. Which makes sense, considering we have already established the women went to annoint him, and not just Mary Magdalene.  As to why one book would say Mary Magdalene saw him first, and in other accounts would say that Jesus apeared to the women, could be something simple. Such as when you and your son are off for a walk. You spot a plane in the sky, and point it to your son. You saw the plane first, but still both you and your son saw the plane at basically the smae time, and obviously you were in the same location.


You're suggesting this even is Jesus own wedding. But I cannot see due to time line. Luke introduces Mary Magdalene long after Jesus miracles are known. As it is, to run out of wine is very bad in Jewish tradition. People would have spoken about that, and considering Jesus is more thn mere man, not unusual he would take a commanding presence.


http://www.tektonics.org/jesusrudemom.html  It was not rude for him to call his mother "woman"
If? and if she's not, it's totally invalid. There are 7 Mary's mentioned in bible, it could be confusing.

Well, then the number of times Jesus used the word, woman, could just as easily been used for the other women, he called woman. Jesus could easily be married to several women, as Mary Magdalene. Why pick Magdalene as the wife?

The only problem with this, is this is written in Luke 7:36-50. What makes it unlikely , is that Mary is first introduced in Luke 8:2.  In Luke 8:1, it specifically says, "after this" (the events from Luke 7) Jesus travelled among the towns and villages., where he met Mary Magdalene, (among other women).

Oddly enough, in the english I read, I see nothing suggestive. When you ask us to look at the aramic, you provide none either.


Heath, the points you have were selected, and information purposely left out to draw a conclusion.  There is not a "strong" argument for Mary Magdalene to be married to Jesus. No stronger than Jesus being married to any woman.

First, I've never read the Da Vinci Code, and I understand it is flawed.  My points were not relevant to that (if that's what you inferred).

Second, I agree that there is no "conclusive" or "definitive" proof.  My points simply show many times which each separately might not be too persuasive.  But put them together and it becomes pretty persuasive to me.

1)  If you read the original, Jesus was called "rabbi" and accepted that title.  That is not to my knowledge even debated.

2)  What other women followed him on his ministry and in his teachings?  Of course he had women followers, but Mary accompanies him as closely as his apostles.  Of course, I wouldn't rule out the fact that he may or may not have been married to more than one woman either.  (The scene with Martha and her jealousy is one that comes to mind that may or not be indicative of this.)

3)  This is just one more fact showing their closeness.

4)  You're mixing up annointings.  Annointing the "dead body" is only done by family members.  Other annointings may be done by others.  This is extremely important and a big indication of their marriage.  (The other women who went to annoint, such as his mother, also fit into that category.)

5)  If he appeared to Mary and the women above (i.e. family) then it makes sense.  It doesn't make sense that he would just appear to some female disciple first.

6)  Are you sure about the timeline issue?  If so, it is just about Mary, not the ceremony.  Regardless, the ceremony was before his miracles and had to be his ceremony under Jewish custom.  Your point only makes me wonder if perhaps he was marrying someone besides Mary.  (And perhaps he married Mary later.)

7)  Most people believe that Mary Magdalene is Mary of Bethany.  Do you think differently?  If so, why?

8)  I wasn't saying that "woman" was a rude term.  It is exactly the opposite:  a very intimate term reserved for wives and mothers.  Hence, it makes sense he would use it for his wife Mary and his mother Mary.

9)  I think the account in John points us the way that she is the woman with the alabaster jar.  Even if she weren't, maybe it was a different woman he was married to.

10) I'll have to check this again when I have time.

To me, these all signal that he was definitely married, and most probably to Mary Magdalene, perhaps others.  It's very persuasive based on customs and language usage, but I won't say it's true with 100% accuracy.

You know what Heath, this is really twisting things. You were selective in your terms to draw one conclusion, when that was never there.

In otherwords, you had the answer first, and then went looking for things to back up your answer.

I'll reply to all of these responses today after church, but I'll be straight forward right now, and say that your putting your own words for the above, and not actual evidence. Your opinion does not make fact.

I was rebutting your remarks.  Your attacking my argument without being specific, which is not really an attack at all.  I'm also not sure what you're talking about:  "you had the answer first, and then went looking for things to back up your answer."  What answer?  What backup?  Does it matter if someone has a hypothesis and then looks for evidence to back that hypothesis?  That's the scientific method.  Your comment confuses me.

I look forward to seeing what you have.  In particular, is there anything in the Bible saying he definitely WAS NOT married?  There's plenty of suggestive evidence that he was (although admittedly not 100%), but I've seen nothing to say he wasn't.

What I'm saying Heath, is your reasoning for Mary Magdalene to be married to Jesus is zero. You actually left out information from your reasons so that it would look like Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus.

If you added to the other information that you left out, (which I showed where and who), what are you left with?

Rogue, it doesn't matter to me if I'm right or wrong.  It's not important to me or my religion whether he was married or not (whereas I understand in some Christian faiths it would seem almost heretical to say that he was married).

Those ten factors above are quite persuasive, and I didn't make them up, nor did you adequately rebut them.

I am happy for you to be right, but I don't think you've made your case.  The evidence still points more in favor of marriage than not.



I showed where you were mistaken or clarified which people I was talking about, so you really didn't rebut any of the points.  Can you be more specific?

Besides, you are still left with a lot.  Just look at all the factors put together.  They paint a picture that's hard to deny.

Maybe I didn't address your rebuttal very well.  Here's another go at it.



Was Jesus accepted as a traditional Jewish Rabbi?  Yes.

Proofs:
He was commonly called Rabbi, along with the related Rabbouni. Except for two passages, the Gospels apply the Aramaic word only to Jesus; and if we conclude that the title "teacher" or "master" (didaskalos in Greek) was intended as a translation of that Aramaic name, it seems safe to say that it was as Rabbi that Jesus was known and addressed.

Luke tells us (4:16-30) that after his baptism and temptation by the devil, he "came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read." Following the customary rabbinical pattern, he took up a scroll of the Hebrew Bible, read it, presumably provided an Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the text, and then commented on it.

It is what happens next that brands him as different, and from which the Jews started to consider him as different from a normal accepted Rabbi (some as prophet and Messiah, and some as being false).
The words he read in the synagogue after the temptation were from Isaiah 61:1-2: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." But instead of doing what a rabbi would normally do, apply the text to the hearers by comparing and contrasting earlier interpretations, he declared: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." Although the initial reaction to this audacious declaration was said to be wonderment "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth," his further explanation produced the opposite reaction, and everyone was "filled with wrath."  Thus, it seems clear that Jesus was a traditional and accepted Rabbi until this point in time.

This therefore lends support to the idea that he was married as traditional Jewish Rabbis were.



Being included is highly unusual.  The fact that she supported him financially is even more compelling in that culture.  Then add to the fact that she keeps reappearing all the way until the resurrection, while the others don't.  Doesn't this express some kind of closeness, perhaps even marriage?  (If this were the only evidence, I wouldn't even include it.  It is only here because it is one more to stack onto the evidence.)  You can disregard this if you want, as it is only of slight persuasiveness, but even without it the evidence is strong.



This is obviously not meant to be conclusive proof.  The fact she was mourning there is simply significant in proving how close they were.  Also, Mary accompanied Mary the Mother of Jesus and St. John to Ephesus where she again met the Lord in death and was buried.  This too signifies more than simple discipleship.



As noted previously, your cite refers to a different kind of anointing.

As for the second part, yes, they would have to be related.  One way to be related is by marriage.



I think you're mistaken.  He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, not the other women:

Mark 16:9:  "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

(I think you're just referring to the angels that appeared, not to Jesus.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

This is also true of the anointing.  Matthew only lists Mary his mother and Mary Magdalene.  Mark lists a third woman, Salome, and we don't know if his account is accurate or Matthew's.  Which is accurate probably depends on whether Salome was actually his wife or blood relative, since otherwise she could not have gone to the tomb.



I'm not quite sure what your point is here.  I'm quoting from John, and you're referring to Luke and the other miracles.  Regardless, this suggests his marriage under their customs.



Exactly.  It is a term of endearment saved for mothers and wives.  Certainly not for a mere disciple as you claim Mary Magdalene was.

</quote>

The Roman Church has declared that she is the same person.  I think most people agree with that.  I take it you disagree?  If it was a different Mary, it still suggests he was married according to their custom.

I'm not sure what your rebuttal is.  ???



I'm not sure what you're referring to.  I think he just referred to his mother and Mary Magdalene in that way.  Was there another time he used such an endearing term to a woman?



Luke 8 does not suggest that he meets her afterward.  It uses her in the past tense, which could very well refer to having met her and cast out the devils long before.  It's simply an identifying remark.

</quote>

He called her "Mariam" and she called her Rabbouni ("Master").  This is her common, informal name, and the title of a woman to her husband, very intimate.  (This comes from a book, and so there may be more in the original language if I take a look at it.)

Rogue, I'm surprised you did not use any counterevidence.  There is some out there that would appear valid to me.  Do you want me to rebut myself?
This message was last edited by the player at 05:43, Mon 13 Sept 2004.

Also, I have been sticking to the New Testament.  There is further evidence of their marriage in non-canonical accounts which I have not included in order to stay with the same Bible that you accept as true.

I just wanted to say that I'm not sure why you included this scripture.  By leaving out the verse that comes before, you leave out the entire meaning of what Jesus was preaching (i.e. that it is better that a man not marry at all than to get divorced).  The subject is divorce and renouncing marriage, not marriage itself.  I'm not sure why you think this is relevant.

(Matt 19:9:  "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.")

Maybe you'll freak out about this, but was Jesus a polygamist?  (Note that the proper term is polygyny for Biblical plural marriage.  Polygamy is commonly misused.)

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."  (Matthew 5:17-18)

If polygyny was sanctified in the OT, and we all know that Jesus honored the OT and came to fulfill it, would he not therefore partake of the sanctity of plural marriage, just as he partook of baptism, if for no other reason than to show by example and fulfill all of the laws of the OT?

I realize this is controversial, but it's an interesting point to ponder.

One other thing, at the tomb, when she sees the angels and they ask her what is wrong, she says:  "Because they have taken away my Lord.”   In the original text, this version of "Lord" was the title used for husbands.

From the LDS perspective, there is no official declaration that he was married.  However, informally it is believed that he was in fact married.  Therefore, note that the following are not official statements of church policy or belief, merely informal statements of opinions and reasoning behind them.

One reason for this is to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:10, which reads, “he shall see his seed.” ):

We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.

Here is a personal belief by an LDS authority in the 19th Century:

“I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation?” But, what became of the natural offspring of the Son of God? Hyde claimed,

"They had no father to hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed one. For no doubt had they been exposed to the eye of the world, those infants might have shared the same fate as the children of Jerusalem in the days of Herod, when all the children were ordered to be slain under such an age, with the hopes of slaying the infant Savior. They might have suffered by the hand of the assassin, as the sons of many kings have done who were heirs apparent to the thrones of their fathers."

He taught that Jesus Christ was merely fulfilling all righteousness by obeying the fundamental commandment to be fruitful and multiply. The Son, according to Hyde, was merely following the practice of his own Father who physically sired him with Mary.

According to Hyde, to reject the marriage and fatherhood of Christ would be to charge the Son with sin or neglect of the Father’s command to multiply. He said,

"Was it God’s commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honour his Father’s law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Saviour with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty."
This message was last edited by the player at 07:27, Mon 13 Sept 2004.

I am just getting a little behind on starting up play on a couple games. Hopefully I'll have time tonight to get to the 2 things I have left hanging here.

I still will be replying to this.

I've written a lot, so let me narrow down the issues:

(1) Cultural Consistency:  Is it culturally consistent that he was married in the Hebrew customs of that day?  (I think it absolutely was based on the above.)

(2) Factual Consistency:  Is it factually consistent to say he was married?  (I think it was, and it also clarifies some questions that would otherwise be left hanging--such as the marriage ceremony).

(3) Scriptural Consistency:  Is it consistent with the teachings of the Bible?  (Jesus never spoke against marriage - or polygyny for that matter - and in fact refers to marriage many times throughout his ministry.)

(4) Consistent with Character:  Is it consistent with Jesus as a man and his mission?  (Considering he was there to fulfill the law, show the example, etc., as shown above, I think so.)

(5) Prophetic Consistency:  Is it consistent with prophecies?  (The prophecies, such as that he will fulfill all things and also of Isaiah that he will see his children, suggest that the prophecies would be false if he had not been married.)

Based on all these consistencies, I strongly believe he was married.

The jews never considered him a rabbi, period.

Mary does not accompany him as one of the 12 disciples. She among other women accompanied them, yes.

Doesn't matter if that same closeness is shared with several women, which was said.

Again, Jesus broke many traditions, not the least of which was to teach women.

says who?

I know the marriage was not to Mary, timeline shows this. As to marriage to another woman, show me who? Otherwise, a tradition of having wine is set forth, and even a guest would feel disgraced to have run out.

The way they are introduced are at different times. Why introduce someone twice, in different ways?

Again, he used several times, and more than just on those two mary's. That's assumption, and does not follow what it means, but what you want it to mean.

of which there is even less evidence?



I wasn't persuaded. At best, you're showing that you feel he was married to multiple women. No where does it suggest Mary Magdalene. The only sitautions where she is named, is when other women are also present.

How do you know the jews never considered him a rabbi?  I've found sources that say he was.  Are there sources that say he wasn't?

I agree that Mary was not one of the 12 apostles, but the fact that she accompanied him so closely throughout his 3 year ministry is a persuasive fact.

In 4, are you saying that Jesus taught them to anoint against Jewish principle?  But he was dead, so he didn't teach them that.  We're not talking about the actions of Jesus; we're talking about the women.  They would have followed Jewish custom.

In 6, you did not discuss the Hebrew custom, which was the main point.  It doesn't matter "who;" it simply matters that it is consistent with the custom if it was his wedding.  Otherwise, it is contrary to custom and very rude.

In 7, you will need to show your sources since your opinion goes against the vast majority of people.  Are you talking about 2 different gospels?  I need more specifics.

In 8, who else did he use the term "woman" to, as you reference?  I only know of Mary his mother and Mary Magdalene.

I realize you're not going to be persuaded based simply on the NT Gospels.  They are not exactly focused on that issue, and quite possibly avoid it on purpose to avoid persecution of his family.

I think, though, that you'd still need to address my other points and also give some specific things that would rebut these.  I really haven't seen anything substantial.  Everything still points to the fact that he was most likely married.

What about prophecy?  Didn't he fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah?  If not, was it a false prophecy?  You didn't address many questions that this raises and that need to be addressed to show he wasn't married.

I think if you want to respond to my remarks, you should begin with my "clarified rebuttal" on Sept. 13 and the remarks I made since then.  You unfortunately went back to my quick rebuttal and that ended up in a less than complete rebuttal on your part.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:47, Wed 15 Sept 2004.

The crucifiction comes to mind to show they did not consider him a rabbi

Only persuasive, if you're saying Jesus had many wives. And since that's a no no, it's not persuaive.

Just like the disciples of Jesus did? I would say Jesus led by example.

I am saying that the custom, is matched by another custom of being disgraced.

It specifically says from the same author and same book these are two different events. It specifies a time difference in between the events. What else needs be said? Could you show how they are the same?

I'll have to address this ata a later time, when I have more time. You could do a word search on the net with www.biblegateway.com and use "woman" as your search term. I'm short on time right now.

Family issues? What, and the the other disciples who were married and said so didn't care about their family's safety?

So far the only thing suggested, was he was married because woman traveled with him, and the custom said jewish men are married.

Say it one more time, I can reply yet.

I was handling first things first.

Where it is red, it would be more appropriate that it says, "and they supported him financially". Since it was not Mary Magdalene alone. Nor was she alone  up to the resurrection



I'm not sure why you feel I said Mary Magdalene didn't see him first. I gave a pretty clear anaolgy of a group together, but one of them sees something first, even in a group.



It is quite clear that 8:1 is after the events of the anointing in chapter 7. It says after this.



Next, you suggest it is the same woman, but why introduce her as the woman who who had seven demons cast out, instead of the one who anointed, as previously said?

I still have to touch more on other places Jesus uses woman.

No. This seems a no brainer that it goes against everything he taught. Hypocrite, while offensive, is still not the reason he was crucified.  I really don't see any way to come close to proving that.

In your last post above, I don't understand what you are saying.  How is it against what he taught?  Be specific.  As I read it, it is exactly in line with what he taught, and it fulfills the prophecies.


Regarding the Rabbi issue, you seem to ignore my point, which is that they considered him a traditional Rabbi until he told them he was there to fulfill the law.  He went up and stood to read in the synagogue like any other traditional Rabbi.  But then he said "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."  It is at this point that they begin to reject him and are filled with "wrath."  But he was a traditional Rabbi to that point, meaning he was married according to custom.  What happens later, including the crucifixion, is irrelevant.  (This happens after his temptations, which really starts off his ministry as being very different from mainstream Rabbis, but he was a mainstream Rabbi until that point, and was accepted as such.)

As I showed, he was commonly called Rabbi, along with the related Rabbouni. Except for two passages, the Gospels apply the Aramaic word only to Jesus; and if we conclude that the title "teacher" or "master" (didaskalos in Greek) was intended as a translation of that Aramaic name, it seems safe to say that it was as Rabbi that Jesus was known and addressed.
 

So you are saying the following:
(1) Jesus at some point showed them it is okay to break Jewish custom and anoint the dead even if they are not related and despite the punishment they would receive, and
(2) These women followed that despite the danger to themselves for no apparent reason (after all, why would they go anoint him when he had family to do so according to custom?).

I certainly would prefer family to anoint my dead body, or at least priests with the power to do so.  Mary Magdalene had none of these.  She must have been related by blood or marriage.


I don't understand this comment, nor do I see any support for it.  If he violated this custom (without reason, in this case), then it would be very rude, not just his comments, but also his mother.  Mary would have been very rude and breaking tradition.  It had to be Jesus' wedding in Cana.


Mark 16:9 is pretty clear that Mary was not in a group when he appeared to her.  You're speculating.  Also, the original for the word she says which is translated as "Lord" in the English versions is the word that is used by a wife to her husband.



You are taking 8:1 out of context.  Here it is (KJV):

1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Note the key words here:  "which had been healed."  This clearly shows that they had been healed before this passage.  Therefore, your argument is meritless on the timing issue.  He definitely did not meet her "after," as is clear by the passage.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

As for prophecies, here are some references:

Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."  (Matthew 5:17-18)

One I mentioned in particular was Isaiah 53:10, which reads, “he shall see his seed.”
Isa 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

This chapter is dedicated to discussing and prophecying about Jesus.  How can Jesus "see his seed" if he never had children?  In effect, for Jesus to understand the fullness of humanity, he had to have children.  He had to act in the role of father and husband if for no other reason than to develop empathy and understanding.

I was saying they certainly made it clear 1 wife, 1 husband.

I understand what you're saying, but first, a tradional rabbi, was only likely married. I go as far as saying, Jesus was not a tradional rabbi at all, and that they only called him that out of respect.

Where is that?  In fact, he specifically spoke about many wives in his parable of the virgins.  I have read reviews of scholars looking for this particular point and concluding that nowhere did Jesus ever condemn plurality of marriage.

Besides, if he did do so, he would be condemning Abraham and Moses and all those prophets in the OT who lived polygynous lives.

Then why did he perform the rituals that tradional Rabbis performed, such as reading the scripture in front of the synagogue, and with no one even lifting an eyebrow until he said he is there to fulfill the law?

Are you the only one allowed to talk of Jewish traditions? I am saying that is a very big disgrace to run out of wine at a wedding. That just doesn't happen. (obviously it happened, but very rarely)

I'll post later for other replies.

Another passage about Jesus accepting polygyny is this:

Matthew 22:23-32 "23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

The Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 from the Old Testament where it states that if a woman's husband dies, and she didn't have any kids from him, then she must marry his brother regardless whether he had a wife or not.  When the Jews brought this situation up to Jesus in Matthew 22:24-28, Jesus did not prohibit at all for the childless widow to marry her husband's brother (even if he were married).


Also:
Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."  (Matthew 5:17-18)

This would naturally include polygyny as it is accounted for in the OT, including Deuteronomy.

Of course I'm not the only one.  But mine is based on research and says that only the governor, the groom and the mother may make such requests at a wedding without violating Hebrew law, not to mention courtesy and custom.  What does your research say?  It didn't look like you were basing it on research, and it never showed why Jesus would violate this law and custom.

Here's what I posted:
John 2: 2-8. "And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, draweth out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast."

At a Jewish wedding the guests cannot give orders. By Hebrew law and courtesy only the groom, the grooms mother, and the governer can give orders.  We know Jesus was not the governor since he is mentioned elsewhere as someone else.  So who was Jesus?  Obviously the groom, and his mother the mother of the groom.  That fits exactly within tradition and makes absolute sense.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:27, Thu 16 Sept 2004.

Matthew 22:23-32 "23. That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27. Finally, the woman died.
28. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29. Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31. But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you,
32. `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."



I don't think that suggest multiple partners, considering the teachings of the disciples. I think that suggests in heaven, marriage will not be the same as we have today here on Earth.

How would you account for the teachings of the disciples on marriage, when they were with Jesus for so long. How can they say those things, if they saw Jesus with several "wives"?

Actaully it came from a news article based on the Da Vinci Code.

Considering what teachings of the disciples?  You'll have to be specific.

I disagree with you on the marriage in heaven issue.  It simply says that people will "not marry nor be given in marriage" "at the resurrection."  I understand your interpretation, but mine differs.

Further, this passage reinforces that Jesus still believed that polygyny was acceptable, as it is commonly understood that the obligation to marry your brother's widow was not dependent on you yourself being single, and here Jesus reinforces its acceptability.

Here is a discussion about this passage:  http://www.fairlds.org/apol/br.../EternalMarriage.pdf
(BTW, it is not official LDS church material, but I saw nothing inaccurate when I read it.)

What about this?  It seems to suggest he would have multiple wives:

Psalm 45: 8-10. “Kings’ daughters were among thine honorable WIVES: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN in a vesture of gold of Ophir."

At another chance he had to condemn polygyny, he didn't do so:

Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus simply repeats the Deuteronomy 24:1 "as it had been in the beginning" when it was written. In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees were asking about "every" reason for divorcing, but Jesus returned back with the only one allowed reason (the woman's "fornication/uncleanness"), as per Deuteronomy 24:1.

I haven't read the Di Vinci Code or its critiques.  My research is all independent.  Besides, since it is a work of fiction with what he admitted is a fictional history to it, I'm not sure why it would be pertinent to this more serious discussion.

The ones where it speaks of one wife and one husband.

Resurection is after this world as we know it. The millenial kingdom is in question at this point.

That said married to one other at a time. Not all 7 at once. And when all 7 are resurrected, they won't be married at all according to the scripture.

The bride of Christ is the church. (I can find the verse if you hadn't heard this verse before) And therefore multiple women.

Help me more about Deuteronomy 24:1 The context as I see it is one wife.

Where does it speak of one wife and one husband?  I think there is an interpretation issue there.

Resurrection is after this life?  Yes, but when?  Obviously not immediately after we die. There must be a judgment first.  There must be the waiting place called "paradise."  Again, it also talks about "giving" in marriage, not continuing in marriage.

I won't touch the Psalms issue, but he obviously is not referring to the Church there.  He refers himself as the bridegroom by analogy, but you can't apply that analogy to every situation.

He definitely was not saying only one wife at a time.  He was repeating it exactly as it was understood from OT times, which is that more than one wife is okay in certain situations (such as when the wife of your brother dies).  That's exactly how it was understood and interpreted since Deuteronomy.

The context is that plural wives are allowed in the OT.  This context is that the only reason for divorcing is "uncleanness."  This was defined as not being faithful to the wedding vows.

Example:
ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means, "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to that same (as just above) Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in that verse) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". And of course, that first wife for "breaking her wedlock contract" with her first husband, and the "second husband" for particiapting in that act, are both guilty too. But notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". Hence, he would not have been guilty of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock".  This makes the OT consistent, whereas only one wife would make it inconsistent.

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[1] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
11In the same way, their wives[2] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Although this may still be applicable, please see my comments below about the original text.

This is interesting as an epistle of Paul to Timothy, but it is not the teaching of Jesus, nor was Paul an apostle of Jesus.  He was also teaching to a particular group of people about particular standards for the leaders of that church (and perhaps the people of Timothy could not be trusted with polygyny because they were given to lust or other problems).  We just don't know all of these answers because they are included in a personal epistle to Timothy.  I will also have to check the original on that to see if the translation is funny.

However, I agree that monogamy is generally God's plan and pattern and that this is determined particularly with regard to certain needs at certain times, so in essence Paul is correct, but there are exceptions to this plan that are perfectly acceptable and even necessary.  In particular, every time a new dispensation is ushered in, you see polygyny also introduced, even if only for a short period.

One example you see is where men are killed in war.  In fact, in Isaiah and Revelations you hear about many women clinging unto one man because the men are killed in war. Therefore, there are times of need when it becomes necessary to institute such a practice, even though generally monogamy is the rule.  This is consistent with both Old and New Testament, instead of making them divisive of each other on this point.

Paul is known to have his own agenda and own words inserted into the Bible.   In 1 Corinthians 7:25 for instance, we see in the Bible Paul's words and not God's:

"Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.   (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:25)"

This very own verse from Paul contradicts his other own verse in 2 Timothy 3:16:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (From the NIV Bible, 2 Timothy 3:16)"

Thus, the words of Paul must be taken with a grain of salt because he doesn't tell us which is scripture and which contains his own judgment with "no command from the Lord".  We can often trust his words given his position, but as with all prophets, his own opinion may also be wrong from time to time.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:44, Thu 16 Sept 2004.

To use your quote of Timothy above, since he is setting the standard for leadership of the church as the men having a wife, doesn't this also support that Jesus, as leader of the church, would have a wife?  So either one or the other is wrong.

Either Jesus was married and Paul was at least partially right or Paul was simply wrong because Jesus was not married.

This is an analysis of the original language in Timothy.

Okay, I looked up the Timothy original ("aner mia gune"), and it translates out to "A husband to a wife," which has the meaning of "He must be faithful to his wife" (as translated in the NLT version) or a mandate that the leaders of the church must be married (i.e. must be "husband to a wife").  So this is simply a translation error at worst and does not even address polygyny.  (In fact, if he wanted to write such an edict against polygyny, he probably would have done so instead of including some obscure phrase buried in an epistle like this.  It is clear his intention had nothing to do with plural marriages.)

In other words, the term for "one" (mia) is also the term used for "one of" included in many.  (An example of this usage can be found where God took "one of" Adam's ribs, meaning that there were more than one.)  It clearly does not use the term "one" that means first (heis) because that would then exclude those who are divorced or widowed.

It also does not mean the term as "sole" or "only one."  There were no articles in that language, so mia was often used in place of the article, meaning faithful "to (a) wife(s)."  This is a more accurate reading of that statement, but obviously difficult to express in English.

Therefore, the most proper translation is "husband to a wife," which means that the elders and leaders must be married.  This is completely consistent with Jewish practices (where Rabbis were married) and everything else makes sense when he is talking to and training the gentiles.  Naturally, he would use the established system of married leaders.  It has nothing to do with polygamy at all, but it does mean that the leaders must be married, and this means that Jesus must be married if Paul was accurate.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:45, Thu 16 Sept 2004.

Here is what a scholar wrote about the original text of Paul and concluding that it was simply a statement that the leaders should be married:

"I suspect that Paul wanted bishops, elders, and deacons who were married because they would understand the concept and experience of being in covenant relationship, whereas the unmarried person might not. And he may well have been drawing on this from the Law of Moses:

And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD. And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.(Lv 21:10-15, KJV)

"The principle is not the number of wives, but the preference for these leaders to be married and to be holy, having handled those relationships according to the will of God. This is very much the focus of Paul's recommendations for bishops, elders, and deacons. The commandment here only applied to the high priest. And it is a positive commandment, commanding the high priest to take a wife, and specifying the kind of wife he was to take. The indefinite article 'a' is not present in the Hebrew, so that the verse can read "he shall take wife in her virginity". In any case, there is no limitation on the number of wives in this regulation."


Rogue, any other scriptural references?
This message was last edited by the player at 05:43, Thu 16 Sept 2004.

Your partially write, the context of this verse is talking about overseers, or bishops depending on how it's translated in english. (still the same greek word)

So the NKJV & KJV translates it to "The husband of one wife" like heath mentions above.  The NIV, amplified, uses the exact same phrase.  Even young's litteral translation uses the _EXACT_ same phrase.


How can this be true?  The word rib is not even mentoned in the NT, and as we (hopefully) know the OT was written in hebrew not greek.


So looking up the word in strong's (it's 3391)
3391 mia mee'-ah; irreg. fem. of 1520; one or first: -a (certian), +agree, first, one, X other

Seems like Dr. Strong doesn't agree with what is posted above, one is in fact a valid translation.

As I showed above, according to a rather well respected greek scolar the term can mean one.  Heath (or whoever he's quoting?) is in essence saying that every english translation of the Bible is incorect.

So I obviously disagree that anything in this passage says that Jesus must be married.

But I do also disagree with Rogue, Jesus was considered a rabbi, the word just means teacher.  Was Jesus not a teacher?

Here is a quote from the net about the greek language used.

"the husband of one wife" is "aner mia gune", which literally means "man [of] one woman" or "one-woman man" or possibly "one-wife man". Paul was not only requiring MEN for this role (overseer, elder, bishop), but a specific kind of man: Men married to exactly one wife. Not divorced and remarried, not a bigamist, not single, not homosexual, etc.

"Aner" ("man") CAN mean "mankind" (it is the same word we get "Anthropology" from). However, in context, this would, if interpretted as "mankind" say "the mankind of one woman", a clearly nonsensical interpretation.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:00, Wed 15 Dec 2004.

The New Testament was translated from Hebrew to Greek through the Septuagint.

I don't see how Strong's doesn't agree.  Please explain.  A laundry list of meanings only shows possible translations; it does not account for the usage of a phrase absent in English.  For that, you need to look at usage and expert analysis, as I did.

You misunderstand the particular word used "mia."  Not every "one" in the Bible uses "mia."  I think I discussed that elsewhere.

Your Internet quote is wrong.  It is a person's opinion, not any result of evidence, and it doesn't follow the meaning of the word "mia", which he again mistranslates as "one" instead of looking at the actual usage.

So the discussion should focus on the word "mia" and what it really means.

Why is it wrong?  Just because someone says something is wrong, I've already shown that strong says that the word can be translated one.  I have the book on my shelf.  Do you not acknowledge that just because mai can be translated plural possible translation of the word mia.

Here is another passage using the "mia" where it is translated "first" Mk 16:2 "and very early on the first[mia] day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb."

in matthew 19:5
"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one[mia] flesh?"

lk 17:34
"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one[mia] bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left."

lk 20:1
And it came to pass, that on one[mia] of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders

lk 22:29
And about the space of one(mia) hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.

jn 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one(mia) fold, and one shepherd.

acts 21:7
"And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one(mia) day."

acts 24:21
Except it be for this one(mia) voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.

acts 28:13
And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one(mia) day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

Heb 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one(mia) sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


I could go on and on, but the writing is really small and it's hurting my eyes (also it's 5:20 am been up all night)

While this little study did show me that one of many for the first one is a valid translation there are other passages that use the same word where it is singular, looking at the Bible as I whole, It seems to support the idea of one wife for one husband as God's plan for marrage.

Just to make my point clear (since I worked as a professional translator and still work in a bilingual environment every day), simply looking up a word in a dictionary does not help you understand the word.  Yes, it may be translated as "one," but what does that really tell us about the word?  It doesn't tell us that "one" is just an approximation and there really isn't any exact translation.

Most people who are not bilingual think that there is an exact translation for everything, but the beauty of different languages is that there are modes of expression completely absent from your native tongue.  The word "mia" is one of them, and Strong's is not a support for how the word is used.

Besides, Strong itself says it can be translated as "first," which is probably a bit better of a translation.  We're talking here about a word that is ambiguous (i.e. it has more than one translation, so the context must be looked at to determine which translation is most appropriate).  When I explored the usage of the Greek word "mia" above, I took into account the context and analysis, not dictionary.

Here's an interesting analysis of this main issue of polygyny:  http://www.thestandardbearer.c...lygamy/Exegeting.htm

Frankly, I don't see how someone can argue that polygyny is contrary to the Bible.  If so, then Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, David, etc. would be condemned as adulterers.  Instead, it seems more likely that those scriptures seeming to indicate it is wrong are either (1) mistranslated, (2) have been changed due to political/specific religion reasons, or (3) really address a different subject (such as the Jesus discourse about divorce).

Here are some more sites discussing the real meaning of the word "mia" and the meaning of Paul's epistle to Timothy.  One site even shows how it means that the husband must be faithful to the first wife and establishes a practice of polygyny:


Mia problems: what are the issues?  http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPMFAQ018-Mia.html
Mia revisited, Disposing of a Stumbling Block:  http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM016-Mia.html
More Insights on Mia Gune: http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM047-MIA.html
Husband of One Wife: http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.html

This last cite specifically address the problem with Strong:

He goes on from there to say that "husband to a wife" is a better translation than husband to "one" wife or "first" wife.  This was my original conclusion too.  He explores the various usages and shows that the number of wives is simply not the meaning of the passage.  It has nothing to do with monogamy or polygamy.

Further, as to the rib issue (from the same site):

Thus, this again helps prove my point that the term does not denote a singular wife but can also be used to mean "one of" or "a" wife, which seems to indicate that the preacher should be married (to at least one woman).
This message was last edited by the player at 02:50, Thu 16 Dec 2004.

A couple points, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, David, etc were condemned. They were not perfect, and did sin. It is only through Jesus are they completely forgiven.

Second point being that regardless of the past, we are under a different set of rules in a sense. We can't live only by the law, as none of us are able to live perfect lives. God has been specific that it is one wife, and one husband. Based on the bible, we can say that, and it isn't puting our own interpretations.

I'll have to look up a variety of verses that specify this.

For the sake of clarifying the LDS religious beliefs (which people often associate with polygamy), the LDS belief is that a man may only have one wife except in times commanded by God.  "If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [remain monogamous}" (Jacob 2:30).

So the standard is one wife, but this standard is flexible in certain times, particularly when God needs to raise a generation under his church.

Of course, there are two ways to expand the numbers of a church:  births in the church and converts (e.g. missionary work).  (Just take as a premise for a moment that the LDS church is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with priesthood powers and ordinances revealed.)  If you are God and you see a handful of people but know you need this church to grow and expand to cover the entire world in less than 2 centuries, what do you do?  (1) You have children born into the church so they are raised with the correct teachings, and (2) you send out missionaries.  So the ancient practice of polygyny was temporarily reinstated to raise generations that could spread out upon the earth in an algorithmic fashion, and it became the fastest growing church in the history of the world in terms of proportionate increase.

(Now it was discontinued in 1890 in the US due to the fact that people would use their free will to destroy the church, invade the temples, and do other things that would obviously defeat the purpose of the principle.  Then it was completely discontinued internationally in 1904 or 1905 (I forget the year) because the goal "to raise seed unto Me" was deemed to be accomplished and the practice was no longer necessary.  Therefore, the punishment for polygamy now is excommunication from the Church since it is not at this time ordained of God.)

Yes, but adultery was a crime punishable by stoning!!!  Don't you think if it was such an egregious sin that it wouldn't have been practiced by them?  That God would have told them not to practice it?  Obviously, it was not a practice condemned in the least.  How would a prophet get an entire nation to follow him if he was under such egregious sins?

Sorry, I don't buy that argument.

Where has God been specific?  The cites I listed discuss many of those and blow them out of the water.

What different set of rules are we living under?  You need to be more specific.

I think you do. Else why would LDS ever change it back to single spouse marriages, unless it was from God. That isn't my main argument for 2 people only in a marriage. The bible acts as a record of history as well as being God's word. And while it records men who commited adultery, it also records men who planned murder, worshipped something other than God, and so on. They may or may not have been stoned, or punished by man. Just as we know today a man who commits a crime does not automatically get recognized and punished by the law enforcement. However, God does take care of all punishment in the end.

Back to single wife and husband.

There are verses such as
1 Corinthians 7:2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

And particularly  Matthew 19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

And repeated in Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one.



You may feel they are blown out of the water. But like Adam and Eve, man was made with one helper. Two become one in spirit.

The only difference in rules is the law versus grace.

No, I don't buy that argument.  The LDS rule did not change because polygamy is immoral.  The rule changed because the purpose for the polygamy ceased to exist, which means that the reason for it to exist (or a new reason) may arise in the future, and polygamy would be reinstated.  That's very different from saying that it changed because it was found to be wrong.  No one in the LDS church thinks that Abraham and those guys were sinning at all in their polygynous relationships.

(Also, polygamy in the LDS practice was restricted to those who were found worthy of handling such a relationship without sinking into lasciviousness or inability to a wife.  In other words, polygyny is a higher law than monogamy.  Right now, we are not allowed to partake of that higher law.  It will be reinstated when Christ returns.)

Further, polygyny still exists to a limited extent in the LDS church, which recognizes two types of marriage -- marriage for time (i.e. till death do you part) and marriage for all eternity (i.e. eternal marriage).  You are not currently allowed to have two living wives, but if one wife dies and you remarry, both wives are eternal and therefore the plural marriage will exist after the resurrection and continue forever after.
____

Regarding your other points, what version of the Bible are you using?  It certainly doesn't appear to be the KJV or NIV.



KJV:  "Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
As you can see, this says simply that marriage is good and fornication is bad.  Nothing about monogamy.


How do these passages have anything to do with monogamy or polygamy?

The last cite I pointed to says:

What I don't understand, if you are very specific that that there are zero verses in the bible that marriage was meant for one wife and husband only, why did LDS make that decision? Is that to follow culture?

And all the verses were NIV.

1 Corinthians 7:2 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.



And as the verse states, one wife one husband. It doesn't say wives, or husbands, (plural)


As for contradictions, I believe fully that the men listed in the bible, (except Jesus), were sinful. Yes they did things that contradicted what God wanted. They may not have tried to sin every second of the day, but they did not lead perfect lives. That's not argument to say if one commited adultery, and it's in the bible, now means the word of God encourages adultery. It simply recorded what they did.

1 - It is written in the Book of Mormon
2 - Since we have a living prophet, we can receive revelation today instead of relying on something thousands of years old.


Again, this is a translation issue.  I already addressed this, and it is discussed at length in the cites.  By restricting yourself to English, which is many cases is a translation of a translation and was readily changed in the first few hundred years AD, you are holding to a premise built on a shaky foundation.

Kat-FYI our previous discussion on this issue (although we got a bit sidetracked).

I have now actually read the Da Vinci Code...not that it changes much in what I wrote, especially being a work of fiction.

Also, there is some evidence to show that Mary of Bethany is the same as Mary Magdalene.

Wow, really resurrecting threads here...  Which Kat are you refering to?

FYI, apparently some of the documentation in the Da Vinci code is in fact patently false.  Read it with a grain of salt.

What you are referring to are the Sauniere documents, where he apparently forged documents to try to show he was a descendant of Jesus' line.  Don't worry, none of those things are included in any of my arguments.  In fact, I hadn't read the book when I posted here...just finished it a few weeks back.  Anyway, I don't plan to use anything from a fiction book...I think people know me a bit better than that.

Looks like Ron Howard is making a movie of the Da Vinci Code, starring Tom Hanks.  Should be interesting...

A well regarded cardinal has spoken out against the Da Vinci Code, saying some of the documents referred to are fictitious and the book casts the Catholic Church in a very bad light.

While it sounds like an excellent story, I do hope they do something to make sure the audience knows its intended to be fiction.  From what I understand, the author has denied making up his his 'research' when it comes to the disputed documents.

There are alot of things that I disagree with in the catholic church, but this isn't one of them.  Many extra bibical literature is out there that is also very old, it was rejected by the church of it's day.  For a long long time there only was one church.

You guys are simplifying something that is actually much more complicated.  The Catholic Church literally means the "Universal" church and was chosen to be the universal church after there were many different beliefs out there, thus creating one church a few hundred years after Christ's death.

As for the Da Vinci Code, although it is an interesting read, if you are interested in any factual basis, I suggest reading its source books, including the very interesting book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

So far, I hear the Cardinal saying it's (meaning the Da Vinci Code) all a bunch of lies, but I haven't seen what supposedly disputes the facts that were taken from nonfiction sources.  I think the Cardinal is making the church look exactly like Dan Brown says it is.  I read the "Cracking the Da Vinci Code" book trying to dispute it, but mostly that just says, "The Bible says this.  Therefore, the Da Vinci Code claims can't be true..." which is not much of an argument.

The Bible says so should be the last say in any matter for any fundamentalist christian.

But the books selling point is:  "You've read the fiction, now read the facts."  And then to fill it with religious diatribe that does not directly address the facts in the fiction book is a bit misleading.

And maybe you haven't read the Da Vinci Code but it also points out flaws in how the New Testament and church developed.  So it's something like this:

Da Vinci Code sources:  The New Testament was developed through such and such process and leaves such and such open.  It was also prepared and compiled through such and such motivations and through such and such councils, etc. and therefore what we actually accept as the "Bible" may not be entirely accurate.  And to show this is the case, here are historical facts that prove (or at least show strongly) that there are problems with the text.

Anti-Da Vinci Code sources:  Everything above is not true because the Bible says so!

You see how that leaves me a bit hollow about supposed refutation of the theories?

The other thing that bothers me is that the supposed "refutation" of Dan Brown asserts he says thing in the book that he never says.  It draws conclusions that he never drew.  He stated certain facts but drew very few actual conclusions.  Then the anti-Dan Brown people say he says things (like sex with anyone is okay because it is a spiritual state), which he never said at all.  I don't think those kind of religious people are winning any points by misrepresenting the book or Dan Brown's statements through the characters.

Since it was brought up, it should be noted that scripture was used as scripture before the church said it was scripture. (meaning before councils said it's ok.) Certainly other books were used, and that's not wrong per se, as they were meant to build for God.


I think something that may be pointed out at this point is it's God's word. God is God. Not man. The bible is God's word, not man's. So while we may try and do various things, it's God who has real control over His word.  The bible is the bible.

If the Bible is only God's word, why are there so many versions?  In truth, the Bible was written and compiled by men through inspiration from God.  God didn't write one word of it.  And since this is the case, it is obvious that men may have cut out or changed things over time (which, as I said previously, is expressly provided for in Revelations).  Therefore, if God exercises absolute control over His Word, why would he include references to those who would change His Word.  Wouldn't that be impossible?

And if it is God's Word without any human contribution, what do we say about the contradictions?  Was God contradicting himself?  No, instead we have to apply a certain amount of common sense to the inquiry, nature, and development of the books we hold today.

Back to the other discussion, the other reason that such "because the Bible says so" doesn't work to refute the claims made by Brown and others is because they directly approach the inconsistencies as well.  So it would be, "The Bible says A and the Bible says B.  A and B cannot both possibly exist, so either the Bible is flawed or God contradicted himself."  Then to respond, "Well, they're both true because the Bible says so" doesn't make much sense to me.

They are called translations

God did write the 10 commandments so that disproves the above.

I have no idea what you are asking in this last question.

God's word is without contradictions, no one was ever saying that there isn't any human contribution... at least to my knowledge.

Alot of it is really a question of perspective, if someone goes looking at how the Bible could be wrong then they look for ways it could be wrong.  They don't look at how this could be explained in a way that doesn't look like it contradicts itself.

Unless, of course, those other books were false.  Many of the other books disagree with what we hold now as being holy scripture, oftentimes to the point of direct contradiction.  Check out the gnostics for an example of a totally different offshoot of Christianity that claimed to have scriptural backing.

Not always.  And besides, the translations don't always match.

God did not write the 10 commandments.  Moses the prophet wrote them through inspiration.  So that proves my point.


In Revelations, there is a curse for any who add to these words of God.  If they cannot be added to or changed, that's a ridiculous statement.  Of course they can, and they are all the time, so the statement is very applicable and real.

But what is God's Word?  Is it word-for-word in the Bible or the principles brought out?  I agree that God's word is without contradiction, but the Bible has contradictions.  Hence, the hand of Man is also in the Bible.

Unfortunately, your statement speaks as one who has not read the original nonfiction works, which were not looking for anything wrong at all, and in fact claimed to add more to the Christian faith than it took away.

Boy, do we even want to go there?  The reason I ask is that most people have no clue the complexity of the early Christian churches or the different branches or beliefs.  This is why the need for a "universal" church to be consolidated by Rome -- hence the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church several centuries after Christ.  (Catholic means "universal.")  This universal church for the most part squashed all other Christian beliefs and subsumed and monopolized Christian theology...even to this day.

I would be hard pressed to see significant changes. Have any?
They are God's exact words. God literally spoke them.
That's to make clear that others will claim there is more from God. God was making clear there would not be more.
I imagine this is being shown in another thread? I haven't checked the other threads yet.
I'll add that there are several websites that try and show contradictions in the bible, but do not offer widely known information that would show otherwise. Showing one side only, which is biased, does not mean it is true. If there reallly is a contradiction, why won't these sites show reasonable cause, and historical information. If they are so certain there is a contradiction, it would seem the need to hide information that may show otherwise is a tactic, and not real evidence.

Just look at the last debate we had about the Garden of Eden and your NIV versus my KJV.

But Moses wrote them down.  I don't remember anyone saying he had a photographic memory.

This is absolutely incorrect.
It's true interpretation does not even apply to the whole Bible.  It applies to the words of John the Revelator and particularly to the words in Revelations.  Because they are written with such care in their symbolic nature, that special warning became necessary.
How can anyone even say it applies to the whole Bible?  That completely takes it out of context.
Unfortunately, your statement speaks as one who has not read the original nonfiction works, which were not looking for anything wrong at all, and in fact claimed to add more to the Christian faith than it took away.

I certainly don't refer to these sites.  I think most of them are trash.  What I was referring to was a well-researched book that was not anti-Christian nor pro-Christian.  They took the facts and tried to find explanations from the actual evidence not biased by belief.

It wasn't that clear to me. Want to remind me what the difference was?
I'm not sure what you are disputing? God's words, or Moses memeory?
Nice set up. Pose the very question which you really wanted to answer, whether the verse applied to Revelation or the bible. This is what you said, So to make your original statement true, which part of revelation has been added, or taken away from?

I understand that. Just pointing a common tactic. While you may not use it, they are used by many people often. I should know, I was one of those types a long time ago.

You posted:
Heath, the wording does suggest that there was birth. Beyond the animals being created.

Look at Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,



    "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;

    with pain you will give birth to children.

God is saying he'll increase pain in childbirth. How would Eve know it is increased, unless she had child(ren) before.

I posted:
What version are you using?  Mine (KJV) says:

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

This implies that when she does bring forth children, it will be in sorrow.  Also, the original word for "multiply" just means to "become much" or "become numerous," not necessarily a comparison.  It is probably best translated as "make great" thy sorrow and thy conception.



What I'm saying is this:  what you read in your Bible is a translation (which is probably a translation of a translation) which has been written down over thousands of years by many different people based on something someone claims Moses wrote down based on something he claims God said.

Do I believe God spoke to Moses? Yes, I think he was a prophet and had that communication.  Do I think the Bible I look at carries God's exact words?  No.  Beyond translation errors, the possibility of error in all those other areas is also great.

I never said it was or wasn't, even though I believe it may have been.  If Revelations is the Word of God, then people can change the word of God.  Otherwise, the warning isn't necessary.  The possibility is there; I never mentioned that it specifically was.

I think I am not quite so clear as to the differences of translations. It doesn't seem so different as you implied earlier.



While I can agree that the words were in hebrew, and not exactly the same when done in english, want to tell me the confusion between murder in hebrew, and murder in english? How about the hebrew word for lie, and the english word for lie? While I can understand that I cannot read hebrew, I just don't see how confusing Jesus being crucified for our sins in any language.
Certasinly people can change the Word of God. Look at the Episcopolian church? They say God wants gays to marry.

But we still have God's word, regardless of what they say. God warned us to be wary of things like this, and to use the scripture to correct, and reproof. Scripture backs scripture.

I think we actually agree on your last post for the most part.  I'm just sloppily posting today due to lack of time.

For translations, you can't pick one word out and say, "There, this word matches in both languages, so the entire work must match."  Besides, you use the term "murder," while it is usually translated as "kill."  There is a big difference between the two, requiring personal interpretation.

For another example, as I discussed a long time ago, the first sentence in the Bible is not best translated as "In the beginning, God created..."  Due to the usage of words, it is most accurately translated, "In the beginning, the Supreme God created..."  ...or else it is faulty grammar consistently through the Old Testament... or else it is someone having made changes to the Bible you believe in (one way or the other) ...or else it is the word of God and exactly true in its original format and the translation to English is just faulty due to lack of exact equivalents.

I can understand why there are differences. And I think we both agree that's not the biggest issue. Going back to the idea of scripture backing scripture. We both use a verse to show meaning and backing to other verses. You can do this with all scripture. (my understanding  is that 3 verses at a minimum will back up all points in scripture, although I haven't tested this on everything)

I have seen you use this way to show and define translations, or usage of language in the past, so I think we're on the same page for what we are talking about, just in disagreement in how we apply it.

I think I agree with you there.  Going back to the sources for the Da Vinci Code -- which are not all about Jesus' marriage, by the way -- one of the problems that comes out is the authors of the New Testament.

I previously showed a history of the New Testament showing that the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke were not prophets or other known church leaders.  To me, that casts some shade of distrust on what is written there...counteracted, of course, by faith, but still a bit of uncertainty in relying on them, especially written so many decades later.

The account of John, on the other hand, is considered the most pure.  Although we don't know the author, it is highly believed that he was an eyewitness (unlike the others, who were passing on the stories or compiling them or some other method now lost to history).  John also is historically the most accurate according to the traditions, its discussion about events, and the like, so I like it the most.

Interestingly enough, the most reliable accounts are not about Jesus at all.  They are the epistles of Paul (actually written before the first four books of the NT too).  These were written by his hand, and so they tend to be most reliable (if you consider Paul a prophet or apostle).

Bump for Query.

I saw a new program recently where a polygamist claimed that Jesus had multiple wives.  This is an argument I made earlier, much to the dissatisfaction of rogue.

The Gospel of Mary of Magdala the Gnostic Gospel text which I feel is authentic clearly places Mary in the region around Israel for her ministry. And taking into account she was a highly regarded disciple of Jesus and clearly favored in the Biblical accounts, I find the idea she and Jesus were married is not possible. And I find it unlikely no accounts in the Bible say he was wed to Mary I would think the Gnostic Text would have mentioned it. I do feel that Jesus and Mary shared a close relationship of faith and love in a manner of a teacher to a beloved student. But that would be all.

Why do you feel the gospel is authentic?  (I've never read it.  Is it worth my time?)

What I'm about to present is mostly theory. Pure speculation, so take it with a grain of salt if you will.

I don't believe Jesus ever married on two points (Digression: Although I am fairly certain he had brothers). There is absolutely no reliable eveidence suggesting Christ got married at any point in his life. If there were, than it would have been trumpeted to the planet a long time ago, and the hunt for the remains of the bloodline of God would begin.

Eliminating marriage from the equation, and that leaves adultery. If Christ commited adultery, than he was not sinless and the entire basis of the Christian faith is a lie. If proof of adultery had existed, it would have been played by the Jewish (and the Romans of that time, for that matter) a long time ago the discredit what they perceive as a false prophet.

Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in any court of law that is just (upbringing expressed here), a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

I hope you aren't saying getting married is like committing a crime!!

There may have been political reasons for intentionally covering up Jesus' marriage.  The gospels were written well after Jesus' death, and while I think it is unlikely, it is possible what was known about Jesus was intentionally concealed at some point (much like the role of the Jews and Pilate in Jesus' death was intentionally changed for political reasons).

Miscommunication on my part.

No, quite the opposite. If marriage were a crime, than why in the world would adultery by viewed in the Bible as a bad thing? That wouldn't make sense.

Not following the Pilate/Jews thing. I must have missed that part. Care to elaborate, or direct me to where you already did?

If we read through the actions leading up to Jesus' crucifixion, the behavior of the Jews was actually contrary to the rules laid out in the Torah, meanwhile the behavior of Pilate was ridiculous and politically foolish.  Why does the bible portray this incredible behavior?  Well remember the audience.  When talking to Romans, you portray the Roman characters as good and innocent, and the troublesome Jewish characters as continuously troublesome.  This background information has no bearing on the actual teachings involved with the crucifixion, it was just the factual circumstances setting up the story.

There are several points to emphasize in support of Jesus' marriage:

1)  As katisara suggested, there was a strong reason to cover up Jesus' marriage (such as protecting his family).  (Digression:  This is similar to Jesus telling Peter to deny him three times.  Most people think it was a prediction, and I have argued it was Jesus ordering him to do so to protect the future of the church.  This is why it was so hard on Peter, who was the "rock" and cut off soldier's ears for Jesus just before he died.  Surely it was contrary to Peter's nature.  In any case, a cover up of the marriage seems important for protection of Jesus' line.)

And contrary to Mentat's point, the idea of Jesus being married has been around since Jesus died.  Obviously, it was obfuscated by the time of the COuncil of Nicea and not something Trinitarians or the Catholic Church would support, so it is no wonder that the idea went dormant until the 1800s or so.

(Katisara is also exactly correct on the portrayal of the Romans.  In order to get Romans as converts to Christianity, their involvement in Jesus' death had to be whitewashed, so when the Gospels were finally written decades later, this was the spin put on the incident.)

2)  Contrary to Mentat's point, there is quite a bit of evidence within the Bible itself demonstrating that Jesus was, in fact, married.  If you start at the first post on this thread, you can see how I've pointed out many such examples.  In fact, if Jesus was not married, that would have been the thing that the writers would have pointed out because it would have been very strange to NOT be married.

3)  The books in the New Testament were not written at the time they happened.  They were written decades later, some of them over a century after Jesus' death.  To think of them as contemporaneous and therefore wonder why mention of a wife was not made throws the wrong context; the books were written to focus on those aspects related to Jesus' ministry, not his personal life.  It is not a biography.


This analogy is inapposite.  First, in law, you look at the probative value of evidence.  Therefore, absence of evidence can be evidence of absence depending on the situation.  (For example, destruction of evidence by a company results in presumption that the evidence was not helpful to the company.)  Likewise, in civil cases, the proof is whether you are swayed 50/50 one way or the other.  The innocent until proven guilty presumption is a criminal law principle.

So in this case we look at anything that is probative (meaning that it in any way acts to show one thing or another that is relevant).  In that case, lack of evidence is very probative.

For example, lack of any mention of Jesus being married or not gives rise to a presumption that he was, in fact, married.  Because all "rabbis" had to be married, the text surely would have mentioned the oddity of Jesus not being married if he wasn't.  This lack of evidence is thus good evidence.  etc., etc.

And I also should point out that, when you look at the Gospels, remember that only the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness to the accounts.  It is therefore considered to be the most reliable of all of them regarding its recitation of the facts.

It also happens to be the book that is ripe with references and examples indicating that Jesus was, in fact, married.

There is also one incident in the Bible that suggests that Jesus had more than one wife, Mary and Martha.

Unfortunately there are no full copies of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala but according to most scholars its consistant with the texts of the period, and seems to be a proper account of her teachings. But taking into account that plus the accounts of Mary of Magdala in the New Testament it seems she was a Disciple and taught privately by Jesus.

But Mary was a Gnostic and was into the spiritual aspects of the faith and in not placing in rigid laws that went beyond what the Saviour taught. As in opposed the concentration of power in the Church in a set doctrine. I'm not shocked the texts were banned by the Church as it became under Constantine.

I have to disagree.  The Gnostic texts, including the Gospel of Mary (from my recollection) include accounts of Jesus kissing her on the mouth and the apostles becoming jealous because he spends so much time with her.  I don't think he's going around kissing disciples on the lips...  And "taught privately" by Jesus?  That makes sense also only if she's his wife, especially given the culture.

Also, at the resurrection, she was the first one he spoke to, and he used a term for her that is reserved for a wife.  Why would he choose to appear to her first?  If she was his wife, it makes perfect sense.  If not, he would have appeared to his mother or the apostles.

I'm fairly confident that with Jesus kissing Mary on the lips is more to do with a book of fiction called the Divinci Code. There is no gnostic gospel that specifies a kiss on the lips.

Keep in mind, the Da Vinci Code is a thriller.  It's ideas and assertions come from the nonfiction book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."  Therefore, it is unfair to assert that the fiction book is the source of anything.  Instead, I'd urge you to read the nonfiction book, skipping over the first parts (which were later proven to be a fraud on the part of the "witness") and going to the later parts, which are more scholarly.  (The book itself is written by two journalists who investigated this issue.  The idea of Jesus and Mary being married goes back to the first century or earlier.  It just rises in popular thought from time to time.)

Back to your point:
It's in the Gospel of Phillip, where it discusses Jesus kissing Mary on the lips, in chapter 63.



(Because Philip discusses facts which would lead to the conclusion that Jesus and Mary were married, it is, of course, the book that most mainstream Christians say must be untrue and not a true Gospel.  This type of illogical reasoning -- i.e. I believe Jesus was not married so anything that says otherwise must not be true -- is an unfortunate side effect.  I don't know whether the Gospel of Philip is true or not, but I don't discount it just because it may say something I don't believe in.)

Would you like me to start enumerating the facts that show Jesus and Mary were married?  Then you can dispute them point by point if you want.  I can point to (1) the text of the New Testament itself, (2) cultures and traditions, and (3) Gnostic and outside texts and scholars, as well as possible other arguments.

Part of the problem here is that the gospel of philip does not say Jesus kissed mary on the lips. That's the reason for the word "mouth" to be in square quotes. I'm not sure if you know it was added in, or just assumed that it was a poor translation and weren't sure if that was correct. The single copy of gospel of Philip was not in great condition, and quite a few parts are missing or deteriorated. Jesus could have kissed her on the forehead, the cheek, etc.

So it is the issue is that Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code made up what it said. That or copied it from someone else who made it up

Just to confirm, does the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail discuss the gospel of Philip? Did they add the word "mouth" to the gospel of philip, or was it Dan Brown?

As it so happens, I have a translation of the Gospel of Philip and I'm not seeing the section you quoted, Heath, at least not in verses 63-64.  The forword to my copy of the translation (by Bart D. Erhman -- no, it's not me, it's a different Bart) says the following about the Gospel of Philip:

Ok, with the background in place, here's verses 66 through 68.  The ellipses show where parts of the original text are missing/fragmented.



Actually, that background was by Bart D. Ehrman, the translation was by David Cartlidge and David Dungan in Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 2nd edition, published by Fortress Press of Minneapolis in 1994.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:54, Fri 31 Aug 2007.

I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  I don't recollect any mention of the Gospel of Philip (although I wouldn't say that's especially worth anything, since I don't remember a lot of details).

Trust in the Lord, you are attributing things to Dan Brown that has nothing to do with Dan Brown or the Da Vinci Code.

The commonly accepted translation of the Gospel of Philip (from scholars) is that Jesus kissed her on the mouth.

I don't recall what Holy Blood, Holy Grail said (if anything) about Philip.  They were looking at more historical documents, as I recall, and not the religious documents such as the Book of Philip.

But even the kissing on the mouth (which, I suppose, could be one of those tattered places where the translation is assumed) is not the point.  The point is that the apostles were jealous of her.  It makes sense if they are jealous of Jesus' wife because they feel the church is more important than marriage and family, and the point is that Jesus felt marriage and family (such as with his wife Mary) was most important.  Thus, this religious document speaks to the fallacy of the apostles in misunderstanding the nature of religion and overemphasized their own roles and domination over Jesus' time.

If this is not true, then why is Jesus spending more time with some woman he is not married to than with the apostles he is grooming to run the church in his absence?  If he was not married, then the apostles are right and Jesus was wrong (and therefore not perfect).  If he was married, then the apostles are wrong and Jesus is right.

Bart, are you suggesting in v.68 that it explicitly states that Jesus was married?

I don't see it mentioned explicitly how Jesus used his time.  Jesus spent a lot of time doing a lot of things we don't see.  Presumably, just like everyone else, he used about a third of his time sleeping, yet there's little mention of that.

But that reverses the point.

It was normal and expected for all rabbis to be married (and marriage is a much more important part of life than sleeping, so your analogy is not exactly dead on here).  Thus, if Jesus was married, we don't expect it to be mentioned much.

However, if Jesus was not married (especially for some religious purpose), then we definitely expect that it would have been mentioned in the Bible.  It would be so unusual that it would practically beg to be mentioned.  "And Jesus did not take a wife, that he might..."  or something like that would surely have been in there.

The fact that it is not specifically mentioned therefore leads to a belief that he was married more than it lends to a conclusion that he wasn't.

I'm stating that in v68, at least the fragment that we have now, it explicitly states that one of the five sacraments is the bridal chamber and that Christ possibly (probably?) did something with all five sacraments.

That earlier quote of Bart D. Ehrman (again, a different Bart than me) was from the book "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament".

I have a few books by Bart D. Ehrman and I reccomend them all to you.  As he says

This is the part that concerns me.  They are saying it is borrowed from Greek, yet it is clear that the Aramaic equivalent was for spouse.  At the same time, the writers were writing in Coptic but understood ARamaic.  So, for example, if I use a Spanish word to mean "wife" when it really doesn't have the same connotation as English, people 2000 years from now could easily said that's not what I meant.

I believe also that this claim of Bart (the other Bart) is a disputed fact among scholars and not established for sure.

He also references the hypothetical Document Q, something I've also researched.  This document is highly controversial since it does not, in fact, exist at the present.  (I tend to believe there is a Document Q, but I think that's belief, not fact.)

Further, the Document Q Gospels (Synoptic GOspels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) are the least reliable gospels, whereas the Gospel of John is purported to have been written by a witness to the events (John) and is therefore the most reliable.

And it just so happens that the evidence in the Gospels pointing to Jesus' marriage is in John.

For the record, it's not entirely certain who wrote the book of John, or that it's the most reliable.  I think (though I'm not positive) it is agreed that John was the last of the four gospels to be actually written down, which would mean even if the author were an eye witness, the potential for memories to change over time is still large, so an eye-witness author might still not guarantee the most accuracy.

Here's just a few links with varying opinions:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/john.html
http://www.holyspiritinteracti...uth/biblegeek/26.asp
http://www.mystae.com/restrict...ns/messiah/john.html

Anyway, it's not a critical point, really.  Just wanted to make sure everyone realized it wasn't quite so cut and dry it sounded in your post.  For what it's worth, I'd probably say that it's a toss-up between Mark and John for most reliable, but it's tough to say which is the more accurate.

Wednesday, I was working and one of my coworkers was (jokingly) lambasting another coworker in Spanish.  Luz called Helen "mensa".  I was puzzled, as it seemed that she was trying to denigrate Helen, not compliment her.  So I asked her if I'd heard her correctly and what it meant.  It turns out "mensa" in Spanish means "stupid".  In English, though, Mensa (http://www.mensa.org/) is a long established group that purports to only allow those people whose IQ is in the top 2% of the population.  The two words in Spanish and English sound the same and are spelled the same, but they have completely opposite meanings.  It doesn't really matter very much what a word in a written account means in a different language, unless the author was trying to make a pun, because different languages sometimes have different meanings for the same words.

The authors were writing in Coptic, an Egyptian language, but one written with the Greek alphabet and thus Greek loanwords were relatively common in it.  Around 650 BC, the Arabs conquered Egypt and the resulting mishmash of Coptic and Arabic created Egyptian Arabic.  Although Arabic was certainly around back then and the authors probaby knew Arabic, since they were writing in Coptic I'd be inclined to go with the Coptic definition of the word.

Also, the Gospel According to St. John was probably not written by an eyewitness to Jesus' life.  As far as we know now, nothing that we have was written by an eyewitness to Jesus' life (well, except for the Book of Mormon, but that's a different subject).

Tycho, although your point may be partially correct, scholars for the most part agree that John is the most reliable out of all the gospels...and almost has to be, given the differentiations.  (Sorry, I typed quickly, and don't always include all the myriad details...except that scholars do believe John to be the most accurate.)

Here's from our discussion on the origin of the New Testament:



Even from a legal standpoint, a witness is more reliable than a document purported to be taken from a document which is now missing (e.g. Document Q).

This is one reason I like to look at the Acts and writings of Paul too.

(But even relying on Paul, you are looking at a guy who was converted by an angelic visitation, which makes it funny to me when mainstream Christians criticize the LDS church for being founded in much the same way.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:32, Tue 04 Sept 2007.

Tycho,
Also, I couldn't get the first site to work.  As for the atheist site, that unfortunately does not explain the historical context and therefore loses the quality of its explanation.

From my readings and from scholars, I think the most accepted account of the book of John is that John went about spreading the word and telling orally the stories of all that Jesus was and did in the manner of oral testimony.  It is known that he had many followers that followed him around.  The book of John was compiled around the turn of the first century and was likely (1) a response to the Gnostics, (2) written from firsthand accounts from John the Beloved (or perhaps transcribed from his own writings), and (3) based on the accuracy of its historical and geographical detail (as described above), is the most reliable of the Gospels.

I think we more or less agree here Heath, except perhaps on the point of just how "general" the agreement among scholars is on John being more reliable than the other gospels.  While "most" scholars (ie, more than half) may consider it to be so, I don't think the position is held accross the board.  To a certain extent, the issue is the differences between John and the synoptic gospels, and which one feels is the more accurate reflection of the story of Jesus.  That accuracy depends on a number of factors, and it isn't easy to decide which to trust more.  For people who accept the gospels as divinely-inspired, and assume no motives for the authors beyond wanting to get what they considered to be the truth to the people, things like geographic accuracy might seem like indicators of historical accuracy (ie, if John says the store is on 1st street, and Mark says it's on 2nd, and we know for a fact it was really on 1st street, we might think that since John was right about the store, he was probably also right about what Jesus said at the weddding).  But if one considers motives and differeing beliefs to be part of what is in question as well, then the parts that we can check up on John about sort of decouple from the more important issues discussed (ie, if John has a reason to alter his report about what Jesus said at the wedding, the fact that he knows better than Mark where the store is doesn't really imply he's a better source).

Anyway, we're not really disagreeing too much, like I said.  I agree that there are reasons to consider John the most reliable of the gospels, and it's quite possible that most scholars consider it to be the most reliable.  However, I just don't want people to get the impression that all scholars think John is more reliable in every instance than any of the other gospels.  And, perhaps more importantly, that there isn't complete agreement that John was written by an eye-witness to the events described.  In the quote you posted from the other thread, you stated that as well, so we're in agreement on that point.

Yes, I think we agree.  Scholars (good ones, that is) always find reasons to question their assumptions and the commonly held facts, so of course scholaras are looking at any facts which may contradict.  But I don't think that affects the general agreement that John is considered the most reliable (although not perfect itself) of the Gospels.

Anyway, it is John which has the most evidence concerning Jesus' marriage, so Christians who accept John without question as true must (in my opinion) also accept that Jesus was married.

Elana,

Elsewhere you stated that Jesus was not married as though that were a fact.  I highly dispute that statement.  I think the arguments I posted in this thread (especially near the beginning) show this fairly clearly.  Jesus was in fact married, perhaps even had more than one wife.

This is a hotly debated topic in Christianity and resurfaces every once in awhile (in the 80's with "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and more recently with "The Da Vinci Code").  But I wanted to point out that many Christians do believe that Jesus was married, even some Trinitarians.  To say that Christians believe he was unmarried is not entirely accurate.

Heath my appologies I was not aware that there are Christians that believe Jesus was married, I had always thought that Christians thought that Christ was 'pure' untouched and such, the fact that he indeed might have been married makes it much more believeble and human instead of this perfect ideal that some believe.

There was a documentary I watched showing how an Israeli archeologist uncovered what he believed to be Jesus's family tomb in Jerusalem. Some time back there was a discovery made of a box, i can't remember the correct term at this time, a box that holds the bones, anyway it was believed to be Jesus's brothers on it was symbol that the archeologist said was an early symbol of Christianity, it wasn't a cross. Anyway this symbol made him hunt out the tomb, which was known but not investigated properly, which this archeologist did given the amount of time he had which was limited. Anyway in it, was (reliques?) for mother and father, the space for the brothers and what might have been wife and child.

Many believe that John took Mary and Jesus' family (believing that he had a daughter), and went to France to avoid them being persecuted.  Part of this is encased in the Da Vinci Code in a fictional format, but if you read my arguments above in the thread, I don't see any fair conclusion except that he had to be married.

If he wasn't, that was so peculiar that the writers would surely have mentioned it.  An unmarried rabbi?  That was almost sacrilege.  Also, the way he talked to Mary Magdalene supports nothing short of marriage between them.  Anyway, the arguments are laid out above.

The idea of Jesus being the way you perceive derived primarily with the establishment of the Catholic religion several centuries A.D. at the Council of Nicea.  But nothing canonical about whether he was married was included in any texts.  Those who still believe in the final results of the Council of Nicea tend to believe that Jesus was not married; those who are scholars of ancient Christianity tend to think he probably was married.  Whether he was married or not shouldn't really shake the faith of any Christian.

And that he had children while on the earth was prophecied by Isaiah...so unless Isaiah was wrong, Jesus also had children.

There was something mentioned about Mary returning to Jerusalem from France shortly before her death, but i can't remember where he got the idea from.

Like I said it makes much more sence, the likelihood in my opinion was married and married young is high, otherwise why wasn't he married was there something wrong with him ect? That can be the only logical premis in my opinion why he wouldn't have been married, he after all could support a wife and family, it doesn't make sence that he wasn't.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:39, Tue 04 Mar 2008.

Elana, yes, there was an ostuary found with the names of Mary, Jesus son of Joseph and James (or something along those lines).  What they failed to mention is that all the names were hugely common, and all were encountered regularly.

Now yoy remind me of it i believe that fact was mentioned but they had other evidence that made them think it was likely. But a question I cant remeber if it said brother of Jesus, which cant have been a comman name, Joshua yes but Jesus? And why is Jesus known as Jesus and not Joshua?

It wasn't actually "Jesus", since Jesus is an anglization.  You'd have to look up what the original name was, but apparently it was fairly common.

I was told, taught that Jesus's real name was Joshua, but in hebrew ther is no 'J' sound so the 'J' sounds like a 'Y', the two names in hebrew sound alike. I was told Jesus is the Greek interpertation of Christ's name.

Yeshua Ben Yosef would be the proper name, Jesus being a mistranslation from a Greek translation of Hebrew.

Ben Yosef I presume is 'son of Joseph'?

So how common are the names Yeshua and Yosef?  Like I said, they did agree that James (or I guess it's 'Yames') and Mary are hugely common.

Both names are very comman as they are both biblical names, Joseph being the fourth father of our forefathers and Joshua being the first judge of Israel, the man that led the Israelites after Moses. But Mary a comman name? It's not a Jewish name as far as I know, but Mirriam is and Mary's name might have originally been Mirriam, maybe.

That's basically what they said, that Mary was originally Mirriam or some derivative thereof, and that the Mary/Mirriam/whatever names (since we can't be 100% sure WHICH name it was originally, just its base, we should include all of them) made up something like 60% of the female names at the time.

Saw this in the news today, and thought of this thread.  Doesn't really seem to prove a whole lot to me, other than the fact that the debates we're having here have been going on a LONG time.  ;)

Try proving anything actually "happened" 2000 years ago. :)  All you can do is trust the writings (ouch) or the assumptions reached from sciences like anthropology (and you know what they say about people who assume...).

Interesting article but lots of red flags combined with a lack of known information makes it tough to assess.

In reply to Heath (msg # 118):

Heath, your use of the word "assumptions" by science is question begging.

I cannot think to name, and I would challenge you to do so lest I be myopic, a method of discovering fact & truth table valid propositions that is better than the rigors of science and the methods there in?

Revolutionary, I am not addressing hard science in my note. I am addressing anthropological and related sciences.  They take various pieces of evidence and come to a conclusion, but that conclusion is often based on assumptions.

Example:
"We find a writing about X in the Dead Sea Scrolls."
"We can scientifically prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written Y years after Christ."
"We also have a foundational knowledge/corroborating evidence about A, B, and C that is 99% likely to be accurate."
"Therefore, we can assume that X is true and accurate within a D% margin of error."

So my point is that these anthropological findings use other evidence to come up with assumptions about another piece of evidence.  Even the scientists do not say they are 100% accurate because they cannot be certain about anything that "happened" 2000 years ago that is not based in natural science (earthquakes, etc.).  However, when people hear an argument like the above, they take it as the gospel truth (pardon the pun).

Hopefully that makes my point a little more clear.  There is nothing wrong with educated guesses, but in this field, that's really all they are left with.