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.