|
Post by déjà vu on Apr 12, 2014 10:34:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 11:24:05 GMT -5
W.Tell ~ From listening to the audio on this article, it appears that Karen King takes a different approach to this subject than trying to prove that Jesus might have been married? It seems more connected to how early Christians viewed Jesus' marital status down through the centuries that claimed to be believers? She asks the question in her research ~ "Who were the first people to say that Jesus was not married?" When she looked at the historical evidence, it appears that these people were called "heretics" from the later part of the second century, about 150 years after Jesus died. These same people were claiming that no Christian should ever have any sexual relations ever, because Jesus didn't marry. However, we all know that Christianity doesn't condone this teaching, in fact it views marriage as being sacred in God's eyes. Nathan brings out a number of passages in his earlier posting which supports this fact. These people may have been connect to the Gnostics who appeared around the 2nd century and had quite a following? However, the early Christians practices and teachings can be found among the Early Church Fathers of the lst century, which held different beliefs from some of these Gnostic sects.
Here's a link which gives more information on Gnosticism as an alternate form of Christianity and what they taught which was much different from orthodox Christianity as we know it.
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/gnosticism-11629621.html
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 11:25:11 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely possible. I can't understand how so many people think sex is a sin, or dirty. It seems that most of the doctrine related to sex has been established by people who had issues about their own sexuality and some were downright crazy and because of their position in the church their words somehow became doctrine. Now people are trying to live by these dysfunctional rules and then they wonder why they fail so often. They fail because they are normal!! No sin in that, but the church says there is.
The Jewish people were to go forth and multiply. Jesus was very likely married if this is the case. We do need to look at the roles of wives not so much as Christians but as Jewish women from that time period. They were not like we have today. Paul set the stage for everyone looking at sex as a terrible sin and to be avoided at all costs if you could. If you couldn't then you needed to get married so that you could at least not be seen as fornicating. I think this was partly because of Paul being a tad nuts, but also because of Jesus words when he promised to return in their lifetime. It made sense in a way that reproduction wasn't important if everyone was going to go to heaven in a few years. So it would make sense to immerse ones self in spiritual matters and not the physical world. After all it was only for a short while. JMT
In addition, if you read her abstract you will see that parts of it confirm what is in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene about her being worthy to be Jesus' disciple. This is important and fairly interesting. If you read the Gospel of MM you find that Peter is the only apostle that is against MM and tries to discredit what she has to say about what Jesus told her. The other apostles admonish him by saying that he should not be saying that and if Jesus trusted MM then they should too and listen to her about what he told her. Peter goes on to establish his own church with his own views and that church makes MM into a lady for a very long time until they decided fairly recently that this wasn't really true. So who do you believe. We know from written accounts that Peter didn't like that MM had a close relationship with Jesus, he constantly tried to undermine and discredit her words so it's not a stretch to know why she was left out of the new RCC religion that was on the rise with Peter at the helm. Add onto that, Paul's fanatical beliefs and you have the start of a religion that does not consider women to be equal and go as far as to blame them for all the sin in the world.
The Gnostic Christians were a very varied group when it came to beliefs. Somewhat like Christians today. Some were very against anything to do with this physical world or the physical body. Not surprised they were against any sex at all. However, there were some that did believe Jesus was married, and that sex was not wrong. None had a real open view of it though. More a matter of degrees of how much of a sin or a blessing it was.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 11:43:54 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely possible. I can't understand how so many people think sex is a sin, or dirty. It seems that most of the doctrine related to sex has been established by people who had issues about their own sexuality and some were downright crazy and because of their position in the church their words somehow became doctrine. Now people are trying to live by these dysfunctional rules and then they wonder why they fail so often. They fail because they are normal!! No sin in that, but the church says there is. The Jewish people were to go forth and multiply. Jesus was very likely married if this is the case. We do need to look at the roles of wives not so much as Christians but as Jewish women from that time period. They were not like we have today. Paul set the stage for everyone looking at sex as a terrible sin and to be avoided at all costs if you could. If you couldn't then you needed to get married so that you could at least not be seen as fornicating. I think this was partly because of Paul being a tad nuts, but also because of Jesus words when he promised to return in their lifetime. It made sense in a way that reproduction wasn't important if everyone was going to go to heaven in a few years. So it would make sense to immerse ones self in spiritual matters and not the physical world. After all it was only for a short while. JMT Snow ~ From my own understanding of the Bible, it seems that Jesus and his apostles all supported the sanctity of marriage and even Peter, a married disciple, gave instruction in this area of how a man was to treat his wife in I Peter 3. Paul preferred to remain single, but he didn't exactly portray marriage as being an undesirable thing for an evangelist and gave some simple instructions of how one should behave within a marriage. He also brought out that it would be hard to have a wife and family in his travels to bring the gospel story to the world in I Corinthians 7. However, it was the Gnostics who came into the picture around the 2nd century who viewed sexual relations as sinful and believed in remaining celibate. With such views, it's a wonder they lasted as long as they did, in fact?
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207 (I Corinthians 7 ~ Paul's instructions on marriage)
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3 (I Peter 3 ~ Peter's instructions on marriage)
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/gnosticism-11629621.html (Development of Gnosticism)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 11:51:18 GMT -5
Nathan and faune, I have since added on to my post that you both quoted. You might want to have a look if you're interested.
Nathan have you ever thought that is was possible that there would be no mention of Jesus being married because the church had taken a celibate stance BEFORE the literature was chosen for the canonized bible? The fact he was married could very well have been omitted because it didn't further their stance on marriage, sex and the church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 11:54:27 GMT -5
I feel it's important to understand exactly what Gnosticism taught and why the Early Church Fathers (ECF's) were so opposed to its teachings and tried to eradicate its roots from within early Christianity. Hopefully, this extremely insightful article into Gnostic beliefs will help to shed some light on what they believed and taught, which caused such a stir among the ECF's around the 2nd century?
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/gnosticism-11629621.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 12:01:00 GMT -5
Nathan and faune, I have since added on to my post that you both quoted. You might want to have a look if you're interested. Nathan have you ever thought that is was possible that there would be no mention of Jesus being married because the church had taken a celibate stance BEFORE the literature was chosen for the canonized bible? The fact he was married could very well have been omitted because it didn't further their stance on marriage, sex and the church. Snow ~ That's a possibility, considering the RCC got to decide upon the canons that were incorporated within the Bible before it came together into one book? However, it appears from my own research into this matter that celibacy was more incorporated into the beliefs of the Gnostics around the 2nd century who looked upon sex as being sinful and evil? They seemed to compete with the ECF's and that caused quite a stir within the early church even before it became organized around the 4th century under Emperor Constantine. StAnne has provided information in the past regarding this fact, if I remember right? What surprises me is the RCC's stance on celibacy after it was organized, which would seem to give some semblance to what the Gnostics taught? That part is a little confusing to me?
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/gnosticism-11629621.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 12:03:39 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely possible. I can't understand how so many people think sex is a sin, or dirty. It seems that most of the doctrine related to sex has been established by people who had issues about their own sexuality and some were downright crazy and because of their position in the church their words somehow became doctrine. Now people are trying to live by these dysfunctional rules and then they wonder why they fail so often. They fail because they are normal!! No sin in that, but the church says there is. The Jewish people were to go forth and multiply. Jesus was very likely married if this is the case. We do need to look at the roles of wives not so much as Christians but as Jewish women from that time period. They were not like we have today. Paul set the stage for everyone looking at sex as a terrible sin and to be avoided at all costs if you could. If you couldn't then you needed to get married so that you could at least not be seen as fornicating. I think this was partly because of Paul being a tad nuts, but also because of Jesus words when he promised to return in their lifetime. It made sense in a way that reproduction wasn't important if everyone was going to go to heaven in a few years. So it would make sense to immerse ones self in spiritual matters and not the physical world. After all it was only for a short while. JMT In addition, if you read her abstract you will see that parts of it confirm what is in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene about her being worthy to be Jesus' disciple. This is important and fairly interesting. If you read the Gospel of MM you find that Peter is the only apostle that is against MM and tries to discredit what she has to say about what Jesus told her. The other apostles admonish him by saying that he should not be saying that and if Jesus trusted MM then they should too and listen to her about what he told her. Peter goes on to establish his own church with his own views and that church makes MM into a lady for a very long time until they decided fairly recently that this wasn't really true. So who do you believe. We know from written accounts that Peter didn't like that MM had a close relationship with Jesus, he constantly tried to undermine and discredit her words so it's not a stretch to know why she was left out of the new RCC religion that was on the rise with Peter at the helm. Add onto that, Paul's fanatical beliefs and you have the start of a religion that does not consider women to be equal and go as far as to blame them for all the sin in the world. The Gnostic Christians were a very varied group when it came to beliefs. Somewhat like Christians today. Some were very against anything to do with this physical world or the physical body. Not surprised they were against any sex at all. However, there were some that did believe Jesus was married, and that sex was not wrong. None had a real open view of it though. More a matter of degrees of how much of a sin or a blessing it was.Snow ~ Thank you for editing your post to give a clearer understanding of your views regarding the Gnostic Christians and the RCC. I definitely agree with your conclusion regarding the Gnostics at the end of your post, which fitly describes them, IMHO. It's also true that some of Paul's views were later taken to the extreme by legalistic churches and this fact was especially known among the leaders of the early Roman Catholic Church (RCC). It appears to me that the RCC may have incorporated some of the Gnostic beliefs in their own organized church structure and especially in regards to the celibate priesthood of the laity? However, this celibate lifestyle was never advocated completely by Jesus, the Apostles, or Peter or Paul. It seems to be just an addition to their traditions which was passed down through the centuries and added to by the various RCC Popes that came to power?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 12, 2014 13:02:24 GMT -5
Quite probable. Do you really want to know though? What if you thought the way of the friends and workers was continual back to the days of Jesus and that the Irvine and Ireland story was a lie and then you learned the truth of "the truth"? How would that affect you? If there was similar about Jesus, how would that affect you?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 12, 2014 13:43:01 GMT -5
Perhaps a discussion on I Corinthians 7 is in order here regarding Paul's opinions regarding marriage and sexual relations? My own thoughts are found within the blue highlights between paragraphs. Do you have anything you might like to add to them?
1 Corinthians 7 Amplified Bible (AMP)
7 Now as to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not to touch a woman [to cohabit with her] but to remain unmarried. Paul's personal opinion regarding single life as to be preferred?
2 But because of the temptation to impurity and to avoid immorality, let each [man] have his own wife and let each [woman] have her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights (goodwill, kindness, and what is due her as his wife), and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 For the wife does not have [exclusive] authority and control over her own body, but the husband [has his rights]; likewise also the husband does not have [exclusive] authority and control over his body, but the wife [has her rights].
5 Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire.
6 But I am saying this more as a matter of permission and concession, not as a command or regulation. People who do marry should not deprive their spouses of their conjugal rights within the marriage and this goes for both the man as well as the woman. However, this is not a command or regulation specified by God, but a concession that Paul offers himself.
7 I wish that all men were like I myself am [in this matter of self-control]. But each has his own special gift from God, one of this kind and one of another. Paul really prefers the single life ~ no doubt about it!
8 But to the unmarried people and to the widows, I declare that it is well (good, advantageous, expedient, and wholesome) for them to remain [single] even as I do.
9 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire]. Paul recommends the single life for anybody who can handle it without committing fornication. If they are aflame with passion and ungratified desire, they need to marriage due to their lack of self-control or restraint of their passions.
10 But to the married people I give charge—not I but the Lord—that the wife is not to separate from her husband.
11 But if she does [separate from and divorce him], let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband. And the husband [also] that he should not put away or divorce his wife.Paul's opinion that if a woman separates and later divorces her husband, she should remain single or be reconciled again to her husband (providing he has not remarried in the mean time). Husbands should not divorce their wives, putting them in this position in the first place.
12 To the rest I declare—I, not the Lord [for Jesus did not discuss this]—that if any brother has a wife who does not believe [in Christ] and she consents to live with him, he should not leave or divorce her.
13 And if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she should not leave or divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is set apart (separated, withdrawn from heathen contamination, and affiliated with the Christian people) by union with his consecrated (set-apart) wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart and separated through union with her consecrated husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean (unblessed heathen, outside the Christian covenant), but as it is they are prepared for God [pure and clean]. Suggestions by Paul regarding a divided home and advising the spouse to remain with the unbelieving husband or wife in hopes of converting him to the faith. This also gives the children a better opportunity to become a Christian later on due to exposure. However, within a divided home, I'm sure it could go both ways, don't you think, or the children could also choose not to believe on their own?
15 But if the unbelieving partner [actually] leaves, let him do so; in such [cases the remaining] brother or sister is not morally bound. But God has called us to peace.
16 For, wife, how can you be sure of converting and saving your husband? Husband, how can you be sure of converting and saving your wife?17 Only, let each one [seek to conduct himself and regulate his affairs so as to] lead the life which the Lord has allotted and imparted to him and to which God has invited and summoned him. This is my order in all the churches.
18 Was anyone at the time of his summons [from God] already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the evidence of circumcision. Was anyone at the time [God] called him uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.
19 For circumcision is nothing and counts for nothing, neither does uncircumcision, but [what counts is] keeping the commandments of God.
20 Everyone should remain after God calls him in the station or condition of life in which the summons found him. If the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the relation, let them be, if it produces peace within the home. If somebody abandons you and leaves the marriage, than you are no longer in bondage to your vows due to abandonment. You would be free to divorce your husband due to this fact and marry another, apart from adultery, which would be another reason given by Jesus Himself.
Also, we should be content with the place we were in when we became converted and should not try to put other restrictions or requirements as condition for membership within God's family.
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you. But if you are able to gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
22 For he who as a slave was summoned in [to union with] the Lord is a freedman of the Lord, just so he who was free when he was called is a bond servant of Christ (the Messiah).
23 You were bought with a price [purchased with a preciousness and paid for by Christ]; then do not yield yourselves up to become [in your own estimation] slaves to men [but consider yourselves slaves to Christ]. We should accept our station in life when we became Christians. If we were in bondage to a Master, we must not seek to be free, unless the opportunity to gain our freedom becomes available to us. However, we should always consider ourselves as God's bond-servants due to the price that Christ paid for our redemption from our sins. Therefore, we should not become slaves to man within our own estimation, but seek only to remain bound to Christ in our devotion.
24 So, brethren, in whatever station or state or condition of life each one was when he was called, there let him continue with and close to God.
25 Now concerning the virgins (the marriageable [c]maidens) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion and advice as one who by the Lord’s mercy is rendered trustworthy and faithful.
26 I think then, because of the impending distress [that is even now setting in], it is well (expedient, profitable, and wholesome) for a person to remain as he or she is.
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. From the passage above, it seems that Paul feels the end of the world that they knew was upon them and they should be living in the moment of Christ's return?
28 But if you do marry, you do not sin [in doing so], and if a virgin marries, she does not sin [in doing so]. Yet those who marry will have physical and earthly troubles, and I would like to spare you that.
29 I mean, brethren, the appointed time has been [d]winding down and it has grown very short. From now on, let even those who have wives be as if they had none,
30 And those who weep and mourn as though they were not weeping and mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they did not possess anything,
31 And those who deal with this world [[e]overusing the enjoyments of this life] as though they were not absorbed by it and as if they had no dealings with it. For the outward form of this world (the present world order) is passing away. Again, Paul stresses living within the moment of the Lord's return, which he feels is very near.
32 My desire is to have you free from all anxiety and distressing care. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord;
33 But the married man is anxious about worldly matters—how he may please his wife—
34 And he is drawn in diverging directions [his interests are divided and he is distracted from his devotion to God]. And the unmarried woman or girl is concerned and anxious about the matters of the Lord, how to be wholly separated and set apart in body and spirit; but the married woman has her cares [centered] in earthly affairs—how she may please her husband. Women mess with men's minds within a marriage, so it's far better to remain single and free from such conflicts in co-habitation? I don't particularly like this opinion, being a woman myself.
35 Now I say this for your own welfare and profit, not to put restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly and in good order and to secure your undistracted and undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 But if any man thinks that he is not acting properly toward and in regard to his virgin [that he is preparing disgrace for her or incurring reproach], in case she is passing the bloom of her youth and if there is need for it, let him do what to him seems right; he does not sin; let them marry. Now these verses seem to suggest that when the woman is pass childbearing and no longer useful for reproduction, she can still marry if the couple cannot contain their desires? Honestly, it does give the impression that marriage is designed for producing children and nothing else of importance?
Staying single is still a real virtue regardless how you look at it.
38 So also then, he [the father] who gives his virgin (his daughter) in marriage does well, and he [the father] who does not give [her] in marriage does better. Father's who don't give their daughters away in marriage do better for what reason ~ to have the daughter within the home as his servant or to care for him in his old age? This verse always has confused me and makes little sense!
39 A wife is bound to her husband by law as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she will, only [provided that he too is] in the Lord.
40 But in my opinion is happier (more blessed and [f]to be envied) if she does not remarry. And also I think I have the Spirit of God. Now it appears that Paul is saying it's better to remain a widow after your husband's death than to remarry again? Also, he feels it's necessary to remind them that he does have the Spirit of God and speaks as God's anointed.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 15:51:22 GMT -5
Nathan and faune, I have since added on to my post that you both quoted. You might want to have a look if you're interested. Nathan have you ever thought that is was possible that there would be no mention of Jesus being married because the church had taken a celibate stance BEFORE the literature was chosen for the canonized bible? The fact he was married could very well have been omitted because it didn't further their stance on marriage, sex and the church. ~~ Jesus was sent to earth to do His heavenly Father's will... To live, and show us a good example what a child of God should be like, reveal to us who is the Heavenly Father, and to DIE on Calvary's Cross for our sins as the perfect Lamb of God. Marriage is honorable! Sex is very beautiful union between a man and a woman. God wants us to enjoy our sexuality! It awesome experience to enjoy in this life. Jesus came from heaven to do His heavenly Father's will, He laid aside his own sexual desires so he could concentrate the most important task why He was sent to this earth! To redeem mankind from eternal death. Most of the apostles had chosen to follow Jesus' example, that is to put their own sexual desires aside, having families, children so they could dedicate their lives in preaching the gospel of Salvation without any families ties.Ok Nathan, While I don't agree that Jesus needed to be celibate in order to be a good example, I do see why you think so and I respect that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 15:59:36 GMT -5
faune, I think one thing about Gnosticism is that it gets all lumped into one pile. There was no such thing as Gnostics as far as a name when they existed. They got the name because they talked about gnosis. Knowing God. The different groups all believed things that were similar to each other and different to each other. I think the current tendency to lump them all into a group and call them Gnostics doesn't quite do these groups justice. There are a lot of books out there right now that do that. At the moment we don't have a clear understanding of which groups wrote which gospels. The Nag Hammadi library is an amazing source of literature that give us glimpses of the varied thought of early Christians. They all considered themselves followers of Christ, they just had different 'denominations' and thoughts about how to do that and what it meant to follow Christ. The RCC were one of these early groups that later went on to be the successful one and most of that was not necessarily because they were the true one, but they had the backing of the Emperor of Rome. There was very bitter dissension between these groups when it came to defining what Jesus meant.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 17:21:11 GMT -5
Snow ~ That's a possibility, considering the RCC got to decide upon the canons that were incorporated within the Bible before it came together into one book? However, it appears from my own research into this matter that celibacy was more incorporated into the beliefs of the Gnostics around the 2nd century who looked upon sex as being sinful and evil? They seemed to compete with the ECF's and that caused quite a stir within the early church even before it became organized around the 4th century under Emperor Constantine. StAnne has provided information in the past regarding this fact, if I remember right? What surprises me is the RCC's stance on celibacy after it was organized, which would seem to give some semblance to what the Gnostics taught? That part is a little confusing to me?
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/gnosticism-11629621.html
I don't believe one can tell for sure whether Gnostic Christians accepted that Jesus could have been married. Marriage or celibacy is not a factor in what constitutes Gnosticism. A better "guess" is that among Gnostics they might have had differences of opinion concerning Jesus' marital status. One has to be very careful about what one reads about Christian Gnosticism because Gnosticism was the highest evil for centuries according to the Roman church. Catholic writings trashed Gnosticism for centuries, and their greatest motivation for canonizing the New Testament was to condemn Gnosticism. They weren't terribly concerned, either, whether the truth was ever told about Gnostics -- as long as they were portrayed as wicked. It left the western world with the notion that Gnosticism was never a major force in Christianity, when in fact is was the Roman church's greatest competitor for theological dominance. The gospel of John was only saved as an acceptable gospel because it had "ONE" verse in it saying that Jesus became a man. This, incidentally, allows me to explain why the Roman church does not really want this matter to be discussed now. This history explains why the Trinity theology did not appear until the fourth century, and was even unpopular at that time. For Saint Augustine the Trinity was nothing better than a revelation of a mystery of convenience for the church in the 4th century. The church has since abandoned completely the notion that Jesus was a "human being", so it is inconvenient now to recall their vehement opposition to it in the 2nd century -- in an effort to discredit Gnosticism's core belief. But celibacy was not mandated for priests in the Catholic church, and even popes, until centuries after the Catholic church was organized. It's easy enough to determine that the claimed first pope was not celibate, and historic record that others were married. The demand for celibacy of priests was instituted to prevent priests from leaving their property to their wives and families at the time of their deaths -- instead of to the church. They may consider celibacy a commandment of God today, but the church knows perfectly well that was the reason celibacy was instituted. By the way, Gnosticism is not a religion or a denomination -- it is more a theological concept that human individuals can have a spark of divine wisdom in them that sets them aside from those who do not receive it -- thus removing all need for them to have an intercessor for their salvation. It was Gnostics that actually gave Christians the notion that humans could "know God" personally, and that combined with the Trinity Doctrine makes it so that Christians can also know Jesus personally. That was the last thing a rich and politically powerful church wanted to hear about, hence the wars and barbecue murders and book burning that went on for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2014 17:40:43 GMT -5
Snow ~ That's a possibility, considering the RCC got to decide upon the canons that were incorporated within the Bible before it came together into one book? However, it appears from my own research into this matter that celibacy was more incorporated into the beliefs of the Gnostics around the 2nd century who looked upon sex as being sinful and evil? They seemed to compete with the ECF's and that caused quite a stir within the early church even before it became organized around the 4th century under Emperor Constantine. StAnne has provided information in the past regarding this fact, if I remember right? What surprises me is the RCC's stance on celibacy after it was organized, which would seem to give some semblance to what the Gnostics taught? That part is a little confusing to me?
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/gnosticism-11629621.html
I don't believe one can tell for sure whether Gnostic Christians accepted that Jesus could have been married. Marriage or celibacy is not a factor in what constitutes Gnosticism. A better "guess" is that among Gnostics they might have had differences of opinion concerning Jesus' marital status. One has to be very careful about what one reads about Christian Gnosticism because Gnosticism was the highest evil for centuries according to the Roman church. Catholic writings trashed Gnosticism for centuries, and their greatest motivation for canonizing the New Testament was to condemn Gnosticism. They weren't terribly concerned, either, whether the truth was ever told about Gnostics -- as long as they were portrayed as wicked. It left the western world with the notion that Gnosticism was never a major force in Christianity, when in fact is was the Roman church's greatest competitor for theological dominance. The gospel of John was only saved as an acceptable gospel because it had "ONE" verse in it saying that Jesus became a man. This, incidentally, allows me to explain why the Roman church does not really want this matter to be discussed now. This history explains why the Trinity theology did not appear until the fourth century, and was even unpopular at that time. For Saint Augustine the Trinity was nothing better than a revelation of a mystery of convenience for the church in the 4th century. The church has since abandoned completely the notion that Jesus was a "human being", so it is inconvenient now to recall their vehement opposition to it in the 2nd century -- in an effort to discredit Gnosticism's core belief. But celibacy was not mandated for priests in the Catholic church, and even popes, until centuries after the Catholic church was organized. It's easy enough to determine that the claimed first pope was not celibate, and historic record that others were married. The demand for celibacy of priests was instituted to prevent priests from leaving their property to their wives and families at the time of their deaths -- instead of to the church. They may consider celibacy a commandment of God today, but the church knows perfectly well that was the reason celibacy was instituted. By the way, Gnosticism is not a religion or a denomination -- it is more a theological concept that human individuals can have a spark of divine wisdom in them that sets them aside from those who do not receive it -- thus removing all need for them to have an intercessor for their salvation. It was Gnostics that actually gave Christians the notion that humans could "know God" personally, and that combined with the Trinity Doctrine makes it so that Christians can also know Jesus personally. That was the last thing a rich and politically powerful church wanted to hear about, hence the wars and barbecue murders and book burning that went on for centuries. Exactly. thank you Bob for explaining it so much better than I could.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 12, 2014 17:52:50 GMT -5
This history explains why the Trinity theology did not appear until the fourth century, and was even unpopular at that time. For Saint Augustine the Trinity was nothing better than a revelation of a mystery of convenience for the church in the 4th century. The church has since abandoned completely the notion that Jesus was a "human being", so it is inconvenient now to recall their vehement opposition to it in the 2nd century -- in an effort to discredit Gnosticism's core belief. 1. The Trinity was doctrine passed down by the Apostles in the deposit of faith - as evidenced so many places in Sacred Scripture. 2. St. Augustine ... "We have said elsewhere that those things are predicated Specially in the Trinity as belonging severally to each person, which are predicated relatively the one to the other, as Father and Son, and the gift of both, the Holy Spirit; for the Father is not the Trinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the Trinity: but what whenever each is singly spoken of in respect to themselves, then they are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but one, the Trinity itself, as the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; the Father good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; and the Father omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit omnipotent: yet neither three Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself; and whatsoever else is said of them not relatively in respect to each other, but individually in respect to themselves. For they are thus spoken of according to l essence, since in them to be is the same as to be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else is said of each person individually therein, or of the Trinity itself, in respect to themselves. And that therefore they are called three persons, or three substances, not in order that any difference of essence may be understood, but that we may be able to answer by some one word, should any one ask what three, or what three things? And that there is so great an equality in that Trinity, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three, less than the Trinity itself." Augustine, On the Trinity, 8 Pref (A.D. 416).
"All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized; nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,' the same Trinity sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire,' but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, Thou art my Son,' whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;' but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith." Augustine, On the Trinity, I:4,7 (A.D. 416). scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html The church has since abandoned completely the notion that Jesus was a "human being"3. 479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature. 480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men. 481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God's Son. 482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. 483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Apr 12, 2014 18:18:29 GMT -5
This just sounds like another sensational theory. I would say a physical marriage by Jesus was something that did not happen. We don't need any facts of written records to prove that either. It is very clear that his mission on earth was not to procreate. As he said, "I have come that they might have life... and that they may have it more abundantly..." It is as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2014 18:35:16 GMT -5
This history explains why the Trinity theology did not appear until the fourth century, and was even unpopular at that time. For Saint Augustine the Trinity was nothing better than a revelation of a mystery of convenience for the church in the 4th century. The church has since abandoned completely the notion that Jesus was a "human being", so it is inconvenient now to recall their vehement opposition to it in the 2nd century -- in an effort to discredit Gnosticism's core belief. 1. The Trinity was doctrine passed down by the Apostles in the deposit of faith - as evidenced so many places in Sacred Scripture. 2. St. Augustine ... "We have said elsewhere that those things are predicated Specially in the Trinity as belonging severally to each person, which are predicated relatively the one to the other, as Father and Son, and the gift of both, the Holy Spirit; for the Father is not the Trinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the Trinity: but what whenever each is singly spoken of in respect to themselves, then they are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but one, the Trinity itself, as the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; the Father good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; and the Father omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit omnipotent: yet neither three Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself; and whatsoever else is said of them not relatively in respect to each other, but individually in respect to themselves. For they are thus spoken of according to l essence, since in them to be is the same as to be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else is said of each person individually therein, or of the Trinity itself, in respect to themselves. And that therefore they are called three persons, or three substances, not in order that any difference of essence may be understood, but that we may be able to answer by some one word, should any one ask what three, or what three things? And that there is so great an equality in that Trinity, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three, less than the Trinity itself." Augustine, On the Trinity, 8 Pref (A.D. 416).
"All those Catholic expounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality; and therefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although the Father hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary, and crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again, that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when He was baptized; nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after the ascension of the Lord, when there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,' the same Trinity sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as of fire,' but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that this Trinity said from heaven, Thou art my Son,' whether when He was baptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in the mount, or when the voice sounded, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again;' but that it was a word of the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so work indivisibly. This is also my faith, since it is the Catholic faith." Augustine, On the Trinity, I:4,7 (A.D. 416). scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html The church has since abandoned completely the notion that Jesus was a "human being"3. 479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature. 480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men. 481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God's Son. 482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. 483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word. You know, you are not really contradicting anything I have written. You are just making it fit a denominational mold.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 12, 2014 18:48:12 GMT -5
You know, you are not really contradicting anything I have written. I believe each person who reads here is capable of making that determination for himself or herself.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 9:59:06 GMT -5
. Was Jesus Married? or Celibated?Or celebrated? So many questions and a dearth of facts.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 14, 2014 10:18:18 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely possible. I can't understand how so many people think sex is a sin, or dirty. It seems that most of the doctrine related to sex has been established by people who had issues about their own sexuality and some were downright crazy and because of their position in the church their words somehow became doctrine. Now people are trying to live by these dysfunctional rules and then they wonder why they fail so often. They fail because they are normal!! No sin in that, but the church says there is. The Jewish people were to go forth and multiply. Jesus was very likely married if this is the case. We do need to look at the roles of wives not so much as Christians but as Jewish women from that time period. They were not like we have today. Paul set the stage for everyone looking at sex as a terrible sin and to be avoided at all costs if you could. If you couldn't then you needed to get married so that you could at least not be seen as fornicating. I think this was partly because of Paul being a tad nuts, but also because of Jesus words when he promised to return in their lifetime. It made sense in a way that reproduction wasn't important if everyone was going to go to heaven in a few years. So it would make sense to immerse ones self in spiritual matters and not the physical world. After all it was only for a short while. JMT In addition, if you read her abstract you will see that parts of it confirm what is in the Gospel of Mary Magdalene about her being worthy to be Jesus' disciple. This is important and fairly interesting. If you read the Gospel of MM you find that Peter is the only apostle that is against MM and tries to discredit what she has to say about what Jesus told her. The other apostles admonish him by saying that he should not be saying that and if Jesus trusted MM then they should too and listen to her about what he told her. Peter goes on to establish his own church with his own views and that church makes MM into a lady for a very long time until they decided fairly recently that this wasn't really true. So who do you believe. We know from written accounts that Peter didn't like that MM had a close relationship with Jesus, he constantly tried to undermine and discredit her words so it's not a stretch to know why she was left out of the new RCC religion that was on the rise with Peter at the helm. Add onto that, Paul's fanatical beliefs and you have the start of a religion that does not consider women to be equal and go as far as to blame them for all the sin in the world. The Gnostic Christians were a very varied group when it came to beliefs. Somewhat like Christians today. Some were very against anything to do with this physical world or the physical body. Not surprised they were against any sex at all. However, there were some that did believe Jesus was married, and that sex was not wrong. None had a real open view of it though. More a matter of degrees of how much of a sin or a blessing it was. Jesus most likely never married in the human body! The main reason being by the age of 12 yrs., this "human" boy sought to "be about his Father's business" and had told his earthly parent(s) so! Yet he willingly went home and was subject to them and grew in grace with God and with men. Jesus also was God 100 percent, so he would know that his "bride" was the church and that his bride would have to be "redeemed" by him, the bridegroom, in order that his bride, the church was pure and fitly clothed for the wedding which is the resurrection day, when Jesus claims his own out of the graves and off the face of the earth. Jesus referred to himself as the "bridegroom" but never called himself the "husband"......so that alone should tell us he never married and had NO intention of being married while on earth in the human form! He was about his "Father's business". We read again in Revelations of him as the bridegroom.....and we also read about his bride, the church, who had washed her robes in the blood of the Lamb or her bridegroom. Never has a bridegroom given more for his bride then Jesus has given for his bride, the church. So the marriage of Jesus and the church is of the Spirit only.....but Jesus kept himself pure....and again we don't need to get into the thing that he was tempted in all ways as like unto us.....for certainly he would have had his human flesh that perhaps would have desired to have a wife, although we know fromt he age of 12 years he knew he must be about his Father's business.....just like his God part of him kept his human part of him from sinning. This is the reason no one can be "exactly" like Jesus.....regardless how hard we try!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 10:36:23 GMT -5
Jesus most likely never married in the human body! The main reason being by the age of 12 yrs., this "human" boy sought to "be about his Father's business" and had told his earthly parent(s) so! Yet he willingly went home and was subject to them and grew in grace with God and with men. This would indicate that you do not think Jesus was a normal developing boy. There are a lot f years missing from the bibal narrative regarding Jesus. From 12 to 25 is a lot of time. If you believe he was 100% human then can you really discount what happens during adolescence to virtually every developing human?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 14, 2014 13:24:53 GMT -5
Jesus most likely never married in the human body! The main reason being by the age of 12 yrs., this "human" boy sought to "be about his Father's business" and had told his earthly parent(s) so! Yet he willingly went home and was subject to them and grew in grace with God and with men. This would indicate that you do not think Jesus was a normal developing boy. There are a lot f years missing from the bibal narrative regarding Jesus. From 12 to 25 is a lot of time. If you believe he was 100% human then can you really discount what happens during adolescence to virtually every developing human? Actually there isn't much heard of him between 12 and 30. He was 3 years in the 'ministry' then was crucified. Lots of speculation about the missing years, but ask a christian and they will say he was a cabinet/carpenter with his father Joseph. Maybe, but the bible doesn't have a lot to say about it all.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 15:12:54 GMT -5
This would indicate that you do not think Jesus was a normal developing boy. There are a lot f years missing from the bibal narrative regarding Jesus. From 12 to 25 is a lot of time. If you believe he was 100% human then can you really discount what happens during adolescence to virtually every developing human? Actually there isn't much heard of him between 12 and 30. He was 3 years in the 'ministry' then was crucified. Lots of speculation about the missing years, but ask a christian and they will say he was a cabinet/carpenter with his father Joseph. Maybe, but the bible doesn't have a lot to say about it all. So whether he was married or not or whether he had sex or not is totally unknown. Does the bible ever say he was a cabinet maker. Although Georges de La Tour did a great job with the luminosity of a candle in Joseph the Carpenter:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 14, 2014 17:42:12 GMT -5
Actually there isn't much heard of him between 12 and 30. He was 3 years in the 'ministry' then was crucified. Lots of speculation about the missing years, but ask a christian and they will say he was a cabinet/carpenter with his father Joseph. Maybe, but the bible doesn't have a lot to say about it all. So whether he was married or not or whether he had sex or not is totally unknown. Does the bible ever say he was a cabinet maker. Although Georges de La Tour did a great job with the luminosity of a candle in Joseph the Carpenter: No, not really. There have been some biblical scholars that said that Joseph wasn't just a carpenter but would be more along the line of an architect and that there was some building of a palace by Herod in a town not far from where Joseph lived that they felt he probably had a part in. So more a construction worker than a cabinet maker. Which would possibly explain the parts where they do seem to be more wealthy than most people think. The wedding where he turns water into wine for example plays out like a wealthy family. For his mother Mary to be in charge of things has some saying she was the one putting on the party and to ask Jesus to make more wine points to the possibility that he was actually the bridegroom. As always, no one knows anything much, but that doesn't stop people from trying.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 18:09:05 GMT -5
No, not really. There have been some biblical scholars that said that Joseph wasn't just a carpenter but would be more along the line of an architect and that there was some building of a palace by Herod in a town not far from where Joseph lived that they felt he probably had a part in. The question was about what can be determined from the bible, not the speculation of scholars.Or a maker and seller of lutes. There certainly have been many stories!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 14, 2014 20:54:38 GMT -5
No, not really. There have been some biblical scholars that said that Joseph wasn't just a carpenter but would be more along the line of an architect and that there was some building of a palace by Herod in a town not far from where Joseph lived that they felt he probably had a part in. The question was about what can be determined from the bible, not the speculation of scholars.Or a maker and seller of lutes. There certainly have been many stories! In that case it's not clear. He is described as a 'tekton' which could either be interpreted as an artisan of wood or iron or stone.
|
|