fett on 21/5/2006 at 21:01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strontium DogNeither is Jesus' adolescence. Or should we just assume that didn't happen either?
Er...I assume we're all aware here that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were for the most part supposed to be *eyewitness* accounts of Jesus' ministry. At least in the case of Matthew, Mark (Peter's account), and John - they didn't know him until he was 30. John may possibly have known him as a child, but only as a distant cousin. While it's believed that Luke's document was taken in part from Mary's account, he was preparing it as part of Paul's court defense in Rome , in which case Jesus' childhood would have been irrelevant.
When you understand the purpose for which these accounts were written, it's obvious why certain details of Jesus' life were ommitted. His marital status, however, would have been completely relevant as it related to his role as Messiah and example for the soon to be born church.
SD on 21/5/2006 at 21:16
Quote Posted by fett
His marital status, however, would have been completely relevant as it related to his role as Messiah and example for the soon to be born church.
Precisely. Jesus had to appear unmarried in order to be seen as the Messiah, to fulfil the prophecies. So of course if he
was married, there'd be an agenda to keep such a fact hidden.
It's just like when John Lennon had to appear unmarried to be seen as a teen heart-throb. Poor Cynthia and Julian got written out of history for so long... ;)
Because I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was a/the Messiah, I am open to the possibility that he had a wife and perhaps even children.
Vigil on 21/5/2006 at 21:22
So I guess fett's other 3 points never happened?
fett on 21/5/2006 at 21:30
Quote:
Precisely. Jesus had to appear unmarried in order to be seen as the Messiah, to fulfil the prophecies.
But notice I never said his marital status had any bearing on prophecy - only on figures and types. There's a huge difference from fulfilling a prophecy and fulfilling a typology. Prophecy (at least Biblical) leaves no margin for error or excuse, whereas typologies are a bit more forgiving (with the added bonus of God not being declared a liar if they fail). I can provide examples of failed typologies (Moses striking, as opposed to speaking to the rock) that do not result in failed theology. If Messianic prophecy fails, christian (and largely) Jewish theology fails as well. Typologies are used as a teaching method whether they succeed or fail, but no doctrine hinges upon them.
The bottom line is that no one, not christians, Jews, or even the Romans, would have cared one whit about Jesus being married or single - not even into the 4th and 5th century. To create a conspiracy theory based on something so nonpoint as this is an insult to church historians. It's a strawman argument at best.
Spitter on 21/5/2006 at 21:47
So how's the movie?
Scots Taffer on 21/5/2006 at 21:50
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Well, we all know that Jesus had female companions, including one who was particularly close. I guess your take on this whole matter depends on whether or not you choose to read between the lines.
I have female friends other than my wife.
READ BETWEEN THE LINES, I'M DEEP DICKING ALL OF THEM!
Tonamel on 21/5/2006 at 21:58
Quote Posted by Spitter
So how's the movie?
As of right now, it has a 21% at Rotten Tomatoes, so... it's worse than Silent Hill.
Strangeblue on 21/5/2006 at 22:18
Quote Posted by fett
5) I'm sure Dan Brown is a nice guy, but he tends to come off as a smug pseudo-intellectual who's getting rich off of people's ignorance.
Obviousman! You've come at last!
*smoochies!*fett on 21/5/2006 at 22:21
Heh - yah. I've had to deal with quite a few (ok, well - ALOT) of wild-eyed Fox Mulder types asking me stoopid questions about Teh Dead See Bible and such. Stuff like this is a real headache for people who actually know about This Stuff.
Rug Burn Junky on 21/5/2006 at 22:23
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
READ BETWEEN THE LINES, I'M
DEEP DICKING ALL OF THEM!
Mrs. Taffer said you ain't that big.
