English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wouldn't that be a bit odd for a Rabbi?

2007-12-28 16:18:08 · 18 answers · asked by Enigma®Ragnarökin' 7 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

18 answers

I don't know but I think in John's gospel the gospel writer suggests that Jesus loved *one* of his male disciples so I suggest this indicates that he may have been gay.

2007-12-28 16:22:30 · answer #1 · answered by Stag S 5 · 3 5

Wow. A lot of people answered your question with another, didn't they? lol

No, there is no verse in the Bible that says he wasn't married. I highly recommend that you read the Jesus Family Tomb. It is a very interesting book that may end up providing evidence that he was indeed a family man. there was also a documentary that went along with the book.

I do definitely think that it is important that we know these things about him. I didn't believe in Jesus or anything said about him until I read this information. I now feel that he is someone that I can actually relate to and that he understands me. I don't think that anyone will be at peace until the truth comes out, as it is said in the Bible that all must truly know him....

EDIT>>>it would also not be odd for this to not be mentioned in the Bible or to anyone else during that time. It actually would have been smart. It would have saved his wife and child from being executed right along with him. If you knew you were going to be killed because of your bloodline would you advertise that you had children? Only if you were a dumbass.

2007-12-28 16:30:34 · answer #2 · answered by GhostHunterB 3 · 0 0

It doesn't. It is a bit odd for a Rabbi especially back then. According to Jewish las in those days he would have had to be married to even be considered a Rabbi. Watch, I bet someone asks you in which verse does it say he was? That is the usual answer from people who don't want to see what's directly in front of their faces. Many Gnostics belive that he was married to Mary Magdalene. They aslo belive tha Jesus survuved the Crusifiction and made his way with his mother and father to southern France where he lived to be a very old man and had children with Mary M. See some things in the Davinci Code are based on actual beliefs. Pretty interesting stuff. Sylvia Brown talks about Jesus's marriage and survival extensivly in one of her books. Sorry can't remeber the name of the book, but I bet you could google it and find out.

2007-12-28 16:30:52 · answer #3 · answered by ghostwolf 4 · 1 0

He was not married. He is betrothed/engaged, according to the Bible. It says so in Genesis and Revelation and anywhere else in between if you know how to interpret correctly.

Just as Eve came out of Adam's body, so will the Bride of Christ come out of His body (the church).

Study the Hebrew word KETUBAH and it will be a good start.

For the record, many other answers have said it would be odd for a rabbi not to be married; however, Rabbi Paul/Ravi Shaul was not married and was a teacher and student under Gamaliel.

2007-12-28 16:33:41 · answer #4 · answered by Bride of Yeshua 3 · 2 2

What Bible verse says he was married and why would it be odd for a teacher who knew in advance his fate was to die young to choose to remain single?

The Gospel writers mentioned Mary, Jospeh, Jesus' brothers and sisters, cousins, Aunts and Uncles, so surely if he had a wife and/or children they would have mentioned them as well?

Specialy Luke who was a companion of Paul and conducted his own exhaustive enquiry into the life and ministry of Jesus, including interviewing as many eye-witnesses as he could find.

His two books (Gospel of Luke and Acts) are really two parts of one continuous history of the life and work of Jesus, from the birth of John the Baptist down to about the year AD 60

Both books are historically accurate - so accurate that Luke has been called the greatest historian in history.

One prominent archaeologist carefully examined Luke's references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands, and found not a single mistake.

The bottom line on all this is: If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting then he surely would have mention the existence of a Mrs Jesus had Christ taken a wife.

2007-12-28 16:45:52 · answer #5 · answered by jeffd_57 6 · 0 2

It doesn't address his status, but, yes, it would be odd if he were a Rabbi, because Rabbis were married men during those times.

2007-12-28 16:21:44 · answer #6 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 4 0

The Bible never mentions if He was or was not.

That would be odd for a Rabbi at the time. However, you must realize that Jesus obviously did many "odd" things for that time period. For example, He traveled in mixed groups of men and women. He was often alone with women (which would have been uncommon for an unmarried man to be with a woman without her spouse there) and clearly the most well known, He was the Son of God who died for the world's sins. That was obviously odd to the people of that time period and AMAZING to us.

2007-12-28 16:29:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Not at all. He was a Rabbi by title, not by formal training. Would it not be more odd for a man to never mention His wife and to give not even an ounce of discussion about her in any of the Gospels?

Besides, the question is a bit leading. In which Bibilical verse does it specifically say that Jesus wasn't a serial killer?

2007-12-28 16:25:15 · answer #8 · answered by zombiehive 4 · 0 5

I don't think it does. There is so much we don't know since I think many of the writings that would have told us those things were purposely destroyed. He did everything else a good Jewish boy was supposed to do. There is even a theory that the wedding feast He turned water into wine was His own wedding.

2007-12-28 23:52:46 · answer #9 · answered by Purdey EP 7 · 0 0

A first century rabbi certainly would have been married or he wouldnt have been able to hold that position. Unless he was an essene who was a traveling preacher and many of their teachers were not married.

2007-12-28 16:21:55 · answer #10 · answered by confederate_outlaw 3 · 3 1

None of them...unless that verse (or the one that confirmed that he was, in fact, married) was part of what was removed from the "official" Bible at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

2007-12-28 16:22:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers