The scriptures are also silent on the topic of whether or not Jesus had a bride.
Being the eldest son of a family, and 30 years old. It certainly would have seemed 'odd' had he not been married ten years previously. And children ...
By the standards set forth for judging or determining the Sanhedron and later the same exact standards are set for determining leadership roles within the body of Christ.
At least 30 years old, a husband, and a father; then look at the children to see how they are doing and how they are being raised. The idea of 30 years old, and a husband, and a father are all just to get your name in the bucket per say. The only real thing that is described that requires focus is when it comes to examining the children.
Since we know that Paul had to meet this standard, and that his guidance is tht we should continue to use that guidance for selecting leaders of the church. It would seem to make sense that Jesus [one generation earlier] certainly would have done the same.
Now you're gettin into DaVinci code stuff. But you raise an interesting question. One wonders why there's no mention of the Pharisees ridiculing Jesus for not having married. John the Baptist was an acetic, so it's understandable for him to be a bachelor hermit. But, compared to John, Jesus was a liberal hippie type (Behold a winebibber and a glutton!). So if he wasn't married by the age of 30 it seems the Pharisees would have criticized him for it.
And if he was married and left his wife and family to carryout the Lord's ministry, it seems logical to expect at least one of the Gospel writers to have mentioned it.
But all of this is based on fairly weak speculation about a long lost culture, as Oakspear has already pointed out. We don't know enough about hte details and mores of life in Judaea to say what would have been considered a scandalous lifestyle for a man of that era.
"How do we know what the standards for membership in the Sanhedrin were? What is the documentation?"
I have it written down here somewhere, maybe someone can find it before I psot it? I know it comes up in the 'Biblical Archeological Review' that I subscribe to. You could probably also find it in your Bible dictionary.
"How do we know that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin?"
During Stephen's 'trial' the gathered sanhedrin gave their proxy-votes to Saul, for him to cast. They did it by way of each laying their cloak at Saul's feet. While we dont have a scripture that says when and where he became an elder, we do know that he was among the voting elders at stephen's 'trial' and that he cast the deciding vote. Therefore he must have been one of the sanhedrin.
[Paul] was born in Asia Minor in the vicinity of Tarsus, the son of a strict Pharisee (Acts 23:6), and was given the Jewish name, Saul, and the Latin name, Paul. By heredity, he was also a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-28) which gave him some further distinction. His father must have been somewhat wealthy, because Saul was given what would have been considered the best education available.
He was reared and taught in the traditions of the Pharisees, which included not only the elementary school of the local synagogue, but at the age of thirteen he began the preparations for becoming a rabbi. This included learning a trade by which he could support himself. Saul was taught tentmaking. At the age of fifteen he left home for studies in the rabbinical college at Jerusalem. It was there that he became a student of a noted teacher, Gamaliel.
Among the Jews, eighteen was the proper age for marriage, and marriage was accounted as a sacred obligation. "It seems likely that Saul, a devout Jew and a strict Pharisee, would marry in due course; and the inference is confirmed by the fact that he was subsequently enrolled in the high court of the Sanhedrin and on at least one memorable occasion participated in its judicial procedure. For it was required among the qualifications of a Sanhedrist, that he should be not only a married man, but a father (David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul). Apparently his wife and child died, and he lived most of his life a widower. Saul must have been a practicing rabbi in a synagogue in his home town of Tarsus, where he also plied his trade of tentmaking.
Acts claims that Paul was born a Roman citizen—his father must have been a Roman. Yet Acts also clearly implies that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10 “My vote was cast against them,” suggesting that he had a vote in the Sanhedrin).
But the Way's teaching that God cannot communicate with a natural man is not biblical. God communicated with Adam and Eve right *after* they sinned and supposedly lost the spirit.
I'm not speaking out in support of TWi's teachings. However there is scriptural support for man of only body & soul lacking the ability to communicate with God.
quote:
I Corinthians 2:14 Some people don't have the Holy Spirit. They don't accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Things like that are foolish to them. They can't understand them. In fact, such things can't be understood without the Spirit's help.
That is the New International Reader's Version.
King James says:
quote:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The Bible clearly says that the man of body & soul cannot recieve things from God without having the spirit of God in him. ie. "Christ in you, the hope of Glory." (Colossians 1:26,27) is a necessary element to hear from God as things of the spirit are known via the spirit. Without it we were born as living souls in a natural body, dead, "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:10
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, (v:5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" Ephesians 2:5
However, there is nothing stopping God from communicating with man in other ways. There are many records of angels speaking to people, even taking human form.
There is record in Genesis of angels, (sons of God) even mating with human women. If angels can do all of this I have no problem with God actually speaking, as in audibly, to Jesus or ANYone else, because He has NO respect of persons.
An interesting supplement to this can be found in I Corinthians 15:
quote:
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
(45) So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit.
(46) The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
(47) The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
(48) As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
(49) And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
I Corinthians 15, in the context of the ressurrection, covers the concept of a distinct separation between flesh & spirit. It gets into distinctions between flesh & spirit, and even different kinds of flesh. Mostly it goes into great detail in establishing that Christ came, specifically to return to man the life that Adam had lost for all mankind.
It establishes how Adam who was of the earth became a living soul and in contrast to that Christ who was from heaven became a lifegiving spirit. We must exchange our corrupted bodies (corrupted by death) for new uncorrupted ones that will live forever, just like Christ's.
It makes it crystal clear that all faith in Christianity is based on the ressurrection from the dead, specifically Christ's as the firstfruit for all of us who follow him.
quote:
verse 17:
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
It is Biblical that natural man cannot recieve spiritual communication from God but that does not mean that God cannot communicate to man otherwise.
Jesus was a great student of the scriptures, he was constantly quoting them. He, as a 12 year old knew enough to amaze religious teachers for at least three days. (Luke 2:46) He knew them well that he had memorized EVERYTHING in the scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
With that kind of knowledge of the God breathed scriptures, how much would you need God to tell you?
He would need to fill you in on all the stuff the other prophets didn't know.
He would need to summarize the entire old testament into two laws - I mean his level of "thinking" was light years beyond anything exhibited by any of the old testament prophets.
Here is a guy that is balancing keeping the letter of the law but preaching above and beyond the letter of the law. That in itself is a paradox beyond comprehension. The level of dedication he would have had to understanding all the nuances of application would mean that he had to ultra careful and YET supposedly by the gospels he was "unconcerned" with a lot of the trappings of the OT or at least he came off that way.
And as far as natural man receiving not the things of the spirit of god - it doesn't say the man of body and soul - that is an interpretation of what the word natural is meant to convey. Why could that not convey "a man thinking unspiritually"?? Whether you have a connection with God or not you can still be a stubborn jack*ss. Look at the record of Eli and Samuel. Eli doesn't come off as looking particularly spiritual in 1st Samuel's opening chapters. This is just a point for discussion -
And as far as natural man receiving not the things of the spirit of god - it doesn't say the man of body and soul - that is an interpretation of what the word natural is meant to convey.
I'm not mad at you. No it isn't. It is reading what is written and thinking.
It says: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
It also says: "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men , another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds ...
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power..."
"It (the one kind of flesh of men, that is not the same flesh of animals, etc., the body God gave) is sown a natural body."
It is raised a spiritual body.
God places his spirit inside our dead natural bodies, via the works of the second Adam, a life-giving spirit. That makes us alive to him, eternally.
This chapter is telling us how in the ressurrection our dead, natural bodies will be replaced by a new, spiritual ones, because our corrupt, flesh and blood bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
God is telling us, in this passage, that the whole Christianity thing is about life and death, corruption and a transefer to immortality. Christ paid the price for all death (for humans certainly, I'm not sure about animals).
"...if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain."
I have no argument with people being connected to God being stubborn jack*sses. That classification can be hung on every one of us ALL at some point. There is nothing about being connected with God that changes people from being stubborn.
My point is that, post the ressurrected Christ, a person who is not born again will not be ABLE to recieve spiritual things from God. This does not stop God from commmunicating with them in other ways.
I believe that Romans 5:8-19 speaks to the "dead to God/ then alive to God through Christ condition too.
Some people just don't want to acknowledge the spiritual thing. That is what separates Christ from every other great prophetor otherwise great man that ever lived, he redeemed US and made us alive to God again.
Without that spirit were were not much different (although still in a category by ourselves) than "beasts" which differ from fish, which differ from birds, etc.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" seems to indicate that 'natural man' can clearly see and understand invisible things of God.
There must be a distinction in a man seeing invisible things of God and recieving spiritual things from Him.
A clear indicator, IMO, comes when a person thinks that 'spiritual things of God' are foolishness.
This, to me, also debunks TWi's BS teaching that "the ONLY way one can tell another person is born again is by hearing them speak in tongues."
It seems to me like a POSSIBLY clear indicator of someone not being born again is when they exhibit an inABILITY to recieve spiritual concepts. When they retort with "that's just foolishness."
You have to qualify that though, because a lot of what Christians (in general) believe about God IS just plain foolishness.
This is why, in general, I've come to completely back of even thinking about whether God communicates with OTHER people. Its hard enough figuring out His communications to ME, Bible or otherwise.
no one has really answered the point about whether man is a three part being or not. That is the crux of why I started this thread.
Haven't human kind had 3,500 years with the bible now? Is the three part being question that hard that human kind has not been able to decipher the cryptic language? This is a book written in language suitable to be understood by nomadic herdsman.
Recommended Posts
Jbarrax
Now you're gettin into DaVinci code stuff. But you raise an interesting question. One wonders why there's no mention of the Pharisees ridiculing Jesus for not having married. John the Baptist was an acetic, so it's understandable for him to be a bachelor hermit. But, compared to John, Jesus was a liberal hippie type (Behold a winebibber and a glutton!). So if he wasn't married by the age of 30 it seems the Pharisees would have criticized him for it.
And if he was married and left his wife and family to carryout the Lord's ministry, it seems logical to expect at least one of the Gospel writers to have mentioned it.
But all of this is based on fairly weak speculation about a long lost culture, as Oakspear has already pointed out. We don't know enough about hte details and mores of life in Judaea to say what would have been considered a scandalous lifestyle for a man of that era.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Oakspear:
"How do we know what the standards for membership in the Sanhedrin were? What is the documentation?"
I have it written down here somewhere, maybe someone can find it before I psot it? I know it comes up in the 'Biblical Archeological Review' that I subscribe to. You could probably also find it in your Bible dictionary.
"How do we know that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin?"
During Stephen's 'trial' the gathered sanhedrin gave their proxy-votes to Saul, for him to cast. They did it by way of each laying their cloak at Saul's feet. While we dont have a scripture that says when and where he became an elder, we do know that he was among the voting elders at stephen's 'trial' and that he cast the deciding vote. Therefore he must have been one of the sanhedrin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I no longer have a bible dictionary.
Laying down their cloaks = proxy votes? Also in the bible dictionary?
How do we know that he was a voting elder and that he cast the deciding vote?
Sorry, but just because Wierwille said it isn't good enough for me, and that's the only documentation that I've ever heard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
From one website [http://www.cogh.net/sslesson/acts9_1.php]:
From another website [http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0570Saul.html]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thanks for checking and posting the results
-->
It's all implication and assumption, but it well thought out implication and assumption.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I'm not speaking out in support of TWi's teachings. However there is scriptural support for man of only body & soul lacking the ability to communicate with God.
That is the New International Reader's Version.
King James says:
The Bible clearly says that the man of body & soul cannot recieve things from God without having the spirit of God in him. ie. "Christ in you, the hope of Glory." (Colossians 1:26,27) is a necessary element to hear from God as things of the spirit are known via the spirit. Without it we were born as living souls in a natural body, dead, "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Romans 8:10
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, (v:5) Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" Ephesians 2:5
However, there is nothing stopping God from communicating with man in other ways. There are many records of angels speaking to people, even taking human form.
There is record in Genesis of angels, (sons of God) even mating with human women. If angels can do all of this I have no problem with God actually speaking, as in audibly, to Jesus or ANYone else, because He has NO respect of persons.
An interesting supplement to this can be found in I Corinthians 15:
I Corinthians 15, in the context of the ressurrection, covers the concept of a distinct separation between flesh & spirit. It gets into distinctions between flesh & spirit, and even different kinds of flesh. Mostly it goes into great detail in establishing that Christ came, specifically to return to man the life that Adam had lost for all mankind.
It establishes how Adam who was of the earth became a living soul and in contrast to that Christ who was from heaven became a lifegiving spirit. We must exchange our corrupted bodies (corrupted by death) for new uncorrupted ones that will live forever, just like Christ's.
It makes it crystal clear that all faith in Christianity is based on the ressurrection from the dead, specifically Christ's as the firstfruit for all of us who follow him.
It is Biblical that natural man cannot recieve spiritual communication from God but that does not mean that God cannot communicate to man otherwise.
Jesus was a great student of the scriptures, he was constantly quoting them. He, as a 12 year old knew enough to amaze religious teachers for at least three days. (Luke 2:46) He knew them well that he had memorized EVERYTHING in the scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
With that kind of knowledge of the God breathed scriptures, how much would you need God to tell you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horse Called War
he would need to tell you alot.
He would need to fill you in on all the stuff the other prophets didn't know.
He would need to summarize the entire old testament into two laws - I mean his level of "thinking" was light years beyond anything exhibited by any of the old testament prophets.
Here is a guy that is balancing keeping the letter of the law but preaching above and beyond the letter of the law. That in itself is a paradox beyond comprehension. The level of dedication he would have had to understanding all the nuances of application would mean that he had to ultra careful and YET supposedly by the gospels he was "unconcerned" with a lot of the trappings of the OT or at least he came off that way.
And as far as natural man receiving not the things of the spirit of god - it doesn't say the man of body and soul - that is an interpretation of what the word natural is meant to convey. Why could that not convey "a man thinking unspiritually"?? Whether you have a connection with God or not you can still be a stubborn jack*ss. Look at the record of Eli and Samuel. Eli doesn't come off as looking particularly spiritual in 1st Samuel's opening chapters. This is just a point for discussion -
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I'm not mad at you. No it isn't. It is reading what is written and thinking.
It says: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
It also says: "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men , another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds ...
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power..."
"It (the one kind of flesh of men, that is not the same flesh of animals, etc., the body God gave) is sown a natural body."
It is raised a spiritual body.
God places his spirit inside our dead natural bodies, via the works of the second Adam, a life-giving spirit. That makes us alive to him, eternally.
This chapter is telling us how in the ressurrection our dead, natural bodies will be replaced by a new, spiritual ones, because our corrupt, flesh and blood bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."
God is telling us, in this passage, that the whole Christianity thing is about life and death, corruption and a transefer to immortality. Christ paid the price for all death (for humans certainly, I'm not sure about animals).
"...if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain."
I have no argument with people being connected to God being stubborn jack*sses. That classification can be hung on every one of us ALL at some point. There is nothing about being connected with God that changes people from being stubborn.
My point is that, post the ressurrected Christ, a person who is not born again will not be ABLE to recieve spiritual things from God. This does not stop God from commmunicating with them in other ways.
I believe that Romans 5:8-19 speaks to the "dead to God/ then alive to God through Christ condition too.
Some people just don't want to acknowledge the spiritual thing. That is what separates Christ from every other great prophetor otherwise great man that ever lived, he redeemed US and made us alive to God again.
Without that spirit were were not much different (although still in a category by ourselves) than "beasts" which differ from fish, which differ from birds, etc.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" seems to indicate that 'natural man' can clearly see and understand invisible things of God.
There must be a distinction in a man seeing invisible things of God and recieving spiritual things from Him.
A clear indicator, IMO, comes when a person thinks that 'spiritual things of God' are foolishness.
This, to me, also debunks TWi's BS teaching that "the ONLY way one can tell another person is born again is by hearing them speak in tongues."
It seems to me like a POSSIBLY clear indicator of someone not being born again is when they exhibit an inABILITY to recieve spiritual concepts. When they retort with "that's just foolishness."
You have to qualify that though, because a lot of what Christians (in general) believe about God IS just plain foolishness.
This is why, in general, I've come to completely back of even thinking about whether God communicates with OTHER people. Its hard enough figuring out His communications to ME, Bible or otherwise.
Good discussion though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horse Called War
it is a good discussion -
no one has really answered the point about whether man is a three part being or not. That is the crux of why I started this thread.
Haven't human kind had 3,500 years with the bible now? Is the three part being question that hard that human kind has not been able to decipher the cryptic language? This is a book written in language suitable to be understood by nomadic herdsman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.