leov
Well-Known Member
We know that Essenes were one of three major groups, and there is no
no negativity shown regarding E. ; rather in Acts we see the first Christian group organized itself in E. pattern, fwiw.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
no negativity shown regarding E. ; rather in Acts we see the first Christian group organized itself in E. pattern, fwiw.
leov
Well-Known Member
Technically, yes.
I frequently misunderstand things.
Probably needs potassium.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Hmm, ... I'll look into that. Thanks.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Or he might have been a tzaddik. Cultural values and social expectations don't apply to tzaddikim.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
He was probably infertile.
The Jews, with their active attention to circumcision, knew a thing or two. They classified people into six genders:
1. Male
2. Female
3. Androgyne (both parts)
4. Tumtum (not really clearly defined)
5. Aylonit (Basically a barren female and/or someone who develops male secondary characteristics at puberty)
6. Saris (A barren male which may have some breast growth)
More Than Just Male and Female: The Six Genders in Classical Judaism — SOJOURN
The Saris appeared to have most of the rights of a typical male, with the exception of not being able to serve in the Sanhedrin, but generally in Judaism the purpose of marriage was not for "love" but reproduction. People who didn't seem likely to be able to do the deed were probably left out of the equation.
Now, why would he have been a Saris? Well, his mother effectively had no human male genetic material, and effectively was given a child through the same miracle as many animal species, parthenogenesis. Well, what do we know of parthenogenesis. It basically produces a clone of the mother. So if Jesus was essentially his mother's son, so to speak, identical in all aspects but the appearance of manhood, it stands to reason that his equipment probably didn't work.
The Jews, with their active attention to circumcision, knew a thing or two. They classified people into six genders:
1. Male
2. Female
3. Androgyne (both parts)
4. Tumtum (not really clearly defined)
5. Aylonit (Basically a barren female and/or someone who develops male secondary characteristics at puberty)
6. Saris (A barren male which may have some breast growth)
More Than Just Male and Female: The Six Genders in Classical Judaism — SOJOURN
The Saris appeared to have most of the rights of a typical male, with the exception of not being able to serve in the Sanhedrin, but generally in Judaism the purpose of marriage was not for "love" but reproduction. People who didn't seem likely to be able to do the deed were probably left out of the equation.
Now, why would he have been a Saris? Well, his mother effectively had no human male genetic material, and effectively was given a child through the same miracle as many animal species, parthenogenesis. Well, what do we know of parthenogenesis. It basically produces a clone of the mother. So if Jesus was essentially his mother's son, so to speak, identical in all aspects but the appearance of manhood, it stands to reason that his equipment probably didn't work.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Probably he shouldn't have been because:
- He was about to die soon, so that would be unfair
- He was fully God, and so God's direct offspring would be a superior race.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Brother. That question is a strange question. Say if there is no evidence that a man was not married, he would have been married? Maybe he wasn't married. Forget about all the faith matters etc, why ask the question why shouldn't he have been married? Well, why is it so necessary that he should have been married?
Well, there is no evidence that Paul was married in the bible! What do you make of that?
Anyway, why would you ask this question? I am sure you had something more serious than this trivia so can you explain?
Im sorry if I have not read through all the messages here.
I'm interested in why Christians in general think he wasn't married.
He wasn't a prophet.
Not really. Sorry to disappoint.
Baha’u’llah directly addressed Christian monks with regards to Jesus chastity.
“O CONCOURSE of monks! Seclude not yourselves in churches and cloisters.”........
He that wedded not (Jesus) found no place wherein to dwell or lay His head, by reason of that which the hands of the treacherous had wrought. His sanctity consisteth not in that which ye believe or fancy, but rather in the things We possess.”
Bahá’u’lláh
.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So you claim that all prophets mentioned in the Bible were all married and because that Jesus would have been married?
Is that your point?
No. I'm a Muslim. Islam says nothing about him not being married or being married. I don't care if he was married or not. But the bible doesn't say he wasn't married. And the Christians in general think he wasn't married. I am interested in why they think that.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, my post #52, especially the underlined part, says otherwise.
Tumah
Veteran Member
But the underlined part of the quoted passage is an a fortiori argument from nazir to fasting as an argument that a person shouldn't unnecessarily fast. It's saying that a nazir who only abstains from wine is called a sinner, so one who abstains from everything (ie. through fasting), is certainly a sinner. The only thing it's saying about the nazir is that he abstains from wine.
I don’t think he was, because he had the job to do, which would have made it difficult to have an earthly family.
He started his ministry when he was 30. He could have had at least one kid at 18 and the child would have been 12 by the time he began his preaching and 15 by the time he died. Sad, sure, but I can't really see a problem; dying at 33 wasn't exactly a shock back in the day.
Last edited:
She wasn't a hooker. Some pope pushed that nonsense centuries later. She was actually one of the main leaders of the early Christian movement, was one of Jesus' closest disciples who never deserted him (he even appeared to her first after his resurrection) and should be recognized as an Apostle instead of that usurper, Paul, who never even met Jesus outside of his "vision".
Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, scholars say. This is what she really was
No, eunuchs were a third gender category as well as a social function in Mediterranean cultures during that time. They were often castrated and sometimes took on feminine gender roles. The Ethiopian eunuch in chapter 8 of Acts was one of the first Gentiles to be welcomed into the Church. He was a treasurer of the Ethiopian queen.
Last edited: