• Most of the people who propose this theory suggest that Jesus’ wife was “Mary from Magdala.” Making a long story short, there’s absolutely nothing in the New Testament to suggest that (this) Mary ever even held hands with Jesus, much less married him.
• Let’s hear it for Logos. It is often suggested that Jewish men of Jesus’ day very rarely remained bachelors. However, in truth both Philo and Josephus (really our only major sources for first century Judaism) mention unmarried Jews. See Philo, Hypothetica, 11.14-17; Josephus, Jewish War, 2.8.2; Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.5. All three passages are about the Essenes, who were contemporaries of Jesus. Many scholars think that Jesus may have spent time with the Essenes for many reasons
• Sometimes, we’re told that Jewish Rabbis were always married. But … in truth, right in the New Testament, we have a prominent example of an unmarried Jewish Rabbi, and he was quite prominent — Paul.
• In GJohn, Jesus gives the care of his mother over to the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” He doesn’t give the care of anyone else — no wife, kids, etc. This seems to argue pretty strongly that none such existed.
• Nor does the Gospel of Thomas, which some have argued is quite early, support the married Jesus. GThomas mentions Mary from Magdala only once, in 114: “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. [emphasis added]” (I wish everyone who wants to appeal to GThomas as representing a more “real” or “holistic” or “inclusive” Jesus would read this passage!) My friend’s main reason for wanting Jesus to be married is that she felt that sexuality would make Jesus more human. This passage, if it offers anything at all, offers cold comfort — for what “normal” husband wants his wife to become male?
• The Pistis Sophia is a non-canonical, Gnostic gospel. Probably 3rd century, and Mary is the central character. MaryM is described in quite elevated terms (the “Pleroma of all Pleromas” — kind of like saying “the highest of all heavens” or “the most spiritual of all spiritual fullness”), but there’s not a word that suggests that she was married to Jesus.
• The Dialogue of the Savior, 2nd Century<, is a dialogue between "The Savior" and some followers including MaryM. MaryM is mentioned prominently, but is not described as wife of Jesus, nor is it even suggested.
• The Gospel of Mary — “Peter said to Mary, ‘Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know but we do not, nor have we heard them.” (5.5-6) Now we’re getting somewhere, right? Well, wait a minute. Because what’s more interesting is what the document (which is only fragments) fails to say. It doesn’t say that Mary was married to Jesus. And some disciples are quite upset that Jesus appears to Mary in a vision and not to them — and it seems hard to believe that they would have been so upset if she was his wife!
• Finally, we come to the big cahuna. The Gospel of Philip, which contains two passages of interest. The first is this: “There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.” The second passage is even more telling: “As for the Wisdom who is called ‘the barren,’ she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’ The Savior answered and said to them, ‘Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.” So… what does this prove? Well, I’ll just make two observations in passing. First, Philip is dated to approximately 250AD. Second, the disciples were mad that Jesus was spending time with Mary. Seems unlikely they would’ve been angry if she was his wife.
• Last, we should mention the so-called Desposyni — alleged blood relatives of Jesus. According to certain early church fathers, these were descendants of James and/or Jude, brothers of Jesus, who at times occupied positions of leadership in the early church. Apparently they were for a time an almost “royal family” among Jewish Christians. Yet… if Jesus had descendants of his own, wouldn’t his descendants have been much better candidates?

So, was Jesus married? Bottom line is that, even digging up the dingiest, worst possible sources, written by “Gnostics” who literally didn’t believe in the whole notion of “truth” as applied to the physical world anyway, 200 years after the fact — we still don’t have any evidence that Jesus was married. The best source to suggest he might have had a romantic interest in MaryM strongly suggests he wasn’t married to her. And there is quite strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that he was not married.

So, why might we want to believe that Jesus was married? Perhaps mostly because we can’t conceive that someone who is not married — someone who is celibate — is fully human. However, perhaps it was for this very reason that Jesus was not married. Perhaps, God wanted to show us, by example, that we don’t need to find fulfillment in another human being, but we can find our fulfillment in Him.

In response to your repeated statement that I am “welcome to send you text messages,” I must respectfully decline for seven reasons.

1. I sprained my thumb at the gym.
2. I have a visual processing problem that is aggravated by words without vowels.
3. After great prayer and contemplation (directed towards the giant spaghetti monster), it has been revealed to me that he rejects this proposal because one-way communications are an abomination.
4. The GSM also doesn’t like cell-phones because they rarely hold up well under marinara sauce.
5. Or al fredo.
6. As a senior philosofunculist on active duty (SPOAD), I’m troubled by the ontology of text-messages. What does it mean to be a text-message? Where do they come from? Where do they go? And, most importantly, where do the text-messages that are waiting for us to turn our phones back on live while they await the eternal and uncreated sauces of the GSM to rehydrate them and make them tasty?
7. Last, and least of all of these, because I am a great sinner, I don’t like texting. (It’s least because I’m a great sinner. I’m not a great sinner because I don’t like texting. Didn’t I just say that the GSM doesn’t like texting? yeesh.)

Instead of texting, I would like to suggest the following alternative forms of communication that will meet your primary requirements of (a) driving me crazy, (b) providing me with no useful information while getting you lots, and (c) avoiding the necessity of ever talking to me:

1. Dog sleds. It would work because: I would never get a return sled because [omitted] would keep all the dogs. Major problem: where to keep the dogs. No snow. Bonus: [omitted] would just love it.
2. Fax machine. It would work because: I don’t have a phone line. Would therefore have to go to Kinkos, and couldn’t really receive faxes very easily. Major problem: You’d have to get a phone line and a fax machine. Bonus: you’d make me use paper and pencil, which I hate.
3. Hiding messages in geocaches. It would work because: I can’t ever find the things. Major problem: neither can the kids, but maybe you can. Bonus: exercise!
4. Encrypt messages using a one-way hash algorithm. It would work because: it’s a one-way hash algorithm. Major problem: you couldn’t read the messages either. But does it really matter? You never do anyway, or, if you do, it’s like the proverbial tree falling in the proverbial woods. One would never know it. Bonus: it would drive the NSA crazy too! The NSA and homeland security could spend years looking for a terrorist plot hidden in our messages and never find a thing but “[omitted] had a good day today. [omitted] got ‘A’ in orchestra.” They would then start checking for steganography and possibly even make a sculpture out of it (see “kryptos”). Think of the jobs we could create, all right here in Northern Virginia!
5. Write wills on pieces of paper leaving $200 million to finder. Roll into a cylinder. Place in a bottle. Place bottle in Potomac river. Make finder happy until they Google me/you and find out that I/we/you are (a) alive and well and (b) have no money to speak of. It would work because: well, it would work as well as the one-way hash when you think about it. The goal is to think outside the box! Major problem: it seems kind of cruel to the poor schmuck in Northern California who finds my will 20 years from now. Bonus: lots of laughs at the expense of hypothetical poor schmucks in Northern California, who really deserve to be laughed at. Bonus points: setup website describing yourself as millionaire for purposes of making poor saps in Northern California fall for it harder.

The only problem I see with all of the plans proposed is that none of them really serves any of my needs or — I would argue as a senior philosophunculist on active duty — the best interests of the children, which are to have both parents actively involved in their lives. It should be obvious even to the most junior philosophunculist (or to the talented amateur in the arts of sophunculy, such as yourself) that one cannot be involved or make intelligent decisions without information. And I’m concerned that the GSM wouldn’t like the ill-will created by these plans, as it tends to make the basil go all foul and shriveled and burnt and spoil the whole plate. However as a SPOAD and minister of the GSM, I respect all world-views and points of view. Since our points of view differ I can only give you my best professional advice from within your perspective.

May the Sauce be with you, and all your phunculies align,

[omitted], SPOAD

Apparently, the ex never responded. Personally, I think this is just hilarious.

And the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions – Resembled, in some respects, the heads of lions. He does not say that they were the heads of lions, or that the riders were on monsters, but only that they, in some respects, resembled the heads of lions. It would he easy to give this general appearance by the way in which the head-dress of the horses was arrayed.

And out of their mouths issued – That is, appeared to issue. It is not necessary to understand this as affirming that it actually came from their months, but only that, to one looking on such an approaching army, it would have this appearance. The pagan poets often speak of horses breathing out fire and smoke (Virgil, Geor. vol. ii. p. 140; iii. 85; Ovid, Met. vol. vii. p. 104), meaning that their breath seemed to be mingled smoke and fire. There is an image superadded here not found in any of the classic descriptions, that this was mingled with brimstone. All this seemed to issue from their mouths – that is, it was breathed forth in front of the host, as if the horses emitted it from their mouths.

Fire and smoke and brimstone – The exact idea, whether that was intended or not, would be conveyed by the discharge of musketry or artillery. The fire, the smoke, and the sulphurous smell of such a discharge would correspond precisely with this language; and if it be supposed that the writer meant to describe such a discharge, this would be the very language that would be used. Moreover, in describing a battle nothing would be more proper than to say that this appeared to issue from the horses’ mouths. If, therefore, it should be found that there were any events where firearms were used, in contradistinction from the ancient mode of warfare, this language would be appropriate to describe that; and if it were ascertained that the writer meant to refer to some such fact, then the language used here would be what he would adopt. One thing is certain, that this is not language which would be employed to describe the onset of ancient cavalry in the mode of warfare which prevailed then. No one describing a charge of cavalry among the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans, when the only armor was the sword and the spear, would think of saying that there seemed to be emitted from the horses’ mouths fire, and smoke, and brimstone.

It’s pretty clear what Barnes thinks — that this is describing a 19th century Cavalry charge! Let those who see in the Revelation Helicopters and Nuclear Bombs take note. How much are we reading Revelation with our own 20th and 21st century perspectives intruding on the text?

However, this began to change as I got deeper into the Word. I began to sense a call to ministry, and specifically a call to teach. Moreover, God gave me a love for the New Testament that has never left me. Still, I had this gaping hole under the label “end times”. Everyone I knew and respected subscribed to one view at that time — the so-called “post-tribulation pre-wrath rapture,” a variant of premillenialism — and so I started studying with the expectation that that would be what I would end up at. However, I’m so constructed that when I study something, I study it deeply. So, I started reading everything, and my head exploded. Eventually, in order to bring some order to the chaos, I began to setup some principles by which I could evaluate all the different eschatological systems that were vying for my attention. I’ve added to and modified them over the years, but they’ve basically stayed the same.

1. The “Wile E. Coyote” principle. Why did Wile E. Coyote keep buying from the Acme Corporation? And why do we as a church keep subscribing to interpretive approaches that keep turning out to be wrong? If a theological approach has borne bad fruit again and again, the odds are that it will bear bad fruit for you too. (This is where a knowledge of church history really helps.)
2. The “No reading between the lines” principle. Many exegetical systems require that you suppose things that aren’t clear either in scripture or in the historical context. For example, many require a “gap” in Daniel’s 49 “sevens” of years. This is cheating.
3. The utility principle. It must allow “all scripture” to be “god-breathed and useful” (2Tim 3:16-17). Many schools of prophetic interpretation render Revelation entirely unintelligible until the 20th century. This doesn’t make any sense, because Revelation is part of scripture, and should be useful to the church in all ages. To say that it’s really about helicopters and Soviet Russia makes it useless to everyone up until 1975.
4. The “one in the hand” principle. A prophecy fulfilled is worth more than a prophecy yet to be fulfilled. Let’s face it, I can make any interpretation work if all I have to do is say, “well, that hasn’t been fulfilled yet”. If a reasonable study of scripture and history shows a way in which prophecy may already have been fulfilled, then that’s better than saying, “Oh yeah, it will be fulfilled sometime in the future.”
5. The humility principle. We must always remember that, despite their best efforts, the best exegetes of Jesus’ day didn’t see how the first coming was going to go down. I truly think that, when judgment day does come, we’ll all be astonished at how it goes down. In the words of N.T. Wright, we’ll all say, “Duh! So that’s what you meant!”

It occurs to me, having written all of these down, that there’s one I didn’t mention. Namely, it must be scriptural.

So, here’s the challenge — what are your principles for interpreting the end-times? What are your starting points?

I know now, from experience, that the path to joy winds through this dark valley. I think every well-adjusted human being has dealt squarely with his or her own depravity. I realize this sounds very Christian, very fundamentalist and browbeating, but I want to tell you this part of what the Christians are saying is true. I think Jesus feels strongly about communicating the idea of our brokenness, and I think it is worth reflection. Nothing is going to change in the Congo until you and I figure out what is wrong with the person in the mirror.

Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz, 23.

1. “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.” (Rev 1:1)
2. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Mt 24:34)
3. “But I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Lk 9.27)
4. “… do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is give over to the nation, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.” (Revelation 11:2) Vespasian’s army occupied Palestine for 3.5 years — from the middle of 67AD to the end of 70AD — before finally destroying the Temple.
5. “This calls for wisdom, let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.” (Revelation 13.18) In Hebrew, letters stand for numbers, just as they do in Roman numerals. If you add up the letters of Nero Caesar’s name, they add up to 666. But wait, it gets better! Some manuscripts read, “616″. (Don’t believe me, consult your bible.) Well, there is a variant spelling of Nero Caesar in Hebrew, which would add up to 616.
6. Daniel 9:24-27 (too long to quote). The seventy “sevens” of years can be construed to add up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, but not to “sometime after 2011AD”.
7. “And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, ‘As for these things you see, the days will come when there will not be left one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Luke 21:5) Luke goes on to describe wars, persecution, and the coming of the “Son of Man on a cloud with power and great glory.” But it all starts with the destruction of the second temple, which was destroyed …. when? 70AD. Then, for icing on the cake, Luke finishes up with his parallel to Mathew 24:34 — “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.” (Lk 21:32)

More furnished upon request.

Yes, of course they do. I know that. But there’s a method to my madness.

Recently I had a very interesting conversation with someone I’ll leave nameless, and she mentioned Heinlein’s critique of religion in general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular, in Stranger in a Strange Land. I loved that book when I was younger, and fancied that some of its ideas were practical before I got a little older and wiser. So, I’ve been thinking about it a bit. Heinlein’s criticism of the Christian faith seems to run on three points:

1. Christians are arrogant, pretentious, and … ahem … not very Christian.
2. The Christian God as portrayed in the Old Testament is not very moral.
3. The accepted “moral code”, particularly as it pertains to sex, is ipso facto immoral

.

I’m not going to deal with the last two right now, other than to say that I’ve given a lot of thought to it, and disagree. But the first I actually think has some merit. Frankly, a lot of Christians are arrogant, pretentious, and ignorant–in exactly the ways Heinlein portrays us. We believe that we and only we have the answers, and we lack humility and love. We don’t practice what we preach, and we’re sometimes just downright mean. There, I said it.

So, why is that? I think it’s because we’re no longer primarily a religion of converts–a religion of people who are answering a deeply felt need for what Christianity has to offer–but an “established” religion. The fact is that, in parts of American culture, you call yourself a Christian whether you are or not. You claim to be born again whether you’ve ever seen the inside of a church or not. And, even when you are part of a church, it’s more of a social statement, part of the perfect life with 2.4 children, the house on the hill, and the SUV, than a response to a heartfelt need for forgiveness of …

SIN.

Yes, brethren and cistern, SIN.

Christianity is a religion for sinners. It is a religion for people who aren’t satisfied with their lives, with the world as it is. It is a religion for people who don’t like the status quo, the way things have always been. It is a religion for people who hate evil, who hate every sort of evil, who hate sickness and ill health and bad weather and bad temper and stealing and lying and adultery and fornication and … the list could go on, but it is a religion for people who feel a deep sense of discontentment because these things exist. And… it is a religion for people who feel that discontentment particularly acutely because they know that they too are part of the problem. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1Jn 1.8)

I say we stop offering redemption to anyone else. If people don’t know they need Jesus–if they’re happy with their life as it is, and their current lifestyle, then let’s bless them in it. Because, when we arm someone who isn’t unhappy with their sin with Christian theology, guess what happens? They become the sort of judgmental pricks that Heinlein railed against, and they chase off the people who really need to hear the Christian message, because the people in need are “messy” and don’t wear heals and lipsticks and plastic smiles to church on Sunday morning. Get ‘em the hell out of the church. (Yes, I just cursed. Sue me.)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they will see God.” I have a good friend, maybe my best friend, who says we need to minister to the poor in spirit. I think one aspect of being “poor in spirit” is that the poor in spirit know that they are in spiritual need.


]]> http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/lets-not-offer-redemption-to-those-who-dont-need-it/feed/ 0 156squared http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/letting-go-of-anger/ http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/letting-go-of-anger/#comments Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:07:22 +0000 156squared http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/?p=39 ]]> I think the hardest thing to do, and the hardest thing to learn, and the hardest thing to maintain is the practice of releasing one’s anger at someone who has wronged you–no matter what they might do. It is so very very tempting to hold a grudge and say, “I’m going to stay angry at her until she repents.” It’s so very tempting to keep revisiting old wrongs and say, “if only she were sorry. If only she realized how badly she had hurt me.” We think that, if only the person who has wronged us will do something that it will somehow make things better.

The truth is that this is a cop-out. We are responsible for our feelings, just as we are responsible for our actions. We’re responsible to take control of our emotions, before they lead to bad actions, and we can’t afford to let that control be dependent on anyone else’s actions.

In the past, I’ve argued that the fullness of forgiveness cannot be had apart from repentance. There is truth in this (and the Bible backs me up.) However, that should never be used as an excuse for an unforgiving heart. We must love those who have wronged us, and release our bitterness, anger and rage under our own steam, before they repent, and even if they never repent.

The truth is that, when your heart is in that angry place, you would reject repentance even if it came. I’ve seen people do that: demand an apology before they would forgive, then, when they got the apology, still be angry. Inevitably, they decided that the apology was faulty. Guess what folks: the problem wasn’t the apology. The problem was that you hadn’t let go of your anger and decided to love your enemy yet!

Remember how the father acted in the parable of the prodigal son? How he ran out to meet the son and was overjoyed that he had returned, without ever seeming to care that the son had wronged him? That’s the place we have to get to… a place where we choose to just love them.

Now if I can just ever get there.


]]> http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/letting-go-of-anger/feed/ 0 156squared http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/matthew-1-1-25/ http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/matthew-1-1-25/#comments Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:24:37 +0000 156squared http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/?p=18 ]]> This chapter is, of course, mostly “begats” or in Greek gennaō. The thing is that these really are significant, of course.  Here’s a hint: there are only a few women mentioned–Ruth, Tamar, Uriah’s wife, and Mary.  What do they all have in common?

I had forgotten how much I love Greek until I got to verse 16, which in English is roughly, “Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus who was called Christ.”  I actually almost laughed out loud, even though there wasn’t anything funny.  Why?  Because in English translation this whole chapter just sounds awkward, and the translations sound… awkward.  It reads like a translation, stilted and formal, with a heavy Greek accent.  In Greek, it just tastes better.  It’s like the difference between homegrown tomatoes and vine-ripened tomatoes in January from the supermarket.  Is it the same fruit?  Yeah, I guess so.  Does it have the same nutrient composition?  The USDA insists that it does.  Do the $3/lb. “vine-ripened” tomatoes explode in my mouth?  No.

There’s another factor.  Have you ever noticed how, when some people meet someone with a strong accent they can unconsciously assume that they aren’t very smart?  That’s what we tend to do with the Bible in translation, but usually in reverse—we place it on this high and holy, lofty place where they speak a secret language that we can’t understand.  We make it stilted.  It’s easy to forget that the Bible was written in the common language of the day, but with great elegance and intention by some really smart people.  It’s easy to forget that it flows in Greek, because it often doesn’t in English.  The net result is it often becomes something to study, not something to read just for the joy of it.  Something we read because it’s good for us, n dry and flavorless and tasteless when compared to the original.

Not that I mind translations.  Shoot, my Greek’s not all that good.  But I’m truly grateful for the opportunity to read the original, and I really hope I stick to this little project.  I also enjoyed it that 25 verses placed me right at the end of Matthew 1.  I know that won’t happen every night, but it was nice to get off to a tidy start.


]]> http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/matthew-1-1-25/feed/ 0 156squared http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/a-journey-through-the-greek-new-testament/ http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/a-journey-through-the-greek-new-testament/#comments Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:55:49 +0000 156squared http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/?p=6 ]]> So I’ve been casting about for something to structure my Bible study, and had even considered undertaking the study of Biblical Hebrew (which I didn’t get in seminary).  The problem with this is that, to be honest, my hard-won New Testament Greek has been slowly mouldering under the weight of disuse for a long time now.  Does it really make sense to undertake another Biblical language when I’m losing the one I once I had?

The implied answer is no.

So, I’ve decided to read through the Greek New Testament in the next year.  According to Accordance, there are 7941 verses in the Greek New Testament (this could vary a bit by translation and/or edition.)  So:

7941 / 365 = 21.7

I figure I’ll read 25 verses a day just to give myself a little leeway.  What will be interesting is that I’ve forgotten a lot of Greek.  So, at first, I’m going to really have to work hard  just to get by.  Oh yeah, and I’m just doing it the old-fashioned way.  Matthew to Revelation.  No detours.

Wish me luck!


]]> http://preacherpat.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/a-journey-through-the-greek-new-testament/feed/ 0 156squared