It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
I see the points you make but I would say that the similarities between both Apollonius the Nazarene and Jesus the Nazarene
are almost identical. However, you can't seriously make the point that miracles, healing, disappearing credited to Apollonius are black magic, but done by Jesus are not.
As you don't have one original text common sense can actually tell you, you can't argue you have authenticity. You don;t because what you have are copies of copies with a lot of mistakes and errors to boot.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV)
It should also be remembered that Paul was a Rabbi and carted his wife about with him
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. (1 Corinthians 7:8 NIV)
Regarding Paul, of course he had to be married simply because he was a Rabbi sent by Rome to persecute the Christians after he had voted in the Sanhedrin Acts 26 10 which, were he not a married Rabbi, he could not have voted.
You also have 1 Cor 9:3 - 6 where he openly questions is he not allowed to take a wife with him.
As for the rest of it, why have 34 flavors when you can't even get vanilla right? Try learning the basics of Christianity before you speculate on any in-depth subjects.
Rabbis who were attached to a synagogue were required to be married, traveling Rabbis (such as Jesus or Paul) were not required to be married and most often were not.
What's your problem with Paul having been married?
Can you back that up with a credible Jewish (non Christian) source?
Further in Jewish law, the European gloss of R. Isserles on the Shulchan Arukh OH 581:1 states that only one who is married may lead the congregation in worship - note that this is the Hazzan/Shaliah Tzibbur and not the Rabbi whose function may only have been to teach. (Source)
I don't "have a problem" with it, he just wasn't married.
Further in Jewish law, the European gloss of R. Isserles on the Shulchan Arukh OH 581:1 states that only one who is married may lead the congregation in worship - note that this is the Hazzan/Shaliah Tzibbur and not the Rabbi whose function may only have been to teach.
He also held that "it is permissible to now and then study secular wisdom, provided that this excludes works of heresy... and that one [first] knows what is permissible and forbidden, and the rules and the mitzvot" (Shulkhan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, 246, 4). Maharshal reproached him for having based some of his decisions on Aristotle. His reply was that he studied Greek philosophy only from Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, and then only on Shabbat and Yom Tov (holy days) - and furthermore, it is better to occupy oneself with philosophy than to err through Kabbalah (Responsa No. 7)
By the descriptions in the Bible, both Jesus and Paul would seem to fall into the second category. In Acts, Paul is described as a young man who is running all over the place persecuting the Christians, which is unlikely behaviour for the leader of a specific synagogue.
so why conclude that he was?
Because there is no reason to assume that Paul never married and every reason to believe that he was a widower.
"every reason"? There's absolutely no reason to -- there is no evidence that he was married, so all you're doing is assuming that he was.
On the matter of marriage, there is no question about the thrust of the rabbinic teaching on the part of those who reorganized Judaism after 70 c.E.: A Jewish male was under a religious obligation to marry and to have children; and furthermore, it was best for him if he married while in his teens, or, at the latest, in his early twenties.
On the other hand, even after 70 c.E., when this pattern was explicitly promulgated, there were significant exceptions to the general rule. It is true that Simeon ben 'Azzai is the only Tannaitic scholar of whom it can be said with relative certainty that he remained unmarried throughout his life. But there were regulations governing the behavior of unmarried men-an indication that such a group existed and that it was honorably recognized, even during the period of dominance by the "rabbinic pattern." (Source)
Unless there was a perfect division of males to females in the time, there would be people who were unmarried, and there is nothing to say that Paul wasn't one of them.
Again, zero evidence that he was married, period.
Elsewhere, Paul says that he was a Pharisee, a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5), and “extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” (Galatians 1:14; cf. Acts 22:3). Marriage was the norm for Pharisees, and it was required for rabbis (Paul was likely considered a rabbi). Paul could hardly have set himself forth as an exemplar of Pharisaical piety had he not been married (Fee, 288, n. 7; see also Harvey McArthur on “Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings”).
The cumulative case, therefore, strongly suggests that Paul was a widower. He was once married. But in calling him to Christ, God gave Paul the gift of celibacy (“a genuine gift of freedom from sexual need,” Fee, 287). Paul desires for everyone with this gift to use it as he has for the sake of the kingdom.
Lack of evidence doesn't reflect Evidence of absence.
Paul could hardly have set himself forth as an exemplar of Pharisaical piety had he not been married (Fee, 288, n. 7; see also Harvey McArthur on “Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings”).
Ben 'Azzai says, Whoever does not engage in reproductive sexual relations, lo, such a one sheds blood and diminishes the divine image, since it says, For in the image of God he made man. And it says, And you be fruitful and multiply (Gen 95, 7). Said to him R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, "Ben 'Azzai, words are nice when they come from someone who does what they say. . . . Ben 'Azzai expounds nicely but does not nicely do what he says." He said to him, "What shall I do? My soul thirsts after Torah, let other people keep the world going." (Cf. b. Yebam. 63b and Gen. Rub. 34: 14.)
Ben 'Azzai was never ordained, but there is no suggestion that it was his unmarried state which prevented ordination.
It is sometimes assumed that the story about Ben 'Azzai was recorded because he was the only unmarried Tannaitic rabbi. This
may be true, but the assumption goes beyond the evidence provided by the story itself. The story was recorded because Ben 'Azzai placed
himself in the paradoxical situation of condemning celibacy while himself remaining unmarried.