Published: Wednesday, Sept. 19 2012 7:35 a.m. MDT
Sharrona,I am confused. I can find nothing in my post that
addresses polygamy. Please reread it and let me know if I am in error.
Re: "New Christian gospel indicates Jesus may have had a wife"If it were actually important for us to know whether He did or didn't, I
suspect we'd have heard before now.In the meantime, why not
leave Him with a little privacy, and move on to important matters -- like how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin [the answer is 42].I'm supremely confident that if and when He thinks it's important
for us to know, we will.
TylerD: I am most appreciative of your feedback. You are quite correct in
assuming that I attended an evangelical Bible College here in the east, which
indeed teaches straight-up orthodox Christianity, with a high view of the Bible
as God’s Word, inerrant and complete.I have no qualms about believing the
Bible as being in fact precisely how God wishes for it to be. As I mentioned
earlier, believing in the Bible like this also is an act of faith, and faith is
a gift from God. I will not, however, get into discussions about various sources
or the mysterious “Q” or other such things; I do not need to prove
the Bible to myself. Regarding the so-called Gospel of Thomas; while there are
some scholars who favor an early date for its writing, according to my sources,
the vast majority of scholars favor the later date. With regard to your claim
of spurious authorship of the Gospels, I can only say that I respectfully
disagree. My faith in the Bible is in line with the finest and most brilliant
Bible scholars in the world, and I am quite satisfied with their research.
@jttheawesome"With all the various documents and manuscripts we
do have of the New Testament, even though we have nothing going back to
Jesus' time on earth, there remains a plethora of manuscript evidence, both
biblical and extra-biblical, that we indeed have an accurate transmission of
God's Word today."I am going to have to disagree. The
oldest New Testament manuscripts can only be dated to the third century A.D.,
unless you know of any sources that pre-date that and I am saying complete
sources not fragments of manuscripts allegedly written by an apostle. Since we
do not have anything going back to Jesus time on earth it is really presumptuous
to declare that Christ was not married just because it does not say so in the
New Testament. The Roman persecutions destroyed a large portion of early
Christian writings so we will never be able to say with certainty what
Christ’s marital status was.
RE: jttheawesomeI appreciate where you’re coming and I think
your approach of not trying “to prove the Bible” to yourself (and I
would add “to anyone else”) is a good approach. Faith and facts of
history or science should remain separate domains, lest someone’s faith
crumbles in the face of facts (as millions have since the Enlightenment Age).
I would only add that, with the exception of evangelical Bible
colleges, no mainline Christian seminaries teach that the Bible is
“inerrant” or error free. The Bible is filled with errors and
contradictions of all kinds; that doesn’t make it wrong as a tool of
faith. That said, I wish there was a distinct name for people who focus
primarily on the Bible as “the perfect book” (perhaps Biblians) as
opposed to Christians who simply treat as a nice collection of (even God
inspired) stories written by imperfect Iron Age men. If nothing else it sure
would reduce the cognitive dissonance in many people’s minds.
Another article in this very paper as a matter of fact, about Mary, states that
men were considered of marrigable age as of 18. He didn't start his
ministry until he was 30. Why wouldn't he have had a wife? Didn't he
also train to be a carpenter?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments