SpaceMonk Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I recently heard a theory which has got me curious. I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but here it is: The gospels claim Jesus taught in synagogues, which, supposedly, 'only Rabbis are allowed to do'. He was also referred to as "Rabbi" by his disciples, etc. so it's probably safe to assume he was an actual Rabbi...? Except the thing is, supposedly, Rabbis had to be married men? So Jesus must have been married? Anyway, I don't know anything about Rabbis in those times or if any of these claims about them are true, so I was wondering if anyone here knows which of this is fact or fiction...? It seems too simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Silly rabbi. Crucifix is for sin! But on a more serious note, my understanding is that Jesus, if he lived at all, was just your run-of-the-mill faith healer, whose teachings got mashed together with a number of pagan rituals into the faith that we know today as Christianity. The alleged person of Christ, if he existed, has been completely lost through the passage of time, replaced by these parabels and stories that could not possibly have been written any sooner than 40 years after his alleged death on the cross. And in those times, that was an entire generation. If you made it 40, you were pretty lucky. So if these gospel writers existed at the time of Christ, they were pushing 60 at least. The only Christians sources that speak of a Jesus prior to the book of Mark are the letters of Paul, but nothing he wrote ever indicates that he's talking about an earthly figure. What's startling about the Jesus myth is that Jesus is uniquely earthly. Pretty much every other savior figure of the day existed in spiritual rhelms, and there's nothing in Paul's writing to indicate any different. So if your inferences about Rabbis are correct, then what you say might actually have some merit, but there's simply no way of knowing about the original person of Jesus, if he ever existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMonk Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Silly rabbi. Crucifix is for sin! But on a more serious note, my understanding is that Jesus, if he lived at all, was just your run-of-the-mill faith healer, whose teachings got mashed together with a number of pagan rituals into the faith that we know today as Christianity.... I'd agree on that, but I suppose my question is more about Rabbis of that time than the historical existence of Jesus, although the implications would question his story as it's told in modern christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jun Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The gospels claim Jesus taught in synagogues, which, supposedly, 'only Rabbis are allowed to do'. He was also referred to as "Rabbi" by his disciples, etc. so it's probably safe to assume he was an actual Rabbi...? I asked my friend who speaks Hebrew, this is his answer: Actually the Hebrew term Rabbi was originally simply a term of address something akin to master, or teacher. It wasn't always a term for a professioanl (ordained) religious teacher. In calling Jesus Rabbi, those around him were showing him respect as a teacher, not as a priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceMonk Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Actually the Hebrew term Rabbi was originally simply a term of address something akin to master, or teacher. It wasn't always a term for a professioanl (ordained) religious teacher. In calling Jesus Rabbi, those around him were showing him respect as a teacher, not as a priest. Ok. Thanks for your efforts. I thought it sounded a bit too obvious for no one to have pointed it before now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts