Deuteronomy 12:32 - We agree to ignore it

[ExtraMedium]

....The bible would not have been silent such an important issue. However, this idea that Christ was married is not a new one. It's been suggested, but it has been so without any documentation.... So if he was married, and there is nothing sinful in it, why wouldn't it be well documented? one possible reason is that it does not matter. It's a none issue.”

See but you're contradicting yourself a bit Danus, saying first that if He was married, it would be important enough to document, and then stating it's a non-issue.

Either way, like I mentioned before. Just because it isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Means that if it was written, those at Nicaea decided to omit it. And that's what I'm trying to figure out. If all the texts indicating Jesus was married were omitted because they didn't want to portray him that way, then the Bible would be incomplete. And if it's not complete, then how could we really get to know Jesus if there are parts of his life that were omitted?

 

[Danus]

See but you're contradicting yourself a bit Danus, saying first that if He was married, it would be important enough to document, and then stating it's a non-issue.

Either way, like I mentioned before. Just because it isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Means that if it was written, those at Nicaea decided to omit it. And that's what I'm trying to figure out. If all the texts indicating Jesus was married were omitted because they didn't want to portray him that way, then the Bible would be incomplete. And if it's not complete, then how could we really get to know Jesus if there are parts of his life that were omitted?

I see. Well, then two things; 1 the council of Nicaea would have had a hard time omitting this even if they conspired to do so, because there where already tons of manuscript and writings and oral tradition of the life of Christ prior to. They would have had to collect and omit it all. 2 if purposely left out, why? It has no barring on the life of Christ, nor does it affect the good news. It would have been a major facet of Christ life however, and therefor important, but not important upon the message of Christ. What we need to understand better, I think, is that the bible was not written literally during this time. There is going to have to be reasonable proof that Christ was in fact married and i'm afraid it's just not there.

 

[farouk]

The first part of the verse says: 'whatsoever I command you'.

The divine authorship of the other Old Testament books and of the New Testament is not in question.

 

[Sinthesis]

See but you're contradicting yourself a bit Danus, saying first that if He was married, it would be important enough to document, and then stating it's a non-issue.

Either way, like I mentioned before. Just because it isn't in the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Means that if it was written, those at Nicaea decided to omit it. And that's what I'm trying to figure out. If all the texts indicating Jesus was married were omitted because they didn't want to portray him that way, then the Bible would be incomplete. And if it's not complete, then how could we really get to know Jesus if there are parts of his life that were omitted?

You mean perhaps the years from age twelve to thirty?

As far as marriage, there was probably a stigma associated at that time with 33yr old jewish bachelors that uninspired texts attempted to remove by erroneously claiming Jesus was married.

 

[farouk]

I really don't understand where ExtraMedium is going with his comments. It's good to stick with 'Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth' (John 17.17).

 

[rrowell]

It says in
Deuteronomy 12:32: See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.



Which I believe people interpret as saying, "You may not add to, or remove any part of the Bible". True? And I know this is said in other places as well (Psalms and at least another spot in the OT)



Theologians believe that Deuteronomy was written around 700BCE.


So that means, at the time it was written, NO other works could be added, right? So then why is the New Testament allowed to be in the canonized Bible since it was added after the death of Christ? And if the gospels of M,M,L,J were added, along with the letters from Paul and others... why not the other gospels considered to be gnostic? Just because they offer a different perspective than M,M,L,J doesn't mean they shouldn't also be considered.



If the council of Nicaea lead by Constantine, under the influence of Roman rule, canonized the Bible, then really it WAS added to according to man, thus ignoring what was written in Dt. 12:32 and other places.



Just looking for more perspective on this.


Happy new year all!

Here is one of the others you mention:

Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV)
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

but notice the part that says "add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it". the "word which I command you" (past present future)

This is quite clear He (the Lord) is not locking himself out of the rest of his Revelation to man... he did not relinquish command, he is still after this was penned in command...

All the Cannon were found to be written by inspired men, where the Gnostic were not.

Also we cannot forget about Providential Preservation :

Psalms 12:6-7 (NKJV)
6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words, [Like] silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. 7 You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.