Jesus thought polygamy is OK!

[GoodAttention]

The entire situation is hypothetical! The (wise guy) Sadducees created a scenario in order to trap Jesus into some sort of doctrinal error. The entire situation is hypothetical! Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." In other words, He knew what they were up to, and his response clearly uncovered their true motive. (It reminds me of some of the "wise" people on this forum!)

Happy to retract all my comments in this thread except #59

 

[jimb]

Now that I’ve read it again, what it sounds like is the vatna ceremony.

You are right, the ten virgin girls are mostly brides maids or friends who bathe the bride in oil in front of lamps lit by oil at night, so to make the bride appear more beautiful for the brides groom.

After this is done the bride and groom only see each other on their wedding day.

Banquet could be a mistranslation, and shutting the door to imply the Kingdom of Heaven is so beautiful it radiates even in darkness.

There is nothing in that parable that suggests that the ten virgins "are mostly brides maids or friends who bathe the bride in oil". Perhaps that takes place in the vatna ceremony, but it is clearly wrong to claim it has anything to do with a Punjabi wedding.

The ten virgins await the bridegroom's arrival to initiate the wedding celebration. They are the bride's attendants.

Matthew 25:6, “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ ... “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut." [25:10]

P.S. "Banquet" is not a mistranslation. The ceremony takes place in ancient Israel; it is not a punjabi ceremony.

Matthew 22:2, "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son."
Luke 12:35-36, “Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him."

 

[GoodAttention]

There is nothing in that parable that suggests that the ten virgins "are mostly brides maids or friends who bathe the bride in oil". Perhaps that takes place in the vatna ceremony, but it is clearly wrong to claim it has anything to do with a Punjabi wedding.

Wedding traditions in India are based on ancient traditions. Are you saying Jesus couldn't be referring to an Indian tradition that would have existed when he was alive?

The ten virgins await the bridegroom's arrival to initiate the wedding celebration. They are the bride's attendants.

I agreed with this.

Matthew 25:6, “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ ... “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut." [25:10]

P.S. "Banquet" is not a mistranslation. The ceremony takes place in ancient Israel; it is not a punjabi ceremony.

Who said the ceremony takes place in Ancient Israel?
Is there any custom for a groom to attend the brides home in the middle of the night?
Is there any custom to have a banquet in the middle of the night?

It is a parable, and Jesus is using an Indian tradition to make it. You think Jesus was so closed minded that he wouldn't use another cultures tradition to make a point?

Matthew 22:2, "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son."
Luke 12:35-36, “Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him."

This is referring to the son leaving the groom's home to attend the brides home, and then returning to await the wedding day. It literally follows the tradition of a vatna ceremony.

There is no English translation for vatna, pre-wedding party would be the best, but the translators opted for wedding banquet instead.

 

[jimb]

Wedding traditions in India are based on ancient traditions. Are you saying Jesus couldn't be referring to an Indian tradition that would have existed when he was alive?



I agreed with this.



Who said the ceremony takes place in Ancient Israel?
Is there any custom for a groom to attend the brides home in the middle of the night?
Is there any custom to have a banquet in the middle of the night?

It is a parable, and Jesus is using an Indian tradition to make it. You think Jesus was so closed minded that he wouldn't use another cultures tradition to make a point?



This is referring to the son leaving the groom's home to attend the brides home, and then returning to await the wedding day. It literally follows the tradition of a vatna ceremony.

There is no English translation for vatna, pre-wedding party would be the best, but the translators opted for wedding banquet instead.

The New Testament stories are set in the Judeo-Christian culture of 2,000 years ago. Period.

Jesus is NOT using an Indian tradition. That is nonsense.

 

[GoodAttention]

The New Testament stories are set in the Judeo-Christian culture of 2,000 years ago. Period.

Jesus is NOT using an Indian tradition. That is nonsense.

So he's talking about a Jewish king? Who sends his son out at midnight?

The only nonsense is you lack of knowledge in the history of the world, including Alexander the Great, Greco-Buddhist empires, and the movement of peoples across the known world 300 years before Christ was born.

Or it is your belief in a white supremacy and that Jesus was beyond using a parable about an Indian tradition?

 

[jimb]

So he's talking about a Jewish king? Who sends his son out at midnight?

The only nonsense is you lack of knowledge in the history of the world, including Alexander the Great, Greco-Buddhist empires, and the movement of peoples across the known world 300 years before Christ was born.

Or it is your belief in a white supremacy and that Jesus was beyond using a parable about an Indian tradition?

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, this discussion is OVER!

P.S. Jesus was Semitic, not "white"!

P.P.S. You are clearly semi-literate!

 

[GoodAttention]

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, this discussion is OVER!

P.S. Jesus was Semitic, not "white"!

P.P.S. You are clearly semi-literate!

So you don't deny you are a white supremicist?

That is putrid.

 

[jimb]

So you don't deny you are a white supremicist?

That is putrid.

a) I am not a white supremacist. (Which you can't even spell correctly!)
b) I won't discuss anything with you until you gain some sanity!

 

[GoodAttention]

a) I am not a white supremacist. (Which you can't even spell correctly!)

Thats how much I hate that word, but obviously you respect it enough.

b) I won't discuss anything with you until you gain some sanity!

Block me already.

To me you will always be a bigot who thinks Jesus came to save people who look like you and only you.

You should not be discussing anything with anyone but reading history books and no computer time until you do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Look at example in Matthew 25. Jesus is giving a parable. But in His mind, it is ok 10 virgin girls have one and the same husband:

"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.

“At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’"

“But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut."

I always assume the 10 virgins in the parable were bridesmaids.

Polygamy was lawful in Judaism until the 11th century. Rabbi Gershom ben Judah, also known as Gershom Meor Hagola, was a leading rabbinic authority in Ashkenazi (European) Jewry. He issued a decree known as the "Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom" (the Excommunication of Rabbi Gershom). This decree prohibited polygamy among Ashkenazi Jews and was widely accepted and enforced in Jewish communities across Europe.

Polygamy is still practiced by some Jewish groups, usually among the Sephardim or Mizrahim which are not bound by the above Cherem. Problems can arise when these Jews make aliyah to Israel, where polygamy is against the law.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So he's talking about a Jewish king? Who sends his son out at midnight?

The only nonsense is you lack of knowledge in the history of the world, including Alexander the Great, Greco-Buddhist empires, and the movement of peoples across the known world 300 years before Christ was born.

Or it is your belief in a white supremacy and that Jesus was beyond using a parable about an Indian tradition?

I can't see your logic. There is nothing white supremacist about seeing that none of Jesus' parables had anything to do with Indian tradition.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you don't deny you are a white supremicist?

That is putrid.

Absolutely nothing he said in that post shows an iota of White Supremacy. The very fact that he pointed out that Jesus was semitic (a Jew) and not white, kind of shows that he is NOT a white supremacist.

 

[GoodAttention]

Absolutely nothing he said in that post shows an iota of White Supremacy. The very fact that he pointed out that Jesus was semitic (a Jew) and not white, kind of shows that he is NOT a white supremacist.

That was emotive hyperbole that stems from a series of back and forth in comments.

Do you also reject my comment #59 where I draw a connection between Jesus parable and an Indian tradition only because it is Indian?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you also reject my comment #59 where I draw a connection between Jesus parable and an Indian tradition only because it is Indian?

In post #59 you wrote, "Now that I’ve read it again, what it sounds like is the vatna ceremony." Now this may simply be a case of translational difficulty. However, it sounds like you are suggesting it IS the vatna ceremony, which cannot possibly be true. Similarly, in your quote above, you don't really say there is a parallel between the two. You say they have a connection and that "It is Indian." Again, this cannot possibly be true, since Jewish culture developed independently of India, and Jesus never went to India.

If you were only trying to say it was LIKE the Vatna ceremony, that you are only trying to draw a parallel, that would be fine, although it would have been worded slightly differently.

 

[GoodAttention]

In post #59 you wrote, "Now that I’ve read it again, what it sounds like is the vatna ceremony." Now this may simply be a case of translational difficulty. However, it sounds like you are suggesting it IS the vatna ceremony, which cannot possibly be true. Similarly, in your quote above, you don't really say there is a parallel between the two. You say they have a connection and that "It is Indian." Again, this cannot possibly be true, since Jewish culture developed independently of India, and Jesus never went to India.

If you were only trying to say it was LIKE the Vatna ceremony, that you are only trying to draw a parallel, that would be fine, although it would have been worded slightly differently.

My confusion now is, what is the difference between IS and LIKE if

(a) Jesus is telling a story that is identified as a parable
(b) The King is never identified, stating specifically A King

Am I saying that Jesus is in India or even went there? Of course not.

Am I saying that Jesus, or more appropriate for Christians, one of his disciples, could have learnt about the vatna ceremony? Yes, of course!

I mean IF he is God he knows this anyway, and if not, what is so wrong that a traveller told another who told another who told a disciple? Perhaps he was telling this story because he KNEW one of his disciples would understand AND explain it to the others? We know certain disciples DID explain the teachings to others. I'm not a Christian and even I know this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My confusion now is, what is the difference between IS and LIKE if

Seriously? IS means that they are the same thing. LIKE means they are similar.

(a) Jesus is telling a story that is identified as a parable
(b) The King is never identified, stating specifically A King

So?

Am I saying that Jesus is in India or even went there? Of course not.

Excellent.

Am I saying that Jesus, or more appropriate for Christians, one of his disciples, could have learnt about the vatna ceremony? Yes, of course!

Do you realize how extraordinarily unlikely this is, and how it is not necessary in the slightest to understand the origin of the story? When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

I mean IF he is God he knows this anyway,

He's not God. God is not a man.

and if not, what is so wrong that a traveller told another who told another who told a disciple?

Oh please. It's just not a necessary explanation. The story is perfectly reasonable. Jews in Judea had weddings too. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is the most likely. In this case, the simplest explanation is the Jesus made up the story himself, based on his own culture.

Perhaps he was telling this story because he KNEW one of his disciples would understand AND explain it to the others? We know certain disciples DID explain the teachings to others. I'm not a Christian and even I know this.

Most of Jesus' parables are pretty easy to understand. For those that weren't he explained them himself.

 

[GoodAttention]

Seriously? IS means that they are the same thing. LIKE means they are similar.

So?

Excellent.

Do you realize how extraordinarily unlikely this is, and how it is not necessary in the slightest to understand the origin of the story? When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

He's not God. God is not a man.

Oh please. It's just not a necessary explanation. The story is perfectly reasonable. Jews in Judea had weddings too. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is the most likely. In this case, the simplest explanation is the Jesus made up the story himself, based on his own culture.

Most of Jesus' parables are pretty easy to understand. For those that weren't he explained them himself.

So let me see if I can understand your point of view

(1) The story is NOT based on an ancient custom foreign to Judea
(2) Jews in Judea had weddings
(3) The story IS "made up", meaning it is more likely Jesus CREATED a story rather than using a foreign custom

My questions to you are
(1) The simplest explanation is the most likely, which is to "create" something rather than "derive" from something that already exists?
(2) Which Judean custom for kings, or common folk, to send their groom out in the middle of the night?
(3) What is the significance of "oil", and "lamps", or do we use our trusted razor again and say there is no significance?

All I can imagine is the missionaries coming to India and telling this story, no wonder Christianity didn't really catch on...

Priest - ...and door was shut.

Indians - Wow priest! That sounds like our vatna ceremony! Wow, Jesus knew about that! Amazing.

Priest - NO! NO! It was certainly NOT Indian! You stupid pagans! You didn't listen to a word I said!

Indians - ......Buddy? ...Buddy? Are you %#$*&#! serious right now? My cousin literally did this ceremony last week. My sister is going to have hers in 3 nights time! You see all this oil and these lamps here, you think they magically appeared before you came and told us this story? Here is some advice...there is this wonderful place called Europe north-west from here. You must go and tell your "Savior of the WORLD" stories, they don't know about oil and lamps so you will be fine....

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So let me see if I can understand your point of view

(1) The story is NOT based on an ancient custom foreign to Judea

Correct.

(2) Jews in Judea had weddings

That kind of goes without saying.

(3) The story IS "made up", meaning it is more likely Jesus CREATED a story rather than using a foreign custom

Jesus created the story using what existed in his own culture.

My questions to you are
(1) The simplest explanation is the most likely, which is to "create" something rather than "derive" from something that already exists?

Creating a story within the context of one's own culture is a MUCH simpler explanation than saying there was some completely unknown foreign interaction from a culture over 2600 miles away.

(2) Which Judean custom for kings, or common folk, to send their groom out in the middle of the night?

There is no king in the parable. The idea in the story is that one can never know when the bridegroom will arrive. Sure it is more likely during the day, but something may hold him up. Thus the moral is, to be prepared in case the bridegroom arrives later than you expected. I don't think it takes rocket science to understand this.

(3) What is the significance of "oil", and "lamps", or do we use our trusted razor again and say there is no significance?

I realize that there are some people who like to think the oil and the lamps are a hidden code for something deeper. I don't think so. It's simply not necessary to make the story work. Having extra oil is simply how on would prepare for the possibility of the bridegroom arriving later than expected.

All I can imagine is the missionaries coming to India and telling this story, no wonder Christianity didn't really catch on...

Christianity didn't catch on? Surely you jest. I'm not even Christian, and I find this suggestion laughable. There are more Christians in the world than any other religion, a full 2.38 billion of them, or roughly 31% of the world's population. Compare this to 1.2 billion Hindus, or 15% of the world's population.

After this, your post deteriorated to the point where I could no longer understand you.

 

[GoodAttention]

Correct.

That kind of goes without saying.

Jesus created the story using what existed in his own culture.

Creating a story within the context of one's own culture is a MUCH simpler explanation than saying there was some completely unknown foreign interaction from a culture over 2600 miles away.

There is no king in the parable. The idea in the story is that one can never know when the bridegroom will arrive. Sure it is more likely during the day, but something may hold him up. Thus the moral is, to be prepared in case the bridegroom arrives later than you expected. I don't think it takes rocket science to understand this.

I realize that there are some people who like to think the oil and the lamps are a hidden code for something deeper. I don't think so. It's simply not necessary to make the story work. Having extra oil is simply how on would prepare for the possibility of the bridegroom arriving later than expected.

Last question from me -
So there is a custom in Judea where a bridegroom leaves his house, travels to his bride-to-be's house, enters a room with a group of girls and closes the door?

What is this custom?

Or are you saying it is just a "normal" Jewish wedding but the groom is late, and Jesus "created" the whole going into the room and closing the door part?

Christianity didn't catch on? Surely you jest. I'm not even Christian, and I find this suggestion laughable. There are more Christians in the world than any other religion, a full 2.38 billion of them, or roughly 31% of the world's population. Compare this to 1.2 billion Hindus, or 15% of the world's population.

I'm glad you are laughing, even if it is for the wrong reason. I thought it was clear that I was speaking from an Indian context, that is Christianity didn't "catch on" in India.

After this, your post deteriorated to the point where I could no longer understand you.

This part was written for anyone who is of an Indian background, or with a more open mind than yourself, no offence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Last question from me -
So there is a custom in Judea where a bridegroom leaves his house, travels to his bride-to-be's house, enters a room with a group of girls and closes the door?

I'm not sure why you find this odd. When I married, my hubby-to-be left his home, traveled to the wedding venue, entered its room, and the doors were shut. It seems perfectly ordinary to me, nothing that needs an explanation.