Theology Professor Says Jesus Was A "Drag King"...

[sid]

How did this person ever get appointed at a school run by Jesuits?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...queer-desires/

[Mark in Ottawa]

A contrasting view that I have come across is that Jesus was in fact married to Mary Magdalene. This would be consistent with the Jewish tradition that rabbis are expected to be married and the fact that she is mentioned often in the early gospels. I once put that question to a colleague of mine who had been an evangelical minister for a number of years but he was reluctant to comment. All he would say is that she was known to have hung around Jesus.

[bruce]

Re: The professor. He/She/It is welcome to their own opinion. However, he/she/it will need to explain the ease with which Jesus negotiated 1st century Israelie society which was overwhelmingly dominated by a Jewish world view that would not have been at all tolerant of any such perverted lifestyle. An appeal to an argument from silence will not suffice. To prevail, he/she/it will need to provide sources that will offer positive contemporary testimony.

There has been a stigma associated with Mary of Magdala ... i.e., Mary Magdalene ... since a Catholic Pope opined that she was a prostitute. The record of Scripture is that she was possessed of seven demons. Some postulate that this would possibly reflect multiple personalities, etc. There is no legitimate means by which one might of this information construct a narrative of Mary Magdalene as being a prostitute.

There have been any number of theories advanced that Jesus had a wife. There is no question that marriage was the virtually uniform norm of that era. Nevertheless, it must be noted that singleness was not unknown. No less a personage than John the Baptist, a central figure in the era, was of priestly origin yet unmarried. At no point was he ever linked in any way with a wife. A number of the disciples were known to be married, but that is not uniform. In no respect is Jesus ever described as married or even involved with a woman.

It must be noted that those hostile to him went to great lengths to discredit him. They watched him and his disciples closely and set numerous traps to seek to ensnare him/them as they saw Jesus and his movement as a threat to their own power and prestige. In the end, the reason they killed Jesus boiled down to the threat he posed for their power, authority and status among the people and with the Romans. If at any point they could have linked Jesus with any sort of immorality, there is no reason to suppose that they would have any scruples at inventing such a story to damage/destroy the character/credibility of Jesus.

It is true that rabbis typically had a trade. Jesus is described as a τέκτων, i.e., tekton which a craftsman working in wood, stone, etc., a joiner, builder, workman, etc. The assumption has always been that Jesus was a carpenter. Given the lack of wood and the abundance of stone in Israel, it is reasonable to consider that Jesus was a stone mason. This would make sense since his childhood home was located near major government building projects. This would have afforded both Joseph and Jesus significant opportunities given that the overwhelming majority of building was done in stone not wood. Whether he was a carpenter of stone mason ... he is legitimately called a
craftsman. Sincerely. bruce.

[TomSudz]

Another one who should be institutionalized. What part of SON doesn't he understand? Whare's the Spanish Inquisition when you need them?

[Vern Humphrey]

It is true that rabbis typically had a trade. Jesus is described as a τέκτων, i.e., tekton which a craftsman working in wood, stone, etc., a joiner, builder, workman, etc. The assumption has always been that Jesus was a carpenter. Given the lack of wood and the abundance of stone in Israel, it is reasonable to consider that Jesus was a stone mason. This would make sense since his childhood home was located near major government building projects. This would have afforded both Joseph and Jesus significant opportunities given that the overwhelming majority of building was done in stone not wood. Whether he was a carpenter of stone mason ... he is legitimately called a
craftsman. Sincerely. bruce.

In the early 4th Century, St. Helena was shown wooden plows, rakes and forks supposedly made by Jesus and Joseph.

[JB White]

Taking into account "climate change" there may have been enough wood around at that time to keep a woodworker/carpenter busy. Not only just farming implements. Doors, shutters, interior stairs, roof rafters... Let us not forget boat building, as that was once all carpenters work. If wood was considered scarce back then, scaffolding and archway supports etc would have been recycled. Therefore a craftsman would have been entrusted to the task. Lesser structures were made of(made with) wood in addition to stone and/or mudwork.
I think it's safe to say that if the writings leaned towards him being a carpenter instead of a tradesman in general, then that's what he was called at the time.

Fast forward 2000 years and the term carpenter applies to so many different specialties it's absolutely impossible to truthfully call someone a master carpenter. NOBODY can master every aspect of the trade in a single lifetime.

[bruce]

The usage of the term τέκτων in the first century is not so easy to pin down. The translation of carpenter very much likely reflects the world of the translator rather than the life situation of first century Jews in Israel. Obtaining large pieces of wood was problematic both due to the difficulty of transporting it and the distances over which it would have to be moved. Stone was literally everywhere.

Translations of the NT documents produced in the following centuries often reflect the assumptions of the translators. For example, the very popular King James Version which entirely supplanted most other English language translations that preceded it including the Geneva version translated λυχνίαν . . . lychnian . . . as candlestick. The correct translation would be lampstand since that was the method of lighting used in that era. The candle had not yet been invented. Nor could poor people have afforded it compared to the relatively inexpensive oil lamp. Translators acculturated to a world where wood was the material of choice for building due to being cheap and available would naturally use the word carpenter to translate the less than specific Greek word. Today looking critically at the NT era realities of Israel as well as they actual nature of local villages excavated by archeologist, the lack of evidence of large scale use of wood in everyday construction and the known evidence of stone being used extensively would support the thought that Jesus was a craftsman who very likely worked in stone. This would have necessitated some knowledge of working with wood simply to build common openings in buildings, etc., which would be true of masons working today. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[JB White]

Bruce, I see where you are coming from a bit more clearly now. It was in the back of my mind at first but this latest reply locks things into context. Therefore I bow to your education and experiences on the matter. My only real education on the topic came a very long time ago. A part of making my Lutheran Confirmation while studying under a Prof. of Theology from the local Lutheran Seminary.

I concur, contexts are lost through translation. Even our American English can be easily misconstrued when reading our own writings from generations prior. Given the KJV was translated by scholars a millennia and a half later, from several different writings in as many languages, and by those living in the world of the time with all its own influences. Take into account those earlier writings may have suffered from the same... All in all, I think they did a pretty good job of it. I choose to go along with their final product. I can wonder about it but I surely can't disprove it.

As an aside, do you recall a few decades back when cars were sporting "My boss is a Jewish carpenter" bumper stickers? I plastered one on the side of my main toolbox. The for me meaning was two-fold. We know the first reason, of course. Secondly, my boss's surname was Feinstein.

With that, I have absolutely no use for the likes of this Professor Liew or whatever it is. Free to an opinion. No right to be teaching that trash.

[m1ashooter]

Well I'd say this guy might be going to hell but I read that the Pope said there isn't a hell.

[clintonhater]

How did this person ever get appointed at a school run by Jesuits?

Those who appointed him, seeing clearly what kind of a freak he is, are the chief villains. Is there no oversight by the local bishop or other church authorities?