Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: I AM DISGUSTED! Message-ID: Date: 19 May 91 02:55:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 19 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: +I have always interpreted that Scripture in Matthew 199, which says +"made themselves eunuch's for the kingdom of heaven's sake." to mean +that this "eunuch" does not marry in order to advance the kingdom of +heaven. Maybe by "this teaching" Jesus was refering either to the +previous "two shall be one flesh" or the teaching on eunuch's. Or more in keeping with being inflamatory, throwing out the idea that one had to be married to be important. I believe to be considered a by jews of the time one had to be married. Which is how some people have argued about the marital status of Jesus as being married and being called 'rabbi'. Since the Bible doesn't mention Jesus' marital status anything is conjecture or dogma. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu