Was Jesus Married? Addressing Ben Masada

[Oberon]

In more than one thread he has begun, Ben Masada has claimed that Jesus must have been married.


Ben’s entire case for his terrible methodological process of “uncovering” Jesus’ wife by picking and choosing verses to believe, combining separate people into one, combining different scenes in the gospels into one, and in general violating every precept of historical research, is this:

If Jesus were a religious Jew, he would have been married.

Now, while I don’t expect Ben to actually address the arguments below, as he has a way of simply ignoring, altering, or writing off inconvenient facts, nonetheless I think it is important for any readers to be aware of just how wrong this argument is.

It is very easily to refute the basis for Ben’s argument, as Jesus was hardly the only “religious Jew” who chose celibacy. Below I will go over some very clear examples of religious Jews who refrained from marriage.


1. The Essenes:


We have testimony on the celibacy of the Essenes from several sources, two Jewish and one Roman historian. This is important, as this group was around during Jesus’ day, and if they were the only example of religious Jews who chose celibacy, then that would be enough to prove the basis for Ben’s argument as completely false.

A) Josephus

Josephus discusses the Essenes (Ἐσσηνοὶ) in his book De Bello Judiaco 2.8.2. He describes them as a group of Jews, and praises them as having greater love for one another (φιλάλληλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλέο&#957. Most importantly, he not only says that they do not marry (καὶ γάμου μὲν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὑπεροψί&#945, but that in fact they choose other children (rather than having sex) to continue their communities.

B) Philo

The other Jewish source for the Essenes is Philo’s Hypothetica. Philo states here that the Essenes banned marriage all together.

C) Pliny the Elder

Pliny the Elder also mentions the Essenes in his Naturalis Historia. Like Philo and Josephus, he describes these Jews as refraining from marriage (sine ulla femina) and sex.

2. The Therapeutae


Philo also discusses another group in his work De Vita Contemplativa: The Therapeutae. Not all of these Jews are unmarried, but Philo does discuss that many are not only unmarried but abstinent.

3) Jeremiah

The Jewish prophet Jeremiah (certainly a religious Jew) was also unmarried. In Jer. 16.1-4, he specifically describes that god told him not to marry.

4) The Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai

Interestingly enough, considering Ben’s insistence that because Jesus was called rabbi he had to have been married (even though the term during Jesus’ day meant something completely different) we actually HAVE information of a REAL rabbi (by that I mean a rabbi in rabbinic Judaism) who was unmarried. The Babylonia Talmud (see particularly b. Yebam) relates the tradition that this rabbi, while advocating marriage, himself remained unmarried.



It is no wonder, given these examples, that one of the foremost Jewish scholars of ancient Judaism (G. Vermes) in his work Jesus the Jew has no problem imagining that Jesus was an unmarried, celibate Jew.

Given that the above evidence completely eradicates any case Ben ever thought he had for the idea that Jesus as a “religious Jew” had to have been married, there is no further impetus for him to completely misrepresent the NT and to engage in the worst possible textual interpretation and historical inquiry.

 

[Dunemeister]

Q. E. D.

 

[IF_u_knew]

It is very easily to refute the basis for Ben’s argument, as Jesus was hardly the only “religious Jew” who chose celibacy. Below I will go over some very clear examples of religious Jews who refrained from marriage.


1. The Essenes:


We have testimony on the celibacy of the Essenes from several sources, two Jewish and one Roman historian. This is important, as this group was around during Jesus’ day, and if they were the only example of religious Jews who chose celibacy, then that would be enough to prove the basis for Ben’s argument as completely false.

A) Josephus

Josephus discusses the Essenes (Ἐσσηνοὶ) in his book De Bello Judiaco 2.8.2. He describes them as a group of Jews, and praises them as having greater love for one another (φιλάλληλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλέο&#957. Most importantly, he not only says that they do not marry (καὶ γάμου μὲν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὑπεροψί&#945, but that in fact they choose other children (rather than having sex) to continue their communities.

Sounds like the Christians, no? "... they choose *other* children (rather than *insert: the natural way*) to continue their communities." So true!! Josephus, having the mind of a Jew wrote this out just so, I bet.. it would be of the mind of a Jew to do so (which you do NOT have, so no worries that their brilliant writings escape you so).

This, however it testifies to the Christian mindset, does not at all support your dogmatic claim that Jesus was not married. Not even a little bit.

B) Philo

The other Jewish source for the Essenes is Philo’s Hypothetica. Philo states here that the Essenes banned marriage all together.

See above.

C) Pliny the Elder

Pliny the Elder also mentions the Essenes in his Naturalis Historia. Like Philo and Josephus, he describes these Jews as refraining from marriage (sine ulla femina) and sex.

Same thing. Geez.. I thought you said you HAD evidence that supports your claim to the Christian's Jesus.

2. The Therapeutae


Philo also discusses another group in his work De Vita Contemplativa: The Therapeutae. Not all of these Jews are unmarried, but Philo does discuss that many are not only unmarried but abstinent.

That's err.. great, I guess! And this has WHAT to do with Jesus?

3) Jeremiah

The Jewish prophet Jeremiah (certainly a religious Jew) was also unmarried. In Jer. 16.1-4, he specifically describes that god told him not to marry.

1. You leave out *in this place*
2. Even if it was a total ban on his being married, he was a prophet and not a Rabbi (a teacher of Torah).

4) The Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai

Interestingly enough, considering Ben’s insistence that because Jesus was called rabbi he had to have been married (even though the term during Jesus’ day meant something completely different) we actually HAVE information of a REAL rabbi (by that I mean a rabbi in rabbinic Judaism) who was unmarried. The Babylonia Talmud (see particularly b. Yebam) relates the tradition that this rabbi, while advocating marriage, himself remained unmarried.

Ha! I am now thoroughly convinced of the agenda you want us to believe you do not have. You have made your MAJOR blunder here. You do not have information of a REAL rabbi who was unmarried... only a student who was so devoted to his studies, that the title was allowed as honorary, but never was he actually a REAL (so dramatically written that you must feel embarrassed, no?) Rabbi... I wonder why.



It is no wonder, given these examples, that one of the foremost Jewish scholars of ancient Judaism (G. Vermes) in his work Jesus the Jew has no problem imagining that Jesus was an unmarried, celibate Jew.

Given that the above evidence completely eradicates any case Ben ever thought he had for the idea that Jesus as a “religious Jew” had to have been married, there is no further impetus for him to completely misrepresent the NT and to engage in the worst possible textual interpretation and historical inquiry.

So... still waiting for your evidences that JESUS was not married. There are even more evidences in your above attempt to show you are biased in your view and have only been searching for ways to manipulate information to support your biased view.

You show no knowledge of Rabbis in the first century and certainly no understanding of the Jewish mindset. If you did, you would see that some of the teachings attributed to Jesus are most likely a compilation of the enlightened teachings of the Rabbis of the time.

You claim that Luke is the most accurate account. Okay, well the account in Luke of the "sinner" anointing Jesus, the onlookers upset by it, and Jesus commending HER faith in him is so close to an actual account of a Rabbi, his wife, and his students that it begs the question... how do you claim to be an authority of knowledge when you so clearly lack it?

This particular Rabbi told those who tried to hold back his wife (who they mistakenly thought was just some poor beggar woman) that they and he were to credit HER for his teachings because it was she who believed in him so wholly that she sacrificed her wealth and supported his education and enlightenment in more ways than one, even having her family turn their back on her. (I wonder... before I share any names, does it ring any bells being that you are SO well studied?)

Again, read the account at the end of Luke 7 and then flip on over to the beginning of Luke 8. THAT, oh not wise one, is what is called evidences. Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married (and that Mary M was the same as the Mary from Bethany). You show only that you lack the brilliant mindset of the Jewish and how it is they write. The NT has NO evidences of his not being married and more than a few to show he was.

No matter how many times you say it, you have only proved to me over and again that you have a Christian agenda... the above, that you were SO biased to even piece UNRELATED materials together with your dogmatic claim trying to say it is proof that YOU know, tells me you are being manipulative. Your emotional ties are showing. :yes:

 

[Dunemeister]

Again, read the account at the end of Luke 7 and then flip on over to the beginning of Luke 8. THAT, oh not wise one, is what is called evidences. Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married (and that Mary M was the same as the Mary from Bethany). You show only that you lack the brilliant mindset of the Jewish and how it is they write. The NT has NO evidences of his not being married and more than a few to show he was.

Yes, let's read:

One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him—that she is a sinner.’

Jesus spoke up and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’

‘Teacher,’ he replied, ‘speak.’

‘A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’

Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’

And Jesus said to him, ‘You have judged rightly.’ Then turning towards the woman, he said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.’ Then he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’

But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’

And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’

Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.
Luke 7:36 - 8:3

First of all, it may be the case that rabbis have told stories similar to this with the woman involved being his wife. I'm not qualified to judge (and I'm not convinced yet of yours). That said, THIS PASSAGE shows no indication that Jesus was married to the woman. All the end of the passage (after "Soon afterwards") shows is that several women accompanied Jesus as part of his entourage. How you get from this to Jesus being married to one of them is a mystery to me.

Moreover, the passage seems to indicate that Jesus' host knew the woman in question. There was no case of mistaken identity. And I'm sure that if an actual rabbi were in the very room where his wife was being accused of being such a notorious sinner (i.e., a prostitute) that she should not be permitted at table, there would have been no small row. In short, making out the woman as Jesus' wife does violence to the context and the obvious pastoral point being made.

No matter how many times you say it, you have only proved to me over and again that you have a Christian agenda... the above, that you were SO biased to even piece UNRELATED facts to try to prove your dogmatic claim, tells me you are being manipulative. Your emotional ties are showing. :yes:

I'm reminded of a proverb involving pots and kettles....

 

[Dunemeister]

Just a quick point about IF_u_knew's inserted comments about the OP. Ben Masada has tried to argue that Jesus must have been married because every good rabbi is married. The point of the OP was to show that it is perfectly possible for a first century Jew to be both a rabbi and unmarried. His citation of the Essenes, the Therapeutae, and a rabbi from a later century are exactly on point, which is more than can be said for your "rebuttal".

 

[IF_u_knew]

Just a quick point about IF_u_knew's inserted comments about the OP. Ben Masada has tried to argue that Jesus must have been married because every good rabbi is married. The point of the OP was to show that it is perfectly possible for a first century Jew to be both a rabbi and unmarried. His citation of the Essenes, the Therapeutae, and a rabbi from a later century are exactly on point, which is more than can be said for your "rebuttal".

Only for one with the biased view toward Christianity. You have wholly ignored what I posted because it suits your biased view to do so. He has given NO evidences and I have given an ACTUAL account of a REAL Rabbi from that time period (which he, the Christian in disguise, did NOT do) whose story mirrors the one of the woman and Jesus in Luke 7 and how the actual account testifies to the validity of Mary in Luke 8 being one and the same as the "sinner" woman.

But Truth will never be acknowledged by those whose intent it is to smear Judaism to rather promote Christianity because they believe themselves to be the replacement; no matter how rational the Truth actually is. Still, it doesn't negate that his are speculations with no real ties to reality. That he dogmatically states Jesus was not married only goes to show what his secret is... that he has emotional ties to Christianity. :yes:

 

[Oberon]

So... still waiting for your evidences that JESUS was not married.

This thread wasn't to address that. It was only to address the basis for Ben's argument. However, given that he is never described as being married, he is never followed by one women in particular (but several different women), and he specifically promotes celibacy, to argue that he WAS married is to argue something for which there is NO evidence.

There are even more evidences in your above attempt to show you are biased in your view and have only been searching for ways to manipulate information to support your biased view.

For example?

You show no knowledge of Rabbis in the first century and certainly no understanding of the Jewish mindset.

You see, unlike you, when I make a claim, I can back it up. "Rabbis" as they are described in later rabbinic literature did not exist during Jesus' day. The term rabbi was simply a respectful title for teacher, but it did not carry the same weight it did later (long after Jesus).

John specifically tells us what "rabbi" means: οι δε εἶπον αυτω· ραββί· ὃ λέγεται μεθερμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε/"and they said to him, 'rabbi' which, being translated, means "teacher."

The same gospel also records that John the Baptist was called "rabbi" (Jn 3:26) and he was also unmarried.

Matthew (23:7-8) also indicates that "rabbi" was used simply as a form of honorific address, not the specific position it refers to in later rabbinic judaism: καὶ τοὺς ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ καλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ῥαββί ῥαββί ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββί· εἶς γάρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ὁ Χριστός· πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε/and greetings in the agora/town center and to be called by men 'rabbi, rabbi.' But you (pl.) should not be called "rabbi." For one of you is the teacher, the christ, and all of you are brothers.

In none of the descriptions of Judaism of the first century (or prior) do we here anything about the rabbis of later days. Rabbi/רבי comes from the hebrew word for great/chief/master (רב) with the pronominal suffix meaning "my." There is no literature on "rabbis" as official positions within judaism until long after Jesus. Philo, Josephus, and others describe Jewish movements like the pharisees, sadducees, essenes, etc, yet no one says anything about "rabbis" until much later literature. They simply didn't exist.

If you did, you would see that some of the teachings attributed to Jesus are most likely a compilation of the enlightened teachings of the Rabbis of the time.

Right. Out of curiosity, have you read any scholarship on 2nd temple judaism?

You claim that Luke is the most accurate account.

No, I don't. I claim that he was the most self-consciously historical.

Okay, well the account in Luke of the "sinner" anointing Jesus, the onlookers upset by it, and Jesus commending HER faith in him is so close to an actual account of a Rabbi, his wife, and his students that it begs the question... how do you claim to be an authority of knowledge when you so clearly lack it?

If she were his wife, why would onlookers be upset?


You keep talking about my lack of knowledge, and yet you have brought forth nothing to to show Jesus was married

This particular Rabbi told those who tried to hold back his wife (who they mistakenly thought was just some poor beggar woman)

that they and he were to credit HER for his teachings because it was she who believed in him so wholly that she sacrificed her wealth and supported his education and enlightenment in more ways than one, even having her family turn their back on her. (I wonder... before I share any names, does it ring any bells being that you are SO well studied?)

Talk about reading into a text what isn't there. None of this happens. Jesus never says "no, Simon, actually this is my wife." Instead he talks about about forgiveness, and sends the woman on her way. Sounds a lot like a marriage.

The NT has NO evidences of his not being married and more than a few to show he was.

The reverse. No where is there any mention of Jesus being married, or any suggestion that he has a wife, but we do have teachings of his which promote celibacy.

No matter how many times you say it, you have only proved to me over and again that you have a Christian agenda

That is probably because you have never read much scholarship in the field of historical Jesus research.

that you were SO biased to even piece UNRELATED materials together

Hardly unrelated. The evidence shows that, contra Ben Masada, religious Jews during Jesus' day, before his day, and even during rabbinic Judaism, could be celibate and unmarried.

 

[Oberon]

Only for one with the biased view toward Christianity.

Or towards evidence.

You have wholly ignored what I posted because it suits your biased view to do so.

I addressed your post.

He has given NO evidences and I have given an ACTUAL account of a REAL Rabbi from that time period

They weren't there. The rabbis as we know them date from a period after the destruction of the temple.

whose story mirrors the one of the woman and Jesus in Luke 7 and how the actual account testifies to the validity of Mary in Luke 8 being one and the same as the "sinner" woman.

Read some NT scholarship before you make such foolish statements. The gospels (particularly the synoptics) weave together various independent oral traditions into an overall narrative, the chronology of which is largely superimposed.

That he dogmatically states Jesus was not married only goes to show what his secret is... that he has emotional ties to Christianity. [/quote]
Or to NT and historical Jesus scholarship. From across the spectrum of religious backgrounds (Jewish scholars like Vermes, agnostics like Ehrman, opponents to mainstream christianity like B. Mack, and whatever Crossan is), and across the spectrum of beliefs about historical Jesus, somehow all of them have missed what is so clear to you. Because all of them seem to think it is very clear Jesus wasn't married.

 

[IF_u_knew]

If she were his wife, why would onlookers be upset?
Talk about reading into a text what isn't there. None of this happens. Jesus never says "no, Simon, actually this is my wife." Instead he talks about about forgiveness, and sends the woman on her way. Sounds a lot like a marriage.

When she reached him she prostrated herself and started kissing his feet. His disciples started pushing her away. He said to them: "Let her be! What both I and you have is hers." Which is to say, knowing the facts about this particular Rabbi and his wife and what all she sacrificed so that he could go study under the most influential RABBIS of the time, she is the reason they were even able to have the enlightenment. There is nothing to say that in THIS ACTUAL account, he identified her TO THEM as his wife, either.. though historically, we know she was.

Now, who is this rabbi? That you have not made this connection with the account in Luke 7 followed by Luke 8 is astounding coming from one who claims to be so studied up as you are concerning these topics.

(that Josephus made sure to identify the group who was abstaining from marriage is only a Jewish way to say, this is not where the truth can be found. The Jewish mind and "language" in which they write is so above your own mindset that is becoming quite amusing as your true agenda continues to emerge with each post you write on this forum).

I am fully aware that you will continue to argue from your less than pristine mindset and try to use a sect of people who Jesus was not a part of to validate your claim... I only wanted to post my views regarding your poorly thought out OP. Now, I will just be content to laugh at your attempts on the whole of this forum to deny your emotional ties to Christianity while the Christians continue to high five you for your lack of understanding the Jewish mind. :yes:

 

[Oberon]

Nice that you avoided addressing the bulk of both my posts. Too hard to address?

When she reached him she prostrated herself and started kissing his feet. His disciples started pushing her away. He said to them: "Let her be! What both I and you have is hers."

This does not happen in the anointing in Luke 7. In fact, it doesn't happen at all in the gospels.

Which is to say, knowing the facts about this particular Rabbi

I notice you addressed nothing I said about the lack of "rabbis" in Jesus' day, or what the term actually meant at that time. Can you produce a shred of scholarship to support your assertion that "rabbis" existed at that time?

There is nothing to say that in THIS ACTUAL account, he identified her TO THEM as his wife, either.. though historically, we know she was.

Somehow this tidbit has been missed by every expert in historica Jesus studies. And by we, you mean everyone who is as equally ignorant of second temple judaism, historical Jesus scholarship, and NT scholarship as you are?

Now, who is this rabbi? That you have not made this connection with the account in Luke 7 followed by Luke 8 is astounding coming from one who claims to be so studied up as you are concerning these topics.

That you have no idea on the largely manufactured chronology imposed on seperate oral traditions within the Jesus tradition speaks volumes.

(that Josephus made sure to identify the group who was abstaining from marriage is only a Jewish way to say, this is not where the truth can be found. The Jewish mind and "language" in which they write is so above your own mindset that is becoming quite amusing as your true agenda continues to emerge with each post you write on this forum).

Very amusing. "A jewish way to say, this is not where the truth can be found." Did you read Josephus' account? Because he doesn't say this at all. In fact, he praises the Essenes.

I am fully aware that you will continue to argue from your less than pristine mindset and try to use a sect of people who Jesus was not a part of to validate your claim

I will use Jews contemporary to Jesus to validate the claim that religious Jews were not always married. I will use Jesus' teachings and the complete lack of any reference to a wife as evidence that Jesus was also not married. And this is what plenty of non-christian experts in this field (again, including perhaps the foremost Jewish scholar of ancient Judaism G. Vermes) have concluded.

... I only wanted to post my views regarding your poorly thought out OP.

You should have read it better, as your responses did not address the point I was making. Nor are your views representative of any scholarship (jewish, christian, agnostic, etc) on either Jesus or on 2nd temple Judaism.

Now, I will just be content to laugh at your attempts on the whole of this forum to deny your emotional ties to Christianity while the Christians continue to high five you for your lack of understanding the Jewish mind.

I've been castigated by plenty of christians for my denial that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, that they birth narratives are legends and do not represent history, and for any number of other things. And I will take the end of your post as simply your acknowledgment that you lack the relevent knowledge with which to refute any of my evidence. This is completely understandable, as all of the experts in this area agree with me in this point.

If only U knew...

 

[Dunemeister]

Only for one with the biased view toward Christianity. You have wholly ignored what I posted because it suits your biased view to do so. He has given NO evidences and I have given an ACTUAL account of a REAL Rabbi from that time period (which he, the Christian in disguise, did NOT do) whose story mirrors the one of the woman and Jesus in Luke 7 and how the actual account testifies to the validity of Mary in Luke 8 being one and the same as the "sinner" woman.

I've ignored nothing. See post #4.

But Truth will never be acknowledged by those whose intent it is to smear Judaism to rather promote Christianity because they believe themselves to be the replacement; no matter how rational the Truth actually is. Still, it doesn't negate that his are speculations with no real ties to reality. That he dogmatically states Jesus was not married only goes to show what his secret is... that he has emotional ties to Christianity. :yes:

Who's trying to smear Judaism? Certainly neither I nor Oberon. And neither I nor Oberon see Christianity as a replacement for Judaism.

Christians dogmatically assert Jesus was not married because all our traditions about him say he was unmarried. If Christian tradition affirmed that he was married, that would have done no violence to the Christian message or our view of Christ; so there's nothing in it for us to press his singleness if he were not single. We assert it's so because it is so, not because we need it to be so.

Finally, your constant rants about "emotional ties" to this or that are a double-edged sword. One can only deduce from the vehemence of your attacks that you have "emotional ties to Judaism." Obviously this emotional tie is blinding you to the truth, right? (If not, why is it a problem for Oberon or me?) All this means is that one person is passionate about X while another is passionate about Y. So what?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Christians dogmatically assert Jesus was not married because all our traditions about him say he was unmarried.

Perfect! You know what Dunemeister.. this I *can* accept. According to your traditions.. therefore, it is not according to the Jewish traditions based on the Torah (which Genesis 1 and 2 are both a part of). Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus is from hellenistic beliefs and not Jewish beliefs. Christianity IS its own separate religion and the NT can FINALLY be detached from the foundation which does not support it; that would be the Tanakh.

Finally, your constant rants about "emotional ties" to this or that are a double-edged sword. One can only deduce from the vehemence of your attacks that you have "emotional ties to Judaism."

Oh.. make no mistake. It is not a double edged sword for I wholly admit my emotional ties to Judaism. The People of are the only ones who ever supported and fully encouraged my ability to think and decipher Truth from the lies with my own mind... even before I realized it was within their Scriptures (the Tanakh) the Truth exists. :yes:






As for the OP who is trying to make me believe he is not Christian: I only did not bother to answer your questions because I asked mine first and am not going to bother with yours until you show me proof it is Truth you are after. You can do this by posting the name of the Rabbi in whom the story I shared is speaking of (he is well known, in fact). Then I will give you the answers you are seeking of me. First things first, no?


If you do not answer, I will not go so far as to say that you are ignorant of knowledge that is easily accessed by even a dimwit (that, I *DO* give you.. that you have the ability to read someone's words and spew them out as though they are your own thoughts).. and either way, if you answer or don't answer, I will still maintain that you are ignorant of what true intelligence is (but I will oblige to answer your questions at the very least). I just do not see the point to answer your questions before you have bothered to even answer the ONE I gave to you first.

 

[Oberon]

You can do this by posting the name of the Rabbi in whom the story I shared is speaking of (he is well known, in fact).

I thought you were trying to say this happened in luke. Are you talking about Akiba? We have even LESS information about him than Jesus. The earliest rabbinic literature (the mishna) was written around 200-220 CE. The Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud (our prime sources for Akiba) are even later. And yet you feel free to discuss historical aspects of his life, while looking with suspicion on the Jesus tradition, recorded far closer to the life of Jesus, which shows clearly he wasn't married.

If you think I am completely unable to understand Jewish though of this period, feel free not to take my word for it. Read A Rabbi Talks with Jesus by Neusner or any number of his other works on Judaism of this period or on Jesus, or G. Vermes (another great Jewish scholar) who, among many other publications, wrote Jesus the Jew. Yet neither they, nor other scholar, seems to be arguing that Jesus was married.

Now I have answered your question. Feel free to address all my points as you said you would.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I thought you were trying to say this happened in luke. Are you talking about Akiba? We have even LESS information about him than Jesus. The earliest rabbinic literature (the mishna) was written around 200-220 CE. The Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud (our prime sources for Akiba) are even later. And yet you feel free to discuss historical aspects of his life, while looking with suspicion on the Jesus tradition, recorded far closer to the life of Jesus, which shows clearly he wasn't married.

If you think I am completely unable to understand Jewish though of this period, feel free not to take my word for it. Read A Rabbi Talks with Jesus by Neusner or any number of his other works on Judaism of this period or on Jesus, or G. Vermes (another great Jewish scholar) who, among many other publications, wrote Jesus the Jew. Yet neither they, nor other scholar, seems to be arguing that Jesus was married.

Now I have answered your question. Feel free to address all my points as you said you would.

I was... very good. Only took long enough and I was clear in what I was asking.. I think you just claimed to not understanding my question to buy some time. Eh, I will admit to not be able to prove that though and thus, you are vindicated from my accusation for now.

What we DO know Akiba is more in line with the traditions and mindset of the Jewish and the Tanakh than what is being claimed in the mytholigical tales of Jesus (for those buying them as literal.. and that includes the *insertion* that he was not married). *that* would be the point. I could see many reasons how it is the story of Jesus came about... I could even see that the mythological story surrounding him possibly being a conceptual metaphor of what is written in the Tanakh since this is how it is the Jewish wrote much of the Tanakh. That history is only written by the victors is false. There were some brilliant minds who were able to write in such ways as to grasp those of theirs who are like minded whilst pacifying those who desired to be "adored".. a language behind the language, that is what you miss about the Jewish writings. Not surprising.. few lack such intelligence to read thoughts when they are indirectly spoken.. thus why the Laws were so important. That Christians grabbed a hold of Paul's disregard for them for place of the blood sacrifice of human being (literally) is enough to say that Christianity is not based on the Tanakh as you would want us to believe..

Proverbs 2:1-7.. there are the keys you lack to understanding their writings. Knowing what men say, according to the Tanakh (Jeremiah 17:5) is not enough to understand their Truths. I wonder, do you even slightly grasp what I am saying or will you only go to confirm my accusation that you lack true intelligence rather in favor of knowing only what others tell you to know.

But that is even beside the point. Yes, I will go and answer your questions.. but not in the confusing method that you post them. Deal with one issue at a time and perhaps you will see the light?

 

[Oberon]

IThere were some brilliant minds who were able to write in such ways as to grasp those of theirs who are like minded whilst pacifying those who desired to be "adored".. a language behind the language, that is what you miss about the Jewish writings.

When have I ever said the jewish writings were somehow inferior to the NT? Mark is written in horrid greek. In fact, none of the gospel authors have a very good mastery of the greek language.

I have always admired a number of Jewish authors, from Philo to Maimonides to Martin Buber.

I fail to see how this has to do with anything, however.

Yes, I will go and answer your questions.. but not in the confusing method that you post them. Deal with one issue at a time and perhaps you will see the light?

I have no problem with you dealing with them one at a time, as long as you address them all.

 

[Dunemeister]

Perfect! You know what Dunemeister.. this I *can* accept. According to your traditions.. therefore, it is not according to the Jewish traditions based on the Torah (which Genesis 1 and 2 are both a part of). Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus is from hellenistic beliefs and not Jewish beliefs. Christianity IS its own separate religion and the NT can FINALLY be detached from the foundation which does not support it; that would be the Tanakh.

Judaism of the first century was HIGHLY Hellenistic, too. Indeed, Christianity developed out of Hellenistic Judaism, as did rabbinic Judaism.

Besides, the fact that Jesus was unmarried does not invalidate the idea that Christianity developed out of Judaism.

 

[IF_u_knew]

This thread wasn't to address that. It was only to address the basis for Ben's argument. However, given that he is never described as being married, he is never followed by one women in particular (but several different women), and he specifically promotes celibacy, to argue that he WAS married is to argue something for which there is NO evidence.
For example?

You ask this in regards to my accusation that there are more evidences for your manipulating writings to try and support that Jesus was not married than there are evidences that he actually was not married.

First, let me state that I am speaking on behalf of my own self in addressing the above.

Now, regarding the Jewish writings... there are a few places that give us clues that there is a language behind the language.

Jeremiah 17:5, 9
Jeremiah 4:10
Jeremiah 9:5
Jeremiah 20:7
Jeremiah 49:16

The keys are in the ordinances "of God" (the Laws, statutes, judgments, etc)
Psalm 119

It was established from the beginning as is evidenced in:
Isaiah 41:5
Isaiah 42:21
Isaiah 43:8,9
Isaiah 44:6,7,18,19,24,25
Isaiah 45:18-21
Isaiah 46:9-10

Now the above are only passages I pulled out, however the whole of those chapters tell you why (and much more.. as does Jeremiah and other of the testimonies of the prophets)... for it is a People that is not to be confused by the deceptions of men's mouths.

Deuteronomy is clear what it is the People are meant to keep in rememberance.. that being the Laws (commandment, statutes, judgments, ordinances). This is echoed again in Malachi 4, and in fact, Malachi is clear that we are to remember THE ORDINANCES OF GOD.

Read Genesis 2:24 .. that Jesus mentions this in Mark 10, regardless of his reasons for doing thus, meant that he knew this was command of God and if he was Jewish and a teacher of great influence concerning the Torah, he would have been in accordance with the Jewish "language" as one to be regarded, and he would have been married.

The eunuchs he spoke of is in accordance with Jeremiah 31:27 of which Matthew 19:12 is clearly speaking of in regards to the Jewish way of thinking.

Jesus never condoned the Jewish not being married and that he would been of been married to Mary Magdalene who is one in the same as Mary of Bethany given the same intimate moments he shared with both (one in the same, really) is only evident from a Jewish point of view.

That Josephus would have praised a group of those who were not married as though they were sacrificing their life was only to be able to name the group as not being associated with the truth without stirring attention to his cause.. the Jewish. (keep in mind the first set of passages I shared from Jeremiah). After all, Proverbs 21:3 (part of the Hebrew writings) makes it clear that the truly religious of the Jewish would never consider the sacrificing of one of God's command to be an honorable act.

It is all in how you lack the ability to understand a people (thus do not understand why, if Jesus was a Jewish teacher of the Law, which he claimed in Matthew 5 would be a lie if he were not married).. you rather review writings from a mind that has thus far shown a lack of ability to be able to consider writings to instead choose just reading and repeating what others say.

 

[IF_u_knew]

When have I ever said the jewish writings were somehow inferior to the NT?.

I said that you missed that the Jewish writings are superior to those of other peoples.

And I am just going to let my last post rest awhile until you respond, though admittedly, I am tired and am finished for tonight.. so no rush. :sorry1:

 

[Oberon]

Now, regarding the Jewish writings... there are a few places that give us clues that there is a language behind the language.

Jeremiah 17:5, 9
Jeremiah 4:10
Jeremiah 9:5
Jeremiah 20:7
Jeremiah 49:16

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything. Jeremiah was not married. We have an example EVEN IN OLDER jewish scriptures of a non-married religious jew.

Read Genesis 2:24 .. that Jesus mentions this in Mark 10, regardless of his reasons for doing thus, meant that he knew this was command of God and if he was Jewish and a teacher of great influence concerning the Torah, he would have been in accordance with the Jewish "language" as one to be regarded, and he would have been married.

Not true. As I have shown, he was far from the only Jew at the time who chose not to marry and to remain celibate.

Furthermore, what you apparently fail to realize is that there were many vehement disagreements among jewish groups during Jesus' day over just what constituted god's law. The pharisees, sadducees, essenes, etc, all had VERY different ideas on any number of matters concerning god's commands, including marriage.

The eunuchs he spoke of is in accordance with Jeremiah 31:27 of which Matthew 19:12 is clearly speaking of in regards to the Jewish way of thinking.

How are:
הנה ימים באים נאם־יהוה וזרעתי את־בית ישׂראל ואת־בית יהודה זרע אדם וזרע בהמה
and
εισι γαρ ευνουχοι οἵτινες εκ κοιλίας μητρος εγεννήθησαν οὕτω. και εισιν ευνουχοι οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν υπο των ανθρώπων, και εισιν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ευνούχισαν εαυτους δια την βασιλείαν των ουρανων. ο δυνάμενος χωρειν χωρείτω

at ALL related? Jesus is very clear that he advocates celibacy whenever possible. Your linking this to Jeremiah is nonsense.

Jesus never condoned the Jewish not being married

No. But he did advocate non-marriage for whoever could do it.

and that he would been of been married to Mary Magdalene who is one in the same as Mary of Bethany

This alone makes clear you have never studied scholarship on Judaism this time period. Too many people had the same first name, and no last names. So, they were differentiated in other ways. Women were typically identified by the men who were responsible for them: husbands (if they had them) or fathers (if alive) or even sons. If they were unmarried and self-supporting, they could be identified by place of origins. Mary Magdalene is called so because she comes from Magdala. Mary of Bethany is identified so because she is from Bethany. These place names are used so that it is clear which mary is which. They are not the same.

That Josephus would have praised a group of those who were not married as though they were sacrificing their life was only to be able to name the group as not being associated with the truth without stirring attention to his cause.. the Jewish.

Did you ever read him at all? Or Philo? Both (who are Jewish) refer to the Essenes as Jewish.

 

[Oberon]

How are:
הנה ימים באים נאם־יהוה וזרעתי את־בית ישׂראל ואת־בית יהודה זרע אדם וזרע בהמה
and
εισι γαρ ευνουχοι οἵτινες εκ κοιλίας μητρος εγεννήθησαν οὕτω. και εισιν ευνουχοι οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν υπο των ανθρώπων, και εισιν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ευνούχισαν εαυτους δια την βασιλείαν των ουρανων. ο δυνάμενος χωρειν χωρείτω

Just to broaden the comparison, let's add in the LXX, as this is the version the gospel authors were familiar with:

διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, φησὶν κύριος, καὶ σπερῶ τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ τὸν Ιουδαν σπέρμα ἀνθρώπου καὶ σπέρμα κτήνους

I still fail to see how you are equating the two.