Was Jesus Married? Addressing Ben Masada

[IF_u_knew]

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.

I wanted to say that I will take your suggestion. I do not think I have read either of these two books (I have read so many that often I will take a suggestion only to find that I did in fact read the book). So, thank you for the recommendations.

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.

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

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


I am answering this one before your previous post because it really sums up so much.

What makes it difficult to discuss with you is NOT that you lack knowledge (though, I am not buying that you really have much.. anyone can copy and paste Hebrew and Greek), it is that you lack the power of erudition.

Read Matthew 19: 11. ALL MEN cannot receive this saying. THIS IS BECAUSE ONLY those who understand the *Hebrew* Scriptures on this higher level that Jesus was speaking could know what it is he was speaking of.

Jesus confirmed in Matthew 5:17-19 that 1) He came to fulfill the Law and 2) that this is what he was teaching.

There is the command of God given in Genesis 2:24... this is without exception and since Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, then he was confirming he was married and not teaching anyone to not obey this command. Thus, he was speaking on a different level in Matthew 19:12. Anyone who knows the Jewish mindset knows WHO it is that they marry is of great importance to them (understanding the Laws of Moses is of importance here as well).

Now, "marry" together this understanding I have eluded to, along with Matthew 19:12 and Jeremiah 31:27.. you can do this in the English translations.. I promise. Do you have your own mind or is it really a necessity for you to have your conclusions drawn up by others as you have thus far shown?

By the way, what are you claiming to be? A scholar; a historian; both or neither? If you were worth more than your weight in gold, you would have surely put together the correlation between a parable of Jesus' and a warning spoken in Hebrew by the Jewish when Romans were approaching. Furthermore, you would realize this was included for the purposes to show Jesus did know Hebrew quite well and used it, in fact. It also goes to show that he cared for his own People, the Jewish. They were his cause and not the rest of the world.

It is like so many misunderstand Gandhi's cause was his people and that just like Jesus, people just assume he was a passive type. Not at all is this the truth.. he was very much passive aggressive. That means he was passive so long as his people were not being mistreated; but he did not teach his People to just sit like bumps on logs to just let those trying to dictate their lives and their traditions, ways of living, etc get by with it. Aggression was encouraged by Gandhi against the other people who had NO business trying to run their lives.

(I am going to answer the other post from last night, but if you continue to show that you cannot discuss this on a level that, yes, requires using YOUR mind, then I do not see us getting anywhere. You are like reading a book... good for some information, but useless for intelligent discussion.
Discussing with you is the equivelent of believing that I can show the book where the conclusions drawn up may have been flawed because of the mindset and then actually expecting the book to answer back with intelligence and understanding. pointless)

 

[IF_u_knew]

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.

Hmm.. Yes, I am believing this is pointless. These passages show a level of depth in the mindset of the Jewish authors. They were not unaware that those in power will always sway public opinion of events to fit their agendas. I can not explain it to you any more than I already have why it is important to understand the Jewish mindset. When I speak of religious Jews.. I am not speaking on a mystical level. I am speaking of a People who were intent on maintaining what it is that is unique about their People and not losing that. Thus, if Jesus was telling the truth in Matthew 5:17-19, he not only was married, but he DID not teach others to not be so.

That Josephus added in the words concerning the Essenes, that they instead used children not of their own to grow communities (rather than doing it the way it was commanded in Torah... the natural way), points to something significant/noteworthy.

That Jeremiah warns of deceit, gives anyone with a mind of their own, reason to consider beyond just what is written.. to look on MANY different levels.. this is what was meant when someone said of you that you do not have the trait for psychology. Your mind can only handle the most basic knowledge. You can retain much perhaps, but so can the minds of animals. What they and you can not seem to do is rationalize for your own self what is before you.

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.

Nope, now here I disagree that either of these have to do with where it is they were located as much as it has to do with the meaning of the names ... the Nazareth that follows Jesus' name is the same. Names are HIGHLY important to the Jewish and that these 3 (really 2) people had "of *insert*" following theirs was not with the intent to identify a physical place. :no:


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

I have answered this for you many times over. I have read Josephus. Philo.. only partially. But you seem to not understand... we are in a Scriptural debate forum. I have no problem with bringing in the works of those outside of, but what I do oppose is relying on their writings to interpret the Scriptures. It should be the other way around. Since Josephus was a Jew, I am using the Hebrew Scriptures to interpret his writings... get it? Have you ever heard, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Many Jews at the time could not understand why Josephus seemed to embrace the Roman elite.. but given what is in his writings and how they so correlate to the gospels and the events of Acts, I think he knew the importance of keeping your enemies closer and that he had a hand to interpolate clues (like in Acts.. that Paul went to the Jewish to harrass them and never to the gentiles to teach them) so that Time would not be the enemy to his own, the Jewish... I am sure that to his mind, he figured that TIME is the package in which the gift of Wisdom is wrapped for those who could see between the lines. :yes:

I will admit to being finished in this discussion. If you post any questions to me (unless you show signs of being able to rationalize from your own mind), just know that I will not answer them. I am tired of carrying on a discussion with only the opinions of others who are not themselves participating. Again, you are nothing more than a wharehouse of information rendered useless because you are not able to step into time periods and mindsets that are not of your own. You don't actually think.. you only retain.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Are you Christian, if_u_knew?

I don't know what type of Christian sect you belong to, nor do I know of Dunemeister's, but you both Christians, but have different view.

That you would accuse Dunemeister of being biased towards Christianity, when he is Christian, showed you're grasping straws.

I think majority of Christians support the view that Jesus was never married.

Ben Masada, on the other hand, is Jew, and don't actually support Christianity, which is why he is supporting the view that Jesus was married, but he provided no evidences, except arguing with his flawed logic, in order to undermine Christian teachings.

I don't know Oberon's religious stance or what religion he followed (if any), but so far Oberon provided many points that are both logicial.

I am not Christian nor Jewish, and from reading the NT, particularly in regard to the two Marys (Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany), I found no evidences to support Ben's viewpoint.

Back in the time, of Jesus, the title of rabbi, was only honoury. It just referred to someone being a teacher, but Jesus didn't belong to a Jewish sect, known as Rabbinic Judaism. According to Ben, any Jew who were a rabbi were married. But Oberon pointed out in previous thread (Was Mary M. the same as Mary B.?) the Rabbinic Judaism didn't exist until centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Judaism in Jesus' time was quite different from the Rabbinic Judaism.

I actually didn't know this about Rabbinic Judaism, and so apparently did Ben, despite him being Jewish....not until Oberon explained to me about the Jews living Jesus' time and that of the Rabbi Jews in Rabbinic Judaism.

Oberon also made valid point in regard to Essenes, who were devout Jews, but don't marry or have children.

Oberon had also pointed out that John the Baptist was religious Jew, who did not married, so there are precedent for unmarried religious Jew.

I don't think it matter one way or another that Jesus was married or not. My argument with Ben Masada is that he provided no logical case (or evidences) that Jesus was married, as opposed to many evidences that support that he wasn't married.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Are you Christian, if_u_knew?

I don't know what type of Christian sect you belong to, nor do I know of Dunemeister's, but you both Christians, but have different view.

I am not a Christian.

That you would accuse Dunemeister of being biased towards Christianity, when he is Christian, showed you're grasping straws.

He is biased toward Christianity.

I think majority of Christians support the view that Jesus was never married.

They do and that is, as Dunemeister admitted, based on THEIR traditions.. not the Jewish and thus, the NT is not (as is already clear) not based on the Tanakh.

Ben Masada, on the other hand, is Jew, and don't actually support Christianity, which is why he is supporting the view that Jesus was married, but he provided no evidences, except arguing with his flawed logic, in order to undermine Christian teachings.

He based his speculations on evidences given in your own NT. Also, if Jesus was telling the Truth in Matthew 5:17-19, according to Torah, he would have been married and would have promoted it.. else, he truly is of the Greek mind and the NT does not belong to what it is attached to, the Tanakh.

I don't know Oberon's religious stance or what religion he followed (if any), but so far Oberon provided many points that are both logicial.

They are only considered thus to those who are not of the Jewish mindset. What he has presented is nothing but the conclusions drawn from others not of the same mind as those who wrote the Tanakh. They are not even his OWN conclusions he gives.. not at all based on consideration from his own mind. To argue with him is like arguing with a book.. pointless.

I think if we are going to consider this a scriptural debate, there is enough evidences that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. If not, there is enough evidences to show that Jesus lied in regards to his claim given in Matthew 5:17.. that he wasn't married is enough evidences .. thus, the NT can be taken from off of the Tanakh. I am willing.. are you?

I am not Christian nor Jewish, and from reading the NT, particularly in regard to the two Marys (Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany), I found no evidences to support Ben's viewpoint.

Because you too do not have a mind to think, I guess. You are just given to others opinions and can not see what is written between the lines (which is how it is the Jewish write the Truth to THEIR people). Get to where you are eating, sleeping, and breathing the Torah and it might become more apparent to your own mind what it is you are missing.

Back in the time, of Jesus, the title of rabbi, was only honoury. It just referred to someone being a teacher, but Jesus didn't belong to a Jewish sect, known as Rabbinic Judaism. According to Ben, any Jew who were a rabbi were married. But Oberon pointed out in previous thread (Was Mary M. the same as Mary B.?) the Rabbinic Judaism didn't exist until centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Judaism in Jesus' time was quite different from the Rabbinic Judaism.

So, what is it YOU have done to find out the Truth. Do not point out someone else's spewing out of book knowledge.. tell me, what have you done to understand the Jewish mindset that you would dare take the word pertaining to Jewish knowledge of one who is not Jewish (Oberon) over another who IS Jewish (Ben Masada)? I have not yet found a Jew in REAL life who does not disagree that if Jesus is to be regarded as an influential teacher of the Law (one of SERIOUS status), he was married.

I actually didn't know this about Rabbinic Judaism, and so apparently did Ben, despite him being Jewish....not until Oberon explained to me about the Jews living Jesus' time and that of the Rabbi Jews in Rabbinic Judaism.

I do not believe someone who can not give their own thoughts and rather can only give the thoughts of others. They are not enlightened.. only parrots. I have more of a mind to believe a Jewish person about Jewish things. This is only attempts to get people to disregard the Jewish mentality and their way of life.. which Jesus was trying to perserve. You do not have a mind to think, but rather one to believe what SOUNDS like wisdom to you.. thus, you miss the between the lines. We'll see how well Oberon's mind works for its ownself if he can figure out how it is *I* know that Jesus did indeed know and speak Hebrew.. also that it confirms HIS PEOPLE were his cause and not the rest of the world.

Oberon also made valid point in regard to Essenes, who were devout Jews, but don't marry or have children.

This is true. He showed in his quote from Josephus how there were those to watch out for who would steal the children of others to build their own communities.. even on the inside. Take Herod for instance. Herod's parents were in the position to convert.. Herod did not care about the Jewish People or anything that had to do with them.. he was only using them to build political fences around his own self for his own benefit. Keep this in mind as Jesus surely had it in his mind as well.

Oberon had also pointed out that John the Baptist was religious Jew, who did not married, so there are precedent for unmarried religious Jew.

Religious in your minds is different than the "religious" that would be of the Jewish mind. You think the silver cup when it comes to religious.. the religious Jew has their mind on the golden cup (their People and their way of life; traditions, etc).

I don't think it matter one way or another that Jesus was married or not. My argument with Ben Masada is that he provided no logical case (or evidences) that Jesus was married, as opposed to many evidences that support that he wasn't married.

Matthew 5:17-19 and Genesis 2:24 should be enough for anyone with a working mind. Else, if it Jesus was not married and did not promote it, he lied and the NT can be taken off of the Tanakh. :yes:

 

[Oberon]

What makes it difficult to discuss with you is NOT that you lack knowledge (though, I am not buying that you really have much.. anyone can copy and paste Hebrew and Greek),

You already tried to test my knowledge of rabbinic judaism. Feel free to test my knowledge of greek, latin or hebrew (or german and french, actually). I will freely admit that my hebrew is nowhere near as good as my Greek or Latin (I constantly have to refer back to a lexicon) because my focus in biblical studies is on the NT, not the OT. As such, I was not required to take much biblical hebrew. I can read the NT in greek without really ever referring to a lexicon, and in fact with anything written in ancient greek or latin I rarely need to use a lexicon. When it comes to the OT, however, I usually read it in english, and only when I am interested in a particular passage do I then go to the hebrew. I can not (yet) read aramaic.

Read Matthew 19: 11. ALL MEN cannot receive this saying. THIS IS BECAUSE ONLY those who understand the *Hebrew* Scriptures on this higher level that Jesus was speaking could know what it is he was speaking of.

This isn't what it says: ou pantes chorousi ton logon, all' ois dedotai/Not.neg.prtcl. All.nom.pl. Hold.3rd.pl.ind.act This.demon.def.art.acc.sing. Law.acc.sing. But.conj They.dat.pl. Give.3rd.sing.pass.

"not all hold this command/word/teaching, but to those [who can hold it] it is given/has been given."

You have picked one line out of the passage, and distorted the meaning. The line occurs in the context of Jesus' teachings about divorce. Interestingly enough (considering that you are arguing Jesus the Jew, knowing the law, would have been married), Jesus here specifically contradicts what was taken for granted by Jews before and contemporary to him: that divorce was acceptable. Rather, he claims that divorce is NOT god's law.

In response, he is told that if this is true, no one should marry (because divorce is inevitable in many marriages).

To which he responds that actually yes, it IS better not to marry, if this is possible: ho dynamenos chorein chorieto/ The.nom.sing. Able.nom.sing.part Hold.inf Hold.imp.pl.
"The one being able to hold [this]: Hold !

Jesus is seen many times making commands on his own authority (for which he is criticized). He often makes reference to scripture, but here he is plainly using his own interpretation of the law on his own authority.

Jesus confirmed in Matthew 5:17-19 that 1) He came to fulfill the Law and 2) that this is what he was teaching.

I agree that Jesus came to fulfill the law. However, what you apparently don't understand is that just what the "law" was in Jesus' day was a sharply debated topic. Jesus had his interpretation, Philo had his, the Sadducees had theirs, the Essenes had theirs, the pharisees had theirs, and so on. ALL of these differed radically. So to read into this statement in Matt. that Jesus came to fulfill the law as you see it is a mistake.

Anyone who knows the Jewish mindset knows WHO it is that they marry is of great importance to them (understanding the Laws of Moses is of importance here as well).

Again, the "Jewish mindset" during Jesus' day led to MANY different things.

By the way, what are you claiming to be? A scholar; a historian; both or neither?

I am currently a grad student in the field of Biblical Studies (NT focus) working on a dissertation on the orality within the Jesus tradition. This requires and understanding of judaism prior to and during Jesus' day, as well as the early church, just for starters.

 

[Oberon]

That Josephus added in the words concerning the Essenes, that they instead used children not of their own to grow communities (rather than doing it the way it was commanded in Torah... the natural way), points to something significant/noteworthy.

The point is, Josephus is talking about a group of devout Jews, who he praises, and who do not marry.

Nope, now here I disagree that either of these have to do with where it is they were located as much as it has to do with the meaning of the names ... the Nazareth that follows Jesus' name is the same.

What is your basis for this!!!? This was a STANDARD method of differentiating people in Judaism during this period (and in greece and rome, for that matter).


I

have read Josephus. Philo.. only partially. But you seem to not understand... we are in a Scriptural debate forum.

And if you want to understand how Jews during Jesus' day thought, you can't just look at scripture written hundreds of years earlier, because it was being interpreted differently by different groups at that time.

Since Josephus was a Jew, I am using the Hebrew Scriptures to interpret his writings... get it?

I you haven't read them all, this would seem to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Oberon]

He is biased toward Christianity.

Of course, even if it were true that secretly I am a christian, this would hardly matter according to you. Because you have consistently talked about "jewish mindset" (although that the mindset of a 20th century Jew makes one qualified to understand the mindset of a 1st century Jew is bizzare) being necessary to "really" understand Jesus. So really, if I were an atheist, muslim, luciferian, etc. I still would have the same "problem" according to you, because I wouldn't be Jewish.


How much scholarship on NT studies have you read (by Jews, agnostics, or people opposed to christianity) have you read? I would imagine very little. Because what I have said in this thread and any others on this topic are completely in line with scholarship on the this topic, whether from Jewish, agnostic, etc, scholars.

They do and that is, as Dunemeister admitted, based on THEIR traditions.. not the Jewish and thus, the NT is not (as is already clear) not based on the Tanakh.

Any scholar of this period, regardless of religious background, would also argue that Jesus wasn't married.

tell me, what have you done to understand the Jewish mindset that you would dare take the word pertaining to Jewish knowledge of one who is not Jewish (Oberon) over another who IS Jewish (Ben Masada)?

I wouldn't take the word of a christian living 2000 years after Jesus, Paul, Clement, Irenaeus, etc, to understand their mindsets, just because they are christian. Nor would I take the word of a modern Jew living 2000 years after Jesus to understand him, just because he is Jewish. Judaism has changed a great deal over the millenia.

I have not yet found a Jew in REAL life who does not disagree that if Jesus is to be regarded as an influential teacher of the Law (one of SERIOUS status), he was married.

Again, see J. Neusner or G. Vermes, both experts in this field and both Jews. Because understanding Judaism of 2000 years ago requires more than just being a Jew today, just as understanding early christianity requires more than just being a christian today.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I will freely admit that my hebrew is nowhere near as good as my Greek or Latin (I constantly have to refer back to a lexicon) because my focus in biblical studies is on the NT, not the OT. As such, I was not required to take much biblical hebrew. I can read the NT in greek without really ever referring to a lexicon, and in fact with anything written in ancient greek or latin I rarely need to use a lexicon. When it comes to the OT, however, I usually read it in english, and only when I am interested in a particular passage do I then go to the hebrew. I can not (yet) read aramaic.

I agree that Jesus came to fulfill the law. However, what you apparently don't understand is that just what the "law" was in Jesus' day was a sharply debated topic. Jesus had his interpretation, Philo had his, the Sadducees had theirs, the Essenes had theirs, the pharisees had theirs, and so on. ALL of these differed radically. So to read into this statement in Matt. that Jesus came to fulfill the law as you see it is a mistake.

I am currently a grad student in the field of Biblical Studies (NT focus) working on a dissertation on the orality within the Jesus tradition. This requires and understanding of judaism prior to and during Jesus' day, as well as the early church, just for starters.

[/color]

The point is, Josephus is talking about a group of devout Jews, who he praises, and who do not marry.


And if you want to understand how Jews during Jesus' day thought, you can't just look at scripture written hundreds of years earlier, because it was being interpreted differently by different groups at that time.

Of course, even if it were true that secretly I am a christian, this would hardly matter according to you. Because you have consistently talked about "jewish mindset" (although that the mindset of a 20th century Jew makes one qualified to understand the mindset of a 1st century Jew is bizzare) being necessary to "really" understand Jesus. So really, if I were an atheist, muslim, luciferian, etc. I still would have the same "problem" according to you, because I wouldn't be Jewish.


How much scholarship on NT studies have you read (by Jews, agnostics, or people opposed to christianity) have you read? I would imagine very little. Because what I have said in this thread and any others on this topic are completely in line with scholarship on the this topic, whether from Jewish, agnostic, etc, scholars.

Any scholar of this period, regardless of religious background, would also argue that Jesus wasn't married.

I wouldn't take the word of a christian living 2000 years after Jesus, Paul, Clement, Irenaeus, etc, to understand their mindsets, just because they are christian. Nor would I take the word of a modern Jew living 2000 years after Jesus to understand him, just because he is Jewish. Judaism has changed a great deal over the millenia

First, I am answering you due to the admissions that you make. I am a sucker for one who is willing to show honesty as you have done above with your admissions. I have my weaknessess as well and so it makes it easier to relate.

Now, I have gathered all of the above together because with what follows, a bit about me, perhaps you can understand where it is I am coming from. My own pursuit in higher education was centered around wanting to go into politics. Thus, my studies (though of course, there was a wider range surrounding my courses of interest) were centered on Government (mostly American). My goal was to make "a difference." It did not take long to realize that politics had nothing to do with building fences around the People, but rather around the politicians (and those behind the politicians) themselves. Thus, I dropped it to rather pursue finding the Truth.

As far as the NT... yes, I was emmersed in it for the whole of my education (though not of my own choice as I could not understand the contradictions of the NT or even those of the Tanakh.. the higher education that I pursued of my own volition I had to support with my own funds as my parents are wholly of the Christian mindset).

For some time, I have dropped all of the above to rather study things from both a logical standpoint and through the eyes of the People. The latter was in studying the writings of the founding fathers of this country as well as all that has led America from being a Constitutional Republic to what it is now.. a vague democracy, leaning towards social democracy. Through this, I have learned much about the mindgames those in power will play in order to sway public opinion (study Cold war mind tactics.. based on the ideas of one who had serious mental disorders; Civil war.. most people today believe it had to do with slavery which is far from the truth; and even more recent examples of how Christianity is used to manipulate the emotions of people in order to find support for sending their sons and daughters off to die in a war that has nothing to do with us)... I also studied how people respond to oppression (the wizard of Oz is not a movie thought up out of thin air to cater to kids fantasies; Gandhi, as I have said, was not a passive "turn the other cheek to let others walk over you" type of mind; and the words in the Torah, "observe to obey (do)" (regarding their Law) were not written out just to set a People apart because they are special due to their bloodline).

The Torah (along with the rest of the writings in the Tanakh) was written out in the way it was because these people were brilliant... their Laws were written as they were to not only give them a desire (proverbs 13:12).. they were written out to give the power into the hands of the People (observe TO obey.. meaning if they can't obey them in their own land, there is a problem)... and this Law given to this People is of such beauty and truly the way that "Kings" should rule the nations (Proverbs 14:28-35) that the founding fathers of America based their creation, the constitutional republic, on the words written therein..

So, you see.. you and others do not understand the mentality (even those within their own community) because you lack the WISDOM of what it is they truly have in their possession.... again, some of their own (as time has continued to tick on) have missed the point of their Gorgeous Laws in which they have observed, but even still are not able to carry out in their own land. :sad:

Having the mind I do and having the mind that is of those who "got it".... I can see their "language" behind the "language"... including the teachings that are attributed to someone whose name means Salvation in the NT. They understood the political game... and they wrote accordingly.


Again, see J. Neusner or G. Vermes, both experts in this field and both Jews. Because understanding Judaism of 2000 years ago requires more than just being a Jew today, just as understanding early christianity requires more than just being a christian today.

I said I would read what you suggested... not a need to repeat it. But I am not of the religious mind that most assume it to mean these days and even in those days. I am of the religious mind of those like Moses, Joshua, the prophets, Gandhi, the founding fathers of America, and yes, even Jesus. I am for the People. :yes:

You are just in pursuit of knowing something without extracting any kind of meaning or purpose from the knowledge you are seeking. Thus... what is the point to carry on here?

 

[Oberon]

You are just in pursuit of knowing something without extracting any kind of meaning or purpose from the knowledge you are seeking. Thus... what is the point to carry on here?

My point here is a search for accuracy and truth (not ultimate Truth in this particular case). It wouldn't change my life in the least if Jesus was married. However, I object to the propagation of inaccuracies and misinformation, and when I know a good deal about a subject, and I see someone who misrepresents it, I do not like standing by so that those who don't know about the subject will be misled.


I specifically stated what the purpose for this thread was in the OP.

Ben Masada has, in more than one thread, argued that Jesus was married, and to "find" evidence he completely manipulates the NT texts. All of these manipulations I have addressed elsewhere. However, this thread addresses the basis for all of his manipulations of the NT texts:
"If Jesus were a religious Jew, he would have been married."

After accepting this as a basis for investigation, Ben goes on to take quotes out of context, combine multiple people into one, combine multiple passages, pick and choose which passages in the NT are accurate based on what he already believes, and so on.

However, his basis for all of the above is flawed. Judaism during jesus' day was not only very different from today, it was very different from group to group and jew to jew.

So I showed in my OP that there WERE religious Jews before Jesus, during Jesus' time, and after Jesus who were devout Jews and yet did not marry and remained celibate. This being the case, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was married, unless there is other evidence to suggest he was.

There is no such evidence. Not only is he never accompanied by a single woman, not only is there never any mention of his wife by anyone, but Jesus himself advocates celibacy to all who can do it. Because we have no a priori reason to assume Jesus was married (as devout Jews were not always married then), no evidence to suggest that he was, and we do have evidence to suggest that he wasn't (e.g. his own teachings on celibacy), to argue that Jesus was married is to do so AGAINST all the evidence we have.

 

[IF_u_knew]

My point here is a search for accuracy and truth (not ultimate Truth in this particular case). It wouldn't change my life in the least if Jesus was married. However, I object to the propagation of inaccuracies and misinformation, and when I know a good deal about a subject, and I see someone who misrepresents it, I do not like standing by so that those who don't know about the subject will be misled.


I specifically stated what the purpose for this thread was in the OP.

Ben Masada has, in more than one thread, argued that Jesus was married, and to "find" evidence he completely manipulates the NT texts. All of these manipulations I have addressed elsewhere. However, this thread addresses the basis for all of his manipulations of the NT texts:
"If Jesus were a religious Jew, he would have been married."

After accepting this as a basis for investigation, Ben goes on to take quotes out of context, combine multiple people into one, combine multiple passages, pick and choose which passages in the NT are accurate based on what he already believes, and so on.

However, his basis for all of the above is flawed. Judaism during jesus' day was not only very different from today, it was very different from group to group and jew to jew.

So I showed in my OP that there WERE religious Jews before Jesus, during Jesus' time, and after Jesus who were devout Jews and yet did not marry and remained celibate. This being the case, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was married, unless there is other evidence to suggest he was.

There is no such evidence. Not only is he never accompanied by a single woman, not only is there never any mention of his wife by anyone, but Jesus himself advocates celibacy to all who can do it. Because we have no a priori reason to assume Jesus was married (as devout Jews were not always married then), no evidence to suggest that he was, and we do have evidence to suggest that he wasn't (e.g. his own teachings on celibacy), to argue that Jesus was married is to do so AGAINST all the evidence we have.

"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." --Bruce Calvert

There are evidences for Jesus having been married and the ONLY thing you have to conclude he wasn't is within the NT... what he said about Eunuchs.

If you had been serious in your studies, you might have started out with what the NT is attached to.. you know, what they call "Old"... for in it you would understand the idea behind his meaning of Eunuchs.. I have tried to show you methodically why that IS what he was referring to if he was truly anyone to be regarded as an enlightened teacher of the Hebrew Scriptures. One last piece of evidence I was holding back to conclude my claim of what he meant by Eunuch? Isaiah 56. They have to join back to the covenant. Therefore, they are as I said.... those married or born (example : their father is a Jew but their mother is not) outside of the people and NOT those who are not married at all. This is what Jesus meant.. obviously.

You don't care about facts.. you only care about your beliefs.

This became even more evident when I saw your claim of when Mark was written in another thread. MOST OF THE secular scholars do not place the writing as early as you did (they say between 65 and 110 AD).. the ones who place Mark earlier would be the scholars with agenda that is toward their belief. The writings of Paul are among the earliest writings mentioning Jesus (48-68 AD).

Also, you should let people know, the Jesus Seminar is headed up mostly of those who also have a history of being within some sort of Christian institution or church.

Setting Josephus aside (whose claim was not even written during the time it is said Jesus lived.. and the famous paragraph, scholars, though they think there is a small part that is valid, believe that there is interpolation at a later time with Christian agenda), there is not much outside of the gospels that testify to the person of Jesus. There was Tacticus, but his was a mention of public opinion about "Christus" and Christianity... it was written after the time that Jesus is said to have lived.

There are many reasons for believing that Jesus was married to one who knows Jewish customs and their Laws. You don't. It is as you said, you aren't looking for Truth and thus the way you have entered your studies was from the wrong entrance and will never be without any true objectivity or real merit. You will be going off of everything BUT what it is the NT comes attached to. This is why you do not understand why some can easily see that Jesus WAS married... because they are building their houses from the ground up rather than the other way around.

Jesus himself was speaking in first person when he said, For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many. There is a big movement going on here lately with those who have an agenda to deceive people into thinking that they are speaking objectively, without agenda. I can easily see you are one of them.. even by who it is you are attacking with such passion (as well as by how quickly you suddenly appear online anytime I post ).

 

[Dunemeister]

Ridiculous nonsense snipped.[/quote]

Ahem.

 

[gnostic]

What make you think that the Greeks didn't support marriages and families?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

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:

Ben puts the "ben" back in bending.

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.

He is truly fictional and down-right misleading.

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.

Not to mention that Jesus knew he was going to die. Marriage would have been the last thing from his mind.

 

[Oberon]

There are evidences for Jesus having been married and the ONLY thing you have to conclude he wasn't is within the NT... what he said about Eunuchs.

NOWHERE is he depicted as married. Once again, you are taking the eunuch quote our of context. It is answering a question concerning marriage. I already addressed your bogus interpretation and connection to the OT:

This isn't what it says: ou pantes chorousi ton logon, all' ois dedotai/Not.neg.prtcl. All.nom.pl. Hold.3rd.pl.ind.act This.demon.def.art.acc.sing. Law.acc.sing. But.conj They.dat.pl. Give.3rd.sing.pass.

"not all hold this command/word/teaching, but to those [who can hold it] it is given/has been given."

You have picked one line out of the passage, and distorted the meaning. The line occurs in the context of Jesus' teachings about divorce. Interestingly enough (considering that you are arguing Jesus the Jew, knowing the law, would have been married), Jesus here specifically contradicts what was taken for granted by Jews before and contemporary to him: that divorce was acceptable. Rather, he claims that divorce is NOT god's law.

In response, he is told that if this is true, no one should marry (because divorce is inevitable in many marriages).

To which he responds that actually yes, it IS better not to marry, if this is possible: ho dynamenos chorein chorieto/ The.nom.sing. Able.nom.sing.part Hold.inf Hold.imp.pl.
"The one being able to hold [this]: Hold !

Jesus is seen many times making commands on his own authority (for which he is criticized). He often makes reference to scripture, but here he is plainly using his own interpretation of the law on his own authority.

If you had been serious in your studies, you might have started out with what the NT is attached to.. you know, what they call "Old"...

I have. It was required.

I have tried to show you methodically why that IS what he was referring to if he was truly anyone to be regarded as an enlightened teacher of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yes, but your evidence is without merit. You misquote Jesus after taking the quote out of context. The quote is in the context of a teaching of Jesus which expressly goes against Judaic custom before and after Jesus (his prohibition of divorce). So you can hardly say that this is a scriptural reference. It is his belief in the "true" law of God, although there is no real precedent (other than Jeremiah's lack of marriage) in the tanakh.

One last piece of evidence I was holding back to conclude my claim of what he meant by Eunuch? Isaiah 56. They have to join back to the covenant. Therefore, they are as I said.... those married or born (example : their father is a Jew but their mother is not) outside of the people and NOT those who are not married at all. This is what Jesus meant.. obviously.

Obvious. Unless of course you have actually studied the historical Jesus. I notice you restated this without addressing anything I said to you when you spouted this the last time. Why not address my argument, rather than just repeat yours?

This became even more evident when I saw your claim of when Mark was written in another thread. MOST OF THE secular scholars do not place the writing as early as you did (they say between 65 and 110 AD).. the ones who place Mark earlier would be the scholars with agenda that is toward their belief. The writings of Paul are among the earliest writings mentioning Jesus (48-68 AD).

When did I say that Paul was later than Mark? How many scholars can you name who place Mark later than 75 CE? The typical dates are c. 69-75, and some argue for c. 65.

Also, you should let people know, the Jesus Seminar is headed up mostly of those who also have a history of being within some sort of Christian institution or church.

What does this have to do with anything? Also, if you read public statements of the seminar, the leaders explicitly sought to undermine the Jesus as he is seen by all but the most liberal christians.

Setting Josephus aside (whose claim was not even written during the time it is said Jesus lived.. and the famous paragraph, scholars, though they think there is a small part that is valid, believe that there is interpolation at a later time with Christian agenda), there is not much outside of the gospels that testify to the person of Jesus.

We don't need anything else. See my post on the historical Jesus here

There are many reasons for believing that Jesus was married to one who knows Jewish customs and their Laws. You don't.

Apparently I am much more familiar with the laws and customs of Jesus' day than you are. We have no mention or reference anywhere of a marriage, we have his teaching that not marrying is better if you can, and we have knowledge of other devout Jews before, after, and during Jesus' day who did not marry.

 

[Dunemeister]

We have no mention or reference anywhere of a marriage, we have his teaching that not marrying is better if you can, and we have knowledge of other devout Jews before, after, and during Jesus' day who did not marry.

Once again, QED.

 

[IF_u_knew]

NOWHERE is he depicted as married. Once again, you are taking the eunuch quote our of context. It is answering a question concerning marriage.
"not all hold this command/word/teaching, but to those [who can hold it] it is given/has been given."
You have picked one line out of the passage, and distorted the meaning. The line occurs in the context of Jesus' teachings about divorce.

Jesus is seen many times making commands on his own authority (for which he is criticized). He often makes reference to scripture, but here he is plainly using his own interpretation of the law on his own authority.


In YOUR opinion (and probably held tightly to given only because it is the opinion of others).

He said this, regarding the first thing I highlighted, not because divorce is wrong in and of itself.. he said it in regards to what the testimonies in the Tanakh were speaking to. He WAS NOT giving a new command, he was elaborating on a deeper level of knowledge and that most could not receive it is because, like you are only proving, they have not the knowledge of what this deeper level is.. it is found in the Tanakh. Divorce is not wrong in and of itself and sometimes, in the REAL world, it is necessary and certainly more beneficial than staying within a marriage just for the sake of morality. Jesus was not speaking of this kind of divorce.

What do you know of Diaspora? What is the situation surrounding the "Eunuchs" as spoken of in the Tanakh? What is said of them in Isaiah, the text Jesus claimed to be enlightening us to, that would clue us into what he meant by Eunuchs? All of this is important. It was not to the world he was speaking to.. it was to his own people and thus, you must look at this, not from YOUR understanding, but from his understanding.

If you want to say Jesus was speaking on a surface level of knowledge, then I would say fine; but this means he was indeed meant for the greek mentality (hellenistic ideals and gods) and had little of value to give to the Jewish and in fact, the NT does not belong attached to the foundation. I think this is more important, to know what he is speaking of, because it is the misconception that has led to so much hatred and jealousy of the Jewish People. If he was a religious Jew (not just a pious jew.. but a religous one which meant his mindset was toward his people), then he was married (Genesis 2:24... Matthew 5:17-19).

You won't even look at the evidences in front of your face, thus you are a researcher of little value. You offer FAR LESS than what you are claiming of others.. speculation and opinions (at least the one with whom you have a passionate interest in trying to discredit has speculation of value because it is based on something credible, the foundation, and not something worthless, the opinions of those not based on the foundation).

I have. It was required.

Well, I must take your word for this but truly you do not have any understanding of it. You are a surface reader and surely, you must see all that is wrong on the surface of the text (the Tanakh), right? Doesn't it make you wonder if perhaps there is something you and so many others are missing? I do not say this in a mystical "you are missing God" kind of way. It made me wonder and the more I honestly searched without agenda, the more I realized what I was missing... IT IS SPEAKING TO A CERTAIN PEOPLE and thus, the language that is intended is behind the language that most can't seem to get past.

You don't even consider what I am telling you, do you? It is in this that I have found myself so frustrated with very fake modern scholarship. You cater more toward the Christian's literal views, throwing off what is fantastical, but also disregarding anyone who does not agree with your view... though your view is STILL BASED on speculation of "hearsay."

Most scholars who are worth mankind's time and attention won't even take such definitive views as you have because they KNOW that there has to be room left for consideration... the truth is never what it appears to be and that you are saying it is, is why I question your motives here.

Yes, but your evidence is without merit. You misquote Jesus after taking the quote out of context. The quote is in the context of a teaching of Jesus which expressly goes against Judaic custom before and after Jesus (his prohibition of divorce). So you can hardly say that this is a scriptural reference. It is his belief in the "true" law of God, although there is no real precedent (other than Jeremiah's lack of marriage) in the tanakh.

My evidence is BASED on the text of Isaiah and yes, Jeremiah. As for Jeremiah, that you are NOT a scholar, I hesitated even bringing this up... but hopefully you will prove me wrong and show that you CAN at least consider (anything "ground breaking" is always going to be a different look at something based on ALL the evidences.. which is why I say, scholars of any value will never definitively draw up a conclusion until it fully fits the pieces).

Remember, I said that Jeremiah was told to not take a wife or have children *in this place*... do you know what was happening at that time? Also, most (even the official Jewish elaborations that are most available to the world) will say that Jeremiah was of Anathoth his own self and thus end up missing that he was indeed married and had children. What the text that this false conclusion is drawn from does not say is that HE WAS from Anathoth, but rather that he was from the lineage of priests that were of Anathoth. He was not just some "nobody," meaning there was reason why he was able to speak in the courts of the Kings (think logically and not according to Christianity's view of religious texts). Having said that, in the last chapters of Jeremiah, there is evidence that Jeremiah was not without children of his own.

Just like all the other challenges that I have given you to REALLY test your knowledge of the Texts, I will not give you straightaway the answer. You have ignored, thus failed, all but one challenge which only proves to me that you have agenda and are not really anyone worth listening to. The only reason why I picked up this thread of yours is because I am tired of seeing you go into threads where people would like to discuss .. to think and consider.. to shut them down and not even consider what they are saying and that maybe you are not the authority on these things as you would have us believe. There is nothing wrong to speculate and in fact, that is what makes mankind grow and evolve in knowledge. You try to hinder that and your reasoning is not quite so hidden to anyone with a mind of their own.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Obvious. Unless of course you have actually studied the historical Jesus. I notice you restated this without addressing anything I said to you when you spouted this the last time. Why not address my argument, rather than just repeat yours?

Would that be about Jeremiah? See above. You said you have studied TO KNOW these things and so if you have, it should be no problem for you to know where it is I find reason to believe Jeremiah WAS married and had children.

When did I say that Paul was later than Mark? How many scholars can you name who place Mark later than 75 CE? The typical dates are c. 69-75, and some argue for c. 65.

Here, I misunderstood what you had said about Mark. And yes, this is also what I have seen most scholars say as well.

As for you getting AGAIN defensive where it is not needed, I did not say that YOU said Paul's was later than Mark. I threw that one in because there was agenda in Paul's writing and thus, understanding that his writings come first and the agenda of those writings, there is more here to consider about the gospels and why they were most likely written in the format they were. This understanding also comes in understanding the foundation and why they are written the way THEY WERE... the surface level stories in the Tanakh (Genesis 1-3 being a fine example here) are seemingly based on mytholgies... but that is a language to which another language is embedded. :yes:

What does this have to do with anything? Also, if you read public statements of the seminar, the leaders explicitly sought to undermine the Jesus as he is seen by all but the most liberal christians.

Yes, so did Lee Strobel in a "Case for Christ"... and I am not buying his claim for real scrutiny either. Know why? Because I know what it is to REALLY come from the position of a truly objective mindset. Anyone who just accepts the existence of the person Jesus just because is doing so for an agenda. He was never meant to be proved because HE, being just a man, was never the point (which we know by looking at the foundation of where his teachings are attached.. jeremiah 17:5 being one mention of it).

People like Lee Strobel have an agenda.. they are devious and manipulative and this is apparent to anyone who has ACTUALLY been in the position to wondering if Jesus existed. There is not a truly inquisitive mind who does wonder about the existence of Jesus with sincerity who will ever settle definitively in their mind that he did in fact exist.. there is too much propaganda and that will lead the truly curious to start seeking further. The ones who settle do so for a purpose.. because they have an agenda filled motivation for doing so.


We don't need anything else. See my post on the historical Jesus here

I do not think that drawing conclusions from others speculations is worthy of considering "proof" that Jesus existed neither do I find it important anymore to carry on the debate of his existence because I came to realize in my quest for knowledge that it is neither here nor there where OUR reality is concerned (that too many believe in the mythological view of Jesus is what should be addressed because IT is leading to this lazy mindset that even you show signs of posessing.. you don't think, you only accept... what you and others like you are doing is allowing the fantasy to continue).

I agree that Mark was written first. I also think that what it is he stated in the very beginning is what clues us in that you all are grasping for straws in your attempts to prove Jesus. Do you know that the name John is derived from the Hebrew word Yochanan (יוחנ&#1503 meaning "HaShem is gracious?" Do you know the symbolic use for "wilderness" in the Tanakh? Why do you think it is that Mark starts out the way he does in his gospel account; that he points to the testimony of the prophets? And what name in Hebrew is Jesus derived from and what is its meaning?

What you and others do is pointless. It is like if we focused on only the fact that Gandhi existed.. most do and thus, his teachings are seen by those uneducated on his life's cause as being only passive and good to "say" but hardly anyone gets the depths of his teachings. We only gain any of the real insight and value by understand where his teachings applied... to his people... thus we understand how it is his teachings are rightfully to be applied and why, if they were applied correctly, the world really COULD be different.

Same with Jesus. I am less concerned and even doubt his existence as an actual person because I know to where it is his teachings applied.. and knowing this is how the insight is gained. Just to know he existed is pointless. My grandmother existed and that it can be proved is really of no value to anyone... what I gained from her is what is important and because her teachings were to me, I know in what context they are to be applied.

Apparently I am much more familiar with the laws and customs of Jesus' day than you are. We have no mention or reference anywhere of a marriage, we have his teaching that not marrying is better if you can, and we have knowledge of other devout Jews before, after, and during Jesus' day who did not marry.

Alright.. lets see about your first claim, shall we? Tell me, do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin or do you believe that he was the son of Joseph and of the line of David. This too, is important in understanding why Jesus would have been married. :yes:

If you have no opinion of this, then really, your Jesus is nothing of value and why even bother studying something that has no value? What is the point? Just to undermine the enlightment meant FOR THE Jewish? The enlightment, I do not doubt at all, would be beneficial to the whole world, but not on this superficial level that they are buying into.. and you, yourself, are feeding into this superficial thinking.

Edited to correct: unobjective mindset to objective (I was thinking of you when I made the mistake).

 

[Oberon]

In YOUR opinion (and probably held tightly to given only because it is the opinion of others).

Not in my opinion. It is there in the text. More than once people around him are seen saying "who does this guy think he is? With what authority is he saying these things?"

He said this, regarding the first thing I highlighted, not because divorce is wrong in and of itself

According to Jesus, it ways. He specifically states that the two become one and should not be seperated.

What do you know of Diaspora?

A good deal.

What is the situation surrounding the "Eunuchs" as spoken of in the Tanakh? What is said of them in Isaiah, the text Jesus claimed to be enlightening us to, that would clue us into what he meant by Eunuchs?

He isn't just talking about Isaiah, but Deut. 24:1-4.

If he was a religious Jew (not just a pious jew.. but a religous one which meant his mindset was toward his people), then he was married (Genesis 2:24... Matthew 5:17-19).

And you continually fail to see that we have evidence of religious Jews who were celibate. There is no reason than to assume that Jesus was married.

Remember, I said that Jeremiah was told to not take a wife or have children *in this place*... do you know what was happening at that time?

At what time? During Jeremiah's life? After he was banished and was ministering? Whenever the text was written (and who knows)?

Having said that, in the last chapters of Jeremiah, there is evidence that Jeremiah was not without children of his own.

I could give you an large list of citations of scholars who disagree and read Jeremiah 16:2 as being a clear command to celibacy. But as you don't trust anyone who isn't Jewish, and I don't know what their religions are, I'll save myself the trouble.

 

[Oberon]

Because I know what it is to REALLY come from the position of a truly objective mindset.

This is truly amusing coming from someone who argues that only a Jewish mindset could possibly understand Jesus, given that what being Jewish meant was in sharp disagreement at that time.

Anyone who just accepts the existence of the person Jesus just because is doing so for an agenda.

Or because s/he has studied ancient history.






We don't need anything else. See my post on the historical Jesus here

I do not think that drawing conclusions from others speculations is worthy of considering "proof" that Jesus existed neither do I find it important anymore to carry on the debate of his existence because I came to realize in my quest for knowledge that it is neither here nor there where OUR reality is concerned (that too many believe in the mythological view of Jesus is what should be addressed because IT is leading to this lazy mindset that even you show signs of posessing.. you don't think, you only accept... what you and others like you are doing is allowing the fantasy to continue).

So, you didn't read the thread. So much for an open mind.

 

[Dunemeister]

So, you didn't read the thread. So much for an open mind.

Oberon, FWIW, may I suggest that you keep your considerable scholarship and good sense to yourself? There's a proverb about pearls and swine that comes to mind. May I just say that If_u_knew has demonstrated the emptiness of his arguments ad nauseum, and by contrast, you have made your case clearly and concisely. Frankly, it's not worth wasting further time and effort on him, for clearly he's too "objective" to take your arguments seriously.