Was Jesus Married? Addressing Ben Masada

[Oberon]

Frankly, it's not worth wasting further time and effort on him, for clearly he's too "objective" to take your arguments seriously.

Good point. I give up.

 

[IF_u_knew]

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.

First of all, your observation skills are atrocious. Second, why? What is it you benefit from in suggesting this discussion be shut down.

I think you have reason to make a suggestion... and in this case:

Good point. I give up.

I am not surprised at all that your suggestion was listened to, Dunemeister. :no:

 

[IF_u_knew]

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?"

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

A good deal.



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

Read Matthew 5:17-19 .. they were given for merciful purposes, the commands of Moses.. but not only that, because there was the grace to come.. the understanding of a deeper language within the commands. This was brought by testimonies of the Prophets... Jesus was just marrying the two with enlightenment. Isaiah 50-53 particularly, we can see that it is the knowledge that is of importance Isaiah 53:11.. and that it was for this people.


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.

Yes, and what their intent was as well. To take the other children to build their communities with. Paul would be such a type. He, too, was a pious Jew.. but he was not religous in the sense that religious would apply to the Jewish People.

He was high minded... concerned more with pious morality than with the people themselves.

Jesus was concerned with the People just as the writers of the Tanakh were. Remember, God did not write the Tanakh.. man did; though I see the Divine inspiration, it is only through understanding the DEEP love the writers had for the people that enlightenment of the writers is understood (one must be able to see sense in the whole of the text and not just in parts of it.. the whole of it is the deeper understanding AND the point).

Jesus was not one that fit into the catagory of people Josephus was referring to. He came for HIS People and this is evident in the story of the caananite woman who wanted her daughter healed. It was not until she admitted she was but a dog to him as compared to how he felt about his own. She was allowed scraps, but would never receive the same love from him that his own people did. That is a religious Jew.. and such a one would have had children of his own. He was not cruel.. just devoted to his own (of course, personally, I do not agree with how he treated her; but truly, I CAN understand the mentality he was in.. first his own, then THEY, after his death, could enlighten the world). But the type of people Josephus mentioned stole the meaning to pass it on to another who would not understand; to build up his own community.. his new religion based on something that does not even exist in the Tanakh.




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

You have claimed to have read the whole of the text no? Notice that he encourages people as well to where it is they SHOULD go.

You are thinking according to your own mindset and not the mind of a man who cared deeply for his own people. Marriage in the minds of the prophets was a conceptual metaphor.

Do you think when they speak of God being betrothed and then Isaiah speaking of God writing a bill of divorce that He, God, is really going to come down and marry Israel? He can't.. He is not a man to be able to do such. It is metaphorical language to help the People understand their role and their place.

Edited to add: And this is what Jesus was referring to.. the idea of God "writing a bill of divorce" for Israel. It was for merciful purposes.. to teach them. Diaspora .. the same "idea".. they spoke in parables, the jewish People. But the grace he was trying to also enlighten them to is what is spoken of in Isaiah AND Jeremiah. God would only ever chastise and never fully cast away Israel.

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.

You don't have to. I have read many a commentary on it my own self. I just don't have to agree and it does NOT make me wrong to disagree with them... it just makes me more consistent in my views and this consistency is what has led me to even see it as Truth. It, the Tanakh, is not talking to all People. Certainly anyone can derive wisdom from it, but not just anyone can seem to grasp that it is not meant for the mindset of all Peoples in the world.

And I did not say I don't trust anyone who isn't Jewish.. I am just more apt to listen to a Jew concerning Jewish Scriptures and Jewish People than someone who is not. There is a reason.
Still, do not mistake this mean that I believe a Jewish view just because they are Jewish... after all, Herod was Jewish by his family's conversion, but his intentions were never toward the Jewish People..only political gain. That I take into consideration as well. Also, do not think I disregard others just because they are NOT Jewish. This, too, is not true. Just that your intent is not for the Jewish in regards to your studying of their Scriptures and one of their own people.

I have said repeatedly, you are good for some surface information (and so, I HAVE read your posts not only here but in other threads), but honestly so are books. As to actually trying to understand the real Truth in the texts, you fail for you lack any opinion that hasn't already been given by another and shut down anyone else trying to speculate toward rationalizing the texts (which is what the people whose opinions you DO echo had to do their own selves before giving THEIR opinions, no?).

 

[IF_u_knew]

[/color]

Or because s/he has studied ancient history.

I can understand having interest in ancient history. But the Tanakh and the Jewish weren't writing their history in the way that most do. It is something much more profound.. about evolving in wisdom and not so much about honoring ACTUAL individuals. Moses.. what about his existence? I have my own speculations to where it is that was derived (and it would not at all sound familiar to most); but it is beside the point for it is not the history as in the way we think of history that was in the minds of the Jewish that is important, but rather it is the People and their evolution in knowledge and Wisdom that was/is important to them.




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

I did.. and I was going to go back and pull out the reasons that I see that are based simply on speculation still. Actually, it all is. But again, that was never the point with the whole topic of Jesus being married. If we are going to take Jesus to be literal, given his cause, his own people and the testimonies combined with the Laws, Jesus would have been married.

You are taking his teachings and applying them to the world's understanding of marriage rather than what it is he was applying them to.. the Tanakh which was regarding SPECIFICALLY a People, Israel.


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

I did.. I found some interesting things said that I have gone and looked into for my own self. I don't mind the knowledge you are able to share, it is that you do not understand the differnce between knowledge and enlightenment. You walk into conversations armed with worldly speculations (that still can't be proved as being fact since Paul is the one who came up with the Christian version of Jesus, mythological view, before all the others started elaborating on a life ~ though I think with purpose ~ and then of course, others, such as Josephus and Tacticus etc, who wrote of the public opinion at the time) and miss that a discussion is trying to be carried on in regards to another level than you are able to think.

You think just because there were celibate Jews and that Jesus taught certain things about marriage (though it WAS regarding to another level than what you are saying... else, it does not belong attached to the Tanakh), the ABSOLUTE conclusion is that there is no evidences Jesus was married. You are mistaken.

Still waiting on whether or not you think Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph, of the line of David. That I posed this question only to have another come in and shut it down (and you obeying them)... well, I have to wonder why?

 

[Dunemeister]

I am not surprised at all that your suggestion was listened to, Dunemeister. :no:

So you recognize wisdom, then.

 

[IF_u_knew]

So you recognize wisdom, then.

I suppose :areyoucra. That I have accused him of having a Christian agenda and that it only took one Christian to say, "I suggest stopping the conversation" for him to comply, considering what I have proposed, I can see why the suggestion and why the obedience. Really all that requires is one experienced enough, and observant enough, to know the Christian mindset in order to understand what occurred in the exchange between you two.:yes:

 

[Oberon]

I suppose :areyoucra. That I have accused him of having a Christian agenda

It's funny because on another thread on this forum I was just accused of being anti-jesus.

 

[IF_u_knew]

It's funny because on another thread on this forum I was just accused of being anti-jesus.

Do you mind to give me your opinion based on your studies, whether or not you think Jesus was born of Joseph, the line of David or do you allow that the virgin birth may have been a possibility (some seemingly rational people really do allow for the latter option based on it being a natural way of production for some plants, fish, etc. .. not sure the connection there, but it is a line of thinking some claiming to be objective have taken hold of)?

 

[Oberon]

Do you mind to give me your opinion based on your studies, whether or not you think Jesus was born of Joseph, the line of David or do you allow that the virgin birth may have been a possibility (some seemingly rational people really do allow for the latter option based on it being a natural way of production for some plants, fish, etc. .. not sure the connection there, but it is a line of thinking some claiming to be objective have taken hold of)?

As long as it doesn't lead to more of the "Jesus was married because I have a Jewish mindset" stuff, no I don't mind. I don't believe in the virgin birth, nor do I discount the possibility that Jesus was not born of the line of Joseph. Some scholars have posited that Jesus was illegitimate. This is a possibility, but I don't think there is enough evidence to support it. There seems to have been traditions concerning irregularities of Jesus' birth, and the narratives in Matthew and Luke might be early Christian attempts to explain these, but I tend to think they are wholly legendary and historically worthless.

 

[IF_u_knew]

As long as it doesn't lead to more of the "Jesus was married because I have a Jewish mindset" stuff, no I don't mind. I don't believe in the virgin birth, nor do I discount the possibility that Jesus was not born of the line of Joseph. Some scholars have posited that Jesus was illegitimate. This is a possibility, but I don't think there is enough evidence to support it. There seems to have been traditions concerning irregularities of Jesus' birth, and the narratives in Matthew and Luke might be early Christian attempts to explain these, but I tend to think they are wholly legendary and historically worthless.

So, really, it is just some random guy that loved the ladies and likewise, they loved him.. he allowed several of them to rub him in a very intimate fashion.. and he was able to state the already obvious.

About the Jewish mindset... don't tell me that is not something to take into consideration. If we did not know the mindset of Gandhi and what was going on during the time that he made so many of his statements, they would not mean anything of true importance (which again, is the general mindset of the population... to not be aware of the meaning behind what it is he was saying).

You are taking things that Jesus said and applying it to the worldly view when he clearly stated that he was teaching others the enlightenment he had of the Hebrew Scriptures; and you are also trying to imply that because there was a small fraction of Jews who thought building their communities with other's children was ideal than having their own, Jesus could not have been married. You misunderstand which is why you miss ALL the evidences in the NT of Jesus being married. The idea was already put into your head and you have grasped a hold of it and can't see reason. Christians, most of them, although there are some who are starting to come around to rationalize with their own mind to see that the evidences are there, are the ones with the agenda to deny the evidences within the NT that he was married...

The historical Jesus that you and other scholars of your kind are studying is a greek minded man and not the same one written about in the gospel accounts.

 

[Oberon]

About the Jewish mindset... don't tell me that is not something to take into consideration.

Of course it is. However, you don't know enough about the jewish mindset of first century palestine. You know judaism today, and you think you can read that back into Jesus' day. You haven't read enough scholarship (jewish or otherwise) on the Judaism of Jesus' day, or you wouldn't make the arguments you do.

I have made my case. I know you don't accept it. Fine. But I'm done here, because there is no point in conversing with someone who 1) hasn't studied the matter enough 2) doesn't accept scholarship 3) thinks they can read whatever they want into texts and 4) can't produce anything substantive in reply other than to talk about a 21st century Jewish mindset as if that had some relevency. When you've read Neusner and Vermes, get back to me.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Of course it is. However, you don't know enough about the jewish mindset of first century palestine. You know judaism today, and you think you can read that back into Jesus' day. You haven't read enough scholarship (jewish or otherwise) on the Judaism of Jesus' day, or you wouldn't make the arguments you do.

I have made my case. I know you don't accept it. Fine. But I'm done here, because there is no point in conversing with someone who 1) hasn't studied the matter enough

I grew up in a Christian Church started and led by a Pastor (whose former occupation was as a Railroad Conductor.. they are VERY strict and this is how he ran his church.. in a strict manner.. he was imparting knowledge and we were to *pay attention*) who was obsessed and very well educated about not only 2nd Temple Judaism, but in the whole of the history of the Jewish People/Israelites. This, he made sure was not only incorporated into his sermons (in which I was made to attend services).. but into our schooling as well (I attended the private school there which was the top rated in the state for private education.. and part of the curriculim included the history of Israel and even Judaism). On top of that, I was made to attend various colleges during the summer for educational seminars geared to whatever age group I was in at the time and a few of them were centered around the history of the Israelites. I was not well liked by most of my teachers because, yes, I did question much... I did not just accept what I was being told. Then on top of that, I have MADE it my goal to search these things out for my own self ... surely I was not given that upbringing for no reason, right? And as for being ignorant, it depends... based on most Christians opinions of me, yes, I am ignorant for my views do not support their demigod view of Jesus (that he WAS married is a view they especially despise me for having).

2) doesn't accept scholarship

Just because I don't accept scholarship as the absolute authority on biblical knowledge does not mean I am not well educated in popular opinions and even those not so popular. You are right.. I don't JUST accept what people tell me to accept (their conclusions drawn from speculations as well.. especially when they are looking to the wrong places to draw up those conclusions).. if everyone did this, then there would be no growth in knowledge, correct? You have faith (blind acceptance) in what you are being taught... I listen, read, and discuss.. but I learn with a mind that will scrutinize what it is I am being told. The Tanakh is not about the individuals, it is about the People.. their interactions, their growth, their way of learning. This is the eye in which I judge the NT. If the NT is not meant to be judged in the light of the Tanakh, then why is attached to it?


3) thinks they can read whatever they want into texts

Again, this is not me. The NT is said to based on the Tanakh.

Matthew 5:17-19
Matthew 17:3
Luke 24:27, 44

These are only a few of the references for why I go to the Tanakh to understand Jesus' teachings and even his life.. if one wants to understand what it is Jesus was teaching (expounding upon), it only makes sense to go to where it is he pointed no?

You are the one going to the writings of other men whom Jesus never said were the writings he was expounding upon.. thus, to use Josephus' observations of HIS time as an argument for your case of what Jesus was speaking of in his "marriage" and "Eunuch" dialogues is truly what you are saying there in your #3. That accusation falls squarely on your own shoulders.


and 4) can't produce anything substantive in reply other than to talk about a 21st century Jewish mindset as if that had some relevency. When you've read Neusner and Vermes, get back to me.

Funny that I am making claims based #1 on the Tanakh and #2 on the NT itself and you say I am only able to talk about a 21st century Jewish mindset; in the meantime you refer me to Jacob Neusner, born in connecticut during the 1930's and one who often uses circular reasoning to draw up his conclusions and even HIGHLY praised by the Pope at one time.. the Pope, being the leader of the Church who claims that God left Israel for to marry instead, in case you were not aware .

Hmmm... and you wonder why I say that Jesus CAME FOR HIS PEOPLE and that the message in Mark 10 about marriage/divorce was to enlighten them, Israel, to the testimonies that God would NEVER cast away Israel, but only ever chastise them. God doesn't break Laws, only man does.. Jesus was not oblivious of this fact as is seen in his interactions with the People.

Vermes, I have more of a mind to take a bit more seriously, simply because he converted back to Judaism.. though that does not mean that I accept everything he says as the absolute authority to draw my conclusions from. I have a mind that can think, ya know.

YOU have consistently stated that Mary Magdalene was of little importance as compared to the other women in the NT accounts.. yet, it was to MARY MAGDALENE Jesus came to first (not even his own mother or disciples) after the crucifixion.. and he even knew where it is he would find her. That is intimacy, Oberon.

You are the only one who has given nothing of relevence to the discussion of whether or not Jesus was married. You deny facts, circumstantial evidence, and then you turn to sources that had nothing to do with Jesus to draw your conclusions from (or rather to support the ones drawn up by others. You can't even show ONE statement in the gospel accounts where it says (or even strongly implies) that Jesus was not married.

You can be finished with this discussion and I don't blame you. Obviously you will not convince me to believe something is not there between Mary and Jesus when clearly it is. Certainly, I will never be pursuaded by sources that Jesus did not confirm his teachings to be based upon. Seriously, it is amusing how these claims you make, save #2, apply rather to your own self. :faint:

 

[Oberon]

Ok, I'll take the bait. Of course, this will require an entirely different thread. Hopefullly, I'll start that tomorrow.

I grew up in a Christian Church started and led by a Pastor (whose former occupation was as a Railroad Conductor.. they are VERY strict and this is how he ran his church.. in a strict manner.. he was imparting knowledge and we were to *pay attention*) who was obsessed and very well educated about not only 2nd Temple Judaism, but in the whole of the history of the Jewish People/Israelites. This, he made sure was not only incorporated into his sermons (in which I was made to attend services).. but into our schooling as well (I attended the private school there which was the top rated in the state for private education.. and part of the curriculim included the history of Israel and even Judaism). On top of that, I was made to attend various colleges during the summer for educational seminars geared to whatever age group I was in at the time and a few of them were centered around the history of the Israelites. I was not well liked by most of my teachers because, yes, I did question much... I did not just accept what I was being told. Then on top of that, I have MADE it my goal to search these things out for my own self ... surely I was not given that upbringing for no reason, right? And as for being ignorant, it depends... based on most Christians opinions of me, yes, I am ignorant for my views do not support their demigod view of Jesus (that he WAS married is a view they especially despise me for having).

I don't see how any of that is at all relevent. You are clearly not acquainted with either the literature within 2nd-temple judaism, or the scholarship on it.

Just because I don't accept scholarship as the absolute authority on biblical knowledge does not mean I am not well educated in popular opinions and even those not so popular. You are right.. I don't JUST accept what people tell me to accept (their conclusions drawn from speculations as well.. especially when they are looking to the wrong places to draw up those conclusions).. if everyone did this, then there would be no growth in knowledge, correct? You have faith (blind acceptance) in what you are being taught... I listen, read, and discuss.. but I learn with a mind that will scrutinize what it is I am being told. The Tanakh is not about the individuals, it is about the People.. their interactions, their growth, their way of learning. This is the eye in which I judge the NT. If the NT is not meant to be judged in the light of the Tanakh, then why is attached to it?

You seem to be under the opinion that the Jews of Jesus' day all viewed the tanakh like you do. They didn't. There were vastly different opinions, traditions, norms, etc, that had developed outside of the tanakh, and were current during Jesus' day. Jesus had his own teachings on what constituted proper judiasm, just like the pharisees, essenes, sadducees, and so on. You make statments about what "proper jews" would have done without knowing enough about the vast diversity within judiasm of that day.

Again, this is not me. The NT is said to based on the Tanakh.

The tanakh as it was interpreted by a particular group of Jews. You are arrogant enough to assume that how you interpret it is how all Jews have. Yet the Jews of Jesus' day differed as to how the tanakh (not to mention traditions and literature outside of the tanakh) were to be interpreted.

These are only a few of the references for why I go to the Tanakh to understand Jesus' teachings and even his life.. if one wants to understand what it is Jesus was teaching (expounding upon), it only makes sense to go to where it is he pointed no?

Yes, and you pointed to Isaiah rather than deuteronomy. Furthermore, you aren't familiar with the gulf between the tanakh and the judaism of Jesus' day.

You are the one going to the writings of other men whom Jesus never said were the writings he was expounding upon.. thus, to use Josephus' observations of HIS time as an argument for your case of what Jesus was speaking of in his "marriage" and "Eunuch" dialogues is truly what you are saying there in your #3. That accusation falls squarely on your own shoulders.

The writing of other Jews during Jesus' day, particularly a jewish historian, show that your understanding of the tanakh was not shared by the Jews in first century palestine.

Funny that I am making claims based #1 on the Tanakh and #2 on the NT itself and you say I am only able to talk about a 21st century Jewish mindset; in the meantime you refer me to Jacob Neusner, born in connecticut during the 1930's and one who often uses circular reasoning to draw up his conclusions and even HIGHLY praised by the Pope at one time.. the Pope, being the leader of the Church who claims that God left Israel for to marry instead, in case you were not aware .

Unlike you, Neusner and Vermes (not to mention all the other experts of this period) have read not just the tanakh (in its original language) but all the other documents which aid in understanding how different strains of Jewish thought were expressed by different groups, and how the law of god was understood by different groups.

YOU have consistently stated that Mary Magdalene was of little importance as compared to the other women in the NT accounts..

I have never stated that.

yet, it was to MARY MAGDALENE Jesus came to first (not even his own mother or disciples) after the crucifixion.. and he even knew where it is he would find her. That is intimacy, Oberon.

Now, it was Mary Magdalene who, in the least reliable gospel, came to Jesus first. In the other gospels, there were multiple women.

You deny facts, circumstantial evidence, and then you turn to sources that had nothing to do with Jesus to draw your conclusions from (or rather to support the ones drawn up by others.

You look at documents written hundreds of years prior to Jesus. I look at how these documents were interpreted by Jews of Jesus' day, including Jesus himself. Your ridiculous notion that "a religious Jew must be married" is contradicted by the Essenes, even we discounted the other examples I gave in my first post (which included a rabbi).

You can't even show ONE statement in the gospel accounts where it says (or even strongly implies) that Jesus was not married.

I did. Jesus advocated celibacy. And you, supposedly familiar with Jewish scriptures, thought that he was basing this on Isaiah, rather than Deuteronomy.

 

[FFH]

Jesus was never married.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Ok, I'll take the bait. Of course, this will require an entirely different thread. Hopefullly, I'll start that tomorrow.

Yes, I glanced over your new thread. On one hand, I appreciate that you would take the time to write it out, but since there was not a bait that I threw out, I am unsure why you think it was necessary. Still.. when I have more time, I will read it with more thought than I am able to give it at the moment.


You seem to be under the opinion that the Jews of Jesus' day all viewed the tanakh like you do. They didn't. There were vastly different opinions, traditions, norms, etc, that had developed outside of the tanakh, and were current during Jesus' day. Jesus had his own teachings on what constituted proper judiasm, just like the pharisees, essenes, sadducees, and so on. You make statments about what "proper jews" would have done without knowing enough about the vast diversity within judiasm of that day.

I was not under that opinion at all. In fact, there is still the same today. I am looking though at the events of the time and what had happened prior that time with the Jewish. I also take into consideration "more recent" accounts regarding how leaders of other people led their own out from under oppression. There is more to "just knowing" 2nd-temple judaism.. though I am not ignorant of..

I have read Josephus and partially other accounts... but those are public opinions and only go as far to show us what was occurring, the responses of different people, etc... but there are key traits of Jesus and certain things in the teachings attributed to him that speaks FAR MORE to his life.. and you don't see it because you are only relying surface knowledge (and not even doing a job well done at that either.. you miss so much that is right there in front of your eyes).



The tanakh as it was interpreted by a particular group of Jews. You are arrogant enough to assume that how you interpret it is how all Jews have. Yet the Jews of Jesus' day differed as to how the tanakh (not to mention traditions and literature outside of the tanakh) were to be interpreted.

Don't be so dramatic. It is not that I am arrogant enough.. it is just what is. There is a saying attributed to Jesus.. "but wisdom is justified of all her children." No one is ever going to think the same way about all things, but one thing is for certain.. a man who is on a mission to lead his people out from under oppression will always use a special path catered to his own. Jesus pointed to exactly what he was elaborating on so there would not be question as to where one needs to go to understand. It is their Scriptures.. not all the literature and traditions written outside of ). Though I find great insight into many of the different texts by the Jewish, this is the one text meant to point out the path to his own.. and that path was looking toward the Tanakh and not Paul's, Josephus', or even the other texts that Jews hold as sacred (understandably so that they do.. but Jesus did not point to them for his teachings).



Yes, and you pointed to Isaiah rather than deuteronomy. Furthermore, you aren't familiar with the gulf between the tanakh and the judaism of Jesus' day.

Jesus made it clear that he was not teaching against Moses. But again.. in Isaiah it says that God wrote a bill of divorce.. Jesus was elaborating TO THOSE who could understand what this was.. metaphorical language and that furthermore, God would only ever chastise Israel and never cast them away.

That he included the adultry bit was quite clever on his part for this means that the Christian Church is committing adultry.. again metaphorical speech for a later time when there would be those wondering where it is the Truth actually exists.

He never came to condemn others of being human.. just to help light a path. :yes: (Moses wrote the bill of divorce in for merciful purposes.. the prophets saw this on a deeper level.. that God WOULD chastise Israel for their sake, and this is what Jesus was trying to explain.. yes.. repeating because you seem to think that Jesus was speaking on a superficial level).

 

[IF_u_knew]

The writing of other Jews during Jesus' day, particularly a jewish historian, show that your understanding of the tanakh was not shared by the Jews in first century palestine.

Well, haha.. except for at least a few; of which Jesus was one . Wisdom is a product of time. It is like with Moses.. obviously the People did not think the way he did at the time.. but he was enlightened his own self. In time, the People came to understand the importance and the beauty of the Law... this was only enhanced by the knowledge and enlightenment of the Prophets and Jesus; and just like with Moses, the knowledge is given and then one must work to understand this

This is seen as the way it is for Israel when looking at the Conceptual Metaphor of Genesis 3.. check out the judgments God gave to them after they "ate" of the knowledge; particularly to Adam. FOR HIS SAKE, it says.

Unlike you, Neusner and Vermes (not to mention all the other experts of this period) have read not just the tanakh (in its original language) but all the other documents which aid in understanding how different strains of Jewish thought were expressed by different groups, and how the law of god was understood by different groups.


What is wrong with you that you are so opposed to people thinking for their own selves. You seem to think there is a cut off date for anyone being able to have a different perspective on these things. "sorry folks.. the cut off date was anyone born after *such and such day*.. one born after is absolutely unable to bring anything to the table of consideration.. no matter what."


Now, it was Mary Magdalene who, in the least reliable gospel, came to Jesus first. In the other gospels, there were multiple women.

Geez.. some expert you are.

Mark's account says to Mary Magdalene first. Then he came to two more which would most likely be the same two (spoken of in the account of Luke) he met on the road who had left the tomb (of which MARY Magdalene was not among.. for she stayed behind, weeping for her beloved :yes.

Now Luke gives us more of a perspective to say that the women who came to the tomb in the first place, ran to tell the men.. and two of the men came to the tomb only to leave again. In John, this is when we see Mary Magdalene stayed behind. In Matthew when it says he "met them," it is rather vague, but even if this is the women, it was not until after Mary Magdalene. In the account of Matthew, I do lean toward it being the other two women mentioned with Mary Magdalene in other accounts.. Jesus' mother and Joanna.. as they most likely went with Mary and the two men.. the whole "angel" account.. well, ya got me there as I do not lean toward such mystical ideas.

Either way, none of the accounts deny that Mary Magdalene was the first that Jesus went to and in fact, line them up methodically and it is easily seen that it fits as well as two of the accounts directly state this.. that she is the first he went to.


You look at documents written hundreds of years prior to Jesus. I look at how these documents were interpreted by Jews of Jesus' day, including Jesus himself. Your ridiculous notion that "a religious Jew must be married" is contradicted by the Essenes, even we discounted the other examples I gave in my first post (which included a rabbi).

And so, I must deny the evidences in the NT that point to him being married to Mary Magdalene who was one in the same as Mary of Bethany? Listen.. it only ever states that she was OF Bethany.. that she was "called Magdalene" most likely had to do with her occupation(Magdalene was never a town.. it was called Magdala.. she was never said to be OF there.. only identified with it for, I am sure, good reason).

Have YOU ever bothered to take the accounts of these Marys and the annointings to line them up so as to view them side by side? Most definitely three of the accounts, minus the one in Luke are the same. To say they are not is to deny what is clearly written. That was Mary of Bethany (Matthew, Mark, and John). Luke's account, is also with its similarities and that this woman knew where Jesus was as well as her being identified a sinner, well... come on. Get a clue.

Plus, you miss what it is that Ben Masada was pointing out. In all three of the accounts that are the same it points to the clue that tells us that Mary OF Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same... you will find that clue in Matthew 26:12; Mark 14:8; John 12:7. It was Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb to anoint Jesus.

Are you this clueless?

I did. Jesus advocated celibacy. And you, supposedly familiar with Jewish scriptures, thought that he was basing this on Isaiah, rather than Deuteronomy.

Oh good Lord! I am familiar with what is said in Deuteronomy. Are you familiar with what it says in Isaiah as to why I draw the correlation? Are you familiar that it was Isaiah Jesus pointed to in particular where his teachings are concerned? It never had anything to do with celibacy and he never advocated it. If his teachings in Mark 10 are as you claim, then Jesus condemned God, who the prophet Isaiah says wrote out a bill of divorce..

He was not condemning people.. he was speaking to the enlightenment he had. If one understands this enlightenment.. then they know "the bill of divorce" is a metaphor, that God would never cast away Israel (only chastise them), as well as the christian Church is the adulterer (though, this was cleverness on his part since christianity did not yet exist.. he was making sure that the people knew that God would NEVER forsake Israel.. but we know he had some sort of insight in what was to come for he specifically said that many would come in his (Jesus') name and say HE is Christ and that they are the deceivers).

You underestimate a Jewish mind that is specifically for the Jewish People, ya know.

 

[Oberon]

Geez.. some expert you are.

Mark's account says to Mary Magdalene first.

This is a complete misrepresentation. Mark simply places Mary of Magdala's name first in a list of three women. He doesn't say she came first. Furthermore, the greek verb for "annoint" in the text is in the PLURAL! They ALL came to annoint his body, as Mark makes clear.

for she stayed behind, weeping for her beloved :yes.

Now you are just making things up.

Either way, none of the accounts deny that Mary Magdalene was the first that Jesus went to and in fact, line them up methodically and it is easily seen that it fits as well as two of the accounts directly state this.. that she is the first he went to.

Only John's account has Mary Magdalene come to the tomb first. None of the others specify.

And so, I must deny the evidences in the NT that point to him being married to Mary Magdalene who was one in the same as Mary of Bethany? Listen.. it only ever states that she was OF Bethany.. that she was "called Magdalene" most likely had to do with her occupation(Magdalene was never a town.. it was called Magdala.. she was never said to be OF there.. only identified with it for, I am sure, good reason).

1) Madalene means "from magdala." There was never a town "nazarene" either. It means "from Nazareth."

2) The way to differentiate people was by the kinship or place of origin, because people often had the same name. There are several Marys in the NT. Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are differentiated by place of origin.

Have YOU ever bothered to take the accounts of these Marys and the annointings to line them up so as to view them side by side?

And, suprisingly, only one has Mary of Magdala alone. And the two which deal with annointing specifically state that ALL the women were going to annoint Jesus (hence the plural usage).

Most definitely three of the accounts, minus the one in Luke are the same. To say they are not is to deny what is clearly written. That was Mary of Bethany (Matthew, Mark, and John). Luke's account, is also with its similarities and that this woman knew where Jesus was as well as her being identified a sinner, well... come on. Get a clue.

Matthew has Mary of Magdala and "the other Mary." Mark has Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome. Luke leaves out Salome but has Joanna. Only John (the latest and least reliable) has Mary of Magdala alone. Not that it matters. In none of the gospels are any Marys featured very prominently. Mary of Bethany gets a bit of attention in John, but the only real significance mary of magdala gets is being a witness at the tomb.

In all three of the accounts that are the same it points to the clue that tells us that Mary OF Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same.

In none of the accounts is Mary of Bethany said to annoint Jesus. Ben Masada's point about her being the one to annoint Jesus again is foolish, because in Mark and Luke the plural of the verb is used. All of the women were there to annoint.

Oh good Lord! I am familiar with what is said in Deuteronomy. Are you familiar with what it says in Isaiah as to why I draw the correlation?

Yes. You don't know what you are talking about.

Are you familiar that it was Isaiah Jesus pointed to in particular where his teachings are concerned?

Only it wasn't. This is clear because both Jesus and the Pharisees talk about "what Moses commanded." Moses was credited with writing Deuteronomy, NOT ISAIAH! So no one in that passage is talking about Isaiah. Isaiah 50:1 is not about divorce, while Jesus' discussion is. He is responding to a legal argument made by the Pharisees concerning Deut. That it is Deut. which formed the basis for Jewish arguments concerning divorce may be seen by Philo, Josephus, and Rabbinic texts. It is clear that by Jesus' day a body of tradition had grown around the lines in Deut. Your pointing to Isaiah is nonsensical, as Isaiah is irrelevent.

who the prophet Isaiah says wrote out a bill of divorce..

 

[IF_u_knew]

In none of the accounts is Mary of Bethany said to annoint Jesus. Ben Masada's point about her being the one to annoint Jesus again is foolish, because in Mark and Luke the plural of the verb is used. All of the women were there to annoint.


:yes:

John 11:

1Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
2(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.

John 12
2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

Do you at all understand why I question your claims to have studied these things without agenda? It DOES state it directly that it is Mary of Bethany and you say it does not.

 

[Dunemeister]

John 11
1Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
2(It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
John 12
2There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
3Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Do you at all understand why I question your claims to have studied these things without agenda? It DOES state it directly that it is Mary of Bethany and you say it does not.

You are conflating the accounts under discussion. By "none of the accounts," Oberon was referring to accounts where the women intend to anoint Jesus after his crucifixion. He was not saying that Mary of Bethany had never anointed Jesus.

 

[IF_u_knew]

You are conflating the accounts under discussion. By "none of the accounts," Oberon was referring to accounts where the women intend to anoint Jesus after his crucifixion. He was not saying that Mary of Bethany had never anointed Jesus.

You are correct Dunemeister. Thank you for the correction. I can clearly see how this is what he intended.. though I still have to disagree.

That there is the connection made with the burial and that Mary Magdalene was the one consistently mentioned and first, mind you.. well, it makes more sense for one to draw up this conclusion that is within the context of the gospels than to randomly choose a section of Josephus' writings and try to correlate it to the life of Jesus when neither the gospels nor Josephus' writings support a claim that Jesus was an essene himself. At least this is a speculation that is not based on random assumption, but on evidences within the same book.. the NT. :yes: