Was Jesus Married? Addressing Ben Masada

[Dunemeister]

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:

You have a penchant for systematically misunderstanding what Oberon is arguing. He's not claiming that Jesus was Essene, nor is he saying that Josephus or the gospels portray Jesus as Essene.

Really, how do you expect us to talk to you when you don't take the trouble to read and understand what we say?

 

[IF_u_knew]

You have a penchant for systematically misunderstanding what Oberon is arguing. He's not claiming that Jesus was Essene, nor is he saying that Josephus or the gospels portray Jesus as Essene.

Really, how do you expect us to talk to you when you don't take the trouble to read and understand what we say?

Well Dunemeister, first of all, I do read what you all write and I do consider each and every point. Why else do you think I took what you said and went back to read his post in that light? I have no problem to correct my views where it is called for.

That last statement is more a confession for your own self. Up until the last few posts I have made on this forum, you have shown a blatant disregard for my posts and in quite the rudest fashion.. go back and read all your replies to me. :yes:

I understand to what context Oberon is using with the essenes.. I get that. It does not apply to Jesus though and that he continues to bring them up as though it does means that he IS relating these people to Jesus, else he would have noticed I moved past the argument that Jesus had to be married because he was a religious Jew. I understand that "religious" is viewed differently in your minds than it would have been viewed in Jesus.. so, I let that one go. And still, it is being used.

 

[Oberon]

: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.

As Dunemeister said, DIFFERENT MARY! LOTS of people were named Mary. There wasn't much variety of names in Jesus' day (Jewish or Greek or Roman). In any town or village, you could expect that everyone would have at least one other person with their name, and that is not even going into the number of people with the same name in a region. Even the gospels show several mary's. And people did not have last names. They were identified usually by kin or by place of origin. As I said, Magdalene meant "from Magala." Just like Atriedes means "son of Atreus" and Narazene meant "from Nazareth" and so on. Mary Magdalene is Mary of Magdala while Mary of Bethany is Mary of Bethany. They are CLEARLY distiniguished, because in those days one HAD to distinguish between people by saying where they were from or who they were related to. The fact that they are distinguished MEANS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON!!!!

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.

NO I DIDN'T! And yes, I understand why you question these things. It is because one of us is very aware of contemporary scholarship on Jesus and first century judaism, and the other is not. Therefore, you equate my saying Jesus isn't married with some sort of bias, because you simply aren't familiar with the period or the texts or the scholarship.

Josephus' writings support a claim that Jesus was an essene himself.

I never said he was an essene, nor do I think he was. However, he (like John the Baptist) shared certain apocalyptic views with the essenes. It is not suprising he (like John the Baptist) also adopted another similar view with respect to celibacy. The point of the essenes is that they are a clear example of devout jews, respected by other Jews, who were UNMARRIED (they are also not the only example, as the Therapeutae, Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai, and almost certainly John the baptist were also celibates). There is no reason, therefore, to cherry pick lines from the NT, and to conflate clearly differentiated individuals, or to reference Isaiah when the text is discussing Deuteronomy, or to use any other bad method in order to make Jesus cohere with a standard of Judaism which didn't apply to him.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I will say this, Oberon.. perhaps I was wrong about you. :yes: If your intention is to give credit to Jesus' teachings, you are failing miserably.

Ever heard the saying, "Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself." (I may not have gotten it word for word, but it is the general gist of the saying.. and I can only recall that it was a Thomas who said this..)

Anyway, I say the above and correlate it to the saying for this reason: Truly if Jesus was not married and then judging others concerning divorce (as you and others are claiming his statements regarding divorce were toward the common thought process rather than elaborating on the testimonies he claimed to be enlightening the people to) while not being married his own self, truly he was no one worthy of being listened to. I am divorced my own self and I would suggest anyone to consider walking in my own shoes before judging me for the end result. One should not talk the talk unless they first have walked the walk.

Thus, I make the statement in the first paragraph in the above to say that your idea of Jesus is someone who was hypocritical and judgmental.. one without any real understanding of Life, and even worse, without understanding of Moses and the prophets. Thus.. you are doing more to discredit him as one worthy to be listened to.

.. oh, and not to mention.. given that he allowed various women rub on him in a way that is quite intimate, well... wow! This guy really was of a loose teaching.. one that judged others for things he knew not of while he himself was rather given to the pleasures without the "payment."

 

[Oberon]

If your intention is to give credit to Jesus' teachings, you are failing miserably.

My intention in this thread is to accurately represent history as much as is possible, and to prevent the propagation of misinformation.

Truly if Jesus was not married and then judging others concerning divorce (as you and others are claiming his statements regarding divorce were toward the common thought process rather than elaborating on the testimonies he claimed to be enlightening the people to) while not being married his own self, truly he was no one worthy of being listened to.

That's your opinion, and a great many others believe so as well. It is also completely irrelevent.

One should not talk the talk unless they first have walked the walk.

I can't say murder is wrong unless I have killed?

Thus, I make the statement in the first paragraph in the above to say that your idea of Jesus is someone who was hypocritical and judgmental

I would absolutely say that Jesus was judgmental. I fail to see how he was a hypocrite, however (and before you quote the "judge not" line, see here).

.. one without any real understanding of Life, and even worse, without understanding of Moses and the prophets. Thus.. you are doing more to discredit him as one worthy to be listened to.

Modern Judaism is almost as different from the Judaism of Moses as Christianity is. Ancient Judaism centered around the temple and land, not just the Torah. Centuries of rabbinic thought have fundamentally changed the way Judaism is conceived today from the way it was in Jesus' day, and long before him Judaism was also something entirely different.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I can't say murder is wrong unless I have killed?

The comparison you make here is hopefully said in complete ignorance. Surely you don't mean to tell me you see divorce as being comparable to murder... do you?

And it isn't beside the point. That many revere a man, Jesus, as God, I think it is QUITE important that people grow up and understand what his intentions were toward in his teachings. He either was a liar (a COMPLETE fraud); the writers of the gospels were complete frauds; or there has been a HUGE misunderstanding of his teachings.

 

[IF_u_knew]

One more thing regarding your ignorant statement about murder.. It would be wrong to say that a person who killed in self defense (or defense of their loved ones) is murder unless you yourself have been threatened in such a way or have seen your loved ones lives threatened in such a way.

For Jesus to not have been married and to make the judgment call that divorce is wrong when Moses made the stipulation for merciful purposes (both for the man and the woman for neither deserve to live their only life in the context of a lie) is most definitely an error in judgment and hypocritical. And that so many people assume this is the context in which Jesus referred to regarding divorce and that they consider him God, well, it has actually led to many murders... out of fear of what others will think if they go through a divorce.

 

[Oberon]

The comparison you make here is hopefully said in complete ignorance.

It shows that your statement is completely false. One does not need to do something in order to say that it is wrong. One can say divorce is wrong without being divorced, that drug addiction is wrong without being addicted to drugs, that murder is wrong without having murdered, and so on. I'm not saying that Jesus was right in saying divorce was wrong, but to say that he can't judge it without having to experience it is foolish.

Surely you don't mean to tell me you see divorce as being comparable to murder... do you?

See above.

And it isn't beside the point. That many revere a man, Jesus, as God, I think it is QUITE important that people grow up and understand what his intentions were toward in his teachings. He either was a liar (a COMPLETE fraud); the writers of the gospels were complete frauds; or there has been a HUGE misunderstanding of his teachings.

I agree that understanding Jesus' teachings is important. However, that requires many seperate threads to address.

The important point of this thread (and the other one, and you have yet to respond to the last post there) is your assumption and Ben's that a "religious Jew" of first century palestine would have been married. This is simply and demonstrably false. There were many religious Jews during and around Jesus' day who were not married.

As for your calling him a liar (assuming you are basing this on his statement about fulfilling the law) your conception of what Jewish law constituted is in direct opposition to probably every Jew of that period, and certainly with the majority. The Sadducees, for example, rejected everything outside the books of Moses (like, say, Isaiah). We already know about the essenes. Most Jews organized their religious and cultural existence around the temple, and sacrifice in the temple (THE temple of Israel, not just any temple). So your statement is unwarrented.

 

[IF_u_knew]

It shows that your statement is completely false. One does not need to do something in order to say that it is wrong. One can say divorce is wrong without being divorced, that drug addiction is wrong without being addicted to drugs, that murder is wrong without having murdered, and so on. I'm not saying that Jesus was right in saying divorce was wrong, but to say that he can't judge it without having to experience it is foolish.

I will not disagree with your last statement here and I am not saying that he didn't judge it.. he did.. I am recalling the woman (Samaritan) at the well (as one example). Thus, the way he judged people who literally went through divorces, it only testifies even further that when he said what he did in the context such as Mark 10, he was referring to the way it is spoken of in the testimonies and not in the sense that you are trying to claim.




See above.





I agree that understanding Jesus' teachings is important. However, that requires many seperate threads to address.

And this, too, I can not disagree with you on.

The important point of this thread (and the other one, and you have yet to respond to the last post there) is your assumption and Ben's that a "religious Jew" of first century palestine would have been married. This is simply and demonstrably false. There were many religious Jews during and around Jesus' day who were not married.

Well, let me be clear for you... I have conceded the argument that it was due to his being a religious Jew for I know that it is pointless to continue in trying to make you understand how it is that I am viewing "religious".. it is quite different than the mentality of Christians.. it is in the context of Moses and others who led THEIR people out from under oppression rather than in the pious ideals. That Moses included the stipulation for the bill of divorce.. that to me was religious in the mindset of one who loves his People and would not have them living under guilt.

This is how I view Jesus' teachings.. the same way. Only his mindset for his teachings were set toward the people going into diaspora... that many Jews would rather die than to be "cut off" (the allegorical ideal of Eunuch) from their People is what Jesus was trying to avoid.. to prevent them from this mentality of giving their lives up just to make a statement based on pride.

Thus why Isaiah 50:1-2, Isaiah makes the analogy that God can not find the bill of divorce... He can redeem His People back to Him.. and thus the stipulation for the "Eunuchs" in Isaiah 56.

As for your calling him a liar (assuming you are basing this on his statement about fulfilling the law) your conception of what Jewish law constituted is in direct opposition to probably every Jew of that period, and certainly with the majority. The Sadducees, for example, rejected everything outside the books of Moses (like, say, Isaiah). We already know about the essenes. Most Jews organized their religious and cultural existence around the temple, and sacrifice in the temple (THE temple of Israel, not just any temple). So your statement is unwarrented.

I am not only trying to think within the Jewish mindset, but I am trying to think within the mindset of ONE who loves HIS People and can see their pride might be the cause for their utter destruction (the Jews don't have the numbers that other peoples have to be allowing for suicidal attempts that mindsets of other religions are allowing for.. the martyr mindset is complete BS). Many Jews today, then, and prior would rather die than be "cut off" from their People... to them it was comparable to be castrated. That is the mentality that it seems obvious to me that Jesus was speaking against. Isaiah 50.. God would not find the "bill of divorce" if they had to be "castrated" from their People and He could redeem them back with the clause in Isaiah 56.

In the mindset that I would take if in Jesus' position, I would use the prophets mentality of marriage to say that God would not give way to adultry as the Christians would have us believe (in that they believe they are the replacement of Israel). God would stay faithful and if one had to become a "Eunuch" (be cut off from their people), as long as they did not "marry" to the other People's mentality, they could always join back to their own. Better Life, which is where God is, than death, which is the end of life .. nothing to be gained in death (and yes, even many Jews believe there is something to be gained which contributes to the mentality that death is better than to be "cut off" from their People for a time.. and yet their own Scriptures testify there is nothing to be gained in death; Ecclesiastes to name one VERY clear testiment to this fact).


The clause to join back to their People is a fact.. there is no clause to come back literally from the dead (please tell me..do you believe in such a thing? physical resurrection? ... yes, Jews do.. though not the wise ones who understand the metaphorical language of their own People.. and I do not see that Jesus did believe in such a thing for there are clear teachings of his concerning resurrection, that he saw it in the same way the prophets did; resurrection of Israel back to their land and the individuals to awareness of Life).

 

[Oberon]

Thus, the way he judged people who literally went through divorces, it only testifies even further that when he said what he did in the context such as Mark 10, he was referring to the way it is spoken of in the testimonies and not in the sense that you are trying to claim.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Jesus adamantly opposed divorce. His basis for such opposition was that divorce violated how Yahweh conceived of marriage. When confronted with Deuteronomy, he conceded that Moses had allowed, divorce, but only because his people were hard of heart, not because Yahweh willed it.

Well, let me be clear for you... I have conceded the argument that it was due to his being a religious Jew for I know that it is pointless to continue in trying to make you understand how it is that I am viewing "religious".. it is quite different than the mentality of Christians..

It is also quite different from first century jews.

That Moses included the stipulation for the bill of divorce.. that to me was religious in the mindset of one who loves his People and would not have them living under guilt.

Moses didn't. The debate between the Pharisees and Jesus was based on how the books of Moses were interpreted during his day. The section of Deuteronomy which discusses divorce and which was used by Jews (even Jews like the rabbis long after Jesus) to judge divorce actually presupposes a bill of divorce; it isn't a stipulation for divorce. It is actually concerned with making sure that the woman does not remarry the old husband.

In any case, it is a divorce which can only be initiated by a man.

This is how I view Jesus' teachings.. the same way. Only his mindset for his teachings were set toward the people going into diaspora... that many Jews would rather die than to be "cut off" (the allegorical ideal of Eunuch) from their People is what Jesus was trying to avoid.. to prevent them from this mentality of giving their lives up just to make a statement based on pride.

1. Jesus is specifically discussing marriage. There is nothing allegorical about the eunuch pericope.

2. Why would Jesus be concerned about a diaspora which didn't exist in his place and time? Jews were allowed back in Judaea, and had been for a long time. Jesus restricted his ministry to Jewish or primarily Jewish villages. Why would you think he was concerned with the diaspora?

(the Jews don't have the numbers that other peoples have to be allowing for suicidal attempts that mindsets of other religions are allowing for.. the martyr mindset is complete BS).

Maybe today, but we aren't talking about Jews today. There were plenty of Jewish martyrs prior to, during, and after Jesus' day.

Many Jews today, then, and prior would rather die than be "cut off" from their People... to them it was comparable to be castrated. That is the mentality that it seems obvious to me that Jesus was speaking against. Isaiah 51.. God would not find the "bill of divorce" if they had to be "castrated" from their People and He could redeem them back with the clause in Isaiah 56.

You are reading into these texts what isn't present. Jesus often cites scripture. In the eunuch pericope there is no indication that he is. It is a fairly clear judgment that those who can be celibate should.

The clause to join back to their People is a fact.. there is no clause to come back literally from the dead (please tell me..do you believe in such a thing? physical resurrection? ... yes, Jews do, but I do not see that Jesus did believe in such a thing).

Many Jews during Jesus' day (not the sadducees), and almost certainly Jesus, believed in a physical resurrection of the dead.

As for me, I have no idea. I don't know what happens at death. I would like there to be life after death, but I can't pretend I think it likely.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Jesus adamantly opposed divorce. His basis for such opposition was that divorce violated how Yahweh conceived of marriage. When confronted with Deuteronomy, he conceded that Moses had allowed, divorce, but only because his people were hard of heart, not because Yahweh willed it.

And again, I am back to questioning your motives here. Are you kidding me? We have free will ... God does not "will" anything for us. This is man's doing ... this idea that God "wills" something. If Jesus was enlightened, which I do indeed believe he was given that his teachings were correlated to the ALLEGORIES used by the prophets, he would have known this as well. The only ones who make divorce so flippin' difficult is those who we have handed our control over to... the "state institutions."

If a man no longer feels "that way" about a woman, should she be forced to endure such a thing? I don't think so.. to me, that is worse punishment than being divorced. Neither should a man be forced into hypocrisy because society can't grow up and finally see that the only "ties that bind" are those we have our ownselves made.

I am not advocated "free sex" etc... I am just saying that two people can be swept away by passion (truly think they are IN LOVE with each other)... this is normal and this is why the merciful act of Moses to write into the Law the bill of divorce. Jesus did not oppose this for mankind, but rather he was enlightening his People to the fact that God would not choose another over them... that He. God, would not find the Bill of Divorce should they be forced or born or choose for the sake of enlightenment to the world to join to another People for a time. Have you read Isaiah 50? Isaiah 56? Is this not what Jesus said he was enlightening them to? or no?

Have you read the account of the Samaritan woman at the well in which Jesus had the conversation with about her husbands? Where in there was she condemned by him? Where did he condemn other such person on a personal basis of divorce? Now, if a man is with a woman, then he should be honest with her. If he feels something for another woman, does she not have the right to know? Switch that around... does he not have the right to know? To deal with it in honesty? That people can't do this is why we may be stuck. I see that Jesus saw this on many different levels.

The hardness of heart was toward the People concerning their covenant to God and not on an individual basis... as it was metaphorically spoken of by Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. As a People, some may have had the hardness of heart... they were being given the free will... so long as they were doing it honestly in their hearts.

Where do I get this interpretation from? The prophets.... read them.

It is also quite different from first century jews.

Thus... Jesus.

Moses didn't. The debate between the Pharisees and Jesus was based on how the books of Moses were interpreted during his day. The section of Deuteronomy which discusses divorce and which was used by Jews (even Jews like the rabbis long after Jesus) to judge divorce actually presupposes a bill of divorce; it isn't a stipulation for divorce. It is actually concerned with making sure that the woman does not remarry the old husband.

In any case, it is a divorce which can only be initiated by a man.

Perhaps because the man is generally the one who thinks more logically.. of course, given THIS day and age, that point has long since flown out the window in most cases.




1. Jesus is specifically discussing marriage. There is nothing allegorical about the eunuch pericope.

You are WRONG here. Again, you should go back and read the testimonies of the prophets. Not from the perspective of others.. but what is actually written there. The Eunuchs were referring to the ones who were cut off from their People. Proof is in Isaiah 56.. just read it.

2. Why would Jesus be concerned about a diaspora which didn't exist in his place and time? Jews were allowed back in Judaea, and had been for a long time. Jesus restricted his ministry to Jewish or primarily Jewish villages. Why would you think he was concerned with the diaspora?

Seriously? You don't think he did not see what was coming with Rome? I am just of the mind that you think Jesus was an ordinary fellow who had a stroke of luck to become so well known.. truly the way you and others see his views is not much different than most; thus, he offered nothing of importance that he SHOULD be so well sought after, even today. Just that damn stroke of good luck that hits once every... well once.

Maybe today, but we aren't talking about Jews today. There were plenty of Jewish martyrs prior to, during, and after Jesus' day.

I do not at all disagree with this and this is exactly what Jesus was trying to avoid.. this mentality that the prophets spoke against. Particularly Jeremiah during his time and then Isaiah with the clause to join back to the covenant in Isaiah 56.

Enough Time has passed that we can all grow up and see the significant difference in what Jesus was enlightening his Own to as opposed to the mundane cheap "moral obligations" that so many attribute to him. Like THAT idea has helped anyone.



You are reading into these texts what isn't present. Jesus often cites scripture. In the eunuch pericope there is no indication that he is. It is a fairly clear judgment that those who can be celibate should.

For what? That is stupid and hardly was enlightenment to anything.. the way you are viewing it, that is.




Many Jews during Jesus' day (not the sadducees), and almost certainly Jesus, believed in a physical resurrection of the dead.

And obviously, in my opinion, he saw it the same way the prophets did. First, personal resurrection to LIfe within the individual (a spiritual resurrection) and then 2nd, the resurrection of Israel to their land.

There is a verse.... jesus says on the 3rd day he was perfected. Why not point that out to me and then show me you know your stuff by showing me where that is written in the testimonies of the prophets. When you do, you will see why I KNOW Jesus was not speaking of resurrection in the way most are assuming.

As for me, I have no idea. I don't know what happens at death. I would like there to be life after death, but I can't pretend I think it likely.


That's the natural life cycle, Oberon. Life is followed by Death. It has never been anything else. And this God called good... that man does not will not change it. You are at least right to not pretend.. pretending does not change the fact that we all die and that when die.. life for us ceases to exist. Ecclesiastes 9:10. It is not the curse, it is just how it is. :yes:

 

[idea]

It is impossible to prove a negative - ie - it is impossible to prove that Jesus was not married.

Jesus taught the law of marriage, Luke 20:27–36.
It would be hypocritical of him to teach others to do something that he himself would not do.

Neither is the man without the woman in the Lord, 1 Cor. 11:11.
Husband and wife are heirs together of the grace of life, 1 Pet. 3:7.
Whatsoever you shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven, Matt. 16:19.
It is not good that man should be alone, Gen. 2:18
A man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, Gen. 2:24 (Matt. 19:5; Abr. 5:18).
What God has joined together, let not man put asunder, Matt. 19:6 (Mark 10:9).
Marriage is honorable, Heb. 13:4.

Why are some people so against marriage? we are told " In the latter days some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry, 1 Tim. 4:1–3. " I guess we are living in the last days - days when some people think marriage is not honorable... people who think that men and women were not created for one another.

 

[Oberon]

And again, I am back to questioning your motives here. Are you kidding me? We have free will ... God does not "will" anything for us. This is man's doing ... this idea that God "wills" something. If Jesus was enlightened, which I do indeed believe he was given that his teachings were correlated to the ALLEGORIES used by the prophets, he would have known this as well.

If you want to make purely faith based statements on what Jesus would have known/done/said, then we can discuss much. I can't argue against something that is accepted on faith, not evidence.

If a man no longer feels "that way" about a woman, should she be forced to endure such a thing? I don't think so.. to me, that is worse punishment than being divorced. Neither should a man be forced into hypocrisy because society can't grow up and finally see that the only "ties that bind" are those we have our ownselves made.

You are getting into modern morality. I'm not concerned with that here. All I am concerned with is Jesus' marital status and his statements concerning marriage which aid in understanding his marital status.

Jesus did not oppose this for mankind, but rather he was enlightening his People to the fact that God would not choose another over them... that He. God, would not find the Bill of Divorce should they be forced or born or choose for the sake of enlightenment to the world to join to another People for a time.

Again, you are reading into the text. The discussion has nothing to do with Isaiah. It is the question of the pharisees, and Jesus response, are concerned with what MOSES said. Isaiah is not one of Moses' books.

God, would not find the Bill of Divorce should they be forced or born or choose for the sake of enlightenment to the world to join to another People for a time. Have you read Isaiah 50? Isaiah 56? Is this not what Jesus said he was enlightening them to? or no?

I have read Isaiah. But it is irrelevent here. There is no reference to it in the relevent passsage. There is an explicit reference to Deuteronomy, and ONLY Deuteronomy, because Jesus and the Pharisees both discuss what MOSES said. Isaiah is not attributed to Moses, nor is there anything in the relevent passages about Isaiah. Your attempt to build a case because Isaiah in one passage talks about a bill of divorce (which neither Jesus nor the pharisees allude to) and in another the word eunuch is mentioned is baseless. The eunuch pericope clearly discusses different types of eunuchs, including those who remain voluntary eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. In Isaiah, being a eunuch is a negative thing, so Jesus couldn't be referencing Isaiah here either.

Have you read the account of the Samaritan woman at the well in which Jesus had the conversation with about her husbands? Where in there was she condemned by him? Where did he condemn other such person on a personal basis of divorce?

1) Jesus is all about forgiving those who did wrong as long as they repent. He spent time around the "worst of the worst" according to all gospel traditions, in order to save them. However, he acknowledges more than once that what they had done was wrong. The woman at the well is no different.

2) Jesus response to her statement "I have no husband" is a rebuke.

3) Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the event ever happened. It is in the least reliable gospel, is attested to nowhere else, and has heavy christological overtones. Regardless, assuming for the sake of argument it did happen, again you are reading WAY too much into it. Jesus rebukes the woman kindly, and tells her to worship in the right way from now on.

I see that Jesus saw this on many different levels.

Jesus' ban on divorce is attested to by the earliest christian documents we have. In one of the very few references Paul makes to Jesus' teachings, he mentions that Jesus banned divorce. He goes on to distinguish this teaching from Jesus with that of his own. Jesus' ban on divorce is also attested to in Luke/Matthew and Mark. There are no levels in the tradition, just a blanket statement that divorce is against god's law.

The hardness of heart was toward the People concerning their covenant to God and not on an individual basis... as it was metaphorically spoken of by Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. As a People, some may have had the hardness of heart... they were being given the free will... so long as they were doing it honestly in their hearts.

You don't seem to understand. Jesus' said that Moses had allowed divorce because of the hardness of heart of his people, but that THIS WAS A BAD THING! In reality, Yahweh's law is that a man and a woman become one in marriage, and they should never seperate. Divorce is wrong. That was Jesus' teaching.

Thus... Jesus.

Who was a first century Jew with a Jewish mindset CLEARLY different from your own.

Perhaps because the man is generally the one who thinks more logically.. of course, given THIS day and age, that point has long since flown out the window in most cases.

No, it was because the ancient world was incredibly sexist and patriarchal.

.

You are WRONG here. Again, you should go back and read the testimonies of the prophets. Not from the perspective of others.. but what is actually written there. The Eunuchs were referring to the ones who were cut off from their People. Proof is in Isaiah 56.. just read it.

Just because two texts have the same word doesn't mean that the later one is a reference to the former. In Matthew, Jesus discusses various types of eunuchs, and the voluntary eunuchs are best, because they are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. Being celibate/a eunuch voluntarily is a good thing. This is not the case in Isaiah. The two passages are clearly different in scope, meaning, evalutation, etc. Nor is there any explicit reference in the pericope or in the surrounding narrative to Isaiah. There is no reason to think that Jesus is referencing Isaiah, because if he was, he is taking eunuch positively while Isaiah didn't.

I do not at all disagree with this and this is exactly what Jesus was trying to avoid.. this mentality that the prophets spoke against. Particularly Jeremiah during his time and then Isaiah with the clause to join back to the covenant in Isaiah 56.

You don't agree that there were Jewish martyrs? Because there are plenty of examples. Jesus is actually one of them.

For what? That is stupid and hardly was enlightenment to anything.. the way you are viewing it, that is.

I don't care. I'm not concerned with enlightenment or whatever here. I am concerned with the spreading of misinformation based on nothing more than pure speculation contradicted by the evidence. There is no evidence Jesus was married, no reason to assume he was, and evidence to the contrary.

There is a verse.... jesus says on the 3rd day he was perfected. Why not point that out to me and then show me you know your stuff by showing me where that is written in the testimonies of the prophets. When you do, you will see why I KNOW Jesus was not speaking of resurrection in the way most are assuming.

First, the greek τελειοῦμαι/teleioumai does not simply mean perfected. When, in Luke 13:32, Jesus says kai te trite teleioumai it does not merely mean "in three days I am perfected" but is better translated as in three days I am completed. Perfection is only part of the sense of this completion.

Second, I can't even imagine what scriptural reference you are reading into this.

 

[Dunemeister]

It is impossible to prove a negative - ie - it is impossible to prove that Jesus was not married.

Jesus taught the law of marriage, Luke 20:27–36.
It would be hypocritical of him to teach others to do something that he himself would not do.

Huh? Here's the passage you cite:

Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’

Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

At issue here is resurrection, not marriage. The Sadducees thought they had a slam-dunk sort of reductio ad absurdum argument againt resurrection. One can only have one wife at a time, right? Well, if a woman has multiple husbands in a lifetime, which is possible, whose wife will she be at the resurrection? Jesus' answer is that none of them shall be her husband at the resurrection, for at that time marriage will be irrelevant.

As for hypocrisy, I hardly think so. Jesus did not say "Nobody should marry." Nor did he say that everyone must be celibate. Rather, he said that everyone who CAN be celibate (in the sense that "they have it in them" to pull it off) SHOULD. It follows that if you CAN'T keep a celibate life, you OUGHT TO marry.

Neither is the man without the woman in the Lord, 1 Cor. 11:11.
Husband and wife are heirs together of the grace of life, 1 Pet. 3:7.
Whatsoever you shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven, Matt. 16:19.
It is not good that man should be alone, Gen. 2:18
A man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, Gen. 2:24 (Matt. 19:5; Abr. 5:18).
What God has joined together, let not man put asunder, Matt. 19:6 (Mark 10:9).
Marriage is honorable, Heb. 13:4.

All of these verses point to the sanctity and utility of marriage, none of which Jesus disagrees with, even on the interpretation I and Oberon favor.

Why are some people so against marriage? we are told " In the latter days some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry, 1 Tim. 4:1–3. " I guess we are living in the last days - days when some people think marriage is not honorable... people who think that men and women were not created for one another.

As Oberon and I have argued, Jesus is not forbidding marriage. He is recommending celibacy to those who can manage it. On Jesus' understanding, marriage is so serious that divorce is not an option except in the case of infidelity. This is an extraordinarily high standard. Not everyone can attain to it. Jesus says that if you cannot commit to this standard of commitment, you should remain celibate. If you divorce for any reason aside from adultery, you yourself commit adultery.

As the Pharisees pointed out, the law allows for divorce. Jesus retorts that this law is there because the people were hard of heart; that is, they could never have fulfilled the law if it did not make this provision for divorce. So God provided this way out so that the people could have a hope of fulfilling their end of the covenant commitment. Nevertheless, says Jesus, the original purpose of God for marriage is much higher.

Scandalized, the disciples asked Jesus what mere mortals ought to do in such circumstances. Jesus said that it's not given for everyone to live up to the standard of "be married or celibate for life." But if celibacy is "given" to you, that is preferable to marriage. Far from being anti-marriage, this is the strongest affirmation of marriage I can think of. Jesus is basically saying, "If you can't be celibate, get married. But stay married."

 

[IF_u_knew]

It is impossible to prove a negative - ie - it is impossible to prove that Jesus was not married.

Jesus taught the law of marriage, Luke 20:27–36.
It would be hypocritical of him to teach others to do something that he himself would not do.

Neither is the man without the woman in the Lord, 1 Cor. 11:11.
Husband and wife are heirs together of the grace of life, 1 Pet. 3:7.
Whatsoever you shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven, Matt. 16:19.
It is not good that man should be alone, Gen. 2:18
A man shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, Gen. 2:24 (Matt. 19:5; Abr. 5:18).
What God has joined together, let not man put asunder, Matt. 19:6 (Mark 10:9).
Marriage is honorable, Heb. 13:4.

Why are some people so against marriage? we are told " In the latter days some shall depart from the faith, forbidding to marry, 1 Tim. 4:1–3. " I guess we are living in the last days - days when some people think marriage is not honorable... people who think that men and women were not created for one another.

Your very first point here I have realized is quite true... but since it is that negative view that so many (even so called secular scholars) have adapted their studies to, I only hope to prove that his teachings were not EVER against marriage, but rather towards.

Your words here are quite inspirational, considering this topic. I think marriage is not only good, but it will contribute to being highly enlightened to God's Word when two (the mind of a male and the mind of a female) are of the same mind and joined together (that being toward the Tanakh which was written in the words of passion and THAT kind of Love); and this is only ONE reason why I believe Jesus was married... because no one can speak the way he did unless they understood that passion and love.. for that is how the words of the prophets are written.

 

[IF_u_knew]

If you want to make purely faith based statements on what Jesus would have known/done/said, then we can discuss much. I can't argue against something that is accepted on faith, not evidence.





You are getting into modern morality. I'm not concerned with that here. All I am concerned with is Jesus' marital status and his statements concerning marriage which aid in understanding his marital status.



Again, you are reading into the text. The discussion has nothing to do with Isaiah. It is the question of the pharisees, and Jesus response, are concerned with what MOSES said. Isaiah is not one of Moses' books.



I have read Isaiah. But it is irrelevent here. There is no reference to it in the relevent passsage. There is an explicit reference to Deuteronomy, and ONLY Deuteronomy, because Jesus and the Pharisees both discuss what MOSES said. Isaiah is not attributed to Moses, nor is there anything in the relevent passages about Isaiah. Your attempt to build a case because Isaiah in one passage talks about a bill of divorce (which neither Jesus nor the pharisees allude to) and in another the word eunuch is mentioned is baseless. The eunuch pericope clearly discusses different types of eunuchs, including those who remain voluntary eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. In Isaiah, being a eunuch is a negative thing, so Jesus couldn't be referencing Isaiah here either.



1) Jesus is all about forgiving those who did wrong as long as they repent. He spent time around the "worst of the worst" according to all gospel traditions, in order to save them. However, he acknowledges more than once that what they had done was wrong. The woman at the well is no different.

2) Jesus response to her statement "I have no husband" is a rebuke.

3) Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the event ever happened. It is in the least reliable gospel, is attested to nowhere else, and has heavy christological overtones. Regardless, assuming for the sake of argument it did happen, again you are reading WAY too much into it. Jesus rebukes the woman kindly, and tells her to worship in the right way from now on.



Jesus' ban on divorce is attested to by the earliest christian documents we have. In one of the very few references Paul makes to Jesus' teachings, he mentions that Jesus banned divorce. He goes on to distinguish this teaching from Jesus with that of his own. Jesus' ban on divorce is also attested to in Luke/Matthew and Mark. There are no levels in the tradition, just a blanket statement that divorce is against god's law.



You don't seem to understand. Jesus' said that Moses had allowed divorce because of the hardness of heart of his people, but that THIS WAS A BAD THING! In reality, Yahweh's law is that a man and a woman become one in marriage, and they should never seperate. Divorce is wrong. That was Jesus' teaching.





Who was a first century Jew with a Jewish mindset CLEARLY different from your own.







No, it was because the ancient world was incredibly sexist and patriarchal.

.



Just because two texts have the same word doesn't mean that the later one is a reference to the former. In Matthew, Jesus discusses various types of eunuchs, and the voluntary eunuchs are best, because they are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. Being celibate/a eunuch voluntarily is a good thing. This is not the case in Isaiah. The two passages are clearly different in scope, meaning, evalutation, etc. Nor is there any explicit reference in the pericope or in the surrounding narrative to Isaiah. There is no reason to think that Jesus is referencing Isaiah, because if he was, he is taking eunuch positively while Isaiah didn't.





You don't agree that there were Jewish martyrs? Because there are plenty of examples. Jesus is actually one of them.




I don't care. I'm not concerned with enlightenment or whatever here. I am concerned with the spreading of misinformation based on nothing more than pure speculation contradicted by the evidence. There is no evidence Jesus was married, no reason to assume he was, and evidence to the contrary.




First, the greek τελειοῦμαι/teleioumai does not simply mean perfected. When, in Luke 13:32, Jesus says kai te trite teleioumai it does not merely mean "in three days I am perfected" but is better translated as in three days I am completed. Perfection is only part of the sense of this completion.

Second, I can't even imagine what scriptural reference you are reading into this.

Pretty much, I am astounded that you disregard what the prophets were saying and yet claim to know anything about Jesus. That he himself read the text of Isaiah in the synagogue and then said this is what he was enlightening the People toward... well, how do you find it something worthy of ignoring in regards to his teachings as a whole?

Truly.... ASTOUNDING!!

Oberon, this is not a contest to me of who has more knowledge. You have brought much to the table across this forum that I have not known.. thus, I will willingly hand over "knowing more surface knowledge" toward you... but why is it, when it comes to Jesus, do you disregard the most important part of what he says his teachings are based upon?

Please, answer this for me if you don't mind... why do you think he was exalted above all others that 4 gospels are centered around him and not other influential men of the times?

You say I hold to the modern view and yet my views of his teachings are BASED UPON the testimonies of the prophets and the Law that he claimed to be teaching on... in every aspect (and believe ME... there are few that hold to my ideals of his teachings, thus making my views a minority in modern times).

 

[IF_u_knew]

As Oberon and I have argued,

AHAHAHAHAHHAHA... oh wait.. are you serious? Read again through this thread and tell me... YOU and oberon? I beg to differ.. in this case, only oberon deserves the credit.

 

[Oberon]

Another piece of evidence I entirely forgot:

1 Cor. 9:5 me ouk echomen exousian adelphen gynaika periagein, hos kai hoi loipoi apostoloi kai hoi adelphoi tou kyriou kai Kephas/ do not we have the authority to take along a wife, as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the lord and Peter [did]?

Now, here Paul defends the right of the earliest followers of Jesus to marry, and he uses the disciples (even Peter) as well as Jesus' brothers as examples. If Jesus were married, why one earth wouldn't he use Jesus as an example?

Pretty much, I am astounded that you disregard what the prophets were saying and yet claim to know anything about Jesus.

I absolutely think that understanding the Jewish scriptures (especially as they were understood in Jesus' day) is important. However, that doesn't mean that one can take anything Jesus says and attempt to find a parallel somewhere in the scriptures. Occasionally, Jesus makes an explicit reference. Other times (like his teaching on divorce) there is a more subtle yet clear refererence (as what Moses taught were thought to be the books attributed to him, and Deuteronomy discusses divorce). That doesn't mean that just because a single word in one phrase from Jesus is used somewhere in Jewish scriptures we can assume Jesus was referencing those scriptures, particularly when (in this case) he was arguing the reverse. In Isaiah, the eunuch metaphor is negative. In matthew, it is positive.

but why is it, when it comes to Jesus, do you disregard the most important part of what he says his teachings are based upon?

I don't. That's why I not only had to read the Tanakh, rabbinic literature, a good deal of the Qumran documents, but also the various authors (like Josephus and Philo) writing around Jesus' day in order to understand how Jewish scriptures were interpreted by Jews of Jesus' day.

Please, answer this for me if you don't mind... why do you think he was exalted above all others that 4 gospels are centered around him and not other influential men of the times?

Because his followers believed he rose from the dead and was in some special way the son of God and the messiah. How exactly the "son of God" is to be understood is debated (not only by historians but by christians themselves) but that is a matter for another thread.

You say I hold to the modern view and yet my views of his teachings are BASED UPON the testimonies of the prophets and the Law that he claimed to be teaching on... in every aspect (and believe ME... there are few that hold to my ideals of his teachings, thus making my views a minority in modern times).

Your understanding of these teachings is filtered through a judaism two thousand years removed from Jesus, just as Jesus' judaism was removed centuries from much of the literature he was familiar with. Christians, Jews, etc, approach these texts through a grid of cultural understanding unique to there respective culture. In order to understand (as best as possible) what Jesus thought of these scriptures it is necessary not only to study what he said but also the various currents of Judaism in his time.

 

[Here I am, send me]

Christ was married, but He was married to the Church, not to a woman. Where does it say anything about Him being married to a woman?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Another piece of evidence I entirely forgot:

1 Cor. 9:5 me ouk echomen exousian adelphen gynaika periagein, hos kai hoi loipoi apostoloi kai hoi adelphoi tou kyriou kai Kephas/ do not we have the authority to take along a wife, as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the lord and Peter [did]?

Now, here Paul defends the right of the earliest followers of Jesus to marry, and he uses the disciples (even Peter) as well as Jesus' brothers as examples. If Jesus were married, why one earth wouldn't he use Jesus as an example?

Oberon, I fully believe that Paul was out to undermine the enlightenment of the People at the time. Thus, his version of Jesus was of a greek demigod.. not even truly a man. A replacement for that which he despised. Do you not see all the jealousy in his writings? The bitterness? One minute he was praising someone and the next he was trashing them for realizing that Paul was leading others away from the true roots of Judaism. When he says something, I read it in the context it should be read.. a jealous man with an agenda based on bitterness.



[/color]

I absolutely think that understanding the Jewish scriptures (especially as they were understood in Jesus' day) is important. However, that doesn't mean that one can take anything Jesus says and attempt to find a parallel somewhere in the scriptures. Occasionally, Jesus makes an explicit reference. Other times (like his teaching on divorce) there is a more subtle yet clear refererence (as what Moses taught were thought to be the books attributed to him, and Deuteronomy discusses divorce). That doesn't mean that just because a single word in one phrase from Jesus is used somewhere in Jewish scriptures we can assume Jesus was referencing those scriptures, particularly when (in this case) he was arguing the reverse. In Isaiah, the eunuch metaphor is negative. In matthew, it is positive.




I don't. That's why I not only had to read the Tanakh, rabbinic literature, a good deal of the Qumran documents, but also the various authors (like Josephus and Philo) writing around Jesus' day in order to understand how Jewish scriptures were interpreted by Jews of Jesus' day.

They certainly did write of the opinion of the general public at the time... still, I can't see how the Essenes had anything to do with Jesus. And how you can not understand why I go to the Tanakh to interpret the teachings of Jesus is beyond me when it is clearly stated more than once that this is what he was enlightening the People, the Jewish, to. *shrugs*

I have spent much time researching and reading a lot of the things you have kindly shared here.. but Oberon.. it still doesn't negate what I said above; that Jesus' teachings weren't based on generic topics, but specifically supposed to be regarding the Word in the Tanakh.


Because his followers believed he rose from the dead and was in some special way the son of God and the messiah. How exactly the "son of God" is to be understood is debated (not only by historians but by christians themselves) but that is a matter for another thread.

I understand. Obviously though, I do not believe in a resurrection as spoken of by Christians..

This whole thing really would be so much easier if we could look at the gospel accounts as speaking metaphorically.. then, there is not much that would NOT fit with the words of the Tanakh. But, I understand most see it as literal.. so, the inconsistencies are there to deal with. Resurrection, in the physical sense, from the grave is not at all realistic... 2,000 years later and it should be apparent already and no longer a topic of debate. Anytime the resurrection is spoken of in the Tanakh, again, it is speaking of Israel to their Land and/or individually.. awareness of Life, being in the Presence of God now (in other words, being brought out of ignorance).

And I do not doubt that Jesus was ONE of the Son of God. The Son of God, the firstborn, is clearly stated in Exodus 4:22,23 and Hosea 11:1 (among other places.. and yes, individuals of Israel are also included in that within the words of the Tanakh).






Your understanding of these teachings is filtered through a judaism two thousand years removed from Jesus, just as Jesus' judaism was removed centuries from much of the literature he was familiar with. Christians, Jews, etc, approach these texts through a grid of cultural understanding unique to there respective culture. In order to understand (as best as possible) what Jesus thought of these scriptures it is necessary not only to study what he said but also the various currents of Judaism in his time.

Actually.. and this is only my word to take for what it is worth.. I am not Jewish and thus, this understanding came prior to my ever even taking up the view of Judaism. Of course, view points have changed in Judaism.. it is an evolving religion.. that it is evolving is one of the many beautiful aspects of the religion. Still, the view I have of Jesus' teachings never involved anything other than what it is he pointed toward as far as they were concerned.. the Tanakh. The Tanakh is what he claimed as ground zero for his teachings and thus, it is the Tanakh I go to in order to understand them. The view of marriage he spoke on came from the testimonies of the prophets... and that those views he taught on are SPECIFICALLY in the Tanakh as being metaphorical.. well, it only takes one to be rational in their thought process to put 2 and 2 together.