Was Jesus Married? Addressing Ben Masada

[IF_u_knew]

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?

And this is just weird and unrealistic... this, I guess, is why I find the topic of such interest. It is just weird the mystical view that people hold to.. even 2,000 years later when we have enough knowledge to know this view is BS.

The only way I can see this as a possibility is if Christ is recognized to be the Messiah and the Messiah is recognized to be one in the same as Isaiah 49:3 and then, of course, Christianity lets go of ALL these mystical views it has of one man to see what is actually written in the Tanakh. Certainly it does not support this strange view. One man marrying millions upon millions.. just strange.

Isaiah makes it clear that the bridegroom is plural and that it is representative of those who WE, THE OTHERS, would join to regarding the covenant between God and Israel. The SON*S*.. that is what is written concerning the ones already a part of the bridegroom (Israel, the Jewish) of the covenant. Nothing like the Christian view. :no: Not even remotely similar.

 

[Oberon]

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.

This hardly addresses what I said. For a moment, let us assume that everything you say is true. It still doesn't explain why Paul doesn't use Jesus as an example in his argument. Jesus, after all, would have been for Paul, "a jealous man with an agenda based on bitterness" or not, the best example to use in his argument.

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.

If a whole bunch of Jews (especially Jews who shared some commonalities with Jesus) could be celibate, there is no reason to assume Jesus was married, particularly when there is no evidence he was, and there is evidence he wasn't.

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*

Because I doubt you are aware enough of how the Tanakh was interpreted by various sects and groups in Jesus' day to use the Tanakh productively. You are absolutely right that we must read the Tanakh to understand Jesus. That isn't enough, however. Knowing the history of Judaism, and what was going on in Jesus' day, and how Jewish scriptures were interpreted in Jesus' day, and so much more is necessary. Simply reading the Tanakh, especially filtered through 21st century Jewish views, is not enough.

but specifically supposed to be regarding the Word in the Tanakh.

Not just the tanakh. There was a lot more to Jewish understanding than just this.

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.

The relevant point is that you are reading an ancient text through modern eyes. More importantly, you are taking those texts, and applying your understanding to Jesus.

 

[IF_u_knew]

[/color]

This hardly addresses what I said. For a moment, let us assume that everything you say is true. It still doesn't explain why Paul doesn't use Jesus as an example in his argument. Jesus, after all, would have been for Paul, "a jealous man with an agenda based on bitterness" or not, the best example to use in his argument.

I think this is the first time I have not understood you. Do you mind to elaborate a bit on that last sentence. You are very articulate, but this ONE time, I don't understand your point.




If a whole bunch of Jews (especially Jews who shared some commonalities with Jesus) could be celibate, there is no reason to assume Jesus was married, particularly when there is no evidence he was, and there is evidence he wasn't.

I completely disagree with your last point. Granted, Oberon, I have not presented any real evidence toward this last view because this is not what bugs me so (and though I see it there.. I could care less about proving this really). What gets to me is that you are claiming Jesus praised those who did not get married and THAT is what my issue is with. I do not AT ALL believe Jesus praised those such as the essenes or anyone like them.





Because I doubt you are aware enough of how the Tanakh was interpreted by various sects and groups in Jesus' day to use the Tanakh productively. You are absolutely right that we must read the Tanakh to understand Jesus. That isn't enough, however. Knowing the history of Judaism, and what was going on in Jesus' day, and how Jewish scriptures were interpreted in Jesus' day, and so much more is necessary. Simply reading the Tanakh, especially filtered through 21st century Jewish views, is not enough.


OBERON... I listed out my Christian upbringing to show you that I am not being biased. I LOVE MY family and it is not easy to go the other way. There was a time I considered myself atheist... I tried SO hard to escape this WHOLE book!!! And you know what? I did!! for a good almost 10 months. I threw it.. Hard!! against a wall. You keep talking about ALL THE DIFFERENT opinions and THAT IS WHAT drove me nuts and that is why I REFUSED TO TOUCH IT. Until one night... a night that led me to Ezekiel 16. That gorgeous chapter that even some of the Jewish see as negative. Yet to me, well... I just see it differently.. I see such Beauty in that Chapter and it touched me in a way that for the first time ever, made me understand.

Do you not understand me yet?? I AM NOT BASING MY OPINIONS ON THE VIEWS OF MAN..I am basing it on what is true to Life in the honestly of NOT ONLY my heart, but MY MIND!!! Man's objective views are hardly EVER true to life. Physical ressurrection that even many Jews hold to??... not true to life and neither do I see it advocated in the Tanakh. JESUS SAID HIS TEACHINGS WERE BASED ON THE TANAKH. Now, tell me Oberon.. do you think God really physically married Israel? Do you think that God REALLY WAS jealous? Do you think God is like a man?? Do you?? If so, you do not at all understand the Tanakh nor do you understand the teachings of Jesus and what he was speaking of in regards to MARRIAGE or the EUNUCHS. yes!! I do 100% know that Jesus was speaking of the individuals being CUT OFF (*AHEM*) from the People.. that IS why we were given ground ZERO for reference. He was not speaking according to the NT, paul, Josephus, etc because they were not even in existence during his time. He was speaking to the ONE THING that was kept as is by the Jewsish.. the Tanakh.

Now... when are we going to agree that I am right??? I wonder... which would Jesus commend. Other men's opinions ~ YOU or Proverbs 2:1-7 ~ Me... OH... that is right.. he didn't have ALL the opinions that YOU are using now to form his opinion, right? He did however have the Truth of Proverbs 2:1-7. Get it yet?

 

[Carico]

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


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

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

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

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


1. The Essenes:


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

A) Josephus

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

B) Philo

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

C) Pliny the Elder

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

2. The Therapeutae


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

3) Jeremiah

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

4) The Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai

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



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

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

That's how rumors get started and escalate...speculation and gossip about what one doesn't know.

 

[lockyfan]

Jesus didnt hve time to be married.

Also if you say öh but there was time before he got baptised"then I say to you that while yes that s true, we know that he was the perfect son of God and that if he had abandoned a wife for the minisrty (left her with no income) he would have actually sinned by doing that. Therefore that is something I know for certain he did not do and thus he could not have been married