Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[Oberon]

Master, Teacher or Rabbi, it doesn't matter. A Jewish man could not have any of those titles as a single man. He would lose his credibility and respect.

And your evidence for this is what? We know that unmarried Jews lived in first century palestine. We know that the term "rabbi" during this time did not have the same meanings it did later. So what is your basis for the assumption that Jesus could not have been called "rabbi" if he was unmarried? Because if you repeat it enough it will be true?

How do you know? Prove to me that he was unmarried. You remind me of a guy in another forum, who would challenge me to prove that Jeremiah was married. When I proved to him that he was married with children, he disappeared from the forum. Perhaps embarrassed for his unreasonable stiff necked attitude.

The gospels record him as a loner in the wilderness, living in the desert on locusts. I suppose you think he brought his wife and kids with him?

I live here in Israel and all my life in a Jewish environment.

Congratulations. Except that they don't speak aramaic in Israel today, so this means nothing. Also, judaism was very different 2000 years ago, so the fact that you use this as a basis for anything is so ridiculous it is almost sad.

I guess you have a lot to lose if you ever have to believe that Jesus was a married man.

How so? I'm not even christian.

I have many years of study about Jewish life in the First Century. Your ignorant argument is completely destitute of scholarship because you can't prove anything you say.

Right. So let's here some modern scholarship about first century rabbinic practices? Oh wait.... there are none. How about references from the many Jewish scholars who have studied first century judaism and Jesus, like G. Vermes, who contend that Jesus was married? Oh wait, there are none.

Do you want a sample of your ignorance on this issue of Jesus' marriage? Open your NT and prove to me that Jesus was not married. Your mind is not equipped for the reality that Jesus was married. All your assertions are based on empty assumptions.

Jesus himself argues against marriage, if possible. Matt. 19:12
και εισιν ευνουχοι οἵτινες ευνούχισαν εαυτους δια την βασιλείαν των ουρανων. ο δυνάμενος χωρειν χωρείτω./ "and there are eunochs who are eunochs themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. All those able to practice this, do it!"

This, as well as the complete lack of any mention of marriage of Jesus, as well as the fact that it is well recorded that a selection of very devout Jews chose celibacy, means no marriage. You have no argument for the marriage, other than bad translation, a ridiculous combining of Mary's (when it is clear that the reason for the "magdala" and "bethany" titles are to differentiate people with the name Mary, and if they were married to Jesus they should be "Mary of Jesus"), and your absurd and poor interpretation of the wedding at Canaa.

It seems to me that you prefer that Jesus was rather a homosexual than a lady's man. Imagine a Jewish male in the First Century rooming around with 12 unemployed men and calling one of them his beloved. What picture do you make of him? Is that the Jesus you prefer that he was? Perhaps you are talking about a Greek Jesus and not the Jewish one I am talking about.

I could care less if he was gay. We have no evidence for this, but we have even less for the fact that he was married.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/size][/b]

And your evidence for this is what? We know that unmarried Jews lived in first century palestine. We know that the term "rabbi" during this time did not have the same meanings it did later. So what is your basis for the assumption that Jesus could not have been called "rabbi" if he was unmarried? Because if you repeat it enough it will be true?

The evidences that you don't have any to prove otherwise.


The gospels record him as a loner in the wilderness, living in the desert on locusts. I suppose you think he brought his wife and kids with him?


This is no proof that he was not married. Come on! Where are the proofs?


Congratulations. Except that they don't speak aramaic in Israel today, so this means nothing. Also, judaism was very different 2000 years ago, so the fact that you use this as a basis for anything is so ridiculous it is almost sad.

Sadder than anything else is for a non-Christian to try to defend Christians whithout knowing what he is talking about.




Jesus himself argues against marriage, if possible. Matt. 19:12

See how naive and sad you are? You believe the word of a Gentile, disciple of Paul's 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.



This, as well as the complete lack of any mention of marriage of Jesus, as well as the fact that it is well recorded that a selection of very devout Jews chose celibacy, means no marriage.

This is no proof that Jesus was not married. I am still waiting for the proofs I asked.

You have no argument for the marriage, other than bad translation, a ridiculous combining of Mary's (when it is clear that the reason for the "magdala" and "bethany" titles are to differentiate people with the name Mary, and if they were married to Jesus they should be "Mary of Jesus"), and your absurd and poor interpretation of the wedding at Canaa.

And you have no proofs that Jesus was not married. So, why fight a battle that does not pertain to you? That's what makes a ridiculous picture of yourself.


I could care less if he was gay. We have no evidence for this, but we have even less for the fact that he was married.

And you have even much less that Jesus was not married.

 

[Oberon]

First, you apparently fail to grasp that this is a debate about history, and as a such not only is the term "proof" completely inappropriate, you also don't seem to realize that the burden of "proof" is on you. You are the one attempting to make a positivist case for an interpretation of the evidence (Jesus is married) which is nowhere explicitly stated. As such, you are the one who has to show convincingly that your interpretation is the best explanation of the evidence. My onus is only to critique your interpretation, which I have done because your evidence is laughably absurd.

1. You entirely mistake that place names where one method of differentiating people (along with reference by family, nicknames, etc), as there were many, many people with the same first name. To argue that two Mary's are the same when they are clearly identified differently shows you have no familiarity with how names worked in this time period.

2. You use the most unreliable gospel (John) as "evidence" that Jesus was married to Mary Magalene, but you feel free to discount a saying of Jesus, even though the synoptics are far more reliable, and sayings in the Jesus tradition are the most accurately transmitted material.

3. You completely mistake how the term rabbi was used, and provide no evidence for your interpretation of the word in first century palestine.

4. You offer some bizzare interpretation of rabbouni, and use the fact that you live in Irael to support it (!!!???).

5. You freely pick and choose which parts of the gospels are "reliable" based on what supports your view (such as the wedding at cana or what Nicodemus says) and discount whatever doesn't.

6. You think the author of Matthew was a disciple of Paul, but have no evidence whatsoever to support this.

7. You interpretation of scenes like the wedding of cana are bizzarely constructed.

8. You provide no references to any scholarship to support your hypothesis

I could go on, but basically you have zero case.

[
The evidences that you don't have any to prove otherwise.

Wrong. For one thing, the word "rabbi" is defined in the NT texts themselves. I already gave you specific examples which indicate it doesn't mean what it came to mean. We also have descriptions of judaism from Jews living around the time of Jesus, and none of them mention the custom of "rabbis having to be married" or rabbis at all, because the rabbis of rabbinic judaism didn't exist.

This is no proof that he was not married. Come on! Where are the proofs?

Obviously you are not a historian. History has NO PROOFS! It is all about the most likely scenerio given the evidence. With John, we have a man who forsook culture and went into the desert as a loner. The evidence suggests he was unmarried.

Sadder than anything else is for a non-Christian to try to defend Christians whithout knowing what he is talking about.

Right. Only I actually study this area as a profession. And you have yet to offer a SHRED of evidence for your statement defining "rabbouni." Who cares if you live in Israel? How does that have anything to do with the definition of rabbouni?

See how naive and sad you are? You believe the word of a Gentile, disciple of Paul's 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

I forgot how you only believe the NT when it suits you. You use the wedding at Cana in John (even more removed than Matthew) to support your argument (although it doesn't) but Matthew is out of the question. Also, what basis do you have for assuming the author of Matthew was a disciple of Paul, or that he was a gentile? None.

And unlike you, I have spent years studying the oral transmission behind the gospels, and I actually know something about how reliable they were.

This is no proof that Jesus was not married. I am still waiting for the proofs I asked.

I can't prove he wasn't abducted by aliens either. HISTORY ISN"T ABOUT PROOFS! It is about weighing the evidence and coming up with the most likely scenerio(s). You have zero evidence on your side, while I have a fair amount on mine (the complete lack of any mention of a marriage, the knowledge that Jews at this time did not necessarily get married, the fact that Jesus had a reputation for being shameful to his community, the fact that his teachings suggest celibacy to those who can, etc).

And you have no proofs that Jesus was not married. So, why fight a battle that does not pertain to you? That's what makes a ridiculous picture of yourself.

Because this is my area of study, and I don't appreciate people like you spreading blatant ignorance because not everyone has studied the matter enough to know that you have NO idea what you are talking about.

And you have even much less that Jesus was not married.

You are right. I could care less if he was married to0. Wouldn't bother me in the least. However, as a historian, and one who specializes in this area, I know that all the evidence tells against this. I also know you have no idea what you are talking about, from your ignorance about how identifiers were use to differentiate names, to your understanding of palistinian judaism, to your understanding of the basis of rabbinic judaism. And I do have a problem with people who spread ignorance.

 

[Ben Masada]

First, you apparently fail to grasp that this is a debate about history, and as a such not only is the term "proof" completely inappropriate, you also don't seem to realize that the burden of "proof" is on you.

Who told you that this is a debate about History? This is a debate about religion.
And my role is to defend Judaism from your distorting its image before the world by inserting Hellenistic rubbish into it, which is what Christians do when they use a religious Jew for that purpose.


To argue that two Mary's are the same when they are clearly identified differently shows you have no familiarity with how names worked in this time period.

All the four Mary's reported by the four gospel are one and the same, and she was married to Jesus if you want him to be a religious Jew. Drop the claim and I am out. Keep it and I'll continue fighting these lies.

2. You use the most unreliable gospel (John) as "evidence" that Jesus was married to Mary Magalene,

If one of the gospels lack realiability before the others, it just tells me that the whole thing is worthless.

3. You completely mistake how the term rabbi was used, and provide no evidence for your interpretation of the word in first century palestine.

I have provided enough evidences in your own NT. You don't agree with because the NT means nothing to you, and I understand why.

4. You offer some bizzare interpretation of rabbouni, and use the fact that you live in Irael to support it (!!!???).

And you are trying to play the fool by teaching Judaism to the Jew.

5. You freely pick and choose which parts of the gospels are "reliable" based on what supports your view (such as the wedding at cana or what Nicodemus says) and discount whatever doesn't.

At least, I accept as true 20 percent of the NT. How about you who find less evidence that Jesus was a married man than a homosexual? That's shameful!

6. You think the author of Matthew was a disciple of Paul, but have no evidence whatsoever to support this.

You find hard to believe because you probably have never read it in your life.

7. You interpretation of scenes like the wedding of cana are bizzarely constructed.

Is it your way to express your jealousy for lack of imagination?

8. You provide no references to any scholarship to support your hypothesis

What kind of scholarship is this to come to a religious forum and pretend to turn it into a debate on History. Perhaps you don't even know the difference.

 

[Oberon]

Who told you that this is a debate about History? This is a debate about religion.
And my role is to defend Judaism from your distorting its image before the world by inserting Hellenistic rubbish into it, which is what Christians do when they use a religious Jew for that purpose.

If you want to accept all your arguments on faith, go ahead. There is nothing which can disprove faith. None so blind as those that will not see, after all. However, if you want to justify your arguments made about historical events so that those who don't accept your faith will believe, you need to make historical arguments. You don't.

All the four Mary's reported by the four gospel are one and the same,

Which again proves you have zero knowledge of how names worked in first century palestine. People didn't have last names, and shared first names were EXTREMELY common. People wered differentiated using different methods, including place names and names of fathers, brothers, or husbands. The fact that all the Mary's are identified in different ways means they are different people. The fact that none are identified by their husband, as married women were, means they weren't married to Jesus.

and she was married to Jesus if you want him to be a religious Jew. Drop the claim and I am out. Keep it and I'll continue fighting these lies.

He certainly wasn't a Jew by your standards. Of course, neither were the Sadducees, the essenes, or likely any Jew, as virtually all of them based Judaism on sacrifice in the temple, and rabbinic Judaism didn't exist.

If one of the gospels lack realiability before the others, it just tells me that the whole thing is worthless.

As you have never studied the field, any conclusion you make is irrelevent both to me and to anyone else interested in determing gospel reliability.

I have provided enough evidences in your own NT. You don't agree with because the NT means nothing to you, and I understand why.

What evidence have you provided? The only thing you said was that a devout Jew named Nicodemus called Jesus a rabbi, therefore he was married. That doesn't provide any evidence for your interpretation that rabbi means one had to be married. And the NT explicitly defines it otherwise.

And you are trying to play the fool by teaching Judaism to the Jew.

Congratulations for being Jewish. What does that have to do with aramaic? The term is aramaic, and you have provided zero evidence for your interpretation.

At least, I accept as true 20 percent of the NT. How about you who find less evidence that Jesus was a married man than a homosexual? That's shameful!

Sure, if you think homosexuality is shameful, I guess it would be. But, unlike you, I base my understanding on research and evidence. I go where the evidence leads, not where I want it to lead.
6. You think the author of Matthew was a disciple of Paul, but have no evidence whatsoever to support this.

You find hard to believe because you probably have never read it in your life.

Unlike you, I have read the entire NT in greek.

You provide no references to any scholarship to support your hypothesis

 

[Ben Masada]

If you want to accept all your arguments on faith, go ahead. There is nothing which can disprove faith.

Faith is what you need if you intend to harmonize Christian history.

The fact that all the Mary's are identified in different ways means they are different people. The fact that none are identified by their husband, as married women were, means they weren't married to Jesus.

It's hard to believe that History is you propriety, unless with Christian preconceived notions, because you show too much ignorance of History of Jewish religion. The NT puts all the four women touching, anointing and kissing a religious Jew when such a thing could never happen by a strange woman who was not married to him.

He certainly wasn't a Jew by your standards. Of course, neither were the Sadducees, the essenes, or likely any Jew, as virtually all of them based Judaism on sacrifice in the temple, and rabbinic Judaism didn't exist.

Who is talking, a Gentile who insists on teaching Judaism to the Jews? That's all we need now.

As you have never studied the field, any conclusion you make is irrelevent both to me and to anyone else interested in determing gospel reliability.

There is no gospel reliability. Only idle tales told 50+ years after the alleged facts by people who, like you,knew close to zero about Judaism.

What evidence have you provided? The only thing you said was that a devout Jew named Nicodemus called Jesus a rabbi, therefore he was married. That doesn't provide any evidence for your interpretation that rabbi means one had to be married. And the NT explicitly defines it otherwise.

What evidence do you have of four women, which you claim were different, to massage a religious Jew in public if they were not married to him? Zero evidence. You have only your historical word, which means nothing to anyone who has a mind of his own.

Sure, if you think homosexuality is shameful, I guess it would be. But, unlike you, I base my understanding on research and evidence. I go where the evidence leads, not where I want it to lead.

Sure, evidences that you haven't showed a single one to prove harmony in the NT.

6. You think the author of Matthew was a disciple of Paul, but have no evidence whatsoever to support this.

Where did Matthew get so much Greek Mythology if not from the Greek Jew Paul and from himself? Not from Judaism for sure.

Unlike you, I have read the entire NT in greek.

Congratulations! You know Greek. What does it mean, that now what you say is true? On the contrary. It's an added evidence that you are a potential to bring more Hellenistic lies into Judaism.

You provide no references to any scholarship to support your hypothesis.

And what scholarship do you provide to support your assumptions?

 

[Oberon]

[Faith is what you need if you intend to harmonize Christian history.

I don't.

It's hard to believe that History is you propriety, unless with Christian preconceived notions, because you show too much ignorance of History of Jewish religion. The NT puts all the four women touching, anointing and kissing a religious Jew when such a thing could never happen by a strange woman who was not married to him.

Based on what evidence? And other women besides the various Marys did this.

Who is talking, a Gentile who insists on teaching Judaism to the Jews? That's all we need now.

Apparently it is exactly what is needed.

There is no gospel reliability. Only idle tales told 50+ years after the alleged facts by people who, like you,knew close to zero about Judaism.

Again, as you have never studied the field, any conclusion you make is irrelevent both to me and to anyone else interested in determing gospel reliability.

What evidence do you have of four women, which you claim were different, to massage a religious Jew in public if they were not married to him? Zero evidence. You have only your historical word, which means nothing to anyone who has a mind of his own.

The fact that is stated in historical documents (bioi/vitae) called gospels, the fact that there were many other women, such as the woman with the hemorrhage, who also did this. The fact that I have statements by Jewish historians like Josephus and Philo who discuss unmarried pious Jews. The fact that Jesus is recorded as often redefining what constitutes purity.

Where did Matthew get so much Greek Mythology if not from the Greek Jew Paul and from himself? Not from Judaism for sure.

Hmmm, I wonder... Could it be that there was an infusion of greek culture and ideas throughout the roman empire, particularly in the east where it was a primary language? How about the fact that exiled Jews had lived in pagan countries?

And what scholarship do you provide to support your assumptions?

Just to start with Jewish historians, how about Geza Vermes books on Jesus:

The Religion of Jesus the Jew and Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels.

Like all of those who examine the historical evidence, he denies that Jesus was married. Nor does he make the elementary mistake of confusing clearly differentiated people. Nor is he entirely ignorant of 2nd-temple judaism, as you apparently are.

 

[gnostic]

Who told you that this is a debate about History? This is a debate about religion.
And my role is to defend Judaism from your distorting its image before the world by inserting Hellenistic rubbish into it, which is what Christians do when they use a religious Jew for that purpose.

I would agree with you that the late Judaism and early Christianity were influenced by foreign religions and myths (from the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and even Egyptian traditions) during the 2nd Temple Period. However, that not in question.

It is about the topic, where you tried to combine 2 Marys into 1. It is your interpretation, and taking the texts out of context, to suit your points, that I have problem with. Many of your assertions are not supported in the texts.

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't.

Based on what evidence? And other women besides the various Marys did this.

Show me in your own NT what other women massaged Jesus' body with anointments. Why in the hell are you trying this, just to have something to argue about? Do you think other people believe what you are saying?

Again, as you have never studied the field, any conclusion you make is irrelevent both to me and to anyone else interested in determing gospel reliability.

You are wasting your time trying to determine gospel reliability. Do you want a good bone to chew? Read Luke 2:39. Jesus was 40 days old when Luke had him back in Nazareth. In the meantime the Jesus of Matthew was still stuck in Egypt waiting for Herod to die. Are we dealing with two Jesuses or two Solomons parting one Jesus in two? If your point is to find reliability in the gospels, try this one.

The fact that is stated in historical documents (bioi/vitae) called gospels, the fact that there were many other women, such as the woman with the hemorrhage, who also did this.

What did she do? If this ever happened, she only touched the tzitzit of his talit katan. In case you don't understand what I am talking about, she only touched the edge of his garment. What do you mean by "she also did this?" You must be kidding!

The fact that I have statements by Jewish historians like Josephus and Philo who discuss unmarried pious Jews. The fact that Jesus is recorded as often redefining what constitutes purity.

I have extensively read Josephus and some Philo. I don't recall such discussions about unmarried pious Jews. Perhaps to criticise some stereotype of meshugaim.

Hmmm, I wonder... Could it be that there was an infusion of greek culture and ideas throughout the roman empire, particularly in the east where it was a primary language? How about the fact that exiled Jews had lived in pagan countries?

But they never wrote anything Hellenistic against Judaism.

Like all of those who examine the historical evidence, he denies that Jesus was married. Nor does he make the elementary mistake of confusing clearly differentiated people. Nor is he entirely ignorant of 2nd-temple judaism, as you apparently are.

I have noticed that you have a tremendous Psychological need to detactch the Judaism of the First Century from the Judaism of today for some reason beyond only to prove reliability in the gospels. I am sure there is an agenda in your mind to uphold the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Why don't you open your quiver once and for all and show the arrows of your anti-Jewish sentiments?

 

[Ben Masada]

I would agree with you that the late Judaism and early Christianity were influenced by foreign religions and myths (from the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and even Egyptian traditions) during the 2nd Temple Period. However, that not in question.

It is about the topic, where you tried to combine 2 Marys into 1. It is your interpretation, and taking the texts out of context, to suit your points, that I have problem with. Many of your assertions are not supported in the texts.

Gnostic, what I am trying to do here is to prove the saying that,
"you cannot bake your cake and eat it too." Christians want their Jesus to have been an Orthodox religious Jew, and at the same time a Don Juan or Casa Nova. That's impossible.

We have four gospels reporting a different woman massaging Jesus' body in public with anointment and kissing his feet. They were all either one and the same married to him or this Jesus was some Greek living in Israel, but not an Orthodox religious Jew. When they decide for the last option, I promise to vacate my podium in this discussion.

The Judaism of 2,000 years ago was way more strict than today. I live among religious Jews in Israel. A woman who is not the wife of one avoids even address the word in the fear to be criticised for being out of her place.

 

[Oberon]

Show me in your own NT what other women massaged Jesus' body with anointments. Why in the hell are you trying this, just to have something to argue about? Do you think other people believe what you are saying?

Only the NT never records Mary Magdalene doing this either. Your argument is baseless. Mary Magdalene is identified as coming from magdala. The Mary who annoints Jesus in John is from Bethany. Two different mary's.

You are wasting your time trying to determine gospel reliability. Do you want a good bone to chew? Read Luke 2:39. Jesus was 40 days old when Luke had him back in Nazareth. In the meantime the Jesus of Matthew was still stuck in Egypt waiting for Herod to die. Are we dealing with two Jesuses or two Solomons parting one Jesus in two? If your point is to find reliability in the gospels, try this one.

You simply have no knowledge of how ancient history was written. You have never studied the genre of lives, or ancient history in general, and anything you have to say on this subject is baseless and uninformed. As such, it is fairly worthless to me, and to anyone actually interested in reliable information.

I have extensively read Josephus and some Philo. I don't recall such discussions about unmarried pious Jews. Perhaps to criticise some stereotype of meshugaim.

Both mention the essenes.

But they never wrote anything Hellenistic against Judaism.

Right. Philo wasn't Hellenistic at all.

I have noticed that you have a tremendous Psychological need to detactch the Judaism of the First Century from the Judaism of today for some reason beyond only to prove reliability in the gospels. I am sure there is an agenda in your mind to uphold the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Why don't you open your quiver once and for all and show the arrows of your anti-Jewish sentiments?

Right. How is it anti-Jewish to cohere with ALL of ancient Jewish scholarship? NO scholar of ancient Judaism contends that rabbinic Judaism existed during Jesus' day.

Your argument amounts to "I'm jewish and I live in israel therefore I am the only one capable of understanding the Jewish culture of Jesus' day." Only you don't know aramiac, so your translation of rabbouni is worthless. You apparently know next to nothing about scholarship on ancient judiasm, so what you have to say on that topic is just as baseless. And you don't know anything about the transmission of oral genres and the reliability or oral transmission, nor about ancient historical genres, so you really don't have anything to offer, do you?

 

[Oberon]

Gnostic, what I am trying to do here is to prove the saying that,
"you cannot bake your cake and eat it too." Christians want their Jesus to have been an Orthodox religious Jew, and at the same time a Don Juan or Casa Nova. That's impossible.

First of all, no one is arguing he was an "orthodox" jew as it didn't exist at the time. What constituted a "proper" jew? The Sadducees, who rejected anything not present in the five books of moses? The pharisees, obsessed with ritual purity based on an orally transmitted tradition and sectioned off into small groups which ate and drank together? The essenes, who rejected the temple altogether, sectioned themselves off and also developed standards of purity, adopted a apocalyptic world view, and awaited a coming battle with the son's of darkness? John, who believed that a baptism in the Jordan prepared one for the coming of god's kingdom? Or how about your average Israelite who knew the holy books, sacrificed in the temple, organized religious consciousness around the temple, and likely thought this sufficient?

To even use the word "jew" (יהודי, Ιουδαιο&#962 is something of a problem. Why is this a better term than many of the others used by Jews themselves (Israelite, Hebrew, etc). Jew meant first and foremost a "Judean" and the word comes from the word Judea. In fact, the word "Judaism" (the practice of a religion associated with Judea) itself was first used in Greek, not Hebrew.

 

[S-word]

First of all, no one is arguing he was an "orthodox" jew as it didn't exist at the time. What constituted a "proper" jew? The Sadducees, who rejected anything not present in the five books of moses? The pharisees, obsessed with ritual purity based on an orally transmitted tradition and sectioned off into small groups which ate and drank together? The essenes, who rejected the temple altogether, sectioned themselves off and also developed standards of purity, adopted a apocalyptic world view, and awaited a coming battle with the son's of darkness? John, who believed that a baptism in the Jordan prepared one for the coming of god's kingdom? Or how about your average Israelite who knew the holy books, sacrificed in the temple, organized religious consciousness around the temple, and likely thought this sufficient?

To even use the word "jew" (יהודי, Ιουδαιο&#962 is something of a problem. Why is this a better term than many of the others used by Jews themselves (Israelite, Hebrew, etc). Jew meant first and foremost a "Judean" and the word comes from the word Judea. In fact, the word "Judaism" (the practice of a religion associated with Judea) itself was first used in Greek, not Hebrew.

You are correct Oberon, all Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews, in fact many Gentiles belong to the religious order of Judaism, which name you have pointed out, was first used in Greek, not Hebrew, and many Jews from the tribe of Judah belong to the many differnt religions of the world.

Poor old Ben don't get too much right do he?

Ben: what I am trying to do here is to prove the saying that,
"you cannot bake your cake and eat it too."

We can bake our cake and eat it too, what we can't do, Is eat our cake and still have it too.

 

[sojourner]

We can bake our cake and eat it too, what we can't do, Is eat our cake and still have it too.

Especially if the cake isn't kosher...

 

[S-word]

Especially if the cake isn't kosher...

How are you going mate, it's nice to hear from you again.

 

[gnostic]

We have four gospels reporting a different woman massaging Jesus' body in public with anointment and kissing his feet.

Only the NT never records Mary Magdalene doing this either. Your argument is baseless. Mary Magdalene is identified as coming from magdala. The Mary who annoints Jesus in John is from Bethany. Two different mary's.

True, none of the gospels ever mentioned MM doing this.

And only John's gospel mentioned MB doing this at Bethany.

Mark and Matthew don't mention any name to the woman at Bethany. They (gospels) both reported that this took place in the house of Simon the Leper, not Lazarus' home.

Luke on the other hand, say this feet washing (7:36-50), did happen not in Bethany, but in one of the towns in Galilee (either Capernaum (Luke 7:1) or in Nain (7:11), and in the home of Simon the Pharisee, who is a different character to Simon the Leper and Lazarus. Nain is about 100 km north of Bethany, and Capernaum is slightly further. None of this incidence is recalled about in Bethany.

I don't think Gospel of John to be most reliable. Nor Matthew and Luke, because the stories of Jesus' birth differed markedly, so you can't tell which is true.

And John's was the only one to recorded Lazarus being brought back to life. Why didn't the other gospels recorded this incidence?

 

[S-word]

True, none of the gospels ever mentioned MM doing this.

And only John's gospel mentioned MB doing this at Bethany.

Mark and Matthew don't mention any name to the woman at Bethany. They (gospels) both reported that this took place in the house of Simon the Leper, not Lazarus' home.

Luke on the other hand, say this feet washing (7:36-50), did happen not in Bethany, but in one of the towns in Galilee (either Capernaum (Luke 7:1) or in Nain (7:11), and in the home of Simon the Pharisee, who is a different character to Simon the Leper and Lazarus. Nain is about 100 km north of Bethany, and Capernaum is slightly further. None of this incidence is recalled about in Bethany.

I don't think Gospel of John to be most reliable. Nor Matthew and Luke, because the stories of Jesus' birth differed markedly, so you can't tell which is true.

And John's was the only one to recorded Lazarus being brought back to life. Why didn't the other gospels recorded this incidence?

Why did only Luke record the story of the young boy Jesus in the Temple? Why was it only Matthew who spoke of the wise men and of the star that guided them to where the almost two year old Jesus lived with his parents, and who speaks of the slaughter of the innocents?

Why did Mark and John dismiss the physical birth of the man Jesus as irrelevant to the story of Jesus who became God’s Son? Jesus, who was born in the usual way as all men are born, but who was later born of the spirit of our Lord, for Jesus did not take upon himself the honour of High priest, (See Hebrew 5: 5.) but instead was declared to be high priest in the line of succession to Melchizedek as he arose from the baptismal waters and was filled with the spirit of our Father and saviour, when the voice from heaven was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, today I have begotten thee.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23.

Why did not none of the other gospels apart from Luke, record the ceremony of purification performed by Mary, 40 odd days after the birth of the first of her three biological sons, who, after completing everything according to the law of Moses they returned to Nazareth, which town Luke says, that they had previously travelled from, to Bethlehem of Judea where Mary, who was heavy with child, gave birth to Jesus.

Why, why, why! Because each gospel was written according to those parts of the Life of Jesus that was of interest to the person who was moved to record his viewpoint as a witness, to the Life, death, and resurrection of our Lord, which all four gospel scribes reveal according to their own perspective.

The gospel of Luke is a document written to Theophilus by Luke who had studied the writings of many people who had wrote, to the best of their ability, what had been told to the people by those who had known Jesus from the very beginning. Luke’s written report to Theophilus, does not run in chronological order, and nowhere does he state whether the house of Simon the Pharisee in which Jesus was anointed, was in Galilee or Judea, although at the time referred to by Luke 7, Jesus is in Jerusalem; Luke 7: 10-11 and verse 25. It seems strange that a woman who had lived a sinful life could simply walk in off the street, and enter unchallenged, into the dining room of Simon and confront his most honoured guests, unless she was well known to Simon, even perhaps the sister to Simon.

In the week in which Jesus was crucified, Mark has him in the town of Bethany, (its modern name “Lazarieh” is derived from Lazarus) in the home of Simon with the terminal skin disease where he is anointed by a woman with very expensive perfume valued at somewhere around 300 silver coins.
Matthew also has Jesus in Bethany in the house of Simon with the terminal disease in the week before he was crucified, when a woman came in and anointed him with very expensive perfume which could have been sold for a large amount of money, both Matthew and Mark have the woman pouring the perfume on the head of Jesus.

The Gospel according to the words of John, which is the more reliable of the four, has the anointing of Jesus in a house in the village of Bethany, which was the home of Lazarus who had died from an apparent terminal disease and was resurrected by Jesus. Lazarus, which name means “Terminal” or “Without hope” is one and the same as Simon the Pharisee with the terminal skin disease. And it was there in the house of Simon/Lazarus, who may have once lived in Galilee, that Mary Magdalene the sister of Lazarus who with the other women who had followed Jesus from Galilee, and who would have all been staying in Bethany with Jesus and his disciples, anointed Jesus six days before the Passover, with very expensive perfume that could have been sold for 300 silver coins.

Surely no one is that naive as to believe that in the small village of Bethany/Lazarieh, in the week prior to the death of Jesus, he would be anointed by two different women with expensive perfume valued at 300 silver coins

 

[Oberon]

I don't think Gospel of John to be most reliable.

From a historical perspective, I would certainly agree. This is not to say that I don't believe the claim in the gospel that a disciple of Jesus stands behind the gospel as a source. However, I think this gospel shows more theological redaction and less interest in reliably recording history than the synoptics.

Nor Matthew and Luke, because the stories of Jesus' birth differed markedly, so you can't tell which is true.

I wouldn't agree with this. Mark is earlier than Matthew and Luke, but this doesn't make Mark a better source. Certainly Luke is the most self-consciously a "historian" of the four (in the ancient sense of the term). There is no reason to suppose that both of these sources were not well acquainted with the Jesus tradition, and both had access to mark as well as traditions which predated mark.

I doubt that either birth story is true. The Jesus tradition shows a good deal of concern in accurately recording and remembering Jesus' teachings. The same is true (although I would argue to a lesser degree) of his actions during his ministry. The passion narrative was also formed very early in the tradition. However, I think that questions came up which did not have answers in the Jesus tradition (such as those concerning Jesus' birth and childhood). I think that legends grew around such questions, some being recorded in later sources (like the infancy gospels) and some actually present in the earliest gospels (the canonical four).

And John's was the only one to recorded Lazarus being brought back to life. Why didn't the other gospels recorded this incidence?

All the gospels contain material unique to that gospel, and each author puts their particular stamp on their gospel (in terms of phrasing, interpretation, etc).

 

[gnostic]

Why, why, why! Because each gospel was written according to those parts of the Life of Jesus that was of interest to the person who was moved to record his viewpoint as a witness, to the Life, death, and resurrection of our Lord, which all four gospel scribes reveal according to their own perspective.

The Lazarus' death/life episode should have been more astonishing and far more important miracle than feeding 5 thousands of followers, which was recorded in all gospels. The Lazarus' episode should have been known by the apostles and other close disciples, because it was also done in public and because it related to Jesus' or God's power over life and death. It can also be considered to be related to Jesus' death and rebirth. And yet this Lazarus' episode only appear in one gospel (John's), and apparently unknown to the authors. If the other gospel authors didn't know the Lazarus' story, then the logical conclusion that he (John) had made it up.

Just as I think Matthew and Luke made different versions of Jesus' birth, which I'd agree with Oberon:

I doubt that either birth story is true.

I think I have done a topic about Jesus' birth.

With Matthew's, Jesus' family were in danger from Herod, but nothing of the sort were found in Luke's. Luke's, on the other hand, reported a whole host of angels, nothing found in Matthew's.

 

[S-word]

The Lazarus' death/life episode should have been more astonishing and far more important miracle than feeding 5 thousands of followers, which was recorded in all gospels. The Lazarus' episode should have been known by the apostles and other close disciples, because it was also done in public and because it related to Jesus' or God's power over life and death. It can also be considered to be related to Jesus' death and rebirth. And yet this Lazarus' episode only appear in one gospel (John's), and apparently unknown to the authors. If the other gospel authors didn't know the Lazarus' story, then the logical conclusion that he (John) had made it up.

Just as I think Matthew and Luke made different versions of Jesus' birth, which I'd agree with Oberon:



I think I have done a topic about Jesus' birth.

With Matthew's, Jesus' family were in danger from Herod, but nothing of the sort were found in Luke's. Luke's, on the other hand, reported a whole host of angels, nothing found in Matthew's.

The foolish detective accepts the evidence of only one of four witnesses and rejects the other three as false, because they are not the same as the one that he has chosen to believe, the foolish detective will never solve the mystery.
The wise detective knows that each witness has given their evidence from their own particular viewpoint and accepts all four as reliable witnesses; this wise detective will solve the mystery.

If you believe that because no gospel scribe other than the transcribers of John’s words, has bothered to record the resuscitation of Lazarus, then it is logical to assume that John made the whole story up, then you must believe also, that Luke made up the story of Jesus as a young lad in the Temple, and that it is therefore logical to assume that any story told in any gospel that is not corroborated by the other gospels are simply mental fabrications of the scribe in question. What utter Rubbish, you are to be seen as the foolish detective.

Now look through the eyes of a wise detective, who reads the account recorded by “Luke” who had studied and recorded the writings of men who told the stories that had been orally handed to them by the people who had walked and talked with Jesus, and Luke is one of the four to bear witness to the life, death and resurrection of the Man Jesus whose Mother Mary, had lived in Nazareth. Luke 2: 4, Joseph, who was not the biological Father of Jesus, went from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Judea with Mary to whom he was not yet married as the union was not consummated until she had birthed ‘Jesus’ the first of her three biological sons.

Jesus was circumcised in Bethlehem when he was eight days old, then thirty three days later, he was openly carried to the temple in Jerusalem (No wise men yet nor any slaughter of the innocents). There in Jerusalem, Mary performed the ceremony of purification according to the law of Moses, see Leviticus 12: 3-4; after which, they returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke makes no more mention of Jesus until he is about 12 years old. But another does.

Herod who died in or around April of 4 B.C., sometime after he had sent his soldiers on a search and destroy mission to seek out and destroy all male children who were two years and below, showing that he believed that Jesus had been born in or shortly before 6 B.C. Now to discover why Herod believed that the child of who it was said, could be a threat to his throne was somewhere between one and two years of age, the wise detective now turns to another who bears witness to the life of Jesus, and who records certain events in the life of Jesus after the family had returned to Nazareth and before he was 12 years old.

The wise men who were thought to be Astronomer Astrologers from Mesopotamia, were called to a secret meeting with Herod where they told him that they had first sighted the star that had heralded the birth of the prophesied Messianic King of Israel, almost two years previously, and it was in accordance to this information that Herod was to determine the age of the children who were to be slaughtered.

The star gazing wise men would have seen many strange heavenly phenomena over the years of their observations, but in 6 B.C,. with the triple conjunction of the planet Jupiter which was associated with Jacob, their eyes would have been drawn to that planet where they observed the pin point of Light that was the comet that would not be visible to the average person until 5 B.C, when, because of its proximity to the sun would develop the majestic tail and would be visible in the night sky for 70 days.

All short period comets which appear every 200 years or less, have their aphelia in the orbit of Jupiter and are called the family of Jupiter, and even up till recent times, those comets were thought to have been created from material that had been expelled from the massive Planet which will one day become a Brown Dwarf. So it is no wonder that the wise men saw the star coming out of Jupiter as the fulfilment of the prophecy in Numbers 24; “Behold, a star shall come out of Jacob/Jupiter and a king shall arise in Israel etc”.

Having been guided to Jerusalem by the comet of 5 B.C. with its brilliant tail streaming behind, it would appear that it disappeared for a while, perhaps hidden behind the sun which would whip it back to the orbit of Jupiter in the northern sky, for on leaving Herod who had advised them to go to Bethlehem of Judea, the star appeared once again, and O what Joy was theirs, and it guided them not to Bethlehem in the south, but to Bethlehem of Galilee which town is today called Beitlahm, and is but spitting distance from Nazareth and the Magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepporhus, the district in which so many families lost their lives in 4 B.C. In fact, the very first act of Herod’s son who succeeded him in 3 B.C. was to rebuild the city of Sepporhus that had suffered so much damage in the riots of 4 B.C..