Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[sojourner]

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

Eating lots of not-kosher cake -- and having it baked, too!

 

[gnostic]

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.

Actually the young Jesus at the temple is far more believable than the shepherd and host of angels scene, at Jesus' birth (2:8-20). I have never disputed 2:41-51. Nor would I dispute Jesus being present to the Temple, while still infant (2:22-38).

As I said, my problem is with the Luke's shepherds and angels (Luke 2:8-20), which is not reported in Matthew.

With Matthew's, I have problem with the scene in Jesus' birth, in regards with the massacre of children (2:16-18) and Jesus' fleeing to Egypt until Herod's death (2:-19-23). Luke give no indication of such trouble with Herod; everything seem peaceful with Jesus' birth in Luke's account.

Luke's account would have been most acceptable one (about Jesus' birth), if the shepherds and angels episode wasn't included.

Matthew would have been acceptable if Luke had confirmed the story, but the two accounts don't agree with each other.

The only things the 2 agree with each other is Holy Spirit conceive Jesus through Mary, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that eventually they return to Nazareth. Although, I find it hard to believe in the Holy Spirit part, but at least the 2 texts collaborate on that part of Mary's miraculous conception.

 

[S-word]

Eating lots of not-kosher cake -- and having it baked, too!

Good one mate, Did you hear the one about the Eskimo, who was so cold while fishing in the ice covered ocean, that he decided to light a fire in his kayak which burned to the water line, leaving him frozen to death floating around with the icebergs. The moral of the story being, "You can't heat your Kayak and have it too."

 

[sojourner]

Good one mate, Did you hear the one about the Eskimo, who was so cold while fishing in the ice covered ocean, that he decided to light a fire in his kayak which burned to the water line, leaving him frozen to death floating around with the icebergs. The moral of the story being, "You can't heat your Kayak and have it too."

I once had a room mate who was dating a girl named Edith, and got a call from a former girlfriend named Katie. I told him that he was the only person I knew who could have his kate and Edith too.

 

[S-word]

I once had a room mate who was dating a girl named Edith, and got a call from a former girlfriend named Katie. I told him that he was the only person I knew who could have his kate and Edith too.

Loved it mate, loved it.

 

[S-word]

Quoted by Gnostic...Actually the young Jesus at the temple is far more believable than the shepherd and host of angels scene, at Jesus' birth (2:8-20). I have never disputed 2:41-51. Nor would I dispute Jesus being present to the Temple, while still infant (2:22-38).


Answered by S-word...As I have already stated, Jesus was born either in 7 B.C. when there was a conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn, or early in the year of 6 B.C., with the triple conjunction of Jupiter, which is almost two years before the death of Herod in 4 B.C. and Herod, while still alive in 5 B.C., believed that Jesus was somewhere between one and two years old.

The shepherds in the fields on the night of the birth of Jesus in late 7 B.C., or early 6 B.C., would not have seen the pinpoint of Light that was being observed by the wise men who believed that it was a star that had come out of Jupiter/Jacob. Nor would they see it until sometime in 5 B.C., when it developed its brilliant tail because of its close proximity to the sun, but by then, Jesus was over one year old and Lived in Nazareth of Galilee which was but spitting distance to Bethlehem and Sepphorus, the district in which so many families lost their lives in riots within that district just after the wise men had returned to their own country and Joseph the step-father of Jesus had been warned to take his wife and her first born son Jesus and flee into Egypt.

Quoted by Gnostic...As I said, my problem is with the Luke's shepherds and angels (Luke 2:8-20), which is not reported in Matthew.


Answered by S-word...If you have a problem believing that the angels appeared to the shepherds in 6 B.C., on the night that Jesus was born, simply because it is not corroborated by Matthew who recounts the event of the wise men that occurred nearly two years after the birth story which is recorded by Luke, then you must also have a problem with the angel Gabriel appearing to Mary, as it is not corroborated by any other gospel scribe, in fact you have a real problem if you cannot accept anything that is recorded in one gospel and not corroborated by another. You’re like the foolish detective fumbling around in the evidence statements of four witnesses, unable to believe any of them because each one recorded something that is not corroborated by the others, and you will get nowhere.

Quoted by Gnostic...With Matthew's, I have problem with the scene in Jesus' birth, in regards with the massacre of children (2:16-18) and Jesus' fleeing to Egypt until Herod's death (2:-19-23). Luke give no indication of such trouble with Herod; everything seem peaceful with Jesus' birth in Luke's account.

Answered by S-word...Apparently you have read my previous post with your eyes tightly closed.
Now hold your pen tightly and close your eyes slightly, then call for the spirit within to awake----- For it’s He who I walk with, who in you I would talk with, and here’s the request that to him I would make----Arise! Let your light shine, for now is the right time to scatter the darkness and shine forth your light----Release all your children held fast in the prison of those teachers of darkness, those sons of the night... By S-word.

The massacre of the children did not occur around the birth of Jesus, but when he was between one and two years of age when he lived in the house in Nazareth which is but spitting distance from Bethlehem of Galilee.
When the comet of 5 B.C., appeared once again in its return to the orbit of Jupiter which was in the northern sky and led the wise men north, where, late in the day in the deepening evening sky, they saw the comet low on the horizon with its tail streaming upward into the heaven, standing over the small and insignificant village of Nazareth where they found Jesus in the House, not the stable or the inn where he had been born over a year earlier, but in the House where he had lived with his mother for more than a year.
Herod’s secret police had eyes and ears throughout the land of Israel, and they Knew exactly, to where the wise men and their entourage had travelled, and when the wise men failed to return as promised, to tell Herod the whereabouts of the child that had been born in 6 B.C., they knew exactly where to go in order to carry out Herod’s order to kill every male child in the district surrounding Bethlehem of Galilee.

There is absolutely no evidence of any slaughter in the district surrounding the southern town of Bethlehem of Judea in or around 4 B.C., But there is the account of the riot in which many people were killed and taken captive to Rome in the district around Nazareth, Bethlehem and Sepphorus of Galilee in 4 B.C. And as I have stated in my previous, Sepphorus which suffered so much damage in the riot of 5 or 4 B.C., was rebuilt by Herod’s son in 3 B.C.


Quoted by Gnostic...Luke's account would have been most acceptable one (about Jesus' birth), if the shepherds and angels episode wasn't included.

Matthew would have been acceptable if Luke had confirmed the story, but the two accounts don't agree with each other.


Answered by S-word...If any one of the gospels is not acceptable to you, because the stories therein are not corroborated by the other gospels, then no gospel is acceptable to you.

Quoted by Gnostic...The only things the 2 agree with each other is Holy Spirit conceive Jesus through Mary, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that eventually they return to Nazareth. Although, I find it hard to believe in the Holy Spirit part, but at least the 2 texts collaborate on that part of Mary's miraculous conception.


Answered by S-word...There was never any miraculous conception: that other Jesus, who was never preached by the Apostles, was introduced by the followers of the anti-christ who refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a man, not some hybrid half god half man, and that he had come as a human being, Read 1st John 4: 1-3, and 2nd John verse 7.

Isaiah’s famous prophecy stated that an unmarried woman would conceive and bear a son. The Hebrew has a specific term for virgin, which is “Bethulah”, but as Isaiah was not referring to a virgin, he used the Hebrew, “Almah, which means, “CONCEALMENT----Unmarried female”. Because the Greek language had no specific word for virgin; Matthew, in his attempt to transcribe accurately Isaiah’s prophecy that an unmarried woman would conceive etc, was forced to used the Greek, “Parthenos” which carries the basic meaning of girl or a girl who had never been married and can only mean virgin by implication, but as we know that he was transcribing Isaiah’s prophecy, we can be absolutely positive that he was not implying that Mary was still a virgin when she conceived in her womb, Jesus the biological son of her half brother Joseph the son of Heli.

Luke reveals that Mary, the daughter of Heli, who was not found to be pregnant until she returned from her visit with her cousin ‘Elizabeth’, and that she had never had sexual intercourse with a man before she travelled to the gathering of the family and friends of her cousin, who was a Levite of the daughters of Aaron, where apparently she met for the first time, Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, who, apparently, unbeknownst to Mary, had also been sired by her father Heli the Levite who is a direct descendant of Nathan the son-in-law and step-son of David, and the biological son of Uriah who became a Levite by his marriage to Bathsheba, another of the daughters of Levi.

This Joseph, who should not be confused with Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah who is a direct descendant of Solomon the half brother and brother-in-law to Nathan; for this Joseph who married Mary, did not know her sexually until she had given birth to the grandson of Heli who is the father of both of the Parents of Jesus. Much the same as ‘Terah’ was the father of both the parents of Isaac who just like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, and was offered up as a sacrifice by his father and on the very mountain upon which Jesus was crucified. And Luke reveals in 3:23; this Joseph the son of Heli, to be the biological father of Jesus.
The act by which Mary the obedient servant to the spirit of our lord whose kingdom is within us, was not considered to be a sin, as it was CONCEALED in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirit which had covered her.

 

[gnostic]

Answered by S-word...As I have already stated, Jesus was born either in 7 B.C. when there was a conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn, or early in the year of 6 B.C., with the triple conjunction of Jupiter, which is almost two years before the death of Herod in 4 B.C. and Herod, while still alive in 5 B.C., believed that Jesus was somewhere between one and two years old.

Then are you saying that Jesus has been in Egypt for 2 years?

Matthew's didn't state how long they were in Egypt, nor how old Jesus was on their return to Nazareth. But the angel appeared to Joseph, after the 3 magi left, and they went to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-18). And that when the slaughter in Bethlehem began, after Joseph left. And Matthew stated that Herod ordered any boys in Bethlehem and neighboring towns to be slaughter, and the age was two year or younger.

And Luke's stated that Jesus wasn't in Egypt. Jesus was circumcised a week later.

A week later, when the time came for the baby (Jesus, obviously) to be circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name which the angel had given him before he was conceived.

And not long after that they took the child to Jerusalem, at presented at the temple, and met Simeon (Luke 2:22-38).

Can they be doing all this in Jerusalem as Luke stated, if according to Matthew's Joseph took his wife and child to Egypt?

You are ignoring details, s-word. You're ignoring Egypt, and the reason why they fled to Egypt.

If Jesus was circumcised a week later, and taken to Jerusalem, then how do you expect them to be in Egypt?

Either one is true, and the other is. Or they both untrue. They both can't be true.

 

[S-word]

QUOTE... gnostic: Matthew's didn't state how long they were in Egypt, nor how old Jesus was on their return to Nazareth.
S-words reply: No, Matthew does not actually state how long the child Jesus who was taken into Egypt when he was somewhere between one and two years old, remained there. But because Herod had all the male children in the district of Bethlehem in Galilee slaughtered, who were two years and below, according to the time that the wise men who are believed to have been guided by the comet of 5 B.C., had told him that they first saw the star that had heralded the birth of the prophesied Messianic King, who they had come to pay homage to; believing that he had been born in 7 or 6 B.C., and knowing that Herod had given the command to slaughter the children around Nazareth, Bethlehem and Sepphorus, sometime in 5 B.C., shortly after the wise men had failed to return and reveal the childs exact whereabouts, and that Herod died in April of 4 B.C., it would appear that the family of Jesus were in Egypt for less than one year


QUOTE... gnostic: And Luke's stated that Jesus wasn't in Egypt.
S-words reply: No, only someone who is totally ignorant to the words recorded in scripture would make such a statement, or someone who deliberately tells lies. For nowhere does Luke state that Jesus was not in Egypt, in fact, Luke makes no mention at all of Jesus, from the time that he was about two months old, until he was about twelve, when he was found in the Temple in Jerusalem. Are you so naive that you honestly believe that nothing occurred in the life of Jesus during the time that his mother took him back to her home in Nazareth when he was about two months old, until he turned 12?


QUOTE... gnostic: Jesus was circumcised a week later.
S-words reply: Correct! Then according to the law of Moses as recorded in Leviticus 12: 4-8; 33 days after he was circumcised he was taken to Jerusalem by his mother Mary, (which she could not have done if there had been any slaughter of the innocents at that time) and after completing everything required by the law, they returned to their home in Nazareth, to where, a year or so later they were visited by the wise men who came to Israel in 5 B.C.

QUOTE... gnostic: And not long after that they took the child to Jerusalem, at presented at the temple, and met Simeon (Luke 2:22-38). S-words answer: Correct.

QUOTE... gnostic: Can they be doing all this in Jerusalem as Luke stated? S-words answer: Yes.

QUOTE... gnostic: according to Matthew's Joseph took his wife and child to Egypt? S-words answer: Yes he did. Joseph left Nazareth and fled to Egypt with Mary and Jesus when the child was somewhere between one and two years old.

QUOTE... gnostic: You are ignoring details, s-word. You're ignoring Egypt, and the reason why they fled to Egypt. S-words answer: No I aint mate.

QUOTE... gnostic: If Jesus was circumcised a week later, and taken to Jerusalem, then how do you expect them to be in Egypt? S-words answer: Jesus was circumcised 8 days after he was born, was taken to Jerusalem 33 days later and after performing the ceremony of purification, his mother returned home with him to the town of Nazareth, from which town they were forced to flee a year or so later, to find refuge in Egypt.

QUOTE... gnostic: Either one is true, and the other is. Or they both untrue. They both can't be true. S-words answer: Yes they can mate, you’re wrong again, they’re both true recorded accounts, by two different people, of two different periods in the life of Jesus.

Apparently you find it quite difficult to understand the written word, so I would advise that you choose a trusted friend to read this post for you and explain in detail that which has been said, which is in the main, a repeat of my previous post, which I see from your response to that post, was beyond your ability to understand, and I really, really do hate having to repeat myself over and over again.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, but twice now, in your two replies, you keep saying Bethlehem, being in Galilee.

Jesus was over one year old and Lived in Nazareth of Galilee which was but spitting distance to Bethlehem and Sepphorus,

But because Herod had all the male children in the district of Bethlehem in Galilee slaughtered, who were two years and below, according to the time that the wise men who are believed to have been guided by the comet of 5 B.C., had told him that they first saw the star that had heralded the birth of the prophesied Messianic King, who they had come to pay homage to; believing that he had been born in 7 or 6 B.C., and knowing that Herod had given the command to slaughter the children around Nazareth, Bethlehem and Sepphorus, and that he died in April of 4 B.C., it would appear that the family of Jesus were in Egypt for less than one year

I mean your 1st reply just could have been a mere error, but this 2nd time, I am now sure that you don't know your geography of Judaea/Galilee in Jesus' time.

You are aware that Bethlehem is not in Galilee, don't you?

Bethlehem was in Judaea, south of Jerusalem. Nazareth, which you did get right, was in Galilee. There is a distance of 120 kilometres or possibly more between these 2 towns. Herod the Great did rule the region known as Galilee, as well as Samaria and Judaea, but Herod's kingdom was divided by the Romans into 3, after Herod's death. Herod's son, Herod Antipas received Galilee.

Quite frankly, I don't where Sepphorus is. If Sepphorus is in Galilee, then this town is also no where near Bethlehem. If it is Judaea, then it is quite possible that Sepphorus was hit by the killing of children.

Anyway, Nazareth and Bethlehem was no where within spitting distance, but it would indeed be a MIRACLE if someone could actually spit at this distance.

 

[S-word]

There were two towns by the name Bethlehem, one in northern Galilee which was "figuratively speaking" within spitting distance from the town of Nazareth, which was the home town of Mary the mother of Jesus; the other, is in the land of Judea south of Jerusalem.

The town of Bethlehem of Galilee, is today called Beitlahm which I had explained in a previous post in this thread. And If you don't know, that the once magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepphorus can be seen from both Nazareth and Beitlahm which was once called Bethlehem, then you know nothing much about the Holy land.

Good heavens Mate, didn't I just finish telling you how much I hate having to repeat myself?

 

[gnostic]

Then that very easy. The Bethlehem that is in the gospels is in Judaea, south of Jerusalem, is referring to where Jesus was born, not in Galilee's Bethlehem.

 

[S-word]

Then that very easy. The Bethlehem that is in the gospels is in Judaea, south of Jerusalem, is referring to where Jesus was born, not in Galilee's Bethlehem.

For heavens sake, how ignorant are you? go back to post 117, my response to one of your posts and you will see that I have said "Why did 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." Then follow through my posts and see where I have stated that after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea and after Mary had performed the ceremony of purification according to the Law of Moses they returned to their home in Nazareth which is but spitting distance from the Bethlehem of Galilee which is today called Beitlahm and can be seen from the once magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepphorus, around which district so many families lost their lives in 4 B.C.

How long will you continue to sprout your ignorance for everyone to see?

 

[gnostic]

How long will you continue to sprout your ignorance for everyone to see?

:sleep:

For heavens sake, how ignorant are you? go back to post 117, my response to one of your posts and you will see that I have said "Why did 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." Then follow through my posts and see where I have stated that after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea and after Mary had performed the ceremony of purification according to the Law of Moses they returned to their home in Nazareth which is but spitting distance from the Bethlehem of Galilee which is today called Beitlahm and can be seen from the once magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepphorus, around which district so many families lost their lives in 4 B.C.

There is a huge problem.

In Matthew 2:17-18, after the account about the killing of boys in Bethlehem, the author quoted the Jeremiah about Rachel, Jacob's wife. And she died in childbirth during the journey from Bethel to Ephrath. The place she was buried in a place, which they named Bethlehem (Genesis 25:16-22).

Bethel is no where near Galilee's Bethlehem.

Why would even Matthew even speak of Rachel if the slaughter was in where you think it is, in the northern Bethlehem?

 

[S-word]

:sleep:



There is a huge problem.

In Matthew 2:17-18, after the account about the killing of boys in Bethlehem, the author quoted the Jeremiah about Rachel, Jacob's wife. And she died in childbirth during the journey from Bethel to Ephrath. The place she was buried in a place, which they named Bethlehem (Genesis 25:16-22).

Bethel is no where near Galilee's Bethlehem.

Why would even Matthew even speak of Rachel if the slaughter was in where you think it is, in the northern Bethlehem?

Because the Israelite children who were slaughtered by Herods Roman backed soldiers were the children of Rachel.

 

[gnostic]

But I think the slaughter took place in the southern Bethlehem (hence in Judaea), the place where she was buried, and where David was supposedly born. The northern Bethlehem (in Galilee) had nothing to do with Rachel.

The sound of Ramah is also in the south:

Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

Do you think the sound from Ramah could be heard in Nazareth, Beitlahm and Sepphoris in Galilee?

Also Jeremiah was for Judah, the southern kingdom, and lived in the time, when Jerusalem was about to fall to the Babylonians, so Jeremiah used Rachel weeping over the children in 31:15, because of Judah's imminent collapse.

The kingdom of Israel, had fallen centuries before Judah, and Galilee is in the north.

Everything seemed to point to the slaughter of children took place in the Judaean Bethlehem. Only you can't see it.

 

[S-word]

But I think the slaughter took place in the southern Bethlehem (hence in Judaea), the place where she was buried, and where David was supposedly born. The northern Bethlehem (in Galilee) had nothing to do with Rachel.

Quote..gnostic: But I think the slaughter took place in the southern Bethlehem (hence in Judaea S-words answer: You may think whatever you like old mate, that’s your prerogative.

Quote..gnostic: southern Bethlehem (hence in Judaea), the place where she was buried, and where David was supposedly born. S-words answer: David may have been born in Bethlehem, but Rachel was buried in Ramah which is some five miles to the north west of Jerusalem

Quote..gnostic: The sound of Ramah is also in the south: S-words answer: Ramah is north of Bethlehem of Judea and it is not the sound OF Ramah, it was the sound of Rachel weeping for her children who were slaughtered in the towns and villages around the district of the northern town of Bethlehem, which included Nazareth where the one to two year old Jesus had lived since he was about 2 months old.

Quote..gnostic: Do you think the sound from Ramah could be heard in Nazareth, Beitlahm and Sepphoris in Galilee?
S-words answer: Do you honestly think that the people who were living in Bethlehem of Judea of which town there is absolutely no record of any upheaval in the year of 4 B.C., heard the sound from Ramah of Rachel weeping for her children who were slaughtered to the north of her grave site and not in the south? Perhaps this was the reason for the failed suicide attempt of Herod shortly before he died.

Quote..gnostic: Also Jeremiah was for Judah, the southern kingdom, and lived in the time, when Jerusalem was about to fall to the Babylonians, so Jeremiah used Rachel weeping over the children in 31:15, because of Judah's imminent collapse. S-words answer: Yes I know.

Quote..gnostic: The kingdom of Israel, had fallen centuries before Judah, and Galilee is in the north.
S-words answer: I know that also, I have studied the bible don’t you know.

Quote..gnostic: Everything seemed to point to the slaughter of children took place in the Judaean Bethlehem. Only you can't see it. S-words answer: Wrong! Everything points to the slaughter having occurred in the historical riot of 4 B.C., in which so many Israelites died in the district surrounding Sepphorus, Nazareth, and the northern town of Bethlehem which is today called Beitlahm, only you refuse to accept the truth.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

How about the prostitute in Luke 7:37-39 who massaged Jesus with perfumes and oils, wiped him with her hair, kissing him, was she Mary of Bethany or a different woman? If she was the same, so the same were the four Mary's. And she was married to Jesus, or Jesus was not a religious Jew.

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.

Is that all you have to tell me in reply to my question about the lack of reliability in the gospels? I put up a simple question, and you answer with stones of insult. Why, because you don't know the answer? Well, you said you are the expert in History of the gospels. As I can see, you have well proved your expertise. You don't surprise me. I have done this before with pumped up fellas with fake wisdom. I put the same question and raise my head like an Egyptian cobra to see where he is going to fall swollen with ignorance of what he spoke so much.

Both mention the essenes.

And you completely ignore that it was just a fringe of the Essene community that would encloister itself in monastery-like environment perhaps ashamed of their life-style.

 

[Ben Masada]

First of all, no one is arguing he was an "orthodox" jew as it didn't exist at the time.

Jesus was a religious Jew. All the people who returned with Ezra from Babylon were Jews. No longer two Kingdoms or under the Tribal system. The whole Land of Israel was populated by Jews. There is nothing you can do to erase this name from History, no matter how much you struggle to.

 

[Oberon]

How about the prostitute in Luke 7:37-39 who massaged Jesus with perfumes and oils, wiped him with her hair, kissing him, was she Mary of Bethany or a different woman?

As John's gospel is probably the least reliable historically, I would the evidence suggests the woman who massaged Jesus in the synoptics was unnamed, and John added a name (Mary of Bethany) in his Gospel.

If she was the same, so the same were the four Mary's.

This doesn't logically follow. Even if all the gospels were really referring to mary of bethany, nowhere do any of them refer to mary of magdala doing it.

And she was married to Jesus, or Jesus was not a religious Jew.

Religious Jew as you define it. But you failed to answer my question.

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.

Is that all you have to tell me in reply to my question about the lack of reliability in the gospels? I put up a simple question, and you answer with stones of insult.

Right. Because your question shows how little you have studied the matter. I don't believe that ANY of the gospels records completely accurately the life of Jesus. All of the gospels have been redacted. All of them show minor disagreements (of course, the same is true of modern historical works). The point is, the teachings of Jesus, as well as some events in his ministry, have been reliably transmitted.

And you completely ignore that it was just a fringe of the Essene community that would encloister itself in monastery-like environment perhaps ashamed of their life-style.

No, because unlike you, I have actually studied the matter. I have read their writings. They weren't ashamed. Rather, they thought they were the "righteous jews" just like the pharisees thought they were, and the sadducees thought they were, and so on. They were a large group of jews, that two jewish authors describe as jews, and many practiced celibacy.

Jesus was a religious Jew. All the people who returned with Ezra from Babylon were Jews. No longer two Kingdoms or under the Tribal system. The whole Land of Israel was populated by Jews. There is nothing you can do to erase this name from History, no matter how much you struggle to.

"Jew" and "orthodox Jew" are two different things. You are saying "if Jesus were a REAL jew, he would have been married." But we can see from the historical record (Philo, Josephus, the NT, the Qumran documents, intercanonical and extracanonical literature, etc) that just who was really "jewish" was a matter of dispute. And your average adherent to judaism built his life around the temple, the center of Jewish faith. Once it was destroyed, rabbinic judaism replaced the temple with study of the scriptures.

 

[S-word]

:sleep:

There is a huge problem.

In Matthew 2:17-18, after the account about the killing of boys in Bethlehem, the author quoted the Jeremiah about Rachel, Jacob's wife. And she died in childbirth during the journey from Bethel to Ephrath. The place she was buried in a place, which they named Bethlehem (Genesis 25:16-22).

The little sleepy head that follows your name suites you down to the ground. Wake up son. Genesis 25: 16-22; is in reference to Rebecca the wife of Isaac who was indeed buried at Bethlehem in the cave that Abraham had bought as a grave site for His wife Sarah and Himself. But Rachel the wife of Jacob and mother of Joseph and Benjamin, was buried at Ramah. Wipe the sleep from your eyes mate and go back and read the Bible before entering into any serious debate..