Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[gnostic]

Sorry, I meant chapter 35, instead of 25. It should be 35:16-21. It is simple mistake of hitting the wrong key, and not realising the typo.

35:19 says Rachel was buried beside the road to Ephrath, known as Bethlehem.

And Rachel died, and was buried in the way [road in other translation] to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.

Ramah is between Bethel and Jerusalem. Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem. It would seem that Ephrath is Bethlehem.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

In that case John adulterated the NT text. Why should it remain as one of the gospels as a canonic writing? That's definitely not your point. Somehow, I can see your struggle to discard the Jewishness of Jesus. Is this some kind o Raplacement Theology?

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.

Why would Mary Magdalene want to repeat her anointing by going to the tomb at the end of that Sabbath with perfumes and oils to anoint Jesus' body? (Mark 16:1) Just in case you think about a reply claiming that that woman too was unamed, let me read it for you: "When the Sabbath was over, MARY MAGDALENE,
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought perfumed oils with which they intended to go and anoint Jesus." Are you looking for a way out of this one, or the woman was finally named? Mind you that the gospel writer identifying the woman is not John, just in case you try his lack of reliability. Mark was the first one.

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?

There is no such a thing as a "proper" Jew. One is either a Jew or he is not a Jew at all. Jesus was a religious Jew period. And a religious Jew in the First Century was much more strict than those of today. The tendency of a religion to evolve is usually from conservative to liberal. As you can see, you won't succeed to sow your anti-Jewish seed of contension

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.

As I said above, you won't succeed to discard Judaism as the Faith of Jesus or the religion of the Jews of the whole Land of Israel. Although the whole Land of Israel was divided in provinces, the Jews were known as the Jews of Galilee, the Jews of Judea, the Jews of this or that province.

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.

Twenty percent, I have figured. The other 80 percent are interpolations by either the Hellenist gospel writers or by the Fathers of the Church when they selected which books would enter the Canon of the NT.

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.

Should I produce the post when you said the Essenes were celibates? Now, you have changed to "many practiced celibacy." That's embarrassing!

"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.

Rabbi Akiva attended the call to the Rabbinate when he was 40 and still single. I wonder why he had married to be integrated as a successful Rabbi. If a man in the Second Century should reach 40 as still a single man, why would he press to get married? We don't have to be a genius to figure that, to be a Rabbi was related to being married. Jesus was addressed by many as a Rabbi, even by learnt Pharisees like Nicodemus. (John 3:1) Therefore, it's more than obvious that Jesus was married. And one does not have to go too far looking for his wife. She was Mary Magdalene, his beloved disciple, whose care he recommended his mother to and vice-versa.

 

[Oberon]

In that case John adulterated the NT text. Why should it remain as one of the gospels as a canonic writing? That's definitely not your point. Somehow, I can see your struggle to discard the Jewishness of Jesus. Is this some kind o Raplacement Theology?

No, actually its called history.

Why would Mary Magdalene want to repeat her anointing by going to the tomb at the end of that Sabbath with perfumes and oils to anoint Jesus' body? (Mark 16:1) Just in case you think about a reply claiming that that woman too was unamed, let me read it for you: "When the Sabbath was over, MARY MAGDALENE,
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought perfumed oils with which they intended to go and anoint Jesus." Are you looking for a way out of this one, or the woman was finally named? Mind you that the gospel writer identifying the woman is not John, just in case you try his lack of reliability. Mark was the first one.

First, mary magalene would not be "repeating" her anointing because she wasn't the one who did it in the first place. Second, annointing the dead was entirely different.

There is no such a thing as a "proper" Jew. One is either a Jew or he is not a Jew at all. Jesus was a religious Jew period. And a religious Jew in the First Century was much more strict than those of today. The tendency of a religion to evolve is usually from conservative to liberal. As you can see, you won't succeed to sow your anti-Jewish seed of contension

You are completely wrong on all points, and you failed to address my question. We have evidence that several specific groups all argued that a particular interpretation of Jewish faith was the "real" judaism, and none of them represented judiasm as it is recorded in the later jewish writings and attestet to in rabbinic judaism. If Jesus has a particular interpretation of the law, what evidence do you have to suggest he couldn't have remainded celibate like the essenese? Which of the various Jewish groups in second temple judiasm do you identify as "jewish"?

As I said above, you won't succeed to discard Judaism as the Faith of Jesus or the religion of the Jews of the whole Land of Israel. Although the whole Land of Israel was divided in provinces, the Jews were known as the Jews of Galilee, the Jews of Judea, the Jews of this or that province.

No, they weren't. They were known as many things. In fact, Jew was usually a term applied by outsiders (like the romans). Jews themselves tended to use different terms. As for the "religion of the Jews" all the various texts from around this period show sharp and often violent disagreement as to what was "jewish" and none of them represent judaism as it came to be after the final destruction of the temple and the last rebellion.

Twenty percent, I have figured. The other 80 percent are interpolations by either the Hellenist gospel writers or by the Fathers of the Church when they selected which books would enter the Canon of the NT.

Great. Pick a number and go with that. The rest of us who are interested in history will use historical critical methodology to determine just what is and isn't historical. Your method is just about as reliable as accepting that every word in the NT is the word of God. Perfect if you accept it to begin with, but short on evidence.

Should I produce the post when you said the Essenes were celibates? Now, you have changed to "many practiced celibacy." That's embarrassing!

There were many essenes. John the Baptist was almost certainly celibate too (as his lonely life in the dessert shows) and so was Jesus. The essenses weren't the only ones. What is embarrassing is your attempt to make judgment calls on matters you know nothing about, and your picking and choosing which verses to follow, and your reading back into second temple judaism the laws and customs of rabbinic judaism.

Rabbi Akiva attended the call to the Rabbinate when he was 40 and still single. I wonder why he had married to be integrated as a successful Rabbi. If a man in the Second Century should reach 40 as still a single man, why would he press to get married? We don't have to be a genius to figure that, to be a Rabbi was related to being married. Jesus was addressed by many as a Rabbi, even by learnt Pharisees like Nicodemus. (John 3:1) Therefore, it's more than obvious that Jesus was married. And one does not have to go too far looking for his wife. She was Mary Magdalene, his beloved disciple, whose care he recommended his mother to and vice-versa.

First, determing which parts of the stories about Akiva are historical is even more problematic than with Jesus, as they are further removed from his life.

Second, he lived well after Jesus, when rabbinic law was more formulated. The temple had long been destroyed, and the sadducees had lost their position, and so on.

Third, I already said that many Jews believed marriage is important. However, we know that some thought that celibacy was the way to go. Jesus was one of these.

Fourth, as I already said you are projecting the semantic basis of "rabbi" from later times onto Jesus, when the term meant simply "teacher." You have zero evidence from this time period to suggest that a person like Jesus had to be married, zero evidence that he was married. On the other hand, I have specific references describing non-married Jews, I have Jesus' teachings that non-marriage and celibacy was preferable, and I have the authors who used the word "rabbi" telling us what it REALLY meant. You have no evidence other than to combine seperate people into one, mistranslate aramaic, read back later customs into Jesus' period, and generally ignore all historical methodology in pursuit of a goal that lacks any objective evidence.

 

[Ben Masada]

No, actually its called history.

Unreliable history, as you said. Tell this to the Christians who consider John a canonic scripture.

First, mary magalene would not be "repeating" her anointing because she wasn't the one who did it in the first place. Second, annointing the dead was entirely different.

And only your false assurance that she was not the one, robs of Jesus his identity of a religious Jew.

You are completely wrong on all points, and you failed to address my question. We have evidence that several specific groups all argued that a particular interpretation of Jewish faith was the "real" judaism, and none of them represented judiasm as it is recorded in the later jewish writings and attestet to in rabbinic judaism. If Jesus has a particular interpretation of the law, what evidence do you have to suggest he couldn't have remainded celibate like the essenese? Which of the various Jewish groups in second temple judiasm do you identify as "jewish"?

ALL. They were all Jewish. Your show of ignorance of what being Jewish is, only illustrates how completely wrong you are in anything else. To be a Jew is not measured by the degree of religiosity. Don't you feel embarrassed that others are reading this nonsense of yours for pretending to know of what you have no clue?


No, they weren't. They were known as many things. In fact, Jew was usually a term applied by outsiders (like the romans). Jews themselves tended to use different terms. As for the "religion of the Jews" all the various texts from around this period show sharp and often violent disagreement as to what was "jewish" and none of them represent judaism as it came to be after the final destruction of the temple and the last rebellion.

Have you ever read the book of Esther? Try to count how many times the term "Jew" is referred to by the author of the book which could have been Ezra. If you are such a paragon of a Historian, you might know that it was before the Romans. So, the Jews didn't start with the Romans calling them Jews. That's sad!

Great. Pick a number and go with that. The rest of us who are interested in history will use historical critical methodology to determine just what is and isn't historical. Your method is just about as reliable as accepting that every word in the NT is the word of God. Perfect if you accept it to begin with, but short on evidence.

"Evidence!" Does such a word figure in your vocabulary? Everything in your dictionary is hypothetical. I have given you several evidences for Jesus to have been a married man. Can you prove that he was not? Of course not! How can hypothesis prove anything?

There were many essenes. John the Baptist was almost certainly celibate too (as his lonely life in the dessert shows) and so was Jesus. The essenses weren't the only ones. What is embarrassing is your attempt to make judgment calls on matters you know nothing about, and your picking and choosing which verses to follow, and your reading back into second temple judaism the laws and customs of rabbinic judaism.

Look at this one for a sample of your nonsense. "John the Baptist was almost certainly celibate because of his lonely life in the desert." Was this for the laugs or for the gags? Are you trying to tell me that John did not have a life to live but to be in the desert immersing Jews in the Jordan River? That's a good punch line.

Third, I already said that many Jews believed marriage is important. However, we know that some thought that celibacy was the way to go. Jesus was one of these.

And all we need are proofs that Jesus preferred to live a celibate life. Are you going to provide us with or not?

Fourth, as I already said you are projecting the semantic basis of "rabbi" from later times onto Jesus, when the term meant simply "teacher." You have zero evidence from this time period to suggest that a person like Jesus had to be married, zero evidence that he was married.

And how much evidence do you have that he was NOT married? Can you come up with some? No, because you have less than zero evidence for it.

On the other hand, I have specific references describing non-married Jews, I have Jesus' teachings that non-marriage and celibacy was preferable, and I have the authors who used the word "rabbi" telling us what it REALLY meant.

Rabbi or Teacher or Master, what is the difference? Those were occupations a Jew could not assume without being serious about his status in society. Go ahead and show me someone in high position of dealing with others who was single. You can't for the same reason that you have zero knowledge of what you pretend to be an expert at.

You have no evidence other than to combine seperate people into one, mistranslate aramaic, read back later customs into Jesus' period, and generally ignore all historical methodology in pursuit of a goal that lacks any objective evidence.

And all you know is to babble about things in the hope we will not understand. What happened to my question to the great Historian that you are, abot the infant Jesus of Luke in Nazareth from age of 40 days old, while the one of Matthew was stuck in Egypt waiting for Herod to die? Isn't there anything left up your sleeves?

 

[S-word]

Sorry, I meant chapter 35, instead of 25. It should be 35:16-21. It is simple mistake of hitting the wrong key, and not realising the typo.

35:19 says Rachel was buried beside the road to Ephrath, known as Bethlehem.


Ramah is between Bethel and Jerusalem. Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem. It would seem that Ephrath is Bethlehem.

Yes mate, the town once known as Ephrath, is today called Bethlehem, but Rachel was not buried there, Gen 35: 16; Jacob and his family left Bethel, and when they were still some distance from Eprhath/Bethlehem, Rachel died in childbirth and was buried by the road at the place called Ramah, which is some distance from Eprhath/Bethlehem, being about 11 miles to the north, and 'Ramah' is today known as el-Ram.

 

[Oberon]

Unreliable history, as you said. Tell this to the Christians who consider John a canonic scripture.

I know many christian scholars who acknowledge that John as a historical source is more unreliable than the other gospels. What they believe based on faith, they do not make the mistake of confusing with historical evidence. You apparently have yet to reach that particular stage.

First, mary magalene would not be "repeating" her anointing because she wasn't the one who did it in the first place. Second, annointing the dead was entirely different.

And only your false assurance that she was not the one, robs of Jesus his identity of a religious Jew.

No it doesn't. We know that the essenes were considered religious celibate Jews. John the Baptist was a respected loner and celibate living in the desert. Jesus was as well.

ALL. They were all Jewish. Your show of ignorance of what being Jewish is, only illustrates how completely wrong you are in anything else. To be a Jew is not measured by the degree of religiosity. Don't you feel embarrassed that others are reading this nonsense of yours for pretending to know of what you have no clue?

How could they ALL be Jews, if according to you, being a Jews meant acting in a specific way? After all, many essenes were celibate and yet were respected as religious Jews (which according to you doesn't happen). The Sadducees rejected everything which didn't come from the five books of moses, while the pharisees not only had these but a whole lot of oral traditions.

The point is, all of these Jewish groups radically disagreed with one another about what constituted "proper" or "correct" Jewish belief and practice. Why is it then so hard to believe that another Jew (whose apocalyptic beliefs were similar to the essenes) also remained unmarried, particularly when we have no evidence of his marriage?

Have you ever read the book of Esther? Try to count how many times the term "Jew" is referred to by the author of the book which could have been Ezra. If you are such a paragon of a Historian, you might know that it was before the Romans. So, the Jews didn't start with the Romans calling them Jews. That's sad!

Can you read!?? Point to out to me where I said the Romans came up with the term "jew." I SPECIFICALLY said it was a term used to refer to residents of Judaea. As such, it was also a great term for outsiders to use. However, this term became problematic after the Jews were dispersed from there homeland, and being "Jewish" was suddenly possible without being a "judaean" which is was "Jew" meant.

"Evidence!" Does such a word figure in your vocabulary? Everything in your dictionary is hypothetical. I have given you several evidences for Jesus to have been a married man. Can you prove that he was not? Of course not! How can hypothesis prove anything?

Once more, you can't PROVE anything in history. You can only determine the most likely probabilities. Your "evidence" requires picking and choosing gospel vs. to believe based on whether or not they cohere with what you already believe, with conflating clearly differentiated people into one, with reading later Jewish beliefs back into Jesus, with ignoring the vast differences between Jewish groups at the time (and yet saying that Jesus would have had to act a certain way to be considered a "religious Jew), and making just about every other mistake possible when it comes to historical critical reconstruction of Jesus' life. Your account is more faith based and has less evidence than a christian who believes that every word in the NT is the word of god.

Look at this one for a sample of your nonsense. "John the Baptist was almost certainly celibate because of his lonely life in the desert." Was this for the laugs or for the gags? Are you trying to tell me that John did not have a life to live but to be in the desert immersing Jews in the Jordan River? That's a good punch line.

That is exactly what I am saying, because that is what our sources say. John dwelt in the desert, a loner, and his mission was calling Israel to repent and prepare for god via baptism (even Josephus agrees on this).

And all we need are proofs that Jesus preferred to live a celibate life. Are you going to provide us with or not?

I already provided you with far better evidence than you have. Jesus is never said by anyone to be married, nor is there any single woman depicted to be by his side, and Jesus himself promotes celibacy as the best course. We have no evidence that Jesus was married, and we have his statements on celibacy as evidence that Jesus thought celibacy was best. And he was not alone among "religious Jews" on this, as the essenes agreed, and John too.


On the other hand, I have specific references describing non-married Jews, I have Jesus' teachings that non-marriage and celibacy was preferable, and I have the authors who used the word "rabbi" telling us what it REALLY meant.

Rabbi or Teacher or Master, what is the difference? Those were occupations a Jew could not assume without being serious about his status in society. Go ahead and show me someone in high position of dealing with others who was single. You can't for the same reason that you have zero knowledge of what you pretend to be an expert at.

Rabbi WAS NOT AN OCCUPATION! At this time, it was simply a respectful title. As for people in high positions, the leaders essene communities were celibate. John the Baptist was celibate.

And all you know is to babble about things in the hope we will not understand. What happened to my question to the great Historian that you are, abot the infant Jesus of Luke in Nazareth from age of 40 days old, while the one of Matthew was stuck in Egypt waiting for Herod to die? Isn't there anything left up your sleeves?

I don't believe that any of the gospels had access to reliable information about Jesus prior to his mission.

 

[gnostic]

I think I have exhausted the argument and possibilities that the 2 Marys are 2 different women. There are no new evidences for me to present, and I have repeatedly used the same evidences/sources that I have used before.

As to the case of Jesus being married, I have nothing new to present, except repeating myself and getting nowhere with Ben Masada (BM).

What you have presented, BM, is not evidences but interpretations of the sources that are both weak and illogical. Nothing explicitly stated in the sources that Jesus was married, only interpretation. And nothing explicitly stated in the sources that MB was the same as MM.

 

[Oberon]

And nothing explicitly stated in the sources that MB was the same as MM.

In a very real sense it IS explicitly stated that they were different. As is well known, first names VERY commonly shared. There would have been tons of Mary's. These cultures (not just the ancient Jews, but the greeks and romans as well) used methods with a similar purpose to our surnames. Most women were identified by the male who was "responsible" for her (husband, father, brother, etc, and usually husband first if he existed, and father next if he was alive). Some women possessed the means to live without male supervision. Then the place name from which the woman came would be used.

Mary Magdalene (Mary of Magdala) is identified as coming from Magdala, while Mary of Bethany is from Bethany. These two diffent identifications are used explicitly to differentiate these marys from other marys (and from each other). To argue they were the same explicitly contradicts the text.

 

[gnostic]

Mary Magdalene (Mary of Magdala) is identified as coming from Magdala, while Mary of Bethany is from Bethany. These two diffent identifications are used explicitly to differentiate these marys from other marys (and from each other). To argue they were the same explicitly contradicts the text.

Agreed. And the gospels were quite explicit that Mary Magdalene (as well as other women) came from Galilee, and followed him till the Crucifixion. (Matthew 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:49, 23:55 mentioned women from Galilee but gave no specific names.)

"Mary of Bethany" is never mentioned explicitly in the Crucifixion and Resurrection scenes, and Mary Magdalene is never explicitly mentioned in any scene with Martha or Lazarus (or with both siblings).

 

[Ben Masada]

I know many christian scholars who acknowledge that John as a historical source is more unreliable than the other gospels. What they believe based on faith, they do not make the mistake of confusing with historical evidence. You apparently have yet to reach that particular stage.

Hold that thought! You know many Christian scholars acknowledge that John was unreliable. Here we have a gospel (John) that deserves no credibility for being unreliable. I reapeat, hold that thought. I might need it again.

First, mary magalene would not be "repeating" her anointing because she wasn't the one who did it in the first place. Second, annointing the dead was entirely different.

First, you don't know that she had not done it before. And then, whoelse would think of anointing Jesus' dead body if she had not done it before? And who would have done it if not that mysterious woman who did it once. You might claim to be a History lover, but Psychology was never your trait.

No it doesn't. We know that the essenes were considered religious celibate Jews. John the Baptist was a respected loner and celibate living in the desert. Jesus was as well.

Again, you don't know anything for sure. You are speculating.

How could they ALL be Jews, if according to you, being a Jews meant acting in a specific way? After all, many essenes were celibate and yet were respected as religious Jews (which according to you doesn't happen). The Sadducees rejected everything which didn't come from the five books of moses, while the pharisees not only had these but a whole lot of oral traditions.

They were all Jews, and I have explained to you already what is a Jew. Today, we have Orthodox, Conservantive, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and a few other subtitles. They are all Jews with only a difference in degree of Jewish observation. You must have something fishy about being Jewish that I am about to find out.

The point is, all of these Jewish groups radically disagreed with one another about what constituted "proper" or "correct" Jewish belief and practice. Why is it then so hard to believe that another Jew (whose apocalyptic beliefs were similar to the essenes) also remained unmarried, particularly when we have no evidence of his marriage?

Now, you are totally mistaken. We have no doubt about being Jewish, Jews from all the other denominations. It's only natural that birds of a feather tend to flock together. But even here, I don't have a problem. I assemble with those, whose synagogue is closest to my place.

That is exactly what I am saying, because that is what our sources say. John dwelt in the desert, a loner, and his mission was calling Israel to repent and prepare for god via baptism (even Josephus agrees on this).

It has been proved already that any reference in Josephus to Jesus and John the Baptist was an interpolation by the Church. So, don't affirm anything that's doubtiful.

I already provided you with far better evidence than you have. Jesus is never said by anyone to be married, nor is there any single woman depicted to be by his side, and Jesus himself promotes celibacy as the best course. We have no evidence that Jesus was married, and we have his statements on celibacy as evidence that Jesus thought celibacy was best. And he was not alone among "religious Jews" on this, as the essenes agreed, and John too.

Compare what Jesus is alleged saying that celebacy is preferred with what Paul says in his Letter to the Corinthians about the same subject, and the similarities are shouting. It's only obvious that having been the gospel writers former disciples of Paul's, they must have copied the mind of Paul about the subject. Besides, the gospels started coming out after 75 CE till about 100 CE, when Jesus had been gone since 30 CE. There is no reliability in what you report. Your conclusion is based purely in faith.

I don't believe that any of the gospels had access to reliable information about Jesus prior to his mission.

Wow! That's what I mean when the fat lady sings. And you have closed the issue with a golden key. All of you reading this, keep in mind what the man says: "None of the gospels had any access to reliable information about Jesus prior to his mission." First it was only the gospel of John. Now, three of the gospels are gone. Oh yes, because if there is something unreliable in them the whole thing is spoiled. Now, Matthew, Luke and John must be banned from the NT, because it's worthless to believe in them. Now, you can release that thought I asked you to hold. The fat lady has sung.

 

[Ben Masada]

I think I have exhausted the argument and possibilities that the 2 Marys are 2 different women. There are no new evidences for me to present, and I have repeatedly used the same evidences/sources that I have used before.

As to the case of Jesus being married, I have nothing new to present, except repeating myself and getting nowhere with Ben Masada (BM).

What you have presented, BM, is not evidences but interpretations of the sources that are both weak and illogical. Nothing explicitly stated in the sources that Jesus was married, only interpretation. And nothing explicitly stated in the sources that MB was the same as MM.

Well my friend, obviously, we are not talking about a Jewish man called Jesus and the son of Joseph and Mary. He must have been a Greek man that peradventure happened to have lived in Israel for about 4 years. Agree with this conclusion and I'll rest my case.

 

[Oberon]

Hold that thought! You know many Christian scholars acknowledge that John was unreliable. Here we have a gospel (John) that deserves no credibility for being unreliable.

Here again your lack of understanding of ancient historical sources is problematic. ALL ANCIENT HISTORICAL WORKS ARE UNRELIABLE! They differ only in degree. John is the most historically unreliable of the gospels. That doesn't mean it deserves "no credibility." It is more historically reliable then, say, genesis or many other books in the OT, and less reliable than Tacitus.

First, you don't know that she had not done it before.

I don't KNOW that aliens didn't do it before either. However, we have no evidence to suggest that aliens did. Likewise there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest that Mary Magdalene annointed Jesus. She is NEVER described as doing so.

And then, whoelse would think of anointing Jesus' dead body if she had not done it before? And who would have done it if not that mysterious woman who did it once.

Did you even read the text? Mary Magdalene is not alone. She is with other women (see mark, matthew, and luke). They were all going to do the annointing, not just Mary Magdalene. Only John has her there alone, but John says NOTHING about annointing.

You might claim to be a History lover, but Psychology was never your trait.

Psychology isn't a trait. It is a field of study, and hardly relevent.

Again, you don't know anything for sure. You are speculating.

The essenes are specifically described as celibate religious jews by philo and josephus. Also the Qumran documents support this as well.

They were all Jews, and I have explained to you already what is a Jew. Today, we have Orthodox, Conservantive, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews and a few other subtitles. They are all Jews with only a difference in degree of Jewish observation. You must have something fishy about being Jewish that I am about to find out.

If they were all religious jews, and there beliefs differed so radically, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus as a religious jew must have been married.

Now, you are totally mistaken. We have no doubt about being Jewish, Jews from all the other denominations. It's only natural that birds of a feather tend to flock together. But even here, I don't have a problem. I assemble with those, whose synagogue is closest to my place.

What does this have to do with anything? The essenes sectioned themselves off, rejecting all other Jews, and the pharisees only accepted other pharisees, and so on. It has nothing to do with the fact that they stuck together because they lived nearby.

It has been proved already that any reference in Josephus to Jesus and John the Baptist was an interpolation by the Church. So, don't affirm anything that's doubtiful.

Your lack of knowledge on relevent scholarship in this area is pitiful. There are no scholars around now who doubt that the Josephus reference to John the Baptist is genuine. As for the shorter reference to Jesus, there is perhaps a single scholar within the past 40 years or so who has argued it is an interpolation. Virtually EVERY SINGLE SCHOLAR argues it is genuinely Josephus.

As for the longer reference to Jesus in Josephus, a vast majority argue that most of it is Josephus, while christian alterations have added to the text.

Compare what Jesus is alleged saying that celebacy is preferred with what Paul says in his Letter to the Corinthians about the same subject, and the similarities are shouting. It's only obvious that having been the gospel writers former disciples of Paul's, they must have copied the mind of Paul about the subject. Besides, the gospels started coming out after 75 CE till about 100 CE, when Jesus had been gone since 30 CE. There is no reliability in what you report. Your conclusion is based purely in faith.

I am not christian, so no it isn't based on faith. It is based on research into the reliability of the transmission of Jesus' teachings within christian communities. And none of the gospels show any evidence of awareness of Paul's letters. The fact that Paul also states that Jesus forbad divorce is simply more evidence that he actually taught this. When two seperate texts both contain the same tradition independently, this is EVIDENCE that it goes back to Jesus. Your complete lack of knowledge of historical Jesus scholarship is striking.

Wow! That's what I mean when the fat lady sings. And you have closed the issue with a golden key. All of you reading this, keep in mind what the man says: "None of the gospels had any access to reliable information about Jesus prior to his mission." First it was only the gospel of John. Now, three of the gospels are gone.

Now I know why you are so wrong when it comes to reading the gospels. If you can't even read my posts and accurately reproduce what I said, how can you be expected to do the same with ancient texts? I said the gospels likely did not have reliable information about Jesus' life prior to his mission. That doesn't mean the gospels are "gone" because the bulk of the gospels concern Jesus' mission. It is Jesus' teachings, and many of the events of his ministry, which were reliably transmitted. And these show clearly that Jesus promoted celibacy, and that he wasn't married.

Oh yes, because if there is something unreliable in them the whole thing is spoiled.

What an awful argument. Even modern works of scholarship sometimes err. That doesn't make the whole work spoiled. This is even more true with ancient history, which cohered to different standards. Just because the gospels cannot, from a historical critical point of view, be considered historically accurate in every way, does not mean they are unreliable. All ancient history, including the Jewish scriptures, are historically unreliable, and many of them are far more unreliable than the gospels.

 

[Oberon]

Well my friend, obviously, we are not talking about a Jewish man called Jesus and the son of Joseph and Mary. He must have been a Greek man that peradventure happened to have lived in Israel for about 4 years. Agree with this conclusion and I'll rest my case.

Such a foolish conclusion. It is well known that Jews in Jesus' day disagreed vehemently on any number of issues. It is also well known that some religious jews (like the essenes) were celibate. Yet your entire case rests on the fact that if Jesus were a Jews, he must have been married, and this assumption somehow licenses you to read into the texts whatever you wish.

However, as Jews disagreed on so many issues, and some religious Jews were known to be celibate, and Jesus advocated celibacy, and he is NEVER described as having a wife, and there is no evidence he WAS married, there is no reason to suppose he was not a religious jew who chose celibacy.

 

[gnostic]

Well my friend, obviously, we are not talking about a Jewish man called Jesus and the son of Joseph and Mary. He must have been a Greek man that peradventure happened to have lived in Israel for about 4 years. Agree with this conclusion and I'll rest my case.

*sigh*

I'm not a Christian, Ben.

I am dubious about everything found in the bible - both the Christian parts and the Hebrew parts.

There may be some relevance in the scripture, some wisdom found that are universal, and I can accept that.

But I am not disputing or debating with you because I believed in the scriptures. I am disputing with you on your interpretations on the text.

It matters not, if Jesus was married or not. It matters not, if the Greek influenced Judaism and Christianity at this period, because I believe it did.

The point is about Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene, and I found none of your argument that they were one and the same woman. You have only relied on your flawed interpretation, which the scriptures don't actually support.

 

[Ben Masada]

Here again your lack of understanding of ancient historical sources is problematic. ALL ANCIENT HISTORICAL WORKS ARE UNRELIABLE! They differ only in degree. John is the most historically unreliable of the gospels. That doesn't mean it deserves "no credibility." It is more historically reliable then, say, genesis or many other books in the OT, and less reliable than Tacitus.

Well, why don't you point to me the unreliable points of Genesis? Perhaps you will have a chance to unglue yourself from the letter and understand a little of metaphorical language.

I don't KNOW that aliens didn't do it before either. However, we have no evidence to suggest that aliens did. Likewise there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest that Mary Magdalene annointed Jesus. She is NEVER described as doing so.

She would not have had the idea to do it at the tomb if she had not done it before. For the wise that's enough for an evidence. Your lack of perception is simply amazed.

Did you even read the text? Mary Magdalene is not alone. She is with other women (see mark, matthew, and luke). They were all going to do the annointing, not just Mary Magdalene. Only John has her there alone, but John says NOTHING about annointing.

But of course! What did you expect? Would she go to the tomb at night alone? Do you know something? Where is your sense of history? How could the women go to the tomb area to anoint Jesus' body if the tombstone was sealed and soldiers were there to prevent the approach of any suspect? Can this feed your views of gospel unreliability or the women fought their way through the soldiers to get to Jesus' body?

The essenes are specifically described as celibate religious jews by philo and josephus. Also the Qumran documents support this as well.

A fringe of the Essenes. You like to generalize like a Politician, who doesn't measure his words when they leave their mouth.

If they were all religious jews, and there beliefs differed so radically, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus as a religious jew must have been married.

But he was married or he was not a religious Jew. All we need now is for Gentiles to teach Judaism to the Jews.

What does this have to do with anything? The essenes sectioned themselves off, rejecting all other Jews, and the pharisees only accepted other pharisees, and so on. It has nothing to do with the fact that they stuck together because they lived nearby.

Your ignorance is blatant where it concerns being Jewish. How could you say that "Pharisees ONLY accepted Pharisees," when even in the Sect of the Naarenes, followers of Jesus, there were Pharisees? (Acts 15:5)

Your lack of knowledge on relevent scholarship in this area is pitiful. There are no scholars around now who doubt that the Josephus reference to John the Baptist is genuine. As for the shorter reference to Jesus, there is perhaps a single scholar within the past 40 years or so who has argued it is an interpolation. Virtually EVERY SINGLE SCHOLAR argues it is genuinely Josephus.

Behold, Oberon now knows all Scholars! You remind me of Paul.

I am not christian, so no it isn't based on faith. It is based on research into the reliability of the transmission of Jesus' teachings within christian communities. And none of the gospels show any evidence of awareness of Paul's letters. The fact that Paul also states that Jesus forbad divorce is simply more evidence that he actually taught this. When two seperate texts both contain the same tradition independently, this is EVIDENCE that it goes back to Jesus. Your complete lack of knowledge of historical Jesus scholarship is striking.

What the guys who wrote the gospels 50+ years after Jesus had been gone, published 80 percent of interpolations, and this about celibacy by Jesus is one of them. Your anti-Jewish bias is clouding your "historical" judgment.

Now I know why you are so wrong when it comes to reading the gospels. If you can't even read my posts and accurately reproduce what I said, how can you be expected to do the same with ancient texts? I said the gospels likely did not have reliable information about Jesus' life prior to his mission. That doesn't mean the gospels are "gone" because the bulk of the gospels concern Jesus' mission. It is Jesus' teachings, and many of the events of his ministry, which were reliably transmitted. And these show clearly that Jesus promoted celibacy, and that he wasn't married.

Now, don't try to fix what is not broken. Let those who are probably reading your posts make their own judgment of your sonsense.

What an awful argument. Even modern works of scholarship sometimes err. That doesn't make the whole work spoiled. This is even more true with ancient history, which cohered to different standards. Just because the gospels cannot, from a historical critical point of view, be considered historically accurate in every way, does not mean they are unreliable. All ancient history, including the Jewish scriptures, are historically unreliable, and many of them are far more unreliable than the gospels.

What are you afraid of? Aren't you the expert in the historical unreliability of the gospels? Now, stand aside and let the readers judge your work.

 

[Oberon]

Well, why don't you point to me the unreliable points of Genesis? Perhaps you will have a chance to unglue yourself from the letter and understand a little of metaphorical language.

Using historical critical methodology (which is the same methodolgy employed to determine that John is the most historically unreliable gospel) ALL of genesis is unreliable. There is no basis for any of it, unless one depends on faith.

She would not have had the idea to do it at the tomb if she had not done it before.

If only this was your most foolish argument yet. Even if it weren't for the fact that annointing the bodies of the dead was a practice of the time, your argument is logically flawed. How would she have gotten the idea to do it the "first" time? Even if one accepts your baseless argument, it means that at some point she got the idea. Why not after his death (particularly given that this was a common practice)?

But of course! What did you expect? Would she go to the tomb at night alone? Do you know something? Where is your sense of history? How could the women go to the tomb area to anoint Jesus' body if the tombstone was sealed and soldiers were there to prevent the approach of any suspect? Can this feed your views of gospel unreliability or the women fought their way through the soldiers to get to Jesus' body?

The soldiers (if they existed) were there to make sure the body wasn't stolen. As for the other women, if they were also there to annoint the body, there is no reason to assume that Mary Magdalene has any significance over them.

A fringe of the Essenes. You like to generalize like a Politician, who doesn't measure his words when they leave their mouth.

Wonderful. Don't address the argument, just make ad hominem attacks. The essenes made enough of an impression that they were discussed by the two most important Jewish writers of the day.

But he was married or he was not a religious Jew. All we need now is for Gentiles to teach Judaism to the Jews.

Since you know next to nothing of ancient judaism, and your argument for your knowledge consists of the fact that you are jewish and live in Israel, I would say that just about anyone (gentile or jew) who has studied the matter would be a good teacher for you, were it not for the fact that you don't base your views on evidence.

Your ignorance is blatant where it concerns being Jewish. How could you say that "Pharisees ONLY accepted Pharisees," when even in the Sect of the Naarenes, followers of Jesus, there were Pharisees. (Acts 15:5)

Your arguments keep getting worse and worse. Acts describes the CONVERSION of pharisees to the Jesus movement. As such, they were no longer pharisees, just as Paul ceased to be a pharisee.

Behold, Oberon now knows all Scholars! You remind me of Paul.

Thank you. As for your argument, how about citing merely two experts in the field who have argued within the past 50 years that Josephus' discussion of John the Baptist was an interpolation, or two experts who argue that the shorter reference to Jesus was interopation.

I

What the guys who wrote the gospels 50+ years after Jesus had been gone, published 80 percent of interpolations, and this about celibacy by Jesus is one of them. Your anti-Jewish bias is cluding your "historical" judgment.

When they wrote the gospels is less important than their access to information. If I, after hearing stories from my grandfather for years, wrote down his life 50+ years later, I would have a pretty accurate account. The same is true for the gospel authors. Transmission of the Jesus tradition was controlled and somewhat formal, in that particular people (beginning with the disciples) were viewed as experts in Jesus' teachings, and they took pains to accurately transmit this tradition. Not only do we have ample reason to believe that the oral tradition behind the gospels was reliably transmitted, but that the authors of the gospels had access to eyewitness testimony.

What are you afraid of? Aren't you the expert in the historical unreliability of the gospels? Now, stand aside and the readers judge your work.

Now you aren't even making sense.

 

[gnostic]

I know that gospels are unreliable as historical evidences, but the historical evidences in the gospels are not in question.

What we have trouble with in this topic, is your flawed logic and interpretations on the scriptures, Ben, not its historical reliability or the lack thereof.

 

[Oberon]

I know that gospels are unreliable as historical evidences

As far as ancient history goes, the synoptics are pretty reliable historical sources. Even John is much more reliable than, say, the lives of the philosophers written by Diogenes, centuries removed from those he is writing about. There are certainly better historians (e.g. Thucydides), but there are also many who are worse.

 

[Oberon]

Again, Ben, your argument is based on picking and choosing which parts of the gospel you trust, on combining different parts and different people to support your assertions, and on reading back into Jesus' day later Jewish practices.

It is well known that Jews in Jesus' day disagreed vehemently on any number of issues. It is also well known that some religious jews (like the essenes) were celibate. Yet your entire case rests on the fact that if Jesus were a Jews, he must have been married, and this assumption somehow licenses you to read into the texts whatever you wish.

However, as Jews disagreed on so many issues, and some religious Jews were known to be celibate, and Jesus advocated celibacy, and he is NEVER described as having a wife, and there is no evidence he WAS married, there is no reason to suppose he was not a religious jew who chose celibacy.

 

[gnostic]

As far as ancient history goes, the synoptics are pretty reliable historical sources. Even John is much more reliable than, say, the lives of the philosophers written by Diogenes, centuries removed from those he is writing about. There are certainly better historians (e.g. Thucydides), but there are also many who are worse.

Without a doubt, there were good and bad historians.

I find that Tacitus is far more reliable than Josephus.

Josephus may have been good for the history of his time, and as far back as a couple of generations, but not very reliable beyond 100 years of his time.

Take for instance, his (Josephus') history on Herod the Great, I think his account more than likely reliable then what's found in the gospel of Matthew about Herod. However, his account and association of the Israelites with the Hyksos is far from reliable.