Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Wedding of Jesus


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#16    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,807 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

And you can say that again. The idea that Jesus had resurrected came about only 30 years after he had been gone. The one who fabricated the idea was Paul as he himself confessed to his disciple Timothy that the resurrection of Jesus was according to his gospel. (2 Tim.2:8) It means that obviously there was another gospel being preached at the time in whose agenda resurrection never happened to Jesus. Besides, Jesus was Jewish and Jews do not believe in resurrection.

No actually the other gospel was not that the resurrection never happened it was that there was no such thing as the bodily resurrection of the dead for anybody, much like the Sadducees and you do as well.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#17    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostMasterFlint, on 25 April 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

Goodness gracious...  where to start?  lol.

First off there's no scriptural evidence that Jesus was an ordained Rabbi.  What is more likely and can be inferred from the scriptures is that because Jesus taught the Word of God and did so while performing miracles and teaching it from a position of authority, all those who believed on him called him Rabbi or Master out of respect.  Those who believed on him were already believing him to be the prophesied Messiah and heir to the Throne of David.  Therefore it is for those reasons that he was called Rabbi, not because of him ever being ordained...

First off, in Math 23:7 Jesus is talking about OTHERS liking to be called Rabbi because of the prestige that comes with it, HE'S NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF OR IS ANYONE ELSE CALLING HIM RABBI!!  Further on in that chapter he says that you have only ONE MASTER, even Christ!  And we all know that He IS Christ, therefore he's giving you the reason right there as to why He is called Rabbi......because He is the prophesized Christ, He is Rabbi by his very nature, NOT because he was ordained, as Christ, he was ordained by GOD!

In Luke 7:37-39  Simon ( the phairasee that invited Jesus into is house) calls Jesus Master after people were upset he let a sinner touch him and Jesus begins to tell him a parable to justify what's happening....once again, as it states in verse 39: 36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.  This Pharisee was different from the others there, he perceived Jesus was Teaching the True Word of God and he desired him to eat with him, it is out of respect and belief that Jesus's words are true that Jesus is called Master, not because he was an ordained Rabbi....  You will never see any of Jesus's enemies call him Rabbi to the best of my knowledge, and that's because only his followers and believers called him Rabbi or Master.

John 1:38  again, Jesus isn't called Master here because of any formal ordination, he was called Master because the disciples heard John The Baptist call Jesus The Lamb of God!  Since they overheard this from John The Baptist they believed Jesus was a Master and Teacher.
35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

I will rest my case on the reason Jesus was called Rabbi,Rabboni, Master, ect was because his followers simply believed on Him and His Teachings as coming from God and not because he was an ordained Rabbi with this (which you attempted to use to argue the opposite) :  John 3: 1-2:
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.


You have not quoted any scripture that backs up your claim that Jesus kept going to Bethany and staying at Mary Magdalen's house, nor is there any truth to Mary Magdalene being the sister of Martha or lazarus...  There is also nothing that says Mary Magdalene was the one who anointed Jesus's head with oil, and also your lieing about it being some sort of sexual massage act and the others there being upset by it, the scripture states they were upset that the whole box of oil was used for the anointing because it could have been sold to make money to give to the poor...
Mathew Chp 26:
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Not only do these verses show the real reason they were angry, but also show Jesus in Bethany in Simon the leper's house, not Mary's as you have made up...

Lastly, Rabboni was just another way of saying Master as it states in the scripture.  Also Jesus did die on the cross and rose again on the third day from the dead.  All I can really say about your ridiculas topic post and attempt to use scripture to back up your Ludacris claims.....is that satan tries to use scripture to his advantage too, but just like how Jesus shut him up by using it the correct way, you and your crazy stories have also been shut up by the actual scriptures...

MF, thank you for your support. Why? Because in your desperation to wish you could refute me you only showed an attitude of denial and confirmed all my views. But let me just correct you on a lapse of memory: we all know that Jesus was a religious Jew. Even today a very religious Orthodox Jew cannot be addressed by a strange woman in public. Imagine 2000 years ago. Now we have 4 gospels reporting about different women anointing Jesus with perfume from the head down to the feet in public. Not Jewish at all. Let alone a religious Jew. One gospel writer the one who attributed his gospel to John identifies the woman with being the sister of Martha and Lazarus. (John 11:2)  The woman reported by Luke was a woman of the street aka a sinner. Pope Gregory the Great said that she was Mary Magdalene the prostitute. IMHO Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany the sister of Martha were one and the same. Married to Jesus. Hoping that the other two reported by Matthew and Mark are the same Jesus is okay. He was married to her. But if they were all different, what have the gospels done by considering Jesus a "Casanova"? Jesus could not have been
a Jew but a lascivious libertine aka a fornicator. Is that what you want for him? Wouldn't much better that he was a respectable married man? I would say so.


#18    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 27 April 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Just a small question but not inconsequential if you think about it...

How many prophets totally accepted by the Jews and whose books are part of the Tanakh were actually married?

Even further, John the Baptist, highly respected by the Jews even if not part of the Tanakh since he wrote no book, was he married?

The mistake you make is in thinking that Rabbi is a title. It is but it is not a formal title, it merely means teacher. In later centuries, it did become a formal title with a specific ordination, just as a priest.

There is no evidence that a teacher of the Law, just as aprophet of the law, had to be married. That it became accepted practice in later centuries is not in doubt, but it was not so at the time of Jesus.

It was certainly very common, but I can't find a requirement in the talmud, and I find two talmudic examples to indicate that such as not neccessary.

Sotah 4b says that Ben Azzai was unmarried and we know that he was called a Rabbi, although the title was never conferred to him officially. But the fact that many called him Rabbi anyway, demonstrates that the title is not needfully connected to  a married man.

On Kiddushin 71b R. Yehudah of Pumbeditha is asked why his son, R. Yitzchak, is not yet married (and is an adult).

Kiddushin 82a does argue that an unmarried man cannot teach children, but this appears to be a concern about the appearance of impropriety, not a question about his ability or knowledge.

According to Rambam, getting married is highly recommended, even for a rabbi, but is not an absolute requirement. Perhaps in today's society it is less acceptable, but Halachically it is permitted, albeit not recommended.

http://judaism.stack...d-to-be-married

Since we have no statement to the effect that the prophets throughout the Tanach were NOT married my answer to your question is that they were all married. And not because they were prophets or because Jesus was a Rabbi but because they were Jewish young men with the main aim or goal of all in Judaism which was to get married and father children. That was the common thing to do to build one's characher and prestige as a man in the society. To miss that would be embarrassing and immoral for lack of a better word, unless one was sick or retarded. To get married was a serious commandment, which still is. Now, think through the terrible disservice a Christian causes to Jesus by claiming he was not a married man.


#19    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 April 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Why would that be the case?

Oh my gosh Jorel, think! What about if he had been crucified in another 10 or 15 years and had children? How could trinitarians worship such a god and still be dealing with the "wife" of God and the biological "children" of God? Think of the complications. The Church authorities aka the Fathers of the Church knew what they were doing.


#20    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:49 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 April 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

No actually the other gospel was not that the resurrection never happened it was that there was no such thing as the bodily resurrection of the dead for anybody, much like the Sadducees and you do as well.

Wow! You hit right in the bull's eye this time. I agree with you. Only that the Pharisees did not believe in bodily resurrection either but in the metaphorical resurrection of Ezekiel 37:12. The Pauline charge that they believe in his kind of resurrection was only to raise a contension between Pharisees and Sadducees because the Pharisees were more lenient and the Sadducees too legalist and would kill any one at the blinking of the eye for blaspheming agains the Law and the Temple which was the reason why Paul had been arrested.;


#21    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,807 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:29 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

Since we have no statement to the effect that the prophets throughout the Tanach were NOT married my answer to your question is that they were all married. And not because they were prophets or because Jesus was a Rabbi but because they were Jewish young men with the main aim or goal of all in Judaism which was to get married and father children. That was the common thing to do to build one's characher and prestige as a man in the society. To miss that would be embarrassing and immoral for lack of a better word, unless one was sick or retarded. To get married was a serious commandment, which still is. Now, think through the terrible disservice a Christian causes to Jesus by claiming he was not a married man.

Wrong I can name One very specifically who not married... Jeremiah

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#22    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,652 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:32 PM

Jesus may have been a Essence


Essene View of Resurrection.
"Particularly firm is their doctrine of Resurrection; they believe that the flesh will rise again and then be immortal like the soul,

But there was another test of chastity which seems to have been the chief reason for the name of "Ẓenu'im" (Essenes




http://www.jewishenc...es/5867-essenes

Edited by docyabut2, 29 April 2013 - 10:38 PM.


#23    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,807 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:35 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Oh my gosh Jorel, think! What about if he had been crucified in another 10 or 15 years and had children? How could trinitarians worship such a god and still be dealing with the "wife" of God and the biological "children" of God? Think of the complications. The Church authorities aka the Fathers of the Church knew what they were doing.

Ah yes... ever hear of the Sangreal and the Merovingian lineage? Just see the Da vinci Code by Dan Brown... absolute BS.

This is in the same vein as since we do it like this today, it must have been done exactly like this 2000 years ago. Judaism changed, man it changed alot. Jeez all one has to do to see this is read the Targums and the accompanying commentaries.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#24    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,807 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:57 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

Wow! You hit right in the bull's eye this time. I agree with you. Only that the Pharisees did not believe in bodily resurrection either but in the metaphorical resurrection of Ezekiel 37:12. The Pauline charge that they believe in his kind of resurrection was only to raise a contension between Pharisees and Sadducees because the Pharisees were more lenient and the Sadducees too legalist and would kill any one at the blinking of the eye for blaspheming agains the Law and the Temple which was the reason why Paul had been arrested.;

Unbelievable!!!

Among the Jews the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the physical body after death. "In classical Judaism, resurrection of the dead was a central belief, essential to defining oneself as a Jew. “Today,” writes Jon D. Levenson in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (Yale University Press, 2006)., professor of Jewish studies at Harvard, that fact “comes as a shock to most Jews and Christians alike.” (The Case for What ‘Comes as a Shock to Most Jews and Christians Alike’ by Peter Steinfels.)

Resurrection is the doctrine that in a future age the dead will rise from their graves to live again.

We Also Recommend

A surprising number of Jews think that they need to be buried complete so that they can be resurrected [from the dead] whole, and that giving up an organ for transplantation would thus leave them without it when they are resurrected.

Jewish Resurrection & Organ Donation

This doctrine appears frequently in Jewish eschatology, where it is associated with the doctrine of the Messiah and the immortality of the soul. There is no systematic treatment in the Rabbinic literature of the doctrine of the resurrection, any more than there is of any other theological topic. The ancient Rabbis were organic rather than systematic thinkers. Nevertheless, the picture which emerges from the numerous eschatological thoughts in this literature is of a three‑staged series of events.

The first of these is the state of the soul in heaven after the death of the body. The second stage is the Messianic age here on earth "at the end of days." The third stage is that of the resurrection of the dead. Unlike the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the belief in the resurrection was nationalistic rather than individualistic. It was the hope of national revival that came to the fore and this embraced the resurrection.
After the restoration of the Jewish people to its homeland in the days of the Messiah, it was believed, the resurrection of the dead would take place.

Waking the Dead: Biblical and Rabbinic SourcesBy Rabbi Louis Jacobs

Maybe this is something you should really read... Why did the Jews give up the belief in the resurrection?

Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-critical Study,  By Steve Mason

Edited by Jor-el, 29 April 2013 - 11:00 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#25    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,652 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 29 April 2013 - 11:30 PM

Jesus may have been a Essence

Essene View of Resurrection.
"Particularly firm is their doctrine of Resurrection; they believe that the flesh will rise again and then be immortal like the soul,

But there was another test of chastity which seems to have been the chief reason for the name of "Ẓenu'im" (Essenes
http://www.jewishenc...es/5867-essenes


#26    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,975 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... One Mippippi, two Mippippi, three Mippipi....

Posted 30 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

Well, Jor-El, I must admit I admire your tenacity.  I gave up on discussion with Mr Masada a long long time ago.  I'm enjoying reading your posts, but don't expect anything to change.  Like you, I have no problem with a married Jesus.  I don't think the Bible supports it either way, certainly it doesn't say he was NOT married, but whether he was or not does not affect his standing in the Christian trinity. I don't think the early church fathers would have had a need to "hide" a marriage, even if he was.  Even if Jesus had children, they are not divine, only Jesus was divine.  The church fathers knew this just as obviously as we do today.  Jesus was not a demigod (half man, half god) the way Hercules (and other demigods) was, so any children he had wouldn't be part-divine.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#27    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:31 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

But let me just correct you on a lapse of memory: we all know that Jesus was a religious Jew. Even today a very religious Orthodox Jew cannot be addressed by a strange woman in public. Imagine 2000 years ago. Now we have 4 gospels reporting about different women anointing Jesus with perfume from the head down to the feet in public. Not Jewish at all. Let alone a religious Jew.

I don't get it, but maybe it's because I'm not a believer.  I thought Jesus didn't follow a few other OT laws and Jewish customs also that religious Jews did observe at the time, which is just as inexplicable using your logic here.  Matter of fact I thought that was one of the whole points of his message, it's a 'New' Testament.

Quote

But if they were all different, what have the gospels done by considering Jesus a "Casanova"? Jesus could not have been
a Jew but a lascivious libertine aka a fornicator. Is that what you want for him? Wouldn't much better that he was a respectable married man? I would say so.

I think there's a big difference between a 'Casanova' and someone treating women as if they were normal adults, which was somewhat groundbreaking unfortunately at the time Jesus lived.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#28    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:45 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 April 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

Wrong I can name One very specifically who not married... Jeremiah.

And of course you want me to take your word for it. where does it say that he was NOT married? Nowhere. Do you want me to repeat why? I am not going to do it because I don't want you to quit on me in this thread too. But, take a look at 2 Kings 23:31. "Hamutal the mother of Jehoahaz was daughter of Jeremiah."


#29    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:58 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 29 April 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Jesus may have been a Essence


Essene View of Resurrection.
"Particularly firm is their doctrine of Resurrection; they believe that the flesh will rise again and then be immortal like the soul,

But there was another test of chastity which seems to have been the chief reason for the name of "Ẓenu'im" (Essenes




http://www.jewishenc...es/5867-essenes

The Essenes were originally priests from the Zadokite family who had to flee to the caves of En Gedi because they were afraid for their insurrection against the Hasmonian kings for their decision to hold both kingship and priesthood in Israel. They could not have adopted the Christian doctrine of bodily resurrection but the Jewish one based on Ezekiel 37:12. Then we have from Josephus in his "Wars of the Jews" book that the Essene group that adopted celibacy was only a very small faction who lived completely apart from the greater society in their monastery-style of life. The other more numerous Essene groups that would mingle with society were of the marrigeable kind, as Jesus for example, John the Baptist and many others who are not reported for obvious reasons.

Edited by Ben Masada, 30 April 2013 - 09:00 PM.


#30    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,986 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 30 April 2013 - 09:14 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 30 April 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

I don't get it, but maybe it's because I'm not a believer.  I thought Jesus didn't follow a few other OT laws and Jewish customs also that religious Jews did observe at the time, which is just as inexplicable using your logic here.  Matter of fact I thought that was one of the whole points of his message, it's a 'New' Testament.

I think there's a big difference between a 'Casanova' and someone treating women as if they were normal adults, which was somewhat groundbreaking unfortunately at the time Jesus lived.

So, you thought Jesus didn't follow a few other OT laws and Jewish customs? According to Matthew 5:17-19 he came to fulfill all of them down to the letter, even down to the dot of the letter. There is a commandment to the male Jew to leave his father and mother and cling to his wife as to become one flesh with her. (Gen.2:24)  According to Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus could not have missed that commandment.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users