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.


- - - - -

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (1)


  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#46    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,930 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

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

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 16 January 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:


Yes PA, I said "all" indeed. Do you believe in the NT message? Yes you do. Therefore, you are among those who condone that the Law has been abolished. Hence, you do promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology; of course, no offense meant.  
The Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by a Covenant of Grace, but that doesn't men that the Law is abolished. Without the Law we cannot know what sin is. So while we are under a new covenant, the Law is still very much relevant to know.

This is standard Christian understanding. Some Christians do believe that the Law is abolished, but many others, including myself, do not. And the fact that you don't know this betrays an incomplete knowledge of Christian theology.


Quote

What Jesus meant by "fulfilling the Law" was in the sense of observing the Law. And not only he but all Jews just like himself. (Mat. 5:17-19)
Yes, I heard you the first time. Funny that rabbi's who comprise the Mishnah were doing the same thing by putting "fences around the Torah", yet none if them said they were fulfilling the Law.


Quote

I disagree with you if you don't mind. IMHO, there is no such a thing as a sin committed in the mind. IOW, it is not a sin to think. One must take his thought into action for the sin to be committed. It was not Jesus who made of such a concept a sin, but Paul and his disciples who needed to release their pent up anger of the Jews. Hence, Replacement Theology.
So when Jesus spoke in verses
21-48 about adultery and says that if you even look at a woman lustfully then you are committing adultery in your heart, hr can't have been talking about thoughts??? What was Jesus referring to, if you don't mind...


Quote

You may eat anything you want and the law of Kashrut won't be broken. It was not established for you but for the Jews only. And this that what makes one unclean is only what comes out of one's mouth and not what goes in, is mere verbal jugglin that explains nothing.
Jesus was not that stupid to have declared such a nonsense. It must have been some one with a grudge against the Jewish Covenant. And that someone is not too hard to figure if you read I Corinthians 10:25. The man was Paul who said that one should eat anything that's sold in the market without asking any question. Scorpions are solf in Chinese markets. If you are in China eat as the Chinese do. And if, as you say, Jesus rather spiritualized the Law, that's really a weird way to see it.
Ah, the old "I don't agree with it so Jesus can't have said it" approach. And they accuse Christians of picking and choosing :whistle:

~ Regards,

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

#47    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:23 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 16 January 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Quote

The Mosaic Covenant has been replaced by a Covenant of Grace, but that doesn't men that the Law is abolished. Without the Law we cannot know what sin is. So while we are under a new covenant, the Law is still very much relevant to know.

The Mosaic Covenant that has been replaced is the Law (The Decalogue) which according to Paul has reached its end. (Rom.7:7; 10:4; Heb.7:12,22) And you have just admitted that indeed it has been replaced. Thanks for confirming my views.

Quote

This is standard Christian understanding. Some Christians do believe that the Law is abolished, but many others, including myself, do not. And the fact that you don't know this betrays an incomplete knowledge of Christian theology.

Yes, you are right, many Christians do believe that the Law has been abolished, including Paul.(Ephe. 2:15)

Quote

So when Jesus spoke in verses 21-48 about adultery and says that if you even look at a woman lustfully then you are committing adultery in your heart hr can't have been talking about thoughts? What was Jesus referring to, if you don't mind.

He was referring to fences around the Torah. I mean, "Avoid the thoughts so that a break of the commandment becomes remote."

Quote

Ah, the old "I don't agree with it so Jesus can't have said it" approach. And they accuse Christians of picking and choosing.

No sir, Logic is the word. Imagine, if one were to be condemned to death for thinking lustfully about a woman, there would be only children in the world. Jesus had some brain after all.

Edited by Ben Masada, 17 January 2013 - 10:27 PM.


#48    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,265 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:56 PM

Quote

A name change did not change the nature of the religion.

Sure. Killing animals and sprinkling their blood around is no different from what you do today.

Please cite a scholarly source for your claim " Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. " For that matter, please cite a scholarly source for anything in this fantasy of yours.

Quote

The feet of the guests at the tent of Abraham ...

Somewhat before Jesus' time.

Quote

was enough acquainted with Mary Magdalene to imply that, "She was a woman known in the town to be a sinner." (Luke 7:37)

The text is silent on whether Simon knew Mary Magdalene. There is nothing in Luke that links Mary Magdalene to the woman whom Simon described.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it is solecist.

Quote

Hence, Pope Gregory VII was on the right track to confirm that she was indeed a prostitute.

Gregory erred, although in fairness, the record shows that he did hedge his statement.

BTW, it wasn't Gregory VII.

Quote

If Jesus was indeed a Teacher, he had to be married.

Or what? You'll thrash him? Who are you to say what any other man must do?

The rest of your post has been already addressed by myself and others.

Bottom line: the title of the thread promises evidence. You haven't shown any.

Posted Image

#49    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,930 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

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

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:27 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 17 January 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:




The Mosaic Covenant that has been replaced is the Law (The Decalogue) which according to Paul has reached its end. (Rom.7:7; 10:4; Heb.7:12,22) And you have just admitted that indeed it has been replaced. Thanks for confirming my views.
The Covenant has been replaced, but not the Law!

Quote

Yes,  you are right, many Christians do believe that the Law has been abolished, including Paul.(Ephe. 2:15)
With respect, Ephesians 2 is not saying the Law is abolished. Paul's speaking of unifying the Jews and Gentiles, and says that as a legal document the Law is set aside. But as a way of knowing God's wishes it is still needed. You speak latter in your post about logic, so try this - if Paul had abolished the Law then how could he ask people to live righteous lives free from sin? Without the Law how could Paul conceive of sin?


Quote

He was referring to fences around the Torah. I mean, "Avoid the thoughts so that a break of the commandment becomes remote."
That's not what Jesus says. Jesus says that to look at someone lustfully is to "commit adultery in your heart".

Quote

No sir, Logic is the word. Imagine, if one were to be condemned to death for thinking lustfully about a woman, there would be only children in the world. Jesus had some brain after all.
Who said anything about condemning anyone to death? I'm referring to our relationship with God and how lust is adultery inn the heart. Actual adultery may have more physical ramifications (though I'd argue against a death sentence), but whether actual adultery or just lust, it affects our relationship with God the same.

~ Regards,

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

#50    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:06 PM

View Posteight bits, on 17 January 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:


Quote

Sure. Killing animals and sprinkling their blood around is no different from what you do today.

What do I do today? I am not sure of what you are talking about.

Quote

Please cite a scholarly source for your claim " Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. " For that matter, please cite a scholarly source for anything in this fantasy of yours.

I am going to mention two for you. If you are a Christian, obviously the NT must be an authoritative source. Pharisee in Hebrew means
"Separate". They constituted the most serious and authoritative source to be consulted on matter of faith. They would never relate to
someone else in a familiar manner if they were not of the same line. Nicodemus was a Pharisee of high reputation and member of the Sanhedrin when not all were. He would address to Jesus as a Rabbi, or Master. This is a strong evidence that Jesus was of the same line. (John 3:1,2) Another evidence is that when Jesus was entering Jerusalem in a formal manner, his disciples would acclaim him king of the Jews, some of the Pharisees would try to warn Jesus in the following respectable words: "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." (Luke 19:38-40) IOW, otherwise you could be arrested for what they are shouting about you and you would end up on the cross. Jesus replied and said, "If they stop, the stones will cry out." Obviously, the Pharisees must have said to each other: Well, at least, we warned him. IMHO, this is also a strong evidence that Jesus was of the Pharisaic line; otherwise, why would they care that Jesus be arrested for issurrection in a Roman province that was Israel at the time? There: Two scholarly sources you asked.

Quote

The text is silent on whether Simon knew Mary Magdalene. There is nothing in Luke that links Mary Magdalene to the woman whom Simon described.

Do you realize what you are doing to the good religious name of Jesus? Throwing mud at it. Implying that Jesus was a "Casa Nova" being caressed by women, even prostitutes wherever he happened to be found. That's rather kind of funny for lack of a better word. IMHO, all the women reported by the four gospels were one and the same: Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany. They were both the same Mary. Magdalene because Mary was a famous
Courtezan in Magdala a sea port city in the lower Galilee, where she had her business and, Jesus met her and fell in love with each other. And Bethany because Mary had her main home being taken care of by Martha and Lazarus. Jesus as a religious Jew could have never be caressed by a woman who was not his wife. And now I rest
my case.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 18 January 2013 - 09:19 PM.


#51    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:00 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 17 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

Quote

The Covenant has been replaced, but not the Law!

The Covenant was the Law itself. When Paul preached freedom from that Law with the allegory of the married woman whose husband had died he proved with an example what Law he was talking about: The Decalogue. (Rom. 7:7) Where is it written "Thou shall not covet" if
not in the Decalogue? What are you doing PA, fighting against the odds?

Quote

With respect, Ephesians 2 is not saying the Law is abolished. Paul's speaking of unifying the Jews and Gentiles, and says that as a legal document the Law is set aside. But as a way of knowing God's wishes it is still needed. You speak latter in your post about logic, so try this - if Paul had abolished the Law then how could he ask people to live righteous lives free from sin? Without the Law how could Paul conceive of sin?

Thank you. "The Law is set aside." Whatelse do I need? "But..." I can't believe it!!! "Grace" PA, that's the key word Paul would use
to justify his bickerings against the Law. That's what his Platonic dream was all about. Grace as a synonym of Ethics to live by without any law pressing on their necks as a yoke.

Quote

That's not what Jesus says. Jesus says that to look at someone lustfully is to "commit adultery in your heart".

No, that's not what Jesus meant. I cannot give up on your favor because I am defending a Jewish Jesus and not Paul. According to the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism, to lust which is an emotion that remains in the mind is not a sin until it is translated into action. Admit that Jesus was not Jewish and I'll leave you alone.

Quote

Who said anything about condemning anyone to death?

Nobody said anything PA, I put up the suggestion myself that if a lustful desire was a crime to be punished with death, we would have only children in the world. I was only trying Logic because to try Jesus' culture seems to be too hard to understand.

Quote

I'm referring to our relationship with God and how lust is adultery in the heart. Actual adultery may have more physical ramifications, but whether actual adultery or just lust, it affects our relationship with God the same.

The only thing that affects or cuts off our relationship with God is suicide, because we will have no way to fix it. According to Isaiah 1:18.19, any time we decide to set things right with God, all we have to do is to repent and to resume obedience to God's Law.

Ben



#52    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:22 PM

Ben, you have created your own branch of Christianity which bears scant resemblance to the Christianity that I and others like me follow.  You can pick it apart and relabel everything and identify it as Replacement Theology.  But you can't stand in denial that my branch of Christianity exists.  It exists as a set of teachings based on Old and New Testament scripture.  It is a belief system that I have followed since 1975.  You can't say that it doesn't exist, because it does exist.  Please note that I am not saying whether or not it's authentic; I'm simply saying that the Christianity that you are refuting is not that same Christianity that some of us follow.  I can't speak for Paranoid Android, but I surmise that he would say the same.

One's reality is another's nightmare.

#53    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,265 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:53 PM

Ben, thank you for the reply, but what I asked you for were:

Quote

Please cite a scholarly source for your claim " Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. " For that matter, please cite a scholarly source for anything in this fantasy of yours.

Your personal commentary on the Gospels, and your fractured-fairytale filling-in of what you say they left out, are not scholarly sources for your commentary and filling-in.

Posted Image

#54    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,930 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

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

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:18 PM

Ben Masada

View PostJ. K., on 18 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Ben, you have created your own branch of Christianity which bears scant resemblance to the Christianity ...

...I can't speak for Paranoid Android, but I surmise that he would say the same.
You've now heard from two separate Christians that your view of Christianity is flat out wrong. I see no point in discussing further, you have your image of what a Christian is and no matter how many Christians say otherwise you're going to cling to that misunderstanding.

I therefore wash my hands of this debate and wish you the best.

~ Regards,

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

#55    libstaK

libstaK

    Nosce Te Ipsum

  • 6,902 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

  • Hello Reality and all that is True
    When Oxymoron was defined it was just for you

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 18 January 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

. That's rather kind of funny for lack of a better word. IMHO, all the women reported by the four gospels were one and the same: Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany. They were both the same Mary. Magdalene because Mary was a famous
Courtezan in Magdala a sea port city in the lower Galilee, where she had her business
and, Jesus met her and fell in love with each other. And Bethany because Mary had her main home being taken care of by Martha and Lazarus. Jesus as a religious Jew could have never be caressed by a woman who was not his wife. And now I rest
my case.

Ben
That reads like a theory of who Mary was - your own personal theory, can you provide scholarly sources that prove that is who she was?  She was apparently "famous" so I am expecting quite a list....

Edited by libstaK, 18 January 2013 - 11:31 PM.

"I warn you, whoever you are, oh you who wish to probe the arcanes of nature, if you do not find within yourself that which you seek, neither shall you find it outside.
If you ignore the excellencies of your own house, how do you intend to find other excellencies?
In you is hidden the treasure of treasures, Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods."

Inscription - Temple of Delphi

#56    eignheart

eignheart

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:32 AM

This will brought religious confusion, isn't it the issue on Da Vinci Code movie.


#57    wimfloppp

wimfloppp

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined:14 Jan 2013

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:03 AM

My wife would,nt wash my feet


#58    Jacques Terreur

Jacques Terreur

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,431 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:AREA 69

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

sorry for a short intrusion folks, but i saw the headline on the starting page.....where is the evidence that Jesus was a REAL HISTORICAL FIGURE in the first place?


#59    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

View PostJ. K., on 18 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Ben, you have created your own branch of Christianity which bears scant resemblance to the Christianity that I and others like me follow.  You can pick it apart and relabel everything and identify it as Replacement Theology.  But you can't stand in denial that my branch of Christianity exists.  It exists as a set of teachings based on Old and New Testament scripture.  It is a belief system that I have followed since 1975.  You can't say that it doesn't exist, because it does exist.  Please note that I am not saying whether or not it's authentic; I'm simply saying that the Christianity that you are refuting is not that same Christianity that some of us follow.  I can't speak for Paranoid Android, but I surmise that he would say the same.

Tell me JK, do you think I would try to refute something that does not exist? Obviously not. And I have never said that it does not exist. I could never create a branch of Christianity as a Jew. I am not a Christian. And I would never create any more of Christianity. One is just more than enough. We would not be able to handle even a single extra one. Christianity is not based on the OT. The OT for Christians exists only as a shadow which is supposed to disappear. (Heb. 7:12,22) That's where my front skirmish stands.

Ben


#60    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,982 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:34 PM

View Posteight bits, on 18 January 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Ben, thank you for the reply, but what I asked you for were:

Your personal commentary on the Gospels, and your fractured-fairytale filling-in of what you say they left out, are not scholarly sources for your commentary and filling-in.

And I cited to you the best scholarly source, the NT. To look for what extra-Biblical commentators have to say, would be an appeal to "authorities" who perhaps have researched in the same places I have and built their personal opinions. In a word, that's a fallacy.

Ben





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users