168 replies to this topic

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 18 January 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Ben Masada
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.

Show me with the NT that my view of Christianity is flat out wrong and I will bend to whatever you have to say about it. Christian opinions according to preconceived notions do not carry significant weight if not evidenced by what is written. And if whatever quotation I am given contradicts another in the same scripture, the issue is back for discussion.

Ben

[eight bits]

Quote

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.

In a sentence, you can find no reputable scholar who shares your misreading of the New Testament. In a word, that's a fact.

[Ben Masada]

libstaK, on 18 January 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

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....

This is just one paragraph from a scholarly source I got as I googled "Mary Magdalene, the Courtezan of Magdala."

"Though the Catholic Church repudiated the doctrine of Mary the Harlot in 1969, the popular image continues in movies such as Jesus Christ Superstar (where I first encountered it at the age of 12), The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ.  Other media have suggested the possibility that she may actually have been Jesus’ wife; this idea was popularized in 1982 by the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which suggested that the Catholic Church had suppressed the knowledge of Jesus’ marriage not only to support the doctrine of priestly celibacy, but also to prevent his blood descendants by Mary from challenging the authority of the Pope.  Those familiar with The Da Vinci Code will of course recognize this premise, which was borrowed from the earlier nonfiction work.  A few Neopagan writers have even proposed that Mary Magdalene may have been a temple prostitute for one of the mystery religions such as the very popular Isis cult; they suggest this could not only be the source of the seemingly contradictory harlot and holy woman traditions, but also explain her name (“exalted tower” could equal “temple”, thus “Mary Magdalene” = “Mary of the Temple”).

But I trust more what the gospels offer in terms of evidences that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 23 January 2013 - 09:01 PM.

[Ben Masada]

eignheart, on 22 January 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

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

No, the issue comes from a research made on the evidences in the gospels that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Ben

[libstaK]

Ben Masada, on 23 January 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

This is just one paragraph from a scholarly source I got as I googled "Mary Magdalene, the Courtezan of Magdala."

"Though the Catholic Church repudiated the doctrine of Mary the Harlot in 1969, the popular image continues in movies such as Jesus Christ Superstar (where I first encountered it at the age of 12), The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of the Christ.  Other media have suggested the possibility that she may actually have been Jesus’ wife; this idea was popularized in 1982 by the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which suggested that the Catholic Church had suppressed the knowledge of Jesus’ marriage not only to support the doctrine of priestly celibacy, but also to prevent his blood descendants by Mary from challenging the authority of the Pope.  Those familiar with The Da Vinci Code will of course recognize this premise, which was borrowed from the earlier nonfiction work.  A few Neopagan writers have even proposed that Mary Magdalene may have been a temple prostitute for one of the mystery religions such as the very popular Isis cult; they suggest this could not only be the source of the seemingly contradictory harlot and holy woman traditions, but also explain her name (“exalted tower” could equal “temple”, thus “Mary Magdalene” = “Mary of the Temple”).

But I trust more what the gospels offer in terms of evidences that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Ben

And what would those gospel references be?  There is nothing in what is said there that defines her as being one thing or another and no historical documents quoted at all that suggest she was a "famous prostitute" as you claim?

[Ben Masada]

wimfloppp, on 22 January 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

My wife would,nt wash my feet

Jacques Terreur, on 22 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

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?

Has anyone in the whole History of the world been more written about than Jesus? If that's not an evidence that he was around, don't
you think that's a little too late to doubt his historicity?

Ben

[Ben Masada]

eight bits, on 23 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

In a sentence, you can find no reputable scholar who shares your misreading of the New Testament. In a word, that's a fact.

Well, why don't you use the NT to prove my misreading of it? That's what we are discussing and not the preconceived opinions of others who probably are by themselves unable to document what they say.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

eight bits, on 23 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

In a sentence, you can find no reputable scholar who shares your misreading of the New Testament. In a word, that's a fact.

There are many; albeit not reputable, as I do not trust their preconceived notions in the interpretation of Jewish characters. If we are discussing the Tanach or the NT, let us do it based on our understanding of what is written. To appeal to suthorities is a fallacy.

Ben

[sslama]

Also it would have been very unusual if he were not married in those times.  The first commandment in the Torah is “be fruitful and multiply”.

[Ben Masada]

libstaK, on 23 January 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

And what would those gospel references be?  There is nothing in what is said there that defines her as being one thing or another and no historical documents quoted at all that suggest she was a "famous prostitute" as you claim?

Mary Magdalene is reported in Luke 7:37 as "A woman known in the town to be a sinner. A Pharisee who knew her invited Jesus for a dinner in his house and the woman went in after Jesus to do the anointing. Since Jesus would accept her in a very natural manner, the Pharisee, perhaps, not aware of what she meant to Jesus, criticized what she was doing as deeply improper between a religious Jew and a "Woman known in the town to be a sinner." Does one have to be a genius to understand that she had been a prostitute? I didn't think so. I think that the problem here is that the Hellenists who wrote the gospels are, by ignorance or evil intention, trying to change Jewish character and customs to reflect the "new Christian order" whatever that be.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

sslama, on 23 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Also it would have been very unusual if he were not married in those times.  The first commandment in the Torah is “be fruitful and multiply”.

Thank you Sslama, I couldn't have said it better myself. Perhaps Christians find hard to understand the culture of the time.

Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 23 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Show me with the NT that my view of Christianity is flat out wrong and I will bend to whatever you have to say about it. Christian opinions according to preconceived notions do not carry significant weight if not evidenced by what is written. And if whatever quotation I am given contradicts another in the same scripture, the issue is back for discussion.

Ben

I've tried.  Your response usually takes one of two roads:

1- "Jesus couldn't have said that, therefore the New Testament is wrong/lying/pious forgery".

2- "Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who incorporated Greek mythology into his beliefs".

No matter what I say to support my view, you will dismiss either Jesus or Paul or both.  And in the process you will continuously claim that Christians believe such and such, and even when Christians turn up and say "We don't believe that", you will stubbornly hold to your view and demand that we accede to your outlook.  And while I agree that some Christians believe what you claim they believe, it is by no means a universal understanding.

Therefore, I wash my hands of this entire debate.  There is no point in discussing with someone who refuses to listen to the other side of the debate.  Best wishes,

~ Regards, PA

[Paranoid Android]

Jacques Terreur, on 22 January 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

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?

The fact that a fully-fledged Christian community can be identified historically in the mid-1st Century AD strongly implies that at the very least there was a person on whom the Jesus-narrative is based.  Add in to that writings as early as ten years after Jesus' alleged death, and most historians (secular as well as Christian) believe that there was a person on whom the gospel stories are based.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all historians believe everything written in the New Testament about Jesus.  Most historians (especially secular and non-Christian historians) see much embellishment in the stories, but do not see such embellishment as cause to doubt the historicity of the character known as Yeshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph).

Putting it another way - it is far more likely that the Christian movement was started by a man who's story was embellished and passed on, rather than the Christian movement started by a man who never existed at all.

~ Regards,

[minera]

What exactly is the big deal if Jesus was married or not. He was after all a man. Not one word in the bible about him being celibate or having other interests than females. It is insulting to all women that we are referred to as something not important and hanging out with a bunch of guys all the time is acceptable. But then the Catholic church is a great example of that. Whether he was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and who he represented.

[libstaK]

Ben Masada, on 23 January 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Mary Magdalene is reported in Luke 7:37 as "A woman known in the town to be a sinner. A Pharisee who knew her invited Jesus for a dinner in his house and the woman went in after Jesus to do the anointing. Since Jesus would accept her in a very natural manner, the Pharisee, perhaps, not aware of what she meant to Jesus, criticized what she was doing as deeply improper between a religious Jew and a "Woman known in the town to be a sinner." Does one have to be a genius to understand that she had been a prostitute? I didn't think so. I think that the problem here is that the Hellenists who wrote the gospels are, by ignorance or evil intention, trying to change Jewish character and customs to reflect the "new Christian order" whatever that be.

Ben

Where does it say this is Mary Magdalene - it says "woman of the city"  In 7.00 Jesus entered Capernaum, following this in Luke 7:11 he entered the town of Nain.  Mary does not originate in any of these places and the "woman of the city who is a sinner" is not mentioned at all by name.  Therefore, you have yet to prove your point