168 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 04 January 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

Talking about an Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi, yes PA, he won't. First of all, an Israeli woman knows she cannot address to a religious Jew
on the street. If someone from outside who does not know the rules, yes, the Rabbi won't talk to her, unless her life is in danger. Even so, he will reach for someone else to help.

Regarding Jesus in the First Century, to eat with tax collectors was one thing to chit-chat with a woman in public something else much different, unless she was his wife, as in the case of Mary.

I am very glad to hear that if Jesus was married, that would change nothing to you with reference to him. IMHO, it would rather enhance his credibility as a serious and loyal Jew that he was.

Ben

I'm glad I don't live in Israel (no offence to any Israelis here).  That said, I'll stand by what I said, Jesus was known throughout his ministry for breaking conventional bounds.  In fact, the entire Christian movement was known for breaking conventional bounds (eg, women allowed to attend church with men).  It is not inconsistent with Jesus' character for him to speak to women, regardless of whatever social restrictions may have existed.

[docyabut2]

Did`nt Jesus speak with many women in the Bible ?


http://en.wikipedia....ions_with_women

[J. K.]

Ben, I must say that I am slightly surprised that you even believe Jesus existed.  In our past interactions, you indicated that you think only a few books of the Old Testament are valid.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

Ben Masada, on 28 December 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

EVIDENCE THAT JESUS WAS MARRIED (1)


Imagine 2000 years ago! Today, the 21st Century, a woman cannot address a religious Jew in public to ask or say anything if she is not his wife. Even being his wife, she must walk a few steps back for the sake of traditional Jewish discretion.

Now, let us read John 11:2. "This Mary whose brother Lazarus and sister was Martha, was the one who anointed Jesus with a very expensive perfume and dried his feet with her hair. (John 12:3) Luke says that Mary even kissed Jesus' feet. If a religious Jew could not even be talked to by a woman in public how could Jesus be anointed and touched by a woman and even kissed if she was not his wife? (Luke 7:38) The only way to refute this assertion is by denying that Jesus was a Jew at all, let alone that he was a religious Jew.

Ben

All this is simply assuming that Christ actually adhere's to all the Jewish customs at that time, which we know in fact that he didn't. It's one of if not the main reason he was crucified.

[libstaK]

J. K., on 10 January 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Ben, I must say that I am slightly surprised that you even believe Jesus existed.  In our past interactions, you indicated that you think only a few books of the Old Testament are valid.

Jesus only appears in the New Testament.

[J. K.]

libstaK, on 13 January 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Jesus only appears in the New Testament.

I am aware of that (although there are those that say that Jesus appeared as "the angel of the Lord").  

Perhaps I should have phrased the sentence differently:  "...you discount most of the Bible except a few books in the Old Testament."

[AquilaChrysaetos]

Ben Masada, on 04 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

Christianity was never an Abrahamic religious belief. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God because Paul fabricated that idea when he founded the Christian religion. (Acts 11:26)

First of all, Christianity spawned from Judaism. Therefore it's Abrahamic.

Second, It claims in Acts that Antioch was the place where they were first called 'Christians' where as before they were known as 'Disciples of Christ.' He in no way started Christianity, since it should be obvious it was started by Jesus Christ himself. However there are a lot of things that should be obvious in this world, now shouldn't there?...

[Ben Masada]

Hasina, on 04 January 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

And? Does that make Judaism any more 'realistic' then Christianity? Nope. Though when you say 'fabricated' parts of a religion, you'll have to realize any religion that just has no proof of any of it's deity could have the same argument put forth.

I do not consider Judaism a religion in terms of what religion is but more akin to a way of life. And to prove one's deity, by default I can if you are unable to prove to me where the universe came from and how. Then, I see that the universe constitutes empirical proof of God's existence as the Creator. (Psalm 19:1) But to explain to you the nature of our Deity, I have no choice
but to admit that I can't. The process to know about God will never end. (Prov. 1:7)

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 14 January 2013 - 09:32 PM.

[Hasina]

Ben Masada, on 14 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

I do not consider Judaism a religion in terms of what religion is but more akin to a way of life. And to prove one's deity, by default I can if you are unable to prove to me where the universe came from and how. Then, I see that the universe constitutes empirical proof of God's existence as the Creator. (Psalm 19:1) But to explain to you the nature of our Deity, I have no choice
but to admit that I can't. The process to know about God will never end. (Prov. 1:7)

Ben

That's why I've become agnostic, nothing can be proven so who cares? Just enjoy life.

[Ben Masada]

eight bits, on 04 January 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

Quote

No, they weren't. Nor was either of them Susanna, nor was either of them Joanna, wife of Chuza, nor was any of those the woman who annointed Jesus at Simon the Pharisee's house.

I think the problem with you is that you don't know what an Orthodox Jew was at that time and still is today. A woman who was not his wife could not even address him in the street; let alone anoint him from the head down to the feet and kiss his feet.

Quote

Foot cleaning was a typical hospitable courtesy of the time and place. Jesus complains that Simon had not extended this hospitality to him, and observes favorably that the woman did. I don't see what a serial seducer of another era has to do with it.

That hospital courtesy was not rendered by an outsider and not by a woman who was not his wife.

Quote

That Pope Gregory "the Great" misidentified Mary Magdalene as a prostitute is at least as well known as Anatole France's short story about Pontius Pilate and Carl Sagan's views on traditional creation myths.

Myth or not, it is written. Now, we have to deal with contradictions in the NT.

Quote

No, it isn't obvious, Ben. You made up a love affair. That's what's obvious.

What is obvious is that Jesus declared that he had come to fulfill all the commandments of the Law down to the letter. He could not have missed the first one which was to get married. (Gen. 1:28) Now, how do you harmonize that with not being married? Contradiction is the word. Besides, Paul himself said that a Bishop or a teacher had to be married. (I Tim. 3:2) Jesus was often addressed to as a Rabbi and a teacher not only by his disciples but also by serious authorities like Nicodemus. (John 3:1,2)

Quote

John 2: 2 says Jesus was a guest at that wedding, "Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding." The bridgegroom is a different character in the story (2: 9).

The disciples were invited; Jesus was called to. That's a traditional part of a religeous Jewish wedding: When the groom is called upon to take the bridegroom. The Church or the translator included Jesus as a guest probably to distract the mind of the reader from the reality that Jesus was a married man which constitutes a disservice to him to do so. To be a married man would rather add to his credibility.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

Paranoid Android, on 05 January 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

I'm glad I don't live in Israel (no offence to any Israelis here).  That said, I'll stand by what I said, Jesus was known throughout his ministry for breaking conventional bounds.  In fact, the entire Christian movement was known for breaking conventional bounds (eg, women allowed to attend church with men).  It is not inconsistent with Jesus' character for him to speak to women, regardless of whatever social restrictions may have existed.

Yes, "a breaker of conventional bounds" even of commandments like the Shabbat, but all according to the Hellenists who wrote the gospels. But one of them missed the Replacement Theology intent and declared that Jesus had come to fulfill all the commandments down
to the letter, as we have in Mat. 5:17-19. If he broke Jewish conventional bounds or commandments, the name is contradiction. Not too good for a book claimed to have been divinely inspired.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

docyabut2, on 05 January 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

Did`nt Jesus speak with many women in the Bible ?

Not with but to.

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 10 January 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Ben, I must say that I am slightly surprised that you even believe Jesus existed.  In our past interactions, you indicated that you think only a few books of the Old Testament are valid.

No JK, I said that I accept and agree with only 20% of what comes from Jesus or is said about him. The other 80% is made up of anti-Jewish interpolations to promote Replacement Theology. Now, after so much that has been written about Jesus, it is too late to doubt
the fact that he existed.

Ben

[Paranoid Android]

Ben Masada, on 14 January 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

Yes, "a breaker of conventional bounds" even of commandments like the Shabbat, but all according to the Hellenists who wrote the gospels. But one of them missed the Replacement Theology intent and declared that Jesus had come to fulfill all the commandments down
to the letter, as we have in Mat. 5:17-19. If he broke Jewish conventional bounds or commandments, the name is contradiction. Not too good for a book claimed to have been divinely inspired.

Ben

What is your understanding of Jesus "fulfilling" the Law, what does it mean for him to fulfil it?

I ask because it seems you have a grave misconception about it.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 14 January 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[Ben Masada]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 12 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

All this is simply assuming that Christ actually adhere's to all the Jewish customs at that time, which we know in fact that he didn't. It's one of if not the main reason he was crucified.

You are a little misinformed Aquila. The main reason why Jesus was crucified is because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the
Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. Believe it or not, even the Pharisees warned Jesus to stop them because that could take him to the
cross. He didn't and ended up on the cross. (Luke 19:38-40) BTW, his verdict was nailed on his cross above his head: INRI. That's what Pilate decided as the reason for his crucifixion.

Ben