Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (1)

169 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Not with but to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This again, really? You do realize that none of this detracts from His message, so what really is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?...

Aquila, sorry but you are not thinking straight here. You say that it was in Antioch the place where Christians were first called Christians. It means that they were called "Disciples of Christ" before. Read the text again. After Paul spent a whole year there, they started being called Christians. So, Paul was the one who started Christianity. The disciples of Jesus were called Nazarenes after his being from Nazareth. Thank you for condirming my views.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It's good to be an agnostic. Agnostics are open minded people. You are right indeed: Nothing can be proved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to be an agnostic. Agnostics are open minded people. You are right indeed: Nothing can be proved.

Do you consider yourself close minded then? This is just a curious question, when I identified as an atheist, I didn't feel close minded even though I held a firm stance on the 'no God, yes God' issue (that description makes it sound dirty), because even as an atheist I could still think 'well, if it worked that way'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

No PA, it is not in the sense of Replacement Theology. That's what all Christians have in mind. That if Jesus came to fulfill and now it has been abolished according to Paul in Ephesus 2:15. It is in the sense of confirming the whole Law. BTW, if you read the next two verses 18 and 19 of Mat. 5:17, you will have the answer you need.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This again, really? You do realize that none of this detracts from His message, so what really is the point?

The point is to present the truth of who Jesus really was: A Jew whose Faith was Judaism. That's all.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you consider yourself close minded then? This is just a curious question, when I identified as an atheist, I didn't feel close minded even though I held a firm stance on the 'no God, yes God' issue (that description makes it sound dirty), because even as an atheist I could still think 'well, if it worked that way'.

No, I am an open minded person. I am a theist but open to the probabilities of options that can make more sense. Atheists are close minded people to the probability that God could exist. Theists who believe by faith are close minded to the probability of any other

option.

Ben

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No PA, it is not in the sense of Replacement Theology. That's what all Christians have in mind. That if Jesus came to fulfill and now it has been abolished according to Paul in Ephesus 2:15. It is in the sense of confirming the whole Law. BTW, if you read the next two verses 18 and 19 of Mat. 5:17, you will have the answer you need.

Ben

I asked you what you thought it meant. I didn't ask you for what you thought Christians thought it meant. I don't think Jesus came to abolish the Law, so since you brought that up as what we believe I can only assume your knowledge of Christianity is limited. I don't think it's simply "confirming" the Law such as you believe. So while I agree that verses 18-19 are important to understand what Jesus meant here it is far more relevant to d the answer in verses 21-48. Good luck :D

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was a playa!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked you what you thought it meant. I didn't ask you for what you thought Christians thought it meant. I don't think Jesus came to abolish the Law, so since you brought that up as what we believe I can only assume your knowledge of Christianity is limited. I don't think it's simply "confirming" the Law such as you believe. So while I agree that verses 18-19 are important to understand what Jesus meant here it is far more relevant to d the answer in verses 21-48. Good luck :D

~ Regards,

Thank you PA for having confirmed my point. What Jesus meant to convey in verses 21-48 of Matthew 5, I understand as what we call

"Fences around the Torah." Recourses to inhance the validity of a law. For example a farmer has an apple tree at the margin of the road. He knows there is no sin in the action of passers-by to reach for an apple and eat it. But if the owner builds a fence around that tree, it becomes robbery to ultrapass that fence to reach for the tree. To feed the mind with the thought about someone else's wife becomes tantamount to the crime of adultery. Or to hate someone becomes almost equivalent to murder. The point is that he did not really mean to make of those, as we say in Hebrew, "hukim" apparent laws, of the same weight of the Decalogue but to make the commandments harder to be transgressed. So, instead of abolishing the Law, Jesus rather confirmed further with "Fences around the Torah."

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was a playa!

What do you mean, a "Casa Nova?" Well, I don't think so. He was a religious Orthodox Jew at the hands of Replacement Theology dudes.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you PA for having confirmed my point.

Considering your complete misrepresenting of "all" Christianity as believing that the Law is abolished (yes you said "all") you've also confirmed my point.
What Jesus meant to convey in verses 21-48 of Matthew 5, I understand as what we call

"Fences around the Torah."

By that reasoning all Rabbi's who comment on the Bible are "fulfilling" the Law. I suppose all rabbi's in the 1st century AD and the centuries before whose words comprise the Mishnah declare that they also are fulfilling the Law. No? The comment was unique to Jesus!

I would suggest that what Jesus meant by "fulfilling" the Law was in the sense of giving the Law a deeper, spiritual meaning. Murder is now not a physical law only but a spiritual - anger at your brother is the same add murder in your heart. Adultery is not just physical, but now a matter of the heart. The healthy eating laws of Leviticus 11 are given spiritual meaning when Jesus states that it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him unclean, but what comes out of it - murder, slander, lies, etc. And dare I say the physical laws concerning animal sacrifice are fulfilled to spiritual meaning when Jesus sacrificed himself.

In this way, I may eat a ham sandwich, but still uphold the laws of Leviticus 11 by ensuring that what comes out of my mouth is not unclean, as per Jesus' teaching.

~ Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You think whatever you like about me, Ben.

On the topic, you haven't established what Jesus' position was within Second Temple Judaism, nor that his religious position was is in any way comparable with what is called today "Orthodox Judaism," which is a form of Judaism that didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime.

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

The obligations of hospitality towards guests fall on the host, not on the guests towards each other. One hospitable courtesy is not to call your guest's wife a prostitute, as Jesus' host insinuated the woman was who performed the hospitable gesture.

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

No, Ben, it isn't "written." Gregory erred about Mary Magdalene. There is nothing in the Gospels that portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Speaking of the Bible, Genesis 1: 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, and it is addressed to the First Couple, not to Jesus. There is nothing in the verse for me to "reconcile."

Besides, Paul himself said that a Bishop or a teacher had to be married. (I Tim. 3:2)

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. There were no "bishops" in Jesus' lifeteime. Jesus didn't take orders from Paul, nor from whoever did write the Pastorals long after Paul was dead.

Other people have called me "rabbi." That's on them. I am not married, either.

The bridegroom is a different character in the story from Jesus. Jesus was invited to the wedding, just like the disciples... or are you saying that this was one of those "open marriages?"

To be a married man would rather add to his credibility.

I am sure that Jesus appreciates your advice about credibility, Ben.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering your complete misrepresenting of "all" Christianity as believing that the Law is abolished (yes you said "all") you've also confirmed my point.

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.

By that reasoning all Rabbi's who comment on the Bible are "fulfilling" the Law. I suppose all rabbi's in the 1st century AD and the centuries before whose words comprise the Mishnah declare that they also are fulfilling the Law. No? The comment was unique to Jesus!

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)

I would suggest that what Jesus meant by "fulfilling" the Law was in the sense of giving the Law a deeper, spiritual meaning. Murder is now not a physical law only but a spiritual - anger at your brother is the same add murder in your heart. Adultery is not just physical, but now a matter of the heart. The healthy eating laws of Leviticus 11 are given spiritual meaning when Jesus states that it is not what goes into a man's mouth which makes him unclean, but what comes out of it - murder, slander, lies, etc. And dare I say the physical laws concerning animal sacrifice are fulfilled to spiritual meaning when Jesus sacrificed himself.

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.

In this way, I may eat a ham sandwich, but still uphold the laws of Leviticus 11 by ensuring that what comes out of my mouth is not unclean, as per Jesus' teaching.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think whatever you like about me, Ben. On the topic, you haven't established what Jesus' position was within Second Temple Judaism, nor that his religious position was is in any way comparable with what is called today "Orthodox Judaism," which is a form of Judaism that didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime.

Jesus was born during the existence of the Second Temple. Therefore, Second Temple Judaism. The Sect of the Pharisees was a form of Orthodox Judaism and Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees. The Sect of the Essenes was another form of Orthodox Judaism. And so were the Zealous although in a hostile vigilant way. A name change did not change the nature of the religion.

The obligations of hospitality towards guests fall on the host, not on the guests towards each other. One hospitable courtesy is not to call your guest's wife a prostitute, as Jesus' host insinuated the woman was who performed the hospitable gesture.

The feet of the guests at the tent of Abraham were washed by Abraham and not by Sarai. She didn't even come out of the tent to personally welcome them. Simon the Pharisee who invited Jesus for that dinner was enough acquainted with Mary Magdalene to imply that, "She was a woman known in the town to be a sinner." (Luke 7:37) This is in other words the same as that she was a protitute. Hence, Pope Gregory VII was on the right track to confirm that she was indeed a prostitute.

No, Ben, it isn't "written." Gregory erred about Mary Magdalene. There is nothing in the Gospels that portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Speaking of the Bible, Genesis 1: 28 is a blessing, not a commandment, and it is addressed to the First Couple, not to Jesus. There is nothing in the verse for me to "reconcile."

Luke 7:37 portrays Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. There is no other mean for a "woman known in the town as a sinner." And with regards to Genesis 1:28, suppose a couple of religious Jews can grow and multiply without getting married? Please!

Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. There were no "bishops" in Jesus' lifeteime. Jesus didn't take orders from Paul, nor from whoever did write the Pastorals long after Paul was dead.

There were teachers. And not only Jesus' disciples but respectable Jewish authorities would address Jesus as a teacher. If Jesus was indeed a Teacher, he had to be married. And according to the Catholic scholars who translated the NAB St. Joseph's edition, the two letters to Timothy and Titus were named pastoral epistles only in the 18th Century. Till then, their Pauline authorship had been unchallenged. So, since I see no reason to think otherwise when I read them, Paul wrote them. Pauline evidences abound.

The bridegroom is a different character in the story from Jesus. Jesus was invited to the wedding, just like the disciples... or are you saying that this was one of those "open marriages?"

No sir, Jesus "was called." This is a Jewish traditional term to let the groom know that the time had come to take the bride to the Chupah. Probably either the Church or the translator included Jesus within the same line of the disciples being invited with the intent to distract the minds of future readers from the obviousness that Jesus was the groom himself in that wedding. Besides, if Mary was just a guest, why would she invest herself with authority to order the servants of the house around? Why would she report to Jesus and not to the groom that they had run out of wine? Please, consider the evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.
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...

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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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)

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."

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Somewhat before Jesus' time.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

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?

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".

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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.