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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Masada

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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife would,nt wash my feet

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.