Author Topic: COMPLETED the book, "Was Jesus Married: The Case from the New Testament"  (Read 5493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13652
  • Manna: 332
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
So you believe it would have been alright for Jesus to break the "human" traditions of the law?

IOW... to break the law?
It was clearly possible to break the human traditions of the law yet not break the law.  It was also possible to hold to the traditions of the law, yet break the law; that is what Jesus so often accused the Scribes and Pharisees of doing.

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
It was clearly possible to break the human traditions of the law yet not break the law.  It was also possible to hold to the traditions of the law, yet break the law; that is what Jesus so often accused the Scribes and Pharisees of doing.

So if it was the law that a man be married in order to teach in a synagogue.... it was alright that Jesus taught with no wife?

Interesting.

Even though such would be referred to as a Great Mitzvah? That God repeated to Noah after the flood?

Well... we know God can do as he pleases and does.


BTW.. you finished the book? Congrats

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    Human traditions are not God's traditions. Jesus strongly opposed the human traditions of His day - over and over He opposed them. So it is highly unlikely he adhered to any human tradition while on earth. The scriptures also speak of God's traditions/commandments.

    "So if it was the law that a man be married in order to teach in a synagogue.... it was alright that Jesus taught with no wife?...BTW.. you finished the book? Congrats."

    I have seen no divine Law that says a man must be married to teach in a synagogue. Therefore, yes, it was right and divinely acceptable for Jesus to teach in a synagogue without a wife.

    I finished reading Lee's book almost two weeks ago, making notes as I went along.

    And by the way, there are divine laws, Mosaic laws [which, too, are divine], and laws based on human traditions. The first two are acceptable, the latter non-acceptable.

    I, too, will be working on Chapter 3, as you are. If you complete yours before I complete mine, that's fine, please go ahead and post it.

Kindly,

Buff
« Last Edit: Thu Apr 21, 2022 - 14:03:12 by Reformer »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
"Was Jesus Married"... Chapter 3, part 1

At popular request I am moving away from the last chapter as as usual no consensus between the boys and the girl.

Mary, Mary, quite contrary......

And what interesting women.

It would be far easier if all the Marys in the Bible were simply named Mary Smith or Mary Jones... but alas we have Mary of Bethany , Mary Magdalene, and not least is Mary the mother of Jesus, plus others.

While there are varying suggestions of how many Marys are in the New Testament... we shall concentrate on  2 that are key figures in Jesus life.

First... we should determine what we know about these two.

Mary of Bethany

John 11: 1-2 tells us

1 Now a certain man was sick, Named Lazaeus, of Bethany,  the town of Mary and her sister Martha.
      ( I read, in the past day or so... but cannot find it now... that it is possible these 3 were actually teenagers,  even though
         they were living without parents)

2 It was this Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick, and died and Jesus raised him from the dead.

We see Mary of Bethany three different times in the Bible, beginning with the incident in the home of her sister, Martha (Luke 10:38-42), where Jesus, and presumably the disciples who travelled with Him, were being entertained.

Luke 10:38-42 tells us
38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. 40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are  anxious and troubled about many things, 42 but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

So it is obvious that Mary had a special place in Jesus' heart.

The second incident in which Mary and Martha appear occurs in John 11 with the raising of their brother, Lazarus, from the dead. When Mary hears that Jesus has come and is calling for her, she immediately leaves the assembly of mourners in her home and rushes to meet Jesus. So great is her love for Him and her desire to please and obey Him that she leaves those who had come to comfort her to place herself in the arms of the greatest Comforter mankind has ever known. Jesus sees her great sorrow and weeps along with her

The third and final time we see Mary of Bethany is just days before Christ’s crucifixion (John 12:1–8). A meal had been prepared, Martha was again serving while the resurrected Lazarus reclined at the table with Jesus and the disciples. At some point, Mary poured a pint of very expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair

This Mary was a special personal friend of Jesus who enjoyed his company at her home along with her siblings Martha and Lazarus. She is known for sitting at Jesus’ feet listening intently to him speak and being praised for it.

She obviously was important to Jesus and he obviously enjoyed her company so do you wonder why she was only mentioned these three times in the bible?

Chapter 3 of Was Jesus Married presents us with a biblical recounting of when Jesus, 6 days before the Passover came to Bethany to have supper with and visit Lazarus, Martha, and Mary.

This Mary ( who is called Mary of Bethany) was not helping her sister Martha with the meal but as was her custom spent time listening to Jesus.

Anyway.

We are told Mary took a pound of very costly oil of Spikenard, and anointed Jesus' feet with it and then wiped his feet with her hair.

And the house was filled with the fragrance of this oil.

But when Judas (also there) objected Jesus simply said "let her alone for she has kept this for my burial"..... he goes further but this is an important point to stop at.

LET HER ALONE FOR SHE HAS KEPT THIS FOR MY BURIAL

Mathew 26: 6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7: 36-50 , John 12: 1-8 All have variations of this story.
 
She was such an important person to Jesus that he talked freely infront of her and to her about himself and she felt the need to obtain burial oil for him. Why she used it early one can only speculate.
 
Perhaps she was told to not come at that time to his burial  and she wanted to demonstrate her love for him ,
or maybe she simply wanted to do such in the presence of witnesses.

But, alas,  then she disappears from the pages of the bible.

Why?

But now it tends to get interesting.

As we are told in the book John is the only one who identifies this as Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus
Mathew and Mark simply refer to her as "a Woman" while Luke called her "a woman in that town who lived a sinful life."

Now I am going to quote directly from Lee's book Was Jesus Married, because I could not possibly improve on his perfect wording of these points.

"Pg 27. Luke says her presence upset Simon the Pharisee because of his perception of her as a "sinner" who was touching Jesus whereas John says it was Judas who spoke out in complaint of the extravagant cost of the perfume she poured onto the feet of Jesus.

What's more, Mathews account says that "His disciples were indignant, saying, "Why this waste?"


Matthew and Mark refer to the host of this dinner as Simon the Leper instead of Simon the Pharisee as stated by Luke and the place on the body of Jesus where Mary anoints him also differ from gospel to gospel, with Mark and Matthew's account stating that it was on his head, but John and Luke recording that Mary poured it onto his feet and then let her hair down to dry him.

We can speculate as to why the varied reports but they truly are not important when trying to figure out why this woman anointed Jesus with an oil that even He said " let her alone for she has kept this for my burial".

Who was this woman? 

Why did she possess oil for Jesus' burial?

Why did she use the oil on this specific night if it was for His burial?

And most importantly why did she even know about Jesus' forth coming death?

It would appear as if Jesus had had an in depth conversation with her at some point and I cannot wonder if that be the case, would he have such a talk with simply " a personal friend who enjoyed his company?" Or would he have had a talk with a woman who meant more?... Who was more?

I suppose she could have just absorbed what she heard when he would have been talking to his disciples, perhaps while kneeling at his knee?

After all.. "She" had purchased the oil with the intention that she would be anointing the body of Jesus after he was crucified and she was saving it. Jesus himself, according to John said , ""let her alone for she has kept this for my burial"... so if John can be believed, Mary of Bethany knew.

Jesus, himself, acknowledged this in front of a crowd of witnesses.

Why does it matter?

Say what? You don't think it does?

Well try this on for size.

"It matters because in that day the Jewish people had specific customs concerning the death of a loved one.
After the body was wrapped in a burial shroud and cloths" 

We are told ~ In the Gospel of Mark (the earliest of the canonical gospels), written around the years 50 to 70,[8][9] Joseph of Arimathea is a member of the Jewish Council – the Sanhedrin which had condemned Jesus – who wishes to ensure that the corpse is buried in accordance with Jewish law, according to which dead bodies could not be left exposed overnight. He puts the body in a new shroud and lays it in a tomb carved into the rock

The Jewish historian Josephus, writing later in the century, described how the Jews regarded this law as so important that even the bodies of crucified criminals would be taken down and buried before sunset.[10] In this account, Joseph does only the bare minimum needed for observance of the law, wrapping the body in a cloth, with no mention of washing or anointing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus#:~:text=%20Joseph%20took%20Jesus%27%20body%20and%20wrapped%20it,linen%2C%20took%20down%20the%20body%20and%20wrapped%20it.

" After the body was wrapped in a burial shroud and cloths , it would lay briefly in a tomb before someone would come and strip the body naked of the cloths. The person would apply sweet smelling oils to conceal the smell of death in order to bring honor to the love one.

"Because the body was naked when this happened , the Jewish people considered it immodest for a member of the opposite sex to anoint the body with oil who was not either a close relative or a spouse."

Just muse on that for a while because it is apparent that one of the women who came to the tomb with the spices to anoint Jesus early in the morning after the Sabbath had to have been a relative. . Can we figure out which one ?

Was it Mary of Bethany? She IS the one who had already poured the burial oil on Jesus 6 days prior to Passover, and she would be the one who would know more had to be purchased for the proper burial. But alas... She was not mentioned as having been at the tomb.

Now lets see what we know about Mary Magdalene

Mary Magdalene is another Mary we’re familiar with. Her name comes from the city Magdala on the coast of the Sea of Galilee where she was from. This Mary is known for having had seven demons cast out of her by Jesus and then becoming a faithful follower. Mary Magdalene is another one of the three Marys present at the cross. She is also known for being the first to see Jesus risen from the dead and reporting the news to the disciples.

Luke 8:2 as well as some women who had been healed of evil spirits and i...

John 20:18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have s...

It is said in the four canonical gospels that she  traveled with Jesus as one of his followers.

She is mentioned by name twelve times in the canonical gospels, more than most of the apostles and more than any other woman in the gospels, other than Jesus's family.

 Luke 8:2–3 tells of  Mary Magdalene as one of the women who traveled with Jesus and helped support his ministry "out of their resources", indicating that she was probably wealthy.

All the four gospels identified her, either alone or as a member of a larger group of women which includes Jesus's mother, as the first to witness the empty tomb,[1] and, either alone or as a member of a group, as the first to witness Jesus's resurrection.

She was mentioned a lot in the bible, yet we know far less about her then Mary of Bethany.

So we want to know why these 2 women. Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene both were so into the burial of Jesus. But then only one of them actually was seeing that through.

Mary of Bethany had the burial oil she used on Jesus 6 days before the Passover.

Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:1 is said to ....16 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Does anyone know which of these women who came to the tomb was related to Jesus.

It was only women that came... no man.

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Was Jesus Married ... Chapter 3 part 2

It is now time to learn of some customs of the time. But before that I just want to address and comment a bit about my part 1

In part 1 we learned a bit about who Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were.

We learned that Mary of Bethany was favored by Jesus when, at minimum, he would come to Marth's house where apparently Lazarus ( who was referred to as Lazarus of Bethany in John 11:1) also lived.

Now, as yet I am only guessing so dont shoot me.

We have not read of Martha being called Martha of Bethany. We have read that the house Jesus visited was Martha's

Luke 10: 38Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

Just keep this in the back of your mind...

We know that no parents are mentioned for Martha , Mary of Bethany and Lazarus of Bethany, their brother.

I have no proof yet.... but what if the parents had died and Martha got the house because she had still been living there with them? Making her the owner.

CAN ANYONE PROVE THAT THIS IS WRONG? I truly am open to learning about them.

Since Mary of Bethany was so close to Jesus I wonder why it was not Mary of Bethany who opened the door to him. I suspect it was because Martha was the home owner and that Mary of Bethany , and Lazarus of Bethany had moved back home once the folks were out of the picture.

More on this later

OK.... Now Chapter 3 goes on to talk about Mary of Bethany and her anointing of Jesus during this well known dinner.

Remember it was Mary of Bethany we have been told would sit at Jesus' knees listening and absorbing every word from his mouth. How many times she did this we do not know because she is only mentioned 3 times in the four corners of the bible.

We do not know if they had any "private" talks ... we just know the family was extremely close friends with Jesus.

So let's talk about this anointing of Jesus that John tells us about. John 12:3

"3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

(If you do not accept this accounting of  Mary of Bethany's anointing Jesus and if you prefer the accounting of the sinful woman who anointed Him in Luke 7: 36-38)

In either case.... they both wiped his feet with their hair.

So moving on.

Quoting, theologian and scholar Joachim Jeremais (pg 31 of the book)
 
Quote

"When the Jewess of Jerusalem left her house, her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils, a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin and a hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be recognized.

" It was said that once, for example, a chief priest in Jerusalem did not recognize his own mother when he had to carry out against her the prescribed process of a woman suspected of adultery.

"Any woman who went out without this headdress, i.e., without her face
being hidden, committed such an offense against good taste that her husband had the right - and indeed the duty- to put her away from him, and was under no obligation to pay the sum of money to which, on divorce, the wife had a right by virtue of the marriage contract

"There even were women so strict that they did not once uncover their head in the house, women like Qimhit, who, it was said , saw seven sons admitted to the high priesthood, which was regarded as divine reward for her extreme propriety: ' May it [ this and that] befall me if the beams of my house have ever seen the hair of my head.' "

The Journal of Biblical Literature

"Among Jews in the Talmudic period both married and unmarried women wore head coverings in public"

This period from roughly 400 BC to 500 AD!

Now we have to come to a decision of whose account of Mary of Bethany's anointing we shall believe.

It was obvious that the hair being covered would be of key importance. So... that is not an issue here.

But our main accounting of Mary of Bethany has Martha opening her door to her house.

In the book "Was Jesus Married"  pg 33 seems to lean toward another account as it talks of that.

" So when Mary entered the home , her hair would almost certainly be pinned up and covered properly for the day or else she would not have been allowed into a Pharisee's home...........

It continues:

"Mary, however, seemed to have little concern for where she was and who else was in the home. She let her hair down in the presence of Jesus, to Jesus , in order to dry the oil and tears from his feet.......

So what are we to conclude here, if anything.

Mary of Bethany, was doing for Jesus something a Jewish woman only did in front of her husband " AND THE ONLY THING FOUND WORTHY OF CRITICISM IN A CROWD CONSISTING OF PHARISEES AND DISCIPLES WAS THE HIGH COST OF THE OIL SHE USED."

The same  also if the account in John is accurate.

So we are left not knowing exactly where this dinner that Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus feet happened.

We also do not know why it was referred to as Marth's house.

Could it be possible.... JUST THINK ON THIS.

Could it be possible that as I suggested about that Martha we heir apparent for the house she lived in with her parents when they were still alive and Lazarus And Mary , when they
moved in with Martha were called Lazarus of Bethany and Mary of Bethany to distinguish that that is now where they were living?

We dont know if it was Martha's house or that of a Pharisee that the anointing dinner was held.

Is there any possibility that the house housed both Martha and siblings as well as a Pharisee?

So many unanswered questions and so many possibilities that do not exist within the four corners of the bible.

One thing certain is that Mary of Bethlehem was "not proper" letting her hair down as she did.

So why did she ?

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
My Observations and Conceptions on Chapter 3 of   
“Was Jesus Married”

    Before I delve into the core of Chapter 3, Lee’s  finest affirmations, at least to me, are found on pages 130-132 of Chapter 9. Those are among his strongest deductions on Jesus being fully human and had “the complete human experience.” But we will go there later, not now. In the meantime, let me leave all of you with a question to consider.

    Is it imaginable that Jesus’ divinity was so emphatically unyielding and deep-seated He had sufficient control over his sexually intimate urges?

<><><>

    Quotation: “You see, both married and single women kept their hair covered with scarves, hairnets, or headbands. It would have been highly inappropriate for a Jewish woman to be in public with her hair uncovered and down and was considered a matter of morals and religious commitment.”—“Was Jesus Married,” p. 31.

    In John, chapter 12, a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. “Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table” [John, 12:2]. It is true that one of Judaism’s Torah commands is that the hair of women should not become exposed in public. Apparently, this cultural command was acted upon in Jesus’ day.
 
    On this occasion, however, this was not a public gathering. It was a home-like meeting of friends and relatives who were enjoying a dinner together—mostly acquaintances who knew each other. This was on such an occasion. It was private, not public. Mary let her hair down and wiped Jesus’ feet, not to impress others with her external profile, or to solicit their opposition, but to exhibit her adoration for and reverence to the Lord Jesus. I cannot envision this incident pointing to a husband/wife relationship. 
 
    Paul says that if a woman has long hair, “it is her glory, for her hair is given to her for a covering” [I Cor. 11:15]. Should a woman’s “glory” be unexposed—covered at all times except in the presence of her husband? I’m only asking. Paul told Timothy  that women should practice “modesty and self control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” [I Tim. 2:9]. Is Paul relating to exposed or unexposed hair here?
 
     Let’s take this matter into a different corridor. If Luke 7, beginning with verse 36, refers to the same occasion that John 12 describes, a Pharisee by the name of Simon, thought to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of a woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” [verse 39]. Jesus knew his thoughts!
 
     The Greek translates “sinner” here as “sinful.” If the Pharisee was correct it would mean Jesus, if married to her, was married to this “sinful” woman. Jesus did not deny Simon’s way of thinking, but explained the worst of sinners can be forgiven! So Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven. Your faith has saved you, go in peace.”
 
     Now if this woman is the same woman as the woman in John 12, and page 33 of “Was Jesus Married” says she was, it would be Mary Magdalene—the same Mary depicted as Jesus’ wife. But Jesus tells the one in Luke, “go in peace.” If she was Jesus’ wife, He told her to leave—or at least dismissed her. Would He be dismissing His wife?

    A passing note on the ointment Mary used. On verse 7, Adam Clarke, Hebrew and Greek scholar, quotes Jesus as saying, “Let her alone, that she may keep it to the day of my embalming.” He says this is the reading in many of the oldest Greek manuscripts. Other scholars intimates that only part of the ointment was then used, and that the remainder was kept till the time the women came to embalm His body. [See Luke 24:1.]

    Endnote As to Jesus appearing first to Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:9, it is said by many scholars, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.” But that’s up for discussion—maybe later.

Enough for now,

Buff
« Last Edit: Fri Apr 22, 2022 - 13:07:09 by Reformer »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Buff,

Good observations.

I have spent hours looking for the cover the head thing in other sources and all I could find that covered married and single women was It gradually became the accepted traditional custom for all Jewish women to cover their hair (see Sh. Ar., eh 21:2)
( Which I have not found to see)

But no idea when gradually came into being

One true funny story OT.

I used to work for a Jewish man. And his wife would often come to the shop to do whatever.

She had waist length hair that was always a terrible mess and she never wore it pulled back. Not even in the heat of summer.

One day she went to the beauty shop and had her bangs cut so she could see. 

He was so furious that for a while we all thought he might divorce her.

That never happened but a couple of years ago I was driving past the shop that is still there. She was out by the road weeding
the river rock that was supposed to control the weeds but never did.....

Her hair is longer than every... and it was the heat of a summer day and sun was beating on her head.... and falling forward
over her face and eyes.

In remembering this it is not funny and for one she would have been far better to have tied her hair up like we have just read.

But we have to remember to not confuse Mary Magdalene in this chapter as we are talking about Mary of Bethany... only... in reference to this anointing of Jesus at this dinner.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    Thank you for your kindly response. Even if you had disagreed with sections of my last post, your response would have been appreciated. In your last paragraph, you said:

    "But we have to remember to not confuse Mary Magdalene in this chapter as we are talking about Mary of Bethany... only... in reference to this anointing of Jesus at this dinner."

    It is interesting how Adam Clarke, Hebrew and Greek scholar, almost 200 years ago, described Luke 7:36-48. He said, "This account is considered by many critics and commentators to be the same with that in Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3, and John 12:3."

    He was, and is, so very correct. Some critics, however, separate the incidents by separating the Marys. My point in my last post was that Lee refers to Luke 7 and John 12 as the same story. And he could be correct. So I based my response on his position that Luke and John alluded to the same event.

Buff
« Last Edit: Fri Apr 22, 2022 - 21:57:52 by Reformer »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Rella:

    Thank you for your kindly response. Even if you had disagreed with sections of my last post, your response would have been appreciated. In your last paragraph, you said:

    "But we have to remember to not confuse Mary Magdalene in this chapter as we are talking about Mary of Bethany... only... in reference to this anointing of Jesus at this dinner."

    It is interesting how Adam Clarke, Hebrew and Greek scholar, almost 200 years ago, described Luke 7:36-48. He said, "This account is considered by many critics and commentators to be the same with that in Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3, and John 12:3."

    He was, and is, so very correct. Some critics, however, separate the incidents by separating the Marys. My point in my last post was that Lee refers to Luke 7 and John 12 as the same story. And he could be correct. So I based my response on his position that Luke and John alluded to the same event.

Buff


Goodmorning Buff,

I could put in here that I posted about Mary of Bethany as the key in chapter 3 and not Mary Magdalene, knowing well that if another poster does make his way through the book and start to post here it will be insisted upon that Mary of Bethany is a stand alone person... especially in light of that already happening the other thread on this subject.

Now do I personally believe that we should not confuse the two Marys?  NO. And by the end of my replies on Chapter 4 I hope to explain myself with that statement.

When I said " Could it be possible that as I suggested about that Martha we heir apparent for the house she lived in with her parents when they were still alive and Lazarus And Mary , when they
moved in with Martha were called Lazarus of Bethany and Mary of Bethany to distinguish that that is now where they were living?"

I do strongly believe that could well  be the case.

But now I must start my comments on Chapter 4, hoping I can post something by days end.  ::tippinghat::

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
"Was Jesus Married" Chapter 4 Part 1

It truly is difficult to separate chapter 3 from chapter 4 in the book "Was Jesus Married".

These two chapters could well be intertwined depending on your particular beliefs and ideas of Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene.

Two very extraordinary women who garnered the attention and love of Jesus.

One who used oil that was meant for Jesus burial 6 days before the Passover and His crucifixion and another who who bought burial spices to anoint Jesus, as was the custom of the day, in the tomb.

If you believe these two are two separate women do you think Mary Magdalene knew Mary of Bethany considering their obvious attractions and involvement to Jesus?

We are told biblically that both women were very close to Jesus.    Mary of Bethany used the burial oil early on Jesus. And Mary Magdalene had need to  and did buy burial spices to attend to him in the tomb.

Obviously each  woman was to be involved with Him and his burial.

It is possible that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were, in fact, one in the same person?

For myself, I cannot think otherwise.

Lets take a closer look at what we learn in Chapter 4.

Unless noted: all quotes below are from the book "Was Jesus Married: the Case from the New Testament"

Martha, Mary's sister along with others " wouldn't be the last to suggest that Mary of Bethany was too enamored of Jesus, that the two of them were inseparable, and that Mary was going overboard".

WHAT IS MOST INTERESTING IS THAT THIS MARY... THE ONE REFERRED TO AS MARY OF BETHANY COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS AFTER SHE ANOINTS JESUS WITH THE OIL.

Remember... this was to be used for his burial. Jesus affirmed when he said in John 12:17 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

So she knew all about his upcoming death.

However, It was Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb of Joseph which held the body of Jesus. SHE went to anoint his body.

Reminder. It was Martha's and Lazarus' sister Mary ( called of Bethany) that had plans to anoint the body of Jesus. So where was she?

Common sense tells us that since she had been saving this oil for the day of Jesus' burial, but used it before hand to show her love, that it would need to be replaced.

Does it make any sense that " Mary of Bethlehem not only disappeared completely from the pages of the New Testament after she anointed the feet of Jesus, but also she cancelled her original plans of anointing his body after his death, and coincidently , another woman also named Mary, took over the anointing duties that only a wife (or close relative) would do in the first place and was also present at his crucifixion standing beside his mother. It would not make any sense at all and would be most unlikely of possibilities."

Mary Magdalene was not called that until after she started to travel with Jesus. Possibly because it was for her protection that she would not be linked as Martha's and Lazarus' sister?

Now, not addressing the marriage question yet..... one has to ask why was she, if a single woman. traveling with a group of men? That was very inappropriate for the time..

It seems the pharisees did not object to this at all.. though they did when some of the disciples did not wash their hands
as the Jewish directive prescribed.

There is only one logical conclusion to all of these and that is Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were one in the same person, and that Mary Magdalene was married.

That would explain why the comments on the head coverings were noted as well as why the Pharisees seemed to give her a pass.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    Regarding a single man teaching in a synagogue, I asked earlier in my post, "Now tell me, why would a single man be permitted to speak in a synagogue IF it was Jewish law that such men not be permitted?" [Acts 13]. I made reference to Paul, an unmarried man, teaching publicly in a synagogue.

   I have not found any scripture that forbids a single man from speaking or teaching in a synagogue in Jesus' day. The scriptures you quote in Reply #43 do not relate to the issue we're discussing. And the reality is that Paul, an unmarried man, DID teach in a synagogue.

    And yes, Jesus did break many of the Jewish traditions that had been adopted as divine Law. He, in fact, condemned them.

    I'll be looking for your next post on Chapter 3. Currently, I'm working on my first post on Chapter 4, especially the section about "A single woman [Mary] traveling with Jesus and His disciples." Did she, really?

Buff
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 23, 2022 - 21:27:06 by Reformer »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Rella:

    Regarding a single man teaching in a synagogue, I asked earlier in my post, "Now tell me, why would a single man be permitted to speak in a synagogue IF it was Jewish law that such men not be permitted?" [Acts 13]. I made reference to Paul, an unmarried man, teaching publicly in a synagogue.

   I have not found any scripture that forbids a single man from speaking or teaching in a synagogue in Jesus' day. The scriptures you quote in Reply #33 do not relate to the issue we're discussing. And the reality is that Paul, an unmarried man, DID teach in a synagogue.

    And yes, Jesus did break many of the Jewish traditions that had been adopted as divine Law. He, in fact, condemned them.

    I'll be looking for your next post on Chapter 3. Currently, I'm working on my first post on Chapter 4, especially the section about "A single woman [Mary] traveling with Jesus and His disciples." Did she, really?


Side Comment: As I posted.... I believe Mary was married. I just did not say to who ::pondering::

Buff

Hi Buff,

I already posted my next on chapter 3... my reply #43.

I also did my first on chapter 4

As to Paul.... I believe he had been married.

I believe he his wife either died or he was divorced. My belief is his wife died.

That will be addressed in due time.

Note the wording here.

1 Cor 7:8

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

Bible Term: Abide. To abide means wait patiently for, to remain in place, to continue to be sure or firm, and to endure.

Page 73 of Lee's book tells us that "So men and women often faced the death of a spouse at younger ages and more often that in today's western world at least. For that reason , many scholars think Paul was what we would call today a widower - thought that word wasn't used to describe men at that time but was only used to refer to women.A MAN WHO HAD LOST HIS WIFE TO DEATH WAS SIMPLY REFERRED TO AS "UNMARRIED"The reason for this is because men did not face the same ramifications as women when a spouse died.  A woman whose husband died would most often become destitute and a street begger since she would not have a source of income without the connection to a man.

Buff. You have read the book. Did you by any chance just skim Chapter 5 believing you know all about Paul?

I would encourage you to re-rea chapter 5 and pay attention to Pauls qualifications then read and re-read 1 COR 7-8

It is written for the time he was alive, and it reads every bit like

"  I say therefore to the unmarried ( men who have lost there wives) and widows,(women who have lost their husbands) It is good for them if they abide even as I (It is good for the people who have lost their spouses even as I have lost mine.)

Now.. as I said... when we get to chapter 5 I will list his credentials. You will certainly see that he would not have skirted a rule
for any reason

Rella

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    You posted: Page 73 of Lee's book tells us that "So men and women often faced the death of a spouse at younger ages and more often that in today's western world at least. For that reason, many scholars think Paul was what we would call today a widower - thought that word wasn't used to describe men at that time but was only used to refer to women. A MAN WHO HAD LOST HIS WIFE TO DEATH WAS SIMPLY REFERRED TO AS 'UNMARRIED.' The reason for this is because men did not face the same ramifications as women when a spouse died. A woman whose husband died would most often become destitute and a street begger since she would not have a source of income without the connection to a man.

"Buff. You have read the book. Did you by any chance just skim Chapter 5 believing you know all about Paul?"

    Yes, indeed, I have read Chapter 5, and even read and evaluated its contents again today, before I saw this last response of yours. The paragraph above is pregnant with opinions, guesses, hunches, but totally empty of any hard-core, or even weak, evidence. For example, "...many scholars think Paul was what we would call today a widower..."

    That's not evidence, not even honorable supposition. To express it simply, "It's way out in left field." In any Court of Law, it would be dismissed immediately, or not even allowed to be presented in Court.

    The scriptures declare clearly that Paul was an unmarried man. There's not a thread of evidence, not even a strong inference, he was once married.

    The so-called law pertaining to a single man not being authorized to teach in a synagogue, as I have stated already, was a human tradition adopted by the Jews as a law of God. If it was a law, it originated as an external law, not internal. Cite me a passage of scripture that teaches a single man cannot teach in a synagogue in Jesus' day. Show me some inspiration to that effect, or even some form of divine assistance, such as a strong implication.

    See where I'm coming from? If it can be shown, and it has been via scripture, that Paul was unmarried but yet taught in a synagogue, such evidence would ruin the argument that Jesus was married and therefore allowed to teach in a synagogue. Jesus was single, until it can be proven differently, but yet taught in the Jewish synagogues.

    Didn't mean to make this response as long as it is, but a clarification was due. Have a good evening and a pleasant day tomorrow.

Buff
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 23, 2022 - 21:18:08 by Reformer »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39879
  • Manna: 803
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
What you refer to as a Law adopted from a human tradition is known as Takanot in Hebrew. Scripture warns against Takanot.

  https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/465492

« Last Edit: Sat Apr 23, 2022 - 21:53:54 by Jaime »

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9538
  • Manna: 308
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Very interesting Jaime

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Jaime:

Thanks, brother, for the good info. Appreciate it.

Buff

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Rella:

    You posted: Page 73 of Lee's book tells us that "So men and women often faced the death of a spouse at younger ages and more often that in today's western world at least. For that reason, many scholars think Paul was what we would call today a widower - thought that word wasn't used to describe men at that time but was only used to refer to women. A MAN WHO HAD LOST HIS WIFE TO DEATH WAS SIMPLY REFERRED TO AS 'UNMARRIED.' The reason for this is because men did not face the same ramifications as women when a spouse died. A woman whose husband died would most often become destitute and a street begger since she would not have a source of income without the connection to a man.

"Buff. You have read the book. Did you by any chance just skim Chapter 5 believing you know all about Paul?"

    Yes, indeed, I have read Chapter 5, and even read and evaluated its contents again today, before I saw this last response of yours. The paragraph above is pregnant with opinions, guesses, hunches, but totally empty of any hard-core, or even weak, evidence. For example, "...many scholars think Paul was what we would call today a widower..."

    That's not evidence, not even honorable supposition. To express it simply, "It's way out in left field." In any Court of Law, it would be dismissed immediately, or not even allowed to be presented in Court.

    The scriptures declare clearly that Paul was an unmarried man. There's not a thread of evidence, not even a strong inference, he was once married.

    The so-called law pertaining to a single man not being authorized to teach in a synagogue, as I have stated already, was a human tradition adopted by the Jews as a law of God. If it was a law, it originated as an external law, not internal. Cite me a passage of scripture that teaches a single man cannot teach in a synagogue in Jesus' day. Show me some inspiration to that effect, or even some form of divine assistance, such as a strong implication.

    See where I'm coming from? If it can be shown, and it has been via scripture, that Paul was unmarried but yet taught in a synagogue, such evidence would ruin the argument that Jesus was married and therefore allowed to teach in a synagogue. Jesus was single, until it can be proven differently, but yet taught in the Jewish synagogues.

    Didn't mean to make this response as long as it is, but a clarification was due. Have a good evening and a pleasant day tomorrow.

Buff


Buff,

You say    The scriptures declare clearly that Paul was an unmarried man.

Book, chapter and verse, please.

For I... as not a large fan of Paul would welcome it being settled and not having to do commentary on him.

 Jaime said... and you seemingly agree.

'What you refer to as a Law adopted from a human tradition is known as Takanot in Hebrew. Scripture warns against Takanot.'

Wonderful... I find this to be a super great reason to avoid all churches and houses of worship of any kind and now Scripture backs that up.

But lets  just poke the elephant in the room a bit longer.

IF there were certain laws in place during a given time period that were man made say regarding a religious institution and/ or clergy....
and if there were a general concensus that these laws were for the greater good....

EXAMPLE: My old Presbyterian Church USA was moving toward accepting practicing (dont tell me they weren't) clergy to preach in the church... even though we all know the abominations Gods says.... and this same Presbyterian Church USA was also allowing same sex marriages... even though God made them Aam and Ee and not Aam and Steve... and this same Presbyterian church would have their summer camps where sometimes the women would be studying the goddess Sophia and more often or ot would be the studies of "reimagining God"...

So in order to become clergy of this Presbyterian Church USA one now needs to accept and embrace their rules....

How is that different if back in Jesus' day the synagogues and temples had specific rules for them and who would be able to teach in such?

Does it have to come only from God?  If so... why?

Now... I am truly at odds with the RCC for more reasons then there is time to write in any GC thread... but lets say you decided you wanted to be a priest. ( humor me) They would forbid you because you have a living wife. (If she was dead then that is another story)  . What do you think would happen if one Sunday mass... or even a Saturday night mass you went up for communion and kept right on going up to the pulpit to teach?  You would be kicked out beause you were not a priest and you did not qualify to be one.

Man made rules for the religious beliefs vary... But because they are man made does not give us the go ahead to do as we would... no matter how perfect we can teach of God.

PAUL:

Rabbi, evangelist, teacher, and lawyer AKA Saul of Tarsus.

Grew up in a devoutly religious home.

Was raised from birth to be a Pharisee.

Claimed he was "blameless" in every area of the law and he would not have said such a thing if he had not fulfilled his obligation as GOD ORDERED IN THE FIRST COMMAND MADE TO HUMANS

HE STATED THAT HE WAS TAUGHT ACCORDING TO THE PERFECT LAW OF THE FATHERS AND WAS ZEALOUS IN LIVING THAT LAW (Acts 22:3)

Wrote to the Galatians he was more zealous in fulfilling the requirements of his religion then most others of his time (Acts 22:3)

Mentored by Rabbi Gamaliel who was a high ranking official in the Sanhedrin and according to the Talmud was at one point the Sanhedrin's president.

Whether being groomed to be a Sanhedrin or actually a member the Sanhedrin held the explicit qualification that a man must be married and a father of children.

"With the expectations of all Jewish people to marry and with even greater magnitude concerning rabbis and Pharisees consider closely the words of Paul in Philippians 3: 4-6

If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews: concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law , blameless."

"We must also remember that silence in the bible has demonstrated itself as not being an implication of someone being single

As mentioned , we would not know that Peter was married at all except that it was casually mentioned Jesus healed his mother-in-law without even revealing her name or Peter's wife's name.

Now, believe as you will... I am done with PAUL.

I say he was married. By man made or God's law it does not matter because it is what was expected at the time.


Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39879
  • Manna: 803
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
If he was at onetime married, a different descriptor would have been used and not unmarried, it seems to me. If it was so important to the accepted authorities, it would have been delineated it seems to me. As I said before uncircumcised denotes never been circumcised. Same with unmarried. It would be exceedingly sinple to say Paul a divorced man according to the Law or a widow according to the Law. Unmarried, is too specific in my opinion. Whatever the reason for Takanot being weaved into Torah, it is still Takanot which Jesus railed against while he was alive, before Paul came on board. If he was previously married, that would have been a pretty important detail in the entire NT narrative. At least the English translators should have footnoted it if the Greek word has multiple meanings like is asserted.
« Last Edit: Sun Apr 24, 2022 - 09:22:52 by Jaime »

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
If he was at onetime married, a different descriptor would have been used and not unmarried, it seems to me. If it was so important to the accepted authorities, it would have been delineated it seems to me. As I said before uncircumcised denotes never been circumcised. Same with unmarried. It would be exceedingly sinple to say Paul a divorced man according to the Law or a widow according to the Law. Unmarried, is too specific in my opinion. Whatever the reason for Takanot being weaved into Torah, it is still Takanot which Jesus railed against while he was alive, before Paul came on board. If he was previously married, that would have been a pretty important detail in the entire NT narrative. At least the English translators should have footnoted it if the Greek word has multiple meanings like is asserted.

I did not write this. So take it up with whoever did.

" "So men and women often faced the death of a spouse at younger ages and more often that in today's western world at least. For that reason , many scholars think Paul was what we would call today a widower - thought that word wasn't used to describe men at that time but was only used to refer to women.A MAN WHO HAD LOST HIS WIFE TO DEATH WAS SIMPLY REFERRED TO AS "UNMARRIED"The reason for this is because men did not face the same ramifications as women when a spouse died.  A woman whose husband died would most often become destitute and a street begger since she would not have a source of income without the connection to a man."

If Paul had been divorced... ( an his misogynistic attitude certainly could suggest that) he could not have been called a widower.

Now here is an article I have copied and pasted simply because many here will not ever look at a link... and also I am able to
change the color ( highlight) (hmmm why cant we have highlighting on here?) to emphasize things.

This came from a Baptist.... so you likely will disregard what is said but please read it anyway.
***********************

From

Denny Burk, Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

Was the apostle Paul married? Yes, he was. Here’s how we know.

In my sermon this morning at Kenwood Baptist Church, I made the case that the Apostle Paul was not always single but was once married. This observation emerges from Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. You can download the full sermon here or listen below.

Audio Player

00:00
00:00

Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

Here’s how we know that Paul was once married. Paul writes:

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.

If we want to understand how this verse applies to us, we need first of all to whom it is addressed. Your English versions say that Paul addresses “the unmarried and the widows.” It’s clear what Paul means by “widows.” He’s referring to any woman who was once married but whose husband has died. But to whom is Paul referring when he says “the unmarried”?

Some readers interpret the “unmarried” generically as anyone who happens to be unmarried regardless of how they got into that situation (e.g., Ciampa and Rosner). For this reason, they think that the “unmarried” would include both the widowed, the divorced, and those who have never been married. On this view, Paul means to address all Christians who happen to be unmarried.

I think this interpretation is mistaken. It may be that Paul’s words have implications for all who are unmarried, but I think Paul’s reference to the unmarried refers to widowers specifically. There are a number of reasons for this. Not the least of which is the fact that the Greek word for “widower” was rarely used in ancient Greek and was never used in the Koine period (Fee).

For some reason, first century speakers did not use the word “widower.” My hunch is that they didn’t use it because of the negative social connotation attached to the term. In the first century, a widow was not only bereft of her husband, she was also often destitute. It was a patriarchal culture, and to be without a husband was to be in an extremely vulnerable position. That vulnerability is why the “widows” and “orphans” are often paired together in the Bible (e.g. James 1:27). In a patriarchal culture where there’s no social security safety net, widows and orphans are extremely socially disadvantaged.

A husband who lost his wife in that culture did not experience the same social hardship that a widow did. A widow is unmarried and destitute. But a man who loses his wife is simply unmarried. He is not destitute. And I suspect that is why Paul and other Greek writers didn’t use the term widower to refer to such men. They were simply “unmarried.”

Paul uses the term “unmarried” two other times in this chapter to refer to those who were previously married. In verse 11, “unmarried” clearly refers to someone who was previously married but divorced. In verse 34, an “unmarried” person is distinguished from “virgins” who have never been married. That leads me to believe that “unmarried” in verse 8 also refers to someone who has been previously married. The gender is masculine in Greek, and when paired with “widows” it seems like Paul means to address those who were previously married but whose spouses have passed away.

And what does Paul say to these widows and widowers?

“It is good for them to remain single, as I am.”

I would tweak one small thing about the ESV rendering. It’s not as literal as it could be. There is no Greek term that corresponds to the word “single.” So if you just drop that word, it gives you a more literal sense:

“It is good for them to remain… as I am.”

“Remain” means to continue on in a certain state of existence. In their case, that state was one of widowhood. And Paul says “as I am.” This suggests that Paul is putting himself into the same category that they are. But it is not a category of singleness in general but a category of widowhood in particular. It is for this reason that many interpreters—including myself—believe that these words imply that Paul was previously married.

I don’t believe it is the case that Paul was never married. In fact, it would have been nearly unthinkable to imagine a never-married Pharisee. As an exemplary Pharisee (Philippians 3:5-6), Paul would have sought to fulfill the creation mandate to “be fruitful and multiply,” which means he almost certainly would have been married at some point. And verse 8 seems to confirm that he was in fact married but subsequently widowed.

How has Paul spent his life since becoming a widower? He has completely devoted himself to the gospel ministry. Marriage has certain responsibilities that come with it. And Paul was thrilled to remain free from those responsibilities so that he could pursue with single-minded devotion the ministry to which God had called him.

Think about it. Could Paul have travelled all over the Roman world for two decades if he had a wife and children at home to care for? Of course not. Paul is simply expressing here that “it is good” for widows and widowers to choose to remain unattached for similar purposes. They don’t have to feel any pressure to remarry simply because they were married before. God may give them a post-marriage life like Paul has. And if so, it is not a less-than life. It is a glorious calling to remain “unmarried.”

But then Paul qualifies:

9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The text doesn’t actually say if they cannot exercise self-control. It says if they are not exercising self-control. It does not necessarily refer to a sinful lack of self-control. It could be referring to one who finds their desire for marital relations to be a constant distraction. Paul is simply saying that if you find yourself in that situation, then you should get married. Of course, Paul understands that not everyone has the same opportunities to marry, so I think he means that it is good and right to pursue marriage if or when the opportunity emerges. Paul’s “unmarried” example should not at all constrain a believing widow or widower from remarrying. Why?

“For it is better to marry than to burn…”

This phrase can mean one of two things: (1) it is better to marry than to burn with passion—as the ESV has it, or (2) it is better to marry than to burn in judgment.

When I first began teaching as a college professor, I was actually teaching this very text in one of my classes. I had a classroom of undergraduates before me, all of whom were in the vicinity of 18-21 years old—except for one student. I had one elderly widow in that class who was 83 years old. And she had decided that she wanted to come back to school and learn the Bible, and so there she was in the midst of all these whipper-snapper undergraduates. And it was great.

But I was teaching this text about widows, and when I laid out the interpretive options (“it is better to marry than to burn with passion” or “to burn in judgment”), she spoke up and interjected with force and conviction. She said, “Oh, I think it means to burn with passion.” I remember at that moment being kind of stunned because it was clear that she had not studied this before, but she nevertheless spoke with great confidence about her interpretation. And I tried not to break into too big of a smile as the realization came over me—and the rest of the class—that her exclamation was more of a testimony than exegesis.

But I never forgot what she said because I think it rang really true. I think she understood this text exactly in the right way, and she spoke from experience. It is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Marriage is certainly a better alternative to the constant distraction of a desire for marital relations. If that is a constant distraction for you—especially if God brings some particular person into your life—then you are just fine to get married. Don’t feel constrained by Paul’s example. Go ahead and get married, and don’t look back. Staying unmarried like Paul is good. Getting married is good too. Each one has his own calling from the Lord, and we come to know that calling through the gifts and opportunities God gives us—or withholds from us. And if God gives you the opportunity to be married and you want to be married, go for it.

But if that opportunity does not come your way—even though you wish it would—just keep in mind what Paul says. Paul says you are in a better position. You are not at a disadvantage in God’s kingdom by remaining unmarried. Steward that calling well for as long as you have it. Ask God to make the paths plain for the “unmarried” calling he’s given you. It may be a season, or it may be for life. God will make that plain in due time. In the meantime, don’t despair of your calling. Lean into it for the glory of God.

https://www.dennyburk.com/was-the-apostle-paul-married-yes-he-was-heres-how-we-know/#:~:text=Paul%20uses%20the%20term%20%E2%80%9Cunmarried%E2%80%9D%20two%20other%20times,distinguished%20from%20%E2%80%9Cvirgins%E2%80%9D%20who%20have%20never%20been%20married.

I have to run, but will continue to look into this subject because it makes no sense that anyone would try to say what was obviously a mistake. Especially when there is no valid reason to assume such... unless you are wanting a celibate life within your religion as the RCC demands.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    "Buff, you say, 'The scriptures declare clearly that Paul was an unmarried man.' Book, chapter and verse, please."

    "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am...to the unmarried and the widows, I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am" [I Cor. 7:6-8].

    It is futile, at least to me, to write whole volumes on whether Paul was previously married. He may have been. My point is that it is not spelled out in heaven's messages. Inasmuch as we do not have a clear-cut answer from heaven as to Paul's previous lifestyle, I think we do a big blunder by taking a rigid position that he was once married. There's an old saying, "Revelation is what God says, interpretation is what we think He said." AMEN!

    But let's examine another side of the coin. The assertion has been made that a single man in Jesus' day was not permitted to publicly teach in a Jewish synagogue. He had to be married. My position is, and has been, that this is and was a Jewish human tradition, not a divine edict.

    Please understand that the Jews had "invented" and "devised" hundreds of traditions, which were then adopted and systematized by them as divine laws. Our Lord dealt with this sectarian problem during His entire ministry on earth. Dozens of biblical passages can be quoted to that effect.

    I have not received one passage of scripture from anyone which conveys that God is the author of this law - the law that forbids a single man from teaching in a synagogue in Jesus' day. If someone has discovered such a passage, send it Air Mail my way!

    And on that note, I am going to one of the core elements of Chapter 4 perhaps later today with my first Post. It appears we have already finished Chapter 5, which pertains to Paul's previous lifestyle. After Chapter 4 maybe we can jump to Chapter 6!

Buff

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    I have answered before, but here goes again. Jesus broke, denied, and opposed laws devised by the sectarian Jewish leaders quite frequently. If you wish, I will share numerous occasions with you.

Buff

    P. S. Oh, I accidentally referred to your question in Section 1 of April 19. My mistake. This response should be removed, but I don't know how to do it.
« Last Edit: Sun Apr 24, 2022 - 18:41:25 by Reformer »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
My Evaluations and Conceptions on Chapter 4 of   
“Was Jesus Married”

    “Was Jesus Married,” Page 44: “She wasn’t called Mary Magdalene until after she started traveling with Jesus, which brings up another matter. A single woman traveling with a band of men would have been exceptionally unusual and even scandalous during the Mishnaic and Talmudic period, unless she was married to one of them.
 
    “Yet again we see no criticism or mention from the Pharisees who were eager to capitalize on any minor detail at all they could use against Jesus. A single woman traveling with Jesus and his disciples? It isn’t a stretch to say that it would almost certainly have been brought up and claims would have been made even if just as an attempt to attack the reputation of Jesus, and yet we read of no such thing occurring.”

 
    Pardon me, but where is the scripture stating, plainly or indirectly, that Mary traveled with Jesus and a band of men? There are scriptures that speak of a number of women who followed and traveled and ministered to Jesus, but not one verse have I found that Mary Magdalene alone traveled with the Lord and His disciples. Note Matthew 27:55 & 56, plus a few other scriptures.
 
    “There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
 
    “When He was in Galilee, they
[women] followed Him and ministered to Him, and there were also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem” [Mark 15:40-41].
 
    “And the twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means” [Luke 8:1-3 – See also Luke 23:55].
 
    “And all His acquaintances and the women who had followed [traveled with] Him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things” [Luke 23:49].

 
    If there is a scripture that speaks of Mary Magdalene alone following and traveling with and ministering to Jesus and His disciples, someone please inform me of where it is located. For if I am wrong on this point, I will happily post an apology.
 
    On page 42 of “Was Jesus Married,” it is only an assumption that Mary Magdalene was foremost and the other women with her were “secondary characters.” It is noteworthy, too, that after the resurrection “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.” On their way to tell the disciples, Jesus met and greeted them, at which time “they came up and took hold of His feet and worshipped Him.” Jesus directed His remarks to both of them.
 
    As dialogued earlier, Mary Magdalene had a special place in the Lord’s heart, as did John. But it would not be appropriate or factual to consider the other eleven disciples as “secondary disciples.” Nor were the other woman associated with Mary Magdalene.
 
    One more theme before I close this post. It is long enough. When Jesus was hanging and dying on the cross, His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene and the disciple whom He loved were standing nearby [John 19:25-27]. He addressed His mother and John. If Mary Magdalene was His wife, would He not possibly have spoken a departing word with her as well? He spoke fondly of her on other occasions. Just thinking.

Buff

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
My Evaluations and Conceptions on Chapter 4 of   
“Was Jesus Married”

    “Was Jesus Married,” Page 44: “She wasn’t called Mary Magdalene until after she started traveling with Jesus, which brings up another matter. A single woman traveling with a band of men would have been exceptionally unusual and even scandalous during the Mishnaic and Talmudic period, unless she was married to one of them.
 
    “Yet again we see no criticism or mention from the Pharisees who were eager to capitalize on any minor detail at all they could use against Jesus. A single woman traveling with Jesus and his disciples? It isn’t a stretch to say that it would almost certainly have been brought up and claims would have been made even if just as an attempt to attack the reputation of Jesus, and yet we read of no such thing occurring.”

 
    Pardon me, but where is the scripture stating, plainly or indirectly, that Mary traveled with Jesus and a band of men? There are scriptures that speak of a number of women who followed and traveled and ministered to Jesus, but not one verse have I found that Mary Magdalene alone traveled with the Lord and His disciples. Note Matthew 27:55 & 56, plus a few other scriptures.
 
    “There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
 
    “When He was in Galilee, they
[women] followed Him and ministered to Him, and there were also many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem” [Mark 15:40-41].
 
    “And the twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means” [Luke 8:1-3 – See also Luke 23:55].
 
    “And all His acquaintances and the women who had followed [traveled with] Him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things” [Luke 23:49].

 
    If there is a scripture that speaks of Mary Magdalene alone following and traveling with and ministering to Jesus and His disciples, someone please inform me of where it is located. For if I am wrong on this point, I will happily post an apology.
 
    On page 42 of “Was Jesus Married,” it is only an assumption that Mary Magdalene was foremost and the other women with her were “secondary characters.” It is noteworthy, too, that after the resurrection “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.” On their way to tell the disciples, Jesus met and greeted them, at which time “they came up and took hold of His feet and worshipped Him.” Jesus directed His remarks to both of them.
 
    As dialogued earlier, Mary Magdalene had a special place in the Lord’s heart, as did John. But it would not be appropriate or factual to consider the other eleven disciples as “secondary disciples.” Nor were the other woman associated with Mary Magdalene.
 
    One more theme before I close this post. It is long enough. When Jesus was hanging and dying on the cross, His mother and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene and the disciple whom He loved were standing nearby [John 19:25-27]. He addressed His mother and John. If Mary Magdalene was His wife, would He not possibly have spoken a departing word with her as well? He spoke fondly of her on other occasions. Just thinking.

Buff[/size]

I also do not find she travelled alone.  But there is this.
The Gospel of Luke 8:2–3 lists Mary Magdalene as one of the women who traveled with Jesus and helped support his ministry "out of their resources", indicating that she was probably wealthy.

It seems important that people know her by name as one who travelled with Jesus.

Why?

Wiki says:

Mary Magdalene,[a] sometimes called Mary of Magdala, or simply the Magdalene or the Madeleine, was a woman who, according to the four canonical gospels, traveled with Jesus as one of his followers and was a witness to his crucifixion and resurrection.[1] She is mentioned by name twelve times in the canonical gospels, more than most of the apostles and more than any other woman in the gospels, other than Jesus's family.

As to why Jesus did not acknowledge her when o the cross, I repeat what I have said before.

For her protection.

It was she who is mentioned in all 4 gospels as arriving at the tomb, either alone or with others with the idea of anointing his body with the spices bought the night before.

It was she who first saw Jesus after.

I shall now move on to Chapter 6 but may be a day or so  with life getting in the way.


Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

    "As to why Jesus did not acknowledge her when o the cross, I repeat what I have said before. For her protection."

    We covered that base earlier. Anyway, that's all for me on Chapters 4 & 5, unless someone introduces a question or two. I go next to Chapter 6, as you are. But no hurry.

Have a good night,

Buff

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Good afternoon Buff

I am posting my comments on Chapter 6 now as they are not so complicated as to take too much time and (  ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: ::clappingoverhead:: the check book balanced, the bills are paid, and I find myself with some time on my hands... or I should say fingers)

Chapter six of " Was Jesus Married: "

Jesus has been called the last Adam.

The first Adam was responsible, through his wife, to bring death to all mankind.

The last Adam, Jesus brought life to those who believe.

Adam separated mankind from God.

Jesus brought the hope of God through faith.

If it was not good that the first Adam was alone as God said (Gen 2:18) then why was it good for the last Adam to be alone?

From the book...

" We read in 1 Cor 15:20 : " But now Christ is risen from the dead and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep".

God brought the woman, Mary (Magdalene),  to the man, Jesus, in the garden
( a garden surrounded the tomb where the body of Jesus was placed, and she assumed it was the gardener when she saw a human form (John 20:15)

Is it not interesting that Mary first saw the resurrected Jesus in a garden.?
So appropriate for a last Adam when the first Adam also saw his wife in a garden.

We, of course are aware that she did not recognize him immediately.

But when Jesus said in John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

she then recognize his voice.

Most likely he was in a state of transition. And this seemed to be confirmed when he did appear to the disciples in  John 20 :19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

( The fact that they also did not immediately recognize him is confirmed when he had to show the disciples proof of who he was)

20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Going back once more to when I said why Jesus would not acknowledge Mary as his wife.

Aside from the fact she was the first to be there to anoint his body and the first to see him resurrected and was the one Jesus told to tell the disciples.....

John 20:19
19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

When the doors were shut for fear of the Jews.

HIS followers were afraid. How much more would Jesus be afraid for a wife if she be known?

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Rella:

   Just now read your post on Chapter 6. You have done a good job composing it. I hope to start formulating my remarks on Chapter 6 later today. It might be ready to post sometime tomorrow.

    I wish others who have read, or reading, the book would start posting their reactions and observations. The thread would be a little more interesting if more were involved.

Buff

Offline Rella

  • I Am A Spirit, I Have A Soul, And I Live In A Body who firmly states that Becoming an adult is the dumbest thing I’ve ever done.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11915
  • Manna: 669
  • ULTRA MAGA~ EXTREMELY "IRRITATINGLY" DEPLORABLE
Rella:

   Just now read your post on Chapter 6. You have done a good job composing it. I hope to start formulating my remarks on Chapter 6 later today. It might be ready to post sometime tomorrow.

    I wish others who have read, or reading, the book would start posting their reactions and observations. The thread would be a little more interesting if more were involved.

Buff

I agree.... with the others.

Unfortunately I think many may not be reading as they feel they have a grasp based on what you and I say  rofl

But there is so much more then what we write so I hope I am wrong about that.

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
My Evaluations on Chapter 6 of   
“Was Jesus Married”

    “Was Jesus Married,” Pgs. 87 & 88: “Magdala, where ‘Magdalene’ is derived, in Hebrew means ‘great’ or ‘strong tower,’ and in noun form is ‘great one.’ So, one translation of the full name Mary Magdalene is ‘Beloved of the Great One.’ Additionally, ‘rabbi’ comes from the Hebrew word ‘rav,’ which also literally means ‘great one.’ So, it seems that after Mary left her home in Bethany to travel with Jesus exclusively, the gospel writers started referring to her as a name that expresses ‘Beloved of the Great One,’ which mirrors ‘Beloved of the Rabbi’ who, of course, would have been Jesus on both accounts.”
 
    1] The account about Mary Magdalene was written in Greek, not Hebrew. So let’s stay with the Greek.
 
    2] I know of no translation that renders the full name of Mary Magdalene, “Beloved of the Great One.” That she dearly loved the Great One, no one will refute, but Wife of the Great One is questionable.
 
    3] Regardless of what “rav” or “rabbi” means in Hebrew, “Rabbi” in Greek means Teacher, Master and, if reference is made to the Lord or some other prominent person, “my great one, my honorable sir” is suggested, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. Thayer also notes that the name “Magdalene” “equals a tower”—in other words, a great person, but he does not say or suggest the name equals a wife.
 
    4] To me, referring to Mary as “Beloved of the Great One,” meaning the wife of the Great One, Jesus, is more of a mixture of words and miscalculations than reality. Isn’t it strange that the Christian community is over 2,000 years old and now, 2,000 years later, it is being revealed that “the gospel writers started referring to her as a name that expresses ‘Beloved of the Great One’ ”? And all in an effort to corroborate that Jesus was married to Mary.
 
    5] Of course Mary dearly and sincerely loved the Great One! But that does not necessarily  translate into being His wife. When it takes a large volume of information to establish an elementary resolution, it might be wise to raise the suspicious flag. If we were possessed of demons, as Mary was at one time, and someone cast those demons out, would we not “fall in love”—over hills and valleys—with that person? Would we not cater to his teachings and follow him and express our love for him in a diversity of ways? Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! This was Mary. She loved Jesus dearly and whole-heartily.
 
    6] I’m still waiting for someone to Air Mail me the scripture, or scriptures, that Mary left her home to travel with Jesus, without any other woman—or women—being in their company. [Please note the scriptures I acknowledged in my last post pertaining to women traveling with Jesus.]
 
<><><>

    Briefly, Lee’s Types & Antitypes: I don’t think a lot of time—at least my time—needs to be given to this aspect of Chapter 6. I’m a little “up in the air” how he contrives his Types & Antitypes, and how he juggles them around to devise a marital relationship between Mary and the Messiah. I think his illustration and portrayal are somewhat weak.
 
    We all concede that “Adam was a type of the one who was to come,” Jesus [Rom. 5:14]. Furthermore, “by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall be made alive” [I Cor. 15:22].
 
    Adam was a figure of death; Jesus is a figure of life. “These alone,” says Adam Clarke, “seem to be the instances in which similitude exists between Adam and Christ.”Vol. 6, p. 70. [Clarke was born in 1762 & devoted 40 years of his life composing a Commentary on the entire volume of holy scriptures.]
 
    Hopefully and prayerfully, my next post will be devoted to Chapter 7 of “Was Jesus Married.” I welcome your agreements and/or disagreements.
 
Buff
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 26, 2022 - 17:34:44 by Reformer »

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39879
  • Manna: 803
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Of course it would have been useful to know WHICH Greek word for LOVE was intended (Agapao, Phileo or Eros), since in English we only have ONE. Not sure if BELOVED in Greek can be so confusing.
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 26, 2022 - 10:15:38 by Jaime »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Jaime:

    Actually, it isn't confusing unless we equate it with "Wife of the Great One." Thanks, as usual, for your input. We certainly need more input on this thread to make it more attractive.

Kindly,

Buff

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39879
  • Manna: 803
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
So which Greek word is used for love there? ie, did Mary Magdalene, Phileo him, Agapao him or Eros him? That should tell the tale. The English word love is simply too broad.
« Last Edit: Tue Apr 26, 2022 - 17:32:48 by Jaime »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Jaime :

Which passage containing "love" are you referring to? Then we'll go from there.

Buff

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Jaime:

Examples of love in the Greek: Matt. 5:44 & 22:37

agapaō

Thayer Definition

1) of persons

1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly

2) of things

2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing

Buff

Offline Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39879
  • Manna: 803
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
I haven’t read the book of course but I gather there are references to verses that speak of Mary Magdalene’s “love” for Jesus. I was wondering what  brand of love it was. That would be useful To the discussion. Did she Phileo Jesus? Did she Agapao Jesus? Did she Eros Jesus. Which of those three described her love would tell the tale.

Also see this article on the different words for love in the Bible:
] https://ratiochristi.org/blog/words-for-love-in-the-bible/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI953L1Yyz9wIVRhvUAR2ANgXrEAAYAyAAEgIby_D_BwE] of Mary Magdalene’s “love” for Jesus. I was wondering what  brand of love it was. That would be useful To the discussion.

« Last Edit: Wed Apr 27, 2022 - 05:15:32 by Jaime »

Offline Reformer

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4437
  • Manna: 96
  • Gender: Male
Jaime:

    Now I have a better idea what you are referring to. I'll do some more research in that area and let you know what I find, if anything. Thank you, brother.

Kindly,

Buff