For Burial Or For Tonight?

[latin_rite]

Ben seems like a troll.To be honest I wouldn’t be suprised if he isn’t even jewish. And it seems the more people refute his claims the more outlandish his claims become. Which is typical troll behaviour. It so obvious. His post are far from inteligent. they are desinged to get a emotional responce rather than a rational discussion. I’m suprise you people pay him any attention. The only person more stupid than a troll is someone who feeds it. especially when its a stupid troll, who seems to lack the intelligence to comprehend the most simple of bible verses. Even if he is only doing this to get a rise out of people. There are smart trolls and there are trolls like ben.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben seems like a troll.To be honest I wouldn’t be suprised if he isn’t even jewish. And it seems the more people refute his claims the more outlandish his claims become. Which is typical troll behaviour. It so obvious. His post are far from inteligent. they are desinged to get a emotional responce rather than a rational discussion. I’m suprise you people pay him any attention. The only person more stupid than a troll is someone who feeds it. especially when its a stupid troll, who seems to lack the intelligence to comprehend the most simple of bible verses. Even if he is only doing this to get a rise out of people. There are smart trolls and there are trolls like ben.

All the things you say above, hardly matches the mind of a Jew. I am sure you know much better that Jews have a mind of their own. I don’t wonder why Paul had to choose a Jew to build his Christianity upon. If he had chosen someone else, Christianity would not be what it is today.

 

[latin_rite]

All the things you say above, hardly matches the mind of a Jew.
Really? Are you saying all Jews think alike. So are therefore sheeple or brainless robots who all think alike? Cause thats how what ** YOU** said it comes across.
Ben Masada;5551107:

I am sure you know much better that Jews have a mind of their own.]

Who doesn’t. I found the Steve Martin movie the main with two brains" very funny. But i would hardly class it as a factual movie. Maybe you do. I don’t know.

I don’t wonder why Paul had to choose a Jew to build his Christianity upon. If he had chosen someone else, Christianity would not be what it is today.

O lol the tried and true troll attempt about Paul founding Christianity. But if Jews are such great free thinkers. Then why did Paul have to start his own religion? Surely he could have continued to have such free and independant thoughts and remained a Jew? You contradict yourself.
O and p.s You what i said about you hardly matches the mind of a Jew. Maybe thats why i said Idon’t think you’re Jewish at all. Your comprehension levels are very low. ANd you seriously expect people to take serious your attempts at interpreting the Bible or torah?

 

[LilyM]

**Please, don’t spoil the momentum! Are you going to tell me you don’t find beautiful and entertaining, when you see a couple kissing each other in public? **

No I don’t, not that it’s relevant. This behaviour went well beyond a kiss. If it was sexual in nature, that would make it what we call ‘heavy petting’. And if you find THAT enjoyable then you are committing sin, the sin of lust if not the sin of coveting another’s wife. I suppose you get your jollies from watching sex scenes in movies too?

Your criticism above of public sexual foreplay was exactly what went through the mind of that certain Simon who invited Jesus to have dinner with him and that woman came in to anoint and kiss Jesus. He was scandalized that Jesus would allow it to happen. He probably did not know that she was Jesus wife. (Luke 7:36)

The behaviour was not criticised for being sexual foreplay. It was criticised for a couple of other reasons:

a) because it was seen as a waste of valuable goods (the ointment), which as was pointed out could have been sold and the proceeds used to feed the poor.

b) because of ‘what manner of woman this was’. Jesus was criticised because she was a public sinner, and good Jews didn’t associate with public sinners. In the same manner Jesus was criticised for dining with tax collectors and the like, they too were public sinners. He certainly didn’t engage in sexual foreplay with them, so there’s no reason to presume He did so with her.

Your idea that Simon didn’t know their relationship is preposterous. Why on earth would neither Simon nor any of the other guests (who could have explained to Simon that this was His wife) know that she was Jesus’ wife? Especially if, as you’ve argued, the very public wedding of Cana was Jesus’ own wedding? How is it possible that NONE of them would’ve known, or explained to Simon?

Why would Jesus not openly and respectably take His wife to dinner, if they were married, and honestly introduce her? Why would Jesus not SAY to Simon, on His wife being criticised, that she WAS His wife?

Is it seen as a virtue among Jews to deny their marriages? To pretend not to be related to their wives? Do good Jewish husbands prefer their wives to be taken for prostitutes and public sinners as this woman was?

 

[BrianH]

For Burial or for Tonight?

The NT claims that Jesus was anointed by Mary in preparation for his burial. (Mark 14:8) I have never heard of such a thing in my whole life as a Jew.

Jesus had probably just arrived from one of his usual missions and was very tired. However, he had no time for any rest, because he had to go for that dinner. A compromise he could not postpone. (Luke 7:36)

Nevertheless, Mary had decided to follow him up with her perfumed oils to make him feel good. So, she did the anointing right then and right there where Jesus was: At the dinner table.

Since there is no precedent in Judaism for anointing to be done on a living person with the purpose to prepare him for burial, it is only obvious that Mary did that anointing on Jesus in preparation rather for “tonight” than for burial. Quite romantic, wasn’t it?

Ben

Two questions.

1. Because I have not read all your posts, I am not sure of your presuppositions. Do you believe the two accounts about Mary are historical in this particular incident? I do know that you have stated that you believe the gospel accounts to be much later…perhaps I am wrong.
2. If there is a sexual connotation, what would be the rationale for the gospel writers to include it?

Thanks for any replies.

 

[simplynoone]

His post are far from inteligent. they are desinged to get a emotional responce rather than a rational discussion.

You say this as though it is logical to assume that a man could be drenched from head to toe with oils and tears by a woman, have the tears wiped with her hair, and then have kisses being poured on him all without arousing some kind of intimate emotion in the man.

Denying the language of intimacy IS denying the Truth.

Intelligence … is that when we repeat what we are told no matter WHAT; even denying what we do know?

The only person more stupid than a troll is someone who feeds it.

I will accept now the above charge. Consider me the more stupid one here.

 

[simplynoone]

Really, I find it more entertaining for the moment that so many adults having intimate relations with their own spouses are so offended to think that a man could be savored by a woman in the company of adults. God forbid a woman show that kind of caring touch and respect to her husband in public. More children should be allowed to see such love displayed in this world, in my personal opinion. It isn’t like it was an “R” rating if they were husband and wife.

If they weren’t married, then the question of it not being appropriate has ground to stand on.

 

[simplynoone]

LilyM:
Do good Jewish husbands prefer their wives to be taken for prostitutes and public sinners as this woman was?

Only the jealous have issues; a loving husband rather allows his wife to drench him in oil, display emotion, and even kiss him in public … just like Jesus allowed Mary to do. Jesus justified her and thus this argument falls flat.

 

[simplynoone]

Ben, when you attack God like this, you’re playing with fire.

Geesh! I just can’t help but point out that the irony of this statement. Condemning a man for BEING a man when you are a man your ownself, even if you are denying it. Fitting, your name. Paul did the same thing when he claimed the Jews killed Jesus … and then turned around claiming to be a Jew his ownself. I guess you will get no more or no less than did he; that’d be death… the fire is only here on earth and it is a result of the denial of truth by those who cover it with illusion of mythology. No worries… your destiny is no different than was Jesus’ … that’d be death … that’s because we are humans … we are being now and then we will return to the dust (and that’s according to the same Word Jesus confirmed).

 

[LilyM]

Only the jealous have issues; a loving husband rather allows his wife to drench him in oil, display emotion, and even kiss him in public … just like Jesus allowed Mary to do. Jesus justified her and thus this argument falls flat.

Jesus was not an ordinary man, he was immune from the sin of lust that we are crippled by.

By the way, if my father or uncle or a male nurse - or any male who I was not already sexually attracted to - rubbed my feet with ointment it certainly would NOT arouse an erotic response in me. At least not inasfar as I have control of my emotions and behaviour, which I do to at least some extent.

Would I let them do it anyway? Depending on how badly my feet needed tending, maybe.

The fact remains that a normal husband, in a situation where others are scandalised by his wife’s intimate behaviour, would tell everyone loud and clear that her behaviour was OK BECAUSE she was in fact his wife (if they didn’t know already, and it seems these people didn’t)

A normal husband does NOT, as Jesus did, utterly fail to mention the tiny insignificant detail that they are MARRIED! A normal husband does not proceed to use entirely other grounds - ones that would apply to any woman - to justify her behaviour instead.

And who says that anointing was unheard of? Didn’t several women, at least one or two of whom were not related to Jesus, go to prepare His body with spices on Easter Sunday? If they could familiarly handle His body in death, why not in life?

 

[simplynoone]

Jesus was not an ordinary man, he was immune from the sin of lust that we are crippled by.

Lust does not only have to do with sex. It can also be a personal inclination (like a wish) or an intense longing. Lust in and of itself is not a sin, else you are not only charging every man and woman on this earth, but you are charging the LORD as well.

And Jesus did lust … he had intense longing for those in whom he was calling; that’d be the house of Israel.

By the way, if my father or uncle or a male nurse - or any male who I was not already sexually attracted to - rubbed my feet with ointment it certainly would NOT arouse an erotic response in me. At least not inasfar as I have control of my emotions and behaviour, which I do to at least some extent. Would I let them do it anyway? Depending on how badly my feet needed tending, maybe.

Well Mary clearly did more than just “treat” his feet. She treated his body and even laid kisses on him. Are you going to tell me that you will feel comfortable doing that to, say, one of your priests just because they are bringing you the gospel of your choice?

The fact remains that a normal husband, in a situation where others are scandalised by his wife’s intimate behaviour, would tell everyone loud and clear that her behaviour was OK BECAUSE she was in fact his wife (if they didn’t know already, and it seems these people didn’t)

A normal husband does NOT, as Jesus did, utterly fail to mention the tiny insignificant detail that they are MARRIED! A normal husband does not proceed to use entirely other grounds - ones that would apply to any woman - to justify her behaviour instead.

This is not necessarily true. Ever heard of Rabbi Akiba? His wife Rachel hadn’t seen in him some time and when he had entered into the town from a mission, he was surrounded by more than many of his disciples. She immediately rushed to him and fell down kissing the feet of her beloved husband. Even though she was the daughter of a wealthy landowner, she had sacrificed everything she had, even her time with her husband, to send him to study Torah at the feet of the most well known Rabbis at the time. So, needless to say, she looked a bit of a mess … dressed in almost rags. The disciples tried to rid their master of this poor miserable wretch.

Akiba did not acknowledge her as his wife, but rather spoke in wisdom to his disciples saying that the knowledge he was able to attain and pass on to them was attributed to her. Then he sent her on so as to finish up his disciples.

I find that, as well as Jesus’ comment which is the same type, to be a much higher acknowledgment of his appreciation to his wife. She, no doubt, walked away feeling loved and appreciated and most importantly… justified for her emotional display.

And who says that anointing was unheard of? Didn’t several women, at least one or two of whom were not related to Jesus, go to prepare His body with spices on Easter Sunday? If they could familiarly handle His body in death, why not in life?

And Mary Magdalene took center stage in all four gospel accounts; even over Jesus’ own Mother.

 

[adstrinity]

Oh for the love of all things Holy & Nixon.

Luke 7:
36 And one of the Pharisees desired him to eat with him. And he went into the house of the Pharisee, and sat down to meat. 37 And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment; 38 And standing behind at his feet, she began to wash his feet, with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 And the Pharisee, who had invited him, seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner. 40 And Jesus answering, said to him: Simon, I have somewhat to say to thee. But he said: Master, say it.

36 “One of the Pharisees”… that is, Simon.

*41 A certain creditor had two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. 42 And whereas they had not wherewith to pay, he forgave them both. Which therefore of the two loveth him most? 43 Simon answering, said: I suppose that he to whom he forgave most. And he said to him: Thou hast judged rightly. 44 And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. *
46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. 47 Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less. 48 And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? 50 And he said to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe, go in peace.
*47 “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much”… In the scripture an effect sometimes seems attributed to one only cause, when there are divers other concurring dispositions; for the sins of this woman, in this verse, are said to be forgiven, because she loved much: but (ver. 50) Christ tells her, Thy faith hath made thee safe. Hence in a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow for sin, and other pious dispositions. *

---

Verse 37 tells us she is a sinner, not his wife.
Verse 44 tells us that Jesus wasn’t given water for his feet, which I have read is customary.
Verse 45 says that Simon didn’t kiss him but the woman has not stopped kissing his feet. Are we to understand, then, that Simon was Jesus’ husband?
Verse 47 tells us that her sins were forgiven.
Verse 50 says that her faith has made her safe.

No where in these verses do we have the name of a woman. Could she have been Jesus’ wife? Not likely, but, who she was, we don’t know.

John 12:

1 Jesus therefore, six days before the pasch, came to Bethania, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life. 2 And they made him a supper there: and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him. 3 Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. 7 Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. 8 For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always. 9 A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests thought to kill Lazarus also:

A different occount. We have Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha here. She is NOT the same as Mary of Magdela. No tears. Jesus tells all in verse 6 that it is for his burial.

 

[Ben_Masada]

LilyM:
No I don’t, not that it’s relevant. This behaviour went well beyond a kiss. If it was sexual in nature, that would make it what we call ‘heavy petting’. And if you find THAT enjoyable then you are committing sin, the sin of lust if not the sin of coveting another’s wife. I suppose you get your jollies from watching sex scenes in movies too?

**Not really. But I don’t make a scandal about things that hold my eyes longer than just more than the normal time of just a glance. **

The behaviour was not criticised for being sexual foreplay. It was criticised for a couple of other reasons:

a) because it was seen as a waste of valuable goods (the ointment), which as was pointed out could have been sold and the proceeds used to feed the poor.

You don’t seriously believe that, do you? The Simon hosting the dinner even thought that if Jesus was a real Prophet, he would know that kind of woman who was anointing and kissing him. The price of the wointment was too remote from his mind.

b) because of ‘what manner of woman this was’. Jesus was criticised because she was a public sinner, and good Jews didn’t associate with public sinners.

Are you trying to tell me that Jesus was not a good Jew?

Your idea that Simon didn’t know their relationship is preposterous. Why on earth would neither Simon nor any of the other guests (who could have explained to Simon that this was His wife) know that she was Jesus’ wife? Especially if, as you’ve argued, the very public wedding of Cana was Jesus’ own wedding? How is it possible that NONE of them would’ve known, or explained to Simon?

First of all, weddings are usually a family private event. Second, wives in the First Century were not as publicly exposed as today, especially among Jews.
Even walking in the street, a couple of married Jews can be taken as strangers to each other, as they don’t walk together, let alone touching each other’s hands. This is true even today. Imagine in the First Century. Therefore, it is extremely possible that indeed, Simon did not know that Mary was Jesus’ wife. Women, even married ones, are supposed to get entertainment with other women and not with their husbands in public.

Why would Jesus not openly and respectably take His wife to dinner, if they were married, and honestly introduce her? Why would Jesus not SAY to Simon, on His wife being criticised, that she WAS His wife?

I ought to understand you, because you ask this question as a Gentile. It was no lack of respect for a religious Jew not to take his wife to dinners in other people’s houses. Respect was rather to prevent her from being seen or exposed in public.

Is it seen as a virtue among Jews to deny their marriages?

**No ma’am, but to hide, yes. **

To pretend not to be related to their wives?

Yes ma’am, most definitely!

Do good Jewish husbands prefer their wives to be taken for prostitutes and public sinners as this woman was?

**No, they don’t. But who took his wife for a prostitute? Simon didn’t say anything. He just thought in his own mind. Luke is the one who says that the woman was a sinner of the street, which is the word for a prostitute. And did you know that it was from this passage of Luke, that the Pope Gregory IV (IV or VII?) made his case that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? It only tells us that even a Pope confirmed my views that the woman was indeed Mary Magdalene. It might be interesting for you to check further on that. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Two questions.

1. Because I have not read all your posts, I am not sure of your presuppositions. Do you believe the two accounts about Mary are historical in this particular incident? I do know that you have stated that you believe the gospel accounts to be much later…perhaps I am wrong.
2. If there is a sexual connotation, what would be the rationale for the gospel writers to include it?

Thanks for any replies.

**Brian, there are no TWO accounts about Mary anointing Jesus. What we have here are contradictions in terms by the four gospel writers trying to report the same account. I am ready to accept the anointing of Jesus; but because he was a relilgious Jew, only one woman did it.

If there was sexual connotation, it was all in Mary’s mind. And she was not doing anything scandalous; just bending the rules a bit by doing that in public. We could make it part of her art to please man as she indeed knew how. Jesus was aware of the rules, but he loved her too much to stop her halfway. Sometimes love has its own way to make an exception to the rules.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Oh for the love of all things Holy & Nixon.

Luke 7

Verse 37 tells us she is a sinner, not his wife.

Don’t generalize because a sinner can be a wife.

Verse 44 tells us that Jesus wasn’t given water for his feet, which I have read is customary.

That Pharisee called Jesus Master. He could have ordered his servants to serve Jesus with water for his feet. The hand of the Church is on this one. I smell conspiracy.

Verse 45 says that Simon didn’t kiss him but the woman has not stopped kissing his feet. Are we to understand, then, that Simon was Jesus’ husband?

To be kissed by a host, it means a lot about the connection between host and guest. If Simon did not know that the woman was Jesus’ wife, the connection was not at the level of kisses.

Verse 47 tells us that her sins were forgiven.

This is not Jewish; therefore, not true.

Verse 50 says that her faith has made her safe.

Not to be taken as a rule, because the faith of the faithful of Jim Jones didn’t make them safe. Knowledge or Reason would have done better.

No where in these verses do we have the name of a woman.

I don’t see the need to. Pope Gregory IV (IV or VII?) I am not quite sure, took from this passage of Luke to make his case that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. It might be interesting to check on that. If a Pope saw no need of a name to name this woman Mary Magdalene, I wonder why we should.

Could she have been Jesus’ wife? Not likely, but, who she was, we don’t know.

I do believe she was. And I do believe that the four accounts reported by the four gospels are all one and the same, if we are to have Jesus as a religious Jew. The difference in the accounts is due to contradictions in the reports from a gospel writer to the next.

John 12

A different occount. We have Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha here. She is NOT the same as Mary of Magdela. No tears. Jesus tells all in verse 6 that it is for his burial.

She is indeed the same. Otherwise, we are marring the reputation of Jesus and attacking the integrity of his Faith, which was Judaism. It’s better to throw the mud at the faces of the guys who wrote the gospels, for being not careful enough to harmonize their reports.

 

[BrianH]

**Brian, there are no TWO accounts about Mary anointing Jesus. What we have here are contradictions in terms by the four gospel writers trying to report the same account. I am ready to accept the anointing of Jesus; but because he was a relilgious Jew, only one woman did it.

If there was sexual connotation, it was all in Mary’s mind. And she was not doing anything scandalous; just bending the rules a bit by doing that in public. We could make it part of her art to please man as she indeed knew how. Jesus was aware of the rules, but he loved her too much to stop her halfway. Sometimes love has its own way to make an exception to the rules.**

Thanks for answering Ben. But what again is the rationale for gospel writers to include any references to this? I do find it interesting that you believe some of the historicity of the gospels.
Why do you? It is fair to ask me the same question naturally however I do hope you can elaborate on your view.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Thanks for answering Ben. But what again is the rationale for gospel writers to include any references to this? I do find it interesting that you believe some of the historicity of the gospels.
Why do you? It is fair to ask me the same question naturally however I do hope you can elaborate on your view.

**Rationale. Yes, margin of error. To be within the margin of error. The case of the anointing happened, albeit once. The Church could have erased the whole thing on the one extreme, or just report the whole truth nothing but, on the other extreme. There is danger to stand on extremes. So, to be within the margin of error, the Church allowed part of it. The writer of John was allowed to identify the woman as of being the sister of Lazarus and Martha, and Luke was allowed to indenfy the same woman as part of the prostitute, which seemed to have been the not-so-reputable business of Mary Magdalene, who is allowed to stick to Jesus on his last days and even have the idea to repeat the anointing at the tomb. At least to go for it. The Church chose the middle term perhaps to avoid a fatal compromise which could come with siding with either extreme.

Now, why do I believe some of the historicity of the gospels: I just cant conceive that the giant which Christianity has become as a major religion could have been built in the vacuum. So, Jesus existed. But since the Church demands that he was Jewish; and a religious Jew for that matter, I have come to the conclusion after several readings of the NT, that anything Jewish about Jesus can be adopted and accepted without compromising Judaism. Besides, since Jesus was Jewish, in the role of a Jew, I have decided to claim him. And I believe that more than any Christian, I have more of that right than they do. Besides, I have convinced myself that I can do that without having to quit my Jewishness.**

 

[BrianH]

Rationale. Yes, margin of error. To be within the margin of error. The case of the anointing happened, albeit once. The Church could have erased the whole thing on the one extreme, or just report the whole truth nothing but, on the other extreme. There is danger to stand on extremes. So, to be within the margin of error, the Church allowed part of it. The writer of John was allowed to identify the woman as of being the sister of Lazarus and Martha, and Luke was allowed to indenfy the same woman as part of the prostitute, which seemed to have been the not-so-reputable business of Mary Magdalene, who is allowed to stick to Jesus on his last days and even have the idea to repeat the anointing at the tomb. At least to go for it. The Church chose the middle term perhaps to avoid a fatal compromise which could come with siding with either extreme.

Thank you Ben. You seem to indicate that the church was involved in the direct editing of Luke and John. While I think that it is generally accepted that editing occured, I am not familiar with the train of thought that the church in any formal sense was involved in that. It is usually attributed to individual copyists. Is there a compelling reason to assume that it was an organized effort?
My problem with this hypothesis as I understand it assumes that a minor detail of the life of Jesus was compelling enough to HAVE to be included if it contains elements contrary to the image being portrayed.
I understand the rationale, one of the tenets of some scholarship is that phrases or events can be determined to be historical based upon differing presuppositions (ie that Mark records that SOME were healed as opposed to ALL in Matthew indicates that Mark reflects an earlier tradition).
I think what your line of reasoning can create is that anything that agrees with your presuppositions, ie the Jewishness of Christ(which of course I accept probably more than most on here) can be accepted and those things that go against cultural or religious norms (a non-sexual close relationship) can be rejected.
In other words, it seems that the unique qualities of Jesus can be descarded if they go against religious or cultural norms. While someone can do, I find it highly speculative. You are an example of that yourself. If someone was studying Jewish thought and writing about a man named Ben 2000 years later with a scant amount of actual first hand accounts, and it was said that he unlike most Jews accepted 20 percent of the gospels as accurate and described himself as a biblical Judaism, a phrase not often used and certainly not associated with the four major branches, I would if you would accept those things about him that differed from the norm?
Speculative to be sure. Thanks for your time and your answers; they are at least interesting as opposed to too much of the normal banter.
BH

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;5553985:
No I don’t, not that it’s relevant. This behaviour went well beyond a kiss. If it was sexual in nature, that would make it what we call ‘heavy petting’. And if you find THAT enjoyable then you are committing sin, the sin of lust if not the sin of coveting another’s wife. I suppose you get your jollies from watching sex scenes in movies too?

**Not really. But I don’t make a scandal about things that hold my eyes longer than just more than the normal time of just a glance. **

The behaviour was not criticised for being sexual foreplay. It was criticised for a couple of other reasons:

a) because it was seen as a waste of valuable goods (the ointment), which as was pointed out could have been sold and the proceeds used to feed the poor.

You don’t seriously believe that, do you? The Simon hosting the dinner even thought that if Jesus was a real Prophet, he would know that kind of woman who was anointing and kissing him. The price of the wointment was too remote from his mind.

b) because of ‘what manner of woman this was’. Jesus was criticised because she was a public sinner, and good Jews didn’t associate with public sinners.

Are you trying to tell me that Jesus was not a good Jew?

Your idea that Simon didn’t know their relationship is preposterous. Why on earth would neither Simon nor any of the other guests (who could have explained to Simon that this was His wife) know that she was Jesus’ wife? Especially if, as you’ve argued, the very public wedding of Cana was Jesus’ own wedding? How is it possible that NONE of them would’ve known, or explained to Simon?

First of all, weddings are usually a family private event. Second, wives in the First Century were not as publicly exposed as today, especially among Jews.
Even walking in the street, a couple of married Jews can be taken as strangers to each other, as they don’t walk together, let alone touching each other’s hands. This is true even today. Imagine in the First Century. Therefore, it is extremely possible that indeed, Simon did not know that Mary was Jesus’ wife. Women, even married ones, are supposed to get entertainment with other women and not with their husbands in public.

Why would Jesus not openly and respectably take His wife to dinner, if they were married, and honestly introduce her? Why would Jesus not SAY to Simon, on His wife being criticised, that she WAS His wife?

I ought to understand you, because you ask this question as a Gentile. It was no lack of respect for a religious Jew not to take his wife to dinners in other people’s houses. Respect was rather to prevent her from being seen or exposed in public.

Is it seen as a virtue among Jews to deny their marriages?

**No ma’am, but to hide, yes. **

To pretend not to be related to their wives?

Yes ma’am, most definitely!

Do good Jewish husbands prefer their wives to be taken for prostitutes and public sinners as this woman was?

**No, they don’t. But who took his wife for a prostitute? Simon didn’t say anything. He just thought in his own mind. Luke is the one who says that the woman was a sinner of the street, which is the word for a prostitute. And did you know that it was from this passage of Luke, that the Pope Gregory IV (IV or VII?) made his case that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? It only tells us that even a Pope confirmed my views that the woman was indeed Mary Magdalene. It might be interesting for you to check further on that. **

Firstly - I should have put ‘good’ Jew in quote marks when applied to Jesus. Obviously the New Testament indicates that Jesus did many things - touching corpses and lepers, eating with unwashed hands and associating with sinners - for which He was criticised at the time, and which certainly would’ve made Him look like a ‘bad’ (again in quote marks) Jew to others. To make up such breaches of the law flies in the face of logic, it would turn off most potential Jewish converts and certainly Gentiles would not care either way.

I find your whole train of thought incredibly disturbing. Fact is Mary was exposed to this censure precisely BECAUSE Jesus didn’t (by your logic) put an end to that censure by stating that she was His wife. If He had stated (verbally, it doesn’t need a gesture) that they were married, it would have stopped the critics dead much more effectively than what He did say.

I’m sure good Jewish wives and husbands don’t necessarily make a habit of touching in public - most married couples of most religious persuasions are the same.

But to not even verbally state that the woman is your wife when she is criticised for making a public gesture of affection - is a verbal statement not permissible? Even when, as in this case, it would’ve SAVED the wife from censure? Sounds illogical, twistedly unloving and lacking in righteous concern for one’s God-given spouse.

The whole thing flies in the face of the scriptural idea of marriage. It spits in the eye of the scriptural injunction for husband and wife to cleave to each other and become one flesh. I would, I could, no more fail to acknowledge my spouse, whatever they did, as my spouse - flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone - than I’d fail to acknowledge my right hand or my left foot.

Your later comments also directly contradict your earlier comments that not only is public affection between husband and wife ‘beautiful and natural’ (you used those or similar words) but that you get great enjoyment out of watching it yourself. If this is the case, then what was there about what Mary’s ‘beautiful and natural’ gesture that wouldn’t lead Jesus to either lovingly reciprocate, or at least verbally tell the other guests so that they too could enjoy it for what it was rather than thinking it was something inappropriate? Something that is beautiful and natural cannot be at the same time, as your later comments indicate, something to be avoided and disowned.

 

[adstrinity]

Firstly - I should have put ‘good’ Jew in quote marks when applied to Jesus. Obviously the New Testament indicates that Jesus did many things - touching corpses and lepers, eating with unwashed hands and associating with sinners - for which He was criticised at the time, and which certainly would’ve made Him look like a ‘bad’ (again in quote marks) Jew to others. To make up such breaches of the law flies in the face of logic, it would turn off most potential Jewish converts and certainly Gentiles would not care either way.

I find your whole train of thought incredibly disturbing. Fact is Mary was exposed to this censure precisely BECAUSE Jesus didn’t (by your logic) put an end to that censure by stating that she was His wife. If He had stated (verbally, it doesn’t need a gesture) that they were married, it would have stopped the critics dead much more effectively than what He did say.

I’m sure good Jewish wives and husbands don’t necessarily make a habit of touching in public - most married couples of most religious persuasions are the same.

But to not even verbally state that the woman is your wife when she is criticised for making a public gesture of affection - is a verbal statement not permissible? Even when, as in this case, it would’ve SAVED the wife from censure? Sounds illogical, twistedly unloving and lacking in righteous concern for one’s God-given spouse.

The whole thing flies in the face of the scriptural idea of marriage. It spits in the eye of the scriptural injunction for husband and wife to cleave to each other and become one flesh. I would, I could, no more fail to acknowledge my spouse, whatever they did, as my spouse - flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone - than I’d fail to acknowledge my right hand or my left foot.

Your later comments also directly contradict your earlier comments that not only is public affection between husband and wife ‘beautiful and natural’ (you used those or similar words) but that you get great enjoyment out of watching it yourself. If this is the case, then what was there about what Mary’s ‘beautiful and natural’ gesture that wouldn’t lead Jesus to either lovingly reciprocate, or at least verbally tell the other guests so that they too could enjoy it for what it was rather than thinking it was something inappropriate? Something that is beautiful and natural cannot be at the same time, as your later comments indicate, something to be avoided and disowned.

The man isn’t making sense. I pointed out through the Bible how he was wrong and he couldn’t come up with anything to prove what he initially stated. I thought he was on to something, but, when I checked it out (not to mention that it was two different cases and two different Mary’s who annointed his feet), I realized how rediculous this was. And, he couldn’t even contradict what the Bible said or at least put it in context. His whole argument (this time) fails.