If the leaders of Christianity ever acknowledge that Jesus was married, it could be a death throb for the Church. Between married priests and Jesus being married is as different a thing from the other as is the North pole from the Southern one.I may get attacked by saying this, and if I do, it is worth it. This is one of the most closely guarded secrets of Catholicism…Get ready, read fast for this thread will not be on here long…
There is no logical reason for the Church to hide the fact that Jesus was married!!!
There it is!!!
The EO Church allows married priests, and Rome did as well for centuries!!!
That is right. This is not covered up because of the celebate priest issue…
**Who told you that John stopped flying? Are you referring to that young man of Mark 14:51,52? It doesn’t say it was John. And where is it written that John was before the cross on the Calvary. The disciple whom Jesus loved was Mary Magdalene. This is a special love and different from the love of Jesus for the disciples. He loved them all equally. To declare that he loved John in a special way, only serves to cause rolling eyes. No wonder homosexuals cut the whole issue short by saying that Jesus was a homosexual, as I have heard it many times. And do you know who are to blame? Not them but Christians with their paranoia that Jesus could not be married.You are ignoring the obvious point. In Mark 14.50 all the disciples fled. Okay, that is clear. However, where is St. Peter in Mark 14.66? He is in the court below the trial. He obviously stopped his flight by this time. What you are doing is assuming that the disciples having fled means that they did so continuously until after the crucifixion. Where is that even implied in Mark 14.50? They fled, but then they stopped fleeing, and St. John clearly did so in time to be at the crucifixion as the scriptures clearly attest.
Another problem with your understanding is that it is self-contradicting. You are saying that St. Mary Magdalen is the beloved disciple, and she was at the crucifixion and not St. John. Why? Because all the disciples fled, and were not there. However, you are saying that she is the beloved disciple, which means she fled too. So, if St. John was not there, then neither could St. Mary Magdalen have been.
**Ben, please make it clear what ralphinal is trying to say. I could not understand fully. There is something about the marriage of priests and about the marraige of Jesus. You have also commented. But please be explicit what is implied and what is the important news. Thanks.If the leaders of Christianity ever acknowledge that Jesus was married, it could be a death throb for the Church. Between married priests and Jesus being married is as different a thing from the other as is the North pole from the Southern one.
No, I am working on your declaration that the Evangelist is referring to himself throughout the gospel.I don’t recall that the person who anointed our Lord’s feet being described as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Is that what you are suggesting?
Who needed to? Or are you suggesting that he fled until he died? It seems self-evident that he stopped fleeing. The question is when. You insist that he didn’t stop until after the crucifixion, though you don’t say why. And the obvious problem is that if St. Mary Magdalen were really the beloved disciple, she couldn’t be there any more than could St. John. They were both disciples, and both would have to have fled.Who told you that John stopped flying?
No, I am not suggesting that. What would that prove. That was during the fleeing. And I am aware of nothing to indicate that the young man in that verse is St. John.Are you referring to that young man of Mark 14:51,52? It doesn’t say it was John.
The beloved disciple was there. That person definitely wasn’t Mary Magdalen. So, whatever you are trying to prove is obviously ruled out. Whether it is specifically St. John, as is traditionally upheld, or another disciple is not really a big deal anyway. Remember, I am not trying to make a case about the beloved disciple, you are.And where is it written that John was before the cross on the Calvary.
Impossible. John 20.2 demonstrates this. Also John 19.27 speaks of the beloved disciple as male. St. Mary Magdalen is clearly ruled out.The disciple whom Jesus loved was Mary Magdalene.
If he loved all the disciples equally, then how could the beloved disciple, who is a disciple, be loved more?This is a special love and different from the love of Jesus for the disciples. He loved them all equally.
Sorry, but it is not paranoia. It is merely an acceptance of the scriptures. They say that the beloved disciple is a male, and that is that. If that makes you uncomfortable for some reason, I really don’t know how to help you.To declare that he loved John in a special way, only serves to cause rolling eyes. No wonder homosexuals cut the whole issue short by saying that Jesus was a homosexual, as I have heard it many times. And do you know who are to blame? Not them but Christians with their paranoia that Jesus could not be married.
So? He fled again. But, he stopped fleeing, and that was before the crucifixion. Your theory is entirely founded on a presumption that the disciples had to flee until after the crucifixion, and that is simply not true. They fled, and then at some point they stopped. That is simply fact. If one stopped during the trial, and another stopped at the crucifixion, so be it. But, they did stop at some point. Just as absurd you claim that a disciple couldn’t be at the crucifixion because they fled, and yet you still insist that the beloved disciple was there. Either the disciples all fled, or they didn’t. You can’t have it both ways.And you also mention Peter. How was he in the courtyard of the High Priest’s palace? Camouflaged. It’s only obvious that as soon as he realized he was about to be identified, he continued his flying to join the others.
Ben,If the leaders of Christianity ever acknowledge that Jesus was married, it could be a death throb for the Church. Between married priests and Jesus being married is as different a thing from the other as is the North pole from the Southern one.
Ben, please make it clear what ralphinal is trying to say. I could not understand fully. There is something about the marriage of priests and about the marraige of Jesus. You have also commented. But please be explicit what is implied and what is the important news. Thanks.
Some of the people who teach this stuff about Jesus being married say that the Church removed it to justify celebate priests. This is not possible, as clebacy is not nearly as old as the Church, and not dogmatic. In other words, some people say that if JEsus was married, the Church would have to allow for married priests, so the Church took that out of the Bible.
The parts of JEsus’s life which are not listed in the Bible are not important for salvation. No miracles were performed and nothing was taught publically. So, if we take it in your direction, it means that if JEsus was married in that time, then it is not important for salvation. Therefore, marriage is not important for salvation. That means that your position that Muhammed taught that marriage is important is false. You have just shown us that Muhammed is a false prophet. Thanks!I have always been worried about the first thirty (30) years of the life of Jesus which is not been made public by the church. Why is that? He could have been married during that early life time and Mary Magd may be the second wife.
I even underlined it in post #18, John 21:24. Here, I’ll do it again:No, I am working on your declaration that the Evangelist is referring to himself throughout the gospel.
**This is that disciple **who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things
Here. Stop cherry-picking and read for comprehension.And where is it written that John was before the cross on the Calvary.
John 19:25-27
25Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.
**Ralph, please see that there is only two words “son” and “his” in the three verses of John 19 that supports the disciple to be male. otherwise all words point to Mary Magd too. See below:In John 19, if Jesus is speaking to Mary Magdalene, it means he called her a man.
Ooops. Crucifixions are tough on a brother…
Alright. We are told by some that this is what we should believe:**Ralph, please see that there is only two words “son” and “his” in the three verses of John 19 that supports the disciple to be male. otherwise all words point to Mary Magd too. See below:
John 19:25-27
25Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his **own household.
Could we read it as follows:
John 19:25-27
25Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into her own household.
Could we not read it as follows:“There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet”
There, I think that clarifies things a bit.“There is no God but Allah, and Jesus is his Son.”
At the rate the debate is going, if at all it merits that, I don’t blame you. You can’t have intelligent argument with these people. To joint in would, yes, it will bring your IQ down even further.My IQ is still dropping…
Alright. We are told by some that this is what we should believe:
Could we not read it as follows:
cothridge, you could say that if Jesus had taught you that. But he did not do. So it is too late now. You have no authority to invent a slogan.“There is no God but Allah, and Jesus is his Son.”
Since when Judaism = Jesus? Jesus was against those Pharisees and even purposedly broke the Sabbath rule. Is that what you call as a good Judaism? In this thread you lick your own words. Remember you always said that the followers of Jesus and the Jewish were at peace. Now, you acknowledge that the followers of Jesus were afraid of the Jews.Was there ever an alliance between Isaac and Ishmael? A reprieve is more likely. Besides, I am not an angry Jew, but a champion for the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.
I think you are the reincarnation of a roman soldier who was there, are you not? What makes you think there was a rule that a disciple could not be there?**
It is sure that John, if he was a disciple, could never be present at the sight of the Crucifixion. But a wife could be present, and the mother too. Nobody could stop them.
**
Your post #4 is the beginning of that. But, that is OK. I would rather see you live peacefully with your surrounding muslims, rather than hearing my fellow muslims in Indonesia chanting for your death, for your actions against your muslim neighbors.Was there ever an alliance between Isaac and Ishmael? A reprieve is more likely. Besides, I am not an angry Jew, but a champion for the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.
The problem is Jewish logic is Illogical to the Christians and to the Muslims as well.**You did not understand the thread. Jesus’ beloved disciple could not be John in spite of all the other disciples. Jesus loved all the disciples equally. How was John special to draw that title of beloved. Only Mary qualified. Sometimes a little logic helps a lot.
Then, you say that she ran and told herself. Let me ask you what did she tell and to whom? The answer is in Luke 24:1-11. She was together with some other women who told the Apostles that Jesus had resurrected. Do you remember the reaction of the disciples? They considered their report nonsense and an idle tale. Do you know why? Because they had never heard from the lips of Jesus about such a thing. There is no way to see their reaction to the tale of the women.
Ben**
Remember, Planten, Ishmael was an illegitimate son of Abraham.**All that shows that Ralph and company do not read the scripture. I knew that Ishmael the elder brother of Issac was with Issac when Abraham died. Both brothers buried Abraham together. But Ralph says:
I am not sure that Isaac and Ishmael ever met as adults…in fact, Isaac may not have remmembered him at all **
Otherwise too, even if Sarai wished that Ishmael should not inherit (land) with Issac. That I feel is a blame on that good lady. There was plenty of land to share. No shortage of any land. Both the brothers were blessed by God. The Father looked after the land matter very wisely. He settled both brothers, Ishmael and Issac, far apart in different lands. That was very wise of him.
There was no dispute or disagreement. They were all good people, loving God Almighty. All well set in service of God.
The Catholics may not be disturbed by a Muslim supporting a Jew or a christian. I need not oppose the truth. That I do not. So catholics can relax.