Behold, It Was Leah!

[BRIT72]

**Please read as follows:

But they killed him not, Nor did they kill him on the cross, but so it was made to appear to them, (that he had died on the cross.)**

Crucifixion means to kill on the cross, not to just put up a person on the cross. Please consider. Jesus was put up for Crucifixion. But due to infinite Mercy of the Lord (God) he survived the ordeal of the cross. Quite a miracle for the sake of Jesus. Quran says that. But you may believe as you like. There is no compulsion.

That is a lie from satan himself. You are speaking, but satan is giving you the words.
The Lord Jesus Christ gave up the Ghost, himself, he was in control, he gave his own life.
The thing’s they did to him before the cross, it’s a miracle that he survived long enough to be crucified.
When they came to break the legs of the Lord and the two who were crucified with him, the Lord Jesus was already dead, so they they pierced his side.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. John 19:30-37.

Wow, God is amasing. I was just reading through my post and it’s great how the Lord reveals Scripture to you. You can read over thing’s so many times and you don’t see it and then bam, it hits you.
John was at the cross.

 

[ralphinal]

**Please read as follows:

But they killed him not, Nor did they kill him on the cross, but so it was made to appear to them, (that he had died on the cross.)**

Crucifixion means to kill on the cross, not to just put up a person on the cross. Please consider. Jesus was put up for Crucifixion. But due to infinite Mercy of the Lord (God) he survived the ordeal of the cross. Quite a miracle for the sake of Jesus. Quran says that. But you may believe as you like. There is no compulsion.

Wrong again, Planten.

To Crucify someone is to affix them to a cross. They do not have to die from it to have been crucified. Usually, they die from it, but it is not a requirement for them to have been crucified.

Even Muhammed knew that. That is why the two things are separate. He is saying that they did not kill him and that they did not hang him from the Cross.

And please stop insulting us with the no compulsion line. Either totally remove the teaching of the non-believers tax and death to apostates and make it no compusion or admit that Islam will try to force people to believe. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[guanophore]

That is a lie from satan himself. You are speaking, but satan is giving you the words.

Brit, this sort of expression is not conducive to good dialogue. You are on the non-Catholic Religions section of the Board. The purpose of this section is to charitably compare and contrast beliefs. I think Planten is a Muslim, so of course he is not going to share your perceptions of religion. If you wish to have dialogue with him, then it is necessary for you to do so charitably and respectfully.

When they came to break the legs of the Lord and the two who were crucified with him, the Lord Jesus was already dead, so they they pierced his side.

As far as I can tell, many Muslims on this site believe that Jesus survived the crucifixion and later travelled to India with His mother. I am not sure if this is in the koran, or if it comes from somewhere else, but I can assure you that they do not believe the way Christians do about the crucifixion and death of Christ.

Wow, God is amasing. I was just reading through my post and it's great how the Lord reveals Scripture to you. You can read over thing's so many times and you don't see it and then bam, it hits you.

John was at the cross.

Glad you are willing to grow in the unchanging teaching of the Catholic hurch.

 

[Ben_Masada]

He is the Lord of the Sabbath.

We all are. We can do whatever we want with the Sabbath. And not only with the Sabbath. Any other commandment. But I know what you mean. And for what you mean, there is no place in Judaism. Jesus was Jewish and not a Greek fella.

 

[Lapell]

Now, for half of seven, but as worthy as 14, Jesus spent in the company of his beloved, whom he dispensed so much love and was dispensed perhaps even more in return, he went afterwards to the cross, and in the height of his torments, as he opened his agonizing
eyes to look around, Behold, it was John, who had made to be the beloved disciple.

There is a huge difference here though. In Paddan Aram, Jacob was the only one
cheated by Laban. On the Calvary, the one cheated was Christianity by the Church. Thanks to Mark 14:50, ALL the disciples had fled to hide themselves behind locked doors for fear that the Romans would come for them too.

Therefore, Love had prevailed, because the real beloved disciple was the one there at locked arms with Jesus’ mother, crying before the cross.

The reason for Laban to cheat on Jacob was a stupid pagan law. What was the reason for the Church to cheat on Christianity? Why would the Church replace Mary Magdalene with John as Jesus’ beloved disciple, her history of prior to meeting Jesus or the Pauline attitude with regards to women?

“A man is better off having no relation with a a woman.” And “If you are free of a wife, do not go in search of one.” (I Cor. 7:1,27)

In “Behold, it was Leah,” only one man was misled into believing he was having Rachel. In “Behold, it was John,” millions today have become unable to acknowledge that Jesus could have loved Mary.

If we think that Laban was cruel, the attrocities of the Church started at the Calvary.

Ben

Really, Ben! You took the thing about John “replacing” Mary of Magdala somewhere in OUR time, didn’t you? Or from a few CENTURIES after Jesus’ time at best (for you). The Gospel according to Mary Magdalene is simply a phoney! Like the lad who tried to make believe that he found a tomb of James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph. Some people still talk about it as though it were authentic when it was proved to be a phoney: the inscription dated from a really more recent time!
Moreover, you should be careful about your accusations. Where in the NT is it said that the Jews should be eliminated? NOWHERE!!! In fact, Paul said something very good about the Jews in the letter he wrote to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11. Read them!

 

[Lapell]

We all are. We can do whatever we want with the Sabbath. And not only with the Sabbath. Any other commandment. But I know what you mean. And for what you mean, there is no place in Judaism. Jesus was Jewish and not a Greek fella.

And our God is not Greek, He is… God! Not gods like in Greece or in the Roman Empire who were fighting against one another and were indeed too human as their worst in their conduct to be seriously considered anything other than idols, while the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit fully agree with one another and are truly ONE in everything the three persons do together. E-VE-RY-THING! How unusual! How unheard of!
So unlike the gods of the Greek mythology you are so found to have our God Holy Trinity be part of…
So you can do whatever you want with the Sabbath? And you mean to say you’re not an atheist Jew?

 

[Ben_Masada]

And our God is not Greek, He is… God! Not gods like in Greece or in the Roman Empire who were fighting against one another and were indeed too human as their worst in their conduct to be seriously considered anything other than idols, while the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit fully agree with one another and are truly ONE in everything the three persons do together. E-VE-RY-THING! How unusual! How unheard of!
So unlike the gods of the Greek mythology you are so found to have our God Holy Trinity be part of…
So you can do whatever you want with the Sabbath? And you mean to say you’re not an atheist Jew?

**We are talking about Judaism, have you forgotten? According to Judaism, God is absolutely One and incorporeal at that. There is no such a thing as Trinity or three persons. Why don’t leave that with Christianity which is Hellenistic? You are interfering with Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus.

Regarding doing whatever I want with the Sabbath, it has nothing to do with being Atheist, but everything to do with freewill, which is a Divine attribute granted to humans. That’s what Jesus meant by “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” It means we can do whatever we want with the Sabbath. I choose to observe the Sabbath, Paul chose to consider it as a shadow of things to come, you chose to change it for Sunday. What’s the big deal now? It has been so since the New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31) We no long obey the Law for fear to be condemned; but because we wish to be loyal to God.**

 

[josie_L]

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.

No, just a confused one.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Really, Ben! You took the thing about John “replacing” Mary of Magdala somewhere in OUR time, didn’t you? Or from a few CENTURIES after Jesus’ time at best (for you). The Gospel according to Mary Magdalene is simply a phoney! Like the lad who tried to make believe that he found a tomb of James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph. Some people still talk about it as though it were authentic when it was proved to be a phoney: the inscription dated from a really more recent time!
Moreover, you should be careful about your accusations. Where in the NT is it said that the Jews should be eliminated? NOWHERE!!! In fact, Paul said something very good about the Jews in the letter he wrote to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11. Read them!

First of all, show me where I said that’s written in the NT to eliminate the Jews. So, you should be careful not to accuse without evidences. Besides if what I say is proved phoney, you might as well burn your own NT, because all I say here comes from the NT.

 

[Gia_B]

I think that we’re overlooking a very important part of this: the part where Jesus places his mother in beloved disciple’s care. In that time and place, a woman was to supposed to be looked after by a man for her entire life. It was usually a relative, but her son’s buddy would do if she didn’t have any other relatives. Considering this, wouldn’t it make more sense for the beloved disciple to be John and not Mary Magdalene?

 

[Ben_Masada]

I think that we’re overlooking a very important part of this: the part where Jesus places his mother in beloved disciple’s care. In that time and place, a woman was to supposed to be looked after by a man for her entire life. It was usually a relative, but her son’s buddy would do if she didn’t have any other relatives. Considering this, wouldn’t it make more sense for the beloved disciple to be John and not Mary Magdalene?

Thank you for helping my cause. By reminding us of the other children of Mary, Jesus would never set Mary under the tutelage of John. Second, it was a Roman police to arrest the head of any private group in the provinces and crucify him so that the disciples would disperse. And if any of the disciples was seen in the immediacies of the Calvary he would be arrested too. Third, as a matter of Jewish decorum, a religious Jew would never recommend his mother to be taken care by a male disciple. Fourth, John was never Jesus’ beloved disciple. Jesus loved them all equally. The truth of the matter is that Jesus’ beloved disciple according to Judaism and according to Logic was his own wife Mary Magdalene, who would accompany Jesus almost everywhere. The matter of fact, was that, as Jesus saw his mother with his wife before the cross he recommended each other to each other. There is no other way to look at this issue but as a Church conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene.

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you for helping my cause. By reminding us of the other children of Mary, Jesus would never set Mary under the tutelage of John. Second, it was a Roman police to arrest the head of any private group in the provinces and crucify him so that the disciples would disperse. And if any of the disciples was seen in the immediacies of the Calvary he would be arrested too. Third, as a matter of Jewish decorum, a religious Jew would never recommend his mother to be taken care by a male disciple. Fourth, John was never Jesus’ beloved disciple. Jesus loved them all equally. The truth of the matter is that Jesus’ beloved disciple according to Judaism and according to Logic was his own wife Mary Magdalene, who would accompany Jesus almost everywhere. The matter of fact, was that, as Jesus saw his mother with his wife before the cross he recommended each other to each other. There is no other way to look at this issue but as a Church conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene.

First, you cannot prove that Mary had other Children. None of them are called such in the bible.

Second, and I asked this before, why would the Church hid Jesus’s marriage?

 

[Ben_Masada]

First, you cannot prove that Mary had other Children. None of them are called such in the bible.

Second, and I asked this before, why would the Church hid Jesus’s marriage?

**I have explained this before but here’s again: The Church, and with reason, would never be able to deal with God having had a wife and probably biological children on earth, while He was here in the flesh of Jesus. So, the conspiracy was to do all they could to erase any possibility that such a marriage could ever be proved as a fact. But they failed because they missed to realize that they were dealing with Jews and not Greeks.

Now, with regards to the brothers of Jesus, are you going to prove to me that they were sons of Joseph and not of the two: Joseph and Mary? God ahead, I am all ears. If you cana’t, you have lost all the right to ask me to prove that they were not children of both, Joseph and Mary.**

 

[josie_L]

**I have explained this before but here’s again: The Church, and with reason, would never be able to deal with God having had a wife and probably biological children on earth, while He was here in the flesh of Jesus. So, the conspiracy was to do all they could to erase any possibility that such a marriage could ever be proved as a fact. But they failed because they missed to realize that they were dealing with Jews and not Greeks.

Now, with regards to the brothers of Jesus, are you going to prove to me that they were sons of Joseph and not of the two: Joseph and Mary? God ahead, I am all ears. If you cana’t, you have lost all the right to ask me to prove that they were not children of both, Joseph and Mary.**

Firstly, we have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts written in various languages, like greek, latin, aramaic . . . etc., and yet none of these manuscripts have anything alluding to the supposed marriage of Jesus. Scholars who have verified and studied said manuscripts have only found minute textual variants.

Secondly, even if Jesus were married and had children, what exact reason would the CC have in hiding this, if God being God can do whatever He pleases. Needless to say, whether single or married Jesus is still God.

Thirdly, "in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, as they were spoken at the time of Christ, there was no word for cousin or uncle or some other close relative. All close relatives were referred to simply as “brother” or “sister’. Note as well that at the “Finding in the Temple” episode of the Gospel (cf. Luke 2: 41-51) no “other chidren” of Mary and Joseph are mentioned, only Christ. If there had been other children in the Holy Family, it’s reasonable to assume they would have been mentioned here. The fact that no other “sons or daughters” were even alluded to here, is a strong indication that there were no others. Also, Scripture only refers to Christ as “the” son of Mary, but never as “a” son of Mary, which we would expect if there were other “sons” of Mary. In Matthew 13: 55-56 mentioned four men as the “brothers of the Lord”: James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. However, at least two of these men were not sons of Mary (the mother of Jesus), but were sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas (cf. Matt 27:56, John 19:25).”

 

[Gia_B]

Thank you for helping my cause.

I doubt that you even got my point.

By reminding us of the other children of Mary, Jesus would never set Mary under the tutelage of John.

The part where Jesus puts his Mother in the care of a non-relative in no way shows that she had other children, In fact, it strongly indicates that she didn’t.

Second, it was a Roman police to arrest the head of any private group in the provinces and crucify him so that the disciples would disperse. And if any of the disciples was seen in the immediacies of the Calvary he would be arrested too.

That has nothing to do with my point. Besides, if they were arresting all disciples and Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple (as you erroneously claim) then wouldn’t she be arrested too?

Third, as a matter of Jewish decorum, a religious Jew would never recommend his mother to be taken care by a male disciple.Fourth, John was never Jesus’ beloved disciple. Jesus loved them all equally. The truth of the matter is that Jesus’ beloved disciple according to Judaism and according to Logic was his own wife Mary Magdalene, who would accompany Jesus almost everywhere. The matter of fact, was that, as Jesus saw his mother with his wife before the cross he recommended each other to each other. There is no other way to look at this issue but as a Church conspiracy to hide the truth about Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene.

So it would be wrong for Mary to be looked after by a man she was asked to think of like a son, but it’s perfectly okay for two women to live together without a man to look after them? Yep. That makes sense.

 

[ralphinal]

**I have explained this before but here’s again: The Church, and with reason, would never be able to deal with God having had a wife and probably biological children on earth, while He was here in the flesh of Jesus. So, the conspiracy was to do all they could to erase any possibility that such a marriage could ever be proved as a fact. But they failed because they missed to realize that they were dealing with Jews and not Greeks. **
Ok. This is the first logical reason that I have ever seen for a “cover up.” That does not make it true…

Now, with regards to the brothers of Jesus, are you going to prove to me that they were sons of Joseph and not of the two: Joseph and Mary? God ahead, I am all ears. If you cana’t, you have lost all the right to ask me to prove that they were not children of both, Joseph and Mary.

Well, since we are loosly using the term “proove” in your threads, Joseph could have been married before, making them children of a previous spouse. In fact, this is the traditional Eastern Orthodox teaching, and dates back to the second century.

This is supported by the fact that the people in question were never once called Mary’s children. They were always called the Brethren of Jesus or Joseph’s.

Point proven.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ok. This is the first logical reason that I have ever seen for a “cover up.” That does not make it true…

Well, since we are loosly using the term “proove” in your threads, Joseph could have been married before, making them children of a previous spouse. In fact, this is the traditional Eastern Orthodox teaching, and dates back to the second century.

This is supported by the fact that the people in question were never once called Mary’s children. They were always called the Brethren of Jesus or Joseph’s.

Point proven.

You are being too hypothetical. “Joseph could have been…”
butters no bread.

 

[Lapell]

The part where Jesus puts his Mother in the care of a non-relative in no way shows that she had other children, In fact, it strongly indicates that she didn’t.

Indeed, it does!

 

[Lapell]

We all are. We can do whatever we want with the Sabbath. And not only with the Sabbath. Any other commandment. But I know what you mean. And for what you mean, there is no place in Judaism. Jesus was Jewish and not a Greek fella.

But it is not because some people, even learned ones, say that Jesus broke the Sabbath that he actually did. And not everything told by the Sages of Israel necessarily was according to the actual commandment by God, some of it were precautions to make sure the commandment is fulfilled, whether they were required from God or not.

 

[Lapell]

But it is not because some people, even learned ones, say that Jesus broke the Sabbath that he actually did. And not everything told by the Sages of Israel necessarily was according to the actual commandment by God, some of it were precautions to make sure the commandment is fulfilled, whether they were required from God or not.

Isn’t this true, Ben?