Behold, It Was Leah!

[Lapell]

**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.**

Are you just talking about Judaism, Ben? You have been refering to Christianity and our belief in the Resurrection of Jesus as Greek Mythology, have you forgotten it already? This is why I posted that post.

 

[cothrige]

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

That is the single funniest thing I have ever read on this, or any, forum. I have to thank you for sharing that.

 

[josie_L]

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

Hey, Ben how bout you reply to my post (#76)?

 

[swariffin]

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.

The Roman crucified Jesus because the Jewish leader wanted it that way. Even the Roman was sure that Jesus being a rebellious leader was a joke. Unfortunately, the majority of Jewish prefer Barabas instead. The error that Pilate paid greatly with his own life in 38AD when Caligula saw the mistake he did. According to the Roman, Barabas should be killed. So, delivering Barabas free instead of Jesus was a conspiracy between the Jewish religious leader and Jewish independence movement. Pilate failed to stop that. The result was : **The destruction of the Jewish temple in 70AD.
**

 

[swariffin]

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.

According to your own posting, Jesus should be 20% Jewish to be exact. If you said Jesus = Judaism you must believe in Jesus 100%.

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada
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

**Thank you Ben Masada for reminding us that jesus had other brothers and sisters. They were not all apostles. I wonder why they were absent from the scene at Calvary?? They were the real brothers of Jesus. If not real then half brothers. Most likely real brothers as they ar mentioned in the bibleNT. Why they were not present?

If they were not real brothers then Mary was their (step) Mother.or She could not be any kind of mother to any one else except Jesus? She was the mother and could only be looked after by some kind of son, not by any unrelated son like John. And why to forget the beloved disciple Mary magdalene??**

 

[simplynoone]

**Thank you Ben Masada for reminding us that jesus had other brothers and sisters. They were not all apostles. I wonder why they were absent from the scene at Calvary?? They were the real brothers of Jesus. If not real then half brothers. Most likely real brothers as they ar mentioned in the bibleNT. Why they were not present?

If they were not real brothers then Mary was their (step) Mother.or She could not be any kind of mother to any one else except Jesus? She was the mother and could only be looked after by some kind of son, not by any unrelated son like John. And why to forget the beloved disciple Mary magdalene??**

The Church thought it was clever to change the words, but not everyone reads using only their eyes. Mary was the beloved disciple being spoken to.

“John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.” <— in other words, it is a plea to “Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.”

 

[josie_L]

The Church thought it was clever to change the words, but not everyone reads using only their eyes. Mary was the beloved disciple being spoken to.

And you’re so sure of this because. . . . you have a time travel machine.

 

[ralphinal]

The Church thought it was clever to change the words, but not everyone reads using only their eyes. Mary was the beloved disciple being spoken to.

“John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.” <— in other words, it is a plea to “Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.”

What does the quote from John the Baptist have to do with John the Beloved Disciple or Mary Magdalene?

 

[Ben_Masada]

**Thank you Ben Masada for reminding us that jesus had other brothers and sisters. They were not all apostles. I wonder why they were absent from the scene at Calvary?? They were the real brothers of Jesus. If not real then half brothers. Most likely real brothers as they ar mentioned in the bibleNT. Why they were not present?

If they were not real brothers then Mary was their (step) Mother.or She could not be any kind of mother to any one else except Jesus? She was the mother and could only be looked after by some kind of son, not by any unrelated son like John. And why to forget the beloved disciple Mary magdalene??**

**IMO, the brothers of Jesus, and I think there was a sister too, they were all children of both parents, Joseph and Mary. They just never got along with Jesus, as Jesus himself once complained that a prophet works no miracle in his own house. This is an expression to mean that family never take each other seriously. This is normal everywhere.

And James, his brother, accepted the position of chairman of the Sect of the Nazarenes because of the Jewish custom that the closest relative of a religious leader was the most legal choice to had the Movement, even if he was not one of the disciples. Like the throne being inherited by the son, even if he was a moron. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

According to your own posting, Jesus should be 20% Jewish to be exact. If you said Jesus = Judaism you must believe in Jesus 100%.

You are trying to outthink me but you have forgotten that I am Jewish and this is impossible. I said that I agree with 20 percent of the NT as true. That Jesus was a religious Jewish man, I agree and am ready to agree 100 percent. Yes, Judaism was the Faith of Jesus 100 percent.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

 

[Lapell]

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.

Where do you read in my post that I said that you said that it’s written in the NT to eliminate the Jews? Now, you have accused the NT writers to stir the people against the Jews (the Jewish people), haven’t you? Which is why I said: “Show me in the NT where they say to eliminate the Jews”. Do you get it now?

 

[Lapell]

Man, you keep going in so many directions that you seem to lose track of some of the things you have said!

 

[simplynoone]

What does the quote from John the Baptist have to do with John the Beloved Disciple or Mary Magdalene?

It means that the Jewish mind can work past that of the Church’s deceit. The Letter of the Law can be tampered with (as it was by Paul), but the Spirit of the Law can not be (and the spirit of the Law is not in the way that Paul taught… the spirit does not abolish any of the Law… the Law stands as is). By the way, it was not John who was the beloved disciple… it was indeed Mary.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Where do you read in my post that I said that you said that it’s written in the NT to eliminate the Jews? Now, you have accused the NT writers to stir the people against the Jews (the Jewish people), haven’t you? Which is why I said: “Show me in the NT where they say to eliminate the Jews”. Do you get it now?

I’ll show you with a Pauline allegory if you are able to read between the lines. Read Galatians 4:21-31. Paul compares the Jewish Covenant with Hagar, Sara’s slave guirl, and the Jews to her son. And he compares his new covenant with Sara, and Christians to Isaac. At the end of the allegory he appeals to the Galatians and Christians of today to cast off the slave girl and son together, because Israel shall never be an heir on equal terms with the son of the one born free. Is this not a message to eliminate the Jewish People from their position of God’s chosen People? Let me see how much you understand of this Replacement Theology.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Man, you keep going in so many directions that you seem to lose track of some of the things you have said!

Remind me where have I changed from the thread. You are the ones who change the subject, and I get carried away to give other replies. The subject is written up at the title. Why don’t you keep yourself at it?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well, my friend, there is an enormous difference between the author and the reader of a book.

 

[ralphinal]

It means that the Jewish mind can work past that of the Church’s deceit. The Letter of the Law can be tampered with (as it was by Paul), but the Spirit of the Law can not be (and the spirit of the Law is not in the way that Paul taught… the spirit does not abolish any of the Law… the Law stands as is). By the way, it was not John who was the beloved disciple… it was indeed Mary.

Oh, so once you became Jewish, you became as smart as Ben?

If the Beloved Disciple is a woman, why is she referred to as he in the Bible? Oh, wait, we changed it.

Why does it say that the Beloved Disciple is the one who testified and wrote it? Oh, wait, we changed that, too.

It is simple: why is it that the stuff you agree with we left alone and the stuff that you do not like we changed?

 

[simplynoone]

If the Beloved Disciple is a woman, why is she referred to as he in the Bible? Oh, wait, we changed it.

Why does it say that the Beloved Disciple is the one who testified and wrote it? Oh, wait, we changed that, too.

It is simple: why is it that the stuff you agree with we left alone and the stuff that you do not like we changed?

I am just trying to make sense of it, that is all. If one accepts it as is, then it is worthless really. Too many fallacies (with even the Law of Nature which is a Law of God) and contradictradictions. So, I obeyed what Isaiah says (which is part of what John said to do) and I went back to the beginning. When I did that, it started to makes sense to me that the NT was not wholly wrong in the case of Jesus, but rather what it is the Church has been teaching. The Church’s view is not natural.

The reason that the beloved disciple is referred to as a he is something that the Church will have to explain to you. I would be interested in knowing what they say when you ask… you will, right?

Why it is that the beloved disciple is the one who testified and wrote it is a matter of perspective that comes from understanding the Laws of God which include that of Nature… it is not natural for a man to Love another man Divinely. Even Christians know this as we testify in their quickness to judge homosexuality as wrong… and yet, they quickly accept it in the case of the New Testament? That is even a bigger mystery to me than what I am choosing to accept.

I do not know what was been tampered with and what all has not been tampered with. All I know is that I can read the gospel of John and see easily that the disciple Jesus loved in such a way as for there to be attention drawn to it is indeed Mary. That is natural… a Love based not only on intimacy and trust but personal knowledge <------ are you really willing to claim that John could be that to Jesus? If so, then homosexuality should cease to be wrong in the eyes of the Church, no?