Behold, It Was Leah!

[Ben_Masada]

Of course, I expect you to understand what I mean when I say that we have written the Bible. We wrote the Bible; not the NT. The NT is not a Jewish Bible, but Christian, whose authors were not Jewish.

 

[ralphinal]

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?
No need to ask, the Church has always thaught the Beloved Disciple to be John.

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.

Really? Jesus called us to love each other as we love ourselves.

Tell me this, was David in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan?

 

[josie_L]

josie L;5127117:

**And I don’t need any of those thousands of manuscripts as long as I have the NT and the fact that Jesus was a religious Jew. That’s enough. **

You can read the NT all you want but you do not understand what you read, and Jesus was a religious Jew to an extent.

.I have well explained about this in my post above.

There is no proof that you have other than your own fervent imagination.

What were you thinking when you wrote the above? You simply confirmed my point that Jesus was son of both Joseph and Mary. So, Jesus is mentioned as a child of Mary and Joseph. I guess your fingers have betrayed your mind, because I am sure you are not mature enough to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed a child of Joseph and Mary.

Joseph was the foster father of Jesus, obviously, others were not aware of this (except the Apostles) as everyone believed him to be the natural father. He had to protect Mary afterall.

**You have all the right in the world to believe what you please, but IMO, the other four children were also children of Mary and I don’t
see any stain of dishonor upon her for that. Much dishonor is to say that her son Jesus did not have Joseph as his biological father. Since he was Jewish and there is no such a thing as a demigod in Judaism, the Agnostics are only too ready to assign a Roman soldier to him for a father. And that’s terribly unfair to Mary and Joseph. **

In other words you don’t have an argument for pretty much anything you say as all of it is speculation. And that you think we are dishonouring Mary when she is known to Catholics and Orthodox alike as the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and her Saintly Husband as “Protector of the Church” is ridiculous and logically immature of you.

 

[josie_L]

This is how I feel after reading one of his posts :whacky:

 

[simplynoone]

No need to ask, the Church has always thaught the Beloved Disciple to be John.

Really? Jesus called us to love each other as we love ourselves.

Tell me this, was David in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan?

What you are referring to of David is speaking allegorically… it is in regards to the spirit of David. Saul was corrupt, but, the child birthed from Saul, Jonathan was not was not corrupt. It is a reference the spirit of David being eternally on the throne of Israel and part of how to understand the NT. Now, if you want to view the book of John as allegory too, we can do so. This I am not scared to do in the least. Otherwise, the beloved disciple being spoken to is Mary.

It was said that a man is to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. This is a command of God. It is a natural thing… well, to some of us anyway. Thus, obeying the command to set Gods paths straight, I can use this natural command to read what is really being said beyond the words in John.

 

[ralphinal]

What you are referring to of David is speaking allegorically… it is in regards to the spirit of David. Saul was corrupt, but, the child birthed from Saul, Jonathan was not was not corrupt. It is a reference the spirit of David being eternally on the throne of Israel and part of how to understand the NT. Now, if you want to view the book of John as allegory too, we can do so. This I am not scared to do in the least. Otherwise, the beloved disciple being spoken to is Mary.

It was said that a man is to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. This is a command of God. It is a natural thing… well, to some of us anyway. Thus, obeying the command to set Gods paths straight, I can use this natural command to read what is really being said beyond the words in John.

Jesus also said it was blessed to choose to be a unich for the sake of the Kingdom of God. That would mean that he never married, too.

 

[simplynoone]

Jesus also said it was blessed to choose to be a unich for the sake of the Kingdom of God. That would mean that he never married, too.

Jesus was right in the sense that he was speaking of. You are thinking physically… and it is actually speaking physically and spiritually… and this is understood by understanding the Jewish traditions and what was being done in the time of Jesus.

What he was NOT saying is “it is blessed to not have a wife.” He was saying something much more profound. I suppose there is a reason that Isaiah was so adament about the end being declared from the beginning… or do you think that Isaiah was wrong in THAT regard as well?

 

[ralphinal]

Jesus was right in the sense that he was speaking of. You are thinking physically… and it is actually speaking physically and spiritually… and this is understood by understanding the Jewish traditions and what was being done in the time of Jesus.

What he was NOT saying is “it is blessed to not have a wife.” He was saying something much more profound. I suppose there is a reason that Isaiah was so adament about the end being declared from the beginning… or do you think that Isaiah was wrong in THAT regard as well?

No, he was right. However, that does not mean that anyone else is.

Now, why would Jesus not be saying that someone who dedicates their entire life to God, so much so that they cannot serve God and a spouse?

 

[simplynoone]

No, he was right. However, that does not mean that anyone else is.

Now, why would Jesus not be saying that someone who dedicates their entire life to God, so much so that they cannot serve God and a spouse?

Because, the MOST Divine commandment a Creator could give to His creation is for a man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife… in this way, creation continues. Sex is not unnatural, but is VERY natural and is quite important. In the case of Jesus and Mary, it could even serve a great purpose down the line of time. Therefore, knowing the way the Creator works, He would consider it a dedication to Him to obey that Divine command. It is not God that the Church is worshiping… it is their own vain ideas of God. God is the originator of thought and thus, a thought that focuses on Him only as to not create any new thoughts is worthless to His enjoyment… there is nothing new learned in focusing on God as though He were a man. To focus on each other and the reactions is to see creation happening before one’s own eyes. There is much to be learned here in this command for a man to cleave to his wife. To do this, we are serving God. To focus on Him in the sense that the Church has taught is really only to focus on our own ideas of Him… pointless; truly a waste of creation.

 

[ralphinal]

Because, the MOST Divine commandment a Creator could give to His creation is for a man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife… in this way, creation continues. Sex is not unnatural, but is VERY natural and is quite important. In the case of Jesus and Mary, it could even serve a great purpose down the line of time. Therefore, knowing the way the Creator works, He would consider it a dedication to Him to obey that Divine command. It is not God that the Church is worshiping… it is their own vain ideas of God. God is the originator of thought and thus, a thought that focuses on Him only as to not create any new thoughts is worthless to His enjoyment… there is nothing new learned in focusing on God as though He were a man. To focus on each other and the reactions is to see creation happening before one’s own eyes. There is much to be learned here in this command for a man to cleave to his wife. To do this, we are serving God. To focus on Him in the sense that the Church has taught is really only to focus on our own ideas of Him… pointless; truly a waste of creation.

So, if someone never falls in love and marries, their existance was pointless and they failed serving God?

 

[simplynoone]

So, if someone never falls in love and marries, their existance was pointless and they failed serving God?

Well, if the first man and woman had not obeyed that urge to rather focus on what they could get out of God, we’d not be having this discussion now, would we?

 

[ralphinal]

Well, if the first man and woman had not obeyed that urge to rather focus on what they could get out of God, we’d not be having this discussion now, would we?

Not the question.

If a person never falls in love and marries, are they a failure in God’s eyes? Is their life pointless? Are they in a state of sin?

 

[simplynoone]

Not the question.

If a person never falls in love and marries, are they a failure in God’s eyes? Is their life pointless? Are they in a state of sin?

No, but that is because they are not Chosen. Jesus would have been in sin had he not been married. His purpose and his religion depended on his obeying this Divine command.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5135691:

In other words you don’t have an argument for pretty much anything you say as all of it is speculation. And that you think we are dishonouring Mary when she is known to Catholics and Orthodox alike as the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and her Saintly Husband as “Protector of the Church” is ridiculous and logically immature of you.

**You know we are talking about a Jewish family and Judaism. And you know that there is no such a thing as Hellenistic Mythology in Judaism.
What’s the use of paying a lip-service to Mary as the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and to deny that her son had a Jewish father? This is pure hypocrisy. **

 

[ralphinal]

No, but that is because they are not Chosen. Jesus would have been in sin had he not been married. His purpose and his religion depended on his obeying this Divine command.

And that presupposes a connection that has not been established. Jesus came to suffer, die, and rise again, after teaching us about the new relationship with God.

Tell me, who was Elijah’s wife? Elisha’s?

 

[simplynoone]

And that presupposes a connection that has not been established. Jesus came to suffer, die, and rise again, after teaching us about the new relationship with God.

Tell me, who was Elijah’s wife? Elisha’s?

Ignorance is not a charming quality, you know. Read Malachi 4 and perhaps, if you humble yourself enough, you will understand that this is a spirit being spoken of (though, not in the mystical view that the Church holds to… you know, where angels are godfairies to grant your wishes and satan is an actual boogie man out to grab the souls of your children). Reading the actual accounts also might help. God said the end is declared from the beginning.

Some interesting points to take note of when you read (on your own) the accounts:

1. the great sacrifice stand off … and sure enough before the eyes, God lights the fire himself after 2,000 years of the Church calling on their gods.
2. the story of elisha calling a curse on the children and the bears consuming them.

See, the Tanakh is not an OLD testament… it is NOW. The end from the beginning. Gotta love that kind of brilliance, no?

 

[josie_L]

josie L;5140187:

**You know we are talking about a Jewish family and Judaism. And you know that there is no such a thing as Hellenistic Mythology in Judaism.
What’s the use of paying a lip-service to Mary as the “Blessed Virgin Mary” and to deny that her son had a Jewish father? This is pure hypocrisy. **

A Jewish family now under the new covenant of the long awaited Messiah, Jesus. It’s there in the Bible. Read it.

 

[ralphinal]

Ignorance is not a charming quality, you know. Read Malachi 4 and perhaps, if you humble yourself enough, you will understand that this is a spirit being spoken of (though, not in the mystical view that the Church holds to… you know, where angels are godfairies to grant your wishes and satan is an actual boogie man out to grab the souls of your children). Reading the actual accounts also might help. God said the end is declared from the beginning.

Some interesting points to take note of when you read (on your own) the accounts:

1. the great sacrifice stand off … and sure enough before the eyes, God lights the fire himself after 2,000 years of the Church calling on their gods.
2. the story of elisha calling a curse on the children and the bears consuming them.

See, the Tanakh is not an OLD testament… it is NOW. The end from the beginning. Gotta love that kind of brilliance, no?

Again, who were the wives of those prophets?

 

[simplynoone]

Again, who were the wives of those prophets?

These are allegory, else Malachi 4 would not say that God is sending Elijah. Since when a person dies, they are dead, these are allegorically speaking of what to look for in the way of prophecy. An allegory does not take away the facts of what has and will happen, it just makes it a book of Life rather than death… that means, applicable to now, rather than down the road. After all, we have been waiting on Chrstianity’s god to answer the call for how long now? Elijah did give adequate time to allow the false gods to answer.

Ha! I just noticed the comment above yours. Proof enough, eh? the LONG awaited Messiah… if anyone has paid attention to the prophecies, it would not be surprising that the Jewish Messiah has been aware yet and has in fact, been with us all along. It is all written there in front of us in Isaiah. So, again, Elijah is allegorically speaking. There is more than just the letters in front of us, there is the spirit of the Word speaking.

 

[ralphinal]

These are allegory, else Malachi 4 would not say that God is sending Elijah. Since when a person dies, they are dead, these are allegorically speaking of what to look for in the way of prophecy. An allegory does not take away the facts of what has and will happen, it just makes it a book of Life rather than death… that means, applicable to now, rather than down the road. After all, we have been waiting on Chrstianity’s god to answer the call for how long now? Elijah did give adequate time to allow the false gods to answer.

Why are you not answering the question? Who was Elijah’s wife? Who was Elisha’s?