There are so many times when I can relate to the frustration Jesus surely felt when speaking to people void of understanding. IT’S ALLEGORICAL… meaning what is spoken of regarding Elijah is a spirit of a People and not an actual man.So, was there a prophet named Elijah? Was there a prophet named Elisha?
I do not concern myself with whether or not there was actually a man named Elijah (could have been Jesus’ real name for all I know). I know the account is real because I SEE that it is happening. We are still waiting on the return of the Christian god, right? Jesus in the clouds to whisk his chosen church away? Because I see it happening in front of my eyes and because Malachi 4 said this would happen, I take it very seriously. I do not just read the words written. I read what the Word is saying.
First, the way you desribe it is not how I read it. The proximity that John and JEsus are described as being in ONE TIME is not as uncommon in the Middle East as it is in the West.
Understood and respected. I do understand that there are many differing views out there.
Please know that I am former… well, I was raised in Christianity and because I was too prone to questioning and that is contrary to the faith of Paul, I left. I now embrace Judaism in my heart and am eagerly awaiting the day that it is w/in the reach of my hand to pursue, as I do not want to go against Deut 30.
You do realize that the Jesus you refer to as an allegory, was mentioned by the likes of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger (or older, can’t remember which right now) and of course, other people known to Jesus, such as the apostles, his disciples and followers.Understood and respected. I do understand that there are many differing views out there.
Please know that I am former… well, I was raised in Christianity and because I was too prone to questioning and that is contrary to the faith of Paul, I left. I now embrace Judaism in my heart and am eagerly awaiting the day that it is w/in the reach of my hand to pursue, as I do not want to go against Deut 30.
As far as a Gentile in love with the Jewish People, it is all a matter in how I view it.
Okay, I have been told often that I have the spirit of my grandfather (who died literally w/in the month that I was born). Not once have I taken this to mean that his spirit actually departed from his body into mine. It simply means that I take after him… a serious nature… a great tendency to tend to family and make sure they all know one another… a desire to right the wrongs that have been done… but a sunny disposition nevertheless.
This is my grandfather’s spirit…it is not that his spirit came to possess me… it is just a tendency toward what is written in my genes. It is what identifies me as him… living in this life though HE himself is not living.
This is how I view the spirit of Elijah with one difference… Elijah cannot be proved to have lived. This is what matters little to me. Sorry, but it just doesn’t. I can see that his spirit is alive and well in the world today… the identifying qualities that made him, well, him; just as my grandfather’s spirit is alive and well today.
**With Jesus, I can EASILY see him as an allegory… in fact, that is my tendency to view him; more so than an actual man. **His call required that of a woman when understanding the prophecies that were given in the Tanakh. Jeremiah 31 speaks about the seed of the house of Israel and the house of Judah going out into the world. Thus, to me, I view them in allegorical form… for the sake of here, I speak as though there is an actual man named Jesus… he still needs a wife in order for the prophecies to actually be fulfilled. If he was single, then the NT account fails to deliver anything of worth to me.
I do hope that I have explained how I view this in a manner that you can understand. It is difficult to get my view across… but my view is confirmed in Psalm 78 (only ONE of many passages)
I do know that the account given by Josephus is one of a questionable account. I am not sure how familiar you are with Josephus (perhaps you have just taken the one small account and decided to use it?), but there is reason to question.
Actually, planen, that is the point that I am trying to get to.
Oh garsh! Please forgive me for taking the long route to understanding what you were trying to ask.
How bout an explanation that has a little more substance, please?I do know that the account given by Josephus is one of a questionable account. I am not sure how familiar you are with Josephus (perhaps you have just taken the one small account and decided to use it?), but there is reason to question.
Ultimately, I do not argue the existence of Jesus. In my mind, surely there must have been a Jewish man with great enlightenment to his people and given that his words have brought me to realize that Judaism is indeed the faith that he came to confirm, I do not make an issue. I am just being honest that I have no problem with taking the WHOLE account of the gospels and making them allegorical… otherwise, I am forced to acknowledge that a jewish man would not fully fit the accounts given… there are things left out and things interpolated. Either view is not an issue to me as the Truth is just as easily found in the Tanakh that it is Judaism that is the faith of the Jewish and the one confirmed in the Tanakh (Genesis 49). You make the decision… the gospels as literal?.. then we must be honest from the Jewish perspective and realize it has been tampered with, else it is allegorical.
I do not know what you are talking about. Evidence for Jesus’ existence? I do not argue it… it is a waste of time considering. Evidence that Jesus was married? The ONLY time he cries is when he sees she is crying; she is by his side at even the most crucial moments (cross); he comes to her first after being crucified almost to death by the Gentiles; and then at the tomb, she sees Jesus but does not recognize him… not even his voice… it was that he spoke to her in a way that was intimate between them that she recognized him (<---- this also speaks allegorically to me since she did not recognize him). Is that the evidence you are looking for?
Basically, I was referring to your last post, and how I could not make heads or tails of what you were saying as the explanation was too insubstantial for me to respond to.
How in the WORLD do you get that verse as meaning anything about Jesus being married?Oh garsh! Please forgive me for taking the long route to understanding what you were trying to ask.
That Jesus and Mary Magdalene would be married being an important issue to me personally is due to what is spoken in Jeremiah 31:27.
If John was the beloved disciple of Jesus, well…
You very well could be right about this. If you do not mind to just post that reference, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
He doesn’t cry or even seem to show much interest when Lazarus dies to be honest. He also does not cry when Martha comes to tell him. He told Martha to call Mary to him and when he sees her crying, THEN he weeps… in fact, it says his spirit groaned. That is because he loved her very deeply… in a different way than the others.
the way I read that is overwhelming … well, I do not even have the words to express what comes off of her exclamation (relief perhaps, but even that seems to weak of a word). I connect the term with the account given of Rachel.
Well, the sacrifice could not have been blood shed by killing a man physically… this is against the Law of God. Thus, the sacrifice was Israel being sent into the world gene pool via ahem ya know, the thing that Mary the mother of Jesus (according to the church) did not do. Anyway, this is even beside the point… but notice, if that is the new covenant, then what takes place before it is how it is enacted, no? I do not see a man being sacrificed physically, but rather the spreading of the seed into the world. This is also how I understand the suffering servant… that is true suffering, don’t you think? To be sent out ALIVE and yet without the identity that made you who you are? And this is why God is the Saviour and NOT a man, because God is the only one who could know who to call back to Him… it is a brilliant plan so that Israel would never again doubt who is God and/or be lured into the idolatry worship of the world.
It is deplorable how some would wish to manipulate emotionally for the sake of argumentation, when nothing else stands to reason. Lies packaged to look pretty are still lies.You very well could be right about this. If you do not mind to just post that reference, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
"He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” Matthew 26:17
He doesn’t cry or even seem to show much interest when Lazarus dies to be honest. He also does not cry when Martha comes to tell him. He told Martha to call Mary to him and when he sees her crying, THEN he weeps… in fact, it says his spirit groaned. That is because he loved her very deeply… in a different way than the others.
You’re confusing Mary Magdelene with Mary, Martha’s sister, so you are mistaken. Secondly, he was moved by the sight of Mary and the other Jews who were weeping, but it was only when they brought him to see Lazarus that he wept.
the way I read that is overwhelming … well, I do not even have the words to express what comes off of her exclamation (relief perhaps, but even that seems to weak of a word). I connect the term with the account given of Rachel.
Rachel, Jacob’s wife, when giving birth to her 2nd son cried out Benoni and then died. There is the connection… and this explains the rest of the conversation as well and why he sent HER to inform the disciples. It is less mystical and much more romantic than the church has played it off as. What a shame!
How happy she must have felt to know that she indeed was not alone without her beloved husband! What is wrong with such a great display of love? Why must it be hidden and denied?
aren’t you scared the devil maybe planting all this confusion in your mind? just curious. i mentioned this because the OP obviously has forgotten the early converts to Christianity who shed their blood and became martyrs were jews, thus became fulfilled jews. except for Luke, the NT’s authors were jews themselves, and all testified of the Holy Spirit’s guidance when the books were written. take a deep breath and pray for discernment.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?
No. I don’t need a devil for confusion to be put in my mind… the NT does a pretty good job. Always has. In fact, I have decided to refrain from even looking at it for the time being just to clear my thoughts. There are many strange accounts and lots of contradictions. What is clear is that Mary and Jesus were more than just aquaintances and even more than just friends. Have none of you ever been in love and/or stung because of being in love? I guess not because if you had been, it would be clear to you too that they loved each other in the way that a man and his wife love each other. It is written there in front of us; it is a matter of reading between the lines… their reactions to each other.
I wasn’t saying it for the sake of arguement, but rather for the sake of all you who are reading. I grew up in Christianity as well… the only difference with me is that I could sense things in the book that weren’t right. I am not lying to say that Jesus wept with intensity when he saw Mary crying. It is written there in front of us. If he were doing it because he was God loving everyone, why did he not cry when Martha came to him uspet over her brother? There was a more special connection between Mary and Jesus. I would be lying to see this and to deny it because it has been told to me they were not married. It would be really wrong of me to deny what is there because I might be jealous of his love for his wife… or what ever other reasons people have to deny the obvious. I think it is beautiful that Jesus and Mary shared such a deep love (certainly something most are not afforded these days). I am glad for them.