Behold, It Was Leah!

[planten]

**I feel that Ben Masada and simplynoone have hit the nail on the head of this Jesus marriage affair with Mary magdalene. these Catholics were active maligning our prophet into sex affair. it is a good punishment to them all that their beloved god is found to be married.

The case of Ben masada is very strong. Otherwise we cannot explain why Mary Magdalene was present at Calvary along with Mary the mother. What right she had? Also Mary Magdalene was the first one early morning with perfumes to anoint Jesus. What relation she had with a dead person? Could she rub the body (skin) of an unrelated man or the body of any god? There cannot be any explanation except that She was the wife of Jesus.

The bible writers (men) must have rubbed it a bit too much into that affair.

It appears that Mary Magdalene disappeared from the scene along with Jesus. I do not see any sign of her after Jesus went away. Where did that beloved apostle go?**

 

[simplynoone]

"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

Josie, this does not say Jesus wept. And of COURSE he was sorrowful and troubled. He knew well enough that the Roman guards were coming to get him in order to crucify him. Imagine… I do not think that you would be feeling at ease within yourself either. They were vicious to the Jewish People. Still, so far, it only says he wept when his wife was weeping.

You’re confusing Mary Magdelene with Mary, Martha’s sister, so you are mistaken.

I am not confusing his wife with being two persons. Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene. There is not another conclusion to be drawn given the accounts of the NT… well, except one and that is to say that the whole of the NT is fabricated for the purpose of supporting anti-semitism. One or the other. I find the former conclusion to be far more romantic and choose to support that view rather than to believe that a Jewish Rabbi would have supported his people being endangered in the way that the NT has so well accomplished.

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.

Given all the events and the fact that I have actually lived a life not void of feelings and in fact, have considered those feelings, it is clear to me that he wept because of his wife. And of course, he would. My goodness woman! He already KNEW that Lazarus was dead and according to the Christian view, he apparently knew that Lazarus would be okay. Why would he weep for him? He wouldn’t. He was sad that his wife had been suffering so much over the death of her brother.

Honestly, being a woman myself, I can testify to their relationship being of an intimate nature. I cannot imagine being so open and free with someone as they were without being in love with them. Would you, being a woman, rub a priest with oils, tears, and your hair and KISS on him?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Please define “speculation”?

** My pleasure. Speculation is a mental view of anything in its
various aspects and relations, and intellectual examination, which usually results in a paraphrasing of written evidences.**

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, you are misunderstanding me and this is due to your assumption that I am viewing this from the Christian view. I have no problem to view Elijah the way that you do and knowing that if he were not married that he is not burning in hell. Hell, your view of it, is for the Christians… it is not for the rest of us who know God is not sadistic.

And Jesus was married according to the NT since it claims that he was a Jewish Rabbi, which means he was a teacher of the Law of God. There is also the claim that he fulfilled the Law (matt 5:17-19), which being a teacher and so accepted by those who held high positions in the Jewish community means he obviously did fulfill the Law. It is not the language of Rocket Scientists that I am speaking here… it is (supposed to be) common sense.

Can you show us where it says that a Rabbi must be married?

 

[simplynoone]

Can you show us where it says that a Rabbi must be married?

I can show you how Jesus had to be married in order to maintain his credibility.

Ready? …here we go

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he fulfilled the Law. This includes ALL the commandments given by God to man. The commandments of God are found in the Torah. If there is a command in there that we can find that Jesus did NOT fulfill, then the Church’s attempt to claim the Law was fulfilled for them by Jesus is about as useless as wanting to go upstream in a canoe without the paddles.

There is a commandment by God in the Torah that states, “And God blessed them (male and female), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Genesis 1:28

Now, since this was a command given by God to male and female, in order for Jesus to have actually fulfilled the Law (which the Church depends upon since they claim that he fulfilled it for them), Jesus HAD to fulfill this commandment of God as well, else you have no paddle and Matthew 5:17 is null and void for use by the Church to claim fulfilled Law for all men by one man.

So, you tell me. Was Jesus married to a female in order to fulfill this commandment of God to be fruitful and multiply or not? Paddle or no paddle? I see that he was married, but if that is not acceptable by the Church, then the Church has to admit that Jesus did not ACTUALLY fulfill all the commands of God, thus, the Law of God has to be fulfilled by your own selves. :curtsey:

 

[ralphinal]

I can show you how Jesus had to be married in order to maintain his credibility.

Ready? …here we go

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that he fulfilled the Law. This includes ALL the commandments given by God to man. The commandments of God are found in the Torah. If there is a command in there that we can find that Jesus did NOT fulfill, then the Church’s attempt to claim the Law was fulfilled for them by Jesus is about as useless as wanting to go upstream in a canoe without the paddles.

There is a commandment by God in the Torah that states, “And God blessed them (male and female), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Genesis 1:28

Now, since this was a command given by God to male and female, in order for Jesus to have actually fulfilled the Law (which the Church depends upon since they claim that he fulfilled it for them), Jesus HAD to fulfill this commandment of God as well, else you have no paddle and Matthew 5:17 is null and void for use by the Church to claim fulfilled Law for all men by one man.

So, you tell me. Was Jesus married to a female in order to fulfill this commandment of God to be fruitful and multiply or not? Paddle or no paddle? I see that he was married, but if that is not acceptable by the Church, then the Church has to admit that Jesus did not ACTUALLY fulfill all the commands of God, thus, the Law of God has to be fulfilled by your own selves. :curtsey:

So, it does not say that a Rabbi must be married?

Again, if you do not marry, does God consider your life to be in violation of his law?

If you are nt fruitful and multiply, have you broken the commandment?

 

[josie_L]

** My pleasure. Speculation is a mental view of anything in its
various aspects and relations, and intellectual examination, which usually results in a paraphrasing of written evidences.**

Speculation:

1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity’s ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.

**4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts. **

 

[josie_L]

Josie, this does not say Jesus wept. And of COURSE he was sorrowful and troubled. He knew well enough that the Roman guards were coming to get him in order to crucify him. Imagine… I do not think that you would be feeling at ease within yourself either. They were vicious to the Jewish People. Still, so far, it only says he wept when his wife was weeping.

And neither does it say that Jesus was married, so your point is?

I am not confusing his wife with being two persons. Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene. There is not another conclusion to be drawn given the accounts of the NT… well, except one and that is to say that the whole of the NT is fabricated for the purpose of supporting anti-semitism. **One or the other. I find the former conclusion to be far more romantic **and choose to support that view rather than to believe that a Jewish Rabbi would have supported his people being endangered in the way that the NT has so well accomplished.

Holy moly, who taught you how to argue?

Given all the events and the fact that I have actually lived a life not void of feelings and in fact, have considered those feelings, it is clear to me that he wept because of his wife. And of course, he would. My goodness woman! He already KNEW that Lazarus was dead and according to the Christian view, he apparently knew that Lazarus would be okay. Why would he weep for him? He wouldn’t. He was sad that his wife had been suffering so much over the death of her brother.

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . . " that pretty much sums up what I think of the above statement.

Honestly, being a woman myself, I can testify to their relationship being of an intimate nature. I cannot imagine being so open and free with someone as they were without being in love with them. Would you, being a woman, rub a priest with oils, tears, and your hair and KISS on him?

Thus far, you have based your arguments on the subjective and the emotional. Nothing tangible and/or direct has been stated to argue your supposition objectively.

P.S. You might want to consider a career as a romance novelist, I heard they make good money.

 

[simplynoone]

So, it does not say that a Rabbi must be married?

Nope… that requires honesty and a bit of intelligence to realize why a Rabbi worth his teachings being heard would be married. And given the Church’s claims about Jesus and what is said in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus would have to be married for it to be of any worth to you.

Answer ONE question that I have repeatedly asked since I have been honest with your questions please. If Jesus was not married, then how do you reconcile his not fulfilling the Law of God with the claim that he fulfilled it for mankind? Really think this one out before answering so as to not be hypocritical, k?!

By the way, to help you out… his death and resurrection cannot count since nowhere in the Laws is it condoned for a human to be used as a literal blood sacrifice for mankind and in fact, the Tanakh teaches directly against this concept.

And resurrection directly violates the Law of Nature which is one of the MOST important of God’s Laws regarding His creation.

Again, if you do not marry, does God consider your life to be in violation of his law?

If you are nt fruitful and multiply, have you broken the commandment?

If you are asking me personally, then yes. Genesis 9 is clear that mankind is to be fruitful and multiply not to mention it was a natural inclination of mine to bring forth children. I have been blessed for following this most important of commands with two lovely boys who could run circles around most of those who replied in this thread, intellectually speaking. They are respectful and genuinely caring boys… I could not have asked for two better sons to carry on the seed of my family.

Being that I fulfilled that command and given that I am now raising them on my own, I do not feel required to be married again and in fact, would feel it a violation for my personal life if I were to get married again (at least right now). Now, I look to teach them the importance of God Laws as well as to plant seeds of Truth into the world that they will soon enough be going out into. I am feeling quite productive in obeying God’s commands rather than interpolating false ideas to excuse myself from them.

 

[simplynoone]

And neither does it say that Jesus was married, so your point is?

To put it bluntly, my point is to say that the Church has little knowledge of God and the Jewish (and even human nature) as is evidenced by their views. Clearly Mary Magdalene is Jesus’ wife and this has been stolen from her as the Church has tried to replace her with their establishment (lacking in common sense)… as though that is fair to Jesus’ memory replacing her with a man and it is a lack of respect ESPECIALLY to her, considering SHE is the one who stuck to his teachings in a way that the Church has not. After all, it says he cast out “7 spirits” which is to say that in spite of the embarrassment and shame she must have felt in being honest with him… she WAS determined to learn his ways. Then, she shared in his suffering with him rather than reveling in it and prolonging it for her own selfish benefit. That is worthy of a defense in my personal view.

Holy moly, who taught you how to argue?

Obeying the very strong suggestion in Ezekiel 18:28. Common sense says you are wrong and I am right. You just can not admit to it because your excuse for the guilt you are under thanks to the false teachings depends on me being wrong.

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . . " that pretty much sums up what I think of the above statement

This would only be true if I denied the evidences in front of me for the sake of holding on to the views of Christianity for selfish reasons. It was not feelings that were leading me to accept eternal punishment rather than a literal human sacrifice for my sins. And believe me, there was GREAT FEAR in making that move because it had been grounded into my mind that I would eternally burn for not accepting the blind faith of christianity. Feelings are NOT what control me. At times, they may get the better of me (being a woman, after all), but certainly I ALWAYS consider them and find Reason in that consideration, as is the case here.

I think it is quite disgusting that a people who were not even of Jesus would crucify him AND the people that he loved to cover their guilt. Not only that, but he has been stripped of his identity… everything that made him who he was has been taken away to replace his wife with another people and their beliefs. It is not feelings I am led by because all of my identity has been intermingled with this way of thinking called christianity. Isolation, great fear, and finding truth at all cost is not something the typical person is willing to go through… why won’t you do it? Because of your feelings of jealousy to think that Jesus’ beloved was his wife and not the Church, including you.

Thus far, you have based your arguments on the subjective and the emotional. Nothing tangible and/or direct has been stated to argue your supposition objectively.

Subjective… yes. I did consider my own reactions in order to get to the Truth. I just did not let my OWN negative subjective feelings get in the way to see the Truth. I am still on my own in admitting the Truth… I just am able to cope with it. You on the other hand are substituting the Truth with a lie because of your emotions.

I have been honest. I feel good about it. I can not help that you are jealous of two people who lived 2,000 years ago so much so that you cannot accept the evidences in front of you. That is what is lacking in your life and not mine.

P.S. You might want to consider a career as a romance novelist, I heard they make good money.

Most certainly would not buy into my idea of Romance as you have yourself proved. To me, lust is not romance. Romance is complete honesty and understanding, knowledge of each other, complete trust, and commitment despite personal sufferings for remaining so. This idea of romance is mostly rejected.

 

[josie_L]

To put it bluntly, my point is to say that the Church has little knowledge of God and the Jewish (and even human nature) as is evidenced by their views. Clearly Mary Magdalene is Jesus’ wife and this has been stolen from her as the Church has tried to replace her with their establishment (lacking in common sense)… as though that is fair to Jesus’ memory replacing her with a man and it is a lack of respect ESPECIALLY to her, considering SHE is the one who stuck to his teachings in a way that the Church has not. After all, it says he cast out “7 spirits” which is to say that in spite of the embarrassment and shame she must have felt in being honest with him… she WAS determined to learn his ways. Then, she shared in his suffering with him rather than reveling in it and prolonging it for her own selfish benefit. That is worthy of a defense in my personal view.

Obeying the very strong suggestion in Ezekiel 18:28. Common sense says you are wrong and I am right. You just can not admit to it because your excuse for the guilt you are under thanks to the false teachings depends on me being wrong.

This would only be true if I denied the evidences in front of me for the sake of holding on to the views of Christianity for selfish reasons. It was not because of feelings that I threw myself at the mercy of God as I was, refusing to accept the shed blood of a human to atone for being a human being. It was not feelings that were leading me when I demanded for the Truth no matter how scary and that if the Truth was to ACTUALLY believe in something that made no sense and especially that of the a literal human sacrifice, then I would accept eternal punishment… I could not accept it. And believe me… there was GREAT FEAR in that declaration I made because it had been grounded into my mind that I would eternally burn for not accepting this line of thinking. Feelings are NOT what control me… they may get the better of me at time (being a woman, after all), but certainly I ALWAYS consider them and find Reason in that consideration, as is the case here.

I think it is quite disgusting that a people who were not even of Jesus would crucify him AND the people that he loved to atone for their sins. Not only that, but he has been stripped of his identity… everything that made him who he was has been taken away to replace his wife with another people and their beliefs. It is not feelings I am led by because all of my identity has been intermingled with this disgusting way of thinking. Isolation, great fear, and acceptance AT ANY COST is not something the typical person is willing to follow for the sake of Truth… why won’t you do it? Because of your feelings of jealousy to think that Jesus’ beloved was his wife and not the Church or you.

Subjective… yes. I did consider my own reactions in order to get to the Truth. I just did not let negative subjective feelings get in the way to see the Truth. Emotional, well, yes… but it is not my EMOTIONS that I am regarding. I am still on my own in admitting the Truth… I just am able to cope with it. You on the other hand are substituting the Truth with a lie because of your emotions.

I have been honest. I feel good about it. I can not help that you are jealous of two people who lived 2,000 years ago that you cannot accept the evidences in front of you. That is what is lacking in your life and not mine.

Most certainly would not buy into my idea of Romance as you have yourself proved. To me, lust is not romance. Romance is complete honesty and understanding, knowledge of each other, complete trust, and commitment despite personal sufferings for remaining so. This idea of romance is mostly rejected.

And once again, you’ve proven me correct.

 

[ralphinal]

Nope… that requires honesty and a bit of intelligence to realize why a Rabbi worth his teachings being heard would be married. And given the Church’s claims about Jesus and what is said in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus would have to be married for it to be of any worth to you.

Answer ONE question that I have repeatedly asked since I have been honest with your questions please. If Jesus was not married, then how do you reconcile his not fulfilling the Law of God with the claim that he fulfilled it for mankind? Really think this one out before answering so as to not be hypocritical, k?!

By the way, to help you out… his death and resurrection cannot count since nowhere in the Laws is it condoned for a human to be used as a literal blood sacrifice for mankind and in fact, the Tanakh teaches directly against this concept.

And resurrection directly violates the Law of Nature which is one of the MOST important of God’s Laws regarding His creation.

If you are asking me personally, then yes. Genesis 9 is clear that mankind is to be fruitful and multiply not to mention it was a natural inclination of mine to bring forth children. I have been blessed for following this most important of commands with two lovely boys who could run circles around most of those who replied in this thread, intellectually speaking. They are respectful and genuinely caring boys… I could not have asked for two better sons to carry on the seed of my family.

Being that I fulfilled that command and given that I am now raising them on my own, I do not feel required to be married again and in fact, would feel it a violation for my personal life if I were to get married again (at least right now). Now, I look to teach them the importance of God Laws as well as to plant seeds of Truth into the world that they will soon enough be going out into. I am feeling quite productive in obeying God’s commands rather than interpolating false ideas to excuse myself from them.

Be fruitful and multiply is a general command for all creation. It does not mean that EVERYONE has to marry and reproduce.

If it did, those that God made sterile would be in violation of the law BECAUSE of God.

 

[simplynoone]

Be fruitful and multiply is a general command for all creation. It does not mean that EVERYONE has to marry and reproduce.

If it did, those that God made sterile would be in violation of the law BECAUSE of God.

So, that is your excuse for Jesus not obeying the command according to the Church? He was defected physically and thus escaped the necessity to fulfill this command? Evidence for this?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Speculation:

1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity’s ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.

4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.

Great! I couldn’t do it better.

 

[ralphinal]

So, that is your excuse for Jesus not obeying the command according to the Church? He was defected physically and thus escaped the necessity to fulfill this command? Evidence for this?

Not at all. Jesus did not marry because it was not needed of him to fulfill his role. Further, Jesus himself said that those who become unichs for the sake of the kingdom are blessed.

Now, if God does not allow a couple to have children, does that mean that God is forcing them to live in violation of his own command?

 

[simplynoone]

Not at all. Jesus did not marry because it was not needed of him to fulfill his role. Further, Jesus himself said that those who become unichs for the sake of the kingdom are blessed.

*I am not trying to frustrate you, but this is where it is important to read and understand Jeremiah 31:27 because if this, Jesus’ enlightenment, was to lead to the New Covenant being produced, then this is what Jesus meant by saying blessed are those who become eunuchs for the kindgdom of God. Isaiah 56 says how the eunuchs could be joined back to Israel. He is not referring to marriage in and of itself… he is not advocating the single life here. It is a matter of understanding the prophecies as they are written to the People of Israel and not how the Gentiles want to interpret them.

Nothing is abolished including the command given to male and female to be fruitful and multiply. *

Now, if God does not allow a couple to have children, does that mean that God is forcing them to live in violation of his own command?

*This is just weird what you are asking. It leads me to believe that you really have no way of thinking for yourself. Was it impossible for Jesus to have children? How is this comparable?

Is the couple being worshiped as God? Is the fulfillment of the Law for all of mankind wrapped up in the identity of this one couple? Will their death represent an even NEWER Covenant to be replacing the one between God and Israel, the People. Will this couple be the only Messiah and only begotten Son of God, Saviour of the world?

If not, then this question is mute. I do not view God as a tyrant… I do not fear the Law as you do. I just think that there are inconsistencies in the so called logic of Christianity. That you deny the evidences of his fulfilling the commandment given to male and female so adamently, yet claim that he DID fulfill the whole of the Law for all of mankind is hypocritical nonsense.

The Church reminds me of kids on the playground screaming “cooties” to each other. It is only natural to act in such a manner when you are learning your ABC’s; it is strange when you base so much of a religion on the childish theory of cooties.*

 

[Lapell]

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.

Is Replacement Theology a theory brought up by a Jew? I wasn’t taught anything of this kind in my Catechesis class… neither in my years of studying my faith…

 

[Lapell]

Also, you keep saying, “We Jews wrote the Bible”. Most of the writers were not even “Jews” since they were not then called so… just like there were Christians, according to you, only when they began being called Christians in Antioch! And as for the New Testament, Christians of Jewish origin wrote it, not Jews! So I doubt from your own reasoning that you are fully competent in discussing matters from the NT!!

 

[Lapell]

*I am not trying to frustrate you, but this is where it is important to read and understand Jeremiah 31:27 because if this, Jesus’ enlightenment, was to lead to the New Covenant being produced, then this is what Jesus meant by saying blessed are those who become eunuchs for the kindgdom of God. Isaiah 56 says how the eunuchs could be joined back to Israel. He is not referring to marriage in and of itself… he is not advocating the single life here. It is a matter of understanding the prophecies as they are written to the People of Israel and not how the Gentiles want to interpret them.

Nothing is abolished including the command given to male and female to be fruitful and multiply. *

Ahem! simplynoone, I believe you have missed quite a point in your reasoning. And it’s this: YOU think that Jesus was only a man. In such a case, your reasoning would be worth gold… but WE believe that Jesus not only was, but is God the Son made man, the Word of God made flesh. In such a case, it would be quite logic that Jesus wouldn’t need a wife for himself.

 

[simplynoone]

Ahem! simplynoone, I believe you have missed quite a point in your reasoning. And it’s this: YOU think that Jesus was only a man. In such a case, your reasoning would be worth gold… but WE believe that Jesus not only was, but is God the Son made man, the Word of God made flesh. In such a case, it would be quite logic that Jesus wouldn’t need a wife for himself.

Thanks! Wow! And guess what, God is NOT a man. It says so more than a couple of times in the Tanakh. And the Son of God is Israel, the People… declared by God as a fact. So, I guess that my reasoning IS worth gold!! tries not to let it go to her head