Our lord on the cross

[simplynoone]

I knew you were going to say that!

I was thinking about the innocent that suffer. However, we are all condemned to suffering and death by default, because we suffer the consequences of disobedience of Adam and Eve. These consequences are clear in the book of Genesis. Those children did not commit personal sins, to deserve punishment, as did many of those who were crucified (although not all were guilty of what they were accused). Yet, we are all born into the world under the condemnation of death. They suffer as part of the human race.

I am curious, simply, what religion do you practice? Some of your statements sound Jewish, but I am confused why you would be on a Catholic forum?

I was not born Jewish, but somehow it seems as though I ended up with a Jewish mind, huh? Weird. My goal now is becoming Jewish since it is to them that I find myself relating to the most. When I let go of faith, it was a TERRIFYING ordeal for me… funny looking back; during that time, I turned to the concepts of Einstein and saw his view of God to be most like mine… I turn to his ideas because they were that comforting to me… I have only found out in the last few months that he was born Jewish.

About the story of Adam, let me guess… you view this as a literal account, right? If so, this would be where you are misguided in your thinking and why you view the story of Jesus the way you do. I hate to be the one to inform you all, but human flesh and blood sacrifice is not considered acceptable by God.

 

[simplynoone]

Yes it is , this is against the Laws of Nature ,HE IS GOD

I agree that God is capable of creating in anyway that He likes… and He is. But if you are gaining your knowledge from the viewpoint of man, then you are failing to receive the understanding of God. He promised in Malachi 3:6 that He WOULD NOT change… not that He COULD NOT change… but that He would not. If He changes, than not only is the understanding that He gave me worthless (of course, the understanding He gave me is in keeping with Malachi 3:6), but your understanding is STILL worthless. If He created the Laws of Nature and then went about to defy that in order to bring salvation, Malachi 3:6 should be thrown out… and if that is thrown out… all hope REALLY is lost for mankind.

 

[guanophore]

“Were you there when they crucified my Lord” guanaphore? No one was made to wear a crown of thorns then. They made one for Jesus Christ because he said he was the King of the Jews. So you are wrong. To EVEN undermine the death of Christ amongst you is pretty pathetic.

My point is that many and various atrocities were done to the condemned. If there were others that claimed to have a “kingship” or otherwise present that they were upstarts against Rome, similar things may have been done. This kind of brutality was common in crucifixion.

I agree, they made an especially cruel one for Christ because of his charge. However, He never said He was “King of the Jews”. This was part of the accusations against Him. He claimed to have a Kingdom not of this world, and it is not limited to Jews.

It is likely that the variety of thorn bush that produced His crown is indiginious, and so those who were crucified for treason/sedition in other areas of the empire, especially in the North, were given different types of suffering.

None of this undermines His death, or suffering on our behalf. I am simply commenting on historical realities. None of those who suffered crucifixion did so on our behalf, in innocence, or to purchase our salvation.

 

[guanophore]

I was not born Jewish, but somehow it seems as though I ended up with a Jewish mind, huh?

Yes!

My goal now is becoming Jewish since it is to them that I find myself relating to the most. When I let go of faith, it was a TERRIFYING ordeal for me… funny looking back; during that time, I turned to the concepts of Einstein and saw his view of God to be most like mine… I turn to his ideas because they were that comforting to me… I have only found out in the last few months that he was born Jewish.

I am sure the Almighty will lead you.

About the story of Adam, let me guess… you view this as a literal account, right? If so, this would be where you are misguided in your thinking and why you view the story of Jesus the way you do.

Actually, I can see it on many levels, and from what I have read of the Rabbi’s, this variety is common.

There is no better way to understand Christianity than to understand Judaism. As the Christ taught us, “salvation is of the Jews”.

I hate to be the one to inform you all, but human flesh and blood sacrifice is not considered acceptable by God.

No problem. We knew that!

He is the unblemished Lamb for the Passover. He purchases freedom for us.

 

[simplynoone]

You have been reading to much Davinci code! Mary magdelane’s love? I swear your only purpose on this board is to go against the grain and try to push buttons…get a life.

Just caught this comment. Certainly pay no heed to those who would tell you to hide the way you feel about what I say. I am not one who is easily offended. I went to a Christian school from Kindergarten through graduation and was spoken to much more harshly by teachers for bringing up this point and many others that were considered taboo to the Christian way of thinking. Spent many of my school days in the principal’s office all because I was a thinker. I am well aware that this is considered a no-no in Christianity. I do not bring my thoughts to offend anyone, but rather to encourage it. If your faith is based on something real, then none of my thoughts should be considered threatening.

By the way, I did not read the Da vinci Code, neither did I watch the movie. The thoughts I have on Mary Magdalene being the love of Jesus and Jesus being her love are thoughts that I have had since I was quite young. It just seemed obvious to me that she loved him so and he loved her as well. She was there in the most important moments. Also, a BIG clue to me on HIS love for her was when her brother died. He did not show much emotion until he was faced with her. When he saw HER crying, he broke. It was the ONLY time that we see him showing such emotion… and it was her suffering that moved him so. That is love beyond a friendship, else he would have broken down when confronted with Martha. There is nothing that could convince me that she did not have this same brokenness when she witnessed HER LOVE suffering on the cross and could do nothing about it. :bighanky: I know for a fact that none of you experienced what she experienced watching him hanging there in agony. I do not mean to offend, but I KNOW this is truth.

 

[JJ59]

Just caught this comment. Certainly pay no heed to those who would tell you to hide the way you feel about what I say. I am not one who is easily offended. I went to a Christian school from Kindergarten through graduation and was spoken to much more harshly by teachers for bringing up this point and many others that were considered taboo to the Christian way of thinking. Spent many of my school days in the principal’s office all because I was a thinker. I am well aware that this is considered a no-no in Christianity. I do not bring my thoughts to offend anyone, but rather to encourage it. If your faith is based on something real, then none of my thoughts should be considered threatening.

By the way, I did not read the Da vinci Code, neither did I watch the movie. The thoughts I have on Mary Magdalene being the love of Jesus and Jesus being her love are thoughts that I have had since I was quite young. It just seemed obvious to me that she loved him so and he loved her as well. She was there in the most important moments. Also, a BIG clue to me on HIS love for her was when her brother died. He did not show much emotion until he was faced with her. When he saw HER crying, he broke. It was the ONLY time that we see him showing such emotion… and it was her suffering that moved him so. That is love beyond a friendship, else he would have broken down when confronted with Martha. There is nothing that could convince me that she did not have this same brokenness when she witnessed HER LOVE suffering on the cross and could do nothing about it. :bighanky: I know for a fact that none of you experienced what she experienced watching him hanging there in agony. I do not mean to offend, but I KNOW this is truth.

Sorry, but that was Mary of Bethany. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mary Magdalene is constantly referred to as Mary Magdalene in John’s Gospel (where Mary of Bethany appears.). In any case, it’s a different Mary. To say it’s the same person is a massive stretch, at best.

Christianity does not prohibit thinking. We encourage it. (In fact, in the 1st century, “faith” meant trust based upon evidence. This is further seen in 1 Thess. 5:21: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”.) The reason you’ve received so much rebuke is because most of your claims have been refuted many times. It seems that you haven’t researched all this very well!

I’d like to discuss the theory of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene in another thread, if you want to start one up.

God Bless.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Just caught this comment. Certainly pay no heed to those who would tell you to hide the way you feel about what I say. I am not one who is easily offended. I went to a Christian school from Kindergarten through graduation and was spoken to much more harshly by teachers for bringing up this point and many others that were considered taboo to the Christian way of thinking. Spent many of my school days in the principal’s office all because I was a thinker. I am well aware that this is considered a no-no in Christianity. I do not bring my thoughts to offend anyone, but rather to encourage it. If your faith is based on something real, then none of my thoughts should be considered threatening.

By the way, I did not read the Da vinci Code, neither did I watch the movie. The thoughts I have on Mary Magdalene being the love of Jesus and Jesus being her love are thoughts that I have had since I was quite young. It just seemed obvious to me that she loved him so and he loved her as well. She was there in the most important moments. Also, a BIG clue to me on HIS love for her was when her brother died. He did not show much emotion until he was faced with her. When he saw HER crying, he broke. It was the ONLY time that we see him showing such emotion… and it was her suffering that moved him so. That is love beyond a friendship, else he would have broken down when confronted with Martha. There is nothing that could convince me that she did not have this same brokenness when she witnessed HER LOVE suffering on the cross and could do nothing about it. :bighanky: I know for a fact that none of you experienced what she experienced watching him hanging there in agony. I do not mean to offend, but I KNOW this is truth.

simphynoone did you read the one called snow White and the seven Dwarts My Mother told me this is also true but as I got older I did not believe.Where do you got all your Facts

 

[simplynoone]

I am sure the Almighty will lead you.

Well, don’t you worry one little bit. He does… but that is because I quit expecting man to do the leading for me.

Actually, I can see it on many levels, and from what I have read of the Rabbi’s, this variety is common.

I am assuming you mean the view of Creation I hold to. Come on… evolution is so obviously confirmed in the Tanakh… why wouldn’t He be continuing to use the same method with our minds? This is why the Creation is not a thing of the past, but it is always an ongoing process. HOW BLESSED are WE to be a part of it?? God’s ways may not be suitable to the ways that man would like, but for those of us with an inclination to use our minds and enjoy using the mind, it is more than suitable… it makes life QUITE exciting, mysterious, and the passion that drives our curiosities.

There is no better way to understand Christianity than to understand Judaism. As the Christ taught us, “salvation is of the Jews”.

True, but only one that truly understands Judaism would not see the two as being compatible.

He is the unblemished Lamb for the Passover. He purchases freedom for us.

Well, I know that Christianity involves a lot of mysticism, but are you trying to tell me that Jesus magically changed into a lamb? If he did, he still could not have fulfilled the laws of sacrificial atonement being that the sins of the nation were symbolically put onto a GOAT and the goat was sent into the wilderness ALIVE. There is nowhere that it is said a lamb was used to atone the sins of the People as a whole.

Certainly, nowhere is a man listed as acceptable in the sacrificial laws and thus, Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law via being a sacrifice.

 

[simplynoone]

simphynoone did you read the one called snow White and the seven Dwarts My Mother told me this is also true but as I got older I did not believe.Where do you got all your Facts

Well, partly it comes from reading the Tanakh and understanding that one’s mind must be employed in order to get any meaning out of it (which is why most refer to it as old I guess). This is how I view the gospels. Certainly there is much mythology inserted into the story and so, this tells me that one must use their mind to make any sense of it. If Jesus existed (and I have no reason to argue that he did NOT exist), then it is obvious to me that Jesus and Mary loved each other. HE WEPT… he did not weep because Lazarus died; he already knew that Lazarus died. He did not weep because someone was broken over it; else he would have wept when Martha came crying to him. He told Martha to go get Mary and when he saw that SHE was hurting over it, THEN he wept. I get my facts from what is written there for all of us to read. He loved her in a very special way.

 

[simplynoone]

Sorry, but that was Mary of Bethany. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mary Magdalene is constantly referred to as Mary Magdalene in John’s Gospel (where Mary of Bethany appears.). In any case, it’s a different Mary. To say it’s the same person is a massive stretch, at best.

Christianity does not prohibit thinking. We encourage it. (In fact, in the 1st century, “faith” meant trust based upon evidence. This is further seen in 1 Thess. 5:21: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”.) The reason you’ve received so much rebuke is because most of your claims have been refuted many times. It seems that you haven’t researched all this very well!

I’d like to discuss the theory of Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene in another thread, if you want to start one up.

God Bless.

God bless you as well! I say that they are one in the same. It was definitely Mary from Bethany who anointed Jesus as it confirms in John. Mary, the sinner was the only other one to have anointed Jesus in the exact same manner (also at a supper)… in the next chapter, it is noted that Mary of Magdalene was a sinner. Again, I am a thinker and putting all the evidences together, yes… I conclude that they are one in the same. It is obvious. Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene and she was the wife of Jesus. What other conclusion is there to arrive to? To take what is written as it is written and not employ any logic leaves you with BIG gaps in the NT… in that case, the whole story is nothing but just that… a story. I do not think that you are ready to face that possibility, are you?

 

[JJ59]

God bless you as well! I say that they are one in the same. It was definitely Mary from Bethany who anointed Jesus as it confirms in John. Mary, the sinner was the only other one to have anointed Jesus in the exact same manner (also at a supper)… in the next chapter, it is noted that Mary of Magdalene was a sinner. Again, I am a thinker and putting all the evidences together, yes… I conclude that they are one in the same. It is obvious. Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene and she was the wife of Jesus. What other conclusion is there to arrive to? To take what is written as it is written and not employ any logic leaves you with BIG gaps in the NT… in that case, the whole story is nothing but just that… a story. I do not think that you are ready to face that possibility, are you?

Well, it doesn’t say that a sinner named Mary anointed Jesus. If you’re referring to Luke ch. 7 (It would really help if you gave chapter and verse references!), all it says is this:

“And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment; And standing behind at his feet, she began to wash his feet, with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.” (Luke 7:37-38)

Your theory is lacking. The woman who anointed him is not identified as “Mary”. Identifying her with Mary Magdalene because of the next chapter also doesn’t work. “Sinner” is not the word used. Luke 8:2 says:

“And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth,”

If Luke was identifying Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman, would he have not called her “sinful”, or a “sinner”? Being possessed by devils is not the same as being sinful.

And even if Mary Magdalene was the same person as Mary of Bethany, what would that prove? Yes, he showed great kindness and love to that Mary. But he also did so with his disciples. (His relationship with John springs to mind)

Finally, there is no record of Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. Nor in any other ancient sources, although those are quite sketchy at the very best.

As you can see, there is no reason to believe that they were ever married. Sorry friend, but it just does not work.

God Bless.

 

[simplynoone]

Well, it doesn’t say that a sinner named Mary anointed Jesus. If you’re referring to Luke ch. 7 (It would really help if you gave chapter and verse references!), all it says is this:

“And behold a woman that was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment; And standing behind at his feet, she began to wash his feet, with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.” (Luke 7:37-38)

Your theory is lacking. The woman who anointed him is not identified as “Mary”. Identifying her with Mary Magdalene because of the next chapter also doesn’t work. “Sinner” is not the word used. Luke 8:2 says:

“And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary who is called Magdalen, out of whom seven devils were gone forth,”

If Luke was identifying Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman, would he have not called her “sinful”, or a “sinner”? Being possessed by devils is not the same as being sinful.

And even if Mary Magdalene was the same person as Mary of Bethany, what would that prove? Yes, he showed great kindness and love to that Mary. But he also did so with his disciples. (His relationship with John springs to mind)

Finally, there is no record of Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene in the Gospels. Nor in any other ancient sources, although those are quite sketchy at the very best.

As you can see, there is no reason to believe that they were ever married. Sorry friend, but it just does not work.

God Bless.

So, I guess that you would be perfectly at ease with a strange woman coming in and anointing you with her tears and ointments and wiping it with her hair? Being a woman, I certainly can say that the act would be a VERY intimate kind of act to perform on a man.

 

[JJ59]

So, I guess that you would be perfectly at ease with a strange woman coming in and anointing you with her tears and ointments and wiping it with her hair? Being a woman, I certainly can say that the act would be a VERY intimate kind of act to perform on a man.

Not so. Anointing the head with oil was a “typical banquet custom for honored guests”. (From tektonics.org, who in turn quotes Keener) Even the feet would still be in line. You’re reading too much into the text.

“The feet and the head were the normal targets for [anointing], so that we have the same report in that regard is not surprising. The only oddity is that John mentions feet only, whereas Matthew and Mark report the head only, and both report the woman’s use of her hair whereas Matthew and Mark do not. However, Witherington notes [John commentary, 207] that the differing focus would serve a symbolic purpose in line with each writer’s theology: the anointing of the head symbolizes kingship, while the anointing of the feet symbolizes Jesus’ being glorified in death. The wiping of the feet with the hair is not unusual either as it reflects "the ancient practice of diners’ wiping excess oil or other potable substances from their hands onto a servant’s hair.” "

(That’s from tektonics.org/af/femanoint.html)

Our culture differs very much from the 1st century, as you can see. We mustn’t put our own interpretations onto a text.

God Bless.

 

[simplynoone]

Not so. Anointing the head with oil was a “typical banquet custom for honored guests”. (From tektonics.org, who in turn quotes Keener) Even the feet would still be in line. You’re reading too much into the text.

“The feet and the head were the normal targets for [anointing], so that we have the same report in that regard is not surprising. The only oddity is that John mentions feet only, whereas Matthew and Mark report the head only, and both report the woman’s use of her hair whereas Matthew and Mark do not. However, Witherington notes [John commentary, 207] that the differing focus would serve a symbolic purpose in line with each writer’s theology: the anointing of the head symbolizes kingship, while the anointing of the feet symbolizes Jesus’ being glorified in death. The wiping of the feet with the hair is not unusual either as it reflects "the ancient practice of diners’ wiping excess oil or other potable substances from their hands onto a servant’s hair.” "

(That’s from tektonics.org/af/femanoint.html)

Our culture differs very much from the 1st century, as you can see. We mustn’t put our own interpretations onto a text.

God Bless.

And this guy isn’t? I looked him up and found that his knowledge of the Jewish mindset EVEN OF today is highly lacking, so I am not sure that I would rely on HIS interpretation… Mine at least makes some sense. shrugs Two women, rubbing him down w/ ointment and wiping it with their hair… err… That kind of act would be considered intimate even in today’s liberal society.

Please, put yourself into the shoes of Jesus You honestly would not consider that to be a bit… ahem intimate; particularly for one of the women who was a sinner off of the streets? Where did she come from? How did she know him? She just walked into the home of religious Jews and started anointing this strange man in an intimate way and wiping it with her hair as did Mary? Again… this interpretation is much more rational than what you linked me to.

 

[JJ59]

And this guy isn’t? I looked him up and found that his knowledge of the Jewish mindset EVEN OF today is highly lacking, so I am not sure that I would rely on HIS interpretation… Mine at least makes some sense. shrugs Two women, rubbing him down w/ ointment and wiping it with their hair… err… That kind of act would be considered intimate even in today’s liberal society.

Please, put yourself into the shoes of Jesus You honestly would not consider that to be a bit… ahem intimate; particularly for one of the women who was a sinner off of the streets? Where did she come from? How did she know him? She just walked into the home of religious Jews and started anointing this strange man in an intimate way and wiping it with her hair as did Mary? Again… this interpretation is much more rational than what you linked me to.

I imagine his well-sourced articles would be more trustworthy than someone making decisions because of our 21st century mindset. It would help if you actually gave some refutation of the points instead of saying yours “at least makes some sense”.

Consider this: Jesus had a deep, personal relationship with each and every one of his disciples. (A relationship that he can have with you too, if you accept him) Consider the disciple John. John is constantly referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved”. (i.e. John 21:7, and many more) Our 21st century viewpoint makes it seem like intimacy, but it really isn’t there (Consider John 21:20). I hardly think you’d claim that Jesus was married to John from those verses!!!

And another question: If Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, where is the historical record of it? Why is it not recorded in the gospels, why is it not recorded in any of the apochryphal gospels?

Sorry, but you must face facts. There was no marriage between the two.

God Bless.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I imagine his well-sourced articles would be more trustworthy than someone making decisions because of our 21st century mindset. It would help if you actually gave some refutation of the points instead of saying yours “at least makes some sense”.

Consider this: Jesus had a deep, personal relationship with each and every one of his disciples. (A relationship that he can have with you too, if you accept him) Consider the disciple John. John is constantly referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved”. (i.e. John 21:7, and many more) Our 21st century viewpoint makes it seem like intimacy, but it really isn’t there (Consider John 21:20). I hardly think you’d claim that Jesus was married to John from those verses!!!

And another question: If Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, where is the historical record of it? Why is it not recorded in the gospels, why is it not recorded in any of the apochryphal gospels?

Sorry, but you must face facts. There was no marriage between the two.

God Bless.

I can<T believe in this day and age that we still have people that believe in Fairy Tales

 

[simplynoone]

I imagine his well-sourced articles would be more trustworthy than someone making decisions because of our 21st century mindset. It would help if you actually gave some refutation of the points instead of saying yours “at least makes some sense”.

Consider this: Jesus had a deep, personal relationship with each and every one of his disciples. (A relationship that he can have with you too, if you accept him) Consider the disciple John. John is constantly referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved”. (i.e. John 21:7, and many more) Our 21st century viewpoint makes it seem like intimacy, but it really isn’t there (Consider John 21:20). I hardly think you’d claim that Jesus was married to John from those verses!!!

I did consider what you said here. Here is the thing, there is more circumstantial evidence that Jesus and Mary were married than there is of John being the beloved disciple. shrugs You are no less inferring that John is the beloved disciple than I am inferring that Jesus and Mary were married; my conclusion, however, is based on more rational rather than biased thinking than is yours.

And another question: If Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, where is the historical record of it? Why is it not recorded in the gospels, why is it not recorded in any of the apochryphal gospels?

Sorry, but you must face facts. There was no marriage between the two.

God Bless.

Along with there is no conclusive evidence that John was considered the beloved disciple… and if he was, then there are some questionable scenes in John regarding this idea.

 

[simplynoone]

I can<T believe in this day and age that we still have people that believe in Fairy Tales

If you are referring to me, my understanding of the gospels is far less in the realm of the fairy tale category than others held to. I am trying to be rational about this and come to the Truth regarding the gospels rather than dogmatically accepting what is written there. To do the latter is to have to admit that they are only but fantastical stories because there are far too many gaps and contradictions in them.

 

[Bill_Pick]

If you are referring to me, my understanding of the gospels is far less in the realm of the fairy tale category than others held to. I am trying to be rational about this and come to the Truth regarding the gospels rather than dogmatically accepting what is written there. To do the latter is to have to admit that they are only but fantastical stories because there are far too many gaps and contradictions in them.

Please read John 21:25 it may help You

 

[JJ59]

I did consider what you said here. Here is the thing, there is more circumstantial evidence that Jesus and Mary were married than there is of John being the beloved disciple. shrugs You are no less inferring that John is the beloved disciple than I am inferring that Jesus and Mary were married; my conclusion, however, is based on more rational rather than biased thinking than is yours.

Along with there is no conclusive evidence that John was considered the beloved disciple… and if he was, then there are some questionable scenes in John regarding this idea.

I believe it’s John because of a long-standing Church Tradition. (See also that it’s called the Gospel of John and the author calls himself the beloved disciple in John 21:24) The identity of the disciple is not so much what matters in this case. It’s that Jesus had a loving, father-son/daughter relationship with all of his followers. You want to think that he was married to Mary Magdalene, by ignoring this fact and ignoring any social context (That’s a big one.)

I’m not sure what you mean about “questionable scenes”. Could you please elaborate?

Again, where is the historical record of their marriage?

God Bless, and I hope you find the truth you are looking for