The Missing Passover

[kalt]

**The subject is about the the Missing Passover. Why do you have to stick a subject that doesn’t have anything to do with the issue at hand?

Ben: **

I didn’t bring up Jesus’ marital status on this forum, and until now you were very willing to participate in that debate point. In fact, you made a debate point that your refuse to defend.

Now you claim that the point you have been making isn’t directly related to the main topic and shouldn’t be included here.

Ridiculous.

 

[Ben_Masada]

What many are forgetting is that Christ was the Pascal Lamb during that particular Passover. Dying on the cross he was the sacrifice required for Passover. He was the Pascal Lamb, he did not miss it, and he was it. The last supper was where he instituted the Eucharist and the priesthood because he knew he was to be sacrificed the next day as the Pascal Lamb. newadvent.org/cathen/08755a.htm

**How about the other Jews? Josephus says that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews. Were not the others also part of the Pascal Lamb? I hope you don’t think that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans.

Ben: **

 

[kalt]

**What would be the use to provide you with any more proofs?
Your blinders are to tight, and the Church won’t release the strings.

Ben: **

Sure, blame the Church for you inablitity to defend your own debate point.

Case closed.

 

[kalt]

**How about the other Jews? Josephus says that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews. Were not the others also part of the Pascal Lamb? I hope you don’t think that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans.

Ben: **

Jesus was the Paschal Lamb. The only one.

Are you sure you’ve read the NT?

 

[Ben_Masada]

I didn’t bring up Jesus’ marital status on this forum, and until now you were very willing to participate in that debate point. In fact, you made a debate point that your refuse to defend.

Now you claim that the point you have been making isn’t directly related to the main topic and shouldn’t be included here.

Ridiculous.

**I told you already that I am ready to drop the claim if you drop the claim that Jesus was Rabbi, or religious Jew, or ever said what he said in Matthew 5:17-19 or that he was sinless. If you can do that, I’ll never say again that he was a married man.

Ben: **

 

[kalt]

**Kalt, can’t you see you are exposing yourself to ridicule? Everyone can see that you are gasping for air. You are so stunny that you can’t even see that the thread is not about the Wedding of Jesus but about the Missing Passover. I am sorry, but you are behaving like the fly which has been caught in a spider’s web. You should take it easy because the more you struggle the worse it becomes for you.

Ben: **

You made the claim that Jesus was definitely married, and now that you have been required, by good debate conduct, to defend that point, you claim that the point shouldn’t have been made.

Well, if it shouldn’t have been made in this thread, why did you make it?

Do you think that if we drop the point (that you claimed to have definitive proof that Jesus was married) that we will forget that you couldn’t defend that point?

 

[kalt]

**I told you already that I am ready to drop the claim if you drop the claim that Jesus was Rabbi, or religious Jew, or ever said what he said in Matthew 5:17-19 or that he was sinless. If you can do that, I’ll never say again that he was a married man.

Ben: **

You would like that–you could escape the hole you’ve dug for yourself.

But that’s not how debate works. You made a debate point (that Jesus was married) and you have been called to defend that point.

You said you have definitive “evidences” that Jesus was married, and you have failed to provide these “evidences”.

Now you want to claim that the point shouldn’t be part of the debate on this thread. Well, you started this thread, and you are the one who inserted that debate point (that Jesus was married).

If you didn’t want to debate this point, and you think it shouldn’t be included in this thread, why did you include it in your own thread?

And now you want me to deny some truths about Jesus in exchange for my letting you off the hook when you can’t defend your own debate point?!!!

Sure, I will deny the truth about Jesus AND let you off the hook.

Sheesh, if you can’t win the point legitimately, you will try to bamboozle me into winning 2 points–one by my conceding and one by dropping your point altogether. Nice try.

FWIW, I know enough about Judaism to know that this conduct is against it.

Will you agree that your religion requires honest conduct when dealing with non-Jews?

 

[wmscott]

BEN,Yes, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews, however Jesus was the ONLY Son Of God, and God became man, the Word made Flesh. Nevertheless, you as a faithful Jew are not expected to understand that, even as those Jews in the time of Christ did not understand it. With that said it is not an insult that I cast your way when I say you do not understand or refer to you as a Jew. The Jewish religion and culture is a rich and beautiful one and one in which the CC has roots in. the only observation I can see in your posting is that you seem angry, why is this? While I do not agree in what the Jewish faith teaches, I do respect it and you for your belief in it. Peace.

 

[rinnie]

**I promise that I will prove to you that Jesus was not an Essene if you prove to me that he was not married. In fact, can you show me anywhere in the NT a statement that Jesus was NOT married? People who cannot think love to ask for proofs for this or that, but are never able to provide proofs for anything they claim. Now, it’s gonna be thus: Prove to me that Jesus was not married, and I’ll prove to you that he was not Essene.

Ben: **

Right there. You turn it to every post you start. We have been through this with you time after time. It’s useless! You had to dare Ralph, ITs how you play your games. You start with a Lie about Jesus, and you know we are going to defend him. ANd then you start. Then you move over to the Blessed Mother. You are noted for it!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LilyM,

Thank you for that informative link.

You may know Jewish behaviour, laws and customs, but you DON’T know that Christ was crucified in 30 AD, which kind of blows a hole in your otherwise fine theory.

mountainretreatorg.net/faq/death.html

Not like Pilate kept a diary and jotted it down in the volume for 30 AD, was it?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ben,

Seeing the number of posts you have provided, I would have thought you would not start out with insults… but, it does not look like much has changed since Ex 32:9-10 where God calls the Hewbrews ‘stiffnecked’ for not bending to His will. It is neither praise or a condition one should want to continue to suffer in.

Look around - search the Holy Word of God - the Messiah has come as promised. Jesus Christ has risen from the dead! He proved He was True God and True Man.

The gospel writer had either no idea what he was writing about or simply thought we would never find out about his blunder. Ben

I thought LilyM gave an excellent response.

By the way, with such an expressed anti-Catholic attitude (as evidence by your inept criticism of the Gospel Writer) why do you continue on with Catholic Answer Forum?

I hope you had a blessed Passover.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ben,

You are starting to get both tedious and repititious.

Instead of claiming Jesus was married - state your evidence (from these abundant sources) using a scholarly source (and please have something more then the D. Brown Da Vinci Code.).

The burden is on you to prove your statement. All of Christian ear history and scholarship has been used to learn more about the Life of Christ. To assert that there is a conspiracy to ‘cover up’ a wife is really quite lame. If Christ had had a wife, it would have been known and written about.

Where does it say that he was NOT married? I assure you at least, that more are the evidences that he was married than that he was not.Ben:

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ben,

Sounds like you need a little help here…

I told you already that I am ready to drop the claim if you drop the claim that Jesus was Rabbi, or religious Jew, or ever said what he said in Matthew 5:17-19 or that he was sinless. If you can do that, I’ll never say again that he was a married man. Ben:

Matthew 5:17-20 (the extra verse seems especially appropriate…) is:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 20 I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven”.

As the fullfillment of the Law, Christ was perfect. He was the only One Who could keep the Entire Law. To every challenge the Jewish religious leaders posed to Christ - He shut them down. Since you seem to enjoy quoting the NT - may I ask, have you actually read it? If so, then you will know that Christ was called a rabbi often and by many. Here is a link: pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html and an excerpt you may find of interest:

**The conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount confirms the special status of Jesus as not only Rabbi but Prophet (Matt. 7:28-8:1): “And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.” Then there come several miracle stories. The New Testament does not attribute the power of performing miracles only to Jesus and his followers (Matt. 12:27), but it does cite the miracles as substantiation of his standing as Rabbi-Prophet. That identification of Jesus was a means both of affirming his continuity with the prophets of Israel and of asserting his superiority to them as the Prophet whose coming they had predicted and to whose authority they had been prepared to yield. In Deut. 18:15-22, God tells Moses, and through him the people, that he “will raise up for them a prophet like me from among you,” to whom the people are to pay heed. In its biblical context, this is the authorization of Joshua as the legitimate successor of Moses, but in the New Testament and in later Christian writers, the prophet to come is taken to be Jesus-Joshua. He is portrayed as the one Prophet in whom the teaching of Moses was fulfilled and yet superseded, the one Rabbi who both satisfied the law of Moses and transcended it; for “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). **

God bless

 

[ralphinal]

**It was a nice try to play the wise guy, but it won’t work, and
I’ll tell you why. First, let’s start with the marriage issue. Not all Essenes took the vow of celibacy. The Essenses who would not get married were but a fringe of the society. Is it okay to say that observant Catholics do not get married, since observant Catholics, like priests and nuns have taken the vow of celibacy? I didn’t think so. Jesus was never referred to as an Essene and many times as a Rabbi, which was a class of professional who were required to be married to officiate as such. (John 3:2)
**
You said that observant Jews had to be married. You have been proven wrong by history. Can you show me that you are right and history is wrong?

Now, let’s go for the Passover. Jewish festivals follow the Jewish custom of the lunar calendar. The lunar month is shorter than the solar month. That’s why the month of Adar must be added to make up for the difference. If the Essenes used the solar calendar and not the regular lunar calendar, the passover for them would fall after the regular 14th of Nisan according to the lunar calendar and never before. Therefore, even if Jesus had decided to observer the Passover Feast before the 14th of Nisan, he would be wrong in two counts. First, that according to Judaism, there is a provision for some people who couldn’t celebrate the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, to celebrate it later. But never before. And second, for Jesus to celebrate the Passover according to the solar calendar, he would have to do it after the 14th of Nisan, according to the Essene calendar, for being the solar month longer.

Again, please show us documentation for that.

 

[swariffin]

**They didn’t. To heal someone on the Sabbath is a more important commandment than to keep the Sabbath. Besides, one does not break the Sabbath for healing on this day. Even religious Jews are allowed to work in hospitals on the Sabbath under the Jewish law of “Pikuach Nephesh.” Perhaps, the Gentiles disciples of Paul who wrote the gospels did not know about this nuances of Jewish practices, and fabricated an accusation against the Jewish leaders.

Ben: **

You are rewriting the NT according to your own taste. If Pikuach Nephesh was enforced during Jesus time, there was no need for Matthew to write chapter 12:9-14. Matthew, Mark and John were Jews who wrote the gospel, and there were not the disciple of Paul.

 

[swariffin]

**do you know something? I would happily do that if ir were not for the fact that the romans destroyed all jewish documents all the way from the galilee down to jerusalem in angry revenge for the legions they lost at the hands of the jews. But to tell you the truth, i would not need to do that. Why? Only to prove to catholics? Obvious evidences in the nt are enough.

Ben**

where are they?

 

[swariffin]

**Where does it say in the NT that Jesus was an Essene? Nowhere. But it’s written that they had Pharisees in the Sect of Nazarenes, who were Jesus’ followers.

Ben: **

Where did I say that Jesus was an Essene? The Pharisee who became the member of the sect of Nazarene (The Christians as they are called outside Judea), were no longer Pharisee by definition. They surely had lost their position in the Pharisee’s community. You are day dreaming to assume the follower of Jesus were accepted among the Jewish community.

 

[RebeccaJ]

"The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread’

What is the difference?

 

[swariffin]

**Very good! I am ready to drop my claim that Jesus was a married man. But then again, you are going to drop the claim that Jesus was a Rabbi, and
a religious Jew. And that he ever declared to have come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.
And therefore, that he was sinless. Are you ready for that? I promise that if I don’t read anymore about those claims, I’ll never bring up again that he was married.

Ben: **

Surely. I never say that Jesus was a Judaism Rabbi. At least, none of the Judaism leader during Jesus’ time acknowledged and accepted Jesus as a Rabbi. Jesus was not a “religious Judaism” as well. But, Jesus bring the true word of God which was twisted to become the “religion of Judaism” by those Pharisees.

 

[swariffin]

As Catholics know, there is no surety of Christ’s marital status. You are the one who thinks he knows.

Jesus’ marital status is not an article of faith.

I have to ask all of you–the Christians who insist he wasn’t married and Jews who insist he was - what difference it makes?

Catholics look at the scant evidence and admit that it looks like Jesus probably wasn’t married.

Why do you need a definite answer?

Dear brother Kalt,

I was just stressing that the burden of proof must be on Ben, since he was the one who brought up the issue of Jesus’ marital status in the thread called “Missing Passover”.