The Missing Passover

[Ben_Masada]

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.

**You are mistaken my friend. I understand you because you are speaking as a Gentile. Jews would not write against Judaism. Those gospels were written by Gentiles disciples of Paul. None of the writings of the Apostles and Nazarenes
was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, in the Fourth Century, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

**Sorry Swariffin, but now you are building a standing against the NT itself. First of all, your declaration that none of the Jewish leaders acknowledged Jesus as a Rabbi is totally wrong. Read John 3:2. Nicodemus was a Jewish leader. And throughout the NT Jesus is referred to as a Rabbi.

Second, by declaring that Jesus was not a religious Jew after what he confessed in Matthew 5:17-19 is to acknowledge complete ignorance of Judaism. The Pharisees were the guardians of Judaism, and Jesus was of the same line. Mind you.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

"The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread’

What is the difference?

**The Passover is the whole week of seven days of unleavened bread. The feast is the Passover Supper or Passover Feast, or, as we say in Hebrew, the Seder. Or Seder meal, which is to be celebrated on the evening of the 14th month of Nisan.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

**I can prove to you that you are the one day dreaming. First of all, the Nazarenes were never called Christians outside of Judea. They would turn into Christians because it was Paul’s custom to overturn the Nazarene synagogues into Christian churches. He was never able to build a church from scratch; I mean from Gentiles. He would have to turn the converts of the Nazarenes into Gentiles, and then Christians. And then, if you read Acts 15:5, you will see that Pharisees, due to their intellectual capacity, were members of the Nazarene Councils.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

where are they?

**Read the thread about “The Wedding of Jesus.” They are there.

Ben: **

 

[Ben_Masada]

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?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi, Ben,

Sounds like you need a little help here…

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.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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!

**The repetition of my answers is based on the repetition of your questions. You guys keep repeating the same questions over and over again. What do you expect? If I say that Jesus was married, you say it’s a lie. Then, you say that he was not married. Where is it written? Nowhere. Therefore, it is equally a lie. How bias is your attitude!

Ben: **

 

[wolfgang]

 

[kalt]

“If Christ had had a wife, it would have been known and written about.”

"You are mistaken because of your ignorance of Jewish customs and behavior. A married Jew is so common that it would cause to reason to be reported or written about. If Jesus had been a single Jew in his 30’s, it would be legitimate reason to be mentioned and even despised among his peers. But I understand you. You couldn’t know any better as a Gentile.

Ben: "

And now you both get it.

As I said in my first post on the point (which Ben brought up and now says shouldn’t have been???), wives weren’t commonly written about.(Yes, Ben, you restated my point precisely. Proof that you’re a quick learner when you want to be.) It was a different time, and someone’s wife wasn’t an important part of the story. They didn’t routinely mention a wife just to say that the person was married. That was a non-story. It was irrelevant to the stories they were telling.

And that gets to the “proof” that Jesus was or wasn’t married.

As Ben said, if Jesus were married, there would be no reason to write about it.

If he weren’t there would be reason for ridicule.

And there’s the answer. The ridicule. The only “proof” one way or the other, points to Jesus’ probably not being married. (Read the NT)

Ben claims that a woman in the NT was his wife (He read that in the Da Vinci Code). First he says that a wife is routinely irrelevant to a story, and then he claims that Jesus’ wife is written about in the NT, and that all Jews know that it’s his wife by the behavior. Hardly a cover-up to the Jews who would know the behavior for what it was.

Ben doesn’t want to accept that the first Christians were Jews, and the Gentile converts had to become Jewish to become Christian.

If this woman written about in the NT were Jesus’ wife, the early Jewish/Christians would have known it.

And, as Ben said, she wouldn’t have been written about in the first place.

If the NT were written by Gentiles who weren’t versed in Jewish custom and who were unaware of the Jewish custom of leaving the wife out of the narrative, they would have said straightforwardly that this woman was Jesus’ wife.

These NT stories were handed down from the beginning. They are Jewish stories.

Ben’s story is anti-Catholic bunk. Don’t take his pov as standard Jewish thinking.

 

[kalt]

**The repetition of my answers is based on the repetition of your questions. You guys keep repeating the same questions over and over again. What do you expect? If I say that Jesus was married, you say it’s a lie. Then, you say that he was not married. Where is it written? Nowhere. Therefore, it is equally a lie. How bias is your attitude!

Ben: **

Ben, you made the point in a debate. It is your job to defend that point.

It is clear that you are unable to, and as I said earlier, it’s accepted by the forum in general, I think, that you have lost the point.

Guys, I think we can stop asking him to defend the debate point (that he knows Jesus was definitely married), because he has only supposition and no definitive proof.

He has already lost the point, and there is no reason to keep asking him for the definitive proof he can’t produce.

 

[ralphinal]

**You are mistaken my friend. I understand you because you are speaking as a Gentile. **Jews would not write against Judaism.****Those gospels were written by Gentiles disciples of Paul. None of the writings of the Apostles and Nazarenes
was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, in the Fourth Century, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul.

Ben:

This is one of the more illogical positions that you hold. Jewish people would not write against Jews. I bet that African Americans would not call each other the N word and Italian Americans would not call each other deigos.

If you could look past your hatred and disdain for Christianity for a minute, you would see that the Gospels are not anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism. When the phrase “the Jews” is used, it is almost always referring to that group who faught against the Church.

If someone in my family beat me, kicked me out of the community, and killed those that I knew and cared about, I doubt that I would be as kind when talking about them

 

[rinnie]

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?

Probally because we know that our Church has the fullness of the Truth. And our Church tells us that Jesus was not married. It tells us how Priest’s in not being married imitate Christ. Then to have someone call our Church and our leaders (apostles) Liars. We have the right as Catholic’s to defend our faith and our Dear Lord Jesus. And should let no one make up lies about him. This claim of ben’s has been going on for quite some time, with no evidence. It’s not that Ben won’t prove his claim he can’t. And that’s the point. He can’t.

The only bride that Christ had is his church. Paul talks about it all through the gospel. He said that the church and its relation to Christ is that of a bride whom Christ deeply loves. Loves so much he handed himself over for her. Ephesians 5:25. He made her holy through the sacraments Ephesians 5:26 His love for her makes her a resplendent bride, holy without blemish Ephesians 5:27.

By the Grace of God we are enlightened by the Spirit to recongize the Church as Christ’s faithfull Bride.

There is my evidence. That Jesus was never married. Why would Paul go to all that trouble and say that if Jesus was indeed married, and forget to mention it? Does not make any sense. Why would Paul say it is better to not marry to imitate Christ because a married man pleases his wife, a Un-married Man only has to Please his Church. He is also calling Paul a liar. There is the Proof. There is the scripture. Case Closed.

Forgive me Kalt but I have had enough of Bens lies. Now let him go back and prove this scripture is false. He won’t because he can’t.

My daughter went to school for criminal Justice. The first thing she learned was you cannot tell A lie. One lie leads to another and another. But when you tell the truth, its over. IT never changes. You can never tell 1 lie. It takes many.

But you can tell 1 truth. You say it its over. Paul said the truth, he said it, its over! Jesus was not married. The bible tells me so.

 

[kalt]

Probally because we know that our Church has the fullness of the Truth. And our Church tells us that Jesus was not married. It tells us how Priest’s in not being married imitate Christ. Then to have someone call our Church and our leaders (apostles) Liars. We have the right as Catholic’s to defend our faith and our Dear Lord Jesus. And should let no one make up lies about him. This claim of ben’s has been going on for quite some time, with no evidence. It’s not that Ben won’t prove his claim he can’t. And that’s the point. He can’t.

The only bride that Christ had is his church. Paul talks about it all through the gospel. He said that the church and its relation to Christ is that of a bride whom Christ deeply loves. Loves so much he handed himself over for her. Ephesians 5:25. He made her holy through the sacraments Ephesians 5:26 His love for her makes her a resplendent bride, holy without blemish Ephesians 5:27.

By the Grace of God we are enlightened by the Spirit to recongize the Church as Christ’s faithfull Bride.

There is my evidence. That Jesus was never married. Why would Paul go to all that trouble and say that if Jesus was indeed married, and forget to mention it? Does not make any sense. Why would Paul say it is better to not marry to imitate Christ because a married man pleases his wife, a Un-married Man only has to Please his Church. He is also calling Paul a liar. There is the Proof. There is the scripture. Case Closed.

Forgive me Kalt but I have had enough of Bens lies. Now let him go back and prove this scripture is false. He won’t because he can’t.

My daughter went to school for criminal Justice. The first thing she learned was you cannot tell A lie. One lie leads to another and another. But when you tell the truth, its over. IT never changes. You can never tell 1 lie. It takes many.

But you can tell 1 truth. You say it its over. Paul said the truth, he said it, its over! Jesus was not married. The bible tells me so.

Have you actually read through the thread yet? I have posted many times against Ben’s debate tactics.

Still, there is no official church teaching on Jesus’s marital status. We believe that he was not married, based on the evidence in the NT, but this is not an article of faith.

 

[rinnie]

Have you actually read through the thread yet? I have posted many times against Ben’s debate tactics.

Still, there is no official church teaching on Jesus’s marital status. We believe that he was not married, based on the evidence in the NT, but this is not an article of faith.

In all do respect I must disagree. In the CCC 1618
Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds familial or social. From the very beginning of the church there have Been Men who RENOUNCED the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes. and to go out to meeet the bridegroom who is comming. CHRIST himself has invited certain persons to follow HIM IN THIS WAY OF LIFE of which he REMAINS THE MODEL.

Now I am sorry that is the official teachings of our church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kalt,

Yes, I think you are correct in this assessment. The apparent burning desire to take a Text out of ConText - just to give him a PreText for bashing Christ, the Apostles the CC, and the NT is stunning. Making wild and irresponsible accusations and then expecting other to “…prove I’m wrong…” rather then being mature enough to defend (as opposed to merely restate) the position, is just beyond the scope of the CAF.

Ben, you made the point in a debate. It is your job to defend that point. It is clear that you are unable to, and as I said earlier, it’s accepted by the forum in general, I think, that you have lost the point. Guys, I think we can stop asking him to defend the debate point (that he knows Jesus was definitely married), because he has only supposition and no definitive proof. He has already lost the point, and there is no reason to keep asking him for the definitive proof he can’t produce.

Ben has been a genuine disappointment to me for his amazing immaturity. It is one thing to express hatred and defame others - but, quite another to deny you are even doing it. That goes along with the explaination given to me of how denial should be spelled: DEKIAL means Don’t Even Know I Am Lying! I have no plans on responding to Ben… and from my point of view, I think the question about the “missing Passover” has been resolved! It is only missing in the mind of Ben.

Christ is our Passover - our Risen Lord - the Lamb that was slain is our salvation. Blessed be the Name of the Lord! Thanks, guys, it was a pleasure interacting with you on this thread.

God bless - and let’s keep Ben in our prayers.

 

[kalt]

In all do respect I must disagree. In the CCC 1618
Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds familial or social. From the very beginning of the church there have Been Men who RENOUNCED the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes. and to go out to meeet the bridegroom who is comming. CHRIST himself has invited certain persons to follow HIM IN THIS WAY OF LIFE of which he REMAINS THE MODEL.

Now I am sorry that is the official teachings of our church.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea1.asp

 

[MrDickerson]

The CE type notation is totally assanine. The idea that 33 CE is more like 2009 CE than 33 BCE is crazy.

All that it does is show the illogical attempts some have to remove Jesus.

Just start saying “CE” and “BCE” stands for “Christian Era” and “Before Christian Era”