The Wedding of Jesus

[PatienceAndLove]

You can’t prove that Bethany was not the home of Mary Magdalene and you cannot prove that Mary Magdalene was not Martha’s sister. And regarding sex between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, what’s the big deal if they were married? Why it would have to be sexless? Is sex a sin between a man and a woman within the marriage context?.

Wait… I thought she had a business in Magdala, and was why she was called Mary of Magdalen?
If she was from Bethany, wouldn’t she be Mary if Bethany, sister of Lazarus?
Oh wait- there was a Mary of Bethany who was NOT Mary of Magdalen.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ah- so your real intent has been revealed!
You are hear to tell us that our Scripture is wrong because it doesn’t fit your narrow definition of “truth”. Aweome

No, you are mistaken about my purpose to be here. I am here to claim Jesus as our own. Jesus was Jewish and not Christian. He never had anything to do with Christianity. If Jesus could know what the Christianity of Paul has done to Jesus’ own People, he would turn in his grave.

Ben:

 

[PatienceAndLove]

No, you are mistaken about my purpose to be here. I am here to claim Jesus as our own. Jesus was Jewish and not Christian. He never had anything to do with Christianity. If Jesus could know what the Christianity of Paul has done to Jesus’ own People, he would turn in his grave.

Ben:

Never said Jesus was Christian. Anyone who claims that is a bit of a nutter.
However, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, did start a Church here on Earth:
Gospel According to St. Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

footnotes!
18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

18 “The gates of hell”… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

And Our Lord, Jesus Christ doesn’t have a grace to roll in. He Ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty.

 

[planten]

paarsurrey

I feel insulted that you ask this question when you have already been answered in another thread. You know the answer. If you are leading up to something just spit it out. I live with a mathematician and have learned well a geometric trap.

** I feel that paarsurrey is justified in asking the question “Was any of the Eleven disciples present at the site of the Crucifixion?” It is a genuine question. The fair reply to it is “No.” If you tell the truth and say no one of them was present, it is possible that you may have to answer other difficult questions.

It appears that you have seen some trap. But no worry. You can always admit the truth and be comfortable.**

 

[PatienceAndLove]

** I feel that paarsurrey is justified in asking the question “Was any of the Eleven disciples present at the site of the Crucifixion?” It is a genuine question. The fair reply to it is “No.” If you tell the truth and say no one of them was present, it is possible that you may have to answer other difficult questions.

It appears that you have seen some trap. But no worry. You can always admit the truth and be comfortable.**

Actually- it derails the thread from the original topic.
The PP was totally in the right when s/he referred paarsurrey to a previous thread.
Thread hijackings are not permitted.

 

[mercygate]

** I feel that paarsurrey is justified in asking the question “Was any of the Eleven disciples present at the site of the Crucifixion?” It is a genuine question. The fair reply to it is “No.” If you tell the truth and say no one of them was present, it is possible that you may have to answer other difficult questions.**

It appears that you have seen some trap. But no worry. You can always admit the truth and be comfortable.

John was there. Now back to topic.

 

[adrift]

He was responsible for the rise of Christianity, which
has killed more of the Jewish People than any other institution from before and after it’s rising. Besides, Christianity promotes Replacement Theology and we Jews must rise to defend our place
under the sun.

Ben:

Are you including the holocaust in your statement? God alone is responsible for the rise of Christianity. Your place is waiting for you in God’s Church come join us.

 

[adrift]

** I feel that paarsurrey is justified in asking the question “Was any of the Eleven disciples present at the site of the Crucifixion?” It is a genuine question. The fair reply to it is “No.” If you tell the truth and say no one of them was present, it is possible that you may have to answer other difficult questions.

It appears that you have seen some trap. But no worry. You can always admit the truth and be comfortable.**

He has asked the same question before. The answer is not no but one. I have no problem answering it but I do have a problem with him asking again what has already been answered.

This indeed is off topic. paarsurrey does that frequently.

Back to the subject. The op is not the first to speculate. However, you have to go against 2000 years of history and become a revisionist to state believe it. The unsubstantiated claim that John was not a Jew is just that unsubstantiated by someone who claims he is a Jew.

 

[PaulDupre]

Besides, Christianity promotes Replacement Theology and we Jews must rise to defend our place
under the sun.

Ben:

Only Protestant Christianity promotes Replacement Theology. Catholic Christianity does not. Come on in, the water’s fine!

Paul

 

[Ben_Masada]

John was there. Now back to topic.

Mercygate, sorry to contradict you and the writer of the 4th gospel. John was not there. All the disciples had fled to hide for fear of the Romans. There were only two women before the cross. Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Because of the fact that I am Jewish, I have the authority or audacity, whatever you want to call it, to tell you this: Jesus was an Othodox Jew, and it would have been terribly awkward for Jesus to recommend his mother to a male disciple, or his disciple to his mother.

The only logic is that Jesus did recommend his mother to Mary Magdalene who was her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law. Therefore Jesus said “Daughter here is your mother” and “Mother, here is your daughter” in the sense that they should take care of each other.

This is Jewish discency and family propriety. But then, why the text mentions John and not Mary Magdalene? Because it would not fall well for the Church to register such a dialogue between Jesus and his mother and wife. That’s a very strong evidence to coroborate my thread about the wedding of Jesus. And I thank you
for having brought it up so that I could contribute with this extra information.

Ben:

 

[adrift]

Mercygate, sorry to contradict you and the writer of the 4th gospel. John was not there. All the disciples had fled to hide for fear of the Romans. There were only two women before the cross. Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Because of the fact that I am Jewish, I have the authority or audacity, whatever you want to call it, to tell you this: Jesus was an Othodox Jew, and it would have been terribly awkward for Jesus to recommend his mother to a male disciple, or his disciple to his mother.

The only logic is that Jesus did recommend his mother to Mary Magdalene who was her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law. Therefore Jesus said “Daughter here is your mother” and “Mother, here is your daughter” in the sense that they should take care of each other.

This is Jewish discency and family propriety. But then, why the text mentions John and not Mary Magdalene? Because it would not fall well for the Church to register such a dialogue between Jesus and his mother and wife. That’s a very strong evidence to coroborate my thread about the wedding of Jesus. And I thank you
for having brought it up so that I could contribute with this extra information.

Ben:

So you claim what you have not proved is that what Jews do today was also done in the time of Jesus. John was there because he said he was and centuries later we are to believe you because you say you are a Jew when you speak like a Muslim:nope:

 

[FK04US]

https://opusdei.org/en/section/saint-josemaria/

 

[mercygate]

Mercygate, sorry to contradict you and the writer of the 4th gospel. John was not there. All the disciples had fled to hide for fear of the Romans. There were only two women before the cross. Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Unfortunately, we have no documentary evidence of this.

Because of the fact that I am Jewish, I have the authority or audacity, whatever you want to call it, to tell you this: Jesus was an Othodox Jew, and it would have been terribly awkward for Jesus to recommend his mother to a male disciple, or his disciple to his mother.

The only logic is that Jesus did recommend his mother to Mary Magdalene who was her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law to her mother-in-law. Therefore Jesus said “Daughter here is your mother” and “Mother, here is your daughter” in the sense that they should take care of each other. There are fragments of the Gospel of John dating from the late first century. They do not register this text.

This is Jewish discency and family propriety. But then, why the text mentions John and not Mary Magdalene? Because it would not fall well for the Church to register such a dialogue between Jesus and his mother and wife. That’s a very strong evidence to coroborate my thread about the wedding of Jesus. And I thank you
for having brought it up so that I could contribute with this extra information.

Ben:

The Catholic Church actually uses the “Son, behold your mother” passage to indicate that Jesus had no brothers from both Mary and Joseph.

What you call “evidence” we call fanciful eisegesis and careless speculation. The textual reliability of the New Testament is astonishingly strong, attested by thousands of manuscripts of very early date and conforming in content across multiple languages. To say that the text does not say what it says requires an enormous leap over a tall mountain of contrary evidence.

These speculations of yours, however, are highly entertaining. You should write a novel. Oh. Wait a minute. That’s already been done.

 

[FK04US]

 

[adrift]

What you call “evidence” we call fanciful eisegesis and careless speculation. The textual reliability of the New Testament is astonishingly strong, attested by thousands of manuscripts of very early date and conforming in content across multiple languages. To say that the text does not say what it says requires an enormous leap over a tall mountain of contrary evidence.

These speculations of yours, however, are highly entertaining. You should write a novel. Oh. Wait a minute. That’s already been done.

It also goes against the fact that women did not earn a living but were provided for by family. That is by MALE family members. It is a strange fabrication from a “Jew”

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Folks you are arguing with a man that is changing the words to the Gospels. Who states that at the weeding in Cana that it was Jesus marring Mary Magdelene and she had not n=even met the Lord at that time and that thinks that Mary magdelene and Mary the sister of Martha are the same person.

Now I do know about 2000 years ago but rabbis today do not have to be married and it is my understanding that rabbi means teacher and at the time if Christ there were Priest to preform the religious duties so a rabbi would just have been a teacher in those day.

I also have a sneaking suspension that are Jewish friend here is not Jewish but maybe muslim just from the sound of what he writes:shrug:

 

[LilyM]

John was there. Now back to topic.

John was the only one of the Eleven to be there. But other disciples were as well, of course. Jesus’ mother Mary being one, Mary Magdalene another. Both of these saw Him after His resurrection as well.

And other women accompanied Mary Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene as witnesses to the crucifixion as well - some of these might also have accompanied Mary Magdalene to the tomb.

 

[adrift]

Folks you are arguing with a man that is changing the words to the Gospels. Who states that at the weeding in Cana that it was Jesus marring Mary Magdelene and she had not n=even met the Lord at that time and that thinks that Mary magdelene and Mary the sister of Martha are the same person.

Now I do know about 2000 years ago but rabbis today do not have to be married and it is my understanding that rabbi means teacher and at the time if Christ there were Priest to preform the religious duties so a rabbi would just have been a teacher in those day.

I also have a sneaking suspension that are Jewish friend here is not Jewish but maybe Muslim just from the sound of what he writes:shrug:

You are right in everything you write. Remember however there are lurkers who sees what he writes and wonder. So it is not a fruitless task in answering someone who truly does not wish to be answered.

 

[Valke2]

No, you are mistaken about my purpose to be here. I am here to claim Jesus as our own. Jesus was Jewish and not Christian. He never had anything to do with Christianity. If Jesus could know what the Christianity of Paul has done to Jesus’ own People, he would turn in his grave.

Ben:

why on earth would a jew want to claim Jesus as “their own” whatever that means? Jesus is our gift to the christians. And the 30 day return policy has long since expired.

 

[LilyM]

why on earth would a jew want to claim Jesus as “their own” whatever that means? Jesus is our gift to the christians. And the 30 day return policy has long since expired.

Nope - Jesus was God’s gift of Himself to all of mankind - ‘a light to the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel’. As He said ‘I come for the lost sheep of the House of Israel’. And it’s never too late to take Him up on the offer of salvation