The Wedding of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just read the thread and tell me what you think. I don’t think you need to go over all the posts on this thread. You will be able to have pretty much a good idea about the issue at hand.

Good luck!

Ben: 👍
First of all, the Jewish leader did not believe that Jesus is a rabbi. Was there any case that a rabbi, even a mistaken rabbi, must be killed using the Roman’s/enemy’s hand?

I will get to the OP later on.

Nice to know a Jewish, since I never had a chance to discuss with one before. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or not.
 
First of all, the Jewish leader did not believe that Jesus is a rabbi. Was there any case that a rabbi, even a mistaken rabbi, must be killed using the Roman’s/enemy’s hand?

I will get to the OP later on.

Nice to know a Jewish, since I never had a chance to discuss with one before. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or not.
This Jewish leader who you say didn’t believe that Jesus was a Rabbi is blameless for thinking so. The blame rests on the shoulders of Christians for having done a lot of evil against the Jewish People in the name of Jesus throughout our History. What did you expect.

I do believe in the historical Jesus. Not like you, but I do.

Ben: 🙂
 
Ben-

This thread is not about the holocaust. We know it happened. It was horrific, and no one disputes that. However, you don’t need to rub our noses in it every third post, okay? None of us are Nazis and none of us were at Auschwitz or Buchenwald. We’re not personally guilty of the Sho’ah just as you are not personally guilty of having killed the Christ. Fair?
I think you misread the post that you were responding too. He was talking about the jews that the Romans crucified at the time of Jesus, not the Shoah.
 
False.

This is a Catholic forum. We have the home field advantage. The teachings of the Catholic Church (and indeed of all Christendom) are clear.
But you are posting in a non-catholic religion section. The home field advantage is not with you.
 
This Jewish leader who you say didn’t believe that Jesus was a Rabbi is blameless for thinking so. The blame rests on the shoulders of Christians for having done a lot of evil against the Jewish People in the name of Jesus throughout our History. What did you expect.

I do believe in the historical Jesus. Not like you, but I do.

Ben: 🙂
Let us put aside about the Christian killing the Jews for our discussion. Save it for another thread, and I would like to join too. I try to stay on topic about the wedding of Jesus. The Jewish leader who did not believe in Jesus is none of my business. But, if they did not believe in Jesus as a rabbi, then Jesus was not a rabbi formally.

How I believe Jesus is none of your business too. But, I am glad that you believe in historical Jesus in whatever way you think. Rather than having someone who said that Jesus is only a myth.
 
I can’t wait until you guys get on to topics like the English Metaphysical Poets or Jane Austen.
 
**There is a good question here from Ben to all the Catholics about Jesus not being married. Of course, there is no news of his marriage in the Gospels. There is also no news of any disciples marriage in the gospels. So shall we be justified to believe that none of the disciples was married?

I feel that it is only the wishful thinking of the Catholics slightly supported by the gospels that Jesus was not married. There is also no news that Jesus was not married.

The Catholics are tied down to the NT which has been handed down to them from ages ago. We let them believe on assumption that Jesus was not married. In the meantime we will be all the more strict in our belief that he was Married**.
Way to go, Planten! There is after all some sense in this forum.

Ben: 👍 👍
 
Really?

Clement of Rome (AD 30-100), who is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, succeeded Peter as the fourth Bishop of Rome, and he wrote:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 120-200), who was a disciple of Polycarp (the disciple of the Apostle John), wrote the following:

"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…

Hmmm…neither of these two were disciples of Paul yet they testify to Apostolic Succession.

What say, Ben?
Are you assuming that I am not clever enough to
fabricate a writing like this of yours above, and then ask you what do you say about it?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
You know I have read some thing’s but this one take the cake. All I can say is one thing.

Jesus HATES Liars. That is what the bible say’s. I guess Ben does has no one else left to slander so he has to start with our Dear Lord Jesus Christ now.

You know what Ben, I don’t even dislike you I pity you. To start garbage like this could only come from one source. And I can tell you this, it is the opposite of Jesus.

You do not believe in Jesus, you could never begin to believe in Jesus, If you did you would be afraid to spread these kinds of lies. May Jesus have mercy on your soul. Because forgive me Dear Jesus because right now I sure do not.
 
Are you assuming that I am not clever enough to
fabricate a writing like this of yours above, and then ask you what do you say about it?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
i have been to a Messianic Synagogue and it seems to me that they basically believe that Israel is the Messiah, is almost if they worship themselves instead of focus in the Man Jesus as the Son of God our Savior. obviously they dont believe that they need a Savior. but to me this is a contracdition of the Scriptures since there is plenty of indication in SS about the Savior.
a promise from the beginning. but instead they elevate themselves above what God is trying to tell them from the beginning. if you believe that we sin, you must believe that God has a plan to get us out of it. although our salvation comes from Israel, it is not Israel itself that is our savior but a man sent by God to be of a Sacrificing for the sins of many.

**
BLESSED TO BE CATHOLIC.**
 
if you believe that we sin, you must believe that God has a plan to get us out of it. although our salvation comes from Israel, it is not Israel itself that is our savior but a man sent by God to be of a Sacrificing for the sins of many.

**
BLESSED TO BE CATHOLIC.**
The two religions have entirely different concepts of ‘who’ is being ‘saved’ from ‘what’ and ‘what’ that ‘saving’ ‘implies’.

To Christians, Judaism’s view is narrow; to Jews, Christianity invented an illness and prescribed itself as the only cure.
 
Matthais was chosen to replace Judas after lots were cast. St. Peter prayed to the Holy Spirit to guide the decision. When the lot was cast, it fell to Matthias. So, the decision came from the Holy Spirit, who is God, Himself (the Third Person of the Holy Trinity).
paarsurrey apparently was unaware that the selection of Matthias occurred after the Ascension. Jesus had already returned to the Father. He/she seemed to have the impression that this occurred during the Passion – before the Crucifixion.
 
The two religions have entirely different concepts of ‘who’ is being ‘saved’ from ‘what’ and ‘what’ that ‘saving’ ‘implies’.

To Christians, Judaism’s view is narrow; to Jews, Christianity invented an illness and prescribed itself as the only cure.
It all comes down to what SS says about the fall of man kind. did Adam and Eve existed? is it true or false that God created man and man disobeyed God in the beginning? and what went on after that? why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son? what was the purpose for this?

BLESSED TO BE CATHOLIC
 
It all comes down to what SS says about the fall of man kind. did Adam and Eve existed? is it true or false that God created man and man disobeyed God in the beginning? and what went on after that? why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son? what was the purpose for this?
Part of the problem with these sorts of discussions is that Jews tend to read the Tanakh ‘forward’ while Christians tend to read it, in a sense, backward, seeing it within the context of what is written about the life, words and experiences of their Savior.

If we don’t have the same suppositions, we’re not going to have compatible answers. It’s just something we have to accept about one another.
 
Part of the problem with these sorts of discussions is that Jews tend to read the Tanakh ‘forward’ while Christians tend to read it, in a sense, backward, seeing it within the context of what is written about the life, words and experiences of their Savior.

If we don’t have the same suppositions, we’re not going to have compatible answers. It’s just something we have to accept about one another.
Hi

I think it is due to the coutesy of Paul that our Catholic friends read the Bible upside down, in my opion. They advise the Bible students to first read the NTBible first and then the OTBible.

Our clever Paul knew that if the learners would first read the OTBible; then they would not perhaps accept the NTBible blindly. Without the OTBible; NTBible become meaningless in my opinion. To me, Paul gets exposed.

I love Jesus , Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks
 
Hi

I think it is due to the coutesy of Paul that our Catholic friends read the Bible upside down, in my opion. They advise the Bible students to first read the NTBible first and then the OTBible.

Our clever Paul knew that if the learners would first read the OTBible; then they would not perhaps accept the NTBible blindly. Without the OTBible; NTBible become meaningless in my opinion. To me, Paul gets exposed.

I love Jesus , Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks
? The New Testament did not exist in St. Pauls day. ?

He told his listeners to ‘read the Scriptures’, which were the Old Testament Scriptures.
 
Hi

I think it is due to the coutesy of Paul that our Catholic friends read the Bible upside down, in my opion. They advise the Bible students to first read the NTBible first and then the OTBible.

Our clever Paul knew that if the learners would first read the OTBible; then they would not perhaps accept the NTBible blindly. Without the OTBible; NTBible become meaningless in my opinion. To me, Paul gets exposed.

I love Jesus , Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks
I think the main point is to understand what you are reading. If you read the OT and then the NT you will understand that Jesus fullfulled the OT. That is the whole point of the NT.👍
 
Part of the problem with these sorts of discussions is that Jews tend to read the Tanakh ‘forward’ while Christians tend to read it, in a sense, backward, seeing it within the context of what is written about the life, words and experiences of their Savior.

If we don’t have the same suppositions, we’re not going to have compatible answers. It’s just something we have to accept about one another.
it doesnt really matter how it is read. the question is what i stated. so, do you believe what i stated from the OT?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top