The Wedding of Jesus

[ronyodish]

That’s too bad Ronyodish. If you have decided to hide behind or under the shadow of Catholic tradition, you have indeed found a good place. But don’t forget that usually traditions bring disappointments. It’s much safer to go by what is written.

Ben,

As Catholics, we believe that both Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture are the word of God, a two-fold transmission of the same one source we call the Deposit of Faith. Holy Tradition is the oral word, and Holy Scripture is the written word.

We are not Protestants who cling to Sola Scriptura. As Catholics, we do not believe that one form is higher or more safer than the other, rather, “both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end” (Dei Verbum, 9).

We are not “hiding” or running away from any thing. God has chosen to transmit His Deposit of Faith in both an oral and written manner. We do not believe in the traditions of men that contradict the word of God and cause disappointments, rather, we believe in the Tradition of the Word of God, handed down to us by Apostolic Succession in an oral and written manner.

Okay, let’s take all the 27 books of the NT and study what it’s written. As long as you leave tradition alone.

Sorry, no thanks brother, as I said, we are not Sola Scriptura Protestants. If you are going to dialogue with me, a Catholic, then I will use both Scripture and Tradition to defend Catholic Christianity.

Jesus never had a church, and much less the Catholic Church. Jesus was Jewish and Synagogue or the Jewish
Temple were the places he congregated for his daily prayers.

Jesus founed the Church, this is very clear in the New Testament. One well known passage is Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says to Simon: You are Rock, and upon this rock, I will build my Church.

The Church, the new People of God, is a fulfillment of the OT People of God, Israel. The difference being is that the Chosen People of God in the OT had to be naturally Israelites, whether in Israel or abroad, they had to be naturally descended from the Patriarch Israel/Jacob.

In the NT, however, the Chosen of People of God have become universalized, including all men, Jews and Gentiles. It was no longer necessary to be naturally descended from Israel in order to be a member of the People of God. The Universal Church is what the Catholic Church means, a universal as opposed to a mere ethnic or local People of God.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish, and the Apostles were Jewish, but the mission of Jesus was to send the Apostles out into the whole world, baptizing all men in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. To this day, some of the people that converted still maintain a more Semitic Christianity, such as my Aramaic Chaldean Church, whereas other Catholic Churches are more Hellenized. All the Churches in the Catholic Communion, whether Semitic or Hellenized or other, are in full communion with one another and with the Pope of Rome, successor of St. Peter.

 

[ronyodish]

Continued…

Does it mean you don’t have freewill?

No, it doesn’t mean that. We believe in free will.

It means that no matter what I do, I can never reach God on my own. God has to first initiate, that is, invite me with His grace, and then I make my free will decision to either accept or reject the offer of God for my salvation. If I make it to heaven, it is because of the grace that God has poured out into my soul, to which I have freely accepted and cooperated with to the end of my natural life.

In the case of infants, God pours out this grace in Baptism, and indwells the infant at that time. When the child grows up, and is able to make a choice between right or wrong, good or evil, God or no God, he then makes the decision all his life to either continue in the supernatural love and divine grace that has been infused into him, or freely choose to reject all this and throw away his salvation by indulging in a selfish life of serious and deadly sins.

As a Catholic, I freely accept and continue to accept the grace offered by God, and freely accept His authority in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. I freely accept that God first pours out the supernatural divine life, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity, into our souls at baptism, and continues to nourish and guide us with the other Holy Mysteries or Sacraments, most especially the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Nevertheless, Isaiah declares that God reveals His glory through Israel. Where in the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle is written that God reveals Himself through the Church?

Yes, in the OT, God revealed His glory through Israel, and in the NT, God has extended His glory to all people through Christ the Head and His Body the Church. We see this for example, when St. Simeon prophesied of Christ in Luke chapter 2:

---

[29] “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word;
[30] for mine eyes have seen thy salvation
[31] which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,
[32] a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to thy people Israel.”​

Before ascending into heaven, Jesus tells the Apostles, the stewards of the Church, to be His witnesses to all people: “and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)

There are other more passages where Jesus gives the mandate to His Apostles, to His Church, for the conversion of all people. This was how God was extending His glory and light to all nations, through Jesus and His Body the Church.

 

[ronyodish]

Continued…

Who is not under the Law, you? We all are under the Law, whether you like it or not. Above the Law, only God is; and out of the Law only criminals. Let yourself be taken to Court and tell the Judge that you are not under the Law, and wait to see
if he will let you go. Even Jesus himself was under the Law, if you
read Matthew 5:17-19. The Law was given to us as a result of God’s grace. There is no grace apart from God’s Law.

I am not under the Law of Moses, I am under the Law of Christ. Jesus was under the Law of Moses in order to fulfill the Law of Moses, and having fulfilled it, we who are Christ’s followers are now under the Law of Christ, which is Grace. St. Paul refers to this:

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).

“yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

St. John explains:

“And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:16-17).

So, the passage you referenced, Matthew 5:17-19, refers to Jesus fulfilling the Law: “I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (verse 17). We Catholic Christians still obey the moral Law of Moses, the Commandments, because that is an eternal law, but we obey it through grace. Grace enables us to live out the Moral Law, the grace we receive from the Sacraments. The Judicial and Ceremonial Laws of Moses (like kosher laws), we no longer follow, because these were temporary laws for Israel and not eternal laws like the Moral Law.

When I go to a court, I obey the civil laws, whether they originate from the Judicial Law of Moses or elsewhere, and I do so not because doing so brings me eternal salvation (since I am saved by Divine Grace as the Catholic Church teaches), but because we are commanded to obey the civil authorities for the common good and right order of society.

I believe that Thomas the Apostle might have started the original Assyrian-Chaldean sect because Thomas was a Nazarene. But like all the other synagogues, this one was also taken over by Christianity. I believe that Thomas was in full unity with Peter but not with Paul. And Peter was never a Pope. The first Pope was Paul.

St. Thomas is in fact the founder of our Assyrian-Chaldean Church, having founded us along the way of his journey to India. What he founded was an Aramaic brand of Christianity-Messianism, called the Nasraye in Aramaic (Nazarines), and these were in full communion with the Greek brand of Christianity-Messianism known simply as the Kristani (an Aramaic transliteration of the Greek word for Christians). Christianity, or whatever name it was known by at that time, was the contribution of the Apostles of Jesus to all the world. Christianity is not some later addition to what Jesus gave us.

Paul was in full unity with the Apostles, as we read in in Acts: “And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:26-28).

So, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and the others were united to one another as Christians. Peter was the bishop of the Church of Rome for over twenty years and was martyred there. The word Pope means father, and so Peter was the father in Christ of that city. Since he was the chief and first of the Apostles who were sent out to all peoples, Peter was then the father in Christ of all people who were converting to Christianity, and each Apostle was father in Christ of their respective peoples.

Paul joined Peter at Rome, and was martyred there as well. Though the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, the Church of Rome recounts her Apostolic Succession as originating from Peter, then it was handed on to Linus, then to Cletus, then to Clement, and so forth.

God bless,

Rony

 

[rinnie]

Okay ben, lets start here you said Liars are those who claim that Jesus was what he never claimed to be. Lets start here, who do you say Jesus claimed to be Ben?

You never really did answer my question point blank. and probally never will. But go for it Ben, answer it short and sweet. who do you say Jesus claimed to Be?

 

[adrift]

Ben Masada

Proposes that Jesus was married because

1. He was a Rabbi and all rabbis had to be married
2. Jesus underwent l “mikveh” or immersion in waters before ordination when He went to John the Baptist to be baptised.
3. Jesus was at a wedding that Ben claims was Jesus’ and Mary Magdalene three days later.
4. Mary Magdalene was the sister of Martha and Lazarus and an orphan.
5. Mary Magdalene was rich
6. The Bridegroom was in charge to provide the wine, which mind you, Jesus made sure it was of the best quality.
7. After Jesus’ wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus’ come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene.
8. After Jesus exorcised seven demons from Mary, she must have fallen in love with him.
9. Then, in Bethany when Mary was smearing Jesus’ body with that expensive pefume, we all know, that Mary did not just throw that perfume at him from afar. Definitely not! she did smear him almost all over even in terms of massage, so much so that some of the guests thought it to be unbecoming. Mary would call him “Rabboni,” a colloquial term used as an expression of love, especially by a Rabbi’s wife. It also means “Master of my suffering,” as Rachel named her son Benoni before she died from child birth. (Gen. 35:18)
10. while everyone else would address Jesus as Rabbi, Mary would call him “Rabboni,”
11. Joseph had to go along because if he had stayed, he would probably be crucified for having cheated on Pilate regarding Jesus who was not dead when he took him off the cross.

All of these points have been refuted without Ben countering with valid proof only with unfounded supposition and speculation.

A comment on 9 and 10 points
The woman is never identified. Ben has not provided any proof of her identity. Neither is there any record of her saying anything.
Ben’s definition of rabboni is incorrect. To connect it with Rachel and her son Benoni is incorrect.

A common title of distinction during the time of Jesus was the term “Rabbi.” In Hebrew it was “Ravi,” pronounced (Rahbee). The Greek was “Hrabbi” and they both mean the same thing “My Master” or “My Teacher.”

It was actually a new term that had developed sometime either during or after the schism which arose between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Actually the first person we know of in history to have been honoroed with this title was Gamaliel I sometime around 30 AD. The title that Jesus had rebuked so often was actually very popular and very new.

There were actually three forms of the title, each given with elaborate ceremony:

“Rab” meaning “Master” was apparently, according to early Babylonian works, a Babylonian title given to certain learned men who had received the laying-on of hands in the rabbinic schools. This was the lowest title among the three.

“Rabbi” meaning “My Master” was a Palestinian designation, where a man was bestowed the title from the laying-on of hands by the Sanhedrin. The ceremony was interesting. The man was placed on a “high” chair which was raised above the assembly and he was given a key and a scroll when the new title was spoken by a certain person. The key symbolized power and authority to teach others, and the scroll symbolized that he was familiar and devoted to his studies. He would wear the key as a token of greatness and it was buried with him. According to the Aruch (Talmudical lexicon) a “Rabbi” was one who has disciples, and whose disciples were prepared to raise up new disciples. This was the second greatest title among the three.

“Rabbon” which meant “Great Master” or “Rabboni” meaning “My Great Master” was the greatest designation of all. It is properly pronounced (Rahbonee). Once the teacher had seen two generations of disciples he was referred to with this title, and also called by his own name so that he would not be forgotten.

Ben-oni = “son of my sorrow” No connection to the word rabboni.

 

[benedictgal]

You never really did answer my question point blank. and probally never will. But go for it Ben, answer it short and sweet. who do you say Jesus claimed to Be?

Jesus is no less than the Son of the Living God. The problem that the Jews of Jesus’ time had with Him was the fact that Jesus had, in their eyes, made himself equal with God. In fact, that is why Caiphas tore his garments during Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.

As Catholics we believe that Jesus is both God and Man. He is the Eternal Son of the Father, begotten, not made, but, coming into our time as Man, becoming incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Mother.

 

[rinnie]

Jesus is no less than the Son of the Living God. The problem that the Jews of Jesus’ time had with Him was the fact that Jesus had, in their eyes, made himself equal with God. In fact, that is why Caiphas tore his garments during Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin.

As Catholics we believe that Jesus is both God and Man. He is the Eternal Son of the Father, begotten, not made, but, coming into our time as Man, becoming incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Mother.

Yes I know, but I want to hear Bens answer to my question. But as you see he keeps avoiding it. I knew he would. Who knows maybe he will answer it sooner or later but I doubt it. Time will tell. But thanks for responding.

 

[redrosetea]

Ben is a troll, haven’t you figured it out yet?

 

[agent_grey]

A priest can only marry a woman that is a virgin. If Marry Magdelin was not a virgin and Jesus married her than start looking for a new Christ. Might I suggest a study of John the Baptist’s personal life.

 

[rinnie]

Ben is a troll, haven’t you figured it out yet?

Oh I figured Ben out a long time ago. Isn’t it amazing how he tries to teach us our faith, and will not answer such a easy question when asked of him. IT’s typical though. But why insult a troll

 

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4840329&postcount=445

St. Thomas is in fact the founder of our Assyrian-Chaldean Church, having founded us along the way of his journey to India. What he founded was an Aramaic brand of Christianity-Messianism, called the Nasraye in Aramaic (Nazarines), and these were in full communion with the Greek brand of Christianity-Messianism known simply as the Kristani (an Aramaic transliteration of the Greek word for Christians). Christianity, or whatever name it was known by at that time, was the contribution of the Apostles of Jesus to all the world. Christianity is not some later addition to what Jesus gave us.

Paul was in full unity with the Apostles, as we read in in Acts: “And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:26-28).

So, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and the others were united to one another as Christians. Peter was the bishop of the Church of Rome for over twenty years and was martyred there. The word Pope means father, and so Peter was the father in Christ of that city. Since he was the chief and first of the Apostles who were sent out to all peoples, Peter was then the father in Christ of all people who were converting to Christianity, and each Apostle was father in Christ of their respective peoples.

Paul joined Peter at Rome, and was martyred there as well. Though the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, the Church of Rome recounts her Apostolic Succession as originating from Peter, then it was handed on to Linus, then to Cletus, then to Clement, and so forth.

God bless,

Rony

Hi

I request friend Ben Masada to reply to this post of friend
ronyodish in detail, please.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

My friend paarsurrey, rejoice in the Lord our God always!

The original autographs of the NT Bible, meaning, the original manuscripts written by the Apostles under Divine Inspiration, have all been unfortunately either destroyed or lost. So, the original Gospel scroll or manuscript that St. Matthew wrote in Aramaic is no longer with us, having either been destroyed or is lost.

However, there are copies of the NT Bible written in Aramaic/Syriac. It is known as the Peshitta Bible, and it is officially used by the Catholic Churches that use the Syriac script, such as my particular Chaldean Catholic Church. The Gospel of Matthew can be read online here: pes.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm

If you are looking for an English translation of this Peshitta Matthew, there are some online, but one example is here: aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/dr_george_lamsa_bible.htm

Now, there is a question in scholarship that refers to what is known as Greek Primacy versus Aramaic Primacy. Most scholars accept Greek Primacy, meaning, that all or most of the original NT manuscripts were originally written in Greek, and then later translated into other languages, including Syriac. On the other hand, there is a minority of scholars who accept Aramaic Primacy, by thinking that the original NT was written in Aramaic.

There are some who think that one should not pin the Greek view against the Aramaic view, and think that both were written at the same time by the Apostles, meaning, the Apostles wrote in Greek to the Greek-speaking followers of Jesus, and wrote in Aramaic to the Aramaic-speaking followers of Jesus.

The late Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is an Aramaic/Syriac-speaking Church, accepts that the Peshitta Syriac text has been handed down from the hands of the Apostles themselves. This is what Mar Eshai Shimun said in 1957:

---

“With reference to…the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”​

So, irregardless of whichever language the NT was originally written in, if you compare the Greek text with the Syriac text, there are very minor differences, differences that do not alter the substance of the message of Jesus.

Also, as Catholics, we have Holy Tradition, and the interpretive guidance of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, to help us know for certain the message of Jesus in addition to what we read in the NT Bible.

God bless,

Rony

Hi

Thank you for your reply to my queries. I am only interested in the Gospel of Matthew written in Syriac/Aramaic which St.Thomas took along while going to India. I also wonder why St. Thomas followers in Kerala could not keep, the original with them or at least copies of it with them.

May I request friend Ben Masada to kindly give his comments on this , please.

Regards

 

[anjoh66]

Since when is the Ahmadiyya a part of Islam?

Only the ahmadis claim that, strange that the muslims went wrong for 1400 years before mirza Ghulam Ahmad came into the world.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey,

Peace be with you image of God!

Jesus is the Perfect Man, but not just a mere man, He is God and Man. His mission on Earth, sent by the Father, was the salvation of the human race. His mission was to marry and unite to Himself all of humanity, gathered up into the Church, that is why the Church is called the bride of Christ.

If Jesus was a mere man, and not also God, then he would probably and naturally marry a woman and have children with her. However, as the God-Man, He does not need to naturally marry one girl and have some children, because He is marrying all of the human race, if they are willing to accept His offer of marriage, by becoming members of the Church.

So, as to the question of whether Jesus spent His life naturally, yes he did, meaning He was Man in all things except sin, but being God and Man, He brought us more than just the mere natural state. He elevated marriage from a mere natural state to a higher supernatural state, so Jesus did not come to naturally marry one lady, but came to supernaturally marry all human beings.

So if you think that a man has to be married in order to be perfect, then Jesus is the most perfect of men, because His goal is to marry every single human person ever created. God wills all human persons to be united to Him, which is what human marriage tries to reflect, that is, the eternal supernatural marriage between God and Humanity.

Now, in Christianity, a man does not have to be naturally married in order to be perfect, because perfection in Christianity refers to the abundance of grace, purity of heart, and rejection of sin. If a man goes through his whole life unmarried, but strives with God’s grace for holiness, repenting of his sins, and dies free from serious deadly sins, and gets to heaven, that is a perfect man, a saint, a holy one.

For example, there are some men in Christianity, who are called monks, who choose to not be naturally married in order to embrace the eternal supernatural marriage of the the kingdom of God. They don’t reject human marriage, they simply choose not to make use of this natural good, in order to devote their lives to a higher supernatural good. Jesus makes mention of these men in the Gospel: “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12).

God bless,

Rony

Hi friend ronyodish!

I consider such responses as trying to putting words into the mouth of Jesus. Jesus never said that he won’t marry. He had parts; which speak of the will of the Creator; Jesus must have fulfilled the will of the Creator; unless it is thought that he did not have the needed confidence (I here take refuge in Allah) of a male in him or that he thought that there was some defects in him. I understand that those who are born without a father, they cannot mate with opposite sex and cannot have children.

So these are important issues on which Jesus should not remain silent. Jesus himself should speak for claims and reasons. Jesus had a free will and he was wise also; his followers need not excel him in both. If that is the case; then it means Jesus should have followed them, instead of them following Jesus; which I think no Catholic would like to believe. Please do not try to put any wisdom in Jesus; he already had much of it, I am sure.

Let Jesus speak and plead for himself. Just give Jesus’ unequivocal claims and reasons in concentrated form, if not in detail. Let Jesus express himself freely, please.

I love Jesus because he had a lot of wisdom and he feared nobody except GodAllahYHWH.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Still waiting for your response Ben.

Hi

Friend Ben Masada

Kindly quote some posts from your new thread which are specific as a response to friend rinnie, if you may please.

Thanks

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi

Friend Ben Masada

Kindly quote some posts from your new thread which are specific as a response to friend rinnie, if you may please.

Thanks

Dear Paarsurrey, Salam aleicum. How are you doing? If the response Rinnie so waits for is not in the thread about my views on Jesus, Rinnie is going to be a little more specific.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi

Thank you for your reply to my queries. I am only interested in the Gospel of Matthew written in Syriac/Aramaic which St.Thomas took along while going to India. I also wonder why St. Thomas followers in Kerala could not keep, the original with them or at least copies of it with them.

May I request friend Ben Masada to kindly give his comments on this , please.

Regards

Christianity Paarsurrey, the key is found with Christianity. History is written by the conqueror. Christianity operated like the Cukoo bird which lays her egg on other birds’ nexts. When the little one is born his first action is to push the real ones out of the nest. Wherever the gospel of Christianity arrived, the holy books of the host religions were either recollected and hidden or destroyed out of the way of Christianity.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

A priest can only marry a woman that is a virgin. If Marry Magdelin was not a virgin and Jesus married her than start looking for a new Christ. Might I suggest a study of John the Baptist’s personal life.

Really! I didn’t know that Jesus was a priest. And neither was John the Baptist. This was a Levite. A priest must be a Cohen, and Jesus was no Cohen. You are trying to look at Judaism through the glasses of Christianity.

Ben:

 

[paarsurrey]

A priest can only marry a woman that is a virgin.

Hi

Who and how it was determined that the girl whom the priest was marrying was a virgin?!

Please express yourself again.

Jesus could assert himself for his claims and reasons; he needed no Paul/s; I love Jesus for his wisdom

Thanks

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada

Ben-oni

= “son of my sorrow” No connection to the word rabboni.

You are being too superficial. My comparison of Rabboni to Benoni was not literal. While to Rachel, Benoni was the son of her physical sorrow which ended with her life, Rabboni
was to Mary Magdalene the master of her spiritual sorrow. Sorrows as a result of much love. I am not a Christian who happens to step his eyes on this word only when he reads it in the NT. I am aware as an eyewitness that this word is used by a Rabbi’s wife as an expression of her love for her husband.

Ben: