The Wedding of Jesus

[WarriorAngel]

God becoming flesh is not common. Many false messiah’s [which means annointed] did occur which is why they had them killed - but Jesus was killed in precision to scriptures.

Isaias 43:18 - 25

15** I am the Lord your Holy One**, the Creator of Israel, your King.

16 Thus saith the Lord, who made a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters. 17 Who brought forth the chariot and the horse, the army and the strong: they lay down to sleep together, and they shall not rise again: they are broken as flax, and are extinct. 18 Remember not former things, and look not on things of old. 19** Behold I do new things, and now they shall spring forth, verily you shall know them**: I will make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. 20 The beast of the field shall glorify me, the dragons and the ostriches: because I have given waters in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, to my chosen. 21 This people have I formed for myself, they shall show forth my praise. 22 But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob, neither hast thou laboured about me, O Israel. 23 Thou hast not offered me the ram of thy holocaust, nor hast thou glorified me with thy victims: I have not caused thee to serve with oblations, nor wearied thee with incense. 24 Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy victims. But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thy iniquities. 25 I am, I am he that blot out thy iniquities for my own sake, and I will not remember thy sins.
26 Put me in remembrance, and let us plead together: tell if thou hast any thing to justify thyself. 27 Thy first father sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me. 28 And I have profaned the holy princes, I have given Jacob to slaughter, and Israel to reproach.

****PUT Me in rememberance, and let us plead together **! <~ The Eucharist we offer up at every Mass is the Body and Blood of the Lord poured out pleading for us, we do this in rememberance.

So do you have anything to justify yourself?

How about the soul sleep of David? And how about the tombs opening on the death of Jesus - and souls roaming the towns according to many witnesses…and the holy of holies cloth ripped into two. And an earthquake that hit the Temple. How about the fact when Isreal didnt offer oblations - prior to Christ - God was not pleased.

2000 years and the Temple still not in use.

:tsktsk:

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I think Swariffin and Ben Masada are my elder brothers in humanity. I love them both.

I love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

So, what is your Jihad, anyway?

 

[swariffin]

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:

No way, we still believe in the OT.

 

[swariffin]

WarriorAngel;4843666:

Realy! Gosh! Christianity must have a weird way
to love God and man. How about the thousands of Jewish heads
beheaded by the Christian swords of the Crusades? How about the thousands of Jewish bodies burned alive by the Christian Autos-da-Fe of the Inquisition? God spare me from such a love!

Ben:

Gosh, what about the one so called Christian who burn the Jewish also bomb the other Christian in England, in France, in Poland. Christian bombing another Christian? Does not look logical to me. However, you really introduce a new idea. It maybe good to have Christian against Christian, Jewish against either Christian or Islam or both (you are free to chose). At the end the Asian shall inherit the world.

I forget. You believe in an eye for an eye, don’t you?

 

[swariffin]

Ben Masada;4844164:

The Truth is that the Ignorant Christian Crusaders Killed many Jews, killed Muslims and killed many Christians too, not knowing that they were Christians.

The Crusaders may not be Christians. If they are, they were not bringing the idea of Christianity.

 

[slyboots]

Sorry. No nuptials for the Son of the most high God.

 

[swariffin]

Yes, but in 20 percent of it. The other 80 percent
are made out of interpolations either by the gospel writers or the Fathers of the Church when these selected the books which would take part in the Canon of the NT in 327 CE. There were many other books and gospels which were rejected because of their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul.

Ben:

What is the 20% you believe as opposed to the 80% you rejected?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And everything recorded 50+ years after he had been gone. That’s just too convenient to the Church but not the truth.

Ben:

So your questionable theory of Jesus that conflicts with first century Jews and Pagan recorded history that authenticates Jesus existance according to your 50+ false assumptions is to discredit authenticated history and historians, Maybe you should think before you apply your prejudices and denials of True Historical accounts.

Yet you apply your “Rabbi” theory to Jesus using the recorded Gospels and then contradict yourself by disclaiming the authenticity of the New Testament.

You might find a more agreeable audience if you could be more honest to the first century Jewish recordings and Pagan recorded historical accounts instead of inventing your own. I believe your credentials as a Jew has been discredited by your dishonest use of Historical accounts.

What you call your “Truth” is only your false assumptions to an interpretation of scripture of which your argument fails the test of “Truth” because it contradicts itself. “Truth” does does not divide itself, “Truth” is.

Again you will refer to Jesus by one name given him by those who have not known him yet, but refuse to acknowledge the other names given Jesus by the eyewitnesses who witnessed his miracles, death and resurrection to name him “God”.

 

[swariffin]

So your questionable theory of Jesus that conflicts with first century Jews and Pagan recorded history that authenticates Jesus existance according to your 50+ false assumptions is to discredit authenticated history and historians, Maybe you should think before you apply your prejudices and denials of True Historical accounts.

Yet you apply your “Rabbi” theory to Jesus using the recorded Gospels and then contradict yourself by disclaiming the authenticity of the New Testament.

You might find a more agreeable audience if you could be more honest to the first century Jewish recordings and Pagan recorded historical accounts instead of inventing your own. I believe your credentials as a Jew has been discredited by your dishonest use of Historical accounts.

What you call your “Truth” is only your false assumptions to an interpretation of scripture of which your argument fails the test of “Truth” because it contradicts itself. “Truth” does does not divide itself, “Truth” is.

Again you will refer to Jesus by one name given him by those who have not known him yet, but refuse to acknowledge the other names given Jesus by the eyewitnesses who witnessed his miracles, death and resurrection to name him “God”.

Together with Ben’s story of Joseph of Arimatea bribing the Roman soldiers.

 

[planten]

So your questionable theory of Jesus that conflicts with first century Jews and Pagan recorded history that authenticates Jesus existance according to your 50+ false assumptions is to discredit authenticated history and historians, Maybe you should think before you apply your prejudices and denials of True Historical accounts.

Yet you apply your “Rabbi” theory to Jesus using the recorded Gospels and then contradict yourself by disclaiming the authenticity of the New Testament.

You might find a more agreeable audience if you could be more honest to the first century Jewish recordings and Pagan recorded historical accounts instead of inventing your own. I believe your credentials as a Jew has been discredited by your dishonest use of Historical accounts.

What you call your “Truth” is only your false assumptions to an interpretation of scripture of which your argument fails the test of “Truth” because it contradicts itself. “Truth” does does not divide itself, “Truth” is.

Again you will refer to Jesus by one name given him by those who have not known him yet, but refuse to acknowledge the other names given Jesus by the eyewitnesses who witnessed his miracles, death and resurrection to name him “God”.

**I believe that Jesus was a Rabbi, a great Rabbi. Otherwise what was he doing in Jerusalem when he went there riding a donkey? How could he teach or preach without having any authority.

As a rabbi, he needed to be married. Marriage is not any sin.**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

**I believe that Jesus was a Rabbi, a great Rabbi. Otherwise what was he doing in Jerusalem when he went there riding a donkey? How could he teach or preach without having any authority.

As a rabbi, he needed to be married. Marriage is not any sin.**

Gabriel of 12

Who ever said marriage is a sin, Jesus raised Marriage to a Sacrament from what God originally intended Marriage to be.

The first century Jews and Christians did not believe Jesus was wedded. For you to assert this false pretense 2000 years later does not qualify your argument unless you can prove from first century documents, and the New Testament does not record Jesus ever being Married according to the Jewish custom.

Now Jesus did take on a bride his Cathoilc church which does fulfill the prescriptions of the Jewish Law, for example the “Apocalypse” united to his bride the Catholic church for all ages, to feed her, and support her always. So yes Jesus did take on a bride in Marriage how else do you explain his wedding feast at the last supper when he totally gave himself to his bride the Catholic church. Now all Jewish rabbinical laws are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his bride the Catholic church.

In fact the intimacy between Jesus the bridegroom, and his bride the Catholic church exceeds your carnal knowledge of the flesh, for the Bride consumes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ where the two become one flesh, one body in Jesus Christ. Jusy the way God intended Marriage to be from creation, that is why a man leaves his father and mother to cleave to his wife and become one.

So yes Jesus is a bridegroom to this bride the Catholic church in an eternal way of Marriage, not in a temporal way of marriage of just the flesh or according to Rabbinical customs with a woman. Jesus Marriage exceeds these laws and fulfills them eternally.

 

[paarsurrey]

The first century Jews and Christians did not believe Jesus was wedded.

Hi friend Gabriel of 12!

We all have now moved to the present era. Sex is a problem of every man/woman in the street. Let the hypothetical marriage of Jesus with Church remain aside, please don’t mind, with the first century.

We have to live our rational life in the present era.

By the way; would you kindly elaborate in what synagogue Jesus’ marriage was solemnized with the Christian Church, and who was the priest to do it. I understand there was no Church at that time; there were only synagogues. Our friend **Ben Masad **says it was at Cana and the bride was perhaps Mary Magdalene. Maybe friend **Ben Masad’s ** first century relatives also participated in it.One never knows, in my opinion.

Now there are 32000+ Churches; one never knows it was a Mormon Church or JW’s Kingdom Hall or a Protestant Church, in my opinion. Well that is your internal issue; I am not a party to it.

Please don’t mind; you may remain steadfast on to your belief, which I respect very much.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Adam, Moses and John the Baptist

Thanks

 

[Ben_Masada]

Yet you apply your “Rabbi” theory to Jesus using the recorded Gospels and then contradict yourself by disclaiming the authenticity of the New Testament.

Well my friend, your NT says that Jesus was a Rabbi. And I am filling in the blanks that a Jewish Rabbi much more strictly in the First Century than today, he had to be a married man. You can’t bake your cake and eat it too. If you want to deny that he was married, drop the claim that he was a Rabbi.

You might find a more agreeable audience if you could be more honest to the first century Jewish recordings and Pagan recorded historical accounts instead of inventing your own. I believe your credentials as a Jew has been discredited by your dishonest use of Historical accounts.

And the credibility of the NT has been shattered by the complete lack of logic between the alleged facts.

What you call your “Truth” is only your false assumptions to an interpretation of scripture of which your argument fails the test of “Truth” because it contradicts itself. “Truth” does does not divide itself, “Truth” is.

The test to prove the Truth is found in Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if they don’t speak according to this word, it’s because there is no light in them.” Does the NT speak according to the Law and the Testimony? I didn’t think so. On the contrary, it rather abolishes the Law in the words of Paul.(Ephe. 2:15)

Again you will refer to Jesus by one name given him by those who have not known him yet, but refuse to acknowledge the other names given Jesus by the eyewitnesses who witnessed his miracles, death and resurrection to name him “God”.

All simply Pauline rhetoric about a Jew who had nothing to do with him.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

What is the 20% you believe as opposed to the 80% you rejected?

Jesus was an Orthodox observant Jew. Therefore, anything not-Jewish about him or expressed by him is part of the 80 percent of interpolations. And anything else in the rest of the NT which does not reflect Jewish living is not true of being Jewish.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Sorry. No nuptials for the Son of the most high God.

Why? What did he do to be denied the best of life?

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

planten;4844188:

The Crusaders may not be Christians. If they are, they were not bringing the idea of Christianity.

Great! If a Christian commits a blunder or a crime, immediately the defenders of the Faith exonerate him or
her from being a Christian. “If he acted thus, he was not a Christian.” I have surely heard that before.

Ben:

 

[planten]

Gabriel of 12

Who ever said marriage is a sin, Jesus raised Marriage to a Sacrament from what God originally intended Marriage to be.

The first century Jews and Christians did not believe Jesus was wedded. For you to assert this false pretense 2000 years later does not qualify your argument unless you can prove from first century documents, and the New Testament does not record Jesus ever being Married according to the Jewish custom.

Now Jesus did take on a bride his Cathoilc church which does fulfill the prescriptions of the Jewish Law, for example the “Apocalypse” united to his bride the Catholic church for all ages, to feed her, and support her always. So yes Jesus did take on a bride in Marriage how else do you explain his wedding feast at the last supper when he totally gave himself to his bride the Catholic church. Now all Jewish rabbinical laws are fulfilled in Jesus Christ and his bride the Catholic church.

In fact the intimacy between Jesus the bridegroom, and his bride the Catholic church exceeds your carnal knowledge of the flesh, for the Bride consumes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ where the two become one flesh, one body in Jesus Christ. Jusy the way God intended Marriage to be from creation, that is why a man leaves his father and mother to cleave to his wife and become one.

So yes Jesus is a bridegroom to this bride the Catholic church in an eternal way of Marriage, not in a temporal way of marriage of just the flesh or according to Rabbinical customs with a woman. Jesus Marriage exceeds these laws and fulfills them eternally.

** Gabteil of 12, Please do not pass on unreal things to us. Already you have enjoyed the liberty of a son and begotten son. We did not object and we let you say all that was untrue, impossible. But now your saying that Jesus was married to church is quite untolerable, irrational…

I do not mind if you try to say that Jesus was not married. But even that would be quite hard for us to swallow unless you show it from bibleNT that Jesus was not married…**

 

[Ben_Masada]

No way, we still believe in the OT.

How Swariffin, as an old piece of museum or as
the shadow of things to come? (Col. 2:17) Thanks, but no, thanks.

Ben:

 

[jblake]

Ben Masada;:

Any intelligent Jew can figure Judaism of two thousand years ago through the evolution of Judaism to modern times.

Would that be the form of Judaism that evolved, after losing/throwing away its sacred texts and teachings, due to cultural and political assimilation, or the form of Judaism that retained both its sacred text, practices, and teachings, and those of the forms of Judaism that disagreed with it?

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Ben Masada;:

Jesus was an Orthodox observant Jew.

Would that be the observant Jew that eats pork, or the observant Jew that eats cheeseburgers?

jonathon