The Wedding of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
planten;:
I cannot believe that blood and water would gush out of a dead body.
After a body has been dead for a couple of hours, if it is cut, there is a gush of fluids. If conditions are ideal, and you aren’t in the stream, you can see a fluid that one would describe as blood, and a second fluid that one would incorrectly describe as water. If the body has been dead for more than a day, the gush is a dark brown, or black liquid.
Jesus was alive when brought down from the cross that is why blood and water gushed out.
Had he been alive the fluids would either have oozed out, or pulsed out. They would not have gushed out.

jonathon
 
Valke2;:
Rabbinical Judaism = Judaism.
Rabbinical Judaism has strange teachings and practices that are not found in the Torah.

Karaite Judaism preserves the purity of Judaism, as taught in the Torah.

jonathon
 
OneTrueCathApos;:
For your information and not that it makes it right,
My point was that it doesn’t matter if one is married, or one is not married. Being a priest doesn’t mean one lives a life that is free of either sin, or temptation.

A couple of nights ago, I heard on EWTN, that John Paul II said confession every day. One Pentacostal minister said that the more effective one is in evangelism, the more temptations Satan puts in one’s path.

jonathon
 
**I am always looking at the following:

O Blood and Water that gush forth from The Heart of Jesus ,as a fount of Mercy for us, cleanse, heal and protect us !**

I cannot believe that blood and water would gush out of a dead body. This had been pointed out many times before. It has come up again in above post now. Will any one please understand that Jesus was alive when brought down from the cross that is why blood and water gushed out…
WRONG. yes it has been pointed out by YOU. Our Lord Jesus Christ was alive three days later and this is not my opinion it is a fact over 500 people say it is the truth you do what truth is or do you
 
My point was that it doesn’t matter if one is married, or one is not married. Being a priest doesn’t mean one lives a life that is free of either sin, or temptation.

jonathon
Funny… with all that time on their hands that everyone claims is justified because it is bringing them closer to God and allowing them to focus on their churches, you would think that they would better be able to control such lusts and tendencies of abusing their own people to satisfy those lusts, huh? Maybe marriage and having a family is better for keeping ones time occupied and satisfied and free from sin. In other words, seems like God knew what it was that He was doing when He set up the family unit, huh? 😉
 
My point was that it doesn’t matter if one is married, or one is not married. Being a priest doesn’t mean one lives a life that is free of either sin, or temptation.

A couple of nights ago, I heard on EWTN, that John Paul II said confession every day. One Pentacostal minister said that the more effective one is in evangelism, the more temptations Satan puts in one’s path.

jonathon
Right, but that is why we have pennance. To receive absolution from Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. There are many many good priests.
 
simplynoone;:
Maybe marriage and having a family is better for keeping ones time occupied and satisfied and free from sin.
Until roughly a decade ago, the typical profile for a paedophile was a male with a string of marriages, sexually abusing the daughter of his current wife.

I’m not sure if the rise of the Internet changed the ease with which paedophiles could locate potential victims, or merely revealed something which had previously being hidden because of the randomness of the activity.

NAMBLA is unusual, both due to its sexual orientation, and the profile of its members.

As far as adultery is concerned, the history of the sex industry implies that marital status is irrelevant. More pointedly, even a good sexual life with one’s spouse does not preclude partaking of that which the sex industry offers.

In both instances, there is no correlation between marital status, and the sin.
In other words, seems like God knew what it was that He was doing when He set up the family unit, huh? 😉
The data suggests that the children that are healthiest, both physically, and psychologically, are those that are raised in a stable home, with two parents, and an extended family in close proximity. The second healthiest are those raised by two parents in a stable household. (Interestingly enough, the data also suggests that the sexual orientation/physical gender of the two parents is irrelevant.)
OneTrueCathApos;:
There are many many good priests.
I won’t dispute that.

What I dispute is the notion that once one is a priest, one is automatically perfect.

jonathon
 
a) The problem with that theory, is that the evidence suggests that Thomas had the Gospel of Matthew with him, when he went to India. That event can be dated to 52 AD.
Thomas was a Nazarene Jew. He would never take a Christian gospel to preach about a Jesus that he did not know.
Where is the evidence to support your hypothesis that he was a Nazarene?
Thomas was one of the Apostles of Jesus. When Jesus was gone, the Apostles organized the Sect of the Nazarenes on behalf of Jesus of Nazareth. This was a Jewish sect just like any other Jewish sect of the time, whose converts were staunch defenders of the Jewish laws. (Acts 21:20) Opposite to the Christians whose founder, Paul, used to teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to give up the circumcision of their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. (Acts 21`:21)
Paul was very effective at popularising a religion. He didn’t found it. Furthermore, he popularised it, after he decided to be an adherent.
Paul tried to adhere the Sect of the Nazarenes but failed. Then, he founded Christianity in Antioch, which became his headquarters until he was arrested in Jerusalem and taken to Rome where he died. (Acts 11:26)
You’ve obviously never constructed a time line of both Paul and Jesus, and rectified them against events that can be dated by other sources.
Very good, you need a time line of both Paul and Jesus, don’t you? I’ll give you one. As I have told you before, When Jesus was gone, Paul was about 5 years old. Jesus was gone in the year 30 CE. How’s that? Any sect or religion to reach the level of a respectable religious group or organization, the logic is that it needs at least 10 years. It takes the year to 40, and Paul was 15 years old.

The Sect of the Nazarenes had reached that level at the time of Sthephen’s death by stoning. Why do I think so? Because the men in charge to stone him would use the services of a lad or young man called Paul to watch their clothes while they were at the business of stoning Stephen. We can imagine the men speaking to Paul: Hey kid watch our robes while we finish with this guy. Therefore, Paul was about a teenager. Let’s say 15 years old. The year was 40 CE. (Acts 7:58)

Another 15 years from 40 CE, we have Paul at 30 when he started his policy of persecutions of the Nazarenes. That’s the year 55 CE. After Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, he proceeded to Damascus, where he stayed for three years. (Gal. 1:18) At 33 or 34 years of age in the year 58 CE, he decided to go up to Jerusalem with the purpose to join the Sect, but was rejected by the Apostles, who were afraid of him due to his history of persecutor of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:26)

However, Paul had been a very close friend to Barnabas, who was a senior Nazarene, who put a good word for him so that he be given a chance. (Acts 9:27) The Apostles accepted him on a trial basis as long as Barnabas kept an eye on him. Barnabas didn’t by letting him move freely about in Jerusalem. (Acts 9:28)

Paul took advantage of Barnabas relaxing of his duty and started expressing himself quite openly about Jesus the way he had planned to. (Acts 9:28) Within 15 days only the local Jews were on an uproar to kill him because he was preaching appostasy in Jerusalem. (Acts 9:29; Gal. 1:18) He would preach that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. (Acts 9:20-22)

It happens that to prevent him from being killed in Jerusalem the Nazarenes saved him by taking him down to Caesarea and from there, they shipped him back to Tarsus, where he belonged. (Acts
9:30) For the next 14 years, the Sect of the Nazarenes had peace. (Acts 9:31)

For 14 years Paul kept himself away from Israel but wherever he found a Nazarene Synagogue throughout Asia Minor, he would overturn it into a Christian church, beginning with Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians, because Paul would preach that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 11:26)

Paul was about 48 years of age in the year 68 or 69 when he returned to Jerusalem, was arrested and taken to Rome where he lived the rest of his life in house arresting. He had appealed to Caesar in order not to be killed by the Jews, but he never got an audience with Caesar.

Ben: 🙂
 
Until roughly a decade ago, the typical profile for a paedophile was a male with a string of marriages, sexually abusing the daughter of his current wife.

I’m not sure if the rise of the Internet changed the ease with which paedophiles could locate potential victims, or merely revealed something which had previously being hidden because of the randomness of the activity.

NAMBLA is unusual, both due to its sexual orientation, and the profile of its members.

As far as adultery is concerned, the history of the sex industry implies that marital status is irrelevant. More pointedly, even a good sexual life with one’s spouse does not preclude partaking of that which the sex industry offers.

In both instances, there is no correlation between marital status, and the sin.

The data suggests that the children that are healthiest, both physically, and psychologically, are those that are raised in a stable home, with two parents, and an extended family in close proximity. The second healthiest are those raised by two parents in a stable household. (Interestingly enough, the data also suggests that the sexual orientation/physical gender of the two parents is irrelevant.)

I won’t dispute that.

What I dispute is the notion that once one is a priest, one is automatically perfect.

jonathon
You are correct; these kind of things are not limited to priests and even all priests are not prone to abusing children and/or participating in the betrayal of the husbands (of the church) with their wives.Certainly it drew attention just by the sheer number of incidents that took place with the minors and their role w/in the Church. Honestly, no need to keep on this path because I do not even see that they are serving the One true God in the first place; I view the wives who participate in affairs with priests to be the more guilty party since she is the one violating the contract with her husband; and lastly, it doesn’t matter whether priest or common man, the act is no less vile when it involves a child.

So, there are my views. My intent was not to sidetrack the issue at hand, but rather to just take note of your honesty.
 
BEN I see the Muslim love your post but I do not think Christian like all your blaspheming just my opinion
Sorry Bill Pick, but I doubt if you know the meaning of the word blasphemy. To speak the truth about a fellow Jew is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is to say that he is a demi-god,
the son of God with a woman, when according to Judaism there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. That’s exactly the reason
why Paul was nearly killed in Jerusalem two thousand years ago.

Ben: 🙂
 
Sorry Bill Pick, but I doubt if you know the meaning of the word blasphemy. To speak the truth about a fellow Jew is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is to say that he is a demi-god,
the son of God with a woman, when according to Judaism there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology. That’s exactly the reason
why Paul was nearly killed in Jerusalem two thousand years ago.

Ben: 🙂
**What is this fascination with Paul?? 🤷 **
 
Originally posted by Planten
I am always looking at the following:
O Blood and Water that gush forth from The Heart of Jesus ,as a fount of Mercy for us, cleanse, heal and protect us !
I cannot believe that blood and water would gush out of a dead body. This had been pointed out many times before. It has come up again in above post now. Will any one please understand that Jesus was alive when brought down from the cross that is why blood and water gushed out…
Coming from the medical field I can tell you that this is absolutely incorrect. Water and blood most certainly will gush from a dead body. The reason it was both water and blood is due to the fact that the soldier who pierced Jesus’ side most likely hit HIS heart rupturing the pericardial sac. This sac is filled with a water like substance that acts as a lubricant to allow natural movement of the heart within the chest.

When a person dies there is still an enormous amount of pressure that exists within the heart because it remains full of blood. If you puncture it blood will gush and gush along with the fluid from the sac. Try having a knife shoved into your heart and watch how fast you die without having surgeons present to try and repair the wound while controlling the blood loss. Even then the chances are slim to null. If you actually believe Jesus could have lived after this type of injury by being placed into a cold tomb then I have an island I’ll sell to you cheap. No disrespect but this is ludicrous.
 
Coming from the medical field I can tell you that this is absolutely incorrect. Water and blood most certainly will gush from a dead body. The reason it was both water and blood is due to the fact that the soldier who pierced Jesus’ side most likely hit HIS heart rupturing the pericardial sac. This sac is filled with a water like substance that acts as a lubricant to allow natural movement of the heart within the chest.

When a person dies there is still an enormous amount of pressure that exists within the heart because it remains full of blood. If you puncture it blood will gush and gush along with the fluid from the sac. Try having a knife shoved into your heart and watch how fast you die without having surgeons present to try and repair the wound while controlling the blood loss. Even then the chances are slim to null. If you actually believe Jesus could have lived after this type of injury by being placed into a cold tomb then I have an island I’ll sell to you cheap. No disrespect but this is ludicrous.
**NDfan, your post is very good. here it is doubtful that any one pearced with a spear. If it was done (unlikely) then it is some kind of doubt exactly when it was done.

As I knew things. Jesus was taken down from the cross and laid on the ground. Then teh Centurian (not a doctor) said, “oh he is dead.” At that time (on the ground) one ignorant soldier struck spear into the body of Jesus and blood and wate rrushed out.

But recenlly soem one has written that soldier struck the spear while Jesus was still on the cross. What to believe and what not to believe? So first we should clarify “When the spear was struck?”

Last of all, I fully agree with you about puncturing the pericardium. I also believe the same thing that it happened like that. Your post seems very correct.**
 
Your experience is roughly two millennia later, at a place roughly 500 klicks distant. Furthermore, it is of a theology and doctrine that is arguably different from that of Judaism at that point in time.

But I guess that of the both of us, the authority rests rather on my shoulders to discuss this issue. I am the one on the same side of Jesus. Your role is more on the asking side of the question. Isn’t it what Isaiah says in 2:2,3? When Gentiles need to know about the Word of God, the address is Zion, the Jewish People.

Ben: 🙂
 
**NDfan, your post is very good. here it is doubtful that any one pearced with a spear. If it was done (unlikely) then it is some kind of doubt exactly when it was done.

As I knew things. Jesus was taken down from the cross and laid on the ground. Then teh Centurian (not a doctor) said, “oh he is dead.” At that time (on the ground) one ignorant soldier struck spear into the body of Jesus and blood and wate rrushed out.

But recenlly soem one has written that soldier struck the spear while Jesus was still on the cross. What to believe and what not to believe? So first we should clarify “When the spear was struck?”

Last of all, I fully agree with you about puncturing the pericardium. I also believe the same thing that it happened like that. Your post seems very correct.**
Wrong. It was while Jesus and the others crucified with Him were still up on their crosses that orders were given to check that they were all dead, and kill those who weren’t, as the sabbath was approaching. Remember these soldiers were trained executioners - this was their job. They knew way more about death and dying than you do, and so are better judges than you would be.

The other two crucified were very obviously still alive, so had their legs broken to hasten their death. This clearly was done while they were still on their crosses - you can’t kill a person who is lying on the ground by breaking their legs.

Jesus, by contrast, appeared to already be dead, so to make doubly sure that He WAS dead, He was stabbed. He was still on the Cross just as the other two criminals were. And as the ‘gush’ of fluids from His wound (rather than pulse or slow ooze that would come from a living person) showed, He actually WAS dead when pierced. 🤷
 
**What is this fascination with Paul?? 🤷 **
The anti christian Jews of today still hate St. Paul since the first century, because Saul of Tarsaus who was a learned Jew of the Law much more than I can say about Jews posting here, who also was a Pharisee who condemned Christians, who later had an Heavenly Apparition of Jesus himself, then Paul asking "Who are you my Lord (God), and the response came “Jesus”.

To which Saul the Pharisee (Lawyer of the law) now Paul converted to “The Way” of Jesus Christ. So now even today Jews still despise St. Paul a lawyer in the Mosaic Law converted to Catholicism. And taught that Christians are seperated from the Law because they Christians are of the Spirit of God, and “cannot be judged by anyone”.

Muslims should not have a say about St. Paul because their religion does not appear on the face of the earth for another 800 years. St. Pauls teachings about the body of Jesus Christ and the Spirit leaves these in the flesh conflicting with the eternal Spirit of “Truth” making their assumptions conflicting with known revelations from God. IN other words Muslims are about 800 years behind the times of God’s revelations. Only God can help them see and hear the Mystical mysteries of God.

The Jewish and Muslim posting reveals their spiritual understanding of what God has already revealed. Patience and understanding is needed here.
 
The anti christian Jews of today still hate St. Paul since the first century, because Saul of Tarsaus who was a learned Jew of the Law much more than I can say about Jews posting here, who also was a Pharisee who condemned Christians, who later had an Heavenly Apparition of Jesus himself, then Paul asking "Who are you my Lord (God), and the response came “Jesus”.

To which Saul the Pharisee (Lawyer of the law) now Paul converted to “The Way” of Jesus Christ. So now even today Jews still despise St. Paul a lawyer in the Mosaic Law converted to Catholicism. And taught that Christians are seperated from the Law because they Christians are of the Spirit of God, and “cannot be judged by anyone”.

Muslims should not have a say about St. Paul because their religion does not appear on the face of the earth for another 800 years. St. Pauls teachings about the body of Jesus Christ and the Spirit leaves these in the flesh conflicting with the eternal Spirit of “Truth” making their assumptions conflicting with known revelations from God. IN other words Muslims are about 800 years behind the times of God’s revelations. Only God can help them see and hear the Mystical mysteries of God.

The Jewish and Muslim posting reveals their spiritual understanding of what God has already revealed. Patience and understanding is needed here.
Thank you Gabriel…patience? Er, I don’t know…understanding? Yes! 👍
 
The anti christian Jews of today still hate St. Paul since the first century, because Saul of Tarsaus who was a learned Jew of the Law much more than I can say about Jews posting here, who also was a Pharisee who condemned Christians, who later had an Heavenly Apparition of Jesus himself, then Paul asking "Who are you my Lord (God), and the response came “Jesus”
.

The Jews problem with Paul is not that he was once a Jew. Putting aside the validity of Paul’s credentials, Paul is seen as bringing in a large element of hatred for the Jews that we believe helped cause a lot of problems for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top